utgard14 Exceptional movie starring George Arliss as the head of the Rothschilds, a Jewish family of bankers who deal with anti-Semitism in 19th century Europe. Fascinating from a historical perspective as well as entertaining. It certainly stands out for the time period. I think the word Jew was used more in this movie than in all other Golden Age Hollywood movies I've seen combined. George Arliss is terrific. Loretta Young plays his daughter. She looks very pretty and while this is hardly one of her top performances, she holds her own against veteran actors well. Boris Karloff is the villain and does a fine job. The rest of the cast includes Robert Young, C. Aubrey Smith, William Mowbray, Reginald Owen, and Arthur Byron, among others. The script is smart and the story is enjoyable on its own as well as when viewed as a commentary on the goings-on in Germany at the time. Final scene is shot in early Technicolor. One of the most exciting movies about banking ever made. Okay, it's about more than that, but the point still stands.

blakea-66282 These Shylock hucksters have been in business for a VERY long time....and indeed they had this made in order to appeal to the nations they ruled in. They just finished several of their wars (WWI Bolshevism french rev) and now they are embarking on WWII...they needed some sympathy for them and their ilk. Well, here is the pretty piece of propaganda that helped curb rampant public sentiment towards them and those who benefit from them. And here we are yet again, in more wars, more bankster corruption and more media lies...welcome to 1984 meets brave new world...even as Barbara Lerner Specter and her ilk have forced the mass immigration of black and middle east radicals into the west...and we see the results...look to these MoneyMasters for your answers...not in what they say, but in what they've done.

howdymax A dramatic, inter-generational history of the House of Rothchild. Most people have a vague notion of the Rothchild banking dynasty, but like me, probably didn't know the history and pain that went with it. This story covers the origin and evolution of that dynasty and an explanation of it's motivation. The story centers around the elder brother, Nathan, played by George Arliss and his four brothers. I have to admit that I never saw the George Arliss magic until I saw this picture. He really was a major talent, although he was quite old when he did this. We see the family breaking out of "Jew Street" in Frankfurt, and establishing banks throughout Europe while struggling to overcome anti-semitic attitudes and actual pogroms. There are some personal vignettes involving Loretta Young as Nathan's daughter and her goy suitor played by Robert Young that tend to humanize the family but really don't amount to much. The real story is the family drive to help stabilize a war ravaged Europe and through it, command the respect of a deeply anti-semitic aristocratic European society. The picture paints a rather pastel version of what was probably a grueling battle for acceptance, but it managed to convey a feeling of warmth and respect for the underdog. There are some very nice touches. The family members all touch the mezuzah each time the enter or leave the house. Everybody kisses Mama, and George Arliss shows what appears to be a real tenderness whenever he interacts with Loretta Young. The brothers never appear to be avaricious, but rather an integrated force of will, determined to succeed, yet determined to play by the rules. All in all, an enjoyable and informative docu-drama. Well worth the 90 minutes.

theowinthrop HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD concentrates on anti-Semitism, and the struggle of the Jews to get equality and recognition from their Gentile neighbors. It's presentation of the problem is simplistic, but given the time that this film was produced it was amazing that any attempt was made to attack anti-Semitism at all. In 1934 Adolph Hitler was Chancellor of Germany one year already. Strong anti-Semitic strains were felt all over Europe and the U.S. - in fact in most of the world. It took some courage to make any jab at it, and producer Darryl Zanuck (a non-Jewish Hollywood film studio head - a rarity) had plenty of that. He would repeat this in fourteen years producing GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT.George Arliss first plays the head of the famous banking family, Mayer Amschel Rothschild. A stereotypical Jewish money lender, he dies of a stroke after confronting the bullying, greedy tax men. Before he dies he tells his five sons two things: 1) The gentiles have prevented the Jews from competing in the regular professions leaving them in the role of money lenders. But the gentiles have thus put money into the hands of the Jews as an only weapon. So it should be used to force the gentiles to emancipate the Jews from their awful ghettos.2) The boys should establish an international bank in London, Paris, Vienna, Frankfort, and Naples. They would be in a good position to build a mighty economic weapon to use against the Jews' foes, so that (as Mayer says) the Jews can live with dignity.For most of the picture Arliss plays Nathan Rothschild, who is lucky enough to be set up in London. The five branch bank soon is one of the great financial institutions of the world. Nathan has managed to support the British Government and it's allies in the wars against Napoleon. But after Napoleon is sent to Elba the British and their allies (led by the German, Count Ledranz) are freezing the Rothschilds out of a major bond issue. Nathan realizes that this is due to the anti-Semitic Ledranz, and uses his position at the stock exchange to bear down on the bond issue, threatening to ruin the men who are pushing the issue. Hastily calling a meeting, Lord Baring (Arthur Byron) prevails on the aristocrats to let Rothschild in for a share of the bond issue. Ledranz does it with ill-feeling, warning Nathan that this is not the end of the matter.Shortly afterward there are pogroms all over central Europe. As Ledranz (Boris Karloff, in a splendidly evil performance without) puts it,"The House of Rothschild - The House with the Red Shield: I'll make it RED!" There is little Nathan can do about this. But shortly afterward Napoleon escapes from Elba, throwing the alliance (especially Ledranz) off balance. They need Nathan to stabilize the stock exchange, or the Little Corsican will win an easy victory against them. And (although they don't know this) Napoleon has already reached out to Nathan with a counter-proposition: help him and Jewish Emancipation is assured.That Nathan throws his support to the alliance is no real surprise. He feels that if he supports Napoleon the image of the Jews suffers with the bulk of the Gentiles - they traffic in human lives and blood. But he does save the stock exchange, and he ends having proved that the Jews can be as good citizens as their Gentile counterparts.How true is the story? Well I recommend Frederic Morton's classic book THE ROTHSCHILDS to get the accurate story. Mayer Rothschild was the financial agent of the Prince of Hesse-Cassel. The money made from the renting of Hessian troops was shepherded by Mayer into a vast fortune, and he got a commission. It staked out (and trained) his five sons, who did make their private bank the biggest in the world.The French Revolution had announced that the Jews were equals of the Gentiles (the bill ending French legal discrimination against the Jews was presented by Maximillian Robespierre!). Napoleon reestablished it, and (in 1807) called the first meeting of the Jewish Sanhedrin since 70 A.D. Whether he did this for publicity or he meant it is still debated. The spread of the reform by the Revolutionary and Napoleonic armies achieved was hurt by the reaction in Europe after Napoleon's final defeat in 1815.Ledranz is a splendid villain (and a German one, for all that). But he appears to be based on Prince Claus Von Metternich, the Chancellor of the Austrian Empire. In fact, although he probably had some social anti-Semitism, Von Metternich was quite friendly to the Rothschilds, and he figured out a way of allowing them to be ennobled in Austria and in the German states. The film does seem a little simplistic. There is no reference to the blood libel as such, or to the blame Christianity placed on the Jews for the death of Jesus. And to make a case that economic muscle alone would change people's minds was silly and short sighted. It could equally awaken jealousy and hatred for a successful people. But that it was advanced at all in 1934, and that the film was an attempt to confront a hideous, growing problem, was deserving of praise. Ironically it was too little, too late. Goebbels would produce an anti-Semitic film called THE ROTHSCHILDS during World War II, and his pet director Veidt Hartmann would direct THE ETERNAL JEW (where Jews were compared to rats, and scenes from HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD appear to have been cut in). Hartmann would also direct JUD SUSS, regarding another Jewish financier of an earlier period, who was hung for "crimes" - of course, Hartmann insisted he Jud Suss Oppenheimer was guilty of those crimes. So, for all the good intentions of Zanuck and Arliss and the others, history had a dreadful commentary awaiting in the wings.