Wangenheim: TV- and Radio Broadcast Features Use Tools of Drama-Writing
Emerging media of the 1960s and '70s were casting 'new light' on their subjects. Gustav von Wangenheim said this 'new' writing method was used by 'Truppe31'.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F11e95e43-773c-455c-b8cc-c7854420f180_1063x1296.png)
Writing in July 1973, the actor/director/playwright Gustav von Wangenheim told readers he was hearing about a new form of broadcast-writing — the “feature story” or, more recently, the “news-feature.” In the introduction to a book of his plays from the 1930s, Wangenheim noted that an East German TV station was mapping-out an entire “Features Week” — planned, in part, “to determine just what a feature actually is.”
How interesting to see the aging Gustav Wangenheim (1895-1975) — a lead actor in the classic 1922 horror flick, Nosferatu — trying to grapple with this new, still-undefined broadcast-writing format in 1973. The feature’s methodology struck him as a familiar one, however, insofar as it carried “deeper truths” within its stories — truths to be found, in part, by more intimate interviews; truths rendered through the actual voices of people who had lived the stories being told.
Writing the broadcast feature, Wangenheim declared, “is a scientific-creative communications-game.” [Ein Feature ist ein wissenschaftlich-künstlerisches (Informations-) Spiel.] Whether it is for long-form magazine work or broadcast, the appeal of writing such features, he said, is that they “examine a problem from as many points of view as possible, clarify (that problem) coherently — and reveal possible solutions.” When committed to factual material, the practiced feature-producer also “applies fictional elements for (listener/reader) clarification,” the director wrote.
This is common knowledge today — or should be: Any good writer depends upon her ability to “get beneath the skin” (or “between the ears”) of diverse and different subjects — whether those individuals become ‘protagonists,’ ‘antagonists’ or both. All writing represents some effort to empathize, to understand. Or it should.
Like the emerging “New Journalism” of that time, broadcast-features of the 1970s were a re-manifestation of Eisensteinian “dialectical montage,” as Wangenheim told his readers. (It’s easy to imagine the editorial decision-making of cutting back-and-forth among diverse ‘characters’, their points of view, or different narrator-voices and their stories — all toward manufacturing meaning for the reader/listener — often a new, dramatically interesting, or larger (bird’s-eye) view. (Many editors, filmmakers, story-tellers of all kinds — as well as their audiences — take this work for granted today.)
Wangenheim, however, was impressed — and a little unsettled, perhaps — to see the emergence of new, contemporary radio and television features, seemingly “uniting publicity and poetry, truth and lyricism” (Publicizistik und Dichtung, Wahrheit und Dichtung); narrative work that “blends the idea in one’s head with the concrete document in one’s hand.”
This, he said, “is the standard method of our feature-makers.”
Wangenheim may or may not have been aware of contemporary magazine features in the United States — Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” or John McPhee’s “Travels in Georgia.” (Likely, he was more familiar with the earlier “muck-raking” novels of Upton Sinclair — “The Jungle” or “Oil” — which had been translated into German before and after World War II.) In any case, the aging director said, the real work of all these fact-fiction hybrids also defined the “natural method” theater he employed alongside his Berlin activist, agit-prop ensemble, “Troupe31.”