Now that events can be seen in their historical perspective, one cannot

escape the conclusion that in our own work, we could have been more

profitably engaged. Hardly a single film of the period reflects the agony of

those times. [1]

Thus the producer, Michael Balcon, head of production at Gaumont British in the 1930s, reflected some thirty years later. But the British Board of Film Censors, as we know, did not permit political propaganda, and, it has been argued, no feature film either overtly or covertly critical of Nazi Germany was permitted [2]. Once Hitler was in power, to draw attention to the plight of German Jews would have been construed as political propaganda. Moreover, the British film industry was not keen to make films on this subject, in the belief that they would lose money. Despite these obstacles, Balcon was responsible for the production of one film, Jew Suss, which drew attention to the persecution of the Jews, if covertly rather than overtly. Usually dismissed as an artistic and commercial failure, it can, to some extent, be counted a political success, though not in the sense that Balcon intended [3]. Passing the British censors under the guise of a costume drama, its cover was blown once it reached Central Europe. Opening in October 1934 to mixed reviews in London, New York, and elsewhere, its political message escaped some critics. In Vienna, however, its reception was different. The film passed by the censor was eventually banned by the police. This did not go unnoticed in Nazi Germany, where of course the film could not be shown.

Four years later, the Nazis resolved to make their own film on the same subject, Jud Suss, the better known--indeed notorious--film. Directed by Veit Harlan, it was the Nazis one major, very successful feature film with an explicit anti-semitic message. During the war it had wide and continuous distribution throughout Germany and German-occupied territory. Its box-office success and its importance as a vehicle for Nazi propaganda led to the post-war trial of its director for crimes against humanity, of which he was acquitted. It is still a film generally not available for public exhibition [4].

The notoriety of Jud Suss has overshadowed Jew Suss. But Jew Suss can be construed as one of the first shots in a propaganda war, as the Nazis chose to interpret the significance of the British film. Offering pro-Jewish material in commercial cinemas to non-Jewish audiences in New York, London and Vienna in the early years of the Third Reich presented problems. Reflecting the "agony of the times" was not necessarily a recipe for artistic or commercial success and this is well illustrated by the case of Jew Suss, as seen in its critical and box-office reception in London, New York and Vienna.

The Making of Jew Suss

Shortly after Hitler came to power Gaumont British submitted to the British Board of Film Censors three scenarios relating to the persecution of the Jews. Two scripts were rejected, partly on grounds that they presented a threat to public order. The first, A German Tragedy, by Franz Schultz, was rejected on 10 May 1933: the "pathetic" story, the censor commented, though "free from any objectionable feature", "undoubtedly" came "under the heading of political propaganda" given "recent political agitation ... in Germany" against the Jews. The subject was not "desirable at the present juncture", because "feeling still runs very strongly in London on this subject", and disturbances could be easily provoked, as had happened on the previous day between Fascists and Jews on Leicester Square [5]. Another scenario, City without Jews, submitted by Gaumont British, was rejected on 1 June 1933 for the same reasons [6].

The third scenario was Jew Suss, submitted on 2 November 1933, and passed. A Jewish theme was more palatable in the guise of a costume drama, especially one based on a best-selling historical novel. Jew Suss by the German Jewish writer, Lion Feuchtwanger, was published in 1925 and translated into English the following year. By 1931 it had been translated into 17 languages and worldwide had sold some 750000 copies. It was Feuchtwanger's first literary success. Friend and collaborator of Brecht, Feuchtwanger was to write many novels, most of them bestsellers, the majority of which were produced in California, where he settled in 1940, having left Germany in 1933. Jew Suss launched Feuchtwanger's career as a novelist (although he had written a play on the subject in 1917 [7]. By the late 1920s he had become a literary celebrity in Britain and America, described on his first visit to Britain in 1927 by the Daily Mail as the "brilliant German novelist and dramatist, whose Jew Suss was the book of the year, both in Germany and England" [8]. Arnold Bennett found the novel "remarkable"; The Times Literary Supplement reviewer called it "one of the most remarkable historical novels of recent years" [9]. Stage adaptations soon followed in Germany, Britain and America. In Britain Ashley Dukes adapted it for its producer and star, Matheson Lang. A London stage success in 1929, it featured Peggy Ashcroft making her West End debut.

The censor's objections to the scenario only concerned matters of taste. The novel was described as "very powerful", the language and many scenes as "coarse and outspoken". Although the censor found the scenario "somewhat milder" than the novel, "a good many modifications" were still necessary: the Duke's lechery was too explicit and "the execution scenes ... [also needed to] be considerably curtailed and softened. No struggles should be shown and no tightening of the rope. Laughter and hysterics should be omitted" [10].

Like the earlier (1827) novella, Jud Suss by Wilhelm Hauff, the Feuchtwanger novel was based on the case of the court Jew, Joseph Suss Oppenheimer (c. 1698-1738), popularly known as Jud Suss, (the Jew Suss). The historical Suss served as financial adviser to the unpopular Karl Alexander, Duke of Wurttemberg, during his short reign, 1734-37. The Duke, having converted to Catholicism when entering Hapsburg military service, unexpectably inherited the throne in staunchly Protestant Wurttemberg. Raising taxes to increase the standing army and introducing other unpopular measures, he defied the strongly independent Diet. To help him rule absolutely, he brought in outside advisers, Catholics and a court Jew. After the Duke's sudden death, Suss was arrested, tried by his political enemies and executed in a cage in the Stuttgart market place in 1738; the other advisers got off lightly.

Suss, the handsome courtier, from the Heidelberg Judengasse who rose so high and fell so swiftly was, in his own lifetime, the subject of rumour and after his death of legend, especially concerning his sexual conquests [11]. Some nineteenth-century historians gave credence to the legend, that Suss was the illegitimate son of a nobleman, Freiherr von Heidersdorf, a disgraced Hapsburg military commander, and therefore only half-Jewish, which Feuchtwanger introduces for dramatic, if somewhat confusing, effect.

Suss's life and personality captured the popular imagination and then literary imagination. Numerous literary accounts appeared in the nineteenth century, both philosemitic and antisemitic, the former written by orthodox Jews, and in the twentieth century a best-selling novel, plays, radio plays and two films, one in which Suss was the hero and the other in which he was the villain. Most of these facts about his life appear in every literary and film version, though the Catholic/Protestant conflict is usually ignored or played down. But there is a great deal of artistic and/or political licence and this applies to the Feuchtwanger novel, the British film as well as the Nazi film.

Furl it

Print

Send

Subscribe