《国际电影影片词典》书籍电子文献资料（英文版）International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers Volume 1 FILMS（L、M、N、O）

K KAAGAZ KE PHOOL Niogret, H,"Les moyens de I'emotion, in Positif(Paris), Janu ary1985. Mishra, V, ""Decentering History: Some Versions of Bombay Cin (Paper Flowers) ema, in East-West Film Journal(Honolulu), vol 6, no. 1, 1992 Rajadhyaskaha, Ashish, The Epic Melodrama: Themes of National- dia.1959 ity in Indian Cinema, in Journal of Arts and Ideas, nos. Director: Guru dutt Khan, Pervaiz, Nasreen Munni Kabir, and Ashish Rajadhyaksh The Song Picture Man, 'in Sight Sound (London), vol. 4, no. Production: Guru Dutt Films Pvt Ltd; colour, 35mm: CinemaScope 10 October 1994 (first Indian CinemaScope production); running time: 150 minutes Producer: Guru Dutt; screenplay and dialogue: Abrar Alvi: pho tography: V.K. Murthy; editor: Y G Chauhan; art director: M.R. chrekar; sound: S. V. Rama; music: S. D. Burman: songs: Kaifi Guru Dutt's tour de force, Kaagaz Ke Phool, is a tale of a mov cts on his life. Unhappily married to Bin Azmi: costumes: Bhanumati. because her elitist, colonial family cannot reconcile themselves to his career in the degraded movie industry, Suresh Sinha falls in love with Cast: Baby Naaz(Pammy): Venna(Bina): Mahesh Kaul (Father-in a young orphaned woman, Shanti. He makes her into a famous movie law): Waheeda Rehman (Shanti): Guru Dutt (Suresh Sinha): Johnny star, and gossip journals suggest a romantic liaison between the two Walker (Bina's brother-in-law): Minoo Mumtaz: Pratima Devi Sinha's daughter Pammy, who believes that her parents can reconcile Niloufer, Sulochana; Sheila Vaz: Bikram Kapoor; Mehmood: Mohan their differences if Shanti were to quit films, gets Shanti to promise to Choti; Haroun; Munshi Munaqga; V Ratra; Tony Walker; Tun Tun disappear from Sinha's life However, her disappearance only leads to a rapid decline in Sinha's fortunes. Refusing to face Shanti in his impoverished condition, Sinha eventually dies sitting on the direc- Publications tors chair in a gigantic, womb-like studio interior. The plot is often seen as Dutt's autobiography, and to some extent Books derives its astonishing power in the director/lead stars extraordinary impersonation of the tragic hero, rejected as it were by fate itself-as Khopkar, Arun, Guru Dutt: A Three Act Tragedy, Marathi, n.d. suggested in the opening musical refrain( Waqt hai meharbaan) and Rangoonwala, Firoze, Guru Dutt 1925-1965: A Monograph, repeated throughout the film. The persona continues from Dutt's Poona, 1973 previous work, Pyaasa, where he plays a romantic poet exiled from Micciollo. Henri. Guru Dutt. Paris. 1978 the world and believed dead while his oppressors celebrate his Burra, Rani, editor, Looking Back, 1896-1960, New Delhi, 1981 Gandhy, Behroze, and Paul willeman, Indian Cinema, London, 1982 Such an idiom--of the romantic melodrama--was well estab Banerjee, Shampa, Profiles: Five Film-makers from India: V. lished especially in the Hindi cinema when the film was made. Critics Shantaram, Raj Kapoor, Mrinal Sen, Guru Dutt, Ritwik Ghatak, generally accept that the idiom, which I have elsewhere(1993)called New Delhi. 1985 the"epic melodrama, emerged in the context of Indian nationalism, Kabir, Nasreen M, Guru Dutt: A Life in Cinema, New York, especially as the utopian dimension of the freedom struggle gave way 1996,1998 to a coercive state, corruption, mass culture, and to the despair that Dutt, better than any other filmmaker, expresses in Pyaasa with his Articles. lines:*"This land of castles. thrones and crowns/./Burn this land/ Blow it away /Remove it from my sight(Yeh mehlon ki duniya). To Padukone, Vasanthi, " "My Son Gurudutt, in Imprint, April 1979 a great extent Dutt, as actor, comes in line with the previous male stars Blanchet, C, Cinema(Paris). December 1984 reflecting this infantile Oedipal longing, with images built up over a body of work: Dilip Kumar(e. g. in Deedar, 1951, where he blinds Cinema(Paris), December 1984. himself), Raj Kapoor, the outcast of modern society. Kaagaz Ke Ostria, V,"L'ombre d'un Dutt, in Cahiers du Cinema(Paris), Phool in fact refers directly to what is considered by some as the December 1984 origin of this romantic stereotype: Devdas, a Saratchandra literary 619

619 KAAGAZ KE PHOOL K (Paper Flowers) India, 1959 Director: Guru Dutt Production: Guru Dutt Films Pvt. Ltd.; colour, 35mm; CinemaScope (first Indian CinemaScope production); running time: 150 minutes. Producer: Guru Dutt; screenplay and dialogue: Abrar Alvi; pho￾tography: V. K. Murthy; editor: Y. G. Chauhan; art director: M. R. Achrekar; sound: S. V. Rama; music: S. D. Burman; songs: Kaifi Azmi; costumes: Bhanumati. Cast: Baby Naaz (Pammy); Venna (Bina); Mahesh Kaul (Father-in￾law); Waheeda Rehman (Shanti); Guru Dutt (Suresh Sinha); Johnny Walker (Bina’s brother-in-law); Minoo Mumtaz; Pratima Devi; Niloufer; Sulochana; Sheila Vaz; Bikram Kapoor; Mehmood; Mohan Choti; Haroun; Munshi Munaqqa; V. Ratra; Tony Walker; Tun Tun. Publications Books: Khopkar, Arun, Guru Dutt: A Three Act Tragedy, Marathi, n.d. Rangoonwala, Firoze, Guru Dutt 1925–1965: A Monograph, Poona, 1973. Micciollo, Henri, Guru Dutt, Paris, 1978. Burra, Rani, editor, Looking Back, 1896–1960, New Delhi, 1981. Gandhy, Behroze, and Paul Willeman, Indian Cinema, London, 1982. Banerjee, Shampa, Profiles: Five Film-makers from India: V. Shantaram, Raj Kapoor, Mrinal Sen, Guru Dutt, Ritwik Ghatak, New Delhi, 1985. Kabir, Nasreen M., Guru Dutt: A Life in Cinema, New York, 1996, 1998. Articles: Padukone, Vasanthi, ‘‘My Son Gurudutt,’’ in Imprint, April 1979. Blanchet, C., Cinéma (Paris), December 1984. Bassan, R., ‘‘Une autopsie du monde du spectacle,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), December 1984. Ostria, V., ‘‘L’ombre d’un Dutt,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1984. Niogret, H., ‘‘Les moyens de l’emotion,’’ in Positif (Paris), Janu￾ary 1985. Mishra, V., ‘‘Decentering History: Some Versions of Bombay Cin￾ema,’’ in East-West Film Journal (Honolulu), vol. 6, no. 1, 1992. Rajadhyaskaha, Ashish, ‘‘The Epic Melodrama: Themes of National￾ity in Indian Cinema,’’ in Journal of Arts and Ideas, nos. 25–26, 1993. Khan, Pervaiz, Nasreen Munni Kabir, and Ashish Rajadhyaksha, ‘‘The Song Picture Man,’’ in Sight & Sound (London), vol. 4, no. 10, October 1994. *** Guru Dutt’s tour de force, Kaagaz Ke Phool, is a tale of a movie director who reflects on his life. Unhappily married to Bina, mainly because her elitist, colonial family cannot reconcile themselves to his career in the degraded movie industry, Suresh Sinha falls in love with a young orphaned woman, Shanti. He makes her into a famous movie star, and gossip journals suggest a romantic liaison between the two. Sinha’s daughter Pammy, who believes that her parents can reconcile their differences if Shanti were to quit films, gets Shanti to promise to disappear from Sinha’s life. However, her disappearance only leads to a rapid decline in Sinha’s fortunes. Refusing to face Shanti in his impoverished condition, Sinha eventually dies sitting on the direc￾tor’s chair in a gigantic, womb-like studio interior. The plot is often seen as Dutt’s autobiography, and to some extent derives its astonishing power in the director/lead star’s extraordinary impersonation of the tragic hero, rejected as it were by fate itself—as suggested in the opening musical refrain (Waqt hai meharbaan) and repeated throughout the film. The persona continues from Dutt’s previous work, Pyaasa, where he plays a romantic poet exiled from the world and believed dead while his oppressors celebrate his greatness. Such an idiom—of the romantic melodrama—was well estab￾lished especially in the Hindi cinema when the film was made. Critics generally accept that the idiom, which I have elsewhere (1993) called the ‘‘epic melodrama,’’ emerged in the context of Indian nationalism, especially as the utopian dimension of the freedom struggle gave way to a coercive state, corruption, mass culture, and to the despair that Dutt, better than any other filmmaker, expresses in Pyaasa with his lines: ‘‘This land of castles, thrones and crowns/ . . . /Burn this land/ Blow it away/Remove it from my sight’’ (Yeh mehlon ki duniya). To a great extent Dutt, as actor, comes in line with the previous male stars reflecting this infantile Oedipal longing, with images built up over a body of work: Dilip Kumar (e.g. in Deedar, 1951, where he blinds himself), Raj Kapoor, the outcast of modern society. Kaagaz Ke Phool in fact refers directly to what is considered by some as the origin of this romantic stereotype: Devdas, a Saratchandra literary

DAS KABINETT DES DR CALIGARI FILMS. 4 EDITIoN character filmed by P C Barua with K L Saigal in 1935, and then by Producer: Erich Pommer, screenplay: Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz, Dilip Kumar in 1955. The fictional Suresh Sinha is in from an original story by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz; photogra fact directing a Devdas version, and is desperately looking for an ideal phy: Willy Hameister; production designers: Hermann Warm, Paro when he chances upon Shanti. Walter Reimann, and Walter Rohrig; costume designer: Walter Kaagaz Ke Phool however, took that tradition of romantic melo- Reimann drama onto a wholly new, and unprecedented plane, and to see how it did so, we need only to continue with the sequence of how Sinha Cast: Werner Krauss(Dr Caligari): Conrad Veidt(Cesare): Friedrich discovers Shanti. He has been rejected by his wife and by his haughty Feher(Francis): Lil Dagover (Jane): Hans Heinz von Twardowski father-in-law, and stands beneath a tree to shelter himself from the(Alan): Rudolf Ettinger(Dr. Olsen); Rudolph Klein-Rogge( Criminal) rain. Shanti, standing next to him and shivering in the cold, receives a gift of his overcoat, and later, arrives on his film set to return that coat. She intrudes onto Sinha's frame, and in an extraordinary follow. Publications up, is seen in close-up in the directors editing room where he realizes that she is the star he is waiting for. Script That sequence spins throughout the film a whole dimension of cinematic space, as shown by the two extraordinary and justly Mayer, Carl, and Hans Janowitz, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, edited celebrated scenes of Sinha and Shanti standing apart in a cavernous by robert Adkinson, New York, 1972; also included in Masterworks studio, lit centrally by a straightforward metaphoric beam, as their of the German Cinema, edited by Roger Manvell, London and disembodiedspirits emerge and unite; and at the end when the New York. 1973 director dies in that very space. It extends into one of the most sophisticated crane movements in what was Indias first full Books CinemaScope film, constantly dramatizing the conflict between open and constricted spaces, spaces controlled by the director and space Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological Hi constraining him, spaces that he can enter and those from which he tory of the German Cinema, Princeton, 1947. Wollenberg, Hans H, 50 Years of German Cinema, London, 1948 It also extends into the poet Kaifi Azmi's remarkable songs, set to Huaco. George A, The Sociology of Film Art, New York, 1965 music by Burman and picturized in an unprecedentedly new idiom by Eisner, Lotte, The Haunted Screen, Berkeley, 1969 Dutt. The best known is of course the Waqt hai meharbaan which Manvell. Roger and Heinrich Fraenkel. The German Cinema. New resurfaces, e.g. when the director, reduced to being an extra on Y a movie set, faces a giant stone eagle, and then escapes from Shanti Everson, William K, Classics of the Horror Film,Secaucus, New ven as nature generates a storm of protest all around him. The songs, Jersey, 1974 especially, evoke something like a Sufi idiom, of the tragedy of Laqueur, Walter, Weimar: A Cultural History1918-1933,New unreachable, unattainable desire, and in the process also rescue the York,1974. film from the sentimentalism that afflicts several other filmmakers Prawer, S.S., Caligaris Children: The Film as Tale of Terror, New yorking in the idiom of romantic melodrama--notably Kidar Sharma. York, and Oxford, 1980 The film it might be added was a commercial failure when it was Barton, John D, German Expressionist Film, Boston, 1982 first released, prompting Dutt to not sign his future productions. Over Brunner, Stephen Eric, and Douglas Kenner, Passion and Rebellion he years it has, however, become something of a cult movie, notabl The Expressionist Heritage, London, 1983 for its songs and their picturization. Budd, Mike, editor, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: Texts, Contexts, Histories, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1990. -Ashish Rajadhyaksha Hardt, Ursula, From Caligari to California: Eric Pommer's Life in Robinson, David, Das Cabinet des Dr Caligari, London, 19 Jung, Uli, and Walter Schatzberg, Beyond Caligari: The DAS KABINETT DES DR CALIGARI Robert Wiene. New York. 1999 CThe Cabinet of Dr Caligari) Articles Germany. 1920 Variety(New York), 8 April 1921 Kracauer, Siegfried, in Partisan Review(New Brunswick, New Director: robert wiene Jersey), March-April 1947. Melnitz, William, Aspects of War and Revolution in the Theater and Production: Decla Filmgellschaft(Berlin): black and white, 35mm. Film of the Weimar Republic, in Hollywood Quarterly, no.3 silent, originally tinted in green, brown, and steely-blue: length: 4682 1948-49. feet. Released February 1920, Berlin. Filmed Winter 1919 in Decla Luft, Herbert, in Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Television(Berkeley), Summer 1954

DAS KABINETT DES DR. CALIGARI FILMS, 4th EDITION 620 character filmed by P. C. Barua with K. L. Saigal in 1935, and then by Bimal Roy with Dilip Kumar in 1955. The fictional Suresh Sinha is in fact directing a Devdas version, and is desperately looking for an ideal Paro when he chances upon Shanti. Kaagaz Ke Phool however, took that tradition of romantic melo￾drama onto a wholly new, and unprecedented plane, and to see how it did so, we need only to continue with the sequence of how Sinha discovers Shanti. He has been rejected by his wife and by his haughty father-in-law, and stands beneath a tree to shelter himself from the rain. Shanti, standing next to him and shivering in the cold, receives a gift of his overcoat, and later, arrives on his film set to return that coat. She intrudes onto Sinha’s frame, and in an extraordinary follow￾up, is seen in close-up in the director’s editing room where he realizes that she is the star he is waiting for. That sequence spins throughout the film a whole dimension of cinematic space, as shown by the two extraordinary and justly celebrated scenes of Sinha and Shanti standing apart in a cavernous studio, lit centrally by a straightforward metaphoric beam, as their disembodied spirits emerge and unite; and at the end when the director dies in that very space. It extends into one of the most sophisticated crane movements in what was India’s first full CinemaScope film, constantly dramatizing the conflict between open and constricted spaces, spaces controlled by the director and spaces constraining him, spaces that he can enter and those from which he is excluded. It also extends into the poet Kaifi Azmi’s remarkable songs, set to music by Burman and picturized in an unprecedentedly new idiom by Dutt. The best known is of course the Waqt hai meharbaan which resurfaces, e.g. when the director, reduced to being an extra on a movie set, faces a giant stone eagle, and then escapes from Shanti even as nature generates a storm of protest all around him. The songs, especially, evoke something like a Sufi idiom, of the tragedy of unreachable, unattainable desire, and in the process also rescue the film from the sentimentalism that afflicts several other filmmakers working in the idiom of romantic melodrama—notably Kidar Sharma. The film, it might be added, was a commercial failure when it was first released, prompting Dutt to not sign his future productions. Over the years it has, however, become something of a cult movie, notably for its songs and their picturization. —Ashish Rajadhyaksha DAS KABINETT DES DR. CALIGARI (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) Germany, 1920 Director: Robert Wiene Production: Decla Filmgellschaft (Berlin); black and white, 35mm, silent, originally tinted in green, brown, and steely-blue; length: 4682 feet. Released February 1920, Berlin. Filmed Winter 1919 in Decla studios; cost $18,000. Producer: Erich Pommer; screenplay: Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz, from an original story by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz; photogra￾phy: Willy Hameister; production designers: Hermann Warm, Walter Reimann, and Walter Röhrig; costume designer: Walter Reimann. Cast: Werner Krauss (Dr. Caligari); Conrad Veidt (Cesare); Friedrich Feher (Francis); Lil Dagover (Jane); Hans Heinz von Twardowski (Alan); Rudolf Lettinger (Dr. Olsen); Rudolph Klein-Rogge (Criminal). Publications Script: Mayer, Carl, and Hans Janowitz, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, edited by Robert Adkinson, New York, 1972; also included in Masterworks of the German Cinema, edited by Roger Manvell, London and New York, 1973. Books: Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological His￾tory of the German Cinema, Princeton, 1947. Wollenberg, Hans H., 50 Years of German Cinema, London, 1948. Huaco, George A., The Sociology of Film Art, New York, 1965. Eisner, Lotte, The Haunted Screen, Berkeley, 1969. Manvell, Roger, and Heinrich Fraenkel, The German Cinema, New York, 1971. Everson, William K., Classics of the Horror Film, Secaucus, New Jersey, 1974. Laqueur, Walter, Weimar: A Cultural History 1918–1933, New York, 1974. Prawer, S. S., Caligari’s Children: The Film as Tale of Terror, New York, and Oxford, 1980. Barton, John D., German Expressionist Film, Boston, 1982. Brunner, Stephen Eric, and Douglas Kenner, Passion and Rebellion: The Expressionist Heritage, London, 1983. Budd, Mike, editor, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: Texts, Contexts, Histories, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1990. Hardt, Ursula, From Caligari to California: Eric Pommer’s Life in the International Film Wars, New York, 1996. Robinson, David, Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari, London, 1998. Jung, Uli, and Walter Schatzberg, Beyond Caligari: The Films of Robert Wiene, New York, 1999. Articles: New York Times, 4 April 1921. Variety (New York), 8 April 1921. Kracauer, Siegfried, in Partisan Review (New Brunswick, New Jersey), March-April 1947. Melnitz, William, ‘‘Aspects of War and Revolution in the Theater and Film of the Weimar Republic,’’ in Hollywood Quarterly, no.3, 1948–49. Luft, Herbert, in Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Television (Berkeley), Summer 1954

FILMS. 4th EDItION DAS KABINETT DES DR CALIGARI Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari Pegge, C. Denis, Caligari: Its Innovations in Editing, in Quarterly Warm, Hermann, Naissance de Caligari: Les Trois Lumieres, of Film, Radio, and Television(Berkeley ), Winter 1956 Cinematographe(Paris), February 1982. Lightman, Herb A,""From Caligari to Caligari, in American Simsolo, Noel, in Image et Son(Paris), October 1982. Cinematographer(Hollywood), July 1962. Cardullo, B, " Expressionism and the Real Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Whitford, Frank, ""Expressionism in the Cinema, in Studio Interna in Film Criticism(Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Winter 1982 tional( Lugano), January 1970 Tomasulo, F,Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: History/Psychoanalysis/ Helman, A,"Robert wiene czyli pozory niefilmowosci, in Kino Cinema, in On Film(Los angeles), Summer 1983 Warsaw ), April 1974 Budd, Michael, Authorship as a Commodity: The Art Cinema and Clement, Catherine, Les Charlatans et les hysteriques, in Commu The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, ' in Wide Angle(Athens, Ohio), nications(Paris), no 23, 1975 Caligari et la critique, ' in Avant-Scene du Cinema(Paris), July Gout, C, in Skoop(Amsterdam), September-October 1984 mber 1975 Ahlander, L, " Filmhistoriskt nytt: Dr. Caligari och Queen Kelly, Carroll, Noel, The Cabinet of Dr Kracauer, in Millenium(New Chaplin(stockholm), 1985 mmer 1978 williams, D,"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: The Remake, in Film Budd, M, ""Retrospective Narration in Film: Re-Reading The Cabi- Threat(Beverly Hills), no 20, 1989 net of Dr Caligari, in Film Criticism(Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Weihsmann, H, Die vierte dimension-architektur im film, in Blimp( graz, Austria), Summer 1989. Combs, Richard. in Monthly Film Bulletin(London). June 1979. Schneider, I, " Deus ex animo, or Why a Doc?, in Journal of Mazowa, M, ""Sleepwalking Through Weimar, in Stills(London), Popular Film and Television(Washington, D. C ) no. 1, 1990. Spring 1981 appabianca, A, ""Cine/archeologia, in Filmcritica(Rome), Novem- Budd, M. in Cine-Tracts(Montreal), Winter 1981 ber 1990

FILMS, 4 DAS KABINETT DES DR. CALIGARI th EDITION 621 Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari Pegge, C. Denis, ‘‘Caligari: Its Innovations in Editing,’’ in Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Television (Berkeley), Winter 1956. Lightman, Herb A., ‘‘From Caligari to Caligari,’’ in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), July 1962. Whitford, Frank, ‘‘Expressionism in the Cinema,’’ in Studio Interna￾tional (Lugano), January 1970. Helman, A., ‘‘Robert Wiene czyli pozory niefilmowosci,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), April 1974. Clement, Catherine, ‘‘Les Charlatans et les hysteriques,’’ in Commu￾nications (Paris), no.23, 1975. ‘‘Caligari et la critique,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), July￾September 1975. Carroll, Noël, ‘‘The Cabinet of Dr. Kracauer,’’ in Millenium (New York), no. 2, Spring-Summer 1978. Budd, M., ‘‘Retrospective Narration in Film: Re-Reading The Cabi￾net of Dr. Caligari,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), no.1, 1979. Combs, Richard, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), June 1979. Mazowa, M., ‘‘Sleepwalking Through Weimar,’’ in Stills (London), Spring 1981. Budd, M., in Ciné-Tracts (Montreal), Winter 1981. Warm, Hermann, ‘‘Naissance de Caligari: Les Trois Lumières,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), February 1982. Simsolo, Noël, in Image et Son (Paris), October 1982. Cardullo, B., ‘‘Expressionism and the Real Cabinet of Dr. Caligari,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Winter 1982. Tomasulo, F., ‘‘Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: History/Psychoanalysis/ Cinema,’’ in On Film (Los Angeles), Summer 1983. Budd, Michael, ‘‘Authorship as a Commodity: The Art Cinema and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol.6, no.1, 1984. Gout, C., in Skoop (Amsterdam), September-October 1984. Ahlander, L., ‘‘Filmhistoriskt nytt: Dr. Caligari och Queen Kelly,’’ in Chaplin (Stockholm), 1985. Williams, D., ‘‘The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: The Remake,’’ in Film Threat (Beverly Hills), no. 20, 1989. Weihsmann, H., ‘‘Die vierte dimension—architektur im film,’’ in Blimp (Graz, Austria), Summer 1989. Schneider, I., ‘‘Deus ex animo, or Why a Doc?,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and Television (Washington, D.C.), no. 1, 1990. Cappabianca, A., ‘‘Cine/archeologia,’’ in Filmcritica (Rome), Novem￾ber 1990

KAMERADSCHAFT FILMS. 4 EDITIoN Kuleshov, L, "Caligari, Mr. West, Aelita: Trois conceptions du film perception of character status and narrational authority within the nuet, 'in Positif(Paris), January 1991 film. This in turn opens the film to a range of possible readings. The Pratt, D. B."Fit Food for Madhouse Inmates: The Box Office film has been seen, for example, in terms of a female fantasy, focusing Reception of the German Invasion of 1921, in Griffithiana on Jane as the enigmatic source of the narrative ( Gemona, Italy ) October 1993 In other words, the film is structured in such a way that it represents contradictory ways of understanding the central sequence of events. This is supported by the consistency of the films mise-en- scene. The artificiality and stylized exaggeration of acting, decor, and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is usually identified as the first lighting are maintained throughout the film. There are no visual cues significant German Expressionist film, exemplifying the narrative indicate that the world of the framed tale of past events is different and visual traits of that movement. The primary story concerns from the framing scenes in the asylum. The film,'s visual style is series of murders which occur in a German town, coinciding with crucial to its exemplary status within the context of the german the arrival of Dr Caligari who runs a side-show at the local fair. Alan Expressionist film movement. In The Haunted Screen Lotte Eisner and Francis, friends and rivals for the affection of the same woman, explains that the overall design scheme of the film creates a pervasive Jane, witness his show: there the somnambulist Cesare predicts the feeling of anxiety and terror. It is characterized by extreme contrasts future, and forecasts Alans impending death. That night, Alan is in light and dark, distorted angles, exaggerated perspective and scalar murdered. Francis pursues the mysterious Caligari as Cesare kidnaps relations within the decor, and painted backdrops and shadows. The ane. In the ensuing chase, Cesare collapses and dies. The investiga basic tone of the decor extends to costume and make-up tion then leads to a local asylum from which Cesare has reportedly escaped. Dr Caligari is discovered to be the director of the hospital, German Expressionist film. Some critics have argued that German gone mad in his obsessive efforts to re-enact an 18th century film producers consciously adopted this"arty"style to differentiate owman'smurders-by-proxy. This story is presented as the narrative German film from other national cinemas(notably American)in account of Francis. The film opens in a park; Francis sits with another order to compete in the international film market. Others have nan as Jane, in a trance-like state, walks by. To explain her condition, stressed the fact that this movement expresses the troubled state of the Francis recounts the bizarre events of the central story. At the end of German national psyche after the war, or represents a retreat to the film, the scene returns to francis, who is revealed to be an inmate Romantic despair. In addition, the films artificiality and subversion at the asylum. His doctor is actually the Caligari figure from his tale. of realistic codes of representation have led to discussion of the film Upon hearing Francis's ravings in the courtyard, the doctor declares an early example of self-refiexivity and deconstructive processes that he now understands the case the cinema The history of the framing device is well known, and is discussed y Siegfried Kracauer in his study of post-World War I German The films equivocal narrative and visual stylization combine to create a disturbing fictional world. Moreover, its position in German cinema, From Caligari to Hitler. It was not a part of the initial script. cinema, and in German history, makes it a compelling case for by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz, but was presumably added by the producer Erich Pommer. According to Kracauer this framing cont examining relations between films and their social context. In these vance served to contain the inherent horror of the original story terms The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari provides a wealth of material to be study of authoritative madness and abusive power was recast as the mined by film critics and historians. delusion of an insane narrator; the evil doctor was re-defined as a benign, ministering figure who can cure the lunatic. At the same -M.B. White time Kracauer sees the final film as a powerful expression of the inherent tensions of the collective German psyche of the period-the fear that individual freedom will lead to rampant chaos which can only be constrained by submission to tyrannical authority. If the KAMERADSCHAFT original script depicted the potential abuses of absolute authority, the (Comradeship) But the narrative significance of the film is not necessarily france-Germany, 1931 either/or proposition as Kracauer suggests. The film does start by presenting Francis as a credible narrator. His reliability as a source is only called into question in the final scenes. In this sense the film is Director: g. w. pabst more equivocal and expresses a more disturbed sensibility than even Kracauer allows. Indeed, the film simultaneously presents at least two Production: Nero-Film(Berlin) and Gaumont-Franco(Paris), the viewpoints on the depicted events: 1) Francis is in fact mad and his collaboration of these two companies frequently referred to as Nero- ory totally or partially delusional; 2)Francis is a reliable source, Film AG; black and white, 35mm; running time: 85 minutes, French a position assumed through most of the film. From this second version is 93 minutes, length: 3060 feet (German version) perspective the director of the asylum might be considered a psy Released 193 chotic tyrant whose power extends to include Francis'confinement One is not, however, led directly to this conclusion. Rather, this Producer: Seymour Nebenzel; screenplay: Ladislaus (Laszlo)Vajda, version of the narrative causes a disruption of any stable or conclusive Karl Otten, Peter Martin Lampel and Fritz Eckardt, from a story by

KAMERADSCHAFT FILMS, 4th EDITION 622 Kuleshov, L., ‘‘Caligari, Mr. West, Aelita: Trois conceptions du film nuet,’’ in Positif (Paris), January 1991. Pratt, D. B., ‘‘Fit Food for Madhouse Inmates: The Box Office Reception of the German Invasion of 1921,’’ in Griffithiana (Gemona, Italy), October 1993. *** The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is usually identified as the first significant German Expressionist film, exemplifying the narrative and visual traits of that movement. The primary story concerns a series of murders which occur in a German town, coinciding with the arrival of Dr. Caligari who runs a side-show at the local fair. Alan and Francis, friends and rivals for the affection of the same woman, Jane, witness his show; there the somnambulist Cesare predicts the future, and forecasts Alan’s impending death. That night, Alan is murdered. Francis pursues the mysterious Caligari as Cesare kidnaps Jane. In the ensuing chase, Cesare collapses and dies. The investiga￾tion then leads to a local asylum from which Cesare has reportedly escaped. Dr. Caligari is discovered to be the director of the hospital, gone mad in his obsessive efforts to re-enact an 18th century showman’s murders-by-proxy. This story is presented as the narrative account of Francis. The film opens in a park; Francis sits with another man as Jane, in a trance-like state, walks by. To explain her condition, Francis recounts the bizarre events of the central story. At the end of the film, the scene returns to Francis, who is revealed to be an inmate at the asylum. His doctor is actually the Caligari figure from his tale. Upon hearing Francis’s ravings in the courtyard, the doctor declares that he now understands the case. The history of the framing device is well known, and is discussed by Siegfried Kracauer in his study of post-World War I German cinema, From Caligari to Hitler. It was not a part of the initial script, by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz, but was presumably added by the producer Erich Pommer. According to Kracauer this framing contri￾vance served to contain the inherent horror of the original story. A study of authoritative madness and abusive power was recast as the delusion of an insane narrator; the evil doctor was re-defined as a benign, ministering figure who can cure the lunatic. At the same time Kracauer sees the final film as a powerful expression of the inherent tensions of the collective German psyche of the period—the fear that individual freedom will lead to rampant chaos which can only be constrained by submission to tyrannical authority. If the original script depicted the potential abuses of absolute authority, the framing scenes concede to this authority and suggest it may be beneficial. But the narrative significance of the film is not necessarily an either/or proposition as Kracauer suggests. The film does start by presenting Francis as a credible narrator. His reliability as a source is only called into question in the final scenes. In this sense the film is more equivocal and expresses a more disturbed sensibility than even Kracauer allows. Indeed, the film simultaneously presents at least two viewpoints on the depicted events: 1) Francis is in fact mad and his story totally or partially delusional; 2) Francis is a reliable source, a position assumed through most of the film. From this second perspective the director of the asylum might be considered a psy￾chotic tyrant whose power extends to include Francis’ confinement. One is not, however, led directly to this conclusion. Rather, this version of the narrative causes a disruption of any stable or conclusive perception of character status and narrational authority within the film. This in turn opens the film to a range of possible readings. The film has been seen, for example, in terms of a female fantasy, focusing on Jane as the enigmatic source of the narrative. In other words, the film is structured in such a way that it represents contradictory ways of understanding the central sequence of events. This is supported by the consistency of the film’s mise-en￾scène. The artificiality and stylized exaggeration of acting, decor, and lighting are maintained throughout the film. There are no visual cues to indicate that the world of the framed tale of past events is different from the framing scenes in the asylum. The film’s visual style is crucial to its exemplary status within the context of the German Expressionist film movement. In The Haunted Screen Lotte Eisner explains that the overall design scheme of the film creates a pervasive feeling of anxiety and terror. It is characterized by extreme contrasts in light and dark, distorted angles, exaggerated perspective and scalar relations within the decor, and painted backdrops and shadows. The basic tone of the decor extends to costume and make-up. These qualities came to be known as the defining stylistic trait of German Expressionist film. Some critics have argued that German film producers consciously adopted this ‘‘arty’’ style to differentiate German film from other national cinemas (notably American) in order to compete in the international film market. Others have stressed the fact that this movement expresses the troubled state of the German national psyche after the war, or represents a retreat to Romantic despair. In addition, the film’s artificiality and subversion of realistic codes of representation have led to discussion of the film as an early example of self-reflexivity and deconstructive processes in the cinema. The film’s equivocal narrative and visual stylization combine to create a disturbing fictional world. Moreover, its position in German cinema, and in German history, makes it a compelling case for examining relations between films and their social context. In these terms The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari provides a wealth of material to be mined by film critics and historians. —M.B. White KAMERADSCHAFT (Comradeship) France-Germany, 1931 Director: G. W. Pabst Production: Nero-Film (Berlin) and Gaumont-Franco (Paris), the collaboration of these two companies frequently referred to as Nero￾Film AG; black and white, 35mm; running time: 85 minutes, French version is 93 minutes, length: 3060 feet (German version). Released 1931. Producer: Seymour Nebenzel; screenplay: Ladislaus (Laszlo) Vajda, Karl Otten, Peter Martin Lampel and Fritz Eckardt, from a story by

FILMS. 4th EDItION KAMERADSCHAFT Amengual, Barthelemy, Georg Wilhelm Pabst, Paris, 1966. Aubry, Yves, and Jacques Petat, G. w. Pabst, in Anthologie du Cinema 4. Paris. 1968 Eisner, Lotte, The Haunted Screen, Berkeley, 1969. Manvell. Roger and Heinrich Fraenkel. The German Cinema. New Atwell. Lee. G.W. Pabst. Boston. 1977. Barth, Hermann, Psychagogische Strategien des Filmischen Diskurses in G. w. Pabst's Kameradschaft, Munich, 1990. Metzner, Erno, in Close Up(London), March 1932. New Statesman and Nation(London). 5 March 1932. Spectator(London), 12 March 1932. New York Times, 9 November 1932. Variety(New York), 15 November 1932. Potamkin, Harry A,"Pabst and the Social Film, in Hound and Horn(New York), January-March 1933 Manvell, Roger, in Sight and Sound(London), November 1950 "Pabst Issue"of Filmkunst(Vienna), no. 18, 1955. ¨ Pabst issue” of Cinemages( New York,May195: Image et Son(Paris), November 1960. Cineforum(Bergamo), no. 14, 1962. Luft, Herbert, G. W. Pabst, in Films in Review(New York) February 1964 Luft, Herbert, "G. W. Pabst, in Films and Filming (London) Karl Otten; photography: Fritz Armo Wagner and Robert Baberski Pulleine, Tim, in Monthly Film Bulletin(London), March 1978 Carroll, N, "Lang, Pabst, and Sound, in Cine-Tracts(Montreal). editor: Hans Oser, sound recordist: A Jansen; production design- Fall 1978 ers: Erno Metzner and Karl Vollbrecht: French advisor: Robert Filmkunst(Vienna), no 86, 1980 Beaudoin Sauvaget, D, in Image et Son(Paris), March 1981 Cast: Alexander Granach(Kaspar); Fritz Kampers(Wilderer): Dan- "Kameradschaft oder Neoverismo anno 1931, in Filmkunst(Vi- iel Mendaille(Pierre): Ernst Busch(Kaplan): Elisabeth Wendt enna),no.124,1990. (francoise): Gustav Puttjer(Jean): Oskar Hocker(Emile): Helena Manson (Albert's wife ) Andree Ducret(Francois): Alex Bernard Kameradschaft is a noble filmin theme and execution. It reflects Roll and like them it has at the back of its mind a shadow of doubt. In 1931 in Germany events were moving slowly to the rise of Hitler, which all the good will in the world could not stop, and the film does in fact end Otten, Karl, and others, Kameradschaft, in Le Cinema realist The action turns on a single event On the borders of france an allemande, edited by Raymond Borde, Lyons, 1963 Germany a vein of coal cuts through the frontier. Above ground a frontier post separates two communities; in the mine a brick wall separates the German and French workers From the very fin Books boys quarrelling over a game of marbles to those of three German workers who decide to spend a Saturday night in a French dance hall, Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological His- the director G. w. Pabst sets the mood of the film. Action is sparked tory of the German Film, Princeton, 1947 off when an explosion in the French mine is reported to the German Joseph, Rudolpf, editor, Der Regisseur. G. w. Pabst, Munich, 1963. miners as they stand naked in the great shower room with their clothes Buache, Freddy, G. w. Pabst, Lyons, 1965. raised above the sprinklers by chains. Ernst Busch, their spokesman

FILMS, 4 KAMERADSCHAFT th EDITION 623 Kameradschaft Karl Otten; photography: Fritz Arno Wagner and Robert Baberski; editor: Hans Oser; sound recordist: A. Jansen; production design￾ers: Ernö Metzner and Karl Vollbrecht; French advisor: Robert Beaudoin. Cast: Alexander Granach (Kaspar); Fritz Kampers (Wilderer); Dan￾iel Mendaille (Pierre); Ernst Busch (Kaplan); Elisabeth Wendt (Françoise); Gustav Püttjer (Jean); Oskar Höcker (Emile); Hélèna Manson (Albert’s wife); Andrée Ducret (François); Alex Bernard (Grandfather); Pierre Louis (George). Publications Script: Otten, Karl, and others, Kameradschaft, in Le Cinema réaliste allemande, edited by Raymond Borde, Lyons, 1963. Books: Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological His￾tory of the German Film, Princeton, 1947. Joseph, Rudolpf, editor, Der Regisseur: G. W. Pabst, Munich, 1963. Buache, Freddy, G. W. Pabst, Lyons, 1965. Amengual, Barthélemy, Georg Wilhelm Pabst, Paris, 1966. Aubry, Yves, and Jacques Pétat, ‘‘G. W. Pabst,’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma 4, Paris, 1968. Eisner, Lotte, The Haunted Screen, Berkeley, 1969. Manvell, Roger, and Heinrich Fraenkel, The German Cinema, New York, 1971. Atwell, Lee, G.W. Pabst, Boston, 1977. Barth, Hermann, Psychagogische Strategien des Filmischen Diskurses in G. W. Pabst’s Kameradschaft, Munich, 1990. Articles: Metzner, Ernö, in Close Up (London), March 1932. New Statesman and Nation (London), 5 March 1932. Spectator (London), 12 March 1932. New York Times, 9 November 1932. Variety (New York), 15 November 1932. Potamkin, Harry A., ‘‘Pabst and the Social Film,’’ in Hound and Horn (New York), January-March 1933. Manvell, Roger, in Sight and Sound (London), November 1950. ‘‘Pabst Issue’’ of Filmkunst (Vienna), no. 18, 1955. ‘‘Pabst Issue’’ of Cinemages (New York), May 1955. Image et Son (Paris), November 1960. Cineforum (Bergamo), no. 14, 1962. Luft, Herbert, ‘‘G. W. Pabst,’’ in Films in Review (New York), February 1964. Luft, Herbert, ‘‘G. W. Pabst,’’ in Films and Filming (London), April 1967. Pulleine, Tim, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), March 1978. Carroll, N., ‘‘Lang, Pabst, and Sound,’’ in Ciné-Tracts (Montreal), Fall 1978. Filmkunst (Vienna), no. 86, 1980. Cinématographe (Paris), February 1981. Sauvaget, D., in Image et Son (Paris), March 1981. ‘‘Kameradschaft oder Neoverismo anno 1931,’’ in Filmkunst (Vi￾enna), no. 124, 1990. *** Kameradschaft is a noble film—in theme and execution. It reflects the proletarian idealism of its time. It smacks of Toller and Rolland, and like them it has at the back of its mind a shadow of doubt. In 1931 in Germany events were moving slowly to the rise of Hitler, which all the good will in the world could not stop, and the film does in fact end on an ironic note. The action turns on a single event. On the borders of France and Germany a vein of coal cuts through the frontier. Above ground a frontier post separates two communities; in the mine a brick wall separates the German and French workers. From the very first shots of boys quarrelling over a game of marbles to those of three German workers who decide to spend a Saturday night in a French dance hall, the director G. W. Pabst sets the mood of the film. Action is sparked off when an explosion in the French mine is reported to the German miners as they stand naked in the great shower room with their clothes raised above the sprinklers by chains. Ernst Busch, their spokesman