‘Heavy Hands and Light Touches’: Approaches to the Study of Cinematic Culture in the Third Reich

Abstract

In 1996, Eric Rentschler claimed that 'cinema in the Third Reich involved a division of labour between heavy hands and light touches'. Such a description is a fitting comment on both the organisational processes of the propaganda machine under the Nazis and the sometimes inconsistent messages of their feature film productions. Issues surrounding the nature of cinematic culture in the Third Reich have prompted intense debates among film scholars. This article seeks to outline the key debates and issues, concluding with an analysis of Veit Harlan's Der große König , with reference to the diverse methodological approaches employed to study film under National Socialism. It argues that one needs to understand both the 'heavy hands' and the 'light touches' of NS film policy and production to enable a deeper understanding of feature films produced in the Third Reich.In April 1998, a review of Eric Rentschler's The Ministry of Illusion: Nazi Cinema and its Afterlife breathed new life into the rather worn debate over the nature of entertainment and propaganda in the Third Reich. Its author, Jay Baird, praised Rentschler for being among the first to tackle the thorny issue of entertainment in National Socialist cinema, and for demonstrating how 'film established models for popular culture and for concepts of beauty and fashion that reverberated through radio, advertising, and mass marketing'. 1 Through the research presented in Ministry of Illusion, Rentschler facilitated the intellectual shift from the dichotomous discourses of the 'Teutonic Horror Picture Show' and the 'dream factory' to a more nuanced reading of the aesthetic and commercial qualities of Nazi cinema. 2 Baird acknowledged that Rentschler accorded 'praise where it is due', tempered by his assertion that 'a message of unspeakable criminality was often bathed in ethereal light'. 3 However, the review criticised Rentschler for failing to offer 'a breakthrough in uniting history, theory and analysis'; he did not tap key historical resources, argued Baird, and the book lacked an 'effective conceptual framework' and was indulgent in