LOCAL PLAYERS ON METROPOLITAN STAGES Prof. Dr. Stefan Hulfeld (Wien)

1. LOCAL PLAYERS ON METROPOLITAN STAGESProf. Dr. Stefan Hulfeld (Wien) Prof. Dr. Friedemann Kreuder (Mainz)

2. LOCAL PLAYERS ON METROPOLITAN STAGES The historical coming-into-being of the present reveals itself in the degree by which metropolitan stages are able to move originally local matters as milieux de mémoire (Nora) into a trans/national perspective. The seminar is dedicated to the Bavarian author Marieluise Fleisser. Bertolt Brecht's staging of her play Pioniere in Ingolstadt – a love story between the rough pioneer Korl and the gentle maid Berta – at the „Theater am Schiffbauerdamm“ on 30 March 1929 caused a scandal among the audience because of its „restriction of the thematic circle“ and its lacking contemporaneity, according to the legendary critic Herbert Jhering. On the contrary, the thematically equally autochthonous folk play Der fröhliche Weinberg by the Rhine-Hessian author Carl Zuckmayer – a romantic comedy about Jean Baptiste Gunderloch, the owner of a vineyard, and his illegitimate daughter Klärchen – had been enjoying triumphant success among the Berlin audience on the same stage on 22 December 1925. This was primarily due to the audience's weariness of the „unrestrained literary bullshit“ of contemporary redemption drama, as Alfred Kerr, the famous adversary of Herbert Jhering in the field of theatre critique, noted. The seminar investigates the conditions for the (non)recognisability of both authors in the collective memory of a metropolitan world, which in both cases is also displayed by biographical dynamics.

3. FOUNDATIONAL LITERATURE Fleißer, Marie Louise. Pioneers in Ingolstadt. A Comedy in 14 Scenes (1968 Version). Trans. Elisabeth Bond-Pablé, Tinch Minter. Annie Castledine (Ed). Plays by Women. Volume Nine. London: Methuen Drama, 1991. Fleißer, Marieluise. Pioniere in Ingolstadt. Komödie in zwölf Bildern. Fassung 1929. Günther Rühle (Ed). Fleißer Marieluise: Gesammelte Werke. Erste Band. Dramen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1983. Gay, Peter. “Die Rache des Vaters. Aufstieg und Fall der Sachlichkeit.” Die Republik der Außenseiter. Geist und Kultur in der Weimarer Zeit. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer, 1970. Gay, Peter. “The Revenge of the Father. Rise and Fall of Objectivity.” Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider. New York: Harper & Row, 1983. Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. “Codes Collapsed.” In 1926: Living at the Edge of Time. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1997. Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. “Zusammengebrochene Codes.” 1926: Ein Jahr am Rand der Zeit. Trans. Joachim Schulte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2003. Mews, Siegfried. “The Folkplays and Adaptations.” Carl Zuckmayer. Boston: Hall, 1981. Wagener, Hans. “Der fröhliche Weinberg.” Carl Zuckmayer Criticism: Tracing Endangered Fame. Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1995. Wright, Barbara D. “The New Woman of the Twenties: Hoppla! That’s Life! and The Merry Vineyard.” Anna Katharina Kuhn. Playing for Stakes: German-Language Drama in Social Context. Oxford: Providence UP, 1994. Zuckmayer, Carl. Der Fröhliche Weinberg: Lustspiel in drei Akten. In Komödie und Volksstück. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 1950.

4. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Der fröhliche Weinberg. Dir. Erich Engel. Perf. Gustav Knuth, Eva Ingebord Scholz, Lutz Moik. BRD, 1952. Pioneers in Ingolstadt. Dir. Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Perf. Hanna Schygulla, Harry Baer, Irm Hermann. Janus Film und Fernsehen, 1971. Fantoma, 2003. DVD.

5. KEY DISCUSSION POINTS • Der fröhliche Weinberg: • The role of dialect: To what extent are we (as critics, audience members, readers, and theatre scholars) influenced by the presence and use of dialect in theatre? What changes when dialect is used in parallel with “Hochdeutsch”? Does Zuckmayer play with or against the expectations of an urban Berlin audience? • Awareness of Anti-Semitism: Our current position permits us the privilege of looking back to Zuckmayer’s cultural criticism through a different lens. What does this say about the time period? About our perceptions of 1920s Germany? • Zuckmayer’s letter to critics in his hometown regarding their panning of his piece. • What thematic and cultural changes were made to the play for the 1952 TV Film version? How does this affect reception?

6. Pioneers in Ingolstadt • Fleißer’s career suffered due to the ‘scandal’ surrounding Pioniers in Ingolstadt. When considering reviews of the first production, how much of the scandal was a result of critics rather than audiences? • Brecht’s influential presence as lover and director (perhaps more domineering than supportive). • While our translations were of different versions, there is still a great deal to be noticed as changed by Fleißer’s own hand between the many incarnations of her play. What changed and how did these changes affect the production? • The English translation results in a rhythm similar to that of Cockney English; full of comical stereotypes and stuttered speech patterns. • How does Fassbinder’s film use or abuse Fleißer’s characters? Is Fassbinder’s version of Pioniers in Ingolstadt a fulfillment of Fleißer’s original intentions? And what are the impacts on changing the setting of the play from 1929 to the 1970s?

7. GENERAL QUESTIONS • Reception: What are the consequences of local figures appearing on metropolitan stages? Is the provincial perspective on the world more suitable for an universal view on the world than the urban view? Has the local stuff more universal potential to talk about mankind than plays about city life? Is the distance to the cities better working? • Historical Context: Popularity of Zuckmayer then versus today? • The presence of veterans: How are they characterized in both productions? What are the positive and negative aspects? • Dionysian and Apollonian conditions • Contrasts between current Berlin club/cabaret culture and the perceived innocence of rural life • Gender Roles: Are these really Wright’s ‘New Women of the Twenties’?

8. GENERAL QUESTIONS • Patriarchy: What are the main differences of the father figures in the two plays? How do they influence their children and their children’s decisions? How do they gain their power (through fights, money) and in what ways do they show it? • WWI and WW2: How are the effects of WWI represented and are there already indicators detectable for the political changes and the rise of the National Socialist Party? E.g. How are Jewish characters portrayed in Zuckmayer’s play?

9. REVIEWS OF PIONEERS IN INGOLSTADT Alfred Kerr, Berliner Tageblatt, April 2nd 1929: “One of the most gifted of the youngest generation paints here, unafraid, the situation at home. Confident in language (shabby in satire).” (Eine der stärksten Begabungen des jüngsten Geschlechts malt hier, unerschrocken, Heimatzustände. Sicher im Sprachlichen (Billiger im Satirischen).) “Is Fleißer a dramatist now in reference to the structure? […] The plot leads her there. As (let's say) in the case of Tschechoff. […] Magnificent she remains. Valuable she remains.” (Ist Fleißer jetzt auch eine Dramatikerin, was den Bau betrifft? […] Die Handlung führt sie eben so hin. Wie (sagen wir) bei Tschechoff. […] Prachtvoll bleibt sie. Wertvoll bleibt sie.)

10. REVIEWS OF PIONEERS IN INGOLSTADT Richard Bierdrzynski, Deutsche Zeitung, April 2nd 1929: “Until now the Berlin theater has been the affair of male ambiguity, but the whole one-dimensionality is now the thing of the broad. The joke with soldiers and maids, subtitle of the piece – is ancient. The puberty jokes come from Wedekind, the caricature of the bavarien beer province is from Thoma, the merry sexuality from Zuckmayer and Piscator deals in his Schejk with the caricature of military drill. From this sources Marieluise Fleißer borrows her literary rag. [..] What Fleißer adds to her piece are only mean, awkward and dirty candidnesses.” (Bisher war das Berliner Theater Sache männlicher Zweideutigkeiten, aber die volle Eindeutigkeit hat nun das Weib auf seiner Seite. Der Witz mit Soldaten und Dienstmädchen, Untertitel dieses Stückes – ist uralt. Die Pubertätsscherze stammen von Wedekind, die Karikatur auf die bayrische Bierprovinz stammt von Thoma, der fröhliche Sexualtrieb stammt von Zuckmayer, und Piscator hat schon im Schwejk die Karikatur auf militärischen Schliff und Drill gebracht. Aus diesen Quellen borgte sich Marieluise Fleißer ihren literarischen Fetzen zusammen. […] Was Marieluise Fleißer zu ihrem Stück hinzutut, sind nur niedrige und peinliche und dreckige Offenheiten.)

11. REVIEWS OF PIONEERS IN INGOLSTADT Richard Bierdrzynski, Deutsche Zeitung, April 2nd 1929: “For this citizen, Ingolstadt will be very thankful. Berlin however has its solid and nice theatre scandal on easter saturday, a concert of whistles including advertisement for a mud drama.” (Für diese Mitbürgerin wird sich Ingolstadt kräftig bedanken. Berlin aber hat seinen runden und netten Theaterskandal am Ostersonnabend, ein Pfeifen-Konzert mit Reklame für ein Drecksdrama.) Paul Fechter, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, April 3rd 1929: “A folk play is planed, a play about soldiers – by a woman who has no instinct for national essentials. Furthermore, a woman can not handle a topic like that.” (Ein Volksstück ist geplant, ein Soldatenstück – von einer Frau, die erstens keinen Funken von Instinkt für wirkliches Volkswesen hat und überdies als Frau bei einem Thema wie diesem fehl am Platze ist.) Source: Materialien zum Leben und Schreiben der Marieluise Fleißer, Günther Rühle (Ed). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1973, p. 68-83.

12. PICTURES OF THE STAGING OF PIONEERS IN INGOLSTADT Berlin-Premiere: 30th March 1929; Theater am Schiffbauerdamm, Berlin Dir. Jacob Geis. Perf. Hilde Körber, Lotte Lenya, Albert Hoerrmann, Peter Lorre Source: Archive of the InstitutfürTheaterwissenschaft der FreienUniversität Berlin.

13. PICTURES OF THE STAGING OF PIONEERS IN INGOLSTADT