Ich Klage An

quick delivery period, DVD in high quality, Price appropriate

Highly provocative but must be viewed in context of third reich history.

In George Orwell's superb but conveniently half-forgotten essay on Salvador Dali, he made the extremely unusual case that it was possible to produce great art which should should nevertheless be suppressed as an outrage against morality. Orwell posed the question using this comparison: "The first thing I ask of a wall is that it be sturdy and not fall down. That is the purpose of a wall, which is separate question entirely from how the wall is used. But the best-constructed wall in the world deserves to be torn down if it surrounds a concentration camp. It ought to be possible to argue that such-and-such is a great artist, and his work out to be burned in the town square by the public hangman."One could argue that ICH KLAGE AN is great art, and one could argue that it "ought to be burned by the public hangman" despite this, given that the film's ultimate legacy was as a softening-up bombardment in the Nazi campaign to desensitize its population to the idea of euthanasia preparatory to initiating their hideous "T-4" mass euthanasia program, which saw 100,000 mentally ill Germans gassed or poisoned as an act of racial hygieneThe story begins with the effervescent and life-loving Hanna Heyt celebrating the appointment of her research-scientist husband Thomas to a professorship in Munich. When Hanna injures her arm slightly during their dinner celebration, however, the injuries don't heal, so Thomas calls in a former romantic rival of his, Dr. Bernhard Lang, to perform an examination. To everyone's horror, Lang, who is still in love with Hanna, diagnoses her with multiple sclerosis. Thomas immediately throws himself into researching a treatment for the progressive and fatal disease, which is steadily robbing Hanna of all the quality of life; but when his efforts come to nothing he begins to seriously contemplate granting her wish for euthanasia, even though the law forbids it, and Lang is militantly opposed. Thomas' decision ultimately lands him before a court of inquiry, where his actions and motives are scrutinized and some evidence is presented that may exonerate him without a clear decision as to the morality of assisted suicide. But Lang isn't having it: refusing to grant anyone an easy way out, he demands to be tried solely on the basis of whether his actions were right or wrong, and its upon this verdict that his fate rests.IMDB's review of this movie calls it "morbid melodrama," but I no longer trust any official reviews of Nazi-era films, since the reviewers inevitably confuse enjoying a film produced by the Nazi government to mean the viewer is in sympathy with its ideology and methods.I myself found the film deeply moving and extremely dramatic. The direction, by Wolfgang Liebeneiner, is crisp and assured, the performances are absolutely first-rate and the script is tight and beautifully written. The lovely Heidemarie Hatheyer delivers an award-worthy performance full of charm and pathos. Hartmann and Weiman are also superb as the rival doctors. Margarete Haagen is also excellent as Hanna's housekeeper/surrogate mother, the loving Berta, as is the always-reliable Christian Kayssler as the judge. This film won the prestigious (at the time, anyway) Biennale Cup, and I believe deservedly so. It's at least as good, and probably considerably more gutsy in its subject matter, than most American and British films shot at the same time.ICH KLAGE AN translates from German to English as "I Accuse" and it is an appropriate title for the film. On trial for his life, Thomas Heyt ultimately accuses his accusers of cowardice and hypocrisy for being willing to condemn a suffering human being to indefinite physical suffering merely to spare themselves moral anguish, and he asks the audience to render its own judgement on his actions. In other words, this film was designed to open a dialogue as to its subject, and I believe it does just precisely that. What surprised me was the even-handedness with which the movie explores the idea of euthanasia itself. Religious, moral and ethical arguments against it are all brought to bear and given, I believe, at least the pretense of a fair hearing. There's little doubt where the movie itself lands, but it does not subject the anti-euthanasia crowd to ridicule. For a Nazi-sanctioned film, it's surprisingly fair.I quoted Orwell above because I know there are many who wonder why Nazi-era cinema has a modern audience or is even allowed to be sold. Many would argue that whatever the artistic or technical merits of movies like STUKAS, SA-MANN BRAND, UBER ALLES IN DER WELT, etc., etc. they were ultimately fruits of the poisonous tree that was Nazi Germany, and should be suppressed or destroyed, as so much Nazi literature has been suppressed and destroyed. Orwell himself may have argued this, but I can't agree, and I'm grateful to live in a country where -- unlike most of "liberal" Europe, in which these films are banned -- art is not burned in the town square by the public hangman. After all, who appoints the hangman? And who is to say what else he might choose to burn?