The constant barrage of sound in Rainer Werner Fassbinder's "The Third Generation" - whether it be the television, the film's score, or a crying baby - as Senses of Cinema's Darragh O' Donoghue puts it, "rather than connect, it serves to create noise and chaos". A point definitely to be expanded upon. The film's endless stream of noises illustrates, as O' Donoghue once again implies, "A complex network of communication and information". The film's fast-paced dialogue serves to show that despite this group of bourgeois professionals trying to act exactly as that, they cannot seem to rise above childish, unprofessional acts such as taking Bernhard von Stein's book and tossing it around à la the children's game "Monkey in the Middle". They are merely no more than bullies who, borrowing a phrase from German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer ("The world as will and idea"), and money from Lurz, set their plan into action. And although they ultimately achieve their goal of being able to be in a position to kill Lurz, they do it so ineffectively and unprofessionally that they didn't even realize they had a double agent with them the whole time, and many members of their group die in the process. "with the absence of a militant working class" as said by Thomas Elsaesser in "Fassbinder's Germany", the leftist bourgeois leave their comfortable lives for one of revolution and radical actions. Yet despite their synchronized actions, they "compete like the kids in any extended family." The film's cacophony of the group's non-stop world around them, disjoints the group from society (despite some of the sounds being from actual society) and shows them as madcap and chaotic, unable "to see behind this transparent view" of "establishment’s interest to restrict the dissemination of “real” information".
I feel like there are already way too many things to talk about here, but here goes.
So, Schopenhauer's 'The World as Will and Idea' is basically a synthesis of Spinoza and Kant. Schopenhauer starts off by noticing that the human body, i.e. MY human body, is perceived by me in two ways. When I move my hand, for example, I can see/feel it moving as though it were any other physical object; I also experience my willing it to move or my perception of it being caused to move by me. Will and representation. And Schopenhauer thinks that it's completely plausible to accept this w/r/t ME because I can feel it happening, but that there's also no reason to believe that my body is the only thing that acts this way, or that my class of body is the only thing that acts this way, or even, that /anything/ is the only thing that acts this way.
The whole world, according to Schopenhauer, functions on two levels: will and representation.
Now, this is where you can really see Spinoza coming through; if you're not familiar, Spinoza was a 17th century philosopher who basically believed that every physical or spiritual object in the universe is composed of the same substance, that substance being God, and that we are all just different expressions of God [which, I maintain, if you substitute 'universe' or even 'matter' for God, is a very nonreligious view]. In the same way, Schopenhauer believes each individual object or being to be only a representation of the world, or more generally the universe, acting independently. And this independent action is the ghost in the machine for Schopenhauer. Because we each have individual will that is simultaneously part of the same overarching will, our personal squabbles are basically the world fighting itself, and according to Schopenhauer, the world will pretty much keep fighting itself to the end of time. It's a sort of God-as-universe theory, but without God's ability to provide positive direction, so to speak.
How does this apply to Fassbinder's 'The Third Generation'? I would argue that it's fairly clear that the film is applied Schopenhauer. Multiple powers are fighting each other without the presence of a determinate or positivistic end, represented by the capitalists and the RAF, neither of whom are concerned about the good of the people. But, the Schopenhauer reveals itself in minor details as well. Specifically, the scene where Rudolf is walking slowly through the noisy, chaotic apartment [Ilse playing guitar and singing, Franz speaking to no one in particular about the television, which itself is droning on and on, Behrnard reading aloud and gesturing wildly, August attempting to engage Rudolf in conversation, and all the while, a whining alarm crescendoing in the background]. There are multiple individual wills functioning in that scene, represented by the voices of the people in the room, but since there is no overarching vision, no one can be heard.
I feel like they stopped saying the phrase after a certain point in the film. I think it occurs after some character starts paraphrasing Dostoevsky when he/she says "everything is allowed."I think it may have been Lurz. This could all be wrong.
Also, and this is more of a question for Dr Abel / anyone who has seen the film before: when Behrnard exclaims, 'It was cancer!' directly into the camera, does he sort of smirk at us? Did I imagine that? Was it potentially a fuckup on the part of the actor, or was the character of Behrnard breaking the fourth wall in order to tell the audience that no, it wasn't cancer? Does it really /matter/ which one it was intended to be, because it really seems to function as a dramatic aside regardless of whether Fassbinder put it in on purpose?
I'd have to look at the moment--I know which one you're talking about; if I remember I'll look at it before class (my DVD is on campus).
Also, nice explanation of the philosophers. Spinoza is indeed often read as god = nature, with the latter ultimately being more significant concept than the religious one. And at least one prominent strain of interpretation of Spinoza--Deleuze and Negri in particular--would likely argue that the volitional aspect of Schopenhauer's WILL and IDEA (representation) isn't as strongly present in Spinoza (where it's more about pre-individual affects that "precede" consciousness and recognition, and thus also idea/representation). In a way, D&N would argue, I think, that AS is a conservative reading of Spinoza, taking the radical sting out of him.
What really strikes me as interesting with The Third Generation is how excessive the film is. Like John mentioned above, the films is littered with all sorts of sounds that create a sort of dissonance between the dialogue of the film and the action. After reading the article on Fassbinder, I believe that there is another factor that contributes to this, which is the amount of melodrama in the film. Compared to the more conservatively staged Bader-Meinhof Complex, The Third Generation really packs in the drama, making some of the scenes become absurd, which eventually reaches it's climax near the end of the film where P.J. Lurz is kidnapped with a plan that involves clowns, carriages, and large guns (whereas Bader-Meinhof only removed the former). This melodramatic element actually helped me take the film more seriously than Bader-Meinhof, in that the dramatic way the film portrayed the events almost created a dissonance between the very serious events that happened. Perhaps it's just me, but it helped give me a bit more of a perspective on what happened as opposed to a straight up adaptation of the events. This is what was described as the "self-revealing yet critical" element of Fassbinders films from this week's article. All I can say is that it's bizarre, but it works.
Here are a few quotes from Bertolt Brecht: "Art is not a mirror with which to reflect reality but a hammer with which to shape it."
and
"The question of what artistic devices we should choose, is simply a question of how we can get our audience to become socially active, how we can knock them into shape. We should try out every conceivable device which can help toward this aim, whether its old or new."
From what can tell, Fassbinder dug Brecht quite a bit and this is quite apparent in the Third Generation. There is no doubt that this film makes for a strange viewing experience. It is clear that the film is not trying to be realistic or mimetic. But how exactly is this film strange and what is it trying to prove with this strangeness?
The form itself of the film is not atypical. There is a beginning, a middle, and an end. The narrative takes place chronologically, with no flashbacks. It's in color. Its shot in 35 mm film. These are forms that the Hollywood audience knows and feels comfortable with. This differs from the form of Glauber Rocha's Antonio Das Mortes, in which many scenes are interlaced with each other. The Third Generation is Brechtian not in its form but in its content.
By far the most apparent irregularity with the film is the presence of the human voice within it. There is hardly a moment of silence in the film. But most of the time, the human voice has no visible speaker. It is simply something in the air: lots of somethings in air, in multiple languages. It seems that the characters can tune in or out onto specific voices in the room, just as the audience does while watching, but cannot take the chorus in as a whole. They are separated from the whole because they are unable to comprehend it; they are, as is the audience, (especially an audience who must rely on subtitles, which only can relate one voice at a time,) trapped listening to the individual, while the rest of the voices get lost in their collective white noise of babel.
These scenes may seem very strange to the native Hollywood viewer, but they are not without reason, without will. They are trying to prove a point about the state of affairs in Germany at the time and also, trying to prove a point about the politics of filmmaking. It is no secret that Fassbinder was a leftist "sympathizer." Rather than act out illegally and violently, he has chosen to make films instead. The terrorist and the radical film maker have a lot in common in their goals, but not in their means. Fassbinder wanted to get the people to examine their society and their sins and attempt to change, just as the terrorists did, be he makes art instead of bombs. And when German terrorists, by the third generation, had become basically devoid of ideals, Fassbinder was able to keep his. With the din of voices in the room, he is able to comment on the obsession with the individual in the commune, to critique both the terrorists and the society as a whole, while at the same time, rebel against the standard dogmatic filmmaking, by reminding the viewer constantly, that what they're watching, is art.
Nicely done. One observation: as a native speaker of German I actually find it easier to watch the film WITH subtitles than without; the subs clarify what w/o them would remain often obscure...
With both Germany in Autumn and The Third Generation, as one student suggested, one can see that Fassbinder’s primarily interested in dialog and melodrama than dramatic action as a way to communicate ideas. Many of his films feature characters intimately conversing within a domestic interior setting who, appear to be, in isolation from the outside world, and his interest in dialog and interiors directly relates to his theatrical background as a director and playwright. This isolation is ironic, for example, in The Third Generation where P.J. Lurz’s secretary would rather watch the television screen than observe the outside world through Lurz’s high–rise office that overlooks Berlin. Or in the case of Germany in Autumn, Fassbinder shares more interest in limiting the characters within the confines of their apartment and have them discuss the events of the plane hijackings rather than literally depicting the events on–screen. This may relate to the Fassbinder article where the author argues that the Third Generation shows “the absence of a militant working class, there was no longer even the possibility of a collective revolutionary subject” which would explain why his characters rarely “organize” outside of the confines of their domestic unit but would rather discuss political activism in private than collectively form in the public sphere. Even the point of revolutionary action in The Third Generation occurs in a short burst near the finale of the film. Fassbinder, it seems, shares no interest in this. As another student pointed out, the theatricality of his work comes from his exaggeration of the film medium, particularly the cinematography and lighting, that give his films a surrealistic quality, so it is not so much what the characters are doing but how they are photographed.
Marco mentioned in class yesterday how Fassbinder’s “The Third Generation” deals with the group of people that we see at the end of “The Baader-Meinhof Complex”. The last lines of that film hold true after viewing Fassbinder’s more in depth look at the generation of individuals that came after Baader-Meinhof: “Stop seeing them as they never were”. I don’t recall any direct references to Baader-Meinhof by the group in “The Third Generation,” but it is clear that their group was formed because of the actions of those that preceded them. The fact that they do not mention the RAF only strengthens the argument that they have no understanding of what they are doing or the cause that they are fighting for. In Darragh O’Donoghue’s piece from “Senses of Cinema” he discusses the nature of this new generation, denouncing them as “…a group of bourgeois professionals…[who] enjoy the “game” of being in a terrorist cell, with its apparatus of codes, passwords, whispers and disguises, but literally wet themselves when called to action.” As O’Donoghue points out, these individuals enjoy sneaking around and speaking in codes (“The world as will and idea”) as if what they are doing holds any real meaning or significance. There is one small moment in the film where the group is playing Monopoly, which is a small and funny way for Fassbinder to show their lack of understanding. They are playing a game that symbolizes the capitalist society that they appear (do they even know?) to be fighting against, yet are ultimately being manipulated by and for (PJ Lurz).
Another important moment in displaying the groups’ incompetence is when they go to steal the papers. They have guns, yet are still scared of being caught by the guard on duty, so much so that the man (I forgot which one) pees himself. Fassbinder portrays this generation in direct opposition to the way that the earlier generations, like Baader-Meinhof , acted (or were perceived to have acted). Fassbinder himself provides the best despcription of this latest generation of “activists” in the Elsaesser “Fassbinder Representing Germany” excerpt, stating, “The third generation is today’s, who just indulges in action without thinking, without either ideology or politics, and who, probably without knowing it, are like puppets whose wires are pulled by others.” They have no specific reason for their actions besides August continually setting up meetings and planning certain actions, which ultimately reveals how they are simply puppets (As Fassbinder said) that are manipulated into doing things that they have no explanation or justification for.
I did not really understand The Third Generation. Even reflecting on it now, I have no Idea of what the purpose of the film was. I understand the basic plot, but the absurdist element completely throws me off. This could be because of the subtitles as well, missing some of the intonations that the actors could have had which could have added a bit to understanding the absurdist element or even the plot more for that matter.
One of the interesting things in Thomas Elsaesser’s piece, Fassbinder's Germany: History Identity Subject, was an excerpt quoting Fassbinder on what the Third Generation is. Fassbinder described the Third Generation as, “[indulging] in action without thinking, without either ideology or politics, and who, probably without knowing it are like puppets whose wires are pulled by others.” This quote is a summation of Fassbinder’s film. From the film, an audience would not be able to gather what the goal of this group was, or what they were even fighting. The only thing that the audiences are really able to figure out is that all of the members of this group are being used.
One final thing in this film that I also did not understand was the soundtrack. It seemed like throughout the entire film, there were at least 3 different sounds going on. The sounds were loud and repetitive, for instance, in one of the scenes in the apartment, the TV was on, a book was being read aloud, and characters were having a discussion. It seemed to overwhelm the senses. I am not sure of the point of this other than to put the audience in a state of wariness, or perhaps to force them to listen to the conversations being held or gather nothing form the scene at all.
The Third Generation is a film told in six distinct chapters, and what is distinct about them is that they are all based off the writing in public restrooms. Now I would not call myself an expert in naming different chapters of films, however the first place I’m probably not going to look for them is the bathroom. Why is this a thing? How high was Fassbinder on cocaine when he thought of this idea. Is this just a drug idea? Probably not Fassbinder too smart like that, it probably mean something so let try to figure that out.
The Third Generation is definitely a film from left field, it have so many genres and different plotlines so going within it that it can be hard to pinpoint what Fassbinder wants out of this film. I the beginning it is basically this abstract comedy, basically trapped in their house like children playing games and in the second half it becomes a serious thrill where they’re trying to plan out a bombing. This interesting tonal shift almost is almost too obvious but is critical to point out Fassbinder critique of the third generation.
In Darragh O’Donghue’s article “The Third Generation”, she points out that this group enjoy the “game” of being in a terrorist cell, with its apparatus of codes, passwords, whispers and disguises, but literally wet themselves when called to action. As a quote from anarchist theorist Mikhail Bakunin implies, these are children who refuse to grow up: they bully those weaker as if they were still in a schoolyard, and ultimately can’t handle “real” life.” (para 2).
Fassbinder is trying to argue that the third generation was not prepared for what they were about to face, sure they enjoy the status of being terrorists on the run but when they had to actually perform their duties they are scared out of their minds.
And if we could go back to my original question, each profane bathroom scribbling highlighted how inept they were because that is probably the most rebellious act they have ever done. A thirteen year old could vandalize a bathroom; it’s not that hard especially no one knows you did it. Fassbinder uses these bathroom quotes to exposes how immature this terrorists’ group was and to give some focus on those details.
What I cannot figure out is which side Fassbinder is supporting? Is he hypercritical of the terrorist left who should have realized they were too immature to participate or he is mad at the right for trying to integrate a fight with these children?
Fassbinder’s The Third Generation never quite settles on one depth of field. There’s almost always one character in front of another, or in an apparent separate part of the scene. There’s a specific foreground, middleground and background established in every scene, and often the characters shift through these depths of field. Whether it is a doorway, a wall, a separate room, or simply in and out of focus, this establishment of placement within the scene is obvious, and at times seems forced and awkwardly deliberate. It is both intriguing and uncomfortable; it’s an odd technique for a film as bleakly humorous as this one (but unique for this time period of film), but stations a certain distance between the audience and what is happening in the scene. It is as if the camera plays a character itself in the film, but puts a layer of narration between us, the viewer, and the film (like a layer of misunderstanding between the innocent bystander and a terrorist perhaps?). When characters are in the same depth of field it seems visually awkward, and makes viewing the scene uneasy, like we are seeing something we are not supposed to or we are not sure what exactly we are supposed to focus on.
As both the review “The Third Generation” and Professor Abel mentioned, Fassbinder’s choice to give out the plot might be, in Darragh O’Donoghue’s words, “a joke in the opening minutes.” However, his observation that “[t]he use of dubbing is typical of the period and international co-productions [that] together with the halls of mirrors (and windows and doorways), also serves to further dissociate the characters from any true ‘self’ or ‘essence,’” seems to go better along with Fassbinder’s own idea in “Fassbinder Representing Germany.” There, he mentions how “[t]he third generation is today’s, who just indulges in action without thinking, without either ideology or politics, and who, probably without knowing it, are like puppets whose wires are being pulled by others,” (38).
This is represented in the film by the foregrounded—if unfocused—puppet clown shown in throughout. The lifelessness of Isle’s body laying alongside the still puppet is like a parallel of this logic. When the puppet clown appears again, it is during the inspection of the detectives. This infiltration of the rebel’s space, along the obvious, child-like babbling of Bernhard von Stein demonstrate the extent to which the members of the group are puppets to the system. The constant, overlapping sounds—a point of focus on previous blog posts, along with the incompetence and unreadiness of the group’s dynamic—has a complex, dual role in the film, like most other aspects. Yes, as a technique it stands for the infiltration of media and the system everywhere. As a tool, it forces the audience to be uncomfortably aware as to not miss the varied sources of information. Even more importantly, as mentioned by Thomas Elsaesser, “the careful work on both sound and image creates another kind of reality altogether, more inside (every)one’s head than in a specific place or period” (39).
This specific use for the noise and multiple perspectives is important to put the audience inside the chaotic and—at times—incomprehensible atmosphere of the third generation members. More tangibly, the placing of the action inside for a vast majority of the film pushes the point and makes it reminiscent of The Dreamers(2003). Their disassociation from the initial ideology, their lack of understanding of the original move, their childish behavior, and their isolation emphasized the idea that without organization, determination, guidance, will, and direction, an ideology becomes so disfigured it ends up being great talk, little action, miscommunication, and reckless behavior that is freakily similar to child's play. While Fassbinder’s Germany in Autumn’s (1978) table conversation with his mother, demonstrates a relentless, merciless, and paranoiac questioning of the moment, the carnivalesque tonality of The Third Generation is like a grown-up’s condemnation upon looking back. Caught in the rush of the moment, indecipherable things appear to make sense, but with just enough distance, the discordance is more easily identifiable, less appealing, and more easily critique.
The question of agency a group or individual returns in "The Third Generation". It was previously brought up in "The Company You Keep" in the particular scene with the professor. The professor in "The Company You Keep" believes that individual actions lead to a change of history, rather than fate or production. It is worth noting that West German did not fight or even ask for democracy, rather it was "handed" to them after WWII. The idea of agency is expanded by Fassbinder in this film, because the two-faced terrorist lack reason in their actions to create change. This as Fassbinder says plays right into the hands of their enemies, i.e. the state, capitalist forces. Quote, in reference to the third generation of RAF, "people who have no reason, no motive, no despair, no utopia can be used by others." Fassbinder asks does it really matter if the terrorist without reason creates the CEO, or vice versa, what matter is that this terrorism without direction plays right into the hands of the CEO. This is especially true in West German, where throughout the RAFs activity, there was a lack of a militant working class. They may have supported the RAF, but were very tentative to even speak out on the subject in public. A great quote from Brecht applies to this lack of direction by the third generation, "only the dumbest calves choose their own butchers". The third generation recklessness chose their butchers who turned out to be the first generation's enemy.
Also great signs of apathy by the terrorists. They let Ilse stay around because of her ability to blend in as a junkie. They watch her do drugs and comment on it from a distance, but never try to help her with her addiction or even confront it. Same with the baby, they keep the baby around because it gives them some sort of cover. "After all what kind of terrorist keeps a baby", is said, I believe by Hanna Schgyulla's character, who is the babies mother. This lack of reason is present throughout the movie.
As a few people have said, I think one of the main goals of this film was to point out the disconnection the third generation RAF members had from the ideals of those before them, I.E. the first and second generation RAF that we saw in The Baader-Meinhof Complex. They never mention the RAF or the previous generations, or really the reason they are formed this group, they just carry out the tasks that August gives them, who is ultimately giving them tasks, which, as we find out later in the film, are all actually in favor of what they supposedly stand against, capitalism. All of these tasks are so that PJ Lurz (this movies symbol for capitalism and what they are standing against) can sell more computers to some sort of “counter-terrorism” unit of the government. In the excerpt from Thomas Elsaesser’s article “Fassbinder’s Germany” Fassbinder is quoted as saying “The third generation is today’s, who just indulges in action without thinking, without either ideology or politics, and who, probably without knowing it, are like puppets whose wires are pulled by others.” This view of Fassbinder’s is directly represented in “The Third Generation”. There is no real rhyme or reason to what they are doing, they are just puppets whose wires are pulled by August and PJ Lurz. This movie is quite different than what most people are used to. The plot really isn’t very important to Fassbinder, he gives away the ending in the first few minutes. To him there plot is just a device to keep the viewer engaged in the film long enough that he can get his point across about how disconnected their morals, their passion and the reasoning for their actions are from the first and second generations. Another thing I noticed, was that this film was indeed absurd, but it was still quite “consumable” in the sense that it didn’t make the viewers think a whole lot. For example, Antonio Das Mortes uses many different interlocking scenes that often confuse the viewer and make them think about what is happening and what the meaning of this scene is saying. However in the Third Generation there is no jumping back and forth between scenes, it is just a standard plot told in chronological order that would be engaging to most “normal” viewers. I think this was done intentionally by Fassbinder because if the plot jumped around and had many twists and turns, accompanied by the already existing absurdist elements, this movie would be difficult to swallow so to speak and it’s true message wouldn’t get across to many people, that is the essence of how disconnected the third generation was in their ideals and principles.
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the films is easily consumable and that it does' take viewers think a whole lot. Judging by what other students have posted above this doesn't ring true. Only because the plot is linear doesn't necessarily mean the film can be consumed easily; at the same time, you are right in calling attention to the difference w/r/t Antonio in terms of plot structure. And that there might be a good reason for this difference is also hinted at by you in your last sentence.
Sometimes abstracting a film can help communicate its meaning. Not always is that the case for The Third Generation. The film has a few inexplicable scenes, but it also shows it can communicate well through absurdism. The advantage of using a heightened style is that more 'on the nose' symbolism can function without seeming blunt. One such moment is when Bernard tries to talk Franz out of going to the cemetery. Franz won't listen and continues to on toward his death, as he does, he is literally disguised as a blind man representing their willing blindness to the truth. Something like this would never work in the realm of realism.
"The Third Generation is today's, who just indulge in action without thinking, without either ideology or politics, and who, probably without knowing it, are like puppets who's wires are pulled by others."
While the master scheme of Lurz was to be kidnapped in order to sell more computers, the reality has some more distressing implications. The danger implied is that these thoughtless actions will lead to the creation of a police state and the use of mass surveillance. Fassbinder seems to really lay into the agents of The Third Generation by rubbing their noses in their blindness and absurdity. The kidnapping of Lurz and the moments after are so over the top they could have been taken out of a Saturday Night Live skit (if SNL was much much darker). And it is telling that Fassbinder had the only one to figure out the conspiracy be the bumbling oaf Bernard. It is as if he is saying "Even an idiot could see the truth! How easily you are manipulated." Tragically, Fassbinder implies that even explicitly revealing the truth to these people would not stop them in their blind pursuit of their goals. And so they are doomed to become the tools for their enemies.
As the reading explores, the power dynamics add nuance to this skewering of The Third Generation. It creates a layer of humanity on top of the silliness that seeks to take the movement and attempts to explain the members' individual choices. Ilise's struggle with addiction leads to not only her downfall but that of Franz's as well. Bernard, powerless against the inspector, but ultimately strong enough to withhold the truth, causing his own downfall. Counter to what Thomas Elsaesser argues, it seems that these power dynamics are not what allows Germany to function, but rather are what seems to be tearing it apart.
The constant barrage of sound in Rainer Werner Fassbinder's "The Third Generation" - whether it be the television, the film's score, or a crying baby - as Senses of Cinema's Darragh O' Donoghue puts it, "rather than connect, it serves to create noise and chaos".
ReplyDeleteA point definitely to be expanded upon.
The film's endless stream of noises illustrates, as O' Donoghue once again implies, "A complex network of communication and information". The film's fast-paced dialogue serves to show that despite this group of bourgeois professionals trying to act exactly as that, they cannot seem to rise above childish, unprofessional acts such as taking Bernhard von Stein's book and tossing it around à la the children's game "Monkey in the Middle". They are merely no more than bullies who, borrowing a phrase from German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer ("The world as will and idea"), and money from Lurz, set their plan into action. And although they ultimately achieve their goal of being able to be in a position to kill Lurz, they do it so ineffectively and unprofessionally that they didn't even realize they had a double agent with them the whole time, and many members of their group die in the process. "with the absence of a militant working class" as said by Thomas Elsaesser in "Fassbinder's Germany", the leftist bourgeois leave their comfortable lives for one of revolution and radical actions. Yet despite their synchronized actions, they "compete like the kids in any extended family." The film's cacophony of the group's non-stop world around them, disjoints the group from society (despite some of the sounds being from actual society) and shows them as madcap and chaotic, unable "to see behind this transparent view" of "establishment’s interest to restrict the dissemination of “real” information".
Good.
DeleteI feel like there are already way too many things to talk about here, but here goes.
ReplyDeleteSo, Schopenhauer's 'The World as Will and Idea' is basically a synthesis of Spinoza and Kant. Schopenhauer starts off by noticing that the human body, i.e. MY human body, is perceived by me in two ways. When I move my hand, for example, I can see/feel it moving as though it were any other physical object; I also experience my willing it to move or my perception of it being caused to move by me. Will and representation. And Schopenhauer thinks that it's completely plausible to accept this w/r/t ME because I can feel it happening, but that there's also no reason to believe that my body is the only thing that acts this way, or that my class of body is the only thing that acts this way, or even, that /anything/ is the only thing that acts this way.
The whole world, according to Schopenhauer, functions on two levels: will and representation.
Now, this is where you can really see Spinoza coming through; if you're not familiar, Spinoza was a 17th century philosopher who basically believed that every physical or spiritual object in the universe is composed of the same substance, that substance being God, and that we are all just different expressions of God [which, I maintain, if you substitute 'universe' or even 'matter' for God, is a very nonreligious view]. In the same way, Schopenhauer believes each individual object or being to be only a representation of the world, or more generally the universe, acting independently. And this independent action is the ghost in the machine for Schopenhauer. Because we each have individual will that is simultaneously part of the same overarching will, our personal squabbles are basically the world fighting itself, and according to Schopenhauer, the world will pretty much keep fighting itself to the end of time. It's a sort of God-as-universe theory, but without God's ability to provide positive direction, so to speak.
How does this apply to Fassbinder's 'The Third Generation'? I would argue that it's fairly clear that the film is applied Schopenhauer. Multiple powers are fighting each other without the presence of a determinate or positivistic end, represented by the capitalists and the RAF, neither of whom are concerned about the good of the people. But, the Schopenhauer reveals itself in minor details as well. Specifically, the scene where Rudolf is walking slowly through the noisy, chaotic apartment [Ilse playing guitar and singing, Franz speaking to no one in particular about the television, which itself is droning on and on, Behrnard reading aloud and gesturing wildly, August attempting to engage Rudolf in conversation, and all the while, a whining alarm crescendoing in the background]. There are multiple individual wills functioning in that scene, represented by the voices of the people in the room, but since there is no overarching vision, no one can be heard.
I feel like they stopped saying the phrase after a certain point in the film. I think it occurs after some character starts paraphrasing Dostoevsky when he/she says "everything is allowed."I think it may have been Lurz. This could all be wrong.
DeleteAlso, and this is more of a question for Dr Abel / anyone who has seen the film before: when Behrnard exclaims, 'It was cancer!' directly into the camera, does he sort of smirk at us? Did I imagine that? Was it potentially a fuckup on the part of the actor, or was the character of Behrnard breaking the fourth wall in order to tell the audience that no, it wasn't cancer? Does it really /matter/ which one it was intended to be, because it really seems to function as a dramatic aside regardless of whether Fassbinder put it in on purpose?
ReplyDeleteI'd have to look at the moment--I know which one you're talking about; if I remember I'll look at it before class (my DVD is on campus).
DeleteAlso, nice explanation of the philosophers. Spinoza is indeed often read as god = nature, with the latter ultimately being more significant concept than the religious one. And at least one prominent strain of interpretation of Spinoza--Deleuze and Negri in particular--would likely argue that the volitional aspect of Schopenhauer's WILL and IDEA (representation) isn't as strongly present in Spinoza (where it's more about pre-individual affects that "precede" consciousness and recognition, and thus also idea/representation). In a way, D&N would argue, I think, that AS is a conservative reading of Spinoza, taking the radical sting out of him.
What really strikes me as interesting with The Third Generation is how excessive the film is. Like John mentioned above, the films is littered with all sorts of sounds that create a sort of dissonance between the dialogue of the film and the action. After reading the article on Fassbinder, I believe that there is another factor that contributes to this, which is the amount of melodrama in the film.
ReplyDeleteCompared to the more conservatively staged Bader-Meinhof Complex, The Third Generation really packs in the drama, making some of the scenes become absurd, which eventually reaches it's climax near the end of the film where P.J. Lurz is kidnapped with a plan that involves clowns, carriages, and large guns (whereas Bader-Meinhof only removed the former).
This melodramatic element actually helped me take the film more seriously than Bader-Meinhof, in that the dramatic way the film portrayed the events almost created a dissonance between the very serious events that happened. Perhaps it's just me, but it helped give me a bit more of a perspective on what happened as opposed to a straight up adaptation of the events. This is what was described as the "self-revealing yet critical" element of Fassbinders films from this week's article. All I can say is that it's bizarre, but it works.
Here are a few quotes from Bertolt Brecht:
ReplyDelete"Art is not a mirror with which to reflect reality but a hammer with which to shape it."
and
"The question of what artistic devices we should choose, is simply a question of how we can get our audience to become socially active, how we can knock them into shape. We should try out every conceivable device which can help toward this aim, whether its old or new."
From what can tell, Fassbinder dug Brecht quite a bit and this is quite apparent in the Third Generation. There is no doubt that this film makes for a strange viewing experience. It is clear that the film is not trying to be realistic or mimetic. But how exactly is this film strange and what is it trying to prove with this strangeness?
The form itself of the film is not atypical. There is a beginning, a middle, and an end. The narrative takes place chronologically, with no flashbacks. It's in color. Its shot in 35 mm film. These are forms that the Hollywood audience knows and feels comfortable with. This differs from the form of Glauber Rocha's Antonio Das Mortes, in which many scenes are interlaced with each other. The Third Generation is Brechtian not in its form but in its content.
By far the most apparent irregularity with the film is the presence of the human voice within it. There is hardly a moment of silence in the film. But most of the time, the human voice has no visible speaker. It is simply something in the air: lots of somethings in air, in multiple languages. It seems that the characters can tune in or out onto specific voices in the room, just as the audience does while watching, but cannot take the chorus in as a whole. They are separated from the whole because they are unable to comprehend it; they are, as is the audience, (especially an audience who must rely on subtitles, which only can relate one voice at a time,) trapped listening to the individual, while the rest of the voices get lost in their collective white noise of babel.
These scenes may seem very strange to the native Hollywood viewer, but they are not without reason, without will. They are trying to prove a point about the state of affairs in Germany at the time and also, trying to prove a point about the politics of filmmaking. It is no secret that Fassbinder was a leftist "sympathizer." Rather than act out illegally and violently, he has chosen to make films instead. The terrorist and the radical film maker have a lot in common in their goals, but not in their means. Fassbinder wanted to get the people to examine their society and their sins and attempt to change, just as the terrorists did, be he makes art instead of bombs. And when German terrorists, by the third generation, had become basically devoid of ideals, Fassbinder was able to keep his. With the din of voices in the room, he is able to comment on the obsession with the individual in the commune, to critique both the terrorists and the society as a whole, while at the same time, rebel against the standard dogmatic filmmaking, by reminding the viewer constantly, that what they're watching, is art.
Nicely done. One observation: as a native speaker of German I actually find it easier to watch the film WITH subtitles than without; the subs clarify what w/o them would remain often obscure...
DeleteWith both Germany in Autumn and The Third Generation, as one student suggested, one can see that Fassbinder’s primarily interested in dialog and melodrama than dramatic action as a way to communicate ideas. Many of his films feature characters intimately conversing within a domestic interior setting who, appear to be, in isolation from the outside world, and his interest in dialog and interiors directly relates to his theatrical background as a director and playwright. This isolation is ironic, for example, in The Third Generation where P.J. Lurz’s secretary would rather watch the television screen than observe the outside world through Lurz’s high–rise office that overlooks Berlin. Or in the case of Germany in Autumn, Fassbinder shares more interest in limiting the characters within the confines of their apartment and have them discuss the events of the plane hijackings rather than literally depicting the events on–screen. This may relate to the Fassbinder article where the author argues that the Third Generation shows “the absence of a militant working class, there was no longer even the possibility of a collective revolutionary subject” which would explain why his characters rarely “organize” outside of the confines of their domestic unit but would rather discuss political activism in private than collectively form in the public sphere. Even the point of revolutionary action in The Third Generation occurs in a short burst near the finale of the film. Fassbinder, it seems, shares no interest in this. As another student pointed out, the theatricality of his work comes from his exaggeration of the film medium, particularly the cinematography and lighting, that give his films a surrealistic quality, so it is not so much what the characters are doing but how they are photographed.
ReplyDeleteMarco mentioned in class yesterday how Fassbinder’s “The Third Generation” deals with the group of people that we see at the end of “The Baader-Meinhof Complex”. The last lines of that film hold true after viewing Fassbinder’s more in depth look at the generation of individuals that came after Baader-Meinhof: “Stop seeing them as they never were”. I don’t recall any direct references to Baader-Meinhof by the group in “The Third Generation,” but it is clear that their group was formed because of the actions of those that preceded them. The fact that they do not mention the RAF only strengthens the argument that they have no understanding of what they are doing or the cause that they are fighting for. In Darragh O’Donoghue’s piece from “Senses of Cinema” he discusses the nature of this new generation, denouncing them as “…a group of bourgeois professionals…[who] enjoy the “game” of being in a terrorist cell, with its apparatus of codes, passwords, whispers and disguises, but literally wet themselves when called to action.” As O’Donoghue points out, these individuals enjoy sneaking around and speaking in codes (“The world as will and idea”) as if what they are doing holds any real meaning or significance. There is one small moment in the film where the group is playing Monopoly, which is a small and funny way for Fassbinder to show their lack of understanding. They are playing a game that symbolizes the capitalist society that they appear (do they even know?) to be fighting against, yet are ultimately being manipulated by and for (PJ Lurz).
ReplyDeleteAnother important moment in displaying the groups’ incompetence is when they go to steal the papers. They have guns, yet are still scared of being caught by the guard on duty, so much so that the man (I forgot which one) pees himself. Fassbinder portrays this generation in direct opposition to the way that the earlier generations, like Baader-Meinhof , acted (or were perceived to have acted). Fassbinder himself provides the best despcription of this latest generation of “activists” in the Elsaesser “Fassbinder Representing Germany” excerpt, stating, “The third generation is today’s, who just indulges in action without thinking, without either ideology or politics, and who, probably without knowing it, are like puppets whose wires are pulled by others.” They have no specific reason for their actions besides August continually setting up meetings and planning certain actions, which ultimately reveals how they are simply puppets (As Fassbinder said) that are manipulated into doing things that they have no explanation or justification for.
I did not really understand The Third Generation. Even reflecting on it now, I have no Idea of what the purpose of the film was. I understand the basic plot, but the absurdist element completely throws me off. This could be because of the subtitles as well, missing some of the intonations that the actors could have had which could have added a bit to understanding the absurdist element or even the plot more for that matter.
ReplyDeleteOne of the interesting things in Thomas Elsaesser’s piece, Fassbinder's Germany: History Identity Subject, was an excerpt quoting Fassbinder on what the Third Generation is. Fassbinder described the Third Generation as, “[indulging] in action without thinking, without either ideology or politics, and who, probably without knowing it are like puppets whose wires are pulled by others.” This quote is a summation of Fassbinder’s film. From the film, an audience would not be able to gather what the goal of this group was, or what they were even fighting. The only thing that the audiences are really able to figure out is that all of the members of this group are being used.
One final thing in this film that I also did not understand was the soundtrack. It seemed like throughout the entire film, there were at least 3 different sounds going on. The sounds were loud and repetitive, for instance, in one of the scenes in the apartment, the TV was on, a book was being read aloud, and characters were having a discussion. It seemed to overwhelm the senses. I am not sure of the point of this other than to put the audience in a state of wariness, or perhaps to force them to listen to the conversations being held or gather nothing form the scene at all.
Yes, the AFFECTIVE quality of the film seems very much at the heart of what the film does/tries to do, no? So it'd be worth discussing this more.
DeleteThe Third Generation is a film told in six distinct chapters, and what is distinct about them is that they are all based off the writing in public restrooms. Now I would not call myself an expert in naming different chapters of films, however the first place I’m probably not going to look for them is the bathroom. Why is this a thing? How high was Fassbinder on cocaine when he thought of this idea. Is this just a drug idea? Probably not Fassbinder too smart like that, it probably mean something so let try to figure that out.
ReplyDeleteThe Third Generation is definitely a film from left field, it have so many genres and different plotlines so going within it that it can be hard to pinpoint what Fassbinder wants out of this film. I the beginning it is basically this abstract comedy, basically trapped in their house like children playing games and in the second half it becomes a serious thrill where they’re trying to plan out a bombing. This interesting tonal shift almost is almost too obvious but is critical to point out Fassbinder critique of the third generation.
In Darragh O’Donghue’s article “The Third Generation”, she points out that this group enjoy the “game” of being in a terrorist cell, with its apparatus of codes, passwords, whispers and disguises, but literally wet themselves when called to action. As a quote from anarchist theorist Mikhail Bakunin implies, these are children who refuse to grow up: they bully those weaker as if they were still in a schoolyard, and ultimately can’t handle “real” life.” (para 2).
Fassbinder is trying to argue that the third generation was not prepared for what they were about to face, sure they enjoy the status of being terrorists on the run but when they had to actually perform their duties they are scared out of their minds.
And if we could go back to my original question, each profane bathroom scribbling highlighted how inept they were because that is probably the most rebellious act they have ever done. A thirteen year old could vandalize a bathroom; it’s not that hard especially no one knows you did it. Fassbinder uses these bathroom quotes to exposes how immature this terrorists’ group was and to give some focus on those details.
What I cannot figure out is which side Fassbinder is supporting? Is he hypercritical of the terrorist left who should have realized they were too immature to participate or he is mad at the right for trying to integrate a fight with these children?
The question in the last paragraph is really crucial!
DeleteFassbinder’s The Third Generation never quite settles on one depth of field. There’s almost always one character in front of another, or in an apparent separate part of the scene. There’s a specific foreground, middleground and background established in every scene, and often the characters shift through these depths of field. Whether it is a doorway, a wall, a separate room, or simply in and out of focus, this establishment of placement within the scene is obvious, and at times seems forced and awkwardly deliberate. It is both intriguing and uncomfortable; it’s an odd technique for a film as bleakly humorous as this one (but unique for this time period of film), but stations a certain distance between the audience and what is happening in the scene. It is as if the camera plays a character itself in the film, but puts a layer of narration between us, the viewer, and the film (like a layer of misunderstanding between the innocent bystander and a terrorist perhaps?). When characters are in the same depth of field it seems visually awkward, and makes viewing the scene uneasy, like we are seeing something we are not supposed to or we are not sure what exactly we are supposed to focus on.
ReplyDeleteI like your CINEMATIC analysis and your speculation about what it does with regard to its content and us as viewers
DeleteAs both the review “The Third Generation” and Professor Abel mentioned, Fassbinder’s choice to give out the plot might be, in Darragh O’Donoghue’s words, “a joke in the opening minutes.” However, his observation that “[t]he use of dubbing is typical of the period and international co-productions [that] together with the halls of mirrors (and windows and doorways), also serves to further dissociate the characters from any true ‘self’ or ‘essence,’” seems to go better along with Fassbinder’s own idea in “Fassbinder Representing Germany.” There, he mentions how “[t]he third generation is today’s, who just indulges in action without thinking, without either ideology or politics, and who, probably without knowing it, are like puppets whose wires are being pulled by others,” (38).
ReplyDeleteThis is represented in the film by the foregrounded—if unfocused—puppet clown shown in throughout. The lifelessness of Isle’s body laying alongside the still puppet is like a parallel of this logic. When the puppet clown appears again, it is during the inspection of the detectives. This infiltration of the rebel’s space, along the obvious, child-like babbling of Bernhard von Stein demonstrate the extent to which the members of the group are puppets to the system. The constant, overlapping sounds—a point of focus on previous blog posts, along with the incompetence and unreadiness of the group’s dynamic—has a complex, dual role in the film, like most other aspects. Yes, as a technique it stands for the infiltration of media and the system everywhere. As a tool, it forces the audience to be uncomfortably aware as to not miss the varied sources of information. Even more importantly, as mentioned by Thomas Elsaesser, “the careful work on both sound and image creates another kind of reality altogether, more inside (every)one’s head than in a specific place or period” (39).
This specific use for the noise and multiple perspectives is important to put the audience inside the chaotic and—at times—incomprehensible atmosphere of the third generation members. More tangibly, the placing of the action inside for a vast majority of the film pushes the point and makes it reminiscent of The Dreamers(2003). Their disassociation from the initial ideology, their lack of understanding of the original move, their childish behavior, and their isolation emphasized the idea that without organization, determination, guidance, will, and direction, an ideology becomes so disfigured it ends up being great talk, little action, miscommunication, and reckless behavior that is freakily similar to child's play. While Fassbinder’s Germany in Autumn’s (1978) table conversation with his mother, demonstrates a relentless, merciless, and paranoiac questioning of the moment, the carnivalesque tonality of The Third Generation is like a grown-up’s condemnation upon looking back. Caught in the rush of the moment, indecipherable things appear to make sense, but with just enough distance, the discordance is more easily identifiable, less appealing, and more easily critique.
good observation of the fact that most of the film takes place inside and that this resembles DREAMERS. Also interesting tie in with earlier RWF film
DeleteThe question of agency a group or individual returns in "The Third Generation". It was previously brought up in "The Company You Keep" in the particular scene with the professor. The professor in "The Company You Keep" believes that individual actions lead to a change of history, rather than fate or production. It is worth noting that West German did not fight or even ask for democracy, rather it was "handed" to them after WWII. The idea of agency is expanded by Fassbinder in this film, because the two-faced terrorist lack reason in their actions to create change. This as Fassbinder says plays right into the hands of their enemies, i.e. the state, capitalist forces. Quote, in reference to the third generation of RAF, "people who have no reason, no motive, no despair, no utopia can be used by others." Fassbinder asks does it really matter if the terrorist without reason creates the CEO, or vice versa, what matter is that this terrorism without direction plays right into the hands of the CEO. This is especially true in West German, where throughout the RAFs activity, there was a lack of a militant working class. They may have supported the RAF, but were very tentative to even speak out on the subject in public. A great quote from Brecht applies to this lack of direction by the third generation, "only the dumbest calves choose their own butchers". The third generation recklessness chose their butchers who turned out to be the first generation's enemy.
ReplyDeleteAlso great signs of apathy by the terrorists. They let Ilse stay around because of her ability to blend in as a junkie. They watch her do drugs and comment on it from a distance, but never try to help her with her addiction or even confront it. Same with the baby, they keep the baby around because it gives them some sort of cover. "After all what kind of terrorist keeps a baby", is said, I believe by Hanna Schgyulla's character, who is the babies mother. This lack of reason is present throughout the movie.
As a few people have said, I think one of the main goals of this film was to point out the disconnection the third generation RAF members had from the ideals of those before them, I.E. the first and second generation RAF that we saw in The Baader-Meinhof Complex. They never mention the RAF or the previous generations, or really the reason they are formed this group, they just carry out the tasks that August gives them, who is ultimately giving them tasks, which, as we find out later in the film, are all actually in favor of what they supposedly stand against, capitalism. All of these tasks are so that PJ Lurz (this movies symbol for capitalism and what they are standing against) can sell more computers to some sort of “counter-terrorism” unit of the government. In the excerpt from Thomas Elsaesser’s article “Fassbinder’s Germany” Fassbinder is quoted as saying “The third generation is today’s, who just indulges in action without thinking, without either ideology or politics, and who, probably without knowing it, are like puppets whose wires are pulled by others.” This view of Fassbinder’s is directly represented in “The Third Generation”. There is no real rhyme or reason to what they are doing, they are just puppets whose wires are pulled by August and PJ Lurz. This movie is quite different than what most people are used to. The plot really isn’t very important to Fassbinder, he gives away the ending in the first few minutes. To him there plot is just a device to keep the viewer engaged in the film long enough that he can get his point across about how disconnected their morals, their passion and the reasoning for their actions are from the first and second generations. Another thing I noticed, was that this film was indeed absurd, but it was still quite “consumable” in the sense that it didn’t make the viewers think a whole lot. For example, Antonio Das Mortes uses many different interlocking scenes that often confuse the viewer and make them think about what is happening and what the meaning of this scene is saying. However in the Third Generation there is no jumping back and forth between scenes, it is just a standard plot told in chronological order that would be engaging to most “normal” viewers. I think this was done intentionally by Fassbinder because if the plot jumped around and had many twists and turns, accompanied by the already existing absurdist elements, this movie would be difficult to swallow so to speak and it’s true message wouldn’t get across to many people, that is the essence of how disconnected the third generation was in their ideals and principles.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the films is easily consumable and that it does' take viewers think a whole lot. Judging by what other students have posted above this doesn't ring true. Only because the plot is linear doesn't necessarily mean the film can be consumed easily; at the same time, you are right in calling attention to the difference w/r/t Antonio in terms of plot structure. And that there might be a good reason for this difference is also hinted at by you in your last sentence.
DeleteSometimes abstracting a film can help communicate its meaning. Not always is that the case for The Third Generation. The film has a few inexplicable scenes, but it also shows it can communicate well through absurdism. The advantage of using a heightened style is that more 'on the nose' symbolism can function without seeming blunt. One such moment is when Bernard tries to talk Franz out of going to the cemetery. Franz won't listen and continues to on toward his death, as he does, he is literally disguised as a blind man representing their willing blindness to the truth. Something like this would never work in the realm of realism.
ReplyDelete"The Third Generation is today's, who just indulge in action without thinking, without either ideology or politics, and who, probably without knowing it, are like puppets who's wires are pulled by others."
While the master scheme of Lurz was to be kidnapped in order to sell more computers, the reality has some more distressing implications. The danger implied is that these thoughtless actions will lead to the creation of a police state and the use of mass surveillance. Fassbinder seems to really lay into the agents of The Third Generation by rubbing their noses in their blindness and absurdity. The kidnapping of Lurz and the moments after are so over the top they could have been taken out of a Saturday Night Live skit (if SNL was much much darker). And it is telling that Fassbinder had the only one to figure out the conspiracy be the bumbling oaf Bernard. It is as if he is saying "Even an idiot could see the truth! How easily you are manipulated." Tragically, Fassbinder implies that even explicitly revealing the truth to these people would not stop them in their blind pursuit of their goals. And so they are doomed to become the tools for their enemies.
As the reading explores, the power dynamics add nuance to this skewering of The Third Generation. It creates a layer of humanity on top of the silliness that seeks to take the movement and attempts to explain the members' individual choices. Ilise's struggle with addiction leads to not only her downfall but that of Franz's as well. Bernard, powerless against the inspector, but ultimately strong enough to withhold the truth, causing his own downfall. Counter to what Thomas Elsaesser argues, it seems that these power dynamics are not what allows Germany to function, but rather are what seems to be tearing it apart.