Sunday 30 May 2021
Monday 24 May 2021
Ahoy Facebook #15
Sunday 9 May 2021
Social Change in the Heimat Trilogy
This is part three of a forthcoming book called Collected Essays: Volume Two.
****************************
Edgar Reitz’s series of Heimat
films are very ambitious and cover a vast swath of history. ‘Heimat’ means ‘homeland’
in Germany and it is a very loaded term there. There have many ‘heimat’ films
made in Germany, but they were usually patriotic and nationalistic. Hence,
Reitz’s Heimat films were an attempt to create a more liberal and universal
series. The first series covers the period after the first world war, the
hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic, the rise in unemployment, the
Nazification of German society, the denazification of German society and
post-war affluence. However, several critics criticised Reitz for being
ahistorical and for focusing on the personal relationships of people who live
in a remote German village. Additionally, Reitz was criticised for leaving out Jewish
perspectives and for focusing on the perspectives of Nazis. However, by and
large, the series was a commercial and critical success. Meanwhile, its
successor dealt with the avant-garde in music and cinema and had limited
commercial success. It was longer than its predecessor, but it only covered a
period of ten years. Whilst the first series examined social change in a small
town, the second series explored the precarious ‘second home’ that we find as
adults. The character Hermann leaves his home town and settles in Munich so as
to study music; he is drawn to the avant-garde in the arts which, indeed, was
often about change. The series also looks at tumultuous changes in society at
the time, as it includes the ‘new left,’ the death of Kennedy and the rise of
the hippies. The final series, Heimat 3, focuses on the period between
1990-2000, which has been called ‘the end of history.’ It goes back to Schabbach,
the village that the first series is centred on. It depicts a globalised,
multicultural, cosmopolitan and diverse world. Additionally, Reitz made a
prequel set in 1844, which prefigured the revolutions of 1848, but this essay
will not deal with that film. Although the series was initially made for
television, the cinematography and the acting are excellent. The series also
artfully switches between black-and-white and colour cinematography. The
purpose of this essay is to examine social change in Germany between 1919 and
2000 and how Reitz depicts social change in his series.
Heimat (1984) lasts from 1919 until 1982
and takes place in a fictional German village called Schabbach. It lasts for
fifteen hours and takes place over eleven episodes. Edgar Reitz initially came
up with the idea because he saw an American series about the Holocaust, did not
like it and decided to reclaim German history from Hollywood (Englen 2011).
Although it was initially a TV series, Edgar Reitz insisted that it was a film
in its own right and, indeed, the cinematography and acting are of high
calibre. Indeed, The New York Times noted that it does not look like a
television series (1986). The film is centred on the character Maria and she
ages throughout the series. The main emphasis is on the relationship between
the characters, but important historical events are depicted. Englen writes:
‘[Maria is a] symbol […] of living a life surrounded by the presence of
inherited traditions’ (2011). The series begins with the end of the First World
War, but it does not delve very much into the hyperinflation of the Weimar era
or the mass unemployment of the early 1930s. It depicts the rise of Nazism and
the Second World War as well as the affluence that arose as a result Germany’s
post-war ‘economic miracle.’
This essay will examine
both the ‘Nazification’ as well as the ‘Denazification’ of Germany and it will gauge
how Reitz explores this in his films. As regards ‘Nazification,’ it will look
at their economic policy. The main catalyst for the rise of Nazism was the mass
unemployment of the early 1930s, which was even higher than the rest of Europe.
Indeed, six million people were unemployed and this accounted for a third of
the labour force (Grunberger 1971, p. 240). The Nazis triggered five general
elections within the space of a year and, although they won the fifth general
election in 1932, the economy was starting to improve and their share of the
vote declined by two million votes (p 249). The Depression was receding and an
upward swing occurred after the Nazis’ ‘Public Works’ program, which persuaded
workers that the situation had improved. Compared to the standard of living of
1932 things had indeed improved, but the standard of living was still inferior
to the living standards of the 1920s (p. 240). Still, workers in public work
schemes were scarcely on more money than people who claimed unemployment
benefits (p. 241). Public work programs cut unemployment by 40% (p. 35). However,
more people were affluent in 1938 than 1932 (p. 242). However, the Nazis dwelt
as to whether they should prioritise war or domestic economic affairs, which
accounts for Goring’s famous quote: ‘Guns before butter’ (p. 264). Rationing
started around 1936 and 1937, shopkeepers only sold butter to its most loyal
customers and most meat products were rationed before the war (p. 264).
Goebbels summed up the ethos of war-time austerity thusly: ‘In times when
coffee is scarce, a decent person drinks less or stops drinking it altogether’
(p. 267). However, alcohol consumption went up and a black market sprung up (p.
58).
Having examined the
Nazis’ economic policy, this essay will examine their political ideology. The
Third Reich was populist and authoritarian in nature (p. 35). It immediately
established a one-party state, abolished independent courts and crushed all
other political parties. Indeed, Hitler stated the following: ‘Henceforth I no
longer acknowledge different parties – I only acknowledge Germans’ (p. 35). Trade
unions offered to collaborate with the regime, but so did big business (p. 36).
They reintroduced conscription in 1935, which led to the ‘militarisation of
society’ (p. 41). Indeed, many people spoke about ‘the tenacious spirit of the
German soldier’ (p. 68). The Nazis emphasised collective sacrifice for the
common good and there was a loss of freedom (p. 44). The Nazis were majoritarians
and used terror to crush all minorities and dissidents (p. 62). The deaths of
anti-Nazis were seen as ‘an atonement for German crimes’ (p. 71). The Nazis, of
course, scapegoated the Jews, who were equated with capitalism and profit (p.
68) and for being racially impure. They also scapegoated intellectuals and
‘degenerate art’ (p. 69). They were also hostile to the aristocracy, although
there was also some deference to them as well (p. 87).
Most of the episodes in
Heimat take place during the Nazi era. Most of the characters who become
Nazis do so out of expedience rather than out of principle. In its review of
the film, The New York Times wrote that, although the film is about not
about guilt, it does not excuse the behaviour of anyone (1986). In one scene,
the characters Lucie and Eduard let prominent Nazis plan their operations at
their spacious villa. The scene starts with mid-shot, in black and white, of a
corridor, which dollies out as the Nazi politicians walk towards it. The camera
is placed low on the ground. The soundtrack is comprised of serene music for piano
and violin. There is a pendulum clock in the background. The camera work edits
to a mid-shot of a separate room, where Lucie and Eduard stay whilst waiting
for the high-ranking Nazis to complete their work. The room is bare, white and
more brightly illuminated than the corridor. Lucie says: ‘I’m trembling all
over. My knees, too. The Reichsleiter paid me a sweet compliment. He said that
I’ve got the flair for the big occasions. […] No-one’s to go to the study. The
Reichsleiter told me to ensure that they mustn’t be disturbed. We’ll remember
this for a long time – Rosenberg, Frick and Ley.’ The camera pans to the right
and looks out of the window. The room is brightly illuminated and more densely
populated. This is followed by a mid-shot of the characters peering through the
door, as they glance at the high-ranking Nazis. A mid-shot reveals a
high-ranking Nazi with a grin on his face. He says: ‘Dear lady, please accept
the gentleman’s thanks and my own. We apologise for the swift departure. The
Fuhrer’s colleagues were most comfortable in your lovely house. The unperturbed
seclusion. […] discussing difficult political problems […] pleased the
gentleman very much. The best wishes and thanks very much from the heart.’ He
proceeds to do a Nazi salute and this is followed by a 360 degree mid-shot of
the characters peering through the door. They are both in different rooms,
which emphasises their difference in status. This scene is later followed by a
scene where they eat all the food that they prepared for the Nazi officials,
which is in colour. Lucie says: ‘You mustn’t start at the top, not the bottom.
We need something that requires special forces of nature. […] It will only work
with a catastrophe, a flood. […] but in the Hunsruck, nothing ever happens.
Nothing to get on in the world.’ The music appears in the background as she
starts to cry. They are not particularly interested in Nazism as an ideology or
as a set of principles. Instead, they use it as a way in which to advance their
career and their prospects. She says that ‘nothing ever happens’ in the
Hunsruck, as the small town does not offer enough opportunities. She is a
former prostitute who marries Paul as a way to advance her career. Indeed, it
was very common in Nazi Germany for people to use the Nazi Party as a way to
cynically rise in the social echelons.
Many Germans during the
Nazi era were unaware of the atrocities that took place, but it was still an
insidious undercurrent. In one scene, Maria encounters ‘death rings’ that
German workers wear and this disturbs her. The scene starts with a
black-and-white mid-shot of a male character who comes in wearing a hat. Candles
lie on the table, the table has a white cloth and the wall is white, which
contrasts with his black clothing. There is also a Renaissance painting on the
wall. The camera is placed lower on the ground and is framed via a 360 degree
angle. The camera pans to the left Maria’s friend who says: ‘We went to the
movies. We have necklaces.’ The camera tilts up and pans to the left, towards
Maria. The camera later pans to the right, revealing all of the characters in
the room and they occupy most of the space. He says: ‘We have necklaces.
They’re in such high demand. We can sell them for 50 marks.’ This is followed
by a close-up of Maria looking at the necklaces. She says: ‘They’re
frightening.’ This is followed by a close-up of the necklaces, which have
skulls attached to them. Her friend says: ‘Those red eyes seem to stare at
you.’ He says: ‘They cost 12 marks each; the eyes are the real rubies.’ The
camera work edits to a mid-shot of the other two characters. Maria still looks
startled and says: ‘Who buys stuff like that?’ The other two characters are framed
via a 360 degree angle whilst Maria is framed via a 180 degree angle. He
replies thusly: ‘The Hunsruck road workers… all the engineers and the Labour
corps… The Todt organisation men, they keep buying death head rings. Death
heads brooches and even death head rings.’ This is followed by a close up of
the ‘death head rings,’ in colour. Violin music plays in the background, as
Maria says: ‘I think the wine has gone to my head.’ This scene is mundane and
depicts ordinary people in an ordinary environment. However, the ‘death head
rings’ symbolise the sinister undercurrent in Nazi Germany. Indeed, many
ordinary Germans were involved in death camps. Maria, a decent and ordinary
woman, is taken aback by it. This sinister and depraved aspect lies beneath their
ordinary, mundane and traditional life. Reitz uses close-up angles to reveal
Maria’s discomfort and switches to colour so as to emphasise the importance of
the jewellery.
Society became
increasingly militarised in Nazi Germany. Although there are no war scenes, and
the entire series solely takes place in a single town, this is something that
does appear in the film. This becomes starkly apparent in the scene when
Germany has invaded Poland. This scene, which is in black and white, starts
with the mid-shot of a door looking out onto the horizon. The doors have
Swastika flags on them and there is also a picture of Adolf Hitler. The camera
edits to a shot of the room, where several members of Nazi Youth stand upright.
A speech is played, as militaristic music is blares in the background: ‘Boys,
girls, comrades. You will work together with the German people. The Fuhrer is
about to make a historic announcement to us all.’ This is accompanied by a 180
degree mid-shot of the Hitler Youth and the camera pans to the left, revealing
all of the young soldiers standing upright. There is also a group of Hitler
Youth on the other side of the room and the camera once more pans across them.
There are about ten members of Hitler Youth on each side of the room. Meanwhile,
Hitler’s speech becomes highly vitriolic and belligerent: ‘Poison gas will be
met with poison gas. I shall wage this struggle, no matter against whom. […]
The armed forces are best equipped, beyond comparison with those of 1919. I
demand sacrifices from the German people that I have rights to. Every personal
sacrifice.’ The camera work edits to outside of the room, where a single
individual, another member of Hitler Youth, stands outside. The camera tilts up
to reveal another picture of Adolf Hitler and it tilts back down to reveal the
megaphone which projects Hitler’s speech. This scene takes place just when
Germany is about to invade Poland and when the nation is on the cusp of a
brutal war. Everything is indeed Nazified and militarised; all of the youth are
forced to listen to the belligerent speech and they are all forced to stand
upright and follow procedures. It is clear that society is under the influence
of fascism, that is highly authoritarian and that it is heavily regimented.
Everyone is forced to sacrifice themselves for the good of the greater whole,
as the individual is crushed and forced to go to war so as to defend fascist
ideals. There is also a cult of personality around Hitler, as a large picture
of him adorns the room and they are all forced to listen to his words. His
words are highly aggressive and vitriolic, as he speaks about ‘poison gas
meeting with poison gas.’ There is already a sense of hubris, as he states that
they are more prepared than the WWI – ‘we are more equipped than 1919’ – and
that they will resoundingly win this war. This scene demonstrates the way in
which fascist society had regimented and militarised the whole of society.
This essay will now
examine the ‘Denazification’ of Germany after the war. Most German were indeed
appalled when they discovered the concentration camps (Jarausch 2006, p.5). The
more people discovered about the details of the crimes, the more it seemed that
‘the Germans had committed a crime against civilisation itself’ (p. 6). Indeed,
the Germans had produced Kant, Schiller, Goethe, Humboldt, Hegel and Beethoven,
but they had sunk this low (p. 6). However, by the summer of 1945 young
privates continued to maintain that Hitler was a great man and they remained
incredulous when they were shown pictures of concentration camps (p. 31). Some
Nazis were detained and they realised that they could offer their labour to the
allies (p. 32). However, despite this, the overwhelming consensus was that WWII
should never happen again (p. 33). Although the Nazi regime was nationalistic,
‘Heimatfilms’ were made during this period, which aimed to create a ‘political
sense of home’ (p. 34). Indeed, Edgar Reitz’s films were a reaction against
this and were an attempt to create a type of film which was not nationalistic.
Although positive interpretations of the war did not disappear, a new anti-Nazi
consensus emerged, the military had been discredited and new ‘peaceful values’
emerged (p. 35). Thousands of people became ‘DeNazified’ by throwing away
copies of Mein Kampf, swastika badges and party membership cards (p.
46). Indeed, ‘Denazification’ was one of allies’ central aims (p. 46). The
Soviets interned many civilians after the war and sent them to the USSR (Bessel
2009, p. 323). Meanwhile, President Franklin D. Roosevelt summed up the ethos
of the war thusly: ‘[It is a] crusade to save civilisation from a cult of
brutal tyranny, which would destroy it and all the dignity of human life (p.
47). However, following the war some Nazis evaded responsibility by committing
suicide, others went underground and others destroyed evidence (p. 49).
Removing all Nazis from professional life proved unfeasible and cumbersome, as
it was impossible to condemn 6.5 million Nazi party members to manual labour
(p. 54). Finally, the conditions of post-war Germany straight after the war
were dingy and derelict, as infrastructure had been destroyed, public
administration had collapsed, there was a huge influx of refugees and millions
of foreign troops had arrived (Bessell 2009, p. 320). Families had been split
up during the war, lost their home and possessions and were forced to live in
cellars (p. 323). German soldiers were not welcomed warmly, as they had lost
the war (p. 323). However, despite this brief period of chaos, the economy and
society soon started to open up (p. 332).
This
essay will now explore Denazification in Heimat. Indeed, prior to the
end of the war, some characters are already aware of gas chambers: ‘The final
solution is being executed mercilessly. Between ourselves, we all know anyway.
Up the chimney… I mean, the Jews.’ The character is indeed higher up in the
echelons of the party, but Reitz still reveals how people were already aware of
the Final Solution. An episode takes place after the war has ended and Lucie is
attempts to ingratiate herself with Paul, Maria’s former husband who fled to
America. Paul has since become a wealthy businessman and he has finally arrived
after the collapse of the Nazi regime. After the war, the Americans are seen as
paragons of freedom and liberation. Once the Nazis are defeated, Lucie tries to
ingratiate herself with the Americans to, once more, advance her career. The
scene starts with a mid-shot, in black and white, of Lucie wearing a dress and
she has an American flag attached to her hat. The camera pans to the left, as
she scurries through a group of people so as to talk to Paul. Slow music plays
in the background. The camera pans to the left, which reveals Paul’s mother,
his aunt and Maria’s son. The camera work, which is comprised of mid-shots,
pans across a room, which is crowded with many people. It is only a mid-shot,
not a long-shot, but the panning camera reveals all of the characters, which
would otherwise be difficult in the cramped room. One of the characters holds a
large box filled with cigarettes, which have clearly been imported during
war-time rationing. A mid-shot reveals Maria walking into the room, but
everyone in the room is in awe of Paul. However, Lucie is manipulative and
controlling, so she appropriates the situation. She says: ‘We own the wonderful
villa that’s the headquarters now. […] We had Rosenberg, Frick and Ley for four
hours in our house. We all had no idea what murderers they were… what criminals
sat on our chairs. Isn’t that true we had absolutely no idea what beasts were
shaking hands with. […] They were the highest of us. They were like Gods, they
were. Now I thank the Lord God in heaven that saved us from them.’
Denazification had already begun by this point, however, other scenes
demonstrate that characters like Lucie were already aware of the Final
Solution, so it is highly disingenuous for her to say that they were not complicit.
Still, she seems to be in awe of them: ‘they were like Gods.’ She let them do
their planning and organisation in her house, meaning that she is also
implicated in the crimes. She subsequently attempts to win over the Americans
because this once more is advantageous. This also mirrors history, as many
people attempted to work with both the Nazis and the Americans at various
stages so as to advance their careers.
The post-war economic performance of West
Germany has been called a ‘miracle’ or the ‘Wirtschaftswunder.’ This essay will
now examine the German ‘economic miracle.’ This brought the German economy into
a leading position in the world, something which it has maintained to this day
(Heather 2021). Indeed, this comes through in the film, as the character Anton
builds an optical factory. The German economy has always been centred on
manufacturing, as opposed to the British economy which is centred on services.
As this essay has demonstrated, Germany was an economic basket case during the
Weimar Republic and the Nazi years. The German economy since the war has been
called a ‘social market;’ that is, a predominantly market-based economy which
is supplemented with social services and social insurance. After the war, the
Christian Democrats became the dominant party. The CDU drew members from
liberal, conservative and Christian Trade Union groups (Bessell, p. 311). In
1950, Konrad Adenauer became the chancellor of Germany and his party were
committed to ‘a democratic society guided by social and Christian principles’
(p. 311). Their manifesto contained the following principles:
‘The spiritual worth of human
beings will be recognised and in which the family would be the foundation of
social order and in which “which justice would be the fundament of the state.
[…] Centralism will be rejected as un-German. […] Right to property will be
safeguarded, the dominance of big capital, of the private monopolies and
concerns will be broken. […] Help to construct a new and more beautiful Germany
upon the unshakeable fundament of Christianity and of Western culture’ (p. 312).
This new post-war Germany would be
federal, capitalist but with a social conscience and infused with Christian
principles. It would be a market economy, generated by free and responsible
people, coupled with social justice. People would be free to make their own
choices, consume and choose their own occupation, but the market would still
need state regulation (p. 87). It would be a competitive economy with trade and
property rights coupled with pensions, unemployment insurance and health
insurance. In other words, the market would work for the people. By contrast,
East Germany developed a planned economy (Jarausch 2006, p. 74). West Germany’s
economic miracle stood in stark contrast to East Germany’s centrally planned
economy, which was not successful. West Germany did things that East Germany
did not, since promoting monopolies, limiting access to world markets and price
fixing were all forbidden so as to encourage freer competition (p. 78).
Structural changes led to economic growth, as pro-market reforms abolished
state planning and other forms of interventionism (Albrecht 2008, p. 3). Still,
it maintained collective bargaining, a key component from the Weimar era (p.
5). As a result of these policies, West Germany experienced an incredible
period of growth in the 1950s. Between 1948 and 1953, industrial production
increased more than three-fold from 57% to 174%. Unemployment stood at 12.2%
and this declined by half. The economy grew by 8.2% a year, a rate that was
never achieved again. This rapid growth doubled living standards in a decade
(Albrecht 2008, p. 1). However, it must be pointed out that Germany had started
from a far more desperate position than the UK (p. 3). New machines were
introduced into the economy, which led to a 7.2% increase in productivity (p.
89). Anton’s optics company clearly benefited from new technological
advancements, though interestingly optics encountered problems in the German
economy in the 1970s (p. 92). The post-war German economy was peaceful and it
was completely unlike the Weimar republic or the Nazi era.
The
character Anton embraces this post-war entrepreneurial spirit by starting his
own optic company. He decides to do this after the end of the war. We see him
next to his future wife, as they sit on a field. The field is framed via a
long-shot and from a 180 degree angle. Anton tells his wife: ‘I’m going to set
up a factory.’ She seems incredulous: ‘What are you saying, Anton?’ This is
followed by a 360 degree mid-shot of the couple. She says: ‘With what? For that
you need capital.’ He replies thusly: ‘I’ve got that. […] Here in my head. I’ve
my capital and the decisive idea. Coming back, I first hit on the idea, my
invention. Martha, you don’t understand much about optics.’ The camera work
edits to a 360 degree mid-shot, perched higher up, and it pans across to the
left as the characters walk across the field. It later edits to a mid-shot of
the characters walking towards the camera, as it dollies out. Martha says:
‘People think you’re crazy’ Anton replies: ‘Whoever has the imagination to
acquire a kingdom, he’ll get it too.’ He later mentions that the conditions in
the Hunsruck are ideal for his venture: ‘What’s it got to do with the Hunsruck
air? It’s free of dust, ideal for optical manufacturing. And what’s more, it’s
rich in oxygen because of the forests.’ Martha replies by saying: ‘Anton, I’m
afraid.’ He says: ‘Martha, stick with me, then the good years will come.’ This
captures the spirit of post-war Germany, as it is entrepreneurial. Indeed, West
Germany pumped its Marshall Plan money into private companies. Anton embodies
the spirit of the entrepreneur, as he claims that he has a ‘decisive’ idea in
his ‘head.’ Although he might not have capital, he has imagination, which is the
central pillar of entrepreneurship, as he claims that ‘whoever has imagination
will conquer the kingdom.’ Most entrepreneurial decisions come with risks, as
they are creative and original. Martha claims that she is afraid, as the plan
could easily backfire. Like many innovative companies, Anton’s plan is original
but it is also thought-through, as he identifies that the Hunsruck air is
optimal for his company. In line with the capitalistic nature of post-war
Germany, the way forward for the country is through prosperity. Indeed, its
post-war constitution protected property rights.
The
period shortly after the war has been called ‘social democratic,’ as many of
the rough edges of capitalism had been smoothed out through trade union rights,
full employment and safety nets. Indeed, the anti-Marxist liberal philosopher
Karl Popper believed that capitalism had been humanised and that this
completely discredited the Marxist need for revolutionary overthrow (Magee 1973,
p. 98). However, by the 1970s the Bretton Woods settlement had been jettisoned.
Bretton Woods fixed exchange rates and it also closely regulated the financial
system (Chen 2021). Indeed, we see a new, more predatory form of capitalism
emerging in Heimat, as a multinational corporation attempt to buy
Anton’s company. Of course, this type of monopolistic takeover actually
contravenes the market principles of the Christian Democrats’ constitution. The
scene starts with Anton saying this: ‘They want to buy out my factory. […] A
sum has been mentioned.’ There is a mid-shot of Anton in front of golden boots
and he walks around them in circles, ruminating about that has been offered to
him. Usually, most of the scenes that take place in day time in Heimat
are shot in black and white, but this one is in colour. We later see a mid-shot
of the American businessmen inside the room, where we see a ‘Simon Optik’ logo
in the background. The boots outside in the veranda are very symbolic, as Anton
came up with the idea for the business after walking back to Germany straight
after WWII. He created it in his ‘heimat,’ the town where he grew up, which
means that it is an authentic business. Meanwhile, the multinational companies
do not symbolise this authenticity and, indeed, they want to take over it. The
businessmen smoke cigars and looks smug and powerful. Anton walks into the room
and shows them a lens and tells them how he first became interested in
photography aged fourteen. He tells them: ‘Ever seen anything like it?,’ which
once more symbolises the authenticity of his own business. It is his own
enterprise with its own unique qualities, which would be lost with the
takeover. He later says: ‘Gentleman, I am now forty-four, our order book is in
excellent shape, I have just registered three patents, taken on extra
specialist workers. I don’t know why I should retire from business.’ Indeed,
his business is on an upward trajectory and he sees no reason why he should
sell it off to the multinationals. One of them replies thusly: ‘As we see it,
you are not mass-producing. You specialise in technology, medicine, space
exploration, etc. And we are a multinational concern operating in fields
adjacent to yours.’ His small business caters to a small aspect of the market
whilst the multinational company wants to buy it out and offer a hefty sum for
it. However, a true free market would let smaller business provide a niche in
the market. The man does compliment Anton for his lens: ‘Magnificent lens –
never seen the like,’ which once more emphasises the authenticity of Anton’s
business, as opposed to the homogenous, monolithic, monopolistic, mass-produced
multinationals. They say: ‘[We have] invested large sums in processes
comparable to yours.’ Anton replies thusly: ‘I love my work. I’ve built up a
factory for me and the population. It is our livelihood. We all depend on this
firm.’ This emphasises how important the factory is to his own personal
development and how much it has done for the local community. The businessman
replies by saying: ‘66 million is a lot of money,’ which once more emphasises
their financial clout. The scene alternates between mid-shots of Anton and the
businessmen. This scene is followed by a long-shot of the workers out in the
field, this time in black and white, who all wear white overalls. The camera is
perched high up. This is followed by a mid-shot of Anton speaking and this is
followed by a mid-shot of the workers. Anton says: ‘With regard to your offer
of 12th August 1967 concerning the takeover of our business by your
concern, we inform that we are not interested at all.’ This is once more
followed by the original mid-shot of Anton on the stool. He says: ‘It’s because
we are unbeatable that they want to buy us up. They’d use our name for three or
four weeks… so that it looks like a free market economy… then they’d get rid of
the competition. That’s their aim.’ Indeed, the principles of Adenauer’s
constitution were decidedly non-monopolistic, as it aimed to have competition
coupled with safety nets and social insurance. Multinational companies do not
care for these principles, as they take over everything, so it is actually
opposed to the idea of a genuine free market. Additionally, Anton fraternises
with his workers and clearly cares for their welfare.
The Second Heimat: Chronicle of a
Generation (1993) is longer than its predecessor and covers a shorter
period of time. It covers ten years, it starts from 1960 and ends in 1970, it
lasts for twenty-five hours and it is novelistic in scope. It follows a young
composer, Herman, who leaves the Hunsruck so as to study music in Munich. The
main theme of the series is the ‘second’ home that we find as adults. It covers
everything from avant-garde movements in music and film as well as more
renowned events such as the assassination of Kennedy, the rise of Hippiedom,
the rise of terrorist movements and the moon landing. However, these historical
events are often in the background and the series chiefly revolves around
musicians, filmmakers, philosophers, activists and other assorted bohemians.
Indeed, there is more history in the second instalment of Heimat than the first
(Adams). The series has been likened to a soap opera and the series resembles
aspects of German Romanticism, as many of the characters are emotional and take
notions such as ‘love’ very seriously.
The film covers the ‘avant-garde’
in music. Some of its most striking scenes involve performances of avant-garde
music and this is partly because all of the musicians in the film are
classically trained (Rosenbaum 1994). However, although it deals with the
avant-garde, the film is classically shot (Rosenbaum). ‘Avant-garde’ is a
somewhat woolly term that is tossed around like confetti. It was originally a
military term, which meant crossing the battle ground and traversing into new
frontiers. It meant being in the vanguard, an army that was ahead of the rest.
In art, it refers to new and experimental ideas. Norman Lerbrecht defines it
thusly: ‘Artists who work in advance of public taste. In music, it meant
composers who ignored audience needs, specifically the post-1945 Darmstadt
circle led by Boulez and Stockhausen who advocated serialism, experimentalism
and electronics’ (1992, p. 14). Indeed, the younger generation were angry with
the older generation after the war. The composer Olivier Messiaen recalls a
young Pierre Boulez: ‘He became angry with the whole world. He thought
everything was wrong with music’ (Ross 2007, p. 392). Although many of the
individual composers were different, they were all seeking to break with the
past (Staines and Clark 2005, p. 376). Indeed, Boulez personified the mood of
the musical avant-garde: ‘Boulez went on to become the perfect avatar of the
post-war avant-garde, the one who permitted “no compromise, no concession, no
half-way, no consideration of values” (from the The Prophet by Thomas
Mann)’ (Ross, p. 387). Indeed, the language of music was ‘reinvented on almost
yearly basis’ (p. 387). Different fads appeared and reappeared, such as
twelve-tone composition, total serialism, chance music, neo-dada collages, set
theory, noise, silence, etc. (p.387). This became very politicised since it
emerged in the free west whilst the Soviet Union suppressed it (p. 387). As
such, many composers abandoned neo-classicism and embraced serialism because it
had not been tarnished by the totalitarianisms of the left and right. The Nazis
and the Soviet Union both banned it. Indeed, Ernst Krenek said the following:
‘My adoption of the musical technique that the tyrants hated most of all may be
interpreted as an expression of protest and thus a result of their influence’
(p. 389). Serialism had been developed by Arnold Schoenberg and it was an
attempt to provide a template for music that was not in any particular key. It
used all twelve tones of the chromatic scale and the composer had to order
these in rows. Music in the past usually stuck to certain keys, such as Mozart.
Keys in music use a certain sequence of notes which are derived from octaves.
Mozart did this more rigidly, but Beethoven started to modulate between
different keys. Richard Wagner blurred it more by using chromatic notes – that
is, the black notes on the piano – and by modulating to more distant keys
(Staines and Clark, p. 468). After the war, composers took this technique
further. Indeed, they wanted to eliminate tonality more than the inventor of
the system did (p. 389) and Schoenberg’s serialism was couched in classical
forms (p. 393). As such, many composers wanted to take the twelve-tone
technique further and after the war Pierre Boulez wrote an article called
SCHOENBERG IS DEAD (P. 394). Although the system was invented by Schoenberg,
the composers were primarily influenced by Anton von Webern (Staines and Clark
2005, p. 376) After the war, composers began to apply the twelve-tone technique
to all aspects of music, such as dynamics, pitch and duration, which was called
‘total serialism’ (p. 430). Previous composers who at some point were
considered new and daring, such as Paul Hindemith and Igor Stravinsky, were now
considered kitsch by snobbish critics like Theodor Adorno (p. 388). Indeed, by
the time Stravinsky decided to start composing in the twelve-tone technique it
was considered passé (p. 395). Modern music appeared to be in a state of
perpetual revolution, even if the music wasn’t serialist.
Several scenes in The
Second Heimat depict all of these things. There is a scene in the first
episode where the main character, Herman, experiences a piece of avant-garde
music for the first time. The scene is in black and white and it starts with a
mid-shot of Herman opening the door of a rehearsal room and the spacious
conservatory is visible in the background. Herman is framed via a mid-shot,
which pans to the left and follows Herman as he enters the room. The camera
pans from a 180 degree angle to a 360 degree angle and it spins around as he
opens the door. A group of musicians are framed via a mid-shot. A piano player
is on the left of the screen, there are marimba and xylophone players at the
back and light comes in from the background. The musicians stop playing, turn
around and look at Herman. This is followed by the same mid-shot of Herman who
says ‘Isn’t this room 144? I’ve come to practise.’ There is light mainly on the
left side of his face and as he walks forward the camera pans slightly and
follows him. The camera work edits to the a more focused mid-shot of the five
musicians. Jean-Marie says: ‘We’re rehearsing. Were did you get the keys?’ The
camera pans to the right as he says this. Herman says: ‘From the porter.’ The
camera pans to the left as Jean-Marie says: ‘The same old battle. They hear
modern music and out comes the spare key.’ It is clear that they feel
beleaguered and that they are somewhat self-righteous. They are doing something
new – like Boulez and Stockhausen – and that they are fighting a fusty old
order. Meanwhile, the piano is in the background, there is strong contrast
between black and white and it resembles a crochet. The camera angles alternate
between the perspective of Herman and the five musicians and it highlights their
surprise. Volker, the piano player, says: ‘We always rehearse in the chamber
room. It’s only for seniors.’ The camera pans across to the right and follows
Jean-Marie as he walks towards Herman. ‘Where can I go then?’ Herman asks. The
camera pans to the left onto the musicians and it is framed via the same
mid-shot. The music starts and they play an avant-garde piece, which is
followed by a mid-shot of Herman looking intrigued and bewildered. The camera
dollies out and pans as Herman moves across the room and settles on a mid-shot
of Herman behind the musicians. Herman says: ‘How I envied the older students.
They were the lords of creation, haughty, united against the world. They were
the prophets of the new music. Whatever shocked the older generation, they did
it. So this is the new music.’ The sound is comprised of Herman’s interior
monologue and the avant-garde music. The camera pans and dollies into Volker
playing the piano and it tilts up and down as he signals for the other
musicians to stop. This is followed by a close-up of Herman, which is
accompanied by the interior monologue: ‘It fascinated me, like the city
itself.’ There is a mid-shot of Volker playing dissonant chords on the piano
and the camera work alternates between shots of Jean-Marie, the other musicians
and Volker. This is followed by a high-angle mid-shot with everyone in the
room. Herman hears modern music for the first time and he is enraptured by it.
It is emblematic of social change, as the new music is in a state of perpetual
renewal. They want to ‘shock’ the older generation and they feel like they are
beleaguered. Finally, the camera angles emphasise how they look at each other
from different perspectives.
Herman composes
avant-garde pieces later on in the film. There are several scenes that recreate
pieces that Herman wrote. Earlier on in the series, he did not receive acclaim
for a cello concerto, so he wanted to do something completely different. The
film shows the premier of one of his pieces, which is filmed in colour. It
starts with a mid-shot of an opera singer wearing blue and she is accompanied
by a blue background. There is a mid-shot of the crowd, which is not packed and
is mostly filled with Herman’s friends. The grand piano is on the left and it
is accompanied by a double bassist and saxophonist, which has clear nods to
jazz. There are hoovers surrounding the performers, which adds to the sense of
experimentation. The film edits to a shot of percussionists, who come from the
background, and they wear tuxedos. The door is open and light comes in from the
background whilst the rest of the room is dark. The percussive music that they
play is reminiscent of Ionisation by Edgard Varese, as it is dissonant,
syncopated and rhythmic. The camera pans across to the left, as they walk onto
the stage and the lighting centres on them. Volker says: ‘I don’t do theatrical
stuff, but this is going down well.’ The music is a cross between opera, modern
classical and jazz. It attempts to break new ground and it is theatrical. It is
very much in line with the spirit of experimentation that was present in the
1960s.
The avant-garde musical
world had a cliquish aspect to it and it also couched its music in scientific
verbiage. The musical avant-garde was centred in a German city called
Darmstadt. There was a high-tech vibe to it and composers dressed like
scientists (p. 426). Indeed, Pierre Schaffer compared French composers to
atomic physicists, which had a whiff of pseudo-science to it (p. 426). Pieces
had pseudo-scientific titles like Configurations, Quantities and Structures
(p. 427). Although it was a time of experimentation, some composers were
frustrated by the rigidity of the school. Hans Werner Henze was ‘frustrated by
the more or less official ban on tonality’ (p. 247). Karlheinz Stockhausen was the
‘crown prince’ of the school and many people revered him (p. 428). Stockhausen
established himself in a studio in Cologne in 1953. Despite being
‘hypermodern,’ several members still retained 19th century
obsessions such as revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoise, transcendence, etc.
(p. 431). Several composers were collegial in the 1950s, but this broke down by
the 1960s (p. 453). Additionally, avant-garde movements were very interested in
electronics, which was centred in the RTF studio in Paris. They experimented
with musique concrete, which involves electronic manipulations of real sounds,
such as pianos, railways, engines, etc. (Staines and Clark, p. 521). Meanwhile,
the WDR studio in Cologne attempted to create a new musical language purely
from electronic sounds. Stockhausen joined this studio and produced some of his
most renowned works, such as Gesang der junglinge and Kontakte.
Meanwhile, Luciano Berio and Luigi Nono pursued a middle path between both
schools. Most major European composers worked at these schools, but an
electronic studio was established in Princeton and this is where Milton Babbitt
and John Cage worked. However, the rise of new technologies soon started to
make many of these ventures seem dated (p. 521). The movements were cliquey, centred
in Darmstadt, attempted to appear scientific and the rise of electronics
promised to create new sounds. However, for all the sense of experimentation
and newness, many of these notions started to seem passé.
The musical scene in The
Second Heimat certainly is cliquey, but it is centred in Munich, not
Darmstadt. The series also documents composers competing with each other, which
once more is similar to the musical scene in Darmstadt. However, the series
also chronicles the development of electronic music, as Herman eventually
acquires his own electronic studio, which is called ‘Varia Vision.’ Herman
collaborates with his friend Rob, a filmmaker, so as to create a synthesis
between sound and image. He is funded by a wealthy industrialist so as to do
this. Herman shows his studio to his friend Volker, whom he often competes with
throughout the series. The scene starts with a 180 degree mid-shot of Volker
and Herman and there is not much light on them. Herman tells Volker: ‘This is
my electronic studio. What do you think? This is a brand new mixing table from
England.’ Indeed, electronic music often used state-of-the-art technology.
Volker looks solemn and forlorn, as his former rival has eclipsed him. Indeed,
this rivalry mirrors the rivalries in the modern classical scene in the late
1950s. Electronic studios require a lot of investment, meaning that Herman is a
sought-after composer. The camera pans and follows Herman via a 180 degree
mid-shot. He says: ‘Vodocer. Six channels. It makes the sound generators
respond to the human voice.’ The state-of-the-art technology is able to
synthesise real voices and instruments – as opposed to the earlier musique
concrete, which manipulated real sounds. Herman says: ‘Do you realise what that
means? That sawtooth generator there. I can make it talk. I can make a VW
engine talk. I can break down human voices into elements and synthesise them. I
can turn speech into music and vice versa.’ The new technology is a
multifaceted synthesis of multiple sounds, which mirrors new keyboards which
became available around this time, such as the Moog. The engineer comes in
wearing an overall and he is called ‘Doctor,’ which emphasises how this
enterprise was often considered scientific rather than artistic. Indeed, he
uses technical language, as he talks about ‘parts for the ring modulator.’
Volker turns to Herman and tells him about a project he wants to do which wants
to mix electronic sounds with acoustic ones. Herman says: ‘We don’t splice
anymore. We synthesise.’ Old acoustic instruments are considered old-hat, even
if they are spliced with electronic sounds. This is somewhat ironic, given how
dated a lot of the electronic music from this period subsequently became.
This essay will now
look at the German New Wave, as several characters in the film are filmmakers.
The German New Wave revitalised German filmmaking, as there had been a fallow
period after the Third Reich. The golden years had been during the Weimar
Republic, but Nazis brought this to an end and most films were imported after
the war (Stanford 1980, p. 6). However, most filmmakers were more well-versed
with Hollywood filmmakers rather than the classics from the Weimar era (p. 6)
and this comes through in The Second Heimat. Pivotally, ‘Heimatfilms’
were very popular. They filmed the idyllic countryside and they were patriotic.
They acquired nationalistic overtones during the Nazi era and even after the
war Heimatfilms were too linked with the Nazis (p. 11). However, Edgar Reitz’s
Heimat films were notorious, as they were not nationalistic or even patriotic.
However, the German New Wave in the 1960s broke with staid Heimat films after
the publication of the ‘Oberhausen Manifesto.’ Edgar Reitz was one of the
signatories of the manifesto and he recreates this in The Second Heimat.
It was a youthful and revolutionary document. It stated the following:
‘The collapse of the conventional
German cinema finally removes the economic basis from an attitude of mind that
we reject. With it, the new cinema has a chance of coming to life. […] We
declare our object to be the creation of the new German feature film. This new
cinema needs new freedom. Freedom from the customary conventions of the trade.
Freedom from the influence of commercial partners. Freedom from the tutelage of
vested interests. We have a concrete notion of the new German cinema. We are
collectively prepared to take economic risks. The old cinema is dead. We
believe in the new one.
Oberhausen, 28 February 1962.’ (p.
14)
This is similar to The Second
Heimat, as the filmmakers in the film say that ‘papa’s cinema is dead.’ The
manifesto demanded new production conditions (Niewalda) and they were clearly
influenced by the Nouvelle Vague, who are also cited in the film. Edgar Reitz
signed the Oberhausen manifesto alongside Alexander Kluge and twenty-four other
signatories. The manifesto also stated that ‘papa’s cinema is dead,’ (Niewalda)
something that is explicitly quoted in Reitz’s film. Kluge studied law and one
of the filmmakers in the film, Stefan, studies law. However, not much happened
after the manifesto was released. Government funding was only set up by 1965. Germany
started producing films with international recognition when Alexander Kluge
released Yesterday Girl in 1966 and won the Silver Bear in Venice (p.
15). Television played a big part in developing new German cinema and there
were more outlets for cinema in German TV than any other European country (p.
15). Indeed, Reitz’s Heimat films were funded by and broadcast on
television. Although Reitz made his films later, there were also other Heimat
films made during the German New Wave period (p. 135).
Several
scenes of the film depict filmmakers as well as musicians. Indeed, they mention
the same slogan that the Oberhausen manifesto included – ‘Papa’s kino is dead.’
We see a mid-shot of Robert and Richard placing stickers that say ‘Papa’s kino
is dead’ across Munich. The camera pans across to the right as they are chased
away by the owner of a cinema. This reifies how iconoclastic much of this
cinema was and how they were disposed to anti-social pranks. It is a ‘break
with the old.’ They proceed to place these stickers on statues, beer mugs, zoos
and people on the streets, public toilets and the top of cathedrals. The series
later on shows the filmmakers involved in several projects. There is a scene
where Stefan, most likely modelled on Alexander Kluge, abandons an ambitious
project. It becomes ‘sabotaged’ by a group of political radicals. The scene
starts with a black and white mid-shot of a camera filming Robert, a fellow
filmmaker, talking. The camera dollies into a close-up of Stefan talking. Robert
says: ‘Today, making a film means taking responsibility. Responsibility for
political awareness. A film is just a dead record of a lot of pre-rehearsed
scenes. Vision is only truth when we feel what we see. I mean, the camera has
no feeling.’ The camera work edits back to the mid-shot of Robert being filmed.
He continues: ‘To approach the truth, the camera man must get his feeling into
the picture. Reality isn’t truth. We tend to think, the more realistic a scene
is, the better it is.’ There is a sense of the ‘meta’ in this scene, simply
because Robert is being filmed by a camera and he is talking about the process
of filmmaking. Obviously, the camera work causally captures the material world
as it is and Robert is talking about how it is the job of the filmmaker to
imbue this process with his own vision. This is followed by a mid-shot of
Stefan, the project’s director, walking over. The camera dollies out as Stefan
approaches the set. The camera pans and shifts from a 360 degree to a 180
angle. Stefan says: ‘Stop shooting! I’m announcing the end of production. We’re
taking all the equipment, all exposed and unexposed film. […] All costumes,
props, tools. […] Production is over. You’ve violated the contract.’ The crew
seem nonplussed as he says this. The production is sabotaged by a group of
leftist agitators. Robert had talked about film being ‘a political
responsibility,’ but Stefan says that the production has being ‘systematically
sabotaged.’ Many of the members of the German New Wave were very ambitious, but
they found it hard to get their ambitious projects off the ground. Indeed,
Reitz had several flops prior to making the Heimat films. Indeed, Stefan
is an auteur who has lost complete control over his project. Robert talks as to
how film is an attempt to manipulate causal reality and how the filmmaker
attempts to imbue this with his own vision. However, Stefan in this scene has
not managed to do this and it is hijacked by a group of radicals.
This
essay will now look at the Baade-Meinhof group, a hard-left terrorist
organisation that was formed in 1968. It originated from the university protest
movement and it decried the United States as imperialist (Jenkins). Like the
rest of the first world, West Germany experienced left-wing youth revolts in
the 1960s (Moncourt and Smith 2013). It distrusted their parents’ generation,
as they thought that the post-war regime that their parents ran was still
comprised of Nazis. Indeed, Christopher Hitchens states the following in an
article: ‘[They wanted to] strip the mask from the pseudo-democratic state and
reveal the Nazi skull beneath its skin’ (2009). They started to live in
communes (Moncourt and Smith), which once more mirrors scenes in The Second
Heimat. Whilst other leftist groups leant towards countercultural anarchism,
Baden-Meinhof tended towards communism and often cited Mao as an influence. The
Social Democrats came to power in 1969 and pushed through many of the demands
of the student movement. Despite this, the group kept protesting and became
more radicalised (Moncourt and Smith). The members of the gang supported
themselves through bank robberies and engaged in terrorist bombings and arson
of West German corporations. It also kidnapped and assassinated political
figures, provoked an aggressive response from the government and thought this
would lead to a broader revolutionary movement. The tactics became more violent
and they started to become more estranged from the political left. It later
transpired that East German secret police had provided them with training,
shelter and supplies (Jenkins).
Indeed,
this resentment against the ‘Nazi’ past of their parents’ generation permeates
the entire series. Earlier on in the series, the character Ansgar says that the
‘economic miracle’ that they were living through was being presided over by
former Nazis. The character Helga becomes radicalised and joins a leftist group
which later morphs into a terrorist organisation, which is clearly modelled on
The Red Army Faction. In one scene, she likens the Christian Democrat
government to Nazis, even though its former leader, Adenauer, fled the Nazi
regime and subjected the country to the process of ‘Denazification.’ She
hyperbolically compares the Christian Democrat administration to Germany in the
1930s: ‘We intellectuals are responsible for the democracy in this country.
That’s where most artists failed in 1933. It mustn’t happen again.’ Helga and
her group later visit the ‘Foxhole,’ a mansion she used to frequent in her
bohemian days. They are worried that they are being monitored by the
government. She once more hyperbolically compares the government to the Nazis,
as they are about to be banned: ‘That’s how Hitler came to power.’ They
themselves are the product of the ‘bourgeoise’ and they have lived through the
German ‘economic miracle,’ yet they still talk about ‘revolution,’ ‘dismantling
power structures’ and ‘transition from capitalism to socialism.’ They
acknowledge that the economic conditions are unprecedented, but they still think
that they can live without it: ‘[We should] liberate ourselves from affluence.’
Indeed, they call Frauelein Cerphal a product of the ‘bourgeois’ when they are
quite clearly a product of it, too. Eventually, Helga’s political group morphs
into terrorism. We see this in a scene when a train gets stopped by the police,
as they attempt to track down terrorists. We see a low-angle long-shot of
helicopters and the sound of helicopters. The police are later framed via a
mid-shot. Herman later encounters a close-up of Helga and other members of the
terrorist organisation; it dawns on Herman that Helga is now a terrorist. Later
on in the episode, they look into Stefan’s car, who had a relationship with
Helga, and they barge into his apartment. His apartment is festooned with
posters of Blow-Up by Antonioni, The Conformist by Bertolucci and
Death in Venice by Visconti, which clearly reveals his interest in
Italian filmmaking. The terrorists are framed via a mid-shot and they disguise
themselves. Stefan says: ‘My God, Helga, how long can you live like this?’ She says:
‘At last I am needed.’ We see a low-angle mid-shot of Stefan and this is
followed by a mid-shot of Helga eating. She is clearly self-righteous and she
feels that what she is doing is just and necessary. Obviously, her former
friends are taken aback by her transformation. The hard-left groups in Germany
drifted towards terrorism, as they were radicalised by the Nazi past of their
parents. However, they benefited from the ‘social market’ settlement that they
installed after the war.
Heimat
3: A Chronicle of Endings and Beginnings (2004) is set after the fall of
the Berlin. It deals with a new homeland which is more multicultural,
cosmopolitan and globalised. Indeed, it explores what ‘homeland’ means in a
much more different world. Jonathan Romney: ‘What does home mean in a period of
such radical displacement and dislocation?’ (2009). It takes place between 1990
and 2000 and, being eleven hours long, is shorter than the first two
instalments. It deals with the collapse of communism, the integration of east
and west Germany, the integration of immigrant communities and crass consumerism.
Once more, these issues are largely in the background and the series primarily
focuses on the personal relationships between the characters. Interestingly,
although it is the third series, it seems to be more linearly derived from the
first series than the second one. The series is set in the town Schabbach, where
the first series is set. Hermann meets Clarissa, the singer and cellist that he
is infatuated with in the second series. They meet by chance and decide to
settle in Schabbach, the homeland that he decided to repudiate in the second
series. This essay will look at the reunification of East and West Germany as
well as the integration of immigrants into Germany.
The
Reunification of Germany was a major achievement, which required ‘strong
international partnerships and deft political manoeuvring’ (Hadley 2021).
Indeed, it has been called a ‘political miracle,’ as it was hard to imagine
that Soviet Union military forces would retreat peacefully from their occupied
territories (Sinn 2000, p. 1). East and West Germany became reunited on October
3, 1990 and the Soviet Union collapsed a year later. According to Kohler, the
German chancellor, German Reunification would not have been possible without
Gorbachev’s market reforms – Perestroika (restriction) and Glasnost (openness)
(Hadley). Additionally, The Soviet Union had struggled to keep up with Ronald
Reagan’s aggressive defence spending, which had decimated their economy. The
USA and West Germany were in favour of reunification, but France and the UK, led
by Francois Miterrand and Margaret Thatcher respectively, were not. The world
was already going in this direction, as the Communist Party in Poland voted to
legalise Solidarity, the anti-communist trade union, which won seats in the
parliament. There were mass pro-democracy demonstrations in Hungary. Bush, Kohl
and Gorbachev all had an excellent relationship, which helped make
reunification work (Hadley). Negotiations between Kohl and Gorbachev took place
in Mosco and Stavropol between July 14-16, which was a diplomatic breakthrough.
In these negotiations, Kohl attempted to convince Gorbachev that a unified
Germany would not be a threat to the Soviet Union (Hellfeld/Chase 2010). Gorbachev
did not use the presence of troops to stamp out the demonstrations against East
Germany, a tactic which had been used by his predecessors and he kept his word
when it came to Hungary and Poland, too. Indeed, he said: I just want the
Soviet Union to be a normal country’ (Hadley). On July 17, he gave the go-ahead
for East and West Germany to reunify (Hellfeld/Chase). West Germany was given
the permission to incorporate territory of 108,333 kilometres and 16 million
people. The Soviet Union had already amassed a massive debt in the arms race
with Ronald Reagan, so it was in no mood to keep control of satellite states.
In return for accepting German reunification, Kohl agreed to pay for the costs
of withdrawing Soviet troops. He also promised financial help so as to stabilise
Soviet finances (Hellfeld/Chase).
Although
German reunification was considered a great success, it has inevitably created
problems. As analyses of Heimat 3 will demonstrate, several East Germans
struggle to integrate into West Germany. Many people said that it was a
positive development at the time (Gramlich 2019). However, although living
standards have risen in East Germany, surveys have shown that ‘a clear
majority’ of East Germans remain unsatisfied (Eddy 2020). Indeed, economic
growth lags behind in the east; economic output lags behind the west by 70% and
east Germans earn 15% less on average (Eddy). Labour productivity in the east
stood at one third of the level of the west (Becker, Mergele and Woersmann
2020, p. 158). Self-employment had been restricted in the communist regime,
which led to a low level of entrepreneurship following reunification (p. 158).
German reunification led to a shock to retirement levels and prices increased
after the abolishment of price controls (p. 158). The planned economy meant
that people had to wait for decades to buy a car (p. 165). East German doctrine
taught people to live frugally, but reunification opened up opportunities for
consumption, so East Germans spent money on items so as to display their high
status (p. 165). East Germany went from
being one of the most industrialised countries to one of the least, as its
infrastructure and its economy was ravaged by communism (Dale 2019). As a
result, some easterners express their discontent by supporting far-right
parties. Also, the east has lost a generation of people who fled to the west
following reunification. They sought jobs after 94% of state-owned companies
were shut down. Currently, none of Germany’s major companies have their
headquarters in the east and the region trails in research, development,
machines and factories. Six in ten west Germans see reunification as a complete
process, but more than eight in ten East Germans see it as incomplete (Eddy). Following
reunification, Helmut Kohl set the exchange rate of the Ostmark to the
Deutschmark to 1:1, which led to a 400% increase in the value of the East
German currency. None of the East German companies were able to withstand the
shock, as costs could not be reduced and all prices were subject to
re-evaluation. Kohl also oversaw the privatisation of eastern enterprises, the
sell-off was accompanied by legal and illegal corruption and he prioritised the
interests of western businesses. Only 5% of former eastern businesses were sold
to easterners; 85% were sold to westerners. As a result, most senior management
activities took place in the west. The east experienced emigration and
stagnation as well as the depopulation of towns and demolition of houses.
Westerners were mostly appointed to positions of power, which included the civil
service, professorship, industry and the armed forces (Dale).
This
inequality between East and West Germans is depicted in Heimat 3. The
fall of the Berlin wall is depicted at the start of the series and this is when
Herman and Clarissa serendipitously meet each other. Clarissa encounters two
East German workers after a concert of hers has been cancelled. The scene
starts with a mid-shot of Clarissa wearing an elegant blue top whilst the East
Germans wear shabbier clothing, which emphasises their differences in class.
Otto assumes that she is a reporter, but she is the lead singer at the concert,
which once more emphasises class distinctions. The camera pans to the right,
towards Udo who smokes a cigarette and drinks a beer. Udo says: ‘That’s Mrs. Lichblau,
the western singer they cancelled. You should know that.’ The camera pans to a
low angle mid-shot of Clarissa sitting down with a meal and there are darker
tones in this shot. The camera work edits to a mid-shot of the easterners, who
are portrayed via a lighter tone. Udo tells Otto to ‘leave the lady alone.’ Otto
says: ‘You see, I’m a joiner, a tiler, a scaffold builder, all in one.’ The
camera work alternates between low-angle mid-shots of the East Germans and
Clarissa. This is followed by a voiceover from Clarissa: ‘A thought crossed my
mind. Weren’t they the craftsmen we needed for our house on the Rhine? I could
make them an attractive offer. Can you imagine working for me? I could make you
ten marks an hour.’ This is followed by a close-up of the workers. Otto says:
‘West German marks?’ Clarissa says: ‘Yes, I have my car here. I can take you
there.’ Otto: ‘The BMW outside.’ Otto and Udo seem incredulous, as it seems to
be a lot of money to them. However, Clarissa later mentions to Hermann that she
is underpaying them and she is taking advantage. East Germans, therefore, were
prone to exploitation. This scene is later shortly followed by a scene where
Clarissa drives the East German workers to West Germany. The three of them are
framed via a mid-shot. Clarissa sings, in an operatic voice, the East German
national anthem. We see a close-up of Udo who says: ‘Look.’ Clarissa says:
‘What?’ Udo says: ‘That blue. Amazing.’ He points to a neon sign in blue. The
East German is taken aback by it, as everything in the communist regime had
been so drab, decimated and squalid. Clarissa is so used to her comfortable
life in the west that she sees nothing remarkable about the petrol station.
Both Udo and Otto later struggle and drift in the new reunified Germany. Otto
struggles to make ends meet and even ends up in jail whilst Udo starts a failed
business venture.
This
essay will now explore the inflow of immigrants and refugees into Germany in
the 1990s. Indeed, like many other places, immigration is a big issue in
Germany and a large part of the population supports controlling migrant flows
(Arenas-Arroyo, Giunfella, Vargas-Silva 2018, p. 2). Most immigrants have lived
for ten years or longer in Germany and one third of them have lived in Germany
for more than twenty years (Green 2001). The public is concerned that it
affects labour markets and the country’s finances (Arenas-Arroyo, Guinfella,
Vargas-Silva, p. 2). People also take an interest in the unemployment and the
benefit dependency of immigrants (p. 2). The arrival of migrants and the
subsequent impact on the job opportunities of the native-born population also
becomes an issue (p. 2), but empirical studies show that this is not an issue
(p. 3). The number of migrants in Germany, as of 2018, is 12.1 million, they
account for 15% of the population and 40% of them come from EU countries (p.
2). Several problems arise from migration, such as welfare benefits, language
training, the provision of education to migrants and the access to
infrastructure and accommodation (Kannels and Lecca 2017, p. 1). However,
refugees can often integrate into the economy, work, pay taxes and help it grow
(p. 2). It can create a supply shock, since refugees have to be integrated into
the labour market. It also creates a demand shock, as it creates additional
spending of welfare (p. 4). It also creates additional problems, such as gaps
in educational achievements, low employment, brain waste and high levels of
overqualification, social exclusion and poverty (p. 7). The poverty rate is
also higher in immigrant households than native households and migrant children
are often more likely to be exposed to poverty (p. 8). Following reunification,
many migrants came from abroad as well as the former East Germany (Graka,
Schwarze, Wagner, p. 1). The inflow of immigrants peaked in 1990/91, as by 1997
8% of the West German population had immigrated as compared with 1% of East
Germany in 1984 (p. 2). The unemployment rate in East Germany was 18% due to
economic ‘shock therapy’ whilst it stood at 10% in West Germany in 1997 (p. 3).
However, this high unemployment rate also affected immigrants (p. 6).
Immigrants do tend to be on lower incomes, although Germany does have lower
rates of income inequality than the rest of Europe (p. 6). However, there have
been cases of xenophobia in Germany and of violence towards immigrants (Bade
and Anderson, p. 85). Foreigners have been attacked on the streets, with
slogans such as ‘foreigners out’ and ‘Germans for Germans’ being chanted (p.
85). Victims of these attacks have usually been asylum seekers (p. 85).
There
are several scenes in Heimat 3 which depict multiculturalism. There is a
scene where several Russian immigrants arrive at Schabbach, which in the first Heimat
is a predominantly homogeneous community. The scene starts with a
black-and-white mid-shot of the Russian immigrants, a young couple and an
elderly couple. We see a mid-shot of a young Russian woman with a child and
there is a black man behind her. This once more emphasises the new
multiculturalism in towns, not just cities. The music has folkish aura to it,
which emphasises the provenance of these people, as opposed to the Teutonic
highbrow classicism of Hermann and Clarissa. Russian immigrants, black
immigrants local people from the Hunsruck all get on with each other. It is
harmonious, there is a sense of solidarity and that multiculturalism works.
There are no diatribes such as ‘German for Germans.’ The Russian woman tells
its child: ‘Well, Nikitoshka, a new time is beginning.’ She is starting a new
life in Germany and possibly shedding some of her Russian heritage. This is
followed by a mid-shot of an elderly German couple, who will most likely hold
on to their Russian heritage and integrate into German society less
successfully. They dress in a more traditional way, but they sit next to the
African families, which once more emphasises multiculturalism.
Indeed, the Russian
immigrants have fled the communist regimes which had just been deposed. This comes
through in a scene where we see a mid-shot of the Russian woman with African
children in the street. They fraternise and, once again, there is a sense that
multiculturalism works. This is obvious a stark contrast to the racist and
nationalistic rhetoric in the first Heimat. The Russian woman goes to
the black woman’s flat, where she is joined by the character Ernst, Herman’s
brother. Ernst stares into the cot, looks at the infant and says: ‘You belong
to your own people. A fridge, nice clothes, a TV, freedom.’ Ernst is framed via
a mid-shot and from a low angle, from the perspective of the baby. The baby,
meanwhile, is framed from a mid-shot and from a higher angle, from Ernst’s
perspective. Whilst Ernst does not have racist or nationalist values, he does
have conservative values and he does want them to assimilate. He mentions the
material comforts that the baby will enjoy, but he also mentions the conceptual
values that are open to him. He will enjoy freedom, an ideal that will enable
him to determine his own values and choices, something that he would not be
open to him in the stultifying conformity of Soviet communism.
This essay explored the
Nazification and denazification of German society in Heimat.
Unemployment aggravated the situation, so many people turned to fascism, even
though the vote for the Nazis had declined by the time of the fifth general
election of 1932. However, many of the Nazis in Heimat do so out of
expedience rather than out of principle. Many of the Nazis were aware of the
gas chambers, but less politically engaged characters like Maria becomes
disconcerted when she encounters ‘death rings.’ Once the Nazis are defeated,
one of the erstwhile Nazis attempts to ingratiate herself with the occupying
Americans. Following the war, the political program presented by Adenauer and
the Christian Democrats emphasised the sanctity of property rights and
entrepreneurialism, but they tempered this with trade union bargaining rights
and social insurance. As a result, the economy grew and Germany became an
industrial powerhouse. Indeed, this is depicted in Heimat, as the
character successfully starts an optical company. However, the film does depict
the rise of a more predatory capitalism in the 1970s, as multinational
companies attempt to buy him out. The Second Heimat, meanwhile, partly
dealt with the restless creativity of the 1960s avant-garde. Indeed, the
avant-garde in music in the late 1950s and early 1960s was in a state of
perpetual renewal. This does come through in the film, as the character Herman
composes a series of experimental pieces. In the end, he acquires his own
electronic studio, which once more mirrors the avant-gardism of the era. The
musical avant-garde was often iconoclastic, cliquish and highly competitive and
this comes through in the film. The film also deals with the German New Wave,
which was once more iconoclastic. The movement railed against the commercialism
of the medium, but it also emphasised the importance of the ‘auteur.’ This
comes through in the film since Stefan, an auteur filmmaker, has his film
sabotaged by a group of insurrectionary leftists. The film does indeed deal
with leftist movements, which are highly hypocritical since they rail against
an economic system which has given them unbridled opportunities. Indeed, the
leftists become more and more radical and turn into terrorists. Finally, Heimat
3 deals with the integration of East and West Germany, immigration and
multiculturalism. The East German characters are exploited and they struggle to
integrate into the reunified Germany. Additionally, the film does depict
multiculturalism in a positive light, as several nationalities manage to
co-exist peacefully. However, some immigrant characters do struggle to
integrate in other episodes. These are all the aspects of German social change
that the trilogy depicts.
Works Cited
Adams, John. (2011)
‘Heimat.’ In Movie Habit. Available from: https://www.moviehabit.com/review.php?story=hei_af11
Anderson, Lieslotte.
Bade, Klaus J. (1994) ‘Immigration and Social Peace in United Germany.’ In Daedalus.
In 123:1. p. 84-106.
Arenas-Arroyo, Esther.
Guintella, Osea. Vargas-Silva, Carlos. (2018) ‘Immigration and Unemployment
Benefits: Evidence from Germany.’ In Reminder-Project-EU
Becker, Sasch O.
Mergele, Lukas. (2020) ‘The Separation of Reunification of Germany: Rethinking
a National Experiment: Interpretation of the Enduring Effects of Communism.’ In
Journal of Economic Perspectives. 34:2., p. 143-171.
Bessel, Richard. (2009)
Germany 1945. London: Simon & Schuster.
Chase, Jefferson.
Hellfeld, Mathhias Von. (2010) ‘How Kohl and Gorbachev Sealed the Deal on
German Reunification.’ In DW. Available from: https://www.dw.com/en/how-kohl-and-gorbachev-sealed-the-deal-on-german-reunification/a-5788998
Chen, James. (2021) ‘Bretton
Woods Agreement and System.’ In Investopedia. Available from: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brettonwoodsagreement.asp#:~:text=The%20Bretton%20Woods%20Agreement%20and%20System%20created%20a%20collective%20international,to%20the%20price%20of%20gold.
Dale, Gareth. (2019) ‘How Divisions Between East and West Germany Persist 30
Years After Reunification.’ In The Conversation. Available from: How
Divisions Between East and West Germany Persist 30 Years After Reunification.
Graka, Markus. M.
Schwarze, Johannes. Wagner, Gert G. (1999) ‘How Unification and Immigration
Affected the German Income Distribution.’ In Institute for Economic Research.
4:6. P. 867-878.
Grunberger, Richard.
(1971) A Social History of the Third Reich. London: Penguin.
Eddy, Melissa. (2020)
‘Three Decades After Reunification, Germans Wonder: How United Are We. In The
New York Times. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/03/world/europe/east-west-germany-30-anniversary.html
Eichengreen, Barry.
Ritsch. (2008) Understanding German Economic Growth in the 1950s. No.
113/08. London: London School of Economics/
Englene, Pehr. (2011)
‘Memory of Everyday Life: A Study of Edgar Reitz’s Heimat.’ In Dandelion:
Postgraduate Arts Journal & Research Network. 2.2
Green, Simon O. (2001)
‘Immigration, Asylum and Citizenship in Germany: The Impact of Unification and
the Berlin Republic.’ In West European Politics. 24:4. p. 82-104.
Heather, John. (2021) ‘Wirtschaftswunder.’
In Britannica. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wirtschaftswunder.
Hitchens, Christopher.
(2009) ‘Once Upon a Time in Germany.’ In Vanity Fair. Available from: https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/08/hitchens-guerrillas200908
Jarausch, Konrad H.
(2006) After Hitler: Recivlizing Germans, 1945-1995. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, John Phillip.
(1998) ‘The Red Army Faction.’ In Britannica. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Red-Army-Faction/additional-info#history
Kanels, D’Artis, Lecca,
Patrizio. (2017) ‘Long-term Social, Economic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration
into the EU: The Role of the Integration Policy.’ In JRC Working Papers in
Economics and Finance. 4.
Lebrecht, Norman.
(1992) The Companion to 20th Century Music. Sydney:
Australia.
Magee, Bryan. (1973) Karl
Popper. Glasgow: Fontana.
Moncourt, Andre. Smith,
John. (2013) The Urban Guerilla Concept. Montreal: Kersplebedeb
Publishing.
Nievalda, Sabine.
‘Oberhausen Manifesto.’ In International Short Film Festival Organisation.
Available online from: https://www.kurzfilmtage.de/en/
Romney, Jonathan. (2009) ‘Heimat 3.’ In The
Independent. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/heimat-3-15-490096.html
Rosenbaum, Jonathan.
(1994) In Chicago Reader. Available from: https://jonathanrosenbaum.net/1994/04/the-second-heimat/
Ross, Alex. (2007) The
Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century. London: Harper Perennial
Sandford,
John. (1980) The New German Cinema. London: Eyre Metheun.
Sen, Ashish Kumar.
(2021) ‘German Reunification: It Was Nothing Short of a Miracle.’ In United
States Institute of Peace. Available from: https://www.usip.org/publications/2021/02/german-reunification-it-was-nothing-short-miracle
Sinn, Hans-Werner.
(2000) ‘Germany’s Economic Unification: An Assessment After Ten Years.’ In Review
of International Economics. 10:11.
Ed. Staines, John and
Clark, Duncan. (2005) The Rough Guide to Classical Music. London: Rough
Guides.
Uknown
author. (1986) ‘The Screen: “Heimat,” An Epic on German Life. In The New
York Times. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/05/movies/the-screen-heimat-an-epic-on-german-life.html
Filmography
Heimat. (1984) Directed by Edgar Reitz. Edgar
Reitz Film (ERF) Sender Freies Berlin (SFB) Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR). 924 minutes.
Heimat 2: Chronicle
of a Generation.
(1993) Directed by Edgar Reitz. Edgar
Reitz Film (ERF) Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR) (co-production) Sender Freies
Berlin (SFB) (co-production) Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR) (co-production)
Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR) (co-production) Südwestfunk (SWF) (co-production)
Hessischer Rundfunk (HR) (co-production) British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
(co-production) Televisión Española (TVE) (co-production) Sveriges Television
(SVT) (co-production) France 2 (FR2) (co-production) (as A2) ARTE
(co-production) Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK) (co-production) Yleisradio (YLE)
(co-production) Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) (co-production) Danmarks Radio
(DR) (co-production) Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) (co-production). 1,532
min.
Heimat 3: A
Chronicle of Endings and Beginnings.
(2004) Directed by Edgar Reitz. Edgar Reitz Film (ERF) Südwestrundfunk (SWR)
(co-production) ARD (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen
Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland) (co-production) ARD Degeto
Film (co-production) Arri Cine Technik GmbH & Co. KG (co-production)
Recorded Picture Company (RPC) (co-production) Jeremy Thomas Productions
(co-production). 689 minutes.