Focus 2004.tif 280 FoClls on German Studies have to respond to developments in the world and give impulses by choosing texts that represent and challenge the world today. FOCUS: Thank you very much for the interview. Adler: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. Julia Baker and Aine Zimmerman contributed to this interview. May 1; 2004 Cil1cinnatl~ Ohio, USA Leni Riefenstahl and Propaganda Film: A Conversation with David Culbert Dr. David Culbert is a Professor of History at Louisiana State University and editor of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. The title of his latest book is Propaganda and Mass Persuasion: A Histoncal Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present. He has written on film, radio and television as history and propaganda in the U.S. and Germany during World War II. FOCUS: You have written extensively on propaganda and film. What sparked your interest in these topics? David Culbert: Until I began work on my doctoral thesis, I never had a single teacher that placed any faith in any of these topics, and so it probably seemed interesting to me for that reason. It has been my good fortune to have had a number of teachers along the way who let me study what interested me, although I think on the whole they were somewhat surprised that something so interesting came of it. I wrote a doctoral thesis on radio commentators discussing foreign policies in the 1930s, and I have an undergraduate degree in organ performance from Oberlin, so I had some interest in aural images based on that. I became interested in German film propaganda when I first saw Triumph des WilleflS in graduate school, and thought it was extraordinary. FOCUS: Extraordinary cinematography;! 1fl what way;! In terms of the Culbert: Yes. Perhaps not those few opening intertitles, nor the endless parade of people marching by, although eventually I learned that there is some significance to those early scenes as well. For in spite of Leni Riefenstahl's often proclaimed statem~nt that she was too young to know anything about politics (although she was thirty­ 280 FoClls on German Studies have to respond to developments in the world and give impulses by choosing texts that represent and challenge the world today. FOCUS: Thank you very much for the interview. Adler: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. Julia Baker and Aine Zimmerman contributed to this interview. May 1; 2004 Ci/1cinnatl~ Ohio, USA Leni Riefenstahl and Propaganda Film: A Conversation with David Culbert Dr. David Culbert is a Professor of History at Louisiana State University and editor of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. The title of his latest book is Propaganda and M.ass Persuasion: A Histoncal Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present. He has written on fi.lm, radio and television as history and propaganda in the U.S. and Germany during World War II. FOCUS: You have written extensively on propaganda and fi.lm. What sparked your interest in these topics? David Culbert: Until I began work on my doctoral thesis, I never had a single teacher that placed any faith in any of these topics, and so it probably seemed interesting to me for that reason. It has been my good fortune to have had a number of teachers along the way who let me study what interested me, although I think on the whole they were somewhat surprised that something so interesting came of it. I wrote a doctoral thesis on radio commentators discussing foreign policies in the 1930s, and I have an undergraduate degree in organ performance from Oberlin, so I had some interest in aural images based on that. I became interested in German fi.1m propaganda when I fi.rst saw Triumph des WilleflS in graduate school, and thought it was extraordinary. FOCUS: Extraordinary 1fl what way;! In terms of the cinematography;! Culbert: Yes. Perhaps not those few opening intertitles, nor the endless parade of people marching by, although eventually I learned that there is some signifi.cance to those early scenes as well. For in spite of Leni Riefenstahl's often proclaimed statem~nt that she was too young to know anything about politics (although she was thirty- 282 283 FoCtls on German Studies five when she made Sieg des Glaubens), this film was cereainly made by someone who understands politics. There has been an ongoing controversy for years: for a very long time the original 'Zensurkarte' for Tn·umph des Willens was missing in 35 mm, but more recently a 16 mm 'Zensurkarte ' emerged, and the difference between the two films is precisely the cut that's made between the released cut and the 16 mm. That is because the 'Stahllielm' was dissolved, and it is the sequence of the 'Stahlhelm' that was omitted from the 16 mm version. This cereainly seems to suggest that the film itself is a very useful depiction of changing power relationships in Germany. Basically, if you are in close up, and you had a lot of airtime, then you are significant. In me new DVD version of Sieg des Glaubens, when you see me central position of Ernst Boehm in me car with Hitler, dut can be quite instructive about me differences as depicted in celluloid between power relationships in D ecember 1933 when That film premiered, and men me literal blood-letting in June of 1935. FOCUS: I have noticed a surge of interes t in Leni Riefenstahl since the late 1980s. What contributed to this development? Culbert: There has been a rebirm of interest in Riefenstahl on me pan of persons who wish to pay some sort of homage, and then of course it is also related to me extraordinary longevity of Leni herself, as she died at 101. H er deam signals basically me last living person who could claim to have some sort of direct, meaningful connection wiTh Hitler. In Riefenstahl's case, she was very interested in publicity and gave countless interviews. I recorded two interviews with her, and I did not get anything useful out of those interviews, almough I certainly tried. I conducted the interviews in German in the hopes not that I could get her to say: eyes, I always was a N azi and I was lying all mese years' - for that is an unreasonable thing to expect from an interview - but ramer I hoped she would say something about editing techniques and camera angles, although she was not forthc oming about mat eimer. I have a photograph that I took wim me when I went to interview her at her house. She had said that she never saw Hitler between Conversation wim David Culbert the end of me party rally in Nuremberg on September 10, 1934, and the premiere of the film in March 1935. Yet in this picture, mere is Leni in an expensive white roadster, and on the back of the photOgraph is me date: 16.9.1 934 in Berchtesgaden. When I showed this photOgraph to her and asked her to explain the date, she said she couldn't find her glasses, and was unable to see me photograph wimout them. And I thought that at the time mis was a ramer clumsy subterfuge. I have a transcript of that interview, but I never attempted to publish it, for it seemed to me that I did nOt get anything interesting. I only got ftom her a number of answers that did not seem to be very likely. She started gwing interviews very early in her career, and now that she is dead, I mink about what motivated her, and one might charitably say mat she came to believe me things she came to say over and over again. She said repeatedly, for example, mat Triumph des L~illens is not a propaganda film. Interestingly, Leni insisted on the awkward English title, The Wonde1ul H orrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, as me translation of the film Macht der Bilder. Over the years I believe that her English language interviews became an excuse to say that she was misquoted or that she could not express herself clearly [in English] . She would frequently make those claims about interview statements that did not seem terribly true. I think that she became fixated on giving interviews, a simply stupendous number of inverviews. FOCUS: In order to defend herself? Culbert: Yes, it seems quite likely mat she gave interviews because dley help ed strengmen her convictions about which things were true and which were not. Persons in film studies would be poorly served if they took any interview and presumed that this was an important insight in the way she made her films, or information about her skills to get people on her team. There is plenty of information to be had about Leni, her film s, and many significant parts of her career, but not necessarily based on interviews. Her longevity was also an issue in terms of access to her films and 282 Focus on German Studies five when she made Sieg des Glaubens), this film was cenainly made by someone who understands politics. There has been an ongoing controversy for years: for a very long time the original 'Zensurkarte' for Tn·umph des Willens was missing in 35 mm, but more recently a 16 mm 'Zensurkarte' emerged, and the difference between the two films is precisely the cut that's made between the released cut and the 16 mID. That is because the 'Stahllielm' was dissolved, and it is the sequence of the 'Stahllielm' that was omitted from the 16 mm version. This cenainly seems to suggest that the film itself is a very useful depiction of changing power relationships in Germany. Basically, if you are in close up, and you had a lot of airtime, then you are significant. In the new DVD version of Sieg des Glaubens, when you see the central position of Ernst Boehm in the car with Hitler, [hat can be quite instructive about the differences as depicted in celluloid between power relationships in December 1933 when that film premiered, and then the literal blood-bting in June of 1935. FOCUS: I have noticed a surge of interest in Leni Riefenstahl since the late 1980s. What contributed to this development? Culbert: There has been a rebirth of interest in Riefenstahl on the pan of persons who wish to pay some SOrt of homage, and then of course it is also related to the extraordinary longevity of Leni herself, as she died at 101. Her death signals basically the last living person who could claim to have some sort of direct, meaningful connection wir.h Hitler. In Riefenstahl's case, she was very interested in publicity and gave countless interviews. I recorded twO interviews with her, and I did not get anything useful out of those interviews, although I cenainly uied. I conducted the interviews in German in the hopes not that I could get her to say: 'Yes, I always was a N azi and I was lying all these years' - for that is an unreasonable thing to expect from an interview - but rather I hoped she would say something about editing techniques and camera angles, although she was not forthcoming about that either. I have a photOgraph that I tOok with me when I went to interview her at her house. She had said that she never saw Hitler between Conversation with David Culbert 283 the end of the party rally in Nuremberg on September 10, 1934, and the premiere of the film in March 1935. Yet in this picture, there is Leni in an expensive white roadster, and on the back of the photograph is the date: 16.9.1934 in Berchtesgaden. When I showed this photOgraph to her and asked her to explain the date, she said she couldn't find her glasses, and was unable to see the photOgraph without them. And I thought that at the time this was a rather clumsy subterfuge. I have a transcript of that interview, but I never attempted to publish it, for it seemed to me that I did nOt get anything interesting. I only got ftom her a number of answers that did not seem to be very likely. She started giving interviews very early in her career, and now that she is dead, I think about what motivated her, and one might charitably say that she came to believe the things she came to say over and over again. She said repeatedly, for example, that Triumph des Lr7illens is not a propaganda film. Interestingly, Leni insisted on the awkward English title, The Wonde1ul H orrible Life of Lent Riefenstahl, as the uanslation of the film Macht der Bilder. Over the years I believe that her English language interviews became an excuse to say that she was misquoted or that she could not express herself clearly [in English]. She would frequently make those claims about interview statements that did not seem terribly true. I think that she became fixated on giving interviews, a simply stupendous number of inverviews. FOCUS: In order to defend herself? Culbert: Yes, it seems quite likely that she gave interviews because dley helped strengthen her convictions about which things were uue and which were not. Persons in film studies would be poorly served if they took any interview and presumed that this was an important insight in the way she made her films, or information about her skills to get people on her team. There is plenty of information to be had about Leni, her films, and many significant parts of her career, but not necessarily based on interviews. Her longevity was also an issue in terms of access to her films and 284 285 FoCtis on German Studies it comes as no surprise that her first party rally film, Sieg des G/aubens, is just now available on DVD in 2003. Previous to this, it was very difficult to gain permission to show excerpts of her films. She insisted that she controlled the rights and would not grant permission, even for showing at big exhibitions. The difficulty is that especially in Germany after 1945, the Bavarian State Government already knew enough of what people were saying, and did not necessarily want to be the official agency that was licensing Nazi era films glorifying Hitler. It was a gray area and Leill asserted copyright control rather early on. Eventually in 1963, Transit was the agency that was se t to provide assistance. Transit was an official agency of the then-West German government, and signed an agreement with Leni for thirty years giving her a handsome percentage. Some of these issues of copyright have now evaporated with her demise. FOCUS: Did Leill Riefenstahl claim from the beginning that she did not know what was being done with her films and why they were being produced? Culbert: In the 1930s she functioned as a SOrt of ambassador for these extraordinary feature films, such as the Olympia film. I dUnk she enjoyed doing those, and threw herself into it, so when she came to the US in late 1938 to try and get an American distribution in Hollywood for the two-part Olympian film, this was all a treat for her. Certainly since 1945, or rather and from 1952 on, after the end of her lawsuits, litigations, and de-nazification, she created a set piece about her attitudes and she was aided by the fact that records from the propaganda ministry were mostly destroyed in air raids. Yet there is just too much that has emerged over the years that has caused her tales to not hold up very well. These films are made specifically by request of the Nazi party. They are funded by the Nazi parry. In some ways, she could nOt assert copyright, but on the oilier hand, who wanted to be collecting royalties in a country where iliere is so much unease about ilie Nazi past) It was a big problem, as there was no government agency willing to do so. For a long time, iliough, nobody knew that her parry rally films from 1933 survived. She was very aggressive in trying to shout down ilieir existence. In some scenes of Macht deT Biider, Buehler persuaded Leni to return to Conversation with David Culbert the 'Parteigelande' in Nuremberg, and when he brings up the subject of Sieg des Glaubens, she actually shakes him. F OCUS: Why is it that she made no more movies after 1945, but Veit Harlan did? He went on to create a large body of work. Culbert : That's true, although most of it was nOt very successful. None of the post-1950 Harlan films were anything like the success of his wartime films. In the case of Leni, one possibility is that once she is fifty, she is a well-preserved woman, she would nOt have been able to return to being a leading lady. But her real claim to fame is not as a feature film actress in the 20s and 30s. At a bare minimum, she is an extraordinary catalyst. If we want to say that her legacy was the ability to make it her business to know who are the most c.reative, clever, able people at the time and get them on a team. She certainly deserves credit for dlat. She is a producer rather than a brilliant editor. FOCUS: Would you say that some of the cinematography then was not necessarily her idea? Was she simply able to organize the talented people at ilie time to help her? Culbert: When you see the first ten reels of Sieg des G!aubem, you realize iliat Leill must have had access to some of the finest cameramen in Germany. Hans Erd, for example, was one of ilie great cameramen at the time. Ertl had worked out an underwater camera for the Olympic pool in order to film part of we h.igh diving sequences. They are one of the highlights of that film, and obviously she intended it that way. Part of its brilliance of iliose images is not just ilie editing of the images from below, so that they seem like they take flight, but rather ilie capturing of the body as it goes under the water. This was possible only because of the underwater camera developed by Ertl. Clearly, she also had a great deal of assistance from Walter Ruttmann. He died in 1941, but many people think he may have played a more substantial role than she gave him credit for. I think she may have had some assistance from him wiili editing. It is also clear that Bela 284 Foctls on German S ttldies it comes as no surprise that her first party rally film, Sieg des G/aubens, is just now available on DVD in 2003 . Previous to this, it was very difficult to gain permission to show excerpts 0 f her films. She insis ted that she controlled the rights and would not grant permission, even for showing at big exhibitions. The difficulty is that especially in Germany after 1945, the Bavarian State Government already knew enough of what people were saying, and did not necessarily want to be the official agency that was licensing Nazi era films glorifying Hitler. It was a gray area and Leni asserted copyright control rather early on . ventually in 1963, Transit was the agency that was se t to provide assistance. Transit was an official agency of the then-West German government, and signed an agreement with Leni for thirty years giving her a handsome percentage. Some of these issues of copyright have now evaporated with her demise. FOCUS: Did Leni Riefenstahl claim from the beginning that she did not know what was being done with her films and why they were being produced? Culbert: In the 1930s she functioned as a SOrt of ambassador for these extraordinary feature films, such as the Olympia film. I think she enjoyed doing those, and threw herself into it, so when she came to the US in late 1938 to try and get an American distribution in Hollywood for the two-part Olympian film, this was all a treat for her. Certainly since 1945, or rather and from 1952 on, after the end of her lawsuits, litigations, and de-nazification, she created a set piece about her attitudes and she was aided by the fact that records from the propaganda ministry were mostly destroyed in air raids. Yet there is just too much that has emerged over the years that has caused her tales to not hold up very well. These films are made specifically by request of the Nazi party. They are funded by the Nazi parry. In some ways, she could nOt assert copyright, but on the other hand, who wanted to be collecting royalties in a country where there is so much unease about the Nazi pase It was a big problem, as there was no government agency willing to do so. For a long time, though, nobody knew that her parry rally films from 1933 survived. She was very aggressive in trying to shout down their existence. In some scenes of lvIacht deT Eiider, Buehler persuaded Leni to return to Conversation '..\lith David Culbert 285 the 'Parteigeliinde' in Nuremberg, and when he brings up the subject of Sieg des Glaubens, she actually shakes him. F OCUS: Why is it that she made no more movies after 1945, but Veit Harlan did? He went on to create a large body of work. Culbert: That's true, although most of it was nOt very successful. one of the post-1950 Harlan films were anything like the success of his wartime films. In the case of Lern, one possibility is that once she is fifty, she is a weU-preserved woman, she would nOt have been able to return to being a leading lady. But her real claim to fame is not as a fearure film actress in the 20s and 30s. At a bare minimum, she is an extraordinary catalyst. If we want to say that her legacy was the ability to make it her business to know who are the most creative, clever, able people at the time and get them on a team. She certainly deserves credit for dlat. She is a producer rather than a brilliant editor. FOCUS: Would you say that some of the cinematography then was nOt necessarily her idea? Was she simply able to organize the talented people at the time to help her;> Culbert: When you see the first ten reels of Sieg des Glatlbem, you realize that Leni must have had access to some of the finest cameramen in Germany. Hans Erd, for example, was one of the great cameramen at the time. Ertl had worked out an underwater camera for the Olympic pool in order to film part of we h.igh diving sequences. They are one of the highlights of that film, and obviously she intended it that way. Part of its brilliance of those images is not just the editing of the images from below, so that they seem like they take flight, bur rather the capturing of the body as it goes under the water. This was possible only because of the underwater camera developed by Ertl. Clearly, she also had a great deal of assistance from Walter Ruttmann. He died in 1941, but many people think he may have played a more substantial role than she gave him credit for. I think she ma), have had some assistance from him with editing. It is also clear that Bela 286 287 Focus on German StudieJ Balasch, who was involved with Das B/aue Licht, volunteered to help her with the filming, and gave her advice. He then went to Moscow, and Leni sent him an eight page cypewritten lener, in which she admits that she couldn't figure out how to edit Das B/aue L·cht and had to go back to get some assistance from her mentor, Arnold Fanck. He then re-edited some of the reels, and she agreed that he had done a better job. In the case of Leni's film editing, there is something strange about the scenario. She makes only four films, and then nothing else ever works. If she is one of the most brilliant film editors we have ever known, then why was it that she was never able to turn her hand after 1945 to doing more work? It is true that she had no direct connection with the German film industry, but rather had direct lines of access to Hitler and was able to wheedle incredibly large sums of money. Yet there is a disconnect between all of this achievement, and it cannot aU be explained by the fact that she did not have a base within the German film industry to return to, that there was no studio that would claim her as their own, as she has said. FOCUS: I'd like to turn now to the reception of other propaganda films. Why do you think that Der Ewige Jude was not favorably received when it was released in Germany? Culbert: In my opinion, it is a clumsy diatribe. Fritz Hippler was clearly not an artistic breakthrough in German filmmaking. But of aU the films between 1933 and 45, this film is the only one I know of that was released in two versions. I have an official invitation that clearly says women and children are invited to come for a screening first, and then the men later. (In the second version, they took out the ritual slaughter scenes, wh.ich they thought would be toO graphic for women and children.) Two versions can be problematic for a film. However, no one would sit through that film and think it is an artistic achievement. In some respects it betrays evidence of too many hands in its creation. One of last things added is especially tendentious: I call it the "slide lecture," because it is so tedious. Trus is the section of the film when pictures are presented of various figures, and the running commentary is: "Here is a rotten artist because he's Je\vish, and here is rotten work of art, because it is done Conversation with David Culbert by a Jewish artist," etc. Trus long list of names is not very effective filmmaking. Peter Bucher wrote a good article about the audience reception of Der Ewige Jude, where he examined the records from Berlin theaters where the film played, and within tWO weeks, there was only one theater showl11g the film. It just disappeared, whereas Jud Suss, for example, enjoys a long run, and was even re-released later. Also, it must be said, that in comparison ro Tnumph des Wi//ens or the Olympia Fi/me, mOSt other films of the time JUSt come across as kitsch. FOCU S: Moving to a more global question, do you think there are similarities in propaganda techniques across cultures? Is there an overarch.ing paradigm? Culbert: For Western Europe and the United States, I th.ink you could find similarities. But if you were to go the Far East, you might find dramatically different trungs, although there are many ways in which Japanese wartime propaganda was similar ro what was being done elsewhere. In a sense, all propaganda has the possibiliry of being cultural propaganda for one's own society. It could also be that as an American, I will never be fully sensitized to some aspect of cultural propaganda about my own society that is immediately apparent to someone who comes from some other society. It is, however, rarely the case that one propaganda film transforms society. If it has an impact, like Jud Suss for example, then how does one control for all the other ways in wruch anti-Semitism is being cultivated in Nazi Germany? I don't think that anyone would seriously say that Jiid Suss turned each viewer into someone who wanted to see the Jews destroyed. It was made at the stage of the Final Solution where expulsion ro Madagascar was being brooded on. I think it is a film that makes an explicit appeal ro the issue of expulsion. Susan Tegel has suggested that a film like trus might contribute to a general indifference to the plight of Jews, and I trunk that is a reasonable point. There is a disconnect between a person who looks at Jiid Siiss for the first time and who is understandably horrified and says this is what Nazi propaganda is about. But there is no other feature film with such a tendentious message that had such enormous box office success that still holds up as a film. 286 Focus on German StudieJ Balasch, who was involved wim Das B/aue Licht, volunteered to help her with the filming, and gave her advice. He men went to Moscow, and Leni sent him an eight page typewritten letter, in which she admits mat she couldn't figure out how to edit Das B/aue L·cht and had to go back to get some assistance from her mentor, Arnold Fanck. He men re-edited some of me reels, and she agreed mat he had done a better job. In me case of Leni's film ediring, mere is something strange about me scenario. She makes only four films, and men nothing else ever works. If she is one of me most brilliant film editors we have ever known, then why was it that she was never able to turn her hand after 1945 to doing more work? It is true that she had no direct connection wim me German film industry, but rather had direct lines of access to Hitler and was able to wheedle incredibly large sums of money. Yet mere is a disconnect between all of this achievement, and it cannot all be explained by me fact mat she did not have a base within me German film industry to return to, that there was no studio mat would claim her as meir own, as she has said. FOCUS: I'd like to turn now to me reception of other propaganda films. Why do you think mat Der Ewige Jude was not favorably received when it was released in Germany? Culbert: In my opinion, it is a clumsy diatribe. Fritz Hippler was clearly not an artistic breakthrough in German filmmaking. But of all the films between 1933 and 45, this film is the only one I know of that was released in two versIons. I have an official invitation that clearly says women and children are invited to come for a screening first, and men the men later. (In the second version, mey rook out me ritual slaughter scenes, wh.ich mey thought would be toO graphic for women and ch.ildren.) Two versions can be problematic for a film. However, no one would sit mrough that film and think it is an artistic achievement. In some respects it betrays evidence of too many hands in its creation. One of last things added is especially tendentious: I call it the "slide lecture," because it is so tedious. This is the section of me film when pictures are presented of various figures, and the running commentary is: "Here is a rotten artist because he's Jewish, and here is rotten work of art, because it is done Conversation wim David Culbert 287 by a Jewish artist," etc. This long list of names is not very effective filmmaking. Peter Bucher wrote a good article about me audience reception of Der Ewige Jude, where he examined the records from Berlin theaters where the film played, and wimin lWO weeks, there was only one theater showrng the film. It just disappeared, whereas Jud Suss, for example, enjoys a long run, and was even re-released later. Also, it must be said, mat in comparison to Tnumph des Wi//ens or the Olympia Fi/me, mOSt orner films of the time JUSt come across as kitsch. FOCU S: Moving to a more global question, do you think there are similarities in propaganda techniques across cultures? Is there an overarching paradigm? Culbert: For Western Europe and the United States, I think you could find similarities. But if you were to go me Far East, you might find dramatically different things, almough mere are many ways in which Japanese wartime propaganda was similar to what was being done elsewhere. In a sense, all propaganda has the possibility of bel11g cultural propaganda for one's own society. It could also be mat as an American, I will never be fully sensitized to some aspect of cultural propaganda about my own society that is immediately apparent to someone who comes from some other society. It is, however, rarely me case mat one propaganda film transforms society. If it has an impact, like jiM Suss for example, men how does one control for all the orner ways in which anti-Semitism is being cultivated in Nazi Germany? I don't think mat anyone would seriously say that Jiid Suss turned each viewer into someone who wanted to see the Jews destroyed. It was made at the stage of the Final Solution where expulsion to Madagascar was being brooded on. I think it is a film that makes an explicit appeal to the issue of expulsion. Susan Tegel has suggested that a film like this might contribute to a general indifference to the plight of Jews, and I think that is a reasonable point. There is a disconnect between a person who looks at Jiid Siiss for the first time and who is understandably horrified and says this is what Nazi propaganda is about. But there is no other feature film with such a tendentious message that had such enormous box office success that still holds up as a fil.rD . 288 289 Focus on German Studies FOCUS: How do you see the development of film histOry over the course of your career, and what directions do you think it might take in the future) Culbert: I was fascinated to find out what is going on right here in German Studies. Here is a place where all kinds of media images are being integrated intO an academic field where one previously might have been expected to write a thesis on Goethe. So one place media studies is going is into other departments in aninterdisciplinary way. Then there is Film Studies itself. The caution here I think is that if one is not carefu~ this could lead to a fixation on viewing film itself or television programs as text with no real concern about the original context. Yet minus the context, the message is lost. FOCUS: Thank you for this interview. Culbert: Thank you. Interview by Aine Zimmerman April22,2004 Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Correction Focus on German Studies wishes to extend a formal apology to the Wallstein Verlag in Gottingen, Germany for a copyright omission in Volume 9. The Wallstein Verlag generously granted permission to print the poem "Position Losing" by Dororhea Grunzweig and translated by Emily Jeremiah on page 268 of Focus on German Studies Volume 9. Unfortunately this information was unintentionally omitted from Volume 9. The information "© 1997 Wallstein Verlag, Gottingen" should have appeared immediately following the poem. We regret the oversight on our pan, and thank the WaUstein Verlag for bringing it to our attention. With sincerest apologies, rocus on German S tudies 288 Focus on German Studies FOCUS: How do you see the development of film histOry over the course of your career, and what directions do you think it might take in the future) Culbert: I was fascinated to find out what is going on right here in German Studies. Here is a place where aU kinds of media images are being integrated intO an academic field where one previously might have been expected to write a thesis on Goethe. So one place media studies is going is into other departments in aninterdisciplinary way. Then there is Film Studies itself. The caution here I think is that if one is not careful, this could lead to a fixation on viewing film itself Or television programs as text with no real concern about the original context. Yet minus the context, the message is lost. FOCUS: Thank you for this interview. Culbert: Thank you. Interview by Aine Zimmerman April22,2004 Cincinnati; Ohio, USA 289 Correction Focus on German Studies wishes to extend a formal apology to the Wallstein Verlag in Gottingen, Germany for a copyright omission in Volume 9. The WaUstein Verlag generously granted permission to print the poem "Position Losing" by Dororhea Grunzweig and translated by Emily Jeremiah on page 268 of Focus on German Studies Volume 9. Unfortunately this information was unintentionally omitted from Volume 9. The information "© 1997 Wallstein erlag, Gottingen" should have appeared immediately following the poem. We regret the oversight on our part, and thank the \XfaUstein Verlag for bringing it to our attention. With sincerest apologies, roms on German S tudies