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.An inquiry into decades of cultural fascination with the Nazi leader, and the ramifications of such a fascination on present day politics.
- Directors
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
Adolf Hitler
- Self
- (archive footage)
Mike Taibbi
- Self
- (archive footage)
Sebastian Haffner
- Self
- (archive footage)
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
- (archive footage)
- Directors
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
Assortment of Hitler -Nazi themed, but otherwise unrelated people, events, stories, etc. Absolutely no central theme, no chronology and limited context. Apologies to many well spoken experts possibly unaware editors were third-graders. The title is as obscure as it is misleading. At best the film portrays contemporary neo-nazis and right-leaning groups. What is the meaning of "The meaning of Hitler"?
When this documentary stuck to the subject at hand - Hitler- it was actually pretty good and interesting. I liked how they self-recognized that there is documentary after documentary on the subject of Hitler, and here they are...making a documentary about Hitler!
Unfortunately, they often strayed from this focus, and went into a hard left rant on the current state of the world, which I found unnecessary, and quite frankly, not always appropriate. France wins the World Cup, the French are celebrating in the streets, and I'm supposed to be concerned that this is a dangerous example of nationalism?
But the most absurd part was weaving Donald Trump into this documentary. It is a tired device, and shows how unhinged the filmmakers must be. Can't I watch something nowadays without someone dragging Trump into it? To use the current cliche, Donald Trump must be living rent-free inside the filmmakers' heads. If you want to make a documentary comparing Donald Trump to Hitler, by all means, do so. Just be upfront about it. Don't try to bait-and-switch us.
Unfortunately, they often strayed from this focus, and went into a hard left rant on the current state of the world, which I found unnecessary, and quite frankly, not always appropriate. France wins the World Cup, the French are celebrating in the streets, and I'm supposed to be concerned that this is a dangerous example of nationalism?
But the most absurd part was weaving Donald Trump into this documentary. It is a tired device, and shows how unhinged the filmmakers must be. Can't I watch something nowadays without someone dragging Trump into it? To use the current cliche, Donald Trump must be living rent-free inside the filmmakers' heads. If you want to make a documentary comparing Donald Trump to Hitler, by all means, do so. Just be upfront about it. Don't try to bait-and-switch us.
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.
Did you know
- ConnectionsFeatures Triumph of the Will (1935)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- Mit Hitlera
- Filming locations
- Berlin, Germany(Bunker Site)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $12,804
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $4,976
- Aug 15, 2021
- Gross worldwide
- $12,804
- Runtime1 hour 32 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was The Meaning of Hitler (2020) officially released in Canada in English?
Answer