When the film Downfall was released in the U.S., Stanley Kauffmann praised it for its cinematic qualities, but he was also puzzled by it:
Thus the very virtues of the film leave us disturbed and puzzled. Why was Downfall made? Was it an attempt to balance the world's black view of Hitler, to show that at least he was sincere and brave? It would have been stupid to alter the account, to film a comic-book cartoon of those last days with all the Nazi bigwigs as craven weaklings. But, since the film had to be made this way if at all, why was it made? What was the purpose in the minds of Eichinger and Hirschbiegel?
Many, I hope, remember Hitler, A Film From Germany (1977) by Hans Jürgen Syberberg. It is not strictly a film about Hitler: rather, it is a visionary, philosophical fantasia about a felt need in Germany for Hitler, and about his creation. (In one scene the dead Hitler, clad in a toga, speaks to Germany from the grave of Wagner: "I was and am the end of your most secret wishes, the legend and reality of your dreams. . . . ")
Syberberg called Hitler "the greatest film-maker of all time," asserting that Hitler created World War II for the same reason he commissioned Leni Riefenstahl to film the Nuremberg Party Congress, "in order to view the rushes privately every evening.... It is very interesting that the only objects to remain of the Third Reich are fragments of celluloid: nothing else exists--not the architecture of Albert Speer, nor the borders of the big German Reich of which Hitler dreamed--only the celluloid record of his existence, of the war." To that celluloid record, Downfall is a well-wrought, troubling postscript.(2)
Clive James, writing about film critics, used Downfall as an example of how some films are tests of our credulity:
Similarly, if you know too much about the movies but not enough about the world, you won't be able to see that "Downfall" is dangerously sentimental. Realistic in every observable detail, it is nevertheless a fantasy to the roots, because the pretty girl who plays the secretary looks shocked when Hitler inveighs against the Jews. It comes as a surprise to her. Well, it couldn't have; but to know why that is so, you have to have read a few books. No matter how many movies you have seen, they won't give you the truth of the matter, because it can't be shown as action.(3)
In the clip I mentioned above, the Hollywood Reporter interviewer asked Michael Haneke if he would consider making a film about Hitler. "No," Haneke replied.
It's impossible for me to do that because of the idea of creating entertainment of this, turning this into entertainment, and that's why I have problems with Spielberg's film about the concentration camps, for example. The idea, the mere idea of trying to draw and create suspense out of the question whether out of the shower head, gas is going to come or water. That to me is unspeakable ... Anything that treats such a subject as entertainment is for me unspeakable.
How interesting that one particular scene from Schindler's List, in which dozens of naked women are crammed into a dark room that they don't know is either a shower or a gas chamber, stuck in Haneke's memory as it did. Did he find it "entertaining?" I'm an admirer of some of Haneke's films, but this is the man who admitted in another interview, "I once said to Isabelle Huppert that the ideal scene should force the spectator to look away." I would bet that Haneke couldn't bring himself to look away from Spielberg's "entertainment."
Is it unspeakable to have to remind ourselves occasionally (because we don't like to remember unpleasant truths) of what we are capable as a species when we allow ourselves - because it cannot happen without our consent - to be duped by a false prophet, when we surrender our will, when we follow a leader who promises us impossible things like mastery of the world or a return to the past?
Once more I turn to Primo Levi: "I do not find it permissible to explain a historical phenomenon by piling all the blame on a single individual (those who carry out horrendous orders are not innocent!)."
As for Traudl Junge, Hitler's secretary shown in Downfall to have been oblivious of Hitler's evils, Levi wrote:
In Hitler's Germany a particular code was widespread: those who knew did not talk; those who did not know did not ask questions; those who did ask questions received no answers. In this way the typical German citizen won and defended his ignorance, which seemed to him sufficient justification of his adherence to Nazism. Shutting his mouth, his eyes and his ears, he built for himself the illusion of not knowing, hence not being an accomplice to the things taking place in front of his very door.
For this reason, it is everyone's duty to reflect on what happened. Everybody must know, or remember, that when Hitler and Mussolini spoke in public, they were believed, applauded, admired, adored like gods. The ideas they proclaimed were not always the same and were, in general, aberrant or silly or cruel. And yet they were acclaimed with hosannahs and followed to the death by millions of the faithful.(4)
Only yesterday it was announced that the house in which Hitler was born will be converted into a police station. A synagogue would've been more fitting, but I'm sure that Austrian authorities have to be careful not to offend neo-Nazis' sensibilities.
(1) Michael Haneke disagrees
(2) "Last Acts," The New Republic, February 21, 2005.
(3) "How to Write About Film," The New York Times, June 4, 2006.
(4) The Reawakening, translated by Stuart Woolf (London: The Bodley Head, 1965).
No comments:
Post a Comment