Reviews

Nazi Film Propaganda against the USA from 1942. White American workers apparently suffer in Roosevelt's 'freedom loving' America. Scenes of protest are shown and the commentator speaks of police brutality. Demonstrators are shown as victims. It is claimed that American Jews are really controlling things behind the scene. Then the film goes on to attack American culture. African Americans are seen dancing and that is apparently part of the cultural and moral decline in America. Male and female wrestling is shown and it is claimed that American audiences love violence. The climax of the documentary shows a suicidal jumper on a ledge and it is claimed that instead of trying to rescue him people only come for the thrill. The commentator remarks that it is no wonder that the Statue of Liberty turns it back on the USA.

This is one of Nazi Germany's most vicious antisemitic films. It was released in 1940, the most antisemitic year movie-wise throughout the entire Nazi era with Veit Harlan's Jud Süss and Fritz Hippler's and Joseph Goebbels' Der ewige Jude being released later the same year. Die Rothschilds is not nearly as notorious as the other two films but still the antisemitic message is crystal clear. In the final episode the protagonist, Nathan Rothschild, draws lines on an imaginary map of Europe from London to Vienna to Napoli to Frankfurt to Jerusalem to mark cities under Jewish control having thereby drawn the Star of David. As in Jud Süss the film concludes with a written text intended for the German audience of 1940. The text explains that the descendants of the Rothschild family are now on the run away from Europe as refugees (thanks to National Socialism) but that the struggle against Britain continues. Today we know that the Holocaust was initiated in 1941.

Walter Ruttmann directed this propagandistic documentary in 1933 after having directed one of the masterpieces of early documentary history Berlin, sinfonie einer Grosstadt in 1927 in Weimar Germany. Today Ruttmann is known as being one of the very talented film workers who decided NOT to leave Germany after Hitler took power in 1933. That leaves the question whether it was possible for Ruttmann to produce films in Nazi Germany that were totally free of nazi propaganda? Blut und Boden proves that the answer is no. The film is about peasants before and after 1933. Not surprisingly the film shows how peasants had a very hard time in the Weimar Republic, many farms being sold off cheaply, peasant families having to move to the city and then the turnaround after Hitler took power. The final episode shows rural life restored, new farms being built, cats and dogs living in harmony side by side, swastikas and the Hitler-jugend marching and singing in the fields. This conclusion is very similar to the conclusions of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Fritz Hippler's Der ewige Jude. Nazis marching is intended to leave the audience with a reassured sense of optimism.

American Direct Cinema classic directed and produced by Robert Drew, shot and edited by Richard Leacock. A black convict faces the death penalty by execution in the electric chair. Leacock follows his attorney with the camera as a fly on the wall as he makes phone calls, talks to his secretary in order to build the case for the convict's defence. Leacock also follows the preparations of the execution as the chair is made ready. Meanwhile, the prosecutor is seen playing golf filmed from a low angle (he is very tall). Then we are at the hearing where witnesses speak against or on behalf of the convict. After the hearing it is up to the state governor to decide whether the convict must face execution or not. Thus, the film builds up into the climax when the decision is made public. The film contains small bits of voice over primarily stating facts.

4 directors decided to investigate why Jörg Haider's far right "Freedom Party" won the election in Austria in 1999. A very interesting film is the result. We hardly see any politicians or campaigns in the film as you might expect. Instead the 4 directors have decided to interview ordinary Austrians in their own private environment. At the beginning of the film one director interviews people who give him a ride in their cars and then talk about their lives. Another director visits people in their private homes. Most people in the film have reservations towards foreigners living in Austria. Many are not very interested in politics but feel that Haider will take care of the problems with the foreigners. Foreigners are accused of only being interested in exploiting social welfare. And Muslims are being accused of not adapting culturally and religiously to the norms of the Catholic Austria. Traces of the Nazi past lurk just below the surface in several scenes in the film. The film has some very tragic but also very funny moments. It is a film definitely worth seeing.