I indict (1941)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Movie
Original title I accuse
Country of production Germany
original language German
Publishing year 1941
length 120 minutes
Age rating FSK none
Rod
Director Wolfgang Liebeneiner
script Eberhard Frowein
Harald Bratt
Hermann Schwenninger
production Heinrich Jonen
music Norbert Schultze
camera Friedl Behn-Grund
Franz von Klepacki
cut Walter von Bonhorst
occupation

I complain is a German feature film by Wolfgang Liebeneiner , which premiered on August 29, 1941 in the Berlin Capitol . Because of its advertising for the mass murder of sick people committed by the National Socialist state , this propaganda film can only be seen to a limited extent in Germany today.

Today it is a reserved film from the Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau Foundation . It is part of the foundation's portfolio, has not been released for distribution and may only be shown with the consent and under the conditions of the foundation.

Definitions and relevance

The term euthanasia is made up of the two Greek words "Eu", which means "good-" or "good-", and " Thanatos " for "death". Accordingly, "euthanasia" originally meant "good death" before the term was used as a synonym for " euthanasia " and finally also for the " destruction of 'life unworthy of life' ". The National Socialists used the term inappropriately and gave it its etymologically opposite meaning.

The term " propaganda " comes from the Latin verb "propagare", which means something like to spread or to spread. The term had a negative connotation in the course of the 19th century during the First World War . In some cases, this negative assessment continues to this day. This also applies to "the inner defense against everything different, everything 'sick'", which can still be found in the current time. It is therefore of particular relevance to come to terms with and discuss the euthanasia debate and the associated problem of euthanasia in the 21st century. Because not only in the time of National Socialism was a national community claimed that is completely healthy and from which any disease must therefore be eliminated.

Use and effect

By means of the film, the "euthanasia program" of the National Socialist state was propagated in the most effective way possible. Accordingly, the film suggests that it is properly allowed to end the lives of disabled and / or sick people. This is conveyed in a cleverly camouflaged way: instead of the destruction of "life unworthy of life", the film focuses on the problem of killing on demand . In the entire film the word "euthanasia" is not mentioned and I accuse should not be recognizable as an obvious propaganda tool overall.

On August 15, 1941, I complain in Germany received a clearance from the censors and only got the comment “'Forbidden for young people' and the predicates 'artistically particularly valuable', 'popular education' and 'holiday-free'”. The film was also shown abroad and in Zurich, for example, was banned by the cantonal police authorities and described as:

“[…] A tendency film of the most dangerous kind… which we reject completely in its mental attitude and which we warn against. All the more dangerous since it addresses itself much less to the intellect than to the feeling. The existing law is being attacked in a very clever way. "

- Der Filmberater, Lucerne, No. 11a, November 1941 : Drewniak, Der deutsche Film, p. 251

In the National Socialist state at the time, the reactions and reviews with regard to the film were significantly different. The following was said in the Nazi daily newspaper " Völkischer Beobachter ":

"Meanwhile, many fruitful conversations will get underway about the question posed by the film, but the answer will be as clear and unambiguous as it is appropriate for a healthy and vital people."

- Utermann, film in the field of high art : Völkischer Beobachter, North German edition 54, No. 244 of September 1, 1941, p. 6

According to reports from the SS security service , the change in the law, which is called for in I complain , found greater approval among the working class in intellectual circles. The decisive factor should be “that the socially disadvantaged strata of the population naturally think more about their own financial burden”.

With regard to his film, director Wolfgang Liebeneiner made the demand:

“Let man decide whether he wants to live or not. I ... think it's a hideous relic from earlier times that people want to deny the right to decide whether they want to live or die. "

- Liebener in an interview with Rost

These words suggest that the ideology of the National Socialist state, which calls disabled life "unworthy of life", may not necessarily be contrary to Liebeneiner's convictions.

action

Hanna Heyt is a fun-loving woman. When her husband is offered the position of director of an institute in Munich, she prepares a celebration for colleagues and friends. During the preparations, she inexplicably falls down a staircase in the house. As she sits at the piano during the party, she feels a cramp in her hand and cannot continue playing. Since the numbness did not go away the next morning either, her husband sent her to Dr. Lang, an old friend of the couple. The latter examines her and suspects that Hanna has multiple sclerosis . He reveals his suspicions to Dr. Heyt, who is horrified, but then gets the judgment of a specialist. The latter confirms the incurable disease, but suggests not to inform Hanna about her illness, in order not to deprive her of her optimism and belief in an improvement. From now on, Dr. Heyt in his laboratory after work into the night after a pathogen causing the disease and a remedy for its cure.

Meanwhile, Hanna's illness is progressing further. She realizes that after her legs and arms are paralyzed, she will be able to move less and less. She then asks Dr. Long to kill her when things get really bad. She doesn't want her husband to be happy one day when she finally dies after vegetating and being "just a burden". Dr. Lang rejects her suggestion as unethical . Hanna later turns to her husband with the same request, who tries to convince her of the possibility of a speedy recovery.

The disease rapidly deteriorates their health. An alleged breakthrough in Heyt's research turns out to be a mistake. When Hanna suffers from respiratory paralysis , she asks her husband again to help her. He steals the medicine bottle from Dr. Lang and gives his wife an overdose that makes her die. Dr. Lang is beside himself, he accuses Heyt of murder and ends the friendship. Heyt is reported by his brother-in-law Eduard Stretter.

In criminal proceedings for murder before the Circuit Court , the fact is according to the witness statements as a quasi-humanitarian act. The witnesses give it mainly opinions as on whether they hold certain events possible, and no report on their own experiences. The aldermen discuss during a one-hour negotiations break because of the announced appearance of Dr. For a long time the case was controversial in the consultation room, the presiding judge ordered them to stop, because the case was not as simple as they made it out to be. There is no evidence of the accused's express request for killing by the killed. Dr. Lang, who initially did not appear on summons , finally appears in court. The confrontation with a deranged child made him rethink. He had kept the child with meningitis alive by all means. His parents Marie and Herbert Günther ask him why he did not let it die, because as a result of the treatment it is now blind, paralyzed and mentally disturbed in an institution. After re-entering the evidence, he confirms Hanna Heyt's express request. Dr. Heyt now breaks his silence in court and makes a short plea on his own behalf. He wants a judgment "to clarify himself and future such cases".

Film template

Some motifs of the film go to the epistolary novel mission and belief of Hellmuth Unger back. The first edition of this book was published in 1936 and has been reissued several times from 1941 in a modified version. Only the second version contains the programmatic words “I am no longer a defendant, but I accuse, a true doctor against a whole world”. The epistolary novel had no continuous plot and had to be completely redesigned dramaturgically. Viktor Brack , who in the office of the leader of the Action T4 was engaged to write commissioned Hermann Schwenninger thus, a new framework for action. Schwenninger had been employed by the T4 central office since 1940 , where he was supposed to produce a documentary about euthanasia, which later became known as Dasein ohne Leben . Schwenninger's draft script for the feature film contains the court scene in which the euthanasia is stylized as a hero.

Wolfgang Liebeneiner rejected this draft. From the Führer’s office the instruction was again issued to a working group to write a script “about euthanasia, about the extinction of life unworthy of life. Taking into account the circumstances of the time, we have come to the conviction that we have to avoid everything that looks like diligent advertising, but especially to avoid everything that could be perceived by opponents as a threat from the state. "

The new draft had the working title Three People - A Film about the Law of the Heart and referred to a planned “Euthanasia Act”, which was not enacted because of protests from church circles. The design introduces the three-way relationship between a woman and two men as important elements and allows the husband and the doctor to become the perpetrator within the family. This draft has also been revised. Liebeneiner later circulated a misrepresentation about it to justify it, claiming that it bluntly promoted the killing of the insane. Liebeneiner, however, took over the " destruction of life unworthy of life " as a hidden key message. The film contains as elements the tripartite relationship of the second draft, the big court scene from the first draft and the modified subplot of two parents who long for the death of their severely disabled child.

Propagandist Methods

The film succeeds in making the opinion of the proponents of euthanasia appear correct using rhetorical methods . The fact that the film can be classified as a means of propaganda for the “euthanasia program” of the National Socialist state can be shown by its classification in the historical context. Basically, three main propaganda methods can be demonstrated in the film: assertion , camouflage and transmission .

As the most important method, the transfer runs through the entire film, namely the idealization of the character of Thomas Heyt as a leader. In addition, the structure of the doctor Bernhand Lang can be named as a figure of identification. The method of camouflage is also used, for example in the jury scene: those jurors who advocate euthanasia use the technique of ingratiation on the audience. Along with this, the actual subject of euthanasia is equated with the problem of assisted suicide. Since the focus is on the character of Thomas Heyts, it is thus specified that the negotiation is about people who willingly accept their death.

Finally, I complain an even more techniques come into play, such as techniques of silence and distortion : It is suggested again and again that killing would be discussed on request, which actually concerns the actual problem of the destruction of "life unworthy of life" . The tactics of the encirclement can also be demonstrated in the film: the viewer is deliberately actively involved in the action and confronted with various decisions. The first decision was made when Hanna Heyt both her husband Thomas and her doctor friend Dr. Lang begs for death. There is thus the option of either taking the side of the doctor or of the husband. Even during the court hearing in the film, decisions for or against the individual witnesses are continuously demanded, whereby a decision for or against the character of Thomas Heyt is made at the same time. In addition, the jury scene literally forces another decision: the viewer is not able to follow the discussion with a neutral view. Instead, your own opinion should always be related to the opinions represented by the discussants . The fact that Bernhard Lang finally delivers the decisive testimony at the end of the film and Thomas Heyt makes his closing remarks leaves the viewer only one possible assessment of the film: It seems impossible to consciously reject killing on demand and, in this sense, euthanasia.

Constituents of euthanasia propaganda

I accuse cannot be immediately recognized as a National Socialist propaganda film. The first part of the film in particular suggests a disease tragedy rather than any propaganda in favor of “euthanasia”. However, techniques are used that are intended to creep the viewer to endorse euthanasia. In the following, the decisive constituents of euthanasia propaganda are shown, which Hachmeister describes in detail:

Constituents Explanation of content
The subplot One of the dramatic highlights of the film I complain is the "inspection" of the disabled child in the institution. Long a change of heart: He no longer condemns the act of his friend Thomas Heyt, but now testifies in court in his favor. With the case of the disabled Trudchen Günther, the destruction of “life unworthy of life” is clearly addressed.
The change of heart of Bernhard Lang I am suing shows on the one hand Thomas Heyt as a role model and on the other hand Dr. Long as the one who is emotionally very close to the viewer. Thus, Lang's change suggests that every viewer who is not convinced from the start can also achieve a change of heart. The transformation of such an ethically demanding person serves in the film as a moral justification for euthanasia and euthanasia.
Thomas Heyt as a leader Since Heyt appears as a leader, he also functions as a role model: he knows “instinctively” what is best for his wife and, moreover, for humanity. In the film, Heyt personifies the advocate of a new, more just order, whose leadership function is to be "transferred" to the viewer.
The final roll call by Thomas Heyts I accuse already shows from the title that Thomas Heyt accuses a paragraph in his closing words, "which prevents doctors and judges from fulfilling their task of serving the people" (134th picture). In the end, the end of the film remains open, as a conviction of Heyt would have contradicted higher justice and an acquittal again was not compatible with the applicable law.
The beautiful death - the senseless agony I complain has the propagandistic method of contrasting: In the film, death is portrayed as something beautiful that one does not have to fear. The beautiful death is contrasted with the tortured life of a sick person and suggests that death is preferable to a disabled life. Euthanasia is thus an act of grace.
Death as a gift of love The euthanasia program of the National Socialist state was also known as the “Action Gnadentod”. In I complain , love represents the motive of “redemption”: Heyt's act is justified with love for his wife and she herself sees the killing as a proof of love.
The nature argument The nature argument serves the propagandistic method of assertion, because both euthanasia and anti-Semitism were justified with reference to "nature". I accuse suggesting the idea that it is "unnatural" to use medicinal agents to extend a life. This corresponds to an extreme form of social Darwinism: the “weak” must perish in order not to harm the “strong”. Letting die is natural, while saving life would interfere with the course of nature.
The appearance of legality Closely related to the concept of nature is the legal concept in Ich accuse: What is being propagated is a legal system that must be in harmony with “nature”. Furthermore, the means of camouflage through legalization are used, as the existing laws are criticized that forbid euthanasia. The National Socialist injustice state is staged in the film as a constitutional state in which violations of the law by those in power seem excluded.
The equation of humans and animals In the film, the conviction that human beings have to let sick life perish like “ruthless nature” is closely related to the principle of equating human and animal. As a result, it is better for every living being and also for people if they are "released" from their pain instead of having to torment themselves.
The pastor's testimony In the film, the pastor's testimony is of great importance for the trial, as the church was the strongest opponent of the National Socialist euthanasia program. The technique of camouflage is used here: the assumption that the church takes the view that people should "only die after overcoming endless physical and mental agony" should cast the church's position in a bad light. The pastor's demand for euthanasia as an act of love appears in I Accuse as a demand from God.
The jury scene The jury scene essentially contains a dispute in the course of which the viewer now has to finally decide which "side" he is on. The jury is divided into supporters and opponents of assisted suicide and neutral votes. When arranging the arguments, a recurring scheme can be identified: Any objections to euthanasia are immediately invalidated. In addition, the technique of the sham concession is used: The opponents are not exposed to "frontal attacks", but flattered and ultimately convinced. If the jury scene is now understood not as a discussion of different participants, but as a coherent work of a single author, one sees in it exactly the principle that Hitler described: The possible objections of the audience are anticipated in the scene and immediately refuted.

censorship

The original version - also known as the “Ministerial Version”, referring to the Reich Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda - was completed at the beginning of May 1941 and was changed in mid-July and again in mid-August through sharp censorship cuts . The reasons for this were the coded criticism of euthanasia by a pastoral word from the Catholic bishops, which was read from the pulpit on July 7, 1941, and the blunt sermon of Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen on August 3, 1941.

Swipes against religious reservations and scenes of intrusive attempts at conversion were cut out. National Socialist idioms and symbols were also omitted . The killing of a sick test animal was also no longer shown immediately.

There are three different versions of the feature film. They are in the Koblenz Federal Archives , the German Institute for Film Studies in Frankfurt am Main and in the former GDR film archive in Potsdam-Babelsberg.

Reception and criticism

The film is about killing on demand , but is now generally regarded as a propaganda film for the murders of the sick during the Nazi era and was certainly intended that way, but it is also a plea for active euthanasia . On-demand killing, however, which active euthanasia often presents itself, has a different ethical quality. According to federal German criminal law, it is punished much more mildly than manslaughter or murder, for example .

The film gets its special meaning in connection with the so-called " destruction of life unworthy of life " that was forced at the time . The National Socialist murder of the sick, euphemistically referred to as “ euthanasia ”, was the state killing of people who were considered incurably hereditary, unworthy of life and harmful to the people (see Action T4 ). At the latest, the defendant Heyt's reference in Liebeneiner's film to “hundreds of thousands of hopelessly suffering people” and the change in attitude of his original opponents prove the film to be in conformity with the politics of the time.

In the magazine service (magazine service: deutscher Wochendienst. Berlin: Verl. Pressebericht, 1939–1945), the following information is given to journalists as guidelines for "film reporting":

“The Tobis film 'I complain' in a poignant feature film deals with the question of whether the doctor should be entitled, in special exceptional cases, to shorten the torments of an incurably ill patient at his request. In the pictures and in the dialogue of the script, a long-held controversial question of medicine and law is taken up with the greatest human seriousness and medical responsibility. Even if it makes sense to echo the tendency expressed in the film in the tenor of art considerations, we want to guard against it and only appreciate the artistic content of this film, but for the time being neither positive about the problem itself nor the proposed solution nor take a negative position in any form, not even in independent work. We also want to avoid the term 'euthanasia'. The film, based on the novel by Hellmuth Unger, is extraordinarily exciting and well-structured, and thanks to its excellent acting performances ... offers enough material for fruitful viewing of art. "

- ZD No. 5200 : 122nd edition, August 29, 1941

"With the exception of the death scene, pictures from the film 'I accuse' can appear in the press."

- ZD No. 5384 : 125th edition, September 19, 1941

After the Second World War , the Lexicon of International Films rated the film as follows:

“The Third Reich's propaganda film on the euthanasia question. [...] The dramaturgically cleverly built, very suggestively staged agitation film served the Nazi authorities to justify their systematic extermination of the mentally ill and to prepare psychologically for a 'law on assisted suicide'. "

Award

In the Third Reich , the film was awarded the ratings "artistically particularly valuable" and "popular education".

See also

literature

  • Sylke Hachmeister: Cinema propaganda against the sick: the instrumentalization of the feature film “I complain” for the National Socialist “euthanasia program”, Nomos , Baden-Baden 1992 ISBN 3-7890-2804-5 ( Nomos-Universitätsschriften Kulturwissenschaft , zugl. Diss. Phil., University of Münster 1991).
  • Christian Kuchler : Episcopal protest against National Socialist “euthanasia” propaganda in the cinema: “I accuse”. Historical yearbook of the Görresgesellschaft, 126, 2006 ISSN  0018-2621 , pp. 269–294.
  • Karl Heinz Roth : "I accuse". From the genesis of a propaganda film. In: Götz Aly (ed.): Action T4. 1939-1945. The “euthanasia” headquarters at Tiergartenstrasse 4 (= sites of the history of Berlin , 26). 2nd ext. Edition. Hentrich, Berlin 1989 ISBN 3-926175-66-4 , pp. 93-116.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ A b Günther Drosdowski: Duden Etymologie: Dictionary of origin of the German language . Dudenverlag, 1989, ISBN 3-411-20907-0 ( google.de [accessed April 21, 2020]).
  2. ^ A b c d e Sylke Hachmeister: cinema propaganda against the sick. The instrumentalization of the feature film "Ich klage an" for the National Socialist "euthanasia program" . Baden-Baden 1992, ISBN 3-7890-2804-5 .
  3. ↑ Heinz Boberach (Ed.): Reports from the Reich 1938–1945. The secret situation reports of the security service of the SS . Herrsching 1984.
  4. ↑ Karl Heinz Roth: "I accuse" , p. 96.
  5. ↑ Christoph Bernhard Melchers: Investigations into the psychology of effects of National Socialist propaganda films . Heidelberg 1933.
  6. ↑ Karl Heinz Roth: "I accuse" , p. 116, note 15.
  7. ↑ I indict. In: Lexicon of International Films . Film service , accessed October 24, 2016 .Template: LdiF / Maintenance / Access used