KAMERADSCHAFT FILMS. 4 EDITIoN Kuleshov, L, "Caligari, Mr. West, Aelita: Trois conceptions du film perception of character status and narrational authority within the nuet, 'in Positif(Paris), January 1991 film. This in turn opens the film to a range of possible readings. The Pratt, D. B."Fit Food for Madhouse Inmates: The Box Office film has been seen, for example, in terms of a female fantasy, focusing Reception of the German Invasion of 1921, in Griffithiana on Jane as the enigmatic source of the narrative ( Gemona, Italy ) October 1993 In other words, the film is structured in such a way that it represents contradictory ways of understanding the central sequence of events. This is supported by the consistency of the films mise-en- scene. The artificiality and stylized exaggeration of acting, decor, and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is usually identified as the first lighting are maintained throughout the film. There are no visual cues significant German Expressionist film, exemplifying the narrative indicate that the world of the framed tale of past events is different and visual traits of that movement. The primary story concerns from the framing scenes in the asylum. The film,'s visual style is series of murders which occur in a German town, coinciding with crucial to its exemplary status within the context of the german the arrival of Dr Caligari who runs a side-show at the local fair. Alan Expressionist film movement. In The Haunted Screen Lotte Eisner and Francis, friends and rivals for the affection of the same woman, explains that the overall design scheme of the film creates a pervasive Jane, witness his show: there the somnambulist Cesare predicts the feeling of anxiety and terror. It is characterized by extreme contrasts future, and forecasts Alans impending death. That night, Alan is in light and dark, distorted angles, exaggerated perspective and scalar murdered. Francis pursues the mysterious Caligari as Cesare kidnaps relations within the decor, and painted backdrops and shadows. The ane. In the ensuing chase, Cesare collapses and dies. The investiga basic tone of the decor extends to costume and make-up tion then leads to a local asylum from which Cesare has reportedly escaped. Dr Caligari is discovered to be the director of the hospital, German Expressionist film. Some critics have argued that German gone mad in his obsessive efforts to re-enact an 18th century film producers consciously adopted this"arty"style to differentiate owman'smurders-by-proxy. This story is presented as the narrative German film from other national cinemas(notably American)in account of Francis. The film opens in a park; Francis sits with another order to compete in the international film market. Others have nan as Jane, in a trance-like state, walks by. To explain her condition, stressed the fact that this movement expresses the troubled state of the Francis recounts the bizarre events of the central story. At the end of German national psyche after the war, or represents a retreat to the film, the scene returns to francis, who is revealed to be an inmate Romantic despair. In addition, the films artificiality and subversion at the asylum. His doctor is actually the Caligari figure from his tale. of realistic codes of representation have led to discussion of the film Upon hearing Francis's ravings in the courtyard, the doctor declares an early example of self-refiexivity and deconstructive processes that he now understands the case the cinema The history of the framing device is well known, and is discussed y Siegfried Kracauer in his study of post-World War I German The films equivocal narrative and visual stylization combine to create a disturbing fictional world. Moreover, its position in German cinema, From Caligari to Hitler. It was not a part of the initial script. cinema, and in German history, makes it a compelling case for by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz, but was presumably added by the producer Erich Pommer. According to Kracauer this framing cont examining relations between films and their social context. In these vance served to contain the inherent horror of the original story terms The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari provides a wealth of material to be study of authoritative madness and abusive power was recast as the mined by film critics and historians. delusion of an insane narrator; the evil doctor was re-defined as a benign, ministering figure who can cure the lunatic. At the same -M.B. White time Kracauer sees the final film as a powerful expression of the inherent tensions of the collective German psyche of the period-the fear that individual freedom will lead to rampant chaos which can only be constrained by submission to tyrannical authority. If the KAMERADSCHAFT original script depicted the potential abuses of absolute authority, the (Comradeship) But the narrative significance of the film is not necessarily france-Germany, 1931 either/or proposition as Kracauer suggests. The film does start by presenting Francis as a credible narrator. His reliability as a source is only called into question in the final scenes. In this sense the film is Director: g. w. pabst more equivocal and expresses a more disturbed sensibility than even Kracauer allows. Indeed, the film simultaneously presents at least two Production: Nero-Film(Berlin) and Gaumont-Franco(Paris), the viewpoints on the depicted events: 1) Francis is in fact mad and his collaboration of these two companies frequently referred to as Nero- ory totally or partially delusional; 2)Francis is a reliable source, Film AG; black and white, 35mm; running time: 85 minutes, French a position assumed through most of the film. From this second version is 93 minutes, length: 3060 feet (German version) perspective the director of the asylum might be considered a psy Released 193 chotic tyrant whose power extends to include Francis'confinement One is not, however, led directly to this conclusion. Rather, this Producer: Seymour Nebenzel; screenplay: Ladislaus (Laszlo)Vajda, version of the narrative causes a disruption of any stable or conclusive Karl Otten, Peter Martin Lampel and Fritz Eckardt, from a story byKAMERADSCHAFT FILMS, 4th EDITION 622 Kuleshov, L., ‘‘Caligari, Mr. West, Aelita: Trois conceptions du film nuet,’’ in Positif (Paris), January 1991. Pratt, D. B., ‘‘Fit Food for Madhouse Inmates: The Box Office Reception of the German Invasion of 1921,’’ in Griffithiana (Gemona, Italy), October 1993. *** The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is usually identified as the first significant German Expressionist film, exemplifying the narrative and visual traits of that movement. The primary story concerns a series of murders which occur in a German town, coinciding with the arrival of Dr. Caligari who runs a side-show at the local fair. Alan and Francis, friends and rivals for the affection of the same woman, Jane, witness his show; there the somnambulist Cesare predicts the future, and forecasts Alan’s impending death. That night, Alan is murdered. Francis pursues the mysterious Caligari as Cesare kidnaps Jane. In the ensuing chase, Cesare collapses and dies. The investiga￾tion then leads to a local asylum from which Cesare has reportedly escaped. Dr. Caligari is discovered to be the director of the hospital, gone mad in his obsessive efforts to re-enact an 18th century showman’s murders-by-proxy. This story is presented as the narrative account of Francis. The film opens in a park; Francis sits with another man as Jane, in a trance-like state, walks by. To explain her condition, Francis recounts the bizarre events of the central story. At the end of the film, the scene returns to Francis, who is revealed to be an inmate at the asylum. His doctor is actually the Caligari figure from his tale. Upon hearing Francis’s ravings in the courtyard, the doctor declares that he now understands the case. The history of the framing device is well known, and is discussed by Siegfried Kracauer in his study of post-World War I German cinema, From Caligari to Hitler. It was not a part of the initial script, by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz, but was presumably added by the producer Erich Pommer. According to Kracauer this framing contri￾vance served to contain the inherent horror of the original story. A study of authoritative madness and abusive power was recast as the delusion of an insane narrator; the evil doctor was re-defined as a benign, ministering figure who can cure the lunatic. At the same time Kracauer sees the final film as a powerful expression of the inherent tensions of the collective German psyche of the period—the fear that individual freedom will lead to rampant chaos which can only be constrained by submission to tyrannical authority. If the original script depicted the potential abuses of absolute authority, the framing scenes concede to this authority and suggest it may be beneficial. But the narrative significance of the film is not necessarily an either/or proposition as Kracauer suggests. The film does start by presenting Francis as a credible narrator. His reliability as a source is only called into question in the final scenes. In this sense the film is more equivocal and expresses a more disturbed sensibility than even Kracauer allows. Indeed, the film simultaneously presents at least two viewpoints on the depicted events: 1) Francis is in fact mad and his story totally or partially delusional; 2) Francis is a reliable source, a position assumed through most of the film. From this second perspective the director of the asylum might be considered a psy￾chotic tyrant whose power extends to include Francis’ confinement. One is not, however, led directly to this conclusion. Rather, this version of the narrative causes a disruption of any stable or conclusive perception of character status and narrational authority within the film. This in turn opens the film to a range of possible readings. The film has been seen, for example, in terms of a female fantasy, focusing on Jane as the enigmatic source of the narrative. In other words, the film is structured in such a way that it represents contradictory ways of understanding the central sequence of events. This is supported by the consistency of the film’s mise-en￾scène. The artificiality and stylized exaggeration of acting, decor, and lighting are maintained throughout the film. There are no visual cues to indicate that the world of the framed tale of past events is different from the framing scenes in the asylum. The film’s visual style is crucial to its exemplary status within the context of the German Expressionist film movement. In The Haunted Screen Lotte Eisner explains that the overall design scheme of the film creates a pervasive feeling of anxiety and terror. It is characterized by extreme contrasts in light and dark, distorted angles, exaggerated perspective and scalar relations within the decor, and painted backdrops and shadows. The basic tone of the decor extends to costume and make-up. These qualities came to be known as the defining stylistic trait of German Expressionist film. Some critics have argued that German film producers consciously adopted this ‘‘arty’’ style to differentiate German film from other national cinemas (notably American) in order to compete in the international film market. Others have stressed the fact that this movement expresses the troubled state of the German national psyche after the war, or represents a retreat to Romantic despair. In addition, the film’s artificiality and subversion of realistic codes of representation have led to discussion of the film as an early example of self-reflexivity and deconstructive processes in the cinema. The film’s equivocal narrative and visual stylization combine to create a disturbing fictional world. Moreover, its position in German cinema, and in German history, makes it a compelling case for examining relations between films and their social context. In these terms The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari provides a wealth of material to be mined by film critics and historians. —M.B. White KAMERADSCHAFT (Comradeship) France-Germany, 1931 Director: G. W. Pabst Production: Nero-Film (Berlin) and Gaumont-Franco (Paris), the collaboration of these two companies frequently referred to as Nero￾Film AG; black and white, 35mm; running time: 85 minutes, French version is 93 minutes, length: 3060 feet (German version). Released 1931. Producer: Seymour Nebenzel; screenplay: Ladislaus (Laszlo) Vajda, Karl Otten, Peter Martin Lampel and Fritz Eckardt, from a story by