In 1981, less than forty years after then end of the second world war, the idea of making a film sympathetic to the Germans must have seemed impossible. Those familiar with the commentary track to Das Boot will recall the report that there was concern at the earliest screenings when audiences cheered the title card that announced that about 75% of U-Boat crews died. This was supposed to be a sobering statistic, but the audience apparently saw this as a moment to crow about sticking to the Nazis.
That the film pulled off this feat should be appreciated. The formula was to
1. Mark a distinction between good German soldiers and true Nazis. The sailors on the boat were desperate to save the motherland and it is only the S.S. officer who buys into the ideals of the party. This is pattern we would see replicated in The Hunt for Red October with the crew not being particularly political, and annoyed by the political KBG-type officer on board. Who ever said communists and fascists don't have anything in common? Our captain rails against the losses of the war, but also notes the Allies are winning, noting that Churchill is getting the better of them. He also prefers British sailing tunes (It's a long way to see that Jurgen Prochnow is not a Nazi, but we can take a short-cut by way of Tipperary). This is the oldest rhetorical trick in the book--mark a distinction and stand on the preferable side of it.
2. Emphasize the youth of the "good" Germans. Most of the sailors on the boat are just kids. A point which is highly emphasized. These are not arch killers, but children off the farm who were thrust into a situation they didn't really understand.
3. Highlight the desperation of the U-Boat crews. We're shown people being pushed out to sea to cover gaps. We have discussions of losses--the mathematics of defeat. It's hard not to root for the underdog.
4. Show the grotesqueness of the crew. And boy do they: urinating on the captain's(!) car while he is in it, sexually harassing singers at the officer's club, bullying each other on the boat, poor hygiene aboard ship. All of this adds sympathy in that we see that the sailors are tortured souls acting out in a lost cause. This mirrors looming questions which could put us back on the offensive, "How could one be so grotesque as to fight for Hitler?" and "Will this film deny that the German war effort was anything less than grotesque?" -- Because our sailors are grotesque, we can relax a bit--we're not being asked to imagine that they're simply "the goodies." The film, in effect, pleads "Yes, they were grotesque, but they were also in an impossible situation!" In effect, the grotesqueness invites the audience to have sympathy for the devil, rather than the bridge too far of asking us to imagine that they were simply "angels in a bad circumstance."
Of the 4 methods, the 4th is the most interesting, I think. The first three are rather obvious. And indeed, there is an aspect of the grotesque which has permeated German culture ever since (architecture, music, porn) -- it is as if the culture is still doing penance by insisting, "Yes, yes we're dirty" (e.g., Angela Merkel experiencing obvious discomfort in that clip of her seeing people wave around German flags on a dais). Losing does considerable damage to the psyche. Dave Chappelle once joked that the Japanese have been drawing "Hello Kitty" ever since being nuked, and I think there's a grain of truth in that. The partial genocide of Native Americans appears to have done considerable damage considering the conditions on reservations which arguably could be semi-sovereign utopias. The price of losing isn't just unfavorable terms at the peace table, but also a loss of dignity and self-respect. Das Boot is effective, I think, because it apologizes for the war and the war crimes of Germany by sacrificing the image of the prim and proper soldier/sailor/pilot heroically striding into battle.Looking back on the film, I think 1-4 are a bit overdone/obvious/overplayed, but in 1981 I don't think that they could have climbed Mt. Impossible any other way.
That the film pulled off this feat should be appreciated. The formula was to
1. Mark a distinction between good German soldiers and true Nazis. The sailors on the boat were desperate to save the motherland and it is only the S.S. officer who buys into the ideals of the party. This is pattern we would see replicated in The Hunt for Red October with the crew not being particularly political, and annoyed by the political KBG-type officer on board. Who ever said communists and fascists don't have anything in common? Our captain rails against the losses of the war, but also notes the Allies are winning, noting that Churchill is getting the better of them. He also prefers British sailing tunes (It's a long way to see that Jurgen Prochnow is not a Nazi, but we can take a short-cut by way of Tipperary). This is the oldest rhetorical trick in the book--mark a distinction and stand on the preferable side of it.
2. Emphasize the youth of the "good" Germans. Most of the sailors on the boat are just kids. A point which is highly emphasized. These are not arch killers, but children off the farm who were thrust into a situation they didn't really understand.
3. Highlight the desperation of the U-Boat crews. We're shown people being pushed out to sea to cover gaps. We have discussions of losses--the mathematics of defeat. It's hard not to root for the underdog.
4. Show the grotesqueness of the crew. And boy do they: urinating on the captain's(!) car while he is in it, sexually harassing singers at the officer's club, bullying each other on the boat, poor hygiene aboard ship. All of this adds sympathy in that we see that the sailors are tortured souls acting out in a lost cause. This mirrors looming questions which could put us back on the offensive, "How could one be so grotesque as to fight for Hitler?" and "Will this film deny that the German war effort was anything less than grotesque?" -- Because our sailors are grotesque, we can relax a bit--we're not being asked to imagine that they're simply "the goodies." The film, in effect, pleads "Yes, they were grotesque, but they were also in an impossible situation!" In effect, the grotesqueness invites the audience to have sympathy for the devil, rather than the bridge too far of asking us to imagine that they were simply "angels in a bad circumstance."
Of the 4 methods, the 4th is the most interesting, I think. The first three are rather obvious. And indeed, there is an aspect of the grotesque which has permeated German culture ever since (architecture, music, porn) -- it is as if the culture is still doing penance by insisting, "Yes, yes we're dirty" (e.g., Angela Merkel experiencing obvious discomfort in that clip of her seeing people wave around German flags on a dais). Losing does considerable damage to the psyche. Dave Chappelle once joked that the Japanese have been drawing "Hello Kitty" ever since being nuked, and I think there's a grain of truth in that. The partial genocide of Native Americans appears to have done considerable damage considering the conditions on reservations which arguably could be semi-sovereign utopias. The price of losing isn't just unfavorable terms at the peace table, but also a loss of dignity and self-respect. Das Boot is effective, I think, because it apologizes for the war and the war crimes of Germany by sacrificing the image of the prim and proper soldier/sailor/pilot heroically striding into battle.Looking back on the film, I think 1-4 are a bit overdone/obvious/overplayed, but in 1981 I don't think that they could have climbed Mt. Impossible any other way.
Last edited by Corax; 09-12-23 at 08:58 AM.