Review - Downfall (Der Untergang)

The very concept of a historical film raises eyebrows. How can one accurately re-create the past, objectively, unbiased, allowing the scenes to unfold as they did the day in which they were acted out? Plain and simple, they don't. A historical film should never set out to match the exact dialogue of every secret conversation held between key historical figures but rather obtain the essence of a relationship, whether factual or postulated based upon sources of historical integrity. A historical film sets out to inform the viewer of the occurrences of a historical event, or the life and times of a historical figure. It can never be perfect, it can never present the completely accurate essence of someone or something in less than 3 hours and to an audience otherwise unaware of the intricacies of said event or person. I know, getting into the theory of historical film is complex and tedious, probably involving me rambling on about the nature of creativity. In the following review I can't promise I will stay clear of such discussion. Sorry.

Tonight I watched the 2004 German film Der Untergang (Downfall), directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel and written by Bernd Eichinger. The film depicted the final days of the Third Reich under the rule of Adolf Hitler, with the setting primarily within Hitler's underground bunker that would serve not only as his protection from death outside but ironically encase his suicide within. The film runs 2 1/2 hours. Hitler doesn't kill himself in a climactic finale, he doesn't die in a shock opening. No, Hitler commits suicide with Eva Braun about 2 hours in. So what of the last 30min? How could such a drastic change in the scope of historical investigation with Hitler's death still leave the filmmakers with enough substance to continue? Therein lies the beauty of historical films.

This beauty is in the emotional resonance, or rather emotional connection that the audience develops from the characters within the narrative. In the case of Downfall, the plot does not focus on Hitler himself, although one could argues it does, I like to think it is a film that is grounded in different roots within Germany at the time. As the screenplay itself is based on two books, one by historian Joachim Fest, and the other (and in my opinion more important), one by Traudl Junge, Hitler secretary. The reason I place such importance upon the latter of these two texts is that Junge herself is a major character within the film and in my opinion is the true protagonist. We see Hitler through her eyes, the Holocaust is never analysed in depth, only in passing or in fleeting conversations. Characters, historical figures are shown as they were in her eyes, not evil men but those with some sense of nobility, perhaps influenced by her supposed lack of knowledge regarding the events of the final solution. In fact the depiction of these historical characters is near perfect. Well, one can never assert perfection in historical representation but rather I mean that the interpretation of these characters gave me a new perspective on the key Nazi figures I have been studying in my Modern History classes. This film allowed me these suppositions:

1. By the end, Hitler was insane
   
2. Speer knew about the Holocaust, yet was always presented as honourable
   
3. Eva Braun was very strange, annoying, seemingly lacking intelligence yet with some hidden sense of insight, perhaps derangement passed on from Hitler
4. Goebbels and his wife were vindictive, evil and power hungry
5. Himmler was depicted as being sly and scheming

And these are just suppositions on key figures. Before viewing this I had no idea as to who von Greim, Bormann, Jodl, Fegelein or Weidling were. I mean, I have no real personal insight to these characters, so naturally the film's depiction of Bormann will meld itself into mine. However, the film has given me a perspective, note not the truth, regarding certain historical characters and has now spurned me onto finding who these people were. For that is the main argument against historical films, that it will skew the public's view of history. But let us not forget that although Troy was a disaster in terms of historical accuracy, it did render any copy of Homer's The Illiad near impossible to find. These films create interest, stimulate the imagination of the viewing public as to the occurrences of an event.

Moving away from this analytical tangent I have to go back to this notion of the roots of Germany represented in the story. Within the film we see flashes of the horror on the city streets, chiefly through the eyes of a young Hitler Youth member. In addition to this, the scrambling effort to heal the wounded and deal with civilians is demonstrated through the character of Prof. Dr. Schenck, whose journey from the destruction of what appears to be his university, to his performance of awful "surgeries" upon wounded soldiers and civilians. It is these side characters, side in historical terms not in plotting, such as Schenck, the young boy and Junge that allow the audience to connect with a historical film. It is not merely a retelling of facts but rather an analysis of individual perspectives relating to an event.

And I must add that the casting for the film was amazing. Every role seemed to be well cast, I don't think I will ever see anyone other than Bruno Ganz as Hitler himself, I fell in love with Alexandra Maria Lara as Traudl Junge, the other major Nazi roles were excellent also. I must mention especially Christian Berkel as Schenck and Thomas Kretschmann as Fegelein, who were both in Bryan Singer's recent Valkyrie based upon their performances in this film. And it's not wonder why they were cast, as they stand out completely.

Ultimately, this was an amazing tale, the most interesting depiction of Nazi Germany I have ever seen, and perhaps of greater value to me than any textbook on the events. Why? Because the film not only gave me visual stimulus as to the events, highlighting relationships, interactions et al, it also provided me with the direct ability to react emotionally to the events, It seems that by fictionalising our past we ironically gain greater links to the truth. Anyone with any interest in the subject or anyone studying it must see this film. It is a masterpiece of the historical genre. 4 1/2 stars.