Wiener Journal: What motivates the public to follow the same historical material over and over again?
Katrin Unterreiner: Most people are less interested in the life story of a historical person. Since such films and series are in such high demand at the moment, they all claim to offer a new look at something or to focus on new aspects. Whether these are invented or not is another question. That doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with historical processing, but it’s the reason why there’s always something new in this area: Because everyone wants to tell the story from their own perspective and the audience wants to see it too.
Where does this fascination for historical material come from?
This is obviously something that has always interested people and is not going to change anytime soon. People obviously have a great longing for a certain glamor factor. Nevertheless, I believe that it is no coincidence that these flashbacks to a supposedly better time are particularly popular when (personal) reality is harsh. This is a distraction from current problems, you just want to dive into a candy-pink world. It is not for nothing that the famous “Sissi” films by Ernst Marischka from the post-war years became so successful: that was a phase in which people wanted to forget the atrocities of war. Today, times are difficult for other reasons, which favors the success of the current series. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they weren’t filmed ten years ago, but today. Incidentally, the Marischka films also did a great deal for Austria advertising: They showed how beautiful Vienna and the Salzkammergut are and thus triggered a real tourism boom.
Do you think that in the future there will be equally extensive film adaptations of today’s monarchs? Will there still be series about William and Kate in 100 years?
That’s a good question, I don’t dare answer it. The point is that today’s royals, no matter in which country, lead an extremely public life and everything is documented. It’s not so mysterious anymore. The only thing you don’t know is: what’s going on behind the scenes? You want to get to know the people behind the public mask, the private individuals.
How far has research progressed when it comes to understanding the lives of monarchs?
Unfortunately, you can’t say that in general, it varies greatly from person to person as to what source material is still available. A large part of it is in the house, court and state archives on Minoritenplatz, where there are kilometers of files from which you can read all sorts of things. A lot can be understood on the basis of invoices or archives on trips or representative events. Everything was recorded in detail by the Viennese court, including what was paid from private funds and how private life unfolded. It’s just immense work to sift through the material. Of course, it is easier with letters, since new bundles of items, for example from the private collections of collectors or descendants, keep appearing. Letters and diaries are the most rewarding historical sources because you are very close to the person and can understand what they thought and how they expressed themselves. With Empress Elisabeth, for example, we have the problem that everyone followed her instructions and destroyed all correspondence after her death. That was actually the norm so that nothing fell into the wrong hands. Therefore there are very few letters from her and that makes it all the more difficult to get close to the person.
How do you feel about the fact that some film adaptations are very far removed from historical reality?
As long as they have pure entertainment value and don’t claim to be authentic, fine. Otherwise it would be problematic. As a historian, you cannot go along with it if elements are inconsistent from start to finish: how people talk to each other, how they interact, what the environment looks like, what they are wearing – quite apart from the content. But sometimes that’s not important to the filmmakers, they just want to tell an exciting story. It’s done well technically and visually, and that’s what a lot of viewers want to see. It has an entertainment value with opulent interiors and beautiful clothes, but that’s not something you can look at as a historian.
Why are some historical figures – such as Sisi, Diana or Marie Antoinette – more fascinating than others?
The painting “Marie-Antoinette with a Rose” by Vigée-Le Brun (1783) shows the pomp of the ruler – which was ultimately to be her undoing.
– © Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group / Getty
It’s about how mysterious the person is. When you know everything, the tension is gone. The fact that a lot of things are still in the dark, that you can’t prove them, makes someone interesting. After a certain age, Sisi no longer allowed herself to be photographed and led a life away from the public eye, which automatically creates a certain myth. People who polarized and were mysterious even during their lifetime are of course grateful and exciting personalities with rough edges. And I think that Sisi has asserted herself in this way is more due to Romy Schneider, because Empress Elisabeth was actually one of the historically least interesting Habsburg women.
Was there a kind of “whistleblower” in the past, i.e. officials who leaked court internals?
Nobody did that during the monarchy, there was incredible loyalty and probably also non-disclosure clauses, as they are common today. But later there were always people, from valet to ladies-in-waiting, who wrote down their memoirs or gave interviews. This was probably also due to existential fears, because in the 1920s hyperinflation was so high and eating up the pensions of those affected. There was good money to be made from it, because there was already an interest in what was happening at court back then. But the servants were still loyal, so although everyday life at court was described, one never went into private life and one should not expect any critical discussion there. The negative aspects were rather left out and that is why you have to be careful with these sources and assess information in a filtered way.
Does the view of the employees in the historical processing come off badly?
The existing documents have always flowed into the historical processing, but there are not that many. One must not forget that a personal valet, for example, had neither the time nor the leisure nor perhaps the skills to write memoirs. The primary sources about the background of the employees and their hard everyday life are simply missing. But that’s exactly what I find interesting, so I’m always very happy when I find a source like that.
Why was “framing” sometimes done, i.e. a certain picture of aristocrats drawn? For example, Marie Antoinette was portrayed as a haughty and stupid monarch.
That depends on who has dealt with the history of these people. Even in the days of the monarchy, there were certain historians who dealt with it and published serious works. But there were also other publicists who perhaps only knew certain sources and whose publications were therefore subjective. And that had a big impact on public perception, that stuck and continues to be a cliché. Marie Antoinette was of course vilified since it was the time of the French Revolution – her beheading had to be justified.
How do you assess the fact that there are still monarchists in Austria like the Black-Yellow Alliance?
In my perception, these people are not very numerous. Most distinguish between historical interest and monarchist aspirations. To be honest, I don’t know what could have been better in the days of the monarchy. The lifelong responsibility of a monarch who does not retire to the private sector after a few years and thus acts with more far-sightedness may appear to be a positive aspect at first glance. Unfortunately, one forgets very quickly that this system also equips people with enormous power, who sometimes are in no way up to it. You would be at the mercy of these people for many decades. Therefore, real monarchists also represent a small and meaningless minority.
