I. Background
At the time of The Sound of Music's release, the heart of Central Europe was divided into Soviet and American-led spheres of influence. At the center was the carcass of Nazi Germany, divided into 'East' and 'West' Germany, split into the respective Soviet and American-led spheres of influence. This geo-political reality was born from the Second World War, a conflict in which the Soviet and American-led forces triumphed against Nazi Germany.
When it came to assessing blame for the war, the victors pointed at Nazi Germany. But each side had a different theory. The Soviets propagated the idea that Nazi Germany had been a manifestation of the same, corporate-led, expansionist-imperialist spirit that still guided the Western capitalist powers. This effectively pushed the blame for the Nazis to the West. The American side countered that the so-called "tradition of authoritarianism" and "militarism" had given rise to the Nazis, and come from a now-defunct German territory called Prussia. On the one hand, this supposition allowed for the American-led powers to preach against authoritarianism and militarism, the very image that the United States had drawn up of the Soviet Union, and thus discourage support for the Soviet Union. On the other, the U.S. was addressing German guilt in a way that, focused on a defunct, eastern-based state like Prussia, exonerated the population of 'West' Germany, whose people the U.S. was counting on to help contain the Soviet Union and the communist-controlled East.2
Challenging the above-mentioned norm, The Sound of Music was an American film depicting the rise of the Nazis in a quaint, countryside setting that included the Alps, a mountain chain running through a 'West' German region known as Bavaria. The depiction was not without consequences. Within Bavaria, a "celebration of simple countryside culture" influenced tourism, the tourist economy and regional pride and the film's portrayal of this "rural arcadia" in connection with Nazism was not welcome - at the very least, because it affected the region's image.3
II. Austria's reaction
The people of Austria did not share America’s enthusiasm about The Sound of Music, either. Demonstrating this fact, the film was absent from the Austrian television circuit until the mid-1990s. Theatrical adaptations did not appear in Austria until February 2005. Assessing the reasons for Austria's response to the film, notably, Austria also took pride in - and profited from - its portrayal as a quaint countryside attraction defined by the traditional culture in the Alps. Therefore, the same reasons for Bavaria's opposition to The Sound of Music applied to Austria. In addition, because the film focuses on a family that, in the story and in real life, lived in Austria and witnessed the country's incorporation into Nazi Germany via the Anschluss, the connection is even clearer. Taking the connection between Austria and Nazism to the next level, the film even shows the Austrians going along with the Anschluss and pledging support to Nazi Germany’s leader, Adolf Hitler. Under the circumstances, and with the victors blaming Nazi Germany for the war and nearly everyone trying to distance themselves from Nazi Germany, it is hardly a surprise that Austria did not respond to the film warmly.4
But Austria had other reasons to reject the film. By the end of the Second World War, Nazi Germany had been reduced to rubble and its population had fallen under Soviet and American control. Former subjects of Austria had begun to proclaim that Austria had been the 'first victim' of Hitler’s regime. The theory had been in circulation for years, and was used by opponents of the Anschluss to raise opposition to Hitler. In the post-war era, however, the theory was increasingly used to make a case to the occupying powers for Austria's return to full sovereignty. The narrative also coincided with the push for a referendum in South Tyrol, a German-speaking region that Italy had grabbed from Austria. Because Italy had fought alongside Hitler in the Second World War, the Austrians hoped that the 'first victim' defense would give them higher ground in their quest to regain control of the region. In the end, Italy prevailed, perhaps because of its own 'victim narrative', which consisted of blaming its former leader for supporting Hitler. In any case, Austria's 'first victim' narrative retained a following and eventually found its way into the State Treaty of 1955, the agreement which officially made Austria an independent state again. Taking all of these factors into consideration, one can begin to understand Austria’s resistance to The Sound of Music, a film that shows Austria going along with the Anschluss and accepting the Nazis. It ran against everything the state proclaimed to be true.5
III. Austria: pardoned or blamed?
On the other hand, the film offers excuses for the Austrians who went along with the Anschluss and accepted the Nazis. For example, two Austrian characters who do not oppose the Nazis appear to be victims in their own right, either corrupted by youthful obedience and propaganda (young Rolfe) or lured by the prospect of opportunity (Herr Zeller). Another character ("Uncle" Max) remains opposed to the Anschluss even after the fact. In one scene, Max tells a Nazi "congratulations on your people's victory", suggesting the victory is not his. Finally, there is Captain Georg von Trapp, another Austrian; throughout most of the film, the Captain speaks about the Nazis with stubborn contempt. This depiction is hardly in line with the idea that the Austrians welcomed Hitler and the Nazis with open arms. One wonders: does the film really cut against the Austrian government's narrative and the first-victim theory in a way that explains Austria's aversion to the film? The following examines the issue in more detail.
A. Nationality in Austria: little white lies about Austrian-firsters and Non-German identity
Passionate about Austrian waltzes and court-like pageantry as well as Austrian traditions associated with the Alps, the Captain comes across as 'Mr. Austria.' There is even a scene where the Captain refuses to comply with the Nazis and declares defiantly "I am an Austrian." The implications are enormous. Because the Captain is repeatedly portrayed as a proud, Austrian traditionalist figurehead who opposed the Nazis, one might deduce that proud Austrian traditionalists opposed the Nazis; one might even conclude that proud Austrian traditionalists were Austria-first separatists, not Pan-Germanicists or German nationalists who would have supported the creation of a greater German state via the Anschluss.
But this conclusion appears to be based on a series of embellishments. For instance, in early 20th century Austria, the strongest opponents of the country's incorporation into Nazi Germany were not Austrian traditionalists like the one the Captain is portrayed to be, but Jews and Communists, groups that presumed they had nothing to gain under Nazi leadership. Thus, the portrayal of the Captain as a staunch, Austrian nationalist who opposed the Nazis is suspicious, giving proud Austria undue distance from the Hitler movement and first-victim status, which is exactly what it wanted in the era.
The decision to portray the Captain as a staunch Austrian patriot may have been an embellishment, too. Consider the following: the person who the Captain is modeled after, the real-life Captain Georg Johannes Freiherr von Trapp, obtained his wealth marrying into a British family, not an Austrian one. Also, despite the image of the Captain being an Austrian insider, the real-life Captain hailed from Zadar - a small, coastal town in modern-day Croatia that was not even part of Austria at the time of the film. These details, though not conclusive, certainly raise suspicions that the portrayal of the Captain as an overly-proud Austrian is a fabrication.
Another point is that a staunch, Austrian patriot was uncommon in the Captain’s time. 20th century Austria was a place of vast provincial differences due to variations in population and topography, where regional pride was much more common than any sort of state identity. Only in the post-Nazi era, to create distance from the German “other” associated with Hitler, did a separate Austrian identity begin to take form. This new identity was maintained through schooling and cultural expression. But even then, and with the Austrian government promoting identity reform, just half of reformed Austria considered the country to be something other than a nation of Germans in the immediate, post-war era.6
Noticeably, the film suggests the opposite, portraying Austria as something decisively Austrian and beyond German. In one scene, shortly before the Anschluss, young Rolfe meets sixteen year-old Liesl von Trapp near the gazebo and Liesl affirms that “we are all Austrian.” Rolfe replies that “some people think we ought to be German and they are very mad at those who don’t think so.” This exchange suggests that “Austrian” and “German” are separate constructs, and only angry people might be convinced otherwise.
The film also attempts to carve out conceptual distinctions between what is German and Austrian. Germans are repeatedly referred to as uncultured and brutal. They appear only as men in dark uniforms who march under banners that, bearing black Swastikas, are said to have “big black spiders” on them - at least, according to one of the Captain’s children. By contrast, Austria is presented as a 'Land der Musik', the birthplace of a unique, high culture. The Captain’s proudly-Austrian family becomes the vehicle through which this second culture is presented. Aristocratic pageantry, plays, choruses and fine silver are all offered for our consideration, and we hear talk of yachts as wedding gifts. But this celebration of aristocratic tradition and opulence has less to do with the common Austrian people than high society - especially when the wealth came from a British family. In conclusion, the film creates an image of the Captain that appears to be beyond what that truth would require, and furthers the interests of the cause for an independent Austria.
Holding aloft traditional countryside clothes and music from the Alps as something distinctly Austrian, the film also carves out a special identity that, in reality, is just as intertwined with Bavaria. For anyone with a map at hand, this should not be too great of a surprise, since Bavaria and Austria share a border. They also share a cultural past that is closely intertwined with the Nazi movement. Hitler wore traditional Alpinian garments, just as anybody else with a similar, traditional background did. Braunau am Inn, the town in Austria where Hitler was born, is just a three-minute walk across a bridge into the Bavarian countryside. Continuing onward, one eventually reaches the major Bavarian city of Munich, the birthplace of the Nazi movement. Meanwhile, back in Austria, the most gifted musicians of the period, Wilhelm Kienzl, Josef Reiter and Leopold Reichwein, all voiced their support for the Nazis. A strong proponent of the Anschluss, Reiter even dedicated some of his works to Hitler.7
B. Religion in Austria: little white lies about Catholicism and Austro-fascism
In the film, Catholicism is portrayed as a bastion of Austrian identity, divergent from Nazism. While Austria did in fact have a “deeply conservative culture” built around the Catholic Church, the idea that this creates a contrast with the heritage of Nazi Germany is pure fantasy. Before Austria was added, a third of Nazi Germany was registered as Catholic. Hitler, who had been raised Catholic, remained a registered Catholic who paid Church taxes well into his political career. The same was true of Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels and many other Nazi Party members. In a 1928 speech, Hitler proclaimed “we tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity […] in fact our movement is Christian.” What is more, Nazi Germany’s elite armed forces, the Schutzstaffel, did not admit anyone who was atheist either, suggesting that to do otherwise was to invite a "potential source of indiscipline." Theorizing that Hitler’s remarks on Christianity were merely an attempt to gain followers in a predominantly Christian nation, or that the Nazis merely saw religion as a bridge to acceptance of higher authority, neither point suggests that Catholicism was foreign to Germany. Rather, these points suggest that the Nazis induced Christians, and it follows that some were inevitably Catholics.8
By contrast, The Sound of Music portrays Catholicism in Austria as a sanctuary against Nazism. When the Captain and his von Trapp family try to escape from the Nazis, the abbey becomes a refuge and the nuns eagerly help the family hide there. In pursuit of the von Trapps, the Nazis buzz the door incessantly and shout at the nuns to “open this gate!” Once the door is opened, the Nazis storm in without saying a word, showing complete disregard for the sanctity of the Church and its position as a respected authority.
In reality, before the Anschluss, Austria had been controlled by clerical fascists who had implemented policies that were later adopted by the Nazis, including labor union bans, the abolition of the free press and coalition-rule where political opposition was forbidden. It has been suggested that the goal in implementing these restrictions was to stop the movement for Austria’s incorporation into Nazi Germany. Still, the clerical fascists were by no means opposed to the other ideas that animated the Nazis. As early as 1926, Austria’s government had urged retaliation against cultural devastation and identified the Jews as the culprit. Furthermore, unless the clerics did not vote in the referendum or their votes went uncounted, they were likely among the ninety-eight percent of Austria that voted in favor of the Anschluss in 1938.9
It may be surprising to learn that, when ninety-nine percent of Austria voted on the issue of the Anschluss, the result was almost unanimous support; near-unanimous results typically raise suspicions about how freely the vote was conducted. But more than two decades before the vote, two local referendums were held regarding Austria’s potential incorporation into Germany. In those polls, Salzburg voted almost unanimously in favor of the idea. The prospect of Nazi rule did not create different poll results. Why did Austria go along with the idea? The film and reality tell two completely different stories.10
C. The Anschluss in Austria: two stories
 |
| The 'Golden Days' of stagflation and mass poverty |
With the Anschluss, the people in Austria gained access to major banks and the ability to invest in larger, more secure business enterprises. Businesses supported the Anschluss, too. Austria's large-scale merchants and industrialists anticipated the inevitably permanent end to tariffs and border constraints, opening new doors for commercial activity extending beyond Austria’s small population of 6.7 million inhabitants. Conversion to a much stronger, stabler currency was also at stake. Although a stronger currency is not always beneficial in business, in the year prior to the Anschluss, the value for 1 Nazi Reichsmark had been an average of between 2.16 and 2.17 Austrian Schillings. By contrast, the trade-in value was fixed at 1 Reichsmark per 1.50 Austrian Schillings. Thus, Austria's adoption of the Reichsmark was highly favorable - a position that the Austrian Central Bank still defends. Finally, the Anschluss offered workers the promise of integration into Nazi Germany’s economy as a whole, from the compulsory labor programs with ‘Kraft durch Freude’ incentives to larger industry and state works projects. Thus, employers, workers and consumers all had something to gain by supporting the Anschluss.11
Issues such as language or religion, pillars of identity, were also part of the Anschluss' appeal. As noted earlier in this work, before government interference began in earnest, many Austrians viewed themselves as Germans. The populations of Austria and Bavaria had not been static, either; Hitler, born in Austria and had fought in a Bavarian regiment. The same was true of Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley, the German nationalist who shot Kurt Eisner in Bavaria in 1919, bringing down the short lived Soviet Republic of Bavaria.
In view of the widespread support for the Anschluss, it is important to consider why Austria was even a separate country in the first place. In its not so distant history, Austria had maintained an empire in alliance with Hungary on the one hand and a fierce rivalry with Prussia on the other. These circumstances kept Austria's unification with the German state, which was led by Prussia, out of the question. With mutual defeat in the First World War, a completely new situation unfolded. But the victors were certainly not looking to put together a German state more completely than Prussia had managed to. Their goal was to decrease the power of the defeated. Accordingly, Austria’s incorporation into Germany was forbidden by decree. Based on the decision, an international tribunal later banned the two powers from even forming a customs union together to facilitate trade, holding that such an action was against the spirit of the decree.12
From the above, it is clear that the Anschluss was more than the sudden empowerment of a band of foreign-backed oppressors crashing the Austrian border. Yet The Sound of Music suggests the opposite. Following the merriment of a marriage ceremony, complete with the high-pitched chime of happy wedding bells, the viewer sees a single large bell rocking slowly, its drone reverberating across the town square on an overcast morning. A procession of dark-uniformed men marches past below, where large, imposing Nazi banners have been hung. In the next sequence, a car that is as black as night and filled with Nazis speeds recklessly around the front of the square and screeches to a halt. Uniformed men get out quickly, without saying a word, and burst into the area where the Captain’s children, dressed traditionally, are with "Uncle" Max and practicing for a concert. The Nazis thus interrupt the cultural moment and shout for Max’s attention. Max does not take the Nazis seriously and is warned to comply. The Nazis want to know where the Captain is, note the absence of Nazi flags at the Captain's estate, and say they will permit the concert that the children are preparing for in order to “show the world that nothing has changed.” The Nazis bellow out “Heil Hitler” and leave. At that moment, young Rolfe rushes onto the scene. He is now wearing a Nazi brownshirt uniform and has a telegram for the Captain. Although young Liesl asks excitedly if he wants to deliver it later when she can see him in private, Rolfe is cold and abrupt. It is clear that he is a "no-nonsense Nazi" now and there is no room for love. The next scene takes us back to the estate, where the Captain is tearing down a Nazi flag that the local authorities apparently hung over his door. The family decides to flee and the Nazis close the borders. What follows is a dramatic flight from persecution, similar to the stories of Anne Frank and other Jewish fugitives. As the family hides in the abbey cemetery, the Nazis rattle on locked gates and flood the graveyard with invasive searchlights, violating even the slumber of the dead. This is what we are shown of the Anschluss in The Sound of Music.
In reality, the Captain’s family simply “fled” down to the nearby train station and purchased a ticket to Italy. Taking this and all the other facts into consideration, one can conclude that, despite denying the Austrian people a voice to explain themselves, the film was more supportive of Austria’s choice narrative than even an objective film had to be, actually pushing the film towards an affirmation of Austrian state interests. Notably, this does not explain Austria's rejection of the film. But as an American film, The Sound of Music had its own agenda to fulfill. And, as an "American national melodrama", that agenda involved championing freedom, espousing anti-totalitarianism and delivering lessons on good and evil, which left Austria's portrayal as more of a consequence than an imperative. The following examines how this focus influenced Austria's presentation.13
IV. The overall presentation of Austria
Through the storyline, The Sound of Music delivers a clear message that the principles of authoritarian traditionalism are a feature in Austrian society. Unfortunately for Austria, the film is also of the opinion that these principles are impersonal, cause problems for society and harm the individual. We see this in the presentation of the von Trapp children. At the beginning of the film, they respond to whistles instead of names and march around obediently. Behind the backs of authority, however, the children are devious. Although the father, Captain von Trapp, is aware of the problem, he appears to know only cold, hard discipline and fails to get through to his children. Just as importantly, the Captain appears to be imprisoned by his no-nonsense mindset and cannot find or express joy. His love interest, the Baroness, is a woman from great wealth and fame in Vienna high society. She does not fare well with the children, either. Presumably from the same strict, traditionalist environment as the Captain, she lacks the loving and fun parent persona that, as the story reveals, the children need.
The main character of the story, Maria, also struggles under the strictness of authoritarian traditionalism in Austria. The reason is her personality, which the original movie poster captures perfectly. On the cover, Maria is wearing bright pink and smiling cheerfully while frolicking through a meadow. The image captures Maria’s exuberant, youthful and free spirit. But these are the very traits that put her in conflict with Austrian society. Although the Church is sympathetic towards Maria, Maria is nevertheless at odds with the abbey she is attending and asked to reconsider her commitments. In one scene, the nuns sing out their critique of Maria:14
“she climbs a tree and scrapes her knee, her dress has got a tear. She waltzes on her way to Mass and whistles on the stair. And underneath her wimple she has curlers in her hair. I even heard her singing in the abbey.” “She'd out pester any pest, drive a hornet from its nest. She could throw a whirling dervish out of whirl. She is gentle! She is wild! She's a riddle! She's a child! She's a headache! […]”
In the meantime, the abbey sends Maria to become the governess of the von Trapp family. Expected to teach discipline to the unruly von Trapp children using regimentation and dog whistles, Maria seems likely to struggle. But once Maria begins acting like her cheery, caring self, she establishes a bond with the children. Through this sequence of events, it becomes clear that the “problem” is not Maria, but the emphasis on authoritarian traditionalism in society.
The film’s critique of this quasi-authoritarian traditionalism goes deeper. Although Maria is the best candidate to have a positive impact on the lives of the children, the dictates of society push her away from the children. Firstly, Maria’s governess assignment was only supposed to be temporary. Secondly, had the Captain not accidentally caught a glimpse of Maria’s progress with the children, he would not have rescinded his demand that Maria leave the estate for doing things her own, fun way. Thirdly, in a traditional European society, there is a premium on marrying into wealth and conformity to high culture. In such a world, Maria, little more than a nanny, was not likely to secure her place with the Captain, a high-society military hero, by winning his hand in marriage. Much more in line with cultural expectations, the Captain would have continued to court the Baroness who, as the film suggests, was not the answer for the children. In sum, traditional European society was keen to separate the children from Maria, yet she was the only adult who could reach them.
After connecting with the children and winning the Captain’s respect, Maria appears to have finally found her place within traditional European society. But the question remains whether the Captain’s estate can, at that point, continue to be viewed as a representation of traditional European society. For one, the von Trapp family is transformed through Maria’s presence. And, whereas the family subsequently flees Salzburg to evade the Nazis, the rest of Salzburg is shown to have accepted the new Nazi order. Even "Uncle" Max, despite his initially hostile attitude towards the Nazis, eventually comes to accept Salzburg’s transformation as a fait accompli.
One might argue that it is the Captain who remained loyal to traditional European society, while the people of Salzburg, who went along with the new Nazi order, went astray. But these characters also claimed to be motivated by a sense of “duty", which the film portrays as an important concept in traditionalist European society. In his decision to flee, the Captain makes no such claim. All in all, if European traditionalism is a bridge to Nazism in the film, it goes without saying that the only people in the film who did not cross the bridge were Maria, who did not fit in traditional European society, and those who were changed through Maria.15
While it is plausible that the film only sought to deliver commentary on authoritarianism, obedience and loyalty, notably, the presentation of Austria as a place where people unquestioningly follow authority indirectly challenges the totality of Austria’s first-victim theory. It also reiterates Western propaganda from the First World War, where European traditionalism was portrayed as having bred a faithful, hierarchical order that enabled militaristic despots who wanted to destroy Western democracy at every turn. Furthermore, as the film fails to examine any real-world problems, presumably to preserve its simplicity and prevent unintended sympathy for the Nazis, repeated acts of obedience in society are the legs upon which the theory of Austria accepting the Nazis and the Anschluss are left to stand. While this is certainly more sympathetic than the suggestion that Austria is a country of expansionist-imperialist capitalists (the Soviet view of the Nazis) and genocidal maniacs trained in Prussian militarist tradition (the American view of the Nazis), it follows that whatever Nazi Germany is portrayed as, both inside the film and out, the viewer is informed that Austria went along with it obediently. Thus, the dark portrayal of Nazi Germany ends up indirectly influencing the audience's view of Austria. From these points, one can begin to understand Austria's opposition to the film.
A. "Fixing" your sacred institution?
Although The Sound of Music depicts the Catholic structure in a positive light, it is re-imaged to match what Americans wanted it to be. This was a potential area of dispute, as Austria still had a "deeply conservative culture" directly influenced by the Catholic Church.16
At first glance, there appears to be no distinction between the film world and traditional Austrian ideas about the role of the Church in society; in line with traditional ideas, the Church is important. Through its mechanisms, Maria is placed with the von Trapp family. The Church is also present in the marriage between the Captain and Maria. But the U.S. rejected the model of central religious authority, whether this meant the Pope or Church institutions. Whereas American conservatives continued to embraced secularism, American liberals had begun embracing the general idea of conformity with a conscious. The result was ordinary adults making decisions outside the Church and becoming authorities in their own regard, which is essentially what Maria is shown to represent. In line with this idea, Maria reforms the family using moral and religious reasoning which she has learned, but does so at her own discretion. The Church also steps outside of its traditional role in the film, applying its own principles liberally. For example, the nuns help the von Trapp family escape from the Nazis by stepping out from their strictly institutional role, “sinning”, as the film suggests, by vandalizing the Nazis’ cars so the von Trapp family can flee.
While several of these ideas were a departure from traditional ideas in Austria about religion, it is unlikely that any of them were extreme enough to influence opposition to The Sound of Music. This should hardly come as a surprise because the only representation of Christianity in the film is that of Catholicism and, at the time, a film that was explicitly anti-Christian would not have done well in the U.S., a country where people overwhelmingly identified as Christian at the time.
B. A fix-all solution called democracy?
Maria is more than just a prop to demonstrate the shortcomings of Austrian society and represent reformed ideas about religion. She also doubles as a 'lady liberty' who brings 1960s American-styled democracy to the von Trapp family, which proceeds to fix everything that the state could not and pose alternatives to submission to the state.
Symbolically, the Captain and Maria interact in a way that is supposed to be atypical of traditional Austria society and replicate how a functional society should work; espousing democratic principles, Maria voices her opinion freely. She speaks out about the Captain running the family like a ship, which she considers “wrong”, and later speaks her mind to the Captain about him hardly knowing his children. The Captain responds. When he yells, he apologizes for "behaving badly." The idea is that Maria brings balance to the family, which is supposed to ensure justice in family decisions. Similar to the American legal system, checks and balances exist. Even the children play a role, providing input that counts towards changing rules as situations are handled on the merits, and on a case-by-case basis. In one instance, although the children are supposed to go to bed, they hear the thunder. Maria ignores that it is bedtime and calms them. Later, Liesl disobeys her curfew and sneaks out to see Rolfe. She returns to the von Trapp family estate and is caught by the adults. Maria reevaluates the curfew and ultimately covers for Liesl, saying that Liesl was picking flowers for her. Seeing that Maria is fair and kind, the children admit to wrongdoings because they feel guilty for lying to her. Here, the film seems to suggest that no rule is a fast rule, and bad behavior is a result of a society lacking care.17
Another theme is that a family unit functioning in line with the principles of democracy takes care of itself and can resolve its own problems. For instance, because of the trust built between Maria and Liesl, Liesl turns to Maria for questions regarding private matters of sexuality. Based on this model, one might argue that there is no need for taxpayer-funded sexual education from the state. In another example, as the von Trapp family reviews its options upon fleeing Salzburg, there is talk about home-schooling. Notably, before Maria came into the picture and completed the family, the children were destined to be sent to state camps, which became training grounds for the Nazi military. Although homeschooling was uncommon in 1960s America, the dialogue reinforces an appreciation for the capacity of family and the irrelevance of the state.The family is ultimately shown to provide everything the state theoretically could, including culture, morals, discipline, education, identity and, perhaps most importantly, economic opportunity. Indeed, through Maria’s ability to teach the children to sing, the opportunity emerges for the Captain and his family to tour as the Trapp Family Singers. As a result, the Captain does not have to take the prestigious position with the Nazi state which he was offered, which would have sent him far from his family. The Captain opts to stay with his family and search his way to freedom with his family intact. Thus, the case for Maria’s democratic family ideas is strong due to the voluntary nature by which her reforms have been adopted within the family and the ability of the reformed to withstand the lure of the state's promises. The film indirectly suggests that the rest of Austria was unable to resist the same temptation, regardless of whether it was motivated by prestige, duty or something else, and simply gave in although the von Trapps figured out a way to make things work otherwise.18
It gets even worse when the film shows the ruthlessness of the state that the Austrian people went along with. It enters the premises of the Captain’s home to remind him of his “duty” to take the position. Servants of the state try to contact the Captain while he is on his honeymoon and ostensibly hang a Nazi flag over the doorway of his estate. In anti-totalitarian films, the collapse of the home as a private sanctuary may serve as a warning about the abusive nature of the state. That certainly seems to be the case here.19
As the story continues, the von Trapp family is singing at the Salzburg Folk Festival and there is constant Nazi surveillance. The state does not trust the Captain to his own free will for fear that it could be detrimental to its own interests. This creates a tense atmosphere leading up to the final showdown, where the Captain has to trick the state and protect his family in order to break free from its grasp and achieve freedom. In this final sequence, Rolfe has become a servant of the Nazi state and comes after the von Trapp family with a gun. The Captain approaches Rolfe calmly and grabs the gun, offering Rolfe the opportunity to flee with him. Ostensibly, Rolfe cannot appreciate what he is being offered because he is a product of the state system - and what the film suggests the innocent von Trapp children were bound to become. Rolfe whistles to the Nazis for help, but the family is able to escape to Switzerland and remain intact even when its relationship to the outside world changes.
V. Conclusion
It is clear that the portrayal of Austria was only a vehicle to convey the larger, intended message of the film. As a means to an end, however, the film imposes a story on Austria that, although at times friendly to the state's post-war goals, is no more liberating than its kitsch celebration of culture is flattering. Superficially claiming to know the history and culture of the country and misrepresenting it to glorify the American model of culture and society, the film is a perfect example of American victor culture and its imposition over the vanquished. It is hardly a surprise that the Austrian people did not embrace The Sound of Music.
1 Ethan Mordden, The Hollywood Musical (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981), 203. ↩
2 Sebastian Haffner, The Rise and Fall of Prussia (Phoenix Giant, 1998). ↩
3 Tim Bergfelder, “Between Nostalgia and Amnesia: Musical Genres in 1950s German Cinema” in Musicals: Hollywood and Beyond, ed. Bill Marshall and Robynn Stilwell (Portland: Intellect Books, 2000), 82-83.↩
4 Peter Popham, “Austrians are Only Now Being Allowed to See a Stage Production of ‘The Sound of Music’?” London Independent, 26 February 2005; Peter Kemp, “How Do You Solve a ‘Problem’ Like Maria von Poppins?” in Musicals: Hollywood and Beyond, ed. Bill Marshall and Robynn Stilwell (Portland: Intellect Books, 2000), 56-57.↩
5 Peter Utgaard, Remembering and Forgetting Nazism (New York: Berghahn Books, 2003), 25, 34, 124-125. ↩
6 Frederick C. Engelmann, “The Austro-German Relationship: One Language, One and One- Half Histories, Two States,” in Unequal Partners, ed. Harald von Riekhoff and Hanspeter Neuhold (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1993), 52-54; Günter Bischof, “The Historical Roots of a Special Relationship: Austro-German Relations Between Hegemony and Equality” in Unequal Partners, ed. Harald von Riekhoff and Hanspeter Neuhold (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1993), 80; Peter Utgaard, Remembering and Forgetting Nazism (New York: Berghahn Books, 2003), 25, 149-150, 188-189. ↩
7 Peter Utgaard, Remembering and Forgetting Nazism (New York: Berghahn Books, 2003), 25, 38; Erik Levi, Music in the Third Reich (London: Macmillan, 1994), 210. ↩
8 Guenter Bischof, " Introduction: Austria in McWorld” in The Americanization/Westernization of Austria, ed. Anton Pelinka (Transaction Publishers, 2003), 2; Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History (2012), 196-197. ↩
9 Alfred D. Low, The Anscluss Movement, 1931-1938, and the Great Powers (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 95-100. ↩
10 Peter Utgaard, Remembering and Forgetting Nazism (New York: Berghahn Books, 2003), 77, 80-81, 92-93, 101. ↩
11 Die österreichischen Lebensversicherungen und die NS-Zeit: wirtschaftliche Entwicklung, politischer Einfluss, jüdische Polizzen, Dieter Stiefel, Böhlau Verlag Wien, 2001, 321. ↩
12 Günter Bischof, “The Historical Roots of a Special Relationship: Austro-German Relations Between Hegemony and Equality” in Unequal Partners, ed. Harald von Riekhoff and Hanspeter Neuhold (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1993), 74. ↩
13 James E. Combs and Sara T. Combs, Film Propaganda and American Politics (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994), 8-10; Andrea Slane, A Not So Foreign Affair: Fascism, Sexuality and the Cultural Rhetoric of Democracy (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001), 55.↩
14 Tim Dirks, “The Sound of Music” accessed January 15, 2015, http://www.filmsite.org/soun.html.↩
15 Frederick C. Engelmann, “The Austro-German Relationship: One Language, One and One-Half Histories, Two States,” in Unequal Partners, ed. Harald von Riekhoff and Hanspeter Neuhold (San Francisco: Westview Press, 1993), 53-54; Andrea Slane, A Not So Foreign Affair: Fascism, Sexuality and the Cultural Rhetoric of Democracy (Durham: Duke University Press 2001), 9-13, 178-179. ↩
16 Guenter Bischof, " Introduction: Austria in McWorld” in The Americanization/Westernization of Austria, ed. Anton Pelinka (Transaction Publishers, 2003), 2. ↩
17 John G. Cawelti, “Who’s Running This Show? Ideology, Formula, and Hegemony in American Film and Television” in Movies and Politics: The Dynamic Relationship, ed. James Combs (New York: Garland Publishing Incorporated, 1993), 45. ↩
18 Andrea Slane, A Not So Foreign Affair: Fascism, Sexuality and the Cultural Rhetoric of Democracy (Durham: Duke University Press 2001), 55. ↩
19 John G. Cawelti, “Who’s Running This Show? Ideology, Formula, and Hegemony in American Film and Television” in Movies and Politics: The Dynamic Relationship, ed. James Combs (New York: Garland Publishing Incorporated, 1993), 55-58; Scott Lucas, Freedom’s War: The American Crusade Against the Soviet Union (New York: New York University Press, 1999), 280-281. ↩
