1. Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003, 179m)

1899 to August 1934: Hitler's Early Life and Rise to Power

The first film I decided to watch was Hitler: The Rise of Evil, a two-part Canadian miniseries about the early life of Adolf Hitler (Robert Carlyle) and the rise of the Nazi party, ending with the death of Hindenburg and Hitler's consolidation of power.

I'm a firm believer in the old adage that those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. Similarly, I think a firm understanding of the past is necessary to inform the present. So this seemed like a natural place to start. Of course, my brain wants to go back even further (to the French and Indian War) but in the interest of finishing this project in a timely fashion, certain boundaries must be observed. However, I will go so far as to assert that I believe the roots of the second world war can be traced all the way back to that conflict - the original world war - but that's a post for another time.

In the meantime, let's talk about Hitler: The Rise of Evil. First and foremost I'm a big fan of Robert Carlyle (among other things Trainspotting (1996), Ravenous (1999), The World is Not Enough (1999), and my personal favorite: The 51st State/Formula 51 (2001)), and the opportunity to see him play one of history's most notorious figures was something I couldn't resist. Despite extensive warnings of the film's historical inaccuracies on IMDB, I felt this was too essential a time period to skip.

However, from the start, the route that the film is going to take quickly becomes clear. Over the first few minutes (during the credits) we see young Hitler age from ten to eighteen. A combination of acting and music go far to inform the audience's expectations that they're about to see something more akin to The Omen than a film with some subtlety and balance in it.

As a fan of history and a fan of film, I'm willing to overlook a few historical inaccuracies on the part of the filmmakers in order to tell a good story. Unfortunately, that does not feel like the case in this situation. When undertaking an examination of a topic such is this, it's important to humanize the characters - that's one of the reasons that Oliver Hirschbiegel's Downfall (2004) is so compelling (and a film we'll be taking a look at later on). It was important to Hirschbiegel to portray Hitler as a man, not some legendary evil, because that absolves us of any responsibility in the matter. If Hitler was a man, rather than some supernatural being, that means it could all happen again - if we let it.

And, indeed that sentiment is one shared in this film as well, that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - at least that's the quote that begins and ends the movie. I don't know if that's something I would've singled out as a theme otherwise however. Without prompting, my take on this movie would be something more akin to "what was wrong with 1930s Germany? Hitler is clearly a douche-bag." But you see, therein lies the fatal flaw with this film, the characterization of Hitler. If the real Hitler was a Dungeons & Dragons character, he would've had a Charisma score of 20 (which, to you non-D&D fans, is quite high). Hitler was a charismatic, gifted speaker, who could charm the pants off anyone - much less an entire country. And, honestly, I think that would have made for a more interesting, satisfying movie.

Showing how a frustrated young man with a magnetic personality became first the supreme ruler of Germany and then one of the most reviled historical figures of all time. That's powerful stuff. But instead we're treated to a political-correct retelling of events and how a Jew-hating madman (indeed, he talks about how much he hates the Jews at least once each scene) somehow inexorably took power. Worse still, the film uncharacteristically portrays Hitler as uncouth and bad-mannered, spitting food while talking and spilling water all over himself while drinking. It may not be in vogue to ascribe the man any positive attributes, much less table manners, however, in asking the audience to believe that people were drawn to such a man, the film loses the necessary credibility to function.

Acting-wise, the movie is pretty solid. Upon his first appearance as the adult Hitler, Carlyle turns in a decent performance based on the film's characterization of the man. Still more successful is his physicality in the role. Though shorter in stature than those around him, Hitler nonetheless towers over them, selling us his dominance in a very effective manner. Carlyle clearly made of study of the man's mannerisms in public speeches and employs them to great effect, however, with no character development/subtlety to the role itself, the performance falls flat, feeling more like a caricature than anything. Receiving second-billing, inexorably, is Stockard Channing as Adolf's mother, Klara, who dies before the film's credits have even finished and is not even seen in the second part (save for a fifteen-second flashback). Rounding out the ensemble are competent performances by Julianna Marguiles (who was terrific on ER and continues to be on The Good Wife) and Liev Schreiber as her husband, a couple socially instrumental in Hitler's rise to power (my favorite moment is when Hitler shows up as a surprise visitor on Christmas!).

The two performances that shine, however, are Peter O'Toole as Paul von Hindenburg and Peter Stormare as Ernst Röhm. Though not a large part of this 179 minute narrative, O'Toole's acting brings a much-needed gravitas to the film. Stormare, on the other hand, portrays yet another of his signature characters, in the same vein as his performances in Fargo (1996) and The Big Lebowski (1998). Here, his character performs a necessary service for Hitler early on, as the leader of the SA, however quickly becomes a liability when the Nazi party tries to go legit. Further, the movie is well crafted visually, be it props, costuming, or cinematography.

One last important thing to mention is the side-story about Fritz Gerlich (Matthew Modine), a journalist who takes a stand to write against the rise of the Nazis in his newspaper. I'm not quite sure why the producers felt the need to include his story, unless it was to try and convey the aforementioned 'theme' but, as it stands, he's not in the film very much and, when he is, his presence adds very little to the narrative. Typically, a diversion such as this would provide some kind of counterpoint to the narrative, however I can't help but feel like the character was only included to try and find someone for the audience to 'care about'.

When one undertakes making a film about anything, it is the responsibility of the filmmaker to make us care about that thing, not some third-party thing. If one fails to make the audience care about the subject of the film, then the audience will not care about the rest of the film either. No, instead Hitler is demonized throughout - indeed fairly, but does he not then make a poor subject for a film? There's a cliche in screenwriting that the easiest way to make the audience like a character is to show them being nice to and animal and that the easiest way to make the audience hate a character is to show them being mean to an animal. This film depicts Hitler beating a dog within the first fifteen minutes. Would, then, this non-nuanced, black-and-white interpretation not better be served as the villain of the film, rather than its protagonist?

Overall, this film had potential, still evident in the production values, however they took the easy way out and ended up telling us nothing more than "Hitler was bad", something we already knew. As Nicholas Meyer cautioned Ricardo Montalbán while filming Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), "never show them your top, then you have no place to go." The film starts out with a sullen, angry Hitler yelling at his parents and ends with a sullen, angry Hitler yelling at the world. Perhaps they had more to say, but it got lost amidst the sheer number of events depicted in this movie. I rate this film a 2/5.