Did anybody watch that horrible two=part made-for-TV “biography” of Adolf Hitler?
It was awful!
Apart from the crappy acting (why are WWII Nazis always played by englishmen?), the plot was BOOORING! I must admit that the guy who played the almost -senile Gen. Paul von Hindenburg was pretty good.
What I would like to know…Hitler was noticed by some bigwig, while spewing out a hateful speech in a beerhall…what was the incentive for the big industrialists to embrace the Mazi party? Was it the promise (to exterminate the communists)?
Anyway, the part about Hitler’s neice-was she bulliedinto commiting suicide?
And, did AH infact hit on the swastica as the NS party symbol?:rolleyes:
I caught the first part and while it was interesting to get a new perspective (sorta) on the weirdo, the show itself was put together horribly.
It was rushed, poorly edited, and, well, rushed. It skipped from scene to scene and and months of time so quickly it was like watching a commerciel for the show instead of the show itself.
Suckage, man.
I watched parts of it, and while the portayal of Hitler as a shifty eyed nutjob was a bit one dimensional, the facts of the series were largely true - except Matthew Modine and Juliana Marguilles characters were essentially there to represent opponents and supporters of Hitler. Geli Raubal did commit suicide (some rumors had it that she was murdered or forced to commit suicide because her relationship to Hitler was an embarassment)
After his release from prison, Hitler basically abstained from overt public attacks on Jews and focused on the ‘Young Plan’ and other efforts by America, British, and French leaders to allow Germany to pay off its huge reparations debt on a regular schedule. This was the number one reason that industrialists and other ‘respectable’ types supported Hitler - he was the most strident anti-reparations campaigner.
Yes I thought the series was pretty bad too. As mentioned the scenes were too brief and failed to build any kind of dramatic momentum. The music was of the most obvious and emotionally manipulative kind. The cinematography was too flashy with too many of those revolving shots.
Still the underlying story was interesting enough to keep me watching despite the flaws of the serial and the end , particularly Gerlich’s final letter, was quite moving. Apparently the blood-stained spectacles sent to his wife happened IRL.
“except Matthew Modine and Juliana Marguilles characters were essentially there to represent opponents and supporters of Hitler”
Not sure what you mean. According to the CBS website both these characters were real.
I’d have preferred if they’d put blue contact lenses in Robert Carlise’s eyes, since that was part of Hitler’s hypnotic appeal.
Also, using that appeal, whenever someone spoke to Hilter he would look at them with rapt attention. This is a characteristic of every sucessful politician, but they chose to show only Hilter’s foaming at the mouth style.
Anybody catche the “Reichstag fire = loss of civil rights” shot at Ashcroft? Especially after reading how the show’s producer compared Bush to Hitler at a press conference?
I was curious if and how they’d handle Ernst Roem’s homosexuality. As a hot-button issue, it could easily have come across wrong, so they disregarded it entierly, until the scene where he was arrested while in bed with a young man. I have to agree that was the best way to deal with the issue short of showing him alone in bed, which would have been inaccurate.
I don’t think American audiences can see homosexuality as a simple matter of fact, and not some kind of plot device.
Compare this film with Robert Duval’s Stalin, with much the same themes: both Hitler & Stalin had abusive fathers (not shown in the Duval film), both went off the deep end after a woman close to them shot herself, and both stories involve corruption and betrayal.
The main thing I didn’t like was the one scene where Hitler was telling somebody else (I can’t remember, that WAS Tuesday) about how they couldn’t tolerate terrorist attacking national monuments. Seemed like somebody making the movie was trying intentionally to insult the current government…
I don’t know, maybe I was being over sensitive.
what about the use of the word “terrorists” in the 1930s? Did the word even exist? I’m not a big Hitler history buff, so I learned a little bit from the show, like about how the Nazis repeatedly forced new elections, each time getting a little stronger. Certainly not a great film, but interesting at least to this non-expert in German history. Yes, the terrorist thing seemed like a potshot at the current administration. It probably would have been a bit cheeky to refer to the emergency powers bill as the “Patriot Act”.
The word “terrorist” certainly was in use. Strongly so in WWII; for example, members of the French Resistance (in France, obviously) were referred to as terrorists by the German occupiers.
Damn it, my post failed. According to dictionary.com, the word terrorist (ne Terroriste) dates back to the French Revolution. So yes, it was definitely in use.
The word “terrorist” may have been in use but apparently Hitler used “communist” in that particular quote. So there definitely was an attempt to take silly potshots at the Bush administration. In fact the executive producer Ed Gernon came out and basically said so and was fired afterwards.
Was anyone else puzzled by the brief look at Hitler’s childhood which practically was over before the opening sequence? Why include it at all if you are not going to treat it properly?
I think the basic problem with the film was that the producers were terrified of doing anything which would like it were “explaining” Hitler. Therefore the film lacked pshycholgical or historical depth and every sequence was scripted in the most mechanical manner imaginable.
I know why it is hard to take a stance to “Explain” Hitler, but still People of his ilk just don’t pop out of the ground and hypnotise decent folk into doing things they are totally opposed to.
Maybe someone should have the guts to stop potraying him as a raving madman that existed in some sort of vacuum and look at that time peroiod for what it really was. Hell many people forget that there were fascist party’s all over the western world who had fair support from “decent” folk who accepted their thugish views of the world, including the United States itself.
They were real, but they were used to symbolize Hitler’s many opponents and many supporters…-I don’t know if I am clear here. The movie alternated between being about Hitler, and being about how other people were affected by him, and those two were singled out.
Anyway, if the story had centered entirely on the Gerlichs, it would have been much stronger.
I didn’t see the entire thing, but I think you’ve got it.
Standard practice for America, I think. Non-English-speaking Europeans are always British, and bad guys are always British. Well, almost. I think it’s a kind of complex left over from the colonial days. 
(Semi-joke)
In point of fact, though, not all of the stars were English, they just had accents. Robert Carlyle is Scottish, Liev Schreiber is American, etc.
My two major pro & cons:
I thought the series did a good job of showing Hitler at loose ends after the War, kind of falling in with the fledgling Nazi Party. He finds that he has 'talents" in that area & he & the party grow together.
I thought that it did poorly treating the d^mn near civil war that existed vs. the communists at times & how that played into his rise.
I agree in the rushed state of editing. That made it all like one long, unending commercial. Furthermore, he didn’t really look a lot like Hitler. Had they made him a bit taller perhaps, and stuffed him with some padding, he would’ve been more accurate. Hitler was kind of a chubby guy, although maybe this was just in his later years. Also, it didn’t really give a coherent explanation as to why Hitler detested the Jews. It displayed him loathing them first in Vienna, but that’s about all it explored.
Why did Roehm have to have an Irish accent? Why were there all those awkward shots pairing him and Hitler together, with the former dominating the latter?
Otherwise, despite shoddy acting and choppy acting, along with my aforemntioned nitpicks, it appeared fairly accurate for a television production.
I agree in the rushed state of editing. That made it all like one long, unending commercial. Furthermore, he didn’t really look a lot like Hitler. Had they made him a bit taller perhaps, and stuffed him with some padding, he would’ve been more accurate. Hitler was kind of a chubby guy, although maybe this was just in his later years. Also, it didn’t really give a coherent explanation as to why Hitler detested the Jews. It displayed him loathing them first in Vienna, but that’s about all it explored.
Why did Roehm have to have an Irish accent? Why were there all those awkward shots pairing him and Hitler together, with the former dominating the latter?
Otherwise, despite shoddy acting and choppy editing, along with my aforemntioned nitpicks, it appeared fairly accurate for a television production.
According to reporter Richard C. Hottelet, who met Hitler,
Thumbs down from me, too.
There are basically two things I want to know about Hitler:
-
What demons were driving the guy (and how did they get inside his head in the first place?)
-
Why did an entire county follow him?
The mini-series anwered neither of those questions.
If CBS re-runs it, don’t waste your time watching it.
Am I the only one that enjoyed it? Remember it was only about a 2 3/4 hr movie. It’s hard to get deep and really cover all the history covered in the movie. I was very glad for the historical accuracy.
Reeder: I enjoyed it as well. It was really pretty good, IMO, and the parts that they weren’t talking about the current political climate, it was historically accurate (such as WW1 German helmets and how they evolved and Ludendoff was the only one standing at the Putch).