Censorship and its Effect on German Cinema during the Inter War Years

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Intro

“As studies of various forms of self-censorship show, the constraints applied to taboo material are creative in their effect rather than simply cancelling out the desire they tone it to take new desires”. In this essay I will be looking into how censorship laws affected German cinema and filmmaking during the Inter-War years of 1919 to 1932. In my opinion censorship laws affected all aspects of cinema as the filmmakers, actors and production companies were affected.

The beginnings of censorship in cinema

The concept of censorship began to emerge in line with the growing fear around how influential cinema was becoming during the 1920’s. The argument against the medium of cinema came from a very narrow minded point of view post world war one. People were still reeling in the trauma of war and I believe they looked to activities such as the cinema as forms of escapism. Cinema was seen by many as a waste of time and harmful. In a response to an article titled “Against a cinema that makes women stupid” (1913) the anonymous author highlights how cinema is demeaning the working class when they should be bettering themselves with education. The author continues on to say how dangerous the medium of cinema is as it “lures the voyeuristic masses to the cinemas every day and leave them staring, with lust and excitement, at the white screen”. It was believed that “The cinema’s trash has a far more penetrating and dangerous effect since the viewer does not have to imagine the ugly sights but sees everything played out more vividly and realistically before his eyes”

In 1920, two years on from the ending of World War 1, the Reich German Government awareness of the influence of cinema was growing. The Government believed “That undesirable consequences may result if everyone is permitted unrestricted access to all that is available to be seen, read or heard”.

“Abolished by the Rat der Volksbeauftragten (Council of the People’s Deputies) on November 12, 1918, censorship was reintroduced in Germany with the Reichslichtspielgesetz (Reich Motion Picture Law), which was passed on May 12, 1920. According to this law, every film needed to be approved by a state censorship board (located in Berlin and Munich) prior to its exhibition.” The Reichslichtspielgesetz board was made up of representatives elected by the German government. The representatives themselves felt more pressure from the government to not let anything derogatory slip by them and in turn often enforced stricter laws. For a film to pass the Reich Motion Picture Law it had to not “endanger public safety.. endanger the German reputation or German relations with Foreign nations”. There was another set of restrictions for younger audiences as the Reichslichtspielgesetz “ Censorship is stricter for children under eighteen years of age who are forbidden to see any film that gives use for concern over negative effects on moral, spiritual or hygienic development or overexcites the fantasy of young people.” The censorship board had the complete right to cut parts of a film out and leave the rest, as can be seen with the film ‘Kuhle Wampe’

Censorship in action – ‘Kuhle Wampe’ (1932)

‘Kuhle Wampe’ or ‘To Whom does the World belong?’ Is a 1932 German feature film written by Bertolt Brecht. The film was banned in March 1932 before opening, with cuts having been made, in Berlin on May 30th 1932. The film begins during the great depression where unemployment is high in Germany. The monotony of interwar Germany and the hopelessness of society is evident in Kuhle Wampe. As the film begins we are hit with the facts of the great depressions through newspaper headlines with 2.7 million seeking jobs in June. I feel as though the film is quite experimental for the time as it frequently leaves the viewer analysing subtext of the scene. Unemployment in the film is represented by masses of people on bikes with the camera’s point of view focused on the spinning wheels through the streets. Unemployed people are seen scrambling to read the newspaper as well as an unemployed man stopping to listen to a musician in the street. ‘Everyday the same fight’ was the workers experience of being without work. These scenes depict a version of Germany that’s unsuccessful and quite depressing.

The film also contains themes such as suicide and eviction. The son in the German family is consistently being told that he is lazy and that it’s not good enough to be unemployed. The parents seem to be in a dire financial situation as they sit around the table for dinner. The young man is then seen removing his watch (which is of worth to his family) and ending his own life. The scene cuts back to his bike hanging from the ceiling as we are reminded that the root of the events having just occurred is unemployment. The subtitles on screen hit quite hard in my opinion as they show how difficult the times were for people during the Inter-War years. “One unemployed worker less” condenses the end of the young mans life. The film was cut under the Reichslichtspielgesetz from eighty minutes to seventy six minutes after being banned for three months. The film itself became an ideal for political cinema in the 1960’s.

UFA

The Universum-Film AG was a German film board that was founded in 1917. The aim of the UFA was to produce films that could compete against other productions from Hollywood at the time. Introducing the film business into Germany post the devastation of world war one was no easy feat. The UFA was set up as a company under the German government at the time. The financial risk involved in going into film production was so great that there was no other choice but for the government to be involved. This meant that politics now had a foot in the door of the German film industry. Politicians were undoubtedly afraid of the power of the medium of cinema to the masses during such a fragile time in Germany. The control that the UFA now granted the German government was immense. They had direct access to millions of people. The founding of the UFA was questioned “as the propaganda arm of the German Military or as a belated none the less far-sighted business venture?”

Surviving as an Actor under censorship

German actors such as Reinhold Schunzel were affected by censorship during the Inter-War years. During the lead up to world war one and 1920 Schunzel was known to play “diabolical figures – seducers, homosexual extortionists and swindlers”. These characters under Reich Motion Picture Law would not be permitted on screen and would have ended Schunzels career.

To continue acting he had to develop a different character for the screen. “Schunzel developed an alternative persona, essentially comic, the Berlin street-wise good for nothing”. In my opinion adapting to become a character that continues to make films without attract the governments attention during this time was a very positive choice for any actor during the Inter-War years. Filmmakers, writers and directors had to deal with censorship differently as they could write roles to fit these characters. In this case Reinhold Schunzel turned his new persona “local character into a nationally recognised type”. The actor himself went onto make anti-nazi films post World War 2.

Expressionist Cinema – Fritz Lang

Fritz Lang was a German expressionist film maker during the Inter-War years. Expressionist filmmaking was an artistic style of filmmaking that focused on distorting the viewers emotions. As it was not the first form of expressionism it had principles to begin with. In expressionist film “emotional distortion is key… these films opt for dramatically expressive interpretations so the films mood is a literal tangible presence”. I believe Fritz Lang outwitted German censorship laws in his filmmaking by utilising different cinematic techniques. His use of political allegories in his filmmaking have carried into classic films such as George Orwell’s 1984. Filmmakers such as Fritz Lang had to self censor their films. This is where the cinematic techniques are used as the filmmakers still included topics such as relationships, unemployment, political viewpoints without showing the viewer on screen in a literal way. In my opinion censorship during the Inter-War years pushed filmmakers to utilise cinematic techniques that allowed taboo topics to be self realised by the viewer in the subtext of a film and gave more meaning to film.

Metropolis (1927) mirroring and projecting

Metropolis (1927) was a film collaboration between Fritz Lang and UFA and went on record to be the most refined and costly film that came from the German film industry at the time. Metropolis is a silent German expressionist film that centres around a dystopian society where there is a social divide and revolt between the working class and authority. The film mirrors the political landscape of Germany during the Inter-War years where people were beginning to question authority. The film also signals to a future where totalitarianism takes over.

The film was of course censored and almost a quarter of the film was removed. Subsequently “whole subplots (such as the worker 11811’s trip to Yoshiwara, the pleasure quarter) were cut and characters eliminated (Desertus the monk, head of the sect of Gothics)”. The removal of these specific parts demonstrate how fearful the censorship board was for German people to be skewed towards subcultures and rebellion. The scene where ‘worker 11811’ swaps lives with Freder (son of the master of Metropolis) was cut from the film as the former subservient worker runs off to a life of excess and pleasure, rather than following his orders. The cutting of this storyline again reflects the Censorship board’s ideas that activities that aren’t work or bettering the society are foolish. There are clear themes of revolt against authority and the concept of who controls society to be the way it is. There is a scene between Joh Fredersen and his son Freder where Freder begins to find out about the working class that his father controls. He poses the question “What if one day those in the depths rise up against you?” again proposing the concept of impending revolution.

Fritz Lang utilises set design, costume design, character makeup and camera techniques to play into the subtext of his films. The sets of Metropolis plays into looking towards a dystopian future with the use of angular streamlined buildings and futuristic roads in the sky in the city above ground. They also look to a regressive past with the dark dreary design of the ‘depths’ in the workers catacombs.

The cameras point of view further develops the subtext of Metropolis. A scene at the beginning of the film shows the workers going deep below to the catacombs to begin their shifts. The point of view of the back of the workers heads takes away their identity, that they are being controlled and used to run the whole city under one man’s orders. The cameras point of view and use of light is also very effective during a chase seen between Maria and Rotwang in the catacombs. A spotlight is used to give us Rotwang’s point of view while chasing Maria without showing him being violent. The fear and awareness of violence is still felt by the viewer without being literal.

The idea of Joh Fredersen controlling the city reflects on the view of politics at the time and Facism. Throughout the film he questions his advisors as he realises they are keeping information about Metropolis from him. When he witnesses Maria speaking to the workers in the catacombs he sees her as a threat to his power when he exclaims “ I shall saw discord between them and her! I shall destroy their belief in this woman—“ just as the concept of propaganda wanted to control people’s beliefs. I believe Metropolis culminates how filmmaking in Germany during the Inter-War years flourished under the constraints of censorship. Even though a quarter of the film was cut under Reich Motion Picture Law, it still told the story through set design, camera techniques, lighting and costume design.

Conclusion

After my research I believe that Censorship was a plan from the German government to control what their citizens believed and also how the world saw Germany during the Inter-War years. They believed through law enforcement they could control the industry and in turn the people in their favour. The government didn’t understand the creative industry of filmmaking as the Reich Motion Picture Law only improved German filmmaking. In my opinion limitations and constraints harbour creativity and provided more meaning in expressionist filmmaking. The censorship laws of the 1920’s called filmmakers to action when it came to censored topics rather than silencing them. The use of allegories and subtext to self censor changed cinema for the better.

Bibliography

Brody, Stephen. Screen Violence and Film Censorship – a review of research. London her majesty’s Stationary Office. 1977
Elsaesser, Thomas. Weimar Cinema and after: Germany’s Historical Imaginary. Routledge, 2000
Gunning, Tom. The Films of Fritz Lang: Allegories of Vision and Modernity. British Film Institute, 2000
Kaes, A., Baer, N., & Cowan, M. The promise of cinema : German film theory, 1907-1933.(Eds.). (2016) Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com, Accessed 4/04/2019

Click Here To Order Now!