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.