German Life and Letters 47:3 July 1994 0016-88777

‘ANDERE LoSUNG QUATSCH’: ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM O F DIE TOTEN BLEIBEN JUNC

IAN WALLACE

I

The novel Die T o h bleiben j ung is the major product of Anna Seghers’ last years in exile.’ Written in Mexico between 1944 and 1947, it apparently required only minor reworking when the author prepared it for publication after her return to Germany.* It first appeared in 1949, and nineteen years later it became the first of Seghers’ works to be filmed in the GDR and the third to be filmed during her lifetime. Its predecessors in this respect were, in 1934, the remarkably inventive version of Der Aufstund a%r Fischer wn St. Barbara which Erwin Piscator made in the Soviet Union, and, in 1944, Fred Zinnemann’s The Seventh Cross, a successful Hollywood adaptation of D ~ J sicbte Kreuz. In both cases, Anna Seghers had no part in the making of the film. Indeed, as late as 1968 she confessed that she had never even seen Piscator’s work. In the case of Die Toten bleiben jung, however, her involvement was both intense and problematic.

After the film had had its premiere in 1968 (nicely timed to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the November Revolution and the founding of the KPD), critics commented on its faithfulness to Seghers’ text, whether they saw this in a positive light as ‘hohe Achtung vor dem Original~erk‘~ or, less generously, as ‘ein mehr oder weniger mechanischer Nachvollzug’.* What they were unaware of, however, was that the film as originally conceived was far more prepared to take liberties with Seghers’ novel than the version they had seen. In his public statements on the film prior to and after its release, the director, Joachim Kunert, did nothing to alert them to this possibility. During the making of the film one reporter was able to reveal that ‘Joachim Kunert riihmt die gute Zusammenarbeit mit

’ Sigrid Bock, ‘Eniehungsfunktion und Romanexpcrimcnt. Anna Seghers: DL T o h bln‘hjlab’ in: Erjiin~ng E d . Aah~i~chi~tischt Rasrv 19345, eds. Sigrid Bock and Manfred Hahn, Berlin and Weimar, 1979, 394431, p. 397. ’ Cf. Bock. p. 394. - The Seghers-Archiv, which is louted in (Fast) Berlin’s Akademie der Kirnstc, unfortunately does not contain any material which would allow a mom precise statement on any c h a n p she may have made to the novel after her return from mile. ’ M.H., ‘Geschichten aus Cuchichte’, Dn Morgn, 19.11.68. ‘Ccorg Krieger, ‘CedPmpfter Hcroismw’, Rhciairckr M A T , 23.11.73. Since Kriegcr finds the multiplicity of characten and eventa in the novel itself extremely confusing, it is hardly surprising that he discovers in the film ‘noch @&re Venvirmng [...I Wu die historischen EmgnisK mbelangt, so scheint alle Lcbcndigkeit aus ihnen heraurgefiltert, sic wirken wic aus Filmarchivcn zu Dokumcnta- tionrsrmkcn hervogeholtcs Material’. 0 h i l BhckwcU Ud 1W. P u b W by Bkckwell Publiabcn. 108 Cowley Rod, Oxford OX4 IJF. UK and 2 3 Main slrcc~. C a r n b w . MA 112142. USA.

314 ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN ELEIEEN JUNC

ihr [Seghers-IW].” In May 1968, during a break while filming the opening scene, Kunert was even more complimentary: ‘Begeistert spricht Joachim Kunert von den Zusammenkiinften mit der weltbekannten Schriftstellerin, die wichtige Hinweise gab, und dabei stets die Besonderheiten der filmischen Umseuung respektierte.’6 Interviewed by Peter Pauli fully two months before the film’s premier in November 1968, at a time when the finishing touches were still being made to the final version, Kunert replied in answer to a direct question about the extent of Seghers’ involvement:

Anna Seghers hat am Szenarium mitgearbeitet, das Christa Wolf schrieb. Auch das Drehbuch haben wir gemeinsam mit der Schriftstellerin durchge- sehen und dabei ihre Wiinsche und Anregungen weitgehend beriicksichtigt.’

This statement is undoubtedly correct as far as it goes and seems to reflect the perfectly understandable wish of the author to collaborate in the making of this film in a way which clearly had not been possible with Piscator and Zinnemann.* However, it avoids any reference to the difficulties which, as I hope to demonstrate, characterised the period of gestation from 1966 until the film’s completion two years later. Even a direct question about the problems caused by translating a novel into a film is stonewalled, emphasis being given instead to the apparent unanimity which characterised the approach of the film’s creators:

Wir habcn uns bemiiht, das Kompositionsprinzip des Romans f i r den Film nutzbar zu machen. [...I Natiirlich ergeben sich bei eincr Romanverfilmung immer wieder spczielle Probleme der Auswahl, daraus wieder Veranderungen der Figuren, notwendige Komprimierungen usw.; dennoch wollen wir er- reichen, dal3 der h e r d a Romans die Figuren in ihrer charakteristischen Umwelt wicder~rkennt.~

’ H. Bcdrcr, ‘Gcistentunde in Villa Cutriaus’, Z i t im Bild, 3 May 1968. In his review of the film, Ernrt Ludwig Riede a h reported that Wolf and Kunert had produced

their script ‘in sch6ncr Zuaammenarbeit rnit Anna Seghcn’ (‘Dit T o h bln‘bnjung’, &hrisck Z t i h ~ n ~ ,

’ Peter Pauli, ‘Ein Herr kann sterben - immcr leben wid die Idec. Gcsprich mit dcm Rcgisaeur Joachim Kunert’, Louikcr R u h c h , 20.9.68.

Cf. Alfried Nchring, ‘“D& rind K i n a da“. Anna Seghen und der Film’, Av-hfl. Jahrbuah dn Awm-Scghms-CeselhchaJ, 2. 1993, 218-32.

Pauli (d. note 7). - As she maka clenr in her review, Rosemarie Rchahn p t l y admira the epic sweep of Seghers’ novel but believa it cannot possibly be adquately served in a film lasting about two hours. (To be exact, the film lasts 112 minuta, although the version s h o w n by the Wcst German television channel ZDF on 16.1 1.1973 was cut by half an hour.) She would have preferred a television Series in four or five parts: ‘Dcr g.o& Atem d a Werks, seine epische Kraft, seine Idcentiefe sind in cincrn Kinonbend einfach nicht untenubringen.’ (The W a t German critic Heinz Kcnten maka the same point in his unfavourable review of the film. See note I I . ) As it stands, the best Rehahn u n find to aay of the film is that it h worth secing, above all bcuuac it should inspire us to re-read the novel. Rosemarie Rehahn, ‘Du T o h blridrrrjmng’, Worh@sf, 29.11.1968. 8 Basil BLfhrrU Ltd 1994.

10. I. 1969).

ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN BLEIBEN JUNC 315

Given the determination with which, as we shall see, Seghers sought to prevent any major deviation from the structure and even the detail of her novel, there is more than a touch of irony in the criticism which H. Albrecht expressed in his review of the film in December 1968:

Ein Anna-Seghen-Roman llBt sich nicht einfach abfilmen, bebildcm, illus- trieren. Er verlangt, wie jedu Stuck Literatur, cine eigensdndige, originare filmische Neuschdfung, darnit im Medium Film d a Gist des litenrischen Originals wiedcrenvcckt werde in der filmspczifischen Wirkung. Cerade in diesem Punkt ist der [...I Film meines Erachtens nicht konsquent genug konzipicrt und realisiert. [...Er kt] nicht kuhn genug bei der schiipferischen Adaption des Romans.”

A West German critic gave the knife a final twist:

Die Schiipfer der Veriilmung des Romans Dic T o h bln’bm jung [...I muhen unvermeidlich an ihmn Stoff scheitem, weil sic die Treuc gegeniiber dem Original iiber die dramaturgische Notwendigkeit des Venichts auf zumindcst einige dcr vielen Handlungslinien stellten. Damit aber leisteten sic dem Werk der Anna Seghen keinen gutcn Dienst.”

On the 14th of July 1966, the Kiinstlerische Arbeitsgruppe ‘Berlin’, a team of film-makers from DEFA, sent Anna Seghers a document drawn up by Rolf Schneider in which he had set down his ideas for the film of Dic Toien bleiben jung.I2 In addition to the title-page, which reveals that this version is number I/3 and that it was received by DEFA on 8th June 1966, the document consists of twenty-three pages of text. Schneider proposes here that the film should adopt the same structure as the book even though such a structure is relatively unusual in films. By structure he means the lack of a single hero as in traditional narrative and instead ‘venchiedene Enihlstrange, im Wechsel fortgefuhrt, kommunizierend wenig oder nicht; gehalten wird der Aufbau lediglich durch gemeinsamen Beginn und gemein- sames Ende’. He adds that this is what constitutes ‘die innere Logik und

lo H. hlbrecht, ‘Die Admse: Ccgcnwart. Bemerkungen zu dem DEFA-Film Die T o h bln‘bnr j ug ’ , Na&mal.vihmg, 6.12.1968. H& Kenten, ‘Ein Menschenleben zwirchen Revolution und Krieg. Anna Scghen’ Roman DU

Toh blribn jug wurde von Joachim Kunert verfilmt’, Dm Tapspi&, 15.12.1968. By contrast, Friedrich Salow (‘Ohne laute Tone’, &m@, 29.12.1968) taka a generally positive view of the film’s attempt to stick ac clorcly ac p a i b l e to the novel. lzAl l the documents r e f e d to h u e arc available in the Seghm-Archiv (Sign. 182 to Sign. 189 inclusive). I should like to thank Renate CraEnick and J6rg Armer for their invaluable help while I was working in the archive. - In considering the film’s evolution in the remainder of my chapter I shall assume (fix rezsonr of space) a knowledge of Scghen’ novel. Since the documents which I discuss are unpublished I ahall quote from them where appropriate.

Q B a d BLdncU Ud 1994.

316 ANNA SECHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN BLEIBENJUNG

Dramatik des Buches’. However, the sheer length of the book means that cuts are inevitable, even if, in Schneider’s view, the film will have to be longer than is usual in the cinema. These cuts, he hastens to add, must respect the spirit of the book and not affect its ‘Grundtendenz’. His main proposals are therefore as follows. Firstly, unlike Klemm, Becker should survive the crash which he deliberately causes out of bitter disappointment at being dismissed by his master. The purpose of the proposed change is apparently to enable Becker to be used to complement the story of Nadler, though why this should be necessary or desirable is not explained:

Der sehr simple Eingriff besteht darin, Becker diesen (von ihm gesuchten) Unfall ubcrleben zu lassen; er ist gezwungen, cines seiner Verhaltnisse zu ehelichen; so wird er Besitzer cines Kleingehofts. Sein personales [sic] Schick- sal vcrlauft dann ihnlich dem Wilhelm Nadlers.

Secondly, all references to certain historical events which can be expected to mean little to the public at large should be removed, e.g. the French occupation of the Rhineland. To include them would be to descend to the style of a pedestrian documentary, Schneider believes. Therefore he proposes to locate Klemm’s factory outside of the French occupation zone. Further, the figures of Otto von Lieven and Gleim should be fused: ‘Otto von Lieven iibernimmt Gleims anfhgliche Funktion; die Familienereignisse der Lievens werden im schlesischen Raum lokalisiert.’

Thirdly, whereas the figure of Martin is left intentionally vague in the novel and his origins are not specified - ‘seine Existenz ist eher symbolisch denn realiter zu verstehen: Martin reprasentiert die unaustilgbare und fortwirkende Kraft des revolutionaren Marxismus’ - he should be fleshed out in the film. Schneider’s suggestion is to turn him into a revolutionary student who later becomes a teacher and in this way comes into contact with Hans. After 1933 he enters the antifascist underground, goes to Spain, is interned in France but is able to flee. He finally becomes an officer in the Red Army and in this way symbolises the final victory of historical progress.

Fourthly, in order to make things simpler for a cinema audience, Schnei- der recommends both reducing the number of locations in the film and also occasionally allowing the characters to cross paths in a way not found in the novel: ‘So soll Helmuth von Klemm am Ende bei der ErschieRung von Hans direkt beteiligt sein; Hans soll Zeuge des Todes von Becker in Frankreich werden’.

The file in the Seghers archive which contains Schneider’s document also includes three sides of Seghers’ comments in pencil, each of which refers to a section marked in pencil on the document. These comments, set down in bold, thick strokes which are not always easy to decipher, are frequently as blunt as they are brief. Of Schneider’s first suggestion, for example, Seghers simply notes: ‘Chauffeur muB mit Klemm umkommen. Andere Liisung Quatsch.’ She is also unhappy with the second suggestion: ‘unmogl. Q Buil BlvhreU Ltd 1994.

ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN BLEIBEN JUNC 317

Lieven baltisches Milieu. Schlesische Frage tangiert[,] polnische nicht beruhrt [sic]’. Nor does she like the fourth suggestion: ‘Hans als Zeuge mil3fallt miry [the first three words are underlined - IW]. Her remark on Schneider’s third point is somewhat less discouraging in tone but still includes a major objection: ‘Martin mogl. Aber alter als Student’ [‘Martin’ is underlined - IW].

As Schneider turns to outlining the thirty-nine scenes into which he envisages dividing the film, Seghers’ comments reinforce the impression that she is not prepared to let anything pass which appears to her to deviate significantly from the novel. In scene 3, for instance, Schneider has Marie waiting in vain in her room for Erwin’s arrival and then suddenly feeling sick, so that her girl-friend realises she is pregnant. Seghers’ comment is dismissive: ‘unmogl[ich]. Warten + Schwanger schaft’. In scene 9 Becker is in bed with a chambermaid from the hotel to which he has driven Lieven and Lenore, and it is from her that he learns that they too are in a hotel room together. Again Seghers pulls no punches: ‘plump! [. . .] Vie1 schoner er jxobachtet durch Spiegel’. In other words, she prefers her own version of events in the novel. In scene 10 Schneider locates Lieven’s estates in Silesia instead of in the Baltic provinces. Seghers is unimpressed: ‘Nicht begeistert von Schlesien. Alles pant zu balt. Adel.’ At the end of scene 1 I Wenzlow’s maniage takes place: ‘Die Glocken der Potsdamer Garnison- kirchen [sic] lauten. Durch ein Offiziersspalier zieht, im festlichen Braut- kleid, die kleine Malzahn, am Arme Wenzlows.’ Seghers’ only comment on this is a squiggle and a question-mark in the margin. By contrast, the whole of scene 12 (which deals with Marie’s encounter with the young man who had once courted her but then lost interest when he learned she was pregnant, and with Lieven’s job in a bank and his life in straitened circumstances) is enclosed in her pencilled brackets, and the comment on the two separate sheets of paper is ‘nichtssagend. Kann man weglassen.’ She describes half of scene 13 (also bracketed) as ‘auch nichtssagend’ (it shows Becker with one of his lovers - the one whom, in Schneider’s version, he subsequently marries -, then driving Lenore and Helmut to Potsdam, and, finally, taking tea with the Wenzlows). Schneider writes: ‘Lenore sehe etwas verharmt aus, findet man. Wenzlow ist da, seine Frau, die eine Fehlgeburt hinter sich hat, schon die zweite.’ Seghers’ only comment in the margin is: ‘wozu?’ At the end of scene 13, which Seghers does not put in brackets and therefore seems to accept in principle, Schneider has Castricius and his daughter discussing Klemm and agreeing that he would be an ideal husband for the daughter if he were not married. Seghers disapproves: ‘war[u]m Gespr[ach]. zw[ischen]. Vater u[nd] Tochter? Klemm und Nora gefallen sich’.

In scene 15 Schneider deals with the way Becker reveals Lenore’s unfaith- fulness to Klemm:

Ekcker beginnt ein vorsichtiges, wie sich erweist uberaus geschicktes Gesprach: daa Fraulein Castricius sei sehr nett, er habe den Eindruck, Klemm m6ge

0 Bad BLcL*eU Ltd 1954.

318 ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN BLEIBEN JUNC

das Fraulein auch, und wenn es besondere Plane gibe, k h n e er, Beckcr, mit eincr Information dienen. Er berichtet von Lenore und Lieven.

Seghers’ comment makes it clear that she expects the film to show scrupulous respect for her novel: ‘Gespriich liuft anders zw[ischen]. Klemm u[nd] B[ecker]’. Scene 15 also deals with the car-crash from which, in Schneider’s version, Becker is to emerge unscathed while Klemm dies:

Sic fahrcn, Klemm und Beckcr. Klernm bcgmnt: sic seien alte Gefihrten, aber man werdc sich trennen rniissen, G r cine Weile; einc Laune seiner Braut, das wcrde sich schon geben. Becker wird erregt. Er ist im Grund seiner Existenz getroffen: seiner blinden Treue. Man fihrt iber cine Briicke. Mitten in eincr erregten Replik verkantet Becker das Stcuer. Der Wagen schleudert und schligt gegen einen Briickenpfeiler. Wirnrnernd, langsarn befreit sich cine Gestalt aus den Triimrnern: Becker. Er kriecht dem Fond entgegen. Verreckten [sic.:= vcrrenkten? - IW] Kopfcs, tot: von Klemrn.

Seghers restricts herself to a devastatingly brief note: ‘Wagen in d[en]. Rhein. Beide tot’. In other words, as far as she is concerned Schneider’s version is an unacceptable change to the original. It is therefore no surprise that, when Becker turns up in scene 19 as a farmer in Franconia, Seghers’ comment makes her insistence clear that Becker has to be dead. She repeats this in a comment on scene 25.

Scene 21 is conceived by Schneider as a montage of events. The various elements of the montage show what the leading protagonists in the film are doing as Hitler assumes power in January 1933. Lieven hears the announcement on radio; Wenzlow is part of a military parade; Becker is drunk in his SA uniform and screaming that things are now going to change; Franz, also in full uniform, is swept along by the general enthusiasm; Martin takes his leave of Hans at Bahnhof Zoo; Geschke watches as the Reichstag burns; while Triebel is arrested by SS troops commanded by Lieven. Seghers once again shows no liking for an approach which does not reflect her own: ‘Montage 21 gefiillt mir nicht’. The same is true of scene 29 where Helmut von Klemm and a friend are shown as enthusiastic believers in the Nazi ideal of courage. They therefore - at night and in the middle of winter - go for a swim to an ice-covered pool. This costs Helmut’s comrade his life, while Helmut hastens to conceal his own involvement in the foolhardy venture. Seghers’ comment again leaves no room for doubt: ‘unmoglich. Dieser sinnlose Tod wertet d[en]. Tod, der Sinn hat, ab’.

Like scene 21, scene 31 is conceived as a montage, this time to mark the outbreak of war. Once again, Seghers is not impressed: ‘Montage 31 unnotig, SchluB versteh ich nicht’. On the typescript itself Seghers has placed a question mark against the end of the scene, which reads:

Am Stacheldraht cines Lagers, bcwacht von franztisischcn Polizisten, steht Martin. Das allgemcine Gesprach der Voriibergehenden handclt vorn Ein- manch der Deutschen. Als sich die Wache entfernt, zerschneidet Martin die unteren Drate des Zauns und schliipft mit einem Frcund hindurch.

Q h d BlwlrrcU Ltd 1994.

ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN ELEIEEN JUNG 319

This matches up with Schneider’s proposal that more flesh needed to be put on the figure of Martin and that one way of doing this was to have him interned in France after his period in Spain. Seghers has evidently overlooked this or perhaps simply lost patience by this stage with a type- script about which she clearly has serious reservations. These also stretch to scene 32, on which she comments: ‘Die Szene ist notig. Aber von unnotigen Motiven vollgepfmpft. Warum hier Jude [?]’. In this scene a German military unit which is commanded by Becker and includes Hans amves in a small French town where Martin and his friend happen to have taken refuge with a French communist. The friend, a Jew, shoots Becker: ‘Dann bricht er, hysterisch heulend, zusammen.’ In the search which follows Hans finds Martin and urges him to make his escape. This attempt to fill out Martin’s role does not find favour with Seghers: ‘Mir gef“a1lt d[ie]. Einfuhrung Martins nicht [. J kunstlich’.

Seghers’ criticisms continue as she turns to the final scenes. In particular, she is unhappy with the presentation of Amalie’s death in scene 34, with the idea of transferring Lieven’s estate from the Baltic provinces to Poland in scene 36, and with Schneider’s failure to bring out the fact that Wenzlow ‘recognises’ Erwin as Hans is condemned to be shot. All in all, it is impossible to avoid the impression that Seghers was a zealous defender of the integrity of her novel and was not prepared to give the film-makers the latitude they wanted in adapting it. The only point at which she shows explicit approval occurs where Mane and Geschke agree to marry:

Mane sagt pliitzlich, unumwunden: die Kinder seien ihr vertraut, sic brauchtcn auch cine Mutter. Geschke w i d miBtrauisch iiber d iem unumwun- dene Angebot. Mane sagt, was mit ihr ist. Geschke nickt. Es ist cine Vercinba- rung, die fur bcide Teile ihren Vorteil bringt, niichtern, redlich, vemiinftig.

Seghers writes ‘gut’ in the margin next to this passage precisely because, we may surmise, it is so clearly in the spirit of and therefore an appropriate filmic version of her own text. But such approval is decidedly untypical, and her concluding remark at the bottom of her three pages of scribbled notes - ‘Noch vie1 zu arbeiten’ - betrays the extent of her general dissatis- faction with Schneider’s outline.

As the project gathered pace, there was no sign that Seghers’ vigilance would diminish. A ‘ScenenaufriB’ was produced which explained that the film would retain the main characters, the plot and the structure of the novel but would focus principally on Hans and Mane: ‘Diese beiden sind die Identifikationsfiguren fur den Zuschauer.’ This elicits a sceptical response from Seghers’ pencil - a squiggly line under ‘Identifikationsfiguren’ and a querulous ‘nun?’ in the margin. Her determination to have the last word on such matters is made particularly clear by a comparison of two typescripts in the Seghers archive, each of twenty-eight pages and covering the first twenty-three scenes. The first is a draft which has been corrected in pencil by Seghen. The second is an amended version of the first which,

0 Bail BLrlnCU w 1994.

320 ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN BLEIBEN JUNG

significantly, takes full account of Seghers’ corrections. The scripts tell the story up to the point where Marie and Geschke decide to marry. They are not dated, but i t is clear that the stage has been reached where the concern is no longer with the general concept of the film but with the drafting of individual scenes. The wntent and sequence of the scenes is not challenged by Seghers; her amendments concern only matters of detail in the stage directions and in the dialogue. One is left with the impression that her wishes were always respected. For example, the script had had Erwin (as he is being led off to be executed) hear Martin’s voice say ‘Revolution. Endlich.’ Seghers changes this to ‘Erwin - Genosse’. In scene 7, where Becker is shown driving Klemm to the Rhineland, Seghers makes some minor amendments to the dialogue, including a change to the sequence of what is said between Becker and Klemm. In scene 9, in which Wenzlow brings Lieven to Tante Amalie’s house in Potsdam, she bas them address each other as ‘Sie’ and not as ‘du’: as the script had originally specified. Moreover, Lieven is now once again, at Seghers’ insistence, from the Baltic area beyond Riga from which Schneider had banished him in his first outline of the film.

The principal change, however, is to scene 22, and once again it shows how Seghers insists on being as faithful to her novel as possible. The script originally showed Marie confessing to her Tante Emilie that she had not had the abortion for which her aunt had lent her the money. Emilie then insisted that Marie should still have the abortion and that she could then start work next week at Emilie’s place of employment. In the amended version, as in the novel, Marie lies about the abortion, Emilie believes her and urges her to take some rest before adding that she has talked her boss into giving Marie a job starting the following week.

Seghers’ correspondence with DEFA at this juncture reinforces the impression that she was worried about the direction which work on the film appeared to be taking. A letter to her, dated 16th February 1967 and signed by Dr. Staat, DEFA’s legal adviser, refers to a letter from Seghers (dated 4th February 1967) which had been passed to him by Walter Janka ‘mit der Bitte um juristische Beantwortung’. It is clear that Anna Seghers was concerned to ensure that DEFA did not make a film of her novel without her approval. Staat’s letter seems to wnfirm that Seghers was not satisfied with the material which she had seen to date:

Es ist vollig richtig, wcnn Sic schreibem, da13 die DEFA das Thcrna nur dann in einem Film iibernehrnen und diescn Film auswertcn kann, wcnn sic die Verfilrnungsrcchte an dem Therna vorher von Ihnen rechtsmiiDig envorben hat. Wir meinen jedoch, daB die Priifung, ob das Thcma fir cine filmische Urnsetzung geeignct ist, insbesondere durch die Anfcrtigung bestimrnter litcra- rischer Arbeiten - Skizze oder Expost beispielsweisc - cine studiointerne Angelegenhcit ist, die nicht zu einer Verletzung der Ihnen zustehenden urhcb- errcchdichen Befugnissc an dem Therna fihrt. Unabhiingig von dieser sich aus den Bestirnrnungen des Urheberrechtgesetzes ergebcnden rein juristischcn Feststcllung sind wir selbstverstindlich an einer intensiven und guten Zusarn-

0 Basil B l r h l l Ltd 1994.

ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN BLEIBEN JUNC

menarbeit mit Ihnen als Autorin des Ursprungwerkes bei der Anfertigung der literarischen Grundlagen fur den Film sehr interessiert.

321

It was at this point that Rolf Schneider and Joachim Kunert submitted their ‘Szenarium’, which is dated 28 February 1967. The copy in the Seghers archive includes her corrections and comments in pencil, and it is evident from these that she continued to be unhappy with the proposed changes to her material. She simply cuts a number of scenes - for example, scene 108 (crossed out by four thick lines), scene 112 (‘unnotig’), scene 131 (crossed out), scene 147 (cut and also provided with a question mark), scene 162 (crossed out), scene 174 (where Liese and Christian reveal to Wollkopf that Christian is his real father - a change which Seghers rejects), scene 176 (which shows Hans and the young Nadler together at the front - again, a change rejected by Seghers), and scenes 180 and 181 (which show Geschke’s funeral - these, too, are cut by Seghers). She frequently indicates disapproval by enclosing a section of text in brackets or by putting a line through it or by doing both (on p. 10, for example, she uses brackets and also asks ‘brauchen wir’s?’), by putting a question mark next to a passage, or by appending a comment such as ‘billig’ (p. 7) or ‘unmoglich’ (p.9 - this refers to the script’s suggestion that Marie nods off while waiting for Erwin).

Scene 177 presents an interesting problem. It shows Hans and the young Nadler in Odessa walking alone down ‘[dlie beriihmte Hafentreppe, die man aus Eisensteins Film kennt’. Hans is aware of the significance of the steps and explains to Nadler: ‘Hier in Odessa ist mal’n Aufstand gewesen. Ich hab’s im Film gesehn. Soldaten haben gemeutert, und die Bevolkerung hat zu ihnen gehalten, und zuletzt hat sie die Garde zusammengeschossen. Das hat auf der Treppe hier angefangen.’ Nadler does not see the signifi- cance of this, so Hans has to spell it out: ‘Wir gehn jetzt genau dort, wo die Garde gegangen ist. Wir schiessen auf dieselben Leute, auf die damals geschossen worden ist.’ Nadler: ‘Es ist Krieg.’ Hans: ‘Stehn wir dabei wirklich auf der richtigen Seite?’ Nadler looks at Hans ‘griibelnd und ernst’. Like so many others, this scene too is crossed out by Seghers. However, the idea does survive in the film. In fact, it is further developed where the young Hans is taken to see Eisenstein’s masterpiece by Martin. He is deeply affected, and Martin is shown in the next scene carefully leading the stunned boy away from the cinema with his arm around his shoulders. The film also includes the famous steps scene from Eisenstein’s film which has had this effect on Hans. Later, during the war, it also shows Hans descending the steps with another soldier - a visual link to Eisenstein which is obvious to any experienced cinema-goer. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the archive to indicate why an idea which Seghers at one point had rejected should survive in the film in the form indicated, although it may be speculated that, on this point at least, she was persuaded by others of the merits of a good filmic idea.

Besides the cuts on which she insists, Seghers also calls for specific 0 Buil BLVtwcU Ud 1994.

322 ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN BLEIBENJUNC

amendments. When, for example, Schneider and Kunert have Klemm, on his return home from war, simply ignore the servants who have come out to greet him (‘Klemm eilt gruBlos an ihnen vorbei’), Seghers flatly contra- dicts their proposal: ‘Klemm griiBt alle freundlich’. A little later she d isap proves of some words put into Klemm’s mouth. He tells Lenore: ‘Hatten zuletzt noch ‘ne ziemlich heikle Sache. Angeblich hatten wir uns zu hart eingesetzt am Marstall. So’n Sozi-Bonze hat tatslchlich Untersuchung ver- langt: Gerichtsverfahren, Gegeniiberstellung und so. Dein Bruder wlr genau so betroffen gewesen wie ich.’ Seghers’ comment, next to a big question- mark, is simply an instruction (‘nachlesen im Roman St. 23’) which indi- cates, again, that she expects the script to be faithful to the novel. Her amendments affect even the sequence of scenes. She regroups those which deal with Wilhelm Nadler’s debt, Levi’s visit and the handing over to him by Christian of a first payment on the cow, as follows: 97, 93, 95 (shortened), 94, and 96.

Evidently in response to Seghers’ objection to his initial proposals, Schnei- der restores the association of Lieven’s family with the Baltic provinces. On the other hand, when Lieven is seen galloping across his estate in scene 12 the location is given as Upper Silesia. The reason for this, we are told, is that he must stay there as long as is necessary in order to ensure that it does not fall into Polish hands. Seghers objects to this change by placing a large question mark against the scene as well as a single bracket at its beginning and at the end of the following, linked scene, against which there is also a question-mark. In the next scene, which is also bracketed by Seghers, he is one of a Freikorps group which puts explosives into the Polish HQ outside of which flies the Polish flag.

A further proposed change which Seghers opposes occurs in scene 79 where Lenore wants Klemm to sack Becker because he has begun to take liberties (e.g. he has taken it upon himself to dismiss one of the servants on the disputed grounds that she has consorted with the French). When Lenore says ‘SchlieBlich ist er [Becker] nichts als Dein Angestellter’, Schnei- der has Klemm respond ‘Du hast recht, Becker geht zu weit’, although he goes on to say that Becker has twice saved his life and that he therefore cannot do without his services. Seghers scores this out and replaces it with: ‘Doch, mein Kind, da irrst du dich. Becker ist mehr.’ Similarly, in scene 83, Seghers rejects the idea that Becker deliberately runs over a black French soldier at night. A subsequent scene through which Seghers has drawn a line shows Geschke and Marie on an outing to the Langer See with Franz and Hans, its purpose being to show that they are making a determined attempt to get over the death of Geschke’s elder child. Seghers is more receptive towards scene 91, where Schneider and Kunert show Martin on his first day as a teacher, but even here she requires changes, writing at the top of the page ‘Vorher muB Martin gezeigt werden [,I wie er Lehrer wi[rd].’ The following scene, too, has written across the top ‘umarbeiten’. It shows the mixed reaction among his colleagues to the news that Triebel has been sacked. He says: ‘Betriebsrat und Kommunist ist Q BLrhrcU Ltd 1994.

ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN BLEIBEN JUNG 323

ihnen zuviel.’ Seghcrs queries the reference to ‘Betriebsrat’ by putting a question mark next to it. Across the top of scene 111, in which Lieven returns to his mom to find Elizabeth waiting for him, Seghers has simply written: ‘durcharbeiten’.

Where she is otherwise concerned to make substantial cuts, Seghers requires scene 134 to be expanded. This is the point at which Franz has brought his young Nazi colleagues to the flat, much to his father’s irritation. On the blank page opposite the start of the scene Seghers sets out her wishes: ‘Die VorHitlerZeit [sic] dantellen! Wer Hindenb[urg]. ~ [ a h l t ] , ~ [ l h l t ] . Hitl[er]., w[er]. H[itler]. ~[ah l t ] . , ~ [ a h l t ] . Krieg[.] Viell[eicht]. 23 Jungens darunter Franz lesen das, “Na wenn?” [sic] Stiirmen in Uniformen zu Geschkes rauf. G[eschke]. stutzt, schlagt auf d[en]. Tisch’.

Similarly, in scene 173 Schneider has Nadler raising the German flag in a French village. When the flag is half-way up the pole he is shot by a marksman who is not identified. Seghers has crossed this section out and written: ‘Szene aus dem Roman. Unbedingt under d[en]. Leuten im Haus ein getarnter Soldat. In geliehenen Kleidern hat noch Revolver. D[ie]. Menschen sehen verbittert voll Eke1 zu. Das versteht Nadler nicht.’ Once again, Seghers does not accept a proposal which seems to have too little respect for the original.

Of course, not all of the changes proposed in the ‘Szenarium’ are rejected. The main change in the film’s opening sequence, for instance, is that the breakdown of the car driven by Becker and carrying Klemm, Wenzlow and Lieven is feigned, not real. Becker removes the valve from a tyre, throws it away, and then pretends to be trying to repair the wheel. The reason for this emerges when, having stopped Nadler’s car and taken charge of Erwin, they lead the latter off to his death. Erwin recognises them as the men who were responsible for shootings at the Marstall in Berlin. A voice- over (Erwin’s voice) says: ‘Ich kenne euch alle drei. Ich kenne euch vom Mantall. Ihr habt die ErschieBungen auf dem Gewissen. Ich kann es bezeugen. Ich werde aussagen. Ich muB zum Befehlsstab. Ich bring euch vor Gericht. Ich muB aussagen!’ This is why they believe they have to kill him. Once again, this can be seen as an attempt to ‘improve’ on Seghers’ novel. In this instance, however, her pencil does not indicate her disapproval and she lets the scene stand. The same is true of scene 127, where Martin accompanies his class of schoolchildren on an excursion. One of them is Hans who is particularly attentive as, during the train journey, Martin tells them of his experiences in the war, of how he made a good friend called Erwin who enlightened him politically with the help of a leaflet; ‘Was ich aber erlebt habe, und was ich geworden bin, verdanke ich ihm. Es war gut fur mich, sein Vorbild zu haben.’ Thus Hans, without knowing it, is listening to the story of his father. There is no mark on this scene, so that Seghers appears to have been happy to let it stand (just as she seems to have had no objection to the idea of turning Martin into a teacher).

Important though they are, these apparently rare instances did not remove Seghers’ reservations about the direction which work on the film

Q Buil B U n U Ltd 1994.

324 ANNA SEGHERS AND THE FILM OF DIE TOTEN B L E l B m JUNG

was taking. The changes of both substance and detail which she demanded finally led Rolf Schneider to drop out of the project altogether. In his view, the director, Joachim Kunert, must bear a major share of the responsibility for the failure of the first stage of the project:

Ich habe die enten E n ~ r f e G r Scenario und Drehbuch des Seghers-Buches auf Drangcn des Regisseurs verfaf3t. Anna Seghen, die ich gut kannte, war mit meiner Mitwirkung einventanden, nicht aber mit dem Resultat, das nun wicderum der Regisseur in wesendichen Teilen zu verantworten hatte. Frau Seghers’ hderungswiinsche liefen auf cine vollige Neufassung hinaus. Ich hatte keine Lust mehr und gab den Auftrag zuriick, worauf man sich an Christa Wolf wandtc.I3

It was therefore ultimately thanks to the intervention of Anna Seghers that the name of Christa Wolf and not Rolf Schneider appeared among the credits of the film when, as planned and despite the disruptions which are characteristic of its genesis, it had its premiere in November 1968. DEFA appeared satisfied with the success of Dic To&n bleibtn jung. In a letter dated 19th November 1968, Franz Bruk (Hauptdirektor, DEFA, Studio f i r Spielfilme) congratulated Seghers on the occasion of her sixty-eighth birthday and then added the hope that she would cooperate with DEFA again in the making of future films based on her work:

Unsere Gliickwiinsche, liebe Anna, sind zuglcich von der obeneugung erfiillt, da13 wir mit dcr Vcrfilmung des Romans Die Totm blcibm jung cinen wichtigen Schritt getan haben, um das Ventehcn der Vergangenheit zu vertiefen. I Nicht nur bei jungen Menschen, die die Zeit der zwei Weltkriege nicht d e b t haben. Das gdt auch fiir die Ilteren Generationen. Darum mikhtcn wir Dir bei dieser Gelegenheit noch cinmal sehr herzlich fur Deine Hilfe bei der Erarbeitung d a Drehbuches danken. f Aufrichtig wunschen wir, dal3 Du bald wider gesund wirst, damit Du Dein Werk forfihren and uns helfen kannst, in naher Zukunft einen neuen Film nach Deinem Werk zu realisieren.

” Rolf Schneidcr, in a letter to Ian Wdlace, 26 Octobcr 1993

Q Bad BldrrcY Ltd 1W.