Born in '45 [GDR 1966]

Jahrgang '45
Director: J. Böttcher
Cinematographer: R. Gräf

Made in 1965-66 and not released until 1990, this is an excellent film about the post-war generation and its difference in values from the older generation, as well as its lack of clear direction and purpose.

In that sense it is often highly reminiscent of Forman's Black Peter; both films involve a similar theme of intergenerational misunderstanding for the same reasons, though this film revolves around people in their 20s rather than their teens. There is even a point at which the protagonist's mother tells him that young people have it too easy these days; and he responds that it's not like the old days, etc. And the similarities to Black Peter really seem to go beyond just a thematic link; there are a couple of small scenes shot in such a way that they could easily be a direct nod to that film, like a scene in a food shop, and one of a dance hall. In any case, even if this film was not inspired by the earlier one, then the similarities between their subject matter are all the more fascinating.

And that is the main thing. The protagonist--who incidentally is depicted mostly as not working because he has taken a few days off work--is a young man who, along with others of his generation, seems mainly interested in motorcycles, drinking, jazz, rock and roll, and chasing girls. He finds himself disenchanted with his two year long marriage, apparently because he does not feel ready to grow up somehow, commit to something. He is then surrounded by social pressure to go back to his wife--from his mother, his friends, and his manager.

The manager's involvement provides an interesting depiction of a socialist-type interaction. That is, the manager and his other coworkers have found out that he is going to have a divorce, and so the manager sits him down and talks to him about it, tries to convince him to see reason, etc. We also learn that the judge at the court where he filed for divorce gave him a lecture about it and told him to think about it for six weeks. But he does not listen, and also snarls back at his manager, saying 'It's my business, isn't it?' It is clear he can more or less respond as he wants to his manager; he is not being ordered around or forced to do anything; but there is gentle social pressure being exerted on him from all sides. As Kornai says, the workplace is actually involved in all aspects of life, and workmates take an active interest in one's personal life. But while Kornai suggests that is a negative thing, and the protagonist here also says it's his business, in this film it really just seems like an extension of the community as a whole taking a concerned interest in the protagonist doing the right thing and having a successful relationship.

Of course, all the social pressure comes to naught. It is in fact only when he realises that he does not want to be alone, and seems to realise that his friends are settling down and growing up, that he goes back to her. So there could be a subtle commentary on social pressure itself here; there also seems to be a gentle statement about growing up, a suggestion--not so much present in Black Peter--that some of the tension between the two generations will be eased as the new one gets through its growing pains. But the suggestion is not to invalidate them; it is to say that in the end they must find their own way, that all attempts to force them to find a purpose and to commit to something will be unsuccessful compared to the commitment they will make when they discover it themselves. That is, I think, the strongest social commentary that could be taken reasonably from this film.

But what is really ironic is the reasoning behind the shelving of the film in 1966. Apparently among the long criticisms that were made of it were that it depicted a kind of young person that no longer existed in the GDR; that it showed gloomy, unkempt places; that it was 'naturalistic'; etc.--in short, a socialist realist critique if there ever was any. At a time when Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and other socialist countries had transcended socialist realism and were producing and releasing large numbers of critical, honest films, this film--which feels almost certainly as if it would have been released had it been made in e.g. Czechoslovakia--was subjected to an essentially socialist realist line of criticism in the GDR and rejected. The irony here of course is that the very intergenerational conflict and misunderstanding with which it deals was played out in the fate of the movie itself.

Aesthetically, this film is beautiful. The composition and style is eclectic, seeming to draw on many sources and make occasional references. There are a couple of shots that prefigure other films; e.g. an interesting diagonal cut across steps suggesting the determination of the young generation to flaunt convention and do things their own way, with an initial composition of the stairs and the individual similar to the steps in The Cremator. Another is the shot of the couple undergoing relationship strife juxtaposed with the tree--a classic composition reminiscent of The Peach Thief or later Lucía.

The really beautiful shots, however, are those which capture elements of everyday life in a gentle, enchanting way. The first few and last few moments of the film are like this--waking up in the morning; blowing a bit of feather around; munching on some toast; a kiss on the back of the neck. It is hard to describe how Böttcher does it, but for me these are the best shots of the whole film, because they pull the viewer in and create an aura of simple tenderness which then goes on to give the whole film a feeling of innocence and beauty. The depiction of the simple and the everyday seems to have this capacity, as in Intimate Lighting; but Böttcher in particular has managed a few incredible shots which draw it out as beautiful without romanticising it.

So in the inevitable (and worthwhile) comparison with Black Peter, this is a far stronger film on all counts. But they both deal with a similar social phenomenon, and therefore deserve to be studied together. And in the end there is a real divergence between the GDR of 1966 and the Czechoslovakia of 1964; for the Czechoslovakian film was released, while the one from the GDR was not. Perhaps this mirrors in some small way the political singularity of the GDR, and therefore perhaps a difference in the results of that generational conflict.