Although GW Pabst was unable to the escape the Nazis and had to remain making films under the supervision of the Ministry of Propaganda, it's pretty clear that this director was simply not just going to toe the party line. Here he presents us with quite a straightforward biopic of the eponymous Swiss man, vilified by the established scientific profession, who worked with homeopathy and other types of more traditional methods of treating illness - spurning the modern day (16th Century) more invasive, shall we say, techniques espoused by the medical elite. Werner Krauss is well cast in the title role and the film takes us through his many confrontations with his peers and the wealthy German nobles and businessmen who, many of them, made their business (and sustained their wealth) from the pain, suffering and even death of their fellow citizens. Had it not been for the fact that is was produced under Dr. Goebbels' auspices, then this would most likely be considered as a merely adequate story of medical advancements that takes a well focussed series of swipes at the selfishness and thoughtlessness of the ruling classes coupled with the ignorance of an incredibly superstitious proletariat. It drags at times and there is romantic element that tries, though not very hard, to inject some humanity into what is essentially quite a dry piece of cinema. Still, perhaps it is just time that has tempered the potency of this film - watch it and see what you think. I enjoyed it.

I have had a particular interest in this film since I saw HITLER'S HOLLYWOOD in April of 2018. I was intrigued by this movie's purported anti-Nazi sentiment as approved by Goebbels. The hypothesis offered was that the Evil Genius of Cinema -- worse than Louis B. Mayer, possibly the equal of Walt Disney -- had permitted its release as a sop to the intelligentsia. This seemed unlikely to me. If it was an anti-Nazi film, was it permitted, or did it slip by Goebbels' eagle-eyed omniscience? Or might it be something else, entirely?

I have tested this hypothesis in the only rational way I know. I have looked at the evidence of the film. I think the hypothesis, as asserted as fact in HITLER'S HOLLYWOOD, is false. I think it is something else entirely.

Werner Krauss is Paracelsus, a man whose enemy is death. He meets his foe on the battlefield of the human body in sickness. His foe is assisted by the forces of the Establishment: the rich, seeking ever more riches through monopolies on the latest panacea, the medical colleges, who think that all knowledge of health is contained in Galen and Avicenna. He struggles, and has his victories, and failures, only to rise again, fighting plague, stupidity, cupidity, and vanity, all in the context of 16th Century Germany.

It is, in short, an entertaining medical biopic in fancy dress. That made me think about other medical biopics, like MADAME CURIE, but more especially, THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR, in which Paul Muni portrays the hero -- in a beard; Muni was a sucker for any role which had him wear a beard -- who fights his battle against the medical Establishment of 19th Century France, with his only goal the health and well-being of the people.

Hm. Given that, the simplest conclusion is that here was a proven formula with a German twist.

Is there a political or social message in it, other than we should trust the evidence of our eyes, and the success of testing theories against facts? I think there is such a message here: that the enemy of the poor and weak and ill are the rich and powerful. A rich man lets the plague into the city in hopes of more riches. The powerful medical establishment opposes Paracelsus to maintain its power and weath. Paracelsus' only allies are the young, the poor, and the sick.

Well, the rich and powerful we always have with us. They will always strive to maintain and engorge themselves. Truth, however, remains truth. Is that such a radical thought? Is this such a radical movie?