Monthly Archives: October 2013

Weimar Sourcebook

Posted on by

The various articles, written by a number of Weimar intellectuals provide us with a snapshot into the cultural life of inter-war Germany. The final article on the death penalty written by E.M. Mungenast, is a pointed criticism of the death penalty that existed in most “civilized” European countries and in the United States. Mungenast calls the death penalty “a remnant of past times.” He argues against the death penalty not from a religious or even a humane standpoint; Mungenast states that the death penalty “contradicts all principles… of a modern civilized state.” He goes on to theorize that the death penalty not only unfairly takes the life of a citizen of the state, but it costs the state any of the “reparations for his misdeed” this inmate would have to preform which might help the state.

Mungenast is a clear example of the growing secularism and liberalism that Germany and the World went through during the inter-war years. He uses the end of his article to critique America and its handling of the Sacco and Vanzetti case, he realizes that the populous is largely disgusted with the breach of justice that was served to these two men. The death penalty does not keep a population in line it scares and angers a them, Mungenast considers it a break of trust by the government to kill these men. These were all interesting points put forth by Mungenast, that were very different from ones put up by groups such as the Nazi party was espousing. Although Mungensat had rather forward and interesting ideas they were not really put to practice in Germany before the Nazi’s came to power.

Is it a brach of limits and civil freedom if a liberal democratic government decides to kill one of its citizens?

Metropolis’ Status in German Society

Posted on by

In 1927, Metropolis premiered to critical acclaim, citing both the incredible new film making techniques of Fritz Lang as well as its story, in light of recent political developments in Europe. While the film is seen as revolutionary movie in cinematography, it has undergone quite a few changes in the years since its original release in Berlin. I happened to watch the restored version (2010), which is the “most complete” version and is the one deemed closest to Lang’s original release. However, the movie that most audiences saw was not this release, but rather a fraction of the film due to cuts made at the studio level for commercial reasons.

The reasons for the cuts was profitability and recent political developments in Europe. The movie in its original length ran two and a half hours, a long stretch even for some modern films. The film released was pared down to ninety minutes, removing much of the thematic content and motivation for some of the action. For example, the entire plot line of Rotwang’s revenge was removed in order to speed the movie up. While this has little to do with its impact on Europe, it is the other cuts that change the thematic content of the movie.

There is an entire sub-plot of communist revolt that was not released to the masses during Metropolis’ original theatrical run. This theme was originally developed by the author of the short story in response to the Russian (and other subsequent) revolutions; but in light of recent political changes and the economics behind this content, the decision was made to cut this from the film. While there was no political body behind this decision, this is one of the first major examples of self-censorship by the studios. This decision, although it had little impact on movie-goers, set a precidence for future studio executives, leading to further censorship in cinema.

sources

http://www.fipresci.org/undercurrent/issue_0609/pena_metropolis.htm

“Boycotting French Fashion Goods”

Posted on by

The “Boycott of French Fashion Goods” excerpt from the Weimar Sourcebook focused on French Fashion’s place in German society. This piece encouraged a boycott of all French Fashion. Items could be inspired by French Fashion and made in Germany or other countries, but nothing bought could be of French origin.

It was interesting to discover that this boycott took place in 1933. This was about 15 years after the Treaty of Versailles. The fact that there was still such a level of animosity between the two countries at this point in time is very telling. Fashion was one of the areas of commerce that France was noted for. It was one of the countries that produced the styles that would be worn throughout the world. A boycott from this industry could have had a major impact on the market.

The economic crisis of the early 1930s brought about a series of tariffs in Europe and throughout the world that were meant to protect individual countries’ interests and markets. It could be argued that this boycott was another way to protect German interests. This was probably true; however, this was most certainly not the central reason. If the goal were to protect German markets through tariffs and boycotts, this piece would have encouraged a boycott of clothing from all non-German manufacturers and designers. Instead, this boycott focused on France. This piece specifically cites France’s invasion of the Ruhr Valley as a moment of hostility that made it impossible for Germany to support French businesses as Germans were dying at the hands of these businesses’ countrymen.

The situation between France and Germany was extremely tenuous throughout the Interwar Period due to the Treaty of Versailles and the attitude that the French had when facing the Germans: the idea that Germany was entirely to blame for the war; and that Germany needed to be punished for its actions so that it could never create another grand war again.

This attitude created such animosity between the two nations that Germany sought to punish France in return by attacking important aspects of their economy. Did this impact other areas of the French economy as well? Wine trade for instance? Did this boycott even have a great affect on the French market?

Ways to Strength and Beauty

Posted on by

Felix Hollaender’s “Ways to Strength and Beauty” focuses on the importance of the human body’s physical being. He stresses the interconnectivity of the human body and mind, and how they function synergistically. When one improves their physical abilities, he or she also improve their mental attributes at the same time. He frequently references the Greek and Roman perceptions surrounding physical fitness and the aesthetically appreciation of the human form, both male and female included. The human body should not be viewed in solely a sexual manner, but instead celebrated as another human sense that is a representation of the human soul and spirit.

Hollaender describes how certain people within society had difficulty finding the time to train their bodies because their jobs interfered. Modernization has created sedentary desk jobs that do not engage the body physically. These modern office environments did not exist in the past and have replaced jobs were physical exertion was a critical component of the type of work. Hard laborers became fit through the type of work that they did. Since jobs requiring physical assertion have been waning with modernization, the population as a whole must find other ways to maintain their bodies. In order to address this newly developing trend, Hollaender emphasizes the need for sport and other varying forms of physical competition in order to offset the sedentary trend of new forms of employment that has developed.

Do you believe that the Nazi’s were in accordance with Hallaender’s beliefs about the human body and how physical fitness could strengthen the connectedness of the human sole? Or do you believe that they simply viewed human fitness as a means to create better soldiers who would be more adept in battle?

“Metropolis,” Capitalism, and Science

Posted on by

Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis provides a good balance between science fiction and social commentary on Weimar Germany.  It depicts a futuristic, dystopian city in which the upper and working classes are both literally and symbolically divided.  When Freder, the son of the city’s overlord discovers the disconnect between the classes, he realizes his role as a mediator between his father and the workers.  He is helped to discover this by his love interest, the prophetic Maria, who preaches for a peaceful solution for the class divide rather than the violent revolution which ends up occurring.

The film’s esthetics play a large role in emphasizing the distinction between the classes.  While the visible part of the city where the wealthy reside is bright and modern looking, the workers’ city is literally underground and characterized by darker colors.  The opening scenes further show the differences between the residents of each section of the city.  The wealthy are shown playing sports and dancing in elaborate gardens specially designed for their pleasure, while the workers are shown marching in a monotonous mob, downtrodden as they prepare for another long shift.  These scenes and esthetics show the two extreme social classes created by capitalism, rather than a large middle class.

The theme of scientific advancement and the troubles in brings reminded me of Bertrand Russell’s “Icarus, or the Future of Science.”  In Metropolis, scientific advancements do not equal better lives for everyone.  While the city is full of technological advancements that make the lives of the citizens of the surface easier, it comes with the price of the suffering of the underground workers.  The creation of the robot Maria is another example in the film of technology being used to harm others.  The robot’s role was reminiscent of that of the somnambulist in The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, as both were used to carry out the plans of a madman.

Is the idea of there being some sort of mediator between the classes too idealistic to truly work?

A classic struggle of “us against them”

Posted on by

In her article “Us Against Them” in Fitzpatrick’s Stalinism: New Directions, Sarah Davies describes a society in the Soviet Union that is fraught with discontent. In the mid to late 1930’s the elite party leaders were attempting to reconstruct a class system–albeit a different one than before–and the people were growing weary.

The long-term goal of the revolutionaries was to abolish the class system and bring to fruition a country ruled by the working class, but it was a goal that proved to be nearly impossible. If the ideology of the party was based on a hatred for the Bourgeoisie and the belief that the workers ought to rule, eliminating all class structures and identification made it more difficult for the party to differentiate between its allies and enemies. Consequently, some new system had to be constructed to distinguish friend from foe. 

In hindsight it is easy for us to see the flaws in the plan, but at the time it seemed the logical solution to a party-made problem. Elite party members became a new “class,” with workers, peasants, and other social groups like Jews classified at lower statuses. What resulted was in essence a new Bourgeoisie (the Party), with the lower working class remaining in the same old social stratum.

The workers had been “liberated” by the revolution and been given the hope that someday in the near future they would rule the Soviet Union, yet here they were less than two decades later being governed yet again by a class of elites–this time by members of the same revolutionary movement that deplored class distinctions. The grand strategists of this plan created an “us against them” environment that was counterproductive to its overall goals. Additionally, history shows that this dichotomy is a powerful motivating force–just look at the Russian revolutions.

The Communist Party may not have successfully abolished all class distinctions with their revolution, but they did instill a new mentality in the Proletariat. It was this new mentality that sparked discontent towards the new “classes” in the 1930’s, and ultimately eroded the revolutionary foundations of the Soviet Union.

Working Conditions in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis

Posted on by

Fritz Lang’s 1927 science-fiction masterpiece Metropolis depicts a futuristic dystopia ridden with class-struggle. Made in Weimar Germany, the films follows Freder, the son of the city’s overlord, and Maria, his love interest, as they try to disenfranchise the classist nature of this urban society. Throughout the film, there is a stark contrast between the scene’s of the workers slaving endlessly to power the city, and the pleasured lives of rich. The city eventually crumbles due to the rocky internal nature and ends with a reconciliation (despite total destruction) of “head” and “heart.”

The scene that stood out to me the most was when Freder explained the horrific details of an accident on of the machine rooms to his father, Fredersen. Freder was down there out of curiosity of the depths, and was following Maria. He watched in shock when a machine exploded and caused several deaths and injuries. He begs his father to fix these horrible conditions, but his father remains unaffected.

This scene paints a picture of the horrible factory conditions in Weimar Germany, as well of the rest of Europe at the time. Economic output was a top priority as modernization prevailed, even though many times it was at the expense of many workers health and safety. It also depicts how little factory owners cared about these workers. To them, workers were replaceable as everybody was looking for work. Conversely, it also shows that perhaps some wealthy people, such as Freder, were appalled by these conditions and urged immediate change.

Maria prophesized a mediator that would bring the classes together and help the workers, could this be Adolf Hitler?

Philosophy and Metropolis

Posted on by

Metropolis, created in 1927, is the grandfather work of the dystopian genre and reminds me of the epistemology of Rene Descartes and The Matrix (1999), which has deep philosophical roots which revolve around skepticism. The central theme of this movie is about capitalism, and the stark contrast it can create between the working class and the elite, and class relations in general.

Rene Descartes, a famous 17th century French philosopher who questioned the legitimacy of our sensory perception in relation to what was considered “real”, may have had influenced Fritz Lang, the writer and director of Metropolis. What led to this thought was how Freder, the protagonist, did not even know the underground half of the society existed before he unknowingly travelled there.

There are two sides to Metropolis: the above ground and below ground. Above ground lays a vast, utopian city with a thriving economy and beautiful gardens. It is depicted as a dreamscape, with the primary color being white which gives a luxurious, heavenly vibe. Metropolis’ power source comes from underground, where the working class industrialists slave over machines in life threatening working conditions. Freder, who is the protagonist, spends his time dwelling in a beautiful garden, until he follows Maria, a woman which he is immediately taken with, underground. Freder’s initial response to this unfamiliar realm is fright, especially when he witnesses the explosion of a machine which results in the injury of many workers in black uniforms. His initial shock to exposure to a world which existed but he was unaware of lays considerable groundwork for reoccurring themes in the entire science-fiction genre, and undoubtedly had influence on the Wachowski Brothers, the writers and directors of The Matrix.

The scene in which Freder reacts upon his submergence into the industrial, dystopian world is closely mirrored in The Matrix, when Neo passes out from a combination of fear and inability to grasp world he could never sense, but always existed. Although I believe The Matrix’s main themes have more biblical roots, I could not help but draw the connections it had with Rene Descartes and Metropolis.

What connections does this movie have with the fear of the evolution of science and Bertrand Russels ICARUS or the future of science?

“Metropolis” and Scientific Advancement

Posted on by

Humans are creatures of habit; we don’t like change. This dislike can morph into fear, especially when it comes to technology. In his film Metropolis, Fritz Lang explores the marvels and horrors that could come from technological advances. While Lang illustrates class inequality and warfare, the film focuses mainly on scientific advancement as a double-edged sword.

Metropolis is the story of a futuristic city, in which the wealthy live extravagantly while the poor work all day to keep the city running. A woman named Maria tells of a mediator that will close this gap between rich and poor. Freder, the son of the ruler of the city, fills this role of mediator by bringing his father and Grot, the leader of the workers, together.

This film displays the good that can come from scientific advancement, but also the evil. For example, science can bring remarkable things, such as the city of Metropolis, but it can also bring horrible things, such as the Maria robot.  In this way, both Metropolis and Bertrand Russell’s “Icarus or The Future of Science” advise people to be cautious with science because what can come of technological advances is uncertain.

The contract between the actions of the robot Maria and the real Maria show why science is not to be trusted. The robot Maria leads the workers out of their underground city, leaving the machines and their children behind. The real Maria goes to the workers’ city and saves the children. This scene shows the audience that scientific advancements are not always better for humanity. Humans need to be cautious and aware of their actions when using technology because it can be dangerous.

Metropolis shows the uneasy and fear of the 1920s. Science was advancing and changing how people thought and perceived reality.  This film shows the meeting of humanity with its creations.

Metropolis

Posted on by

Metropolis is a 1927 film made in Germany, and considered to be the world’s first important science fiction film. It is set in a future where thousands of nameless workers toil in underground factories to help the wealthy minority live in peace on the surface.

The film follows the exploits of Freder, the son of a wealthy industrialist, and Maria, the daughter of a worker. Freder learns compassion for the workers when he goes down to their level, literally and figuratively, and witnesses an explosion that is caused by the carelessness of fatigued, overworked men. This sets in motion his desire to connect the working class and the upper class, which he does through persistence, and the odd arrival of a robot that stirs up a workers revolution through sexual tension, that harms both the wealthy and upper classes. The movie ends with Freder convincing his father and a worker to shake.

The scene I find most fascinating is at the beginning. The movie describes the workers as a horde of similarly dressed workers walking in and out for their shifts, and their hazardous and undesirable working conditions. Simultaneously, the children of the wealthy are frolicking and embracing around a fountain, on the surface level of the city. While this is admittedly a pessimistic science fiction view of the future, and partially similar of Orwell’s 1984, it raises a question about Weimar Germany. While everyone has heard of the culture revolution, including Bauhaus architecture and jazz music, and the economic upturn under Stresemann after 1925, I don’t fully understand how this could have been a reality for a vast majority of a post-War nation. While the issue of capital may have been largely solved through American loans, the utilization of these resources would have required daily shifts from the majority of the population, evoking a similar image to that of the opening scene in the movie. I don’t understand how Weimar Germany can be simultaneously known for baskets of paper money during the hyper inflation of 1923, and the supposed cultural freedom. My question is, how did the average German worker, or peasant, living anywhere but in a large city, live? Did they have access to such luxuries? Did they have time to participate in such luxuries? Were their daily lives that different than under the monarchy?

Also, on a minor note, there was a clock at the start of the movie that only had 10 hours, instead of 12. Does anyone know why?