14.11.2012 Views

1POPULAR CINEMA

1POPULAR CINEMA

1POPULAR CINEMA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

had been strongly connected to a tradition of ironic detachment and critical<br />

reflexivity that was unmistakably coded as Jewish in the critical reception<br />

of their urban comedies. What previously had been evoked with innocence<br />

and pride now functioned as an aggressive gesture of exclusion that,<br />

in some instances, resulted in the summary dismissal of Weimar cinema as<br />

too “Jewish.”<br />

The actors, screenwriters, producers, and directors thus categorized<br />

were affected doubly by the new racialized thinking: first in their professional<br />

status, and second in the reception of their work. The emergence of<br />

“Jewish” as a category in film criticism—and, of course, more generally, in<br />

political rhetoric—was bound to interfere with a director’s productivity,<br />

from his daily dealings with studio executives and representatives of the<br />

ministry to his occasional discussions with colleagues and friends on the future<br />

of filmmaking and, of course, the new regime. Some directors felt the<br />

need to “prove” that their continued employment was essential to the German<br />

film industry, while others quickly realized the seriousness of the political<br />

situation. Again others believed, mistakenly, that their films would<br />

continue to be appreciated by supportive audiences. The case-by-case decisions<br />

on questions of membership by the Propaganda Ministry only added<br />

to the widespread confusion among film professionals. While most personnel<br />

decisions in 1933 cited Jewishness as a sufficient category of exclusion<br />

from the Reich Film Chamber and its allied organizations, there seems to<br />

have been no binding rule on the application of the Aryan Clause in individual<br />

cases. Precisely this exceptionalism made the impact of anti-Semitism<br />

on filmmaking and filmmakers all the more pernicious.<br />

In addition to Kosterlitz and Schünzel, the following directors continued<br />

to work under these adverse conditions: Fritz Kortner, Richard Oswald,<br />

Max Ophüls, Ludwig Berger, Robert Siodmak, and Kurt Bernhardt. Prior<br />

to his departure for Vienna as the first stop in a long journey of exile, Kortner<br />

still saw the January release of the romantic comedy So ein Mädel<br />

vergißt man nicht (You Don’t Forget Such a Girl). In March and April, Oswald<br />

directed the famous Jewish tenor Joseph Schmidt in Ein Lied geht um<br />

die Welt (A Song Travels around the World) before leaving Berlin for London.<br />

Yet until the day of their departure, these directors regularly received<br />

positive reviews that combined standard phrases such as “witty,” “highspirited,”<br />

“sophisticated,” and “charming” with admiring remarks on their<br />

artistic originality and creative integrity. Ophüls was singled out for his innovative<br />

use of visual and acoustic effects in Liebelei and Berger praised for<br />

Made in 1933 29

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!