Downfall
Monday night I saw the German film Downfall. For those not familiar, it is a film which depicts Hitler's last days, in Berlin during World War II. It broke a long-standing taboo of German cinema by portraying Hitler in as a dynamic, central character, and was very controversial for showing the dictator's kind and loving side. I found this to be a terrific film which displayed extraordinary acting performances, particularly by Bruno Ganz, the Swiss-German actor charged with playing the Fuhrer himself. At two and one-half hours, my movie-going companion claimed to get a bit tired of it towards the end, but I argue that it should not have been a minute shorter. This is not a film that should be rushed, and director Oliver Hirschbiegel should be proud of every scene in this modern-day German cinematic classic.
I was interested to read the reviews of Downfall. About 90% of the English-language media gave the film positive reviews. Two negative reviews, however, caught my attention: those in The New York Times, and The New Yorker. (Those who know me well are aware these are my two favorite publications in the world.)
The main arguments for the negative reviews, in these periodicals and others, were that there should be no interest in seeing Hitler's more humanistic side; that while the film may be important for the German people, North American films have been portraying Hitler for years and Downfall is therefore nothing new; the script was weak and too limiting on Ganz's performance; and the lack of new insights into Hitler's life, death, and impact on the German people that the film brings.
These comments have some basis in truth, but are by no means sufficient reason to write the movie off as inferior. Ganz's performance alone is reason to see this film. And after 60 years, isn't it safe to start exposing who Hitler really was? In his review in The New Yorker, David Denby writes, "Considered as biography, the achievement (if that's the right word) of "Downfall" is to insist that the monster was not invariably monstrous - that he was kind to his cook and his young female secretaries, loved his German shepherd, Blondi, and was surrounded by loyal subordinates. We get the point: Hitler was not a supernatural being; he was common clay raised to power by the desire of his followers. But is this observation a sufficient response to what Hitler actually did?"
Well, yes. Or, perhaps not sufficient, but necessary. Why should we be scared to expose Hitler's human side? To the contrary, it's important to realize that it doesn't take an unqualified monster to orchestrate horrific acts. Indeed, it is important that this makes us wary. Our discomfort with this side of Hitler is the price we pay for vigilance against such a monster rising to power again.
The context in which this film was made - in a Germany still coming to terms with its past - is reason enough to be interested in this film. It is not only an important piece of art in the German context, though. Downfall is a striking, intriguing, and never-dull film, worth seeing as soon as you get the chance.
I was interested to read the reviews of Downfall. About 90% of the English-language media gave the film positive reviews. Two negative reviews, however, caught my attention: those in The New York Times, and The New Yorker. (Those who know me well are aware these are my two favorite publications in the world.)
The main arguments for the negative reviews, in these periodicals and others, were that there should be no interest in seeing Hitler's more humanistic side; that while the film may be important for the German people, North American films have been portraying Hitler for years and Downfall is therefore nothing new; the script was weak and too limiting on Ganz's performance; and the lack of new insights into Hitler's life, death, and impact on the German people that the film brings.
These comments have some basis in truth, but are by no means sufficient reason to write the movie off as inferior. Ganz's performance alone is reason to see this film. And after 60 years, isn't it safe to start exposing who Hitler really was? In his review in The New Yorker, David Denby writes, "Considered as biography, the achievement (if that's the right word) of "Downfall" is to insist that the monster was not invariably monstrous - that he was kind to his cook and his young female secretaries, loved his German shepherd, Blondi, and was surrounded by loyal subordinates. We get the point: Hitler was not a supernatural being; he was common clay raised to power by the desire of his followers. But is this observation a sufficient response to what Hitler actually did?"
Well, yes. Or, perhaps not sufficient, but necessary. Why should we be scared to expose Hitler's human side? To the contrary, it's important to realize that it doesn't take an unqualified monster to orchestrate horrific acts. Indeed, it is important that this makes us wary. Our discomfort with this side of Hitler is the price we pay for vigilance against such a monster rising to power again.
The context in which this film was made - in a Germany still coming to terms with its past - is reason enough to be interested in this film. It is not only an important piece of art in the German context, though. Downfall is a striking, intriguing, and never-dull film, worth seeing as soon as you get the chance.
posted by rtkelly at 9:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home