Inside the Third Reich

Inside The Third Reich is a great movie. Of course the central character of the movie is Hitler played by Sir Derik Jacoby. He does a masterful job of portraying Hitler. From reading a lot about the Third Reich time period and Speer's book, the film is true to the book, and to history.Many people have wondered why Speer was not hanged at Nurenberg. I think I know why the court spared him when the others were hanged. He was one of the few remaining Nazis that could attempt to explaining Hitler from a human point of view. The movie is fast moving and gripping. A great screen occurs at a lavish party when Hitler makes Blythe Danner(Speer' wife)shudder as he kisses her hand and fawns over her. She says to her husband Speer, I may attend parties for him but I will not have him in my house! This is one movie you will want in your house.

This movie is a fine adaptation of Albert Speer's autobiography of the same name. It is at its best when showing us the vicious backstabbing and tawdry competition among Hitler's top men. Speer walks among these power-hungry vipers like an aristocrat among peasants; indeed, the movie can be faulted for taking Speer too much at his own evaluation, and not showing how he was corrupted and influenced by the company he kept. Some of the other characterizations are not quite accurate either - Speer's wife, Marguerite, in reality was not the voice of conscience continuously warning him that what he was doing was wrong and they were all doomed. Other biographies have revealed her to be generally uncritical and in some ways pleased with her elite position as the wife of one of Germany's top men. And while Speer's father was a liberal and against the Nazis, their relationship was not as warm and open as shown here, and Speer was not greatly influenced by him. In fact, it is hard to believe that Speer could have easily followed the path he did in life if all the most important, beloved and admired people in his life had been as clear-sighted and vocal about his mistakes as they are shown to be here. The movie thus falsifies some of the historical atmosphere, and overlooks to what extent perfectly respectable middle-class people in Germany thought Hitler was wonderful. But these flaws are outweighed by the movie's strengths - Derek Jacobi gives a stunning performance as Hitler. One can almost imagine how charismatic and appealing he must have been, as he switches from charm to humour to passion as required. A wonderful scene is just before the Nuremberg Rally, where Hitler stands in front of a series of mirrors, practicing his trademark gestures - arms folded, fists clenching - while talking quietly to Speer about the great future ahead of them. The nature of Hitler as a performer and actor has never been shown as clearly. Ian Holm also gives a great performance as Goebbels - repulsive, unshakeably fanatical and cold-blooded, yet also dangerously intelligent and even witty. This is a view of WWII from a particular angle, and it thus has a lot of gaps (for instance, Speer claimed never to have really known what was happening to the Jews) but it is still engrossing and well worth watching.

Films about real-life figures are always going to be divisive. All the more so when they are based on the figure in question's autobiography which, naturally, comes from their point of view and is therefore biased, consciously or otherwise. When said figure was a crucial member of the Third Reich- as well as an intimate of Hitler's- it takes a particularly delicate touch to make that film work without inciting offence or condemnation and to appear- at least somewhat- balanced.

A touch director Marvin J. Chomsky demonstrated at the helm of 'Holocaust,' the gripping, poignant 1978 miniseries that helped establish Meryl Streep and James Woods, among others, and brought the titular term into the mainstream. However, his adaptation of Albert Speer's autobiography 'Inside the Third Reich' lacks the nuance of 'Holocaust,' as well as the power. A truncated retelling of the highlights of Speer's book; one wonders how the same director could be behind both works.

'Inside the Third Reich' follows architect Albert Speer, a charismatic German who attracts the attention of those in the burgeoning Nazi Party. Although apolitical by nature, Speer finds himself seduced by Hitler's manic magnetism, and soon is working for the party. During the second World War, Speer is appointed as the Armaments Minister for the Third Reich, though his growing disapproval for Hitler's disregard for human life creates a chasm between the dictator and his minister that not even death can bridge.

Unlike the source material, the film is mostly a glossy, emotionless affair, which makes little impact on the viewer. In contrast, the original book makes for a fascinating read. Although most certainly Speer withholds information regarding the breadth of his knowledge of the holocaust, he demonstrates a remarkable ability to separate himself from his history, observing scenes from his past with a critical eye. He does not try to excuse himself for taking part in Hitler's murderous regime, rather attempts to understand how he fell under the dictator's spell, and why he ignored the obvious signs of the coming genocide for so long.

It is a book full of nuance, offering a unique, intimate look at a part of history from the perspective of one of its central figures. However, something was lost in translation, as Chomsky's version severely underwhelms. Rather than examining the reasons Speer and others followed Hitler, the narrative- written by E. Jack Neuman- plods along linearly, following Speer on his rise to power in the manner of countless dull biopics. Although by no means boring, when considering the opportunities Speer's rich, contemplative book allows for adaptation- for an intriguing film to be made- it is rather disappointing.

Moreover, the film doesn't question Speer's claims once- which, it is worth noting, he himself does multiple times in his book, acknowledging the inherent bias that arises when writing one's own story and recalling one's own history. The characterisation involved is one-dimensional, with the on-screen version of Speer lacking the depth and complexity of the real man. Although the dialogue- largely taken word-for- word from the source material- is strong, Chomsky and Neuman's straightforward approach lets this adaptation down, hampering its potential impact.

Conversely, the visuals are impressive throughout, with Rolf Zehetbauer's detailed production design being of a particularly high quality. Alongside art directors Kuli Sander and Herbert Strabel, he creates an authentic reproduction of the time before and during the Third Reich. The set decoration and design are especially rich and evocative, as is the striking costume design, compounding the realism of the venture. While Tony Imi's cinematography is fairly conventional, he utilises close-ups and lighting well, heightening the drama. Furthermore, Fred Karlin's score is stirring, using period pieces to great effect, and proceedings are generally well-edited.

The large cast of talented actors are also utilised well, more or less. John Gielgud does sterling work as Speer's father, who questions the direction his son's life has taken. Ian Holm brims with a witty menace as Goebbels, while Trevor Howard is typically understated and effective as Tessenow, Speer's mentor. Blythe Danner also does commendable work as Margareta, Speer's wife, while Randy Quaid is terrific as one of his associates.

The real stand out is Derek Jacobi, delivering a startlingly intense performance as Hitler. At times, he could be the megalomaniacal murderer's double; so cannily does he recreate his gesticulations and movements. Oddly enough, in the lead, the usually convincing Rutger Hauer is the weakest link, coming across as a bit half-hearted and disinterested; perhaps unsure of how to approach the role in the face of Neuman's scant characterisation.

In conclusion, where Chomsky succeeded with 'Holocaust', he fails with 'Inside the Third Reich.' The former boasted compelling characters whom one cared for, wrapped inside an engaging, poignant story. The latter is more like a summary of a book written by a student who didn't particularly care for the course they were on. Lacking the nuance or insight so prevalent in Albert Speer's book of the same name, the film disappoints. Although the visuals, score and supporting performances are commendable, both Rutger Hauer's performance as Albert Speer and the film around him are forgettable. A shame, considering the subject is one that one should never forget.

Written by Speer to cover his crimes. Speer should have been hanged with the other war criminals. His efforts prolonged the war, resulting in millions of additional deaths. This is a bad movie because it allows a lying cover up. It is irresponsible for film makers to represent criminal behaviour as something less than it was/is.

Speer gambled that taking blame for Nazi crimes would save himself from the gallows. The prosecutors and judges at Nuremberg were taken in by crocodile tears shed by a monster. Slaves in factories run by Speer died in thousands under inhuman conditions. Speed's wife WAS NOT an ardent anti-Nazi as she appears in this film.

He DID work against Hitler to spare German basic services, but that's not saying much considering that it was about all gone by the end of WW II.

Excellent view of just how "cut-throat" Hitler's inner circle was. I do feel that the film portrays Speer too much like an innocent pawn in Hitler's tragic production on the world stage. He knew what he was doing and who he was working for even though he may have had in inner struggle with it.