‘Forbidden Films’ the hidden legacy of Nazi films

‘Forbidden Films’ the hidden legacy of Nazi films May 30, 2015

 

full

 

This documentary from Germany explores the dilemma of censorship about a cache of about 40 Nazi feature films (out of 1200 made between 1933 and 1944) that are not available to the German public to see. It will be shown in Los Angeles June 1 and 2 at six Laemmle Theaters.

The description from the Telluride Film Festival catalog says:

“Twelve hundred feature films were made in Germany’s Third Reich. According to experts, some 100 of these were blatant Nazi propaganda. Nearly seventy years after the end of the Nazi regime, more than 40 of these films remain under lock and key. Director Felix Moeller (Harlan: In the Shadow of Jew Süss) interviews German film historians, archivists and filmgoers in an investigation of the power, and potential danger, of cinema when used for ideological purposes. Utilizing clips from the films and recorded discussions from public screenings (permitted in Germany in educational contexts) in Munich, Berlin, Paris and Jerusalem, Moeller shows how contentious these 70-year-old films remain, and how propaganda can retain its punch when presented to audiences susceptible to manipulation. —Telluride Film Festival”

All the films were banned after the war but now academics, filmmakers and members of German film commissions are talking with students and the public in Germany, France and Israel about abolishing the ban. Most of the films are available on the Internet and from the U.S. anyway.

These films were made using nitro celluloid stock that is literally – and figuratively – explosive. The originals are stored in special vaults in an earth bunker to avoid mishap.

The production values of the films are high but, as one commentator says, everything is backwards. In one film Heimkehr (“Homecoming”) the Polish people are shown as aggressors and oppressors of Germans living in Poland. The Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 and subsequent mistreatment of the Polish people is justified and legitimized by the story. People speaking out in the film worry that German youth especially, who have no context for the film, would accept the story as fact.

The larger problem consists in films about the Jews that preserve anti-Semitism stereotypes as in Jud Süß (“Suss the Jew”). It is an historical drama that shows the Jews conspiring to take over Germany and was hugely successful when it was released. The stereotypes are about money, raping German women, and conspiracy to subvert the government. Some of those interviewed in the film are concerned that showing films like these on television would embed the stereotypes further in the culture. Some think the films can be released but not shown on television.

Very disturbing are the films justifying and prompting euthanasia. How the Nazis used traditional entertainment genres to tell their propaganda stories makes for compelling viewing. Ich klage an (“I Accuse”) is the fictional story about a woman with multiple sclerosis who begs her husband to end her life for love if she becomes a burden. When asked if he murdered his wife the man replies, “I released her.” (I have MS and I hope no one does away with me and I don’t plan on asking anyone, either. It’s interesting that the film writer chose MS as the illness. Though it is most prevalent in Europe it was only “discovered” and named as a disease in 1863.)

Ich klage an was released to coincide with the Nazi program of murdering the mentally ill and physically disabled. But Hitler and Goebbles (who called himself the patron of German film) were convinced that cinema was the best tool for propaganda and education. They also knew that by taking a softer, gentler approach, by telling a story that was related to what they were doing but not actually about murdering thousands of people, would make evoke conversations about euthanasia and make it more acceptable to people. (Changing the word “murder” for “release” is not unlike changing “baby” or “unborn baby” for “fetus.” It creates emotional distance and makes abortion easier to accept.)

Another problem confronting German film censors and government officials is the “de-nazification” of films. After the war swastikas and images of Hitler were edited out if the scenes were short and did not change the story. Many believe that the films should be available in their original form.

The conversations in the film take place in Germany, France and Israel. They are about censorship, about creating “contexts” for seeing and understanding these films, critical education, and whether they would influence youth who have not yet developed a political identity and those in the neo-Nazi movement.

“Forbidden Films,” directed by Felix Moeller, contains truly fascinating clips from several Nazi produced films.

Should they or shouldn’t these forbidden films be released in Germany?

Personally, I think we have to trust people’s ability to think. And I believe that those responsible for these films need to create the historical context for the films in an educational environment. Though the films are available anyway, it behooves people of good will to do their best so that history does not repeat itself. Censorship is a tricky thing. Who decides and against what criteria? Who created the criteria? How do you justify releasing or not releasing the films?

There’s no denying, however, that releasing Nazi cinema is a dilemma.

Any student of cinema would find this documentary compelling.

 

 


Browse Our Archives