[Below is one of three responses to the miniseries solicited by the
editors.]


To make a film about Hitler's rise to power that is historically accurate,
yet appealing to a wide television audience must be a difficult task.
Nevertheless, CBS chose to try its hand in its recent television movie
"Hitler: the Rise of Evil."  To a surprising degree (at least to me), the
film was successful in that task.  The director of the film artfully wove
together historical vignettes that encompassed both Hitler's personal
history, and the history of Germany up to 1934 and Hitler's merging of the
German chancellorship and presidency.  A scene in which Hitler hears news of
the outbreak of the First World War in a crowded Munich plaza, for example,
ingeniously recreates an actual photograph of such a crowd in which Hitler
was present.  I found the film's representation of the period between 1930
and early 1933, as a succession of dissolved parliaments, new elections and
new chancellors and paved the way for the Nazis' assumption of power
especially well done.  While complex political interactions and machinations
were of necessity simplified, scenes of Nazi Reichstag members repeatedly
walking out of the parliament and forcing new elections, juxtaposed with
scenes of Hindenburg, v. Schleicher, v. Papen and Hitler negotiating over
political spoils, effectively conveyed the basic political dynamics
involved.

On the other hand, the film has serious flaws as history.  Hitler, almost
certainly the most studied individual of the 20th century, nevertheless
remains, to a large extent, an enigma as a person.  To some extent, this is
a problem with all biography.  All individuals are complex, and a "True"
portrait of a human being is, of course, impossible.  Yet there are degrees
of clarity to which a biography can approach.  While significant milestones
in Hitler's early life are known, books such as Ron Rosenbaum's _Explaining
Hitler_, have shown that despite intensive scrutiny, the personality of the
person who lived through those events remains especially opaque.  Good
history needs to acknowledge gaps in knowledge where such gaps are present.
The makers of the film however understandably felt that then needed to
provide the main character with a complete personality.  Unfortunately, with
a film about Hitler, these two requirements strongly conflict.  Thus, while
the film unambiguously communicates to the audience that it is portraying
Hitler "as he was," this is in fact highly debatable.  In this regard, the
film is poor history.

Another troubling aspect of the film as history, is the Hitler personality
that the film does portray.  Media stories about the film have emphasized
that the producers struggled to avoid making Hitler come across as
appealing.  This, it seems to me, is quite s problematic stance for an
ostensibly "historical film" to take and goes to the core of this particular
film's problems.  Hitler was unquestionably the instigator of monstrous
actions on an unimaginable scale.  This does not, however, prove that he was
a monster in his private life.  Yet this is how the film portrays him.  The
young Hitler is an animal abuser.  The older Hitler is a woman abuser--with
implications of impotency to boot.  While all of these things may be true,
on the other hand they may not.  Moreover, in the film Hitler's
obsessiveness never turns-off: not with regard to his antisemitism, nor his
lust for power, nor even his plain (if unconsummated) lust for women.
Perhaps they never did.  On the other hand, there is certainly significant
evidence that Hitler could be quite personable--recently, for example, in a
documentary film featuring the quite fond recollections of one Hitler's
personal secretaries.

Any serious study of Hitler must conclude that in some respects, he must
have been quite appealing as an individual.  He gained power legally--at one
point securing the votes of a third of the German electorate.  He also
gained the loyalty of not only legions of Germans transcending class and
religious boundaries, but of numerous men and women within the Nazi Party's
inner-circle.  These men and women, composed to an important degree of
well-educated, upper-middle class Germans, knew Hitler well.  And many, if
not most, of these persons remained loyal to him up to what amounted to a
truly bitter end.  Hitler was presumably a real human being, with "good" as
well as "evil" qualities.  That he was actually, personally liked by a fair
number of people is not only not out of the question, but highly probable.
"Likeable" persons do, in fact, sometimes commit atrocious acts.  On
reflection, this is a more fearsome consideration than the fact that
dislikable persons can do the same.  It is also an important, if sometimes
difficult, point for people to comes to grips with.  In my opinion, by
choosing not to offer a more historically balanced portrayal of Hitler, the
filmmakers, were not doing anyone any favors.

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS