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.

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.

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.

Victims

While I think there are a variety of victims in the movie, they also work to better their situation, therefore displacing their victim complex. The Czech people, especially the ones held hostage, are victims of Nazi control, but together the barracks we become close with work to band together and fight Nazi power. So in this case, while victims in the beginning, they gain power as the movie progresses. The Novotny family are also victims, not only to the Nazis, but also to the secret they hold. They end up in a sticky situation when Professor Novotny is taken hostage, but again, in the end they work together along with the assassin to trick the Nazi's. Even though they Nazi's know the man the capture is not the true assassin the Nazi's choose to just accept what has happened rather then cause more issues. In some way you could say the Nazi's were victims the movie in the sense that their power was weakened and they were out-smarted by those who they believed to be inferior. If anything, I think I would look at it from this perspective because the other victims find ways to get out of a victimized state.

equal opportunity victimisation

Most everyone in the film is victimised by someone else. The Czech people are victimised by the Nazis, the Nazis are victimised in turn by the Underground resistance. The Resistance is victimised by Mr. Czaka, and Czaka is victimised by everybody. Most everyone is taking advantage of someone else. The Czechs are seen as more justified in their counter victimisation, though, and the Nazis more tyrannical.

Hangmen Also Die!

The obvious victims in Hangmen Also Die! are the Czech people.  They are brutally controlled, hundreds of them rounded up and summarily murdered to try to extract information about the murder of Heydrich.  However, for the American audience, I believe that the true victim is Freedom.  Americans have an intrinsic connection with the idea and symbol of Freedom, which is obviously lacking in every sense in the film. The actors, due to their very clear American accents, also seem very familiar to the audience, while the Germans retain their “other” ness.  This Americanization of the Czechs, the victims, reminds the audience of what could (would) happen if the Nazis were not defeated.  While the United States had the protected barrier of the Atlantic Ocean, the audience member would have a difficult time not thinking of the dangers to the US due to the victimization of the Americanized Czechs.

The American People as (Pseudo) Victims

I think it is possible to identify more than one victim in Hangmen Also Die. However, one must take into consideration the aims and context that the film was made in, in order to understand who the audience is supposed to consider the victim. From a different point of view, one could say that the Nazi's, who are tricked by swarms of wily Czechs, or even the Hangmen himself, who is, after all, assassinated, are the victims of the film. However, the film was not made to appease Germans or Nazis, it was made to emotionally engineer the American audience into sympathizing, if not identifying , with the victims. I think that the victims who are most instrumental in achieving this are the Czechs who willingly die for other Czechs. The hostages who are taken as ransom for the assassin come in two distinct varieties: those who proudly die for the principles and ideals of their country and countrymen (even though they are not really involved in the primary situation), and those who do not. The latter is group that the audience is not made to feel sympathetic with. These men are taken to their deaths, whimpering, whining, and trying to negotiate with the enemy in order to save their own skin. The true victims of the situation are heroes – they stand up for what they believe in, freedom, without it being required of them. I think that is what the movie is trying to tell the American people. They have just entered a war, not because it was their war, but because it was the right thing to do, and their principles and ideals against “evil” demand it of them.

Victims in Hangmen Also Die

There are many victims in this film: the Czechs, the Novotny family, Czaka, the hostages, and the Hangman himself. Although we are made to feel most sympathetic to the Novotny family, the greatest victims are really those who died due to the timidity and inaction of Nasha, Doctor Svoboda, and other Czechs. For example, the hostages who were killed before they could be saved did not need to die. They did not die in vain, as their fates motivated the whole town to rise up and save the rest of the hostages, included Professor Novotny. In a way, though, this is almost worse. Sure, we feel good when Professor Novotny is returned to his family, but should we still feel good when we consider that all of those hostages died so that an innocent man could be persecuted? They were victims not only of the Nazis, but also of the film's treatment. Even if we were able to see the importance of Doctor Svoboda to the resistance following the assassination of the Hangman, the deaths of the poor hostages would be better avenged.

Victims of hangmen also die

Who the victim in Hangmen also die depends largely on one's perspective and the scale to which we are applying the term. In broad terms, the most obvious and clear victim are the czechs as a community. The hundreds of them that died were clearly victimized. Who then are the ones doing the victimizing, well the nazis of course because they are doing the killing right? Or are they really, the nazis as horrible as what they are doing is are to at least a certain degree having their predictability taken advantage of. In this sense we can argue that they are the victims. Additionally if we choose to micromanage the plot then the victims can more accurately be described as the novotnys who are dragged into the altercation by svoboda and circumstance. Brechts film has so many different levels that discerning the actual victim is relatively difficult.

What is interesting about "Hangmen Also Die" is that the generally victimized people are not necessarily the most prominent victims in the film. Clearly we are supposed to sympathize with the Czech people, but in fact they come out as better off in many ways in the film-- the main protagonist family, despite being suspects, manages to shift the blame by the end of the film. The victims in this film seem like they are 1) "The Hangman," who was shot (definitely something that he can't overcome), and 2) Czaka. Czaka is actually THE one blatant victim at the end, since everyone frames him in a beautiful show of cooperation. However, in both of these instances, you get the feeling that these victims "got what was coming to them," i.e. that they deserved it. In that way, the film seems to communicate that even victimized people can act assertively and succeed, and that oppression can be overcome; it is empowering.

Hangman Also Die

After viewing “Hangman Also Die,” I think it is clear that the Czech people were the victims. The film allows American audiences to fully grasp the struggle against Hitler and the Nazi regime by showing people in their own country being persecuted. The anticipation of the concentration camps of ordinary citizens separates the preconceived idea that all that faced execution and torture were Jewish. While a right-minded person would not care about the ethnicity or religion of innocent victims, American audiences, whether anti-Semitic or not, were able to view a regime that encapsulated abusive power that was capable of committing horrifying atrocities. The portrayal of the Nazi’s in “Hangman Also Die” as unbelievably immoral and inherently evil contrast sharply with the innocent Czech victims that were captured and assassinated. Placing Czech women and children in concentration camps convince the viewer of the psychotic minds of the Nazi regime, while also shedding light on the ability of the Nazi party to brainwash their soldiers into unthinkable acts. The film “Hangman Also Die” is a terrifying glimpse into the control the Nazi party had on Europe during the early 1940’s. This sentiment is rooted in seeing everyday Eastern Europeans having no control over their lives due to the takeover of the Nazi regime.

It's the Hat

Okay... I just had to post this hat advertisement again after the discussion/film clip on Tuesday...

Victims by choice

Are the Czech people victims in Hangmen Also Die? On the one hand, even though they are being tormented and executed, they seem to be willing to accept it as long as they stick together and refuse to reveal the identity of their hero. Victims are generally people who are suffering and miserable, who demand sympathy from the audience. Even when they are being beaten, they maintain their pride and accept the punishment. On the other hand, they are being killed for no reason and chosen at random.

Ultimately, I think that they are the victims in the film. Even though they are willing to die and turn the tables and become a sort of aggressor at the end, the Czech people are still relatively powerless and can never feel safe from random acts of violence and persecution. They also could be seen as victims of their own pride. Had they given up the one assassin, they could have saved hundreds of lives, but they are compelled to stick together and allow their peers to pay the price. Czaka is also a victim, even though he “deserved” what he got for being a traitor.

In the end, all of the Czech people are victims, even though they did have some sort of control over their destinies. If they are not victims in terms of being terrorized for no reason, they are victims of their own decisions and sacrifices.

Hangman Victims

I think that it goes without saying that at first glance the Czech's as a people are the true victims. Since they are under the rule of the Third Reich, they really have no choice but to e victims since many of their freedoms have been taken away. When you look into this movie a little bit more I think the second choice in terms of who was victimized was the Novotny family. You feel very sorry for them when Nasha is taken into questioning all because she helped Dr. Svoboda. This family is truly in a bind, because if they betray Dr. Svoboda the family will be possibly killed by the Nazi's or worse by the Czech people. If they don't tell then Mr. Novotny awaits his death as a Nazi prisoner along with hundreds of other men. Nasha always seems so stressed because her options are so limited. Should she let her father die or condemn her whole family to save him? I would also say that there is one more victim within this movie. I don't really want to call him a victim because I think he deserved what he got, but still found myself feeling a little sorry for him at the end of the film. The character I am talking about is Emil Czaka. Czaka is clearly in the wrong for being Czech born and a slimy spy for the Nazi's at the same time, he is clearly betraying his country. The way that Czaka is set-up though, it's hard not to consider him a victim. There is so much comedy in this whole proceeding, because every-time Czaka thinks he is out of trouble another twist is thrown in that makes it evident to the Nazi's that he is the assassin. 

Victorious Victims

It is hard to say that there is a clear "victim" in Hangmen Also Die! The Czech people are clearly targeted, rounded up, oppressed, and killed by the Nazis. However, the Czech people overcome all of this to achieve their own means of victory in the end, even if it is not absolute. As a result, the Nazis end up looking foolish in not being able to weed out the true murderer and place the blame on the man the Czech people framed, fully knowing it was not him. So on one hand, you have the Czech people, oppressed and murdered as victims of the German Occupation, and on the other hand you have the Nazis, outsmarted by the same everyday people that they are supposedly ruling over. I would say that the Czech people suffered both the greatest losses and engineered the most meaningful victory in Hangmen Also Die! In essence, you could say they were the victims, but they had a clear moral victory as well.

In Hangmen Also Die, I think it is quite obvious to note that the Czechs prove to be the true victims. Following the assassination of Heydrich, they are captured, but not because of anything they have personally done. I think it was a wise propaganda choice to Americanize the Czech and also make them very intellectual. Usually referring to Europe as a far away land- the choice to make the Czechs so similar to Americans was very effective. It illustrated that horrible things could happen to the 'wealthy and educated' and not just the poor, minimum wage worker. This proves to be a bigger threat to those sitting in the audience. If the audience could look at the film and see harm being done to poor, uneducated people, they can remove themselves & think..that could never happen to me. In order to justify the true terror of the Nazi regime, Hangmen Also Die target people who pose a striking resemblance to the middle and upper class American.

The Victims in Hangmen

The “victims” intended by the filmmakers in Hangmen Also Die are unique because we, as Americans, so often are presented with anti-Nazi propaganda films that focus on the Nazi victims as the victims of racial stereotypes, as well as the Allies. However, in this film we are presented with Eastern European victims of the Nazi occupation. While the film definitely attempts to prove to audiences that all members of Czech society were victims of oppression under the Nazi regime, I thought that there seemed to be a particular emphasis on the suppression of intellectuals and professionals. This victimization in the film would have been particularly compelling for American audiences in 1943, a time at which Allied victory in the war was definitely not certain, for it reminded audiences that if the Nazis were successful in the war effort, the entire world would be subjected to their occupational terror. Instead of focusing on more lower-class or unfortunate victims of the Nazis, the filmmakers choose to present characters that are obviously members of the upper-middle class, and well respected in society. The occupations of Novotny and Svaboda, as a professor and a doctor respectively, would have resonated with Allied audiences due to the fact that these are generally two highly respected occupations within Western culture, and the individuals who hold such occupations are usually well-respected and leaders in society. By confronting the audience with two likable characters who would have appeared to be likely leaders within a community as direct victims of an unjust Nazi occupation would have furthered hostility towards the Third Reich as an irrational and backwards system, and would have instilled fear of a possible takeover from the Nazis on Allied soil, further bolstering support for the war effort on the home front.

Hangmen

A rather interesting dichotomy is created regarding the “victim” in the Hangmen also Die. While it is pretty apparent that the literal victims are the people of Czechoslovakia, figuratively thanks to an interesting portrayal of the Prague’s citizens Americans too appear to be victims of Nazi oppressors, inspiring a sentiment in US audiences that if the Nazis are not stopped this could easily become reality here. It is certainly clear that the Nazi occupying force is oppressing the people. The Nazis, rightly so, are unmerciful and ruthless, taking lives as if it were nothing. In this capacity the Czech people become martyrs for the cause of freedom. Individual characters like Professor Novotny are clearly victims, but they are made to be emblematic of the whole of society. The Czechoslovakians impressively do their best to fight back in any way possible, resistance lead by the underground movement is indicative of that. Moreover, very literally the idea of a “resistance” makes them by definition victims of an attack. Within the film there are evidently individualized victims like the Novotnys, but there is also the collective victim of the unnamed Czechoslovakina people (typified by the men executed from the barracks).

However, while this is easily readable by viewers it quickly becomes evident that the Czechoslovakians are entirely Americanized. Whether it be the “Czechoslovakian” cab driver speaks with a quite thick New York accent or the younger brother who might as well be a character on Leave It to Beaver, these people are personified not as European but as American. The purpose of this clearly to make the audience feel akin to their Eastern European counterparts, who prior to the war most in the United States likely felt little connection to. Additionally, by characterizing the Czechoslovakians in such an American way it evokes a feeling of personal attack for theatergoers. The Novotnys might as well be the family down the street. The lack of an effort at mimicking accents on the part of the people of Prague made it so that what was Prague in the movie could just as easily be Chicago or Atlanta. The personalization of the victims during the time likely proved more effective in stirring up the desire to fight back against the oppressors.

The Dangling Chain of Hangmen

The victim? Hangmen also Die is one big, tumbling merry-go-round of victims, each doggedly in pursuit of the next, no one safe from any other and no one breaking free of the vicious cycle. All is set in motion by the death of the original "Hangman", the very first literal victim of a crime. Contrary to their typical image as the relentless, watching predator, the Nazi party becomes the next victim. They become a victim of fear: Fear from the authorities within their ranks, and fear for their own skins, for any Nazi could just as well be the next assassination target. As a result, these fears funnel the Nazi force in Prague into a rash, desperate hunt in rder to find a new scapegoat to be the new victim as they try to remove themselves from the position. Their urgency descends upon the entire city, and it is clear that they have made the following hasty decision. If there are no victims to be found, they will create victims. To be precise, 400 first-hand victims.

The rest of the film simply continues with this attempt to hand off the victim role. Each party, whether a single individual or a collective group, is forced into such a corner that defense is no longer an option. There is only the choice to unleash offense on someone else. Even when Czaka meets his cold end and it appears that the Czechs are successful in framing him, the movie shows that the Nazis have only allowed this fake conclusion in order to break the cycle, which in spite of it still remains unbroken. In the end, they surrender just as well as victims to this struggle, having no escape themselves but to call out a fake case closing in order to cover things. The Czechs, despite their terrible struggle as well, find their efforts ultimately to be in vain. When both sides are unable to successfully stick the victim position on the other, they both turn and prosecute the man in between the two as the final resort.

What is a “victim”?

In my opinion the obvious victims of Hangmen Also Die are the 400 Czech intellectuals that are arrested after Heydrich’s assassination. They are victims to the Czech traitor Emil Cruka’s random decision of who has to go to the camp and who not. And just as this decision has been random, the decision of who has to die in which order was pure random. The arrested men had no influence on any of these decisions and therefore are in my opinion the clear victims of the movie – they are punished for something they are not responsible for.

But the Czeck people turn the table and make the hunter become the hunted: the final victim is Emil Cruka. Thinking of victim in the way that you are punished for something you haven’t done, it becomes obvious that he, too, is a victim as he is punished for killing Heydrich even though it wasn’t him. But still most people would tend to see him not as a victim but see his death as the moral ending of the movie as he was not only a traitor but did not even show remorse for his actions and was not sorry for seeing all his comrades being murdered. But still he is a victim of the Czech people and he, too, is murdererd for reasons he is not responsible for.

Wide-Spread Victimization in Hangmen Also Die

Throughout the entire film, Hangmen Also Die projects the Czech people as victims of the Nazi regime. From the hundreds of hostages that are taken away and systematically executed, to the innocent Masha whose love life is thrown into jeopardy due to the world of lies she creates to protect Dr. Svoboda (not to mention her inner-family turmoil which occurs as a result of her father’s unjust imprisonment), examples of victims in the Czech population suffice to allow for the general and all too vague conclusion that all non-Nazis are presented as victims.

One Czech that does not appear entirely victimized by the Nazis is the brewer, Emil Czaka, who is instead presented as a traitor who goes behind the backs of his family and friends to profit by their misfortune. This argument, however, may not be enough to entirely validate the accusation that Czeka was not at all victimized, because it can be argued that he only did what he did to protect himself from the oppressive force controlling his surroundings. In this regard, perhaps, he can be seen as one of the film’s greatest victims, being forced to sacrifice his respectability to avoid impending troubles. His “victimization” is realized as his fellow Czechs catch on to what he has been doing and frame him for the assassination, thereby forcing him to pay for a crime he had nothing to do with. Again, this argument may be considering unconvincing due to Czeka’s role in the hostages’ arrests.

Regardless of how one views Czeka, the film has countless victims, many of whom are nameless characters simply recognized as individuals with little to no freedom and a constant threat looming over them. This allows for the assertion that the film suggests victims beyond the filmed plotline, simply presenting one example of the many populations being victimized by Nazi rule. With this in mind, it may be easier to reach a conclusion by plainly stating that the Nazis victimized everyone in their vicinity, and arguments can be made to include countless names on the list of the film’s victims.

Victims in Hangmen Also Die

The obvious answer is the Czechoslovakian people as they have the Nazis come into their home and take over. Their home becomes a place filled with fear, fear to live their lives as normal because of a people who come in and instill new rules, punishable by death. Looking deeper into it, the Nazis are seen as a people obsessed with personal indulgence. Their wants are satisfied almost as soon as they come about and this can be seen in the scene with the Nazi officer who chews on the sausage during his interrogation of an elderly woman. One would think his focus would be on his questioning of the grocer rather than his "need to feed" at that moment. The Nazi's are victims of themselves, unable to see a broader spectrum of life and deny themselves their every need, they become vicious predators killing thousands and leaving a people in utter despair. They become victims of their leader, a forceful tyranny that sweeps the nation and it seems as if all mental clarity has alluded them. Their own minds have been taken over by the ideals and policies of the Nazi party, and each member succumbs to "group think" and they become a mob of vengeance.

So in all, yes, the Jews of Czechoslovakia are the victims the audience readily identifies with, however the Nazi's are the unseen victims as they have fallen prey to themselves.

A Victimized National Identity

The victim of Frtiz Lang's film, Hangmen also Die, is the Czech people. The director portrays the Nazis in a very xenophobic manner while illustrating the Czechs as semi-American. The initial text during the introduction concludes by calling the Czechs unhappy but not unbeaten, giving a resonance with American feelings about the war at the same time. Another way that Lang causes audiences to sympathize with the Czech people is by printing many of the signs in the town in English. The background is full of signs in Czech and English, thus demonstrating a synthesis of the two languages. This unification can then be translated into a relationship between the two peoples of those languages, causing the audience to further side with the Czechs. Aside from signs that American audiences are able to read, Lang films the Nazis speaking only in German while the Czech citizens speak in English. The audience is led to believe that in the world of the film Czech equals English as German equals something foreign and unrecognizable. German speaking antagonists further alienate audiences from the Nazis as cause them to view the Czechs as victims in the film. Additionally, Lang shows Heydrich as a feminine, gaunt, evil man. Albeit, he was a monster, but he was an administrative one, not the visible epitome of rage that the actor portrays. Also, he was not as ugly as the American actor with sunken eyes and sickly makeup. Yet, this version fits Lang's work very well; audiences have very little sympathy for the androgynous Heydrich while feeling the pain of the Czech people. As this film demonstrates, through Fritz Lang's artful use of propaganda American audiences see that the Czech people are the victims of Nazi oppression.

Possible Victims

One group of victims in Hangmen Also Die was “the Czech people.” This may sound unremarkable at first, but there are some complications to this namesake, as there are with any name defining a nationality. It is interesting to note that although there were conceptions of a Czech nationality dating back to when the region known as Bohemia and Moravia was under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a Czech state did not exist until 1992. From 1918 until then (excluding German occupation, of course) the state was Czechoslovakia. Thus, when characters in the film said they were on the side of the Czech people (rather than, say, “for Czechoslovakia”), they were making a statement about seeing the war as a struggle between nations, not states. This is interesting, because despite Hollywood’s efforts to portray the struggle with Germany as a struggle against Nazi-controlled Germany, rather than against the German people, the language employed to describe the victims was still that of national self determination. Although Nazism was a radical nationalist movement, the basic idea of nationalism was not under attack here.

Another victim was the patriarchal family. The Novotny family is ripped apart by the crisis, and we are left uncertain (as far as I can tell, although some people may have seen it differently) as to whether Professor Novotny survived in the end. The central problem for Nasha Novotny is whether it is more important to save her father or to save a Czech hero in order to lift the spirits of the resistance. Indeed, the marriage plans of Nasha and Jan are destroyed or at least delayed by the crisis, meaning that the Nazis have attacked not only the Novotny family but this potential new family. There is also some tension about fulfilling bourgeois family norms, like making sure a man doesn’t sleep over so the neighbors won’t gossip.

Who is the Victim? Well, it depends...

If the question is who was victimized in "Hangmen" the answer is clearly the Czech, afterall, some 300 hostages were killed on top of the deaths of countless of its people before the death of the Hangman. Yet, in the film, while the Czech are the ones who have the most deaths, they go to death honorably, (apart from the one man who ran out of the barracks screaming) which questions the idea of victim. Afterall, can they really be victims if they accepted their deaths as martyrs? Instead, I think that the Germans were the victims. They were afraid of the Czech. The people weren't cooperating, officers were taking bribes, the systematic death of the hostages wasn't producing results of exposing the underground so much as a greater resistance to their movements. Though they were still effective as an occupational army, they allowed their victims to gain control over them. This reaction is what causes them to be labeled as victims. They lost control and were seemingly afraid of the people. The reactions of the NEED to get the assassin of the Hangman drove them to seeming paranoia, and it is this over reaction in comparison to the "No surrender" of the Czechs that leads me to say that the Germans were the victims in "Hangmen also Die."

Victims, Plural

I would conclude that there are multiple victims: those Czechs that were rounded up following the assassination of Heydrich and used as hostages to draw out the assassin. Although there are other characters that could be considered victims, the hostages were victims of random violence. Their capture was not a response to anything the hostages did; rather, it was the result of Dr. Franticek Svoboda’s (aka Karel Vanek’s) murder of “The Hangmen”.

I think it is easiest to point to the Czech’s held hostage as victims once other characters have been eliminated as possible victims. Svoboda is one character who suffered under Heydrich; however, Svoboda seemed relatively passive about preventing the deaths of the hostages. Although a victim at one time, Svoboda can no longer be classified as such following recklessness with the lives of others.

Another character who could be considered a victim is Emil Czaka, who is framed by the Czech public for the assassination of Heydrich. It is difficult to label Czaka as a victim, however, because of his role as a traitor for the Nazis. Rather than support his Czech comrades, Czaka turns on the citizens and provides names of those to be taken hostage. He is not deserving of the audience’s sympathy and thus cannot be considered a victim.

The Victim in Hangmen Also Die

Who is the victim in "Hangmen also Die"?

When I first read this question, I thought that answering it would be quite easy. With so many characters in the film, it should be simple enough to pick at least one of them as the victim and make my case for that person. However, I find it to easy to simply say that "character so and so" is the victim because I don't entirely think the point of the film is to get you to make that move. Clearly, it could be argued that the 400 men who are arrested after Heydrichs assassination, in the film, are the victims...yet, Lang made sure to show that these men, for the most part, stood by their convictions to face Nazi brutality head on and accept their fate. This is no more evident than with Prof. Novotny who is prepared to face death for the principles he believes in, even though his family wants to save his life. Ultimately, it seems as though this film, in clearly distorting the events that happened in the wake of Heydrich's assassination, was trying to get the audience to recognize the need to stand up to the brutality of the Nazis at all costs. Even though the film may not be historically accurate, it still presents an obvious reality...the Nazis are brutal, and if someone does not stand up to them, there will simply be more innocent victims who have to suffer at their hands. I would argue, then, that the victim of the film is unnamed but clearly alluded too...the victim(s) are all of those people who have suffered and will continue to suffer at the hands of men like Heydrich and the Nazis. The "good guys" in the film are not victims because they are standing up to the Nazis. The "bad guys" are not victims because they are brutal killers who have total disregard for life. The victims are the people who suffer at the hands of the Nazis whom the Resistance is trying to protect.

I do feel the need to point out, though, that there were an incredible amount of victims who suffered as a result of the assassination of Heydrich. If one looks up the death of Heydrich (and I checked a few sources) they find that the Nazis went ballistic in the wake of his death, even murdering an entire Czech village...men, women, and children. Although this film may represent the need to stand up to the murderous regime of the Nazis, in doing so (assassinating a top SS official), thousands of other innocent people had to die.

November 10-12: Hangmen also Die

Who is the victim in "Hangmen also Die"?

No Escape

The country estate and poet scenes in Romance in a Minor Key were some of the most intriguing for me.  I agree with Silberman in that the scenes in the country estate show that there can be no escape for Madeline.  At the estate, we see several example of how this brief escape means nothing in the scheme of the “real world.”  Micheal’s brother, speaking to her outside, makes it clear that this is a fleeting experience, as inspirations for artists have to constantly change for their art to evolve. Kautner, in a cameo role as the poet, explains to Madeline why, as a wife, she cannot be inspirational.  I think that ths is all Madeline needs to bring her back to earth, and realize that this life was never hers.

(apologies for being late; am on pain killers for knee injury and makes developing coherent thoughts difficult!)

self destruction

Silberman: "this suicide transforms the imaginary escape from reality into a desperate wish to transfix the past as memory and to deny the present. It is the most radical break possible with the past and at the same time it is an admission of helplessness in confronting reality. The other characters are similarly victims of their desperate wishes and self destructive actions." (p.95) While I agree with Silberman's claims here, that the film seems to want to escape from the past, I also am confused by this claim. I am confused because I know this film was made in Nazi Germany, and was approved by Goebbels, however, the message of the film seems to be counter to the powers that be. I suppose that by 1943 the censors were more concerned with other matters, namely the war. It is also noteworthy that this movie was commercially successful, which is another reason that the Reich promoted it- monetary gain.


It just strikes me that the film is nearly condemning the nazi party to death by some self inflicted wound, because it has been lusting after its own desires without regard to other nations. If this is even remotely true, it is amazing that the film ever saw the light of day.


[sorry for the post being late. I lost track of time studying for another class. apologies.]

Silberman Article

I found the most interesting part of Silberman’s article was the analysis of the scene where Michael and Madeleine decide to part ways. Originally during my viewing of the film I saw her reaction as typical when compared to her initial encounters with Michael. However Silberman describes the scene saying the rhetorical question “formulates bluntly the consequence of passivity and points to the self pity it engenders for those who experience the world as a place that other alternative but subordination.” The dialogue also suggests that the situation has reached a different moral level where their happiness is undeserved. I am confused by the whole idea of a getaway to the countryside with an almost abrupt emotion-filled departure. Silberman mentions the last scene showing a farmer with a scythe on his shoulder crossing the foreground of the image as the two at the train stop. The final scene foreshadows the guilt and sadness that will follow as the two decide to part ways. Also, the scene ends without any recognition of what just occurred between Madeleine and Victor when he questions any relationship with Michael due to his life as an artist. This ending leaves an opening for potential drama to unfold involving Victor.

romance in a minor key

Silberman Article on "Romance in a Minor Key"

Respond to some aspect of the Silberman article. Do you agree or disagree with his point? Interpret his point, using other articles or the film to support your argument.

In his article Silberman stresses how the film forces the viewer to identify with Madeleine in a "sphere of intimacy" and to share in her feelings of helplessness and self-pity. I agree that the narration of the film, the qualities of the characters, and the shots all facilitate this strong identification. 

Starting with the opening scene we are invited to feel pity for Madeleine, although as viewers a strong identification with her hasn't yet been established. Initially the pity evoked by the film is concern, a desire to know what has happened and what Madeleines ultimate fate will be. Following this we're brought into the past and into Madeleine's very intimate life. As viewers we have, as Silberman said, a privileged narrator position. However, we are still identifying with Madeleine because she is also (more or less) all-knowing.  The characters that are in the dark are the male characters, not Madeleine who clearly knows her own deceptive actions. 

Although the film isn't shot directly from the POV of Madeleine, the way the shots always return to her as she speaks or reactions, or use as Silberman says a short/reverse shot, we can always see how she feels or reacts and therefore maintain our connection with her. Despite the very end of the film there are rarely shots where Madeleine isn't present, meanwhile the male characters come and go from scene to scene. 

The Husband, about as cool as Willy Lowman

I find Silberman's analysis of the husband particularly well developed. He recognizes the structured lifestyle and overt moral principles of this character. What I find most compelling is his comparison between the husband and the average citizen under authoritarianism. Freedom for this man, and invariably citizens in that situation, is the ability to live a very regimented life. Like the numbers he works with everything fits together so neatly. Moreover, the Husband is proud of this trivial life. He proudly displays the accumulated knick-knacks of his existence in his unimpressive home with his crowning achievement, his wife, a part of them. However, where Silberman fails to expand on this character's function as an "everyman." It is in this figure that I think Kautner makes his greatest lash against Nazism. No man in the audience would ever want to be this man. He is weak, easily satisfied with a mediocrity, and moreover is unsatisfactory to the woman he holds so dear. This nameless figure could be anyone, and perhaps Kautner is saying to the audience not only could this be them, but if they too remained trapped by the binds of Nazism it most certainly will be. Sure, they will survive in this meaningless existence, as the husband does, but at what cost. The only thrills in his life lie in actions like gambling and loveless sex. He is only able to let himself take a risk when he can first scrutinize his cards and calculate his next move. Clearly to Kautner, that is no way to live. Silberman does indeed accurately name the husband the authoritarian personality, because of his reverence for organization. Like his numbers he has his place, he knows his duty, he respects authority. He, unlike Michael and Victor, plays by the rules. In the end, where does that get him? However, the husband represents a much greater threat to humanity because of his willingness to resign to such a boring life.

Silberman Article on "Romance in a Minor Key"

Respond to some aspect of the Silberman article. Do you agree or disagree with his point? Interpret his point, using other articles or the film to support your argument.

Jew Suss and The Eternal Jew

Jew Suss and the Eternal Jew are both very clearly anti-semitic films. Both depart from the more disguised propaganda of the films we've seen previously. Jew Suss, however, made its anti-semitic messages much more palatable than The Eternal Jew, which hits the viewer over the head with these messages (something Goebbels had claimed he wanted to avoid). I think making Oppenheimer an unlikable character, not simply an unlikable "Jew", is what made Jew Suss more more accepted and less clearly propagandistic than The Eternal Jew. Although Jew Suss stresses Oppenheimers Jewishness and it is clearly seen as a very negative trait, and possibly the cause of his cruelness and deceitfulness, he is a dislikable character in other respects as well. As viewers we're not told to dislike Oppenheimer, but we start to hate him and want other characters to turn against him and successfully eliminate him, because of his actions not because he is Jewish. The Eternal Jew on the other hand is much broader in its depictions of Jews. There are no characters to relate to, no people to side with, no one person to turn against. I think the public had a harder time accepting this film because the messages were all too clear and it was too forceful. 

As historical artifacts, Jew Suss and The Eternal Jew operate completely differently. The Eternal Jew is a clear and simple representation of the potent evil contained within Nazi anti-semitism. It is crass and disgusting to such a degree that, excepting the hard-liner politicos, nobody would go see it. That being said, it is not even a good example of propaganda but rather an example of bad propaganda. It is evidence of the depravity and extreme degree of jewish hatred and the lengths to which the nazi's would go to control there citizens. After all, anti-semetism was, in many ways, a propaganda tool in and of itself.

Jew Suss on the other hand is a completely different beast. It is the creme de la creme of emotional engineering and as such is a historical artifact which we must both respect and fear. We must respect it in both its brilliance and the magnitude of its effect and we must fear it because of the monstrosities it helped justify and the ideologies it helped promote. In this sense, while we can laugh at the preposterousness of "The Eternal Jew" we must be wary and guarded when studying a work like Jew Suss so that in the event that a similar film is made in the future we are able to recognize it for what it really is and prevent history from repeating itself.

Anti-Semitism in Jew Suss and the Eternal Jew

Both Jew Suss and the Eternal Jew take on different approaches in terms of the way in which they seek to propagate the anti-Semitic message and sentiment of the Third Reich. Jew Suss takes the form of a drama, which is perhaps the reason why it was a true box office hit in Germany at the time. The decision to utilize this genre of film allowed moviegoers to absorb anti-Semitic propaganda indirectly. Jew Suss effectively communicates anti-Semitic propaganda by formulating a captivating plot that engages the viewer and allows them to empathize with various protagonists such as Dorothea, Faber, and the Germans while indirectly forcing the audience to view the Jews, particularly Oppenheimer, as the antagonists of the story. As a result, Jew Suss is not only entertaining, but it serves as an effective propaganda film unlike the ‘documentary’ Eternal Jew.

The Eternal Jew was a total flop in Germany during the same period as Jew Suss primarily because of the oppressive manner in which it communicates its disgust and fear of Jews. This film takes the form of a documentary that seeks to convey the truth about the so-called plague that is spreading throughout Germany and the world – Judaism. The film overtly communicates its anti-Semitic message to the audience by relentlessly portraying the Jews as burdens on society, paralleling them with subjects like rats and disease. Such poor execution is burdensome on the audience and allows me to understand why it would have been difficult or uncomfortable to sit through an entire screening.

A comparison between Jew Suss and the Eternal Jew, both products of a specific epoch, both from a similar ideological vein, reveals interesting insights into effective propaganda. Jew Suss and The Eternal Jew touch on similar Nazi tropes: The parasitic nature of the Jewish people, their seemingly unstoppable spread across 'true' nations and peoples, their chameleon-like ability to blend into a 'host' society in order to take advantage, etc. The main difference between Jew Suss and the Eternal Jew and the resulting difference in popularity and de facto effectiveness of the propaganda, lies in the power of the narrative. Jew Suss utilizes a well made narrative to create a reality--The eternal Jew attempts to ethnographize the Jewish people and thus warn against their evils through a stream of facts. In Jew Suss the viewer is presented with the opportunity to confuse the faults of a part with the whole, that is the narrative allows for an evil character to make lasting insinuations of the Jewish race. Conversely, the Eternal Jew addresses the problem of the Jew by listing the faults of a whole through sweeping generalizations. The effectiveness of Jew Suss as a piece of propaganda lies in human nature--leading one to make connections will give a lasting impression, however, making the connections for them rarely does. There is a basic human necessity in drawing ones own conclusions and we feel a sense of veracity--even when the conclusion is one we have been conditioned to make.

The Eternal Jew as the failed continuation of Jew Suess

Both, Jew Suess and the Eternal Jew, are pieces of open Nazi propaganda against Jews but the way the movies are made could not be more different: the Eternal Jew is presented as a “documentary” (even though most of the “facts” Fritz Hippler presents are simply made up) whereas Jew Suess is in a way a tragic love story - a topic that is even today very common in most Hollywood productions. Thus it is understandable that the Jew Suess was a great success back in the Germany of 1940 whereas the Eternal Jew was not: people also wanted to be entertained and not to be just fed with information.

But if one thinks about the fact that the eternal Jew was released after Jew Suess being a huge success one could get the impression that the Nazis tried to take propaganda against the Jews a little bit further. Jew Suess ends “just” with the banishment of the Jews to keep the German blood pure and the execution of a single Jew. As we haven’t watched the end of the Eternal Jew until now I don’t know how Hippler tries to solve the Jewish “problem” but from what we have seen so far I could imagine that he suggests much harsher measures: from it being right to put Jews into working camps to the total extinction of the Jewish race.

Jew Suss and Eternal Jew

The most obvious distinction between “Jew Suss” and “Eternal Jew” from a historical perspective is the anti-Semitism that moves with the story of Suss Oppenheimer as opposed to the “documentary” style of “Eternal Jew” which makes claims supported by alleged “facts.” The message of “Jew Suss” is clear about the state’s issues and death of a woman due to the inherent qualities of a Jewish person, and the solution being the expulsion of Jewish people from the society for good. This clearly shows the Nazi perspective on Jewish people and what they believe needs to happen to cleanse the society they had been promoting for almost a decade at its release. Promoting their anti-Semitic and extermination ideas differed in “Eternal Jew” which does not hide any of the Nazi sentiments behind a story line, but rather outright describes Jewish people as parasitic and a threat to society. This approach turned away viewers who enjoyed “Jew Suss” clearly due to an uncomfortable feeling about the statements made comparing the spread of Jewish people to the spread of rats, the idea of dehumanization, and the mission of convincing the viewer that Jewish people are the largest threat to the Nazi society. Anti-Semitic viewers could potentially relate and enjoy “Jew Suss” but being told what to think through outrageous claims in “Eternal Jew” push the limit for those that do not fall under “politically active segments.” As historical documents, “Jew Suss” does a much better job at portraying the sentiments of the majority of Germany (based on its popularity), whereas “Eternal Jew” works historically as failed propaganda of those on the more extreme end of the spectrum. One can gain insights into Nazi perspectives through the success and failure of the two movies. German citizens at the time were ready to oust the Jewish and potentially see the similarities between Suss Oppenheimer and his counterparts, however the dehumanization and extermination propaganda was far too extreme and disturbing. The Nazi’s clearly tried to push the limit with “Eternal Jew” to gage the feelings over how German citizens would react to news of extermination.

Jew Suss vs. The Eternal Jew

Even though Jew Suss and the Eternal Jew were both made to belittle the people of the Jewish faith, they went about it in two different ways. As I watched Jew Suss it was amazing how subtle some of the comments towards Jews were made. It was like if you didn't listen close enough to to the conversations you would almost miss the snide remarks that were made. It is so conteracted in terms of The Eternal Jew, because they were so blantent in the ostrasizing of the Jews. Every Jewish person that they showed, was the result of your ideal of an orthodox Jewish person. Even though in Jew Suss from the beginning you are made to see how coniving Suss is, which makes him out to be a bad person. It is interesting how in The Eternal Jew they tell you that Jews are hardly seen doing any useful work and how they choose to be dirty. When in reality at that time they were given no choice.

Demented Nazi Fears

Both The Eternal Jew and Jew Suss require the audience to agree with a set of antisemitic assumptions that are needed in order to enjoy the films. The films attempt to portray themselves as historically proven movies that should not be questioned but taken seriously. In the beginning of Jew Suss a disclaimer admits that the following film is based on true events and the Eternal Jew attempts the appearance of a documentary. However, these films aid us in understanding what the Nazi view of Judaism was in 1940 and what their greatest fears were. Both films assume that the viewer already feels that Jews are inherently bad people who are not to be trusted. The world of Jew Suss begins with a pre-existing law that Jews are not allowed in the city and The Eternal Jew attempts to link the depression with a Jewish banking plot. The Nazi regime seemed to fear both an external and internal Jewish threat. The films make it abundantly clear that measures must be taken in order to preserve the German Volk from these threats to racial purity and survivability. Jew Suss points to the Nazi fear of a Jew gaining significant amounts of internal political power and squeezing the populace dry through taxes, a direct illustration of the regimes successful connection of Germany's post WWI economic problems with a Jewish banking plot. Additionally, The Eternal Jew claims that the Jews are responsible for every major medical and economic disaster the German people have ever seen. Given that Jew Suss was a very successful film the German people appeared to share the fear of a Jewish plot against the Reich and the inherent evil in the mixing of Jews and non-Jews sexually. Through these assumptions, Jew Suss successfully achieves the goal of propaganda by asking the German people to agree with these antisemitic claims in order to enjoy the intriguing plot of the film.

Werner Krauss is my Hero

When considering both Jud Süß and Der Ewige Jude, it is important to note format. Both of these films came out closely spaced in time, and for the same audiences. They had very similar messages, as far as antisemitism is concerned. Thus, in comparing he two, it is crucial to consider the aesthetics and rhetorical modes of each. In doing so, while trying to ignore the antisemitism, it is revealed that the German public was composed of normal people. It is no wonder that Jud Süß was a hit, and that Der Ewige Jude was not. The German people were not transmogrified into some completely different animal simply by nature of being bombarded with nazi ideals. When it comes to film, there are certain natural affinities that the masses have that are separate from their ideology. Any moviegoer would choose the dramatic and emotional Jud Süß over the phrenetic 'documentary' of Der Ewige Jude. Movies were expected to be fun and entertaining, even in Nazi Germany. Jud Süß, although it is extremely hateful, is a very well made movie. Their are characters with whom we empathize, and characters who we hate. [these characters are conveniently German and Jewish, respectively.] This is much more than we can expect from the name calling cacaphony and jumbled cinematography of Der Ewige Jude.
I would watch Jud Süß again long before I would even finish watching Der Ewige Jude, if given the chance, and the German population in 1940 obviously agrees with me.

[Note: the title of this post has little or nothing to do with the post itself.]

Why Jew Suss became a hit

After reviewing these two movies I think the biggest reason why Jew Suss became a "hit" at the theaters and with Germans came from the fact that it was a story. As I watched the movie, the themes that resonated throughout the movie came through the narrative - not this in your face, blunt and sometime aggressive fear that was evident in the Eternal Jew. One of the most common themes that we have seen throughout this class is the ability for the audience to relate to the movie, in some way shape in form, and leave the theater with and understanding regarding the next step. I think with Jew Suss's dramatic and narrative influence the audience could walk away from the movie understanding the "danger" the Jews posed for the survival of the German race, and therefore could stand behind the Reich's decision to exterminate the Jews without questions the rational behind this decision.

However, the Eternal Jew took a different approach which I believe instilled the wrong sense of fear and anxiety in the audience. The music, the pictures, the dreaded spread of the Jews shown over maps I believe offended and turned off the audience from watching and grasping the ideology of the movie. While it reiterated many of the same ideas that Jew Suss put forth, its inability to draw the audience in and constant reminder of the parasitic components of the Jews pushed them away from understanding the movie for what Goebbles and the Reich hoped it would portray. It is evident that Jew Suss enthralled the audience with its story-telling baseline, and it provided a face for the what the German race should be afraid of, without completely scaring them and pushing them away from remembering and applying the themes of the movie to their life.

Fear and Loathing in the Third Reich

What strikes me most by these two films is the way in which they create fear of Jews, not only disgust. In Jew Süss, for example, we are disgusted by Süss’s advances on the lovely, and clearly Aryan, Dorothea. Yet as licentious as Süss is, the driving emotion we feel during this movie is fear that Süss will come after our own daughters next. Similarly, while we are frustrated with the Duke for having succumbed to Süss’s villainy, we are also frightened that our own leaders will make the same grave mistake. Of course, the basis of this fear is artificial, and therefore the fear irrational, but the German citizens during the Third Reich would not necessarily have realized this.

The Eternal Jew uses fear in many of the same ways. The scene with the map showing the spread of the Jews across the world is a great example of how the film makes the audience frightened of nothing. (I mean seriously, they are showing white lines on a map. That’s it.) The films comparison of Jews to rats makes us feel disgust, yes, but worse is the implication of this comparison: that Jews bring a plague upon Europe. The Eternal Jew uses misleading and outright falsified information throughout the “documentary” to show the evil of the Jewish people and to instill panic in the German populace.

The use of fear tells us a lot about the Nazi perspective. Fear is a more visceral emotion that just disgust, and it makes us act even more irrationally than disgust or loathing. This approach to the European Jews made sense in the larger context of the Nazi perspective because it did not require a coherent argument or platform that would be explained to the Germans, it only required appealing to German emotions.

Jew Suss and The Eternal Jew

Jew Suss and The Eternal Jew both claim to be historically accurate, are anti-Semitic, were made around the same time, and yet the former was a great success and the latter a giant flop.  I think this tells us a great deal about German perspectives.  Jew Suss is the truth, and it looks like the truth the German people knew, especially Berliners who more than likely interacted with Jewish people.  The Jewish people existed around them, but were “lower” creatures with a different value set, and would ultimately bring down the German people.  The “good” Aryan people, such as the Colonel and Froder, could recognize this, and argued to both the fellow villagers and the audience why the Jews were bad.   The tactics was subtle, and did not shove the anti-Semitic sentiments down the audience’s throat.

The Eternal Jew took a different approach.  Here, in a “documentary” format, the anti-Semitic message was blatant.  Audience-goers later said that it was taxing on their nerves.  And no wonder, as The Eternal Jew throws “factual” information about Jewish people, including blatantly comparing them to parasites and rats.  Goebbels saw an opportunity after the success of Jew Suss, and tried to capitalize on it.  The German population, however, wasn’t ready for the blatant, in-your-face nature of the film .  The Nazi’s wanted them to be, however, so they released the film.