Read this summary/analysis of _Downfall_ and tell me

[tblue37]

it doesn't ring bells!

"The death throes of a criminal regime"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/down-n19.shtml
A feww striking paragraphs:

Hitler screams at his generals. Poring over a map, he manoeuvres armies for the defence of Berlin that have long ceased to exist, and feels betrayed by those who in better days had glorified him as the brilliant leader. . . .

<snip>

The people wanted it this way, propaganda minister Goebbels maintains—after all, they voted for the Nazis. Now they will have “their throats cut,” and Reichschancellor Hitler cynically declares that the German people had proven to be too weak in the natural struggle for survival and therefore deserve to perish. A capitulation is out of the question. In front of his bombastic model for his fantasy city—Germania—Hitler maintains that there is one advantage arising from the complete destruction of the German capital—for its reconstruction, one only has to clear away the rubble.

<snip>

But it is not just the character of Hitler that is at the heart of the film. The film shows the unparalleled indifference and contempt by the Nazis for the broad masses of working people. A small elite employed brutal violence and trampled on the most elementary rights of the majority of the population—to the point of their mass extinction in the course of war—all in the name of the “unity of the nation.” The officer caste heading the German army, with its traditional deep roots in the German aristocracy, had little time for democracy and largely shared the Nazi outlook. This layer was deeply implicated in the crimes committed by the regime. Up to today, influential circles in the army stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the responsibility of the Wehrmacht for Nazi crimes—often by explaining that the implicated officers had taken a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler as the supreme representative of the German people and therefore bore no responsibility themselves.

<snip>

The grotesque unwavering loyalty of the army leadership to Hitler, one man who had lost all sense of reality some time before, results from their basic contempt for humanity and this elitist outlook. The decision by the military to continue the struggle, although the situation for the people as a whole was hopeless, reflected their social perspective. Only after the death of Hitler and Goebbels are a few army commanders prepared to capitulate.
. . . As the disastrous consequences of their actions becomes increasingly evident, the reaction of Hitler and Goebbels is to pursue even more doggedly and brutally their policies—along the lines of the motto “Who cares what happens when I am gone!” In their legacies, which they dictate to Traudl Junge before their deaths, both men refer to their “love” of the people, whom they had served. In reality, they are consumed with contempt for the masses and visions of their own importance.

[tblue37]

1. I am self-kicking this because I really want people to read this analysis.

[Taxloss]

2. You're comparing Bush 2007 with Berlin 1945?

That's pure hyperbole.

[liberalpragmatist]

9. Agreed that this is hyperbole

Nevertheless, kicking this because it's a great movie (even if a few characters depicted sympathetically for artistic reasons were, in fact, up to their necks in Nazi war atrocities).

[Taxloss]

12. It is indeed a fabulous movie.

No argument there.

[shadowknows69]

3. This is a great, great movie

If you can stand watching a movie to subtitles you owe it to yourself to check it out.

[Tempest]

4. Agreed

I rented Downfall, and after watching it bought it the next day.

[tblue37]

5. ActualIy, I watch EVERYTHING with subtitles,

because I am severely hearing impaired, and I can't understand dialogue without subtitles or closed-captioning.

[applegrove]

6. That was the best/worst movie I have seen in a long time. I just sat there

with my jaw on the floor. What a twit eva brawn was. But we knew that already.

[suegeo]

23. All the women were disappointments (Probably spoilers in here)

The German women in the movie sure made the case for why women need education and encouragement to think independently.

Like, Mrs. Joe Goebbels getting a case of the vapors when Hitler pinned her, Eva Braun at the party near the end. The young secretary becoming a small part of the Nazi machine, even when warned to stay away from the Nazis before applying for the job.

The women didn't think and were passive, while pouring out viciousness (esp. Mrs. Joe)at the same time.

Someone educated once pointed out to me that one of the reasons America became great was because women worked, earned money, gained some independence... So, if the boys ever insist on returning us to weak kitten status, we could make a good argument aginst it. Not that I can see why most men would want someone like Mrs. Joe Goebbels as a partner. Yikes.

ON EDIT: To be fair, I also wondered why Mrs. Joe would want old Joe as a partner either. Manipulative maniac, using psychology against people, bringing out the worst of their nature. I did get a giggle when one of the young male soldiers at the end said something like "We are in what you could call a real shitty situation." I couldn't belive I was laughing, and that I felt sorry for the guy, yet repulsed at the same time. Gallows humor, and I felt bad that he was so young, and he got sucked into a machine before he probably had time to grow a brain.

[MamaBear]

7. Having seen the film ...

It was made all the more powerful in its parallels to current events, even more today than when the film was originally released. Hitler's generals were virtually caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: if they questioned or disobeyed, they would be summarily executed. They did what they could to stay alive. It's sometimes hard to tell with military people where their heart truly lies, but there were those under Hitler's command who did not believe in what he was doing, and who were waiting it out.

For other World War II history via film, Roman Polanski's The Pianist tells the story of a musician caught in Warsaw at the time of the invasion. The German officer who eventually found and rescued him left a diary which was reproduced in the book upon which the film was based. That diary showed clearly that the officer who wrote it didn't believe in national socialism, but was a career officer who was trying to survive until the end so he could make a difference when it was all over.

If you haven't seen Downfall, I would strongly recommend it. It is subtitled, and contains some very strong scenes --- not for the kids.

[applegrove]

8. Warning spoiler alert

The scene where the mothers starts playing cards..to run the clock off on having to feel anything about what she has just done...well that was something else.

If you've read this..and think the movie is spoiled..don't give up. I read a review of this scene before I saw the movie..and there is so much in there..so much that is just riveting and disgusting and odd...that you will gain from having seen it.

[MamaBear]

13. Agreed.

The whole film was just stunning. I thought about buying the DVD, but I'm not sure I could bring myself to watch it again.

[applegrove]

14. I don't think I would ever watch it again..even though you cannot possibly

take it all in in one go. Not for the faint of heart.

[MamaBear]

16. I saw it twice on the big screen.

I couldn't believe a couple of the musical cues in the scores, but sure enough.

I hope when this is all over an American filmmaker will have the courage to take such a look at what happened here.

[liberalpragmatist]

18. Question for you all who saw the film

I thought it was incredible. Really gripping and refreshingly nuanced; Hitler and his associates were clearly depicted as evil but correctly depicted not as Satanic but as human beings.

But while the "human" characterization of Hitler seemed to get more attention in the popular press, the actual controversy with the film was over whether it was an attempt to "exonerate" the German people for acquiescing to Nazi rule.

Alongside this was the question of whether some characters were depicted far more sympathetically than they were in real life; not the main historical figures, but figures like Albert Speer, Dr. Ernst Schenck (the doctor who tries to save civilians), Gen. Monck, and Traudl Junge (the secretary) herself. Speer, for example, is shown shifting uncomfortably when Hitler talks of ridding Germany of the Jewish poison, even though Speer, it later emerged, had used plenty of concentration camp labor and was almost certainly aware of the camps' existence. Dr. Schenck, whatever heroism he may have exhibited in Berlin, was a member of the Waffen-SS who had also used concentration camp inmates for his medical experiments (and was stripped of his medical license in post-Nazi West Germany). Gen. Monck, who is depicted in the film heroically arguing with Goebbels to think of the civilians and stop sending men to die on a futile mission, was likely responsible for the massacre of PoW's and many historians believe he ought to have been tried (and hanged) at Nuremburg. Traudl Junge, for her part, is depicted as an innocent, naive girl, when, even if she didn't know of the death camps, had belonged to several Nazi womens and youth organizations, was married to a member of the SS, and was the daughter of another far right-winger.

Some felt that the sympathetic depictions of these figures detracted from the totality of the Nazis, making it appear that the Nazi machine was the product of just a few misguided nutcases and the rest were just victims themselves.

My view was that a few figures may have been sanitized, I feel it was a defensible artistic choice. The fact is even many higher-ups in the Nazi hierarchy were ordinary people; they had families, they were kind to their friends, and yet they willingly contributed to one of the most evil regimes in history. Even within the Nazi hierarchy, there were degrees of difference between individuals, a point that doesn't lessen the impact of their crimes. Moreover, the point about Traudl Junge in the film was that even with the Nazi connections (and really, you don't get much closer than Hitler's secretary) she was still an ordinary person, a point that may have been lost to the viewer had the film somehow tried to stress her Nazi connections. (I do, however, think they should not have had her or Speer recoil at Hitler's anti-Semitism - in reality, they both would have been utterly accustomed to it.) Nor does the film, I feel, exonerate the German people of 1945. The film shows that they suffered horribly (and they did) and that an awful lot of them were too dense and too committed to their murderous ideology to save themselves or their country from slaughter.

What are your thoughts on this critique?

[tblue37]

19. Yes--even the children who were manning the defenses at the end

were shown to be largely blinded by the unthinking patriotism they had been totally indoctrinated into.

[MamaBear]

20. I think we're in a gray area.

I'm not a scholar of the period.

None of the principles in the film were depicted as non-Nazi, and there was no back story offered for how they ended up in the bunker, except for Traudl Junge. Further, you can belong to a political party (or a church, or a club, or a social movement) and not necessarily believe in every aspect of its philosophy.

I thought the film was less about sanitizing Nazis and more about illustrating the bunker mentality. Actually, I was more reminded about Richard Nixon's final days in the White House than I was of the current regime.

Look how many people were convinced that Sadaam Hussein was a real, viable threat to us, and that was after one terrible but very brief attack (that he had nothing to do with). The Germans of the '40s (or their parents) had lived through World War I, and everything that came after it. I'm not making excuses for people, but I can understand how people can just stop thinking at a certain point. Clearly that happened in Germany and the German people paid dearly for that lapse. I think the film illustrated that pretty well too.

That Hitler loved Speer didn't make Speer a good guy, although he was depicted as rather mild and charming. But, given Hitler's total power, his tendency to have summarily executed those who challenged or disagreed, what face would you be showing him?

That's what I look for in a film like this, more than "accurate" depictions of each character. We, the victors, wrote the history. Other people may see things differently.

[applegrove]

21. The short answer...I think since it was a movie..there has to be some sorta

human link for the audience to connect to..so they can follow the plot. I think it is just a tool of moviemaking. Even then it is too chilling for me to get into.

[Uncle Joe]

10. If you sell your soul to the devil, (metaphorically speaking)

rationality goes with it, there is no going back, in for a penny in for a pound.

Thanks for the post tblue

Kicked and recommended

[Old and In the Way]

11. The only tangible difference I see between the Nazi's and the republican Syndicate

is that the Republicans wear business suits with the mandatory American flag instead of snappy military uniforms. The end results are essentially the same.

[tblue37]

15. The difference is in quantity, not quality.

I don't think the comparison is hyperbolic at all, as an earlier poster said.

[MamaBear]

17. Actually, tblue, I find the comparison all to apt.

There are people in the past several administrations that are just as blinded by ideology and power as were the Germans. And who would claim (now) that Junior is sane?

[vickitulsa]

22. Exactly. I was surprised to see cries of "hyperbole!" because

I have recently been doing research on Hitler's mental deterioration near the end of WWII. Even before he finally chose to go into the bunker, his mind was going, and most of those around him knew it full well.

Actually, I've been a student of WWII since I was a child because my father is a WWII combat vet who was blown out of a tank near the end of the war in Italy, and he was an unusual one who always seemed to benefit from (if not actually "enjoy") talking about the war. He read books on it all his life, became a student of the overall war himself, in a way.

I was interested in his stories and would listen eagerly, so he shared a lot with me, and my interest only grew as I aged -- and heightened when I lived through Vietnam as a young adult.

I've never encountered a single non-Nazi source that didn't fully acknowledge the FACT that Hitler was off his hinges toward the end, if not before then. Many of us now watch the old news footage of him speaking, yelling and spluttering and gesturing madly before cheering masses and weeping women who fainted for love of him, and we wonder, "My God! Can't they TELL he's a madman??"

Now that we know so much about all the drugs his own "Dr. Feelgood" had him on at his request, it's even easier to imagine comparisons to our current madman in charge, too. Don't most of us believe * is "using again" and/or on medications he can get prescribed for him at his demand?

I just don't see any hyperbole at all in comparing the slide into delusional madness of the two wannabe world dictators, seven decades apart in time....


The REAL question I think we ought to be asking all our fellow citizens is if we are going to be like the German civilians of that era and simply sit quietly by and WATCH as our modern deteriorating lunatic drags us ever more irretrievably into war, and yet more, completely, UNWINNABLE, war.........