Le juif Suss

"Jew Suess" (or "Jud Süß" in German) is an extremely anti-semitic film that was sponsored by Josef Goebbels and the Nazis. The purpose was to solidify hatred against the Jews--not only in Germany but throughout occupied Europe. How much this contributed to the Europeans often embracing the deportation and execution of the Jews is debatable, but it surely had SOME effect.

The film purports to be a true story about a German state in the 18th century where Jews insinuated themselves into the government and then began taking advantage of the good Christian people. The Jewish atrocities included murder, rape and excessive taxation--and ultimately the people rose up against their idiot Duke due to his complicity in these injustices.

As far as the technical aspects of the film goes, you can see that UFA studios had great actors, sets and directors. The film looks great--like a Hollywood product. So, I cannot just give the film a score of 1 due to its evil and sinister plot. Plus, while a complete lie, the plot did work--it does arouse hatred and fear of the Jews--meaning it was great propaganda. Evil, but great in its own sick way The film is well worth seeing unless you actually believe the insane notions of an international Jewish conspiracy--and from a historical aspect, it's a sad but fascinating look into the Nazi psyche.

By the way, I also recently saw a fascinating documentary entitled "Harlan: In the Shadow of Jew Suess" and it would make a great companion piece to watching "Jew Suess". It's about the director Veit Harlan and how his family to this day reacts the this viciously anti-semitic film. Some, are naturally very apologetic and their lives have been altered by this genetic connection while others are unapologetic and think that everyone should just forget and accept that Harlan was supposedly forced to make this film. Fascinating viewing, that's for sure.

There's a histrionic death scene in "Jude Suess" in which the corrupt Duke, finally realizing his mistake in trusting his Jewish treasurer, makes grand theatrical gestures before collapsing to the ground. It's a moment as goofy as anything in Sergei Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible," and really very unintentionally funny. Evil sneers and clenched fists abound in this ridiculous historical melodrama--allegedly based on "fact" if you believe Josef Goebbels, he of the big lie--and as such it's something of a bizarre guilty pleasure. This is all very disturbing of course because this is a film that the German public in 1940 took with dead earnest seriousness. Along with the abhorrent propaganda "documentary" "The Eternal Jew" of the same vintage, this is the kind of film that manipulates and fabricates historical fact in the service of genocidal hatred. If you can put the film in proper historical perspective, understanding its socio-political implications, it is fascinating and perversely entertaining. With "Birth of a Nation" and a few others, it's certainly a notable addition to the cinema of hate. Its cracked dialogue includes such dubious gems as: "No, Jews aren't more clever--just more cunning."

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.

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!

"Jud Süß" is overall a well-made, sometimes brilliant, occasionally hammy, movie. It's plausible that it served its intended function, to promote antisemitism, beautifully in its time. The movie came out in 1940, about one year after the beginning of the war, about five years after the Nuremberg race laws, and about two years before the Wannsee Conference. Considering the enormous, fanatical hatred of the Nazis against jews, the movie's antisemitism comes across as surprisingly subtle. Flanked by the occasional antisemitic outburst ("There are no hostels for jews in Stuttgart") the movie builds a convincing psychogram of a perpetrator and leaves all its great performances to its antiheroes, while the good guys come across as pale, square and boring.

The movie is surprising in many aspects and allows perplexing insights into the Nazi mindframe. The faulty emperor (played by Heinrich George) is described as fat, vain and sybaritic (in his fantasy uniform he's the spitting image of Goering) and also as a militarist and a megalomaniac, who has lost contact with the needs of his people (Hitler comes to mind). When Süss is eventually hanged, he comes across not so much as a monster but as the scapegoat that Wilhelm Hauff, the author of the original novella, described him as.