This could end up in GD, so I’ll let the mods decide on that.
Suppose someone were to make a biographical movie about Robert E. Lee, Hitler, Stonewall Jackson, or the like - does the movie have to include depictions of his racist behavior (in a condemning way) in order to be nonracist, or is it okay to focus solely on his non-race-related attributes (for instance, a movie that focuses mostly on examining Lee or Stonewall’s prowess as a military commander in the field, or how Hitler grew up and didn’t make it into art school, or how Hitler and his generals debated over how best to wage the war in Russia?)
If you’re focusing on Lee’s or Hitler’s non-racist traits, what’s left? The only reason anyone ever talks about either man is their racist beliefs and actions. If you just want to make a movie about some schmo who never got into art school, well, heck, there are millions of those folks-- Why not focus on one of the others?
The other side of the argument is to ask whether you are neatly overlooking abhorrent aspects of your subject. At best, naive misrepresentation or, at worst, white-washing.
Hitler was a vegetarian when that was novel, and I gather he passed laws relating to animal welfare. A documentary focussing on that would be legitimate, but its a worthy subject because its Hitler [with all his Hitler background and significance as a historical player], rather than Mabel Bloggs, an equally committed vegan.
Why are portrayals of Nazis given the benefit of the doubt, and understood not to be in support of Naziism? Nothing else is. If a film portrays misogyny, it’s assumed to be misogynist. The same appears to be the case, if this thread is any indication, of portrayals of racists.
How do you make art condemning racism with portraying racists? Or condemn misogyny without showing misogynists?
It’s the same for both: it’s only racist/misogynist if the film portrays them in a non-condemning way. It’s perfectly fine to have a documentary show that a racist guy was racist, or to have a movie where the hero beats the racist asshole.
Relevant to the OP, though, Max doesn’t ignore Hitler’s anti-Semitism or fascist politics. To the contrary, they’re both essential elements to the film.
But these subjects are not given the same benefits of the doubt. There are many films, for example, that portray a woman overcoming misogyny, but which are condemned by many as misogynist. There’s a whole genre of these films, “rape-revenge” movies, to which Uma Thurman and Quentin Tarantino paid explicit homage with “Kill Bill.” Yet the movies that inspired it are frequently called misogynist.
Suppose we focus solely on, say, Operation Barbarossa. And the film is focusing solely on Hitler and his generals arguing and debating - should we push for Moscow? Is Stalingrad really worth it? Criss-crossing these two armies is going to cause a massive jam and confusion. Let’s call off the attack at Kursk; it’s obvious the Soviets have dug in huge rings of concentric defense and an attack would be suicide. Etc. etc.
There would be no need or reason to bring in the Holocaust, or anti-Semitism, in what would be a movie focusing solely on a particular war front and particular situation. But does that omission make the movie sympathetic to an anti-Semitic guy?
Sure, that’s reasonable, because what made Henry Ford great was his contribution to the auto industry. It wouldn’t be a complete picture of his life, but then, no movie is ever a completely complete picture of anyone’s life, because it’d need to be 70 years long to do do that. It’s a bad thing that Ford was so antisemitic, but in an alternate universe where he wasn’t, he would still be Ford the automobile industrialist.
In an alternate universe where Hitler wasn’t an anti-semite, though, he’s Hitler the… what? His anti-semitism is the core of his entire public identity.
Okay, I see that they made films, some of which were about women.
I’m not seeing
Quite yet.
Is this that there were some tweets, someone’s blog, or what? Is it “many” in a relative term, like 3 gunshots to the chest is many, or in absolute terms, as in a significant number?
Frequently, sure, if you say so. But a not so brief google skim doesn’t show me any of this. Did you actually have cites of this, or is it just something that you’ve heard, and feel that since you’ve heard it, it is frequent?
Kill Bill isn’t about rape revenge so I’m a bit confused by this statement. And the one bit that is about rape (Buck) is almost played for comic relief. But sure, there’s a certain point at which rape as a subject matter becomes exploitative and probably some people have complained about that.
I’m hard pressed to think of any portrayal of a Nazi that wasn’t a bad guy. My knowledge of cinema isn’t encyclopedic so I concede that I might have missed something. But for almost my entire life, as soon as you saw a Nazi in a movie you knew they were the bad guy. Even if they weren’t engaging in genocide or war crimes they were trying to stop Doctor Jones or something.