Hitler: The Rise of Evil

Baron Mordo · Post by **Baron Mordo** » 2003-05-18 11:54pm

Anybody see this on CBS? My goodness, what a farce. Hitler was painted as a loon. The man was very genial in person. That's what made him so scary. Not because he was some cartoony, spitting supervillain. But because he was as human as you or I. The reporter, whose name escapes me, even said, "He's not human!" as if to cement the idea that he was some kind of mystical hypnotist. Clearly, these people didn't (a) do their homework, or (b) want to suggest contaversy by portraying him as humanly as possible. That's just sad.

Other things of note:

When Hitler shows of his snazzy swastika logo, a swell of sinister, foreshadowy music pops up, and everyone he's showing it to displays vague nervousness and/or disgust. Keep in mind that up until this point in history, the swastika was a symbol of good luck and protection.

Ernst Rohm never once looks at any fresh, young recruits with predatory lust.

BrYaN19kc · Post by **BrYaN19kc** » 2003-05-19 12:15am

I'm really kind of hacked that I wasted an entire evening watching that thing. The acting was horrible, it wasn't believable in the least. The term "low budget" comes to mind.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-19 12:46am

I watched it for less than thirty seconds. That was all it took.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-05-19 01:27am

I didn't really get the impression that it was low budget, more like it was far too extreme and exaggerated. I agree that it's not very good; I am still watching it now. Definately could be better.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-05-19 02:23am

Agreed, it sucked royally. No wonder Ian Kershaw asked to have his name removed from it. They just tried to make Hitler into an evil monster while depicting most other people as very innocent.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-19 02:27am

For more than half a century now, there's been a widespread movement to portray Hitler as the sole source of the entire evil of WW2 Nazi Germany, when in reality he was merely the catalyst for a huge underlying problem.

A demagogue is nothing without followers.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-05-19 03:06am

Damn. I was hoping it would be good and something to pick up if it makes it to DVD.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-05-19 03:09am

Nope, they're determined to make "Hitler: The story of an evil bastard".

The trial was interesting, though.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-05-19 03:10am

Revisionist history makes my stomach churn and my fists itch. Where's my fucking gun...?

Psycho Smiley · Post by **Psycho Smiley** » 2003-05-19 10:58am

Well, you did hear all the bitching about how we can't humanize him, didn't you?

For the love of crap, he was a human! Not a very nice one (understatement acknowledged) but still a human.

If they can't tell history the way it was, then what's the fucking point? No one is ever going to learn from it!

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2003-05-19 11:03am

I quite liked the Conspiracy minidrama on the formulation of the final solution, which was on the BBC (if I remember) a while ago. Classic stuff.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-05-19 11:12am

Psycho Smiley wrote:If they can't tell history the way it was, then what's the fucking point? No one is ever going to learn from it!

What did you expect from network tv they take too much liberty in making historical drama,rating is more important than telling a story correctly.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-19 11:28am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Revisionist history makes my stomach churn and my fists itch. Where's my fucking gun...?

No, revisionism in history is often quite essential. Just not with Nazi Germany.

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-05-19 11:42am

The problem with historical dramatizations is the major revisions. Did any of you remember that thread about the tales of Greece becoming movies?
BTW, Durran Korr; examples?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-19 11:59am

Darth Gojira wrote:The problem with historical dramatizations is the major revisions. Did any of you remember that thread about the tales of Greece becoming movies?
BTW, Durran Korr; examples?

The Indian genocide has often not been included in traditional accounts of history to a great extent. The emergence of closer, more critical examination of that part of our history in recent decades can be considered historical revisionism.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-19 12:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:For more than half a century now, there's been a widespread movement to portray Hitler as the sole source of the entire evil of WW2 Nazi Germany, when in reality he was merely the catalyst for a huge underlying problem.

A demagogue is nothing without followers.

That's really wierd- Fox News had the director? of the movie in an interview- discussing the controversy surrounding the thing, and he said, precisely, that Hitler was a catalyst for a pre existing, underlying problem- he made the common sense judgement that the reason Hitler came to power on a wave of anti-semite bullshit was because Weimar Germany was already very anti-semitic.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-19 12:26pm

I thought that was the one of the better things about the movie; they went a little far with the caricature, but they made sure to portray Hitler as the bumbling idiot that he was, not as the genius he is often made out to be.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-19 04:06pm

victorhadin wrote:I quite liked the Conspiracy minidrama on the formulation of the final solution, which was on the BBC (if I remember) a while ago. Classic stuff.

that was a good one, it was on HBO too

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-05-19 04:43pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Revisionist history makes my stomach churn and my fists itch. Where's my fucking gun...?
No, revisionism in history is often quite essential. Just not with Nazi Germany.

Bullshit. Lying and inventing facts destroys the purpose of learning history and turns it into a propaganda tool.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-19 04:50pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Revisionist history makes my stomach churn and my fists itch. Where's my fucking gun...?
No, revisionism in history is often quite essential. Just not with Nazi Germany.
Bullshit. Lying and inventing facts destroys the purpose of learning history and turns it into a propaganda tool.

Whoah, someone gave you the wrong definition of "revisionist." It is true that often revisionists, especially Holocaust revisionists, engage in what you claim here, but not always. Historical revisionism is exactly what it sounds like; reviewing previously-held views of history, not necessarily inventing facts and lying. Charles Beard, for example, who could be considered a revisionist in this vein, held that the Constitution of the U.S. was an economic document, but he didn't really invent facts or lie to do so. He simply reinterpreted history.

Furthermore, anytime someone suggests that the Gulf War, for example, was really fought for U.S. oil interests instead of containing Saddam Hussein, they're engaging in revisionism; they're revising the widely-held historical view of the Gulf War in favor of another one.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-19 05:58pm

historical revisionism does increase our understanding of history, by giving a different point of view on the events, and when backed up properly generally can be seen as a valid interpretation, like Marx and all of his successors analysing history from an economic and class point of view (regardless of your views on communism, marx was a good historian and his interpretations of events add a different light to many, for instance, read "The eighteenth brumaire of louis boneparte" analysing the french 2nd republic's fall into the second empire from the point of view of class struggle and conflict).

It is when we seek to revise the interpretation of history without proper evidence to back up our assertions, like the revisionism that has been practiced against the nazis since even before hitler was cold that we must be vigilant of

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-19 06:05pm

I should also note that I personally find that revisionists are wrong 9 times out of 10, but they're not totally worthless.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-19 06:09pm

i would personally note that it is those of us who are claiming that hitler wasnt an evil atheist nutter who are the revisionists here. Revisionists oppose the traditional view of history by offering a new interpretation, the traditional view, since neuremberg and before is that hiter was a purely evil, atheist (or at least pagan), insane freak. Those of us who are now pointing to the evidence against these points and offereing a different interpretation, we are the ones who are being revisionist here.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-19 07:09pm

Revisionism is not good or bad in and of itself. It depends on the motivation behind the revision; are we correcting earlier mistakes and/or propagandistic distortions, or are we adding them? In the case of Hitler, there has been a despicable worldwide campaign for more than 50 years to paint him as something other than what he was for propaganda purposes, hence revisionism is necessary.

Specialist · Post by **Specialist** » 2003-05-19 09:38pm

I was just about to make a thread about this. Any how I don't much about Hilter personality but the way he was protrayed seem inhuman and psychotic. BTW why does everytime he opens his mouth spit follows?