Rosenstrasse (2003)

Rosenstrasse is a historical movie that is inspired by a true story: events that took place in Rosenstrasse in Berlin in February and March 1943. It premiered in 2003. In 2004 and 2006 it was released on DVD. Here is some basic information about it:

** Director: Margarethe von Trotta

** Producers: Henrik Meyer, Richard Schöps & Markus Zimmer

** Writers: Pamela Katz and Margarethe von Trotta

** Soundtrack: German

** Subtitles: German, English and Italian (the version from 2006, not the version from 2004)

** Run time: 130 minutes

There are two time-lines in this movie:

# 1. THE PRESENT

New York and Berlin; the year is 1995 or 2000 (see more below)

# 2. THE PAST

Berlin; the time is February-March 1943

The movie begins in New York and in the present. The history of the past is told through a series of flashbacks to Berlin in 1943. Some characters appear in both timelines.

The cast includes the following:

** Katja Riemann as Lena Fischer (age 33) (the past)

** Doris Schade as Lena (age 90) (the present)

** Martin Feifel as Fabian Fischer (Lena’s husband) (the past)

** Jürgen Vogel as Arthur von Eschenbach (Lena’s brother) (the past)

** Jutta Lampe as Ruth Weinstein (age 60) (the present)

** Svea Lohde as Ruth (age 8) (the past)

** Jutta Wachowiak as Mrs Goldberg (the past)

** Jan Declair as Mr Goldberg (the past)

** Maria Schrader as Hannah Weinstein (Ruth’s daughter) (the present)

** Fedja van Huet as Luis Marquez (Hannah’s fiancé) (the present)

Rosenstrasse is a historical movie, i.e. a fictional story that is placed in a historical context. In this case, the historical context is an event that took place in Rosenstrasse, Berlin, in February and March 1943.

Since this movie is inspired by a true story, the basic facts are part of the historical record. They are not a secret. Therefore I feel free to mention some of them here.

While this movie is inspired by a true story, it is not a documentary film. Some details have been added or changed. Not everything happened exactly as shown in the movie, but the basic story-line is true.

The movie begins in New York and in the present. Ruth Weinstein has just lost her husband, and suddenly she becomes more Jewish than she has ever been. She insists that the family must follow Jewish traditions when mourning her dead husband. Her children cannot recognize their own mother.

Hannah wants to know why her mother is acting in this way. But Ruth offers no explanation. Hannah realizes that she knows next to nothing about her mother’s early life. She knows she was born in Germany and that she came to the US as a child, but what happened in Germany and how did she get to the US? When Hannah tries to ask, Ruth refuses to answer.

Mourners visit the family. Among them is Ruth’s cousin who tells Hannah that Ruth was saved by a German woman, Lena Fischer, who took her in and protected her during the war. When Hannah mentions this to her mother, there is still no answer.

By now, Hannah has become interested in the case. She wants to know the whole story. Therefore she decides to go to Berlin in order to find out if Lena Fischer is still alive. If she is, she will try to meet with her and talk to her in order to find out what happened to Lena and to Ruth during the war.

Once in Berlin, Hannah learns that Lena is still alive. She is 90 years old, but ready to meet with Hannah and talk to her. At first, Hannah does not reveal who she is. She has a cover story: she says she is a US historian who wants to study the history of mixed marriages in Germany while the Nazi Party was in power (1933-1945).

Over the next several days, Lena tells her story, focusing on what happened in Rosenstrasse in February and March 1943. This was where she first met Ruth.

In 1943, many Jews were still living in Berlin. They were protected, because they had a German (Aryan) spouse. Most of them were men who had married a German woman. On 27 February these Jews were rounded up and detained in a building in Rosenstrasse. They assumed the next step would be deportation to a concentration camp where they were going to be killed. Their spouses made the same assumption. Once they learned where their husbands were detained, they gathered in the street outside the building.

Day by day, this gathering turned into something unexpected and unthinkable: a public demonstration against the Nazi authorities in the middle of the capital. The women were told to go home, but they refused to back down. They said they wanted to have their husbands back. They defied the power of the state. Day after day. In spite of the freezing winter.

After one week, on 6 March, the Jews who had been detained, were released. Without any explanation. It seemed as if the power of the female demonstrators had forced the German state to surrender.

Once released, these Jews were protected in the same way as they had been before: by being a part of a mixed marriage. Life was not easy. It was difficult and dangerous. But nearly all of them survived the war.

In the movie, Lena is one of the women demonstrating in Rosenstrasse. Ruth comes to this street as well. She says her mother is inside. But Ruth is all alone. And she is only 8 years old. Lena feels sorry for her, so she takes her in. When her husband Fabian is released, she tells him that Ruth will stay with them. He has no objection.

What about Ruth’s mother? She was not released. She was married to a Jewish man. There was no protection for her. She was deported to a concentration camp where she was killed.

In 1945, Ruth was allowed to go the US where she had family. She survived the war. But she lost her mother two times in two years: in 1943 her biological mother and in 1945 her second mother (Lena).

This is the story that is told in the movie. The story that Hannah’s mother refused to tell her daughter.

What do reviewers say about this movie? On IMDb it has a rating of 68 per cent, which corresponds to 3.4 stars on Amazon. On the German version of Amazon there are 15 reviews of this product. The average rating is 3.6 stars. If you ask me, both these average ratings are too high. Why?

This movie is about an important but little-known chapter of German history. The director wants the world to know about it. She has good intentions, but good intentions do not guarantee a good result.

This chapter of German history deserves to be told, but in this movie it is not done very well. There are several flaws. Some of them quite serious. They cannot be described as minor. Let me explain:

# 1. The structure of the movie is most unfortunate. The introduction in New York is way too long and - to put it bluntly - completely irrelevant, completely unnecessary. It takes about half an hour until we get to Rosenstrasse in Berlin in 1943, which is the main topic.

Why do we have to start with Ruth and her refusal to talk to her family in New York? Why not go straight to Lena Fischer, who is after all the key witness?

# 2. The movie implies that Lena went to bed with Dr Goebbels – Nazi Minister of Propaganda – and that this is the reason why the Jews were released. This implication is nonsense.

On IMDb, one reviewer writes:

“Lena did not sleep with Goebbels. Although this may have seemed implied, it was not the intent. Von Trotta told me so herself! (And she is a very nice lady, by the way!)”

If the director did not wish to make this implication, why did she edit her film the way she did? Step 1. We see Lena at a party for Nazi leaders. Step 2. We see Lena talking to Goebbels, trying to charm him. Step 3. The very next day the Jews are released.

The implication is clear. But it is not supported by any evidence. Therefore this part of the movie does not make any sense.

# 3. There are factual errors in the movie. Here is one example: Most of the Jews in Rosenstrasse wear the Jewish star on their clothes. This is historically wrong. Since they had a non-Jewish (Aryan) spouse, they were exempted from wearing the Jewish star.

The actors are probably wearing the Jewish star for the benefit of the audience, i.e. the viewers. We are used to seeing Jews with the Jewish star in movies about World War Two, so the costume department made sure that all actors were equipped with a Jewish star. They did not bother to check if this detail was historically correct or not.

# 4. The internal chronology of the movie is flawed. There are two timelines: the past and the present. The past is in 1943, but when is the present? This is never stated clearly anywhere. There is some indirect information, but this information is conflicting:

In the past, Ruth is 8 and Lena is 33. The difference between them is 25 years. Based on this information, we can tell that Ruth was born in 1935, while Lena was born in 1910. In the present, Ruth is 60 and Lena is 90. By now the difference between them is 30 years! How did this happen?

Ruth was born in 1935. When she is 60, we are in 1995. Lena was born in 1910. When she is 90, we are in the year 2000! So when is the present? In 1995 or 2000?

Apparently, the movie-makers did not realize that the information they offered about the fictional characters does not add up.

# 5. What is the message of this movie? Organize a demonstration and you will get what you want! The authorities will back down! If 200 women could force the Nazi state apparatus to release 2,000 prisoners, the obvious question is: could the Holocaust have been avoided by a few powerful demonstrations?

What happened in Rosenstrasse is not in dispute. Why this happened is the subject of an intensive debate among historians and activists. It is possible to identify at least three interpretations of the case:

(A) The people who support this option say the women’s demonstration was so forceful that the Nazi state had to back down. By extension they say that if only more Germans had been prepared to demonstrate against Nazi policy at an earlier date, it might have been possible to stop the Nazi government before the outbreak of the war in 1939, thus preventing the Holocaust.

(B) The people who support this option say the timing of the case is significant. The demonstration took place when Germany had a weak moment. Germany had just lost the battle of Stalingrad and German forces were in retreat. Goebbels had just declared total war. It was important for him and the Nazi Party to show that the German people was united in their support of the German state.

The demonstrating women were an embarrassment. But Goebbels did not want to have them arrested or killed. The story might get out. And this would mean bad publicity for the German government. Goebbels decided the best way to deal with this problem was to remove the cause. Release the prisoners and the demonstration would be over. He probably thought that he could always round them up again at a later date.

According to this option, the demonstration did force the German government to back down, but the only reason it worked was because of the timing and the particular case. The government offered a small concession in order to avoid a big problem.

(C) The people who support this option say that the German authorities never intended to deport the Jews who were detained in Rosenstrasse. They were only rounded up because the government wanted to register them. Once this was done, they would be released. Therefore the demonstration was unnecessary and did not force the German government to do anything it did not want to do.

If you ask me, option A is too optimistic, too romantic. The Nazi government could not have been stopped by a few forceful demonstrations in the 1930s.

Option C is unrealistic, implausible. These Jews were already registered. That is why the government had been able to round them up in the first place. If they merely wanted to register them, why did they keep them locked up for a whole week?

As far as I can see, that leaves option B as the most realistic and most convincing interpretation.

We might assume Margarethe von Trotta would support option A, because she is a well-known feminist. And most of her movie does point in that direction, but then – all of a sudden - she gives us the short section about Lena and Goebbels, and after this point her story is completely derailed.

I would like to like this movie, because the case is so interesting and so important. But as you can see, it has some flaws which cannot be ignored. I have to remove at least two stars because of them. Therefore I think it deserves a rating of three stars.

PS # 1. The following review of the movie is available online: Manohla Dargis, “Revisiting a Berlin Protest That Changed Nazi Plans,” New York Times, 20 August 2004.

PS # 2. For more information, see the following books:

** Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany by Nathan Stoltzfus (1996, 2001)

** Widerstand in der Rosenstrasse by Wolf Gruner (2005, 2015)

** Frauenprotest in der Rosenstrasse by Gernot Jochheim (1993, 2002)

PS # 3. For more information, see the following article: Beate Meyer, “Geschichte im Film: Judenvervolgung, Mischehen und der Protest in der Rosenstrasse 1943,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtsforschung, vol. 52, 2004, pp. 23-36. A short version of this article is available on H-Net (Humanities & Social Sciences Online).

PS # 4. Beate Meyer is co-editor of the book Jews in Nazi Berlin published by the University of Chicago Press in 2009. This volume includes a chapter about the protest in Rosenstrasse in 1943.

PS # 5. PS # 5. Today there is a monument for the women’s demonstration in Berlin. It was created by the German artist Ingeborg Hunzinger. It was dedicated in 1995. The name is Block der Frauen. The monument is located in a park near the place where the building stood during the war (the building does not exist anymore).

PS # 6. A recent parallel to the women’s demonstration in Berlin in 1943 is the case of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires. They marched for several years to protest against the military regime which ruled Argentina 1976-1983. They wanted to know what had happened to their missing husbands and/or children. The marching began in 1977. The final march took place in 2006.

*****

 

 Block der Frauen by Ingeborg Hunzinger

Berlin, 1995

*****