The Anatomy Lesson of Dr Nicolaes Tulp in Christian Petzold's Barbara

The chosen object for discussion is Rembrandt's painting, The Anatomy Lesson of Dr Nicolaes Tulp (1632), which is the focal point within a two-minute section of a scene (00:26:53-00:29:02) from Christian Petzold's Barbara (2012). Barbara is a film set in 1980s' GDR that tells the story of a doctor (Barbara) who has been banished to work in a provincial hospital where she is being observed by the Stasi and her new colleague, André.

The scene in question falls relatively early in the narrative, at a time before the audience fully understands either character's motives and thus becomes a pivotal sequence as well as a key depiction of an object that promotes wider themes outside the plot.

The scene depicts André communicating with Barbara through his display of Rembrandt's painting, which has been hung as a poster on the wall of his laboratory. The painting shows Dr Tulp and his associates performing an autopsy on the recently deceased criminal Aris Kindt, who was hanged for robbery. The scene shows a large number of close-ups of the painting accompanied by dialogue from André that is an almost verbatim quotation from Sebald's 1995 book The Rings of Saturn; which itself is proved as an inconsistent analysis by art scholars, a misquotation.

A number of themes to approach are highlighted in this small scene that is just one of many intertextual references from Petzold's oeuvre. To analyse the sequence and open it up to further interrogation, I will justify the painting's direct use within the film's narrative as an attempt to observe representations of the GDR before moving on to assess the broader concerns of the painting's relevance outside of the plot. I will note what themes the painting highlights that could thus be applied to the broader spectrum of cinema in terms of intertextuality and quotation, with reference to Bal (1999), and consider how one can refer to other visual objects within film in order to project meaning that has greater authority. I will conclude by querying the mixed temporality of the scene and how this jumping of timelines affects the potency of quotation. These topics will be addressed in order to open up larger questions of mis/quotation, perspective and the involvement of art within cinema.

Barbara succeeds as one of few films where the GDR does not have a directly negative portrayal in comparison to the often-idealised West Germany. This concept is highlighted in a number of ways in the film, notably the colour scheme, yet the intertextual nature and use of the Rembrandt painting creates distinct narrative ripples.

On a superficial level, André's display of the painting to Barbara shows his desire for her attention. The audience sees the painting through the eyes of André observing Barbara who in turn is observing the painting. André's prior actions in the narrative, such as offering to drive Barbara, show that he has clear intentions to impress Barbara. This sense is amplified in the Rembrandt scene, referred to by Pinfold as a “come and see my Rembrandt” action (291). The choice of a Rembrandt piece highlights connotations of the West and the bourgeois (Ratner 22), thus André's display of it suggests his want to head West (Buhanan 490). The detail that it is Western art reminds the viewer that such culture did exist within the GDR (Ratner 16). However, the fact that the painting depicts people observing someone who are in turn being observed by André and Barbara, suggests the common trope of surveillance that arose from East Germany. The conclusion of the scene, after Barbara leaves, ending with another close up of Tulp's colleagues in mid observation emphasises perspective and surveillance as key themes. This question of surveillance brings to light moral questions in terms of observation whilst also reflecting on the act's specific role in the past (Krakenberg), yet Petzold is still not directly critiquing here but instead opening up questions of how we portray heritage in film, another issue that requires expansion.

The use of the painting mirrors the characters' roles as doctors. André's quizzing of Barbara on the painting's error emphasises how they should be acting within their jobs - focussing on the body, the patient in need of care, rather than observing an anatomy atlas as an act that causes a sort of medical malpractice (Krakenberg). This lesson from the painting mirrors the final scene of the film, reiterating the object's importance within the narrative, as the audience is left with André and Barbara supervising and observing a suicidal boy together.

This use of the painting as an object with narrative authority suggests a form of quotation that builds on the scholarship of Bal (1999), transferring her concept from literature and art to cinema. By drawing on the painting and the work of Sebald as past objects, Petzold's quotations illuminate their uses in both past and present (Bal 10). Nonetheless, this specific sequence of pictorial quotation in the film is a less direct hint than mirroring the brushstrokes of Caravaggio (see Bal), but instead bolsters the painting within the film (rather than the object outside of the narrative) with original authority. The meaning from the painting outside of the narrative gives the main short scene described authority, through the borrowing of signs (Bal 9), the symbolism of the original object. However, the meaning then developed from this scene, the new manipulated quotation of Rembrandt, takes the object further to tie the film together into a meaningful plot.

The painting is situated as an element of representation and misrepresentation (Buhanan 489) due to its interpretation by André. It is on this point that the film is arranged as the object brings more than just narrative understanding, it connects to themes outside of cinema such as perspective, ethics, and aesthetic experience, how we understand and interpret art and the visual.

André's interpretation highlights a fascination of the doctors with the anatomy atlas, supposedly creating sympathy for Kindt (Prager; Straat 193; Krakenberg) as he becomes a body apparently not worth attention. Sebald interprets the painting as doctors observing the human in front of them in favour of theory (16-17; Krakenberg) to such an extent that the image from the atlas becomes superimposed onto Kindt, hence the questioning of Barbara by André.

This dialogue replica of Sebald (12-17) is by no means what Rembrandt was wholly trying to depict yet André's remarks seem only to support the aim of impressing Barbara. Petzold even makes the unknowing audience aware of how wrong André is. The camera first aligns with André, to a close-up pan of two of the men show their eyes looking towards the atlas, yet this is immediately dismantled as Petzold works behind the characters' backs with his lingering close-up of another man looking directly out to the camera while André asserts that all doctors are looking at the atlas. Accompanied by this mocking 'correction' the scene continues with Barbara smirking at André, suggesting that she knows his aim and is willing to play along. André's subjective account and its immediate undermining plays with the object's authority. How should the audience perceive the painting if not from the authority of a protagonist? The levels of observation, and therefore different frames of quotation, - the audience watching André who watches Barbara, watching the painting within which the doctors observe the atlas - poses the dilemma of how to survive in an unjust society and also creates a sense of ethical responsibility through such ambiguities (Buhanan 491). Petzold's undermining of authority emphasises the theme of perspective in Barbara and cinema as a whole. It is through the power of the painting as an object and the 'misquotation' of Sebald from André that toys with the meaning of intertextuality in the film.

The temporality of references that Petzold uses within this scene creates an interesting point for progression by questioning the strength of mis/quotation. Looking at the scene's timeline one can judge the extent of intertextuality. The film is from 2012 but set in 1980, the painting is from 1632 and André's analysis is from Sebald's 1995 novel. Once one learns of André's incorrect quotation one is forced to address the text and the film's authority. Lifting André's words from a post-unification text bolsters the impact of the painting on the narrative. It supports the above claims that Petzold created a film that removed attention from the negative life of the GDR by choosing an incorrect 'bourgeoisie' text to reflect back on a desire to escape to the West. Pinfold comments on the power of the painting/art as a way to provide the audience with a different perspective from any established authorities (293). It is the power of the Rembrandt 'original' and its subsequent quotation that provokes a web of themes which go past the narrative.

The succinct close reading of Rembrandt's painting in the context of the short scene from Barbara has touched upon a number of topics that could be enhanced with further research. The consistent yet brief reference to mis/quotation and intertextuality opens up an avenue through which one can further explore art in cinema, the object's authority and the audience's aesthetic experience through a mixed display of mediums and temporalities of references. By observing the painting directly, themes of perspective and observation can be drawn that candidly relate to the narrative and a wider theme in German heritage cinema of GDR representation and historical representation as an ethical practice in film. Rembrandt's painting is a thick object in itself, thus its relation to Barbara provides a point of further interest by highlighting numerous themes in both forms of visual art.