I did not like it either.
I think the first part was solid, but the second one was weak.
They fell into the same trap of many who did historical movies before them, and tried to wrap more stuff together they could handle.
The events of the years 1932 und 1933 were very complicated and I had the feeling, they did not put enough emphasis on the political intrigues that went on. That was better done in the first movie. Especially their version of the Reichstag fire and the "Enabling act" (or how its called in Englisch) were totally messed up.
Also, it was an odd choice to stick to the same main cast in the second part. The Hanfstaengls were not as important to the NSDAP as shown here. Same goes for Gerlich, it looks like he had in the hand to stop Hitler, which was totally out of the way after january 1933. I had the feeling, they should have thrown figures in the second part, which were more closely connected to Hitler. Hugenberg, the leader of the conservatives would have been a good choice, a powerful media mogul of the time who tried to outfox Hitler for four years. The Goebbels, who became kind of close friends to him after 1929; or Otto Braun, who was the most colourful leftist enemy of his before 1933.
The movie also had some odd casting choices. This may have been my spleen, but I like to have actors who resemble the real persons by look. This worked well with Strasser, Goebbels, von Papen here. Other did not come close, like Gerlich, Hess especially (who was still very young at the time) or the laughable portrayal at Hindenburg. The last was lacking also in accuracy. Hindenburg had at that time an iconic status as one of the major war heroes of world war I. No way anyone would have talked tongue-in-cheek to him like the style the conservatives do here, and Hitler would not have dared to backtalk to him like this.
Whenever he discussed things with Hindenburg, it has been reported that he tried to be extraordinarily obedient and charming.
That brings us to another point. They show Hitler as a very grim man, who practically ruled by force. I would not say that it is totally misleading to do so, but it also is more right for the first part. When Hitler learned that he could not take Germany by revolution, he got also more finesse in intrigue and rhetorical moves to outsmart the people he needed to get more power. A current biography calls him mainly an actor and he could also be very charming. The film also totally falls short his power at speeches, which was a main factor how he appealed to many people.
Carlyles acting style was ok, and I think he covered well the impulsive and sometimes also awkward sides of Hitler. It is hard, well, for any actor to stand against Bruno Ganz' version of Hitler in "Downfall".
reply
share