1 Modernization and Progress in the European Countryside
Marshall Plan films in the context of West European cinema (1949-1954)
Adriaan Bronkhorst
Student Number: 10365419
Master Thesis Master History in American Studies Graduate School of Humanities University of Amsterdam Thesis Advisor: prof. dr. R.V.A. (Ruud) Janssens Second reader: dr. G.H. (George) Blaustein Amsterdam, 06-24-2014
2 Contents
Acknowledgements 3
Introduction 4
Historiography 5
Sources and method 9
Chapter I: Modernization, cooperation and production growth 12
Introduction 12
The development process 13
Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen 15
Two Hundred Million Mouths 19
The Story of Koula 23
Conclusion 27
Chapter II: The good, the bad and the European countryside 30
Introduction 30
Jour de fête 30
Riso Amaro 35
Der Förster vom Silberwald 40
Conclusion 46 Conclusion 47 Bibliography 53 Primary sources 53 Audiovisual sources 53 Digital sources 53 Secondary literature 54
3 Acknowledgements
During the writing of this master thesis I have found out that I could not have written it without the help of a few people. Therefore I want to thank those who have helped me tremendously along the way. Firstly, my thesis advisor prof. dr. Ruud Janssens for the structure he imposed, the feedback that he gave, the motivation he gave by believing in me and my topic and for his patience. Secondly, Ton Overmars for making time to give last minute feedback to my writing. Thirdly, Maaike van den Berg who has probably read every word I wrote more than once and was the critical reviewer I needed. Finally, the American Studies staff for the interesting master program. I can say without a doubt that I have chosen the right master. I have learned a lot and enjoyed every class.
4 Introduction
The recent rise of the Jihadist militant group, called the Islamic State in Iraq and Al-Sham (better known as ISIS), in Northern Iraq was not what former president of the United States George W. Bush had in mind when the United States intervened in the area.1 Bush wanted to establish a stable democracy with American help.2 Since America has withdrawn from Iraq between 2009 and 2011, the democratization and reconstruction mission of Iraq instigated by America seems to have failed. The rise of ISIS shows that not everyone can handle American ideals. This raises the question how locals responded in the past to U.S. reconstruction missions in their country. One of the most important and best-known examples in which America played a major role in the reconstruction of a war-affected area was the Marshall Plan in Western Europe. Many still see the Marshall Plan as a great example of America’s role in the world and is referred to as a template for future ventures.3 The messages of the Marshall Plan were distributed through films. How locals responded to messages of the Marshall Plan films can be examined by looking at the messages of West European films of that period. This is exactly what I want to study in this master thesis. Since agriculture was one of the most important items in the Marshall Plan films it is interesting to use rural Europe as a demarcation for this study. In this introduction I will explain how I am going to research the reaction in West European films to the messages of the Marshall Plan films. I will first present the historiography surrounding the Marshall Plan films. From the historiography, I will distill a research question. After this I will explain the structure of this master thesis and which sources and method I will use.
1 ISIS has captured Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq. For more information see an article in the New York Times. Available via http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/world/middleeast/militants-in-mosul.html, accessed on 06-24-2014. And the BBC. Available via http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27778112, accessed on 06-24-2014.
2 Bush has given many speeches about the role of America in the reconstruction of Iraq and the
democratization process that would have to start there. A good example is his State of the Union in 2005. Available via http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/sotu.transcript.6/index.html, accessed on 06-24-2014. Interesting is also a speech he gave about the future of Iraq for the American Enterprise Institute. In this speech he links the democratization of postwar Japan and Germany to the democratization of Iraq. Available via http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html, accessed on 06-24-2014.
3
Examples of books and articles that fall back on the Marshall Plan as a solution for specific countries, area’s, continents, the new millennium and the entire world are: Myriam J.A. Chancy, "A Marshall Plan for a Haiti at peace : to continue or end the legacy of the Revolution", Haiti and the Americas, e ar a a ar (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2013) 199-218; John A. Merkwan, Balkan stability and the "second Marshall Plan" (Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: U.S. Army War College, 2000); Leonard H. Robinson, Toward a Marshall Plan for Africa: SIDA 19th World Conference, March 25-28, 1988, New Delhi (New Delhi: Conference publication, 1988); Eliot Sorel and Pier Carlo Padoan, The Marshall Plan : lessons learned for the 21st century (Paris: OECD, 2008); Al Gore, Earth in the balance : ecology and the human spirit (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992).
5 Historiography
Since the Marshall Plan films are a part of the Marshall Plan, they are part of its extensive historiography. This historiography started immediately after the program had ended.4 A clear distinction was then made between two opposing camps. In the 1950s and 1960s
historians viewed the European Recovery Program (ERP), as the Marshall Plan was officially called, as an essential part of the postwar recovery of Western Europe.5 This view is called the traditional view. Traditionalists often tend to start quoting Dean Acheson, Under
Secretary of State under George C. Marshall. He is well known for saying that the Marshall Plan was ‘one of the greatest and most honorable adventures in history.’6
During the second half of the 1960s and the 1970s a different view arose. The Vietnam War and its aftermath triggered historians to reconsider the traditional view. A more critical stance towards the role of the US in the world became prevalent. The focus of research regarding the Marshall Plan went to the question what the interests were for America. This has become known as the revisionist view.7 The revisionists focused mainly on the role of the Marshall Plan in the Cold War. In their eyes the program showed America’s imperial character, a character that
according to them eventually led to the tragedies in both Korea and Vietnam. Since then the historiography surrounding the Marshall Plan has been further built on this framework of traditionalism versus revisionism.8
In the 1980’s the focus of research went deeper into the political and economic ideologies behind the Marshall Plan. Two books are exemplary for this focus. The first book, The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945 -1951 (1984), was written by the historian Alan S. Milward. He questioned the economic necessity of the Marshall Plan. According to Milward the European economic situation was not as bad as George C. Marshall had stated when he gave impetus to the plan in 1947. Milward claimed that the European recovery after
4 Some of these early works include: H.M. Hirschfeld, Road to recovery : the Marshall plan, its importance for the Netherlands and European cooperation (The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1954); Harry Bayard Price, The Marshall plan and its meaning (Washington, D.C: Ithaca, 1955); Joseph Marion Jones, The fifteen weeks (February 21 - June 5, 1947) (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1955).
5
Hans A. Schmitt, The path to European union : from the Marshall plan to the Common market (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1962); Ernst H. van der Beugel, From Marshall aid to Atlantic partnership : European integration as a concern of American foreign policy (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1966).
6
Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation: My Years at the State Department, (New York: Norton, 1969), 230. 7 William Appleman Williams, The tragedy of American diplomacy (Cleveland: The World publishing company, 1959); Joyce and Gabriel Kolko, The Limits of Power: The World and United States Foreign Policy (New York: Harper & Rowe, 1972); John Gimbel, The origins of the Marshall Plan (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1976).
8 Some authors write about postrevisionism when they mention traditionalist books that have been published after the revisionist movement. For instance: Charles S. Maier, "American Visions and British Interests: Hogan's Marshall Plan," Reviews in American History, 18, no. 1 (1990): 102-111, 102.
6 the Second World War was already underway in 1947. The European countries would have been rebuilt without the ERP, which was therefore unnecessary. Milward concluded that the ERP was not just directed at Europe’s recovery, but at creating one common economic and eventually political area, a United States of Europe, as a block towards the Soviet Union.9 The second book, The Marshall Plan: America, Britain, and the reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947-1952 (1987), was written by Michael J. Hogan. In his book, Hogan pointed towards the similarities between the New Deal and the Marshall Plan. According to Hogan the Truman Administration tried to implement New Deal corporatism in Western Europe via the ERP. The Truman administration believed the plan would bring economic, social and political stability to Western Europe as the New Deal had done in America. Hogan argued that the Cold War was not the main motive for establishing the ERP since the plan had its genesis in the New Deal era.10
After the fall of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989 the Marshall Plan generated interest for and from former Soviet controlled countries allowing the traditionalists to regain the upper hand.11 An example of this was Van Strohalm tot Strategie (From Straw to
Strategy), which consisted of several essays that tried to place the Marshall aid in a broader perspective of the postwar West-European and Transatlantic cooperation. While it gave a general overview of the Marshall Plan, a clear goal was to draw lessons from this history for the future. Throughout the book the connection was constantly made to Eastern Europe, insinuating that a similar aid program had to come for Eastern Europe, to strengthen the relationship with Western Europe.12 Another trend among historians was to look to the cultural and psychological influence of the Marshall Plan. One of the first major revisionist works into this field was Rebuilding Europe. Western Europe, America and postwar reconstruction by David W. Ellwood. He argued that the Marshall Plan was a project that
9
Alan S. Milward, The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945-51 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984) 465-467.
10 Michael J. Hogan, The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947-1952 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 18-19.
11 Studies such as: S arris , an arins i , New evidence on the Soviet rejection of the Marshall Plan, 1947 : two reports (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 1994); Gerd Hardach, Der Marshall-Plan : Auslandshilfe und Wiederaufbau in Westdeutschland 1948-1952 n en: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1994); Jeffry M. Diefendorf, Axel Frohn, and Hermann-Josef
Rupieper, American policy and the reconstruction of West Germany, 1945-1955 (Washington, D.C.: German Historical Institute, 1993); Pavol Petruf, (Bratislava: Slovak Academic Press, 1993). Eastern Europe was even regarded as a postwar area: Rudiger Dornbusch, Post-war economic reconstruction lessons for Eastern Europe (London: Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society, 1993).
12 Richard T. Griffiths (eds.), Van Strohalm tot Strategie. Het Marshall-plan in perspectief (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1997).
7 promoted the American way of life and that it was a powerful weapon against communism.13 In an article he published a year later he stated that the Marshall Plan was ‘the greatest international propaganda operation ever seen in peacetime.’ He emphasized the role of the ERP as means of American dominion, by using the word propaganda. 14 Albert Hemsing criticized Ellwood for this. Hemsing falls into the category of former Marshall Plan
employees who have a voice in the historiography.15 Hemsing was part of the Paris Film Unit from August 1951 until October 1955.16 He stated that the Marshall Plan films were no propaganda, merely ‘an exercise in public diplomacy.’17
In 1997 the fiftieth anniversary of the Marshall Plan was celebrated. A series of books were published that dealt with the cultural perception of the ERP during its operation.
Especially in the Netherlands a lot of attention was paid to this event, because the Dutch government occupied the chair of the European Union at the time and had the responsibility of organizing the official celebrations. An example of this is Hoed af voor Marshall (Hat off to Marshall) by Pien van der Hoeven. She discussed the mood in the Netherlands during the period of the Marshall aid. On the one hand there was gratitude for the American support, but on the other hand people were aware that they had to work hard to overcome the damages of war. This is reflected by the title, which is part of a sentence heard by Dutch Minister of Agriculture Sicco Mansholt. ‘Hat off to Marshall, but coat off to work.’ Furthermore she tells that the Dutch did notice that the Americans were not only occupied with charity, but that the project was also profitable for them. She emphasized that the Dutch population in general favored the ERP.18 Another book from that year was Frank Inklaar’s Van Amerika geleerd. Marshall-hulp en kennisimport in Nederland. This book focused on a specific part of the Marshall aid, namely the transfer of knowledge through the ‘Technical Assistance.’ This part of the plan enforced the transit of American ideas, methods and techniques. Important
research material for this book were the study trips that were made to the US by more than a
13
David W. Ellwood, Rebuilding Europe. Western Europe, America and postwar reconstruction (London and New York: Longman, 1992) 161.
14
avi W E w , ‘T e Impa t f t e ars a an n Ita y; t e impa t f Ita y n t e ars a an’ in: e s Rob Kroes, Robert Rydell, and Doeko F.J. Bosscher, Cultural Transmissions and Receptions: American Mass Culture in Europe, (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1993) 100.
15
For instance H.M. Hirschfeld, Road to recovery : the Marshall plan, its importance for the Netherlands and European cooperation, (The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1954); Charles P. Kindleberger, Marshall Plan Days (Boston and Londen: Allen & Unwin 1987).
16
Albert Hemsing, "The Marshall Plan's European Film Unit, 1948-1955: a memoir and filmography", Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 14, no. 3 (1994): 269-297.
17 Hemsing, "The Marshall Plan's European Film Unit", 276.
18 Pien van der Hoeven, Hoed af voor Marshall: De Marshall-hulp aan Nederland 1947-1952 (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 1997).
8 hundred Dutch study teams coming from different sectors, like agriculture, industry and education. Inklaar also recounts how the participators looked back on their impressions of the US.19 The main research focus of books published in1997 lay at the perception of the plan by the recipients. The conclusion of these books was that the aid at that time was welcomed.
The American efforts to establish democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq were an impetus for increasing scholarly attention to the cultural context of the Marshall Plan and the ideological messages of the Marshall Plan films. Historian and daughter of a former Marshall Plan film unit director, Sandra Schulberg for instance organized a Marshall Plan film tour called Selling Democracy: Films of the Marshall Plan: 1948-1953.20 Between 2003 and 2009 she traveled through the United States and Europe to show several films. Her aim was to open a discussion about the use of cinema as an instrument of social change. In 2007 her initiative led to a release of a DVD in Germany with 23 Marshall Plan films compiled by Rainer Rother. On the DVD Rother contextualized the Marshall Plan films by showing also an amount of GDR anti-Marshall Plan films.21 In 2009 a book was published by nter Bischof and Dieter Stiefel called Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe: films, photographs, exhibits, posters.22 This book consisted of essays by several Marshall Plan film scholars. In the introduction the authors stated that despite the book, much work has still to be done regarding the precise impact of the Marshall Plan films in Europe.23 In 2012 historian Frank Mehring analyzed how European film makers of the Marshall Plan used docudramas to envisage a multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan “young Europe” free from the political baggage of the past. Besides, Mehring exposed how the Marshal Plan films sometimes clashed with American sensibilities. Segregation was for instance a taboo topic. In other words, America was spreading a message of cooperation between the citizens of Europe while America itself
19 Frank Inklaar, Van Amerika geleerd : Marshall-hulp en kennisimport in Nederland (Den Haag: Sdu, 1997). 20
This tour resulted in a website made by Sandra Schulberg. Available via http://www.sellingdemocracy.org/, accessed on 06-24-2014. Her project was funded primarily by the U.S. Department of State, with local Embassy support, and additional funding from host universities, cultural institutions, and political institutes.
21
T e v ’s name was ‘Se in em ra y: ie Fi me es ars a p ans/T e fi ms f t e ars a an’ an published by the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Available via
http://www.bundesarchiv.de/fachinformationen/01641/index.html.de, accessed on 06-24-2014. Another
website that deals with the Marshall Plan films is by the Deutsches Historisches Museum. Available via
http://www.dhm.de/filmarchiv/die-filme/, accessed on 06-24-2014.
22 The book was accompanied by a website. Available via http://marshallplanimages.squarespace.com/, accessed on 06-24-2014. nter is f an ieter S efe , Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe: Films, Photographs, Exhibits, Posters (Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, 2009).
23 nter iss f, ‘Se in t e ars a an – Se in Ameri a’, in: nter is f an ieter Stiefe e , Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe. Films, Photographs, Exhibits, Posters (Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2009) 7-22, 14.
9 was still struggling with segregation.24 These recent publications show a focus on the context and messages of the Marshall Plan films. The hatchet between traditionalists and revisionists has not been buried yet. Now the main question is about the impact of for instance film.
As we have seen in the foregoing the Marshall Plan historiography can be divided in two main perspectives: traditionalists and revisionists. Traditionalists on the one hand have emphasized the importance of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction after World War II. Revisionists on the other hand claimed that the ERP was important for America as a tool in the Cold War. According to revisionist historians the Marshall Plan was a way for the US to look after its own interests. Since the 1990s the academic attention has gone more into the cultural context and messages of the Marshall Plan films. Nevertheless, important aspects of the films have not yet been researched. One of those aspects is the role of the European countryside as setting in the Marshall Plan films. Numerous films were set at the backdrop of rural Europe and agricultural modernization played a major role in the Marshall Plan films. In this respect it is interesting to see how non-Marshall Plan funded, West European films regarding rural Europe reacted to the messages of the Marshall Plan films. A study into this subject could give more insight for the current academic debate about the perception of American ideas. I do not want to research whether the Marshall Plan films where propaganda or not, but whether the messages in the Marshall Plan films corresponded with messages of West European films from that period. I want to know if there were also opponents of the Marshall Plan or if everyone was praising it. Therefore I would like to answer the following research question: did the messages, regarding rural areas in Western Europe, in the Marshall Plan films correspond with the messages in West European films in the period 1949-1954? And if not, what does that mean for our current perspective on the impact and the context of the Marshall Plan films?
Sources and method
This thesis is mainly based on audiovisual sources. In the following I will introduce them by paying attention to why I selected these sources and explain which information they provide for this thesis. The Marshall Plan films analyzed in this thesis are Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen (1949), Two Hundred Million Mouths (1950-51) and The Story of Koula (1951).25
24
Fran e rin , ‘T e r mises f “Y un Eur pe”: u tura ip ma y, sm p itanism, an Y ut u ture in t e Fi ms f t e ars a an’, European journal of American studies (Special issue, 2012). Available via http://ejas.revues.org/9701, accessed on 06-24-2014.
25 Ytzen Brusse, Bu ’ Eye f F me Piete e (1950). Available via
10 The West European films are Jour de fête (Holiday, 1949), Riso Amaro (Bitter Rice, 1949) and Der Förster vom Silberwald (The Forester of Silverpine Forest, 1955).26 The films can be compared because of three reasons. Firstly, the films were all set against the backdrop of rural Europe. Secondly, they all deal with the same themes like modernization, progress and cooperation. Thirdly they are made and shown in the same period. Besides the similarities, there are also differences. The types of films differ from each other. Firstly, the Marshall Plan films were documentary style films, while the West European films were actual feature films. Moreover the European movies vary in genre with respect each other. Jour de fête is a
comedy, Riso Amaro is a neorealist film and Der Förster vom Silberwald is a Heimatfilm. Secondly, the Marshall Plan films were short films, while the West European films were long. The Marshall Plan films had a playing time of 15 to 30 minutes and the West European films took over an hour. Thirdly, the Marshall Plan films were often screened in cinemas before the main film, while the West European films were the main film. Despite these differences the films are useful to compare since they all express clear messages about rural Europe. By comparing these two groups of films the Marshall Plan films are placed in perspective of West European cinema of that period. As a result, this comparison will show that the messages and image about rural Europe presented in the Marshall Plan films were not undisputed in that period.
Besides the audiovisual material, I also use archival material. The archival material consists of two letters I found in the archive of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Supply of the Netherlands that is accessible in the National Archive in The Hague. Both letters were written to the Director-General of Agriculture Cornelis Staf and deal with the construction of the film Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen. The first letter was written on December 3, 1949 by the Head of the Information Department of the Directorate of Agriculture J. Breunis. The second letter was written on December 13, 1949 by P.A. Den Engelse. These letters give an insight into who was in control of the development process of a Marshall Plan film. Secondary literature has been used to create a more comprehensive overview. The information about the development process, the production process and the distribution process of the films has not been compiled in an academic book. Therefore I Hundred Million Mouths (1950-51). Available via http://www.dhm.de/filmarchiv/die-filme/three-hundred-million-mouth/, accessed on 06-24-2014; Unknown, The Story of Koula (1951). Available via
http://www.dhm.de/filmarchiv/die-filme/the-story-of-kouala/, accessed on 06-24-2014. 26
Jour de fête and Riso Amaro are in my possession. Der Förster vom Silberwald can be found on the internet. Available via http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8noxWSdL84 and
https://archive.org/details/DerFoersterVomSilberwaldKlassikerDesDeutsch-oesterreichischenHeimatfilms,
11 would like to make a plea for more research into the entire process from development to distribution of the Marshall Plan films.
The research method used in this master thesis is film analysis. The thesis is divided into two chapters. The first chapter deals with the Marshall Plan films. In this first chapter I will start by explaining how the development process proceeded by asking the following questions: who decided when a film would be made? Who decided which messages would be presented in a film? Who decided who would make the film? The second chapter deals with the West European films. Each film will be analyzed in a separate paragraph. A paragraph starts with an introduction and a short summary of the film. Then the film is analyzed in chronological order by asking the questions: how did the films deal with messages like modernization, progress and cooperation? How did the films picture rural Europe? How did the films refer to World War II? How were America and governmental institutions portrayed? Each chapter will end with a conclusion in which the answers are compared. In the final conclusion I will compare the different messages in the films with each other and try to answer the research question.
12 Chapter I: Modernization, cooperation and production growth
Introduction
In this chapter I will analyze three films dealing with rural Europe that were financed by the United States through the Marshall Plan. The first film is a short educational feature film called Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen (1950). This film was created in the Netherlands by Dutch filmmaker Ytzen Brusse. Cameraman of this film was later renowned filmmaker Bert Haanstra. The second film is the documentary Two Hundred Million Mouths (1950-51).27 This film was made in the United Kingdom by the British filmmaker Julian Spiro and was the first documentary of six which together formed the series Changing Face of Europe.28 This series meant to evaluate the results of the Marshall Plan and the progress of Western Europe. The Changing Face of Europe series was made in 13 languages and distributed to European cinemas in 18 countries, primarily by 20th-Century Fox.29 The third film is a short feature film called The Story of Koula (1951). While The Story of Koula was set in Greece, it was created in Italy by Italian filmmaker Vittorio Gallo. These films are chosen for several reasons. Firstly, all three films are about agriculture and thus play against the backdrop of rural Europe. Secondly, all three have been broadcast all over Europe, for instance as introductory to the main feature film in cinemas or at annual fairs. This underlines the scope of the films.30 Thirdly, these films are accessible. Many Marshall Plan films have been lost or are difficult to obtain.31
27
Information available via http://www.marshallfilms.org/filminfo.asp?id=CFOE-0, accessed on 06-24-2014. 28 In the series each film explores a major sector of Europe's economy: 1. Power for All on energy, 2. Two Hundred Million Mouths/Three Hundred Million Mouths on agriculture, 3. Somewhere to Live on housing, 4. Men and Machines on industry, 5. Clearing the Lines on transport, 6. The Good Life on health.
29
Information available via http://www.marshallfilms.org/filminfo.asp?id=CFOE-0, accessed on 06-24-2014. 30 According to the George C. Marshall foundation’s fi m rap y n t eir website www.marshallfilms.org, Bull's Eye for Farmer Pietersen came out in four languages (Dutch, English, French and German), Two Hundred Million Mouths in six languages (English, Italian, German, French, Turkish and Icelandic) and The Story of Koula was released in four languages (English, Danish, German and French). Available via
http://www.marshallfilms.org/mpf.asp, accessed on 06-24-2014. According to the Deutsches Historisches Museum this last film was released in nine languages. Since the film was set in Greece and produced by an Italian company I assume that the Deutsches Historisches Museum is right in this case. Available via
http://www.dhm.de/filmarchiv/die-filme/the-story-of-kouala/, accessed on 06-24-2014. For more information
see the Marshall Plan Filmography, compiled by Linda R. Christenson.
31 The George C. Marshall foundation makes mention of at least 23 films that were still missing in 2000. The total amount of films is uncertain. Available via http://www.marshallfilms.org/mpfdetail.asp#missingfilms, accessed on 06-24-2014.
13 The development process
In 1994 former Marshall Planner Albert Hemsing wrote an article about his time at the Paris Film Unit, the central office of the Information Division of the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA). In this article he painted a picture of how the development process usually went. Hemsing started out by mentioning that each participating country signed the European Cooperation Masterplan. Article 2 of this plan allowed the ECA to distribute information about the European Recovery Program (ERP).32 Five percent of the Marshall Plan funds would finance the administration costs and the information operations. That this five percent would eventually result in a staggering 12.5 billion dollar was not expected. Initially, the ECA was careful about paying high salaries. Producer and director Wim van der Velde recalled that he, the director Ytzen Brusse and the cameraman Bert Haanstra had little money to spend while filming Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen. In 1997 he said about their time shooting the film: ‘Camping, survival and adaptation [to the circumstances] were necessary for the documentary industry.’33 The minimum wage paid by the ECA to the European filmmakers was also something Albert Hemsing found ridiculous.34
Later on in his article Hemsing explains how the films were realized. According to him the country mission chiefs would propose a film, which was connected to an aid project or to meet a local need. For instance during a program for Greek farmers who received American mules, the film The Story of Koula was made, which centers around a Greek boy that receives an American mule.35 According to Hemsing the Paris Film Unit would initially make a short outline of what the film should look like, for instance the main messages and sometimes in the form of a brief screen treatment. Instead of making the Marshall Plan films themselves, the ECA appointed European filmmakers, screenwriters, actors and directors to make the films. According to the American director and head of the Marshall Plan Film program in Paris Stuart Schulberg, Europeans would ‘speak most effectively to other Europeans.’36
32 Unfortunately I was unable to find this European Cooperation Masterplan. The website
www.sellingdemocracy.org also mentions it briefly with regard to the Hemsing article. Available via http://www.sellingdemocracy.org/filmproduction.html, accessed on 06-24-2014. Hemsing, "The Marshall Plan's European Film Unit", 270.
33 Wim van der Velde, "Bert Haanstra 1916-1997: Jongen, blijf altijd jezelf.", in: de Filmkrant, November 1, 1997, 183 edition. Available via http://www.filmkrant.nl/av/org/filmkran/archief/fk183/haanstra.html, accessed on 06-24-2014.
34 Hemsing, "The Marshall Plan's European Film Unit", 272. 35 Ibidem, 273.
36
14 Therefore the country mission would turn to the national ministry that was logically connected to the subject being treated. In the case of Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen this was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Supply of the Netherlands. Two letters written to the Director-General of Agriculture Cornelis Staf show how the development process proceeded. The first letter was written on December 3, 1949 by the Head of the Information Department of the Directorate of Agriculture J. Breunis. In the letter Breunis explained that the ECA had decided to finance the making of a film in the Netherlands that would show how the Dutch farmer was successful at increasing his production. An American film production director posted in Paris would be involved and the Department of
Information would have the possibility to “editorial control”. Finally Breunis informed Staf he had started preparations for the creation of the film, in consultation and in collaboration with the Inspector of Agriculture P.A. Den Engelse and Agricultural Information expert J.M.A. Penders.37 The second letter was written ten days later by P.A. Den Engelse. In this letter Den Engelse explained how he, J.M.A. Penders and A.H. Stoppelenburg (H ead of the subdivision Propaganda) had made a provisional schedule. Many elements of the film which would eventually result in Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen were already present. For
example, the optimistic development of the story, the contrast between the young progressive and the conservative farmer, the role of the family and cooperation were mentioned as factors that should play a role in the film.38 In other words, the Dutch government was more than just involved in the project. The Ministry of Agriculture started on its own with the preparation of the structure of the story. Nonetheless the process was supervised by a U.S. film
production director, which is shown by a small difference of opinion that Den Engelse mentioned. The American film production director wanted the film to show 4 types of farms (arable, mixed, pasture and horticultural farms) which Den Engelse deemed too complicated. The Dutch officials preferred to limit the film mainly to the integrated farm, which would give the opportunity to show production increases in arable farming, in pasture and on livestock areas. Den Engelse ends his letter by saying that he hoped that the production director would agree. His remarks show that the ECA was closely involved during the development process of the film.
37
Letter from the Head of the Department of Information J. Breunis to the Director-General C. Staff, regarding an ECA-film about production increase in Dutch agriculture on 3 December 1949. Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Directie van de Landbouw: Algemene Zaken, 1905-1954, nummer toegang 2.11.07.01, inventarisnummer 130. 38 Letter from the Inspector of Agriculture P.A. den Engelse on the progress of the ECA-film on 13 December 1949. NL-HaNA, Landbouw / Algemene Zaken, 2.11.07.01, inv.nr. 130.
15 When both the ECA and the national government had agreed upon the structure of the film the ECA contracted a production company.According to Hemsing the ECA did not have a formal policy regarding the control during the making of a film.39 According to German Marshall Plan film historian Frank Mehring, the way the Marshall Plan films were made shows, the films were not a one-way cultural imperialistic process. Rather a more creative process of ‘cultural misunderstandings and transcultural confrontations’ in which the films were ‘appropriated and re-appropriated.’40
Mehring gives the example of the film Wie die Jungen Sungen (1954). In this Austrian Marshall Plan film, made by Austrian filmmaker Georg Tressler, the final shots of the film were deleted. According to the ECA the shots were too provocative – a black boy and a white girl are seen having fun together. The images could give offense to existing moral standards, arouse racial hatreds and endanger the Occupying Forces.41 This example shows that the ECA eventually decided what people would get to see in the Marshall Plan films.
So far I have tried to explain how the development process of the Marshall Plan films went. As noted the Marshall Plan films were made on behalf of the ECA in cooperation with the national partners in Europe. In fact the example of the preliminary stage of the making of Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen showed that government officials, in this case of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, had a large degree of independence. They were free to decide what the story would look like, which important issues they should address and what would later return in the film. Nevertheless the ECA appointed the production company and the ECA would be able to cut in the movies as they pleased.
Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen
Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen is a film about agricultural mechanization, cooperation and production increases and was intended for European farmers. The subjects dealt with in the film are normally bone-dry and statistical by nature, but are turned into an entertaining story that could also appeal to a wider public.42 The film was dubbed in seven languages and shown throughout Europe. The film is about two farmers. One wants to modernize, the other does not. Eventually the second farmer is convinced of the advantages of modern farming. The film sets out in a rural area of the Netherlands, although the intention of the setting of the
39
Hemsing, "The Marshall Plan's European Film Unit", 273. 40 e rin , ‘T e r mises f “Y un Eur pe”, 3
41 Ibidem, 14. 42
16 film was to make it seem as if the film could be anywhere in Europe, where farmers work in old-fashioned ways.
The film starts out during the annual fair with the narrator saying:
The fair at Baexem, a village in the middle of Limburg, was a success this year. Everyone rejoiced that Willem Jansen and Sjef Pietersen again marched together as before. You would not say that these farmers have experienced difficult years, but it was so. After the war, large parts of Dutch farmland were under water, they were destroyed or had otherwise been damaged. Agricultural machines were destroyed or outdated, most horses disappeared and there was a great lack of farm workers. But the farmers worked hard. After several years the crop was as beautiful as before the war.
The narrator introduces the viewer to the story by describing the setting. First, the location of the story is unfolded: Baexem, Limburg. Second, the two main characters, the old Willem Jansen and the younger Sjef Pietersen, are introduced in a way for the viewer to understand that they have had an argument. This means that the story begins at the end of the story, after their argument has been settled, a style in storytelling which is called post rem. Third, the narrator refers to the destructive war that has been and how it has made their work difficult as a prehistory to the story.
After this introduction the story starts a year prior to the fair. Farmer Pietersen realizes during the inspection of his crop that he is too late harvesting. Something has to be done. During a meeting at the local pub farmer Pietersen shows an ad in a newspaper which notifies Marshall Plan loans for the purchase of agricultural machines. Pietersen tries to enlighten his neighbors about the benefits and possibilities of mechanized farming. Since he cannot buy the machines on his own he wants to start a cooperation with his neighboring farmers whom he therefore tries to win over for his plan. The explanation of farmer Pietersen’s plan is
presented in an odd way that involves magic. Farmer Pietersen places several coins in a circle on the table, while he assigns every coin to a different farmer. Subsequently the coins change into various machine parts which, unassisted, form two tractors. Then Pietersen holds his hands in front of the two mini-tractors for a moment. When he takes his hands away the coins are back and neatly stacked.
17
Image 1 Farmer Pietersen places coins on the table Image 2 The coins change into miniature machine parts
Image 3 Not one, but two miniature tractors! Image 4 The tractors have turned back into coins
The footage in this scene simplifies the plan to a level that even a child can understand. If the farmers work together, they can achieve more. The magical element emphasizes the genius of the plan and gives the message a special mystique. A long debate follows and eventually the farmers decide by standing up if they want to join the cooperation. The reactions of two farmers are interesting. Firstly, Piet Jansen is eager to join farmer Pietersen and his idea, but his father Willem Jansen prefers to stick to the old ways by saying that ‘grandfather did it without a tractor, father did it without a tractor, and I... I won't give a cent.’ After which he and his son leave the pub. This quote does not only show the unwillingness of farmer Jansen to modernize, but also that farmer Jansen sticks to traditional farming out of respect for his ancestors. Secondly, one farmer, sitting in the corner, says that he is willing to join but only after he has discussed it at home. An interesting sequence, since it shows the importance of the role of the woman in the agricultural business according to the Marshall Planners at the beginning of the 1950s. He is the only farmer that goes home to discuss big decisions with his wife before agreeing to anything. The other farmers do not seem to have to give any
accountability at home for the substantial decision they make when they go to the local bar for a drink. The fact that the ECA put this character and his remark in the film indicates that the ECA believed that in a modern rural European society women should have more
18 A few months later the equipment arrives and farmer Pietersen starts to plow his land with a tractor. A plot of land further on his neighbor farmer Jansen is plowing his land with horses. The two farmers become players in a plowing match to show the other farmers and themselves that their method is supreme to the other. This scene is interesting since it shows exactly the contrast the makers wanted to emphasize: manual versus mechanic. It does not take long for all to see that the tractor is much more efficient, although farmer Jansen is not willing to admit this. His son, Piet Jansen even publicly deserts him by saying: ‘Why don’t you give up father, why don’t you give up?’ The son wants his father to admit that the machine is better, with which he undermines the parental authority of his father. This scene touches on another theme in this film, namely old versus young. Earlier in the film farmer Jansen and his son did not agree about joining farmer Pietersen’s plan of buying the agricultural machines. While in that scene the son reluctantly agreed with his father, he is now even more convinced that mechanization is the way and is willing to clash with his father. His father on the contrary perseveres in his stubbornness. Seven other farmers are impressed and decide to join the cooperation which makes it possible for the group to buy another machine. Farmers from the cooperation even sell some of their horses so that they can expand even further. Eventually nature forces farmer Jansen to swallow his pride and change his mind. An approaching storm endangers his crop and in order to save his crop he has to turn for help to farmer Pietersen and his machines. In the end all is well and the farmers enjoy the annual fair, giving the film a happy end.
The messages of Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen are clear because of the contrast between the two main characters. On the one hand there is the old, traditional farmer Jansen, who wants to stick to his horses and is perhaps afraid to invest in something he is not sure about, but eventually has to concede. On the other hand there is the younger, modern farmer Pietersen a real entrepreneur who sees an opportunity and is able to win other farmers over. The main message of the film was to motivate farmers in Europe to produce more through modernization, mechanization and cooperation. Meanwhile there are a few secondary messages. Firstly, young people, who are assumed to want to modernize, should be given a chance. Secondly, the rural population of Europe, represented by the farmers, seem to live in a patriarchal society. One of the main characters, Willem Jansen, is very stubborn and even a bit macho. Although only one farmer mentions that he has to discuss at home with his wife whether he is going to participate in the plan of farmer Pietersen, this shows that the ECA gave attention to a more emancipated role for women in a modern rural community. Farming, and decision making in general, were not only matters of men.
19 Two Hundred Million Mouths
Two Hundred Million Mouths, also known under its subtitle The Grand Design: Progress Report From Europe Today, is a staged documentary that urges the need for an increase in food production.43 During the documentary several countries in Europe are visited, which makes it different from the other films discussed here which are “one-country” films. The documentary shows how each country can be modernized, how it is modernizing and how others can help. The maker of the film is struggling with the diversity of the continent. He has to create a single story out of a number of problems. Many farmers are modernizing their farming methods, but some are still behind. According to the documentary these farmers also have to modernize. The documentary shows that there are differences within Europe.
Therefore the maker tries to emphasize the unity within Europe by repeating words like ‘we’ and ‘our.’
The story of the film starts with a problem. In some areas in Europe people are handling this problem well, and in other areas not. Through an exchange of knowledge the problem must be solved. As Leo Genn, narrator of the documentary, explains to the viewer that the problem is that the European community is growing enormously. In fact, every year three million extra mouths are added to the already existing two hundred million. In the meantime the viewer sees more and more babies. Just as in Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen and other Marshall Plan films, children and youth play an important role. Here the post-World War II baby boom is formulated as a problem and used as an argument to increase food production. Genn goes on by saying that although the marketplaces look rich and plentiful, the reality is that there is not enough. ‘For many years now our drive and energy has gone into the town, into industry and manufacture. For nearly a century we have
preferred to buy our food from other continents with the goods we’ve made at home.’ This is actually not possible anymore, because Europe cannot produce enough goods to buy enough food and the costs are too high. Besides, the world cannot feed Europe any longer as it used to. Therefore Europeans should turn their eyes once more to the land they tend to have forgotten. Or as enn says: ‘We must grow more food ourselves. By every means within our power, we must bring the dead lands back into good heart, by every means increase the yield the soil is bearing now. By every means increase the yield.’ This quote shows three of the techniques used in this documentary. The first is the creation of a sense of belonging. The narrator speaks about ‘we’ and ‘our’ when he talks to his European audience. The second is
43 Available via http://www.dhm.de/filmarchiv/die-filme/three-hundred-million-mouth/, accessed on 06-24-2014.
20 the commanding way in which the narrator speaks. According to him Europeans ‘must’ increase the yield and ‘by every means.’ The third is the repetition of words like ‘we must’ and ‘by every means.’ According to the narrator the solution to the problem is modernization. Cooperatives in Denmark and farmers in Britain are examples for other European farmers whose methods have changed little in a thousand years.
Image 5 A mechanized dairy farm in Denmark Image 6 A traditional way of farming
Modernization is presented in the form of scientific assistance. Before the narrator goes deeper into the question how science will help he first deals with trying to find out why the knowledge has not spread. His conclusion is that, while climate and geography are inhibitions, the deeper reason is that farmers think they know a thing or two themselves. The makers emphasize the stubbornness of this group of traditional farmers. The narrator
continues by turning to the question: How to bring the scientist and the farmer together to grow more food? At a conference in Brussels several European and American officials discuss this question. It is not so much what they are saying which is interesting but more the diversity of nationalities to show that all of Europe wants this. An English official talks about the serious danger that will lead to inflation. The French official says that fast results are necessary. The American official says that the ECA is most anxious to share the American knowledge in increasing food production with their European neighbors. The Irish secretary general says that international meetings are most useful, but the great task is to bring this information right down to the farmer’s doorstep. Straight after this statement the
documentary continues with a shot of a truck stopping right at the feet of a farmer who is busy hoeing his land. The exaggerated way in which the truck stops at the feet of the farmer is one of the examples that can be given that show the documentary is staged.
21
Image 7 To the doorstep of the farmer Image 8 The scientist and (with hat) the farmer
The narrator explains the plan to produce more food into two steps. The first step of the plan is to ‘meet the farmer on his own ground.’ This way a tailored method can be made based on scientific research. Then the speed of production has to increase which is the second step: making machines do the work. Through subsidies and credits governments tried to make it easier for farmers to buy those machines. An example is shown of a French farmer, who has worked with horses his whole life, but now also uses mechanics. And a little later in the documentary the viewer sees the Italian farmer agreeing to plant a new kind of maize
developed by American scientists which is promoted throughout the Mediterranean area by agricultural advisors. Another product is grass which is an important food for animals. Better grass means more meat, milk and wool.
Here the scientists of Holland and Britain have led the way. They have developed strains [grass stems] that will provide richer grazing for the cattle and at the same time fertilize the soil itself. If the grazers of other European countries follows suit it will be less difficult to feed those extra mouths.
This quote shows how some countries in Europe are presented as being modern, while further on in the documentary other countries in Europe are presented as traditional and even
backward. A Scottish shepherd who is very difficult to understand because of his dialect is an example of this. The Scottish farmer is an exotic element in the documentary. On the one hand this exoticness shows that the Marshall Plan reaches all the corners of Europe. On the other hand he is difficult to understand and becomes a bit of a dumb character. Especially in contrast to the perfect English speaking scientist who will tell him what to do. The narrator switches to a new subject in the documentary by repeating his mantra ‘by every means” increase the yield. And in some parts of Europe the drive to grow more food is being changed to the very structure of society.’ By this the narrator means landownership in Italy. Another narrator takes over with an Italian accent. He starts to talk about Calabria, Southern Italy.
22 Because the workers cannot work on their own land most of the land has been neglected. ‘If this dead half were brought back to life and if they will work it, and have the pride of owning it, things might be very different.’ Italy is used as an example for an American ideal.
According to Thomas Jefferson agriculture was the sociological foundation on which democracy was built. Agriculture, in the form of small farms, would produce individual, independent and self-reliant citizens.44 However, in this sequence it is made clear that the farmers would never have had their own land without the help of the government
emphasizing the importance of an active government. The Italian narrator explains that the old owners have been bought out and that ‘from now on the land is to belong to those who work it, to them. There are to be ten acres for each of them it says and the government will hold a meeting in the towns and villages to draw lots for the land.’ The government even remakes the land through plowing, irrigating and fertilizing it to give the farmers a good start.
Image 9 Drawing the lots for the land Image 10 ‘Para mia!’ the farmer shouts
When the British narrator returns he has an interesting observation. He talks about the fighting that has been done on the Italian land. ‘The Byzantines and Saracens have fought upon it. Invading Spaniards and the knights of Normandy have trifled [battled for] it. Since then Europe has multiplied her peaceful millions.’ The narrator does not talk about World War II. In fact he says that Europe has been peaceful since the knights of Normandy. Two Hundred Million Mouths is not the only Marshall Plan film that tries to avoid the war. The main interest of the Marshall Plan films is to present a future full of opportunities and hope and war does not work in that story. After the lots have been drawn the farmers go out to claim their plot of land. They do this by pressing a stick in the ground and shout 'para mia!' This is a scene that reminds the viewer a little of the land runs held in America at the end of the 19th century. The scene ends with the rural population celebrating their newly acquired land, first by dancing and later by harvesting the grapes. Like Bull’s Eye for Farmer
44 A. Whitney Griswold, "The Agrarian Democracy of Thomas Jefferson.", The American Political Science Review 40.4 (1946) 657-681, 672.
23 Pietersen this documentary also has a happy ending. The documentary ends with the narrator saying that the grand design is in the making. He paints a picture of a bright future with greater health and happiness for all. During these closing remarks he once more emphasizes the vital role of the farmer, since ‘two hundred million mouths and more depend on him. In his hands he holds the fulfillment of our grand design.’
The main message of Two Hundred Million Mouths was that farmers in Europe had to produce more which they could achieve through modernization. The increased individuality of farmers in Italy, who received their own land, is an example of such modernization. Another message is cooperation. Firstly, this message was shown through the emphasis on the need for scientist and farmer to cooperate. Secondly, the European countries had a shared responsibility to modernize and produce more. Thirdly, the European and American
governments had to cooperate. The film stressed the urgency of possible food shortages in the future by repeating in a demanding way that ‘we Europeans’ should act since ‘our’ numbers are growing. Youth also played an important role in this film. The substantial population growth is presented as the problem of the film. Although farmers in some parts of Europe were progressive. The film uses these farmers as examples for the traditional farmers. These traditional farmers had to modernize in order to increase the food production in Europe. They should be met by scientists who can educate them in the latest agricultural findings. Besides, they should receive the modern tools that were used elsewhere in Europe. Although the traditional farmers were needed, they were also being criticized. Traditional farmers were portrayed as exotic, dumb and stubborn. The last story in the film made a case for land redistribution in order for small farmers to work their own land. At the same time the makers emphasized the need for an active role of government in redistributing the land. Two
Hundred Million Mouths presents what the ECA believed were the best qualities of the United States needed in Europe.
The Story of Koula
The Story of Koula centers around a Greek boy, Kiriakos.45 He is fond of animals, especially donkeys. Although his family does not have one he has thought of a name: Koula. Luckily through the Marshall Plan big American mules are brought over from the US to help the Greek farmers. One of them, Koula, becomes the property of the grandfather of Kiriakos. Unfortunately Koula and the other mules are too strong and wild for the Greek farmers.
45
24 Kiriakos, who is very good with all four-legged animals, is more successful in handling the mules. He has some trouble however making Koula pull the plow. Eventually Kiriakos hitches a local donkey to the American mule to show him the ropes.
During the opening credits of the film the viewer hears an oriental melody. This emphasizes the exoticism of the setting. A narrator starts the story by saying ‘once upon a time.’ The fact that these opening words are chosen indicates that it is a feature film and not a documentary. In fact the words ‘once upon a time’ suggest the start of a fairytale, while the essence of the story, American mules that are brought to Greek farmers, has really taken place. The narrator continues by introducing the setting (a little village in Greece), the main character (a boy named Kiriakos) and his caretakers (his mother and his grandfather). During the war his father was killed. The same war in which they had lost all their livestock. The story starts out very sad, a boy’s father has been killed. But their luck is about to change since the Marshall Plan is about to send mules to reece for reek farmers. Kiriakos’ grandfather’s name is included in a list containing the names of people who are eligible for a mule. When it takes a while before he receives notice, grandfather starts to believe it was too good to be true and dismisses it from his mind. Kiriakos does not however. Eventually Kiriakos’ hope is not in vain. A man puts up a list with four names of people that can pick up a mule. One of them is Kiriakos’ grandfather. There is a contrast between old versus young. While the old man is skeptical, the young boy keeps faith.
At the same time ‘hundreds of mules arrive from Missouri and Arkansas, from Texas and Oklahoma and Mississippi’ in Kavala, the nearest port. Their size, strength and wild nature make them difficult to handle for the reek dockworkers. ‘American mules are not at all like the docile little donkeys that the people of Greece are used to. They are as big and powerful as horses and much harder to handle.’ During the rest of the film it is emphasized how strong the mules are and how the Greeks cannot handle them. After the mules have been loaded into trucks they are brought to different places for distribution. The mules for Kiriakos and his fellow villagers are brought to Xanthi.
25
Image 11 The list with grandfather's name is hung up Image 12 On the road in the old wagon
When the big day of picking up the mule arrives Kiriakos is allowed to join his grandfather. The Greek women stay at home to work on the field. Normally they work alongside the men. Women play a minor role in the rest of the film. The men in the village travel together out of financial necessity, and because it is more pleasant. The cart, pulled by two oxen, is very old. This is emphasized by regularly showing a crooked wheel. After two days’ travelling the men arrive in Xanthi where they can pick up their mules. When
grandfather leaves Kiriakos to sign the papers, Kiriakos sees a group of mules and is fascinated by how big they look. He goes to them and finds Koula. Again the power of the American mules is emphasized. ‘The big, powerful mules looked anything but reassuring to the farmers who were going to have to handle them. And when Kiriakos pointed out Koula, grandfather was not at all sure since this beast looked even bigger and skittish than the others.’ The role, and in this case the strength of America is constantly emphasized, at least more than in the other films. The ECA had a rule that had to avoid that too much attention would go to the US or the Marshall Plan. They did not want to overdo it.46 Then an
interesting sequence follows. The choice of the mules is not up to the farmers, but the process is carried out by drawing lots. When Koula is drawn by another farmer Kiriakos is sad. Luckily the farmers also feel sad for him and change their lots in order for grandfather to get Koula. ‘The farmers were good-hearted men and sorry for Kiriakos and besides the one who had drawn Koula was none too pleased with such a spirited animal. So exchanging slips was the work of a moment or two.’ Breaking the rules for the right reasons or standing up against injustice is a recurring theme in American cinema. Nonetheless this is the only film of the three discussed here where law-breaking is so explicitly shown.
46 Paul G. Hoffman, Peace Can Be Won, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & company, 1951) 142. The words “ ars a an” r “ER ” u be menti ne n y n e in a ne-reeler and three times in films with two or more reels.
26
Image 13 Kiriakos points out Koula Image 14 Exchanging the slips
The film continues back at the village with the farmers having trouble with the mules. According to the narrator both the mules and the farmers are frightened and angry, except for Kiriakos. Instead of trying to break the mules Kiriakos gives them affection and sings songs for them. What the others had not yet learned was that ‘these mules being different from the donkeys they were used to had to be treated differently.’
Image 15 A Greek farmer running after his American mule Image 16 Kiriakos knows how to treat animals
Image 17 Kiriakos has lost his way with Koula Image 18 Greek donkey experience and American mule strength
Even though Kiriakos is very good with animals, plowing was still a problem. At first Kiriakos does not know what to do, but then he has an idea.Kiriakos finds out that Koula was lonesome and needed a more experienced friend to help show him what to do. This friend is a traditional Greek donkey. A sharp metaphor, although it is unclear where this Greek donkey
27 comes from. Like the mules and the donkeys, the US are presented as big and strong and come to the aid of ‘docile little’ reece. However American power has its limits, like the American mule that is wild and does not know what it needs to do. Eventually Greece, and in a larger context Europe, will have to do the work. Just like Kiriakos who uses the Greek donkey so that the American mule knows what to do and can help. This is exactly the message that George Marshall had when he presented his plan during his commencement speech at Harvard in 1947. Europe had to come with the projects and then America would give the tools. In contrast to the beginning the film ends on a happy note with the narrator saying: ‘As farmers learned to handle their new American mules, their lives became just a little easier. Their farms became just a little more productive. And Greece itself became just a little happier land to live in.’
The Story of Koula presents three main messages. The first message is that Greece and the US should cooperate. This is shown in a metaphor in which Greece is represented by the Greek donkey and Kiriakos, and America by the American mule Koula. This cooperation takes place through a transfer of goods. America brings in the American mules and Greece shows the mules the way to increase production. The second message is the promise of youth represented by Kiriakos. Kiriakos is capable, eager and has good ideas, while the Greek farmers are stubborn and afraid of modernization. Although Kiriakos is at first seen as a small boy, he earns the respect of the farmers later on, since he is the only one who can tame the mules. This brings us to the third message which is an optimistic view of modernization. In the film several developments are made. At the beginning of the film it is emphasized how poor the farmers are, partly due to the devastating war. The exoticism represents the old rural Greece in contrast to a more modern Greece in the end in which young people get a chance. In the end Kiriakos has success and manages to become more productive with the help of Koula.
Conclusion
In this chapter I have tried to answer several issues. The first was to find out how the films were made and who was in charge. This paragraph showed that the ECA and the national governments in Europe worked together, but that the ECA had the final authority.
Subsequently each film was analyzed separately. From these analyses several messages emerged. The first was that of cooperation although each film presented this message in a different manner. In Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen farmers are cooperating. In Two
28 the US. In Two Hundred Million Mouths the main message is that scientists and farmers have to cooperate, and that mutual cooperation among European countries is needed. The second message, that rural Europe had to modernize, was presented through several themes. A first theme is mechanization in Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen and in Two Hundred Million Mouths farmers start using agricultural machines instead of animals. In Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen the filmmaker uses magic to make those machines extra special and thus emphasize the message of modernization. A second theme is emancipation, for instance when the Italian peasants receive their own land in Two Hundred Million Mouths and in Bull’s Eye for
Farmer Pietersen when one farmer’s wife is involved in making decisions regarding the farm. A third theme is the transfer of knowledge and goods. In Two Hundred Million Mouths the scientist educates the farmer and developed countries in Europe educate less developed countries in Europe. In The Story of Koula modernization came in the form of an American mule. A fourth theme in which the message of modernization was conveyed, was through the promise of youth. This was presented in a contrasting image between young farmers, who were optimistic and entrepreneurial, and old farmers who were traditional and grumpy. The third message was that rural Europe had to increase its production. All films have the
message to produce more, but it is mostly emphasized in Two Hundred Million Mouths due to the increasing number of Europeans. In The Story of Koula production growth is made
possible because of the American mules. In Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen the production is increased because new technology prevents a failed harvest. The fourth message is that the role of America is important, but in the background. In all films the Marshall Plan is the (indirect) supplier of goods, knowledge or money that make progress, modernization and production growth possible. The main characters in the films decide to take the opportunity presented by the Marshall Plan. A difference between the films is that the farmers in The Story of Koula are poor peasants, while the farmers in Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen are capable to raise some money. Nonetheless, they can all advance in life because of the Marshall Plan. Next to the analysis of the messages of the films, the image of rural Europe was analyzed. Rural Europe is portrayed as an area of backwardness and at the same time progress. On the one hand rural Europe is a patriarchal, traditional, exotic and backward society. On the other hand young heroic people choose for modernization and progress. The last group is the example for the first. Another recurring feature was the role of World War II. In each film the war was used to start with and from which a progressive narrative could unfold. The films progressed in their story without mentioning the war any longer and
29 eventually ended optimistic about the future of Europe. A future in which, if it was up to the ECA, production would be high through cooperation and modernization.
30 Chapter II: The good and the bad and the European countryside
Introduction
In this chapter I will analyze three films dealing with rural Europe that were made in Europe. In contrast to the Marshall Plan films, these films were not financed by the United States. The first film is the feature film called Jour de fête (Holiday, 1949). This film was created in France by Jacques Tati who also played the main part. The film received the award for best scenario at the Venice International Film Festival in 1949 and the Grand Prix of French Cinema in 1950. The second film, Riso Amaro (Bitter Rice, 1949), is a color film. Riso Amaro was made in Italy by Giuseppe De Santis. The film was entered in the Cannes Film Festival of 1949 and nominated for the 1950 Academy Award for Best Story. The third film is a color feature film called Der Förster vom Silberwald (The Forester of Silverpine Forest, 1955) directed by Alfons Stummer. The Austrian film premiered under the title Echo der Berge (Echo of the Mountains, 1954), but became popular in Germany under the title Der Förster vom Silberwald in 1955. By the end of 1958 22 million people had visited the film making it the most popular Heimatfilm of the decade.47 These films are chosen for several reasons. Firstly, the films provide a European perspective on various aspects of life after the war, which are dealt with in the Marshall Plan films too. The comparison of both types of films can provide more insight into both the situation in Europe as the ideology of the Marshall Plan films. Secondly, these films were very popular at the time and are still regarded as classics among their genre. Thirdly, like the Marshall Plan films the focus of these films is on rural Europe. Fourthly, the Marshall Plan film program was a program for Western Europe making it logical to compare them with West European films from different European countries.
Jour de fête
Jour de fête was Jacques Tati’s first long comedy film. A recurring theme in Tati’s work is anti-modernism.48 According to one of his main biographers David Bellos, Tati once said that modernism was designed for the top boys in the class, and that he wanted to defend all the
47
Hester Baer, Dismantling the Dream Factory: Gender, German Cinema, and the Postwar Quest for a New Film Language (New York: Berghahn, 2009) 163.
48 For more information about Tati's work and life visit the Tati-esque website www.tativille.com. Available via http://www.tativille.com/, accessed on 06-24-2014.
