ness).¹³Forthat reason, several critics welcomed what they sawasmore dispas-
sionate tones,with Herbert IheringpraisingKuhleWampeas“unsentimental
and, for thatreason, righteous,”¹⁴andwith Heinz Lüdeke speakingapprovingly
of“succinct, unsentimental scenes.”¹⁵The few comments thatacknowledgedthe
film’semotional appealfocused on its musical score, withBenjaminvonBrenta-
no singlingout“Eisler’sforward whipping,rousingmusic.”¹⁶While film critics
insisted that montagewas an effective agitational method,the workers them-
selves(to the degree possible) expressedaclear preference for lessmediated im-
ages of contemporary problems.For instance, the opening sequence prompted
oneyoungmetal worker inaunion paper to complain:“Over and over again
the same images of cyclists looking for work! Repeat these images once, fine!
Anything more makes matters worse. And then the question: Does every unem-
ployed have abike?”¹⁷
Almost forgotten after its final ban by the Nazis in 1933,KuhleWampewas
rediscovered in the 1970sthrough the convergence ofWestern Marxism, Brech-
tianism, and academic film studies. However,its new status asamodel of polit-
ical filmmaking did not resolve the conceptualtension between the emotional
and cognitive aspects of political mobilization–on the contrary.The 1974 special
issue ofScreenonKuhleWampemayhaveestablished the film’simportance for
leftist film culture, but it also evaluated its artistic contribution through the
Marxist orthodoxies of the times. Once again, emotionsserved as an indicator
of wrongpolitical attitudes or formal choices.James Pettifer,for instance, faulted
the filmmakers for their ultra-leftist utopianism, complained about residues of
petty-bourgeois consciousness, and criticized Eisler’sscorefor achieving little
Foranintroductionto the leftist film culture of theWeimar Republic, see JürgenBergeretal.,
eds.,Erobert den Film! Proletariat und Film in derWeimarer Republik(Berlin: Neue Gesellschaft
für BildendeKunst,1977); JürgenKinter,Arbeiterbewegung und Film (1895–1933): Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der Arbeiter-und Alltagskultur und der gewerkschaftlichen,sozialdemokratischen Kul-
tur-und Medienarbeit(Hamburg: Medien-Pädagogik-Zentrum,1986); and BruceMurray,Film and
the German Left in theWeimarRepublic:From“Caligari”to“KuhleWampe”(Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1990).
Herbert Ihering,“DieverboteneKuhleWampe,”rpt.inBrecht,“KuhleWampe:”Protokoll,
143.
Heinz Lüdeke,“DerFall WeekendKuhleWampe,”rpt.inBrecht,“KuhleWampe”:Protokoll,
154.
Bernardvon Brentano,“DerverboteneFilm KuhleWampe,”rpt.inBrecht,“KuhleWampe”:
Protokoll,174.
Review ofKuhleWampeinMetallarbeiter-Jugend,qtd. by JürgenKinter,Arbeiterbewegung
und Film (1885–1933): EinBeitrag zur Geschichte der Arbeiter-und Alltagskultur und der gewerk-
schaftlichen und sozialdemokratischen Kultur-undMedienarbeit(Hamburg: Medienpädagogik
Zentrum, 1986),326.
330 Chapter 18