THE PROMISE OF CINEMA GERMAN FILM THEORY EDITED BY ANTON KAES, NICHOLAS BAER, AND MICHAEL COWAN UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

Transcription

1 THE PROMISE OF CINEMA GERMAN FILM THEORY EDITED BY ANTON KAES, NICHOLAS BAER, AND MICHAEL COWAN UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

2 University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit University of California Press Oakland, California 2016 by The Regents of the University of California For credits, permissions, and acknowledgments, please see page 639. The editors and publisher are grateful to the copyright owners for permission to republish material in this book. Despite great efforts, it has not been possible in every case to locate all rights holders and estates. The editors and publisher apologize in advance for any unintended errors and omissions, which they will seek to correct in future printing. Please address all inquiries to: University of California Press, 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 400, Oakland, California library of congress cataloging-in-publication data Names: Kaes, Anton, editor. Baer, Nicholas, 1985 editor. Cowan, Michael J., 1971 editor. Title: The promise of cinema: German film theory, / edited by Anton Kaes, Nicholas Baer, Michael Cowan. Other titles: Weimar and now ; 49. Description: Oakland, California : University of California Press, [2016] Series: Weimar and now: German cultural criticism ; 49 Includes bibliographical reference. Identifiers: lccn isbn (cloth : alk. paper) isbn (pbk. : alk. paper) isbn (ebook). Subjects: lcsh: Motion pictures Germany History 20th century. Film criticism Germany. Motion pictures History 20th century. Film criticism. Classification: lcc pn g3 p ddc dc23 lc record available at Manufactured in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of ansi/niso z (r 2002) (Permanence of Paper).

3 Contents Acknowledgments User s Guide xiii xv Introduction 1 SECTION ONE. TRANSFORMATIONS OF EXPERIENCE 1. A New Sensorium 1. Hanns Heinz Ewers, The Kientopp (1907) Max Brod, Cinematographic Theater (1909) Gustav Melcher, On Living Photography and the Film Drama (1909) Kurt Weisse, A New Task for the Cinema (1909) Anon., New Terrain for Cinematographic Theaters (1910) Anon., The Career of the Cinematograph (1910) Karl Hans Strobl, The Cinematograph (1911) Ph. Sommer, On the Psychology of the Cinematograph (1911) Hermann Kienzl, Theater and Cinematograph (1911) Adolf Sellmann, The Secret of the Cinema (1912) Arno Arndt, Sports on Film (1912) Carl Forch, Thrills in Film Drama and Elsewhere ( ) Lou Andreas-Salomé, Cinema ( ) Walter Hasenclever, The Kintopp as Educator: An Apology (1913) Walter Serner, Cinema and Visual Pleasure (1913) Albert Hellwig, Illusions and Hallucinations during Cinematographic Projections (1914) The World in Motion 17. H. Ste., The Cinematograph in the Service of Ethnology (1907) O. Th. Stein, The Cinematograph as Modern Newspaper ( ) Hermann Häfker, Cinema and Geography: Introduction (1914) Yvan Goll, The Cinedram (1920) Hans Schomburgk, Africa and Film (1922) Franc Cornel, The Value of the Adventure Film (1923) Béla Balázs, Reel Consciousness (1925) Colin Ross, Exotic Journeys with a Camera (1928) Anon., Lunar Flight in Film (1929) Lotte H. Eisner, A New India Film: A Throw of Dice (1929) Erich Burger, Pictures-Pictures (1929) Alfred Polgar, The Panic of Reality (1930) 66

4 29. Béla Balázs, The Case of Dr. Fanck (1931) Siegfried Kracauer, The Weekly Newsreel (1931) The Time Machine 31. Ludwig Brauner, Cinematographic Archives (1908) Berthold Viertel, In the Cinematographic Theater (1910) Eduard Bäumer, Cinematograph and Epistemology (1911) Franz Goerke, Proposal for the Establishment of an Archive for Cinema-Films (1912) J. Landau, Mechanized Immortality (1912) Heinrich Lautensack, Why? This Is Why! (1913) E. W., The Film Archive of the Great General Staff (1915) Hans Lehmann, Slow Motion (1917) Friedrich Sieburg, The Transcendence of the Film Image (1920) August Wolf, Film as Historian (1921) Fritz Lang, Will to Style in Film (1924) Siegfried Kracauer, Mountains, Clouds, People (1925) Joseph Roth, The Uncovered Grave (1925) Fritz Schimmer, On the Question of a National Film Archive (1926) Albrecht Viktor Blum, Documentary and Artistic Film (1929) Béla Balázs, Where Is the German Sound Film Archive? (1931) The Magic of the Body 47. Walter Turszinsky, Film Dramas and Film Mimes (1910) Friedrich Freksa, Theater, Pantomime, and Cinema (1916) Carl Hauptmann, Film and Theater (1919) Oskar Diehl, Mimic Expression in Film (1922) Béla Balázs, The Eroticism of Asta Nielsen (1923) Friedrich Sieburg, The Magic of the Body (1923) Max Osborn, The Nude Body on Film (1925) Béla Balázs, The Educational Values of Film Art (1925) Leni Riefenstahl, How I Came to Film... (1926) H. Sp., The Charleston in One Thousand Steps (1927) Leo Witlin, On the Psychomechanics of the Spectator (1927) Lotte H. Eisner and Rudolf von Laban, Film and Dance Belong Together (1928) Fritz Lang, The Art of Mimic Expression in Film (1929) Emil Jannings, Miming and Speaking (1930) Siegfried Kracauer, Greta Garbo: A Study (1933) Spectatorship and Sites of Exhibition 62. Fred Hood, Illusion in the Cinematographic Theater (1907) Alfred Döblin, Theater of the Little People (1909) Arthur Mellini, The Education of Moviegoers into a Theater Public (1910) 151

5 65. Anon., The Movie Girl (1911) Anon., Various Thoughts on the Movie Theater Interior (1912) Victor Noack, The Cinema (1913) Emilie Altenloh, On the Sociology of Cinema (1914) Resi Langer, From Berlin North and Thereabouts / In the Movie Houses of Berlin West (1919) Milena Jesenská, Cinema (1920) Kurt Tucholsky, Erotic Films (1920) Herbert Tannenbaum, Film Advertising and the Advertising Film (1920) August Wolf, The Spectator in Cinema (1921) Kurt Pinthus, Ufa Palace (1925) Karl Demeter, The Sociological Foundations of the Cinema Industry (1926) Rudolf Harms, The Movie Theater as Gathering Place (1926) Siegfried Kracauer, The Cinema on Münzstraße (1932) An Art for the Times 78. Egon Friedell, Prologue before the Film ( ) Anon., The Autorenfilm and Its Assessment (1913) Ulrich Rauscher, The Cinema Ballad (1913) Kurt Pinthus, Quo Vadis, Cinema? (1913) Anon., The Student of Prague (1913) Hermann Häfker, The Call for Art (1913) Herbert Tannenbaum, Problems of the Film Drama ( ) Will Scheller, The New Illusion ( ) Kurt Pinthus, The Photoplay (1914) Malwine Rennert, The Onlookers of Life in the Cinema ( ) Paul Wegener, On the Artistic Possibilities of the Motion Picture (1917) Ernst Lubitsch, We Lack Film Poetry (1920) Fritz Lang, Kitsch Sensation Culture and Film (1924) 210 SECTION TWO. FILM CULTURE AND POLITICS 7. Moral Panic and Reform 91. Georg Kleibömer, Cinematograph and Schoolchildren (1909) Franz Pfemfert, Cinema as Educator (1909) Albert Hellwig, Trash Films (1911) Robert Gaupp, The Dangers of the Cinema ( ) Konrad Lange, The Cinematograph from an Ethical and Aesthetic Viewpoint (1912) Ike Spier, The Sexual Danger in the Cinema (1912) P. Max Grempe, Against a Cinema That Makes Women Stupid (1912) Roland, Against a Cinema That Makes Women Stupid: A Response (1912) Naldo Felke, Cinema s Damaging Effects on Health (1913) 234

6 100. Karl Brunner, Today s Cinematograph: A Public Menace (1913) Richard Guttmann, Cinematic Mankind (1916) Walther Friedmann, Homosexuality and Jewishness (1919) Wilhelm Stapel, Homo Cinematicus (1919) Kurt Tucholsky, Cinema Censorship (1920) Albert Hellwig, The Motion Picture and the State (1924) Aurel Wolfram, Cinema (1931) Fritz Olimsky, Film Bolshevism (1932) Image Wars 108. Paul Klebinder, The German Kaiser in Film (1912) Hermann Duenschmann, Cinematograph and Crowd Psychology (1912) Der Kinematograph, War and Cinema (1914) Anon., The Cinematograph as Shooting Gallery (1914) Hermann Häfker, Cinema and the Educated Class: A Foreword (1914) Hermann Häfker, The Tasks of Cinematography in This War (1914) Edgar Költsch, The Benefits of War for the Cinema (1914) Karl Kraus, Made in Germany (1916) Anon., State and Cinema (1916) Johannes Gaulke, Art and Cinema in War (1916) Gustav Stresemann, Film Propaganda for German Affairs Abroad (1917) Erich Ludendorff, The Ludendorff Letter (1917) Joseph Max Jacobi, The Triumph of Film (1917) Rudolf Genenncher, Film as a Means of Agitation (1919) Kurt Tucholsky, War Films (1927) Film-Kurier, Film in the New Germany (1928) Siegfried Kracauer, All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) Kurt Tucholsky, Against the Ban on the Remarque Film (1931) The Specter of Hollywood 126. Claire Goll, American Cinema (1920) Erich Pommer, The Significance of Conglomerates in the Film Industry (1920) Valentin, The Significance of Film for International Understanding (1921) Joe May, The Style of the Export Film (1922) Hans Siemsen, German Cinema (1922) Georg Jacoby, Film-America and Us (1922) Ernst Lubitsch, Film Internationality (1924) Georg Otto Stindt, Is Film National or International? (1924) Axel Eggebrecht, The Twilight of Film? (1926) Anon., The Restructuring of Ufa (1927) Carl Laemmle, Film Germany and Film America (1928) Billie Wilder, The First One Back from Hollywood (1929) Alexander Jason, Film Statistics (1930) 308

7 139. A. K., Done with Hollywood (1931) Anon., Film-Europe, a Fact! (1931) Anon., Internationality through the Version System (1931) Erich Pommer, The International Talking Film (1932) Cinephilia and the Cult of Stars 143. Henny Porten, The Diva (1919) Kurt Pinthus, Henny Porten for President (1921) Robert Musil, Impressions of a Naïf (1923) Béla Balázs, Only Stars! (1926) Vicki Baum, The Automobile in Film (1926) Anon., Vienna Is Filming! (1926) Willy Haas, Why We Love Film (1926) Hugo, Film Education (1928) K. W., What Is Film Illusion? (1928) Hans Feld, Anita Berber: The Representative of a Generation (1928) Marlene Dietrich, To an Unknown Woman (1930) Max Brod and Rudolf Thomas, Love on Film (1930) Siegfried Kracauer, All about Film Stars (1931) Siegfried Kracauer, Destitution and Distraction (1931) Anon., In the Empire of Film (1931) The Mobilization of the Masses 158. Béla Balázs, The Revolutionary Film (1922) Siegfried Kracauer, The Klieg Lights Stay On (1926) Oscar A. H. Schmitz, Potemkin and Tendentious Art (1927) Walter Benjamin, Reply to Oscar A. H. Schmitz (1927) Lotte H. Eisner, The New Youth and Film (1928) Franz Höllering, Film und Volk: Foreword (1928) Béla Balázs, Film Works for Us! (1928) Heinrich Mann, Film and the People (1928) Ernst Toller, Who Will Create the German Revolutionary Film? (1928) Karl Ritter, Mass-Man in the Cinema (1929) Willi Münzenberg, Film and Propaganda (1929) A. A., World Film Report (1930) Lupu Pick, Individual and Montage (1930) Bertolt Brecht, The Threepenny Lawsuit (1931) Herbert Jhering, The Banned Kuhle Wampe (1932) Georg Wilhelm Pabst, Film and Conviction (1933) Chiffres of Modernity 174. Georg Lukács, Thoughts toward an Aesthetic of the Cinema (1911) Alfred A. Baeumler, The Effects of the Film Theater (1912) Hugo von Hofmannsthal, The Substitute for Dreams (1921) 384

8 177. Kurt Pinthus, The Ethical Potential of Film (1923) Siegfried Kracauer, A Film (1924) Siegfried Kracauer, Film Image and Prophetic Speech (1925) Adolf Behne, The Public s Attitude toward Modern German Literature (1926) Fritz Giese, Revue and Film (1928) Walter Benjamin, Chaplin in Retrospect (1929) Siegfried Kracauer, Chaplin in Old Films (1930) Theodor W. Adorno, Kierkegaard Prophesies Chaplin (1930) Walter Benjamin, Mickey Mouse (1931) Ernst Kállai, Painting and Film (1931) René Fülöp-Miller, Fantasy by the Meter (1931) Ernst Jünger, The Worker (1932) 408 SECTION THREE. CONFIGURATIONS OF A MEDIUM 13. The Expressionist Turn 189. Bernhard Diebold, Expressionism and Cinema (1916) Gertrud David, The Expressionist Film (1919) J. B., Expressionism in Film (1920) Ernst Angel, An Expressionist Film (1920) Carlo Mierendorff, If I Only Had the Cinema! (1920) Robert Müller, The Future of Film (1921) Robert Wiene, Expressionism in Film (1922) Walter Reimann, An Afterword to Caligari (1925) Rudolf Kurtz, Limits of the Expressionist Film (1926) Hanns Sachs, The Interpretation of Dreams in Film (1926) Robert Breuer, The Film of Factuality (1927) Henrik Galeen, Fantastic Film (1929) Avant-Garde and Industry 201. Walter Ruttmann, Painting with Time (ca. 1919) Bernhard Diebold, A New Art: Film s Music for the Eyes (1921) Hans Richter, Basic Principles of the Art of Movement (1921) Adolf Behne, Film as a Work of Art (1921) Rudolf Arnheim, The Absolute Film (1925) László Moholy-Nagy, film at the bauhaus: a rejoinder (1926) Walter Ruttmann, How I Made My Berlin Film (1927) Walter Ruttmann, The Absolute Fashion (1928) Siegfried Kracauer, Abstract Film (1928) László Moholy-Nagy, The Artist Belongs to the Industry! (1928) Lotte Reiniger, Living Shadows (1929) Hans Richter, New Means of Filmmaking (1929) Walter Ruttmann, The Isolated Artist (1929) 474

9 214. Hans Richter, Avant-Garde in the Realm of the Possible (1929) Anon., Candid Cinematography (1929) Lotte H. Eisner, Avant-Garde for the Masses (1929) Alex Strasser, The End of the Avant-Garde? (1930) The Aesthetics of Silent Film 218. Ernst Bloch, Melody in the Cinema, or Immanent and Transcendental Music (1914) Oskar Kalbus, The Muteness of the Film Image (1920) Albin Grau, Lighting Design in Film (1922) Hans Pander, Intertitles (1923) Béla Balázs, The Close-Up (1924) Fritz Lang and F. W. Murnau, My Ideal Screenplay (1924) Paul Leni, Architecture in Film (1924) Julie Elias, Film and Fashion (1924) Guido Seeber, The Delirious Camera (1925) Béla Balázs, Productive and Reproductive Film Art (1926) Fritz Lang, Looking toward the Future (1926) Karl Freund, Behind My Camera (1927) Lotar Holland, Subjective Movement (1927) Giuseppe Becce, Film and Music (1928) Béla Balázs, Farewell to Silent Film (1930) Film as Knowledge and Persuasion 233. Hans Hennes, Cinematography in the Service of Neurology and Psychiatry (1910) Osvaldo Polimanti, The Cinematograph in Biological and Medical Science (1911) Leonhard Birnbaum, The Cultural Mission of the Cinematograph (1912) Anon., Cinema in the Light of Medicine (1913) Julius Pinschewer, Film Advertising (1913) Bruno Taut, Artistic Film Program (1920) Wilhelm von Ledebur, Cinematography in the Service of the Police (1921) Arthur Lassally, Film Advertising and Advertising Films (1921) Edgar Beyfuss, School and Film (1924) Ulrich Kayser, Industrial Films (1924) Eugen R. Schlesinger, Kulturfilm and Cinema (1924) Dietrich W. Dreyer, The Trick Film (1927) Hans Cürlis, Film Is Promotion (1929) Karl Nikolaus, Advertising Film and Its Psychological Effects (1932) Sound Waves 247. Anon., How Singing Pictures (Sound Pictures) Are Made (1908) Herbert Jhering, The Acoustic Film (1922) 551

10 249. Heinrich Strobel, Film and Music (1928) Walter Ruttmann, Principles of the Sound Film (1928) Siegfried Kracauer, Sound-Image Film (1928) Béla Balázs, A Conviction (1929) Ernst Hugo Correll, The Nature and Value of Sound Film (1929) Georg Wilhelm Pabst, Reality of Sound Film (1929) Carl Hoffmann, Problems of the Camera (1929) Walter Gronostay, Possibilities for the Use of Music in Sound Film (1929) Erwin Piscator, Sound Film Friend and Foe ( ) Rudolf Arnheim, A Commentary on the Crisis Facing Montage (1930) Edmund Meisel, Experiences in Composing Music for Sound Films (1930) Alfred Döblin, Only the Transformed Author Can Transform Film (1930) Film-Kurier, Fritz Lang: Problems in Sound Film Design (1931) Technology and the Future of the Past 262. Max Mack, The Conquest of the Third Dimension (1914) Max Skladanowsky, The Prehistory of the Bioskop (1916) Heinz Michaelis, Art and Technology in Film (1923) Béla Balázs, The Color Film (1923) S. E. Bastian, The Telefilm (1925) Herbert Jhering, Film and Radio (1925) Kurt Weill, Possibilities for Absolute Radio Art (1925) Eugen Schüfftan, My Process (1926) Arthur Korn, Why We Still Do Not Have Television (1929) László Moholy-Nagy, The Elements Once Again (1929) Erich Grave, The Third Dimension (1929) Ernst Steffen, Telecinema in the Home (1929) Frank Warschauer, A Glance into the Future (1930) H. Baer, The Color Film (1930) Rudolf Arnheim, Radio-Film (1932) Bernhard Diebold, The Future of Mickey Mouse (1932) Siegfried Kracauer, On the Border of Yesterday (1932) 607 Bibliography 613 Credits 639 Index 641

11 INTRODUCTION Even if the clattering of the film projectors disappears, there will be something I firmly believe that functions like cinema. Alexander Kluge, Cinema Stories (2007) the rise of digital media has provoked no shortage of debates about what cinema has been and will become. To some observers, film seems to be a thing of the past, an artifact of twentieth-century visual culture, a relic of the Fordist era with its industrial rhythms and distinct division of labor and leisure. Others point to cinema s unanticipated afterlives in film festivals and retrospectives, compilation films and museum installations, online archives and virtual cinephilic communities. From the latter perspective, cinema is not so much disappearing as morphing into exciting new forms and hybrids, whose uncharted trajectories bear an uncanny resemblance to the cinema s beginnings more than a hundred years ago. Looking back on the first decades of the twentieth century, we find a rich culture of theoretical speculation, as critics imagined the possible futures of what was then a new medium. In this book, we hope to give readers a sense of these diverse futures of the past by reanimating the promises once associated with cinema both those that were realized and those, in Siegfried Kracauer s words, that history did not see fit to explore. 1 The Promise of Cinema thus reconceives film theory as a field of possibilities, expectations, and propositions. Whereas scholars have conventionally viewed the corpus of classical film theory as concerned with defining the medium s specific, essential properties, this book highlights the multiple potentialities that cinema represented for film theorists, whose writings, as Rudolf Arnheim suggested, referred not so much to what is as to what can be or ought to be. 2 Theorization of film, we contend, often occurred in the subjunctive rather than the indicative mood one oriented toward an unknown, empirically unverifiable future that might diverge from all prior historical experience. In this regard, film theory exemplifies what Reinhart Koselleck has characterized as the modern period s expanding chasm between the space of experience and the horizon of expectation. 3 Reconstructing a wide-ranging set of debates from 1907 to 1933, this sourcebook offers a glimpse into cinema s historical horizons, which were inseparable from the broader horizons of modernity as such. 1. Siegfried Kracauer, History: The Last Things Before the Last (Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener, 1995), Rudolf Arnheim, Preface to the 1957 Edition, in Film as Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957), n.p. Emphases added. 3. Reinhart Koselleck, Space of Experience and Horizon of Expectation : Two Historical Categories, in Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, trans. Keith Tribe (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004),

12 2 Introduction The German-speaking world was one of the leading sites for theorizing the promise of cinema in the early twentieth century, as names such as Arnheim, Béla Balázs, Walter Benjamin, Bertolt Brecht, Lotte Eisner, Kracauer, and Hans Richter attest. Despite translations of seminal works by these figures, however, we still have no collection of early German film theory to complement existing sourcebooks in English devoted to the Chinese, Czech, French, and Russian contexts. 4 Assembling 278 texts, nearly all of which appear in English for the first time, this volume not only features lesser-known essays by the aforementioned figures but also situates their works within a much wider nexus of writings on film from the period writings by a broad range of authors, including actors and filmmakers, journalists and philosophers, activists and government officials, doctors and educators, and many other voices that have come down to us only as anonymous. The project of expanding film theory beyond established figures was both motivated and facilitated by the shifts in our media environment, where digital collections and online resources are affording us unprecedented access to a searchable, ever-growing archive of materials beyond traditional canons. But this decision to broaden the material base also underlies an implicit argument about how we should understand and approach film theory itself. Amidst recent debates across the humanities on the origins, history, and fate of theory, 5 D.N. Rodowick has historicized the concept of film theory, arguing that the term s common usage has tended to superimpose retroactively a picture of theory on a complex range of conceptual activities that may not have characterized themselves as such. 6 For Rodowick, what is called classical film theory unlike the semiotic and psychoanalytical theories of later decades can best be understood as an open set of interrogations, which sought to comprehend a medium that was itself unsettling established aesthetic categories. While sharing Rodowick s interest in reconceiving the history of film theory, we nonetheless diverge from his analysis in two notable ways. Whereas Rodowick seeks to replace the paradigm of classical film theory with what he calls an aesthetic discourse one that extends from early studies by Vachel Lindsay and Hugo Münsterberg to the postwar writings of André Bazin and Kracauer the present volume understands film theory as an entire network of discourses that approached film not only as a form of art and entertainment but also as a medium of culture, science, education, training, politics, philosophy, and governmentality. Furthermore, in contrast to Rodowick, who restricts his discussion mainly to well-known figures, we suggest that the contributions of so-called classical film theorists can best be read as part of a large and contentious culture of writing about film during the medium s first decades. Early writings on film were grappling with an acute medial transformation, one that was fundamentally challenging prior frameworks of experience and knowledge. Appearing long before film study and theory were institutionalized that is, when commentators necessarily came from a wide range of educational and professional backgrounds 4. See George S. Semsel, Xia Hong, and Hou Jianping, eds., Chinese Film Theory: A Guide to the New Era (New York: Praeger, 1990); Jaroslav Anděl and Petr Szczepanik, eds., Cinema All the Time: An Anthology of Czech Film Theory and Criticism, (Prague: National Film Archive, 2008); Richard Abel, ed., French Film Theory and Criticism: A History/Anthology, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988); and Richard Taylor and Ian Christie, eds., The Film Factory: Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents (London/New York: Routledge, 1988). 5. See, for example, Andrew Cole, The Birth of Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014); Terry Eagleton, After Theory (New York: Basic Books, 2003); and Ian Hunter, The History of Theory, Critical Inquiry 32, no. 4 (2006): D.N. Rodowick, Elegy for Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 71.

13 Introduction 3 these writings were characterized less by systematic and exhaustive investigation than by speculative, heterogeneous, and open-ended exploration. 7 Although known primarily for their book-length studies, Arnheim, Balázs, Eisner, and Kracauer all began as film critics in the 1920s, publishing hundreds of texts in newspapers and journals texts that were passionately in the moment, responding to new films, emerging stars, technological and aesthetic developments, inaugural events, special screenings, censorship cases, economic crises, and political exigencies. Contributing to far-reaching and ever-shifting debates, these texts were adaptive and provisional in their approaches and styles of prose, lacking any fixed or dominant epistemological framework and engaging in a dynamic interplay with a medium that was itself in statu nascendi. Reflecting this open-ended mode of early writing about cinema, Béla Balázs advanced the following understanding of theory in the preface to Der sichtbare Mensch oder die Kultur des Films (Visible Man or the Culture of Film, 1924): Theory opens up the broad vistas of freedom for every art. It is the road map for those who roam among the arts, showing them pathways and opportunities, so that what appeared to be iron necessity stands unmasked as one random route among a hundred others. It is theory that gives us the courage to undertake Columbus-like voyages of exploration and turns every step into a freely chosen act. 8 Setting aside the imperialist resonances of the phrase Columbus-like voyages and the entanglement of cinema and colonial ideology is more than evident in Balázs s contention that cinema will produce a uniform type of the white race throughout the world 9 Balázs makes a remarkable argument here: far from uncovering inherent laws, theory is what first enables exploration, indicating the arbitrariness of current practices and revealing alternative possibilities. Theory is thus a road map not in the sense of a mathematical representation of organized space but rather in the sense of a creation of concepts that both liberates art and inspires its movement into unknown territories. This temporal structure theory before rather than after the perfection of its object, theory as a facilitator of exploration rather than as a form of retrospective mastery is something that Balázs shares with thinkers such as Kracauer, whose essay Photography (1927) would likewise attribute to consciousness the task of establishing the provisional status of all given configurations. 10 But this interrogative gestus is also evident in the writings of countless other contemporaries across a wide variety of realms, whose theorization of cinema is similarly driven by what Robert Musil, in The Man without Qualities, famously called a sense of possibility (Möglichkeitssinn) that is, a concern less with cinema in its current, often-compromised forms than with what it might become. 7. On this point, see also Francesco Casetti, Theory, Post-theory, Neo-theories: Changes in Discourses, Changes in Objects, CiNéMAS 17, nos. 2 3 (Spring 2007): 33 45; and Roundtable on the Return to Classical Film Theory, October 148 (Spring 2014): Béla Balázs, Visible Man, trans. Rodney Livingstone, in Early Film Theory: Visible Man and The Spirit of Film, ed. Erica Carter (New York: Berghahn Books, 2010), Ibid., 14. In Theory of the Film (1948), Balázs would revise this passage, instead invoking an international human type ; Balázs, Theory of the Film: Character and Growth of a New Art, trans. Edith Bone (London: Dennis Dobson, 1952), 45. See also Erica Carter, Introduction, in Balázs, Early Film Theory, xxxviii. 10. Siegfried Kracauer, Photography, in The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays, ed. and trans. Thomas Y. Levin (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 62. Emphasis in the original.

14 4 Introduction This is not to argue that we should make no distinction between dedicated film critics and writers from other professional spheres whose interest in cinema was motivated by other questions. For one thing, readers will quickly notice in the following pages how many of those other voices, particularly as they intersected with the so-called Kinoreform movement (see chapter 7), greeted film with ambivalence or even downright hostility, regarding the new medium as a symptom of the broader ills and pathologies of modern society. It bears emphasizing, however, that even as such commentators disparaged film s actual, commercially driven uses, most of them maintained a tacit investment in the medium s prospects, whether in the realms of art, politics, science, or education. And it is the wager of this book that every one of these overlooked texts contains insights that might be called theoretical. While this concept of theory is rarely addressed as explicitly as it is by Balázs, it is always present in a dormant sense for example, in Berthold Viertel s 1910 account (no. 32) of the German and Austrian emperors watching themselves on film, where cinema s ability to challenge political sovereignty ( Is one allowed to copy majesty so wantonly? Is it not too much for one moment to have two, no, four kings? ) is no less palpable than it will be a quarter century later in Benjamin s The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility (1936). Early commentators adopted a variety of positions vis-à-vis cinema s present and future, its actual and potential uses, its dangers and utopian promise. But nearly all of them shared a fundamental sense that film was effecting and registering a revolution in virtually every area of life: the experience of space, time, and the body; the articulation of class, gender, and race; sexuality and social mores; the partition of private and public spheres; politics and forms of mobilization; the definition and functions of art; the ways that knowledge could be generated, applied, and disseminated; and the construction of reality itself. The debates here address cinema s role as both catalyst and seismograph of a host of massive and abrupt transformations that characterize German modernity: industrialization and urbanism; the emergence of a mass culture of consumption and distraction; the increasing precariousness of the cultural and intellectual elite; the multiple traumas of war, defeat, and the loss of colonies; failed revolution and new stateformation; and, finally, economic and political crisis. More than any other cultural form, cinema appeared as inextricably linked to processes of modernization, and the texts collected here view film as an indicator of the course that modernity was taking and even as a signal of the paths that could yet be taken. The temporal parameters of modernity are often contested, and the dates of the present volume deserve more precise explanation. While the birth of German cinema has traditionally been dated according to the first public screening of Bioskop films by the Skladanowsky brothers in Berlin s Wintergarten on November 1, 1895, most scholars today agree that such dates are at best heuristic placeholders and at worst misrepresentations of a medium that emerged from myriad technological, performative, and intellectual contexts. Such contexts were hardly rendered obsolete overnight, and some film historians have gone so far as to argue that the very term cinema is a misnomer for what, until shortly before 1910, was understood as the latest variation of long-familiar cultural forms and practices. 11 Thus, the awareness that cinema was becom- 11. André Gaudreault, The Culture Broth and the Froth of Cultures of So-Called Early Cinema, in A Companion to Early Cinema, ed. Gaudreault, Nicolas Dulac, and Santiago Hidalgo (Malden: Wiley- Blackwell, 2012),

15 Introduction 5 ing a major and enduring force in public life and consequently that something like a theory of this new medium was necessary arose gradually and unevenly across different contexts. For the purposes of this volume, 1907 offers a convenient starting date because it is the year when the first film journals were founded in both Germany and Austria. Among these journals, the earliest and most notable was Der Kinematograph ( ), published by Eduard Lintz in Düsseldorf. In its inaugural issue, on January 6, 1907, the editorial and publishing staff identified the publication as an organ that reports on the latest achievements, shares information with a circle of interested parties on new technological developments, and also publishes important news from the realm of praxis. 12 The commercial success of Der Kinematograph quickly led to the founding of additional journals devoted to film, among them the Erste Internationale Film-Zeitung (Berlin, ), Kinematographische Rundschau (Vienna, ), and Lichtbild-Bühne (Berlin, ). As such publications suggest, it was evident by this point that film mattered, and understanding what cinema could become was now firmly on the agenda of public discourse. 13 In contrast, the ending date of our volume was dictated by wider political developments. The National Socialists seizure of power in 1933 forced countless Jewish and leftist film theorists to flee Germany, among them Arnheim, Benjamin, Brecht, Eisner, Kracauer, and Richter. (Balázs remained in the Soviet Union, where he had gone in 1931.) While these exiled figures would continue to write about film in new national and linguistic contexts, the German-speaking world, as Thomas Elsaesser and Malte Hagener note, lost its pre-eminent position in the international debate about film. 14 Following the Nazi regime s systematic appropriation of cinema for diversion, propaganda, and warmongering, the medium s promise also appeared to have been irrevocably betrayed. At the height of its power in the 1940s, cinema had failed to engage with the Holocaust, as Jean-Luc Godard argues in his Histoire(s) du cinéma, stifling rather than enabling forms of resistance to the atrocities occurring across Europe. Not until a few decades later could one again invoke German film theory, now in relation to figures such as Alexander Kluge and Hans Magnus Enzensberger and journals including Filmkritik ( ) and Frauen und Film (1974 ). In order to offer a road map to borrow Balázs s term through the period thus delimited, this book is divided into three sections of six chapters each. Arranged according to a loose and overlapping chronological progression, the sections all examine questions concerning cinema s promise and possibilities. Section 1 brings together writings that sought to comprehend cinema s imbrications with transformations of experience. Though disparate in their specific concerns, these texts all reacted to the sense that cinema was uniquely poised to register and assimilate myriad aspects of modern life. Chapter 1 examines cinema s power to address the senses: to dazzle spectators with magical displays, jolt them with nervous thrills, or confound them with optical illusions. Recalling the 12. Redaktion und Verlag, Geleit-Worte, Der Kinematograph no. 1 (January 6, 1907). 13. See Anton Kaes, ed., Kino-Debatte: Texte zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Film, (Munich: DTV, 1978); Sabine Hake, The Cinema s Third Machine: Writing on Film in Germany, (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1993); Helmut H. Diederichs, Frühgeschichte deutscher Filmtheorie: Ihre Entstehung und Entwicklung bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg (Habilitation, University of Frankfurt, 1996). 14. Thomas Elsaesser and Malte Hagener, Film Theory: An Introduction through the Senses (New York: Routledge, 2010), 2.

16 6 Introduction nineteenth-century visual culture studied by Jonathan Crary, 15 all of these texts assume a thoroughly embodied spectator, one both fallible and eminently excitable. More often than not, sense perception meant vision, of course, and a number of texts included here attempt to work through the modes of visual pleasure (Serner, no. 15) offered by the new medium. Chapters 2 and 3 consider the ways in which film was linked to shifting conceptions of space and time. Contemporary observers were fascinated by cinema s ability to transport spectators to foreign and even extraterrestrial spaces, but they also pinned divergent hopes on the medium s status as what Alexander Kluge would later call a time machine 16 one able to record segments of time, fragment them through montage, and stretch or contract them through the techniques of slow motion and time lapse. These reflections on space and time are followed in chapter 4 by a set of texts examining what Friedrich Sieburg called the magic of the body (no. 52), that is, the heightened visibility and affective power of bodies shown on the silent screen. Chapter 5 presents a range of texts on film spectatorship and sites of exhibition, from early, working-class Kientopps (Döblin, no. 63) to erotic cinemas (Tucholsky, no. 71) to the gentrified picture palaces of the 1920s (Pinthus, no. 74). Chapter 6 concludes the section with a number of texts that consider cinema with respect to existing aesthetic norms, either by transforming the cinema into a form of art (e.g., the debates around the Autorenfilm) or by adapting the very definition of art to a modern age defined by speed, concision, and fragmentation (Friedell, no. 78). Section 2 turns to questions of film culture and politics. Beginning with the Kinoreform movement, in which psychologists, educators, and moral leaders first sought to regulate film s influence, especially over women and youth (chapter 7), the section goes on to examine cinema s status vis-à-vis state power (chapter 8), from the The German Kaiser in Film (no. 108) through the propaganda battles of World War I to the censorship cases of the late Weimar Republic. Chapter 9 focuses on the precarious position of the German film industry in the face of Hollywood s ever-increasing hegemony, and chapter 10 considers audience investment in the institution of cinema and its star system, highlighting the entertainment industry s massive influence in Weimar democracy. Chapter 11 follows these discussions with writings on the roles cinema could play in mass mobilization, whether by socialist revolutionaries or by members of the emerging Nazi Party. Lastly, chapter 12 steps back to examine seminal reflections on film as a medium of philosophical thought, one that could facilitate broader insights into the modern condition. Section 3 brings together essays that strove to comprehend various configurations of the medium, especially with regard to its evolving technological and aesthetic potentials. In chapter 13, we encounter discussions of expressionism, dream states, and the fantastic, all of which probe the possibilities of film as a modernist, anti-mimetic medium. Chapter 14 examines the discourse around the radical uses of cinema by the avantgarde as it made absolute films and entered into a fraught relationship with the film industry. In chapter 15, we examine aspects of silent film aesthetics, including set design, lighting, and camera technique. Chapter 16 s selections approach the cinema as an instrument of knowledge and persuasion in science, culture, and 15. Jonathan Crary, Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990). 16. Alexander Kluge, Zu einer Stein-Konstruktion, in Foto-Assemblagen, ed. Udo Klückmann, Klaus Heinrich, et al. (Berlin: Medusa, 1979), 29.

17 Introduction 7 commerce. We turn in chapter 17 to the major technological shift of the late 1920s: the advent of sound. Finally, chapter 18 assembles reflections on film technologies, their histories, and their possible futures. Resonating with recent studies in media archaeology, this chapter features early explorations of television, 3-D, color, and expanded cinema. Providing a heuristic analytical grid, these sections and chapters represent an initial attempt to map a vast area of writing, much of which is still unexplored. 17 While they could, of course, be read in any sequence, our division seeks to convey broad, if uneven, discursive shifts. The earliest writings on cinema were overwhelmingly concerned with film s role as a gauge of changing modes of experience. Writers from the Wilhelmine period sought to grasp the newness of cinema as a representational form, its ability to render modernity legible, and the challenge that its rapid and disjunctive aesthetics posed to the traditional arts. During the Great War, politics became an explicit and dominant concern, and commentators began to think intensely about cinema s relation to the masses, its potential as a tool of mobilization and political propaganda, and its role in forging national communities and collective identities. Finally, the 1920s, a decade in which film attained greater cultural legitimacy, saw efforts to define film s specific qualities and to forge a language and repertoire of aesthetic means (e.g., camera movement, montage) that would lend cinema a unique identity among the arts. At the same time, this decade of film history one also marked by greater institutionalization and professionalization witnessed the emergence of new forums for specialized thinking about film technologies, avant-garde experimentation, and cinema s uses in science, industry, and advertising. This temporal division should not suggest that there was no media theorizing or political thinking before the First World War nor that the imbrications of cinema and modern experience became any less important in later years (a proposition refuted by Benjamin s work alone). Rather, we are acknowledging that specific sets of concerns moved to the fore at particular historical junctures. The three sections of this book trace largescale shifts in film discourse, but they also include numerous texts that look backward and forward in order to call attention to the impossibility of confining any single mode of interrogation to rigid temporal parameters. Organized around historical debates or theoretical issues, the chapters in this volume present a full trajectory of responses to particular issues. Following Kracauer, one might refer to the series of texts in the various chapters as sequences, that is, successive solutions of problems originating with some need and touching off the whole series. 18 By arranging the texts into these discrete temporal sequences (rather than according to an overall chronology), we hope not only to render the volume s materials conceptually coherent and manageable for readers but also to acknowledge each historical moment s heterogeneity and Ungleichzeitigkeit 17. The archive for German writings on film in the period covered by this book is immense; in a 1930 brochure on German trade publications, Erwin Ackerknecht listed 160 film periodicals, about half of which are now available on microfilm. These titles include influential trade papers that appeared daily in the late 1920s, such as Der Kinematograph ( ) and the Film-Kurier ( ), as well as fan magazines that often stopped after just a few issues. In addition to these film-related publications, most newspapers (there were sixty daily papers in Berlin alone) and lifestyle magazines featured film reviews and articles about cinema. The present book can only offer a glimpse into the overwhelming mass of archival sources; most still await discovery. 18. Kracauer, History, 144. See also George Kubler, The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962).

18 8 Introduction (nonsimultaneity) a concept theorized in the interwar years by German thinkers such as Wilhelm Pinder, Erwin Panofsky, and Ernst Bloch. 19 Within the volume s eighteen chapters, all texts are introduced with editors comments, which highlight their contributions to the theorization of cinema s promise and possibilities in the early twentieth century. Resisting any unifying generalizations, these comments signal some of the events, debates, and other immediate circumstances to which the authors were responding. Our interest in recovering the historical dimensions of the texts is matched, however, by a commitment to conveying their relevance today. Following Walter Benjamin s argument in The Arcades Project that the true method of making things present is to represent them in our space (not to represent ourselves in their space), 20 we forego any attempt at self-transposition into the past and instead analyze early-twentieth-century documents in dialogue with contemporary issues. Our hope is that the texts throughout this sourcebook will continue to gain new, unanticipated meanings, illuminating our ever-shifting media environment and its attendant theoretical concerns. 21 With its dual temporal focus on the historicity and actuality of early-twentieth-century texts, the present volume seeks to contribute to understandings of German film theory in three major ways. First, it allows us to see the broader context in which cinema could appear to well-known theorists as a key cultural form of modernity. Alongside Benjamin s and Kracauer s analyses of cinema s shocks and distractions, we encounter a vast array of writings on cinema and modernity from other commentators, such as government advisors, sociologists, or advertising theorists. In these writings, words like tempo, nervousness, thrill, astonishment, and novelty abound as efforts to understand the transformations of everyday life that modernity had wrought. If many of these texts strike us today as reactionary, others stand out for their euphoric tone. But the important point and the one that becomes visible with sufficient historical distance and a large enough archival base is that all the authors were observing the same phenomena. From Alfred Döblin s description of working-class audiences spellbound by the cinema s white eye in 1909 (no. 63) to Wilhelm Stapel s anxious observations on the revolutionary homo cinematicus in 1919 (no. 103) to Ernst Jünger s reactionary-modernist reflections on the new audience of mass types in 1932 (no. 188), the authors of nearly all the texts collected here understood film as a medium of modernity, one deeply implicated in the emergence and workings of twentieth-century mass culture. Second, this expanded range of articles allows readers to better comprehend the cultural and linguistic specificity of writings by Balázs and other well-known theorists who were well acquainted with wider debates on cinema in Germany and Austria. Such debates have transnational ramifications, and one can draw links, for example, between the emergence of cinema reform movements in Germany and America; the rise of the avant-garde in Germany, France, and Holland; or the forging of a left-wing film culture 19. See Wilhelm Pinder, Das Problem der Generation in der Kunstgeschichte Europas (Berlin: Frankfurter Verlags-Anstalt, 1926); Erwin Panofsky, Reflections on Historical Time, trans. Johanna Bauman, Critical Inquiry 30, no. 4 (2004): ; and Ernst Bloch, Heritage of Our Times, trans. Neville and Stephen Plaice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991). 20. Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project, trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), On the goal of conveying both the historicity and actuality of film theory, see also Johannes von Moltke, Out of the Past: Classical Film Theory, Screen 55, no. 3 (Autumn 2014):

19 Introduction 9 in Germany and the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, many of the epistemological framings of German-language debates were also informed by specific intellectual traditions such as Kultur (culture) and Bildung (education), both of which had been valorized and discussed extensively since the German Enlightenment. When Balázs titled his study Visible Man or the Culture of Film, for example, he understood the term Kultur according to a Germanic tradition linking Kultur to the idea of Bildung as the holistic cultivation of an ensemble of human faculties; it was precisely this organic notion of Kultur that the technological medium of film had seemed to threaten. Similarly, the Schillerian concept of aesthetic education arguably informed debates among German educators and psychologists about the effects of cinema on child development (see chapter 7); the efforts of the Kulturfilm, a German variant of documentary based on ideals of experiential education (chapter 16); and Balázs s 1925 speech to an annual conference of educators on the Bildungswerte (educational values) of film art (chapter 4, no. 54). The terms Kultur and Bildung provide just two examples of the many latent protocols of early German film theory, which become visible only when theoretical writings are reinserted into their cultural-linguistic context. Third, the scope of this volume allows readers to see more clearly the ways in which early film theory was always already a form of media theory one whose open, interrogative quality anticipates our efforts to assimilate new media today. Many of the key topics of contemporary media studies animation, immersion and distraction, participation and interactivity, remediation and convergence, institutional and nontheatrical uses of cinema, amateur filmmaking and fan practices, democracy and mass media were already part of early film-theoretical discussion and can be fruitfully teased out of the texts in this volume. Such thoughts and questions were not entirely new even in the 1910s and 20s; most of them can be traced back to the visual and media culture of the nineteenth century and even before. 22 But our present environment of proliferating screens and media platforms allows these aspects of early film culture to come to the fore in new ways, revealing the latent futures harbored within archives. The present volume thus embraces an understanding of the contemporary moment that Thomas Elsaesser describes as an ever-shifting enunciative position from which the past is constantly reorganized in constellation with present concerns. 23 Eschewing any approach that assumes we know what the cinema is, has been, and will become, this volume features historical writings that explore cinema s manifold horizons writings that suggest actual futures, as well as the many roads not taken. Although the three categories outlined above film and modernity, film and cultural context, and film and media theory loosely correspond to our section divisions, each one also cuts across the book as a whole. This means, of course, that the form of the present collection is provisional, its categorizations necessarily tentative. Much as Aby Warburg perpetually reorganized his Mnemosyne Atlas in the 1920s, we have gathered, arranged, and 22. Siegfried Zielinski has been particularly insistent on this point. See his Deep Time of the Media: Toward an Archaeology of Hearing and Seeing by Technical Means, trans. Gloria Custance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), 7 8. See also Erkki Huhtamo, Dismantling the Fairy Engine: Media Archaeology as Topos Study, in Media Archaeology: Approaches, Applications, and Implications, ed. Huhtamo and Jussi Parikka (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 44 45; and Jussi Parikka, What is Media Archaeology? (Cambridge: Polity, 2012), Thomas Elsaesser, The New Film History as Media Archaeology, CiNéMAS 14, nos. 2 3 (2004): ; here 78.