CHAPTER ONE
Detlef Sierck in Europe
āI didnāt expect the Nazis to last. I was wrong about that. First of all, like a lot of people, I didnāt ever expect them to get powerāand then, when they did get in, I didnāt believe they could hold on to it.ā
āDOUGLAS SIRK, 19701
IN 1934, AFTER TWO UFA (UNIVERSUM FILM-AKTIEN GESELLSCHAFT) executives attended a performance of Sirkās stage production of Twelfth Night in Berlin, the director was invited to work for the Berlin-based film company. It had been established in 1917 as a corporation run by a consortium whose business was making films and money. In 1927, it was bought by Alfred Hugenberg, an extreme right-wing financier with close ties to the Nazi Party. In 1933, Hitler came to power and appointed Joseph Goebbels as minister of propaganda; his goal was to assume control of the media in all forms, and that included UFA. Public book burnings began soon afterwards, although the types of films coming out of UFA remained relatively constant.
There are several reasons for this, including the fact that the company was not only an established part of the business landscape but was also prosperous. As Marc Silberman puts it, āexcept for the exclusion of āundesirablesā [notably Jews and Leftists], there was a remarkable continuity in the personnel on the management level of the film industry before and after January 1933 ā¦ In other words, the main social function of National Socialism in the film industry was to sustain the capitalist industrial structure to the advantage of big business and at the expense of small and midsized operations.ā2
While Sirk, whose work in the theatre had made him a well-known figure of the left, became one of numerous āundesirablesā to find or maintain a place at UFA, others departed the scene, many in fear for their lives. Although little detailed biographical information is available about this period of Sirkās career, it appears that he managed to do things his own way not only because his films were successful but because, despite the oppressive circumstances, he found himself working with like-minded individuals.
In fact, even after UFA had been nationalized in 1937, bringing it formally under the control of the governmentās propaganda ministry, Goebbels regarded it as a problem. As historian Klaus Kreimeier points out, despite official policy, not only was it āstill employing unreliable types capable of equivocation,ā but āthe contingent of National Socialist Party adherents (working there) was small, and even in their presence criticism was repeatedly voiced.ā3
In his interview with Jon Halliday, Sirk confirmed this, recalling that, during his time at UFA, āthe workers and technicians were mainly anti-Nazi, much more so than the intellectuals.ā4 He also went on to explain that, just as he later found ways to deal with Hollywood on his own terms, he also managed to negotiate his way past prohibitions at UFA: āYou could still get away with extraordinary things under the Nazis. It took time for everything to seize up, and at UFA there was still a certain amount of room to manoeuvre.ā5
Part of the reason for this was that Goebbels was concerned that the films being made at UFA should, for the most part at least, adhere to the principles of popular entertainment rather than pitching hard-line propaganda. The problem created by his attempt to, in the words of historian Eric Rentschler, āaestheticize the political in order to anaesthetize the publicā6 was that he was inadvertently giving filmmakers license to inflect āthe politicalā in ways that he hadnāt anticipated. In other words, to tell stories their own way. The critical question for those exploring Sirkās work, and for this chapter, is the kind of use the director made of the prevailing circumstances at UFA during his short time there.
Between 1935 and 1937, he made seven feature films under the company banner, five about female characters colliding with hostile circumstances. Three travel across oceansāin Schlussakord (1936) and Zu neuen Ufern and La Habanera (both 1937)ābut they and their soul-sisters are all on metaphorical journeys. In Das Madchen vom Moorhof (1935), Helga (Hansi Knoteck) is an unwed mother confronted by social prejudice and hypocrisy. But, although she is the title character, the protagonist is the man who, eventually, stands by her. The tone is lighter in Das Hofkonzert (1936), an operetta, but Christine (Martha Eggerth), a singer, is equally subject to a fraught situation in which sheās cast as an unwelcome outsider.
While this might seem to confirm the notion that the character focus of the films that Sirk made in Germany was sustained into his career in Hollywood, it doesnāt. In fact, although heās long been best known for his films about women, only nine of the twenty-nine films he made after leaving Europe have females as their central characters. But even if the connections between the two phases of his career lie elsewhere, in these films itās the womanās plight that drives the plot.
Although all five are distinguished by compelling performances from their female leads, Sirkās two collaborations with Zarah Leanderāin Zu neuen Ufern and La Habaneraāare what stand out. Despite her reputation as being generally troublesome,7 and Goebbelsās famous dislike for herāhe is reputed to have described her as an āenemy of Germanyāāthe Swedish-born actress became a star in Nazi Germany. Only after she returned to Sweden in 1943 did the press turn on her.
In an interview with Eckhardt Schmidt,8 Sirk recounted visiting her backstage in Vienna in 1936 while she was performing in the musical, Axel an der Himmelstur. During the casting for Zu neuen Ufern, heād been sent there by UFA production boss, Ernst Hugo Correll, and was immediately taken by what he describes as āthe whole strange Nordic landscape of her faceā: āIt was as if she was covered by a blanket of ice,ā he continues. āRarely was there any movement in her face, but she had wonderful eyes and exuded a great calm.ā He knew almost at once that she was right for the role of the tormented chanteuse in Zu neuen Ufern, although, after three days of screen tests, UFA executives became troubled by her āstrange blend of femininity and masculinity.ā āEverything about her was in a minor key,ā Sirk says, āeven her voice.ā
As in much of the rest of the world at the time, the prevailing wisdom in Nazi Germany was that a womanās place was in the home looking after her children. In his commentary on La Habanera, Bruce Babington identifies āNational Socialismās perverse ability to colonise themes and language not in themselves Nazi.ā9 So, like the German cinemaās wider roster of female stars, Leander represented a problem for the authorities. As critic Antje Ascheid observes, āThe very presence and immense popularity of a star like Leander exemplify the ideological inconsistencies that existed in everyday life under Nazi rule.ā10 Further evidence that, despite the strict measures that Goebbels put into place, the film business was a very difficult one to control.
For Sirk, Leander was perfect casting, and he constantly draws on the tensions between her public persona as a woman very much in control of her life and the traumas encountered by the characters she played for him. Her exterior might have signified a magisterial stillness, but violent storms raged within. And, in both Zu neuen Ufern and La Habanera, despite the ostensible āhappy endings,ā those tensions remain unresolved.
Sirk made two other features for UFA, both directly linked to his time in the theatre. The first was the Moliere-inspired April! April!; the second, the Ibsen adaptation, Stutzen der Gesellschaft. Both deal loosely with the workings of class and capitalism, never far away throughout Sirkās career. His stylistic range is further illustrated by the neorealist Boefje, which he made in Holland after leaving Germany and shortly before his departure from Europe for the US.
APRIL! APRIL! (1935)
āIf he does not assert a system of virtues, he identifies the reverse of them, pretentiousness, insincerity, hypocrisy; finds amusement in the contrasts between what men are and what they think themselves, what they endeavour to do and what is in their nature to be: he reveals things which deform men, separate them from their fellows, and magnify their differences.ā
āJOHN WOOD ON MOLIERE, 195311
A deliciously funny screwball farce, Sirkās feature debut is very much in the mode of Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme/The Would-Be Gentleman. And theatre producer John Woodās above observations about the seventeenth-century playwright are equally applicable to April! April! In fact, they also encapsulate a general view of the world akin to Sirkās, even though much of the directorās work was in the realm of melodrama rather than comedy.
The filmās title sets the tone for what is to follow. āApril! April!ā is the exclamation youāll hear in Germany after someone has made you the butt of an April Foolsā Day hoax. In most countries, citizens could expect to find themselves free of pranksters by midday, since custom has it that the joke rebounds on the joker after then. However, in Sirkās film, written by H. W. Litschke and Rudo Ritter (best known for the opera, Penthesilea), the games go on long after the appropriate hour has passed and the ricocheting chaos can even continue into the following day.
The central character is Julius Lampe (Erhard Siedel), an endearing buffoon with upwardly mobile aspirations who, nominally at least, is in charge of Lampeās Nudelfabrik, a noodle-making factory. Iām not entirely sure why, but ānoodle,ā or ānudel,ā is an automatically funny word, the humor only enhanced when itās spoken in German. Lampeās wife, Mathilde (Lina Carstens), appears to be the one who really cares about climbing the social ladderālike Harriet Blaisdell (Lynn Bari) in Sirkās later Has Anybody Seen My Galāalthough her husband seems willing enough to push aside his discomfort with the required airs and graces and go along for the ride. He used to be a humble baker, she a cook, and they have now, somehow, managed to hit the jackpot.
The family maid (Hilde Schneider) delivers the letter to befuddled noodle-maker Julius Lampe (Erhard Siedel) that sets the plot of April! April! in motion.
We first find him sleeping his way through a Sunday-morning recital by his daughter, Mirna (Charlott Daudert), and her goofy beau, Reinhold Leisegang (Werner Finck). The finely attired guests, anticipating the snooty attendees at the country club party in All That Heaven Allows, politely applaud their performance, while turning down their noses at the familyās ambitious affectations. One of them, Finke (Paul Westermeier), sardonically asides, āThank God, Iām not musical.ā
While all this is happening, the family maid (Hilde Schneider) is scurrying across the room towards the slumbering man of the house, carrying the letter that is to set the loopy plot in motion. It is from Prince von Hosten-Bohlau (Albrecht Schoenhals), containing an order for noodles, and it leads a very excited Mathilde to see opportunity knocking, call the recital to a halt, announce the familyās very close relationship to local royalty, and regard poor Leisegang as no longer a suitable marriage prospect for Mirna.
For Finke and his friend (Herbert Weissbach), the Lampesā pomposity is āintolerable,ā so, given that itās April 1, they conspire to put them in their place. Pretending to be the prince, Finke phones Julius and announces an imminent visit. The guests are dispensed with, the newspapers are contacted, the Lampesā mansion is prepared, and bedlam ensues.
It should have been avoided when Leisegang discovers the prank that is being played and tells Julius ā¦ actually, he has to persuade him because Julius is not especially quick on the uptake. But instead of immediately calling the preparations for the visit to a halt, Julius decides that they need someone to play the part of the illustrious visitor. Given the public humiliation if the prince doesnāt appear, he sees no alternative. The force of social expectations is just too great.
Thus, Mueller (Hubert von Meyerinck), a traveling salesman who just happens to be passing through, is cast in the role. Meanwhile, after the prince reads about his forthcoming visit in the newspaper, he assumes that his secretary (Annemarie Korff) has forgotten to tell him and decides to make his own way to the Lampesā. And then ā¦ never mind: Iām sure you get the general idea.
What follows is a crescendo of mistaken identities, verbal misunderstandings, and false rumors, with characters forever pretending to be somebody theyāre not or to have done something they didnāt. The interlocking misjudgements and deceptions are as hilarious as they are seemingly endless. And driving them all are the ways in which the charactersā sense of their place in the world is determined by an insidious social hierarchy.
While the filmās ending might seem to restore a semblance of order, the mindsets of most of those involved suggest that their place in that order is far from fixed. With a very raised eyebrow at the proposed outcomesāMirna settles for Leisegang because all other options seem exhausted; her parents go back to business as usualāSirk is simply placing the mayhem in pause mode and suggesting that itās very likely to continue indefinitely.
At the same time, however, the possibility of rising above such divisions and confusions is embodied in the romantic relationship that develops between the prince and Juliusās secretary, Friedl Bild (Carola Hohn). A godsend for her employerāshe is smart and down-to-earth, and knows how to write letters to princesāsheās also the filmās Cinderella. When she and her prince fall in love, sheās unaware that heās actually a princeāin the filmās ongoing network of intrigues, she believes heās the traveling-salesman impostor rather than the real thingāand heās happy to go along with her mistake. That theyāre made for each other is clear from the start in the actorsā easygoing, naturalistic performances, in sharp contrast to the bombast on display elsewhere.
Despite the Lampesā pomposity, Sirk depicts them as dolts rather than devils. Julius, in fact, is the heart and soul of the film. If April! April! were a Hollywood screwball comedy, he might be played by Edward Everett Horton or, perhaps, Eugene Pallette. But Siedel is a joy to watch, fluttering to and fro as his character tries to do the right thing, as he sees it, but forever missing the point. In appearance, his Julius could easily be one of George Groszās allegorical caricatures of the bourgeoisie.12 But whereas Groszās art was driven by his anger at the plight of Germany between the World Wars, Sirkās approach in April! April! is much gentler, even affectionate, the equivalent of a wry smile rather than a savage snarl.
During his time in the theatre, Sirk had directed Moliere,13 and his pursuit of the cinematic potential in Moliereās experimental fusions of music, dance, and dramaāin particular in Le Bourgeois Gentilhommeāis clear in the approach he took to April! April! The musical rhythms underpinning the play are evident in some of Moliereās stage directions: for example, āFour tailor boys dance up to Mr. Jourdain [Moliereās equivalent to t...