During the 1920s, Germany experienced seminal and inspirational cinematic movements as a result of the social and political upheaval that the country was enduring at the time. German Expressionist films such as Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (Wiene, 1919) and Nosferatu (Murnau, 1922), were distinguished by the portrayal of subjective emotion through the distortion of objective reality. The films of this movement can certainly be considered expressive; they consistently reject the closed romantic realism of Hollywood and convey their messages through the film’s look and style rather than its content.
One of the most expressive elements of Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari is its narrative structure, which challenged the dominant narrative conventions of the time. The framing device, non-linear structure and plot twist disrupt the narrative, adding to the chaotic and disorderly feel of the film and reflecting Francis’ suggested insanity. The revelation that our narrator is in fact interned in an asylum and that the entire narrative may, therefore, have been a figment of his imagination, increases the Expressionistic sense of the film, as the genre shifts here, from what at first appears to be an example of the conventional detective movies that were popular at the time, to a more macabre and unsettling psychological thriller which is characteristic of the Expressionist movement. This method of storytelling would have been particularly effective for a German audience of the 1920s, as the discredit to Francis’ reliability as a narrator is worrying for the audience. Order is not restored, as is conventionally expected by the end of most feature films, because the protagonist is powerless to defeat the implied evil, Dr. Caligari.
Another interpretation of the film’s conclusion, however, could claim that order is restored in the sense that the murders did not really happen and Francis’ lunacy is once again retained as he is wrestled into a straight-jacket and locked up in a cell. Nevertheless, the narrative structure of the film leaves the audience questioning and unsettled, and this would resonate with the German audience at the time of the film’s release because of the uncertainty and vulnerability that the Germans felt as a nation during this time; their loss of the First World War had led to political and economic instability and the Treaty of Versailles had stripped them of their military and some of their territory, leaving them powerless and their country in disarray.
The narrative structure of Nosferatu, however, contrasts to that of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, being in many ways much less expressive. It is linear, and inter-titles are used to separate the plot into acts and to highlight the presence of an omniscient narrator. These techniques render the production more like a literary text. However, both films share some common narrative elements which would have been powerful for a German audience in the 1920s; both centre on a figure of immense power, a flawed or incompetent hero, and a small, traditionally German community which is under threat from outsiders.
Films from this movement display conflict inspired by the political instability that was ravaging the nation at the time. German Expressionism seems to condemn political upheaval, illustrating the negative effects that it has had upon the population.
The aesthetics of both German Expressionist films can be considered very expressive. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is notable for its obvious rejection of realism in the mise-en-scene, with its painted, theatrical sets and hauntingly distorted buildings that seem to lean in on the subjects, creating unnatural and uncomfortable angles. This is very much a typical convention of Expressionism, because it emphasises the fact that we are receiving Francis’ subjective expression rather than an objective view of the world of the film; the mise-en-scene conveys the confinement he feels, either because he is trapped by his own insanity and the horrific events inside his head, or because he is physically trapped in the asylum. The production also seems to make no attempt to recreate reality in relation to the performance of its actors. The characterisation, for example, of Dr. Caligari and Cesare, is exaggerated, a detail which would have been particularly effective for a German audience of the 1920s because of what these two characters can be seen to represent: Caligari a corrupt or untrustworthy figure of authority, and Cesare perhaps an innocent common citizen completely under the leader’s control. Nowadays, however, these characters may not be found so effective, because the ‘mad scientist’ and the ‘monster’ are now established conventions of the horror genre and would be considered relatively typical and unoriginal.
The Expressionism in Nosferatu is much less explicit in terms of the mise-en-scene. Because Murnau filmed on location, the settings are a lot more realistic and we get the sense of an objective reality. Location filming, being expensive, was very unusual practice in the early 1920s, which can be seen as Expressionistic in that it shows a rejection of previous methods of filmmaking, which is a characteristic of the movement. As in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, the performance of one of the main characters, Count Orlok, is expressively exaggerated. This is effective in emphasising the many messages that he may represent, such as a fear of infection and a fear of outsiders.
Despite an obvious hostility towards figures of power because of Kaiser Wilhelm’s apparent betrayal, it is suggested that the Germans nevertheless desired a leader, because of the way that the audience at the fair is initially drawn to and in awe of Caligari.
The expressive storytelling in Nosferatu is a result of Murnau’s use of cinematography and exterior space. Murnau uses the fact that the film is not confined to a studio or to the subjective viewpoint of a narrator to compose shots that suggest an overabundance of off-screen space. This contrasts to the use of space in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, which is very interiorised and confined; however, both techniques convey a sense of vulnerability, which would have resonated with a 1920s’ German audience. Nosferatu, with its unsettling amount of exterior space, suggests an ease of travelling and crossing borders, perhaps playing on the Germans’ paranoia about being attacked or invaded, where as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari’s constraint and restriction may represent the nation feeling surrounded and dominated by countries towards which they felt resentful.
The cinematography in Nosferatu also contrasts to the use of the camera in Wiene’s production. Throughout The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, the camera is static, while Murnau uses a variety of angles and distances and many innovative techniques, such as the stop-motion technique, fast-motion and colour inversion. These help to distort reality and create a more subjective emotional viewpoint, and are the main ways in which the film can be considered Expressionistic.
The ‘expressive’ cinematic style of these films is essential in conveying their messages and values. Although The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari seems on the surface to be more expressive than Nosferatu, it is perhaps less effective in instilling fear in the audience, because of the way that the evil seems to be confined in Francis’ head by the end of the film, and its messages are partly diluted. Because Nosferatu does not have a subjective narrator, the subjective expression that it creates is that of the audience, arguably making its method of storytelling more effective for the audience than that of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.
Liz Cooper - A 22 year old media graduate from northern England, Liz now lives in London where she undertakes freelance television and writing work. A ...
Join the Conversation