The expressionist film , "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", is reminiscent of Kafka's writings in several ways, and yet I am not sure whether I would call Kafka an expressionist writer. The political content of the film is prominent, and not being familiar with expressionism, I am not sure whether or not this is a required or an ubiquitous element. And because it is a film, the "distortions" we see are visual in nature. I am not sure whether Kafka would have consented to a film version of, for instance, "The Metamorphosis" in his lifetime, even (and perhaps especially) an overtly expressionistic film. Kafka wrote to his publisher once, fearing that the cover illustration for "The Metamorphosis" might actually depict the insect itself, "Not that, please not that!...The insect itself cannot be depicted. It cannot even be shown from a distance."1 John Updike has said:
Any theatrical or cinematic version of the story must founder on this point of external representation: a concrete image of the insect would be too distracting and shut off sympathy; such a version would lack the very heart of comedy and pathos which beats in the unsteady area between objective and subjective, where Gregor's insect and human selves swayingly struggle.2
This mention of the "unsteady area" between subjective and objective is of interest to our discussion of expressionism. One aspect of expressionism is its desire to delve into the very core of things. But this brings up important questions. For instance, at the core, are we all the same or different? Is it possible to have any kind of objectivity once we discard the externals that we all share in common? This "delving" is something that is very evident in Kafka, but he seems to be following his own subjective path. The fact that many of the things that he unearths are recognizable to many others is admirable, but we should not say that Kafka had an objective view of himself or the world.
Expressionism also uses intentional distortions of reality to signal that this is not simply a realist representation of things. This distortion, however, also introduces an element of instability, of subjectiveness, that qualifies the reader's or film viewer's trust in the world that is presented. In "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," these distortions included painted light effects, misshapen doors, crooked chimneys and streets, and garish make-up. For me, this alerted me to the fact that what I was seeing was in some ways "not real," but I fear that the expressionists would have me feel the opposite, that what is presented is some type of deeper reality, the "real" reality. This remains for me an area of concern with expressionist theory.
Also, with regard to Kafka, one does not get the feeling that he felt himself part of a movement. Granted, some figures are part of a movement almost unconsciously, but some of the other expressionists, especially those who worked on "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," seemed to have a kinship with each other and know what and how they wanted to produce. The solitary figure of Kafka doesn't lend itself easily to movements, and so, while I can see some elements in common, perhaps even expressionist influence on Kafka, I would hesitate to call him an Expressionist.
1Franz Kafka, quoted by John Updike, foreword to Franz Kafka: The Complete Stories (New York: Schocken Books, 1971) xvi.
2John Updike, foreword to Franz Kafka: The Complete Stories (New York: Schocken Books, 1971) xvi.