Deconstruction

The last two posts have con­cen­trated on the pol­i­tics sur­round­ing a photo of a Nazi show-trial, now for the back­ground. Towards the end of WWII, a Nazi offi­cial was giv­ing a speech at a uni­ver­sity and started to harangue the women in the audi­ence for not being good breed­ers (remem­ber, Nazis). A few of the women in the audi­ence stood up and started to walk out, and the Nazi ordered them arrested. At which point, the men of the audi­ence stood up, and pre­vented both the women from being arrested and the offi­cial from fin­ish­ing his speech.

Stories of this exchange went around the German uni­ver­sity sys­tem, even­tu­ally inspir­ing three stu­dents to print up leaflets decry­ing the war, pseudonony­mously dis­trib­ut­ing them on var­i­ous cam­puses over the course of a year. The stu­dents signed their notes “The White Rose Society”, and they were all even­tu­ally arrested and exe­cuted for their “crime.” The photo is a still from a movie about those events, “Sofie Scholl — The Final Days,” and I stum­bled into the story via an arti­cle at the paleo-conservative lewrock​well​.com.

The last thing I want to say about the photo is (as before) about the use of color. Specifically, how the judge, Ms. Scholl, and the Nazi flag have the same color scheme: red with a white “cen­ter”. Conversely, every­one else is in the drab grays and browns of their uni­forms. I would hope it goes with­out say­ing that Oscar-nominated docu­d­ra­mas do not do such things by accident:

Sophie Scholl on Trial

So why color things that way, and what are the psy­cho­log­i­cal effects of it? I think the likely answer to the first ques­tion (why) is tech­ni­cal: the most impor­tant things to the story are the judge, defen­dant, and the gov­ern­ment writ large, so it’s impor­tant to dis­tin­guish them from the spec­ta­tors — in effect mak­ing the Nazi, the resister, and régime the fore­ground, while fad­ing the every­one else into the background.

Which leaves the sec­ond ques­tion: what effect does this photo have on your brain? I think it can eas­ily push towards the viewer towards draw­ing some kind of emo­tive equiv­a­lence between the vic­tim and the vic­tim­izer. By way of anal­ogy, I can recall feel­ing less sym­pa­thetic towards Luke Skywalker when he faces down Jabba at the begin­ning of the movie, because he’s wear­ing all black — a color which only Darth Vader and the Emperor (the bad guys) wear.

In Star Wars, how­ever, it’s safe to assume Lucas inten­tion­ally chose to have Luke wear black, just as he inten­tion­ally chose to have Luke cut Vader’s hand off. He did so to show how Luke was turn­ing into the same man his father was, mak­ing the same mis­takes (albeit with­out the doomed love inter­est to throw him off balance).

On the other hand, up until Return Lucas could be eas­ily crit­i­cized for his sim­plis­tic approach to color. Is it safe to assume the direc­tor of Sofie Scholl wanted to con­vey a more nuanced scene, where one can­not judge things based on the col­ors flown — where even the occa­sional per­son wear­ing Nazi col­ors was capa­ble of good? Two mem­bers of the White Rose Society were sol­diers in Hitler’s army, and fought to con­quer France and Russia (under orders, obvi­ously), so there may be some­thing to that.

Whatever the direc­to­r­ial desire, it’s an inter­est­ing exer­cise to look for emo­tional mes­sages that the user of color can con­vey, whether inten­tion­ally or not.

And that’s all I’ve to say about that damned photo.

Leave a Reply

*