Page 113 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 113
the principle of montage and literature
ous problems in transferring or “translating” the text “back” into cinemat-
ic format. In terms of the narrative, Jutzi’s film was a montage of bits and
pieces of the novel, but it missed the background of movement of de-mon-
tage through the entire novel.
Almost fifty years after this first attempt, Fassbinder‘s TV series Ber-
lin Alexanderplatz (1980) appeared. Yet, in view of the just vaguely dawn-
ing era of digital technology at the time, which later substantially altered
television as a specific medium and introduced new modes of production
and consumption of moving pictures, the format of the TV series still did
not perfectly conform to Fassbinder’s ambitions or to his ability as film au-
thor. Although the TV series offered Fassbinder the needed time span to
“tell the story”, the small TV screen at the same time represented a very se-
rious impediment for him, and his disposition as a director of films meant
for cinema screening worked against some rules of the medium. There-
fore, the “lighting levels, judged too low for television” (Elsaesser, 1996: p.
219) in particular were strongly criticized in the series after it premiered in
1980. Regarding the scope of Döblin‘s novel, it seems that the format of the
TV series represented a transitional medium for visual reading of the text.
It is no wonder that most serious authors that wrote and theorized about
the series analytically and extensively also spoke about a “film” and not
about a “TV show” or episodes. However, the framework of this chapter
does not permit commenting on some great interpretations of Fassbinder’s
Alexanderplatz, written by authors such as Kaja Silverman, Jane Shattuc,
and Thomas Elsaesser.
In the film, Fassbinder made his “naive” reading an instrument of his
own historicizing approach as well as an instrument of adapting the story
to his “autobiographical” reading. On the other hand, he internalized the
novel through two readings and let himself be conditioned by mechanisms
of identification, especially declaring his own identification with the char-
acter of Franz Biberkopf. Thus, according to the form, the TV series was
unintentionally anticipatory in pointing towards media that still did not
exist, which opened a path to autobiography as communicable “style” of
narration in the age of decomposed subjectivity at home in cyberspace. In
any case, Fassbinder combined all of his experience in genre films (above
all melodramas and gangster movies) into a montage that compulsively re-
peats Döblin‘s complex truth, including both a historical reminiscence as
well as straightforward political prophecy. As far as montage is concerned,
Fassbinder’s approach is definitely much closer to André Bazin‘s concept,
111
ous problems in transferring or “translating” the text “back” into cinemat-
ic format. In terms of the narrative, Jutzi’s film was a montage of bits and
pieces of the novel, but it missed the background of movement of de-mon-
tage through the entire novel.
Almost fifty years after this first attempt, Fassbinder‘s TV series Ber-
lin Alexanderplatz (1980) appeared. Yet, in view of the just vaguely dawn-
ing era of digital technology at the time, which later substantially altered
television as a specific medium and introduced new modes of production
and consumption of moving pictures, the format of the TV series still did
not perfectly conform to Fassbinder’s ambitions or to his ability as film au-
thor. Although the TV series offered Fassbinder the needed time span to
“tell the story”, the small TV screen at the same time represented a very se-
rious impediment for him, and his disposition as a director of films meant
for cinema screening worked against some rules of the medium. There-
fore, the “lighting levels, judged too low for television” (Elsaesser, 1996: p.
219) in particular were strongly criticized in the series after it premiered in
1980. Regarding the scope of Döblin‘s novel, it seems that the format of the
TV series represented a transitional medium for visual reading of the text.
It is no wonder that most serious authors that wrote and theorized about
the series analytically and extensively also spoke about a “film” and not
about a “TV show” or episodes. However, the framework of this chapter
does not permit commenting on some great interpretations of Fassbinder’s
Alexanderplatz, written by authors such as Kaja Silverman, Jane Shattuc,
and Thomas Elsaesser.
In the film, Fassbinder made his “naive” reading an instrument of his
own historicizing approach as well as an instrument of adapting the story
to his “autobiographical” reading. On the other hand, he internalized the
novel through two readings and let himself be conditioned by mechanisms
of identification, especially declaring his own identification with the char-
acter of Franz Biberkopf. Thus, according to the form, the TV series was
unintentionally anticipatory in pointing towards media that still did not
exist, which opened a path to autobiography as communicable “style” of
narration in the age of decomposed subjectivity at home in cyberspace. In
any case, Fassbinder combined all of his experience in genre films (above
all melodramas and gangster movies) into a montage that compulsively re-
peats Döblin‘s complex truth, including both a historical reminiscence as
well as straightforward political prophecy. As far as montage is concerned,
Fassbinder’s approach is definitely much closer to André Bazin‘s concept,
111
