What's Wrong with this picture?

Rating: 9/10 (9 April 2005)

This movie is a major breakthrough in the art of telling history in a media that usually comes up short on accuracy. But there are problems, such as selective editing obscuring actual communication and statements. By leaving out minor important details, even this agenda-bender tends in subtle ways to reinforce the perception, for instance, that Hitler was practically senile and in complete denial about the inevitable end. In point of fact, to certain associates he lucidly admitted that the war with Russia could never be won; and in rare moments of honesty brushed aside notions that any armies were coming to save Berlin. These people were not stupid or completely crazy. Perhaps they clutched at straws, but in the diaries and specific day to day communications, Goebbels and Hitler were putting up a front for the others, they themselves weren't as deluded as edits make them out to be. What's missing from the film are about a thousand pages of inter-office memos, private discussions and phone conversations that reveal they're saying very different things to one another ranging sometimes to the total opposite, yet keeping it all sorted out. Hitler was often lucid with a surprising grasp of reality when he'd let his guard down in the bunker; including more baffling contradictions of that aspect of Hitler's personality might have revealed more of his inner motivations.
While Ganz turns in a well researched Oscar-quality portrayal, Hitler himself was giving a portrayal, of a leader as the one man who would never give up, especially at 5 minutes to midnight; as the Kaiser had at "the eleventh hour" - prematurely in many German's minds - in 1918. Hitler's ruthless determination to stand and fight against all odds saved countless German lives, while coldly sacrificing many others, though not nearly in as detached a manner as Stalin, who wasted millions upon millions of Russian lives in order to win.
Hitler's greatest achievement of the war was preventing total catastrophe and collapse of the Russian Front, and thus perhaps subsequent Soviet capture of central and western Europe. I'm referring to the conclusions of serious historians such as John Toland, not those of Nazi sympathizers. As dramatized in DOWNFALL, young boys were sent personally by Hitler to die for their country; and against all odds a few doomed boys actually held a bridge long enough for civilians and deserters to reach American lines. The implication is that these boys died to keep Hitler alive a few more days. Yes, but it's more than that.
If a tiny tinge of humanness is so astonishing to associate with Hitler, there was much more of that going on in recorded history from that period alone than this movie can show, since real time is very different than a 2 hour condensation. Something had to be left out. The question is what, and why?
Many viewers of DOWNFALL have been genuinely shocked by the stand-out scene of Magda Goebbels taking the lives of her own children. Ask why she did it, by reading between the lines. Would it have made sense to surrender herself and her young daughters to the sympathetic Soviet soldiers of the Red Army? Should we interpret Magda's personally administering the execution of her children as an act of insanity? Was her last statement a calculated epitaph to secure a place in history for not betraying Hitler at the last minute as he said he had been by Himmler, Goering and everyone in the old guard except for Joseph Goebbels? Was she fearful of what would happen to her family if captured alive - especially her daughters? Reports reached the bunker that the Red Army, ever since taking East Prussia, were openly raping German women to death, age 3 to age 80; imagine 50 to 100 guys going wild with your daughters and that's the last time you'll ever see them, alive. Maybe that morphine/cyanide cocktail is starting to sound like a preferable solution to a worst case scenario.
Bruno Ganz has transcended the limitations of the final edit, which in spite of a sincere effort, selectively waters down the reality of certain events going on. That's a tall order to fill, to be fair, and meanwhile Ganz playing a very difficult part nails it, soaring above performances given by other fine actors playing Hitler in the final days: Richard Baseheart "HITLER"; Alec Guiness "HITLER: THE LAST 10 DAYS", Anthony Hopkins "THE BUNKER"; though they provided some insight into the man dragging everything with him into the abyss. I'd be more impressed if a filmmaker from Germany dared to look without flinching and reflect without filtering, the naked face of the actual man. Whoever and whatever Hitler is. Start from scratch. As little bias as possible. As much detail as possible. Shoot it in real time if possible. Just run the damn speeches, watch the real thing but, we want to see the private life and inner man don't we? The last 10 days or so are least entertaining period of Hitler's life, as far as film goes. A few kind comments about the spinach, that's controversy enough for now, one bite at a time. Chew slowly. Stick to the chronology and facts, let the chips fall where they may. No admission under 17 maybe. Can we tell it on film without reinforcing the same old stereotypes? That is my challenge. German films have faced the dark side of humanity head-on like none others, as in "M", "The Testament of Doctor Mabuse", "Metropolis" and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" perhaps. Maybe German films are getting up the nerve to face their demons again. I'd like to see Bruno Ganz involved in another illuminating historical epic.
"That's our Hitler!"