Tag: Soviet film
These items have all been tagged with the tag "Soviet film", You can see other tags in the Tag CloudDiscuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)
Opening Pabst’s Pandora’s Box:
The Evils of Democracy, Modernization and the New Woman in Weimar Germany
I. Introduction
The Weimar Republic stands as a time of economic chaos, diminished public morale and the international exposure of German authoritarian and military weakness, which became the negative emblem of a crisis in masculinity in one of the leading world powers. However, the years between 1918 and 1933 also marked an unprecedented development in the German film industry, which rapidly absorbed the technical virtuosity of Soviet film and the visual magnificence and fluidity of Hollywood to create its unique, perhaps neurotic national cinema. The product proved so enigmatic, early German film has permanently remained a rich topic of discussion and controversy for critics, opening itself to multiple interpretations involving Marxist theory, psychoanalysis and feminist discourses to name just a few.
With the collapse of the conservative social order of the bourgeois after the defeat in WWI, the German landscape became a dynamic space where various moral conflicts came to the forefront and, for the first time, achieved notoriety. The desire to embrace the egalitarian promises of democracy clashed with a reluctance to adopt an imported product as the national standard. The New Republic also endured the blows of rapid industrialization and the reorganization of traditional class systems, with a new white collar class gaining public presence and financial power. Finally and perhaps the most problematic novelty of a new-found freedom, revolved around the presence of women in the workforce and other traditional male spheres and their increasingly important economic status as consumers, a physical reminder of the emasculation of Germany and the dissolution of traditional gender boundaries.
What differentiates Weimar cinema resides more in its willingness to candidly explore male anxiety over the rapid disintegration of traditional moral values, the blurring of gender and class boundaries and the simultaneous desire and hatred for the sexualized, autonomous woman--the New Woman. She was often displaced and explored through a dialogue of perversion and sexual excess associated with anti-nationalistic feelings for democracy and modernity, both represented by the negative designation of “Americanism,” or forsaking German identity in favor of superficiality and capitalism. (McCormick 17) Nowhere are the indices of conflict more present that in the films of the time. In fact, German sociologist Siegfried Kracauer, living through this period, equates Weimar film to the “German psyche,” being one of the first to point out the interrelation between social conflict and psychological repression and its portrayal in the popular culture apparatuses of the time, mainly film.
It is precisely within the volatile environment of the Weimar Republic that G.W. Pabst enters film history, not only as an auteur but also as an objective commentator of the world around him. Pabst’s role of auteur finds its peak in his adaptation of Frank Wedekind’s highly erotic and society-denouncing Lulu Plays, Der Erdgeist (Earth Spirit) and Die Büchse der Pandora (Pandora’s Box), to produce a discourse of the times in Pandora’s Box, a film he co-wrote and directed which finally opened in 1928. Praised by Kracauer for his adherence to social realism in previous films such as The Joyless Street, Pandora’s Box encountered an unenthusiastic and even vindictive critical reception. It comes as no surprise the film was a failure in its day criticized for its betrayal of Wedekind’s “German-ness,” its superficial focus on visual effects and luscious surfaces and its lack of substance, mainly embodied in American actress Louise Brooks’s subtle portrayal of German mega femme fatale Lulu. For many years, Kracauer’s perception of Pandora’s Box as a failure because of its lack of expressivity and, quoting his contemporary Potamkin, “atmosphere without content,” remained the dominant criticism of the film. In many ways, I find it disconcerting for Kracauer to have taken such a narrow view, overlooking some of the most prominent issues of the time as expressed in Pabst’s film, especially the role of the New Woman and its portrayal of Germany’s crisis in masculinity. Moreover, it captures the essence of the New Republic with its moral decline, extreme sexual liberation and the changes that made this period unusually chaotic.
Pabst’s genius has been overlooked by what many call his lack of fixity and consistency. Critics have termed him “a passive contemporary carried by the times,” often misconstruing his technique in terms of his irresolution and characterizing him as frustrated, disappointed and angry. In fact, he stands as “the betrayer of realism.” (Rentschler 3) Shunned by his own critics, it is fortunate recent criticism has focused on the complexity of the film and its connections to its time. Although sometimes issues have been generalized or romanticized, these critics have attempted to break through the fascinating surface image and deal with the darker themes portrayed in the film and Pabst role as a social critic.
Thomas Elsaesser’s 1983 essay “Lulu and the Meter Man” brought new light into Pandora’s Box, focusing on gender relations and Lulu’s agency or lack thereof, but ultimately falling short of a complete interpretation because it stresses only the more apparent male agency and concludes Lulu is pure image, not attached to the socio-historical circumstances of the time. He also overlooks Pabst’s deviation from Wedekind’s play and deep involvement in the creation of his Lulu. (Elsaesser, “Lulu and the Meter Man” 32-34) Furthermore, Elsaesser much like Mary Ann Doanne in “The Erotic Barter,” oversimplifies the film’s dynamics and Lulu’s character in terms of a Marxist argument of economic exchange, again dismissing the social context and Pabst’s active agency in his substantial recreation of Wedekind’s plays and Lulu’s role beyond pure image or passive item of male sexual economic exchange. (Mary Ann Doane 66, 70) In contrast, Cathy Raymond’s essay “Lulu Recast: G.W. Pabst’s Cinematic Adaptation of Wedekind’s Plays,” emphasizes Pabst’s favorable construction of Lulu as an autonomous woman, explains Pabst’s rejection of Wedekind’s femme fatale stereotype but romanticizes Lulu’s ensuing role as victim of male machinations to the extent the character loses her essence and subsequently Pabst’s commentary on society through this primary, captivating figure and her journey. The figure of Lulu provides a complex analysis of the deficiencies of modern society, the crisis brought about by rapid change in Germany and the problematic transgression of moral and gender boundaries.
It is my belief most readings of Pandora’s Box up to date lack a comprehensive interpretation that should include historical and economic background of the Weimar Republic, Kracauer’s notion of the “German psyche” as expressed in film, modernization’s impact on traditional class and gender boundaries, the emergence of the New Woman, the power hierarchy created by the film medium’s explosive popularity and growth and, most importantly, Pabst’s reading of Wedekind and his very unique, personal portrayal of Lulu. Considering Pabst’s efforts in finding the right Lulu, I tend to see her character as an extension of the director, both his creation and his perspective. It is not unusual to find parallels between Pabst’s own life, his tragic genius, and his marginal characters.
My analysis of Pandora’s Box will be divided in two parts. First, I propose to provide a brief historical background pertinent to my reading of Pandora’s Box and suggestive of the social atmosphere Pabst desired to capture and comment upon. I will concentrate on major changes affecting the Weimar Republic and the resulting instability. Most significantly, I will point out how Pandora’s Box relates to the social issues of the time and how Pabst creates images directly exposing a split society in a state of denial, its desire to escape the grim reality, and its lack of power and anxiety over the deconstruction of traditional gender and class roles.
My discussion of the increasing popularity of film in Weimar Germany and the ensuing privileged space of the director allows me to cast Pabst as a figure embracing transition and technological advances in cinema. Pabst’s art, his cinematic vision and virtuosity as editor—the tricks hidden in his “Pandora’s box” so to speak—achieve a lasting effect on the viewer, augmenting the real-life quality of the film so characteristic and consistent in his work.
In the second part of this essay I intend to analyze existing readings of Pandora’s Box, mainly Elsaesser, Donne and Raymond and provide my own interpretation informed by previous criticism, historical background and film as a product of repressed social conflict and as a vehicle to challenge the status quo. In keeping with the theme of this essay, I will emphasize Pabst’s contribution to Weimar cinema and what I deem a highly successful adaptation and social portrait of Frank Wedekind’s Lulu Plays, Earth Spirit and Pandora’s Box. It is my belief Lulu was not only Pabst’s creation but a sort of incarnation and voice. His portrayal of this character addresses the problem of negative attitudes toward femininity and the emergence of the New Woman, without demonizing her with the traditional image we clearly see in Josef von Stenberg’s The Blue Angel and its almost caricaturist vamp Lola Lola. Finally, Lulu’s journey and transformation expresses Pabst’s very personal analysis of the unpleasant aspects of society, usually window-dressed and unvoiced: human vice, lust and greed.
Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)
