I masnadieri

During the Third Reich of 1933-1945, Germany's nationalised film industry produced more than 1,100 films. Surprisingly, only about 250 of these were blatantly Nazi propaganda: the vast majority were merely escapist entertainment. But the Nazi leaders who controlled the film industry were clever enough to realise that Hitler's cause could be furthered with movies which subtly advocated German ideals and nationalist causes ... without explicitly praising Hitler, nor showing swastikas or other Nazi symbolism.

'Friedrich Schiller' is a film which intentionally serves Nazi agenda without being explicitly pro-Nazi. This film purports to tell the story of Schiller, the 18th-century German playwright and blank-verse poet. A contemporary and friend of Goethe, Friedrich Schiller was an important poet in his own right: his 'Ode to Joy' was set to music as Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.

'Friedrich Schiller' was released in 1940 (shortly after Hitler's early military triumphs) with the subtitle 'Der Triumph eines Genies' (Triumph of a Genius). Movie audiences were clearly meant to see parallels between Schiller and Hitler.

In the title role, this film stars Horst Casper ... a pretty-boy actor whose looks surpass his acting ability. Rather than telling Schiller's entire life story, the film emphasises his early years when Schiller was a cadet in the Karlsschule (the military academy sponsored by the Duke of Württemberg) and his service in the Duke's regiment at Stuttgart. During this period, Schiller read law and medicine, and somehow also found time to write his first play!

The film depicts a real-life incident which occurred in 1781. Whilst Schiller was garrisoned with the Duke's regiment in Stuttgart, his first play ('The Robbers') was performed at a theatre in Mannheim. Schiller went AWOL from his regiment to attend a performance of his own play. In the movie, this leads to a stormy confrontation between Schiller and his patron. Heinrich George gives a splendid performance as the Duke, easily out-acting the dull Casper.

Unfortunately, this film tries too hard in its efforts to make 18th-century historical characters fit into Nazi agitprop. Schiller is meant to symbolise the idealistic visionary ubermensch: that rare individual who is innately superior to normal men.

The production design and the period detail in this film are impressive, and the photography (by the great Fritz Arno Wagner) is superb. The film editing is better than usual for German movies of this period. But it's all quite dull. I confess that I don't know enough about Schiller to judge the biographical accuracy of this movie, but there are several scenes in which the facts have clearly been bent to fit Nazi agenda. I'll rate this movie 4 points out of 10. It has quite a few good points in spite of its Nazi pedigree.

Enter a cast of thousands. Schiller as a prototype for Der Fuehrer. The indomitable Heinrich George as a stand-in for the Old Guard. Hearty laughs and happy endings.

This film, which I viewed first in the 1960's, surprised me with its high production values for a 1940 effort not made in Hollywood. My initial reaction to it was disbelief that the Nazi censors allowed the words of the poet to reflect individual courage in the face of oppression. It was only later I learned from primary witnesses that Germany in 1940 was so much at the top of its game that it did not matter so much what people said or did about classic artists like Schiller, as long as it did not border on sedition against the Third Reich directly or bear the stain of Jewish corruption. Oppression as a fact of everyday life for the man in the street was still in its infancy while German armies were rolling successfully across Europe. The enemy was no longer within, but without.

As in the United States today (2004), virtue could be portrayed as vice and vice versa by ideologues in high places. Words ceased to have any real meaning in and of themselves, and were instead regarded as mere tools of propaganda for subverting human rights. Thus the noble strains of Schiller's poetry extolling individual and romantic ideals were made to seem reflective not of freedom, but of iconic values and symbols of the state itself as embodied in its triumphant leader.

Heinrich George as a blustering old fool steals the show. When the curiously girlish young poet as played by Horst Caspar stands up to him in court and speaks about what his heart feels, George explodes and sends him packing. Some fun is made of the local accents and women who fall in a faint at the sight of the brave young poet, all in the guise of good fun.

A harmless little film in hindsight, made grim by wondering whatever happened to all those great costumes and sets when they were reduced to rubble a mere four or five years later. Is there a lesson for us here?