Notes
1. Pabst’s remark is cited in K.M. (Kenneth MacPherson), “Die Liebe der Jeanne Ney,” Close-Up, 1 (December 1927), 17–27, here pp. 18–19. Cf. Willy Haas, “Die Amerikaner beleidigen uns . . !?” Film-Kurier, 5 November 1924.
2. Cf. Rainer Pommerin, Der Kaiser und Amerika (Cologne/Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 1986), pp. 208–209; Frank Trommler, “The Rise and Fall of Americanism in Germany,” in Trommler and McVeigh (eds.), America and the Germans, vol. II, pp. 332–342.
3. The characterization of American as cultureless refused to die. Cf. Beck, Germany Rediscovers America, pp. 2–3; Laqueur, Weimar, p. 32.
4. Some American pictures appeared among approximately 250 smuggled into the country during 1919 and 1920. Traub, Die UFA, p. 40.
5. See, for example, “Die Krisis des französischen Films,” Der Film, 3 August 1918, p. 55. Cf. in Kinematograph: “Französische Filmsorgen,” 22 August 1917; “Neues vom Ausland—Der südamerikanische Markt,” 5 September 1917; “Neues vom Ausland-Russland,” 7 November 1917.
6. Cf. the review of “Gehetzte Menschen,” Lichtbildbühne, 20 March 1919, p. 29, and Egon Jacobsohn’s reviews in Kinematograph, 2 April 1919. Cf. reviews of “Schmutziges Geld,” Der Film, 10 May 1919, p. 34; Lichtbildbühne, 24 May 1919, p. 29; Der Film, 28 February 1920, p. 47, and 17 April 1920, p. 48.
7. “Neues vom Ausland,” Kinematograph, 27 February 1918; “Das Ende des amerikanischen Filmtrusts,” Der Film, 14 September 1918, pp. 53–54.
8. Egon Jacobsohn reviewed Ernst Lubitsch’s Carmen from this perspective: Kinematograph, 15 January 1919, as did a critic in Lichtbildbühne, 21 December 1918, p. 71. The international cinema was likewise the yardstick in Alfred Rosenthal’s comments on Veritas vincit: “Der Triumph des deutschen Films,” Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung, 15 April 1919. Ludwig Brauner adopted the same approach in reviews of Paul Leni’s Prinz Kuckuck and Fritz Lang’s Die Spinnen: Kinematograph, 1 October 1919, and 8 October 1919. Most explicit in this regard was a panegyric for Lubitsch’s Madame Dubarry by Arthur Liebert, which claimed that more works of this caliber would end America’s international dominance: Der Film, 20 September 1919, p. 46.
9. Karl Figdor in Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung, 25 October 1919, p. 36.
10. See “Der Filmautor—Der deutsche Film in Frieden,” Kinematograph, 30 April 1919.
11. Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung, 18 October 1919, pp. 42–43.
12. Urban Gad, “Der amerikanische Grossfilm,” Lichtbildbühne, 15 March 1919, pp. 14–16, and 22 March 1919, pp. 28–30. Cf. Robert Bogyansky, “Der deutsche Film,” Film-Kurier, 4 March 1920; Lichtbildbühne, 26 July 1919, p. 21.
13. See Thomas Saunders, “History in the Making: Weimar Cinema and National Identity,” in Bruce Murray and Christopher Wickham (eds.), Framing the Past (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992), pp. 42–67.
14. “Die Amerikaner,” Kinematograph, 13 August 1919.
15. Karl Figdor in Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung, 3 January 1920, p. 24.
16. “Stockholmer Kino-Bericht,” Kinematograph, 10 July 1918. “Der amerikanische Film,” Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung, 22 November 1919, pp. 30–32. Historians would disagree with the value judgments and choice of language, but the essential contrast sketched by Genenncher is that taken up by Kracauer, Eisner et al.
17. See the summary in A. Hellwig, “National Kinoreform,” Soziale Kultur, 38 (1918), 218–223.
18. Saunders, “History in the Making.”
19. In review of Liebe in Der Film, 21 December 1919, p. 39; Lichtbildbühne, 1 February 1919, p. 26. Hans Richter (ed.), Das Kinojahrbuch, 1921 (Berlin: H. Richter Verlag, 1921), vol. III, pp. 9–10. Cf. Ihering, Von Reinhardt bis Brecht, vol. I, p. 448. Cf. the later reflections of Heinz Michaelis, “Wahrer und falscher Internationalismus im deutschen Film,” Film-Kurier, 5 January 1923.
20. See Buscombe, “Film History and the Idea of a National Cinema.”
21. “Die Schicksalstunde der deutschen Filmindustrie,” Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung, 19 June 1920, pp. 10–11. Cf. P. Schmitt, “Von der Weltgeltung des deutschen Films,” Der Türmer, 20 (1918), 256–258 for a nationalist lament about prewar compulsion to view the world through French glasses.
22. See Heller, Literarische Intelligenz und Film, pp. 39–44, 67–98. Cf. Bier, “Max Reinhardt und die PAGU,” p. 29.
23. See Hugo Zehder, Der Film vom Morgen (Berlin/Dresden: Rudolf Kaemmerer, 1923). Elsaesser, “German Silent Cinema,” notes the self-conscious character of these ambitions.
24. Siemsen was a member of the left-wing splinter Socialist Workers’ Party. See Wolfgang Jacobsen’s biographical sketch in H.-M. Bock (ed.), CineGraph. Siemsen’s own writings, now collected as Schriften, 3 vols. (Essen: Torso Verlag, 1985–1989) are indispensable, especially those from the collection of travel anecdotes and reflections, Wo hast du dich denn herumgetrieben: Erlebnisse (Munich: Kurt Wolff Verlag, 1920) which includes commentary on the war and capitalism and a biting attack on militarism (“Potsdam oder Döberitz,” pp. 58–69). Through the mid-1920s Siemsen wrote film reviews for Die Weltbühne and edited the film section of the liberal 8 Uhr-Abendblatt.
25. Siemsen, “Film-Reform?” Die Weltbühne, 15 (1919), vol. I, pp. 292–294. Cf. Rudolf Kurtz, “Der Reform-Film,” ibid., pp. 117–119; Laroche, “Kinokritik,” Der Kritiker, 1, 25 (1919), 9–10.
26. Siemsen, “Die Filmerei,” Die Weltbühne, 17 (1921), vol. I, pp. 101–105.
27. Cf. Paul Beyer, “Film! Kunst?” Der Kritiker, 3 (March 1921), 88–90; Hugo Zehder, Der Film von Morgen, especially Siemsen’s “Das Filmmanuskript,” pp. 52–60; eu. (Erich Hamburger?), “Das Tier im Film,” Berliner Tageblatt, 4 March 1923. Béla Balázs, Der Sichtbare Mensch, in his Schriften zum Film, vol. I, pp. 108–112. Cf. Joseph Zsuffa, Béla Balázs, The Man and the Artist (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 109–122.
28. In a chapter from Wo hast du dich denn herumgetrieben entitled “Amerika” (pp. 108–111), Siemsen wrote in 1920 that he had wanted to visit America until he read about grain growers there destroying their harvest while malnutrition was prevalent in Europe. He blamed this lunacy, like the war, on the logic of capitalism and lost all desire to see America. His respect for American film was nonetheless genuine.
29. See Albersmeier, Die Herausforderung des Films an die französische Literatur, pp. 32–34.
30. See Yvan Goll, “Das Kinodram,” Die neue Schaubühne, 2 (1920), 141–143, and Claire Goll, “Amerikanisches Kino,” ibid., pp. 164–165. Both are reproduced in Kaes, Kino-Debatte, pp. 136–139; 146–148.
31. Rudolf Kurtz, “Kampf ums Kino: Wider Hans Siemsen,” Die Weltbühne, 17 (1921), vol. I, pp. 166–168; with reply from Peter Panter (Kurt Tucholsky), “Für Hans Siemsen,” pp. 168–170. For the reprint and Haas’s rejoinder see Film-Kurier, 10 and 11 February 1921.
32. Siemsen, “Deutsche Filme,” Die Weltbühne, 17 (1921), vol. II, pp. 253–257.
33. Ludwig Wolff, “Brief an Hans Siemsen,” ibid., 315–316. Cf. “Friede,” Kinematograph, 9 July 1919; K. Figdor, “Ensemble- oder Star-System im Exportfilm?” Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung, 25 October 1919, pp. 36–37.
34. Siemsen, “Erwiderung an Ludwig Wolff,” Die Weltbühne, 17 (1921), vol. II, pp. 358–360.
35. Hans Glenk, “Auslandsfilme,” ibid., pp. 415–417.
36. Glenk spoke of Pickford in a way which suggested he too had seen the film; he was in all likelihood also familiar with Haas’s review.
37. Haas, “Ein Mary-Pickford-Film in Berlin,” Film-Kurier, 28 February 1921.
38. Haas, “Die Degeneration der Filmkunst,” ibid., 6 April 1921. Not long after, Béla Balázs, then resident in Vienna, saw an ideal future in the synthesis of European art and American technology: “Achtung! Amerika kommt!” in his Schriften zum Film, vol. I, pp. 154–155.
39. One expert, disgruntled by the fact that with five years of foreign production to choose from German distributors were importing miles of these serials, accurately estimated that a single American company, Universal, was swallowing up one-half of the import quota: Quintus Fixlein, “Filmwirtschaft: Auslese des Schlechtesten,” Das Tagebuch, 2 (1921), 1026–1027. Cf. Wolffsohn (ed.), Jahrbuch der Filmindustrie, vol. I, p. 165.
40. Der Film, 3 July 1921, pp. 46, 49. Cf. the preview based on foreign experience by H.K., “Der amerikanische Sensationsfilm,” Vorwärts, 15 April 1921.
41. Brauner’s review of “Goliath Armstrong” in Kinematograph, 1 May 1921. Cf. ina (Paul Medina), “Tarzan,” Film-Kurier, 7 May 1921; 1f., “Tarzans Roman,” Film-Kurier, 27 August 1921, and “Mit Büchse und Spaten,” in Film-Kurier, 3 September 1921, and Berliner Börsen-Courier, no. 317, 10 July 1921, p. 13. C. F. W. Behl, editor of Der Kritiker, argued that two features almost always distinguished American movies—“sugary femininity and brutal manliness”: Freie Deutsche Bühne, 2 (1921), 1194.
42. Laupp, “Film,” Der Kritiker, August 1921, p. 16. A convenient point of entry to the range of opinion on the early American sensationalist films is the short-lived journal Film und Presse, nos. 17/18–33/34, 1921, which presented a digest of contemporary reviews. Cf. the poll among producers before the first wave of American films which linked the popularity of sensationalism to public restlessness and the industry’s desire to capture markets abroad: “Die Produktion der neuen Saison,” Der Film, 26 March 1921, pp. 28–29. Laqueur, Weimar, pp. 234–235, explains the postwar preference for what he calls horror films as a demand for stimulation as intense as the war.
43. For reactions to “Goliath Armstrong” see Der Film: 30 April 1921, p. 39; 10 July 1921, p. 26; 17 July 1921, p. 47; 24 July 1921, p. 38.
44. Cf. Kinematograph, 1 May 1921, and 7 August 1921, on “Goliath Armstrong;” 3 July 1921, 10 July 1921, 17 July 1921 on The Red Ace.
45. See folio at Deutsches Institut für Filmkunde, Frankfurt, Filmprüfstelle Berlin, 15 September 1921, and Film-Oberprüfstelle Berlin, 22 September 1921; henceforth DIFF-FP and DIFF-FO respectively.
46. Cf. DIFF-FP, 15 October 1921; DIFF-FO, 20 October 1921.
47. DIFF-FP, 23 June 1922.
48. DIFF-FO, 5 July 1922.
49. Cf., for example, DIFF-FO, 22 July and 25 August 1922; 11 November 1921; DIFF-FP, 23 June 1922.
50. Cf. DIFF-FP, 9 October 1923; DIFF-FO, 16 October 1923.
51. DIFF-FP, 8–9 October 1923. The absence of mitigating circumstances was clearly stated: “The film piles one sensation on another. There is no thought, no psychological motivation in it .…Its style is beyond that of the worst trashy novel.”
52. DIFF-FO, 1 November 1923.
53. DIFF-FO, 22 June 1923.
54. Cf. DIFF-FP, 13 December 1923; DIFF-FO, 21 December 1923.
55. “Der deutsche Film im Ausland,” Berliner Tageblatt, 5 April 1921; Fritz Engel, “Amerika-Film,” ibid., 17 July 1921.
56. Urban Gad, “Warum siegt der amerikanische Film?” Lichtbildbühne, 20 August 1921, p. 15. It may be more than coincidental that Gad came under fire just weeks later for sacrificing stylistic consistency in order to incorporate American sensationalism: Krft. (Arthur Krefft), “Insel der Verschollenen,” Der Kritiker, 3 (December 1921), 219–222.
57. For a dissenting view see L. A. Hermann, “Schiefe Urteile über die amerikanische Produktion,” Kinematograph, 6 November 1921.
58. Paul Meissner, “Amerikaner,” Film-Kurier, 17 October 1921. Without mentioning Siemsen by name Meissner commented acidly that after the warnings issued about Hollywood’s superiority American film had proven imposing only in its length.
59. Der Film, 5 March 1922, p. 44.
60. Siemsen, “Deutsch-amerikanischer Filmkrieg,” Die Weltbühne, 17 (1921), vol. I, pp. 219–222.
61. gl. (Oscar Geller?), “Aus der Praxis,” Kinematograph, 18 September 1921. Cf. the more modest recommendation of Herbert Ihering responding to “Goliath Armstrong:” “This American film is a crude, vulgar affair, and one should be careful not to imitate it in Germany .…Nevertheless, one should still take note of it, one should still take a lesson from its resolution in foregoing assumptions, in shortening, in omission of motivation. That seems to me to be the task: to exploit for the expression of acting in Germany the tempo which the Americans have for daredevil acrobatic stunts.” Berliner Börsen-Courier, no. 341, 24 July 1921, p. 9.
62. Siemsen, “Deutsch-amerikanischer Filmkrieg,” Die Weltbühne, 17 (1921), vol. II, p. 221, observed that Berlin’s film critics had “no taste for the boundless naiveté of a film like “Goliath Armstrong.” ” Cf. Franz Schulz, “Definitionen zum Film,” in Zehder, Der Film von Morgen, p. 46: “The disdain toward the cinema, especially among cultivated, respected Germans, can be traced to the native dogma that boredom is a necessary attribute of art.”
63. Paul Ickes, “Vorstellungen und Irrtümer,” Film-Kurier, 27 June 1921. No critic praised the sentimental, moralizing qualities of the film. Cf. reviews of “Die fremde Frau” by -d- (F. Podehl), Der Film, 28 August 1921, p. 50; L. Brauner, Kinematograph, 4 September 1921; and -a. (P. Medina), Film-Kurier, 25 August 1921. Brauner used the term Kammerspiel to describe the focus on emotional/psychological conflict.
64. Max Prels, “Verbotene Frucht,” Kinematograph, 25 June 1922. Cf. Paul Medina, “Amerika und wir,” Film-Echo, 19 June 1922, who noted the financial freedom Hollywood enjoyed to work for a national audience, one it understood, rather than chasing an unpredictable international market, as Germans were doing with emphasis on historical pageants.
65. Balthasar, “Inland und Ausland,” Das blaue Heft, 3 (1922), 957. M.Z., “Kinoides,” Der Kritiker, 4 (June 1922), 15: “The how may be quite nice, but the what is too foolish.…So the villain gets his just punishment, so passionate love overcomes class prejudices triumphantly: it is too banal, too inconsequential in its banality.”
66. Vossische Zeitung, no. 609, 27 December 1921.
67. Paul Ickes, “Viola Dana,” Film-Kurier, 29 August 1922, Cf. J.S. (Julius Sternheim?), “Im Reiche des weissen Elefanten,” Film-Kurier, 22 May 1922; Berliner Tageblatt, 18 March 1923.
68. Frank Furter, “Viola Dana,” Das Tagebuch, 3 (1922), 1107– 1108.
69. For the broad distinctions of type and quality see “Sechs Fox-Filme,” Lichtbildbühne, 22 July 1922, p. 42; Bz., “Der Fox-Film,” “Vossische Zeitung,” no. 343, 22 July 1922. For specific, slashing criticism of the historical pictures see J-s (Paul Ickes), “Die Königin von Saba,” Film-Kurier, 19 July 1922; F.K., “Nero,” Film-Kurier, 22 July 1922.
70. Aros (Rosenthal), “Fox-Parade,” Film-Echo, 24 July 1922. Cf. Willy Haas’ response to Daddy-Long-Legs discussed above; Kreimeier, Die Ufa-Story, p. 151.
71. Kinematograph, 6 August 1922, p. 123.
72. Wolfgang Martini, “Vom Wesen des amerikanischen Films. Vom Wesen des Films überhaupt,” Süddeutsche Filmzeitung, 14 September 1923, pp. 1–2. Cf. Erich Hamburger, “Harald Lloyd [sic],” Berliner Tageblatt, 4 May 1924.
73. See R-th. (Joseph Roth?), “Foxfilme in der Alhambra,” Berliner Börsen-Courier, no. 341, 23 July 1922, p. 8: “Among us doctrinaires the controversy over the question: is film art or not? has never been terminated. The Fox films demonstrate the superfluity of this controversy.…Sometimes the event on which the film is based is banal—but then details and nuances are enriched by the acting. Sometimes the subject is an improbable exaggeration—but then the details are of gripping truthfulness. By laying, therefore, a real foundation for castles of fantasy, as it were, one commands the interest of the most demanding viewer. This basically constitutes the success of American films.”
74. A. K. Rosen-Lohr, “Der amerikanische Film in Deutschland,” Film-Kurier, 14 January 1922: “One cannot take America too seriously as the homeland of film. It has the advantage that the leap there from a mechanical invention like cinematography to an art form like film-art is not as great as in old Europe. Pioneering in America, in which the forests still resound with the ax clearing the land, in which steel is bent into technical wonders, has the right mind for the immediate art of film. For it is an art form for industrial pioneers who have a feeling for the thirst of film for ever new impressions of a changed locality.” Cf. Hans Tintner, “Umwege zum Weltgeschmack,” Süddeutsche Filmzeitung, 15 December 1922, pp. 6–7.
75. See the review of My Boy in Der Film, 16 September 1923, p. 24; Hi (Fred Hildenbrandt), “Jackie,” Berliner Tageblatt, 5 September 1923; E.H. (Erich Hamburger), “König Jackie,” Berliner Tageblatt, 30 March 1924; and Egon Jameson (Jacobsohn), Mein Lachendes Spree-Athen (Berlin: Haude & Spenersche, 1968), pp. 24–34.
76. By contrast, The Sheik, starring Rudolph Valentino, and D. W. Griffith’s Orphans of the Storm provoked very mixed reactions. For general perspectives see Walter Thielemann, “Der amerikanische Film,” Reichsfilmblatt, 22 December 1923, pp. 7–8; Kurt Pinthus, “Die Insel der verlorenen Schiffe,” Das Tagebuch, 4 (1923), 1790–1791. For later reflections by Fritz Lang on the appeal of Hollywood’s action, romance and comedy see “Was ich in Amerika sah,” Film-Kurier, 13 and 17 December 1924.
77. Cf. Fulks, “Film Culture and Kulturfilm,” p. 8.