[Reader-list] Film Industry in Service of the State: cinema, propaganda and the nation-state

[Gargi Sen]

Dear All,
I am pasting below an essay I wrote while I was in a different life and
time. I feel that the essay might be of use to the current debate going on
this list.
Gargi Sen

*****************************************************************************************
Film Industry in Service of State: cinema, propaganda and the nation-state


Far from simply being banished to the dustbin of history as aberrations and
atrocities, the spectacles and paraphernalia of National Socialism have
assumed a privileged place in American mass culture.
(Rentschler, 1996: 5-6)

Never before and in no other country have images and language been abused so
unscrupulously as here, never before and nowhere else have they been debased
so deeply as vehicles to transmit lies.
(Wenders. 1977: 128)

Introduction

The words by Wim Wenders quoted above, appear to sum up the disgust and
condemnation that the young German filmmaker of the post-Second World War
era felt towards the Nazi cinema. Their rejection of the Nazi cinema appears
to be the common thread amongst them as their individual styles, and the
themes that they tackle, are very diverse.  Indeed the diversity is so
immense amongst directors like Wim Wenders, Werner Herzog, and Rainer Werner
Fassbiner that in order to classify their work under the umbrella of 'new
wave' required a conscious search for a common link.  The link then appears
to be their engagement with their immediate history and their need "to
invent a new cinematic language uncontaminated by the fascists." (Sieglohr,
2000)  In breaking with the past the new directors developed "ambling
narratives with a lingering on details and seemingly unimportant events; a
stress on mood rather than on action, and an overall sense of ambiguity."
(Bordwell, 1985:206-7) The break with the past, according to the directors
of the German New Wave, must be complete and severe.

However, that break did not happen. Despite the horror and repulsion that
the Nazi regime generated in retrospect, Nazi films, at least a few amongst
them, on the contrary appear to have been elevated to nearly cult-like
status. Rentschler (1996) provides evidence of how the films of the Nazi era
continue to be in circulation in Germany, in the United States and
elsewhere.  Their popularity has not diminished. Indeed, their imagery
continues to exert influences on Hollywood.  Filmmakers of that era tour the
US as their work, of that period, is extolled by some critics for its
humanity, sensitivity and integrity.  (Brownlow, 1966: 19)

"Large circulation magazines have carried photographs of Mick Jagger and
Andy Warhol hobnobbing with Leni Reifenstahl. [...] Jodie Foster has
announced plans for a Reifenstahl biopic.  George Lucas restaged the closing
scene from Triumph of the Will in the finale of Star Wars; a recent rock
video by Michael Jackson likewise unabashedly recycles Riefenstahl's images
of soldier males paying deference to their master.  American artists pilfer
the Nazi legacy with relish.  The beautiful divers, dancers, and discuss
throwers of Olympia serve as prototype for television commercials, magazine
ads, and photo spreads." (Rentschler, 1996: 6)

It may be added here that the Nazi films, by and large, enjoyed immense
popularity during the period that they were made and shown and that the
audience attendance to the cinemas continued to show an upward trend during
the Third Reich.  Indeed, under the National Socialist government the film
industry became economically robust. (Welch, 1983a)  The question then that
arises is if the films of that period were mere vehicles of propaganda why
do they continue to exert an influence till date, especially as the world in
general is aware of, and to some extent witness to, the horrific excesses
committed during that era?  Why haven't they been banished to the dustbins
of history?  Do their existence bear a witness to the historic need to not
forget the past in order to not repeat it, or does the reason lie somewhere
else?  Did these films establish an aesthetics that is simply irresistible?

 In exploring the response of the film industry to the needs of the state
the following essay will pay particular emphasis on the aesthetics of the
Nazi cinema.  The essay attempts to explore the development of the National
Socialist German state while it was led by the Nationalsozilistiche Deutsche
Arbeiterpartei i.e. the National Socialist German Workers' Party or the Nazi
Party as well as its peculiar imperatives; the nature of the film industry
in Germany; and finally its response to the needs of the state through the
study of a few selected films of that period.

The German state

To fully understand the response of the film industry to the needs of the
German state during the Second World War it is perhaps necessary to explore
the imperatives of the German state in the period just before the war as
well as its consolidation during the critical twelve year period (1933-1945)
under the leadership of Adolph Hitler and the Nationalsozilistiche Deutsche
Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) or the Nazi party. This is important to not only
understand the needs of the state but also the response of the industry as
during this period successive, and fairly successful, attempts were made by
Hitler's minister for Propaganda: Joseph Goebbels to reorganise and
streamline the film industry, attempts that were neither contested nor
opposed by the film industry.

The rise of Hitler

The period after the First World War was one of deepening economic and
social crisis in Germany. In 1918 the Social Democrats came to power but
"were so unprepared for a revolution that they originally did not even think
of establishing a German Republic. [...] The leaders, in whom Lenin had
placed such hope, were incapable of removing the big landowners, the
industrialists, the generals, and the judiciary. Instead of building a
people's army they relied on the undemocratic Freikorps.  On January 15,
1919, the Freikorps murdered Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Leibknecht to be
followed by a series of murders, not one of which was ever punished. After
the first week of the new Republic the ruling classes began to establish
themselves." (Kracauer, 1947)

The Weimer republic, administered according to the Treaty of Versailles and
the deepening economic crisis of Germany provided the arena for the rise of
Hitler.  His stress on volkisch (nationalist) and extreme nationalist
appeal, and his rabid anti-Marxism were viewed favourably by the right wing,
and his taking over the mantle of the Fürher, a strong, mystical leader of,
and from, the masses capable of liberating Germany from its economic and
social difficulties slowly won over the rest.  (Kershaw, 1987) However, in
the period of the 1920s outside of small groups of fanatical Bavarian Nazis,
Hitler's image for the wider German population was "little more than that of
a vulgar demagogue capable of drumming up passionate opposition." (Kershaw,
1987: 23) Even after the success of the 1930 election German intelligentsia
felt that the Nazi party would collapse as their social base was diffuse,
they didn't have clear political programmes, and the party was heavily
dependent on the cult surrounding Hitler.

Very soon however the party emerged as the only alternative and was able to
consolidate its mass support.  From a 33% share of the votes in 1933 when
Hitler became the Chancellor it was able to, over the next three years, win
over the "the majority of the majority which had not voted for him in 1933."
(Kershaw, 1987: 5)  From the capitalist to the working classes, Germans
enmasse came under the spell of the Füehrer.  Historians have attributed
many reasons for this shift.  However, sifting through the debate two
reasons stand as of particular importance.  First, the ability to expand the
notion of volkisch, the national community, to that of volksgemeinschaft,
community of people or a German society purged of 'alien' elements. And
secondly, the creation of the Führer, a strong, moral, heroic leader of the
masses who comes from the common stock but will lead the nation and its
people to victory and strength.  And propaganda played a major role in
establishing both.

Still, propaganda is most effective when it's building upon, and not
countering, already existing values and mentalities.   Through a study of
the German films that predates the rise of Nazi party, Kracauer (1947) is
able to demonstrate that the need for a strong leader existed in the German
psyche far before Hitler. "Heroic leadership was a significant element in
the ideas of nationalist and volkisch Right long before Hitler's spectacular
rise to prominence. [...] The idea and the image of a 'Führer of the
Germans' had therefore already been moulded long before it was fitted to
Hitler, and for years existed side by side with the growth of Nazism without
it being obvious to the protagonists of the need for 'heroic' leadership
that Hitler himself was the leader for whom they had been waiting."
(Kershaw, 1987: 13)

The shift from volkisch to that of volksgemeinschaft was more complicated.
It did not go uncontested and faced resistance both from within the party as
well as groups like the left and Catholic church.  It is here that Goebbels
was able to successfully mount a propaganda campaign as well as bring about
a series of changes through changes in policy that eventually saw the
majority of Germans acquiescing to the notion.  And the study of films
provides an interesting mechanism to study the success of the shifting
concept.


Propaganda and the film industry during the Third Reich

The German film industry developed during the period after the First World
War.  Pre-war existence of German cinema was insignificant and the market
was dominated by foreign films.  The closing of the German borders, after
the war, prompted a growth in the national film industry.  (Kracauer, 1947)
Films achieved a technical excellence and overall reflected the right wing
stance.  They celebrated 'heroic' leaders like Frederick the Great and
Bismarck, extolled nationalism, condemned socialism but also developed a
pseudo-socialist rhetoric. (Petley, 1979)  Indeed this was the ideology of
the Nazi Party itself.  This is not very surprising given the fact that the
largest film studio of that time, UFA, was acquired by a Nazi sympathiser
and financier.

Even before coming to power the Nazi Party understood that film was a
powerful propaganda medium but lacked the financial or organisational
control of the industry.  In October 1932 Joseph Goebbels took control of
all Nazi film activities and in March 1933 he was appointed the Reich
Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda which virtually brought
under his control all aspects of culture: literature, film, theatre, music,
fine arts, the press and the radio.  Under his direction the Reichfilmkammer
(Reich Film Chamber) began to regulate the financing of films and removed
Jews from German cultural life.  (Barsam, 1973)

Restructuring of the industry

In February 1934, the Nazis adopted the Reichlichtspielgesetz (Reich Cinema
Law) that mandated compulsory script censorship, restrictions on film
criticism, and a stringent rating system for all kinds of films.  Films were
rated on a scale of their usefulness - the marks of distinction were called
Pradikate - with the highest rating awarded to those films that were both
'politically and artistically valuable.'  Cinema owners could not refuse to
screen a film with the Pradikate stamp if a distributor offered it.
Pradikate was really a form of negative tax, the higher the distinction,
lower the tax.  But it also helped the audience to establish the correct
expectations and response.  (Welch, 1993)

In 1938 Goebbels reorganised the film industry and emphasised on films
funded by the state and initiated another reorganisation in 1942 when
Goebbels became the supreme authority. From 1943 onwards the central line of
Nazi propaganda was conveyed through film: that the Germans would win the
war.  This policy remained unchanged till their defeat in 1945. (Barsam,
1973; Welch, 1983a)

It must be noted here that the reorganising of the industry was not opposed
by the industry.  Indeed the industry was happy to concede control to the
Nazi.  The main reason for that is economic.  Just before the Nazi party
came to power, from 1930 onwards, the film industry was going through severe
financial crisis.  State sponsorship provided a much-needed lifeline to the
struggling industry.  In addition, the director of the largest German
studio, UFA, was a supporter and a minister in the Reich.  He had been a
consistent financial supporter of the Party even when it was not in power.
It was partly due to him, and partly due to the vision of Goebbels that the
industry was never overtly nationalised.  However, successive
re-organisations brought the industry effectively under the control of the
Party, and particularly of the Reich Minister for Popular Enlightenment and
Propaganda: Joseph Goebbels; and this control also had financial
implications. The profits of the industry now could flow to the state via an
intermediary body created to remove from public view the role of the state.
(Petley 1979; Welch 1993)

Propaganda and films

According to Goebbels "propaganda has nothing to do with truth.  We serve
truth by serving a German victory." However, there was a difference between
Hitler and Goebbel with respect to their understanding of propaganda. Hitler
felt that the importance of propaganda would decline after the Party came to
power, the organisation would replace propaganda. He says in Mein Kampf
(Welch, 1983a)

"When the propaganda work has converted a whole people to believe in a
doctrine, the organisation can turn the result of this into practical effect
through the work of a mere handful of men. [...] The better the propaganda
has worked, the smaller will the organisation be.  The greater the number of
followers, so much the smaller can be the number of members."

Goebbels disagreed and believed that propaganda would be necessary after
coming to power to mobilise mass support and to maintain a "level of
enthusiasm and commitment for its ideological foundations." (Welch, 1983a:
42)  In emphasising the importance of film as propaganda, Goebbels was
influenced by the Soviet example, particularly Battleship Potemkin. While
Hitler wanted explicitly political films "Goebbels favoured propaganda films
that manipulated people indirectly, using an appeal to "truth" that would
reinforce opinions and feelings that people already had.  Thus Goebbels
preferred feature films that reflected the overall Nazi atmosphere rather
than those that proclaimed its ideology." (Barsam, 1973:124)  Only a few
films of the Nazi era displayed overt propaganda.

However, the Nazi films successfully captivated audiences and disseminated
political meanings by resonating with the larger social constellation.
Films were not isolated experiences in the dark but a structured function of
a variety of associations and organisation that locked every individual into
a complicated network of apparatus covering every aspect of reality. "The
Third Reich constituted the first full-blown media dictatorship, a political
order that sought to occupy and administer all sectors of perceptual
possibility, to dominate the human subject's every waking and sleeping
moment." (Rentschler, 1996:217)

It was a cinema dedicated to illusions. Goebbels aimed to create a film
world as alluring as Hollywood.  But Goebbels also waged a war against
Hollywood in order to create and maintain a domestic market.  By the
beginning of the Second World War the industry had begun to generate huge
profits.

Recurring themes in Nazi films

While propaganda has been used by all countries, especially during war
times, the Nazi propaganda films do not address the rational.  As the Nazi
doctrine was built upon the "essentially irrational doctrines of Aryan
racial superiority, adherence to the will of the Führer, and the nationalist
expansion, as well as return to "traditional German values." To promote that
doctrine, the Nazis used all available means and media." (Barsam, 1973:124)

"Public opinion cannot exist in a totalitarian police state, its place is
taken by an official image of the world expressed through the media of mass
communication.  The total impact of Nazi propaganda was to create a picture
of reality shaped according to the underlying themes of the movement.
Because of the inherent contradictions and the amorphous nature of National
Socialist ideology these themes would change from one year to the next."
(Welch, 1983a: 95)  Still there were a number of key themes that were to
recur in Nazi films.  Some of them like blut und bloden (blood and soil) and
Volk und Heimat (People and homeland) were maintained from the beginning to
the end while others like comradeship, heroism, and the party; principles of
leadership; war and military image and the image of the enemy were not used
continuously but their use was determined by tactical reasons.

The following section examines a few films under each of these themes. The
section has been compiled from the reading of Welch (1983a), Welch (1993),
Furhammar (1971), Leiser,  (1974), Petley,  (1979) and Rentschler (1996) and
finally by viewing a few of the films themselves.

Films and themes from that era

Comradeship, heroism and the party

Altogether three films were made on this specific theme in 1933 and later
this theme was never repeated.  The recurring motifs in all three are heroic
death (of the protagonist), the significance of the Nazi flag and uniform,
the treachery of the communists, the need for the destruction of the family
for the sake of male comradeship within the party, and the idealisation of
the Aryan.

Hitlerjunge Quex (Hitler Youth Quex) made in 1933 follows a typical story
line common to all three however this film was the most popular.  These
films were specifically aimed at wooing the working classes who till now had
been mistrustful of the Nazi elitisms as well as the youth.  While the
continuing economic slump of the 1930 made the working class more open to
the Nazi promises of a better future, youth of Germany began to be
mesmerised by the visible icons of the Nazi pageantry: the disciplined
marches, the flag and the uniform, and mostly the aura of Hitler as the
saviour.

The protagonist, a young, idealist boy represents Hitler and is from a
working class family, gets slowly attracted to the SS but is thwarted from
joining them by the scheming communists who have a hold over his family.
Their leader, bearing a close resemblance to Lenin, is a cold-blooded
agitator under the direct control of Moscow, willing to sell his country to
the foreigners.  When the boy attempts to join the SS, who are wonderfully
decent, glorious, disciplined, open and trusting his parent intervene.
Fearful of angering the communists the mother commits suicide and nearly
kills the son too.  He survives and in the hospital, not remorseful of his
mother's death, is very happy to be asked to join the party by members of
the SS. He leaves his father and goes to live in the hostel but is
eventually killed by the villainous communists.  His funeral brings the Nazi
pageantry out in full force.

The film, indeed all the three, helped to sway the working class sympathies
towards Nazi party and recruited youth at an incredible numbers.  However,
after Hitler reached the pinnacles of popularity this theme was never again
repeated.

Blood and soil

The concept of blood and soil attempted to define the source of strength of
the master race in terms of peasant virtues: the Nordic past, the warrior
hero, and the sacredness of the German soil which could not be confined by
artificial boundaries imposed by the Versailles treaty.  As an extension of
this concept was the notion of Volk und Heimat or 'a people and homeland.'
These themes were maintained till the very end and continuously recurred in
the films.

In 1933 the Party produced a documentary called Blut und Bolden (Blood and
soil) subtitled: Foundation of the new Reich.  There were two underlying
precepts behind this type of film propaganda.  The first was to bring the
entire nation to a common understanding of its ethnic and political entity
and the second was to prepare the nation to accept and rationalise future,
and past, invasions and annexations as a justifiable liberation of Germans
living abroad.

However, the documentary also had a practical side.  Farm recovery was
crucial to the Reich as business recovery and agricultural recovery was
necessary after the recovery of small business.  The documentary aims to win
over the peasantry by emphasising the value of land and agriculture to
Germany and to highlight the particular emphasis given by the National
Socialist to their recovery. The documentary served as a blue print for all
such films in the future.

Many feature films drew inspiration from the documentary and reflected the
theme outlined.  Some of these are Schimmelreiter (Phantom rider) 1934, Ich
fur dich- Du fur mich (I for you - you for me) 1934, Das Madchen vom moorhof
(the girl from Marshland farm) 1935, Fahrmann Maria (Ferry boat woman Maria)
1936, Ein Volsfeind (an enemy to the people) 1937, Die reise nach Tilsit
(the journey to Tilsit) 1939, Immensee 1943 and Opfergang (sacrifice) 1944.

Olympiade made in 1938 is a four-hour documentary on the Olympics.  The
principle theme of the film arose from the concept of blood and soil and was
a grandiloquent celebration of various elements of the Nazi worldview. The
concept of health and strength were essential for them.  The film can be
also seen as an impressive exercise in respectability and propaganda for the
regime as during the Olympic games Germany was thrown open to visitors and
every effort was taken to ensure that carry back a positive image of
Germany.  And the film was going to present the notion of beauty of the
human body and celebrates the archetype of the Aryan, master race.

Directed by Leni Reifenstahl the film is a testimony to technical excellence
and cinematic brilliance pursued and achieved during this period.


Principles of leadership

The rise of the Fuhrer is a critical part of the Nazi ideology.  The Fuhrer
combines within him two characteristics, first that of a contempt for
parliamentary democracy and secondly it builds upon charismatic, heroic
leadership, who had the power to realise the community of people.  Films
however mostly refrained from showing Hitler as his aura, was essentially
mystical and nearly religious and visual representation would have only
damaged it.  The way out for the industry was to focus on heroic figures
from history that would represent the heroic leader.

The one exception to this was the documentary Triumph des willens (Triumph
of the will) 1935 apparently personally commissioned by Hitler against the
wishes of Goebbels.  Directed by Leni Reifenstahl the documentary presents
the Furher as a mystical, charismatic leader.

In the opening sequence few lines help to orient the viewer:

Twenty years after the outbreak of the First World War,
Sixteen years after the beginning of Germany's time of trial,
Nineteen months after the beginning of the rebirth of Germany,
Adolph Hitler flew to Nuremburg to muster his faithful followers...

And then prophetically a plane appears from the clouds and Hitler's plane
lands and he steps out in the manner of a modern day messiah.  The
craftsmanship is superb.  Following Hitler's entourage through the city the
camera continuously picks on the flag, the people and the Furher, in a
repetitive pattern.  Every detail of the film builds on the messiahistc
appeal, the charismatic leader.  The self-identification with the Furher
gave the German people a sense of superiority that was denied to others.

The Fuhrer cult constituted one of the few consistent aspects of the Nazi
ideology and remained a potent force till Hitler's death.  The need to
identify and obey a strong leader had been one of the most significant
factors for the rise and maintenance of National Socialism and Hitler.  The
Furher was seen to represent the people's will and the cult served to
reiterate that historical change comes through the genius of leader and not
through Liberalism or Marxism.

War and the military image

While feature films were continually used to inculcate a mood of euphoria
and enthusiasm even when people were facing the miseries of war at this
period documentaries and newsreels were also used to demonstrate the
invincibility of the German army.  Controlled by the ministry newsreels,
over time, increasingly became a formalistic, carefully planned artistic
transformation of reality. Newsreels screenings was compulsory at every film
screening and it was cheaper to hire newer newsreels and hence German people
could see latest news, through the doctored newsreels.

The advantage of the newsreel was that it offered the advantages of modern
communication medium and was topical, periodical and universal.  The footage
was carefully edited to present 'reality' and by its contrast to the feature
films, appeared to be realistic representation of reality.  In actuality the
helped to prepare the populace for war and during the war kept their
enthusiasm high by portraying the German strength and invincibility.

The image of the enemy

Political propaganda is most effective in times of uncertainty and hatred
generally its most fruitful aid. To maintain sacrifice and conviction
visible enemies are necessary who are responsible for all the wrongs.  And
cinema has contributed to this phenomenon by building stereotypes, as
stereotyping is essential to the use of Nazi anti-symbols and the portrayal
of the enemy in Nazi propaganda.

Initially the Nazi targeted the communists as public enemy.  Films that
portrayed them as evil, scheming, dishonest, power hungry, manipulative and
puppets of foreign governments were made and indeed enjoyed a modicum of
commercial success. Later the attempt was to present the Bolsheviks as an
international conspiracy of the Jews.

Perhaps the most important element of the Nazi worldview was the myth of the
Jewish conspiracy.  In building on an anti-Semitic sentiment the propaganda
was actually consolidating feelings that existed in the German life and
thought for over a century.   When Hitler came to power he needed Jews as a
permanent scapegoat.  According to him the war was less a struggle amongst
nations than a racial war to the finish between Aryan and Jew.  Films were
prepared along with a full-scale media campaign that would alert people to
the dangers of Jewry and rationalise the measure necessary for the genocide
that was to follow.

The strategy of Goebbel's was the same that he used to promote in 1933 the
notions of comradeship, heroism and the party.  In 1940 three films were
shown consecutively, each dealing with different aspects of international
Jewry. These were Der Rothchilds, Jud Suss (Jew Suss) and Der ewige Jude
(the eternal Jew).

In Jew Suss Leon Feuchtwanger's novel that portrays Jews as the eternal
scapegoat is turned to give a different historical meaning.  Suss a lawyer,
but a Jew in disguise infiltrates the Duchy of Wurttemberg and gains
acceptance to the power circle of the Duke, brutally rapes a Christian
woman, conspires to throw the city open to thousands of Jews who arrive to
the disgust of the Germans and plans to create the 'Promised Land' at
Wurttemberg. He is arrested and condemned to death and as the Duke dies his
last saviour is gone.  In the final climactic scene he is hanged.

Before the release of the film critics were instructed that they should
interpret the film on the lines that once Jews like Suss gained responsible
position they exploited power not for the good of the community but for
their own radical ends.  With the exception of Suss the Jews are dirty, ft,
hook nosed and repellent.  In contrast are the true Nordic features. The
last scene of Jew Suss hanging from the noose conveyed Goebbel's message:
that of the Nazi's answer to the historical Jewish menace.

The film was a resounding success partly due to extremely high quality of
production and acting.  The film contributed to the radical anti-Semitism
that already existed in Germany and paved the way for the evacuation of the
Jews.  Not only did the film successfully use themes and archetypes to
create the desired antipathy towards Jews but it did so under the guise of
entertainment that resulted in a great box-office success.



Conclusion

The film industry played a major role in extending the Nazi ideology to the
masses and ensuring that citizens learnt the correct ways to conduct
themselves.  Goebbels carefully created propaganda so that it was insidious
rather than overt.  As long as people came to the cinemas of their free
will, propaganda could be couched in entertainment.  Other than the war
newsreels the dependence was more on fiction films than on objective
documentaries to achieve their goal. The themes, however, that recur in Nazi
cinema are central to the Nazi worldview and ideology and could not only
find a resonance in people but perhaps could also influence them.

National Socialism was characterised by charismatic leadership, nationalism,
anti-Marxism, anti-Semitism, stress on the community, emphasis on violence
and force and finally an appeal for national unity.  These themes were to
continuously recur in Nazi films.  However, they were not used overtly but
through the use of narratives that created illusions rather than repulsions.

In order to ensure that films reflected the Nazi ideology the industry
itself was reorganised.  First a cleansing process removed Jews and the
undesirables working in the industry. Film criticism was severely controlled
and the industry was kept sympathetic through a combination of strict
censorship, awarding of distinction marks related to tax benefits and
finally through financial resources.

The technical excellence that some of these films achieved, was truly
remarkable.  Not only did filmmakers like Leni Reifenstahl create films that
were artistically excellent, even the technical height she reached were
truly amazing.  Her use of the camera in Olympia to capture divers in a
continuous motion from the jump to underwater continues to be used till
date.  As does her techniques of photography and editing.  Contrary to the
expectations of scholars (for e.g. Leiser, Welch) who wrote the obituary of
Nazi films that the reason they continue to be in existence can perhaps be
attributed to the technical excellence of thse films.

In addition, Goebbels tactics of insidious propaganda seems to have
convinced a great number of people of the viability of this nature of
propaganda.  That feature films can be used to insidiously extend and
strengthen a worldview that is not built on rationality but on a few
undemocratic principles seems truly a wonder.  It stands to reason that if
films can be used to opiate the masses then perhaps more costly alternatives
can be avoided. Of course, few other factors are necessary to reach that
goal.  However, the Nazi cinema and its possible impact do demonstrate the
ability of films to extend ruling class hegemony.  And perhaps in that too
lies their continual appeal for "if Nazi horror continues to repulse, the
shapes of fascism continue to fascinate." (Rentschler, 1996: 6)

In a final ironic come-around, the New German Cinema that began by rejecting
Nazi films have begun a process of rapprochement with their past.  The gaze
back is kinder and gentler.

"Nazi media culture demonstrated just how potent and destructive the power
of fascination and fantasy can be especially when systematically
appropriated by a modern state and strategically implemented by advanced
technology.  A nation faced with hardship and spiritual void hailed Hitler's
promise of a better life while shunning enlightened rhetoric. [...]  The
National Socialist state's production of death and devastation would not
have been possible without Goebbel's dream machinery." (Rentschler, 1996:
223)


Bibliography

Baird, J. W. (1974) The mythical world of Nazi war propaganda, 1939-1945.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press.

Barsam, R. M. (1973) Nonfiction film: a critical history. Indianapolis:
Indiana university press.

Bordwell, D. (1985) Narration in the fiction film. London: Methuen.

Brownlow, K. Leni Reifenstahl, Film 47.

Furhammar, L. and Isaksson, F. (1971) Politics and film. London: Studio
vista.

Kershaw, I. (1987) The 'Hitler Myth': Image and reality in the Third Reich.
Oxford: Oxford university press.

Kracauer, S. (1947) From Caligari to Hitler: A psychological history of the
German film. New Jersey: Princeton university press.

Leiser, E. (1974) Nazi cinema. London: Secker & Warburg.

Petley, J. (1979) Capital and culture: German cinema 1933-45. London:
British film institute.

Rentschler, E. (1996) The ministry of illusion: Nazi cinema and its
afterlife. Cambridge: Harvard university press.

Sieglohr, U. (2000) New German cinema in John Hill  and Pamela C. Gibson,
(eds) World cinema: critical approaches, Oxford: Oxford university press, pp
82-86.

Turner, G. (1988) Film as social practice. London: Routledge.

Welch, D. (1983a) Propaganda and the German cinema 1933-1945. Oxford: Oxford
university press.

Welch, D. (1983b) (ed) Nazi propaganda: the power and the limitations.
London: Croom Helm.

Welch, D. (1993) The Third Reich; politics and propaganda. London:
Routledge.

Wenders, W (1977) That's entertainment: Hitler in Eric Rentschler (ed.) West
German film makers on film: visions and voices, London: Homes & Meyer.