1POPULAR CINEMA

These sociopsychological categories give some indication of why the
“centennial actor” who has been a “friend, jester, and soul mate” to German
audiences for over seventy years cannot be understood outside his
formative period during the Third Reich. Rühmann’s posthumous status as
a model of quiet nonconformity and passive resistance and as, to quote one
writer, a “symbol of freedom” 11 makes this connection all the more relevant
to historical reassessments. While the actor’s appeal as a figure of integration
has always included contradictory character traits, his almost habitual
celebration as the quintessential German actor demands further attention,
especially in relation to the problematic legacies of the past. Rühmann and
the underlying assumptions about the identity of actor and role have given
rise to an almost compulsive concern with authenticity even, or especially,
where his characters manifest symptoms of inauthenticity. It is in this integrative
effect, which translates social and sexual conflicts into psychological
states, that we must locate the main source of his continuous popularity
with German audiences and, of course, his complete lack of appeal on international
markets.
Rühmann’s comic style developed in the silent comedy of the 1920s and
the sound comedy of the early 1930s and, after its further codification during
the late 1930s and early 1940s, remained basically unaffected both by
the dramatic political and social changes during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s
and the new media-political pressures of the 1980s and 1990s. Since his first
screen appearance in 1926, Rühmann has been identified with a distinctly
German sense of humor. This almost symbiotic relationship was forged
within a self-consciously popular cinema that saw the star system as an effective
compromise between national traditions and international trends.
Rühmann’s success within this system hinged on his performative articulation
of two central topoi within Weimar culture, the rise of white-collar society
and the decline of traditional masculinity. He translated the typical
reactions of the “little man” into the highly codified language of comic
acting and used his unique speaking style to express anxiety, stress, and
frustration in alternatively defensive and aggressive ways. Throughout, his
screen persona remained defined by a profound sense of ambivalence that
proved stronger than the compulsive striving toward closure in the obligatory
happy endings. 12
Many critics have introduced oppositional pairs like brave vs. cowardly,
ebullient vs. inhibited, modest vs. impertinent, pedantic vs. chaotic, and disrespectful
vs. submissive to describe Rühmann’s popular appeal. Stephen
Stars 91