Jud Süß (German anti-"Scam") film from 1940

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Jud Süß

Jud Süß (Jew Süss) is a German film produced in 1940 by Terra Filmkunst at the behest of Joseph Goebbels, and considered one of the most anti-Semitic films of all time.[1] The movie was directed by Veit Harlan, who wrote the screenplay with Eberhard Wolfgang Möller and Ludwig Metzger. The leading roles were played by Ferdinand Marian and Harlan's wife Kristina Söderbaum; Werner Krauss and Heinrich George played key supporting roles.[2]

The film has been characterized as "one of the most notorious and successful pieces of anti-semitic film propaganda produced in Nazi Germany."[3] It was a great success in Germany, with some 20 million viewers. Although the film's budget of 2 million Reichsmarks was considered high for films of that era, the box-office receipts of 6.5 million Reichsmarks made it a financial success. Heinrich Himmler urged members of the SS and police to watch the movie.[4]

After the war, some of the leading cast members were brought to trial as part of the denazification process. They generally defended their participation in the film on the grounds that they had only done so under duress. Despite significant evidence to support their arguments, Susan Tegel, author of Nazis and the Cinema,[5] characterizes their postwar attempts to distance themselves from the film as "crass and self-serving". However, she concedes that their motives for accepting the roles seem to have been more driven by opportunistic ambition than by anti-semitism.[6] Veit Harlan was the only major movie director of the Third Reich to stand trial for "crimes against humanity". After three trials, Harlan was given a light sentence because he convinced the courts that the anti-semitic content of the film had been dictated by Goebbels and that Harlan had worked to moderate the anti-semitism. Eventually, Harlan was reinstated as a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany and went on to make nine more films. He remained a controversial figure and the target of protests.[7]

Although some have dismissed the film as cheap propaganda, others have pointed to Harlan's talent as a director as one of the significant contributing factors to the film's box-office success. Together with Die Rothschilds and Der ewige Jude, the film remains one of the most frequently discussed examples of the use of film to further the Nazi anti-semitic agenda. In 2010, two documentary films were released that explore the history and impact of this movie.  

Plot

The film begins with the coronation of Karl Alexander, Duke of Württemberg (Heinrich George), a man much beloved by his people, who swears an oath to obey the laws of the dukedom "according to the traditional Württemberg loyalty and honesty." However, the Duke soon becomes frustrated because the Württemberg Diet (the provincial council) refuses him the funds needed to maintain a lifestyle comparable to his neighboring sovereigns; in particular, he wants a personal bodyguard, an opera company and a ballet company.[8][9] Lacking funds even to purchase coronation gifts for the Duchess (Hilde von Stolz), the Duke sends a courtier to Frankfurt to borrow money from Joseph Süß Oppenheimer (Ferdinand Marian). Süß shows the emissary jewels and jewelry that are obviously beyond the Duke's means and then says that it would be his honor to provide the Duke with jewelry at a substantial discount. However, Süß insists on presenting the items to the Duke personally despite a ban against Jews (Judenbann) entering the city that has been in force for over a century. Armed with a pass from the Duke, Süß cuts his hair, shaves his beard, and dons "Christian" clothes so that he can enter Württemberg disguised as a Christian.[8] As his carriage gets into an accident, Süß gets a lift from Dorothea Sturm (Kristina Söderbaum) to the city.

The Duke is delighted with the jewelry, and Süß willingly defers payment. Süß offers to provide financing for the Duke's bodyguard, opera and ballet as well.[8] Eventually, the Duke discovers that he owes Süß 350,000 Thalers but Süß demurs saying that all he wants in "payment" is the authority to maintain the roads and bridges of the dukedom for 10 years—and the right to levy tolls for their use and upkeep. The Duke will receive a percentage of the proceeds, thereby freeing him from the financial limits imposed by the council.[8][9][10]

The new tolls cause the price of food and other essentials to rise, enriching both Süß and the Duke. Süß gains the authority to levy taxes on salt, beer, wine and wheat as well but also causing the people of Württemberg to suffer great privation. He also assists in procuring local women for the Duke, thus engaging in the corruption of their morals.[8][9][10]

The oppressive taxes and brutal collection methods incite sporadic rebellions that are suppressed harshly. Süß goes so far as to destroy half of a blacksmith's house to prove his power to punish those who refuse to pay their taxes. When the blacksmith attacks Süß's coach with a sledgehammer, Süß has the blacksmith hanged on the grounds that an attack on the Duke's minister is tantamount to an attack on the Duke himself.[8][9][10]

After some initial resistance, the Duke yields to Süß's request for the repeal of the law prohibiting Jews from living in Württemberg; a horde of dirty, disreputable Jews are then shown moving into the city. Süß enables them to enrich themselves at the expense of the populace.[9] The aged Rabbi Loew (Werner Krauss) criticizes Süß for his excessively opulent lifestyle as the Duke's finance minister and warns that it could be his downfall, warning that, "The Lord punishes Jews who forget who they are!" but Süß pays him no heed.[9][10]

Süß relentlessly pursues Dorothea Sturm and schemes to marry her but his plans are frustrated when her father, the council chairman (Eugen Klöpfer), intervenes. Dorothea and her fiancé, Faber (Malte Jaeger), marry in secret. Süß then has Dorothea's father imprisoned—on the grounds that he is a leader of the conspiracy against the Duke.[8][9][10]

When the council objects to the Duke's increasing usurpation of power and abrogation of the constitution, Süß suggests to him that this challenge to his authority can be suppressed by dismissing the council and restructuring the government so that the Duke can reign as an absolute monarch. Süß tells the Duke that he can accomplish this by hiring mercenaries and that, as a sign of their gratitude, the Jews of Württemberg will provide all the requisite funds. Süß argues that he would be most effective if the Duke were to give him a letter granting him immunity from the laws of Württemberg. The Duke demurs at first but ultimately grants Süß's request.[8][9][10]

As part of an attempt to thwart the Duke's planned coup d'état, Faber is sent on a mission to get help from outside the city but is arrested as he tries to leave the city. Despite being tortured, he refuses to reveal the identities of his co-conspirators. Dorothea goes to Süß to beg for her husband's release but Süß demands that she have sex with him as the price for her husband's freedom. Dorothea submits but then escapes and drowns herself. Süß keeps his promise to free Faber who subsequently discovers his wife's drowned corpse.[9][10]

Süß suggests to the Duke that the two of them go to Ludwigsburg on the pretext of meeting the emperor's emissary and return to Württemberg only after the planned coup has established him as an absolute monarch. However, before the foreign mercenaries arrive to effect Süß's coup, the people of Württemberg rise up under the leadership of Röder. The Württemberg soldiers refuse to fire on their fellow citizens, and several of the townspeople go to Ludwigsburg to confront the Duke and Süß. As they are presenting their grievances, the Duke suffers a fatal heart attack. Süß is taken into custody by the rebels and subjected to a lengthy trial on charges that include treason and financial improprieties.[8][9][10] However, he is ultimately convicted primarily on the charge that he had sex with a Christian woman. Süß is executed, pleading to the last that he was nothing more than a "faithful servant" of the late Duke. All the other Jews are then given three days to leave Württemberg.[8][9][10][11] As the film draws to a close, a citizen of Württemberg, observing the Jews leave, comments, "May the citizens of other states never forget this lesson."

Satirical depiction of Joseph Süß Oppenheimer with the iron gallows of Stuttgart as an emblem on the bottom. Engraving (1738)

Joseph Süß Oppenheimer

Joseph Süß Oppenheimer was an 18th century Court Jew in the employ of Duke Karl Alexander of Württemberg in Stuttgart. As a financial advisor for Duke Karl Alexander, Duke of Württemberg, he also gained a prominent position as a court Jew and held the reins of the finances in his duchy. He established a duchy monopoly on the trade of salt, leather, tobacco, and liquor and founded a bank and porcelain factory.[13] In the process, he made a number of enemies who claimed, among other things, that he was involved with local gambling houses.[14] When Karl Alexander died suddenly, Oppenheimer was arrested and accused of various things, including fraud, embezzlement, treason, lecherous relations with the court ladies, accepting bribes, and trying to reestablish Catholicism. The Jewish community tried unsuccessfully to ransom him. After a heavily publicized trial during which no proofs were produced, he was sentenced to death. When his jailers demanded that he convert to Christianity, he refused. Joseph Süß Oppenheimer was led to the gallows on 4 February 1738, and given a final chance to convert to Christianity, which he refused to do.[14]

Feuchtwanger's novel

Although the story of Duke Karl Alexander and Joseph Süß Oppenheimer constituted a relatively obscure episode in German history, it became the subject of a number of literary and dramatic treatments over the course of more than a century; the earliest of these having been Wilhelm Hauff's 1827 novella.[15] The most successful literary adaptation was Lion Feuchtwanger's 1925 novel titled Jud Süß based on a play that he had written in 1916 but subsequently withdrew. As a Jew, Feuchtwanger did not intend his portrayal of Süß to be antisemitic but rather as a study of the tragedy caused by the human weaknesses of greed, pride and ambition. With an interest in exploring the challenges confronting Jews in the Diaspora,[16] Feuchtwanger was particularly concerned with the issues of conversion and anti-Semitism.[17] He was particularly struck by the fact that Süß could have saved himself by converting to Christianity but had steadfastly refused to do so, opting instead to return to formal Jewish observance and piety.[18]

Ashley Dukes and Paul Kornfeld wrote dramatic adaptations of the Feuchtwanger novel. In 1934, Lothar Mendes directed a film adaptation of the novel.[19]

.....

Production

Shooting began in March 1940 and, with the exception of some scenes which were shot on location in Prague, most of the filming took place at the UFA studios in Berlin Babelsberg.[26] The scenes showing the entry of the Jews into Württemberg and worshipping in a synagogue were filmed in Prague where Jewish extras were "recruited" (coerced into performing).[43]

The total cost of production was approximately two million Reichsmarks, a rather high figure for German feature films of that era.[6] However, between 1940 and 1943, it grossed over 6.2 million Reichsmarks thus making it a blockbuster in contrast to the commercial failure of Der Ewige Jude.[63] David Culbert attributes the film's box-office success in large part to "its lavish sets, its effective crowd scenes, its skillful script, and the splendid acting by most of the principals."[6]
Editing

According to Harlan's postwar testimony, Goebbels was infuriated when he saw Harlan's first version of the film because it was not anti-semitic enough for his purposes. Harlan reported that Goebbels accused him of being "incapable of thinking in political terms". Goebbels told him that he "should produce political films and not [the kind of] films that he would make in peacetime."[64] Goebbels' dissatisfaction was centered on the relationship between Dorothea, the leading female character and Süß. He complained that Harlan had "transformed Süß, a monster, into a Romeo."[65]

Harlan testified that Goebbels removed him from the editing process and insisted on many changes, mostly with the intent of making Süß more unambiguously evil. The film was extensively re-edited to remove ambiguities that portrayed Süß in too sympathetic a light to suit Goebbels' anti-semitic agenda.[56] For example, Goebbels insisted on dropping a scene in which Dorothea responds to Süß's wooing with a smile. Scenes in which Süß was depicted as "too pleasant" were simply dropped. In some scenes, new lines were scripted for Marian to read in order to make his character less sympathetic.[65] Other scenes were added including a new ending to replace the original one written by Harlan. Harlan claimed that he had wanted to make the hanging of Süß appear to have been a "great injustice."[64] For the final execution scene, Harlan had written a defiant speech in which Süß condemned the German authorities. When Goebbels was shown a rough-cut copy, he was infuriated, insisting that Süß must not be portrayed in any way as a martyr. Demanding that Süß must be humbled and humiliated at the end, he had Harlan's speech replaced with one in which Süß cravenly begged for his life.[44][66]

While Harlan's account of Goebbels' involvement in the film has been treated by a number of sources as factual, Haggith and Newman assert that "it is difficult to find any evidence of significant interference (by Goebbels) aside from casting and the appointment of Harlan." They point out that it was in Harlan's interest to shift the blame to Goebbels after the war.[8]
Release and reception

The film premiered at the Venice Film Festival on 8 September 1940 and received rave reviews, earning the top award.[67][note 1] Unlike most of the other major anti-Semitic films produced during the Third Reich, it was a great box-office success in Germany and abroad.[70] It ranked sixth out of the thirty most popular German films of the war years.[41] Within the Third Reich, it was the number one film of the 1939–1940 season, viewed by audiences totaling over twenty million at a time when the population of Germany was some seventy million.[71][72]

Heinrich Himmler ordered that the film be shown to SS units about to be sent against Jews, to non-Jewish populations of areas where Jews were about to be deported, and to concentration camp guards.[73] Children under the age of fourteen were prohibited from seeing the film. There were reports of anti-Jewish violence after audiences viewed the film; in particular, teenagers seemed particularly prone to be instigated to violence by the film.[74]

In early 1941, the company Nordisk Tonefilm sought permission to distribute the film in Sweden but it was banned by the Censor.[75] During the war the movie was never screened in public in Sweden, although the German embassy arranged screenings for special invitees.[76]

Feuchtwanger was horrified and incensed at the way in which his work had been manipulated and distorted, calling Harlan's film a Schandwerk ("a shameful work"). In 1941, he wrote an open letter to seven actors. Based on the sentiments expressed in the letter, it appears that Feuchtwanger was shocked that these men, whom he considered colleagues and who he knew were familiar with his work, would agree to participate in Goebbels' anti-semitic propaganda film.[26]
Postwar legacy
photograph of Veit Harland with the widow of Ferdinand Marian at Harlan's 1948 trial
Harlan (right) with the widow of Ferdinand Marian, at Harlan's 1948 trial

In 1945, exhibition of the film in Germany was banned by decree of the Allied Military Occupation.[77] In fact, the film was banned throughout the western world and most of the extant copies were destroyed.[78] Harlan, who also directed the 1945 propaganda movie Kolberg, was the only film director of the Third Reich to be charged with crimes against humanity. Harlan defended himself asserting that he had been neither Nazi nor anti-Semitic. He claimed that Goebbels had controlled his work and that he should not be held personally responsible for its content.[4] He recounted the ways in which he had been forced to endure Goebbels' constant haranguing and meddling in the production of the film. In the end, the court condemned the film but exonerated the director. While Harlan had not acted nobly, the court recognized that he had operated under duress and should not be held responsible for the content of the film.[64][/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud_S%C3%B ... 40_film%29

[Ognir]

http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/4680607/ Eng Subs