We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2015
Film was a relatively new commercial-entertainment medium in the summer of 1930, and newerstill were the “talkies.” Unforeseen cultural difficulties accompanied the advent of sound films, to which spoken language gave an intrinsic national character. Language accentuated national differences in feeling and thought, and since audiences could no longer “naturalize” films, they could not adopt the imaginative content of sound films as their own “cultural territory.” American audiences mocked the nasal English accents in British films, while the British hissed American accents and Parisians greeted the first American ”talkie” with cries of “Speak French!” In Czechoslovakia, historical circumstances complicated popular reaction to sound films. With the founding of the state in 1918, Czechs had rejected their Austrian legacy and attempted to enforce a Czech character in all aspects of public life.
1 See Richard, Maltby and Ruth, Vasey, “The International Language Problem,” in Hollywood in Europe: Experiences of a Cultural Hegemony, ed. Ellwood, David W. and Rob, Kroes (Amsterdam, 1994), 79Google Scholar, and Saunders, Thomas J., Hollywood in Berlin: American Cinema and Weimar Germany(Berkeley, Calif., 1994), 233.Google Scholar
2 Luboš, Bartošek, Náš film. Kapitoly z dějin (1896–1945) (Our film: Chapters from history, 1896–1945) (Prague, 1985), 171.Google Scholar
3 On the role of Czech film in the First Republic, see JiříRak, , “Úvahy o národním charakteru českèlio filmu po roce 1918” (Reflections on the national character of Czech film after 1918), lluminace 1, no. 1 (1989): 30–42.Google Scholar
4 See, for example, Bartošek, , Náš film, 171–72, who mentions the film protests in conjunction with the problems posed by the introduction of sound in films;Google ScholarPeter, Becher, “Kulturpolitische Konfliktherde in der Ersten Republik. Der Streit um das Prager Standetheater 1920 und die Prager Tonfilmaffäre 1930,” in Das Scheitern der Verständigung. Tschechen, Deutsche und Slowaken in der Ersten Republik (1918–1938), ed. Jörg, Hoensch and Dušan, Kováč (Essen. 1994), 119–34,Google Scholar who concentrates on Czech-German domestic relations (a Czech version of the book is also available: Ztroskotání spolužití: Češi, Němci, Slováci v první republice. 1918–1938 [Prague, 1993]);Google ScholarJohann Wolfgang, Brügel, Tschechen und Deutsche 1918–1938 (Munich, 1967), 219–20,Google ScholarandCampbell, F. Gregory, Confrontation in Central Europe: Weimar Germany and Czechoslovakia (Chicago, 1975), 217–19,Google Scholar both of whom are interested in the foreign-political implications of the protests; Jan, Havránek, “Fascism in Czechoslovakia,” in Native Fascism in the Successor States, 1918–1945, ed. Peter, Sugar (Santa Barbara, Calif., 1971), 47–55,Google Scholar who briefly mentions the protests in conjunction with the Czech fascists; David, Kelly, The Czech Fascist Movement, 1922–1942 (Boulder, Colo., 1995), 93–94,Google Scholar whose interest is domestic politics; Harry, Klepetař, Seit 1918. Eine Ceschichte der Tschechoslowakischen Republik (M.-Ostrau, 1937), 306–10,Google Scholar who focuses mainly on domestic politics; Antonín, Klimek and Petr, Hofman, Vítěz, kteý prohrál Gener´al Radola Gajda (The winner who lost: General Radola Gajda) (Prague, 1995), 212–13, who concentrate on the role of the fascists in the demonstrations.Google Scholar
5 Garver, Bruce M. has noted this pattern of Czech nationalist twinning of Jews and Germans. I think he underestimates the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism among Czechs partly because he overstates Czech success “in modern agriculture, industry, and finance,” and understates the influence of Jewish merchants and bankers (The Young Czech Party, 1874–1901, and the Emergence of a Multi-Party System [New Haven, Conn., 1978], 302–3).Google Scholar For another view on the Young Czechs and anti-Semitism, seeKieval, Hillel J., The Making of Czech Jewry: National Conflict and Jewish Society in Bohemia, 1870–1918 (New York, 1988), 77–78.Google Scholar I would like to thank Mills Kelly for drawingmy attention to numerous articles in the Czech National Socialist daily, České slovo, that reflect the identification of Jews with Germans as well as the class and national components of Czech anti-Semitism. See, for example, Českě slovo, Oct. 21 and29 and Nov. 24,1908.Google Scholar
6 Bartošek, , Náš film, 170.Google Scholar
7 Bohemia, July 5, 1930, 3; and Prager Tagblatt, July 5, 1930, 5.Google Scholar
8 Bohemia, July 29, 1930, 7; Aug. 29,1930, 6.Google Scholar
9 České slovo, Aug. 15,1930,1. This editorial was discussed the following day in Bohemia, Aug. 16, 1930, 5. The National Democrats, writing in Národni listy, hotly denied owning the theater (Sept. 25,1930, 3).Google Scholar
10 Polední list, Sept. 23, 1930, 6.Google Scholar
11 See correspondence in Státni ústřední archiv (hereafter SÚA), Ministerstvo vnitra, 1925–30 (hereafter MV), kart. č. 1062, sign. 6/240/13. On grounds for recent cases of censorship, see Prager Abendzeitung, Oct. 22,1930, 2.Google Scholar
12 Among those who were skeptical about the transition to sound, arguingamong other things that it “enriched film only superficially,” were both those who produced films and those who critiqued them. See Wolfgang, Jacobsen, “Die Tonfilmmaschine,” in Babelsberg. Ein Filmstudio 1912–1992, ed. Jacobsen, (Berlin, 1992), 152;Google ScholarWollenberg, Hans H., Fifty Years of German Film (New York, 1972), 24–25;Google Scholar and Saunders, , Hollywood in Berlin, 226.Google ScholarSee also Wolfgang, Jacobsen, Anton, Kaes, and Hans Helmut, Prinzler, eds., Geschichte des deutschen Films (Stuttgart, 1993), 87–94.Google Scholar
13 Bohemia, July 16,1930, 5.Google Scholar
14 Maltby, and Vasey, , “International Language Problem,” in Hollywood in Europe, ed. Ellwood, and Kroes, , 79. One of the advantages of Two Hearts was that the Czech-language text had simply been copied into the film so that the spoken words and the translation appeared at the same time (Bohemia, 08. 22,1930,6).Google Scholar
15 Until the middle of 1931, about one-third of all German sound films were also produced in foreign languages, primarily English and French. Different versions of a film might require changes in costume, direction, or cast (Uta Berg-Ganschow, “Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch,” in Babelsberg, ed. Jacobsen, 169).Google Scholar
16 A recent Czech-language work on Czech fascism is Klimek and Hofman, Vátěz, který prohrál. In English, in addition to the recent volume by Kelly, The Czech Fascist Movement, see Havránek, , “Fascism in Czechoslovakia,” 49–50. Havránek, notes that Czech fascists, who had their major support in Prague, were less pro-Czech than they were anti-German. Anoisy but numerically negligible party, the fascists received only 1 percent of the vote in the 1929 parliamentary elections. In 1934, the fascists joined ranks with the Czech National Democrats, and in the parliamentary elections of May 1935, they got 5.6 percent of the vote and 17 seats in the National Assembly.Google Scholar
17 National Archives of the United States (hereafter NA), Record Group (hereafter RG) 59-General Records of the Department of State, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.00, Despatch 127, Oct. 11,1930, from Prague (no name), 2.
18 Bohemia, Sept. 20, 1930, 1. Viennese papers also carried details of the Mayer case; see Neue Freie Presse, Sept. 18, 1930, 4, and Neues Wiener Journal, Sept. 20, 1930,13. The Bohemian K.u.k. Twenty-eighth infantry regiment went over en masse to the Russian side in the spring of 1915. For two or three decades thereafter, the term Achtundzwanziger would be synonymous with “disloyal” and “unreliable” in the German-speaking military circles of Central Europe. The Czech perspective was, however, entirely different. Communication from Jeremy King, Apr. 1996.Google Scholar
19 Bohemia, Sept. 23, 1930, 6.Google Scholar
20 Národní listy, Sept. 26, 1930, 1; and Večer, Sept. 26, 1930, 2; Nov. 6, 1930, 1, article headlined “Another Mayer Who Rails against the Republic.”Google Scholar
21 SÚA, Censurní sbor kinematografický (hereafter CSK), kart. č. 36, č. 461/1930, Předváděni filmu “Nesmrtelný Lump” v biografu “Avion” v Praze (The showing of the film “The Immortal Tramp” at the Avion theater in Prague), Sept. 24, 1930. See also SÚA, Presidium zemského úřadu, 1921–30 (hereafter PZÚ), kart. č. 121, sign. 8/1/69/48, Policejní ředitelstvi v Praze, Fašistická demonstrace při večerním představení v biografu “Avion” dne 22. září 1930 (Fascist demonstration during the evening showing in the Avion theater on September 22,1930), Sept. 24, 1930, 1.
22 České slovo, Sept. 23,1930, 11.Google Scholar
23 Bohemia, Sept. 24, 1930, 5; Národí listy (evening edition), Sept. 23, 1930, 1; and Polední list, Sept. 24, 1930, 1.Google Scholar
24 Bohemia, Sept. 24, 1930, 5; Poledni list, Sept. 24, 1930, 1; and Archiv Ústavu Masaryka, T. G., Masarykův archiv, kart.: Vnitropolitické situace-vlády (Domestic-political situation—government), Jednání vyslance Dra Krofty, K. s německým vyslancem Dr Kochem pražských demonstracích (Minister Kamil Krofta's talks with German minister Koch about the Prague demonstrations), Oct. 17, 1930.Google Scholar
25 Berliner Tageblatt, Sept. 27, 1930, 1.Google Scholar
26 Bohemia, Sept. 25, 1930, 1, 2.Google Scholar
27 Compare “Nehlásíme se k filmu, který je naší celonárodní ostudou” (We don't advocate this film that is our international disgrace), Filmové listy 2, no. 25 (Sept. 30, 1930): 188.Google Scholar
28 Selbstwehr, Sept. 26, 1930, 2.Google Scholar
29 SÚA, Policejní presidium, 1921–30 (hereafter PP), sign. D/12/35, Výpis ze zprávy o událostech politického rázu ze dne 24.9.30 (Account of the report on the events of a political nature on September 24, 1930).
30 Berliner Tageblatt, Sept. 26, 1930, n.p.; and Bohemia, Sept. 26, 1930, 1, 2.Google Scholar
31 České slovo, Sept. 27, 1930, 1; Sozialdemokrat, Sept. 27, 1930, 1; and SÚA, PP, 1921–30, sign. D/12/35, Policejní ředitelství v Praze, Zpráva, Sept. 26, 1930.Google Scholar
32 Prager Presse, Sept. 28, 1930, 2.Google Scholar
33 For arrest lists from the various police districts in Prague, see SÚA, PP, 1921–30, sign. D/12/35; and PZÚ, 1921–30, kart. č. 120, sign. 8/1/69/48; for police injuries on Sept. 25, see PZÚ, 1921–30, kart. č. 120, sign. 8/1/69/48, Opis, Sept. 26, 1930.
34 See reports in NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/5, Despatch 120, Sept. 29, 1930, from A. C. Ratshesky in Prague, 5, as well as in the Czechoslovak and international press.
35 Sozialdemokrat, Sept. 26, 1930, 2.Google Scholar
36 Česté slovo, Sept. 27, 1930, 3; Poledný list, Sept. 28, 1930, 1; Sozialdemokrat, Sept. 28, 1930, 1; and Neue Freie Presse (morning edition), Oct. 1,1930, 9.Google Scholar
37 Bohemia, Sept. 28, 1930, 2.Google Scholar
38 Speech of Josef, Keibl, Příloha k těsnopisecké zprávě o 70. schůzi poslanecké sněmovny Národního shromáždění repububliky Československé (Supplement to the stenographic protocols of the 70th session of the house of deputies of the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic), Sept. 25, 1930, 97–98.Google Scholar
39 Speech of Charles, Pergler, 70. schůze poslanecké sněmovny Národního shromážděí republiky Československé (The 70th session of the house of deputies of the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic), Sept. 25, 1930, 44–45.Google Scholar
40 Speech of Radola, Gajda, 70. schůze poslanecké snémovny Národního shromázděni republiky Československé, Sept. 25, 1930, 57.Google Scholar
41 Characterized by Elizabeth, Wiskemann, Czechs and Germans, 2nd ed. (London, 1967), 215,Google Scholar as “the well-known Germanophobe,” Karel Baxa, who was born in Sedlčany (district Příbram) in 1863, was an attorney who made his name as a member of the defense in the Omladina trial of 1894. He also served as prosecutor in the Hilsner trial for blood libel. Initially a member of the State Rights Progressive party, he joined the Czech National Socialists in 1911. He was mayor of Prague from 1919 to 1937.
42 NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/7, Despatch 126, Oct. 10, 1930, from Chargé ď Affaires Barton Hall in Prague, 2. The resolution was published in České slovo, Sept. 27, 1930, 3.Google Scholar
43 On the city council debate, see Archiv hlavního města Prahy (AHMP), Zápísy o schůzích rady méstské 1930 VIII (září), “Zápis o schůzi rady městské konané dne 26. září 1930” (Minutes of the meeting of the city council from Sept. 26, 1930).Google Scholar
44 For Šámal's remarks, see Archiv kanceláře presidenta republiky (AKPR), sign. 1170/21 (Praha-obec a magistrát), T/1366/30, Oct. 16, 1930, report by Přemysl Šámal.
45 AHMP, Demonstrace, 83a/l, letter of Oct. 1, 1930, from Karel Baxa to Kamil Krofta.
46 NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/7, Despatch 126, 2.
47 NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.63/5, Despatch 120, Sept. 29, 1930, 4; Protokol XVI. Sjezdu Československé sociálně demokratické strany dělnickě (Protocol of the 16th Congress of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Workers' Party), Sept. 27–29, 1930; see the remarks of German Social Democratic party secretary, Siegfried Taub, 7; and of Jan Fára, a Czechoslovak Social Democrat from Prague, 70–71.Google ScholarSee also Herman, Kopecek, “ ‘It is a Question of Tactics’: Cooperation among Czech and German Social Democrats in Interwar Czechoslovokia” (Ph.D.diss., University of Washington, 1997), 100–2.Google Scholar
48 On Dolejš's alleged fascist tendencies, see NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/5, Despatch 120, Sept. 29, 1930, 5; see also Šámaľs report, AKPR, sign. 1170/21 (Prahaobec a magistrát), T1300/30, Sept. 27, 1930.
49 Neue Freie Presse (morning edition), Oct. 1,1930, 7.Google Scholar
50 Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (Berlin), 10. 2,1930, 1.Google Scholar
51 For district and regional reports responding to the government's apparently unjustified concern about the showing of German-language films on Oct. 28, see SÚA, PZÚ, 1921–30, kart. č.121, sign. 8/1/69/48.
52 Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Oct. 22, 1930, 4.Google Scholar
53 Večerní České slovo, Sept. 26, 1930, 1. This article and a translation were appended to NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/6, Despatch 129, Oct. 13, 1930, from Hall in Prague, 2. Hall made no comment on the allegations (Central European Observer 40, no. 8 [Oct.3,1930]: 354).Google Scholar
54 See, for example, České slovo, Sept. 23, 1930, 11, and Sozialdemokrat, Oct. 8, 1930, 6.Google Scholar
55 On operettas, see Wollenberg, , Fifty Years of German Film, 26. For 1930–31 rankings,Google Scholarsee Uli, Jung, ed., Der deutsche Film. Aspekte seiner Geschichte von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Trier, 1993), 199.Google Scholar
56 Central European Observer 40, no. 8 (10. 3, 1930):354. The descriptions of the demonstrations were fairly similar in most of the newspapers in Prague, with the exception of the government papers, which attempted to downplay their importance by limiting coverage. The variation came in the attitude of the various publications toward the protests.Google Scholar
57 Ibid.
58 AKPR, sign. 1170/21 (obec a magistrát), T 1527/30, letter from Baxa to Dr. Schwink, dated Oct. 13,1930.
59 Central European Observer 40, no. 8 (10. 3, 1930): 354.Google Scholar
60 Sigfried, Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of German Film (Princeton, N.J., 1947), 207–8.Google Scholar
61 “Více statečnosti” (More gallantry), Přítomnost 7, no. 39 (10. 1, 1930): 609.Google Scholar
62 Národní politika, Sept. 25, 1930, 3; Sept. 26, 1930, 5;Google Scholar and Polední list, Sept. 26, 1930, 1.Google Scholar
63 Sozialdemokrat, Sept. 25–26, 1930.Google Scholar
64 Selbstwehr, Sept. 26, 1930, 2; Oct. 5, 1930, 3.Google Scholar
65 Rudý večerník, Sept. 24, 1930, 1;Google Scholar and Rudé právo, Oct. 25, 1930, 1.Google Scholar
66 AHMP, “Demonstrace,” 893/1.
67 Central European Observer 39, no. 8 (Sept. 26, 1930): 340.Google Scholar
68 AHMP, “Demonstrace,” 839/1, Dortmunder Zeitung, Sept. 27, 1930;Google Scholarthe headlines of München-Augsburger Abendzeitung, Sept. 25, 1930, 1, read “Eine Kulturschande. Tschechenpöbel gegen deutsche Filme.”Google Scholar
69 Der Völkische Beobachter (Munich), 10. 3, 1930 3.Google Scholar
70 Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 27, 1930, 1.Google Scholar
71 Prager Tagblatt, Oct. 5, 1930, 1.Google Scholar
72 Archiv ministerstva zahraničních věcí (hereafter AMZV), Berlín 1930, Periodická zpráva politicka vyslanectví ČSR v Berlině (Periodic political reports from the Czechoslovak minister in Berlin), ”Dr. Curtius, ministr. zahranicních vecí: Projev proti ČSR” (Dr. Curtius, minister of foreign affairs: Speech against the ČSR), no. 305, Oct. 2, 1930; no. 332, Oct. 31, 1930; and NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.62/7, Despatch 126, Oct. 10, 1932, from Hall in Prague, 2.Google Scholar
73 Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Oct. 8, 1930, 3; see also SÚA, PZÚ, 1921–1930, sign. 8/1/69/48, Opis, Opava, Oct. 6, 1930.Google Scholar
74 Prager Tagblatt, Nov. 11, 1930, 8; and NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, Despatch 162, Nov. 19,1930, from Hall in Prague, 2.Google Scholar
75 SÚA, MV, 1931–35, X/F/7 (filmy).
76 Campbell, Confrontation, 255, 340, n. 154.Google Scholar
77 AMZV, III. sekce, 1918–39, kart. č. 400, Filmy-zásadní dovoz amerických filmů 1934–38, Mar. 30, 1938, 3 (unsigned). For the Ludendorff letter, see Erich, Ludendorff, “Schreiben an das Kgl. Kriegsministerium vom 4. Juli 1917,” in Film und Gesellschaft im Deutschland. Dokumente und Materialien, ed. Wilfried von, Bredow and Rolf, Zurek (Hamburg, 1975), 102–4;Google Scholar a Czech-language translation can be found in “Edice a materiály: Dopis generála Ludendorffa Královskému válečnému ministerstvu” (Editions and materials: The letter of General Ludendorff to the Imperial War Ministry), Iluminace 6, no. 3 (15) (1994): 79–80.Google Scholar
78 Kelly, , Czech Fascism, 95.Google Scholar
79 Campbell, Confrontation, 219.Google Scholar
80 NA, RG 59, Central Decimal Files, 1930–39, 760F.00, Despatch 127, Oct. 11, 1930, no signature, 1, 2.
81 SÚA, CSK, kart. č. 37, č. 586/1930; and kart. č. 40, č. 1149/1930.
