I first came to know of "Conspiracy" after my film class viewed "Apt Pupil," a well-done story about a young boy who discovers an old man (and former Nazi) living in his neighborhood, befriends him, and begins to learn of his dark past. It is well worth renting. My task for the class, however: compare "Apt Pupil" to another film featuring Nazis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One of the worst crimes committed against humanity occurs in a little over an hour-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Nazi party of Germany will forever live within the pages of history. They changed the way Jews were viewed around the world and likewise started a period of undeniable hate that perpetuated throughout the country. In the 2001 “Conspiracy,” Reinhard Heydrich (Kenneth Branagh) and Adolf Eichmann (Stanley Tucci) meet in a remote mansion to host a secret meeting to discuss extinguishing the Jewish population in Germany and surrounding European countries.
The film evolves around the panel discussion of leaders of the Nazi party: doctors, lawyers, the State secretary, and German national leaders. As the tagline of the movie states, the story of one of the worst crimes committed against humanity occurs in a little over an hour.
As the screenplay is based from Undersecretary Martin Luther’s meeting notes, the only known surviving documentation from the real-life conference, the film weaves the story of how the mass murder originated. The decisions, fears, statistics, and politics of the German nation were discussed by these powerful men who sat at a large, oval table to vote for what would soon become one of the most chilling accounts of race relations, discrimination, and euthanasia.
Heydrich, the leader of the meeting, sets out to seemingly gain feedback on his murder methodology. Contrarily, through his excessive knowledge on the subject and authorized power given to him by Adolf Hitler, he appears to dominate the discussion and influence other men’s consent toward the plan.
The Nazi representation depicts the evolution of everyday, normal men enjoying the pleasures of a good meal and nice discussion, to a meeting filled with hate and void of compassion. Viewers are encouraged to relate with the Nazi party at some level out of recognition of similar human characteristics of love and hate, and of humor and seriousness. This connection, merely emphasized through camera angles and cinematic techniques, build in a more profound understanding that these qualities go beyond typical human relationships.
The stereotypical evil nature of the Nazi party is temporarily undermined when viewers listen to how these men deliberate in what is apparently a logical and courteous discussion. As the dialogue intensifies, the beginning of unspeakable atrocities against fellow humans likewise formulate from the words uttered in the formal dining room. Normal men are turned into monsters within a mere hour of discussion.
Foremost, the film treats the men as innately human, and the party a mere celebration of friends. Despite the formal introductions with the “heil Hitler” salutations, the men mingle, drink, and enjoy appetizers while waiting for the rest of their guests to arrive: much like longtime friends simply enjoying each other’s company.
The military-precision stereotype of Nazis is likewise promoted with Eichmann’s statistics and paperwork that helps back up his rationale to murder the entire Jewish population. This excessive order breaks, however, with Heydrich’s late arrival. Some of the men gossip among themselves how Heydrich will make his always fashionably late appearance. This provides the audience with a somewhat contradictory notion to how the Nazis are prompt, orderly and carry out tasks with extreme precision and planning.
While viewers do not know whether Heydrich’s late appearance is a result of his need for recognition to demonstrate his power, or a simple tendency to be late, his inadequacy at arriving on time is emphasized. It is this inadequacy that humanizes Heydrich despite his authoritative aura.
Heydrich, a man who apparently interacts with others in a joking, laid-back manner at the beginning, transforms into a man whose goals and mission of the meeting override his humorous side. He puts up with the other men occasionally interrupting him by displaying a slight smile of tolerance and a simple remark that he is “not finished,” but soon becomes intensely serious.
Heydrich refuses to accept other opinions concerning the plan, although he pretends to want their feedback. At one point in the story, Kritzinger gets up to talk with him during a break, and Heydrich makes sure that Kritzinger will offer his support toward Heydrich’s proposal. “I will not oppose you,” Kritzinger says, however it is clear that Kritzinger does not feel the plan is foolproof. Likewise, Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart (Colin Firth) believes that Heydrich is not considering the political and legal implications of the Jewish extermination. Despite his strong appeals, and one passionate scene of debate for his viewpoint, when it comes to vote time, Stuckart, like Kritzinger, simply sarcastically articulates his utmost enthusiasm for Heydrich’s proposed arrangement.
It happens that while the final vote for the plan is taking place that the camera angles are extreme close-ups of each man attending the meeting. Not only does each man have an extreme close-up in the frame, but he also directly addresses the audience. In this instance, it is suggested that the audience share the viewpoint of Heydrich — the man to whom the rest are reporting. By creating a viewer identification with this Nazi in terms of his social standing and authoritative power, the audience is likewise placed in the dilemma of reflecting on how they would personally respond in such the situation.
The extreme close-up camera angles are in direct contrast with the beginning of the film when the men go around the table and introduce themselves. The audience first meets them with a medium close-up shot while they announce their name and title. Although their titles and seriousness can be a bit intimidating and overwhelming, the film proposes these are men with real names, real positions in society, and are of meaningful importance. The contrasting extreme close-up shots during the final vote likewise indicates a changing audience perspective.
The spectators, rather than merely observers sitting in on this private meeting, now have become immersed in understanding these men and their ways of thinking on a deeper level. Viewers literally have come to achieve a closer examination of these men. Their concerns, objectives, logic, fears, and justification literally and figuratively come full circle. In a matter of an hour, seemingly normal government officials conclude that millions of Jews must be exterminated in gruesome gas chambers. Despite desperate attempts by some men — which ultimately proves futile — to alter the direction of the decision, the horror lies with the unanimous decision.
Perhaps one culminating scene revealed the true archetype of the Nazi figure. When Kritzinger becomes frustrated at his inability to be heard, he abruptly rises from the table — thus insinuating a physical and psychological power over his sitting comrades. It is when he walks through the double doors, slowly turns around, and become framed within the doorway, however, that defines the Nazi power over an individual’s own independence. Kritzinger’s body — through interior framing — and mind, are both entrapped within the Nazi ideal. He finally walks back to the table and reluctantly submitting to the Nazi beliefs, acknowledges their control over his own choices.
This realization comes at a dear price as not only do Kritzinger, but viewers are also encouraged, to understand that even if a prominent lawyer and doctor has no input in Nazi decision making, then neither does the public.
The idea of Nazi dominance may also extend to another scene where one man, after learning the horrors about to sweep his nation, becomes physically ill. Later, he blames his sickness on his cigar — which may stylistically function as a masculine, phallic symbol. Heydrich declares that due to this man’s queasiness over cigar smoke, that no one shall smoke any more cigars in his presence. He symbolically thus deprives them of their masculinity and power.
Ultimately, the first scenes of the film establish dialogue, characters, and situations that may gain viewer empathy. As every minute passes, however, the Nazi stereotype of leadership, power, and eroticism becomes eroded into that of insensitive, gruesome, immoral men who strive for domination rather than collaboration, and a fast solution to what they deem a growing problem.
Even moral men at times become entwined in a web of power, manipulation and deception. The individual ideal becomes the collective Nazi ideal. It raises the question, were Nazi leaders perhaps victims themselves? They were neither stripped of their clothes, their hair was not cut off and used for fabric, nor were their naked bodies deceptively led to a shower where they would face their death. They were not stripped of their dignity during the height of the Nazi regime. Yet "Conspiracy" insinuates how some of these men were stripped of something some people assume can never be taken from them. Almost brainwashed, they were stripped of their conscience.
Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson star as two hitmen ordered by their crime boss, played by Ralph Fiennes, to escape to Bruges (which is in Belgium) after a job gone wrong.
I took a film class a few years ago, and we analyzed several movies over the course of the semester. I hope to post some of my (edited, so I won't spoil the story too much) thoughts in this space, via a series of 
Posts
