MovieChat Forums > Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003) Discussion > Why did this Movie caused an uproar in A...

Why did this Movie caused an uproar in America?

posted 21 years ago by Killer_Romance2
36 replies | jump to latest

I heard it caused quite a stir over there, WHY? It is a brilliant masterpiece and I am so glad I recorded it on tape, Robert Carlyle who starred as Adolf Hitler was sensational as a Chancellor of Germany with a pathological Hatred of Jews. When I first heard that Robert was about to start acting as this character, I DID see Hitler in him, it must be the face if you know what I mean.

It is a bit too Glossy in a Hollywood style with some Jewish guy saying to Hitler "who pi$$ed in your Brain, Shut up and eat" did people actually talk like that in 1925 in a Bruce Willis manner?
One thing I did not understand was how can a Newspaper Reporter, Friz, be an abnormal Psychologist all of the sudden "He is a monster, he learns fear and hate from people"- suddenly he is an experienced analylist??

However the History was acutely accurate when Germans were sacked or refused jobs by Jewish Bosses and were given to their own people. Intriguing Stuff, a Great Movie

Collecting little girls heads, place 'em in a row, and then crush 'em with a mighty good blow

[–] resonator 21 years ago

> It is a bit too Glossy in a Hollywood style with some Jewish guy saying to Hitler "who pi$$ed in your Brain, Shut up and eat" did people actually talk like that in 1925 in a Bruce Willis manner?

I haven't seen this movie, but since it's supposedly a Jew talking to Hitler, I suppose the scene you're talking about takes place in Vienna. Being Austrian myself and therefor knowing the Viennese mentality and language, I think it's actually quite acurate. Lingo in Vienna has always been a strange mix, somewhere between being very polite and formal and on the other hand very rough with a tendency to verbal rudeness. I think the line "Who p*ssed in your brain?" is even toned down. When literaly translated, I think the actual (and very common) line would be something like "Did anyone sh*t in your brain?". (for german speakers - ich denke da an sowas wie "Hat dir wer in's Hirn g'schissen?") But literal translation isn't always the best way to translate. A Robert DeNiro NewYork-type-of character probably would have said "What's the matter with you, you stupid?", and he would have meant the same thing as the guy in the scene you mentioned. You get the picture.

So much for the subtleties of translation.

[–] Chris2390 21 years ago

I saw a lot of similarities between hitler and the american leadership. The pariotism etc.

[–] resonator 21 years ago

Probably because the line between actual patriotism and blind nationalism is very thin, and both concepts are stupid and suggest superiority where there is none.

I guess Arthur Schopenhauer already said it best:

"Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud of, adopts - as a last resort - pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies by all means necessary, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority."

But Bush is a light weight compared to Hitler, in many many ways, be it intellegence, articulation or simply ideology. In mathematical terms: Bush / Hitler = Pinky / Brain. Not meaning to bash on Pinky or The Brain though, what I'm trying to say is that I think one can't compare the two, it's apples and oranges.

[–] Sid-Blitzen 17 years ago

"But Bush is a light weight compared to Hitler, in many many ways, be it intellegence, articulation or simply ideology".

Hitler usually gets hauled out as a yardstick of awfulness in political arguments. The anti-Bush crowd say "Bush=Hitler"; British leftists said "Thatcher=Hitler"; pro-Palestine types back in the 80s said "Begin=Hitler".

Only Hitler was Hitler. However awful you might think other leaders are/were, just thank your lucky stars you never had to contend with Hitler.

Hmm, who would be our ultimate yardstick of awfulness, if Hitler had never attained power?

[–] resonator 17 years ago

Huh, interesting, I wrote this 5 years ago, and you're right, that's exactly what I was trying to say by stating that the comparison of Bush and Hitler is a stupid one, Hitler's Hitler and that's that.

Anyway, the ultimate yardstick of awfulness could have been, just to name one example of actually a few I can think of, Mao, who had millions of people killed during the Cultural Revolution as well. Who knows? Who cares?

[–] Nosb 21 years ago

Does anybody if it's going to be released in the US, or was the uproar to big

[–] macross_sd 21 years ago

Ummm...it aired over two days in May on CBS, so I'd say the uproar wan't too big. CBS had no intention of NOT airing it, except for two affiliates in Texas, but even in those regions, the UPN affiliate was permitted by CBS to pick it up and air it. As for DVD, who knows? It depends on how successful it was and, as with all things, whether they can they can see a definte profit with a video release.

[–] kremer-4 21 years ago

Unfortunately I have to disagree. The film was very well made, no question about that, but it simply had too many historical mistakes to make it a masterpiece.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nihilistdude2000 20 years ago

yeah thats why americans didn't like it. idiot.

"Hey Neighbor, you got about one f ucking second to live buddy" - Frank Booth

[–] Killer_Romance2 21 years ago

Thankyou everyone, your replies mean SO much, It does!!
The Uproar bit was a little exaggerated perhaps, but that is what most folks heard.

It is also intriguing to understand Hitler's personality, and the explaination to his distorted 'revenge' on Jews in general, then the most negative side of humankind like Adolf can be condoned, if you are interested in psychology as much as I do.

Collecting little girls heads, place 'em in a row, and then crush 'em with a mighty good blow

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kremer-4 21 years ago

I have to disagree.
Hitler was definetely a fanatic and political criminal who let a fanatical and murderous regime, but he was no lunatic psychotic freak.
That`t exactly the problem of the film. In "Hitler. The Rise of Evil" he is portrayed as simply mad. It is so easy and so wrong to portray Hitler as a stupid and insane lunatic.
If he would have been some crazy, lunatic, psychotic freak, he definately wouldn`t have become the chancellor of a developed country like germany.
He was a neurotic and frustrated person who developed a radical (and not acceptable) idea because of his psychological problems and because of the problems
and the turmoil within his times.

You only can understand the twisted personality of Adolf Hitler when you study his education, his upbringing, his very different parents (Alois and Klara), the situation of Vienna at the beginning of the 20th century, the end of the 1. World War, the Versailler treaity and the incredible frustration the germans felt at the
occupation of the Ruhr area by the allies.

Without all of those aspects a person such as Adolf Hitler wouldn`t have become the criminal and fanatic he eventually became.
Unfortunately, almost none of those very important aspects that became the reason of the motivation of a fanatic like Hitler and the success of the infamous natialsocialism were explained in that film.

A fact is that there has to be a reason, why a fanatic and radical person such as Adolf Hitler became so determined and eventually (and unfortunately) so succesful).
I repeat, it is neither correct nor does it explain anything when you merely describe and explain Hitler as a crazy lunatic.
That`s historrically just not correct.
To understand a murderous and criminal fanatic like Hitler, his motivations and his success,you problably have to study more about history than watching 4 hours of a ridiculous and unhistorical soap opera such as "Hitler. The Rise of Evil".

[–] Killer_Romance2 21 years ago

Kremer, I do study History also, and I did not once describe Hitler as a Stupid crazy, sick, Loony??
I only said he had a bitter "distorted" revenge hatred of Jews by staving them as how he saw the Germans having that experience, and his pathology accounts for that, in being compulsively motivated.
I know he is not a crazy, sick, Howler despite the fact that whatever he may or may not have a healthly obsession with his niece.
I am not praising him but Hitler is deviant, and cunning, the more power he had, the more power and control he mastered, for example, if there are different levels of madness, then a Psycholpath who does not feel guilt, pity, and remorse, is the most clever in having power and control; including at a powerful government position to control a Nation because that is what he craves, he even gets to decide what is art in galleries for godsakes!!

The German Government's mistake was they thought Hitler can be kept under control, and Hitler knew it so he used them to gain a much higher rank of goverment.

Next time read properly before you speculate on me, smarty pants!.

Collecting little girls heads, place 'em in a row, and then crush 'em with a mighty good blow

[–] kremer-4 21 years ago

@ Tiffany Lee Ray

First of all my criticism was targeted towards Doc Gib who described Hitler as a
psychotic freak.
Fact is that Hitler was definetely no lunatic and insane freak.
He was neither insane, stupid, mad nor crazy.But he was definetely a highly neurotic and frustrated person that became a politically fanatic criminal. To understand his weird philosophy and his motivations you shouldn`t watch an unhistorical commercial soap opera but read books about
Germany and Austria of the late 19th and early 20th century and especially of the cultural situation of Vienna during that time and for example about the legendary and infamous populistic and jew hating mayor of Vienna at that time Karl Lueger.
Then you should study the upbringing of young Adolf in Upper Austria in the late 19th century and his very problematic childhood.
Only when you seriously study Hitler`s family, education, social developement, his sociological experiences, the anti semiticm in Vienna during that time, the frustration germans felt after the Versaille treaty and after the occupation
of the Ruhr area and so many other specific situations of those times you can begin to understand why a frustrated lonely looser such Adolf Hitler eventually
became the most powerful ruler of Europe and such a fanatic criminal.

Once again, Hitler was neither crazy, insane nor mad.
If he would have been that, we all could be happy, since he never would have been able to do what he did. In the film, he was portrayed as a disgusting lunatic with no charisma whatsoever. He constantly ordered everybody around and nobody liked him. And that is simply WRONG. Early followers like Julius Schaub, Ernst Hanfstaengl, Christian Weber and Heinrich Hoffmann didn`t become Hitler fans because he was a totally unpleasant lunatic who constantly ordered them around but because they enjoyed his company.
Even someone like Hanfstaengl who did anything to minimalize his fascination of HItler after the war in his biography in the 50s tells many stories of very funny and entertaining sunday afternoon picknicks with Hitler in Bavaria in the early 20s.

Last but not least I would like to respond to your ridiculous statements about the german governement which "thought Hitler can be kept under control".
Please tell me, who in your opinion was the german governement.
The powers that controlled and ruled Germany in the late 20s and early 30s were very different fractions and groups who had very individual interests.
There was for example General von Schleicher who tried to outmanouvre Hitler by seperating the different fractions within the NSDAP by seperating Gregor Strasser from Hitler, then there was Franz von Papen who tried to include Hitler
in the governement and finally getting rid of him. Then there was the Reichspraesident von Hindenburg who was very much influenced by his intriguing
son and of course the very influential publishing magnet and leader of the right radical DNVP Alfred Hugenberg.
They all had very selfish interests and every one of those characters had their own idea how to deal with Hitler, the success of the Nazi party and how to use that success for their own interests.
Your talk of "the German government" is ridiculous. When, in the early 30ths in Germany there was one thing not existing, it was "the German governement" that was one monothematic block.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Killer_Romance2 21 years ago

Kremer, My dear charming man! According to what you call a 'ridiculous' statement, I was referring to Hindenburg who tried to negiotiate Hitler to promote peace during the War. I said that the German Government thought they could keep him under control because they did not know how far Hitler could go very far, despite the dividing parties, but Hitler knew how to get not the public support, but the authority which did take years, If the German people at the end saw a strong Leader and having hope of prosperity, whatever they liked it or not- and I researched some people even famous Germans did not favor Hitler at all, the outcome is that he still gained more power, and was unstopable. Hitler was the one who stopped himself after Germany surrendered in 1945, due to commiting suicide.

And I know Hitler: Rise of Evil, is not chronological to the facts, Himmler was never mensioned at all, nor was the rumoured marriage between Hitler and Eva Braun, I know. So relax, it is still a nice fake soap opera!

By the way, are you a History Teacher?? Because you seem like you are determined to test us on Dinosaur Fossils, and lobtomise dead things like Hitler. You crazy, sick Loony!!

Collecting little girls heads, place 'em in a row, and then crush 'em with a mighty good blow

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kremer-4 21 years ago

>I made the psychotic freak statement. I called him that because that's how it makes sense to me. I'm not an expert on Hitler, maybe he wasn't crazy. But I have a hard time looking at photos from the Holocaust, seeing what the Jews went through, and then saying he was sane. If I say that he's insane, it puts him in a seperate class of human, away from the rest of us, and I can deal with that better ( I'm obscenely sensitive towards things like the Holocaust). My apologies to any historical buffs that I've offended.<

Dear Morgaine,
You certanly didn`t offend anyone.
I just wanted to point out that it is just too simple to label political
fanatics who end up being horrible mass murderers as "insane", "crazy" or "mad".
Osama Bin Laden, no matter how much we despise his actions and disagree with his ideology is simply not mad.
To declare people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Bin Laden or Hitler as insane madmen,
which neither one of them was, frees us from studying the reason for their fanatic and criminal ideas. It`s so easy and so wrong to state :"They`re simply mad and thus it is all unexplainable". That is wrong. You don`t have to be insane to become a political fanatic who eventually gets so stirred up in his ideology to accept the murder of 1000 or even several million people.
Hitler wasn`t insane. He was the child of his times, of the dying austrian monarchy, the problems of the multi cultural Vienna of the early 20th century, of the frustrations germans and austrians felt after loosing WW1 and the humiliating treaty of Versailles. And you shouldn`t forget psychology. Hitler, because of his personality and his problematic upbringing was a highly neurotic person with a strong inferiority complex.
But he just wasn`t insane or mentally ill and everybody who met him personally mentioned how surprised he was, that Hitler wasn`t the yelling and spitting lunatic, but a relatively friendly, charming, soft spoken and quite intelligent person. That still doesn`t change the fact that he was a disgusting mass murderer nonetheless.
After watching the disturbing Auschwitz documentary at the trial in Nuremberg,
Hitler`s secretary of state Joachim von Ribbentrop made an interesting statement
that seems a bit curious at first sight. He said : "The Fuehrer wouldn`t have been able to watch those images". It sure sounds strange, but it`s the truth.
The historian Peter Longerich has proven in his book "Der ungeschriebene Befehl"
(The unwritten order) that Hitler personally is responsible for the Holocaust.
But those horrible crimes that he willingly iniciated emotionally were far away from him. Hitler never visited a concentration camp, he probably never saw any pictures of the gas chambers that existed because of his orders. For the neurotic Hitler, to decide over the lives and deaths of millions and millions of people was more or less an abstract thing. He had his ideology which had to be wright. In his view it was the murderous struggle between the pure and
noble aryan race on the one side and the jews and the slawic communists on the other side. It was like a Wagner opera. Of course he knew what murderous consequences his decisions had but due to his problems with emotional closeness due to his inferiour complex he was able to not let his horrible decisions get
emotionally close to him.
Hitler was everything, a criminal, a mass murderer, a political fanatic, a lonely neurotic, but definetely not a mentally insane person.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melissa-183 19 years ago

I studied WW 1 and 2 for quite a while and lately I'm trying to 'understand' Hitler by reading about and from him. For a long time I thought he was a very clever (but dangerous) man with the wrong ideas but while reading stuff directly from Hitler, like 'Mein Kampf' I have to say it looks to me Hitler was indeed a mentally insane person. Despite the (his) background, most things he did and imagined (to create) are not just from a brainwashed/traumatised man. Things he imagined were really sick.

[–] kremer-4 21 years ago

Fact is, that there were many different fractions within the ruling elite (Hugenberg, von Papen, Schleicher, Schacht etc. etc.) who all had their own selfish interests.

By the way, since the movie ends in 1936, it would have been quite idiotic to feature Hitler`s marriage to Eva Braun which happend in april 1945 !!!! and absolutely is no rumour but a fact.

Before calling me a "sick loony" you should start to get the facts right.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Killer_Romance2 21 years ago

I did not "personally" say Hitler's and Eva Braun's marriage is a Rumour!!!!
It was not based on my direct opinion!!!!
I know the marriage was official- but some Historians were still not sure, I think the marriage ceremony took place in one of Hitler's secret hide outs- I can not remember, but that's why Eva said "I am now Mrs Hitler".
So that was a BIG HINT.

Oh! and I called you a "Sick Loony" to have a laugh, Sorry if it made you upset, maybe I should put a Smiley next time so you won't be Touchy as PMT!! There!!!!
OK!!Is everybody happy??????????

Collecting little girls heads, place 'em in a row, and then crush 'em with a mighty good blow

[–] kremer-4 21 years ago

Hitler married Eva Braun on april 28 (shortly before midnight)in the bunker
below the Reichskanzlei in Berlin. That was the place Hitler was living in after he left the Fuehrerhauptquartier "Adlerhorst" near Bad Nauheim on january 16 1945.
Since the marriage is very well documented I don`t know of a single serious historian who doubts that Hitler married Eva Braun shortly before both committed
suicide on april 30.

[–] Killer_Romance2 21 years ago

Thank you!! and so it was a Bunker :-}

Collecting little girls heads, place 'em in a row, and then crush 'em with a mighty good blow

[–] Lone-Wolf1 20 years ago

you act like you are four years old, most of the stuff you said was patently ridiculous to any historian

[–] chasem1 17 years ago

I agree Hitler certainly was insane. Anyone who orders and overlooks the wholesale slaughter and genocide of that many people just isn't right. The idea of wiping out an entire race is simply insane. There are so many things a normal person feels that make the idea so atrocious. Hitler didn't have any of these in place. I don't think it manifested itself in the way this movie suggests.

[–] JanosSkorzeny 19 years ago

"I wonder if sympathizers of other mass murderers, such as Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Fidel, Slobadan etc get the same treatment."

Only when the sympathizers of mass murderers such as Andrew Jackson, Quantrell, Phillip Sheridan, Custer, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Douglas MacArthur, Westmoreland, and Ronald Reagan get the treatment THEY deserve.

[–] agrofelipe 17 years ago

"Only when the sympathizers of mass murderers such as Andrew Jackson, Quantrell, Phillip Sheridan, Custer, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Douglas MacArthur, Westmoreland, and Ronald Reagan get the treatment THEY deserve."

You made me laugh

[–] JanosSkorzeny 17 years ago

I'm glad you find butchery amusing.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]