How was the Holocaust allowed to happen? Why did no one speak out? Where was the opposition to the Nazi regime and its policies? These are some of the most common questions when considering the events that surrounded the Second World War and the Holocaust. Very often the artistic community is charged with being the shield bearers of society, providing society with its armor of beauty and weapons of social criticisms; so that when events like the Second World War take place it is to the artistic community that we search for understanding. The philosopher Jacques Maritain writes in his book The Responsibility of the Artist that “Art is intent on the good of the work… whereas Morality is intent on the good of the man (Maritain 19) This statement brings into light the surface of the relationship between Art and Morality and gives room for discussion of how artists, as represented in the films To Be or Not To Be and Mephisto, were able to both fight against or participate in the policies of the Nazi regime.
The storyline of To Be or Not To Be follows a troupe of stage actors from Warsaw, Poland who become entangled in an SS spy game. Through a framed comedic story these actors intervene in the SS’s plot to destroy the small Polish resistance force in Warsaw. Playing the part of their lives—and their lives do depend on their performance—the actors show themselves to be human first and artists second. This distinction is important in the development of their characters because the recognition that Art is concerned with the good of the work and Morality is concerned with the good of the man places Art and Morality into separate spheres of influence. However, Maritain points out that a man is “a man before being a painter (Maritain 7)” that is to say that a man born into the world has in common with humanity his humanness, so that his citizenship and loyalty are first required by humanity and then secondly to his art.
This distinction shows that though Art and Morality have separate influences they “cannot ignore or disregard one another, for man belongs in these two worlds, both as intellectual maker and as moral agent, doer of actions which engage his own destiny. And because an artist is a man before being an artist, the autonomous world of morality is simply superior to (and more inclusive than) the autonomous world of art. (Maritain 16).” This relationship gives direction to the priorities of the acting troupe in Warsaw. The question may be asked, “Why must they intervene?” The answer is that because by doing so their actions satisfy both needs to produce good people and good works.Since Morality is intent on the good of the man, and Morality takes a superior position to Art, the acting troupe must first decide whether or not to act in accordance with moral laws: to defend their fellow citizens from the injustice of the Nazi regime. By choosing to do so the troupe then frees itself to “accomplish the law, without being enslaved to the law (Maritain 19).” There would be consequences of the troupe’s actions whether they had chosen to intervene or not. That is the enslavement of moral law. Supposing that the troupe had decided inaction rather then confrontation; the SS would have ended the Polish resistance movement and many Poles would have died. The supposition that those Poles would have most likely died anyways is not an issue here; that is a point referenced for a topic of fate. The issue here is of morality: is it moral to know that you could prevent an unjust death and choose inaction? No. By acting against the SS the troupe is able to act in accordance with the law–prevent unjust deaths–and is no longer enslaved to the consequences of the disobeyed law—the unjust deaths of the resistance force. In this way the troupe mirrors Antigone, Maritain’s example of an individual who “chooses…good for the sake of good (Maritain 8).” The troupe’s choice of good for the sake of good allows the viewer to readily recognize their Morality. Whether or not they had used Art ever again after making the decision would not influence the viewer’s perception that the troupe was acting according to moral law for the general good of those around them. This is the importance of their decision to first be human and to be artists secondly: because being a great artist does not give title to being a great man.
Likewise great men do not always constitute great artists. The troupe must use elaborate costuming, cunning use of their theater and great acting in order to steal secret documents from a SS Officer thereby protecting the resistance from the Nazi Regime. The success of their plan is their production of good artistic works. It is also true to their conscience as artists. At the beginning of the film, the story is framed within a play criticizing the Nazi regime. The play is put on hold because it is considered too controversial to produce. Maritain points out “that which takes place with regard to the moral conscience of man as man is exactly what takes place with regard to the artistic conscience of the artist (Maritain 12).” So it would be impossible for the troupe to have taken any other action than intervening in the SS plot because their artistic conscience required the troupe to act out against the Nazi regime. Supposing that the troupe had decided inaction rather then interfering with the SS plot, their inaction would have continued into their artistic production of works as well. In the same way that man feels compelled to act in accordance with moral law because a man “cannot want to be bad (Maritain 12), an artist feels compelled to act in accordance with their artistic conscience because an “artist cannot want to be a bad…artist (Maritain 12).” Since the troupe’s artistic conscience saw need to criticizes the Nazi Regime for its injustice their inaction would have required a stop to their production of their artistic work for the mere facts that the Nazi regime would not allow critical analysis of itself to be produced in the arts and the artistic conscience of the theater troupe would not allow them to produce work of another sort. Thus the theater troupe would have been brought to a standstill. Inaction in the realm of Morality would have consequently brought to an end the production of the troupe’s Art.
The discussion of the theater troupe in To Be or Not To Be gives evidence of what can occur when good people make good moral choices and as a consequence produce good works of art. It would be foolish to state that all artists are good people, or even to state that all good artists are good people, as Maritain points out “A man can be a great artist and be a bad man (Maritain 5).” A stark contrast to the comedic and good willed characters of To Be or Not To Be is the dark character Hendrik Höfgen from István Szabó‘s Mephisto. Hendrik Höfgen is a man whose artistic conscience has broken into two areas; the first to be a German actor in Germany and the second to be a social critic of the Nazi regime. The conflict arises when Höfgen’s moral character is not strong enough to support his artistic conscience. Höfgen is the essential great artist and bad man combination as he rises to become the most famous German actor of his time but must sacrifice both his Morality and Art to do so.
In the discussion of the theater troupe in To Be or Not To Be I stated that had the troupe chosen inaction they would no longer be able to produce their works of Art because of the restrictions of both the Nazi regime and their artistic conscience. The Nazi regime would not allow them to produce what is true to their artistic conscience and their artistic conscience would not allow them to produce Art otherwise. This is also applicable to Hendrik Höfgen; however I must point out a distinction of singularity and duality in the characters involved before I continue in a discussion of Höfgen’s artistic conscience so that it does not appear that I contradict myself. While there are many characters involved in the theater troupe they represent a singularity of artistic conscience that desires to critique the Nazi Regime and this desire fuels their production of work. It should be pointed out that even after the play that criticizes the Nazi’s openly is canceled the theater troupe continues to produce plays. This could be understood as a willingness to compromise but it needs to be noted that the play which replaces their social criticism is Hamlet by William Shakespeare, a play that in of itself is a social criticism, and also that as soon as the Nazis invade Poland the theater troupes productions are stopped. Hamlet is a play that deals with the consequences of action and inaction under an oppressive ruler, as shown by the soliloquy that is the namesake of the film:
“To be or not to be –that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them (Hamlet III.1.56-60).”
This is a social commentary by the theater troupe on the Polish people and their indecision of action for or against the Nazi regime. In this way the theater troupe is still able to act within their artistic conscience to critique the Nazi regime by comparing the Nazis to the murderous king of Hamlet and the Polish people to the indecisive Hamlet. The troupe’s decision to produce Hamlet shows the singularity of their artistic conscience and their actions. This is in contrast to Hendrik Höfgen who posses a duality of artistic conscience. Höfgen’s artistic conscience is first committed to Germany and the German theater and secondly to his ideals which he wishes to express through theater. The second area is subordinate to the first thus enabling Höfgen to continue to produce Art although he is not able to meet the needs of his secondary artistic conscience. It must also be noted the severe change in Höfgen after the Nazi regime comes to power. Prior to the election that brought the Nazis to power Höfgen openly participated in social commentary theater that criticized the social ills of Germany and pushed his ideals. Höfgen was able to do this as a German actor in Germany, thereby meeting the primary and secondary needs of his artistic conscience. Höfgen was a good man and a good artist, able to recognize injustice and speak out against it. Once the Nazi regime came to power Höfgen was required to choose between no longer producing Art—if he had merely left the country he would not be meeting either of the needs of his artistic conscience—and sacrificing his secondary artistic conscience in order to meet the needs of his primary artistic conscience. Maritain describes the magnitude of this decision accurately when he points out that “for an artist to spoil his work and sin against his art is forbidden by his artistic conscience (Maritain 13).” This sin that Höfgen commits against his art by sacrificing his secondary artistic conscience causes the change in his attitude and outlook on life because as he has committed this sin Höfgen has “[broken] within himself one of the springs, the sacred springs, of human conscience and to that extent [wounded his] moral conscience itself (Maritain 13-14).” Höfgen can no longer strive to be a complete artist because he has sacrificed half of his artistic conscience and he can no longer strive to be a good man because he has wounded his moral conscience. The only guiding principal left to Höfgen is to be a German actor and Germany and since Art is intent on the good of the work, not the good of the man, Höfgen’s directive requires him to be the greatest German actor in Germany. Thus Höfgen becomes a tortured soul guided only by a shallow principle.
An interesting illustration of this principle in the film deals with Höfgen’s role as Mephisto. Höfgen’s most well known roll is that of Mephisto, the devil in Goethe’s Faust. This play deals with a man, Faust, who agrees to a bet with Mephistopheles, the devil, in order to have everything that he wants in the world. “Mephistopheles is a servant, both of God and of Faust, and has the soul of a servant, of a person who must obey but resents it and takes every opportunity to assert what domination he can (Barron BookNotes).” Höfgen brings this role into his own life as he is a servant of his own artistic conscience and of the Nazis. Höfgen, like Mephistopheles, resents serving the Nazis and tries to take domination over what he can either by begging for a friend’s life or by refusing to dismiss Jewish stage hands. Like Mephistopheles, Höfgen, attempts everything in his power to please those around him, sometimes with the same disastrous effects as the devils. In order to protect the theater from SS inspection he reports one of his colleagues to the SS, who then murder the man. In order to keep his job as theater manager and save the life of his lover, he has her sent to France. Höfgen never stands up against the Nazi regime, and like Mephistopheles, loses his bet that he can make everyone happy. However, since Höfgen is a man and not a devil, Höfgen losses more than just a bet, he losses his soul.
Now our discussion turns to the issue of Höfgen’s lost soul. As I had stated earlier: being a great artist does not give title to being a great man. Höfgen “must choose his own happiness or supreme good, and the fate of his moral life depends on the fact of his choice being made or not according to the truth of the matter (Maritain 8).” In this way we see that Höfgen choose to make his primary artistic conscience—being a German actor in Germany—his happiness and supreme good despite the fact that this would destroy him as a man and further the cause of injustice. Höfgen himself realizes the change as he repeatedly states, “Am I not a great villain?” and “I am married to the theater.” The culmination of this illustration is the last scene of the movie where Höfgen comes close to the camera, as if to confide in the viewer, and asks, “What do they want from me? I am only an actor.” Höfgen is recognizing that beyond his primary artistic conscience he is nothing. The consequences of Höfgen’s choice present themselves as the loss of both of the women that he loves, the murder of a friend, and his partial responsibility for the murder of a colleague. Throughout the film Höfgen deals with these events in a distracted and pathetic manner. He barely recognizes the disappearance of his colleague, he tells his lover that it is not good for her to write him and he sheds only a single tear for his friend. The distanced behavior again points to Höfgen’s wounded moral conscience. Höfgen can no longer act out against injustice because his supreme good—his primary artistic conscience—requires the elevated position that the Nazi regime have given him and the Nazis are those who are actively unjust.
It is interesting that while Höfgen played Mephisto he became Faust, but he exceeded his performance of Mephisto with his personage of Hamlet, a common alliteration in the two films. The superiority of Höfgen’s performance as Hamlet when compared with Mephisto is due to the idea that the role of Hamlet reflected Höfgen more truly then that of Mephisto. Once again we must recognize Hamlet as a character for who indecision lingers until it is too late and the decision of action is forced upon him in the last Act (Hamlet V.2). Similar to Hamlet, Höfgen is repeatedly given opportunities to act out against injustice as an example, the scene in which Höfgen stumbles upon a group Hitler Junge who are beating up a Jew; Höfgen dismisses the scene with the statement, “They must be drunk” and walks away. Höfgen repeatedly fails to follow moral law in situations such as these until the consequences of enslavement are forced upon him and his soul, like Hamlet, dies.The use of Hamlet in both films shows a united theme of indecision. When Hamlet is confronted with the reality of the murderous king, he is charged with the task of bringing the king to justice and stopping the scandal of a murderer sitting on the throne by his father. In the same way, when the world was confronted with the reality of the Nazi regime sitting in power in
Germany, the world was charged with bringing the Nazis to justice. However, like Hamlet the world was stuck in a state of indecision, knowing that action was necessary but unwilling to act, it is aptly illustrated in Hamlet’s speech to the ghost of his father:
“Do you not come your tardy son to chide,
That, lapsed in time and passion, lets go by
Th’ important acting of your dread command?
O, say! (Hamlet III.4.106-109)
This speech shows Hamlet’s recognition that he has not been faithful to the charge given to him by his father’s ghost. Hamlet has let indecision keep him from acting and as a consequence other characters of the play, including Hamlet’s mother, Laertes, Polonius, and Ophelia. In the same way people who had the opportunity to act out against the Nazi regime were stuck by indecision and as a consequence many people died unjustly like the millions of captives in the concentration camps. This use of Hamlet in both films is a warning from the artistic community to the generations to come to not let indecision prevent us from acting out against injustice.
How was the Holocaust allowed to happen? Why did no one speak out? Where was the opposition to the Nazi regime and its policies? These questions are in themselves a warning to my generation and the generations to come. Do not allow another Holocaust to happen. Speak out against injustice. Be the opposition to totalitarian regimes and their policies. This way when our artistic communities defend us with armors of beauty and weapons of criticism they can say, “This is a generation in which Morality produced good in man, and Art produced good in works.”
Bibliography
- Barron’s BookNotes. Pinkmonkey.com. http://pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/barrons/faust122.asp#plot
- Lubitsch, Ernst. To Be or Not To Be. 1942
- Maritain, Jacques. The Responsibility of the Artist.
Jacques
Maritain
Center,University of
Notre Dame. 1960. http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/resart.htm - Shakespeare, William. The Tragical History of Hamlet Prince of
Denmark. Penguin Putnam Inc. 2001. - Szabó, István. Mephisto. 1981
Jess Boctor 