![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Last year, a film called "Max" caused a lot of debate, not so much because one of its two lead characters was fictional (the Max of the title, played by John Cusack) but because the other was Adolf Hitler, immediately post-WWI, shown as not yet a complete monster. I saw it in Britain when visiting and basically agreed with this review; it was well done and showed some of the gestation of both Hitler the person and the sociological climate in post-WWI Germany that would produce a lot of his support without prettifying or excusing either, just explaining some of it. Note the "some" - I don't think any fictional or factional treatment will ever provide a "satisfying" explanation of how anyone can give birth to something like the holocaust. Nor should it. But I also think that what is far more common in movies - the Nazis in general or Hitler in particular as eternally ranting stock types, in a row with other movie monsters from the 30s and 40s such as Frankenstein's Monster, the Wolf Man or Dracula, only far less dimensional than any of the three - creates the rather dangerous illusion that something like this could not possibly happen in our neighbourhood/state/era.
Honorh told me some months ago of how some students of hers, upon watching a TV version of Anne Frank's story, critisized her and her family for not "fighting back". Well, if you think of Nazis as stock villains out of the Indiana Jones movies who can easily be outwitted by Our Heroes, then you would. (Spielberg more than made up for that with Schindler's List, but that's not what kids remember, I guess.) In any case, the Third Reich remains an inexhaustible supply of movie plots and recognisable archetypes, sometimes in the Indiana Jones and sometimes in the Schindler's List tradition. On both sides of the Atlantic.
Here in Germany, the most recent attempt has just been released. "Der Untergang" pictures the last two weeks of the Third Reich, from Hitler's birthday on April 20th 1945 to Goebbel's suicide after which the complete capitulation finally took place. There have been cinematic versions of this last period before - notably one with Alec Guinness as Hitler - but this one got hotly debated in advance for the same reasons Max got debated - people were afraid that if Hitler weren't depicted as a complete monster (which seemed likely, since the film is based in parts on the recollections of his secretary, Traudl Junge, the documentary about whom awards at the Berlinale 2002), it could serve to "soften" the viewer's attitude towards him. One critic made another objection, also in advance, by pointing out that any film depicting a siege and people defending their city/country/whatever was bound to get the audience identifying with the defenders, no matter their past; she brought up The Two Towers and Return of the King which she said would have additionally prepared the potential audience to react in a certain way.
I've seen Der Untergang now, and aside from being definitely worth watching, it's interesting to ponder how the film avoids these predicted traps. (IMO as always.) While still doing the movie thing in giving us an emotionally engaging pov character and at least two others whom one also roots for to survive.
( Looking into the abyss... )
Honorh told me some months ago of how some students of hers, upon watching a TV version of Anne Frank's story, critisized her and her family for not "fighting back". Well, if you think of Nazis as stock villains out of the Indiana Jones movies who can easily be outwitted by Our Heroes, then you would. (Spielberg more than made up for that with Schindler's List, but that's not what kids remember, I guess.) In any case, the Third Reich remains an inexhaustible supply of movie plots and recognisable archetypes, sometimes in the Indiana Jones and sometimes in the Schindler's List tradition. On both sides of the Atlantic.
Here in Germany, the most recent attempt has just been released. "Der Untergang" pictures the last two weeks of the Third Reich, from Hitler's birthday on April 20th 1945 to Goebbel's suicide after which the complete capitulation finally took place. There have been cinematic versions of this last period before - notably one with Alec Guinness as Hitler - but this one got hotly debated in advance for the same reasons Max got debated - people were afraid that if Hitler weren't depicted as a complete monster (which seemed likely, since the film is based in parts on the recollections of his secretary, Traudl Junge, the documentary about whom awards at the Berlinale 2002), it could serve to "soften" the viewer's attitude towards him. One critic made another objection, also in advance, by pointing out that any film depicting a siege and people defending their city/country/whatever was bound to get the audience identifying with the defenders, no matter their past; she brought up The Two Towers and Return of the King which she said would have additionally prepared the potential audience to react in a certain way.
I've seen Der Untergang now, and aside from being definitely worth watching, it's interesting to ponder how the film avoids these predicted traps. (IMO as always.) While still doing the movie thing in giving us an emotionally engaging pov character and at least two others whom one also roots for to survive.
( Looking into the abyss... )
