Page 107 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 107
the principle of montage and literature
Döblin‘s Hesitant Acceptance of Film
No matter how much Döblin considered some of his later works more im-
portant, literary scholarship and the reading public view Berlin Alexander-
platz as the peak of Döblin’s work. It is more or less agreed that Döblin was
involved in the currents of various reactions to what is known as German
Expressionism. However, discussion is then open on the extent to which
the novel itself conforms to the paradigm of Expressionism, which is most-
ly described in terms reminiscent of some basic aspects of the definition of
Expressionism, as in Steven Brockman’s assertion: “Whereas Impression-
ism seeks to accurately record the play of light and color in the outside
world, eschewing sharp contours and favoring gentle transitions, curves,
and blurring, Expressionism seeks access to an interior world character-
ized by garish and unnatural colors, jagged lines, and sharp distinctions
between color spheres” (Brockman, 2010: pp. 49–50).
Döblin himself – not really opposing the label Expressionism – defined
his writing as “epic fiction”. Obviously, his work differed from the intellec-
tual currents of the time, although it somehow simultaneously conversed
and interacted with them. It is no accident that Benjamin brings Dadaism
into his discussion of Döblin, which through its “fanatical battle against
artwork has made use of it in order to ally itself with everyday life” (Benja-
min, 1991, pp. 232–233). This assertion points towards the entire background
of Neue Sachlichkeit in its emergence from Expressionism and challenging
it at it points towards rich dialogues and polemics of the time, involving
some of the greatest intellectual authorities of the twentieth century such
as György Lukács and Bertold Brecht.
Döblin‘s own writings on the relation between literature and film show
that his position changed over time. Erich Kleinschmidt goes a bit too far in
his claim that “[t]he often-repeated allusion to Döblin’s ‘filmic writing style’
must therefore be refuted. It originates with contemporary critics of Ber-
lin Alexanderplatz and has been repeated ever since” (2004: p. 167). Klein-
schmidt does not mention Benjamin in his article, and so it can be assumed
that Benjamin’s emphasis on the montage aspect reaches beyond the sim-
ple direct and non-reflexive concept of a novel as a narration mirroring
cinema. In addition, Kleinschmidt himself contradicts his own assertion
because on the same page of the text he realizes that “Döblin’s reserved re-
lation to film changed around 1930, along with his changing conception of
literature. In place of a rather elitist conception of art, Döblin now wanted
to reach a broader mass audience.” Benjamin’s claim about the role of mon-
105
Döblin‘s Hesitant Acceptance of Film
No matter how much Döblin considered some of his later works more im-
portant, literary scholarship and the reading public view Berlin Alexander-
platz as the peak of Döblin’s work. It is more or less agreed that Döblin was
involved in the currents of various reactions to what is known as German
Expressionism. However, discussion is then open on the extent to which
the novel itself conforms to the paradigm of Expressionism, which is most-
ly described in terms reminiscent of some basic aspects of the definition of
Expressionism, as in Steven Brockman’s assertion: “Whereas Impression-
ism seeks to accurately record the play of light and color in the outside
world, eschewing sharp contours and favoring gentle transitions, curves,
and blurring, Expressionism seeks access to an interior world character-
ized by garish and unnatural colors, jagged lines, and sharp distinctions
between color spheres” (Brockman, 2010: pp. 49–50).
Döblin himself – not really opposing the label Expressionism – defined
his writing as “epic fiction”. Obviously, his work differed from the intellec-
tual currents of the time, although it somehow simultaneously conversed
and interacted with them. It is no accident that Benjamin brings Dadaism
into his discussion of Döblin, which through its “fanatical battle against
artwork has made use of it in order to ally itself with everyday life” (Benja-
min, 1991, pp. 232–233). This assertion points towards the entire background
of Neue Sachlichkeit in its emergence from Expressionism and challenging
it at it points towards rich dialogues and polemics of the time, involving
some of the greatest intellectual authorities of the twentieth century such
as György Lukács and Bertold Brecht.
Döblin‘s own writings on the relation between literature and film show
that his position changed over time. Erich Kleinschmidt goes a bit too far in
his claim that “[t]he often-repeated allusion to Döblin’s ‘filmic writing style’
must therefore be refuted. It originates with contemporary critics of Ber-
lin Alexanderplatz and has been repeated ever since” (2004: p. 167). Klein-
schmidt does not mention Benjamin in his article, and so it can be assumed
that Benjamin’s emphasis on the montage aspect reaches beyond the sim-
ple direct and non-reflexive concept of a novel as a narration mirroring
cinema. In addition, Kleinschmidt himself contradicts his own assertion
because on the same page of the text he realizes that “Döblin’s reserved re-
lation to film changed around 1930, along with his changing conception of
literature. In place of a rather elitist conception of art, Döblin now wanted
to reach a broader mass audience.” Benjamin’s claim about the role of mon-
105
