No description available.

No description available.

Dans son ouvrage Shell Shock Cinema, publié en 2009, Anton Kaes se distancie fortement du travail fondateur et classique de Siegfried Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler, publiée en 1947, et portant sur le cinéma pendant la période de Weimar. Réfutant la thèse de Kracauer selon laquelle un inconscient collectif allemand annonce la montée du nazisme dans le cinéma de l’entre-deux-guerres, Kaes affirme au contraire que le shell shock, héritage de la Première Guerre mondiale, est l’un des moteurs du cinéma weimarien. Les travaux de Kaes s’inscrivent dans une historiographie en renouvellement qui, confrontant également la thèse de Kracauer, met désormais l’accent sur la Première Guerre mondiale, et non sur la Seconde Guerre mondiale, pour mieux comprendre et analyser le cinéma weimarien. Ce mémoire, tout en étudiant de façon détaillée l’historiographie du sujet, tend à approfondir et à réévaluer la thèse d’Anton Kaes en l’exposant à davantage de films représentant des traumatismes personnels, des traumatismes sociaux et des chocs post-traumatiques (CPT). Ces maux sont exacerbés par des tensions sociopolitiques – insurrection de janvier 1919, Traité de Versailles, occupation de la Ruhr, l’inflation de 1923-24, etc. – alimentant à la fois des représentations symboliques et concrètes d’expériences traumatisantes qui caractérisent l’ensemble du cinéma weimarien. / Anton Kaes’ 2009 Shell Shock Cinema made a clear shift from Siegfried Kracauer’s 1947 classic book, From Caligari to Hitler. Refuting Kracauer’s major thesis – which found hints of the rise of Nazism through an analysis of Weimar cinema – Kaes placed shell shock as a primary source of influence on the 1920’s German movies. Recent research takes a new look at Kracauer’s thesis and its significance, emphasizing the First World War, and not the Second World War, as the new cornerstone of studies on Weimar Cinema. This paper, while conducting a thorough review of literature on the subject, seeks to reconsider Kaes’ thesis, expending it to a larger filmography selected for its numerous representations of personal trauma, social trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These mental troubles are exacerbated by socio-political tensions, – such as the Versailles Peace Treaty, the Ruhr occupation, the January 1919 insurrection and the inflation of 1923-24, – feeding both symbolic and concrete depictions of traumatic experiences throughout the Weimarian cinema.

Dans son ouvrage Shell Shock Cinema, publié en 2009, Anton Kaes se distancie fortement du travail fondateur et classique de Siegfried Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler, publiée en 1947, et portant sur le cinéma pendant la période de Weimar. Réfutant la thèse de Kracauer selon laquelle un inconscient collectif allemand annonce la montée du nazisme dans le cinéma de l’entre-deux-guerres, Kaes affirme au contraire que le shell shock, héritage de la Première Guerre mondiale, est l’un des moteurs du cinéma weimarien. Les travaux de Kaes s’inscrivent dans une historiographie en renouvellement qui, confrontant également la thèse de Kracauer, met désormais l’accent sur la Première Guerre mondiale, et non sur la Seconde Guerre mondiale, pour mieux comprendre et analyser le cinéma weimarien. Ce mémoire, tout en étudiant de façon détaillée l’historiographie du sujet, tend à approfondir et à réévaluer la thèse d’Anton Kaes en l’exposant à davantage de films représentant des traumatismes personnels, des traumatismes sociaux et des chocs post-traumatiques (CPT). Ces maux sont exacerbés par des tensions sociopolitiques – insurrection de janvier 1919, Traité de Versailles, occupation de la Ruhr, l’inflation de 1923-24, etc. – alimentant à la fois des représentations symboliques et concrètes d’expériences traumatisantes qui caractérisent l’ensemble du cinéma weimarien. / Anton Kaes’ 2009 Shell Shock Cinema made a clear shift from Siegfried Kracauer’s 1947 classic book, From Caligari to Hitler. Refuting Kracauer’s major thesis – which found hints of the rise of Nazism through an analysis of Weimar cinema – Kaes placed shell shock as a primary source of influence on the 1920’s German movies. Recent research takes a new look at Kracauer’s thesis and its significance, emphasizing the First World War, and not the Second World War, as the new cornerstone of studies on Weimar Cinema. This paper, while conducting a thorough review of literature on the subject, seeks to reconsider Kaes’ thesis, expending it to a larger filmography selected for its numerous representations of personal trauma, social trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These mental troubles are exacerbated by socio-political tensions, – such as the Versailles Peace Treaty, the Ruhr occupation, the January 1919 insurrection and the inflation of 1923-24, – feeding both symbolic and concrete depictions of traumatic experiences throughout the Weimarian cinema.

Univ., Diss. u.d.T.: Müller-Wolff, Susanne: Ein Landschaftsgarten im Ilmtal--Jena, 2004, die Geschichte des herzoglichen Parks in Weimar im Spiegel der kunsttheoretischen Diskussion um 1800.

Between 1914 and 1919, Germans and Austrians experienced previously unimaginable sociopolitical transformations: four years of war, military defeat, the collapse of the Hohenzollern and Habsburg monarchies, the creation of democratic republics, and the redrawing of the map of Central Europe. Through an analysis of new state symbols and the staging of political and cultural celebrations, this dissertation explores the multiple and conflicting ways in which Germans and Austrians sought to reconceptualize the relationships between nation, state and politics in the wake of the First World War. Whereas the political right argued that democracy was a foreign imposition, supporters of democracy in both countries went to great lengths to refute these claims. In particular, German and Austrian republicans endeavored to link their fledgling democracies to the established tradition of großdeutsch nationalism – the idea that a German nation-state should include Austria – in an attempt to legitimize their embattled republics. By using nineteenth-century großdeutsch symbols and showing continued support for an Anschluss (political union) even after the Entente forbade it, republicans hoped to create a transborder German national community that would be compatible with a democratic body politic. As a project that investigates the entangled and comparative histories of Germany and Austria, this dissertation makes three contributions to the study of German nationalism and modern Central European history. First, in revealing the pervasiveness of großdeutsch ideas and symbols at this time, I point to the necessity of looking at both Germany and Austria when considering topics such as the redefinition of national identity and the creation of democracy in post-World War I Central Europe. Second, it highlights the need to move beyond the binary categorizations of civic and ethnic nationalisms, which place German nationalism in the latter category. As the republicans’ use of großdeutsch nationalism demonstrates, the creation of a transborder German community was not simply the work of the extreme political right. Third, it contributes to recent scholarship which seeks to move past the entrenched question of why interwar German and Austrian democracies failed. Instead of simply viewing the two republics as failures, it investigates the ways in which citizens engaged with the new form of government, as well as the prospects for the success of democracy in the wake of military defeat. In drawing attention to the differences between the German and Austrian experiments with democracy, this dissertation points to the relative strengths of the Weimar Republic when compared to the First Austrian Republic.

The proliferation of the doppelgänger theme in so many films of Wilhemine and Weimar Germany raises the question of its historical significance, in particular during Germany’s “crisis of classical modernity”. While previous studies have addressed the double from a narrative perspective, focusing on its psychological significations as divided self, this thesis instead considers the theme from a structural and historical perspective: how, as a technical reproduction of the human body that is ontologically double, at once real and unreal, it serves as a site for reflection on the visual experience of modernity and on the medium of cinema. The thesis begins by considering the relationship between the theme of the double, born circa 1800, and the burgeoning visual regimes of modernity. Important aspects of this relationship are the abstraction of representation from stable referents in the aftermath of Kantian thought, the empirical study of the observing subject, and the development of new technologies of recording and projection. Nineteenth-century technologies of optical illusion, such as the phantasmagoria and lifelike automata, as well as the itinerant showmen who displayed them, gave rise to doubles of the human body with uncanny effects of ontological uncertainty. These not only influenced the doppelgänger stories of German Romanticism and after, but also were ancestors of cinema’s doubles and their showmen. This study considers the “cinematic” themes of a set of stories and films of the double, including repeatedly performed scenarios of exhibition and voyeurism, visual pleasure and anxiety, foregroundings of the narration, and allusions to the history of cinema and media technologies. The central chapters of the thesis offer readings of five classics of German film: The Student of Prague (1913), The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari (1920), The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920), Waxworks (1924), and Metropolis (1926). Addressing the double as a reflexive theme of optical uncertainty, these readings focus on how moments of optical distress are depicted and how film language is used to construct a cinematic uncanny: an ontological problem arising from the ambivalent character of visual experience that affects the narrative and film form, characters and spectator alike. This perspective sheds light on the historical significance of the double theme, revealing its close relationship with the problematic status of vision and the observing subject in modernity, and with a special case of modern visual experience, the technological medium of cinema.

Mémoire numérisé par la Direction des bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal.

Thesis advisor: Devin Pendas / Ernst Juenger lived through almost the entire 20th century. This longevity has placed him at the center of many of the most defining moments of modern German history. It is not, however, simply his longevity but his attitudes that have caused such a controversy to grow up around him. A staunch nationalist and one might venture to say, war-monger, during the First World War and a virulent enemy of the Weimar Republic, many historians have classified him as a Nazi author. This thesis explores the relationsihp of Ernst Juenger to the National Socialists in the context of his writing and political leanings between the First World War and the end of the Second. Without understanding the integral differences between his ideology and that of the NSDAP (namely their divergence on the issues of racial purity, parliamentarianism, communism, the use of power, and the position of art)one cannot appreciate his place in history and his perspective on Germany. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2006. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: History. / Discipline: College Honors Program.

Between 1914 and 1919, Germans and Austrians experienced previously unimaginable sociopolitical transformations: four years of war, military defeat, the collapse of the Hohenzollern and Habsburg monarchies, the creation of democratic republics, and the redrawing of the map of Central Europe. Through an analysis of new state symbols and the staging of political and cultural celebrations, this dissertation explores the multiple and conflicting ways in which Germans and Austrians sought to reconceptualize the relationships between nation, state and politics in the wake of the First World War. Whereas the political right argued that democracy was a foreign imposition, supporters of democracy in both countries went to great lengths to refute these claims. In particular, German and Austrian republicans endeavored to link their fledgling democracies to the established tradition of großdeutsch nationalism – the idea that a German nation-state should include Austria – in an attempt to legitimize their embattled republics. By using nineteenth-century großdeutsch symbols and showing continued support for an Anschluss (political union) even after the Entente forbade it, republicans hoped to create a transborder German national community that would be compatible with a democratic body politic. As a project that investigates the entangled and comparative histories of Germany and Austria, this dissertation makes three contributions to the study of German nationalism and modern Central European history. First, in revealing the pervasiveness of großdeutsch ideas and symbols at this time, I point to the necessity of looking at both Germany and Austria when considering topics such as the redefinition of national identity and the creation of democracy in post-World War I Central Europe. Second, it highlights the need to move beyond the binary categorizations of civic and ethnic nationalisms, which place German nationalism in the latter category. As the republicans’ use of großdeutsch nationalism demonstrates, the creation of a transborder German community was not simply the work of the extreme political right. Third, it contributes to recent scholarship which seeks to move past the entrenched question of why interwar German and Austrian democracies failed. Instead of simply viewing the two republics as failures, it investigates the ways in which citizens engaged with the new form of government, as well as the prospects for the success of democracy in the wake of military defeat. In drawing attention to the differences between the German and Austrian experiments with democracy, this dissertation points to the relative strengths of the Weimar Republic when compared to the First Austrian Republic.