New German Cinema: A History [1 ed.]

Citation preview

71',’

.-§' 3.9

‘_

'-

-

1:

;\ I _“"!'.“'”‘"'1" - '

{.01-|g'm|rru§n..

_uuivEns|1':ro|=M'|CHlGA|§|

H

Q»

-. ..

5-

= =-»r~ 0

-1::

£1311\‘€>c"

_

D.’

~GO\

-gle

.

El ' '. If $=

["‘§“‘““ “Y GQUSIE

UH|UEH5F%E11FEJFrh:;EHIEAM

Q;z~$‘T 01>

4* ;_ -;.IH,.

(Q

57 ‘\\ A

BRA10

_

P ~ 1 Goggle

I

Q

_

ii

-'

_

““§“‘E'*“ "'1' (300316

U ' " I f Q

UHt1FEF~5Fir|"§"1*:|E|FrhHEHIE.fl»M

_

["§“‘“'“ “'1' G9L73lE

I] ' " If 5

UH|UEH5lq"g'|t1| EJFFIJREHIEAN

New German Cinema

CL-[1 310

. . .

Gfwglri

LII‘-4|‘-.s'EF¢..E~!T"'r' [IF .»W =:'l'i1L;il'*:| l'|:I:!"':

Thomas Elsaesser

/2"’

New German Cinema A History

Rutgers University Press New Brunswick, New Jersey

GL1 3| L’

.1;-T

1:3‘ r :-*1 L. TI

F '5/‘I? ’-7' 1"? f..~ . . First pubhslbed In cluth and paperback ll'l the Uruterl States by Rutgers University Press, 1939 First published in clnth and plpflrhlfli in the British Cutnmunwealth by I'Irlie:|:|1ill.a.1:| Education. Ltd.. 1959 Cop5rrigl1t IQ I989 by Thnrnas Elsaesser Manufactured in Hung Hung All righm reserved

I.-tbrary at Coqrell Ciatalaglni-In-Puhieatiun Data Elsaesser, Thu-mas. New G-ennan cinema.

Bibtiegraphy: p. Includes intles.

1. Hetinn pictures - G1errr|.an]r{West]— History. I. Title. PH1993.5.G3E5? 1939 ?91.43"{I5H3 88-4299? ISBN D-E135-1391-I. ISBN I3-3135-1392-8 =[pblr.}

Cir; ___-51c

ass. .'Ii@s:-75s? THE'F

(Dr a‘_'TG_.;,J/ti

Contents

List of Iiiasrranirins

is

AcimoI-viedgemenls

svii

Introtlnttlon ‘The I3-ermans are Corning‘? Authors‘ Cinema or Spectators‘ Cinema? A National Cinema: Self-projection or Self-parody‘? Film Indulllj - Flhu Subsidy Creating a Commodity Hollywood Divides and Rules 1945: Ho New Beginnings Illusions ot' Autonomy t"?-overnment Intervention: Sponsorship or Censorship‘? The Dberhausen lvlaniiesto: Subsidy for Exporting Culture ‘Trying to Build a Rolls-Royce with lvloney for a Bicycle‘

Cinema as Kalrur Culture as Commerce The Idea of ‘Q'uality‘ in Subsidy The Role of Television

fi3$ fiE muE m~um

‘I‘heflid,the':'onngandii\eHew: Commerce, ArtClnemalnd Ausoreqflln? ‘Film Subsidy B no Pension Fund‘

‘Germans just don‘t go to the Cinema‘ A ‘Cultural’ Mode of Production

Subsidy and Self-expression: The Autorenfiim Legitimacy and Legitimation Romanticism and Kainir ‘Author-oriented‘ versus ‘Issue-oriented‘ Film-making ‘Contentist‘ versus ‘S-ensibilist‘ Towards a Coherent Spectator-position‘? Hating Fiction Films with Documentary Methods Pornography and Art Cinema: Clberhausen Clo-es Commercial The Oherhauseu Style: Two liinds of Spectatorship T‘heAnthorintheFllm:Self-e1rpremloluSetI‘-re-preoentntlrm

The Author as Aesthetic Expert The Author and the Avant-gartle v

Cir; 311.:

.315 36 3? Ill] 42 445 4S 52 56 Iii] I53 I57 Til T4 T4 ‘Ti’

The The The The

Artist as Hero Artist as Autodidaet Author as Prophet Author at the Top of the Big Top

Feminist Authors‘?

The Artist as Artisan The Author as Producer The Author and the Committees The Author and the Literary i:liSSl:t‘:S The Author in Television Television Co-production From Author to Auteur inSeerehoi'theSpectator I: Fromflherhanaentofl-enreFllm'i‘ Living Down the Dberhausen Legacy

E § § §se s

Representative Figures, Historical Role Models and Literary Heroes Film Hames and Film Titles ‘indulgent to the Point of irresponsibility‘: The Ctutsider A Matter of Eh-ureiiung: Wenders versus Kluge Fassbinder and the Return to Melodrama A New Heimnr Film? The Heimci as ice-land: Herbert Achtentbuseh imagining Bavaria

ll? ll’? ill]: 123 124 116 113 l3il 13-4 1345 141 144 143

InSearchol'theSpccl:atorI: Cilemaol‘E::perienee Cinema against Television The Spaces of independent Cinema The New Audiences The Audience as Critics The idea of Erfchrmtg ‘Hunger for Experience‘ The Documentary Bias of the Hew German Cinema Kluge. Hersog and Syberberg

I51 151 153 155 155 I5? ltiil 1151 164

in Search oi’ the Spectator 3: Mhorlty ‘lflewl The Sphere of Production and the liiorid of Work Arbeirerfiime Counter-Cinema and Meta-Television: lilaus ‘Wildenhahn Cinema as Selt'-Experience: The Woman's Film Women at Work Self-Representation as Cltherness Against the Cinema of Experience: The Mire en Scene of Perversion Dos kieine Fentseilspiei

1'71 i".-'1 171 1T6 lfill 1515 194 199 EH2

The New German Cinuna‘s Germany Experience of Cinema ‘The Dead Souls oi C1ennauy" Germany: An Open Wound

S§§§

Towards a Genre Cinema‘?

‘Tradition of ‘Duality?’ The Case of Schtondortf Reviving the Central Hero

(lo 3M:

Heraog‘s Germany Hersog and Syberberg Heraog and Fassbinder

Wenders‘ Germany

hiargarethe von Trotta: German Sisters——Divided Daughters Ulnumq I-lolne to History ~ The Fatherless Society ‘Mourning Work‘ Hamlet in Germany May the Eighth: the wound that would not close Mourning or Celebration

Conditions for Representing German History Popular Memory or Retro-Scenario? irreconcilable Memories: History as Resistance and Eigensinn Syberberg‘s German History Fassbinder‘s Germany History: The Mother‘s Story The impact of Hoiccmart Hcimat Haflonal or International Cinema? From Identification to Identity? Kluge and the Spectator Film The Actor as lntertest ‘Bonapartism‘ The New German Cinema Abroad The Scholarly Discourse Productive lviisreadings Marketing a Commodity Between Eoonomim and Semiotics A Hationai or an International Cinema? Conclusion The Absent Centre The End of the Anrorerrflirn? The Intemational Situation The Leading Players The blew German Cinema: An invention oi the Social-—I_.iberai Coalition? A Missed Opportunity or a Strategic Retreat? From Experience to Event Notes and References Bibiiograpity Filmogrupiiy Directory of New German Ciner-no Directors index

vii

CL-:11 ___-iglc

_

““?“‘i‘“' 9' (300316

I] ' " If e

untvsesriiil C-lFrbliiCHiGAN

List of illustrations

From film noir to aeo-realism: location eltot from one of the first postwar

German films {Wolfgang Staudte's The Murderers Are Among Us, I9-til} tin the set of l-leltnut lIfdutner's In Those Days fl94?] Hollywood, UFA or DEFA style? The Murderers Are Among Us and Harald Brutufs E-etween Yesterday and Tomorrow fl9d?j Helmut Kdutner {second from lejij surrounded by Britirlt ofiicers on the first day ofsltooting In Those Days fllH“?,l Peter Lorre in The Lost Gne ll 951) Alexandra Kluge in ‘fmterday Girl 1'lillitij

Pilrnecl literature: Gunter Grass, Heine l-lenrtent and llollter Scltldndorfi on tlieset ofThe T'm Drum |’l9?'9) Impulsive Soutlt: Harry Beer in Sylterlterg‘s Ludwig — Requiem for a ‘Virgin it-‘Zing {l9?2,l. . . antlfirasen Hortlt: lrtn Herournrt in Fassbinderh Elli Briest ll9?dj Gerhard Lampreclu and Berrul Tauber in Erwin lEeusclt's ‘The Balter‘s Bread t'l9T-‘til Fritz Sinner in Josef lir"itll‘s Albert - Why? (l9?SJ Maria Stadler in Doris l1dn'ie‘s Come Rain or Shine (l9?'?',l elutltor-oriented or issue~oriertted.' ‘Gt|sturlteiter‘ El Hedi Sen Salem fright; in Fassbinrler‘s Fear Eats the Soul H9?‘-ll Rudiger llogler and Hanrts Zircltler in lllerttlers’ lliings of the Road t'l9?'dJ lllulter Lad-rngast and Brigitte ll-lira in Hereog's The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser fl9'?-l,l Claus Eltertlt urul Anlje Hagen in Clufstziaa Ziewer's Walking Tall fl9?‘d_l Hanna Scltygulla, lilolfgang Scltenclt and illli Lonunel in Fassbinder‘s Efli Briest (I9?-tj Cltristiutr Ziel-ver‘s Dear Mother. i‘m Fine t'l9?l,l ll"'erner Sclrroe-ter‘s Palermo or lllolisburg (I980) Angela lllialzler in Scl|lc‘.irulorfi‘lTrotta‘s The Lost Honour of i€.atl'.|arina Elum U9‘;-"_‘i_l Echoes of the Problem Film: Faesbiruler‘s ‘lleronilra ‘iloss |"l9i!li‘,l Saltirte Sinjen anti Bruno Dietrich in Ulrich .Scltamoni's it -|'l9|5§,I' Uncenainty ofarl-dress: Peter Scltamonl‘s Closed Season for Foxes trees) elvant-garde Antics in lllaran Gosov‘s Little Angel — The Virgin from Bamberg ll 96?} P|'erre Brice and Let Earlier in Harald li‘einl‘s The Treasure of Silver Lake ll9d2,l l:x

CL-:11 glc

Hannelore Hoger tlefij in Alexander ll.'luge's Artistes at the Top of the Big Top: Disorientated {I965} Conforrnism without Commitment? Peter Schamoni‘s Closed Season for Foxes H966} Fredrric Forrcst, hard-boiled. hard-drinlting writer-hero in Blenders‘ Hanmtett 1’l9Sl_l The director in double reflection: Arrnin Mailer-Stahl in lti'luge's The Blind Director {I956} Sam Fuller and Patrici: Bauchaa in lilenders‘ The State of Things |"l9b‘.?) Gustav Leotthardt in lean-Marie Straub and Dartidle Hutllefs

Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach (I968) Flado lliristl shooting The Lener fl Still)

ll-tovie-maltirtg: playing with the most expensive train set? Hellrnuth Costard in The Little Godard ['l9'?Sj An image firom Brecht's iliuhle ‘lllampe 1‘l 93.?J in Harun Faroci:l's Between the Wars fl 973) The ‘l-lerbundsystem‘ in Faroctti‘s Between the lhlars |"l9?S,l . . . and in hit Before ‘tour Eyes: ‘l-‘ietnam (l9Bl,.l ‘rt few completely atahentic feelings ': Brigitte Tilg and Nicola Sarbo in li"erner Schroeter"s Palenno or ‘Wolfsburg it 9&1} ll"erner Schroeter {left} in his Dress Rehearsal 1"l9St?,| Heinrich Girlree and Grischa Huber in Heima Sanders-Brahms‘ Heinrich ll‘i'l7l Hanna Schygulla and Rtidiger llogier t‘in the background ltlatarha ttinslti and Hans Christian Birch} in llr‘enders' ‘Wrong Movement |"l9‘i-"-'t_l hfristina Soderbaum and Helmut Kdtttner in Syberbergh llatl May H9?’-t_l Women, the production site of human intercourse: .Alexondra Kluge (left)

in h"luge‘s Gccasional ‘lllorlt of a Female Slave fl9?‘.5',l htay Spits {centre} filming Let‘s Get Down to Business, Darling ll9li?'J Hellre -5'a.nder‘s Redup-ers fl 9??) The Ethics of a Craftsntan: Bruno Gan: in Wenders‘ The American Friend I99?’ liamrir Schygulla in Fassbinder‘s The Third Generation H979} Angela lltinitler fright} as Antigone in Germany in Autunm fl9?S,l The Third World nteetr the First: Ziewer‘s From Afar I See This Country

fl???)

and armed insurrection in l-llado ll'rittl‘s The Letter ['l9!5d,l ‘German tourists in Sardinia‘: Harts ltirgen Syberberg’s Scarabca tl9t'ib',l

The human figure in lillerner Hersog‘s (centre) Signs of Lite H968] Shades of lltarlene Dietrich: Harry Baer and lngrid Coven in Fassbinder‘s Gods of the Plague (l9?tl,l iris Berben, iltarquard Bohm, Lilli Lomrnel in Rudolf T'home‘s Detectives

i195?)

lmitation Fassbinder? llse Steppat irt Kurt ll-taetsig's Shadows on a Marriage ll!-14?‘) . Fassbinder Hanna Schygulla in Lili Marleen ll9199,! ltarlheins Bdhm in Fassbinder's Fox and his Friends fl9?.‘i,l .'jr:hlondorfi"s internationalism: Angela lllinttler and Charles Aenavour in

The Tin Drum {l9?9,l l-"oBter Schlort-dotjl‘_i"‘s Coup de grace 1'l 9?'o,l Reinhard Haajjfs The Brutalisation of Frana Blum {t9.?'3,l

Cir; glc

Reinhard Hau_fl“directing Mathias llineissl tl9?'t,l Peter Schneider, Tina Engel, htarius ht|1ller- lllerternhagen in htorgarethe von Trot:ta's The Second Awaltening of Christa Sllages l.l'9?T,l htartyrs of the revolution: Barbara Sultowo, Daniel Glbrychshi in lltargarethe von Tratta‘s Rosa Luxemburg {I985} Tina Engel and Sylvia Reire in von Trotta ‘s The Second Awaltening oi Christa lilagcs ll???) Gunther lt'.'au_fmann fright) in Fassbinder's Whity t‘l9'Tl-i,l Heine Schubert fright} in lt'luge‘s Strongman Ferdinand |"l9?"tij Heine Bennent (right) in Schltindorfis The Tin Drum it W9) The would-be gangster and his mall: Lilli Lomntel fright) and Hanna Schygulla in Fassbinder‘s Love is Colder than Death {I969} The would-be gangster and his buddy: lifarl Scheydt fright) and Rainer ll-‘erner Fassbinder in The American: Soldier t'.l9Tl?,l Llschi Gbermeier {centre} and lldarquard Bohrn fright} in Rudolf T'hon'tc's Red Sun (l9l'.i9,l Hanna Schygulla, Fassbindcr's archetypal fernme fatale {in Gods of the Plague, l9?tl,l . . . and niother+sub.nitute |"in llatselmacher, I969) Barbara llalentin, El Hedi Ben Salem in Fassbinder’s Fear Eats the Soul H9?’-t,l Johanna lldnig (centre) in Walter Bochntayer‘s Jane ls lane Forever

ll???)

Front: Ripploh fright} in his Taxi sum lilo f.t9Sl,l hlatganethe von Trotta and R.W. Fassbinder in Father Schllindorfis The Sudden ‘lhlealth of the Poor People oi iiombach (I97-"tl,l Angela l-Pinltler in Peter Fleischtn-ann‘s Hunting Scenes from Lower Bavaria fl 9458) Brunhilde ltlochner and Cletnens Scheits in Herxog‘s Heart of Glass tl9?'ti,l Harry Baer and Eva lltattes in Fassbinder‘s Jailbait t'.i9'?1‘,l Anomie in Austria: Arthur Brauss fright) in ll-lenders‘ The Goalie‘s Fear of the Penalty illicit {l9?'l} Alois Brummer in Syberberg‘s Sex Businem Made in Pasing ll9ti9J . . . and one of his filrns: How Sweet is. Her ‘lialley l'l9‘.ht_l Two ways ofparodying the Heintaijihn: Brtunrner‘s T‘here‘s Ho Sex Like

Snow Sex H9?"-tj and Peter llern, Barbara lfalentin in lllalter Bochn-tayer‘s Flaming Hearts |‘l9'?ii‘,l Josef Bierbichler, Annarnirl Bierbichler and Herbert A chterrtbusch in Achtert-tbu.sch‘s Bye, Bye Bavaria ll9T?,l Haifa Brunlthorst flcfijl ltt Ulrich Ede'l’s Christiane F (l9'S.l)

Franli: Ripploh tlefil in Taxi sum It.lc fl9Sl,1 Tabea Blurnenschein in lllrihe Gttinger‘s Madame Ill tl9TT_l Evelyn Stinneclte in von Praunheirn’s I Am an Anti-Star tl9T'6,l Barbara l"'alentin, Magdalena lltontee urna and lrm Hermann in lllrilte Gttinger's Dorian Gray in the Popular Press H933) Alexander llTluge‘s The Power ct Feelings {I953} Bruno S before he met Herxog tin Lute Eishols‘s Bruno the Blaclt, t9Ttl,l Physical film-ntaltlng: Herxog's Signs ot Life ll 968) xi

Gt; glc

Syborborg as ttacarn-ontartrt: Fritz Kortnor in Fritz Kortuor in rehearsal . . . {I965} ang?;i'ira]P'red H-"'agnfl" [top right] in Tho C-onfossions of Wiaitrotl Wagrlor 1'1' J Rosa von Fraannointflr Gut Corpses Aro Still Alivo {I931j Harianrar Sogcbrochtand Eta’ Gafp in Forty Halon‘: Sugarbaby {I985} Hanna Sahygtttia arazi Gottfiied John in Fa.tsbinaor's Eight Hours Aro Hot a Day {I 9??) Tito Prtlickrtrr and Dagmar Bionrr at Marianne Ltitickotlngo fl'Iratt'.roI|'.r Woddod Hlim fI’J'?'5) Tito working oiass in Wolfgang .'.itaarito’s Tho Murtlorors Ar: Among Us

U 5'45}

. . . and in Christian Zicworir Show-tlrops Bloom in Soptomhor (Ii-7'?-[1 Roaiirnr or storoatypo? ffihnlraian L'ir1vor's Doar Hothor, I'rn Fioo, I9?!)

~

lo? 1157 IE9 1'.-‘U 173 11-'3 1".-'4 114 175

Gantor Wafirajf [far right) riirgaisod as a Taritirh 'Ga.rtarboiror' in Gan: Union {At tho Bottom of tho Hoop, I986) Til: rnint in Jattartnor Fitiitroh and Manfird .S'totror'.r Monarch 119??) Rotaarca Paaty in Ciaaaiia Aiornararh Tho Trip to Lyon H5180) Ida at Bonorirtto in Uta Stc‘.itrH’s Tho Sloop of Roason (I981!) Ernst Jarobi faorrtroj in Holrna Saraierr-Brahnrr’ Tho ‘Whit:-Collar ‘Worltor

IEU IE2 134 IE5

ff W1‘)

133 I90

Hotkc Sandor {loft} in Rodupors I19??) Nikoiatu Datroit and Angelika Rornmoi in Hoiko Sana‘-:r's Tho Suhjootivo Factor (I953) Elffi Mikor-tit’: What Would Wt: Do Without Doath? ftflfliij Daughter and rnothor in Jatta Brtioltttorir Hunger ‘fours {I PHD} Etggaboflr Stopanolr in Hoirna .'£anrtors+Bra.iara’ Ho Moray, Ho Futuro fI IJ Drosroa to iziii: Taboa Bhansnrahoin in Ulrike fittit|g:r's Tioltot of hlo Iiioturn H 5'7’!-1'} Jatra Bt11ckrr:r'.r A T'h-onoughly Hoglootod Girl {IP?'t'.i_l i-‘cit of Tours: Ta-boa Btansonrohoar in Ulrike Dttingorir Tioirot of Ho Roturn ft???) Sconarios of Jatta Bn1o|'r.r|or’r Ciao Glaaoo and Lovo Broslts fiat (I93?) t t . . . . ‘Warner Sahroc-t:r’s Kingdom of Hspios HHS) Ivan Horny in Fassisirt-t:Ior’.r Tho Marriago of Maria Brauo (I???) t . . and wittr Ingrid Caron in Joanino Moomp_frI's Malou (1981,! Brigitta Mira and El‘ Hodi Hon Salon: in Fro-'.rbt'nrior's Foar Eats tho Soul |"I’P?4,i Ingrid Caron in Fa.r.rhinaor’r Tho Morohaot of Four Soasoos (I9?!) Bruno .5’ in H-rrrag's Kaspar Hausor H5‘?-i,l Tiiarortor Koattia's Dosth is My Tnrio (I???) Jag; Lamps and Barbara Saltowa in von Trotrafir Tho Gorman Sistors

U H

192 194 197 19? 1'93 Ell] 201

§§§% Z11 211 211 212 Z13

Lotto Eirnor rarroantiird by nor sorts {fight Hrano Gan: anti, an tho groand, iiirrrrrr Horrogj Tarn botwooa hamorarknors, suicide fWondrrs' Kings of tho Road, J91-"t.‘.iJ . . . and slat Iangingforfarama}* pianos {Edgar Riot: Hoirliat, I93-It Ili

(joéao

215

216 217

Angela Winkler in Scnfindorfiivon Trotta's Tho Lost Honour of liathsriha Blum 1’l9?5J' Dirlt Bogarde in Fassbinder‘: Dosp-air ti PH] Bruno Gan: and Angela Winltler in Roinltard Haa_fiFs Knifo in tho I-ioatl

219 119

1'l 9??)

219

Ben-roen over-reaalier and underdog: tire differentfaces of ltflaas Kinrki in Herrog's Hosforalu H9’?-B} . . . fliguirro Wrath of God ti???) _ . . . and Woyzoolt fi§“?B,l Helrnat Ddllring in Hertog’s Eyon Dwarfs Startotl Small t'.l5'-"?'ilJ Hyperbolic lirnitations to oaeroorne: Haas ifinski in H’errog's hlosforatu 1‘I 9?-'8} Wagner’: head between iilingsor and Kurtdry in Syherhergh Parsifal

III] ZED RID 221

222 224

U933}

Cowboy not and cultural cliche: Clernens Saneitr flefij and Bruno S foerttrej in H'er:og's Slrosrolr (I???) Tho Kaspar Haas-er oorrtalor in Horrog's Stroszolr 1'15???) . . . and Fassiu'ru£er"s For and his Friends (IE5) Troalrls and strife in the ltorne: Karl Soiteydt and inn Hermann in Fasslrinde*r's Tho Horchant of Four Eouons H P?!) Hanna Soliyguila and Margit Carsterlson in Fat-:sltindor's Tho Hittor Tor-lrs of Potra von Kant H S???) Hollywood nravenlclr andfatlier-figure: Nick Ray in Wenders' Tho

Amofimn Frionil (HF?)

229 229 23!]

icon of tne .l§‘.‘Ftils: the portalrle record player, in Wendors' Rings of tho Road {.l?‘?t'.iJ Harry Dean Stanton and Hunter Carson lookingfor Mother , ,. . . . Natasha Kirulti in Wenders' Paris, Torn -|’i!iIi!i'»-I} Biidiger Fogler and Fella Bottldndor loolting for Mother in Alico in tho Citios {'i9'?3j . Gesine Strentpel and Hans Peter Hot)?’ in lldarianno Rosonbaurnh

Poppo1'mint+F|'iot1on (1983,!

230 23-H 2313 131 232

Recognising the Self in the Dtlarr: von Ti-otta’s Sistors, or tho Halanoo of I-lappinoss (I???) and Tho S-ooond Awakoning of Christa Elagos 1’l 9??) The Three Faces ofifutta: Jtttta Larnpe in Sistors, or tho Halanoo of Happinoss fl???) Sistors, or tho Halanoo of Hsppinm fl???) Tho Gannon Sistors {I931} Reinhard Haafi"s Tho Main Actor {I 9??) Uwe Friessnsr’s Tho End of tho Rainbow (I???) Terrnirral Angst: Fasslrindorh Voroniha Von {I982} and von Trotta’s Eistors, or tho Balanoo of Happinoss ti???) Across the generations: Hildegard .|iI'nef in Tho hriurdorors Aro Among Us ll‘-Hill and with Brigitte Fossey (and their earlier selves} in Helrna ,'..1Tander:rBrahn-|s' Tho Futuro of Emily (H185) Ecitoor of 'P'iroonti’s Tho Dsmnod in Wolfgang ,Fetsrson's Tho Host {I981} Hiidegard Knef flefij, lretween fascism andfilm noir {Harald Braanit Botwoon To-storday and Tomorrow, I5!-t?,i Ilii

(Lo SM

225 1215 I2’?

234 234

EEEEQQQ I46 341' 249 25 1

Gerrnan neo~realisnt: Renate hlannhardt and Peter Lorre in Tho Lost Gno flilfilj Gisela Trowe in Erich Engel’s Tho Blum Affair {I918} llse Steppat in li'.'art ll:|'aetrig’s llvlatriago in tho Shadows {IMF} Hildcgard Rnef in Wolfgartg Staudte’s The Murderers Are Among Us

fl9'11?)

Harts Nielsen, Gisela Tantau , . , . . . and Alice Trefi in Helrnut Rdutner's In Those Days (iii-I?) Reviving the Triinarterfilnt: Eva Hatter in Helrna Sanders-Brahrns' Germany Pale Mother fl???) ‘The rnarriages of our parents?’ Fasshinder's Efii Brimt H9’?-t_[| Retro~_fasl|ion or popular rnernoryi-" Theodor Rotalla’s Death ls My Trade

ll???)

Angular Gltstina-cy: Joan-hlarie ,Strtu-tlr's Hot Reosnciled 1'l 963]

Edgar Reite {lefij during the shooting of Germany in Autumn flitflfl} A lore story and a world war {Alexander R'lagr's The Patriot, ii???) Digging for History {Hanrrelore Hoger in Rluge's The Patriot, l???) Camping Gut and Canrping it Up: Ritsclt and Death in Sylrerlrergit Ludwig - Requiem for a ‘Virgin Hing flll'?'.lj

Baroque theatntrrt rnurali in Syherherg’s Luawig- Requiem tor a Virgin

Ring ll Pill] Rainer Werner Fassbinder arguing with his rnother (Lilo Fenrpeitj in

Germany in Aunnnn {IPFSJ Rlaas l..-iiwitsch, Hanna Strhygalia and George Byrd in Tho lrlarriage of Maria Hraun fl???) Elisaheth Trissenaar and Hanna Sahygulla in Fasslrinder’s The lviarriage oi hlaria Hraun (I???)

Eva Manes in Germany Pale Mother fl???) Wialte telephones and the ‘Mata Hart‘ of the Eeonorrtit: hliracle': Rlaas LE-wit.tah and Hanna Sahygalia in Fasshinder’s "l"he ltlarriage of Maria Brann fl???) Heirnat, Home and Happiness: Marita Breaer and Edgar Reitr Rudiger Weigand and Karin Rasenaalt and the whole trust for the fit-II’!-ll)’ alhunr l'Reit.r’ Hoitttat, l98-II)

Fast t‘Edgar Reitr’s Goschiohten aus den Hunsriloltdorfern, shot while preparing Heimatj _ . , , andFa:tion . . . (Edgar Reitr’ Hotrnat, I984) Zero Hour then . . . (Edgar Reitr’ Zero Hour, lil?tij . . . and now fllollzer Schlondorfi, Jerry Sltolimowslri and Bruno Ganr on the ‘set' o_t'Cirt:io of Deceit, lfllilj Dreaming of the South: hiarita Breaerand Rarin Rienrler in Reitr’ Heimat

U93-ll

Lina C-‘arstens in Bernhard .5'inltel's Lina Braalto fl!l?$j Magdalena ldonteriuria and Nieola Zarho in Werner Si:hroeter's Palermo or Wolfshurg fl9151?) Wandering Stars: lngrid Caren in Syherlnrrg's Ludwig - Requiem for a ‘Virgin liing flit?!) , . . and Eva Matter in Percy Adlon’s Celeste flildlj Ferennially popular villain: Mario Adorf in Robert Siodrrtal:’.s The Dosil Strikes at Might H95?-',l Iiir

Cit; 311.:

. . . and in .S‘chltindot1fiTrotta's The Lost Honour of ltatharina Blum

ll‘-R5)

Rudiger I-logler: the Wenders hero in a Trotta film: with .lutta Lamp: in

The German Sisters

, . . and with Hanns 2."i.schler, l-‘era Tchechoua, Katharina Bohrn in Rudolf Thorne‘s Tarot asss; Gn his own in lngerno E1ngstrdrn's Esoape Route to lslarsoille ll???) Hans Christian Biech t'n Erich Engel‘s ‘Tito Blum Affair tiiilhj

. . . undo: Edgar Reta’ Cardillac {I969}

Edith Clever with Peter Handlte on the set of The Left-Handed Woman

ti W31

. . . undas liundry in Syberbergh Parsilal flildll Heinz Schubert in Syberberg‘s Dot Hitler fl 9??) The Haunted Screen returns." Klaus llinshi and lsaltelle rldjani in Herrog ‘s Nosferatu 1‘l W8) and Rart Raab as Peter Lorre’s M in [llli Lornrr|el‘s The Tenderness of ‘lhlo-lyos {l'5'?3,|'

lrrn Herrnann in Fassbinder's The Bitter Tears of Petra yon Rant fl???) In a dilernrna: Diri: Bogarde between Volher -Spengler and Andrea Ferreol in Fassbinder‘s Despair t'l9'?S,l Alter egos: Werner Herrog directing Fitamrraldo fl ilhlj . . . and Klaus Rinshi acting Fitrcarraldo international cast: Claudia Cardinals and llflau.-t hfinshi in Herrog‘s Fitacarraldo (I93!) icy glamour: Hanna Schygulla in Fassbinder's Lili lslarleen llildllj . . . and Rosl Iech in Fassbinder-‘s Veronica Voss (I982) Fictional biography: Era hlattes as Fassbinder in Radu Gabrea's A Man Called Esra t‘l5lS4'J

Success of the liihtls: Doris Dorrieis Men {l§|St5,l Thenew Belrnondo: lllarius hlilller-Westrnthagen in Peter F, Bringrnann‘s Theo Against the Rest oi the World flfliltl) Jack Balance in Percy rldlonir Bagdad one flilllf-‘)

= Gt; 311.:

Cl " "'| I‘ s.

["i“‘i'i“ ‘it Gfiflglfi

UH|VEF,5|‘l‘"g"1l‘ DF‘[V‘llEHlGhN

I

ii

1

-'1

1

i

—

Aeltnowletlgetnents

The idea for a book on the blew German Cinema goes baclt to lili-'5, when Tony Rayns aslted me to contribute a general introduction to his collection of essays on Rainer ‘Werner Fassbinder. ‘With a talent as singular and powerful as Fambind-er‘s radiating at the centre, it seemed necessary to ertamine in more

detail the field of force that West Gerurany's potitiml resolve to finance a national film culture had generated for the country's film-malters. Since then, the blew German Cinema has become cornnton currency - not least because of a number of excellent studies which now errist on the films, their directors and the conditions

that gave rise to them. "While I have benefited greatly from this literature, my thanlts are in the first instance due to the institutions and individuals that over the years have given me the opportunity to present, discuss and argue views which without their prompting I would never have tried to formulate. Alter Tony Rayns‘ and the British Film ln-stitute‘s commission, it was Dudley Andrew who invited me to teach at the University of Iowa in 197?. Similarly, between ll-‘ISIII and l9SI.‘i, colleagues at the University of California Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Irvine have been ltind and generous hosts. Among them. Janet Bergstrom, Edward Branigan, blatasa Durovioova, Anne Friedberg, blaomi Greene, Lea Jacobs, Lynne Kirby, Patrice Potro, Eric Rentschler, Garrett Stewart and Charles Wolfe were particularly encouraging. Boverle Houston at the University of Southern California, Peter ltopec at the State University of Gregon, Pat Mellencamp and Roswitha Mueller at the University of ‘Wisconsin, Milwaukee, David Bordwell at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Bernd Moeller at the University ol Tettas, Austin, Raja Silverrrtan at Simon Frae-er University, Vancouver, Mary Ann [Jeane at Brown University, Providence. Phil Rosen at Clarlt University, Worcester and Ingrid Scheib-Rothhart at the Goethe Institute in blew ‘torlr all allowed me to spealt to knowledgeable and appreciative audiences. Tim Corrigan, Ramona Curry, Miriam Hansen, Tony lilacs, Judith Mayne, B. Ruby Rich and Marc Silberman contributed with their enthusiasm and energy to the high standard of the conferences l was privileged to attend, and their worlt continues to keep the How German Cinema a lively and ertciting topic. Helga Rulf at the Goethe Institute in London has been a friend and support ever since she helped tn-e organise a season of New Gertnan films at the Gardner Arts Centre, University of Sussert in 1!‘-.l?1. In ‘West Berlin during various stages ol my research l have been greatly aided by Jutta Bri'rcltner, Clara Burcltner, Hartm Faroclti, Erika and Ulrich Gregor, Rene Gundelach, Ingrid Oppermann, Ulrilte Gttinger. liarsten Wine, Hans Helmet Prinrjer and the staff of the Library at the Deutsche Ii-inemathelt. Hell Brincltmann, ‘Werner and Martje Here-cg,

Ivll

Ci tit Cr: rs

Gertrttd ltoeh, Ulrich Iilurowslti, Claudia Lenssen, Enno Patalas and laclt Zines were important sources of insight, information and friendship. Thanlts go to my editors at the British Film Institute, Ed Buscombe and Geoffrey 1"lowelI-Smith, to Roma Gibson and Lisa Hardy; to John Rignall, Ginette Vincendeau and Richard Combs for having talten the trouble to read

parts of the manuscript at various stages, to Wolfgang Borgfeld for a crucial piece of typing, to Eric Rentschler for his attentiveness and acumen, and especially to Helen Boorman, who ltnows the boolt better than I do.

Incorporated in the argument are parts of articles which first appeared elsewhere. I would lilte to thanlt the editors of Fassbinder, of the New Statesman, Gctoher, Gn Film, Cirtetracts and the Monthly Film Bulletin for their permission to use this material, details of which can be found in the bibliography. All translations from the German are my own ertcept whore indicated otherwise. In general, films are referred to in the tertt under their accepted English title. Reference to the indert will provide the German title; conversely, films are listed by their German title in the filmography, with the English title in bracltets. Film stills were provided by Clara Bureltner at Basis-Filtn, by the Stills Collection of the National Film Archive, by Recorded Releasing and Mainline Pictures. My thanlts to them, and to Dina Lom. Finally, I have to admit that the subject of this boolt is of more than scholarly interest to me. Although the films of Fassbinder, Hetaog and Wonders were in the lifllls as vital and formative a Iilrtt ertperience as Godard, Sirlt and Minnelli had been during the lliitills, they were also a shoclt. They returned me to the country I had left the year the Gberhausen Manifesto was published, but they opened wounm, memories and regrets that reached beyond cinema, and brought a dissatisfaction and a restlessness which I soon recognised as the depressive disposition of a whole generation. The boolt is dedicated to them who ltnow the intellectual rewards and emotional ravages of such a disposition, and who believe in the cinema, nonetheless. Thomas Elsaesser London

Ivlll

Ci-tr Sic

Introduction

‘The Germans are Comlngll" This boot: does not provide a complete survey of West German film production from the early ltldfls to the present, Rather, it outlines a Irameworlt for understanding in a historical perspective what has come to be ltnown as the ‘New Gennan Cinema‘. The perspective ‘n a double one. It situates the New German Cinema as a national cinema within the economic development of the West German and European film industries, which have always been rivalling with Hollywood — usually without success - for dominance in Europe's domestic marltets. But the study focuses also on the cultural issues raised by the revival of independent film-malting in Germany, which happened partly on a competitive basis and partly in collaboration with national broadcast television. The lead talten by television set an example increasingly followed in other countries such as Italy, France and Great Britain. In Gennany, the TVlfilm alliance brought a gradual change in independent feature fihns as ‘cinema‘, away from the idea of mass ente rtai nment (still vigorously and successfully pursued by Hollywood), but also distinct from television‘s notion of family entertainment. I could have made my task —- and the reader's - much easier if I had opted for one of the two models currently available when writing about ‘national’ cinemas or ‘new' film movements: concentrating on individual directors or on specific themes and genres, For instance, I might have proceeded in the way John Sattdford and Jim Franklin did when writing their respective boolts on the New German Cinema,‘ Sandford, for instance, gives a brief general survey of the landmarks and turning points, introduces the directors who have come to prominence and discusses their worlt in chronological sequence with chapters on Alexander I-tluge, Jean-Marie Strauh, Vollter Schlondorff, Werner Hetaog, Rainer Wemer Fassbinder, Wim Wonders and I-lans Jitrgen Syberberg. He concludes with a summary of other film-malters or individual films that deserve special mention. Rlaus Phillips, as editor of a volume on New German Filrnrrtalters,‘ follows a similar model: his Introduction charts the success story, particularly in the United States, of New German films and film-matters since the Gberhausen Manifesto, and thereby leads up to seventeen specially commissioned articles on twenty different directors from Achternbusch to Wonders. A more themes-and-issues approach is talten by Eric Rentschler and Tim Corrigan. Rentschler in West Gerrnan Cinema in the Course of Time‘ strongly objects to what he sees as the far too starry-eyed picture usually presented by American commentators irr their efforts to ‘hype‘ the films and malte cult figures of the directors, He isolates some of the themes and stylistic traits that critics

r

Ci tit the r‘.-

have discovered in the films, and discumes in depth generic trends such as the Heirna|_‘filrn or literary adaptations. However, his main purpose is to shift attention baclt to Germany itself and point out the struggles and difficulties which the fihnmalters have had to endure. He gives more scope than his American colleagues to the generally negative pronouncements of German critics and the equally pemimistic self-advertisements of German film-makers about the situation of their cinema. Corrigan‘s The Displaced Image-‘ is terttually oriented: it takes half a dozen individual films which are treated as ltey examples not so much of the New Gennan Cinema but of contemporary art cinema. and its often intimate relation with contemporary film theory. A thematic-generic account of ‘The New Gemtan Film‘, finally, can be found in Hans Gimther Fflaum-"Hans Holmut Prinr,ler‘s Cinema irt the Federal Republic of Germany,‘ written as an information handboolt for the Goethe Institutes. In the chapters that follow many reasons, l hope, will be given for why I have chosen a different route, confusing as it may be since most readers‘ interest in tlte New German Cinema will in all likelihood have been sparked oft by watching

particular films, by one of the well-ltnown directors, or at least on a subject that presented an intriguing picture of West Germany, its past or its people. l have tried to bear these legitimate demands in mind, and hope readers will see their own questions addressed in one form or other. They will probably find certain points discussed at greater length than they had ever cared to consider them. This is partly, I suspect, because the boolt argues against at least two tacit assumptions that have, in a way, become received wisdom. Gne is that the origins of the New German Cinema date baclt to the Gberhausen manifesto of 1962, or rather, that a continuity esists between the films following Gberhausen, and those of Fassbinder, Wonders and Herzog which gave the New German Cinema a recognisable identity. For the salte of greater historical accuracy and so as to identify a common set of moral stances {which translate into stylistic choices}, I have stressed some of the discontinuities, suggesting that Gberhausen belong at least as much to the lltfitls as it does to the l9"llJs. To understand the renewal of film-matting in Germany and tlte conditions for its blief international success, it scents to me that a distinction needs to be made between the ‘foung Gemran Film and the New German Cinema in terms of the politics of film-making, as well as in terms of style and subject matter. What does, superficially at least, unite the “'t'oung and the New German Cinema is a militant platform around the concept of the Autorenjilrn {cinema of authors}, but here again I see this as a complert, often contradictory term, undergoing many a sea-change in the course of its twenty-year history. The second accepted view is that the New German Cinema was an avant-gtttde in the traditional mould, battling agairtst the films and film-malters that had gone before, overturning the old order and creating the new; that its leading figures shaped their uniquely personal vision, spontaneously and untutored, out of an irrepressible urge towards self-ertpression. The paradigm of the ‘new’ is applied to this cinema, even though directors such as Fassbinder, Wonders, Syberberg and Schliindorff have a demonstrably comples approach to their filmic forebears, to Hollywood, the German commercial cinema and the European art cinema, which cannot be accounted for by any simple antagonism or revolutionary broalt. In fact, the concept of the Autorenfilm had primarily a strategic function, and the boolt tries to conterttualise the often heroic self-representation of the filmmakers, by showing how the star directors were part of a broadly-based movement inside Germany to win new audiences as well as representing a unique marketing I

Ctr Er: rt, -I__

amet intemationally. Such a view does not mean the heroes have to he toppled front their pedestals - although the image of a solitary and persecuted, or even a collective and triumphant struggle has to he seen for what it is: a rfecourse, a stance, a necessary fiction to enable and motivate productivity. More importantly, it requires one to see direct and indirect government subsidy — the chief economic reason for the flourishing film production in ‘West Germany during the lllTl]s in a wider contest than that of the State supporting artists of genius. instead, subsidy has hecome part of the politics of culture, where independent cinema is e protected enclave, indicative of a will to create and preserve a national film and media ecology amidst an ever-expanding international fihn, media and information economy.

Authors’ Cinema or Spectators’ Cinema? The chapters proceed by first outlining a number of historical factors determining the German funding system, mainly from the perspective of the film-malters trying to gain access to production funds. lvly argument is that the apparently incompatible objectives of a national cinema - to he economically viable but culturally motivated —- can be seen to have produced in ‘West i'.'iermany different sets of debates or ideological fields, in which the contradictions were negotiated, contained and even temporarily resolved. These aim tc legitimate film and filmmalring, once they are no longer justified by the automatic logic of financial profit, or the less self-evident logic of a public service lilre state television. Even as an

economic activity ir is difficult to decide whether film-malring results in goods or services. As an ideological activity, the question remains — whom or what does it represent? Independent cinema funded in this way requires a contest or a definition which German directors were called upon to elaborate and verbalise. The fihns, their malrers, film and theory have in this field of culture

become closely related to each other.

in Chapter l I outline the history and economic structure of a ‘mined film economy‘. From this follows a conception of the cinema as a social space and of film as a commodity — but of a special lrind. ‘llalitltin West Germany, which since its foundation in 1949' has had a modern capitalist ‘social marlret economy‘, culture occupies a compensatory function rather than standing in opposition to industry. The delegation of the state‘s interventionist role to television and to the Film Subsidy H-card ensured that film-malring became part of official culture and entered into a primarily ideological arena, as opposed to staying in a strictly economic field. West German films, being produced outside ho.1r+officc returns, had to define both their rnode of production and their use-value differently. The second chapter is thus concerned with the modes and models of production prevailing in West Eierntany. A ‘cultural’ mode of production distinguishes itself from economic modes of film production in so far as its logic is not determined by the profit motive (at least not directly}. Even the traditional rationale of show business {namely that it provides pleasure and entertainment for the largest pomible audience at the lowest possible price) does not have the same force with products situated at the very margins of the mass marltet. The question of what determines cultural products is usually answered unprohlemstically, by anuming the author's intenticnality or desire for self-etrpreuhrt as rnison cl"e'tre and Tet in the case of the Hew German Cinema the mode of production is such that neither authorial self-enpreminn nor audience expectations 3

= Gr; pic

are inscribed unambiguously in the films. Rather, one might say that as amthetic objects, they are shaped by processes of selfireprecentation and self-legitimation. For while the conditions of film-making have had a much more directly determining effect on the films than in a purely commercial system, they are at the same time less representative of anything other than themselves, since their efficacy as objects of pleasure remains largely untested at the German boar oflice. Their usevalue, to authors as well as audiences, therefore depends on the status that cultural production, but also cultural consumption has in a given social and political content: what it means, in other words, to malre films and go to the cinema. ln France and Italy, for instance, the cinema enjoys a very high cultmal prestige, in Britain less so, and in Germany - prior to the emergence of the New German Cinema — even less. Go the other hand, once film-malring becomes totally absorbed into television, its cultural currency falls, being regarded as no different from ordinary television programming and on tap lilte other domestic utilities. German film-malrers fiercely resisted such an absorption, which explains why the discourses of legitimation and justitication toolr up so much space. The main idea that the third chapter, devoted to the Aaroierrfihn, wants to put across is that the film-malrer as Amer and originator of a given fihn occupies a double function within a double circuit: slhe is an ‘artist’ in the conventional bourgeois sense, and a producer in a pre-capitalist sense, engaged in a cottage industry. As artisans with a craft mentality, the film-malrers faced an economic situation that gave them the status of a self-employed entrepreneur, but with the State playing the leading role in a system of patronage. Since the State also acts, via delegates such as television, as direct employer, the film-malrcr is servant ct several masters, while having to maintain an image of autonomy and independence. Many of the political controversies arose out of the contradiction between ‘self-directedness‘ and 'other+directedness‘."' The signs of these splits are that ‘West German film-malring comprises both more and more varied films than those recognised as ‘art cinema‘ and generally identified with the blew German Cinema, mainly because subsidised films are aimed at several distinct groups of spectators. Chapters 4, 5 and ti try to retrace the strategies adopted in pursuit of audiences. Given that the commercial cinema, too, had to cope with an increasingly fragmented public, the many hcsitations of ‘Nest Gennan cinema since the war between family entertainment and soft-core pornography, between nouvelle vague-ish post-Gberhausen films and the intemational art house productions of the blew German Cinema can best be understood in the light of a more-or-less conscious process of reorientation towards a new public, different from the one that used to go or still goes ‘to the rnovies‘. This is home out when one loolrs at the debates around art films versus genre films; the demands for govemment measures to subsidise distribution and etrhibition alongside production; the polemics of film-malrers with the hostile press of the old commercial film industry; the superstar status of certain directors and, finally, the reliance on festivals and the international press for prestige in Wmt Germany itself. ln other words, the search for a public manifests itself acrom a whole area of debate, conflict and strategy which begins to assume cogeney only when viewed as belonging to the larger historical problem of the cinema‘s place in the changing contest of entertainment, leisure, inforrnatioo and education. The central argument of the book, then, is that far from the blew German Cinema constituting only acts of self-expression by a small number of highly gifted and personal directors, the logic of its production, the history of its failures

s

Cl iii i i-c F.-

and suoam, and the aesthetic-formal strategies that give it a degree of stylistic coherence, derive front the various ways the films attempt to address spectators. Crucial for the blew German Cinema, as for the more overtly spectatonorieuted commercial cinema, was the issue of identification, in the general sense of providing the audience with a coherent or meaningful place in the fiction. The corrmtercial cinema does this with a narrative of conflict, complication and resolution which proceeds from cause to effect via the central characters, but also through the processes of narration, how the story is told. how lrnowledge is distributed and revealed across the film's progress. The central characters, apart from functioning as agents for this narration may also act as role models. The films of the blew German cinema differ to a greater or lesser extent from this norm, mainly by employing unconventional narratives, a feature typical of European art filnts. Gttite untypical for this art cinema is the blew German Cinema‘s search for positive heroes and exemplary stories, often reflected in the choice of titles. At the same time, the notion of a ‘place in the fiction‘ is considerably extended to include what would normally be regarded as ‘documentary modes‘, while German film politics and film practices conceive of the cinema as a particular social space. ‘Going to the cinema‘ briefly became an activity and an experience comprising but not confined to entertainment. Equally typical are more complex modes of narration and an often unusual deployment of the specifically filmic forms of identification. These are not dependent on clearly motivated characters, but have to do with camera-placing, editing, and what in German is called Eh-rstellang: a useful term because it means

both ‘scene, talre‘ in the cinematographic sense, and stance, point of view in the moral sense. The search for more indirect modes of spectator-involvement may also explain why many German filmsmalrers tended to worlr with narrative forms closer to the documentary and the film essay. l have chosen the term ‘cinema of experience‘ to describe this major tendency within Hew German film-malring. ‘Ibis helps to distinguish it from the perhaps more habitual fcnn of involvement via genres (‘experience of cinema‘) and allows me to discuss the social, political and aesthetic consequences: they range from the revival of melodramatic modes designed to enlist the spectator on behalf of victims, outsiders and outcasts, to films whose strategies of identification are deliberately ambiguous and contradictory, as in the work of many avant-garde and feminist directors. There, questions of gender and sexual identity imply a more theoretical reflection about the nature of cinematic identification itself and also highlight the role of minority audiences and subcultrr.res. Specifictargetspeetators—women oraworking-class audience, forinstsnceirttplied the redefinition of the cinema as a means of militant self-awareness and self oonfimiation. This conception contrasted wifli the cinema as a refuge from

self-consciousness and self-awareness, the search for a hind of post-ideological qrace, attracting spectators to art experience of ‘pure being as pure seeing‘: a desire perhaps best met by the films of ‘Wim ‘Wonders and ‘Werner Hereog.

A National Cinema: Self-projection or Self-parody‘! In so far as the New German Cinema - as has sometimes been said - is an invention of the critics and the result of shrewd marirethrg strategies, it is useful to look at the terms in which the films have been viewed outside West Germany. 5

Cl-..'i '3-c rt.

But here, too, the question has to be put in a wider context, for this must include the directors‘ response and defence. For instance, some reacted to the conunodity status of their products by an excess of personality, and often parody, in order to escape the mandate as ambassadors of Germany aslred to legitimate German culture: reactions which cart be studied in the films themselves. This inevitably implies an analysis of what sort of mythical construct emerges of the ‘nation‘ and of ‘Gerrnany‘. If for the domestic spectator it is more a matter of identifying with this or that character or stance and recognising certain experiences, in the international context, a national cinema will be perceived as presenting or projecting an identity, a narrative image of an entire country. Chapters T, S and it explore these aspects more fully. Films by Fassbinder, Heraog, ‘Wonders, Syberberg, Kluge, Heitr, Schlondorff, von Trotta and Helms Sanders-Brahms are discussed in so far as they have a bearing on the construction of a specific myth of Gemiany, its history and culture. Th-e common extra-filmic referents. such as Nazism, urban tenorism or the post-war family which many of their films share are only the most obvious signs of this self-analysis as selfstylisation. For the irrtemationally-oriented directors, the concept of authorship, media star status and self-consciously Gennan subjects did at various points become essential ingredients of prestige and success. Gite cart, however, discem in their worlr other strategies designed to compensate and substitute for what they laclr in terms of box-office appeal: elements in the films which generate recognition and repetition similar to that offered by the commercial cinema through genres and stars. Among these are the frequently literary source material and the trilogics or series amociated with a specific director or actor, or both. The boolr thus loolts at the concept of independence when applied to filmmalring today, as situated between the commercial cinema on the one side, and television on the other. The question is not only whether under these circumstances the traditional opposition of commercelculturc is still valid, but also whether there can be an independent cinema at all. lf independent of marlret forces, as the New Gennan Cinema was for a time, can it be independent of the conditions of production as well‘? The New German Cinema presents an exemplary case of an independent cinema shaped by very special circumstances, and the boolr suggests that these affect the films themselves and not just how they are made. if much of what follows is concemed with the l9‘Ir‘lIls, it is because they were a decade of transformations for the visual media outside Germany too. The New Gennan Cinema coincided with major changes in the economic structures of the film and television industries. New technologies were beflnning to be introduced which necessarily affected the social use and significance of media products. For instance, given the way that every national broadcast television system recycles old cinema films and given the wide availability of home video, a fomt of film culture is developing in most advanced countries, with often quite noticeable effects on new national production as well. Thus, Chapter lfl, beyond the specific case of ‘West Germany, loolrs in conclusion at the general conditions and possibilities of film-malring in the two decades that witnessed the resurgence of Hollywood, the transformation of the traditional European art cinema, as well as the victory of television, which effectively now determines in most ‘Westem countries the economic survival of other media including the cinema. The United States in many ways still holds the lrey to future developments. Hy the sheer quantity and proliferation of their products in this domain they are in the position to define the norms, set the expectations as well as the pace of change. Clther countries try to maintain themselves on a terrain stalred out by i

= Gr; git:

the competition. ‘West Germany is one example, but the implications affect all

developed countrim whose sensecfcultural identityisbaserl on aneerl to maintain

markers — and marlrets — of difference vls-d-vlr the products of the international entertainment businesses. Their standards or economic priorities control in most industrial and industrialising countries network: television and contmercial filmmahing. For reasons which will fomi the substance of this boolt, ‘West Germany's

fihn-makers seem to have been remarkably successful in doing battle on two fronts for st least a limited period.

1‘

Cir; gin

l: Film Industry - Film Subsidy

Creating a Commodity Four factors have shaped the New German Cinema: a system of public ftmding for feature film production; a legal framework for television co-production: an intemational reputation for four or five individual directors and, finally, the politicised and media-conscious student movement of the late liltifis and l9‘Ir‘ils. These factors are distinct but inter-related. They are distinct from each other, in so far as they relate to different parts of the film industry as traditionally conceived. Gne might even say that public funding, television participation and the star director cult each in its way corresponds to an alternative strategy for the three divisions of the commercial cinema: production, distribution and exhibition. Subsidy bypasses the need to generate capital on the open marlret: television centralises distribution and exhibition: new demands from audiences create new venues and uses for films; the star director, finally, cart substitute for generic recognition, attracting an intemational art cinema audience, and publicise cultural values. To consider finance and production without a loolt at the audiences and their expectations would be misleading, because in some crucial respects government funding worlred in West Germany only to the extent that it was able to combine aid for film production with the creation of a film culture: this meant subsidising the exhibition infrastructure as well. The overall result of state aid for the cinema was to establish, for a commodity as dependent on export as film, both an internal marlret and a more diffusely defined international reputation. A ‘culture industry‘, in other words, for the world marltet; and for domestic consumption a parallellalternative structure to television, which would function as a kind of ‘cultural ecology‘, in the sense of mitigating the worst excesses of a commercial system that basically operated quite outside the state‘s control. Film began receiving support partly in analogy with technological research grants for pilot schemes and prototypes, and partly comparable to funds available for public parks, museums and national monuments. This was true above all for the l'=lTfls. With a change of govemment in 1953, official film policy began reverting to more directly ‘economic’ criteria. Independent production was left in the hands of television, or to producers who had in the meantime become experts in playing the subsidy-television-tax shelter game. ‘Cultural’ aid became once more concentrated on first-time film-malrers, and only the most commercially profitable productions now are rewarded with bonuses. Today the German Cinema has acquired if not a film industry, then a Film Establishment. In retrospect, public funding, the .~'lrrrorerr,t‘ilrrr, the student movement and television co-production none the less do represent inter-related moments of the S

- Cir; git:

blew German Cinema, since they follow each other chronologically even more than they imply each other logically. State prices and regional first-film subsidy began to malte an appreciable impact from 1965 onwards; the authors‘ cinema had its ideologically most active phase between 1963 and IEIT4, which coincided with the period of highest politicisation in the age group most liitely to go to the cinema; and by the time the triumvirate of star directors (Fassbinder, Herxog and ‘ilfendersj emerged as an identifiable group at international festivals. the television frameworlt agreement had begun to talte effect. Domestic production of independent features [and more modestly of documentary films] experienced a boom. Finally, beginning in 19¢-'4, the art cinema circuits the world over discovered the existence of the Hew German Cinema. The impression of successive waves. amplifying and building on each other, is almost inescapable. Hence the tendency for critics to construct a classic rise-anddecline story: after the groundswell of the lilofls, the crest of the wave carried the individual geniuses of the star directors to the top in the 19‘lEls.‘ The death in 1932 of the most prolific and gifted among them, Fassbinder, soon followed by the end of the political era of Helmutfichmidt, symbolically brolte the wave. dispersing the creative energies and scattering the remaining talents. This account, attractive though it may be as a narrative, is too metaphorical by far. It seriously misrepresents the structural features and different historical forces at worlt. Cine may agree that by the mid-lilli-[ls the New German Cinema was no longer new, and possibly no longer either German or cinema {happening mostly on television}, but to ltnow what exactly determined these shifts requires a look at underlying factors and a ltnowledge of its pre-history.

Hollywood Divides and Rules The economics of the ‘West German cinema have to be seen in the wider context of the United States‘ film industry. This is true of every Western European country since 1945, and it could be argued that the Hollywood hegemony dates baclt not to the end of the Second but to the First World War.‘ However, only in Germany after the collapse of the 1"-laxi regime did American interests penetrate distribution and exhibition virtually without obstacle. The reason was that economic objectives complemented political goals. They reinforced each other {especially during the formative first decade between I945 and 1955] rather more than in other countries, because the newly created two German states rivalled with each other politically and ideologically. in a famous speech Spyros Sltouras, Head of Eilth Century-Fox, argued: it is a solemn responsibility of our industry to increase motion picture outlets

throughout the free world because it has been shown that no medium can play a greater part than the motion picture industry in indoetrinating people into the free way of life and instil in them a compelling desire for freedom and hope for a

brighter future. Therefore. we as an industry can play an infinitely important part in the world-wide ideological struggle for the minds of men, and confound the

Communist propagandistsf Thomas Gubaclt, in his bocit The fnremcrionru‘ Film Industry, has detailed how despite these fine and patriotic sentiments, the Hollywood film industry held the lvfilitary Ctovernment to ransom over the use of American films for re-education and propaganda purposes. Dnly when the lvfotion Picture Export Association was satisfied its earning on the German marltet could be converted into dollar ll

Cit; 311.:

From film noir to neoirealirm: location shot from one of the first pool-war Gerrmur

film: (Wolfgang Sraudrekr The Murderers Are Among Us. I946) holdings and that there were no restrictions on the free movement of capital, did Hollywood follow its words with deeds. This happened when the United States Senate passed the lnfonnation Media Guarantee Program in 1948. which effectively gave the go-ahead for the commercial exploitation of the Gennan market: The reluctance of American companies to send films to West Germany . . . was a result of concems with revenue. Even the Military Govemment‘s objective, to reeducate Germany, was not sufficient incentive for the companies. The event which tumed the trickle of American films into a torrent was, clearly, the initiation of guarantees by the American government. That the [MG program was lucrative to Hollywood was apparent when . . . Congressman H. R. Gross attacked film

industry lobbying in Washington and the IMG, declaring that . . . the ‘Motion Picture Export Association has been given a pretty good ride on the lntonnational Media gravy train . . .'.'

By 1951 over 2(1) American films were released annually in the three Westernoccupied zones. For the German cinema, trying to re-establish indigenous film production out of the ruins of what had, from the 1920s onwards. been one of the moat prosperous and technically advanced film industries. this saturation of the market proved a permanent handicap. To appreciate both the intentions of the Americans and the consequences of their policies. one has to remember that, throughout the 1930s and early 19405, the German film industry had been progressively centralised and put under state control. The UFI holding company

to

“

G0‘

~.wz=:> - ~=

i.+.--*1

created by Goebbels comprised the old UFA, with its extensive, vertically integrated production, exhibition and international distribution branches. but also included technical laboratories, patent rights and subsidiary interests such as publishing, sheet music and recording. Such a media empire with massive monopoly potential was clearly perceived as a rival to the l'vlf'EA, and in line with American policy towards other key German industries, the Allied Clccupation Forces insisted that UFI should be dismantled. Actual implementation of the directives ran into difficulty, and some of the production activities of UFA, as well as parts of its exhibition circuit, functioned throughout the l95fls with a semblance of continuity. The reasons for the delays in breaking up the UFI giant were manifold, but also reflected the ‘West Gennan government"s growing realisation of just how disadvantageous the piecemeal dismantling and disposal of UFI holdings would be to the survival of

the German cinema.’ The lvlilitary Government was none the less able to keep a very close watch over film production. As a strategic pro-‘Western stronghold, built up by the United States to counter Soviet influence east of the Elbe river, the artificial political entity called ‘West Germany was subject to very strict controls regarding press, radio and film. Charged with vetting and granting licences in virtually every field of economic and information activity, the Allied Control Commission ensured that no vertical integration or cartel formation could develop in the Gerrnatt film industry. As Guback points out: In contrast to East Germany where only one large company was authorixred, the

Americans, British, and French agreed to place the new ‘West Gernran film industry on a thoroughly competitive basis . . . The ‘llfestenr Powers believed that the new

German industry should be composed of small independent units. The three levels of the film business —- production. distribution and exhibition - were to be separated, and within each level tltere was to be competition among companies.“

Two priorities determined United States thinking on the German film industry: to let production resume along lines that implemented the pro-capitalist, anticommunist ‘hearts and minds‘ re-education programme of free enterprise, and to stop it from becoming a monopoly. Practically. it meant stopping this free enterprise freeing itself from Hollywood, and from aehieving economic dominance either within Germany itself or by expanding into European markets. ‘Information control will provide the Gennans with information which will influence them to understand and accept the US program of occupation‘,' read one of the first directives relating to the mass media in April 194?. Secretary of State Byrrtes was equally unequivocal when he announced: “fiflrat we have to do now is not to make the world safe for democracy, but to make it safe for the United States." As far as the film industry was concerned. it was a policy aimed at imposing the Hollywood mode of production, but without the Hollywood means of production. Hy licensing a host of small independent production companies, the Control Commission bequeathed to the post-war film industry its most persistent problems, namely chronic liquidity crises. under-capitalisation, and a narrow-based home market orientation. Throughout the l'§t5t]s, too many one-off production units were forever chasing the little investment capital available for film financing. Gf the lfll production companies registered in 1954, for instance, according to Erhard Eran: about TU per cent had ‘a basic working capital of less than Dlvl 2tl.fIIl'."' Small wonder that most of them ended up in the bankruptcy courts. Selective licensing was only one of the control mechanisms available to the ll

Ctr git:

\

L

..._

On the set of Holmut Kaiumer'.r In Those DaysTf947)

V

Military Govemment. Another affected exhibition, rather than production. From very early on, the MPEA persuaded the State Department to block any moves that might have limited the number of American films distributed in Germany after the [MG programme had been passed: ['l1re MPEA's] policy became one cf bringing into Germany as many films as it thought the market could absorb. Not only that, but the American industry thwarted the establishment of an import quota in Germany. Discussions in Washington

between MPEA representatives and the State Department resulted in an order to the U.S. High Commissioner in Germany that the Department wanted no quota on the importation of American films. An official German quota never materialized.”

Quota restrictions were a safeguard applied after the war by every other European country. including Britain, in order to stem the tide of Hollywood pictures. Although it must be said that these measures rarely achieved their aim, they did point to the urgent need for govemment intervention in the film industry. even amongst political allies. The Gen-nan authorities at first found it difficult to press this argument for ideological reasons, since it was deemed to be part of the civil populations democratic duty to watch Hollywood movies. For the Americans, sound business sense happily coincided with a moral mission, and a whole generation of Germans grew up with the schizophrenic experience of watching John Wayne ride through Monument Valley, or Humphrey Bogart wander down those mean streets, while their (Gennan) voices never left the cavemous spaces of the dubbing studio.

A further aggravating factor was that among the Hollywood imports pouring into Germany around 1950, a large number dated from the pre-war and interwar period. These films had long since recouped their production cost in the United 12

._

r

Co

8 lc

.

._.._.. WE

-~=

“i"—l.

______

Hollywood. UFA or DEFA style? The Murderers Are Among Us and (right) Harald Brawl‘: Between Yesterday and Tomorrow (I947) States, and could now be sold on the German market at rates that decisively undercut new West German productions. Such dumping practices forced indigenous producers to keep their budgets as low as possible if they were to retain the chance of retuming a profit. Without using explicitly political pressure, Hollywood was able to manipulate the market in the decisive early years, keeping any challenge to its dominant position permanently at bay. German distributors retaliated by re-releasing seores of Nazi entertainment films from the l930s and 1940s, also at dumping prices. but this made the situation for new productions even more difficult. 1945: No New Beginnings Politically, the proliferation of small production companies gave the impression of a new start. The famous ‘Zero Hour‘ for West German society and industry also seemed to apply to film-making, fostering illusions of autonomy and independence. At the same time, since parts of the old UFA organisation survived both the nationalisation of the central production unit at Neubabelsberg (which became the East Gennan State company DEFA), and the Allied Forces’ deooncentration measures, there was an ominous impression of continuity with the infamous recent past of German cinema. The Americans had. for instance. in their zeal to license only reliable (that is anti-communist) Germans, encouraged the more right-wing and politically opportunist members of the profession to take over rebuilding the German film industry. One of the officers charged with 'denaJjfying‘ film industry personnel reported how in practice his task was im~ possible, ‘since virtually all directors, writers, actors. cameramen and technicians (qualified to make films) had been more or less active members of the NDSAP [the Nazi Pany]‘." According to Pleyer‘s calculations, as late as 1960, 40 per cent of the directors active in the West German film industry had either been working in the industry before the arrival of Hitler or had started their careers during the Nazi era.“ Erich Pommer, the former production head of UFA in the 1920s, 13

C0 git‘

. »

.

. 7}

returned in an American Army uniform to supervise reorganisation of production facilities from Hamburg. Although able to help colleagues such as Helmut Kiutner to obtain production licences (Kautner founded his own short-lived unit, Camera Film GmbH) Pommer - like many émigrés - knew how great the hostility towards him was for not having stayed during the war. There were to be many directors (Fritz Lang. Douglas Sirk, Billy Wilder, William Dieterle. Robert Siodtnak and Frank Wisbar) who found to their surprise that the West Gennan film industry in the 1950s seemed to consist of nothing but white-washed fonner Nazis. Thou who had stayed developed a siege mentality. and the ‘old boys‘ network became a closed shop, suspiciously warding off both outsiders and newcomers. And yet. looked at from purely commercial perspectives. Gennany possessed a wealth of professional and technical talent. Many directors who had made fihns under the Nazis were capable of successful entertainment films, and abo of tackling contemporary issues: the Gennan cinema. ever since the coming of sound, had a ntunber of genres with a strong realist, socially critical slant, which resurfaced after the war as the so-called ‘problem film‘. associated with directors like Kautner. Kurt Hoffmann, Wolfgang Staudte, Gerhard Lamprecht and Rolf Thiele. in many ways, their films could, under different circumstances. have competed at least technically with the standard Hollywood production. The more ambitious directors even tried to emulate other national film styles. such as Italian neo-realism. The problem lay elsewhere. As a result of Hollywood's ‘divide and rule’ policy, production was dispersed between Berlin, Munich and Hamburg and lacked the

Helmut Kfiurner (second from left) surrounded by British ofiit-an on the first tiny of shooting In Those Days (I947)

I4

‘

_l‘j

E:\.—

H:

.:s.'._l

investment to create a sound infrastructure. Cionsequentiy, distributors became the real force in the industry and gained the upper hand over both production and exhibition. Yet it was the American Major companies who controlled the German market both directly and indirectly. Wliile some cinema chains, in the aftermath of the botched UFI decartclisation plans, had been quietly taken over by a handful of Gennan entrepreneurs, distribution was heavily dominated by Hollywood firms and its subsidiaries. Even distribution companies not set up by the Majors were only able to weather the crises in the industry {notably in I953 and 1951} where they bad ties with U5 companies. These were increasingly able to dictate their own terms —- block and blind booking contracts — to the entire eithibition network. Hy the early lE??[ls, not a single commercial distributor had survived in ‘West Germany that was not Arnerican-controlled and, here too, Hollywood effectively ran the show without seeming to do so. Wonders, who himself once worked in a distributors‘ office, has given a graphic account: During that time I saw a lot of movies, because personnel were given free tickets. The films I saw were almost always a continuation of what I had witnessed in the oflicc. And vice versa: the distribution system is only an extension of the films it

handles. From production to distribution, the same brutality was at work: the carelessness with images, sound and language, the stupidity of German dubbing, the infamy of the block and blind bool-'il'|g system, the indifference of advertising,

the unscrupulousness in exploiting the cinema-owners, the bloody-mindedn-ess when making cuts in the films." West German producers as a rule had to go to an American company in order to get their own film into German cinemas, a situation that applied not only in the 1!-fills and liltitls. Many of Fassbinder’s, Hereog's, Wonders‘ and Eichlondorff‘s fihns are in fact distributed in Germany by United Artists or the CIC chain.“ Of course, this works both ways: it meant that from a certain point onward, the star directors did begin to have access to production guarantees and a world market. Ciiven the stranglehold over distribution, the limitation on growth imposed by the Allied Forces and widespread nepotism, the German film industry in the 191505 was ailing. It was not only confined to the home market. but distinctly provincial and incestuous in its outlook on world cinema, neglecting for instance the art cinema as an altemative to Hollywood. out of a misguided concentration on purely ‘commercial’ criteria. Wltile the many independent companies set up in the late l'iHlils seemed a promising start for a new film culture, many of the films that might have sown the seeds of an art cinema were never adequately distributed. This was particularly true of some of the early DEFA productions, such as The Blum Afilair {Ajfdre Biron, Erich Engel, 1948}, Rotation {Wolfgang Staudte, 1943), but also of The Lost fine {Der Verlorene, 1951} directed by and starring Peter Lorre. Home market orientation, the central weakness of the post-war Gennan film industry as an industry, has itself to he seen in another context. From the early 192lls onwards, German films (although spectacularly unsuccessful in breaking the Hollywood monopoly on the American market} were considerable eitport earners in Latin American countries, in South Africa and the Far East, in France and Italy, but particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. After 1933 the film industry continued to hold and aggressively increase its foreign markets. With the beginning of the war, as the regime began to integrate UFA and other production companies into the UFI holding group and administrative control became centralised tnider Goebbels‘ Ministry of Propaganda, Hitler's obsession I5

CL-ti 311.:

Peter Lorre in The Lost One ([95!) with economic antarchy also affected film production and exhibition. Severe import restrictions closed the market to Hollywood films, and German production was stepped up to meet the shortfall. During the war the film industry boomed, having almost the whole of the annexed and occupied countries in Europe as a captive audience. For the two decades prior to 1945. therefore, the industry had operated under the assumption that the Gennan market was economically profitable, albeit on the baclt of military and political expansion of territory. The end of the war brought the collapse of this hinterland, putting an end to the artificial production boom. The division of Germany, along with the redistribution of its Eastem provinces between the Soviet Union and Poland, meant that even the German home market had shrunk to approximately one third of its pre-1933 size. Export after the war was further cut down by the revulsion felt among most audiences for Germanproduced or Gennan-speaking films.

Illusions of Autonomy As a reflex, and in view of the obviously unsuccessful stniggle against Hollywood supremacy, acquiescence in a retreat to a mere share of the home market seems understandable. But given the experience of other European countries, notably Britain, the economic outlook of a commercial film industry based on the box office receipts of its national market alone is not encouraging. The major recession in audience demand hit West Germany in the late 1950s: the introduction of television and the increasing availability of private cars changed leisure and I6

G0 31¢

.,

H

,,,_.,

entertainment as drastically as elsewhere in Europe and America. Cinema admission dropped from an all-time high in lilfifi of ill‘? million to an eventual 192 million in lilfifi." This picture is further darkened when one considers that Gennan productions were worst hit by the general audience decline, while the Anrericans were able to increase their share of the market, having more or less successfully exported their own crisis in audience attendance through domestic cutbacks, European-based production units and monopolistic distribution pracrices. ‘West Cier1nany’s poor showing in exporting its films is, however, surprising when one considers the rest of its economy, which has remained strong because of its leading position in world trade. For the film industry. the figures were depressing even during the relatively buoyant years of the mid-l!l5lls: in 1955, a total of 15 million Dlvl was earned in exports {including script rights, leasing of Eierrnan actors and other incidental services] while 133 million [I'M worth of films was imported. "5 The tendency to remain something of a Bavarian cottage industry persisted well into the ltildtls. hleo-imperialist '5issi‘ films, dreaming of "v'iennese pastry and Hapsburg glories, the Bavarian mountain musicals, beem1ug-andlcderhosen comedies made few friends and fewer admirers for the post-war German Cinema abroad, even though some films from the ltlfills are due for a revaluation. A consequence of catering exclusively for a home market was that the average feature lacked production values. Since Gemian films as a whole had to break even on 15 to Ill per cent of the national box office receipts, each film had to be made in a very cost-conscious way and producers hardly ever pooled resources in order to undertake an expensive film, preferring low yields to high risks. As ‘volker Schlfindorff, one of the first of the new generation of directors to have experience in intemational co-production pointed out in an interview in l9‘T-"'2, when the disaster of his Americanffliermartfflzech film lhlrlrirnef ilfofrffrour — der Rebel! {Michael Rofrflroos, the Rebel, 1969} was well behind him: It simply makes good sense for a film industry to undertake three or four times a

year projects which cost 5 to 3 million Dlvl, because this way a large number of technicians and other professionals are employed and trained, it is a healthy shot

in the arm for the industry itself. The Italians and the French are very clever to produce something like Rorsolino once in a while, which not only raises the industry's infrastructure to the latest stage of technology, but can also be used to break into the World Market: in its wake, they can sell a Truffaut or a Chabroi, and the notion of the ‘French film‘ gets international currency two or three times a

year. If France produced only Truffaut or Chabrol films, it could not export films at all. This is one of the things wrong with the German film industry ever since the

lvfifls. fine always started from the assumption that a film had to earn Ell to 90% Of its money at borne."

As long as production values were low on films aimed at the commercial audience, a vicious circle set in. blot only could IT-ierrnan films not compete on the intemational market, they also looked shoddy and drab in the home market compared with Hollywood glamour and spectacle. That the Gemian film industry was operating at a loss, for instance, could he seen from the I915? figures for the national box office. German films accounted for rltl per cent of the films on offer, but represented only I4 per cent of the market share in earnings.“ For a brief period in the lilfifls, it became government policy to make the film industry less dependent on imports and to regain for flrermarr producers the majority of the home market. It was an unrealistic goal, and may well have been IT

Cit; 3]-.3

put forward mainly as an argument to silence growing criticism that the Adenauer govemment was putting up less resistance to US pressure than other European countries. The political will to make a decisive intervention was lacking. The dismemberment of the UFA empire was not canied through because there was said to be a shortage of capital among private buyers. Dir the other‘ hand, large finance institutions with the neoemary funds were reluctant to invest. As the initial report on the l..lFI negotiations put it in 1949, banks were ‘unwilling to lend money to finance the p|.u'chase {of l.lFl properties} since very high rates of interest can be obtained in making industrial loans with less inherent risk than in

the motion picture indusrr-y‘.“' As a result. the Adenauer govemment, fiercely committed within the post-war b-oom economy to ler market forces determine investment, refrained from anything more decisive than loans and tax incentives for the film industry, often with strings attached that amounted to political censorship. However, by the mid-lilfills, it bemmc clear that government action would have to be taken if there was to be a Cierman cinema at all. The professional bodies of the industry, such as SPl[l [Spitaenorgonrbarion der Derrtscfrerr Filmwirrschclilli and its trade press, rapidly transformed themselves into a pennanent parliamentary lobby. The record of these attempts to lobby for credits and subsidies, the unsuccessful role played by successive ilhristian Democrat governments trying to mediate between purely economic, directly ideological and broadly cultural objectives provides the underlying continuity between the old, the young and the new German r.':inemas.‘"

Government Intervention: Sponsorship or Censorship‘! ln line with its contradictory position of executing the wishes of the US Administration, while holding the interests of its own bourgeoisie as its mandate, the Chdstian Democrats decided as early as lilfill to make available to the industry so-called guaranteed credits {.-lrrsfolfbrirgsrhajien). The govemment guaranteed the banks the credits they gave to distributors, who in turn advanced a distribution guarantee to the producers. The intenti-on was to encourage small producers to raise money for filtns, but the actual effect was rather the reverse: the system of passing the buck was administratively heavy-handed, it tripled the producers‘ dependencies and, in the final instance, brought film-making under the direct control and censorship of the State. Scripts, contracts, shooting schedules and production estimates down to the last detail had to be approved by a board of stare-appointed trustees, who also had the right to block funds for productions already rmderway if recommendations were not implemented. After only two years the system had to be modified, not only because of high financial losses. Even SFlEl protested against the unacceptable level of interference: We note with growing concern that . . . the era of guaranteed credits . . . stands under the sign of governmental control. which makes film production into the executive organ of an apparatus directly dependent on the State.“

The 1952 modifications, however, had even more disastrous effects. They

removed the last vestiges of support for a 'pluralistic‘ film production and reversed the anti-trust implications of the original credits: henceforth, only producers who promised a package deal [usually eight films in a row} could apply for guaranteed credits. This limited the use of credits to those who already had a dominant position in the market. For most producers a programme of eight films was beyond their capacities: they died either the slow death of financial asphyxiation IS

= Gt; glc

or a fast one by over-committing themselves and going banlo-apt. Hone of the companies which bad accepted credits under these terms survived into the l'ElI5lh. If 1955 shows one of the highest annual figures for production {lift films compared with B4 in 1954) it was because the government announced that it would stop credits altogether. The nish was on to get in at the last minute, for it had become more profitable to produce films than to sell them: a calculation that was to hold true for the neztt 2!] years.“ By 195E the industry had experienced another shift of power in the distributors‘ favour: many had formed their ovm companies to produce the required eight films. Guaranteed credits had actively encouraged a monopoly situation in the tnarltet. but in the process had destroyed the economic initiative and independence of the exhibition sector. The concentration of capital that toclt place meant that a handful of buccaneer producers held most of the lrey positions {Arthur Hrauner of Central Cinema Company, Waldfried Barthel of Constantin, Ilse and ‘Halter iiubascbewslti of Gloria were the movie moguls of the lilfifls). Their policies were shrewd but extremely conservative: 1"-‘is a producer I know that there are projects where it is completely pointless to

invest even a single marlt more than is absolutely necessary. With Hefmmjfilntr for instance it is pretty clear in advance how much they can return at the hos office because one knows the audience, almost to the crtact number of spectators liltely

to see such films. If I invest, say 1.2 Millions instead of '=llIlll,IIIllll DH, I am throwing capital straight down the drain. The additional I-ltIlIl,[ltltl won’t lure a single extra viewer away from his cosy television set.“ In fact the government had already swung over to a pro-monopo~list film policy by 1953. In a hurried undercover action it had finally disposed of UFA at way below its true value by asiting the Deutsche Bartit - history repeating itself ominously — to found three separate companies to develop the various assets of the former state monopoly. In 1956, the three firms were openly reunited as a consortium headed by the Deutsehe Bank and the Dresdner Bank. The new production-cum-theatre-chain giant tumed out to be a dinosaur. It came too late to combat American supremacy, and its organisational structure was already anachronistic at its inception. In liltil, the second major crisis year. UFA collapsed and most of its assets were acquired by Bertelsmann, a publishing group which used UFA‘s debts as tatt write-offs. Dnce again, govemment interference had brought the itiss of death to any hopes for a national cinema. It simply aggravated the internal contradictions of the industry as a whole.“ After the guaranteed credits were scrapped, lobbying for subsidies via ta: relief began. hlindful of the poor reputation and poor quality of the German cinema, however, the government adntinhtercd tart relief indirectly. An institution that had hitherto existed only at individual state level was centralised in I955, becoming the FEW (‘Filmbewertungsstelle Wiesbatlen']; its purpose was to award quality ratings to films of ‘artistic merit‘ [wrrrt-oft‘ -F valuable, or besonders tvertvoii especially valuable]. A film with a quality rating was entitled to considerable relief from entertainment tart, which meant that it showed profit for the distributor on less real revenue. Given the low retums even on successful films, a quality rating often decided if a film was to be distributed at all. The so-called quality incentive worlred as an additional means of censorship. economically penalising politically inopportune fihns. Jean ltrlarie Straub‘s Chronicle of Anne Magdalene Bach [Cltroni-it der Anne llrlngdelenn Bach, 1963) had to fight a long and muchpublicised battle to get a rating at all. Since ministerial or local civil servants Ill

- Cit) Ci-c rt.

made up 4-fl per cent of the FBW membership, the state had a massive share of the vote determining filmic ‘quality‘. De fccto, the incentive functioned as an actual disincentive to producers and directors to tacltle ‘difficuIt‘ subjects. Instead of quality and experiment, it encouraged mediocrity and conformism, and the official list of ‘valuable‘ films for the liifrlls reads more lilte a roll call of the world‘s worst movies than a guide to a nation‘s film culture.“ The ratings were of economic significance only for as long as the federal states continued to tax films. With a deteriorating marltet, entertainment tax was greatly reduced, and the FBW‘s function dwindled accordingly. The intervening period between 1'iI'h2 and I967 saw the decisive struggles for a new Cierman cinema, which not only revealed the dilapidation of the established film industry, but gave prominence to another sort of subsidy altogether. lt tended to displace the combat cone from the film industry to the shadowy domain of ‘culture’. Cine of the peculiarities of the German federal system is that affairs of culture and education are under the jurisdiction of the individual states rather than the

federal govemment. Yet, at the time, it did not seem to make sense to encourage a 'regional' film industry. The federal government's interventions were thus limited to direct economic measures, lilte the guaranteed credits and the UFA handouts to the banlts. Entertainment tax and quality ratings being matters for the individual states to administer, the only level at which federal initiative did not violate the cultural sovereignty of the states was an international one. Thus it was the lvfinistry of the Interior, with funds to subsidise arts festivals, operas and cultural activities in West Berlin, which emerged as a sponsor. via the international film festivals (Berlin. Clberhausen. Mannheim]. Among the lvIinister's privileges is the award of annual prices for the best German feature film, and of production grants for ‘cultural‘ short films {lifnlmr-und Llokuirtentnrjfifnte]. Until 1961, when no prixe for the best feature film was given for laclt of suitable entries, the political bias of the awards was unmistaleable: the Minister regularly honoured films with a distinct anti-communist and pro-IWIATCI slant, usually stories dealing with Crermany‘s divided state from a Cold ‘War perspective. Wlten challenged on this, a lvlinistry spoltesman once tartly replied: ‘these prices are gifts. It is our right to choose to whom we want to present them.‘"‘ However unliitely such a policy was to encourage better films or help the international standing of the Gennan film industry, it was the lvlinistry of the Interior which became, especially during the Brandt government, one of the most important sources of finance for young film-malrers. Ctiven their close linlrs with government sponsorship, it was perhaps not surprising that the first articulated protest and counter-organisation emerged from the ranlts of the state-subsidised malters of ‘cultural’ shorts.

The fllberhausen Manifesto: Subsidy for Exporting Culture Clf the Eli film-matters, writers and artists who signed the lvlanifesto at the Gberhausen festival, most had acquired film experience through short films either subsidised by the lvfinistry or commissioned by oil companies and the chemical industry. Some, like iiluge, Iteita. Scbamoni. Senft. Spielser and Houwer, had won prizes at international festivals. What stung them into action was a justifiable sense of being neglected at home: The collapse of the commercial German film industry finally removes the economic

basis for a mode of film-matting whose attitude and practice we reject. ‘With it. the

at

Ctr git?

’

. ‘

C"

.--a ' ‘ A ~' \ .‘ ‘*3 "1

'.q .-

§

_

1

'

1' C‘

_

va

i -.

|

‘

xi

‘41

Hanna Schygulla and Rlidigcr Vogier (in the background Natasha Kiruki and Hans

cnmnm Birch) in Wanders’ Wrong Movement (I974) in her Heinrich (1977), and theatre director Hans Neuenfels made Heinrich Penrhesilia von Klein (1982), where Kleist‘s play. rehearsal scenes and discussions around his politics and life were intercut to probe the writer‘s peculiar fascination for both men and women. The very title of a film like Jutta Bri'tckner's Kolossale Liebe (Mighty Love, 1984, about the ageing Rachel Varnhagen, who headed a famous literary salon in Berlin of the 1820s) evokes Kleist, as does the characterisation of the manic depressive. highly lucid and radically egocentric heroine. A comparable culture hero was Reinhold Lenz, an eighteenth-century poet and former friend of Goethe's who became insane. Indeed, preferences for either Kleist. Goethe or Lenz indicates interesting differences among the ‘New Sensibility‘. Lenz had mainly survived as the hero of a fictionalised autobiography written by Georg Biichner in the 18305. who saw in Lenz‘ schizophrenia and spiritual turmoil a proto-revolutionary radicalism reacting not only to his social isolation but to a general estrangement of man from nature. Such ‘cultural’ schizophrenia made him in many ways a figure of the 19705 as well. ln this guise. he figures in George Moorse's Lenz (1970), from where a line can be traced to one of the most influential books of the post:|L_rci.r=l:;-1.12,,-zumrar-rIrtitg.c1,c

gtructive and the" inrlivicl al as inwar y §[e,s[|;_o_yed. At a glance, they rvrde into two smmetfim o|Esfil% overreachers of Signs of Life, Aguirre, Norferum, Frrccrrcldo and the underdogs of Even Drvorfit Stoned Smell, lfnrpcr Hcrrrer, -Frrosrelz and llfoyreclr. lijhetlrer supc rmenpr victims, however, 1-l_ercog"s protggoni:-its arenlways extreme, marginal andoutsrde, in relation to me"-5=‘fin= which is the social world, the world of history, that of ordinary beings. The existential dimension of his characters always seems to telre precedence over any social issue against which they might revolt or from which they might suffer. The heroes are either larger or smaller than life, but life for them is precisely the realm of the ordinary, the commonplace, the trnretrrarltable, the bureaucratic, th-e institutional, the petty and the mediocre. Dnly Where the Green Ann Drecnr [lilo die grrlrren rlrrrciscrr rrdumerr, 1934} is an exception, with a hero who appears to have been chosen for his ordinariness and determination to get involved in a qt-ceific, local ireue, the fight of a tribe of Australian aborigines to retain their sacred sites. Yet even this hero is a loner: Herr.og's characters are unattached end total individuelists. Where they are married =[5tro-seek in Signs of Life, Ill

Cit) glc

._

Angela Winkler in Schléndorfihon Trotta’: The Lost Honour of Kltharinl Blum (I975)

Dirk Bagnrde in Fassbinder’: Despair (I978)

jpQ

?

Bruno Gan: and Angela Winkler in Reinhard Hauff: Knife in the Head (I978) ZI9

’

C-0‘

H

- ~= w:+

I

Between over-teacher and underdog: the difierrm [aces of Klaus Kinski in Herzog‘:

Nosferatu (I978) . . .

V

-1

I

\

T. Aguirre Wrath of God (1072; . . . . . rand Woyuck (I978)

3 .' "_

_"fl;1 ' 5\-1'3‘ an 1

';--;~5'.

l-

I'1'

$6» -'-:1

.

-»~-

=**-y

1‘¥‘l._l

Baroque tlmurum mundi in Syberberg‘: Ludwig- Requiem for a Virgin King (I971)

Rainer Werner Fassbinder arguing with his mother (Lilo Pempeit) in Gennany in Autumn (I978)

' _ -

inwardnem. the flight from reality, practised by failed revolutionaries at least since the Romantic period in the 18205. The mthless power politicians, according to Syberberg, have always as their alter ego a sentimental aesthete, and the sadistic realist often hides a masochistic dreamer. By staying close to what he perceives to be the popular residue of history, the sentimental stereotypes. Syberberg wanted to worlr with the kitsch imagination and what he termed I86

Co 310

rt; -

sh,

‘culttu'al refuse‘. For him they documented the feelings of common people about events and historical crises, but also contained attitudes that could be called ‘realistic’ in that cynicism and wishful thinlting are present in equal measure. ln the Hitler film, however, the question arises whether one could actually treat the emotional and sentimental detritus from this period as if it was now dead. Dr did Syberberg succumb to the fascination still contained in the paraphernalia and imagery of Fascism? With regard to the emotions mobilised by the Harzis and their iconography, Syberberg was, after 5chroeter"s Bomber Pilot {l'£.fi"[l}, tlte first ‘West German film-malter who presented them directly. In contrast to Joachim Fest he neither reproduced the aesthetic forms by showing original footage as ‘documentary’. nor accompanied them with a pseudo-objective commentary. lnstead, by restaging the emotions through deliberately more primitive technical means (baclt-projection, puppets, papier mach:-E sets} Syberberg wanted to marlt. both the distance and tlte prosimity of this repressed part of Germans‘ emotional lives. His style might be seen as parody or pastiche, but was more pertinently part of that Truercrheit which esposes the spectator once more to fascination in order to recognise within oneself what it was one had lost and was secretly disavowing. That the cinema has an especially ambivalent role in the representation of Nazism derives not least from the fact that German Fascism has left a more complete account, in sight and sound, in visual records and staged celebrations, of itself and in version of history than any previous regime or period. Leni Riefcnstahl‘s Triumph of the Will is not so much the record of the I934 Hational Socialist Party Congress in Hurem berg as its visual-drramatic—aural or architectural n-use en scene. What maltes the ambivalence and fascination surrounding this film survive all directly political deoonstructions of its message is that, through television, one has come to live with its underlying aesthetics: that public events are often staged, that news is made rather than simply happens. ln this respect, 5yberberg's ironic pastiche is perhaps after all vulnerable to the critique that it belongs to the discourse of the New litight. Hy producing Fascism‘s own fascination with ‘ititsch and death“"‘ it provides a very problematic spectatorposition for the nostalgic self. Yet these very terms imply that the question of Fascism in the cinema is part of the wider, no less problematic relationship between history and the cinetna generally, and the surplus meaning carried by any history reproduced or represented by film, and more generally, by aural and photographic evidence.”

Fassblnder‘s Germany The question is particularly relevant in the case of Fassbinder who, from the midl'.-l‘l'tIls onwards, set out almost systematically to document German history this century. He toolt a decision to rewrite it as German film history. But :1:-1r_r._1__th_:sn anyone else he saw Fascism in relation to the present, and its representatioh across the dialectics of identification, the splitting and doubling of the self. If The ll-forritrge of Moria Erato: was to be called ‘The lvlartiages of Dur Parents‘ and be part of an omnibus film, one can get a glimpse of what Fassbinder‘s contribution might have been lilte from watchin Ge@m n. In an artlessly casual

but carefully scripted ititcrview si7it%1 his mother he mercilessly interrogates her until she finally confesses that the government she feels happiest with would be a dictatorship —— ‘but a gentle. benevolent one‘. While his mother, in the face of

so

Ci til be rt.-

Klaus Lciwiurlt, Hanna Sckygulla and George Byrd

in The Marriage of Maria Braun (I979)

a

g .

Q

F‘ F1 PW

'

ever more ubiquitous bureaucratic surveillance systems. wants Hitler back, and most of the intellectuals portrayed in other episodes of the film display a headlong flight into paranoia, Fassbinder toys with another gesture: an act of terrorist exhibitionism which tums the machinery of surveillance. including the cinema. into an occasion for self-display. Having established via his mother an analogy between the Federal Republic and its own Fascist past. Fassbinder enacts, es ‘ally in the scenes with his lover A_gnin.both the eneral pifinoia lbllowtng the breakdown of authority, and its narcissistidexhibiuonfifolwetsefWlilch emerges as the subjective dimension of a Fascist society. Naked. in frontal view. close to the camera, he shows himself mentally falling to pieces under the pressure of police sirens. house searches and the virtual news blackout in the media. The heavy. obese presence of his own body filling the frame, Fassbinder alternates between self-loathing and self-love, an ambiguity projected aggresively on the mother and the lover in tum. The connection between paranoia and narcissistic object choice is made by a double metaphor. Fassbinder cuts from his mother advocating the virtues of confonnity and submission to a helpless embrace with his lover as they both roll naked on the floor. Like Hermann Hermann in Despair, he tries to escape from paranoia by mirroring himself in his double.” T l‘I_ie_MgrrLagg2fMari'a Brawt. onthe other hand. initiated for the New Germs inema the tum _to ‘history from below‘, with its stories and experiences o rdinary people, ol'—fain|hes lot it-sa1Tfi1= problem of getting firewood for their tove or cigarettes to use as ‘hard currency‘ on the black market was more acute than Konrad Adenauer‘s assertion on the radio that Germany would never again rearm. In actgl fact, Fassbinder was reinventing the By quoting scenes and shots whichT§l_become the icons of the postwar period not only through television putting on films from the 19505, but because they circulated as coffee table books of newsreel photos and other visual memorabilia, the filmmaker could avail himself of - and ironically wntment on - the fetish objects of historical truth. ’c Vet Fass5tnder‘s project was a more ambitious one, especially if one considers his films from the 1970:, not in the order he made them but in the chronology of the periods they depict. They reveal a positively nineteenth century voraciousness for history, and Balzac‘s Carnédie Hurnaine comes to mind, or Trollope, Galsworthy or Thomas Hardy. The wealth of characters and situations, of stories. types and people is astounding in a work that had barely more than a decade,

%~

268

‘

GO

H

-

‘HE--‘l

from 1963 to 1982, to develop and fulfil itself, Fassbinder also stretched our notion of Geirnan history beyond the decade 1933-45. Efli Briert: the Prussian aristocracy in the 1li9i]s; Berlin Aieeandeiyiiair: prolctarian life in the growing capital of the Reich between 1922 and 1929; Despair: the rise of Fascism ariiong the wealtlty middle class from 1932 to 1935; Lili Marieen: the career of a nightclub singer from 193-ft to 1945, among the upper echelons of the Party between Berlin, lviunich and Zurich; The Marriage of Maria Brat-in: the economic miracle in the Cologne area froiii 1945 to 1953; Lola: the Adenauer years, and local lltics between 1955- 1953; Vemniha Foss: show business, drugs and Munich high-lllfi: in the mid 195[is; The Merchant of Four .5'ea.son.s: petty-bourgeois family life iii the lvlunich suburbs around 19tiIl Either films, such as The Third Generation and In it Year of Thirteen Moons continued this history up to the mid- and late 1 Ills. %-lluge.had used documentary and newsrcel footage, family snapshots and fictional scenes in The Patriot for a cut-up representation of the many layers that italic u|;'i'a sense of living in and through history. irbergfhhd worlred rnore

with an amalgam of camp_arid_ldtsgh_ seen through the mythology of Wagricr or 1'-lietrschean philosophy- Eassbinderntade a decision to use narrative and to tell stoijfes in his reckoning wit.li German history: to opt, in other words, for the illusion of realism hfllghiflflflilil Ii? stylisation and artifice, and to go for this version ' ry to the‘CI.11El'l!Ifllfi-E-i of histo t Ho t ony l copying t e air-os,co t esan d I-ilCEE55Dl'IE5+ The epfiemeral aspects of life that constitute what is mlled a period style but the gestures What he had learnt from imitating the American cinema he now much more sltilfully cirtcnded to the Cierinan cinema produciiiga sense of disturbing famihanty It was a controversial move For Fassbinder it seems that a return to history meant estabhslting above all a continuity within discontinu ity and thus an acltnowledgenient of collusion of the present with the pest on the basis not so much of a hunger for citpenence but a huo r for images so that in the stories he told the repressed of German history id seem to return the uriheirniich did become heirriiich — canny and familiar

l

History The Motherls Story Fassbinder in this sense might be said to have rediscovered the value of the family. But not as the bastion of strength it had been in the immediate postwar cinema, where mothers and fathers, sons and daughters huddled together to survive the blows of fate, or be reunited in the last reel, but rather as the trite battlefield and theatre of war. To this eiitent the Gennan cinema did find its way back to history by finding Gennan history right in the home. As Alexander Kluge put it: what bad to come under scrutiny was how the Haai regime was able to Iteep the Gennan family idyll intact right neitt to the concentration camp, ' Cine film which perhaps more than any other tried to answer this guestion, w I e il in on Ea need to tell stories of families and settin oih the private co'i'1"seh'i"iE‘nces oi the cfimpromised father, was Helma Sanders~Hr5.lims' i.'i'ei-iiiany Pale Mother. The title is talten from a poem by Brecht, spolten in a gravelly voice by Brecht's own daughter Hanne Hiob. A woman's voice-over then igfogms us that this is the story of ber mother, how she met lier ffiture husband, their courtship and- @d with the outbreak of the war. Wliilc Hans is at the front. Leni has to cope with his absence, fin the few occasions H9

CL-ti glc

ls

if |4=

\

9|

_1;""

..

-

,

0

'.'

.

.

ii.

-

-1‘:

1

if

* " -If t '| " . .. 0 I‘ ._, I .'A-F‘. UL. _ vi‘ iii -‘ ‘an-‘UM _‘:'h':_-J» ~ J ., -_;_ _ _ .

Elisnbetli Trisiertnar and Hanna Schygtiiid

in Fassbinder’: The Marriage of Maria Braun (I979)

Eva Marie: in Germany Pale Mother (I979)

they see each other in the years to follow, it becomes clear that their experience of war is so radically different in emotional and psychic tertns as to condemn each to suffer and desire in solitude. For Leni the birth of a child is the beginning of a heroic private war of survival. where mother and daughter exist in and through each other in mutual interdependence and as each other's mirror images. For Hans, the existence of the child confirms his total exclusion from this charmed circle of reinforcing identities. But it is during the postwar years dedicated to rebuilding and reconstructing the devastated country that the inverse symmetrical destniction of the family becomes evident. Hans‘ return from captivity and his sullen stniggle to impose himself as a father and authority drives a wedge between mother and daughter that makes the mother a physical cripple and a potential suicide. while it turns the daughter into a cheerless. all-too-knowing, inhibited little girl. Germany Pale Mother describes the drama of the absent father in the most starkly realistic terms. It derives its pathos from the fact that Hans, an opponent of the Nazi regime, returns from the war an emotionally cold. hard and authoritarian man. hiding his own disappointment and disorientation behind a facade of punishing and self~punishing severity. But it also dramatises. as no other narrative feature film. a woman's resistance to re-entering a reconstituted patriarchy. In SandersBrahms' film it is the heroine's body that bears quite literally the physical marks and the mental scars of the Gennan reconstruction effort. Germany Pale Mother, in spite of its title, refrains from using the woman as a metaphor and allegorical figure in the way Fassbinder‘s Maria Braurt, for instance, can call herself ‘the Mata Hari of the Economic Miracle‘. Where Maria Braun comes to symbolise thc complex relations of substitution and exchange around which Fassbinder has constnicted his story, Leni's ravaged face and body remain on the screen well after the film has exhausted its narrative — refusing to release the spectator into meaning. 2'70

Co 310

if

-

.,,,_,

White relephoneszrd the ‘Mm Hari of the Economic Miracle‘: xarfiakmci and Hanna Sclryguila in Fassbinder’: The Marriage of Maria Braun (I979)

The Impact offlolocaust A sentimental bracketing of the family and the eoneentration camp characterised the most overtly commercial venture into ‘retro~spectacle‘ — the American NBC television series Holocaust. Yet this very conjunction may help to explain why German audiences were so powerfully affected by it as to make Holocaust an unprecedented media event. More than any documentary or any personal account. this fiction film. although of mediocre quality, provoked a tnily emotional outburst: after the first telecast on Monday January 22 1979. the ARD staff received more than S000 frenn'ed passionate telephone calls, which constituted a veritable event in the history of the relationship between German television and its publie." ‘the series started a heated public discussion not only about this (in West Germany) least-discussed aspect of the Third Reich, but also about the ethics of tuming an occasion of national shame into a family melodrama and thriller. If, however, a soap opera managed what no documentary film, no literary account. no commemorative event had achieved, namely to bring home the horrors of Nazi rule and to open the locked doors of memory, conscience and personal history - as Holocarut seemed to do for millions of Gennans - then objections on the grounds of aesthetics might be misplaced. Die Zeil even went so far as to suggest that a ‘wish to forget these events. especially since the impulse to remember them has come from abroad, hides behind a high-minded disapproval of the form‘." Peter Marthesheimer. responsible for acquiring Holocaust tor German TV and 271

i

w

‘"

3

‘ (_1O~ 81¢

,

an

' ~= " cw em

also Fassbinder‘: rcriptwriter on lilte Herricge of Htrrr'o Hrutrrr, argued that given the very special historical circumstances and ‘the mechanism of identification‘ employed by the progrurrrme, its effect was emotionally overwhelming irrespective of its ‘ttrtistic‘ merits. [In I945] individual Eiermnnt bore 3 responsibility alone, without ever haying had to bear such responsibility for their own actions . . . these people put their soul on ice . . . [Watching Holocrltttt the viewer was freed] from the horrible, pr-uelyeing ttnliety that has remained repressed for tlectrdee. that we in truth were in leigue with the murderers. Instead, we are ahle to ertperience, ae in the psycho-drama of

e therapeutic ettperintent, every phase of the horror which we are supposed to have committed against the other - in our-selves . . . to feel and to suffer it . . . and deal with it are our own truurnufi"

ls lvlirtbeeheimer, to counter objections to German history being ‘made in Hollywood‘, simply spelling out the narrative etretegim of every commercial fiction film? And do not the abstract nature und generality of mech:-.'o1ietr|e of suspense and identification, cut loose from personal memory und its specifies, actually betray the very idea of ‘working through‘ which he seems to advocate? This might well have been the line tulten by Edgar Reitr, who argued that he wm glad Hofoc.-:rr.r.tt had not been made in Gerrnuny ‘hecattee that would mean

its commercial aesthetic which dominates the intemational mnrltet had established itself also in Germany‘. ‘With an article entitled ‘Let’: worlt on our memories‘ he participated quite vigorously in the debate sporlted off by Hofocurtrr: If we are to come to terms with the Third lteicir and the crimes committed in our country it has to he by the some means we use every day to ttrlte etoelt of the world we live in. We eufferfrom a hopeless laclt of meaningfully com municated ertperience.

fine should put un end to thinking in categories in this respect, even where this terrible part of our history is concemed. rite far as possible, we must work on our

memories. This way, iilme, literature, images come into being that bring ue to our tenses and reetore our reflexes.“ The passage pleads quite ettplicitly for u ‘cinema of ertperience‘ in respect of representing history, by contrast to Hofocuurfe use of an ‘ertperience of cinema‘

in order to convey the reality of the historical evente. Reite actually provides u very useful definition of both: 'Tl1e difference between rt scene that rings tnre and a scene written by oornnrerciel

to in Hclocuror, is similar to that between

und fopiniggj.

lfipinions about events can be circulated separately, m.i-tnrpulr-rteT:l, pushed ucrom

detlis, bought and soidfl’-.rpeiic'ncei, on the other hand, are tied to human beings and their faculty of mentory, they become false or falsified when living details are

replaced in an effort to eliminate subjectivity und nniq uenese. There are thousands of stories among our people that are worth being filnred, that are bttsed on

irrituringly detailed ertperiences which apparently do not contribute to judging or explaining history, but whose sum total would actually fill this gap. Authors ell over the worid are trying to take poesestion of their history, but they often find

that it is tom out of their hands. Tire moot serious act of expropriation occurs when people are deprived of their hir.tory. Witlr Hclocuurr, the Americarrs have tttlten away our history."

2'11

Ctr git:

Heimat Elf the projects trying to counter Holocaust on its own ternts, the most remarkable was Reita‘ sixteen-hour nine-part series Heimat, made between 19?? and 1934. Screened on television, after a brief but highly visible release in the cinemas, it served Reite as a tut case of whether, through television, a nation can ‘talc: possession’ of its history. The secret of the undoubted impact of Heimat, I would argue, lies in Reitx having found3_@Eula_which synthesises the autobiographical E_r§p_g;cjq_gof _a history from below) with the narrational strategies of identif|ca+ tton. A su tle, cinematically highly self~conscious narrative, supported by m_aiTy parallels and repetitions, ironies and symmetries, gives this story of a rural community and the lives of three generatiorts a complex internal frame of en+ abynte mirroring effects, comparable to Germany in .-tlummn or The German Sisters but on a vastly extended scale - from 1919' to 1982 to be exact. The title, inadequately translated as ‘Homeland*, is an irttensely emotional concept, always implying both a retum to imaginary or real origins and roots, and a totalising, acquisitive gesture. Larger than the nation state, it tries to embrace and unify culture, lartguage, history and geography. Yet Heimat also has predominantly rural associations and is therefore closely linlted to tlte land and soil, even to a particular landscape or a region. As such it has been much abused by German nationalists from the Romantics to our day. Every expansionist or annexation policy in -Gennan history has been justified by the slogan ‘Heimat’ or, as with Hitler, ‘Helm ins Reich’. To call a blew German film Heimat was therefore a calculated provocation and was bound to be controversial. fin television the series is a chronicle. First centred on Katharina, tlte motherfigure who tries to hold the family together, and then on fvlaria, ber daughter-ins law bringing up three sons without a father, the episodes are introduced by Glasisch, a good-natured village idiot, shuffling through a staclr of photographs which serve to recapitulate the story and irttro-duce subsequent episodes. For each update Cilasisch changes the emphasis. literally able to ‘drop' characters and ‘pick up‘ others, depending on the snapshots he chooses. His story-teller stance fosters the sense of scenes which come alive from a family album, but he also balances spectatorial distance and proximity. intimating that he is in love with lvlaria, but from afar. Despite the many characters and incidents the main protagonist in Heimat is time itself, eating into the characters‘ feature.s, bearing down on their bodies and hardening their attitudes. Especially revealing is the cltoice of actors who play lvlaria‘s sons at different stages in their lives. Anton becomes stocltier and more thicltset as his devotion to marlreting his optical inventions turns into a mixture of business caution and moral complacency. Ernst, an ace Luftwaffe pilot during the war, becomes ever thinner and more ferret-lilte after his marriage for money breaks up and he enters the antiques business, scouring the region for peasant furniture and fann implements to sell to t'I.'ologne or [liisseldorf nightclubs for their decor. Hermann, the youngest. turns from a vulnerable adolescent troubadour to a coldly elegant composer of electronic musique concrete. To all appearances he is a city-bred intellectual, who returns to the village resentfully and in the event too late to malte peace with his mother, who once tool: out her incestuous feelings on the ‘dark’ woman Hermann was in love with. It is through the details of the actors‘ body language, the objects liteita surrounds the action with, and especially the role these play in both situating the period and the personalities, that the film comes into its own as cinema. Freed from the fill

Cit; glc

commentary, tlte story has a more epic sweep, but unlike other family sagas such as The Godfather or illtkl, whose journeys through time take their predominantly male protagonists on quests either into distant parts or towards self-realisation, Heimat abandons its males once they abandon the charmed circle of their S-chabbach village. The only exception is Eduard, the eldest of the Simon brothers,

who figures in the episode set in Berlin during the blaxi seixure of power. He, however, is in many ways the least independent, and his stay in Berlin only highlights his need to return to the Hunsrilck region. At one point he voices what is certainly one side of the dialectic on which Reite has built his film: the feeling that if everything stayed the same as it is now {the year is 1933), he could be happy for ever after. His mother Katharina, though, knows better; the new millennium lives on credit — borrowed money, a borrowed creed and borrowed time. Heirnsr‘s leisurely pace, the emphasis on the changing seasons, the idyllic moments of picnim and outing, are not, as in a Hollywood production, the preludes or counterpoints to dramatic climaxes or scenes of cathartic violence: they ore the drama. The good things in life - which for Katharina means listening to It Christmas choir, for Pauline going to the movies, for lvlartina making raisilfl

and potato pancakes and for Maria buying her son a model airplane — are undermined not by the dramatic intrusion of political events or even by the war. instead it is the scars that tlte small sins of commission or omission, petty injustices. moments of cowardice, indecision or opportunism leave on life and relationships that destroy the community of Schahbach. Reitfs plea for a cinema of memory directly communicating individual experience, unprocessed as it were and thus amounting to a collective history, does not translate easily into practice and neither is it altogether his own. lt is true that for a German audience there must be literally hundreds of details and scores of incidents that ring absolutely true, because they spark off personal memories and allow an audience to recognise themselves. But Heimat is not only a complexly layered film full of implications for the post-lilofl political scene in its undercurrent of anti-Americanism, which allows one to see some of the sentiments and resentmettts that have transfonned portions of the blew Left into

the Green Party. There are echoes of The tlldyssey and of the Return of the Prodigal Son, but also of Siegfried and Patsifal myths. The women characters, too, allude to biblical as well as mythological figures. Heimat also has a more narrowly film—political subtext, for in the opposition between those who stayed behind [or returned}. and those who thought they had to seek fame and fortune abroad, one can read the polarities of the New German Cinema itself, between intemational auteurs {Americanophiles like Herrog and Wenders}, and those directors who, like Kluge and Reita, have remained faithful to their roots. Reits had already in earlier films explored the historical and political aspects of that mythical search for origins so typical of postwar German culture. At times it was explicitly related to i945 as in Zero Hour (Srunde Null, 15!?-ft}, which tells of the end of the war in a village near Leipzig as American troops evacuate and cede part of the territorial gains to the Rumians. True to the topos fixed by Kleist in The Enrtfrqucire in Ciriie, the film details the villagers‘ depressingly swift accommodation to three different masters in as many months. In another ileitx film, The Trip to Vienna (Die Reise noel: l~lr'ierr, 1973}, the ambiguity of a return to origins and the hope for a fresh start get translated into the dualism of home

and abroad, of rootedness in central Europe and emigration to America. thus anticipating many motifs from Heimat. I74

= GL1 git:

Heimat, Home and Happiness: Marita Brewer and Edgar Reitz

-

I‘

Riidiger Weigand and Karin Raunaclz

-1 "c

-

and the whale crmfor the fnrnily album (Re£|‘2’ Heimat, I984)

275

I‘

(:lO\

fl .“E:~ -

ll:

Fact (Edgar Ret'tz' Geschichten aus den Hunsrtlckdorfem. rho! while preparing Heimat)

. . . and Fiction. . . (Edgar Rein’ Heimat. I934)

But where Heimat is more ambitious than Reitz‘ previous films, and particularly instructive in relation to Holocaust, is in its many references to other films, and to the impact of the mass media, communication and transport. Not only are the first automobiles, the arrival of telephone wires and the building of new roads major events for the village. The film as a whole thematises its conflicts and characterises its protagonists via the instntments of recording, diffusing and consuming experiences in vicarious forms. Paul's interest in radio, Anton‘s in optics, Eduard's in photography, Emst‘s in aviation and Hennann’s in electronic music become in the course of the film very complexly handled symbols of (especially) the men's very displaced and mediated relation to experience and their own self-images. Reitz also includes an extract from a very popular 1938 Zarah Leander film. directed by Carl Froelich. called Heimat — another en-abyme device, not just because of the title. Zarah Leander is a crucial reference point for several characters in Heimat, for the women who stay at home (and dream of Spain. Italy and the south), as well as for the men on the front (who dream of retuming Zero Hour then . . . (Edgar Reitz‘ Zero Hour, I976)

. . . and now (Volker Schlfindorfi, Jerry Skolimowski and Bruno Gan: on the ‘set’ of Circle of Deceit. I981) .

-Q ""1 _

_.qa»g .

i

-__\._,

"-1

lg“ T 3» . ,7

, *

v »-

___ .9 _‘ ,7

_-

oi

1'76

‘

H

'

‘

jx.-;~ , “ill: ' _:

_. g J§‘__ 3 V 5 ~t 9

- ~=

new--‘l

. t

_

‘-

Dreaming of the South: Marita Breuer and Karin Kienzkr in Rein’ Heimat (I984) home). A movie star becomes the convergence of several not quite symmetrically placed fantasies: the very subject of Fassbinder's Lili Marleen, based on the life of another Nazi star, Lale Andersen. ln spite of his attack on Hollywood Reitz is thus clearly aware that, in our century, to talk about memory is to talk about images and sounds electronically or opticalfy produced. Audiovisual representations of events, whether newsrcel, family snapshots, big screen movies or recorded music, fascinate us with the instant presence they conjure up and their miraculous ability to annihilate time, distance and death. None of us can escape the force of images that always already exist, and to build a counter-memory from scratch would seem as heroic as it is impossible. Heimat, like Holocaust. was a media event. Reitz had argued that whatever happens in future to the cinema as a physical place where films are being shown publicly, what matters is that every country should be able to preserve a space where human beings can ‘encounter their own lives, their own world of experience in the constnicted and heightened form which is the work of filrn'." The cinema as a space and event implies, apart from a different relation to the subject, a different relation to the objective world — the environment. the landscape, the cities, the sites of work and production. In order to counter the violence of action narratives which always instnrmentalise the real, the most typical films of the New German Cinema did not, finally, invest the exterior world with a ‘soul’ as critics have claimed. Many of the films, however, offer the spectator a gaze, a way of seeing which, While not denying the violence that comes with rendering

everything visible to the eye — even the elegiac look is aware of its inherent Z77

Q0 glc

aggression - at least does not profit from it. Suspense and action cinema, with its ementially voyeuristic gaae and its ‘rape of ohjeets‘, tends to do just that. __The_ _lfl_e_w tfrernjargjlinema (of which Heintnt was perhaps intended as hoth a sumrming up and an epitaph], i__n_l:_|__rder to fi.n_d histor'y,_ had_tp_tirr‘n to the family gn_d_the home. Some of the most interesting films tried to get thishistory into focus by way of what one might call distorting mirrors: the mirrors of terrorism, of family violence and of the clinical disintegration of a personality. Reita chose a different route. The paradox of his project of ‘rcpossessing our history‘ is that the cinema, even where it is not a spectacular restaging of the past but a ‘workingthrough* in the sense of filmic Trnuernrbeir, encounters the fact that photographic memory is especially selective; what it preserves is often a oonservative, nostalgic sense of loss. From painful events, too, it can draw the perverse hut real pleasures of regret. il|5_.’_[et_um to history through the suhjective, the autobiographical, but even more, a return tohlstllry through it_s_i_magJc5. E-tinflfll but he an elegy. a lament, a dwelling on destruction. Thus the trauma of burying and repressing the'*pasl'T the collective atr1ii'esirT'~' which had characterised -Eierrnan society for the first three decades after the war seemed to have been lifted only at the prioe of nostalgia, of a gratifying identification with victims, and with oneself as victim. if not of history, then of time itself. And since nostalgia is also the emotion typical of tlte cinema itself Heimat, lilte other films of the German cinema that have returned home to history, works with nostalgia for nostalgia: the memory and recognition of images which have heen seen many times before. History has hecome an old movie. wi1ly~nilly. Arid that - if the history happens to he that of Germany this century - must give pause for thought.

IT!

- Cir; glc

9: National or International Cinema?

From Identification to Identity? By the beginning of the I95-(ls, then, the Hew Crerman Cinema had in effect established a thematic and social space where its films oould be seen as formally coherent and historically determined. Furthermore, if a film like f.'ittinger*s Ticket of No Return [Hildnrlr einer Trfnkerin, 19??) satirised not the Hollywood genre film, but its intended alternative, namely the independent New German film, it proved the existence of an identifiable constituency at home as well. For the reason Ctttinger oould be polemical about audience expectations was the new cinema‘s own successful presentation of itself as a critical cinema, speaking directly to its audiences and their desire for social relevance and personal commitment. This in turn was art indication that the New German Cinema, despite its heterogeneous output, its cult of individual authorship and marginal appeal when measured against Hollywood genre cinema, had in fact developed identification marks which signalled to its audiences relatively stable spectator erpectations. These, evidently, were recognised more easily in Crerrnany itself. They made cinema in Germany the privileged medium for representing certain images of the nation, but in most cases against the background of social and political history rather than film history. The 1"~lew Crerman Cinema at home during the 1!-T.-'lls was in some sense a cinema for those who do not go to the cinema. This is what might be meant by the label ‘content-oriented‘: that independent, state-financed cinema actually found itself involved in general political and cultural issues, quite apart from the films‘ entertainment values. What was at stake was a temporary redefinition and appropriation of the cinema as a kind of public forum in a period of acute polarisation caused by social and economic crises, during which the media had assumed some of the functions and status of civic institutions. Within Germany, therefore, a sense of coherence for this cinema was rarely associated with the label ‘Hew Crennan Cinema‘, which was always felt to be a foreign import. Instead one finds the many bi-polar schemes discussed above: oontentistlsensihilist, realistfstylised, Berlin school versus lvlunich school, television versus cinema, progressive versus reactionary, rationalist versus romantic. Hut as l have tried to argue, not only are these categories insufficient and selfcontradictory,‘ they do not convey the actual field of force in which this cinema developed: the redefinition of the media and their general social function. This is why in the German contest documentary production seems closer to the fiction films than either of these are to Hollywood. Both documentary and fiction films were united by complementary sets of terrtual and interterrtual references, centred I'll!

Cir: glc

on the question of identification, in its psycho-historical as well as in its specifically filmic sense. The overall effect was that social issues, self-representation and role models took on some of the functions traditionally assumed in the Hollywood cinema by generic codes, by stars and a stable narrative syntax. The meaning of these stable elements in Gerrnan film-making in the 1‘J‘Tils, however, derived from debates and assumptions which never took the industrially produced feature films as the norm, not even as a counterexample. Films may have required detailed knowledge and recognition on the part of the spectator (in fittinger‘s example, the Berlin documentary school], but this information wm present in the film as a stance rather than as its subject matter. Undeniably, however, it was out of a particular constellation — the absent and at the same time monstrous father in a society still under thc sway of patriarchy —~ that the New Gennan Cinema created some of the main points of reference which gave it emotional appeal and structural coherence, and thus an audience beyond its national boundaries. The themes of isolation, loneliness and despair noted at the beginning of the previous chapter were thus not so much the symptomatic indications of a loss of identity, or a failure of nerve, which is how they struck many left-wing critics, not only in C-ermany,* but elements of a critique. What rnade this critique original was that it was not formulated in the terms of a critique, but as a playing out, a ‘working th rough‘: taking the forms of Trnuerrrrbeit and melancholy discussed in the previous chapter. It brought into view a stark antithesis around which the first Gennan postwar generation conceived many of its personal narratives: violence against the self or siolence against the Ctther. ln many of the realist fiction films the alternative was suicide or terrorism, in ‘experimental’ and feminist films it found expression in the seemingly endless processes of mirroring and doubling, frequently also only resolved by deatlt. If such were the basic terms of a mythological structure, they also added up to an ideological self-portrait of a generation. Testing borderlines, limits and extremes, as in the case of Hetxog and ‘Henders, confronting painful memories from their own individual past, like Helma SandersHrahms, lutta Hriickner and Helke Sander; living their lives and_tlteir sexuality under the public gaze, like Fassbinder or ‘Werner Schroeter, film~makers eonfr-on+ ted the law of the father on the side of exhibitionism and narcissism, putting on a spectacle of self-display. Rather than intcrnalise the latent conflicts which Crerman postwar history and the legacy of a particular culture had programmed into them, feminist and gay film-makers in particular tried to restage the traumas in their films, often making the body itself the site of division, transgression and the transformation of sexual identity. The result was a cinema of excess and melancholy, which challenged the norms of cinema almost inadvertently. while seeking the representation of subject positions outside patriarchy and partriarchal definitions of the self. From the potential fate of neurosis and depression that seemed built into the cultural fabric, blew Crerman films escaped into ‘perversion’, the pleasurable side of neurosis. Ely focusing so powerfully on negative states and painful experiences, however, they also helped to shape a cultural paradigm that gave to their domestic audiences and to the rest of the world a contemporary myth of Germany in which more and more of their generation — even where they did not share the same historical experiences - could recognise themselves. The film-makers, out of the very absence of a cultural continuity or a national identity in the aftermath of Hitler, fashioned a negative identity whose apparent pessimism was the very condition I-Ill

Cir; 3]-.3

of its psychological and political truth. This was not only because spectatorial identity and coherence in the cinema is most intensely dramatised in structures of absence artd lack. Circulating in abncst all the films is an aggression which is aho a force of contestation and contradiction. Llncontained within the family, and invested with powerful taboos relating to sexuality and desire, this violence finds its form mainly in the spectacle of gestures and faces both beautiful and pathetic. The films established, but also changed. horiaons of expectations. For the turn to history, the reactions to Holocaust and the discussions arotmd a feminist aesthetic contributed to making the notion of ‘experience‘ more complex. ‘With identification no longer based solely on empathy and direct recognition, film forms emerged which allowed the very mechanisms of projection and identification to surface and articulate themselves. ln this sense both the identification mechanisms of classical cinema, as well as firechtian were eftiectively challenged and revised.

The spectrum is a broad one, as we have seen. There were directors interested irt validating experience by giving the illusion of presence (Schldndorff, Hauff and Eiewer], directors who wanted to organise experience as a productive category {Kluge}, those who wanted to estrange experience {Hereog} and those who wanted to cleconstruct the very nature of cinematic experience {Farocki]|. Fmbinder, ‘Wenders, Schroeter, .A.chternbusch, Ctttinger, Sanders-Brahms, Sander, but also von Trotta in some of her films. and, more recently, Doris Dorrie, took as their basic theme and material the fact that spectators respond not to content but to images: self-images, mirror-images, spectatorial subjectpositions.

lt migltt appear as if film-makers consciously planned their films according to the issues in current film theory. This is of course not tlte case, since the debates were above all about the politics of film culture. But what I have tried to argue in the previous chapters is that the films addressed distinctive fortns of subjectivity and responded - in filmic fonns- to such apparently non-filmic issues as ‘experience of self'hood', ‘identity‘, ‘selzf-mtrangement‘ {sunmted up as ‘Selbs:terfahrung‘]. This meant that film-makers nirned to audiences in forms which - because of the inherently ‘cultural’ brief — were often very distinct from the identification mechanisms of commercial cinema. The result was films that, far from being either exercism in self-expression or conventionally ‘ctitical', tried to involve the spectator by dramatising and thematising a narcissism ambiguously poised between nostalgia and loss, seducing the spectator via self-oblivion and self-display. Evidently, some film-makers gave more scope to this process than others, and in more suggestive ways. The question would require a more detailed and more differentiated analysis of individual texts or oeuvres than is possible here. l have discussed elsewhere“ the imaginary addressee implied in the works of certain filmmakers, notably in Fassbinder's films {The Merctltttttt of Four Seeronr. Fear Eats the Soul, flespnir, The rlfnrringe ofllrfnrin Brrrurr and Lili ll-fnrleert), in Syberberg, ‘Wenders, Hetaog, tlichternbusch, Farccki and Helke Sander. But to what extent there was indeed a ‘politics of identification‘ at work could be seen by the refusal of the film-making community to endorse, for hrstance, Joachim Fest's Hitler eine Ifnrrierr or to adopt the narrative strategies of the Holocaust series.

Kluge and the Spectator Film Looking at the situation in the late-19%. however. it “o clear that there has been Ill

= Grit 311.:

a marked shift away from the ‘cinema of ex|:rerience‘ to a more conventional ‘experience of cirtema‘ artd to internally generated recognition effects. Such a development was to be expected. not least because a new fihn culture emerged in Crennany itself. lt also reflected the successes which an internationally recognisable ‘national cinema‘ achieved without having had recourse to pure formula film-making. Typical of this new drinking was a collection of essays and polemics, edited by Alexander Kluge in 1933, entitled Besmndsnufnniuner Utopia Film. Cme of the most surprising contributions was by Kluge himself, on the ingredients‘ which make a successful Gerrnan film - in his terms a ‘spectator film‘. In order to measure the change, one has to recall his arguments for the Autorenfiirn in the llltlilils, and his strictures against the ‘fihn by hrgredients“ made in the l€I‘i‘fls, sparked off by the poor box office performance of the New Crcnnan Cinema. ln a detailed gloss on the Dichter poll published in 1972, Kluge had tried to isolate the criteria for a cinema which would be clomr to the audience's needs: Ernest [Ilichter confronts performance prirtciple and leisure needs. He notes a lack

of norms and patterns of behaviour with regard to leisure . . . which also characterise the relations of spectator and cinema. This leads to a resigned attitude on the part

of the public attd the emergence of a casual audience whose behaviour neither the film producer nor the cinema owner can anticipate reliably. According to this

survey. the spectators‘ needs appear to be unstable . . . [lichter‘s analysis contains a whole topography of empirical data, which accurately describe the crisis of tlte

cinema in West Crermany as well as in its world-wide context. A close application of II'tichter‘s findings in the practice of the Gennan film industry would go a long

way.’

't‘et tlte conclusions Kluge drew led him to argue for a cinema ‘in the spectators‘ heads‘, that is, making their own experiences productive. In 1933, in an essay entitled ‘What spectators encounter before they see a film‘, Kluge continues his own research into the factors that come into play when someone decides to go to the cirtema. He now isolated four points: a} title ti} in which cinema and what public sphere does a film appear: the ‘direct image‘ of a film, how many cinemas start it, do the local papers treat it as if one had to have seen it? e] the links which the direct image of the film has with already well-k.nown filltts

or known extra-cinematic facts or events. lts similarity with films, themes. fomts which already enjoy the loyalty of a public. The direct image may also touch the

core of an emotion or an interest existing in the spectator but so far not covered by a film. Hut in this ease we have to speak of an indirect hrrage because the

rapprochement happens only gradually and over time. d} word of mouth. This of course can only occur if the film has already had exposure on a sufficiently broad basis.‘-"

lt will be obvious that these are much more ‘market-oriented‘ criteria, but with features relevant to the German situation, in that they theorise and rationalise the inherent production logic of the blew Crennan Cinema over the past decade. As we have seen, German film titles do in fact outline a field of definite associations artd convey ‘direct images‘ to the spectator: for instance, the emphasis on cool facticity and understatement, stressing the documentary and exemplary nature of the story, its seriousness and importance. These associations, unusual for art international film. might well influence a non-Crermsn audience negatively. Such

:.-as

- Ctr Cl-c rt.

Linn Car-slenr in Bernhard .S'in.kel’.r Lina Braake (I975)

titles were, in a commercial contcttt. almost unrnarkctablc, unless their didacticpathetic tone is taken ironically, as was often the case with Fassbinder's films. On the other hand, they accommodated extremely well the desire, noted in the Dichtcr poll, of German audiences expecting from the cinema figures to identify with. If one considers one problem of the New Gennan film. namely not having at its disposal the range of stars that the American cinema could offer its public, one can see that in a sense the titles wanted to compensate for the guarantee of value attached to the stars by shifting this aura of certainty and value from the actor to thc character. The very definiteness and peremptory mode of address implicit in the names ensured a certain stability of the referent thus named. Indeed, among the films with the greatest box office success we do find precisely such titles. The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum, Efli Briesl, The Marriage of Maria Braun, Aguirre: Wrath of God, The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser and Lina Bmake: the German public is interested in character not action. At the same time, many of the films promise a case history. In this respect, too, the category of the ‘issue-oriented‘ film shows its shortcomings: the case history is not a social issue as such, but rather its subjective, individualised instance. Herc thc Gennan cinema responded with its own means to the personalisation of social isues as one knows it from Hollywood films, but by inverting the relationship between individual and society. Whereas in the classical genres, such as the Wcstcm, thc hero becomes the representative of social or cultural values on whose behalf he fights. in German films the individual is always seen as isolated, fighting society as an outsider, in thc name of irreducible, often eccentric singularity. In his 1983 essay Kluge calls the question of the title ‘thc Gcrman cinema‘s primary challenge’. For him, a good film title is always made up of a combination of indetcmrinacy and mystery: Mystery and indeterminacy can be an excellent point of attraction but not if the enigmatic part is formulated in an indeterminate way. The qution of dctenninacy in a film title is decided by the degree to which a perspective or movement within the title develops, almost invariably based on counterpoint. Generalised openness does not produce an image. The indctern-rinacy always comes out of a contrast with something dctcnnincd.’ Kluge makes a distinction between titles that associate particular referents (.4 nknripfungstilel) and unique titles (Origimzititei). Taking more or less at random 133

Go 31¢

l.

,-,,_,

192 film titles, Kluge seems to thinlt that proper name titles gain in direct appeal what they lose in indeterntinacy. This would confirm what I have argued earlier: that New German films, having deliberately or by default given up the attempt to address a general audience, were able to home in very precisely on certain target audiences. The titles define therefore quite precisely not so much the content of the film, and even less its style, but the implied spectators and the experience they expect from going to the cinema {Kluge calls this ‘anticipatory communication‘). To categorise this field of expectations and semi-conscious value judgements, lilluge introduces the terms ‘authentic promise‘ and congruence‘: ff we imagine the screen to be a sltin it is quite clear that audiences intuitively distinguish between an acned skin and a smooth one. I am convinced that the spectator’s reaction is in the first instance intuitive, connected with welcome

associations, which are rarely if ever fixed as to content. But without content or congruence the first positive skin contact will soon be disavowed. either when the spectator tests for meaning, or at the very latest when he discusses the film with

others. Examples of congruence: a film is being shown called “fou Can‘: Have Everything You Want‘ starring Elrristrine lliaufnrann. First reaction: a good fit. A

film is being shown called ‘You Carft Have Everything "t"ou Want‘ directed by lvlatgarethe von Trotta: spectator needs more information. The same film with

Romy Schneider: sure fire combination. “fou Can‘t Have What ‘t"ou Want‘ directed by R.W. Fassbinder starring Itiarlheina H-ii-htn: suspicious reaction. . . . The public

have a highly developed sense of authentic cinema-fare. Example of autltenticity: ‘Erwin The Nigger, a Bavarian film by Herbert Achterrtbttschf . . . Another

example: 50% of interviewees expressed interest. when given the title .-tlgttirre: Wrath of God, fi[l% ltnew Klaus lliinslti, of which 50% thought it especially exciting

to imagine seeing lilaus lllinslri as a wrathful god. lltlthough the film was playing at a studio cinema, only 12% had heard of the director Werner Hersog.‘

ln his reliance on the Dichter study and opinion polls such as the ones conducted by the Filmvericg der atsstoren {even if some of his information is clearly fabricated}, I-lluge followed a growing tendency among ‘West Cienrtan filmmalters: the turn towards more ‘commercial’ criteria. His ‘View from the Spectator‘ coincides rather closely with that of any industry-oriented producer conducting some basic marltet research and coming to the conclusion that Hollywood must be doing something right: The modertt [German] film has two competitive disadvarttagfi. Firstly, the

orientation factor provided by the stars during the first fifty years of the cinema‘s history has disappeared. Margaret Mitchell, author of Gone ll-*'i.t.h the Wind, wanted

Eiroucho lvlarx in the lead. The producers were right to insist on Clarl: Gable. Secondly, in place of the stars we now have more and more subject matter, while

at the same time films have lost the simplicity of classical narrative. To tell the story of a film in four sentences has become virtually impossible for most productions

during the past twenty years. This prevents a clear orientation of the public, except in special cases, e.g. The Tin flrttm, Chrirnstne F. and Marin Brett-tn, where the

subject has collective associations {the first is based on a famous novel, the other two were serialised in the popular press]? The At.‘.‘lfll' as Intertext l-f.luge*s apparent change of position can be seen in the context not of the failure of the New German Cinema, but of its successes. For he is quite right to stre Hi

Cit: 3]-.3

the compensatory relationship that exists between actors and subject matter on the one hand, and actors and genre (the four sentence plot) on the other. His. on the whole, rather negative assessment of the situation could be tumed positively, by saying that one of the assets the New German Cinema acquired in the 1970s and which crucially distinguished it from the Young German Film. was its actors and actresses. For what has allowed directors to move away from fonnula plots and make up for the absence of genres have been the ‘collective

associations‘ and the cross-referencing made possible by the emergence of a large number of high-visibility character actors alongside the few actors who have succeeded as intemational stars: Hanna Schygulla, Bntno Ganz. Klaus Kinslti. As a counter example, Klaus Maria Brandauer is not associated with the New German Cinema, but with the European art cinema. (top left) Magdalena Montezuma and

Nicola Zarbo in Werner Schroeter’: Palermo or Wolfsburg (I980) Wandering Stars: (bottom left) Ingrid

Coven in Syberberg’: Ludwig — Requiem for a Virgin King (I971) . . . and Eva Manes in Percy Adlon'.r Celeste fI98I)

The importance accorded to the actor from the 1970s onwards in the German Cinema is very striking. Before the l97[k most directors seem deliberately to have chosen either lay actors or players merging with their parts. ln keeping with the documentary impulse, the first films of Reitz. Schaaf, Pohland, Spieker. Syberberg and Herzog all seem to have one-off actors in the lead. Schlondorff experimented with foreign actors: Matthieu Carriere and Barbara Steele for Young Torless (1966), David Wamer for Michael Kohlhaas, the Rebel (1969). With Fassbinder and Schroeter two directors emerged whose mire en scene treated their actors as ‘stars‘ well before their talent or reputation legititnated them as such. Schroeter‘s Argila (1969) and Eilur Karnppa (1969) established Magdalena Montezuma as the undisputed star of the German underground, crucial to the films of Schroeter, but also for Ottinger and Elfi Mikesch. Fassbinder's conception of Hanna Schygulla was, as already mentioned, guided by the thought of building up a personal star system. 385

Co 310

W, -

.,,,_,

What gave the use of actors in the German cinema the dimension of a star system was their appearance in the films of different directors, which complemented their roles in the different films by the same director. One might, for instance. constmct for the New German Cinema a recognisable identity and an existence as a national cinema entirely on the basis of the different roles and personae that less than a dozen actors and actresses embodied in 40 or 50 films. Without Edith Clever, Angela Winkler. Eva Mattes. Katharina Thalbaeh. Rudiger Vogler. Harry Baer, Hanns Zischler, Mario Adorf, Peter Kem, Hark Bohm. Alfred Edel and Gottfried John, among others, backing up Hanna Schygulla. Barbara Sukovva and Bmno Ganz, the New German Cinema would disintegrate into individual films or at best individual directors.

Perenninlly popular villain: Mario Adorf in Robert Siodmak'.t The Devil Strikes at Night

(1957). . .

. . . and in Schl6ndorflTrotrn'.t The Lost Honour of Katharina

Blum (ms)

The actors helped establish an irltertextuality sufficiently stable to give the impression of a coherent fictional universe. although sufficiently variable to inhibit typecasting. To the persona of Hanna Schygulla belong, besides the roles she played for Fasbinder. also her parts in Wenders. Schlondorff and von Trotta. Edith Clever is associated with films by Rohmer. Handlre and Syberberg. Eva Manes’ role in Sanders-Brahms‘ Genrtany Pale Mother (1980) implies her role for l-{erzog (Stmuzek), which is itself based on the part she played in Fassbinder's Jailbail (Wildwcchsel, 1972). The recognition factor associated with these names was of incalculable benefit when the Gennan Cinema became known abroad. Their ‘surplus value‘ domestically derives in part from the fact that many of the actors are members of extremely vvell-known and prestigious theatre companies. first and foremost among them Peter Stein's Berlin Schaubuhne (Edith Clever, Bruno Ganz, Jutta lampe and Barbara Sukov/a).‘° It is worth pointing out that the directors who themselves became established as intemational auteurs have all extensively relied on actors to supply a system of stable references. Wemer Her1ng's rise to intemational fame, as the reference to Aguirre above reminds one, is intimately connected with Klaus Kinslti. But Iii

I‘

\_\~l._vE:;~. —

..:“.:_i\:-4"}

Rudiger Vogler: the Wenders hero in n Trottaaflrnn:

with luau ne in The German Sisters

. . . and with Harms Zitchler, Vera Tchechova,

Katharina Bdhm in Rudolf Thome’:

Tarot (I986)

on his own in Ingemo Engsrrfimk‘

Escape Route to Marscille (I977)

Lu cg

even more it depended on the skill with which Hernog generated a network of cross-references out of Kinski and Bruno 5., where one actor complemented the other. across the difierent films in which they starred. The case of Wenders is equally instructive: he had already made three full-length films before he found. in Riidiger Vogler} an actor who could develop the Wenders persona and sustain it through the trilogy on which Wenders‘ reputation rested until The American Friend. An intriguing aspect of von Trotta's The German Sisters in this context is that Riidiger Vogler plays a role which is not so much that of a character within the fiction as that of a Wenders persona in a von Trotta film, and thus answering for the spectator the question of what Wenders‘ attitude might be to left-wing politics, terrorism and the women's movement. Vogler is a particularly interesting actor. in so far as his Wenders persona is a double one. each side having been exploited by other directors perhaps too much in isolation. The introspective side (Wrong Movement) can be found to excess in lngemo Engstrom‘s Last Lave (Lerzte Liebe, 1979. opposite Angela Winkler). lngo Kratisch‘s The Logic of Feeling (Logiit des GefiilrL\', 1982. playing opposite both Hanns Zischler and Bruno Ganz), whereas the footloose adventurer from Alice in the Cities and Kings of the Road tums up in Handke‘s The Left-Handed Woman (Die Linkshdndige Frau. 1978) and Klaus Emmrich‘s Kreurzer (1977). One of the reasons why director Rudolf Thome (ten feature films since 1968) has such a shadowy existence as an Autor may well be that between trying to make American genre films in the late 19605, and Wenders-type actors‘ films in the 19805 (Berlin Chamissoplatz. 1980 stars Hanns Zischler, Closed Circuit; System ohne Scharleil. 1984, features Bnino Ganz and Hanns Zischler, and Tarot, 1986, pairs Rudiger Vogler and Hanns Zischler) he has not fully exploited the narrative images of his leading players. On the other hand, the coherence that exists in Achtembusch's work or that of Helke Sander has much to do with the fact that both directors regularly star in their own films. Fassbinder was by far the most adventurous and skilful director to exploit the H0-M‘ Christian Bledt in Erich Engel's Tlte Blum Affair (I948)

. . . and in Edgar Rein‘ Cardillac (I969)

qr

CI0

H 51* - ~=

»+.*-‘i

Edith Clever with Peter Hartdke an the .t

4 . . and as Kundfy in Syberberg‘: Parsifal (rm;

V

'

advantages of actors as recognition factors. Not only did he appear in his own films and employ his own roster of stars regularly and consistently, especially with respect to minor roles, in order to give each of his films the typical Fassbinder look and feel, he was also instrumental in bringing about a revival of actors from the 1950s and l960s. Barbara Valentin, Brigitte Mira. Karlheinz Bohm and Adrian Hoven embodied some of Fassbinder's most memorable characters and helped considerably to re-establish a continuity between the cinema of the 1950s and that of the 1970s. something which Fassbinder considered absolutely essential if the New German Cinema was ever to become a ‘national’ cinema and thus of intemational importance. Syberberg actors were often ‘borrowed' from other directors (Harry Baer. Peter Kem and Walter Sedlmayr were originally Fassbinder actors) or the stage (Andre Heller, Edith Clever and Martin Sperr}, and he followed suit in the revival of actors from the ‘old’ German Cinema when for Karl May (1974) he cast Helmut Kautner and Christina Sfiderbaum, a director and an actress associated with the Nazi cinema. By casting Marianne Hoppe (the mother), Hans Christian Blech (Mignon's father) and Ivan Desny (the suicidal industrialist) as the representatives of the parent generation, Wenders engaged for Wrong Movement three actors from the 19505. one of whom had already been ‘rediscovered’ and another (Desny) was to become the definitive reincamation of the troubled ‘grand bourgeois‘ in The Marriage of Maria Braun (1978). Malau (1981) and Lola (I981) One wonders, for instance, what might have happened to Kluge as a director. had Alexandra Kluge (Kluge's sister, the 'star' of Yesterday Girl, 1966, and in the opinion of many critics what made the film memorable and important) acted consistently in Kluge's subsequent films and been developed as a persona. As it is. Hannelore Hoger, Kluge's female alter ego in Artistes at the Top of the Big Top: Disorientated and The Patriot, simply is not able to project the kind of presence that Alexandra Kluge has: the latter‘s brief appearance in The Power of Feelings (Die Mochr der Geftitltle, 1983) makes the point forcefully.

Co 310

\‘}E -

l_*‘>_l

‘Bonnpartianf Kluge seeme to underestimate the contribution that the star directors have made in fostering recognition values at home and abroad through generating forms of cinema other than the one-off film. According to him, they are guilty of *Bonapartism*: In the Hew Gennan Cinema there is, due to varying, individually welt definabte reasons, a tendency to want to conquer world-power in the cinema with a single film. It is a ease of creeping Honapttrtistrt: 5yberberg's Hitler, Her.r.og'a Norfercm,

‘Wenders’ The .4rnerr'cen Friend . . . ft is a matter of quiegy telting out an option tooblecomfl the leader, a sort of territorial imperialism wh' adversely affects the pr

ucts.

International success, in fact, depended as much on the ability to develop series {in the Gennan cinema these are often trilogics} as on associating a director’s or actor's name with a consistent product over several films. In this process, the narrative image projected by actors was a crucial factor, giving not only an identity to the director, but to a Hcw Crerman Cinema film- Thus, within Cicnnttny the ‘use value‘ of the commodity ‘Hew Eierrnan Cinema‘ or ‘independent cinema‘ wm defined by the different groupe of spectators appropriating spc-::ific films. Ctften several groups claimed the same film for different use values: Kings ofthe Rood was enjoyed by the cinephiles for its echoes of the Hollywood road movie, but also discussed by those more concerned with images of masculinity and the

role of women, or the division of Crcnrtany and the postwar presence of American culture.“ Appropriation abroad and perception of the films outside Germany was what finally made the ‘blew German Cinema‘.

The New German Cinema Abroad lf the films often had a difficult passage finding their way to German audienoes, few such problems existed for art cinema audiences or for critics and scholars abroad, notably in France, Britain, thc United States and Italy. To some extent this has to do with a much better defined film culture in these countries, with criteria and expectations able to absorb or welcome the most diverse manifestations of cinema. Indeed, they need periodically to supply their own mttrltet with cultural commodities. that can be labelled ‘new’: new directors, new movements, new national cinemas, rcnaissanccs, new alternatives. Wl'rether daily journalists, festival reporters or professional critics, their tacit is always to create it comprehensible framework, a discourse around the films and the film-malrers, which in the case of the Hcw German Cinema meant that writers httd tcveral distinct entry points. ln the United States, to chooee one ettatnple, the films of Fassbinder and Hcteog attracted widespread notice at the Hew York Film Festivals of lifid and l9‘T5. Two books, James Franklin’: New Gemr-on Cirterrtc, and Klaus Phillipe‘ Weir German Fifrn-rrtelrerzr, talte this as their starting point. The media coverage put the stress on the personalities of the directors, their eccentric appearance (Fassbinder) or eccentric opinions (Hctaogj. This gave the New "r'orlt cultural elite a startling glimpse of West Germany, a country ltnown only in the vagueet terms and without a coherent national image since the Hollywood myth of the jaclt-booted, heel-clicking German had been allowed to fade during the 1951]: in HI

Clci glc

the interest of Ft.n1erican foreign policy and good relations with an important ally. Stanley lilauffmann, writing in The New Republic in 1977, vividly conveys this new image:

Acctlrsed Crermany. All nations are self-contradictory, but Germany taltes it furthest. In the last two centuries, has any other people displayed more selfr

contradiction - by any measure of intellectual-artistic good or history-shatterifig evil‘? The schism doesn't dwindl-e. A two-and-a-half hour documentary about Hitler

has jrut been seen in tluee weeks by l[Il,IIll Ciemtato. And any question about how it‘s being viewed can be powd against a report in the ‘New Statesman‘ on the booming war nostalgia in C-emrany - widely popular books and magazines about ‘lltorld ‘War ll that emphasise heroism and victories. "r"et from this same country comes the New Crerman Cinema. The quiet". explanation of the contradiction is that abrasion produces art: if the society wcren‘t so enraflrrg, the b-fit people in

it would not react against it to the depth of their being. Well, I‘m sure there is no art in paradise: still, why don't other enraging eol.1ntt'ies — Ito shortage of them -

produce comparable films?“ Also by 1977, the urban terrorist activities of the Baader-lvleinhof group provided renewed topical interest in what had gone wrong with the Crerman economic miracle and the society it had produced (‘Hitler‘s ungrateful grandchildren‘). "‘ Eric Rentschler has provided a chronology of the assimilation procem of the New German Cirtema in the United States, 5 and similar studies have appeared about the way the press welcomed Fassbinder and ‘Wenders in Britain. Sheila Johnston wrote in her Introduction to ll*‘eruters, ‘Coming down from the Mountain‘: ‘A totally exciting experience, a film that crystatlises a new European consciousness as decisively as those of the New Wave‘, enthused Time Out on the British release of Alice in the Cities in IEITS. It was a moment when the New German Cinema was

in the throes of being discovered and celebrated with indecent haste.“ ‘What emergm is that the crystallisation point, where the name ‘New Crerman Cinema‘ acted as both a label of identification and a marlt of quality, was reached very quicltly. Wiflrin the space of eighteen months all major film journals had published either analyses of the ‘phenomenon’ of the New German Cinema or in-depth studies of its leading figures." lt was an instructive example ct the powerful amplification effect that the media in the sphere of culture can comrnand, when there is a marltet ready for it and a certain quantitative presence can translate itself into a qualitative judgement. Secondly, a few years later. Fascism and Crenuan history tn the films helped to project a definition of the films in the eyes of the international public, if only as a fascinating enigma, a process which had repercussions at home. The label helped the quite different and distinct films of Fassbinder, Hereog, Wenders and Syberberg to app-ear as part of a larger totality. lt was that of a German renaissance, a German ‘invasion’, or even as the sign that ‘West Germany had left behind its political haeltwardrtem and was ready to assume a world role in culture and the arts again, commensurate to its economic status {West Crenttany has often been called ‘a political dwarf inside an economic giant‘). It was not altogether clear whether the individual directors. were mere extensions of these metaphoric constructions, each symbolising the dual nature of the Crennan soul, or whether the parts stood for the whole, which was the ‘New Crenuan Cinema‘. ln other words, was the New Crerman Cinema simply the III

Ctr 311.:

combined films of Fassbinder, ‘tliendcrs and Her-zog or were their films examples of the New Germarr Cinema? “r’et what for the star directors may have been merely a tautological definition served other, less well known or perhaps less charismatic directors as a useful launch pad. The mere existence of the term, in other words, opened up a new space of definitions and counter-definitions, divisions and sub»divisions, of categories and the unclassifiable, in which any film or group of films from Germany could find its place either within or in opposition to the New German Cinema.

The Scholarly Discourse ‘I'he response of film scholars and theorists can be, without too much simplification. divided into two broad categories. Firstly. those who saw the films as part of the European art cinema whose criteria have always been self-expression and personal vision. centred on the director as author. Secondly, those who saw the films as part of an international avant-garde. For the trade press. such as l-“artery, the commercial potential seemed very limited and mainly confined to the campus distribution circuits.“ For university courses the New German Cinema came as a welcome addition to Foreign Language Programmes“ and. not surprisingly. stimulated interest especially in the context of postwar Crerman Studies. Certainly, the films of the star directors lent themselves primarily to an authorbased art cinema approach. Fassbinder, Herzog and Wenders not only produced some of their most interesting and challenging worlt around 1S'?*t—l'5tTr' (llfaspcr Hrrrrser, Strosrerlr, Fecr Eoer tire Soul, Despair, lfmgs of the Heart, The American Friend], but their earlier worlt could be showrt in rapid succession, giving the impression of an even more effervescent and feverish output than was already the case during these first prolific years. after the revised Film Subsidy Bill and the Television Framework Agreement had boosted production both in scale and quantity. A number of received opinions and cliches soon clustered into serviceable shorthand about these directors-assauthors with an idiosyncratic approach to film. Her.rog's mystical romanticism, his Bavarian peasant slyness and unusual visual style, his unoonve ntional narratives, his outsiders, recluses, madrnen and outcasts, his love of excess, exhaustion and extremes — all made good copy. ‘I'he person. his films and heroes could blend into a single personality of quite uncommon magnetism?“ At the same time, the elements of this myth reminded foreigners of certain typical Crermatt attributes and stereotypes sufficiently strongly to malte the performance convincing and the impression a lasting one. in the case of Fassbinder, his counter-cultural lifestyle with a glamorous and flamboyant entourage, his open homosexuality and frattltness about drugs and alcohol made him, in the r'lr.trterit:an context, a thoroughly familiar show business figure. All this belonged to the decadent, camp sensibility of the New "r"orlt demimonde, the radical chic derided by Tom ‘Wolfe and celebrated by Truman Capote and Andy 'tlr'arho|.f' The Warhol reference, often repeated, also served to draw

attention to Fassbinder‘s worlting environment, his lvlunich ‘factory‘ which allowed

him to turn out film after filrrr with dizzying speed, whilst his life burnt itself out lilte a Roman candle. The New Crerman Cinema seemed to have talten up Hitler and Fascism at precisely the point when and where this history had itself acquired a mythical or imaginary dimension, even if the imaginary dimension was that ofthe unimaginable 1'91

= Gr; glc

Heinz Schubert in Syberberg’: Our Hitler (I977)

horrors perpetrated by a legally elected government and supported by an entire people. When Syberberg made his entry on the intemational scene with Our Hr'rler(l977), it was in part due to having chosen a topic that secured him attention. While his prophetic-oracular. provocatively polemieal personal statements made him something of a media personality. it also enabled critics to locate his pronouncements on the state of the westem world in general and West Gcmtany in particular within a much more precise geographical and historical landscape than the films of Herzog or even Fassbinder. Their often cramped and claustrophobic family settings evokcd sociological rather than historical resonances. Countries without a strong and continuous tradition of film-making may have to depend on an ability to ‘market’ the national history as intemational spectacle for international success. British cinema, for example, enjoyed its most recent ‘renaissance’ precisely around historical subjects of national glory or dcfcat (Gandhi. Chariots of Fire, The Jewel in the Crown, Another Country. The M0n0t.‘t'ed Mulilleer) and the same seems true of other national cinemas (the New

Australian Cinema. with Gallipoli. Breaker Morant or We ofthe Never Never). A common historical currency establishes a signifying system of motifs. oppositions, antinomies and structural binarisms: the very stuff of narratives. Thus. whenever the perspective of critics went outside and beyond the authorial discourse. it found its natural reference point for defining the New Gcmtan Cinema in Germany’s notorious past or its contemporary political troubles. The mystical romanticism seemed as typically German as the despair, anxiety and nihilism. Viewed from the outside. it is easy to form the opinion that German films concentrated on guilt. depression. paranoia. sexual unhappiness. emotional exploitation and social anomie. Many of the films seemed existential parables of nameless terrors and forlom hopes of bliss. As we saw. the film-makers and the

films often seemed only too ready to accommodate such cliche projections. The obsession with isolation and anxiety did make it seem as if all the central protagonists of the New Gemian Cinema were pulled down or held back by guilt as pervasive as it was inevitable. lt led from slow decline to suicide (Efli Briest. Martha. F01 and His Fricmls, Why Does Mr R Run Amok, The Merchant afFaur

Seasons, Despair) to inexplicable death (Kaspar Hauser), apocalyptic conllagration Z93

[‘

Mpg:

c

,,:

,r_y,_._~y

The Haunted Screen returns: Klan: Kinski and Isabelle Adjani in Herzoglr Nosferatu

(I978)

(Heart of Glass), disappearance and suicide (Aguirre, Stroszelc), to murder disguised as suicide (Ludwig — Requiem for a Virgin King), to attempted suicide (King: of the Road). suicide out of Weltrchmerz (Wrong Movement), suicide disguised as illness (The American Friend) or violent death as a form of suicide (The State of Things). Such thematic readings posed. however. even within the authorial approach, a certain problem. The temptation was to see these recurrent motifs as expression of the director's autobiography. a view reinforced by the fact that, for instance, Fassbinder often appeared and even sometimes starred in his films (Katzelmacher, Fox and His Friends. Germany in Autumn), and that the Hemog legend was built on an almost wilful oonfusion of the director and his supermen protagonists. Yet, the very prevalence of the various motifs not just within a director‘s work but across the whole spectrum of films from Gennany obliged critics to seek out more embracing categories and. in effect. make Germany itself the collective author of these texts. This seemed the more plausible since the standard works on the Ciemran Expremionist Cinema of the 19205. Siegfried l(racauer's From Caligari to Hitler and Lotte Eisner's The Haunted Screen had already, explicitly and implicitly, associated Germany with baring its ‘soul’ or ‘collective mentality‘ on film. The issue was further compounded by the all-too-ready analogies that writers (and the film-makers themselves to some extent) were prepared to draw between the classic German cinema of the Weimar Republic and its directors - Lang, Mumau. Pabst - and the New Gennan Cinema. Even before I-lerwg chose to remake Mumau’s Nosferatu, articles had appeared with such titles as ‘Metropolis Now‘. ZN

C-0 31¢

--._

and Kurt Raab as Peter Lorre‘: M in Uiii Lommells 111: Tenderness of Wolves (I973) ‘From Mumau to Munich‘. or ‘From Caligari to Hitler‘? The metaphor of a tradition and an inheritance was vigorously propagated by Herzog, when he declared that the New German Cinema was ‘legitimate Gemran culture‘, while a film like Wenders‘ Kings of the Road invokes Fritz Lang as almost a totemistic father of the present generation.” "Hie altemative critical approach to the New German Cinema was to see the films in the context of debates around the avant-garde, of modemism, and of a post-narrative, ‘deo0nstructive' cinema. For these views there was, on the face

of it, also a good case to be made. The evidence in this instance was the work of Straub and Huillet, of Werner Schroeter, but also certain films by Fassbinder, Syberberg and even Herzog and Wenders. This avant-garde needed to be distinguished from the US underground (Brakhage. Anger) or the Canadian and British structuralist avant-garde (Snow, Gidal, Le Grice) or, finally. the political avant-garde for which Godard may stand as the distinctive European representative. There were, as has already been pointed out, Gemian film-makers much more directly comparable to these avant-garde movements (Klaus Wybomy, Birgit and Wilhelm Hein. Wemer Nekes and Dore 0., Bastian Cleve and Heinz Emigholz),“ but these film-makers‘ work was rarely shown outside very specialised circles. The names generally associated with the New Gennan Cinema could not be fitted into these categories without difficulties. Yet there was sufficient biographical evidence to make the comparison feasible. Germany had had in the early and mid-196$ quite a strong tradition of avantZ95

C-0 glc

garde, experimental, visionary or espanded cinema: the so-called Either Cinema [to distinguish it from the "!t'oung German Fihn), a Co-op movement, performance and video artists, Frolrino and various other multi-media artists with a strong interest in film. As we have seen, this avant-garde remained by and large outside tlte television and state funding systems, since these favoured narrative feature fihn or at the very least required documentary films. The ltind of fonnal esperiment. the theoretical and deconstnrctive dismantling of the cinema‘s technological, optical and psychic apparatus which characterises much of the work of the Europeatt and Horth American avant-garde did not fit into the script-based or imue-based allocation of funds practised by the subsidy selection committees. Hellmuth Costard tried to document the exclusionary manoeuvres vis~rt-vir tl't-c avant-garde in his film called The Lirrfe Godard‘ (meaning himselfl.“ Only in tlte mid-19Blls has Wemer Helres been able to get fttnds for projects, typically involving the history of early film and optical toys {Film before Film (Was gerchelr wirlrlicfr ewrlrcftcn den f-lr'fderrr?], 19ti5ft'i} or based, however loosely, on cultural classics [his structural version of loyce, Utiisses, 1932]. Wlrile the fonnal avant-garde thus languished in the late lfibfls and played only a minor part in the booming lilffls, it is important to remind oneself that ‘Wim Wenders, for instance, first attracted attention as art avant-garde film-maker with minimalist, anti-narrative films. Along with Thomas hlauch, now better known as tlte preferred cameraman of l-lerecg. Kluge, Helma Sanders-Brahms and many others, Wenders fonned part of a lvlunich school of minimalists. ‘Viewed with hindsight W'cnders* early shorts [Scare Player Shoots Again, rtfabarrra, Silver City) now seem quintessentially to belong to the director‘s later worlr, but at the time they were just as coherently seen as part of a formalist avant-garde, concerned with the deconstruction of narrative-illusionist cinema and the problem of duration in film. ‘Wemer l-lemog's affiliation with the avant—garde is perhaps more tenuous, but none the less real. He has gone on record as being influenced by Hralrhage in his conception of film-making, a rare admission of influence from a director almost pathologically committed to affirrning the autodidactic, self-created and selfmotivated impulse behind his film-maltirrg. The fact that the dream visions of the dying Kaspar Hauser are actually super-E footage shot by Klaus Wybomy and commissioned by Heracg for his film can be seen as the acknowledgement of a debt, rather lilte that of Fassbinder to Schroeter. Had he not achieved international success with Aguirre, Heraog might well have concentrated his career more on making fantastic-surreal documentaries lilte Land offiflence and Darkness {Land .de:r Jichweigens emf o'er Dankelfreir, 1W1}, or visionary films lilte Fara Morgana [I974], whose vicinity to the romantic traditions of the American avant-garde is more in evidence. Fassbinder, for his part, had made the acquaintance of Straub, when his a.nrr'reater ensemble [the nucleus of what was to beoorne his mini-studioifactory} performed a play by Ferdinand Hruelrrrer. which Straub directed as the central section of his film The Bridegroom, the Camedicnrre rrrrrf the Pimp {Der Brautigam. die lfamodianrin arid der Zrrlrfilrer, 1963}. With some justification, Fassbinder‘s Kareelmacher has been compared to the Straubs" films, especially in its starltly geometrical conception of scenic and dramatic space.“ The similarity may only be superficial, and Straub has had little sympathy for Fassbinder‘s subsequent worlt. but there can be no doubt that Fassbinder was as aware of the materialistpolitical avant-garde in Genuany as he was of Schroeter‘s fihns. Although tltc influence of the American avant-garde on the blew German I96

Cir; glc

Cinema has been slight, and at best intennittent, there is none the less a strongly experimental dimension to much of the worlr that has come out of the funding stnrcture and the subsidy system, even if its criteria made it necessary for certain formal concerns to displace themselves into less overtly avant-garde modes, as in the case of the feminist films for Dar lrleine Ferrrsehspiel. What thematic or auteurist analyses of the blew Crerman Cinema regularly overloolred was the extent to which Cerman films were also reflections about the cinema itself, not only in its political aspects as they arose from the conditions of production but also formally. Schroeter has been experimenting with music, performance, structuralist repetition and multiple diegesis in a highly original way which, as we saw, influenced Syberberg, Elttinger and lvlilresch among others, and was directed towards a conception of representation that owes little to narrative while none the less being totally committed to spectacle. Cine of the most fertile contexts in which Crerman film-malrers have communicated with an international audience, while sidestepping the label of blew Crerrnan Cinema or avant-garde, has been feminism. The films of Clttinger, Helke Sander and Julia Brftckner have been discussed by American feminists in the light of specific tlteorctical positions regarding the woman's place in representation, questions of feminine narcissism and visual plemure or autobiography and enunciatien. Films by Sanders-Brahms and von Trotta have contributed to debates on the reprmentation of women by women in commercial and art cinema practices.“ in the latter case, worlr on Gennan women film-malrers as well as on the star directors of the blew Gennan Cinema has, under the impact of academic film studies and renewed interest in film theory, benefited from critical worlr focusing o-rr narrative and anti-narrative, representation and subject-position in the contemporary cinema generally, and feminist film-malring in particular. Since this theory surfaced particularly strongly in the lifills, it was chronologically coincidental with the rise of the blew German Cinema. ln the films of Fassbinder, Wenders, or Heraog, film theory fastened on the fact that their textual systems did not seem to conform to the classical model of Hollywood linear narrative. Wlrile theirs were narrative films, they rarely used the models of oonllict, enigma artd resolution that had become identified with Hollywood narrative. blor did the films appear to conform to the different lrinds of oedipal trajectory which theorists had established for ‘Nestcm fictional narratives. Wltile clearly about these conflicts, they manifestly did not encode them in the same filmic terms. ‘!r"et although there was a degree of deviancy from the classical model, this did not seem to malte the films ‘illegible’ within the codes of mainstream cinema. Consequently a number of studies appeared which investigated the narrative structure of Fassbinder‘s films, from the vantage point of cinematic modernism,“ and which analysed the strategies of narrative distanciation, stressing the visible presence of the camera, or pointed to the influence of Brecht." The worlr of Her-cog has been analysed in terrns of enunciatien, showing to what extent a Lacanian or semiotic reading of fifaspar Hauser might be appropriate and illuminating?“ Equally, the films of ‘Wenders have been examined itt the light of recent theories of filmic signification.“ Cln the whole, it was clearly important in valorising the blew German Cinema as part of film studies and the academic curriculum to be able to use the films positively and as examples of contemporary critical and theoretical problems. The fact that this tended to shift the political implications of the blew Gennan Cinema towards more textual politics was in itself not unwelcome, in so far as it balanced and even corrected some of the Ill‘?

- Cir: no r".

Fits‘;

Inn Hermann in Fa.r.rbr'nder's The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant (I972)

hasty and superficial ‘political’ readings that film joumalists had tried to give of the films.“ It is perhaps premature to want to assess the value of the modernist and deconstnrctive readings given to individual films by New German directors. The fact that there is a polarisation between theoretical readings and culturalist analyses has also to do with the institutional constraint of subjects such as Film Studies and Gennan Studies. However, by far the most common source of interest for a textual analysis, especially with the films of Wenders and Fassbinder, was the possibility of seeing their worlt connect with the re-working of popular formulas and generic codes that took place in the Hollywood cinema itself; and further, to study the transgressive. parodic or excessive uses Gennan directors made of Hollywood. both as a continuation and a critique of genre-based cinema. From earlier chapters. it will be remembered that there were certain compelling reasons why German directors at a certain point in the history of the New German Cinema wanted to retum to a genre cinema, in order both to find a public not mediated by television. and also to free themselves from the odium of making films merely for the members of official subsidy committees. The tum to cinephile forms. especially in the case of Wenders. corresponded to a belief that only by making contact with the emotions and experiences that the cinema had aroused in them as adolescents could Germans of the postwar generation return to their affective roots and childhood memories. ln the Anglo-American context. however. the question of Hollywood and antiHollywood had already been part of a much more wide-ranging film cultural debate about progressive or political film-making in relation to classic cinema, Z”

r

G0 glc

,, . -

,,,_,

initiated by the French (in Caldera do Cinémds celebrated article on John Ford's Young Mr Lincoln”) and in Britain at about the same time by the rediscovery of the films of Douglas Sirlt.“ Film critics and film-makers became interested in the possibilities of describing transgrcssive practices within the Hollywood mode of production, as well as developing models of textual reading for both industrially and independently produced films. The work of Fassbinder seemed to fit particularly well, with his own explicit and well-documented interest in Sirk and melodrama. The first book to appear in English on the New German Cinema therefore naturally focused cm Fassbinder, his relation to the subsidy system on the one hand, and Hollywood genre cinema on the other.” Given the renewed interest in melodrama on the part of feminist film theory, the conjunction of Sirk and Fassbinder proved to be particularly productive in the search for ‘deconstructive‘ practices within the classical cinema as a model for contemporary film-making, although as far as one can tell his style has rarely been imitated. At the same time.'Fassbinder's work was very controversial for critics interested in the representation of gay men and homosexuality in the cinema.” Even in films like For and His Friends it seems difficult to speak of a specifically gay sensibility, distinct from Fassbinder‘s manipulation of generic stereotypes and autocitation. as in the very camp The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kan! (I972). Another look at hr a Year of Thirteen Moons (1978), or a comparison with German feminist films, might suggest that there was a distinctly ‘sexed’ In rr dilemma: Dirk Bagarde between Volker Spengler and Andrea Fcrreol in Ft‘|&.i‘blJ'Id¢!'.! Despair (I978)

Q

*0.

L‘ ’

COR ‘Sic

'

i._w\.»*z=1~- iii " c+:->91

aesthetic in Fambinder after all." Yet taken as a whole, Fassbinder's films are too numerous and explore too systematically different fonns of cinema to be amenable to a single reading, he it authorial or textttal. The diversity was mainly determined by the possibilities that the mixed economy of German film finance permitted. Tet it also reflected Fambirtdcfs ambition to be West t'.'.ier|nany’s first popular attd commercially successful director, which meant not only trying to occupy as many sites of production as possible, but aBo uralring ‘Hollywood films in Germany’. ln this respect his worlr; has yet to be analysed in its full significance.

Productive Misreadinp Finally, it can he argued that the reception of Gennan directors in the United States and Britain is an instructive case of productive misreading, in the sense of unifying the diversity and appropriating the films for film history and film theory. The major successes have been in the capitals of Westem Europe and on American university campuses; with audiences, in other words, who could afford to ignore the peculiar historical inscription or economic determinants that might have marked the films. Precisely because of a familiarity with models of narrative deconstruction and modernist self-reflexivity, spectators and critics were able to discover a satisfactory meaning in the films, whether of the ltind typical for European art cinema or analogous to the critical readings made of classical Hollywood narrative cinema. Such horizons of expectation, as we saw, were not readily available to Clerman audiences, whose response to their own cinema was for political and historical reasons almost too close and visceral to be critical in anything other than a polemical sense. Dne of the more puzzling aspects of the history of the Hew Crerman Cinema is therefore the discrepancy between the directors‘ reputation abroad, and their status in Germany itself. To over-simplify perhaps, one could say that the blew Crerman Cinema was discovered and even invented abroad, and had to be reimported to be recognised as such. Behind this paradox lie a number of intcr~ related factors. From Gberhausen onwards, film-malters were counting on a foreign audience to secure a position at home, at first economically, since it was always assumed that films could not pay their way on the home market alone. Secondly, in their polemics with Cienrtan critics, the response from abroad could always be treated as an independent witness for the defence, or even a form of arbitration. Film-makers realised that their standing abroad had a two-fold effect on their reputation at home. lt did, for instance, alert the mass circulation press that something extraordinary was indeed happening. Der Spiegef, C-|errnany‘s most widely read news magazine, ran a major article not on the Hew German

Cinema, but on the fact that Newsweek had featured the Hew German Cinema as a cover story in February iiITfi:"" Similarly, Syberberg placed an ad in the highbrow weeltly Die Zeir, alerting readers that if they happened to be in Paris they could see what the Crermans couldn't see: a major German film, namely Our Hftfer (1917). He also presented journalists at the 197'? Berlin Film Festival with a lilill-page dossier, which contrasted the German press coverage of the Hitter film with that in France and Britain. The foreign press became the leverage to force Crerman critics to talte note. lvlore importantly perhaps, in a situation where the marltet forces had largely been suspended due to the subsidy system, publicity, journalistic news value ancl a reputation among foreign critics and film scholars, an invitation by an

Iii

irttemational festival or even just a fat boolt of press clippings was the filmmalter‘s capital and currency, the very material basis which might decide how big a slice a director might get of the subsidy caite, and how often. ‘fer finally, it was also a matter of finance in a more direct sense. As already mentioned earlier, since the vast majority of distribution was handled by ritnterican-owned firms, only a solid international reputation would persuade these distributors to release a Hemog or a Wenders film commercially in the European marltet and in Eierrnany. Their films constituted part of the Arneriearr export business which Crennany had to reimport, lilte any third world country reimporting its own primary commodities as processed goods.

Marlteling it Commodity Since the State was actively investing in film-malting, it was equally aware of the problem of malting the product circulate. From the early liflfls onwards the Federal government, through its embassies, its cultural missions and Goethe Institutes, vigorously promoted the New German Cinema abroad.“ it gave interested audiences access to otherwise unavailable films, conducting seminars, inviting film-malrers, supporting lecture tours, retrospectives and special events at colleges, festivals or arts centres. If German lilm-malcem sometimes seemed to hype themselves lilte pop stars, malte oracular announcements lilte prophets, they were also lilte athletes selected to represent their countries at Dlympic Games." Culture, lilte sports on an irtternational level, is political. Seelting an international reputation and marlteting themselves as brand names, as producers of unique yet recognisable goods of standard quality, was part of the German film-malrers‘ economic condition with which they colluded. The paradox was that at another — textual - level, their worlt articulated a protest, because as we have seen, it was so often directed against their very circumstances as film+malters. Some directors protected themselves in other ways. lllluge, while arguing persuasively for the need to brealt with a 4i}-year-old *provincialism in German filrtts‘,"' none the less resolutely refused to go on tours abroad or tum himself into an ‘author’. Herbert Achtembusch, while subsisting on the cultural circuit lilte so many other Cerrtran directors, felt it necessary to document a certain resistance. His account of a sponsored visit to Los Angeles and Berlteley {which he calls 'Birltli’ — a Bavarian nonsense word] fairly bristles with inner rage and discomfort: At die public discussion we [Achtemhiscir and Schrab Shahid Ellemf did not say a word, first because the audience wanted to ltnow about [Harlt Bohm and [Reinhard] Hauff, neither of whom were present. As Herrog rig-hrly pointed out. rltrneticatrs just cannot grasp that there isn't simply one Hew German Cinema . . . Secondly. the discussion toolt place before the films were shown. and if I could introduce my fihns, l would have to he a real windhag, and if someone needs to tallc to me after they have seen my films, then they have to be teal winclhags. Elf course, we were supposed to be representatives, against the bacltground of diis festival of rejects. we were meant to be the third line. and show that diere was lots more territory behind and around the heroes ancl stars, prove that the German

cinema has unlimited potential, we, two nihilists. who every time we malte a film barely have the strength to pull away from the slimy embraces of all these forward-

loolting idiots at home.“ Achtembusch is clearly not interested in either the commercial goodwill abroad SI]

Cit; 3]-.3

or the rise in status at home which a successful tour can bring. He once called Hetaog ‘the best detergent salesman t'.'iermany has ever had, because he is the only one who believes in his product’, to indicate what he thought of national culture when marketed like a commodity. “t"et this was precisely the situation that made the New German Cinema a label and a concept: not whether it could be defined, or given a substance, but that it could be marketed, packaged and circulated ensured that it existed. The mistake of the ‘old’ German cinema had been to think of films as material goods, similar to machine tools, Mercedes or BMW cars, and to attempt direct and unsuccessful competition with the US and Hollywood. The mistake of the Young German Film had been to try and sell bicycles as if they were Rolls-Boyces. or to expect to be congratulated at a motor show for manufacturing bicycles at such a low cost: They told us in France — what we don’t understand is that you Crermans always show off how poor you are in your films. Clue cart tell that you don’t have the money, but you are trying to make a virtue out of necessity and advertise the fact that in spite of it, you still malte films. But it’s bad manners, people here would

take it as an insult.“ The French, by contrast, have always been highly successfiul in associating the label ‘Made in France’ with a variety of material and immaterial products - wine, cheese, Roland Barthes, Chanel Ho. 5, Exocet missiles, Jacques Derrida — so that Frenchness becomes almost an autonomous signifier of value. This, l-letaog and ‘Wenders, Fassbinder and Syberberg appropriated for themselves by making the New German Cinema into just such an autonomous sigrt. The strategy of treating artefacts and cultural objects as commodities, in order to make them enter into but also create a market, is much clearer with the New Germ an Cinema than in other cases. It was neither a ‘movement’ based on personal friendships and loyalties like the rrouveffe vague, nor united by a common pro-gramme or an aesthetic pant‘-pris like neo-realism, nor a political protest like the Cinema hldvo of Brazil. lt was a cinema created around the very contradictions of culture and commodity, of (self-)expression value and {self-lexhibition value, in a modern capitalist economy that depends on export to sustain internal growth, and which in the case of the social-democratic government was prepared to subsidise invisible exports on the assumption that supply would by itself generate demand. The modest commercial successes and the rather more substantial critiul successes did in the event sustain an increased volume of production. From barely fifi German films made in ISTD, the number shot up to 124 in 19'l'5. The New German Cinema, though it was still produced outside box office returns as drese are commonly defined, was intinrately connected with the economics of culture. Fihns, compared with other artefacts, are cheap and efficient to transport. Unlike a ballet company or a symphony orchestra, a few cans of film can go by diplomatic bag. Unlike literature, films present no insuperable language barriers, and insurance problems pale to insigniflcance compared with those attendant upon the shipping of paintings or other unique works of art. Tet if the subsidy system tended to reinforce the status of the fi|rr|*n1altt.!l?"-i as a personality, culture as export detached the individual fihn from any historical or aesthetically precise context. It came to circulate in as many different forms as there were occasions for exhibition: as media event, ‘masterpiece’, star vehicle, brand-name product. or as a controversial contribution to sensitive public issues like terrorism or the legacy of Fascism. Films construct themselves in their coherence. tneaning and value, not at the points of origin or by a recourse to the makers’ intentionality, II1

Ctr git:

but in the context and the act of consumption. They remain objects, but they also become texts. T|18_l'llrtts uf~li1tAN$‘l Qiflllflntclllintatflcquircdpuliljgal mggnmginarug not

fl|?\’.ayS_t>Qt1Lt0lled by their directors. an_¢irrespecuvu2IJluiLn1asm=ti¢.radEgl or m¢.r~:bt.oppQnunist4zQ1iucaLnpnnsuion_tc _m.irs

Yidstitutiogs. They wcrc. in their function. official rcpggsentatio *, d Q . Politically, except through a relatively recent, though intense. preoccupatjtylwjth its historicalgpastgand its troubled ideologicaljdcruity as a nation. ‘As we have seen. this is the ‘culturalfcorc around which a ccttai-It avslhcuccohcrencgcan best“be constnrcd, and around which the economic rationale for a vcry diverse production policy can bc explained. These economics of culture make the films political in a general way, but they also tend to depoliticise the individual work and the individual film-maker. Without Fassbinder. Hgggg, Wenders. Syberberg. Schlfindorff o_[§lu there would have been no New GermarTCin€ma. Each of these directors lialsihad a crucial role to play; they were influential, however, not only through the films they have made, but through their ability to define a stance, a dogma, a theory or myth about the New German Cinema. ln other words. they are more than film-makers, they are icons and, in this sense perhaps, lhey,_c_0gg§[51nd,tg._the idgfl .Ql__gEtt,[Q1zt=_itu,1rIl'!.§i.ti_ctttit.-‘attler1r'. The New German Cinema became a reality at the level of discourse. by the interplay and intcrtcxtuality of different media, multiplying and mutually amplifying their effects. Yet as soon as the New Gennan Cinema had been launched as a label, it was part of a range of commodities, a diffuse accumulation of values, not unlike those associated with tourism, through which a country markets its national heritage and past, indeed even its present, if it can be presented as spectacle. For national cinemas struggling to get into the intemational market, history (and N|m‘sm in the case of Germany) has become a system of referents to some extent substituting for generic formulas and codes. In films like Schlondorffs The Tin Drum, Petersen's The Boat or Fasbindefs Lili’ Marleen, Fascism and its visual paraphemalia function simultaneously within several (generic. psychological, authorial, economic) discourses. so that the filmic status of Fascism. as signifier and rcfcrcnt. becomes quite problematic. This disju

-J29'Ji"!F..lzy,a_countcylh=11 he had d1ffi=u!1!=s_tn .pt» amnd

certs! allvws.qv_s==ti°9§.2f ¢.ssmi2

1E1'!(l?!.¢PiS€ senieflf allows any number of metaphorical discourses (about outsiders and minorities, about honour and loyalty, family and oedipal rivalry, about showbusiness and warfare) to be supported by the Sit-ttte set of signs.

Between Economics and Semiotics The extent to which different sites of consumption can generate quite distinct preferred readings, and generate ultimately conflicting constructions of a film, was shown in the case of I-lemog's Fitzarrruldo. The film tells the story of an Irish rubber planter in South America whose enthusiasm for Caruso makes him want to build an opera house in the jungle, if necessary by hauling a boat across a mountain and opening up a waterway that will generate the cash needed to finance such a scheme. Heruog frequently talked about the project in interviews. ever since completing Kaspar Hauser. Clearly the film existed as a recognisably typical Hermg story well before production was underway. The idea of pulling a full303

“ '~

GO\ ‘Sic

>.,|‘J“.=‘E‘1‘:‘_

c+;m

‘*1.

__.

-.-,

Alter egos: (above) Werner Herzog directing Fitzcarraldo (I98!) . . . and (right) Klaus Kiruki acting Filzcarraldo

size river boat across a jungle mountain was entirely in keeping with the absurd and excessive bravado acts associated with l-lerzog's public persona. Fitzcarraldo furthennore set expectations that this would be a retum for Herzog to the thematic terrain and exotic location of earlier Herzog films. such as Signs of Life and Aguirre. after more domestic films like Kaspar Hauser, Nosferatu and Woyzeck. Thus, the film was already situated within two distinct, even if complementary discourses - that of the colourful personality of Herzog himself, and that of his work. Filzcarraldo could inscribe itself into a pattem of continuity and altemation that had already made the Herzcg oeuvre into a coherent and unified project. The actual filming was accompanied by an unusual amount of pre-publicity. although in the context of He|2og‘s habitual self-promotion this was to be expected. No less than two films were in fact made about Herzog making Fitzcarraldo. The circumstances of the production itself provided ample copy for the newspapers. There was Hollywooddype showbusiness gossip about difficulties with the leading actors; Mick Jagger‘s part being written out of the script, the replacement of Jack Nicholson by Jason Robards. and of Jason Robards by inevitably - Klaus Kinski. This made the film crystallise around Kinski and Heizog‘s obviously privileged relationship with his preferred actor. since he had already used him in Aguirre. Nosferatu and Woyzeck to portray the Herzog persona par excellence. However, even more publicity was generated by Herzog‘s involvement in the tribal and even national politics of Pent, where the shooting took place. It culminated in what at times appeared to be a minor civil war, touching issues about Third World exploitation. the situation of the Amazon Indians. and the European attitude of eroticism vi:-d-vis the problems of genocide and underdeveloprnent in Latin America. When Fitzcamaldo was eventually released. much of this publicity did seem to have an adverse effect. making it very difficult to see the film apart from the 304

‘

.l‘l 35=~ - ~=

n+1--‘l

accrctions it had already accumulated. Some critics thought that one of the documentaries made on location about thc film, Burden of flrenrru, 1932, had actually turned out to be the more interesting product of the exercise, while the spectacular scenes of Herrog‘s film had been anticipated by the pre-publicity. ln ‘West Germany, Fflrccrrnldo was the object of considerable controversy. Heraog himself seemed to think of it as a Heimat film transposed to the jungle ~ a film about Bavaria in other words, with a figure not unlike lvlad filing Ludwig who had built fantasy castles and had funded lavishly extravagant productions of Wagner's operas. Certainly, Fitzcarraldo can be seen as an cnti+hcro whor frustrated in his desire for social progress. turns to art and music on a scale symmetrically inverse to his social standing and professional failure. In this sense, Firxccrrcfdc was indeed a variation on and a reply to Syberberg’: Ludwig Requiem for rr l-"iIr'g'frr King. A good case can also be made for seeing it as thematically and stylistically close to Wenier Schroeter‘s abiding preoccupation with opera, thus opening up within the conditions of an intg_rn.ational super-production space for experimenting with an altogether typical subject apd form of the New Crcrman Cinema. Indeed, even Kluge had, with The Power of Fccfirrgr {I933}, made a film about opera. The suggestion was therefore not at all implausible, when a Crerman critic pointed out that Hcrrog could have set his film in Germany itself, and instead of making Fitcczarraldo want to open an opera in the jungle, his hero might have tried to run a cinema in a West Gennan provincial town. For him the film was unambiguously about the plight of West German film-makers, the subsidy system, the love of cinema and the impossibility of thc New Crcrmun Cinema reaching n popular audience in Crcrmany itself.“ Finally, for some members of the German left, a film like Fitrccrrcfdo and the reviews it received wcrc nothing less than a sure sign of the victory of thc counter+ revolution, an aesthetic and ideological defence of irrationalirm wilfully betraying the anti-authoritarian work of a whole generation: Especially our Crennan intellectuals, tired of politics and thcory. flock to and are seduced by Her:og's films. Fed up with enlightenment, to which they used to sacrifice as to a C‘-rod, they now once more yeam for irrationalism and magic, for culu and occult experiences, for archaic and mystical states, in short, for everything

they consider ‘dialectical’ about ‘enlightenment’ . . . Let me repeat: the myth of Firxcnrrcfdc is based on the totalitarianism of individual self-realisation, to which corresponds a hero-worship of the victims in the name of absolutes. There may still be u difference between the cult of art as a sacrifice for absolute values, and a

politics of sacrifice for an absolute good. But recent Crerman history has shown how iitéle it taltes to cross this divide, particularly in timer of economic and political crises. The divergent circuits of international distribution and nationally specific reception make films like Firronrrnfrfc opaque an texts, but multi-faceted mirrors for any audience seeking confirmation of its own expectations. in one sense, it became u different film depending on whether it was regarded as a product of the international film industry, u work of Wcmcr Hcrrog‘s, an cxarnplc of thc New Crerman Cinema or a contribution to an ideological debate between opposing factions in Crermany itself, at war over the direction of recent German history and the moaning cf the national culture. In another Bettie, however, it was proof

that the New Cicrman Cinema and its directors had succeeded. They had established the kind of intertexts and cross-references necessary to make the film circulate as both commodity and text. 305

Cit; git:

Intemafional cam: Claudia Cardinal: and Klein Kinski in Herzaglr Fitzcarraldo (I981)

A National or an International Cinema? The radical subjectivism in Fassbinder‘s films. the visionary quality of l-lerzog's imagination. the anxiously introspective turn of Wenders‘ heroes and the irrationalist mythomania of Syberberg have all been noted by critics too many times not to have become commonplaces. But not only do the critical cliches do less than justice to the films themselves, they also disregard the objective conditions which put Gennan directors in the contradictory positions described. Not the least of these contradictions was that the New German Cinema coincided historically and chronologically with the rationalist. anti-bourgeois and anti'Kultur' phase of l960s radicalisation. Yet its political function abroad and its semi-official status obliged directors to be at least aware of their cultural mandate. As directors began to address their peculiar dilemma of having an intemational audience, but finding themselves in several counter-currents domestically (the collection in which the attack on Helzog appeared was actually entitled ‘Only Dead Fish Swim With the Current‘), they tumed first of all to more and more recognisably ‘German’ issues and subjects in their films. They also treated them from a more and more particularised, limited and extreme angle of vision. knowing that. as Schlfindorff put it, ‘only by being aware of its national identity

can a lilrn industry be internalional‘.‘° Quite logically, it led many of them to a rediscovery and revaluation of a specifically Romantic tradition - that of Utopian idealism and radical subjectivity. An Austrian critic duly took the New German Cinema to task for it, seeing $

L‘ “ l GO\'Sl@

U‘l*.»‘El1»_

cw->3-1

mainly a retum to the badly skewed relation between art and politics of the days of Caligari: The ‘new German cinema‘ . . . sells eccentricity and dreaminess, as one would expect from Germans, mysticism and the sort of individualism that runs away from society. Tlte German brand [of subjective despair] competes with Hollywood

disaster movies: social alienation and reification are tumed into solid entertainment values. In this form. new-German ‘journeys to the soul's interior‘ hit the international market, and inwardness sits bent over the assembly-line. where Fassbinder puts in a double shift with overtime, and I-Iernog vows: ‘German culture is seriousness and pain‘. The Fassbinders. Herzogs and Wenders are certainly no lefties, but they are unthinkable without the backdrop of left-wing student radicalism‘ They copy the uprising of the ‘critique of the critique‘. Whether they actually took part in the events hardly matters: their audienoes did. and it is their defeat which. in the form of exportabie ‘Weltschmerf helps these young cine-talents to worldwide suoeess.

However popular such a cinema might be, it doesn't lend itself to an accurate rellection of the state of mind of its public, who ooruume such films like a drug."

Such ultra-left critiques interpret the 'romantic‘ tendencies of the New Gennan Cinema as the result of commercial speculation, from a position that rejects the

commodity status of culture under capitalism. They are unwilling to concede that this is in fact the very subject of many of the films of Wenders. Herzog or Fassbinder. A case in point might be Fassbinder's use of Fascism in films as Icy glamour: Hanna Schygulla in

FM5bl'nder'.I Lili Marleen (M80)

. . . and Raul Zed! in Fassbinder's Veronica V055 (I982)

307

C-0

w.z= - ~=

n+1--‘l

different as Despair, The Marriage sf lllariu Brain: and Lili Marleen. The latter grujeet gave rise tn aeeusatiens uf the gressest ertpluitatien en the part ef assbinder, uf trivlalising histnry in erder tn erttraet frnm it a saeeharin private meledrama lu-usely based en the memuirs uf a seeend rate singer, Lale Andersen, Lili" Marleen was nut made direetly within the subsidy system, erteept that Fassbinder, fur virtually all his films after 1971, was able tn enlleet autnmarit: subsidy. The main suuree uf finanee was Luggi ‘Waldleitner, an ‘uld guard‘ prudueer, and his enmpany Rusty-Rialte, with additie-nal Italian interest en aeeaunt nf the male lead, Eiianearlu Giannini, Waldleitner, as it happened, nwned the rights tn the famuus sung uf the title. Dne way uf leaking at the film is thus tu say that Fassbinder e-alluded with the preeess whereby eapitalism and the entertainment industry strip histnry ta the slteletnn at its use value - that whieh survives as hanliable, whieh eeineides with what is memnrable nr, in this ease, what is hummable, Was the vulgarity uf Haai nustalgia Fassbinder's priee fur having had ample prnduetinn funds in the enly eurrently available valid eurreney ef the internatiunal blew German Ciriema? His film is, hewever, a film about Faseism enly by eenstrueting its narrative aruund a highly paradtntieal but histurieally authentieated ‘mentage effeet‘: the furruituus enenunter uf a lnve sung and a we-rld war. The wartime popularity nf ‘Lili lvlarleen' is what interests Fassbinder, and he is in effeet mueh mere enneerned with the aggregate states - material and immaterial — uf snmething as ephemeral and apparently trivial as a sang, than with either the luve stury ur the paternal melndrama whieh he and his seriptwriters have built arnund it.‘ The faet that Waldleitner eeuld acquire a pieee ef histnry literally fur a sung must have seemed tn Fassbinder materialism with a vengeanee, an irunie rebuttal ta Breeht’s theury uf the ‘lvlessingl:auf', whieh says that an artist’s relatien tn his eultural traditiun shnuld be lilte that uf the man whe buys a trumpet fur its brass value.

Fassbinder’s film, where the sang is an nbjeet ta be traded and used, a symbal and a substitute, enneentrates an the eurin-us relatinns that dn exist in eur eulture between shuw business and power, between entertainment and enmmeree, between speetaele and warfare. ln this sense, and making a very instruetive enmpaninn pieee, Lili Marleen is as mueh abnut the blew German Cinema and the eummudity status nf eulture as Firreerralda is about patrnnage fur a despised art in an unsuitable plaee - the einema in West Gemrany.

308

Ger ___-igle

10: Conclusion

The Absent Centre ln referring to the ‘blew Cerman Cinema’, the -preceding chapiers have mostly employed the past tense. But is the patient actually dead? The number of German films at, say, the Berlin Film Festival seems if anything to increase from year to year. Figures from the Film Statistical ‘fearboolt, or those released by the Film Subsidy Board, indicate an annual production of ill] to lfllll films, depending on the calculations, and whether, for instance, television films and international eoproductions are included. Commercially, too, German films are doing better business nationally and intemationally than ever before. Schldndorlfs Swans in Love {if counted as a C-erman film), ‘Wolfgang Petersen‘s The Boar, Doris Dcr1ie’s Men [M-finder, 19345], ,lean—lacques r5t,nnaud's The Name of the Rose fa FrancoCrerman co-production, 1935] and Percy Adlon's Bagdad Cafe! {I957} were

successes with art cinema audiences and as commercial releases, though most of them hardly exemplify the blew -German Cinema. Reit:-:' Heirnar was a publie and a critical triumph for a director who had been making films virtually unnoticed for 25 years. Hcirnar also proved that the Crerman cinema could enter into competition with international television: the series found buyers from several major national television networks. Bernhard Sinltel and Hans Eieissendorfer have followed Rena’ lead and direcied, respectively, a historical chronicle {Fathers and Sons] and a T'v' soap opera or ‘family series‘ {Lindensrrasrc}. While Heitx joined the international ‘auteurs’, Wenders won the Golden Palm at Cannes in 1934 with Paris, Texas and the Director‘s Prize for Wings of Desire {l'£lilT], while 5yberberg‘s Farsifal [ 1952} did well during the Wagner Centenary Year. l~J,luge*s The Power of Feeling {I953} was the director‘s most successful film sinee Srrongnran Ferdinand {Der Srarire Ferdinand, 1976], yet critics were also complaining that he had been ‘making the same film for fifteen years‘. They found Hemcg‘s Where the Green Ann Dream and Cobra Verde disappointing, confirming his ‘decline‘ after the laclt of box office success for Frrrcarraido, Syberberg’s The Night {Die Na-chr, 1935}, Sanders-Brahms’ Lapara {I936} and even von Trotta‘s Rosa Lttxernfurrg [1936] and her Three Sisters {I933} aroused much less interest than the directors’ previous work, and the feeling became inescapable that the central impulse of a distinctly national cinema had been lost, Wliat was strilting was how many Crennan directors worlred abroad on coproduetions with other, often non-lJ.S. film and television industries. ‘Wenders shot Paris, Texas in the United States, with French and British co-finance; Heraog made Green Ann in Australia, which has seen a revival as a national einema similar to that in West Germany; Eiclilondorff received French film aid for Srvann I'll‘!

Ger ___-iglc

in Love and did lilearlr of a Salesman (Tod e-lites lfcrrdlangrrerirenden, ISIS-I5} for Dustin Hoffman‘s production company and American Public Broadcast Television; Sanders-Brahms‘ Tlte Fnarre of Ernily {Hegel and Fesseln, 193,5} was mainly shot in France in a co-production with French television; with funds from the Goethe Institute Jutta Brftclrncr made Ein Bliclt - and die Llebe bricltr arts {One Glance and Lave Breaks Dar, 1986} in Buenos Aires. Paris was also the unlikely location for parts of Rita, llirrer (1934) by Herbert Achtembusch, whose Blauer Blun-ten {I936} was a poetic travel diary of a visit to China. Lllrilre =U'ttinger's most recent film was also shot in China, and Wemer Schroeter has made films in the Philippines {Tlte Smiling Star or Der lacliende Stern, 1933}, Portugal {Der Rosenlconlg, I935] and Argentitta [De l',slr-gentin-e, l'l'33—E5}, the latter for French television. The conclusion to be drawn is perhaps that the blew German Cinema has dispersed itself to the four corners of the earth and fragmented whatever unity there may have existed during the liflflls. The image of a centre that can no longer hold inevitably evoltes an obvious absence: Fassbinder, His death in I952 was seen as synonymous with the demise of the blew German Cinema. As Hlolfrarn Schfitte put it in an obintary: The New German Cinema [what remained from Clberhausen and what came after} has many ltinds of energy. Alexander Kluge would be its synthesising intelligence, Wemer Herxog its athletic will, Wim Wenders its phenomenological power of perception, Wemer Schroeter emphatically underscores its emotional side, Herbert

Achtembusch is its rebellious stubbomness, and ‘llollter Schicndorff its craftsman. Rainer ‘lllcmer Fassbinder, however, would be the heart, the beating, vibrant

centre of all these partial impulses, these different aggregate states of its energy , - , He was the pounding heart. How it has been stopped. Fassbinder‘s loss not only for the Gennan Cinema is incalculable, and more historical distance will be needed before the importance of his worlr can be firlly assessed. Within days of his death the inner circle of his collaborators, his entourage and surrogate family sadly fell out with each other.‘ Lawsuits. litigation, court injunctions and libel cases followed in quiclc succession, A flurry of activity produced a shelf full of biographies, autobiographies, confessions, revelations: mostly from his once close associates and collaborators? A Mart Called Ella [Erin

Mann wie Eva, 1984) appeared, starting Eva lvlattes as Fassbinder. Among the many biaarre episodes in this marlteting of a genius was the attempt by one of his more casual acquaintances to sell copies of a stolen deathsmaslt to visitors at the ‘Venice Festival in ll-I32. Decline, dispersal, disintegration: the metaphors abound by which to characterise the death of a movement, the end of a career and the closure of an epoch. But again, such a view would laclt all historical perspective, not least because, paradoxically, Fassbinder contributed more to the ‘death’ of the blew Eierman Cinema when he was alive than after his own death. It was his worlr, the restless exploration of different conditions and possibilities of film-malting which, if it did not inaugurate, then at any rate accelerated the changes that have led to the transformations of the blew Cerrnan Cinema into the German Cinema. and of the German Cinema into a host of rather heterogeneous forms of film-malting, in television and the cinema, at home and abroad.‘ Fassbinder seems to have been aware of these changes earlier than most of his colleagues, and able to expand his mini-studio to a one-man film indu-strry. His immense productivity helped to build up an infrastructure of technical and artistic slrills in several fields very quicltly. Working in film and television, but also in the SIG

Cit": glc

all Fictional biography: Eva Matte: at Fassbinder in Roda Gobretflt A Man Called Eva (I984)

theatre, his projects were often designed to stretch and extend the technical and organisational possibilities of his team. For WDR he was the first to create a popular television series that seriously engaged with political issues (Acht Stunden rind lrein Tag; Eight Hour: are not a Day. 1972) as well as leading in low budget films with high production values (The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant). He took on subjects which required commercial and intemational finance, and in his work there is ultimately no opposition between the cultural mode of production and the industrial one: he used the cultural one as the industrial one. Fassbinder had from the start aimed for the fascination that glamour could bring even at a time when the technical means allowed him nothing more than tinsel. This glamour required the existence. if only as a memory, of the intemational film industry with its typical movie mythology, and the view that the cinema itself is what brings audienoes into the cinema. Fassbinder had rt makebelieve studio system, he had make-believe stars, and he was making makebelicvc Hollywood films. In his advocacy of a German film industry in the late 1970:, he merely spelled out what he had himself practised since 1968. By the early 19805 he was able to produce wholly uncommercial films such as In a Year of Thirteen Moons, politically controversial films such as The Third Generation (W79). big budget and fashionable films such as Lili Marleen, very private but intemational art cinema such as Querelle (1982), and prestigious national television such as Berlin Alezanderplatz (l979f80). Fassbinder‘: films were often made with ‘real money‘, that is, funds materialising from the diuyingly complicated profit and loss calculations. the write-off. deferral and refinancing policies. thc ceaseless logic of unlimited speculation. When he talked about the fact that films can ultimately only be made by taking risks, he had added ‘the capitalist way'.’ It is 311

G0 31¢

,,

,,,_,

in this sense, mere than itt the genres he revived and imitated, that he finally achieved his amhitien te malte ‘real Hellywee-d‘ films.

The End ef the Anterertfihn? In January 1933 Giirtter Rehrbach, Executive Preducer at Bavaria Studies, addressed the Federal Asseciatieu ef Film and Televisien .t'lL~l‘;'ll]1'S. His title was a calculated preveeatien: ‘The Pernicieus Fewer ef Direct-era‘. in it, the feniter Head ef Film Pre-ductien fer the celebrated televisien channel ‘WDEI, and ene ef the chief premeters ef the Televisien Framewerlt Agreement which put the anthers’ cinema en its se-lid financial feeting, reundly deneuncetl the tyranny ef

the film directer. Perhaps he did have Fassbinder in mind. with whem he and his directer ef preductien, Peter Ivlarthesheimer. had werlted many times, heth at the WDR and at Bavaria Studies, and last en Berlin Alexcnderplere. The pewer at the cemlnand ef direeters, enee they are established, has practically

ne equivalent in ear seciety. Altlieugh the labeut ef his team members remains witheut public reeegnitien, and flews instead whelly tewards the directer's fame,

their leyalty. as a rule. ltuews ne beunds. The direeter is their leader and a cult figure en whem all eyes rest . . . The team ltnews ef ceurse that their jehs depend

en him. that his success can mean werlt and bread fer them in the future. But the etnancipatery centent ef many films te-day stands in a peculiarly edtl relatien ef

tensien with the cenditietis under which they were made. Directers are alse the stars ef their films. lttsefar as they effer their ewn perse-n

as advertisement and sales peint, they eust the actets frem a rele which traditienally was theirs. Directers give press cenfe rences, appear en televisien, and let themselves

be celebrated at festivals. Harry ef them have aceemnte-dated quite well te this state ef affairs. Even Hanna Scllygulla in Cannes had te subrnit te questiens abeut whe the wernart was at Fassbinder's side?‘

Rehrbach eeuld net have chesen a mere censervative vecabulary te veice his disquiet abeut ttte future cf the German Cinema. His attaclt en direeters in general, and en cult figures in particular, seemed te revive all the eld arguments ef the film industry against the Anrerenlzine and selective suhsidy. His reasening, hewever, attempted te be histerical: the Auterenkirte had fulfilled its missien and

purpese, namely te give the Gennan Cinema an artistic reputatien. But the star direeters eeuld net reselve the dilemma they had themselves helped te bring abeut: the disappearance ef prefessienals frem the industry. lnstead ef cemplaining abeut the laclt ef cempetent scriptwriters, and the decline in standards ameng technicians, editers and art direeters, the film-matters, aeeerding te Rehrbach, sheuld put their ewn heuse in erder: they enly had themselves te blame. Seeing that real pewer lay enly with direeters, and resenting the lew status that their craft and sltills enjeyed, cameramen and editers were geing fer directerial assignments themselves. Rehrhach tried te rewrite the histery ef the Hew Eiermart Cinema frem the film industry's pcint ef view. even theugh he lniew, fer instance, that it was enly thanks te Fassbinder and ene er twe ether names that the German cinema had been ahle te brealt inte interuatienal marltets at all. Furthermere, precisely because the cemmedity film and the institutien cinema have a material as well as an immaterial side, eithibitieu value will always attach itself te sente aspect ef the cinema - acters, direeters. special effects - which will seem eiteefiive when measured by ether criteria. But what are the criteria ef value‘? Rehrbach‘s 311

CL-ti 311.:

puI‘pc-se. hewever, was lem te plead en behalf ef technicians er acters than te rehabilitate the preducer, the syinbel ef the cemrnercial film industry. His main arguments were that, given the eppertunities fer natienal films en the werld market. enly experienced preducers eeuld successfully eitpleit the new pessibilities ef film financing. Secendly, with televisien itself ecming under pressure, its rele as patren ef the independent secter weuld have te shrink. Here tee, enly preducers were in a pesitien te pretect direeters frem bureaucratic machinatiens and the pelitical vagaries ef public funding. Wiiat litehrbach had certainly sensed eerrectly was a new pelitical teugliness abeut public funding, and alse a mere widespread discentent: We are net agaittst the anthers‘ fihn, but against the fact that a marginal aspect til the cinema has menepelisetl the entire spectrum ef film-making, and is attempting

te immunise this ‘new type ef t:inema' [eutside the regulating mechanisms ef the market} against all criticism.‘

This passage is neither frem a trade magazine ef the eld guard, ner a tight wing daily paper. lt appeared in the three part investigatlen ‘Tewards a State Cinema?‘ already queted, in medium, a scbelarly publicatien en the liberal left. The develepmcnt seemed te have ceme full circle, with critics almest taking up the same eppesitien as after Gberhausen, eiteept that by the lilfiils the eld right and the yeung left seemed te have fermed an unhely alliance. Twe things, hewever, had changed. Firstly, the anther—directers themselves were demanding mere evert and transparent pewer hierarchies. Fassbinder, in an interview given after cemplcting Despair with a ta;-shelter eempany and while centemplating making a film in the United States, had the fellewing te say: If things get any werse, l'd rather be a streetswceper in ivleiricc than a film-maker in Germany. I prefer censership that is handed te me in black-and-white in the

sert ef freedem where I*m supplying the censetship myself.‘ Having produced eneugh films te acquire, via autematic subsidy. a basic werking capital, he ceuld afferd a mere eutspelten rejectien ef suhsidy than mest. Secendly, the Aumrenjilm ef ISTS was ne lenger the liliirerenfilm ef 1963 er even 1963. lnterrtatienal success fer seme direeters, the pessibilities ef Anterican distributers in ce-preducing C-ierman films, and the emergence ef many ef tlte .iinrercn‘s fermer preductien assistants as independent, full-time preducers {secalled ‘telepliene preducers‘, that is, eitperts ef the subsidy system with insider cennectiens te the cemmittees and the televisien netwerks and thus basically cemparable te rltmerican preducers setting up the ‘package deals‘) had all prepared the gt'cund ence again fer a directly eemmercial appreach te film-making. The Hamburg Eleclaratien, tee, enly ratified the situatien.“ lt marked the end ef a develepmcnt, theugh net that ef state-funding fer the cinema. ner that cf tlte irtvelvement ef televisien. Rather, it indicated the peint where the blew German Cinema began te experience the censequences ef its ewn success and grewth, rislting the less ef its specifically natienal develepmcnt and histery, te beceme a highly diffuse, diversified and fragmented secter ef the internatienal televisien and film industry. The much-vaunted ‘pluralism ef Hamburg‘ seemed te signal the dimipatien ef that mement ef self-reflcctieu which had given West Germany a sense cf ceming te tertns net enly with its film histery, but its histery —- even if, as we have seen, it was partly rewritten as anether fihn histery. Cine might cenclude frem this that, brcadly speaking, the surge in film-making in West Germany during the 1‘it'flls fellewed the transfer ef pewer frem cinema te televisien which implied drawing en and ahserbing a censiderable number ef .313

CL-ti glc

as yet unafliliatcd direeters, cameramen and related persennel en a freelance basis. With the stabilisatien ef this laheur market by the mid*l%, the blew German Cinema vanished like Cinderella's carriage, leaving, apart frem a vast number ef individual films hardly ever shewn in cinemas either in Germany er abread, a few internatienally knewn auteurs wbe might arguably have made a career fer themselves even witheut the film-funding system er elabcrate, gcvemment-spensered premetien campaigns. lf this is the impressien, then it

is partly because eur acce-uut se far has restricted its perspective tee narrnwly en Cremtany itself.

The International Sitttatien The rturererrfilm - this was ene ef the theses ef present study - dc-es net name a particular genre ef films er range ef subjects, but is first cf all a pelitical cencept. It was intended te create a space fer lilmsmaking eutside that celenised by the intetnatienal eemmercial feature film. In the early lllfills the Hellywecd preduct, tegether with its natienal variants, seemed te be the enemy. As we saw, while David did nct actually slay Geliath at the bes effice, the blew German Cinema was successful in establishing institutienal structures — seme weuld say bureaucracies — which substituted fer and bypassed the hierarchies cf the traditienal film industry. But it seems clear that. apart frem the facters discumed in the earlier chapters, the .-Iiurerenfilm wasalse aided by a shift in the balance cf pewer between the eemmercial cinema and its rival, televisien, which affected net enly ‘West Germany but - tc leek ne further - Eurepe as a whele. If the battlefrent that prevailed at the time ef Gberhausen had disappeared, it was net the ..-iltr.terenkrZne that eeuld lay claim te victery, even theugh its erstwhile enemy. tlte demestic film industry, seemed te have been swept aside befere its very eyes. The ferces that finished eff the eld German cinema were in the precess ef alse swallewing up the Aemrenfihu, prebably witheut even nelicing that they were deing se. Fer, ever the last decade, the entire picture has changed. hlene cf the eld eppesitiens really helds: net enly Airhrenche and Jungfilm have gene, but cemmerce versus culture, Hellyvveed versus natienal cinema, Aiucrenkrlrre versus Anderes Kine and even cinema versus televisien are beginning te be antincmies cf the past. ln its place we have the se-called ‘new media‘ — videe, cable, satellite which strictly speaking are net new media but. te use the jargen, new delivery systems.” Because the club ef these whe have a stake in ewning these systems is pessibly even smaller, and by virtue ef the enerrneus investments even mere eitclusive than the eld film industries. their eitistence and the battles ever their centrel mean that all audie-visual preducts are affected seener er later. Se far the signs - in ltaly and France fer instance — are that the emergence cf the media ccnglemerates clustering areund satellite breadcasting and cable televisien in particular are effectively squeezing cut whatever resists er dees net fit inte the glebal cencept that the eld and the new media are building up. They are reducing the diversity ef pregrantming en rtatienal televisien and further ereding the admissien figures fer cinemas. if ene takes a lenger view ef the present situatien in Eurepe ene can see that, in the current crisis ef the Arrrerenfilra, it is the survival ef the cinema itself that is at issue. The ..-ilutcrenfilm is net the enly pessible er the mest precieus ferm ef cinema, yet in its German SH

Gui 311.:

variant it was an erttreme, but fer its time and en its ewn terms alse very censistent ferm ef film-making, and thus its histery can serve as a symptematic case. This is hew it has been discussed here, and net the least ef the reasens why the preceding chapters have en the whele refrained frem passing value judgements en this er that film er directer is ttre paradigmatic rele the blew German Cinema eccupim within the larger ccnteirt ef cinema histery, as distinct frem film histery.

The Le-atllngPlayers Wlrat we are witneming in the lflfiils are the takeever battles by which the giants cf the print media (newspaper, publishing} are acquiring the audie-visual media en a werldwide scale. The players in this very unevenly matched game are, firstly, inter-natienal media barens like Robert ivlaitwell, the rlrustralian Rupert lvlurdech, the Canadian Ted Turner and the ltaliarr Silvie Berlusceni, presslerds in France, the varieus backers ef Radie Lurtemburg, the Bertelsmann 'v'erlag, Axel Springer and Ciruner fit Jalrr in West Gemrany. They are net enly fighting ever respective shares in the cable and videe business but are busy lebbying gevernments te amend restrictive legislatien and persuading state menepelies like the pestal services te grant licences and beceme themselves suppliers ef the necessary infennatienal infrastructure. Secendly there are the natienal breadcasting netwerks and their eemmercial cempetiters: in Britain, the BBC and rrv, including Channel Feur; in West Germany, the relatively autenemeus regienal netwerks, as well as the Seccnd Clrannel, ED-F. Being preducers ef feature films either frem within their ewn reseurces, like the BBC, er by cemmissiening frem independents, as in the cue ef Channel Feur and ZIJF, the televisien netwerks are in a str'eng even if precarieus pesitien when it cemes te supplying the new, deregulated market. WDB. fer instance, has built up ccmmercially very erttensive relatiens with Germany‘s largest stttdie, the Bavaria Film Atelier itr ivlunich-Geiselgasteig, ef which Rehrbach*s transfer cf past and change cf tune were the clearest signs. Tnirdly there are the natienal and intematienal film distributers. In Britain: Cannen, Bank, and the US ivlajers; in Germany mestly the US lvlajers, and small natienal distributers such as Censtarrtin {Bernd Eichinger), Herst iifendlarrdt, Filrnverlag der Auteren and Laurens Straub‘s Filmwelt. They cempete with ene anether en twe frents: te supply the cinemas and te get their share ef the videe

market. They may invest in preductien, because a preducer whc is net alse a distributer leses cut en the gress takings ef a film. Here, tee, the preblem is te have a sufficient quantity ef preduct, and te ertpleit beth film and videe market skilfully se as net te kill ene with the ether. Effective centrel in the new media is determined by the material supperrs and access te ertisting markets, net by the preducts. "t’et access and delivery system tegether redefine the market fer all preducts including film, fer all sites and spaces ef censumptien, including the cinemas, and in all ceuntries, including these in which alruererrfiim, independent, art er avant-garde cinema have a [small] stalte in the everall media en effer. The censequences fer the cinema are that certain films, usually Hellyweed films, are heavily premeted fer their start irt fit'st+rr1n theatres. But instead ef ceunting en the secend-run market, distributers new ge straight inte the videe sheps, usually within twe er three menths ef the mevie premiere, the haste being partly in erder te disceurage pirating. Figures suggest SIS

= Ctr glc

that in Germany nrere than half ef the gress inceme frem feature films cemes cut ef videe hire. Finally, in the lt-fills United States film and televisien preductien became a relatively miner field ef diversificatien fer multi-natienal cerperatiens such as Gulf and ‘Westerri, the llinney Ccrperatien er Ceca-Cela. Tet hewever marginal Hellyweed might be te the petre-chemical, fee-d, leisure er cemmunicatien industries, it still deminates the intematienal film industry, and alse mest ef the werld‘s televisien screens. in film preductien the l'Eflils breught anether majer cencentratien cf capital and reseurces: fewer films new attract a larger share cf the everall investment, and very intensive marketing strategies create ne mere than a deaen mega-hits annually. These have budgets se vast that they allew the industry te medemise its tectrnelegy and keep abreast with advanced research fcemputerisatien, seund systems, camera rebetics, special effects}. The American film industry can thus act in many ways as a preductien site fer developing pretetypfi. beth in terms cf manufacturing precesses and ef types ef entertaimnent spectacles. Such cencentratien entails increasing divisieu ef laheur at the preductien stage. This is mest censpicueus in the prependerance ef ‘special effects’ and in advertising budgets that are, at times, almest as large as net preductien cests. lt has alse resulted in a restructuring and reintegratien at anether level. blet many films are distributed te-day witheut a seundtrack available en reccrd er cassette, and a be-ck versien in paperback. This fact alene undersccres tlte degree te which the uniqueness cf the individual preduct vanishes in the diversity ef its aggregate cemmedity states, each ef which attracts further investment and thus further prefit. The reccrd industry, the audie-visual industries ef beth seft and hardware and the publishing cempanics femt an interdependent system with televisien, the cinema. advertising and scmetimes tey manufacture and faslrien design, in which the film and its ‘image’ are the pretext fer preductivity, the fuel driving the different subsystems. This myriad ef specialised skills and technelegies dees preduce a kind cf ceherence fer the censumer: the cemmedity film — thanks te its value as entertainment and as a mirrer ef the spectater‘s fantasy -- glews and scintillates as a tetal experience ef cinema. Such a film retains a ghestly afterimage, as it revcrberates and echees threugh the media envirenment in all its incarnatiens, until it fades er is replaced by a similar, and similarly tetal, experience. The ecenemic pewer and adrrtirristrativc legistics behind the bleckbuster‘s successful synthesis ef all the diverse systems which it mebilisec and draws upen, are as aweseme as they are disturbing. They represent anether ferm ef celenisatien, ef strategic e-ccupatien and territetial penetratien te which the Eurepean fihtt industries and independent film-makers may net be able te respend. Fer in the reerganisatien and redefinitien cf the market there are a few ebvierrs casualties: the cinemas, fer instance, unless they are first-nrn heuses; the secalled nen-eemmercial er lfimm market {affecting students and teachers cf film); and, mest irnpertarrtly, the independent feattrre film, such as the Auterertfiim, which has rarely made it inte the first-run theatres and thus is unlikely te make it inte the videe market either. Exceptiens are the few films distributed by US lvlajers {ene-effs by ‘Wenders, Fassbinder, Heteeg, Scbldnderff, ilrlelfgang Petersen, lvlargaretbe ven Tretta and recently Deris Derrie).

Jlti

-

Ger yglc

Success of the I980s: Dari: D6rrie'.r Men (I986)

The New German Cinema: An Invention of the SocialLlberal Coalition? What makes the situation complicated for the film-makers is that the players are oftcn vcry unevenly matched. Some. like the media empires, always play offensively. Some, like the national broadcasting networks, are usually forced on the defensive, especially at timcs when they do not have a politically sympathetic govemment to back them up as in Britain, where the Conservative Party practically declared war on the BBC in the mid 1980s. Italy's coalition govemments are too divided. and much too involved in playing political games with and via the media, to implement any kind of restraints. In West Germany the Kohl administration is also busy dismantling the media policy which the Social Democrat/Liberal coalition had built up in the way of dc cnccs or at least compensatory mechanisms over the years. Throughout Europe deregulation seems to be the order of the day, partly because the national govemments themselves are already in defensive positions vi.r~d—vit their own private enterprise companies. lt is thus possible to see that the kind of protection which the Autorenfilm received during the late 1960: and throughout the 19705 was prescient in two ways. It subsidised tr ‘national’ film culture, but it also created media structures that may be able to withstand thc onslaught of the new media more effectively. provided they can combine a political response with an economically practicable prograrnmirrg concept. Politically the New German Cinema was the result of 3|‘!

Co 31¢

.,

,,,._.,

lobbyists like Kluge finding sympathetic ears among Social Democrat and Liberal parliamentarians, who in turn etterted pressure on the policies of rewarding national prestige projects including the cinema, along with museurns, music festivals, theatre events and sports. Practically, the New German Cinema was financed by television, making films that oould also pass as cinema in the specialised markets and at national and international festivals, where a television film oould be upgraded to beoome part of the international art cinema, if critics, journalists, prise-giving juries, distributors or a television buyer from abroad liked it. The dual strategy corresponded to a division of the Aurorenfilm, between its creation of a national cinema {which as we saw could range from re-staging national history to the self-representation of special groups such as women or gay sub-cultures} and its support of alternative forms of cinema altogether (non~ narrative films, documentary, opera and music drama, dance theatre or film essays}. ln neither case does ‘self-expression‘ or the notion of the ‘artist’ in the romantic sense need to play a significant part other than as an ideologically useful bargaining counter. The ‘artist’ gave the work a cultural cachet within a specific political situation - such as prevailed in ‘West Ciennany - where film had to bid with [and initially against) the rest of the arts for a share of the overall cultural budget that the State hands out annually. In Britain, by contrast, to describe cinema as 'art' or even ‘culture’ would give it a bad name, which makes the terms ‘independent* or ‘freelance’ the preferred currency when appealing to State sponsorship or television funding, To that eittent the Auror was not only a public institution but a strategic fiction, yet one which, although it created its own problems for film-malrers, had in the German contest a peculiar potency and effectivity. ‘With this oonoept if not the term, West Germany was, for most of the 19‘Tlls, ahead of the rest of Europe. By the time of the third revision of the Film Subsidy Law in 1974 its subsidy system had been quite finely tuned, combining federal and regional funding, automatic subsidy and project subsidy with llluratorium money. television co-production agreement and llerlin-Effekt. lt gave a boost at all levels, and for a huge variety of film forms and modes, from the medium-tobig budget prestige film lilte Fassbinder’s The Marriage of Maris Brena or Schlondorlfs The Tin lilrt-rm, to avant-garde and eirperirnental films by Schroeter, Achtembusch, Faro-cki, Sander and Clttinger, This also indicates the histoticity of the idea and why, in the 1'J'Slls, the term was being dropped and the strategy rethought. But by the mid-lE'tSfls it seemed as if the Eiermans had to say of themselves ‘we blew it‘. Wltile France and Britain had leamt from the German experience and began to be more successful in keeping a stalte for their product in the national market m well as breaking into the international market, the German cinema, despite its advantages, was apparently unable to build on its real if brief breakthrough during the l*5l"flls. There was no shortage of reasons: had the basis for a full-scale reoovery always been too small‘? ‘Was it the change in government policy? Had the Americans killed some of the geese that laid the golden eggs — ‘Wenders, Henog and Schlfindorff? Was it Fassbinder's drug overdose? Had distributors not promoted Gennan films, but merely chased international bot: office hits wltich do not require a risky outlay when launched on the German market? Was it the telephone producers, who simply milked the subsidy system‘? Had film critics and journalists been too short-sighted, provincial and masochistic to mount a decent public relations job, not just for this or that film or director, 3!!

CL-ti 311.:

-

but for a broadly conceived production policy? Was it the film+malters, who bad stayed on the defensive, too much concerned with becoming auteurs - with Truffaut, Fellini, Scorsese or Coppola as their models - or hankering after support from the intemational avant-garde, regardless of the changing conditions, and without fully grasping what was happening in the domestic media situation? Was it the public - in the sense that the generation that had supported the independent flutorenfifin during the l'5"l'[ls had dropped out as an active cinema public, because

they had become too old, too busy or too laxy to bother to go to the cinema? ‘Was it the cinemas that had turned into mtrltiplexes showing films in a semipornographic environment with bad projection, bad sound and bad service‘? Cir was it the films, not inventive enough, not exciting enough, nor intelligent enough to interest either a national or an intemational audience once the novelty bad wor:n off‘? Whatever the reason, or combination of reasons, instead of celebrating the Hew Crerman Cinema"s twenty-fifth anniversary since Gberhausen, journalists at the l'=l'Sl' Berlin Film Festival behaved more as if they were attending a wake.“

A Missed Opportunity or a Strategic Retreat? Sorne of the complaints echoed those made by lilohrbach, namely that in all the years and despite hundreds of films the Cerman cinema still lacked an adequate industrial and technical infrastructure. {Jrlrers were similar to the ones raised during the years of the Young German Film, such as that frmding had created too many first-time film-makers and one-off films, forever making amateurish home movies pass off as authenticity and inspiration. The criticisms of the industry-oriented faction came down to three: not only did the C~errna.n cinema lack professionals, the films were, by international standards, often too cheaply made to employ properly trained technicians. Secondly, the German cinema lacked scriptwriters of experience, and therefore neglected narrative; it lacked a feel for dialogue and therefore for character, it had no sense of situation and therefore lacked drama. Consequently, despite a manifest demand on the part of the public for entertainment films with Crerman stars and German settings, the independent cinema was unable to supply them. They had developed no genres of its own, nor credible reworkings of others, and instead taken refuge in exoticisms, camp and kitsch fantasies and lurid evocations of extreme states of mind. Thirdly, German films lacked popular support, not least because they were completely identified with the generation of l'EltiS, currently very much out of favour with those under Sll. A new generation of audiences - and film-makers - now look at these films and find them boring, pretentious and vaeuous. Fashion and the generation gap seems to have overtaken the directors faster than they could accumulate expertise and attain maturity in a practice as demanding and specialised as the film business, To these one might add that the subsidy system had made German directors too obsessed with film policy. There was no aesthetic concept, other than a homemade kit of ideas borrowed from Cohiers do Cinerrrc cinephilia of over 3'] years ago or from the other arts. Even the political programme of the alntorenfilm had collapsed, not just among the doubters but anrong its most fervent advocates and ideologues. Bertendrnufirclrnur: Utcpie Flrn, once the pretty illustrations and amusing anecdotes are discounted, could be seen as l{.luge‘s declaration of defeat. Elegantly and dazzlingly as ever he had accomplished a turnaround, malting it seem as if 31!

Ci-tr git:

his position had remained tl1e same by calling the .-tlutorenfirfnr now Zrcrclraaerfilm. His notion of the amociational fit of a title, for instance, could have been borrowed from Paul Schrader, who told an interviewer how he had been fascinated by the associations between ‘American’ and ‘Gigolo’, and that once the title had come to him the story wrote itself. And lti.luge’s idea of the four-line plot is strikingly similar to Steven Spielberg’s conviction that a good story is ‘something you can weigh in the palm of your hand’.“ In defence of the German Cinema of the lfliflh one might argue that France, once it had adopted much the same funding system as West Cretrnany, could build on the advantage of a relatively healthy national film culture. It still functions both in Paris and in the provinces to get spectators into the cinemas — that , outside the very narrow band of 15 to 25-year-olds who, because France has a quota system, are brought up on French films as well as American ones. In Britain, too, even though all governmental aid such as the Eady levy and tax concessions has been removed, Channel Four's commissioning policy and the BFI Production Board, both modelled on the German example, are beginning to maximise the advantages British productions have: better access to the international television market and thus to the new art cinema than many of their European competitors. Thanks to its leading role in the pop music field, Britain is also well placed in the entertainment sector, while for serious drama the prejudice in favour of ‘British English’ is an additional asset in the United States, where the monarchy, the Empire and stories about the British Establishment seem to possess a perennial appeal.

The Crerman cinema has none of these cultural advantages and no serious hopes of breaking into anything other than the prestige market of the art cinemas, as its domestic ‘commercial’ successes underline. For the directors of the l"El'BIIs are not Wcmer Hersog or ‘Wim ‘Wenders, but names like Peter F. Bringmann and Carl Schenkel, Dominik Crraf and Peter lllcglcvic, Hartmann Schmige, Stefan Lultschy and Christian Rateuke. The stars are not Hanna Schygulla or Bruno Clans, but rock singer lvlarius lvlfiller-Westernhagen, T‘v’comics Didi Hallervorden and Gerhard Polt, stand-up comedian Cltto and Jean-Paul Belmondo, everpopular comic adventurer. His The Ace of Aces, a co-production made with Bavarian subsidy funds, was one of the biggest successes of the l9'S4r"S5 season. These directors and actors specialise in chase films, in suspense thrillers and humour - their models are William Friedkin, American cop series, the French comedian Louis de Funcs and Marty Feldman -— precisely the genres and stereotypes the Hew Gerrnan Cinema had avoided like the plague. Peter F. Bringmann’s Theo Against the Rest of the ll"on'd [Theo gegen den Rest der ilfeft, lilfill — a Belmondo-type chase and adventure comedy with lvlarius lvlr1llerWestemhagen in the lead) broke all records in 1981, and the two seem set to rrrake more films in the same vein [Tire Snowmen {Der Sclrrtecmsrrn, l'J'S5), for example}. Even more popular is Utto, who plays an East Frisian sirnpleton and whose first film was the most commercially lucrative German production for ill years.

From Experience to Event Perhaps the hlew German Cinema did not ‘blow it‘ after all. If the mass audience preferred German versions of The French Connection, or Kojak, or lvlarty Feldman or Louis dc Funes, they might be better off with the real thing, and 311]

Cit; git:

, I

The new Belmondn: Mariru Mriller-Westerrrlragerr in Peter F. Bringmann’: Theo Against the Rest of the World (198))

American distributors could be left to nrn the show, or French directors and ooproduocrs to collect the automatic subsidies for The Ace of Aces or The Name of the Rose. Many of the complaints against the New German Cinema, cvcn where true, seem misplaced if they implicitly assume the vantage point of an ideal (the home-made mass entertainment film) which is either unattainable or undesirable in practice and as rr norm historically about to become obsolete. The dcvclopmcnts in the ‘new media‘ m predicted by pundits will rapidly lead to a concentration of thc cinemas on highly profesional. errpensively made (and therefore American) blockbusters and prototypes, with national film industries in Europe supplying medium-to-low-oust broadcast and canned television entertainment.

By I982 European film-makers wcrc already up in arms over a suggestion that the European Community was thinking of prosecuting member states and forcing them to abandon their respective film subsidy schemes. French. Italian. German and even Greek directors felt that it could not conceivably be in the interest of a united Europe to destroy nationally specific cultural or cinematic traditions by thc stroke of a burcaucrat's pen in favour of more harmonisation. ‘Every film must declare its nationality and its own cultural identity‘ pronounced Bertrand Tavcmier, who condemned the multi-national cinema of no-productions and poured soom on thc prospect of ‘Sophia Loren playing a Berlin housewife, and Catherine Dcncuvc rr Sicilian peasant‘. The Eurolilm of the future oould join the Golden Delicious Euro-apple: tasteless and bland. “ Thus the New German Cinema. behind the times and out of favour with its 311

I‘

_\‘y.‘,~E;;\. —

,,:

‘,:_j,:._‘-j

critics inresp-cctofonelrirtdofproduct, may actuallybealread inanotlrter, perhaps more modest, but crucial area. For as the present study has tried to show, the -Eierrrtan cinenta, out of its two decades of experiment with film forms and collaboration with television, has acquired errpertise in two ‘alternative’ uses of the cinema, both of which are capable of further developments. Firstly, to combine film and television for what one might call, perhaps too pompously, nationally specific but internationally recognisable media events, such as Syberberg’s Hitler film, Rein’ Heimat or Fassl:-irt~der’s Berlin Aiescnderpfere. This would be in order to respond in the independent or cultttral sector to what irt the commercial field is the Hollywood superhit launched in the cinema, but malring its money in otlter aggregate states. Hence the argument that the .4urcrerr,|"it‘rrr, in its typically German form as a ‘cinema of ettperience‘, is not a certain ltind of product as mueh as it is a certain idea of cinema — and not only art idea of cinenta, but of the cinema as both a physical space end‘ a discourse. ff during the l9'l'tls such films on the whole involved small, politically or socially motivated groups of spectators, the media events mentioned above indicate how these spaces can, thanlts to television, become larger occasions. Here the critical reflexivity implied in encountering ‘otherness’ cart combine with that other esperience of self — the history! memory.-‘film history ettperience — without foregoing what was so crucial about ‘going to the movies’, the spontaneous creation of a community. Television is finding its own ways of doing this, even though spectators are rtow sharing the same (blocks of] time rather than a public space with a large number of others. Secondly, the German cinema has proved itself very irtventive in ‘minor’ fonnats and hybrid forms. The reason for its eclccticism and its borrowings from so many different cultural models - from pre-cinematic spectacles lilte the magic lantern to opera, melodrama and the Gessnrrlrurtsnverlr, from film essay to film tableau, from chronicle to allegorical mystery play, from documentary to requiem. from dramatic monologue to schiao-dialogue - lies irt the desire to preserve the cinema as the site of self-alienating experiences, in contrast to television’s essentially self+ confimting and self-validating fttnction. In this respect, film-rnalters are inheriting the legacy of a wide cultural field, fmm literature to protest action, from history to case study. This requires non+narrative as well as narrative forms, a cinema of gestures mid faces as much as a cinema of spectacle, artd a cinema of the white page and temps rrrcrrs as well as a cinema of rerrrps forts and action. ‘Without constituting a counter-cinema, Fassbinder, ‘Headers, Schroeter, Hersog, Achtembusch, Dttinger, Sander and Smtdersflrahms, Brirclrner and von Trotta, Syberberg and Fleischmann, Straub artd Faroclti and Kluge and Reit: have responded in very different ways to the pressure of (cinema-lhistory, but they are all aware of the etrtent to which their worlrs are ‘windows’ — not on to the world, but on an already prcgrarnmed screen. Today, films cart be made neither just for the cinema nor iust for television, but tvirlr both and against both. ln a situation where independent film-malting’s best chance might be to anticipate, test and initiate the types of programming public television will need to compete with and contrast with satellite T"v", their films are as much pilots artd models of a cinema of the future as the high-tech prototypes out of Hollywood. ' Looking baclt on the l9'ltls one can perhaps comprehend the errtraordinary diversity of the German cinema as the consequence of a vast transcription process. it was an attempt to gather, record and report the images, sounds and stories — including those that the cinerrta itself produced - which malte up the memory of a generation, a nation and a culture, and to trattslate them, from their many 311

Ctr git:

perishable supports in people's minds to the one medium that, after all, promises paradoxically to be the most pennanent: the cinema. Literature, popular culture, architecture, fashion, memorabilia and the contents of junk shops have all been enlisted in a vast effort to preserve the traces of lives lived for oblivion. This hastily accumulated visual wealth has not yet been tapped or even properly inspected for its meanings or uses. As a source of understanding the changes from a culture living mainly by the written text to one dominated by the image, the New German Cinema still awaits to be discovered. Jack Palance in Percy Adina’: Bagdad Cafe (I987)

One can already argue that the period between 1960 and 1985 may well come to signify a quite distinct era in European film history: that of a reprieve, as the cinema handed over to television and was in tum handed over to the ‘new media‘. In spite of their manifest ideological and for-rnal differences, the various ‘Young’, ‘Other’ and ‘New’ German Cinemas have in common with the nouvelle vague, the counter cinemas and independentfavant-garde cinemas of France, ltaly and Britain certain historical limit conditions. These are, to some extent. external to the films and the film-malrers since the two decades in question saw television take over from the cinema not only its adult mass audiences, but also most of the ideological functions previously shared by cinema, radio and the press: the production and circulation of socially agreed versions of reality. Thus. the cinema has in every ease become less and less representative, less and less a ‘national cinema‘ in the sense traditionally conceived. By contrast, few comers of any nation have been allowed to remain hidden from television's own peculiar gaze, which is dramatising, probing, documenting, telling and retelling, and thus constructing spectators and reconstntcting their history in its own image, intended as one in which everyone can recognise themselves. ln so far as the beginning of the New German Cinema coincided with the failure of the commercial European film industries to protect their domestic markets from the dominance of Hollywood, and ended with most fonns of both commercial and independent film-making agreeing terms with their respective national television networks, the different movements, groups and film forms perhaps only existed while the larger shifts in the technological and ideological environment of the mass media tool: place. as national cinemas ‘lost out‘ to Hollywood. and the cinema itself ‘lost out‘ to television. and television is ‘losing out‘ to digitalised information. But although many who love the cinema will regret this transfonnation and transcription, who can say with certainty what is loss and what is gain in a world of signs, images and electronic signals?

323

C-0

rt :1 - ~=

ts»-‘t

Netes and References

IliII2l"tlIt|lIIt!flt'.lIII

Andrew Burris, ‘The Germans ire Cutrting. the Germans HI: Coming’, Filing: Fuiee, 27 Detuher 199-'5. Juhn Sandfurtl, The New Gemun Cirlenu (I.-urltlun: Dswtrid Wolff. 1931]}; Jtltlles Franklin, New Gennan Cirrernu: Frum Dberhmuen to Hrrrrrhrrrg {Hustun: Twayne, 1953}. Klaus Phillips (eti.}, New Gennan Filmmakers." From Dberthmrsen Tilmugh the I9?tis (New "i"eri:: Ungnr, 193-1}. Erie Rentschler, ii~"e:rr German Film in the Cuurse inf Time {H-etlfurd Hills, New ‘fort: Redgrave. I934]. Timuthy Currigsn, New Gennan Film: The [irlspiueed Image (Austin: University

ut Tesss, I933}. Hans Ginther Pflsun: and Hans Helmut Prinster, Cinnne in time Federal Heprrbtie ef Gen-enny [B~enn: Inter Hstienes. 1933}. The terrrls eurne frurn David Riersrnsn's Tire Lonely Cmwd {New Yuri:

Duuhledsyfhneher, 1953} and figure. fur instance, in the Hamburg Deelsrstien in 1979: ‘We Sh-I1" nut ellutlr uurselves tu be uther-direute-d.‘

1 Fihrlnrlrutrj-l"lhnSuheid3r See Charles Eidsirik, ‘Behind the Crest uf the Wave: An Dwetnriew ut the Heir

Gennan Cinema‘. Lr'remrum'FHm fluurreriy, trul. T, nu. 3, 1939, pp. tn?-131. See ltiristin Thurnpsun, Experting Ennrrreil-1menr{Lundun: British Film Institute, 19315}. tllueted in Thurnss H. U-uhselt, The Inlentrttiunni Fiirn indnshjr {Btu-umingten: University“ uf Indiana Press, 19159] p. 125.

Guback. p. 13-4. See Klaus Kreimeier, Kirru und Frimindrrrrnle in der BED {Hrunb-erg: 5-eriptur.

1973} p. 179. Guback, p. 135.

tllueted in lireirrteier, p. 31. flueted in Ute Sehmidt and Tilrnau Fiehter, Der erzwungeee Kepitetirmur {Berlin: Klaus Wsgenhneh, 191-'1} p. 72.

Eberhard ltrsnz, Fitmkunst in der Agent: [H-erlin. GDR: Hensehel Verlsg, 19611} p. E4.

Guhsek, p. 134. Henry F. Pilgert, es qttutetl in Peter Pieyer, flerrtseher-Nuchkniegsfiim 1'9'dt5-.I'9IIS

(Munster: Verlag CJ. Fshie. 19155} p. 29.

Pteyer. p. 3t]. 324

- Cit; 311.:

‘Wim ‘Wenders, “Veraehten, was verkauft nrird",.Sr1ddeu.tsche Zeitung, 1-S December

1939. ‘Direeters nu-w try te benefit individually tr-run their internatiunal reputaliun and

their success with tnreign audiences. The result is surprising: thariistu intematienal distributers. the German public can nuw - sumetirnes — get tu see German films. Tu give an example: the teur must pepular German films at 1939 were distributed by United Firtists, Fux, and EIE.‘ ‘Werner Burelafl, ‘Cinema I Argent at Film‘,

Cehierr iie in Cinemarheque, nu. 33, Spring 1931, p. 149. See Dieter Frultup. Serieiegie rte-.r Fiirar [Luuhterhand: Heuwied. 1934} p. 153. Fur annual figures abeut the Gennan film industry, see Filrrrrtntisrirches Jnhrirriclr

and

Fiirrirrunlrrireirer

Tarciienbuch

[Wieshaden:

Spitaenurganisatiun

der

Filrnwirtschait. 19531533 and 19ti3ff}. The relative insignifieance at the West German film industry witlziin the natienal eeunumy can alse be seen by the relieving figures: in 1939 enly 9.1 per eent at the lab-nur furce was active in the liltn industry, and aecuuntetl fur less than 9.1 per eent ut taxable ineume. Tltese

figures include services in televisien. Quoted in Burclthard Dreher, Fiim_fdriie~mng in der Burrderrepubliit (Berlin: Deutsehes Institut liir ‘lfiiirtschaltsfurseliung,

Senderheit Ill. 1976} pp. 49-59. Barbara Brunnen and Curinna Brueher, Die Frirrremacher llvlunich: C. Ber-

telsmann, 1933} p. 33. Burzlatt, p. 141.

Ducted in Gubaclt, p. 13?. ‘Periods where the State did nut intervene in the area of filrn tlu nut exist in the

Federal Republic. already at the time at its fuunding, measures were talten in aid uf the filrn industry. The nearest tu a “free rnarltet“ situatiun wuul-ti be the

years 1953 tn I964. This periud is sandwiched between twe massively interventionist phases: ftem I959 tu 1955 the federal authurities subsidised film preductien in the furm uf guaranteed credits, and sinee 1935 first tl1e Illurat-uriurn lunger

Deutseher Film, then frem 1915? unwards the Film Subsidy Bill intervened in aid ut‘ prnduetiun. The film industry furthermure gets preferential VAT elassifiuatiun,

and sinee the end at the 1959s has enjuyed further tax enneessiuns . . . The perie-d where state interveritiun was weakest shuws a quite curlaitlerable falling eff at

periermanee and productivity in the film industry.‘ Dreher. p. ti-=l. Duuted in llireirneier, p. 199. Fur a detailed aceuunt uf the slit-gfeilbt3r_gschigfi!en, see Dreher, pp. 31-4. Dreher

alse pciints uut that the situatien had changed very little by the 1939s: ‘The limited pussihilities uf spreading the financial risks inherent in film pruductiun is due tu

the tact that German preductien eensists ut small enterprise units. In 1933, the annual average uutput per firm arrtu-unted tn ll feature films.‘ Dreher, p. till.

ilt|:ae}Brauner, Mich gibr's nur eirrmei. Riieitbiende eines Lebenr {Ber1in: Herbig, 19715 p. 141. See Reinhuld E. T.hiel. ‘Was wurde aus Liuehbels‘ LTF.Fi?'. in Film eirrueil, February 199-'9.

_

Ulrich 1€urewslti[ed.}, . - . nieirrrrieilrrjiiehen." Kine irrdentru rtdeniruer(lvlunich: Fllmmuseurrt, 1979} p. 13.

See llireimeier, p. 193. See Pltaurn and Prinaler, finenru in the Federal Republic cf Gennnny (Benn:

Inter hlatienes, 1933} p. 5 {transtatiun amended}. Fur an assessment ul the wurl: at the l|l.l.ll'Ilfll'lLl.lI'1, see Ki-‘tn, nu. 13. 1933-4,

pp. 3-39. Fur a full aecnunt uf the Film Subsidy Bill, see Hlauni and Prinrler, pp. 9S--191.

Fur a list, see lviichael Dust. Flurian Hupf and Alexander liiuge, Fiimwirtrciinji in der HRH und Eurepe (Munich: Hauser, 1973} pp. 152452. 3-I5

- Cit) 9-: r".

Duct er nl., p. 163. Brunuen and Brucher, p. l3t'i.

Itreimeier, p. T3. See Chris Marl:er‘s highly critical but searching article ‘Adieu au cinema

allemandi" in Furinf, nu. 13, 1954. Brunnen and Brucher, pp. 13154’. Brunnen and Brucher, p. I53. % Dieter Frultup {ed.}, llfiaterialierr sur 'l"heur'ie der .F'il|rr.r (Munich: Hauser,

1931} pp. 339-3'3. Dust er ei., p. 55. See Hclmuth H. Ifliederichs, '1-Tilmverlsg der Auturea', epd-Film, September 1935, pp. 33-I3. See lilaus Eder and Alexander Kluge, Uimer Dramahrrgierr: iieib-ungxtteriusre

(Munich: Hauser, 19fll} p. 31. Fur an accuunt uf the lifummunnie Kiri-us, see Hare Helmut Prinrcler and ‘Walter

Seidler, iiirruirech 3'-N35 (Berlin: Deutsche Iliin-emathelt, 1935}. SFD Frlnrpuiirirche Leitsdrae, quuted in A. Mayer, ‘Auf dem Wegxttm Staal;sfil|'n'!",

nvedium, December 193?. p. IS. Dreher, Fiirnfdrdemng in der Bunderrepuhficiz, p. 45.

Fur a uumplete reprint uf the 1939 versiun uf the Film Subsidy Bill and accuunts cf the different kinds uf funding, see Gisela Hundertntarh and Luuis Saul (eds.],

Fdrdcrurig sea-i ruse are (l'I‘lt1t1itI.'l1I lierlag Dlschlager. 1934}.

‘It seems tu rnc that, via culturally uriented film subsidy, we are beuumiug inure

successful with uur tup pru-duutiuns in reaching the ltltltl uf intematienal level which a natiun achieves when it is able tu play in part in wurld culture thruugh

its uwn unique natienal character. Film thus cuntributes with its natienal culture tu wurld culture.‘ Gerhard Baum, Minister uf the Interiur, ifuitirreiie

Frlmfriritenrng (Bunn: Bundesmirtisterium des Inneren, lune 1933} p. 11. T.‘lii". Adumu and M. Hurltheirner, Dialectic uffiniigirsertmenr (New Turk: Herder

and Herder. 191-'3} p. 133. Fur a strilting example uf musical tenus applied tu film+mal:ing, see I-Ians liirgen

Syberberg: ‘lililien I called my Ludwig-film a requiem, it was nut tu name a muud ur an epitaph fur a king. I was Blinking uf a clused. strict system, a stylistic ur

aesthetic prugranime analuguus tu the universal laws uf music.‘ Syberirergs Ftllnbuch (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1939} p. 11.

In 1975 the tutal arnuunt spent by the 11 Federal states un subsidising film culture was in the regiun uf ill milliun DM. During the same peliud they spent tilti

milliun I3-M an theatres, 353 milliun DM un histuric sites and munuments, 313 milliun DM un adult educatinn, 133 milliun DM en museums, 199 milliun Dlvf an puhlic libraries and 59 milliun DM un urchestras. See S. Durrfcldt. 'Das Missverhsltriis der Iiulturausgaben rum Film‘ in Fiimferderung in der Biiaderrepuhfr'.lr: Ende uder hlerihegirrn? (Mannheim: Internatiunale Filmwuche, 1997} p. 13. Reinhardt Hauff in Die Fiirnernecirer, p. 193.

Hurst vun Hartlieb. ‘Es muss eiue netle tlntndentscireidung gerrnffen werden‘, in Fiimfiirdenmg, l9T.l, p. 5.

‘Films lilte Crusr cf frurr [pruduued by ‘Walt I-Iartwig and directed by Sam Peclrinpah] are pruufthatafiemianfihricanheauummereialsuuuessunthe wurld market.‘ (Welt C. Hartwig, ‘Handeln- uder es gibt lteine deutsche Filmprudulttiun rnehr‘, Fdmechuiliiimwuche nu. 1, January 19'i'T, p. I3}.

Hannu luchirnsen, ‘Film ins Gnmdgeseta‘. Feriinale Tip, nu. 1913933. p. 1'. Reeulutiun uf the 139th

un uf the Bundestag, 19153. Duuted in Mischa l'..'ia.lle,

‘Zur Frage der lilleiterarbeit‘ in Herbert Ilincltelmann (ed.}, iiuretcrium Junger 3.15

= Cit‘) git:

Dermclrer Filer - Die errten rirei laltre (Munich: Iiluratotium, 1963}. 54 ‘Subsidy measures. being largely tax concessions for producers as well as distributors, mainly henefitted foreign companies. In 1971 almost one third (39 million DM} went to foreign finns.‘ Dreher, Fdngfdrdenmg in der Btutderrepnblik. p. ITS.

55 Foranaccountoffilm priaes,seeFflaumand 1"rinaler,tI!iaerrnrinrlieFeiieral

Republic of t'Jerrrra.nJ-‘. pp. 199-112. 56 ‘There is art indirect fonu of subsidy from the German Foreign Dffice. In 1977,

as an experiment. the Eiocthe Institute through the services of Inter blationes. a semi-official agency in Bonn. began to purchase and disuibute pacitages of film from the Fihnverlag der Auturen. Cine International and other alternative distributors. The prints would be subtitled free-of-charge and distributed through the tfroethe Institute branches. often with the film-maker present for discussion.‘ Ron Holloway. Jtiirro, Dctober 19‘.-'9, p. 11. 51' Dost er al. , p. 56. 53 For a hostile. pro-industry assessment. see Holloway: ‘The subsidized film system in ‘West Germany . . . allowed Auturen of every hue to get a strangle-hold on their uwn productions. Since money-without-rislt was there for the aslting. a clever (not necessarily competent or talented} director could double his salary by writing,

producing. and even (in some cases} acting in his own films. Dnce the "project" was completed. there was nu more cash to be pocketed save to get busy on the

oeirt script.‘ Jfino, Dctober 1979, p. 3. 59 A fuller account of the various fornts oi grant aid can be found in my ‘Ciertnan Film Burtanaa‘, New Statesman, S January 19$.

69 ‘lfiithin the EEC, and calculating for the year 1971, Germany is second. after Italy. in terms of the gram vulume of its film subsidies.‘ Dreher, p. 133'.

61 Alexander It'.‘.1uge[ed.}, Besreniirau_frralrme: lltopie Film (Franltfurt: Zweitausend-

eins, 1933} p. 1-'6. 62 Peter W. Jansen, The ltlevv German Film (Munich: Goethe Institute, 1932} p. 3. 63 ‘llfetrter Heraog in Dir Filrrtetrtaclier. p. 21. 64 Jansen, p. 3. 65 For a very useful account of Gennan television. see Richard Collins and ‘Vincent Porter, WDR and the Arlreiterfilm (London: British Film Institute, 1931}.

66 See Sheila Johnston. ‘Fassbinder and Hew German Cinema‘, New German Critique, nus. 34—fi, Falllllilinter lillil-3, p. 6?.

6'? Collins and Porter, pp. 25-39. 6S Sheila Johnston and John Ellis, ‘The Radical Film Funding of ZDF‘. Screen.

vol. E, no. 1, Mayllune 1932, pp. 69-‘l3. 69 See John Fislte and John Hartley. lieadirig Television (London: Methuen. 1933} esp. Chapter 6, and John Ellis, lr'r':rible Fictions (London: ltoutledge ii: Regan Paul. 1932}. ‘ill ‘Die Hamburger Erltlarung‘ in ‘lliilli Bar and Harts ltlrgen ‘Weber (em.}. Fucher Film Abrtnrtnclr (Hamburg: Fischer Taschenbuch. 1931}.

3 TheD|d,the‘l‘oungantltheHew:tI‘.ommerce,ArtClnemaand illacarertlillll‘ 1 ‘In 191-'9. ‘West tlernrany had 49% of the home marltet, while the United States commanded 39%. In 191-'6, the Gennan share was reduced to 19%, and the United States had rnore than 411%.‘ Run Holloway. lt.’ino, October 1979. p. S.

3. Michael -Eiotthelf. ‘Dem Deutschen Film auf die Beine he|fen'. Frankfurter

Allgerneiee Zeiturrg. 36 September 1931. At the Berlin Fihn Festival in 1932. Alexander Itiluge contested the accuracy of the SFID figures. 337

Cir: glc

‘In Gennany, statistics are very exact because the FFA and television are public institutions. and tlterefore accountable. The biggest German box office su of I9"lS was Morita Lieber ltforitr by Harlt Bohm. with 4ti9.lIIl' spectators. "|"his

compares with 4.3 million spectators for Saturday i'v'r'glu Fever and 4.45 million for Star lllars.‘ ‘Werner Buralaff, ‘Cinema = Argent lt Film‘, Calriers de in

Crlremorlnlqne, no. 33. Spring 1931. p. 141. Pflaum and Prinalcr, Cinema irr tlre Federal Reprrblic of Cr'e'rrrtarry, p. ST.

t3unhild Freesc. ‘Die Leinwand leht‘. Die Eeit. 19 Dctober 191-'5. Ecltart Schmidt, in Lletttsclte Zeirrtrrg, 3 September 191-'7.

Two 193'? editorials from Film-Eclro, the official film industry trade journal. convey the general tone and level of the debate: ‘The would-be heroes of the new German cinema before and behind the cameras should first of all learn what t':ulture actually means, before they start talking or

writing about film-culture . . . The “cuItural“ side of the Film Subsidy, which has long since become a cover for film-malrers to live off the generous mlaries they allocate themselves in their budgets, must be sacrificed to the realities of the economic situation in the film industry . . . Imagine, had the funds of the Film

Subsidy Board. the Ministry of the Interior and the other regional bodies. instead of pouring into the productiotrs of these inrtrates of homes for the blind. heen

paid into a banlt, and could now be used by the film industry which identifies with the wishes of the public . . . our cinemas would be out of trouble.‘ Duoted

in ‘lltim ‘Wenders, ‘letat fallt die Entscheidung‘. llfrlnclmer Alrendrelnrrrg. 39 August 193?, p. 12. Digs Grirher, ‘Armer Deutscher Film‘, Trarrratlarrtilt. January 1931. p. 66. ‘Werner I-lcraog in Die Frlnrernacfrer, p. 21.

See Peter Jansen, The New German Filrrr (Munich: Goethe Instittrte. 1933} p. 3. ‘ln this iield, neither a professional nor a trade union structure nor an organised

marltet is in existence. Gennan films are practically always the result of personal initiative, and the label “authors‘ cinema“ also, in this case, points to the material

conditions of film-making.‘ Brrralaff, p. 139. See Steve Neale. ‘Art Cinema as Institution‘, Screen, vol. 33 no. 1, Spring 1931. pp. 11-39'. Directors whose films are based on continuity systems other than narrative ones.

or who, like ‘lllerrrer Schroeter. use forms of narrativity derived from music and opera. had a much more difficult stand with subsidy commissions and funding

authorities. See lliolfrarn Sch tltte ct ol-, lltcmer Schroeter (Munich: 1-lanser. 1933}. For the concept of a ‘mode of production‘, see David Bordwell, Janet Staiger

and Rristin Thompson. The Classical Hollywood tfirrerrru - Filrrr Style and ll-lode of Production (London: Iloutledge Sr: Regan Paul, 1935}.

Pam Coolt. ‘The point of self-expression in avant-garde film‘ in J. Caughie (ed.}, Theories of Authorship (London: Itoutletlge St Regan Paul, 1931} p. 3'.-'3. ‘Wemer Herrog in Die Filtrrerrraclter. pp. 1S. 39. Quoted in Sheila Johnston, ‘Fassbinder and blew Crerman Cinema‘, unpublished

PhD thesis. London University 1979. Ducted in Peter Buchlta, ‘Wit leben in einem toten Land‘. Sridderrtrclre .Z'et‘tr-trig.

21-33 August 1933. See Alexander Rluge, ‘Fiirdenrng — die mod-enute Form der Zensur‘, Dar

Forlomartt, 6 Dctober, 1939. 'tilrI'l'ren the industry lobby suggested that in order to curb over-production the

Subsidy Board should raise both the qualifying threshold and the percentage share that a producer had to invest before becoming eligible fur subsidy. and thus

malte the club of film-malrers more exclusive. Rluge wrote: ‘More happiness for fewer people by controlling the birth-rate. By analogy, the free-for-all which the 33-‘S

= Ctr 311.3

blew Gennan Cinema creates by radically opening actress to the profession is countered by saying that via the subsidy committees fewer but more highly qualified film-makers should be supported. Clear the woods of the non-talents

. . . But the so-called top talents could not arise without the broadly based, overall developments.‘ Alexander Rluge (ed.}, Besturrdruufrruhme: lltopie Film (Frankfurt: Iweitauscndeins, 1933} pp. 1'31-3.

Alfred Andersch. ‘Das Rino der Auturen‘ in llferlzur. no. 153, 1961. Edgar Reita in Die Filmerrraclrer, p. 119.

The term itself was not new in ‘Nest Gemrany. In 1959 ‘Wolf-Dietrich Schnurre had recommended ‘for the rescue of Gerrnan einema‘ that ‘the author . . . must

be reporter. poet, photographer, director and cameraman all in one‘. Quoted by Leonhard H. Gmur. ‘Eur Chronilt‘. Der.l‘uuge Deutrclre Film (Munich: Constantin ‘llerleih. 1961'} n.p. See Sheila Johnston, ‘The Author as Public Institution‘, Screen Edrrcatiort, nos. 33-33, Autumrdlilrlinter 1939-311. pp. 63-33.

Eric Rentschler, lltest Gennan Film in tlre Course of Time (Bedford Hills, blew "fork: Redgrave. 1934} p. 49. For bacltground to the concept inside and outside Germany. see also Johnston. pp. ‘Til-4. For an application of the tenn to European art directors, see J. Gelmis. The Film

Director us Superstar (blew ‘t’orlt: Doubleday. 1931}. Johnston, p. "ll.

Quoted in Johnston, p. 63. Sec Wilfiied Berghahn, ‘Rino der Auturen - Rino der Produrenten‘. Die Belt.

2‘? April 1963. Dlga Grirhet. ‘Artner Deutscher Film‘. Trnnsutluruilr, January 1931, p. '11. In Germany a tradition of the authors‘ cinema, in the sense of literary authors ‘writing‘ for the cinema, goes back to 1913 and Hans Heina Ewers‘ promotion of

the film author, as the cinema began to attract a middle-class audience: ‘Today I know that it is as difficult. that it taltes as much art to write a good film-script as it does to write a poem. a novel or a play.‘ Harrns Heirra Ewers, ‘Der Film und ich‘. Anton Raes (ed.}, llfirro-Debuue (Tilbingen: Max blierneyer, 191-'3} pp. 1 . Hermit Breclrtr Dreigrosclrerrlruclr, vol. r (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1933} pp. I'll-2. Sec also Wolfgang Gersch, .Ft'lrrr hei Brecltt (Berlin. GDR: Hensehel Verlag.

1915} pp. '15-199. Quoted in Johnston, p. 69.

lohnstorr, p. 69. See for instance. Amold Hauser. The Social History ofrlrt (London: Routledge.

rose}.

Ducted in English in Prinrler and Pflaum, Cinema irt the -Federal Republic of Gerrrrarry (Bonn: Inter biationes. 1933} p. 5.

Reinhard Hauff. in Die Filrrremoclrer, p. 193. See J. Hermand. H. Peitsch and R.Il'.. Scherpe (eds). llluclrlrriegslirerutur in liiesldeutsclrland l94.5—l94'9, vol. l (Berlin: Das Argument, 1933}.

Cluoted in Rrcimeier. p. 133. but see also Enno Patalas: ‘A quarter million DM awaits those films that “raise particularly the esteem of Germany ahroacl"", in ‘Primien ffrr die Braven‘, Ftlrttittililt. blovembet 1961, p. 4155. For the development of the cinema in the GDR, see I-".‘9v'. Jansen and W. Schiitte

(eth.}. Film frt der DDR (Munich: Hanser 1973}. llrletner Schroeter in Die Filrrremaclrer, p. 133.

This often-quoted statement should perhaps be seen in its full context: ‘llllrat I do and others do right now irt Germany with film is legitimate German culture:

339

= CL-tr glc

again we are legitimate. I have to say this because film-malting, and culture have heen abused for the most harharic purjpo-sea in recent history. People often try to

link us with the Expressionist films oi the 192l]s. and it is not true. We do not have any links at all. hut what links us is that both Expressionist film in the 192$

and what we do now is legitimate Ci-erman culture. Lotte Eisner is so important tome because shehasdeelared uslegitintate.sndshe istheonlypersonwhohas the authority to declare us legitirnate.‘ Net-v Tori: Timer, Sunday Supplement. ll

September 19'?‘-'. ‘Wemer Schroeter in Die Fiintensucher, p. 155.

Itilaus Eder and flilesartder Rluge. Uinser Drum-arttrjgien: Reihrurgi-erhirse (Munich: Hanser "v'erlag 1981]] p. 1115. lrlliriarn Hansen makes a sirnilar point, when she vvrites: ‘Nor does it seern

appropriate to draw the line between an author-oriented and an issue-oriented New Gennan Cinema". in ‘(inoperative Auteur Cinema and Clppusitiona] Public

Sphere‘. New German Critique, nos. 24-25. Fallllliinter 1981-2. p. 41. She may have in mind James Franklin. The New German Clrsertso: From Gberhausen to Hrrntburg (Boston: Tvvayne. 1933} pp. 44-E.

Examples ol such issues are: law enforcement and the penal system {lrrr Hurnen cies Foilres. Elie l-"errohur|_g lies Fran: Blunt]. unelnplflytnent (Hrs Urrri, iianuckerbrmrt). labour disputes and strikes {Lieine lldulter rrtir gein‘ es gut). trade

union organisation {Der uufreclue Gang}. terrorism lileutrclthsud on Heri:-sr, Die bieierne Eeit, Die clrirte Generation). the yellow press and sensationalist journalism

{Die verlorerre Elire der Katherine Bis-rrr. Dorian Gmy rm Spiegel der Bottlevorripresse], the German Communist Party [Mutter Jiiiriers Fuitrt rum Hintrnei).

right-wing etttrernistlt (Morgen in Hiobuntu]. alcohol and drugs {liiildnir eirrer Trirsiterirt. Veronika Foss}, prostitution (Sltiriru Hoclrrerr}. abortion {t'.Telegerr.l'reirsnrireit enter Slciavin}, housing problems {in Gefohr und grrifiter Nor}. urharl

redevelopment (Berlin Churrtissopiurr]. property speculation {Sclrurten der Engel}. the Berlin Wall liledripers. Der Mann auf der ll-luster]. ‘Iii-crufsverl:-ot‘ and

education (Fern Romeike ist rticln‘ rrugbur}. wife-battering (Der Hrturiier der vier Jullresreiren}, party-politics {Die Potriotin}. schizophrenia [Die Herriltrre]. bulimia

{Hrmgerm-lire). police harassment l_'M'e.sser im Kopf). surveillance {Der sturlre Ferdinand}. juvenile delinquency [lift-lrlvveelisel, Horrisee in it-rorrisee}. racism [Angst e:ssen Seeie auf. Foiemso oder Woifil-"burg. Die iirimrrteitriirkin gcht].

Gudrun Lakass-Aden and Christel Strohel. Der Fronerifilnt llvlunich: Heyne. 1955]. Se-e HJ. Syberberg. Syherhergs Filmbtich (Munich: Hanser. l'5l"I-'9} p. S7. Hieprinted in parts in lviichael Rtltsehlty. Erfuhruugshmrger (Frankfurt: Fischer.

11152) pp. 1ti'l-92. See. for instance. the essays oolloctod in Siegfried liracauer. Dos tillnrurnenr der lllusse (Frankfurt: Suhrlramp, 1963}. Htttsehlty. p. ITU. Rutschlcy, *Realitat triunten‘. llierknr, no. 3&3, 19'Tr'El, p. W5.

lilutscltlty. ‘Realitat traumen‘. p. ‘IE3. See Ernest Dichter International. *Freiseith-ediirlnisse und Praterenrstn1|stur' in D. Proitop [ed.]|, Mnrerioiierr cur Iflteorie ries Filrrt flvlunich: Hansel". 1'?-W1]

pp. 339-S2. See my ‘Murder. Merger. Suicide‘ in T. Rayns {ed.}. Fassbinder (London: British Film Institute. 1979) p. -til. Independent production often addresses identifiable spectatorsastarget audienoes: women. homosexuals. the old. teenagers. foreign worlrers. trade unionists. and teachers. Rutschky. Erfnnnmgshunger. p. IT]. 331}

Cc; glc

‘Sie machen uns das lfiino tot‘, Frcnlrfuner llundsclntn. 2 May 197?; Fronlrfnm-r Allgemeine Ieitung, 2 May 1977. *Filmstotfe, ballenweise', Frunlqfirrrer llurtulsclron. 311 April 1933. Filrrtlrrltllc. January 19451, pp. ll]-15. Reinhold E. '11-iiel, ‘Mun-nalllungcn iiber "Nalter*, Filrnkrftilr, January 1952, p. 13. Llrs Jenny, 'Abschied von Illusionen', in Leonhardt H. Limtihr (ed.]. Der lungs lllerusene Film (Munich: Constantin. 1915'.-') pp. 1112-3. Peter M. Ladiges, l-“rlrn.lr.rttilr, December 1953. p. 343. Ladiges. p. B43.

Jean-Marie Straub in lllie Fmrrenurnlrer, p. 42. Pflaum and Frinrler, pp. 9-lll. This may he apoerypha], but it is a story Straub himself is fond of telling [for

example. Milwaukee, ‘Wisconsin, March 1932}. Joe Hembus, Der deutsche Film lttt-rttt gnrttieltt besser sein (Munich: Rogner is

Bernhard, 19S1} p. 2|]-4. Hembus, p. III].

Jenny, p. 1ll4. Enno Patalas. ‘Die toten Augen‘, Flmkritilr, December 1953, p. S29. Patalas, p. SIB. 3 11reAuthm'lutheFHn:Self-etspsfinnaefiell-representation Helmut Firber, *1]-as Unentdeoite 1Ii.ino', in A. Kluge (ed.}, Besmndroufnnlmse: Utopie Film {Franltfurt: 2'.weitausendeins. 1983} pp. 21-2. See Michel Foucault, “Mist is an author?‘ in .1. Caughie, Tlreories ofnntno-rslrip [L-unlzlon: Rontl-edge Jr Regan Paul. 1931].

Horkheimer and Adorno, lllinlectic of Enlightenment, p. 133. k Eric Rentschler (ed.}, West Genrtnn Filnnnnlters on Film [blew ‘r'orlr: Holmes St Meier, 1933}.

Alexander Rluge, Die lllocltt der Genital: {Franlrfurt: Iweitausendeins. 19-94) p. E3. See also Eric Rentschler, ‘Kluge, Film History and Eigcnsinn', New Gennan

Critique. no. 31. Winter l9S4. pp. 115-1e. Jean-Marie Straub in Die Fllnren-laclt-er, p. 35. Die Filmemnclter, p. 3-5.

‘Vlado lliristl in Die Fllrnentncner, p. 49. Helmut Firber, ‘Der Brief‘, Filmltritilt, April 196?, p. 21]-ll.

Vlado lllristl. ‘S-eltundenfilme‘. Filntlrriritr, tjernber 19159, p. ell]. “flado liristls Film orler llrlncltt‘, Filmlrririlr, July 19'lti, p. 31-'1. There is very little in English on Dos Anders llino, but a brief introduction can be found in Albic Thoma. ‘German Lin-tlerground', Afterimage {London} no. 2,

Autumn 19‘lD, pp. 44-5. See We met Hemug. 'l'v‘I.it den ‘Wlilfen heu1en', .F"rln|ltrt'tilr, Iuly 196-‘E. p. 4-fill. Also.

‘C-lespraeh mit Eva M.J. Scltntid* in frnnen undfilm. no. 35. p. ‘I-'15. Jurgen Ebert. ‘Der Iileine II.iodan:l', Filrnlrririlz, no. 2&3, November IEFI-'3, p, fill. [nforrnatiortsblatt no. 12, Internationales Forum des lttngen Films, 1934.

See my ‘Working on the Margins‘ in ltfontltly Film Bulletin. Elctober 1953. Harun Faroclti, 'l"lotwendige Ahweeltslung und 'lr"iell‘a.lt", in .Fil.m.|i:ritils, no. 124.

August 1975, pp- 363-9. Etwos l-Fird Sicltthnr [typed transcript supplied by director} p. 21.

R.'lIl. Fassbinder. ‘llilimnisug, Handstand. Salto mortale - sicher gestanden*. Fmnkfnner liuniisclrnu, 24 Febnsary 1979.

‘Illerner Schroeter. ‘Hachrede auf Maria Callas‘, quoted in I1. Fischer and J. Hembus {eds._'|-, Der Netre Deutxclle Flrrt lhllunicit: Ehitldmann, 1931) p. 15-4.

331

= Geri glc

Edgar Reits in Die Filnremaclrer, p. 111. ‘Preussc. Dichter. Sell:-stmorder: ein Interview mit Helma Sanders-Brahms‘. quoted in Renate Mohrmann, Die Fran mit der ltinmero {Munich: Hauser, 193]} p. HS.

‘Film is not the Art of Scholars but of 1lliterates', New Fork Times, Sunday Supplement, 11 September 1922.

This is a collage from different interviews with Herrog: from Flrnlrrin'lr, July l9t5S:, New Porir Tirnes, September 19'T.l; Antericcn Filrn. May 1'95] told one tape-

reeorded at the Chicago Art Institute, 1923. Hans Jiirgen Syberberg, Hider — Ein Filrn nus Deutrcltlcnd [Reinb-elr: Rowohlt. 1923} p. 5?. See ‘Syberberg. Cinema and Representation‘ in New t_'i‘ennrrn Crrldque. Fall-"'lN'mter 1931-2, pp. IIH-54. Ernst Bloch, Erhsclsnfi dieser .2.'eit (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, IE] p. 19.

See ‘Fassbinder, Fmcism and the Fihn Industry‘, tflctober. no. 21, p. 113. ‘lltaldlcitner had his otvn reasons: "ille had to worlr. with these so-called left-wing

directors, because there wasn't a single director in the conservative camp that could he sold outside the Federal Republic.‘ Quoted in Rainer Wemer Fambinder.

Die Anorclrie der Fun.to.sie|fFtanlt1‘urt: Fischer. 19315] p. 222. Klaus Eder and Alexander Rluge, Ulntejr llramuturgien, p. 1115.

Elsltar Hegt and Alexander Ililuge, tfilflerrrlicltlreit und Erfolrrnng (Franltfurt: Sllhrtamp, 1922}.

See ‘Ein Cresprach rwischen Alexander Rluge und Eion Steinbom‘, Fllmfrttist, no. 215, ISSI. pp. 32-64.

Peter ‘N. Jansen and lllolfrant Schittte {eds.]r, Hersog, lrllnge, Straub (Munich: Hanser, 1976} p. 154. See Rainer Lewandorsski, Die Fdme von Alexander Kluge (Hildesheim: Clrns, 1951). Renate lvloltrmann, Die Frrru mit der lion-rerrt, p. 9. M-ilbrmann, p. lo.

Pam Cools, ‘The point of self-expression in avant-garde film‘ in J . Caughie (ed.}, Iflreorles of Atetlsorslrip (London: Routledge Sr Regan Paul, 1929} p. 222-3.

Hellte Sander, ‘Der subielttive Falttor, vertraclrt‘ (Berlin: Basis-Film ‘llerleih, 1'9'E-1) p. 12.

For feminist critiques oi Rluge sec frnuen und film, nos

as

lilo. — .

Ruby Rich, ‘She Says He Says‘, Discourse, no. S, Fall 19S t. -'-.1"I."' l—|'

Werner Heraog in Die Filnternoclter, p. 12.

an

H well as

Alf Brustellin, quoted in ‘Die Verlohrene Ehre des deutscben Films‘, lui {Munich}

March 1929. Edgar Reitl, Liebe aunt Jiinn [Colog;|re: ‘llerlag Ilidln, 19S4]- p. 115‘.-'.

‘lllerner Herrog in lJ'ie Filmemnclter. p. 12. Hans Jitrgen Syberberg, Hitler ein Filrn nus Dentschlnnd I[Reinbelc: Rowohlt.

1923) p. Tl. Werner Heraog in Die Filrnernnclrer, p. 13.

Rainer Werner Fassbinder in Die Fllnrenroclter. p. 1Tl. Quoted in Bill Honigan, ‘Signs of Life‘, Chicago Film Center Program, 1

September 192?. Reite, Liebe run-t Jiino, p. Ibo.

Johannes Schaaf in Die Fltnentnclter, p. 13‘.-'. ‘Werner Herrog in Die Filrnentrtclter, p. 21].

Ililaus Eder and Alexander Rluge. Ulrrr-er ilrontnrnrgien. pp. 102-3. Quoted in Peter Eucblta, "Dunn geht wiedcr vvas, dann geht wiedcr nix’.

Sliddeutsclte Zeltnng, 25 January 1935. 332

Cc) 311.3‘

.

See ‘Film in Berlin: Der Basis-Film "v"erleib‘. liinenurtltek no. 65, El-ctober 1933, p. IIJ5. See Herbert Achtembusch, Die Atlnnrilrsclrwirnnrer (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 19‘23‘_l p. 14S. Quoted in B. Sc.hIicht, ‘hlu1lwachstum‘, medium, bloverrrber 1923, p. S.

Andreas Meyer. ‘Das Gremienkino‘, rnedhun, November I922. p. 13. Meyer, p. 14. Meyer, p. 13. Meyer, p. 13; see also Sven Hansen, ‘Die Inspiration aus dem Bticherschrank‘, Die Welt. 13 January I929. ‘ilolker Sc-hlbndorlf in Die Fdnrenrcclrer, p. 26. Examples are bIeo~Rea1ism {de Si-ea and Zavattini], Bertolucei and Moravia.

Pasolini in Italy; Resnais and Duras, Robbe-Grillet in France; Losey and Pinter, Richardson and Clshorne. David Hare or Alan Banned in Britain.

See Hans C. Blumenberg, ‘Bildschirrn contra Leinwand‘, Die Zeit, 23 June I923. Edgar Reitr. ‘Das F-lino der Autoren lebt‘. Lielie corn R'i.no. p. 112. Sheila Johnston, ‘The Author as Public Institution‘, Screen Education, no. 3233. Aututnrrflflinter 1929411. Rainer ‘Werner Fassbinder, Filnre bejlreierr den liopf l[Frankfr.rrt: Fischer, 19S4}

p. 23. Harrrn Farocki, ‘Hohnendige Abweclrslung und Vielfalt‘, F'n‘.nul:ritr'ir, August I925,

p. 363. See Richard Collins and ‘llincent Porter, IIIFDH und tire .Arbeiter;lilm (London:

British Film Institute, 1931). Rainer ‘Werner Fassbinder in Der Spiegel, 11 July I922, p. 141.

Ducted in Sheila Johnston, ‘Fassbinder and the blew German Cinema‘, New l'.?errrrun Critique, nos. 24-15, Fallfilllintcr 19S1—2, p. 6S.

lohn Ellis, Visible Fictions (London: Routledge 3|: I-iegn Paul, 1932} p. 225. See il'.'ino, no. 22, Spring 19Sli. an issue devoted to ‘WII2R, and especially the

interview with Gunther ‘Nitte and Martin ‘Wiebel. John Ellis and Sheila Johnston, ‘The Radi-cal Film Funding of IDF, Screen, vol. 23, no. I. lvlayllune I932, pp. 6|]-23. 4 InSe|rchnI'theSpect.aturl:FruenflberharueutcGenreFlI.uu2 Rlaus Badelrerl. ‘Alles kennen - niehts erkennen‘. Filrrdzritilr. April 1969,

pp. are-r.

‘I started by going to the movies, with my friend Lemke. and we saw American films. and later those of Crndard, and we told each other simple stories . . . I like cliches. With Srrpergirl I wanted to make my dream fihn, a fihn that is like American films used to be.‘ Rudolf Thotne. quoted in llinenrotlrelr, no. 66. November 1933, pp. 91-3.

Pflaum and Prinelet. Cinenru in the Federal Republic of Genrruny (Bonn: Inter Hationes, 1933] p. 14 (translation amended]. ‘At the Berlin Iilm festival of 1922, hliklaus Schilling, asked ab-out the directors

that have influenced him. replied with a long list of German names who for him were "father figures“, teachers, idols: I..eni, Lang, Lubitscb, lvlurnau, Lamprecht,

Hoclrbaum. Dphuls. von Borsody, Haussler, Fanck. Trenker, Berger. Pewas, Sierck, Bertram, Wisbar, Illfinig, Illlepp-e, Staudte, Harlan, Leni Riefenstalrl,

Stemmle. Steinholf. Jugert. Hans Muller. Tressler — the reaction: embarrassed silence, incredulous head-shaking, questions whiclr betrayed total ignorance of

most oi the directors cited.‘ Andreas Mayer. medium. November 1922, p. 15. 333

Cir; glc

Peter W. Jansen and Wolfram Selrctte l_'eds.}, Hereog, Kluge, Sn-cub (Munich: Hauser, 1926} p. 126.

Peter W. Jansen and Wolfram Schtitte {eds.}, Fassbinder (Munich: Hanser, I925} p. E. Hercog. liluge. Straub, p. 122. Ducted in Joe Hembus, Der deutsclre Film konn gerniclu lresrer rein (Munich: Rogner and Bernhard. 1931) p. 254. Wenders once described the early years in Munich: ‘There was a common content, in the lvlunich style, for instance, the connection between the car rides and the music. I think the music provides a real link: many of us would have hecome musicians, il we hadn‘t made films.‘ C]-noted in Hembus, p. 235. ‘Terror der tfresetrlosen‘. Sriddeuerclre Zeitung. 6"‘? September 1969. ‘Rote Sonne‘, Filrnlcririlr, January 1923, p. 9. Quoted in llirrernorirek, no. 66. blovemb-er 1933, p. 93. Peter Handke, ‘Augsburg im August: Trostlos‘, Filrrr, January I969, p. 31. Wim Wenders, ‘lliritischer Ifnlender‘, Fllrnlrritilr, December 1969, pp. 251-2.

Pflaum and Prinxler, p. 14 (translation amended}. ‘Dffener Brief and Frans Raver Rroeta‘. quoted in Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Filrne befreien den lfopf (Frankfurt: Fischer, 19‘-S4] p. 123.

Peter Handke. ‘Satse im Selrwareen oder Ausleiern der Tagtraumel‘. Die Ieit. 24 June 1922. Hans Jfirgen Syberberg. Syberbergs Filrnbuclr (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1929). fine lilm to feature the strange fauna of Iv!IunicIr‘s film-making community directly,

rather than filtered through historical or generic patina. was Hiklaus Schilling's Expulsion From Fcrudire {I926}, the story ofa German actor who, on the strength

of having once starred as a Fellini extra. is trying to break into movies in Munich. A recent example is llrlanfred SteIser‘s Tire Chinese Are Coming [19S’2), in which

a team of workmen from the Peop-le‘s Republic of China visit a Bavarian town and dismantle an induso-ial plant to ship it back horrr-e. In the pro-cm. national cliches get their comeuppance. 5 Inkrchuftirefipectalcrll-:CInearaafEsperIelce Wolf Donner, ‘Die Deutschen kommen‘, Die .'e.'eit, ZS December I925.

Eric Rentschler, West t.'ierxnnn Film i.n the -Course of Time {Bedford Hills, blew ‘fork: Redgrave, 19S-4] pp. 6S-22.

Dn reactions to German films in the US, Wilhelm Roth, ‘hlicirts for das Durcltsclrnittspublikum‘, .‘i'tr.tttgr:rrter Eeinurg, 2S December 1929.

Special issue ‘Iiino in Mttnchen‘. Filmlrritilt. December 1925. Cluoted in ‘Vom Lrrstspi-el bis xur Filmbildung‘, Frrrnlcfurter Rundrclrou, 2

Dccember1931. For a fuller documentation see H.H. Prinsler and ‘W. Seidler l'_eds.]l, Jiinobuclr

ltntnlog, no. 2. 1924-25 (Berlin: Stiftung Deutsche Ifinematlrek, I925}. See bibliograp-hy, and also Eric Rentschler, Ii"est Gerrrrun Filnunnlsers on Filrn

lfhlew ‘fork: Holmes 6: Meier, I933}. Jan Dawson, ‘The Industry — German Weasels [Fihnverlag Follies)‘, Filnr

Conunenr, May-June 1922. Interview with Ula Stilckl, in Renate Mlilrrinann, Die Frau nslr der Afcnrero

{It-Iunich: Hanser. 1983} p. 5ll. Rosa von Praunheim, ‘So schlagen uns die Etablierten tot‘, Die Zeit, I3 May 1922. ‘Pro und Contra “Das t‘.'."resperrst"‘,‘ Evnngeliscber f‘re:r.redr'ersrt, June 19S3, and

report on 'I{unst unter der Iinute‘, Sruttgrlrter 2.“eitu.ng, 2 September I933. 3-36

- Cit: be r".

Michael Rutsclrky, Erfulrnmgsnunger (Frankfurt: Fischer, 19S€3} p. 122.

Werner Schroeter in Die Filrnemrtclrer (Munich: Berelsntarm, I923} p. 162. Christian Ziewer, quoted in Ifrlnemnrlselr, 65. Detober 1963, p. 5.

Alexander Kluge, r9estondsu.uj:'rrolrme.- lltcpie Film (Frankfurt: Eweitausendeins, 19-33} p. 151. Interview with Werner Hersog, Fifrnltritilt, March 1963, p. 126. Christian Ziewer, liirtenretlrek, 65, pp. 5-6. Christian .2.‘iewer, Jtfrirremorbelr, 65, p. 4. Interview with Ulrike Dttinger in Renate Mchrmann, Die Frrtu rnir der Jlsmero (Munich: Hanser, I9SlIl} p. 191.

Harun Farocki is said to have hired a cinema for a press show of Between Two Wars, but made admission conditional on the journalists‘ undertaking to attend

his public critique of their reviews. See ‘Progress und Process‘, Film.lrrr'JiJr, November 1929.

Michael Rutsclrky, Erfcbnmgshrmger (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1932} p. 52. The critical literature, especially on Fassbinder, testifies to these difficulties. See for instance Manny Farber and Patricia Patterson, ‘Fasshinder‘, Film Comment, l~lovember—Dccember 1925. Christian Ziewer, lliinenrctlreir, no. 65, October 1933, p. 4.

Alexander Rluge. tiielegerdreitsurbeit einer Sklnvin. Eur ltenlistisclren Methods, pp. 2112-3.

Ibid., p. 264. Ibid., pp. 212-13. Ibid., p. 219. ‘Very little has been written about R1uge‘s short films. but a der‘-c1'iption of l'l'.ll.1ge‘s

method of obmrvation is made in Erhard Sehtits, ‘Ein Lieb-esversuch, oder eeigen, was das Auge nicht sieht‘, in Text und f.‘.'rr'ril:, nos. 35-36, January 1935. See William von Weert, ‘Last Words: Dbservation on a new language‘, in ‘T. Corrigan (ed.}, Werner Herrog (London: Methuen. 1936}. For an attack on Heraog‘s quest for the visionary, see Eric Rentschler, ‘The Polilim of ‘Vision’. in Corrigan (ed.}, Wenrer Herrog (London: Methuen. 1936].

See my ‘An anthropologist‘s eye‘ in Corrigan (ed.}, Werner Herrog (London: Methuen. I936}. See Paul Mog, ‘Italte. Satirische "v'erhaltensforschung‘ in Thomas Bohm-Christi. Alexorrder Kluge (Frankfurt: Sulrrkamp, 19133}.

Hartmut Bitomski, ‘Aufreichnungen‘, Filmlzririlr. blovember 1929, p. 522. Harts Jiirgen Syberberg. Syberliergs Filmbucl: [Frankt'nt1: Fischer, 1929} p- 24. 6 lrrSearcIoI‘theSpectator3: Minority Views See Friedhelm Illroll, Die ‘Elruppe 42' (Stuttgart: J .B. Metrler, I922}. Tire Times, 23 September 19612.

See Reinhard Dithmar, lndttstrieliterutur (Munich: Deutsche Tasehenbuch ‘Verlag. 1923}. Fritz Httser, ‘Arbeiterdichtung heute2‘, Pclrishrlnnerupiegel. vol. 12, no. 6. 1966, P . I1. Citlnter Wallraff. lndustriereportngerr (Reinbek: Rowohlt. I929}, first published as Wir brorrclren elicit (Reinbek: Rowohlt, I966}.

W. Rehner, H. Iiammrad and H. Sclrmid, ‘Westberliner Werkstadt im Werkkreis 1..iteratur der Arbeitsvrelt‘ (pamphlet, Berlin, 1921}.

R. Collins and Iv‘. Porter. WDR and the Arbeireryilrn (London: British Film Institute 1931; but see also C. McArthur, ‘Days of Hope‘, Screen, vol. 16, no. 4

336

Cir: glc

and C. MaeCabe. ‘Days of Hope — A Response to MeArthur‘. Screen. nol. 12, no. I.

Christian Iiewer, quoted in Collins and Porter, p. I55. Christian Ziewer in Collins and Porter, p. 152. Johannes Beringer, 'Ranklotcen - Arbeitsweltfihne und llerwandtes‘, Filmlrrrtilc, March 1925. pp. 125-2. Ibid., p. Iiitl. Harun Farocki, Filmkririk, March 1925. pp. 133-9. See Willielm Roth. Der Dok

seit .l966' (Munich: Hanser, 1921]}.

Interview with Klaus Wildenhahn, Filme, no. 4, 19313, p. iv. Illélgrs Wildenhaltn. 'Industrie1andscbaft mit Einselhandlertr‘. Frirnfuust. no. 23, I . Wildenhahn, quoted in Roth. Der Dolrurnentarfilm. p. 62. ‘Crane Unten‘, epd-Film. March 1936. p. 35. Roth, Der Doltumentorjilm, p. 69.

See Helke Sander. ‘Der subjektive Faktor, vertraekt‘ (Berlin: Basis ‘H-‘erleih. I932}. See especially frurren undfilrn, no. 1, I924, and no. 6, 1926.

Helke Sander. quoted in Crrrrrerc Db-renrn, no. 4, p. 226. Heide Schliipmann and Carola Cramann, ‘l'~lachwort‘, in Crudrun Lukas:-Aden and Christel Strobel, Der Frouenjilm (Munich: Heyne. 1935] p. 2.52. Renate Mfihrmann, Die Frau mit der lfrrrrrera (Munich: Hanser, 1969) pp. 69-

2|]. Helke Sander, ‘sexismus in den mamenmedien‘, frauen undfilrrr. no. 1, 1924.

Pam Cook, ‘The point of self-expression in avant-garde filnt', in J . Caughie. Theories o,f.4udrorsln§p(1.ondoo: Routledge 6|: Regan Paul. 1929} p. 222. -Gertrude Roch, ‘Re-visioning Feminist Film Theory‘, New Gen-non t'I'ririaue. no. 34. Winter 1935, p. 152. fluotcd in Der Frrruerrfilm, p. 263.

Interview with Jutta Brtickner, Screen Education. no. 41]. Autumr|.flh‘inter 19312, p. 56.

lbid., pp. 54-2.

_

Interview with Ulrike Clttinger, Astlretilr und lforrurrurrilcetion, no. 32, 1929,

pp. 123-4. Rosa von Praunheim, catalogue Filrrtschau (Hamburg, 1922}. John Ellis and Sheila Johnston, ‘The Radical Film Funding of EDF‘, Screen,

vol. 23, no- l. 1932, p. 64. Ibid., p. 64.

Interview with Jutta Bruckner, Screen Education, no- 46. p. 43. For further discussion of Helke Sander's lilrns, see Itlaja Silverrnan, ‘Helke Sander

and the Will to Change‘. Discourse, no. 6, Fall 1933. 2 The Heir German CIlerua‘s Germany Andre Basin. ‘The Evolution of Cinematographic Language‘, What is Cinema. vol. r (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1921] p. 24.

Peter Handke, Falrche Bewegung (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1925} pp. 44-5. Rainer Werner Fassbinder, ‘Six Films by Douglas Sirk‘, in L. Mttlvey and .l. Halliday (eds.), Douglas Sirlr (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Film Festival, 1922} p. ll]-4.

See Peter Buchka. ‘Wir leben in einem toten Land‘. Sliddeutsche .2.“eitttng. 2tll21 August 1922', and ‘Lieber Strassenkehrer in Mexiko‘, Der Spiegel, no. 29, August I922. See ‘Werner Herxog, I-‘om Gelren int Eis (Munich: Skellig, 1924}.

336

- Cit: glc

6. 2. S. 9. Ill.

Ernst Bloch, Das Prirtrip Hoflhung (Frankfurt: Sultrkamp, 1923} p. 1623. Jan Dawson, ‘Wemer Herxog‘. Monthly Film liulletin. Dctober 1933. Erich Fried, as quoted in Filmkritili:, June 1922, p. 222. Interview with Margaretha von Trotta. Fdtnfuurt. no. 21, 1931. Andreas Huyssen, ‘The Politics of Identificafion', New -Elenrran Critique. no. 19. Winter 1936. 3 IteturlirrgHorneToHistory

1. Jan Dawson. Wim Wenders (New “t‘ork: Zoetrope, 1926} p. 2. 2- Christopher Lasch, The Culture ofNarcissirm (New ‘fork: Norton, 1929] pp. 4111.

iqrueonao Mitseherlich, Society without the Father (London: Tavistock. 1969)

p. 233. . 4. T.W. Adorno. E. Frenkel-Brunswik et al., The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper and Row, 19511}.

5. Mitseherlich, p. 234. 6. Alexander and Margaretha Mitseherlich, The lnability to ll-lourn (London: Tavistock. 1925}.

:-'. The inability to hfottrn, |:l-. es.

S. See W.F. Haug, Der Hilflose Anrifuschirmrtr (Frankfurt: Paltl Rugerrstein, 1922}.

9. Bernward ‘Vesper, Die lielse (Berlin: Mara ‘Verlag, 1922}. ll]. Michael Schneider, ‘Vhter und Sdhne, posthum in Den lfopf verhehrt rrufgesetet

(Darmstadt und Neuwied: Luchterhand, 1931) p. I3: translated as ‘Fathers and Sorts Retrospectively‘, New t'.'lernrcn Critique, no. 31, Winter 1934, pp. 11-12. 11.

Schneider, New German Critique, p. 23.

12. Schneider, New t'i‘errrr.an Critique, p. 32 (translation modified}. 13 . Paul Iiersten, Der Alltdgliche Tod meines Voters, quoted by Schneider, New

t"-lerman Critique, p. 41 {translation modified}. I4 . Schneider, New Cermutr Critique, p. 3-ll (translation modified}. 15. Christoph Meckel, Suchbild (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1933} p. 14-fl, quoted by

Schneider, New Gerrnan Critique, pp. 26-2 (translation modified}. 16. Schneider, New Gennan Critique, p. 9. 12 . See for instance, Jessica Benjarrtin. ‘Tlte Cledipal Riddle: Authority. Autonomy and the New Narcissism‘, in John P. Diggins and Mark E. I-tahn (eds.}, The Problem of Authority in America (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1931}. IS. See Eric Rentschler, ‘New Gennan Film and the Discourse of Bitburg‘, New Gennan Critique, no. 36, Fall 1935. 19. See Hans Jochen Braurts and David Kramer, ‘Political Repression in ‘West

ticrrneny‘. New German Critique, no. 2. Winter 1926. 211. Quoted in Norbert Seita, ‘Die Llnfahigkeit teu feiern‘, Neue h'i'itlit (Frankfurt:

‘Verlag Neue Rritik. 1935} p. Ill 21 . 22 . 23. 24.

Emst Bornemann (ed.}, Dtrs Schwarrbuch (Munich: Stcidl, 1936}.

See Tom Bower. ‘Dperation Paperclip‘, BBC Television. 1932. See Ililaus lllreimeier, ‘Das Iliino als Ideologiefabrik‘, liinenruthelt, no- 45. 1921. Jean Baudrillatd, llool lfiller oder der Aufstund der Zeiclren (Berlin: Merve

‘Verlag, 1931}. 25. ‘Hitler - Eine lfiarriere‘, 22th Internationale Film Festspiele Berlin, lunelluly

1922 (press handout}. 26- Michel Foucault, ‘Interview: Popular Memory‘, Edinburgh hfuguetlrre, no. 2, 1922,

p. 2422. See my interview with Edgardo Coaarinsky, Frameworlr, no. 21, 1933. 2S . See Richard Roud, Straub (London: Seeker 3: Warburg, 1921}.

332

- Cit: glc

29. Rosalind Delmar. ‘Not Reconciled‘. lllonthly Film Bulletin, March 1926. 311 . Dakar Negt and Alexander Iiluge, ti-‘eschiclrte und Eigerrsinn (Frankfiirt: Zweitam

sendeins. 1931}. 31. Ducted in Anton Iiaes, ‘flber den nomadischen Umgang mit Geschichtc‘, Text unu' lfritilt, nos. S5-S6. 1935. 32. Sec Hans Helmut Prirrxler, ‘.lahresbericht‘, Jahrbuch Film .l‘92Sl2‘9 (Munic-h:

Hanser, 1929}. 33 . Quoted in Filrrrlrritirlz, November 1929, p. 5. 34. See Saul Friedlander, Rellerions of Fascism. An Essay on Eitsch and Death (New ‘fork: Harper ht Row, 1934}.

35. For a more extended argument, see my ‘Myth as the Phantasmagoria of History‘, New Gerrrtun Critique, nos. 24-25, Fa1ll'W‘inter 1931-2.

3-6. See also my ‘Murder, Merger, Suicide: The Politics of Despair‘, in Tony Rayns (ed.). Fassbinder (London: British Film Institute. 1929}.

32. Edgar Reits, ‘Start Holocaust: Erinnerungen aufarbeiten‘, medium, May I929, p. 21.

33. Dieter E. Simmer, ‘Massermtord als Melodrama‘, Die .2.'eit, 19 January 1929, p. 23. 39. Peter Mirthesheimer, Ivo Frencel {eds}, Der Fenuehfiim ‘Holocoust‘: Eine Nation

ist betro,ffl‘en (Frankfurt: Fischer. 1929} p. 1343. Edgar Reits, medium, pp. 21-2. 41 Ibid 42. Edgar Reila, ‘Filmgeschichte ist nicht an Lichtspieltheater gebunden‘, in 19.-

Wetrel (ed.}, Neue ll-ledien contra Filmkultur? (Berlin: ‘Verlag ‘Volker Spiess.

1932} p. tss.

9 Nat1onaIorInternat:lurra.lClsrerna2 1. The debates in tiennany, apart from the ‘filmed literature crisis‘, were dominated by the virtues of the big screen compared to television, and the question of

‘amphibious films‘ (Andreas Meyer. ‘Ant dem Weg rum Staatskino2‘, medium, CIctoberl1"lovemb-erl‘December 1922 and Hans C. Blumenberg, ‘Bildschinn contra

Leinwandl‘, Die 2-‘cit, 23 June 1923. p. 23}. In the early 193EIs it was the split between low-budget films and commercially-oriented productions — ‘das kleine‘

versus ‘das grolie Creld‘ - which agitated the commentators (Itlaus Eder, ‘Der Glaubc ans grolie Geld‘, in H.113. Pflaum (ed.}, Jchrbttch Film .l92'9lSl2 (Munich:

Hanser, 1929} pp. llltl-2 and ‘Dreckige kleine Filme‘, Die 2‘er't, 33 November 1929}. Total confusion did arise when critics began to accuse ‘author-oriented‘

film-making, such as Fassbinder‘s big productions or Herrog‘s and Wenders‘ deals with American major companies, as a sell-out to commercial interests, and

proclaimed ‘issue-orientation‘ as the trite heir of the Aatorenjilm: ‘The noisily propagated work of tlte “author and producer“ is a mystification of the economic

and political conditions of production. What the autlror‘s film can claim for itself is to have discovered the didactic and target-audience fihn.‘ (Bion Steinborn.

filmfaurr, no. 4 (lunelluly 1922} p. 92. 2- See Raymond Durgnat, ‘From Caligari to Hitler‘, Film Comment. .lu1ylAugust

I93-ll. Adverse comment also came from Pauline Itiael. ‘Metaphysical Tactan‘. New ‘Forlter, 23 Clctober I925 and John Simon, ‘Cinematic Illite rates‘, New ‘Fork,

21] Dctober1925. 3. See t-he entries in the bibliography for references.

4. llllaus Eder and Alexander Itluge, lllmer Dramaturgien (Munich: Hanser, 19311} p- 195.

33-3

- Cit: 3-: tr.

lvfichael Dest, Flerian Hepf and Alettander Rluge, Filmwirechnft in rler SRD and in Eurepe (Munich: Hanser, 1973} pp. 3'9-Pll.

Alexander lilluge (ed.}, Sesntrrdsergfnnhme: Utepie Film {Frartl|:furt: Zvveitausendcins, ISSS] pp. ISIS-7'.

Ibid., p. 199. Ibid., pp. IlH—S.

Kluge's argument is here very clese te that ef Steven Spielberg er Paul Scltrader as discussed, fer instance, by David Tbemsen, flvrrerperures (biesv Yerlr: ‘Williarn lvferresv, BS1]. Abeut Peter Stein. the Schttubiihne and its acters. see lvlichael Pattersen. Peter Stein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1SS1]. Beslnndseafnehnte: Utepie Film, pp. 22’.-'-S. See fer instanee, lvlichael Cevine, ‘Wim ‘Wenders: A ‘iilerldvride Hernesiclrness‘, Film Quarterly, ‘Winter 19??-S, pp. ii-19 and Tim Cerrigan, ‘The Realist Gesture in the Flll'l'.lS ef Wim ‘Wenders’, Quarterly Revieiv ef Film Sttnlies, Spring ISISIJ, pp. 205-lti. Stanley lllaufftnann, ‘Watching the Rhine‘, Tire Hnrien, Ill August 197?. A reference te Jillian Beclter‘s beelr en the Baatier-lvleinhef greup. Hitler’: Children, taltcn up by Diane Jaeehs, ‘Hitler's Ungrateful Grarttilchilclren‘, Amer-

ican Film. May ISSIJ, pp. 34-41]. Eric Rentschler, ‘American Frienth and the bletv German Cinema‘, New Gemtnn

Cririqne, ne. 24-25, Fallfilalinter IEISI-2, pp. T-35. Sheila Jeltnsten (ed.}, llfenrlers (Lentlen: British Film institute Demier He. ll],

1981] p. I. See Antlrevv Sanis, "The Germans are Gaming, The Germans are Gemingl‘,

Village l»"eice, Ii‘ Dcteher 1iI'i'5; Penelope Ciilliatt, ‘C-eld‘, New Ferker, 11 April ISFTI‘; Stanley llauffmann, ‘Watching the Rhine‘, The Hcttien, El] August ‘ISTT;

‘Vincent Canby, ‘The Gennan Renaissance - He Reem fer Laughter er Leve‘, Netv l"erlc Titnes, 11 December 15177; Gerald Clarke, ‘Se-cltittg Planets ‘That De

Het Eztist - The Gennan Cinema is the Liveliest in Eurepe‘, Tn-se llfrrgeairse. Sill March 1975; see the bibliegraphy fer the cluster el' special imu-es ef perietli-cals

areund 1979-Bil. Hen Hellevvay, ‘German Film Teur 19Sl]", Kine-Gemtrrn Film nu. 2, Spring ISSU.

See H. Bernd lvleeller, ‘Der deutsche Film in amerilranischer Ferschung and Lehre‘, Film tend Ferrtrelserr in Ferscltrcng ttncl Leltre, ne. S, ISSB, pp. il'l—l14.

See, fer instance, Jenathan Cett, ‘Signs ef Life‘, Rellrl-lg Scene, 1S Hevember liflti, pp. 4S-SS. See Heb Balter, ‘Hear Crerman Cinema: A Fistful el lvlyths‘, Selle l~l"eel:ly News, E lvlarch IEITS, pp. 11-3. ‘Classic Cuerntan cinema died tvith the Haais‘ rise. Has the new generatien restered tlte great tradit:ien'?’, Diane .laeebs, ‘Hitler's Ung|'alefi.tl Grandchildren‘, Anrerlcnrt

Film. lvlay ISSIII, p. 34. See alse David L. Ctverbey, ‘Frees Human te lvlunich, bletv Gennan Cinema‘, Sight and Seturtl, Spring 1974, pp. llll--3, 115; Ruth

IvlcCerrniclt, ‘lvletrepelis Hear: The Hesv Crerrnan Cinema‘, In flsese Times, 3-ll July 197?; H.C. Blumenberg, ‘Ven Caligari his Geppela: Junge deutsche

Filntentacher in Hellyweed auf den Spuren ven Lubitseh, lvlurnau und Lang‘, Die‘ Zeit, I2 Fchnrary ISSD.

Chris Petit‘s British independent feature Redie fin {I91-'9}. ee-predueed by ‘Wim 'lli‘eedet's' cesnpany Head lvlevies, bears the tsrrilten rnette: ‘We are the children

ef Frita Lang and ‘iI|"erner ven Braun‘. See Ulrich Gre-ger, The Gcnssnrt Erperfrnennrl Flm ef the l'9'?ills (Munich: Ge-etlte

Institute, 195]}. See Ian Datvseu, The Filrrts ef Hellrnratlt Custard lfhentlen: Riverside Studies,

tvrs].

33!‘

= Gr; 311.:

See David Burdtvell, ivrrrrntien ctrrrl tire Ficrien Filrrr flsladisun: ‘iifrseensin University Press, ISSSJ p. 21'.-' and alse David iliilsen, ‘Anti-Cinema Rainer Werner Fassbinder‘, .'.i'r'gl‘rirtrtrl Surtnrl, Spring 1922. pp. ':i"i|'-1lI'.'I, 113.

See, fur instance, E. Ann Raplan. ‘Tlte Search ler the lvletl1ert'I.-anti in SandersBrahms‘ Gerrrreny Pele rlfrrtlser‘ in Eric Rentschler (ed.}, Germrrn Film rrnel

Literature [l..enrlen: lvletltuen. 19Se]| pp. 2Sil—3il-1. Jehn Hughes, ‘Fanhinder artd lvleder-nism', Film Cenrenr, ltlevemher-December 1975. pp. 11-13.

See Harts Bernd lvleeller, ‘Brecht and Epic Film lv1etiinm', Wide Angle, vel. 3, ne. rl, ISSEI, pp. 4-11 and Reswitha lvltleller, ‘Brecht the Realist and ltlew Gennan Cinerna‘, Frrrmesverlz, ne. 25, 1'JS-ll, pp. 42-51.

See iliaja Silverman, ‘Kaspar Hauser's “Terrible Fall" inte narrative‘ and Timethy Cerrigan, "Wender‘s' liirrgts ef lire Read: The ‘lieyage frem Desire tu Langtaage‘, New Gerrnrrn Critique, uu. 24-25, ‘lli‘intert"F'all 19312, pp. T3-1117.

Timethy Cerrigan, New -German Film: Tire Displaced inrrrge [Austin: University uf Tetras Press, ISSS].

blew "r"erk jeurnalism is especially enamenred ef the metaplzreric pelitical

hypcrhulc.

C'rtltler's rl-tr Cinefrtsn eellective, "!l"eu.nglv[r Lineeln', Screen, vel. 13, nu. Ii, Autumn 191-'2.

Laura lvlnlvey and Jen Halliday [eds.], Deng-ins Sirlr (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Film Festival, 1922].

Teny Rayns (ed.}, Fassbinder {Lem-:len: British Frlm Institute, l!.i'il5]. See Richard Dyer, ‘Reading Fassbinder‘s Setrual Pelities‘, in T. Rayns (ed.}, Fassbinder, pp. 54-I54 and Andrew Britten, ‘Futt and His Friends, Fused‘, Jrtntp Cur, ue. 19, Huvcmbet 1977, pp. 22-3. See Rebel‘! Bttrguyne, ‘ltlarrative and Seaual Excess‘, Clctelter, nu. 21, Summer

1-ass. PP- st-as.

Der Spiegel, 11 February 1916. See the bibliegraphy fer a list ef English-langttage pamphlets published by the Geetlte Institute. ‘The Federal Gevernment mtlst restrict itself in the area ef cultural pelities - te

use the terntinelegy ef sperts - te supperting the tep talents, rather than give funds en a bread basis.‘ Siegbert vuu liiiclcnita, fer the lvlinistry ef the Interier,

qtreted in jilvnfenrr ne. 4, Jnneilnly 19".-"i, p. ST. Destii-lupiililuge, p. T3.

Hcrbcrt Achtembusch, Es ist ein Leicltres lrein-t Gelsen rien 1-ierien arr lteriiltren (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 195]) p. 145.

Reita in Brennen and Brecher. Die Fiirrremeclser (lvlunich: C. Bertelsmann, 1923} p. 1133.

Hans Gunther Pflaum, ‘lvlidlife Crisis 1'EiS1-1'-.'lS2‘,.ieirrfrncn Film iiISiiS2 llvlnnich: Hanser, 1932}. Cm Fir.-rcrrrrrride as a pelitical media event see lvlichael Geedwin, ‘Herzug the Ged ef Wrath‘, American Film, June 1932 and Elizabeth and Leun

Hetcadct. ‘Paraneia in Elderade‘, Time tlllrtt, Lenden, 12 February ISS2. lvlichael Schneider, Nrrr tete Fisclre sclnvimrrsen mit rlem Strum {C-eltJg;|tc: IGe+

penhener & ‘Witsch, l'JS4] pp. 293-S. Hunted in H. Icremias, ‘Wet schligt uns denn das Kine tet‘?‘. Frerrlrjirtrer

rlr'lgenter'ne 2'einrng, 2 lvlay 197?. Jerg Friedrich Sirabbe, ‘Die Henen Caligaris‘, Net-te.s Ferrrrn, .lnlyiAngust Hie, p. 59. Fer a mere detailed analysis et' Lili r'lrl‘ur'lce't'.| see my ‘Fassbinder, Fascism and the Film industry‘, Dcreber 21, Summer BS2, pp. 115-4-ll

.':l-ll-ll

= Gt; 311.:

ii

.

i

iii

ll Cendlrfltrrr Welnam Schiitte, ‘Das Hera‘, in ‘W. Schittte and PAH‘. Jansen (eds.}, Frrssbinder (lvluniclt: Hanser, revised editien 1iI'S2}. See Frita lvliiller-Schetz, ‘Fassbinders Erben‘, Trnrrrrrrirrntdr, December 19132. Harry Baer. Scirirrferr ltrtnn icir, tvenn ieir rer ltin [Gel-ugrre: liiepenhcuer tit ‘iliitsclr, 1932]; Hurt Raab and iiarsten Peters, Die Seirnsrrcirtdes Rainer ‘Wemer Frastsfrinder

i_'lvluniclr: C. Bertelsmann, 1'5IS2]: Gerhard Evvererra, Der iengscune Ted der Rainer Wemer Frrssbinder (lvtunich: lvlirnchner Editien Schneeirluth, 1932}. See interview in Der Spiegcl, ‘Wit sind nicht mehr der inngfilm‘, 1S June 1979.

Interview in Frnnirfnrrer iirrndschnrr, reprinted in Rainer ‘Werrser Fassbinder, Dr'e rlnrsrclrie der Flrrtntttsir (Frankfurt: Fsclrer, ISSS} p. 136.

Gunter Rehrhaclr, ‘Die verhangnisvelle lvlacht der Regissenre‘, trrcditrm, April 1i|S3, pp. Ilfl-1. Andreas lvlayer, ‘Auf tlcm ‘ilicge aum Staatslrine lit‘, medit-tlrt, Deeember 1'-.'l'.'r"7.

Interview in Der Spiegel, reprinted in Die Arsnrclrie, p. 9?. ‘Hamburger Erlrldrung‘, reprinted in medirtrrr, Hevember 1975', p. 2?. See ltraft ‘Wetael (ed.}, Alene ilfediers centre Filmlrrrlnrr? (Berlin: ‘llerlag ‘llulker Spiess, 1S'S'1‘}.

Berlin Festival, ‘Der deutsche Film ist tet‘, lieriirrule sfurrrrs-rrl, 21' February HST. Beth examples are queted in David Tltttmsen, Dvererpesnrer {Hew "r'erk: ‘riiilliam

lvlerrew, 1SS1} p. ‘I-'9. See Ian C1u'istie and Thumas Elsaener, ‘Bring en the Clenes‘, Guardian, 4 hfarch 1‘5lS2.

341

Cir) glc

,

Bibliography

The bihiiegsaphy is necessarily selective. and eencentrates en 1) beek-length studies in English, 2] pamplets in English predueed in cenjunctien with the Cieethe Institute, 3} published scripts and ll} material, mainly in English and German, which has either been referred te, er has seemed sufficiently substantial te warrant incltrsien.

Biblie-graphical entries en individual direeters can alse be feund in the beelrs listed belew, and in the studim edited by Peter ‘W. Jansen and ‘iiielfram Schfttte. 1

BMiI@f"'l-l‘If}l!l"lII.I.Il:iH.lfhEfi:l

Timuthy Cerrigan, New Gennan Film: Tire Displaced lrnage (Austin, Tettas: University

ef Tesas Press, 15lS3]. Jarrrm Franklin, New German Cinema: Fram Clberlrastsen in Hambrrrg (Bustun:

Twayne, 1S'S3]|. I-Ians Gunther Pflaum and Hans Helmut Prinaler, Cinema in rlre Federal Republic ef Gerrnany (Benn: Inter blatiencs, 1933}. Itlaus Phillips {ed.} New ‘West German Filmmakers: Frem Gberhausen Tltrerrglr tire lili-‘ills (New "t"urlr: Frederick Ungar, 19154].

Eric Rentschler, il~"'es'lGer1start Film in rise Cerrrse bf Tirne (BedIerd Hills, New Yerk: Redgrave, ISS4). i (ed.) German Film and Literanrrc: Adaptations and Trarrsferrnatiens {Lenden

and blew ‘ierk: Methuen, urss]. —-— (e-d.} l-‘Fest German Filmrnarlzerr an Filrn (blew "t‘erlr.: Helntes St lvfeiet, I933}.

lehn Sandfetd, Tire New German Cinema (Lenden: Oswald "Netti, liifil}.

1 P|m]tltletsenrlSpeclllIseueeul‘,leuruelriiEuglle'lr} Themas Elsaesser, Seven Filnrsfar Seven Decades (Lendun: Geethe Institute, 19155].

Brtrne Fisclrli, Tire Tirird Reich its Filrns ef tire Federal Republic ef Germany (Munich: Geethe Institute, 1iIS2-4}. Ulrich Cireger, Tire Gennan Experirnental Fibs: ef rise Seventies (Munich: Geethe Institute, 1'§lS-fl}. Peter ‘N. Jansen, The New German Film (lvfunich: Ge-etlte Institute, 1'.-H2}.

Claudia Lensscn, ii"enten's Cinema in tfiersnany (Munich: Creethe Institute, 1'!-lStl}. Welfgang Limmer, Fassbinder (Munich: Geethe Institute, 1923]. Inge Petaltc, German Erperimental Filtns (Munich: Geethe Institute, 1981). Harts Helmut Prinaler, Satire, lrursy, Hrrmurrr in Federal Gerrrrarr Flltrts (Munich:

Cseethe Institute, 19811}. Wilhelm Ruth, Tire Federal Republic pf’ Germany as Reflected its its Duct-rmerstary

Films (Munich: Geethe Institute, 1'.-IISIJ-}. liar] Saurer and Gabriele ‘Fess. Lecatten tfiensrany (Munich: Ge-eth-e Institute, 1952]. S42

- Ci-;;:r Se tr. -

.r

_

Herst Schafer and Elke Ried, l"'eralr Ftirn firans tlre Federal Republic e_f Germany (Munich: Geethe Institute, 19S2}. Ernst Schumtann (ed.} A Tribute ta Das lllelne Fern.selrspiell.2DF (Berkeley.-‘San Frrrncisce: Pacific Film ArchivelGecthe Institute San Francisce, 1929]. Discaurse, ne. ti, Fall 19183, (ed.) Reswidsa Mueller. It'ine-Gerrnan Film, appearing 2-Z-I times a year since CI-cteber 1929, (eds.} Ren and Derethea Helleway.

l.ireraiurelFilm tjlrrarrerly, vel. 7 ne. 3, 191-'9, (ed.) James ‘illelsls. New Gensrun Critique, nu. 24-25, "NinterlFall 1flS1—2, (etls.} David Bathrick and Miriam Hansen.

Persistence e_t" Fisian, ne. 2, Fall 19S5, (ed.} Teny Pipele. Quarterly Review ef Fltn Studies, Spring 19$], (ed.} Eric RentschlerWide Angle, vel. 3 nu. 4, 19$], (ed.) Peter Lehman.

S lieelr|aIdScreel|rlaysbylS-erlaalilrecters Herbert Achtembusch, Sclrriften, vels 3-S (Frartkftut: Snlrrkamp, 19'I-'SfI]|. Ingeme Engstrem and Gerhard 'I1reurig. ‘Dessier: Escape Reuse te Marseille‘, Framewarrk, ne. 1S (1H2} pp. 22-S.

Harun Farecki, 2'wisclten rwei liriegrn (ed.} Peter blau (Munich: "v'erlag Filmkritik, 1973}. Rainer ‘iilemer Fassbinder, Antiteater l, ll (Frankfurt: Suhrkantp, 1923-ti}. i, Filme Refieien den Repf. led.) Michael Teteberg (Frankfurt: Fischer. 19S-ll}. i, Die Anarclrie der Flrantarie, (cd.} Michael Teteherg (Frankfurt: Fischer, 19St5}. ;, Tire Marriage ef Maria Sraun (ed.] Jeyce Rlreuban (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 19815]. ~—-, flerlin Aletandetplats (ed.] Harry Baer (Frankfurt: Zweitausencleins, sass). Z, Drrerelle: tire Film Beef: (eds.} Dieter Schider and Michael McLemen (Munich: S-clIi|1nerlMesel, 19S2]. -—-, Sclrarten der Engel (Frankfurt: Zweitauserrdeins, 1926}. ‘Wemer Hetaeg. Drel'rbrIiclrer l—ll (Munich: Skellig, 1977]. —--, Fem Gelren im Eis (Munich: Skellig, 19'lS}. ;, tilf lliallrirsg en lee {ltlew “r‘erk: Tanam, 19511]. —, Dreltfttlclter I'll’ (Munich: Hanser, 1929}. ———, Screenplays (blew Yerk: Tarrant Press, ISISIJI].

Alettander Rluge, Lebetrsldrrfe. rtnwesenlreitsliste filr cine lleerdigung (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1974}.

i, Anendance l..i.ct fer a Funeral, translated by Leila ‘llennewita (Hew “r"erlr: MeGraw-Hill, 19b-S]. —--, Scblaclsrbesclrreibrmg (Cllten: illalter ‘iierlag, 1964-]. i, Tlre Beale, ttarrslated by Leila "i"ennewita (blew ‘ferk: MeGraw-Hill, 196?]. ——, Lersspresesse tttll tddficltem Ausgang (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973}.

~i, Nerre Gesclriclrten. Hejfl .l—JS Tlnlreimltclrlzeit der Zeit’ (Frankfurt: Sultrkantp,

tern.

i, Gelegcnlreiuarberi eirser Slzlavirs: .2."rtr realistisclren Metlrede (Frankfurt: Sultr-

kamp, 1925}. ——, Die Patrfetirt (Frankfurt: Zweitnusend-eins, 19'T'9}.

i, Die lrfaclrt der Geffiilrle (Frankfurt: Zweitausendeins, 1984}. ——, Der .-'lngr(fl" der Gegenwarr arrf die rlbrige Zeit (Frankfurt: Syndikat, ISISS]. ——, (ed.} lle.standsau,li_snlrrrre: [ltepie Film (Frankfurt: Iweitausendeins, 19S3}.

—- and Gskat Hegt, t?fi"entlicltlceit und Erfabrtmg (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1922}. —-—-—, Gesclriclrte rend Eigensinn (Frankfurt: 2'.sveitausendeirts, 1931}.

Ulrike Clttinger, rlladarrre Jr’ - eine abselute Herrsclteritt (Frankfurt: Reter Stern. I929}. 343

Cit; 31::

i, Frenlr Drirrnde, llleines illelttlreater in frinf Episeden (Berlin: Medusa, 1931}. Resa ven Praunheim, Set and lfarriere (Munich: Re-gner S: Bemhard, 1926}. —, .4rrr-ry ef Levers (Lenden: Gay Men‘s Press. 19811]——-, Rare Liebe. Eltl Gerprdclt mit Helga Gael: (Culegne: Premetlr, 1'9S2}.

Edgar Reita, Liebe ram lfine (Celegne: ‘llerlag lleln 2S, l9S4‘l. Edgar Reita and Peter Steinbach, Hebsset. Eine derrtsclre Clrrenil: (hlerdlingen: Grene, 1985}. Helma Sanders-Brahms, Derasclrlarrd Bleiclte ll-fatter (Reinbek: Rewehlt, 19Sll). ‘llelker Sc-hlfinderlf and Gunter Grass, Die lileclrrremmel als Film (Frankfurt: Zwertausendeirrs, 1929}.

‘llelker Schlenderff, Dir Sleclrtremrnet, Tegebrrclr einer Ferfilrrrung (l'~leusvied: Luchterhand, 1929). ‘lielker Schlenderff, l'~licelas Bem and Bemd Lcpel, Dir Fdlsclrung als Film trnd der lirieg im Ltban-en (Frankfurt: Iweitausentleins, 19'S1]-.

‘Wemer Schreeter, Dakar Paniaaa, Antenie Salines, Liebrslrenril (Munich: Schimtertlvlesel, l9S2]. Jean-Marie Straub and Daniele Hrrillet, 'Seenaries ef l-listery Lestens and lntreductien ta Arneld Sclrenberg‘s “.-'lccempenr'menr re e Cinersraregreplric Scene" ‘, Screen, vel. 12 ne. l. (Spring 1926+] pp. 54-S3. ——-, lflassenverlsrilmisse (ed.} lllelfram Schutte (Frankfurt: Fischer. l9S4}. Hans Jiirgen Syberberg, Syberbergs Filmbriclr (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1929}. Z, Hitler. Ein Film arts Derrtrclrland (Reinbek: Rewehlt. 19‘i'S}. T, Die Frerrdlese Geselltclreft (Munich: Hanser, ISSI}. i, Parsifal (Munich: Heyne, 1'il'S-2]-.

i, Der lllald stelst sclrwarr and sclswciptt (Zurich: Diegenes. l9S4}. Margaretha ven Tretta, ‘illilli Bar and Hans Jiirgen Weber, Sclrwestem eder die Balance des Gliiclcr (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1929}. ——- and Luisa France, Das 2‘.'wcite Errvaclren der Clrrirte Hinges (Frankfurt: Fischer.

19Sll}. Z and Hans Jtirgen Weber, Die Rleierne 2'eit (Frankfurt: Fischer, 19S1]. ——-, Heller li"alrrr (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1933]. i, Resa Larembarg (Herdlingen: Grene, tvss}. ‘Wim ‘Nendcrs, Ernetien Ficrnres (Frankfurt: ‘llerlag der Auteren, 1911-ii). ‘Wim ‘Wenders and Peter Handke, Falsclre llewegarsg. Essays und Filntlcrittlten (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1925]. Wim ‘Wenders and Frita Milller-Sehera, The Film by Wim l-Fenders: Kings ef lfte

Read, trattsl. by Christeplter Dehcrly (Munich: Filmverlag der Autercn. 1925}. — and Chris Sievemich, Niclr ‘s Filrn.-'l‘..iglrrrring ever iiiater (Frankfurt: Zweitausendeins, 19S1]. i and Sam Shepard, Paris, T'e.tes (ed.]| Chris Sievenrich (bllirdlingen: Grene,

19S4).

_

Rlaus ‘Wildenhahn, fiber syrrtlretirclren und delrunsentarirclren Film (Frankfurt: Kemmunales Kine, 1925}. I

G-elIe:l'Il Blhlkfliphj

‘lN'ilft'ied Adant, Das liirlke in der deuerclren Filmwirtrclraji (Berlin: 1959). Thcutler ‘W’. Aderrre and Man Herkheimer, Dialectic ef Enliglrtenrnent (New Yerk:

Herder and Herder, 1922}. Alfred Anderscb ‘Das I-tine der Anteren‘, tlferlcnr, ne. 15S (19151) pp. 332-4S.

ltligel slants, (Hitler is Entertainment‘, American Film, vul. 2. nu. s (Ftprii rats:

pp. 5|]-3. Gitleen Bachmann, ‘The Man en the ‘llelcane: A Pertrait ef ‘Wemer I-lerseg‘, Film (Quarterly. vel. 31 ne. Il (Fall 1922] pp. 2-ltl. S44

Cit: 5|-:3

-

Iillaus Btidekerl, ‘Alles kennen nichts erkennen‘, ne. 14-S (April 1969] pp. 225-2. Reb Baker, ‘ltlew German Cinema - A Fistful ef Myths‘, Salsa Weekly News, 23 March 192S, pp. 21-3. Angelika Barnrner, ‘Threugh a Daughter's Eyes‘, New German Cririerre, ne. as (Fall 191351 PP. 91-111]. Sigrid Bauschinger et al. (eds.] Film und l..ilIeratrrr. Literarirclte Taste und tier ttcue

derrtsclse Film (Beme: Francke, 19S-i]. ‘llfilfried Berghalsn, ‘Itine der Auturen - lliinu der Preduaenten‘, Die Zeit, 2'2 April

19152. Emst Blech, Erbsclreft dieser Eeir (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 19152). i, Dar Frinaip Hufikrung (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1923].

Hans C. Blumenberg, ‘Glana und Elend des neuen deurschen Films‘, Die Zeit, pt rn, 2-9 September 1922. i, "Fen Caligari bis Ceppola: Jurtge deutsche Filrnemacher in Hellyweed auf den

Spuren ven Lubitsch. Mumau und Lang‘, Die Zeit, 22 February 19$]. i, ‘Bildschirm centra Leinwand‘, Die Eeit, 23 June 19:-‘S.

i, ‘Der Aufstand der Trittbrettfahrer‘, Tip lrfegesirs, 12 August 19-S3, pp. ti-2. Hans-Michael Buck (ed.] Cinegreplr. Lerilren crest deutsclrsprarcltigen Film (Munich: Editien Tern R Iliritik, 19S4 ff). Hark Behtn. ‘Lauter Erfelge ehne Publikum‘, Der Spiegel, 2 August 19‘i‘S, pp. 132S. Thentas Behm-Christel, rllesrattrler Rluge (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, l9S3]. Atze Brauner, tleficlr gibtis nur einmel, lilriclrblende eines Leltens (Berlin: Herbig,

1926}. Bert Brecht, ‘Der Dreigreschenpruaem: Ein Sesielegisches Estpetiment‘ in Bertelt

Breclsrs Dreigre.sclsers.brrclr, vel. r (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 192S]. Andrew Britten, ‘Fest and his Friends: Felted‘, Jump Cut, ne. lb (Hevember 1922] pp. H-3. Barbara Brennen and Cerinna Brccher, Die Fllnserrsecber. Zrrr neuen deutsclsen Fredulctrlun neclr =Dberlrrr.rrsert (Munich: C. Bertelsmann. 1973].

‘lllelfgang Bruckner er al., ‘Die ‘llerlehrene Ehre des deurschen Films‘, lui (Munich], ne. 3 (March 1929] pp. 96-193.

Peter Buehka, ‘Wis leben in einem teten Land‘, Siiddeutsclse .'rE.'eitung, 21-22 August 1922.

——, ‘Dann geht wieder was, dann geht wiedcr nis‘, Sriddeutsclre Zeireng, 25 January 19SS. i, Augen rkann man nlclrt lzarrfen. lifirsr l-Fenders urtd seine Films (Munich: Carl

Harrser. 19S3]. ——, ‘Schwanengesang: Ahschied vem neuen dcutschen Film‘, in H. G. Pflaum,

Jalsrbuclr Film S3lS4‘ (Munich: Carl Hanser, 19S3]. Ruberl Burgeyne, ‘ltiarrative and Scaual Esecss‘, Dcteber, ne. 21, Summer 1932,

pp. 51-S2. lliemer Burtlaff, ‘Cinema = Argent if Film‘, Les Calriets de la Citsernatberpte, ne. 32 (Spring 19S1] pp. 13S-45. Erica Caner, ‘Interview with Ulrike Gttiuger‘, Screen Erlricatien, ne. 41 ("INinferl'Spr'ing 19192] pp. 34-42.

Vincent Canby, "The German Renaissance — He Reem fer Laughter er Leve‘, New Perl: Times, 11 December 1922, Sectien D, p. 15.

Gerald Clarke, ‘Seeking Planets That De ltlet Etrht - The Gemtart Cinema is the Liveliest in Eurepe’, Time Magazine, 211 March 197$, pp. S1-3.

Ian Christie (ed.] ‘The Syberberg Statement‘, Frensewerlr, ne. t5 (Autumn 1922] pp. 12-13.

345

Ci-:1: glc

F

Cuggt!t}{cd.] Jutta Hrlirknar, Cindnm Regard Viuicncc llirtrsacls: Lcs Caliicrs ri , 1 . Hichacl Cuyinu, ‘Wim ‘Wcndcrs: A ‘i3"uridwidc Hutncsicltntsss‘. Film flmtrtcriy. yul. 31 nu. 2 {"ill"'trttcr 19'I-"1'-9'3] pp. 9-19.

Junathan Eutt, '3igns ul Lilc‘, Railing Stunc, 13 Huvcsnhcr 1993, pp. 49-53. Pam Cuuls, ‘Thc puint uf sclf-cnprcuiun in avant-garde film‘ in I. C-lugjtic [c.tl.]

Tiiacurics uf..4ut>'rursh|'p (Landau: Ruutlcdgc 3: Iiicgan Paul, 1931}. Richard Cullins and ‘Vinccnt Purtcr. WDR cussl’ thc Arbciteqibn [Lundum British Fihn 1'11!-litutc, 19151].

Timothy C.urri,gan {c=d.] Wcmcr Hcrrug (Luntlun and Hcw ‘furlt: Hcthucn, 1933). ~——-. ‘U11 thc ctlgc at histnry: this radiant spc-ctmclc uf Wcrncr Schru-l:t:r', Fins

flwnniy yul. 3'? nu. 4 (3|.unmcr 1934} pp. ti-13. -, “Wcrncr 3chructcr‘s upcratic cinctna'. Discourse, nu. 3 [Spring 1931} pp. 41559. Francis Cuurtadc, Jrtmc Cindtnn Allcntatsd (Lyun: 3-crdcc, 1939}. David Curtis, Expcrimcntul Cincnra {Haw Yuri: D-l:ll Ftlhlinhing, 191-'1}.

Jan Dawsun, ‘Filming High.sntith*, Sight and Suctn-d, yul. 4'7 nu. 1 (‘Winter 1921-'fi"3} pp. 3|}-3. -‘ ‘Thc 5-atrrcd Tcrrur: shaduws uf tcrrurissn in thc Haw Gcrman EIinc|rta', Sight

3 Sutmd, yul. 43 nu. 4 (hututnn 191-'9'} pp. 242-5.

——— ‘Th: Industry - Gcrtnan Wcascls {Filrutrcrlag Fullic.-.s)' Fills: Cununcnt, yul. 13 hiII

nu. 3 {lyIay—.lunc 192?} pp. 33-4. ——, ‘A Labyrinth ut Subsirlics’, Sight and Suund [Wintcr i93ll"31} pp. 14-23. -— {c.cl.} fit: Fit'm.s ufflcllrnutlt Custard {Lc-nclun: Riycrsidc 3tudius, 1'3‘.-'9}. L, i4".im Wanders [Hcw ‘furlt: Haw Yuri: Zoctrop-e, 1975}. ——-, Aicrmndcr Kluge and ‘Th: Dccusiunal Work cf is Fcmcnlc Slave‘ [Hcw Turlr:

Haw ‘furl: Zuctrupc, 1927]. Z, ‘Gcrtrtany in Autumn and Ein: Iiilcinc Liudardfl Tait: Dnc. yul. 3 nu. 12 [Huycmhcr 191-'3} pp. 14-15, 44-5. i, ‘In Hcmunam: Jan Dawsun‘. ii-Ianshiy Film Btdlctin. Dctubcr 19%. David Dcnhy, ‘Th: Germans art: Cumingl Th: Gcrn1ans arc Cumingl’, Hurizun,

yul. 2iIlnu. 1[19‘i"'I-') pp. 39-9|]. Hcltltttt H. Dicdcriczhs, ‘Mirktc, ‘i7t"|T|st-cu, Dascn — Eur buntlcrsdcutschcn I'i.inu:sit1.t-

ati-an‘, mcdium, 4223 {flipril 1923) pp. 13-23. ——, ‘Filmycrlag dcr Auturen‘, epd-Film (Scptctnbcr 1935}, pp. 22-ti. Emcst Dichtcr Intcrrtatiuttal, ‘Frcincithccliirfitissc und Pri.fcrcn.utn:kt|.tr“ in D. Prui;-up

{c.d.] Mntcrialicn cur Thcarir dss Films tlylunichz Hanscr. 191-'1} pp. 339-32. ‘Wulf Dunncr, ‘Dic Dcutachcn lsumrncn‘, Di: Ecit, 21 Huycmhcr 191-'5.

Sicgfricd Durricldt, ‘Das Hissycrhaltnis dcr Iliultttrausgahcn rum Film‘ in Ftilmfrirdcrung in dcr Hundasrcpuhlik: End: udcr Ncnbcginrt [irlannhcitnz Intt:r-

natiunalc Filrnwachc. 1977} pp. 13-15. lidichacl Dust, Flurian Hupf and Aicrandcr Iilugc. F'slmwt'r.tschir,Ft in dcr BED smd Etrrupa, Guflcrdfirrmnsmng anfflasrn {h'1ur|.ich: Hanscr, 1973].

Raymund Durgnat, *Frum Caligari tu Hittcr‘, Film Comment. yul. I3 nu. 4 {JulyAugust 1931]) pp. 59-TU.

Burithardt Drchcr, Filrnfdrdcnmg in dcr Buadcsrcpubiii: {I3-criin: Dcutsczhcs Institut flit 'Wirtschaftsl’u1'st:Ittlng, Eurtdcrhcfl ltt, 1923}.

Jiirgcn Ehcrt and Harun Faruclti, ‘Dcr Iliicinc Garland‘, Filmirririk nu. 233 [Huycmh-ct 1973} pp. 332-115.

llilaus Erlcr, ‘Dar Glauhc ans grc-Bc t'icid', in H. G. Pflaum {ccl.} Iahrbtsch Film 29133 (Munich: Cari I-llanscr. 19791 PP. iilii-7. —- and Almtandcr Klugc, Uimcr Dramamrgicn. Rcibmsgsvcritutc (h'lt.tnit:h: Hanser,

193-U}. Jilli-

Ciii 511:

-_

Charles ‘Behind the Crest ui the ‘Have: An Overview uf the New German Cinema‘. LiicrnrnrelFilm flratrrerly, vul. T nu. 3 {I999} pp. 157-31. Juhn Ellis, ‘Art, Culttue and Duality‘, Screen, vul. 19 nu. 3 [Autumn 1923] pp. '9-

49.

_., Flsible Fictiuns [Lu-nrlun: Rutttledge is tsegni Paul, 1932}. — and 3hei1a Juhnstun, ‘The Radical Film Funding ui ZDF‘, Screen, vul. 23 nu. 1 {Hayllune I932] pp. t5il—'i-'3. Thumas Elsaesser, ‘Th-e Past-War German Cinema‘ in T. Rayns {es:l.} Fassbinder

{Lundum British Film Institute. 1996} pp. 1-13. —-—, ‘A Cinema uf ‘ilieiuus Circles’, in T. liiiayns (ecl.]| Fassbinder [Lundun: British

Film Institute, 1926) pp. 24-33. ——, ‘German Film Bunanaa‘, lilew Sreremran, 3 January 19$]. i, ‘lvluther Cuurage and Divided Daughters‘, Hunrlily Film Bulletin, July 1933. Z. ‘lvletnury, Hume an-rl Hullywuod‘, Monthly Film Bullerin. Fehruray 1935. ——, ‘Heimat’, American Film, Hay 193.5.

—, ‘3yberberg's Parsifal’. ll-luniltly Film Bulletin, lvlay 1933. --—, ‘Primary ldentifiuatiun and the Histuritsal Bubjetrt: Fassbinder’: Germany‘,

C'ine-rraars, nu. 11 {Fall 1933] pp. 43-52. —~, ‘lilltlrder, lvlerger, 3uit:irle' in T. Rayrls -[ed.]| Fassbinder (Landau: British Film

Institute. 2nd edn, 1929} pp. 3‘J-53. Z. "Wurlting un the Margins‘. liluntlily Film Bulletin. Detuher 1933. —-, ‘3yherh-erg, Cinema and Representatiun‘, New Gennan Critriqae, nus. 24-H {Falll9v‘inter 1931-2} pp. 103-5-4. L, ‘Fassbinder, Fascinn and the Film lndintry‘, llleruber, nu. 21 [1932] pp. 115-40. i, ‘Herbert Achtembusch and the German Avantgarde‘, Dlseuinrse, nu. ti {Fall 1933} pp. 92-112. ——-, ‘lt Started with these images: Filmmalring after Brecht in West Germany’. Disrunrse nu. 9' {Fall 1935} pp. 95-121]. ——, ‘B-etvveen Bithurg and Bergen Behen‘, [in Filnl, nu. 14

1535] pp. 33-4B.

i, ‘i'.'iermany‘s America: Wim ‘Wenders and Peter Hanclke‘ in 3usan Hayward led.) Eurepean Cinenm {flirrrtinghatltt Astun University, 1935]. —, ‘American {irafliri - Heuer Deutscher Film swisehen Avant-garde und Pustmuderne‘ in A. I-luysseu and Ill. Bcherpe [eils.] Futrmrudense: Ieieben eincslsrrlnrrellerr l9'ar|-dels (Reinbek: Ftuwuhlt, 1936} pp. 332-23. i, ‘Public Budies and Divided Selves: German ‘Blumen Film-makers in the 3iJs",

lklunrlily Film Bulletin, December 193‘.-'. i, ‘A retruspe-ct un the hiew Gennan Cinema‘, Gennan Life and Lerrers, vul. 41 nu. 3, April 1933. Hanns Heinz Ewers, ‘Der Film und ich‘, in Antun lines led.) Jt"lnu-llebarre {Ti|hingen: Has Hiemeyer, 1973} pp. 133-4.

lvlanny Farber and Patricia Fattersun, ‘Fassbinder‘, Film Cummenr, l"'iuvemluerDecember 19'l'5, pp. 5-Tr‘.

Harun Faruclri, 'l'~iutwendige Airweeltslung und llielialt‘, Filmlrrirflr, nu. 223 {August 1925} pp. 3:53-9. Helmut Father, Baulrunsr nnrl‘ Film vflvlunich: Helmut Farber, 197?}. ——, ‘Der Brief‘, Filmlizririlr 4ltiT {April 193?} pp. 203-4. i, ‘Das Unenttleckte Illinu‘, in A. Kluge

Besranclsaafltahme: Uiupie Film

(Frankfurt: Zweitausendeins, 1933] pp. 15-29. Rainer Wemer Fassbinder, ‘Seven Films by Duuglas 3ir'k‘ itt Jun Halliday and Laura

lvlulvey (eds) Bangles Sirlr =[Eciinl:urgh: Edinburgh Film Festival, 1921]. i, ‘Inseam in a Glass Case: Ran-dum Thutlghis un Clsttttie Ch-ahrul‘, Sight and

Sunnrl, vul. 45 nu. 4 (Autunm 19"}-'15} pp. 235-3, 252. —, ‘lilimninrg, Han-mtand, 3altu murtale - sieher gestanclen', Fmnkfuner li‘sur-dsclran, 24 February 19'l9. Bil-'1'

- Ci-.11 3-: r".

‘Film in Berlin: Der Basis-Film ‘ilerleibi. ltfirt-ematlleli. nu. I55, Detuber 1933. ‘Film in Berlin: Regina Ziegler Pruduirtiun‘, Jfinematlietli, nu. 34, Clctub-er 1933. .Film.sta.ri.stircliea Jalrrbueli filliesbaden: Spitaenurgarrisatiun der Filmwirssebaft, 1952533}. Filmsrarirtiielies Taeelrenbueli Pliliesbadenz Spitrenurgarrisatiun der Filmvtirtschalt. 19333}. Jubn Fislre and Jubn Hartley, Reading Televisien [Lundum lvlethuen, 1923}.

Hubert Fischer and Jue Hembus [eds.} Der Neue Deutsclte Film l9I5ll—l5l9.l lhlurlielr: Cruldman. 1931}. 1v1iel1el Fuucault, ‘What is an authur?‘ in J. Caugbie led.) Tlteuries cf Autii-urslrip [Lundun: Ruutledge 3|: Regan Paul, 1931}. Z, ‘interview: Film and Fupular lvlemury‘, Eilinlrurglr Magazine, nu. 2 (1977) pp. 23-5. Jim Franklin, ‘Furms uf Cummunieatiun in Fassbinder's Angst Bissen Seele auf’. l..iteraruret.F"ilrn ljluarterly, nu. 1-‘ (Summer 1979} pp. 132-233. Ciunhild Freese, ‘Die Leinwand lebt‘, Die Zeir, ill -Detuber 1975. Saul Friecliander, Reyleriianr af Nazism - An Essay an li'.'itsclr and Death [blew “t'urlr: Harper and liuw, 1934}. Theu Fiirstenau, lllanillungen im Film {l‘ullacb, Berlin: ‘Verlag Dulrum-entatiun, 1993}. lviichael C-reisler, ‘Heimat and the German Left‘. New -German Critique, nu. 33 (Fall 1935} pp. 25-33. Ju Gelmis, The Film Directuras Superstar {blew ‘furlt: Duubleday, 1929}. Wulfgang Ciersch, Film bei Brecht (Berlin, GDR: Herschel ‘llerlag, 1925}.

Penelupe Giiliatt, ‘Gu|d‘, New Purlier, 11 April 192?. Leunhard H. Gmiihr. ‘Eur Cbruuik’, Der lurige lleuctelie Film (Munich: Cunstantin Verleih, 1937}.

Digs Crrflber, ‘Arrner Deutscber Film‘, Trartsatlantilt, January 1931, pp. as-‘ta. lvlichael Guutlwin, ‘Hemug The fiud uf ‘Wrath’, American Film, Jurre 1932, pp. 36-

51. T2-3. lvlicbael C-ruttbelf, ‘Dem Deutsrlten Film auf die B-eine belles’. Frankfrtrter Alqeme-in.e Zeining, 23 September 1931. Alan Crreeuberg, Heart u_l" Glass lhlurdcb: Eltellig, 1923}. Ulrich Gregur, ‘The German Film in 1964: Stuck at Zeruf Film fluartedy, vul. 13

nu. 2 (‘Winter 1934} pp. "l-21. i, Gescbicirle iles Film ab l9l5r9(h'1unicb: C. Bertelsmann, 1923).

Tltumas H- Ctubacli, The lnternatiarial Film lnilustry iflluumingtutt. Indiana: Indiana Uriiversity Press, 1939}.

‘Hamburger Erltliirung‘, meiliurn, Huvember 1999, pp. 22-3. Peter Handke, ‘Augsburg im August: Trustlus', Film, January 1939.

L, ‘Vuriaufige Bemerlrungen an Landltinus und Helmatfilmen‘, in lclt bin ein Bewalrrtertles Elfenbeirrturtrrs (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 191-'2}.

lvliriam Hansen. ‘Cooperative Auteur Cinema and Ctppusitiunal Public Sphere‘. New German Critique, nus. 24-2.5 l_'FalLl"lNinter 1931-2} pp. 33-53.

—~, ‘Alettander Kluge, Cinema aitd the Public Sphere: The Cunstructiun Site uf Cuunter-Histut‘y', Dieeuurse, nu. fl [Fall I933} pp. 53-T4.

i, ‘Visual Pleasure, Fetisbism and the Prublem ul tbe FemininetFeminist Discuurse', New Gennan Critique, nu. 31 {Winter 1934} pp. 95-lifi. i (ed.}, ‘Dassier un Heimat‘, New Gerrrrarr Critique, nu. 3-I5 (Fall 1935} pp. 3-24.

Sven Hansen, ‘Die [nspiratiun aus dent Biicberscbranlt‘, Die Welt, 13 January 1979. Patricia Harburd, ‘interview tltiflt Jutta Bruckner‘, Screen Eiilucatiun, nu. -4-ll

{Autumnt"'iilinter 1931-2}. Hurst vun Hartlieb, ‘Es mull eine neue C-rrundentscheidung getruffen werdeu‘, Frlmfdrdenutg in der Bundetrepublilt: Err-tie urler bleubegrhn? llvlannheitttt litter-

natiunale Filmwpcbe, 1971'} pp. 2-3. Bill

- Ci-;.':t 3-: r". i

—

Amuld mien, ‘The Fihn rips, Tire SucialHarun» u}".~4r't, vul. -ll-1:1...-l31'ltIli'.il'l: Buutledge, 1932}.

Runald Hayman, Faizrbinrler Filrnnralrer (Lundun: Weidenfcld and Hiculsun, 1934]. David Head. ‘Der Autur mull respelrtiert werden‘ - Scbl3ndurf[l'I‘rutta's Die veriurene Elrre tier lifatirarirra Blum and Brecht's Critique uf Film Adaptatiun‘, Cierntan Life

and Letters, vul. 32 nu. 3 [April 1929} pp. 243-34. Jue Hembus. Der eleutsclte Film liann garniclit besser sein. Ein Farnplilet van gestern, eirre.|4brecJr.rtung van lreute lhrlunich: Ruguer St Bemhard, 1931}.

J. Hermand, H. Peitsch and ll. R. Scherpe {eds} Naclilrriegsliteratur in 11l'e.stifer-itscltlanil J9-ti-l9tt9, vul. r (Berlin: Das Argument, 1932}. Werner Heraug, ‘lvlit den Wuifen beulen', .Fltr-rltritilr, July 1933 pp. 431]-1. —-, “Why is There “Being” at All, Rather their l'~luthing‘l‘, Framereurli, nu. 3 (Spring 1973} pp. 24-1-'. i, ‘lnterview‘, Filrnlrritili, lvlareh 1933 pp. 123-9. ——, ‘Interview’, American Filtn, lvlay 1931. ——, ‘lnterview‘ at the Chieagu Art Institute, 11 February 191-'3. ——-, Harlt Buhm and Uwe Brandner, ‘Wit sind nicht mehr der Juugiilm‘, Der Spiegel, 13 June 1979.

——, ‘Laudatiu auf Lutte Eisner‘, Film-linrrespandene, 31! lvlareh 1932, pp. r-rt. lvlanfred Huhnstuclt and Alfuris Bettermann leds.) Der Deutsclre Filmpreir, l'95ll931.1 {Culugne: Bundesministerium des lnneren. 193.1}. Bun Hulluway, ‘A German Brcaiithruughil‘, Jlfiiiu-Gemian Film {Dctnber 1929} pp. ll-1?.

L, “Whu‘s ‘Wbu in West Gennan Fihn Industry: A Directury uf Directurs and Filmmalters uver the Periud 195?-1921", llariety, 22 June 19‘I-"1, pp. 51, 54,53,211. Juhn Hughes, ‘Fassbinder and lvludernism‘, Film Cummerit, bluvember-December 1925, pp. ll-13. Gisela Hunclerunarlt and Luuis Saul {eds} Fdrderiing Essen Flme auf (lvlunielr: Cilscltliger, 1934}.

Andreas Huyssen, "Tire Putitics uf Identificatiun‘, New -Elem-ran Critique, nu. 19 [Wirrter 193]} pp. 11'l-33. Diane Jacubs, ‘Hitler‘s Ungrateful Grandchildren‘, Americarr Film, lvlay 19311. PP. 3441].

Peter Jansen and Wulfram Schiitte {eds.} Werrier Sclrrueter llvlunich: Hanser, 1931] . i [et'ls.} Herring, .S.'luge, Straub (Munich: Hanser, 1923}. i [etls.} Fasablrtitler llvlurtieb: Hanser, 1925, 3-rd edn 1932}.

-— [e-tis.} Film in der DDS.‘ llvlunich: Hanser, 191-'7}. — [eth.} lrllenrer J1'er.rug{l'v1trnich: Hanser, 191-'9}.

Z {eds} liusa van Fraunlreim (Munich: Hanser, 1933}. —

Herbert Achtembusch (Munich: Hanser, 1932}.

Karen Jaehne, ‘The American Fiend‘, Sight and Suunil, vul. 4'1 nu. 2 {Spring 1993} pp. 131-3. —-——. ‘Ctlcl Haais in blew Films: 11re fierman Cinema Tuday‘, Cineaste. vul. 9 nu. 1 (1913) pp. 32-5. Frederic Jamesnn, ‘In the Destntetive Element Immerse‘. Dctulrer. nu. 1'1‘ {Summer 1931} pp. 99-113. Urs Jenny, ‘Abschied ven lllusiunen‘, in Leunhardt H. Eimiilrr, Der Junge Deutsclre Film llvlunich: Cnnstantin ‘ilerleih, 193'.-'} pp. 93-111. Dierlr Juachim and Peter Huwutny, liarnrnutrale llinae in tier Bli‘D Hvliinster: Selbstverlag der Herausgcber, 19'.-'3}.

Himnu Juchimsen, ‘Film ins Eirundgeseta‘, Berlinale Tip, nu. 11], February 1932. Sheila Juhrrstun, ‘The Authur as Public Institutiun‘, Screen Eilttratiun, nus. 32-33 [Autunu1-“Winter 19'l9-33} pp. 3‘?-1'3.

349

Ci iii 3-r. rt.

——, ‘A Star is Burn: Fassbinder and the Hear Ilietman Cinema‘, New Clenrran

Critique. ncs. 24-25 {Fal1lWinter 1931-2} pp. 52-22. i {eil.} Wim Wenders {Lundunz British Film Institute Dussier Hu. Ill, I931}. D-sitar ltlalbus, Die Sltuatiun des tleutselien Films {‘Wiesbadeu: 1953}. Stanley Fiauffrnan, ‘Watching tbe Rhine‘, The lllariutr, 23 August I922.

Pauline Reel, ‘Ivletaphysical Tarzan‘, New l"urJier, 21] Cietubet I925. Antun l'~'.'.aes, ‘Distanced Clbservets: Perspectives un the blew Crermarr Cinema‘, Quarterly Review cf Film Stuelles {Summer 1935} pp. 233-45.

Liticia Rent. “Wemer Hetaug: Film is nut the Art uf Sebulars but nf 1llilerates', New Il'urlr Times. Sunday Supplement, II September I922.

Alexander Illluge, ‘Furderung - Die mudemste Futm der Zensur‘, Das Farlanrent. nu. 43 {3 Clctuber I929} p. 11. Crcrtrtrd liiueh, ‘Ea-Changing the Ciaae: Re-visiuning Feminist Film Tbeury‘. New

German Critique, nu. 3-4 {Winter I935} pp. 139-53. Jdtg Frieclrich ilrabbc. ‘Die neuen Caligatis‘, Neuer Furrrm, JulylAugust I923, pp. 59-

34. Eberhard Illrana, Filmltunet in el‘er.4gunie (Berlin. GDR: Henechel ‘iletiag, 1934}. ‘llladu liristl. ‘Se1rundenli1me‘, Filniliririli, Dctuber 1939 pp. 310-11. ——-, ‘Tud dem Zusehauet‘, lnfurtnatianeblatt, nu. 12 {Berlim lnternatiunales Funtm des Jungen Films. I934}. Ililaus Iireimeier, lfirra rtrui Film.itrilrt.rt‘rie in tier BED. lileologiepruilulrtiun ttrrti

lflitrsenwirlrliclrlreitnarlt 2945 {lirunbergz Sctiptut ‘lletlag, 1923}. —, ‘Das liinu als ldeulugiefabrilt‘, .ii't'rienratlrel:, nu. 45, Huvember 1921.

lvlariun lilruner, Fi.lrrr - Spiegel tier t'fi'esellselia_fr‘? lnlialtsanalyse iles jturgen ifeutsclren Films van l932 lr-is J939 {I-leidelberg: Cluelle und lvleyet, I923}. hlurbert Ililiicltelmann [etl.} Kuraturium Junger Deuttrclrer Film - Die erstert tirei Jalrre

{Wiesbadenz I933}.

_

Ulrich lliuruwslri {ed.} . . . rrlcltt rrreltr flieben: Hind in tier .=4ra rllelerrauer {llvlurric-h: Filmmuseum, I929}.

i, ‘I945-19313: Eine ltl-eine lwestjdeutsche Filmgeschichte‘, epif-Film July I935 pp. 22-3.

‘lcmaturium Junget deutscher Film‘, liTiria-Gennan F'ilnr, nu. 13, 1933-4, pp. 3-33. Claudia Lenssen. ‘Filmstuffe. b-allenrveise', Frarskfuner Rurulseltau. 3|] April 1933. Rainer Lewanrluwski, Die F'tlrrre van Aleeander Kluge {Hiltlesl1|eirn: Dims, 193]}.

-, Die Dberlrauener. lietliunstnclctian einer -Gruppe, i933-.1932 {Dielthulaeni Regie ‘lletlag, I932}. Arthur Lubuw, 'Cinema‘s New ‘Wuntlerkirtdef, New Times, I4 bluvembet I925, p. 55.

C-iuclrun Lultasa-Aden and Christel Strubel, Der Frauertfilrn llvlunieh: Heyne, 1935}. Peter lvltirtbesheimet and Ivu Frenael [et:ts.} Der Fentsehfilm Hulucaust. Eine Nation ist betru,fl"en [Ftatrltfi.rrl: Fischer, I929}.

Judith lvlayne, ‘Female Narratiun, ‘Wumen's Cinema: Hellre Sander‘s lierluperzi‘, New Clerman Critique, nus. 24-25 {‘WintetlFaIl I931-2} pp. 155-21. Chris lvlarlrer, ‘Adieu au cinema aIlemand2', Fueitif. nu. I2. 1954. Culin lvlacCabe. ‘hlemury. Phatttasy. identity‘, Edinburgh ilfagaerlne nu. 2 {I922} pp. 13-12.

Ruth lv1cCutmiclr, ‘lvlettupulis Huw: The New Crerman Cinema‘, in These Times, 3-U July I929.

—— {ed} Fassbinder {blew ‘furl: Tananr Press, 1931}. Andreas hleyet. ‘Auf dem ‘Weg sum Staat.sfiIm2‘,

pts r-tn,

medium,

U-ctuberlllluvembcrlllleeemb-er 1922.

Alettandet lvlitschetlich. -Saciety witltuut tire Fatlsrr {Luntlunz Tavistuelt, 1939}. -—— and lvlargaretbe lvlitschetliclr, Tire inability tu .1-furtrn {Lundun: Tavistcclt, I925}.

Renate lvldhrmann, Die Frau mitiler Jlamera: Filrnemarlierlnrsen in tier Bunilesrepublllr llvlunieb: Carl Harrset, 1933}. 351]

Cir‘) pic

Hans-Bembartl lvlueller and Carl -‘iPI‘iI!Iac1‘. ‘Directed Change in the ‘fuung l'.3em'ian Fihn: Aletrander Rluge and ..4t‘ii.'tit Under the Big Tap: Perpleted‘, Wide Angle,

vul. 2 nu. I {I922} pp. 14-21. —, ‘New German Film and its Precariuus Subsidy and Finance System‘. Q‘uart'erl'y Review uf Film Studies. Spring 19H}.

Z, ‘Brecht and “Epic” Film lvledium‘, Wide Angle, vul. 3 nu. 4 {I931} pp. 4-II. Peter Nau, ‘Rcmerberg Stenugramme'. Filmhntitt, June I922 pp. 224-5. Steve Neale. ‘Art Cinema as Isrstitutiun‘, Screen, vul. 22 nu. 1 {Spring 1931} pp. II39. Alfred Nemeeeelt, ‘Crane schcn henmtergelrnmmen‘, in H. G. Pflaum {eil.) Jahrbueh .Film l923l29 ilvlunicb: Car1Har|ser, 1923} pp. 132-23. Neuer Deutsclier Film - Eine Dulrumentatiun {l'vla|rnheim: ‘llerband der Filmclubs e.‘9‘., 1932}. Harts-Juacilrim Neumann, Der deutsche Film heute {Fran1tfurt.lBerlin: Ullsteirt ‘llerlag,

rssm.

Jilrgen Nultenius. Die FSK tier Filnrwirrsclraft ttnd das .2.‘.-'ensurrerbut {fiiuttingenz I953}. David L. Dverbey, ‘Ftum lvlumau tu lvltmich. New Cterman Cinema‘. Sight and Suunel, vul. 43 nu. 2 {Spring I924} pp. 131-3, 115. Ennu Patalas, ‘Auturitat und Revulte im deurschen Film: Natiunale Leitbildet vun Caligari bis Canaris‘, Franltfurter Nefie, January I953. ——, ‘Ptitnien fill‘ die Btaven‘, Filnrl:rt'.til:, January 1931 p. 435. ——-, ‘Die tuten Augen‘, filmizritilr, December 1933 pp. 325-33.

i, ‘Cierman Cinema sinee I945‘ in R. Ruud {ed} Cinema: .-4 Critical Dictianary {Letrdunz Seclter and ‘Warburg, 1933}.

Ruth Perlmuttet, ‘Visible Narrative. ‘Visible ‘Wuman', ll-flllertium Film Juurrral, nu. 3 {Spring 19511 99- 13-33. Peter Pleyer, Deutscher Nachkniegsjfilm 1945-J9-i3{lvli1nster: C. J . Fable. I935}. —, Natiunale und sariale Stereutypen im gegenwarrigen tleuctclten Spielfilrn {lvlunich: Institut flit Pttbliristiltllilerlag Regertsberg, 1933}.

‘ilinceut Putter {ed.} Film tlrt-ti Televisien Pulley: West Ciennany and Great Brr'ta.r'n (Landon: Pulytechnic uf Central Lundun. I923}. Hans Helmut Prinalet and Walter Seidler, Das lfinubueh 24225 (Berlin: Stiftung Deutsche liinemathelt. I925}. Dieter Ptulrup, Sueiulugie des Films fllleuwied: Luchterharrd, 1924}.

-— {ed.} lliaterialieri rur Theurie des Films {lvlunieh: Hanser, I921}. Juhn Pym, ‘Syberberg and the Tempter uf Demuctaey‘, Sight and Snunil, vul. 43 nu. 4 {Autumn 1922} pp. 222-33.

Tuny Rayns, ‘Farms uf Address: Three C‘-remran Filmmakers‘, Sight and Sound, vul. 44 nu. I {Winter 1924225} pp. 2-2. i {ed.} Fassbinder (1..-undun: British Film Institute, 1923, 1929}.

Rub-ert and Cami Reimer, ‘Nazi-retru Fllmugraphy'. Juurnal uf Fupular Film and Televisien, Stltrtmer 1933, pp. 31-92.

Eric Rentschler, ‘The Use and Abuse uf hlemury: New Cietrnan Film and the Diseuutse uf Bitburg‘, New -Eiermari Critique, nu. 33 {Fall I935} pp. 32-'93. ——, ‘Rluge, Film Histury and Eigeminn‘, New t'.i'errrr-art Critique. nu. 31 {Winter 1934) pp. I139-24. Ruby Rich. ‘Shc Eays He 3ays', Di.rcuur:te, nu. 3{Fa1l 1933} pp. 31-43.

Cieurg Rueber and Gerhard Jacuby, Hamlltuch der hieifienbereiclte: Filrn {l-"ullaeb: I923}. Ciiinter Ruhrbach, ‘Die verhangnisvulle lvlacht der Regisseute', trtesfiurn. April 1933, pp. 43-1. Alvin Rusenfeld, Imagining Hitler {Bluumingtun, lndiarta: Indiana University Press. 1%}.

ssi

Ci iii 3-r. rt.

Richard Ruutl, Straub {Lundunt Sucker -E ‘Warburg, 1921}.

Wilhelm Ruth, Der Deliurnentarjilm seit l9d3 {lv1unich: C. J . Bueher, 1932}. lvliehael Rutschlty. Erfahrungshunger {Franlrfttrt: Fischer. 1932}. i, ‘iliealitlrt triumen‘, lrferlrur, nu. 333 (July 1923} pp. 223-35.

Hellre Sander. Der tubjektive Falrtur, vertraelit {Berlin: Basis-Film ‘llerleih, I931}. -——, ‘sezrismus in den m.menmer:iien‘, frauen undfilrn, nu. I, I924. Helma Sanders-Brahms, ‘Preusse, Dichter, Selbs‘lrn3rder', Berliner Hefie, January I923 pp. 29-34. Z, ‘Heine Kritilrer, meine Filme und ich‘, Kirche unit Film {September 193]} PP . 9-13. i, ‘A Desert fur Dreamers‘. in ‘llincent Putter {ed.} Film and Televisien Pulley: West Gerrrrany and C-‘rear Britain {Lundum Pulyteclrltic bf Central Lundun. 1923).

Juhn Sandfurd, ‘The New C‘-remran Cinema‘, Gennan .l..{fe arid l.etter.s, vul. 32 nu. 3 {April 1929} pp. 233-23. _ Andrew Sarns, ‘The Ciermans are Cumrng, The Germans are Cblning!', Village ‘Fuiee.

22 Ctetuber 1925, pp. I32-3. Ellen Seitet. “Wumen‘s Histury, ‘Wumen‘s lvleludrama‘, German {Quarterly {Fall 1933} pp. 539-31.

Juharrnes Semler, li-"ursi:lrlage eur Drilnung der dcutschen Filmwirtrclrafi {Wiesbadenz 1954}. lvlarc Silbennan, ‘Cine-Feminists in ‘West Berlin‘, tflrtatrerly Review cf Frlrn .Stru:lie:r

{Spring 1931} pp. 212-32.

_

_

——, “Wumen Filmmakers ‘Wuriung m ‘West ‘Germany’, Camera Dhscrrra. nct. 3

{1933} pp. I22-52. I _ Kaye Srlverman. ‘Hellre Sander and the will tu change‘. Dtscuurre. nu. 3 {Fall I933} pp. 13-33.

i, ‘Kaspar Hauser‘s “Terrible Fall" intu narrative‘, New Cer-nian Critique, nus. 2425 {‘WintertFall 1931-2} pp. 23-93. Burghnrd Schlicht, ‘Nullwachsrum‘, medium,_Nuvemb-er 1923. Walter Schmieding. Kurtrt ailer Kane - Der Arger mit ifem deurschen Film {Hamburgz Riitten S: Luening. 1931}.

lvlicbael Schneider, Den liapfverliehrt aiqgeietet {Neuwied: Luclrterhand, 1931}. i. Nur tute Fisclse sehwirnrrreri mit dem Strum {Culugr|e: Kiepenbeuer Si Witsch. 1934}. i, ‘Fathers and Suns Retrospectively‘. New C‘-ermari Cn‘tique, nu. 31 {Winter 1934} pp. 3-51. Ruland Schneider {ed.} Cirrdrrra Allematrd (Paris: CinemAcliun, 1934}.

Ute Schmidt and Tilman Fichter, Der errwungene liapitalisnuis {Berlin: Klaus ‘Wagenbach ‘llerlag, I921}.

Biun Steinb-um. ‘Die Idee des Zuschauerfilms ist su alt wie das Kinu selbst‘, _t‘ilrn_faust. nu. 4 {lunetluly I922} pp. 25-93. i-, ‘Ein Gesptich anischen Aleaanrler Kluge und Biun Steinburn‘, fibnfatut, nu. 23

{I932} pp. 32-34.

_

Helmut Schddel, ‘Die Rieeen des ‘Wahttsinns: Uber Aleaeij Sagerer, ‘l.-‘ladu Kristi und

Herbert Achtembusch‘, Die 2.“ei'r, 2 September 1929. Wulfram Schiitte, ‘Herrscht Rube im Landi‘, Frarskfuner Rtutdsclrau. 3 August I922. Juhn Simun, ‘Cinematic llliterates', New Park, 23 Clctuber 1925.

Susan Suntag, ‘Eye uf the Sturtn‘. New Park Review cf Buults, 21 February 19$}. pp. 33-43.

C‘-iiuvanni Spagnuletti {ed.}, Nuuvu Cinema Tetlesca neglt aruii Sessanter i933-1923 {hliIan: Ubulibri. I935}. Harts Jirrgen Syberberg, ‘Furm is lvlurality‘, Framewuriz, nu. 12 {I953} pp. 11-15.

Relnhuld E. Thiel, ‘Was wurde aus C‘-ruebbels‘ UFA‘!", Film alrtuell, February 1923. 352

= Grit git:

Paul Thumas, ‘Fassbinder: The Puetry uf the Inarticulate‘, Film {l_Iuarterly, Winter

tstssn, pp. 2-tr.

‘Rudulf Thume‘, lfinenratheli, nu. 33, Nuvember I933. Alhie Thulrls, ‘Cierman Undergruund‘, .4_fterimage {Lundun} nu. 2 {Autumn I923} pp. 44-55. Kristin Thumpsun. Erpurting Entertainment {Lundun: British Film Institute. I933}.Amus ‘llugcl, ‘A 1"-latiun Comes Clut uf Shell-Shuch‘, Pillage lluice, 4 May 1922,

pp. 32-3. C‘-rene ‘Walsh {ed.) lrnages at the Huritan. .4 Wurlisliup with Wemer Hereug, curulueteil by Ruger Ebert {Chicagu: Facets lvlulti-media, I929}. “WDR‘, Kine-German Film, nu. 22 {Spring 1933}. ‘Wim Wenders, “‘v"etach1cn, was verlrauft wi1‘d', Slliideutrclre 2.“eitrtng, 13 December

1939. Z, ‘Jetat l3llt die Entscheidung‘. Abena‘.reitutig{lv1unieh}, 33 August 1922, p. 12. i, ‘Kritischer Kalendet‘, FilmJ:riti.l:, December I939 pp. 251-2. Ernst Wendi, ‘Wit sind wiedcr wet‘, Film I932, pp. 43-53. Kraft ‘Wetael, “'v"um Jungen Film cum Deutschen Kind‘, Fmnhfurter Allgenreine

Zeitung, 4 lvlarch I932. -——, ‘Die Kr-ise des Neuen dcutschen Films‘, hietlia Ferspelrtiven, nu. 2 {I932} pp. 93-9. -—~ {ed.} Neue bietliert lturrtra Filtrtitttilur? {B-erlin: ‘llerlag ‘llullrer Spiess. 1932}.

Klaus Wildenhahn, ‘lnduslrielandschafl mit EinrelhandIem', Filrnfaiat, nu. 23 {1933}. David Wilsun. ‘Anti-Cinema: Rainer Wemer Fassbinder‘, Sight iuuf Suuntl, Spring

tart, pp. vsutuu, 113.

Karsten Witte, lm liiriu. Hdren und Sehen {Franlr.furt: Fischer, 1935}. ---, ‘Film ist ein Perslinlichlteitsgesc-lraft', mediurrt, 3r23{1vlarclr 1923} pp. I3-15. ‘Yuung German Film‘, Film Cuniment, Spring I923, pp. 32-45. Siegfried Eielinslri, ‘Histury as Entertaintneut and Pruvucatiun‘, New Gerrnan Critique, nu. 19 {Winter 19Hl} pp. 31-93.

Friedrich Zimmermann, ‘Das Publilrum mull immer mitbestimrnen‘, Die Welt, I2 January 1935.

Jacli Zipes, ‘The Pulitieal Dirnensiuns uf ‘l'he Lust Hunur uf Katharina Blum‘, New Gennan Critique, nu. 12 {Fall 1922} pp. 25-34.

Cierhard Zwerenr, ‘Die falschen Stuife‘, in H. I3. Pflaum {ed.}.l‘alirbueh Film l922t23 (Munich: Carl Hanser, 1923}.

353

Cir; pic

Filflwsranhs

Ahhl'e\"latloI'.ls d: director se: script

r:: carnera ed: editor

rrr: l.p,:

music leading players

r: p:

running time production

llle Ahfalru {Ge the Hove] rt: Adolf Winkehnann - re: Adolf Winkelmann and {ierd Weiss — c: D-Hid Slama —

ed: Helga Sehnurre - m: 5-ehrnetterlinge - I.p.: Detles Duant, Ludger Schneider, Heate Hroelrstedt - r: 91-’ rnin, en] — p: Adolf “Jr"inl:elmannNr'DR Cologne 1'£I'TH rilreeflerl run G-ester: (Ferrerdny Girfl disc: Alexander Kluge. based on his story rtuitn ti‘. — c: Edgar liteita, Thomas Maueh ed: Beate Maiulra - Lp. : Alexandra Kluge, Hans Horte, Alfred Edel, Gfindier Hlclt —

r: BB min. htw - p: Kairos Film Muniehr-"Independent Film Berlin 1956 Jr-elrt Stunrlen sind hell Tag {Eight Hours are rror u Buy] 5 part TV series - disc: Rainer Wemer Fassbinder - c: Dietrich Lo-lrmann — ed: Marie

Anne Gerhardt - rn: Jean Geponint {=.Iens Wilhelm Petersen} - l.p.: Gottfried John, Hanna Schjrgulla, Luise Ullrich, Werner Finch, Hurt Rash, Renate Rolatttl. Irm

Hermann, Herh Andres - r: ltlll min {pt. 1}, 1tIII rnin (pt. 2}, 92 min (pt. 3], BE min {PL 4], B9 min (pt. 5}, eol — p: ittestdeutselrer llundtunlr (Peter Msnheslreirner) Cologne ISITI Aeltllndfierrfl, Stlluden Iris Aelpllleu HE Hours to Aeupuleo}

rt: Klaus Lernlre - srr: Mas Zihtniann - e: Huhs Hagen, Hilrlaus Sehilling- rrr: Roland Rosa: - i'.p.: -Christiane ltriiger, Dieter Geissler, Monika Iinnenberg. Rod Carter r: E1 min, col -pt Seven Star [Joseph Iiiomrner} Munich 196?

Allele Splrrserler st: Peer Ftahen -— sc: Martin Sperr, Peer Rahen - rr: Michael Hallhaus - rrr: Peer Rahen — I.p.: Ruth Dreael, Ursula Striita, Peter Hem, ltosemarie Fendel - r: 9'2 min,

col - p: Filnwerlag der Autoren h'lunich.|"W[JR Cologne 1'??? Adult Ild Marlene (Adoifand Marlene}

disc: Ulti Lornn1el- c: Michael Ballhaus - rn: Liszt, Wagrrer - i.p.: Hurt Raah; Margit tlarstensen, Han‘); Baer - r: H min, col - p: Alhatros Film Munich.F1'rio Film Duisburg 19?‘? Allin: llhlrn [Tire Blum Affair)

d‘: Erich Engel - sc: ILA. Stemrnle - c: Friedl Behn Grund, Earl Plintrner - ed: 3!-I

C1111 ___-511.3

l..ilian Seng - rrr: Herbert Tranton - r'._r:.: Hens Christian Blech, Gisela Trosre, Arno Paulsen, Gerhard Hiienert, Maly Delschaft — r: 110 rnin, biw — p: Dela (Herbert

Uhlich) Berlin 19-l-B Agrrtrre, rler Zora Buttes {.-lgrur-re, ll"'rnIl|r of God] disc: Wemer Hemog — c: ".I‘homas Mauch, Francisco Joan. Grlando Maochiacello ed: Beate Mainira-lellingltaus - m: Pupol Vuh - l'.p.: Klaus Iiinski, Helena Roio, Rtli

Guerra, Peter Berling - r: 93 min, col — p: Wemer Hemog Filmprodulttion Munichilicssischer Rundfunl: Frankfurt 1'1’?! Alllsi.

dfscfed: Wim ‘Wenders - c: Robby Mtiller, Wim Wenders - in: The Rolling Stones, limi Hendrix, Bob Dylan - i.p.: Paul Lys, Wemer Schroeter. Muriel Schrat — r: 22

rnin, biw - p: Hochschule far Fernsehen und Film Munich 1969 AIbe|'t ‘Ftllrlm? (Albee! — Wily?) discierf: Josef Rod] — c: liarllreirra Gschwindl — r'.p.: Fritz Binner, Michael Eiohenseer, Georg Sehiessl, Elfriede Bleisteiner - r: IDS min, bile — p: Hochschule fiir Fernsehen und Film [HFF]- Munich IPTE Alice In rlei Etalrllerl {Alice in rlre Cities)

d: Wim Wenders - sc: Wim ‘Wenders, ‘lfeith von Ftistenberg - c: Robby Mailer, Martin Schafer — ed: Fcter Prqrgodda — l"l'tI Irmin Schmid, ‘Gan’ - l.p.: Rtidiger

Vogler, "fella Botttander, Lisa Iireurer, Edda Roche] - r: 1 ll] rnin, blur-p: Produlrtion 1 im Filmverlag der Autoren {Peter Genee} Municl1FWDR Cologne I'll’?-'3 [lie alheitlg I'o|lu:|:l|e|rte Perailntlrhielt-II.e|h|re|-s (Bedupers-lThe rill-round Reduced Personality] disc: Hellre Sander - c: Illlatia Forbert - ed: Ursula Hot - l,p.: Hellre Sander, Frank Burclrner, Ronny Tanner, Gesine Strerrlpel, Gislirrd Habahowslri - r: ‘ill min, bisr — p: Basis Filrn Beriinr'I.DF Maina 19?? . . .lhDieleigelrorel~[BornforDie.r-ei}

disc: Peter Przygodda and Braulio Tar-ares Heto — c: Marlin F-chafer — ed: Peter Preygodda — rn: Raimondo Sodre, Imtin Schmidt — rt 111' min. col — pi Road Movies Berlinfwim Wenders Filmproduktion Munich 1'??? Der lmerlklniscie Freunrl {Tile rlnrerfccn Friend}

dz ‘Wim ‘Wenders - sc: Wim ‘Wenders, Frit-r Mtlller-Scherr after the novel Ripley's Game by Patricia I-liglistrtith — c: Robby Mliller — mi liirgen Itnieper - i'.p.: Bnino

Gana, Dennis Hopper, Gerard Blain, Lisa ltlreuaer, Barri Fuller, Nicholas Ray - r: Ill] ruin, out — p: Road Movies Berlir|.l"i'r"in1 ‘Wenders Filrnprodulrtion Muriich.l"lll'IIIlit Cologne 1!il'Ti'

Ber amerlrauhclre 5-ulrlat (The r-trnericun Schiier} rflsc: Rainer Werlier Fassbinder — c: Dietrich Lohrnarrn — ed: Thea Elrmesa — en: Peer

Raben — r'.p.: lt'.arl Echeydt, Elga Sorbas, Margarethe son Trotta, Harlr Bolnn, Ingrid Gascn, Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Lilli Lommel, Inn Heraiann - rt El min, blw - p: arniteater Munich ltfil] [Ill Arldeclrser GeI'lhl {The Andechr Feeling}

disc: Herbert Achtembusch - c: long Eichrnidt-Beitwein - ed: liarin Fischer - i.p.: Herbert Achtembtuch, Margarethe son Trotta, Barbara Gass. ‘Walter Sedlniayr, Reinhard Hauff - r: till rnin, col — p: Herbert Achtembu.schl'Bioskop Munich 1'51‘?-ll

Augefln llrbun, lferflierh, Ferlobt {Angelika Urirrrrr,_5c-lesgiri, Engaged in Murry} disc: Helma Eilllders-Brahnis - c: Horst Borer - r: 38 min, bin - p: {Helma Sanders] 195'} 355

= Cit) glc

Der Angntele {The lliftrltr-Collar lilforkerj

P

disc: Helma Sanders — c: Andre Dubrettil - lips: Ernst Jacobi, Ciieselhetd Hizinsch,

Peter Arens, ‘Wolfgang lliieling - r: 99 min, ool — pi ‘WDR Cologne 191’1-2 l]e|*Art|a'lIderGegelI"m1aIIfleihrl|eI.rit{TJteBlind Director} rflsc: Alexander Rluge — c: Thomas Mauch, ‘Wemer Liiring, Hermann Fahr, Judith

liaufntann - ed: Jane Seitx — i.p.: Jutta Hoffnrann, Armin Mallet-Stahl, Michael Rehhetg. Rose] Eech — r: 113 lnin, col -p: lliaitos Film Municltl".'i.'.DF Main: 1936

Illieangra des Turmoil It-eh E-Ifmeter {Tire Goalie‘: Fear ofthe Pencil]: Kick} d: ‘Wim ‘Wenders — rc: Wim ‘llilenders, based on the novel by Peter Handlte — c: Robby Miiller — ed: Peter Prrygoclcla ~— tn: Jitrgen Hnieper — l'.p.: Artl:|ur Brains, Rai Fischer,

Erilta Pluhar. Libgart Scbvrara, Rudiger ‘lfogler - r: llll min, col - p: Produlrtion 1 im Pilmverlag der Autoren [Thomas Schamoni, Peter Genee] Munich 19'?!

Aag;|tt:|aelSeelexlf‘{.-tlrl'FeerEIetrtlre.5‘oul} disc: Rainer ‘Werrier Fsssbintlet - c: Jllrgelt Jilrges — ed: Thea Eyrmesa — in: archive —

r‘.p.: Brigitte Mira, El Hedi Ben Salem, Barbara ‘Valentin, lrm Hermann. ll'..‘ilr‘. Fassbinder, Marquatd Buhm, ‘Walter Sedlmavr - r: 93 min, col — p: Tango {Rainer Wemer Fassbinder, Michael Fengler} Munich 1914 Illr All lleinx1reiterEicl|atser|(Feorr's' e.’i‘econd Eftrtdot-v]|

disc: blorbert Rockelmann - c: Jtirgen Jitrges — ed: Gerd Bcmer - l'.p.: Astrid Fournell, Gunther Maria Halmer. Dieter Hasselblatt, Anita Mally — r: llll min, col — p: FFAT {Norbert II[i‘icl:elmann}!SWF Harden-Baden 1’:'i'J5

Angst vortler Angst {Fear ofFecr-_'|d: Rainer Wemer Fambindet — sc: Rainer Wemer Fassbinder. based on art idea by

Asta Scheib - c: Jiltgen Jlltges, Ulrich Prina — ed: Liesgret Selnnitt-Rlinlr, He-ate Fischer-‘Weisltirch — rn: Peer Raben — l._e.: Margit Carstensen, Lllriclt Fauthaber, Brigitte Mira, Irm Hennann. liurt llaab. Ingrid Caven, Lilo Pcrnpeit - r: SB rrtin, ool - pr WDR [Peter Marthesheimer} Cologne 1915

Arglll dlscloled: ‘Werner Schrc-eter — l"I"l:I Doniaetti, Meverbeet, Brucli, Beethoven, Verdi, Liszt, ‘Vivaldi, Caterina ‘lfalente - f.p.I Gisela Troive, Magdalena Mo-nteeunta, Carla Aulaulu - r: 36 min, ool br"l|ll' - pi Werner Schroeter 1969 Armee der Ltleheitlel oder Alfxtand der I'let"I'el'lelI (Anny ofLovers]=

rilrcled: Rom von Ptaunheim in cooperation v-ith Mike Shepard - c: Rosa von Ptaunheirn, Ben van Meter, Michael Gblovitr, John Rome, Wemer Schroeter, Bob 5-chub, Hiltolai Ursin, Juliane ‘Wang, J..|tJ‘j"-Ii ‘Wtlliants - r: l[l'.l' min, ool — p: Rosa von

Ptaunheim Berlin 19Tr'9 [lie Artiste: In der I-lrirrsiuppd: rltltl {Artistes or the Top of tlte Big Top:

Disc-rientrtted} rilrc: Alexander Kluge - c: Griirtter Honnann, Thomas Mauch —- ed: Beate Mainlinlellinghaus - l.p.: Hannelore Hoger, Alfred Edel, Sigi Graue, Bernd Hoelta - r; llllii min, bin — p: llairos {Alexander Rluge) Munich 19-EB Eta Ant aux Halherstldt {A Doctor from Hellre:-sredr} disc: Alexander Rluge —- c: Alfred Tichavrskv, Giinter Horrnann - ed: Maximiliane Mainlra — i.p.: Dr.nied. Emst Rluge - rt I9 min, bivv + p: Rairos {Alexander Itllttge)

1910 3-56

= Gt; glc

Illa As -tier Asle {Ace ofrtces} st: Gerard Duty - sc: Danihle Thompson - c: Raver Sohwaraenberger - n-r: ‘Fictor

Cosnia - f.p.: Jean Paul Belmondo, Marie-France Pisier, Rachid Fertache - r: ltlil min, col — p: Gaumont Parisl'Gerito.lRialto Munich 19S2 Die Atlilt:iI;aeltI|rl|lIer' [Tilt-e Atlantic .'.i'|=vinurters)

cttrc: Herbert Achtembusch - c: Jorg Schmidt-Reitvrein - ed: ltlarin Fischer - l.p.: Herbert Achternbusch, Heinz Braun, Alois Hitrenbichler, Sepp Bierbichler, Barbara

Margatethe von Trotta - r: S1 lttin, ool - p: Herbert Achtembusch Buchdorf Arch Ilrerge habeu Hell angehngen {Even Dn-arfr Started Smell} disc: ‘Wemer Herr.og— ct "l"homas Mauch, Jdrg Schmidt-Reitvrein - ed: Beate Mainta-

Jellinghaus - m: Florian Friclte — i,p.: Helmut Dohting. Paul Glauer, Gisela Hertvvig r: 96 min, bio —- pi ‘Wemer Heraog Fiimproduhtion Munich 191-‘ll Alf Bltllll und Brechen [Hy Hook or by Crook]

d: I-laronut Bitonrslty - sc: Hartmut Bitomslry and Harun Faroclri - c: Berntl Fiedler ed: Sybille Windt — rn: Jitrgen Rniepet - i'.p.: Jo Bolling, Christine Raufmann, Lisa lllreuaet, Harry Baer ~ r: 94 min, col — p: Cityr'Maranr'Big Slty Berlin.l'SDR Munich 191-‘ti Ber aatrechte Gang [Ii-"oikt‘rtg Toff}

rflsc: Christian Zietver - c: Ulli Heiser - ed: Stefanie ‘Wilhe — nt: Erhard Gtosshopf f.p.: Claus Eberth, Antje Hagen. Wolfgang Liere, ‘Walter Prfissing — r: 115 min, ool — pi Basis Film Berlittl'\'t"DR Cologne l9Tfi

Ans der Fern: sehe lei rllesea L-and {From .-*tfrrrr‘See this Country) rf: Christian Iievrer - sc: Antonio Sltarmetta and Christian Eiieiver — c: Gerard ‘ilandenberg - ed: Stefanie Wilhe — tn: Andariegos, Dmero Caro - i.p.: Pablo Lira,

Annibal Rayna, ‘Valeria Villaroel, Peter Lilienthal, Alf Bold — r: 9S min, col - p: Basis Film GmbH Bcrlinf9|i'DR Cologne l9Tr'9 Auselneni tleutaehen Lehel {Death is my Trade} d: Theodor ltotulia — sc: ‘Theodor Rotulla, based on the novel Le Mon err uteri rrtetier by Robert Merle - c: Dieter blaujeci: —- ed: Wolfgang Richter - tn: Eberhard Weber —

i.p.: Got: George, Elisabeth Schivare, Hans Rorte, Rai Taschner, Elisabeth Stepanelt r: 145 min, ool —p: Idunafili'DR Cologttc 197? Baal ti: "v'olker Scblondorff - sc: "i"'ollter Sehlondorff, from the play by Bertolt Brecht — e:

Dietrich Lohmann - l‘.p.: Rainer Wemer Fassbinder, Margatethe von Trotta, Sigi Graue, Hanna Schygulla — r: B“? min, ool — _p: HR Frartltfurtr‘BR Municl'tl'l-IallelujahFilm 151159

lilo’

disc: Uvre Friessner - c: llvolfgang Dieltrnann - ed: Tania Schmidbauer - rn: ‘Spliff' i.p.: Udo Seidler. Reinhard 5-eeger, ‘Uolkmar Richter - r: 114 min, col - p: Basis Film

"lr'erleih Berlirt.l"1ili'DR Cologne 1935

lllrllalatle vomliehea Soltlaten {The Ballad ofthe Little Soldier] cf: Wemer Hereo-g, Denis Reichle — c: Jorge ‘Vignao, Michael Edols - ed: Maxirttiliane

Mainlta - r: -l-4 min, ool - pt ‘Wemer Heraog Filmprodulttion Munich.-’SDR Stuttgart l9S5 3-5'?

Cc) glc

Bauloliol-Bellxche “l‘al|oal'I‘Igo H Bel (Genrtcn Turrguelfistgos or Erilel dz Klaus ‘lhlildenhahn. Rainer ltiotners. Giinter ‘lIi‘eeterboff— r: 55 rrrin (pt. 1}, -is min (pt. 1}, ool - p: Horddeutscher Rundihtrsh Hamburg 19S1 Bayreather _Pr-alien [B‘a_yr1rtr-tlt Relrearsuh} _ d: llilaus ‘Wtldenhahnr Rudolf lliortlsir Jurgen llieller, Herbert S-ellt ~— r: t’-:9 l't'ltl'l {also a Ill min version}, bl‘tv—p: HDR Hamburg 1965 l]e|'Ieglnlfl|n'Selret:initLiehe[f.overirti|eH¢ginningofnll Terrors]

d: Hellte Sander - sc: Hellre Sander. Dorte Haalt - c: Martin Schafer - ed: Barbara von ‘Weite rshausen - nt: H-einer Ci-riehlsels — l.p.: Helke Sander, Lou Castel, Reheoca Pauly, llatrin Seybold - r: ll? min, ool -p: Provohis Film Hamburg l9=llti Iehj-uIr:lIjIcl1tlhLek'h$l_J‘lt-ere‘.r Ho Sex LirlteSr|oi|r.'.i'er:}

d: Alois Brummer - sc: Alois Brummer - c: Hubertus Hagen - ed: not stated - or: Fred Strittmater - t‘,p,: Judith Fritsch, Franz Muxeneder. Rosl Mayr — r: SS min, col as p: AB Fihnproduhtion Munich l9'l‘4

Bengelchrl lehth'eIxultlt|uer {Bcngeichrn Loueshocit to Front}? disc: Marran G-osov — c: Hubs Hagen. Hrttaus Schilling — rrr: Martin Botteher - .l._p.: Harald Leipnitt, Sybille Maar, Renate Roland - r: H min, col -p: Rob Houtver 19f:-S lerlln A.lex.aIltler|tHx ti: Rainer Werrier Fassbinder - .rc: Rainer ‘Werner Fassbinder, based on the novel by

Alfred Doblin - c: Raver Sclrtvaraenberger - ed: Juliane Loren: — rn: Peer Raben ~ i,_n.: Gerhard Lamprecht, Barbara Snlzovva, Hanna Schygulla, Ivan Desny, Grottfried

John, lngrid Caven, Brigitte Mira - r: T“i" film, S1 min (pt. 1}, 59 min {each part from pt. 2—pt. 13}, 111 min {epilogue}. ool — p: Bavaria-l'RAI for ‘WDR {Peter

Marthesheimer] l9‘l‘9—Bl lerlll Chalflaoplalx d: Rudolf ‘Thome - sc: Jochen Bruriotv, Rudolf Thome - c: Martin Schifer - eel:

Ursula West - tn: ‘Ghpsst‘, Evi und die Evidrins - l,_o.: Sabine Bach, Hanro Zischlet, ‘Wolfgang Hinder — r: ll? trtin, ool — p: Anthea.l'Moana:'Rudoll‘ Tl:tomeIPolytel IE1

Berlner Betttrurl {Tire Berfrolfl dfsciclrrded: Rosa von Ptaunheim — f.p.: Luci Eryn. Dictmar Rracht, Steven Adamschetvshi - r: S1 min, col -p: Rosa von Ptaunheim 1'.-Tl‘!

lierher Startltbahlhllder {Bertie 5-Bolus Pictures} d: Alfred Behrero — c: Jitrgen Jirgee, Fritz Poppenberg, Michael llluhall — ed‘: Ursula

Hof - r: fill min, ool - p: Basis Film Berlinl'ZDF Main: 1982 Berllnger-E'.ln-tleIlxcIeIAl||eltet|er'|[lli'erlinger-rl Gennan Fate}

disc: Bemhard Sinhel and Alf Bnrstellin - c: Dietrich Lohmann - ed: Heidi Gentle mi Joe Haider — r'.p. : Martin H-enrath, Hannelore Elsner, Tilo Priickner, Lina Carstens, ‘Walter Ladengast, Evelyn Riirmeche - r: 115 min, col - p: ABS {Brustellin-

Sinkellflndependent Munich {Heine Angermeyerl 1995 Illie Bertlhrte [Ho ll-ferc_y No Futttre}

d: Helma Sanders-Brahms - sc: Hehna Sanders-Brahms after texts by Rita G. - c: Thomas Mauch - ed: Ursula ‘West - rn: Manfred Gpita, Harald Grosskopf - l.p.: Elisabeth Stcpanek - r: lill min, col - p: Helma Sanders-Brahms Filmproduhtion Berlin 19S1

sss

Ct) or; rs

Beaoaderl Wertvafl (flair-lily Rarirrg: Excellent} disc: Hellmuth Ccstard — l‘.p.: {voice of} Dr H.C. Toussaint — r: ll mitt, col - p: Hellmuth Costartl Hamburg 1’ill‘ill Ble|'karI|Il' [Beer Battle} i disc: Herbert Achtembusch — c: Jdrg Schmidt-Reiturein — erf: Christi Leyrer — l'.p.:

Herbert Achtembusch, Annamirl Bierbichler, Sepp Bierbichler, Gerda Achtembusch, Barbara Gsas — r: S5 min. col - p: Herbert Achternbusehl‘ZDF Mains 191"? Birlah eher Trtrtker-In {Ticker of Ho Return) dlsclc: Ulrike Gttirtger “— ed: Ila von Hasperg - in: Peer Raben - l.p.: Tabea Blumenschein, Magdalena Montezuma, Lutae, Monkia von Cube, Hina Hagen, Rurt Raab, Eddie Constantine, “lr"olker Spengler - r: IDS min, col - p: Autorenlllm 191-'9 Bixuxll I-Iqrpy El|I{Ttrt;lreHapp_y End}

rt‘: Theodor Rotulla - rc: Harts Stempel - c: Peter Siclrert - rn: Beethoven, Moaart l.p.: Itlaus Lotvitseh. Beatrix Get, Christof Hege - r: 94 min, bisv - p: Iduna 19tiS lli hlichm Llehe [A f..r'ttle Love)

d: "'Ir"eith von Fiirstenbetg - sc: ‘i“eith von Fiirstenbetg, Max Zihlmattn - c: Robby Mirller —- f.p.: Burkhard Schlicht, Brigitte Berger, Eva Marie Herrig —— r: S1 min, bl"iv -

p: Wim Wendersfireith von Fiirstenbetg 1914 lllehtttrs'enTraneuderPlru1vollExIt{T1refiirrrrTearrofPerra von itrrnr] cl: Rainer Wemer Fassbinder - sc: Rainer ‘Wemer Fassbinder, based on his play — c:

Michael Ballhaus - ed: Thea Eymesa - tn: The Platters, The Walker Brothers, Giuseppe Verdi — f.p.: Margit Carstensen, Hanna Schygulla, Inn I-Ierlrrann, Eva

Mattes, Itlattin Schaake, Gisela Fackeldey — r: 121 min, col - p: Tango {Rainer ‘Werner Fassbinder, Michael Fengler} Munich 191-'1 Blluelluuealfliue Heaters} dt‘ser‘c: Herbert Achternbusch — c: Adam Gleclr. Herbert Schild (-Herben Achtembtrscb} — erf: Micki loanni - r: ‘J1 min, col - p: Herbert Aclrtembusch

Filmprotluktion Buchendorf 1934 Ille Bleflt:|'un1rIeI [The Tin Dnrnr}

d: ‘Volker Schlortdorfl‘ - sc: Jean-Claude Carrilrre, Frans Seits, ‘iiolker Schlondorff based on the novel by Girnter Gram - c: Igor Luther —- ed: Susanne Baron e rrr:

Maurice larre, Friedrich Mayer - i.p.: Angela ‘Winltler, Mario Adorf, Heinz Bennent, Charles Asrtavour. Daniel Ctlbrychski. Katharina Thalbach. David Bennent - r: Ill-ll

min,

ool

—

p:

Frans

Seicr:

Filmr"Bioskop

{Eberhard

Junkersdorflli

Hallelujaltt‘ArternisiArgos {Anatole Dauman] Parist'HR Frankfurt in cooperation with Jadran-Film Zagreb and Film Polski ‘Warsasv l9'1‘9 Iii‘: llelerle Ielt {The Gerrrrror -Sirorrsfltfnrirtnne and Juliane} disc: Margatethe von Trotta — c: Franz Rath — ed: Dagmar I-Iirta — rn: Hicotas

Economou - l:p-: Jutta Lampe, Barbara Sukotva, Rlldiger ‘Vogler, Doris Schade - r: lilo min, cnl —- p: Bioskop Filmproduktion {Eberhard Junkersdorf} Munich 1931

EhIllIeIunddleLlehehl'lt:hllI(G'nc Glrrrtcenrrd Love Breaks Gut] rflsc: Jutta Biichner - c: Marcello Camorino —- ed: Jutta Briickner, Ursula Hol‘ - tn:

Brynmor Llevrelyn Jones - l‘,p.: Elida Araoa, Rosario Blefari, Regina Lamm, Margarita Munoa - r: ll-ti min, col — p: Joachim von ‘lrietinghoff Filmprcduktion Berlin

1955

ass

Ci-.51 oo- rs

Blue ‘llelvet disc: Matthias Weiss - c: Frank Fiedler - tn: Soft Machine - r: 5‘? min. ool - p: Hochschule fur Femsehen und Film Munich 1911] ltrlrrieaelr

d: Rainer ‘Werner Fambinder —sc: Rainer ‘Werner Fassbinder. based on the novel by Glsiiar Maria Graf — c: Michael Ballhaus — erf: lla von I-lasperg, Juliane Lorena — nr:

Peer Raben - f._P.l Hurt Raah. Elisabeth Trissenaar, Bemhard Helfrich, Udo Itier, "v'olker Spengler, Annin Meier - r. Iill min {TV version in I pts]. col — p: Bavaria Atelier GmhH Munich for IDF Mains 19'Jb-T Der I-uIIthel'|:liiltt ['l".l|e Honrher Pilot}

dt‘sc.l'c: ‘Wemer Schroeter - nr: F. Lisat, J. Strauss, Zarah Leander, G. ‘Verdi, J. Sibelius, Peter Alexander, ‘W‘.A. Moaart, L. Bernstein, Caterina ‘ifalente. G. Biaet,

F. Lehar - l‘.p.: Carla Aulaulu, Mascha Elm, Magdalena Montma - r: SS min, ool - p: ‘Werner Schroeter for ZDF Maine 1910 Das Boot {Tire Boat] d: Wolfgang Petersen — sc: Wolfgang Petersen based on the book by Lothar Gunther Buchheim - c: lost ‘Vacano - ed: Hannes Hike] - nr: Illilaus Dolding-er —- f.p.:

Jurgen Pro-chnoar. Herbert Gronemeyer. Klaus ‘Wenneman — r: 139 trtin. col - p: BavarialRadianc"WlJR Cologne 1981

Ber Briuligarn, rile liolltrllxltlu and rler I‘.Ihallter[‘1‘lre Bridegroom, the Corrtedtenne and the Pimp}

d: lean Marie Straub and Daniele Huillet -sc: Jean Marie Straub, incorporating the play .it'ran.kirer'.t der Jrrgenrf by Ferdinand Bruckner, abridged and produced by Jean

Marie Straub; and extracts from the poetry of San Juan de ta Crurr - c: lflaus Schilling, Hubs Hagen — ed: Daniele Huillet. Jean Marie Straub - rn: .l.S. Bach - i.p.: James Povrell, Lilith Ungerer, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Peer Rahen, Inn Hermann,

Hanna Sclrygulla - r: 23 min. btrv - pi Janus Film und Femsehen (lflaus Helhvigl Munich 19t5ll Ber Brief [The Letter] disc: "i"'lado iiristl — c: Wolf ‘Wirth - ed: Eva Ieyn — rn: Gerhard Bommersheim -

l.p.: "lr'lado Rristl. Mechtild Engel. Eva Hofmeister. Horst Manfred Adloff. Peter Berling — r: S2 min, brat — p: Peter Gerieeiilluratorium Junger Deutscher Film I9t'tti Das llrut des flickers {Tire flatter’: Bread} d: Ervvin llleusch — sc: Ervrin Ilieusch, liar] Saurer - c: Dietrich Lohmann - ed: Lilo

lllruger - tn: Axel Linstsdt (‘Improved Sound Ltd‘) - l.p.: Gerhard Lamprecht, Bemd Tauher, Maria Lueca, Sylvia Reine - r: I1ti min, col - p: Art1.rs Film Municlr.l'ZDF Mains l9'.'r'b

lilte Brucke l_‘ The Bridge} a‘: Bernhard ‘Wicki — sc: Michael Mansfeld, lIE.arl—‘Wilhelm ‘ir'ivier, Bernhard ‘Wiclri

based on the novel by Manfred Gregor — c: Gerd von Benin, Horst Fehlhaber - ed: C.G'. Bartnig — rn: Harts Martin Majeivski — l‘.p.: “lr‘olker Bohnet, Fritz Wepper. Michael Hina, ‘lr‘olker Lechtenbrink, Cordula Trantovr, Gunter Ptitamann - r: I95

min. blw - p: Forro-Film [Hermann Sehvrerin. Jochen Severinl 1959 Bruno-derSchIa|1e.esbtlmrluJlaerIobllnselaliomlfl‘teckBrtmo} disc: Luta Eishola - c: Joseph Dayan — r'.p.: Bnrno S. , Roland llieurrtann, Lotte Pause,

Elisabeth Sauer- r: S1 min. col—Pp: Deutsche Film und Femsehalrademie Berlin 1919 Sill

Cir; glc

Bar-den of llreaarr d: Les Blank - sc: not credited - c: Les Blank - ed: Maureen Gosling - m: extract from ‘Vivaldi - i.p.: Werner Heraog, Klaus Kinski, Claudia Cardinale —- r: 95 min, col — pt Flovrer Films San Francisco, in association vrith Jose Koechtin von Stein 1952 Carrltlac d: Edgar Reitr - sc: Edgar Reitt, bmed on the story Dar Fraulein von Scaderi by E.'l‘.A. Hoffmann — c: Dietrich Lohmann - ed: Maximiliane Mairrka - l‘.p.: Hairs Christian Blech, Catana C.ayetano, Gunter Sachs, Heidi Stroh, Urs Jenny - rt 91 min,

eol burr - pr Edgar Reita Produktion Munich 19159 Celeste disc: Percy Atllon - c: Renato Fortunate — ed: Clara Fabry — mt Cesar Franck [Bartholrly Quartet} — .l.p.: Eva Mattes, Jurgen Amdt, Herbert Wartha, ‘Wolf Euba -

r: lit’? min, col - pt pelemele Fihn GmhH {Eleonore Adlon}r‘BR Munich 19S1 Clllltell Claqne [Top Hat}

d.r'.rc: Ulrich Schamoni - c: Igor Luther - ed: Regina Heuser - l.p.: Ulrich Schamoni, Anna Henkel. Jurgen Bara, Karl Dali, Ingo Instetburg. Rolf Earlier. ‘Wolfgang bleuss - rt 94 rttin, eol — p: Birenfilm {Regina Ziegler) I914

Clrhesiaches Roulette {Ctrirre-re iloulerte} disc: Rainer ‘Werner Fassbinder - c: Michael Ballhaus - ed: 11a von I-lasperg, Juliane

Loren: - nr: Peer Raben - l‘.p.: Anna Karina, Macha Meril, Ulli Lornmel, Brigitte Mira, Alex Allerson, Margit Carstensen, Andrea Schoher, Armin Meier — rt Sb rnin,

col - p: Albatros Film Munich {Michael Fengler}l"Les Films du Losange Paris l9‘l‘ti ChrhtlaneF.-\lr‘1rIflndervuaaBahnhofIoo{CirrirrrlrrneFZ}

d: Ulrich Edel — sc: Herman Weigel, based on the book by Kai Hemtalm atrd Horst Rieck [taken from taped intervievrs} — ct Justus Pankau. Jurgen Jilrges — ed: Jane

Seitt - rrr: Jurgen Kttieper, David Bosiie - ll.p. : hlatja Brunkhorst, Thomas Haustein, Jens Kuphal, David Bowie — r: 123 min. ool - p: Solaris Berlint"Maran-Filnrl‘PopularFilm Stuttgartr‘CL"v"-Fihnproduktions GmhH I931

Chrnni der aaaa Magrtalerra Bach [Cltronicie of Arrrtrr llfagdaiena Bach} d: Jean-Marie Straub - sc: Jean-Marie Straub and Daniele Huillet — c: Ugo Pieeone, Saverio Diamanti, Ginvartni Caofarelli. Hans Kracht. Uvre Radon, Thomas Harovig ed: Daniele Huillet - nr: J.S. Bach, Leo Leonius - l'.p.: Gustav Leonhardt, Christiane

Lang. Paolo Carlini — r: 94 min. but - p: Frans Seitx Municht'RAI Romel‘ [DI

Cinematografica

Rorne.-‘Straub-Huillet

Munich.l'Filmfond

e‘lr‘

Munich.lHR

Frankhrrtfl‘elepool Munich 195-S Der Damm {Tire Dam}

disc: "v"lado Krlstl - c: Gerard ‘Vandenberg — l‘.p.: Petra Kranse, ‘lflado Kristi. Felix Potisk, Erich Glockler - r: SI] ntin, blvr — p: Detten Schleiermaclr-er I9'b-It Bark Spring disc: lngemo Engtrbm - c: Bernd Fiedler — l‘.p.: Edda Kilchl, [Iona Schult, Irene

Wittek. Klara Eet. lngemo Engstrom. Gerhard Theuring - rt 9'2 trrin. eol — pt Hochschule fiir Femsehen und Fihn, Munich I9'i'I

Bavirt d: Peter Lilienthal — sc: Peter Lilienthal, Jurelt Becker, Ulla fiemann, based on the novel Den Netxen entronnen by Joel Kfinig — c: Al Ruban — ed: Sieg|1.rn Jager — nr:

Zltil

Cir; glc

‘Wojeiek Kitar — f.p.: Mario Fischel, ‘Falter Taub, Irena ‘lrrkljan, Eva Mattes, Hanns Zischler, Erika Runge - rt 125 min, col - pt Joachim von ‘l'ietinglroftJr'Pro-JektlFFAT [Peter Lilientlral}.1‘.?.".areitee Deutschm Ferrrsehen Maioz 19'l‘9 Ilealoel: disc: Roland Klick - ct Robert van Aekeren - ed: Jane Sperr - mt ‘The Can‘ - l.p-: Malio Adorf. Anthony Davrson, Marquard Bohm, Maseha Elm Rabben - r: 94 min.

col -p: Roland Klick 191-‘ll Be l‘Ar|enltue {About Argentina} rftrc: Wemer Schroeter - c: Werner Schroeter, Carlos Bernardo ‘Wajsman - ed: Catherine Brasier. Claudio Martinez - nr: excerpt fr'om Mahler‘s ‘K.indertotenlieder‘ — r'.p.: Enrique Pirrti, Lihertad Leblanc, Cipe I_.inoovsk'y - r-. 9|] rrtin, ool - p: FR.'ll'Gut

Gne Prods Paris 19S3-5 Iietektlve {Detectives} d: Rudolf Thome - sc: Max Zihlmann - c: Hubs Hagen, Hiklaus Schilling - nr: Kristian Schultse - l.p.: Iris Berb-en. Marquard Boltm, Lilli Lommel, ‘Walter Rilla — rt 91 tttin. bill — pt Eiclrberg {Carol Hellman} Munich 19ft'9 Desperado City

disc: ‘Vadrm Glovrna — c: Thomas Maucb — ed: Helga B-orsche — nr: Stanley Walden l‘.p.: Siemen Riihaak, B-eate Finckh, ‘Vera Tschechoara, Karin Baal, "ifs-dim Glotvna,

Witta Pohl, Startley ‘Walden - r: 91-‘ min, ool - pt Atossa-Film Munich 19R] Iteatlchlaarl lrtelche Mutter (olennany Pete rlfndrer} rffsc: Hehna Sanders-Brahms — c: Jurgen Jttrges — ed: Elfi Tillack, Uta Periginelli rn: Jurgen Knieper - f.p.t Eva Mattes, Emst Jacobi, Elisabeth Stepaoek, Rainer Friedrichsen, Fritz Lichtenhahn - rt 145 {I20} min, col - p: Helma Sanders-

Brahmsr‘l_iterarisclres Colloquium Berlint"Westderrtscher Runrthink Cologne 1919 Beutaehlarrtl llxl llerhat [Gennany in Auntnrn}

d: Alf Brustellin, Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Alexander Kluge, Maxintiliane Mainka. Edgar Rcitz, Katja Ruppe, Hans Peter Clo-os, Bemhard Sinkel, ‘ifolker Schliindorff —

sc: Rainer Wemer Fassbinder, l—leinrich Boll, Peter Sreinbach — c: Michael Ballharrs. Jurgen Jurges. Bodo Kessler. Dietrich Lohmann, Jorg Schmidt-Reitvvein — erf: Beale

Mainka-Jellinghaus — t.p.: Rainer Wemer Fassbinder, Hannelore Hoger, Karla Ruppe, Angela Winkler, Heinz Bennent, Helmut Griem, Vadim Glotvna, Enno Patalas, Horst Mahler, Mario Adorf, ‘Wolf Biermann - r: lib rrtins, eolfbxtr — p: Pro-

Ject Filmproduktion.I'Filmverla,g der Autorentllallelujah Filnv‘Kairos Film Munich I9'.l'-S Itcrlaa Gray lrn Sjriegel der Boulevarxlpaet {Dorian Gray in tire Popular Press}

dfscic: Lllrike Gttinger — ed: Eva Sclrlensag —- tn: Peer Raben — i.p.: ‘lv‘en.rsclrlra von Lehndorff, Delphine Seyrig, Tabea Blumereschein, Irrn Hermann, Magdalena

Montezuma, Barbara "v"alentin — r: llitl min, col - p: Ulrike Gttinger Filmproduktion 1933-4 Bret arnerlkanlaehe LP! (Three American .f...F‘.r}

dlcierf: ‘Wim Wenders - sc: Peter Handke - rn: ‘ifan Morrison. Harvey Mandel, Creedence Clearvrarer Revival - rt 12 min, col - p: ‘Wim Wendersfl-IR Frankfurt 1969 Die Ir-ttte Geaerattloa {The Third Gerterrrtiorr} rlfrcic: Rainer ‘Werner Fassbinder — ed: Juiliane Lorenz — nr: Peer Raben - l‘.p.: Harry 351

Ctr glc

Baer, Hark Bohm, Margit Carstensen, Eddie Constantine, Gunther Kaufmann, Udo Kier, Bulle Clgier, Lilo Pempeit, Hanna Schygulla, "'v'olker Spengler, ‘I.’ Sc Lo. Vitus

Ieplichal - r: lll min, col - pt Tango Film.-‘Pro-Ject [Harry Baer} 1919 Eine Elie {A Jifarriage}

disc: Rolf Strobel, Heinrich Ticharvsky - ct Heinrich Tichatvsky - .l,p.: Heidi Stroh, Peter Graaf, Mischa Galle — r: l2t1 min, blur - p: Strobel-Tiehatvsky 1969

Bte Elie der Mari Brnun {The Marriage of llfaria Bra-tar] d: Rainer Wemer Fassbinder-sc: Peter Marthesheimer, Pea Frfl-hliclr, Rainer ‘Werner

Fassbinder based on an idea by Rainer Wemer Fassbinder - c: Michael Ballhaus — ed: Juliane Lorenz, Franz Walsch {=Rainer Wemer Fassbinder] - mt Peer Raben l.p.: Hanna Schygulla, Klaus Llhvitsch, Ivan Desny, Gottfried Jolm, Giinter

Lamprecht, Gisela Uhlen, Elisabeth Triesenaar - r: 1211 min, eol - pt Albatrcs {Michael Fengler}r'I‘rio [Hans Eckelkarnp}r'WDR Cologne 1929 EIekn5cilIleI{.'!dradonoonan-faniage}

d: Kurt Maetaig - sc: Kurt Maetaig, based on the novella Es ivird sclrorr nicht so sehfrlrrurr by Hans Schtveikart - c: Friedl Behn Gnrnd - mt Wolfgang Ieller — .l.p.: Paul Klinger, Ilse Steppart, Klaus Holm - rt lfl5 min, bivv - p: Defa Berlin 1942 Etna ltatappa dlreled: Werner Schroeter — rt: Werner Schroeter, Robert van Aekeren — m: ‘Verdi,

Beethoven, Mozart, Puccini, Richard Strauss, Joharm Strauss, Krystof Penderecki, Gaspare Spontini, “'v"ineertz.o Bellini, Arnbroise Thomas, Conchita Supervia a.o. l‘.p.: Magdalena Montesttma, Rom von Praunheim, Giesela Trotve, Carla Aulaulu, Alix von Buchen - r: 144 min, ool, bltv - p: Werner Schroeter I9t'i9

E.ha+ Eiaa—Bret(DnePtrrsDneir Three} disc: Heidi Gene-e - ct Gernot Roll - edt Helga Beyer - rrt: Andreas Koebner — f.P.i Adellreid Arndt, Dominik Graf, Christoph Quest, Hark Bohm - r: E5 min, col — p:

Genee s. "v'on Furstenberg Munich 1929 Blntrnclrt ll-urbeck (Borheckb Tearrt-Spirit} dl‘.rcied: Susanne Beyeler, Rainer Min and Manfred Stelaer — r: SI min, hv‘vr — p:

Deutsche Film und Femsehaltademie Berlin 192'? Emrlen geht nach USA. [Errrden Goes re the U5} dlrcled: Klaus Wildenhaln-r_and Gisela Tuehtenhagen — rt til min (pt. 1}, I52 min (pt. 2}, 59 1'f1Il'l [pt. 3}, 59 min {pt. 4), hr"tv - pt HDR l-lamb1.rrg.fWDR Cologne I9'.lt'i

Baa Ends des Regenbogetu [The End of the Rainbow} disc: Urve Frieflner - ct Frank Bruhne — ed: Stefanie ‘Wilke — nr: Alexander Kraut, Klaus Kruger, Michael bluschlte, Matthias Kaebs - l‘.p.: Thomas Kufahl, Slavica

Rankovic, Udo Samel, Henry Lutze - r: I'll’.-' min, col - pt Basis Film Berlin (Clara Burckner}l'WDR 1919 Endataltlon Freiel (Last Stop Freerfonr}

d: Reinhard Hauff - sc: Burkhard Driest - c: Frank Bruhne - ed: Peter Praygodda nr: Irrnin Schmidt — l.p.: Burkhard Dricsr. Rolf Zactrer, Karla Ruppe, Kurt Raab, Harts bleever, Hark Bohm, Irm Hermann, Marquard Bohm - r: 112 min, col — p: Bioskop (Eberhard Junkersdorf}lPlanet.F2‘,DF 19R] Engelchelt oder Die Jungfrau von Bnllrerg [Little Angel, The lfirgin from fiamberg}

d: Marran Gosov — sc: Marran Gosov, Franz Geiger - c: Wemer Kurz - ed: Monica 363

= Gt; glc

Wilde - III Jaoques Loussier - l‘.p.: Gila von ‘Weitershausen, Ulrieh Jfoeh. Dieter Augustin, Harts Clarita, Cltristof ‘Wlekernagel _ .r: E1 min, ool —~ p: Rob Houwer 1953

Er-rtbeheutat1‘blII[TJteEartltq~uaJ:ein Cfriiej if: Helma Santlterssflrahrrrs — sc: Helma Sarrrlers-Brahltu, basoli on the novella by

Heinrich yon Ilileist - e: Dietrich Lohmann - l‘.p.: Julia Pena, ‘iii-etor Aloaaar. Juan igtigo. It-{aria Jesu.s I-Ioyos — r: S‘.-' min. bfw - p: Filtnverlag tler Autoteru'ZDF Maine 1 4 El [Jr} disc: Ulrich Scharnoni — c: Gerard ‘Vatliilenberg - erf: Heidi Rente {=Heidi Gentle} -

Lpt: Sabine Sinjen, Bruno Iltietriolt. Lllrilte Ullrieh, Jtolf I-aeher, "fills Ihtrieus. Marcel hlaroeau, B-erharti Mirietti - r: Sh min, bhtr - p: Horst hilanhed Arlloff I'iI't'|-5 Elherrsdttlllheirnl.-lntl{Ct1frflFrevoifsittt|teC'oiuen'y} if: Peter Lilienthal — sc: Antonio Slaann-eta, Peter Lilienthal - r:: Robby hliiller - ed:

Susi Jager — m: Angel Patra — f+p.: Charles "e"anel. fvlario Pattlo. Eduardo Duran. Zita IJ|.tar'te — r: Iiltl min, ool - p: FFAT*Film {Peter Lilientha]}!ZDFJDRTF 1'.-J75

Elias tut welt fSooterJu'ng Hans] u‘J'st:: Iteeha Jungrnanrr - rr: Rfirliger Laske, hferian Saura — erf: Ilona Grurldrnann,

Esther Dayan -- mt: Franlt 'ti|t'olff —- l‘.p.: Simone Haul, Ania Butalt, Hermann Soltafer. Roch-.a Jungraann — r: '.-'2 ruin, col - p: Spree-Jungrnartn Frankfurt 195]

Ettlns tritf slrithlr [Before ‘Four Eyes: Viemmn) disc: Hanrn Farocki — c: Iago Iflratisch, ‘Wolf-Dieter Fallert, Ebba Jahn -- erf: Johannes

Beringer - m: Marlins Spies - f.p+: Hanns Zisebler, Inga Hump-e, Bruno Crane. Hartmut Hitornsky. Olaf Schearing, Ingrid Etppermattn. Klaus ‘Wohlfahrt - r: 114 min, biw -p: Hanm Faroelri Filtnprorlulrtion IE-‘SI Evelyn Efiiueeke - Itth bin ell ilultl-Sti (Evelyn Jffinnecke — J tun rut ah-err"-Star}

rfiseferfr Rosa yon Ptaunheim - e: Erl Lieber - l.p.: Evelyn Ifiinneeke, Angele Durand. E1tristina anti Dietntar Htaoht — r: S1 rnirr, ool — p: Rosa tron Praunheirn for ‘WDR

Cologne 1'5fi'fi IlerFaIlI.enntIirIst[3'7ret'.Iateo,Fi'.._erra Christ} if: Hans W. Geissenylorfer - sc: Hans W. Geissendorfer, from the autobiography Erinrterungen efner flherfltlssigen by Lena Eflttist. anrl Peter B-ertt1iJt’s Der Weg rfer

Lena Christ - tr: Robby Hiiller - erf: ‘Wolfgang Hedinger - rrt: Fran: lyieyer - L,o.: Hoi-tli Stroh, Edith ‘lfolizmann, Sophie Strelow. Paul Stieber-'ili'altet — r: '.-J[l' ruin, bfttr —

p: Bayrisc-her Rundfunk Ivfunieh 1969 Fllsehe Bemeglng (Wrmtg J-foreneenr)

if: ‘Wim Wenders - sc: Peter Handke, based on motifs from the novel Willtehn Meister by J SW. Eioetlte - E1 Robby lvIiiller— ed‘: Peter Pmygotlda, Barbara yon W'eitersh.aus-en nt: Jfirgen Ifutieper — l‘.p.: Riirliger Vogler, Hanna Schygulla, Hans Christiari Bieelt,

Peter Hem, Ivan Desny, Hastassja Hakszynslti. lvtariarute Hoppe — r: IUS min, ool — pl: Solaris [Peter Cierttite. Hemd Eit:itinget']Nt'IJR IQT4

Die Fiteeltung {Circle of Deceit) rf: ‘sfolker Schl-iinrlorff — so: Jean Clautle Earriére, Volier Schliinrlorff, Margatethe

yon Trotta, lfiai Hennann based on the novel by Hieolas Born - e: Igor Luther — l‘.p.: Bruno Clans, Hanna Schygulla, Jerey Slrolimowsti, Gila yon ‘Weitershaasen - r: llfi min, col - p: Bioskop Jilunietufllirteniis Patisflfirgos Paris»"HI?t Frankfurt IEISI SH

- Cl-;;:r U-s rs

Fanllietrglitl {Wedded Biiss} tfise: Marianne Lirtlelte antl Ingo Kratiseh — e: Ingo Kratiseh, Wolfgang Kniffe — eel:

Siegrun Jager, Ursula Hof - nr: Peter Fiseher - i.p.: Tilo Prfleltner, Dagmar Biener, Ursula Diestel — r: ii)? min. ool — p: Regina Ziegler.-"ll-"DR Cologne 1975 Der Fangehnn {Coup de Grace}

d: ‘Uoltter Settlondotff — se: Genevieve Dormann, ivlargarethe von Trotta, Jutta Btueltner based on the novel by lvlarguerite ".'r"o|.rreenar — e: Igor Luther — ed: Jane Sperr, Henri Colpi - nr: Stanley lviyers - l‘.p.: Matthias Habieh, Rfrdiger Kirsehstein,

lvlargaretbe von Trotta, lvlathieu Carriere, ‘Valeslta Ciert, Axel vo-n Esebtvege - r: S5 min, bivv — pt Bioskop Film Ivlunielt {Eberhard Juttlrersdorfillltrgos Film Heuilly

{Anatole Dauman}.-‘I-IR Franltfurt I976 Feta lttor-guru disc: ‘it-'erner Herzog — tr: Jiitg Schmidt-Reirarein — ed: Beate Ivfaintta-Jellinghaus — nr: Handel, lviourt, Couperin, Blind Faith, Leonard Cohen - i.p.: ‘Wolfgang von Ungern-Sternberg, James Wifliant Ciledhill, Eugene des lvlontagnes; Lotte H. Eisner {r|a;rrator_'|| — r: ’.-'9 min, eol - p: Wemer Hereog Filmproduktion lvlurtieh 1971

Fautreelrt der Frelhelt {For end‘ his Friends} disc: Rainer Wemer Fassbinder — e: Ivlielrael Ballhaus - ed: Thea Eytnem - rrt: Peer Raben — l‘.p.: Rainer ‘Werner Fassbinder, Peter Chatel, Karlhein: Bohm, Rudolf Leng, Karl Seheydt. Kurt Raab, Harry Baer— r: I23 min, eol - p: Tangol'City lh-{ttnielt I9?

Fth oder htaelt (Fihn or Power) rfiseie: "'v'lado Kristl — l‘.p.: Christine lvieier, Marlene Barges, Heine Badevvitra, Wolf

‘Wondratsehelt, Denyse Hoever, Jelena, lvfadeleine, Pepe Stephan and ‘Ulado Kristi r: lilfl min. bhv — p: Vlado Kristi, Karl Sehedereit, Pitt Broettner lifltl Der Fhrttthg {lite Fotnidling} ti: Creorge ltfoorse — se: Creorge lvloorse, based on the novella by Heinrich von Kleiet e: Gerard Vandenberg - rn: Wilfried Sehropfer - i.p.: Rudolf Ferrrau, Julie Felitt,

Titus Crerhardt - r: TF4 min, lsltv - p: Bayeriseher Rundfunlt =[Hel1mut Haffner] It-'ltttrieht'l..iterar'iseIres Colloquium (‘Walter Hellerer} Berlin 196? Fltnearrlldo disc: Wemer Hemog — e: Thomas lvlauelt — ed: Beate lvfainlta-Jellingjraus - rrr: ‘Pop-ol "|v'uh‘ - i.p.: Klaus Kinstti, Claudia Cardinale, Jose Letvgoy, Patti Hittseher - r: l5S min, eoi — p: ‘Wemer Hetaog Filmprodulttion h'Iur|iel'ri'Prt1|-Jeet Filnrprotlulztion at Filmverlag der Autoren lvIunit:biZDF lvlaine 1951 DteIarultierteli'rau{‘Tite lilfornnntirr Hornet]!

d: Robert van tltelteren - se: Robert van Aekeren, Catharina Itveren: - e: Jurgen Jftrges - ed: Tanja Setunidbauer — l‘.p.: Crudrun Lantlgrehe, lviatbieu Caniere, Hanns

Zisehler, Egbfiele LaFari - r: IDS min, eol - p: Robert van Aekeren, Dieter Creissler Munich 1 Flanrrlelrile Hernm {flrrnrirrg Hearts}

dire: ‘Walter Bocltmayer, Rolf Biihrmann - e: Horst Kneehtel, Peter Hertin - nr: Ivliehael Rother {Karl Valentin, Evelyn Kftnneelter Peter Kern, Peter Kraus] - l‘.p.:

Peter Kern, Barbara ‘Valentin, Katja Ruppe - r: HS rrrin, ool - pt Eaten-Produlttion Cologne [Boeltmayer and Bfihrmann] EDF lvlaine HTS lilte Fliegentl-en inte von tlletstfrflta {Tire Fiyittg Doctors of East Africa} disc: ‘Wemer Heleog —- e: Thontas hlaueh — ed: B-reate hlainka-Jellinghaus — r: 45 rnin,

eol - pr Wemer Heraog Fiimproduktion. lvfunieb I'£l't5S-‘El HES

Clo gltf

Fliia Illtekeleaak {We've liioken Up in the ltfeerttirrte] disc: Johannes Flillselt. Klaus Helle, Marlies Kalltveit - r: ti?‘ min, bitv -~ p: Deutscbe

Film und Fernsehakademie Berlin IRIS I-1neht1reguaciMar|eHe[Escn,oeRottretotl~fnrseiife}

_

disc: C-rerhard Tl2letI!|'itIg, Ingetrrtr Engstrdm —~ c: Axel Bl-rtt:k— ed: Heidi Murero, Elke

Hager A rn: Pablo Casals - l.p.: Katharina Thalbaclt, Rtldiger ‘Uoglet, Francois Mouren-Provensal - r: 91 min {pt. 1}. H5 min (pt. 2], ool - p: lngemo Engsn-om, Gerhard Theuringl'WDR Cologne 197'? Iflugel and Peaaeln (The Frrtrtre of Emily) disc: Helma Sanders-Brahms — c: Sacha ‘Vienty. Lars Barthel, I-Jans-Critntltet Backing ed: Ursula ‘West - rrr: Jiirgen Knieper - i.p.: Hildegard Knef, Brigitte Fossey, Ivan Desny, Hermann Treusch - rt ill? min, col — p: Helma Sanders Filmprodulttiortlliterarisetres Colloquium H-er1iniI.DF Mainailes Films du Losange Paris I935

Fontane Ell Brliert (Ejji Briest] dz Rainer ‘Werner Fusbinrler — sc: Rainer Werner Fassbinder, based on the novel by

The-odor Fontane - c: Dietrich Lohmann, Jllrgen Jitrges —- ed: Thea Eymesz — rn: Camille Saint-Sarerrs and others - i._p.: Hanna Schygulla, Wolfgang Schenck, Karlhein:

Botun, Ulli Lommel, Ursula Strata, Hark Bohm, Irm Hermann - r: I41 min, bivv — pt Tango IST4 rt-Ir, Tkh-rl Averrrre disc: Klaus Wildenhaltn, Rudolf Korosi, Herbert Selk - r: S3 min, blur - p: HDR tasr Die Frau gegeliher {Tire Woman rtcross the Srr-eer} ritsc: Hans Hcever - c: ‘Halter Lassally - ed: Christa Wemicke - rn: Robert Eliscu, Munich Factory - l.p,: Franciscek Pieceka, Petra Maria Grithn, Jody Buehmann, Brigitte Mira, Jiri Men.-‘tel — r: IDS n'rin, brtv — p: HHS {Kerstin Dobhertin, Denyse

Hoever, Elvira Senft]tl'BR Munich 1'-.TTr'S Frauen II der Spline [‘l»i"omerr at the Top}

disc: Erika Runge - c: Klaus Jahnig - r: 4-4 min, ool s-Pp: 1969 Frauen -Sehhadlehter-dertlesrerkaetult {Women -Attire Tail-EndofTrnde Unions} slisc: Ingrid Clppermann, Johanna Koote, Crisela Steppke — r: 59 min, col - p: Deutsche Film und Fenrsehaltademie Berlin lil‘T5

Freak Drturlo discic: Ulrike Dtfinger — ed: Ddrte van - rn: ‘Wilhelm D. Si-eh-ert - l‘.p.: Magdalena

Montezuma, Delphine S-eyrig, Albert Heins, Eddie Constantine, Franca Magnani r: 1215 min, ool — p: Ulrike Dttinger Frlmproduktion BerIirri'Pia Frankenberg Musiltund Ftlmproduktion.|"I[JF Main: 1931

Frurde Statlt {Foreign City} ti: Rudolf Thome - sc: Mast Zihlmann - c: Martin Schafet - rn: John Andreas — l‘.p.: Roger Fritz, Karin Thome, Peter Moland, Martin Sperr, Hans Hoe-ver, Stefan Abendroth, ‘Werner Umberg— r: IBIS min, liivr - pl: Carina I971

Das Fretrtlelhaus (Bo-rdeiio} d: Alfred tlreidenmams - sc: Alfred liieidenntann, based on the novel by Henry Jaeger - c: Ernst W. Kaiinke - ed: SIII-mine Paschen -~ rrr: Cltfo Schuett — f.p.: Herbert

ass

Ci ta Er: F,-

Fleischmann, Karin Jacobsen, Paul Edtvin Roth - r: 92 min, col - p: Studio-Film ltiliil Frita Ktrrtler rrrolst Klhale untl Llebe {Fritz Kornser relrerrrses Scir.tit'er's Intrigue and Love] rf: Hans Jfrrgen Syberberg - c: Kurt Lorena, Konrad ltltfielrler — r: 111] min, bivv — p:

Bayrisch-er Rundiunlr Munich 1965 Fttr Frauen I. Kaptl1eI{For I-lfonren, Chapter Due] cl: Christina Perirreioli — r: 3-ti min, col — yr: Deutsehe Film und Femsehaleademie Berlin 1'!.TI-'1 E-lIgflalrrrIglrver'rr.ir'lulteIMirlr:hen(.A Tirororrghiy Negfectediiirfj

disc: Jutta Briicltner - c: Eduard Windhager - erf: Eva Schlensag - l.p.: Rita Rischak, Erika Prahl, Manfred Fischer — r: Stl nrin. col, bhv - p: Jutta BriickneriZDF Maine 19‘?-I5 Der gekaulle Traura {Tire Bot-tgirt Dre-rtrrt} cl: Helga Reidemeister, Eduard Gernart - sc: Helga Reidemeister, Eduard Gernart

in cooperation with the Bruder family - c: Sophokles Adamidis, Gerhardt Braun, Klaus Helle, Helga Reidemeister — ed: Eduard f."ierrtart — r: “I-'9 min, ool — p: Deutsche Film und Fernsehakademie Berlin I977

Gelegenhellsarhelt etrrer Rhvhr {Dccusiorrnl Work of rt Female Sieve] ii: Alexander Kluge — sc: Alexander Kluge, Hans Dravve, Alexandra Kluge — c: Thomas Maueh - ed: Beate Mainka-Jellinghaus — f.,o.: Alexandra Kluge, Fran:

Bronski, Sylvia Crartmann, Traugort Buhre, Alfred Edel, Ursula Dirichs, Drtrud Teiehart — r: R1 min, bitv — p: Kairos-Film Murtich IS".-'3

Die C-eneralprohe {Dress Reitenrsni] rl: Wemer Schroeter — c: Fran: Weich - r: Elfi min, col — pr IDF Maine lflilli

Georglnas Crttutlie [i.'ieor'girru's Reasons} ti: ‘iiolker Settldndorff — sc: Peter Adler, based on the story by Henry James — c: Sven

Hykvist - t'.p.! Edith Clever, Joachim Bissmeier, Margatethe von Trotta - r: S5 min, ool - p: Bavaria for ‘WDR CologneiDR'I'F Paris 19’l'4 Geaehlclten arrr den H [Stories frorrt the Hurtsrticir Villages} rfiscic: Edgar Reite - erf: Heidi Handorf — rrr: Nikos Mamangakis — r: ll? min. ool p: Edgar Reitz Munich 1931

Gerclrlelrten vom Kdbelltlntl (Stories of tire Bucket Hairy} disc: Edgar Reita and Ula Stdekl e c: Edgar Reitx — i'.p.: Kristine de Loup, Wemer

Hereog - r: 23 episodes, total length Ztitl min — p: Edgar Reite Munich 1970 Ills Gersprtmt {The Ghost}

disc: Herbert Achtembusch — c: Jorg Schmidt-Reitwein — ed: Ulrike Joanni i,p,: Herbert Achtembusch. Annamirl Bierbieliler — r: lid min, bivv — p: Herbert Achtembusch Filmproduktion Buchen-dori I982 Gellllt {Violence}

disc: Helma Sanders-Brahms - c: Alain Derohe - l‘.p.: Werner Umberg, Angelika Bender — r: ill mitt, ool — p: Helma Sanders Filmprodukt:iont'EDF Main: 19'l'l

Gllshi Wertgerniany disc: Christel Busclrmann - c: Frank Brfihrre - ed: Jane Sperr- l‘.p.: Jorg Pfen nigtverth,

asr

Ci iii Cr: to

Eva-Maria Hagen, Kiev Stingel, Eric Burdon, Hans Hoever -- r: Elli min, col — p: Bioskop l_'Eberhard Junkersforf} lilfii [lie f_"i&er:'le Irelle {The Glass Cell]

d: Harts ‘W’. ifieissendorfer — sc: Hans tilt’, Creissenderfer and Klaus Bidekeri, after die novel by Patricia Higltsmith — e: Robby Mailer - rrt: Hieis ‘Waien - i.p,: Helmut Griem, Brigitte Fossey, Bernhard Wicki - r: 9'5 mitt, col - p: Roxy Film [Luggi

'iIr'aldieitner}r'5olaris {Bernd Eieitirrgeriiflayriselrer Rundiunk Munich iii‘.-‘S Das golden: Ding [Tire Thirrg of Gold) rfr".r-c: Ula Stdeltl, Edgar Reitx, Alf Brustellin, Hires Perakis - c: Edgar Reita ~— ed:

Hannelore von Sternberg - rrr: hiikos Mamangakis - l,,o.: Christian Reite, Dliver Jovine, Konstantin Sautier, Alf Brustellin, Reinhard Hauff, Katrin Seybold - r: 11S rrtin, ool -p: Edgar Reitz.i"W'DR Cologne I971

lStltterderPeIt {Gods ofthe Prague) d: Rainer Wemer Fassbinder, Michael Fengler - sc: Rainer Wemer Fambinder - c: Dietrich Lohmann — eri: Fran: Walscb{==Rainer Wemer Fassbinder) - rrr: Peer Raben — t'.p-.: Harry Baer, Hanna Schygulla, Margaretha von Trotta, Gundter

Kaufmann, Carla Aulaulu, lngrid Caven, "r'aak Karsunke - r: 91 n'tin, hhv - p: antiteater Mttrdcb Hill DleGr1afenPocri—etrrheKqtltelanr*t]eachlclrteeluerFarfle [Tire Courrtso,FPrrccr'-

Some Chapters rrrrvrrrrir tire History of rt Farr-lily) disc: Hans Jdrgen Syberberg - c: Kurt Lorena, M. Lippi — r: 92 min, ool — p: Harts Jirrgen Syberberg i*5l'titi-"i

Crete lrllnde rf: Heidi Genee - sc: Heidi Crenee, based on tire rrovei by Theodor Stonn - c: Jfirgen Jitrges - ea‘: Heidi Crenee, Helga Beyer ~ tn: Hiels Janette Walen - f,p.: Katerina Jaoob, Siemen Rithaak, Hannelore Elmer, Tilo Priickner, Harts Christian Blech, Kite

Haack - r: 1112 ntin, col - p: Soiaris (Peter Crenee, Bernd Eichinger}r'Saschar'ZDF 191-'6 DlegroIeEilfledeIBIdlehlltnel1Btelner[TiteGreulEesrnsyofrlte Woodcurver Steiner] disc: Wemer Hertog — c: Jii-rg Bclrmidt-Reittvein, Francisco Joan, Frederik Hettich —

eri: Beate Mainka-Jeiiinghaus —- rrr: Popol "'v"uh - l‘.p.: ‘Waiter Steiner - r: 45 min, ool p: Wemer Hetaog Filmproduklion for SIJR Stuttgart iSlTr'3—4

La glerre d"tlI eeul hotnrrre [Cine rli‘rrn's Wee] rt‘: Edgardo Co-earirrsky — sc: Edgardo Coaarinslty, based on the Paris Diaries of Emst

Jimger - c: archive material - ed: Christine Aya, ‘Veronique Auricoste — rrr: Hairs Pfitaner, Richard Strauss. Arnold Schonberg, Fran: Schreker - rr lilii min, bivr — p: Marion's Films Parisr'Tl"'lA Paris.|"Z[.‘-IF Maine ISSI

Gnnter ‘lIr'ai'afl'- Gale ulterr [Ar tire Bortorn ofthe Heap) rf: Jiirg Crfriirer - sc: Gitnter Wallrafl? - c: Jiirg Cifrdrer, Dieter Cleekl - ed: Peter

Kieinert, Tom Meffert - .r.rr: Heinrich Uber, Mehtnet lpek — i.,o.: Crtinter iliailratf - r: lilti min, ool, b-‘vv - p: KADS Film dt Video Team Cologrtel'Pirat Filrrtl“Radio Bremen IRES ltllhe - llllie [Huff rtttd Httffl disc: Uvve Brandner — c: Jiirgerrs Jiirges - rrr: Peer Raben, Munich Factory, J.J . Cale —Bil

Cit‘) is-s re

i.p,: Peter Hallvrachs, Bernd Tauher, Ivan Desny - rt rus min, b.-‘iv - pr DHS Film Murtich (Kerstin Dobbertirt, Denyse Hoever, Elvira Senft}r'H‘DR 1§r‘lS Der Hamburger Anrfsltlltl flhtober I913 {Harrrirtrrg irtsttrreeriorr, Elcrolrer IP23} discicied: Klaus Wildenhahn, Reiner Eta, Gisela Tuehtenhagen - r-. 41 min (pt. 1), 4-ti min (pt, 2}, till min (pt. 3}, bittv - pt Deutsche Film und Fernsehakadernie Beriin 1911 Hammett ti: Wim ‘Wenders — sc: Dennis tIl’Flalrer1y. Ross Thomas, based on the novel by Joe Gores - c: Joe Biroc - erf: Peter Przygodda - nr: Joint Barry - i.p.: Frederic Forrest, Peter Boyle, Marilu Hcnncr, Roy Kinnear - r: as min, col —- pt Zoetrope [Francis Ford Coppola} 193]-1

Der I-Illttller tier vler Jahreraeiert (Tire rltfereiturtt of Four Seusorts} disc: Rainer Werner Fassbinder - c: Dietrich Lol:tmartrt - ed: Tbea Eyrnesa - rrr:

*Buona Hotte‘ (Rocco Crranata] - l.p,: Hans Hirschmiiiler, Irm Hermann, Hanna Schygulla, Andrea Scbober, Kurt Raab, Klaus Ldvvitscb, Karl Scheydt, Ingrid Caven —

r: Sit min, ool - p: Tango {Rainer Wemer Fassbinder, Michael Fengler) iifll I-larltel Theater rt‘: Klaus ‘Wildenhahn, Christian Sehvrarrtvaid - r: lltl min [also in a 59 min version}, ttiw - p: HDR Hamburg 1968 Harlt d: Robert van Aekeren — sc: Robert van Ackcren, Joy Markers, Iris iliiagtrer - e: Dietr-iclt Lohmann, Lotliar E. Sticltelbrucks - ed: Gibbie Shavr, Doerte ‘Voela - rn: Mahler, C.A.M. - i.p,: Mascha Rabben, Crabi Larifari, Ulli Lommel, Rolf Iacher r: Sb trlirt, col — _p: Inter West {Weneel Li'rdecke}iRobert van Aekeren Filniprodulrtion

Munich 15"l'2

Der rrsnprrtar-errtssr [Tire rtrsrrr Actor] ti: Reinhard Hauff — sc: Reinhard Hauff, Christel Busehmann — c: Frank Briihne _ ed: Stefanie Wilke — rn: Klaus Doldinger — i.p,: lvlario Adorl. Michael Schtveiger, ‘Vadim tiilotvna, Hans Brenner, Rolf Zacher, Doris Dorrie - r: SS ntin, ool - p: Bioskop Film Munich {Eberhard Junkersdorf}fiL'DR Cologne 19?? l‘Iauptleltrter I-lttfer [Scitoolntrtster J-infer} ti: Peter Lilienthal — sc: Peter Lilientthal, Herbert Briidl, Giinter Hcrburger, based

on the story by Giinter Herhurger - c: Kurt Weber, Ulrich Heise-s - ed: Heidi t‘.-ienee rrt: Robert Elisctt — i._p.: Andre ‘Watt. Sebastian Bleisclt, Kim Pamass, Tilo Prttckner r: IIJS min, col - p: FFAT {Peter Liiientl"tal)r"rlr'DR Cologne 1974 I-lelmat d: Edgar Reita - sc: Edgar Reita, Peter Steinbach - ct Gernot Roll —- ed: Heidi

Handorf - rn: Hikos Mamangakis — l.p.: Marita Breuer, Michael Leseh, Dieter Schaad, Cudrun Lartdgrebe, Willi Burger, Gertrucl Bredel, Rftdiger Weingang, Karirt

Rasenaclt, Jorg Hube, Michael Kausclt - r: 924 niin {ll parts) — p: Edgar Reite Filmproduktion GmhH Municb.|'"WDR Cologner'SFB Berlin IRS-ll Irlelnrlcli

d: Heltna Sanders-Brahms - sc: Hehtta Sanders-Brahnts, based on tenets, documents and vvritings of Heinrich von Kleist — c: Thomas Mauch — ed: Margot Llihlein - rsr:

Mozart, Baelt, Beethoven — l‘.p.: Heinriclt Ciiskes, Griseha Huber, Hannelore Hoger, 359

Cir; glc

Heine Hfrnig, Litttt Carstens, Fritz Lichtenhahn, Le Theatre dtt S-oleil — rt I14 min. col — pt Regina Zieglerl"'iV'DR ISITJ

Heir-tel Irrmzieiea vtrl Iilelrt rf: Hans hleuenfels -sc: Harts Heuenfels, based on the play ‘Penthesilerr by Heinrich von Kleist — ct Thomas Maucb ~ ed: Evelyn Schmidt — rrr: Heiner Goebbels - l‘.p.:

Elisabeth Trisenaar, Hermann Trerrsch, Verena Peter - r: Itl-ti nrirr, ool - p: Regina Ziegler Filmproduktion Berlin ISSI Baler ‘it'll: [Friends rtrtrf Httslrartrisirt Labour of Love} elite: Margatethe von Trotta - e: Michael Ballltat-as - eef: Dttgrttar I-lirla — rn: Nicolas Econornou - i.p.: Hanna Schygulla, Angela lVinkier, Peter Striebeek - t-. ItlS rnin, col - pt Bioskop Munichr'Les Films du Losange, Paris-t‘llt'DR Cologne I982 Iilertry Arrgat

rt: Ingo Kratisch - scierl: lngo Kratisch, Jutta Sartory —c: Martin Streit, Mike Faiiert rn: Chuck Berry, John Cage, lvlotrart - l‘.p.: Klaus Hoitmann, Daphne Moore, Heidrtrn Polack, Ritdiger ‘Vogler, Hanns Ziscbler, Harun Farocki - r': III] min, col - pt Regina

Zieglerilngo Kratisch Iilfil Heriler {Hercules}

dlscied: Wemer Heraog — c: Jaime Pacheco — nr: Uvre Brandner - l‘.p.: Mr Crerrrtarty I962 - rt I2 min, blur -p: ‘ilierner Her1.ogI"!lti2fretrisedi5ltti5} Here ant GB (Henri of Glass} st‘: ‘Wemer I-Ietaog — sc: Herbert Achttembttsch and ‘iVerner Hereog - ct Jorg SchmidtReitvvein and Michael Gut - err‘: Beate Mainka-Jellingiiatcs — nr: Popol Vuh and the

Studio Frilhe Musik - i.,o.: Josef Bierbichier, Stefan CI-itttier, Clemens Sci-teite, Sonja Skibai;hBr;ru_Irnhikle Klockner — r: S4 min, col — pr Wemer Hereog Filmproduktion Muni

I

ft

Highway ill ‘West - Relre ll Amelia {US f-figlttvuy -ltl West} disc: Hartmut Bitomsiy - ct Axel Block — eel: Matltitts von fiunten — r: I'll] min, col —

p: Big Sky Beriin Itltii I-Iltler—elu lilht ates Detttechlarttl [Clue Hider} disc: Hans Jfrrgen Syberberg - c: Dietrich Lohmann - eel: Jutta Brandstaetter - net

"tVagner, Mocart, Beethoven — i.p-: Andre Heller, Harry Baer, Heine Schubert, Peter Kern, Hellmut Lange, Martin Sperr, Alfred Edel - r: 420 min, col - p: TMS {Harts Jdrgen Syber"betg‘_h'Solaris [Bernd Eicltinger]r"W'DR Cologne.lI‘HA Parist"BBC London I97? HIler—eheKl|.1'lere{Hill'er-A Career]

ri: Christian Herrencloerfer and Joachim C. Fest - sc: Joachim C. Fest - ed‘: Frita S-cbtvaiger, Elisabeth Irrtholte, Karin Haban - rrt: Harts Poseggtt — r: I55 min -— pt

Interart {Werner Rieb} Ill'l"l I-Iosr litlnclr ‘IV-nod ‘lVrtrrH a ‘ilfnnttlellttk Cbnek

disc: Wemer Her-eog - c: Thoma Mauch, Francisco Joan, Ed Lachrrtann - ed: Beate Mainka-Jeliinghaus -— rn: Shorty Eager and the Eager Beavers — rt 44 min. col — p: Werner Heraog Filmproduktion Munich IiD'5-ii

I-Jule"! Sermon disc: ‘Werner Heraog — e: Thomas Mauch - err; Beate Mainka-Jellinghaus - i.p.:

int

Cl tjt Er-o rt-

Bishop Huie L. Rogers — r: 42 rrtin, bitv - pt Werrter I-Ietzog Filmproduktion Munich IIISIJ Iétangerjalre (Hunger Pears) disc: Jutta Briicltner-c: Jcrg Jeshel-— ed: Anneliese Krigar-rrrt Johannes Scltrrtolling— i._p.: Britta Pohland, Sylvia Ulrich, Claus .laricl'ts - r: I14 mitt, bitv - p: Jutta

Brt'lcknerr‘ZDF I95] lei hln Ittrgrr tler DBR [I urn rt Citieert of the GER) disc: Erika Runge - ct Michael Ballhaus - l‘.p.: Peter Wappler and family, members

of the ‘tieorgi Ditnitroff' Brigade — rt E min - pt I972 ltr:'arlacltte,lcktriretott_‘f Tlrougirtflirusfleudfl disc: Wolf Ciremm — c: David Slama — ed: Dorothee Crerlach - rrt: Peter Sebirrmann — i.p.: V Sa Lo, Alexander Beik, Reirtltard Boclt, Ingrid Beilt - r: SB min, col - pt

Regina Ziegler Berlin IRIS Icltdenkeoltataflaialllfflfien T'hinltofHotvur'.t'] dlscic: Elli Mikesch - l.p.: Carmen, Ruth art-d Tito Rossol — rt S5 min, col — pt Laurens Straubiflh Muvier'ZDF Maine IRIS IeltlrefleErtvlrtutrl Iii I'I]fllre [My iVrnrreisEnvinundl"m.Severtteen}

disc: Erika Range - ct Rttdoif Korosi — ed: E. Crochvriim - t‘.,p.t Ertvin Walther, Heine Gftnther Penckmann, Irnagard Pencltmann — r: Iii ntin, bier - pt Bavaria Atelier for WDR Cologne I5l"Ill

IcltIieIretllelt,lelttilttetlleltt‘[JLove ‘Fort, iliii You} disc: Uvre Brandner - e: Andre Dubreuil - ed: Heidi C-enee - rrt: Uvre Brartdner, Moeart, Hones, Dlanf, ‘S5|:tieldose‘ - i.p,: Rolf Becker, Hantt-es Fuchs, Helmut Brasch, Rudolf Tbo=rrre — r: ‘J5 rnin, col —- pt Utve Brandner IVII

Im Land melner Elterrr [in the Country of nsy Parents) disc: Jeanine Meerapfel - l‘.p.: Anna Levine, Luc Bondy, Sarah Haffner — r: Sh min,

col - p: Jeanine Meerapfel Beriin IEISI lrnl..anI'tle|'Ielt [Ifingsoftlrelioad]

disc: Wim Wenders - ct Robby Milller, Martin Schafer - ed: Peter Pryzgodda - rn: Axel Linstadt [Improved Sound Ltd] - .l,p.I Rudiger Vogler. Hanns Eischler, Lisa Kreuaer, Marquard Bohm — rt 1'1-'15 mitt, bitv — pt Wim Wenders Filniprtt-duktioni"W'DR

Cologne Itl"It‘i Im Hansen ties Vale! {in the Home of the People}

dlconceptt Dttokar Run-ee — c: Michael Epp, Paul Ellmerer - l.p.: prisoners of Sn-afanstalt Hamburg-Ftthlsbftttel — rt IES rrtin, col - p: Ctttokar Renae I9‘I-t Ia der Fremtle {Fur Front Ho-me) dt Klaus Wiidenhahn — sc: Egon Monk, Klaus Wildenhaltn — c: Rudolf Kiiriiai — erf:

Karin Baumhdfer - r: S1 ntirt {also in a S3 min version}, bitv - pt HDR Hamburg IlItiI In tler Frtemttle {Furfmnr Horne} rl: Sobrab Shahid Saless — sc: Sohrab Shahid Saless, Helga Houeer — e: Rarnin Reea

Moiai - rn: ‘Super Top‘ - l‘.p.: Parvia Sayyad, C‘-rihan Anasal, Muhammet Temiakan rt E-ll min, col - pt Provobis Hamburgfhleue Ftlntgruppe Teheran ISIS 371

Ctr glc

Iuelaemlahrruit I3 lrlrtmlett [frr rt l"'ertrof'J"Irirreerr Moons} riiscict Rainer Wemer Fassbinder - tn: Peer Raben - l,p.: Volker Spengler, Ingrid Caven, Elisabeth Trissenaar, Gottfried John, Eva Mattes - r: I14 ntin, col —~ pt Tangct

Filmr‘Pro-Ject Film Munich ISIS Iaf.‘iefahrandf.‘iriInrtter'l'lathrlattler'hllttelIegdenTad{Jn Dongerundin Deep

Distress, the ilftirfdfe Way Spell! Cerurirr nssrrn

disc: Alexander Kluge and Edgar Reite - c: Edgar Reite, Alfred Harmer, Gitnter Htinnann — ed: Beate Mainkaslellingltatts — rn: Wagner, Verdi and others — l‘.p.:

Dagmar Bodderich, Jana Winkelmartn, hlorbert Kentrup, Alfred Edel, Kurt lrlrgerrs rt ‘Elli min. b-"Iv ~ pt RK [Edgar Reita, Alexander Kluge} IEFI-‘I In jenen Tllel {in Iltose Days] rf: Helmut Kautner - sc: Hebnut Kautner, Ernst Sclmabel - c: Igor Dberberg — rn:

Bernd Eiclthorn — f.p,: Erich Scheilovr, Gert Schafer, Heimat KSutner,.Werner Hinx —r: II I nrin, bAv — p: Camera {Helmut Ktiutner} Hamburg I94?

Die lnttlartttrlelle Reservearxaee [Tire frrrfustriul Reserve Array} disc: Helma Sanders-Brahms - c: Wolfgang Hageney, Marco Brlric — r: 45 rnin, b.t‘xv —

p: Helma Sanders Filmproduktion I'£l‘II II1,-ettrltro h II-erlln {Sorrtetvltere irr Berlin} disct Gerhard Lamprecht - ct Wertter Krien — nt: Erich Einegg - l‘.p.: Harry Hindemith, Hedda Sarotv, Charles Kenlscbke, Fritz Rasp - r: S6 min, bftttr - p: Dcfa

Berlin I946 Jagttlaaenen an Hlederhayerm (Hunting Scenes from Lott-‘er Bavaria)

rt‘: Peter Fleischmann — sc: Peter Fleischntann based on the p-lay by Martin Sperr — ct Alain Derobc — ed: Barbara Mortdry, Jane Seitx - t‘,p.: Martin Sperr, Angela Winltler. Hartaa Schygulla, Else Cluecke - r: SS min, bitv - p: Rob Houwer Film Munich I'ilt5-S Derjiger vans Fall ['l'Ire.f-fttrsrer ofthe Frills} rf: Harald Reirtl - sc: ‘Werner P. Zibsso, after the rtovel by Ludttvig Ganghofer — c:

Errtst W. Kalirtlte — rn: Ernst Brandner e i.p,: Gerlinde Doberl, Alexander Stephan, Siegfried Raucb, Klaus L-fl’Il'ilECl'l — r: Ell] min, col-p: CI'V I2 Munittlt 1974

Jalder - tier ehtsame Jlger [.Iru'der, the Lonely Hunter} d: Volker Vogeler — sc: ‘Volker ‘Vogel-er, Ulf Miehe — c: Gerard Vatttdenberg — eel:

Henri Sokai - rn: Eugen Illirt - l,p.: Gottfried John, Rolf Zacher, Sigi Graue, Johannes Schaaf, Arthur Brattss, Louis Waldon - r: 94 min, col - pt Bavaria [Helmut Krapp'_lu'Ttiglav l!l’Il Jane hlelltt June {June is Jane Forever] rf: Walter Bockmayer and Rolf Bi‘tltrrnann — sc: Walter Bockmayer — ct Peter Merlin — ed: Inge Gielotv — l‘.p.: Johanna Kdttig, Karl Biomer, Peter Chatel — r: SS min, col -

p: Enten-Produktion Cologne {Bockmayer and Buhrtnann}iZDF Maine Ill‘I'I Jeder Illr sleh Gntt gegen fie [Tire Entjgrrea of Kaspar Hauser) disc: Werner Heraog - c: Jorg Sclrrrtidt-Reitvvein and Michael Gast, Klaus Wybomy ed: Beate Mainkarlellinghaus - rrt: Pachelbel, Drlando di Lasso, Albinoni, Moazart l‘.p.: Bruno S., Walter Ladengast, Brigitte Mira, Hans Musaus, Enno Patalm, ‘Willy

Semmelrogge, Elis Pilgrim, Alfred Edel, Herbert Achternbtrsch - rt lflll min, ool - p: Werner Henrog Filrnprortuktion Muni-cit.-'ZDF Maine ISI4 Jet Generation ri: Eckltart Schmidt e sct Eelthart Schmidt, Roger Frita -~ c: Gernot Roll ~ rn: David

are

Cl tjt S-o rt.-

Llyvvellyn - l.p.: Dginn Moeller, Roger Fritz, Isi Ter Jung, Jurgen Draeger - r: 94 min, col -p: Roger Frita I968

JohnCnge

rft Klatts Wildenhahn, Rudolf Kcrcsi, Herben Selk - r: SS min, bitv - pt HDR Hamburg I966

Jultanytilhekatait cf: Ulf Mielte —se: Ulf Miehe, Walter Fritrsehc, based on the novella Ein Doppelgrlnger by Theodor Storm - ct Jtlrgen Jtirges - ed: Heidi Genee - rn: Eberhard Schoener i.p,: Dieter Laser, It-"larie—Cbtistine Barrartlt, Johannes Schaaf, Tilo Priickner, Utve Dallmeier — r: ‘ill min, bhv - p: Independent [Heinz Angern1eyer]ilvlarant‘SDR

Stuttgart ISIS

Johnny tvnr disc: Roald Koller - ct Bahram Manocherie - erft Genie Ktlhle - rn: Winfred Loven, “The Manhattans', ‘The Platters‘, ‘Missile Beasdy' — f.p.: Rio Reiser, Kristina van

Eyck - rt IDS min, ool - pt Multimediar'Sunny Point.tFaasLi"l‘errat'HR Frankfurt I!I’I‘I Deriulge Tilrletrr {Young Toriers] ri: Volker Schiondorff - sc: Volker Schltindorff, Herbert Asmodi based on dte novel Die Vertvirrangen des Eidgfirtgs Tdriesr by Robert Musil [115] - ct Frarta Rath - ed: Claus von Boro — nr: Harts Werner Henae — f.p. : Matthieu Carriere, Maria.n Seidottvsky,

Bemd Tiscl'ter, Herben Astnodi — r: SI min. bitv — pt Frans S-eitx Filmprodttlttion Murticltilllouvellcs Editions de Films [Louis Malio) Paris 1966

Kalltlorl' gegel Mannennala [Jfrrildorf versttr irfurtnesrrtcnn} d.-‘reie: Suzanne Beyeier, Rainer Mara, Manfred Stelaer - r: ‘IS min, blur - p: Deutsche Film und Femschakademie Berlin ISIS Katnpfumekt Kiri [Hghlforu Child} disc: lngemo Engstrdtrr — ct Axel Block — eel: Gerhard Tltrettring - rn: LS. Bach -— t'.p.t

Lisa Kreuaer, Hartmut Bitomsky, MarielTheurittg, Monique Armand, Harun Farocki, Veith von Fitrstenberg — r: I35 min, col — p: lngemo Engstr-om for ‘WDR Cologne

i9"I~'l-S Der Kam|tI‘ura II‘! l_Fr‘gir.t.irtgfor LIE] rf: Michael Btrsse, Thomas Mitseherlich, Jtl Peters — r: ‘SIS min, bivtr — p: Deutsche

Film and Femsehakademie Berlin I'El‘I2 Kanakerltr-ant l[H"luIte Trash] d: Llvre Scltrader - sc: Uvre Sehrader, Daniel Dubbe - ct Klaus Mtlller-Laue —- l',p',I Peter Franke, Brigitte Janner, Gerhard Dlschtveski — rt 62 rrtin, col - pt Deutsche

Film and Femsehakademie Berlin Utve Sehrader ISS4 Der Katadldat {Tire Candidate) disc: Alexander Kluge, Stefan Aust, Volker Schlondorff, Alexander von Eschtvege ct Igor Ludter, Werner Liiring, Jorg Schmidt-Reitvrein, Thomas Mauch, Bodo Kemler — erf: Inge Behrcns, Beate Mttinlta-Jellingltaus, Jarte Sperr, Mulls Goat:

Dickopp - r: I29 mitt, col, bitv - p: Pro-Jectr'Biosko|:trKairos [Theo Hina, Volker Schlcndorff. Alexander Kluge] IEISIJ KI] May disc: Harts Jt‘irgen Syberberg — e: Dietrich Lohmann — ed: Ingrid Brosaat — nr: Chopin,

SIS

Ctr glc

Liszt, Mahler and others - l,p.t Helmut Klutner, Kristina Soderbaum, Kathe Gold, ‘Willy Trenk+Trebit.sch, Attilla I-Iorbiger, Lil Dagovcr, Andre Heller - rt IS‘? min, ool - pt TMS [Hans Jurgen Syberberg_iIZDF Maine ltI‘I-t Kata urtrl hit [Car urtrf Horne]

rl: Httnsjiirgen Pohland - sc: Hansjurgen Pohland based on the novella by Gunter Grass - ct Wolf Wirth - ed: Christa Pohland - rrrt Attila Zoller — l‘.p.: Lars Brandt,

Peter Brandt, Wolfgang itieuss, Claudia Bremer, Herben Weissbach, Ingrid van Bergen - rt SS min, bitv -pt modem art lilm, Berlinr'Zrespo-l Rytttn ‘Warsarv I96?

ltataehmeher d: Rainer Werner Fambinder - sc: Rainer ‘Werner Fassbinder based on his play — ct

Dietrich Lohmann - ed: Franc Walsclt l-Rainer Werrter Fassbinder] - rrtt Fran: Schubert - .l.p.: Hanna Schygulla, Rudolf Waldemar Brem, Lilith Ungerer, Elga

Sorbas, Imt Hermann, Harry Baer, Hans Hirsehmullet, Rainer Wet-ner Fassbinder rt SS min, bfrv - pt antitclter*K~Film {Peer Raben) 1969

ltelek discicled: Wemer Hekes - rt 6|] mitt, bitv - pt Werrter Hekes Hamburg I96S Khmtm liehrl {Cirtss Enerny} rtl: Peter Stein rsct based on tlte play by Nigel Wiliiants— ct Robby Muller - etrft Inge Behrerts — f.p.: Greger Hansen, Stefan Reclt, Jean Paul Ratlm, U-do Santel —r: I2.S min,

col -pt Regina Ziegler Filmproduktion BerliniPro-Ject FilmproduktionrFiImverlag der Autoren Munielt ISS3

Dutklehtetlodmtdudmflmutm-lamjnprdelmehm-Fk{2IreLitdet'}odard} cl: Hellmuth Costard — c: Bernd Uprtmoor. Hans-Grto Walter, Hatmo Hart, Hellmuth Custard - erf: Susanne Paschen — nr: Thomas ‘Wachtveger — r'.p.t Hellmuth Cotstard,

Bernhard Kiesel, Werner Grasstttatm, Ivan Hagel, Hark Bohm, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Michael Ballhaus, Harry Baer, Utve Henelbeck, Dieter Meiclnner, Jean Luc Godard - r: SI mitt, col - pt Toulouse-Launtee-Irtstitute {Hellmuth Costard]r2DF I‘-.I’IS Kolnmale Llelte [ltfrglrty Love} rtl: Jutta Bruckner is sc: Jutta Bruckner, based on the correspondence of Rahel ‘Varrthagen —~ ct Horst Heisler, Frans Miillegger, Jiirgen Rotter, Jftrgen von Wins -

ed: Barbara Block - i.p.t Kirsten Dene, Ulrich Gebaaer, Lute Weidlich, Richard Munch - rt 132 min. col -pt ZDF Maine ISS4 Der Kuatatrtrclre {Tire Comanche} disc: Herbert Achtembttsch — ct Jurg Schmidt-Reittvein - erft Heidi Handorf — t',p.: Herbert Achternbusch, Alois Hitxenbichler, Barbara Gum, Annamirl Bierbiclrler,

Sepp Bierbichier, Judith Aclttembusclt - rt Sllmin, col — p: Herbert Achternbuschr’ZDF Maine I929 Dle Kourequeua =[‘I'Ite Corrsequertce) ri: Wolfgang Petersen -sc: Alexander Ziegler, Wolfgang Petersen. based on the novel by Alexander Ziegler — ct Jurg-Michael Baldenirrs - erf: Johannes ltlikel — nr: ‘Nils

Sustrate — t‘,p.t Jurgen Prochnotv, Ernst Hannatvald, Walo Luund, Edith Voikmattn rt SIS min, bivv — pt So-latis [Berud Eichinger).I'WDR Cologne Iil‘I'I

Kaflantl Madam! {Stand on Pour Head, Lady} rft Christian Rischert — set Christian Geissler, Alfred Heven DuMont, Christian Sllil

Ctr glc

Risehert - e: Fril: Sehwennieke — ed: Christian Rieehert - nr: Carlee Diemhammer, Manfred Hiehatla, {rite Weiaa - I.p.: Miriam Speerri, Herben Fleischmann, Heinz BenI1el'lt—- r: E2 min, bfw - pt Areie [flltrislian Risehe1't]u"lIJ'ument 195'?

Iirnnlten lllr 0-lymph (Tier fer tire fliympie Gem-re} dire: Stefan Lultaehy and Harhnann Sehmiege - e: Herben Bunge —— ed: Stefan Lukaehy - rn: ‘Wilhelm Dieter Sieh-ert — l‘.p.: hiiehael Heermann, Sylvia Dudek, Erika

Fuhrmann - rt H] min, h-Fw - p: Deutsche Film untl Fernaehaltatlemie Berlin 19115 Iirellaer el: Klaus Emmerich -re: Klaus Enunerieh, ill.-aua Veeaunkel - e: Frank Briihne - ed: Thea Eymesz - mt Fran: Hummel — Lp.: Rfldiger ‘Vegler, Aetel "l\"agner, Ierg Hube, ‘llitus Zeplichal, Edith Velhmanu, Kurt ‘Weinrierl - rt Ell min, eel - p:

lylultimedialfiunny Peintlflll Hunieh 19?? Erie; und Frhdell [War and Feeee}

d: Alexander Kluge, ‘Velker Sehlenrlerff, Stefan Aunt, Axel Engarfeitl —re: Heinrielt Bell. Alexander Kluge — e: Werner Litring — ee‘: Beate Hainlra-Jellinghaus, Carela Mai - i.p.: Jurgen Preehnew, Gunther IL-aufman, h!la.nlFred Zapatlta - r: 121] min, eel and hey p: Fre-Jeet Film Predulztienfflieeltep-Filntr'il.airea Film 1982 Ille H

geht [Helek Leaver)

ti: Jeanine Meerapfel —- re: Jeanine hleerapfel - e: Jehann Feintlt - ed: Klaus ‘Jelhenhem - rn: .lal'.e=h Liehtmaen - l‘.p.: lhtlelek Tea, the Illantemir family, Hiyazi

Tfirgay - r: BE min, eel — p: Jeumal Film iififl-I.laus ‘lfellrenb-ern 1931 Del‘ huree Iriel mm hlpll tlthnehid (Shun Letter Lung Goodbye)

rl: Herben Veaely — re: Herben Vesely, after the neyel hy Peter Handke - e: Petrus Eellle-emp — nr: Brian E110 — 1'. p. : Thnmas Asian, Geraltlirle Chaplin, Alexander Hey —

r: 9'? min, eel - pt lntertel lvluniehfIDF hlairtr 1916-? Der hehentle Stern (The Smiling Star} d: ‘Werrier Eehreeter - se.-‘e: ‘Wemer S-ehreeter - ed: Cltrietel firthmann, ‘Wemer Sehreeter - r: 111] min. eel — p: Letter Film Peter IiLen1u"ZDF Maine 1953 Luaflufieimeigenluuddei-DuuieI:eit[LendofSi1eneenrtdDnrknere} dare: ‘Wemer Heme-g -— e: Jfirg Sehmidb-lleilrweitt — eel: Beate hleinlra-Jellinghaus — rn: 1.5. Bach, A. ‘€iyalrl:i - l.p.: Fini Stzraubinger, Heinrich Fleisehmann, Resi Hittermeier -— rt E5 min, eel — p: Werner Heme-g Filmpredulttien lvlunieh IEFTI

eaaqurrraaaa Letlell. Elmer [The Leng Veeerien e_fLemrH. eaaa») ear; Sehrah Shahid-Saleaa - ed: Heidi I-lantlerf ~ r: re min, am _ P; Weatdeutaeher Rundfunk ma Der Inge Jamner {The lii"eiIirr,g Well} d: Ma: ‘Willulzki — ee: Ha: Willut.t.'ki, Herst Lange, Arihert Wei: - e: Relf Deppe,

Rene Ferraudin - ed: Reyna Heuser - rn: Dieter Eiehett, 'Lelternetiye li.ret1:berg" l‘.p.: Cifinter Iiiealieh, Heinz Giele, Heinz hlleurer, Waller -Eilaaen — r": E-E min, eel —

p: Baaia Film Berlin UHG {Hal Willultrlii} H73 Llplll dire: Helma Sandere-Brahrna — e: Eherhard Heiek — en‘: Eva Sehlensig - m: Matthias

Meyer - l‘.p.: Sami Frey, Illlrystyna Janrla - r: '5-'2 min - p: Jeaehim yen Vietinghefl Berlin 1986 375

Cir; gle

Llrktatll turd Elihu: [Lerreeen and Iris Sens}

d: Ulrike Dttinger, Tabea Hlumenschein - re: Ulrike Ctttinger — e: Ulrike Dttinger r: 49 mitt, hfw s p: Ulrike Dttinger 1'9’?-'2-4 Leherllaeicitl {Signs ef Life) d: Werner Herseg - re: ‘Werner Heme; based en the stery Der teiie rm-eiide auf dem Ferr Rerenneeu hy Achim yen Arnim - e: Thnmas ltrlauch — ed: Beate Mainka-

Jellinghaus, Maximilian: Mainlta - rn: Statrres Jiarchaltes - l.p.: Peter Hregle, Welfgang Reichmann, Athina Zacharepeuleu, Wellgang yen Ungern-Sternberg,

‘Wemer Heraeg - r: 9'0 min, brat - p: Wemer Herreg Filrnprcduktien Munich 196$ Lena Rah d: Christian Rischett — re: Manfred Crrunert - e: Gerard Vandenherg - ed: Annette Dern - nr: Eberhard Schecner — l.p.: Krista Stadierr Tile Prticltner, Hiltelaus Paryla, liai Fischer - r: llfi min, eel - p: Mulfimedialifhrisfian Rischertr'EDF 1935

Lena d: Geerge Meerse - re: Geerge Meerse eased en the nevella by fieerg Biichner — e: Crerard ‘Vandenherg - ed: Christa Wemicke - rn:: David Llyavellyn — l.p.: Michael lienig, Leuis ‘lifallden, Sigurd Biselref, Grischa Huber, Relf Escher. lilacs Lea — r: 130 min, eel — p: Literatisches Ccllequium Berlirtfflarhara Meerse Werkshep lilt'it1lT1 Lelare Llelle {Last Leve} dlse: Ingeme Erlgstr-fun - c: Inge lirathch -— ed: Crerhard Theuring -— trti L5. Bach -

l‘.p.: Riidiger ‘Veg,ler, Angela Winkler, Therese Affelter, Riidiger Hacker, Hildegard Eiehmahl - r: IE min, eel - p: Irrgetrte Engshflm and Gerhard Tl'|ettt'lng!IDF 19??

Das letate Lech {fire Last Heir} dire: Hcrhert Achtemhusch - e: Ierg Schmidt-liteirweia — ed: Ulrilre Jeanni - l‘.p.:

Herbert Achternbusch, Annamirl Hierbichler, Fran: Haultlgartner, Aleis Hitsenbichler — r: 91 min, lslw - p: Herben Achtembusch Filmpredulttien Buchderi 1931

Der nan Scirel {Tire Later: Fad} dz Reb-ert yan Aekeren — re: Rehert van Aekeren, Jey hlarkert, Iris Wagner — e: Dietrich Lehmann — ed‘: Clarissa Amhaeh — rn: C.A.M. — i.p.: Delphine Seyrig, Bany

Fester, Peter Hall, Ude liier, Relf Zacher, Jean-Pierre Hermin — r: as min. eel - p: Inter We-st (‘Wenael I_tidecke}r'Rehert van Aclteren ‘H15 Letste Werte {Lest Wards) dire: ‘Wemer Heraeg — e: Thnmas Mallch — ed: El-eate Mainka-Icllingltaus — rn: Cretan

ielk music - r: 13 min, hlw - p: ‘Werner Heme; Filmpreduktien Munich 1957-8 Die lerreteu ,|ahr'eder Eindheit (Tire Lust ‘Peers ef Chiidheed] d: Herben liiickelmann - re: Herbert iiiicltelrnann, ‘Dramas Pets and ethcrs — e: Ifirgen Jfirges — ed: Jane Eeitrr-Sperr — nr: Marltus Urchs - l.p.: Gerhard Crundel,

Herben Bauhuher, Dieter Mustaiefi, Idrg Huhe, Ernst Harmaarald — r: Ill-l min, eel — p: FFAT (Herbert lIEflckelmann]|J'ZDF Main: IEITSI Dleletateu Tap rnnGuIsen'ha {The Lest Days effierrterrltel rilsc: Helma Sanders-Brahms — e: Dietrich Lehmann — rrt: ‘The Can‘ - l.p.: Mascha

Rahh-en, Matthias Fuchs, Ernst Iacehi, Alfred Edel, Magdalena Menterurna, Censuela Heal. Rainer l.ar|gl1ans — r: 1-I12 min. eel - pt HayariaNt'DR Celegne 19'H 375

Cir; glc

Llebel|tkllreralsderTud{Ler-eirCelrierTirrur Death] disc: Rainer ‘Werner Fassbiutler- e: Dietrich Lehma.nn — ed: Fran: "r'r'a1sch [=Rainer Wemer Fassbinder} — rrr: Peer Raben, Helger Mi'tnser— i.p.: Hanna Schygulla, Rainer

Wemer Fassbinder, Hans Hirschmtlller, Iiatrin Schaalre, lngrid Caren, Ursula Srrfitr, Irm Hermann, Wil Rabenbauer {-Peer Raben), Hurt Raab, Rudelf1ilr'aldemar Brem, Yaak liarsunke — r: EB min, bhr — p: antiteater-JiL—Film {Peer Raben, Themes

Schameni) 1969 Llehe Matter, ralr geht ea gar {Dear srarrrar, r"rrr Fr.-re) dire: Christian Ziearer — e: Ierg Michael Baldenius - ed: Stefanie ‘Wilke - l‘.p.: Clatrsc Eberth, Hiklatrs Dutseh, Heine Herrmrurn - r: ST min — pr WDR Celegnefflasis-Filnr Berlin 1911 Llelrernielrle la der Talga {Cede Alnrrre Kill] dz Harald Philipp — sc: ‘Wemer P. Eibase, Harald P"hilipj|;r, based en the neyel by Heinz G. Fiensalik — e: Helmut Meertres — erl: Inge Taschner — rn: Manfred HrTrhler—

l.p.: Themas Hunter, Marie ‘lr'er'sini, Relf Beysen — r: 1115 min, eel - p: Frans Seitr Filmpreduktien 1957 Eine I..lebeselSrraurr [Swarrnrrr Levelrt‘: Velker Schlerrderff — re: Peter Ere-elr, Jean-Claude Carriere, ‘Velker Schlenderlf after Marcel Preust‘s Us rlrrrear tie Swerrn — e: Syen Hyltyist — ed: Franceisc Berrnet — rrr: Hans Werner Henre - l‘.p.: Jeremy lrerrs, Clrnella Muti, Alain Dclen, Marie-

Christine Barrault, Fanny Arrlant - r: 1111 nrin, eel - p: Gaument Parisr'Bie-skep Munielrl"WDR Celegnc 1934

Dle Liehe strra Land {Let-re ef the L-arm‘) al: Klaus ‘Wildcnhalm — sc: Klaus Wfldenhahn, Gisela Tuehtenhagen — e: The-IITIIS

Hartarig- ed: Gisela Tuehtenhagen — r: 77 min {pt. 1), ‘PS min (pt. 2}, bhrr -_n: HDR Hamburg ISTS-4 mes" "lIr'ate_r (Nick's Merrie}

_

_

d: Hrchelas Ray, ‘Wrm ‘Renders — se: 'rIr'tm ‘Headers - e: Edward Lachrnarr, Martin Sclrriier — eel: Peter Przygedda, With ‘Wenders — rrt: Renee Blaltley -— f.p.: Hichelas Ray, Wim ‘Wenders, Susan Ray, Tern Farrell, Renee Hlakley — r: 91 n1in, eel — pt

Read Meyies Filrnpredulttiens GmhH, Berlin {Renee Gundelaelr}.r"Wim ‘Wenders Fiinrpreduktien Herlirrfirliking Film Steckhelm ISSD

Lil Marleen d: Rainer ‘ilferner Fassbinder — re: Manfred Purser, Rainer ‘Wemer Fassbinder — e: Player Sclruraraenb-erger - ed: Iuliane Lerena, Franz Walsch {=Raincr Wemer

Fassbinder} - rrr: Peer Raben - l‘.p.: Hanna Schygulla, Giancarle Giannini, Mel Ferrer, Christine Kaufmann, Hark He-hm, I'