Der Staat gegen Fritz Bauer

In general, the story of Eichmann is a seminal story to understanding the 20th century, and the depth of evil in the Nazi state. AS ardent noted the banality of Eichmann's evil, especially the cold bureaucratic elements the machine he helped create to murders of innocents by the millions is a truly instructive warning.

In addition to Ardent, faithful films in German and in English of the Wannsee conference, as well as Wiesenthal relentless and heroic should be read or seen by all.

This film however, just can't help but throw in Washington and the CIA on several occasions. The filmmakers just have to deploy the time worn European crutch of raising an Americans bogeyman and it ruins the film's claim to veracity. In fact, the Us with all its flaws had nothing to do with the creation and enabling of Eichmann, and in fact Eichmann was a very German and European creation.

In 2006 stories started to come out that the W. German intelligence and the CIA had known he was in Argentina. In fact subsequent to that in 2011 that claim was shown false. The claim they know he was there is like the claim FDR knew an attack would be at pearl harbor. Pearl was listed, but so were many other places. Same with Eichmann and his location., there was intelligence he was in a dozen places. In fact Guy Walters blows away this tin foil hat conspiracy theory repeated in the film back in 2001.:

blogs. telegraph.co.uk/ news/ guywalters/ 100071101/ the-west- Germans -and-the- Americans -really-did- not -know-where- eichmann-was/

(remove spaces in the URL as IMDb was rejecting it as too long)

The idea that the CIA or the US in anyway blocked the W. Germans or Israeli on Eichmann is also simply bogus. What the now largely released documentation of the period shows is the US was more focused and concerned with reducing the international isolation of Israel, and while Eichmann's abduction was utterly just, it was illegal under international law, and in fact Israel was excoriated for the abduction in the Security council. In fact the abduction of Eichmann had realty increased the influence of the nationalist, anti Semite and deeply anti American Tacuara Nationalist Movement. Raising concerns about that is not some smoking gun of US or CIA complicity.

It is a shame to see an otherwise good film touching an important part of the history of a European and German created holocaust and aftermath flawed by worn and bogus misrepresentation and blame shifting.

Up to the present day Germany is uncomfortable with playing a major role in World politics. This uneasyness is attributable to the atrocities of the Second World War almost 80 years ago. It is hard to imagine that from mid 1950 to mid 1960, that is in the period of "das Wirtschaftswunder" just after the Second World War, Germany tried very hard to forget the past and look the other way. Only when the generation of the "baby boomers" began to ask their parents difficult questions in the second half of the sixties this period of silence game to an end.

In mid 2010 two films were made about this period of silence. First in 2014 "Im Labyrinth des Schweigens" (Giulio Ricciarelli) and a year later "Der Staat gegen Fritz Bauer" (Lars Kraume). The first film is about the preparation for the "Auschwitz trial" in the first half of the 60's. "Der Staat gegen Fritz Bauer" is about the hunt for Adold Eichmann in teh second half of the 50's.

The two films are interrelated. "Der Staat gegen Fritz Bauer" can be seen as the prequel to "Das Labyrinth des Schweigens" because Fritz Bauer is in this film the boss of Johann Radmann (the main character).

In "Das Labyrinth des Schweigens" the silence is mostly passive (looking in the other direction) and the young main character is taken by surprise by it. In "Der Staat gegen Fritz Bauer" the silence is more active (consciously sparing war criminals, however not going that far and being that organized as described in "The ODESSA file" from Frederick Forsyth). Fritz Bauer is experienced enough to be very aware of this active resistance. He knows that priorities have shifted from the Second World War to the Cold war. Statements of a war criminal in court could well form a political risk for the young state of West Germany. It's no coincidence that Fritz Bauer has more confidence in the Israeli Mossad than in his own colleagues to catch Eichmann!

Fritz Bauer is played by Burghart Klaussner, an experenced actor who played for example also in "The white ribbon" (2009, Michael Haneke). He does an excellent job. He plays Bauer partly as a sort of grumpy old man, bit like inspector Frost.

I have watched other (better) films about the search and/or the capture of Adolph Eichmann. I should have known from the title that this film has very little to do with Eichmann. It is mostly about being homosexual in Germany during that time period. One of the characters is complete fiction, created in order to focus on homosexuality. Additionally, the movie presents untruths regarding various governments. If you're looking for a movie about how difficult it was to be gay in Germany in the 50's you will enjoy this movie. If you are looking to see history, look elsewhere, like the historically accurate "Operation Finale".

That's metaphorically and literally speaking of course. One might also add that it can be a pun too. But while my summary line is definitely on the light side, the movie is not. And it couldn't be with the story it wants to tell. Germany has an obvious history with Nazis and the subsequent hunt for them. Or sometimes neglect in hunting them down for various reasons.

This movie shows one of many cases and one man who was determined to bring as many to justice as possible. Despite and through all obstacles that were before him. So this is a story (thriller) that has quite a bit going for it. It's really well made and well acted too and the suspense is there, from the start until the end. There's also a lot of award talking going on about this, if that is something you're interested in

At first sigh, another confrontation against past. correct, well acted, impecable script, wise thriller. in essence, a film about politic. its rules and shadow and solutions. more important, a film about duty. and patriotism. and the price for a option defining a life. the delicate equilibrium is the lead virtue of this admirable film . remarkable for the fine portraits and for the exploration of the birth of shadows. a film about chavalery in old sense. and about vulnerabilities as basic ingredient of challenges. short, a biographic film who, for its splendid manner to use the elements of story, propose profound senses of an event, reality and the right form of duty assume.