Film History, Volume 18, pp. 21–45, 2006. Copyright © John Libbey Publishing ISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in United States of America

Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s

Learning from the enemy: DEFA-F rench co-productions of the 1950s

Marc Silberman

etween 1956 and 1960 East Germany’s state- DEFA’s rather provincial production values. Although owned film company DEFA released in rela- this conjecture was not entirely off the mark, in fact Btively quick succession four major feature films the story is morecomplexandin itscomplexity reveals co-produced with French companies. Al- some striking insights into the interplay of cold-war though it also developed limited partnerships with politics, cultural policy, and film production in the West German, Swedish, and Italian production com- GDR (and France) during the 1950s. panies during the 1950s, the French initiatives seemed to have enjoyed a privileged status for the The scope of the co-productions German Democratic Republic (GDR). Not only did The DEFA-French cooperation constitutes no more negotiations involve high-ranking political authorities than a footnote to the broader narrative of postwar in East Berlin, but the productions also brought to European co-productions and in some ways follows the DEFA studios in Babelsberg, situated near similar conditions and constraints in terms of policies Potsdam at the southwestern edge of (West) Berlin, and expectations.1 After World War II bilateral cinema some of France’s best-known cinematic talent, in- agreements among European partners were sought cluding internationally celebrated film stars like to offset the influx of American imports and the Gérard Philipe, Simone Signoret, Yves Montand, Ber- growing tendency of American majors themselves to nard Blier, and Jean Gabin. At the time the films capitalise on the relatively cheap labour of European enjoyed good runs both in the GDR and in France, studios through their own co-production agree- although none of them were considered critical suc- ments. France and Italy led the way with the result cesses. Today they are largely forgotten, mentioned that about 30 per cent of France’s annual movie in film histories or memoirs only in passing and rarely output consisted of co-productions by the end of the included in retrospectives or otherwise available for 1950s. While France in fact had no bilateral cinema distribution and screening. The four films to which I agreement with the GDR, nothing prevented a refer are: Gérard Philipe’s Die Abenteuer des Till French producer from negotiating a ‘co-participa- Ulenspiegel/LesAventuresdeTillL’Espiègle(TillUlen- tion’ contract with DEFA, whose considerable tech- spiegel’sAdventures,alsoThe Bold Adventure,1956), nical resources and politically over-determined Raymond Rouleau’s Die Hexen von Salem/Les Sor- economic strategy made for an attractive partner cières de Salem (The Witches of Salem, also The under certain circumstances.2 Crucible, 1957), Jean-Paul Le Chanois’s two-part Die Typically such cooperative cinema projects Elenden/Les Misérables (1959), and Louis Daquin’s draw on transnational traditions of popular and genre Trübe Wasser/Les Arrivistes (Muddy Waters, 1960). Upon first encountering them, I surmised that their Marc Silberman is Professor of German at the Univer- genealogy might somehow be linked to German sity of Wisconsin; his research and publications deal communists in Paris exile during the 1930s who, upon with the literature, culture, and cinema of twentieth- century Germany. Correspondance: German Depart- returning to (East) Germany, renewed their contacts ment, 818 Van Hise Hall, University of Wisconsin, in order to introduce a more international flavour to Madison, WI 53706, USA. e-mail: [email protected]

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 21 22 Marc Silberman

title The Crucible, an allegory for the anti-communist ‘witch hunts’ of the McCarthy hearings in the United States Congress. Les Misérables became the fourth French cinematic remake of Victor Hugo’s classic historical epic about the quest for justice by op- pressed citizens in the first third of the nineteenth century. The final co-production was an adaptation of Balzac’s novel, La Rabouilleuse (1842), presenting a trenchant study of bourgeois pettiness and venality set against the Restoration of the 1820s. Ironically, Les Misérables, adapted from a quintessentially French text, reaped criticism in France for being anti-national because the streets of Paris had been recreated – in of all places – studios outside Berlin. This led director Jean-Paul Le Chanois to defend the practice as a purely economic decision that in no way compromised his artistic point of view, which he characterised as being conceived from the original text’s perspective, that is, from the perspective of France.3 Le Chanois’s pragmatic and ‘nationalist’ view – certainly representative for the French part- ners of all four features – suggests the need to recenter the very definition of a national cinema through the dialectic of co-productions catalysed in the West by the economic imperative of international competition under cold-war conditions. For the French producers the cooperation with the DEFA studios was, then, first and foremost an economic opportunity. The postwar years of 1945–59 were a boom period for the French movie industry, yet producers faced strong competition from the dynamic blockbusters of the American ma- jors. Drawing on DEFA’s production capacity (the largest studios in Europe, virtually limitless extras, highly trained technicians) allowed these companies to produce movies with a big-budget look ‘on the Fig. 1. Set cinema, e.g. adaptations of great works of literature, cheap’, features that could compete with the block- designers Serge musical entertainment, or historical costume dramas busters coming from Hollywood. For the French film Pimenoff (Pathé constructed around great heroes. This was the case directors, who were less concerned with the details Cinéma, second for the DEFA-French co-productions, although – as of financing, DEFA placed in their hands resources from right) and we shall see – the actual commitments and expec- that they otherwise could never have commanded. Karl Schneider (DEFA, with hat) tations of the respective partners rarely coincided. In Moreover, working with the studios of an Eastern discuss with two the first co-production, Till Ulenspiegel is the legen- European socialist country may well have resonated French painters dary Flemish hero who fought for liberty and the not only with their progressive political commitments the design of the national independence of the Low Countries from – they were all active in left-wing organisations such Paris façades in a imperial Spanish rule in the sixteenth century, in a as the labour union Conféderation générale du travail Babelsberg backlot film adapted from the 1868 novel by Belgian writer (CGT; Philipe, Le Chanois, Daquin) and/or the Parti . Die Elenden/Les Charles de Coster. The second film’s titular ‘witches Misérables. Communist Français (PCF; Rouleau, Le Chanois, [Photo courtesy of Salem’ refer to a well-documented historical trial Daquin) – but arguably also with intellectuals’ resis- of BA-FA, Berlin, in seventeenth-century Massachusetts that Arthur tance in France to the hegemony of American film Sign. 3494.] Miller had dramatised successfully in 1953 under the capital.

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 22 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 23

In East Germany the priorities stacked up dif- cultural imperatives. One effect was the centralisa- ferently. The state-run DEFA production company tion of cinema production under direct state super- was the largest cultural institution in East Germany. vision. Beginning in 1952 the State Commission for The Communist Party (soon unified in a shotgun Film (Staatliches Komitee für Filmwesen) was estab- marriage with the Social Democrats and named the lished under the direct authority of the state’s Council SED, ‘die sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands’ of Ministers with parallel subordinate committees at or Socialist Unity Party) charged DEFA with the re- regional and district levels. The rigid hierarchical sponsibility of creating a popular cinema with politi- structure of a large state bureaucracy overseen by a cal functions. Defined by a strong egalitarian ‘state secretary’ at the highest governmental level tendency, the task was to produce high quality films ensured economic, political, and ideological control for mass consumption that would educate and in- in all domains of film production and exploitation but form the public about the evils of the past and led to ever more didactic and politically tendentious address the viewer as the imaginary socialist citizen feature films. of the future. Endowed with the roles of educating After Stalin‘s death in March 1953, and wide- the people and transforming society, DEFA was also spread political street turbulence in June 1953, the susceptible to control by party and government offi- State Commission was dissolved and the Ministry of cials, and this political and ideological supervision of Culture replaced it in 1954 in order to provide a kind studio productions bore the mark of deeply in- of buffer between the party, the administration, and grained suspicions about mass media. Conse- those who produced culture. Within this Ministry a quently the mandate to entertain and simultaneously special oversight section called the Film Office raise the public’s consciousness harboured a strong (Hauptverwaltung Film) had responsibility for over- distrust of the seductive nature of images and of the sight and control of the DEFA studios. In addition, way movies distract from the ‘real’ struggle to the government’s officially pronounced New Course change society. The party acknowledged the impor- in June 1953 granted movie professionals somewhat tance of the masses, conceded even a certain status more autonomy and also revitalised contacts with to mass taste, but it simultaneously refused to ex- the West in order to respond to strong audience pand its narrow concept of culture beyond traditional demand for more and better entertainment. With notions of ‘Bildung’ (self-education) and rational dis- party consent more features from West Germany – course. The amorphous sphere of desire, emotions, consistently the biggest box-office draws – were and fantasy that characterise popular genres re- imported for domestic distribution, and the number mained suspect, even tabu. of recycled films from the Third Reich was dramati- Having inherited the expansive physical facili- cally increased as well.5 Directors and actors with ties as well as the technical personnel of the former expertise in comedies, operettas, and literary adap- UFA studios, Goebbels’s factory for Nazi film propa- tations – almost exclusively ones who lived and had ganda and entertainment, DEFA released a remark- been producing films for West German consumption able number of popular and critically successful – were hired to expand the palette of DEFA’s own films in its first years of production.4 As international entertainment offerings.6 The chronic lack of accept- cold-war rivalries intensified in the late forties and the able treatments and screenplays led to initiatives for two German states were established in Fall 1949, developing a training academy that would produce cultural policy became more ideologically and aes- a new generation of ‘native’ film artists, while in the thetically restrictive. This diminished DEFA’s room to meantime serious but largely unsuccessful attempts manoeuver between mass audience taste schooled were undertaken to establish cooperative deals with on Third Reich entertainment films, the competition West German producers to fill the gap.7 from West German and American movies (accessi- When the chance to cooperate with a French ble to many GDR citizens as long as the borders to production company assumed concrete shape in the West remained open), and the mandate to create mid 1955, high-level party functionaries regarded it socialist realist films for the masses. There followed as part of the larger strategy in the GDR’s efforts to a dramatic slump in the number of DEFA produc- gain international recognition and legitimacy. tions in the early 1950s and parallel to it an unenthu- Aligned with the United States’ cold-war policies of siastic response by the audiences to the clumsily promoting the Atlantic alliance, West Germany had executed political films during the height of Stalinist introduced in 1955 the so-called Hallstein Doctrine

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 23 24 Marc Silberman

Fig. 2. Letter with guidelines for intra-German relations. It ce- the United States’ ambition for the Nato military detailing the non mented a practice of limiting trade, foreign aid, and alliance. Thus, for example, when French theater and renewal of political exchange with any countries that recognised film star Gérard Philipe visited the GDR in Spring distribution the GDRs sovereignty. In response to the West Ger- 1954 at the invitation of Joris Ivens (see below) in licenses for 30 man government’s boycott efforts, the SED was in- order to discuss the possibility of working with DEFA Third Reich entertainment creasingly sensitive to creating opportunities for on the Ulenspiegel project, he was treated as an films with 333 cooperation with Western European countries in or- official guest of the state, and the visit was promoted copies circulating der to demonstrate the GDR’s independence. High as a symbol of German-French friendship.8 More- in East Germany. profile projects in the cultural sphere counted among over, the considerable financial investment of (lim- Progress the most effective means, and for historical reasons ited) hard currency for a film co-production was Film-Verleih, 20 related to the continuity in personnel from the days regarded in 1955 as a reasonable price to pay in August 1951. of UFA in the Third Reich, DEFA among all the order to overcome international isolation and the [Courtesy of BArch DR cultural institutions in the GDR probably had the best obstacles to intra-German exchange, even though 1/4325, Blatt access to contacts in the West, including West Ger- the actual financial return expected by DEFA to be 38-39.] man film industry people who – because of their own derived from distribution rights in socialist countries problems with capitalisation in a splintered produc- was relatively negligible. This was the conclusion tion market – were not uninterested in potential co- documented in a report by the DEFA delegation sent operation with DEFA. to Paris in Spring 1955: ‘The co-production of this In this context France represented a likely and film is to be regarded as a priority, and we will work welcome partner for SED political strategies owing hard to bring it about. The intention is to employ this to De Gaulle’s outspoken opposition to West Ger- co-production with France as an example for West many’s integration into the Western alliance and to Germany.’9 And this reasoning guided at least the

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 24 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 25 government’s initial approach, as documented in Office already complained that the investment was confidential memos between DEFA managers, not generating the desired political effect: members of the party Central Committee, and the In the French press and to some extent in the Ministries of Culture and Foreign Trade when the West German press as well there have been hard currency transfer for Films Ariane in Paris had repeated reports about the filming of Till Ulen- to be approved: spiegel that systematically conceal the role of The co-production of the film Till Ulenspiegel, DEFA in the co-production with Films Ariane. starring Gérard Philipe, means that DEFA en- Therefore, I consider it necessary to come to ters the international market for the first time an agreement with the co-producer as soon with a co-production, i.e. this film project is as possible about publishing a joint statement particularly significant for DEFA’s international on the state of the film project that clearly profile and especially for its impact on West indicates the co-production with DEFA.14 Germany.10 The context for this expression of disappointment For the cultural policy reasons mentioned in was the preliminary negotiation between DEFA and the note from the DEFA Studio for Feature Films Borderie in Paris concerning plans for a sec- Films the Film Office places the highest value ond co-production, Die Hexen von Salem, based on on the realization of the Till Ulenspiegel pro- a screenplay adaptation by Jean-Paul Sartre. The ject. We ask most urgently that the bank credit Film Office signaled little enthusiasm in support of be made possible.11 DEFA’s request to pursue the project: Ackermann correctly surmised that DEFA would have little lever- This first co-production with one of the best- age over a screenplay written by such a well-known known French production companies has (but from the SED’s perspective ideologically idi- enormous cultural political significance for us. osyncratic) author as Sartre, and in his eyes the text’s This project, which has awakened the strong- focus on religious fanaticism did not go far enough est interest throughout the world, could bring in denouncing religion per se as the opiate of the us decisively closer to one of our goals, to people. He suggested that it would probably be bilateral agreements with France in the do- cheaper to buy distribution rights to the completed main of cultural policy. Furthermore, this film film rather than invest money in co-producing it, could have a strong impact on the West Ger- concluding his letter: ‘We should always choose man movie industry. A co-production with relatively unambiguous material [“klare Stoffe”] for France would provide the important West Ger- co-productions and be careful with those that are man producers with a strong weapon in their problematic so that we not only participate financially struggle with Bonn to allow co-productions but also have a real influence on the film production, with DEFA. In other words DEFA’s co-produc- contrary to the case of Till Ulenspiegel’.15 DEFA tion with France has significance internation- nonetheless pursued the partnership, and the two ally and for German unity.12 companies agreed by early June to proceed, but, in The blunt expression of the state’s instrumentalisa- contrast to the Till Ulenspiegel project, DEFA co-pro- tion of culture for calculated political ends conforms duced Die Hexen von Salem with only a 20 per cent to the standard conditions of GDR cultural policy and share (which included no hard currency ex- mirrors in a perverse way the equally candid com- change).16 mercial aims of DEFA’s Parisian partner Films Ari- The various administrative units and individu- ane, hoping for a repeat of Gérard Philipe’s fantastic als responsible for the GDR movie industry were by box office success in the eponymous role of Fanfan- no means unanimous in their goals or even in their la-tulipe (Christian-Jaque, 1952). allegiances. Despite the fairly rigid, hierarchical prin- Within a year, however, the Film Office in the ciples of decision-making and the general Marxist or Ministry of Culture was beginning to reconsider socialist convictions shared by all the players, the whether the price was worth it. The Till Ulenspiegel cultural ‘system’ in the GDR was too complex and production cost DEFA over 2,090,000 Marks, signifi- the historical development too discontinuous to be cantly more than the average 1.5 million Marks for a able to describe adequately its functioning within a feature film.13 Prior to the film’s release, the Film model of total instrumentalisation by the party and

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 25 26 Marc Silberman

the state. The Ministry of Culture as well as DEFA Wilkening continued to build on the French were normative bureaucracies, subject to directives contacts. In mid October 1956 he traveled to Paris and policy decisions from ‘above’ (i.e. from the Cen- for discussions with Raymond Borderie about the tral Committee). These guidelines dominated official final shooting in Paris for Die Hexen von Salem and communication and pronouncements, but beyond for preliminary discussions with Pathé Cinéma con- this – as demonstrated even by the incomplete ar- cerning plans for the adaptation of Victor Hugo’s Les chival records of the various office holders and man- Misérables. His concluding recommendation to the agers – there was a well articulated distribution of Film Office and the Central Committee reads as responsibilities and tasks. follows: ‘The development of our co-productions A case in point is the discussion above con- with France must proceed in the direction of “violat- cerning Die Hexen von Salem. Ackermann, one of the ing” the existing policies in France in order to pro- more ‘conservative’ and ‘dogmatic’ cultural bureau- duce a de facto situation that will then be crats, consistently expressed a sceptical or even transformed into a de jure one when the time is dismissive attitude toward cooperation with West- ripe’.19 The reference here is to the obstacles Pathé erners, belying almost a fear of contamination. His Cinéma had raised in the contract negotiations con- calculation of political disadvantage, both in terms cerning the exact definition of DEFA’s role as de- of the film’s content and the larger issue of coopera- scribed in the film credits. Ultimately the contract and tion with a western partner as part of the strategy to actual credits would specify a Franco-Italian co-pro- counteract West Germany’s boycott, is repre- duction with the collaboration of D.E.F.A.20 In other sentative of this attitude. In contrast, his immediate words the political goal of using film co-productions supervisor, Minister of Culture Johannes R. Becher, to establish the de facto recognition of the GDR’s promoted contact and exchange with progressives sovereignty, even if the French government was and socialists from Western Europe. Simone Sig- unwilling or unable to take this step legally, remained noret, who in Summer 1955 played the role of Yvette the modus vivendi for the Ministry of Culture. At the in the aborted DEFA film adaptation of Brecht’s same time, however, Pathé seemed cavalier in its Mutter Courage by Wolfgang Staudte, notes in her own publicity. For the May 1957 Cannes Film Festival memoirs that, before leaving East Berlin, she met its promotional house journal, the glossy give-away with Becher, who was quite chagrined at the failure Pathé Magazine, included an article on the com- of the Brecht project. He encouraged her to return pleted Les Sorcières de Salem with no mention of for other collaborative projects, and she suggested DEFA participation, but a 17-page photo-spread on a cinematic adaptation of the Arthur Miller play in Les Misérables incorporated an interview with Le which she had starred at the Théâtre Sarah-Bern- Chanois in which he comments on his plans for hardt in Paris during the 1954–55 season.17 A nod filming in East Germany. The following year’s issue from Becher probably sufficed to change Acker- for Cannes 1958 again included several pages on mann’s mind. For his part, Albert Wilkening, DEFA’s the completed Les Misérables but now with refer- managing director, who was all too familiar with the ence neither to DEFA nor the GDR.21 overall dismal record of DEFA’s ticket returns, prob- Shot in Babelsberg, Paris, and Toulon in 1957, ably anticipated a solid box office success with a Les Misérables was released in France on 8 March line-up of internationally celebrated stars including 1958 and in January 1959, over nine months later, Signoret and Montand as well as the anticipated in the GDR. In other words it took over two years to prestige from adapting a contemporary American develop the cooperative project from the treatment play based on a Paris theater production. Thus, through the post-synchronisation, not an unusual despite Ackermann’s renewed interventions, e.g. his production span for DEFA features. Yet in the course insistence that Wilkening exact from the French a of two years political priorities change, policy guide- guarantee to assure the partners’ equality, in particu- lines are revised, and administrators and bureau- lar concerning the development of the screenplay, crats shift responsibilities. Such was the case in the contract with Films Borderie was signed very 1957–58. After the GDR crisis of June 1953 and the quickly based on the already completed script by turbulence in Eastern Europe in the wake of de- Sartre. Location shooting began in Babelsberg, Stalinisation in 1956 (Gomu»ka in Poland, Nagy in Trebbin (near Berlin), and on the Baltic sea coast in Hungary), the party had followed a pragmatic strat- July, lasting till October 1956.18 egy in the domain of culture, tolerating a relatively

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 26 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 27

Fig. 3. Les Misérables, title credits (frame enlargement).

open approach. At the SED Culture Conference in DEFA was transformed: the Film Office in the Ministry Fall 1957, however, a new ideological offensive was of Culture was dissolved, and instead all film-related announced by the party leadership, including a more units (production studios, distribution, the newly es- rigid policy of rejecting revisionist, decadent, and tablished film archive, and the film academy) were petty bourgeois tendencies (coded language for in- bundled administratively into an ‘industrial combine’ fluences from capitalist countries). with increased economic autonomy but, once again, Internally, voices of discontent among party under direct ideological supervision of the party and members at DEFA had complained that the collabo- the Central Committee.23 Finally, at the Feature Film ration with Western partners was based purely on Conference convened by DEFA at the behest of the economic exploitation rather than on ideological ad- party leadership in early July, State Secretary and vantage. For example, long-term dramaturg Anne[li- Vice Minister of Culture Alexander Abusch presented ese] Pfeuffer (responsible for evaluating screenplays in a major address the new parameters for studio and working with authors to develop film ideas and productions: less emphasis on genre films, more treatments into screenplays), voiced the following emphasis on Socialist Realism (with an explicit rejec- view: tion of Italian Neorealism as an acceptable model), and co-productions with Soviet and Eastern Euro- A deep dissatisfaction about the co-produc- pean film companies rather than with Western Euro- tions with French companies prevails among peans.24 a large group of artistic and technical col- All the more remarkable, then, was the deci- leagues in the studio – and of course also with sion by DEFA after the announcement of this policy Pandora [a West German producer]. The col- shift to proceed with a further French co-production, leagues criticise the fact that for the West its second with Pathé Cinéma. Possibly Pathé’s re- German and also for the French co-produc- sounding success with Les Misérables in France as tions DEFA usually provides only the financing well as the reputation of Louis Daquin as an experi- and the technical infrastructure; thus, for ex- enced, reliable communist party member played a ample, during the shooting of the film Die role in the attitude of GDR party bureaucrats.25 In mid Elenden large groups of French colleagues May 1959, prior to the location shooting in Ba- were present in Babelsberg, but hardly anyone belsberg, he met with State Secretary Erich Wendt, knew what they were doing there ...22 a conversation summarised in a confidential, multi- As a result, party bureaucrats at DEFA succeeded in page report prepared for Wilkening by Klaus throttling the employment of West German directors, Wischnewski, Daquin’s co-scriptwriter from DEFA. actors, and technicians, and the percentage of films Daquin, who because of his political affiliations had imported from the West for cinema exhibition been unable to shoot in France during the fifties, dropped dramatically from 1957 to 1958. In July 1958 apparently knew how to bargain in his own interests the administrative structure for state supervision of by giving the proper assurances to his partner:

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 27 28 Marc Silberman

‘Daquin described his situation in France. It was wing documentary film maker of the postwar era, seen as significant that for the first time in years the was first invited by DEFA co-founder Karl Hans high-profile communist Daquin would again have an Bergmann to help create a new documentary unit in official footing in French film production if this co- East Germany in June 1948.29 Ivens turned down the production with Pathé comes about. Comrade invitation. Three years later, however, after complet- Daquin stressed that in this co-production he con- ing documentary films in Warsaw and Prague, after siders himself to represent DEFA, not Pathé.’26 Echo- signing petitions to support the Hollywood Ten in ing Ackermann’s position that DEFA needed to their struggle against the House Un-American Activi- protect its own right to influence the ideological ties Committee hearings, after successful retrospec- tendency of co-productions and not simply be used tives in Paris, he did come to Berlin, hired to co-direct for the economic advantage of Western partners, with Ivan Pyrjev the DEFA-Soviet documentary on the Wendt concluded by suggesting that Daquin should Third International Youth and Student Festival that consider comedies for future collaborative projects: would take place in Berlin in Summer 1951 (Freund- ‘The audience should laugh with us, against the schaft siegt/Friendship Triumphs, 1952). DEFA was enemy’. After completing the shoot of Trübe Wasser, pleased with the result, leading during the next years Daquin addressed a letter in German to Wendt in to additional documentary projects for Ivens and the which he complimented him on the fruitful collabo- feature film on which he collaborated with Philipe. ration but also expressed his regrets that his DEFA Gradually Ivens’s relationship to DEFA became more colleagues were rather disinterested: neither his fa- permanent as director, adviser, and reader in the mous set designer, Léon Barsacq, nor he himself service of the DEFA Studio for Newsreels and Docu- had an opportunity for serious exchange with DEFA mentaries (established in 1954), and he also partici- professionals or the public while in Babelsberg (no pated in meetings of the Film Trade Commission, lectures, no invitations to write an article, etc.).27 responsible for film imports and contacts with other countries.30 By 1956 Ivens had become the most Die Abenteuer des Till Ulenspiegel prominent international icon of the DEFA studios. How did the initial, enthusiastic contacts between Using his contacts around the world, he organised DEFA and its French partners come about then? The the Leipzig Documentary Film Festival in 1955–56 to, first indication of any connection appears in a com- among other things, counteract the GDR’s increas- ment by Albert Wilkening at a DEFA Executive Com- ing political isolation as a result of West Germany’s mittee meeting in 1948 that ‘a Mr. Sauvage from the Hallstein Doctrine.31 French side expressed the idea of creating a Ger- Ivens – born in 1898 in the Netherlands – was man-French arrangement for about five films in such attracted to the Ulenspiegel figure of Low Country a way that a German and a French version would be folklore as early as the 1930s: ‘Shortly after his arrival shot’.28 The idea of producing dual-language ver- [in the USA], he said in an interview with the New York sions was a successful model introduced at the end Times in March 1936 that he intended make a feature of the 1920s with the technology of sound films, film about Pygmalion, based on the book by Shaw, before dubbing or subtitling had become possible. although he would prefer to do Till Eulenspieghel In fact, during the 1930s German film companies [sic] instead.’32 Gérard Philipe first encountered the frequently co-produced dual-language versions with Flemish legend at a 1947 theater festival in Belgium, German and French casts for the lead roles (see from where his wife Anne hailed, and was immedi- below). Although the DEFA managers recom- ately taken with the colourful story of rebellion and mended that Wilkening pursue this suggestion, noth- yearning for liberty. Born in 1922, Philipe belonged ing came of it. The first DEFA-French production, Die to a younger generation that did not share Ivens’s Abenteuer des Till Ulenspiegel in 1956, emerged experiences with the pre-war vicissitudes of united- from an entirely different set of circumstances that front politics, but he was involved after the war in the brought together the Dutch documentary film maker actors’ union (affiliated with the communist oriented Joris Ivens with French actor Gérard Philipe, who for CGT) and sympathised with its militancy throughout the first (and only) time would stand behind the the 1950s. As one of the leading young male stars of camera while also starring in the lead role of Ulen- the theater and then the screen, he wielded an spiegel. authority that promised financial guarantees and Joris Ivens, arguably the most prominent left- box-office returns.

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 28 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 29

As early as 1949 a Belgian group had ap- Fig. 4. Title page proached Philipe to star in a proposed adaptation of of Till Ulenspiegel the de Coster novel prepared by Charles Spaak, but script by René Wheeler and by early 1950 – despite Philipe’s enthusiastic support Gérard Philipe, of the project – a lack of funding prevented the first version dated group’s most interested partner, P.G. Van Hecke, 21 January 1956. from proceeding.33 By June 1952 Films Ariane in [Courtesy of Paris had signed a contract with Philipe to play the BArch DR lead role of Till in a production based on a (new) 117/3728.] scenario by René Wheeler and to be directed by Christian-Jaque. The film, which also never raised the necessary financing, was scheduled to be shot one year later during ten weeks beginning 1 July 1953.34 Immediately the rumour mill began to work, and Philipe received urgent communications from Van Hecke requesting details about the Ariane pro- duction and clearly trying to persuade him – to no effect – to consider the material from the earlier 1950 plans: the treatment by Henri Storck, the script by Spaak, and several suggestions for location shoot- ing in Belgium.35 After Philipe’s visit to East Berlin to explore the possibilities of a collaborative Ulen- spiegel film in late March 1954, he used his good relationship with Films Ariane to sign a contract with the producer that projected a 14-week shoot begin- ning on 29 February 1956, with a script now attrib- withdrawing from directorial responsibilities, as ex- uted to René Wheeler and Philipe, adapted by René plained in the following formal document: Barjavel, Ivens, and Philipe, and with dialogue by Already while working on the adaptation and Barjavel. The film was to be co-directed by Ivens and the shooting script he [Ivens] had observed Philipe, but there was no mention (yet) of DEFA as the enormous difference between a film with co-producer.36 actors and a documentary film. As a director Both Ivens and Philipe were treading on new of documentary films he underestimated the territory. Ivens had no directing experience of fiction difficulties and complexity of a film with actors films or with professional actors, and Philipe, al- and he recognised that he was not equal to though he had directed stage productions since demands of contributing efficiently to the tech- 1952 at the Théâtre National Populaire in Paris, had nical and artistic realisation of the Till film, and only stood in front of the film camera as an actor. under these circumstances it was in the inter- Problems already began to arise in preparing the est of the production that the mise-en-scène screenplay. Not only was DEFA unhappy with the be the sole responsibility of Gérard Philipe. foregrounding of religious strife at the expense of politics in Wheeler’s text, but Philipe was also impa- Although the French producer, Gérard Philipe, tient with Ivens’s slow pace of writing, so that he and the film team did everything in their power virtually assumed responsibility with Barjavel for re- to facilitate his work, Joris Ivens realised the ducing and simplifying the multitude of characters impossibility of his adapting to the exigencies and historical episodes in the script.37 During the of a film with actors.38 shooting of outdoor scenes in Tällberg (Sweden) and Bruges (Belgium), it must have become clear to The statement concluded by agreeing that Ivens that he and Philipe could not collaborate as Philipe would appear alone in the credits as director directors. Returning from Belgium to Berlin, where and Joris Ivens would be listed as the representative shooting was to continue from 26 June till 11 July, of the co-producer DEFA. Ivens’s biographer pro- Ivens informed DEFA and Films Ariane that he was vides additional details:

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 29 30 Marc Silberman

Fig. 5. Excerpt The French press followed the film crew’s ac- ‘Feel very alone and lonely these days. The of shooting tivities closely but only mentioned one direc- people working on the film are all interested in schedule tor: Gérard Philipe. Philipe himself told other things, talking about women and food, prepared by everyone that it was his film and that Ivens had and food and women. They’re always acting Films Ariane for Till L’Espiègle. only been involved at the start ... Gérard someone other than themselves.’ [Undated [Courtesy of Philipe had, however, largely told the truth and letter, Ivens to Marion Michelle] In contrast BA-FA, Berlin, Ivens could really only accuse him of a some- Philipe, an ambitious thirty-three-year-old, was Sign. 48.] what mean-spirited attitude. During shooting in his element. He saw the film as a long- it had soon become apparent that Ivens was awaited chance to direct and took complete not good at working with professional actors. charge ... [Ivens] generously took the line that

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 30 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 31

Fig. 6. A village market scene à la Breughel from Till Ulenspiegel. [Photo courtesy of BA-FA, Berlin, Sign. 48. © Waltraut Pathenheimer.]

making the film a success came first, and his voiced their indignation, while the PCF regulars position became that of supervisor for the marched through the streets in support of the Soviet DEFA.39 intervention. Under these circumstances it was no surprise that Parisian critics wished to read the film Interior shooting was completed in France, and as a topical allegory: Till represents the spirit of a Philipe – who died of cancer in 1959 without having popular uprising against the tyrannical oppression of directed another film – oversaw personally both the the Soviet Union, Phillip II is Stalin, the Duke of Alba editing and sound synchronisation for the Paris is Imre Nagy, etc., even though the film narrative’s opening. Meanwhile, Ivens – who had spent quite a mix of sentimentality, burlesque humour, and politi- bit of time in Paris during the planning and shooting cal pathos seems incongruous in juxtaposition to the stages of the Ulenspiegel feature – gradually with- Hungarian struggle for liberty and independence. At drew from his DEFA responsibilities and resettled in the same time other critics saw the producer’s and 1957 in Paris, making this the only fiction film pro- director’s collaboration with East Germany, which duction of his long career and his last production for vocally defended the Soviet intervention, as un- DEFA. timely, if not naive.41 Commentaries on the film itself Films Ariane could not have chosen a worse considered it to be a success for the inexperienced, time for launching the first DEFA co-production on 7 first-time director Philipe; while noting the lack of November 1956. Months of political turmoil in Po- dramatic architecture in the comic-book construc- land, Hungary, and the Suez Canal peaked on that tion of the episodic narrative, critics appreciated the morning when Soviet tanks entered Budapest in sumptuous colour photography of cinematographer order to depose the communist reform government Christian Matras, inspired by Old Master paintings of of Imre Nagy.40 Crushing the protest in Hungary led Breughel, Vermeer, and de Hoog. Certainly the lyri- to the deaths and executions of thousands there, cal, pathos-laden dialogues, especially those deliv- and in Paris both right-wing and left-wing critics ered by Philipe himself in the role of Till Ulenspiegel,

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 31 32 Marc Silberman

Fig. 7. French poster for Les Sorcières de Salem,invery small print at the bottom edge: ‘avec la participation de la DEFA’, BiFi, Paris. © André Bertrand.

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 32 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 33

Fig. 8 (left). DEFA poster for Die Hexen von Salem,a co-production with Films Borderie and Pathé Cinéma. BiFi, Paris.

Fig. 9 (right). West German poster for Hexenjagd,no mention of DEFA. BiFi, Paris. exposed the weakness of the theater-trained person- critics predictably anticipated that it would be a box ality both behind and in front of the camera. François office success because of Philipe’s star allure and Truffaut’s devastating review thus derides it as ‘not his foregrounding of humour and slapstick, but then only the worst French film of the year, it is also the went on to fault the director Philipe for short-chang- most boring and tiring one’.42 ing the historical depth of de Coster’s novel in what The events in Hungary and the reception in they basically characterised as an episodically con- France must have given pause to DEFA officials, for structed star vehicle.45 While the film was forbidden the film’s gala opening in East Berlin, which was in Holland, ostensibly because of its anti-Catholic supposed to have followed soon after the Paris tendency, in West Germany it went into distribution opening, did not take place until two months later on by Gloria Film (Munich) in May 1957 under the title 4 January 1957. The licensing committee did not Till Eulenspiegel, der lachende Rebell (Till Eulen- approve the film until December 1956 and registered spiegel, the laughing rebel) in an 88-minute version, diverse criticisms with what it saw as a very problem- and was broadcast on West German television be- atic presentation: Philipe’s lack of directorial experi- fore 1990 at least three times as well.46 ence, abrupt transitions between serious episodes and Till’s pranks, the audience subjected to unmoti- vated emotional extremes, and Philipe’s own stylised Die Hexen von Salem acting. The recommendation concluded: ‘Thanks to If East German party leaders regarded the French Gérard Philipe’s participation, the film may nonethe- co-productions from the perspective of political and less become a popular entertainment film, which at ideological capital, and if the French producers con- the same time conveys valuable ideals and history’.43 sidered the DEFA studios as a convenient means of In fact, Die Abenteuer des Till Ulenspiegel attracted diminishing their capital investment while maintain- 3,242,720 admissions in the GDR during its first ing high technical quality, then each partnership year’s run, making it the highest grossing film of all resulted in large measure as well from the commit- DEFA releases in 1957.44 Meanwhile, newspaper ment and convictions of the individual directors

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 33 34 Marc Silberman

and/or actors, as demonstrated by the personal left both of them open to strong criticism from friends engagement of Ivens and Philipe in the production and enemies and echoed long after they had re- of Die Abenteuer des Till Ulenspiegel. Raymond turned to Paris. Contrary to the enthusiastic re- Rouleau’s involvement in Les Sorcières de Salem sponse to the stage production, the film – especially tells another story. Born in 1904 in Brussels, he had Sartre’s screenplay – was seen by many critics as a extensive experience as actor and director both on heavy-handed transposition of the allegory of Ameri- stage and in film reaching back to the early 1930s. can intolerance to a study in historical class struggle As mentioned above, Arthur Miller’s 1953 Broadway where the hardworking peasant, John Proctor, is hit The Crucible had opened under Rouleau’s direc- pitted against well-to-do, middle-class authorities. tion at the prestigious Théâtre Sarah-Bernhardt in Claude Renoir’s stark, austere, black-and-white December 1954. The translation by Marcel Aymé and cinematography, however, garnered generous Rouleau’s staging focused on Miller’s chamber praise for the way it captured the oppressive atmos- drama as an allegory for the witch hunts of Joe phere of Miller’s play. The incumbent discussion McCarthy, in particular in the context of Julius and about filmed theater yielded the view that Rouleau Ethel Rosenberg’s executions for espionage. The was first and foremost a man of the live stage and critical and box-office success ran during two sea- his cinematic adaptation of the play – while serious sons in Paris, starring Simone Signoret and Yves in its intent – remained conservative and conven- Montand in the lead roles, and early on the idea of tional in its realism in the (increasingly stifling) tradi- adapting the stage production for the cinema arose. tion of French ‘films de qualité’.52 Meanwhile the film Their credentials as popular stars with pro-Soviet won a prize for the best acting ensemble (Signoret, sympathies presumably factored strongly into Montand, Demongeot) at the 10th Film Festival in DEFA’s decision to proceed with Films Borderie on Karlovy Vary (1957, presented as a French entry), this second co-production of a feature-length enter- and Signoret received the British Academy Award as tainment film. At the suggestion of Miller himself best foreign actress for her role of Elizabeth Proc- Films Borderie engaged for the preparation of a new tor.53 screenplay translation Jean-Paul Sartre, who corre- With its stars and international acclaim Die sponded at length with Miller about his approach to Hexen von Salem met with an appreciative reception the material.47 Filming took place in Babelsberg from in the GDR, registering 1,157,213 admissions within July through mid October and concluded in Paris by three months.54 The critics were unanimous in their early November. Both DEFA and producer Raymond admiration of Claude Renoir’s cinematography, the Borderie expressed concern about the length of the intensity of the actors, and Hanns Eisler’s brilliant, first cut, but neither Rouleau nor Sartre was willing to aggressive music (which, incidently, was replaced in compromise.48 In fact, the final, synchronised ver- the French version with new, original music by Geor- sion for French distribution lasted almost 2.5 hours ges Auric!) but they differed in their reactions to the (145 minutes) when it opened in Paris on 27 April quality of Rouleau’s directing and Sartre’s script.55 1957. In contrast, the DEFA version, which DEFA’s Even before the theatrical release in the GDR, how- Artistic Council did not approve for another four ever, West German distributor Union Film in Munich months, but then without discussion – ‘a truly sus- had contacted Films Borderie about the possibility penseful film, well synchronised’ – clocked in at less of dubbing the French version (in other words without than two hours (116 minutes).49 For the GDR audi- DEFA’s cuts and German synchronisation) for ence this release version had deleted many se- screening in the West.56 Indeed this was the version quences of the French version that involved the that finally was released in May 1958 under the new ‘liberal’ convictions of Reverend Hale as well as title Hexenjagd (Witch Hunt). Contrary to many those with the black servants (played by African French reviews, West German critics tended to note students from the University of Leipzig).50 explicitly DEFA’s participation, often with a commen- Like Till Ulenspiegel, the French release of Les tary on the film’s thematic relevance to earlier Mos- Sorcières de Salem suffered from the fallout of the cow show trials and more recent political oppression political events in Autumn 1956.51 After completing in Eastern Europe. Otherwise the reception was quite the shoot, Montand – accompanied by Signoret – left positive, focusing on what was regarded as Sartre’s in December 1956 for a lengthy performance tour of capable script, the quality of the acting, and the the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, a decision that striking cinematography.57

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 34 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 35

Les Misérables classes and their milieus – the workers, petty bour- geoisie, aristocrats, and students; (3) clarify for a non DEFA’s third French co-production goes back to contemporaneous audience the French social back- November 1955, when Production Artistique ground of the period 1823–33.64 Although Le Cinématographique (P.A.C.) first revealed to Jean- Chanois was a communist with what must have Paul Le Chanois that he was being considered as seemed like impeccable ‘credentials’ to SED party director for a remake of Les Misérables. Within a functionaries, his ideas for adapting Hugo’s mas- month, however, he learned that the co-producers sive, 1500+-page epic reflected other choices and (i.e. Pathé Cinéma) preferred Julien Duvivier to di- priorities. For him, the novel possessed an ‘authen- rect.58 When he declined, Le Chanois became the tically national character that assures the interna- final choice.59 Born in 1909, he apprenticed with tional success of our best works in foreign countries’ director Raymond Bernard on the earlier, 1934 re- and that demanded complete fidelity to this spirit.65 make of Les Misérables and worked closely with These convictions – expressed while writing the Jean Renoir in the mid 1930s (e.g. on the collectively screenplay with Barjavel in January 1957 – guided authored script of La Vie est à nous), whom he his ongoing work on the project. Over a year later, considered his mentor. He was politically active in upon the film’s release in Paris, Le Chanois reiterated the PCF and in the Union des Théâtres Indépendants that he had remained true to his principle of ‘absolute de la France and belonged to the loose network of respect for Hugo’s work’ and aimed to transmit one the Resistance during the war that tried to influence essential and central element of the novel, ‘la or at least keep tabs on film making in occupied générosité’, in other words, not the history of class France.60 Until the end of the war he helped form the struggle so important to the SED.66 Comité de Libération du Cinéma Français, where he These cross purposes may explain to a certain met the future studio director of Pathé Cinéma (Mar- extent the exasperation on the part of party function- cel Lathière), and upon the liberation of Paris he aries expressed at the July 1958 DEFA Feature Film helped reconstruct the trade unions of professional Conference mentioned above. Die Elenden was a film makers and technicians under the umbrella of costly investment for DEFA, totaling 2,933,154 the CGT.61 Inspired by the Neo-Realism of the Italian Marks, and the production challenged the studio’s cinema, Le Chanois’s postwar work treated the day- capacities in a number of respects.67 Of the 133 days to-day problems of workers and the poor, belonging of studio and location shooting, 69 were in Ba- to the more conventional strain of French humanist- belsberg (where enormous sets had to be con- populist cinema.62 structed) and near Dessau. Thousands of extras and In Fall 1956, when DEFA became interested in horses were requisitioned from the GDR police and co-producing Les Misérables, Pathé was still working army and outfitted with historical uniforms for the with a treatment by Michel Audiard, but by the time mass scenes of the Battle of Waterloo, the funeral the contract was signed, Le Chanois and René Bar- procession of General Lamarque, and the storming javel had produced a screenplay.63 In the meantime, of the barricades. From the French perspective there however, GDR literary scholar Heinz Kamnitzer had were also unusual obstacles to surmount. According provided DEFA with a 44-page expertise – including to Le Chanois, Jean Gabin was dead set against the four pages of excerpts from writings by Marx and idea of filming in East Germany.68 Pathé sent not only Engels – comparing the Audiard treatment with actors to East Germany, but technical and support Hugo’s novel. The period of the French restoration crews as well, some of whom lived in East Berlin or and the revolution of 1830 was naturally of interest to Babelsberg and others in West Berlin, so that the GDR ideologues, for it not only served as a warning daily frustrations of border crossings and custom about the ‘restoration’ in West Germany but also controls to get to and from Babelsberg complicated furnished a historical object lesson on how the legiti- the working conditions. And it turned out that the new mate hopes of workers and peasants had been wide-screen Technirama technology of American betrayed by the bourgeoisie. Kamnitzer, relying on fabrication and the Technicolor processing of the typical categories of socialist realist orthodoxy, sug- Eastmancolor stock could be undertaken only in gested three ways to improve the treatment: (1) Great Britain; DEFA’s own labs were unable to bal- make the (class) contradictions more explicit; (2) ance the colour properly. Film editor Emma Le direct attention to the typical nature of the various Chanois was politely understated when she ex-

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 35 36 Marc Silberman

Fig. 10. plained: ‘The producers, residing in different coun- Meanwhile DEFA had its own difficulties with Facsimile of tries, expressed specific wishes, which complicated the final cut. For party stalwarts, Le Chanois’s adap- decision dated the problems of editing a bit’.69 Also contributing to tation of Hugo’s historical novel stressed the ‘aes- 23 August 1958 the editing problems was Le Chanois’s conception thetic aspect’ rather than privileging the lessons that detailing changes of a film lasting 5.25 hours, a plan rejected by Pathé could address the problems of contemporary work- required for Die 72 Elenden before because it intended to distribute the film (at least in ers. Furthermore, the policy shifts imposed after its release in the Paris) for projection in one sitting of 4 hours with a the ideological turnabout in 1957–58 led to a 9- GDR. BArch half hour intermission between the two parts, appar- month delay in the film’s release in the GDR. Be- DR1-Z/355, Blatt ently aimed at competing with Cecil B. DeMille’s tween 2 April and 14 November 1958 it was screened 13-14. equally epic and long The Ten Commandments that no less than six times for members of various com- was launched in Paris in a similar format a few weeks mittees involved in the approval for release with earlier.70 The strategy paid off. Les Misérables, which repeated recommendations for toning down the re- opened in Paris on 12 March 1958, received favour- ligious content and accentuating the revolutionary able critiques that concurred on the impossibility of role of the people. The Film Office refused to release translating Hugo’s novel to the screen but then ad- the film in August (one month after the Feature Film mired the fantastic cast Le Chanois had assembled Conference), recommending a complete revision of to do the job. Most critics complained of the length the voice-over commentary and numerous other and some wearisome stretches in the narrative that specific cuts and changes summarised in a four- marked Le Chanois’s fidelity to the letter of the novel page list.73 Indeed DEFA recut and resynchronised but not to its spirit, and a few disliked the interruptive the film for domestic distribution, deleting systemati- voice-over and the uninspired use of the wide screen cally the charitable and religious aspects of Le format.71 Chanois’s ‘générosité’ (e.g. Jean Valjean’s dialogue

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 36 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 37 with Bishop Myriel and his memories of the Bishop more positively than that with Hollywood. Even after before he dies).74 Nonetheless, the film opened to the ‘Kristallnacht’ attacks against Jews and their enthusiastic crowds in January 1959 (shown in two property on 9 November 1938 the Franco-German separate screenings) and topped the list of DEFA’s bilateral agreement on film co-productions was re- releases in 1959.75 Newspaper critics generally fo- newed (on 26 December 1938), ironically at the same cused on the exceptional stars and on individual time German-Jewish film professionals who had fled scenes that worked well but faulted the poorly exe- Germany were seeking refuge in France. One French cuted mass scenes and the episodic, psychologi- film historian went so far as to suggest that Germany cally unmotivated narrative that stuck too closely to served in these years as a ‘testing ground or a field Hugo’s novel. Moreover, as if cued from a behind- trip for talented individuals who were unable to find the-scenes source, almost every critic expressed the a means of expressing themselves in France. None same hope that in the future DEFA’s contribution to of these films ... show the slightest trace of tolerance co-productions would be more visible in the thematic for Nazi ideology. But none either seems em- interpretation of the material.76 Over a year later the barassed at being produced by a cinema whose real film opened in West Germany under the misleading patron since 1933 is Dr. Goebbels, Minister of Propa- title Die Miserablen (The Miserable Ones), and like ganda.’78 Rouleau’s Les Sorcières de Salem, it was a dub of After assisting Jean Grémillon (L’Etrange Mon- the French version with a running time of slightly over sieur Victor, 1937–38) and Albert Valentin (L’En- three hours (i.e. cut by about 25 minutes, especially traîneuse, 1938) in UFA’s studios, Tobis offered the scenes concerning revolutionary events). The Daquin the opportunity to direct Le Joueur (1938) in distributor Lehmacher made no mention of DEFA in Berlin, the French version of Gerhard Lamprecht’s its press material, and West German critics hardly Dostoevsky adaptation, Der Spieler (The Gambler).79 acknowledged DEFA’s role this time. While they rec- Although warned by Jean Renoir and Jacques ognised the quality of the star cast and recom- Becker that his decision represented a significant mended the film to viewers, they expressed and ill-timed (political) gesture, Daquin resisted their scepticism about the very wisdom of translating the advice: ‘These films are not propaganda films. Far expansive, historical novel onto the screen, espe- from it! Lamprecht is anti-Nazi – this will probably be cially in this (West German) version that highlighted his last film – and I would understand your position exclusively the sentimental love story.77 if I had been asked to participate in meetings or to make declarations of support for the regime, which Trübe Wasser I would have refused to do.’80 He did not, however, Like Le Chanois, Louis Daquin, who directed DEFA’s accept any further work for the Germans and instead last French co-production and its second one with was active in various clandestine film groups organ- Pathé Cinéma, was a party comrade and experi- ised around the Resistance, e.g. the journal L’Ecran enced film maker. Born in 1908, he studied law and français and the Comité de Libération du Cinéma economics before joining the movie industry in the Français, and following Liberation he became a mid 1930s, where he apprenticed among others with leader in the left-wing and communist-related union Abel Gance and Jean Grémillon. Daquin was among movement of film technicians. His postwar films those young French talents who launched their ca- earned him the reputation of a solid realist, but of the reers with German-French co-productions in the most traditional sort, and curiously little of his ag- 1930s. Indeed, a sustained bilateral cooperation gressive social critique leaked into his films. By the long pre-dated the DEFA partnership in the 1950s, 1950s the active communist Daquin had no chance for during the ten years between 1929 and the be- of finding film financing in France owing to censor- ginning of the war there was a veritable French ship fears on the part of producers and investors, so colony of directors, writers, and actors working in he survived by making French distribution versions German studios in and around Berlin under various of Polish shorts and documentaries and pursued co-production and co-financing contracts. Com- production opportunities further east in Europe: in pared to the high rate of unemployment in the French 1954 he completed in the Soviet Sector of occupied movie industry during the 1930s and the bitter com- Vienna Bel Ami, a Maupassant adaptation that was petition with the American majors, French profes- held up for distribution in France for over two years sionals often considered cooperation with Berlin in a controversial censorship case owing to the film’s

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 37 38 Marc Silberman

implicit critique of the Algerian War as a colonial April 1960, but rather than using the title of Balzac’s undertaking; in 1957 he then directed at the Studiou- novel, La Rabouilleuse, it chose a more catchy title, lui Cinematografic in Bucharest Les Chardons du which Daquin had resisted: Les Arrivistes (The Social Baragan, the adaptation of a novel by Rumanian Climbers), possibly to appeal to the emerging ‘nou- writer Panaït Istrati; and from late July through De- velle vague’ audience that it erroneously thought cember 1959 he returned to the former UFA studios would more readily respond to the resonances of in Babelsberg after more than 20 years to shoot social criticism than to the French literary canon.85 Trübe Wasser for DEFA.81 The positively disposed critics, some of whom even Daquin’s film must have been a welcome sur- claimed that this was Daquin’s most accomplished prise for DEFA in at least two respects: this was the film ever, rehearsed the requisite comparison to first DEFA-French co-production with a good Balzac’s complex novel with over 130 characters and number of Germans in the cast and technical crew, generally concluded that the director had done a among them Gerhard Bienert and Ekkehard Schall decent job in reducing the plot to a workable screen- from the Berliner Ensemble, Eugen Klagemann as play and recreating the atmosphere of the Restora- cinematographer, and Hanns Eisler as composer; tion period. Some appreciated the understated and the final cut came in under budget, with the acting and the camera’s restrained, even austere director having completed the shooting earlier than style of cold observation. Less charitable critics com- expected by using Babelsberg’s backlots for the plained that Daquin had produced a boring, listless more than 30 constructed sets of Paris and the melodrama in an academic style that had simply provincial town of Issoudrun.82 At the meeting of the seen its time by 1960. Despite only middling reviews Artistic Council to approve the film’s release in March the co-production was a moderate box office suc- 1960, the brief discussion led to a unanimous posi- cess for DEFA with high attendance during the first tive decision, but only apparently because DEFA week’s release (13–19 May 1960) and over 1.5 mil- co-scriptwriter Klaus Wischnewski had been able to lion viewers after a year.86 East Berlin critics were introduce changes before shooting began that toned especially insistent about the script’s weaknesses down the screenplay’s ‘bourgeois humanism’ and (unclear exposition and character motivation, pre- sharpened its politics in the sense of the party. In cipitous conclusion) and what was regarded as contrast to Rouleau’s Die Elenden, Daquin had suc- Daquin’s cool, intellectualised approach to Balzac’s ceeded in modeling the kind of literary adaptation vivid characters. But the acting, the cinematography, that DEFA was striving to emulate. As one Council and especially Hanns Eisler’s music garnered appre- member claimed: ‘I want to emphasise that it would ciative commentary.87 The film was never screened probably have been very difficult for one of our in West Germany. directors to create this atmosphere so well. This film is simply masterful.’ And Wolfgang Kohlhaase, one The outcome of the co-productions of the younger, successful DEFA scriptwriters con- What were, then, the gains and losses for the part- curred: ‘It is a really good entertainment film ... Only ners of the DEFA-French co-productions? As inter- the ending strikes me as a bit too abrupt. It is an arc national co-productions they tended to stimulate just that was not followed through to the end.’83 One the effects that are generally expected, except that month later the Ministry of Culture also approved the the systemic differences between a state-owned stu- film, but with a slightly more critical slant based on dio enterprise in a socialist command economy and conventionally dogmatic views of acceptable char- a capitalist movie industry consisting mainly of small acter types: the lead role (played by French star and mid-size production companies qualified these Jean-Claude Pascal), a cynical and ruthlessly ambi- expectations accordingly. Thus, productivity was tious decommissioned officer Brideau, was too boosted for both sides. Although all but the last of dashing and attractive for an evil type, while his artist the features came in over budget for DEFA, it was brother (played by Bertolt Brecht’s son-in-law, Ekke- able to tap otherwise underutilised studio space and hard Schall), the positive counterpart, was too pale employees and thus improve overhead costs. Since in contrast, and the mother was not ‘motherly’ the company had notorious difficulties in meeting the enough; the committee also recommended that the goals set by the various multi-year economic plans, ending be changed, which was done.84 this had become an acute issue by the late 1950s. Once again Pathé released the film first, on 8 For the French partners, access to DEFA’s studios,

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 38 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 39 resources, and expertise in exchange for distribution increased access to television programming and a rights in the socialist countries lowered their produc- shift in the ideological understanding of leisure-time tion costs substantially. In addition, the co-produc- activity finally began to dissolve the rigid polarity tions expanded the audience base. For DEFA this between notions of quality (coded as topical and included not only the actual domestic box office explicitly political) and the popular (coded as trivial success that virtually any film from the West gener- and trashy). Yet the DEFA-French co-productions ated among GDR viewers but also the more amor- represent an important attempt on the part of the phous boost to DEFA’s reputation that came through studio to explore the limits and possibilities of quality the publicity and glamour associated with the pres- entertainment. The promise of cooperating with ence (once again) of international stars in the Ba- French partners, which Joris Ivens was able to nego- belsberg studios. While there was neither profit nor tiate for DEFA at just this time, must have been political advantage for the French in having these especially attractive from this perspective. The films distributed in the GDR or other socialist coun- French cinema enjoyed a reputation for high quality tries, the opportunity to produce what were billed as entertainment: a cinema with stars, love stories, a ‘big-budget’ historical dramas – with many extras, light touch, and humour that addressed successfully well-designed studio sets and costumes, and expen- a national audience. This was just the recipe that sive stars – was one of the few ways these production DEFA needed, a cinema of emotions to balance its companies could compete domestically with what heroism and didacticism. Over the next five years the they considered to be their biggest challenge: the French co-productions themselves in fact remained Hollywood blockbuster film. Moreover, both sides within the safe and conventional habits of entertain- engaged in what must have been a fruitful exchange ment, drawing on serious literature for the screen- of creative and technical competence. For the plays, perhaps in order to avoid any hint of frivolity, French side (despite complaints mentioned above but its own productions began to test other formulas about the reticence in personal contacts) access to of genre cinema as well. In this respect the DEFA- some of East Germany’s great actors, e.g. those French co-productions modeled a traditional formal Brecht-trained talents like Erwin Geschonneck, Ger- approach to genre entertainment, resulting in four hard Bienert, or Ekkehard Schall from the Berliner professionally and competently crafted, realistic nar- Ensemble and Katie Szekély from the Deutsches rative films without innovative energy or grand spec- Theater, or the exposure to the film compositions of tacle. Although co-productions with western Hanns Eisler, must have been enriching and perhaps companies ended and the idea of film entertainment even instructive. Conversely, for the East Germans itself shifted with the popularisation of television dur- there were different lighting techniques and new ing the 1960s, these would become the very qualities colour separation and wide-screen technologies to that characterise the overall contribution of DEFA’s learn from the French as well as the simple opportu- forty-five years of production history: an aesthetically nity of rubbing shoulders with colleagues from West- conservative, conventionally conceived, realist cin- ern Europe – a first for many who had grown up or ema with a strong commitment to professionalism were born during the Third Reich. among the actors, technicians, and directors. Reconstructing the historical context for Acknowledgement: Research and writing on this essay DEFA’s co-production contracts with French part- were completed with generous grants from the Albert ners reveals compromises and discrepancies be- and Elaine Borchard Foundation, administered by Dr. tween ideological intentions and institutional William Beling, whom I personally thank for his interest practices in East Germany. Communists, socialists, and support, and the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin. and progressive humanists emerged from their physical or intellectual camouflage or returned from Notes exile after the war to create a ‘new German film’ that aimed at contributing to the re-education of the 1. On postwar European co-productions see Anne masses. Their idea of the cinema was meant to Jäckel, ‘Dual Nationality Film Productions in Europe provide not ‘pure entertainment’ but intellectually after 1945’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 23.3 (August 2003): 237–243; for a brief compelling, political works of art. This prejudice French perspective, see Pierre Billard, L’Age clas- against entertainment plagued the DEFA studios sique du cinéma français: du cinéma parlant à la from its beginning until well into the 1960s, when both Nouvelle Vague (Paris: Flammarion, 1995), 520–524.

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 39 40 Marc Silberman

The only extended discussion of the DEFA-French Reich (comedies, melodramas, romances) the cine- co-productions is by Thomas Lindenberger, ‘Ter- mas would not have had enough material to screen riblement démodée: Zum Scheitern blocküber- and remain financially solvent. In the course of the greifender Filmproduktionen im Kalten Krieg 1960s these features moved out of the cinemas and (DDR-Frankreich 1956–1960)’, in Une Europe malgré increasingly into television programming. tout. Les échanges culturels, intellectuels et scienti- 6. Heimann, 190, reports that in 1954–55 six of the 15 fiques entre Européens dans la guerre froide, DEFA productions were by West German directors 1945–1990 (Brussels: Peter Lang, forthcoming). and in 1956 five of the 17 productions. 2. Pierre Billard, L’Age classique du cinéma français, 7. The West German government systematically re- 523. fused to help finance or provide funding guarantees 3. Jean-Paul Le Chanois’s personal papers, housed in for any national film productions with East German the archives of the Bibliothèque du Film in Paris, participation. Pandora Film in Stockholm, thus, include relevant documents (Le Chanois 022, Boîte fronted for Erich Mehl’s Munich production company 14). For example, in an undated, five-page report on Ideal-Film, appearing, for example, in the credits of his scouting mission to the DEFA studios (Dossier the DEFA-Swedish ‘co-production’ Leuchtfeuer 2/8, probably undertaken in April 1957) he notes (Wolfgang Staudte, 1954). There is no record that the disagreements with his DEFA partners about cast- film was ever released in Sweden, see Ralf Schenk, ing: ‘I emphasised to the DEFA director that, despite ‘Mitten im kalten Krieg 1950 bis 1960’, in Schenk, the cooperative spirit we enjoy, our film’s essentially Das zweite Leben der Filmstadt Babelsberg, 92. For national character gives it precisely a real interna- similar reasons in 1954–55 DEFA and the Ministry of tional value and that consequently it is not advisable Culture engaged in prolonged but ultimately fruitless to take lightly the casting of roles which must have negotiations with West German partners to co-pro- a typical French character’. A year later, in a letter to duce an adaptation of Thomas Mann’s novel Bud- Le Chanois from producer R. Bezard, dated 22 April denbrooks. See Ralf Schenk, ‘Buddenbrooks: 1958 (Dossier 8/8), he congratulates the director on Materialien zur Chronik eines deutsch-deutschen his elegant way of dealing with ‘theproblem of DEFA’, Filmprojekts’, in Apropros: Film 2003. Das Jahrbuch referring to an interview by Michel Capdenac with Le der DEFA-Stiftung (Berlin: Bertz, 2003), 25–45. Chanois published in Les Lettres françaises (13 8. A letter to selected East Berlin cinemas from the state March 1958) in which he again emphasises the film’s film distribution company, Progress Film-Vertrieb, national quality. dated 19 March 1954, outlines the measures to be 4. On DEFA’s early years see Thomas Heimann, DEFA, undertaken during Philipe’s visit: ‘In order to make Künstler und SED-Kulturpolitik: Zum Verhältnis von the presence of the famous French actor Gérard Kulturpolitik und Filmproduktion inder SBZ/DDR1945 Philipe in Berlin on 23 March into a symbol of Ger- bis 1959. Beiträge zur Film- und Fernsehwissen- man-French friendship, we suggest the following ...’, schaft 46 (Berlin: Vistas, 1994), especially chapters BArch, DR 1/4150, unnumbered. Similarly, one of the II and III; Christiane Mückenberger, ‘Zeit der Hoffnun- first and most prestigious cooperative projects be- gen 1946–1949’, in Ralf Schenk, ed., Das zweite tween France and the GDR was the invitation to Paris Leben der Filmstadt Babelsberg: DEFA-Spielfilme of Brecht’s Mutter Courage production by the Berliner 1946–1992 (Berlin and Potsdam: Henschel and Film- Ensemble in 1954. museum Potsdam, 1994), 9–49; Christiane Mücken- 9. Point 4(b) of the Protokoll: Berichterstattung und berger and Günter Jordan, ‘Sie sehen selbst, Sie Beschlüsse über die Verhandlungen in Paris der hören selbst ...’: Die DEFA von ihren Anfängen bis Kollegen Böhm und Schlotter, dated 19 March 1955, 1949 (Marburg: Hitzeroth, 1994); Joshua Feinstein, BArch DR 1/4644, unnumbered. Point 6 of this docu- The Triumph of the Ordinary: Depictions of Daily Life ment notes the efforts on the part of the delegation in the East German Cinema 1949–1989 (Chapel Hill to participate in some form at the Cannes Film and London: University of North Carolina, 2002), Festival, a difficult expectation as long as the Festival especially chapter 1. rules allowed official film entries and invitations to 5. Heimann indicates that Western imports rose to 75 observers only from countries with diplomatic repre- per cent of all screenings immediately after the June sentations in France. In fact another, 11-page docu- 1953 events and included features with popular West ment in this same file, dated 6 June 1955, reports on German stars like Ruth Leuwerik, O.W. Fischer, Rudolf Böhm’s presence at the Cannes Festival in Dieter Borsche, and Maria Schell. Similarly the May 1955 as a guest and the unofficial screening of number of UFA reprises doubled. See Heimann, 223 two DEFA features (Der Teufel von Mühlenberg, and 226. Into the 1960s Third Reich entertainment Stärker als die Nacht), indicating how important films, sometimes reedited but frequently not, were a France was becoming in the GDR’s (optimistic) strat- mainstay of the movie distribution circuit in East egy of gaining political recognitionbyWest Germany: Germany. Without these genre features of the Third ‘The struggle for Germany’s democratic unification

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 40 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 41

is to be undertaken more forcefully in the film sector vom 15.–17. Oktober 1956, dated 23 October 1956, so that relations to West Germany’s movie industry BArch, DR 1/4659, unnumbered. In the context of are secured and expanded, and at the same time another DEFA-French co-production, a documen- securing relations to France and England and estab- tary about China directed by Joop Huisken, Acker- lishing new relations with Italy will have an impact on mann received a letter from the French partner our West German film strategy’ (10). company, Procinex, which explained that according 10. Memo from DEFA managers Albert Wilkening und to French law and owing to the lack of an agreement Herbert Volkmann to the Ministry of Foreign Trade, betweentheGDR andFrance onfilmco-productions, dated 1 June 1955, to request a hard currency the documentary had to be distributed as a French (valuta) credit. BArch, DR 1/4701, Blatt 15. production in order to take advantage of tax breaks, i.e. the film had to be regarded as a national French 11. Note from Rudolf Böhm, the associate director of the production in France, while the GDR had the rights Film Office, dated 1 June 1955. BArch, DR 1/4701, to distribution in certain socialist countries (these Blatt 16. were essentially the conditions of production for the 12. Letter from State Secretary and Vice Minister of TillUlenspiegel project as well).Letterfrom C.Jaeger, Culture Fritz Apelt, dated 26 August 1955, requesting dated 10 July 1957, BArch, DR 1/4646, unnumbered. the Secretariat of the Central Committee to approve 20. The 19-page contract for the ‘Présentation du film’ the first DEFA-French co-production. BArch, DR 1/ (defining exactly how credits and publicity will name 4701, Blatt 66. producers, technical team, actors, etc.) includes a 13. See the final report with the actual cost calculations subsection which quotes page 8 (Article IX) of the for Die Abenteuer des Till Ulenspiegel from 31 De- separately negotiated contract with DEFA defining cember 1956, BArch, DR 117/23066, unnumbered. its status as collaborator rather than co-producer: Publicity: All advertising prepared by Pathé for 14. Letter from Anton Ackermann to Wilkening, dated 5 the film, which is the object of the present agree- March 1956, BArch DR 1/4659, unnumbered. ment, will indicate that the film was produced ‘In 15. Letter from Ackermann to Wilkening, dated 28 March Collaboration with DEFA’. The credits will indicate 1956, concerning the plans for the second DEFA- technicians’ and actors’ names, which DEFA will French co-production of the Die Hexen von Salem, have provided for the film, and in the same way BArch DR 117/Vorl. BA 1924, Blatt 167; the draft and in the same place as the corresponding memo of this letter, dated 5 March 1956, can be French colleagues, including the production di- found in BArch, DR 1/4150, unnumbered. rector and co-adapter. DEFA will do the same in its advertising. 16. Letter signed by Wilkening and Volkmann, dated 1 Fonds Jean-Paul Le Chanois 022, Boîte 14 (Dossier June 1956, to Frau Schlotter (VEB DEFA-Aussenhan- 2/8), page 1. In fact French publicity often used the del), BArch, DR 117/Vorl. BA 1924, Blatt 162–163. phrase ‘with the participation of DEFA’ (rather than Contrary to this statement, an article almost one year in collaboration). later by the Berlin correspondent of the Paris daily Libération, reporting from the sets in Babelsberg, 21. Pierre-Aimé Touchard, ‘Nous croyons tous aux Sor- claims that DEFA was providing 50 per cent of the cières’, and Marcel Huret, ‘Eternelle actualité des financing: ‘besides all the technical material, [DEFA] Misérables’, interview with Jean-Paul Le Chanois, is furnishing half of the capital as well as all the extras Pathé Magazine 16 (1957), 63–72 and 44–48, and ...’, Philippe Tarcis, ‘J.-P. Le Chanois a reconstitué Robert Chazal, ‘Les Misérables,’ Pathé Magazine 18 le couple Gabin-Bourvil’, Libération (19 April 1957). (1958), 80–85. As late as 1960 DEFA’s legal depart- ment was still admonishing Pathé about its own 17. Simone Signoret, La Nostalgie n’est plus ce quelle contractually guaranteed rights to appear in the était (Paris: Seuil, 1976), 141; on the filming of credits after it came to their attention that the copy Brecht’s MutterCourage, see Werner Hecht, ‘Staudte of Les Misérables distributed in Austria as well as the verfilmt Brecht: Die abgebrochene Mutter Courage copy of Les Sorcières de Salem in Lebanon lacked und die durchgefallene Dreigroschenoper’, Schenk any mention of DEFA in the credits. See DR 117/Vorl. and Richter, eds., Apropos Film 2003, 8–23. BA 1924, Blatt 77 and 78. GDR publicity, on the other 18. See Ackermann’s note about a telephone call with hand, presented Die Elenden to its audience as ‘Eine Wilkening, dated 6 June 1956, BArch, DR 1/4731, Gemeinschaftsproduktion der DEFA mit Pathé Paris Blatt 60. See also Signoret (La Nostalgie, 142), who und Serena Rom’. See, for example, promotional comments positively on the speed with which the announcements and reviews in Neues Deutschland negotiations proceeded: ‘Rarely have I seen some- (24 January 1959), Sonntag (25 January 1959), Wo- thing in the cinema decided so quickly, and so chenpost (31 January 1959), or Die Frau von heute simply, for a project that took shape already a few (6 February 1959). months later’. 22. File note, dated May 1957, BArch, DR 1/4433, un- 19. Bericht über die Reise [von Wilkening] nach Paris numbered.

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 41 42 Marc Silberman

23. DEFA was reorganised as the VVB Film or ‘Vere- fascination with China during the early 1960s and his inigung der volkseigenen Betriebe des Filmwesens’ support of reform socialism in Prague in 1968 led in July 1958 in order to introduce more accountability finally to a break with the GDR. He became a persona and greater productivity in all aspects of the cinema. non grata, and the ‘Joris-Ivens-Preis’ was cancelled This organisational structure too was abandoned in in 1971. For details see Fred Gehler, ‘Metamor- 1961. phosen in Leipzig: Joris Ivens – Von der Ikone zur 24. Alexander Abusch, ‘Aktuelle Probleme und Aufga- Unperson’, in Jan-Pieter Barbian und Werner ñ ben unserer sozialistischen Filmkunst’, Deutsche Ru i ka, eds., Poesie und Politik: Der Dokumentar- Filmkunst 9 (1958): 261–270. In numerous prepara- filmer Joris Ivens (1898–1989) (Trier: Wissen- tory meetings and drafts of discussion points circu- schaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2001), 99–108. lated months before the Feature Film Conference, 32. Ivens quoted in André Stufkens, ‘Unfatal Attraction: the issue of co-productions emerged as an important Joris Ivens and the USA,’ in Stufkens, ed., Cinema point of criticism, for example: ‘The consequences Without Borders: Catalog of European Foundation must be drawn from the studio’s previous co-pro- Joris Ivens (Nijmegen: European Foundation Joris ductions that work will be oriented primarily toward Ivens, 2002), 47. co-productions with theSoviet Unionandothercoun- 33. Fonds Anne-Gérard-Philipe (AGP), a large collection tries in the socialist camp’. BArch, DR 1/7904, Blatt of personal papers housed in the archives of the 159 (Point 5). At a meeting of the DEFA party organ- Bibliothèque du Film in Paris, contains relevant ma- isation Anton Ackermann presented a position paper terial (correspondence, contracts) about plans for in which he argued against peaceful ideological various Till Ulenspiegel projects; here AGP 087, Boîte coexistence with the West when making co-produc- 8, unnumbered. tions, because to meet their politically progressive Western partners halfway would mean relinquishing 34. AGP 085, Boîte 8, unnumbered. achievements of GDR socialism. Minutes of the 35. AGP 092, Boîte 9, unnumbered. A list of Documents Parteiaktivtagung der Parteiorganisation der DEFA Tyl Ulenspiegel ‘en possession de P.G. Van Hecke’ am 6. März 1958, BArch, DR 1/7904, Blatt 125. reveals that Italian director Vittorio de Sica had been 25. When Ackermann traveled in July 1956 to Karlovy involved in preliminary discussions for such a film, Vary for the presentation by Films Ariane of Les which took place in Brussels in October 1949. This Sorcières de Salem, he met with Daquin and Director is corroborated by a February 1955 letter to Philipe Flaud of Uni-France, the national film export agency; from Italian designer Marguerite Naglioni, who pro- see Ackermann’s report on the meeting, dated 14 duced some preliminary sketches for de Sica in 1950 July 1956, SAPMO-BArch NY 4109/98, Blatt 57–59. and was seeking in 1955 a contract as scenarist for Daquin remained in contact with Ackermann, send- the new production (Philipe responded that he al- ing several additional letters with suggestions for ready had engaged a set designer). See AGP 083, texts and adaptations he could direct for DEFA. Boîte 8, unnumbered. In another letter, dated 2 June 26. BArch, DR 117/Vorl. BA 1934, unnumbered (dated 1952 from Baden-Baden, Herbert Tjadens explained 15 May 1959). at great length that already in 1939 he discussed an Eulenspiegel film with Paul Wegener and then after 27. Letter of Louis Daquin addressed to Minister Wendt, the war completed a treatment and script for the dated 25 October 1959, BArch, DR 117/Vorl. BA (West) German production company Junge Union, 1934, unnumbered. whichhad planned anEulenspiegelfilmstarringO.W. 28. Minutes of the 23rd Executive Committee meeting Fischer. When the company’s financial situation de- (Vorstandssitzung), dated 14 April 1948, BArch, DR teriorated, it returned the option to Tjadens, who was 117/21701, Blatt 118. now asking Philipe to recognise this option on the 29. See Günther Jordan, ‘Between Two Letters: Five material and cooperate with a co-production using Years and Half a Life: Joris Ivens and the DEFA’, in his script. See AGP 083, Boîte 8, unnumbered. A Kees Barker, ed., Joris Ivens and the Documentary copy of Tjadens’s (unused) script can be found at Context (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, the Bundesarchiv: BArch, DR 117/2555. 1999), 87–106, here 88. 36. AGP 085, Boîte 8, unnumbered. See as well copies 30. See Hans Schoots, Living Dangerously: A Biography of the contract draft (2 February 1955), the pre-con- of Joris Ivens (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University tract (18 February 1955, signed on 21 February), and Press, 2000), Chap. 17 treats the DEFA years the final co-production contract (3 September 1955, (1950–56), 228–249, here 242–243. signed by Rodenberg for DEFA and Danciger for Ariane), BArch DR 1/4701, Blatt 1–2, 8–10, and 31. Ivens became an honorary member of the GDR ‘Club 86–90. der Filmschaffenden’, and the ‘Verband der Film- und Fernsehschaffenden der DDR’ named a docu- 37. In February 1955, Jan van Hartog’s scenario was mentary film prize in his honour. Ivens’s growing being used for the initial contract negotiations be-

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 42 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 43

tween DEFA and Films Ariane, but an expertise by 46. Gloria Film’s press and exhibition material did note two of DEFA’s dramaturgs (Karsch and Pfeuffer), ‘with the participation of DEFA’ (unter Mitwirkung der dated 29 June 1955, found it unacceptable, BArch DEFA), but the popular Illustrierte Film-Bühne Nr. DR 1/4701, Blatt 17–18. This led to the new scenario 3545 (1957) did not; for television statistics, see by Wheeler, from which Barjavel and Philipe finally ‘Kinofilme im TV: Im deutschen Fernsehen gelaufene produced a script. See the protocol of the discussion Kinofilme 1988–2000’, a CD-rom presentation from by the Film Office, dated 14 February 1956, with Ivens SPIO. present, BArch, DR 1/4731, Blatt 9. According to the minutes of DEFA’s Artistic Council (Künstlerischer 47. See Signoret’s memoirs: ‘Sartre’s scenario was a Rat), the script was approved at its meeting of 26 Satrean scenario, completely faithful to Miller’s play. March 1956, BArch, DR 1/4731, Blatt 41–47 (same Incidentally, it was the fruit of a long correspondance as DR 117/21746, Blatt 10–16). See also Schoots, between Miller and Sartre during the time of its Living Dangerously, 246. preparation’. Signoret, La Nostalgie, 144. 38. Copy of unsigned statement, dated Bruges, 18 June 48. Letter from Borderie to Wilkening, dated 28 March 1956, AGP 085, Boîte 8, unnumbered. DEFA contin- 1956; Borderie mentions that their working version ued to list Ivens as co-director of the film, and it paid had a length of 4150 metres at this point. BArch DR him the contractually agreed upon sum of 85,000 117/Vorl. BA 1924, Blatt 131–133. In fact, Rouleau Marks for this work. See the ‘Schlußbericht’ and did finally cooperate in shortening the French version ‘Kalkulationen’ for Die Abenteuer des Till Ulen- slightly (ca. 200 metres), while DEFA made much spiegel, BArch, DR 117/23066, unnumbered. more extensive cuts for its release copy (ca. 1000 metres). 39. Schoots, Living Dangerously, 246–247. 40. See Joris Ivens’s comments about the gala premiere 49. Minutes of the meeting of the Künstlerischer Rat, on 7 November with many of the stars and crew on dated 30 August 1957, BArch, DR 1/4433a, unnum- hand as well as the reserved press response to the bered. The Film Office okayed its release on 13 film in an interview with Dr. Martin Schulz (DEFA September 1957 with the comment: ‘This highly dramaturg for the film), BZ am Abend (20 November emotional film is altogether a good and solid artistic 1956). At that point DEFA was still planning to launch achievement ... The film also produces a lasting the film in December in Berlin with Gérard Philipe as impression’, noting that some of the scenes border special guest. on pure naturalism (e.g. the torture scenes and the dance in the forest). In fact, two months later the 41. Despite the political critiques Les Aventures de Till admission age for screenings was raised from 14 to L’Espièglehad asuccessful first runinParis, grossing 18 because of numerous complaints. See Protokoll the highest receipts for all new features in its first Nr. 522/57 (Zulassung Hexen von Salem), BArch DR week and selling 122,041 tickets by the end of its 1 - Z/618. The final synchronisation was actually three-week, first-run engagement, according to the completed in September, and DEFA’s total costs for trade journal Le Film français 653 (7 December 1956), the production were 1,878,305 Marks. Schlußbericht 8 and 21. Among the 80 highest grossing films und Kalkulationen von Die Hexen von Salem, dated screened during the 1956–57 season, it ranked 38; 18 October 1957, BArch, DR 117/Vorl. BA A/096 Le Film français 681 (7 June 1957), 8. (320), unnumbered. In a separate incident State 42. François Truffaut, film review in Arts (14 November Secretary Alexander Abusch requested early in 1957 1956). that Anton Ackermann, director of the Film Office in 43. Zulassungsprotokoll Nr. 638/56, dated 12 December the Ministry of Culture, release Henri-Georges 1956, BArch DR 1-Z/607, unnumbered. Films in the Clouzot’sLohn derAngst (LeSalaire de lapeur,1952), GDR were generally licensed for five years and re- starring Montand, which he had blocked six months newed on a regular basis. Die Abenteuer des Till earlier for release in the GDR (letter dated 30 January Ulenspiegel was renewed four times and then with- 1957, BArch DR 1/4644, unnumbered). In recognition drawn from distribution on 23 June 1981. of Montand’s show of support for the Soviet Union after the events in Budapest in Fall 1956 and in the 44. The figures were extracted from a confidential table context of his tour dates in East Germany in late of returns for the years 1956 and 1957 produced by January, this was a signal of official approbation. Progress Film-Vertrieb for internal use, ‘Ergebnisse Interestingly the license for Die Hexen von Salem was von DEFA-Filmen’, SAPMO-BArch NY 4109/95, Blatt renewed five times over the next 25 years but then 77–78. withdrawn from distribution on 30 September 1985 45. Symptomatic reviews after the opening in Berlin were in the context of Soviet glasnost with the following printed in the Berliner Zeitung (6 January 1957) by comment: ‘Montand appears more and more as a o.b., inNeues Deutschland (6 January 1957) by Horst war monger and political provocateur in western Knietzsch, Neue Zeit (8 January 1957) by Manfred mass media’. BArch DR 1 - Z/618, unnumbered Merz, Sonntag (13 January 1957) by Wolfgang Joho. (Zusatzprotokoll).

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 43 44 Marc Silberman

50. Signoret, La Nostalgie, 145. lems in Hungary and Poland. Under the title The Witches of Salem it was distributed as well in the 51. Nonetheless, the name recognition of Signoret and United States in early 1959 by Kingsley International; Montand delivered a moderate box office success; see the positive review in Time magazine (5 January 70,921 tickets were sold during the three-week, first- 1959), which makes no mention of DEFA’s role in the run engagement in Paris, Le Film français 679 (24 production. In 1962 Neue Filmkunst took over the May 1957), 20. In a letter to Wilkening, dated 23 June distribution of Hexenjagd in West Germany; its press 1957, Rouleau explained the bad press in Paris as brochure does name DEFA as co-producer and lists follows: ‘Mr. Brandt [DEFA’s productiondirector] told Eisler as the composer in a release version of 3754 you how the Paris presentation was made difficult metres. See Bundesfilmarchiv Berlin, Presse- by a tense moral climate, for many reasons, of which dokumentation 7062 (Die Hexen von Salem). the main one is that the Parisian press refused any friendly support of the film in reaction to Yves Mon- 58. Letters from Bezard, dated 10 November and 19 tand’s visit to the Soviet Union’. He went on to explain December 1955, Fonds Le Chanois 022, Boîte 14, that ‘the bad mood of the partisan press’ did not Dossier 2/8. reach beyond Paris, however, where the receipts 59. See letter from investor André Bernheim to producer were much better. BArch DR 117/Vorl. BA 1924, Blatt Paul Cadéac d’Arbaud at P.A.C., dated June 1956, 109. explaining that he and Jean Gabin, in the lead role 52. See, for example, Georges Sadoul’s review in Les of Jean Valjean, accepted Le Chanois as director. Lettres Françaises, 2–8 May 1957, and the review Fonds Le Chanois 022, Boîte 14, Dossier 2/8 (signed by L.M. [Luc Moullet]) in Cahiers du Cinéma 60. On Le Chanois’s biography, see Colin Crisp, The 72 (June 1957), 48–49. The latter, reflecting the Classic French Cinema (Bloomington and Indian- contempt toward the older generation of those who apolis: Indiana University Press, 1993) 182, 184 et would become the French Nouvelle Vague support- passim. ers, writes: ‘... the film belongs to the tradition of quality: false profundity of the subject, pretentious 61. Philippe Renard, Un cinéaste français des années technique, and glacial mise-en-scène’ (48). cinquante: Jean-Paul Le Chanois (Paris: Dreamland, 2000), 37. 53. Borderie launched the film in London on 30 August 1957 to a very positive press, one of the few ‘French’ 62. Billard,L’Ageclassique ducinémafrançais, 491–492. productions that garnered any serious attention in 63. BArch, DR 117/Vorl. BA Tr 19 (1) contains the French- Britain during the 1950s. See Raymond Borderie’s language version of Audiard’s treatment, dated 1 letters to Wilkening, dated 2 and 6 September 1957, October 1956, while DR 117/Vorl. BA Tr 19 (2) con- BArch DR 117/Vorl. BA 1924, Blatt 95 and 96. tains the German translation of it. BArch, DR 54. See note 44. 117/2543 and DR 117/2545, dated 2 April 1957 contain the screenplays for part 1 and 2, translated 55. Representative reviews in Der Morgen (9 October into German by Ruth Fischer-Mayenburg. 1957) by Christoph Funke, Berliner Zeitung (6 Octo- ber 1957) by Hans Ulrich Eylau, Sonntag (13 October 64. Konzeption von Heinz Kamnitzer, dated 9 April 1957, 1957) by Wolfgang Joho, and Neues Deutschland BArch, DR 117/11868, unnumbered. (21 October 1957) by B. The fact that the central party 65. Jean-Paul Le Chanois, ‘Pourquoi je vais tourner Les organ Neues Deutschland printed this review over Misérables’, Les Lettres françaises (16 January two weeks after theopening and that it was not written 1957); NB a lengthier version of this article was by the lead reviewer, Horst Knietzsch, indicates a published by Pathé Magazine 16 (1957), see note distinct lack of interest, possibly owing to the official 21. reserve towards Jean-Paul Sartre. 66. Michel Capdenac, Interview with Jean-Paul Le 56. Letter from Raymond Borderie to Wilkening, dated 3 Chanois, Les Lettres françaises (13 March 1958). September 1957, explaining that Union Film wished to release the film in West Germany in November 67. Filmnachkalkulation und Schlußbericht von Die Elen- 1957, BArch DR 117/Vorl. BA 1924, Blatt 91. den, dated 31 December 1957, BArch, DR 117/23093, unnumbered. This total does not include 57. See, for example, Film-Echo 47 (11 June 1958), additional post synchronisation costs for changes Film-Dienst 22 (29 May 1958), 200, and Evangeli- made in DEFA’s distribution copy, see below. A later scher Film-Beobachter (16 May 1958), 270. Paris document from September 1962 lists the complete correspondents of the Abendzeitung (A. Alexandre, costs for Part 1 at 2,369,300 Marks and for Part 2 at issue of 10 November 1956) and Tagesspiegel 1,700,000 Marks, for an astronomical total of (H.J.W., issue of 23 December 1956) had already 4,069,300 Marks. See SAPMO-BArch, DY 30/IV reported on the film’s Paris opening one and a half 2/2.026, Blatt 136–137. years earlier and speculated about whether it would even be released in the GDR, considering the prob- 68. Jean-Paul Le Chanois, Le Temps des cerises.En-

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 44 Learning from the enemy: DEFA-French co-productions of the 1950s 45

tretiens avec Philippe Esnault (Paris: Institut Lu- 77. For representative reviews see Evangelischer Film- mière/Actes Sud, 1996), 154. Beobachter (13 February 1960) by Lbv., 86–87, Süd- 69. Renard, Un cinéaste français, 76. deutsche Zeitung (2 April 1960) by hdr, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (19 July 1960) by MR. 70. Le Chanois, Le Temps des cerises, 156. 78. Billard, L’Age classique du cinéma français, 198. 71. Les Misérables was a box office success. During its first week in Paris it was the top grosser with 45,800 79. Daquin’s 1938 collaboration with Lamprecht appar- tickets sold (average 75 per cent capacity in Pathé’s ently influenced his very successful 1941 feature 3 first-run cinemas). After one month 131,868 tickets Nous les gosses, an adaptation of Lamprecht’s ear- had been sold in Paris (for the double screening of lier Emil und die Detektive, but now set against the both parts) and 1,375,410 tickets in the rest of the backdrop of the French Popular Front. country for the separate screenings of the two parts. 80. Daquin, On ne tait pas ses silences (Paris: Les See Le Film français 722 (28 March 1958), 22 and Editeurs Français Réunis, 1980), 56–57. 724 (11 April 1958), 13. 81. On the censorship problems of Bel Ami, see the 72. BArch, DR 1/7904, Blatt 28 (from a document related appendix ‘L’Affaire Bel Ami’ in Louis Daquin, Le to preparations of the 1958 Feature Film Confer- Cinéma. Notre métier (Var: Editions d’aujourd’hui, ence). 1978), 267–286 (including lists of cuts and revisions); 73. Beschluß-Protokoll (Staatliche Filmabnahme), dated Les Chardons du Baragan opened in Paris only in 23 August 1958; the official rejection, recorded in 1959. Protokoll Nr. 340/58 of the same date, also empha- 82. DEFA projected the total cost in July 1959 at sised that the screenplay and director failed to treat 1,568,000 Marks while the actual cost came to the nineteenth-century literary source critically 1,335,300 (final budget dated 25 May 1960). Shoot- enough and explicitly recommended a press confer- ing took place in Babelsberg from 7 July to 17 ence prior to the film’s opening to provide ‘a critical October 1959. Kalkulationen und Schlußbericht von analysis in which our principles are laid out for the Trübe Wasser, BArch, DR 117/23 147, unnumbered. filming of the classical heritage, because this film is 83. Minutes of the meeting of the Künstlerischer Rat on an example of how the cultivation of the classical 5 March 1960, dated 7 March 1960, BArch, DR heritage is not to be understood’. In addition, the 117/Vorl. BA 1934, unnumbered. culture editor of the leading party daily, Neues Deutschland, was to be instructed that its review of 84. Protokoll Nr. 129/60 of the Ministry of Culture (Sektion thefilm engageadiscussionofprinciplesalong these Filmabnahme), dated 6 April 1960, BArch, DR same lines. BArch DR 1 - Z/355, unnumbered. In- 1/4422, unnumbered. The final scene, dropped in deed, Horst Knietzsch’sreviewdidexactlythis,losing the release version, showed the protagonist unwit- few words on the features cinematic qualities (see tingly killing his mother by running her over with his Neues Deutschland, 24 January 1959). carriage. 74. See F[rank]-B[urkhard] Habel, Zerschnittene Filme: 85. See Daquin, On ne tait pas ses silences, 53. Pathé’s Zensur im Kino (Leipzig: Gustav Kiepenheuer, 2003), strategy for the title did not work. The film lasted only 36. The Film Office finally okayed the 2-part film for one week in two of Pathé’s first-run cinemas in Paris, release with strong misgivings, see Protokoll Nr. with only one of them reporting receipts of 5740 446/58, dated 14 November 1958, BArch DR 1 - tickets sold (a clear sign of a very lukewarm opening). Z/355, unnumbered. Le Film français 830 (22 April 1960), 21. 75. In the first 13 weeks of exhibition the number of 86. During the first week, Trübe Wasser attracted 236,822 viewers for Die Elenden I was 1,675,267 and for Die viewers in 713 screenings for an average attendance Elenden II 1,712,339; through 6 May 1960 the total of 332 persons/screening or 40.2 per cent capacity; had risen to 2,600,051 and 2,497,361 respectively; in comparison the most popular DEFA releases that and through 26 July 1962 the total increased to same year had a capacity of about 60 per cent in the 3,053,005 and 2,897,412 respectively. See Progress first week. See Progress Film Besucherzahlen Film-Vertrieb Besucherergebnisse, BArch, DR 1959–1960, BArch, DR 1/4168a, unnumbered. The 1/4329, unnumbered, and Progress Film-Vertrieb longer term figures show that the film sustained aver- Besucherzahlen, DR 1/4198 and 4198a (Analyse des age interest: during the first 13 weeks of distribution Planablaufs 1959, dated 17 February 1960), unnum- 1,185,227 viewers; during the first 2 years (until 26 bered. July 1962) 1,680,247 viewers. See Progress Film 76. For representative reviews see the Berliner Zeitung, Besucherzahlen, BArch, DR 1/4329, unnumbered. Valentin Heinrich (20 January 1959), Neue Zeit,by 87. For representative reviews see Der Morgen (18 May H.U. (21 January 1959), and Wolfgang Joho, 1960) by Christoph Funke, Berliner Zeitung (18 May ‘Filmkunst und Romantik’, Sonntag (25 January 1960) by Hans Ulrich Eylau, and Neue Zeit (19 May 1959). 1960) by H.U.

FILM HISTORY: Volume 18, Number 1, 2006 – p. 45