Released in 2005, Bruno Ganz’s absolute composition, in the guise of Hitler, “La Chute”, which was broadcast tonight on Arte, also caused a lively debate in Germany, then in France.
Berlin, April 1945. The Third Reich is dying. Battles are raging in the streets of the capital. Hitler, accompanied by his generals and closest supporters, took refuge in his bunker located in the Chancellery Gardens. Beside him, the Führer’s private secretary Traudl Junge refuses to leave him. Even as the situation worsens outside, Hitler lives for his last hours and the fall of the regime.
La Chute, released by us in 2005, is adapted from two works, LHitler’s last days, a bestseller by Nazi-era historian Joachim Fest, published in 2002; and “Until the Last Hour: Hitler’s Last Secretary”or Reminiscences of Traddle Junge.
Oliver Hirschbiegel’s excellent war film, the film is carried by a very solid cast, with the dazzling Alexandra Maria Lara as the Führer’s secretary in the middle. But, of course, Bruno Ganz, in the guise of Hitler, who took everything his way. A composition that is both masterful and overwhelming, so much so that Mimic with the pathetic original model is absolutely stunning in the film. Even chills.
The physical resemblance, which the late actor (who died in 2019) admits, struck him as much from his auditions for the role. Autumn “Looks very hard at the fall of the regime. Look mercilessly. And even if certain situations can feel the humanization of the characters, and if Hitler is not described from the beginning to the end as a butcher, the ideology is conveyed. The protagonists are shown as completely absurd and crazy” Commented Bruno Ganz during the release of the film.
Should we humanize Hitler?
Since its release in cinemas, 5 million Germans have seen Autumn It did not fail to ignite a badly extinguished fire on the Rhine. Wasn’t it dangerous to humanize Hitler? “Do we have the right to portray a man who is responsible for the death of 40 million people?” The Berlin daily was interested Tagesspiegel.
For Oliver Hirschbiegel, the danger was far more in keeping the monster in an unrealistic image than in restoring its human qualities: “It is an insult to the victims to claim that he was not human (…) he knew exactly what he was doing at every moment of his life and, with him, everyone who followed him (…) if you find him sympathetic, it’s because you’re not listening “.
“If we made a movie about Hitler and his dog, it’s clear that dog lovers would find him sympathetic. It depends on where you put the telescope.”
A poll published in Stern magazine seems to have proved him right: 69% of Germans there agreed that the film portrays Hitler in such a human light, compared to 26% who disagreed. Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl (1930-2017) himself appreciated this “This movie was meant to be made. And I hope as many people as possible see it.”
For his part, filmmaker Wim Wenders, who recently portrayed Bruno Ganz in American Friend, accused the film of “Minimizing Nazi Crime” Waiver of party. “When you say something, it’s not enough to know what you’re talking about, you also have to know how and where you’re saying it”He wrote in the weekly Die Zeit.
A controversy that is being fought in France
Confrontation in France is inevitable. “When we see Hitler in this film, we want to relate to him, we want to understand him (but) we should not enjoy understanding these people. The crimes committed by this man are beyond any reason we can give.” fumed Shoah director Claude Lanzmann on the France 2 set. “There is nothing forbidden in art, but there are things that are impossible in art. No one can reproduce, for example, a gas chamber.”
Serge Klarsfeld, president of the Association of Sons and Daughters of Deportees from France, did not agree with Claude Lanzmann at all and did not believe him. “That there is a reason to create controversy around this film”.
“It is common to say that a private man is not like a public man, so great a democrat can be rude to his secretary, and so polite a dictator to himself. addition : “If we were to make a film about Hitler and his dog, it is obvious that his canine friends would make him sympathetic. It depends on where we put the telescope.”
“In his attempt to describe it behind closed doors, (the filmmaker) answers the question ‘how’: how Hitler’s last dozen days unfolded, without asking the question ‘why?’ In turn, the historian Jean-Pierre Azema, a specialist in the Second World War, assessed in the columns of Paris.
17 years after the controversial caravan, Arte broadcasts Oliver Hirschbiegel’s solid film. A view we recommend, to which we can also add a reading tip if the topic interests you.
amazing book The endBy historian Ian Kershaw, published by Editions du Seuil in 2012. The author of a monumental authoritative biography of Hitler, he traces the regime’s collapse in the final months of the war and asks two questions: Why did the war last so long? How can we explain the incredible resistance of the Nazi regime amid the ruins?
Source: allocine
Emily Jhon is a product and service reviewer at Gossipify, known for her honest evaluations and thorough analysis. With a background in marketing and consumer research, she offers valuable insights to readers. She has been writing for Gossipify for several years and has a degree in Marketing and Consumer Research from the University of Oxford.
