Film Review: Downfall (Der Untergang, 2004)

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

(source:  tmdb.org)

History, as a discipline, is often as much a product of interpretation as it is of fact. The 2004 German period docudrama Downfall, directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel, is a case in point. This film, which chronicles the final days of Adolf Hitler in the Berlin bunker, has become one of the most iconic, recognizable, and, in a strange and semi-perverted way, the most popular films of the 21st century. While it was lauded by critics and achieved box office success, its true fame was born in the internet age, where a single scene—Hitler’s emotional breakdown—became the template for a wave of satirical YouTube videos. Downfall is a film that defied the expectations of its time, blending historical accuracy with a narrative that challenges the viewer’s preconceptions about the man who led Germany to its greatest catastrophe.

At its core, Downfall is a serious film, one that confronts the viewer with the grim reality of the end of World War II and the final days of a man whose actions led to the deaths of millions. The film is based on two primary sources: Inside Hitler’s Bunker, a book by historian Joachim Fest, and Until the Final Hour, a memoir by Hitler’s secretary, Traudl Junge. These works provide a detailed account of the events that unfolded in the Führer’s bunker in the final days of the war. However, Downfall is not merely a historical reenactment; it is a narrative that seeks to humanize the man behind the myth, a task that is both ambitious and controversial.

The film is bookended by footage from Blind Spot: Hitler’s Secretary (2002), an Austrian documentary that features Traudl Junge in her final days. This documentary, produced shortly before her death, provides a personal and intimate glimpse into the life of the woman who served as Hitler’s secretary for two and a half years. The inclusion of this footage in Downfall serves as a powerful counterpoint to the film’s portrayal of Hitler. It underscores the tension between the Führer’s public persona and the private life of those who were closest to him.

The film begins with a prologue set in November 1942, when Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara) is among a group of young German women summoned to Wolf’s Lair in East Prussia to be interviewed for a secretarial position. Junge, partly because she is from Munich, wins the favor of Hitler, securing the job that will ultimately define her life. The film then fast-forwards two and a half years, to April 20, 1945, the 56th birthday of the Führer. By this time, Hitler’s dream of a thousand-year Reich is in ruins, and the Soviet forces are advancing into Berlin despite the fanatical resistance of his most loyal followers and the teenage boys of the Hitler Youth.

Hitler, refusing to accept defeat, insists on continuing the war, even as his top subordinates, including Hermann Göring (Mathias Gnädinger) and Heinrich Himmler (Ulrich Noethen), abandon him in an attempt to negotiate a separate peace with the Western Allies. Meanwhile, other figures, such as Joseph Goebbels (Ulrich Mathes) and his wife Magda (Corinna Harfouch), choose to remain with Hitler to the end. The film’s narrative is a tense and tragic account of the Führer’s final days, culminating in his decision to take his own life, a choice shared with his mistress, Eva Braun (Juliane Köhler). His death allows a few surviving officers to negotiate a surrender, but before this can happen, the destruction of Berlin continues for two days, with further killings and devastation.

Hirschbiegel’s film is the most ambitious, expensive, and controversial reconstruction of the events that unfolded in the Führer’s bunker. It is a docudrama that attempts to recreate the events with as much accuracy as possible, but it is also a film that challenges the viewer’s understanding of history. The film’s depiction of the bunker is a visual and auditory experience, and the soundtrack by Stephan Zacharias, which is almost unnoticeable, emphasizes the importance of silence in moments of tension.

The film’s most powerful scenes are those that depict the broader context of the war’s destruction. The city of Berlin is brought to rubble, with innocent civilians, including children, being killed in a variety of unpleasant ways, either by advancing Soviet forces or by die-hard Nazis who accuse them of defeatism and treason. The film also includes the fictional story of Peter Kranz (Donevan Gunia), a 12-year-old Hitler Youth member who, after destroying a Soviet tank with a Panzerfaust, is decorated by Hitler during his last public appearance. However, his father, Wilhelm (Karl Kranzowski), begs him to abandon his unit and return home. When his unit is overwhelmed, his young comrades choose to take their own lives rather than be captured. Peter returns home only to see his parents executed as alleged traitors. This story underscores the tragic impact of the war on ordinary people, a theme that is central to the film’s message.

Produced by Constantin Film, the German top studio, Downfall had a significant budget invested in it, with many scenes set in the streets of St. Petersburg, where the film’s action sequences were reconstructed. However, the film does not feel epic in the traditional sense. The soundtrack, while present, is almost unnoticeable, and the film’s reliance on silence is a key element of its effectiveness. The most powerful moments are those that use silence, such as the scene where Magda Goebbels poisons her six children.

The film’s script, written by Bernd Eichinger, who also produced the film, is very economical. It relies on the audience’s familiarity with World War II, including numerous historical personalities who appear and disappear in Hitler’s bunker during his final days. The film does not mention the Holocaust, apart from Hitler’s final rant about “international Jewry” and a note in the closing credits, a choice that has been both praised and criticised.

The authenticity of Downfall is largely due to the performances of its actors. Swiss actor Bruno Ganz, who previously refused the role of Hitler, took on the challenge with meticulous preparation and historical research. Ganz studied secretly made audio recordings of Hitler speaking informally, rather than the theatrical orations known from his propaganda films. The result is a portrayal of Hitler as a normal human being, who can be courteous and charming to people around him – the opposite of the irrational, unhinged lunatic that the world had previously believed him to be. This humanisation of the Führer is both credible and, perhaps, even frightening. It explains why a country as enlightened and progressive as Germany allowed itself to be seduced by such a man.

Ganz’s performance is the one that is most remembered, a role that has become the defining moment of his career. However, the film’s other actors also deliver powerful performances. Alexandra Maria Lara, who plays Traudl Junge, is quite good in depicting the naive secretary who, until the very end, struggles between loyalty and survival instinct. But the most powerful performance belongs to Corinna Harfouch, who plays Magda Goebbels. Harfouch’s portrayal of the woman who starts as a loving mother only to commit the most monstrous act imaginable is a performance that is both haunting and chilling.

Despite its critical acclaim, Downfall has faced criticism, particularly from those who had their perception of World War II framed by 1940s Hollywood propaganda. Critics have argued that the film “humanises” people who are traditionally seen as embodiments of absolute evil. However, this film’s portrayal of the Nazis as ultimately human serves as a potent warning. It shows that horrors like those that occurred in 1940s Germany did not appear out of thin air, and that they could, under specific circumstances, happen again, being perpetrated by people who would otherwise be good.

The film’s message is clear: the genocidal war was not the result of a sudden, irrational decision by a group of people, but rather a product of a society that allowed itself to be seduced by a man who was, in many ways, a normal human being. This is the film’s most important contribution, a reminder that the worst aspects of human nature are not inherent to any one group, but are the result of complex historical and political circumstances.

The cultural impact of Downfall is perhaps its most ironic legacy. The film’s popularity in the internet age has led to its being used as a template for satirical YouTube videos. The scene near the beginning, when Hitler breaks down after realising the despair of his situation, has been widely parodied. In these videos, Hitler is recast as the leader of other catastrophically failed projects, with Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaigns being a favorite target in the early years of the film’s internet fame. This irony is a testament to the film’s enduring relevance and its ability to be both a historical document and a cultural artifact.

The film’s popularity has also led to a paradox: the more successful Downfall became in popular culture, the more it was used to satirise the very man it portrays. This is a strange and semi-perverted legacy, one that highlights the film’s role in shaping public memory of the 20th century’s most devastating event. The film is not just a historical reenactment; it is a cultural phenomenon that has been both celebrated and mocked, a product of its time and its place in the digital age.

In the end, Downfall is a film that has become as much a part of popular culture as it is a historical document. It is a film that has been both celebrated and mocked, a product of its time and its place in the digital age. It is a film that has etched itself into the collective memory of the 21st century, a reminder that history is not just a record of the past, but a reflection of the present. And in that reflection, we see the enduring power of Downfall as a film that defied history’s grasp.

RATING: 8/10 (+++)

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com
Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/
InLeo blog https://inleo.io/@drax.leo

LeoDex: https://leodex.io/?ref=drax
Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax
InLeo: https://inleo.io/signup?referral=drax.leo
Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax
1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG
ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7
BCH donations: qpvxw0jax79lhmvlgcldkzpqanf03r9cjv8y6gtmk9



0
0
0.000
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
3 comments
avatar

Congratulations @drax! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)

You published more than 5000 posts.
Your next target is to reach 5100 posts.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

avatar

In the end, Downfall is a film that has become as much a part of popular culture as it is a historical document. It is a film that has been both celebrated and mocked, a product of its time and its place in the digital age. It is a film that has etched itself into the collective memory of the 21st century, a reminder that history is not just a record of the past, but a reflection of the present. And in that reflection, we see the enduring power of Downfall as a film that defied history’s grasp.

Dear @drax !
Do you think the people of today can choose a new Hitler?

avatar

It really depends on the proper definition of "Hitler". If you use that word in a manner political hyper-partisans are using it today, you might find that this thing has already happened many times in past 80 years. If you use it in the way serious historians do - as representative of very specific ideology and mindset - the answer is more likely to be "no".