|
Chickenboy -> RE: What program/film/documentary are you watching now? (3/1/2017 2:13:37 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
I watched The Wannsee Conference (1984) as I was intrigued by the description of it in the Kolberg – The Movie thread; not least that it is supposedly “much much better” than the HBO/BBC version Conspiracy (2001) which was supposedly a “word for word i.e. plagiarism” copy of.
Given that I have seen the newer version what must be getting on for double figures, and rate it one of the best war films ever, I was really keen to see this. So here is my personal opinion of the two versions.
Firstly I think it’s fair to say that no one will ever know exactly what happened – one copy of the minutes survived the war, but a) it is likely that these were edited to an extent, and b) they do not tell us of the plots and sub plots, and the informal conversations held before, during and after the conference.
First thing to say though is that, given that the films depict a 90-minute conference attended by a handful of people (and therefore would be expected to be similar) the two versions are surprisingly – very surprisingly - different. A word for word copy the latter is most definitely not.
Secondly the content. I split this into two sections:
a) The depiction, and historical accuracy, of the attendees
First thing to say here is that – Heydrich aside - I know nothing of the personalities or the pecking order of the other participants. As such I am reliant on the script and of course recognise that artistic licence and a good ‘story’ may win over 100% accuracy. I know for example that Dr Klopfer was a thin man, whereas the HBO/BBC version present him as a massively overweight “strutting porcine p****” (as Heydrich described him).
The two versions went with a different approach and here I think the later version wins hands down. The German version concentrates really on just 5 or 6 of the 15 attendees. The others range from bit-part players to non-speakers – indeed at the end of the film a brief history of what happens to each is only presented for less than a dozen characters (every attendee gets a 'what happened to' at the end of the HBO/BBC version). Only Heydrich, Stuckhart, Lange, perhaps Muller and Eichmann are given real focus. Indeed I don’t believe the names of most of the others are even mentioned.
In the later version all characters are ‘introduced’. We know who they are and what they do. There is a degree (whether accurate or not) of character development. Erich Neumann is essentially depicted as a bumbling fool, but through him the film has a mechanism to allow us get to know who the attendees are.
In the latter version Dr Kritzinger is an important player in the discussions – in the earlier version he is little more than someone who finds it difficult to hear. Indeed there is only one character that is treated the same – and given the same importance – in both versions. Dr Stuckart is seen in both vehemently defending the Nuremburg laws, and it is clear in both, that he has enemies amongst the Nazi hierarchy who accuse him of being soft on the Jews. Heydrich needs him on side. In the German version he ends the film saying he will resign and go and fight at the front. There is nothing to say whether he does or not (although of course he does no such thing). In the HBO/BBC version he is ‘reminded’ by Heydrich in a quiet conversation to one side that Stuckart will need to make a choice and that he would hate to have the SS take an interest in him….. Did that happen? I don't know but its great drama - and something obviously got Stuckart on-side....
b) Historical accuracy of the Final Solution discussion
The conference was presented slightly differently, and again I don’t know which is closer to the truth – but as entertainment, there is only one winner here. The earlier version seemed to suggest that the Final Solution was pretty much a done deal and it was almost as if a few loose ends were being tidied up – Stuckart aside there was no real intense debate, no pangs of conscience as to what was being done. The latter version was presented more from the point of view of Heydrich having to get everyone on side at the conference – most were already of course - but there were major concerns particularly from Stuckart (the law), Meyer and Leibrandt (the problems in the east) and Neumann and Kritzinger (war production). As entertainment, there was so much more to the latter version.
One area where I thought the earlier version was better was in describing the problem of the exemptions. At least I understood what was being said. The HBO/BBC version rattled through this too quickly and left me non-plussed until about the 6th viewing!
Thirdly the acting. There were detail things such as the minute taker being female in the German version (and giving Heydrich someone to flirt with during the conference). Was that true? Don’t know and it doesn’t really matter one way or the other but at least it gave Heydrich something to do apart from sit at the table taking notes and not really exhibiting too much of anything. Branagh, a superior actor, was lucky that he was really given something to work with. He had that perfect air of calm that was rarely ruffled – but you know when it was, and he had some great one-liners to put people in their place – not to mention the quiet menace that was occasionally needed.
It was in this film that Stanley Tucci first came to my attention. As Eichmann he was brilliant – but again was given something to really get his not inconsiderable acting skills into. The German Eichmann was, by contrast, a bit of a non-entity.
Which version is more historically accurate? I have no idea. But as to which one is more entertaining, interesting and watchable there is no question in my mind.
End of the day it’s all about personal opinion and don’t get me wrong, although it sounds like I’ve slated the German version, I think to be clear, it is more a case of just how damn good the latter version is, rather than the earlier version being a bad production.
Don't know a thing about the earlier version you comment on here, but I agree with you measure for measure about the excellence of Conspiracy. Branaugh's character is very well acted and so deeply disturbing. Extraordinary.
|
|
|
|
