Kracauer's Caligari

Kracauer criticises Caligari for its place in a period of German “studio constructivism”, where a false world would be created to preserve the collective “German soul” from true, incalculable reality. This assertion, however, suggests that the intention of the film’s production was akin to wartime propaganda and a deliberate, sinister choice. The reality may instead have been that a studio production suited the style of the film far better, and as can plainly be seen by any viewer of the final film, the goal appears not to have been a false, comforting reality but a narrative that has very little to do with any representation of reality whatsoever. The staging creates an unusual and confusing world; the two dimensionality of the town, the confusing
A large proportion of the criticism is directed at the inclusion of narrative frame, the story of Caligari being told by Franzis from the grounds of a psychiatric institution and then accusing the director of the asylum of being the murderer Caligari himself. Kracauer claims that this inclusion ‘perverted’ the intentions of the scriptwriters, but the degree to which this is true is questionable. (Kracauer, 66) If the frame sequence added nothing of value to the impact and narrative of the film then it would indeed be superfluous and indicative of a director at odds with other members of the creative team. However, due to the social state of Germany in the immediate post war years, portrayal of mental instability was highly relevant and enriches the depth of the story told by providing an unexpected ending with the revelation of Franzis’ potential unreliability as a narrator. While Kracauer believes that the framed narrative is conformist and dismisses all accusations made in Franzis’ tale, it is also possible to read the film in a more ambiguous manner. The end sequence, significantly, portrays the asylum in the same visual style as in the previous recollection, using the identical patterned floor and ominous, looming staircases. As Jung and Schatzberg believe, this not only ‘problematizes the entire plot’ of the main film as the viewer questions Franzis’ perspective, but there is also ambiguity in the ending. It is unclear if the asylum director/Caligari’s benevolence can be truly believed in or trusted, as this repetition of sets draws no clear divide between what is trustworthy information and what is not. Furthermore, Kracauer himself mentions the practice of sending a ‘normal but troublesome individual’ to an asylum to prevent them threatening authority. This explanation does not undermine the story told, and only strengthens Caligari’s menace and power as