Translated from MSZ 2-1985

Culture notes

The art of film

“Paris, Texas”

1.
A leathery man in his late forties (type: “lonely cowboy”) ends up, shortly before a mid-life crisis, with a life-loving, very young blonde (type: Nasti Kinski). Will this work out? He, Travis, asks this himself, and gives her a child – to solidify the bond. Now things go even deeper down the toilet. She runs away from him with her child – to the big city (type: “concrete, cold, alienating, corrupt”). He runs away from himself, alone – to the desert (type: “loneliness, deprivation, atonement, self-discovery”). She gives the child to her relatives and puts herself in a peep-show. He gives up thinking and language in the burning hot desert sands.

The end? No! What about the child? Who does a child belong to? Especially one not conceived for its own sake? To the mother, even one who works in a peep show! It must be given to her again, by him. But this time truly, purely. Without any calculation, to cherry lips Nasti. And so the scriptwriter drags the father back out of the desert. Which is not so easy because he keeps turning around; the blonde (!) brat cheers him up and he brings Nasti his last, biggest sacrifice: his son.

Penultimate scene: a blond child lies in the arms of a blond mother. Last shot: The father rides his Chevy back into the desert – at sunset or sunrise.

2.
This is art because you only learn what the film is about after two hours. Third to last scene: In the single-room peep-show (“disconnection”), the leather man reveals who he is to the peep mother via the intercom (“alienation”), she eventually catches on and then, with her version of the drama and a lot of streaky make-up (“facade crumbles”), complements the moral oozings from the old man.

3.
What happens in the movie before that? First the dumbass cowboy stumbles endlessly and mute as a graveyard (“voicelessness”) through the desert. Then his brother, who doesn’t realize – unlike the art film goer – how fundamentally eloquent Travis’s voicelessness is, endlessly pesters him to open up his mouth. That’s what he finally does, too, and then he babbles endlessly and without any flashbacks.

4.
Rating: highly worthwhile.

“Red Dawn”

LOWEST OF THE LOW

A staunchly right-wing American director has shot a no-frills hit piece against the Soviet Union. Just like communist propaganda, he has Europe falling victim to Green neutrality and surrendering to the Russians; Ivan – true to the dogma about the aggressiveness of Soviet communists – invades the effete land of the Yanks with the help of Nicaraguan and Cuban agents; they then ambush and slaughter people in a scorched earth program. A gang of schoolchildren play the heroes of freedom, ambushing and slaughtering people in a scorched earth program, in western avenger style for the good cause. Here one is provided with the familiar war film template of man against man, good against evil, which have to be made clearly distinguishable for the audience because both use the same means. In keeping with the line of Reagan’s crusade, the good guys and the bad guys are even called by their political names, which have been valid for forty years. And American critics are already recognizing this as an artistic contribution to political culture in the motherland of freedom:

“One fascinating exercise was called Red Dawn. In the guise of a sort of right-wing adolescent version of For Whom the Bell Tolls, it is an allegory designed subtly to reverse the moral onus of the Viet Nam War. The U.S. is invaded by Communist forces (Cubans and Nicaraguans in the service of the Soviets), and the teen-age American heroes and heroines take to the Colorado hills to form a guerrilla band. The Americans become the Viet Cong, the little guys, the underdogs fighting for their own land. The Soviets become the oppressive great power (the Americans in Viet Nam), the occupiers with superior forces and sinister helicopter gunships. Thus the guilt belongs with the Soviets, and an odd kind of subliminal absolution descends upon the American viewing audience.” (Time magazine, January 7, 1985 in its annual review under the title: “Feeling Proud Again: Showing What America’s Entrepreneurial Spirit Can Do”)

But already the entire pack of German critics, from “Spiegel” to “aspekte,” are howling with indignation: This does not contribute to the political culture in our country. This is

“Primitive” and “moronic”

“. . . they shoot hostages, burn books, rape girls . . .” (Hellmuth Karasek, in “Der Spiegel”)

This is something that a film critic in this country knows: they are not that simple, the Russians; one doesn’t want to see them portrayed in such plain enemy images, even if inspectors of military morale are always still bringing up sisters who were raped during the Russian occupation. We need to warn against communist enslavement, Stalinist dictatorship, and the East’s lack of culture with “class,” namely with deep parables and images; we must not simply celebrate the John Wayne-style violent elimination of evil. The Gulag Archipelago, Fahrenheit 451, and Holocaust – these are worthy of a Noble Prize and Oscars and satisfies the awareness of problems and culture of someone like Hellmuth Karasek.

“A naive black and white portrayal”

“Milius’ young heroes are a paragon of cleanliness, intelligence and willingness to make sacrifices, while their Soviet counterparts are characterized by brutality and stupidity.” (Süddeutsche Zeitung)

“Of course, the American schoolboys are vastly superior to their adult opponents . . .” (aspekte)

Then how would we prefer it? For the Russians to also be good, clever and selfless? Maybe the only ones who are? Or all a little bit good and evil; tragically entangled; torn between patriotic duty and affection; even further: war perverts humanity; friends-enemies all mixed up and terrible? When an ardent Western lover and Parisian silk stockings defeat the servile Bolshevik spirit and cold heart of Ninotchka Garbo, then this guarantees Lubitsch’s wit. But when a crew of brave Yanks shoots at Russian primitives, it’s beneath German cultural standards.

“Undemocratic”

“ . . . a leader must be found . . . On the way to final victory, the high school students learn all the virtues that a democrat needs in a war against Roosskis and Reds from Cuba.” (Spiegel)

The military spirit is on the big screen, and a sensitive European simply doesn’t spot any democratic qualities there, only an uncivilized perversion of democracy, made in the USA. Helmut Kohl-haters really do believe that politicians actually are (or should be) spiritual leaders.

“Unrealistic”

“...to undermine military power. Then why does the West and the free world need missiles, neutron bombs and laser cannons when it is enough for a few schoolchildren to go to partisan warfare after school instead of playing football?” (Spiegel)

“A nuclear overkill has no place in Milius’ imagination.” (Süddeutsche Zeitung)

One might dislike such images of a will to fight that is confident of winning. Informed minds prefer the creepy, absurd scenario of a Day After and enjoy the stupid idea that war is a senseless catastrophe that humanity only slides into out of sheer irrationality. This is called “realism.”

Nevertheless, critics do not want to call the film

a representative mash-up of the anti-communism in force.

For this, cultured people give politicians too much credit for a culture of domination – even that of an American president, whom such people otherwise like to criticize for having a primitive cowboy mentality and a naïve friend-enemy image:

“Even more disconcerting than the naivety of this moral mobilization is that such a film could find financiers and distributors at all. . . . Former Secretary of State Haig, a member of the MGM executive board, was enthusiastic about the finished work.” (“Süddeutsche,” perplexed) “Of all times to release such a movie, right when the USA has signaled a new willingness to negotiate.” (“aspekte,” disappointed) “If the movie weren’t so annoyingly stupid, it would signal the militarist spirit of the Reagan era. But like this? Not like this.” (“Spiegel,” sophisticated, ironic and superior as ever)

One thing they all know: politics cannot be this mindless. The success in Berlin and elsewhere was resounding: demonstrators disrupted the “unconstitutional” and “war-glorifying” film. It was canceled.

Remember: From (war) toys to (war) films – German culture must remain pure! March, march, young German filmmakers and self-censorship!