Modernity, World Wars and Dictatorships | 133Problematic and much discussed is how to differentiate between films that
were apolitical and those that were political and propagandistic. Initially only
a small segment of movies was considered propagandistic, but since the 1970s
all the films of that time have increasingly been seen in this light, as come-
dies also helped to stabilise dictatorships. Even though transitions between
tendentious movies and entertaining ones were very fluid, it is necessary to
gauge contents of specific films to determine which values and norms they
implicitly conveyed. The distinction between ‘Fascist films’ and ‘films made
under Fascist regimes’ shows that the regime formed the framework in both
cases (Witte 1998: 29).
A glance at Nazi film policy makes clear how closely movies were bound up
with the National Socialist regime. It was similar to the policy applied to the
press but much more extensive in that it could exercise greater control. Here,
too, compulsory membership in the Reichsfilmkammer selected film-makers
according to political and racialist criteria, and this led to the emigration of
approximately fifteen hundred actors and directors, some of whom were very
prominent. The tightening of censorship at first mainly affected movies made
before 1933, while new films were controlled by an increase in prior vetting.
Subsidies provided through the newly established Filmkreditbank (bank for
film loans) were a part of this, since every script had to be approved by the
Reichsfilmdramaturgen (specialist in dramaturgy), who was answerable to the
Propaganda Minister. Nevertheless many censorship cases affecting even pro-
paganda films cropped up, especially during the war; this was because people
involved fell from favour (as with Titanic, 1943), because high-ranking offi-
cers complained (Große Freiheit Nr. 7, 1943), because of political features
(Das Leben kann so schön sein, 1938), and because the political situation had
changed (Besatzung Dora, 1943). The authorities also exerted influence by
covertly buying up production firms, which helped to centralise the movie
business. As early as 1937, the Ufa, Tobis and Terra dominated nearly the
entire film market, with Hugenberg, once allied with Hitler, losing his UFA
shares majority to the Reich in the same year (Kreimeier 1992: 221–29). This
became the nucleus of Ltd (UFI), which consolidated the whole of Germany’s
film production. Thus resistance could best be expressed in movies through
aesthetic opposition, ambivalent innuendo and omission of any and all con-
tentual links to the regime.
Protectionist policies, the transition to talkies and the growing number of
cinemagoers all strengthened the domestic film industry. Nevertheless, during
the 1930s a good 20 per cent of all movies shown in Nazi Germany still came
from the United States and a further 20 per cent from other countries, espe-
cially Austria (Spieker 1999: 337). Out of economic considerations, Holly-
wood adapted itself to the German market by eschewing recognisably Jewish
characters. Additionally, German cuts and dubbing changed U.S. films even