"....one of the greatest films addressing World War II—and its personalities—ever made."

-- Rex Reed

Speaking of moral relativism, I don't see why on earth I have to wait till I see Downfall to write a review of it. Besides, it's already been reviewed by people of impeccable taste and judgment, and whose writing talents surpass mine:

Ninety percent of critics surveyed gave ”Downfall” high marks. Four out of five from The Arizona Republic. “Painstaking and sometimes painful, said The New York Times. Four out of four from Roger Ebert. B from Entertainment Weekly. And Rex Reed called it an intense, incredibly exciting drama. I say 3 1/2 out of 4.

Besides, it just so happens that today is Adolf Hitler's 116th birthday. Now, how would it look if on Hitler's birthday I went to see a film about his last days which was almost banned in Germany, then wrote a review about it after I'd already seen it? Better to write the review beforehand, so I can maintain complete objectivity and strict neutrality.

Now onto the film that I have not seen. It's quite a long film, in German with subtitles. Normally, I hate all foreign films, not only because of the subtitles (which I have to move too close to the screen to see), but because foreign films appeal to a certain type of person. A film snob. These types seems to think that their attendance at a foreign film makes them automatically superior. They have a sneering air of sophistication about them, and they do things like clap at the end of the film, then sit there and read every last credit while glaring at the morons who get up and leave before the credits have finished rolling. Then on their way out they try to impress people who are trying not to hear them with their knowledge of film, of foreign films, of foreign countries, and of what they read in Vanity Fair.

"Did you read James Wolcott's pithy comparison of Downfall to the Passion?" No and I don't care to! But I'll hear about it anyway. And nothing makes me madder than having to write about nonexistent film reviews I refuse to read about films I refuse to write about after I've seen them! (Oddly enough, Christianity Today compares Downfall to The Passion in its review.)

In another review, it is pointed out that Hitler had a single testicle -- and the reviewer suggests googling for it. (Sorry, not into that today. No time! But it's an accurate fact that the guy didn't have balls.)

Furthermore, I've been accused of criticizing (satirizing?) Michael Moore without seeing -- what was it? -- oh, yes, Fahrenheit 9/11. And if I can stand up to the loyal minions of a fatty pipsqueak, certainly I'd be a hypocrite not to freely criticize Hitler without fear. Even on his goddamned birthday!

While I don't know whether Michael Moore has himself penned a review of this film, here's a review by some fellow socialists who did. (Sure enough, the film is about Bush!)

Despite these weaknesses, Downfall: Hitler and the End of the Third Reich is a complex and impressive piece of work. The film shows the final days and hours of a clique that had plunged the world into a murderous war and now attempts to thrust aside any responsibility for the collapse and catastrophe that ensues. As the disastrous consequences of their actions becomes increasingly evident, the reaction of Hitler and Goebbels is to pursue even more doggedly and brutally their policies—along the lines of the motto “Who cares what happens when I am gone!” In their legacies, which they dictate to Traudl Junge before their deaths, both men refer to their “love” of the people, whom they had served. In reality, they are consumed with contempt for the masses and visions of their own importance.

The catastrophic consequences and end of this regime also have such ominous reverberations under circumstances where similar tendencies can be identified in contemporary politics.

One example is the Bush government in the US. The more the situation in Iraq spirals out of their control, the more the government and military respond by lining up their next victim—potentially Iran. At the same time, the methods used in Iraq against the civilian population become ever more brutal. Torture is carried out in the prisons as a matter of course, and the most vicious bombardment undertaken to crush any resistance. As popular opposition grows to the occupation, the brutality of the US army increases. As its policies transform increasingly into a debacle the government presses ahead with exactly the same course—but with renewed ruthlessness.

This is also a foretaste of what the population of the US can expect when the ruling elite no longer see the possibility of being able to suppress by traditional measures the enormous social conflicts surging under the surface. The ruling class then requires figures at the head of state who are prepared to employ the same level of brutality and unscrupulousness that characterised the leadership of the Nazis.

If the above gray flannel Stalinesque drivel put you to sleep, why, here's the very hip Straight.com:

How do you handle an archetype of infamy? In the case of Adolf Hitler and his crazed neocons—excuse me, I mean protocons—20 metres of dirt and concrete, topped off by a few cans of precious petrol, seems about right. And yet there are moments in history when it pays to unearth what was supposed to be long-buried.

....as an act of expiation, the film is important to a German audience. For the rest of us, well, we can weigh the falling plaster and 11th-hour howls against other murderous schemes dressed up as romantic idealism. Today there are more bunkers than ever, and every Abu Ghraib is simply another pit stop for Democracy on the March.

Beyond that, I don't know. Rush Limbaugh and many others have complained that it humanizes Hitler, although I doubt that the film is genuine pro-Nazi propaganda. (For starters, it's being released in Israel. More here.) From a political perspective, it may in fact be wrong to show Hitler as a human being (even if he arguably was). To the extent Downfall does that, it might justly be condemned. On the other hand, I think it is too often forgotten that Nazi Germany was in fact run by human beings. To deny the humanity of evil may be as much of a mistake as its opposite.

Consider the following:

In the movie re-make of Nuremberg the psychologist who examined and counseled the criminals on trial made an interesting and frightening discovery. He stated that all of these men had one similar characteristic, “an inability to identify with the suffering of their fellow human beings.” They had no empathy. He went on and summarized, “Evil then is the absence of empathy.”

Does moral relativism go in circles?

Maybe I'll have more later.

UPDATE: Just back from seeing the film. Not a shred of empathy for Hitler, whose pathetic ravings and tantrums were entirely his own fault. But then, I always knew how mundane evil can be. (Under the right circumstances, it can appear the epitome of innocence.)

Fantastic acting; probably the best portrayal of Hitler by any actor to date.