LABYRINTH OF LIES/ IM LABYRINTH DES SCHWEIGENS

Germany, 2015, 124 minutes, Colour.
Alexander Fehling, Andre Szymanski, Friederike Becht, Johannes Krisch, Kurt Voss, Tim Williams.
Directed by Giulio Ricciarelli.

In going in to see Labyrinth of Lies, it did not occur to me that a film set in Frankfurt, Germany, in the late 1950s, could serve as a mirror of film for Australia, other organisations and nations - and the Catholic Church - in 2016.

Yet, it does.

The subject of the film is how German society, prospering in the 1950s under Chancellor Adenauer, could put behind it the experience of World War II, the experience of Hitler and the third Reich (which lasted comparatively few years instead of the predicted and hoped-for thousand).

The screenplay of the film suggests that many ordinary Germans, the German middle-class, had very little knowledge of Auschwitz and the concentration camps and of the horrors that were enacted there. The name of Auschwitz seemed quite unfamiliar to so many. A number of the authorities chose not to acknowledge Auschwitz let alone admit to the presence of the prisoners, their treatment, and the mass extermination.

The film features a young lawyer, ambitious, who by chance encounters a journalist challenging the legal authorities by bringing a survivor of Auschwitz to their offices. The chief inspector in Frankfurt throws the page of information into the rubbish bin – with the young man later quietly going to retrieve it, contacting the journalist, being brought into contact with the survivor, going through his locked case and unearthing some incriminating documents. The survivor himself is initially unwilling to collaborate, remembering the fate of his daughters and his inability to help them when they were separated from him and put into the charge of Dr Mengele and subjected to his barbaric experiments. The sequence where he explains his sadness and the tragedy of his girls and of his life, his compassion for his daughter-victims and his feeling towards the man who cruelly abused them, is one of the most moving moments of the film.

The lawyer gets the support of the Attorney General, himself a Jew who had been incarcerated in a concentration camp in 1933. He is encouraged to approach American authorities, the occupying force archives, to retrieve Auschwitz documents which, eventually he does, a truckload of them. He and his associate with the woman who served as a secretary in his office, spend a great deal of time and energy combing through the documents while he accosts some of those mentioned with the intention of arrest.

The powers that be put obstacles in his way at times and in no way is he supported.

The lawyer has a great admiration for his father, a lawyer who had handed onto his son the ideal of the search for truth. When he realises that his father, as all lawyers were expected to be during Hitler’s time, was a signed-up member of the party, he becomes disillusioned, especially as all his attempts to track down Dr Mengele during his secret visits to Germany from Argentina, are thwarted. There is also the complication that the German government is in contact with Mossad who are intent on bringing Eichmann and Mengele to justice but, at the time, prize the return of Eichmann to Israel for trial as more significant.

At the end of the film, with documents, including Commandant signatures on orders for gas and equipment for the camp, German methodical bookkeeping leading to incriminating papers, the audience is told that many of those responsible in Auschwitz were tried in the courts, most found guilty.

The film serves as a gripping investigation, uncovering of secrets, a mission for justice.

And the connection for Australia and the church? In watching the film, one could have substituted a number of times church for Germans, for failure of memory, unwillingness to remember, cover-up and allowing perpetrators to live free lives, untouched by their victims or the victims’ families. In terms of the church and sexual abuse, the parallel is very telling – and discomforting. The German title, has been translated for English-language distribution as Labyrinth of Lies but the German, Im Labyrinth des Scheigwens, even more tellingly, could be translated: in the labyrinths of the silences.

A film that is worth watching in itself and for appreciating something of German postwar history. but, as has been suggested, a film that is mirror to contemporary issues, investigations and hearings.

1. The title? English emphasis on lies? The German emphasis on being in the Labyrinth of silences?

2. 21st century reflection on the 1950s and 1960s and the emergence of the new post-war Germany? The Germans, new prosperity, indifference to action during the war, ignorance of camps like Auschwitz, the refusal to know, the role of the authorities and suppression, the challenges of what to do?

3. The city of Frankfurt, the city and its look, new, prosperity, re-building, business, law? The post-Nazi era? The experience of defeat, the Allied occupation, freedom? The role of Chancellor Adenauer?

4. The style of the times, look, costumes, buildings, the musical score and popular songs?

5. The introduction to Johann, his age, training, rehearsing his death penalty speech in the mirror, the reality of his working on traffic cases? At home, his apartment, arriving late, the judge, Marlene and the payment, his being strict in interpretation of the law, lending her the money?

6. His idealising his father, his antagonism towards his mother, her gift in the draw, her fiance, his anger about him? The visit, her plea for him to be at the wedding, the photo with his father, his father’s exhorting him to truth, his mother indicating that the father belonged to the Nazi party, the devastating effect on Johann?

7. The prologue concerning Auschwitz, the school, 1958, the students, the playground, the teacher, discussions, Simon and not having a match, the offer of the light, his recognising the teacher, going to the journalist? The confrontation with the lawyers, anger? The presentation of the documents, put in the garbage, Johan retrieving them, going to talk with the journalist?

8. The officials, the work in the Attorney General’s office, prosperity not to be disturbed, covering up the past? The role of the Attorney General, his Jewish background, internment in 1933, his aims? The chief investigator and his not wanting anything to happen?

9. Johann, going to see the journalist, his reactions, the invitation to the party, Simon and his art, seeing Marlene, the attraction, the dancing? The visit to Simon, his anger, the journalist and Johann going through his case, the papers, stealing some of them, reading them, opening up the possibilities? The return, Simon and his not wanting to testify? The contact with the agent for prisoners in Auschwitz?

10. Simon, the passion and his memory, the important speech about the death of his daughters? His own feelings of guilt, not realising that they would be taken and killed? Twins? Dr Mengele and his taking them, the torture and death?

11. Johann, going to the American Embassy, the discussion with the official, not wanting to help, gradually changing his mind? Admiring him?

12. The remand story, Marlene and the dress, the party, the wives impressed, placing orders? Her happiness? Johann’s reaction, accusing her father of being a Nazi and the reason for his drinking, pushing the dress to the floor? His return, his bringing his torn coat, the conversation with the torn coat as a symbol of their relationship? Her bringing the coat back, it still being torn and her suggestion that he get a new one?

13. Retrieving the documents about Auschwitz and the staff? The driver refusing to carry them in? Johann, his close associate and the collaborative work, Schmittchen and, her carrying on sorting?

14. The baker, his story, going to meet him, his later fleeing? The official accosted in the street, his arrogance, the teacher, his lawyer and the interview, the lawyer leaving, the teacher and his outburst of anger?

15. Listening to the testimonies, the visual collage of those interrogated? Contrasting with the sadness of those interviewed, the victims? Schmittchen and her taking notes, the emotional effect on her? The commitment to the work?

16. Mengele as a target for Johann, the information, the files, the details of his medical atrocities? His fleeing to Argentina? Coming to Germany, to the city, to visit the family, Johan going to the city, the meal, the hostile reception? Going to the house? The Attorney General urging him not to have Mengele as the target? The meeting with the Mossad agents, the search for Eichmann and Mengele? The source in Mengele’s city, giving him hints, information about Mengele at the airport? The car breaking down, his running, lack of cooperation from the authorities?

17. The news about Eichmann, his going to Israel, the Mossad and the greater interest in Eichmann? The information about Mengele,
escaping to Brazil, his death there in a swimming accident?

18. The huge number of documents, the cases, the detailed work verifying them, cross examinations? Lists, stories, the information about people shot trying to escape? The idea of tracing the business documents, German meticulous keeping of documents, the discovery of the signatures, the interviews with those responsible, the arrests, those arrested and the work they were doing in the 1950s?

19. Simon, his heart attack, the importance of Kaddish for his daughters, asking Johan to do it, Johann unwilling, later apologising? His going with the journalist – whence, observing the site of the camp, the journalist emphasising the stories, their prayer?

20. Johann, his mother, the records about his father, the American officer confirming this? Marlene and her father? His drinking, talking with the journalist, about the phrase of being shot while trying to escape, the journalist explaining that he was in Auschwitz, 17 years old, watching?

21. Johann’s resignation, the attitude of the attorney general, his colleagues, Schmidt and her disgust?

22. Headhunted for the law firm, his acceptance, documents, going to the office, meeting the lawyer for the accused? His change of heart?

23. The challenge to the different generation, the silence? Johann and his coming to his senses, asking what he would have done in similar circumstances, taking on the job again, working with his colleagues? His achievement?

24. Cases, the 1960s, the long months, the range of accused, the numbers, the proofs, the convictions? The change in German consciousness? In succeeding decades, acknowledgement of the concentration camps, of the Holocaust? And the story for the 21st century?