While there have been a number of questions about Max and the ending, there is one piece of information missing from the story that shows how ridiculous it is.
The guards at the concentration and death camps were drawn from the SS. The SS also had tattoos: their blood group was tattooed under their left arm. In real life, as the allies rounded up German POWs at the end of the war, they often looked there to see who was a member of the SS, since they had been responsible for some of the worst crimes of the Nazi regime. And while a POW could be wearing a regular army uniform, the tattoo might say something different.
So, Zev had been married to a German/Jewish woman for 70 years and she never noticed that?
Tattoos can be removed and always are when the motivation to do so is strong enough. I did it. Think it was strong enough for Kohlander to probably remove his when he came to America seeking escape from a death sentence? Just saying to you that anything is possible thus the story stands on it own merit as it was based on a a true story. Did you know that?
You are quite correct. And indeed, some SS members did that after the war when they were caught by allied soldiers. However, removing tattoes in that era involved scratching the skin leaving scar tissue. The allied soldiers very quickly realised that and treated Nazi POWs with scar tissues where the tattoo used to be as highly likely SS suspects.
You say the film is based on a true story. The wikipedia entry for the film says nothing about that. Where did you read that it was based on a true story?
This was never explored in the film though, therefore what you're saying doesn't exist within the confines of it. You're reaching by saying something that doesn't occur is ridiculous because it isn't there.
The film is about an actual historical event (the Holocaust). The main characters all were involved in that historical event. The rest of story is fiction. The point I made is that, whether the Nazi guard had his tattoo removed or not, his wife, who they told us was Jewish would likely have seen it and recognised what it was. That seems to me a huge hole in this otherwise pretty crappy story.
And what I'm saying is that there was no mention of this nazi tattoo you speak of in the film, therefore it isn't relevant and isn't a plot hole. You've made a plot hole up.
You have a very strange idea about film. For me, this was a like a cheap television show that was more interested in a sensational dramatic event than telling a story that could have meaning to a wider number of people. Sort of like the difference between an amusement park ride and a play in theater.
No. It basically told me this is a film looking for a "wow! moment" and is happy to ignore whatever might get in it's way. I thought the story sucked, with or without the missing information.
In your little mind, that analogy may be nonsense, but it is fact (according to the MPAA) that the majority of film goers in the US are mostly under 39 years old. Doesn't Hollywood make a lot of Marvel comics films? And a lot of action/thriller films? What would you call them? To me they are nothing but a cheap, vulgar attempt to sell lots of tickets to their audience.
Which is why the large gap in historical accuracy of this film doesn't really seem to bother most IMDB users.
You're maybe right about the tattoo thing, and it may be a little error in the plot. However, as the exact details of Nazi/prison camp tattooing is not widely known, these kind of nitpicking mostly fall into two categories: a) an attempt to look smart b) oversensitivity that comes from obsession about the topic
Either way, it's irrelevant. This movie is no masterpiece nor intended to be.
Interesting that a. you call my objection "nitpicking" and b. you offer two negative reasons why someone might do that.
Unsurprisingly, you left out a third possibility: that someone watching this crappy film might actually know Holocaust history and that this detail might have stuck out as a sign of how little the scriptwriter knew about it, and basically invalidated the big surprise at the end.
There is another thread here, not about tattoo, but about an even more obvious problem: circumcision. How he either hid this from his wife or how he managed to get circumcised while a POW.
The point is, whether a tattoo or circumcision, the scriptwriter was too dumb to come up with a reasonable story to justify what was probably his original thought: the gimmick ending.
I did not rule out third possibility, just listed the two main reasons why people rail on problems like that.
that someone watching this crappy film might actually know Holocaust history and that this detail might have stuck out as a sign of how little the scriptwriter knew about it
This sounds suspiciously like a mix of a) and b).
Circumcision is done for medical reasons too, in adulthood too, so it's not a valid argument.
Don't watch movies, especially not about historical events. Most of them have errors like that, even when you don't notice them. You don't want to be either upset because of the inaccuracies, or to be lied to, right?
reply share
It seems to me to you are just trolling. You've haven't put forward a logical argument yet. The issue is not whether circumcision (which is only an example I brought up, not my issue) is medically possible for an adult, the issue is whether a Nazi war criminal would have had the opportunity to have one done professionally after serving in a POW camp and then emigrating to the US. And whether his wife would have noticed it or not. Much like the scar under his arm where he had his tattoo removed.
I don't normally watch cheap Hollywood films like this. A friend of mine saw it and thought I'd be interested in it. That's the only reason I watched it. And regretted having watched it.
Sorry for the late addition, but I think this better proves my point: The film was written by Benjamin August, who IMDB identifies as a casting director and producer, as well as actor and writer. With those professions, I don't think it would be too hard to guess in which town he works.
While there have been a number of questions about Max and the ending, there is one piece of information missing from the story that shows how ridiculous it is.
The guards at the concentration and death camps were drawn from the SS. The SS also had tattoos: their blood group was tattooed under their left arm.
That's true, but the blood group tattoos were predominently found among the Waffen-SS (the more elite fighting units), and even then, there were numerous individuals who managed to avoid getting the tattoo, Mengele among them. But the guards in the camps were not, for the most part, drawn from the Waffen-SS, and in the later years of the war there were many more who joined the SS without getting tattoos.
Here's an interesting story about a man who found out his grandfather (who did not have the tattoo) had actually been a fervent SS member:
Since there are known examples of SS (even Waffen-SS) members who did not have the tattoo, I don't find it a "plot hole" in the film, any more than the issue, if it is one, of Zev passing himself off as "Jewish" without, presumably, ever having been circumcised, as many assimilated Catholics of Jewish descent were swept up in the "Jewish" label under the various Nuremberg classifications.
The film doesn't go into all the minutiae, quite rightly I think. It's a thriller, not an historical drama, and a very well-done thriller IMO.
While you make some interesting points, unfortunately, the German version of Wikipedia is quite different from the English. For example, on the blood tattooing, they write "Bloodtattooing was the sign of membership in the SS Provisional, the SS Death Head group and later, the largest part of the Waffen SS" (my translation) (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blutgruppent%C3%A4towierung).
Secondly, there would have been little point in the Allied prisoner camps to search for the tattoos if they were limited to the Waffen SS. And yet these searches took place.
Frankly, as the point of the tattoo was medical, I have seen no statistics on how many SS people had them, but I too have heard that not everyone had them. Nevertheless, from what I have heard, the number who didn't have them were in the vast minority as they were seen as a benefit to those who had them.
Statistically, I would assume that Zev had one. Which would have made it very strange that he was married to a Jewish woman who never noticed it.
I was not as enthusiastic as you were about the film. I thought it was quite poorly written (I don't mean the absence of the tattoos).
For better enjoyment of a movie don't make asinine assumptions. The Angel of Death himself didn't have a tattoo and lived a long life in Brazil, before drowning in a beach near São Paulo. The Holocaust's chief henchman himself avoided detection for decades by simply burning his tattoo with a cigarette. Such tattoo had no relevance whatsoever in the Mossad's intelligentsia when it came to capturing Eichmann outside Buenos Aires.
reply share
They made a different movie where the main character was hung for crimes against humanity at Nuremberg in the first 5 minutes and then the credits rolled.
Test audiences thought that the movie should be a bit longer so they made this one that had a plot.