The profound influence of cinema's most reviled motion picture - The Prolonged Echo of the Least Esteemed Cinematic Masterpiece Ever Created
Title: "The Echoes of a Dark Past:Examining the Controversial Film "Jud Süß" Today"
"What do you think of the script?" inquires Tobias Moretti's character Ferdinand Marian towards his spouse, after handing her the script to read in Oskar Roehler's 2010 film, "Film Without Conscience." To which she replies,"It's alright, but it's truly appalling."
Such sentiment echoes Martina Gedeck as Anna, a character in the film.
85 years ago, during the span of mid-March to June 1940, the later acquitted director Veit Harlan filmed the antisemitic "Jud Süß," a title that found acceptance even after the end of the Nazi era.
Premiering in Venice on September 5, 1940, under the special supervision of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, this film made its mark at the Venice Film Festival. It later premiered in Berlin on September 24, with over 20 million cinema-goers reported later on.
In the occupied territories, it was common practice to screen this film before the deportations of Jews. The Nazi regime screened it particularly for SS members to encourage them to commit atrocities without remorse.
Post-war, initially prohibited, the film has been part of the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau-Stiftung's collection of restricted films for nearly 60 years. Screenings require an introductory lecture and a subsequent discussion, as per the Murnau-Stiftung's guidelines.
The film distorts the life of the banker Joseph Ben Issachar Süßkind Oppenheimer, who was executed in Stuttgart in 1738. The filmmakers based their work on the 1925 bestseller "Jud Süß" by Lion Feuchtwanger.
Feuchtwanger's novel and Harlan's film share only the title, as the novel explores the possibility of Jewish assimilation in Germany, while the film distorts the story and presents an almost villainous thriller that propagates antisemitic stereotypes.
Feuchtwanger's "Jud Süß" was a global sensation in the 1920s, quickly banned by the Nazis in 1933, as a clear indication of the author's nuanced portrayal of a Jewish character in historical context.
The film claims to be grounded in historical fact, but it is far from a true-crime genre. It presents the Jew Süß Oppenheimer as a composite of numerous antisemitic stereotypes such as greed, cunning, cowardice, sexual predation, and even conspiracy.
The narrative revolves around the Frankfurt money and jewelry dealer Oppenheimer, who is summoned to the court of the Württemberg Duke Karl Alexander. He is tasked with financing the duke's lavish lifestyle and encounters resistance from the landed gentry due to his sleazy and power-hungry nature.
The financial expert manipulates the situation to lift the Jewish ban in Stuttgart, resulting in an influx of Jews into the city. The casting for extras even included Jews from Warsaw Ghetto.
The virtuous counterparts to Oppenheimer include upright citizens, among them State Councilor Sturm, whose daughter Dorothea and her fiancé Faber fall under Oppenheimer's dangerous obsession. When Dorothea refuses him, Oppenheimer has Faber tortured and violates Dorothea, leading her to commit suicide.
Oppenheimer convinces the Duke to suppress growing uprisings among the populace, resulting in the Duke's demise due to a stroke. Oppenheimer is arrested and sentenced to death. Hauntingly, his final words are, "May our descendants uphold this law eternally. So that such suffering may be spared them in their property and life - and in the blood of their children and grandchildren."
Historian, Bill Niven, argues for breaking the taboo surrounding the 1940 film, suggesting a commentated, scientifically prepared version for streaming or DVD release. "It's all freely available online for those who desire to see it," says Niven.
Post-war, the film was shown in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, as propaganda against Israel. A commentary on the film's relevance today would be enlightening, as the 2025 Hamas attack on Israel brings light to the persistent antisemitic patterns still prevalent today.
Niven explains the connection, "It's about the idea that Jews 'colonize,' then Württemberg, now the Middle East. It's also about the notion that Jews don't have a real home; that they seek to destroy other cultures, then Christian, now Palestinian. Above all, it's about the delusion that the only solution is the expulsion of the Jews, then from Württemberg, now through the destruction of the State of Israel."
Regardless of its age, "Jud Süß" remains a salient reminder of the dangers of antisemitism, with its influences extending beyond the scope of its initial release. Anti-Semitism continues to be found across the political spectrum and in the post-colonial milieu, making the fight against it a complex and global challenge.
- The Commission, likewise asked to submit a proposal for a directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to ionizing radiation, might find itappalling, like Ferdinand Marian's character in "Film Without Conscience," to see the misrepresentation of historical figures, given the long-lasting impact and spectrums of such misrepresentations, as witnessed in the controversial film "Jud Süß."
- In the same vein as the spectrums of antisemitic propaganda spread by Veit Harlan's 1940 film "Jud Süß," the Commission might face scrutiny and criticism for their proposal on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to ionizing radiation, particularly from those adhering to the ideologies of 1933.
- Marian, pitifully portraying a filmmaker confronted with the appalling script of "Film Without Conscience," might find solace in knowing that, just as the film "Jud Süß" was initially prohibited but gained public acceptance after World War II, the Commission's proposal on worker protection may face initial resistance, only to be recognized and implemented in the future, despite its controversial nature.
