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
1
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
2
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.
3
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establish a stable democracy with American help. 2 Since America has withdrawn from Iraq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 0624-2014. 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).
4
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.
5
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).
6
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).
7
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).
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) 722, 14.
20
8
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
http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/speler.program.7101115.html, accessed on 06-24-2014; Julian Spiro, Two
9
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-hundredmillion-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,
accessed on 06-24-2014.
10
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.
11
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.
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.
28
12
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
Stuart S u ber , “ a in
ars a an
vies”, in: Film News (1951) 10.
13
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 (Head 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.
14
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.
e rin , ‘T e r mises f “Y un Eur pe”, 3
41
Ibidem, 14.
42
Available via http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/speler.program.7101115.html, accessed on 06-24-2014.
40
15
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.
16
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
influence.
17
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.
18
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 postWorld 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 06-242014.
19
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.
20
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.
21
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.
22
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
Available via http://www.dhm.de/filmarchiv/die-filme/the-story-of-kouala/, accessed on 06-24-2014.
23
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.
24
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.
25
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 17 Kiriakos has lost his way with Koula
strength
Image 16 Kiriakos knows how to treat animals
Image 18 Greek donkey experience and American mule
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
26
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
Hundred Million Mouths and The Story of Koula cooperation takes place between Europe and
27
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
28
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.
29
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.
30
others.49 Paradoxically, he made use of the most advanced equipment of his time. As a result,
he is known as a modernist. 50 The film follows the mumbling postman François who is
played by Tati himself. In his rural village and its surrounding the villagers are preparing for
the annual fair. At the fair a documentary is shown called La Poste en Amerique, which
depicts a hypermodern image of the post in America. François sees this documentary and
tries to match the American postmen by delivering his mail American-style. However
modernization does not seem to work for him. Despite the speed that he gains, the work is not
going much better. Besides, as François focuses more on his work, he can no longer help his
fellow villagers. This individualization makes him lose his sense of community.
In Sainte-Sévère-sur-Indre, a small village south of Paris, in the heart of France, the
preparations for the annual fair have begun. An elderly, hunched woman comments while the
men of the village are trying to put up a big pole in the ground on the square in the village.
The men are having difficulty with this task. When the postman François arrives at the
square, they lose control over the pole causing it to fall. Just in time François manages to
dodge the falling pole from squashing him by riding into the café. After some hassle the men
manage to get the pole in the ground with the help of François.
Image 19 The old woman is the narrator in the film
Image 20 François dodges the falling pole by riding into the café.
During the fair it becomes clear that François is the laughing stock of the village. He falls into
a well and is almost shot in the shooting gallery. At the end of the day he is reluctantly fooled
into drinking in the café causing him to get intoxicated. Subsequently a colleague calls him to
go with him and watch a documentary about mail delivery in America.
49
David Bellos, Jacques Tati: His Life and Art (London: Harvill, 1999) 11.
The Museum Of Modern Art in New York had an exhibition about Tati from December 18, 2009 until January
2, 2010. Available via http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/films/1023, accessed on 06-24-2014.
50
31
Image 21 A colleague calls François to come
Image 22 They see the American way
From outside the tent, in which the documentary is shown, the two postmen watch the
documentary. Simultaneously François tries to repair his flat tire. The main message of the
documentary is that the Americans are fast, strong and have the best equipment. As the
documentary progresses the skills of U.S. postal workers becomes increasingly ludicrous.
First the American postmen are said to fly in helicopters. Then they are picked up from the
ground by flying airplanes. Next they drive on motorcycles through fire. The most
exaggerated example of the extreme awesomeness of the Americans is saved for last:
postmen compete with each other in a bodybuilding contest.
Image 23 American postman hanging from a helicopter
Image 24 Postman picked up by a flying airplane
Image 25 Postman driving through fire
Image 26 Extremely muscular American postmen
According to the documentary the American postman is considered to be a hero in America.
The exact opposite of François, namely the fool of the village. The narrator of the
32
documentary tells the audience that if France or other countries are interested in these modern
delivery techniques and tools, America is willing to help. In the film François believes the
American way is an example for him. However, the absurdity of the documentary shows that
Tati believes that the opposite is the case.
Upset by the American supremacy regarding mail, François is persuaded by several
villagers to stay in the cafe and drink his sorrows away with them. During the night
everybody enjoys making fun of him by discussing the documentary. They tell François that
he will never be able to compete with the Americans since they have resources that he will
never have. Others exaggerate the progress of America even further telling him it ‘was an old
film, now a letter is almost delivered before it’s posted.’ However the next morning François
is motivated by two men from the fair. They confuse and challenge him by saying that he is
much better on a bicycle than the Americans. They advise him to adjust his style of cycling
and train him to get faster. Determined to show that he is also a good postman François
continues on his route. He proves that he can do what the Americans can do by riding over a
burning pile of garbage. On his way to the post office he passes two bored American Military
Police officers. François shouts: ‘Aha, les Américains!’ There is a moment when the
Americans try to make contact and try to understand François, but they end up crashing on
someone’s land. In this scene Tati emphasizes that Americans do not belong in France.
Image 27 François cycles through fire
Image 28 The Americans drive into a field
At the postal station François sees his slow colleagues and reaffirms his goal:
‘Rapidité, rapidité!’ He takes the letters he has to deliver, gets on his bicycle and stamps the
letters while doing his route. At first the American-style of delivering mail is working.
François is fast. He is so fast that he even overtakes a group of professional cyclists.
Although he is faster, the work is not done better. In fact, one package contains shoes which
are chopped in two. Because a blacksmith is not fast enough François decides to put the letter
under the tail of the horse the blacksmith is working on. Although he is faster, François does
33
not become a nicer person. Furthermore he takes increasingly larger risks. He loses his
bicycle for instance. In the end François goes too fast, does not watch out and falls into the
water.
Image 29 François stamping the letters
Image 30 François running after his bicycle
At the end of the film, the old woman, the narrator from the beginning, returns. She
has picked up François with her wagon and gives him a lift. He tells her what happened. ‘I
wanted to show American speed.’ The old woman explains to François that the ‘Americans
are a law unto themselves, but the world won’t turn any quicker. After all, if it’s good news,
it can wait.’ After the old woman has taught him this valuable lesson she drops him off at a
field. On the field a peasant family is working. One of them, the farmer, calls François to
come and help them. ‘Enough of your American methods; give us a hand.’
Image 31 By going too fast François does not look out
Image 32 François stops with his American methods
The main message of Jour de fête was that rural France should not listen to the
bragging of America with its speed and modern tools. Nonetheless the French government, in
the film represented by postman François, tried to copy the absurd modernism of the
documentary. Although he was getting faster, in the end his American style turned out to be a
painful lesson. His fellow villagers teased François. He ended up in a river. Most importantly
he forgot about what was truly important: his sense of community. The rural population was
presented as traditional, clumsy and since they bully François also a bit unkind. The Second
World War was only present because of the presence of the American Military Police.
34
Another message was that America was encouraged to leave France. The American soldiers
clearly did not understand the French. When they tried to make contact this ended up in an
accident. In the end François realized that he could not compete with the Americans and
returned to the French way.
Riso Amaro
Riso Amaro, written and directed by Guiseppe de Santis and produced by Dino de Laurentiis,
is a neorealist film. According to film scholar Mark Shiel neorealism was a film movement
which became popular in the middle of the 1940s in Italy as a reaction against the Italian
cinema which flourished under Mussolini. Those films showed the Italian grandeur.
According to neorealist filmmakers this image of Italy did not depict the real Italy. Therefore
they tried to wake up Italians by showing the real, horrific Italy. 51 Such a grim picture of Italy
is given in Riso Amaro. The themes that are dealt with are abuse, exploitation, desire and
disillusion. The film is set during the harvest season in the rice fields of Vercelli in northern
Italy and revolves around four characters. Walter represents what is wrong with the world. He
is a thief and uses women. One of these women is Francesca who starts out as his
accomplice. During the film she manages to escape from his yoke and falls for Marco. Marco
is a cynical man, the opposite of Walter. His principles are the principles the filmmaker
believes are important. The other woman is Silvana. She starts out as an innocent young rice
weeder who is courted by Marco. Unfortunately for him she is not interested in his
skepticism. Silvana dreams about progress, which is an illusion according to Marco. During
the film she is seduced by Walter who promises her wealth. The two women have to decide if
they will choose the right path, represented by the protagonist Marco, or the wrong path,
represented by the antagonist Walter. During the film Silvana slowly shows a certain
preference for Walter. In the end she realizes she has made a mistake and kills him and
herself. The messages of the film are anti-modernist, anti-progress, anti-authority, anticapitalist and anti-materialist. America is presented as the source of most of these things. The
messages are presented by the narrator and especially Marco. I will try to show the messages
that emerge in the film by looking at what they say.
The film starts at a railway station full of people getting ready to depart for the rice
harvest season, a man (the narrator) speaks into the camera:
51
Mark Shiel, Italian Neorealism: Rebuilding the Cinematic City (London: Wallflower, 2006) 9.
35
Rice has been grown in northern Italy for centuries, like in China and India. It
grows in a vast plain spanning the provinces of Pavia, Novara and Vercelli. An
indelible mark has been left in this land by millions of women whose hands have
tended it for 500 years. Hard work that never changes, knee-deep in water, bent
double under the hot sun. But only women can do it. It needs quick, light hands.
The same hands that patiently thread needles and nurse babies.
The man addresses the audience watching the film, but when the camera zooms out he
appears to be a radio commentator making an item about the rice weeders. The commentator
determines three issues about rice harvesting. Firstly, the work can only be done by women.
Secondly, the work can only be done by hand, in other words not with machines. Thirdly, the
work has a long tradition that goes back 500 years. At the end of the film when the rice
season is over the narrator returns by telling the audience that ‘next year in May they’ll [the
women] come to the rice plain again.’ Similar to the beginning, when the narrator makes
clear that life has been like this for 500 years, he again tells the audience that life will never
change. There is no such thing as progress.
Image 33 The rice weeders working in the fields
Image 34 The legal rice weeders chase Francesca
The anti-authority message is presented in three different ways and in three different
scenes. The first one is when Francesca and Silvana arrive at a large, fortified farm which
Italian soldiers are just leaving. One of those soldiers is the soon-to-be-discharged sergeant
Marco. At his departure he writes a noteworthy sentence on a wall which says that he is dying
alive in the barracks, not because of war, but because of a lack of life. Even though Marco is
a soldier, he denounces the authority of the army by saying that his life as a soldier had no
meaning. The second one is when the rice weeders quarrel about the presence of illegal
workers. One of these illegal workers is Francesca. Together with a few others she is hoping
to obtain a part of the harvest by working harder and faster than the legal rice weeders. The
legal workers consider this action to be unfair competition. The little income that they
receive, which is paid in rice, is endangered. When Silvana shouts that Francesca is the leader
of the illegal workers, the legal rice weeders start chasing her. Luckily for Francesca Marco
36
arrives and protects her. He explains to the women that they should not fight, but must come
to an agreement. The women then decide to go on strike, which he encourages. Marco
denounces the authority of the owners of the rice fields. This scene also shows an anticapitalist message, since it refers to the exploitation of workers. The third one is when
Silvana shows Marco the stolen jewels and tells him that Francesca is the thief. The two
women expect Marco to hand Francesca over to the police, but Marco says that jail was
invented by someone who never went there. ‘Jail is not the only answer and it doesn’t save
you.’ Marco criticizes the authority of the legal system.
Image 35 Marco protects Francesca
Image 37 Silvana unmasks Francesca
Image 36 An agreement to strike
Image 38 Silvana shows Marco the stolen jewels
The anti-Americanism and anti-modernism messages are presented in two scenes. In
the first scene after Silvana and Francesca have reconciled. Francesca tries to tell Silvana
about the hard life she has had because of Walter, Silvana only hears that Francesca and
Walter have lived an exciting life in the proximity of wealth. In a later scene Marco tells
Silvana that he wants to go to South America. Silvana would rather go to North America,
since everything is electric there. Marco replies by saying that in North America even the
chair is electric. The first scene shows that Silvana is so focused on getting ahead in life, that
she does not see reality anymore. This is also reflected in the scene when Marco and Silvana
discuss North America. Silvana sees electricity or in other words progress, an illusion
37
according to Marco. He tries to puncture this ideal by telling that modernism (electricity)
does not necessarily mean improvement (the electric chair).
A pivotal point in the film is when Walter reappears on the scene. He dances with
Silvana. When Marco sees that Silvana is wearing the jewels, he walks up to her, grabs the
jewels and throws them on the ground. Then he wants to send Walter away, but Walter
attacks Marco. The fight that follows is won by Marco, but he sees that this does not make
Silvana happy. After the fight Walter tells Francesca that the jewels are fake. For Francesca
this means that she is not such a big criminal after all and that she is not bound to Walter
anymore. Walter on the other hand is not finished with being a criminal and forges a sinister
plan together with three other men to steal all the rice. In addition, he has a crush on the
naive Silvana and woos her for his plan.
Image 39 Walter and Silvana dance
Image 40 Walter and Marco fight
The message of anti-materialism and anti-Americanism emerges when Marco comes
to confront Silvana about Walter. ‘Who was that?’ he asks her. She replies that it is none of
his business, ‘but he sure can boogie-woogie.’ Marco says that boogie-woogie (a style of
music from America) and corny magazines is all she sees. He decries her wish for a volatile
lifestyle. The anti-materialism comes to the front when Marco criticizes Silvana for wearing
the jewels. According to him she is now an accomplice and might end up in jail. This scares
her, but she still refuses to be with Marco. The two end their conversation by coming to the
conclusion that they would not make each other happy. They both agree that he, Marco,
should not come to the farm anymore. Finally he realizes that Silvana opts for materialism,
America, progress and Walter, despite his efforts to tell her that those things are all lies.
The ending of the film starts with people preparing a big feast for the end of the
harvest season. During the feast Silvana destroys next year’s rice fields by opening up the
small dams that hold the water from flooding the rice fields. In the meantime Walter and his
companions load the rice into trucks. In order not to raise suspicion Silvana goes to the party,
where she is crowned Miss Mondine 1948 (mondine means rice weeder). When the people
38
discover the flooding of the rice fields, Silvana realizes that she has made a mistake. Afraid
that the people will try to catch her she tries to escape with Walter. After a shoot-out Silvana
and Walter are cornered by Francesca and Marco. In a final attempt to save herself and
Walter Silvana throws the jewels, which she does not know are fake, at Francesca. Silvana
believes that Francesca wants the same thing that she wants, namely property. Francesca
kicks them down a drain and explains to Silvana what Walter and she already knew. Finally
Silvana realizes Walter is fake, just like the jewels he gave her. With the gun still in her hand
she kills Walter. Subsequently Silvana commits suicide. In spite of the fact that the other
thieves are stopped everyone is sad. At the farewell women sprinkle a hand of their hard
earned rice over the covered body of Silvana as if to say that they have learned the lesson not
to care about a materialistic lifestyle. When Marco and Francesca leave a small hint is given
that they are falling in love. The final scenes emphasize that progress appears to be an
illusion and that skepticism towards progress, capitalism and materialism, or in other words
communism is realistic.
Image 41 The women pour rice over Silvana’s dead body
Image 42 Marco and Francesca have a little smile
The main message of Riso Amaro is that progress in life for those who do not have
much is not possible. This is shown by the role of the rice weeders. Life is hard and it will
always be like that, as the narrator tells the audience at the beginning and the ending of the
story. Progress is also undesirable, which is shown by Marco when he criticizes the use of
electricity for killing people. In fact progress is an illusion and a threat, which is represented
by the character of Walter. He lures Silvana into that illusion which causes their death. The
anti-America message is connected to this disbelief in progress. North America is seen as
keeper of modernism and progress. The message of anti-capitalism emerges through the
jewels. They symbolize property which is connected to progress. Without property there is no
progress. The jewels are tainted property since the jewels were unlawfully obtained and they
are not real property since the jewels are worthless. Another message is that of anti-authority.
Marco denounces the authority of the army, the owners of the rice fields and the judicial
39
system. These are all owners of power. A fourth message is that of anti-materialism. Marco
criticizes Silvana’s desire for goods like the jewels. World War II is not explicitly mentioned.
The only way the topic of war is touched upon is through the presence of Italian soldiers. The
rural population is represented by the rice-workers. They are exploited by the farmers and
earn little money. In contrast to Silvana and Marco, Walter and Francesca are not familiar
with the rural community in the Po Valley. While Francesca tries to become a part of the
community, Silvana tries to break out of the community.
Der Förster vom Silberwald
In German language cinema two genres emerged in the period 1945-1960. The Trümmerfilme
(Rubble films) originated straight after the war with films like Die Mörder sind unter uns
(Murderers Among Us, 1946), In jenen Tagen (In Those Days, 1947) and Lang ist der Weg
(Long is the Road, 1949). These films resembled the Italian neorealist films in many ways.
They had a grim tone, displayed images of destroyed cities, spiritual emptiness and shortage
of goods. By the end of the 1940s a second genre arose that opposed this view: the
Heimatfilme. These films tried to help the audience forget about the horrible war and show
the Germany prior to World War I, sooth the viewer with images of beautiful, innocent
landscapes and happy endings.52 Der Förster vom Silberwald is a classic Heimatfilm.53 The
name Heimatfilm derives from the German word Heimat. According to film historian Maria
Fritsche translating the term Heimat into an English word is not really possible since it means
more than just ‘home’ or ‘homeland.’ The term defines a sense of belonging to a nation, often
situated in a rural context. The Heimatfilme are straightforward and one-dimensional,
predominantly anti-modern, traditional, patriarchal and the church and especially nature play
a major role.54 In Der Förster vom Silberwald hunting plays a central role in preserving
nature and culture. Hubert erold, the forester from the film’s title, is named after the patron
saint of hunters: Saint Hubert. In the film Hubert falls in love with Liesl Leonhard the
granddaughter of Hofrat Otto Leonhard, the court councilor of the village in the Styrian
52
For a more detailed explanation of the transition and contrasts between the Trümmerfilme and Heimatfilme,
see chapter 3 of Johannes Von Moltke, No Place like Home: Locations of Heimat in German Cinema (Berkeley:
U of California, 2005).
53
Other popular classic Heimatfilme of the 1950s are Hans Deppe, Schwarzwaldmädel (Black Forest Girl, 1950)
and Hans Deppe, Grün ist die Heide (The Heath is Green, 1951). Der Förster vom Silberwald is can be watched
on www.youtube.com and www.archive.org. Available via http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8noxWSdL84
and https://archive.org/details/DerFoersterVomSilberwaldKlassikerDesDeutsch-oesterreichischenHeimatfilms,
accessed on 06-24-2014.
54
Maria Fritsche, Homemade Men in Postwar Austrian Cinema: Nationhood, Genre and Masculinity (New York:
Berghahn, 2013) 102.
40
mountains. Liesl is a sculptor and lives together with her colleague and admirer Max Freiberg
in Vienna. In the film she has to make a choice between modern Vienna and the traditional
village where she comes from. First Liesl decides to go back to Vienna. Eventually she leaves
Vienna though, and chooses for the rural community, nature and Hubert.
The film begins with Hubert finding out that the grounds of the Silverpine forest have
been sold to a woodcutting company. During these opening scenes Hubert is profiled as the
guardian of nature. On his way back to the village he meets Bertl Erblehner, a local hunter,
whom he presumed also cares about the forest and its wildlife. However Bertl states that the
town needs the money. Hubert finds it very sad that a man of forestry like Bertl thinks like
that. When Hubert arrives in the village he goes to Hofrat Leonhard to ask for help. In his
plea Hubert urges that if they do not save the forest the wildlife will be endangered. At first
the Hofrat also explains that the town needs the money, but eventually Otto Leonhard agrees
with Hubert and tells him he will talk to mayor Leopold Oberkogler. The mayor agrees that
the town is very proud of the wildlife. Upon this Hofrat Leonhard proposes to sell other
grounds instead of the forest. Since the mayor cannot decide that on his own, they decide to
organize a meeting of the town council. While Bertl and to a lesser extent the mayor accept
the cutting of the forest, Hubert and Hofrat Leopold do not. They see the dangers and try to
warn the village.
Image 43 Lumberjacks are cutting the Silverpine forest
Image 44 Hubert Gerold, guardian of the environment
41
Image 45 Hofrat Leonhard (left) and Mayor Oberkogler
Image 46 Max, Liesl (back) and Karin in their studio in Vienna
In the meantime Liesl Leonhard has forgotten about the time and walks to the door of
her studio in Vienna, not knowing that her colleagues Max and Karin have locked it. The two
triumphantly tell her that her trip to the Styrian Mountains cannot continue. Liesl disagrees
and says that she cannot cancel her grandfather again. The hunters ball is once a year and he
expects her to be there. He is looking forward to her arrival. In fact, he is the only human that
really cares about her. Max is visibly upset by that remark. Karin does not understand why
her grandfather does not sell his house and come live in the city. Liesl explains that he wants
her to be with him in his world, that the house has been in the family for 200 years and that
the village cannot do without him. Max tries to persuade her to come with him to his next
exhibition in Paris. Liesl responds by saying ‘perhaps next time.’ Liesl defends her Heimat
faced with two outsiders who do not understand it and who are selfish.
At the hunters ball the entire village has turned up. Liesl is still dressing up in her
room, while her grandfather is worried that they might be late. When she comes out of her
room Hofrat Leonhard is not too pleased with her dress. He remarks that although it is
beautiful, that kind of modern dress is not really accepted in Silverpine forest. Liesl tells her
grandfather: ‘You must take me as I already am. I cannot suddenly become a different human
being.’ To which he replies that he does not want to change her, but that he just had a
different idea about the night. When they arrive at the ball she is wearing a traditional dress.
Image 47 Liesl in her modern dress
Image 48 Liesl, now in traditional dress, is introduced to Hubert
42
At the ball Liesl and Hubert are introduced to each other by her grandfather. When Liesl and
Hubert are dancing, the mayor and Otto Leonhard join the meeting of the town council about
the cutting of the forest. During this meeting Hofrat Leonhard easily accomplishes that
instead of cutting the forest, the building sites of the village should be sold. Eventually the
town council agrees with him. By not letting wear Liesl a modern dress and winning over the
town council, Hofrat Leonhard is protector of culture and nature. The film emphasizes that
everyone really thinks it is good to preserve the traditional way of living in the village.
The following day Liesl skis in an area where it is forbidden to ski. Hubert calls her to
a halt and tells her in a rather scornful tone that as city dweller she does not realize what she
is doing to the nature and the wildlife. Then Hubert asks her to come with him and he shows
her how beautiful the wildlife is. At his cabin a conversation develops about the role of the
hunter in nature. Liesl asks why Hubert hunts the wild? Hubert asks a counter-question:
‘What do you think hunting is?’ Liesl thinks a hunter chases the wild until it is caught. Hubert
laughs and says she has a terrible image of the role of the hunter. According to Hubert, who
suddenly becomes very serious, the hunt is one of the greatest gifts of nature to mankind and
it takes a central position in life. Liesl asks if this is also the case when a hunter kills. ‘Yes’
says Hubert and explains that the hunters have to find and shoot the weak and sick. Liesl asks
if it is not difficult to choose the right animals. According to Hubert a good forester has many
years of experience and patience. Liesl shows admiration for Hubert’s devotion. Hubert says
that when you live with the animals it is not difficult to understand nature. The rapture with
which Hubert speaks demonstrates an almost religious devotion to his task as guardian of the
wildlife and Liesl admires that.
As winter slowly passes Hubert finds out that young deer are being attacked by
another animal. Out of melancholy he plays Bach on the organ. When Liesl walks by she
hears the music and decide to see who this ‘great musician’ is. She asks him where he has
learned to play like that. He tells her that he learned it in his lost homeland. Where exactly
this is remains unclear. However it is clear that Hubert is not from the village. Due to his job
as forester he has been taken into the community as a respected member. Liesl continues her
walk back home. Once there, she gives her grandfather a gift of a statue of Madonna with
child restored by her. Her grandfather thinks it is beautiful. Subsuquently he wonders why
she, as a natural and healthy artist, is so engaged in modern art. Apparently he believes
modern art to be unnatural and unhealthy. Liesl does not want to talk about this. To change
the subject she asks whether she can stay longer because Max Freiberg is still in Paris and she
would be alone in her studio anyway. ‘Aha’ says her grandfather, ‘as always the abstract
43
sculptor.’ He is not very happy with Max and the modern world he represents and tells her
that he promised her father to keep her in the village, but that she is not making it easy for
him. As in the dress scene, Hofrat Leonhard makes it clear that he is not very keen on modern
ways. While Liesl previously defended her traditional grandfather in the movie, she is not
defending her modern colleague. Everywhere in the film traditional values are propagated,
but the voice of modernism is not heard. This shows that the film is an attack on modernism.
The following day Hubert takes Liesl along and shows her the beauty of the
Silverpine forest. At the end they hear a dog barking and see a young deer running. Hubert
tells Liesl that the dog has killed three deer already to which Liesl remarks that he should
shoot it, not knowing that it is her own dog Rolf. A few days later Liesl wants to return to
Vienna, but this time Hubert asks her to join him to go to the eagle’s nest and persuades her
to stay. On that hike the two kiss each other. The same day Max Freiberg arrives out of the
blue from Vienna. He was very unhappy since he was unable to produce anything good while
his muse, Liesl, was gone. The next day Liesl tells Max she can express herself better as an
artist in the mountain area. She explains that what she expressed before was not her own
vision, but his. She says in other words that modernism is not her way of life, and that the city
is not where she belongs. When Liesl leaves, her grandfather tells Max that he may go the
way he believes is right. He cannot judge whether his modern life style is right or wrong. He
does know however that Liesl should be able to make up her own mind. Max realizes that he
is not welcome and that Liesl is in love with Hubert. After Hubert refuses to give him a
hunting permit, he poaches the most magnificent deer in the area. In the legend of Saint
Hubert a deer plays a central role in the conversion of Hubert. In the film shooting a deer is
seen as sacrilege.
44
Image 49 Max, face to face with the deer
Image 50 The blessing on Saint Hubert day
Hubert discovers Max but does not hand him over to the police and decides not to tell anyone
what really happened because he presumes that Liesl has given Max the rifle.55 Max leaves in
a hurry to Vienna. By making this decision Hubert feels he is not a good forester anymore
and resigns. Hubert sacrifices himself out of love for Liesl and out of respect for the good
name of Hofrat Leonhard.
Subsequently Liesl’s dog Rolf escapes from the Hofrat’s house again and hunts after
another young deer. This time Hubert is present and kills the dog. Hubert goes to Liesl and
tells her about what happened. An angry and sad Liesl asks him why he did not miss? Hubert
replies that he could not let the dog kill anymore deer. Liesl tells Hubert that it must be awful
to have become such a person. Hubert replies by saying that there was no other way and that
she is doing him injustice. She does not believe him. When her grandfather sees she has
packed her bags he tries to stop her. The following discussion between them makes it clear
that Liesl thinks Hubert has killed the dog because it was a present from Max. Her
grandfather understands that she is sad about the death of the dog, but defends Hubert by
saying ‘He just did what every hunter has to do.’ Apparently after all this time Liesl still does
not understand the hunting code. Her grandfather wants her to stay, but Liesl leaves. Months
later, Liesl accidentally discovers at a studio party in Vienna what really happened between
Max and Hubert. She finds her “true self” and moves back to her grandfather. She meets a
rehabilitated Hubert at a church ceremony on Saint Hubert’s day. The connection between
religion and Heimat is emphasized again, as earlier in the film with the statue of Madonna
with child.
The film Der Förster vom Silberwald centered mainly around Liesl Leonhard who
had to make the decision between her Heimat or the city and conservatism or modernism.
55
The initials on the rifle are the letters O and L written on one another. Hubert believes the rifle to belong to
Hofrat Otto Leonhard. When he later wants to bring the rifle back he sees that the rifle cabinet of the Hofrat is
full, realizing that it the rifle has been given to Max by Vroni, the daughter of the mayor Leopold Oberkogler.
45
Once Liesl entered the village she tried to adapt to the conservative and patriarchal way of
life. The most important message that was that the Heimat had to be preserved from
modernism. This conservatism was presented in clothing (the dress scene), music (Bach),
religion (Saint Hubert day) and in protecting the wildlife in the forest. The main advocates of
this message were Hofrat Otto Leonhard and forester Hubert Gerold. The latter even spoke
about it as a religious mission. Essentially, the entire rural community thought like this.
Modern city dwellers Max and Karen did not understand the Heimat. Modernism was not
explained. In short it was everything that the Heimat was not. The patriarchal element was
emphasized by the fact that only men really understood nature and traditional culture, it was
their domain. A mother or grandmother figure was not present. Eventually, like the wildlife
and the traditional way of living, Liesl was preserved for the Heimat. Max tried to persuade
her to stay in the city but failed. As mentioned in the introduction, an aim of the Heimatfilme
was to forget World War II. In Der Förster vom Silberwald the war was completely ignored.
Similarly America had no role and was not mentioned in the film. In the end Liesl did not
choose for the volatile city, modernism and Max, but the rural community, its conservative
values regarding nature and culture and Hubert.
Conclusion
In this chapter I have tried to look at three West European films in order to find out what
messages and image these films carried. Even though the three films differ in genre and
origin there are some comparisons to make. All films are focused on morality. All the main
characters are trying to find out what is good. The messages of the films are the moral right
choices that the main characters make. An important message that all films make is antimodernism. Jour de fête and Der Förster vom Silberwald are both conservative, although
they have a different way of presenting this message. Jour de fête does this in a humorist way
and Der Förster vom Silberwald is very serious. Riso Amaro is skeptical about modernism,
because it is not within reach for ordinary people working on the rice fields. All films have a
clear image of life in rural Europe. The rural communities want to be left alone, whether it is
by modernism, progress, capitalism, America or a combination of them. Riso Amaro and Der
Förster vom Silberwald show a patriarchal rural society. The films focus on women and the
choices they have to make. Men represent either a good or a bad moral decision. Jour de fête
does not picture rural Europe as a patriarchal society. Perhaps the rural society in Jour de fête
could even be called matriarchal since the old woman is most wise, most assured about the
failure of the American way of life in France and she is the conscience of the village. Two of
46
the three films discuss the role of America. None of them are positive. The clearest opinion
about the role of America is presented in Jour de fête. The film emphasizes that America and
France are very different. The French should not try to be like America. Americans, that try
to impose the American way of life, should leave France. In Riso Amaro Marco is a strong
opponent of everything that has to do with America, like for instance the electric chair,
boogie-woogie and corny magazines. World War II is not really mentioned in any of the three
films. In the case of Der Förster vom Silberwald this is not strange since the Heimatfilme
were made to forget the war. In Jour de fête the war is only present in the role of the
American Military Police. In Riso Amaro the war is present in the presence of Italian soldiers
and through the words of sergeant Marco. Even though Marco is a soldier he denounces the
army, an attitude most certainly motivated by the Second World War. In the case of Der
Förster vom Silberwald the war is not mentioned which is not strange since the Heimatfilme
tried to let her audience forget the war.
47
Conclusion
The opposition to democracy in Iraq and thus the opposition to an American ideal raised the
question how locals responded in the past to an earlier U.S. reconstruction mission, namely
the Marshall Plan. I wanted to find out whether the Marshall Plan also encountered
opposition, by comparing the Marshall Plan films’ messages and images about rural Europe
to West European films in the period 1949-1954. One of the selection criteria was that a film
had to be set in rural Europe, since the countryside of Europe was a major topic in many
Marshall Plan films. Firstly, the historiography of the Marshall Plan films was researched to
see what had already been written about the subject. Secondly, three Marshall Plan films
were analyzed for their messages for and image of rural Europe. Thirdly, three West
European films were analyzed for their messages for and image of rural Europe. The films
were analyzed by asking the following 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?
This study has shown that the Marshall Plan films had very conflicting messages compared to
the West European films. In the following I will conclude the findings that this research has
produced.
A study of the historiography surrounding the Marshall Plan films showed that until
the 1990s scholarly interest mainly went to political and economic aspects of the Marshall
Plan. Within the writing about these aspects two schools emerged. In the 1950s and 1960s
scholars, called traditionalists, lauded the results of the Marshall Plan as a development
program regarding the reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War. The Vietnam
War changed this positive view on America’s active role in the world. The Marshall Plan was
no longer seen as a development program, but as a way for America to exercise control in the
world. This is called the revisionist view. Revisionists argue that the Marshall Plan stood at
the beginning of the Cold War and functioned as a weapon against communism. In the 1980s
two historians, Milward and Hogan, further argued within this traditionalist and revisionist
framework. Milward claimed that the plan was not necessary for Europe’s rebuilding and that
its main goal was to create a United States of Europe as a block towards the Soviet Union.
Hogan rejected this idea by stating that the Marshall Plan grew out of a domestic American
ideology: the New Deal. The fall of communism in 1989 meant a resurrection of traditionalist
thinking about the Marshall Plan. Scholars from Western Europe and America and scholars
from former Soviet (controlled) states showed interest in the success of the Marshall Plan. In
the 1990s the discussion moved towards cultural aspects of the Marshall Plan and an interest
48
in the Marshall Plan films. Ever since the interest in the Marshall Plan films has been
growing. The War on Terrorism and the invasion of Iraq have influenced the scholarly view
towards the Marshall Plan films until today. David Ellwood has said that the Marshall Plan
films were part of ‘one of the largest peacetime propaganda effort … ever seen.’ Although he
made this remark in the early 1990s the content reflects the current scholarly attitude towards
the Marshall Plan films. Nonetheless Albert Hemsing has criticized this remark stating that it
was an early effort in “public diplomacy”. So a little over sixty years after the end of the
Marshall Plan historians are still debating whether the Marshall Plan was more a
development program or a part of containment politics. I believe this attitude threatens the
debate to deteriorate into a fruitless discussion, because both are probably the case. This
research is influenced by the change of research into the impact and context of the films.
Nonetheless, there are still many important and interesting aspects of the films have not yet
been researched. One of those aspects is the role of the European countryside as setting for
the Marshall Plan films. The countryside was an important landscape in both the Marshall
Plan films and West European cinema. By first analyzing three Marshall Plan films and then
three West European films, all dealing with rural Europe in the period 1949-1954, I have
sought 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?
In the first chapter I analyzed the Marshall Plan films. First, I researched the
development process of the Marshall Plan films. This research showed that the ECA had final
authority over the films. Then three Marshall Plan films were analyzed that dealt with rural
Europe, namely Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen, Two Hundred Million Mouths and The
Story of Koula. The first question that was asked was how did the films deal with messages
like modernization, progress and cooperation? The main messages of the Marshall Plan films
are cooperation, modernism and progress. According to the Marshall Plan films cooperation
would make modernization possible. Cooperation occurred between farmers to buy
agricultural machines (Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen), between European countries to
bring the scientist to the farmer (Two Hundred Million Mouths) and between the United
States and Europe to bring an American-bred mule (The Story of Koula). Modernization
would lead to progress. One way was through emancipation. Progress was within reach for all
people living in rural Europe. Not just for farmers with means, like the farmers in Bull’s Eye
for Farmer Pietersen, but also for poor peasants, like the Italian peasants in Two Hundred
49
Million Mouths or the Greek peasants in The Story of Koula. Europe’s youth emancipates
itself in Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen and The Story of Koula and even for women there is
a bit room for empowerment (Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen). Another way was through
production growth. Farmers were able to increase their production by obtaining agricultural
machines in Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen and Two Hundred Million Mouths or an
American mule in The Story of Koula. The second question that was asked was how did the
films picture rural Europe? The Marshall Plan films presented rural Europe as an important
part of Europe. If rural Europe is doing well, Europe as a whole is doing well. Furthermore,
rural Europe was partly modern and partly traditional. Many traditional farmers wanted to
modernize but were not given the chance before the Marshall Plan came. The modern farmers
were presented as young, wise and heroic, while the traditional farmers were presented as
stubborn in Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen, exotic in The Story of Koula or dumb in Two
Hundred Million Mouths and in all films as old and a bit difficult men. Besides, rural Europe
was presented as an innocent landscape, which brings us to the third question. How did the
films refer to World War II? The Marshall Plan films use World War II as a starting point for
the progressive storyline. None of the films were nostalgic towards the past. In the past lay
only problems. This is the starting point for the films, presenting the problems at hand like
the effects of World War II such as food shortages and a lack of modern farming equipment
which causes harvest failures. Another problem that is presented are the traditional ways of
farming this goes to slow and is not productive. The films end however on a happy note. The
films are optimistic about the future of a more modern rural Europe, but also address the
necessity to modernize. There is a constant sense of "modernize or else the problems will not
go away and a new World War will come to your doorstep". The fourth question that was
asked was how were America and governmental institutions portrayed? Both America and
governmental institutions were portrayed as the background engine. America seems to give a
small push in the right direction towards cooperation, modernization and progress. Important
is that society can be engineered by government intervention. Although the ECA tried to be
modest about the workings of the Marshall Plan, all the progress that is made by the
European farmers is made possible by the Marshall Plan. This can for instance be seen in the
meeting of the civil servants in Two Hundred Million Mouths.
In the second chapter I analyzed three West European films made in the period 19491954, namely Jour de fête, Riso Amaro and Der Förster vom Silberwald. All in their own
way West European filmmakers argued against the messages of the Marshall Plan films. The
first question that was asked was how did the films deal with messages like modernization,
50
progress and cooperation? The West European films denounced modernization and progress.
These two come at the expense of cooperation within the community. Jour de fête told its
audience that American modernization would lead to individualism. Modernism resulted in
comedic scenes in which the postman has no time for social activities. Riso Amaro told its
audience that progress is a lie and not within reach for the lower class. The female rice
weeders have to toil and cooperate to keep their heads just above the water like they have
always done. Those who try to enrich themselves (at the expense of others) die. This shows
the anti-capitalist message that is present in Riso Amaro, since this film seems to claim that
enriching oneself always goes at the expense of others. Der Förster vom Silberwald presented
modernization as an outside threat for the traditional values and gender roles in rural
communities. Jour de fête and Der Förster vom Silberwald argue that modernism is not
suitable and end with a defeat of modernism. In Jour de fête modernism comes from
America. In Riso Amaro modernism comes from America. In Der Förster vom Silberwald
modernism comes from the city. An antithesis is constructed between us and the other. This
brings us to the second question. How did the films picture rural Europe? Rural Europe
disengages itself from the outside world. In Jour de fête rural Europe is placed in contrast to
modern America. In Riso Amaro rural Europe is said to have been a working method in the
rice fields that goes back hundreds of years which will never end. In Der Förster vom
Silberwald rural Europe is placed in contrast to the modern city. In short, rural Europe is
traditional according to the West European films. Moreover, rural Europe is mainly innocent.
In Jour de fête the countryside was presented to be innocent in a cozy, comical way. The
villagers tease the gullible and softy François but they are never really mean. In Riso Amaro
the countryside is not completely innocent, seen that the rice weeders are exploited, but it is
better than Walter who is an outsider and the real villain. In Der Förster vom Silberwald rural
Europe is idealized as a religious site, not yet spoiled by modernism, in contrast to the city
which is sinful. All West European films play with matriarchal (Jour de fête) or patriarchal
(Riso Amaro and Der Förster vom Silberwald) elements in rural society. The third question
that was asked was how did the films refer to World War II? The West European films do not
really refer to World War II. The best example of this is Der Förster vom Silberwald, a
Heimatfilm that, like other Heimatfilme, helped the audience forget about the tragedies of the
war. The most obvious way that World War II is present is through the presence of soldiers in
Jour de fête and Riso Amaro. Another way in which World War II is present is through the
tone of the films. Riso Amaro presents a pessimistic view which is common for neorealist
films since they were a reaction to the fascist films made under Mussolini. Jour de fête and
51
Der Förster vom Silberwald do not commend the future, but glorify the era before the two
world wars. The fourth question that was asked was how were America and governmental
institutions portrayed? A society in which the government takes the initiative for
modernization is undesirable. Jour de fête explained that the postman François, who
represents the French government, should just do what he has always been doing and not
adapt to the ridiculous American modernism. In Riso Amaro governmental institutions, like
the army and the judicial system, are distrusted because they are not concerned with the needs
of the common man. In Der Förster vom Silberwald the government did play a role that was
presented as positive, because it decides to sell the building grounds instead of the forest.
This was however arranged by the local government, the community, and not with help from
a grand national or European governmental project like the Marshall Plan.
In retrospect, this master thesis shows the Marshall Plan films argued that
modernization and progress were the solution for rural Europe, while the West European
films argued that modernization and progress were a threat for and a problem in rural Europe.
This thesis shows that our current perspective towards the impact and the context of the
Marshall Plan films in their time has to change. West European films about rural Europe
show that the messages of the Marshall Plan films were not uncontested and even rejected.
By placing the Marshall Plan films about rural Europe in the context of West European films,
an image occurs of an reconstruction program containing clear messages that contrasted with
those of the West European films. Furthermore, this thesis shows that the battle about
modernization and progress was conducted against the background of rural Europe in the
arena of the European cinemas. When a French moviegoer in 1950 would buy a ticket for
Jour de fête, it was likely that he would see the Marshall Plan film Pietersen a vu juste! (the
French version of Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen) during the introductory newsreel.
52
Bibliography
Primary sources
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, 19051954, nummer toegang 2.11.07.01, inventarisnummer 130.
Letter from the Inspector of Agriculture P.A. den Engelse on the progress of the ECA-film on
13 December 1949. Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Directie van de Landbouw: Algemene
Zaken, 1905-1954, nummer toegang 2.11.07.01, inventarisnummer 130.
Audiovisual sources
Brusse, Ytzen, Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen (1950):
http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/speler.program.7101115.html.
Santis, Giuseppe De, Riso Amaro (1949).
Spiro, Julian, Two Hundred Million Mouths (1950-51): http://www.dhm.de/filmarchiv/diefilme/three-hundred-million-mouth/.
Stummer, Alfons, Der Förster vom Silberwald (Echo der Berge, 1954):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8noxWSdL84 and
https://archive.org/details/DerFoersterVomSilberwaldKlassikerDesDeutschoesterreichischenHeimatfilms.
Tati, Jacques, Jour de fête (1949).
Unknown, The Story of Koula (1951): http://www.dhm.de/filmarchiv/die-filme/the-story-ofkouala/.
Digital sources
BBC: http://www.bbc.com.
CNN: http://edition.cnn.com.
Das Bundesarchiv: http://www.bundesarchiv.de.
Deutsches Historisches Museum: http://www.dhm.de.
George C. Marshall Motion Pictures: http://www.marshallfilms.org.
Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe: Film, Photographs, Exhibits, Posters:
http://marshallplanimages.squarespace.com.
Museum of Modern Art: http://www.moma.org.
53
Selling Democracy: http://www.sellingdemocracy.org.
Tativille: http://www.tativille.com/.
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com.
The White House President George W. Bush: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/.
Secondary literature
Acheson, Dean, Present at the Creation: My Years at the State Department, (New York:
Norton, 1969).
Baer, Hester, Dismantling the Dream Factory: Gender, German Cinema, and the Postwar
Quest for a New Film Language (New York: Berghahn, 2009) 163.
Bellos, David, Jacques Tati: His Life and Art (London: Harvill, 1999).
Beugel, Ernst H. van der, From Marshall aid to Atlantic partnership : European integration
as a concern of American foreign policy (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1966).
Bischof, Günter and Dieter Stiefel, Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe: Films,
Photographs, Exhibits, Posters (Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, 2009).
Chancy, Myriam J.A., "A Marshall Plan for a Haiti at peace : to continue or end the legacy of
the Revolution", Haiti and the Americas, ed. arla alargé (Jackson: University Press of
Mississippi, 2013) 199-218.
Diefendorf, Jeffry M., Axel Frohn, and Hermann-Josef Rupieper, American policy and the
reconstruction of West Germany, 1945-1955 (Washington, D.C.: German Historical Institute,
1993).
Dornbusch, Rudiger, Post-war economic reconstruction lessons for Eastern Europe (London:
Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society, 1993).
Ellwood, David W., Rebuilding Europe. Western Europe, America and postwar
reconstruction (London and New York: Longman, 1992).
Ellwood, David W., ‘The Impact of the Marshall Plan on Italy; the impact of Italy on the
Marshall Plan’, eds. Rob Kroes, Robert Rydell, and Doeko F.J. Bosscher, Cultural
Transmissions and Receptions: American Mass Culture in Europe, (Amsterdam: VU
University Press, 1993).
Fritsche, Maria, Homemade Men in Postwar Austrian Cinema: Nationhood, Genre and
Masculinity (New York: Berghahn, 2013).
Gimbel, John, The origins of the Marshall Plan (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
1976).
54
Gore, Al, Earth in the balance : ecology and the human spirit (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1992).
Griffiths, Richard T. (ed.), Van Strohalm tot Strategie. Het Marshall-plan in perspectief
(Assen: Van Gorcum, 1997).
Griswold, A. Whitney, "The Agrarian Democracy of Thomas Jefferson.", The American
Political Science Review 40.4 (1946) 657-681.
Hardach, Gerd, Der Marshall-Plan : Auslandshilfe und Wiederaufbau in Westdeutschland
1948-1952 M nchen: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1994).
Hemsing, Albert, "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.
Hirschfeld, H.M., Road to recovery : the Marshall plan, its importance for the Netherlands
and European cooperation, (The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1954).
Hoeven, Pien van der, Hoed af voor Marshall: De Marshall-hulp aan Nederland 1947-1952
(Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 1997).
Hoffman, Paul G., Peace Can Be Won, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & company,
1951).
Hogan, Michael J., The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western
Europe, 1947-1952 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
Jones, Joseph Marion, The fifteen weeks (February 21 - June 5, 1947) (New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World, 1955).
Inklaar, Frank, Van Amerika geleerd : Marshall-hulp en kennisimport in Nederland (Den
Haag: Sdu, 1997).
Kindleberger, Charles P., Marshall Plan Days (Boston and Londen: Allen & Unwin 1987).
Kolko, Joyce and Gabriel, The Limits of Power: The World and United States Foreign Policy
(New York: Harper & Rowe, 1972).
Maier, Charles S., "American Visions and British Interests: Hogan's Marshall Plan," Reviews
in American History, 18, no. 1 (1990): 102-111.
Mehring, Frank, ‘The Promises of “Young Europe”: ultural Diplomacy, osmopolitanism,
and Youth ulture in the Films of the Marshall Plan’, European journal of American studies
(Special issue, 2012).
Merkwan, John A., Balkan stability and the "second Marshall Plan", (Carlisle Barracks, Pa.:
U.S. Army War College, 2000).
Milward, Alan S., The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945-51, (Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1984).
55
Moltke, Johannes Von, No Place like Home: Locations of Heimat in German Cinema
(Berkeley: U of California, 2005).
Parrish, Scott D., and M.M. arinski , New evidence on the Soviet rejection of the Marshall
Plan, 1947 : two reports (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, 1994).
Petruf, Pavol,
ars allo
l n (Bratislava: Slovak Academic Press, 1993).
Price, Harry Bayard, The Marshall plan and its meaning (Washington, D.C: Ithaca, 1955).
Robinson, Leonard H., Toward a Marshall Plan for Africa: SIDA 19th World Conference,
March 25-28, 1988, New Delhi (New Delhi: Conference publication, 1988).
Schmitt, Hans A., The path to European union : from the Marshall plan to the Common
market (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1962).
Schulberg, Stuart, “Making Marshall Plan Movies”, Film News (1951).
Shiel, Mark, Italian Neorealism: Rebuilding the Cinematic City (London: Wallflower, 2006).
Sorel, Eliot and Pier Carlo Padoan, The Marshall Plan : lessons learned for the 21st century
(Paris: OECD, 2008).
Velde, Wim van der, "Bert Haanstra 1916-1997: Jongen, blijf altijd jezelf.", de Filmkrant,
November 1, 1997, 183 edition.
Williams, William Appleman, The tragedy of American diplomacy (Cleveland: The World
publishing company, 1959).
56