MovieChat Forums > Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum (1975) Discussion > A failed message about freedom of press

A failed message about freedom of press

posted 13 years ago by eabakkum
1 reply | jump to latest

Hello, My objection to the film stems mainly from the ending. In the final scene the press is extolled as the primary bearer of democracy. In fact this is only half the truth. For instance in a dictatorship the press is used to oppress the people, not to inform and empower them. In general the media become a threat as soon as their control is concentrated into the hands of a few people (either a state or a business empire). Democracy requires a diverse an pluriform supply of news, in such a way that the various social groups in society maintain an equal influence on the public opinion. This should have been the message of the film, and unfortunately it has failed in that endeavour. Its failure is nicely illustrated in some of the reviews, that show an unshattered trust in the police and the judicial system.

[–] chuck-526 11 years ago

I fear you've misunderstood that the last scene is blatant satire. It's _not_ the message of the film (if anything it's the message's _opposite_). The "extolling of the press" is by _the_press_itself_. And given what we've seen before in this film, we know how ludicrous (even self-deceiving) what we're watching is.

The film's first message is that the slogan "freedom of the press" can easily be mis-used as an excuse for bad behavior. At that time one of highest priorities in Germany was to avoid both "murder" and "propagating violence". Yet in the film the actual behavior of the press is the only thing that leads to murder. And the actual behavior of the press is the only thing that causes previously calm and anonymous citizens to threaten violence (Dr. Blorna) or even use violence (Katharina). This is called out explicitly by the film's secondary title: "how violence develops and where it can lead".

(The abuses of a press that doesn't even pay lip service to "freedom of the press" are of course even worse. But that's not what the film's about ...nor should it be, as that wasn't the problem affecting Heinrich Böll at the time.)

And the film's second message is the surrounding society bears much of the responsibility. Citizens' desire for "personal safety at all costs" led directly to horrid abuses against a few individuals (their "honor").

I too am disappointed that the intended message didn't come through better. Perhaps this is because the film is too tied to one specific place and time -- it's too easy to brush the film aside with "but that was 40 years ago...". Connections should be more easily made to: "yellow journalism" in the U.S; the phone-hacking/Murdoch/Sun affair in the U.K.; what happened to Bill Ayers during the first Obama campaign; the most vicious personal mudslinging by politically oriented magazines in the U.S.; some of what goes on in the "blogosphere"; and so forth.