Renschler is clearly enamored with the films cinematic scope and its propagandistic means. The question for me was a film's ability to be both escapist and a piece of heavy propaganda. A propagandistic film intuitively connotes an engagement with the material that is active--a piece escapist theater connotes a disengagement from the faculties to the point of transcendence. Many films more or less fall into one category--to bridge both requires specific subject matter. The storyline must be fantastical nature to fulfill the demands of both propaganda and escapist art. The disengagement of the faculties as the audience settles into an alternate reality engenders a total receptivity. Because the film is a suspension of reality and natural law from the onset, the authorial power increases exponentially. The film can consider even the most far fetched ideologies with little regard to any 'normal' standards of thought and action. The audience will consider them because they have been conditioned to do so, and after all, its only "a movie".

Münchhausen Post

In doing the readings for this week, I was struck by how differently Schulte-Sasse and Rentschler interpreted this film. To make a very broad generalization, Schulte-Sasse reads Münchhausen as a subversive, anti-Nazi movie and reads the main character as Jewish, while Rentschler reads Münchhausen as a clever scheme of Goebbel's "to control all sectors of experience includ[ing] alternative perspectives" (Rentschler 203) and the liar baron as a strong representation of the Fascist ideal- a man unaffected by the passage of time who is master of his own destiny and "those forces that... might hinder his unencumbered movement" (Rentschler 207). To have come to such radically different conclusions, one might think that the authors had read each scene completely differently, but surprisingly, they didn't. They both look at the winking picture and the baron's ride on the cannonball as indications of self-reference, and both interpret this gesture as showing the illusion that is film-making. Schulte-Sasse even references some of Rentschler's own conclusions, but then recognizes that hers are generally much different.

I have a feeling that if I tried to figure out at exactly which point in their logic the two authors began to disagree, I'd be writing an essay, not a blog, so I'm only going to talk about one particular scene in which they took different opinions.

At the end of the film, the butler turns off the electric light, signaling the end of the film. But the painting of the baron comes to life once more to blow out the candles, and the smoke from the candles signals the real ending of the film by spelling out "Ende." According to Schulte-Sasse, this double ending has two functions. First, it highlights our ambivalence to the ending of the film (and our recognition that it is a film!) in much the same way that Münchhausen prefers Christian's death on the moon where he fades into smoke rather than the rot of earthly death. Second, it also shows more generally Nazi cinema as an apparatus of propaganda; Münchhausen sits in his portrait and is subject to his place in time, but there is some other element which makes him not content to stay there, so he reaches out of his portrait into a new time.

Rentschler, on the other hand, sees this as a final demonstration of the ultimate Fascist power. Baron Münchhausen has such control over his destiny that he even "stages his final act and thus determines how he will enter history" (Rentschler 210). This reminds me of how Hitler asked for drawings of his grandiose buildings hundreds of years in the future, as they lay in ruins. Rentschler also suggests that this ending in smoke, when viewed with the death of Kuchenreutter, represents the Nazis desire to make mortality more poetic and intimate. This was especially important to the Nazi propaganda machine after the disaster of Stalingrad.

Moon Fantasy

One scene discussed in Rentschler’s article about Munchhausen that struck me the most was the moon scene. Rentschler discussed the significance of the fantasy planet where women’s heads could be separated from their bodies so that the men would not have to worry about promiscuity and the women would be able to stay home and do housework. This reading did not even cross my mind as I was viewing the film but it is interesting to discuss in terms of the Nazi fantasy of male domination. While I can definitely see this reading, I wonder what the role of the moon in the film says about this fantasy.

The flight to the moon is obviously not a realistic venture, as one could not fly in a hot-air balloon and end up landing right on the moon. In fact, the moon setting is so unrealistic and mocking that it cannot be considered to be a plausible reality. Additionally, man cannot survive on the moon for very long (except for Munchhausen) because each day is a year. These facts seem to suggest that the idea of the ideal woman (whose head can be separated from her body) who can be controlled and monitored is not only implausible but also undesirable. While that one aspect of the moon can be read as being in line with Nazi fantasy, because it is combined with quick aging, a lack of appropriate nourishment and a short life span, it becomes undesirable and may not be able to be viewed as an attractive fantasy. Perhaps this means that the ideal is unattainable or it could even be mocking it but it does not seem to me that the film portrays it in a positive light.

"I Thought I'd Be Welcomed with Turkish Coffee"

Either take issue with Rentschler's reading of some scene in Münchhausen (1943), or discuss the operation of the film's narrative framing device.

I greatly appreciated Rentschler's approach to Münchhausen as it helped explain in many ways how the Nazis, and particularly Goebbels, were capable of using this film to their advantage, paying no expense in the process. However, I am curious about one thing in particular that I would like to raise here in the form of a question...why did Rentschler not focus on the fact that many parts of this film are out right hilarious? I ask this realizing that it could be that I am reading my own viewing of this film into it way to much, and maybe the film was not meant to be funny when it was released in 1943. However, I do not see how one could not possibly laugh at what Münchhausen says to the Turks after his cannonball flight is over. To me, this scene and what he says is absolutely hysterical. Vehemently, Münchhausen apologizes for his intrusion, explains he had meant a reconnaissance but his gunner aimed at their priceless fortress. Then, he yells a traditional Arab greeting (Asalaam 'Alaykum...peace be upon you) and proceeds to say that he will come down, introduces himself, and once he is tied up, says that he thought he would be welcomed with Turkish coffee. This is only one example, and it certainly plays into the fantastic nature of the film, and so I just wonder if the fantasy was supposed to act in a comedic way at all since it was so outrageous at times. It seems that humor, along with fantasy, would have been increasingly important as a means of distraction in Germany at that time, given, as Rentschler points out, the country had just suffered a major defeat at Stalingrad and was under constant air raids by the Allies.

Catherine the Great

One of the most interesting and dynamic characters in Münchhausen is Catherine the Great, the sole leader of Russia. Aside from conducting negotiations with the leaders of different nations, Catherine is also an outwardly sexual woman. Rentschler describes Catherine as a woman who “controls men with her erotic charms and determines their comings and goings-without ever being upstaged or chastened”(200). She cleverly plans for Münchhausen to come to her dinner party without his knowledge and leaves him to sink down to his room when she has business to conduct. There is, however, a missing piece to Rentschler’s description of Catherine. Although it is apparent that Catherine has more power than any other female Nazi film star, she is, in the end, left in the lurch by Münchhausen. After helping to rescue him for the Turks, Münchhausen does not return to her side, choosing instead to move on to the Italian princess Isabelle d’Este. While Rentschler argues that Catherine is never “upstaged” by any of the other characters, it seems that she never fully receives the recognition she deserves for rescuing Münchhausen by handing over the wine requested by the Turkish leader.

The Narrative Framework of Munchausen

I think that the narrative framing device of Munchausen mirrors the situation in Germany of the time. Munchausen is depicted as a wise – at least wiser than he originally was – storyteller. He has had experiences, both good and bad, that he reflects on. Similarly, Germany has experienced victories and failures, triumphs and defeats. Munchausen looks back on these experiences, highlighting the fact that he has not been afraid. The way that the narrative works turns the focus of the story on Munchausen's courage to face the unknown and adapt to his new circumstances. This feeling is similar to the one that the film attempts to draw out of the Germans; for good or bad, the Germans were willing to risk it all. In the end, Munchausen knows that it's over. He bows out of his adventures with grace, for love of his wife. This is a precursor for Germany's necessary bow out of their war arena. They, like Munchausen, will do so woefully, but will do so for their love of Germany.

Münchhausen

Either take issue with Rentschler's reading of some scene in Münchhausen (1943), or discuss the operation of the film's narrative framing device.