Munchhausen Narrative Framing Blog Make Up

The way in which Munchhausen was put together as a film as a whole was both fascinating and mildly disconcerting at times. Although the jist of the progression of the story was readily understood, this film certainly does not adhere to any classical hollywood standards of continuity. Specific areas of relative discontinuity include the awkward jump from munchhausen's first meeting with the prince to his first meeting with Cagliostro, in which we are aware that Munchhausen has been asked to travel to St. Petersburg but are given no specific indication that it has happened yet until he is already on the road, and the overall progression of time in the film. We go from event to event without really understanding how much time has passed in between other than the visible aging of Christian which itself becomes muddled once Munchhausen reaches the moon. These convolutions of the linear narrative, although disconcerting may serve an additonal purpose as well however and that is that we are seeing the passage of time the way Munchhausen sees it. When Christian is dying on the moon Munchhausen would most likely be saying to himself how it seemed like only yesterday that Christian was a young man showing his new rifle to the Baron's father. In other words, our concept of time and events watching the film is inconsistent and peculiar because Munchhausen is telling us the story and his concept of time is skewed.

Truth presented as Falsehood is taken as such

Münchhausen is framed as the telling of the diary of the baron, by the baron. Even moreso, he acknowledges the existence of a storybook telling the tale of the baron. By presenting the story as a storybook, it is somewhat less threatening to see the film as a story than as a truth. This is not to say that it is not the truth, but instead, it is a truth no one believes. By framing the truth as a farce, it is not presented as threat to the party itself and so the issues that can be alluded to (death marches, pro-jewish plays) and can be seen without threat.

October 9, 1933

For this blog I chose the announcement from Joseph Goebbels on 9 October 1933 in which the head propagandist said, “We National Socialists have no great desire to watch Storm Troopers march on stages or cinema screens. They belong on the street.” I found this to be very interesting because less than two years later in March of 1935, Leni Riefenstahl released “Triumph of the Will” where Storm Troopers marched on cinema screens to propagate the glory and honor of Germany’s soldiers. After doing some research on the matter, I discovered that there were many disputes between Riefenstahl and her work with the Propaganda Ministry. Riefenstahl was reluctant to do “Triumph of the Will” after infighting with Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi officials following her 1933 film “Victory of Faith” on the Fifth Party Rally at Nuremberg. Less than one month before the release of “Victory of Faith” on December 1, Goebbels made the statement concerning Storm Troopers on film. Clearly this was the start of the disagreements between Riefenstahl and Goebbels. In the film, Ernst Rohm, the second most powerful man within the Nazi Party in 1933, was followed closely along with his lieutenants. Political struggles mounted between Rohm and Joseph Goebbels, as well as other powerful Nazi leaders, which may have added to Goebbel’s issues with Riefenstahl. Additionally, Riefenstahl discussed in her memoir how Goebbels was angered by him not accepting his advances and also saw her as an internal threat due to her influence on Hitler. In June of 1934, Hitler ordered Rohm and other official’s execution after continued issues with Himmler and Goebbels. Goebbels then banned the film and destroyed all copies due to fear of the Nazi’s embarrassment over the entire situation. This caused Riefenstahl to be reluctant to make “Triumph of the Will.” Hitler insisted she make the movie and guaranteed his personal support as well as the promise of keeping the Propaganda Ministry from interfering with her film. Therefore, I’ve concluded that Goebbels statement was over personal issues with Riefenstahl and that her released of “Triumph of the Will” superceded his statement due to her close relationship with Hitler.

1943: Is goebels losing control?

Carithershosch's post discusses the peculiarity of correlation between the release of romance in a minor key and the war's turning point. Well it's also worth noting that this was not the only film released that year with slightly anti-propaganda tendencies or at the very least a lack of adherence to general Nazi Propaganda guidelines. Munchhausen was also released this year and Goebbels allows a banned screenwriter to write the script, a relatively peculiar judgement call especially considering the film's status as a 25th anniversary edition. The release of two questionable works in the same year and a banned screenwriter to boot. It sounds a little bit like Goebbels might be loosening his chokehold on the film industry. How did these films make it, especially considering the fact that by this point, the entire film industry was basically owned by the government? With the turning tide of the war did distraction surpass propaganda as goebbels priority? or is there something else going on here that we aren't privy to 66 years later. Regardless of its cause its clear that the climate of german cinema took a drastic change this year and this forces one to consider whether or not the regime has already begun to fall apart by this point.

Romanze in Moll and the Turn of the War

When analyzing the appendix in Rentschler’s book, I found it interesting that Romance in a Minor Key was produced in 1943, the year in which the tide of the war began to turn in favor of the Allies. As the appendix mentions, there was the surrender of German forces in Stalingrad in the beginning of the year, forcing Goebbels to make his “total war” speech that encouraged a complete dedication and sacrifice on behalf of the German population for the war effort. The film Romance in a Minor Key is clearly marked by ambiguous claims, and is difficult to interpret as a purely propaganda-inspired piece of art. The Ministry of Propaganda must have noticed this as well, considering the film was banned before it went on to win numerous awards. The film seems to blatantly reject basic Nazi principles through techniques such as the presentation of the husband as a dupe despite his presentation as a stereotypical “Nazi” figure. On the contrast, Michael is also not a Nazi hero: the film presents no strong images of a patriotic and ideal Nazi hero. Generally speaking, the film in no way exalts Nazi values at a time in which the party really needed the support and morale of the people. However, despite the film’s apparent lack of Nazi glorification, the film obviously resonated with the populace, perhaps proving the growing disenchantment with National Socialism that began to emerge around 1943.

1940: Auschwitz and "der Ewige Jude"

Going through the appendix of the year 1940, the thing that stroke me most was that Himmler ordered the establishment of a Concentration Camp in Auschwitz on April 27th and only 5 months later “Jud Süß” and very shortly after “Der Ewige Jude” came to the German cinemas. Thinking of Auschwitz as the Concentration camp were most Jews were systematically killed and both movies as hitherto the most overt anti-Semitic pieces of propaganda, we can see how the German regime was working towards the final solution which was decided one and a half years later at the conference of Wannsee on January 20th in Berlin. Even though “Der ewige Jude” failed completely as a piece of propaganda, the attempt still shows how the German regime tried to prepare the German public for the idea of the final solution by depicting the Jews as the eternal evil for mankind.

Munchausen

It is astounding that Goebbel's allowed this film to be shown, and even more fascinating of his allowance of a banned screenwriter to produce this piece under a false name. It is evident that the state of Germany's morale was relatively low. Despite the propaganda pieces in the media pushing German pride, and positive statements at the public, it was clear that no one was buying it. The realization that they had all been 'duped' by the man they called Fuhrer was a devastating conclusion and Goebbel's must have been so distracted that he allowed any piece of film to enter the media to distract the general public. The multiple anti-Nazi themes hiding in the undertones of the film are craftily woven beneath the immediate observance of the film, however it does not take a rocket scientist to understand the message that is clearly being portrayed. It seems as if Germany was in a mess they could not figure out how to clean up as they caused an unecessary war that was soon to be shut down. This makes the strong push of multiple films and various propaganda in Germany between 1940 and 1945 understandable as they were using all different kinds of methods to keep the public distracted.

Number of Films Produced 1940-1945

When looking at the list of films and events, it is striking the number of films that came out during the years 1940-1945. It is also surprising in which years the most films were produced. In 1940, Germany was at the height of power. With attacks on Denmark, Normandy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and France, the release of 86 films demonstrated the freedom and power of Germany to do as it pleased. In 1941 only 71 movies premiere. As Hitler concentrated increasingly hard on the eradication of the Jews it is possible movies became slightly less important. Also, at the end of 1941 Germany officially declared war on the United States, a huge preoccupation for the German war machine. In 1942 the number of films produced in Germany dropped to 52, indicative of the fact that at this point all German film distribution comes under the central authority of the Deutsche Filmvertriebs GmbH. The jump in the number of German films in 1943 and 1944 is intriguing, as Germany no longer appeared the obvious victor during these years. It seems there was a push by Goebbels for films to be put out, perhaps as a distraction from the looming Allied invasion of Germany. Goebbels declared the need for films of “soldierly and national import” reflecting Hitler’s cry that all men from age 16 to 60 serve in the militia.

Joachim Gottschalk

When looking through this chronology this event caught my eye almost immediately. Frankly, I was not quite sure how to react to it. On November 7, 1941 Joachim Gottschalk who was a well known actor, and apparently a pretty big star among German women, committed mutual suicide with his wife and son. His wife was Jewish and the Gestapo were on the way. Most of his work had come under the Nazi regime, and he was a popular actor. Goebbels made sure that this event was kept very quiet, and while some Germans found out about it most were unaware until after the war.

Interestingly, if the story is true, Goebbels met Mrs. Gottschalk at an industry dinner shortly before and thought highly of her until he found out she was a Jew. He instructed Joachim to divorce his wife so she could be rounded up, and he could continue acting. He clearly refused, leading to the ultimate suicide.

This demonstrated two things to me. First, that it really did not matter who you were, public figure or not, you were not beyond the grasp of the regime. However, what is more interesting is the rift that this created between Goebbels and the cinema community. Certainly Goebbels could have played this differently, bending the story to fit his needs as he always did. I think he used this instance to send a message to those in the film industry who sought to disobey or disagree with him. This is indicative of his power and reach.

Newsreels and Muchhausen

I realize this might be a mix of the two aspects, but I found it fascinating that Muchhausen was one of the most popular films of Third Reich was Muchhausen, yet at the same time Goebbels, practically right up to the end of the war, was claiming the universal appeal of propaganda. Even on Feb 5 1945, he declared “it is only seldom now that people make spontaneous comments about newsreels,” and that Newsreels had lost their effectiveness. I am fascinated by the fact that as the war worsened, newsreels, which were probably the most straightforward piece of propaganda available (I am just assuming this, at least insofar as biases might be evident in the clips), and one to the most popular films was a wildly fantastical. I think it is interesting that has everything crumbled, Goebbels thought propaganda would save morale (or at least that is what I think Rentschler presents) while the film that was popular was actually rather escapist, and from our class discussions not necessarily the most supportive (although not outright critical) of the war.

Blog post for December 1-3

This week, review the chronology of films and events from 1940-1945 in Rentschler's Appendix. Find one event, film, industry event, or political happening to explore however you like. If you respond to a film, please post on the film blog; otherwise, please post on the reading blog.

The narrative frame of “Munchausen” was one that’s purpose was to totally distract the viewer from the misery and war that Germany was currently facing. Using the UFA’s 25^th anniversary to propel the movie along with its Technicolor production helped create an illusion for viewers who faced tough times in the Third Reich. The entire storyline is a flight of the imagination that would capture the audience of the time not only through its vibrant colors but also through the plot of a fantastical journey. Four years prior to the “Munchausen’s” was the premier of Hollywood’s “The Wizard of Oz,” which similarly used lively colors and an imaginative storyline to distract viewers for pure entertainment. However, while many believe “Munchausen” was purely for entertainment and distraction, there was Nazi propaganda elements used. Early in the movie there comes a line saying how people with different noses are obviously different, which could potentially allude to the stereotype of a Jewish person. Additionally, the movie may credit some things about people from the Middle East, but overall “Munchausen” openly embarrasses Islam. These are not blatant Nazi propaganda elements; however there are clearly aspects of the movie that coincide with the idea that the Aryan race is superior and non-Christians are inferior.

redundant frame, redundant frame.

By framing the main narrative of Münchhausen, it effectively diminished the fantastic elements, because I just attributed all of the strange things that happened to the 'embellishment' of the storyteller. It is interesting that there is a frame at all, considering that the filmmakers and the storyteller are effectively doing the same thing- entertaining an audience with a partially true, partially fabricated story. I am unconvinced by Rentscler's argument that this film behaves propagandistically, mostly due to the wide array of problems that Rentschler himself cites, such as the disconnect between Münchhausen's professed self [the illusion], and his actual self. Perhaps I was not paying enough attention, but I read very little by way of propaganda, and that little was also problematic. For example, Baron Münchhausen mentions the notion of Heimat early on, but spends the rest of the film wandering the world wide.

I think that the only true propagandistic device that this film employs well is escapism. Just like the couple listening to the storyteller in the frame, we are hopefully swallowed into this alternate reality of the story, and hopefully we forget about being bombed, and hopefully our spirits are raised. This film doesn't do any sort of indoctrination very seriously. The only thing that is really Nazi about it is that it doesn't work to undo any of the ground covered before it.

Frames of Münchhausen

In my opinion there are two frame devices that have to be regarded watching Münchhausen. The first one is circumstances under which it was produced: for the 25th anniversary of the UFA film studios in the year 1943. It was the first German movie in color and one of the most expensive ones until then. Its purpose was to compete with other international movies and color and show how good the German film production is. It was not a propaganda film but was rather for entertainment in order to distract the German people from the war and the losses their army suffered from at this time.

The other frame is the frame inside of the movie. The fantastic story of Münchhausen who is supposed to have lived in the 18th century is told by one of his remaining relatives who lives in approximately the 1930-40s. Or at least the audience is made to believe that in the beginning. But with the ongoing plot the audience slowly gets the idea that the narrator is actually Münchhausen, when they learn that he was given eternal youth by a magician. Only the couple he tells the story to on reality does not seem to notice it and is surprised and shocked when he finally confesses that he is Münchhausen himself. However, in the end, reality and fantasy merge and therewith provide the possibility of a little “magic” also in the audience’s life. The movie therewith suggests distraction from the daily reality and offers a dream of better times that could become reality - and therewith fulfills its purpose of distracting people at least for short from the hard times they had to went through.

Distortion of Reality

The narrative framework of the entire movie is centered around a distortion of reality and the creation of a world of fantasy. This is first seen during the masquerade ball, where the viewer is led to believe that it is the setting for the movie; in actuality, the scene is just an elaborate fantasy. The movie then leads into various other tales of Munchhausen, all of which are based around some exaggeration of the truth. The narrative framework is designed to give the audience the feeling that everything would be okay in the end, regardless of the good or bad events that took place throughout the movie. This clearly has a direct correlation to the events going on in Germany at the time of the movie's release (1943), when it was clear that momentum was shifting away from Germany and that defeat was a possibility, if not likely. Germany, like Munchhausen, could stay alive as long as it wanted to and would know the proper time to bow out once it was done pursuing new adventures. In a sense, this framework gave the German people the feeling that Germany wasn't defeated, but that it knew when enough was enough. Therefore, the power was in the hands of the German army and the German people. In all, "Munchhausen" provided a sense of both escapism and mastery at a time when the reality was anything but that.

Narrative Framework

The narrative framework in this movie was quite interesting and sometimes a bit confusing to me. It might have been the extravagent use of props, and this magical feeling throughout the movie that knocked me of guard, but overall the use of one large flashback throughout the movie definitely provided the audience with an interesting perspective. It actually took me a while to realize that the Baron von Münchhausen was the same guy throughout the entire movie, but when I finally did put the pieces of the puzzle together I was fascinated by the story telling and the way in which the events were exaggerated for the pleasure of the audience. Of course there were numerous times throughout the movie when I questiond the validity of what the Barron presented to us, but I found it really interesting as the end of the movie came and the two individuals who were listening to the story did not question the Barron at all. Instead, it seemed as if they took it completely to heart which I thought was an interesting knudge to the Nazi idea of "not questioning" that which is presented to you. In Renstchler's book it was stated that this movie was made during a time when things were really not looking good in Germany with regards to the war and Münchhausen was a way for the audience to have a laugh and avoid thinking about the realities that awaited them outside the movie theater.

I also wondered, as a side note, how the movie casted as many African-Americans as they did. Gaby and I were both suprised to see that there were some in the movie and we were confused as to how they were even allowed into the film industry at the time.

Overall, Münchhausen, made me laugh and I really enjoyed the movie because it kept me entertained and I wanted to know what happened next. The end of the movie when the Barron decided to become "mortal" again was the most emotional part of the movie - but of course, it ends with the Barron blowing out the candles that the butler held. I truly enjoyed this mid 20th century mixture of Alice in Wonderland and Monty Python and even though I questioned the narrative, I think the main idea behind the narrative was to provide entertainment and a distraction from the reality that was occuring outside of the movie.

The Good Ole' Days

The film's framing purposely redirects the audience to remember better times and escape from the present. Baron von Munchausen (sp?) lives an extravagant and fun life before the present and this makes up the most entertaining portion of the film. Likewise, Nazi Germany before the way seemed to be on the road to economic recovery and social stability with a new people's car, highway system, increased infrastructure, employment, etc. However, once the war begins, many of these positive aspects of life fade and eventually they are lost. The German people have to face the fact that the Nazis are going to lose the war and the end is near. Likewise, the free living Baron von Munchausen realizes that he too has found the best in life (his wife) and is ready to age and eventually die. Again, we see cinema discretely mirroring Nazi ideology in the reverence for death the was propagated by the regime. Von Munchausen's death is portrayed as an eventuality that is natural and the German audience can take solace in the fact that their own demise is part of the natural course of a nation's life. The framing of Munchausen to look to the happiness of the past and be prepared for death resonates with Nazi Party ideology.

I found the framing device of the film to be absolutely fascinating, because I think it really engaged and distorts suspension of disbelief since a first it appears like the narrator of the story is only a relative of the main character, only to turn out to be the main character himself. Of course, the narrator is constantly questioned about the validity of the stories, which doesn't really matter if he is just a story-teller, but the fact that the questions are about his own (albeit fantastical) experience, the question really becomes one not about humanity's ability to tell stories, but also the very ability of one to remember one's own experience. Also, if you take the view that the antics and adventures of Barron Münchhausen as fantasy, then what is the contemporary world that he is currently living in? Is that a fantasy too? How do we distinguish between fantasy and reality? I don't mean this to sound too rhetorical or sarcastic, but I do think Münchhausen calls into question the validity of human experience. Not in the extreme Matrix sense where reality is not real, but in the sense that our experience and the remembrance of human experience can be disconnected, or that sometimes fantasy is more reliable than reality.

Munchhausen as outlier in Nazi film world

Munchhausen stands out as a film drastically different from those we have seen thus far, mainly due to the fact that it is unapologetically unrealistic to the point of absurdity. It is also in color. However, the absurdity comes in large part from the narrative structure as well as the content within that structure. Munchhausen is not the first film we have seen from the Nazi era that tells its story through some specific character relating their tale-- for example, this was a prominent feature of Romance in Minor Key, in which the main story was told in a series of flashbacks and through the point of view of several characters. However, despite these two films sharing the characteristic that their main narrative is embedded as flashback, Munchhausen is definitely the outlier when compared with other films of the era. It takes us on a series of journeys and plotlines that become steadily more difficult to coherently interpret, and the content within is also difficult to accept, which I assume would either make the audience laugh or just feel very confused and skeptical. Even the beginning of the film is destabilizing, in that by all appearances the first party scene is set several hundred years ago, until we begin to see some things out of place and finally a car, which causes the audience to reinterpret the nature of the whole reality they have just seen. But the film only gets more bizarre as we see coats barking like dogs and trumpets that have the notes "frozen" inside them. The overall effect of these film techniques is one that is either highly comical (supposedly) and/or just very destabilizing... but no matter how the audience responds, it is clear that this film is not conforming to the realism of the others of its era, and implies that Nazi film was, for some (probably significant) reason, taking a bold new direction.

The Character Muenchhausen and the Oriental

It is intriguing that Baron von Münchhausen can function as the hero in this Nazi era film. Not only does he spend his time traveling around forsaking his Heimat and leading a generally unproductive existence, he pretty much dedicates his whole youth (a long time thanks to Cagliostro’s spell) to philandering. These actions seem to run contrary to the National Socialist construction of the ideal male. I suppose this works out fine, since he eventually realizes the unfulfilling nature of this kind of life, marries, and returns to his home. It is interesting, however, that it took him 200 years to come to this realization. Of course all the films in the Nazi era did not conform exactly to the proper National Socialist party line, but for such an important film made for the UFA anniversary I would have expected there not to be a character acting so much in opposition to this line.

I wonder about the Orientalist stereotypes in the scenes where Münchhausen is in captivity. The audience must have perceived the portrayal of the Turks as somewhat comical. However, I wonder to what extent the portrayal was seen as absurd, and to what extent it conformed to widely held preconceptions about Turks and the Orient in general.

Anti-Semitism in Munchhausen

I find it really interesting that Rentschler brings to light the issue of the contrast made in the film between Count Cagliostro and Munchhausen. First of all, as Rentschler mentions, Count Cagliostro is played in the film by Ferdinand Marian, who audiences who have already recognized not just from Jud Suss, but also as an actor who consistently plays deceptively attractive characters. When I saw Cagliostro at the beginning of the film, I already made the connection between the character and Suss Oppenheimer, not just because of Marian’s presence, but because of his outerwear and the foreboding music and camera angles, which Rentschler reminds us the audience is supposed to recognize. Although I initially thought that Munchhausen was a particularly neutral film, particularly for the Third Reich, after reading Rentschler I realize that the anti-Semitic undertones of the film are definitely present. As Rentschler points out, by making the audience associate Cagliostro with a Jew without ever explicitly stating it allows the audience to inherently make connections between this “Semitic otherness” and the world takeover (Cagliostro tries to convince Munchhausen to help him take over Courland): exactly the kind of propaganda that Goebbels found effective. Furthermore, when Munchhausen refuses this request, it furthers the idea of the blonde and blue Aryan heroically resisting the “schemes” of the Jew: the use of color in the film helps to illuminate the physical differences in the Aryan Munchhausen and the “Semitic” Cagliostro, as Rentschler also points out. This form of anti-Semitic propaganda would have seemingly been as, if not more, effective than an explicit film such as Jud Suss, because it comes back to the idea of allowing the audience to reinforce stereotypes that they already hold true on their own accord.

Baron Münchhausen you dog you!

I have to say, the film was difficult to get into, the story line was choppy, and many of the things that were evidently supposed to be funny were clearly lost on me. However, I will gladly admit that it was rather innovative. The way the film was set up to have a modern narrator that in turn happened to be the "ancestor" he was telling stories about was particularly creative. Moreover, the "tall tales" he relayed to the audience, individually (I still think the lack of a conclusive storyline took away from the film) were intriguing. I think the reason that I was so pleased with the creativity level of this film was because it was such a contrast to all the rigid Nazi films we have seen prior. Not that they were rigid in the cinematic techniques, but that they were all framed in "real life." The imagination of the way the narrator/main character Munchhausen was presented was refreshing. The level of risqué comedy was shocking, I never expected to see that much skin in a Nazi film. However, at the risk of getting off topic, I think the thing that surprised me most was the extent to which special effects were used. The way Marian just miraculously disappears was very cool, and the levitation, disappearing, sprinting runner all of these effects were cinematic elements I did not expect to see in a movie from this era. The film at the end of the day was just fun, it got the audiences minds churning about to story itself, and not about the problems of the outside world. In that respect I was impressed.

Münchhausen

The narrative framing of the story was important in that it made us jump back to the past and reflect on it in terms of a more current time. As Rentschler said, it creates a "collsion" of the eighteenth and twentieth century Germany. I think this is important in terms of the Nazi era because there was a great focus on looking back at Germany's past and combining aspects of the old with the new. While these flashbacks and jumps in time were essential to this movie I found that in combination with the outlandish stories and special effects it became nearly impossible to follow. I agree with Rentschler that perhaps this was exactly the point, to create a word so insane and unrealistic that it makes the real one seem stable. However, I think this could have still been achieved with a slightly more coherent film. I found myself struggling to follow along rather than be able to simply fully appreciate the insanity. The special effects seem to have been thrown in without true regard to the story line, as if they were simply used because they had discovered how to use this trick photography in the film. I found it amusing and funny when there were silly things like the world where every day was a year and heads were lost from their bodies, but it would have been more appreciated if I could have fully understood it in the context of the story line. 

Münchausen

The way the narration of this film was set up, was very interesting. The fact that the people listening to this narration have know idea that their narrator is actually telling them stories about himself is rather comical. Von Hartenfeld is clearly familiar with all of the Münchausen stories from when he was a kid, so to talk to a real relative of Baron von Münchausen makes him very excited. The narration when von Münchausen tells his stories is very descriptive since he was there. The couple does not pick up on this fact because the stories are so up surd it would be crazy to think they are true. We as audience know from the beginning that the narrator is actually Baron von Münchausen, which makes the film seem a little funny at times. In Rentschler's book he pointed out that even though this film was made for the 25th anniversary of UFA, it was meant to be seen as a lighthearted film that reminded people of some good in a very bad time. This was interesting to me, because it was not something that I would expect from the Nazi party. 

Who to Trust?

I found the narrative framework intriguing in the context of the film coming from the Nazi era.  The stories of Baron Münchausen had been famous for a long time, particularly because they were known as fantastic and exaggerated.  Here, however, we have Münchausen telling his own story in his own words, and those words being accepted at face value.  The young couple listening to the story does not question the validity of the story, despite the unlikelihood of the story being true.  In fact, the young woman (who had perused the Baron before) gets extremely upset and frightened. In the Nazi context, this is important because it subtlety encourages blind adherence and acceptance of the word of the protagonist as fact, no matter how ridiculous the story may be.

 

Another, unrelated note:  I found it interesting that on the International Movie Database (www.imdb.com) a user states “A great German, Not Nazi, Film,” despite it being commissioned by Goebbels and made for the 25^th Anniversary of Ufa. 

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.