What do you think?
Rate this book
From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film
A landmark, now classic, study of the rich cinematic history of the Weimar Republic, From Caligari to Hitler was first published by Princeton University Press in 1947. Siegfried Kracauer--a prominent German film critic and member of Walter Benjamin's and Theodor Adorno's intellectual circle--broke new ground in exploring the connections between film aesthetics, the prevailing psychological state of Germans in the Weimar era, and the evolving social and political reality of the time. Kracauer's pioneering book, which examines German history from 1921 to 1933 in light of such movies as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, M, Metropolis , and The Blue Angel , has never gone out of print. Now, over half a century after its first appearance, this beautifully designed and entirely new edition reintroduces Kracauer for the twenty-first century. Film scholar Leonardo Quaresima places Kracauer in context in a critical introduction, and updates the book further with a new bibliography, index, and list of inaccuracies that crept into the first edition. This volume is a must-have for the film historian, film theorist, or cinema enthusiast.
In From Caligari to Hitler , Siegfried Kracauer made a startling (and still controversial) films as a popular art provide insight into the unconscious motivations and fantasies of a nation. In films of the 1920s, he traced recurring visual and narrative tropes that expressed, he argued, a fear of chaos and a desire for order, even at the price of authoritarian rule. The book has become an undisputed classic of film historiography, laying the foundations for the serious study of film.
Kracauer was an important film critic in Weimar Germany. A Jew, he escaped the rise of Nazism, fleeing to Paris in 1933. Later, in anguish after Benjamin's suicide, he made his way to New York, where he remained until his death in 1966. He wrote From Caligari to Hitler while working as a "special assistant" to the curator of the Museum of Modern Art's film division. He was also on the editorial board of Bollingen Series. Despite many critiques of its attempt to link movies to historical outcomes, From Caligari to Hitler remains Kracauer's best-known and most influential book, and a seminal work in the study of film. Princeton published a revised edition of his Theory of The Redemption of Physical Reality in 1997 .
In From Caligari to Hitler , Siegfried Kracauer made a startling (and still controversial) films as a popular art provide insight into the unconscious motivations and fantasies of a nation. In films of the 1920s, he traced recurring visual and narrative tropes that expressed, he argued, a fear of chaos and a desire for order, even at the price of authoritarian rule. The book has become an undisputed classic of film historiography, laying the foundations for the serious study of film.
Kracauer was an important film critic in Weimar Germany. A Jew, he escaped the rise of Nazism, fleeing to Paris in 1933. Later, in anguish after Benjamin's suicide, he made his way to New York, where he remained until his death in 1966. He wrote From Caligari to Hitler while working as a "special assistant" to the curator of the Museum of Modern Art's film division. He was also on the editorial board of Bollingen Series. Despite many critiques of its attempt to link movies to historical outcomes, From Caligari to Hitler remains Kracauer's best-known and most influential book, and a seminal work in the study of film. Princeton published a revised edition of his Theory of The Redemption of Physical Reality in 1997 .
Paperback
First published January 1, 1947
115 people are currently reading
2861 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
January 1, 2014
I spent a great amount of time with Siegfried Kracauer over the last semester in a class I took on Weimar Cinema: along with this book, I also read a significant amount of his Weimar-era essays collected in the Mass Ornament. Of the books I read last semester, Caligari to Hitler was my favorite. Apart from being a good writer capable of beautiful phrases and stylistic flourishes, I find Kracauer to be an interesting, though tragic, figure. Schooled as an architect, he wrote intellectual pieces for German newspapers during the 20's, and was one of the first to take the ephemera of modern life (movies, hotel lobbies, can-can girls) as serious subjects worthy of observation. To say he thought them worthy of observation is not to say he thought them of worth; but just as someone today might analyze reality television, selfies, or tumblr, he was one of the first (at least in Germany) to see popular activities as a mirror of the populace itself. Today one can major in media studies if one chooses, but I find it interesting that the birth of this field of intellectual study began in newspapers, which could in theory be read by anyone capable of reading, making them arguably more relevant and “humane” than any such studies now, which are segregated to the enjoyment of a select intellectual circle and often laden with snobbish cynicism and a heritage of endless jargon.
It is then interesting that being one of the Godfathers of media theory, Kracauer was in some ways a self-made intellectual, inventing some of the jargon of theory out of whole cloth. With no history in the field to fall back to, his observations are more personal and “solution” based: whereas now one may observe media without a grandiose claim for relevance, Kracauer was always looking for the Answer of Big Questions. For example, his essays in the Mass Ornament seem to show him attempting to find for the modern age an Answer: no longer satisfied by the sanctity of church and alienated by the fleeting inhumanity of the hotel lobby, he never did find an Answer for How to Be in the modern age, and perhaps there is none. Nonetheless, I would propose one answer Kracauer, with his genuine German earnestness and seriousness, could never accept: to live in the modern age, one must play-act. One must be a part of the church and the lobby, commit to both but never fully to either, for total commitment to either inevitably leads to a fascism of your soul. But Kracauer never seems to have thought of compartmentalizing, of adopting multiple identities for multiple roles. His way of thinking is too serious, and he sees to redemption though levity.
Caligari to Hitler was attempted years after the Third Reich had fallen, after Kracauer had forgone any versatility in his observations and had become more rigid in his judgments. Before the Nazis had irrevocably conquered the hearts and minds of Germany but were quickly rising to such power, Kracauer had been offered jobs at leftist newspapers but had turned them down, perhaps believing, in vain, in the power of public debate over preaching to a complicit audience. Perhaps like other intellectuals his view of the Nazis at that time was also one of incredulousness, for how could such an obvious conglomeration of buffoons and thugs and schmaltz win the hearts and minds of Germany?
And yet the Nazis soon did conquer Germany’s spirit, with schmaltz and platitudes and violence. The same Germany that saw during the Weimar Republic an era of progressive ideas and sexual freedom became willfully conquered by authoritarian rule and fascistic ideology. And Kracauer had seen his friends murdered, and been forced to exile himself to America.
Caligari to Hitler was then his attempt, after the war had ended and with funds procured by the US government, to discover why the Third Reich had happened. He had found no answers to the modern age in the Weimar Era, but perhaps he could find why they had not been found, or rather why the final answer had become the Final Solution.
The flaws of such an approach are expressed very well by Leonardo Quaresima in his introduction when he describes it as “history [being] read backwards and forced to follow its own footsteps.” Caligari to Hitler is an exhaustive survey of most of the films produced by Germany in the Weimar Period, with an emphasis on the plots of the ones Kracauer (sometimes inaccurately) remembers, or has interviewed people about, or has access to (films being not as accessible as they are now, and some lost to time). His perspective is often cycloptic, for he reads into everything a subconscious premonition of fascism. His perspective is then itself fascist, as he can no longer read any ambiguity into anything. At best, he comes off as obsessive, at worse, a conspiracy theorist. In his mind, no film did enough, no progressive movement pushed hard enough at another Answer to oppose the Nazi’s Solution. He gives the devil his due, and often seems to admire the Nazi film’s ability to cunningly ape the style of its predecessors, to force its will through emotional manipulation on its audience. He wished leftist films had the same strength, but does not seem to grasp if they did they would not be good films, and in their own way fascist. He seems to want the impossible in films, some ideal cinematic progressive propaganda vision, and sees the lack of this vision, be it through popular and sentimental or artistic and ambiguous films, to be complicit with the rise of fascism. And yet it seems to me (and perhaps this is reading in too much) that by saying the left never did enough to offer an option beyond fascism he is also saying, “I did not do enough to offer a solution beyond fascism. And yet there must have been a solution. There must have been another solution, and I will find it if I search.”
But alas no solution is found, except for the false one of reading everything as a precedent to evil. Nonetheless, Kracauer’s surveys are always interesting, and his analysis of the use of maps in Nazi films is something I’ve never thought of before. Interestingly, he seems to be especially critical of youth films because the Nazis were particularly adept at influencing their disciples when they were young and in need of direction and discipline.
Perhaps Caligari to Hitler is in its own way a warning tale against a sort of humane, personal approach to media analysis, the kind replaced since the 70’s by an often detached, ambiguous, politically-oriented one. Kracauer is certainly a snob, and in many ways elitist, but he seemed generally convinced he could find the solution to modernity’s biggest questions through an analysis of movies, through finding the Perfect Movie. The fact that his quest is ultimately fruitless and desperate makes one believe that such an approach can only lead inevitably to heartbreak.
It is then interesting that being one of the Godfathers of media theory, Kracauer was in some ways a self-made intellectual, inventing some of the jargon of theory out of whole cloth. With no history in the field to fall back to, his observations are more personal and “solution” based: whereas now one may observe media without a grandiose claim for relevance, Kracauer was always looking for the Answer of Big Questions. For example, his essays in the Mass Ornament seem to show him attempting to find for the modern age an Answer: no longer satisfied by the sanctity of church and alienated by the fleeting inhumanity of the hotel lobby, he never did find an Answer for How to Be in the modern age, and perhaps there is none. Nonetheless, I would propose one answer Kracauer, with his genuine German earnestness and seriousness, could never accept: to live in the modern age, one must play-act. One must be a part of the church and the lobby, commit to both but never fully to either, for total commitment to either inevitably leads to a fascism of your soul. But Kracauer never seems to have thought of compartmentalizing, of adopting multiple identities for multiple roles. His way of thinking is too serious, and he sees to redemption though levity.
Caligari to Hitler was attempted years after the Third Reich had fallen, after Kracauer had forgone any versatility in his observations and had become more rigid in his judgments. Before the Nazis had irrevocably conquered the hearts and minds of Germany but were quickly rising to such power, Kracauer had been offered jobs at leftist newspapers but had turned them down, perhaps believing, in vain, in the power of public debate over preaching to a complicit audience. Perhaps like other intellectuals his view of the Nazis at that time was also one of incredulousness, for how could such an obvious conglomeration of buffoons and thugs and schmaltz win the hearts and minds of Germany?
And yet the Nazis soon did conquer Germany’s spirit, with schmaltz and platitudes and violence. The same Germany that saw during the Weimar Republic an era of progressive ideas and sexual freedom became willfully conquered by authoritarian rule and fascistic ideology. And Kracauer had seen his friends murdered, and been forced to exile himself to America.
Caligari to Hitler was then his attempt, after the war had ended and with funds procured by the US government, to discover why the Third Reich had happened. He had found no answers to the modern age in the Weimar Era, but perhaps he could find why they had not been found, or rather why the final answer had become the Final Solution.
The flaws of such an approach are expressed very well by Leonardo Quaresima in his introduction when he describes it as “history [being] read backwards and forced to follow its own footsteps.” Caligari to Hitler is an exhaustive survey of most of the films produced by Germany in the Weimar Period, with an emphasis on the plots of the ones Kracauer (sometimes inaccurately) remembers, or has interviewed people about, or has access to (films being not as accessible as they are now, and some lost to time). His perspective is often cycloptic, for he reads into everything a subconscious premonition of fascism. His perspective is then itself fascist, as he can no longer read any ambiguity into anything. At best, he comes off as obsessive, at worse, a conspiracy theorist. In his mind, no film did enough, no progressive movement pushed hard enough at another Answer to oppose the Nazi’s Solution. He gives the devil his due, and often seems to admire the Nazi film’s ability to cunningly ape the style of its predecessors, to force its will through emotional manipulation on its audience. He wished leftist films had the same strength, but does not seem to grasp if they did they would not be good films, and in their own way fascist. He seems to want the impossible in films, some ideal cinematic progressive propaganda vision, and sees the lack of this vision, be it through popular and sentimental or artistic and ambiguous films, to be complicit with the rise of fascism. And yet it seems to me (and perhaps this is reading in too much) that by saying the left never did enough to offer an option beyond fascism he is also saying, “I did not do enough to offer a solution beyond fascism. And yet there must have been a solution. There must have been another solution, and I will find it if I search.”
But alas no solution is found, except for the false one of reading everything as a precedent to evil. Nonetheless, Kracauer’s surveys are always interesting, and his analysis of the use of maps in Nazi films is something I’ve never thought of before. Interestingly, he seems to be especially critical of youth films because the Nazis were particularly adept at influencing their disciples when they were young and in need of direction and discipline.
Perhaps Caligari to Hitler is in its own way a warning tale against a sort of humane, personal approach to media analysis, the kind replaced since the 70’s by an often detached, ambiguous, politically-oriented one. Kracauer is certainly a snob, and in many ways elitist, but he seemed generally convinced he could find the solution to modernity’s biggest questions through an analysis of movies, through finding the Perfect Movie. The fact that his quest is ultimately fruitless and desperate makes one believe that such an approach can only lead inevitably to heartbreak.
January 26, 2019
I have always been interested in the early German films and directors and this "go to" reference is a classic of its kind. The author, a German film critic and professor who fled the Nazis, provides something a little different for the film student as he looks at the psychological meanings of certain films and why they were made at a particular time in Germany. He places each film in the era from the Great War to the rise of Hitler and puts forth his thesis of how each film was affected by the psychology of the German people. Many of his thoughts are logical and learned but the reader must always remember that these are only his conclusions with which one might not agree. Because of the age of the book, some of the films that Kracauer brushed off at the time have since been re-examined, such as Fritz Lang's magnificent Metropolis and are now considered masterpieces.
The book can be dense at times but offers some interesting aspects of early German film making at its best.
The book can be dense at times but offers some interesting aspects of early German film making at its best.
September 18, 2014
I almost had to buy this book on Amazon. There was no copy to be found in the entire greater Columbia, SC library system. I didn’t particularly want to own this book, and luckily my boyfriend was able to obtain a copy from a small satellite branch of USC. When I finally received the musty book there was a card glued to the back, listing all the dates when it had been checked out. The book was checked out less than a dozen times since it was purchased by USC Beaufort in 1972. My checkout date was scrawled at the bottom of the list (7/14) and the entry before that was from 3/95. I tried to imagine this lonely book sitting on the shelf for almost two decades. When it was last checked out I was in elementary school and knew nothing of the joys of German expressionism and silent film. I grew up, graduated elementary school and high school, got a B.S. in chemistry, moved to New York, got a master’s degree and moved to South Carolina where I was finally able to rendezvous with this book. All while it waited patiently in Beaufort.
My point is that this doesn’t seem to be a very popular book, despite the fact that Rodger Ebert described it as, “one of the most well-known books about movies ever written”. The magic of Netflix streaming has allowed me to gain a newfound interest in silent movies. After watching a dozen or so, I quickly realized that many of the best silent movies were made in Germany (Metropolis, The Last Laugh etc.). That struck me as odd because nowadays, Germany is not known for its film industry. It seemed likely to me that some sort of serendipity occurred in Germany in the 10’s, 20’s and 30’s that lead to the creation of masterpieces. This period is also an interesting moment in German history; the rebuilding of the economy after WWI, the rise of socialism and Hitler. I was intrigued and wanted to know more.
Stephen Kracauer’s book can be easily summarized in one word, “paralyzed”. He uses that word several dozen times in each chapter. It refers to the confusion of the German public after WWI and their unwillingness to extend their emotional and intellectual boundaries. Kracauer explains in detail how popular movies produced during this era exposed the immaturity of the German people during this period. Many German silent movies show the folly of rebellion, with the rebellious hero either returning, cowed, to his mother’s embrace or learning the value of authority. Other movies show the nascent growth of the use of film as a means of propaganda, a skill that reached fruition during WWII. Anyone can use hindsight to find the seeds of Nazism in pre-war German culture, but Kracauer has a unique perspective because he was a German film critic since the 1910’s. He is able to refer back to his past writings, and those of his fellow critics, and discern the authoritarian yearnings in mass entertainment.
I can’t imagine that this book would be interesting for someone unfamiliar with silent movies. I’m very interested in its subject matter and I still found it a chore to get through. It reads like a thesis, with lots of repetition and conjecture. However, if you’re looking for a book that will give you a deeper understanding of German silent film, this is it. Hopefully this book won’t have to wait another twenty years to be checked out again.
My point is that this doesn’t seem to be a very popular book, despite the fact that Rodger Ebert described it as, “one of the most well-known books about movies ever written”. The magic of Netflix streaming has allowed me to gain a newfound interest in silent movies. After watching a dozen or so, I quickly realized that many of the best silent movies were made in Germany (Metropolis, The Last Laugh etc.). That struck me as odd because nowadays, Germany is not known for its film industry. It seemed likely to me that some sort of serendipity occurred in Germany in the 10’s, 20’s and 30’s that lead to the creation of masterpieces. This period is also an interesting moment in German history; the rebuilding of the economy after WWI, the rise of socialism and Hitler. I was intrigued and wanted to know more.
Stephen Kracauer’s book can be easily summarized in one word, “paralyzed”. He uses that word several dozen times in each chapter. It refers to the confusion of the German public after WWI and their unwillingness to extend their emotional and intellectual boundaries. Kracauer explains in detail how popular movies produced during this era exposed the immaturity of the German people during this period. Many German silent movies show the folly of rebellion, with the rebellious hero either returning, cowed, to his mother’s embrace or learning the value of authority. Other movies show the nascent growth of the use of film as a means of propaganda, a skill that reached fruition during WWII. Anyone can use hindsight to find the seeds of Nazism in pre-war German culture, but Kracauer has a unique perspective because he was a German film critic since the 1910’s. He is able to refer back to his past writings, and those of his fellow critics, and discern the authoritarian yearnings in mass entertainment.
I can’t imagine that this book would be interesting for someone unfamiliar with silent movies. I’m very interested in its subject matter and I still found it a chore to get through. It reads like a thesis, with lots of repetition and conjecture. However, if you’re looking for a book that will give you a deeper understanding of German silent film, this is it. Hopefully this book won’t have to wait another twenty years to be checked out again.
May 3, 2007
Kracauer's treatise on that most influential of German Expressionist films is very well-known in film circles and is an interesting read, but it doesn't hold up to today's scrutiny and should really only be read for historical purposes. His central thesis, that The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was a reflection of the changing social mindset of post-World War I Germany and predicted the rise of Nazism, is not only far-fetched, but it's not well fleshed out. He doesn't address nearly enough German films to establish the German social mindset of the time, and it's clear that he hasn't seen Caligari in a while. Maybe we can forgive him this, because this was before the DVD (or even VHS) era, but it makes the book a real anachronism.
November 8, 2007
a pretty fascinating look at the flow between art and culture. it's a little more of a "chicken and the egg" relationship than the book wants to admit - it basically takes the stance that germany's weimar cinema paved the psychological road for hitler's rise to power - but the bottom line is that it is one of the first serious discussions of films power over political and cultural zeitgeist. just because it's popular entertainment doesn't mean it won't influence the way we think, people.
May 7, 2016
Fascinating for fans of film history. Apply some analysis to your own countries films - you'll be amazed
January 18, 2025
rating: 3.5/5 stars
~
Genuinely examines the facets of German film, what was banned and what was sold as high media, and the slow rise of National Socialism.
Or
I read this for capstone but instead I achieved a new list on Letterboxd to watch.
~
Genuinely examines the facets of German film, what was banned and what was sold as high media, and the slow rise of National Socialism.
Or
I read this for capstone but instead I achieved a new list on Letterboxd to watch.
Want to read
December 25, 2023کراکائر در این کتاب نشان می دهد که چگونه سینمای اکسپرسیونیستی دهه 20 آلمان و درخشان ترین نمونه ی آن یعنی «مطب دکتر کالیگاری» فریادگونه آمادگی ملت آلمان برای برآمدن قدرتی فاش��ستی را نوید می داد . (چقدر آشنا)
این کتاب یکی از مهم ترین منابع در مطالعه ی زیباشناسی فاشیستی درکنار آثار متفکرانی همچون والتر بنیامین وتئودور آدورنوست.
این کتاب یکی از مهم ترین منابع در مطالعه ی زیباشناسی فاشیستی درکنار آثار متفکرانی همچون والتر بنیامین وتئودور آدورنوست.
February 17, 2019
I have to admit only spot-reading this for specific information over the years, but it is worthy of its reputation. Kracauer definitely raised the bar for film analysis in the 1940s, considering socio-political-psychological dimensions in film art, in this case aimed at a specific subset of work in movie history, and in light of the catastrophe of Germany as this art was made. Some of it goes over my head, but it's not TOO far out there, and I like Kracauer's individual voice.
kr, eg '19
kr, eg '19
June 12, 2019
As far as his thesis goes, there seems little point in typing yet another pillory against Kracauer’s outmoded and fallacious psychological approach to art, national character, and historicism. In short, his argument relies too deeply on assumptions, on unifications, and on specific interpretation; that sexuality goes essentially unmentioned (even when discussing Mädchen in Uniform, for which sexuality is effectively unavoidable) is one such indication of Kracauer’s individual approach, an approach invalidated by equally valid alternative readings. But From Caligari to Hitler is by no means a worthless text in light of its unconvincing gist; it is in its precise analyses of films and its survey of the German cinema (which, bar its discussion on early cinema, is still eminently relevant) that this book holds as a necessary read for any interested in that febrile era for the moving image. A work not of psychological history – as it is billed – but rather one of criticism, a thematic investigation of authoritarianism on the German screen (a theme whose consistency is convincingly argued, albeit this consistency relies upon Kracauer’s film selection, one that isn’t comprehensive). Kracauer’s insight in particular film movements is also worth consideration, particular the economic and artistic conditions that led to Expressionism’s defeat and New Objectivity’s rise, as well as the technical trends that accompanied the move from silence to sound. A text that requires critical engagement and something of a dubious eye, but there is plenty here of interest nonetheless.
February 28, 2008
A super fascinating subject matter - where culture, (evil) politics, and cinema art all meet up. Siegfried Kracauer is very much like Walter Benjamin, in that he looks at popular culture and writes about it in a new light. Basically what this book is about is Germany from the 20's to the 30's. Kind of scary in its scope and how mass entertainment or art can be reflective of what is happening in the (that) world.
March 4, 2021
This was a very slow read, mostly because it's just not very good.
It saddens me to have to write that, as I absolutely love the subject matter here - German cinema of the 1920s was one of the most exciting periods in filmmaking history, and several of my favourite films of all time were produced by this movement (specifically, Metropolis, Faust, The Last Laugh, Die Nibelungen, Destiny). The problem is that the central idea of this book - that German films produced from 1918-1933 somehow convey the state of the broader national psyche, specifically its nascent suspecibility to Nazism - is poorly argued and ultimately unconvincing.
The author's argument is, surprisingly, barely present - it is the topic of the book's introduction, and is returned to in its closing pages. Everything in between is a survey of the films made in the 15-year period from the end of the First World War through to Hitler's ascension to power. Said survey mostly consists of descriptions of the films' plots and occasional interjections of Kracauer's interpretations of their significance (or lack thereof).
Fundamentally, I disagree with Kracauer's suggestion that a society's films can be viewed as indicative of its totalitarian leanings - repeatedly, Krauauer undermines his own argument by highlighting examples of character types and plots that he interprets as proving his point; in fact, said character types and plots can be observed in the films of any number of countries producing works in the same decade. If employment of such devices indicate totalitarianism in Germany, why not in the US?
The whole thing reeks of Kracauer interpreting every film he discusses in accordance with his theory - films are chosen selectively to prove Kraucauer's hypothesis, instead of being employed to test its accuracy. Really, this is more interesting as a window into a world that was desperately trying to make sense of how Nazi Germany could have come about in the first place - the book was published in 1947, and while I have no interest in denying Kraucauer's personal experience of living through the era it's impossible to read this book without feeling frustrated by its crippling subjectivity (which is only a problem because the book situates itself as presenting some wider truth).
The book would be of far greater value if it had focused on a smaller number of films and closely examined each of them, taking into account the stories of the people making it and the wider forces that informed the film's production. The book does this with Caligari itself, but even in discussing that film it's lacking in detail and demonstrates little.
I don't feel like I completely wasted my time as I discovered plenty of new films to investigate further/add to my watchlist, but this was a real disappointment. I'm baffled by its influence, and can't help but think this topic deserves a much better book.
It saddens me to have to write that, as I absolutely love the subject matter here - German cinema of the 1920s was one of the most exciting periods in filmmaking history, and several of my favourite films of all time were produced by this movement (specifically, Metropolis, Faust, The Last Laugh, Die Nibelungen, Destiny). The problem is that the central idea of this book - that German films produced from 1918-1933 somehow convey the state of the broader national psyche, specifically its nascent suspecibility to Nazism - is poorly argued and ultimately unconvincing.
The author's argument is, surprisingly, barely present - it is the topic of the book's introduction, and is returned to in its closing pages. Everything in between is a survey of the films made in the 15-year period from the end of the First World War through to Hitler's ascension to power. Said survey mostly consists of descriptions of the films' plots and occasional interjections of Kracauer's interpretations of their significance (or lack thereof).
Fundamentally, I disagree with Kracauer's suggestion that a society's films can be viewed as indicative of its totalitarian leanings - repeatedly, Krauauer undermines his own argument by highlighting examples of character types and plots that he interprets as proving his point; in fact, said character types and plots can be observed in the films of any number of countries producing works in the same decade. If employment of such devices indicate totalitarianism in Germany, why not in the US?
The whole thing reeks of Kracauer interpreting every film he discusses in accordance with his theory - films are chosen selectively to prove Kraucauer's hypothesis, instead of being employed to test its accuracy. Really, this is more interesting as a window into a world that was desperately trying to make sense of how Nazi Germany could have come about in the first place - the book was published in 1947, and while I have no interest in denying Kraucauer's personal experience of living through the era it's impossible to read this book without feeling frustrated by its crippling subjectivity (which is only a problem because the book situates itself as presenting some wider truth).
The book would be of far greater value if it had focused on a smaller number of films and closely examined each of them, taking into account the stories of the people making it and the wider forces that informed the film's production. The book does this with Caligari itself, but even in discussing that film it's lacking in detail and demonstrates little.
I don't feel like I completely wasted my time as I discovered plenty of new films to investigate further/add to my watchlist, but this was a real disappointment. I'm baffled by its influence, and can't help but think this topic deserves a much better book.
January 30, 2008
A classic in German film studies. How early German film mirrored the pre-Hitler German subconscious.
November 18, 2024
A cornerstone text in midcentury film criticism, this analysis of German films before and just after the Nazis' rise to power and how they reflected national mood is as hefty and informative as its reputation, and I'm glad to read it after I have already encountered the majority of the major films covered within it (Waxworks is a huge blind spot). I identify pretty strongly with Kracauer's thesis that film culture is a vital artistic monitor of how society sees itself -- I think the generally barren nature of modern movies is instructive in that regard even if it doesn't make me "appreciate" them -- but I do think that he has a tendency to see things within a very narrow purview. As an example, even though G.W. Pabst is one of the main figures in the second half of the book, the author spends barely a paragraph on Pandora's Box, which is now I think pretty widely considered his greatest achievement (though I prefer Diary of a Lost Girl, toward which Kracauer is a bit kinder), and dismisses it artistically. Part of the reason for this is that he is unable to tie it very closely to his larger ideas about German society and declares it a fairly simplistic moral scold; he does the same with Metropolis and Faust. Of course, it's been a century now since these films were made and we can now view them in a way that, while not necessarily divorced from the economic and social problems of the Weimar Republic, has allowed their utility and beauty in a broader and more universal sense to become obvious.
The other limitations of Kracauer's outlook are more philosophical, and become obvious when he looks at something like Pabst's Westfront 1918: he praises the film to the skies artistically but accuses it of, despite its pacifism, failing to imagine what a world beyond war might actually look like. I have heard similar arguments about Citizen Kane being anti-capitalist yet seeming to accept capitalism and power as inevitabilities, and my argument against that would be that the only way to avoid this would be to divorce these films from art altogether and force them to be wholly polemical. That said, I can certainly understand why in a world as ravaged as it was in 1946, such a broader view might have seemed ideal.
In fact, very few films come out receiving unequivocal praise in the book; Lang's M and Destiny and of course Wiene's The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari are among the very, very scattered exceptions. But I think this makes the book more useful, not less, for the same reason that I think Michael Barrier's Hollywood Cartoons is easily the best book on animation ever written because he judges most films he covers so harshly. This book is crucial as a work of history, as a document of where film criticism and film historiography both stood at the time of publication (1946), and as tempting as it is to accuse Kracauer of lacking the perspective of time here, his points are well-argued and go a long way toward establishing a very clear compass for understanding how cinema (and art, by extension) works in the midst of absolute catastrophe. I would make the same claim for Jonathan Rosenbaum, who hates many films I love but whose moral perspective is consistent and strong and fully convicted. And to me, that makes for the absolute best film writing, rather than someone who constantly interrupts their analysis with "neutral" perspectives. This book clarifies so brilliantly how the Weimar film in particular was a culmination of so many aspects of the American, Scandinavian and Soviet art, and how of course it moved well beyond that before being crushed by the propaganda machine, which it also managed to predict with considerable directness. And maybe even more than a terrific film book, it's a terrific book about how the kind of confusion and apathy that lingered after the first war can so easily lay the groundwork for fascism. To state the obvious, while the situations are of course quite different for any number of reasons, it was a sobering book to read in the current moment.
The other limitations of Kracauer's outlook are more philosophical, and become obvious when he looks at something like Pabst's Westfront 1918: he praises the film to the skies artistically but accuses it of, despite its pacifism, failing to imagine what a world beyond war might actually look like. I have heard similar arguments about Citizen Kane being anti-capitalist yet seeming to accept capitalism and power as inevitabilities, and my argument against that would be that the only way to avoid this would be to divorce these films from art altogether and force them to be wholly polemical. That said, I can certainly understand why in a world as ravaged as it was in 1946, such a broader view might have seemed ideal.
In fact, very few films come out receiving unequivocal praise in the book; Lang's M and Destiny and of course Wiene's The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari are among the very, very scattered exceptions. But I think this makes the book more useful, not less, for the same reason that I think Michael Barrier's Hollywood Cartoons is easily the best book on animation ever written because he judges most films he covers so harshly. This book is crucial as a work of history, as a document of where film criticism and film historiography both stood at the time of publication (1946), and as tempting as it is to accuse Kracauer of lacking the perspective of time here, his points are well-argued and go a long way toward establishing a very clear compass for understanding how cinema (and art, by extension) works in the midst of absolute catastrophe. I would make the same claim for Jonathan Rosenbaum, who hates many films I love but whose moral perspective is consistent and strong and fully convicted. And to me, that makes for the absolute best film writing, rather than someone who constantly interrupts their analysis with "neutral" perspectives. This book clarifies so brilliantly how the Weimar film in particular was a culmination of so many aspects of the American, Scandinavian and Soviet art, and how of course it moved well beyond that before being crushed by the propaganda machine, which it also managed to predict with considerable directness. And maybe even more than a terrific film book, it's a terrific book about how the kind of confusion and apathy that lingered after the first war can so easily lay the groundwork for fascism. To state the obvious, while the situations are of course quite different for any number of reasons, it was a sobering book to read in the current moment.
October 25, 2020
This book, which introduced German film theory to English-speaking readers and much of German silent film to audiences which had seen little of it, is probably one of the best-known film theory books ever written. First published in 1947, shortly after the Second World War, it remains well-known, even as much of its assertions and approaches have been long-since questioned. It’s hard to get away from, especially if you have any interest in Expressionism and its influence on global cinema.
Kracauer was a German refugee from Hitler, who had spent the Third Reich abroad, ultimately landing in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, among its wonderful collection of historical film, and encourage by the curator of that collection Iris Barry, to make a study of Weimar-era German film. He was uniquely qualified, having been a film critic in Germany at the time, so the viewings he undertook at MoMA were largely refreshers, and he also had access to film programs and the writings of many other critics, so claims that he was working from a failing memory are simply incorrect. However, as a Marxist who was determined to “prove” that the German cinema exposed all the failings in German psychology that led directly to the horrors of the Third Reich, he certainly had an axe to grind, and grind it he did.
In short, he finds most German movies to be “immature,” “anti-democratic,” “romantic, “wistful” and generally celebratory of authoritarianism. One can argue his conclusions point-by-point, but this is better saved for updated reviews of the films themselves. What seems more telling is that the films he dismisses – “Der Golem,” “Pandora’s Box,” “Berlin: Symphony of a City,“ “Metropolis,” and the titular “Cabinet of Dr. Caligari,” are among the most globally famous and popular movies of that era, while the few he praises (mostly socialist propaganda films) are largely lost, forgotten, or unpopular when screened today. He might well argue that modern audiences are victim to all of the impulses that led to Nazism, and he might even have a point, but it’s fair to say that most critics find substance in these films that he missed.
The book is still worth it for scholars and students of film, in part because it has been so influential that one needs to read it to understand what later critics are arguing against, but most readers will find many of his conclusions dubious or simplistic.
Kracauer was a German refugee from Hitler, who had spent the Third Reich abroad, ultimately landing in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, among its wonderful collection of historical film, and encourage by the curator of that collection Iris Barry, to make a study of Weimar-era German film. He was uniquely qualified, having been a film critic in Germany at the time, so the viewings he undertook at MoMA were largely refreshers, and he also had access to film programs and the writings of many other critics, so claims that he was working from a failing memory are simply incorrect. However, as a Marxist who was determined to “prove” that the German cinema exposed all the failings in German psychology that led directly to the horrors of the Third Reich, he certainly had an axe to grind, and grind it he did.
In short, he finds most German movies to be “immature,” “anti-democratic,” “romantic, “wistful” and generally celebratory of authoritarianism. One can argue his conclusions point-by-point, but this is better saved for updated reviews of the films themselves. What seems more telling is that the films he dismisses – “Der Golem,” “Pandora’s Box,” “Berlin: Symphony of a City,“ “Metropolis,” and the titular “Cabinet of Dr. Caligari,” are among the most globally famous and popular movies of that era, while the few he praises (mostly socialist propaganda films) are largely lost, forgotten, or unpopular when screened today. He might well argue that modern audiences are victim to all of the impulses that led to Nazism, and he might even have a point, but it’s fair to say that most critics find substance in these films that he missed.
The book is still worth it for scholars and students of film, in part because it has been so influential that one needs to read it to understand what later critics are arguing against, but most readers will find many of his conclusions dubious or simplistic.
January 22, 2023
A 1947 Milestone in Film Analysis is Flawed
As International Holocaust Remembrance Day approaches in 2023, I am reading or re-reading a number of books about the rise of Nazism, including this classic that I first read while pursuing Film Studies at the University of Michigan in 1973. From Amazon, I purchased this 2019 Princeton edition and I am writing this review to urge any readers interested in this book to buy this newer version of the book. The opening piece by Italian film scholar Leonardo Quaresima is a strong signal to readers today that we are reading a historical document, when we open this book.
The strength of this pioneering book was that Kracauer researched this book during the turbulence of World War II. He had served throughout the 1920s and early 1930s as one of the leading journalists covering film and literature in Germany for the Frankfurter Zeitung.
His book was an astonishing project, launched long before studies of film and culture became commonplace around the world. In its pages, he argued that what had just unfolded in his Germany was mirrored in what Germans were seeing in their community theaters. He also argued that these powerful images in popular culture may have shaped and fueled deadly trends in German culture.
Reading his book today, however, all his flaws in the coverage of film history are glaring. There was so much he did not know, so much he could not research because he was writing his book long before archival discoveries that came much later.
I was glad to have discovered his book in 1973. It helped shape my vocation as a young journalist studying at UofM. I am also glad that I have just re-read his book to remember the energy and urgency that springs from his text.
However, I am writing this review to urge any future readers to get this Princeton edition and to realize that the original book was full of unavoidable flaws because it was written by a journalist without benefit of proper historical reflection.
As International Holocaust Remembrance Day approaches in 2023, I am reading or re-reading a number of books about the rise of Nazism, including this classic that I first read while pursuing Film Studies at the University of Michigan in 1973. From Amazon, I purchased this 2019 Princeton edition and I am writing this review to urge any readers interested in this book to buy this newer version of the book. The opening piece by Italian film scholar Leonardo Quaresima is a strong signal to readers today that we are reading a historical document, when we open this book.
The strength of this pioneering book was that Kracauer researched this book during the turbulence of World War II. He had served throughout the 1920s and early 1930s as one of the leading journalists covering film and literature in Germany for the Frankfurter Zeitung.
His book was an astonishing project, launched long before studies of film and culture became commonplace around the world. In its pages, he argued that what had just unfolded in his Germany was mirrored in what Germans were seeing in their community theaters. He also argued that these powerful images in popular culture may have shaped and fueled deadly trends in German culture.
Reading his book today, however, all his flaws in the coverage of film history are glaring. There was so much he did not know, so much he could not research because he was writing his book long before archival discoveries that came much later.
I was glad to have discovered his book in 1973. It helped shape my vocation as a young journalist studying at UofM. I am also glad that I have just re-read his book to remember the energy and urgency that springs from his text.
However, I am writing this review to urge any future readers to get this Princeton edition and to realize that the original book was full of unavoidable flaws because it was written by a journalist without benefit of proper historical reflection.
January 25, 2022
Pra quem não sabe em 2019 eu comecei uma aventura (que durou 2 anos) pelo cinema mudo, assisti todos os clássicos e inclusive alguns filmes menos falados que me chamaram a atenção também. De lá pra cá eu ganhei um conhecimento da história do cinema que eu nunca tinha adquirido até então, mesmo estudando esse tema na faculdade. Quanto mais eu aprendia mais eu quis aprender sobre os anos clássicos da sétima arte. O que me levou a este livro
Tento visto todos os principais filmes alemães da pré-guerra, eu me interessei por De Caligari a Hitler pelo motivo de explorar esse cânone pelo ponto de vista psicológico e sociopolítico, algo do qual não tenho muito conhecimento. E a leitura das análises históricas que Siegfried Kracauer faz sobre esse período da Alemanha foi incrivelmente interessante. Aprendi muito lendo este livro
O Kracauer cria uma linha do tempo desde o começo do cinema na Alemanha até o Terceiro Reich ser formado. A partir disso ele descreve o que ocorreu com o inconsciente coletivo alemão depois da Primeira Guerra e como o cinema do país indica as mudanças psicológicas da população que fomentaram os pensamentos nazistas e permitiram o crescimento de Hitler ao poder. Em alguns momentos ele parece ser meio esotérico no seu estudo, mas em outros ele apresenta observações bem lúcidas que fazem completo sentido.
É um livro essencial pra quem gosta de história do cinema e se interessa pelo elemento ideológico que permeia todas as obras culturais, desde as mais simples até as mais celebradas. E assim como todo bom historiador, Kracauer usa do passado pra avisar sobre o futuro. Lendo este livro consegui ver paralelos preocupantes. Não estou querendo dizer que vamos presenciar um novo nazismo, mas muito do caráter psicológico alemão dos anos 20 me lembrou a nossa situação atual... sei lá, bom sinal que não é
Tento visto todos os principais filmes alemães da pré-guerra, eu me interessei por De Caligari a Hitler pelo motivo de explorar esse cânone pelo ponto de vista psicológico e sociopolítico, algo do qual não tenho muito conhecimento. E a leitura das análises históricas que Siegfried Kracauer faz sobre esse período da Alemanha foi incrivelmente interessante. Aprendi muito lendo este livro
O Kracauer cria uma linha do tempo desde o começo do cinema na Alemanha até o Terceiro Reich ser formado. A partir disso ele descreve o que ocorreu com o inconsciente coletivo alemão depois da Primeira Guerra e como o cinema do país indica as mudanças psicológicas da população que fomentaram os pensamentos nazistas e permitiram o crescimento de Hitler ao poder. Em alguns momentos ele parece ser meio esotérico no seu estudo, mas em outros ele apresenta observações bem lúcidas que fazem completo sentido.
É um livro essencial pra quem gosta de história do cinema e se interessa pelo elemento ideológico que permeia todas as obras culturais, desde as mais simples até as mais celebradas. E assim como todo bom historiador, Kracauer usa do passado pra avisar sobre o futuro. Lendo este livro consegui ver paralelos preocupantes. Não estou querendo dizer que vamos presenciar um novo nazismo, mas muito do caráter psicológico alemão dos anos 20 me lembrou a nossa situação atual... sei lá, bom sinal que não é
June 20, 2025
Even a Pulitzer prize winner failed to understand this bold look at the connection between cinema and politics. Roger Ebert snidely wrote that Siegfried Kracauer "got cause and effect backward in his examination of film and fascism" in Weimar Germany. No, Roger, you're the one with head and tail reversed. Kracauer does not assert these films influenced the Nazis or helped bring them to power. German cinema from the Twenties until the rise of Hitler paralleled and foreshadowed the development of authoritarianism and passivity among the German people. Leni Riefenstal's films as an actress already contained Aryan themes of the lone Nordic overcoming impossible odds. The silent classic THE CABINET OF DOCTOR CALIGARI features a madman who hypnotizes his slave, Caesar, into committing murder. NOSFERATU the vampire spreads his blood lust disease among the German people. Fritz Lang's M shows criminals taking the place of the police in Berlin. See a pattern here? Kracauer does, and while some of his judgements are simplistic, calling Pabst's PANDORA'S BOX, " a complete failure" in delineating decadence in Weimar, his case must be understood and heard.
July 23, 2018
After reading many books by Kracauer's fellow essayist Walter Benjamin, I was expecting a very heavy book on the history of German cinema. This book was all that and more! Where Benjamin can sometimes wonder off topic, Kracauer is focused on linking his analysis of German cinema to the rise of the Third Reich. The content is heavy without being dense or getting too dry. It was truly an engrossing read in both its content and historical context (being published near the end of the second world war). Make sure you have a subscription to a good video streaming service such as FilmStruck so you can watch the films Kracauer describes. Also, in the beginning, Kracauser rushes over what he calls "the archaic period" of German cinema from 1895-1918, it could be possible that there was not much research at that time, but if you are interested in German films from that time period than I recommend Film 1900: Technology, Perception, Culture, which is an English translation of a German study on early cinema. I also wrote a review for that title as well.
December 14, 2022
Psychological history of The German film
This book shows how the cinema paralleled and sometimes helped form the German psyche. Yet it is more than just a documentary. This brings you from the beginning of the industry to show what Hitler inherited. However, the information carries far beyond the political dimension.
I use it more for information on the film industry as a whole for that time and the basis of what we inherited today. It is interesting that from the beginning people complained that the film was too long and inclusive or too short and excluded characters from history or books.
Two good parallel and overlapping timeline books for the era are "Cagliari's Children: The Film as Tale of Terror" which is a different view on the same subject and "The UFA Story: A History of Germany's Greatest Film Company, 1918-1945 (Weimar and Now: German Cultural Criticism, 23)"
They tried to capture the feel of the time and of the German actors' attitude toward film, in the movie "Shadow of the Vampire" (2001)
This book shows how the cinema paralleled and sometimes helped form the German psyche. Yet it is more than just a documentary. This brings you from the beginning of the industry to show what Hitler inherited. However, the information carries far beyond the political dimension.
I use it more for information on the film industry as a whole for that time and the basis of what we inherited today. It is interesting that from the beginning people complained that the film was too long and inclusive or too short and excluded characters from history or books.
Two good parallel and overlapping timeline books for the era are "Cagliari's Children: The Film as Tale of Terror" which is a different view on the same subject and "The UFA Story: A History of Germany's Greatest Film Company, 1918-1945 (Weimar and Now: German Cultural Criticism, 23)"
They tried to capture the feel of the time and of the German actors' attitude toward film, in the movie "Shadow of the Vampire" (2001)
December 21, 2017
aaarggghghh. i used this book for a research paper about murnau's nosferatu, and boy howdy was it frustrating. the "procession of tyrants" argument is half-baked at best. he theorizes that you can watch the rise of fascism through murnau/lang/forgot the other director off top of my head, and he tries to look back, but the whole idea feels cherry-picked for evidence. (i think i sort of agreed with him while i was reading and writing, but now i'm re-reading and feel rather iffy on the whole thing.) the heavy psychoanalytic angle is where he derails: i think it's clear he wrote this long after having seen some of these films. the bits about ufa are utterly fascinating, as are the insights into the habits of german film audiences. but you can pretty much read dialectic of enlightment, by his buddy adorno, and get a better argument. good reading for german film enthusiasts/scholars, though.
October 15, 2023
Compelling if not the most academically rigorous of texts. A lot of analysis that feels very film school 101 but would've been a bit more novel in the 1940s; speaking of, very funny that this text is largely produced as part of the war effort, aimed at allowing the allied brass perspective to better understand the German foe (on that note — feels a bit race science adjacent, no?) Nevertheless, fascinating stuff, fun read. I'm not sure I'm convinced about the mountain film to nazi film pipeline here, it honestly just seems like Kracauer had a bit of a vendetta against alpinists or something. Not saying there isn't a connection, because Goebbels did seek out Leni personally, but I'm just not sure the mountains themselves had any part in that.
September 24, 2024
“Reality was put to work faking itself, and exhausted minds were not even permitted to dream any longer.”
Although it’s funded by Rockefeller and the Pentagon for counterintelligence and counter-propaganda purposes against Nazis, the most important thing about the book is that the author’s analysis of films from the 1920s to 1939 in Germany is necessary for today’s film analysis and art writing in general with historical context and class consciousness in mind. For me, it’s not an old book but it’s an everlasting piece.
Nosferatu is a landlord. Caligari is just an illusion of a madman. Hitler is a middle-class jingoist. Of course, we can’t mix them up in mind even though the author’s analysis of the Nazi and Nazi films is correct.
Although it’s funded by Rockefeller and the Pentagon for counterintelligence and counter-propaganda purposes against Nazis, the most important thing about the book is that the author’s analysis of films from the 1920s to 1939 in Germany is necessary for today’s film analysis and art writing in general with historical context and class consciousness in mind. For me, it’s not an old book but it’s an everlasting piece.
Nosferatu is a landlord. Caligari is just an illusion of a madman. Hitler is a middle-class jingoist. Of course, we can’t mix them up in mind even though the author’s analysis of the Nazi and Nazi films is correct.
January 26, 2021
I find this one quite difficult to rate and judge. On the one hand, it would be wrong to deny it's impeccable influence on the way scholars started to approach films, most of Cracauer's theses are interesting and well-written. This book is a classic for a reason. On the other one, some parts of his argumentation feel largely outdated, and there are other flaws that stem from the time period & personal attachment to the topic, such as overt subjectivity (and we also know from later sources that some of his claims, e.g. on Caligari, were not exactly true). I didn't always find the author's argumentation convincing, but overall I'd call it a worthy read.
January 10, 2025
Siegfried Kracauer was a grand German materialist and a member of the Frankfurt School (gossip: he and Adorno were lovers). This is a mighty text. If you’re going to put the word ‘Hitler’ in the title of your book about the movies (especially one published in 1947) you’d better mean it - and Kracauer profoundly did. In taking the movies seriously as culture and making connections between Weimar politics and its cinema he almost in one gesture invented modern film criticism and the academic study of film.
I included this book in this survey of books about film.
I included this book in this survey of books about film.
Read
October 20, 2021Very readable collection of reviews of Weimar era films, with an emphasis on themes contained within the structure, subject matter, and political atmosphere of Germany in the period between 1920 and 1930.
Kracauer knows about the directors he writes about and about the actors, and emphasizes how particular personalities affect films of the period.
His analysis of the Nazi propaganda film is particularly cogent, and his references to films of the times make the book a valuable resource for any film aficionado.
Kracauer knows about the directors he writes about and about the actors, and emphasizes how particular personalities affect films of the period.
His analysis of the Nazi propaganda film is particularly cogent, and his references to films of the times make the book a valuable resource for any film aficionado.
April 10, 2022
From Caligari to Hitler has lots of interesting ideas, if a little bit outdated with some ideas that can generously be called, "a stretch." If you want a deeper understanding of film criticism, this is a good read as long as you don't take all its statements at face value.
Though I have a feeling that this book has been supplanted by better books on the same subject. It's still valuable, just not as valuable as it once was. Perhaps it's best described as a historical artifact in our modern day.
Though I have a feeling that this book has been supplanted by better books on the same subject. It's still valuable, just not as valuable as it once was. Perhaps it's best described as a historical artifact in our modern day.
August 6, 2025
Had a lot going on the past couple months so this took me way longer to finish than it should have. Probably also because it’s pretty mundane and structurally repetitive in how it describes a film’s events and then follows up on how it reflected the time. At its worst, it felt like a lazy PowerPoint presentation where you copy/paste huge blocks of texts for the bullet points. There’s also a lot of movies mentioned but I found this much more enjoyable whenever they’d go over a movie I had already seen so I can at least visualize what’s being essentially transcribed. Maybe more pictures throughout would’ve been good :)
November 13, 2018
This is an interesting piece of work for anyone who is interested in the german cinema in between the 2 world wars. The point of wiew of Krakauer, who tries to find the prodromes of what will be the political changes in the cinematographic production, might sound aprioristic, however the work is still fascinating and is a must have to every enthusiast of the silent era. Many movies are being analyzed in what it has been "the golden era of german cinema".
September 12, 2017
Interesante. Aunque pueda parecer que un análisis a posteriori puede enfocarse para que demuestre el resultado que ya conocemos, no es menos cierto que, al menos las grandes películas alemanas de la época que conozco, lo que propone Kracauer no es descabellado.
Y sirve también para repasar el cine de esos "tiempos interesantes" (ironía)
Y sirve también para repasar el cine de esos "tiempos interesantes" (ironía)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews