Eichmann

Renowned war criminal Adolf Eichmann has been found at large in Argentina by Israeli agents, where he is promptly kidnapped and brought to Israel for trial. Avner Less is appointed as his interrogator before the trial. The Israeli nation is baying for his blood outside, which makes Less's task of being impartial all the harder. The film revolves around their interviews, Eichmann's replies to certain questions about his past atrocities bringing us back through flashback to the war. Eichmann naturally denies the offences and puts most down to obeying orders. The cat and mouse of the interviewing process and its gradual progression is very interesting and well crafted. Thomas Kretschmann's performance in particular as Eichmann is excellent and the film belongs to him.

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.

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.

There are a lot of things about "Eichmann" which seem curiously wrong. For one thing, this Eichmann is a lot more interesting and colourful than the real man appears to have been. There's a bizarre scene in which he is challenged by his very weird Hungarian mistress to shoot a baby; I won't give away whether or not he does so, but it's not something I've ever heard of before. This Eichmann is a womaniser, a bit of a boozer, altogether a more louche and raffish figure than the rather dull bureaucrat that I've always read Eichmann described as.

Yes, the film suffers from some weird accents. Thomas Kretschmann, as Eichmann himself, speaks in a clipped German accent; Troy Garity, Franka Potente and Stephen Fry (in a bizarre but oddly convincing performance as, of all things, the Israeli Minister of Justice) all have indeterminately foreign accents, and none of it really makes sense.

Having said that, Kretschmann carries off the job he has been asked to do, and Garity is really very good as Avner Less, who was not Eichmann's prosecutor (as someone else stated) but his interrogator. Less was not a lawyer but a police officer. The subplot of his wife being chronically ill is presumably there because it was true; it would have been better if they'd left it out, because what drama there is in this film is the battle of wills between Less the dogged interrogator and Eichmann the stolidly evasive interrogatee.

I note in passing that Stephen Fry might almost be the rather more well-fed first cousin, or perhaps uncle, of Ciaran Hinds in "Munich". The accent is the same, and the tallness, slicked-down hair and intimidating bulk is very similar.

If they'd toned down the lurid stuff about Eichmann's sex life and focused on what he actually did for a living, this could have been as good as "Conspiracy". Pity.

I do not typically submit such reviews, but this film cries out for comments. "Using" the inherently dramatic and compelling nature of the Nazi period to create a largely inaccurate film seems to be another kind of crime. Such a period of evil deserves the most sober treatment possible and should not be used to create a kind of historic horror film.

All of that is leading up to my strong suggestion that you skip the film and read Hannah Arendt's amazing book about the actual Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Here you will find a non-dramatic, non-titillating version of the story that neither exaggerates nor diminishes Eichmann's evil, but rather reveals him in a matter-of-fact way as an opportunist, a careerist who merely wanted to advance, climb the ladder, attain the next "title," etc. He apparently did not have any particular hatred toward Jews. None of this in my estimation makes him less evil; the book actually reveals the "banality" of his evil by taking away the specter of a crazed monster. His evil lies in its being sane and in a sense "ordinary." Therefore, given its serious subject matter, I feel the film only partially reflects the facts Arendt reveals so clearly, obscuring them with with sex and useless side stories. The performances are good, the film is well made, etc. That's not my point. If you want to make a formulaic film, a horror film, a sexy film, or any other kind of film, have at it. But don't use Eichmann as your subject matter. The subject matter is too serious to be misused in any way. Read the book, please.