Shattuc, Jane. Television, Tabloids, and Tears (1995).Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Television, Tabloids, and Tears This page intentionally left blank Television, Tabloids, and Tears Fassbinder and Popular Culture Jane Shattuc University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis London Copyright 1995 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota Chapter 3 first appeared as "R. W. Fassbinder as Popular Auteur: The Making of an Authorial Legend," Journal of Film and Video 45 (Spring 1993), reprinted by permission; chapter 4 first appeared as "Contra Brecht: R. W. Fassbinder and Pop Culture in the Sixties," Cinema Journal (Fall 1993), reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Published by the University of Minnesota Press 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 290, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2520 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Shattuc, Jane. Television, tabloids, and tears : Fassbinder and popular culture / Jane Shattuc. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8166-2454-2 (alk. paper). — ISBN 0-8166-2455-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Fassbinder, Rainer Werner, 1946- —Criticism and interpretation. 2. Berlin Alexanderplatz (Television program) I. Title. PN1998.3.F37S52 1994 791.43'0233'092 —dc20 94-30357 The University of Minnesota is an equal-opportunity educator and employer. Contents Acknowledgments vii 1 / The Melodrama of Fassbinder's Reception 1 2 / Engineering a Democracy through Autorenfilm: The Political Context of Television's Support ofFassbinder 19 3 / Fassbinder as a Popular Auteur: The Making of an Authorial Legend 60 4 / Shock Pop: Fassbinder and the Aesthetics of the German Counterculture 84 5 / The Textual Fassbinder: Two Institutional Genres 105 6 / Berlin Alexanderplatz: The Interplay of Fassbinder's Textual Voices 134 7 / The Popular Reception of Berlin Alexanderplatz 163 8 / Conclusion 192 Works by Rainer Werner Fassbinder 201 Appendixes A-H 211 Notes 223 Selected Bibliography 247 Index 259 V This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgments It is now my turn to debunk the myth of my authorship. This book results from the ideas of hundreds of people who have shaped the work in its ten- year evolution. First, I owe a great debt to my teachers. Claudia Gorbman's sly humor made learning about film such a pleasure. Tino Balio taught me the importance of clear and precise historical thinking. David Bathrick in- spired my interest in the contradictions of German culture and shaped much of the politics of the book. James Steakley offered me a model in his dedication to the history of marginalized culture. Tom Streeter and John Fiske influenced the book more than they realize; they introduced me to cultural studies. But only with the help of friends and colleagues did I write this book. I must recognize Henry Jenkins — my best critic and tenant — who swal- lowed his resistance to high culture to read numerous drafts and to give ex- tensive comments. The book was also helped by the generous encourage- ment of Timothy Corrigan, Virginia Wright-Wexman, and Marcia Landy. Ed Larkin refined my translations. My colleagues Michael Selig and Don- ald Fry lent me their intelligence and savvy about the intricacies of acade- mic publishing. The commentary, political commitment, and friendship of Jackie Byars, Nancy Ciezki, Jackie Joyce, Diane Kostecke, Mary Rhiel, Laura Thielen, Robyn Warhol, Rose Ann Wasserman, and Patty Zimmer- mann made writing this book a pleasure. Misha Bogdanov offered me not only emotional support but also insight into the practical implications of my political theories. My family, Rick Shattuc, Helen Bloch, Mary Stan- ton, and Will Shattuc, gave me a sense of perspective. This book also benefited from the support of a number of institutions. First, I need to thank the University of Bonn and the German Exchange Service for two years of financial support in West Germany. Additionally, I owe a debt of gratitude to Westdeutscher Rundfunk and Frau Hannah Sell of the Fernsehspiel Abteilung for opening the doors to their Pass- binder holdings and archive. And I must recognize Janaki Bakhle and Rob vii viii / Acknowledgments Mosimann of the University of Minnesota Press for their enthusiastic and highly professional support of this project. Finally, I want to dedicate this book to my parents, Loretta and Fred- eric Shattuc, who tempered my radicalism with their Midwest populism and humor, inspiring the idealism of the book. 1 / The Melodrama of Fassbinder's Reception Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses towards art. The reactionary attitude toward a Picasso painting changes into a progressive reaction towards a Chaplin movie. This progressive reaction is characterized by the direct, intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of an expert. Such fusion is of great social significance. The greater the decrease in the social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment. With regard to the screen, the critical and the receptive attitudes of the public coincide. Walter Benjamin, "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"1 As of 1980, Rainer Werner Fassbinder's epic television adaptation of Alfred Doblin's novel Berlin Alexanderplatz was the longest (sixteen hours), most expensive ($6 million), and most widely seen television project in German media history. It was seen by 20 million West Germans — an unprecedented viewership for a New German Cinema film. Although the expense and length of the series have since been exceeded,2 Fassbinder's production en- gendered the longest and fieriest controversy to date. Not only the press but also the broad West German public participated in this debate. Through letters and petitions to the producing station, magazines, and newspapers, thousands of viewers expressed their support of and anger at the series. 1 2 / The Melodrama of Fassbinder's Reception Interestingly, the debate was not just about the filmmaker's radical pol- itics; it encompassed the role of filmic form and popular reception, the role of the state in the production of an inherently German filmic form, and, importantly, the unexamined status of the film director or the author (Au- tor) as an anointed cultural representative. How can we account for this unusual controversy? Could the film's premiere on the popular medium of television be a logical extension of Benjamin's claim: with its ability to reach a broad audience, mass-produced art breaks through the aura traditionally associated with the work of art and engenders a critical attitude toward a work? Or did the uproar result from the public's supposed traditional antagonism toward the avant-garde and the overtly political? And, ultimately, we must ask: Given Fassbinder's con- troversial public history, how and why was he chosen to create Germany's most costly and possibly most widely seen art film? The purpose of this book is to unravel this seeming contradiction. To do so, it is necessary to examine Fassbinder's form of "politicized melo- drama" within the history of auteurism or Autorenfilme (the German coun- terpart) in West German television, the institution for which he produced nearly half of his works. By analyzing Fassbinder's art film form within the institution of West German television — two histories that culminate in the production of Berlin Alexanderplatz— the book questions the possibilities and limitations of Fassbinder's radical ideology within West German televi- sion. More generally, it examines the role of critical filmmaking in relation to twentieth-century popular culture. Contrary to expectations, Fassbinder received the sustained support of West German television despite the fact that their ten-year relationship was marked by continuous controversy, originating in both the television indus- try and the West German public. The problems began with the refusal of Westdeutscher Rundfunk (Cologne's ARD affiliate)3 to produce the last segments of Fassbinder's television worker series, Eight Hours Are Not a Day (Acht Stunden sind kein Tag), in 1972. Then the station, after an initial finan- cial pledge, refused in 1976 to support Fassbinder's adaptation of Gustav Freytag's Credit and Debit (Soil und Haben) because of the novel's alleged anti-Semitism. And in 1978 it withdrew promised financial support for Pass- binder's Third Generation (Die dritte Generation), a film connecting the rise of terrorism to West German capitalism. The controversies surrounding Fassbinder's television work came to a head in 1980 when Westdeutscher Rundfunk (the institutional producer) The Melodrama of Fassbinder's Reception / 3 disavowed content responsibility for Berlin Alexanderplatz and rescheduled the mammoth production to the less-viewed late night hours. The most obvious question is this: Why would West German television as an agency of the state risk its financial stability by supporting Fassbinder's produc- tions, whose controversial nature went beyond just these four incidents? Indeed, he was gay, a drug user, and a leftist with terrorist affiliations. One possible answer is that the state, and West German television in particular, were able to contain and appropriate Fassbinder's radical reputation by con- trolling the presentation and the public discussion surrounding the various films' television broadcast. Another likely answer is that Fassbinder's televi- sion work in general was not that radical, which is why public television could ride out each crisis. But these answers are too simple. West German television's tolerance of Fassbinder's productions was built around a series of contradictory determinants: (1) television's needs, stem- ming from its antifascist founding principles; (2) television's ability (as a state monopoly) to control the discourse surrounding its presentations; and (3) the limited radical nature of Fassbinder's films. But this view does not account for the degree of public outcry and unprecedented political pres- sure against Fassbinder's productions.