German Film "Downfall"

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I have not seen Downfall. I read the reviews which were all excellent but never got around to actually watching the film, which is strange considering I own copies of many foreign language films.

Yours comments about humanizing Hitler strongly remind me of interviews Anthony Hopkins gave after making a film about Hitlers last days in the bunker. I think it was called 'The Bunker'.

Hopkins said he wanted to show Hitler as a broken man and cause sympathy for 'the plight of A man...'

 

I'll have to make a point of watching both.

 

I've seen 'The Bunker' and Hopkins did a fantastic job of humanizing Hitler, I felt myself feeling really sorry for the man despite knowing of the atrocities he'd committed through-out the war. The last few hours in the bunker were quite harrowing, to see Hitler realize that all his dreams and his life were coming to an end, you couldn't help but pity the man.

 

Highly recommended.

[The Augusta]

I saw a film of the last days of hitler starring Alec Guinness. I've forgotten what it was called, but it was very powerful and to me it seemed to achieve all that this new film apparantly does. I agree with MPC; Hitler did have a side to him which was 'more human' than the ranting dictator we see on old newsreels. To NOT portray his humanity would be a falsification of history.

 

Yes, hear, hear - without going into a great deep discussion about Hitler... And let's not overlook the fact that he was actually voted into office! I have always said that the man had great charisma - whether this was used for good or evil is immaterial from the point of view of his magnetism. My eldest sister's old headmistress actually attended one of his rallies when she was a young student visiting Germany in the 30s. She asked the person next to her to 'pull down her arm' if she started to make a Nazi salute. That was how powerful he was as a speaker.

 

Hitler and the whole Third Reich thing is a fascinating subject and it makes us focus on an unpleasant truth about ourselves. His era remains within living memory and is therefore still cursed and held to be evil. But I wonder how he will be perceived 2,000 years from now when emotions and memories are dead and buried. Or to put it another way, are we prepared to view history more objectively the further removed in time it is? Had he won the war, would we have a different perception? Of course, we would like to think that we would not, but I remain somewhat dubious about this. Just look how we are divided today about Julius Caesar or Augustus. Will someone, in a few centuries' time calmly examine the sources from the Second World War and come up with more objective theories about the winners and losers?

[WotWotius]

I think the purpose of the film was to encapsulate the real rather than to create a deeply moralising commentary on the blunders of the Nazis. For instance, rather than provoking judgment by depicting every one of Hitler's crimes, the F

[M. Porcius Cato]

Had he won the war, would we have a different perception? Of course, we would like to think that we would not, but I remain somewhat dubious about this. Just look how we are divided today about Julius Caesar or Augustus. Will someone, in a few centuries' time calmly examine the sources from the Second World War and come up with more objective theories about the winners and losers?

 

Those who unquestioningly worship authority will always love winners, regardless of the means by which they won or the righteousness of their cause. The comparison to Caesar is indeed apt.

[Divi Filius]

Just look how we are divided today about Julius Caesar or Augustus. Will someone, in a few centuries' time calmly examine the sources from the Second World War and come up with more objective theories about the winners and losers?

 

I don't think Hitler could possibly be compared with these men. Granted, he could have very well been one of the greatest speakers in History, but in the end he was a man ruled by ideology. When all of his generals said one thing, he said another: the irrational; and in the end, the results showed just how it was.

 

Considering we are the inheritors of the second WW, we no doubt will feel strong attachment to it; in probably the same manner inwhich the Romans viewed Hannibal and his war. However we are increasingly looking at WW2 in a far more objective stance, and the verdict is still the same: Hitler was a lunatic.

 

In the future I predict Hitler will be seen in a far less emotional way, but "evil" or "cruel" will always be among the most widely used adjectives for the man. I would say his initial years will attain the same praise they do today, but the results of the war have cursed his image for all time.

Edited February 17, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Northern Neil]

I'm with Augusta on this one. Caesar, Constantine, Charlemagne, Henry VIII and Cromwell were all ruthless and brutal leaders, yet they are regarded quite positively these days by historians. Stalin is regarded far more positively than Hitler, and it is considered a little quirky to wear the hammer and sickle insignia - is that any different from lauding Hitler and wearing a swastika? Whoops! Sorry.

[Ursus]

Off topic, but I have to ask....

 

Everitts book. I have been put off buying it because the idea of him willingly accepting poison is so daft, not to mention done before with Claudius (I, Claudius).

 

Would you recommend this book?

 

 

There is a thread on it in the Libri sub-folder.

 

As PP says, it is readable and informative, and provides a good background to those who don't already have it. But the central thesis is sensational and ultimately never proven, a cynical attempt to give the book an edge it otherwise wouldn't have.

 

Others criticised it for showing a "Germans were victims too" sort of mentality, and that this was an insult to the neighbouring countries who had suffered under Nazi oppression. \\

 

 

My own personal opinion, but I believe the Germans were victims too ... if not of Hitler than of the Versaille Treaty.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I would say his initial years will attain the same praise they do today, but the results of the war have cursed his image for all time.

 

I don't see any reason to praise him for his initial years. What are you talking about? The Beer Hall Putsch? His years as a vain, deluded, and talentless painter? His unremarkable military record?

 

Stalin is regarded far more positively than Hitler, and it is considered a little quirky to wear the hammer and sickle insignia - is that any different from lauding Hitler and wearing a swastika?

 

You're right: it's no different.

[Divi Filius]

I don't see any reason to praise him for his initial years. What are you talking about? The Beer Hall Putsch? His years as a vain, deluded, and talentless painter? His unremarkable military record?

 

I wouldnt praise him, but the world did at that time. Wasn't he on the Times cover at one point?

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't see any reason to praise him for his initial years. What are you talking about? The Beer Hall Putsch? His years as a vain, deluded, and talentless painter? His unremarkable military record?

I wouldnt praise him, but the world did at that time. Wasn't he on the Times cover at one point?

 

Being on the cover of the Times (do you mean, Time Magazine?) is evidence that a person is newsworthy not praiseworthy. At various times, all sorts of reviled figures have been depicted on the covers of magazines. And, for it's worth, Hitler wasn't praised in his early years--in his early years, he was an obscure and struggling fanatic. He came to no public attention in Germany until his trial for the Beer Hall Putsch, an absurdly inept attempt to seize power.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Earlier I'd depicted as "cartoonish" the History Channel's policy of ignoring Hitler's ideas in favor of showing him as a raving lunatic. Actually, I wasn't being fair to cartoons. Enjoy this explanation of Nazi ideas from Walt Disney.

[WotWotius]

That cartoon confused me; surely an individual born under the Third Reich would not be more than twelve by the time of its fall, and therefore would not be eligible to fight in her armies.

 

For a more accurate depiction of Hitler in cartoon form, click

[Cohort]

Everitts book on Cicero was excellent..i just received my copy of Augustus........I have a back up log of books to be read, but I'll, push this to the top....

[edgewaters]

But I wonder how he will be perceived 2,000 years from now when emotions and memories are dead and buried. Or to put it another way, are we prepared to view history more objectively the further removed in time it is?

 

Hard to say, isn't it? Without actually living for centuries, none of us can really say whether history becomes more or less distorted with the passage of decades.

 

I'd have to really say, though, that in this case, the majority of references are going to be from popular culture and our descendants are likely to inheirit little more than a crude caricature. The notion of the Nazis as a fanatical force animated by preternatural evil (rather than very human state politics - the "banality of evil" as Arendt put it) has a magnetism to some that is even stronger than the oratory magnetism of Hitler, and I imagine its one fetish that will not so easily give up the ghost.

 

 

Had he won the war, would we have a different perception? Of course, we would like to think that we would not, but I remain somewhat dubious about this.

 

Well, I think one can take that question even further. Would we have a different perception if the invasion of Poland never happened?

[edgewaters]

I wouldnt praise him, but the world did at that time. Wasn't he on the Times cover at one point?

 

Not sure but Homes and Gardens magazine did a rather effulgent piece on him (or rather, on his "handsome Bavarian chalet"):

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/graphic/0,,1075414,00.html