efibeta @efibeta - Tumblr Blog

Translation of the Berlinale Radio interview with August Diehl about the film - Der junge Karl Marx!

Info: The timestamps are also listed below the extended section. as I mentioned before, because August talks for a very long time, stutters, and everything is a bit complicated, the subtitles don’t quite work with the browser extension - sorry for the hassle. Either just read the text (I formatted it as a classic interview) or go to the section below where the interview is timestamped and skip to the parts you want, reading the translation as you go.

I’m really happy that the two lead actors from the film The Young Karl Marx are here. First, there’s August Diehl as Marx—welcome, nice to see you again.

Hi, nice to meet you.

How did you feel? Did you have images in your head that you had to shake off? Maybe because you’re younger, did you have a different perspective and an unbiased approach? August.

I remember when Raoul Peck came up to me and asked if I’d play Karl Marx, the young Karl Marx—my first thought was, “Why me?” he’s that old man with the beard, right? And was he even ever young or anything? And, um, yeah, and then I—and then I thought, “Well, of course he has to be”—you tend to associate Karl Marx more with an idea than with a person. And, um, then, especially through the letters—um, the ones that exist between Marx and Engels and also between Marx and his wife. And also between Engels and his wife Mary Burns, um. That helped a lot, and you can see that they were just normal people who had problems. Like, Marx wrote some satirical letters too, and humorous ones—which you wouldn’t really expect, um. Yeah, and that brought it all closer to me. Were these life stories new to you as well? This encounter between the rich angel and the rather poor Marx. Was that also unusual and something new to discover?

Well, I have to be completely honest—I hadn’t really engaged with Marx before. I mean, it was only when the film started that I began to engage with it—and I’m not really—it was part of the school curriculum, of course. And, um, but I’ve never really had a phase where I focused on Marx. Although he was always present, of course, and sometimes even subconsciously—for example, at acting school, um, Ernst Busch. Of course, um, without ever having heard the name explicitly, but when someone explains that a person is a product of their milieu, then you know where that comes from. And, um, even during acting school, that was a topic, and then at some point this offer came up to play him. And then it was just a relatively short phase in one’s life. And I think—I mean—we always want to build a bridge to today and to what’s current. But actually, I always kind of—Especially during the preparation, I realized that we associate Marx so strongly with the 20th century, um, and with everything that happened there, and also with the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc in general. But during the preparation, I realized that he’s actually much more of a 19th-century figure who’s actually much closer to the French Revolution. Like the world wars, for example, and, um, from that whole context, from his own milieu. Then at some point I was able to understand Marx better.

Why did the friendship actually work out that way and become such a great working partnership? Because it wasn’t just a dependency of Marx on Engels—that was only on the financial level. But for me, on the intellectual level, it was the other way around. And I believe they needed each other. By the way, this wasn’t some artificial idea or just a nice notion of how we want to change the world. Rather, it was—it was a necessity. And anyway, in the 1960s and 1970s, there was also the slogan of an entire generation that said: Who, if not us? When, if not now? And I think that played a role back in the 19th century as well. And there was also a sense of urgency—people didn’t live as long as we do today, and by 40, you were considered old. And of course that also means the clock is ticking and it has to start now, today. They also have a mischievous streak, by the way—even a bit of a punk vibe. So when you try to piece together all these trials, you also sense a kind of mischief in challenging the authorities.

Yeah, yeah, I don’t think people always associated that with Marx. I find, for example, in all the dialectical titles and such that he picks out. You notice a really strange, twisted humor, “Critique of Critical Critique”—what kind of title is that? Or—or, um, the response to the “Philosophy of Misery” and then writing about the misery of philosophy—so there you can tell, that he already had a sense of humor, I think.

So, a bit from Raoul’s perspective—you’d speak for him now.

For me, it always splits up a bit—there are sort of three acts when you make a film. The first act is the preparation, the second is the shoot, and then there’s a long break, and then there’s the post-production work—it’s exactly at that moment that thoughts like that suddenly come up. Is that actually relevant right now? Where exactly are the—the breaks from the present? And so on, but that only happens at the very end, and I agree with Stefan on that Um a situation is a situation, and we’re actors um—we don’t think about it that much. The film—um—is what I’m doing right now, it’s an outside perspective that you have to distance yourself from when you’re acting. And anyway, it comes back at the end of the whole thing, but I still think it’s actually important to ask yourself that. Everyone who sees the film starts thinking about what these two men, who were once young themselves, have to say today.

0:42–0:52 I’m really happy that the two lead actors from the film *The Young Karl Marx* are here. First, there’s August Diehl as Marx—welcome, nice to see you again. 0:52–0:53 Hi, nice to meet you.

2:17–2:24 How did you feel? Did you have images in your head that you had to shake off? Maybe because you’re younger, did you have a different perspective and an unbiased approach? August.

2:26–2:36 I remember when Raoul Peck came up to me and asked if I’d play Karl Marx, the young Karl Marx—my first thought was, “Why me?” he’s that old man with the beard, right? 2:36–2:38 And was he even ever young or anything? 2:39–2:48 And, um, yeah, and then I—and then I thought, “Well, of course he has to be”—you tend to associate Karl Marx more with an idea than with a person. 2:49-3:02 And, um, then, especially through the letters—um, the ones that exist between Marx and Engels and also between Marx and his wife. And also between Engels and his wife Mary Burns, um. 3:03-3:08 That helped a lot, and you can see that they were just normal people who had problems. 3:09-3:16 Like, Marx wrote some satirical letters too, and humorous ones—which you wouldn’t really expect, um. 3:16-3:19 Yeah, and that brought it all closer to me. 3:57-4:04 Were these life stories new to you as well? This encounter between the rich angel and the rather poor Marx. Was that also unusual and something new to discover?

4:06-4:09 Well, I have to be completely honest—I hadn’t really engaged with Marx before. 4:10-4:16 I mean, it was only when the film started that I began to engage with it—and I’m not really—it was part of the school curriculum, of course. 4:16-4:21 And, um, but I’ve never really had a phase where I focused on Marx. 4:21-4:27 Although he was always present, of course, and sometimes even subconsciously—for example, at acting school, um, Ernst Busch. 4:28-4:27 Of course, um, without ever having heard the name explicitly, but when someone explains that a person is a product of their milieu, then you know where that comes from. 4:38-4:46 And, um, even during acting school, that was a topic, and then at some point this offer came up to play him. 4:47-4:49 And then it was just a relatively short phase in one’s life. 4:51-4:57 And I think—I mean—we always want to build a bridge to today and to what’s current. 4:57-5:00 But actually, I always kind of— 5:00-5:10 Especially during the preparation, I realized that we associate Marx so strongly with the 20th century, um, and with everything that happened there, and also with the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc in general. 5:11–5:16 But during the preparation, I realized that he’s actually much more of a 19th-century figure who’s actually much closer to the French Revolution. 5:17-5:23 Like the world wars, for example, and, um, from that whole context, from his own milieu.5:24-5:27 Then at some point I was able to understand Marx better.

7:13-7:16 Why did the friendship actually work out that way and become such a great working partnership? 7:16-7:20 Because it wasn’t just a dependency of Marx on Engels—that was only on the financial level. 7:21-7:23 But for me, on the intellectual level, it was the other way around. 7:25-7:26 And I believe they needed each other. 7:27-7:34 By the way, this wasn’t some artificial idea or just a nice notion of how we want to change the world. Rather, it was—it was a necessity. 7:35-7:42 And anyway, in the 1960s and 1970s, there was also the slogan of an entire generation that said: Who, if not us? When, if not now? 7:42-7:46 And I think that played a role back in the 19th century as well. 7:46-7:52 And there was also a sense of urgency—people didn’t live as long as we do today, and by 40, you were considered old. 7:53-7:56 And of course that also means the clock is ticking and it has to start now, today. 7:58-8:00 They also have a mischievous streak, by the way—even a bit of a punk vibe. 8:01-8:09 So when you try to piece together all these trials, you also sense a kind of mischief in challenging the authorities.

8:10-8:15 Yeah, yeah, I don’t think people always associated that with Marx. I find, for example, in all the dialectical titles and such that he picks out. 8:15-8:21 You notice a really strange, twisted humor, “Critique of Critical Critique”—what kind of title is that? 8:22–8:27 Or—or, um, the response to the “Philosophy of Misery” and then writing about the misery of philosophy—so there you can tell, 8:28–8:30 that he already had a sense of humor, I think. 9:56-10:02 So, a bit from Raoul’s perspective—you’d speak for him now. 10:03–10:07 For me, it always splits up a bit—there are sort of three acts when you make a film. 10:08–10:15 The first act is the preparation, the second is the shoot, and then there’s a long break, and then there’s the post-production work—it’s exactly at that moment that thoughts like that suddenly come up. 10:15-10:19 Is that actually relevant right now? Where exactly are the—the breaks from the present? And so on 10:20-10:22 But that only happens at the very end, and I agree with Stefan on that 10:24-10:28 Um a situation is a situation, and we’re actors um—we don’t think about it that much. 10:30-10:37 The film—um—is what I’m doing right now, it’s an outside perspective that you have to distance yourself from when you’re acting. 10:38-10:43 And anyway, it comes back at the end of the whole thing, but I still think it’s actually important to ask yourself that. 10:45-10:56 Everyone who sees the film starts thinking about what these two men, who were once young themselves, have to say today.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

efibeta