Early Extreme Expressionist Films
steve
that qualify are "Metropolis" and "The Cabinet of Dr Caligary". Neither
blew my hair back, though both were quite watchable. These films could be
called "extreme expressionism" to contrast their overt style with the more
subtle use of sets, lighting, and camera in the techniques I've come to know
(in my limited capacity) as expressionism. They don't use elements of the
real world creatively, but rather create their own obviously artificial
world. I'm not sure if the viewer must surrender himself to this artificial
world to dig these films, but I simply don't.
And these films are very unlike surrealist films in that, even though the
sets are unreal, the narrative is straightforward. Perhaps oddly, I found
it easier to immerse myself in Bunuels/Dalis "L'Age D'Or". Absurd as the
film is (and it sure is), I find the use of realistic images (in absurd
fashion...it's a real cow that jumps down off the bed, real clergymen who
sit among the seaside cliffs, a real couple swapping spit while the stuffed
shirts gasp, and a real violin that gets kicked down the street) far more
engaging and emotionally evocative than the coherent Metropolis. I wouldn't
attempt to say what the film means (in fact I'm pretty sure "meaning" isn't
quite the proper term, nor the intention), but in its own way it works for
me.
So here is my question to the enlightened regs. Is this extreme
expressionism (if I may call it that) appealing to the head but not the
heart? Is it a purely intellectual exercise? How does Metropolis work for
those who admire the film?
steve
--
"A man was severely injured today in the Knutsford area."
Benny Hill
George Kincaid
idea I get is that many expressionist films are about mood, rather than
character or plot, so the story lines as you say are straightforward.
Nosferatu is one of the first Dracula movies, and has the famous depiction
of the vampire with a rat-shaped face. I saw that on the big screen here in
town, and it's still really frightening eighty years or so later. Max
Schreck played the character more sympathetically than he's shown in many
movies, but he's still more monster than human, nothing like Lugosi's more
famous characterization. Murnau was a master of menace, with his use of
shadows and dark spaces. Nosferatu might be easier to understand as an
expressionist film than Metropolis, since it doesn't have elaborate sets or
a strong social message. That's not to condemn Metropolis--I just think
Nosferatu might make other expressionist films easier to understand.
There's the cultural difference, too- I remember you told me about some
of the brighter more lyrical French films. Expressionism is usually
associated with Germany, and their traditions of dark moody stories. Fritz
Lang made a film version of the medieval German story of the Niebelung,
which a great tragic ending. These films were also made in a terrible times
in Germany, in a setting of post-WWI depression and political and social
troubles. America was an upbeat, optimistic place in the '20s, as our films
reflect, but Germany had trouble feeding its people. That's something else
comes out in their movies--the darkness of the times comes out in movies,
painting, literature, and other art forms. A different aesthetic than the
French or Italians have appears in Germany; beauty there could be dark and
brooding. The French surrealists and other avant-gard filmmakers were more
interested in ideas about film, too, almost like the Soviets. The Germans
seem to be more interested in storytelling, in setting a feeling, in using
filmmaking as a form of music almost, to stir an audience's heart rather
than its head. Hope that helps! GK
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:O4SdnZ4lA66...@rcn.net...
John Harkness
<george....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Nosferatu (F.W. Murnau 1925 ?) is a definite expressionist movie to see. The
>idea I get is that many expressionist films are about mood, rather than
>character or plot, so the story lines as you say are straightforward.
>Nosferatu is one of the first Dracula movies, and has the famous depiction
>of the vampire with a rat-shaped face. I saw that on the big screen here in
>town, and it's still really frightening eighty years or so later. Max
>Schreck played the character more sympathetically than he's shown in many
>movies, but he's still more monster than human, nothing like Lugosi's more
>famous characterization. Murnau was a master of menace, with his use of
>shadows and dark spaces. Nosferatu might be easier to understand as an
>expressionist film than Metropolis, since it doesn't have elaborate sets or
>a strong social message. That's not to condemn Metropolis--
Apples and Oranges -- I'd argue against Metropolis as an Expressionist
film -- it's way too deco.
Murnau and Lang are directors with very different missions in life.
John Harkness
steve
On 18-Mar-2005, "George Kincaid" <george....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Nosferatu (F.W. Murnau 1925 ?) is a definite expressionist movie to see.
It's been in my queue for some time now...maybe I should move it up to the
top.
> Nosferatu might be easier to understand as an
> expressionist film than Metropolis, since it doesn't have elaborate sets
> or
> a strong social message. That's not to condemn Metropolis--I just think
> Nosferatu might make other expressionist films easier to understand.
I dont think its a failure to "understand" the film. In fact it seems
quuite the opposite. Metropolis is hardly subtle in it's message, and the
technique is obvious in it's execution. It's the cartoonish nature of the
extreme sets that puts me off. The film doesnt seem to work on an emotional
level, at least not for me. I wonder if it does for others or if it is even
intended to work that way.
> There's the cultural difference, too- I remember you told me about some
> of the brighter more lyrical French films. Expressionism is usually
> associated with Germany, and their traditions of dark moody stories.
Actually Im a big fan of Lang in general, especially two films; "M" and "The
Testament of Dr Mabuse"...and those french films I mentioned arent really so
"bright". They're down to earth in thier own fashion with no illusions about
humanity...well, not too many illusions, anyway.
> The French surrealists and other avant-gard filmmakers were more
> interested in ideas about film, too, almost like the Soviets. The Germans
> seem to be more interested in storytelling, in setting a feeling, in using
>
> filmmaking as a form of music almost, to stir an audience's heart rather
> than its head. Hope that helps! GK
Hmmm...we seem to see the situation from opposite directions, as I would
describe surealism with it's liquid view of reality, as the music whereas
films like Metrpolis and Caligary feel much more rigid. But the films I
originally came to know as "expressionist", mainly in the same style as
earlier film noir, would fit that description. So I may have my "isms"
confused a bit...or a lot. I see that another poster claims Metropolis is
not expressionism. So now Im really confused.
George Kincaid
you do that--you don't really offer an answer, or even ask a question, but
do you have some short snide quip. Offer up something for a change. Back to
my regularly scheduled life.
"John Harkness" <jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:he9m315rsffkrpca9...@4ax.com...
steve
On 18-Mar-2005, "George Kincaid" <george....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Well, John, Ill be quiet and let answer you steve's question. I notice
> that
> you do that--you don't really offer an answer, or even ask a question, but
>
> do you have some short snide quip. Offer up something for a change. Back
> to
> my regularly scheduled life.
John has (or had) me on killfile, I suspect it's simply because I annoy him.
But lately hes responded to a lot of post in my threads, so he's sort of
talking to me, it seems.
No doubt he can answer the questions with authority. Much doubt he will.
John Harkness
<george....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Well, John, Ill be quiet and let answer you steve's question. I notice that
>you do that--you don't really offer an answer, or even ask a question, but
>do you have some short snide quip. Offer up something for a change. Back to
>my regularly scheduled life.
Sorry if I was too elliptical for you to understand what I was saying
That wasn't snide -- Lang and Murnau aren't playing the same game at
all. Murnau is the quintessential humanist of German silent cinema,
Lang is something quite different. An architect of paranoia, perhaps.
Andrew Sarris once said that the difference between Renoir and Lang,
looking at the two times their careers coincided, with Lang's remakes
of La Bete Humaine (Woman on the Beach, IIRC) and La Chienne (Scarlet
Street), that Renoir was interested in the souls of the characters who
found themselves in traps. while Lang was interested in the structure
of the traps.
Lang is occasionally an Expressionist filmmaker, all smoky atmospher
and mystery -- the first Mabuse film, M -- but not Metropolis, not the
Nibelungen -- there's too much clarity in his vision.
John Harkness
steve
On 18-Mar-2005, John Harkness <jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Lang is occasionally an Expressionist filmmaker, all smoky atmospher
> and mystery -- the first Mabuse film, M -- but not Metropolis, not the
> Nibelungen -- there's too much clarity in his vision.
What, then, is that obviously unreal (yet not surreal) style called? Ive
heard Metropolis and Caligary both called "german expressionism". Is that
just wrong?
David
>> Lang is occasionally an Expressionist filmmaker, all smoky atmospher
>> and mystery -- the first Mabuse film, M -- but not Metropolis, not the
>> Nibelungen -- there's too much clarity in his vision.
>
>What, then, is that obviously unreal (yet not surreal) style called? Ive
>heard Metropolis and Caligary both called "german expressionism". Is that
>just wrong?
Traditionally, expressionism is the distortion of form -- like the
human face or figure -- in an attempt to render internal conflicts
externally. Expressionism in painting or literature isn't the
treatment of a social issue or the examination of a philosophy. It's a
portrait of a character under duress; it's drawing a parallel between
a character's psychology & his environment. Think of the way the face
Munch painted is screaming. Maybe in films expressionism has a
somewhat different characteristic -- maybe more of a style that you
can pick up here & there in a bunch of otherwise different films --
but it must have something to do with that psychology of moods &
altered states & that distortion of film. To me, that scene in
"Murder, My Sweet" where Marlowe is knocked out & drugged is
expressionist in style; & the repeated scene in "Vertigo" where the
camera trick renders Scotty's psychological fear of heights in visual
terms seems almost purely expressionistic to me. Reality isn't really
doing that -- Scotty just sees it & feels it that way because he's so
screwed up.
I've never seen "Caligari," but doesn't that character's mental state
go a bit unbalanced, & then doesn't the environment get all weirdly
stretched & distorted in various ways to render that mentality
visually?
David
> There's the cultural difference, too- I remember you told me about some
>of the brighter more lyrical French films. Expressionism is usually
>associated with Germany, and their traditions of dark moody stories.
Yes! It really has its antecedents in the Romantic writers like
Hoffmann & Holderlin & Novalis. Some winter, give yourself a treat &
read a bunch of the works of these great German Romantic tale-tellers
& poets. Psychologically, they're as modern as can be, but the mystery
& uncanniness they generate seems to be from some primeval age. The
characters are demented & suffering under the assault of what their
minds are doing to them. That's where the subjectivity comes from
which is so important to expressionism a century later. So, for
example, does the city in "Metropolis" really look like that to all
the characters in that movie, or is it the disturbed, demented
perception of one particular character who is unhinged? That would
seem to me to be the key point as to whether "Metropolis" is
expressionism or not. I haven't seen it.
Expressionism in films probably creates as many dissenting opinions as
what constitutes film noir.
David
> And these films are very unlike surrealist films in that, even though the
> sets are unreal, the narrative is straightforward. Perhaps oddly, I found
> it easier to immerse myself in Bunuels/Dalis "L'Age D'Or". Absurd as the
> film is (and it sure is), I find the use of realistic images (in absurd
> fashion...it's a real cow that jumps down off the bed, real clergymen who
> sit among the seaside cliffs, a real couple swapping spit while the
> stuffed shirts gasp, and a real violin that gets kicked down the street) far more
> engaging and emotionally evocative than the coherent Metropolis.
That's a pretty good way to characterize some surrealism -- those
realistic images in absurd fashion. If expressionism is the distortion
of form & environment as a subjective perception, surrealism is the
bringing together of incommensurates. Think of Magritte: that's a
realistic-looking bowler (hat), a realistic-looking old man in a black
trenchcoat, & an ordinary-looking cane, but the fact that the man is
standing on a boulder that is levitating 10 feet above the ocean is
rather odd.
steve
On 18-Mar-2005, David <dobe...@fields.com> wrote:
> Maybe in films expressionism has a
> somewhat different characteristic -- maybe more of a style that you
> can pick up here & there in a bunch of otherwise different films --
> but it must have something to do with that psychology of moods &
> altered states & that distortion of film. To me, that scene in
> "Murder, My Sweet" where Marlowe is knocked out & drugged is
> expressionist in style;
Clearly, but more overt than what I first understood to be expressionism,
and yet far more subtle than the two films Ive mentioned. It would seem
expressionism is a broad spectrum. At one end, realistic figures/sets are
lit and shot so as to create the mood in a manner that works at a
subconscious level. On the other end the figures/sets themselves are
unmistakably distorted/unreal and the effect, so it seems to me, is far less
emotional than intellectual. Some RAMP-Fers have told me Im too
intellectually engaged and emotionally detached, and that is why I dont
enjoy, for example, "The Night of the Hunter". Yet it seems to me they've
got it backwards. Films of that nature, overtly expressionist, fail to
engage emotions IMO. Emotions are animal in nature and triggered by
elements of the real world. That's true even (and maybe especially) if
those real world elements are skillfully manipulated or even absurdly co
mingled so long as their appearance appeals to the animal within. But when
the manipulation becomes overt distortion the elements lose real world
character, they lose their animal appeal and no longer contain the emotional
triggers. Of course, what is "real world" is highly subject to ones
intellectual understanding of the world...so the two arent entirely
independent.
> I've never seen "Caligari," but doesn't that character's mental state
> go a bit unbalanced, & then doesn't the environment get all weirdly
> stretched & distorted in various ways to render that mentality
> visually?
It's a bit of an ironic or ambiguous ending, but its revealed in the last
few moments that the narrator may have been (or has become) unreliable
(insane). So your guess is a good one.
A.E. Jabbour
> Yet it seems to me they've
> got it backwards. Films of that nature, overtly expressionist, fail to
> engage emotions IMO. Emotions are animal in nature and triggered by
> elements of the real world. That's true even (and maybe especially) if
> those real world elements are skillfully manipulated or even absurdly co
> mingled so long as their appearance appeals to the animal within. But when
> the manipulation becomes overt distortion the elements lose real world
> character, they lose their animal appeal and no longer contain the emotional
> triggers. Of course, what is "real world" is highly subject to ones
> intellectual understanding of the world...so the two arent entirely
> independent.
I think you are describing a danger which is always present in any
sort of art which distorts in order to find the truth. In Caligari,
for example, the very world they inhabit is twisted and distorted,
obviously, in order to not only unsettle the viewer, but also to allow
the final reveal (we are watching the delusions of a madman) to have
even more impact.
Clearly, however, this approach runs the risk of alienating the
viewer (of course, in some cases, that is the point).
Ironically, Expressionism (in the plastic arts) was itself a reaction
to what was viewed as an overly-academic, stale, non-engaging style that
had had been established. This was also the motivation behind the
Pre-Raphaelite movement, more or less (at least as I understand it).
As it was eventually applied to film, Expressionism meant an attempt
to acquire the real truth of a world/situation/character/etc. through
the distortions and extremes of what was presented. Whether this
approach works with a particular viewer is really just a matter of
taste.
>> I've never seen "Caligari," but doesn't that character's mental state
>> go a bit unbalanced, & then doesn't the environment get all weirdly
>> stretched & distorted in various ways to render that mentality
>> visually?
>
> It's a bit of an ironic or ambiguous ending, but its revealed in the last
> few moments that the narrator may have been (or has become) unreliable
> (insane). So your guess is a good one.
I saw it as a fairly unambiguous ending, where it is clear that the
world which we have been viewing was the delusions of the madman/narrator
who feels opressed by the director of the asylum, and thus creates
a vast fantasy scenario where the director becomes a nefarious,
almost magical villain.
--
A.E. Jabbour
"Dancer in the Dark" is one of the most sadistic
films I've ever seen, but it also raises the
possibility that sadism might be, in spite of itself,
a species of love." - A.O. Scott
David
>I think you are describing a danger which is always present in any
>sort of art which distorts in order to find the truth. In Caligari,
>for example, the very world they inhabit is twisted and distorted,
>obviously, in order to not only unsettle the viewer, but also to allow
>the final reveal (we are watching the delusions of a madman) to have
>even more impact.
>
>Clearly, however, this approach runs the risk of alienating the
>viewer (of course, in some cases, that is the point).
My own case is that I don't need or even want to be emotionally
engaged by every last facet of art. I like to observe, too -- that's
what I mean when I say I might enjoy an exercise in style. I like
watching the mechanism reveal the choices the artist made or the steps
he took. I might call this level of enjoyment Brechtian, but whatever
it is, it's an important part of my experience & it co-exists with
emotional engagement. For example, in "Kane" I'm both emotionally
caught up in how Kane treats Susan (which itself is full of confusing
signals because I have empathy for Susan as well as sadistic pleasure
in her debasement) & more detachedly interested in the Wellesian
panoply of stylistic conventions that come from a bunch of sources
like expressionism, radio plays, spectacle, lyricism, leitmotifs,
visual puns, asynchronism -- all the various semiotic paraphernalia
the moviemaker uses to create a "show." That to me is enjoyable, &
that sort of aesthetic enjoyment gets all mixed up with my emotional
engagement so that I don't even bother thinking of one without the
other. That's also probably why I get nervous talking about "schools"
or "movements" or even styles: because none of it seems pure in
movies, wholly this or wholly that. I see a lot of expressionistic
technique in film noir; to me the subjective aspect is an essential
one in expressionism, but in a typical film noir, the subjectivity
could be the protagonist's, a secondary character's, the omniscient
narrator's or even the entire city's perception of itself. All those
elongated shadows & dark figures could be the visual representation of
the despair & loneliness of every inhabitant in that urban nightmare.
>As it was eventually applied to film, Expressionism meant an attempt
>to acquire the real truth of a world/situation/character/etc. through
>the distortions and extremes of what was presented. Whether this
>approach works with a particular viewer is really just a matter of
>taste.
I think the approach works damned well over & over. Karl Freund even
employs an expressionistic trick in a very self-reflexive & sarcastic
way in, of all places, an episode of "I Love Lucy" called "Breaking
the Lease." Because it's mostly filmic, the studio audience would have
had little to no idea what was going on while watching it live. Ricky
& Lucy are in bed trying to get to sleep, & the water faucet in the
bathroom sink is dripping. Ricky's eyes pop open & widen; the camera
zooms in, slowly distorting Ricky's face. He clutches his head in a
mock-agony pose, turning side to side, his eyeballs going in circles
as if he were experiencing Chinese water torture; & the scene builds &
builds until he explodes in rage & madness, jumping out of bed
screaming "I can't stand it anymore!" & runs into the bathroom to hack
away at the offending faucet with a wrench.
Armin Jaeger
It's annoying that the term "expressionist film" is used for German
silent cinema because it's horribly wrong and your post goes much more
in the right direction.
The breakthrough for German cinema was "The Cabinet of Dr.Caligari"
(1920) by Robert Wiene. The film has an ordinary, non-expressionistic
crime story, but in fact uses expressionistic design. This lead to the
"expressionism" label for all following films. But there is only one
purely expressionistic picture in the whole German silent cinema and
that is "Von morgens bis mitternachts" (1922) by Karl-Heinz Martin
which is based on an expressionistic play by Georg Kaiser and has also
an expressionistic design. This film aside there are no storys based
on expressionistic texts (which are mostly poems and short stories and
due to their extremely experimental nature not adaptable to the
cinema) and almost no films which have an expressionistic design.
Expressionism IS NOT the famous shadow play for which German silent
cinema is known, it's a art with flat color areas without perspective
and shadows http://www.oberlin.edu/allenart/artpix2/schmidt-rottluff_ft.jpg
http://www.nelepets.com/art/images/styles/Modern%20Art/584-1w%20copy.jpg
. You can find this design in some lesser known films like "Torgus"
(1921) from Hanns Kobe, "Genuine" (1920) and "Raskolnikow" (1923) by
Robert Wiene and in the nightclub scenes of "Dr.Mabuse" (1922). The
famous shadow play in films like "Faust" is simply a rebirth of
romanticism especially the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich
http://www.ifir.edu.ar/~planetario/Caspar%20David%20Friedrich-Moon.jpg
http://www.unifr.ch/tmf/IMG/png/friedrich4.png . The stories also tend
to be from this time and deal wih the phantastic which is a frequent
topic of the literature of this time, read some stories by romantic
poet E.T.A. Hoffmann and you'll see where it does come from.
Murnau is absolutely free from expressionism, Lang merges different
influences and there are occasional expressionistic bits, but in
movies it was mostly present from 1920-1922 in today lesser known
films except for "Caligari" which unfortunately launched the confusion
with romanticizm which is the dominating aspect in German silent
cinema.
Sawfish
forward: the main body of Kenneth Anger's work, but perhaps represented by
"Inauguration of the PLeasure Dome," and the dream sequence from a Werner
Herzog film, I think it was "The Enigma of Kapser Hauser". The latter,
especially, is a great example of tripping on on my personal emotional
switches, and I'm sure not certain how. If anyone disussing this htread is
familiar with either of these examples, I'd be happy to hear his/her
observations. I, myself, am at a loss.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
steve
On 19-Mar-2005, David <dobe...@fields.com> wrote:
> I might call this level of enjoyment Brechtian, but whatever
> it is, it's an important part of my experience & it co-exists with
> emotional engagement. For example, in "Kane" I'm both emotionally
> caught up in how Kane treats Susan (which itself is full of confusing
> signals because I have empathy for Susan as well as sadistic pleasure
> in her debasement) & more detachedly interested in the Wellesian
> panoply of stylistic conventions that come from a bunch of sources
> like expressionism, radio plays, spectacle, lyricism, leitmotifs,
> visual puns, asynchronism -- all the various semiotic paraphernalia
> the moviemaker uses to create a "show."
Certainly a valid approach to film or any type of art..to admire the skill
of the artists. You've taken me one more step in the direction of my
suspicion that "Kane" (and probably a few other celebrated films) are what I
call "film geek films" for the very reasons you cite. I think some people
are in love with the medium as much or more than the experience film can
create.
> I think the approach works damned well over & over. Karl Freund even
> employs an expressionistic trick in a very self-reflexive & sarcastic
> way in, of all places, an episode of "I Love Lucy" called "Breaking
> the Lease." Because it's mostly filmic, the studio audience would have
> had little to no idea what was going on while watching it live. Ricky
> & Lucy are in bed trying to get to sleep, & the water faucet in the
> bathroom sink is dripping. Ricky's eyes pop open & widen; the camera
> zooms in, slowly distorting Ricky's face. He clutches his head in a
> mock-agony pose, turning side to side, his eyeballs going in circles
> as if he were experiencing Chinese water torture; & the scene builds &
> builds until he explodes in rage & madness, jumping out of bed
> screaming "I can't stand it anymore!" & runs into the bathroom to hack
> away at the offending faucet with a wrench.
Obviously you've never seen the directors cut. The dripping faucet itself
was an expressionist device. You see, the next morning Lucy is found
bludgeoned to death with a pipe wrench. Ricky sits next to her, pipe in
hand (ahem), muttering "I've fixed that annoying drip forever."
Sawfish
This is a very enjoyable and informative discussion! I, too, have
superficailly dismissed all "Caligari-like" film as Ex[ressionistic,
without really understadning the term.
In literature, it would seem to me that Gunter Grass' "Tin Drum" would
share some of the main elements of expressionism. What is your view of
this?
Thanks!
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Armin Jaeger
Haunted Screen" and while most people know of the problems in blurring
romanticism and expressionism, the term "expressionistic" cinema is
still widely used.
> In literature, it would seem to me that Gunter Grass' "Tin Drum" would
> share some of the main elements of expressionism. What is your view of
> this?
examination :-).
No, I don't think it has much to do with expressionism, it follows the
tradition of the piquaresque novel and is much more conventional than
expressionism.
It is hard to define expressionism exactly because too many different
authors are put together in this term, but the nature of expressionism
more or less forbids longer novels. It's a literature (roughly
1905-1920) which aims for maximum expression in using aggregations of
very intense vocabulary (soul, humanity, youth, future, storm, fire,
flood) and many superlatives. Best known authors are Georg Trakl,
Georg Heym, Gottfried Benn and Alfred Döblin whose famous novel
"Berlin - Alexanderplatz" has traces of expressionism. The style works
best in poems which are regularly read in school. Narrative texts
essentially break with story logic and are often very short (Gottfried
Benns collection of stories titled "Brains" is a good example). At its
worst expressionstic texts are ridiculous in their extreme emotional
language which assassinates the reader with emotional pleas without a
break. Additionally expressionism has a rebellious stance against
everything (especially the Wilhelminian empire) and uses revolutionary
and military words with an apocalyptic touch without having the
faintest idea what it really wants which lead to outbursts of joy by
most poets as WWI began, the pathetical rhetoric looks occasionally
pre-fascistic, Hitler is the same age as most poets from this era. The
subtler works by Trakl, Benn, Heym and others avoid this, e.g. Benn
shocked his readers with impassionate descriptions of corpses in his
poems (he was pathologist, read http://www.fa-kuan.muc.de/BENN.RXML at
the bottom) and with the translation of mental illness in texts which
don't follow a usual logical chain of events, Trakl creates a strange
mood in his poems http://www.poetryconnection.net/poets/Georg_Trakl/4981
.
Finally expressionism developed in dadaism which is nonsense poetry
and refuses to give any meaning to its texts, famous are the sound
poems of Hugo Ball which don't use words, here is a nice example :-)
http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/ball/gedichte/brulba.htm
Expressionistic literature is as radical as you can get :-). Germany's
silent cinema has in its stories almost no connections with
expressionistic literature.
Sawfish
>Sawfish <m...@q7.com> wrote
>> This is a very enjoyable and informative discussion! I, too, have
>> superficailly dismissed all "Caligari-like" film as Expressionistic,
>> without really understadning the term.
>Lotte Eisner already pointed this problem out in her seminal book "The
>Haunted Screen" and while most people know of the problems in blurring
>romanticism and expressionism, the term "expressionistic" cinema is
>still widely used.
>> In literature, it would seem to me that Gunter Grass' "Tin Drum" would
>> share some of the main elements of expressionism. What is your view of
>> this?
>Oh boy ... the "Tin Drum" was our topic at the school leaving
>examination :-).
>No, I don't think it has much to do with expressionism, it follows the
>tradition of the piquaresque novel and is much more conventional than
>expressionism.
Let me clarify. If taken at fact value, it is a picareque novel. But the
incidents, and the explantions, lead me to believe that Tin Drum is a
telling early/mid 20th C German cultural history through the eyes of an
insane dwarf.
Given this view, would you consider it expressionistic, at least in its
use of a distorted POV?
To what precedents would you attach Hans Fallada? I realize that you are
talking about early expressionism (with which I am not familiar) as
opposed to later works that may have been strongly influenced by
expressionism.
I'm still stabbing around for a *basic* understanding of expressionism.
Dadaism is a paradox of self-annihilation, as a movement. Any movement
that has repeatble motifs is not to be aligned with it, as far as I can
see.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <------------------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish
Armin Jaeger
> incidents, and the explantions, lead me to believe that Tin Drum is a
> telling early/mid 20th C German cultural history through the eyes of an
> insane dwarf.
> Given this view, would you consider it expressionistic, at least in its
> use of a distorted POV?
very clever. And the perspective isn't distorted at all. Read the
stories in Benn's "Brains" with Dr.Rönne, they are only a few pages
long. THERE you get a really distorted view of the world.
> To what precedents would you attach Hans Fallada? I realize that you are
> talking about early expressionism (with which I am not familiar) as
> opposed to later works that may have been strongly influenced by
> expressionism.
Fallada is a classical author of new objectivity which replaced
expressionism in the 20s in Germany. Expressionism lasted only a
decade and was by 1920 dead.
> I'm still stabbing around for a *basic* understanding of expressionism.
Which unites you with all folks who learn German studies :-). The
authors are to different to subsume them with one term and I always
feel uncomfortable with such generalizations. The shrill, hysterical
language, the dark apocalyptic mood and the break with logical
connections in stories and poems is the best I can offer.
Sawfish
>Sawfish <m...@q7.com> wrote
>> Let me clarify. If taken at fact value, it is a picareque novel. But the
>> incidents, and the explantions, lead me to believe that Tin Drum is a
>> telling early/mid 20th C German cultural history through the eyes of an
>> insane dwarf.
>> Given this view, would you consider it expressionistic, at least in its
>> use of a distorted POV?
>Oskar in the Tin Drum is certainly not insane quite the contrary he's
>very clever.
I won't go to the wall on this, but I disagree based on several phenomena
he presents as fact:
breaking glass with his voice;
the power of his drumming;
mother eats herself to death after a trauma (can't recall);
his growth stops based on a certain incident, and this incident
seems like a moral trauma (like his mom's);
Anyway, I respect your viewpoint and would have to dust the book off and
read it thoroughly to be able to intelligently discuss this with you, as
you deserve. I just came away with the strong impression after reading it
twice (the second time 20 years ago) that the POV was delusional and
highly unreliable. Schizophrenic, perhaps.
> And the perspective isn't distorted at all. Read the
>stories in Benn's "Brains" with Dr.Rönne, they are only a few pages
>long. THERE you get a really distorted view of the world.
I will try to find these. Thanks for the recommendation!
>> To what precedents would you attach Hans Fallada? I realize that you are
>> talking about early expressionism (with which I am not familiar) as
>> opposed to later works that may have been strongly influenced by
>> expressionism.
>Fallada is a classical author of new objectivity which replaced
>expressionism in the 20s in Germany. Expressionism lasted only a
>decade and was by 1920 dead.
>> I'm still stabbing around for a *basic* understanding of expressionism.
>Which unites you with all folks who learn German studies :-). The
>authors are to different to subsume them with one term and I always
>feel uncomfortable with such generalizations. The shrill, hysterical
>language, the dark apocalyptic mood and the break with logical
>connections in stories and poems is the best I can offer.
Thanks sincerely for these valuable insights!