Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaAn inquiry into decades of cultural fascination with the Nazi leader, and the ramifications of such a fascination on present day politics.An inquiry into decades of cultural fascination with the Nazi leader, and the ramifications of such a fascination on present day politics.An inquiry into decades of cultural fascination with the Nazi leader, and the ramifications of such a fascination on present day politics.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 1 indicação no total
Adolf Hitler
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
Mike Taibbi
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
Sebastian Haffner
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
Yehuda Bauer
- Self - Historian: Rethinking the Holocaust
- (as Prof. Yehuda Bauer)
Peter Theiss-Abendroth
- Self - Psychiatrist
- (as Dr. Peter Theiss-Abendroth)
Winfried Nerdinger
- Self - Historian: Munich Documentation Center for the History of National Socialism
- (as Prof. Winfried Nerdinger)
Alexander Gauland
- Self - Far-Right German Leader
- (cenas de arquivo)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
1DrD3
This was a rather lame attempt to vilify Adolf Hitler and his personality. A documentary should at least make a cursory attempt to present both sides of the coin. Instead we get a hodgepodge of Hitler haters and ill-equipped pseudo historical speculators. The non-credential talking heads they used to justify the points they unconvincingly spewed out discredited the documentaries dubious message.
Anyone with any actual historical knowledge of the title character gets mocked and libelled. There was nothing mentioned about how Hitler became so enormously popular among the German people; nor any mention of his many accomplishments. Since his time frame in history is mainly focused around the Second World War, perhaps something should have been mentioned about the numerous battles his military engaged in; both successful and unsuccessful.
It should also be noted that no one has yet to lay claim to the cash award offered by the British historian David Irving.
Anyone with any actual historical knowledge of the title character gets mocked and libelled. There was nothing mentioned about how Hitler became so enormously popular among the German people; nor any mention of his many accomplishments. Since his time frame in history is mainly focused around the Second World War, perhaps something should have been mentioned about the numerous battles his military engaged in; both successful and unsuccessful.
It should also be noted that no one has yet to lay claim to the cash award offered by the British historian David Irving.
"The Meaning of Hitler" tries to do a lot of things. It broadly succeeds in some of them. But what was this documentary actually trying to do?
Well, let's first look at what it does succeed with:
It draws our attention to the fact that Hitler was initially just a regular guy. However, Hitler was very unusual for the fact that he had no friends, no family, had no children, was socially "outside". These would seem to be the symptoms, not causes, of his delusional megalomaniac rise. Also apparent through the documentary, is the observation that Nazism and its monstrous crimes are things that really happened because humans are capable of it.
Where "The Meaning of Hitler" loses its message a little is (perhaps) in looking at the recent return of the hard-right ultra-nationalist movements. These dangerous developments should give us cause for concern that the lessons of history have not been learned. Today's younger generations know nothing of war. We need to work to make sure they never do.
"The Meaning...." deals summarily, severely and correctly with anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers.
Overall, this documentary does succeed in pointing out and attempting to rectify and remove the strangely attractive characterisations that Hitler has been given in some parts of modern culture. We must learn the lessons of history and not repeat the mistakes. A little incoherent, but necessary watching.
Well, let's first look at what it does succeed with:
It draws our attention to the fact that Hitler was initially just a regular guy. However, Hitler was very unusual for the fact that he had no friends, no family, had no children, was socially "outside". These would seem to be the symptoms, not causes, of his delusional megalomaniac rise. Also apparent through the documentary, is the observation that Nazism and its monstrous crimes are things that really happened because humans are capable of it.
Where "The Meaning of Hitler" loses its message a little is (perhaps) in looking at the recent return of the hard-right ultra-nationalist movements. These dangerous developments should give us cause for concern that the lessons of history have not been learned. Today's younger generations know nothing of war. We need to work to make sure they never do.
"The Meaning...." deals summarily, severely and correctly with anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers.
Overall, this documentary does succeed in pointing out and attempting to rectify and remove the strangely attractive characterisations that Hitler has been given in some parts of modern culture. We must learn the lessons of history and not repeat the mistakes. A little incoherent, but necessary watching.
This was a much needed documentary on how society is slowly rewriting the events and facts of Hitler and the consequences of fascism in the 30s and 40s , however the message being relayed was far to complex and interlinked for an average viewer to absorb.
Very good points were made in this film but framed in a way too intellectual abstract manner that resembled more of a masters thesis study in videotape rather than a story to tell to the masses (which is clearly needed).
I hope other filmmakers take on this subject as it is so important for the young, disaffected and non political people in our societies to understand the risk as we head into voting in political parties verging on neo fascist ideologies especially in Europe.
This movie I'm afraid is not one to reach out and get the message out , unless you are studying politics at university.
The plus side the filmmaker traveled to many locations, talking head interviews from a good number of respected people from all sides, historians, victims, political etc.
10 out of 10 for research effort and subject matter but unfortunately 5 for script and delivery of message.
Very good points were made in this film but framed in a way too intellectual abstract manner that resembled more of a masters thesis study in videotape rather than a story to tell to the masses (which is clearly needed).
I hope other filmmakers take on this subject as it is so important for the young, disaffected and non political people in our societies to understand the risk as we head into voting in political parties verging on neo fascist ideologies especially in Europe.
This movie I'm afraid is not one to reach out and get the message out , unless you are studying politics at university.
The plus side the filmmaker traveled to many locations, talking head interviews from a good number of respected people from all sides, historians, victims, political etc.
10 out of 10 for research effort and subject matter but unfortunately 5 for script and delivery of message.
Only two countries vote against UN resolution condemning Nazism and that was in November 2021. Can you guess who ? Well, on United Nation web page you'll find your answer and expose the hypocrisy. Hint:....... nah is to easy.
Greetings again from the darkness. The Holocaust and Nazi Germany. No subjects are likely even close in regards to the number of documentaries on topic. Yet somehow, there always seems to be more to mine. Co-directors Peppa Epperline and Michael Tucker have based their project on the 1978 book by Sebastian Haffner. The objective is to pull back the curtain on the self-conceit at the center of the cult of Hitler. How did this happen? How has it been repeated? How do we expose this without adding to the fascination of Hitler? It's quite a conundrum, and one not easily navigated.
One of the first points made near the film's beginning is that most agree understanding Hitler is not possible. So by that definition, a cinematic pursuit for meaning is a futile undertaking. But that doesn't stop the filmmakers from trying. On their quest, they interview many experts and travel to various places of interest - museums, historical sites, camps, and even Treblinka.
Hollywood's fascination with Hitler is discussed, including Mel Brooks' THE PRODUCERS (2005) and the "Springtime for Hitler" sequence, Quentin Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009), and the superb DOWNFALL (2004). An excellent point is made in regards to the film comparisons of how Hitler's suicide is typically portrayed behind closed doors, while Holocaust victims are not afforded such dignity. There is even a segment on Leni Riefenstahl's documentary on the Nazi way, TRIUMPH OF THE WILL (1935). Novelist Francine Prose labels the work, "kitsch".
Infamous Holocaust denier David Irving is featured, and we hear him describe Auschwitz as "not important". The technological advances in microphones are explained in regards to how the "Hitler bottle" allowed him to be more demonstrative during speeches, often resulting in working the audience into a frenzy. Interviews are included throughout the film, and feature historians (Saul Friedlander), authors, deniers, psychologists, and even Nazi hunters.
"Fascinating Fascism" is examined as pageantry and spectacle and other enticing aspects. The theatrical presentation that led to this fetish might today be termed marketing. It's a bit of a relief to see the filmmakers avoided focusing too much on the parallels to a particular modern day phenomenon, despite the timing being right to study similarities. They do, however, make the comparison to Beatlemania, and how history has a tendency to repeat itself in various forms.
The film bounces around some, with certain segments more insightful than others, and there are some astounding points made. One of those interviewed states, "The Nazi ideals were acted out by people who were absolutely normal." It's a frightening thought. Another discusses the human conflict: humans are animals that kill, as well as being herd animals. The Nazi mission played into both. What the film left me with was the belief that the Nazi propaganda has been repurposed as history, leading to the fascination, whereas the focus of that era should be something else.
One of the first points made near the film's beginning is that most agree understanding Hitler is not possible. So by that definition, a cinematic pursuit for meaning is a futile undertaking. But that doesn't stop the filmmakers from trying. On their quest, they interview many experts and travel to various places of interest - museums, historical sites, camps, and even Treblinka.
Hollywood's fascination with Hitler is discussed, including Mel Brooks' THE PRODUCERS (2005) and the "Springtime for Hitler" sequence, Quentin Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009), and the superb DOWNFALL (2004). An excellent point is made in regards to the film comparisons of how Hitler's suicide is typically portrayed behind closed doors, while Holocaust victims are not afforded such dignity. There is even a segment on Leni Riefenstahl's documentary on the Nazi way, TRIUMPH OF THE WILL (1935). Novelist Francine Prose labels the work, "kitsch".
Infamous Holocaust denier David Irving is featured, and we hear him describe Auschwitz as "not important". The technological advances in microphones are explained in regards to how the "Hitler bottle" allowed him to be more demonstrative during speeches, often resulting in working the audience into a frenzy. Interviews are included throughout the film, and feature historians (Saul Friedlander), authors, deniers, psychologists, and even Nazi hunters.
"Fascinating Fascism" is examined as pageantry and spectacle and other enticing aspects. The theatrical presentation that led to this fetish might today be termed marketing. It's a bit of a relief to see the filmmakers avoided focusing too much on the parallels to a particular modern day phenomenon, despite the timing being right to study similarities. They do, however, make the comparison to Beatlemania, and how history has a tendency to repeat itself in various forms.
The film bounces around some, with certain segments more insightful than others, and there are some astounding points made. One of those interviewed states, "The Nazi ideals were acted out by people who were absolutely normal." It's a frightening thought. Another discusses the human conflict: humans are animals that kill, as well as being herd animals. The Nazi mission played into both. What the film left me with was the belief that the Nazi propaganda has been repurposed as history, leading to the fascination, whereas the focus of that era should be something else.
Você sabia?
- ConexõesFeatures Triunfo da Vontade (1935)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idiomas
- Também conhecido como
- Mit Hitlera
- Locações de filme
- Berlim, Alemanha(Bunker Site)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 12.804
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 4.976
- 15 de ago. de 2021
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 12.804
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 32 min(92 min)
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.78 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente