Hollywood's treatment of Nazi Germany vs. Communist USSR

It's very, very hard to say anything "nice" about the National Socialist Party. Go ahead. Tell us something "good" about the NAZI's.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

So why aren't there a lot more productions about Communism?

Because it's boring? This is going to be extremely informal, but I think that there are not that many movies about the reality of Communism because it's not as interesting a topic as Nazism is.
You see, Nazism had something, I don't know what it was, that perplexed and captivated people after it fell. I'm sure you've heard of 'Nazi Mysticism', where we hear about Nazi leaders being related with paranormal stuff such as UFO's, the Devil, Pagan gods, the Arc of Covenant, the Spear of Longinus, etc., and all of this has been exploited very well by filmmakers in movies like "Iron Sky", "Hellboy", "Indiana Jones", to name a few. And this is interesting to people, specially when you have a population that shares the same morbid interests. Consider Hugo Boss designing the uniforms for the SS and other parapolitical organizations. This would lead to, I think, modern Nazi fetishism. Think of Lemmy, from Motorhead. He collects Nazi paraphernalia not because he supports them, but because it's aesthetically appealing. It looks nice.
Also, some Nazi leaders were related to esoteric groups, like the Thule society, or believed in pseudo-scientific stuff such as astrology (not to mention the myth of superior and inferior races).
Nazis were interesting (think of Speer's Ruin Value concept), Commies were not. Hitler, being the failed architect that he was, wanted the buildings and everything architecture-related in Germany to represent his ideals of a superior people and culture, and you can see this in the plans he and Albert Speer developed to rebuild Germany after the war ended. Now, look at the architecture of Soviet-era, say, Berlin. Grey, dull, lifeless, uninteresting.
Nazis had religious faith, whether Christian or Pagan beliefs. Commies were atheists.
And I have run out of ideas, but I hope I have made my point clear. I'm very ignorant about both Nazism and Communism, but if Communism also had that much stuff that Nazism had, then maybe we would see an equal number of movies for both ideologies. Maybe Communism indeed had all that stuff that I mentioned, in some form or another, but maybe is not as interesting to filmmakers and public in general to exploit it.

With Communism you have Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Molotov, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, etc. What a treasure trove of exceptional stories with a worldwide scope and really exploring the nature of totalitarian evil. And in some form it still exists today. But there's really not much compared to the obsession with everything Hitler.

Again, I return to my point of interestingness. Marx was a philosopher; enough said. Lenin died before a good propaganda film could be made starring him. Trotsky, well, a good movie could be made about his life in exile, specifically while in Mexico (don't know if such a thing exists in film). Molotov, while a prominent Soviet politician and early closely related to Stalin, maybe his person wasn't as appealing to us as his counterparts (and by this I mean in relation to their closeness to their leaders) in Nazi Germany, such as Hess or Bormann. As with the rest of the leaders, I believe there well could be many films that show us a part of their lives in the same way "Downfall" did with Hitler, but again, there's something with Hitler and the swastika that draws so much attention and fascination that filmmakers simply give the public what they want.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

The ss were dressed very smatly by Hugo boss !!!!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

no ones said it so I guess I will, because Hollywood is run by people of Jewish descent?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You should have narrowed down your ideas to two or three sentences. It is not worth the time reading all that stuff you wrote.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

You raise some interesting points in your post. I'm probably not near as good as expressing myself as you are, but here's my take on the situation:

I think that the Nazis have always been portrayed as "the ultimate villains" in books, movies, etc., while Communism has been given more of the kid-glove treatment, as you describe. I also have seen the movies made from Le Carre's books, and thought they were a little too much "but we can still all be friends!" in their approach to Communism and the wickedness it has caused in the world.

I think Communism---while many do acknowledge the oppression and deaths it has caused---is perceived more as a mindless thuggery, a more indiscriminate brutality in what it is. Somewhat similar to what an African dictatorship is regarded today. With regard to the Soviet Union during the period in which it was set: Stalin, Beria, et al, while regarded as murderers and tyrants, were also seen as rather dense, not-well-educated, and crude. Basically as peasants. I think that Khrushchev is portrayed as this type in the movie itself. Russia itself was regarded as a backward and crude country.

The Nazis, on the other hand, were usually regarded--despite their undeniable evil--as educated, cultured, as well as being cold-blooded killers. Germany was always regarded as a cultured and highly civilized country. Many of the highest and most evil Nazis were indeed highly-educated individuals. Appreciative of Goethe, literature, art, the music of Wagner, etc. University educated. Otto Ohlendorf, commander of an Einsatzgruppen extermination squad that killed hundreds of thousands, actually had a double PhD.

So when it comes to movies and books: if you have a brutal, poor grammar, badly dressed, and lumpish lout as a villain. Vs. a dapper, well spoken, meticulous and obviously highly educated and intelligent bad guy---it's going to be the second one you focus on in your story.

reply share

add reply

formatting help