Reflections on Siegfried Kracauer and German film of the early 20th century

    

One of my favorite topics is film, particularly concomitant to music's role in contributing to the medium. Subsequently, I have examined several books on the topic and am intrigued by Kracauer's harsh characterizations of the German people during the early 20th century and the many questions that arise. I have provided a bibliography for those that may wish to delve deeper.

     Upon examination of Kracauer's work, one becomes cognizant of several theoretical ideas: film not only represents a society's mores and personality but has the ability in certain situations to affect society in a profound manner. It can be argued that film is a powerful medium to which is imbued great responsibility; the power of film and the particular psychological make-up of a homogeneous German people provided the unique social chemistry that could precipitate the deeds of the Third Reich.

    From film’s historical beginnings in Germany, the German people are described as having idiosyncratic psychological tendencies that provide for a particular type of significant evolution in film; an evolution marked by extraordinary technical achievements and social stagnation. Attributes of the German people certainly are formed by their experience of defeat in World War I and the German historical penchant for ballads and legends. Kracauer exemplifies this point by describing “traditional German concern with all forms of musical expression,” “salutary indifference of the masses,” and “deep-founded susceptibilities to life [that] enabled them...to enjoy the lovely myth of the English detective.” (Kracauer, pp. 16, 18, 19, 20) These tendencies eventually formed a cinematic theme that “was to become an obsession of the German cinema: a deep and fearful concern with the foundations of the self.” (Kracauer, p. 30) Furthermore, the success of Baldwin’s film “The Student of Prague,” reflected “the profound aversion of all German middle-class strata to relating their mental dilemma to their ambiguous social plight.” (Kracauer, p. 31)

with music by Brahms

Original Soundtrack von Rolf A. Wilhelm

    Upon reflection of German film’s history, theories emerge that describe a society and series of events that led to Hitler and images of horrific proportion. Did the Germans, as dull denizens victimized by arbitrary realizations of Fate, accept the actions of tyranny? Did they have no choice but to accept cataclysm, anarchy or a tyrannical regime? (Kracauer, p. 88) Does the film “Destiny” portray Fate’s manifestation through the acts of tyrants, or in the film “Nibelungen,” through the “anarchical outbursts of ungovernable instincts and passions?” (Kracauer, p. 93) How and why is it that film evolution in Germany so cogently represented a society and events that logically lead to Hitler’s regime? While it may be historical coincidence, the evolution of German cinema remarkably reflects a society able to participate in the Third Reich.

    The German philosopher Max Scheler considered the German populace as a socially stunted middle class with an inferiority complex. He points out that not a single work exists in German literature that penetrates “an articulated social whole after the manner of Balzac or Dickens ... their habit of nurturing the intimately associated sensations of inferiority and isolation was as juvenile as their inclination to revel in dreams of the future.” (Kracauer, p. 33) 

    The characteristics of the German people may be precisely why the government sponsored film company UFA was so successful in influencing public opinion through carefully contrived propaganda in the Hitler era. In fact, German authorities believed that public opinion “could be molded into any pattern they desired.” (Kracauer, p. 37)

Universum Film A.G.

    After WWI, intellectual interests ran high in Germany. In this spirit of zealous Aufbruch (Kracauer, p. 38), prejudices of the German people against the early and primitive cinema evaporated and film was recognized in its evolving role as a potent means of imparting messages to the masses. (Kracauer, p. 38)

    An interesting propensity of the German people is represented by the proliferation of pornography that flourished during a brief time of uncensored film production preceding 1920. This era of feeding one’s prurient tendencies elicited copious box office receipts and eventual sufficient opposition to reinstate national censorship. (Kracauer, p. 47) It is significant to contemplate the feelings of a people conquered during WWI and their compulsion to satisfy emotional needs. Lubitsch’s “historical documentaries” with their positive view of the German military and German history, certainly helped as they “poured balm on the wounds of innumerable Germans suffering because of the humiliating defeat of the fatherland. (Kracauer, p. 53) In a later film, “Mabuse”, the world is described as follows: “Mankind, swept about and trampled down in the wake of war and revolution, takes revenge for years of anguish by indulging in lusts ... and by passively or actively surrendering to crime” (Kracauer, p. 84). Furthermore, Lubitsch’s penchant for the historical war film and its inherent cinematic opportunities provided for significant advances in cinematic technique. Certainly, war films were rich in material replete with vivid military accouterments and emotional impact. These films and others which utilized exotic scenarios may have represented the isolated, embittered and patently censured fatherland and its people.

    Wiene’s film version of the Mayer and Janowitz’ “Caligari” story capitalizes on the German people’s traditional belief in authority while providing a chimerical experience of overthrowing authority. As Kracauer puts so well, “There could be no better configuration of symbols for that uprising against the authoritarian dispositions which apparently occurred under the cover of a behavior rejecting uprising.” (Kracauer, p. 67) As a psychological representation of German middle class predilections, “Caligari” is described as exemplification of “middle class propensities of the Social Democrats interfering with their rational social designs.” (Kracauer, p. 71) Ironically, Dr. Calagari’s masterful use of hypnosis to exert his will provides a specific premonition of Hitler’s tools for psychological domination. Similar fiends and themes are popularized and exemplified in film productions including those analogous to “Dracula,” “Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde,” and “Waxworks.”

    Calagari represents well the social climate of Germany and the collective German soul elucidated by the chaotic condition of the postwar era.  Caligari’s terror and panic, sadism and an “appetite for destruction” continue the imagery. (Kracauer, p. 74) Count Etienne de Beaumont described the film “as fascinating and abstruse as the German soul.” (Kracauer, p. 76)

    Questions arise as to the creation of the German collective soul observed by de Beaumont. What were the forces that created a German populace comprised of a great middle class “where greed and jealousy are supplemented by deep social resentments and inherited moral impulses that have lost vital function” (Kracauer, p. 97). Could it have been the contrived purpose of government film? Why is the decline of the German screen in the late 1920’s explained as a reflection of a widespread inner paralysis rather than a simple financial dilemma? (Kracauer, p. 137). Are the themes and purpose of German films, as assessed in retrospect, depictions leading to a logical Nazi conclusion? Or rather, are these films simply coincidental representations of mankind’s collective psyche harnessed with a sequence of inevitable historical events leading to a manifest destiny. Are the outcomes immune to rational arguments because of a society’s powerful collective desires? (Kracauer, p. 117) Can a society’s cynicism, resignation and disillusionment really allow it to be influenced by a mastermind? (Kracauer, p. 165).

    Clearly, the development of German film techniques set the standard for cinematic production around the world and Hollywood attracted many of the German film craftsmen during the middle 1920’s. Alas, what a curious outcome for an expressive and artistic tool that, whether by design or accident, served as a diabolical Nazi tool to implicate a suffering German people in a gangster government and world war. (Tyler, p. 135) Finally, it may be true that, like printed media, people tend to believe what they see on the screen. (Monaco, p. 173)

Bibliography

Siegfried Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film, Princeton University Press, Copyright, 1947.

Parker Tyler, Magic and Myth of the Movies, Simon & Schuster, Garland Publishing, Inc., New York and London, Copyright, 1985.

James Monaco, How To Read A Film, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, Copyright, 1981.