The Matrix Regurgitated — Pretty Much Pop: A Culture Podcast #113

In light of the release of The Matrix Res­ur­rec­tions, we talk through the fran­chise as a whole. What made the first one remark­able, and does that a bar that any sequel can reach? We talk through the choic­es that fed into the new film, why peo­ple don’t seem to care about their matrix fam­i­lies, the end­less fight scenes, and more. Who will choose the blue pill?

This very spe­cial hol­i­day episode of Pret­ty Much Pop reunites the full sea­son one pan­el: Mark Lin­sen­may­er, Bri­an Hirt and Eri­ca Spyres, and fea­tures the pod­cast­ing debut of Mark’s son Abe Lin­sen­may­er.

Some arti­cles we con­sid­ered includ­ed:

This episode includes bonus dis­cus­sion you can access by sup­port­ing the pod­cast at patreon.com/prettymuchpop or by choos­ing a paid sub­scrip­tion through Apple Pod­casts. This pod­cast is part of the Par­tial­ly Exam­ined Life pod­cast net­work.

Pret­ty Much Pop: A Cul­ture Pod­cast is the first pod­cast curat­ed by Open Cul­ture. Browse all Pret­ty Much Pop posts.

What’s Entering the Public Domain in 2022: The Sun Also Rises, Winnie-the-Pooh, Buster Keaton Comedies & More

Ernest Hem­ing­way “made the Eng­lish lan­guage new, changed the rhythms of the way both his own and the next few gen­er­a­tions would speak and write and think. The very gram­mar of a Hem­ing­way sen­tence dic­tat­ed, or was dic­tat­ed by, a cer­tain way of look­ing at the world, a way of look­ing but not join­ing, a way of mov­ing through but not attach­ing, a kind of roman­tic indi­vid­u­al­ism dis­tinct­ly adapt­ed to its time and source.” So writes the late Joan Did­ion, a writer hard­ly with­out influ­ence her­self, in a 1998 reflec­tion on the author of such nov­els as A Farewell to Arms, For Whom the Bell Tolls, and  The Old Man and the Sea.

The lit­er­ary phe­nom­e­non that was Hem­ing­way began in earnest, as it were, with The Sun Also Ris­es. Hav­ing been pub­lished in 1926, his first full-length nov­el now stands on the brink of the pub­lic domain. So do a vari­ety of oth­er works that launched sto­ried careers: William Faulkn­er’s first nov­el Sol­diers’ Pay, for instance, or A.A. Mil­ne’s Win­nie-the-Pooh, which intro­duced the now-beloved tit­u­lar bear to the read­ing pub­lic. Hav­ing cel­e­brat­ed his 90th anniver­sary back in 2016 with the addi­tion of a new pen­guin char­ac­ter to the Hun­dred Acre Wood, Win­nie-the-Pooh remains the core of what has devel­oped into a for­mi­da­ble cul­tur­al indus­try.

The work of Hem­ing­way, too, has inspired no small amount of com­mer­cial enter­prise. (Did­ion writes of Thomasville Fur­ni­ture Indus­tries’ new “Ernest Hem­ing­way Col­lec­tion,” whose themes include “Kenya,” “Key West,” “Havana,” and “Ketchum.”) But now that work itself has begun to come legal­ly avail­able to all, free of charge: “any­one can res­cue them from obscu­ri­ty and make them avail­able, where we can all dis­cov­er, enjoy, and breathe new life into them.”

So writes Jen­nifer Jenk­ins, Direc­tor of Duke’s Cen­ter for the Study of the Pub­lic Domain, in her post on Pub­lic Domain Day 2022. In it she names a host of oth­er 1926 books sim­i­lar­ly set for lib­er­a­tion, includ­ing Langston Hugh­es’ The Weary Blues, T. E. Lawrence’s The Sev­en Pil­lars of Wis­dom, Agatha Christie’s The Mur­der of Roger Ack­royd, and H. L. Menck­en’s Notes on Democ­ra­cy.

The deep­er we get into the 21st cen­tu­ry, the wider the vari­ety of media that falls into the pub­lic domain. Jenk­ins high­lights silent-film come­dies like For Heaven’s Sake with Harold Lloyd and Bat­tling But­ler with Buster Keaton, as well — the mid-1920s hav­ing seen the dawn of the “talkie” — as sound pic­tures like Don Juan, the “first fea­ture-length film to use the Vita­phone sound sys­tem.” Unlike in pre­vi­ous years, a large num­ber of not just musi­cal com­po­si­tions but actu­al sound record­ings will also come avail­able for free reuse. These include records by jazz and blues singer Ethel Waters, oper­at­ic tenor Enri­co Caru­so, cel­list Pablo Casals, and com­pos­er-pianist Sergei Rach­mani­noff. And as for those wait­ing to reuse the work of Joan Did­ion, rest assured that The White Album will be yours on Pub­lic Domain Day 2091.

On a relat­ed note, the Pub­lic Domain Review has a nice post overview­ing the sound record­ings enter­ing the pub­lic domain in ’22.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Ernest Hemingway’s Very First Pub­lished Sto­ries, Free as an eBook

Hear the Clas­sic Win­nie-the-Pooh Read by Author A.A. Milne in 1929

Watch the Great Russ­ian Com­pos­er Sergei Rach­mani­noff in Home Movies

Safe­ty Last, the 1923 Movie Fea­tur­ing the Most Icon­ic Scene from Silent Film Era, Just Went Into the Pub­lic Domain

The Pub­lic Domain Project Makes 10,000 Film Clips, 64,000 Images & 100s of Audio Files Free to Use

Libraries & Archivists Are Dig­i­tiz­ing 480,000 Books Pub­lished in 20th Cen­tu­ry That Are Secret­ly in the Pub­lic Domain

Cre­ative Com­mons Offi­cial­ly Launch­es a Search Engine That Index­es 300+ Mil­lion Pub­lic Domain Images

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

The Famous Downfall Scene Explained: What Really Happened in Hitler’s Bunker at the End?

Before his role as Hitler in the 2004 Ger­man film Down­fall turned Swiss actor Bruno Ganz into a viral inter­net star, he was best known for play­ing an angel who com­forts the dying in Wim Wen­ders’ 1987 Wings of Desire. “Peo­ple real­ly seemed to think of me as a guardian angel,” he told The Irish Times in 2005. “Peo­ple would bring their chil­dren before me for a bless­ing or some­thing.” Sev­en­teen years lat­er, the self-described intro­vert trans­formed his gen­tle, com­fort­ing face into the Nazi screen mon­ster: “Noth­ing pre­pared me for what must be the most con­vinc­ing screen Hitler yet,” wrote The Guardian’s Rob Mack­ie. “An old, bent, sick dic­ta­tor with the shak­ing hands of some­one with Parkinson’s, alter­nat­ing between rage and despair in his last days in the bunker.”

This por­tray­al has nev­er been sur­passed, and per­haps it nev­er will be. How many fic­tion­al­ized film treat­ments of these events do we need? Espe­cial­ly since this one lives for­ev­er in meme form: Ganz end­less­ly spit­ting and ges­tic­u­lat­ing, while cap­tions sub­ti­tle him rant­i­ng about “his piz­za arriv­ing late” – Gael Fash­ing­baeur Coop­er writes at cnet – or “the Red Wed­ding scene on Game of Thrones, or find­ing out he was­n’t accept­ed into Har­ry Pot­ter’s Hog­warts.” As Vir­ginia Hef­fer­nan wrote at The New York Times in 2008 – maybe the height of the meme’s viral­i­ty – “It seems that late-life Hitler can be made to speak for almost any­one in the midst of a cri­sis…. Some­thing in the spec­ta­cle of an auto­crat falling to pieces evi­dent­ly has wide­spread appeal.”

Giv­en the wide­spread pref­er­ence for memes over facts, the ubiq­ui­ty of the Down­fall clip as viral spec­ta­cle, and the renewed rel­e­vance of mur­der­ous autoc­ra­cy in the West, we might find our­selves won­der­ing about the his­tor­i­cal accu­ra­cy of Down­fall’s por­tray­al. Did the dic­ta­tor real­ly lose it in the end? And why do we find this idea so sat­is­fy­ing? To begin to answer the first ques­tion, we might turn to the video above, “That Down­fall Scene Explained,” from the mak­ers of The Great War, billed as the “biggest ever crowd­fund­ed his­to­ry doc­u­men­tary.” Despite tak­ing as their sub­ject the First World War, the film­mak­ers also cov­er some of the events of WWII for fans.

First, we must remem­ber that Down­fall is an “artis­tic inter­pre­ta­tion.” It con­dens­es weeks into days, days into hours, and takes oth­er such dra­mat­ic lib­er­ties with accounts gath­ered from eye­wit­ness­es. So, “what is Hitler freak­ing out about” in the famous scene?, the sub­ti­tle asks. It is April 1945. The Red Army is 40 kilo­me­ters from Nazi head­quar­ters in Berlin. The dictator’s Chief of the Army Gen­er­al Staff Hans Krebs explains the sit­u­a­tion. Hitler remains in con­trol, draw­ing pos­si­ble lines of attack on the map, believ­ing that SS com­man­der Felix Steiner’s Panz­er divi­sions will repel the Sovi­ets.

Lit­tle does he know that Steiner’s divi­sions exist only on paper. In real­i­ty, the SS leader has refused to take to the field, con­vinced the bat­tle can­not be won. Anoth­er Gen­er­al, Alfred Jodel, steps in and deliv­ers the news. Hitler then clears the room of all but Jodl, Krebs, and two oth­er high-rank­ing gen­er­als. Joseph Goebbels and Mar­tin Bor­mann stay behind as well. Then (as played by Ganz, that is) Hitler has that famous screen melt­down. The out­burst “shows just how he had cen­tral­ized the chain of com­mand,” and how it failed him.

This may have been so. Down­fall presents us with a con­vinc­ing, if high­ly con­densed, por­trait of the major per­son­al­i­ties involved. But “the scene that spawned a thou­sand YouTube par­o­dies,” writes Alex Ross at The New York­er, “is based, in part, on prob­lem­at­ic sources.” One of these, the so-called Hitler Book, was com­piled from “tes­ti­mo­ny of two Hitler adju­tants, Otto Gün­sche and Heinz Linge, who had been cap­tured by the Red Army and inter­ro­gat­ed at length…. The most curi­ous thing about The Hitler Book is that it was intend­ed for a sin­gle read­er: Joseph Stal­in.” The Sovi­et dic­ta­tor want­ed, and got, “a lav­ish­ly detailed chron­i­cle of Hitler’s psy­cho­log­i­cal implo­sion.” Oth­er sources “con­vey a more com­plex pic­ture.”

Accord­ing to oth­er accounts, Hitler was “gen­er­al­ly com­posed” when learn­ing about the Red Army attack on Berlin, even as he decid­ed to give up and die in the bunker. Accord­ing to Nazi stenog­ra­ph­er, Ger­hard Her­rge­sell, it was the gen­er­als who “vio­lent­ly opposed” sur­ren­der and spoke harsh­ly to Hitler to per­suade him to defend the city – a speech that had some effect dur­ing an April 22nd meet­ing. It did not, of course, pre­vent Hitler and his new bride Eva Braun’s even­tu­al April 30 sui­cide. For Ross, how­ev­er, this more com­plex his­tor­i­cal pic­ture shows “how cults of per­son­al­i­ty feed as much upon the aspi­ra­tions of their mem­bers as upon the ambi­tions of their lead­ers.” The mem­bers of Hitler’s inner cir­cle were as com­mit­ted to the ide­ol­o­gy as the leader him­self.

There is more to the film’s title in Ger­man, Unter­gang, than its trans­la­tion sug­gests, Ross writes: “It car­ries con­no­ta­tions of decline, dis­so­lu­tion, or destruc­tion.” When we fix the end of Nazism to the sui­ci­dal death of one delu­sion­al, drug-addled mad­man, we lose sight of this wider mean­ing. In the viral spread of the Hitler meme, we see a kind of com­i­cal­ly banal tri­umph. It is “the out­come,” Hef­fer­nan argues, that “Hitler, the his­tor­i­cal fig­ure sought….” A sit­u­a­tion in which he becomes “not the author of the Holo­caust” but “the brute voice of the every­man uncon­scious,” a pro­lif­er­at­ing griev­ance machine. From anoth­er per­spec­tive, imag­in­ing Hitler’s end may offer “com­fort­ing moral clo­sure to a sto­ry of lim­it­less hor­ror,” writes Ross. But it has helped feed the myth that it could only hap­pen there and then: “Now Ger­man his­to­ri­ans are end­ing their books on Nazism with thin­ly veiled ref­er­ences to an Amer­i­can Unter­gang.”

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

How Did Hitler Rise to Pow­er? : New TED-ED Ani­ma­tion Pro­vides a Case Study in How Fas­cists Get Demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly Elect­ed

Carl Jung Psy­cho­an­a­lyzes Hitler: “He’s the Uncon­scious of 78 Mil­lion Ger­mans.” “With­out the Ger­man Peo­ple He’d Be Noth­ing” (1938)

Hitler Was ‘Blitzed’ On Cocaine & Opi­ates Dur­ing World War II: Hear a Wide-Rang­ing Inter­view with Best-Sell­ing Author Nor­man Ohler

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

A Deep Study of the Opening Scene of Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds

Quentin Taran­ti­no loves a cat-and-mouse scene, when forces of pow­er and poten­tial vio­lence enter rooms, com­man­deer them, and play with their hap­less vic­tims. Think of Samuel L. Jackson’s Jules tak­ing care of two hap­less, out of their depth frat boy dope dealers—all the while help­ing him­self to their Kahu­na burger—in Pulp Fic­tion. Ter­ri­fy­ing, hilar­i­ous, and elec­tri­fy­ing: it has become one of his hall­marks. By the time of 2009’s Inglou­ri­ous Bas­ter­ds, he had per­fect­ed it so much that he devotes the film’s open­ing 20 min­utes to one sus­pense-filled meet­ing between an unc­tu­ous Nazi and a French farmer, who is try­ing to hide a Jew­ish fam­i­ly under his floor­boards.

Markus Mad­lang­bayan (aka emo­tion­de­sign­er) only has two film appre­ci­a­tion essays up on his Youtube site, and it’s a shame he didn’t do more. Here he takes us through Tarantino’s farm­house scene, shot by shot, exam­in­ing the director’s cam­era place­ment and com­po­si­tion, explain­ing his rea­son­ing, and demon­strat­ing why Quentin is a mas­ter of his craft.

Most direc­tors use a stan­dard form of cov­er­age to shoot dia­log scenes—a mas­ter shot of the two actors speak­ing, and then a close up of each actor with a tighter “punch in” shot of a face to empha­size dra­ma. But Taran­ti­no rarely does that, find­ing more inter­est­ing solu­tions to show the pow­er dynam­ics in play. Farmer LaPa­dite at first has the upper hand, bluff­ing his way suc­cess­ful­ly through Hans Landa’s inter­ro­ga­tion. That is, until he does­n’t. Taran­ti­no will move his cam­era in an arc, break­ing the 180 rule, and switch­ing the posi­tions of the char­ac­ters on screen, even though they haven’t moved from their seats. The direc­tor has lit­er­al­ly turned the table on LaPa­dite, just as Lan­da has done.

Taran­ti­no is also very par­si­mo­nious with his close-ups. He gives LaPa­dite one as we see him steel him­self for the approach­ing Nazis. He gives Lan­da one when all the social niceties are over, and instead he reveals he has known all along that they are sit­ting right above a hid­ing space. And final­ly, Taran­ti­no gives LaPa­dite (and the actor that plays him, Denis Méno­chet) a tight close-up as dread and impend­ing death pass over his face.

Essay­ist emo­tion­de­sign­er doesn’t do this, but this scene is ask­ing for com­par­i­son with the afore­men­tioned scene from Pulp Fic­tion. In 1994, Taran­ti­no was hot and full of ener­gy, but it’s actu­al­ly a very con­ven­tion­al­ly shot scene, filled with close-ups and wides, but not with­out its wit. Fif­teen years lat­er, this short film-with­in-a-film open­ing shows how far the direc­tor had come.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Quentin Taran­ti­no Explains How to Write & Direct Movies

Quentin Taran­ti­no Reviews Movies: From Dunkirk and King of New York, to Soul Broth­ers of Kung Fu & More

Quentin Taran­ti­no Gives a Tour of Video Archives, the Store Where He Worked Before Becom­ing a Film­mak­er

Ted Mills is a free­lance writer on the arts who cur­rent­ly hosts the Notes from the Shed pod­cast and is the pro­duc­er of KCR­W’s Curi­ous Coast. You can also fol­low him on Twit­ter at @tedmills, and/or watch his films here.

Watch the Building of the Empire State Building in Color: The Creation of the Iconic 1930s Skyscraper From Start to Finish

Ambi­tion is not unknown in the New York City of the 2020s, but the New York City of the 1920s seems to have con­sist­ed of noth­ing but. Back then, where else would any­one dare to pro­pose the tallest build­ing in the world — much less end up with the job twelve days ahead of sched­ule and $9 mil­lion under bud­get? The con­struc­tion of the Empire State Build­ing began in Jan­u­ary of 1930, just three months after the Wall Street Crash that began the Great Depres­sion. Though eco­nom­ic con­di­tions kept the project from attain­ing prof­itabil­i­ty until the 1950s (and stuck it with the nick­name “Emp­ty State Build­ing”), it nev­er­the­less stood in sym­bol­ic defi­ance of those hard times — and, ulti­mate­ly, came to stand for New York and indeed the Unit­ed Sates of Amer­i­ca itself.

You can see footage of the Empire State Build­ing’s con­struc­tion in the com­pi­la­tion above, which gath­ers clips from con­tem­po­rary news­reels and oth­er sources and presents them in “restored, enhanced and col­orized” form.

These images show­case the his­to­ry-mak­ing sky­scrap­er’s tech­ni­cal inno­va­tions as well as its mar­shal­ing of labor at an immense scale: at the height of con­struc­tion, more than 3,500 work­ers were involved. That most of them were recent immi­grants from coun­tries like Ire­land and Italy reflects the pop­u­lar image of ear­ly 20th-cen­tu­ry Amer­i­ca as a “land of oppor­tu­ni­ty”; the sheer scale of the sky­scraper they built reflects the pre­vi­ous­ly unimag­in­able works made pos­si­ble by Amer­i­ca’s resources.

The Empire State Build­ing set records, and over the 90 years since its open­ing has remained a dif­fi­cult achieve­ment to sur­pass. Only in 1970 did it lose its title of the tallest build­ing in New York City, to Minoru Yamasak­i’s World Trade Cen­ter — and then regained it in 2001 after the lat­ter’s col­lapse. Today, one can eas­i­ly point to much taller and more tech­no­log­i­cal­ly advanced sky­scrap­ers all around the world, but how many of them are as beloved or rich with asso­ci­a­tions? Back in 1931, archi­tec­ture crit­ic Dou­glas Haskell described the Empire State Build­ing as “caught between met­al and stone, between the idea of ‘mon­u­men­tal mass’ and that of airy vol­ume, between hand­i­craft and machine design, and in the swing from what was essen­tial­ly hand­i­craft to what will be essen­tial­ly indus­tri­al meth­ods of fab­ri­ca­tion” — as good an expla­na­tion as any of why they don’t build ’em like this any­more.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

New York’s Lost Sky­scraper: The Rise and Fall of the Singer Tow­er

Watch the Com­plete­ly Unsafe, Ver­ti­go-Induc­ing Footage of Work­ers Build­ing New York’s Icon­ic Sky­scrap­ers

A New Inter­ac­tive Map Shows All Four Mil­lion Build­ings That Exist­ed in New York City from 1939 to 1941

An Intro­duc­tion to the Chrysler Build­ing, New York’s Art Deco Mas­ter­piece, by John Malkovich (1994)

Watch the Build­ing of the Eif­fel Tow­er in Time­lapse Ani­ma­tion

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

An AI Computer Watched Hitchcock’s Vertigo 20 Times & Then Made Its Own Disturbing Movie

If you could watch only one movie, Alfred Hitch­cock­’s Ver­ti­go would hard­ly be the worst choice. Its con­tain­ment and expres­sion of such a range of cin­e­ma’s pos­si­bil­i­ties sure­ly did its part to bring it to the top spot on Sight & Sound’s most recent crit­ics’ poll of the great­est films of all time. But what if Ver­ti­go was all you knew of the entire world? Such is the case with the arti­fi­cial-intel­li­gence sys­tem used by artist Chris Peters to cre­ate “Ver­ti­go A.I.,” the short film above. As the sys­tem repeat­ed­ly “watched” Ver­ti­go over a two-day peri­od, says Peters’ offi­cial site, the artist “record­ed the machine’s neur­al net­work form­ing in real time — the ‘movie expe­ri­ence’ — made man­i­fest.”

This expe­ri­ence is a five-minute film, “not footage in the tra­di­tion­al sense of pho­tographed scenes, but footage of the inter­nal expe­ri­ence of a new intel­li­gence learn­ing about our world for the first time.” As for what we hear, “a sep­a­rate A.I. was used to write a nar­ra­tion for the record­ings. Giv­en a few lines of dia­logue from Ver­ti­go, the machine gen­er­at­ed sen­tences that went off on their own wild tan­gents.”

After about thir­ty sec­onds, any cinephile will rec­og­nize the visu­al source mate­r­i­al. As for the “sto­ry” told over the images, one can only imag­ine what process­es the cho­sen pieces of Ver­ti­go’s screen­play went through in the mind of the machine. “In the dream, I was in a room with a fig­ure,” begins the nar­ra­tor. “He was tall and cov­ered in white.”

Dreams make for noto­ri­ous­ly dull sub­ject mat­ter, but then, the endur­ing appeal of cin­e­ma has long been explained through its abil­i­ty to trans­port us into a state not at all dis­sim­i­lar from dream­ing. Ver­ti­go in par­tic­u­lar, as Sight & Sound edi­tor Nick James puts it, is “a dream-like film about peo­ple who are not sure who they are but who are busy recon­struct­ing them­selves and each oth­er to fit a kind of cin­e­ma ide­al of the ide­al soul-mate.” 27 spots below it on the mag­a­zine’s crit­ics’ poll comes Mul­hol­land Dri­ve by David Lynch, a film sim­i­lar­ly praised for its com­pelling but elu­sive sto­ry and its images seem­ing­ly pulled straight from the uncon­scious. Suit­ably, “Ver­ti­go A.I.” has some­thing more than a lit­tle Lynchi­an about it, mak­ing one won­der how the A.I. would han­dle Lynch’s fil­mog­ra­phy — and how we would han­dle the result.

via Aeon

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Mar­tin Scors­ese Intro­duces Clas­sic Movies: From Cit­i­zen Kane and Ver­ti­go to Lawrence of Ara­bia and Gone with the Wind

Gaze at Glob­al Movie Posters for Hitchcock’s Ver­ti­go: U.S., Japan, Italy, Poland & Beyond

Aban­doned Alter­nate Titles for Two Great Films: Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove and Hitchcock’s Ver­ti­go

Watch “Sun­spring,” the Sci-Fi Film Writ­ten with Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence, Star­ring Thomas Mid­dled­itch (Sil­i­con Val­ley)

Watch Bri­an Eno’s Exper­i­men­tal Film “The Ship,” Made with Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

How Jean Renoir’s Great Anti-War Film Grand Illusion Became “Cinematographic Enemy Number One” to the Nazis

Con­trary to pop­u­lar belief, Nazi pro­pa­gan­da min­is­ter Joseph Goebbels did not admit to spread­ing a “Big Lie.” As schol­ar of Ger­man pro­pa­gan­da Ran­dall Bytwerk says, “Goebbels always main­tained that pro­pa­gan­da had to be truth­ful. That doesn’t mean he didn’t lie, but it would be a pret­ty poor pro­pa­gan­dist who pub­licly pro­claimed that he was going to lie.” Still, Goebbels inces­sant­ly accused oth­ers of lying and spread­ing dis­hon­est pro­pa­gan­da, and he bru­tal­ly sup­pressed those truths he found incon­ve­nient. He was par­tic­u­lar­ly incensed at the 1937 release of a film by French direc­tor Jean Renoir (son of the painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir) called La Grande Illu­siona film that ques­tioned sev­er­al fan­tasies the Nazis seemed des­per­ate to main­tain.

Among these were the idea that war was inevitable and desir­able, that a nat­ur­al aris­toc­ra­cy should rise above the com­mon horde — and that elites should have no sol­i­dar­i­ty or sym­pa­thy for Jews or oth­er minori­ties. These beliefs were cen­tral to fas­cist ide­ol­o­gy and to Goebbels’ pro­pa­gan­da project. Renoir’s Grand Illu­sion under­mined them all, despite the fact that it was set in World War I and based on an even ear­li­er British book, Nor­man Angell’s The Great Illu­sion, from 1909, which argued that war in Europe was eco­nom­i­cal­ly destruc­tive in con­trast to mutu­al co-oper­a­tion. Goebbels so feared Renoir’s anti-war film he called it “cin­e­mato­graph­ic ene­my num­ber one” and ordered every print turned over and burned and the orig­i­nal neg­a­tives destroyed.

Cin­e­ma Tyler explains in the video at the top how the effort to stamp out The Grand Illu­sion “had the full might of the Nazi pro­pa­gan­da machine on a mis­sion to destroy every copy.” They failed. As Roger Ebert notes, the orig­i­nal neg­a­tive, assumed destroyed in a 1942 Allied air raid, “had already been sin­gled out by a Ger­man film archivist named Frank Hensel, then a Nazi offi­cer in Paris, who had it shipped to Berlin.” In the 1960s, Renoir him­self “super­vised the assem­bly of a ‘restored’ print,” Then, thir­ty years lat­er, at the time of Ebert’s writ­ing in 1999, the orig­i­nal neg­a­tive resur­faced and a sparkling new print cir­cu­lat­ed, renew­ing praise for a movie about which Franklin Roo­sevelt pro­claimed, at the time of its release, “all the democ­ra­cies in the world must see this film.”

The film came out as Nazi Ger­many and the Sovi­et Union squared off aggres­sive­ly in mon­u­men­tal pavil­ions for the 1937 Inter­na­tion­al Expo­si­tion of Arts and Tech­nics in Mod­ern Life in Paris. Ger­many was three years away from invad­ing France, and while Renoir could not have known the future, the film uses its char­ac­ters “to illus­trate how the themes of the first war would trag­i­cal­ly wors­en in the sec­ond,” Ebert writes. It cen­ters on three cap­tured French offi­cers: “De Boield­ieu (Pierre Fres­nay), from an old aris­to­crat­ic fam­i­ly.… Marechal (Jean Gabin), a work­ing­man, a mem­ber of the emerg­ing pro­le­tari­at, and Rosen­thal (Mar­cel Dalio), a Jew­ish banker who has iron­i­cal­ly pur­chased the chateau that de Boield­ieu’s fam­i­ly can no longer afford.”

The French offi­cers’ jailor, wound­ed pilot von Rauf­fen­stein (played by great Ger­man silent direc­tor Erich von Stro­heim), believes him­self to have more in com­mon with de Boield­ieu than the lat­ter does with his coun­try­men, and in many respects, this proves so. Still, the French aris­to­crat uses his priv­i­lege, as we might say today, to help the oth­er pris­on­ers escape, at the cost of his life. When Marechal and Rosen­thal are giv­en shel­ter by a Ger­man farm wid­ow, “per­haps Renoir is whis­per­ing that the true class con­nec­tion across ene­my lines is between the work­ers, not the rulers,” writes Ebert. Per­haps it was also the nation­al sol­i­dar­i­ty among the pris­on­ers that unset­tled Goebbels — their per­sis­tent, “sin­gle obses­sion: to escape,” despite the com­forts of their cap­tiv­i­ty, as the film’s trail­er says dra­mat­i­cal­ly above. The war had not yet begun, and yet, writes A.O. Scott at The New York Times:

In France the late 1930s were the years of the Pop­u­lar Front, an attempt by the left to counter the rise of fas­cism and over­come its own ten­den­cies toward sec­tar­i­an­ism and ortho­doxy. The polit­i­cal face of the front was Léon Blum, a mod­er­ate Jew­ish Social­ist whose two trun­cat­ed, frus­trat­ing terms as prime min­is­ter coin­cid­ed with the pro­duc­tion and release of Renoir’s film.… The action takes place dur­ing World War I (in which Renoir had served as a pilot), when the Drey­fus Affair was still a recent mem­o­ry, but it has an eye on con­tem­po­rary anti-Semi­tism and labor mil­i­tan­cy as well as a sub­tle, anx­ious pre­mo­ni­tion of glob­al con­flicts to come.

Grand Illu­sion not only inspired two of the most famous moments of film his­to­ry — the tun­nel in The Great Escape and the singing of “La Mar­seil­laise” in Casablan­ca — but it remains in its own right one of the great­est films ever made. (Orson Welles claimed it as one of only two films he would take with him “on the ark.”) It con­tin­ues in its “gen­tly iron­ic” way, to “ques­tion all kinds of ‘illu­sions,’ ” writes David M. Lubin, “that, in [Renoir’s] view sus­tain mod­ern war­fare: that one side is moral­ly supe­ri­or to the oth­er… that class divi­sions are nat­ur­al, that men must be con­ven­tion­al­ly man­ly, that Jews are infe­ri­or to Gen­tiles, and so forth.” Rather than sim­ply denounce Grand Illu­sion as a big, pro­pa­gan­dis­tic lie, Goebbels tried to have it snuffed out of exis­tence.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Edu­ca­tion for Death: The Mak­ing of the Nazi–Walt Disney’s 1943 Film Shows How Fas­cists Are Made

Redis­cov­ered: The First Amer­i­can Anti-Nazi Film, Banned by U.S. Cen­sors and For­got­ten for 80 Years

Watch a Grip­ping 10-Minute Ani­ma­tion About the Hunt for Nazi War Crim­i­nal Adolf Eich­mann

Watch Georges Méliès’ The Drey­fus Affair, the Con­tro­ver­sial Film Cen­sored by the French Gov­ern­ment for 50 Years (1899)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

60 Film Noir Movies Online

noir film pic

Dur­ing the 1940s and 50s, Hol­ly­wood entered a “noir” peri­od, pro­duc­ing riv­et­ing films based on hard-boiled fic­tion. These films were set in dark loca­tions and shot in a black & white aes­thet­ic that fit like a glove. Hard­ened men wore fedo­ras and for­ev­er smoked cig­a­rettes. Women played the femme fatale role bril­liant­ly. Love was the surest way to death. All of these ele­ments fig­ured into what Roger Ebert calls “the most Amer­i­can film genre” in his short Guide to Film Noir.

If you head over to this list of Noir Films, you can find 60 films from the noir genre, includ­ing some clas­sics by John Hus­ton, Orson Welles, Fritz Lang and Ida Lupino. The list also fea­tures some cin­e­mat­ic leg­ends like Humphrey Bog­a­rt, Peter Lorre, Bar­bara Stan­wyck, Edward G. Robin­son, and even Frank Sina­tra. Hope the col­lec­tion helps you get through the days ahead.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book, BlueSky or Mastodon.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent 

The Essen­tial Ele­ments of Film Noir Explained in One Grand Info­graph­ic

The 5 Essen­tial Rules of Film Noir

Roger Ebert Lists the 10 Essen­tial Char­ac­ter­is­tics of Noir Films

4,000+ Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, Doc­u­men­taries & More

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.