Monday 30 November 2009

Jakob der Lügner vs. Jacob the liar

While watching the credits of Peter Kassovitz's film, Jacob, the liar, roll down my t.v. screen, I was intrigued to see that it was adapted from a German book by Jurek Becker called Jakob der Lügner . Having a keen interest in German literature and film, I decided to read Becker's book and searched for it on a popular book-selling website from the rainforest. The novel popped up in the search results, as did a German film, also called Jakob der Lügner, directed by Frank Beyer. I bought them both, and after reading Becker's novel and watching Beyer's film I was surprised at the differences between both films and the book they were adapted from.

Jakob der Leugner and Jacob the Liar focus on Jakob Heym, a Jew struggling to survive in a Polish ghetto during World War Two. He makes up a story that he has a radio, forbidden in the ghetto, and fills the other ghetto inhabitants with hope as he tells them of radio reports that the allies were advancing.

Becker's novel uses a non-omniscient narrator, who admits he is unreliable, sometimes the narrative perspective shifts to other characters, and the technique of 'free indirect speech' is also used. The Jewish characters are, therefore, easy to relate to as their thoughts and feelings are shown. Several stories intertwine with the main story of Jakob. Beyer's film uses an internal narrator who is totally immersed in the ghetto experience and tells of only one story, Jakob’s. The narrator cannot offer any insight into Jakob’s mind, and therefore the viewer gains no inner-perspective on Jakob’s thoughts and experiences. These are, instead, conveyed through clever camera work e.g. close ups of facial expressions and the use of emotive music. Kassovitz's film uses Jacob himself as the narrator of his own story, using inner-monologues, which allows the viewer to be fully immersed in Jacob's thoughts.

The characterisation of Jakob is also very different in both films. In Becker’s novel Jakob is depicted as a ‘shy, fearful, reclusive individual’ (O Dochartaigh p.462), and furthermore, an anti-hero. Beyer’s Jakob is very similar to Becker’s, who finds himself as the hero of the ghetto almost by accident, as he is not trying to be a hero, he is just trying to survive. Even the appearance of Vlastmil Brodsky (Jakob) is far from that of the stereotypical hero; he has a weather-beaten, sleepy eyed, unattractive face. In contrast, the character of Jakob in the Kassovitz film (played by Robin Williams) is portrayed as a stereotypical ‘Hollywood’ hero, a kind of ‘leader and saviour’ of the Jews in the ghetto.

Humour plays a central role in Becker’s Jakob der Lügner; there are many humorous scenes that play on human weaknesses and appear comic even in such extreme circumstances as the Nazi controlled ghetto. However, the humour does not dominate the narrative of the story and is funny, yet moving. The 1974 film also contains humour, which stays true to the novel, for example, in the scene when Mischa and Rosa are in bed talking and Fajngold has to pretend he is deaf, the camera effectively switches from the couple to Fajngold, sitting up in bed with an expression of disgust and frustration on his face, inviting the viewer to laugh at the situation. By contrast, humour in the Kassovitz film is present from the beginning, and also very obvious, for example the joke, which Jakob tells:

Hitler goes to a fortuneteller and asks:
‘When will I die?’
She replies: ‘On a Jewish holiday.’
‘How do you know?’ he asks.
‘Any day that you die will be a Jewish holiday!’.
The humour continues in this cheap, exaggerated way throughout the film, far from the subtle humour present in the novel and 1974 film.

The ending of Becker’s novel and both films are significantly different. The novel has two endings, one fictitious ending created by the narrator, where Jakob dies heroically trying to escape the ghetto, and the ‘real’ ending, where the Jews are being deported. The narrator’s imagined ending leaves the reader with a sense of hope – just as Jakob’s ‘imagined’ radio gave hope to the Jews in the ghetto. However, Beyer’s film does move away from the novel in that it only has one ending: the ‘real’ ending from Becker’s text. Jacob imagines a scene as he is on the train; he is in the snow, hiding from brutal reality in dreams that halt in a freeze frame. The final credits are superimposed on stills of faces in the train suggesting lives that have ended. Kassovitz’s film, however, includes two endings, although different to those of the novel. The first is Jakob’s death at the hands of the Nazis after refusing to admit, in front of the other Jews, that the radio did not exist. This is also the highest act of resistance present in the 1999 adaptation. Furthermore, this scene bears a resemblance to that of a scene near the end of Mel Gibson’s 1995 film Braveheart. In both scenes, a crowd gathers and watches as the central figure is going to be executed if he does not withdraw his views, both characters have been beaten and tortured and both are finally executed, yet defiant to the end, as shown by a close-up of Jakob’s smiling face. Through this ending, Jakob is portrayed as a kind of heroic figure, ‘a Jewish resistance hero’ that contrasts greatly with the anti-hero of the original novel and 1974 film. After his execution, Jakob narrates a second ‘ Hollywood happy’ ending, where Russian tanks liberate the train that is deporting the Jews. Lina’s daydream turns into a colourful scene with Russian soldiers and a Chicago swing band playing music, which has been played previously on the radio in the barrack scene at the start of the film.


So, why are the films so different? Is it because they were made in different decades, in different countries, for different audiences? Which film is more 'successful' (how do you define success?) and why?




References:

Primary Text/Films:
Becker, Jurek, Jakob der Lügner (Leipzig: Verlag Philipp Reclam jun., 1988).
Jakob der Lügner. Dir. Frank Beyer (Germany, 1974).
Jacob, the Liar. Dir Peter Kassovitz (USA, 1999).

Secondary Texts:
Gilman, Sander L., Jewish Frontiers: Essays on Bodies, Histories, and Identities (Basingstoke: Plagrave Macmillan, 2003).
Insdorf, Annette, Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust (Cambridge: CUP, 2003)
Ó Dochartaigh, Pól, ‘Americanizing the Holocaust: The case of Jakob the Liar’, Modern Language Review, 101 (2006), pp. 456-471.
Reich-Ranicki, Marcel, ‘Roman vom Ghetto’, in Irene Heidelberger-Leonard, ed., Jurek Becker (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1992), pp. 133-137.
Rock, David, Jurek Becker: A Jew who became a German? (Oxford: Berg, 2000).
Stoll, Andrea, ‘Das Lebensthema Jurek Beckers im Wechsel der Perspektiven’, in Irene Heidelberger-Leonard, ed., Jurek Becker (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1992), pp. 332-347.

4 comments:

  1. I wonder if there is an issue of realism here. The American film seems worse because it is promoting a myth. What you want is realism - but is that faithfulness to the book, or faithfulness to reality? How do films convince us they are showing us what really happened? In Italian neo-realist films this was often done by keeping the camera still and prolonging the shots. Also by not using actors but 'real' people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was wondering, is Becker a well-known German author? Because if his book 'Jakob der Lügner' was widely read this instantly puts the two films at a different starting point. Whereas the German audience is already primed in that they know the story, respect the author and will therefore want to see the film, the American audience is very unlikely to have read the book so they do not know what to expect - perhaps this is why Hollywood might choose to sensationalise the character and play up the humour. Hollywood is falling back on their stereotypical formula designed to draw in a crowd - Hollywood is, afterall, all about the money!

    I was also thinking, because a film is much more of a collaboration between script writers, directors, actors etc then they are bound to move away from the original narrative as each person wants to take the story in slightly different directions - the differences between the films then are quite interesting as both will highlight what they beleive to be the main important themes of the text which they want their audiences to understand.

    Also, I was thinking, did you notice any particular ideological differences between the American vs German portrayal of the story and its characters? For example, the joke you quoted seems to suggest an ideology where Jewish people are lazy/always on holiday, which to me seems to be in great contrast to the ideology I know which sees Jews as hard working, rich and Jewish mothers always competing as to whose child has the best career! I'm not saying either of these is correct, but all texts make assumptions about things which are inbuilt and thus assumed to be true. If you're interested a good book on ideology in texts is Lesley Jeffries 'Textual Construction of the Female Body' and also P. Simpson 'Language, Ideology and Point of View'.

    Sorry for such a long comment!
    Liz

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for both of your comments!
    I will address Liz's questions first, and hope my response will also answer Gilbert's question.
    Becker was critically and commercially succesful in Germany, but was most famous for writing screenplays rather than novels, which is how Jakob der Luegner started out. Jakob der Luegner was, in fact, translated in to English in 1975 and again in 1996, so an American/English speaking audience could well have read it also.
    The driving force behind the novel and each film and the environments in which they were created is worth noting. Both Becker's novel and Beyer's film represent the holocaust theme in a non-traditional way, they portray the Germans and Jews without stereotyping them and without exaggerating Jewish resistance in the ghettos. Indeed, Becker once admitted 'the possibility that he wrote his first novel Jakob der Luegner in reaction to the resistance literature prevalent at the time in the GDR, which he regarded as distorting the historical truth since examples of actual resistance on the part of the Jews such as the Warsaw ghetto uprising were the big exception.' As a result Jewish resistance is lacking in both the novel and Beyer's film. In contrast to this, Kassovitz's film includes many acts of resistance, for example Kirschbaums's suicide and Jakob debating with a German guard at the start of the film. By portraying acts of resistance, Kassovitz's film obviously does not have the same aim as Becker's novel and the earlier film.
    Furthermore, Beyer created his film in the GDR, so his agendas were dominated by the need for ideological conformity. For Kassovitz in Hollywood, commercial success was the main requirement, therefore his film represents an Americanisation of Becker's novel and the holocaust theme, producing stereotypes that a Western audience is used to in order to be successful.
    As I briefly mentioned above, Becker's novel and Beyer's film do not portray the Jews and Germans as stereotypes. The Jews are portrayed as individuals with strengths and weaknesses that the reader/audience can recognise as their own. The Germans are not shown as stereotypical violent Nazis, rather as a group of wide ranging figures. However, Kassovitz's film portrays both groups as exaggerated stereotypes. The Jews are keen on resisitance and the Germans are almost always violent.
    Regarding the Hitler joke, I think this implied that any day Hitler died would be a cause for celebration and therfore a holiday for the Jews, rather than the Jews always being on holiday, as Kassovitz's film does reinforce Jewish stereotypes.
    Regarding Gilbert's question, perhaps realism is then an issue here. Becker was a Jewish Auschwitz survivor and wanted to write about the real life in the ghettos as he had experienced it, writing against the stereotypes and stories of resistance. The narrative technique in his novel and the camera shots used in Beyer's film are successful, in that they allow the reader and audience to become absorbed in the story and the characters and make it believable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's a question - could the difference between the Kassowitz film and the Beyer film be accounted for by the runaway success of Roberto Benigni's La Vita e Bella (1997)? It seems to me that Robin Williams in the clip you've shown is using the same device of a brave man using clowning to shield a child from the horror of the holocaust. Are Kassowitz and Williams simply taking to Hollywood Benigni's idea of making a 'serious comedy' about the Shoah?

    ReplyDelete