It's true that RBB ended "Chez Krömer". Nevertheless, we have to be grateful to the Berlin comedian. Because his last programs have shown what is going wrong in discussions in Germany: you ask questions, but are not interested in the answers.
The fact that Kurt Krömer was supported by a strong team for his talk show was already evident in the selection of the music. "For me formidable" by Charles Aznavour was a perfect fit for the Berliner's style, his mischievous sense of humor, but also for the concept of the show. In it, the chansonnier sings about a love of which it is not clear whether it has been fulfilled. "You're the only one for me - great," it says with gentle (self-)irony. "I wish I could finally tell you one day." Finally, the Frenchman complains that the sung woman "makes fun of me and everything". He ends by saying, "How can I love you?"
The text aptly describes Krömer's relationship with his guests and ultimately also with the show itself. After he announced that he would stop with "Chez Krömer", he even spoke of a "love-hate relationship". After 41 broadcasts, he realized: "It covers my need for assholes." It is good and right that Krömer has put an end to the format. It didn't work anymore - for anyone. In the last episode, which ran on RBB on Tuesday evening, he said: "The puke came up when I entered the station here" and "put together the questions with the six jumping jacks".
With good will, the statements could be interpreted as (self)ironic. But they came across as more like a broadside against everything and everyone: the RBB and the whole shitty life. Supposedly it was "privately a very nice day" before work began. "The assholes" were to blame for his obviously bad mood, to which he counted his last guest, the comedian Faisal Kawusi. End. Out of. It was certainly not due to the six editors, the "jumping jacks", that the idiosyncratic talk show failed. The sole responsibility for this lies with the moderator.
When "Chez Krömer" started, watching and listening was fun because the Berliner did exactly what was expected of him. As a TV anarcho, he broke with convention and expectations. He was intentionally rude to the point of snotty, yet somehow personable and funny. Krömer, who can be a grandiose comedian, is gladly forgiven for his cheekiness and sophistry. Anyone who went on his show knew what they were getting themselves into.
Lost were those who wanted to meet the impertinent and quick-witted questioner with impertinence and quick-wittedness, but were not remotely on Krömer's intellectual level. Attempts to steal the show from him were doomed to failure, as it only further spurred Krömer on to show his distaste for certain guests. Sometimes he touched the limits of contempt or even exceeded them. One thought at one point: Why do the respondents put up with this? But no one ever stood up and said, "Fuck me!"
But at some point the concept, the idea behind it and the eternal squabbles no longer worked out, it got boring, especially since Krömer clearly didn't feel like it anymore and, like last time with Kawusi, it was no longer funny and outrageous, but simple was just rude. Too bad. Because if the moderator had prepared himself to some extent, you got to know the guests in a way you wouldn't normally. For example Karl Lauterbach, who revealed his nature somewhere between wooden and funny in "Chez Krömer".
But in the last programs there was no longer any trace of it. Krömer deliberately read the questions in such a way that everyone had to realize that none of this interests him. He unwound his program and started to give it – from his point of view – to Springer fuzzies like ex-“Bild” boss Julian Reichelt and “racists” like Kawusi. And that was his big mistake - for which we have to be grateful to Krömer. Because the programs with Reichelt and Kawusi in particular showed what is going wrong in discussions in our country: you ask questions, but are not interested in the answers. One does not listen and does not want to deal with the arguments of the other side, but like Krömer swings a club or two from the high horse of moral superiority. If you don't agree with me, you'll be verbally abused. This is how a polarized society develops and perpetuates itself.
On one occasion, when Reichelt asked a counter-question that was not completely outlandish, Krömer did not answer the content, but with an evasive Basta announcement: "I'll ask the questions." You can make it that easy, but you shouldn't if you're interviewing a smiling egomaniac like Reichelt. It's good to want to talk to Kawusi, a German whose parents are from Afghanistan, about stupid women's jokes or hints of racism. But for that you have to allow a conversation in the sense of an exchange, instead of responding to every protestation of the guest that they have made mistakes and regretted it with the claim: "That's the typical regret number" in order to stay in business. A charge against which no herb has grown.
"You are told that your jokes mostly consist of clichés and stereotypes, especially about minorities. Why do you always step down?" Krömer wanted to know. However, the guest was unwilling to adopt a "typical victim attitude". This is understandable because this correction is encroaching, since everyone can and should decide for themselves whether they see themselves as victims or not. Kawusi therefore rightly asked: "Who is creating the table? Who is at the top and who is at the bottom?" Krömer made no move to answer, but instead stated after a war of words: "We only have ass fiddles here, including you." His verdict on his guest: "You only tell shit". And threw Kawusi out. It's that easy to do.
(This article was first published on Wednesday, December 07, 2022.)
