|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.61.172.236
In Reply to: :Downfall" - the Hitler's final days posted by Victor Khomenko on August 28, 2005 at 12:45:56:
I too enjoyed the film very much. I approached it more as film that would appear on the History Channel. Not what I would technically label a documentary, but a drama which serves the same purpose. I do not recall another film which sheds light so exhaustively on Hitler's last moments in the bunker. I saw the documentary Blind Spot with his secretary, and this film helps to put some meat on the bones, to fill in what was a recitation of events.I do not understand the problems with showing Hitler as a human being. Frankly, I think that doing so makes him scarier. Are you afraid of the boogeyman? Probably not, because you know it does not exist. On the other hand, showing Hitler from our human community makes him scarier because we are reminded that he was among us, going to school, to the store, to a movie, which should put us on guard to avoid allowing such a thing to happen in the future. He loved dogs, hated smoking, was a vegetarian, could be very nice. I am not sure knowing any of those things ever mitigates the evil inside the man, nor why we assume that a film maker was attempting to do so by giving us a complete picture. An historian should not make judgments. An historian should report the history, factually, then allow the reader, viewer, or listener to place some value or interpretation.
I think Ebert hit the nail on the head in his review wherein he wrote that the Nazi's have become a prop or plot device in films, usually in comedies, which reduces the true horror the regime. I wonder if kinds growing up today, whose only frame of reference are those films, consider the Nazis with the terror they deserve. Or are they a joke? This film reminds of the madman. That is good, I think.
I also think that this film does a decent job of showing that this evil was not Hitler's alone. Too many times, I think, we consider the Third Reich as Hitler. But many fed at Hitler's table, including many civilians. Goebbels depiction was the most striking to me, particularly Frau Goebbels. Her statements that she does not want herself, nor her children, to live in a world without National Socialism rose to a level of scary that almost equalled Hitler's. My first thought was that she did live a world without National Socialism. What was the difference? Well, she probably enjoyed a better life, with more authority under National Socialism. At the expense of millions of people. And she sacrificed her own children.
This film confirms my belief that the National Socialists were largely people who were less educated, less intelligent, less experienced, and who had no standing in society without the state. They needed National Socialism to give them their identity. Ironic, that none of them were the blond haired, blue eyed ideal they estalblished.
The scene where Hitler is marrying Braun, and he is asked to estalblish his Aryan heritage to get married. Well, it is the law, he is told. One of his lieutenants informs the man who performed the ceremony that "This is the Fuhrer." Well, we never learned about Hitler's Aryan heritage, I suspect because he had none.
To WWII buffs, the film also does a very good job showing how insane Hitler really was. Up until the end, he imagines troops on a map that are not there, moving them as they were pawns in chess. He has plans to encircle the Soviet troops, when his military men know that there is no way out. I often wondered how anyone in their right mind would invade the Soviet Union in Winter, or waste planes bombing England, or devoting troops to Northern Africa. Well, because, when merely looking at a map, and simply looking at troops on paper, there is no winter, dessert, water to cross, no elements to confront. His military experts, who obviously knew better, are trained to obey orders, and the film shows them arguing with each other about following orders versus giving opinions on the futility of the order.
Follow Ups:
Yes, those are good observations, and I would only like to amplify one point - that of turning the Nazi into comedy characters to be ridiculed, played practical jokes on and defeated easily.That has been my long standing irritation with the American war films. I come from a very different background, where no such lighthearted treatment would ever be possible, and where you learned early on how truly anti-human the Nazi were - perhaps one of the very few truths that the society had allowed to exist and be told - to their advantage, to be sure.
Therefore my continuous disdain for many American war films, where the depth of true evil is hard to notice.
Whether I made that point before Ebert is immaterial... sufficient to say that is a correct observation.
One minor correction - Hitler invaded Russia not in winter, but in June. His plans called for the campaing be completed before the cold weather.
"One minor correction - Hitler invaded Russia not in winter, but in June."Then if the campaign failed given better weather than I thought, it was even dumber than I thought. Perhaps he should have started in the Winter, then met with good weather when the troops are more tired. But then he was a madman, reasoned decisions are not par for the course. In any event, the world was better served by his mistakes.
"I come from a very different background, where no such lighthearted treatment would ever be possible, and where you learned early on how truly anti-human the Nazi were"
I think that most American war films were not designed to educate, but to entertain. Of course, these things are not mutually exclusive. John Wayne leading the troops, etc. I think possibly the reason is that WWII was not fought on these shores, and Americans did not see first hand the horrors of Hitler.
The comedy aspect probably arose with Mel Brooks. I saw an interview with him in which he explained himself thusly: he was stationed in Europe towards the end of the war. Being Jewish, he had relatives who were exterminated. He joined in an effort to kill Hitler. He was in Europe when Hitler committed suicide. Not being able to kill Hitler, he decided that the only way to "get" Hitler was to make him a joke, people lauhing at him.
Yes, I have read something about that, and I can sympathize with his desire to deal with it in that particular way... except I think it did not work in the long run.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: