The story of Nazi collaborators being brought to justice would not seem interesting anymore in these days, even with the emergence of extreme Nationalistic tendencies in several places out of Germany, but Roland Suso Richter made an intelligent and moving drama, based on a fantasy. Suppose that "The Angel of Death of Auschwitz", Dr. Josef Mengele (who never faced German justice and died in Brazil) had come back to Berlin, selected a bright young lawyer (Peter Rohm) for his defense, and asked to be judged to set the facts straight, or to put it in his words, "to let the Truth be known". The lawyer's only strategy is to interpret Mengele's actions under the medical ethics of his time, and in a way he succeeds to prove that Mengele was just acting according to the common notion in Nazi Germany, that doctors could and should dispense of lives that weren't worth-living. But there's more to it. Although the script (by Johannes W. Betz and Christopher and Kathleen Riley) makes a fine tapestry of past and present (and includes a disturbing final speech by Mengele) and the camera-work by Martin Lager is first rate, director Richter does not incurs in flashy style. His mise-en-scene is elegant and confident, immensely helped by the excellent performances by Götz George as Mengele and Kai Wiesinger as Rohm.
10 Reviews
A close look at the face of evil.
MWillis26 September 1999
This is a disturbing movie, a courtroom drama in which a man claiming to be Josef Mengele voluntarily returns to Germany for trial. He enlists an unwilling lawyer to defend him in a court of law. The lawyer must defend the indefensible, an act he finds personally repugnant but accepts because of a need to understand the holocaust and what let it happen. The answer seems to be that unspeakable evil lurks closer than one might comfortably imagine.
Thriller in today's Germany
bob99813 April 2006
Nichts als die Wahrheit is a very entertaining thriller that I caught on TFO. Dr. Mengele, the evil doctor of Auschwitz, did not die in 1979 but instead returns to Germany of his own free will to face trial for his crimes. The man he chooses as his lawyer is not sure he wants to defend such a brutal man, but says that every man deserves a fair trial. There are the usual types of people on one side or another: neo-Nazis, leftwingers, media people. It gets rough--a man is blown up by a car bomb. The courtroom scenes are usually effective; they show us how Mengele's trial would have been an embarrassment for many people in the new Germany had it actually taken place.
One actor stands out: Gotz George, who I have never seen before, is terrific and terrifying as Mengele. He uses a soft, breathy voice to sinister effect as he plays cat and mouse with everybody, but especially with Rohm, his lawyer. George is made up to look a little like one of the Hellraiser demons.
One actor stands out: Gotz George, who I have never seen before, is terrific and terrifying as Mengele. He uses a soft, breathy voice to sinister effect as he plays cat and mouse with everybody, but especially with Rohm, his lawyer. George is made up to look a little like one of the Hellraiser demons.
Excellent idea!
hng27 September 1999
*No spoilers, all infos included in advertisings to the movie*
This movie is a very brave attempt to ask difficult questions in an unfashionable way. Dr. med. Josef Mengele, the name alone may cause shiver in ones mind. The 'Deathangel of Auschwitz', the beast, a monster, a man!? Richter story actually starts with the doctor arriving in Germany, admitting all he has done... pleading NOT guilty due to the circumstances of his time.
Hardly to believe you might think... so did I, 'till I saw the movie, 'till I heard the argumentation... The movie is no accusation of a political system, a period of time itself, or a single person, it's not even actually a typical 'what-if'. It, too, is no justification for either side. It simple asks the question whether a murder of thousands can be judged or if this is just a little bit out of scale for current laws and minds. If one man was guilty in the past, aren't we all in the present?
The international affect of the topic is too little present. The thriller elements are (IMHO) superfluous and the REAL interesting questions could be more deeply evolved. But nevertheless this movie is worth a ticket or to. Gets a 9/10! I took deep impacts in my conscious... got me troubled.
"If you put aside all answers as lies, still the question remains."
This movie is a very brave attempt to ask difficult questions in an unfashionable way. Dr. med. Josef Mengele, the name alone may cause shiver in ones mind. The 'Deathangel of Auschwitz', the beast, a monster, a man!? Richter story actually starts with the doctor arriving in Germany, admitting all he has done... pleading NOT guilty due to the circumstances of his time.
Hardly to believe you might think... so did I, 'till I saw the movie, 'till I heard the argumentation... The movie is no accusation of a political system, a period of time itself, or a single person, it's not even actually a typical 'what-if'. It, too, is no justification for either side. It simple asks the question whether a murder of thousands can be judged or if this is just a little bit out of scale for current laws and minds. If one man was guilty in the past, aren't we all in the present?
The international affect of the topic is too little present. The thriller elements are (IMHO) superfluous and the REAL interesting questions could be more deeply evolved. But nevertheless this movie is worth a ticket or to. Gets a 9/10! I took deep impacts in my conscious... got me troubled.
"If you put aside all answers as lies, still the question remains."
Brilliant
LeRoyMarko29 March 2001
Excellent movie with Götz George as Mengels. Back in Germany, he's ask about the crimes of the Nazis. Doing that, he questions our own attitude towards crime. It's hard not to get into deep thoughts after seeing «After the truth». The final scene is quiet compelling. It's very interesting to see such a movie coming out in today's Germany.
8 out of 10. 85%
8 out of 10. 85%
A harrowing fantasy about a horror all too real.
libertyvalance23 March 2001
When I saw AFTER THE TRUTH I was absolutely spellbound. Such a monstrous, though in fact, quite simple idea could actually be turned into a film? In Germany? Never! The fact stands that this is a brave and well crafted study of a man's choice between professional opportunity and his personal ethics. Forced to defend The Angel Of Death - Dr. Josef Mengele - his personal life is, understandably, completely turned upside down. The script by Johannes W. Betz manages to alternate convincingly between scenes portraying his inner turmoil and the fascinating encounters with Dr. Mengele. Götz George as Mengele is excellent and it is largely through his brilliant performance that the story is so fascinating and believable. The ending of the film felt a bit like a copout to me but the clever editing and the accomplished direction by Roland Suso Richter never falter. After living in fear that the German cinema was dead and buried, there appears to be new blood to bring it back to life.
An uncommonly courageous film...
Flopper-34 October 1999
This film is absolutely wonderful. Not in the way that it makes you feel good, oh no! It seduces you to try to understand the deeds of one of the most famous and feared Nazis ever: Dr. Josef Mengele. It leads you to the point where you have to declare where your own point of view is located without offering the easy way out...
Think for yourself
BCPMoon8 October 1999
The main idea of this movie -J. Mengele returning to Germany to stand trial- is a brilliant one. Götz Georges´ Mengele gives the impression of superiority whereas the german society of the today seems pale, confronted with him. The truth is not in question here, the killings and experiments in Auschwitz are admitted openly and the main character of lawyer Rohm mainly wants to understand, how such crimes were possible and how a man like Mengele justifies them. And Mengele gives an explanation... Up to this point the movie works perfectly but then too many side characters and side plots are developed that I was not really interested in. But the main question, why his crimes are crimes, stays unanswered and the second half of the movie simply pressed the fact that everybody can get guilty when the circumstances are "right". I missed a good (ethical, philosophical) answer to that. It was not enough, simply to repeat that Mengele is guilty no matter what he says in his defense, not in a movie like this. I think the producers did not trust the (german) viewers to think for themselves.
Right message...sort of
tomakalinus10 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
In the late 90's, Jack and Kathy Riley wrote an excellent script called "After the Truth," a thriller/legal drama about a German lawyer who found himself unwillingly having to defend "the Butcher of Brussels" in court. I was fortunate enough to read a copy of this script before I saw the film; it was exciting and fascinating, and the moral of the story - to cherish every life - was abundantly clear.
Unfortunately, the English-language script ended up getting made by a German production company. Whether something just ended up getting lost in the translation, or whether changes were made for other aesthetic reasons, the finished product doesn't really resemble the original script.
The main character is changed from a sympathetic, family-loving character who is put in a bad situation, into an unsympathetic character who's mean to his wife and seems to partly agree with the "Butcher." As another poster commented, one gets the impression that the "Butcher" thinks of himself as noble and that no one is willing to challenge him on this.
So while I agree that the film doesn't quite work, I would hasten to add that the original intent of the Rileys' script was not truly maintained. So for any potential bad messages in the film, the blame cannot be laid at their feet.
To be fair, the film has some good acting, and there are some chilling moments as well. Besides, this is (I believe) the first German-language film that even acknowledges that the Holocaust ever happened. Surely that's a step forward, isn't it?
Unfortunately, the English-language script ended up getting made by a German production company. Whether something just ended up getting lost in the translation, or whether changes were made for other aesthetic reasons, the finished product doesn't really resemble the original script.
The main character is changed from a sympathetic, family-loving character who is put in a bad situation, into an unsympathetic character who's mean to his wife and seems to partly agree with the "Butcher." As another poster commented, one gets the impression that the "Butcher" thinks of himself as noble and that no one is willing to challenge him on this.
So while I agree that the film doesn't quite work, I would hasten to add that the original intent of the Rileys' script was not truly maintained. So for any potential bad messages in the film, the blame cannot be laid at their feet.
To be fair, the film has some good acting, and there are some chilling moments as well. Besides, this is (I believe) the first German-language film that even acknowledges that the Holocaust ever happened. Surely that's a step forward, isn't it?
You don't need the truth, but you need authenticity and realism
Horst_In_Translation22 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"Nichts als die Wahrheit" (not to be mistaken for the more recent Kate Beckinsale film) is a German movie from 1999, so two more years until this one will have its 20th anniversary. It is based on the novel by Johannes W. Betz and he is also one of the people who worked on the script here. The director is Roland Suso Richter, one of Germany's most known small screen directors and here we have a contender for what is perhaps his most known big screen work. It is a very fictitious work. Yes Dr. Mengele obviously really did exist, but that's all. We get the story of what would have been had he returned to Germany. So half of the film is basically court proceedings. The cast includes Kai Wiesinger in the lead role and Götz George as the cruel Nazi doctor. Huge German film buffs will perhaps recognize more names from the cast. I personally think that they did a good job with depicting Mengele as a cruel know-it-all very intelligent guy and the man who defends him as quite an inexperienced rookie as this also somehow justifies the difference in talent when it comes to George, one of Germany's greatest of all time, and Wiesinger, not one of Germany's greatest of all time. I am still a bit baffled by how he was considered actually a rising star in Germany back then in his early 30s. George was around the age of 60 when he made this film and again received a solid deal of awards attention. And even if I did not like George in here as in many other films, I am still somewhat okay with it.
I am not okay with the awards attention for the film though. It is pretty generic with moments like the main character and his family being in physical danger because of him defending the Nazi doc or with a couple other aspects that really did not feel convincing and just for the sake of cheap thrills. There were two of these especially that were eventually negative deal-breakers and both of these come from the last half hour of this 2-hour film. The first would be the central character's mother suddenly ending up in the witness chair in a somewhat desperate attempt by the filmmakers to add a more personal note. And the second would be the final statement by Wiesinger's character where he basically joins the prosecution. Well.. what can you say about that? Sure he was having moral doubts about what he did, but still I personally felt that it made a really cringeworthy impression in being an attempt to finish the film on a most controversial note and also in making Wiesinger's character more likable. But he loses all professional credibility to me in that scene and I also believe that it went so strongly against a whole lot we saw earlier from this character. It just did not make any sense whatsoever. And eventually George also could not make up for these two crucial flaws that finally force me to give this one a thumbs-down. You can maybe call it a poor man's version of the truly excellent "Totmacher", another German movie from the 1990s, 4 years before this one. But back to "After the Truth": It's such a shame they sacrificed realism and authenticity here for controversial unrealistic developments. The general plot idea is a good one and with the cast at their disposal this should have been a way better film than it eventually turned out to be. Watch something else instead.
I am not okay with the awards attention for the film though. It is pretty generic with moments like the main character and his family being in physical danger because of him defending the Nazi doc or with a couple other aspects that really did not feel convincing and just for the sake of cheap thrills. There were two of these especially that were eventually negative deal-breakers and both of these come from the last half hour of this 2-hour film. The first would be the central character's mother suddenly ending up in the witness chair in a somewhat desperate attempt by the filmmakers to add a more personal note. And the second would be the final statement by Wiesinger's character where he basically joins the prosecution. Well.. what can you say about that? Sure he was having moral doubts about what he did, but still I personally felt that it made a really cringeworthy impression in being an attempt to finish the film on a most controversial note and also in making Wiesinger's character more likable. But he loses all professional credibility to me in that scene and I also believe that it went so strongly against a whole lot we saw earlier from this character. It just did not make any sense whatsoever. And eventually George also could not make up for these two crucial flaws that finally force me to give this one a thumbs-down. You can maybe call it a poor man's version of the truly excellent "Totmacher", another German movie from the 1990s, 4 years before this one. But back to "After the Truth": It's such a shame they sacrificed realism and authenticity here for controversial unrealistic developments. The general plot idea is a good one and with the cast at their disposal this should have been a way better film than it eventually turned out to be. Watch something else instead.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
