The Film Journal...Passionate and informed film criticism from an auteurist perspective.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

By Justin Stoeckel

Justin earned his Bachelor of Arts in English with a concentration in Film Studies from the University of Delaware in December 2002. His studies have included: Surrealism in Film, Film Theory and Criticism, European Film History and American Film History. He has written and directed several short films, plays and performed stand-up comedy at various clubs in Delaware and New York. He continue to write film essays in addition to screenwriting.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, upon first viewing, appears to be an extreme invention of avant-garde film, but a closer inspection yields that the film is very conventional in its core. The convention lies in Caligari’s narrative, which follows a standard set of rules set forth by classical Hollywood cinema. And it is with these rules that the spectator identifies.

The spidery angles and skewed landscapes in Caligari undoubtedly create a grotesque distortion of reality. The distortion becomes an obstacle in the spectator’s association with the film preventing him from accepting the film as natural. The spectator is only capable of identifying with such a monstrous world as Caligari’s through an association with his own nightmares. The association brings about feelings of fear and dread – (feelings the spectator does not wish to experience when his primary motivation is for entertainment.) Caligari is not alone in creating nightmare a world; horror films specialize in it. One can argue that which allows the spectator to accept an alternate world such as Caligari’s, and in fact all films, is based on three codependent principles: whether the characters behave normally within this world; whether the narrative follows the established storytelling archetype; and whether the filmmaking techniques are seamless in their presentation. Deviation of any kind can hinder the spectator’s acceptance of the film.

I have already mentioned that a film does not have to depict a world synonymous to reality for that film to be accepted by the spectator. The list of examples is essentially infinite since all films are a fictional recreation of reality. Nevertheless, the underlining similarity is that the characters of the film accept the alternate, diegetic world as natural, and, therefore, through the notion of secondary identification, the spectator is able to do the same. As long as the characters behave accordingly to the spectator’s recognition of naturalism,[1] secondary identification will occur, no matter the film.

The characters in Caligari interact in the grotesque world as if they were socializing on any given street in the world. This interaction is evident in the opening sequence of the frame story (Francis’s story) when all the townspeople flock to the fairgrounds. What the spectator sees as a land of exploding angles the people of Holstenwall see as natural. Seeing the townspeople’s comfort within such an environment allows the spectator to mimic the feeling. Furthermore, the characters’ costumes are not outside of the period’s fashion. The suits, the dresses, the hats, all were common in the early 20th century. The characters become ordinary people experiencing an extraordinary world – just like the spectator in viewing the film. From this point on, the identification is virtually concrete. Subsequently, anything found to be offensive to the characters will also be offensive to the spectator. Evidence of this link is Dr. Caligari and his somnambulist Cesare seen simultaneously as intruders of the natural world, and consequently feared.

Secondly, the spectator must be able to follow the narrative with no unintentional confusion. To guarantee a firm understanding of narrative, Hollywood developed a standardized story archetype: a recognizable beginning which introduces the sympathetic hero, a disturbance in his world and his resulting desire for a return to stability; a middle which complicates the hero’s goal; and an end, that is a return to stability. By film’s end, all loose ends are tied tightly and the audience leaves feeling content. The Hollywood story archetype was in its infancy at the time of Caligari, but nevertheless, the structural elements are soundly in place.

Caligari’s narrative is a detective story – an early film noir. Francis’s opening and closing scenes work as the silent film’s voice over. Dr. Caligari causes the death of Francis’s best friend, thus creating a disturbance in Francis’ stable world. The desire to solve his friend’s murder drives Francis and the story. The inability to discover the truth becomes the metaphorical obstacle. The unmasking of Caligari’s secret sets things at ease for Francis. The revelation is true for the flashback, but what about the film’s twist ending? One may come to believe that thinking the entire tale was only the mad ramblings of an insane man would cause great confusion for the spectator, but this is not the case. The grand finale completely ties all loose ends. Though the spectator came to accept the world of Caligari, the realization that the world was a depiction of a reality complicated by Francis’ insanity reestablishes sanity, rationality and naturalism, and consequently creates a feeling of content within the spectator. Furthermore, the twist ending forces the spectator to revisit the film in order to find clues that justify the story. Playing detective further concretes the spectator’s acceptance of the film because it gives him the entertainment he initially sought.

Thirdly, the principle of continuity comes into play. This is a relatively simple point to make. Any film that presents its spectator with distracting elements such as jarring jump-cuts or discontinuity in time or space will not be accepted. In a word, the film is to be seamless – that is, seamless in any fashion that reveals the filmmakers’ hands. Robert Wiene presents a film that steps back and forth in time and makes it comprehensible. There are no undistinguishable leaps in time that would confuse the spectator. The set-up for Francis’ story is made easily recognizable both with and without titles. Changes in color and mise-en-scene distinguish both worlds in the film. There are no raucous cuts from shot to shot. All though the iris-in and iris-out may be distracting now, it was very common in filmmaking during the time of Caligari’s production.

In conclusion, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari proved how a film can create a warped reality and still encourages the spectator to participate willingly. Caligari succeeds by presenting a deranged world the spectator can easily equate with his own natural environment. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari may give the impression of a surreal jolt of expressionism, but in actuality it is a groundbreaking film that merges avant-garde techniques with conventional storytelling.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] According to James Rachels in his book The Elements of Moral Philosophy, the “Natural Law Theory” is the underlying standard of naturalistic behavior recognized by all humans. Which, in turn, allows for secondary identification.