kijii The House of Rothschild was nominated for Best Picture in 1934 and although I would love to see this movie completely restored. In this movie, George Arliss takes on the roles of both the elder Rothchild, Mayer Amschel Rothchild (in the 1780 Frankfort Prussian "Jew Street" ghetto) and his son, Nathan. Nathan succeeds him (in London) as the leader of the Rothchild family. The family would place themselves throughout the great European cities at that time and always act as a group whenever they made large financial decisions. In spite of widespread anti-Semitism and pograms throughout Europe, the Rothchilds became a powerful financial empire, able to overcome other larger banks and financial institutions. They did this through their cohesiveness and lines of communication during the Napoleonic Wars. Even when other banks were predicting Wellington's defeat and the collapse of England, the House of Rothchild remained true to England, the allies. and freedom. The story contains a subplot of Nathan Rothchild's daughter, Julie (Loretta Young), falling in love with one of Wellington's officers, Capt. Fitzroy (Robert Young). The problem with this film is that it contained some scenes that the Nazis could later take out of context, place a negative spin on, and use to make their case against the Jews. The opening scenes of Mayer Amschel Rothchild hiding his money from the tax collector and then pleading poverty probably just played right into Hitler's hands to show his audience the "tricky money-grabbing Jew bleeding the country dry." So, the Nazis DID use scenes from it to make such Nazi propaganda films as Der ewige Jude (1940) and Die Rothschilds (1940).

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.

LeonLouisRicci There were Eleven Nominations for Best Picture of the Year in 1934. This was One of them. The Decade did Love the Costume Drama and here it is the Beginning of the Rothschild Family who Eventually Became Masters of the Universe Bankers. The Period is the Napoleonic Wars.The Theme is Also Anti-Semitism a Time when there were Jewish Ghettos and the Chosen People could not be Choosy in Professions. Money was Their Power, as We are Reminded throughout the Film, and Oy Vey did They use it and at the Same Time Trying to Remain "Dignified".After a Stereotypical Beginning when the Bankers were just Babes, Grandfather Rothchilde Scurries about the House and Hides the Ledgers, the Silver, and the Beef Roast to "Cheat" the Tax Collector (this is justified because they were being treated unfairly and discriminated against, so all's fair in Love and Money).Things Move Forward Decades and the Rothschild Children are Now Bankers to Nations and They can Make or Break Countries, Wars, and People. The Movie is a Glossy Production that Glosses Over Any and All Flaws the Family Might have had for the Sake of Early Thirties Messaging to what was Happening in Germany at the Time (Nazis).Overall, Worth a Watch for Pre-Code Inclusions of Religion and Prejudice that would soon be Banned in Hollywood by Hays/Breen and for the Fine Acting of Richard Arliss and Boris Karloff.Note...Beware inferior murky prints floating about and be on the lookout for the original Three-Strip-Technicolor ending.

whpratt1 In the person of Nathan Rothschild, overlord of the international banking house that shaped the destiny of Europe, George Arliss has found his most congenial role since Disraeli. The story provides a fasinating study of internatinal intrigue in the nineteenth century. It is presented straight-forwardly, without apology or sentimentality. Because of its lack of dramatic sequence, the picture lapses into passages that become monotonous. The injection of a romantic episode between Nathan's daughter and a Gentile British office, with its mixed-marriage problem during those years, is tritely handled. This film is rarely shown over the years in America and is controversal at times. On the whole, the picture has been skillfully cast, and there are good performances by George Arliss, Reginald Owen and Boris Karloff who gives an excellent performance as Baron Ledrantz.