Drama vs. Documentary

Compare the drama Jew Suss and the "documentary" Eternal Jew as historical documents (both are products from 1940/41; both make claims about history). How can we use them today to gain insight into Nazi perspectives?

Both Jew Suss and The Eternal Jew portray Jewish stereotypes to elicit a negative reaction from the audience with relation to the Jewish “race”. However, they do so in different formats. Jew Suss is a drama that relies on the narrative to tell its story. There are characters that one can relate to and associate with real-life people. The story is compelling and although the message that the Nazis wanted to deliver is very real, the narrative is assumed to be fiction (even if it is based on a real-life person). The Eternal Jew is a documentary that the audience assumes to be factual. A documentary relies on its ability to show true information to deliver its message.

This distinction between a drama and a documentary is important to keep in mind when comparing the two films as historical documents. While Jew Suss can appeal to the audience with a compelling story and captivating characters, The Eternal Jew has to shock the audience with “statistics”, “prognostications” and “facts” in order to create its message. This difference could explain the different receptions for each of the films. Jew Suss was a big hit while The Eternal Jew was not, perhaps because of the fact that Jew Suss had characters that the audience could root for and a narrative story. As Historical documents, the two films function differently through their techniques, one appealing to audiences with drama and the other convincing audiences with facts. They both deliver anti-Semitic messages but the way in which they do so is their main difference.