es to further their own interests." We cut to Michel and Lenchen strolling at the town fair, and we see the two rogues (dressed as women) reading a poster offering a reward for their capture. While dancing a polka, they are discovered and pursued. They jump into a balloon, which carries them to heaven, where they dance past the pearly gates in the midst of angels. Some commentators have regarded this film as being not markedly anti-Semitic, and thus not particularly effective as propaganda. For example, in his comprehensive treatise on German propaganda cinema, Ian Garden says that while the movie did in fact caricature Jews, it isn't particularly remarkable in this regard. As he puts it, "While there are certainly some stereotypical presentations of the Jewish characters in the film . . . there is nothing particularly offensive about the portrayals. Indeed, it is more reminiscent of the clichéd portrayals of the national characteristics of (say) the Scots or the French." He adds that "just as much fun is poked at non-Jewish characters, and the real villains are the two non-Jewish vagabonds who steal jewelry from Ipelmeyer, but who are still accepted into heaven because their crimes were not committed for personal gain but to insure the happiness of the two lovers." 39 This strikes me as mistaken for several reasons. First, none of the other characters is singled out for such vicious stereotypical satirization. The Jews are portrayed as greedy, lacking in taste, lacking in hygiene, uniformly ugly, dishonest, and so on, especially in comparison with the blond, wholesome, Aryan lovers. Second, Garden seems to equate Jewishness with a separate nationality (like being Scottish or French), as if Jewish Germans aren't truly Germans. The fact that the Nuremberg Laws were passed to define who was Jewish is strong evidence that most German Jews in fact looked and sounded like other Germans. Most importantly, Garden overlooks the main argument for recognizing this as effective propaganda. The film clearly presents the ide