Jump to content

Talk:The Eternal Jew (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The title is wrong

[edit]

The title of the film is "Der ewige Jude", not "Der Ewige Jude".

wondering about wandering

[edit]

Is someone a fan of Gustave Doré? However, the word "ewig" and all of its forms quite unambiguously mean "eternal". Other translations / synonyms any you can find on dict.leo.org or in a Thesaurus are e.g. deathless, everlasting, forever, imperishably, perennial, perpetual. Clearly not "wandering". This should be deleted. 87.78.149.190 11:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link going from "Wandering Jew" explains the figure of Christian folklore, who is called "Ewiger Jude" in german. That is why the title is ambigious - maybe you can find a way to make it clearer in the text. -01:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Purpose to inform about dangers of annexed population?

[edit]

I removed the following text from the article:

The film consists of feature and documentary footage combined with new materials filmed shortly after the Nazi occupation of Poland, which then had a Jewish population of about 3 million (roughly 10 percent of the total population). The purpose of the film was to explain to the German public the danger posed by this new population, which had come under the control of the Reich.

I don't see why the Germans would have had to be warned of a population that had such limited rights of travel - putting it euphemistically. Also the focus of the movie is clearly not the jews in occupied countries, but Jewish cultural influence, prominent jews, rich jews and travelling businessmen. - Ados 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jewry

[edit]

what does "jewry" even mean, i dont understand. can it be explained in the article as it is used so much.

jewry, at Answers.com. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism

[edit]

The article says this: "Many things that run contrary to Nazi doctrine are associated with Jewish influence, such as modern art, (cultural) relativism, anarchic and socialist movements, as well as sexual liberation."

The Nazi party was the German socialist workers party. Why would the Nazis put socialism as a bad thing when they are self-proclaimed socialists?

They were the National Socialist party, which is totaly different, Nationalism and Socialism are in fact totaly imcompatable, as Socialism is internationalist.

Actual socialism, as in Marxism was in fact the biggest enemy of the nazis, from the start their, prime objective being to defeat the German Communist party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.30.174 (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but my problem is that Hitler was really for a type of socialism. Not Marxism or communism (who were victims of his.) Wouldn't it be more accurate to change that to Marxist movements or Communist movements? Socialism is a pretty broad brush, and Hitler was specifically against communism. Some aspects of socialism he found to be great stuff. DeviantCharles (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wording on the Article

[edit]

I'm deeply worried on the way this article has been worded, particularly in the plotsection. I don't know how useful it would be to explain the whole plot bit bit for an encyclopedia article. Other articles in Wikipedia doesn't follow this format.

The way this section is worded, it is simply echoing the propaganda of the movie. It should at least explain the fallacies within some arguments (e.g.: anedoctal numbers linking judaism to criminality) but this section should nevertheless be shortened as it is not very encyclopedic.

I am not suggesting some sort of censorship about the nature of the movie in question, but I think that a link to a copy of the video on Youtube or some similar site would be better and more compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Pinnecco (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording of the article is fine. This is about the film itself, not fallacies or Nazi propaganda (other than this one film) There are other places for those arguments. Maybe links at the end, so no one misinterprets this article as being FOR what the Nazi's wanted. I studied Nazi propaganda and wrote papers on it, and I never "converted" to hating Jews. Just reading an article about a film wont convert anyone to Nazism overnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Versions & documentary value

[edit]

I've seen the film only in a version originally released by the US (perhaps the War Dept.) that was abbreviated and that English narration. Perhaps this should be mentioned, although I can't locate a citation to this version.

More importantly, the film actually contains a lot of interesting documentary evidence of Jewish practices, such as the scene of praying in the synagogue (which doesn't look or sound as if it were staged). As awful as the film is, perhaps someone could gently mention this aspect of the film. -- kosboot (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scene of Praying/Torah reading in the Synagogue

[edit]

The film portrays the Torah, the five books of Moses, as containing the central belief of the Jews, and shows them reading the Torah in the Synagogue, subtitled with "quotations" from some of the "books". Apparently, only a trained eye can realize that the quotations were made-up verses from made-up books - and not actual quotations from the five books of the Jewish Torah - (i.e. not from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy)Jimhoward72 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What impact did the movie have on German anti-Semitism?

[edit]

This article does not make it clear as to who viewed this movie, or how widely it was viewed in Nazi Germany. Did it have a great impact on German sentiment, or little impact? To what extent did it serve to influence anti-Semitism and the Holocaust?Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's impact wasn't that great, the movie was pretty unpopular. See The War that Hitler Won. Jud Suss was much more influential but hasn't lasted as well in popular memory. 86.26.16.242 (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that, in and of itself, the movie did not have much impact on the German public but we have to be careful in understanding the nuances of what that mean. The film was released after Jud Süß which was wildly popular, perhaps because it wrapped the antisemitic message in an engaging period drama with costumes, etc. The actors in Jud Süß were leading German actors of the time. In contrast, Der Ewige Jude's only original footage was of Jews in the Polish ghetto who were deliberately set up to look poor, filthy and disgusting. All the other footage consisted of stills and archive film clips.
Thus, in contrast to the interesting story of Jud Süß, Der Ewige Jude was unremitting propaganda without the cloak of an interesting plot line to engage the audience. It also had some disgusting scenes of Jewish ritual slaughter that turned the audience's stomach. Not that many people went to see the film (1 million paid admissions compared to 20 million for Jud Süß). The film was more known by word-of-mouth descriptions than from people actually viewing it. Some Germans were quoted as saying "We've already seen enough Jewish filth. We don't need to see any more." In other words, they had already accepted the antisemitic message of Jud Süß and didn't want to pay to be bombarded by the crude propaganda in Der Ewige Jude.
Moreover, the important thing is that SS troops headed for the Eastern front to carry out the "Final Solution" were "invited" (some sources say "required") by Himmler to watch the film. You can bet that many of them accepted the invitation and that the contents of the film helped to suppress any moral qualms they may have had.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish in movie

[edit]

By some oversight, this article doesn't mention anything about Yiddish. Yiddish is relevant to this movie in two ways. First, while the article says the movie is a German language movie, the actual footage of Jews talking, and some of the scenes from the Jewish movies (the Purim scene, for example - it was from a Yiddish movie made in Poland), are in Yiddish. Second, Yiddish is mentioned specifically in the movie, as being part of an underground criminal language which Jews use and spread (see Rotwelsch, for related).Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ford

[edit]

Why is Henry Ford listed in the See Also section? He is not mentioned in the article, nor is this film mentioned on the page about Henry Ford. 118.209.95.113 (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because he published The International Jew, listed right above. Not sure if there's any direct connection to the film... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Downloadsite

[edit]

WARNING: Those sites would be forbidden if they were on a German Server (Volksverhetzung). The material there is presented in a fascistic context. It would be nice if the author could mention that somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:9240:9A8:D83F:F505:5944:984E (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the external links. Even though Wikipedia has a strict anti-censorship policy, the links were unavailable. (Also, it should be pretty clear from the article that the links were to Nazi propaganda, not sure how anyone could misjudge that one...) – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is true?

[edit]

Not sure if this is a chicken or the egg argument, but this article currently states:

Charlie Chaplin was also included in this sequence and inaccurately identified as Jewish, possibly as a consequence of his role as the Jewish barber in The Great Dictator.

Whereas, over at the Charlie Chaplin article, they claim:

The Nazi Party believed that [Chaplin] was Jewish and banned The Gold Rush on this basis. Chaplin responded by playing a Jew in The Great Dictator and announced, "I did this film for the Jews of the world."

UPDATE: I've also brought this issue up on the "Charlie Chaplin" talkpage, to see if that clarifies anything. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 6 external links on The Eternal Jew (1940 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The intro looks crazy in Chrome

[edit]

Compare yourselves Chrome and fx FF. Or is this intentional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.109.99.104 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. If anyone believes this film is the primary topic for The Eternal Jew, they should open a new RM and make their case there. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 19:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The Eternal Jew (1940 film) → The Eternal Jew (film) – There are no other film title exists within The Eternal Jew and The Wandering Jew. But instead of both film titles like The Eternal Jew (then redirects to The Wandering Jew), and 1923 version as the same name. ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Production company?

[edit]

If you mention of the producer of this film The Eternal Jew (Der Ewige Jude), was released by Deutsche Filmherstellungs- und Verwertungs GmbH (DFG) for the Nazi Party, but not Deutsche Film Gesellschaft. --122.2.98.48 (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

[edit]

Production company: Deutsche Film Gesellschaft → Deutsche Filmherstellungs- und Verwertungs GmbH (DFG) (correct film distributor) 122.2.99.126 (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2020

[edit]

Production company: Deutsche Film Gesellschaft → Deutsche Filmherstellungs- und Verwertungs GmbH (DFG) the correct film distributor, but within a single source: [1] 122.2.10.69 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 11:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed last subsection (availability)

[edit]

"and it can only be screened in a censored version with annotations." should have a source cited. Dapperedavid (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

[edit]

Better change this external link to [2] 2001:4452:44C:1D00:AD27:C526:6111:7191 (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

[edit]

In the beginning change: "The Eternal Jew is a 1940 antisemitic" to "The Eternal Jew is a 1940 German antisemitic".

As is custom with other film articles, the nation of the film should be shown here. Millscrepe (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The word "Nazi" being used and the year of the film makes the nation clear enough. Deauthorized. (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will challenge this: your statement about it being clear enough is anecdotal. It may be clear enough to someone from the US for example, but not for everyone around the globe reading this, as the term 'Nazi' is not known or used universally in every part of the world.
(see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus)
Besides, every film article on this site is formatted as 'YEAR NATIONALITY' and this should be no different. Millscrepe (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I have some sympathy, the Nazis'were the government yes, but no more so than say they were in the USSR. It is a German film. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental aspect of the film is not its German-ness, but its Nazism. Removing Nazi would be intellectually vacuous, and having both "German" and "Nazi" would be redundant. (Yes, there was a Nazi Party in Austria, but it was any quasi-independent before the Anschluss and subsumed into the German party afterwards.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not redundant if there was a Nazi party in Austria? Marcelus (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, other similar movies are described exactly as you say (ie Triumph of the Will) Marcelus (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are because the OP made those changes wwithout consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a consensus already to add in lead adjective denoting the country of production. Why are you opposing adding "German" to the film made in Germany? Marcelus (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the film was made in Nazi Germany, so the adjective "Nazi" is sufficient to show nationality. Adding "Germany" is redunant and pedantic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must say your argument doesn't hold any water. Nazi Germany is a term often used in English to refer specifically to the Nazi era/regime of Germany, officially called the German Reich. Nazi does not represent a nation because it's a party or regime: the nationality and country remains German and Germany. --185.69.145.64 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it "holds water", since anyone seeing "Nazi film" is going to know it's a German film. Putting "German" in for the sake of formality is simply bad writing. If you feel strongly about this start an RfC somewhere - but be certaian to insure its validity by advertising it widely. Don't hold it on the talk page of some obscure article and expect it to be generally followed by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me ask why should it even be "Nazi film" in the first place? It's a German film, created in Germany, irregardless of what the genre is or under what regime it was made. It must say "German film" first and foremost and that is standard procedure for all films on this site anyway. Do we ever call American films "Republican film" or a Chinese film "Maoist film"? It does not make any sense.
Assuming you're from a European country or the West, yes you will probably know "Nazi film" = German. But that is not a neutral POV. I have just seen that the OP who proposed this mentioned that the Nazi term "not for everyone around the globe". That is a valid point too: this site isn't just for western readers it's for everyone (that Anglo American focus link is pretty telling that your argument goes against general policy). 185.69.145.64 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is what it was, a Nazi propaganda film. Your argument is specious, and I will not respond to you any more. Nazis MUST be called Nazis, period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time, no one here has said Nazis shouldn't be called Nazis, nor have I argued they shouldn't be called "Nazi propaganda". But per standard procedure, such an article should begin as "German film" followed by "Nazi propaganda". Every film article indeed starts off with the nationality followed by genre/topic, and Nazi is not a nationality. 85.255.236.106 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi is not a nationality, it's a name of ideology, and as you yourself pointed out it was also present in Austria. So saying that it was a Nazi film isn't enough. Your argument doesn't hold water. Marcelus (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. I really don't get why editor Beyond My Ken isn't getting the simple logic, rather getting all emotional. And you are correct in saying that there is already the consensus of how film articles should start, i.e. a year and country followed by topic or genre. Based on this fact, I think it is perfectly valid for someone to overrule Beyond My Ken's refusal/changes. 85.255.236.106 (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear... I've just taken a closer look and it seems editor Beyond My Ken has actually reverted all the OP (editor Millscrepe) edits in film articles where the lead was correctly changed. Beyond My Ken, you're :
  • refusing a change yet also unwilling to communicate and understand the point,
  • getting emotional with me here and on Talk:Nazi Germany,
  • reverting the edits mentioned without discussion, plus
  • me and editor Marcelus have just proven that OP's edits is rightfully the general consensus of how film articles should lead.
One more thing: you claimed above OP made the change on Triumph of the Will "without consensus" as well. This proves you wrong: the article already started as "German Nazi propaganda film" before Millscrepe edited it. A quick look at this article history shows it has been in this format at least since 50 edits ago dating back to last year.
At this point you're going directly against consensus and hence causing disruption. 85.255.236.106 (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC of interest

[edit]

An RfC of possible interest to the editors of this article can be found here.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2024

[edit]

Please remove this Internet Archive link below at "External links" section per WP:COPYLINK. 103.172.196.139 (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is related to the fact that copyright in Germany lasts for 70 years after the author's death, and WP:COPYLINK states: However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder.
I'm not entirely sure if this film is protected under copyright though. I'll ask at WP:MCQ for some advice. Liu1126 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The suggestion at WP:MCQ is if in doubt, don't link, so I've removed the IA link per WP:COPYLINK. Liu1126 (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

"The public distribution and exhibition of the film is prohibited in Germany."

That is not entirely true. The film is currently not available in Germany because it is not distributed by any legal rights holder.

This film has not yet been indexed (classified as adult only) by the Federal Agency for Child and Youth Protection in the Media nor has the film been confiscated by a court - as it was the case with a non-scientific re-press of Mein Kampf ("Der Inhalt des Buches wurde mit Urteil des Amtsgericht Forchheim vom 27.10.2016 (Az. 1 Ds 1108 Js 6660/16) als tatbestandsmäßig im Sinne des § 130 StGB (Volksverhetzung) eingestuft." (The content of the book was classified as an offense within the meaning of Section 130 of the German Criminal Code (incitement to hatred) by the Forchheim District Court on October 27, 2016 (case number 1 Ds 1108 Js 6660/16)) https://fragdenstaat.de/anfrage/indizierung-zur-adolf-hitler-mein-kampf/).

It is very likely that a public screening (without scientific background) or free sale would lead to a court case under § 130 of the German Criminal Code - but this has not been the case as of now and until then this statement about the status of this film is speculation. Chris Retro (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Eternal_Jew_(film)&oldid=1249315592"