|
View the h-german Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-german's May 2003 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-german's May 2003 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-german home page.
[Two messages follow.] 1. From: Harold Marcuse [mailto:marcuse@history.ucsb.edu] Not being a TV watcher, I don't have cable and missed the miniseries on Hitler. I was surprised to learn from CBS that they don't plan on making the show available for purchase. Does anyone know anything more about public availability? Thanks, Harold Marcuse ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Sunday, May 25, 2003 From: CBSStore <CBSStore@ordering.com> Subject: Re: Hitler: Rise of Evil Hello: Thank you for contacting the CBS Online Store. We do not have any plans to release "Hitler: Rise of Evil" at this time...great idea though! We will certainly pass this suggestion! Keep watching CBS! Regards, Sue Customer Service CBS ONLINE STORE ---------- [end] Forwarded Message ---------- 2. From: Daniel Macfarlane [mailto:dwm929@mail.usask.ca] The preponderance of views taken in this forum on "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" have been decidedly negative, and for good reason: the film is replete with inaccuracies, dramatic license, selective choice of events and personalities, as well as over-exaggerations and over-simplifications. Previous reviewers have aptly pointed out these flaws. However, I would argue that a fundamental aspect of this film has been somewhat overlooked--the very fact that it is a "film". While I am in no way trying to play apologist for the mistakes in "Hitler: The Rise of Evil", any movie portraying Hitler would be resoundingly bashed, regardless of whom was involved in its making. This arises from the nature of historiography on the subject, as well as from the nature of film as a medium. The plethora of scholarship on the subject provides no uniform interpretation of the Nazi leader, and even when evidence is provided (i.e. _Mein Kampf_) interpretations vary widely. This tendency is only exacerbated when we take into account the many aspects of Hitler's biography that can only remain speculative (i.e. his relationship with his niece or Eva Braun). To provide an interpretation free from criticism is impossible given the limits of the evidence. Providing a filmic interpretation of Hitler only magnifies the difficulties inherent in any portrayal of Hitler. Film is not strong at suggesting alternatives; a book can suggest a number of possible conclusions (the very book that this film was "based" on, Kershaw's Hubris, does just that on numerous occasions). Faced with "speculations", film-makers are often forced to pick one or the other, and any choice is bound to cause controversy, especially within the historical discipline. It is impossible for a film, especially a prime-time film meant for wide public consumption, to satisfy historians. If we had our way, this film would have been thirty five hours long and unwatchable for the majority of people. What I am suggesting is that this film must be viewed in context--we cannot evaluate it by comparing it to the standards of the historical discipline. A film that would satisfy such demands is inherently impossible. We must take into account not only the limits of presenting scholarly history on film or television, but also the limits of making it palatable to the general public. While reviewers have lamented the monolithic and teleological portrayal of "evil", I would argue that the film serves to "humanize" the Fuehrer compared to other films that have dealt with the same subject (although the 2002 Koltai/Hamori movie _Max_ arguably also does a good job of this); it portrays a complex and fallible person capable of human emotions who did not come out of the womb with plans for the "final solution" (even if the movie implies that he was inherently "evil"). While the picture of Hitler painted in this movie succumbs to generalizations, inaccuracies, etc., we should be comparing "The Rise of Evil" to other films, not just to historical literature. I am currently researching representations of Hitler in post-World War II film, with an eye largely to whether these films "humanize" or "demonize" him, and--comparatively speaking--this effort should be lauded for its contribution to a more complex and "humanized" picture of Hitler, even if this does not seem to be the case when compared to the current state of historical knowledge. Perhaps historians have to come to grips with the fact that a specialist's knowledge cannot be satisfactorily transmitted into a film, or that, even if it can, it would be unwatchable for the general public. That said, "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" could certainly be improved without compromising its presentability; there are certainly a number of significant flaws. At the same time, I spoke to a high school history class about the "final solution" the day after the second installment--as well as a teachers, grad students, friends, etc, and my sense of these talks was that the awareness generated by the movie perhaps outweighs the negative impact of the many fallacies that can be found in the movie. I would argue that the general public tends to have an over-demonized perception of Hitler and fails to recognize the complexity of his character and the Nazi era, or has virtually no knowledge of the subject at all, and that "The Rise of Evil" can serve to combat these perceptions. If many people came to realize that Hitler's regime ran a "twisted road"--even if the portrayal is not as twisted as we would like--and had their eyes opened in many respects, then I think the movie can be considered a partial success. Dan Macfarlane P.S. Does anyone know what the ratings were for the movie?
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|