I came across this piece of news.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019248/?GT1=5100

[Quote:

By Andy Eckardt
Producer
NBC News
Updated: 3:24 p.m. ET Sept. 16, 2004

MAINZ, Germany - A new film portraying Adolf Hitler as both a delusional madman and an occasionally softer father figure premiered in Germany on Thursday. But it has already triggered a furious public debate about whether it's the right time to break one of the nation's last taboos — showing the Nazi leader as a human being.

"Der Untergang" or "The Downfall," a film directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel and produced by Bernd Eichinger, takes a less historic and more personal approach toward the topic of Germany's Nazi past, one that German filmmakers have hesitated to touch until now.

“The Downfall” portrays the last 12 days in the life of the Hitler, and is told from the point of view of Traudl Junge, one of Hitler's personal secretaries. It is based in parts on Junge's biography and also the book, "The Downfall," by historian Joachim Fest.

Parts of the film portray Hitler as a psychopath, wandering the corridors of the bunker below the streets of Berlin, ignorant to the collapse of his empire and to the suffering population above his head.

Yet, the audience is also shown a charming side of Hitler, a man who shows moments of kindness toward his female staff.

Hitler the human
Hitler is played by 63-year-old Swiss actor Bruno Ganz, who critics say is able to produce a photographic resemblance of the Austrian-born dictator.

Ganz displays a great command of the awkward Bavarian-Austrian accent which Hitler spoke and manages to give a natural edge to Hitler's notorious outbursts.

Showing Hitler with a permanent stoop, trembling from Parkinson's disease, Ganz plays a deteriorating character, resembling both the breakdown of a human being and the system Hitler created.

Ganz admits that he probably played the most challenging role of his life. "It became a threshold I had to cross, and then I was there," he said.

"What we are trying to do is give Hitler a three-dimensional portrait, because we know from all accounts that he was a very charming man," said director Oliver Hirschbiegel. "A man who managed to seduce a whole people into barbarism."

Yet, German film magazines and newspapers have been debating over the past couple of months whether the country is ready for such a portrayal, one that could provoke sympathy for the dictator.

On Thursday, Germany's Frankfurter Rundschau daily published an interview with Niklas Frank, the son of Hitler's former general governor to Poland, who tried to explain why so many Germans were seduced by Hitler.

"The film shows very well that Hitler was not only crazy. He had a human side, which was likeable at times," Frank said. "I could have watched Bruno Ganz as Hitler incessantly," Frank said.

Leading German news magazines, like Der Spiegel and Stern, devoted entire cover stories to the movie, and Germany's tabloid newspaper Bild asked, "Are we allowed to show the monster as a human being?"

Yes, said Bernd Eichinger, one of Germany's top directors, who wrote the screenplay for the movie.

"Some day, we have to be capable of telling our own history," he said.

Ganz agreed. "If I would not have felt sympathy for the character and would not have managed to make the audience feel sympathy for the creature Hitler, then I would have failed in my job as an actor."

Still coming to terms
”The Downfall” is probably the most controversial of a number of German films in production that deal with the country's Nazi past. A three-part television series on Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and a film called "The Goebbels experiment" is to follow later this year.

In addition, new books on the darkest chapter of German history are filling the shelves of local book stores.

"Forever in the spell of evil," read the headline of a Stern magazine report, which claims that even 60 years later, Germans still have to question why they cannot escape from Hitler's shadow.

No doubt, “The Downfall” has triggered a renewed public debate, not only in Germany, but across Europe, on what many call "Germany's biggest trauma.”

But, even though opinions of historians and critics are divided, up to now, the consensus has been mostly positive.

"I think that viewers will be able to learn a lot from this film, namely that they will get insight into the character of the Nazi regime," said the Munich historian professor Hermann Graml. ]

--------------------------------------------------

So what are your thoughts on this? Showing a human side to a man who is considered a tyrant by most and barely spoken about by many. Do you think it's time people got over the "He who must not be named" syndrome and learn more about history? (not that this is historical. It kind of looks like an embelleshment on the directors part)

Anyways, discuss if you like.

Personally I think Hitler was a sadistic evil tyrant who cleverly manipulated his people into commiting said acts of evil, but I suppose it is important to get both sides of the story across too.

Although I dont believe in what Hitler did, I have always admired the way he worked, as in, he was able to convince so many people that what he thought was right.
There is no doubt that he was evil, but the way that he did things was truly amazing, but most people wont bother to look past his decisions and see what he was really like.

I'd love to see this. It would be great to see the war from his point of view, rather than people just telling us that he is "evil", end of story.

He was an inspiring leader and a very good tactician. I'm disgusted with what Hitler did to the Jews and all the propaganda he dealt out, but he had his reasons.

I read a book called "Making History" by Stephen Fry, in which he claims that Adolf was a nice child. However, his ruthlessness was brought upon him by his father.

I don't think he was sadistic. I don't think he was "evil". He just needs to be understood more, which, hopefully, this movie will do.

his actions was evil. but in his mind, he was thinking he did the right thing. Some people would think what people do is evil, yet in thier mind it is good. And vice-versa. Thats what makes the world go around [img]smile.gif[/img]

This is gonna be an interresting watch, it's probably impossible to ever comprehend what went on in his mind, but this is as close as it gets i suppose.

<font color = cccccc>From what I gather his persona is what made him 'Das Fuhrer'. The people wanted change, and he came along, maybe not the outcome they wanted, but change none the less.

He was not a good tactician, he was the chrismatic force that drove the people. His Generals were the tacticians, and if it were left to their abilities, it's hard to say what the outcome "could" have been.

However brillant his mind, it was darkly warped, and he alone was responsible for his actions, and to those of which he gave the orders.</font>

[ 09-19-2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Felix The Assassin ]

I agree with Felix. Hitler was a poor tactician. His invasion of Russia before England was finished off and the diversion in that campign of the Volga force was what broke Germany's back. No victory was possible after the Battle of Kharkov. Germany should have sued for peace at that time, but the entire leadership was so stained with blood that they refused, ruining Germany and costing many, many lives. Hitler was no more human than Vlad the Impaler.

I'm pretty sure he was a human being. Portraying him as a cat or a pile of magazines would be historically inaccurate.
Seriously though, our understanding of the holocaust is not improved by pretending the perpetrators were monsters, devoid of normal human emotion.

Good, I always wanted to see the human side of Hitler. I want to see how he made it to the top and manage to "unify" his people. Too many movies or documentary out there that potray him as a sadistic creature.

And this is what we call... The personal relativity of morality!

Invading Russia was not his mistake; underestimating the Russian winter and the stubbornness of the Russian generals were. Hitler himself was a genius in the way he used the Blitzkreig to take most of Western Europe, and the Allied success at Normandy was the fault of generals, not Der Fuhrer himself.

Instead of driving into Russia, Hitler should have driven into the Middle East, or Saudi Arabia. The treaty with Russia would have lasted, and by strengthening the Italian and Nazi troops already in northern Africa and by using a two-pronged attack to drive into the Saudi country, he could have obtained endless amounts of oil to fuel his war machine, and easily crushed the British, then dealt with the Russians.

Hitler was not evil, he was misguided. Evil does not exist. Good does not exist. I disagree with what Hitler did strongly, because it was cruel. But that does not make it evil, per se.

Hitler was also a brilliant leader, very charismatic and inspiring, and exactly what the German people were looking for at the time; he gave them temporary stability, and they loved him. He must be respected, if only for this.