Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

You are here: Home » Artists beyond Images » Film » Hellas Film Festival in Berlin 2016 » „Die Patin“ (Godmother) by Stelios Kouloglou

„Die Patin“ (Godmother) by Stelios Kouloglou

Hellas Film Festival: second day, Friday 22.1.2016

            

I need to correct a bit the impressions Anna and I had of the opening. We saw the film 'Godmother' by Stelious Kouloglou the following day, that is Friday 22, 2016. His documentary about Merkel is most revealing. It shows how a politician can be perceived and certainly how in Greece such a powerful figure can be even mystified. It has something to do with an attempt to use the medium film to support a critical stance, but there is a huge risk entailed. Rather than coming to terms, it can merely reinforce already existing projections upon powerful figures. A lot of ambivalence comes into play,especially if little or no care is taken to strengthen the analytical part.

Of interest is that the Greek film maker Stelios Kouloglou happens to be at the same time MEP for Syriza in the European Parliament. Not only does this give him greater access to information, but it makes him into a representative in a double sense. For then not only viewpoints of Greeks with regards to the politics of Merkel should count, but also what is said about her at European level. Clearly it is not enough to merely show her kissing Hollande or any other European politician who may come on an official visit to Berlin.

Still, the documentary called 'the Patin' (godmother) can highlight features of politics especially when they are linked as in this case to the single personality of Merkel. She has become well known throughout Germany, Europe and the world. Moreover in some circles she is widely respected as a politician who has managed governance in difficult times. It goes without saying that this reflects as well the growing power of Germany since reunification after the wall came down in 1989. Accordingly this documentary should be appraised, that is if justice is done to Merkel as chancellor of a European member state.

The film was balanced, that is true, insofar some of the sins committed by Greek politicians were shown e.g. purchase of military equipment (submarines, tanks) which Greece did not really need. It had even a good touch of satire. The extent to which her use of power can be compared with methods of the Mafia, that can be contested or at least should be discussed, if really the case. Since it is the main message of this documentary, as indicated already by use of the same title as given to the biography about Merkel, other voices not agreeing with such a mystification of her use of political power should have been heard. Instead only those were heard which support the association with the Mafia (for example, by pointing towards silence as method Merkel uses apparently to make sure not much reaches the public. In short, the documentary falls short on one crucial point: what Foucault had wished to point out, when he said that we need to discover the places of silence before all kinds of protests, including the lyrical one, covers them up.

The documentary is a mixture of various means when it comes to use images. There are shown, for example, real shots of Merkel being sworn in when she became chancellor of Germany for the first time. Then, an actor marks the opening and appears later throughout the documentary. He is a a kind of light hearted interlude due to his amazing talent to exaggerate in a convincing way upon Merkel's entire way of dressing and which she accompanies with typical gestures, including facial ones. He does imitate in a marvellous way her peculiar way of speaking. The documentary substantiates and amplifies it by showing her addressing the German public at different New Years. It allows the viewer to compare what she had said the year before. Often these addresses contained a lot of pathos. For example, Merkel would say, "wir freuen uns auf die Weihnachtslieder" - we look forward to hearing Christmas songs! at a time, by contrast, when Greece was going through a severe depression and economic crisis.

Several comments made by people being interviewed in the film allow further reflections about her key characteristics. Most telling is, for instance, the opinion expressed by the late sociologist Ulrich Beck who denoted that she is not a good public speaker. He went on to explain that she says neither yes or no, while in extreme cases she would say both yes and no. This method of keeping things open as long as possible is most telling for how she uses power, insofar as she prefers to go with the flow of times rather than take an outright position. However, the latter assumption which one could draw out of what was said about her in the film, has been refuted most recently when Merkel took to the surprise of everyone the position that all refugees are welcomed in Germany. Therefore whether that really holds, should have been discussed in the film further. Instead the tenure was a rather one sided portrait of Merkel. By taking on board still other viewpoints not so supportive of the main argumentation running through the entire documentary, the documentary would have been far more balanced.

Following persons were interviewed often not once, but several times at different time sequences in the documentary:

There are many scenes in which the images are supposed to speak all by themselves: demonstrations in Athens, gathering of finance ministers in Brussels. The documentary was revealing about the times Merkel spend in East Germany. However, most of the images in real life of Merkel one knew already from the usual press coverage which do not enter the room where decisions are made, but show only politicians arriving in their limousine and while walking into the building smile briefly to the waiting crowd and journalists before disappearing out of sight.

Sequences and main themes of the documentary:

Still, after we had seen the film, I was left wondering if all Greeks really believe Merkel has the sole power to determine completely and all by herself the fate of not only Greece, but of Europe and even more so all of Germany?

Since the film was completed in 2014, the crisis of the refugees had not hit and Merkel's reputation was not as of yet questioned as much as it is now the case in January 2016.

Interestingly enough the film did point in one direction which might explain her sudden declaration that all refugees from Syria are welcome. She was characterized in the film and especially by her biographer as someone who would always be under estimated and who would be willing to break the rules of the game. If this unpredictability is her political the way to move things forward, it might explain her sudden decision to welcome the refugees and to maintain that „wir schaffen es!“ (we shall manage it).

The film begins with satire. An actor looks similar to her. He imitates her way of speaking. She does so in sentences which contain nothing and a lot. This ability to formulate things which leave a lot open reflects her ability to wait till the real contours of what comes next has become self evident. That is reflected in the film especially how she acted before, during and after the fall of the wall. Merkel admitted that she like many of us were surprised that it happened. References are made her to the pomp under Honneker and what Gorbachev’s reform in the Soviet Union meant for the East German regime.

There are shown scenes which depict what Merkel did before, during and after the fall of the Berlin Wall. For instance, while all the commotions took place in the street with more and more people moving towards the historical date of 9th of November when the wall finally came down, she continued to work in the laboratory. Even after the wall had come down, she seemed not believe in the change of events fully. At least outwardly she acted as if she believed that the change would not be permanent. Instead she went to the Sauna.

After the fall of the wall, she wanted to engage herself politically. She went first to the Social Democrats (SPD) but for one or another reason she decided to go to the CDU as if one and the same. Yet one observer remarked she did not wish to get stuck in the opposition; rather she wanted to be close to the real power existing in West Germany.

Helmut Kohl took her under his wings and promoted her by giving her soon a position in the cabinet. Little did he understand and anticipate what would await him on hand of Merkel.

A lot was shown about her times in the former DDR (East Germany). Most telling was that she cherished one film called 'The Betrayal'. It became a metaphor of how she toppled Helmut Kohl after he had lost the election to Gerhard Schröder. She took everyone by surprise within the inner circle of the CDU around Helmut Kohl, including Schäuble. Kohl was shocked.

Very little was said about Schäuble in the film. Only in one scene he is shown when he sits in his wheel chair and declares his loyalty to her as chief, but added that he has the reputation of being very difficult.

The film's narration about her ability to seize power by ousting Kohl is that the others did not see it coming. Rather she was constantly under estimated by all the others. They did not anticipate that she would dare to step into the shoes of Kohl. This constant under estimation can explain as well her success so far of staying in power.

The film begins to be critical when various persons are cited, including the author of the book. She explains why she decided to use the title 'die Patin' or Godmother. After doing her research, she came to the conclusion that Merkel uses power similar to that of a Mafia boss. Keeping silent is the highest law. Hence the connotation of her being the 'Patin' (Godmother) who makes gifts which cannot be refused (an explanation as to why Jorgios Papandreou could not say 'no' to Germany's demand that Greece purchases the German submarines even though made at the height of the Greek deficit crisis in 2010).

The film keeps emphasizing that Merkel pushed the EU finance ministers to accept such austerity measures which shall really hurt Greeks. Here Naomi Klein, author of the 'shock therapy', was cited as proof of this line of thought. Yet that is merely at best half the truth. Repeatedly Greek politicians would negotiate rather than work out details of what was demanded of them by the Troika, so when it came to the deadline, there was a rush to introduce some measures, but at best they were not really thought through and far worse, since mainly crude measures. Between demands and interpretation thereof, it seems all too often a superficial response worked with highly generalized versions of certain opinions rather than with detailed knowledge what policy measures could work in Greece, which ones not. This misleading response was reflected in opinions supported by the press and which became such well known statements as if all Greeks are lazy, retire early and receive the highest possible pensions.

Most telling was, for instance, a comment made by Ulrich Beck who had met Merkel during the Convention that she was as natural scientist not interested in ideas but could grasp very quickly details with her analytic mind. However, she would leave out the side effects, so Ulrich Beck who looked already pale in the interview. He died in January 2015, that is one year ago. I knew him from my time in Munich 1971. At that time, he was just completing his Ph.D. He was a keen follower of the discourse as practiced at that time by Habermas and Luhmann. Yet Ulrich Beck did not reflect so much upon his sociological generalizations as a way to put form before content. Typical is his statement about Merkel not being interested in side effects. That sounds quite intelligent, especially if it comes from a well known professor and from the author of the 'Risk Society'. However, radiation therapy can have side effects and doctors have to point them out to any potential patient, but very often they are irrelevant. So one does not know if Merkel would exclude side effects or simply not mention or take them up, so as not to waste time.

Clearly the Merkel phenomenon puzzles many. A good friend observed anyone growing up in the home of a protestant preacher would have quite a different standing in society. He grew up himself in the home of a preacher and therefore knows many of his fellow companions. Most astonishing is that Merkel became a natural scientists for most of them end up being if not poets or 'terrorists' like Ulrike Meinhof (she was not born in such a house but adopted and therefore grew up in one), then social scientists, philosophers or theologians.

In the documentation the comparison was made between Merkel and Katherina the Great of Russia. The writer of the biography 'die Patin' (Godmother) explains why she finds a strong similarity between the two. Given that Merkel imposes measures upon Greece which really hurt, and here comes into play a Greek doctor was quoted in the film of stating that once poor people have not the medicine and funds for hospitals are cut, it amounts really to 'mass murder'. Here the author of the book draws a parallel to Katherina who was supposed to be a mass murder and it is odd that Merkel considers her to be a prototype to follow. A portrait of Katerina hangs besides that of Schröder in the chancellory.

This thesis raises the question whether or not this is really true that Katerina was a mass murder. It is a serious charge. Here the film risks to perpetuate prejudices being projected upon not only Schäuble, but as well as upon Merkel. To qualify his thesis that Merkel reigns as if the Mafia, he interviews the sociologist Ulrich Beck and gets an affirmative opinion. This is then illustrate on hand of Jorgios Papandreou accepting the purchase of German submarines, despite the Greek state being deeply in debt and not in need of such military equipment. Here it is all too easy to say as in the poster, the offer is too good to be refused, as if Merkel plays the Mafia boss who leaves the other no other choice but to accept or else. Yet this analogy I feel is definitely over drawn. After all, Papandreou could have said as well 'no' to the offer and then see what really happens in a power play between various other actors, including banks.

Interestingly enough, when I asked Kouloglou if not the entire disaster with the Greek finances could have been avoided by Papandreou acting immediately on the advise of Strauss-Kahn and had asked for debt restructuring right from the beginning, he replied that the Greek banks did not wish to have such a hair-cut. Again the version is that political pressure coming not only from the outside, and here specifically from Merkel, but also from the inside, was stronger than what a politician could do, if he would have been prudent enough not to give in, but to act with a little bit of courage so as not to bury the future of Greece in a financial and political mess.

 

Some comments and questions asked after the screening of the film

After the showing of the film, Kouloglou tried to explain why he had focused so much on showing Merkel's background since he believed she was governing Germany and Europe very much like the former regime of East Germany. Here I intervened to state rather than the East German regime, the fact that she grew up in the house of a preacher was far more decisive than anything else. 

(Note: According to the thesis by Robert Minder, the home of the protestant preacher is the core cell of literature. It has thus a special meaning in Germany, and more so at that time, in East Germany, to grow up in such a surrounding. It was mentioned as well in the film that the particular parish where her father worked, hosted a group of children with special needs. She learned from an early age on to realize that there are special needs in society. But coming back to the preacher in the Protestant church, not only is he allowed to marry, but also the role of the church during East German times was crucial. It supported the opposition while being engaged at the same time in mediation efforts between state authorities and people wishing to live independently from state tutelage. This latter aspect was not shown so much. Instead a conformity pattern was shown which Merkel experienced because of her father having gone with the entire family to East Germany. This included joining the FDJ, the Communist youth organisation.)

I went on to ask him whether or not he risked following the same line of many Greeks who would always blame the others? He replied that the film was done explicitly with the aim to be shown abroad. He implies then it would have to been far more self critical. Still he tried to do it in a balanced way.

As to my second question, whether everything and all can be explained only through Merkel, he replied that if you study history, then you know that a single personality can determine a certain course of events. This over exaggeration of power resting with one sole person is a major contention I have with the documentary. It tends to reinforce a certain narrative by mystifying power to the extent that no real analysis is possible. It serves the purpose of reinforcing merely projections upon Merkel by over exaggerating (Thomas Bernhard called exaggeration a special art for which is needed a keen knowledge of the law of proportionality) certain features, and on top of it leaving out or not following up at the same time many other important details e.g. as indicated in the film when is narrated that after the Berlin wall came down, Merkel wished to engage herself politically, so she went first to the SPD, but then she did not wish to get stuck in the opposition, and so she went to the CDU to meet those men who would really yield power, fore mostly Helmut Kohl.

I reminded him about Stefan Zweig's portrays of certain fateful hours in man's history when one person might make a difference but only at that moment, and if it had immediately a collective impact e.g. the Kerka porta of Constaninople had been left open, so that a small troop of Turkish soldiers could enter, and once they were spotted to be inside the city, a shout went through the entire city that the Turks had taken the city. That meant the city was brought to its feet by means of self defeat.

The documentation shows definitely what a powerful media the film can be, and this one in particular can stimulate further thoughts about Merkel by seeing her being put into such a light. However, when footages are used which the media uses as well e.g. Merkel arriving in Brussels, Merkel receiving state guests in Berlin, Merkel walking with Papandreou to the President of Greece mansion in Athens, all these citations of familiar scenes cannot be called a contribution towards an enlightenment about use of power to govern, but risks to reaffirm merely the symbols of power. They are used like lymph nodes to catch people's projections upon power, so that people get entangled in a symbolic order rather than realizing this is a diversion from the real questions of politics. It leaves them outside any real understanding of what it takes to develop such policy measures which satisfy many considerations, and fore mostly the demand for social justice. There is a lack of analysis although the film made a tremendous effort to bring into the narrative the way Germany lends money. For the credits given to Greece to ward off a failed state were made primarily, in order to save the German and French banks.

 

Stelios Kouloglou

geboren 1953 in Athen, studierte in Paris und Tokio. Er arbeitete als Korrespondent für das griechische Radio und Fernsehen (in Paris von 1983 bis 1984, in Moskau während der Zeit der Perestroika von 1989 bis 1993 und während der Jugoslawienkriege von 1992 bis 1995). Regelmäßig produzierte er Beiträge für ARTE’s Nachrichtensendung „7 heures and demi“. Außerdem war Stelios Kouloglou Chefredakteur und Produzent der wöchentlichen Sendung „Reportagen ohne Grenzen“ (1996 bis 2012), die viermal zum informativsten Programm des griechischen Fernsehens gewählt wurde. Stelios Kouloglou erhielt die Auszeichnung „Beste griechische Dokumentation“ für seine Filme über den griechischen Bürgerkrieg (2000) und den Eurocomenius Preis für seinen Film „The Death Match“ (2002).

Als Produzent und Regisseur war Kouloglou verantwortlich für zahlreiche Reportagen für ARTE und ERT – u.a. „Whistleblowers“ (2004), „Welcome to Europe“ (2011), „Oligarchy“ (2012) und für den international prämierten Film „Apology of an Economic Hit Man“ (Geständnisse eines ökonomischen Auftragskillers, 2008).

 







^ Top

« „Little England“ by Pantelis Voulgaris * | Grüß dich, Arkadien – von Filippos Koutsaftis »