I won't repeat verbatim my thoughts on the movie 'Downfall', rather I will present a brief hypothesis to the effect that sometimes movies can cause a negative understanding to major historical happenings. My ramblings on the (specific) subject of Downfall can be seen HERE - as always, comments and controversy welcomed...Jim

Having not seen it yet I can't agree or disagree, I just thought I would mention that I'm looking forward to it being released on DVD on 19th Sep in the UK, and I have it on pre-order at Borders. I'll get back to you Jim....

Vinnie

Once there was a saying - newer trust what you hear and only half of what you see.

Today, with the oppetunities offered by computer tech I must say - be very critical on everything you see and never rely on only one source!

:-)

I have not seen the movie.

Except that in many respects this movie might be more historically correct then all the academic works. At least in the repect of how ordinary Germans and those surrounding Hitler lived these events (and hence they actually were).

As said in a reply to the other thread, in many academic works, and especially in public perception people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Himmler etc. have been placed almost outside humanity. As if they were aliens rather then human beings, just like any of us.

This mechanism (putting someone evil almost outside humanity, often by demonization) however is an almost natural mechanism. In fact it works both ways. We have been confronted by something evil and hence place it outside humanity (as happened concerning Hitler, Stalin or today with Osama Bin L.), or you put people out of society and protray them as an evil to be destroyed (as Hitler did concerning the "undesirables" (Gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped, Jews etc)). In a sense it is an easy cop-out for not having to face the darker side of humanity.

The reverse is also true concerning what we consider "heroes." How many people know/realize that Julius Caesar and Augustus are in fact mass murderers and war-criminals by todays standards (as they ordered the eradication and wiping out of whole tribes and cities). Shermans destructive path in the US Civil War is hardly talked about (again to be considered a warcrime by todays standards), and similar things can be said concerning warcrimes committed by allies troops in WW II (which in some repsects would include the bombings of German cities). Or muslim behaviour in Srebrenica during the Balkan wars of the early 1990's.

And this can in fact warp your view on history or be counterproductive in solving the problems of today. A fine example, mentioned in the other thread, is the reasearch done by a group of my university into the perception of Stalin by his ordinary subjects in the 1920's/1930's. And these included victims of his purges or the Ukrainian famines. They used diaries and such. And the findings from this research were the almost exact opposite of what public perception and academic literature said or would suggest.

The problem many with this film have is that it contradicts the popular image of Hitler. In fact some Jewish groups were opposed as they were of the opinion that Hitler was portrayed too much as a human being. Incidently some of these same groups try to make the "final solution" exclusively Jewish (which it was not, and relatively speaking they were not even hit hardest).

A similar problem can be detected when talking about allied or German (possible) war-crimes. From the systematic allied bombings of German cities to the acts of individual soldiers. "Saving private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" are the first produtions I have seen that actually show (or suggest) allied soldiers committing warcrimes in WW II. An image has been created as if the massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane came out of nowhere. Likewise, when trying to explain the shooting of British POW's in 1940 by German SS troops in a barn one is often called an apologist (even though it is possibly (probably ?) a junior officer loosing it after seeing much of his command wiped out).

Fact is that Hitler was a human being. Fact as well is that many of the factors that led to Hitler coming to power and the madness that ensued were present in most of not all of the Western world. But that part has been ignored in public perception of the victors.

More dangerous, IMHO, are the regular "Hollywood" movies. Now if a terrorist is needed, most of the time it is an Arab/muslim (the have replaced the commie bad-guys of the Cold War and rogues and drug-lords of the mid 1990's). Or worse simply the perception created by the media, perfectly illustrated by the most often diametrically opposed views concerning the US invasion of Iraq between Americans and non-Americans (motives, justification, succes and what is happening there).

Just my ramblings...

Harm

I tryed to post in Jim's Downfall thread but my **&^%#*)(&% PC decided it didn't want to play nice a deleted everything.
I think that Historical movies need to be in an observing nature rather than judging. People who want to truly try and understand what is happening need to open their minds to all possibilities. Ignorance I find is what causes alot of problems when it comes to Historical movies. Many of the people I know (teenage boys and some adults) have taken movies like Saving Private Ryan and U-571 as gospel.They think that a US Sub captured the enigma machine and that a squad of 8 men can defend a city with daring feats of accuracy of shooting and that all Germans were crazed Nazis. I believe that Movies can also help turn this around and open peoples eyes to the "truth" though this means reading outside material (which for some is hard because it means reading.as in they have the shortest attention spans around ) By taking in other peoples opinions it means that they can have a educated opinion on what has happened in the past and apply it to events in the present time. :-
H
P.S I hope my teenage mumbling has made sense

Regarding films, I generally counsel that people remember that filmmakers aren't historians. They aren't trained as historians, they don't use the same methods of inquiry (even if they inquire at all!), and their goals are often different, despite their own professions. They are artists of a different sort, rather closer to playwrights than scholars. This is not bad: I still enjoy watching "Guns of Navarone," while knowing that it's 80% cracking good yarn, 20% ersatz history. But understanding the above I think is a lesson more and more critical, especially in our age of "reality TV"

This is an excellent description of how I feel about "historical" movies. When seeing a movie, or reading a book, surfing a website, or any other activity of information gathering, you MUST consider the motivations of the people involved. What is their main reason for putting out what they have put out? In the case of most filmmakers its simple, to get as many people as possible in to see their movie. A filmmaker might honestly believe they are trying to realistically portray historical events, but there is always going to be some artistic license. They are going to make decisions on what to include, or exclude, how to show something, and how to tell something. These decisions are based totally on their background as a filmmaker, not because of their wanting to be historically accurate. Even those filmmakers wanting to stick to history are going to change their film to fulfill their motivation.

I've not seen Downfall. I hope to so that I can form my own opinion on it. I certainly cannot in any way accept it if it tries to apologize for the Nazis. I won't complain if it shows them as Human Beings. To my mind the most dangerous thing we could possibly do is to in any way, shape, or form make it easy for new groups like the Nazis to spring up. By saying, "That Hitler, he was an inhuman monster, but people now days aren't that way," makes it just that much easier for such groups to pop up.

Hi, A very well written repy here Dutchbird. Very good.

And we must never forget the role this country has played, and played very well I might add, in it's treatment of the Native American peoples all down through our history. If this isn't genicidal practices to whatever degree one wishes to see it, then I don't know what qualifies to be such.

Luckily the core beliefs of 'The People' have continued to survived despite our onslaughts against them, and hopefully will never die out and long outlive our time spread on Turtle Island.

Take care, Sgirty