Talk:Fritz Lang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fritz Lang article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

1 Lang's famous (possibly fictional) meeting with Goebbels
2 Remakes of M
3 American versions
4 Lang's Jewish Ancestry
5 Expressionism
6 Latter career
7 What happened here?
8 Picture, please

[edit] Lang's famous (possibly fictional) meeting with Goebbels

The whole business with anti-Nazi elements in M and Das Testament and the meeting with Goebbels is hotly disputed and yet here is presented as accepted fact. Some people believe that Lang completely concocted the Goebbels story in order to impress people - this is the view expressed on the mini-documentary presented with the Eureka DVD of Das Testament - there is apparently no evidence of any such meeting in the extensive appointment diaries of Goebbels. If this information is possibly spurious, then it should be stated as such (it is still of interest however, even if it was concocted by Lang). unsigned, by User:212.219.202.3

Yes, that's information where I've been trying to get the sources to attribute it to so the information can go into the article. I must correct one minor point: the fact that he did have a meeting with Goebbels is in fact historically verified. However, Lang's version of the meeting states that Goebbels first told him that Das Testament was to be banned, and then offered him the prestigious position of head of German film; no verified evidence has turned up that the meeting was about anything except the banning of Testament. Moreover, what Lang describes as the consequences of the meeting are contradicted by the evidence; he claims that the meeting ran so late that he was in Goebbels' office until well after his bank had closed, and thus when he fled Germany that night, not to return until well after the war, he had to do so without any of his money. However, it is documented that in fact Lang returned to Germany several times after that meeting, and in fact got most of his money out of the country before leaving Germany for the remaining duration of the war.

The commentary track on the Criterion release of Das Testament discusses the evidence that's turned up contrary to the widespread Lang version of events, and I've been trying to get hold of that DVD again to get the specifics.

(The idea that Das Testament was an anti-Nazi tract is quite a bit more difficult. While one can't watch Baum's fervent gesturing praise of Mabuse in the morgue and not see some subtext, it has to be balanced against the fact that Rudolf Klein-Rogge (Mabuse) was a fairly fervent Nazi himself and Otto Wernicke (Inspector Lohmann) wasn't exactly hostile to Hitler either.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For more on this issue, see Gösta Werner, 'Fritz Lang & Goebbels: Myth & Facts', Film Quarterly, Spring 1990.

[edit] Remakes of M

What was the 1956 remake of M (1931 film)? Can't find it on the IMDB. Was is in a different language or something? Ellsworth 23:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] American versions

I've changed a number of English titles on the filmography because these are, at least in some cases, the American adaptations of Lang's movies, rather than actual faithful renditions. For instance, "The Crimes of Dr. Mabuse" moves the time of the movie forward from 1933 (when Germany was under the Weimar Republic) to 1938.

If someone can find an appropriate way to indicate "this is the real, actual Fritz Lang movie, from which the Americans made this version in 1935 and this one in 1956", that'd be appreciated. In the meantime, I'm changing the titles of the English adaptations to the actual English meanings of the real movie titles.

As far as I'm aware, there was no 1956 remake of M, so I've removed that reference in addition to generally rejigging and augmenting a lot of the article. Much of it still isn't particularly well-structured, but I think it's a little better. --Chips Critic 21:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Ellsworth 16:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lang's Jewish Ancestry

There are conflicting accounts of whether Lang was part Jewish. Here are the versions I've read:

Lang's mother was Jewish but converted to Catholicism when Lang was a child
Lang's mother's parents were Jewish but she was raised Catholic
Neither Lang's mother nor her parents were Jewish, but Lang told Goebbels that they were so as to avoid being co-opted by the Nazi propaganda ministry.

Need to find which one is correct and put that in the article.

Nothings been proven, if he was infact any part Jewish it was something miniscule 1/8th or 1/16th.

I think we need to add another in light of Lang's habit of telling biographical untruths:

Lang had no Jewish ancestry but once in Hollywood, claimed he did as part of a larger untruth about fleeing Germany as an impoverished refugee.

-- Antaeus Feldspar 11:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's simply incorrect. That Lang's mother was born Jewish is common knowledge. The first version you mention is correct: Lang's mother was Jewish, but converted to Catholicism, as was the norm for upwardly mobile middle-class Jews in Austria in the late 1800s. What source are you getting the other accounts from? And more to the point, why would you think Lang's Jewish heritage was "miniscule"? If his mother was Jewish (and she was) then whether she was raised as a Catholic or not is irrelevant: Jewishness is a matter of ethnicity, not religion. --Chips Critic 22:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel I need to clarify that my response above ("I think we need to add another") was offering that as one possibility of what the truth of Lang's ancestry could be. Lang was known to fictionalize his past for the sake of drama and had already fictionalized the circumstances under which he "fled" Germany; what is implausible about his upping the stakes by adding to the scenario hidden Jewish ancestry? And if he had done so, there's little doubt that it would have become "common knowledge" -- just as the myth of him being offered the position of the head of German film is common knowledge and accepted uncritically even by some of Lang's biographers. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between these two instances of possible fictionalisation: we have reason to believe, based upon the evidence of Goebbels' diary and the timeline of Lang's departure from Germany, that the meeting with Goebbels probably never took place. We have no reason to believe that Lang's mother was not Jewish. "It's the kind of thing I think he would have done" isn't a good enough reason. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research, so unless you can cite a source for this speculation (ideally one which brings some actual evidence to the table) it will have to be removed from the article. --Chips Critic 01:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expressionism

The article claims that Fritz Lang fused the power of the popular thriller with German Expressionism. This is at the very best, misleading; Lang hated Expressionism (he didn't even like camera shots that were coming from a place that no viewer could possibly be) and in fact falsely claimed to have invented the "told-by-a-madman" frame device of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari to explain why the story was being told in such an outrė fashion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But surely Expressionism has little to do with camera placement? Expressionism is primarily an approach towards lighting and set design. It was the French Impressionist movement who put a greater emphasis on camera placement and movement. If you look again at The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari, you'll find that the strangness is in the sets: the camerawork is relatively traditional. A dislike of certain camera angles doesn't preclude an Expressionist style. --Chips Critic 22:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if you make the case that you can see Expressionism in Lang's work, to do so without noting that he hated Expressionism and went to lengths to distance himself from it is misleading. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for the claim that he hated Expressionism, please? I don't recall ever having read of him saying that. --Chips Critic 01:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Mabuse scholar David Kalat, on the commentary track for the Criterion release of The Testament of Doctor Mabuse and in more detail on the commentary track for "Doctor Mabuse, The Gambler". The latter has the full anecdote, where two film people (whose names I unfortunately do not recall but can check when the person borrowing the DVD set returns it) were claiming to have been the ones to come up with the idea for the scenery to express the inner turmoil -- and meanwhile Lang, wishing to separate himself from Expressionism, is claiming to be the one who came up with the "it's a tale told by a madman" frame story. Later, evidence surfaces showing that all three are untruthful; the elements they are claiming credit for were already in place before they were involved with the project. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So the idea that Lang hated Expressionism is simply a construction which has been put upon the decision he later claimed to have made? I don't think that's a solid enough basis for the inclusion of the claim that Lang hated Expressionism. It's a very important statement about his artistic orientation if true, so ideally, we need actual quotations of Lang stating an antipathy to Expressionism. --Chips Critic 11:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the idea that Lang hated Expressionism is the result of the research of David Kalat, which you are rejecting based on a second-hand description of one illustrative anecdote from that research. Meanwhile, the article contains in the introductory paragraph the entirely unreferenced statement that Lang was from the school of Expressionism, and you have not said one word about that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I rejected it because of the way you worded it, which made it seem that David Kalat says Lang hated Expressionism as a parenthetical interpretative comment, without providing an actual quotation of Lang saying he hated Expressionism. If he provides such a quotation, we can by all means include it. If he doesn't provide such a quotation, then we cannot include that claim, as it would fall into the category of interpretation.

The reason the introductory paragraph contains that statement is that it's one which has never been disputed, except apparently by David Kalat. Indeed, Lang's reputation as a crucial figure in the development of film noir (which is mentioned later in the article) largely stems from his earlier Expressionist work. It would absurd to deny that film noir stems from Expressionism, so it does seem rather odd to deny that Lang, a key film noir filmmaker, somehow managed to virtually invent a style so influenced by Expressionism without being Expressionist himself. However, film history changes all the time, as new information comes to light, and as this article should be as up-to-date as possible, it would be great if you could supply a documented instance of Lang expressing scorn for Expressionism. If you cannot do so, the statement, no matter how inaccurate you may believe it to be, will stand. --Chips Critic 15:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

So basically, whatever you believe, you will put in the article; whatever you choose not to believe, you will foil with endless pettifogging demands that it hasn't been proven to your satisfaction, since your satisfaction is the only one that matters. Got it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What I "believe" is irrelevant. Encylopedias aren't about personal beliefs. Why do you feel the need to make this a personal issue? I'm simply asking you for a documented instance of Lang actually saying that he hated Expressionism. If you can provide such an instance, I would have absolutely no problem with the inclusion of that statement. It's not a matter of proving anything to my satisfaction, but simply of proving it period. Can't you see that you haven't done that? You've provided one paraphrased account of a paraphrased account in which Lang is parenthetically interpreted as having wanting to "distance himself from Expressionism". When I ask for an actual quotation from Lang indicating an active disapproval or dislike of Expressionism, you become inexplicably emotive. Provide a basis for the inclusion of the claim or don't, but don't blame me if you can't.

It is a fact that evey notable study of Lang's work acknowledges him as having been, during the early part of his career, part of the German school of Expressionist filmmaking. If you want to dispute their interpretation, provide information which gives us a solid basis for doing so. One parenthetical interpretative comment (which, in the form you've provided it, is itself open to interpretation) is not solid enough to overturn over eighty years of film criticism and scholarship, no matter how strongly you, I, or anyone may "believe" in its accuracy. --Chips Critic 21:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's a fact, you should have no problem providing a quote directly from Fritz Lang where he calls himself an Expressionist. That's what you have stated is the standard that must be met but strangely you don't object to the claims you believe staying in the article despite their not meeting that standard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The burden of proof doesn't lie with me. Every serious work of film reference and every in-depth study of Lang's work acknowledges his initial involvement with Expressionism. You appear to wish to make an equivalence between the authority of the history of Lang scholarship and that of a single paraphrase (by yourself) of a source which was itself paraphrasing from a remembered exchange the details of which you can't recall. Don't you realise how ill-advised that would be? Especially when we bear in mind that David Kalat's speciality (as I'm sure you're aware) is the study of film as genre fiction rather than as artform or expressive system.

I must ask again: can you provide a quotation from Lang which indicates an active disapproval or dislike of Expressionism? If the answer is no, I really don't see any point in continuing this exchange, particularly as you now seem to view this matter from an increasingly emotive perspective, characterising this as a matter of belief rather than of research. --Chips Critic 00:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I must ask again why you can't provide evidence that meets the same standard you're demanding. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

So the answer is no, then? I've already explained that the burden of proof doesn't lie with me because there is no equivalence between your paraphrase of the parenthetical interpretative remark of a genre (rather than style) specialist and the history of Lang scholarship, which, if you were to take the time to read some of it, would provide you with all the evidence you want that Lang began his career as an Expressionist filmmaker. I would be willing to provide a short list of titles if I thought you would be sufficiently interested to read them, but it doesn't seem to me that you're really interested in the facts of Lang's work. You seem at this point to be primarily interested in implying that listening to DVD commentary tracks makes you a superior Lang scholar to the many knowledgable and cine-literate editors who've devoted a great deal of time and effort to making this article useful to people who want to know something about Fritz Lang, all of whom have acknowledged that he was an Expressionist filmmaker. I find it a pity that you've chosen to view my request for an actual Lang quotation as an issue of personal belief. I think part of the problem may be your unfamiliarity with what Expressionism actually is, a problem not helped by Kalat's own apparent confusion on this issue.

If I'm wrong and you genuinely are interested, go to Amazon, search for "Fritz Lang" and buy the books The Films of Fritz Lang: Allegories of Vision and Modernity by Tom Gunning and Fritz Lang: The Nature Of The Beast by Patrick McGilligan (disregard the sensational-sounding subtitle, it's really an incredibly well-researched work: it was McGilligan who uncovered the falsity of Lang's account of the Goebbels meeting, and the real timeline of Lang's last days in Germany and escape to France). Those will start you off on the right track. While you're at it, you might want to read some books on the Expressionist movement in art as a whole. This will give you a better eye for the aesthetics of the style (incidentally, it might interest you to know that Lang was a keen collector of Expressionist art, and you can find details of his large collections of Expressionist and African art in the McGilligan book).

After getting a better grounding in the whole field, you may see Lang's early work with a different eye (and certainly a more informed one than David Kalat, who, judging from your account, seems to believe Expressionism in film has something to do with camera angles). Good luck with that. If, during your research, you find a quotation I've missed which indicates that Lang in fact really did disapprove-of or dislike Expressionism, then by all means note it here and edit the article accordingly. --Chips Critic 17:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I've decided to leave this article all together. It'll just have to join the sad population of Wikipedia articles that fell under the control of POV-pushers who can't even conceive of having to back up their own claims but demand that any claims which conflict with theirs be put through a grueling gauntlet. It's too bad, this could have been a good article, but instead it'll just be your playground. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any Wikipedia article can become anyone's "playground", and I think it's a great pity that you've decided to take that view of this article, which has been edited by a greater number of people than most of those I've worked on. Your view that I am being unreasonable in asking for a quotation to support the claim that Lang "hated" Expressionism shouldn't distract you from the quality of the work contributed by dozens of editors over the last few years.

I hope you have taken a look at those books I suggested (the McGilligan biog really is superb), and that, if you haven't, you'll at least keep an open mind about doing so at some point in the future. I've already noted that the view of Lang's early work which the article currently takes is the one put forward by every major study of Lang's work (two of which I did actually name to you - although the McGilligan book is a biography it contains a detailed examination of each of Lang's films), and that there is no equivalence between the history of Lang scholarship and one paraphrased memory of one commentary track by a non-specialist. If you have no interest in reading the works on Lang to which I've referred, there's really nothing else I can say to you on this subject. --Chips Critic 01:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latter career

I updated this section. I intend to run throught the others later on to fill in some of the gaps left in his German filmography. --Qwayfe 23:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What happened here?

I've removed the horrifyingly unscholarly NPOV references to the the "creatively stunted" Hollywood studio system and the "stifling American filmmaking climate", phrases that make a joke not only of Wikipedia's rule of NPOV, but also of any hope we might have of being taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about film. Reading such stuff, you'd think film criticism died in 1945: no film scholar has seriously said such things since the birth of auteurism.

I note that my comment that his American films "have since been reevaluated as the equal of, if not superior to, his German films" has been removed and replaced with a reference to his importance as an originator of film noir. This is quite true, and the article benefits from that addition, but why remove the (quite accurate) point I made? An important rule to bear in mind when working on Wikipedia is that accurate information should never be removed. Re-worded perhaps, but not removed. As it is, this article - just as it did before I ever contributed - views American Lang from a "genre" perspective. If this article is to be of any use to someone who wants to learn more about Lang, this has to change. Another interesting feature of the latest version of this article was the replacement of my statement that "These works received mixed reviews, some condemning them as stylised and detached, while others praised them for the same qualities" with (in reference to the last Mabuse film) "It went largely ignored by critics worldwide." The latter statement is simply incorrect, and so I have removed it.

Lang's last films were ignored nowhere, except possibly the mainstream press of America. Why is this now a far less scholarly article than it has been in the past?

The last absurdity is that that old nonsense of saying someone isn't Jewish anymore if they convert to Catholicism has been included in this article. This muddled idea has been circulating since the 1800s, and no-one has taken it seriously at least since the Holocaust, when Jews were murdered regardless of religion. I've left that reference in because I can't find a way to restructure the sentences in question, but something must be done. --Chips Critic 22:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant what Lang's mother was. We don't categorize people based on what their parents were but rather what they themselves are. For that reason, we would not categorize actor Bruce Willis as a Category:German actors simply because his mother was German. Nor would we categorize Marconi as an Category:Irish inventors simply because his mother was Irish. Thusly, we would not categorize Lang in Category:Jewish film directors because his mother was Jewish (ethnically). Furthermore, concerning Lang himself, it says rather explicitly here: [1]. 72.144.68.99 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lang's Jewish identity is not irrelevant, as your desperation to erase it makes quite clear. Ethnicity is not the same thing as nationality, as you well know. The link you provide says nothing about this issue, and contains inaccurate information about other issues. --Chips Critic 01:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed any reference to Lang being Jewish. The consensus among scholars is now that the speculation as to Lang's proposed Jewish heritage emerged only upon his arrival in the United States and is another mere facet of the director's own fictionalisation of his past. Is was likely contrived as a component of the Goebbels myth so readily perpetuated by Lang along with his own desires to further himself within his new studio setting. There is absolutely no recorded basis to make such assertions. The article cited as a reference attempting to prove such notions was, put bluntly, a disgrace of misinformation, revisionism and plain nonsense. I removed this as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.180.202 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 October 2006.

There is no such consensus among scholars. There is ample recorded basis for Lang's Jewishness. Your need to lie about this would be comical if it wasn't the clear expression of a pathological anti-semitism. Your bigotry will be repelled here just as it was on the Stanley Kubrick article. --Chips Critic 05:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)