In this notorious Nazi propaganda historical costume melodrama, a conniving, ambitious Jewish businessman, Süß Oppenheimer, snares a post as treasurer to the Duke of Wurttemburg by ... See full summary »
Junta is hated by the people in the village where she lives, especially by the women, who suspect her of being a witch. Only she can climb the nearby mountains to a cave high up, whence a ... See full summary »
The Jews of Poland (invaded by Germany in 1939) are depicted as filthy, evil, corrupt, and intent on world domination. Street scenes are shown prejudicially, along with clips from Jewish ... See full summary »
In this notorious Nazi propaganda historical costume melodrama, a conniving, ambitious Jewish businessman, Süß Oppenheimer, snares a post as treasurer to the Duke of Wurttemburg by showering the corrupt duke with treasure and promises of even greater riches. As the Jew's schemes grow more elaborate and his actions more brazen, the dukedom nearly erupts into civil war. Persuaded by the Jew, the Duke all but scuttles the constitution and alienates the assembly by lifting the local ban on Jews in Stuttgart. In a final outrage, the Jew rapes a wholesome German girl and tortures her father and fiancée. When the Duke succumbs to a sudden heart attack, the assembly of Elders try the Jew and sentence him to death for having "carnal knowledge of a Christian woman". Written by
Kevin Rayburn <email@example.com>
While the film is only partially based on Lion Feuchtwanger's 1925 historical novel "Jud Süß", as well as Wilhelm Hauff's 1827 novella, neither the film nor the written works correspond to the actual historic sources regarding the actual Joseph Süß Oppenheimer as still accessible at the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg. See more »
Unlike portrayed in the movie Oppenheimer was adjudged only for his financial deeds, not for having sexual intercourse with a Christian woman. Furthermore it is historically proofed that Oppenheimer had never any sexual relationship to a non-Jewish woman, which however was an antisemitic cliché years before the situation. See more »
Watching this film provokes divided reactions. You can admire it for its expensive production values, acting, photography, and editing. Director Veit Harlan's use of crowd scenes are also impressive here as in his other films. 'Jud Sus' is comparable to the handsome Hollywood historical biopics of the time such as Warner Brother's 'The Life of Emile Zola' and others with Paul Muni. The big difference is you will detest 'Jud Suss' for its obvious message (unlike the 'Zola' film) which was to inflame anti-semitism and quash sympathy for Jews at a time when Germany was preparing to destroy them. The film's production history and aftermath is worth exploring. After the war Ferdinand Marian who played the title character supposedly committed suicide due to guilt over his role and Werner Krauss who portrayed several stereotypical Jews was blacklisted. Harlan was acquitted twice for war crimes and went on to make more films. History is still divided about Harlan's role in creating the film. Was he forced to make it or was he a willing co-conspirator who made it too good? There's a new documentary about Harlan that might provide answers: 'Veit Harlan: In the Shadow of Jud Suss' now on DVD>
2 of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?