Customer Reviews

The Wannsee Conference [VHS]

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Opening narration: "On Tuesday, 20 January 1942, at a house in the quiet Berlin suburb, Wannsee, a meeting was held. At the invitation of Reinhard Heydrich, head of the Security Police and Secret Service, fourteen key representatives of the Nazi Party, of the SS, and the government bureaucracy attended. The meeting lasted just ninety minutes. There was only one item on the agenda."

That item was implementation of the Endlosung, or Final Solution. Heinrich Himmler's right-hand man Heydrich, Adolf Eichmann, and Heinrich Muller were there to tell the bureaucrats that they were taking charge of the Jewish problem in their spheres of authority, while at the same time making it look like they weren't encroaching on their authority but helping them with the problem of getting rid of their Jews.

Of the people in the film, only Eichmann, Heydrich, Muller, Lange, Freisler, and Schongarth are identified. For the benefit of those wanting to match faces to names, I have the following list. At the one head of the table is the stenographer. Going to her left, we have the representatives of the SS:

SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Adolf Eichmann, Reich Central Security Office, Dept. IV-B4

SS-Oberfuehrer Dr. Schongarth, General Government

SS-Gruppenfuehrer Heinrich Muller, RCSO, Dept. IV

Deputy Reichsprotector SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heydrich, RCSO

SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Hoffman, Central Office for Race and Resettlement)

SS-Oberfuehrer Klopfer, Party Chancellery

SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lange, Commando Squad Latvia

At the opposite end of the table, we have Ministerialdirektor Kritzinger of the Reich Chancellery. Going around his left, we have the bureaucrats:

Staatsekretar Neumann, Office of the Four Year Plan

Staatsekretar Dr. Roland Freisler, Ministry of Justice

Staatsekretar Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, Ministry of Interior

Gauleiter Dr. Meyer, East Ministry

Staatsekretar Dr. Josef Buhler, General Government
Unterstaatsekretar Luther, Foreign Office

Reichsamtleiter Dr. Leibrandt, East Ministry

This will be more apparent when watching the movie, but notice the people I listed first: all SS, on one side of the table, and then the bureaucrats on the other side. What better way for the SS to face and tell them they were taking charge? The first part of the movie has Heydrich declaring his final authority of the Endlosung to the astonished bureaucrats.

All the light humor involves Lange's dog. Of the dark humor: A disappointed Gauleiter Meyer says, "So the Eastern Provinces won't be the site of the Final Solution?" To which Heydrich replies, "Well, not everybody can reap the laurels, gentlemen."
The second part of the meeting involves the mischling (mixed race) question, in which Dr. Stuckart turns out to be more human. He is upset that the half-German/half-Jews are to be included in the Endlosung. There's also a personal side to it. "It's not news that I am called a Jew-lover in the Brown House. But repetition doesn't make it true," he says, referring to an ongoing feud between him and the rabid xenophobe Klopfer. Stuckart says that with every mischling killed, not only is the Jewish blood lost, so is the German blood. Leibrandt ridicules him, saying, "To a pessimist, the glass is half empty. To an optimist, the glass is half full. You are an optimist." Everyone then roars with laughter.

Stuckart correctly points out German's precarious situation: the Russian front, an undefeated England, American to come on the scene, and resistance movements springing up. In fact he's predicting Germany's defeat.

Forget the pitiful Conspiracy movie! Dietrich Mattausch portrays Reinhard Heydrich better than Kenneth Branagh, and Gerd Bockmann's Eichmann stands heads over Stanley Tucci. And Gunter Sporrle's Klopfer makes Ian McNiece's rendition pathetic. Equal praise goes to Peter Fitz as Stuckart and Harald Dietl as Meyer. Guess it shows how American remakes are inferior to the foreign original.

A gauleiter flirts with the stenographer. Reinhard Heydrich trips over Adolf Eichmann's briefcase. A Nazi chieftain has to keep going outside to shut up his barking dog. Little touches like those add to the creepiness of this reconstruction of the Final Solution conference. Of course, elimination of the Jews had been in full swing for some time before this conference--it seems mainly to have been held to get everyone to accept Heydrich's leadership of the project. But this conference is just about the only "paper trail" the Nazis left in the actual execution of their plans for the Holocaust.

The recreation of the conference is amazing. It isn't especially realistic--it's obvious that everyone is acting, because everyone is so crisp and "on". But the fine ensemble acting, taken for itself, is impressive. The pacing never drags, though you do have to pay attention. Everything is unnervingly ordinary--the applause for a toast to the soldiers on the Eastern Front, guffaws at someone's joke, Eichmann fussing over his papers of statistics. Even the sudden sound of a plucked piano string at the end is startling, as the viewer realizes the theretofore absence of a music track. A grim masterpiece of historical recovery.

If you're reading this review, you've possibly also seen and reviewed a vastly differt version of the same event, "Conspiracy" (HBO, with Kenneth Branagh and the ever threatening Stanley Tucci, with light brown hair!). My purpose is not to compare or contrast them--they are both good in their own right for a variety of reasons.

This version is essential to any student of the War, the Holocaust, German history, BECAUSE it was made in Germany just before the advent of Glasnost. My own study of German history suggests that the "Final Solution" (Endloesung) of the "Jewish Question" was really a sad, confusing, and irrational approach toward dealing with partisan warfare, counter-espionage, and the search for a "higher" reason for the war than finding more German "living space" (Lebensraum). These men were looking for some "accomplishment" to look to, even if the war were lost (it was January 20, 1942--AND there were two MORE "Final Solution" conferences to follow (see Richard Overy, "Interrogations"). Ridding Europe of Jewish, and therefore Bolshevik/Communist influences, seemed like a reasonable parallel "war."

The reason these movies differ, of course, is because there is no verbatim transcript. ONE version of the minutes survives, and can be read in its entirety in German or English with a simple web search. Upon this, a dramatic version emerges and is dependent up the interpretation of actual historical figures, some well known (Stuckart), some little known until recently (Heinrich Mueller, SS-Gruppenfuehrer for internal Reich Police matters [see any of Gregory Douglas' works on him]).

What especially succeeds here is that this production, in its context, emerged at a time of undoubted fears that the Soviets would eventually relase information about the Reich and its activities hertofore unknown outside the NKVD, MVD and ultimately KGB. Sadly, many of the early Bolsheviks were also Jews (by Halakah, not by German racial laws, which were quite convoluted), and the two-century of assimilation of Jews into German society had NOT taken place in Russia and the USSR (see Rigg's new "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers" to understand the complex identity issues involved). Marxists and Communists happened to have Jewish ancestry (not all, of course), but enough to parallel the current question about our profiling or not profiling persons of obvious Middle Eastern descent or origin as possible security risks. To paraphrase the old saw, those who do not study and understand history are condemned to repeat it. The German version is more chilling, less burdened with poor costuming and fake snow. Also, the novelty of the German actors to Americans helps keep the focus on the issues, the humanity and lack thereof, and how any political system goes sour when politics is pursued "by other means." Be prepared to wonder where we may be headed, less than 60 years after the end of WWII (and with what appears to be the demise of assimilation here). Further, in light of VERY current events--can any such depiction (including the film "Hart's War") succeed while purged of the presence of the tobacco economy and bartering?

"I declare that the proposal to equate half-Jews with Jews is absolutely acceptable." So argues one of the participants of the Wannsee conference near Berlin in January of 1942. "You find it acceptable that we reexamine every mixed race case?" another asks with scepticism; "Now, in the midst of war? That's a lot of work." He is reproached by his interlocutor with the admonition that "we must all make an extra effort." Then they discuss sterilization of all half-Jews before the Reich chairman of this to-be-kept-secret meeting declaritively announces his decision: "Throw them in with full Jews"---consigning another few hundred thousand human beings to the approximately 11 million figure bandied about at this conference as subject to extermination. The above is taken from "The Wannsee Conference," the 1984 German film concerning this ghastly meeting. Another film by the title of "Conspiracy" (made far more recently) mirrors this film, but pales in comparison; for the latter film is an English film starring Kenneth Branagh, who is not particularly believable as a German officer. Each film covers pretty much the same material, but "the Wannsee Conference" does so in far more detail, offering much greater detail about Nazi Germany's "Final Solution" throughout Europe. It also is arranged better. By that I mean that conference table scenes are broken up by ante-chamber discussions among the participants, whereas in the "Conspiracy" version we are basically offered a stage play---attendees arrive one by one & greet one another for what seems like a hundred "Heil Hitler" salutes over 10 minutes, followed by an hour of around the table give-and-take; or rather, one-upsmanship over who is the more inhumanely anti-semitic. The "Conspiracy" version, consequently, doesn't succeed half as well as "The Wannsee Conference" does owing to better direction in the latter, but also because "Conspiracy" is done all in english, with apparently all english actors, whereas "The Wannsee Conference" is done with German actors, and all in German (subtitled in english, although some explannatory over-dialogue is in english too). I watched them one after the other to compare and would not at all recommend "Conspiracy" for the reasons enumerated above. If you want to "feel" something of the period represented by this event, get a inkling what World War Two was really like, then "The Wannsee Conference" film is something you ought to see ( in addition to "Life is Beautiful," "The Gathering Storm," "Das Boot," et al.; besides reading "Night" by Elie Weisel & "Babi Yar" by A. Kuznetsov). Cheers!

The reviews below by Dr. Victor S. Alpher and Daniel J. Hamlow are really excellent and there's little that I can add to them. You might also want to look at the shorter reviews by Arthur F. McVarish, "the_sanity_inspector," and Lawrance M. Bernabo, all of whom make excellent points.

What I want to do here (besides point you to those reviews) is to note that The Wannsee Conference is a German language film with white English subtitles. Sometimes the subtitles are superimposed over a white background and the words disappear. That is why state of the art subtitles are yellow so that they don't get lost in the background. Otherwise the subtitles are very good, translating what needs to be translated and ignoring the extraneous.

I also want to note that the somewhat miraculous script by Paul Mommertz is very much like a stage play with most of the action essentially confined to one set with the various players delivering their lines as the camera focuses on them, much as a spotlight might. I say "miraculous" because Mommertz forged his screenplay from the banal, bureaucratic and often euphemistic language used by the historical Nazis as they formulated the so-called "Final Solution." How to make such material dramatic was the problem Mommertz and Director Heinz Schirk faced. They achieved the nearly impossible through the subtle use of what I might call everyday "reality intrusions": the dog barking, the vainglorious Reinhard Heydrich tripping over a briefcase as he is posturing as the grand architect and fuhrer of the Holocaust, the stenographer flirting (and Heydrich's calculated, chilling affirmative response), the greedy drinking, the "Nazi rally" thumping of the table, the turf wars, the boorish jokes, etc. These served to highlight by contrast the horror that these men were so bureaucratically entertaining. Note too that when the stenographer asks if a verbatim report is desired, she is told that a detailed report will suffice. Thus the dumb brute reality could be edited later in a George Orwellian manner to further bureaucratize and euphemize what they were doing.

What a truly verbatim report might have revealed is the point of this film.

This is a work of art, and I want to say that real art, to the extent that it is didactic, fails. If the artist tries to teach a lesson or show us the way and the light through a human story, to that extent he or she loses control and becomes an advertiser, a propagandist, a preacher. We as audience or readers become not participants anymore but objects. A work of art is always a two-way street of participation between the artist and those viewing the art. We might agree with the message or we might not, but we are no longer equal participants in the experience.

Yet what a work of art does is demonstrate a human truth through form. It is almost always an emotional truth. The Greeks emphasized tragedy because they understood the cathartic emotional experience that tragedy brings. What Mommertz and Schirk have done is present the truth as best they could discover it, and then they ran the closing credits. What we as audience experience depends on how well we participated, and what we brought as human beings to the experience. How well we concentrate, how aware we are of what is going on, how alert--these too are important. The Swannsee Conference is a demanding film, but it is surprising how quickly it moves, how engaged we become. The tension is not in what will happen at the end, of course. Instead the tension is in how it happens. We are held in thrall of discovering the essential nature of this most horrific and incredible evil done by the Nazis. And what we find out is that it was above all else banal and bureaucratic.

This is its essence: the dehumanization of the objects upon which the evil is worked. It can be done no other way. It has been said that for good men to do evil it takes religious commitment. For ordinary men it is necessary to dehumanize. When Stuckart complains that women and children are being killed, he is told, "Women and children are Jews too."

Other reviews have found this film to be far superior to "Conspiracy". One noted its superior detail on the 'final solution' options; two noted superior acting. In fact, far more detail is given in "Conspiracy", even if there is no conference record cited to support it. As for acting, "Conspiracy" is worth a close look, especially for Colin Firth's splendid performance. Final 'footnote': As one review noted, this film has a flirtatious female stenographer whom Heydrich invites to join him in Prague . She is not seen in "Conspiracy", where there is only a uniformed male steno.. Who has it right??
My suggestion: watch both films.

There was no reason to even consider making, "Conspiracy", as this film cannot be improvemed upon. The Mommertz screenplay is topnotch with all the SS hierarchy and bureaucraten having very believable lines in a setting that is just banal enough to ring completely true. The depcition of Heydrich is haunting and Eichmann appears to be the classic bicycle kicker as he is deferential to all superiors but abusive to his subordinates. With "Gestapo" Muller, the viewer immediately understands that his is a marginal talent as his demeanor and also his repetition of the word "elegant" five times in the course of the movie showcases. In this film, the good guys are merely the ones who are not 100% evil. It is a primer on human nature and an all around must see.

This movie is simply amazing in it's portrayal of the Nazi hierarchy discussing various topics on the extermination of jews. What you see actually happened, because the movie was based on the notes taken during the meeting. Far from boring, this is a recommended must see film.

The Wannsee conference was the official beginning to the organization of mass killings of Jews by the nazis.

This video (another good work that will not make it on dvd) on the Wannsee conference is a representation that lasts 85 minutes, just as the real conference. Every minute of it is meaningful and well directed. There are no distractions or any superfluous commentaries. The camera goes around the table or watches a specific character to convey both the general atmosphere of the occasion and the individual roles of the characters.

I was specially interested in watching how they would depict Eichmann, after reading the description that Hannah Arendt does of him. I think it matches her description well.

A good point about the video is that you don't see actors interpret nazis as you would expect from a modern movie, but you see normal people discussing and approving the death of millions of human beings as a matter of business-as-usual.

I recommend viewing this video along with the German "Downfall" on the last days of the Reich.

Very valuable documentary.

In recreating the horrors of the Holocaust the emphasis has almost always been on concentration camps and the death chambers, although "Holocaust," "War and Remembrance" and "Schindler's List," although all of those efforts dealt in some part with the bureaucracy behind the extermination process. "The Wannsee Conference" is all the more horrifying because it never goes anywhere near the camps, although the barking dogs outside the meeting function as symbols. This script was developed from the original minutes of the meeting on January 20, 1942 in Berlin where "The Final Solution" was worked out. The documentary-style reenactment is chilling because it reduces the Nazis to the level of bureaucrats, effortlessly rationalizing the extermination of millions of human beings. I think the idea of thinking of these monsters as bureaucrats rather than Nazis is informative, because the dehumanizing of people surely continues unabated today, although obviously not on this level. Still, the body count continues to climb. If you show "The Wannsee Conference" to students they might recognize the Nazis as being more like businessmen then skinheads. This would be an extremely useful film for classes focusing on 20th Century history.