Review: Conspiracy (dir. by Frank Pierson)


“We will not sterilize every Jew and wait for them to die. We will not sterilize every Jew and then exterminate the race. That’s farcical.” — Reinhardt Heydrich

HBO’s Conspiracy (2001) masterfully dramatizes the infamous Wannsee Conference, held on January 20, 1942, where high-ranking Nazi officials orchestrated the Final Solution. The film’s running time mirrors the historical meeting itself, distilling one of the darkest moments in history into a single, chilling sitting that balances historical fidelity, psychological insight, and dramatic restraint. The premise is stark and deceptively simple: a group of men, most of whom had never previously met, gather in a sun-drenched villa outside Berlin to discuss systematic mass murder while enjoying fine food and polite conversation. This contrasting setting, rendered with careful attention to period detail, powerfully underscores what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil.” In Conspiracy, evil is not the property of villainous caricatures, but of functionaries and technocrats—chillingly rational and disturbingly mundane.

Much of the film unfolds in real time, utilizing dialogue taken from the sole surviving minutes of the Wannsee Conference. Screenwriter Loring Mandel and director Frank Pierson avoid unnecessary embellishments, allowing the facts and the conversations themselves to carry the full, horrifying weight. Kenneth Branagh gives an Emmy-winning performance as Reinhard Heydrich, the orchestrator and presiding presence at the conference. Branagh’s portrayal is both urbane and authoritative, presenting Heydrich as a figure whose affable composure thinly veils his unwavering commitment to genocide. There is no soaring rhetoric or overt menace; Heydrich’s evil is presented with administrative casualness, making it all the more chilling.

Stanley Tucci is equally compelling as Adolf Eichmann, Heydrich’s logistical right hand and the architect of the machinery of death. Tucci infuses Eichmann with a quiet efficiency and bureaucratic pride—a portrait of a man more attached to process than morality, disturbingly bland in his demeanor. The supporting cast is no less impressive. Colin Firth, as Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, portrays a legal architect of Nazi race law who appears increasingly unsettled as the agenda shifts from disenfranchisement to extermination. Each attendee is rendered with psychological nuance. Some are disturbingly enthusiastic about their roles, while others are quietly apprehensive, yet ultimately complicit. These subtle gradations of doubt, ambition, and opportunism animate the film’s psychological landscape.

The dialogue, rooted in the actual transcript and skillful dramatic writing, eschews melodrama. The horror emerges not through spectacle, but in analytic exchanges about logistics, quotas, and definitions—the cold calculus of genocide. The men’s debates around how to classify mixed-race Jews, whether sterilization is preferable to extermination, and who should be spared create a bureaucratic puzzle as vile as its intent. Their discussions are delivered in a neutral, even mundane tone, which heightens the chilling reality of what they are planning. Pierson’s direction is restrained; the film never leaves its confined setting, emphasizing the claustrophobic mood of collective complicity. The camera lingers on faces rather than violence, building tension through small gestures—a glance, a pause, the clinking of glassware. The impact of what is said is matched only by the weight of what goes unsaid, until Heydrich, in a quietly devastating moment, makes the true purpose explicit.

More than a simple history lesson, Conspiracy meditates on themes of collective guilt, moral responsibility, and the terrifying ease with which ordinary people become accessories to atrocity. The film is haunted by bureaucracy; if everyone is “just following orders” or “simply doing their job,” the boundaries of blame blur and diffuse. The characters’ debates skillfully skirt the language of murder, favoring euphemisms such as “evacuation” or “resettlement.” This allows viewers to witness, in real time, the kind of moral erosion that enables atrocity on a massive scale. The dry, matter-of-fact tone of the film deepens its emotional impact, forcing the audience to comprehend that such horrors were conjured not in a frenzy, but in calm administrative exchanges over lunch.

For both historians and general audiences, Conspiracy earns praise for its meticulous adherence to historical detail. The screenplay closely follows the Wannsee minutes, and the film’s design choices—muted score, period-accurate costumes, and careful pacing—all serve to render bureaucratic evil as mundane and unremarkable. This unwavering restraint, however, does impose certain limits. The film’s dramatic arc is inherently subdued; the absence of conventional action or narrative tension makes it unfold like an extended negotiation rather than a traditional drama. Some viewers may find this lack of overt conflict stifling or static, resulting in a work that feels more “important” than “entertaining,” but this is clearly by design.

Conspiracy received widespread acclaim for both its historical gravity and psychological depth. Branagh and Tucci, in particular, were celebrated for their nuanced performances. The film is often cited as a model example of how the “banality of evil” operates—not through monsters, but through functionaries in tailored uniforms, sipping wine and rationalizing extermination. For those unfamiliar with the events, the manner in which these men discuss matters of life and death with casual detachment is shocking. As one critic noted, “Most people believe they know what evil looks like… But in Conspiracy, men of true evil met in pristine, gorgeous surroundings… and go about their business leisurely… with a smile and barely a hint of remorse.”

Within the canon of Holocaust cinema, Conspiracy stands apart from films like Schindler’s List or The Pianist, which focus on the suffering and survival of victims. Instead, it occupies a space similar to Downfall and the earlier Die Wannseekonferenz, dramatizing not the machinery of genocide but the mindsets of its architects. By confining itself to dialogue and implication, the film compels viewers to reflect on how civilization’s facades both enable and obscure horror.

The film’s lingering effect is not found in dramatic catharsis or tears, but in an enduring sense of discomfort. Conspiracy dramatizes not just a choice among evil options, but the ease with which those choices become rote procedure and social negotiation. The silence in the final act, as the men calmly disperse after codifying genocide, lands with a cold, almost procedural finality. The closing captions, briefly summarizing the fates of those present, deliver a sobering message: accountability was sporadic, often delayed, and never guaranteed.

Conspiracy is not casual entertainment, nor is it meant to be. Instead, it is essential viewing for anyone interested in the psychology of atrocity, the peril of bureaucratic amorality, and the enduring question of how ordinary people become complicit in extraordinary evil. With a screenplay of surgical precision, outstanding ensemble cast (especially Branagh and Tucci), and a director committed to understatement, HBO’s film demonstrates how history’s darkest decisions are forged not in chaos, but in chilling consensus. To those seeking to understand not only what happened at Wannsee, but how, Conspiracy offers an unblinking and quietly devastating answer.

Film Review: The Death of Stalin (dir by Armando Iannucci)


2017’s The Death of Stalin opens in Moscow in 1953.  Joseph Stalin (Adrian McLoughlin) calls into Radio Moscow and demands that he be sent a recording of the piano concerto that has just been performed live.  The only problem is that no one bothered to record it while it was being performed.  In a panic, the head of Radio Moscow announces that no one — not the musicians, not the exhausted conductor, and certainly not the audience — is allowed to leave until the orchestra has performed again.

Indeed, one of the recurring themes of The Death of Stalin is that everyone is terrified of their beloved dictator.  The orchestra fears being executed for failing to recreate their performance.  The members of the Central Committee fear being the next person to be purged from the ranks of Stalin’s government.  The two guards that are posted outside of Stalin’s bedroom are so terrified of interrupting Stalin and getting on his bad side that they don’t investigate when they hear Stalin collapsing to the floor.  When Stalin is found unconscious, the only doctors available are young and inexperienced because Stalin recently exiled all of the good doctors from Moscow.  Even after Stalin dies from a cerebral hemorrhage, his reign of terror continues as all the members of his household staff are promptly executed to keep anyone from learning either the exact details of Stalin’s death or the way that the members of the Central Committee responded to his passing.

The Death of Stalin is a dark comedy that follows the members of the Central Committee as they scramble to protect their own positions after Stalin’s death.  The humor comes from watching historical figures like Nikita Khrushchev, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lavrenti Beria, and Georgy Malenkov act like panicked junior executives who are desperately trying to save their own jobs during a corporate takeover.  Of course, the stakes are a bit higher.  Whoever succeeds Stalin will undoubtedly want to execute every other contender for the post.  As with so many of Armando Iannucci’s works, the humor comes from watching very powerful people act in very immature and petty ways.  While Malenkov (Jeffrey Tambor) tries to convince people that he actually is in charge, the brutal Beria (Simon Russell Beale) tries to bully his way into power and the wily Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi, giving one of his best performances) waits for his moment to strike.  (Beria, it should be noted, is one of history’s greatest monsters and the film, while a comedy, does not shy away from his depravity.)  Molotov (a hilarious Michael Palin) is so loyal to the Party that he says that Stalin was absolutely correct to have his wife executed just to then have Beria show up and reveal that Molotov’s wife is still alive.  Meanwhile, Stalin’s idiot son (Rupert Friend) claims that it’s all an American plot while the rest of the Central Committee laughs at him behind his back.  Only Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs) seems to have full control of his emotions and his actions and it’s not a surprise to learn that, long after the events depicted in this film, purged from the Party.  In The Death of Stalin, the leaders of Russia are obviously scared of anyone who is too competent at their job.

The Death of Stalin is not only a satiric portrayal of petty bureaucrats.  It’s also a darkly humorous look of life in a dictatorship, where everyone is at the whim of whoever happens to be in charge at any given time.  The film is full of power-hungry narcissists who use their ideology and their nationalism as a shield for their own ambitions.  Everyone wants to control someone else.  Even as mourners pass by Stalin’s coffin, they’re given orders on how to properly grieve and move.  The film ends with a series of pictures of various people either having their faces scratched or, in some cases, just vanishing.  In a free country, failure leads to humiliation.  In a dictatorship,  it leads to non-existence as the formerly prominent are suddenly erased from a history that no longer has a place for them.  Ironically, of all the original leaders of communist Russia, it was Molotov who lived the longest.  He was 96 when he died in 1986.  If not for Stalin’s sudden death, he probably would have been purged and executed at the age of 63.

On this May Day, with so many people currently trying to rehabilitate the reputations of the 20th Century’s worst dictators, The Death of Stalin is must-watch.

 

Film Review: Conspiracy (dir by Frank Pierson)


The 2001 film, Conspiracy, takes place at a villa on the outskirts of Berlin.  It’s a lovely villa and, as we can see during the film’s opening moments, it’s about to play host to a meeting of very important people.

The date is January 20th and the year is 1942.  Having conquered much of Europe, Nazi Germany is now at war with the Allies.  Reinhard Heydrich (Kenneth Branagh), the young chief of the Reich Security Main Office and the man who many feel will eventually succeed Adolf Hitler as the leader of the Third Reich, has been directed to call a conference so that he and his deputy, Adolf Eichmann (Stanley Tucci), can “discuss” ways to solve “the Jewish question.”  One-by-one, representatives of the Reich’s bureaucracy show up at the villa.

At the start of the meeting, the men discuss various ways to force the Jews out of Germany and all of the occupied territories.  The men chose their words carefully, speaking in euphemisms and doing their best to sound like concerned government officials.  The men know what they’re talking about but they still seem to feel the need to avoid coming right and saying it.  As they talk, it becomes clear that everyone is trying to stay in Heydrich’s good graces while, at the same time, avoiding the fact that they understand the truth about what Germany is doing.  It’s not until halfway through the meeting that Heydrich and Eichmann reveal that Germany’s policy has already been determined and that concentration camps with gas chambers have already been designed and built.  The meeting is less about discussing the policy and more about getting each man at the meeting to sign off on it.  The unspoken subtext is that each man is being tested to determine who will support (and, if need be, help to cover up) the Final Solution and who will have to be otherwise dealt with.

Based on the actual minutes of the meeting, Conspiracy is film that is perhaps even more important now than when it was first released.  It’s a film that explores not only the banality of evil but also seeks to answer the question of why no one in Hitler’s government forcefully objected to the Final Solution.  (Many, of course, claimed not to know what was going on.  This film reveals just how little credibility that claim had.)  Some of the men go along because they understand not going along would mean the end of their careers and maybe their lives.  Some of the men agree because, as members of the military, they believe in supporting their country’s leadership, regardless of what that leadership represents.  Some of the men agree because they want to stay in Heydrich’s good graces.  These men represent a society where anti-Semitism is so normalized that it is accepted as a given and, while some of the men are not as outspoken in their prejudice as the others, it’s clear that all of them view the Jewish people as being a unique problem.  Those who do raise concerns do so only out of worry of what will happen to them if the rest of the world discovers what Germany is planning.  Heydrich insists that there is no need to worry because Germany will win the war.  Some of the men at the Conference are clearly not convinced of Germany’s pre-destined victory but not a single one has either the morality or the courage to refuse to endorse the Final Solution.  The film ends with a series of title cards, letting us know what became of the men who attended the Wannsee Conference.  Heydrich was assassinated during the war.  Eichmann fled to South America and hid there until he was captured by Israel in 1960.  Many of the men were executed for war crimes but a surprising number of them were either acquitted or never put on trial and went to live peacefully after the war.

Well-directed by Frank Pierson, Conspiracy has a distinguished cast who brings the historical characters to terrible life.  It’s one thing to read about what was said and planned at the Conference.  It’s another thing to actually hear those words spoken aloud and it’s a reminder that the evil of the Holocaust was not an accident nor was it something that took its perpetrators by surprise.  It was something that meticulously planned by human beings who were fully aware of what they were doing.  Kenneth Branagh makes for an arrogant and intimidating Heydrich while Stanley Tucci plays Eichmann as being the type of bureaucratic robot who is incapable of seeing human beings as anything more than just dwindling numbers on a report.  Colin Firth and David Threlfall make strong impressions as two of the more weary members of the Conference, as does Ian McNeice in the role of the type of crude, career-driven government functionary who has survived by pretending to be dumb.

At a time when anti-Semitism is on the upswing and Holocaust denialism is being mainstreamed, Conspiracy is an important film.  When others say that the Holocaust didn’t happen or that it doesn’t matter, Conspiracy defiantly says, “Yes, it did and yes, it does.”

Retro Television Review: Miami Vice 1.18 “Made For Each Other”


Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past!  On Mondays, I will be reviewing Miami Vice, which ran on NBC from 1984 to 1989.  The entire show is currently streaming on Tubi!

This week, two supporting players get an episode all their own.

Episode 1.18 “Made For Each Other”

(Dir by Rob Cohen, originally aired on March 8th, 1985)

After spending most of the first season as background comedic relief, Detectives Switek (Michael Talbott) and Zito (John Diehl) are at the center of this week’s episode of Miami Vice.

With the Vice Squad trying to make a case against criminal fence John Costeleda (Johnny “Vatos” Hernandez), Switek and Zito recruit two informants — Noogie (Charlie Barnett) and Izzy (Martin Ferrero) — and send them in undercover to get close to Costeleda’s lieutenant, an electronic store owner named “Bonzo” Barry Gold (Mark Linn-Baker).  For once, it’s Zito and Switek who are pushing ethical boundaries to take down the bad guy though, notably, they never get quite as angsty about it as either Crockett or Tubbs.  If Crockett and Tubbs are secretly aware that they’re fighting a losing war against crime, Switek and Zito are a bit more earnest in their outlook.

This episode also takes a look at Switek and Zito’s life outside of Vice.  Zito likes to take care of fish and is something of an eccentric.  Switek is dating Darlene (Ellen Greene), who used to date Zito.  Switek is also a big fan of Elvis, though Darlene has tossed almost all of his Elvis stuff out of the apartment and instead replaced it with pictures of Princess Diana and baby Harry.  (Prince Harry’s father is not seen in any of the pictures.  Neither is the future King Charles III.)  When Zito’s house explodes due to a gas leak, he moves in with Switek and Darlene.  Darlene is not particularly happy about that and, by the end of the episode, Switek has decided that his partner is more important to him than his girlfriend.  As the title says, Switek and Zito are made for each other.

I like the fact that Miami Vice would occasionally allow people other than Crockett and Tubbs to headline an episode.  After all, the show is called Miami Vice and there’s more to the Vice Squad than just Crockett’s houseboat and Tubbs’s fake Jamaican accent.  Michael Talbott and especially John Diehl are both likable in their roles, with Diehl in particular making Zito into the type of strange guy who you can’t help but love.  That said, this episode was a bit too silly for its own good.  It would have been interesting to see Zito and Switek go after the type of criminals that Crockett and Tubbs regularly went after but instead, Costeleda was too much of a buffoon to really be a serious threat.  The emphasis here was on comedy but Miami Vice works better as a serious show with funny moments than as a funny show with serious moments.

It was nice to see that Zito and Switek were made for each other but, otherwise, this episode never worked as well as one might hope.