Jump to content

Jud Süß

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pseudo-Richard (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 14 November 2011 (→Postwar legacy: Adding more info on the postwar rehabilitation of Werner Krauss). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For other uses, see Jud Süß.
Jud Süß
File:Jud Süß.jpeg
Jud Süß Poster
Directed byVeit Harlan
Written byVeit Harlan
Eberhard Wolfgang Möller
Ludwig Metzger
Produced byOtto Lehmann
StarringFerdinand Marian
Werner Krauss
Heinrich George
Kristina Söderbaum
Music byWolfgang Zeller
Release date
1940
Running time
98 minutes
Country Nazi Germany
LanguageGerman
Budget2 million Reichsmarks

Jud Süß (Jew Süss) is an antisemitic propaganda film produced in 1940 by Terra Filmkunst at the behest of Joseph Goebbels. The movie was directed by Veit Harlan, who wrote the screenplay with Eberhard Wolfgang Möller and Ludwig Metzger, and starred Ferdinand Marian and Harlan's wife Kristina Söderbaum.[1]

Although Metzger had been trying to pitch a movie based on the life of Joseph Süß Oppenheimer for many years, the impetus for the movie came from Joseph Goebbels' desire to make an anti-semitic response to Mendes' philo-semitic film adaptation of Lion Feuchtwanger's 1925 novel Jud Süß.[2]: 45  Because Mendes' movie was so sympathetic to the subject, the scriptwriters shifted their model to Wilhelm Hauff's 1827 novella. However, even after Harlan rewrote the original script, the result was not anti-semitic enough to suit Goebbels' propaganda needs so he personally intervened in the editing process to the point of dropping some scenes and rewriting others including making a substantial change to the film's ending to show Süß as humbled rather than defiant. In the end, the film wound up diametrically opposed to the intent of Feuchtwanger's novel.[2]: 44  Although inspired by the historical details of Süß's life, the novel, novella and film only loosely correspond to the historical sources available at the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg.

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, all the cast members attempted to excuse their participation in the film by claiming that they had only done so under duress. There is significant evidence that the cast was, in fact, cajoled, manipulated and even intimidated by Goebbels into taking parts in the film. Nonetheless, Susan Tegel 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.[5]

Two of the lead actors died shortly after the end of the war: Heinrich George in a Soviet concentration camp[6] and Ferdinand Marian in an automobile accident which some characterize as a suicide.[7][8] Kristina Söderbaum and Werner Krauss eventually resumed their acting careers although they were never offered roles as substantial as the ones they had played during the Nazi era.

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 only a light sentence because he was able to convince 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 to the extent possible. 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 that went so far as to set fire to some of the theaters where his movies were being shown.[9]: 274 

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 Goebbel's use of film to further the Nazi anti-semitic agenda. In 2010, two documentary films have been released that explore the history and impact of this movie.

Background

Joseph Süß Oppenheimer

Main article: Joseph Süß Oppenheimer
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.[10] In the process, he made a number of enemies who claimed, among other things, that he was involved with local gambling houses.[11]

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 February 4, 1738, and given a final chance to convert to Christianity, which he refused to do.[11]

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.[12] 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 as an antisemitic slur but as a study of the tragedy caused by the human weaknesses of greed, pride and ambition. Feuchtwanger's focus was the struggle of Jews in the Diaspora;[13] in particular, he was concerned with the issues of conversion and anti-Semitism.[14] Feuchtwanger 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.[15]

Ashley Dukes and Paul Kornfeld also wrote dramatic adaptations of the Feuchtwanger novel. In 1934, Lothar Mendes directed a film adaptation of the novel.[2]: 42–44 

Goebbels' propaganda campaign

Joseph Goebbels

Adolf Hitler and his Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels believed that film was a very potent tool for molding public opinion. The Nazis first established a film department in 1930 and Goebbels had taken a personal interest in the use of film to promote the Nazi philosophy and agenda. Soon after the Nazi takeover, Goebbels was insisting in speeches that the role of the German cinema was to serve as the "vanguard of the Nazi military" as they set forth to conquer the world.[16]

The Nazis had hoped for a surge in anti-Semitic sentiment after Kristallnacht but, when it became clear that the majority of Germans did not share the Nazi hatred for Jews, Goebbels launched a campaign to promote the anti-semitic views of the Nazis to the German populace. He ordered each film studio to make an anti-semitic film. Hitler preferred films like Der ewige Jude which presented the Nazi anti-semitic agenda openlyh and directly; however Goebbels disliked the crudeness of such straight-forward approaches, preferring the much more subtle approach of couching anti-semtic messages in an engaging story with popular appeal.[17]

Although Goebbels did not generally take an active role in the production of particular films, he elected to do so in the case of major propaganda films such as Jud Süß. Saul Friedländer suggests that Goebbels' intent was to counter three films whose messages attacked the persecution of Jews throughout history by producing violently anti-Semitic versions of those films with identical titles.[18] After viewing Lothar Mendes' philo-Semitic film Jew Suss, Goebbels was adamant that "a new film version had to be made."[2]: 45 [19]

Pre-production

Susan Tegel ascribes the genesis of the project more to opportunism than to ideological anti-semitism.[5] Tegel's assessment echoes Klaus Kreimeier's assertion that the "recognized stars of the (German) stage and screen" were less aligned with the Nazi philosophy and more motivated by professional ambition and the "illusion that Goebbels would fulfill them."[20]

Metzger and Möller script

Ludwig Metzger had been trying to promote his proposal for a film on the life of Joseph Süß Oppenheimer since as early as 1921 but without any success. The publication of Feuchtwanger's book and Mendes' film adaptation of it irritated Metzger because he himself had been incubating the idea for many years.[21] In January or February of 1939, Metzger, now a scriptwriter for Terra Filmkunst, mentioned his idea to Wolfgang Ebbecke with whom he was working on the script for Central Rio. Ebbecke shot down the idea, raising a number of objections including the fact that Mendes had already done a film on the same topic in England and the concern that German audiences might confuse the proposed film with Feuchtwanger's novel which was not anti-semitic.[22]

Undaunted by Ebbecke's objections, Metzger took his idea to Teich, the story editor at Terra but was once again turned down. Finally, Metzger approached the Propaganda Ministry directly where his proposal was received like a "bomb hitting its target." Teich was informed that Terra should proceed with Metzger's proposal and so he reluctantly presented the idea to the head of the studio. When the studio head refused to approve the project, Goebbels had him fired and replaced by Peter Paul Brauer, a minor director with no experience in producing films. As head of the studio, Brauer assigned himself the task of directing the film.[22] However, the project stalled out for a number of reasons including challenges in recruiting a suitable cast and difficulties in producing a script acceptable to Goebbels.

At Goebbels' direction, Metzger was given a contract by Terra to write a script for the proposed film. He decided to base his script on the 1827 Hauff novella rather than the more recent and better known 1925 Feuchtwanger novel.[23]

However, when Goebbels read Metzger's draft of the script, he deemed it to be insufficiently anti-semitic for his propaganda campaign. To remedy the script's deficiencies, Goebbels assigned playwright Eberhard Wolfgang Möller to assist Metzger even though Möller had no experience as a screenwriter. Möller's role was to ensure that the script met Goebbel's ideological objectives. Möller decided to abandon Hauff's novella as the basis of the script, dismissing Hauff as too sentimental about the "emancipation of Jews and Poles."[23]

In the meantime, Brauer was working on recruiting a cast but with little success. He offered the lead role of Joseph Süß Oppenheimer to Emil Jannings, Willi Forst, Gustaf Gründgens , René Deltgen, Paul Dahlke and Ferdinand Marian but each of them turned it down.

Veit Harlan

File:WP Leni Riefenstahl.jpg
Leni Riefenstahl

When Nazi Germany conquered Poland in September 1939, it was faced with the disposition of the large Jewish population. In view of the German populace's tepid response to the orchestrated violence of Kristallnacht, the Nazis perceived an urgent need for films that would move German popular sentiment in favor of the Nazi Final Solution to the Jewish question. Frustrated with the delays on the Jud Süß project, Goebbels ordered Fritz Hippler, the head of his film department, to sack Brauer and bring in Veit Harlan to take over as director.[23][22] After the war, Harlan claimed that no other director would touch the project and that he himself had tried to decline the role of director.[22] In her 1987 memoir, Leni Riefenstahl confirmed that Harlan had told her of Goebbels's insistence that he direct the film and of his ardent desire to get out of the project. Harlan had even written to Goebbels volunteering for military service in order to avoid making the film.[21] Goebbels' responded to this by informing Harlan that, if he enlisted, he would do his military service at the front. According to Harlan, Goebbels screamed at him, "I can crush you like a bug on the wall!"[24] When Harlan asked Riefenstahl to intercede for him with Goebbels, she demurred citing her own conflicts with the propaganda minister. Instead of intervening on his behalf, Riefenstahl advised Harlan to move to Switzerland; however, Harlan expressed fear for his life and the impact it would have on his wife.[25]

Casting

Feeling that a project of this significance required top-caliber actors, Goebbels personally participated in the selection of the cast. He insisted that Ferdinand Marian and Werner Krauss take on key roles in the film. However, Goebbels had to employ a combination of accommodation, generous compensation, pressure, intimidation and even threats of reprisal in order to fill the lead roles in the film with the top German cinema stars of the day. Harlan claimed that "virtually every actor was performing under duress."[22]

Daniel Azuelos ascribes the cast's reluctance to an unwillingness to be typecast as Jews.[26] David Welch identifies Werner Krauss as having asked Goebbels to make a public pronouncement stating that Krauss was not Jewish but merely "playing a part as an actor in the service of the State."[27] In order to address their concerns, Goebbels issued a disclaimer stating that those actors playing the parts of Jews were in fact of pure 'Aryan' blood.[28]

Dora Garson
Dora Gerson

Similarly, Josef Škvorecký also notes that all the major cast members as well as Harlan himself tried in various ways to avoid participation in the project; however Škvorecký ascribes a rather different motivation to the cast than the one that Azuelos propounds. Škvorecký attributes the reluctance of actors to participate in what he characterizes as a "politically-most-correct film" as an indication of "how aware most German artists were of the fact that anti-semitism under Hitler changed from prejudice to murder." While cast members could have declined the roles that were offered to them, Škvorecký asserts that such action would have required "extraordinary courage: the dire consequences of such an act of defiance were only too easy to imagine." According to Škvorecký, "Goebbels either outwitted [the actors he desired for the cast], or knew about compromising circumstances in their lives and used this knowledge for bludgeoning them into acceptance." Elaborating on the "compromising circumstances", Škvorecký writes, "One of the paradoxes of this sinister film is how many participants in the violently racist project had either Jewish spouses or relatives, were disciples of Jewish artists and known friends or Jews, or had been—before the Nazi takeover—left-leaning intellectuals, even communists." For example, Škvorecký points out that Veit Harlan's first wife was Dora Gerson, a German-Jewish actress and cabaret singer. Harlan himself had flirted with socialism. Although Werner Krauss was openly anti-semitic and an ardent Nazi, his daughter-in-law was Jewish. Ferdinand Marian had a half-Jewish daughter from his first marriage and the former husband of his second wife was a Jew.[29]

Heinrich George
Heinrich George
Ferdinand Marian
Ferdinand Marian
Werner Krauss
Werner Krauss

Heinrich George had been active in the Communist Party of Germany before the Nazi takeover.[29] He worked with noted left-wing dramatists Erwin Piscator and Bertolt Brecht. He also starred in the lead role of the 1931 film Berlin-Alexanderplatz. After the Nazi takeover, George was identified as a "non-desirable" actor because of his earlier political affiliations and was barred from working in cinematic productions; however, he was able to reach an accommodation with the Nazi regime and was eventually appointed director of the Schiller Theater in 1938. From that point on, George actively collaborated with the Nazis and agreed to star in Nazi propaganda films such as Jud Süß and Kolberg as well as appearing in numerous newsreels. George had a stocky build and a Berlin accent which made him readily recognizable to German audiences. His prestige as a leading actor of the day made him an "extraordinarily valuable catch for the Nazis."[30] Cooke and Silberman describe him as "the actor most closely tied with fascist fantasies of the autocratic and the populist leader".[31] George's affiliation with the Nazis would have fatal consequences for him after the war when the Soviets arrested him as a Nazi collaborator. He died in 1946 while interned in NKVD special camp Nr. 7 located in Sachsenhausen.

According to Harlan, it was Goebbels who insisted that Harlan's wife, Kristina Söderbaum, play the leading female role.[23] According to Antje Ascheid, Soderbaum is frequently identified as "most singularly representative of the Nazi ideal, as the quintessential Nazi star ."[32] As a beautiful Swedish blonde, Söderbaum had the baby-doll looks that epitomized the model Aryan woman. In fact, she had already played the role of the innocent Aryan in a number of feature films and was well-known to German audiences.[9]: 162  Her youth and beauty made her a symbol health and purity and thus an exemplary specimen of the Nazi ideal of womanhood.[33] In a number of her films, she had been imperiled by the threat of "rassenschande" ("racial pollution").[34] Because two of her films ended with her committing suicide by drowning, she was given the mock honorary title Reichswasserleiche ('Drowned Corpse of the Reich').[35][36]

Harlan argued to Goebbels that Söderbaum, having just given birth, was too weak to take on the role. Goebbels countered that a special room could be set up as a nursery and that a wet-nurse could be hired to care for the infant. He further offered to halt shooting if Söderbaum became ill. Harlan later reported that Söderbaum was so upset by the entire affair that she considered fleeing back to her native Sweden to avoid having to play the part of Dorothea. In the end, however, she decided to stay and take on the role.[22]

The story was different in the case of Ferdinand Marian who is often characterized as having established a reputation as a "matinee idol". Initially, Marian was repulsed by the proposal that he play the title role of Jud Süß and demurred for almost a year. As a result, he was not confirmed in the role until about a week before shooting was scheduled to begin. According to Kristina Söderbaum, Marian was afraid that playing such an unappealing character would damage his image with film audiences. She recalled that Marian had told Goebbels that his stage persona was one of a bon-vivant and a lover and that Süß, in contrast, was a "truly unpleasant character". Goebbels rebutted Marian's argument by pointing out that he had just seen Marian's portrayal of Iago, asking "Was he a nice bon-vivant?" When Marian responded "But that was Shakespeare, Herr Minister!", Goebbels screamed into his face saying, "And I am Joseph Goebbels!"[9]

Marian finally agreed to play the part of Süß for fear of reprisal against members of his family. Marian had a daughter from his first marriage to the Jewish pianist, Irene Saager. The former husband of his second wife was also Jewish, making her son (and Marian's stepson) half-Jewish.[7]

Goebbels, however, used not only intimidation but also cajoling and generosity to achieve his goals. Ferdinand Marian requested compensation of 50,000 marks for taking on the role of Süß, an amount double anything he had received for previous roles. When asked to approve this amount, Goebbels did so citing the importance of the film and the need for a high-caliber cast to ensure its success.[37]

According to his biographer, Friedrich Knilli, Marian never forgave himself for having accepted the role of Süß. Knilli ascribes Marian's alcoholism and alleged suicide after the war to his feelings of guilt.[7][8]

Of all the cast members, Werner Krauss was the one most clearly identified as an anti-Semite.[38] His consummate skills in characterization had earned him the title of "the man with a thousand faces".[39] There is some difference of opinion regarding the number of roles that Krauss played in the film. While it is generally recognized that, with the exception of Marian's title role, the other five speaking parts that depicted Jews were all played by Krauss,[1][2] Gottfried Reinhardt asserts that Krauss played "no less than thirteen Jews" in the movie.[40] The roles that Krauss played in the film are often characterized as portraying antisemitic stereotypes. In an interview, Harlan explained that the decision to have Krauss play all the roles was "meant to show how all these different temperaments and characters - the pious patriarch, the wily swindler, the penny-pinching merchant, and so on - were all ultimately derived from the same (Jewish) root". Katrin Sieg describes Krauss' face as eerily appearing in different guises whenever the camera pans across a crowd of Jews, creating what Sieg calls a "paranoid effect of déjà vu".[41]

Script rewrite

According to Harlan's postwar testimony, he told Goebbels that the Metzger/Möller script was nothing more than "dramatized Stürmer", referring to a Nazi weekly propaganda publication. He argued that such a piece of poor writing would lead not to the portrayal of a "despicable Jew" but rather to just a "despicable film." He further argued that all the characters were negative; to this, Goebbels retorted that Harlan would not turn down the role of Richard III just because he was a negative character. However, Goebbels acceded to Harlan's insistence on rewriting the script and Harlan spent from November 1939 to March 1940 revising the script although he kept much of what Metzger/Möller they had written.[22]

After the war, Harlan claimed that his script was less anti-semitic than the Metzger/Möller script. However, in rebuttal, Haggith and Newman point out that Harlan added an important sequence in which Süß is responsible for the execution of a blacksmith, a sequence which served to increase the audience's hatred for Süß.[23]

Production

Shooting began in March 1940 and took place at the UFA studios Berlin Babelsberg and on location in Prague.[19] Jewish extras were "recruited" (coerced into performing) in Prague. The scenes showing the entry of the Jews into Württemberg and worshipping in a synagogue were filmed there.[28] The total cost of production was approximately two million reichsmarks, a rather high figure for German feature films of that era.[5] However, between 1940 and 1943, it grossed over 6.2 million reichsmarks thus making it a blockbuster in a way that Der Ewige Jude never was. 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."

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."[42] 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."[9]

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.[7] 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.[9] 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."[42] 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.[43][29]

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 blame Goebbels after the war.[44]

Release and reception

The film premiered at the Venice Film Festival in September 1940 and received rave reviews, earning the "Golden Lion" award.[18] 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.[45] It ranked sixth out of the thirty most popular German films of the war years.[26] 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.[42][46]

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.[47] 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.[22]

The film's director, Veit Harlan, received the 1943 Universum Film Archiv award (the UFA was the major commercial German film studio in the early part of the 20th century) at a time when the award was under Goebbels' jurisdiction.

In early 1941, the company Nordisk Tonefilm sought permission to distribute the film in Sweden but it was banned by the Censor.[48] . During the war the movie was never screened in public in Sweden, although the German embassy arranged screenings for special invitees.[49]

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.[19]

Postwar legacy

Harlan (right) with the widow of Ferdinand Marian, at Harlan's court case in 1948

In 1945, the film was banned by decree of the Allied Military Occupation.[50] 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.[42]

After the war, all the cast members also disclaimed responsibility, pleading that they had been coerced into participating in the film.[15] According to his biographer Friedrich Knilli, Marian never came to terms with his having accepted the role of Süß and became an alcoholic, dying shortly after the war in a 1946 car accident.[7] Some have attributed the accident to suicide.[8]

Both Heinrich George and Werner Krauss were placed under arrest because of their past affiliation with the Nazi party.[51] Although Heinrich George had been a member of the German Communist Party before the Nazi takeover, he was nonetheless interned as a Nazi collaborator at the Soviet special camp in Sachsenhausen where he died in 1946.[6]


Krauss was ultimately rehabilitated to the extent of being invited to German film festivals. In 1954, he was awarded the Order of the Federal Republic of Germany; in 1955, he received the High Decoration of the Republic of Austria.[52]

In the first few years after the war, Kristina Söderbaum was often heckled off the stage and even suffered the indignity of having rotten vegetables thrown at her.[53] In subsequent years, she frequently expressed regret for her roles in anti-semitic films. Although Söderbaum continued to play roles in film, she was never offered a leading role after the war. Eventually, she became a photographer of celebrities.[54]

In recent years, the film has become the subject of two documentary films. In 2010, Felix Moeller released a documentary film, Harlan – In the Shadow of Jew Süss, that explores Veit Harlan's motivations for makingJud Süß.[55] A film about Jud Suss titled 'Jud Suss - film without conscience premiered at the 2010 Berlinale .

Availability

The copyright of the film is held by the F.W. Murnau Foundation which is owned by the German government. The Foundation only permits screenings of the film when accompanied by an introduction explaining the historical context and the intended impact.[4]

In July 2008, the film was shown in Budapest by Sándor and Tibor Gede in public showings[56][57] without the permission and consent of the Murnau Foundation.[58][59] A controversial Hungarian web site has been distributing an unauthorized DVD version in Hungary.

The film has been available for sale on VHS in the United States at least since 1983 (the copyright date on a commercially marketed video cassette). In 2008, a digitally restored subtitled DVD became generally available online with commentary by film historian Eric Rentschler. Distribution, sale and screening of the film are forbidden in Germany and Austria.[60] Sale of the DVD is also prohibited in France and Italy.[61]

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. Unfortunately, the duke does not have sufficient funds to buy coronation gifts for the duchess (Hilde von Stolz), and so he sends a loyal retainer to Frankfurt to borrow money from Oppenheimer, the "Jud Süß" from the film's title (Ferdinand Marian). Oppenheimer shows the go-between a cabinet full of jewels and jewelry—items 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, to do so he must be allowed to bring the items to Wurttemberg. The law prohibits Jews from entering Wurttemberg, but the Duke provides Oppenheimer with a pass that grants him entry. Oppenheimer cuts his hair and shaves his beard, and in "Christian" clothes goes to Wurttemberg. The Duke is delighted with the jewelry, and Oppenheimer defers payment, saying that it is his honor to help the Duke. When Oppenheimer learns that the Duke wants to have a court orchestra and a court ballet troupe, and that the Wurttemberg council refuses to pay for them, he provides the financing for them as well.[62][44][63]

The Duke eventually discovers that he owes Oppenheimer 350,000 Thalers. Oppenheimer then skilfully plays on the Duke's honor and greed by saying that if the Duke is going to honor this debt to a Jew 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. A percentage of the proceeds will go directly to the Duke's privy purse and thereby free the Duke from the financial limits imposed by the council.[62][44][63]

The Duke agrees to this. The resulting tolls cause the price of food and other essentials to rise, and so the (German) people of Wurttemberg suffer, but the result is also great wealth for Oppenheimer and a steady stream of income for the Duke. Oppenheimer is also given the authority to levy taxes on salt, beer, wine and wheat—with the same result. Oppenheimer also assists the Duke in procuring women when the duchess is not around. He eventually persuades the Duke to repeal the law prohibiting Jews from living in Wurttemberg, and many Jews then move into the city.[62][44][63]

After an angry blacksmith attacks Oppenheimer's coach with a hammer, Oppenheimer persuades the Duke to give him the authority to do anything he deems necessary in the Duke's name, and to do so with the Duke's full protection. Oppenheimer then has the blacksmith carriage hanged on the grounds that an attack on the Duke's coach is tantamount to an attack on the Duke himself, and therefore treasonous act punishable by death.[62][44] [63]

When the council objects to Oppenheimer's policies he suggests to the Duke that this challenge to the Duke's authority be handled by dismissing the council and restructuring the government so that the Duke can reign as an absolute monarch. Oppenheimer tells the Duke that he can do this by hiring additional soldiers from another dukedom, and that as a sign of their gratitude the Jews of Wurttemberg will provide all the money that will be needed to hire them— costing the Duke nothing.[62][44][63]

Meanwhile, Oppenheimer is relentlessly pursuing a German woman, Dorothea Sturm (Kristina Söderbaum), who is the daughter of the council chairman (Eugen Klopfer). Oppenheimer's plans to marry Dorothea, an act that would be illegal in Nazi Germany in 1940, and, apparently illegal in 18th century Wurttemberg as well, are thwarted when Dorothea and her fiance, Faber (Malte Jaeger), marry secretly, but Oppenheimer then has Dorothea's father imprisoned—in theory because he objected to the execution of the man who attacked Oppenheimer's carriage.[62][44][63]

When Faber attempts to leave the city to get help he is taken prisoner. Dorothea goes to Oppenheimer to beg for Faber's release and can hear his screams as he is being tortured. Oppenheimer makes it clear to Dorothea that the only way he will release her husband is if she has sex with him. Dorothea complies, and then drowns herself afterwards. Oppenheimer keeps his promise and frees Faber. He then suggests to the Duke that he leave Wurttemberg for a couple of days and then come back after the "coup" as an absolute monarch. Oppenheimer leaves Wurttemberg as well.[62][44][63]

However, the people of Wurttemberg rise up before the foreign soldiers arrive, the Wurttemberg soldiers refuse to fire on their fellow citizens, and several of the townspeople go to the neighboring principality to confront the Duke and Oppenheimer. The Duke has a heart attack and dies. Oppenheimer is captured, brought to trial, and tried on a list of charges that include treason and financial improprieties. However he is executed only because he had sex with a German woman—and it appears from the dialogue that he would have been executed even if the act had been fully consensual. Oppenheimer is executed, saying 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 Wurttemberg.[62][44][64][63] As the film draws to a close, a citizen of Wurttemberg, observing the Jews leave, comments, "May the citizens of other states never forget this lesson." [22]

Analysis

Historical accuracy

The characterization of Joseph Süß Oppenheimer's service to Duke Karl Alexander as a Court Jew is more or less historically accurate. When the duke died suddenly, Süß was, in fact, executed in an iron cage more or less as depicted in the film. However, the grounds for the execution of the historical Süß were abuse of office, not sexual relations with a Christian as depicted in Harlan's film. Haggith and Newman assert that much of the rest of the film is "pure invention."[23] For example, while the historical Süß was accused, among other things, of lecherous relations with the court ladies, he was never accused of rape.

Relationship to previous works

Cover of Lion Feuchtwanger's 1925 novel,Jud Süß

Mendes' film is generally recognized as a faithful adaptation of Feuchtwanger's novel.[citation needed] Although Harlan's film is also often described as an adaptation of Feuchtwanger's novel, Wallace points out that this is a controversial characterization because scholars generally recognize that the two narratives are only loosely related by being rooted in the same "chapter of Wurttemberg history".[65] Haines and Parker characterize Feuchtwanger's works and the Mendes film adaptation as "diametrically opposed to Nazi anti-Semitism."[2]: 44  A Jew himself, Feuchtwanger did not intend his portrayal of Süß as an antisemitic slur but as a study of the tragedy caused by the human weaknesses of greed, pride and ambition. Karl Leydecker writes:

For Feuchtwanger, Jud Süss was primarily a novel of ideas, dealing with a number of philosophical oppositions such as vita activa versus vita contemplativa, outer versus inner life, appearance versus essence, power versus wisdom, the pursuit of one's desires vs. the denial of desires, Nietzsche vs. Buddha.[66]

In contrast to these philosophical themes, Haines and Parker point out that, Harlan's focus is on the Jew as a "recklessly underestimated threat."[2]: 46  In Feuchtwanger's novel, it is not Süß who commits rape but rather the duke who rapes and accidentally kills Süß's daughter. The dramatic thrust of the novel focuses on Süß's desire for revenge and the tragedy resulting from his pursuit for vengeance.

Feuchtwanger himself referred to Harlan's film as a "Schandwerk" ("a shameful work") and wrote an open letter to seven Berlin actors, two of them having played lead roles in the film. He asserted that Harlan's film had distorted his novel so much that it was a perversion of it. He further called into question their motives for making the film in light of their familiarity with him and his novel.[2]: 41 

Stereotypes of Jews

The film employs a number of negative stereotypes of Jews. At one extreme, Jews are portrayed as cut-throat capitalists; at the other, they are depicted as poor, filthy immigrants.[23] Mike Davis writes that, "A thousand years of European anti-semitism were condensed into the cowering rapist, Süss, with his dirty beard, hook nose and whining voice."[67] The movie played on basic Nazi stereotypes of Jews being materialistic, immoral, cunning, untrustworthy and physically unattractive. According to David Welch, the Nazis issued a guide to the press explaining how to interpret the film. The guide emphasized that a key point of the film was that once Jews like Süß got into positions of responsibility and power, "they exploited power, not for the good of the community, but for their own racial ends."[27]

As a counterpoint to the negative qualities of Süß, the film presents Faber as an "Aryan" hero who embodies the Nazi ideals of youth, stridency and incorruptibility.[15]

Racial pollution

Main article: Rassenschande

According to Michael Kater, the film was shown to "a large number of (German) girls" in order to warn them of the "sexual devastation that Jews had wrought in the past" and to remind them of the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935. In an interview with Der Film given before the release of the film, Harlan pointed out that Süß was ultimately sentenced to death not for his financial machinations which were technically legal but for violating an ancient law which prohibited Jews from having sexual relations with Christian women. He then cites this as being "an interesting parallel to the Nuremberg Laws.[27]

There is an early scene in which Oppenheimer is shown to possess a fortune in jewels and jewelry. In another, he tells an innocent German girl that his home is "the world" (reflecting the Nazi stereotype of Jews as rootless wanderers in contrast to the Germans' love of their German homeland). Several conversations between Jewish characters perpetuate the Nazi line that Jews are inherently hostile to non-Jews. There is also Oppenheimer's role as a purveyor of women for the Duke, and his relentless pursuit of an "Aryan" woman for sexual purposes, even after she rebuffs his first attempt to seduce her. From the Nazi perspective, this was Rassenschande, a racial pollution, a crime against the German blood.[68] The heroine's suicide is a proper response of a German to such a tragedy.[34]

"Jew in disguise"

One of the first anti-semitic themes of the film is to portray Süß as the typical "Jew in disguise", a concept which Welch describes as "the inherent rootlessness of the Jew and his ability to assimilate himself into whichever society he chooses."[5][69] In an interview with a German film magazine, Harlan explained:

Around the middle of the film we show the Purim festival, a victory festival which the Jews celebrate as a festival of revenge on the Goyim, the Christians. Here I am depicting authentic Jewry as it was then and as it now continues unchecked in Poland. In contrast to this original Jewry, we are presented with Süss, the elegant financial adviser to the Court, the clever politician in short, the Jew in disguise.[70]

Effectiveness of the film

Stephen Lee writes that Hitler's vision of the kind of film that was likely to engage the German public proved to be less effective than the more subtle approach advocated by Goebbels. For example, the documentary film Der Ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew) that Hitler commissioned was so crude and strident that many audiences were repelled by the grotesque imagery and the film was a box-office flop. The failure of Der Ewige Jude convinced Goebbels that the most effective approach for disseminating propaganda was subtle and indirect.[71] Lee writes that Goebbels had learned to "introduce propaganda as a subliminal message within the context of a story with which the audience could identify." The Nazi anti-semitic message was more subtly and artfully presented in the feature film format that Goebbels preferred. [72]

Richard Levy attributes the effectiveness of a film in part to an "arguably engaging story" and the casting of some of the leading German stars of that period including Ferdinand Marian, Heinrich George, Kristina Söderbaum and Werner Krauss. He characterizes the film's antisemitic message as being "integrated into the film's story and strategy rather than overwhelming it or seeming to stand apart from it."[15] Edgar Feuchtwanger attributes the success of the film to it being "a combination of virulent anti-Semitism with a compelling love story, full of sex and violence."[73]

However, Stephen Brockman cautions against making "all-too-sweeping assumptions" about how effective Jud Süß was as a propaganda tool. To support his argument, he points to anecdotal evidence that, rather than being perceived as a despicable Jew, Marian's portrayal of Süß was considered to be quite sympathetic; so much so that he received fan mail from women who had become infatuated with his character.[74]

David Culbert notes that "(t)hose who have condemned Jew Süss as a lifeless production are presuming - understandably - that a morally abhorrent film cannot possibly have redeeming artistic merit." However, Culbert argues that, while one can understand such reasoning, it is actually a fallacy. He argues that those who dismiss Harlan as a "loud-mouthed opportunist who could direct crowd scenes" have failed to understand the structure of the script whose brilliance is due to Harlan rather than to his predecessors. Culbert attributes much of the film's success to Marian's performance. He describes Marian as making use of "techniques and gestures perfected in his stage portrayal of Iago (in Shakespeare's Othello)". According to Culbert, "the construction of (Harlan's) plot owes much to Shakespeare."[75]

The story of the film and its creation serves as the focus of a two part story line in the DC/Vertigo comic series The Unwritten (issues 10 & 11). The protagonist is drawn into the heart of the story itself which is in turmoil over the dichotomy between the novel and the twisted distortion of the film.

Cast

Cast of Characters
Role Played by
Joseph Süß Oppenheimer Ferdinand Marian
Levy, Secretary to Süß Werner Krauss
Rabbi Löw Werner Krauss
Dorothea Kristina Söderbaum
Duke Karl Alexander Heinrich George
Duke Alexander's wife Hilde von Stolz
Hans Bogner, a blacksmith Emil Heß

See also

Sources

  • Fox, Jo (2000). Filming women in the Third Reich. Berg. ISBN 978-1-85973-396-7.
  • Haggith, Toby; Newman, Joanna (2005). Holocaust and the moving image: representations in film and television since 1933. Wallflower Press. ISBN 978-1-904764-51-9.
  • Haines, B.; Parker, S. (17 March 2010). AESTHETICS AND POLITICS IN MODERN GERMAN CULTURE. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-03911-355-2. Retrieved 27 October 2011.
  • Hull, David Stewart, Film in the Third Reich , New York, 1973.
  • Rentschler, Eric (1996). The ministry of illusion: Nazi cinema and its afterlife. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-57640-7.
  • Welch, David, Propaganda and the German Cinema , Oxford 1987.
  • Winkler, Willi (18 September 2009), "Eine Kerze für Veit Harlan" (in German),Süddeutsche Zeitung

References

  1. ^ a b Bock, Hans-Michael; Bergfelder, Tim (30 December 2009). The concise Cinegraph: encyclopaedia of German cinema. Berghahn Books. p. 261. ISBN 978-1-57181-655-9. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h Haines, B.; Parker, S. (17 March 2010). AESTHETICS AND POLITICS IN MODERN GERMAN CULTURE. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-03911-355-2. Retrieved 27 October 2011.
  3. ^ Cull, Nicholas John; Culbert, David Holbrook; Welch, David (2003). Propaganda and mass persuasion: a historical encyclopedia, 1500 to the present. ABC-CLIO. p. 205. ISBN 978-1-57607-820-4. Retrieved 27 October 2011.
  4. ^ a b c Winkler, Willi (18 September 2009), "Eine Kerze für Veit Harlan", Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German)
  5. ^ a b c d Etlin, Richard A. (15 October 2002). Art, culture, and media under the Third Reich. University of Chicago Press. p. 143. ISBN 978-0-226-22087-1. Retrieved 28 October 2011. The postwar conflicting testimony of some of the principals, in which all claim to be friends of the Jews, is crass and self-serving. But amidst the self-serving evasions is enough documented fact to suggest how much opportunism rather than ideology explains the gestation of the most successful anti-Semitic feature film ever made—in the period before the appointment of Veit Harlan as director. Cite error: The named reference "Etlin2002" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Fuchs, Anne; Cosgrove, Mary; Grote, Georg (2006). German memory contests: the quest for identity in literature, film, and discourse since 1990. Camden House. p. 199. ISBN 978-1-57113-324-3. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
  7. ^ a b c d e Nelson, Anne (7 April 2009). Red Orchestra: the story of the Berlin underground and the circle of friends who resisted Hitler. Random House Digital, Inc. p. 234. ISBN 978-1-4000-6000-9. Retrieved 28 October 2011.
  8. ^ a b c Knopp, Guido (25 July 2003). Hitler's women. Psychology Press. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-415-94730-5. Retrieved 28 October 2011.
  9. ^ a b c d e Fox, Jo (2000). Filming women in the Third Reich. Berg. ISBN 978-1-85973-396-7. Retrieved 30 October 2011. Cite error: The named reference "Fox2000" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  10. ^ Singer, Isidore; Adler, Cyrus (1912). The Jewish encyclopedia: a descriptive record of the history, religion, literature, and customs of the Jewish people from the earliest times to the present day. Funk and Wagnalls. p. 416. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
  11. ^ a b Singer, Isidore; Adler, Cyrus (1912). The Jewish encyclopedia: a descriptive record of the history, religion, literature, and customs of the Jewish people from the earliest times to the present day. Funk and Wagnalls. p. 418. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
  12. ^ Magill, Frank Northen (1985). Magill's survey of cinema, foreign language films. Salem Press. ISBN 978-0-89356-247-2. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  13. ^ Kerbel, Sorrel; Emanuel, Muriel; Phillips, Laura (14 February 2003). Jewish writers of the twentieth century. Taylor & Francis. p. 293. ISBN 978-1-57958-313-2. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  14. ^ Abramson, Glenda (2005). Encyclopedia of modern Jewish culture. Psychology Press. p. 388. ISBN 978-0-415-29813-1. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  15. ^ a b c d Levy, Richard S. (2005). Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution. ABC-CLIO. p. 385. ISBN 978-1-85109-439-4. Retrieved 8 November 2011. Cite error: The named reference "Levy2005" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  16. ^ Eisner, Lotte H. (29 September 2008). The Haunted Screen: Expressionism in the German Cinema and the Influence of Max Reinhardt. University of California Press. p. 329. ISBN 978-0-520-25790-0. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  17. ^ Rees, Laurence (9 January 2006). Auschwitz: A New History. PublicAffairs. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-58648-357-9. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  18. ^ a b Friedländer, Saul (1 April 2008). The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945. HarperCollins. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-06-093048-6. Retrieved 11 November 2011. Cite error: The named reference "Friedländer2008" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  19. ^ a b c Wallace, Ian (1 January 2009). Feuchtwanger and film. Peter Lang. p. 137. ISBN 978-3-03911-954-7. Retrieved 28 October 2011. Cite error: The named reference "Wallace2009" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  20. ^ Kreimeier, Klaus (1999). The Ufa story: a history of Germany's greatest film company, 1918-1945. University of California Press. p. 296. ISBN 978-0-520-22069-0. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
  21. ^ a b David Stewart Hull (1973). Film in the Third Reich; art and propaganda in Nazi Germany. Simon and Schuster. Retrieved 10 November 2011. Cite error: The named reference "Hull1973" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  22. ^ a b c d e f g h i Film in the Third Reich. University of California Press. p. 163. Retrieved 7 November 2011. Cite error: The named reference "Film in the Third Reich" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  23. ^ a b c d e f g Haggith, Toby; Newman, Joanna (1 August 2005). Holocaust and the moving image: representations in film and television since 1933. Wallflower Press. p. 78. ISBN 978-1-904764-51-9. Retrieved 29 October 2011. Cite error: The named reference "HaggithNewman2005" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  24. ^ Fehrenbach, Heide (22 May 1995). Cinema in democratizing Germany: reconstructing national identity after Hitler. UNC Press Books. p. 202. ISBN 978-0-8078-4512-7. Retrieved 10 November 2011.
  25. ^ Riefenstahl, Leni (1 February 1995). Leni Riefenstahl: a memoir. Macmillan. p. 264. ISBN 978-0-312-11926-3. Retrieved 28 October 2011.
  26. ^ a b Azuélos, Daniel (January 2006). Lion Feuchtwanger und die deutschsprachigen Emigranten in Frankreich von 1933 bis 1941: Lion Feuchtwanger et les exilés de langue allemande en France de 1933 à 1941. Peter Lang. p. 202. ISBN 978-3-03910-999-9. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
  27. ^ a b c Welch, David (2001). Propaganda and the German cinema, 1933-1945. I.B.Tauris. p. 245. ISBN 978-1-86064-520-4. Retrieved 2 November 2011. Cite error: The named reference "Welch2001" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  28. ^ a b Tegel, Susan (2007). Nazis and the cinema. Hambledon Continuum. ISBN 978-1-84725-000-1. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
  29. ^ a b c Škvorecký, Josef. "JUD SÜSS". Retrieved 2011-10-30.
  30. ^ Fritzsche, Peter (2008). Life and death in the Third Reich. Harvard University Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-674-02793-0. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
  31. ^ Cooke, Paul; Silberman, Marc (30 July 2010). Screening war: perspectives on German suffering. Camden House. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-57113-437-0. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  32. ^ Ascheid, Antje (2003). Hitler's heroines: stardom and womanhood in Nazi cinema. Temple University Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-1-56639-984-5. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
  33. ^ Wallace, Ian (1 January 2009). Feuchtwanger and film. Peter Lang. p. 141. ISBN 978-3-03911-954-7. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
  34. ^ a b Anthony Rhodes,Propaganda: The art of persuasion: World War II, p20 1976, Chelsea House Publishers, New York Cite error: The named reference "rhodes20" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  35. ^ Romani, Cinzia. Tainted Goddesses: Female Film Stars of the Third Reich. p. 86. ISBN 0-9627613-1-1.
  36. ^ Koch, W. John (July 2004). No Escape: My Young Years Under Hitler's Shadow. BOOKS by W. JOHN KOCH PUBLISHING. p. 155. ISBN 978-0-9731579-1-8. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
  37. ^ d'Almeida, Fabrice (12 December 2008). High society in the Third Reich. Polity. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-7456-4311-3. Retrieved 28 October 2011.
  38. ^ Gadberry, Glen W. (30 March 1995). Theatre in the Third Reich, the prewar years: essays on theatre in Nazi Germany. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-313-29516-4. Retrieved 3 November 2011. Gottfried (Reinhardt) refers to Krauss as (an) "unashamed anti-Semite"
  39. ^ Rentschler, Eric (1996). The ministry of illusion: Nazi cinema and its afterlife. Harvard University Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-674-57640-7. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
  40. ^ Reinhardt, Gottfried (November 1979). The genius: a memoir of Max Reinhardt. Knopf : distributed by Random House. ISBN 978-0-394-49085-4. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
  41. ^ Sieg, Katrin (2002). Ethnic drag: performing race, nation, sexuality in West Germany. University of Michigan Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-472-11282-1. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
  42. ^ a b c d Rentschler, Eric (1996). The ministry of illusion: Nazi cinema and its afterlife. Harvard University Press. p. 166. ISBN 978-0-674-57640-7. Retrieved 28 October 2011. Cite error: The named reference "Rentschler1996" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  43. ^ Ott, Frederick W. (1986). The great German films. Citadel Press. ISBN 978-0-8065-0961-7. Retrieved 28 October 2011.
  44. ^ a b c d e f g h i Toby Haggith; Joanna Newman (1 August 2005). Holocaust and the moving image: representations in film and television since 1933. Wallflower Press. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-904764-51-9. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  45. ^ Schulte-Sasse, Linda (1996). Entertaining the Third Reich: illusions of wholeness in Nazi cinema. Duke University Press. p. 47. ISBN 978-0-8223-1824-8. Retrieved 28 October 2011.
  46. ^ Etlin, Richard A. (15 October 2002). Art, culture, and media under the Third Reich. University of Chicago Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-0-226-22087-1. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  47. ^ Leiser, Erwin. Nazi Cinema. pp. 84–85. ISBN 0025702300.
  48. ^ Sorelius, Gunnar (2002). Shakespeare and Scandinavia: a collection of Nordic studies. University of Delaware Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-87413-806-1. Retrieved 31 October 2011.
  49. ^ Statens Offentliga Utredningar 1946:86. Den tyska propagandan i Sverige under krigsåren 1939-1945.Stockholm:Socialdepartementet, 1946. p. 179
  50. ^ American Jewish Committee (1951). Commentary. American Jewish Committee. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
  51. ^ British Film Institute; British Institute of Adult Education (1946). Sight and sound. British Film Institute. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
  52. ^ Hans-Michael Bock; Tim Bergfelder (30 December 2009). The concise Cinegraph: encyclopaedia of German cinema. Berghahn Books. p. 261. ISBN 978-1-57181-655-9. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
  53. ^ Ascheid, Antje (2003). Hitler's heroines: stardom and womanhood in Nazi cinema. Temple University Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-1-56639-984-5. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
  54. ^ McCarthy, Margaret (May 2003). Light motives: German popular film in perspective. Wayne State University Press. p. 153. ISBN 978-0-8143-3045-6. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
  55. ^ "Nazi Film Still Pains Relatives"New York Times, March 1, 2010. Accessed March 3, 2010
  56. ^ film screened in Budapest, CFCA
  57. ^ Népszabadság Online: Ünnep az odúban
  58. ^ Az alapítvány jogi úton vizsgálja a történteket - Nem járult hozzá a Jud Süss budapesti vetítéséhez az illetékes német alapítvány
  59. ^ "Hetzfilm In Budapest – Nazi-Sympathisanten zeigen 'Jud Süß' " Spiegel Online, "Nazi Sympathizers show 'Jud Süß.' " July 21, 2008. Accessed March 3, 2010 Template:Language icon
  60. ^ Guenther-Pal, Alison (2007). Projecting deviance/seeing queerly: Homosexual representation and queer spectatorship in 1950s West Germany. ProQuest. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-549-15330-6. Retrieved 12 November 2011.
  61. ^ "International Historic Films". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |note= ignored (help)
  62. ^ a b c d e f g h "Jud Süss: The most successful anti-Semitic film the Nazi's ever made". Retrieved 2010-11-07.
  63. ^ a b c d e f g h Bytwerk, Randall. "Illustrierter Film-Kurier #3130 [1940]: Jud Süß". Retrieved 2011-11-12.
  64. ^ Reeves, Nicholas (1 March 2004). The power of film propaganda: myth or reality?. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 114. ISBN 978-0-8264-7390-5. Retrieved 5 November 2011.
  65. ^ Wallace, Ian (1 January 2009). Feuchtwanger and film. Peter Lang. p. 127. ISBN 978-3-03911-954-7. Retrieved 7 November 2011.
  66. ^ Leydecker, Karl (2006). German novelists of the Weimar Republic: intersections of literature and politics. Boydell & Brewer. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-57113-288-8. Retrieved 10 November 2011.
  67. ^ Davis, Mike (1 August 2007). In praise of barbarians: essays against empire. Haymarket Books. p. 160. ISBN 978-1-931859-42-4. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
  68. ^ Baird, Jay W. The Mythical World of Nazi War Propaganda. p. 7. ISBN 0-8166-0741-9.
  69. ^ Welch, David (2001). Propaganda and the German cinema, 1933-1945. I.B.Tauris. p. 241. ISBN 978-1-86064-520-4. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
  70. ^ Welch, David (2001). Propaganda and the German cinema, 1933-1945. I.B.Tauris. p. 242. ISBN 978-1-86064-520-4. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
  71. ^ Chapman, James (2003). Cinemas of the world: film and society from 1895 to the present. Reaktion Books. p. 220. ISBN 978-1-86189-162-4. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
  72. ^ Lee, Stephen J. (2000). European dictatorships, 1918-1945. Psychology Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-415-23046-9. Retrieved 29 October 2011.
  73. ^ Feuchtwanger, Edgar. "Two Films about Jud Süss".
  74. ^ Brockmann, Stephen (1 November 2010). A Critical History of German Film. Camden House. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-57113-468-4. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
  75. ^ Richard A. Etlin (15 October 2002). Art, culture, and media under the Third Reich. University of Chicago Press. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-226-22087-1. Retrieved 11 November 2011.

Further reading

  • Eisner, Lotte H., The Haunted Screen , Berkeley, 1973.
  • Feuchtwanger, Lion, Jud Süss , Munich, 1928.
  • Friedman, Régine Mihal, L'Image et son juif: le juif dans le cinéma nazi , Paris, 1983.
  • Fröhlich, Gustav, Waren das Zeiten: Mein Film-Heldenleben , Munich, 1983.
  • Gethmann, Daniel, Das Narvik-Projekt: Film und Krieg , Bonn, 1998.
  • Harlan, Veit, Im Schatten Meiner Filme , Gütersloh, 1966.
  • Tegel, Susan, "Viet Harlan and the Origins of Jud Suess 1938–1939: Opportunism in the Creation of Nazi Anti-Semitic Film Propoganda," in Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television (Basingstoke), vol. 16, no. 4, 1996.
  • Wulf, Joseph, Theater und Film im Dritten Reich , Gütersloh, 1964.
  • Zielinski, Siegfried, Veit Harlan: Analysen und Materialien zur Auseinandersetzung mit einem Film-Regisseur des deutschen Faschismus , Frankfurt/Main, 1981.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jud_Süß&oldid=460630819"