previous chapter
German-American Film Relations
next chapter


1. See Thompson, Exporting Entertainment, pp. 1–27. Apart from French firms, Denmark’s Nordisk had extensive branch operations in Germany: Altenloh, Zur Soziologie des Kino, pp. 9–10, 15–17. [BACK]

2. Eisner, The Haunted Screen, p. 7, dates the period of bloom from the end of the war to the midtwenties, as does Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler, pp. 3–5; 134–137. Cf. Kreimeier, Die Ufa-Story, p. 90; Pommer’s contemporary statement, “Internationale Film-Verständigung,” Das Tagebuch, 3 (1922), 993–995. [BACK]

3. See, for instance, Hermand and Trommler, Die Kultur der Weimarer Republik, pp. 262–263; Armstrong et al., “Alptraumfabrik?” p. 124; Kreimeier, Die Ufa-Story, pp. 152–153. [BACK]

4. Since together American and domestic pictures controlled eighty percent or more of the market, these figures essentially trace the contours of domestic film consumption. Thompson, Exporting Entertainment, p. 107, reproduces a chart for all features censored from 1923–1929. [BACK]

5. Wolffsohn (ed.), Jahrbuch der Filmindustrie, vol. III, pp. 256–257. [BACK]

6. For an early sample of the mix of art and business see “Film-Amerika in Berlin,” Berliner Tageblatt, 18 June 1922. Inflation made travel to the United States expensive until 1924; thereafter transatlantic journeys became common. [BACK]

7. See de Grazia, “Mass Culture and Sovereignty.” An illuminating study of Hollywood’s targeting of foreign markets is Ruth Vasey, “Diplomatic Representations: Mediations Between Hollywood and its Global Audiences, 1922–1939” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Exeter, 1990). Cf. Jarvie, Hollywood’s Overseas Campaign, part III. [BACK]

8. See “Das Problem der Übergangswirtschaft,” Der Film, 2 June 1917, pp. 11–16, which boasted Der Film had initiated trade discussion of adjustments to peace shortly before the United States declared war. [BACK]

9. Cf. Alfred Rosenthal, “Kinopolitische Streifzüge,” Kinematograph, 12 December 1917; “Der Film dem Weltmarkt,” Kinematograph, 27 March 1918. [BACK]

10. “Organisation ist Not?” Lichtbildbühne, 9 November 1918, p. 14, defends UFA’s critical position in this struggle. [BACK]

11. See, for instance, renewed ties between Oskar Einstein Co. and Universal: Lichtbildbühne, 18 January 1919, p. 77, and Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung, 25 January 1919, p. 15. Cf. “Die ersten Amerikaner sind eingetroffen,” Kinematograph, 29 January 1919, and complaints about film smuggled into Germany via Holland, Italy and the occupied Rhineland: Der Film, 1 February 1919, pp. 30–31. Advertisements for American pictures began to multiply in mid-1919. For covert advertising see opinion on resumption of import, “Die Internationalisierung des Films,” Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung, 11 October 1919, pp. 34–38, in which UFA director Carl Bratz, Oskar Einstein and others had opportunity to justify their business commitments. [BACK]

12. See Bundesarchiv-Filmarchiv Berlin/UFA (henceforth BA-FB/UFA) 379 (Dafco). Cf. Kuntze-Just, “Guten Morgen, Ufa!,” Film-Telegramm, no. 49 (1954), 15; Hans Hagge, Das gab’s schon zweimal. Auf die Spuren der Ufa (Berlin: Henschelverlag, 1959), pp. 20–22; Horak, “Ernst Lubitsch,” p. 77. [BACK]

13. Film-Kurier introduced “Die amerikanische Gefahr für die Filmindustrie,” on 6 June 1919 and in a series of articles from 10–13 June 1919. Cf. “Einfuhr amerikanischer Filme durch die Nordische,” Der Film, 7 June 1919, pp. 25–26. “Wer hat nun recht?” Kinematograph, 25 June 1919. For justification of UFA’s conduct see C. Kersten, “ ‘Dafco’,” Lichtbildbühne, 12 July 1919, p. 10. [BACK]

14. See reports on early conferences with trade representatives in Der Film, 8 February 1919, pp. 29–30, and 15 February 1919, pp. 31–32. The debate can be followed in “Organisation der Einfuhr,” Lichtbildbühne, 30 August 1919, pp. 12–13; Film-Kurier, 30 August, 2, 6, 19, 21, 23, 25 September 1919. Cf. “Wie stellt sich der Theaterbesitzer zur Internationalisierung des Films,” Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung, 18 October 1919, pp. 36–38. [BACK]

15. Cf. the “Bericht über Situation der UFA” dated December 1919, and marked strictly confidential in BA-UFA R109I/1287, especially pp. 9–13; payment charts, Dafco to UFA, 14 November 1919, in BA-FB/UFA 379. To that point UFA and Nordisk had paid roughly one-quarter of the almost $3 million they owed American firms for distribution rights. When the contract was signed the dollar was worth 14 marks. By the end of 1919 the dollar equivalent was forty-two marks. [BACK]

16. The path to resolution can be followed in Film-Kurier, 31 August, 1 and 15 September, 24 November, 6 and 8 December 1920, 6 and 7 January 1921. [BACK]

17. The excess for the years 1922–1924 was 49,000, 56,000 and 134,000 meters respectively. Hayler, “Die deutsche Film-Industrie,” p. 179. On import trends generally see Jason, Handbuch der Filmwirtschaft, vol. I, pp. 19, 51. [BACK]

18. Jason, Handbuch der Filmwirtschaft, vol. I, pp. 18–20. [BACK]

19. In 1921 and 1922 Universal provided almost fifty percent of American imports. Most of the remainder came from several other large concerns—Famous Players (Paramount), Goldwyn and Metro. On distribution practices see Thompson, Exporting Entertainment, p. 107. [BACK]

20. Bundesarchiv-Potsdam, Reichswirtschaftsministerium 31.01/5424, pp. 81–83. Cf. Der Film, 7 August 1921, p. 20. [BACK]

21. On Madame Dubarry in America see the article from Das Tagebuch by Leopold Schwarzschild quoted in Brennicke and Hembus, Klassiker des deutschen Stummfilms, p. 246. On Caligari see Michael Budd, “The National Board of Review and the Early Art Cinema in New York: the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari as Affirmative Culture,” Cinema Journal, 26 (1986), 3–18; “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: Conditions of Reception,” Cine-Tracts, 3 (Winter 1981), 41–49. [BACK]

22. Cf. “Amerikaner in Berlin,” Der Film, 11 September 1920, pp. 26–27; “Auf dem Wege zur Überfremdung,” Der Film, 13 November 1920, pp. 21–22; “Rückblick,” Kinematograph, 21 November 1920. For the original contracts see “Engagement Pola Negris nach Amerika,” Film-Kurier, 10 December 1920; “UFA und Ben-Blumenthal-Rachmann,” Film-Kurier, 21 December 1920; “Auch May geht nach Dollarika,” Der Film, 25 December 1920, p. 21. [BACK]

23. See “Die UFA und Amerika,” Film-Kurier, 31 January 1921; “UFA-Famous Players,” ibid., 15 February 1921; “UFA und Famous Players,” ibid., 3 March 1921 and “Die Verträge der Amerikaner,” ibid., 4 March 1921; “Unklare Situation,” Lichtbildbühne, 12 March 1921, pp. 33–34. Olimsky, “Tendenzen der Filmwirtschaft,” p. 44, claims the Americans demanded majority shares in UFA. [BACK]

24. There is a useful summary in “Die amerikanische Expansion,” Der Film, 23 April 1921, pp. 25–26. Other notable EFA employees included Emil Jannings, Harry Liedtke, the screenwriter Hans Kraely and the cameraman Theodor Sparkuhl. For discussion of American motives see Jan-Christopher Horak, “Rin-Tin-Tin erobert Berlin oder Amerikanische Filminteressen in Weimar,” in Schatzberg and Jung (eds.), Filmkultur zur Zeit der Weimarer Republik, 258–260. [BACK]

25. Bundesarchiv-Potsdam, Reichswirtschaftsministerium 31.01/5424, pp. 38–47. [BACK]

26. Ibid., pp. 86–87. [BACK]

27. The other three were Paul Wegener’s Herzog Ferrante, Dimitri Buchowetzki’s Peter der Grosse and Georg Jacoby’s Napoleons kleiner Bruder. The balance sheet is presented in “Der Untergang der EFA,” Film-Kurier, 23 November 1922. [BACK]

28. See “Auflösung der Efa,” B.Z. am Mittag, 19 November 1922. Negri left Germany in 1922. Lubitsch made an initial trip overseas in December 1921 after completing Das Weib des Pharao, returned to direct Die Flamme and then departed again in November 1922. See Horak, “Ernst Lubitsch,” pp. 113, 118–119. [BACK]

29. Der Film, 8 January 1921, p. 25. Cf. Lubitsch’s article “Deutsche Filme und die Welt,” Film-Kurier, 5 July 1921. Davidson uttered equally loyal statements about producing German pictures in Film-Kurier, 25 April 1921. Bratz joined the chorus: Der Film, 23 October 1921, p. 48. [BACK]

30. Cf. -o- (Robert Volz), “Der Sprung nach dem Dollar,” Tägliche Rundschau, 24 April 1921; Caius, “Amerika kommt!” Kinematographische Monatshefte, May 1921, pp. 15–16; “Überfremdung?” Lichtbildbühne, 23 April 1921, pp. 11–12; Zimmerschied, Die deutsche Filmindustrie, pp. 82–84; Hayler, “Die deutsche Film-Industrie,” pp. 111–112; W. Haas, “Reflexionen vor einem indischen Grabmal,” Film-Kurier, 18 May 1921. [BACK]

31. Olimsky, “Tendenzen der Filmwirtschaft,” p. 43. For other post mortem analyses see “Der Untergang der EFA,” Film-Kurier, 23 November 1922; W. Haas, “November-Films,” Das blaue Heft, 4 (1922), 129–131; “EFA,” Kinematograph, 26 November 1922, and the material cited in Brennicke and Hembus, Klassiker des deutschen Stummfilms, pp. 246–247. [BACK]

32. Olimsky, “Tendenzen der Filmwirtschaft,” pp. 26–27, claims ten percent for 1923. Spiker, Film und Kapital, pp. 36–37, cites a figure of thirty to forty percent over the period 1921–1923. [BACK]

33. Sklar, Movie-Made America, p. 215. The phenomenon was not peculiar to Germany or the interwar period. Cf. Swann, The Hollywood Feature Film, p. 94. How bizarre circumstances were even in 1920 can be seen in the boast of Paul Davidson that in one week in New York Madame Dubarry more than recovered its entire production costs. See “Der deutsche Film im Ausland,” Berliner Tageblatt, 5 April 1921. [BACK]

34. Cf. “Amerikana,” Film-Kurier, 31 January 1921; “Amerikanische Spielfilme nach deutschem Muster,” ibid., 30 March 1921; and three articles in Berliner Tageblatt: “Der deutsche Film im Ausland,” 5 April 1921, “Eine Krisis in der amerikanische Filmindustrie,” 6 June 1921; “Der deutsche Film als Exportmittel,” 13 July 1921. [BACK]

35. “Ein deutscher Weltrekord: Ein deutscher Film schlägt Griffith und Chaplin,” Lichtbildbühne, 5 November 1921, p. 41; “Neues vom Auslande,” Kinematograph, 1 January 1922. Cf. Joseph Delmont’s remarks in “Der deutsche Film in 1921,” Der Film, 1 January 1921, pp. 34–35, and the very deprecatory opinions of Hollywood expressed in “Amerikas Film-Produktion und -Export,” Film-Kurier, 3 May 1921. [BACK]

36. Rudolf Berg, “Amerika und der deutsche Film,” B.Z. am Mittag, 11 June 1922. [BACK]

37. “Amerika und die Amerikaner,” (interview with Rosenfeld), Kinematograph, 29 July 1923, p. 9. E. H. Correll, “Das amerikanische Problem,” ibid., 19 August 1923, p. 13. All three experts took at face value American complaints about the ponderous, morbid and unedifying quality of German films. Cf. “Mary Pickford in Berlin,” Lichtbildbühne, 22 April 1924. [BACK]

38. “Die Krisis in den Glashäusern,” Berliner Tageblatt, 21 January 1923. [BACK]

39. Cf. warnings about gearing films to foreign audiences in order to dump them abroad from Balthasar (Roland Schacht), “Vor der Drohung des Auslands,” Freie Deutsche Bühne, 2 (1921), 719, and “Rückblick,” p. 1030; Paul Ickes, “Produktions-Politik,” Film-Kurier, 28 February 1922; C. K. Brand, “Die Filmkrise,” Berliner Tageblatt, 25 October 1921; Homunculus, “Im Zeichen des Dollars,” Reichsfilmblatt, 1 September 1923, pp. 12–16. In January 1921 a dollar cost sixty-five marks. [BACK]

40. Wolffsohn (ed.), Jahrbuch der Filmindustrie, vol. I, pp. 346–347. On the chaos resulting from collapse of the mark see Max Schach, “Panik?” Berliner Börsen-Courier, no. 411, 2 September 1923, p. 7. UFA’s retreat to distribution and theater operations was earlier noted by J-s. (Paul Ickes), “Die UFA-Dividende,” Film-Kurier, 27 November 1922; Egon Jacobsohn, “Das Film-Jahr 1922,” B.Z. am Mittag, 31 December 1922. [BACK]

41. Aros, (Alfred Rosenthal), “Die Eroberung Deutschlands,” Kinematograph, 10 June 1923, pp. 5–6. Willy Haas, “Film-Resümee 1922–23,” Das blaue Heft, 4 (1923), 447–449. Wolfgang Martini, “Münchener Filmbrief,” Kinematograph, 1 October 1923, pp. 2–3. [BACK]

42. See BA-UFA R109I/1026a, 23 September 1927, pt. 16. Cf. BA-UFA R109I/1027a, 6 July 1928, pt. 2, where threatened loss of three to four million marks in American earnings if export versions were not ready on time sparked the decision to work around the clock to meet a deadline. [BACK]

43. Long-term, official loans alone totaled over $1.4 billion between 1924 and 1930. Werner Link, “Der amerikanische Einfluss auf die Weimarer Republik in der Dawesplanphase (Elemente eines ‘penetrierten Systems’),” in H. Mommsen, D. Petzina, B. Weissbrod (eds.) Industrielles System and politische Entwicklung in der Weimarer Republik (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1974), p. 489. More generally see William C. McNeil, American Money and the Weimar Republic (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986). [BACK]

44. Kallmann, “Die Konzernierung in der Filmindustrie,” p. 27; “Eine amerikanisch-deutsche Alliance,” Lichtbildbühne, 19 July 1924, p. 20; “Phoebus - Metro - Goldwyn,” ibid., 11 October 1924, p. 20. [BACK]

45. Cf. in Lichtbildbühne: “United Artist - Ifa,” 22 August 1925, p. 11; “United Artists in Deutschland,” 5 September 1925, pp. 14–15; “First National verleiht,” 1 May 1926, p. 20; Thompson, Exporting Entertainment, p. 111. [BACK]

46. Horak, “Rin-Tin-Tin erobert Berlin,” emphasizes the resistance to reciprocity on the part of the American companies. [BACK]

47. For the race to Berlin see ibid., pp. 262–263; Kreimeier, Die Ufa-Story, p. 152. [BACK]

48. See BA-UFA R109I/510, indexed as UFA Films Inc. N.Y., with the letter from von Stauss to F. W. Jones in New York (1 August 1924) outlining the aims of the new company. UFA simultaneously sought to raise its American profile through personal diplomacy in Hollywood. See “Empfang in Los Angeles,” Lichtbildbühne, 15 November 1924, p. 17. [BACK]

49. See BA-UFA R109I/1046, Geschäftsbericht 1924–1925, in which expenditures in all branches of the firm were portrayed as excessive given the general economic situation, but absolutely necessary in the face of American inroads. Cf. Kuntze-Just, “Guten Morgen, Ufa!” Film-Telegramm, no. 1 (1955), 10. [BACK]

50. The press statement is reproduced in “An der Jahreswende,” Süddeutsche Filmzeitung, 8 January 1926, p. 1. [BACK]

51. Paul Elsberg, “Was steht in den UFA Verträgen?” Vossische Zeitung, 8 January 1926. The pact with Universal was also for ten years and brought UFA a further loan of $275,000. [BACK]

52. Roland Schacht commented that there had obviously been some major blunders in UFA management to allow Hollywood an entrance. “Blick auf die Walstatt,” Das blaue Heft, 8 (1926), 25–26. [BACK]

53. -g. (G. Herzberg), “Ein König im Exil,” Film-Kurier, 5 May 1926, claimed that tumultuous howling and whistling had become the norm for almost every American premiere in Berlin. Cf. the reception of Erich Stroheim’s Greed discussed in chapter four. [BACK]

54. “und der deutsche Film?” Vossische Zeitung, 1 January 1926. The trade press withheld judgment on the condition that UFA remained a German company making German motion pictures. See Dr. R. V. [Robert Volz], “An der Jahreswende,” Süddeutsche Filmzeitung, 8 January 1926, p. 1; “Der neue Kurs,” Lichtbildbühne, 2 January 1926, pp. 9–11. [BACK]

55. BA-UFA R109I/121: Agreement between Universum-Film Aktiengesellschaft and Famous-Players-Lasky Corporation regarding distribution of “UFA” Pictures in America, pt. 1c. This folio includes both English and German copies of the pact. [BACK]

56. Ibid., pt. ld. [BACK]

57. BA-UFA R109I/121: Agreement between Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation and UFA Filmvertrieb Gesellschaft regarding distribution of Metro-Goldwyn Pictures in Germany, pt. 2l. [BACK]

58. Heinrich Stürmer (Kurt Pinthus), “Deutscher oder amerikanischer Film?” Das Tagebuch, 6 (1925), 1699–1703. [BACK]

59. Herbert Ihering, Von Reinhardt bis Brecht: vier Jahrzehnte Theater und Film, 3 vols. (Berlin: Aufbau Verlag, 1958–1961), vol. II, pp. 508–509. [BACK]

60. See Schacht’s remarks in “Blick auf die Walstatt,” Das blaue Heft, 8 (1926), 23–26; “Der Anmarsch der Sieger,” ibid, 57. [BACK]

61. Cf. the affirmative assessment of Erich Pommer’s role in Kurt Mühsam, “Friedliche Eroberung,” Lichtbildbühne, 24 May 1924, pp. 10–11; “Das Programm der UFA,” ibid., 5 September 1925, pp. 13–14. Later assessments are much more mixed. Cf. Roland Schacht’s indictment in “Filme,” Das blaue Heft, 8 (1926), 114–119; Fried. (Otto Friedrich), “Erich Pommer,” Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, no. 49, 30 January 1926; Wolffgang Fischer, “Hie Deutschland—hie Amerika!” Deutsche Filmwoche, 26 March 1926; Hermann Treuner, “Der Amerikavertrag der Ufa und der deutsche Film,” Der Reichsbote, 13 March 1926. [BACK]

62. UFA was to release twenty pictures from Paramount and twenty-one from Metro-Goldwyn. The actual feature releases numbered eleven and fifteen respectively, plus fifteen from First National and twelve from Warner Bros. See BA-UFA R109I/2440, Verleih-Abteilung der UFA, pp. 23–25, 33a. The First National contracts are in BA-FB/UFA 257. [BACK]

63. -z. (Robert Volz), “Die UFA beherrscht das Feld,” Süddeutsche Filmzeitung, 14 August 1925; “Die UFA und Amerika,” Film-Kurier, 7 August 1925. [BACK]

64. See “Filmpolitik der Stunde,” Lichtbildbühne, 12 September 1925, pp. 9–10; “Die amerikanischen Verträge und wir,” Reichsfilmblatt, 15 August 1925, pp. 11–12; “UFA-Politik,” Lichtbildbühne, 8 August 1925, pp. 9–10. [BACK]

65. Otto Kriegk, Der deutsche Film im Spiegel der UFA: 25 Jahre Kampf und Vollendung (Berlin: UFA-Buchverlag, 1943), pp. 118, 124–127, styled Hugenberg a national hero for rescuing UFA from American-Jewish hands. Traub, Die UFA, pp. 63–66, 95, expressed similar opinions. UFA published a record of its fortunes in about 1943—Die UFA (n.p., n.d.)—which opened with the year 1927, thus excising the pre-Hugenberg period from its history. [BACK]

66. For champions of cinema art like Willy Haas the decline of German film coincided with but was not caused by Hugenberg’s purchase of UFA. See his remarks in “Filmkrise und kein Ende,” Die Literarische Welt, 15 April 1927, p. 7; Cf. Michael Kurd, “Das Schicksal der UFA,” Welt am Abend, 17 December 1926; Horak, “Ernst Lubitsch,” p. 121. [BACK]

67. G.H. (Georg Herzberg), “Madame Dubarry und wir,” Film-Kurier, 6 August 1925. [BACK]

68. Cf. Arthur Heichen, “Der Amerikavertrag der UFA,” Berliner Tageblatt, no. 13, 8 January 1926; “Der neue Kurs,” Lichtbildbühne, 2 January 1926, p. 10; the government report in Bundesarchiv-Reichskanzlei R43I/2498, p. 267; Funk, “Voran UFA,” Welt am Montag, 22 March 1926, claimed these clauses offered Germany the chance to claim its rightful place in the cinematic sun. [BACK]

69. Cf. the denial “Falsche Gerüchte,” Lichtbildbühne, 17 April 1926, p. 7, and the later sharp attack on UFA “Wenn Verträge verschwiegen werden,” ibid., 5 May 1927; Axel Eggebrecht, “Deutscher Filmfrühling 1927,” Die Weltbühne, 23 (1927), vol. I, p. 755. [BACK]

70. No time was wasted in pressing for revision of the Parufamet contract. See BA-UFA R109I/1026a, 2 May 1927, pt. 2, and 13 August 1927, pt. 2. Cf. BA-UFA R109I/1046, Geschäftsbericht 1927–1928, and details in Kuntze-Just, “Guten Morgen, Ufa!” Film-Telegramm, no. 4 (1955), 13. Once sound pictures complicated an already unhappy relationship the pact was annulled. See BA-UFA R109I/1027b 15 August 1930, pt. 6; 16 September 1930, pt. 9. [BACK]

71. Details are in chapter four. [BACK]

72. See Beissel’s articles: “Die amerikanische Gefahr,” Reichsfilmblatt, 23 February 1924, pp. 9–10; “Nochmals die amerikanische Gefahr,” ibid., 8 March 1924, p. 5. Cf. the rebuttal “Immer für deutsche Interessen!” Lichtbildbühne, 15 March 1924, pp. 16–17. [BACK]

73. “Ist das deutsche Kinopublikum amerikamüde?” Reichsfilmblatt, 6 December 1924, p. 13. [BACK]

74. See Reichsfilmblatt, 20 September 1924, pp. 35–36; 18 October 1924, pp. 32–33; 24 January 1925, pp. 42–43; 28 February 1925, pp. 52–53; 11 July 1925, pp. 11–12; 19 September 1925, p. 16. [BACK]

75. Reichsfilmblatt: 23 January 1926, pp. 9–10; 30 January 1926, pp. 14–15; 13 March 1926, p. 4. [BACK]

76. See “Der König im Exil,” Der Film, 9 May 1926, p. 18, and on “Mädchenscheu” and “Ein Dieb im Paradies,” ibid., 7 March 1926, pp. 19 and 21. [BACK]

77. Careful editing became a trade panacea. “Das ist das alte Lied . . . ,” Film-Kurier, 7 April 1926; “Deutsche ‘Verarbeitung’,” Film-Kurier, 10 May 1926; “Die UFA gegen den amerikanischen Film,” Lichtbildbühne, 10 May 1926; “Negativ-Dramaturgie,” Lichtbildbühne, 18 May 1926; Aros, “Der Film der Zukunft,” Kinematograph, 23 May 1926, pp. 2–3. [BACK]

78. “Der Reichsverband in Abwehrstellung,” Süddeutsche Filmzeitung, 21 May 1926, p. 2; “Boykott oder Bündnis?” Film-Kurier, 20 March 1926. Pr., “Reichsverband und amerikanischer Film,” Lichtbildbühne, 22 May 1926, pp. 14–16. [BACK]

79. Large, vertically integrated concerns like UFA, had conflicting interests in this matter. [BACK]

80. See Aros, “Blick in die Zukunft,” Kinematograph, 7 March 1926, pp. 5–6; “Die amerikanische Gefahr,” ibid., 9 May 1926, pp. 5–6. [BACK]

81. Rosenthal also identified vested interests at work. He distinguished between German firms working with Hollywood and profiting thereby, and those facing competition without American partners and trying to avenge themselves by clamorous warnings about the “American danger.” “Blick in die Zukunft,” Kinematograph, 7 March 1926, p. 5. [BACK]

82. See Rosenthal, “Antiamerikanische Offensive,” ibid., 16 March 1926, pp. 5–6; “Merkwürdige Film-Politiker,” ibid., 20 May 1926, pp. 5–6. Cf. Willy Haas, “Meine Meinung,” Die Literarische Welt, 11 June 1926, p. 2, who claimed that the “respectable trade press” was calling for international cooperation in recognition of the fact that American setbacks in Germany meant setbacks for the native cinema. [BACK]

83. “Platz für den amerikanischen Film,” Lichtbildbühne, 5 June 1926, pp. 7–10. [BACK]

84. Fritz Olimsky, “Filmbilanz,” Berliner Börsen-Zeitung, 1 January 1926, p. 4. [BACK]

85. That UFA had accepted American funding even though its board had representatives from a score of large and small German banks disturbed some commentators. Cf. -ns, “War der Ufavertrag notwendig?” Der Deutsche, 3 January 1926; Hermann Treuner, “Der Amerikavertrag der Ufa und der deutsche Film,” Der Reichsbote, 13 March 1926; Avk., “U.F.A.=U.S.A.,” Neue Preussische Kreuzzeitung, 16 December 1926. [BACK]

86. Herbert Ihering, “Die Zukunft der UFA,” Berliner Börsen-Courier, 11 January 1926, p. 2. [BACK]

87. See the editorial afterword which corrected Arthur Heichen, “Der Amerikavertrag der UFA,” Berliner Tageblatt, 8 January 1926. Heichen compared Parufamet very unfavorably with the Dawes Plan because he believed it would check rather than stimulate German production. [BACK]

88. Analogies to Versailles and Locarno were suggested in “Vor der Entscheidung,” Lichtbildbühne, 12 December 1925, p. 9; “Das Ufa-Problem,” ibid., 15 March 1926. The broader parallel with the Dawes Plan is mentioned by Kuntze-Just, “Guten Morgen, Ufa!” Film-Telegramm, no. 1 (1955), 10. [BACK]

89. Hermann Rosenfeld, “National und Paramount,” Film-Kurier, 11 January 1925. [BACK]

90. “Universal-Bruckmann,” Lichtbildbühne, 3 October 1925, p. 14; “In Sachen: Bruckmann-Universal,” Bruckmann-Nachrichten, November 1925; “Bruckmann-Warner Bros.,” Lichtbildbühne, 9 April 1926. [BACK]

91. See “Die große Fox-Schau in der Alhambra,” Lichtbildbühne, 10 October 1925, p. 14; “Deutsche-Fox Produktion,” ibid., 6 February 1926, p. 23; “F.E.F. Fox Europa Film-Produktions G.m.b.H.,” ibid., 12 June 1926, p. 14. [BACK]

92. “United Artists - Phoebus,” ibid., 3 May 1926; Kurt Mühsam, “Amerika filmt in Deutschland,” B.Z. am Mittag, 1 April 1927. [BACK]

93. Curt Kramarski, “Die Amerikanisierung des deutschen Films,” Welt am Montag, 23 April 1928; Kurt Mühsam, “Deutsch-amerikanische Filmgemeinschaften,” B.Z. am Mittag, 10 June 1927. [BACK]

94. For the pattern of responses see Kurt Mühsam, “Europäische Kultur-amerikanische Technik,” B.Z. am Mittag, 19 October 1928; “Amerika kommt zu uns!” Film-Journal, 20 May 1927; “Amerika als deutscher Produzent,” Film-Kurier, 7 May 1926; “Deutsch-amerikanische Filmunion,” Film-Kurier, 9 June 1927. [BACK]

95. “Dr. Bausback über die deutsch-amerikanischen Filmbeziehungen,” Lichtbildbühne, 14 and 15 June 1926. [BACK]

96. On Pommer see chapter eight. [BACK]

97. See “Die Einkreisung,” Lichtbildbühne, 25 July 1925, pp. 5–6; “Amerikanisierung und deutsche Filmindustrie,” ibid., 29 August 1925, pp. 9–10. [BACK]

previous chapter
German-American Film Relations
next chapter