Talk:Conspiracy (2001 film)

Severe non-POV language in the Style section
POV

Could someone PLEASE rewrite this article. It should be WAY more objective. My interpretation of the film differs COMPLETELY from the opinion in this article. PLEASE change it. The article is not only an insult to the film but to the intelligence of the average person aswell.


 * I agree. WAY too much synthesis of personal interpretation for an article that's supposed to be completely objective. These articles are supposed to just state the facts and leave it at that, not throw out its own theories and interpretations. That's original research. And even if the interpretation can be attributed to a reliable source, the article needs to state who says it rather than presenting it as if it's dogmatic fact.--169.233.5.115 (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree. The description in this article, if accurate, reveals that the movie was heavily dramatized for public consumption and comprehension, i.e. the movie's representation of what happened at the Wannsee Conference apparently does not conform with the historical record. This fact should be noted in the article. Just read the description of the (heavily sourced) article "Wannsee Conference" on WP. Heydrich did not explicitly discuss gassing the Jews as a solution; ultimately killing many of them by slave labor was explicit but other methods were implicit. Conference attendees already knew that the Jews were being murdered in Europe. According to Eichmann, explicit discussion of methods of extermination or liquidation only took place after Heydrich's formal presentation and formal questions. In his trial in Israel, Eichmann described Heydrich's satisfaction that all the conference attendees agreed with his plans; no explicit disagreements or concerns by attendees were noted either in Eichmann's censored minutes or in his trial testimony. According to a prominent historian, the purpose of the conference was simply to obtain complicity among the attendees so that Heydrich and Eichmann would henceforth carry out their final solution without interference, which is exactly what happened. Frankly, I need to watch this film myself and see what it really portrays, since I don't know if the article's description of the film is accurate, much less historical. Steven (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't we just agree that the play was based on a published precis and that dramatic license has been excercised in the production.58.11.188.211 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * To be precise: dramatic license has been excercised to the point of becoming ahistorical to a serious degree. Uujjuu (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The German film
The German film Die Wannseekonferenz -- in English, The Wannsee Conference (see IMDB entry) -- is entirely ignored in this article, even though, as far as I can tell, the American film is a fairly faithful remake of the German one. This strikes me as an extremely serious omission, especially with the discussion in the "Themes" section that suggests that these choices were original to the later film. I concede that I saw the two films fairly far apart, so they might be more different than I'd remembered, but surely the fact that there was an earlier film that took the same approach of treating the conference in real time, must at least be dealt with. --Trovatore 08:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS -- I've added a stub at The Wannsee Conference (film); this could be expanded/linked to. --Trovatore 08:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not seen Die Wannseekonferenz but the IMDB entry suggests that it is a "precise, real-time [...] reenactment of the Wannsee Conference." This is impossible, because the only existing record of what happened at the conference is Martin Luther's copy of the minutes, and it incidentally demonstrates the wisdom of WP's advice that IMDB is not to be trusted as a source (I have myself chafed at that guideline in the past, but I now see the point of it).  The stenographical transcript of the conference was destroyed, so a "precise, real-time reenactment" is out of the question.  Any film that dramatises the conference must be a fictionalised reconstruction based on the minutes.  I don't see why an experienced screenwriter like Loring Mandel couldn't reconstruct the conference himself based on his own research, just as the German writer could have done the same: there is a mountain of stuff in the public domain relating to Wannsee and to Nazi policy.  Since nobody from the Conspiracy team has ever, to my knowledge, stated that Conspiracy is a remake of Die Wannseekonferenz, I do not see the point of suggesting that it was such.  There might be a point in suggesting that there is an earlier film on the same subject, but since the American film has never claimed to be a remake, then to suggest that it is one anyway comes close to accusing the Conspiracy team of plagiarism. Incidentally, Conspiracy is not a "precise, real-time reenactment" of the Wannsee Conference.  It elides time, leaves out parts of the discussion and brings in other story elements which are not reflected in the conference minutes at all. Lexo (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * as a contemporary SPIEGEL article points out, "Die Wannseekonferenz" is almost as embellished as a fantasy film. tons of fake info in there. Uujjuu (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Both the German and the film in question are fiction. The content isn't warranted by the documentation in any way. And yes, I realize there are problems with the Wannsee-protocol as well, something that the Wannsee museum refuses to acknowledge, though. 105.12.7.38 (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Conspiracy-film.jpg
Image:Conspiracy-film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of SS runes in a version of this film
I saw a version of this movie in which the right hand collar insignia of the SS and SD officers (the SS runes) had been edited out leaving a very odd looking black space. Does anyone know hwy this was done and in what version it was? I notice they didn't bother to edit out any swastikas - presumably an even more major and offensive Nazi symbol. Seems odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.252.139 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

These are not Waffen SS uniforms. The blank spaces in the insignia badges indicates that these are uniforms of SD and Gestapo. Ranks lower then colonel in SD and Gestapo had no insignia on collar patches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.67.97.117 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies?
I watched the movie last night.

I disagree with two sentences in article.

"Heydrich later reflects that a similar fate awaits them if they allow their lives to revolve around antisemitism."

This sentence implies Heydrich's agreed with the point and, worse, that Heydrich had reservations about the "final solution". Actually,this is Kritzinger's point and reservations about the final solution. Heydrich had no reservations and said, "I will not miss them [Jews]."

Therefore, I suggest keeping the interpretation of the story, but remove the reference to Heydrich.

The second sentence is "...all records of the meeting destroyed as if it had never happened."

This sentence is not true. Each participant received a heavily edited summary of the discussion. After the war Martin Luther's copy was found. This is how we know about the meeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarippel (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the above is not strictly true either. Heydrich did ask Eichmann to edit and generalize the conference discussion by using "office language" (you can read an English translation of Eichmann's minutes at http://prorev.com/wannsee.htm), thus leaving out explicit reference to deliberate killing, murder, or extermination. All copies of Eichmann's generalized and deliberately sanitized minutes were destroyed except for Luther's, but Eichmann was quite forthcoming about what was actually verbally discussed during his trial and pre-trial testimony to Israeli interrogators. That record is available.

On another point, Kritzinger didn't express his reservations until after the war. At the conference he kept those reservations to himself, but the movie producers apparently wanted at least one Nazi to have a conscience in their depiction to dramatize the situation.

On yet another point, contrary to a comment above, ranks lower than colonel (Standartenführer) the SS, SD, and Gestapo did always have insignia on their collar patches. The left collar patch always indicated one's rank. However, it is true that the Waffen-SS had the SS rune insignia on the right collar patch and this was not the case for the SD or Gestapo. Steven (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Obergruppenf%C3%BChrer Reinhard Heydrich is wearing the wrong collar insignia in the film: his gorget patch shown in the film is that of a Gruppenf%C3%BChrer (which is one rank below his actual rank) - it has only one dot and should have two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.122.102 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Herr Kritzinger is diplayed 100% ahistorical. His boss Lammerts ran Tiergartenstrasse 4 (T4, mentioned by Eichmann), next door to T3, which is Hitler's chancellery aka "neue Reichskanzlei". There never was one iota of air between Führer and chancellery, Hitler’s foremost power center. Note that Bühler is not Herr Bouhler of T4 fame. In reality, Klopfer was the highest ranking guy in the room, and Gestapo-Müller was Eichmann’s boss. Uujjuu (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Filming Locale
Nothing here on where it was filmed. By chance was it filmed at the actual Wannsee villa? -- Un sch  ool  06:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, some outside shots of the venue, the villa, was the real thing. Uujjuu (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conspiracy (2001 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304085729/http://www.austinfilm.org/page.aspx?pid=3341 to http://www.austinfilm.org/page.aspx?pid=3341

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

"specially designed trucks"
Those trucks were neither purpose-designed nor specially designed. They were simple adaptations and low tech, low cost modifications of run–off–the–mill vans. Uujjuu (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)