Mommert. Wilfried . "Wartime Germany: Concerts and cinema to the bitter end," Deutsche Presse-Agentur 19 Mar 1995. LexisNexis. 29 Nov 2008

     Nazi Germany had a thriving arts and entertainment culture until all theaters were shut down September of 1944 as a step toward pursuing “total war.” Up until this point, the theaters held regular showings of films and concerts despite the  fact that many were destroyed by Allied bombings.  These theaters were in use until the Nazis were on the edge of defeat.  Despite setbacks with the war and the continued bombings by the Allies, films were still made and shown up until the end of the war.  Twenty eight films were works in progress when the war ended.  Concerts were also still shown regularly. Thirty operas were ready for performance but never actually put on stage.  Resources were still being allocated to put on new operas and films despite the fact that Germany was in "total war," and all resources were allocated to the war effort supposedly.  Film and concerts were the main forms of amusement and diversion for the German people, and the Nazis felt that keeping the masses' minds diverted and happy was still important.
    This article really shows the misguided priorities of the Nazis.  Resources that could have been used for the war effort were misallocated to film production and concert staging.  The Nazis were concerned with appeasing the masses, even though they were about to lose the war.  Maintaining the support of the masses was a core value for the Nazis to attain and maintain their power, but if they lost the war, they would lose their power immediately.  These efforts to keep the masses happy were completely pointless and wasteful.  Goebbels proclaimed that he closed the theaters to put Germany on the track of “total war,” yet this obviously did not shut down the entertainment industry.  The film Kolberg began production in 1942 and was not released until 1945 (Thompson and Bordwell 274).  This film was the costliest of the Nazi cinema projects, and it was made at a time when Germany was losing the war and about to be defeated (Thompson and Bordwell 274).  Goebbels even diverted 200,000 troops from battle to be used in Kolberg's production (Thompson and Bordwell 274).  Overall, the Nazis wasted their resources on film and the arts during a critical time during the war when Germany could not afford it.

Thompson, Kristin, and David Bordwell. Film History An Introduction. 2nd. New York: McGraw Hill, 2003.

Marshall. L. "A Nazi Piece of Work," Herald Sun 06 May 1995. LexisNexis. 1 Dec 2008

     While Kolberg, has been criticized for being such an extravagant film that was filmed very late in the war and so close to Germany's defeat, there was another film that was being produced after Kolberg.  The production of this film went on almost until Germany’s defeat.  With shortages, bombings, and death only twenty miles away, Goebbels ordered the making of another extrazagant film, Das Leben geht weiter or Life Goes On. The set designer of this last film of the Nazi era, was instructed to “spare no expense to recreate the aftermath of the devastating Berlin air raids in November 1943”(Marshall).  This film was meant to be an updated version of Kolberg that just as extravagant.  The idea of the film was Goebbels', who definitely became obsessed with film.   This last film had mostly been forgotten in history.  This is in part because those involved were embarrassed they were part of the film , so they did not talk about the film.  The other reason is that the footage was completely lost.
    Most film historians view Kolberg as Goebbels' last production and biggest folly, but Das Leben geht weiter apparently takes its place.  This last film shows how illogical Goebbels was.  Germany did not have the resources to endure in World War II, but Goebbels felt that it had the resources to make a 2.5 million marks budget film.  Goebbels' priorities were very misguided.  He definitely should have had someone checking his power.  Goebbels wasted so many of Germany’s resources on useless film production.  Kolberg was barely viewed by audiences and Das Leben geht weiter was never finished and the footage was completely lost.  Even if these films had been viewed, they still would have been wasteful because the resources were needed so much more for the war effort.  Goebbels definitely overvalued film to the point where he was willing to sacrifice the war.  While this wasteful film production was not the cause of Germany’s loss, it definitely did nothing to help Germany endure with so many resources were being diverted away from the war.

Kracauer, Siegfried. From Caligari to Hitler, a psychological history of the German Film. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947.

“Nazi Views And Measures”

    All films in Nazi Germany were propaganda films.  Newsreels and features were the two forms of propaganda.  Newsreels were a means of propaganda not information.  The purpose of newsreels was to give the German people skewed world views.  The production of newsreels greatly increased at the onset of WWII. While newsreels portrayed falsified messages, the scenes shown were never faked—they were always actual footage taken on site.  This element made these propaganda newsreels more believable.  The Nazis prided themselves on the fact that the cameramen for newsreels were like “regular soldiers, doing a soldier’s full duty, always in the first lines…” (Kracauer 276).  The deaths of these cameramen and reporters at the front lines were emphasized to the public to reiterate the fact that the reporters were, indeed, amongst the soldiers on the war front. These newsreels were considerably long, so that the propaganda techniques could be repeated for increased effectiveness.  While newsreels were long, unlike feature films, newsreels were produced rapidly so that the information was timely and viewed as actual news. 
    While in my thesis I use the broad term film, I only consider the term to describe feature films.  This chapter highlights the importance of the newsreel.  The newsreel is a form of film propaganda that I really should not have ignored.  Because of the newsreel’s entirely different nature, its inclusion would have given my thesis more depth.  The newsreel did not have the same production costs or length of time needed for production because all the footage is filmed live at the scene.  Considering these facts, newsreels as film propaganda were much more cost effective than feature films.  While newsreels directly told Germans what to believe, newsreels still were subtle forms of propaganda because they were being portrayed in documentary style as fact.  In my thesis I argued that film was overvalued by the Nazis at times because of its great cost when resources were needed badly for the war effort.  Newsreels, though, would have served as a good compromise. Still, though, when the situation with the war became very dire, resources should never have been diverted from the war effort.

Singer, Irving. "Jean Renoir." Three Philosophical Filmmakers: Hitchcock, Welles, Renoir. Palatino: MIT Press, 2004: 146-219.

Irving Singer holds the belief that each of Renoir's films led him on a path to discovery of both the culture around him and himself. He believes that Renoir's character of Octave in Rules of the Game is actually a self-representation: that Renoir desired to play himself, someone that "lost contact with the public" (149). Octave is also shown as slightly inept and mismanaged, revealing Renoir's attempt to level and connect with the public. Singer includes a comment made by Renoir stating that he's only ever "shot one film," maintaining the belief that Renoir strived to provide an accurate representation of French society, even when this meant he must display his views in contrast with those of the general public (147). Singer remarks, however, that Renoir so wished to connect with his audience, with his society, that he became almost desperate to achieve contact and that this desperation led to Renoir's near destruction of Rules of the Game when he continually cut out pieces of the film that may have offended audiences. Singer believes that, in the years leading up to WWII, Renoir's main goal in his filmmaking was to explore how people relate to each other, to nature, and to technology. Singer also expresses the belief that Renoir drew alot from Hinduism, explaining the filmmaker's desire to contrast the differences between his character's spiritual and material lives, a central theme in Rules of the Game.

Singer's chapter on Renoir provides a very interesting take on the filmmaker and his works. It is clear, especially after reading this work, that Jean Renoir was on a quest for truth, using film as a tool to capture society in its most realistic form. Rules of the Game was greatly influenced by the fact that Renoir wished to accurately depict French society though he, of course, was somewhat blinded by his own middle-class beliefs and tendencies. For instance, Renoir criticizes the bourgeios and the servants equally, as he, himself, stood in the middle ground, exempt from criticism. Renoir, however, is nowhere near self-praising; instead, the film functions somewhat as an autobiography with Renoir playing the role of Octave, his on-screen representation. Both lament that they have lost contact with the public. This comment is shown to be almost comically, though paradoxically, true: Renoir had never expected such a negative response from his audience. Up until this point, Renoir's works were, for the most part, celebrated by French society. The point at which he became public about his concerns of losing emotional and intellectual touch with the people, his work invokes a disastrous result and Renoir physically disconnects from his people by fleeing the country. This work also provides a very interesting look at another of Renoir's influences: religion, describing how the beliefs of Hinduism propelled him on his quest for turth amidst spiritual and material confusion.

Bergan, Ronald. "Everyone Has His Reasons." Jean Renoir: Projections of Paradise. Woodstock: The Overlook Press, 1994: 196-206.

In this chapter, Ronald Bergan goes into detail on Jean Renoir's influences for Rules of the Game. For starters, he explains that Renoir kept several elements from the original, Les Caprices de Marianne. Before writing his script, Renoir also drew from other Musset works as well as French baroque music. Bergan believes that these sources, as well as the political events surrounding Renoir, allowed him to create such a unique style in Rules of the Game - one that neatly combined "melodrama and farce" (198). Bergan emphasizes the importance of the hunting scene in the film which shows the "callous cruelty of the guests" and provides the most explicitly violent critique of French bourgeois society (203). Bergan makes a point to note the animosity between (and among) both the upper and lower classes as the solidarity of the Popular Front is now gone. While the prejudice and snobbery of the ruling class is blatantly on display, their critiqued behaviors are echoed by their servants. Bergan also explains Renoir's use of deep-focused lenses, stating that such far-reaching shots were necessary to gather all of the actions taking place in such a dynamic ensemble production. Quick shots and heavy editing would simply not show the interworkings of society that the deep, long shots are capable of. Bergan concludes his chapter by providing some explanation for the harsh critiques that Rules of the Game received by the public upon its release: at the time, Renoir was a known supporter of the Communist Party. Also, his casting provoked "right-wing, anti-semitic and xenophobic emotions" (205).

This article is extremely interesting as Ronald Bergan is able to list several stylistic influences on Renoir in writing Rules of the Game. Instead of focusing on the thematic influences such as the Munich agreement, as other critics have done, Bergan is able to hone in on specific tricks peformed by Renoir, often unorthodox, to inspire his story, such as listening to Baroque music. This offers an alternate view of Jean Renoir in which he is drawing from each and every source in his life to fuel a powerfully creative, though extremely accurate, tale of the world around him. Bergan also details the remarkable accomplishment of, in essence, creating the long shot in Rules of the Game. This huge triumph is usually overshadowed by the negative French public opinion of the film. Bergan, however, explains several concrete reasons as to why the film was met with such criticism by initial audiences. Firstly, Renoir's ties with the Communist Party would have pitted a great deal of Frenchmen against him from the start, especially after observing somet type of critique of French society. Fear of communism, especially in the current situation in Europe, could have easily allowed Rules of the Game to come off as Jean Renoir's attempt at French communist propaganda. Also, the stars of his film included a Jewish man and an Austrian woman, clearly stirring the hatred of the prejudiced and also confusing the public, in such a time of national fragility, that Renoir would even think of using possible 'enemies' to portray the French, especially in a critique.

Citation:

Blakley, Johanna. "Propaganda, Pop Culture & Public Diplomacy.” Warner’s War: Politics, Pop Culture & Propaganda in Wartime Hollywood 73-77.

In the book entitled Warner’s War: Politics, Pop Culture & Propaganda in Wartime Hollywood, Johanna Blakley discusses the influence the Warner Bros. studio had during the wartime and how its films and cartoons influenced public opinion and war sentiment during the time.  In this chapter, Blakley specifically talks about the Warner Brothers studio and how it was deeply entrenched in the pro-war movement by creating pro-war, patriotic, and antifascist films and cartoons.  The article briefly talks about how Casablanca was a prime example in which Warner Bros. used a romantic theme as a stage for propagandistic undertones which supported aiding the Allied European powers.  As a whole, the article demonstrates Warner Brother’s clear intention of spreading propaganda which supported the antifascist movement.  This is important because it establishes a clear connection between a pro-war studio and Casablanca.  This ultimately demonstrates that the studio intended to have propagandistic undertones in its film.   

Citation:

Polan, Dana. "Stylistic Regularities (and Peculiarities) of the Hollywood World War II

Propoganda Film." Warner’s War: Politics, Pop Culture & Propaganda in Wartime Hollywood 38-47.

In the book entitled Warner’s War: Politics, Pop Culture & Propaganda in Wartime Hollywood, Dana Polan discusses the influence the Warner Bros. studio had during the wartime and how it’s films and cartoons influenced public opinion and war sentiment during the time.  In this portion of the book, Polan demonstrates the particular influence and propagandistic influence of Casablanca and how this film changed the typical style of Hollywood in order to incorporate the propaganda of wartime.  Polan discuss the romantic overtone of the film and how this theme keeps in line with the traditional film style of Hollywood at that time.  However, she goes further to demonstrate how this romance accentuates the strong division between the two different conflicting powers in the film.  This chapter serves as an important connection between propaganda and the film in that is demonstrates how the simple romantic theme is enhanced to create a protagonist hero with whom the audience can closely relate and sympathize for.  She portrays how this sentiment can be perverted to support his goals of suppressing the fascist powers.  Ultimately, Polan demonstrates how the romance theme closely ties into the film’s wartime significance as a part of World War II propaganda.

Citation: Kallis, Artistotle. Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005

In the section entitled, “Commercial and political value? The ‘entertainment film’ and NS Propaganda,” Kallis addresses film production during the sensitive war period. He explains the idea that during this time, groups such as RMVP and the RPL in accordance with the Minister of Propaganda managed every aspect of the regime’s film policy and suggests that, despite this control, there is a blur in the distinction between politics and entertainment. He goes on to present the idea that strictly political or historical films were much less appreciated than romantic comedies or dramas in German culture. In fact, it seemed as if many audiences were unmoved by the importance and significance of events captured in political film and showed little admiration or respect for political productions. Therefore, the author concludes, that “the most commercially successful films ever produced under the Third Reich were indeed popular Unterhaltungsfilme, such as the Wunschkonzert” (212). The novel stresses the belief that the success of Wunschokonzert and films of its kinds could have power over an audience and society and thus, could be used as a new form of Nazi propaganda during a time in which traditional methods of political propaganda were suffering.

This portion of the novel is relevant to looking at Wunschkonzert as a Nazi propaganda film because it stresses the idea that despite the fact that this film was considered an entertainment film, there can be no doubt that its content had an impact on German society. The film touched on social conformity; however, it remained predominantly influenced by political objectives. In fact, the way in which political propaganda was much more dispersed within the plot line rather than being the driving force behind the story seemed to be better appreciated and well received by audiences.

Citation:

Wilson, Kristi. "Casablanca." St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. Gale Group, 1 January 2000.

In this article, Kristi Wilson gives a brief summary of the plot of the movie and expands on this superficial interpretation of the film by analyzing how the film presented a strong antifascist sentiment.  Wilson begins by contrasting the different characters in the film.  To begin, Lazlo and Isle gain sympathetic compassion from viewers on account of their troubling situation and the flashback history of chaos they experienced in Vichy-France.  This is used the make the viewers feel empathetic towards the French Resistance.  A deeper connection with such sentiment is achieved through the development of Rick’s character.  Rick, whose involvement in the resistance becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses, creates a heroic character image in which the viewers support his endeavors.  Wilson explains how such support is augmented by the viewers’ hope that his romantic endeavors succeed.  In contrast with these characters, the German officers are portrayed as being stiff and unyielding.  Garnering little sympathy, but rather gaining distaste for their apparent egotism, the German characters are continuously portrayed as being corrupt and malevolent.  Such stark contrast, as Wilson states, creates a classic protagonist vs. antagonist in which there is a strong political undertone against the power and authority of the Nazi command.  Consequently, the film demonstrates a strong antifascist motif by the way it contrasts the characters and their personal objectives and dispositions.  

Citation:

"The Casablanca Conference, 1943." Casablanca Conference. Casablanca: U.S. Department of State, 1943.

This source comes from the U.S. Department of State and gives the historical significance and background of the Casablanca Conference of 1943.  This conference, which took place between January 14^th and the 24^th of 1943, served as a meeting between U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.  Only a few weeks after the release of Casablanca, these two powerful figures met in the city to discuss the strategic plans for the Allied forces against the Axis powers.  They determined to further cut off Japan, concentrate efforts in Germany, begin by removing Italy from the war, and make unconditional surrender an ultimate goal so they could guarantee “the destruction of the philosophies in those countries which are based on conquest and the subjugation of other people.”  This is significant because it shows the clear political connection with the film and the film’s location.  The film sparked a large interest not only in Casablanca, but also the political implications of the war.  The clear connection of the two at the Casablanca Conference created a much larger appeal on account of the film’s success.  In addition, the historical account also shows that the Anglo-American aid arrived in French North Africa in November 1942, the same time at which the movie was released.  Ultimately, this demonstrates a clear political connection with the film.

Citation:

Crowther, Bosley. "'Casablanca' With Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman." New York Times 27 November 1942.

This is the original film review from the New York Times written on November 27, 1942 after the film’s release.  This review, unlike the myriad of reviews on the films, gives the unique perspective of an erudite audience of that specific time period.  The reviewer not only heralds the film as one of the greatest of all times, but remarks about its unique story and subtle tendencies.  He demonstrates how Warner uses the action-packed thrill of the setting to enhance the romantic overtone to the film.  Most importantly, the author describes how the film contained a strong political message.  He writes that the film “inject[ed] a cold point of tough resistance to evil forces afoot in Europe today”.  With this statement, it is apparent that the film was viewed as a propagandistic tool of the war effort.  Its antifascist undertone and subliminal support for aiding the European cause against the Nazis is clearly demonstrated and understood at the time.  This further shows how the film was viewed not only as a great romantic drama film, but also a powerful piece of propaganda that influenced its audiences.

Citation :

Leon, Charls L. Ponce de. "Progressive Politics and American Dreams." Review in American History September 2008: 348.

Charles L. Ponce de Leon provides a critical analysis of Lary May’s book, The Big Tomorrow: Hollywood and the Politics of the American Way.  Leon begins by giving a background into film history and how cinema developed in a political manner.  He demonstrates how it became politically powerful and how it can be interpreted in revisionist studies through cultural anthropology, sociology, literary criticism, and social history.  It is with these methods that Leon further critiques the work of May’s book and demonstrates the true power of cinema.  Leon demonstrates how cinema’s production can be used to “peddle products that are subversive” and create a specified appeal for audiences.  In this manner, he claims that producers are able to use film techniques to create an exact interpretation which can vary little amongst audiences in the grand scheme.  Leon also states that cinema uses political implications to challenge the authority of the elites.  Such is seen in the production of Casablanca.  Leon then progresses his critical analysis towards films of the 1940’s and how they were heavily influenced not only by the lingering effects of the New Deal and the Great Depression, as can be seen by the dramatic mise-en-scene of the city of Casablanca in the film.  He also demonstrates how “progressive moviemakers eagerly contributed their talents to government service and a host of pro-war, antifascist films”. Leon then moves to analysis of the cultural, social, and political implications of the film Casablanca specifically.  He contends that the films played an important political role to the antifascist movement and demonstrated a strong propagandistic desire to aid the resistance movement.  However, he also notes that Rick’s “loss of independence” later hurt the film’s political undertones and created an opposite sentiment later on in the sixties.  In all, Leon critiques May’s book which discusses the political and social effects of early cinema and discusses the value they have towards audiences.  With this, he lends support to Casablanca’s social significance as a film of antifascism and pro-war significance.

Bergstrom, Janet. "Jean Renoir's Return to France." Poetics Today 17.3, Creativity and Exile: European/American Perspectives I (1996): 453-89.

In this article, Janet Bergstrom strives to determine the reason behind Renoir's long exile from France after World War II as well as his abandonment of French realist style. After the bitter failure of Rules of the Game in 1939, Renoir fled to the United States where he would continue to make Hollywood films, deserting his country (and perhaps morals, ideals, and sense of self) for good. After WWII, Renoir became somewhat of a sellout, conforming to Hollywood styles and expectations. Renoir's dramatically different approach to filmmaking, however, hindered him from achieving real commercial success in Hollywood, almost hinting that Renoir could not escape the French Realism that he worked so hard to define. Bergstrom also describes Renoir's alliances with the Communist Party and how this may have hurt Rules of the Game's success in prewar France. She also examines the "betrayal" felt by many of Renoir's fans, that their French hero had deserted them (456); Renoir, however, considered himself a "citizen of the world" that followed his instinct wherever it took him (458). Bergstrom also examines the depression that overtook Renoir upon the failure of his most-loved film. It is impossible to ascertain the truth behind Renoir's motives through mere speculation, though the betrayal that Renoir himself would have felt by the angry French audiences after the release of Rules of the Game is surely necessary to take into account.

This article is extremely helpful in understanding the impact that Rules of the Game initially had on the French people and why Renoir was so changed by it. Bergstrom provides a great deal of personal information about the life of Jean Renoir before, during, and after the creation of Rules of the Game. Knowing where Renoir was, mentally and politically, at the release of the film greatly aides in understanding his extreme reaction. Rules of the Game was Renoir's first real chance to express himself freely, uninhibited by social restraint or fears. He felt that he was led by his instinct and was very happy with the work he had created. He took offense when the French public took so negatively to Rules of the Game; he was proud of his work and expected his countrymen to share in the sentiment. Upon the realization that his 'baby' was a failure, Renoir felt the need to flee. This article really puts into perspective the importance of this film to Renoir and provides legitimate reasons for his seemingly-extreme reaction.

Armes, Roy. "The Paradoxes of French Realism." French Cinema. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985: 86-108.

Roy Armes takes a slightly different approach to analyzing Rules of the Game and the works of Renoir than my other sources. He starts off by saying that Renoir's works are not united by a common style. He, instead, characterizes Renoir's films as existing between contradictory impulses, in a state of tension. He suggests viewing and analayzing each of Renoir's films separately, each in its own contemporary setting. Armes believes this is necessary as Renoir proved to be greatly influenced by each shift, however miniscule, within French society before WWII. Each major political event in the European world of the 1930s can be seen as part of one of Jean Renoir's films. Armes acclaims Rules of the Game as Renoir's most impulsive, uninhibited work that toys with reality and illusion and also provides a "self-portrait of rare depth" (107). Armes describes the theatrical techniques used by Renoir and the 'dramatic fantasy' that he creates by forming several 'play within a play' structures. Armes believes that each pivotal moment in the film arises when two incongruously linked characters are brought together - a technique that both readily induces dramatic conflict within the film and obviously mirrors conflict within society, providing a clear juxtaposition to the imposing 2nd World War.

This article provides a different perspective from which to view the film. Unlike many other critics that group Renoir's films together as a continuous social critique, Roy Armes underlines the importance of viewing each film separately. If Renoir were truly sensitive to changes in French culture, each of his films would embody a different viewpoint and radiate an entirely different spirit. It is very important, as Armes suggests, to analyze each film in its own contemporary setting. Thus, Rules of the Game should not be immediately compared to Renoir's other works as it often is. Armes also brings up the possibility that the film was, for Renoir, something of a self portrait. This provides countless new options for viewing the film and thus, Jean Renoir. For instance, we can learn alot about Renoir and his intentions by studying the character of Octave. Paradoxically, watching the film and analyzing the character will help viewers better understand the filmmaker and, thus, his intentions with the film. The article also suggests that Renoir uses a 'dramatic fantasy' technique in order to artfully bury his political beliefs in a complicated web of relationships. Knowing this technique helps one extract Renoir's intended messages from the film.

Tifft, Stephen. "Drôle De Guerre: Renoir, Farce, and the Fall of France." Representations.38 (1992): 131-65.

In his article, Stephen Tifft argues the direct relationship between the political events of Europe in the 1930s and the events and themes present in Renoir's Rules of the Game. He remarks on Renoir's use of farce to provide a harsh criticism of upper-class French society and the risks that accompany this choice. Tifft lists the dangers that accompany Renoir's choice of employing comedy in his political arguments; one such danger helps explain the negative reception of the film among the French community as Renoir's audience took immediate offense to his harsh critiques. By imbedding his political beliefs in comedy, Renoir could have given the wrong impression to the public: that he was fed up with French culture and wished merely to insult the offenders. At such a fragile time in French society, such a blatant stab at culture proved disastrous and Tifft goes into great detail about the horrendous initial reception of Renoir's film. Tifft also makes the argument that Renoir's film is concerned, directly, with the conflict in Munich at the time of the script's writing. Tifft lists several examples for this rationale including the relation between the 'Four-Power Pact' of real-life Europe and the conflicts existing between the film's characters. He also analyzes the famous hunt scene, primarily for its critique of reckless aristocratic behavior that leaves helpless members of society at the mercy of the powerful. Tifft also praises Renoir's combination of history and farce in a manner that would both draw from and influence the society it is a part of.

In this article, Tifft gives a very convincing argument to directly correlate the social and political events in 1930s Europe with Jean Renoir's Rules of the Game. Tifft provides alot of evidence, tied to specific scenes in the film, to show that a character's actions were meant to mirror an element of popular culture. With such an abundance of information, readers do not have to wholeheartedly agree with each of Tifft's points, but rather have plenty of evidence to pick and choose for themselves which aspects from Rules of the Game, if any, were directly influenced by real life events. Tifft also analyzes the film as a farce, making it easier to separate important stylistic elements of the film from mere moments of comedy.

This New York Times piece, written by Bosley Crowther right after the release of Mrs. Miniver in the United States and his subsequent review, describes the incredible success of the film in painting a portrait of wartime Britain as sympathetic and relatable. The article begins by claiming that “the most effective ‘special pleading’ possible is that which stimulates the emotions and quickens a response from the heart,” as well as the effectiveness of gaining sympathy and identifying the viewer’s own life with the suffering on-screen. Crowther continues by describing just how very well Mrs. Miniver has achieved this. The movie shows people in all walks of life, from the stationmaster to the local aristocracy and the Minivers in between, and according to the article, all people who “might as soon be you.”

The article addresses the claim that the film is “too narrow” to be relatable, meaning that the society portrayed is too idealized to be realistic. But Crowther argues against this, saying that the film is still moving to the average viewer. The idyllic village setting, he says, actually increases the poignancy of the film’s wartime tale, since showing “a sudden violent disruption of pleasant life” is more affecting to a peaceful America than showing a struggling society “handed even more woe” would be. Crowther is quick to remind us that the effectiveness of this tactic is not because of American indifference, but is due simply to dramatic value. Consequently, the film seems to be able to balance the relevance of the Minivers’ situation with their model pre-war lifestyle; the article takes both arguments for and against Mrs. Miniver’s realism, and relatability and shows how they have both been successfully used in gaining a nation’s compassion for a people enduring a war that America itself is not directly involved with on the homefront.

Crowther, Bosley. "'Mrs. Miniver' Expresses the Inspiring Strength and Dignity Of Ordinary Civilians Under Total War." The New York Times 14 June 1942.

This article, published in the New York Times on June 5th 1942, was the newspaper’s first review of the film adaptation of Mrs. Miniver. Bosley Crowther gives the film a glowing review, calling it “The finest film yet made about the present war, and a most exalting tribute to the British, who have taken it gallantly.” In this review, the film has proved to accomplish exactly what it has set out to do: giving a touching, human face to the British civilians suffering from the war. The review calls these citizens, embodied in the Miniver family, “front line fighters,” citing their courage as the “nation’s most vital strength.” The film impresses upon the viewers that it is common people as well as soldiers who are fighting this battle; if it was difficult before for the average American to relate to the fighting English, Mrs. Miniver, suggests Crowther, allows any peacefully-existing, middle-class American to imagine what it might be like if tragedy were to strike their own family. The review also seems praise the way in which the British family holds up to its hardships. Instead of being cloying, they are commendably strong and courageous – this is propaganda that doesn't appear to be forced upon the viewer by any government.

The film’s ties to Winston Churchill’s ideology are also mentioned. Mrs. Miniver was released on the two-year anniversary of Churchill’s famous “We shall never surrender” speech, and in the words of Crowther, “One seeing it can understand why there was no doubt in Churchill’s mind.” The film seems to have easily served a dose of strong political ideology within such a relatable, sympathy-evoking tale, combining affairs of state with a well-made, star-driven major studio picture. This praise-heavy review that immediately elicited so much support for the British, in a news source as influential as The New York Times, is a testimony to the film’s immense success as a propaganda piece.

Crowther, Bosley. "' Mrs. Miniver,' Excellent Picture of England at War, Opens at the Music Hall -- 'Broadway,' With George Raft, at Capitol." The New York Times 5 June 1942.

Buss, Robin. "La Regle de jeu/The Rule of the Game (1939)." The French Through Their Films. New York: Ungar, 1988: 55, 114.

In his book, Robin Buss analyzes several important French films and how they relate to the society they depict as well as the movements they were a part of. He remarks that Rules of the Game was initially met with indifference and not long after, critiqued and banned. Now, however, the film is revered as one of the greatest cinematic achievements of all time. Buss explains that this extremely quick change in preferences is representative of the rapid culture changes in the past half century, especially in French society, and more importantly, as a result of war. Buss also points out an extremely interesting symbol in Rules of the Game: Renoir's use of food. For instance, Octave's refusal of breakfast is considered a sign of distress. The very importance placed on food in the culture depicted by Renoir both helps audiences connect to the story and reveals a superficiality present in the customs of popular culture. Thus, the very technique Renoir uses to reach out to his audience also condemns the practices central to their daily lives.

Robin Buss' book is an overall filmography of early 20th century French cinema. It provides an interesting look at Rules of the Game by placing it in its historical context. Unlike many other sources, Buss's book shows Renoir's film as one of the many. Instead of being the sole topic of discussion, the film is juxtaposed with other important works of French cinema, some with very similar themes, and readers are able to assess the importance of Rules of the Game at a point 50 years after its release. Most interestingly, Buss offers an alternate topic of study for the film: the use of food as a symbol. Renoir's use of this symbol could have a two-fold purpose: the first to connect with his audience. Renoir expressed a deep desire to become one with the public and the use of such a communal symbol would have not only brought his audience together but also  forged a bond between the audience  and the characters. The second purpose, conversely, is to provide a critique of French culture. In this tumultuous, growingly amoral society, food is one of the only thing that still matters. Fulfilling both of these purposes, food is also shown as a connector between the ruling class and the servants. This aides both in drawing connections to unite French society but also, more subtly, in upholding a method of critique.

The chapter entitled “Fighting Words” discusses Charlie Chaplin’s intentions for his film “The Great Dictator”.  The film was Chaplin’s first sound film.  Not wanting to alter his classic silent ‘tramp’ character, Charlie found the opportunity in this entry into sound to preserve his beloved character and talk to his audience for the first time.  “As Hitler I could harangue the crowds in jargon and talk all I wanted to,” wrote Charlie in his autobiography.  “A Hitler story was an opportunity for burlesque and pantomime.” Charlie exposed Hynkel (representing Hitler) in exactly this fashion.  For most of the film, Hynkel’s words amount to nothing more than gibberish.  When the dictator speaks intelligibly, the audience still senses malevolent babble. 

The chapter supports the thesis as it illustrates Chaplin’s intentions to mock Hitler his film.  It also demonstrates the striking contrast between the dictator and the barber.  The dictator appears foolish as a result of Chaplin’s work while the barber remains relatively silent and pure (until the end).  After developing these distinct characters for two hours, Charlie utilizes his first sound film to let out his own voice in the final speech, bashing hate and calling the soldiers to unite in the name of democracy and peace. 

Mast, Gerald. The Comic Mind: Comedy and the Movies. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973.

In the Chapter “Chaplin: Sound Films”, Gerald Mast analyses a few of the comedic moments in Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” and how this comedy effectively criticizes the Nazi regime.  Mast compares Hynkel’s globe scene (see tag on World War II and the American Film) to the scene immediately following of the barber shaving a customer.  Mast discusses the ridiculous slapstick nature of the globe scene and the fast yet precise nature of the shaving scene and illustrates the contrast between the dictators fixation on world domination to the barbers human work.  Mast also refers to Hynkel’s ludicrous speeches in which the dictator flails his arms about wildly and barks so vehemently the microphone cracks and seems to melt in his hands.  During these speeches, Hynkel pauses intermittently to pour water down his  blazing throat and down his pants. 

This chapter directly supports the thesis as it demonstrates how Chaplin utilizes slapstick comedy to attack the Nazi regime.  The succession of the globe scene to the shaving scene demonstrates how the barber succeeds where the dictator fails. Additionally, the contrast is made more stiking as the barber succeeds in the shave using a sharp blade, while the dictator's dellusion of grandeur comes to a crashing halt as the globe of the world explodes in his face.  Mast also conjectures the Hynkel’s “wet” speech scene reveals how Hynkel’s private parts are burning as much as his throat suggesting that the Nazi propaganda has more to do with sexual energy and gibberish than with meaningful ideas. 

Gilman, Sander. "Is Life Beautiful? Can the Shoah Be Funny? Some Thoughts on Recent and Older Films". Critical Inquiry, Vol. 26 No. 2. (Winter, 2000): 279-30.

There has been a good deal of debate regarding how filmmakers and other artists should represent the Shoah (Holocaust).  In this article, Sander Gilman discusses how the Shoah has been represented in the arts, focusing on comedy and film.  Charlie Chaplin’s film “The Great Dictator” uses comedy to attack the Third Reich and to represent the beginnings of the Shoah.  Gilman asks whether the terror during of the Shoah and the Nazi regime can be understood through such comedy.  “The Great Dictator” was one of the first comic films to deal with the Nazis and their treatment of the Jews.  While the film touches on the initial stages of the Shoah, it was made before the real horror and genocide began; the satire’s main target is the Nazi Regime.  Gilman asserts that laughter is appropriate in films like “The Great Dictator” that deal with the Nazi regime as the enemy, leaving out the horrors of the Holocaust.  In effect, this targeted treatment of the regime assures the viewer that they are stronger than the Nazis. 

This article agrees with the thesis as it argues that the use of comedy in “The Great Dictator” effectively undermines the Nazi regime.  More than that, Gilman addresses one of the principal criticisms of the film, namely the incompatibility of laughter and the events of the Holocaust.  Critics often claim that the use of comedy in the film lessens the horrors that took place.  Viewing “The Great Dictator” today may give us this impression.  However, as Gilman discusses, Chaplin was ignorant of the extent of Nazi terror simply because the film was produced pre-Shoah. Indeed, post World War II, Chaplin asserted that “had I known of the actual horrors of the German concentration camps, I could not have made The Great Dictator; I could not have made fun of the homicidal insanity of the Nazis.” In the historical context of the film’s production, the film accurately and effectively utilizes laughter to challenge the Third Reich. 

This book gives a timeline of the Disney Studio beginning in 1901, a historical context of how Walt Disney created his company, and an explanation of how the Disney Company was able to rise. It compares the Disney Company to other studios and explains how Disney became involved in making films for the government. It mentions that “Disney cartoons took on wartime themes” in 1942 and that there were “a number of films, produced for the government which were to meant to entertain and educate,” such as Food Will Win the War and Out of the Frying Pan into the Firing Line. Also, it discusses the impact The New Spirit had on Americans. “Donald Duck was chosen to star in the film, and a vast percentage of Americans testified that it encouraged them to pay their taxes promptly.” This helped the American government because the film was made “to try to persuade Americans to pay their income taxes on time as the money was so necessary for the war effort.”
    This source addresses both parts of my thesis. First, it provides a historical context for the Disney Company from its beginning to the present and discusses how Disney cartoons were made. Yet, it is also valuable to the second part of my thesis because it provides an actual example of a Disney propaganda cartoon affecting the way Americans acted.

This book shows how Mickey Mouse’s character affected America. Disney himself is said to have “perceived Mickey as a powerful and important symbol in American culture.” He had previously been used to help “people escape from their Depression anxieties.” This is one reason why Disney films were popular, but this source investigates why Disney cartoons were so well liked and finds that “Disney combined the myth-making medium of film with his perception of American popular taste.” The author claims “Mickey’s creation of a fantasy world is an accurate reflection of the cultural mood in 1944. After three years of war, Americans were tired of propaganda, and beyond ‘those glorious days of 1942, when audiences cheered the American flag on the screen.’” Uelmen goes on to explain that the Disney studio offered an escape to the war by providing audiences with a fantasy world. Disney “played an important role in projecting images of wartime unity.” Unity was defined as the civilian war effort and “how Mickey perceives cultural difference in America is a reflection of both the wartime consolidation of public opinion and Disney’s unique way of seeing the culture.” For example, Minnie says that in San Francisco the sun sets in the perfect place, but in Chinatown she says that she cannot read any of the signs in stores. Disney may “have been making a subtle reference to the power of Western resources to defeat the ‘Asian monster.’
    This source is very useful as it answers both parts of my thesis suggesting that Mickey Mouse’s character allowed Disney propaganda films to be successful. Uelmen discusses the background of Mickey Mouse and shows that his character was a precedent for why Disney cartoons were effective. Mickey’s character was used to help people deal with the Depression, so Americans were able to bond with his character. Therefore, they would be more inclined to trust and agree with the ideas presented in Disney cartoons later on even if the beliefs were pro-war.

The author examines five different cases to discover whether or not propaganda movies were able to reach the audiences they were designed to influence and if the films were actually capable of making an impact. One conclusion he makes is that audiences found their own meanings in the movies, so it was more the audience than the person supplying the propaganda who determined whether the film would have an effect. Data was recorded that actually showed that some American propaganda films “had no effect ‘on men’s motivation to serve as soldiers, which was considered the ultimate objective of the orientation programme.’” He thinks “while propaganda might be good at enforcing existing attitudes, it was largely ineffective in changing values that were determined to a far greater extent by family, peers and other important social influences.” In his book, he looks at British film propaganda in both World Wars, Soviet film propaganda in between 1917 and 1928, Film Propaganda in Germany in between 1933 and 1945, and Italian neorealist films.
    This book is valuable to my project because it discusses the second part of my thesis by investigating how film propaganda in general can affect people. The author, Nicholas Reeves, seems to agree with David Welch, the author of another article that in this bibliography, as he claims that propaganda’s effects are determined by the viewer. Also, the author reinforces ideas presented in other sources, which suggest that Disney used the American public’s ideas and Mickey Mouse’s character was based on American values. Lastly, this source is useful because it includes examples of propaganda in Europe, so this allows for comparison to American propaganda. Though my thesis is strictly about American propaganda, it would be helpful to read about the way propaganda was utilized in other countries.

David Welch’s article describes how the Nazis used propaganda to influence public opinion. He argues “the concept of a ‘national’ or ‘people’s’ community was a key element in the ‘revolutionary’ aims of the Nazi regime, and illustrates the remarkably ambitious nature of its propaganda.” He claims that German propaganda was ambitious because it attempted to unite the classes. The author also analyzes “two sections of the community- the industrial working class and German youth.” He believes that there is “considerable evidence to suggest that Nazi policies and propaganda reflected many of the aspirations of large sections of the population.” This argument continues as Welch says that propaganda is “as much about confirming rather than converting public opinion. Propaganda, if it is to be effective must, in a sense, preach to those who are already partially converted.” He points out that the “regime’s propaganda was pragmatic enough to recognize that its policies could be maintained provided section of the community who were opposed to Nazism remained quiescent.” He mentions that Nazi leaders such as Joseph Goebbels identified the importance of propaganda and attempted to utilize it to their advantage. Propaganda may have been effective in Germany because the country was suffering from national humiliation after World War I and was also was facing economic troubles. The propaganda also based on traditional German ideas, which included: an “appeal to national unity based on the principle: ‘The community before the individual,’ the need for racial purity,” and “charismatic leadership.” The purpose of Nazi propaganda was to radically “restructure German society so that the prevailing class, religious and sectional loyalties would be replaced by a new heightened national awareness.”
    This article gives an interesting viewpoint about the effects of propaganda as the author says that propaganda is more capable of confirming an opinion that already exists than completely altering a person’s perspective. This idea conflicts with Meaney’s article, which describes how propaganda can manipulate any person’s mindset. Yet, Welch’s argument is supported by some of the sources that describe the Disney Company, which claim that Disney based some of its cartoons on public opinion. Though the article uses Germany as an example, it tends to discuss propaganda mostly in general terms, so its arguments are applicable to my thesis.

This article explains why propaganda is such a powerful force and uses Germany as an example. The author thinks that propaganda is not a means of persuasion, but rather “an extension of the techniques of psychical coercion.” He incorporates ideas from Adolf Hitler, who tried to manipulate facts to control public opinion. Meaney investigates the way Hitler used propaganda and concludes that “terror used with suddenness can stampede the masses into a course of action; used over a prolonged period it can exhaust individuals psychologically and cause them to collapse and to yield.” In his argument, he also discusses modern advertising, which makes it easy to spread propaganda. With an example, he demonstrates “the full effect of concentrated propaganda on an individual, showing that a gradual, unconscious, involuntary, but nevertheless effective breaking down of the will’s latent opposition took place.”
    This article addresses the second part of my thesis as it explains the effects of propaganda. Though it focuses on German propaganda, which differed from American propaganda, the author discusses propaganda in general to show that it can be incredibly powerful. The example that Meaney uses demonstrates how any person can be manipulated by propaganda, so it seems as though the author would argue that Americans would have been greatly affected by cartoon propaganda during World War II if he were writing a paper with my thesis.

Bates, Robin. "Audiences on the Verge of a Fascist Breakdown: Male Anxieties and Late 1930s French Film." Cinema Journal 36.3 (1997): 25-55.

This article by Bates brings into question the general trends of French film in the late 1930s. By offering a comparison of 3 films—Marcel Carné’s Quai des brumes (1938), Maurice Tourneur’s Katia (1938) and Renoir’s La Règle du jeu (1939)—Bates delves into the role that film played for “viewers on the verge of cataclysmic change,” i.e. those at the brink of World War II (25). She uses various sources, such as reviews, letters, and even censorship rulings, in order to prove that film audiences respond more favorably to works that ease their concerns and angrily to those that exacerbate and confront these anxieties. Bates also analyzes the “crisis of masculinity,” a term coined by Ginette Vincendeau. She argues that in the atmosphere of pre-World War II Europe, as deeply powerful males like Hitler, Franco and Mussolini grew in influence, the French people began to grow disheartened and lose confidence in their male leaders. Thus, these three films reflect this idea of weak masculine characters.

Bates’ argument is relevant to my thesis because it proposes a different infusion of politics into the film. Bates mentions Theweleit’s description of archetypes, categorizing the character of Christine into the type of “pure white countess” (27). One could even argue that these archetypes are taken to the fullest extent in the film to be used for a scathing critique of the haute bourgeoisie. Her argument that the portrayal of males and male-female relations in film drastically changed in the late 1930s as a result of the pre-War political situation supports my argument. Bates’ article also provides in-depth analyses of the three films and includes key reactions to the films at the time of their premieres, again showing the effects of the films on not just French, but also European society.

Silver, Charles. "Jean Renoir and Josef Von Sternberg: A Centennial Duo." MoMA.18 (1994): 24-7.

Silver compares and contrasts Jean Renoir and Josef Von Sternberg. As contemporaries in the film industry, the two filmmakers carry numerous similarities, and even some coincidences link the two. Both immigrated to the United States, residing in California, especially in response to Hitler’s growing power in Europe, and both also maintained similar close relationships with their actors. Silver even compares Renoir to Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu, as they both chose actors they already knew as people; Renoir would cast his brother Pierre, or close friends like Jean Gabin. Even in terms of cinematic themes, Renoir and Sternberg both focused on the power and pervasiveness of water throughout their filmmaking careers. Yet, the two filmmakers also had a number of differences. Whereas Renoir maintained a more impromptu, almost sloppy style, Sternberg had a reputedly more perfectionist directing style, clearly dictating his cinematic vision to his actors.

Though Silver’s piece is more of a broad discussion of two filmmakers during the World War II era, he does mention artist Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s influence on his son Jean. Silver also discusses Jean Renoir’s “reverence for the past, both civilization’s and his own,” which incorporates not only the politics of the time, but also the literary and artistic movements, and technological advancements (i.e. sound film) that accompanied (26). Silver does not focus deeply on exactly what political events directly affected the making of La Règle du jeu, but does offer key insight to greater cultural influences on the filmmaker, which loosely supports the concept that the era’s politics and culture molded the film.

Tifft, Stephen. "Drôle De Guerre: Renoir, Farce, and the Fall of France." Representations.38 (1992): 131-65.

Tifft argues a relatively more direct relationship between events of the 1930s and the creation of Renoir’s La Règle du jeu. According to Tifft, current events did more than just influence Renoir; Renoir incorporated direct concepts and ideas from events of the era into specific scenes. For example, Renoir’s digust with the Munich appeasement agreements led to the Marquis de Chesnaye’s yielding to Jurieu, gladly appeasing him, and permitting him to run away with his wife in La Règle du jeu. This concept parallels the appeasement of Hitler by pressuring Czechoslovakia to yield the Sudetenland. Both situations would lead to disaster. Tifft also focuses his discussion on Renoir’s innovative use of farce in combination with history, especially noted in the hunt scene. Renoir’s film would, in turn, influence its viewers as much as the filmmaker’s observations of society had influenced the creation of it.

Tifft’s argument is, in fact, extremely supportive of my own thesis. By proving that current events played a much larger role than expected in Renoir’s creation of La Règle du jeu, Tifft reinforces my argument ten-fold. He raises unique points as he mentions direct corresponding ideas between history and scenes in the film. Though some of Tifft's concepts and parallels between the film and current events seem a bit farfetched, La Règle du jeu was clearly a means for Renoir to portray his left-wing political views, and offer commentary on his opinion of the state of affairs of the country immediately before it entered World War II. 

Bergstrom, Janet. "Jean Renoir's Return to France." Poetics Today 17.3, Creativity and Exile: European/American Perspectives I (1996): 453-89.

Bergstrom delves into the question of why Jean Renoir did not return to France following World War II. After directing La Règle du jeu in 1939, Renoir fled to the United States, where he resided until his death. Many French citizens and critics like André Bazin considered this a traitorous act, as all other French filmmakers who had fled to the United States had returned after the War. Especially in light of the fact that Jean Renoir had almost single-handedly molded the French poetic realist genre that was so characteristic of the pre-War time period, it seemed even more blasphemous that he would not return to his native homeland. Bergstrom also discusses a growing disparity between Renoir’s films before and after World War II. Pre-War films distinctly follow a realist style, whereas post-War films have clearly yielded to Hollywood’s influences and expectations. For this reason, it seems after World War II, Renoir fit neither French film style nor American film style, and was some awkward amalgamation of the two.

Bergstrom’s analysis of Renoir’s career before and after World War II is fascinating and quite relevant to my thesis. Her description of not only Renoir’s personal life, such as his association with communists through his wife Marguerite Houllé and his writing for the communist publication Ce soir, but also the political events of the time reveal the changes in the environment in which he lived in a span of decades. Bergstrom also mentions the process and history of creating La Règle du jeu, including Renoir’s association with various other French filmmakers and his philosophical allegiances to writers like Émile Zola. In particular, it is interesting to note Bergstrom’s argument that La Règle du jeu’s failure fueled Renoir’s reluctance to return to France after the War.

Renoir, Jean. "La Regle du jeu--1939." My Life and My Films. Trans. Norman Denny. N.p.: Da Capo, 1991. Rpt. in Jean Renoir's The Rules of the Game. N.p.: n.p., n.d.

In this excerpt from his book, Renoir describes the process in which he planned the creation of La Règle du jeu. Baroque music, especially the works of Coupenn, Rameau, Lulli and Grétry, served as the platform for Renoir’s focus on the haute bourgeoisie. A focus on Lestringuez’s “amorous intrigues” inspired the filmmaker to focus on the frivolity of love as a thematic motif in the film. Hearkening back to his early childhood, Renoir recounted images of Sologne—the fog, the countryside, and the hunting season—all clearly portrayed in the film. Renoir also describes the influence of Les Caprices de Marianne, which he had originally considered creating a modern remake of; a fragment of its themes would be seen in the tragic climax of La Règle du jeu.

This excerpt of Renoir’s book is particularly interesting and relevant to my thesis because of its description of the filmmaker’s philosophy and his own awareness of what influences him. He describes the role of Nora Grégor, who played Christine de La Chesnaye, and her husband, as the two faced increasing troubles with the rise of Hitler in their homeland of Austria. Renoir described his approach to film by saying, “One starts with the environment to arrive at the self.” Essentially, he takes from what is around him to come upon what he is to create; he wrote the part of Christine for Nora Grégor. This philosophy is the same of Renoir’s father. Jean Renoir claims La Règle du jeu is a war film, though there is not a blatant ounce of war in the film. Instead, the film was a result of the impending World War II. Renoir intended to offer a pleasant film for audiences to forget their worries; however, La Règle du jeu emphasized the dismantling of French society, testament to Renoir’s inability to isolate himself from the politics of the time, and further evidence in support of my argument.

Rafferty, Terrence. "FILM; 'The Film of Films': Renoir's Masterpiece." Rev. of La Regle du jeu, dir. Jean Renoir. New York Times 18 Jan. 2004. 30 Nov. 2008 .

In this film review, Rafferty describes Renoir’s own aversion to technical refinements as they pertain to film. In light of the recent DVD release of Renoir’s La Règle du jeu, Rafferty pays homage to the director and his ability to skillfully dismantle the conventions of 18th century comedic film. Apart from a brief plot summary and discussion of Renoir’s focus on the “bourgeois of our age,” Rafferty raises some interesting points with regard to parallels between Renoir’s life and experiences, and scenes in the film. For example, Rafferty posits that the final scene of the character Octave, played by Renoir himself, leaving the estate without direction suggests Renoir’s plans to leave France immediately following the premiere of the film. This suggests that perhaps Octave was a spitting image of Renoir not only physically, but mentally and in terms of personality. This would also agree with Renoir’s method of actor selection and his notorious impromptu style of script editing and filming. Providing historical context and mention of the film’s ban during World War II, Rafferty offers a wide scope of insight into the film’s making.

Rafferty’s review, though inspired by the DVD release of the film, makes note of different important aspects of the film. His description of the film’s parallels to Renoir’s own life offers a deeper psychological connection to the filmmaker than simply the political atmosphere that may have influenced La Règle du jeu. This presents another perspective with which to approach the greater question of the influences of current events at the time of the film’s creation, and other personal influences that affected Renoir, the subject of my thesis.

Jacobs, Lewis. “World War II and the American Film.” Cinema Journal 7 (Winter, 1967-1968): 1-21. 

Krämer, Peter. “ The (Un)Timeliness of Satire: The Reception of the The Great Dictator in West Germany”.  The British Film Institute online. 2006. <http://chaplin.bfi.org.uk/programme/conference/pdf/peter-kramer.pdf>

This article discusses the rerelease of Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” to German audiences in 1958.  Krämer talks about German attitudes in 1950’s postwar Germany.  The widespread rerelease of the film across Germany was unpopular, selling poorly at the box office: “The Great Dictator was left far behind by many American films and much of the German competition.” Krämer illustrates why German audiences did not welcome Chaplin’s antifascist film. While anti-Semitism and fascism saw a gradual decline after the war, they were still widespread.  In a poll asking about Hitler’s statesmanship, 41% of people responded positively in 1959.  A 1958 poll revealed that 22% of respondents did not welcome Jews living in Germany.  Krämer also suggests that the Nazi regime just a decade earlier was still too much of a horrific reality for cinema satire.  One reviewer commented that Chaplin’s satirical comedy demonstrated how “apparently the Nazi terror has already been forgotten”. 

Throughout the film, Chaplin switches between slapstick comedy and serious drama. Krämer’s article is relevant to the thesis as it sheds light on the question of whether satire was an appropriate medium for a grim topic like Nazi Germany. The lousy box office result in 1950’s Germany is an indication that “The Great Dictator” that the satire was inappropriate and ineffective in communicating its message.  From a contemporary viewpoint, I would argue that this is correct.  Knowing the extent of Hitler’s Holocaust today, Chaplin’s comedic medium appears to trivialize one of the most horrendous offenses against mankind.  However, it is important to understand Chaplin’s general ignorance of the stark situation in Germany during the production of “The Great Dictator” in the 1930’s. I would argue that the satire was effective and appropriate upon its original release as previously demonstrated; however, its ignorance of the true extent of Nazi Germany would make this a highly controversial film if it were (originally) released today. 

In the Chapter entitled "The Movies and World War II", Gianos discusses the strong isolationist sentiments in the United States during the late 1930’s. With the Great Depression and the horrific images World War I still in clear hindsight, the United States was not ready to enter a new war, especially one that was thousands of miles away.  College students and American families vehemently formed committees to stay out of the latest world conflict.  The film industry adopted similar antiwar sentiments.  In particular, Hollywood feared that films depicting the conflicts abroad might offend German and Italian audiences.  Joseph Breen, head of the production code, helped to dispel filmmakers’ interest in the European tensions. Charlie Chaplin was among the first to criticize the Nazis on film in The Great Dictator, in which Chaplin fervently attacks the fascist regime.  

This chapter is relevant to the thesis as it depicts how the isolationist feelings affected the film industry in the prewar United States.  The article illustrates Chaplin’s bold treatment of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany (through the veils of Adenoid Hynkel and Tomania).  The final scene of the film in which the barber makes a speech to “fight for liberty” clearly demonstrates Chaplin’s call to end the United States isolationism to fight Hitler’s fascist regime.  For the time, Chaplin is unconventionally courageous.  

The "B" Movie Goes to War in Hitler, Beast of Berlin (1939)

Erb, Cynthia. "'Have You Ever Seen the Inside of One of Those Places?': Psycho, Foucault, and the Postwar Context of Madness." Cinema Journal 45.4 (2006) 45-63.

Erb's article examines the post World War II phenomenon of deinstitutionalization. Occurring after several exposes brought to light the poor conditions and decrepitude of mental institutions as well as several films that featured institutions in a negative light, deinstitutionalization came about because of both the financial pressures that were acknowledged by the federal government and the moral questions that were raised by the public. The shifting attitude toward institutionalization was also affected by the influx of veterans with traumatic stress disorders and acquired nervous conditions after World War II. The idea that many people in society were afflicted with mental disorders, not only a select few, dramatically changed the perception of mental illness within the United States.

Erb goes onto argue that while films like Spellbound use mental illness as a tool to advance the plot and feature mental afflictions that are easily “cured” within the course of the film, Hitchcock’s later works The Wrong Man (1956), Vertigo (1958), and Psycho (1960) all address mental illness and instability as something that cannot be cured and that remains with people beyond the duration of films. This idea of extending the boundaries of mental confusion not only applies to the direct portrayal of mental illness within Hitchcock’s films, but also to the treatment of surrealist sequences and motifs within Spellbound and Psycho. Like the treatment of mental illness, Erb notes that the use of surrealism in Spellbound is also completely contained to a single sequence. It begins and it ends and after the specific sequence has finished, surrealist dream sequences never again plague the afflicted John Ballantine. However, in Psycho, a later Hitchcock film, there is no contained surrealist sequence. Instead, several surrealist images sporadically appear throughout the film. Through his evolving treatment of both mental illness and surrealism, Hitchcock reflects the public’s shifting view that mental illness is not easily contained or cured.

Is Life Beautiful? Can the Shoah Be Funny? Some Thoughts on Recent and Older Films

Sander Gilman toils with the confusing emotional relationship between horror and humor, investigating the links between the two in regard to the Holocaust.  He sets up a distinction between the reality of the Holocaust, which demands seriousness, and the representation of the Holocaust, siting scholars such as Terrence Des Pres, who believes that humor can be used as a coping mechanism. Gilman looks at various films about the Holocaust and the works of various Jewish comedians in order to propagate that approaching the Holocaust by way of humor is rarely attempted, as laughter is not the socially constructed reaction.  Films that have been successful in political mockery of World War II Fascism such as Charlie Chaplin’s, The Great Dictator, date back to pre-Holocaust production, before such use of comedy was deemed taboo or by a conspicuous Jewish director.     

Gilman turns to Life as Beautiful a successful integration of comedy and the Holocaust because of its human not Jewish appeal and uses Jakob the Liar by Jurek Becker as a means of highlighting its success.  Gilman suggests that the film is “quasi-autobiographical” as it implicates Benigni’s father’s experiences, an Italian non-Jewish soldier.  Gilman speculates that the success of the integration is due to the film’s non-Jewish world that separates the Holocaust from the past and the future. Moreover, the laughter is encouraged because it confirms the success of Guido’s actions to save his son, the more we laugh the better job Guido is doing in protecting his son and if our expectations are fulfilled we feel good about laughing. 

Despite several differences and parallels, Benigni’s film unlike Becker’s, was made in the 1990’s and by a self-conscious non-Jew.  His emphasis on the human tragedy of the Holocaust regardless of religion is something Gilman believes makes his integration of humor and holocaust feasible.  

The well respected movie critic Roger Ebert gives Roberto Benigni’s Life is Beautiful a positive and supportive review, despite its controversial depiction of the Holocaust and its supplemental comedy based and fable-like narrative.  Ebert celebrates the humanistic aspects of the film, viewing the film’s intentions in a much more lighthearted fashion than some of the film’s critics. 

Ebert provides insight into the controversy surrounding the film’s use of humor and the Holocaust by way of information from his first-hand conversation with Benigni at the Toronto Film Festival in which Benigni revealed to Ebert that he offended right wing Italians and left wing critics at Cannes.  Ebert, however, approaches the film as the fictional fable it claims to be rather than a misrepresentation of the Holocaust, praising the film’s “sidestepping of politics in favor of simple human ingenuity.” He suggests that the film is “not about Nazis and Fascists but about the human spirit.” 

In regards to comedy, Ebert rejects the notion that the film makes the Holocaust into comedy, instead suggesting that the film uses comedy as a symbol for paternal devotion.  He believes that the elaborate game constructed by Guido, and his undying humor are his only weapons with which to protect his son. 

Ebert applauds the very optimism that other critics such as Gerald Peary and David Denby of the New Yorker demean.  He believes that the film speaks about hope, future, and the “human conviction.”

Gerald Peary of the Arizona provides an example of one of Benigni’s harsher critics calling his review of the film, “an angry Jewish column.” Indeed, Peary’s highly sarcastic analysis of the film is more visceral and passion-infused than it is a fair and effective critique, but it provides a telling example of the immense opposition that erupted in reaction to the film. 

For example, the first of his list of disapproving commentary on the film is based on his personal and general dislike of Roberto Benigni as a comedian.  He believes he is merely an insecure and vain ham, unworthy of his National acclaim in Italy.  Next, he belittles Benigni’s motivations for the film by, in true Journalistic fashion, skewing his words.  He suggests that Benigni’s “solipsistic reasoning” for the portion of the film that depicts the Holocaust was in order to put his character in an extreme situation, a claim that sheds a harsh and unsympathetic light on Benigni as the film’s creator.  He then proceeds to describe the plot of the film but with a tone that is doubtful of the film’s realism and critical of its illogical unfolding. 

Peary’s main argument, however, is that the film casts an optimistic, feel-good light on the Holocaust.  He acknowledges that the film was never intended to be a documentary, but yet still candy-coats the harsh reality of the Holocaust by focusing only on the survivors and ignoring the horrors of death all together.  Moreover, Peary’s final few sentiments twist his critique into a personal Jewish objection as he scoffs at the Jewish fans of the film.  In sum, his review furiously rejects every aspect of the film, providing a concrete example of why the film created such a controversy upon its release.