User:ImmerFisch/Different from the Others

Synopsis
The Same

Plot
The Same

Background
The film arose in a time where there was no national film censorship in Germany.

The film was premiered on May 28, 1919 in a special performance at the Berlin Apollo-Theater and then on May 30, 1919 at the Prinzeß-Theater. The film started out with 40 prints, which was a high number for the time and was initially successful. It was classified as an Aufklärungsfilm, or a sexual enlightenment film, in Germany. This film was also the first film that openly portrayed homosexuality.

Magnus Hirschfeld also filmed a documentary film entitled Laws of Love (Gesetze der Liebe) in 1927 which used a shortened version of the film Different from the Others to discuss the subject of homosexuality. Shortly after it was released, Laws of Love also fell to censorship laws, but not before a copy made its way to Ukraine, where it was subtitled in the local language. This version of Laws of Love was discovered by the city museum of Munich in the 1970’s.

A new censorship program was created in response to the film in May of 1920, and the film was banned except for private educational showings in August of 1920.

The original version of the film is no longer preserved, as the film copies were banned and destroyed. Because of this, large parts of the film were lost beyond recall. The current versions of the film were reconstructed from the shortened version of the film in Laws of Love. The Munich Film Museum has a restored version of the film, which was first released on VHS-cassette as a silent film with German intertitles. Since October of 2006, a DVD edition from the Munich Film Museum has been available in both German and English languages. This DVD version also includes a short documentary about the history of censorship and a section of Laws of Love.

Reception
This film, along with other moral and sexual enlightenment films, incited a cultural debate in Germany. Shortly after the premiere, conservative Catholic, Protestant, and anti-semitic groups started to protest and disturb the public screenings. Conservative and reactionary sides called for a reintroduction of censorship policy, claiming that they wanted to protect young people. Some people also reacted to the film with anti-Semitism, which was seen in a range of publications including strict conservative pages and the gay journals of Friedrich Radszuweit-Verlag. It was claimed that Hirschfeld and Oswald, who were both Jews, were promoting the Jewish vice of homosexuality.

In response to this controversy, censorship laws for cinema were re-launched in the Weimar Republic. These new film censorship laws were entitled the Reichslichtspielgesetz (Reich Cinema Act), and they were reinstated on May 12, 1920. The censorship commission consisted of three psychiatrists: Emil Kraepelin, Albert Moll, and Siegfried Placzek, all of whom were opponents of Hirschfeld and his advocacy of the legalization of homosexuality. Different from the Others was outlawed on August 18, 1920 that same year. This was the new censorship panel’s first review.

The judgment was that the film was biased towards Paragraph 175 and thus presents a one-sided view, confuses young audiences about homosexuality, and can be used for the recruitment of underage viewers to become homosexuals. The film was banned in several cities, including Munich and Stuttgart. Many copies of the film were destroyed after the film was banned and performances were restricted, only being allowed to be shown to preapproved groups such as doctors and other medical professionals in educational and scientific institutions. At the end, the only venue where the film was screened for public viewing was the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexology), where it was shown for education and at special events.

Reviews
Contemporary comments mirror the controversy that Different from the Others sparked. B.Z. on Midday wrote on August 18, 1919, after a private showing of the film, that the film had been a vehicle of anti-Semitic propaganda. However, there was a consensus among those invited that the film’s story did not seem indecent or unmoral. Those invited to this private showing included scientists, government officials, and writers.

Curt Moreck, in his book Sittengeschichte des Kinos (Moral Stories of Cinema) commented against the film in 1926. Looking back on the banned film, this criticism was on the grounds that the manufacturer of the film had sensed the deal: “Alone even in the revolution of the cinema industry, protests were loud, and the public opinion turned with a polyphonous choir against the risk, to make perverse phenomenons of sex life the content from sexual enlightenment films.” („Allein selbst in den Kreisen der Kinoindustrie wurden Proteste laut, und die öffentliche Meinung wandte sich mit einem vielstimmigen Chor gegen das Wagnis, perverse Erscheinungen des Sexuallebens zum Inhalt von Aufklärungsfilmen zu machen.“)

The Encyclopedia of International Films (Lexikon des internationalen Films) saw Oswald’s work completely positively: “The exemplary intimate play, the first German film about homosexuality, avoiding every cliché and shined with excellent performances” (“Das beispielhafte Kammerspiel, der erste deutsche film über Homosexualität, vermeidet jedes Klischee und glänzt mit exzellenten Darstellerleistungen.“)

Other information
The Same

Modern screenings
The Same

Cast
The Same