Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T03:03:11.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aristocrats, Gypsies, and Cowboys All: Film Stereotypes and Hungarian National Identity in the 1930s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

David S. Frey
David S. Frey*
Affiliation:
Columbia University, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among social psychologists, there has long been a debate over the concept of the stereotype. Are stereotypes meant mainly for consumption by an in-group or are they designed by and for curious outsiders? Are they primarily individual or collective? Are they benign generalizations and categories that make it easier for individuals or groups to perceive and organize the world around them? Or are they insipid and unsustainable generalizations, based on false information, exaggeration, unfairly rigid conceptual categories, or even the observer's laziness? Do they beget understanding or prejudice? These questions, many of which were first raised by Walter Lippmann when he published Public Opinion in 1922, still polarize the psychological profession today. They also continue to confound politicians who wish to construct coherent, distinct, and vibrant identities for their nations.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 383 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

* Research for this article was supported in part by a grant from the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), the Fulbright–Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad program administered by the U.S. Department of Education, and an American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) Fellowship for East European Studies. The author would like to express his gratitude to all of these organizations. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.Google Scholar

1. Lippmann was the first to define the term “stereotype.” The splits that developed between those who followed him are clearly outlined in a number of texts and articles, including Ashmore, Richard D. and Boca, Frances K. Del, “Conceptual Approaches to Stereotypes,” in Hamilton, David J., ed., Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior (Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum, 1981), pp. 1–35; Jacques-Philippe Leyens et al., Stereotypes and Social Cognition (London: Sage, 1994), pp. 9–51; Louk Hagendoorn, “Determinants and Dynamics of National Stereotypes,” Politics and the Individual, Vol.1, No.2, 1991, pp. 13–26; and James L. Hilton and William von Hippel, “Stereotypes,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47, 1996, pp. 237–271. A sampling of the recent literature reveals basic disagreements over whether stereotypes are intrinsically negative or whether they have positive purposes. In fact, there is no consensus about the meaning, measure, and content of the term “stereotype.” A representative of the negative view is Paul Lester, ed., Images that Injure: A Pictorial of Stereotypes in the Media (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996). Various functionalist conceptions of stereotypes can be found in Spears, Russell and Oakes, Penelope J. et al., eds, The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life (Maiden, MA: Blackwell, 1997). A more positive assessment of stereotypes can be found in Macrae, C. Neil, Stangor, Charles and Hewstone, Miles, eds, Stereotypes and Stereotyping (New York: Guilford Press, 1996).Google Scholar

2. My analysis takes as its starting point the hypothesis reached by György Hunyady, in his consideration of Hungarian stereotypes from the 1970s through the early 1990s. Hunyady concludes that it is not verifiable, “persistent object–trait associations that lie behind stereotyped characterizations, but generating processes.” Hunyady, Stereotypes during the Decline and Fall of Communism (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 296.Google Scholar

3. I refer to Hungary's film “élites”/“establishment” throughout this paper. These terms are interchangeable and designate Hungary's film professionals, cultural critics and government officials involved in the regulation of the movie industry. In so defining the film establishment, I am using Thomas Saunders’ work, Hollywood in Berlin, American Cinema and Weimar Germany, as a reference point. Saunders argues that, rather than critics alone, “a more essential filter for historians is the … motion picture establishment. … Their collective interests and opinions formed the commercial and ideological matrix for … cinema.” Saunders, however, defines the film establishment only as the “creative personnel (producers, directors, performers, and screen authors), entrepreneurs (Board directors, distributors, and theater owners), and an army of journalists, critics, advertisers and miscellaneous camp followers,” leaving out government bureaucrats. Considering the complex interconnections between and overlap among film producers and film regulators in Hungary, it would be impossible not to include governmental figures in any work on interwar Hungarian film. Quotes from Saunders, Hollywood in Berlin, American Cinema and Weimar Germany (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), p. 18.Google Scholar

4. Andor Lajta, “A magyar film története. V. A magyar hangosfilm korszak első 16 éve, 1929–44 [The History of Hungarian Film. Volume V: The First 16 Years of Hungarian Sound Film, 1929–44]” (Budapest: Szinháztudományi és Filmtudományi Intézet kézirat [Theater and Film Studies Institute unpublished manuscript], 1958), p. 12.Google Scholar

5. The Treaty of Trianon awarded two-thirds of Hungary's pre-war lands and 70% of its pre-war population to the new Habsburg successor states.Google Scholar

6. Marácz, László, “Western Images and Stereotypes of the Hungarians,” in Gerrits, Andre and Adler, Nancy, eds, Vampires Unstaked. National Images, Stereotypes and Myths in East Central Europe (Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, 1995), p. 35.Google Scholar

7. Bátony's, Gabor recent book, Britain and Central Europe, 1918–1933 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp. 117, 133, discusses some of the stereotypes British government bureaucrats ascribed to Hungarians. He quotes two officials. One claimed that the Hungarians were the “strongest race in Southern Eastern Europe,” while the other warned that if “the Austrian is by nature docile … the Hungarian [is] essentially the reverse.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. For an excellent reading of how Hungarian public opinion defined itself largely against Jews and Germans, see Peter Hanák, “The Image of Neighbors in the Hungarian Mirror,” in Gerrits and Adler, Vampires Unstaked. National Images, Stereotypes and Myths in East Central Europe, pp. 55–67.Google Scholar

9. Zoltán Gerevich to the Foreign Minister, Budapest, 5 May 1930. “Bizalmas! Tárgy: Magyar vonatkozásu filmek figyelemmel való kisérése külföldön” [Confidential! Subject: Films Relating to Hungary with Particular Attention to Those in Foreign Lands], Magyar Országos Levéltár [Hungarian National Archives] (hereafter MOL)—Külügyminisztérium [Foreign Ministry] K 66, 164 csomó, 1930, III-6/c: Film.Google Scholar

10. Minutes of the 18–19 January 1928 plenary session of the National Committee for the Examination of Motion Pictures, “Nemzetépítő irányelvek a filmcenzúrában [Nation-Building Directives in the Censorship of Film],” MOL—Belügyminisztérium [Interior Ministry] K 158, 14 csomó, 1944.Google Scholar

11. Ibid.Google Scholar

12. The National Censorship Committee (OMB) was overseen and dominated by the Interior Ministry, but it included representatives from the following ministries: Justice, Army, Cults and Education, Foreign Affairs, Treasury, Trade, and finally the Prime Ministry. A minority of its members were private film company representatives. In 1932, the Roman Catholic, Evangelical, and Lutheran churches won permanent seats on the OMB.Google Scholar

13. Quoted in László Ádám, “Anatole France, Tolsztoj, Mária Antoinette, a cár leánya és a makadámiai operette főherceg a magyar filmcenzura-bizottság indexén [Anatole France, Tolstoy, Marie Antoinette, The Czar's Daughter and the film operetta The Macademized Crowned Prince—on the Index of the Film Censorship Committee],” Esti Kurir, 25 December 1930, p. 13.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., p. 13.Google Scholar

15. 474/1931 OMB. sz, MOL—Belügyminisztérium [Interior Ministry] K 158, 3 csomó, 1932, p. 617. Censorship decision for Danton. In this decision, the censors refer to both 1848 and 1919 as “nation-killing” revolutions.Google Scholar

16. 862/1930 OMB. sz. MOL—Belügyminisztérium [Interior Ministry] K 158, 3 csomó, 1932, pp. 542–43; 548–49. Censorship decision for The Captain of the Guard (A Gárda Kapitánya).Google Scholar

17. See, for example, 1166/1930 OMB. sz. MOL—Belügyminisztérium [Interior Ministry] K 158, 3 csomó, 1932, pp. 575–580. Censorship decision for Olympia.Google Scholar

18. On controlling stereotype content for explicitly political purposes, see Reicher, Stephen, et al., “Stereotype Construction as a Strategy of Influence,” in Spears, Russell et al., eds, The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life (Maiden, MA: Blackwell, 1997), pp. 94–118.Google Scholar

19. For a more detailed analysis of this point, see my unpublished paper, “The Hungarian Censor Molds the Nation: Images of Hungary and Hungarians in Early Sound Film, 1930–31,” presented at the Southern Historical Association Annual Conference, Fort Worth, Texas, November 1999.Google Scholar

20. Stangor, Charles and Schaller, Mark, “Stereotypes as Individual and Collective Representations,” in Macrae, C. Neil et al., eds, Stereotypes and stereotyping (New York: Guilford Press, 1996), p. 13.Google Scholar

21. 629/1930 OMB. sz. MOL—Belügyminisztérium [Interior Ministry] K 158, 5 csomó, 1933, p. 15.Google Scholar

22. Németh, Dezső, “Magyar hangosfilmgyártás [Hungarian Sound Film Production],” Mozivilág, Vol. 2 (19), No. 13, 1930, p. 1.Google Scholar

23. Interior Minister Joszef Széll to Joseph Goebbels, coded Nr.157 789/1933 (undated, probably 30 November 1933). MOL Óbuda—Hunnia Filmgyár Rt, Z 1124, Raktári sz. 1, Dosszié sz. 20, pp. 218–219. Német-magyar filmcsere: megállapodások, levelezés a Német Birodalmi Fimkamarával, 1933–1942 [German–Hungarian film exchange: agreements, letters exchanged with the German Empire's Film Chamber, 1933–1942].Google Scholar

24. Lajta, Andor, “Magyar történelmi filmeket!” [Hungarian Historical Films!], Filmkultura, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1934, p. 12. Lajta, the editor of the premier film trade journal in Hungary, was a highly respected figure in the film industry.Google Scholar

25. This argument corresponds with the conclusions of Anthony Lyons and Yoshihisa Kashima, who suggest that in interpersonal communication, people generally favor “stereotype consistent” information over “stereotype inconsistent” information. In other words, they prefer tropes, forms and representations with which they are already familiar. See Kashima, Anthony Lyons and Yoshihisa, “The Reproduction of Culture: Communication Processes Tend to Maintain Cultural Stereotypes,” Social Cognition, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2001, pp. 372–394.Google Scholar

26. Béla Kempelen, “A filmgyártás jövő feladatai [The Future Tasks of Film Production],” Film Élet, No. 1, 1933, pp. 4–5. Kempelen's concept of Hungarianness shared many commonalities with other nativist and religious reactions to sound film occurring around the globe in the 1930s.Google Scholar

27. Henrik Castiglione, “Magyarország film-világpiaci jelentősége [The Significance of Hungary in the World Film Market],” Filmkultura, Vol. 7, Nos 7–8, 1934, pp. 1–4. Castiglione was also an advisor in the Trade Ministry and simultaneously the director of the Corso Theater, one of Budapest's most successful premier theaters.Google Scholar

28. Füki, János, “Hatósági jóindulat és kedvezmények szükségesek az uj vidéki mozik üzembehelyezésénél” [Official Goodwill and Discounts Necessary for Bringing New Countryside Theaters into Operation], Filmkultura, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1935, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

29. Member of Parliament Ernő Brody, quoted in an excerpted reprint of the 18–19 June 1935 Lower House hearings in Filmkultura, Vol. 8, Nos 7–8, 1935, p. 10.Google Scholar

30. András Komor, “Egy mozijáró naplójából [From the Diary of a Moviegoer],” Magyar Filmkurir, Vol. 10, Nos 49–52, 1936.Google Scholar

31. Lackó, Miklós, Korszellem és Tudomány 1910–1945 (Zeitgeist and Scholarship 1910–1945) (Budapest: Gondolat, 1988), pp. 181–210.Google Scholar

32. See the January 1936 editions of the radical rightist newspaper Uj Magyarság, edited by István Milotay.Google Scholar

33. Jóny, István, “Hozzászólás a nemzeti filmgyártáshoz” [Remarks about National Film Production], Bajtárs, 20 February 1936.Google Scholar

34. Ibid.Google Scholar

35. Nemes, Károly, in his well-known text on post-1945 Hungarian film, Films of Commitment. Socialist Cinema in Eastern Europe (Budapest: Corvina, 1985), p. 55, suggests that “inspired by the populist (‘village explorer') writers, the 1940s witnessed the ascent of peasant heroes in Hungarian films.” He is incorrect. This change began in the mid 1930s.Google Scholar

36. Güttler, Antal, “Legyen ‘új’ az új filmgyártás!” [Let the New Film Production Be “New”] Magyar Film, Vol. 1, No. 5, 1939, p. 2.Google Scholar

37. Eckhardt, Sándor, “A Magyarság Külföldi Arcképe” [The Portrait of Hungarianness Abroad], in Szekfű, Gyula, ed., Mi a magyar? (What is Hungarian?) (Budapest: Tarsadálmi Szemele, 1939), pp. 127–130.Google Scholar

38. O'Regan, Tom, Australian National Cinema (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 92.Google Scholar