Getting Away With Murder(s)

There’s something about the enormity of the issues involved here that makes this a very tough watch. (If it wasn’t, there would be something wrong. The Holocaust is not an easy issue to deal with. Films about it can consequently be tough to watch. And so they should be.) That combined with the near three-hour running time (this is not a complaint, honest) means it sat on my pending review pile for quite a while before I finally sat down and watched it.

I suspect Wilkinson is aware of this problem. As the film starts, he takes you (as it were) gently by the hand as he walks into Auschwitz and matter-of-factly discusses its horrors, helped by a man who works in the museum there and has probably helped numerous people before and since to come to terms with the implications of the place as they go round it. Insofar as one ever can.

We learn of the arrivals off the incoming cattle trucks who were told to go down the ten-minute walk to the showers to get themselves cleaned up. They would take off their clothes and fold them neatly so they could pick them up again afterwards. They were herded into the shower interiors, quite densely packed. And they never came out because these weren’t showers at all, but gas chambers used for the systematic elimination of many of the new arrivals. It’s sickening just to think about.

The people who herded them in were inmates themselves. If you were told you could do that job or join them in the gas chambers yourself, what would you do? [A quick aside: the extraordinary and brilliant subjective camera drama Son Of Saul (László Nemes, 2015) goes a long way to understanding an inmate who does this job. Not that that’s possible.] As I say, trying to comprehend the inhumanity of this is really, really hard. These inmate-workers would be told, “the only way out of here is through the chimney.”

The screen shows well-put together maps of the place and gruelling archive footage is presented throughout the film in a non-confrontational, non-sensationalised way which helps. However, this material is, on the most fundamental human level, horrible. There’s a part of you that just wants to get away from the screen and throw up. People shouldn’t treat each other like this. Yet history testifies that they do, and we should never forget the fact. It’s the reason we need films like this, and the reason you need to watch it. Lest we forget, as they say.

Which implies that we know it all already. For myself, though, there is much in this film I didn’t know. Ranging from specific details about perpetrators large and small in the overall process that was the Holocaust right the way through to the scale of the operation (six million Jews turns out both an oversimplification and an understatement) and all the complicated ins and outs of the legal aftermath of the attempts both to track down and administer justice to the numerous perpetrators alongside the numerous attempts of all those involved to evade justice, all to often successfully. Much of what’s shown here is an indictment of humanity, although all the way through there are signs of hope as perpetrators are convicted and justice done. But it seems that too many get (got) off scot free or with woefully inadequate punishment for their appalling crimes. It’s not surprising that someone should want to make a film to address the burning question about the injustice of all this. Kudos to Wilkinson for doing so.

It may make for harrowing and deeply upsetting viewing, but at the same time, it’s consistently compelling. And it absolutely screams out to be seen.

After Auschwitz we move on to France, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Austria and, eventually, Germany. In his own county of Yorkshire which has a population of 5.4 million, Wilkinson attempts to get his head round the sheer enormity of the figures. For comparison, both Denmark and the US State of Maryland have populations of six million. If all those in Yorkshire were killed, he asks, would the UK government remain silent?

York, where the film has its premiere, is the site of England’s largest massacre of Jews in 1190, when some 150 were killed. Lest we think such things could never happen here.

Wilkinson also travels to Galway, Ireland to see the grave of William Joyce who broadcast German propaganda during the war as Lord Hawhaw. He was captured, tried and, in 1946, executed. His case is comparatively cut and dried compared to what happened to those Germans who abetted the Holocaust.

After Germany’s defeat in 1945 and the shock of what they found in the death camps, the Allies vowed to bring the Holocaust’s perpetrators to justice. The International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg is often cited, but in fact that was held in a building with the capacity to house no more than 24 defendants of whom three never made it to trial and only 12 received the death sentence.

Matters were scarcely helped by the Nazis’ use of law under the Third Reich. Prior to that, law in most European countries had been based on the foundation of the Ten Commandments, but the regime effectively suspended such considerations, creating a legal framework under which it was permissible to eliminate specific ethnic and other minorities. The concept of ‘crimes against humanity’ didn’t exist until its instigation for the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg, 1945-6.

Other trials followed, but the Allies failed to keep up the momentum as they became more concerned with the growing threat of the Soviets and the rise of the Cold War than with hunting down Nazi war criminals when Germany was economically on its knees. Finishing the job within Germany’s borders was left largely to Germany itself.

Where East Germany, as a newly formed Communist state, rebuilt its judiciary from scratch with entirely new appointments, West Germany retained many judges who had been in post during the Nazi era, many of whom were somewhat sympathetic to the murderers in the dock. In a very real sense, the post-war, West German judiciary had became Nazified.

Thus, in later West German trials, while some of the murderers received the full force of the law in the death penalty, many sentences were much more lenient or subsequently commuted so that, for example, a 20 year sentence became five years. There are also examples of murderers living in Germany who were never prosecuted, or who got off during a trial using the most spurious of defences. In many cases, these were people living under their real names.

Others fled, most infamously to South America, but to other countries as well, including the UK. In recent years, in his retirement, Nazi hunter Dr. Stephen Ankier researched their whereabouts, often to find the perpetrators he unearthed die of illness or old age before they could be brought to trial. The UK’s record on finding and prosecuting the perpetrators has been poor.

Getting Away With Murder(s) had its premiere on Thursday 9th November in at the Everyman Cinema, York. Dates for further screenings around the UK are constantly being added: click here to see if your town or city is listed yet. If it isn’t, then tell your local cinema you want to see it.

The film is released in cinemas in the UK on Friday, October 1st, the 75th anniversary of the end of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg.

Review originally published on Jeremy C. Processing. Reprinted by permission.

Notorious

The extraordinary power of Notorious does not come through its plot (although the story concerning Nazis hiding in Brazil was renowned for its topicality and thematic resonance) or Ben Hecht’s Academy-Award nominated dialogue (although every line either reveals something about the plot or character) but rather its two central performances from Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman; two lovers bound together by a mutual self-loathing.

The concept is simple. Ingrid Bergman plays Alicia Huberman, the daughter of a disgraced Nazi traitor to the US government. To mask the pain of her father’s betrayal she drinks copiously, hosting parties where she fails to pretend that nothing is the matter. Government agent Devlin (Cary Grant) meets her at one of her parties, and recruits her to travel to Brazil, where she will use her father’s name to infiltrate a group of Nazi spies plotting a deadly uranium attack.

Released in 1946, the central concept was highly timely. WW2 had only just ended, people were afraid of Nazis on the loose in South America, and concerns about atomic warfare had been heightened after the deadly bombs America detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By roping Cary Grant and Ingmar Bergman in on the tale, Hitchcock scored a true box office hit and created one of his most gloriously romantic films, perhaps only bettered by the James Stewart-starring Vertigo (1958).

In true Hitchcock fashion, the film is a classic not because of its story but how it goes about telling it. With Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant, Hitchcock found the perfect correlatives for his twin themes of love and fear, and how often they can be two sides of the same coin. Her Alicia Huberman is a totally broken woman, a compulsive alcoholic, drawn into the arms of Cary Grant’s infinite cool, while Grant’s Devlin is a failed attempt at a posturing blank slate; his eyes fearful of ever conveying anything other than pure detachment. Nonetheless, as part of his plan, she must be driven into the arms of Alexander Sebastian (Claude Rains), sending Devlin into a spiral of jealousy. Suddenly the previously composed government agent has to face up to his true feelings, lest he loses the first person he’s ever really cared for.

Hitchcock has always been known for the way he co-mingles sex, lust and love with the creeping fear of the unknown, yet Notorious is so seeped in its glorious, doomed romanticism that its images of love transcend the bounds of the conventional thriller into something incredibly gripping, vital and actually rather unconventional.

It’s best known for its Hay Code-skirting kiss scene, in which Grant and Bergman trade endless three second smooches for the better part of three minutes (a duration completely novel at the time), yet these moments keep on recurring, making it a true film of smushed-together faces, filmed in glorious close-up. Here Hitchcock innovates the use of the zoom. While the best example is the long pan from the stop of the stairs down to Alicia in the ballroom holding the key for the basement, Hitchcock also uses fast zooms during romantic sequences as well, suddenly getting us up close and personal with our subjects in the midst of passion. Every close-up becomes a tightening of the vice, another way of rushing to the heart of the matter, carrying us, the viewer, along with him.

While these love scenes — filmed in cars, hotel balconies and gorgeous ballrooms — are part of the plot per se, Hitchcock, with help from cinematographer Ted Tetzlaff, frames them in such a tender way that all “thriller” elements seem completely subsumed by nakedly erotic passion. It is this very woozy passion that is the heart of Notorious —a film obsessed with trust, brokenness, addiction and poison — and what makes it a particularly adult and unconventional thriller, even now.

It’s success rests upon Ingrid Bergman’s beautiful face, playing a woman endlessly oscillating between self-hatred, doubt and fear; both of the enemy and the far more terrifying prospect of opening her heart to another man like she did to her traitorous father. Is there any actress in history of cinema that could pierce quite so fiercely into the heart as her? Whether its as Rick Blaine’s ex-lover in Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942), the wife in a failed marriage in Journey to Italy (Roberto Rossellini, 1954) or the terrifying matriarch in Autumn Sonata (Ingmar Bergman, 1978), no actress before or since has ever been so effective at conveying vast emotions through the power of close-ups alone. Watching her act I find my critical faculties melting away in favour of pure adoration of such an evocative range of facial expressions. It’s hard to imagine any other actress playing that same role.

notorious

The plot of Notorious might be concerned with violence and death, yet these moments almost entirely take place off-screen. Whether it’s the agitated guest who is euphemistically “driven home” or the iconic final scene where Sebastian walks back to the mansion and an almost certain death, everything is suggested rather than depicted. The MacGuffin may concern hidden uranium, yet no bombs go off, voices are rarely raised, and there are no wild chase scenes. Rather the most violent scenes are the love sequences, both players losing themselves in the midst of incredibly raw and evocative passion.

Hitchcock understands better than any other mainstream director that love and sex can be far more terrifying than gunshots and creatures in the dark. It is rare to see a romantic thriller where both characters are ostensibly so weak-willed, yet one where their love for each other eventually sees them through to a happy ending (eighties and nineties noir updates almost always end up with betrayal or death). Instead Notorious stands out for its belief that love can just about keep persisting, even when you hate yourself, drink obsessively, and are surrounded by Nazis. While Psycho (1960), Vertigo (1958) and The Birds (1963) are often considered to be bigger reinventions and artistic leaps in terms of Hitchcock’s technique, Notorious deserves credit for its uncommonly powerful, optimistic yet mature romantic vision; completely undimmed by the passage of time.

Notorious is back in cinemas across the UK more than 70 years after its original release on Friday, August 9th.