• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Hitler: The Rise of Evil

GKarsEye

GKarsEye

Regular
So, anyone watch this?

The first installment of CBS' made for TV movie about Adolph aired Sunday night. The 2nd will be on Tuesday.

I thought it was oddly "safe" considering its subject matter. They made Hitler seem very cartoonish and corny, which doesn't feel real to me. They show him captivating an audience and winning the hearts of people, but it doesn't really show how.

And all the requisite Jew-bashing was presented in the typical absurd way (as in, how can anyone believe this nonsense?).

I guess if they tried to make him more human people would complain that it was too sympathetic. But then if the movie doesn't offer a fresh perspective, what is the point of making it?

But I still like this sort of thing, so I enjoyed it to some degree.

Unfortunately, I'll probably miss the 2nd part since it conflicts with an NBA Playoff game and the season finale of 24.
 
I basically had the same complaints as you but, on the whole, I liked it.

Here were some of my problems:

#1 -- It seemed as though everytime they showed Hitler away from a podium, he came off as a socially retarded animal... he spit-out more food and water in those dining room scenes than a half-dozen babies. It made me wonder how in the hell he got anyone to support him in the first place.

#2 -- In the opening clips they pretty much showed us that Hitler was no good even as a young boy. I think that was kind of a cop out.

#3 -- To me, it seemed that the movie kinda washed over the one thing that made Hitler what he was, his eloquence. They showed about a half-dozen speeches (all of them at the same beer hall, btw), but the movie really never explained where that ability came from. Before then, it seemed as though Hitler had this Forrest Gump thing going on with everyone in his life, until the day he gets up at the beer hall and magically turns into one of the greatest orators of the 20th century... how did that happen?
 
I guess if they tried to make him more human people would complain that it was too sympathetic
Click to expand...

Just check out some of what was said about John Cusack's movie Max last year. For those who may not remember, or not have noticed at all, Cusack played the titular Max, who was a Jewish art dealer who has a relationship (in some form) with Hitler back when he was still an aspiring artist. In some quarters the movie absolutely villified for humanizing the character of Adolph Hitler.

To me this attitude seems completely backwards. If you require that Hitler always be shown as a completely inhuman monster it simply reinforces the notion of "it couldn't happen here". If Hitler was such a complete monster, and (obviously) all of *us* (whoever the the "us" is in the conversation or thought process) are clearly just people with human strengths and weaknesses, the conclusion ends up being that "we" could never do that. This leads to a complacency that can only increase the chances of something similar happening again.
 
To me this attitude seems completely backwards. If you require that Hitler always be shown as a completely inhuman monster it simply reinforces the notion of "it couldn't happen here". If Hitler was such a complete monster, and (obviously) all of *us* (whoever the the "us" is in the conversation or thought process) are clearly just people with human strengths and weaknesses, the conclusion ends up being that "we" could never do that. This leads to a complacency that can only increase the chances of something similar happening again.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're probably right.

Problem is, you've just given a thoughtful analysis. But the attitudes of most people -- especially on issues like this -- tend to come from reactions and emotions, not from analysis.
 
I haven't seen the show. The problem I have is with humanizing very bad people, and I have it with lots of fictional films as well, like The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, many, many more. I realize that even the greatest monsters are human on some levels, but when presented in the context of entertainment, I don't accept it. True, showing cartoonish, gratuitous evil in them as children, unless we have actual facts, is stupid. I just feel far more comfortable with this sort of thing when it is handled in a documentary, in which the purpose is to educate, rather than entertain. There is a wonderful short film, shown on The Sundance Channel from time to time, called Human Remains, by Jay Rosenblatt, an amazing film maker. It is about the banality of evil, showing personal life clips and details from several brutal dictators, including Hitler. It shows their human side in a cold and clinical maner, never letting you forget the evil they did. That sort of treatment works for me.
 
I wish I could've seen more of it, since it looked rather interesting, but I was tied up with the two hour season finale of Criminal Intent at the time. Robert Carlyle looked good as Hitler, though.
 
I watched it and did enjoy it to some extent. But I agree that he looked very cartoony most of the time. I do wish we had seen a little more of his early years that would explain a little better how he became such a monster. I just can't bring myself to believe that some people are born monsters. I believe it is the environment in combination with your personality traits that help make people monsters (for lack of a better word).
 
The problem I have is with humanizing very bad people, and I have it with lots of fictional films as well, like The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, many, many more. I realize that even the greatest monsters are human on some levels, but when presented in the context of entertainment, I don't accept it.
Click to expand...

Whereas I think that it is worth remembering that seeing someone be nice to their children (or whatever) does not necessarily mean that they are not capable of extreme ruthlessness, cruelty, and violence.

Of course, I have no problem with anyone saying that they prefer not to watch certain kinds of depictions. That is everyone's prerogative. I consistently avoid all of the slasher-type horror flicks (even the classics of the genre like Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre which still stand as the only 2 movies that I have walked out of, after being talked into going to film co-op showings in college).

What I had a problem with in *some* of the reactions to Max last year was when people said that it should never have have been made by anyone and that it should not ever be shown anywhere. I disagree with that sort of decree about what everyone else should be allowed to watch / read / say / think on general principal. (The lone exception that I make being laws preventing criminal acts from being profitable. This applies to child porn, snuff films, and the like.)
 
I think that the humanization of Hitler is very different from a movie like The Godfather or Resevoir Dogs. In The Godfather, you're dealing with a man who is responsible for terrible actions, but you're also dealing with someone who was capable of carrying out those actions based upon birthright and little else.

With Hitler, it's just different. Hitler was a very charismatic leader who excelled at giving his people exactly what they wanted. He was very professional and one of the best PR artists of all time. That's how he gained power, and why he was able to commit terrible crimes, because everyone believed in his ability to make their country great.

IMO, the only way to really express the true terror, or the evil of Hitler would be to portray him as people saw him. It's easy to show a maniac spitting greasy pieces of meat out of his mouth ordering millions to their deaths.

What's far more difficult (and far more accurate) is showing a man who earned the trust of a nation so intrinsically that ordinarily good people were compelled to carry out inhuman orders that they would have violently objected to otherwise. Documentaries simply cannot capture this spirit. All of the newsreel footage in the world couldn't actually show you the percieved glory that Hitler brought to a people who were desperate, starving, and entrenched in a near civil-war. The only way to really capture this is with a modern motion picture.

I thought this was what CBS had set out to do, but apparently that was never their intention. Even though we hate to admit it, Hitler's charisma earned him a following of millions, portraying him as an unorganized slob is just propaganda to make us feel better. It's easy to think that we'd all have recognized Hitler for his evil behavior on sight. It's much harder to realize that most of us could have been just as mesmerized by his spell as his countrymen were.
 
I missed this movie. I may try to catch it when/if it is shown again, it sounds like it might be interesting.

Spitting out bits of meat, though? I thought Hitler was (ironically) a vegetarian.

And as far as his following goes, I remember hearing a bit on the news years ago, when the Soviet Union had collapsed. A woman was saying that at least when Stalin was in charge, there was bread at an affordable price in the stores. It's amazing what people will turn their backs to when times are really tough and someone comes along and seems to make things better. Just don't mind the people who are disappearing.
 
I don't think the movie showed him eating meat. The scene I remember of him displaying some food crumbs in a small fit of rage was while eating some sort of pastry or cookie at the journalist's house.

Strifeguard, you make a good point- though fictionalized to some degree, a film can show the personal and intimate nature of people in ways that documentaries sometimes cannot. I for one am a huge fan of history portrayed in film of novels, like Oliver Stone movies and Gore Vidal books.

Hyp, there are a large number of folks in Russia who are clamoring for the return of the Soviet Union and the order that came with it. To someone who is that hard up, having a job and food on the table is more important than a democracy.
 
Yes, indeed. And wasn't our treatment of Japan after WWII very much a reaction to what happened in Germany after WWI? Better to help rebuild than to totally crush out of a sense of revenge.
 
As soon as CBS announced their intention to produce a movie on the rise of Hitler, Jewish organizations spoke out against a film that might humanize, sympathize, or in some way attempt to explain his motivations. The result, as we see, is a one-note caricature of Adolph Hitler, who spouts anti-semetic rhetoric without any tact and displays almost no social skills whatsoever. Although his speeches rouse the crowds, he shows none of the intelligence, tact, or charisma in personal contact that allowed him to sway the conscience of an entire nation, making his rise to power seem extremely improbable.

Hitler was an animal lover and a vegetarian. The only subtle hints at this were where he credited the dog with saving his life, perhaps leading to an affinity for animals, and when the other soldier suggested the dog was in the stew, prompting Hitler to look at his meal with disgust. Again, these characteristics are not followed up, because they would make him human - a theory the movie moves to dispel.

I know the pertrayal of Hitler is a touchy subject, but if we're always looking for obvious villains with horns on their heads, we'll find ourselves fooled by evil hiding behind a smiling face.

Morden, anyone?
 
You're assuming that the criticisms of Jewish organizations affected the outcome of the film. It seems more likely to me that the film was finished or being made when they announced it. I think if they would change it, it would have gotten more press. But I'm just guessing.
 
You're correct about my assuming. The movie was announced as an upcoming project, which prompted the protests I mentioned. However, I don't really know that the finished product was altered in any way from its intended form. I guess i'm just kinda hoping that's what happened. It makes a good excuse, though, to blame it on the Jews (just kidding).
 
I saw an interview on CNN with two people, one a station director who refused to show it, because it humanized Hitler, and a representative of a Jewish organization who said thet his org. had initially opposed it, but after prescreening it, approved of it. Again, I didn't see it, so I don't know if I would agree with him, but it is nice to know his org. is capeable of changing its mind.
 
Apparently, there are some talk radio people coming down on the mini-series, because (they claim) it twisted history to make some comparisons between President Bush and Hitler. Has anyone else heard about this?
 
I've read about this idea from a couple of critics/reviewers, and I can see that in the first part. It's basically the idea that fear makes people follow "evil" men.

So, anyone see the 2nd part? I missed it. Go Nets!
 
Spoilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The second part picks up with Hitler in prison writing his book. When he gets out, the Nazi party is pretty much disorganized and Hitler goes to the country. While he's there, his half-sister visits and she brings her daughter (Hitler's neice). Hitler, of course, falls for the pretty blonde girl and starts dragging her around like a pet. About this time, Nazi party leaders are wondering if Hitler is really retired or is planning on making a comeback.

Naturally, Hitler decides to go back into the party and (in a scene that reminds me of several mob movies) he pretty much tells everyone that he's going to be the head honcho from now on. Anyway, Hitler becomes more and more possesive of his niece and even threatens to kill a guy who was kissing her. Its about this time that the niece finally realizes that she is nothing but a dog or a cat to Hitler and she kills herself -- after Hitler forces a kiss on her.

From there, Hitler meets Eva Braun and loses an election. He manages to usurp power anyway and everyone on Hitler's Enemies List begins to fall.... Don Bazini, Mo Green, and all the heads of the five families.

For the next five minutes or so, there's information on what happens to several of the characters.... the ones that aren't killed immediately, either flee or are killed later. Then they tell us that Hitler pretty much conquered most of Europe and, of course, killed millions. Finally, it tells us where we can learn more....You didn't miss anything much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 76 (members: 0, guests: 76)

Share this page

Back
Top