Jud Suess (1940)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Movie
Original title Jud Suss
Jud Süß Logo 001.svg
Country of production Germany
original language German
Publishing year 1940
length 98 minutes
Age rating FSK none
Rod
Director Veit Harlan
script Veit Harlan and Eberhard Wolfgang Möller after Ludwig Metzger
production Otto Lehmann
music Wolfgang Zeller
camera Bruno Mondi
cut Friedrich Karl von Puttkamer ,
Wolfgang Schleif
occupation

Jud Suss is an anti-Semitic National Socialist feature film by Veit Harlan from 1940. The work commissioned by the government at the time and conceived as a propaganda film is based on the historical figure of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer (1698–1738), but does not correspond to the traditional ones Sources that suggest that Suss Oppenheimer was merely a scapegoat who had to atone for the misconduct of Duke Karl Alexander von Württemberg (1684–1737).

“Jud Süß” 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.

action

The protagonist of the film is Joseph Süss Oppenheimer, a Jewish tax officer who was probably born in Heidelberg in February 1698 and executed in Stuttgart on February 4, 1738 . In 1733, Süß Oppenheimer became a secret finance councilor under Duke Karl Alexander von Württemberg (1684–1737).

Oppenheimer, who clearly has Mephistophelian traits in the film, wins the duke's favor through donations and persuades him to ever further infidelity to his people in favor of his own luxurious court. In order to repay the accumulated debts, Oppenheimer was initially given the right to collect road customs duties . He introduces this without the approval of the estates . The opposition to the Duke therefore focuses on Joseph Suss Oppenheimer, who is accused of breaching the constitution and personal enrichment in office. Oppenheimer urges the duke to resist the estates. He advises him to forcibly suppress the impending revolution.

Oppenheimer tries again and again to seize Dorotheas, daughter of the landscape consultant Sturm, and repeatedly asks Sturm for her hand. At the same time Oppenheimer offers him a position as minister. When the latter turned down his offer and instead married Dorothea to the actuary Faber, who was also one of the Duke's opponents, Oppenheimer had Sturm arrested. In response, and because they learned that the Duke wants to take action against the Estates, the Estates decide to revolt. When Faber, disguised as the Duke's courier, is supposed to bring orders to the area on behalf of the estates, he too is arrested and tortured on Oppenheimer's orders. When Dorothea found out about the arrest, she asked Oppenheimer to release Faber. Oppenheimer forces her to bed and rapes her. She then drowns herself in the river and Faber is released at the same time. He hides her body. The uprising begins and the citizens of Stuttgart destroy Oppenheimer's palace in Zorn. He is now staying with the Duke in Ludwigsburg . The insurgents also move there. In Ludwigsburg they want to make demands on the duke. When they do this, the duke suddenly dies. Oppenheimer is arrested. It is because of " extortion , usury , offices trade, fornication , pandering and high treason accused" and found guilty. Sturm, who is a member of the court, decides, referring to "the old Reich Criminal Law", that Oppenheimer should be hanged for sexual intercourse with a Christian .

At the end of the film, Oppenheimer, begging for his life, is hanged. Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels had insisted on this version of the ending in order to make Oppenheimer miserable and not heroic. In the original version, the convict surrenders - closer to historical reality - stoically and dignified to his fate and utters a grim Old Testament curse against his judges and the citizens of the city. The official version has been dubbed so that you can still read Oppenheimer's words from his lips.

After Oppenheimer's death, Sturm proclaimed the ban on Jews across all of Württemberg.

Interpretation and criticism

The film presents the main actor "as a gallant seducer [...], whereas anti-Semitic prejudices such as greed for money, mean deceit or brutal lust have a hard time asserting themselves".

The emphasis on a sexual ban between Jews and non-Jews makes clear reference to the reality in the Third Reich (in particular the Nuremberg Race Laws and the Blood Protection Law), which should be historically justified and justified. The figure of the Jew is portrayed as a moreless and sexually depraved rapist who in the end receives his “just” punishment. Michael Töteberg writes: “Jud Süß is political pornography . [...] The film openly mobilizes sexual fears and aggression and uses them for anti-Semitic agitation. "

Film lexicons list the film as a “fascist trend film” and “historical propaganda film”. The plot of the film in no way corresponds to historical reality, but turns the victim Suss Oppenheimer into a perpetrator. "History-falsifying, slanderous and seditious additions are to be emphasized above all: the actions of the film 'Jud Süß' against the blacksmith Bogner [...], the personally motivated arrest of the landscape consul Sturm, the rape of his daughter Dorothea and her suicide as well as the torture of hers Fiancé Faber. "

Friedrich Knilli and Siegfried Zielinski rate the film as follows: “In terms of cultural sociology, we are dealing with a balanced entertainment product under the specific conditions of German fascism, in which the various ingredients are mixed in such a way that millions of people voluntarily pay for it at the box office not only the few who have been invited to compulsory screenings receive the film. ”This was due not least to the outstanding acting achievements of Marian, Krauss and George, who put their skills at the service of anti-Semitic propaganda.

Peter Reichel describes Jud Süß as a "melodramatic propaganda film". Barbara Gerber describes the film as "the work of history forgers belonging to the regime who, not without technical sophistication, did a lucrative business with racial baiting." The writer Ralph Giordano calls the film "the most vile, mean and refined form of 'artistic' anti-Semitism."

Emergence

The screenplay was initially freely based on the novel of the same name by Wilhelm Hauff and later revised several times. At Hauff, Süß Oppenheimer knows how to profit personally from the already corrupt policies of the aristocratic sovereign, and is interested in maintaining his power. Ultimately, however, he can not influence the existing political conflicts between the duke and the estates . With Harlan, on the other hand, Süß is calculating, ambitious and, in the interests of his impoverished Jewish people, drives the parties single-mindedly into an open civil war "Swabians against Swabians". At Hauff, the main reasons for the conviction are Suss' “all too daring financial operations” and the tragic fact that as a Jew he does not enjoy any social protection. Harlan, on the other hand, emphasizes the " racial disgrace " in the sense of the Nazi ideology and thus justifies the exclusion of all Jews from the peace-loving "national community".

At Hauff, too, marriage between Jews and Christians is problematized from a denominational point of view.

For his film, Harlan drew on many scenes from the 1934 English film adaptation Jud Süss of the 1925 novel of the same name by Lion Feuchtwanger and reinterpreted the content in the National Socialist sense.

According to descriptions from many participants, Joseph Goebbels , who had commissioned the work and personally supervised its production, had problems making the film: there should have been difficulties in finding a director and casting roles. One after the other, Emil Jannings , Willi Forst , Gustaf Gründgens , René Deltgen and Paul Dahlke turned down the main role of the Jewish tax officer Süß .

The final leading actor Ferdinand Marian also refused at first, but was quoted before Goebbels, who allegedly ordered him to take on this role. This representation is based on an entry in Goebbels' diary which says: “We spoke to Marian about the Jud sweetener. He doesn't really want to play the Jew. But I can get him to do it with a little help. ”Goebbels made a note of the test shots:“ Test shots Marian on 'Jud Suss'. Excellent."

During the shooting, Marian is said to have tried in part to "sabotage" the intention of the film by portraying Oppenheimer in an engaging way. Standing applause for Marian at many performances and numerous love letters to the actor prove that the film made Marian even more popular with the German population despite his portrayal of a Jew.

The diary notes show that Joseph Goebbels and Veit Harlan worked together smoothly: “We discussed the Jud-Süß film with Harlan and Müller. Harlan, who is supposed to direct, has a lot of new ideas. He revises the script again. ”“… Especially the Jud-Süß film has now been reworked by Harlan brilliantly… ”In the end, Goebbels is completely satisfied with the result of the collaboration:“ Harlan Film 'Jud-Süß'. A really great, brilliant litter. An anti-Semitic film that we can only wish for. I am pleased."

World premiere and contemporary reception

Jud Suss premiered at the Venice Film Festival on September 5, 1940. There is also a four-page report written by Goebbels about the response to the film:

"Even with Jud Süß, after an initial reluctance - due to the effort to fully grasp the problem - the audience went along with it in a surprisingly strong way."

- Goebbels : Report from the German-Italian Film Week in Venice (1940)

However, Goebbels reported secondhand that he was not in Venice on the day of the premiere. The Italian reviews were exuberant, wrote the then 28-year-old Michelangelo Antonioni :

“We do not hesitate to explain: if this is propaganda, we welcome propaganda. This is a compelling, catchy, extremely effective film. […] There is not a single moment in which the pace of the film slows down, not even an episode that does not fit in harmoniously with all the others. It is a film that is characterized by complete unity and balance. [...] The episode in which Süss rapes the young girl is done amazingly well. "

That, as mentioned in Saul Friedländer's book about the Holocaust , the film was awarded the Golden Lion in Venice cannot be true, since it was only awarded from 1949. The forerunner, the Coppa Mussolini , went to The Postmaster by Gustav Ucicky in 1940 in the foreign film category .

In Germany, the premiere took place on September 24th in Berlin's Ufa-Palast am Zoo . As is usual with large-scale Nazi film projects of this kind, Joseph Goebbels and other high-ranking Nazi representatives were present. Goebbels was very satisfied:

“A very large audience with almost the entire Reich Cabinet. The film is a huge success. You only hear words of enthusiasm. The hall is racing. That's what I wished for. "

“The Führer is very impressed by the success of 'Jud Suess'. Everyone praises the film about the green clover, which it deserves. "

In the Ufa-Palast am Zoo alone, the film was seen by 111,677 visitors during the first four weeks. By 1943, 20.3 million people had seen the film.

There were special presentations for the soldiers stationed outside the Reich borders and, at Heinrich Himmler's express request, for the SS units and guards. At the first Auschwitz trial , SS Rottenführer Stefan Baretzki stated that Jewish prisoners were mistreated under the impression of the film.

In the secret reports from the Reich , the security service (SD) reported on the effect on the audience:

“According to consistent reports from all over the Reich, the film 'Jud Süß' has been received extremely well over the years. The verdict on a film was seldom as uniform as with the film 'Jud Suss', which is unusually far-reaching in the realistic portrayal of hideous episodes, but is artistically completely convincing and has a tension that never lets you go.' The mood of the film as a whole is expressed in the spontaneous statements: 'You want to wash your hands.' […] Following this scene [i. e. Entry of the Jews into the City of Stuttgart] there were repeated open demonstrations against Judaism during the screening of the film. So it came about B. in Berlin to shouts like 'Drive the Jews off Kurfürstendamm! Out with the last Jews from Germany! '... "

The writer Ralph Giordano, according to National Socialist parlance a “ Jewish half-race ”, describes as a contemporary witness the reaction of the audience and his own emotional state after a film showing:

“At this point a groan of anger and disgust went through the rows of the cinema, an apparently irrepressible expression of emotion that testified to the strong impact of the film. [...] When the lights came on after the credits, there was also great silence - as if the audience were paralyzed. The air was heavy, the murderous effect of the film overwhelming. So present that I thought I couldn't get up without being recognized. "

The propaganda effect of the film was reinforced by a novel written after the film by JR George (di Hans Hömberg ), which was published in 1941 by the UFA book publisher with large-format film photos and was translated into other languages ​​by 1944.

Dealing with the film after the war

This section needs to be revised: The transition agreements (e.g.) were only valid in western Germany. The reception of the film in the GDR is completely absent.
Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

The Allies had put the film on a prohibited list; this prohibition had become obsolete in the old FRG in 1955 with the transition treaties, but remained in force in the western sectors of Berlin until German reunification on October 3, 1990. In contrast to Germany, the film "Jud Süß" is freely available in Austria and Switzerland. In 1954, it was used by Arab propaganda against Israel.

The director Veit Harlan was tried several times after the war. He has been charged, among other things, with aiding and abetting crimes against humanity . A criminally relevant misconduct could not be proven Harlan, so that he was acquitted. Critics of the director then tried to prevent Harlan's publicity in the Federal Republic of Germany by calling for a boycott . They were fought through civil law. It was not until the Federal Constitutional Court ( Lüth judgment ) that their actions were recognized as being covered by freedom of expression .

The screenwriter and director Géza von Cziffra , who was active in Germany during the period of National Socialism , described in his 1975 autobiography Kauf dir ein Colorful Luftballon that the production manager of Terra Film , Peter Paul Brauer , was originally intended to be directed by Jud Süß . But Harlan successfully fought to direct the film through interventions in the Propaganda Ministry and Goebbels.

Ferdinand Marian was banned from his profession because of his portrayal of Jud Suss and died in a car accident in 1946.

Heinrich George was imprisoned for his involvement in Jud Suss and other propaganda films and died exhausted in 1946 in the Soviet special camp No. 7 , the former Sachsenhausen concentration camp used by the Soviets .

The actor Werner Krauss was also initially banned from working and had to undergo a lengthy denazification process in Stuttgart in 1947/48 , which was reopened several times. The first acquittal (“not affected”) was overturned at the urging of the American military government. Krauss was finally classified as less burdened and classified as a follower in a so-called follow-up procedure. During the proceedings, the Stuttgart Chamber of Arbitration also dealt with the propaganda effects of the film in more detail for the first time. Krauss was apparently fully rehabilitated again in 1954 when he was awarded the Federal Cross of Merit.

Cameraman Bruno Mondi and master editor Wolfgang Schleif, however, were taken over by DEFA in 1946 and 1947 respectively.

In 2001, the documentary television play Jud Suess, broadcast on ARD , took a differentiated look at the history of the film - a film as a crime? It presented the court case against Veit Harlan after the end of the war, in which the director presented himself and his actors as victims of coercion. According to the descriptions in this film by Axel Milberg in the role of Harlan about the genesis of Jud Süß , for example, main actor Ferdinand Marian reacted in desperation to the fact that he had to play the role of Süß Oppenheimer at the request of Joseph Goebbels. Werner Krauss, too, had in no way wanted to play, but tried to be rejected by demanding that, if he was to participate, he had to get all Jewish supporting roles in Jud Suss . However, to Krauss's surprise and horror, this was actually ordered that way. The truthfulness of these representations was neither proven nor disproved.

In July 2008, the film came into the reporting of German media again after Hungarian right-wing extremists showed the film for a fee in a Budapest basement without having obtained the consent of the Wiesbaden-based Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau Foundation . This administers the rights to the reserved film . The foundation filed a criminal complaint with the Wiesbaden public prosecutor's office for the illegal performance. The Hungarian party Federation of Free Democrats (SZDSZ) reported the organizers in Hungary for sedition. The Süddeutsche Zeitung saw the performances of Jud Suss as an indication of the popularity of anti-Semitism in Hungary.

The film Jud Suss - Film Without Conscience by director Oskar Roehler premiered at the 2010 Berlinale . It is about the making of the film Jud Süss and especially the fate of Ferdinand Marian, who was pushed into the role of Jud Suss by Goebbels. Tobias Moretti took on the role of Marian , Moritz Bleibtreu played Joseph Goebbels. The film was released in theaters in September 2010.

Other anti-Jewish films

In Nazi Germany, a new wave of anti-Semitic feature films was produced from 1939. Three of these films portrayed Jewish bankers as unscrupulous, power-hungry and greedy for money. Besides Jud Suss , these were the musical comedy Robert and Bertram (1939) and the historical film The Rothschilds (1940). The compilation film Der Ewige Jude (1940) is also known, but less produced for the average contemporary audience .

See also

literature

  • Jörg Koch: Joseph Suess Oppenheimer, called "Jud Suess". Its history in literature, film and theater. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 2011, ISBN 978-3-534-24652-6 .
  • Stefan Mannes: Anti-Semitism in the National Socialist Propaganda Film. "Jud Süß" and "Der Ewige Jude" (= film studies 5), Teiresias, Cologne 1999, ISBN 3-9805860-3-0 .
  • Kurt Fricke: Playing on the Abyss. Heinrich George. A political biography. Mitteldeutscher Verlag, Halle (Saale) 2000, ISBN 3-89812-021-X (also: Halle, Univ., Diss., 1999).
  • Friedrich Knilli : I was Jud Suss. The story of the film star Ferdinand Marian. Henschel, Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-89487-340-X .
  • Rolf Giesen, Manfred Hobsch: Hitler Youth Quex, Jud Süss and Kolberg. The propaganda films of the Third Reich. Documents and materials on Nazi films. Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf, Berlin 2005, ISBN 3-89602-471-X .
  • Anne von der Heiden: The Jew as a medium. "Jud Süß". Diaphanes Verlag, Zurich et al. 2005, ISBN 3-935300-72-7 (also: Bochum, Univ., Diss., 2003).
  • Alexandra Przyrembel , Jörg Schönert (Ed.): "Jud Süss". Court Jew, literary figure, anti-Semitic caricature. Campus-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main et al. 2006, ISBN 3-593-37987-2 .
  • Ernst Seidl (Red.): "Jud Süss" - propaganda film in the Nazi state. House of History Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 2007, ISBN 978-3-933726-24-7 (exhibition catalog, Stuttgart, December 14, 2007 to August 3, 2008).
  • Francesca Falk: border smearers. "Jud Süss" and "The Third Sex". Entangled discourses of exclusion (= writings of the Center for Jewish Studies . 13). Studienverlag, Innsbruck et al. 2008, ISBN 978-3-7065-4512-9 (also: Basel, Univ., Diss., 2004).
  • Franz Josef Wiegelmann: Joseph Suss Oppenheimer - The story of a double murder. Bernstein-Verlag, Bonn / Siegburg 2017, ISBN 978-3-945426-15-9 (= Bernstein-Regal, Nr. 13, ISSN  1866-6094 ).
  • Alfons Maria Arns: Fatal correspondence. The Jud-Süß films by Lothar Mendes and Veit Harlan in comparison. In: Jewish characters in film and caricature. The Rothschilds and Joseph Suss Oppenheimer. Cilly Kugelmann et al. Fritz Backhaus (ed.). Sigmaringen: Thorbecke 1996, pp. 97-133, ISBN 978-3-7995-2317-2 .
  • Alfons Maria Arns: Vanishing Point Anti-Semitism. The organization of the architectural space in Otto Huntes designs for Jud Suss (1940). In: Otto Hunte - Architect for the Film. Frankfurt am Main 1996. pp. 82-103, ISBN 978-3-88799-051-0 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Friedrich Knilli, Siegfried Zielinski: The Jew as a moral criminal. Short media history of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer. In: grandstand. 23rd volume, issue 89, 1984, p. 116.
  2. ↑ Michael Töteberg (ed.): Classic film. 120 films (selection from the Metzler Film Lexicon ), Metzler Verlag, Stuttgart / Weimar 2006, p. 73.
  3. ↑ Barbara Gerber: Jud Suss. A contribution to historical anti-Semitism and reception research. Hamburg 1990, ISBN 3-7672-1112-2 , p. 547.
  4. ↑ Barbara Gerber: Jud Suss. A contribution to historical anti-Semitism and reception research. Hamburg 1990, ISBN 3-7672-1112-2 , p. 548.
  5. ^ Friedrich Knilli, Siegfried Zielinski: The Jew as a moral criminal. Short media history of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer. In: grandstand. 23, issue 89, 1984, p. 117.
  6. ^ Peter Reichel: Coming to terms with the past in Germany. Munich 2001, ISBN 3-406-45956-0 .
  7. ↑ Barbara Gerber: Jud Suss. A contribution to historical anti-Semitism and reception research. Hamburg 1990, ISBN 3-7672-1112-2 , p. 286.
  8. ↑ Ralph Giordano: Memories of someone who got away. Cologne 2007, ISBN 978-3-462-03772-2 , p. 159.
  9. ^ Jud Süss: Oppenheimer case. In: Der Spiegel. September 15, 1965.
  10. ↑ Elke Fröhlich (ed.): The diaries of Joseph Goebbels. All fragments. Part I, Volume 4, Munich 1987, ISBN 3-598-21919-9 (entry from January 5, 1940).
  11. ^ The diaries of Joseph Goebbels ... Part I, Volume 4 (entry from January 18, 1940).
  12. ^ The diaries of Joseph Goebbels ... (entry from Dec. 5, 1939).
  13. ^ The diaries of Joseph Goebbels ... (entry from December 15, 1939).
  14. ^ The diaries of Joseph Goebbels ... (entry from September 18, 1940).
  15. ↑ Cover letter ( Memento of the original dated November 12, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. and report ( memento of the original from November 12, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. von Goebbels on the reaction in Venice (PDF, Federal Archives) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bundesarchiv.de @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bundesarchiv.de
  16. ^ "The seductive principle" - Lars-Olav Beier in Spiegel Online from February 18, 2010 on the Berlinale presentation of the film "Jud Süß - Film Without Conscience"
  17. ↑ a b c d e Saul Friedländer: The years of destruction. The Third Reich and the Jews 1939–1945. Beck, Munich 2006, p. 126.
  18. ↑ Ralph Giordano: Memories of someone who got away. Cologne 2007, ISBN 978-3-462-03772-2 , p. 277. Dietrich Kuhlbrodt puts the number of viewers at 19 million: “Jud Süß” and the Harlan / Lüth case. To denazify the Nazi film. In: Peter Reichel (Ed.): The memory of the city. Hamburg 1997, ISBN 3-930802-51-1 , p. 105.
  19. ↑ Cf. Barbara Gerber: Jud Suss. A contribution to historical anti-Semitism and reception research. Hamburg 1990, ISBN 3-7672-1112-2 , p. 286 and p. 549, note 46. A corresponding instruction from Himmler of September 30, 1940 (decree of November 15, 1940) is printed by Erwin Leiser: “Germany, wake up! ”Propaganda in Third Reich film. Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1978, p. 80.
  20. ↑ Erwin Leiser: Germany, awake! P. 79.
  21. ^ Heinz Boberach: Reports from the Reich. Selection from the secret situation reports of the SS Security Service 1939–1944. Dtv, Munich 1968, p. 124 f. (Report from November 28, 1940).
  22. ↑ Ralph Giordano: Memories of someone who got away. The autobiography. Cologne 2007, ISBN 978-3-462-03772-2 , p. 159.
  23. ↑ See Dietrich Kuhlbrodt: "Jud Suss" and the Harlan / Lüth case. To denazify the Nazi film. In: Peter Reichel (Ed.): The memory of the city. Hamburg 1997, ISBN 3-930802-51-1 , p. 101.
  24. ↑ Barbara Gerber: Jud Suss. A contribution to historical anti-Semitism and reception research. Hamburg 1990, ISBN 3-7672-1112-2 , p. 288.
  25. ↑ Peter Reichel, Harald Schmidt: From the catastrophe to the stumbling block. Munich 2005, ISBN 3-937904-27-1 , p. 33.
  26. ^ Ferdinand Marian. Biography at filmportal.de
  27. ↑ Details can be found in the denazification file in the Ludwigsburg State Archives (EL 902/20 Bü 99791); Parts of the file are also available in an edited version: "If you need an actor, you have to cut him off the gallows": the Werner Krauss judging chamber file . Edited, introduced and commented on by Gunther Nickel and Johanna Schrön. In: Zuckmayer Jahrbuch 6. 2003, pp. 220–370; Gunther Nickel, Johanna Schrön: Addendum. To the edition of the Werner Krauss Chamber File. In: Zuckmayer-Jahrbuch 7. 2004, pp. 441–457.
  28. ↑ film-zeit.de ( Memento of the original from March 5, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.film-zeit.de
  29. ^ Nazi propaganda film "Jud Süß": complaint for illegal showing in Der Spiegel , August 5, 2008.
  30. ↑ cf. Nazi sympathizers show "Jud Süß". at spiegel.de , July 21, 2008 (accessed July 24, 2008)
  31. ↑ cf. Kathrin Lauer: Hooting to "Jud Süß". at sueddeutsche.de , July 22, 2008 (accessed on July 24, 2008)
  32. ↑ "Jud Süß" at the Berlinale: The seducer principle. on: mirror online. February 18, 2010.