How Jean Renoir’s Great Anti-War Film Grand Illusion Became “Cinematographic Enemy Number One” to the Nazis

Con­trary to pop­u­lar belief, Nazi pro­pa­gan­da min­is­ter Joseph Goebbels did not admit to spread­ing a “Big Lie.” As schol­ar of Ger­man pro­pa­gan­da Ran­dall Bytwerk says, “Goebbels always main­tained that pro­pa­gan­da had to be truth­ful. That doesn’t mean he didn’t lie, but it would be a pret­ty poor pro­pa­gan­dist who pub­licly pro­claimed that he was going to lie.” Still, Goebbels inces­sant­ly accused oth­ers of lying and spread­ing dis­hon­est pro­pa­gan­da, and he bru­tal­ly sup­pressed those truths he found incon­ve­nient. He was par­tic­u­lar­ly incensed at the 1937 release of a film by French direc­tor Jean Renoir (son of the painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir) called La Grande Illu­siona film that ques­tioned sev­er­al fan­tasies the Nazis seemed des­per­ate to main­tain.

Among these were the idea that war was inevitable and desir­able, that a nat­ur­al aris­toc­ra­cy should rise above the com­mon horde — and that elites should have no sol­i­dar­i­ty or sym­pa­thy for Jews or oth­er minori­ties. These beliefs were cen­tral to fas­cist ide­ol­o­gy and to Goebbels’ pro­pa­gan­da project. Renoir’s Grand Illu­sion under­mined them all, despite the fact that it was set in World War I and based on an even ear­li­er British book, Nor­man Angell’s The Great Illu­sion, from 1909, which argued that war in Europe was eco­nom­i­cal­ly destruc­tive in con­trast to mutu­al co-oper­a­tion. Goebbels so feared Renoir’s anti-war film he called it “cin­e­mato­graph­ic ene­my num­ber one” and ordered every print turned over and burned and the orig­i­nal neg­a­tives destroyed.

Cin­e­ma Tyler explains in the video at the top how the effort to stamp out The Grand Illu­sion “had the full might of the Nazi pro­pa­gan­da machine on a mis­sion to destroy every copy.” They failed. As Roger Ebert notes, the orig­i­nal neg­a­tive, assumed destroyed in a 1942 Allied air raid, “had already been sin­gled out by a Ger­man film archivist named Frank Hensel, then a Nazi offi­cer in Paris, who had it shipped to Berlin.” In the 1960s, Renoir him­self “super­vised the assem­bly of a ‘restored’ print,” Then, thir­ty years lat­er, at the time of Ebert’s writ­ing in 1999, the orig­i­nal neg­a­tive resur­faced and a sparkling new print cir­cu­lat­ed, renew­ing praise for a movie about which Franklin Roo­sevelt pro­claimed, at the time of its release, “all the democ­ra­cies in the world must see this film.”

The film came out as Nazi Ger­many and the Sovi­et Union squared off aggres­sive­ly in mon­u­men­tal pavil­ions for the 1937 Inter­na­tion­al Expo­si­tion of Arts and Tech­nics in Mod­ern Life in Paris. Ger­many was three years away from invad­ing France, and while Renoir could not have known the future, the film uses its char­ac­ters “to illus­trate how the themes of the first war would trag­i­cal­ly wors­en in the sec­ond,” Ebert writes. It cen­ters on three cap­tured French offi­cers: “De Boield­ieu (Pierre Fres­nay), from an old aris­to­crat­ic fam­i­ly.… Marechal (Jean Gabin), a work­ing­man, a mem­ber of the emerg­ing pro­le­tari­at, and Rosen­thal (Mar­cel Dalio), a Jew­ish banker who has iron­i­cal­ly pur­chased the chateau that de Boield­ieu’s fam­i­ly can no longer afford.”

The French offi­cers’ jailor, wound­ed pilot von Rauf­fen­stein (played by great Ger­man silent direc­tor Erich von Stro­heim), believes him­self to have more in com­mon with de Boield­ieu than the lat­ter does with his coun­try­men, and in many respects, this proves so. Still, the French aris­to­crat uses his priv­i­lege, as we might say today, to help the oth­er pris­on­ers escape, at the cost of his life. When Marechal and Rosen­thal are giv­en shel­ter by a Ger­man farm wid­ow, “per­haps Renoir is whis­per­ing that the true class con­nec­tion across ene­my lines is between the work­ers, not the rulers,” writes Ebert. Per­haps it was also the nation­al sol­i­dar­i­ty among the pris­on­ers that unset­tled Goebbels — their per­sis­tent, “sin­gle obses­sion: to escape,” despite the com­forts of their cap­tiv­i­ty, as the film’s trail­er says dra­mat­i­cal­ly above. The war had not yet begun, and yet, writes A.O. Scott at The New York Times:

In France the late 1930s were the years of the Pop­u­lar Front, an attempt by the left to counter the rise of fas­cism and over­come its own ten­den­cies toward sec­tar­i­an­ism and ortho­doxy. The polit­i­cal face of the front was Léon Blum, a mod­er­ate Jew­ish Social­ist whose two trun­cat­ed, frus­trat­ing terms as prime min­is­ter coin­cid­ed with the pro­duc­tion and release of Renoir’s film.… The action takes place dur­ing World War I (in which Renoir had served as a pilot), when the Drey­fus Affair was still a recent mem­o­ry, but it has an eye on con­tem­po­rary anti-Semi­tism and labor mil­i­tan­cy as well as a sub­tle, anx­ious pre­mo­ni­tion of glob­al con­flicts to come.

Grand Illu­sion not only inspired two of the most famous moments of film his­to­ry — the tun­nel in The Great Escape and the singing of “La Mar­seil­laise” in Casablan­ca — but it remains in its own right one of the great­est films ever made. (Orson Welles claimed it as one of only two films he would take with him “on the ark.”) It con­tin­ues in its “gen­tly iron­ic” way, to “ques­tion all kinds of ‘illu­sions,’ ” writes David M. Lubin, “that, in [Renoir’s] view sus­tain mod­ern war­fare: that one side is moral­ly supe­ri­or to the oth­er… that class divi­sions are nat­ur­al, that men must be con­ven­tion­al­ly man­ly, that Jews are infe­ri­or to Gen­tiles, and so forth.” Rather than sim­ply denounce Grand Illu­sion as a big, pro­pa­gan­dis­tic lie, Goebbels tried to have it snuffed out of exis­tence.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Edu­ca­tion for Death: The Mak­ing of the Nazi–Walt Disney’s 1943 Film Shows How Fas­cists Are Made

Redis­cov­ered: The First Amer­i­can Anti-Nazi Film, Banned by U.S. Cen­sors and For­got­ten for 80 Years

Watch a Grip­ping 10-Minute Ani­ma­tion About the Hunt for Nazi War Crim­i­nal Adolf Eich­mann

Watch Georges Méliès’ The Drey­fus Affair, the Con­tro­ver­sial Film Cen­sored by the French Gov­ern­ment for 50 Years (1899)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Watch the 1907’s Nightmare-Inducing Short Film The Dancing Pig, Now Fully Colorized

One could argue that cin­e­ma audi­ences in the 1900s were less sophis­ti­cat­ed than they are today. Mar­shal­ing the evi­dence, one might make an Exhib­it A of Le Cochon Danseur (The Danc­ing Pig), a Pathé-pro­duced silent short that show­cas­es the fig­ure of the title. “Appar­ent­ly based on a Vaude­ville act,” writes the Inde­pen­dent’s Clarisse Loughrey, “it sees a pig dressed in a fan­cy tuxe­do attempt to seduce a young lady, who in turn rips off his clothes and forces him to dance despite his shame­ful naked­ness.”

Just how deeply the orig­i­nal French audi­ences thrilled to these pro­ceed­ings is lost to his­to­ry; but then, so is the name of the film’s direc­tor. This aura of mys­tery made Le Cochon Danseur an object of fas­ci­na­tion a cen­tu­ry after its release. But that was­n’t the only fac­tor in play: the design of the pig cos­tume remains impres­sive today, let alone when con­sid­ered by the pre­sumed stan­dards of 1907.

The film­mak­ers must have known this, since the film’s end­ing cuts — in a time when edit­ing of any kind was a rar­i­ty in the cin­e­ma — to a close-up of the over­sized porcine head express­ing a well-artic­u­lat­ed look of sat­is­fac­tion.

We see the pig “flap­ping his ears, bog­gling his eyes, flail­ing his tongue, and chuck­ling evil­ly, bear­ing his sharp, scary teeth,” as the Vil­lains Wiki puts it. “This implies that he pos­si­bly ate the woman and revealed him­self to be a hor­rid mon­ster.” It is this final sequence that has made the danc­ing pig “a pop­u­lar Inter­net meme vil­lain” over the past decade and a half. You’ve almost cer­tain­ly spot­ted him once or twice, though prob­a­bly not the col­orized ver­sion seen in the restored and enhanced video at the top of the post. The orig­i­nal black-and-white film, the inspi­ra­tion for so many memes and so many night­mares, appears just above.

“Some­how, I feel like I’m actu­al­ly look­ing at a hell­ish human-pig hybrid, not just a 20th-cen­tu­ry human in a 20th-cen­tu­ry ver­sion of a mas­cot suit,” writes cinephile Tris­tan Ettle­man in his own con­sid­er­a­tion of the pic­ture. Per­haps Le Cochon Danseur has proven even more com­pelling to us ful­ly con­nect­ed 21st-cen­tu­ry sophis­ti­cates than it did to its first view­ers. Or per­haps it sim­ply taps into a uni­ver­sal truth of exis­tence: to para­phrase a much-quot­ed obser­va­tion attrib­uted to Mar­garet Atwood, giant anthro­po­mor­phic pigs are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid giant anthro­po­mor­phic pigs will eat them.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Watch The Amaz­ing 1912 Ani­ma­tion of Stop-Motion Pio­neer Ladis­las Stare­vich, Star­ring Dead Bugs

Watch The Insects’ Christ­mas from 1913: A Stop Motion Film Star­ring a Cast of Dead Bugs

The First Sur­re­al­ist Film The Seashell and the Cler­gy­man, Brought to You By Ger­maine Dulac & Antonin Artaud (1928)

Footage of the Last Known Tas­man­ian Tiger Restored in Col­or (1933)

When Sal­vador Dalí Viewed Joseph Cornell’s Sur­re­al­ist Film, Became Enraged & Shout­ed: “He Stole It from My Sub­con­scious!” (1936)

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

What Makes Salvador Dalí’s Iconic Surrealist Painting “The Persistence of Memory” a Great Work of Art

Sal­vador Dalí paint­ed melt­ing clocks. This is not as dras­tic an over­sim­pli­fi­ca­tion as it sounds: after first paint­ing such a coun­ter­in­tu­itive image, “Dalí, who knew the impor­tance of brand­ing, would use the melt­ing clocks for his entire career.” So says no less an expert than James Payne, the gal­lerist and video essay­ist behind the Youtube chan­nel Great Art Explained. In its lat­est episode Payne takes on the unre­lent­ing­ly pro­lif­ic Dalí’s most famous can­vas of all, The Per­sis­tence of Mem­o­ry. Com­plet­ed in 1931, this work of art has by now spent about half a cen­tu­ry adorn­ing the walls of col­lege dorm rooms, among oth­er spaces inhab­it­ed by view­ers inter­est­ed in the alter­ation of their own per­cep­tive fac­ul­ties.

The Per­sis­tence of Mem­o­ry does­n’t mark Dalí’s first use of melt­ing clocks, though it’s with­out doubt his most impor­tant. Yet “despite its huge cul­tur­al impact,” says Payne, the paint­ing is “quite small, about the size of a sheet of paper.” Against the back­ground of “a huge desert land­scape with vast depths of field, reduced to a shrunk­en world” — one har­bor­ing ref­er­ences to Goya, De Chiri­co, and Bosch — it vivid­ly real­izes a moment in the process of meta­mor­pho­sis.

“A key con­cept in the Sur­re­al­ist move­ment,” meta­mor­pho­sis is here “exem­pli­fied by the para­dox of Dalí’s ren­der­ing of the hard­est and most mechan­i­cal objects, watch­es, into a soft and flac­cid form.” Like all of the artist’s best work, it thus “exploits the ambi­gu­i­ty of our per­cep­tu­al process and plays with our own fears.” But what do the melt­ing clocks mean?

That, to Dalí’s own mind, is the wrong ques­tion: “I am against any kind of mes­sage,” he declared in one of his many tele­vi­sion appear­ances. Indeed, his fre­quent appear­ances on tele­vi­sion (What’s My Line?, The Mike Wal­lace Inter­view, The Dick Cavett Show) and in oth­er media assured that, at a cer­tain point, “Dalí the artist had become a pris­on­er of Dalí the celebri­ty.” But his appear­ances in the spot­light also gave him the chance to dis­sem­i­nate the chaff of con­flict­ing expla­na­tions of his own work. Per­haps the melt­ing clocks refer to Ein­stein’s then-nov­el the­o­ry of rel­a­tiv­i­ty; per­haps they sym­bol­ize impo­tence. Or it may all come down to Dalí’s obses­sion with death, which even in 1931 had long since tak­en both his moth­er and the younger broth­er of whom he believed him­self a rein­car­na­tion. In the event, Dalí could­n’t escape mor­tal­i­ty. None of us can, of course, and that, as much as any­thing else, may illu­mi­nate why The Per­sis­tence of Mem­o­ry nev­er quite pass­es into the realm of kitsch.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Take a Jour­ney Through 933 Paint­ings by Sal­vador Dalí & Watch His Sig­na­ture Sur­re­al­ism Emerge

Walk Inside a Sur­re­al­ist Sal­vador Dalí Paint­ing with This 360º Vir­tu­al Real­i­ty Video

The Most Com­plete Col­lec­tion of Sal­vador Dalí’s Paint­ings Pub­lished in a Beau­ti­ful New Book by Taschen: Includes Nev­er-Seen-Before Works

Sal­vador Dalí Explains Why He Was a “Bad Painter” and Con­tributed “Noth­ing” to Art (1986)

Sal­vador Dalí’s Melt­ing Clocks Paint­ed on a Lat­te

Great Art Explained: Watch 15 Minute Intro­duc­tions to Great Works by Warhol, Rothko, Kahlo, Picas­so & More

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

How Well Can You Move in Medieval Armor?: Medievalist Daniel Jaquet Gives It a Try in Real Life

If you’ve ever run a marathon in cos­tume, or for that mat­ter, board­ed pub­lic trans­porta­tion with a large musi­cal instru­ment or a bulky bag of ath­let­ic equip­ment, you know that gear can be a bur­den best shed.

But what if that gear is your first, nay, best line of defense against a fel­low knight fix­ing to smite you in the name of their liege?

Such gear is non-option­al.

Curi­ous about the degree to which 15th-cen­tu­ry knights were encum­bered by their pro­tec­tive plat­ing, medieval­ist Daniel Jaquet com­mis­sioned a top armor spe­cial­ist from the Czech Repub­lic to make a suit spe­cif­ic to his own per­son­al mea­sure­ments. The result is based on a 15th cen­tu­ry spec­i­men in Vien­na that has been stud­ied by the Wal­lace Col­lec­tion’s archaeomet­al­lur­gist Alan Williams. As Jaquet recalled in Sci­ences et Avenir:

We had to make com­pro­mis­es in the copy­ing process, of course, because what inter­est­ed me above all was to be able to do a behav­ioral study, to see how one moved with this equip­ment on the back rather than attach­ing myself to the num­ber of exact rivets…we knew the com­po­si­tion and the hard­ness of the parts that we could com­pare to our repli­ca.

The accom­plished mar­tial artist test­ed his mobil­i­ty in the suit with a vari­ety of high­ly pub­lic, mod­ern activ­i­ties: reach­ing for items on the high­est super­mar­ket shelves, jog­ging in the park, scal­ing a wall at a climb­ing gym, tak­ing the Metro …

It may look like show­boat­ing, but these move­ments helped him assess how he’d per­form in com­bat, as well as low­er stress activ­i­ties involv­ing sit­ting down or stand­ing up.

Out of his met­al suit, Jaquet has been known to amuse him­self by ana­lyz­ing the verisimil­i­tude of Game of Thrones’ com­bat scenes. (Con­clu­sion: some lib­er­ties were tak­en, armor-wise, in that grue­some face off between the Moun­tain and the Viper.)

An invi­ta­tion to trav­el to New York City to present at the Met­ro­pol­i­tan Muse­um of Art offered an unex­pect­ed test­ing oppor­tu­ni­ty, com­pli­ments of the airline’s bag­gage restric­tions:

For rea­sons of weight, space and cost, the solu­tion to wear the armor over me was con­sid­ered the best.

(The TSA offi­cers at Newark were not amused...)

His armored expe­ri­ence sheds light on those of ear­ly 15th-cen­tu­ry knight Jean le Main­gre, aka Bouci­caut, whose impres­sive career was cut short in 1415, when he was cap­tured by the Eng­lish at the Bat­tle of Agin­court.

Bouci­caut kept him­self in tip top phys­i­cal con­di­tion with a reg­u­lar armored fit­ness reg­i­men. His chival­ric biog­ra­phy details gear­ing up for exer­cis­es that include run­ning, chop­ping wood, vault­ing onto a horse, and work­ing his way up a lad­der from the under­side, with­out using his feet.

Jaquet dupli­cates them all in the above video.

(Reminder to those who would try this at home, make sure you’re capa­ble of per­form­ing these exer­cis­es in light­weight shorts and t‑shirt before attempt­ing to do them in armor.)

Like Boucicault’s, Jaquet’s armor is bespoke. Those who’ve strug­gled to lift their arms in an off-the-rack jack­et will appre­ci­ate the trade off. It’s worth spend­ing more to ensure suf­fi­cient range of move­ment.

In Boucicault’s day, ready-made pieces of less­er qual­i­ty could be pro­cured at mar­kets, trad­ing fairs, and shops in pop­u­lous areas. You could also try your luck after bat­tle, by strip­ping the cap­tive and the dead of theirs. Size was always an issue. Too small and your move­ment would be restrict­ed. Too big, and you’d be haul­ing around unnec­es­sary weight.

Jaquet describes his load as being on par with the weight 21st-cen­tu­ry sol­diers are required to car­ry. Body armor is a life­saver, accord­ing to a 2018 study by the Cen­ter for a New Amer­i­can Secu­ri­ty, but it also reduces mobil­i­ty, increas­es fatigue, and reduces mis­sion per­for­mance.

Giz­mo­do’s Jen­nifer Ouel­lette finds that medieval knights faced sim­i­lar chal­lenges:

The legs alone were car­ry­ing an extra 15 to 18 pounds, so the mus­cles had to work that much hard­er to over­come iner­tia to set the legs in motion. There is also evi­dence that the thin slits in the face mask, and tight chest plate, restrict­ed oxy­gen flow even fur­ther.

Read a detailed, schol­ar­ly account of Jaquet’s armor exper­i­ment in His­tor­i­cal Meth­ods: A Jour­nal of Quan­ti­ta­tive and Inter­dis­ci­pli­nary His­to­ry.

For those look­ing for a lighter read, here is Jaque­t’s account of tak­ing a com­mer­cial flight in armor (and some best prac­tice tips for those attempt­ing the same.)

- Ayun Hal­l­i­day is the Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine and author, most recent­ly, of Cre­ative, Not Famous: The Small Pota­to Man­i­festo.  Fol­low her @AyunHalliday.

Relat­ed Con­tent 

What It’s Like to Actu­al­ly Fight in Medieval Armor

Watch Accu­rate Recre­ations of Medieval Ital­ian Longsword Fight­ing Tech­niques, All Based on a Man­u­script from 1404

How to Make and Wear Medieval Armor: An In-Depth Primer

When the Colosseum in Rome Became the Home of Hundreds of Exotic Plant Species

The Colos­se­um is one of the most pop­u­lar tourist attrac­tions in Italy, and thus one of the most pop­u­lar tourist attrac­tions in all of Europe. But the nature of its appeal to its many vis­i­tors has changed over the cen­turies. In the Atlantic, nov­el­ist and pod­cast­er Paul Coop­er notes that, “the belief that Chris­t­ian mar­tyrs had once been fed to the lions in the are­na,” for exam­ple, once made it a renowned site of reli­gious pil­grim­age. (This “despite lit­tle evi­dence that Chris­tians were ever actu­al­ly killed in the are­na.”) But in that same era, the Colos­se­um was also a site of botan­ic pil­grim­age: amid its ruins grew “420 species of plant,” includ­ing some rare exam­ples “found nowhere else in Europe.”

Notable tourists who took note of the Colos­se­um’s rich plant life include Charles Dick­ens, who beheld its “walls and arch­es over­grown with green,” and Per­cy Bysshe Shel­ley, who wrote of how “the copse­wood over­shad­ows you as you wan­der through its labyrinths, and the wild weeds of this cli­mate of flow­ers bloom under your feet.”

Coop­er quotes from these writ­ings in his Atlantic piece, and in an asso­ci­at­ed Twit­ter thread also includes plen­ty of ren­der­ings of the Colos­se­um as it then looked dur­ing the 18th and 19th cen­turies. He even select­ed images from Flo­ra of the Colos­se­um of Rome, or, Illus­tra­tions and descrip­tions of four hun­dred and twen­ty plants grow­ing spon­ta­neous­ly upon the ruins of the Colos­se­um of Rome (read­able free online at the Inter­net Archive), the 1855 work of a less well-known Eng­lish­man named Richard Deakin.

A botanist, Deakin did the hard work of cat­a­loging those hun­dreds of plant species grow­ing in the Colos­se­um back in the 1850s. The inter­ven­ing 170 or so years have tak­en their toll on this bio­di­ver­si­ty: as Nature report­ed it, only 242 of these species were still present in the ear­ly 2000s, due in part to “a shift towards species that pre­fer a warmer, dri­er cli­mate” and the growth of the sur­round­ing city. In its hey­day in the first cen­turies of the last mil­len­ni­um, the are­na lay on the out­skirts of Rome, where­as it feels cen­tral today. Pay it a vis­it, and you both will and will not see the Colos­se­um that Dick­ens and Shel­ley did; but then, they nev­er knew it as, say, Titus or Domit­ian did. In recent years there have been moves to restore and even improve ancient fea­tures like the retractable floor; why not dou­ble down on the exot­ic flo­ra while we’re at it?

via The Atlantic

Relat­ed con­tent:

Rome’s Colos­se­um Will Get a New Retractable Floor by 2023 — Just as It Had in Ancient Times

The Roman Colos­se­um Has a Twin in Tunisia: Dis­cov­er the Amphithe­ater of El Jem, One of the Best-Pre­served Roman Ruins in the World

A Vir­tu­al Tour of Ancient Rome, Cir­ca 320 CE: Explore Stun­ning Recre­ations of The Forum, Colos­se­um and Oth­er Mon­u­ments

High-Res­o­lu­tion Walk­ing Tours of Italy’s Most His­toric Places: The Colos­se­um, Pom­peii, St. Peter’s Basil­i­ca & More

Build­ing The Colos­se­um: The Icon of Rome

With 9,036 Pieces, the Roman Colos­se­um Is the Largest Lego Set Ever

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Behold the Glass Armonica, the Unbelievably Fragile Instrument Invented by Benjamin Franklin

We’re all famil­iar with key­board instru­ments. Many of us have also heard (or indeed made) music, of a kind, with the rims of wine glass­es. But to unite the two required the tru­ly Amer­i­can com­bi­na­tion of genius, where­with­al, and pen­chant for fol­ly found in one his­tor­i­cal fig­ure above all: Ben­jamin Franklin. As we’ve pre­vi­ous­ly not­ed here on Open Cul­ture, the musi­cal­ly inclined Franklin invent­ed an instru­ment called the glass armon­i­ca (alter­na­tive­ly “glass har­mon­i­ca”) — or rather he re-invent­ed it, hav­ing seen and heard an ear­ly exam­ple played in Lon­don. Essen­tial­ly a series of dif­fer­ent­ly sized bowls arranged from large to small, all rotat­ing on a shaft, the glass armon­i­ca allows its play­er to make poly­phon­ic music of a down­right celes­tial nature.

The play­ing, how­ev­er, is eas­i­er writ­ten about than done. You can see that for your­self in the video above, in which gui­tarist Rob Scal­lon vis­its musi­cian-preser­va­tion­ist Den­nis James. Not only does James play a glass armon­i­ca, he plays a glass armon­i­ca he built him­self — and has pre­sum­ably rebuilt a few times as well, giv­en its scarce­ly believ­able fragili­ty.

Trans­porta­tion presents its chal­lenges, but so does the act of play­ing, which requires a rou­tine of hand-wash­ing (and sub­se­quent re-wet­ting, with dis­tilled water only) that even the coro­n­avirus has­n’t got most of us used to. But even in the hands of a first-timer like Scal­lon, who makes sure to take his turn at the key­board-of-bowls, the glass armon­i­ca sounds like no oth­er instru­ment even most of us in the 21st cen­tu­ry have heard. In the hands of one of its few liv­ing vir­tu­osos, of course, the glass armon­i­ca is some­thing else entire­ly.

“If this piece did­n’t exist,” says James, hold­ing a piece of sheet music, “I would­n’t be sit­ting here.” He refers to Ada­gio & Ron­do for glass armon­i­ca in C minor (KV 617), com­posed by none oth­er than Wolf­gang Amadeus Mozart. “In 1791, the last year of his life, Mozart wrote a piece for the Ger­man armon­i­ca play­er, Mar­i­anne Kirchgäss­ner,” writes Tim­o­ty Judd at The Lis­ten­ers’ Club. Like every glass armon­i­ca piece, accord­ing to James, one ends it by drop­ping sud­den­ly into com­plete silence: “It’s the only instru­ment, up until that point, that could to that: die away to absolute­ly noth­ing.” Alas, writes James, not long after the debut of Mozart’s com­po­si­tion rumors cir­cu­lat­ed that “the strange, crys­talline tones of Ben­jamin Franklin’s new instru­ment were a threat to pub­lic health.” A shame though that seems today, it does suit the mul­ti­tal­ent­ed Franklin’s ancil­lary rep­u­ta­tion as an invet­er­ate trou­ble­mak­er.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Instru­ment Ben­jamin Franklin Invent­ed, the Glass Armon­i­ca, Plays Tchaikovsky’s “Dance of the Sug­ar Plum Fairy”

Hear the Cristal Baschet, an Enchant­i­ng Organ Made of Wood, Met­al & Glass, and Played with Wet Hands

Dis­cov­er the Appre­hen­sion Engine: Bri­an Eno Called It “the Most Ter­ri­fy­ing Musi­cal Instru­ment of All Time”

Bach’s Most Famous Organ Piece Played on Wine Glass­es

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Catherine the Great of Russia Sends a Letter Urging Her Fellow Russians to Get Inoculated Against Smallpox (1787)

I got my boost­er shot the oth­er week and through the mir­a­cles of mod­ern sci­ence I bare­ly knew a nee­dle was in me before the phar­ma­cist told me it was over. (I also didn’t feel any after effects, but your mileage may vary.) I men­tion this because before nee­dles, before injectable vac­cines, there was some­thing called var­i­o­la­tion.

Since ancient times, small­pox had a habit of dec­i­mat­ing pop­u­la­tions, dis­ap­pear­ing, and reap­pear­ing else­where for anoth­er out­break. It killed rulers and peas­ants alike. Symp­toms includ­ed fever, vom­it­ing, and most abhor­rent, a body cov­ered with flu­id-filled blis­ters. It could blind you, and it could kill you. In var­i­o­la­tion, a physi­cian would take the infec­tious flu­id from from a blis­ter or scab on an infect­ed per­son and rub it into scratch­es or cuts on a healthy patient’s skin. This would lead to a mild—but still par­tic­u­lar­ly unpleasant—case of small­pox, and inoc­u­late them against the virus.

But one can also see how the prac­tice of variolation—introducing a dilut­ed ver­sion of the virus in order for the immune sys­tem to do its work—points towards the sci­ence of vac­cines.

One sup­port­er of var­i­o­la­tion was Cather­ine the Great, as evi­denced by a let­ter in her hand pro­mot­ing it across Rus­sia from 1787. The let­ter just sold for $1.3 mil­lion, along­side a por­trait of the monarch by Dmit­ry Lev­it­sky.

Addressed to a gov­er­nor-gen­er­al, Cather­ine the Great instructs him to make var­i­o­la­tion avail­able to every­body in his province.

“Among the oth­er duties of the Wel­fare Boards in the Provinces entrust­ed to you,” she writes, “one of the most impor­tant should be the intro­duc­tion of inoc­u­la­tion against small­pox, which, as we know, caus­es great harm, espe­cial­ly among the ordi­nary peo­ple.” She fur­ther orders inoc­u­la­tion cen­ters be set up in con­vents and monas­ter­ies, fund­ed by town rev­enues to pay doc­tors.

Cather­ine had a per­son­al stake in all this. Her hus­band, Peter III caught the dis­ease before he became emper­or, and was left dis­fig­ured and scarred for life. When she got a chance to inoc­u­late her­self in 1768 she took it, call­ing in a Scot­tish doc­tor, Dr. Thomas Dims­dale, to per­form the var­i­o­la­tion. The pro­ce­dure took place in secret, with a horse at the ready in case the pro­ce­dure caused ter­ri­ble side effects and he had to hot foot it out of Rus­sia. That didn’t hap­pen, and after a brief con­va­les­cence, Cather­ine revealed what she had done to her coun­try­men.

“My objec­tive was, through my exam­ple, to save from death the mul­ti­tude of my sub­jects who, not know­ing the val­ue of this tech­nique, and fright­ened of it, were left in dan­ger.”

Yet, despite her own brav­ery, 20 years lat­er small­pox con­tin­ued to ram­page through Rus­sia, hence the let­ter.

Nine years lat­er in 1796, Dr. Edward Jen­ner found that the cow­pox virus—which only caused mild, cold-like symp­toms in humans—could inoc­u­late humans against small­pox. Despite ini­tial rejec­tions from the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty, his dis­cov­ery led to vac­ci­na­tion sup­plant­i­ng var­i­o­la­tion. And it’s the rea­son we now use the word “vaccine”—it comes from the Latin word for cow.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How the World’s First Anti-Vax Move­ment Start­ed with the First Vac­cine for Small­pox in 1796, and Spread Fears of Peo­ple Get­ting Turned into Half-Cow Babies

How Vac­cines Improved Our World In One Graph­ic

The His­to­ry of the Plague: Every Major Epi­dem­ic in an Ani­mat­ed Map

Ted Mills is a free­lance writer on the arts who cur­rent­ly hosts the Notes from the Shed pod­cast and is the pro­duc­er of KCR­W’s Curi­ous Coast. You can also fol­low him on Twit­ter at @tedmills, and/or watch his films here.

Stephen Fry on the Power of Words in Nazi Germany: How Dehumanizing Language Laid the Foundation for Genocide

In a recent series of Tweets and a fol­low-up inter­view with MEL mag­a­zine, leg­endary alt-rock pro­duc­er and musi­cian Steve Albi­ni took respon­si­bil­i­ty for what he saw as his part in cre­at­ing “edgelord” cul­ture — the jokey, meme-wor­thy use of racist, misog­y­nist and homo­pho­bic slurs that became so nor­mal­ized it invad­ed the halls of Con­gress. “It was gen­uine­ly shock­ing when I real­ized that there were peo­ple in the music under­ground who weren’t play­ing when they were using lan­guage like that,” he says. “I wish that I knew how seri­ous a threat fas­cism was in this coun­try…. There was a joke made about the Illi­nois Nazis in The Blues Broth­ers. That’s how we all per­ceived them — as this insignif­i­cant, unim­por­tant lit­tle joke. I wish that I knew then that author­i­tar­i­an­ism in gen­er­al and fas­cism specif­i­cal­ly were going to become com­mon­place as an ide­ol­o­gy.”

Per­haps, as Stephen Fry explains in the video clip above from his BBC doc­u­men­tary series Plan­et Word, we might bet­ter under­stand how casu­al dehu­man­iza­tion leads to fas­cism and geno­cide if we see how lan­guage has worked in his­to­ry. The Holo­caust, the most promi­nent but by no means only exam­ple of mass mur­der, could nev­er have hap­pened with­out the will­ing par­tic­i­pa­tion of what Daniel Gold­ha­gen called “ordi­nary Ger­mans” in his book Hitler’s Will­ing Exe­cu­tion­ers. Christo­pher Brown­ing’s Ordi­nary Men, about the Final Solu­tion in Poland, makes the point Fry makes above. Cul­tur­al fac­tors played their part, but there was noth­ing innate­ly Teu­ton­ic (or “Aryan”) about geno­cide. “We can all be grown up enough to know that it was human­i­ty doing some­thing to oth­er parts of human­i­ty,” says Fry. We’ve seen exam­ples in our life­times in Rwan­da, Myan­mar, and maybe wher­ev­er we live — ordi­nary humans talked into doing ter­ri­ble things to oth­er peo­ple.

But no mat­ter how often we encounter geno­ci­dal move­ments, it seems like “a mas­sive­ly dif­fi­cult thing to get your head around,” says Fry: “how ordi­nary peo­ple (and Ger­mans are ordi­nary peo­ple just like us)” could be made to com­mit atroc­i­ties. In the U.S., we have our own ver­sion of this — the his­to­ry of lynch­ing and its atten­dant indus­try of post­cards and even more gris­ly mem­o­ra­bil­ia, like the tro­phies ser­i­al killers col­lect. “In each one of these geno­ci­dal moments… each exam­ple was pre­ced­ed by lan­guage being used again and again and again to dehu­man­ize the per­son that had to be killed in the eyes of their ene­mies,” says Fry. He briefly elab­o­rates on the vari­eties of dehu­man­iz­ing anti-Semit­ic slurs that became com­mon in the 1930s, refer­ring to Jew­ish peo­ple, for exam­ple, as ver­min, apes, unter­men­schen, virus­es, “any­thing but a human being.”

“If you start to char­ac­ter­ize [some­one this way], week after week after week after week,” says Fry, cit­ing the con­stant radio broad­casts against the Tut­sis in the Rwan­dan geno­cide, “you start to think of some­one who is slight­ly sullen and dis­agree­able and you don’t like very much any­way, and you’re con­stant­ly get­ting the idea that they’re not actu­al­ly human. Then it seems it becomes pos­si­ble to do things to them we would call com­plete­ly unhu­man, and inhu­man, and lack­ing human­i­ty.” While it’s absolute­ly true, he says, that lan­guage “guar­an­tees our free­dom” through the “free exchange of ideas,” it can real­ly only do that when lan­guage users respect oth­ers’ rights. When, how­ev­er, we begin to see “spe­cial terms of insult for spe­cial kinds of peo­ple, then we can see very clear­ly, and his­to­ry demon­strates it time and time again, that’s when ordi­nary peo­ple are able to kill.”

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Umber­to Eco Makes a List of the 14 Com­mon Fea­tures of Fas­cism

Yale Pro­fes­sor Jason Stan­ley Iden­ti­fies 10 Tac­tics of Fas­cism: The “Cult of the Leader,” Law & Order, Vic­tim­hood and More

The Sto­ry of Fas­cism: Rick Steves’ Doc­u­men­tary Helps Us Learn from the Hard Lessons of the 20th Cen­tu­ry

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast