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Compare the drama Jew Suss and the "documentary" Eternal Jew as historical documents (both are products from 1940/41; both make claims about history).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This distinction between a drama and a documentary is important to keep in mind when comparing the two films as historical documents.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 As Historical documents, the two films function differently through their techniques, one appealing to audiences with drama and the other convincing audiences with facts.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.

Jud Suss vs. the Eternal Jew

While Jud Suss and the Eternal Jew both help us to gain insight into the Nazi worldview, particularly concerning the Jewish race, they go about ingraining these ideas in the minds of the German public in very different ways. It seems rather obvious that the Eternal Jew would have been less appealing to audiences and less successful than Jud Suss because it is too harsh in its convictions about the Jews. Anti-Semitism was palatable enough to contemporary Germans, but the effectiveness of the film Jud Suss lies in its ability to subtly justify Germans in their anti-Semitic beliefs through emotional and moral appeals.

However, both help us to see into the Nazi worldview by exposing the idea of “us” versus “them” inherent in almost all Nazi propaganda. In Jud Suss, the “good” Aryan Germans are the ones who believe in law and order and who unite as a people to protect these values against the “corruption” of Jewish influence. Conversely, the Eternal Jew fully exposes Nazi racial ideology, in a fashion similar to that of Victims of the Past, by making the “inferior” peoples seem synonymous with a bacteria or pest. The camera angles and eerie music in both of these films combine to create the effect that the land is being overrun with these “defective” people and races. Overall, both Jud Suss and the Eternal Jew give both contemporary German audiences and modern audiences a sense of the Nazi ideals concerning the justification of their policy of extermination. By using propaganda, whether subtle in Jud Suss or blatant in the Eternal Jew, the Nazis sought to so convince the German populace of the inferiority of non-Aryans that all would agree that their removal from society was necessary.

alexis blog

The two films Jew Seuss and the Eternal Jew are both historical films that attempt to capture the German people’s rampant anti Semitism The focus in comparison of these two films should focus less on their historical accuracy and more on why Jew Suss became a symbolic movie for Germanic pride and the Eternal Jew was scorned and harshly rejected. The historical accuracy becomes less significant when comparing the two films because of the role that Nazi cinema played in shaping the values and beliefs of the German masses before and during the war. Both films had the same goals and achieved very different outcomes. Jew Suss became a hallmark of Nazi propaganda. The goals were to further instill hatred of the Jews among the German people. Part of the mastery and skill of Goebbels’ propaganda plan was the subtlety of his tactics and this film was not an exception. The Eternal Jew simply went too far with its violent images that are not meant to persuade but reinforce the ideals that are already instilled. Robert Gibson makes a good point in his blog that “This issue of prior knowledge was at the heart of the correctly held view that the film’s failure was due to its forcefulness”. The knowledge and preconceived notions about the masses’ feelings towards the Jews were successfully played on in Jew Seuss and missed the mark in the Eternal Jew.

In Jew Suss, the film distorts some of the historical facts, but the facts are less important than the full blown anti Semitic message that the film portrays. The Eternal Jew however was a huge a flop because it had much more violent in-your -face images of hatred and anti Semitism. The film was a huge success also because of the way it delivers its anti Semitic message. Interestingly, the Eternal Jew is much more historically accurate as the film shows documented evidence and disturbing ritual slaughters of animals. The film was made to be a documentary film so its visual images are much more accurate to those of Jew Suss. Its visuals are much more violent and unavoidable and as Culbert argues in Art Culture and Media “ it (the film) is known for its relentless assault on everything Jewish: it argues for eradication of European Jewry”(148). Both films are about the same idea but go about showing it on film in radically different ways. Jew Suss’s success was also due to the “the mixture of sex and crime to the apolitical viewer”(153), while the Wandering Jew had a solely vulgar and graphic political message with “no room for emotional involvement” (153).

Out With the Jew!

Although both The Eternal Jew and Jud Suess both portray the mentality of the Nazi party towards the Jewish people and the undeniable propaganda against them, the two films operate in two very different directions. On one hand, The Eternal Jew directs its point to its audience very bluntly. Images and comparisons are crude and raw footage, used to show the worst and only the worst. Anything of aesthetic appeal in the German ideal gets to a play a role in the film only if it can serve a comparison role as the Good example to the Bad and the Ugly. The hate for the Jews is not merely apparent, but thrown into the face of the audience and practically forced upon the viewer. The film is built to play the strings of human aesthetic distastefulness, and indeed when watching the film, I had the feeling of wanting to hate and shun the subject at hand - if it weren't that the subject at hand happens to be an entire living, breathing race of people.

Jew Suess, on the other hand, has no less underlying hatred for the Jews in its message, but instead of simply dumping the entire mess of statistics and gruesome imagery of the festering Jewish cancer on the viewer, it rather invites the audience to come and hate the Jew. The film plays to an entirely different aspect of human empathy. In a way, it is similar to The Eternal Jew in that both use aesthetics to show differences and contraries. But Jew Suess itself begins in an aesthetically appealing setting, which is then tainted by the foul Jewish presence. In this way, it seems to draw out a more defensive, protective feeling rather than one of plain disgust. The audience has a side to root for, which is a thoughtful tool of its own, for the audience has only an even clearer understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Through this, Jew Suess gets it purpose across just as effectively of pitting the viewers against the Jewish population.

Subtelty versus Blatancy in Nazi Propaganda

Although both Jew Süß and The Eternal Jew are retellings of “historical” events, the manner in which they go about retelling the events are very different. Both films rely heavily on visuals to promote Nazi ideals of anti-Semitism, however, Jew Süß delivers its message in a more discrete way than The Eternal Jew, which likely allowed for the films to have vastly different reviews. Jew Süß uses an entertaining plotline to gradually show how disastrous society can become when too much authority is given to Jews. The Eternal Jew, instead bombards the audience with numbers and images, such as maps displaying the historical global spread of Jews. When comparing these two films, I find it hard not to immediately concentrate on the differing moods of the films, which result from these varying techniques.

Jew Süß engages the audience on a level beyond its political message, shifting the focus to the individual characters and away from the anti-Semitic undertones. Especially after Süß "masks" himself as a non-Jew, it is possible to not concentrate as much on the fact that the manipulation is by Jews. One is reminded of this, however, throughout the film. There are temporary breaks from the anti-Semitism, where one is able to view the events solely as manipulative actions taken from corrupt people, before being reminded again that these manipulators are Jews. Nevertheless, one is forced to conclude, after witnessing the events of the film, that Jews were, in fact, the problem several hundred years ago. The Eternal Jew, on the other hand, concentrates constantly on its anti-Semitic message. Because of this, one is forced instantly to either be in agreement with the film, or against it. The Eternal Jew takes the message from Jew Süß and expresses it in a more direct way. The message that was almost indirect but nevertheless unavoidable in Jew Süß is blatantly exerted throughout The Eternal Jew, which likely resulted in more discomfort and uncertainty among the audience during screenings.

It is easier to question something when you know exactly what you are questioning. In Jew Süß, numbers and dates do not play a substantial role, unlike the dominance of numbers and dates in The Eternal Jew. The problem with numbers and dates in The Eternal Jew, is similar to the problem with the film’s straightforward message, it forces one to choose sides. As soon as one date seems false, or one statistic seems exaggerated, one begins to doubt the overall validity of the film. While watching it in class, I constantly was forced to consider the accuracy of the numbers being reported. On the contrary, while watching Jew Süß, I was simply pulled into the world of the film, without the need to check any facts being presented. Jew Süß slyly suggests that Jews are bad, while The Eternal Jew screams that. Jew Süß feels like a piece of entertainment that is accompanied by an important message (the message’s applicability to modern times is suggested in the closing scene, as the importance of respecting the ban of Jews in the future is emphasized), while The Eternal Jew feels like a film someone would have to watch in school and rarely, if ever, choose to watch for pure enjoyment. The anti-Semitic messages of the films are unavoidable, although one is able to deliver in such a way that the audience, almost inevitably, eventually agrees, while the other forces the audience to make an early decision either in favor of the film or not. Both misrepresent history, but Jew Süß does it in a more entertaining and cleaver way, which, I believe, is the reason it was successful while The Eternal Jew was a flop.

Jew Suss and The Eternal Jew

Both Jew Suss and The Eternal Jew are Nazi propaganda films set out to influence their audiences that Jewish people were not only unlikeable, but disgusting, vile, filthy, finding pleasure only in money, and sexually promiscuous aliens. Though The Eternal Jew was filmed in a documentary style vs a film with a "plot", the message was just as clear and still produced the same feelings on screen.

The Eternal Jew focused on the Jew being a cultural wandering parasite, "feeding" off of the hardworking, healthy living Aryan race. These "aliens" were depicted as enjoying a life surrounded by dirt and only found satisfaction in bug infested ghettos that they were forced to live in. (That little detail was left out of the film). Jews are blamed for the downfall of Western music, science, art, and the promoting of anarchy; appeals to sentimental values are attempted as Jews are described as condoning cruelty to animals.Physical stereotypes are placed on Jewish characters making them stick out and look different than the handsome and noble Aryans of Germany, focusing on the fact that the Jew is such a sneaky piece of vermin that they can change form and trick others into thinking they do not belong to the worst race on the planet.

Jew Suss also focuses on the Jews need of fortune and jewlery though they "do not deserve it". Their physical characteristics are also focused on as they are portrayed with having hooked noses and being unattractive, making them stand out from Aryans. Several conversations throughout the film pushed the idea that Jews are rude and want nothing to do with non-Jews, staying only to themselves and hoarding everything they "stole". The reference to being a wanderer is enforced when a characters home is referred to as the "world", constantly moving, never finding anything stable, unlike the Germans who have pride in their home and do not wish to venture away from the fatherland.

The Nazi party had a plan to get as many of "their people" to think the way that they did and live the lifestyle that they deemed acceptable. With their films, they were able to reach millions, though probably not converting everyone into a firm National Socialist, the seeds of doubt and fear were planted in many minds which is all that needs to exist for an eventual negative outlook on that topic. Though The Eternal Jew is now banned in Germany and can only be used in classrooms for learning purposes, it served its purpose during its release and displayed (just like Jew Suss) the Nazi parties true hate and determination to convert as many people to their belief system as possible. Their perspective was one-sided and extremely ignorant, however they found a way to reach out to those who were just as ignorant and convert multitudes because they truly felt that what the believed was right. Jews were the rats of the human race, and the job of the pure and good Aryan people was to eliminate the aliens from the planet, one country at a time.

Ferdinand Marian clearly can play the Villain well...

Jew Suss and the Eternal Jew provide insight into the psyche and the acceptance of propagandist material. Both films demonstrate the “Jew” as a type. They are creatures that are inhuman, exceedingly greedy, unscrupulous, cunning, perverted, and dramatically different from the good German in every way. Moreover, both films emphasize the ability of the ‘jew” to infiltrate European society, and the necessity to exterminate the rodent. In each film the Jewish ghetto becomes a disgusting place that is contrasted with excessive wealth. Furthermore, both the drama and the documentary embrace long lasting stereotypes that are substantiated using historical evidence. The documentary uses maps and statistics. The whole of Jew Suss is claimed to be a true story. In both films an appeal is made to religious doctrine to display to truth of the argument against the Jews, particularly shocking (as I am sure the audience felt) is a quotation from Luther regarding Jews used in Jew Suss. The audience in either case would eventually allow this evidence to permeate their views, transferring it onto the Jews within their own society and developing comparisons to rationalize subsequent actions by the Nazis.

The critical difference between these two films is in their form. Jew Suss as a drama disguises the Anti-Semitic message, even if the disguise is only very thin, within a narrative. The Jews are characterized; they take on a collective voice and message in the form of Suess Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer is a detestable villain. He is cunning and greedy, his beady eyes and soft devilish voice exacerbate what the Eternal Jew clearly describes as the most dangerous kind of Jew. Hiding within the government, this type of “jew” is unrecognizable by most and has the ability to slowly and steadily destroy German society. If this menace is not destroyed the floodgates will open and the disease will spread to all of Germany. The audiences are not told this, but rather see it happen. They develop a hatred for Oppenheimer, and are invited to transfer that on disgust onto the crafty “jews” hiding in their midst. The closing lines of Jew Suss craft a sense of responsibility which ensures that no one in the audience will allow their great society to succumb to the disease of the “Jew.” The inferences of Jew Suss are much easier to handle for the audience because the propaganda is not as entirely blatant as in the documentary. Rather they come to conclusions on their own about the “Jew.” It is easy for audience to rationalize Jew Suss as a simple story, the documentary’s clear anti-Semitism proved too much for the common rational German to handle. They did not need disgusting metaphors and images to enhance an already burgeoning hatred established by the cautionary tale of Jew Suss. They understood quite well what the dangers were. It seems to me the Eternal Jew was simply a means to reinforce the message of Jew Suss particularly for those audience members too rationale or educated to give credence to the narrative. Saying to those Germans who may question Jew Suss that, “well you may not have believed the story, but here are the facts.” The Nazi’s clearly wanted to ensure that when it came to the Jewish Scourge their message was clear, drive them out and do away with them. It would seem to me that those who walked out either already understood the message, or found the message disgusting. However, as history has shown under the Nazis those in the latter categories were likely to keep that disgust to themselves.

Thoughts on Jew Suss and The Eternal Jew

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?

It is hard to imagine that anyone today, minus perhaps extremist/fanatical groups, could watch these films and think them to be historically accurate. However, as we should always be aware, even films made today that portray history are not always based in historical fact. Rather, most good history films, it seems, must skew history in an attempt to get the audience to connect with what is going on. The problem with this, of course, is that one can view the film and think "Wow, this is what really happened!!!" It would seem that, in trying to understand the Nazi perspective, their use of "historical" dramas like Jew Suss were used in just this way. By taking an actual story from history, the Nazis could skew the film and represent the outcome of history however they wished to further their ideological and anti-semitic agenda. This representation of history was enchanced, then, by presenting it with the particular genre of a drama. In this way, watching history becomes more appealing, creating a seductive allure for the audience to connect with. In this way, the "history" that is presented in the film would stick with you longer since you enjoyed watching it.

It certainly is interesting that although Jew Suss was so successful, the Eternal Jew was not. As we discussed in class, the Nazis, and particularly Goebbels, miscalculated when they thought the German audiences were ready for a film like this in the wake of the success of Jew Suss. From our brief viewing of the film, it would seem that one reason that this was so is that the history that is presented in The Eternal Jew is simply not appealing to watch. Certainly the same anti-semitic undertones run through both films, but the presentation in The Eternal Jew lacks the seductive allure that a drama such as Jew Suss has. As I sat in class watching the "documentary" it dawned on me how utterly boring it would have been to actually go to a movie theater and view this film. Although this film, along with Jew Suss, certainly gives much greater insight into the Nazi perspective in the early 1940s, and helps one realize that these films were certainly part of the greater puzzle building up to the Holocaust, they also give insight into the fact that German audiences at the time must have wanted to be entertained by a film and did not wanted to simply be lambasted with overt ideologic messages.

Using Prior Knowledge for Propaganda

Jud Süß and Der Ewige Jude are both examples of trying to use historical instruction as a propaganda tool. A very effective means of conveying a propagandistic message, historical instruction allowed National Socialist ideology to fit within and add to the audience’s preconceived notions. For instance, German viewers of Jud Süß may have known that ‘the people’ in the form of a council had a role in the government of 18th century Württemberg (or in other German cities). What they didn’t know and learned from the film—incorrectly of course—was that a stereotypically sly, manipulative, and greedy Jew tried and nearly succeeded to wrest control from the council’s hands. The effectiveness of the propaganda lay in the fact that it built upon prior knowledge. One of the reasons I think Der Ewige Jude was so unpopular at the box office was that it built so ineffectively upon prior knowledge. The degree of anti-Semitism among the German population has been debated among historians, but I think it can at least be said that the very extreme views on Jews expressed in the film were not broadly held. A lot of people had anti-Semitic thoughts or beliefs, but for most they were probably a lot milder than believing in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. To these people, rather than building on prior knowledge, Der Ewige Jude was just a barrage of facts. If Jud Süß was an historical lecture, Der Ewige Jude was a sermon. This issue of prior knowledge was at the heart of the correctly held view that the film’s failure was due to its forcefulness.

The most disturbing fact about Der Ewige Jude is that, despite the made-up facts used to try to convince the public, the Nazis were deadly serious about their opinion of the Jews. They really did believe that there was an international conspiracy, that the Jews were responsible for both World War I and II, and that their calling was to do battle with the Jews. Although extermination was an option the Nazis arrived at over time in a complex manner, it is important to remember that the basic doctrine of Nazism was racism. The films on Jews, rather than being considered manifestos of Nazi opinions on the Jews, should be recognized for what they really were: attempts to gain public support (important even in a totalitarian state) for the exclusion, expulsion, and eventually extermination of Jews from German society. That is why, despite the almost comically overstated propaganda in Der Ewige Jude, we should be careful about laughing too much, because the basic belief behind the film is the same one that led to the deaths of so many millions of innocent people.

Goebbel's Mistep

From the movies Jew Suss and the Eternal Jew it seems clear that the Nazis (and Goebbels especially) overestimated the ease with which they could convince Germans that Jews were evil. While Jew Suss was an incredible hit as both a feature film and a piece of propaganda, the methods used in the film were not applied to the documentary the Eternal Jew. It seems that Goebbels believed that Jew Suss was a success because of its underlying theme, the need for Jewish expulsion, and not because of the drama portrayed on screen. As such, the Eternal Jew makes no effort to please the audience visually or emotionally; rather, the “documentary” uses disturbing clips, graphics, data, and music to appeal to the German public. Unfortunately for Goebbels, this tactic failed. The German public was apparently unprepared to drop the façade of the Nazi party. While Jew Suss allowed this façade to remain intact, keeping the anti-Semitic ideals hidden within the drama of an extensive plot, the Eternal Jew makes no apologies for its beliefs. From the numbers of people that left the theatre during the Eternal Jew, it seems the German public preferred the hidden messages. Germans may have been on the path to Jewish hatred; however, their hatred was not yet at the level of being able to watch swarms of rats and analogies of parasites on screen.

Nazi Perspectives in Jew Suess and The Eternal Jew

Clearly, from a historical standpoint, both Jew Suess and The Eternal Jew are historically false. Jew Suess skews a popular Jewish legend and The Eternal Jew misinterprets actualities as well as completely fabricates most of its “historical” material. Therefore, what we learn about history from these two films is limited to the choices the directors made about how to portray Jews and what that says about the intended audience of the time. Additionally, we can learn from the German reaction to the films and what that means for the historical climate of the time. As Silberman says, there is no such thing as an ideologically free reading of a text or story. Veit Harlan's reading of Suess Oppenheimer's story is far from ideologically free. Occasionally, however, his ideology is not completely clear. For example, the choices he makes in portraying Suess as Jewish, yet not identifiable with the “Jewish masses” are problematic. Does Harlan want to incite that Jews are difficult to identify and therefore pose a greater danger? Or perhaps did he make Suess identifiable to the German viewer so that they could see some of him in themselves so that they could more deeply abhor his “Jewish” vices. The term “ideologically free reading” holds almost no meaning in reference to The Eternal Jew, as the entire film is an ideological diatribe offering no alternative viewpoint. The film even curtails any possible loopholes in its rhetoric with anti-Semitic “rational”. What we can learn about the Nazi era perspective (besides the Government ideal of anti-antisemitism) is beholden in the reaction of Germans to the film. The fact that the film was not favorably accepted suggests to me that the Germans were not comfortable openly declaring death as the punishment for being Jewish. Although the reception to Jew Suess was positive, its message does not, at any point, mention or encourage mass extermination of Jews. The insight to be gained on the Nazi perspective lies within the nuances of choices made by directors while filming and the reaction of the films by viewers while watching.

Jew Suss and the Eternal Jew

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?

Don Pedro: The Ambiguity of Evil in La Habanera

Anna's Post:



In my opinion, one of the most complex characters in the film is Don Pedro. As with most characters in the film, it is only too easy to try and place them into stereotypical categories such as “evil tyrant”, “heroic (Aryan) savior”, and “maiden in distress”. However, I believe that all of the characters are much more complex than they are given credit for. I believe that Don Pedro plays two different roles, which can be interpreted by the German audience of the time. He acts as both the “other” to Zarah Leander’s character, Astree, symbolizing the initial draw and eventual disillusionment she experiences with regards to Puerto Rico. He also is the clearly, well-meaning tyrant of an “inferior” southern country. At the beginning of the movie, Don Pedro is clearly the dark, passionate “other” that we are enticed by, but should avoid. He rides up on a black horse, dressed in a black outfit, and engages in the dangerous, cheap entertainment of bull fighting. However, after the elision of ten years his appearance becomes more ambiguous. He is often filmed alone and in shadows, or darkness, which perhaps foreshadows his preventable death. The viewers are made to acknowledge his power and his abuse thereof, in the context of his political and familial power; however, they are also invited to feel sympathetic to him. He is often filmed as standing behind Astree, while she is turned away from him. He loves her, yet she has realized her mistake in leaving the Heimat and wants nothing to do with him. He is never shown with his son except for a scene in which he chastises him, which is a stark difference from the scenes with the boy and his mother. It almost seems as though the snow of the Heimat has replaced the boy’s need for a father. He often reflects on his own decisions and feels remorse for his missteps which further invite the audience to identify with him. In one of the final scenes, when Don Pedro expresses his appreciation and adoration of Astree and she subsequently shuns him to find Sven, it seems as though the viewer is invited to (almost subversively) think of Don Pedro as a misunderstood tyrant and lover.

La Habanera

I think the film The Habanera makes the audience question what kind of hero that they want.  Don Pedro appeals to one side of us; he is the dark, foreign man who is new and different.  He is sensual and dashing, and has an air of danger and excitement about him.  Sierck films him in shadow, with his eyes always glistening and narrow.  He is a character and a hero that we can’t quite trust.  Meanwhile, Sven is the alter ego hero.  He is genuine and steadfast, as seen in his return to Puerto Rico to bring Astree home.  He uses his intellect to save Puerto Rico from the fever, and is the picture of Aryan supremacy. 

 

Viewers can see the attraction of both.  However, it is clear to the viewer which hero is better in fantasy and which is better in “real” life.  10 years after the initial attraction, we see Don Pedro’s passion turn on Astree in his tearing at her clothes.  Meanwhile, Sven is the savior of people, and also succeeds in bring Astree home to Sweden as it is whats best for her, even as she mourns.

Heroes within La Habanera

The juxtaposition between Don Pedro and Sven Nagel as heroes within La Habanera leaves us at a thought-provoking crossroads from which our ability to distinguish one character as the hero becomes particularly reliant on the film’s underlying connection to Nazi cinema. While Don Pedro is presented as heroic at the beginning of the film – liberating Astree from the confines of her regimented and suffocating Swedish life – his valiant nature is dissipates throughout the film, reducing his character to a symbol of Puerto Rico’s backwards society. This is where we begin to see the Nazi influence within the film. Don Pedro, Puerto Rico, and La Habanera become a symbols of temptation that are able to derail Astree from her structured life and tear her away from her Swedish heritage – something that she comes to deeply regret later on. The idea of abandoning one’s heritage and homeland contradicts heavily with the Nazi conception of national pride and staying true to one’s origins. For this reason, Astree becomes a victim of her own impulsivity, while Don Pedro transforms into the antagonist of the film.

Sven Nagel becomes the true hero in the film because he embodies Nazi ideals of national pride and the progression of society. Despite his more humble portrayal as a hero, Nagel’s dedication to the sciences, as opposed to Don Pedro’s suppression of the sciences, reveals admirable qualities that the Nazi’s would endorse. In addition, while Don Pedro is an ardent nationalist in his own right, Sven Nagel is able to recognize Astree’s desire to leave Puerto Rico and helps her return home to Sweden – something that Don Pedro neglected to support or accept. Thus, Nagel is able to free Astree and her son from Puerto Rico, a society in which they did not belong, and effectively serves as their savior at the end of the film.

Sven Nagel is a knight in shining armor.

Prowess, energy, commitment, all these characteristics and more could be definitive of a classic film hero, however, while Don Pedro shares those qualities with the champions of the silver screen, he must be set aside as a cautionary tale. Don Pedro is the embodiment of the elite in what the Nazi determined to be a backward and misguided society. His emotionally charged good intentions are subverted by a lack of logic, reason, and scientific understanding. Through the vehicle of the “European scientists” he may have had the opportunity to become the type of hero we initially perceive him to be at the beginning of the movie. He is a troubled figure and the way Sierk shoots him would lead the audience to believe as much. Shots of Don Pedro with his hair glistening, eyes narrowed, and immersed in shadow would certainly make him appear to be a dubious character. He does seem to have some redeeming qualities, for example his zeal for tradition (something the Nazis would respect), but, his flaws, which are demonstrative of a “lower level” society set him up to be juxtaposed against the real hero Sven Nagel.

Nagel, upon initial introduction seems hardly a rival for a man of such stature as Don Pedro. However, Don Pedro’s charm and good looks only get him so far. Sven is presented as a superior opponent and the true hero of the story. Nagel is the personification of how the Nazis wanted to be perceived by the rest of the world. He is a logical man, he is a caring, and he benevolently yearns to bring the benefits of “true” European science to help less developed nations. Moreover, coupled with his Nazi characterization is a traditional moral conviction to rescue a “Damsel in Distress” and whisk her back to the white slopes of Sweden. He is the champion of not only the health and well being of the island, but of the beautiful Nordic woman who longs for her homeland. Like Don Pedro he too has conviction, energy, and passion, but unlike his Costa Rican counterpart Sven understands how to apply those motivating emotions to the benefit of those around him. Sven is a wholesome and proud Nordic man; he clearly would be an ideal father for little Juan (you must be joking me with that casting of a Hitler youth). Again, Don Pedro comes up short in comparison by hardly showing any affection for the boy. Ultimately, Sven must be the hero of the story, because it would hardly make sense for the feudal lord of a backward society to beat a Swedish man.

La Habanera

The film intends to portray Sven Nagel as the hero of the film in “La Habanera,” although after the viewing it’s clear that Don Pedro is unfairly depicted. Although one could view Don Pedro as the hero of the film because of this, it is clear through many scenes that Sven is the superior figure. The last scene of the movie when Astree is leaving the island after ten years proves the superiority and maturity of Sven over Don Pedro. Taking into account that Sven was in love with Astree and traveled back to Puerto Rico with the intention of bringing her home, he puts his love for her aside and allows her mourning as she watches herself finally leave the island. The shot of Astree looking back, clearly upset, and dressed in black, goes against everything she presumably felt during her tenth year of marriage with Don Pedro. The scene does not show Astree and Sven together heading back home, but rather Sven comforting Astree and allowing her to mourn. Instead of wrapping his arm around her in a loving way, Sven places his hand on her back at a safe distance allowing the viewer to see that he is not a home wrecker, but rather a man who did the right thing by helping a former friend return to where she belongs.

heroes in la habanera

One of the more important components of La Habenera, as far as determining who the film’s hero, is goes is in which light we choose to view the film, as a tragedy or a comedy. From the classical comedic perspective Dr. Nader is the obvious choice for the hero of the film, although he is dry and a relatively static character the fact that he ends up with the girl in the end strongly suggests that he is the films hero. In this scenario, the main plotline then becomes sven’s journey to Puerto rico, his discovery of a cure to the fever and ultimate reclamation of his former flame.

If we consider the film to be a tragedy, then the plot suggests that Don Pedro becomes the hero and in turn the main plotline becomes the struggle of the island against both the forces of nature and the interference of the rest of the world. When we consider Nazi idealism, pedro’s status as a foreigner is the only thing preventing him from being an ideal german. He is strong and fearless and gentlemanly, all qualities praised by nazisim. In this sense it is not so far fetched for us to consider him the films hero. The bottom line is that the film is ambiguous, it would be acceptable to claim either interpretation. I believe it is intentionally made this way and that this sense of ambiguity is the same reason why there are no Germans involved in the conflict, only Swedes, Puerto Ricans and the mention of Americans.

La Habanera

According to Eric Rentschler, German reviewers of the 1937 La Habanera gave the director, Detlev Sierck, lukewarm reviews. He was, however, “lauded for the manner in which he contrasted two very different worlds without painting in black and white” (p. 130). Indeed, it seems that Sierck’s greatest achievement in this movie was to distinguish the two worlds so subtly that even now, we’re not sure which side is supposed to be good and the other evil. He even makes Don Pedro and Dr. Nagel (Sven) simultaneously both the hero and the villain.

One of the last scenes of the movie, in which Don Pedro has invited Sven and his colleague to a dinner party, demonstrates perfectly how the roles of Don Pedro and Dr. Nagel have been confused. We understand that Astreé is tortured by living in Puerto Rico with Don Pedro and that he has several times threatened to take her son, Juan, away from her. We also know that she and Sven had once been in love. We naturally expect that as soon as she sees him, she will eagerly accept his invitation to come to Sweden with him. Of course, he expects this too. So why, we must wonder, does Sierck film Sven as an unwanted intruder rather than the charming knight in shining armor? When Sven arrives, he immediately starts playing around with Juan, going so far as to ride a wooden sled down a flight of marble steps. His buffoonery delights Juan, of course, but is embarrassing to the adults, Astreé particularly. And when Sven gets Astreé alone, he is overshadowed by the scenery and by Astreé herself. Whereas a hero would swoop in and be the center of the scene, Sven is pushed to the side and almost looks the same height as Astreé. But if Sven isn’t the hero of this film, who is? In this scene, although Don Pedro at times looks austere and almost sinister, he is our best candidate for the hero. He is kind to Astreé and is the most adoring fan of her performance. We also realize in this scene that he is only trying to protect his country. Just in this one scene, Sierck blurs the line between good and bad.

Nagel vs. de Avila

I believe Dr. Sven Nagel to be the hero of La Habanera. First I will explain why I think that Don Pedro is not the hero. Don Pedro’s character development is important in this regard. When we first see Don Pedro, he is a dashing hero riding in on a horse and saving the two European women from being involved in a fracas between some unruly ‘natives.’ Later, Don Pedro rather presumptuously advances on Astree when she drops the fan, and can in this light be seen as a version of the stereotypical sexualized non-white man, although only slightly so. Also, he does decorously realize his mistake. After the film jumps forward ten years, we see him in a furious rage, tearing Astree’s clothes, just because Astree wants to raise Juan in her European cultural tradition. I believe to a large part of the German audience would seem quite reasonable, since to many of them the European culture was ‘superior.’ Don Pedro becomes an even more villainous character when he threatens to take Juan away from Astree. As the film continues, we find that Don Pedro has deliberately prevented the Puerto Rico Fever from being cured in order to make money, and finally that he has actively destroyed the cure created by Dr. Nagel. Thus, Don Pedro is presented in the beginning of the film as being a species of hero, only to fall farther and farther into villainy until it finally gets the better of him.

Dr. Nagel, on the other hand, is the protagonist. Not only does he go to Puerto Rico to save it from the scourge of Puerto Rico Fever, but he exposes himself to harm in order to do so in the scene that shows him sneaking around the fever infested and guarded wharf area. He also agrees to try to get Astree to come back to Sweden. Although this is partly done because of his personal longing for her, he is still essentially saving the ‘helpless’ Astree, imprisoned by Don Pedro, the damsel in distress so to speak. Additionally, he is somewhat of a father figure to Juan in the scene with the sled, something Don Pedro with his stern manner of speaking to Juan, and lack of appearances in the same scene, was not. Indeed, with Juan’s complexion Sven looks more like his father than Don Pedro.