MORESHET
Shay Hazkani
of testimonies alleging that the Jews who participated in the movie were mobilized at the registration bureau in Prague and received payment. She contends that the claims of Harlan’s aides that these Jews were anxious to participate in the movie should be seen in the context of a severe shortage of food, combined with the anti-Jewish measures taken by the authorities. She explains that in fact they had no choice in the matter.51 The testimonies given by Jews in Harlan’s trial paint a highly complex picture: while one witness maintained that Harlan had resorted to implicit threats of violence if his orders were not obeyed, the wife of one of the Jewish singers in the film said that Harlan displayed a humane attitude.52 In September 1940, the film was released for public screening in Germany. Goebbels noted in his diary: “This is a great success. The work of a genius [i.e., Harlan]. Precisely the antisemitic movie that we wanted.” 53 Goebbels was so delighted that he gave orders for it to be sent immediately to Venice for presentation at the German-Italian film festival.54 The program gives a detailed description of the story of the film: how the Jew Suess lends the duke some money and in exchange, attains financial control over the entire city; how Suess abducts the beautiful Dorothea Strum and brutally rapes her, while his servants torture her husband in the cellars; how Dorothea manages to escape and then commits suicide; how the duke dies, and finally – how Suess is brought to trial and sentenced to death. In conclusion the program tells how the Jews leave the city while the judge who condemned Suess warns: “May the citizens of other countries never forget this lesson.”55 In an interview with a reporter for the periodical Der Film when Jew Suess was released, Harlan noted the connection between the story and the Nuremberg Laws, noting that two centuries earlier a Jew was condemned to death for having sexual relations with a Christian woman:
Here I am depicting authentic Jewry as it was then and as it now continues unchecked in Poland. In contrast to this original Jewry we are presented with Süss, the elegant financial adviser to the Court, the clever politician in short, the Jew in disguise.56
When the movie was released for general viewing in Berlin, journalists were given instructions as to how to write about it. They were asked to point out that Jews like Suess exploited their position and power not for the
193