Eichmann

When a film's starting sentence is 'based on a true story' or if you know that the story behind the film actually took place, you expect at least the facts to be close to reality. I'll put aside the embarrassing mistakes in Hebrew (didn't you have Israeli actors on the set?), what troubles me more is the inaccuracies in historical facts, and the actual 'creation' of allegedly legal documentations that never existed. Furthermore, the addition of plot lines that portray Eichmann as a brutal murderer, and as a 'valentino', are not correct, add nothing to the plot (apart from the female nudity, which is entirely not required in this movie), and miss the horrible fact that Eichmann, like many many officers in the German Reich was a gray man, who just filed documents that sent millions to their death. This movie is a shame for the viewers' intelligence. Ignoring the historical errors and the made up plot lines, the movie itself is not interesting, the characters are superficial and empty, and if there's an intention to create a 'duel' between Eichmann and Less, it is artificial and is futile.

EICHMANN is not an easy film to view: revisiting the atrocities of the Nazi Third Reich through the greasy, smooth, denying words of Adolf Eichmann is a nightmare, but a nightmare we must revisit periodically to remind us of just how heinous was that period of history. The film is set in 160 - 1962 and is based on transcripts obtained by the Israeli forces from the files of the concentration camps and Nazi regime, transcripts that document the words of Adolf Eichmann that lead to his final confession of his participation in the Third Reich atrocities as unveiled under the slow and insidious interview by Police Captain Avner Less.

The film opens after the 1960 capture of Eichmann from his home in Argentina, the country where he and his wife and four sons had been in hiding since the end of WW II. Adolf Eichmann (brilliantly portrayed by Thomas Kretschmann) had been the World's Most Wanted Man and his transport to Israel was met by jeering crowds. The Israeli Minister Tormer (Stephen Fry) elects police captain Avner Less (Troy Garity) to conduct the interview in what is supposed to be a top-secret assignment. But the news escapes and Avner's wife Vera (Franka Potente), suffering from polio of the spine, and the Avner children are marked as targets by the Israeli's who do not appreciate the duty of Avner Less's obligation to interrogate and gain a complete confession from Eichmann before he can be tried. The months that the interrogations take prove that the Israeli's believed in justice: the facts must be proved completely before the prisoner is tried for atrocities.

During the interrogation months Eichmann is shown in flashbacks to have been not only following the orders of Hitler, but being committed to the purification of the 'Aryan race'. What screenwriter Snoo Wilson and director Robert Young allow is for us to see the human weakness of Eichmann as portrayed By Kretschmann: he had mistresses, including one Austrian Jewess and a Hungarian Countess who urged him to complete the Final Solution, he coldly signed extermination orders 'because he had to follow Hitler's orders', yet he also was an apparently devoted father to his own sons. Equal time is given to allow the audience to see the interaction between the conflicted parties of the interrogation: Avner was convinced he must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prisoner was indeed guilty of all of the crimes fro which he was accused. The interrogations become a battle of wills between the smarmy, oily, manipulative Eichmann and the personally distraught Avner. At the close of the film the real Avner E. Less provides voice over regarding the hanging of Eichmann along with statistics of the Nazi atrocities that no matter how often they are quoted continue to astonish our ability to comprehend.

The only artistic aspect of the film that is ultimately distracting is the director's choice to have cinematographer Michael Conner use near black and white/sepia toning for the film. Certain scenes break into real color but the tone of the film footage seems dirty - and perhaps that is the reason for the choice. Richard Harvey adds the musical score, and there are some very fine cameo roles by Delaine Yates, Tereza Srbova, and Judit Viktor. But in the end it is the performance by Thomas Kretschmann that is terrifyingly real: he deserves awards for his courage to accept this role and for his unforgettable impersonation of a man so evil that under other actor's skills would be simply unbelievable. It is Kretschmann's extraordinary performance that brings home the terror of his film.

Grady Harp

This version of EICHMANN (as a biography, biographical, or as any of the several excellent documentaries about his trails) apparently has a dream cast and technical crew to make the "definite" EICHMANN "fictionalized" film. Was Thomas Kretschmann born to play the perfect Nazi of our nightmares and dreams, or what?

Well, here his "Naziness",in total contrast to his brief but impactive appearance in Polanski's THE PIANIST, and in DER UNTERGANG (as Hitler's brother-in-law)is a waste. It's a waste because the script of the film is horrible. His stereotype Nazi features would have been better spent in the USA 1960's sitcom HOGAN'S HEROES.

I live in Brazil and have spent a good part of my life here, in Argentina and in Germany, though I'm American and grew up in the 60s when WWII was still as fresh as the collapse of the USSR is now. So, any well-rounded movie fan from this area (or news junkie) would have as a compulsory experience, followed on radio and TV (no cable back then) the before & post-war antics of these Eichamnns, Klaus Barbies and their cohorts.

Now, I sat through a 5 or 6 hour film in Berlin in 1998 or 1999 (or was it two 4 hour sittings)of the COMPLETE Eichmann trial in Israel. The documentary was a "big release" as Documentaries go. It was playing in several art cinemas in Berlin, one near the Memorial Church, another in Kreuzberg,and in the Oranienburgerstrasse "art film multiplex" where I saw it.

If anyone knows which film I'm talking about, please submit as anew title or e-mail me. It is not any of the options this site gives: (Displaying 8 Results) 1.The Man Who Captured Eichmann (1996) (TV) 2."Adolf Eichmann 2003) (TV) aka I Met Adolf Eichmann" - UK 3."L'Hidato Shel Adolf Eichmann" (1994) 4.Operation Eichmann (1961) 5. Eichmann Trial (1961) (TV) 6. "Eichmann and the Third Reich" (1961) 7. The Trial of Adolf Eichmann(1997) (TV) 8. Witnesses to the Holocaust-the Trial of Adolf Eichmann(1987)(TV).

I thought it was Number 7 (the 1997 TV version), but it's too short and has a moderator, which the long film I saw lacked). Anyway, with that film as DEFINITE, REAL and irrefutable genuine human emotion, tragedies, and wrecked lives revealed, WHY make a feature film?

Well, as the list of seven above show, there was no shortage of "Eichmann films" when this film was shot, and released. And it has been released. In the Rio Festival, EICHMANN had 4 screenings in the main large cinemas, and was held over for a third week of "Last Chance For the Best of Rio" which ended last week. And the copy had burned subtitles in French, with electronic Portuguese subtitles below the screen. So, it has been somewhat shown around the world.

As this looks like a probable straight to DVD release. I had never even read about the filming of this feature, which also (mis) casted the German (but dark and with a star power name) Franka Potente as the Israeli's prosecutor's wife in one of the boring and pointless subplots. Potente, like everyone else including Eichmann, only spoke English, though she and her Prosecutor husband had met in France, and supposedly spoke French with each other.

But not a word of German, Yiddish, French or Hebrew is heard.

FINE. English is the international language. But this being a criminal court case movie, with loads of depositions, at least one of the victims could have spoken in the 4 major languages related to the case. Just for effect, like Arien Brody's attempts at German in the PIANIST, for some authenticity, with English, though not one of the four languages related to the case, as the main language, but not as-the language spoken 100% of the time!

Anyway, there is a "real film" with authentic testimony from the actual victims in their mother tongues, plus a couple of hours in Austrian-accented German deposition Eichmann gave. That documentary was basically in Hebrew, but both sides staunchly used their national identity languages. Eichmann spoke only German, and the Israeli prosecutor, judges, and victims did too - but chose to ask in Hebrew (so the crowd could understand apparently). Thus the translations to French, English, Russian & Yiddish, which I'm counting here as German added to an already long documentary, in black & white, with no visual power film of it all, two sets of subtitles running all the time. It was difficult to watch, but authentic, and a real treasure, something this EICHMANN is not.

Again, the hours of the real trial is what you should look for. The Israeli Prosecutor was not a gorgeous and elegant leading man, nor was Eichmann nearly as attractive and "Nazi-like" (as defined by the Hollywood stereotype).

This film gives NO new insight on Eichmann. The screenplay is shamefully bad, and the scenery is SO not-Israel. It screams MALTA (where it was shot),though NO southern Mediterranean island would have given us something that looks like Tel Aviv. These islands are ancient, and Tel Aviv started to become a city in the late 1920s and 30s (not in the 15th century).

My suggestion: if you are die-hard Thomas Kretschmann and Franka Potente fans, go. But just to see them. You won't find any substance or anything new in this movie - such a terrible waste of time, money, story, and great (and beautiful) German actors!

First, the good stuff:

Thomas Kretschmann's work here is superb, truly superb, particularly in light of the fact that the film interrupts this superb acting with cutaways to various scenes while the voice of Kretschmann as Eichmann is heard writing letters to his children. I don't CARE. Give me more of Kretschmann being interrogated. He is riveting.

Now, the bad stuff:

The 'artistic license' this film takes is shameful in that it is an insult to every single jew who was murdered by the Nazi regime. There is no good reason for the filmmakers to have given Eichmann a Viennese Jew for a mistress. The notes of Eichmann's interrogator, Avner Less, do not mention anything about this, nor did it come up in Eichmann's Nuremberg trial-in-absentia or the Israeli trial. Nor was there a need to make Eichmann the lover of a Hungarian mistress who was so insatiable for the deaths of jews that she would reprimand him for not killing enough while they engaged in foreplay. This is obscene and it obscures the larger truth that seemingly inconsequential, everyday men can do terrible damage.

To take these liberties is an attempt to obscure the monster that Eichmann really was. To remove the inexplicable terror that is the result of banal men doing unspeakable things in the name of ideology and / or the protection of a larger group of criminals, is misguided at best and an insult to every Jewish man, woman and child who walked into those building thinking they were going to get a shower.

They should have stuck to the text of "The Eichmann Interrogation" and let the actors use their skills to produce the tension. That's what they are paid for, after all, and I would have liked to have seen more of the interaction between the two main characters.

I give it a '4' on the strength of Thomas Kretschmann's acting alone. Otherwise this movie is a terrible waste of time.

I have to agree with everything lexo said about this drama; and I say drama because I was never wholly convinced I was witnessing history.

When I bought this title I was expecting a detailed examination of "the architect of Hitler's plan"; no matter the bias. All I received in return was a turgid family drama set against a few pointless conversations between the police captain Less and Eichmann. Once sensationalised by dubious episodes in the man's Nazi career all that remained were constant accusations and denials by Less and Eichmann. Admittedly this man may not have been exciting or even entertaining within the Nazi regime, but one thing he most certainly was, was life-changing.

There is an interested audience for films that seek to examine the minds of the "architects of Hitler's plan", as Oliver Hirschbiegel's "Downfall" has shown. Studying German history I was more concerned with the Socialists than the National Socialists, but the Nazi motivation and objectives are still a fascinating aspect of 20th Century History. "Eichmann" however does nothing to advance the understanding of the Nazis, nor the Eichmann that oiled the wheels of the Holocaust, and seems more like Jewish apologia for interrogating Eichmann by a man who suffered personal tragedy in the Holocaust, convicted him on mere supposition and rumour, and murdered him because of intense social and political pressure.