Kluge 1981 - On Film and the Public Sphere

8/17/2019 Kluge 1981 - On Film and the Public Sphere

1/16

Duke University Press and New German Critique are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New

German Critique.

http://www.jstor.org

On Film and the Public SphereAuthor(s): Alexander Kluge, Thomas Y. Levin and Miriam B. HansenSource: New German Critique, No. 24/25, Special Double Issue on New German Cinema (Autumn,1981 - Winter, 1982), pp. 206-220Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/488051Accessed: 03-02-2016 18:51 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin 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].

This content downloaded from 130.237.29.138 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 18:51:27 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/488051http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/488051http://www.jstor.org/publisher/dukehttp://www.jstor.org/


2/16

On

Film

and

the

Public

Sphere

byAlexander luge

NARRATIVE

CINEMA*

I

wouldn't e

making

ilmsf tweren't or he

inema f he

920's,

he

silent ra.Since havebeenmaking ilms thas been n referenceothis

classical

radition.

elling

tories,

his s

precisely y onception

fnarrative

cinema;

nd what lse is the

history

f a

country

ut

hevastest arrative

surface

f all? Notone

story

ut

many

tories.

MONTAGE-FILM

This

means

montage.

here

an

be no doubt hat

he

narrativef an

individualate, nfoldednninetyminutes,anconvey istorical aterial

only

t

the

rice

f

dramaturgical

ncest.

he

fictional

hreat

isplaces xperi-

encefrom hefilm.

n the

history

f

film,

montage

s

the

morphology

f

relations

die

Formenwelt

es

Zusammenhangs ).

hen heres also

the

artificial

pposition

f

documentary

ndmise-en-scene.

ere

ocumentation

cuts ff

elations:

othing

xists

bjectively

ithout

he

motions,

ctionsnd

desires,

hat

s,

withouthe

yes

nd he

enses

f he

eople

nvolved.have

never

nderstood

hy

he

depiction

f such cts

most

f which ave o

be

staged)

s called

fiction,

iction-film.

ut t s

equally deological

o assume

thatndividualsoulddetermineistory.herefore,onarrativeucceeds

without certain

roportion

f uthentic

aterial,

.e.

documentation.uch

use

ofdocumentationstablishes

point

freferenceor he

yes

nd

enses:

real

conditionslear heview

for he

ction.

AUTEUR

FILM-COOPERATIVE ILM

I

have

lways

elievedn

he

uteur

ilm,

n he

ontinuation

f

arly

ilm

history:ovshenko, riffith,reyer, osselini, odardifyou ike,Cos-

tard),

chroeter,

nd

others. find

myself

n

good

companymong

hem.

With

elight

discover hat

Woody

Allen

Manhattan)

nd Frank

oppola

-

*

This

nd

he

ollowing

xcerpts

re

taken

rom ie

Patriotin

Frankfurt/Main:

weitau-

sendeins,

979).

206


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16

Fihn

nd the

Public

phere

207

representatives

f

completely

ifferentinematicradition take

ecourse

tothe amevigorousrinciples;heirditingtylesassociative,heyppeal

to film

istory,

t s

never risk

omake

ersonal

ilms,

rto

make

ompact

films:

You

got

o

rely

n

people.

For he

uteurheres no

way

back

o

the

eady-made

ilm

Konfektions-

film).

Nor an

uteurinema emain

n

ts

present

tate.

tcannot

ncessantly

deliver

ingle

works,

achofwhich

ndividually

einvent

ilm

istory.

ine-

ma s a

program

hat

s a

relationship

f

production

iffor o other eason

than

hat his

elationship

xists n

the

xperiences

f the

pectators

hich

constantly

ecreatehe

inema's

xperiential

orizon. hemultitudeffilms

intheminds f the pectatorsill ontinueobe infinitelyicherhanwhat

canbe seen n

the inema ntil numberf

directors

ork

t

combining

heir

professional

kills nd

temperaments,

heirmost

ersonal

eelings

nd

m-

pulses.

This is

actually

matter f

respect

or

he

spectator

ho

always

acquires

xperience

ith

thers,

ollectively.

f

you

want o

develop

he

auteur ilm

urther,

ecause

you

believe n

t,

hen he

nlyway

s

through

cooperation.

uteur

inemas

not

minority

henomenon:

ll

people

elate

o

their

xperience

ike

uthors rather

han

managers

f

department

tores.

LEAVING

THE

GARDEN PATHS

Making

ilmss

strictly

nti-academic,

n

nsolent

ccupation,

istorical-

ly

grounded

ut nconsistent.

n the

resent

ituation

heres

plenty

frefined

entertainmentrefinement

f

serious'

opics

gepflegtes

roblem')

oo

as if

he

inema

was

a

stroll

n

the

arden aths

f

park.

he

observance

f

the

prohibition

n

leaving

he

garden aths

as beenknown o have aused

German evolutionso fail.

Something

s refineds

that

oes

not need

duplication.ndeed,hildren ould atherobackntohe ushesust stheywould

refer

o

play

n he and r n

unkyard.

appiness,

ays

reud,

s the

fulfillment

f

childhood ishes.

am

convinced

hat ilm as

omething

o

do

with

appiness:

ilm

movie

=

something

onstantlyoving

orward

e-

spite

ll

those

who

would

top

t.

THE

CRITICAL MEASURE

OF

PRODUCTION:

WHAT S

LEFT

OUT

These

days

German

inema

s

becoming

amous broad.

The

actual

practice

fGerman

ilmmakers,owever,

s

precarious.

When

kating

n

thin

ce,

the

onlyway

o

keep

from

reaking

hrough

s

to move

s

fast s

possible.

1.

The

German erm

Problemfilm oes nothave n

equivalent

n

English

utwould

certainly

xtend

o such

films s

Kramer s.

Kramer,

rdinary

eople,

or

Making

ove

(translators'

ootnote).




4/16

208

Alexander

luge

The

Problem

f

the

Newcomers

In the ast17years,he o-called ewGerman inema asgone hrough

four

enerations.

irst heOberhauseners

nd

pre-Oberhauseners

for

xam-

ple

Wicki,

trobel,

ischert,enft,

esely,

ristl,

eitz nd

thers),

hen he

new nes

fterhem

Schl6ndorff,yberberg,

assbinder,tickelmann,

er-

zog,

Wendersnd

others),

nd hen he

hird

eneration

Schroeter,

ostard,

Praunheim,

6rmann,

emke,Kahn,

St6ckl

nd

others).

oday,

fourth

wave

of

young

ilmmakers

s

emerging,

uite

numerous

nd

evidently

re-

ative,

which

istinguishes

tself

learly

romhe o-called stablished

irec-

tors. n

contrasto the

riginal young

German

ilmmakers ho

re

now

almost ll in their orties,his ourthenerations therealyoungGerman

cinema.

Noneof the nstitutionsf

public

unding

n

the

ederal

epublic

re

s

yet

esponding

o

the lternative

onceptions

fthe inema

eing

eveloped

by

thisnew

fourth

eneration.

his

younger

eneration

s

discriminated

against

s

soon s it

attempts

o

operate

utside

henarrow

cademic

truc-

tures f the ilm

chools. t

will

be

impossible,

owever,

o restricthem o

these

groves

of academe.

(. .

.)

Institutional

ndependence

ndPolitics

f

Production

If

one

compares

hewealth

f work

nd

experience

hich

make

p

our

country

ith he xtent

o

which

hese re

represented

nGerman

ilms,

hen

two

bservationsan

be

made:

1)

most f t

doesnot

ppear

n he

ilms,

nd

(2)

the rt ffilm

ince he 920's s a

promise

hich asnever een ulfilled.

The

uccess

f

he

Germaninema

broad

ndwith he nited

oteries

f

film

directors

ask

he

act

hat,

measured

gainst

he

otential

f he

medium,

he

German

inema s

stagnating.

here s

not

enough

istorical

epth,

ot

enough ocumentationocreate senseofcontext.. . .) Inthedomain fthe

conventional

ne-way

ilm,

he

maginative

S

competition

s

sure o

defeat

German

roducts

n

the

market. his

ituationould

be

changed

nly

f he

principle

f

multiplicity

ere

pplied

o the

ange

fcinematicorms

ather

than

ust

personal tyles

r

subject

matter.uch

strategy,

hich s

being

discussed

mong

ilmmakersith

reat

rgency,

ndicates

newly

ained

consciousnessf

production;

e call it

politics

f

production,

nstitutional

independence.

THE

MEDIA ARE

STANDINGON THEIR HEAD

One

speaks

of film

roducers,'

f film-auteurs.'

ccordingly

elevision,

video

corporations,

he

radio

and

the cinema consider

hemselves o be the

media.

n fact

hey

re

merely

he

orms

nd

conditions nderwhich hemedia

exist.The true

medium f

experience,

f

desires,

f

phantasies,

nd

actually




5/16

Film nd the

Public

phere

209

of

aesthetic

ppreciation

s

well,

are

thereal

human

eings

nd

never

he

specialists.eoplework tsteadyobs,theyoil way,whichnturnmeans

they

work n their

elationships,

hey

work

vertime

n

order o

survive

n

both

work nd

private elationships.

his s

the abor f

nner

alance,

he

work

f

lifetime.ife s made

p

of hese hree

owerful

lements,

he

tuff

of

centuries

ith

ll

its

misery

nd errors.

t

is

thus

hat he

horizons f

perception

nd

themedium

f social

xperience

re

actually roduced.

he

so-called

media

eed n the

eturns

f his abor.

hey

nly

eflect

omething

which

epends

n

being

illed

ut

by

the

pectators

rom

heir wn

experi-

ence.

There

s

not

single

Mark

r

dollar

hat

hemedia

ash

n at

the ox

office,hrough

ental

rtaxes,

which s

not arned y

the

pectator

r

non-

spectator.

ur

responsibility

s thereforeothe

non-spectator

homwede-

ceive

if we

masquerade

s the media.

Both,

that

s,

non-spectators

nd

spectatorsogether,

onstitute

he

media

nd

produce

ts

reception:

.e. it

s

their

magination

hat nimateshe creen.

UTOPIANCINEMA

The

art

f

the inema

s

young, arely

0

years

ld.

It

does

nothave

feudal

ast.

Compared

othe efinementfforms hichmusic,rchitecture,

literature,

il

painting

nd

culpture

ultivated

ver he

enturies,

upported

by

the traditional

nity

f

culture nd

property,

he

cinema

displays

n

amazing igor,

obustness,

t

east

n

ts

arly ays.

Not

bliged

o

follow he

intricate

ays

of 'civilizationnd its discontents'

S.

Freud),

ilm akes

recourseo the

pontaneous

orkings

f

the

maginative

aculty

hich

as

existed or ens f

thousandsf

years.

ince

he

ce

Age

approximately

or

earlier),

treams

f

mages,

f

o-called

ssociations,

avemoved

hrough

he

human

mind,

rompted

o some

xtent

y

an anti-realistic

ttitude,

y

the

protest

gainst

n unbearable

eality.

hey

have norder hichs

organized

by

pontaneity.aughter, emory,

nd

ntuition,

ardly

he

roduct

f

mere

education,

re

basedon this

aw

material

f

associations.

his s the

more-

than-ten-thousand-year-old-cinema

o

which

he

nventionf the

ilm

trip,

projector

nd screen

nlyprovided technological

esponse.

his

also

ex-

plains

he

particularroximity

f

film o the

spectator

nd

its

affinity

o

experience.

UNDER THE SIGN OF THE HERMAPHRODITE

The tandardsf ulturend esthetic

uality

re

mbiguous

nrelation

o

the inema. o the uture

rchaeologists

four

ilm

andscape,

lmost

very-

thing

ill

ppear

s

culture,

ven

he

o-called

o-quality

ilms. he

federal

subsidy ystem,

owever,

nsists

pon opquality.

he

production

f

top

quality

ilms

s hemmed

n

by

bureaucracy,

lanning,

rivate

wnership,




6/16

210 Alexander

luge

centralization,usiness,

ensorship

nd mechanical

ragmatism

hich

oes

not ound ikecensorshiput ctually epresentsneof themost ffective

instruments

f

present-day

ensorship.

This

ype

f

censorship

enefitsrom he

gallimaufry

hich

lagues

he

standards

f

quality

n film.James

oyce,

rnold

Sch6nberg,

nd the

ate

Beethoven

uartetsepresentndisputableinnacles

f

quality

n

iterature

and

music. n

the

inema,

hese

ame

products

ould

rustrate

n

equally

valid

desire n

the

pectators

hich

onsists

n

asserting

heir

on-classical

needs or

xpression

nd

satisfying

heiribidinal

conomy.

(.

.

.)

This s

the rue

meaning

f

diversity;ardly

n

abstractdeal.

For

this eason hehistoryffilm ontains utopiantrain whichs what

accounts

or

he

ttractionf he inema but t s a

utopia

which,

ontrary

to the

Greek

meaning

f

ou-topos

=

no

place,

is in existence

verywhere

nd

especially

n

the

unsophisticatedmagination.

his

unsophisticated

magina-

tion,

owever,

s buried nder

thick

ayer

f

cultural

arbage.

t

has to be

dug

ut.This

project

f

xcavation,

ot t

ll a

utopian

otion,

anbe

realized

only hrough

urwork.

THE SPECTATOR AS ENTEPRENEUR

The

film nd elevision

orporations

ive

ff

f he

money

nd he

ooper-

ation

fthe

maginative

aculties

unpaid

abor)

which

hey

xtract

rom

he

spectator.Theyesignate

nyone

mature

itizen

ho

s

willing

o

pay.

Kant

says:

nlightenment

s

man'srelease

Ausgang)

rom is

self-incurredute-

lage

selbstverschuldeten

nmiindigkeit).

eni Peickert

ays:

People

remature

when hey ave heiray ff.

. 2

Inordero

heat

pectators

n

an

ntrepreneurial

cale,

he

ntrepreneurs

ave

to

designate

he

pectators

hemselvess

entrepreneurs.

he

pectator

ust it

in

the

movie ouse

r

n

frontfthe

TV set ike

commodity

wner:

ike

miser

rasping

very

etail nd

collecting

urplus

n

everything

hich as

any

value.

Value

per

se.

So

uneasy

his

pectator-consumer,

lienated

rom

his

own ife

o

completely

ike

he

manager

fa

supermarket

r

department

storewho

even

t the

price

fdeath

heart

ttack)

willnot

top

ccu-

mulating

he

ast

craps

f

marketable

oods

n

he toreroom

o that

hey

may

find

heir

uyers.

ow

disturbede is when

eoplepass by

his

store;

ow

nervous e

gets

bout

bjects

n he toreroomhich o not ell

mmediately.

2.

Maindig

st

der

Mensch,

wenn

er

Ausgang

hat

.

.

.).

From:

Alexander

Kluge,

Die

Artisten n

der

Zirkuskuppel:

atlos;

Die

Unglaubige;

projekt

Z;

Spriiche

der

Leni Peickert

(Munich:

.

Piper

erlag,

968),

.

131.

LeniPeickert

Hannelore

oger),

s

n

xpert

n

ircus

reform

nd the

protagonist

f

Kluge's

film

Artisten

n

der

Zirkuskuppel:

atos

(Artists

nder

he

Big

Top:

At a

Loss;

1968)

and the

hort ie

unbeziihmbare

eni

Peickert

The

ndomitable

eni

Peickert;

970)

translators;

ootnote).




7/16

Film nd the

Public

phere

211

In

a

similarly

ntrepreneurial

ashionhe

pectator

having

eached

he

desired onsumer aturity scansfilms or heirpectaclendexhibition

values,

for

omplete

ntelligibility,

ust

as

one

is

taught

o

gnaw

bone

thoroughly,

s the

aying oes,

o

that he unwill hine.The

un,however,

'taking

ts

hunderous

ourse,'

ccording

o tsown

habits

ndunconcerned

with uman

ommunication,

oes

not are he east

whether

rnotwe clean

our

plates.

Understanding

film

ompletely

s

conceptualmperialism

hich

olo-

nizes ts

objects.

f have

understood

verything

hen

omething

as been

emptied

ut.

We mustmakefilms hat horoughlyppose uch mperialismfcon-

sciousness.

encounter

omething

n

film

which

till

urprises

e

nd

which

can

perceive

ithout

evouring

t. cannot

nderstand

puddle

n

which

he

rain

s

falling

I can

only

ee

it;

to

say

that understand

he

puddle

s

meaningless.

elaxation

means hat

myself

ecome

live

for

moment,

allowing

my

enses o run

wild:for nce

not o

be

on

guard

with

he

olice-

like

ntention

f

etting

othingscape

me.3

THE PUBLIC

SPHERE*

Alexander

luge:

fwe are

discussing

he erm

ppositional

ublic

phere

and

by

this

we mean

type

f

public

phere

hichs

changing

nd

xpand-

ing,

ncreasing

he

ossibilities

or

public

rticulation

f

xperience

then

we must

ery

esolutely

ake

stance

egarding

he

right

o

intimacy,

o

private

wnership

f

xperience.

or

xample,

group

f

people

s faced

with

imminent

viction

rom

n

occupied

uilding

inthe

chumannstrasse

o.

69

in

Frankfurt

here

our

ouses

where

ctually

emolished.

We

know

already

nNovember

hat

t

s

going

o

happen,

nd

hey

now

t s well.

They

havedwelledn thishousefor hree

ears

ndhave

lways

adtheplan o

return

omething

o

the

ommunity

n

exchange

or

ccupying

he

house:

tenants'

ounseling

ervice

nd all

sorts

f otherervices.

hat

plan

never

worked

ut.

Shortly

efore

he

viction,

heir

olitical

nergy

inally

akes

shape:

hey

ould

ike

o

make

p

for

whatever

hey

idnot

o n he

revious

three

ears.

We wanted

ofilm

he

viction

ndwe could

ssume

hatt

would

take

lace

ta

time

when

he ntire

ity

was

celebrating

arnival.

We told

he

house-occupiers

hat

we wanted

o

start

hooting

efore

he

viction

ecause

only

hen

ould

we

really

work

ogether.hey

aidhowever:

his s our

fight

andwewillnot llow ur

ight

obefilmedy nyone ho oesnot ive n he

3.

Fafner

n

Wagner's)

heingold

as

once

powerful

iant.

With is

brother,

e

built

Walhalla,

feat he

ods

hemselves

ad

been

nable o

ccomplish.

hen

ekilled

is

brother

and

s now

guarding

he reasure.

e sits here

ike

dragon.

*

This

nd he

ollowingieces

were

riginallyublished

n:KlausEder/Alexander

luge,

Ulmer

ramnaturgien:

eibungsverluste

Munich:

anser,

980).




8/16

212

Alexander

luge

house

nd

fight

ith s.

To

which

we

responded:

ur

working

chedule

oes

not llowus

to ive

here,

utwe can t east

oinyou,

wecan

be there ith

ur

camerawhen hehouse s cleared ut;

granted,

nsuch case we would e

house-occupiersnly

n

disguise

ecause,

aving

laces

four

wn,

we

are

not

ouse-occupiers.

o

which

hey

eplied:

ll the

ess

reason o

llow

you

o

film

s

since

his s

our

truggle,

t

belongs

o

us. We

continued

o

argue,

although

ithout

uccess,

nd

aid:

you

an't laim

rivatewnership

f

your

struggle

ikean

entrepreneur

laims

private wnership

fhis

factory

nd

would hereforerder

is

security

orce o

prevent

s from

hooting.

on't

you

realize hat his s the ame

position

ith

egard

o the

public

phere?

Don't

you

ee that

ou

re

opyingomething

hat he

ther

ide an

do much

better,

amely

roducing non-public

phere,

roducing

relationship

f

property

nd

xclusion?t

may

e that

ou

onsider s

prostitutes

ho

xist

everywhere

nd

yet

owhere:

o

thiswe

adamantly

espond

exactly

hat

s

our

ob:

it s

not ur

usiness

o

ive

verywhere

t

once. f

we were

omake

film

bout

armers,

he

ituation ould e the ame:we

are

not armers

nd

even fwe

ived

ike armersor

alf

year

we stillwould

ot

e

farmers.

ust

because

we

work n

factoriesoes

notmakeus

factory

orkers.We are

always

ware

hatwe have nother

rofession

nd an

eave

f

we

want o. A

public

phere

an

be

produced rofesssionallynly

when

you accept

he

degreef bstractionhichs nvolvedn arryingnepiece f nformationo

another

lace

n

society,

hen

ou

stablish

ines

fcommunication.

hat's

the

nly

way

we

can

create n

oppositionalublic

phere

nd

hus

xpand

he

existing ublic

phere.

his

s

an

occupation

hich s

ust

as

important

s

direct

ction,

he mmediate

n-the-spottruggle.

Klaus

Eder: Would t

notbe

appropriate

o

stop

sing

he erm

ppositional

public

phere

which

ates

romhe ime round

May

1968

sincewhat

you

mean

s a

public

phere

n

the

uthenticense f

the erm?

Alexanderluge:We mean he ppositef pseudo-publicphere,hats,a

representativeublic phere

which

s

representative

n

so

far s it

nvolves

exclusions.

elevision,

or

xample, ollowing

ts

mandate

f

providing

universal

epresentation

f

reality

a

concept

which

ts

monopoly

nd its

pluralistic

uthority

rebased

upon)

ouldnever

ffordo show ilms hat

o

so

much

gainst

he

rain

hat

hey

would all

attention

owhatever

cope

f

reality

elevisionoes

not nclude.

his

would

estroy

he acade

f

egitima-

cy

onwhich

he

ublic

phere

f elevision

s

based.

f

pseudo-publicphere

only

epresents

arts

f

reality,

electively

nd

according

o

certain alue

systems,henthasto administerven urtheruts o itwon't efoundut.

This

ype

f

public

phere

as

recently

etwith

ompetition

rom

public

sphere

ppropriatedy private

nterprise.

ithin he

atter,

he

Springer

corporation

s to

some extent

nly

novice,

retaining

n element

f

personal-

ism

which ets

ts own limits: he

reactionary

ttitude f the

entrepreneur

n

fact

educes he ales

figures.

his will

be

technocratically

orrected

t some

point, liminating

he

personal spect

of

Springer,

nd

thereby

ealizing

he




9/16

Film

nd the

Public

phere

213

private

ppropriation

f the

public phere.

his

s

a

great

anger

if

all

forms f the classical

public phere

ave

the

tendency,

s

representative

public phere,

o

utomatically

educe hemselves.nthis

espect,

he

oncep-

tionof a

public phere

which s neither

rivately

wnednor

imply

he

classical

ype

s

of fundamental

mportance:

he

very

onditions

f

politics

depend pon

t.

The

public phere

s in

this

cenewhat

ne

might

all

the

factory

f

politics

its

ite f

production.

hen his ite f

production

the

pace

n

which

olitics

s

first ade

ossible

t

ll

and ommunicable is

caught

n

scissors-grip

etween

rivateppropriation

which

s no

onger ublic

nthe

authentic

ense)

nd

the

elf-eliminating

lassical

ublic-sphere

its

mecha-

nisms f subtractionndexclusion);when his

public phere

hreatenso

disappear,

ts

oss

would e

as

grave oday

s

the oss

of

he

ommon

andwas

for he armern

the

Middle

Ages.

n that

eriod

he

conomy

as

based n

the

hreecre

ystem:

ne cre

elonged

o

veryone,

ne

belonged

o

he

ord

and

ne

belonged

o he

armer.

his

ystem

an

only

unction

s

ong

s there

is this

ommon

and,

he

public

round,

hich s the

irst

hing

hat he ord

appropriates.

fhe owns

oth

he ommon

and

nd

his wn

cre,

hen

ehas

superiority.

o

onger ependant

n

fighting

ith he

word,

he ord annow

alsocontrolhe hirdcre

ndwill oon

have erfs. he ossof

and

lsomeans

a loss of

community

ecause,ftheres noland n which he armers ay

assemble,

t s no

onger

ossible

o

develop

community.

he ame

hing

s

happeninggain,

n a

historicallyigher

lane,

n

people's

heads

when

hey

are

deprived

f

he

ublic phere.

his reates

he

henomenon

f he ubber

wall:

sit

n

my

oom

ndhave

nough

easons

or

rotest

ndfor

wanting

o

break

utbut

here

s

noone owhom

cancommunicate

hese

easons,

here

are

no

proper

ddressees.

o

instead turno

ubstitute

ddressees

y

writing

letters-to-the-editor,

or

xample,

o

which

obody

ays

ny

ttention.r

support politician

ho

helps

me

out

of

my mpasse y

shifting

oncrete

problemsnto he rena fworld olitics hich inturnmistakeormy wn

interestselieved o be realized

ia this

isplacement.

For hese

easons,

his se

value,

his

roduct

hich

s

the

public

phere'

is

themost undamental

roduct

hat

xists. n terms

f

ommunity,

f

what

have

n

common

with ther

eople,

t s the

basis for

processes

f social

change.

his

means,

can

forget

bout he

oncept

f

politics

f

neglect

he

production

f

a

public phere.

his s

a

claim

o

egitimacy

hich

we

must

carefully

nsist

pon

nd

ppose

gainst

he

many

rivate

eeds

despite

he

fact hat

isappointment

ith he

ourgeoisublic

phere,

ts

ailures,

etray-

als anddistortionsas led manyeftistroups o reject public phere

altogether.

Klaus

Eder:

The

promotion

nd

production

f

documentary

ilms ould hus

in

the nd

be

a

political

uestion

all

themore

ince n

general

nly

hat

whichtabilizes omination

s

possible.

Alexander

Kluge:

Yes,

but

t s

not

he ase

that he omination

hat onfronts




10/16

214

Alexander

luge

us s

a conscious

ne.

All

methods

fdomination

nd hose f

profit

which

o

notwantodominateut atheromake rofitnd herebyominate)ontain

calculation

f

marginaltility.

his

means hat he ence rected

y orpora-

tions,

y

censorship,y

authority

oesnot

each ll the

way

o the ase but

stops

hort because he

ase

s

so

complex

so that ne an rawl

nder

thefence t

any

ime. ven

elevision

roducers

nd

boardmembers

an

be

examinedn

ight

f this alculation

f

marginaltility.

n the

hierarchy,

producer

s

subordinate

o

the

manager

ho

s

in

turn

ubordinateo the

televisionoardwhichs

again

esponsible

o still thers:he

roducer

ust

obey

rdersrhe

will

be

fired.

his,

however,

s

only

rue

or alf

f

his

oul,

sotospeak; notherart fhimmay everyurious.Whilenthe ourse f

time e

may

ecome

esigned,

evertheless,

n

termsf

his

abor

ower

e

s

more han

ust

the

functionary

ho

s

employed

here. his

means hat

n

every

elevision

roducer

here

xists conflict

nd

no

system

f

domination

in

theworld an

reduce he

producerompletely

o

the

functionary.

n

this

conflict

e

must

ake he

ide f he elevision

roducer.

e can

ount

n

the

fact hat

o

oppression

s total.

he

ssue hen ecomes he

earning

f

proper

ways

of

dealing

with

people

(die

Lehre der

richtigen

mgangsformen).

We

must

roduce

he elf-confidence

hich

s

necessary

o discover

he

objectiveossibilitiesfproductionnderneathhese encesndwemustake

the

ffensive

n

fighting

or his

osition.

t

s

ust

s

important

o

produce

public

phere

s it s

to

produce olitics,

ffection,

esistance,

rotest,

tc.

This

means hat he

lace

nd he

acing

f

he

truggle

re

ust

s

mportant

s

the

truggle

tself.

On the ther

and,

n

order o

envisage public

phere

of

whichwe

know

very

well that

here s all

too little we need

an

almost

hildlike

feeling

f

omnipotence.

hen,

or

xample,

he

ummeracation

egins

vacillate

s to

whether

necan

express

neself

ublicly

tall:

don't elieve

ina single roducthat couldmake nd o I withdrawndwritemy ecret

texts,

hats

iterature,

fwhich know hattwill

emain

ssentially arginal

to

the

ublic

phere.

ince

will

not

ncite

ny arge

masses f

people

hrough

the

medium

fa

book,

can

write

hateverlike

knowing

hat

twill

never

engender

ttack. evenhad

he dea in

mood

f

resignation

of

hiding

a

print

f

my

next ilmn

theMunich

ilm

Museum nd

waiting

o ee if

ny

film

hilologist

ould

discover

t

there en

years

ater. his

merely

ut

of

frustration

bout he

ncredible

truggles

nd

ompromises

nvolved hen

ne

wants o

see a film

hrough

o the

public phere.

Only mong urselvess filmmakersouldweattemptocreate self-

confidencehat

onsiders

verything

s

possible.

n

this

wewill

nly

ucceed,

however,

f we

recognize

he

mportance

f

producing

public

phere.

We

must

onsiderhe

degree

owhich t s essential

hat

eople

ive

with ne

another n

a

society

nd

that

ommunity

s not

omethinglongside

f

work

for

pecial

occasions and

future

opes,

butrather hat

ommunity

s

itself n

element

f

social

change.




11/16

Film nd he

ublic

phere

215

THE

SIGNIFICANCEOF

PHANTASY

Q:

What

s the

ignificance

f

phantasy

for

he

production

f the

public

sphere)?

Alexander

luge:Phantasy

s

a

capacity

hats

universally

mployed.

very-

one

uses

phantasy.

ut he

roportions,

.e. in

whatmeasure

e

make se

of

it,

are

beyond

ocial control.

hantasy

s

kept

utside

he

public

phere,

regarded

s

a

gypsy

the

nusual

ffect,

or

xample,

f

magining

gang

f

children

laying

way

n

the

ontrol

ooth

f

a nuclear

ower

lant).

As a

result f

this

uppression,hantasy

scapes

omesticationo some

egree.

t

pays or his tatusynot singertaininds fdiscipline. ther lementsf

phantasy,

owever,

re

made

o

onform.

nd hen

gain,

certainmountf

phantasy

s

absorbed

y

the

conomy

f

nner

alance

which uman

eings

need f

hey

ant o urvive

n

both

work nd

personal

elationships.

ven s

take

art

n

alienation,

counteractt

by

xporting

y roblems,y ompen-

satory

moves,

by bribing

myself.

his

is a form

f

phantasy

nder

domination.

There s no

social

agreement

egulating

he

ommon

se of

phantasy.

When

ou

ontinue

o

speak

ven fter

he ther

erson

as

understood,

hen

you xceed norm;fyou hreatennotherersonwith gun ndhe orshe

surrendersut

you

shoot

nyway

hen

ou

are a

criminal;

f

you

eat

until

you're

ull hat's

ormal,

ut

f

you

ontinueo

at,

hen

hat's or

sychologi-

cal reasons. his s

to

ay

hat

n ll these ases here

s a sense f

proportion.

But n

the

workings

f

phantasy,

he

ense f

proportion

s

missing.

n the

one

hand,

hantasy

ay

e

used

n

excesswhile n

the ther

and when

you

uddenly

annot

maginenything

it

may

e

severelyepressed.

han-

tasy

lso

provides

kind

f

temporary

lue

which

eeps

eople

rom

alling

apart hrough

he

roduction

f llusions hich nable

hem omehow

o ive

with hemselves.

In

addition

o

anguage,

hich s

public,

he

public

phere

hould

rant

phantasy

he tatus f a

communal

edium,

nd

this

ncludes he tream

f

associations

nd

he

aculty

f

memory

the

wo

main venues

f

phantasy).

A continuous

hifting

f

perspectives

s

typical

f

phantasy.

n

phantasy

can

ransportyself

oAfrica ithout

ffort

r

can

magine yself

nvolved

in

love-scene

n

he

middle f desert

all this

appens

s n dream.

he

obstacles

f

reality

ease

to exist.

f

phantasy

as

good

reasons

o

disregard

these eal bstacles

as

a

compensation

or he

eality

rinciple

then he

questionshow anyou, or he akeofwhateverause, ncouragehantasy

to

develop

uch

perspectives

n it

(i.e.

perspectives

ifferent

rom hose

inherent

n

hings

s

they

re).

n

documentary

ilm his ould

nly

e

realized

via

a

mixing

f forms

the

nly

method hich

ermits

adical

hanges

n

perspective.

Giinther

ormann:

Documentary

ilm aces hree

roblems.

irst,

o a

large




12/16

216 Alexander

luge

extentt

gives

n

account

f

specific

nstancesnd

can

generalizenly

with

difficulty.

econd,

ocumentary

ilm

resents

eople

n

public

phere

hich

is tselfnsensitiveothat rocessnd sa resultendso xpose hem. hird,

by

depictingeality

s it

really

s,

documentary

ilm uns

p

against

efense

mechanisms

speciallymong

eople

who

re afraid

f

reality.

Documentary

ilm

hould

evelop

orms

hich

wouldmake

t

possible

o

overcome hese

defensemechanisms.

n

political

ituations,

here

s

the

language

f

silence.

n the

psychological

ealm here

s

the

fairy

ale

onto

which

eal

problems

re

transposed.

n

documentary

ilm uch orms o not

yet

xist.

KlausEder: The presents not one-dimensionalut rather productf

history;

t s

coatedwith

ayers

f he

ast.

Ofwhat

ignificance

s

this or he

cinema?

Giinther

ermann:

his

s a

problem

f uch

omplexity

hat ne

an

hardly

deal with

t

as an individual

ny

more.When

make

documentary

n

a

strike,

don't

have he ime o

simultaneously

ursue

races fthe

ast

nto

which ne would

have

o delve s

well.

Alexander

luge:

When

ou

ook t

n

mage

f

factory,

t

s

very

ifficulto

distinguishetweenhe historicalresentndhistory.ut, orxample,he

history

f he

low,

which

n

8 A.D.

already

ooked ike t

does

oday,

rthe

history

f

ools

ross utwith

ootage

f

strike that

might

e

able

odo

something

ith.

Klaus

Eder:So

you

would ntercuthe

ynchronic

iew

Querschnitt)

ith

diachronic

erspective

Ldngschnitt),

deally

with

n

infinite umber f

diachronic

erspectives?

Alexander

luge:

And

ince

very

ut

provokes

hantasy,

stormf

phan-

tasy, ou anevenmake breaknthe ilm. t sexactlyt such pointhat

informations

conveyed.

his

s

what

enjamin

eant

y

he

otion

f hock.

It would

e

wrong

o

say

hat film hould

im

o

shock

he iewers

this

would

estrictheir

ndependence

nd

powers

f

perception.

he

point

ere

s

the

surprise

hich

ccurswhen

you

suddenly

as if

by

subdominant

throught

rocesses

understand

omething

n

depth

nd

then,

ut

of

this

deepened

erspective,

edirect

our

hantasy

o he eal ourse

f vents. his

is

perspectivism.

ne

basically

akes

he

tandards

ccording

o

which

ne

composes

film

mage

framing,

erspective,epth

f

field,

ontrast)

nd

applies hemo thedramaturgyfcontext.

Letus

take,

or

xample,

he

tory

f

young

man

nd

young

oman,

story

hich

ertainly

oes

not oncludewith he

happy nding

f

thefilm.

What

he wo f

them re

doing

s

work;

t

works,

hey

work,

heir

eelings

work,

heir

ubconscious

works,

heir

rehistory

orks;

nd when he woof

them

peak

to each

other,

here re

really

ix

people

there,

incethe wo

pairs

of

parents

it

invisibly

mong

them.This

is

how I

maintain he

historical

dimension.




13/16

Filmn

nd

the

Public

phere

217

In

literature,

he nteraction

f all

novels

mongst

achother onstitutes

the ontext.And n the

gaps

between

Ulysses,

A

la recherche u

temps erdu,

the Dialectic of Englightenment,he completeworksof Marx, Diderot's

Encyclopidie

and

he

nplowed

ields etween

hemre

uite

lementary),

n

these

aps

ies

phantasy.

Five

Aspects

of

Realism

The firstevel:the

relationship

etween uthor nd

representation,

he

ideal

f

uthenticity.

single

hot

f

bush ear

K6nigsberg,

or

nstance,

s

authenticf

set his

mage learly

ff rom

ther

mages

were

to

nclude

blade fgrass nd house nd smokestack,hen hemagewould ot eso

distinct).

o I

first ecide

on

the

focus,

he

delineation,

nd then

n the

question

f

context is this ush

ufficient?

f,

for

xample,

want o

say

that his

ush s threatened

y

nuclear

ower

lant

nd show

othing

ut

he

bush,

hen hiswould emainn

empty

ssertion;

would

ail

o establish

context. ealism

nvolves

onceptualization

Arbeit

es

Begriffs),

nd

re-

quires

n

exploration

fboth he

xperiential

orizon

nd

he ndividual otif

(Motiv).

distinction

nd nhorizon:hese

wo onstitute

concept

Begriff).

If

proceed

o

combine number

f ndividual

lements

nto

omething

that an beprojectednto screen, mere atternill cquireignificance.

That s

the

aseeven or

single

hot

if show

othing

ut tree

or

inety

minutes,

hen his akes

n a

privileged

eaning

elativeo

everything

am

not

howing.

When lausewitz

ays

hat ll

the

otential

attles

those

hat

do not ake

lace

are

ust

s

important

s those

hat

o,

hehasunderstood

certain ialectic:

e acts ike realist.

Next omes he

elationship

f

the

ilmmaker

o

the

roduct

nd o

each

individual

hot,

he nteraction

ith he

pectator

hich akes

lace

ven

f he

filmmakers

absent.

hat,

oo,

s

the

filmmaker's

esponsibility:

o

assess

whetherhis elationships realistic,otake ides eineparteilichealtung

einnehmen).

here

s,

however,

contradiction

nthis

elationship

n hat he

filmmakerorks or ix months

r a

year

n

a

single

ilm,

he

pectator,

however,

nly inety

inutes:

n

erms

f he

uantity

f ime

pent,

ven he

mostmodest uthor

tartsut

with n

advantage

ver he

viewer.

he

film-

maker

as

o

bridge

his

ap,

s

if

by

ranslation,

nowing

hat he

iewer

ill

decipher

codeof

meaning

ut f

he irst

equences

hich

ill

etermine

he

reading

f

he

ntire

ilm.

his ode ffects

oth

hemode

f

comprehending

the

ilm

the rack)

ndthe

kind f

nformation

hich

will

be

absorbed

the

vehicle n thetrack).Bothprocessesn turnthat f informationeing

absorbed

n

the

evel f ontent

nd hat

f he

ode

tructuring

he

eading

f

a film

rimarily

y

means

fformr

hrough

he ifference

etween

orm

nd

content)

nvolve two-fold

eading:

reading

etermined

y

the

pre-existing

(previously cquired)

cultural

nderstanding

f the

pectator

which

s not t

all

objective

but s

actually

tself

roducedby

a resistance

o

objectivity)

s

well as a desirefor

objectivity.

t is with

hese

real,

ambiguous,

ubjective-

objective

nterests

f

the

spectator

hat he

filmmakernteracts.




14/16

218

Alexander

luge

The

next

tep

s to considerhe

uestion

f

realism

n the ense hat

he

spectator

ever eals with

ingle

ilms ut

with

lusters,

ith

elationshipbetweenilms the ilmshe

pectator

nows,

is rher

oncept

f

inema,

genre

xpectations.

his s

why

nly

ilmsn series ave

proper

nfluence

andfunction

n

the

public phere.

The

real

roduct

s thus either

he

ingle

hot or he ombinationf

hots

in

ne

film,

either

he

elationship

f he ilmmakero he

pectators

or

ven

the

eception

y

he

pectator

but ather

he

roduction

f

public phere.

The

public phere rovides

structure

pon

which

epends

ll

futureommu-

nication f

experience

n a

society.

n

that

ense,

ll the

products

f

new

German inema reflawed:

hey

eave ut

broad

spects

f

he

xperience

f

reality.

n this

oint,

heres

absolutely

odifferenceetween ildenhahn's

position4

nd

my

own;

we

obviously

hare he notion hat

the

critical

measure f

production

s what s left ut. Ratherhan

efending

ermetic

viewpoints

hich

we could

asily

se

against

ach

ther,

t

s

more

mportant

to

create

uch

public

phere hrough

oint

fforts,

hrough

ooperation,

y

changing

he

products.

MONTAGE,AUTHENTICITY,

REALISM

Klaus Eder:

To what xtent re

your

ilms

onceived

efore

ou

begin

shooting,

r,

to what xtentre

they

reated

n

the

diting

able?

Alexander

luge:

Montage

s a

theory

f

relationships.

hen

making

ilms,

am

always

onfronted

ith

he

problem

hatwhatever

can see does

not

actually

ontain hese

elationships.

n the

ubject

f

realism,

recht

ays5:

of

what

se s

an

exterioriew

f the

AEG if can not

ee what

s

going

n

inside he

uilding

n

erms

f

relationships,age

abor,

apital,

nternational

investments a photographftheAEGsaysnothingbout heAEG itself.

Thus,

as

Brecht

ays,

most

f the real conditions

ave

slipped

nto

he

functional.

his s the eart f he

roblem

frealism.

f conceivef

realism

as

the

nowledge

f

relationships,

hen must

rovide trope

orwhat annot

be shown

n

he

ilm,

orwhat he

amera annot

ecord. his

rope

onsists

n

4.

German

ocumentary

ilmmaker ho

s

a

strong pokesman

or

classical realist

oncept

of

documentary;

f.

Ulmer

Dramnaturgien,

p.

135

ff.

5. The

actual

passage

reads

as

follows: The situation s

complicated y

the fact hat ess

than

ver

does a

simple

reproduction

f

reality'

ell

us

anything

bout

reality.

A

photograph

f

the

Krupps actory

r

oftheAEG

yields

practically othing

bout hese nstitutions.he

genuine

reality

as

slipped

nto

the

functional.

he reification

f

human

relations;

he

factory ay,

no

longergives

out these

relations.Hence it s in

fact

something

o

construct',

omething

artifi-

cial,'

'posited.'

Hence in fact rt s

necessary.

-

B.

Brecht,

er

Dreigroschenprozess

The

Three

Penny

Trial)

Gesamnmelte

erke

Frankfurt

.M.:

Suhrkamp),

vol.

XVIII,

p.

161.

Translation itedfrom

en

Brewster,

From

Shklovsky

o Brecht:A

Reply,

Screen,

vol.

15,

no. 2

(Summer

1974),

p.

93

(translators;

ootnote).




15/16

Film nd

the

ublic

phere

219

the ontrastetween

wo hotswhich

s

only

nother

ay

f

aying

montage.

At

ssuehere rethe oncreteelations

etweenwo

mages.

ecause f

the

relationship

hich

evelops

etweenwo hotsnd, othe

egree

hatmove-

ment

the

o-called

inematic)

s

generated

etween

uch

hots,

nformation

s

hiddenn

the

ut

whichwouldnot e

contained

n

the hot tself. hismeans

that

montage

as s its

bject

omething

ualitatively

uite

ifferent

romaw

material.

The

employment

f

montagexclusively,

owever,

ouldnot

be

suffi-

cient;

t would

be absurd

or

t would

eliminatehebasis

whichmakes

montage

t all

possible:

he

mmediate,

dentificational

epresentation

n

which

he

bject

f

which

speak

s

also

present

n he

mage.

uthow

many

objects

re heren heworldwhich re

ompletely

elf-containedthats,for

our

Western

ype

f

magination,

n Poona6

hat

might

ell

be

otherwise)?

Take

tree

or

xample.

can

hoot

rees;

t

might

e

boring

o

watch rees

n

thewind or

inety

inutes,

r

tree

ver he

ourse f

he

easons,

nd

yet

t

would till

e a self-contained

iece

of

nformation.ut hen

gain,

could

also

say:

his ushnear

Kinigsberg

s unaware

f

he

act

hat

K6nigsberg

s

no

onger

art

f

Germany

nd

s now

alled

Kaliningrad.

his

s an

authentic

statement

hichs

self-contained.t needs

no further

xplanation

ince rom

the

perspective

f thebush

t

s of no

consequence

n which

ountry

t

s

located. owever,f he reewere

rowing

ext o nuclear

ower lant

r n

a

courtyard,

hen

t

would o

onger

e

a self-contained

bject

which could

present

n

single

ake.

would ave o

ommunicatehis ontext

y

means f

a

cut,

ince

no

image

ould

onvey

his

nformation.

In

the

case of

the bush near

Kaliningrad

Die Patriotin),

felt t

was

necessary

or

he

ilm s a whole o shoot

his cene.

This s to

say

that he

bush xisted

efore he ntire

ilm;

he

bush nd ts

relationship

o Kalinin-

grad.

t

subsequentlyisappeared

mong

he uttakesnd

was

only

ncorpo-

rated

n

thefinal ersion f thefilm.

here

s

thus decision

eing

made

duringhooting

hich alculateshe

roportions

hichelate hisnformation

to

all other

nformation.

hen

you

tart

hooting

film,

ou imply

ay

n

supplies.

A

puddle

n which

he

ain s

falling

s ikewise

self-contained

bject:

t

can notbe so old

as

to have

any

connection

ith

he

bombings

f 1945.

Basically

t

has

history

f hree

ays

nd,

s a

result,

epresents

non-human

patriotic

ttitude. ne

could hink

f further

xamples

epresenting

othing

but

single

bject

r

a

person

n

repose.

his

s the

tarting

oint.

can

not

convey

he

erspective

f

wo

housand

ears

without

uch

startingoint,

zerodegree fproportiongainstwhichomeasure.

A

montage

s

successful

f

he

pectator

an

distinguish

in

pure

Aristote-

lean

fashion)

etween wo radical

poles,

two

designations

f time nd

place

6. A slur

gainst

he

Ashram-Baghwan

ect

popular

nthe ederal

epublic

hich sed o

have

tscenter f

pilgrimage

n

Poona,

ndia

Bombay

rovince).

he

pseudo-documentary

Ashram

nPoona

cf.

Pflasterstrand,

o. 77

(April

980)

s also

being

hown

n his

ountry.




16/16

220

Alexander

luge

because

nly

hen an

one decode

verything

lse,

ndependent

f whether

suchdecodings actually arriedut. If a sailor uchas Odysseus, or

example,

s

sailing

n

the

Mediterranean,

e

can

determineis

ocations

y

taking

hemeasurementsf two

tars;

alculating

hedistance etween

he

stars ndbetween

tars nd

horizon ith he

help

f

sextant,

e can

figure

outhis

position. ontage

nvolves

othing

ore han uch

measurements;

t

is

the

rt f

reating

roportions.

hat s

decisive

n his ase

s that

dysseus

does

notmeasure

he

ocation

tself,

utratherhe

relationship;

t is this

relationship

hichs contained

n

the

ut,

t

exactly

hat

oint

here he

ilm

does

not how

nything.

hatevers

shown,

n

the ther

and,

s

both

he

insignificantart f hemessagendyet, oa certainxtent,he onditionf

its

ommunicability.

Klaus

Eder:

Do

you

reject

he

practice

f

associational

ontage?

Alexander

luge:Montage

nvolves

ssociations

nd

encourages

hem;

ut

these ssociations

re

basically

ontained

nthe ut. f

were o tructure

y

montage

n

an

associative

ashion,

hen

would

neglect

he

roportions

nd

that

would

be a

very

rbitrary

ct.

This s

basically

o differentrom

he

situation

here

oets

write

oems

nd

choolchildrenreforcedo

memorize

them whynearthhould eoplewith phantasyf heirwn e forcedo

learn

omethingy

heart

which

was conceived

n an

associative

ashion

y

somebody

lse?

t

is

necessary

o

impose

structuren these ssociations

which

unctions

n

extremes.

etween

wo

xtreme

oles

can

proceed

o

workwith ll

the ntermediatealues

n

an associative

manner.

Q:

To

comeback

o

that

ush

ear

Kaliningrad

hich

ou

mentioned

arlier,

would

tbe

egitimate

nd

would

t

orrespond

o

your

otion

f

uthenticity

f

you

were

not

o

hoot

tnear

Kaliningrad

ut

atheromewhere

lseand

hen

cut t nto hefilm?

Alexander

Kluge:

would

have

o consider

f

the ubstitution

fa

authentic

bush

by ust any

bush

wouldhave

a

different

se

value

for

he

pectator,

whethertwould

hange omething.

f assume

hat

he ush

nearKalinin-

grad

onveys relationship

atherhan

ust

a

bush,

n

object,

hen his

relationship

anbe created

n he

mind

f

he

pectatorndependently

fwhere

I have

hot hebush.

However,

wouldnot

ook

for oubles or trauss

r

Schmidt,

or

xample.

n other

ords,

f

want o work

rom

n

object

r

a

person

s

such,

hen

wouldhave

o accord

o

reality.

Translated

y

Thomas

Y.

Levin and

Miriam

B.

Hansen

Documents

Kluge 1981 - On Film and the Public Sphere