So, obviously, when Rath himself became the clown, I had a fit. Metaphor time!
Madly curious, I searched the lovely JSTOR for other opinions, and came across this article by Geoffrey Wagner, which answered a lot of my questions.
He writes
“From the outset, in fact, the professor is haunted by the figure of the clown in the background, for he, the man of ideals, is himself a clown in the world of The Blue Angel.”
A-ha! So he became the clown as Lola, the 1930s rendition of Pandora, slowly destroyed him. This brought me back to thoughts from Ashley’s speech, in which she talked about the film Der Büsche der Pandora from 1929, in which Lulu’s sexual ambition and thoughtlessness destroyed lives around her, and eventaully her own. Lola was a bit luckier though, and escaped with her life.
Rath was insecure about the continued sexual nature of Lola’s work, and he was ultimately destroyed by that. The last lines that Lola sings in the film (no subtitles, unfortunately) are translated as “when a man burns in lust, who can find him salvation?”
Symbolic, no?
Wagner also makes the connection between Rath’s burning lust and his ripping off of the calendar days with a hot curling iron. So that explains the smoke then. And it only got smokier throughout the years, signifying his growing jealousy.
Let’s tie it all together, shall we? So because Rath was reduced to a sad, empty version of himself via Lola’s sexual prowess, and was forced to return to his hometown in such a state, he became the essential clown – the fool. He was humiliated, eggs were cracked onto his forehead, he watched as his wife hooked up with another man. He was ridiculed by all those he used to think below him. This degradation reminds me of the human perception of aura concept from Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” – he was happy when he believed himself a man of culture, not a fool. He was still cultured, but because of his new job as a literal clown, in combination with his lack of money and being supported by woman, he was a fool. His aura was corrupted.
The article connects the film to Kracauer’s beloved chaos theory with the following quote:
Thus at the beginning, when the professor first enters, the cabaret is shown as chaotic, almost surrealistic, with its whirling clouds, miasmic veisl, and shifting backdrops; at the end, when he is part of it, it is steady, and brutal in its clarity.
I am so glad someone wrote about this; i thought the clown was creepy but deeply symbolic, too. I think it is interesting how the clown is shown as happy and smiling when it is not him, and when he is in love with lola, but as he becomes the clown, he becomes more and more unhappy with his relationship. He is, as you mentioned, made a fool, and literally and figuratively has egg on his face. I also found it interesting that he is barely made up, where the (other) clown's make up is much stronger and more concealing.
ReplyDeleteTo add on this, I was really disturbed by the clown as well. Even though he does not speak and only appears briefly at the beginning of the film he appears almost essential. His randomness makes him so obviously there that one cannot but acknowledge his importance. Not only does he foreshadows the dark future that awaits the professor, he also is at that moment the exact opposite of the professor and everything latter despises. Considering how things end up turning out it reveals a certain irony in faith.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Professor-as-clown was less made-up for the sake of recognizing him easier. The original clown had no other identity than that of being the clown, and so it wasn't necessary for him to have any other recognizable facial features.
ReplyDeletePerfect way to put that Solynka! His appearances were so random, it was immediately obvious that he represented something. But yeah, like you said, what that "something" was wasn't revealed until the final ironic twist at the end.
I think the clown was the most interesting touch in the film.