MovieChat Forums > Eichmann Discussion > Failed as a drama: better as a documenta...

Failed as a drama: better as a documentary?

posted 16 years ago by RunDeckardRun
4 replies | jump to latest

I did appreciate this film for most of what it was trying to do but definitely not for some of its simplistic black-and-white depictions of German soldiers, or the suggestion that Eichmann was committing atrocities because of the sexual power that his mistress held over him.

For me the personal back story of the interrogator's family largely failed: slightly clumsy, obvious and too much of a mechanical story device mainly to break up the interrogation scenes. It was far too incidental to be considered a true insight into the life of a man who was tasked with interrogating a Nazi war criminal and the acting/depiction of Garity/the interrogator was too stoic to be convincing.

In a way this is a film, like Overlord for instance, that straddles the line between drama and documentary but not intentionally in this case. It either needed to fully commit itself as a documentary about Eichmann's trial (which still could have been depicted in the same way), or go more deeply into the life and back story of the interrogator to be a true drama.

[–] SteveResin 16 years ago

Yeah I agree. There was a lot on the movie that was completely out of place and unnecessary. Scenes of Eichmann riding his wife in Argentina, the blonde coming downstairs naked... I don't need titillation when I'm watching a movie about a Nazi war criminal on trial in Jerusalem thanks.
And the "shooting a baby" scene. Sensationalist nonsense.

"Halt mich fest ich werd verrückt"

[–] howard-51 16 years ago

The baby shooting scene was a bit odd - they even sort of dismiss it as heresay that can't be verified later in the film. I thought it was maybe an allegory for the hundreds of thousands of children that Eichmann did kill by sending them to the concentration camps? I thought it was a good film overall though

[–] damkina 15 years ago

If somebody makes a movie, and said to be is based on documentary, then would be correct to keep themselfs to that documentaries, If the filmmakers have at all read these before, because I have doubt it.
Because Eichmann's privat life is absolutly a hoax. Everyone write only Eichmann in line with that fictitious 'shooting a baby' scene, but nobody speak about his unfortunate mistress, who has never brought any baby to his office (she hadn't already been in Hungary). The filmmakers use her just like an ingredient (maybe because blond?)
She was mentioned only one sentence in israeli transcripts(Vol5 band7).
No gold suiciderings, no baby-scene, no portrayal, no description of their relationship, all of this are just in the filmmaker's fantasy. Maybe they can't read?
Otherwise she was not an aristocrat descendant, and she left Eichmann once, after that he became foul, and not by her evil influence.

[–] quevaal 11 years ago

Just bought this film in a shop without knowing anything about it. It's a bit disappointing to see that it gets such a low score here, and that there are problems with the reliability. (I can deal with wooden acting if they just get the facts right)

I saw one of the made for TV films earlier, which was quite OK, although I don't remember the title. It deals mainly witht the capture of him, and there's this scene where he enjoys being in uniform, even though he's merely posing as a pilot to get out of Argentina.

If you want a really good film with him, then have a look at Conspiracy:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/
From what I understand, it's pretty much the highlights of the minutes from the Wannsee Conference.

____
Who watches the watchers?