Süskind

a wise manner to present a touching sensitive fragment of Shoah . a delicate, precise science to use pieces of an well-known episode, at first sigh. Süskind has the essential virtue to not be another Schindler list. and, more important, it represents a little more than a Jewish page of recent history but a testimony about hope, fight for the other case self - sacrifice and solitude in middle of war. the cast is great and the art of director to recreate a drawing of a tragedy with noble roots is admirable at whole. the movie has its specific identity and escapes from the large-gray definition - another film about Holocaust. a special note for the work of Karl Markovics.

I just watched this movie at the preview in Amsterdam and I felt really touched by this rather unknown and miraculous story on the holocaust in The Netherlands. In this story members of the Amsterdam Jewish Council together with the student resistance organized the escape and hiding of 600 children from the Nazis. Although I had heard the story many times from my mother (she was actually one of the children's nurses working at the Jewish nursery and involved in smuggling the infant's and young children out of the guarded building), most particular I was very impressed by the story as depicted by director Rudolf van den Berg. Of course the storyline was partly the directors interpretation of the factual happenings, however this was not disturbing at all and made the personality of Süskind coming alive without becoming to sentimental. At the end of this two hour movie, during the movie credits, the audience was quit and stunned and many could barely keep their eyes dry which was most probably intensified by the end score beautifully performed by violinist Janine Jansen.

The acting in the movie was very good. In particular Jeroen Spitsenberger gave a great performance as Walter Süskind, however Austrian actor Karl Markovic outplays him in a brilliant role as the compulsive and lonely SS-commandant Aus der Fünten. His character is convincing from his first appearance on. Were there any (minor) issues on this movie? Yes, is was not shot at the original location in Amsterdam but in Romania which is understandable since a lot has been changed but still impacted the credibility of the movie at this point somehow. Also the scene where nurse Fanny escapes deportation at the railway station looked very similar to the one in Schindler's List where Stern is released from the train.

All together Süskind is, despite a few minor errors, an outstanding movie on WW2. The fact that this movie is based on a factual and miraculous story makes it even more a must seen about a story which should be told. Even after a few days, the movie made a lot of impression to me and I therefore could warmly recommend it to everyone interested in WW2 history.

This is a pretty good movie. The director knows how to tell a good story and there were several times when my heart leapt into my throat. The film had character development, nuance and depth. This movie also helped me to understand much better what happened at the Hollandse Schouwburg. I hope Dutch directors continue to make movies to tell the story of what happened in the Netherlands during the Second World War, because it wasn't all Anne Frank.

The theme of the Holocaust, complete with cattle cars, has been rendered many times on film. It is a familiar story to most moviegoers. Also, over the years Dutch directors have made several important films that help a Dutch movie-going audience to remember and mythologise what happened.

In this version of the theme, we're shown what happened in Amsterdam. The story focuses on David Suskind, a German-Jewish refugee cum businessman who found himself in the position of having to organise the transport of Amsterdam's Jews to Westerbork and then on to their fate in the camps.

The imprisonment and deportation of all these civilians was a horrific event, difficult to show on film and painful to watch. These activities could only take place if the victims weren't aware of what was going to happen to them. We're shown the minutiae of this operation and what happened when suspicions started arising. The horror of the extreme moral dilemmas involved are brought to life for the viewer.

I felt this movie was too sympathetic. Please don't take this the wrong way, but saving 600 children (as wonderful and miraculous as that was) didn't make up for the systematic destruction of almost all of Amsterdam's jewry, a deeply rooted community that was in some ways the soul of Amsterdam. There is no redemption here. For anyone. Anne Frank, Suskind -- these stories do not represent what actually happened.

I suppose that's the problem with Holocaust movies -- the moviegoer prefers some redemption at the end, some indication that there is a moral universe (even if that's not the case). I think the end might have been stronger by telling us more about the children who survived.

For reasons I don't quite understand, many Dutch movies lapse into sappiness and melodrama. This one included. I suppose it was inevitable given the theme. I'm thinking in particular of the scene at the tracks.

Perhaps someone will think of making a movie recreating pre-war Jewish life in Amsterdam? Amsterdam is a fascinating city and this is something I don't think I've ever seen on film.

its universal message about basic virtues of humankind did it more than a film about Shoah. or, more exactly, not only another film about Shoah. because it is a pledge for discover the near reality as challenge for defend yours honesty. because it is a film about the other and the science to use the influence to change a terrible reality. because it is an eulogy of sacrifice and the best manner to use it as tool against injustice. and, sure, it is a film about hope. maybe, first, because it is a film about children.