This Content Downloaded From 150.252.248.225 On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 19:58:09 UTC
This Content Downloaded From 150.252.248.225 On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 19:58:09 UTC
This Content Downloaded From 150.252.248.225 On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 19:58:09 UTC
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 Nazi Soundscapes
In 1876, the much-anticipated Bayreuth music festival opened with the first com-
plete performance of the Ring des Nibelungen cycle, directed by its founder, Ger-
man composer Richard Wagner. This inaugural festival enjoyed critical success,
and has since been considered as a major breakthrough in the history of modern
(operatic) performance (Shaw-Miller 2002). From the late 1840s, Wagner had
preoccupied himself with a new concept of music-drama, which he discussed in
theoretical writings and pursued in his own compositions. According to Wagner,
music-drama would involve a total fusion of the traditional arts, with a balance
between music and poetry (Wagner 1849/2001: 4-9).
Even if the ideal of a total work of art (Gesamtkunstwerk) was not necessarily
achieved, media scholar Friedrich Kittler (1993) locates Wagner’s music-theatre
in the 1840s to 1870s as a predecessor of the modern PA sound system. Kittler’s
definition of Wagnerian music-drama as a “mass media” invention emphasises
the orchestra’s function as a kind of amplifier, creating feedbacks and reverbera-
tions that cannot be shut out by the ears. It is precisely the overwhelming of the
audience’s senses through the “all pervasive power of sound” that Kittler sees as
constituting a significant precursor to modern mass media (222). This new theory
and practice of acoustics depended on the staging of echoes and breathing with
the aid of an orchestra placed out of the audience’s sight. Kittler conceives this
development in terms of an interconnected network:
The text is fed into the throat of a singer; the output of this throat is fed into
an amplifier named orchestra, the output of this orchestra is fed into a light
show, and the whole thing, finally, is fed into the nervous system of the audi-
ence. (233)
This chapter will not trace the many twentieth-century projects that have used
and adapted the idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk, a comparison that has almost
become cliché (Flinn 1992: 48). Rather, I will begin by emphasising its general
appeal for film critics and practitioners, before specifying its ideological currency
in Germany from 1933 onwards.
Film scholar Scott D. Paulin contends that the status of music shifted in Wag-
ner’s artistic work and theoretical writings. By 1870, Wagner argued that “the
union of Music and Poetry must […] always end in […] a subordination of the
latter” (quoted in Paulin 2000: 61). Over a period of time, therefore, Wagner
gradually produced a privileged understanding of music’s place within his music-
drama ideal. From 1900 onwards, theorists of silent film took a specific concept
of the Gesamtkunstwerk to appeal to a general idea of synthesis, one which was
initially based on the relationship of (visual) cinematic techniques and narrative.4
This position overlooked Wagner’s gradually increased role for music, by sug-
Like drama, which deals with plot and language, the sound film also has to
achieve a picture effect and musical mood. The music’s contribution to the
Müller mainly deals with the relationship between stage drama and sound film,
taken from the perspective of dramaturgy.8 However, his contentions about the
Gesamtkunstwerk are also transferred to the social level. Wagner’s writings are
refashioned to address issues of social cohesion, with sound film offered as a
cultural levelling agent and thus overriding societal or class divisions during Na-
tional Socialism.
Wagner’s universalism, which originally positioned German art as a cultural
benefactor, is reinterpreted here in terms of conquest, against the background of
Germany’s imperialist war programme in this period.9 Music-drama, according
to Müller’s reading, contributes to national culture by investing it with myth:
While the music drama is a festive art, as the embodiment of the national
myth for important holidays, film is the stuff of everyday life, as a popular
form of the music drama. [...] Only a total work of art [Gesamtkunstwerk]
can be a true art of the people [Volkskunst]. It is directed towards all senses,
is intelligible for everyone and requires no education. It is directed at the
heart and not at the intellect. For a spoken performance, one needs a literary
training, for a symphony you need musical training. [...] In this way the music
drama is the folk art of the festival. Sound films are the folk art of everyday
life, because they satisfy the eyes, the ears, the heart and the senses. The ear-
lier low-entertainment forms of silent film, Tingel-Tangels and annual fairs
offered too little authentic internal experience [inneres Erlebnis] in order to
become true folk art forms. It was only with the technological possibility to
seamlessly unite language-based drama, opera, ballet and symphonic music,
in one art form, that film demonstrated itself as the heir to the theatre.10
In this account, cinema’s status as a mass art is not denied. Instead, emphasis
is placed on the popular nature of cinema, which depends on unified sensory
experience to contribute to the culture of the people (as Volkskunst). Cinema is
thus presented as a cultural form accessible to all Germans, reflecting a rhetoric
of social homogenisation and an idea of the festivalisation of the everyday as I
outlined in Chapter Two. The main difference, however, is that while carnival is
presented as an outward expression in public space, cinema is stressed as work-
ing on the level of “internal” or subjective experience. Indeed, Walter Benja-
min observed during the 1930s that Erlebnis, as a singular event or experience,
had usurped the earlier place of Erfahrung, where experience had involved a
process with critical potential (1936/1999a: 83-107).11 In addition, Müller’s ac-
count implies that cinema’s success depended on concealing the medium and, as
in Wagner’s vision for music-drama, ensuring that the audience member “forgets
the confines of the auditorium” (Wagner 1849: 6). Thus, this idea of the Gesa-
Film drama is the most perfect fusion of image, language and music. Its script
is the score of the total work of art [Gesamtkunstwerk] in which the action
is conspicuously adjusted to the musical principles of timing and the logical
mood created by the rhythm of the melody. [...] Just like the music, which
is steered by its accompanying film image, the language and visuals achieve
an urgent and convincing metaphysical significance through the accompany-
ing music. The intentions of music drama were completely achieved with the
creation of a moving and sounding film image. The total work of art is just as
much in its higher form (as music-drama) as in its lower form (film) a product
of the spirit of music.12
derived from the various elements in its dramatic composition, and the
rhythm again is based on the articulation of the style as a whole. [...] If there
was no rhythm at all in the film, the illustrator had it as his plain duty to trace
and focus it by his music – to give the film, so to speak, a backbone by means
of musical rhythm. (73)
London concedes that the rhythm of a film, while important to the dramatic ac-
tion and style, had often been ignored in commercial film production. He cites
Eisenstein’s Potemkin (1925) as an exceptional case where the musical score by
Edmund Meisel made a successful contribution to the overall filmic rhythm and
“achieved an overwhelming hold on the audience” (1936: 74). In other words,
the notions of the symphony and rhythm are presented as aesthetic organising
principles with the purpose of maintaining audience attention.
In Germany, the symphony and rhythm metaphors also proved popular for
the avant-garde during the 1920s. In order to consider the contribution of acous-
tic metaphors across the silent and sound periods, I will examine the work of Ger-
man filmmaker Walther Ruttmann. While Ruttmann was and still is best-known
for his development of rhythmic montage in Berlin: Die Sinfonie der Großstadt
(1927), his other work also explored acoustic metaphors for aesthetic and nar-
rative effect. Ruttmann was by no means the only active member of the German
avant-garde to explore rhythm and symphony motifs, yet he was one of the few
to work in the German film industry for the majority of the Nazi period.15 My
primary interest here is how Ruttmann foregrounded the intersection between
rhythm, sound and urban space across the 1920s and 1930s. By focusing on
Kleiner Film einer großen Stadt … der Stadt Düsseldorf am Rhein (1935), I will
establish how Ruttmann’s earlier interest in sound aesthetics and rhythmic plural-
ity was reoriented according to new political imperatives. In this film we can ob-
serve a clear shift in emphasis on the level of the soundtrack, from a counterpunc-
tal to an illustrative score within the span of a few years. The portrayal of the
upholds that music should be used in contrast to the image and should try to
dispel any illusion of unity. In so doing, music would then expose – and ex-
ploit – cinema’s basic heterogeneity, not conceal or deny it as under parallel-
ism. The disunified text, proponents contend, makes film consumption more
active, and the “critical distance” it allegedly promotes is valued more highly
than the passivity and immersion they believe characterize the auditor-text
relations under parallelism. (1992: 46-7)
displays the anxieties that persist in an urban setting without visually resolv-
ing them. Blut und Boden uses this very same footage to construct modernity
and the big city as a space of decadence, economic ruin, and the potential
threat that unchecked urbanity and racial downfall pose for the German peo-
ple. (2004: 92)
Added value is what gives the (eminently incorrect) impression that sound is
unnecessary, that sound merely duplicates a meaning which in reality it brings
about, either all on its own or by discrepancies between it and the image.
(1994: 5)
This principle marks a contrast to the use of music and sound in Sinfonie der
Großstadt to foreground the modern experience of fragmentation, distraction
and sensorial stimulation. The technique of counterpoint was offered as a meth-
od for highlighting the cinematic medium and dispensing aspirations associated
He places the record, so to say, as a musical flea in the ear of the audience. [...]
The effect is remarkable: once they have heard the music from a new film on
one or more times, and know the main melody, it will appeal to them more
easily – by immediately jumping from the film into the ear, it will now be
recognised more consciously [by the audience].61
This description puts forward a parasitic concept of how hit songs can circulate
and promote new films, not unlike that of the “ear worm” (Ohrwurm). The
ear worm usually refers to a melody that has a catchy or memorable quality
(Sacks, 2007; Goodman 2008). Whether this catchy tune is consciously listened
to or not, songs from upcoming features could be used to favourably condition
the cinema space before and between the main programme elements. The use of
gramophone records under National Socialism comprised an “indirect” market-
ing method, since almost all commercial advertising was banned from the cinema
in 1934 and from radio in 1936.62 Yet, this example indicates how acoustic mar-
keting strategies in this period reflect a significant overlap between commercial
concerns and ideological discourses about a spectatorship based on the cinema
as controlled event.63
In keeping with the ideal of Gesamtkunstwerk, the use of records in the cin-
ema is described in the Film-Kurier article as essential for the smooth transition
between programme elements. The projectionist is also encouraged to install a
switch in the booth, so that the records can be easily announced to the audience
by microphone. The projectionist should be attuned to sound quality and realise
that the same stack of records can not be played repeatedly, as
scratched, old, worn-out records will have the opposite effect than one in-
tends: they will quickly drive the audience out of the cinema. There has to
be variety, with something new always being offered. (“Schallplatte” 1935)
In other words, the role of gramophone records in the cinema is central to its
functioning and should not be perceived as a “superfluous additional element”
(unwesentliches Nebenbei). The ultimate effect of presenting mediated music and
voice over the microphone is that it enhances the liveness and thus the eventness
of the cinema space. This is also suggested by the critic’s final comment that the
end result of gramophone playing is more like that of a musical “concert,” which
would give the public an incentive to come early to the cinema.64
So far, I have stressed that the claims made during National Socialism about
the cinema as a Gesamtkunstwerk were not unambiguously achieved, particu-
larly when set against the practicalities of the exhibition context. Indeed, as Lutz
Koepnick has emphasised, Nazi film culture “was far less unified than its ideo-
logues wanted” (2002: 47). Nonetheless, a totalising notion of Nazi film aesthet-
ics has continued to the present day, with a tendency to take such claims at face
value, particularly those from party leaders and propagandists.74 In this section, I
will reflect on the audiovisual legacy of the Nazi era for the present by analysing a
contemporary documentary film. I seek to understand how cinema can construct
a critique of the ongoing use of “synchronisation” as a metaphor for totalitarian-
ism, and of the established formulas used for recycling audiovisual footage in the
post-war era. The case for these reflections is the German film Hitler’s Hit Parade
(2003), directed by Oliver Axer, which is structured around twenty-five songs
from the Nazi period.75
The opening credits of Hitler’s Hit Parade show a revolving copper bust of
Adolf Hitler before the title appears overlaid on the images. Hitler is thus posi-
tioned as the responsible party or agent of this song selection and, by association,
the protagonist of this compilation film. The songs are the driving force of the
film and are played out consecutively for their full length, which creates, as I will
later discuss, a jukebox-like playlist. Each song has its own accompanying visual
sequence and stylised on-screen title, which are separated by short interludes. The
visual material is initially engaged to suit the theme of each song sequence, giv-
ing the twenty-five parts an episodic structure not unlike a television series. The
images also alternate between colour and black-and-white footage, and between
The broader attempt to reveal the materiality of recorded sound in Hitler’s Hit
Parade implicates popular music and “hit parades” as agents of mood control,
but it also foregrounds the act of recontextualising archival material in the digi-
tal era. This historical awareness is prompted by the perceptual dissonances and
shifts in audiovisual response during the twenty-five song sequences. Moreover,
the highly-charged references prompted by the film highlight the act of creating
fixed historical chronologies and causalities with regard to National Socialism.
Popular song offers the temporal framework and facilitates the audiovisual expe-
rience of rhythm as a means for reactivating an engagement with questions of his-
torical representation and cultural memory. An engagement with the past in this
way fully reinstates film sound as a “meaning-making practice” and highlights
musical sound as partaking in social relations (Kassabian 2001: 54). As such, the
film contributes to the deconstruction of cinema as a historical source and social
practice. Hitler’s Hit Parade silences the diegetic sounds of the visual track, with
the exceptions of the interludes and two musical film scenes. However, this is not
a simple silencing: this strategy has the function of redirecting the audience’s at-
tention to the songs and their lyrics, with the occasional use of sound effect as a
kind of acoustic “punctum” disrupting the overall sonic continuity.93 Moreover,
by resisting the truth claims of documentary, there is also a confrontation with
myths of media transparency. This marks an important departure from documen-
taries that employ a seamless rendering of footage that stabilises a divide between
the Nazi past and the present, and implicitly draw on Wagnerian notions that
presupposed cinema as enabling the audience’s unmediated access to a unified,
total work of art.
In this chapter, I have endeavoured to show how Richard Wagner’s nineteenth-
century notion of music-theatre as a Gesamtkunstwerk was reconceived and ap-
propriated for silent and sound film in Germany. The idea of a total, synaesthetic
experience – as my analysis of film examples, discourses and exhibition practice
has outlined – gained particular momentum during Nazism. The broad use of
the term Gesamtkunstwerk, moreover, affirms Lutz Koepnick’s observation that
it was a catch-all term, serving as a “compromise between high art and popular
taste, romanticism and twentieth-century modernism, autonomous art and the
popular” (2002: 10). I have indicated the ongoing tension between such cultural
concepts during Nazism through Walther Ruttmann’s use of rhythm and acoustic
metaphors during the 1920s and 1930s, which I have traced in terms of a general
shift from a “symphonic” to “postcard” aesthetics. Indeed, Ruttmann’s earlier
work expressed both a fascination with the sensory dimensions to the modern
city and a certain ambivalence about its technical mechanisation and sensory
overstimulation. The subsequent understanding of the city and its sounds after
1933, however, reflected a different aesthetic and ideological tension: namely,
the aestheticisation of modernity during Nazism as both a recourse to the city as
a site of technological progress as well as sentiments of Heimat and Volk com-
munity. This tension was inflected in the cinema space itself, which was similarly
invested as a site of modern technological advancement and attractions, as well
as for community integration and leisure.