J ctt46mt94 6 PDF
J ctt46mt94 6 PDF
J ctt46mt94 6 PDF
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Amsterdam University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Fassbinder's Germany
Negative Identity
In Fassbinder, the cinema appears as a magnificent, but also always magnificently failing,
efficiently deficient, identity machine. As his characters try to place themselves or arrange
others in configurations that promise a heightened experience of self, it is never by means of
a self-centred, inward-looking, boundary-drawing insistence on identity, but across as con-
tradictory a field of identifications as Fassbinder's narratives can devise and his camera can
capture, providing characters with insinuating others and antagonistic doubles, each with a
bewildering array of mirroring possibilities.
Explicitly and implicitly, identity is also the subject of DESPAIR, the film from
1977 that represented Fassbinder's first bid for international recognition, which necessitated
a change of genre (the European art film), different financing (induding a German tax-shelter
company and a French consortium), an international cast, and English language dialogue.
These fairly drastic changes outline some of the external conditions of existence of Fassbin-
der's cinema in the late] 970s, the outer envelope, so to speak, of an authorial identity, at
once dispersed across an apparently heterogeneous output of two dozen films, as many theatre
productions and several tv series, and concentrated in the cultural capital that being a 'major'
2
European auteur commands. When Fassbinder undertook the filming ofVladimir Nabokov's
novel on which DESPAIR is based, the director seemed ready for stardom: New York had
discovered him in 1975, glowing profiles had appeared in Paris in 1976, and no film festival
seemed complete without the latest Fassbinder. His original mini-studio system had become
less incestuous by the addition of trained professionals, induding, apart from Michael
Ballhaus, Peter Marthesheimer as producer and Rolf Zehetbauer, Bavaria Studio's top art
director. 3 With DESPAIR, the sawdust and tinsel glamour of his earlier work became the real
glamour of multi-million budgets and solid production values (the film cost six million DM,
compared to Fassbinder's previous average of 4-500,000); the script was written by Tom
Stoppard, then a celebrity second only to Harold Pinter in the literary script stakes; with Dirk
Bogarde he had under contract a star associated with Joseph Losey, Luchino Visconti, Alain
Resnais and Liliana Cavani's The Night Porter. Together with Andrea Ferreol, Bogarde
ensured international distribution for the film, which was shot partly on the sets built for
Ingmar Bergman's The Serpents Egg in Munich.
HEAVEN (1975) and FOX AND HIS FRIENDS (1975) to MARTHA (1973), EFFI BRIEST (1974) and
BOLWIESER (1976), the protagonists' motivation centred on how to escape from the family
and its substitutes including heterosexual, lesbian, and homosexual double-binds. The films
consumed themselves imagining ever new ways of breaking the hold of the exploitative
mechanism of the family under capitalism (MERCHANT, FOX) or bourgeois codes of honour
(EFFI BRIEST) or mores (MARTHA), and they found their fonn, their unified perspective by
asserting and maybe even celebrating the failure and futility of such an escape. By talking
about the family, they also talked about Germany, albeit more by implication and shared
assumptions.
With regard to identity in the realm of the intersubjective, the melodramas, even
more than the gangster films, problematised identity as a crisis of perception, the self
constantly undoing and renewing itself in the struggle between the way the characters
perceive themselves and the way that others perceive them. As we saw, the films dramatised
the impossibility of an identity either within or without the family as the beginning of a new
subjectivity ~ male subjectivity, but quite often also a specifically female subjectivity - often
defined as resistance or refusal to inscribe the self securely into the space of the fictional
universe of looks exchanged and looks retained. Anxiety, desire traversed the narratives as
an interruption, leaving the traces of excess, in some sense irrecuperable, but none the less
finally held and articulated within the conventions of classical narrative, as the pathos of
waste, loss and misunderstanding.
The other benefit Fassbinder's melodramas drew from Sirkean classicism was the
way questions of identity and subjectivity could be tied to class, money and social status,
besides being oedipal dramas of patriarchy. From a political perspective (the 'politics of
representation'), melodrama appeared progressive for bringing together and pointing out
connections between three different spaces usually isolated from each other: the social space
of the middle class, the physical space of the home and the small-town community, and the
emotional space of the family. In other words, melodrama implicitly challenges the split and
separation between public and private, so fundamental to bourgeois ideology, and thus
towards the end of an era it rejoined a problematic dating back to the eighteenth century and
the rise of bourgeois tragedy. Nonetheless, radical though it may have been to pinpoint the
repressive effects ofclass, patriarchy and economics on the family in the West German context
of the 1970s, recourse to this model of political melodrama also made Fassbinder enemies
Seeing Double
How crucial the shooting of Felix is can be judged by the fact that is shown twice, to bring
out the simultaneity and the contradiction of the two positions, in which the homosexual
sub-text becomes a kind of intermediary structure between two impossibilities. The process
of transforming Felix into Hermann is shown as the progress of love, expressed in physical
Fassbinder's skill in pointing out the gaps in his mother's position makes her 'cover' the
political contradiction (a democracy resorting to violence in order to protect itself from its
citizens) by choosing a Ftihrer ('but a kind and benevolent one'), so Hermann Hennann
'covers' his untenable position as husband and head of a failing chocolate business by
choosing a double (but one that does not look like him): at issue in these acts of shielding or
masking is how violently they draw attention to the process itself, or rather to the gap which
the act of covering cannot bridge.
Yet this is what makes the narcissistic element involved so important. For although
the narcissist may be in love with his own image, it is not necessarily evident what this image
It even seems to me that my basic theme, the resemblance between two persons,
has a profound allegorical meaning [...} In fancy, 1 visualise a new world, where
all men will resemble one another as Hermann and Felix did; a world of Helixes
and Fermanns; a world where the worker fallen dead at the feet of his machine
will be at once replaced by his perfect double smiling the serene smile of perfect
16
socialism.
FRIENDS, where substitution adds the insult of existence disavowed to the injury of humili-
ation, has itself a reverse side, suggesting that the bleak ending might lend itself to a more
enigmatic or ambivalent interpretation, as in DESPAIR, where the hero 'chooses' to be replaced,
thereby retrospectively giving also the substitutions in the other films a less negative slant.
Turned around, on its axis as it were, every human relationship in Fassbinder appears capable
of utterly changing both its meaning and value. Not only the male-female polarity seems to
Fassbinder totally reversible, 18 but also the dialectic of the exploiter and the exploited, of the
weak and the strong, of the haves and have-nots (as in DESPAIR, where Felix is at the opposite
extreme of the socio-economic scale from Hennann). This makes the narratives, despite their
relentless negativity, their downbeat or tragic ending much more mysterious, and - as
Fassbinder always pointed out - also more hopeful. In DESPAIR, hope and despair seem to
hinge on how we read Hermann's desire to find a resemblance between himself and Felix,
which in turn, becomes as much a question of our viewing expectations, as of our belief in
mimetic love or the reversibility of power-relations.
Puzzling, for instance, is the fact that we are never able to 'get close' to the central
character. Throughout, identifying with Hennann is systematically blocked and disrupted, a
fact noted by most critics,19 since one instantly notices that Felix is no physical double of
Hermann, but finds that this superior position of knowledge over the hero is never acknow~
ledged by the narrative, it eliminates any suspense and registers more as an exasperation than
a willingness to be intrigued by his 'mistake'. Also puzzling is the fact that Hermann's look
does not act as a focus or to give direction to our attention, nor does his motivation become
clear. His desire is not evident from the movement of the plot itself, for both the sexual and
the economic motives are indirectly presented, while the motive we are given in their place,
financial gain from an insurance swindle, hardly satisfies. This lack of apparent motivation
affects the audience's response also to Lydia, whose occasional nudity is offered to the
spectator's gaze, but at no point valorised by male desire. Nor does she exist 'in her own right'
as a character. Her role is bracketed by the stereotype of the silly vamp, the exaggerated
parody of the alluring female ("Intelligence might take the bloom off your carnality" Hermann
says to her at one point). What intervenes between the look and its object is - as in the opening
scene already discussed - the camera: an unlocalised immaterial character, a substitute, but
covering neither the spectator's point of view nor that of the protagonists. In addition, the
few times we see events from Hermann's perspective, this vantage point is undermined by
the fact that his vision is so evidently defective regarding crucial elements of the narrative:
he sees at once too little and too much.
These two features may, to a spectator expecting a Hollywood-type narrative,
merely seem part of the empty formalism so often disliked in European art cinema. But I
would argue that DESPAIR reworks quite radically what has undoubtedly been the most original
aspects ofFassbinder's style from KATZELMACHER onwards. The split of the spectator's point
of view, on the basis of which classical cinema constructs the congruence between 'to see'
SelfaReference as Self·Representation?
Fassbinder has, I would argue, adopted the self-referentiality of the European art-film in
DESPAIR, in order to rework also the thematic concern of his own cinema. What in the previous
films was largely a matter of presenting the spectator with mirrors of himself as a voyeuristic
presence, albeit complexly effaced and staged, becomes in DESPAIR a matter of analyzing
more historically detenninate relations. The breakdown of identity and its relocation in
shifting identifications as described above lead to a filmic mise-en-scene that does more than
merely 'distance': it also 'places' .24 At one stage, Hennann and Ardalion are engaged in a
discussion of Lydia in a restaurant. The scene is initially framed as an over-the-shoulder
two-shot with Hennann facing in the general direction of Ardalion and the camera. Ardalion 's
back fills the left-hand side of the frame. The camera then starts a slow travelling shot to the
right, which we have to read as a subjective shot from Ardalion's point of view. As Hennann
Hold the policemen, knock them down, sit on them. A famous film actor will come
running out of this house. He is an arch criminal but he must escape. I want you
to make a free passage for him. I want a clean getaway. That's all. I'm coming
out. 25
[The mass leader], surprising as it may seem, [... J is much more like the image of
a primitive mother goddess. He acts as if he were superior to conscience, and
demands a regressive obedience and the begging behaviour that belongs to the
30
behaviour pattern of a child in the pre-Oedipal stage.
Hitler, in other words, projected himself not as the Uber-Vater or patriarch, but as the dutiful
son of a beloved mother, and thus in the role of the primary love-object, prior to and outside
Oedipal division. The original attachment to the mother is revived and rescued in the
attachment to abstractions like 'nation' and 'race' (both female nouns in German), in whose
loving gaze the male can mirror himself. According to Mitscherlich, this pre-Oedipal bond
also helps to explain why the collapse of the Third Reich did not provoke the kinds of reactions
of conscience, guilt and remorse that 'the eyes of the world' after 1945 had expected. In The
Inability to Mourn he writes:
Thus, the choice of Hitler as the love object took place on a narcissistic basis; that
is to say, on a basis of self-love [...].
After this symbiotic state has been dissolved, the millions of subjects
released from its spell will remember it all the less clearly because they never
assimilated the leader into their ego [... ], but instead surrendered their own ego in
favour of the object [...]. Thus the inability to mourn was preceded by a way of
loving that was less intent on sharing in the feelings of the other person than on
confirming one's own self-esteem. 3 !
But here we need to remind ourselves of the distinction made earlier between the two types
of narcissism, involving the ideal ego and the ego ideal, and the void or gap which narcissism
is designed to cover, signifying the presence of that look that does not see, but also fonnulating
a demand that can 'shatter the self', as it shatters Hennann Hennann. The cinematic apparatus,
stripped of its mechanisms of identification and the functioning of its reality-effects is thus
closer to the look that does not see, that is to say, the 'void' of representation, needing to
'cover' itself by narrative. The classical system of circulating the look, in other words, makes
the void 'see', by framing it and investing it with mobile, motivating points of view. In
Fassbinder's cinema, at some points, the shield is made to slip, sometimes in an explicitly
political context, as in the moment of crisis analyzed in the previous chapter, where in
GERMANY IN AUTUMN Fassbinder's mother asks for the return of a benevolent dictator, which
is to say, the caring look.
Why did West Gennans rebuild such a conservative and conformist society after
1945? If one follows the logic of Mitscherlich's argument, the German economic miracle was