Leuchter is an expert in execution technology (designer of electric chairs, gas chambers, etc.), whose career was wiped out when he got swept up in the Holocaust revisionism movement (he testified, as an expert witness in a defamation suit, that the Auschwitz crematoria could not and did not serve as gas chambers). In this vivid documentary, Morris lets Leuchter speak for himself (which reveals him to be a man of limited horizons with a - let's say - quirky moral code, likely undone by hubris rather than evil [although Morris may deliberately be making that as far as possible an eye-of-the-beholder issue]), while providing a blizzard of visual accompaniments that emphasize the lurid raw material of Leuchter's life (a strategy indicated by the B-movie undertone of the title), and flirt with his obvious sense of his own heroism. Leuchter has more than enough rope here to hang himself, and pretty much gets the job done. Morris doesn't try to explore the issue of Holocaust revisionism generally, pretty much taking our revulsion on faith: if anything, from my limited previous reading on the subject, that's doing Leuchter a favor. Anyway, revulsion or not, it's hard not to be fascinated by a man who can calmly chatter about his value-pricing approach to selling death machines (although custom made, he tells us, they're sold at "off the shelf" prices).
55 Reviews
Persona Non Grata, American-Style
Dadge19 February 2007
Leuchter is one amazing guy. This is a guy who became one of the US's foremost experts on death engineering - he designed and built/rebuilt several execution devices for death rows throughout the nation. Then, tragically, he took it upon himself to travel to Auschwitz and hammer bits off the gas chambers to bring home for cyanide testing. His conclusion: no-one was gassed there. Oops. Then he compounded his mistake by testifying for Ernst Zundel and speaking at holocaust-revisionist meets throughout the world.
So, an excellent subject for a movie, and Morris does an okay job. There are a few faults. The quality of some of the interview footage is quite poor. And there is the question of the reconstructions. Leuchter provided Morris with plenty of "home movies" which are incorporated into the film, so the function of the reconstructions seems merely to be to reinforce in our minds the dramatic qualities of a lot of the actions Leuchter performed. Personally, I could've done without them.
10/10 for the subject, 6/10 for the film-making, gives 8/10 overall.
So, an excellent subject for a movie, and Morris does an okay job. There are a few faults. The quality of some of the interview footage is quite poor. And there is the question of the reconstructions. Leuchter provided Morris with plenty of "home movies" which are incorporated into the film, so the function of the reconstructions seems merely to be to reinforce in our minds the dramatic qualities of a lot of the actions Leuchter performed. Personally, I could've done without them.
10/10 for the subject, 6/10 for the film-making, gives 8/10 overall.
The truth is dangerous.
13Funbags2 September 2017
This is the story about how the world's foremost authority on gas chambers and all methods of executions proved that the Nazi "gas chambers" could have never operated the way historians claim. It completely destroyed his life, proving that Jews control the world. I assume Errol Morris wasn't intending on letting his feelings be known but it seems like he tries hard to make Leuchter look like a bad man and he consistently fails. It's really strange that he would make dramatic recreations of stuff that happened. That has no place in a documentary. The most interesting thing about the movie is that everyone who tries to discredit or insult Leuchter has absolutely no facts or real argument. They can only say things like he "desecrated a holy land" or "wasn't qualified". After the Jewish man who did the tests on the concrete samples and then testified that his results and report were 100% accurate and true, found out what the trial was about, he quickly says that he performed the wrong tests. The only argument anyone can muster is "you have to be crazy to say this". They claim Leuchter just wanted the spotlight but it's very clear that's not true. He was dragged into a court case and provided expert testimony, without bias. The only accurate statement his detractors made is that he came from nowhere and returned to nowhere. It's not only true, it's all he wanted and it doesn't even matter. This movie proves he is right.
an uncomfortable and ultimately sad movie
matt-19414 April 2000
I have never seen a movie handle moral ambiguity quite like this before. It's ambiguous on so many levels. FL Jr. worries about the humanity of the methods of execution, and it never occurs to him that the act itself is inhumane. The obvious hatred in the face of Shelly Shapiro (leader of a Holocaust remembrance group) makes you wince at the moral ambiguity of her acts. And finally that this mouse of a man is neither Jesus nor Hitler (two comparisons made in the film) is the only firm footing you are left with. Not earth-shattering, but what a film!
It's not what I found, but what I didn't find that blew me away.
jeff66728 October 2001
This documentary presents the story of the rise and fall of Fred Leuchter, an apparently self-taught engineer specializing in the repair and fabrication of instruments of capital punishment. His choice to develop evidence to deny the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, Poland causes a descent into villainy and subsequent ostracism from his clients and his wife.
Several of Leuchter's detractors are interviewed in the film and vilify him as an anti-Semite and a perpetrator of a cruel hoax. His supporters portray him as the second coming of Christ and a man worthy of equal footing with George Washington. If Leuchter actually was aware of his place in the events that led to his downfall, then one could assume he falls somewhere between the two extremes. But this film amply demonstrates that in many ways, Fred in a class by himself.
This little man from Massachusetts grew up around the prison where his father worked, and he saw the daily life of both inmates and guards. He came to see both groups as his friends, and later in his life he chose to research ways to make execution equipment safer and more humane, not only for the inmates being executed, but also for the guards that have to deal with the psychologically disturbing business of execution.
Over time, he became prominent in his field, and was recognized as perhaps the only expert in the United States on repairing and building execution devices. It was this expertise that drew the attention of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, who was on trial in Canada for publishing a document entitled "Did Six Million Really Die?", which the government of Canada argued was published with deliberate lies about Nazi execution of Jews. Leuchter was approached as an expert on execution and was asked to journey to Auschwitz to develop evidence to disprove that the crematories at that most infamous of concentration camps was used as execution chambers.
It is here that the mystery of Fred Leuchter begins. In the film, a holocaust denier relates a conversation he had with Leuchter in which he had asked Fred about his illegal and highly distasteful excavations at Auschwitz. Leuchter replied, "It wasn't what I found, but what I didn't find that blew me away." It is this statement that rings in my head when I try to examine Fred Leuchter's actions. Why didn't he think about what was being asked of him? Why didn't he see this inquiry in the larger scale of the history of the Second World War, and indeed in the history of civilization? Since he was so deliberate and so thoughtful in his research in to execution equipment, why did he not research the subject of the gas chambers at Auschwitz more thoroughly? Journalist Van Pelt explains that all he had to do was examine the archives at the camp to discover a wealth of information that the Nazis put together about the subject of the "gassing basements". Leuchter obviously understood nothing about the subject of chemistry (an absolutely necessary discipline to begin addressing the presence of cyanide on the bricks of the camp), and yet he took the job of disproving the existence of gas chambers. Why?
This is the area where Errol Morris' skill as a documentarian really shines. He shows Fred lurching around at various white supremacist meetings to discuss the findings of his report, apparently unaware of agenda he was sent to justify. As a thoughtful and deliberate man, he came to the conclusion that the chambers at Auschwitz could not have been used as execution chambers, but obviously uses his own narrow view point to reach that conclusion, since (in his opinion) if he had designed such a device for mass execution he would not have built it that way. He doesn't understand that he was pushed to present a certain result, and that the individuals that wanted justification for their viewpoints were not to be trusted. Morris lets us see all the swirling action around Leuchter, and demonstrates that Leuchter himself was unable or unwilling to see his place in the madness surrounding the trial, as well as demonstrating that Fred couldn't fully understand why state governments were suddenly unwilling to deal with him, killing his business as an execution engineer.
Leuchter's detractors took pains to ruin his life which, in a country that thrives on free speech and the open expression of ideas, is as shameful an act as Leuchter's own foolish holocaust denial. But an interviewee stated eloquently in the film that Fred had the chance to retract his statements. Fred at any time could have limited his involvement with the project. He should have conducted his investigation in the full light of day rather than slinking around a vitally important historical site, chopping up pieces of what many consider a holy shine to the lives of those callously murdered there. He could have done many things that any rational and considerate person should have done.
But he didn't.
Morris' film is one of the best examinations of a person's life committed to film. Highly recommended.
Several of Leuchter's detractors are interviewed in the film and vilify him as an anti-Semite and a perpetrator of a cruel hoax. His supporters portray him as the second coming of Christ and a man worthy of equal footing with George Washington. If Leuchter actually was aware of his place in the events that led to his downfall, then one could assume he falls somewhere between the two extremes. But this film amply demonstrates that in many ways, Fred in a class by himself.
This little man from Massachusetts grew up around the prison where his father worked, and he saw the daily life of both inmates and guards. He came to see both groups as his friends, and later in his life he chose to research ways to make execution equipment safer and more humane, not only for the inmates being executed, but also for the guards that have to deal with the psychologically disturbing business of execution.
Over time, he became prominent in his field, and was recognized as perhaps the only expert in the United States on repairing and building execution devices. It was this expertise that drew the attention of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, who was on trial in Canada for publishing a document entitled "Did Six Million Really Die?", which the government of Canada argued was published with deliberate lies about Nazi execution of Jews. Leuchter was approached as an expert on execution and was asked to journey to Auschwitz to develop evidence to disprove that the crematories at that most infamous of concentration camps was used as execution chambers.
It is here that the mystery of Fred Leuchter begins. In the film, a holocaust denier relates a conversation he had with Leuchter in which he had asked Fred about his illegal and highly distasteful excavations at Auschwitz. Leuchter replied, "It wasn't what I found, but what I didn't find that blew me away." It is this statement that rings in my head when I try to examine Fred Leuchter's actions. Why didn't he think about what was being asked of him? Why didn't he see this inquiry in the larger scale of the history of the Second World War, and indeed in the history of civilization? Since he was so deliberate and so thoughtful in his research in to execution equipment, why did he not research the subject of the gas chambers at Auschwitz more thoroughly? Journalist Van Pelt explains that all he had to do was examine the archives at the camp to discover a wealth of information that the Nazis put together about the subject of the "gassing basements". Leuchter obviously understood nothing about the subject of chemistry (an absolutely necessary discipline to begin addressing the presence of cyanide on the bricks of the camp), and yet he took the job of disproving the existence of gas chambers. Why?
This is the area where Errol Morris' skill as a documentarian really shines. He shows Fred lurching around at various white supremacist meetings to discuss the findings of his report, apparently unaware of agenda he was sent to justify. As a thoughtful and deliberate man, he came to the conclusion that the chambers at Auschwitz could not have been used as execution chambers, but obviously uses his own narrow view point to reach that conclusion, since (in his opinion) if he had designed such a device for mass execution he would not have built it that way. He doesn't understand that he was pushed to present a certain result, and that the individuals that wanted justification for their viewpoints were not to be trusted. Morris lets us see all the swirling action around Leuchter, and demonstrates that Leuchter himself was unable or unwilling to see his place in the madness surrounding the trial, as well as demonstrating that Fred couldn't fully understand why state governments were suddenly unwilling to deal with him, killing his business as an execution engineer.
Leuchter's detractors took pains to ruin his life which, in a country that thrives on free speech and the open expression of ideas, is as shameful an act as Leuchter's own foolish holocaust denial. But an interviewee stated eloquently in the film that Fred had the chance to retract his statements. Fred at any time could have limited his involvement with the project. He should have conducted his investigation in the full light of day rather than slinking around a vitally important historical site, chopping up pieces of what many consider a holy shine to the lives of those callously murdered there. He could have done many things that any rational and considerate person should have done.
But he didn't.
Morris' film is one of the best examinations of a person's life committed to film. Highly recommended.
Reluctant revisionist
lou-5021 February 2000
In Errol Morris's film, "Mr. Death", Fred Leuchter Jr. comes across as a passionless, mechanical robot, fitting the engineering profession that he devoted his life to. Leuchter, the innovator of many death penalty devices and subsequently the only scientist willing to testify favorably in a celebrated Canadian trial that questioned the existence of the Holocaust, is either a hero to some or a villain to many. Morris, except for a Frankenstein-inspired opening and closing set in the film, prefers to let Leuchter be Leuchter rather than adding more contempt to a decidedly pitiful figure. The one time Morris does appear to interfere is when he asked Leuchter point blank if he could have been mistaken in any of his analysis. There are also camera tricks which render what Leuchter did as malicious, such as the split screen between what was Auschwitz and now, the slow-motion as Leuchter is chipping away at sites many Jews consider holy ground, and the phasing in and out of color and black and white film as we see Leuchter demonstrate his electric chair. The motivation behind what he did lies at the heart of "Mr. Death". He aspired to perfect the most humane killing machine because he said he believed in capital punishment, not capital torture. He cared that prison guards who knew the death-row inmates well would not have to suffer cleaning up the morbid residuals of those electrocuted. Yet he tried to carry this same mind-set in understanding the gas chambers at Auschwitz. In his mechanical mind, he asked how he could have done a better job of extermination. "Mr. Death" is an unpleasant but needed lesson about the mosaic people who live and work with each of us everyday - a people who seem anti-social yet amoral and who seem to be guided by that inner light that we can barely know or understand.
Search light mentality, hubris, and the unasked question...
charlietuna31 July 2001
Errol Morris takes us on a ride detailing the fascinating story of Fred A. Leuchter. In so doing, he shows us what happens when the impertinent ideologue meets the power of political zealotry. The perception of Leuchter takes on many forms. On one hand, he is the very personification of the American dream by being a man who rose above his limited education and made a niche for himself in the business of execution. He is also the classic American idealist. A man who values the principles of the Constitution above all, even when defending them come at the expense of reputation and financial security. However, Leuchter is also termed an anti-Semitic death monger, and the very personification of immorality. Turgescence aside, in my view Leuchter falls somewhere in the middle.
Leuchter's take on the Constitutional tenants of cruel and unusual punishment are clear. He believes the state has the right to execute, yet not to "torture" the executed. A modern day Joseph Ignace Guillotin, Leuchter saw his role as providing a humane death for the condemned. By his own admission, Leuchter explained that his reputation as an "expert" on the varieties of killing machines, was formed in the absence of competition. Thus, Leuchter defined competency as being willing to do the research and solve the problem. This particular expression of his Constitutional piety found him opposed only by the anti-capital punishment lobby, a frame of reference that would prove inadequate once he agreed to help Ernst Zündel.
It is here that Morris and the film break down. While Morris competently sets the stage of how Leuchter could be become involved in the Zündel defense, what isn't clarified is Leuchter's take on his own methodology and the subsequent analysis done by the lab to which the rock samples were sent to. All the testimonials that deify and demonize him are the predicable protestations of political zealots. However, the moral linchpin of the entire Fred A. Leuchter story is the degree to which Leuchter felt he lived up to his stated definition of competence, and his behavior following the socio-political uproar. Instead, Morris leaves us with a multitude of hyperbolical expressions that provide little depth to the issue. Morris's cinematic quirks of angled shots, changeable film stocks, and Tesla coil effects are not enough to mask this ultimate failure. In all, an interesting yet unsatisfying effort at bringing a more comprehensive view to the story of Mr. Death.
Leuchter's take on the Constitutional tenants of cruel and unusual punishment are clear. He believes the state has the right to execute, yet not to "torture" the executed. A modern day Joseph Ignace Guillotin, Leuchter saw his role as providing a humane death for the condemned. By his own admission, Leuchter explained that his reputation as an "expert" on the varieties of killing machines, was formed in the absence of competition. Thus, Leuchter defined competency as being willing to do the research and solve the problem. This particular expression of his Constitutional piety found him opposed only by the anti-capital punishment lobby, a frame of reference that would prove inadequate once he agreed to help Ernst Zündel.
It is here that Morris and the film break down. While Morris competently sets the stage of how Leuchter could be become involved in the Zündel defense, what isn't clarified is Leuchter's take on his own methodology and the subsequent analysis done by the lab to which the rock samples were sent to. All the testimonials that deify and demonize him are the predicable protestations of political zealots. However, the moral linchpin of the entire Fred A. Leuchter story is the degree to which Leuchter felt he lived up to his stated definition of competence, and his behavior following the socio-political uproar. Instead, Morris leaves us with a multitude of hyperbolical expressions that provide little depth to the issue. Morris's cinematic quirks of angled shots, changeable film stocks, and Tesla coil effects are not enough to mask this ultimate failure. In all, an interesting yet unsatisfying effort at bringing a more comprehensive view to the story of Mr. Death.
An Executioner is a Derelict Anyway and Finds His Friends Where He Can.
jzappa22 February 2009
Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., the subject of this documentary, is a lonely man, and so a man of narrow acumen, because he's just appreciative to be liked, even by Nazi sympathizers. Errol Morris conjoins montages and music into a movie that is more reflection than subjective report. Fred Leuchter, the son of a prison warden, relatively floundered into the Death Row business. An engineer by training, he was inspired by the urge for more competent and compassionate execution apparatuses. He'd seen electric chairs that fried their sufferers without killing them, poison gas chambers that endangered the witnesses, gallows not efficiently constructed to break the neck. He went to work fashioning better versions of these devices, and soon prisons throughout the US were taking his council.
Notwithstanding his advance in trade, he was not, we understand, particularly well-received socially, though he does come to marry a waitress he meets owing to his habit of more than forty cups of coffee a day. We hear her offscreen voice as she balks at Fred's belief that their trip to Auschwitz was their honeymoon, where she had to wait in a freezing car, looking out for guards. Leuchter's visit to Auschwitz was the crossroads in his work. He was asked by a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier to provide a professional opinion at his trial. Zundel financed Leuchter's 1988 trip, where he chiseled off chunks of brick and mortar in buildings used as gas chambers and had them examined for leftover cyanide. He resolves that the chambers never had capacity for gas.
There is a fault in his report, needless to say. The lab technician who analyzed the samples for him protests that cyanide would sink into bricks but to the measure of one-tenth of a hair. By chiseling large bits, Leuchter had eroded his sampling by several thousand times, not even taking into account the ravages of half a century. To find cyanide would have been supernatural. No bother. Leuchter became a darling after-dinner mouthpiece in the neo-Nazi circle, and the camera captures how his face illuminates and his whole body appears to embrace their cheers and ovations, how thrilled he is to shake hands with his new friends. Other people might recoil from the derelict position of a Holocaust denier, to say the least. An executioner is a derelict anyway and finds his friends where he can.
No filmmaker can be accountable for those reluctant or unfit to take in his or her film with a discerning view. Anyone who leaves this deeply unsettling film concurring with Leuchter lays claim with him on the verge of psychosis. What's unsettling about the film is the way Leuchter is fairly honorable up till the point at which the neo-Nazis sink their talons into him. Those who are revolted by ethnic cleansing and other forms of government-sponsored genocide sometimes have no pangs when the state executes them one by one, testing them on elephants as is appallingly shown early in this film through dog-eared stock footage. One can even be a two-term president after governing the most restless American Death Row on record.
In cinema, the Holocaust intensifies melodrama in that the conquest of the soul never struck so victorious against atrocity, because the atrocity is so confounding. Morris's haunting documentary tries to do something distinct. It's to attempt to penetrate the thought process of denial. You meditate on the general concept of denial, not as some postwar sensation but as something that was intrinsic in the undertaking itself. Those people did those things. The mystery is how. It's about deciphering why Fred Leuchter holds these beliefs.
There is paradox in of so many U.S. states heaping tax money on this guy's work, just to oust him because of his distasteful affiliations. The capability of so many people to live contentedly with the notion of capital punishment may be a hint to how so many Europeans could live with the Holocaust: When you swallow the idea that the state has the right to kill someone and the right to decide what is a cardinal wrongdoing, you're nearly there. Mr. Death offers no complacent position of judgment. He doesn't make it obvious for us with light ethical categorizations, because people are formidably paradoxical and can get their minds around fearsomely peculiar notions.
Notwithstanding his advance in trade, he was not, we understand, particularly well-received socially, though he does come to marry a waitress he meets owing to his habit of more than forty cups of coffee a day. We hear her offscreen voice as she balks at Fred's belief that their trip to Auschwitz was their honeymoon, where she had to wait in a freezing car, looking out for guards. Leuchter's visit to Auschwitz was the crossroads in his work. He was asked by a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier to provide a professional opinion at his trial. Zundel financed Leuchter's 1988 trip, where he chiseled off chunks of brick and mortar in buildings used as gas chambers and had them examined for leftover cyanide. He resolves that the chambers never had capacity for gas.
There is a fault in his report, needless to say. The lab technician who analyzed the samples for him protests that cyanide would sink into bricks but to the measure of one-tenth of a hair. By chiseling large bits, Leuchter had eroded his sampling by several thousand times, not even taking into account the ravages of half a century. To find cyanide would have been supernatural. No bother. Leuchter became a darling after-dinner mouthpiece in the neo-Nazi circle, and the camera captures how his face illuminates and his whole body appears to embrace their cheers and ovations, how thrilled he is to shake hands with his new friends. Other people might recoil from the derelict position of a Holocaust denier, to say the least. An executioner is a derelict anyway and finds his friends where he can.
No filmmaker can be accountable for those reluctant or unfit to take in his or her film with a discerning view. Anyone who leaves this deeply unsettling film concurring with Leuchter lays claim with him on the verge of psychosis. What's unsettling about the film is the way Leuchter is fairly honorable up till the point at which the neo-Nazis sink their talons into him. Those who are revolted by ethnic cleansing and other forms of government-sponsored genocide sometimes have no pangs when the state executes them one by one, testing them on elephants as is appallingly shown early in this film through dog-eared stock footage. One can even be a two-term president after governing the most restless American Death Row on record.
In cinema, the Holocaust intensifies melodrama in that the conquest of the soul never struck so victorious against atrocity, because the atrocity is so confounding. Morris's haunting documentary tries to do something distinct. It's to attempt to penetrate the thought process of denial. You meditate on the general concept of denial, not as some postwar sensation but as something that was intrinsic in the undertaking itself. Those people did those things. The mystery is how. It's about deciphering why Fred Leuchter holds these beliefs.
There is paradox in of so many U.S. states heaping tax money on this guy's work, just to oust him because of his distasteful affiliations. The capability of so many people to live contentedly with the notion of capital punishment may be a hint to how so many Europeans could live with the Holocaust: When you swallow the idea that the state has the right to kill someone and the right to decide what is a cardinal wrongdoing, you're nearly there. Mr. Death offers no complacent position of judgment. He doesn't make it obvious for us with light ethical categorizations, because people are formidably paradoxical and can get their minds around fearsomely peculiar notions.
Mr. Death
nhlgumby17 May 2006
This is a documentary that feels like a compressed news broadcast. Errol Morris, the reason why Werner Herzog ate his shoe, makes this documentary about, well, the rise and fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., also known as Mr. Death. During the 70's and 80's, Mr. Leuchter found himself in a successful niche improving upon and creating new machines to implement capital punishment. Though he was not a licensed technician, he sold blueprints and homemade machines to state penitentiaries as well as acted as a consultant on the lethal machines in prisons across the country. Where Mr. Leuchter went awry was when he was contacted to investigate the truthfulness to the claim that Nazis used lethal gas to exterminate thousands of people at concentration camps in Germany and Poland. His research found him knee deep in the ruins of Auschwitz, taking rock samples off the walls of gas chamber rooms to take back to the United States for arsenic analysis. His research turned up no traces of cyanide in the wall samples nor evidence of the structural integrity of the supposed gas chambers to safely contain the gases. He presented his findings to the trial of Ernst Zundel, a holocaust denier on trial in Canada for publishing documents refuting the Holocaust ever occurred, and was successively outcast from society as a fellow Holocaust denier. Through Morris' ninety minute film, we are shown the relative success of a man quickly sink to the bottom of the world's hating order through the publication of one research project. Mr. Leuchter is portrayed as objectively as possible in this film, sometimes even going to black while his voice continues, but the sheer tenacity of this man makes me grit my teeth with rage when I think of him. His lack of concern for human life and the sufferings of others and his ambivalence towards people as both models of death and financial gain is a horrifying example of what kinds of people do what kinds of things in this world. The movie was well made with nice interludes of beautifully shot slow motion 35mm as well as video footage from trials, video from Leuchter's own research in the tombs of Auschwitz, and the interviews of Leuchter sitting and talking about his work as calmly as a dove coos.
Morris' best yet!
Art Snob22 September 1999
Warning: Spoilers
NOTE: POSSIBLE SPOILERS, BUT THIS FILM IS PRETTY SPOILER-PROOF
I saw Errol Morris' MR. DEATH: THE RISE AND FALL OF FRED A. LEUCHTER, JR on the final day of the 1999 Toronto Film Festival, and am happy to report that it's easily his best documentary to-date -- one that I'm certainly glad that a filmmaker of his talents was available and inclined to make.
While he's never come close to making a bad (or even mediocre) documentary, Morris' more recent efforts seem to have lacked the knockout punch effectiveness of his most widely known and highly-regarded classic, THE THIN BLUE LINE, which was instrumental in getting an innocent man removed from death row. This is the follow-up that his admirers have been waiting for... the story of a controversial man who easily blows away the combined weirdness of the quartet from Morris' last major effort, FAST, CHEAP AND OUT OF CONTROL.
In the first part of the documentary, Fred Leuchter comes across as the embodiment of "compassionate conservative" ... a guy who firmly believes in the death penalty, but thinks that capital punishment should be more humanely administered. He's a regular geek of death technology ... the son of a prison guard who in the 80's designed a new state-of-the-art electric chair for Missouri. This lead to contracts with other state governments ... even ones employing execution methods (lethal injection, gas) that he had no immediate knowledge of. There's an undeniable morbid fascination in listening to him discuss the minutiae of death technology, covering topics such as the need for a drip pan under an electric chair. The guy is THOROUGH.
But he's also vain in believing in his own infallibility as the leading authority in his "field," and this proves to be his undoing. In 1988, he accepts a job from notorious Canadian Nazi historical revisionist Ernst Zundel to perform forensic investigations as to whether or not gassings could actually have taken place at Auschwitz. This he undertakes in earnestness, collecting all kinds of samples surreptitiously around the remains of the infamous facility while being videotaped by his guide. (Amusing side note: He had just been married at the time, and this excursion was his "honeymoon".)
When he publishes "The Leuchter Report," which concludes that gassings COULDN'T have taken place at the facility since he found no traces of cyanide in the samples, he immediately gains notoriety. He testifies at the hate crime trial of Zundel and becomes a star speaker on the neo-Nazi circuit. His report becomes the scientific basis for denying that the Holocaust ever happened and is widely circulated (it's easy to find via a Web search). He clearly relishes being revered as a scientific authority -- no matter WHAT the audience. But his business contracts disappear as a result of this notoriety, his wife divorces him, and he's left pretty destitute.
In challenging Leuchter's findings, Morris wisely eschews any testimony from Holocaust survivors. Instead, he relies on some very gentile-looking academics who meticulously show the overwhelming archival evidence (schematic diagrams of the technology, correspondence between military officers, etc.) of mass extermination at the camp and demonstrate some HUGE holes in Leuchter's scientific methodology. When Zundel tries to refute these counterpoints by actually likening Leuchter to Christ, the jig's REALLY up.
What starts out seeming like another interesting installment of FAST, CHEAP AND OUT OF CONTROL turns out to have a much larger mission: Showing the world the EXACT foundation that the "scientific evidence" denying the Holocaust rests upon. It's a masterful tour-de-force from Morris, with his polished documentary techniques on full display. It's VERY satisfying when "Mr. Death" turns out to be no match for a documentary filmmaker who knows how to give him enough rope to hang himself with.
Even if you don't see documentaries as a rule, this one's a not-to-miss. Truth IS stranger than fiction.
I saw Errol Morris' MR. DEATH: THE RISE AND FALL OF FRED A. LEUCHTER, JR on the final day of the 1999 Toronto Film Festival, and am happy to report that it's easily his best documentary to-date -- one that I'm certainly glad that a filmmaker of his talents was available and inclined to make.
While he's never come close to making a bad (or even mediocre) documentary, Morris' more recent efforts seem to have lacked the knockout punch effectiveness of his most widely known and highly-regarded classic, THE THIN BLUE LINE, which was instrumental in getting an innocent man removed from death row. This is the follow-up that his admirers have been waiting for... the story of a controversial man who easily blows away the combined weirdness of the quartet from Morris' last major effort, FAST, CHEAP AND OUT OF CONTROL.
In the first part of the documentary, Fred Leuchter comes across as the embodiment of "compassionate conservative" ... a guy who firmly believes in the death penalty, but thinks that capital punishment should be more humanely administered. He's a regular geek of death technology ... the son of a prison guard who in the 80's designed a new state-of-the-art electric chair for Missouri. This lead to contracts with other state governments ... even ones employing execution methods (lethal injection, gas) that he had no immediate knowledge of. There's an undeniable morbid fascination in listening to him discuss the minutiae of death technology, covering topics such as the need for a drip pan under an electric chair. The guy is THOROUGH.
But he's also vain in believing in his own infallibility as the leading authority in his "field," and this proves to be his undoing. In 1988, he accepts a job from notorious Canadian Nazi historical revisionist Ernst Zundel to perform forensic investigations as to whether or not gassings could actually have taken place at Auschwitz. This he undertakes in earnestness, collecting all kinds of samples surreptitiously around the remains of the infamous facility while being videotaped by his guide. (Amusing side note: He had just been married at the time, and this excursion was his "honeymoon".)
When he publishes "The Leuchter Report," which concludes that gassings COULDN'T have taken place at the facility since he found no traces of cyanide in the samples, he immediately gains notoriety. He testifies at the hate crime trial of Zundel and becomes a star speaker on the neo-Nazi circuit. His report becomes the scientific basis for denying that the Holocaust ever happened and is widely circulated (it's easy to find via a Web search). He clearly relishes being revered as a scientific authority -- no matter WHAT the audience. But his business contracts disappear as a result of this notoriety, his wife divorces him, and he's left pretty destitute.
In challenging Leuchter's findings, Morris wisely eschews any testimony from Holocaust survivors. Instead, he relies on some very gentile-looking academics who meticulously show the overwhelming archival evidence (schematic diagrams of the technology, correspondence between military officers, etc.) of mass extermination at the camp and demonstrate some HUGE holes in Leuchter's scientific methodology. When Zundel tries to refute these counterpoints by actually likening Leuchter to Christ, the jig's REALLY up.
What starts out seeming like another interesting installment of FAST, CHEAP AND OUT OF CONTROL turns out to have a much larger mission: Showing the world the EXACT foundation that the "scientific evidence" denying the Holocaust rests upon. It's a masterful tour-de-force from Morris, with his polished documentary techniques on full display. It's VERY satisfying when "Mr. Death" turns out to be no match for a documentary filmmaker who knows how to give him enough rope to hang himself with.
Even if you don't see documentaries as a rule, this one's a not-to-miss. Truth IS stranger than fiction.
Compelling documentary
Leofwine_draca18 July 2014
MR DEATH is one of my favourite types of documentary: those that tell a story you're completely unfamiliar with, but which turn out to be extremely compelling and indeed gripping thanks to the stuff being presented. In many ways, this is a simple story of one man's fame and later infamy, although director Morris uses it as a springboard to embrace some wider concepts, such as capital punishment and the Holocaust.
One of the important things that I took away from this was that Leuchter is no villain: just a misguided man who didn't necessarily deserve all the hatred aimed at him. Yes, he made a grievous mistake, but to destroy his life as a result of that error? "Let he who is without sin...", etc. The political side of the documentary is especially interesting as a result.
One of the important things that I took away from this was that Leuchter is no villain: just a misguided man who didn't necessarily deserve all the hatred aimed at him. Yes, he made a grievous mistake, but to destroy his life as a result of that error? "Let he who is without sin...", etc. The political side of the documentary is especially interesting as a result.
Disturbing and Often Funny
Stroheim-312 September 1999
I saw a rough cut of this documentary last year presented by Errol Morris. At this point, I had never seen an Errol Morris documentary, but I have to say I loved it. It's the story of the man who reinvented the modern electric chair and other devices to carry out capital punishment.
The first half of the film is darkly funny. The juxtaposition of images with Leuchter's descriptions makes for hilarious irony. The shots are in and of themselves wholly serious, but Leuchter himself is very comedic (whether he knows it or not).
The second half of the film evokes anger more than humor. Leuchter becomes an advocate for Holocaust denial through his scientific (?) research for a Canadian Neo-Nazi. The cut that I saw didn't have an explanation as to why Leuchter got the results that he did until a little later in the film. I though Errol Morris should have had this description as soon as the results of the tests were determined. Maybe he changed it, and maybe he didn't.
At the film's heart is, like a Greek tragedy, the story of a man whose rise to prominence is cut short by his hybris - his inability to accept that he could be wrong. As a result, a man who was once in demand by state after state is left to rot in his own misery and mistake.
The first half of the film is darkly funny. The juxtaposition of images with Leuchter's descriptions makes for hilarious irony. The shots are in and of themselves wholly serious, but Leuchter himself is very comedic (whether he knows it or not).
The second half of the film evokes anger more than humor. Leuchter becomes an advocate for Holocaust denial through his scientific (?) research for a Canadian Neo-Nazi. The cut that I saw didn't have an explanation as to why Leuchter got the results that he did until a little later in the film. I though Errol Morris should have had this description as soon as the results of the tests were determined. Maybe he changed it, and maybe he didn't.
At the film's heart is, like a Greek tragedy, the story of a man whose rise to prominence is cut short by his hybris - his inability to accept that he could be wrong. As a result, a man who was once in demand by state after state is left to rot in his own misery and mistake.
A Good Documentary - But I Would Have Shifted the Focus
gbheron31 March 2002
The proliferation of cable television channels in the United States has dramatically increased the number of documentaries available for viewing. Just about any subject conceivable has been addressed, stocking the libraries of the History Channel, A&E, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, et al. Since this stuff is virtually free, you'd think it would be the death knell of theatrically released documentaries.
" Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr." was actually released to theaters, about thirty or so of them, and apparently did poorly. But it is an interesting movie, the biography of a self-taught execution device designer turned Holocaust denier. It's a little unsettling, not so much from Mr. Leuchter's career choices, but how Mr. Leuchter was so easily seduced to the white supremacy cause. And this important topic is not addressed in sufficient detail in the film. To much time is spent on the details of Mr. Leuchter?s personal life, family, career, and his studies that repudiated the existence of gas chambers. It misses the opportunity to explore why people will throw everything away to embrace causes such as white supremacy, when you would think they should know better. The movie is very well made and informative, but missed this golden opportunity.
" Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr." was actually released to theaters, about thirty or so of them, and apparently did poorly. But it is an interesting movie, the biography of a self-taught execution device designer turned Holocaust denier. It's a little unsettling, not so much from Mr. Leuchter's career choices, but how Mr. Leuchter was so easily seduced to the white supremacy cause. And this important topic is not addressed in sufficient detail in the film. To much time is spent on the details of Mr. Leuchter?s personal life, family, career, and his studies that repudiated the existence of gas chambers. It misses the opportunity to explore why people will throw everything away to embrace causes such as white supremacy, when you would think they should know better. The movie is very well made and informative, but missed this golden opportunity.
Same old rubbish
harryplinkett1413 March 2019
Apparently Leuchter was the main expert on gas chambers in the USA, who spent his entire life constructing gas chambers, but was an incompetent clown when he was asked to give an opinion about someone else's gas chamber. To this day no one, including the producers of this film, has provided an explanation for their dismissal of Leuchter's conclusions.
The homespun conformist
nunculus2 January 2000
He seems to be concocted by a joint effort between Flannery O'Connor and Philip Roth: Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. builds more humane death technology. He brings electric chairs into the twentieth century and suggests that TV sets be brought into the killing room for the victims of lethal injection. For a while, the director Errol Morris is fascinated by the visual properties of geeky, big-gummed, brown-suited Fred, who reveals his churning interior self in only one way: he confesses to consuming forty cups of coffee and six packs of cigarettes a day. He seems like the obsessive, narrowly niche-defined folk of Morris' FAST, CHEAP AND OUT OF CONTROL--AI geeks and topiary gardeners. Then history intervenes.
A Holocaust denier on trial for libel in Canada calls Fred as his star witness, proclaiming this mix of Babbitt and Kevorkian as a world-class expert. And so Fred takes his bride (the waitress who served him his daily forty cups) on a honeymoon to Auschwitz, where, in an almost comic act of desecration, he hacks chunks of brick from the deathhouse walls to prove they contain no Zyklon B. After pride cometh a fall, and Fred is ruined--and in the process Morris has minted a meditation on the roots of evil that joins together "Twin Peaks" and Sophocles.
The most tightly focussed and probably the best of Morris' documentary features, MR. DEATH is probably the most eloquent spokesman of Morris' continuing theme--the metaphysical delusions ordinary mortals use to get through their very mortal days and nights.
A Holocaust denier on trial for libel in Canada calls Fred as his star witness, proclaiming this mix of Babbitt and Kevorkian as a world-class expert. And so Fred takes his bride (the waitress who served him his daily forty cups) on a honeymoon to Auschwitz, where, in an almost comic act of desecration, he hacks chunks of brick from the deathhouse walls to prove they contain no Zyklon B. After pride cometh a fall, and Fred is ruined--and in the process Morris has minted a meditation on the roots of evil that joins together "Twin Peaks" and Sophocles.
The most tightly focussed and probably the best of Morris' documentary features, MR. DEATH is probably the most eloquent spokesman of Morris' continuing theme--the metaphysical delusions ordinary mortals use to get through their very mortal days and nights.
The Tragedy That Results, When Truth Collides With Religion
protek223 January 2007
This documentary is a classic study of the tragedy that invariably occurs when religious dogma collides with actual facts. Normally the two rarely cross paths, because people are loath to submit cherished beliefs to the light of objective analysis. This is especially the case with religicized issues like the Holocaust. Regardless of what one thinks of this issue, there is always at least two sides to every event in human history, the Holocaust is no exception.
While everyone has been made aware of the Zionist version of what occurred in Nazi camps such as Auschwitz, there has always been another side to this story, that has never been allowed a fair hearing! Suppression, slander, and relentless propaganda, has relegated this alternative version of events, to relative obscurity. Enter Mr. Leuchter, his honesty and professionalism, allowed him to meticulously investigate the fundamental premise of an issue that has literally become a religion in itself! Unlike his hopelessly biased opponents, he was able to remain completely objective throughout this very trying ordeal. The result was perhaps the first completely independent assessment of the merits of the issue of homicidal gas chambers in the Holocaust. Regardless of how one feels about this, Leuchter's investigation produced conclusive scientific results, that prove the infamous homicidal gas chambers in places like Auschwitz show no traces of cyanide gas! This can only be the case, if this central claim of the Holocaust, was false to began with! This of course is not out of the question, since the Holocaust has been of immeasurable political and economic value to Zionist interests.
On the other hand, Leuchter's findings are a bolt of lightning in the name of truth, over blind belief, and finally sets the record straight, after these many years of erroneous history about the Holocaust. While most true holocaust believers have no use for these disturbing facts, those who understand that the truth is always of greater value, than any political agenda or belief, will welcome these startling revelations. This of course has nothing to do with hatred of Jews, but everything to do with historical revision, and correcting erroneous views of an important period of human history. As with anyone who goes against the powerful forces of political and religious orthodoxy, Mr. Leuchter paid a high price for his honesty and steadfast expression of the right of free speech. The contrast between Leuchter and the lab scientist who chose to protect himself and his company, by conveniently attempting to sabotage the results of his own unbiased tests, could not be greater! This is after all, what most men would do when facing the wrath of such ruthless foes. Leuchter on the other hand, courageously stood his ground, as a man of honesty, and integrity, in the face of a Holocaust industry, intent on crushing those who dare to question the accepted teaching on the Holocaust. For those hopelessly biased in favor of the orthodox Holocaust narrative, this film will be of little value. For those who remain of open mind, and able to appreciate the considerable loss of freedom in the west, to powerful special interests and pressure groups, this film provides a sobering look at the lengths the high and mighty will go, to destroy the lives of honest men, as well as how the hatred of those completely blinded by their beliefs, serves as another weapon, in the fight against the truth.
While everyone has been made aware of the Zionist version of what occurred in Nazi camps such as Auschwitz, there has always been another side to this story, that has never been allowed a fair hearing! Suppression, slander, and relentless propaganda, has relegated this alternative version of events, to relative obscurity. Enter Mr. Leuchter, his honesty and professionalism, allowed him to meticulously investigate the fundamental premise of an issue that has literally become a religion in itself! Unlike his hopelessly biased opponents, he was able to remain completely objective throughout this very trying ordeal. The result was perhaps the first completely independent assessment of the merits of the issue of homicidal gas chambers in the Holocaust. Regardless of how one feels about this, Leuchter's investigation produced conclusive scientific results, that prove the infamous homicidal gas chambers in places like Auschwitz show no traces of cyanide gas! This can only be the case, if this central claim of the Holocaust, was false to began with! This of course is not out of the question, since the Holocaust has been of immeasurable political and economic value to Zionist interests.
On the other hand, Leuchter's findings are a bolt of lightning in the name of truth, over blind belief, and finally sets the record straight, after these many years of erroneous history about the Holocaust. While most true holocaust believers have no use for these disturbing facts, those who understand that the truth is always of greater value, than any political agenda or belief, will welcome these startling revelations. This of course has nothing to do with hatred of Jews, but everything to do with historical revision, and correcting erroneous views of an important period of human history. As with anyone who goes against the powerful forces of political and religious orthodoxy, Mr. Leuchter paid a high price for his honesty and steadfast expression of the right of free speech. The contrast between Leuchter and the lab scientist who chose to protect himself and his company, by conveniently attempting to sabotage the results of his own unbiased tests, could not be greater! This is after all, what most men would do when facing the wrath of such ruthless foes. Leuchter on the other hand, courageously stood his ground, as a man of honesty, and integrity, in the face of a Holocaust industry, intent on crushing those who dare to question the accepted teaching on the Holocaust. For those hopelessly biased in favor of the orthodox Holocaust narrative, this film will be of little value. For those who remain of open mind, and able to appreciate the considerable loss of freedom in the west, to powerful special interests and pressure groups, this film provides a sobering look at the lengths the high and mighty will go, to destroy the lives of honest men, as well as how the hatred of those completely blinded by their beliefs, serves as another weapon, in the fight against the truth.
One of the best Documentaries ever made
talkstock2me-115 January 2005
This is a movie in which the protagonist appears to be little more than an eccentric and (at first) "humane" engineer of killing machines. By the end of the movie they are seen as much less - or much more. This is the story of a person who's aspiration for recognition get the better of them and the costs of those aspirations. Morris demonstrates better than in almost any of his other documentaries why he is a master of this form. Mr. Leuchter takes an abundance of rope with which to hang himself and insists he 'did the right thing'; though it seems amply obvious to almost anybody watching this fascinating movie that he had no business involving himself in the "project" in the first place. He had no idea that the stakes he was playing for were so large and his failure to accept his limited knowledge effectively ruins what was for him, a very lucrative hobby. Maybe a better name for this remarkable documentary would be *Hubris*, since Mr. Leuchter lacks it in spades...
Everything you would expect from Errol Morris
tomgillespie200221 August 2013
Never a director to focus on anything but the utterly fascinating, Errol Morris' documentaries over the past few years lay a foundation for a consistently excellent body of work. His love of the eccentric and the condemned prove fascinating viewing, but what makes his films so utterly gripping is his objectivity. Don't get me wrong, it's more often than not very clear as to where Morris' opinions lie, but he allows his subject a fair crack, a chance to give their side of the story, no matter how outrageous it happens to be. Here, with Mr. Death, about the highs and lows of Fred Leuchter, expert manufacturer of execution devices and Holocaust denier, Morris lets his subject seal his own fate with his own words.
With his father a prison warden, Fred Leuchter spent a lot of his youth around criminals, many of whom were facing imminent execution. Having heard about the flaws in the execution facilities - many of which were built by non-professionals with only a photograph to work from - Leuchter took it upon himself to design an electric chair that was not only more reliable, but more 'humane', both for the prisoner and the wardens. Soon enough, without any engineering qualifications, Leuchter was being employed by other states to design gallows and machines to administer lethal injection. Meanwhile in Canada, renowned neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel published a paper that denied the existence of the Holocaust. Leuchter was brought in as an 'expert' to investigate the gas chambers of Auschwitz, only to discover no trace of cyanide. This led to Leuchter's paper The Leuchter Report, and the downfall of the man's life and reputation.
Similar to Morris' The Fog of War (2003), which allowed former Secretary of Defence Robert S. McNamara to be viewed as a human being and not the monster it was so easy to label him as, Leuchter does not come across as an anti-Semite, or even someone that believes half the things he says. This mouse of a man - short, ugly, addicted to coffee and cigarettes - is entirely non-threatening. But as we witness him getting swept up in the neo-Nazi rallies he's invited to speak at, he comes across as a man that simply has a need to feel a purpose and place in the world. What he did is unspeakable - illegally gathering samples by chipping off stone from the walls of a place many hold sacred, to use his self-labelled expertise to deny the most shocking genocide in history - but it is nevertheless hard not to feel some sort of pity for him.
Being a former detective, Morris doesn't need to try very hard to disprove Leuchter's findings, and rubbishes with them with a few swift strokes. But those of us with working brains in our heads don't need to be told the Holocaust was real, so Morris doesn't spend too much time on it. This is very much about the man behind the uproar, using archive footage of his time at Auschwitz to portray a man that doesn't seem to grasp the true gravity of the situation. Why did he do it? Can he comprehend the possible repercussions of the words that come out of his mouth? Whatever the answers, this is a fantastic documentary - gripping, shocking, informative and objective, everything you would expect from Errol Morris.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
With his father a prison warden, Fred Leuchter spent a lot of his youth around criminals, many of whom were facing imminent execution. Having heard about the flaws in the execution facilities - many of which were built by non-professionals with only a photograph to work from - Leuchter took it upon himself to design an electric chair that was not only more reliable, but more 'humane', both for the prisoner and the wardens. Soon enough, without any engineering qualifications, Leuchter was being employed by other states to design gallows and machines to administer lethal injection. Meanwhile in Canada, renowned neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel published a paper that denied the existence of the Holocaust. Leuchter was brought in as an 'expert' to investigate the gas chambers of Auschwitz, only to discover no trace of cyanide. This led to Leuchter's paper The Leuchter Report, and the downfall of the man's life and reputation.
Similar to Morris' The Fog of War (2003), which allowed former Secretary of Defence Robert S. McNamara to be viewed as a human being and not the monster it was so easy to label him as, Leuchter does not come across as an anti-Semite, or even someone that believes half the things he says. This mouse of a man - short, ugly, addicted to coffee and cigarettes - is entirely non-threatening. But as we witness him getting swept up in the neo-Nazi rallies he's invited to speak at, he comes across as a man that simply has a need to feel a purpose and place in the world. What he did is unspeakable - illegally gathering samples by chipping off stone from the walls of a place many hold sacred, to use his self-labelled expertise to deny the most shocking genocide in history - but it is nevertheless hard not to feel some sort of pity for him.
Being a former detective, Morris doesn't need to try very hard to disprove Leuchter's findings, and rubbishes with them with a few swift strokes. But those of us with working brains in our heads don't need to be told the Holocaust was real, so Morris doesn't spend too much time on it. This is very much about the man behind the uproar, using archive footage of his time at Auschwitz to portray a man that doesn't seem to grasp the true gravity of the situation. Why did he do it? Can he comprehend the possible repercussions of the words that come out of his mouth? Whatever the answers, this is a fantastic documentary - gripping, shocking, informative and objective, everything you would expect from Errol Morris.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
Fascinating, regardless of your political views
chedenberg28 October 2006
Despite your political views on the topics of capital punishment and/or The Holocaust, this film is an interesting expose' into ONE man's intellectual, emotional and spiritual drives. An allusion to his upbringing and guidances was particularly fascinating, to me. One of the truest of documentaries I've seen. Thankfully, the filmmakers avoided dramatizing or projecting, to any great degree. It was, perhaps a bit conclusive. However, the film did not insult my intelligence. It left some things to the imagination, which I appreciate. It has led me to further study of the man, and the topics presented. It was also quite visually appealing. What more can you ask?
Exceptional...and a film that definitely leaves the viewers with many unanswered questions!
planktonrules1 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
In recent months, I've really grown to love documentaries--having seen some truly exceptional ones. As a psychology teacher, these sort of films make great fodder for discussions with my students. I haven't shown them MR. DEATH, but might consider doing so in the future since the main character is so bizarre and difficult to comprehend.
The film is unusual in that the first third of the film is amazingly different than the rest of the film. It seemed as if the man who was the focus of the film (Fred Leuchter) was an entirely different person in the final 2/3 of the movie. This was very clever film making--throwing the audience a curve-ball, so to speak. As a result, the audience which initially probably felt somewhat sympathetic towards this very odd man, are now transformed into charter members of the "I hate Fred Club"!
As the film begins, you'll notice that there is no traditional voice-over narration--instead, Fred and a variety of others talk on camera as narration. It seems that Fred has become a bit of an authority on how to humanely execute criminals (an interesting oxymoron). Oddly, while he has some advanced training and is obviously very bright, he seems way overconfident in himself and his abilities. He also seemed quite ghoulish in his excitement about his trade (building and remodeling all types of death equipment), but on the other he also seems pretty decent as he talks about how its wrong to make people feel pain or make the executions too grisly. He felt his job was a positive thing in order to make the execution as easy on the recipient as possible. While this may or may not have been the purpose of the film, the overall message did a lot to make me think twice about the death penalty--especially when he talked about how messy and disgusting the process actually was. Television and movie portrayals are WAY too sanitized and hearing Fred talk about the process is very disturbing.
Then, almost completely out of the blue, the film discusses Fred's involvement in a court battle in Canada concerning "hate speech". A holocaust denier was going on trial for publishing booklets saying that there wasn't any widespread killing of Jews by the Nazis. Fred was hired as an "expert witness" to testify for the defense even though he really didn't have formal training in executions or mass exterminations (it was more a hobby or he was a semi-pro in the field). The film then follows him to Auschwitz as he illegally takes samples to prove that no gassings occurred there. While Fred seems very confident of his methodology, the film makers later reveal that in many ways he had no idea what he was talking about nor did he know how to take proper samples.
The sad part about the film is not just how he was used by the neo-Nazis but how Fred was so dogmatic and narcissistic that he could not allow himself to question his methodology or objectivity. As a result, Fred's life was destroyed and at the same time, he became a celebrity, of sorts, on the neo-Nazi talk circuit. So on one hand, he's lost his job,wife and home, he's hated by practically everyone---and on the other, he's the darling of pinheads all over the world! By the end of the film, Fred is as dogmatic as ever--even as his life goes down in flames!
As far as how the film was constructed, it was excellent. Fortunately for the film maker (Errol Morris), there was film of a young Fred cavorting about prisons with his father (who worked there) and when sampling the death camp for evidence of cyanide, there was also a film crew of his own documenting the process. Morris was able to integrate these into present day video to produce an intriguing but highly confusing and disturbing film. While this film is definitely not for everyone, those who have a high tolerance for the weird and a desire to learn about odd personalities are strongly encouraged to give this one a try. Just be prepared to feel that Fred is quite the enigma and answers won't be very easy to find. Also be prepared to both hate the man and yet feel a tad sorry for him at the same time--a truly odd and jarring experience for me.
For more information about Fred, try the following link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter). Unlike some Wikipedia articles, this one seems rather sound--with decent documentation. I particularly was surprised to see that Fred was not even an engineer but had a BA in history and he was definitely practicing as a trained engineer!! Even the Errol Morris documentary didn't catch that!
The film is unusual in that the first third of the film is amazingly different than the rest of the film. It seemed as if the man who was the focus of the film (Fred Leuchter) was an entirely different person in the final 2/3 of the movie. This was very clever film making--throwing the audience a curve-ball, so to speak. As a result, the audience which initially probably felt somewhat sympathetic towards this very odd man, are now transformed into charter members of the "I hate Fred Club"!
As the film begins, you'll notice that there is no traditional voice-over narration--instead, Fred and a variety of others talk on camera as narration. It seems that Fred has become a bit of an authority on how to humanely execute criminals (an interesting oxymoron). Oddly, while he has some advanced training and is obviously very bright, he seems way overconfident in himself and his abilities. He also seemed quite ghoulish in his excitement about his trade (building and remodeling all types of death equipment), but on the other he also seems pretty decent as he talks about how its wrong to make people feel pain or make the executions too grisly. He felt his job was a positive thing in order to make the execution as easy on the recipient as possible. While this may or may not have been the purpose of the film, the overall message did a lot to make me think twice about the death penalty--especially when he talked about how messy and disgusting the process actually was. Television and movie portrayals are WAY too sanitized and hearing Fred talk about the process is very disturbing.
Then, almost completely out of the blue, the film discusses Fred's involvement in a court battle in Canada concerning "hate speech". A holocaust denier was going on trial for publishing booklets saying that there wasn't any widespread killing of Jews by the Nazis. Fred was hired as an "expert witness" to testify for the defense even though he really didn't have formal training in executions or mass exterminations (it was more a hobby or he was a semi-pro in the field). The film then follows him to Auschwitz as he illegally takes samples to prove that no gassings occurred there. While Fred seems very confident of his methodology, the film makers later reveal that in many ways he had no idea what he was talking about nor did he know how to take proper samples.
The sad part about the film is not just how he was used by the neo-Nazis but how Fred was so dogmatic and narcissistic that he could not allow himself to question his methodology or objectivity. As a result, Fred's life was destroyed and at the same time, he became a celebrity, of sorts, on the neo-Nazi talk circuit. So on one hand, he's lost his job,wife and home, he's hated by practically everyone---and on the other, he's the darling of pinheads all over the world! By the end of the film, Fred is as dogmatic as ever--even as his life goes down in flames!
As far as how the film was constructed, it was excellent. Fortunately for the film maker (Errol Morris), there was film of a young Fred cavorting about prisons with his father (who worked there) and when sampling the death camp for evidence of cyanide, there was also a film crew of his own documenting the process. Morris was able to integrate these into present day video to produce an intriguing but highly confusing and disturbing film. While this film is definitely not for everyone, those who have a high tolerance for the weird and a desire to learn about odd personalities are strongly encouraged to give this one a try. Just be prepared to feel that Fred is quite the enigma and answers won't be very easy to find. Also be prepared to both hate the man and yet feel a tad sorry for him at the same time--a truly odd and jarring experience for me.
For more information about Fred, try the following link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter). Unlike some Wikipedia articles, this one seems rather sound--with decent documentation. I particularly was surprised to see that Fred was not even an engineer but had a BA in history and he was definitely practicing as a trained engineer!! Even the Errol Morris documentary didn't catch that!
From small man to bad boy
NJtoTX2 September 2000
Warning: Spoilers
(spoilers here, I suppose) Like George Kostanza in an episode of Seinfeld, Fred Leuchter wants to be seen as the bad boy. He's spent his life around the prisons and the bad boys there have a standing that he craves, since his life -- his very existence -- is superficial.
He tells us, in a very authoritative way, that he smokes 6 packs of cigarettes a day -- an amount that suggests that he chain smokes all day and craves cigarettes the rest of the time -- yet he is rarely seen with a cigarette, a pack, or even an ashtray. Similarly, he says he drinks 40 cups of coffee a day. Again, his java junkie habits are not apparent; Fred seems to love to cling to and exaggerate his bad-boy vices.
He is surprised and shakes his head when his expertise in designing electric chairs gets him contracts on lethal injection and gas systems, yet he takes the contracts and acts the expert in fields on which he admits he knows nothing. It is in the role as gas "expert" that the bad boy sneaks into Auschwitz and other camps to carve large chunks of wall and floor to have tested for cyanide, which is later proved to be extremely poor science.
But for Fred, it's no matter at all; the holocaust deniers have exalted him to ultimate bad boy status and saluted his so-called expertise. He won't cop to the fact that he screwed up, that his "scientific method" was terrible, that the German records showed that things he couldn't find at the camps had indeed been long moved and removed, that cyanide gas would have only penetrated 10 microns into surfaces that had long been worn away from exposure to wind and water, and that even if the cyanide was in the samples he had provided, that the chunks were so large so as to include so much that would not have been penetrated by cyanide as to completely dilute whatever microscopic amount into a concentration that was down to nothing.
So when Leuchter sits in the electric chair, we all know that, even though he has been vilified, he has put himself there, and he enjoys the view and the status.
Normally, I evaluate the film, but it's hard to disassociate Leuchter from the film itself. Errol Morris has done a terrific job chronicling the rise and fall of this little man; I don't believe he's succeeded as well since the incredible Gates of Heaven.
He tells us, in a very authoritative way, that he smokes 6 packs of cigarettes a day -- an amount that suggests that he chain smokes all day and craves cigarettes the rest of the time -- yet he is rarely seen with a cigarette, a pack, or even an ashtray. Similarly, he says he drinks 40 cups of coffee a day. Again, his java junkie habits are not apparent; Fred seems to love to cling to and exaggerate his bad-boy vices.
He is surprised and shakes his head when his expertise in designing electric chairs gets him contracts on lethal injection and gas systems, yet he takes the contracts and acts the expert in fields on which he admits he knows nothing. It is in the role as gas "expert" that the bad boy sneaks into Auschwitz and other camps to carve large chunks of wall and floor to have tested for cyanide, which is later proved to be extremely poor science.
But for Fred, it's no matter at all; the holocaust deniers have exalted him to ultimate bad boy status and saluted his so-called expertise. He won't cop to the fact that he screwed up, that his "scientific method" was terrible, that the German records showed that things he couldn't find at the camps had indeed been long moved and removed, that cyanide gas would have only penetrated 10 microns into surfaces that had long been worn away from exposure to wind and water, and that even if the cyanide was in the samples he had provided, that the chunks were so large so as to include so much that would not have been penetrated by cyanide as to completely dilute whatever microscopic amount into a concentration that was down to nothing.
So when Leuchter sits in the electric chair, we all know that, even though he has been vilified, he has put himself there, and he enjoys the view and the status.
Normally, I evaluate the film, but it's hard to disassociate Leuchter from the film itself. Errol Morris has done a terrific job chronicling the rise and fall of this little man; I don't believe he's succeeded as well since the incredible Gates of Heaven.
A Deceptive Attack Film - Major Omissions
js-mil15 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Here's the major lie by omission - the film and interview of the chemist conveniently excludes the fact that Leuchter also took brick samples from the delousing chambers at the camps in the exact same way as he did from the alleged homicidal gas chambers. His delousing chamber samples registered extremely high amounts of cyanide, proving that the cyanide is in fact easily detectable, even when diluted due to the crushing of large samples.
Further, the archives were misrepresented as evidence. The items claimed as evidence were normally ordered and used in all camps in the delousing chambers, even the dozens of camps in Germany which have since been proved to have never had any homicidal gas chambers at all. The homicidal gas chamber lie originally included camps in Germany and several other occupied countries, but over time as more research has been completed, claims of homicidal gas chambers have been dis-proved in nearly all camps except for the remaining few in Soviet captured Poland that Leuchter tested. See the controversy about Leuchter? With his testing, the last bit of the homicidal gas chamber lie is laid to rest. That embarrasses many people. The documents in the archive are nothing but evidence of materials for normal delousing chambers that were used in all camps to actually keep prisoners alive by treating clothing and buildings to eliminate Typhus carrying lice - the real killer in the camps. Many thousands continued to die of Typhus even after the camps were liberated. The film goes further in deceiving people by claiming that "Vergasungskeller" used in the archives is evidence of homicidal gas chambers, since it means gasification chamber, but this is actually what the delousing chambers were referred to. Homicidal chambers would be called "Gaskammer."
For those more knowledgeable about the actual lack of evidence, it's clear this film was made for one reason; to attack Fred A. Leuchter because he's a threat to the homicidal gas chamber lie being dis-proved in the last few camps. The film relies on opinionated slander from Holocaust Museum employees calling Leuchter names like, "Neo-Nazi," lying through omission and distortion of evidence, clips of Hitler mixed in to stir emotion, and even weird camera angles, dark lighting, and odd music all in an attempt to attack Mr. Leuchter.
One positive about the film is that it probably backfires on some, stirring their interest to do actual research into the subject. However, because the film is clearly designed to protect a lie and slander someone, I cannot give it more than one star. Lies and slander about such an important subject are unacceptable.
If you want to see a good film watch David Cole's actual tour and interview of the curator of the main Auschwitz camp. The curator admits there were no homicidal gas chambers found after the war. Obviously, the Soviets created them out of regular buildings in order to fabricate evidence to match the war propaganda they had spread. David Cole is a Jew by the way, and his film is called David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper.
We've all been told a tremendous lie. There never were any homicidal gas chambers.
Further, the archives were misrepresented as evidence. The items claimed as evidence were normally ordered and used in all camps in the delousing chambers, even the dozens of camps in Germany which have since been proved to have never had any homicidal gas chambers at all. The homicidal gas chamber lie originally included camps in Germany and several other occupied countries, but over time as more research has been completed, claims of homicidal gas chambers have been dis-proved in nearly all camps except for the remaining few in Soviet captured Poland that Leuchter tested. See the controversy about Leuchter? With his testing, the last bit of the homicidal gas chamber lie is laid to rest. That embarrasses many people. The documents in the archive are nothing but evidence of materials for normal delousing chambers that were used in all camps to actually keep prisoners alive by treating clothing and buildings to eliminate Typhus carrying lice - the real killer in the camps. Many thousands continued to die of Typhus even after the camps were liberated. The film goes further in deceiving people by claiming that "Vergasungskeller" used in the archives is evidence of homicidal gas chambers, since it means gasification chamber, but this is actually what the delousing chambers were referred to. Homicidal chambers would be called "Gaskammer."
For those more knowledgeable about the actual lack of evidence, it's clear this film was made for one reason; to attack Fred A. Leuchter because he's a threat to the homicidal gas chamber lie being dis-proved in the last few camps. The film relies on opinionated slander from Holocaust Museum employees calling Leuchter names like, "Neo-Nazi," lying through omission and distortion of evidence, clips of Hitler mixed in to stir emotion, and even weird camera angles, dark lighting, and odd music all in an attempt to attack Mr. Leuchter.
One positive about the film is that it probably backfires on some, stirring their interest to do actual research into the subject. However, because the film is clearly designed to protect a lie and slander someone, I cannot give it more than one star. Lies and slander about such an important subject are unacceptable.
If you want to see a good film watch David Cole's actual tour and interview of the curator of the main Auschwitz camp. The curator admits there were no homicidal gas chambers found after the war. Obviously, the Soviets created them out of regular buildings in order to fabricate evidence to match the war propaganda they had spread. David Cole is a Jew by the way, and his film is called David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper.
We've all been told a tremendous lie. There never were any homicidal gas chambers.
Triumphant as a film, if not an 'objective' documentary
ah`Pook16 July 2000
Errol Morris has certainly 'injected' (pardon my contextural
pun) a bit of energy into the documentary form, even if the
films he makes lie somewhere outside its confines. Mr Death,
with its characteristic visual flourishes and tangents, is no
exception to this, though it does contain excerpts of a 'true'
documentary of Leuchter pilfering 'evidence' from Auschwitz.
Morris' film refutes Leuchter's findings to the point that the
only viewer who would give tham any credence would have to be as
biased as Ernst Zündel, the revisionist publisher whom
Leuchter's testimony defended. One detail of the film sticks out
in my mind... the home movies of young Leuchter accompanying his
father to work at the local prison, where he pals around with
the convicts, and explains how he learned at this tender age to
pick locks, pockets and safes... and with audible smugness
relates that these skills have actually aided him later in life.
The image of this boy nebbish, undoubtedly an outcast and loner
at school and socially, gaining acceptance amongst the convicts
helps to explain why such an intelligent and resourceful person
could be duped by the likes of the pinheaded, hateful Neo-Nazi
Revisionists. Here's a group of 'bad guys' accepting, applauding, listening and agreeing to Leuchter. Of course this
is because his undeniably faulted research supports their own
misguided conclusions. But it mirrors his experiences as a boy
among the convicts and provides a strong psychological
foundation for Leuchter's downfall into his delusional world. I'd recommend this film to anyone who enjoys thought-provoking
cinema, realizing that they are sadly in a minority amongst
filmgoers.
pun) a bit of energy into the documentary form, even if the
films he makes lie somewhere outside its confines. Mr Death,
with its characteristic visual flourishes and tangents, is no
exception to this, though it does contain excerpts of a 'true'
documentary of Leuchter pilfering 'evidence' from Auschwitz.
Morris' film refutes Leuchter's findings to the point that the
only viewer who would give tham any credence would have to be as
biased as Ernst Zündel, the revisionist publisher whom
Leuchter's testimony defended. One detail of the film sticks out
in my mind... the home movies of young Leuchter accompanying his
father to work at the local prison, where he pals around with
the convicts, and explains how he learned at this tender age to
pick locks, pockets and safes... and with audible smugness
relates that these skills have actually aided him later in life.
The image of this boy nebbish, undoubtedly an outcast and loner
at school and socially, gaining acceptance amongst the convicts
helps to explain why such an intelligent and resourceful person
could be duped by the likes of the pinheaded, hateful Neo-Nazi
Revisionists. Here's a group of 'bad guys' accepting, applauding, listening and agreeing to Leuchter. Of course this
is because his undeniably faulted research supports their own
misguided conclusions. But it mirrors his experiences as a boy
among the convicts and provides a strong psychological
foundation for Leuchter's downfall into his delusional world. I'd recommend this film to anyone who enjoys thought-provoking
cinema, realizing that they are sadly in a minority amongst
filmgoers.
Go see this film, chuckle and rethink the irredeemable.
spielcat3 January 2000
A film that can elicit pity for an execution equipment engineer and holocaust denier is doing more than just making us laugh; it makes us rethink the irredeemable. It is no revelation that a man's motives for endorsing a truly wacky opinion might stem from a need to be loved rather than a need to hate but this documentary manages something quite tricky--it prepares us to forgive. The film itself is truly lovely to behold from the opening credits to the delicate juxtaposition of now & then shots of Auschwitz. Go see this film.
Captivating tragedy
pomona8825 January 2000
"Mr. Death" is probably Morris' best work besides "The Thin Blue Line." Fred Leuchter holds your interest much longer than the gardener and the lion tamer from "Fast, Cheap & Out of Control," and his actions are far more consequential and film-worthy than those of the characters in "Gates of Heaven" and "Vernon, Florida." Fred Leuchter at times seems aware that he is not qualified to be in his position and that he has consciously chosen to stick to his beliefs whether they're right or not.
"Mr. Death" only had two drawbacks for me. The strobe-like effect in the opening credits bothered my eyes, and the chiseling footage in the death camps could have easily been edited down.
"Mr. Death" only had two drawbacks for me. The strobe-like effect in the opening credits bothered my eyes, and the chiseling footage in the death camps could have easily been edited down.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
