Participants:            Prof. Theodor W. Adorno
                                   Frankfurt am Main
                                   Mr. Joseph Rovan
                                   Paris
Group spokesmen:
Dr. Alexander Kluge; Mr. Hans Rolf Strobel; Mr. Edgar Reitz and Mr. Haro Senft
Moderator: Dr. Richard Erny
                     Director of Cultural Services, City of Mannheim

Preliminary remark:
As much as I appreciate, as a participant, the International Film Week’s initiative to make the following discussion on cinema accessible, I hesitate to consent to its publication in printed form. I’m well aware that the difference between the spoken and the written word, is even more pronounced, as far as I’m concerned, than is generally the case these days.
If I had to speak as I feel obliged to do in writing, in order to respect the injunction of objectivity, I wouldn’t make myself understood. But in speaking to make myself understood, it’s impossible for me to live up to what I would have demanded of a written text. For someone whose output – as one critic recently attested – testifies to the fact that “God is in the details”, the more general the objects, the more difficulties accumulate. What needs to be subjected to elaborate justification in a written text is necessarily limited, in such oral communications, to the dogmatic assertion of results alone. It is therefore impossible for me to assume responsibility for the text as published here. It can only be considered as a reminder to those who were present at these improvisations and who wish to continue to reflect on the questions raised, on the basis of the modest suggestions that were passed on to them. In the ubiquitous tendency to record and broadcast so-called “free speech”, I see the very symptom of a certain practice of the administered world, which goes so far as to fix the ephemeral word, whose truth lies in its own evanescence, so as to be able to associate it with the one who utters it. Recording is a kind of fingerprint of the living mind. By having the opportunity – with the kind consent of the International Film Week – to put all these things bluntly, I hope at least to avoid some of the misunderstandings to which I would, if applicable, have inevitably exposed myself.
                                                                                                                Theodor W. Adorno

 
 
 
 
Erny:
The debate you are attending today brings together people who know each other very well. The subject is “Recommendations for Cinema”. In this respect, ladies and gentlemen, it is important to point out that the recommendations to be discussed here are first and foremost the result of reflections on working practices in the film industry.
[After introducing the participants, Dr. Erny apologizes for the absence Hellmut Becker, the Kreßbronn politician in charge of education].

 
 
Adorno:
The fact that I’m interested in aesthetics in my work doesn’t at all imply that I’m going to defend here the point of view of refined taste, i.e., that of compromise. On the contrary, I’m fully committed (engagé)* to the issues at hand, so I feel rather partial. I wanted to say this in advance to avoid any misunderstanding. I’ve been friends with Dr. Kluge for several years now, and the issues surrounding cinema and the cultural industry in general, have always played a key role in our discussions. My participation in this debate today is therefore, if I may say so, the result of the internal dynamics of the reflections begun within the Oberhausen Group; I’m not coming to it from outside or even through academy. Furthermore, I could perhaps add that during my emigration, I spent 10 years in Hollywood where I had ample opportunity to familiarize myself with the mechanisms of the cultural industry, due to the concentration of capitalist profit there. This, no less, gives me the legitimacy to participate in this debate.
 
 

 
 
Rovan:
I find this debate starts off in a very amusing way – each of the participants having first to prove that they do indeed have a connection with the theme in question. As for me, I can very briefly indicate the perspective from which I come. I began over 20 years ago, with two young filmmakers – who have since become famous, Alain Resnais and Chris Marker – and the late film critic André Bazin, who was an indispensable figure in raising awareness of the importance of cinema in France; together, we began to bring cinema into the cultural milieu, as one of the essential components of people’s mental horizons. So, it was from my work in education and culture that I came to grips with this issue, and later, somewhat by chance, to film policy, since I worked in the Ministry of Justice where I was responsible for drawing up French guidelines for film censorship and, as a member of the new government, for implementing them. These are the only reasons that justify my presence today in this debate. I’m also an assiduous cinephile.
 
 

 
 
Kluge:
I’d like to briefly retrace how the Oberhausen Group, that is, the New German Cinema Group, came into being. In the spring of this year [1962], 26 filmmakers and producers, including myself, made a public statement at the Oberhausen Festival. That were this group came from, which represents neither an association nor a homogeneous group, but rather a collection of people who work in film and who reject a whole series of things that have become commonplace in this field. Most of them are filmmakers and producers who have previously worked in the field of short films. In recent years, we’ve shown a lot of films here in Mannheim, and it’s true that we’ve also won a myriad of awards. In France and Italy, but also here at home, the field of short films has revealed itself as the obvious field for cinematic experimentation.
The main idea of our Group was that people who, in our opinion, had already proven themselves in short films, should be able to start making feature-length films. First, however, we had to create the right conditions for transferring our ideas to feature films, and thus break away from the predominant pattern of today’s fiction films.
In the spring, we made a number of recommendations relating to cultural policy. Firstly, we called for greater support for young talent, stronger promotion of independent short films, and the establishment of a theoretical and intellectual film center, such as exists in France or Italy, where such a center is simply attached to the capital city. A phenomenon like André Bazin’s or Cahiers du Cinéma‘s would not even be possible in Germany, because we don’t have a real film center, with the film economy spread over three different cities. What’s more, our film economy is far from having the same capacity as that of the French, and the level of our film sector, whether from an intellectual and artistic or an industrial and economic point of view, is basically more lamentable than in any other industrialized country.
We’ve put forward these three points:
From an economic point of view, we believe that a crisis in the film industry should not simply be tinkered with, but should lead to structural change within the industry itself. From a political point of view, we believe that it is necessary to develop a conception of film that is part of cultural policy, as is undoubtedly the case in other branches, in literature for example, where such a conception exists. In fact, the specific and isolated measures proposed by the public sector or leading film organizations are, precisely, only specific measures that do not hint at a broader conception. Given the scale of the crisis, on the one hand, and the possibilities of the film industry, on the other, these measures strike us as downright absurd. But I have to add that we’re not just some lobby group defending certain interests, even if it’s because of the film crisis that we’ve found ourselves in the current critical situation, and even if the market – that is, the world – will be sold out again before this autumn if we don’t speak up. After all, there is a very powerful lobby in the film industry. The main thing for us is to become aware of the direction in which we want to proceed. We’ve already made a few films this year. But for the kind of project we have in mind, we need a broader base. We don’t want to make a meaningless “German New Wave”. We don’t just want to make new films that we think are better than the previous ones. What we want is to propose a new conception of cinema that would really give something to the public, in which the public could discover cinema as something different from television or the naturalistic films (Adorno remarks: pseudo-naturalistic) that are imposed on us. We believe in the emancipatory potential of cinema, in completely new forms, in going beyond our current representation of cinema. And we believe that audiences have a desire and an expectation that we can meet. To avoid any misunderstanding, I’ll add straight away that we don’t want to create art films, but to establish a type of cinema such as could sometimes be found in the 1920s, because our tendency is more towards this than towards so-called art films, such as Nachtwache (1949). Laurence Olivier’s Hamlet (1948), for example, is a great work of literature – I was almost going to say opera – and art. Yet it is precisely in its claim to be art that it comes into contradiction with the properly cinematographic requirements which we still have to discuss. In other words, it becomes precisely a kind of ambient art [Stimmungskunst] – I’m only referring to Hamlet’s monologue on the tower, with the clouds passing overhead – which is, in the end, not so different from the music that pesters us in entertainment films, the kind we’re served the morning after a night of love while the sunlight is reflected on the clouds. There is, I would say, only a quantitative difference between the two. This is precisely what Benjamin captured in the concept of aura, that enveloping cloud incompatible with the photographic technique, which is a precise reproduction of a precise thing. There’s something incongruous when a film tries to achieve this. In other words, the more it distances itself from the traditional means of painting and literature, the more it elaborates its own principles from specific constellations. It’s about creating something completely heterogeneous, which has nothing to do with the simple addition of Stimmung, infinity, enchantment, magic and all that.

Erny:
I think we can move the discussion forward if we take a closer look at the three aspects that Dr. Kluge highlighted, namely, work practices within the group, the cultural philosopher’s point of view and the cultural politician’s point of view. It seems to me that we now need to ask what demands would be made on cinema from society’s point of view.

 
 
 
Rovan:
I’d like to pick Mr. Kluge’s brain on one point, because I think he went a little too fast. He made recommendations that we have made. But first we need to clarify this “we”. I’ve drawn up a little chart to show who this “we” might be:
The category of people who make films. The category of those who finance films. The state, which is sometimes concerned with the economic aspect, but which mainly pursues its own goals. A category comprising the animators, the group-leaders, those I would describe as the yeast in the leaven, so to speak, the representatives, animators, educators and so on. Finally, and for want of a better word, the public, which is not covered by the other categories, and which obviously divides itself into several different sub-categories. These different categories – and many more could be added – probably have very different requirements of cinema, even if there may be some overlap. But I don’t think we can limit the discussion to the requirements of the first category, that is,what those who make films expect of them.
 

 
 
Adorno
I apologize, Mr. Rovan, but I find your approach rather radical.
 
 

 
 
Rovan
That’s what we’re here for.
 
 

 
 
Adorno
In fact, I don’t think that such a separation into different bodies which, according to you, would have to pronounce themselves on cinema, would take us very far. All of us here, and I think I can easily include our listeners, know that in the field of cinema, as in many other fields, but especially in cinema, the so-called consumer and the mission [Auftrag] – to use that lovely, hateful word – supposedly elaborated with a view to its effects, have long since become pure ideology,behind which hide all those who want things to remain as bad as they are. By appealing to the public, to financiers, to educators, who knows who else, by denouncing those who want to make changes as terrible, incestuous followers of the principle of art for art’s sake, we can easily come to the point of preventing, under the guise of a higher morality, that what it would be necessary to achieve now is actually achieved.. This is not to say that only experts and technicians should be taken into consideration. What I’m trying to say is quite simple. The philosopher that I am cannot deny his Hegel. In this unpopular man, we find the concept of “determinate negation”. I mean, if we elaborate a critique by immersing ourselves in the thing itself, if we penetrate into the constitution of this thing and develop a canon of all that is false, untrue, contradictory, formless and primitive in it, if we therefore manage to objectively develop, from the thing itself, such a canon of the false, we would already have an indication of what we have to expect from cinema today. Instead of asking each group for its opinion, we should – and this applies to all the arts – defend in fact this apparently incestuous point of view, namely, that which starts from the sphere of production and its immanent law and not primarily from all the correlations in which production is entangled.
 
 

 
 
Erny
Let me ask an incidental question that will help us return to Mr. Rovan’s starting point. Does this mean, Pr. Adorno, that the criteria of censorship are not so different, basically, from those of the public?
 
 

 
 
Adorno
I believe in fact that the mechanisms of censorship essentially serve to preserve these invariants of the culture industry as they were established at the beginning of the 18th century in the English novel. In other words, they ensure that lovers are reunited at the end, that people who have illegitimate relationships are punished and other abominations. I believe that this censorship, even when it hides under the mask of social pedagogy or other ideologies, is in reality a completely abominable means of reintroducing something of the order of thought control into the conditions of formal democracy.
 
 

 
 
Rovan
If you’ll allow me to clarify, the categories I mentioned earlier don’t have any a priori validity for me. I proceeded in a purely phenomenological way in order to determine the categories of people who believe themselves legitimized to make demands on cinema. And unfortunately, it’s true that financiers, distributors, the state, educators and the public all have this more or less strange idea that they are entitled to make such demands. What’s more, we shouldn’t forget that for our contemporaries, cinema has become one of the most essential elements in the construction of a vision of the world – whether this is the right one or not, let’s leave that in abeyance. The fact is, most people learn more from films than they do at school. So cinema is a crucial part of education. There are mediocre, average, good educations, and cinema participates in this in a more fundamental way than those who consider themselves cultured are willing to admit. We should of course add Mr. Strobel’s very important remark that we are talking about the effect of cinema when it is already partly surpassed by television.
I like numbers, and I’ve noted that on average, a person in France goes to the cinema eight times a year; that’s an average of 16 hours of cinema a year for everyone. Why do people go to the movies? Excuse me, I know we have to be careful with the results of sociological surveys, but they can be interesting all the same. Here are the answers:
24% go for information, 40% to see their lives embellished – an imaginary life -, 23% to pass the time and 13% to free themselves from the daily grind.
I find it hard to talk about cinema and the demands made on it without keeping these motivations in mind. What do audiences mean by a ‘good film’? Here too, the results are significant. 12% of those questioned think a film is good if it’s beautiful, 18% think it’s good if it’s true, but 65% want to be intrigued by a film; the latter 15% want to see comical things, 15% what we call in French a brawl – struggles, movement, adventure -, 10% are looking for love and emotion, and 25% – another funny category – want to see a life ennobled. And finally: we asked the inhabitants of various farming communities to spontaneously write down a list of films they had seen and loved in recent years. The result could well be a program for a cine-club: these people, who on average probably had little exposure to films and mostly knew them only from television, didn’t opt for the worst junk as cinema owners would tend to believe; they chose films whose quality most of us would recognize. So public taste doesn’t seem to be as bad as some people claim, for self-serving reasons.
 
 

 
 
Erny
It was important to make it clear that the categories mentioned do not in fact provide the real motive for cinematic demands, but are in fact nothing more than ways of reacting to the films viewed.
 
 

 
 
Senft
Yes, but that’s not enough, not yet. In my opinion, these points are precisely the most essential and decisive of our entire discussion. The establishment of categories or assessments of this kind goes so far that a distribution company – and this adds a further refinement to the whole system – is able to say that if a film contains a firemen’s ball scene, it can bring in 7.2% more revenue – this is serious, this is no joke. Not only do we begin to categorize and fragment cinema, to make purely commercial calculations with a view to certain effects, but with such evaluations we irremediably arrive at the idea of a film completely determined in advance .This is extremely dangerous, because, to put it another way, it’s a matter of force-feeding an audience, again and again, which must imperatively be satisfied by manipulation of some kind. I don’t see cinema that way. I’m committed to the idea that a completely free expression should be possible – expression which would reveal the way of life and the knowledge of the person or people making the film. In other words, cinema should gradually rise to the level that belongs to every independent artist and performer today.
 
 

 
 
Erny
Allow me to interrupt. We’ve been discussing who should be allowed to make demands on film, and I think we should now ask Professor Adorno what demands should be made on film. In other words, based on the ideas that have been discussed so far, what should be avoided in a film so that we can, as you said earlier, experience “determinate negation”?
 
 

 
 
Adorno
Perhaps I could try – if you don’t mind me not sticking entirely to the rules – to draw some conclusions from what has already been said in the discussion. In particular, I’d like to pick up on what Mr. Rovan said. Of course, I am not defending here the Don Quixotery according to which a film could exist in the same way, without relation to the public, as a poem or a piece of music. Film is a collective art form, in its own right. Basically, the images set in motion in a film are always images of the collective, and in those moments – even in traditional films – when there’s a certain potential for what cinema might one day become, there’s always the feeling, if you’ll pardon the expression, that the collective is whispering through the images [hindurchrauscht]. In other words – and I hope this isn’t a lame compromise – unlike the other arts, cinema must take into account the existence of collective relationships [Kollektivzusammenhänge]. The mistake lies in the fact that, up to now, cinema has adapted to mass reactions, taking them for granted. What we need to do – and this is the essential point – is to compose films which, while effectively taking into account collective modes of reaction, use them in such a way as to tear people away from ideology, instead of reinforcing them in the sclerotic, lost circle of representations they’ve been harping on for 250 years, and which ends up producing, to sum it up in a formula, an advertisement for the world. Perhaps such a demand isn’t so utopian – and I think it’s in line with a thought you put forward earlier, Axel [Kluge] – because we’re currently observing something of the order of a debacle in cinema: on the one hand, people want film to stay the same, like a child who wants mash to stay the same, but on the other, they can’t take any more of this mash. And it is precisely in this moment of nausea which seizes the masses, this moment of saturation with regard to cinema, that opens up, I think, the possibility of producing a cinema that accords with the canon of the forbidden, of what we seek to avoid, without slipping into the applied arts or becoming gimmicky. The same potential that enables cinema to grasp the masses – the fact that it addresses the masses – would allow it to be conceived in a way that it expresses things that really concern these same masses; whereas until now, to use Valéry’s expression, it has only been a spectacle that consists in preventing people from meddling in what concerns them[1].
[1] See Paul Valéry, Œuvres II, éd. Gallimard, 1969, p. 947
 
 

 
 
Rovan
The fight against manipulation, which we all want to wage, cannot be launched before tackling the problem of the function of cinema in society. We need to know who should lead this fight against manipulation, and in whose name. Otherwise, we’re bound to fall back on the eternal, but not always defensible demand of the artist, in the face of society’s mediocrity. That’s not the way forward. It’s rather a question of how can the demands of the artist become those of society?
 
 

 
 
Erny
I think that on this extremely important point we need to recapitulate a little. If I’ve understood correctly, Professor Adorno describes the cinema in its current state, noting that it constitutes its own adverstising, which implies a principled demarcation in relation to the theater. Mr. Rovan, on the other hand, attempts to give an overview of the function of cinema within the social situation that he believes needs to be transformed, and notes that it is difficult to do away with, or reduce, manipulation if we confine ourselves exclusively to the artistic dimension of the question.
 
 

 
 
Kluge
It’s not just society that demands something of cinema, but the thing itself as well. In a way, you can’t simply divide the thing up according to different social groups and their respective demands. I think you misunderstand us when you blame us for being intractable artists who rebel against society. It’s precisely because we feel a responsibility towards society that we want cinema as we imagine it to see the light of day, and that’s why we articulate our demands here. Our basic idea is this: we have excellent film techniques in Germany. We also have relatively good actors. We also have very good literature and music, and basically, we also have the financial means at our disposal. So why doesn’t it work? Because we need to introduce a series of fundamental principles so that we can do our work well.
To give an example, we have calculated that this year, the independent cultural film sector – i.e., short films – has been completely destroyed by the entertainment tax in North Rhine-Westphalia, Berlin and Schleswig-Holstein. With this tax, the awards of the film evaluation commission no longer have any value. As a result, we can sell a high-value film for 7,000 marks, while a low-value film costs us 20,000 marks. So, this part of the industry is lost to us. The situation is not much different for feature films.
 
 

 
 
Erny
Allow me to interrupt. I’d like to remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that Dr. Kluge promised to make specific demands, and we’ll come back to that. But the current phase of the debate was triggered by Mr. Rovan’s question as to who would be entitled to make demands of the cinema; a question which highlights both the problem of manipulation and that of the relationship between cinema and society. Professor Adorno will now say something about this.
 
 

 
 
Adorno
Allow me to formulate just a few theses on the relationship between cinema and society. First of all, it goes without saying that cinema cannot be considered in isolation, but only in terms of its function in society. Criticism of cinema as it stands today is at the same time essentially a critique of its false social function, namely that of reproducing stupidity. The more we work against this, the more cinema itself changes its function.
 
Rather than propagating any kind of advertisement for a transformation of the world, I believe that the truly transformative practice of cinema would be the end of advertising. In other words, only when film stops advertising anything will it begin to take its rightful place in society. Furthermore, I think that as long as cinema calls for changing the world in an immediate and radical way, it falls into this ideology of the East which is perhaps even more abominable than that of the old Ranger and his dog [Der Förster und sein Hund] – you can roll the dice and decide. Cinema can’t but transform consciousness, and indeed it can. But to do so, it’s not enough to make a few good films. We need to turn the whole of cinema on its head, in order to continuously produce a transformed consciousness. Let me explain with a concrete example. Many of you will have seen the film DEFA, based on Heinrich Mann’s novel “The Loyal Subject”, which was filmed and shown here a few years ago. The film had a reputation for being particularly good. I didn’t think it was good at all. I thought it was bad, mainly because of its social implications. Society is presented in such a way that a miserable and basically powerless individual, who represents the professions in the sphere of circulation, is ridiculed and unmasked. On the other hand, the big bearded prefect who represents real power in its most sinister aspect and who, in addition, is accompanied all the time by his dog just like the forest ranger, this man is in fact glorified. The film wants to mock the impotent guy when he pretends to be powerful, when in reality, he’s bowing down to power where it sits – at the prefecture. To me, this is typical of the ideology of the East. There is therefore, here, in the condemnation of this wretched Wilhelmian individual, an advertisement for the transformation of the world, but at the same time the film defends the world as it is by its very composition, which reproduces the same structure of the adoration of power, a structure that a transformed film would have to combat. It’s precisely this difference that I’d like to emphasize. I would also argue that by eliminating ideologies and false social content, cinema could become good, precisely by giving up trying to secretly propagate something. On the contrary, it’s thanks to the eye of the camera and its way of looking at the world that something which relates to the essence of this world could manifest itself, and it is this which would lead men to finally understand the causes of their minority, for which they themselves are responsible[1].
[1] Reference to Immanuel Kant’s, What is Enlightment?, several editions are available

 
 
Erny
Ladies and Gentlemen, what Prof. Adorno said at the beginning of his contribution reappears again as a kind of demand or invitation addressed to the representatives of the New German Cinema here present: changing current practice means doing away with advertising in cinema, which is only advertising for itself. It’s precisely on this point that you could develop your ideas in a little more detail. But first, Mr. Rovan would like to respond to Professor Adorno.
 
 

 
 
Rovan
I would just like to say that I agree wholeheartedly. I couldn’t agree more. The question that seems important to me now, and which I’d like to address to the Group’s representatives, is this. Let me put it bluntly: the question of the “how” of the transformation of cinema, as formulated by Prof. Adorno in an exemplary way, how feasible would it be? It seems to me that the two central aspects are money and law – taken in a symbolic sense. On the one hand, the magma of institutions and rules; on the other, the financial aspect of cinema, which represents enormous capital even when it’s a modest film, or one based on the exemplary intentions you’ve outlined here. Well, the task of changing the film’s financial and legal conditions is enormous. How do you intend to win this power struggle, in which I’m totally on your side? We mustn’t confine ourselves to abstract requirements that don’t commit us to anything. What interests me most is to think about the question: how do we achieve this? I’ve often expressed my indignation at the fact that none of your French colleagues has ever tried to propose strategies to political decision-makers. What would you say if the state or politicians or political parties asked you: please, we’re not specialists, but we’re well-intentioned; what will your ideas be regarding legislation, the new order of the capitalist market, etc., in the cinema sector? In my opinion, these are the questions you need to find answers to. Not only find answers, but also go on the offensive, as our Italian colleagues have partly done.
 
 

 
 
Kluge
I think Mr. Rovan has just raised a very concrete question, which gives us the opportunity to set out what we have done in the meantime that is not yet widely known.
We set up the New German Cinema foundation [Junger deutscher Film], a non-profit foundation whose trustees are lawyers. The primary aim of this foundation is to promote new talent. We therefore plan to set up a fund to support the first and second features of filmmakers who have already made their mark in the short film field. A corresponding sum would be paid into the fund from the profits generated by the film. We have therefore created this foundation, which is already registered in the commercial register and recognized by the tax authorities as being of public utility. Now it’s a matter of finding sufficient resources to make the films we had in mind this spring. A very strict jury, of which none of us are members, presides over the selection process. That’s the first point. The second point is that, in our view, to achieve something like a new cinema, we need to think in terms of longer periods than is the case for a New Wave. First of all, we need to create an intellectual center, a grouping that allows us to think carefully about what we want and what we want to avoid. Quite simply, we need to raise the level and scope of our action to trigger a dynamic that will bring about new cinema and new films, even if we won’t be around when they see the light of day.  
 

 
 
Erny
Mr. Reitz would like to add something.
 
 

 
 
Erny
I believe this question is addressed directly to Professor Adorno. But first, Mr. Rovan, just to make sure, your question has been answered I believe. Dr. Kluge has already presented some of the initiatives already carried out, and Mr. Reitz has suggested some ideas which will now be commented on by Prof. Adorno.
 
 

 
 
Adorno
Among the enormous difficulties facing the new cinema is the fact that, for the moment, it is not a kind of drop of water on a burning stone[1], but rather something like a burning cigarette on an enormous glacier, which paralyzes its effect in advance. As for the transformation of consciousness, it seems to me that we can only refer to a few films in which something like a real transformation of consciousness takes shape. I’m thinking, for example, of “Bicycle Thieves”, even if in a way it still advertises for a better world. But by showing social entanglements through a random case without commentary, it leads people to reflect on the fact that what’s special about the so-called positive, which is constantly asserted by traditional film, is that it doesn’t actually exist.
Or think of an Italian film like “La Notte”. Although this film seems to me to be far too entangled in existentialist ideology, it introduces a kind of void into the normal flow of consciousness, and does so by purely cinematic means such as the technical use of suspension, which induces a certain slowness of representation, and other similar means. In so doing, it encourages people to reflect on the fact that in the reality in which we live, there are hardly any intact relationships, as society’s crisis penetrates right down to the most intimate relationships. Perhaps the consciousness of anyone who sees “La Notte” or “Bicycle Thieves” or others, will not suddenly change completely – although I could imagine that too. But if we managed to produce films that address these kinds of issues – both artistically and in their content – it would already be a big step. Allow me to add one last point. To defend the current state of affairs, we often put forward the ideology that everything must remain the same for financial reasons, when in fact this state of affairs is precisely the cause of the current bankruptcy. Such an ideology is based on an idea of human consciousness that is far too fixed.
We must also not forget that the great Italian films have been very successful here too. And that’s why I believe that the relationship between new cinema and the public is not so desperate, because it is necessary that the public is already accustomed to it.
[1] German expression which means “like a drop in the ocean”.
 
 

 
 
Rovan
If I understand correctly, the transformation of consciousness is the program we all share here, but I’m wondering: are you formulating a program in terms of content for this transformation of consciousness? What transformations do you actually want to bring about? What new content would you like to introduce into the viewer’s vision of the world? Is it your intention – and this is what I assume – to encourage a critical attitude towards the things and violence of the modern world?
 
 

 
 
Kluge
We can say quite clearly what content we’re aiming for. It’s not about political or ideological [weltanschaulich] content or anything like that, because we all have different opinions on these things. But we all want to awaken certain spontaneous reactions that exist in the public: the virtue of curiosity, for example, or the joy that arises when confronted with a substantial amount of information.
 
 

 
 
Rovan
We didn’t quite understand each other. I wasn’t talking about the content of the films or their themes, but about the objectives you’re hoping to achieve through the transformation of consciousness. Do you want people to become critical?
 
 

 
 
Kluge
Let’s talk about cinema first: it would be possible for cinema to produce not only a critical consciousness, but also an emancipated consciousness of the audience, in the sense that we can work with the curiosity and expectations of the audience to produce real cinema that not only makes promises, but also keeps them. Something truly magical should emanate from the screen, and when someone goes to the cinema, they should come out transformed.
At present, the spectator goes to the cinema like he goes to school. In other words, they stand there completely passively. But that’s not our vision. We think it should be possible to enter in the middle of the screening, as is the case in French cinemas, for example, or in Italian cinemas, where you’re even allowed to talk, smoke and eat. In English cinemas, too, it’s possible to eat.
Nothing is regulated there. Here, on the other hand, the Nazis invented this order of screenings whereby you could only see films from 2pm to 4pm, from 4pm to 6pm or from 6pm to 8pm. That’s just one example. But it doesn’t have to be that way. And if you think about all these little factors, like the bipartition of films into two categories: those that last 10 minutes and those that last 90 minutes, and in between, there’s nothing; if you think about all these things – and note that in other countries it’s different – you’ll have a complete record of the things we don’t want. And that’s what we can emancipate ourselves from. And if we succeed, a new cinema will emerge in the long term – I’d say in 5 years or so – a cinema or at least a few cinemas that people will visit with more pleasure than elsewhere. That’s more or less what I’m trying to say. It’s true, though, that when you talk about it, it sounds a bit utopian. But looking ahead 5 years, I don’t think it’s so utopian. Because I think all new things and all new ideas seem strange at first.
 
 

 
 
Erny
I think, Prof. Adorno, that the word is yours again, and that with these reflections by Dr. Kluge on prohibitions we are returning to the starting point of this debate.
 
 

 
 
Adorno
I noticed, ladies and gentlemen, that as soon as the discussion and proposals went beyond the concrete, of what can be positively grasped, that we can bring back with us in a confident manner, you had a certain tendency to laugh. I don’t think there’s a more concise way of describing what we have in mind than to say that our intention is to produce a consciousness that doesn’t automatically laugh when confronted with something we say: “but that’s utopian”. Which is not to say that films should show utopias or utopian things – that would probably be the most absurd of all. It’s the opposite.Art, and I consider film to be an art form, is essentially and constitutively concerned with utopia, with what is different from the world. And if we exclude the experience of utopia, we exclude the lived experience of art. In the past, art was utopian in the sense that it safeguarded for humans those aspects of reality that transcend the enterprise of pure self-preservation and rigid interests. Reality has changed in such a way that there are fewer and fewer things that transcend it, and so everything remains just what it is. That’s why art probably can’t remain faithful to these intentions by illustrating utopia. On the contrary, it’s only by refusing to obey the laws of this world that it could still be utopian, by expressing utopia silently, by indicting what is blocked, the simple reminder of which already provokes laughter. We’re looking to trigger the very shock that has made some of you laugh – excuse me for putting it so bluntly. The task of transforming the consciousness that film should give itself would primarily consist of tearing away the veil that society weaves around us and that cinema itself reinforces with all these spectacles. Only then could we realize that behind all these devices in which cinema in some way participates, there is something else, a demonic, insidious and terrible law – the so-called essence of the world that unfortunately doesn’t represent Good, but the unhappiness in which we feel ever more mired, even if we’re not ready to admit it. And what we call the artistic means of cinema, that is, the means by which cinema goes beyond the simple reproduction of reality, these means should have the function of bringing out something of this hidden unhappiness, and thus remain faithful to the utopian moment of art.