Movie Review: Der Untergang (Downfall)

I saw the German film Der Untergang (English title Downfall) last night. The film was nominated for Best Foreign Film at this year's Oscars. It tells the story of the last two weeks of the Third Reich, focusing on the Führer bunker in Berlin which provided safe haven for Hitler and his staff during the Soviet onslaught on the city. For most of my life I've been a student of National Socialist history, so I'm a natural buff for any film documenting events in this period.

The film starts with a brief prologue at Hitler's eastern headquarters from which he ran the war in the Soviet Union. Several women are marched through the woods to Hitler's office where they will apply for a job as his secretary. The job falls to the young, attractive Traudl Junge, through whose eyes we see most of the events in the film (and whose book was one of the sources for the film's script). After this prolog, we jump to Hitler's last birthday, April 20, 1945. Berlin is under constant bombardment from the air and artillery. Hitler and his staff spend most of their time deep under the Chancellery. From there, Hitler orders non-existent divisions to attack the advancing Russians and his generals hide or distort the unpleasant truth of the situation rather than face his murderous rage. Recognizing that the end has come, Hitler marries his longtime companion Eva Braun shortly before committing suicide.

But the story is not Hitler's alone. We follow the story of SS-Gruppenführer Hermann Fegelein, an opportunist married to Eva Braun's sister who has grown disillusioned with Hitler and is unafraid to speak the truth, away from Hitler's ear. We follow Eva herself. The horrific story of the Goebbels' family is recounted. We follow the story of an SS doctor who chooses to stay behind in Berlin to care for the sick when the rest of the SS is evacuated. Many stories are woven into the fabric of this 156 minute film. Perhaps too many, as we end up not really knowing who we are seeing or following much of the time. For example, I don't believe Martin Bormann's character was ever identified by name, yet we follow him around throughout the film. If a viewer doesn't know who he is and can't identify him by his role relative to Hitler, the viewer will be confused. The film could have been shortened by eliminating some story lines and giving a little stronger support to the remaining stories.

That said, I was very impressed with the film. The acting was superb all around. Bruno Ganz does a fantastic job portraying Hitler. It is interesting that even in a film, Hitler dominates everything around him. When he is not onscreen, the film sags. This is a bit of a problem as the last section of the film takes place after Hitler's death and the inmates of the bunker either commit suicide or try to flee. Alexandra Maria Lara portrays Junge as a young woman with all the right blinders on to see only what she wants to see in the man she so faithfully serves. The supporting cast is strong everywhere. There is not a single weak performance.

But apart from Ganz, the greatest acting kudos must go to Corinna Harfouch who plays Magda Goebbels. For the those unfamiliar with the history, Frau Goebbels was married to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister and probably most fanatical follower. His wife comes a very close second in fanaticism. Faced with the prospect of a world without Hitler and National Socialism, the Goebbels decide to commit suicide like so many others. But before they do, Magda murders each of their eight children, first drugging them to sleep then breaking cyanide capsules in each of their mouths. The eldest daughter seems to understand what is going on and fights her mother and the doctor, then turns away in tears after they have forced the drugs down her throat. This is a brutal scene told with the coldly unsentimental style with which Spielberg made Schindler's List. No weeping strings or any other touches to try to create a mood or manipulate the emotions of the audience. Like Spielberg, director Oliver Hirschbiegel knows that the scene is so horrific it needs no supplement, and that such manipulation would ultimately undermine the scene. Afterward, Magda goes and plays solitaire, never speaking again as far as I recall. The depth of her fanaticism is seen in the contrast between her tearful pleading with Hitler to save himself and the silent, unemotional murder of her own children. The only emotion she shows is when she pulls away from her husband's touch after the murder, but that is more a sign of contempt for his inability to take part than in reaction to what she has done.

With any film in which Hitler is a main character, the filmmaker risks being accused of making the man sympathetic. This film is no different. As with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, I am forced to wonder just how many hoops one has to jump through. Believe it or not, Adolf Hitler was, gasp, a human being. He could be kind and chivalrous, especially to women. The film shows that, and it is historically correct that he would act that way. Do we rewrite history and show Hitler as an abusive, sadistic boss just because we are uncomfortable with any hint of normalcy in the man? There are plenty of other events in Hitler's life that, if ever put to film, would shock people. For example, the doctor who attended Hitler's mother as she was dying was Jewish. Years later, as the Nazis were rounding up Austrian Jews, Hitler made sure to provide protection to the doctor out of gratitude for the care given his mother.

Apart from a gentle bearing toward Frau Junge and a few other women in his entourage, what exactly is sympathetic about the portrayal of Hitler? The numerous scenes where he shows complete disregard for the German people, not caring that his policies, if carried out, will drive the German survivors back to the state of the middle ages? The scenes where he orders his followers to empty themselves of compassion? The film shows Hitler as a brutal tyrant with complete disregard for life or mercy, a man who orders children to man anti-aircraft guns where they will fight and then, at the last moment, blow their brains out. That such a man could also show kindness is one of the paradoxes of his character. Showing the truth of that paradox does not make for sympathy. Only the hardest core neo-Nazi could feel anything but seething hatred for the man after seeing this film.

The common perception of Hitler is the simplistic picture of a raving lunatic, completely insane. How else can one understand his scorched earth policy, his uncontrollable rages, etc.? But the film does a good job pointing out the internal logic of what Hitler is doing. A foundational principle of National Socialism is an extreme form of social Darwinism, a point Hitler makes in a dinner scene. "What's good for the ape is good for the human," Hitler says. Understanding this, one readily understands Hitler's view of compassion and mercy. His brutality is not the ravings of the madman, but the logical application of a fanatic. Understanding the Nazi view that the war was a fundamental life and death struggle between clashing ideologies, and that defeat would bring the destruction of the German race, one readily understands his demand that every German fight to the death even when all hope is lost. Now, I'm not denying that Hitler was pretty much off his rocker toward the end of his life. But there is a logic to his demands, derived from Nazi ideology, that is often too easily dismissed as lunacy.

Like Schindler's List, this is not a film one particularly enjoys. But it is a fantastic film.