German National Identity and Representations of the ‘Wende’ in Post-Unification Cinema

Department of German Studies GE436 German Studies Dissertation German National Identity and Representations of the ‘Wende’ in Post-Unification Cinema Coming to terms with the past and forging an understanding of a new national identity in a reunified Germany Student Andrew Jones Dissertation Supervisor Seán Allan

WORD COUNT 9931 excluding footnotes

GE436 GERMAN STUDIES DISSERTATION German National Identity and Representations of the ‘Wende’ in Post-Unification Cinema

German Studies © Andrew Jones 2014

1

Contents Abbreviations 2 Referencing 2 Introduction 3 I. Memories of Progress: Die Architekten (1990) 6 II. The Quest for ‘Normalisation’: Coming to terms with the East 15 III. Memories of Settlement: Sonnenallee (1999) 18 IV. Memory Contests: Alles auf Zucker! (2004) 26 Conclusion 32 Filmography 34 Bibliography 35



2

Abbreviations DEFA Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschhaft FDJ Freie Deutsche Jugend FRG Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) GDR German Democratic Republic (East Germany) SED Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschland (East German

Communist Party) Referencing This dissertation follows the conventions of the Chicago Manual of Style in regards to referencing for footnotes and bibliographical entries. Figures refer to stills taken from the respective films of that section and are embedded within the text.



3

German National Identity and Representations of the ‘Wende’ in Post-Unification Cinema Coming to terms with the past and forging an understanding of a new national identity in a reunified Germany

Introduction

Questions of national identity have plagued the German nation for the majority

of the twentieth-century and continue to do so today. Even prior to the

establishment of Germany as a sovereign state in 1871, there existed a sense

of ‘Germanness’ in the German-speaking territories of Europe, regardless of

geopolitical borders. The division of Germany after the Second World War,

which culminated in the formation of two ideologically opposed states, started to

endanger this sense of solidarity and common, borderless German identity, an

identity that would inevitably diverge due to the politics of the Cold War.

The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) in the West was the legal successor to

the previous incarnation of the German state – the Third Reich – but it was in

no way its spiritual successor. The FRG established a state that placed great

importance on the rule of law, in stark contrast to the ‘Unrechtsstaat’ that

preceded it. The state saw it as its moral and historical responsibility to come to

terms with the troubled past of Nazism, a process that would come to be known

as ‘Vergangenheitsbewältigung’. It was a responsibility that aimed to

understand the drastic change of course in German history, from the notion of

the culturally rich land of Goethe and Schiller to the genocidal nation of Hitler

and Himmler.

On the other side of the inner-German border in the East, the German

Democratic Republic (GDR) approached the nation’s shared recent past

differently. Grounded in the Soviet model, the socialist state and its ruling party,

the SED, saw National Socialism as the most extreme form of capitalism. The

state therefore attempted to gain legitimacy through the dissemination of its

founding myth. “Auferstanden aus Ruinen”, as the country’s anthem would

proclaim, the East was starting anew, rising from the physical ruins of war, the

psychological and economic failure of fascism, and, “der Zukunft zugewandt”,



4

was now striving for and building a better future. The SED would style the GDR

as anti-fascist with its western neighbour, due to its capitalist nature, seen as

the continuation of fascism. These ideological beliefs would be ‘concretised’ by

the Party in 1961 with the erection of the ‘Antifaschistischer Schutzwall’, more

commonly known as the Berlin Wall.

Diametrically opposed concepts of historiography thus became entrenched in

the German psyche as it had been in the respective states’ politics. Fulbrook

and Swales describe this as “an extraordinary experiment […] to reappropriate

and reinterpret a common past”1 and it is a process that would continue in a

unified Germany, one which would also have to be applied to their divided past.

The Berlin Wall fell in November 1989, the culmination of weeks of peaceful

protests, many with the slogan: “Wir sind ein Volk”. Despite decades of division,

a sense of Germanness prevailed and swift unification would become politically

imperative. It was a process that came to be known as the ‘Wende’, or turning

point, and as former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt would declare:

“Jetzt wächst zusammen, was zusammengehört”. But, as Fuchs notes,

“although [… the fall of the wall and unification] appeared to heal the war-torn

history of the twentieth-century, unification posed the question of identity

afresh”.2 Brandt’s declaration is both poetic and optimistic but also hints at

Germany’s coming problems. Forty years of separation and a rapid reunification

would prove to be a rupture in the complex fabric of German national identity.

The government of the now reunified Germany, or the Berlin Republic as it

would come to be known, was keen to foster ‘inner unity’. It was thought that

the Western approach of Vergangenheitsbewältigung, typically associated with

the ‘Aufarbeitung’ of the country’s fascist past, could be utilised to come to

terms with the country’s socialist past. With this in mind, by the end of the 1990s

the ‘Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur’ had been established.3

However, as one author argued, it became clear that:

1. Mary Fulbrook and Martin Swales. “Introduction: Representation in Literature and History”, in

Representing the German Nation: History and Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), 2.

2. Anne Fuchs, Kathleen James-Chakraborty and Linda Shortt. “Introduction”, in Debating German Cultural Identity Since 1989, ed. Anne Fuchs, et al. (Rochester: Camden House, 2011), 1.

3. See Ruth Wittlinger, “The Quest for ‘Inner Unity’”, in German National Identity in the Twenty-First Century: A Different Republic After All? (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 68.



5

Geschichte kann weder aufgearbeitet noch bewältigt werden. Sie ist nur aus dem Alltag heraus zu begreifen [...] Es sind Geschichten des Alltags, dem die Historie verwoben ist.4

History could no longer easily fit into a single, universal narrative; public and

private histories failed to align. As Fuchs explains, “while historians agree in

their evaluation of the GDR as a totalitarian system […], former East German

citizens emphasize the normality of their lives in the GDR”.5 It is a dialectic that

has been termed a ‘memory contest’, a term which “puts emphasis on a

pluralistic memory culture which does not enshrine a particular normative

understanding of the past but embraces the idea that individuals and groups

advance and edit competing stories about themselves that forge their changing

sense of identity”.6

Sabrow pinpoints three separate memory discourses that affect both

contemporary Germany’s understanding of the GDR and, with it, contemporary

German identity. Firstly, there is the memory of the GDR as a totalitarian

dictatorship (‘Dikataturgedächtnis’), a view that often correlates with that of

official history. Secondly, there is the memory of settlement

(‘Arrangementgedächtnis’), an understanding that a sense of normality could be

achieved under the regime for those willing to compromise. Thirdly, there is the

memory of progress (‘Fortschrittgedächtnis’) that understands socialism as a

legitimate alternative to capitalism. 7 With the existence of such conflicting

memory strands, traditional historiographical studies of the past therefore no

longer seemed to suffice in a reunified Germany and, just as it had with

Vergangenheitsbewältigung, the past moved into the cultural sphere. The

importance of this development is not to be underestimated and Fulbrook puts it

perfectly when she writes:

Historians delude themselves if they think that they are the key to shaping popular historical consciousness. Of arguably far greater impact are the – emotionally more accessible, if sometimes intellectually less rigorous – media, novels and dramas […], films, television

4. Kerstin Hensel, as quoted by Karen Leeder in “Introduction”, Oxford German Studies 38, no. 3 (2009):

239. 5. Fuchs, James-Chakraborty and Shortt, “Introduction”, 1. 6. Anne Fuchs and Mary Cosgrove, “Introduction”, German Life and Letters 59 no. 2 (2006): 4 7. See Martin Sabrow, “Die DDR erinnern”, in Erinnerungsorte der DDR, ed. Martin Sabrow (Munich:

Beck, 2000),18-20. See also Fuchs, James-Chakraborty and Shortt, “Introduction”, 8-9.



6

documentaries, museum exhibits, commemorations and reconstructions in the ‘authentic locations’ of the past, the ‘sacred sites of collective memory’.8

By analysing three such pieces of media – namely Peter Kahane’s Die

Architekten (1990), Leander Haußmann’s Sonnenallee (1999), and Dani Levy’s

Alles auf Zucker (2004) – this dissertation offers an analysis of the changing

historical consciousness underpinning the Germans’ equally-changing sense of

identity and understanding of the past.

I. Memories of Progress: Die Architekten (1990)

Filmed shortly before the fall of the Wall and released a few months before the

unification process would begin, Die Architekten consequently (and

unintentionally) critiques a society and system that was now itself a mere

memory. Understandably, going to the cinema was not top of the agenda for

many East Germans at the time and the film would be of little interest to West

Germans, for, as Wittlinger notes, “whereas East Germans, due to access to

West German TV and radio, were fairly well informed about the West, West

Germans were not only rather ignorant about the GDR but were also not

particularly interested”.9 The film then, for a time, remained largely ignored, “ins

Wendeloch gefallen”,10 but it nevertheless warrants attention, as it is able to

offer a unique contemporary commentary on the East German experience of

the Wende.

Concerning himself with the ‘Baupolitik’ of the GDR, Kahane follows a tradition

set by other DEFA directors. Architecture proved to be an apt metaphor for

exploring the political structures of the regime. Frank Beyer’s

Spur der Steine (1966) – banned in the wake of the Eleventh Plenum –

highlighted the slow-moving nature of construction in the GDR, with its limited

budgets, out-dated technology, and corrupt officials. Lothar Warneke’s

Unser kurzes Leben (1980) followed, focusing on a young female architect,

8. Mary Fulbrook, “Re-presenting the Nation: History and Identity in East Germany”, in Representing the

German Nation: History and Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), 185.

9. Wittlinger, “The Quest for ‘Inner Unity’”, 53. 10. A number of books and films that appeared during the tumult of unification were hardly noticed, hence

the expression, notes Laura Green McGee in “‘Ich wollte ewig einen richtigen Film machen! Und als es soweit war, konnte ich's nicht!’: The End Phase of the GDR in Films by DEFA Nachwuchsregisseure”, German Studies Review 26, no. 2 (2003): 332.



7

Franziska, who encounters similar issues. Warneke’s film showcases a state

with a predominantly male bureaucracy set in its ways, resistant to change and

the young architect’s dream of a more utopian living space. In what would be

one of DEFA’s final productions, Kahane’s film takes up the challenge and

develops many of the motifs established in Unser kurzes Leben.

The bureaucracy in Die Architekten is shown to be similarly reactionary. At the

start of the film, the protagonist, Daniel, is yet to have anything of note built,

despite being thirty-eight years of age. This apparent lack of opportunity is

caused by the incumbent older generations of the bureaucracy, who appear

reluctant to relinquish power and mistrust of the younger generation. This lack

of trust is evident in an older architect, who, in a sequence near the start of the

film, recounts how much he had done by the same age as Daniel. Accordingly,

the architect is dismissive of Daniel, believing the error lies in his work and not

the system. Another architect of Daniel’s age eventually gives up:

Wozu habe ich 6 Jahre studiert, wenn sie mir als Architekt nur dann vertrauen, wenn ich […] beweise, dass ich ihre politischen Lektion gefressen habe … Mit neununddreißig will ich endlich Erwachsen sein!

This architect’s desire to become ‘an adult’ is the wish for self-emancipation and

to be free from the shackles of ‘the parent’ – the controlling bureaucracy of the

Party. He sees a chance to redefine his identity if he does not abide by their

rules. Identity in Daniel, however, is by contrast portrayed as being a fixed

concept. Daniel sees this period of time as his last chance to define and confirm

his identity, which is determined by his ideology. Daniel is therefore reliant on

the prevailing political system, no matter how deficient that system may be. The

constitution promised that “die Jugend wird in ihrer gesellschaftlichen und

beruflichen Entwicklung besonders gefördert”, 11 but the experiences of the

architects in this film show this promise has been broken, due to what the

screenwriter, Thomas Knauf, describes as “das tiefe Mißtrauen der Väter dieses

Landes gegenüber ihren Söhnen”.12 He, like Daniel, had similar problems to get

an opportunity to prove his worth, and, although Daniel is eventually given a

11. Artikel 20(3) of “Die Verfassung der DDR vom 7. Oktober 1974”, in Die Verfassung der DDR: Ein

Machtinstrument der SED?, ed. Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung, (Bonn: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1987), 71. 12. Thomas Knauf, “’Die Architekten’ (1990)”, in Spur der Filme: Zeitzeugen über die DEFA, ed. Ingrid

Poss et al. (Berlin: Christoph Links Verlag, 2006), 462.



8

project, this deep inter-generational conflict comes to define the struggle to

realise his ambition.

Following in the footsteps of

Franziska from Unser kurzes

Leben, Daniel and his team

strive to redefine the concept

of a town. Franziska had

observed how the concepts of

‘wohnen’ and ‘leben’, two

distinct terms in the German

language, were no less distinct

in GDR architecture. She wished to design communities that better combined

the two – an observation and intention that similarly motivates Daniel and his

team. Their subsequent plans are highly idealistic and meticulously thought out,

as demonstrated by their constant embellishment of the paper models

(see-Fig.-1). These plans, however, do not conform to the older generation’s

compartmentalised and conservative attitude towards architecture. “Kaufhalle,

Gaststätte, Bäckerei und Café legen Sie zusammen?” the elderly Ökonom asks

whilst poring over the plans; “das ist verboten”, he tells the team, a sign that the

older generation’s attitudes towards architecture are enshrined in law. These

conflicting views on architectural form highlight a further generational divide,

namely different interpretations of socialism.

Reflecting the desire to decisively break from the past due to the catastrophe of

the Third Reich, the older generation interpret socialism in terms of a doctrinaire

concept of anti-fascism. The younger generation adopt a more liberal and

modernist approach, meaning their understanding of socialism is

characteristically more pluralistic and flexible. They consequently allow multiple

ideas and interpretations to coexist, whereas the older generation have a

mechanistic approach, in which the Party represents the one truth. This

difference comes to the fore in another of the architects’ plans, this time for a

sculptural centrepiece. The team wanted to depict ‘Familie in Stress’, a critical

piece of modernist art open to multiple readings, whilst the authorities sought to



9

change it to ‘Familie in Sozialismus’, a monolithic piece of affirmative socialist

realism with an unambiguous message.

The controversy surrounding the artwork reflects the power and importance of

art. We should, however, not forget that architecture too is also an art form and

the ideological power of architecture is a key theme that runs throughout the

film. As Daniel is later reminded by his mentor:

Bauen ist Politik, Machterstellung, jedes Haus erzählt von Verhältnisse, ungewollt oder gewollt.

Various shots of buildings are

intercut with this statement

and we are specifically shown

the socialist ‘Prachtstraße’ of

Karl-Marx-Allee (see-Fig.-2).

This composition of shots

depicting architecture is a

technique that the director

utilises in many other

instances throughout the film in order to provoke the viewer. In this instance the

audience is encouraged to think of the message the monumentalist boulevard

portrays. On the one hand Karl-Marx-Allee (formally being called Stalin-Allee)

represents the state’s close links to the Soviet Union and the grand vision the

founders had for the future of the country. On the other hand it also acts as a

reminder of the uprisings that took place on the exact same street in 1953.

The juxtaposition of two

architectural styles within a

single frame is another

instance where the technique

is used (see-Fig.-3). This not

only demonstrates the

interpretative complexity of

architecture, but also helps us

to understand the different



10

generational attitudes towards architecture. For the older generation, the

‘Plattenbau’ represents a departure from the past, a vast improvement on what

came before, particularly when bearing in mind their experiences of the

hardships of war. For the younger generation, who lack an understanding of the

past, having had no experience of fascism nor capitalism, the style is a socialist

cliché that represents conformity and a lack of individuality. For them, the

‘Altbau’ represents individualism, not capitalism or fascism as it does for their

elders.

Kahane utilises the technique for one last time near the film’s climax where a

range of different architectural designs are shown whilst the FDJ song

Unsere Heimat plays in the background. Although the images show one idea of

‘Heimat’ (see-Fig.-4), the lyrics of the song convey another idea:

Unsere Heimat, das sind nicht nur die Städte und Dörfer, unsere Heimat sind auch all die Bäume im Wald […] wir lieben die Heimat, die schöne und wir schützen sie, weil sie dem Volke gehört, weil sie unserem Volke gehört

Kahane is inviting the viewer to

reflect on what ‘Heimat’

actually means and ‘Heimat’ is

of great importance to GDR

identity. Blunk explains how the

concept of ‘Heimat’ in the GDR

was not only an emotional one,

but a political one too, seen by

the SED as “an important factor in the creation of a socialist society”.13 The

state’s constitution, for instance, claimed that “der Boden der Deutschen

Demokratischen Republik gehört zu ihren kostbarsten Naturreichtümern. Es

muß geschützt und rationell genutzt werden”,14 but the viewer is left wondering

whether the state is living up to this declaration and protecting the ‘Heimat’.

13. See Harry Blunk, “The Concept of ‘Heimat-GDR’ in DEFA Feature Films”, in DEFA: East German

Cinema, 1946-1992, eds. Seán Allan and John Sandford (New York: Berghahn Books, 1999), 204-205. 14. Artikel 15(1) of “Die Verfassung”, 69.



11

The constitution similarly states that “Mann und Frau sind gleichberechtigt. […]

Die Förderung der Frau […] ist eine gesellschaftliche und Staatliche Aufgabe”15

Nevertheless, the state is shown to be failing to keep to this promise as well.

The position of women is shown to have changed very little since the time of

Unser kurzes Leben and men are shown to have similar patriarchal attitudes.

For example, Daniel’s boss questions a woman’s place in the workplace, noting

their ‘tendency’ to become ‘inconveniently’ pregnant. Even Daniel, a seemingly

progressive figure, misunderstands women. When he first hears of the

unhappiness of his wife, Wanda, he offers a basic, superficial solution of extra

theatre and cinema visits. Women are thus shown to be members of a

marginalised section of society and this ostracism allows them to have greater

critical distance and a greater understanding of how things really work. This

critical distance is evident in

Wanda’s sceptical response to

Daniel’s belief that change is

achievable. Whilst Allan

attributes the couple’s

eventual separation to the

“well known screen cliché of

the husband who unwittingly

sacrifices his private life and

family to his work”,16 Wanda’s unhappiness is apparent from very early on

(See Fig.-5). It is implied to a greater extent that the blame lies with patriarchal

society and the controlling state. Wanda explains:

Es geht nicht um Sex, es geht nicht um körperliche Sachen und Essen, Schlafen, Trinken … ist alles hier kein Problem … es geht um das Andere …

‘Das Andere’ here refers to the concept of ‘leben’. Wanda feels unfulfilled, as

she is unable to realise her potential in her career as a doctor due to the

budgetary constraints of an ailing socialist system. Furthermore, she is

dissatisfied as a result of the burden of having to do the housework whilst 15. Artikel 20(2) of “Die Verfassung”, 71. 16. Seán Allan, “1989 and the Wende in East German Cinema: Peter Kahane’s ‘Die Architekten’ (1990),

Egon Günther’s ‘Stein’ (1991) and Jörg Foth’s ‘Letztes aus der Da Da eR’ (1990)”, German Monitor 50 (2000): 234.



12

simultaneously maintaining a career and bringing up a young daughter almost

singlehandedly. She sees leaving the GDR as the only way of turning her life

around. Stating her desire to leave Daniel and the country she explains: “Ich bin

fünfunddreißig, habe die Hälfte meines Lebens hinter mir ... Was hab’ ich denn

erlebt?”. Whilst Daniel sees this moment in time as his last chance to define his

identity, by contrast, Wanda sees it as her last chance to redefine hers. Female

identity is thus shown to be more fluid than the rigidity of male identity, the

possibility of and ability to change seen as opportune, not destructive.

Furthermore, despite being of the same generation as Daniel, Wanda does not

share his philosophy. The ideological divide is shown not to just differ between

generations, but also gender. It would then perhaps be easier to understand

this divide in terms of outlook: idealism versus pragmatism.

This loss of idealism is reflected in several of Daniel’s former classmates, who

have become pessimistic and isolated after having encountered similar

obstacles to Daniel. One of them has become a barman and refuses to even

acknowledge Daniel; another has moved to the countryside and refuses to

emerge from this newfound sanctuary. These people were brought up as

idealists, but were thereafter limited in their opportunities and potential. Hodgin

argues that “for many East Germans, the only means by which to express their

dissatisfaction with the system was through ‘inner exile’ or actual emigration”17

and in these sequences it is suggested that their isolation allows them greater

freedom from the bureaucratic aspects of urban life.

Daniel, on the other hand, is an idealist. At the start of the film, despite the

setbacks, he remains optimistic and believes his ambitions can still be realised.

He tells his wife that, although he can see problems in the GDR, “nur durch das

Tun kann man etwas verändern […] Es gibt nur Hoffnung auf Veränderung

wenn man sich engagiert”. His prior failure was not due to a lack of faith in the

system, but rather a lack of opportunity caused by it. He truly believes that

change is possible, especially as he has finally been given an opportunity to

prove himself. He feels that he can facilitate change from within, a view in line

with the constitution’s claim that “jeder Bürger […] hat das Recht, das politische,

17. Nick Hodgin. “Mapping Identity”, in Screening the East: Heimat, Memory and Nostalgia in German Film

since 1989 (London: Berghahn Books, 2011), 32.



13

wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Leben […] des sozialisten Staates

umfassend mitzugestalten”.18 Socialism is both the problem and the solution. As

Buzzelli argues, “Kahane suggests that Daniel and his collective, if given the

chance, could have prevented the country’s demise through the defeat of

bureaucracy and the implementation of socialism with a human face”.19 The

team’s designs are indeed reliant on the continued existence of the socialist

state; Daniel and his team only want to modify the state, not dismantle it.

Capitalism is not the answer, and this is demonstrated in Wanda’s, somewhat

negatively portrayed, ‘Ausreise’ (see-Fig.-6). Her plan for self-emancipation and

self-fulfilment unavoidably hinges on the compliance of a male and she even

admits it may not be better

elsewhere, but she must at

least try. In her dilemma, as

Buzzelli notes, “Kahane

suggests that the flaws

inherent in GDR society are

both particular (lack of variety)

but also universal (the limits of

patriarchy)”,20 showing that the

issues that Wanda has are common in all societies, regardless the political

system.

Kahane pinpoints the state’s failings and (belatedly) sounds the alarm for

reform of a system that has lost its way. Just as when Daniel deviated from his

clear definition of identity, compromising his ideals, it is suggested that the state

too will collapse if it continues to deviate from its original socialist ideals,

especially those enshrined in its constitution. This call for reform is not too

shocking, as Wittlinger notes that initially “key demands [in the protests of 1989]

were for far-reaching reforms of the existing structures rather than their

elimination”. 21 The film can therefore be seen as falling into the third of

18. Artikel 21(1) of “Die Verfassung”, 71. 19. Suzan Buzzelli, “Forgetting ‘Die Architekten’: Towards a New Approach to DEFA and Wende Film”, in

Ossi Wessi, ed. Donald Backman et al (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), 118. 20. Buzzelli, “Forgetting ‘Die Architekten’”, 115. 21. Wittlinger, “The Quest for ‘Inner Unity’”, 56.



14

Sabrow’s memory categories, the memory of progress (‘Fortschrittgedächtnis’):

socialism as a (potentially) legitimate alternative to capitalism.

This message however, as others are in the film, is unfortunately diluted, due to

what Allan rightly describes as “the belatedness of GDR cinema”, arguing that

“had it been released earlier, [the film] might have made a considerable

impact”,22 its message almost redundant due to the contemporary historical

situation. It is also perhaps due to these conditions, where production was

much less constrained than it normally would be, that the film suffers from

underdeveloped and incomplete ideas, which project mixed, contradictory

messages. For example, McGee argues that “[Daniel’s] project failed because

of the limits of the system in which he lived”,23 but it is arguably also due to the

pessimistic nature of this system’s society. Yet if these problems are universal,

the film’s message about idealism is further complicated. Daniel’s idealism is

largely portrayed as a positive force but it ends tragically in estrangement from

his family and an emotional breakdown. His downfall is caused by his inability to

adapt and to come to terms with change. Additionally, it is also suggested,

though perhaps rather contradictorily, that such a failure to adapt and such rigid

conformity to ideology are key causes of the Wende and of the character’s

downfall.

An additional confusion arises through the use of Handel’s Messiah, which

suggests the GDR is in need of a saviour. This saviour appears to manifest

itself in the form of Daniel, as his appearances are often preceded by or contain

this piece of music. However, in the closing moments of the film we hear the

music for the final time whilst Daniel breaks down in defeat. We are reminded of

his messianic mission at the lowest ebb of his failure. This is a damning

judgement on the state, for this is his crucifixion, the coming Wende being his

chance for resurrection and the widespread adoption of his ideals,

“auferstanden aus Ruinen”. It is thus suggested that a new start in a new

system will be open to such idealism and Daniel’s ‘resurrection’. This message

stands in stark contrast to that of earlier sequences, as this new system is

presumably a capitalist one, due to the socialist one appearing unworkable.

22. Allan, “1989 and the Wende in East German Cinema”, 235. 23. McGee, “The End Phase of the GDR in Films by DEFA Nachwuchsregisseure”, 325-6.



15

Nevertheless, as the filmmakers would discover, this new system was soon to

become a reality, but the ideals they wished to preserve would not rise from the

ruins.

II. The Quest for ‘Normalisation’: Coming to terms with the East

The Berlin Republic would continue on the same constitutional foundations that

the West had used for the past four decades, as it was considered to be a

largely stable and successful system. The Bonn Republic’s engagement in the

process of Vergangenheitsbewältigung was also seen as a successful aspect of

the FRG. Many during the Cold War saw the process as a quest for

‘normalisation’, the desire to be seen as ‘normal’ on the world stage. Wittlinger

notes that:

For Germany to be perceived as normal meant absolution from the barbaric atrocities committed during the Third Reich and implied regaining acceptance as a civilised nation in the international community.24

Welcoming the East into the fold endangered the sense of ‘normality’ achieved

by the Bonn Republic, since the division of Germany had also come to be seen

as ‘normal’ by the international community.25 The assimilation of a population

unfamiliar with democracy meant the East would need to be ‘re-educated’ or

‘normalised’, in a similar way to how the West had to be after Nazism, or

Germany would lose its claim to normality.

In what many critics refer to as ‘hegemonic Western discourse’, the FRG was

subsequently cast as the moral victor, the GDR as a failed totalitarian

experiment. As Richardson points out, “not just the political system but also the

entire culture of East Germany was dismissed wholesale as regressive and

anti-modern”.26 The then Justice Minister, Klaus Kinkel, even declared in 1991

that “der DDR-Unrechtsstaat müsse ‘delegitimiert’ werden”, and “[erklärte] auch

die Alltagskultur des Landes zum real gelebten Verbrechen”.27 Whether or not

24. Ruth Wittlinger. “Introduction: A Different Republic After All?”, in German National Identity in the

Twenty-First Century: A Different Republic After All? (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 5-6. 25. See Wittlinger, “Introduction”, 6. 26. Michael Richardson. “A World of Objects: Consumer Culture in the Filmic Reconstructions of the GDR”,

in The Collapse of the Conventional: German Film and its Politics at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, ed. Jaimey Fisher, et al. (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2010), 218.

27. Thorsten Stecher, “Sexy DDR”, Die Weltwoche, 18 November, 1999, 49.



16

the GDR was an ‘Unrechtsstaat’ is a highly contentious issue for it is a term that

“implies a state lacking the rule of law, but it also suggests one systematically

perpetrating injustice, or even one founded on injustice”28. The term also hints

at an equivalence to the Nazi regime, which, alongside the wholesale dismissal

of everyday life in the GDR, is problematic. As Müller explains:

[…] despite the supposed omnipresence of the Stasi, it never controlled everyday life in the total way that many theories of totalitarianism seem to suggest; those who lived in East Germany also frequently insist that they had been able to lead perfectly ‘normal’ lives outside politics, as opposed to the image of a total politicization of society and even private life.29

Moreover, although many experienced relatively happy and fulfilling private

lives under the socialist regime, the West actively promoted the notion that “the

only authentic East German experience is one predicated on an opposition to

the state”.30 The attempt to ‘normalise’ and incorporate the former East led

many former GDR citizens to instead feel rather abnormal. Stripped of their

GDR identity, they had been turned into an exotic Other, symbolic of how

“unification has been presented as a quasi-colonial ‘subjugation’ of the East by

the West”.31

The process led the former citizens of the GDR to develop a new affection for

their old state. This fondness often centres on consumer goods of the planned

socialist economy, products that had often been in short supply and of

negligible quality compared to their Western counterparts. Just as citizens of the

former East had fetishised capitalist products during the Cold War, they were

now fetishising their own. For many in the West this fondness seemed illogical.

Richardson, however, describes this resurgence in popularity as signifying “a

longing for a lost sense of identity, one that had been rooted both in these

objects and in the absence or lack of access to objects from the West”.32 It is a

phenomenon that came to be known as ‘Ostalgie’, nostalgia for the former East.

28. Jan-Werner Müller, “Just Another ‘Vergangenheitsbewältigung’? The Process of Coming to Terms with

the East German Past Revisited”. Oxford German Studies 38, no. 3 (2009): 335. 29. Müller, “Just Another ‘Vergangenheitsbewältigung?”, 338. 30. Richardson, “A World of Objects”, 218. 31. Paul Cooke, “Postcolonial Studies, Colonization and East Germany”, in Representing East Germany

since Unification: From Colonization to Nostalgia (Oxford: Berg, 2005), 2. 32. Richardson, “A World of Objects”, 219.



17

Ostalgie is highly controversial and has been criticised for it seemingly forgets

the perpetrators. It is therefore seen by some as “a dangerous form of selective

amnesia that sees the East German state through rose-tinted spectacles,

ignoring the problems of life there and idealizing it”.33 Such criticism, however,

forgets the situation on the other side of the former divide. It is not only former

East Germans, but also former West Germans, who look fondly upon and

sentimentalise the past, with a ‘Westalgie’ (a nostalgia for the Bonn Republic)

also having emerged.34 Nevertheless, the controversy surrounding Ostalgie

adds yet another facet to the memory contests, and, to gain a greater

understanding of it, it is important to clearly define what nostalgia is. For Boym:

Nostalgia […] is a longing for a home that no longer exists or has never existed. Nostalgia is a sentiment of loss and displacement, but it is also a romance with one’s own fantasy.35

This sentiment of loss and displacement creates an emotional distance from

reality, for, as Caruth explains, “we are always separated from historical

experience by the repression inherent in trauma”.36 This repression belatedly

manifests itself as nostalgia. Boym, however, also distinguishes between a

restorative and a reflective form of nostalgia. This distinction is particularly

important when it comes to the concept of Ostalgie, for, whilst it certainly shows

an appreciation for the past, it is “[not] an attempt either to relive the past or to

restore it […, for] no one seriously seeks to reinstate the GDR”.37 The focus

instead shifts from the crimes of the SED to the relative stability and comfort the

system provided. Ostalgie is consequently not a regressive form of nostalgia

seeking the restoration of the past. Instead, Ostalgie can be seen as being

largely a reflective form of nostalgia – a critical commentary on what is missing

in the present, which itself highlights another function of memory.

Arnold-de Simine and Radstone note that “memory, in whichever form, is not an

open window onto the past; rather our vision of the past is constantly adapted to 33. Paul Cooke, “Productive Hybridity: Nostalgia and the GDR on Film”, in Representing East Germany

since Unification: From Colonization to Nostalgia (Oxford: Berg, 2005), 104. 34. See Wittlinger, “The Quest for ‘Inner Unity’”, 66. 35. Svetlana Boym, “Introduction: Taboo on Nostalgia?”, in The Future of Nostalgia (New York: Basic

Books, 2001), xiii. 36. Cathy Caruth, as quoted by Anne Fuchs and Mary Cosgrove in “Introduction: Germany’s Memory

Contests and the Management of the Past”, in German Memory Contests: The Quest for Identity in Literature, Film, and Discourse since 1990, ed. Anne Fuchs, et al. (Rochester: Camden House, 2006), 11.

37. Hodgin, “Mapping Identity”, 32.



18

our needs in the present”.38 Ostalgie was thus the need for the former East

Germans to reclaim an identity that had been lost.

III. Memories of Settlement: Sonnenallee (1999)

The lost GDR identity is reclaimed in Leander Haußmann’s Sonnenallee.

Haußmann directly engages in the memory debates surrounding the GDR and

Ostalgie, highlighting the differences inherent in public and private history,

raising the question of the validity of these different histories and ‘memories’.

Furthermore, Haußmann attempts to ‘normalise’ life in the East, demonstrating

that a sense of normality could be achieved in the GDR and that East Germans

are not an exotic Other. The film consequently falls into the second of Sabrow’s

memory categories – the memory of settlement (‘Arrangementgedächtnis’).

The memory of dictatorship is largely absent in the film, and this, alongside the

film’s use of comedy, was problematic for many critics. Sonnenallee was

opened up to accusations that it was trivialising the nature of the SED

dictatorship and a lawsuit was even filed against the filmmakers by an

organisation for victims of political violence, Help e.V., who saw the film as an

insult to those who had suffered under the regime. 39 This organisation,

however, failed to realise the complexity of the comedy utilised by Haußmann.

Comedy is reliant on an accurate observation of life and requires a delicate

balance of intellect and emotional detachment. Humour, however, is not as

universal as other aspects of human emotion, such as empathy, and people

can find different things funny for various reasons, which is something that is

later made clear in Sonnenallee. Nevertheless, comedy has great potential to

provide a critical commentary of events, both past and present. Brecht

theorised about the critical potential of comedy. As Wright suggests:

For Brecht the comic is a historically bound phenomenon, something that can be used for immediate political purposes [… Brecht] finds the source

38. Silke Arnold-de Simine and Susannah Radstone. “The GDR and the Memory Debate”, in

Remembering and Rethinking the GDR: Multiple Perspectives and Plural Authenticities, ed. Anna Saunders, et al. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 19.

39. See Paul Cooke, “Performing ‘Ostalgie’: Leander Hausmann’s ‘Sonnenallee’”, German Life and Letters 56, no. 2 (2003): 157.



19

of comedy to be in the nature of society rather than in the ‘nature’ of the individual.40

If we take this theory as a basis of our understanding of comedy, Haußmann

targets “a society stuck with an outworn set of beliefs long after history has

moved on”,41 and attempts, in the Brechtian mode, to challenge and change

these views. The film is therefore not only a critique of the past but also of the

present. The audience is made aware of this through the use of various

Brechtian distancing devices.

Firstly, the film’s relationship with the present is established through the

protagonist’s opening voiceover and his interactions with the Westerners. Micha

tells the audience, with whom he is in apparent dialogue, “Ich lebe in der DDR –

ansonsten hab’ ich keine Probleme”. This statement shows he is aware of

prevalent (contemporary and current) Western preconceptions of life in the

GDR. We are then made aware of what these preconceptions entail through

Micha’s interaction with the tourists that congregate on viewing platforms in the

West. Micha tells us that “die Westler haben Hochstände gebaut um uns zu

demütigen”, meaning that the inhabitants of Sonnenallee, in the manner of a

‘play-within-a-play’, are not only observed by us, but also by the West. From

here the Westerners observe the citizens of the GDR as Others, as if they are

zoo animals (“Füttern verboten!”) entrapped in an enclosure bounded by the

Berlin Wall. They call the inhabitants ‘Ossi’, a term that only came into common

use after unification, thus placing the film into a post-Wende context.42

Secondly, the film as a representation (or distortion) of memory is indicated

through the use of voiceover. Micha, in his closing, fairy-tale-like narration,

declares: “Es war einmal ein Land und ich hab’ dort gelebt”. This statement

suggests finality and retrospection, the relegation of the GDR into memory. This

memory is distorted, for the Wall is shown to (anachronistically) fall after the

inhabitants of Sonnenallee storm it in an impromptu flash mob (see-Fig.-7).

Further anachronisms and artificiality are present in the film’s setting. As

Haußmann explains, “wenn man genauer hinguckt, wird man sehen, daß der

40. Elizabeth Wright, “Theory in Praxis: Comedy as Discourse”, in Postmodern Brecht: A Re-Presentation

(London: Routledge, 1989), 49-50. 41. Wright, “Theory in Praxis”, 50. 42. See Cooke, “Productive Hybridity”, 112.



20

Film vollkommen unrealistisch

ist. Das Dekor, die Straße –

das sieht alles gebaut aus”.43

This artificiality reminds the

audience that they are

watching something

constructed, and, like all things

that are constructed, capable

of being changed.

Finally, as Haußmann constantly breaks the fourth wall, such as in the

aforementioned voiceovers and characters often looking knowingly at the

camera, the audience is constantly reminded of the medium. This awareness

reduces the audience’s ability to be completely immersed in the action, limiting

empathy and expanding the possibility for critical engagement. By contrast, in

Die Architekten we do empathise, but, by allowing this, critical distance is

lessened. Die Architekten’s weakness is thus its overly melodramatic nature,

where suffering is reduced to entertainment. We are shown what happens but

the audience does not necessarily have to critically engage to understand why it

happens. Sonnenallee depicts a very different GDR to the one in Kahane’s film,

and indeed many that followed in the intervening years post-unification.

Haußmann also portrays a culture in the GDR that, although different to the

West, is not so different as official history would have you believe. The film

depicts a ‘Jugendkultur’ typical of the 1970s anywhere in the Western world.

Micha and his friends share similar interests, dreams and problems as their

Western counterparts. They are fans of Western rock music for example and

listen to many of the same records as those in the West, despite them being

strictly ‘verboten’. Micha also dreams of becoming a popstar, “einer der was

bewegt”, a statement which is followed by an “obwohl” and a poignant pause.

Some would expect him to go on to say his dreams are hampered by the

system, but he instead worries about how many popstars have suffered early

deaths. Micha’s portrayal is an attempt to ‘normalise’ life in the East, since he 43. Sandra Maischberger, “’Sonnenallee’ - Eine Mauerkomödie: Interview mit Leander Haussmann und

Thomas Brussig”, in ’Sonnenallee’: Das Buch zum Farbfilm, ed. Leander Haussmann (Berlin: Quadriga Verlag, 1999), 12.



21

and his friends, far from stereotypical conformist and indoctrinated followers of

the Party, are shown to be normal adolescent boys. As Cooke explains, “the

film translates the experience of East Germans into a cultural language that

West Germans will understand, thereby ‘normalising’ this experience”.44

The East German experience is also devoid of the atmosphere of fear so

prevalent in Western discourse, with characters aware of the state apparatus

and willing to criticise it openly. This criticism is highly visible in the sequence

with the ‘Multifunktionstisch’ (see-Fig.-8). The ‘MuFuTi’ is just one piece of

ostalgic product placement that Haußmann inserts into the film. The viewer’s

attention is drawn to the object in this instance by the repetition of the product’s

full name (“Du sollst den Multifunktionstisch herrichten!”; “Ist das ein MuFuTi?”).

For a former citizen of the GDR it is a nostalgic reminder of an everyday item

they probably would have owned. Our attention however is not only drawn to

what is now a museum

artefact but to the inadequacy

of consumer goods in the

GDR, with Micha’s father

struggling to set it up, referring

to it as a “Scheiß-Ostding”.

Despite the screenwriter’s

assertion Sonnenallee “soll ein

Film werden, bei dem die Westler neidisch werden, daß sie nicht im Osten

leben durften”,45 the film does not depict the past affectionately, but critically

engages with it.

The ‘MuFuTi’ sequence additionally highlights the comic duality of the film with

Haußmann creating a complex and multi-layered comedy, jokes having different

meanings for different audiences. He noted that there was “einen Unterschied

zwischen West- und Ost-Zuschauern – die lachten an unterschiedlichen

Stellen”.46 A prime example of this is the sequence with the family’s West

German uncle, who smuggles various products into the country for his relatives.

On a basic level, this sequence is amusing due to the physical comedy of a 44. Cooke, “Performing ‘Ostalgie’”,156. 45. Maischberger, “Interview mit Leander Haussmann und Thomas Brussig”, 22. 46. Maischberger, “Interview mit Leander Haussmann und Thomas Brussig”, 21.



22

male wearing tights and the fact this ‘contraband’ is perfectly legal. On a more

critical, analytical level, the sequence demonstrates the fact many products

were in short supply in the GDR, whilst, in a post-Wende context, it additionally

highlights the arrogance of Westerners. As Allan notes, “Heinz and the tourists

on the viewing platforms remain trapped within their clichéd vision of life in East

Berlin, [but] Sonnenallee offers the viewer a glimpse of an altogether different

reality”.47

The film’s artificiality reflects the character of human memory, for memory, as

already established, is often not an accurate recollection of events. As the

screenwriter, Thomas Brussig, notes, “Erinnern ist doch das Gegenteil von

Merken”, and “das, was nicht so schön war, vergißt man”.48 This declaration

can be seen as an explanation for the film’s apparent lack of attention to the

human rights abuses of the regime, the only visual reminders of such being the

Wall and the border guards, which, far from being a menacing threat, are

ridiculed and play a peripheral role. We are, however, reminded of the absurdity

of the inner-German border

when Micha’s friend, Wuschel,

is shot. Haußmann had

originally intended for the

character to be killed by the

border guards but Brussig was

of the opinion that “nicht

Wuschel muß erschossen

werden, sondern seine Platte

– das ist eigentlich schlimmer”49 and this change has profound consequences.

Firstly, Wuschel’s reaction to his record being destroyed (see-Fig.-9) stresses

the importance the youth placed on rock culture. It is a theme of cultural

universality that runs throughout the film, which not only highlights the systemic

differences but also similarities. Secondly, it also highlights that consumerist

fetishisation is nothing new. The fetishisation is also not just limited to the East,

as is evident in the sequence where the Dresdeners are transfixed by a 47. Séan Allan, “‘Ostalgie’, Fantasy and the Normalization of East-West Relations in Post-Unification

Comedy”, in German Cinema Since Unification, ed. David Clarke (London: Continuum, 2006) 113-114. 48. Maischberger, “Interview mit Leander Haussmann und Thomas Brussig”, 22. 49. Maischberger, “Interview mit Leander Haussmann und Thomas Brussig”, 12.



23

Western television game show, with endless products making their way down a

conveyor belt. In such unrealistic sequences we are again reminded that we are

watching constructed private history rather than official history of documentary.

Nevertheless, both approaches are criticised in the film’s closing moments.

The final sequence sees the

colour removed from the

picture, changing to black and

white. Such footage is often

used in documentary films, the

lack of colour creating an

understanding of temporal

distance, of ‘Vergangenheit’

(see-Fig.-10). The happy,

colourful environment is instantly transformed into a bleak one, not dissimilar

from the one depicted in Die Architekten. The environment had lacked the

oppressive nature of that found in Kahane’s film due to the characters inhabiting

this space and the way they behaved. In another sequence Sabrina remarks

that “alles ist grau hier”, echoing the words of Western discourse. Whilst the

buildings may be grey, the people certainly are not. It is thus suggested when

these people and their memories are removed, so is the colour, the vibrancy,

and therefore that perspective of the past. This notion is underscored through

the use of Nina Hagen’s Du hast den Farbfilm vergessen. While it is a highly

ambivalent text, open to multiple interpretations, if we take its lyrics literally, we

are reminded of the power of colour: “Du hast den Farbfilm vergessen, mein

Michael, Nun glaubt uns kein Mensch wie schön's hier war”. Nijdam explains

that “what began as ‘blau und weiß und grün’ loses meaning and becomes

‘nicht mehr wahr’ in the black and white records of ‘official’ history”.50 The

manipulative potential of film footage is also demonstrated in the sequence

where Micha and Mario run after a Western tourist bus pretending to be

starving, the picture similarly changing to black and white. The sequence not

only highlights the deceptive nature of film, but also continues to ridicule the

50. Elizabeth Nijdam, “Rock statt Marx: Rock and Roll Narratives in Leander Haußmann’s ‘Sonnenallee’”.

German as a Foreign Language No. 3 (2010): 130.



24

Western discourse. We are reminded to constantly analyse what we see, not to

take things at face value, or more simply, not to believe what we see.

The audience is also reminded not to believe what they read. The dialectic of

private and public history is further explored in Micha’s attempts to win the

affections of Miriam, wherein he attempts to portray himself as a rebellious

non-conformist to gain her attention. In his effort, he rewrites his past in falsified

diaries (see-Fig.-11). Echoing

the hegemonic discourse of

the West, his ‘recollections’, as

Schutte explains, “are exactly

what a Western audience

would have expected to find in

the diaries of someone who

had lived under the ‘never

ending oppression’ of the GDR – as life in the GDR was referred to in several

documentary films”.51 It simultaneously ridicules this discourse when bearing in

mind the happy experiences Micha had prior to this rewriting of the past. The

audience is reminded of the realities for some citizens of the GDR, but also of

the absurdity in assuming everyone had the same experiences. As Allan

explains, “the film reminds us (humorously) of the way in which memory and the

construction of personal and political histories are conditioned by the needs and

the desires of the present”.52 Micha needed to redefine his past and identity to

achieve his desire, and in doing so the audience gains an understanding of the

nature of identity.

The film portrays identity as being fluid and changeable, adaptable to present

needs. The youths’ conception of identity is based heavily in their appreciation

of rock music and, as we have seen with Micha, we are introduced to the

concept of identity as ‘performance’. This is evident in Mario, who performs the

role of a non-conformist drop out with radical ideas, similarly in an attempt to

gain the affections of Sabrina. At the film’s climax Mario and Sabrina get

married, despite asserting that they would do the contrary, due to the fact she 51. Barend Schutte, “The Portrayal of the GDR in Post-1990 German Feature Films”, German as a Foreign

Language no. 2 (2005): 14. 52. Allan, “‘Ostalgie’, Fantasy and the Normalization of East-West”, 115.



25

has become pregnant. It is also suggested that Mario has signed up to be an

informant at the Stasi as he cannot get work elsewhere due to his file. Their

performance has ended and circumstances require them to perform a new role.

The performativity of identity plays a dual role and stands in contrast to the

essentialist view of identity as portrayed in Die Architekten. It acts

simultaneously as an apologia, offering an explanation for the widespread

conformity as exhibited by the older generations in the film, and as an advocate

for the adoption of a new identity in a post-Wende context. Haußmann makes it

explicit that the past is not divorced from this new identity, as it is shown to have

a major role in the formation of identity. It is not only suggested that the past

cannot be erased but also that one cannot be constrained by it.

Sonnenallee suggests that even a nostalgic understanding of the past can help

us to understand and criticise the present. Haußmann may be critical of this

nostalgia but he is also understanding of it. Nostalgia is a phenomenon in every

society and Haußmann attempts to legitimise nostalgia for the East, a nostalgia

that has similarly been cast as an Other by the West through the divisive

nomenclature. If the West can be nostalgic why can the East not be too? As

Brussig explains: “Meine Kindheit hat in der DDR stattgefunden. […] Aber ich

erinnere mich trotzdem gerne an die Kindheit”53 – childhood is something

everyone experiences and something that almost everybody looks back upon

fondly. Cooke explains that Ostalgie, especially in Sonnenallee, should not be

looked upon as some form of revisionism, but rather as an aspect of memory

that “allows people to make peace with the past, by allowing the soft veil of

nostalgia to fall over every painful experience”.54 It is human nature to look back

on the past and to indulge in a process of self-censoring, omitting the bad parts.

It becomes clear in Sonnenallee that such omission defines public history and

identity and that private history cannot be forgotten to fit a single

historiographical narrative.

The collision of several historiographical narratives is evident in Dani Levy’s

Alles auf Zucker!, wherein the notion of performativity and the influence the past

has upon identity continue to be explored.

53. Maischberger, “Interview mit Leander Haussmann und Thomas Brussig”, 24. 54. Cooke, “Productive Hybridity”, 118.



26 IV. Memory Contests: Alles auf Zucker! (2004)

Alles auf Zucker! “shows how film-makers now feel empowered to tackle taboo

subjects”,55 Lamb argues, with the film attempting to tackle several explosive

topics in contemporary Germany: the country’s Nazi past, its divided past, and

its divided present. He goes on to argue that “as a contribution to reassessment

of two key aspects of Germany’s recent past (anti-Semitism and the GDR) Alles

auf Zucker! has had a major impact”,56 since, despite not depicting the GDR

past, the film explores the effects of the memory of the former state upon the

present. The film therefore straddles various memory discourses of the GDR,

thus indicating the diversity of memory.

The consequences of the past are alluded to when a mother addresses her

sons from beyond the grave in her Last Will and Testament, wherein she states

that “seit über 40 Jahren seid ihr beide in einem wortlosen Streit”. These words

resonate on a much larger scale; the brothers’ estrangement and faltering

reconciliation stands as a metaphor for the incomplete project of inner unity

between East and West. The country and its people are struggling to find each

other again, in a similar manner to this family, after decades of separation.

The brothers are encouraged to reconcile their differences by the prospect of

receiving an inheritance, but due to the strict religious conditions that come with

it, a farce ensues. As Levy himself confirms, “ein Teil der Komik entsteht ja

gerade durch die Unmöglichkeit, die strengen jüdischen Gesetze einhalten zu

können”.57 These laws are not a source of ridicule, but serve as a comical

didactic device, the viewer learning about an aspect of Jewish tradition, the

Shiva, that they would otherwise not know about. The director, who identifies as

Jewish, takes pride in the fact “dass wir deutschen Juden zusehen können,

ohne dass im Hintergrund immer der Holocaust wie ein Schatten an der Wand

aufleuchtet”.58 Levy “will das Judentum aus der Versenkung holen und aus der

55. Stephen Lamb, “Re-presenting the German Past in 2005: Culture’s Contribution in the New Berlin

Republic. A Personal Account”, Debatte 13, no. 3 (2005): 274. 56. Lamb, “‘‘Re-presenting the German Past in 2005”, 275. 57. Thomas Eckbert and Joachim Huber, “Kann man mit Juden Quote machen? - ‘Zucker’: Der Regisseur

Dani Levy über die Probleme und die Freuden einer jüdischen Familienkomödie”, Tagesspiegel, March 26, 2004, accessed February 1, 2014, http://www.tagesspiegel.de/medien/kann-man-mit-juden-quote-machen/502562.html.

58. Eckbert and Huber, “Kann man mit Juden Quote machen?”.



27

Opferrolle befreien”.59 This family have little connection to the Holocaust; their

shadow is instead the consequences of the division and subsequent unification

of Germany. By moving the historical burden of these Jewish characters from

one part of Germany’s troubled history to another, the director is challenging

convention, and with it the viewer’s preconceived ideas on Jewish culture and

identity.

The director debunks the idea of an all-encompassing stereotype, for in Jaecki,

who grew up in the GDR, and his brother, Samuel, who was raised in the FRG,

we have two Jews who could not be more different from one another. Jaecki

turned his back on his Jewish faith and secularised after the rest of his family

moved to the West. His brother, Samuel, on the other hand, is an Orthodox

Jew. This difference, explains Allan, “[is] a reflection of the multifaceted

character of Jewish identity which, of course, is not solely a matter of religious

faith, but involves questions of nationality, ethnicity and culture as well”.60 The

characters’ Jewishness however is just another aspect of their identities, as

Levy explains:

Der Begriff ‘Jüdische Komödie’ ist hier nur ein Label. Im Prinzip ist Alles auf Zucker! eine Familiengeschichte über ganz normale Menschen in einer bestimmten grotesken, aber gleichzeitig auch sehr authentischen Situation.61

The authentic situation of having to abide by Jewish religious law naturally

causes problems for Jaecki’s

secular family. Marlene,

Jaecki’s wife, comically

attempts to transform her

husband and children into a

Jewish family in the space of a

day (see-Fig.-12). The

performativity of identity is

highlighted here, for, as the

59. Eckbert and Huber, “Kann man mit Juden Quote machen?”. 60. Seán Allan, “‘Seit der Wende hat der Mann nur Pech gehabt. Jetzt soll er auch noch Jude sein’:

Theatricality, Memory and Identity in Dani Levy's ‘Alles auf Zucker!’ (2004)”, Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe 15, no. 1 (2007): 28.

61. “Interview mit Dani Levy: ‘Alles auf Zucker’”, DigitalVD, accessed February 1, 2014, http://www.digitalvd.de/interviews/Dani-Levy-Alles-auf-Zucker.html.



28

cashier says to Marlene in the Jewish shop, “es ist nie zu spät Jüdisch zu

werden”. It is also suggested, however, that these identities can only be

successfully played out if one truly believes in the ideas behind them, for as

Golda remarks to her husband, Samuel, “die Familie von deinem Bruder ist so

koscher wie ein Schweinekotelett”. The attempt to transform themselves into a

non-secular Jewish family is analogous with many East Germans’ experiences

of the Wende, having to adapt to a new society and adopt a new identity in a

relatively short space of time.

With the characters of Marlene and Jaecki we have two East Germans who

have adapted to varying degrees of success. Marlene has successfully

transitioned, adapting from life in the socialist GDR to life in the capitalist

reunified Germany. She has a secure job and is quite prepared to go it alone if

Jaecki does not change his ways. The position of women always requires them

to adapt, with change being advantageous, one step closer to realising gender

equality. They are aware of what needs to be done, as shown in the warnings

the two wives give to their respective husbands, urging them to abide by the

rules of the Shiva. Golda says: “Ich sage nur neue Markt”, and Marlene: “Ich

sage nur Scheidung”. Both statements metaphorically allude to the differing

approaches to unification, with the West seeing it as a new market, whilst the

East are cautious and afraid of isolation. Marlene is additionally shown to be

very open-minded, at ease with the sexuality of her daughter, Jana, and the

prospect that her son, Thomas, may also be gay. Marlene, however, is unable

to realise that he is just simply different, for Thomas merely fails to conform to

gender stereotypes. His mother’s assumption highlights how people approach

identity, categorising people rigidly by stereotypes.

Jaecki, on the other hand, embraces stereotypes and for that reason finds

change both threatening and a struggle. He conforms to the stereotype of the

‘ostalgic Ossi’, even referring to himself as “der typische Wende-Verlierer”, and

personifies the process of post-unification adjustment, having been very

successful in the socialist state, but now struggling to find his way in the new

capitalist world. Failing to understand her husband’s predicament, Marlene tells

him: “Ich wußte nicht, daß du sie so sehr vermisst, unsere alte DDR”. This

statement reveals that Marlene still feels that the GDR belongs to her, but, in



29

contrast to Jaecki, it instead merely forms part of who she is rather than defining

who she is. Jaecki, on the other hand, does not simply miss his past – he

refuses to acknowledge it no longer exists. As if suffering from post-traumatic

stress, he chooses to ignore the GDR’s demise, as for him, the GDR continues

to exist in the surroundings and the people of contemporary Germany. Despite

the film being set in a now-reunified Berlin, events almost completely take place

in the former Eastern part of the city. Jaecki also frequents the ‘Club der Mitte’,

which he describes as “ein Club für einsame Herzen. Ostalgiker vor allem”, a

statement which conveys how he is still mourning for the loss of the GDR. The

Club is run by Linda, who, due to being played by Renate Krößner of Solo

Sunny (1980) fame (see-Fig.-13), is an ostalgic relic herself. The film opens up

another layer of Ostalgie, that

of GDR stardom, for in Jaecki

too we have another well-

known East German actor.

Henry Hübschen (who also

starred in Sonnenallee as

Micha’s father), “[is] a figure on

whom a variety of ostalgic

memories and fantasies can

be projected”. 62 Many former

East Germans would easily be able to identify with him and his character’s

predicament. The character embodies the question of what it means to be East

German in a world where the GDR no longer exists.

When living in the GDR, Jaecki shed his Jewish identity, embracing life in the

socialist GDR and adopting a new identity accordingly. This identity, however,

has been undermined by the collapse of the socialist state. Nevertheless,

Jaecki has seemingly forgotten that identity is fluid, for he managed to adapt

before, but after the fall of the Wall he is still attempting to perform this

outmoded identity. His urgent need for money to cover his debts slowly reminds

him of his ability to perform. A prime example of this is when he is disqualified

from the billiard tournament and attempts to play the victim. “Machst du das

62. Allan, “Theatricality, Memory and Identity in Dany Levy’s ‘Alles auf Zucker’”, 34.



30

nicht, weil ich Jude bin, oder?!”

he asks, before resorting to

begging, saying “Bitte […] Ich

habe meine Familie verloren,

erst im Holocaust…”. His

Jewish identity only matters to

him when he wants it to and is

only performed when it

appears to be advantageous. The sequence highlights the artificiality and

flexibility of identity, that it is something that is indeed performed, not

predetermined. It is an idea made clear from the opening of the film, where

Jaecki, in his narrative voiceover, explains: “Dat bin ick, ne, dat war ick”

(see-Fig.-14).

The use of the opening voiceover is yet another use of a quasi-Brechtian

‘Verfremdung’ of the kind we saw in Sonnenallee. The viewer is informed from

the opening few minutes that things seemingly do not end well for the character

and is encouraged to try and understand why through the course of the film. On

the comic nature of the film, Levy commented that “Komödie ist Realität 20

Prozent schneller”,63 a notion demonstrated in the narrative’s quick pacing and

the camera’s fast, jerky movement. Within this reality, however, the director also

allows for the viewers to identify with the characters. Levy argues:

Humor ist immer dann am schönsten und berührendsten, wenn er aus einer Not und damit aus einer Situation heraus entsteht, in der man ein starkes Mitgefühl mit jemandem hat. Humor ist das wahrscheinlich schönste und legitimste Überlebensmittel.64

The statement validates not only Levy’s use of comedy, but Haußmann’s too.

Their comedies are not trivialising delicate issues, but instead highlighting their

delicacy, humour allowing the topics to be broached without causing too much

pain. Interestingly, it is only when the two brothers are both afflicted by pain and

illness that the real process of reconciliation begins. In hospital, Samuel

remarks to Jaecki that “Sozialismus war dir wichtiger als deine Familie”, to

which Jaecki responds: “Lass die Politik mal weg”. Prior to this point the two 63. Katharina Dockhorn, “’Alles auf Zucker!’/Aber bitte mit Tempo!”. EPD Film 12, no. 1 (2005): 37. 64. “Interview mit Dani Levy: ‘Alles auf Zucker’”.



31

men had continued to argue in Cold War ideological terms whilst discussing the

past. As Bühler points out, “Samuel und Jaeckie [lassen sich] als Prototypen

der unterschiedlichen Entwicklungen in Ost- und Westdeutschland sehen”65 and

the two men additionally symbolise the different memory discourses of the GDR

in contemporary Germany. Samuel remembers the GDR as a totalitarian

dictatorship (‘Diktaturgedächtnis’) whereas Jaecki remembers it fondly as

somewhere he was able to make a good living (‘Arrangementgedächtnis’).

It is, however, important to

note that Alles auf Zucker! fails

to give legitimacy to any of the

discourses. The film instead

argues for a third way:

discussion. It becomes clear

that a financial incentive is not

necessary for the brothers to

reconcile, but rather a deeper

understanding of one and other’s pasts. In a similar way to how Marlene failed

to understand Jewish life by reading a book called Wie Juden leben (see-Fig.-

15), it is suggested that similar failure will come to those who attempt to

understand the East through what they read.

For the German identity-rift to heal, Levy suggests that preconceived ideas

need to be cast aside and actual experiences need to be shared and actually

discussed. The brothers, for example, had failed to see their similarities and

used the past as a barrier to reconciliation. Samuel failed to understand his

brother’s life in the GDR whilst Jaecki similarly misconstrued his brother’s

orthodoxy. Additionally, whilst Jaecki may gamble at the billiard table, Samuel

similarly takes risks, but in the property market instead. Although Jaecki needed

to adapt to the changes brought by the Wende, so did Samuel. The film

proposes that in order to heal the wounds of the Wende, effort has to manifest

itself on both sides of the former divide. The approach is given validity by the

film’s climax, where the family is shown to be in regular contact and

successfully ‘transitioned’. As Bühler explains, “was Levy hier vorschlägt, ist 65. Philipp Bühler, Filmheft: ‘Alles auf Zucker’ (Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2004), 9.



32

nicht weniger als ein allgemein gültiges Toleranzmodell für weltliche und

religiöse Juden, für Juden und Nichtjuden, für Menschen in Ost und West”.66

The past should also not define identity nor should it be forgotten – it should

instead influence our identity, allowing us to adapt and change to suit current

circumstances.

Conclusion

Feeling that her identity is being threatened, a former citizen of the GDR

passionately proclaims in a 2012 documentary that “die DDR wird immer

reduziert auf Mauertote, Bedrückung, keine Reisefreiheit”67. Whilst this may

have been true at some point in time, this dissertation has shown how the

German historical consciousness has developed over the space of some fifteen

years. As Leeder notes, and as the three films have proven, “the post-war

consensus informed by large-scale public memory discourses has increasingly

been challenged by the more agitated legacy emerging from the realm of

personal memory”.68 This realm of memory itself is divided amongst three

distinct but converging memory discourses: memory of dictatorship, memory of

progress, and memory of settlement.69

Die Architekten portrays aspects of the ‘Fortschrittgedächtnis’, the idea of

socialism as a legitimate alternative to capitalism, whilst the ostalgic

Sonnenallee portrays the memory of a normal life within the GDR, the

‘Arrangementgedächtnis’. Alles auf Zucker!, on the other hand, highlights the

diversity amongst (former) East and West Germans alike when it comes to

‘remembering’ the GDR and is an accumulation of all three memory strands.

Whilst no film tackles ‘Dikataturgedächtnis’ head on, it is a strand that has

proven popular for the increasingly globalising German film industry, with films

such as Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s Das Leben der Anderen (2006)

and Christian Petzold’s Barbara (2012) finding international success. Such films

not only highlight the diversity of memory, they additionally underline the great

interest in German history both nationally and internationally.

66. Bühler, Filmheft, 10. 67. Jan N. Lorenzen, dir., Meine Heimat: DDR!, (2012). 68. Karen Leeder, “Introduction”. Oxford German Studies 38, no. 3 (2009): 238. 69. As established by Sabrow in “Die DDR erinnern”, 18-20.



33

German history is not only of worldwide interest but also of great importance for

an understanding of contemporary German nationality, as it constitutes an

integral part of Germany identity. Just as the Second World War (to varying

degrees) influenced identity in the divided Germany, the legacy of that division

and the Wende influence it today. Furthermore, whilst Ostalgie has been seen

by some as a dangerous revisionism, as the films have shown, it is not as

destabilising as first thought. Zelle noted as early as 1997 that “Eastern

identifications are non-ideological in nature” and that “ideas running counter to

the organisational principles of the united Germany hardly play a role in

accounting for Eastern identifications”.70 Different memory discourses appear to

prove no threat to the political stability of the state, nor to Germany’s ‘normality’

– its role on the world stage ever increasing in prominence and influence. It

would be more sensible to understand the emotional and psychological

attachment to the GDR as yet another facet to varying regional identity within

Germany, present even amongst the ‘Alten Bundesländer’.

The films analysed in this dissertation, however, have certainly made clear that

identity is not a fixed concept, that it is rather a volatile, fluid and constantly

changing notion. Issues of identity are complex and often affected (either

positively or negatively) by the passing of time. Jana’s partner, Irene, in

Alles auf Zucker! conveys a sense of this when she says:

Es gibt Dinge, die dauern so lange, weil sie so schwierig sind. Und es gibt Dinge, die werden so schwierig, weil sie so lange dauern.

The economic and sociological disparities between former East and West

Germany may persist for years to come, but once parity is achieved, and the

older generations have passed on, the issues of the Wende will surely pass on

too, into the realm of memory and the distant past.

70. Carsten Zelle, Ostalgie? National and Regional Identifications in Germany after Unification

(Birmingham: Institute for German Studies, 1997), 36-37.



34

Filmography

Alles auf Zucker!. Directed by Dani Levy. Germany, 2004.

Die Architekten. Directed by Peter Kahane. GDR, 1990.

Barbara. Directed by Christian Petzold. Germany, 2012.

Das Leben der Anderen. Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. Germany, 2006.

Meine Heimat: DDR!. Directed by Jan N. Lorenzen. Germany, 2012.

Solo Sunny. Directed by Konrad Wolf and Wolfgang Kohlhaase. GDR, 1980.

Sonnenallee. Directed by Leander Haußmann. Germany, 1999.

Spur der Steine. Directed by Frank Beyer. GDR, 1966.

Unser kurzes Leben. Directed by Lothar Warneke. GDR, 1980.



35

Bibliography Secondary Literature

Allan, Seán. “1989 and the Wende in East German Cinema: Peter Kahane’s ‘Die Architekten’ (1990), Egon Günther’s ‘Stein’ (1991) and Jörg Foth’s ‘Letztes aus der Da Da Er’ (1990)”. German Monitor 50 (2000): 231-244.

———. “‘Ostalgie’, Fantasy and the Normalization of East-West Relations in Post-Unification Comedy”. In German Cinema Since Unification, edited by David Clarke, 105-126. London: Continuum, 2006.

———. “‘Seit der Wende hat der Mann nur Pech gehabt. Jetzt soll er auch noch Jude sein’: Theatricality, Memory and Identity in Dani Levy's ‘Alles auf Zucker!’ (2004)”. Debatte: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe 15, no. 1 (2007): 25-42.

Arnold-de Simine, Silke, and Susannah Radstone. “The GDR and the Memory Debate”. In Remembering and Rethinking the GDR: Multiple Perspectives and Plural Authenticities, edited by Anna Saunders and Debbi Pinfold, 19-33. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Ash, Timothy Garton. “Preface”. Oxford German Studies 38, no. 3 (2009): 234-235.

Berdahl, Daphne. “Consumer Rites: The Politics of Consumption in Re-Unified Germany”. In On the Social Life of Postsocialism: Memory, Consumption, Germany, edited by Matti Bunzl, 33-47. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010.

———. “(N)Ostalgie for the Present: Memory Longing, and East German Things”. In On the Social Life of Postsocialism: Memory, Consumption, Germany, edited by Matti Bunzl, 48-59. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010.

Blum, Martin. “Remaking the East German Past: ‘Ostalgie’, Identity, and Material Culture”. Journal of Popular Culture 34, no. 3 (2000): 229-253.

Blunk, Harry. “The Concept of ‘Heimat-GDR’ in DEFA Feature Films”. In DEFA: East German Cinema, 1946-1992, edited by Seán Allan and John Sandford, 204-221. New York: Berghahn Books, 1999.

Boym, Svetlana. “Introduction: Taboo on Nostalgia?”. In The Future of Nostalgia, xiii-xix. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

Brockmann, Stephen. “German Film after Reunification 1990-2010: Historical Overview”. In A Critical History of German Film, 413-435. New York: Camden House, 2010.

Bühler, Philipp. Filmheft: ‘Alles auf Zucker’. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2004.

Buzzelli, Susan. “Forgetting ‘Die Architekten’: Towards a New Approach to DEFA and Wende Film”. In Ossi Wessi, edited by Donald Backman and Aida Sakalauskaite, 105-123. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.



36

Cafferty, Helen. “‘Sonnenallee’: Taking Comedy Seriously in Unified Germany”. In Textual Responses to German Unification, edited by Carol Anne Costabile-Heming, Rachel J. Haverson and Kristie A. Foell, 253-271. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001.

Cook, Roger F. “25 August 1992: ‘Ostalgie’ Provides Pushback against Western Views on the East German Collapse”. In A New History of German Cinema, edited by Jennifer M. Kapczynski and Michael D. Richardson, 524-529. Rochester: Camden House, 2012.

Cooke, Paul. “Performing ‘Ostalgie’: Leander Hausmann’s ‘Sonnenallee’”. German Life and Letters 56, no. 2 (2003): 156-167.

———. “Preface”. In Representing East Germany since Unification: From Colonization to Nostalgia, vii-x. Oxford: Berg, 2005.

———. “Postcolonial Studies, Colonization and East Germany”. In Representing East Germany since Unification: From Colonization to Nostalgia, 1-26. Oxford: Berg, 2005.

———. “Productive Hybridity: Nostalgia and the GDR on Film”. In Representing East Germany since Unification: From Colonization to Nostalgia, 103-140. Oxford: Berg, 2005.

DigitalVD. “Interview mit Dani Levy: Alles auf Zucker”. Accessed February 1, 2014. http://www.digitalvd.de/interviews/Dani-Levy-Alles-auf-Zucker.html

Dockhorn, Katharina. “’Alles auf Zucker!’/Aber bitte mit Tempo!”. EPD Film 12, no. 1 (2005): 36-37.

Eckert, Thomas, and Joachim Huber. “Kann man mit Juden Quote machen? - ‘Zucker’: Der Regisseur Dani Levy über die Probleme und die Freuden einer jüdischen Familienkomödie”. Tagesspiegel, March 26, 2004. Accessed February 1, 2014. http://www.tagesspiegel.de/medien/kann-man-mit-juden-quote-machen/502562.html

Elley, Derek. ‘‘Go for Zucker: An Unorthodox Comedy (‘Alles auf Zucker!’)’’ Variety 398 (2005): 26.

Emmerich, Wolfgang. “Cultural Memory East v. West: Is what belongs together really growing together?”. Oxford German Studies 38, no. 3 (2009): 242-253.

Fuchs, Anne, and Mary Cosgrove, “Introduction”. German Life and Letters 59 no. 2 (2006): 3-10.

Fuchs, Anne, and Mary Cosgrove. “Introduction: Germany’s Memory Contests and the Management of the Past”. In German Memory Contests: The Quest for Identity in Literature, Film, and Discourse since 1990, edited by Anne Fuchs, Mary Cosgrove and Georg Grote, 1-21. Rochester: Camden House, 2006.

Fuchs, Anne, Kathleen James-Chakraborty, and Linda Shortt. “Introduction”. In Debating German Cultural Identity Since 1989, edited by Anne Fuchs, Kathleen James-Chakraborty, and Linda Shortt, 1-14. Rochester: Camden House, 2011.



37

Fulbrook, Mary, and Martin Swales. “Introduction: Representation in Literature and History”. In Representing the German Nation: History and Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany, edited by Mary Fulbrook and Martin Swales, 1-18. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.

Fulbrook, Mary. “Re-presenting the Nation: History and Identity in East Germany”. In Representing the German Nation: History and Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany, edited by Mary Fulbrook and Martin Swales, 172-192. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.

Gallinat, Anselma. “Memory Matters and Contexts: Remembering for Past, Present and Future”. In Remembering and Rethinking the GDR: Multiple Perspectives and Plural Authenticities, edited by Anna Saunders and Debbi Pinfold, 149-163. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Godsall-Myers, Jean E., and Dagmmar A. Winroeder-Skinner. “Humor im deutschen Film? Kein Oxymoron in ‘Good Bye Lenin!’ und ‘Sonnenallee’: Vorschläge für den DaF-Unterricht auf der Mittel- und Oberstufe”. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 38, no. 2 (2005): 143-155.

Gook, Ben. “Really-Existing Nostalgia? Remembering East Germany in Film”. Traffic: An Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Journal No. 10 (2008): 123-141.

Heiduschke, Sebastian. “’Das ist die Mauer, die quer durchgeht. Dahinter liegt die Stadt und das Glück': DEFA Directors and their Criticism of the Berlin Wall”. Colloquia Germanica: Internationale Zeitschrift Für Germanistik 40, no. 1 (2007): 37-50.

Hodgin, Nick. “Mapping Identity”. In Screening the East: Heimat, Memory and Nostalgia in German Film since 1989, 15-36. London: Berghahn Books, 2011.

———. “Good Bye, Ostalgie?”. In Screening the East: Heimat, Memory and Nostalgia in German Film since 1989, 154-187. London: Berghahn Books, 2011.

Hyland, Claire. “‘Ostalgie doesn’t fit!’: Individual Interpretations of and Interaction with Ostalgie”. In Remembering and Rethinking the GDR: Multiple Perspectives and Plural Authenticities, edited by Anna Saunders and Debbi Pinfold, 101-115. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Kapczynski, Jennifer M. “Newer German Cinema: From Nostalgia to Nowhere”. The Germanic Review 82, no. 1 (2010): 3-6.

Knauf, Thomas. “’Die Architekten’ (1990)”. In Spur der Filme: Zeitzeugen über die DEFA, edited by Ingrid Poss and Peter Parnecke, 461-464. Berlin: Christoph Links Verlag, 2006.

Lamb, Stephen. ‘‘Re-presenting the German Past in 2005: Culture’s Contribution in the New Berlin Republic. A Personal Account’’. Debatte 13, no. 3 (2005): 265–81.



38

Langenbacher, Eric. “The Mastered Past?: Collective Memory Trends in Germany since Unification”. In From the Bonn to the Berlin Republic, edited by Jeffrey J. Anderson and Eric Langenbacher, 63-89. New York: Bergham Books, 2010.

Leeder, Karen. “Introduction”. Oxford German Studies 38, no. 3 (2009): 236-241.

Maischberger, Sandra. “‘Sonnenallee’ - Eine Mauerkomödie: Interview mit Leander Haussmann und Thomas Brussig”. In ‘Sonnenallee’: Das Buch zum Farbfilm, edited by Leander Haussmann, 8-24. Berlin: Quadriga Verlag, 1999.

McAdams, A. James. “The Last East German and the Memory of the German Democratic Republic”. In From the Bonn to the Berlin Republic, edited by Jeffrey J. Anderson and Eric Langenbacher, 51-62. New York: Bergham Books, 2010.

McGee, Laura Green. “‘Ich wollte ewig einen richtigen Film machen! Und als es soweit war, konnte ich's nicht!’: The End Phase of the GDR in Films by DEFA Nachwuchsregisseure”. German Studies Review 26, no. 2 (2003): 315-332.

Müller, Jan-Werner. “Just Another ‘Vergangenheitsbewältigung’? The Process of Coming to Terms with the East German Past Revisited”. Oxford German Studies 38, no. 3 (2009): 334-344.

Nijdam, Elizabeth. “Rock statt Marx: Rock and Roll Narratives in Leander Haußmann’s ‘Sonnenallee’”. German as a Foreign Language no. 3 (2010): 117-136.

Richardson, Michael. “A World of Objects: Consumer Culture in the Filmic Reconstructions of the GDR”. In The Collapse of the Conventional: German Film and its Politics at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, edited by Jaimey Fisher and Brad Prager, 216-237. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2010.

Rinke, Andrea. “‘Sonnenallee’ - ‘Ostalgie’ as a Comical Conspiracy”. German as a Foreign Language no. 1 (2006): 24-45.

Ross, Corey. “The Changing Picture of the GDR: Political, Methodological and Moral Dimensions”. In The East German Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives in the Interpretation of the GDR, 1-18. London: Arnold, 2002.

Sabrow, Martin. “Die DDR erinnern”. In Erinnerungsorte der DDR, edited by Martin Sabrow, 11-27. Munich: Beck, 2000.

Saunders, Anne. “‘Normalizing’ the Past: East German Culture and ‘Ostalgie’”. In German Culture, Politics, and Literature into the Twenty-First Century: Beyond Normalisation, edited by Stuart Taberner and Paul Cooke, 89-103. Rochester: Camden House, 2006.

Schieber, Elke. “Anfang vom Ende oder Kontinuität des Argwohns 1980 bis 1989”. In Das zweite Leben der Filmstadt Babelsberg: DEFA-Spielfilme 1946-1992, edited by Filmmuseum Potsdam, 265-327. Berlin: Henschel, 1994.



39

Schenk, Ralf. “Keiner Stadt der Zukunft”. Film-Dienst 59, no. 10 (2006): 45-46.

Schutte, Barend. “The Portrayal of the GDR in Post-1990 German Feature Films”. German as a Foreign Language no. 2 (2005): 5-19.

Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschland. "Die Verfassung der DDR vom 7. Oktober 1974”. In Die Verfassung der DDR: Ein Machtinstrument der SED?, edited Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung, 63-88. Bonn: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1987.

Taberner, Stuart, and Paul Cooke. “Introduction”. In German Culture, Politics, and Literature into the Twenty-First Century: Beyond Normalisation, edited by Stuart Taberner and Paul Cooke, 1-15. Rochester: Camden House, 2006.

Thesz, Nicole. “Adolescence in the ‘Ostalgie’ Generation: Reading Jakob Hein’s Mein erstes T-Shirt against ‘Sonnenallee’, ‘Zonenkinder’, and ‘Good Bye, Lenin!’”. Oxford German Studies 37, no. 1 (2008): 107-123.

Webber, Andrew J. “Falling Walls, Sliding Doors, Open Windows: Berlin on Film after the Wende”. German as a Foreign Language no. 1 (2006): 6-23.

Wittlinger, Ruth. “Introduction: A Different Republic After All?”. In German National Identity in the Twenty-First Century: A Different Republic After All?, 1-16. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

———. “The Quest for ‘Inner Unity’”. In German National Identity in the Twenty-First Century: A Different Republic After All?, 47-70. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

———. “Conclusion: German Nation Identity in the Twenty-First Century”. In German National Identity in the Twenty-First Century: A Different Republic After All?, 139-145. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Worschech, Rudolf. “‘Alles auf Zucker’ raumte ab: die Deutschen Filmpreise”. EPD Film 12, no. 8 (2005): 5.

Wright, Elizabeth. “Theory in Praxis: Comedy as Discourse”. In Postmodern Brecht: A Re-Presenntation, 49-67. London: Routledge, 1989.

Zelle, Carsten. Ostalgie? National and Regional Identifications in Germany after Unification. Birmingham: Institute for German Studies, 1997.

German National Identity and Representations of the ‘Wende’ in Post-Unification Cinema

Documents

Transcript of German National Identity and Representations of the ‘Wende’ in Post-Unification Cinema