Date: 23 October 2008 20:06:31
I thought I would break with tradition and rather than talk about a film seen decades after its release, I am now going to bring you news of a film which is on general release in Germany today. Warning: uninformed wittering may ensue.
I read the book in translation a couple of years ago ("A Woman in Berlin: Diary 20 April 1945 to 22 June 1945" by "Anonymous" translated by Philip Boehm). It was originally published in English in 1954 and in German in 1959 but did not enjoy great success. Its relaunch a few years ago threw it - and the issues it deals with - back under the spotlight.
There are various issues raised by the book.
1. It was written anonymously - and in some detail - at a time of huge upheaval in Germany. It starts on Hitler's birthday as Russian tanks are rumbling inexorably towards Berlin. Hitler has taken refuge in his Führerbunker and Berliners, mainly women, children and the elderly are left to cope as best they can.
There is some discussion as to whether it is a genuine or fictitious account. I was in two minds: the account is extraordinarily personal and sounds very genuine, but the diary entries are very long and one wonders how long they took to write out - particularly when living in a bombed out flat when basic daily routines such as getting food and fuel could take all day to accomplish. (I suppose it is possible they were written in some sort of shorthand.)
There are some theories as to the identity of the author and some agreement that she was probably a particular journalist and photographer who could speak some Russian. The presumed author died in 2001 at the age of 90. Her name is cited on Wikipedia (JtL's favourite source!) and has been revealed in other publications to the annoyance of some. She had not wanted another edition published during her lifetime after the storm it had originally provoked. It seems that on the whole it is considered to be a genuine account with additions made for publication.
2. It deals with the issue of women's survival in a city devoid of men. The only men there are the invading conquerors who want to satisfy their lust for revenge. One of the obvious ways (to them) of achieving this is by raping the women. And this is the main point of contention. When the men returned from the fighting they did not want to acknowledge that their womenfolk had been subjected to such violence in their absence. Guilt, shame, emasculation of their position of the protector - there could be any number of reasons - and the whole topic became a taboo. It was swept under the carpet until the 1980s when women were encouraged to talk about their experiences.
Some women, including the author, found that their only way of surviving the daily fight to preserve a modicum of their dignity was by seeking the protection of the most senior Russian officer they could find. The payment for his services was of course sex - but this arrangement prevented the possibility of mass rape as lower-ranking soldiers would not run the risk of raping an officer's "girlfriend". (Some couples did form genuine attachments apparently which caused even more problems later on.)
3. The account was seen as being anti-Russian and inappropriate criticism while the Cold War was at its height.
4. The book raises the issue of German suffering. This is not deemed to be an "appropriate" topic - largely it seems because "they started it". This seems to me to be a very childish and simplistic way of defining suffering - if it can be deemed a definition at all.
I have read a few message boards where the themes of this film are being discussed. I shake my head in disbelief at the men's contributions which are largely on the lines of "they (the women) had it coming to them" - as if somehow these women were largely responsible for the war. These contributors do not seem to acknowledge that violent rape is used as a weapon of war and still continues to be used all over the world today.
One review I've read does not seem to think that the film works well. Other places I've seen it mentioned call it a "rape film" which does not attract me in the least. Having read the book, which was almost unreadable in places, I don't need to see the violence enacted before my eyes; I'm not sure I shall be queuing up to watch it in a public auditorium. If however you have the stomach for it, do report back.