3. Triumph of the Will (1935, 114m)

First Week of September 1934: Nazi Propaganda Films and Rallies

From German filmmaker/actress Leni Riefenstahl comes Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will), a German propaganda film focusing on the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. The film employs many of the same methods as British propaganda films from the First World War but goes further, employing many innovative techniques that are still in use today. It is regarded by many as the greatest propaganda film of all time.

The movie (which we're told was 'ordered by the Führer') opens with a series of title cards, setting the stage for post-war Germany, and announces that Hitler is going to 'review the columns of his faithful followers'. Meanwhile, a fanfare heralds something grand to come. After some aerial shots, Hitler disembarks his plane and the celebration is underway. What follows is four days of pageantry and speeches for the seven-hundred-thousand assembled supporters.

Hitler arrives and tours Nuremberg by car while thousands of adoring fans line the streets hoping for a glimpse of the man. It's really quite surreal to see all the old ladies clapping, the beaming children, and attractive young women trying to catch Hitler's eye. Through it all, though, the city of Nuremberg is beautiful, painting a picture of 1930s Germany with its classical buildings and historic architecture. My favorite moment is, barely visible in one of the crowd shots, there's one man with a toothbrush mustache (or Hitler mustache if you will), the only one I saw the whole film (and, believe me, I was looking). I couldn't help but think that old man must have been so proud of himself that day - this is the same mustache!

Eventually the speeches start. What took me aback for a second is how mundane they were for the most part. Basically, each party official took the podium for a few minutes to discuss the area of their purview; topics such as the press, foreign relations, infrastructure, agriculture, and the building of the autobahn. There is, however, a singled veiled comment by one official that "a people that does not protect its racial purity will perish" which subtly portents the terrible things to come. Out of context, it might seem innocuous, but through the lens of hindsight it's impossible to interpret it any other way.

Inevitably, Hitler finally takes the stage and delivers the first of a couple speeches. Even in German, it's evident he's a more compelling speaker than his contemporaries. On one day he addresses the delegates and party members, another the HJ, another the SA/newly formed SS. His speech for the SA was very interesting to me because he addressed the recent death of Ernst Röhm, their former commander, and his plans for the future of their organization. Röhm's murder was one of the final events depicted in Hitler: the Rise of Evil (2003) and I was curious how Hitler would handle it within the party. This is exactly the type of thing I'm looking for in conducting this project the way I am, previous films informing the events in current films, and I'm pleased to see it working out so well.

If I had to describe the film in one word it would be grand. Huge and diverse marches, speeches, and exhibitions by a variety of people (from displays by government ministers to farmers ceremonially presenting Hitler with the harvest). And all of it is cleverly, and efficiently, designed to bolster nationalism. Hitler tells the workers, arrayed in military formation (albeit with shovels instead of rifles) that society is now equal. No longer will manual laborers be looked down upon, now the labor will be required of every person in Germany. Strong symbols are particularly important - and prominently placed. Even the quasi-military drilling with shovels is most effective, sending one message to all who behold it: Germany is powerful again.

Between all the pageantry though, you can see some rare moments of authenticity. When Hitler arrives at the hotel the first day, he looks out the window and the crowd is still there. In a rare break of his public facade, he grins self-consciously to himself as if thinking, "jeez, what did I get myself into?" There's also a moment later in the film, when all the party officials are on stage, and the crowd is going wild, where Hermann Göring turns to an unseen man behind him and grins bemusedly as if to say, "can you believe this?" That's what's really appealing to me: in a film such as this, it's quickly evident that everything has been meticulously planned and executed (even the footage of the soldiers 'horsing around' seems dubious). However it's these brief glimpses behind the public front that are real and telling. Telling, too, is the diminished presence of Germany's actual military - a majority of all forces depicted in the film are Nazi forces (the SA, SS, etc) - something which reportedly upset the Wehrmacht a great deal.

Overall a strong picture is painted of a Germany on the rise. Informed by hindsight, this film really sets the stage for things to come. Further, this film employs innovative techniques for blocking and filming crowds, angles, moving cameras, and the combination of score/cinematography that are still in use today. I will admit I got a little bored about halfway through; perhaps the propaganda isn't quite as effective it once was. It's also interesting to note that, at the time, this film was shown all over the world (albeit in a niche capacity) to generally favorable reviews, even winning awards in Venice and France. However, for my own part, I couldn't help but think, "just wait eleven years and we'll see how much you like Nuremberg then."

In the end, I think the film is worthwhile to watch as a historical document, and should be considered as such. Though I have no interest in seeing it again, in light of the quirks of my rating system, for its historical significance I rate it 2.25/5.

2. Cabaret (1972, 124m)

1931: The Rise of Nazism in Weimar Germany

This review comes a day later than I originally intended as I spent a few hours yesterday revising the list. It is, much as Tolkein famously said, "a tale that grew in the telling," and now sits around sixty films. Maybe two months would be a little more realistic?

Hopping back just a bit, we have Cabaret. Loosely based on the stage musical of the same name, Cabaret is a story of the burgeoning relationship between two foreigners amidst the decadence of Berlin near the end of the Weimar Republic. Brian Roberts (Michael York - does this guy ever age??) is a British academic pursuing a doctorate in philosophy. In order to make a living, he resolves to teach English to the native Germans. His neighbor, Sally Bowles (Liza Minnelli), an American performer at a local cabaret called the Kit Kat Klub, offers to let him use her spacious apartment for the lessons.

Sally instantly becomes infatuated by the reserved Brit and quickly lays siege to his virtue in the best screwball comedy tradition. However, things aren't as simple as all that; Sally longs for attention as a result of unresolved Daddy-issues and Brian struggles with his sexual identity - as he tells Sally, he'd previously been with three girls and it didn't go well. Eventually the two overcome these obstacles (at least for a time) and have an affair, concluding "those three girls were just the wrong three girls". My favorite moment comes when Sally tries to seduce him for the first time. She pauses in the middle of their make-out session (or whatever one called it in 1930s Germany), and adjourns to her room to retrieve her Victrola.

Meanwhile, Brian gives English lessons to a variety of people and ends up befriending a few, such as Fritz Wendel (Fritz Wepper), a man who falls in love with Natalia Landauer (Marisa Berenson), another of Brian's students. Fritz finally overcomes her prudish nature and she develops feelings for him in return, however she worries that her Jewish family would object to her dating a Christian. In the end, Fritz reveals that he's only pretending to be a Christian to escape persecution but fears that admitting his dishonestly would end the relationship.

In the interim, Brian and Sally have been swept away by Maximilian von Heune (Helmut Griem), a rich playboy that Sally hopes can get her into movies, to his country estate. Though reluctant at first (not to mention jealous), Brian soon also finds himself drawn to Max and the sexual tension grows between the three. Things come to a head shortly after Max departs for another country, leaving only an envelop of money behind for the two to share, when Sally discovers she's pregnant. "Screw Maximilian!" bellows Brian in a brilliant moment of passion. "I do," Sally retorts. "So do I," Brian admits into a lengthy silence, forcing the characters (and more importantly the audience) to reflect on their preconceptions.

Cabaret can be best described as a love story with Nazism nibbling around the edges. Through the film's many characters and diverse travels, a picture of Germany forms, that of a country desperate to regain its former glory. In fact, despite being a fictional narrative, this movie feels decidedly more authentic than the previous film I watched, Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003). There's a great line in the extended cut of Almost Famous (2000), one of my new favorite films, where rock critic Lester Bangs (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) asserts that the Box Tops said more in their song 'The Letter' in two minutes than Jethro Tull can say in two hours. I feel the same way here: there's an inspired scene a little more than halfway through the film that chillingly, yet somehow beautifully, encapsulates the whole rise of the Nazis/Hitler in three minutes. Brian and Maximilian stop off at a beer garden and begin a conversation but are interrupted by the captivating singing of a young boy. Through strategic camerawork, it's shortly revealed that the young man is an HJ. The song is one of national pride and the promise of the future, 'Tomorrow Belongs To Me". Person after person is swept up in the music, standing and singing along (with the exception of one resolute old man that clearly knows better). It's infectious - and effective. Indeed, this is everything that was missing from the previous movie, the terrible seductive power of the Nazis. It literally brought tears to my eyes the first time I watched it.

In a way, the whole film could be seen as an allegory for the rise of the Nazis: Sally is Germany, decadent and desperate for attention, and willing to sell herself to get it. She gets caught up with a charismatic guy (Max) and swept away by the lure of a better future. Meanwhile, Brian is the common man, skeptical and jaded by the past, who loves his country (Sally) but sees Hitler (Max) as a means to an end. And, indeed, everything's good for a while. Then, despite his reservations, the common man (Brian) starts to fall for him as well. He's wary but deluding himself about what he wants. Max tells Brian they tolerate the Nazis because they'll get rid of the communists. They'll deal with them later. Germany (Sally) thinks it's using Hitler (Max) when, in fact it's the other way around. Further, the common man (Brian) has Jewish friends (Fritz) but does nothing against the rising antisemitic sentiment in the country. In the end we find out that all the moral posturing is, in fact, irrelevant since everyone's already in bed with everyone else!

This film is, of course, a musical, which is interesting because there are only two on this list and they both take place during, relatively, the same period of time. Apparently one can sing during the rise of the Nazis but not during the war itself - even the fictional 'Springtime for Hitler' took place before the war. The film's story is framed by the cabaret itself where the incomparable Emcee (Joel Grey) cavorts before a live audience. Correspondingly, all of the film's musical numbers are diegetic (they are actually performed by the characters in the film and are not simply manifestations of the character's emotional states like in many other musicals). Michael York turns in a wonderful performance as the conflicted Brian, as does Minnelli, but Grey is the real show-stealer. The cabaret sequences provide valuable counterpoint to the rest of the film. For example, early on a Nazi is kicked out of the club for trying to raise funds. Shortly thereafter the man and his friends catch up to the ejector and assault him. This is intercut with the playful violence of one of the cabaret's musical numbers.

When the film begins, the Emcee instructs us to leave our troubles outside; "So - life is disappointing? Forget it! We have no troubles here! Here life is beautiful... The girls are beautiful... Even the orchestra is beautiful!" But, alas, we see that it's all artifice as we cut to the dancers putting on their wigs and makeup. When the film begins, there's only one Nazi in the whole place (and he gets kicked out). However, when the film ends, we see (through a warped mirror) that the audience is now primarily Nazis. Just because we ignore our problems doesn't mean they go away. Indeed, they usually get worse.

Overall, the film is a compelling, slightly-twisted, commentary on a period of time and the people in it, doing their best to cling to what they can in a world that's slowly going insane round them. They lie to themselves about what they want and, thus, have difficulty realizing it. The film is effective, the message is strong - both on the surface and sub-textually - and the execution is terrific. I rate this movie 3/5.

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.