Plot
On 20 January 1942, a conference of Nazi German officials at a villa in Wannsee is chaired by Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the Reich Security Main Office. Heydrich has been given a mandate by Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring to carry out a "complete solution of the Jewish question" by making Germany's territory free of Jews, including the occupied countries of Poland, Reichskommissariat Ostland , Czechoslovakia and France.
Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger suggests the meeting is pointless since the Jewish question has already been settled, while Heydrich states the government's policy will change from forced emigration to "evacuation", without initially making clear what that euphemism means.
The men discuss sterilisation and exemptions for mixed-race Jews who have one or more non-Jewish grandparents. Heydrich's willingness to entertain various competing ideas suggests the ultimate fate of the Jews has not been decided. As the discussion continues, however, it becomes evident to the participants that the purpose of the meeting is not to formulate policy but to receive direction from the SS. Heydrich calls a break in the proceedings, and after praising Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, a lawyer in the Reich Ministry for the Interior, takes Stuckart aside to warn him about the consequences of his stubbornness. On reconvening, Heydrich reveals in frank detail the policy that had already been decided before the meeting convened: the wholesale extermination of Europe's Jewish population using gas chambers and ovens to incinerate the bodies.
SS- Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann then reveals that the SS has been building extermination camps at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, and making preparations for the "Final Solution" under the noses of Germany's civilian bureaucrats. Eichmann describes the method that will be used: asphyxiation of Jews in gas chambers built at locations such as Auschwitz. The participants all realize now that "evacuation" really means genocide.
Throughout the meeting and over refreshments attendees raise other side issues, reflecting the interests of their respective work areas, including concerns that cholera and typhus could break out from the overpopulated ghettos in occupied Poland. A break is called and this time it is Kritzinger's turn to be taken aside and intimidated by Heydrich. Kritzinger realizes that any hopes he had of assuring livable conditions for the Jewish population are unrealistic. In return, he tells Heydrich a cautionary tale about a man consumed by hatred of his father, so much so that his life loses its meaning once his father dies. Heydrich later interprets this as a warning that a similar fate awaits them after the Jews are exterminated, though he rejects the warning, telling Müller and Eichmann that he will not miss the Jews.
Heydrich then recalls and concludes the meeting. He also asks for explicit assent and support from each official. After giving careful instructions on the secrecy of the meeting, they adjourn.
As the officials depart, a brief account of the fate of each one is given. Some like Freisler died during the war, others were arrested immediately after. Josef Bühler and Karl Eberhard Schongarth were convicted by Allied military tribunals and executed, other survivors were acquitted and freed. Heydrich was assassinated by Czechoslovak partisans for his brutal rule in Bohemia and Moravia within six months. Eichmann fleed to Buenos Aires but was captured, tried and sentenced to death by Israel in the 1960s.
The final card before the credits reveals that German Foreign Office secretary Martin Luther's copy of the Wannsee minutes, recovered by the US Army in the archives of the Foreign Office in 1947, was the only record of the conference to survive.
Production
Background
Colin Callendar, head of HBO NYC productions, identifies two primary historical arguments underpinning the narrative. [1] He underscores the conference's role as a mechanism for consolidating Reinhard Heydrich's authority and that of the SS in executing the infamous "Final Solution." He also emphasizes the film's portrayal of a lack of a clearly defined and centralized policy preceding the Wannsee Conference. These insights reflect a functionalist interpretation of the Holocaust, highlighting the evolutionary and radicalizing nature of the genocide, often originating from lower ranks within the Nazi hierarchy. Callendar also notes the presence of distinct groups of various ranking officials (and their conflict objectives) which underscores the Holocaust's emergence as a result of competing interests among different governmental agencies.
In addition to Callendar, the producers had the input of three historians, including Michael Berenbaum of the United States Holocaust Museum and Andrea Axelrod as a historical advisor. Noted Holocaust historian Christopher Browning also acted as a consultant. Browning offered small critiques, including geographical mistakes, references to speeches and events that had not yet happened in January 1942 and how the German officials referred to each other. Axelrod provided extensive research and documentation (amounting to 170 citations), including verifying the amount of snowfall in Wannsee on the date of the conference. [2]
Screenplay
Pierson brought Mandel into the project initially for an unproduced script entitled Complicity. This was intended to be a companion movie detailing the failure of the Allies to help with Jewish refugees. The piece never made it to the screen, most likely as a result of the sensitive subject of culpability of Western Allies. [2]
Mandel utilized the only existing copy of the conference minutes, called the Wansee Protocols, found in 1947 in the German Foreign Office files as the basis for the script. [3] [2] During an interview discussing a later adaptation of the screenplay into a theatre production, the author noted "I had never heard of the Wansee Conference" and that Pierson told him "...it was the first thing he had encountered about the Holocaust that angered him rather than making him want to cry", he signed on to write the screenplay. [4] The script is not verbatim from conversations at the conference and most of the actual dialogue is invented. The meeting occurred over a period of 90 minutes, which is the same running time of the movie.
Filming
Kenneth Branagh, the actor portraying Heydrich in the film, reported that he found the role deeply unsettling. [5] Despite grappling with a profound aversion towards the historical figure he portrayed, Branagh is acclaimed for delivering a remarkable portrayal of the allegedly flamboyant officer. Branagh's portrayal was challenging not only by the difficulty of delivering lines but also by the absence of discernible motivations or upbringing factors explaining Heydrich's chilling readiness to perpetrate genocide on an unprecedented scale. Branagh reaffirmed a recurring theme of the film, emphasizing its commitment to historical accuracy over sensationalism or star power, underscoring the importance of authentically recounting this harrowing chapter of history.
Reception
Critical reception
Conspiracy has a 100% approval rating from 7 critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. [6]
In The American Historical Review, Alan E. Steinweis critically analyzes the film, offering insights from a historian's perspective. [7] Steinweis highlights instances within the film where certain scenes are identified as dramatic inventions, pointing out discrepancies between historical accuracy and cinematic portrayal. However, Steinweis underscores a common limitation in historians' critiques of films, noting their tendency to focus solely on specific fictionalized elements while overlooking broader thematic arguments and the overarching vision of the film.
Steinweis also juxtaposes Conspiracy with its 1984 German predecessor, Die Wannseekonferenz , suggesting that the earlier film may offer a more historically accurate depiction by providing a more detailed examination of the killing process. He critiques the portrayal of Reinhard Heydrich in Conspiracy while commending the depiction of Adolf Eichmann as "refreshing." Yet, Steinweis argues that a deeper analysis, often absent in historical reviews of films, would involve an exploration of the film's production history to uncover the filmmakers' intentions, historical arguments, and research methodologies underlying the film's creation.
James Rampton in The Independent praised the film:
"Showing as part of the BBC's commemoration of Holocaust Memorial Day, Frank Pierson's film underscores only too well the old maxim that evil prospers when good men do nothing."
An impressed Austin Film Society had a lengthy review of the film and details about its making. [9]
This page is based on this
Wikipedia article Text is available under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
