Le juif Suss

All past comments about this notorious film have been proved correct: it IS rancid, fetid, despicable. The reasons why this film was made are equally above-board: Nazi Germany's number one goal was to descredit Jews the world over by propanganda so vile as to make the average person denounce Jews as vermin to be exterminated. It is said that when _Jud Suess_ was shown, crowds of people would set themselves wildly on Jews in the streets. That Veit Harlan, who as an actor and artist always showed a certain elegance, should have anything to do with this film (and as the director he had quite a lot to do with it), is amazing. One cannot forget that being assigned films had more to do with commands than with choice; nevertheless, he should have been leery of the project that was said to vie with _Der Ewige Jude_ as the start of the campaign of racial genocide.

A final tip when viewing _Jud Suess_: Pay close attention to Ferdinand Marian's diabolical portrayal of Suess Oppenheimer. In mannerisms, the easy refinity, the worldliness, the dropping of a bon mot, the wily insouciance of the "Jew" of yesteryears' imagination; it is all caught on celluloid Agfa film. Ferdinand Marian later committed suicide, said to be because of his remorse about his "greatest" acting role.

The life and unhappy end of said life for Joseph Oppenheimer, the famous Jew Suss has been interpreted in many ways over the years in a variety of medium. The most vile interpretation was that done in this 1940 film, personally produced and supervised by Joseph Goebbels.

The real Oppenheimer was out of Vienna where he had done considerable business with the Catholic Hapsburgs and moved to the Wurttemberg area where he came to the attention of the heir to Duchy of Wurttemberg who after he became Duke made Oppenheimer his first minister.

Duke Karl Alexander played by Heinrich George is an ambitious fellow who would like to create a miniature Versailles over in Stuttgart an ambition that a number of German heads of state wanted to emulate including Frederick the Great over in Prussia. Ferdinand Marian as Oppenheimer is a worldly high living fellow himself who provides a number of financial schemes that increase the Duke's treasury. Of course while doing it he arouses the ire of the local Lutheran gentry. After Duke Karl Alexander dies, the burghers of Stuttgart do to Oppenheimer precisely what you see in Jew Suss.

Without the religious component the closest thing approximating this story was that of Nicolas Fouquet, Louis XIV's minister of finance over in France. He lived high on the hog, too high in the opinion of his king. Fouquet was however first given exile and then had the sentence commuted to life in prison.

What Oppenheimer's story played into was a latent anti-Semitism already instilled in the population by Martin Luther. During the course of the movie the burghers of Stuttgart warn the Duke of Luther's warnings about how vile those Jews are, but the Duke fails to heed. The Catholic Hapsburg connection isn't brought in as the Austrians were now part of the Reich.

The real Oppenheimer was accused of being an agent for those Hapsburgs in real life. But here he's the agent of a deep and nebulous Jewish conspiracy to take over Wurttemberg. Today Wurttemberg, tomorrow the world. Like Jews always do, he's got designs on Aryan women and in his sites here is Krista Soderburg, a Swedish actress married to the director of Jew Suss, Veit Harlan who always played the prototype of Aryan women in German films. Her being debauched and later suicide sparks all the latent hatred against Oppenheimer that gets unleashed with the demise of Duke Karl Alexander. Her Aryan sweetheart played by Malte Jager leads the mob against Oppenheimer.

Again in real life Oppenheimer was a worldly sort who never had any trouble getting women to give up the goods. A whole lot like Fouquet over in France, but again we have the religious component here.

Mind you this same story had been filmed six years earlier over in Great Britain with the exiled Conrad Veidt playing Oppenheimer. In that version, Oppenheimer is endowed with saintly qualities and is a martyr, saintly qualities the real Oppenheimer probably would have scorned. It's fascinating the different spin you can give, especially if you're in the propaganda game. Joe Goebbels, the little club footed maniac who ran German cinema as part of the Propaganda Ministry, had a casting couch that dwarfed any in Hollywood and anything that Oppenheimer in real life could ever dream of.

I won't put a rating on Jew Suss, this is such a vile story meant to inflame anti-Semitism and succeeding horribly. This was required viewing for people entering the S.S. those who became guards at the concentration camps. It was vile when it occurred in real life and viler yet when told by the Nazis in this film.

A couple of years ago, I saw this film in my history class. It's been long, so I couldn't give a detailed summery of what exactly happened, however, the plot wasn't what stayed with me anyway. What registered, more than anything, was that this was a propaganda film intended to convince the audience that Jews were evil. It is not that the villain - whom I remember to be partly intriguing, partly repulsive - just happens to be Jewish. The final scene makes it quite clear that he is the way he is because he is Jewish. It's when the film abandons all subtlety and decides to give its message a final hit with a hammer, to assure it's been properly driven into the heads of the audience.

I find it quite impossible to judge this film under any other than the propaganda aspect. While it may be a decent film a far as technical apect are concerned, it is nothing anyone could watch purely for his or her amusement, at least not if they know about the historical background; and people in Germany are probably even more aware of this than anyone else. I cannot ignore that this film was meant to sow hatred, and nor do I want to. All other questions, whether the acting and directing were good or whether the dialogues were well-written, are of secondary importance to me. Certainly the film was well-made - how else would it have worked so well? - but even this doesn't make it into something watchable or entertaining.

OK folks, "The Jolson Story" it certainly ain't but as propaganda films go, this one is not that bad. 60 years down the road, there can be no justification for putting this film on the banned list anymore. The film had a message to give to the German people of 1940 and was successful in that respect, but surely we have all moved on now. The final scene in "Jud Suss" should have todays audiences in fits of laughter. I am surprised that Mel Brooks hasn't done a remake of Jud Suss. Find a copy if you can and that isn't too difficult despite attempts to prevent the film being issued,and sit down with a nice box of chocolates a stiff gin and tonic and enjoy. Jud Suss certainly beats walking in the rain after all!

This film can be viewed from several different angles, and it indeed is. First of all, it's by no means a bad film, meaning - it's very aptly directed, and the narrative runs smoothly. Some of the leading actors are very good, especially Ferdinand Marian, who doesn't stoop to anything banal and draws us a fascinating portrait of a man you can both hate and love. Then there are the shots where German people have had enough of his cunning mastermind, and take justice in their own hands. Of course, when one is immersed in the film, you would do the same. Which means, the film works as it is meant. But then - one is always allowed to ask oneself whether it was impossible for this kind of thing to happen in 1730s Germany. I think it wasn't. I think we can watch this film, and hate the bad guy, without automatically deciding to hate every Jew in the world. After all, there are hundreds of films produced in Hollywood, where the bad guy is Russian or who ever. I do think we as human race are sufficiently grown to leave our emotions in the cinema auditorium and not be influenced by something that we know is not right.