Silberman - The expense of knowledge

Silberman explains the husband's character in Romance in a Minor Key as a man whose "moral ideology is a form of protective nonseeing, a kind of self-preservation at the expense of knowledge" (87). Throughout the movie it is evident that Madeleine's husband is unaware of her unhappiness and is content with her silence and submission to his desires. His is content with his lifestyle and avoids any possibility to learn more about his wife and about the life around him. His routine of gambling and simply his routine nature in general illustrate his self-centered personality which does not seem to look outside the box and is quite comfortable in his complacency. Silberman points to the first scene in the movie which provides strong evidence for this, which we also discussed at length in class. I think another important scene comes from near the end of the movie, where Madeleine "thanks him" for everything. Her husband is completely oblivious to her feelings and to her unhappiness with the life he has provided, and instead of hearing the tone of her voice and the helplessness she shows in her eyes, he leaves her once again to join a card game. His character is an ideal example of an ordinary, non-heroic individual, who is comfortable with obedience and authority, and does not question the motives of others and those who are in charge.

Silberman ends the article by saying, "Romance in a Minor Key constitutes a narrative discourse on the loss of illusion, elaborating on imaginary, protected space of privacy, identified with a spectacular position of helplessness and escapist desire at a historical juncture when many Germans were beginning to expect the impending collapse of the fascist regime" (96). This historical junction is an important aspect to note - as the end of the war approaches it becomes increasingly evident to the Germans that the turnout they had hoped for and fought for was soon to be destroyed. We spoke in class about how Kautner tended to things a bit off from the what was termed the "cultural movement" of the period, but I think Kautner is right on track here, he just does it in a way that makes you think about what you are witnessing. I think this is also an important point because one thing that we have touched on is the importance of "not questioning" what has been presented. The husband embodies this idea - he decides to be content with his place in life and through his self-righteous attitude he preserves himself and his lifestyle at the expense of learning about his wife's feelings. In the end, he learns the truth about his wife and her death leaves him alone with unanswered questions. Kautner challenges the audience to ask questions and discuss what they have been presented with, which illustrates the changing attitude of Germans and those witnessing the downfall of the German Reich. I think Kautner was right on target here, even though in many ways we are unsure of the moral to the story. This ambiguous moral, however, may have been what Kautner wanted to leave us with in order to motivate and fuel discourse that had for so long been avoided by the masses.