Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=chjf20
Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television
ISSN: 0143-9685 (Print) 1465-3451 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chjf20
Dutch Anti-Semitic Colour Animation in World War
II: Robert Van Genechten’s Van Den Vos Reynaerde
(1943)
Egbert Barten
To cite this article: Egbert Barten (2011) Dutch Anti-Semitic Colour Animation in World War II:
Robert Van Genechten’s Van�Den�Vos�Reynaerde (1943), Historical Journal of Film, Radio and
Television, 31:1, 1-41, DOI: 10.1080/01439685.2011.552675
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01439685.2011.552675
Published online: 23 Mar 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 294
View related articles
Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television
Vol. 31, No. 1, March 2011, pp. 1–41
DUTCH ANTI-SEMITIC COLOUR ANIMATION IN
WORLD WAR II: ROBERT VAN GENECHTEN’S
VAN DEN VOS REYNAERDE (1943)
Egbert Barten
In the very middle of the Second World War in The Hague, the Netherlands, a colour
animation film of Walt Disney-like quality was made as an anti-Semitic ‘sequel’ to the
medieval Dutch fable Van den vos Reynaerde (About Reynard the Fox). Part of this film was
discovered as recently as the 1990s in the German Bundesarchiv and restored by the
Nederlands Filmmuseum. Only a few years ago, the remaining parts were found and so it
became possible to see and study the complete film. In this article, I will explore the
film and its makers, and why until recently few knew that this film existed.
This article covers the complete film and presents source material that was unknown
until now.1
It all started with Robert van Genechten (1895–1945). This radical Flemish
activist fled to the Netherlands at the end of the First World War, after which he was
sentenced in absentia to eight years imprisonment by a Belgian court. He finished his
law studies in Utrecht and became a lawyer in that city. In June 1930, he acquired
Dutch citizenship. In 1934, he joined the Dutch National Socialist movement – the
Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging or NSB. He published extensively about the Flemish
movement, capitalism and the dietsche connection between Flanders and the
Netherlands. He became one of the most prominent theoreticians of the NSB and,
from October 1938, also head of the Departement Vorming (department for sociocultural
training).2
In 1937, he published his only literary work, Van den vos Reynaerde,
in Nieuw Nederland, the political and cultural monthly of the NSB, as part of his
activities as head of the department.
Correspondence: Egbert Barten, Wandelweg 190, 1521 AM Wormerveer, The Netherlands. E-mail:
ewjbarten@zonnet.nl
ISSN 0143-9685 (print)/ISSN 1465-3451 (online)/11/010001–41 ß 2011 IAMHIST & Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01439685.2011.552675
Underneath his caftan, Jodocus is wearing nine yellow squares resembling a Star of David. These are only
seen for a fraction of a second. This and all other frame enlargements from VAN DEN VOS REYNAERDE,
collection Eye Film Institute (Filmmuseum), Amsterdam.
Reynaert in the forest.
2 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
Reynaert with the proclamation of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
‘From the third egg emerges an ostrich-frog . . . ’ (screenplay version 2, scene 15).
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 3
The goose is unable to pay his taxes and is evicted from his house. In this picture, the rhino tax collector has
horns on his head and turns green, like the devil.
The banquet of the Jodocusses.
4 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
Van Genechten situates his story in Flanders and begins with the death of the old
King Nobel. The donkey Boudewijn, who represents democracy in this story, manages
to usurp the throne. While the other animals quarrel as to whether Boudewijn is a
legitimate successor, ‘a most peculiar animal, that no one knew’ announces himself.3
It is Jodocus, the rhinoceros, who has come to ask the donkey for a place in his
empire. Boudewijn agrees, but after the arrival of Jodocus, King Nobel’s old empire
starts falling apart. The stronger, predatory animals Izegrim the wolf and Firapeel the
leopard are sent to the borders of the empire to prevent the return of young Lionel,
King Nobel’s son. This way they are no longer a threat to Jodocus as well. A republic
is proclaimed in which liberty, equality and fraternity exist for all animals. Jodocus
manages to accumulate more and more power by bringing more rhinos into the
empire and they start collecting taxes under his leadership. He also tries to alienate
the animals from their own natural disposition by promoting animal miscegenation:
Then there was a great confusion amongst the animals. They had become true
brothers and mated amongst each other. The bull and the goat, the hare and the
fish, the ferret and the wild boar; because they didn’t recognize each other, and
confused each other’s names and habits, they ate their own children. (p. 34)
Jodocus also tries to get Reynaert to do his dirty work for him.
The dissatisfaction among the animals increases. Nobel’s son Lionel confers with
Izegrim, Firapeel and Reynaert about what to do next. At the head of a large
procession of animals, Lionel travels through his father’s old empire. The animals
commit an enormous massacre among the rhinos, and Jodocus is also killed, ‘But
in spite of all the preparations, some of them managed to escape and fled to other
countries’ (p. 98). Meanwhile, Reynaert has resumed his old habit; he has escaped
from the retinue of the new King Lionel to catch a fat hen and ‘this is the way it will
always be’ (ibid.).
FIGURE 1 Robert van Genechten speaking in Utrecht, 1941. Image from the NSB newsreel Spiegel der
Beweging, nr. 9, 1941. From the collection of the Dutch broadcasting archive, Instituut voor Beeld en Geluid,
Hilversum.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 5
What Van Genechten tried to tell with his version of the Reynaert story was
that the Jews are responsible for all social wrongs and that they aim to enrich
themselves at the expense of others. Only vigorous resistance against them will
prevent a complete collapse of society. Parliamentary democracy – another Jewish
invention according to Van Genechten – is wrong, and the ideals of the French
Revolution (liberty, equality and fraternity) inevitably lead to degeneration and
miscegenation. It is important to preserve the national character. The anti-Semitic
work of Van Genechten did not find much response when it was published in
instalments in the NSB magazine; this changed when it was published in book form by
the National-Socialist publisher De Amsterdamsche Keurkamer in 1941.4
The Netherlands
was occupied by then; Van Genechten himself had become procurator general at
The Hague court in 1940 and was notorious for his acts as prosecutor at the Peace
Court, which was established by the Germans. Publisher George Kettmann turned
Van den vos Reynaerde into a book lavishly illustrated with black-and-white drawings
from Maarten Meuldijk, cartoonist at the NSB weekly Volk en Vaderland.
Van Genechten was very keen to keep track of the sales of his book. Van den vos
Reynaerde was published in March of 1941 and one month later, he was already asking
Kettmann about the sales. The publisher was slightly non-committal, but he did
mention that the NSB did very little to bring the book to the attention of the public.
However, the sales of the book were good. In August of that year, 1885 copies of the
first edition of 2000 books were already sold. A second edition of 8000 copies came
out that very same year. The book was also available in Belgium through book
exporter Van Ditmar.5
The book was mainly reviewed in the explicit National-Socialist press. The first
glowing review appeared in Volk en Vaderland on 28 March 1941:
Apart from the already great merit of having retained the vernacular tone of the
age-old and famous original and at the same time having made a true ‘sequel’
incorporating many new inventions and witty touches, this new Reynaert is
a wonderful example of satirical tendenz-kunst [ . . . ] Politics have truly been
inspirational here: far from being a slightly artificially contrived story, it is
FIGURE 2 Maarten Meuldijk’s vision on miscegenation.
From Robert van Genechten’s book
(p. 35).
FIGURE 3 Background from Van den vos
Reynaerde with the hills from which Jodocus is to
emerge. ‘Snap shot’ photo from J.W.I. du Buy’s
collection, reproduction in the author’s collection.
6 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
sparkling with life, and readers will want to reread it time and time again. [ . . . ]
There is no better propaganda than that of healthy laughter. Both the amount of
real humour that Van Genechten gave Van den Vos Reynaerde and the naturalistic
way in which Meuldijk brought the delightful animal figures to life in black and
white, are valuable assets for our political propaganda.
Outside the specific NSB press, there was hardly any media response to the book.
In an advertisement in Volk en Vaderland of 6 June 1941, calling the book ‘a gift to the
people’, the publisher wrote that the newspaper press and the literary journals do not
want to review it, because ‘these gentlemen are still afraid of anti-Semitism [ . . . ]
while in their hearts the Dutch have already been anti-Semites for a long time’.
The success of Van Genechten’s book in National-Socialist circles – in 1941, the
Flemish broadcasting company even turned it into a radio play called Jodocus for its
Brussels station6
– may have influenced the decision of the Department of Information
and Arts (Departement van Volksvoorlichting en Kunsten, DVK) to turn this work into a
status project of the Dutch film industry. An animation film was to be made and what
is more, it would be made in colour, which – at that time – was a first for the
Netherlands.
This commission was given to Nederland Film, a company established in 1941
with the support of DVK. Nederland Film was run by National-Socialist film-maker
Egbert van Putten (1899–1996). At the end of the 1920s and the early 1930s, Van
Putten was involved in the Nederlandsche Filmliga (Dutch Film Society) and after that
he lived for several years in Berlin. In Germany, he worked on several films and wrote
the screenplay for Lotte Reiniger’s animation film Das Rollende Rad (1934). He also
distributed the Swedish anti-Semitic film Petterson och Bendel (directed by Per Axel
Brenner, 1935) in Germany. Furthermore, he was Kringleider (Kreis Leader) of the
NSB in Berlin. In short, he was a man with quite a lot of contacts in the film world
and in politics, both in Germany and the Netherlands.7
From Berlin, he was supported by Alfred Greven, a former Ufa producer who
kept an eye on German film interests and who initiated pro-German film companies
wherever he thought it necessary. Nederland Film fit into this scheme well. The firm
had two departments: one for the production of documentary films and one for the
production of animated films. Both were established in the very centre of The Hague.
The documentary unit was located at Smidswater 1 and the animation section was
located at Smidswater 20, a large, two-story space over the coach house at the back of
a stately mansion at Lange Voorhout 62, where Jan Teunissen (leader of the Film Guild
of the Dutch Kultuurkamer and head of the NSB Film Service) lived. Since the large
doors of the coach house had to be kept free for Teunissen’s car, the animation film
studio was accessible only via a small gateway next to the Teunissen’s house at Lange
Voorhout. This gateway bore the number 64, resulting in the nickname ‘Studio 64’
for the animation film department. Several employees of the former (George) Pal
Studio in Eindhoven (producing superb puppet commercials for Philips and other
companies before the war) were recruited for the production of animated films and
Nederland Film also took over some of its equipment. George Pal had fled Holland in
1939, making a career for himself in Hollywood (and being nominated for an
Academy Award for his short Tulips Shall Grow as early as 1943, a film set in Holland
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 7
during the war years) but leaving behind in Holland a studio full of equipment and
trained personnel that were very convenient in regards to the new plans.
In one of the earliest records of Nederland Film (dated 22 September 1941), Van
den vos Reynaerde was listed as an ‘animation film in colour [ . . . ] to be made with a
minimum length of 250 meter’ (approximately nine minutes) for Dfl. 15,000.8
When
Van Putten closed the deal with DVK in July 1942, the budget had been increased to
Dfl. 30,000.9
At the end of 1942, the expenditure was six times as high as the original
estimate and the expected length of the film was to be 600 metres (over
21 minutes).10
The bill eventually paid by DVK must have been higher still, but the
exact amount is lost in the mists of time.
In the Dutch press, the production of the film was vaguely referred to as
‘the Nederland Film animation project’; the fact that it was a screen adaptation of
Van Genechten’s anti-Semitic book was never mentioned.11
Even so, the work on the
film was not kept a top secret. Colleagues within the film company must have had at
least an inkling of what happened in The Hague. Judging by the remarks made by
fellow animator Marten Toonder shortly after the war, for instance, some of them
knew exactly what was going on: ‘an NSB company making an anti-Semitic animation
film’.12
The animators working on the film also knew what was expected of them.
According to animator Joop du Buy, who worked from the summer of 1942 until
April 1943 at Nederland Film, the rhinos were called ‘Jew Animals’.13
Animator
Jenny Dalenoord (b. 1918) is also convinced that they knew:
I did not feel very sympathetic towards the film, because it had a typical antiJewish
background. We all knew this, because that was the whole purpose, but
we did not like it. But on the other hand, we had to make money. [ . . . ] horrible,
FIGURE 4 Nederland Film manager and director
of the film Van den vos Reynaerde, Egbert van
Putten, with one of the financial backers of
Nederland Film, Gerard van den Arend, who was
also one of NSB leader Anton Mussert’s aides.
Photo from the author’s collection.
FIGURE 5 Egbert van Putten, 1940/1941. Photo
R.J. Meijer, from the author’s collection.
8 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
how did they come up with such a thing, this kind of anti-Jewish propaganda.
As far as propaganda goes, I don’t think it would have worked, because the same
pictures were shown on advertising pillars, with slogans underneath. Not rhinos
but little men with large noses, caricatures and so on. Very large posters.14
Jenny Dalenoord is probably referring to billboards of Fritz Hippler’s Der Ewige
Jude (1940) on display in many places in The Hague from the beginning of October
1941, because the Dutch version of this film was released at that time and the release
was marked by a particularly vicious poster made by illustrator Hans Borrebach.15
The screenplay of Van den vos Reynaerde was probably written by Henk Plaizier
(b. 1913) of the Persgilde of the Nederlandsche Kultuurkamer (the Press Guild of the
Dutch Culture Chamber).16
The letter of DVK from 22 September 1941, quoted
above, mentions the production of the film ‘according to the attached screenplay’ and
goes on to say that ‘any small changes to the screenplay should be discussed with
H. Plaizier’. It is unclear, though, to what extent the employees of Nederland Film
themselves were involved in developing the screenplay, but it is quite probable that
they were. Evidence for this assumption comes from the fact that there are two
FIGURE 6 The installation for recording animation films at Nederland Film, March 1943. This installation
was taken over from Pal Studio in Eindhoven.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 9
known versions of the screenplay, the first of which comes from the estate of one of
the animators and that this is the only known copy of that version (Appendix 1). There
is also a picture of a ‘screenplay meeting’ at the offices of Nederland Film that has only
Nederland Film employees in it (see Fig. 12).
The credits of the film mention Nederland Film manager Egbert van Putten as
director. After the war, Van Putten said this was only a formality: ‘although I was
officially responsible, I had very little to do with it, the boys from Pal Studio did it all
on their own’.17
The employees who came from Pal Studio, Hill Beekman (b. 1911),
Andre´ Holla (1916–1996) and Joszef Misik must have had an important voice in the
design of the animal characters, most notably the rhinoceros Jodocus. They did not
base their work on Maarten Meuldijk’s black-and-white drawings from Van
FIGURE 7 Camera assistant Joop van Essen’s
identity pass from the Film Guild, valid through
1942. The pass signed by Jan Teunissen, leader of
the Film Guild, and by Van Essen himself. Original in
collection Joop van Essen, copy from the author’s
collection.
FIGURE 8 Camera assistant Joop van Essen
posing next to the moviola of Nederland Film.
Original in collection Joop van Essen, copy from
the author’s collection.
FIGURE 9 Administrator J.A. (Lex) van Glabbeek
posing next to the moviola of Nederland Film, March
1942. Copy from the collection of Andre´ Holla.
FIGURE 10 The animation department on
5 December 1941. On the wall seven examples of
animals from the film, including Reinaert and
Boudewijn the braying donkey, and third from the
left Jodocus the rhinoceros animal. Jenny Dalenoord
is sitting at the middle drawing table against the wall;
the other animators are unknown. Photo from the
author’s collection.
10 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
Genechten’s book, because they were not suited for the American-style animation. All
characters were designed from scratch.
To form a group of animators large enough for the ambitious animation film
project and to find young talented animators, a cartoon competition was organized
in Haarlem early 1942. The jury consisted of Hill Beekman and the Haarlem artist
H.G. Kannegieter.18
The 30 winners were rewarded with a free course in animation,
which was led by Kannegieter, and afterwards they were offered employment at
Nederland Film. Among the winners were Joop du Buy, Han van Gelder, Greetje
Krouwel and Jan van Hillo. Hans Kresse, who became a well-known cartoonist later
on, did not participate in the competition, but was allowed into the course because he
was very talented and he also became an employee of Nederland Film.
FIGURE 11 The animation department in March
1942. Since the photo from December 1941 an
extra row of drawing tables has been added. This
means that in the meantime more people were
employed to work on the film. The woman turning
towards the camera is Jenny Dalenoord again. The
woman sitting at the head of the drawing tables is
Corry Mu¨hlenfeld. Photo from the author’s collection.
FIGURE 12 Screenplay meeting 1942. From left
to right Bouman, Misik, Holla and Beekman. In the
background are framed drawings of the film’s
protagonists. On the left Jodocus, on the right
Reinaert and Boudewijn the donkey on the throne.
Photo from the author’s collection.
FIGURE 13 Animator Hill Beekman posing next to
one of the drawing tables at Nederland Film. On the
table a backdrop from Van den vos Reynaerde.
Photo from the author’s collection.
FIGURE 14 Animator Andre´ Holla posing next to
one of the drawing tables at Nederland Film, April
1942. Photo from the author’s collection.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 11
FIGURE 15 Animator and later manager Andre´
Holla at the offices of the animation film. On the wall
a chart entitled ‘Performance Statistics Animation
Department’. On the back, Andre´ Holla dated the
photo himself: ‘March 1943, before I took over from
Kannegieter’. Photo from the author’s collection.
FIGURE 16 Jan Bouman posing next to one of the
drawing tables at Nederland Film, March 1942.
Photo from the author’s collection.
FIGURE 17 Hill Beekman doing the same. Photo
from the author’s collection.
FIGURE 19 The animation department at
Nederland Film. It is unknown who the three
animators are. Photo from the author’s collection.
FIGURE 18 The painting department at Nederland
Film. It is unknown who the ladies in the picture are.
Photo from the author’s collection.
12 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
In April 1943, the film was almost finished. The minutes of the meeting of the
DVK Propaganda Council mention a preview of the film for the financiers and the staff
who made the film.19
The preview was held on Sunday 25 April in the Asta Theater in
The Hague.20
Animator Holla remembers that it was ‘black with NSB people’,
FIGURE 20 Holla with the moviola. Photo ibid.
FIGURE 21 Holla at the drawing table 1942.
Photo ibid.FIGURE 22 Cameraman Joszef Misik posing next
to the moviola. Photo from the author’s collection.
FIGURE 23 Misik, ibid. FIGURE 24 Beekman with the moviola. Photo ibid.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 13
referring to the fact that NSB members usually wore black uniforms.21
Among the
many NSB officials present was Tobie Goedewaagen, secretary general of DVK. The
author Robert van Genechten was conspicuously absent. He had tried to end his life
twice in April 1943, the second time – only days before the preview – he shot himself
through the head. Although he survived this second attempt, he was hospitalized for a
long time and was undergoing treatment at the time of the preview.22
Van Genechten
did see several excerpts of the film in the summer of 1942 and wrote to his publisher:
‘What I have seen of it is really very attractive’.23
As Van Putten remembered it 50 years later, Goedewaagen was very satisfied with
the result. The Propaganda council of his department, however, was not totally
enthusiastic. From the minutes of 27 April 1943, it appears that the members now
had a problem with the fox figure: according to the council it was badly chosen from
‘a National-Socialist point of view’. This objection is all the more remarkable since the
Reynaert in the film is exactly the same National-Socialist folk hero as in the book. On
the other hand, the council was full of praise for the technical excellence of the film;
the animated sequences were termed ‘magnificent’. In October 1943, Van Putten
wrote a letter about the film to DVK that implied that the German authorities also had
some reservations about the film, although it does not become clear what.24
Nothing
more was heard of the film after this. During the production of the film, the
totalitarian press had only written in vague terms about the animation film project,
and after the preview (at which no representatives of the press had been present),
FIGURE 25 Van den vos Reynaerde composer Leo
Ruygrok in the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam,
August 27–28, 1942. He is rehearsing the suite
he composed for another Nederland Film, Wie Gaat
Mee? (1942). Photo R.J. Meijer, from the author’s
collection.
FIGURE 26 Part of the group of young artists who
were trained as animators in the second half of
1942, after winning a contest, posing in front of the
entrance of the coach house at the Lange Voorhout
in The Hague (‘Studio 64’). Second from the left,
with necktie, Jan van Hillo, the rest are unknown.
Original in J.W.I. du Buy’s collection, reproduction in
the author’s collection.
14 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
none of the newspapers mentioned the title. Van den vos Reynaerde was never released
in the cinema, which is remarkable for a film that had raised so many expectations and
which had cost so much money.
Why Van den vos Reynaerde was never released is a matter for conjecture. Were the
objections of the Dutch National-Socialists, DVK, or maybe even the Germans
FIGURE 27 Another part of the group, posing on
the other side of the Lange Voorhout. On the
uppermost row, third from the left, Greet Krouwel,
directly beneath her, Joop du Buy. On the row below
that, fifth from the left Han van Gelder (with glasses).
Bottom row, in a coat and with glasses, Jan van
Groningen. Original in J.W.I. du Buy’s collection,
reproduction in the author’s collection.
FIGURE 28 ‘Studio 64’, drawing made by Jan van
Groningen from 1943 as a farewell gift to Joop du
Buy. Original in J.W.I. du Buy’s collection, reproduction
in the author’s collection.
FIGURE 29 A group of winners is sketching on
location, probably somewhere in Haarlem. The man
in white is teacher H.G. Kannegieter; the younger
man looking at his drawing is Han van Gelder. Sitting
on the ground is N. Hoogerwerf, the others are
unknown. Original in J.W.I. du Buy’s collection,
reproduction in the author’s collection.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 15
themselves too strong? Did they have trouble believing in the positive (i.e. NationalSocialist)
characteristics of the fox, an animal that usually has the role of the unreliable
scoundrel in animated films? How could it be that the prototype of a villain had
suddenly changed into a hero?25
Or was it no longer deemed necessary to release an
anti-Semitic film by the time it was completed? The ‘Great Propaganda Action’
against the Jews was over by 1941, so maybe Van den vos Reynaerde was completed too
late to be useful.26
Other films made by Nederland Film weren’t released either, for example the
music film Wie gaat mee? (Who will come along?) directed by R.J. Meijer in 1942,
which did get a press release and which was reviewed extensively and
enthusiastically.27
So it wasn’t entirely uncommon that propaganda films were not
shown at all. The fact that it was no longer possible to make a version of Van den vos
Reynaerde that was satisfactory for all parties might be partly explained by the speedy
dissolution of the animation section of Nederland Film after finishing the preview
version of the film. From the beginning of 1943, people who had worked for Van
Putten were distributed among the two Arbeitsgruppen of the German film companies
Bavaria Filmkunst and Fischerko¨sen Film Produktion, which opened branches in The
Hague. In a letter, Van Putten complained that the film could not be finished
according to the wishes of the German authorities because, contrary to earlier
promises, the two new studios refused to cooperate with him in finishing the film.28
Van Putten took the only existing projection print of the film with him to Germany
and gave it to the widow of his friend and film director Edgar Beyfuss.29
Although this
copy has not been recovered until now, the original negative and sound materials were
eventually found in the German Bundesarchiv around the turn of the millennium. This
material probably came from Geyer Werke, the only film laboratory that could
process (Agfa)colour film in occupied Europe.
Judging from the surviving part of the film (‘an old fable rejuvenated, after a book
by Robert van Genechten’, according to the opening titles) and the surviving
FIGURE 30 The fox as an unreliable animal in two
other films of the period: title image from Der
Sto¨renfried by Hans Held (1939/1940). Film still
from the author’s collection.
FIGURE 31 Das dumme Ga¨nslein by Hans
Fischerko¨sen (1944), produced partly in the
Netherlands by people who also worked on Van
den vos Reynaerde. Film still from the author’s
collection.
16 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
screenplays, the film follows the plot of the book in most respects. It retains the
central ideas of the book, including miscegenation, the destructive influence of the
rhinos, and the ‘cleansing’ power of the National-Socialist folk hero Reynaert
who even ‘purges’ the sand contaminated by the rhinos in version 2 of the screenplay.
The emphasis is on the folk hero Reynaert, who leads the revolt against the rhinos.
The lion Lionel is almost absent in the screenplay. Both in the film and in the
screenplay there is more emphasis on the economic exploitation of the animals by the
family of the rhino, who collects taxes in a merciless fashion.
The most substantial difference is that in the book a few rhinos manage to escape
in the end while at the end of the film all rhinos are driven into the sea, even though
this was apparently considered too cruel: the rhinos are given winglets to fly to heaven
like so many angels. An equivocal ending indeed, and strangely enough it was not in
the screenplay versions. It might have been invented to accommodate the ambiguity of
Van Genechten’s book and its suggestion that the rhinos (read: the Jews) should be
fought even when they have already died and gone to heaven (as is shown in the film).
The final shot of the film shows Reynaert looking out over the sea with his offspring,
which can be interpreted as follows: the rhinos were drowned, but we are still
vigilant.
How did the filmmakers fare after the war? The director, Egbert van Putten, fled
to Germany in September 1944, and was arrested in Berlin after the German
capitulation. He was transported to the Netherlands, where he was detained for a
short period from April until August 1946.30
It is unknown whether he was heard
by the Commissie tot Zuivering van het Filmwezen (Committee for Purging the Film
Industry). In any case, he went abroad soon after his detention. He was no longer
active in the film industry, although he did some odd jobs for a few large Hollywood
productions in Spain in the 1960s (including Anthony Mann’s El Cid, 1961). He
returned to the Netherlands every now and then and kept in touch with his former
employees.31
When I located Van Putten in Madrid in the 1980s and asked him to
share his memories of this period, Nederland Film and the film Van den vos Reynaerde,
he was all too willing to do so; his statements showed no trace of regret or guilt.
Instead, he made it seem as if he had been a guardian angel, who had established
Nederland Film and particularly the animation department for the sole reason to
prevent the animators of the Pal Studio, who had been without work after Pal left for
Hollywood, being sent to Germany.32
Many of the people who worked on the film did not return to the film industry
after the war, perhaps to avoid being put before the Committee for Purging the Film
Industry (there are no sources that confirm this), perhaps for other reasons as well.
The fact that the film was never publicly shown and remained relatively unknown
must have influenced the fact that none of the makers experienced any negative
consequences. Hill Beekman and Andre´ Holla returned to the advertising business
where they had worked before George Pal came to Eindhoven. H.G. Kannegieter
(1898–1991) and Joop du Buy (1924–1994) went back to making cartoons; one of
Joop Du Buy’s activities was making a cartoon for the communist newspaper De
Waarheid (The Truth). Of all the employees who had worked on Van den vos Reynaerde
only two remained in the film industry. Cameraman Joszef Misik started working
for the puppet film studio of Joop Geesink, and even though Geesink was prohibited
from work for a few months by the Committee for Purging the Film Industry because
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 17
of his film activities during the war, Misik was allowed to replace him in the first half
of 1946 as manager. Misik’s assistant Joop van Essen (b. 1922) – who had also worked
for the documentary department of Nederland Film after working for a few months
on Van den vos Reynaerde – established his own film company, Mirror Film, after the
war in Amsterdam. With this company, he was to make many films.
Some of the lower-level employees of Nederland Film became more or less well
known after the war. Animator Jenny Dalenoord (b. 1918) became a well-known
illustrator of children’s books (including Wiplala by Annie M.G Schmidt and many
books by Miep Diekmann). Her colleague Jan van Hillo (1922–1980) became a
famous television reporter in the 1960s and 1970s at the broadcasting companies
NCRV, NTS and NOS. He was famous for a report from the Palace of Soestdijk with
Queen Juliana – which was also turned into a bestselling book33
– and programmes
with other members of the Dutch royal family. He also made several documentaries
about the persecution of the Jews and the concentration camps, which brought him
plenty of attention. This provoked one of the other animators of Nederland Film, Joop
du Buy, into launching a campaign to ban Van Hillo from the television screen.
It is unclear whether this campaign was limited to but one angry phone call to
Beekman.34
Van Hillo died at the age of 57 in 1980. Du Buy himself talked very freely
about the film when Gerard Groeneveld and I were preparing our first publication
about the film for De Volkskrant in 1991. He was also very cooperative, handing over all
the material about the film he had in his possession.35
But when the article was
FIGURE 32 8 May 1945. Liberation of The Hague. Robert van Genechten, who has just been arrested,
sees how the crowd breaks through the barrier, offering shelter between the arresting squad. He is pushed
inside, leaving the furious crowd in the street. Image from footage in the collection of the Dutch broadcasting
archive Instituut voor Beeld en Geluid, Hilversum.
18 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
published and he realized that he was one of only very few people who had dared to
speak about the film, he took back his words and said there had been
a misunderstanding and that he had not worked on the film at all. ‘I am not an
anti-Semite’ was the heading of the interview published in the newspaper Haarlems
Dagblad in which he tried to take back his earlier statements – as if we had ever made
such an accusation.36
The incident showed how difficult it could be to publish about
such sensitive subjects without raising controversy at the end of the 20th century.
Robert van Genechten, the creator of the story and hence the evil genius of this
film, was finally arrested on 8 May 1945 in The Hague and detained in Scheveningen
prison, together with people like NSB leader Anton Mussert, Film Guild leader
Jan Teunissen and NSB propagandist Max Blokzijl. During his trial in October 1945, he
was criticized for his merciless policy as prosecutor of the Peace Court in The Hague,
but he was also confronted with anti-Semitic statements he made during a few radio
lectures. Neither his book Van den vos Reynaerde, nor the film of the same title were
discussed. The trial ended in a death sentence. Although Van Genechten appealed to the
Supreme Court, he did not await its judgment. He committed suicide on 13 December.
His suicide letter, addressed to the clerk of the Special Criminal Court in The Hague,
contained not only an admission of guilt but also the following words:
I especially wish to express my regrets about the acrimonious and malicious
words I used with respect to the Jews at a time that they were already so seriously
FIGURE 33 10 May 1945, Robert van Genechten with a group including Anton Mussert and MaxBlokzijl in
the exercise yard of Scheveningen Prison. Image from the collection of the Dutch broadcasting archive,
Instituut voor Beeld en Geluid, Hilversum.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 19
afflicted, even though I am not in the least guilty of their massacre and have
always found it horrifying.37
From the fact that Van Genechten deemed it necessary to emphasize that he was not
in the least responsible for the Holocaust, I think it may be concluded that he had in
fact come to believe the opposite in the weeks between his sentence and his suicide.
Credits
Title: Van den vos Reynaerde
Other title: Reinecke der Fuchs
Year of production: 1941–1943
Production company: Nederland Film, The Hague, commissioned by the Department
of Information and Arts (DVK) in The Hague. Made in the coach house of Lange
Voorhout 62 (also called ‘Studio 64’) in The Hague.
Budget: initially fl. 15,000; finally more than fl. 97,000.
Director: Egbert van Putten
Screenplay: Henk Plaizier (based on the book Van den vos Reynaerde by Robert van
Genechten, De Amsterdamsche Keurkamer, 1941)
Music: Leo Ruygrok
Camera and synchronization: Joszef Misik
Assistant Trickfilm camera: Joop van Essen
Animation: Hill Beekman, Andre´ C.J. Holla, Jan Bouman, Olga Tijssen
Animators/inkers/in-betweeners: Jenny Dalenoord, Jan van Hillo, Corry
Mu¨hlenfeld, H.G. Kannegieter, Joop W.I. du Buy, Hans G. Kresse, Han van
Gelder, Greetje Krouwel, Jan van Groningen, Martin Keuris, J. van Gorkum,
Harry Baljet, Th. Meyer, N. Hoogerwerf, L. Schoof, [ . . . ] Knijff and many
others.
Voice over: unknown.
Laboratory: Geyer-Werke AG, Berlin-Neuko¨lln.
Screening: private screening on 25 April 1943 in the Asta Theatre in The Hague,
never released after that.
Premie`re: (recovered first act) 25 April 1992 in Hoogt 1, during the Holland
Animation Film Festival in Utrecht; (complete film) 4 November 2006 during the
HAFF in Utrecht.
Technical data: 35-mm, animation film, colour (Agfacolor), optical sound, Academy
ratio.
Archive data film material: Eye Film Instituut (Filmmuseum) Amsterdam, A 2158,
327 metres, circa 12’ (complete nitrate image and sound negative); DK 2457, 327
metres (restored safety 35-mm print).
20 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
Appendices
Introduction
In this article, all existing source material of the film Van den vos Reynaerde is published,
including the two versions of the screenplay (Appendix 1), the commentary
(Appendix 2) and all the set pictures, but excluding – with one exception – the
material from the Department of Information and Arts archive in the Netherlands
Institute for War Documentation (NIOD) in Amsterdam.
It is remarkable that so little production material of this film has been
recovered. Not a single cell or line test and only one sketch. Are they still hidden
somewhere in somebody’s attic or did a large-scale destruction take place? The
latter actually seems very improbable, that is why I urge all researchers and collectors to
keep an eye open for any material from this film that might crop up in the near future.
Appendix 1
Van den vos Reynaerde (1943); a comparison of the two remaining
versions of the screenplay
Version 1 and version 2 both belonged to A.C.J. Holla (one of the four main
animators who are mentioned in the credits of the film) and are now part of the
author’s collection. This is the first time that version 1 is published in English.
Version 2 also exists in the NIOD archives (DVK Archive file 121 Aa; see below)
and an English translation was published before by Barten and Groeneveld 1994
(see footnote 1, screenplay as appendix, pp. 210–212).
In the opinion of the author of this article, Anabella Weismann made a translation
into German of this English translation, which she published to accompany her article
‘Von Nasho¨rnern, Fu¨chsen und Ga¨nsen. Zur nationalsozialistischen Propaganda
in den besetzten Niederlanden am Beispiel des Zeichentrickfilms VAN DEN VOS
REYNAERDE’, in: Wolfgang Benz et al. (ed.), Kultur Propaganda O¨ffentlichkeit.
Intentionen deutscher Besatzungspolitik und Reaktionen auf die Okkupation (Berlin, 1998),
225–260 (screenplay on p. 256–260). However, Weismann claims that she translated
the screenplay herself from the original Dutch, but the addition ‘Ende des erhaltenen
Filmfragmentes’ at the exact spot where we wrote ‘End of the surviving reel of film’
in the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television raises considerable doubts.
Remarks of the author in italics and in [ . . . ]
Version 1
[2 pp., typewritten]
[p.1]
‘SCREENPLAY FOR THE ANIMATION FILM
‘VAN DEN VOS REYNAERDE’
Introductory text
After King Nobel, who had ruled the animal kingdom for years, passed away, all
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 21
FIGURE 34 First page of version 1 of the screenplay. From the author’s collection.
22 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
animals flocked together to deliberate about a new monarch in order to be better
protected against the cunning tricks of the fox Reynaerde.
Colour scheme transition to the first scene.
In a hollow in the dunes a large crowd of animals from all corners of the kingdom
has gathered. It is a colourful and peaceful mix of cows, sheep, pigs, etc. The birds
and monkeys have found a place to sit on the branches of the trees. In the middle is
the empty throne of the dead King Nobel. In the forefront we can clearly see
Bruin the bear, who is licking his wounded paws; bees are buzzing around his
head. And Tybaert the cat who has a large bandage around his neck. They are loudly
discussing the topic of the day: who is to become the new king. Meanwhile, the
donkey has seated himself on the throne and imagines that he can trick the crowd
by prolonged braying into believing that he has lion-like qualities. And thus will be
chosen to govern and reign over the animals.
Jodocus the rhinoceros is peeping through the branches at the scene in the hollow.
He steps from behind the tree and intends to take a closer look. (Panorama shot of
different animals.) With a friendly smile and a word of greeting for each animal he
encounters, he manages to reach the throne unnoticed.
He takes a bow for the king and produces a parchment scroll from his travelling
bag. The king unrolls the parchment and reads; he nods approvingly, his counsellors
are standing by diligently nodding as well. A forest is seen where proclamations are
nailed to several trees; here and there are animals reading the thing. Near one of the
trees Reynaerd is reading the proclamation.
The whole proclamation becomes clearly visible.
PROCLAMATION
‘Herewith I, King Donkey, proclaim that
as of today there shall exist liberty,
equality and fraternity for all animals.’
Reynaerd the fox turns his head towards the audience, gives a wink, and swiftly tears
down the proclamation.
Strange couples of animals are standing in line, dressed up in festive attires.
Presently a jodocus appears who starts marrying the couples.
Meanwhile Reynaerd has shown the proclamation to the hens. The hens are
overjoyed about the promised freedom and flock to the entrance of the cage.
Obligingly, Reynaerd opens the cage. He catches the first chicken coming out of the
cage and wrings her neck.
[p.2]
Reynaerd is disguised as a midwife and lifts the knocker and lets it fall several times on a
door. The door opens and Reynaerd is heartily welcomed by the Goose-Ostrich couple.
He is let into a room; in a corner is a large basket, lined like a cradle. Reynaerd takes out
an egg, the parents are looking on excitedly as Reynaerd breaks the egg. To the great
surprise of the goose the egg brings forth a . . . hedgehog. From the second egg emerges
a hare, from the third a frog and then Reynaerd produces a large egg from which
emerges a young rhino. The ostrich blushes as she sees this last product. This is the limit
for the goose; he gets terribly exited, pulls a frame with the proclamation in it from the
wall and smashes it to smithereens. Furiously, he runs out.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 23
A barn is seen with several counters in it. Behind every counter is a rhino who
collects the products that the animals must pay for taxes. The goose enters the barn,
he is very annoyed. He passes several counters and starts to complain to Jodocus.
Jodocus soon silences him by showing him several tax assessments that the goose
hasn’t paid yet.
In a large room, Jodocus and his blood relatives are having a banquet. There is a
festive mood. Reynaerd the fox is dressed up as a waiter and is serving the company
[crossed out ‘assisted by his wife and children’], Jodocus distributes tax assessments
among his relatives for them to collect. On the table next to Jodocus is a list with
the names of several animals who are in arrears. With a swift movement of his napkin
Reynaerd the fox manages to whisk it away. He disappears unnoticed to warn the
animals on the list.
[written in pen: ‘Reinaert shows list’. The Dutch original has ‘zijn’ (to be), this should probably
be ‘laat zien’ (to show)]
Leaning over a hedge, two neighbours discuss Jodocus’ plans. A third one joins them.
The three of them run to their neighbours and little by little a procession is formed.
In front are intimidating bears, followed by leopards, elephants, snakes, etc. etc.
The banqueting hall is seen again were the jodocusses are yelling for wine – but
where is Reynaerd??
Now the procession of animals is seen again, it has grown in the meantime, and
the sound of the onrushing animals becomes more and more intimidating.
FIGURE 35 First page of version 2 of the
screenplay (copy of Andre´ Holla). From the author’s
collection.
FIGURE 36 Last page of version 2 of the screenplay
with a calculation of the number of images and
seconds (copy of Andre´ Holla).
24 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
The mood in the banqueting hall is getting better and better. The cries for
Reynaerd are getting ever louder. Softly the door is opened and Reynaerd comes in.
Behind him the animals are pushing forward. Seeing them, Jodocus and his family
grow rigid with fear. They are trying to save themselves in all directions. One is
jumping from the window, another is going up through the chimney, a third one is
trying to climb the chandelier. Jodocus himself tries to get out through the window,
but because he is so fat he gets stuck halfway through. He starts to whine pitifully. The
fleeing jodocusses are pursued by the masses.
The jodocusses appear as black silhouettes against the sky on the edge of the
dunes. They are driven into the sea by the surging crowd.
Version 2 (in author’s collection)
[5 pp., typewritten. The version used here is the one originating from Holla, because of the notes
added in writing.]
[p.1]
‘SCREENPLAY FOR THE ANIMATION FILM OF VAN DEN VOS REYNAERDE.
BASED ON MOTIVES IN THE BOOK OF R. VAN GENECHTEN WITH THE
SAME NAME.
[in pencil between title and text, almost illegible:
Dfl. 80
10 Â 30 m. (??) Gevaert 20
photo leave Rekkers
pick up money from Twentsche
Teunissen key.38
]
1. [scene one is renumbered into scene 4 in pen] After the title and the list of credits
of the collaborators, a heavy parchment unrolls, that tells in old letters that
King Nobel has died and that the donkey Boudewijn has assumed the protection
of the animals.
2. [in pen the numbers 5, 6, and 7 are written next to scene 2] In a hollow in the dunes
have gathered all the animals: the cow, the pig, the squirrel, the giraffe, the
ostrich, the elephant, the goose, the hare, the badger, the leopard, the ram and
the monkey. Reynaert keeps himself at a distance. In close-up we see a group of
animals that still wear traces of their adventures with Reynaert, Bruun, the bear,
with only one ear, buzzing bees round his bandaged head, where apparently is
still some honey to be found. Tybaart, the cat, with a bandaged neck. Isengrijn,
the wolf, licking his wounded paws, Cantecleer, the cock with his thinned tail
and battered feathers.
3. [in pen the number 8 is written next to scene 3] Boudewijn the donkey has already
seated himself on the throne. From the gestures of the animals can be read that
several animals object to this.
4. Belijn, the ram, reads aloud from a folio that, whoever seats himself on the
throne is not a king but he can exert all royal powers.
5. When all animals are gathered in the hollow in the dunes, a strange looking
creature, the nose-animal (rhino), comes gliding down the dunes with his
pompous body. He stops smiling to all, in the midst of the astonished other
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 25
animals, who don’t know what attitude to take towards the strange guest.
Jodocus moves towards the throne, bows deep for the donkey and kisses the
hoof of its ‘queen’.
6. Jodocus addresses Boudewijn with the following words: ‘Sire, I have heard of
the situation in your empire. I have travelled a lot and my family and I have
gathered a lot of wisdom. Let me be your counsellor and let me bring
civilisation to these parts’.
7. General mumbling among the animals. There are ayes and nays. Donkey and his
‘queen’ are in favour.
8. Jodocus continues: ‘In civilized countries, there is no distinction among the
races. All animals are equal and must intermarry between them. It is a heathen
custom that a dog should marry a dog and a bull a cow, Furthermore, every
civilized country has a good tax system. Who could better serve you as tax
collector than I, Jodocus, and my relatives? We have a lot of experience in the
financial field’.
9. Next scene:
Proclamation
With this I, Ruwaart Boudewijn, proclaim that in my empire shall exist
Freedom, Equality and Fraternity. Furthermore, all animals shall pay taxes.
My unselfish servant Jodocus shall be charged with the collection.
10. Dissolve to a forest where the proclamation is nailed to several trees. Here and
there are groups of animals reading it.
11. Near one of the trees, Reynaert reads it, turns his head towards the audience,
gives a wink, and swiftly tears down the proclamation.
12. An elated party around the freedom tree with the Jacobin cap in top. Strange
couples of animals have been formed. Jodocus watches the party with delight.
Other animals look at it in disgust.
13. Meanwhile, Reynaert shows the proclamation to a flock of chickens that are still
locked up in a cage. With a lot of airs and graces he explains that he wants to
invite them to the party but when the first hen, loudly cackling, leaves the cage,
Reinaert wrings its neck.
[p.3]
14. A tour of the households of the strange couples follows, which we see engaged
in several activities.
15. Disguised as a doctor, Reinaert knocks on the door and is welcomed heartily
by the goose–ostrich couple. Reynaert enters the house. In the corner of the
living room is a large crib. From it, Reynaert takes an egg and cracks it open.
From the first egg emerges an ostrich-goose. Both parents are happy, though a
bit confused by the strange proportions. From the second egg emerges an
ostrich-hare. The ostrich is embarrassed, his long neck turns red. The goose
controls himself but it is clear that he has a difficult moment. From the third
egg emerges an ostrich-frog. The neck of the ostrich turns more red still, the
goose nearly chokes. The ostrich tries to prevent Reynaert from opening the
fourth egg but is too late: an ostrich-rhino crawls out of it. Now the goose
26 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
can’t stand it anymore, he is in a terrible fit and beats on his chest. The neck of
the ostrich has turned deep red, she points out the proclamation that is hanging
in a frame on the wall. The goose flies to it, tears it to pieces and runs out of the
house.
16. One sees a shed. In it are several counters; behind every counter is a rhino.
The rhinos collect the products that the animals must pay for taxes. A squirrel
with a large basket of nuts, a chicken with eggs. From the left they enter loaded
with goods, they leave to the right empty-handed.
17. A goose looks dejected, he has nothing on him. When it is his turn,
he explains to the jodocus behind the counter that he has no fruit and therefore
cannot pay the taxes. The jodocus is furious and orders the goose to pay
the amount within 24 hours. Otherwise his furniture will be sold. The goose is
desperate.
18. An hourglass is seen, the last grains of sand fall down.
[p.4]
19. In the high reeds alongside a ditch stands the little house of the goose. It looks
very poor, no curtains before the windows, the door paintless, etc. We hear the
sound of clattering pots and pans. A small shadow becomes visible, the dark
shadow becomes bigger all the time, until it covers the whole house. A jodocus
comes strolling by, enters the house. There is silence for a moment, then
FIGURE 37 Draft of a Jodocus on a half animation film sheet (see the holes at the top of the sheet
allowing the paper to stay in place). This is the only production drawing from the film that has been recovered
until now. This is remarkable for a film for which thousands of drawings, cells and backgrounds were made.
From the author’s collection.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 27
a fearsome noise is heard, and the goose flies out of the house. He looks
flabbergasted. Jodocus closes the door and nails an announcement of public sale
onto the house,
20. The goose has pulled himself together and prepares to leave. His face looks very
sad. One of the jodocusses pats him on the back and tells him that with this
the case is not yet closed. They demand his jacket and his shirt. In a short time,
they completely undress him. The goose stands there, blushing, while it
gradually dawns on him what had happened. He gets very excited and becomes
very angry, to the amusement of the jodocusses.
21. [This whole scene is crossed out in pen and instead are the words: angry goose] The actions
of the tax collectors and the high taxes provoke resistance under the animals.
We see Reynaert talking to groups of animals while he rouses the dissatisfied.
22. [Here is a note in pen in the margin: see other scene] The jodocusses have organized
a festive dinner. Jodocus has got the animals in his power in such a way that he
has a bear carry him to the party while Rosseel the squirrel, sits on his neck and
catches lice which he eats, out of sheer hunger. At the party are animals like
Bruun the bear, Grimbert the badger, and Tybaert the cat, all working as waiters
serving the jodocusses who behave impertinently. The jodocusses drink a lot of
wine and become noisier all the time.
23. While the jodocusses partake, the resistance grows. We see Reynaert incite
the animals to resist themselves. Headed by Isengrijn, the wolf, a procession
is formed, which walks in the direction of the building where the party is
going on.
24. We see the drunken rhino-animals. [Here ‘2’ is written. The next sentence has a note
saying ‘2’ next to ‘animals’. Were the animators planning to draw only two jodocusses in
this scene?] In the distance, we hear the menacing roar of the animals. The roaring
comes nearer. Then a great noise. The jodocusses are terrified. Then they try to
save themselves by running in all directions, one jumps out of the window,
another hides in the chimney, a third tries to climb into a lamp; Jodocus tries
to flee through the window but he gets stuck because he has become too fat,
his lamentation is profound.
25. The rhino-animals are chased by the rabid animals. They disappear over the top
of the dunes: rolling and tumbling they slide down the slope and with an
enormous splash, they jump into the sea . . .
26. Against the setting sun one sees the silhouettes of Reynaert and his five sons,
that stare from the top in the dunes at the sea which has come to rest once more
while they sweep the sand with their bushy tails . . .
A K 6335’
[beneath scene 26 are a few calculations, including the note: ‘13000 images 541 sec’]
Version 2 in NIOD Amsterdam (DVK, Archive 102, File 121 Aa)
This version 2 is the same as the one in the author’s collection, but it is completely
clean, there are no production notes, which is logical as this screenplay was kept
as ‘attachment 388/2’ (which is the only note on the screenplay, written in
28 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
pencil) together with a copy of a letter to Egb. van Putten/Nederland Film dated
22 September 1941, which therefore remained at the offices of DVK.
The complete text of the letter:
[stationery of DVK, the letter itself is a carbon copy]
Herewith I confirm that I have commissioned the making of an animation film
in colour after the themes of the book ‘Van den Vos Reynaerde’ by R. van Genechten,
according to the attached screenplay and on the following conditions:
the length of the film shall be at least 250 m;
delivery will be not later than six months from today;
the price will be Dfl. 15,000 payable in six instalments; the first instalment as
soon as possible after confirmation of the commission and the last instalment on
delivery. (All this may be discussed in more detail with the accountancy
department of my Ministry);
Of the gross receipts of copyrights in the Netherlands 60 percent is payable to the
National Treasury, of the gross receipts in Germany this will be 50 per cent and
in other countries 30 per cent. With the proviso, however, that no more than
Dfl. 15,000 will be repaid to the National Treasury; any surplus will be payable
to Nederland-film.
Any small changes in the screenplay must be discussed with Mr. H. Plaizier of the
department of General Propaganda (Algemeene Propaganda) of my Ministry, who
must be continually kept
[p.2]
abreast of all developments regarding the production of the film and the progress that
is being made.
On behalf of the Secretary-General,
The head of the General Propaganda Department,
(N. Oosterbaan).
Encl: 1 copy of the screenplay ‘Van den Vos Reynaerde’.’
‘No. Dept. Subject Tp. Coll. In answer to letter of
388/2 PG Animation film Vl. [scribbled] 4 Sept. 1941 No. 59
van den Vos
Reynaerde
The Hague, 22 September 1941
PRINSESSEGRACHT 21
TELEPHONE 180130
TO MR Egb. VAN PUTTEN
Manager ‘Nederland-Film’,
Smidswater 1,
THE HAGUE.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 29
Differences between screenplay versions 1 and 2.
1. A more active role for Jodocus (see scene 8).
2. A more screenplay-like subdivision in the scenes to be animated (version 1 is still
descriptive, version 2 anticipates the scenes to be animated). Therefore, version
2 is probably a later version, which can also be deduced from the fact that DVK
based its commission for the film on this version.
3. More action, less description.
4. The ‘colour scheme’ from version 1 is not used in version 2, but it was
ultimately used in the film itself.
5. The hatching of the ostrich eggs has a more racist tone and it is visualized
differently – maybe to make it more interesting for the audience?
6. See scene 12, version 2: emphasis on the perversity of the French Revolution
(Jacobin cap).
7. In the birth scene in version 1 none of the offspring even remotely looks like
a goose, in version 2 one of them does, which makes what comes next all the
more dramatic.
8. Scene with the goose at the counters with the Jodocusses actually has a more
dramatic impact in version 1.
9. Scene 19 (eviction of the goose, a scene strongly reminiscent of a similar scene
in Veit Harlan’s film Jud Su¨ss, 1940) is absent in version 2.
10. At the banquet in version 1 Reynaert is the waiter, in version 2 the other
animals.
11. The ending of version 2 is also different, it has a more positive stance toward the
National-Socialist folk hero Reynaert, but it is considerably more racist: the sand
is purged of the last recollections of the jodocusses . . .
Differences between the screenplay versions and the film
1. In various instances (e.g. version 2, scenes 4, 6, 19 and 24) the screenplay
assumes that the film would have direct sound, while the soundtrack of the film
has only an introductory commentary, music and sound effects created by music.
2. In the actual film a major part of the actions of scenes 1–8 of version 2 are
replaced by a narrator who tells the beginning of the story, while the audience
sees stills of the characters. Animation starts only when Reynaert winks at
the audience, followed by the colour scheme (see Appendix 2 for the text of the
narration).
3. In the film, the jodocusses grow wings after they have drowned and rise up
out of the sea; apparently, the authors considered the endings of both of the
screenplays too cruel and sent the rhinos to heaven.
4. The purging of the sand by Reinaert after the jodocusses have been driven into
the sea – contrary to the screenplay this is not done by all the foxes in the actual
film – will probably not have been picked up by the audience as it is animated
with backlighting. But as I have argued in the text: this ending could have been
meant differently – the foxes remain vigilant.
30 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
Appendix 2
Van den vos Reynaerde (1943); credits, film commentary and the film in frame enlargements
(film in collection Eye Film, Filmmuseum, Amsterdam).
[credit titles:]
Van den vos Reynaerde
being an old fable rejuvenated
after a book by
Robert van Genechten.
Image and animation
[the narration starts with a black screen, followed by different stills. Firstly: the grave of King
Nobel]
‘A long, long time ago, when the animals still ruled the world like the humans
do now, one ill-fated day old King Nobel died, the brave lion, who had always
protected the animals so well against the cunning tricks of Reinaert the fox.
[black, then a still of different wounded animals]
‘‘What shall we do now? Who will defend us in the future?’’ wailed the animals
and lamented loudly Bruin the bear and Tybaart the cat and Cantecleer the rooster,
and they told everyone who would listen how they had been mistreated by Reinaert,
although they wisely kept silent about how their own gluttony and vanity had caused
them to become ensnared in master Reinaert’s trap.
[black, then a still of the donkey on the throne]
And then came Boudewijn the donkey and he sat ostentatiously on the throne and
brayed loudly for all to hear that he – and only he – was in power from now on.
[black, then a still of the ram reading an old book]
And Belijn the ram proved from old folios that it should be this way and that there was
no room for discussion and that all animals should obey Boudewijn the donkey,
Hill Beekman [in large font]
Andre´ Holla [in smaller font]
Jan Bouman Olga Tijssen [in even smaller font, on one line]
and many others
Camera and synchronisation
Josef Misik [sic] [same font as Beekman]
Music
Leo Ruygrok [ibid.]
a
NEDERLAND [Italic font in the form of NL]
Agfa Color Film Klangfilm
film from sound system
Egbert van Putten [same font as Beekman]
Geyer colour copy
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 31
because he was wearing the royal purple and was seated on the throne. But while King
Nobel had brought order and peace and quiet from his throne, Boudewijn with his
braying only brought discord and division to the kingdom of the animals and disaster
after disaster.
[black, then a still of Jodocus]
It became so bad that even Jodocus, the rhinoceros animal, heard of it. Ponderously
waddling, he came to the fair kingdom of the late King Nobel in the low countries by
the sea from the far East, which was overcrowded with his relatives bothering each
other every day, to take his chances. All the things he told the vain donkey Boudewijn!
About laws and rights and riches, and freedom for all and everyone.
[black, then a still of a maypole with a Jacobin cap]
Why would the animals fight each other anyway? Liberty, equality and fraternity, this
would be the motto of the animal kingdom from now on. And they should intermarry.
No longer just the bull to the cow or the stallion to the mare. All races should be
mixed.
[black, then a still of different animals]
And everybody was to be free to do whatever he wanted. A new ideal state would be
established, so it was decreed by Jodocus and thus he established his power in the
kingdom of the animals by the sea, where the donkey Boudewijn reigned from the
throne and Jodocus the rhinoceros animal over the treasury.
[black, then a still of Reinaert]
And in the whole of the animal kingdom there was only one animal smarter than
Jodocus and that animal was the fox Reynaerde, whom we will presently see in his
battle against Jodocus.’
[before the image fades to black, Reinaert winks; the first movement in the film. Followed by the
‘colour scheme’ of version 1 of the screenplay. The rest of the film no longer uses a narrator’s
voice: only music and sound effects created by music.]
FIGURE 38 FIGURE 39
32 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
FIGURE 40 FIGURE 41
FIGURE 42 FIGURE 43 First image: the grave of King Nobel.
FIGURE 44 The wounded animals. FIGURE 45 The donkey on the throne.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 33
FIGURE 46 The ram and the folio.
FIGURE 47 Introduction of the rhino Jodocus.
FIGURE 48 The Jacobin cap and the maypole.
FIGURE 49 Animals who seem to like each other.
FIGURE 50 Reynaert winks at the audience. FIGURE 51 The colour scheme.
34 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
FIGURE 52 Jodocus sees an opportunity. FIGURE 53 Underneath his caftan, Jodocus is
wearing nine yellow squares resembling a Star of
David. These are only seen for a fraction of a second.
FIGURE 54 Reynaert in the forest.
FIGURE 55 The animals are reading the
proclamation.
FIGURE 56 Reynaert with the proclamation of
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
FIGURE 57 The animals are dancing around the
maypole.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 35
FIGURE 58 The animals are being wed by
Jodocus.
FIGURE 59 Reynaert uses the proclamation to
catch a hen.
FIGURE 60 Reynaert knocks on the goose-ostrich
family’s door dressed as a doctor. FIGURE 61 ‘From the third egg emerges an
ostrich-frog . . . ’ (screenplay version 2, scene 15).
FIGURE 62 ‘The ostrich tries to prevent Reynaert
from opening the fourth egg but is too late: an
ostrich-rhino crawls out of it . . . ’ (screenplay version
2, scene 15).
FIGURE 63 The animals take all their produce to
the rhino tax collectors.
36 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
FIGURE 64 The goose is unable to pay his taxes
and is evicted from his house. In this picture, the
rhino tax collector has horns on his head and turns
green, like the devil.
FIGURE 65 The banquet of the Jodocusses.
FIGURE 66 Led by Reynaert, the animals are
advancing towards the banqueting hall where the
Jodocusses are enjoying themselves.
FIGURE 67 The Jodocusses are driven into the
sea.
FIGURE 68 The Jodocusses grow wings and fly
up to heaven . . .
FIGURE 69 Reynaert and his offspring are purging
the sand contaminated by the Jodocusses.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 37
Notes
1 Earlier versions of the research into the film Van den vos Reynaerde were published as:
Barten and Gerard Groeneveld, ‘Reinaert en het Jodenbeest’, in: De Volkskrant,
25 May 1991; Barten, ‘Amusement en Propaganda in de Residentie Den Haag
‘41–’44/Animated Films 1941–1944 Entertainment and Propaganda in The
Hague’, Catalogue Holland Animation Film Festival, Utrecht, 1992, 32–40; Barten and
Groeneveld, ‘Van den vos Reynaerde (1943). Un Re´cit me´die´val transforme´ en
Film d’ animation antise´mite’, Plateau, 14(4) (Winter 1993/1994), 10–17; Barten
and Groeneveld, ‘Van den vos Reynaerde (1943): how a medieval fable became a
Dutch anti-Semitic animation film’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television,
14(2) (1994), 199–214; Barten and Mette Peters, ‘Een Vos als Volksheld.
‘Kultuur’-animatie bij Nederland Film in Den Haag’, chapter 3, in: Meestal in het
Verborgene. Animatiefilm in Nederland 1940–1945 (Abcoude, 2000), 32–42.
2 Information mostly extracted from Nieuwe Encyclopedie van de Vlaamse Beweging
(Tielt, 1998), part G-Q, 1251–1253.
3 Robert van Genechten, Van den vos Reynaerde. Ruwaard Boudewijn en Jodocus
(Amsterdam, 1941), 7.
4 For more information on De Amsterdamsche Keurkamer, see Gerard Groeneveld,
Nieuwe Boeken voor den Nieuwen Tijd (The Hague, 1992) (about Robert van
Genechten and Van den vos Reynaerde, 92–94) and his book Zwaard van de Geest. Het
bruine boek in Nederland (Nijmegen, 2001) (about RvG and VdvR, for instance on
pp. 90 and 188–189).
5 Wim Gielen, ‘Distels . . . Een vossenstreek na Van Genechten’, in: Tiecelijn,
11 (1998) 1, 9–23 (about van Ditmar on p. 12–13).
6 Gielen, 1998, 15.
7 For more information on Van Putten, see Barten, ‘In Memoriam Egbert van Putten
(1899–1996)’, in: GBG-Nieuws, 38 (fall 1996), 37–38.
8 Copy of a letter from DVK to Van Putten, 22 September 1941. File 121Aa, DVK
archive, NIOD (Netherlands Institute for War Documentation) Amsterdam.
See also Appendix 1.
9 Contract between DVK and Van Putten, 09 July 1942. File 36c, DVK archive,
NIOD Amsterdam.
FIGURE 70 Closing title.
38 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
10 Financial Report Production Nederland Film, 31 December 1942. File 36c, DVK
archive, NIOD Amsterdam.
11 ‘Filmmaatschappij De Nederland Film. Werk in nationalen zin’, Algemeen
Handelsblad, 13 February 1942; ‘Nederlandsche componisten werken voor
Nederland Film’, in: Het Vaderland, 22 June 1942. Both clippings are in the
Geoffrey Donaldson collection, Eye Film Institute (Nederlands Filmmuseum),
Amsterdam.
12 Marten Toonder (editor), Cursus Tekenfilm, Amsterdam, undated [1945–46],
B-50/51. Later on Toonder also commented on it, for instance in his autobiography
and in various interviews: ‘it was an anti-Jewish film, with a gruesome,
incomprehensible little storyline’. Het Parool, 4 May 1991. Eight years earlier he had
been more detailed: ‘they wanted to make an anti-Semitic film, with a villainous
rhino in the lead role: Van de vos Reynaerde’. Interview in Stripprofiel (September
1983), 13–16 (quote on p. 15).
13 Interview with J.W.I. du Buy, Hillegom, 27 April 1991.
14 Interview with Jenny Dalenoord, The Hague, 10 August 1993. In a letter to the
author dated 16 February 1995, she also filled in some of the details of the film
(including the identification of a few photos).
15 See for the poster and more information on the Dutch version of Der Ewige Jude,
Paul van Yperen, ‘Het beruchtste Nederlandse filmaffiche’ and Egbert Barten,
‘De eeuwige discussie over Nazi-films’, in: Skrien (November 2005), 14–17.
16 This is based on the letter, which is copied in full in Appendix 1. Although this
in itself is not proof that Plaizier wrote the screenplay, it does prove that he was in
close contact with the group of writers, which probably included the animators.
From the report ‘Overzicht der Werkzaamheden door het Departement
van Volksvoorlichting en Kunsten in het tweede halfjaar 1941 verricht’ (file 1d,
item 354.36, DVK archive, NIOD Amsterdam) it can be deduced that the
department itself was closely involved in the realization of the screenplay.
17 Interview with Th. E. van Putten, Steep/GB, 4 July 1993.
18 ‘Nieuws voor jonge teekenaars. De teekenfilm heeft begaafde krachten noodig’,
Oprechte Haarlemsche Courant, 11 April 1942; ‘Uitslag teekenwedstrijd’, in:
Haarlemsch Dagblad, 30 April 1942.
19 Minutes of the Propaganda Council, 27 April 1943. File 119c, DVK archive, NIOD,
Amsterdam.
20 Interview with Th.E. van Putten, Steep/GB, 4 July 1993.
21 Interview with A.C.J. Holla, Nijmegen, 20 July 1993.
22 Data extracted from the Van Genechten case file, Centraal Archief Bijzondere
Rechtspleging, National Archives, The Hague. On the authority of Van Putten,
it was stated in some of the earlier articles on the film that Van Genechten did
attend the preview.
23 Quoted by Groeneveld, 1992, 94.
24 Letter by Putten to De Ranitz (¼ Goedewaagen’s successor at DVK), 24 October
1943. File 23n, DVK archive, NIOD, Amsterdam.
25 See for the ‘usual’ role of the fox in animated films of the period for instance
Hans Held’s film Der Sto¨renfried (Bavaria Filmkunst, Germany, 1939–1940) and
Hans Fischerkoesen’s Das Dumme Ga¨nslein (Fischerkoesen Film, Germany/The
Netherlands, 1944). Information about these films can be found in Barten/Peters,
2000, 42–53 and 92. Read Willy Feliers, ‘Reintje verwekt onrust’ about the
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 39
children’s book that Hans Held published after his own film Der Sto¨renfried shortly
after the war – in which the fox is curiously called Reintje – in: Tiecelijn, 18 (2005)
1, 2–18.
26 The term ‘Great Propaganda Action’ is extracted from Dorothea Hollstein,
‘Jud Su¨ss’ und die Deutschen (Frankfurt am Main, 1983), 62–117.
27 Barten, ‘Elburg is toch ook overzee 1942 Wie gaat Mee . . . ?’, in: Flashback
(Winter 1993/1994), 16–20.
28 Letter by Van Putten to DVK, 12 October 1943. File 36c, DVK archive, NIOD,
Amsterdam. See for more information on the two German studios and the films
they made in the Netherlands Barten/Peters, 2000, 42–53.
29 Interview with Van Putten, Steep/GB, 4 July 1993.
30 Data extracted from the case file Th.E. van Putten, Centraal Archief Bijzondere
Rechtspleging, National Archives, The Hague.
31 Including the Nederland Film documentary film makers Reinier Meijer and Rudi
Hornecker. Several interviews with Meijer, Lelystad, 1988–2003. For his contacts
with Hornecker, see Barten, ‘ . . . Das waren eben noch Zeiten! ‘Zeiten von
Kultur . . . und noch etwas!’ Hoe Rudi Hornecker (1901–1961) de oorlog
doorkwam’, in: Tijdschrift voor Mediageschiedenis, 2006 (1), 25–68 (about their
contact after the war, p. 59).
32 ‘ . . . but I insist that you make it clear somehow that the film was only made to save
the 40 Philips animators from deportation to Germany! And that was the only
reason ‘Nederland Film’ was established!!’ Letter by Van Putten to the author,
18 April 1991. Van Putten calls them ‘Philips animators’ because the Pal Studio
in Eindhoven mainly produced films for this light bulb factory. The term ‘Philips
animators’ is also remarkable because the Pal Studio in Eindhoven mainly made
puppet films. For more information on this studio, see Ole Schepp/Fred Kamphuis,
George Pal in Holland 1934–1939 (The Hague, 1983).
33 Jan van Hillo, Herinnering aan de jubileumfilm Juliana Koningin der Nederlanden
1948–1973. Achter de schermen van de NOS-documentaire (Leiden, 1973).
34 Notes and tape recording of an undated telephone conversation between Du Buy
and Beekman. Collection Du Buy, copies in the author’s collection. About which
programme by Jan van Hillo they are talking is unclear because notes are undated.
The Dutch broadcasting archive Instituut voor Beeld en Geluid has two recordings
of TV programmes of Van Hillo mentioning the Holocaust; the NCRV programme
Close-Up, broadcasted on 12 November 1966 (about Corrie ten Boom,
concentration camps and the persecution of the Jews) and the NOS programme
Wij leven nog . . . ! from 5 May 1970 (about the victims of WWII, the persecution
of Jews and the resistance). Web site Beeld en Geluid archives, Hilversum. In an
attachment to a letter from Du Buy to Gerard Groeneveld of 4 June 1991 he
mentions ‘a tape recording of twenty years ago’ which implies that his action against
Van Hillo was provoked by the programme on Liberation Day (5 May), 1970.
Copy of the letter in the collection of the author.
35 Interview with J.W.I. du Buy, Hillegom, 27 April 1991, included in
Barten/Groeneveld, 1991.
36 Wilfred Simons, ‘Joop du Buy: ‘Ik ben geen antisemiet’. Deel propagandafilm
opgedoken’, in: Haarlems Dagblad, 15 June 1991. The same interview was published
in Leids Dagblad under the title ‘Hillegommer weigerde medewerking
aan antisemitische tekenfilm’, 6 June 1991. See also Joop du Buy, ‘Reynaert’,
40 H I S T O R I C A L J O U R N A L O F F I L M , R A D I O A N D T E L E V I S I O N
De Volkskrant, 28 May 1991 (letter to the editor, with reference to Barten/
Groeneveld, 1991).
37 Letter by Robert van Genechten to the clerk of the Special Criminal Court in
The Hague, 8 December 1945, quoted in full in Rijksinstituut voor
Oorlogsdocumentatie, Processen No 2 Van Genechten, Amsterdam, undated (quote
on p. 80; a facsimile of the letter is reproduced on the illustration pages in the back
of the book).
38 These notes should probably be considered as a kind of ‘shopping list’ that Holla
wrote down. You could interpret it this way: he went out to buy 10 Â 30 metres
of Gevaert 20 film at a photo shop, he went to the Twentsche Bank to withdraw
money (maybe 80 Dutch guilders; Dfl.) and he shouldn’t forget to pick up (or drop
off) the key at Teunissen’s. As we have already seen Jan Teunissen was the principal
occupant of the house at Lange Voorhout 62, behind which Van den vos Reynaerde was
made in his coach house. So Teunissen was actually the landlord of the studio. For
more information on Teunissen, see Barten, ‘Van gevierd Avant-Gardist tot Paria.
Leven en Werk van Jan Teunissen, 1898–1975, in: Jaarboek Mediageschiedenis
3 (Amsterdam, 1991), 73–104.
(Translated by Fransien Kroon)
Egbert Barten studied contemporary and socio-economic history at the Vrije Universiteit in
Amsterdam and worked at the Nederlands Filmmuseum and the Amsterdam City Archives.
Since 2000 he has been an independent film historian. He researches Dutch film history,
1930–1950, and has published extensively on films and film-makers from the period
(see footnotes for some of his work). The original Dutch version of this article, ‘‘‘Bitse en
haatdragende woorden’’ worden ‘‘een oude fabel in nieuwe kleedij.’’ Robert van Genechtens
VAN DEN VOS REYNAERDE verfilmd (1943)’, appeared in Tiecelijn, 3rd Year Book of the
Reynaert Society, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium, 2010.
D U T C H A N T I - S E M I T I C C O L O U R A N I M A T I O N I N W O R L D W A R I I 41