Fassbinder's Germany: History, Identity, Subject (Amsterdam University Press - Film Culture in Transition)

397 Pages·1996·2.63 MB·English

by  Thomas Elsaesser

Fassbinder's Germany
FILM CULTURE IN TRANSITION
Thomas EIsaesser: General Editor
DoubleTrouble
ChiemvanHouweningeonWritingandFilming
Thomas Elsaesser, Rober!KievitandianSimons(eds.)
WritingfortheMedium
ThomasElsaesser,Jan SimonsandLucefteSrank(eds.)
BetweenStageandScreen
IngmarBergmanDirects
EgilTornqvist
TheFilmSpectator: FromSigntoMind
Warren Bllckland(ed.)
FilmandtheFirstWorld War
KarelDibbets, BertHogenkwnp(eds.)
ASecondLife
GermanCinema'sFirstDecades
Thomas Elsaf'.ucr
Fassbinder's Germany
History Identity Subject
by
THOMASELSAESSER
AMSTERDAM UNIVERSITY PRESS
for K.P.E.
Coverillustration(front): R.W.FassbindershootingLifiMurleen, 1980.Coil.RainerWernerFassbinderFoundation
IKaTlReiter,Berlin.
(back):VeronikaVoss, 19lH
Coverdesign:KorpershoekOntwerpen,Amsterdam
Typesetting:JAPES,JaapPrummcl,Amsterdam
ISBN9053561846(hardbound)
ISBN9053560599(paperback)
©ThomasElsaesser/AmsterdamUniversityPress,Amsterdam,1996
Allrightsreserved.Withoutlimitingtherightsundercopyrightreservedabove,nopartofthisbookmaybereproduced,
storedinorintroducedintoaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans(electronic,mechanical,
photocopying,recording,orotherwise),withoutthewrittenpermissionofboththecopyrightownerandtheauthorof
thisbook.
Table ofContents
7 Introduction: AWork Upstaged by Life?
13 1. Fassbinder Representing Germany
45 2. From Vicious Circles to Double Binds
Impossible Demands in theFieldofVision
73 3. Murder, Merger, Suicide
ThePoliticsofDESPAIR
97 4. The BRD Trilogy, or: History, The LoveStory?
THE MARRIAGEOFMARIA BRAUN,LOLA andVERONIKAvoss
129 5. Fassbinder, Reflections ofFascism and the European Cinema
149 6. ...wie einst? LILI MARLEEN
175 7. Frankfurt, Germans and Jews
The City, GarbageandDeath
197 8. Beyond 'Schuld'and 'Schulden'
IN AYEAROFTHIRTEEN MOONS
217 9. FranzBiberkopf's/ex-changes
BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ
237 10. Historicising the Subject
ABodyofWork
261 Appendix One: ACommented Filmography
TheHouseThatRainerBuilt
299 Appendix Two: Fassbinder's Germany 1945-1982
AChronology
319 Appendix Three: Bibliography
341 Notes
389 Index

Introduction: AWork Upstaged by Life?
In the cinema of the post-war period, Rainer Werner Fassbinder is a unique filmmaker.
Between 1969and 1982- barely morethanadecade, which is all he hadto makehis mark
- hetransformedtheveryideaoftheGermancinema,becausebywritinghimselfintoGerman
film history, he had to rewrite its history. Yet in the years since, the work he directed has,
though not exactly vanished, undergone a strange transformation. Afew ofthe films have
entered the canon. FEAR EATS THE SOUL, THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT and THE
MARRIAGEOFMARIA BRAUNareamongthelandmarksofEuropeancinemaandhavesecured
himanundisputedplaceasfilmartistandauteur.Butintheprocess,theworkasawholehas
becomeinvisible,consumedbyFassbinder's life.Whatdrewthegazeofaudiences,butalso
distracted it, was the enigma ofthe man who had made these perplexing, provocative but
absorbing films: thescandalofopenlyflaunted homosexuality,thepurportedself-abuseand
the abuse ofothers seemed to fuel an awe-inspiring productivity, as ifaFaustian pact had
been sealed with sulphurous thunder. Especially since his death, his lifestyle and the
posthumousrevelationsaboutithaveinvariably upstagedthefilms, itseemedifonewanted
tounderstandthefilms, onehadtolookathislife.
Hepossessedauniquelycreative,butalsoself-destructiveforce, yes;butwhatof
his force as a filmmaker for Gennany, as a filmmaker about Germany? The biographical
literature on Fassbinderhas its place, tracking down theanecdotal antecedents ofincidents
in the films, andoftengiving thereaderapungenttasteofthe atmosphereofhate, spite and
violence which Fassbinder seemed to inspire and by which he was surrounded.I But by
concentratingonthepathologicalandsensationalistaspectsoftheFassbinderstory,toomuch
space is given to revelations, hearsay and anecdotes abouthisprivatebehaviourandpublic
posturing. If understandably, perhaps, Fassbinder's former collaborators unburden them
selves in their memoirs, airing grievances or long-held grudges with observations that are
often sharpened by the keen eye ofjealous love, and a language spiced with the hamed
memory ofhurt, then less directly involved authors ought to take a step back. Some ofthe
English-language studies have tried to put Fassbinder on the Freudian couch, in order to
explainhistreatmentoffriends andlovers,hiscompulsivecreativityandhishighly manipu
lative,sometimesgenerous,oftensadisticwaysofstayingincontrol.Evenwherenotexactly
looking for the key, the single 'Rosebud' clue to Fassbindcr, they tended to find asense of
unity ofthemanandhisfilms in hislife, whatpropelledandcompelledit. Andsincethe life
was as extravantly spectacular as it was tragically brief, it lends itselfespecially well to
metaphoric or symptomatic interpretations. Among such psychoanalyticapproaches, those
that focus on Fassbinder's troubled relation with his fatherandhispenchant forhumiliating
7 Introduction: AWork UpstagedbyLife?
hismother'slook-alikeareneithertheleastinterestingnortheleastplausible,especiallysince
thedirectorhimselfhasoften volunteered such explanationshimself.2
Yet Fassbinder'sown candourin this respect isrevealing: hefinds itamusingto
speculateontheconnexionsbetweenhischildhood memoriesandhisfilms, orto spinsome
broader cultural reflections from them, but there is little sense of it tapping into his
unconscious.:>Forthebiographer,ontheotherhand,thefilmsbecomesourcematerial,raided
for clues.4 They are the record, so to speak, of his acting out, re-enacting and staging the
traumas of his childhood: the supposed lack of love from his mother, the feelings of
worthlessness and impotence in the face of those who ran his life when he was a child.
Fassbinder's adult life and his films, according to this model, are comprehensible as twin
tracks whose imaginary meeting point and impossible vanishing point are a return to a
childhoodblightedbyparentaldiscord,politicaldisarrayandamanic-depressivepersonality.
Correspondingly, hisrelationswiththepeopleheattracted,usedortoleratedinhiscompany
becamethe testing groundand the 'raw material' from whichhefashioned the fables ofhis
filmsordrewtheoftenluridcoloursofhischaracters'feelings. Themeaningofbothlifeand
work becomes coherent, in such a model, because they are bound together either by an
allegoricalrelationshiporacompensatorylink.AsRonaldHaymanputsit 'filmwasaform
oftherapy in which he could project his identity into the glamorous men and women who
spokehisdialogueandobeyed hisinstructions'.5
Reading the work in the light ofthe life is a strategy which achieves coherence
only at aprice. Ifthe life explains the films, and the films explain the life, then not only is
eachthefoil fortheother,buteachmakestheothertransparent:tothepointoftautology.The
crucial issuethebiographicalorpsychoanalyticapproacheshaveobscured,ifonly bytaking
itforgranted, iswhat makesFassbinderimportantinthefirst place: hisfilms, theresonance
theyhavefound, thetopicstheyengage.AsWilhelmRothremarked,reviewingDie13Jahre
des RainerWernerFassbinder. Seine Filme, seine Freunde, seineFeinde
[Peter]Berlingomitsnothing,hedescribeshowFassbindertyrannizedhisfriends,
details the rows and power-struggles with his collaborators, the squabbles over
money, the sexual promiscuity, the alcoholic excesses, and finally the suicidal
addiction tococaine. Oddly enough, alltheserevelationsdonotseemtodamage
Berling's (negative) hero Fassbinder. The book becomes arequiem, (maybe an
unintentional) mourning work for a wasted and mis-spent life. The paradox
remains that out ofthis life came masterpieces. On this, Berling has nothing to
,
say.
The final sentences have several implications. They can lead one to ponderonee more the
paradoxRothalludesto:giventheself-destructivecourseofFassbinder'slifeandthephysical
demandsnfhisfilmmaking, theenigmaisnothowdidhemanagetoproduce '42films in 17
years,7_aquestion mostcommentatorselevatetothestatusofcentral paradox- butrather,
8 Introduction:A Work Upstagedb.vLife?
howdidheproduce'masterpieces'.This,however,begsasecondpoint.Whatisamasterpiece
inFassbinder'swork,anddidFassbindersetouttomakemasterpieces:questionsdemanding
preciselythekindofcriticalstudyofwhichtheFassbinderliteratureissoshort.H
I would instead rephrase Roth's paradox: the gap left open by the biographical
accounts is not only that ofacoherent account ofFassbinder's films in sequence,9 but an
accountofthefilms'coherence,whichistosay,ofthecomplexityoftheirunderlyingdesign,
ofthe successivetransformationsoftheirbasicthemes. Acasecouldbemadeforseeingthe
late films as rewriting the early films in a different idiom, and with a different historical
reference:THETHIRDGENERATION(1979)rewritingGODSOFTHEPLAGUE(1969),forinstance.
Put like this, such a project has an old-fashioned, not to say 'retrograde' ring, seemingly
wishing toreinstate the 'author'asthe locus(andtheworkasthematerialmanifestation) of
anintentionalplenitude,whosestagesandintricaciesitisthetaskofthecritictoreconstruct.
In one sense, this imaginary telos is implicit in any single author study. The
temptations such reconstructive fantasies hold for a writer continue to have a powerful
attraction for readers. In anothersense, the presumed plenitude is far from proven. Ido not
discusstheworkin itstotality,oreven all thepatternsorcoherences thatmighttraverse it. I
shall be satisfied if this study indicates their direction. My (mis)readings are intended to
encourage (re)viewings and (mis)readings, just as they have been prompted by others'
(mis)readings. [fIweretogiveanametothefantasy thathassustainedmyinterest,itwould
bethepossibilitythatthedesignunderlying Fassbinder'sfilms, andthe senseoftheirrather
extraordinary purposiveness (some of the projects pondered for a lifetime like BERLIN
ALEXANDERPLATZ, others conceived on the hoof, like ULI MARLEENlO), did not mature in
modernistisolationorcreativesolitude. Rather,itmusthavedevelopedagainstthepullofan
entourageofverydemanding friends, lovers and associates; itmusthavetaken shape inthe
face ofthe chaosofhis personal life; it survived the logistical challenges of 'independent'
butnonetheless'commercial'filmproduction;anditcouldrealizeitselfinspiteofthevagaries
offilm finance andfilmdistributioninWestGermany. Inotherwords, notdividinglifefrom
work, but totally intermingling; not 'autobiographical'fusion, butthe ability tokeep things
separatewhenandwhere itmattered. Ishallcomebacktothispointin my final chapter.
Tonotethepitfallsofthebiographicalorauteuristapproachdoesnotcommitone
totheoppositeextreme.Apurelyfonnalreading,whichtreatsthefilmsasself-sustainingand
auto-reflexiveartefactsisofcoursepossible,andduringthe1970s,Fassbinderwasoftencited
asexponentofananti-illusionist,modernistorBrechtiancounter-cinema.ll Suchinterpreta
tions did much to make him popular among student audiences, but they also risked an
abstraction: from the contextofproduction, and from contexts ofreception other than the
'productive misreadings' Fassbinder at the time shared with other directors of the New
GermanCinema.12Thechallengeinthisstudy,then,istokeepinviewanumberofconflicting
and shifting contexts: the economic factors that require afilmmaker in agiven country to
promotehimselfasartist,starorrebel, irrespectiveofhisown inclination;thefactthatafilm
mayattainnotorietybecauseofitssubjectmatterandtopicalinterestandtherebytypecastits
9 Introduction:A Work UpstagedbyLife'