Reviews

If "Forces occultes" really "represents Vichy France's most determined effort at nazi propaganda" as one reviewer claimed, then one cannot really say they put much effort into their propaganda. A mere 45 minutes short, the film is very heavy-handed and all-too-obvious in making its point. Today the movie's in-your-face symbolism (a huge hairy spider with the masonic symbol on its back) comes off as rather campy or silly. How anyone can still regard this as "dangerous" is beyond me.It is simply too dated and too badly done to still be effective.

The hero Pierre Avenel is too clear-cut and cardboard-straight to be a real character, and that also makes it hardly believable why he is joining the Free Masons in the first place or staying with them for so long (at least five years, the movie tells us) if they are not doing any good and being just slimy, pushy characters from the beginning on. How these people could possibly rule the world is explained later, when it is revealed that these are merely the peasants in a far bigger game.

However the film is interesting for historical reasons. Avenel can be seen as a fascist idealist in the vein of Jacques Doriot. In the beginning he fiercely attacks the corruption in the parliament of both the Left and the Right. The parliamentary system is shown as ineffective and old-fashioned - at one satirically exaggerated point the parliamentarians merely utter a "cock-a-doodle-doo" or the mowing of sheep. While parliamentarians debate all day the real powers that be act behind the facade. Left or Right are merely pawns in a game for power, which reflects the fascist claim for being beyond both Left and Right and for overcoming the crisis of parliamentarianism (see Zeev Sternhell's books for that). And there is lot of cleaning up to do: FORCES OCCULTES paints the picture of a vast global conspiracy. A map in the beginning shows that only three fascist countries in the world are liberated from "Jewish-Masonic influence": Germany, Italy, and Spain.

Another crucial ideological point is the claim that the Free Masons (among them many Jews) dragged France into the war against Germany while at the same time undermining the state. This was a way to blame the pre-war elites for the disaster of 1940 and to show the necessity to replace them with fascism (which was not identical with the actual Vichy government).

The most convincing scene is the detailed depiction of a scurrilous Masonic initiation ritual. Director Jean Mamy, executed in 1949 for collaboration himself was a member of the Grand Orient de France from 1931-39, so this may be quite authentic.

ADELHEID is one of the very few films dealing with the largely forgotten brutal expulsion of the ethnic (Sudeten) German from Bohemia and Moravia in the aftermath WWII. It is even more remarkable as it was in Czechoslovakia in 1970, when this was still a dark taboo chapter in the country's history (only in the last two decades a change has occurred). The expulsion ("Odsun") of up to 3 Million people was accompanied by terrible massacres of civilians, whose perpetrators have been covered by the state afterwards through general amnesties.

Generally regarded within Czech society as an eye-for-an-eye consequence and just punishment for Hitler's occupation, ADELHEID was the first (and for decades only) film to question such a view and to criticize post-WWII treatment of the Germans by the Czechs or even present the subject. Directed by the brilliant Frantisek Vlacil (MARKETA LAZAROVA), the film has a meditative, poetic atmosphere and a few non-realistic elements: the expelled Germans dressed in black at the beginning of the film appear like ghosts in the mist, the house of the Nazi party official, where most of the action takes place, is rather presented like some mythical ogre's home from some ancient fairy tale.

The downfall of Germanys "Iron Chancellor" Bismarck (Emil Jannings), who had to resign from his position just two years after Wilhelm II. (then just 29 years old) became Emperor of the Reich. The film depicts the clash between the unexperienced and notoriously narcissistic Wilhelm II. and Bismarck, who basically had ruled the country all by himself since 1871, while Wilhelm's grandfather, Wilhelm I., had basically been a merely symbolical figure in the background.

Despite of what has often been written about this film, there is just a few National-Socialist propaganda in it - at least in the DVD-version I was able to see, which may have been cut. In one scene Bismarck explains to Wilhelm that the social problems of the country can only be solved by a "socialism from above", a "socialism" which at the same time must be "national". Another scene shows Bismarck confronting the Social Democrats at the Reichstag, among them his arch-adversary August Bebel. Bebel was Jewish, and another Jewish social-democratic member of the Reichstag (Paul Singer) makes a brief and decidedly unappealing appearance. Otherwise the film does not stress the Jewishness of the Social Democrats, at least not in the possibly edited version available.

Apart from that the film is basically a patriotic epic in the vein of D.W. Griffith's ABRAHAM LINCOLN. As usual in historical biopics, actions are simplified, condensed and dramatized, but overall DIE ENTLASSUNG is historically pretty accurate - and surprisingly complex for a nationalistic film shot within the system of the Third Reich. Some liberties have been taken, but they don't change the historical connection of the events much. There are many little details that only those with a good knowledge of Bismarck's life and the feud between him and Wilhelm will recognize. It is not true what another commentator wrote, that Wilhelm is presented with both of his arms intact. Note how he always keeps his left arm hidden in the coat or behind the back.

To non-German commentators the main significance of the story may be lost: the tragedy is not only about the fall of Bismarck and the futility of his lifework but also of the Second Reich which was his creation. The arrogance and ignorance of the young Kaiser and the manipulations of the intriguers (great: Werner Krauss) at the court prevent the renewal of a friendship pact between Germany and Russia, a centerpiece of Bismarck's diplomacy. The film is absolutely historically correct here. This failure proved to be fatal, as Russia found new allies in England and France which lead to the constellation of 1914, exactly the two-front-war that Bismarck tried to avoid. Thus the ending of the film is not "bizarre" at all - but in order to make it less fatalistic as it could have been, the bad guy Krauss gets a deserved bashing by Bismarck, after which a dissolve switches the scenery to the famous Bismarck monument build in 1906 in Hamburg. Being a war-time film under a nationalist regime the film needed some appeal to heroism in the end, covering up the more darker and pessimistic implications of the story.

Typical for the quality films of the Third Reich, DIE ENTLASSUNG relies on set-pieces and excellent acting rather than on cutting and camera work. The screenplay is by the Austrian writer Alexander Lernet-Holenia, who in fact was a conservative opponent to the Nazis. Jannings and Krauss give great performances, which make THE ENTLASSUNG indeed a far better film than its prequel BISMARCK.

Shot in Nazi Germany in 1941, HEIMKEHR shows the suppression of ethnic Germans in a little town in Eastern Poland (now Ukraine) during spring and summer of 1939. While Polish military prepares for war, German schools are closed and plundered. Minority rights are cut down or disrespected. Open hostility and violence against German people increases, while the official authorities watch on. After the outbreak of the war, the Germans are interned into a prison. Only the progress of the Wehrmacht safes them in the last minute. The final scenes show them being re-located and transferred "back to the Reich".

For today's audiences this film shows a world surrealistically turned upside down, as it is a Nazi produced film that accuses ethnic persecution and a chauvinistic state treating his unwelcome citizens with ruthless disposal and disrespect of laws. Many scenes and lines said by the actors appear familiar from countless Anti-Nazi-movies.

The propagandistic means employed by director Gustav Ucicky are mostly very primitive, as the villainous Poles look ugly and mean with no redeeming qualities at all. Even a few nasty Jewish stereotypes are thrown in.Other scenes, such as the imprisonment of the Germans in a crowded dark cell, have an intense, nightmarish quality, and ironically strongly recall Holocaust iconography for today's viewers. The final speeches, held by the otherwise great Austrian actress Paula Wessely, are a torture to watch: pathetic, pompous, silly and empty propaganda at its worst, as lifeless as a cardboard.

It should however be pointed out that the pogrom-like assaults (including murder and manslaughter), the increasing ethnic hostilities and the aggressive nationalist policy of the Polish state, which was also directed against other minorities (or in this particular then-part of Poland rather majorities) such as Ukranians, Jews and Belorussians, is based on well-documented facts, which are given little attention or downplayed by many historians today for mostly political reasons. As the war came closer, the hostilities on both sides increased. There are many scenes, such as an incident at a movie theater when the Germans are forced by an angry crowd to sing the Polish national anthem which may actually be fairly realistic portrayals of the atmosphere in certain parts of the country and the loyalty conflicts endured.

Other now rather forgotten facts of the prelude to the war are shown as well, such as the mobilization of the Polish army as early as March 1939. A Polish propaganda poster which can be seen in one scene, that calls for a Greater Poland reaching as far as Berlin and further is authentic as well. After the outbreak of the war several Thousands of German civilians were interned and massacred throughout Poland. That the Nazis in consequence could do far worse than that is a testament to the cynical hypocrisy and double-speech of totalitarian regimes.

Though rarely shown and hardly available this is one of the most remarkable films about the concentration camp of Auschwitz ever made. Shot as early as 1947, partly on location at the camp, even featuring former inmates among the actors, and using original languages, OSTATNI ETAP is a kind of first-hand re-enactment and gives for the most part a very convincing, gripping and realistic portrait of what life was like at the camp. The film is well directed and staged,occasionally using dramatic compositions and lightning to a striking effect. It is actually no less impressive as any then-contemporary film by Roberto Rossellini and other of the "neo-realist" school. The whole now-familiar iconography of Holocaust cinema is already there, probably for the first time, copied in hundreds of movies to come. Andrzej Munk's more stylized PASAZERKA is clearly influenced by the OSTATNI ETAP as both films are set in a woman's camp and feature sadistic female SS-guards.

However, due to historical circumstances there are many aspects in the film which have later been more or less dropped or at least received lesser attention. The role of women as both victims and perpetrators is at the center of the film, and large space is given to show the cruelty of Kapos, block elders (women with a black triangle, implicating "Anti-socials" and criminals) and SS-collaborating and egoistic inmates as well. The concept of primary Jewish suffering at Auschwitz now at the core of the narrative is de-emphasized, and the Jews are presented as just one of many peoples (f.e. Russians and French are shown) interned and murdered there. There is a more explicit focus on communists and Poles being victimized, as well as a clear sympathy for Stalin and the Red Army, which also shows in the rather unconvincing melodramatic final scene, when the heroine, facing execution, holds an accusing speech against their henchmen while soviet planes appear in the sky like in a last-minute-rescue. A final title claims the highly exaggerated number of 4.5 Mio victims at Auschwitz, a number that was corrected only decades later, in 1990.

The portrayal of the SS is effective but pretty cliché-ridden, and the stereotypes presented here have become stock ingredients of the genre - such as fat, ugly, stupid and vain Nazis with scars on their faces and Iron Crosses on their fancy uniforms, cynically dancing waltzes and drinking champagne in their "free" time, stiff cigarette-smoking-"we-have-ways-to-make-you-talk"-torture-officers, and Ilse-Koch-like SS women.

Overall OSTATNI ETAP is both an exceptionable document and a well-made film, which beats SCHINDLER'S LIST by far. It is a pity that this film has become so obscure.

Volker Schlöndorff is one of the most overrated directors of the New German Cinema school, and that shows in some of his most celebrated films, including THE TIN DRUM. His adaptions of literature seldom reach beyond mere illustration and even so Schlöndorff never seems to know what the point of his stories actually is.

DER FANGSCHUSS/COUP DE GRACE is one of his more watchable works, which might be largely due the fine, atmospheric B/W photography. But compared to Margarete Yourcenar's novel Schlöndorff's inability to adopt a proper point of view becomes apparent. The novel is told in first person by the main character Erich von Lhomond; yet in Schlöndorff's version it is never clear if it his or Sophie's story. The erotic obsession Sophie has for Erich, mixed with political adversity, which is so crucial for the story is almost completely missing in the film. It is rather supposed than being actually shown and acted out. Unless you have not read the book you cannot measure Schlöndorff's failure to convey what's actually going on between these two.

The greatest flaw is the miscasting of the director's wife Margarethe von Trotta, who is not only a mediocre actress but who is visibly at least 15 years too old for her character, leaving it pointless and unbelievable. Trotta sucks so badly in her part that it makes the whole film a pain to watch every time she appears on screen.

One of the few truly enjoyable moments is the final screen appearance of legendary actress and Pabst veteran Valeska Gert (THE JOYLESS STREET) in an eccentric supporting part - even though her black dyed hair, heavy make-up and curious antics make her hardly a convincing Baltic German landowner lady of the early 20th century.

DER FANGSCHUSS is a pretentious misunderstanding, like most of Schlöndorff's work.

Two further oddities in this surrealistic mess: this seems actually to be the last film the Swedish born actress Kristina Söderbaum ever made. In the Thirties and Forties she was a big star of Nazi cinema and appeared in propaganda films such as the anti-semitic JUD SUESS (1940) and KOLBERG (1945), directed by her husband Veit Harlan. After the war she was much criticized for her participation in these pictures, so maybe the old lady thought she would do something good appearing in a film where she gets threatened by Neo-Nazis and has visions of burning books. In any case it is an ironic choice as well as a sad one, as she was a capable actress and would have deserved a much better good-bye to the screen than that.

The second oddity I somewhat nerdily noticed is that this film was written by Leo Tichat who directed some kind of Austrian "Nouvelle Vague" attempt with the feature-length DIE VERWUNDBAREN (The Vulnerable Ones, 1967), which was released as part of a "essential Austrian cinema" DVD series a few years ago. This film also has a reputation of pioneering the unbiased treatment of gay people in cinema, but apart from that it is a dreary unwatchable mess. He also wrote the screenplay to another semi-legendary Austrian failure, EGON SCHIELE - EXZESSE (1981) starring Matthieu Carrière, Jane Birkin and Marcel Ophüls.

It is very nice to see Greta Garbo and Erich von Stroheim in their only film together. Garbo was an admirer of the great director-turned-actor-again and insisted on Stroheim's casting. Unfortunately though they have just a few good moments together, and Stroheim hams it up for the most part, making his performance a far cry from the magnetic screen presence he had in films such as LA GRANDE ILLUSION. Teamed with the quite tall Melvyn Douglas as his antagonist he also looks very short which makes him even appear a bit ridiculous and not very menacing in some scenes.

Quite one-dimensional in his part is Melvyn Douglas as Garbo's presumed husband. In a story that is all about confused identities and shattered certainties he leaves no doubt about his romantic sincerity. A thing that really annoyed me while watching is that he permanently holds his face far too close to Garbo's when he is talking to her, which makes her always bend back her body in an uneasy way. George Fitzmaurice was not really an actor's director which would have been crucial for this stagy adaption of Pirandello's play. But then the play would have been way too sophisticated for a 1932 MGM Hollywood flick anyway.

The film is somewhat referenced in Jacques Rivette's 2001 masterpiece VA SAVOIR about an Italian theater group in Paris touring with Pirandello's "Come tu me vuoi". Large portions of the original play are acted out in Rivette's movie and Jeanne Balibar in Garbo's part spots a blonde wig very much like the one her famous predecessor had in AS YOU DESIRE ME, which by the way looks very cool.

This is surely a visually magnificent film to watch, especially if you get to see a copy of the tinted Photoplay restoration with a great score by Carl Davis.

It strikes me however that few commentators here seem to bother about the very nasty portrayal of German people in this film. Despite its claims for universality, condemning WWI in general and not just a single nation (or class for that matter) involved in it, the image of the Germans is no different from the wartime propaganda huns as portrayed by Erich von Stroheim and others. They appear as arrogant, cold, ugly, brutal, grotesque, greedy, militaristic idiots, who even in peacetime in a civilian/family setting march in line and click their heels all the time. Julio's three cousins are portrayed as bespectacled, mischievously grinning jerks who obey their father's commands as if he was an army officer, even as children. They are even shown reading Nietzsche's Zarathustra and it's appraisals of the warrior man as if it was some kind of a bible. A race of villainous, natural born warmongers, it seems. Now this can hardly be the basis for an honest anti-war-movie. Compare this portrayal to the very different, more human and sympathetic image of German people in John Ford's FOUR SONS and of course ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. Despite the now-campiness of these scenes in question I find them still quite offensive and hard to watch, even given that most silent movies made heavy use of strong contrasts and stereotyping. I guess in 1920 the anti-German resentments in the US were still very strong, which even caused D. W. Griffith to absurdly switch a German refugee family in post-war Berlin into a polish refugee family in ISN'T LIFE WONDERFUL - as late as 1924!

All this shift from anti-war-intentions to merely anti-German clichés somewhat betrays the "message" of the movie, which admittedly comes across quite rhetorical and pretentious in the first place, and is indeed one of the movie's weakest and most dated points. It just seems to be tagged onto the Valentino adultery romance story for mere dramatic effect (as in the vision of the Apocalyptic Horsemen and the final graveyard scene). But overall the war theme doesn't really stand in the center of the movie.