Skip to main content

Ours is the richest banking house in Europe, and we’re still being kicked.

The House of Rothschild

(SPOILERS) Fox’s Rothschild family propaganda pic does a pretty good job presenting the clan as poor, maligned, oppressed Jews who fought back in the only way available to them: making money, lots of lovely money! Indeed, it occurred to me watching The House of Rothschild, that for all its inclusion of a rotter of a Nazi stand-in (played by Boris Karloff), Hitler must have just loved the movie, as it’s essentially paying the family the compliment of being very very good at doing their very best to make money from everyone left, right and centre. It’s thus unsurprising to learn that a scene was used in the anti-Semitic (you might guess as much from the title) The Eternal Jew.

That scene, set in Frankfurt, Prussia in 1780, certainly might not be the best one to forward the notion that The House of Rothschild is sympathetic to the Jewish experience. “Always make them think they’re clever” advises George Arlis’ crafty Mayer Rothschild to wife Gudula (Helen Westley), rubbing his hands in stereotypical fashion, for all the world a proto-Fagin. Relegated to Jew Street and banned from owning property or other means of making a living, the family puts on a show of poverty for the tax collector in highly broad and humorous fashion, hiding their coinage and pretending the smell of their roast belongs to a neighbour. The scene finishes up with haggling for a bribe (“Money is power! Money is the only weapon the Jew has to defend himself with”).

So yes, Hollywood was in there early, massaging the stereotypes, both pro and con, playing up the oppression angle and the justification for untrammelled capitalistic leanings. There was no chance The House of Rothschild was going to introduce a Gordon Gekko moral lesson to the mix. Arliss, who’d won Best Actor four years earlier for Disraeli, shrewdly advises his five sons to set up banking businesses in different countries throughout Europe, developing the art of the balance sheet as a means to avoid the theft of physical funds sent by coach (instead, the brothers will simply send each other letters when funds are required, exchanges offset by loans. Doubtless not usurious when applied to themselves). Sage old Mayer is imparting most of this on his death bed, warning there’ll be many wars in Europe, which is where the Rothschilds come in: “Remember, unity is strength”.

Lest you assumed this were all about money, though, banish the thought: the family will never find happiness until their people are free to trade and walk the Earth with dignity. We duly leap forward 32 years to find five successful bankers led by Nathan (also Arliss) in London. The spectre of Napoleon looms large, but fear not, the brave Rothschild boys are there to save Europe, judiciously funding nations in the war effort, but operating under a strict moral code, for “he told us never to loan money to make wars, always end them. And that’s been our principle”. Nathan’s good pals with snuff-snorting Wellington, who tips him off to a nice little earner from the French rebuilding effort.

Alas, the Rothschild bid is thrown out on technicality (they’re Jewish) and Nathan retaliates with some quite brilliant scheming; running down a previous government bond to ensure the one they’ve been excluded from will bring ruin to its participants, unless they, the Rothschilds, swoop in and save it. We’re continually assaulted with their – and by extension, the Jewish people’s – long-suffering uprightness; Nathan has done more for the Jews of England than any man who ever lived and “It’s queer isn’t it? We fight for the peace of Europe and with peace, we lose our power”.

In due course, however, with dastardly Nazi Karloff encouraging anti-Jewish riots, “That blasted little Corsican is back!” And so, the Rothschilds are needed again. Nathan overrules his brothers’ wish to fund Napoleon, because they should “stand as we always stood, not for war but for peace” and “do what is right for the world”. If this sounds entirely unlike any banking institution that ever existed, I’d hazard even the Rothschilds would were faintly embarrassed by such glowing attributes.

This tale culminates in the ultimate retconned heroic act – Nathan making a packet on the stock market; he’s “risking everything to save the credit of England”. It’s a gambit that leaves him “holding more than any man ever” and the richest man in the world. Wholly deserved, I’m sure you agree. Thus, the movie redresses the popular “myth” that Nathan appeared on the floor of the stock exchange and began selling huge numbers of British Government Bonds, knowing this would induce the belief that Napoleon had won at Waterloo and thus panic selling of bonds en masse. Which Rothschild promptly snapped up cheap, now nicely devalued.

Obviously, many versions of family events are not so glowing. One can go back to the reading of the Bauer family changing their name for nefarious reasons, owing to their really being Khazarians and one of the Satanic bloodlines (The House of Rothschild includes a subplot about daughter Loretta Young’s wish to marry a gentile. Mayer favoured inter-familial marriage: to preserve the gene pool, obviously). Then there’s Mayer being involved in the creation of the Illuminati. And in pitting the American North against the South in aid of a “divide and conquer” strategy. Of course, entertaining any conspiracy theories regarding the Rs, can only means one thing. As opposed to, you know, viewing any tendencies towards the accumulation of great power and wealth as inherently breeding corruption, an arena that can extend from your basic tangible to full-on spiritual warfare.

Why would anyone believe a banker during wartime would veer patriotic (Anthony Sutton has documented how this was very much not the case)? The Independent and Wiki present the case that any slurs against the Rothschild family’s behaviour during the Napoleonic conflict– or just generally – are anti-Semitic in basis, so whether or not they’re warranted becomes irrelevant. Wiki states the idea that the Rothschilds used knowledge to financial advantage was a fiction; rather, they informed the government (predictably, this is the family-sanctioned position). Now, maybe they did (inform the government). But you can bet, if they did, it was because they considered it would be propitious to do so in terms of their long-term financial interests.

It has been suggested that, during the gold scam (not covered in the movie), Nathan was funding Wellington while Jacob was funding Napoleon. One might reason this would simply be the sound business sense of an amoral financier. As all bankers inherently are: the idea that bankers have scruples is, of course, fundamentally laughable, so it is therefore logical to assume, in any given situation, that the morally and ethically unimpeachable angle simply does not come into consideration, withstanding or notwithstanding any legal restrictions on taking that position (banks are, after all, habitually state-sanctioned because the institutions have the real power). And the perfect rebuff, in the Rothschilds case, should concern ever be voiced over such alleged activity, is to dismiss the charges as anti-Semitic. You can’t really go wrong. Even when photos of nightmarish dinner parties show up.

Anything Rothschild related is, then, a rabbit hole and a minefield, not least because it’s almost impossible to navigate without stumbling across leading biases or the attempted avoidance thereof. Bankers are not generally treated to cinematic raves, regardless of their family history. Imagine, for a moment, Gordon Gekko engaged in all the altruistic things Nathan fosters here. What’s that? Money Never Sleeps? Oh, good grief. And just how many countries are there without a Rothschild-owned central bank? Quite clearly, they're for the benefit of the entire world.

While director Alfred L Werker does little very impressive with the frame, Nunnally Johnson’s screenplay (from George Hembert Westley’s play) is frequently very witty. “There he goes, longing for the peace and quiet of the battlefield” observes Nathan of Wellington, departing into a crowd of Press. Called out by a coachman on account of his daughter providing better tips, Nathan responds “Julie has a very rich father, and I don’t”.

The House of Rothschild received just the one Oscar nom, for Best Picture, so I doubt it ever stood in likely stead (twelve were nominated for the top prize that year). One wonders how biopics such as this get financed, but it seems there was a musical too (nominated for a Tony in 1971). One can only assume the family are, or were, keen on such self-promotion, although the movie was, it seems, an Arliss passion project. Which is quite un-Elite-ish. It’s been suggested the picture was, in fact, a misfiring attempt at positive propaganda, but since it’s now largely forgotten, it presumably had little influence either way (well, outside of Nazi Germany). As for the report that Mad Mel is making a movie "coincidentally" titled Rothschild, well on a certain level of movie financing, I guess any publicity is good publicity.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism