Satired History
Reply
Tag Archives: satire
Heil? What does that mean anymore?
There is quite simply a lot to unpack in this still of the film “To Be or Not To Be” However I would like to focus on the “errinerungskultur” aspect of this image in regards to a German/American viewpoint. Here you can easily see the satire regarding the use of the Nazi salute in the Second World War. From a German perspective, this is absolutely unacceptable and highly problematic. Since the Germans bear the blame for the atrocities done in the war they shy heavily against bringing it up at all. Using the nazis in any form is tasteless and should be avoided at all costs.
From an American perspective, I believe that simply repressing the past and shoving it deep inside will only make the problem worse in the long run. I am by no means advocating for the improper use of the Nazis, but instead, have a healthy discussion about what happened and how to improve vastly from whence that stemmed. America has its own set of dark pasts and in only now just starting to scratch the surface of bringing these topics to light. So far sensible discussions have only brought more understanding between Americans. So hopefully the Germans will also start to adopt this mindset in order to tackle their past as well.
This image truly shows that even back in WW2 other nations and cultures were already willing to use a dark past in order to bring good things to light.
What is Hitler?
Ernst Lubitsch’s dark comedy To Be or Not to Be from 1942 satirizes a variety of aspects of Nazi ideology, chief among them the performative nature of its everyday practices, its signs, and its symbols. One question that frames the film is “What constitutes Hitler?” The film provides the viewer very little in the way of the substance of Nazi ideology, but instead chooses to focus on the world of appearances—the performative gestures and verbal expressions of loyalty, the uniform as a symbol, and the blind adherence to authority—revealing precisely the lack of substance below the surface. Concluding the first sequence of the film, the still above depicts an important moment, in which the illusion of Hitler in Warsaw (in reality Mr. Bronski, an actor in the Polish theater company) is broken. The film introduces Hitler by referring to him as “the man with the little mustache,” suggesting that it is his facial hair, rather than the person, who defines what Hitler is. This question is taken up in the theater, a minute before the above shot, when the director of the company, Mr. Dobosh, expresses his discontent with Bronski’s make-up claiming, “It’s not convincing.” Not only with respect to Hitler, but throughout the film, facial hair functions as an indicator of the authenticity of a person, and to be revealed as wearing a fake beard delegitimizes one. While Dobosh is not convinced by Bronski’s mustache as a signifier of Hitler, the Polish people on the street certainly are… that is until the young girl recognizes Bronski and reveals him for who he is. This medium shot centers Bronski and the girl while still holding in the frame the confused onlookers. The girl as a child—and thus outsider—is able to see through the illusion, reminiscent of the child in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” This shot depicts the moment just before Bronski realizes that he is exposed and the audience on the street realize that their eyes have deceived them. This shot pairs nicely with the scene at the end, in which Bronski, dressed as Hitler, orders two Nazi pilots to jump out of a plane without parachutes, and they comply without question. Through these two scenes and countless others, the film is satirizing the success of these performances and those who fall for them without questioning further.