Economic Decline in the Cinema of the 1970s

 This is part seven from a forthcoming book called Collected Essays: Volume Two.

*********************

Economic Decline in the Cinema of the 1970s

The western world enjoyed a period of unusually high growth and low unemployment during the Second World War. It has been called ‘the golden age of capitalism.’ However, by the 1970s the economy started to stagnate, unemployment went up and so did inflation. The preceding era, known as ‘Keynesianism,’ had led to ‘stagflation.’ Economists who had been previously been marginalised seized the moment and proposed a different agenda. Meanwhile, cinema was experiencing something of a golden period. ‘New Hollywood’ had produced a spate of subversive and anti-authoritarian films which reached large audiences. Indeed, during the 1970s Hollywood produced auteurs like Martin Scorsese, Brian de Palma, Michael Cimino, Terrence Malick, Woody Allen, Sam Peckinpah, Hal Ashby and Francis Ford Coppola. A sense of economic dysfunction often appears in these films. This essay will look at four films from the 1970s and examine economic decline. In Being There (1979), a gardener with learning difficulties is perceived as being an insightful political philosopher. His talk about the seasons is perceived as being a comment on economic cycles. Life of Brian (1979) satirises the trade unions which had paralysed the British economy. Taxi Driver (1976) vividly recreates the decadence of New York. Finally, Blue Collar (1978) recreates corrupt American trade unions.

This essay will start by outlining the parlous state of the economy in the 1970s. The economy prior to the 1970s has been called ‘the golden age of capitalism,’ as unemployment was at an all time low, growth was very high and living standards had never been better, but this came at the cost of mild inflation. Indeed, between 1945 and 1973 the incomes of Americans grew exponentially (p. 420). In the 1950s and 60s, economic growth averaged 4.5%. However, in the 1970s unemployment grew, growth stalled and inflation reached double digits. This was largely due to the oil embargo, which already exacerbated rising inflation. During this period, growth averaged 2.8% and it was believed that Americans lived in an age of scarcity. Inflation, which had averaged 3% in the 50s and 60s, now raged between 10 and 15%. Productivity also stalled (p. 421) and inflation reached 13% in 1979 (p. 630). Indeed, in 1972 Richard Nixon had instituted wage and price controls (p. 454), a year before the Oil Crisis accentuated the existing problem. The gurus of the New Right, such as Milton Friedman, proposed a type of ‘shock therapy’ and leaders Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher promised to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state.’ Ronald Reagan had been a liberal – in the American sense – in the 1940s. Back then, he blamed inflation on corporations pursuing higher profits rather than higher wages. As a conservative in the 1970s, he blamed inflation on big government. He channelled Milton Friedman when he said the following: ‘Inflation occurs when the growth of the nation’s money supply outstrips the growth in the nation’s productivity’ (Perlstein 2020, p. 408). He went on to say the following: ‘The federal reserve controls the money supply and is therefore the primary source of inflation… In truth, inflation is simply another tax imposed by Washington in the name of easy money’ (p. 408). This theory, ‘the quantity theory of money,’ had lost credibility after WWII, but it made a renaissance in the 1970s. However, the incumbent Jimmy Carter did not appear to disagree: ‘If we are to overcome a threat to accelerating inflation, the government will simply not be able to do much as it can’ (p. 408). Inflation had increased under Carter up to 8.9%, but he opposed any further reductions in income tax. He wanted to limit wages and he created a ‘Council of Wage and Price Stability,’ which established voluntary price guidelines for businesses to follow (p. 387). The monetarists, however, were resolutely opposed to these kinds of controls. 

            The monetarists wanted to reverse the Keynesian settlement and it was this their political program that Thatcher and Reagan implemented. This essay will now establish what they wanted to do. Instead of setting prices, organisations like the FTC proposed anti-trust laws ban trade organisations from keeping eye glasses out of ads, making merchants and consumers freer to allow the marketplace to do its work. Eyeglasses were more expensive in states with these controls (p. 464). Indeed, liberalising, deregulating and privatising were a core part of the agenda. Additionally, cutting taxes was a core part of the New Right. Arthur Laffer argued that a 0% tax rate would yield no revenue, but a 100% tax rate would also yield no revenue. If all gains are confiscated, there is no incentive to work or invest. Taxes have to be low enough to maximise economic activity and high enough to maximise revenue. The USA was in its worst recession since the 1930s because taxes were far too high to do either. The national economy was being choked by high taxes (p. 283). These ideas were starting to become more influential during this period of stagflation and it was a shift away from Keynesianism, which argued in favour of redistribution and in spending money into the economy to boost demand and keep unemployment low. In the late 60s, Milton Friedman prophesied that Keynesianism would come to an end, as he argued that it would lead to both stagnation, inflation and high unemployment. Friedman argued in 1967 that if inflation kept going up, which was caused by full employment, then this would conversely lead to unemployment. Friedman wanted to hold back on the supply of money and let the free market do its work. Monetarism provided an ideological justification for conservatives to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state.’ If companies prospered, it was because they deserved to prosper. The winners in a competitive market were not prospering due to high regulation and this distorted the competitiveness of the market (p. 281). Milton Friedman and Paul Volker proposed a ‘shock therapy,’ as they wanted to contract the money supply. Jimmy Carter did not want to do this, as he thought that it would lead to a recession (p. 633). In the UK and the USA, this brought inflation down, but it destroyed manufacturing, created large unemployment and a lot of money went to investors rather than workers (p. 634).   

    This essay will examine how Keynesianism came to an end. Up to the 1970s, Keynesianism was the main economic orthodoxy. Indeed, Richard Nixon said ‘I am now a Keynesian’ (Stein 2019). The ‘golden age of capitalism’ had been in the 1950s and 1960s, since by historical standards unemployment had been exceptionally low, growth in real incomes exceptionally fast and economies were exceptionally stable. This was all achieved at the cost of modest inflation. This was all attributed to Keynesian policies (Skidelsky 2010, p. 125). In the late 1960s, however, inflation and unemployment went up and growth started to slow down, which was before the oil shock of 1973. Having been extolled for its success, Keynesianism was now blamed for failure. Inflation became worse in the late 1960s, which created higher unemployment and this defeated the purpose of achieving full employment. Monetarism gained respectability during this period (p. 133). The worldwide explosion in costs due to shortages, accompanied by the rise in raw material and energy prices, culminated in the fourfold increase in oil prices in 1973, which reduced full employment (p. 133). An ‘incomes policy’ was introduced – a restraint on pay increases – which did not work. More money was pumped into the public sector to deal with these problems, which only made matters worse. After the second oil price rise in 1979, governments tightened fiscal and monetary policy (p. 179). Keynesians at this period were obsessed with incomes policy, which allowed a lot of leeway for monetarists to defend contractual freedom (p. 137). In other words, Keynesians wanted to intervene in all aspects of the economy by setting prices and wages, which made it easy for monetarists to defend the core principle of the free market, of voluntary transactions between consenting adults. Prior to the 1970s, low unemployment was the acceptable price for mild inflation (p. 137), but this was no longer the case. Keynesians wanted to centralise more power in the government, and this was worse in the 1970s, but this ignored the amount of power a government can have in a free society. As such, lovers of liberty and efficiency left the Keynesian camp in droves (p. 170).

              This essay will now analyse Being There (1979) by Hal Ashby and take into consideration the state of the American economy at the time of its release. This film was the swan song of Peter Sellers, as it was his last performance before his death. Peter Sellers plays a character called ‘Chance,’ a gardener with learning difficulties. He is evicted from his house after the owner dies. Following this, he runs into an extremely wealthy businessman who lets him stay at his house. Chance simplemindedly says that he is a gardener and would like to work for them, but he is instead perceived as a intellectual. In one scene, Chance tells the businessman that ‘my house was shut down.’ Rand says: ‘You mean your business was shut down?’ Chance says: ‘Shut down and closed by the attorneys.’ Rand says: ‘That’s exactly what I mean’ and launches off into a diatribe. In another scene in the film, he says: ‘Businessmen have been harassed by inflation, increased taxation, all sorts of indecencies.’ He certainly evinces the Reaganite ethos; that is, that government is causing all of the country’s problems. The government has taken Chauncey’s business away from him. Taxes are too high and there is too much government intrusion. Excessive government involvement shuts down the businesses of earnest entrepreneurs like Chauncey.

            One of the most striking scenes in the film is when Chance talks to the president of the United States. The president visits Rand and asks for advice on how to tackle the country’s economic problems. The scene starts with a mid-shot of Rand with Chance. The décor is elaborate, as there are expensive paintings on the wall and a stove. There is a butler hovering in the background. There are elaborate gold-rimmed candles. The mise-en-scene clearly establishes that he is one of the wealthiest businessmen in the country. Rand says: ‘An old habit comes with power. Keep them waiting.’ He gets up from his wheelchair and the camera pans across as the president walks across the hall accompanied by his assistants. This is followed by a long shot of a spacious room with a large painting and there are about fifteen men in black suits. Rand says: ‘I thought about public office, but I found that I could contribute more as a private citizen. Of course, wealth provided me with considerable influence.’ He says this just before the president asks him for advice. This is followed by a mid-shot of Rand walking with Chance and they are accompanied by three other people who wear suits and bow ties. This is clearly an important room in the house, as it is a spacious library with many books in the background. The president is on the second floor of the library and he is framed by a low-angle mid-shot. The president descends the stairs whilst the camera work alternates between mid-shots of Rand, Chance and the president. Rand says: ‘I’ve missed you, my friend.’ The president clearly has a close relationship with Rand. There is a mid-shot of Chance looking gormless and he emulates Rand by embracing the president as he did. Indeed, Chance repeats the behaviour of others, especially when it is something that he has seen on television. There is a mid-shot of Rand sitting down on a red chair as he says: ‘I want you to meet my very dear friend, Mr. Chauncey Gardiner.’ This is followed by a mid-shot of the president flummoxed by Chance’s strange behaviour. Chance banally says: ‘On television, Mr. president, you look much smaller.’ He keeps embracing the president who is still perplexed. This is followed by mid-shots framed from several angles. The president says: ‘Ben, did you read my speech.’ Rand says: ‘You shouldn’t resort to temporary measures. I sympathise with you and I understand how difficult it is to be straightforward, but I tell you now, Bobby…’ The editing alternates to a scene elsewhere in the house and we no longer hear what Rand’s recommendations on the economic crisis. It seems like Rand is railing against the Keynesian orthodoxies. He already mentions earlier on in the film how the economy is being choked by high taxes and excessive intervention. He tells him not to be straightforward and at the time to be straightforward was to be Keynesian. The president says: ‘Mr. Gardiner, do you agree with Ben or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives.’ Indeed, using the government to stimulate growth is Keynesian. All three characters are framed in the same mid-shot as a clock ticks in the background. There is later a mid-shot from Ben’s perspectives. Chance says: ‘As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.’ The president asks: ‘In the garden?’ There is 90 degree mid-shot of Chance as he says: ‘In the garden, growth has its seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter.’ This is followed by a mid-shot of an out-of-focus Chance and a perplexed president. The president says: ‘And then spring and summer again.’ Chance says: ‘Yes.’ The president: ‘And then fall and winter.’ This is followed by a mid-shot of Rand with a grin on his face as he says: ‘I think that what our very insightful young friend is saying is that we should welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we’re upset about the seasons of our economy.’ Chance says: ‘Yes, there will be growth in the spring.’ The president says: ‘Well, Mr. Gardiner, I must admit that is one if the most refreshing and optimistic statements that I’ve heard in a long time.’ The camera work throughout the scene alternates between the three characters. The camera work also showcases the spacious library, which emphasises the seriousness and scholarly nature of the situation. Meanwhile, Chance’s banal and innocent statements are interpreted as gnomic insights. The economy at the time of the release of the film, as this essay has established, was in turmoil. There was double digit inflation, high unemployment and stagnation. This had followed the Keynesian ‘golden period of capitalism’ of high growth and low unemployment. Chance’s childlike remarks are interpreted as insights into economic cycles. There are booms and busts as well as periods of growth and recessions. Everyone at the time was highly pessimistic – indeed, Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 to Ronald Reagan partly because he was so pessimistic. Chance says that ‘there will be growth in the spring’ and the president compliments him on this ‘refreshing’ statement.

            This essay will now look at the state of the British economy in the 1970s, which was in a worse condition that the USA and the rest of Europe. Indeed, Britain became the first developed country to take a loan from the IMF. This was done so as to stabilise the value of the British pound. The UK Labour Party attained power by promising to solve the miner’s dispute, who had gone on strike. They went back into work on the agreement that their wages would be raised, but once this was done this only accelerated double digit inflation. Inflation went up to 27% in 1975. Once Callaghan took over in 1976, he took a large loan from the IMF. After the dissolution of Bretton Woods, the IMF became ‘a global firefighter’ which imposed stringent spending cuts. These spending cuts were opposed by much of the Labour cabinet, but they brought inflation down to single digits by 1978. However, they partly did this by severe wage restraint on all public sector workers. As such, they all went on strike and this led to the ‘winter of discontent.’ Rubbish went uncollected, hospitals did not let patients in and the dead were left unburied (Coyle 2017). Indeed, trade unions played a larger part in the economy and culture. 13 million workers were part of a trade union in the 1970s and 1980s. ‘Collective bargaining’ aimed to negotiate better wages and working conditions between employers and employees without state interference. However, the worthy achievements of full employment and the welfare state diminished the reliance of the Labour Party on the trade unions. In the 1950s and the early 60s, the trade unions were more conservative and crushed militants. Indeed, industrial relations were better than in other parts of Europe. However, trade unions moved to the left and the Stalinist Arthur Scargill became influential. They were more concerned with trade unions than the national interest and it did not bother them to bring a Labour government down. Militancy increased in the late 1960s and since the devaluation of the pound in 1967 led to higher inflation, this led to a ‘statutory prices and incomes policy.’ The UK increased exports, but it now had to pay more for its imports and this led to higher inflation. As such, the government had to freeze prices and wages, which led to resistance from the unions. Cabinet minister Barbara Castle devised ‘In Place of Strife,’ which aimed to curtail the power of trade unions, but this was quashed by James Callaghan, who was then home secretary (Cambert 2021).

            Leftist and trade union sectarianism is featured in Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979). The film is set in Roman antiquity and satirises religion and politics. Left-wing sectarianism is cleverly satirised with two rival political groups called ‘Jewdian People’s Front’ and the ‘People’s Front of Jewdia.’ Brian wants to join their group, but they tell him to ‘piss off!’ Brian says: ‘I hate Romans as much as anybody!’ They say: ‘Are you sure?’ He says: ‘Dead sure.’ John Cleese says: ‘Listen, if you want to join the P. F. J, you have to really hate the Romans.’ Brian says: ‘How much.’ He says: ‘A lot.’ Cleese says: ‘You’re in. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the Jewdian People’s Front.’ This is all about ideological purity and sectarian squabbling. The differences in their ideology are minute, but this does not prevent them from creating sects and fighting each other. Their raison d’ etre is to be against the Romans and fighting against injustice, but the other left-wing group is worse and they spend more energy fighting other leftists than deposing the Romans. The film was released in 1979, the year of ‘the winter of discontent.’ The Labour government had been brought down by the trade unions, which were led by leftists like Arthur Scargills. Dogmatists like Tony Benn subsequently blamed the government for being insufficiently ‘socialist,’ which again echoes the ideological purity of the ‘Jewdian People’s Front.’ Figures like Benn, and organisations like Militant, spent more time fighting Labour Party politicians than the Conservatives. Indeed, the J. P. F say that they hate the P. F. O. J. more than the Romans. The behaviour of trade unionists is clearly satirised here by the Pythons and the film is as much a political satire as a religious one. The trade unions brought the British economy to its knees due to this type of sectarianism.

            This essay will now analyse another scene in Life of Brian. The scene starts with a low-angle close-up of Michael Palin in a small room, which is darkly lit. We later see a mid-shot of the Jewdian People’s Front in the room and they all wear black robes. There is faint sunlight in the background. There is a large group of people packed into the mid-shot. There is a sense that this a clandestine meeting. Someone says: ‘What exactly are the demands?’ Cleese says: ‘We have two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Roman imperialist state. If she doesn’t agree immediately, we execute her.’ We later see a mid-shot, from the opposite angle, of people shrouded in black robes, jeering. We later see a 180 degree mid-shot of three leaders of J. P. F. and they say ‘What have they ever given us in return?’ We see a mid-shot from the opposite angle of the crowd. They say: ‘The aqueduct?’ Cleese says: ‘Oh yes, they did give us that.’ They say: ‘And sanitation.’ Eric Idle says: ‘Oh yes, sanitation. Remember what the city used to be like.’ Cleese says: ‘I grant you, the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things the Romans have done for us.’ The crowd proceed to list the roads, irrigation, medicine, education, wine, public baths and safe streets. Cleese then says: ‘Apart from all those things, what have the Romans done for us!’ The camera work alternates between mid-shots of the three leaders and the crowd and a mid-shot of everyone in the room. The room is cramped and the camera work creates the sense that it is forbidden and secret. There is also an attempt to recreate antiquity with the clothing and the dilapidated building. This scene once more recreates the sectarianism of the trade unions and the left in the late 1970s. They find fault with everything in society and the quality of life has never been better, but they still cannot help but find fault with it. The economy at the time of the film’s release had been paralysed by these kinds of sectarians.

            This essay will now look at the parlous condition of New York in the 1970s. Indeed, ‘stagflation’ affected New York more than other cities. It had to lay off city workers and cut municipal services such as sanitation and school programs. The high unemployment rate increased throughout the decade. Middle class families, more than 820,000 of them, fled to the suburbs. Many people turned to violence due to cuts in social services. Crime rates increased, theft became more common and power unexpectedly failed on the July 13^th 1977, which led to looting all over the city (American Experience). Indeed, people arriving in the airport in 1975 were greeted with pamphlets warning them with the following message: ‘Until things change, stay away from New York City if you possibly can.’ There was a fiscal crisis in the mid-1970s and the disintegration of the largest city on earth seemed perfectly possible. Gerald Ford wanted to replace it as the leading financial centre. However, many of the warnings in the pamphlet were exaggerated but, still, murders doubled from previous decades. They went up from 681 in 1965 to 1,690 in 1975. Car thefts and assaults more than doubled, rapes and burglaries more than tripled and robberies went up ten-fold. Subway trains were filthy and covered in graffiti. Trains were late and they were always crowded. Roads were in a bad condition. Public restrooms were non-existent and they were dangerous and dirty. Men could be seen pissing in the gutter. Office buildings were allowed to rot away and many of them showed scratchy prints of pornographic films. Indeed, there were many porn theatres in respectable neighbourhoods. This comes through in the film Taxi Driver, as the protagonist frequents porn theatres. Vandalism was rampant. Major pieces of infrastructure were allowed to rust until they were in danger of collapsing. By early 1975, New York owed five billion to six billion in short term debt. The city also had over a million welfare recipients, as the city had lost a million manufacturing jobs since 1945 and 500,000 since 1969. Indeed, president Gerald Ford visited the city and said that its mismanagement was ‘unique’ among municipalities in the United States. He blamed it on ‘high wages and pensions… its tuition free university system, its city-run hospital system and welfare administration.’ He would ‘veto any bill that has its purpose a bailout of New York City to prevent a default.’ This provoked a headline, which was called ‘Ford to city – drop dead.’ Shortly after, the city had to lay off 51,768 city workers. Public hospitals had to deal with thousands of heroin junkies and subway workers had to get deteriorating trains back on the rails. Americans generally supported aid for New York as long as the city balanced its budget and tax payers outside New York did not pay for it. Ford urged congress to pass a bill making $2.3 billion a year available for three years to New York in direct loans. It quickly passed and it was signed by the president. There were a lot of spending cuts, but additionally workers had to deal with a cost-of-living crisis that was afflicting the rest of the world (Baker 2015). New York, in many, ways symbolised the decadence and economic decline of the free world.

            The decadence of New York is palpably apparent in Taxi Driver (1976) by Martin Scorsese. Early on in the film, the character Travis Bickle, famously played by Robert De Niro, says: ‘Thank God for the rain that has helped to wash away all the garbage and trash.’ Elsewhere, he says: ‘All the animals come out at night. Whores, pussies, skunk junkies, queens, fairies, dopers… Sick, venal… Some day a rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets.’ This is accompanied by shots prostitutes and drug addicts. The film also depicts porn theatres and child prostitution. Indeed, the film accentuates the worst stereotypes that circulated about the city. In one scene, he encounters a presidential candidate. The scene starts with a mid-shot of Travis Bickles, famously played by Robert De Niro, driving the taxi. The presidential candidate, called Pallandine, sits at the back of his cab. His associate says: ‘This is making me nervous. Maybe we should have taken a limo.’ Pallandine says: ‘I don’t mind taking a cab.’ Bickle is framed by a mid-shot from the right side of his car, which is followed by a mid-shot of Bickle driving and Pallandine at the back of the cab. He turns around, surreptitiously grins and says: ‘I am one of your biggest supporters. I tell everyone who comes into this taxi to vote for you.’ This is followed by a mid-shot of Pallandine and his associate. Pallandine says: ‘Why thank you.’ This is followed by a close-up of Travis Bickle’s name and photograph at the back of the taxi. Pallandine, noticing this, says: ‘Thank you, Travis.’ We see a mid-shot of Travis, once more from the right side of the taxi. He says: ‘You are going to win, sir. Everyone who comes in is going to vote for you. I was going to put one of your stickers in my taxi, but the company said it was against the policy.’ Pallandine says: ‘I have learned more about America from riding a taxi than from all the limos in the country.’ Pallandine asks Bickle: ‘What is the one thing about this country that bugs you the most?’ Bickle says: ‘Well, I don’t follow political issues that closely, sir.’ Pallandine says: ‘There must be something.’ Bickle:

‘Well, whatever it is, you need to clean up this city. This city is like an open sewer. It’s full of filth and sometimes I can hardly take it. Whoever becomes the president should just really clean it up. Sometimes I go out and I get headaches it is so bad. […] The president should just clean up this mess… Should just flush it down the fucking toilet.’

Pallandine replies thusly: ‘Well, I uh… I think I know what you mean, Travis, but it’s not going to be easy. We’re going to have to make some really radical changes.’ The camera work throughout the scene alternates between the same angles; it alternates between three mid-shots around different sides of the taxi. Bickle’s diatribe is inarticulate and nonsensical, but it reflects the sense of frustration at what New York has become. The film was released in 1976 and it is set in New York. His diatribe reflects the crime, the grime and the grottiness of New York. The film was released a year after Gerald Ford visited the city and acknowledged how decrepit it was. Pallandine, similarly, recognises that something ‘radical’ is needed to change it.

            This essay will now look at corrupt trade unions in the United States. Some unions cooperated with organised crime. Corrupt union officials enriched themselves at the expense of other unionists and exploited business people (Jacobs 2006). The transport union, led by Hoffa, plagued it with corruption. Indeed, Hoffa was killed by his own mob. Hoffa’s death coincided with the decline of America’s union membership (Cornwell 2010). Many other organised crime groups infiltrated trade unions, which gained influence, and even control, of trade unions. This created a climate of fear and intimidation among employers and trade union members and led to threats and acts of violence (Department of Justice).

            Paul Schrader was the screenwriter for Taxi Driver and he made his directorial debut two years later with Blue Collar (1978). The film deals with three operatives in a car manufacturing factory. They are struggling with a cost-of-living crisis and their trade union is crooked. Early on in the film, they attend a committee. The scene starts with a mid-shot of a spacious room filled with people. The union rep says: ‘I’ve got to wait for something big, not a bunch of little things.’ There is a picture of J. F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King in the background. There is also a flag of the United States and a labour confrontation from 1937. The character played by Richard Pryor feels aggrieved because the rep does not listen to his complaint. He says: ‘I also want to run for union rep and take your fucking job. […] I give the man some real representation.’ They all clap and jeer as he says this. The camera work alternates between mid-shots of Pryor and the union rep, from opposite angles. The rep looks indifferent, as he smugly smokes a cigar. Pryor says: ‘And when I get your job, I am going to get a private jet… And play golf with Nixon and president Ford and them motherfuckers.’ However, the union rep continues to parry all of his concerns.

            Later on in the film, Pryor finally does get the rep job, but he is swiftly disappointed. He is powerless to change anything and, to his horror, finds that the union is even more criminal than he ever imagined. He ingratiates himself with the union and tries to change it from within, but he finds that he cannot do this. Indeed, they kill his close friend Smokey. Pryor is told this in a striking scene. The union leader acknowledges that he killed Smokey on a bridge overlooking a motorway. We see a mid-shot of Pryor as he says: ‘You motherfuckers lied to me. You said Smokey and Kerry would be ok.’ We see a mid-shot of the leader, who looks blasé. The camera work alternates between mid-shots of Pryor and the union leader as the traffic whirrs in the background. The leader attributes this to an accident: ‘We’ve been having meetings all morning. We’ve found Smokey’s death as the result of negligence and improper staff precautions.’ Pryor says: ‘Fuck that, man! You had him murdered!’ The leader says: ‘Be careful who you call murderer. […] And how do you think things get changed around here? Not pie-in-the-sky martyrs. […] You thought being a union rep was going to be easy. Now you know it’s tough and it’s rough.’ The character played by Pryor becomes a union rep to change it, but once he gets the job is powerless to effect any change. Schrader is critiquing the corrupt nature of American trade unions in the 1970s. He is also representing the precarious position many blue-collar workers were in the 1970s, as it is the cost-of-living that drives them towards the crooked trade unions in the first place.

            The Keynesian settlement was already running into problems by the late 1960s, but the Oil Crisis exacerbated it. Keynesianism had been the prevailing economic orthodoxy, but many figures sought to distance themselves from it. The 1970s were a period of ‘stagflation’ – that is, high unemployment, high inflation and low growth. Economists like Milton Friedman and Paul Volker proposed a type of ‘shock therapy’. They wanted to contract the money supply so as to bring inflation down, which would create a recession. Keynesianism had previously redistributed wealth and intervened in the economy to keep unemployment low, but these economists wanted a freer market. At this point, many Keynesians overestimated the role of the sate in a free society, as they tried to tackle inflation by setting prices and wages. This sense of economic chaos is apparent in Being There, as the simpleminded protagonist talks about the seasons and this is interpreted as an insightful comment on economic cycles. He talks about ‘growth in spring’ and this is interpreted as a comment on the economy. Indeed, there was a wide sense of pessimism at the time. Life of Brian recreates the sense of sectarianism of the British left and trade unions. The trade unions at the time had paralysed the British economy due to their strikes. Leftists like Tony Benn, meanwhile, lamented the lack of ideological purity in the government. This comes through in the film as the Jewdian People’s Front hate the People’s Front of Jewdia more than the Romans. Meanwhile, New York was in a state of stagnation in the 1970s and fared worse than any other American city. It had a large deficit and had very high crime rates. At the time, president Gerald Ford visited the city and lamented its condition. This comes through in Taxi Driver, as it depicts child prostitution and the protagonist Travis Bickle talks about the ‘filth’ in the streets. American trade unions at the time were notorious for their links to organised crime, which comes through in Blue Collar by Paul Schrader. The lead character joins the trade union to change it, but they kill his best friend. These are the ways in which these films recreate economic decline in the 1970s.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

            Baker, Kevin. (2015) ‘Welcome to Fear City – the Inside Story of New York’s Civil War, 40 Years On.’ In The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/18/welcome-to-fear-city-the-inside-story-of-new-yorks-civil-war-40-years-on

Cornwell, Rupert. (2010) ‘The Teamsters, a Trade Union Like no Other.’ In The Guardian. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-teamsters-a-trade-union-like-no-other-1924647.html

Coyle, Diane. (2017) ‘When Britain went Bust.’ In Financial Times. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/3b583050-d277-11e6-b06b-680c49b4b4c0

Lambert, Stephen. (2017) ‘Trade Unions from the Beginning to 1979.’ In North East by Lines. Available from: https://northeastbylines.co.uk/trade-unions-from-the-beginning-to-1979/

Net. E. H. (2006) ‘Mobsters, Unions and the Feds: The Mafia and the American Labour Movement.’ In EH.net. Available from: https://eh.net/book_reviews/mobsters-unions-and-feds-the-mafia-and-the-american-labor-movement/

Perlstein, Rick. (2020) Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976-1980. New York: Simon & Schuster.

            Skidelsky, Robert. (2010) Keynes: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wesbury, Brian, Stein, Robert. (2019) ‘We’re All Keynesians Now.’ In Advisor Perspectives. Available from: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2019/09/16/were-all-keynesians-now

             Unknown Author. ‘NYC in Chaos.’ In American Experience. Available from: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/blackout-gallery/

Filmography

Being There. (1979) Directed by Hal Ashby. United Artists. 130 minutes.

Blue Collar. (1978) Directed by Paul Schrader. Universal Pictures. 114 minutes.

Life of Brian. (1979) Directed by Terry Jones. Cinema International Corporation. 94 minutes.

Taxi Driver. (1976) Directed by Martin Scorcese. Columbia Pictures. 114 minutes.

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 12^th 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 19^th 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 20^th 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.