This documentary is more black than white, not only because of the very dark period in history it portrays, but also because of the excessive use of stills, instead of moving pictures. It is very well done, but I feel it should have been still more interesting if it hadn't been so slow. I understand that the director would like us to have time for thought while seeing it, but it's definitely too slow. Anyway, see it if you've got the chance, as it painstakingly explains the views of respected doctors and scientists about race. The most chilling scene is a clip from "The Black Stork" from 1917.
6 Reviews
One of the best documentary on Eugenics
philonous0921 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I want to begin with saying that I did some research on Eugenics in my first semester of college in an anthropology course "Globalization of Hatred", this eventually extended to my personal/independent research as well. I tried very hard to find as many documentaries as possible on the subject of eugenics, to my disappointment there aren't that many documentaries. Some interesting documentaries were produced by BBC and James Burke, but they were often very short and brief. However, when I came across Homo Sapiens 1900 I was ecstatic because it's an hour and twenty minute documentary that focuses solely on eugenics. I watched it twice and I am not a bit disappointed.
Homo Sapiens 1900 pretty much is a decent overview of the history of eugenics in America, Germany, Sweden, and Soviet Union (or Russia). It shows how eugenics has different meaning in different nations due to different socioeconomic, cultural, and political contexts. It also goes reviews over some really standard facts that many scholars, who are interested in eugenics, already know about. For example, the documentary mentions Supreme Court cases of sterilization in United States called Buck vs. Bell. It also mentions the founder of eugenics named Francis Galton. These are things that many people who are interested yet new to eugenics would find to be useful bits of information or references. In other words, Homo Sapiens 1900 is a very good starting point to get into some research on the topic of Eugenics. I also want to add that the narrator's voice and tone fits very beautifully with the whole theme of eugenics: it is slow, solemn, dark, and cold. I think it was meant to be that way deliberately to convey how eugenics is a very dark topic in the history of humanity. Furthermore, the director knows how to write scripts very well: the way he introduces the subject from the beginning is very profound and deep.
Now that being said I do have at least one criticism against the documentary. There are some very important information and historical figures in eugenics that the director Peter Cohen briefly goes through without adding in some more important information. For example, while Cohen does go over Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, he hardly gave any basic biographical background of Galton as well as examining what Galton's motives were in researching eugenics. Galton is a statistician, which is an important point to make because he applies statistics to heredity to find out probability of passing on dominant traits. Knowing this is important for Galton since it gives anyone the opportunity to use it apply selective breeding on human population by help passing on positive traits. This is something that Cohen pretty much skipped. Cohen does this similarly with other important figures of Eugenics such as Charles Davenport.
Despite this problem with Homo Sapiens 1900, this is an excellent documentary to watch for anyone especially someone interested in the topic of eugenics.
Nonetheless, I found it somewhat unfortunate that some reviewers judged Homo Sapiens 1900's aesthetics as "depressing". I think the subject of eugenics is depressing one, since it attempts to rationalize oppression of some people as "inferior" in order to promote privileges of other people's reproductive capacities. Eugenics, by its essence, is privileging reproductive practices of some people who are deemed to have "superior" traits by breeding them together, whereas it marginalizes others' reproductive practices by sterilizing them from reproducing to prevent them from passing on "inferior" innate traits. I think the depressing aesthetic is quite appropriate for this subject, so I don't see it as a turn off.
I will concede that Homo Sapiens 1900 may not be the best documentary, it may as well have its flaws or it does not appeal to general audience. However, if one compares it to other documentaries on the subject of eugenics I think this is the best documentary on eugenics yet. Unfortunately, ever since Homo Sapiens 1900, there aren't that many good documentaries on eugenics. I strongly recommend anyone interested in eugenics to watch this documentary.
Homo Sapiens 1900 pretty much is a decent overview of the history of eugenics in America, Germany, Sweden, and Soviet Union (or Russia). It shows how eugenics has different meaning in different nations due to different socioeconomic, cultural, and political contexts. It also goes reviews over some really standard facts that many scholars, who are interested in eugenics, already know about. For example, the documentary mentions Supreme Court cases of sterilization in United States called Buck vs. Bell. It also mentions the founder of eugenics named Francis Galton. These are things that many people who are interested yet new to eugenics would find to be useful bits of information or references. In other words, Homo Sapiens 1900 is a very good starting point to get into some research on the topic of Eugenics. I also want to add that the narrator's voice and tone fits very beautifully with the whole theme of eugenics: it is slow, solemn, dark, and cold. I think it was meant to be that way deliberately to convey how eugenics is a very dark topic in the history of humanity. Furthermore, the director knows how to write scripts very well: the way he introduces the subject from the beginning is very profound and deep.
Now that being said I do have at least one criticism against the documentary. There are some very important information and historical figures in eugenics that the director Peter Cohen briefly goes through without adding in some more important information. For example, while Cohen does go over Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, he hardly gave any basic biographical background of Galton as well as examining what Galton's motives were in researching eugenics. Galton is a statistician, which is an important point to make because he applies statistics to heredity to find out probability of passing on dominant traits. Knowing this is important for Galton since it gives anyone the opportunity to use it apply selective breeding on human population by help passing on positive traits. This is something that Cohen pretty much skipped. Cohen does this similarly with other important figures of Eugenics such as Charles Davenport.
Despite this problem with Homo Sapiens 1900, this is an excellent documentary to watch for anyone especially someone interested in the topic of eugenics.
Nonetheless, I found it somewhat unfortunate that some reviewers judged Homo Sapiens 1900's aesthetics as "depressing". I think the subject of eugenics is depressing one, since it attempts to rationalize oppression of some people as "inferior" in order to promote privileges of other people's reproductive capacities. Eugenics, by its essence, is privileging reproductive practices of some people who are deemed to have "superior" traits by breeding them together, whereas it marginalizes others' reproductive practices by sterilizing them from reproducing to prevent them from passing on "inferior" innate traits. I think the depressing aesthetic is quite appropriate for this subject, so I don't see it as a turn off.
I will concede that Homo Sapiens 1900 may not be the best documentary, it may as well have its flaws or it does not appeal to general audience. However, if one compares it to other documentaries on the subject of eugenics I think this is the best documentary on eugenics yet. Unfortunately, ever since Homo Sapiens 1900, there aren't that many good documentaries on eugenics. I strongly recommend anyone interested in eugenics to watch this documentary.
surprising and unique
chuck-52629 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Initially I was distressed to find the visual part of this presentation is all black and white historical photography, quite a bit of it simply stills. But soon I realized this no-frills presentation was of extraordinary archival materials that I've never ever seen anywhere else. For example I'd never before seen a photograph of Lenin's body being carried on a stretcher immediately after his death. Nor a clip of museum goers ogling a Greek statue of a female that turned out to be a live facsimile. Photostats of actual scientific notebooks and of actual research results, and illustrative photos used at the time, give reality to what could easily be simply unbelievable.
The presentation directly reflects all the in-depth academic research that created it. The advantage of this is the presentation offers no obvious "point of view", leaving it to the viewer to assign some sort of "meaning" to the materials as they wish. The corresponding disadvantage is the presentation jumps a bit from one country to another and one time period to another, with no "overarching theme" or "narrative arc". Possible connections to wider social movements, and even the possible motivations behind various eugenics movements, are largely left to the viewer.
Lots of detailed --and often very surprising-- information is presented. For example I never before understood either just why the USSR was so implacably opposed to mendelian genetics and gave such power to Trofim Lysenko, or that the USSR's attitude toward eugenics underwent a complete flip-flop between the October Revolution and WWII. I never before understood that the German fascination with eugenics was at least in part due to a vagary of academic funding. And I never before knew that in some countries some legal eugenics activities continued even after WWII.
Viewing Homo Sapiens 1900 is obviously not an enjoyable way to spend some spare time. It is though a relatively painless way to absorb some in-depth history that helps explain why things happened as they did in the last century. The material presented is the kind of stuff that could too easily just be ignored as "you've got to be kidding". Making these crazy unbelievable things come to life as academically respectable (and even well-intentioned) is its strength.
The presentation directly reflects all the in-depth academic research that created it. The advantage of this is the presentation offers no obvious "point of view", leaving it to the viewer to assign some sort of "meaning" to the materials as they wish. The corresponding disadvantage is the presentation jumps a bit from one country to another and one time period to another, with no "overarching theme" or "narrative arc". Possible connections to wider social movements, and even the possible motivations behind various eugenics movements, are largely left to the viewer.
Lots of detailed --and often very surprising-- information is presented. For example I never before understood either just why the USSR was so implacably opposed to mendelian genetics and gave such power to Trofim Lysenko, or that the USSR's attitude toward eugenics underwent a complete flip-flop between the October Revolution and WWII. I never before understood that the German fascination with eugenics was at least in part due to a vagary of academic funding. And I never before knew that in some countries some legal eugenics activities continued even after WWII.
Viewing Homo Sapiens 1900 is obviously not an enjoyable way to spend some spare time. It is though a relatively painless way to absorb some in-depth history that helps explain why things happened as they did in the last century. The material presented is the kind of stuff that could too easily just be ignored as "you've got to be kidding". Making these crazy unbelievable things come to life as academically respectable (and even well-intentioned) is its strength.
Could have been good
pdrummond-0526230 August 2019
Parents Beware
deerwalkby24 January 2014
If this film was rated in the United States it would probably be an R. There are several long nude shots with no cited reason for them. I guess they are "art" shots!?! This film seems more appropriate for some film festival, not general distribution, as is currently going on with it being offered on Netflix. Eugenics does have an appropriately distasteful reputation, but this doesn't justify the exploitative use of the human body.
If you want to know more about the history of eugenics google it or look on Wikipedia. The interesting thing is that everybody was into eugenics around the turn of the last century. Nearly every important or celebrated person of the time believed that genetics completely determined the fate of individuals and races. The shape of faces, heads, hands, and bodies were supposed to be important indicators of a person's character. Labeling of people and classes was rampant.
If you want to know more about the history of eugenics google it or look on Wikipedia. The interesting thing is that everybody was into eugenics around the turn of the last century. Nearly every important or celebrated person of the time believed that genetics completely determined the fate of individuals and races. The shape of faces, heads, hands, and bodies were supposed to be important indicators of a person's character. Labeling of people and classes was rampant.
A documentary pretty much ruined by incredibly dull narration and lousy production values.
planktonrules23 June 2014
This film is about the history of the eugenics movement. This was an organized effort by doctors, social scientists and the government to control who breeds and who doesn't in order to strengthen the herd,...I mean 'human race'. Not surprisingly, various prejudices and hatreds were used in forming these ideals--so that THOSE sort of people don't continue breeding like rats! The ideals sound reasonable...if you're breeding dogs or snakes! I was eager to see "Homo Sapiens 1900". Yet, the film turned out to be terribly made--even though the subject matter is compelling. Much of it is because of the insipid narration--dull, without much feeling and stilted. Additionally, while I liked all the vintage footage, having folks TODAY talking about the eugenics movement and discussing their feelings would have made the film lots better. But with your only companion being the very dull narrator, good luck staying awake with this one!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
