THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES: 10. Downfall (2004)

 

               “Downfall” (Der Untergang) is a German/Italian/Austrian production directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel.  It covers the last ten days of Hitler’s life.  It is based on historian Joachim Fest’s Inside Hitler’s Bunker  and Traudl Junge’s Until the Final Hour and several other memoirs.  It was nominated for Best Foreign Film.  Bruno Ganz studied Parkinson’s patients to get Hitler’s twitching down.  The opening and closing interviews with Junge are from the documentary “Blind Spot”.

                The movie opens with the real Traudl Junge wondering why she worked for der Fuhrer.  Then we are in November, 1942 and Traudl (Alexandra Lara) is among a group of women who are hoping to become Hitler’s secretary.  The 1942 Hitler seems like a nice guy who loves his dog Blondi (uncredited).  She types like me, but she gets the job from charismatic Hitler.

               The movie jumps to April, 1945 and Hitler’s 56^th birthday.  There is chaos in the streets and a fantasy world underneath in Hitler’s Bunker.  Hitler (Ganz) meets with Albert Speer and the delusional Hitler opines that the current rubblization of Berlin is perfect for clearing the city for renovations.   The callous Hitler rants that the German people are weak and don’t deserve to survive.  They are unworthy of his brilliance.  When urged to escape from the city, sinking ship’s captain Hitler refuses saying "I will defeat them in Berlin, or face my downfall."

               Meanwhile, in the streets of Berlin, Peter Kranz plays our “every man” (actually “every youth” – make that Hitler Youth).  His father is a disabled vet who wants him to come home, but indoctrination works and getting an Iron Cross from paternal Hitler seals the deal.  Peter represents the state of the German army as the Russians close in.  This must be like the Rebels in Richmond in 1865, except for the killing of unpatriotic civilians.

               There is a subplot involving SS doctor Schenck (Christian Berkel) who represents humanity in the midst of all the violence, death, and insanity.  He is one of the eye-rolling, do the right thing anyway characters.  The movie also has disgusted-look, follow orders types like Gen. Mohnke and Gen. Weidling.  And then of course there are the sycophants kissing Hitler’s ass and weathering his rants like Goebbels, Krebs, and Burgdorf.  This fascinating mix of role-players maneuvers through the madness. This all leads to the (spoiler alert) death of der Fuhrer, after the romantic marriage of Adolf and Eva. If you ever wondered what happened to the other denizens of the Bunker, this is the movie for you.

ACTING:   A+               

ACTION:   N/A

ACCURACY: A+     

PLOT:  A               

REALISM:   A 

CINEMATOGRAPHY:   A

SCORE:   B

SCENE:  Hitler’s rant about Steiner not attacking

QUOTE:  Hitler:   That was an order! Steiner's assault was an order! Who do you think you are to dare disobey an order I give? So this is what it has come to! The military has been lying to me. Everybody has been lying to me, even the SS! Our generals are just a bunch of contemptible, disloyal cowards.

General Burgdorf: I can't permit you to insult the soldiers.

Hitler: They are cowards, traitors and failures!

General Burgdorf: My fuhrer, this is outrageous!

Hitler: Our generals are the scum of the German people! Not a shred of honour! They call themselves generals. Years at military academy just to learn how to hold a knife and fork! For years, the military has hindered my plans! They've put every kind of obstacle in my way! What I should have done... was liquidate all the high-ranking officers, as Stalin did!

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  “Downfall” is one of the most historically accurate films I have seen.  The research was exhaustive with six books being consulted.  Having read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer (twice) and Cornelius Ryan’s The Last Battle, I can attest to the movie hitting all the highlights of the last ten days.  Also, having read Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich,  I have to say you have to be a little skeptical about how some of the characters are protrayed based on how they wanted themselves to be portrayed.  Speer comes off very well in this movie as he does in his book.  Anyone not wanting to do all that reading can avoid it by watching this movie.  And yes I realize the movie has subtiltes, but it's not like you're having to read a whole book.  It is a better tutorial than any documentary could be.

               All of the characters are real people except Peter Kranz and his father.  Even Junge (who is reminiscent of Costner’s O’Donnell in “Thirteen Days”) is an actual person and her memoirs were one of the sources.  I was pleasantly surprised to find that Schenck was also a real person.  Normally, those roles are invented to enhance the narrative. The dialogue is as authentic as you can get given the circumstances.  Some of Hitler’s lines that showcase his philosophy are quotes taken from statements he made earlier in his life  A good example would be this: " Life doesn't forgive weakness. This so-called humanity is religious drivel. Compassion is an eternal sin. To feel compassion for the weak is a betrayal of nature. The strong can only triumph if the weak are exterminated. Being loyal to this law, I've never had compassion. I've always been ruthless when faced with internal opposition from other races. That's the only way to deal with it."

CRITIQUE:  Aside from the interview opening, the plot is linear with no frills.  In many ways the movie is a character study of not only Hitler, but also his inner circle.  Herein lies some controversy.  These individuals are portrayed as human beings, not demons.  Some reviewers had trouble with the multidimensional depiction of Hitler.  I would not go so far as to describe him as a sympathetic figure, but Ganz does give him a warped humanity at times.  As I noted, Hitler could be charismatic, delusional, callous , paternal, angry, disappointed, etc  Without this movie, many would be unaware of Hitler’s charisma and the fact that he had a powerful effect on women in particular.  It’s the females in the movie that are most loyal to him.  He is far from a one-dimensional villain.  In some ways, the subtitles are valuable because by forcing you to read the evil that comes out of his mouth, you can get past the malevolent charm.

               The acting is outstanding.  Ganz is amazing in one of the greatest performances I have seen.  It was a travesty that he did not get an Academy Award nomination.  He is mesmerizing.  Not surprising as he has a reputation as one of the best German actors.  The supporting cast is very strong.  The characters run the gamut of personality types.  There are no weak links  Watch the various looks on the inner circles' faces when Hitler speaks.  Priceless.  It’s one of the reasons why the You Tube take-offs on the” Steiner rant” can be hilarious.

               The cinematography is equal to the script and acting.  The movie flows seamlessly between the claustrophobic underground scenes and the chaotically violent outdoor scenes.  In the corridors of the impressively recreated Bunker, the camera often tracks the actors from behind and then reacquires them from in front.  Deftly done  There are lots of shots through doorways, giving the audience the impression of looking in on an evil dysfunctional family.  The outdoor scenes were filmed in Petersburg and look like Berlin in the last days.  The music is spare and does not steer our emotions.

               The movie does have some clear themes.  One is the delusion that persists in the upper levels of a government that is losing a war.  Probably a similar vibe was evident in Hirohito’s inner circle in August, 1945.  It is interesting how sane people (and you have to admit that regardless of your take on the portrayal of Hitler, he was not insane) can delude themselves when everything points to disaster.  What's more unbelievable, but true, is how soldiers will fight on in spite of the futility of it.  A second theme is how non-evil people will tolerate close contact with malevolent beings and even work hand in hand with them.  A subtheme would be the ability of some, but not all, of these to remain innocent.  Junge would be an example of this type of person, although her statements at the end of the film struck me as being a bit revisionist.  A third theme is the naivete of youth.  This is portrayed by both Junge and Peter.

CONCLUSION:  “Downfall” is an outstanding movie.  It tops two other worthy efforts on this topic – “The Last Ten Days” with Alec Guinness and “The Bunker” with Alan Hopkins. You have to admit that Hitler attracts great actors.  I do not see how the movie could be improved.  It is a well-staged tutorial on one of the most famous deaths in history and it includes enough action to satisfy a war movie lover.

Valiant One (2025)

 

            I was surprised when the new war movie “Valiant One” appeared in my local cinema. Surprised because it did not appear to be a movie that would be given wide release. I guess the idea is that if it appears in enough theaters at 1% capacity, it might break even. The bad news is it is very unlikely that it will make a decent box office. The good news is it has such a small budget, it won’t lose a lot of money. The film was a labor of love for Steve Barnett. He came up with the story, co-wrote the screenplay, and directed.

            “Valiant One” is set in Korea. Both of them. Sgt. Brockman (Chase Stokes – star of the series “Outer Banks”) is normally an office drone, but suddenly he is thrust into a mission into the DMZ to repair a radar unit. He is to chaperone a civilian geek in what should be a scary, but uneventful in and out affair. Brockman is a fuckup and smartass who is in the Army to save money for his future career as a millionaire tech magnate. He is not military leadership material. Which means he is guaranteed to be thrust into a leadership role. The egress is problematical because of sudden severe weather which crashes the helicopter. In North Korea. Now, Brockman must lead the survivors on a trek through the forest to a rendezvous with a Delta Force. There will be fire fights with North Korean soldiers. And not everyone in the lost patrol will survive, of course.

            “Valiant One” is average in every way. The cast is average. Apparently they are recognizable to Gen Z, as is the rap songs in the soundtrack. The actors do move like soldiers and seem to have had some actor boot camp training. They are not saddled with hokey dialogue. The movie is not laughable, unless you laugh at cliches and stereotypes. You get the reluctant warrior who was hoping to avoid combat until he gets out of the Army. The tough as nails female soldier. The 21^st Century gamers turned soldiers who find the real thing to be daunting. And the civilian tech guy who would rather surrender than fight. The cliches include the redemption arc for the geek and the leadership evolution of Brockman. Being in command sucks! There is a little dysfunction when the obviously unprepared Brockman is forced to take charge because of that pesky military insistence on rank. Clearly, Selby (Lana Condor) should be in charges, but what’s the fun of that. Competence is boring. And leaders don’t braid the hair of a North Korean girl. The cinematographer used hand-held for most of the film. It’s not distracting, but certainly won’t be winning any awards. I have to compliment Barnett for embracing the low budget situation. He does not use cheesy CGI for the helicopter crash, for instance. He just used a forest, a farm, and a tunnel for his sets.

            “Valiant One” is going to soon be forgotten, but that is better than being remembered as a terrible movie. It is not memorable for anything. It is just an average little war movie. And by little, I am hinting at its 87 running time. Short and not very sweet.

GRADE  =  C-

THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES #11. Schindler’s List (1993)

 

“Schindler’s List” was released in 1993 and immediately took a position among the great movies of any genre.  It was produced and directed by Steven Spielberg.  Modestly, he tried to convince Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, and Billy Wilder to direct the pic, but for various reasons they turned him down.  Spielberg refused to make any “blood money” for the film.  The movie is based on the novel Schindler’s Ark by Thomas Keneally.  Keneally was inspired to write the book by one of the Schindlerjuden (“Schlinder Jews”).  The movie was shot on location in Krakow, Poland.  The scenes at Auschwitz used a replica outside the camp because Spielberg was refused permission to film in the camp.  The film won numerous awards.  It was awarded Oscars for Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, and Original Score.  Liam Neeson was nominated for Best Actor and Ralph Fiennes for Best Supporting Actor.  It was the most expensive black and white film made up to then (topping “The Longest Day”).  It had been 33 years since a black and white movie had won Best Picture (“The Apartment”).  It is #8 on AFIs latest list of greatest American motion pictures.

The movie opens with words telling us that after the fall of Poland, Jews were ordered to register and relocate to major cities.  Krakow was one of those cities.  Oskar Schindler (Neeson) strolls into the film nattily dressed and exuding confidence.  He goes to a night club and schmoozes some local Nazis.  He is a playa and a free-spender. Schindler meets a Jewish accountant named Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley).  Schindler proposes a scheme where wealthy Jewish men will invest in a factory making war supplies.  Stern will run the firm and Schindler will be the front man.  He wants to make money.  At first Stern is repulsed by Schindler and turns him down, but soon he has an unexplained change of heart and the company is up and running.  Jews working in the factory are saved from going to a concentration camp.

Schindler gradually develops a conscience and attempts to help the head of the camp get one.  SS-Lieutenant Amon Goeth enjoys sniping Jews from his balcony overlooking the camp. The movie has several memorable scenes. The Nazi clearing of the Krakow ghetto focuses on a little girl in a red coat (the only color in the film). The scene is horrific. Later, Schindler tries to help Jews crowded in box cars. Schindler opens a new factory. The “list” refers to the workers he employs making (defective) war supplies. Many of the women make an unexpected trip to Auschwitz.

        

ACTING:   A +               

ACTION:   N/N

ACCURACY: N/A      

PLOT:  A               

REALISM:   B

CINEMATOGRAPHY:   A+

SCORE:   A

SCENE:  the clearing of the ghetto

QUOTE:  Itzhak Stern:  Let me understand. They put up all the money. I do all the work. What, if you don't mind my asking, would you do?

·  Oskar Schindler: I'd make sure it's known the company's in business. I'd see that it had a certain panache. That's what I'm good at. Not the work, not the work... the presentation.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  This is a difficult movie to analyze for historical accuracy.  There is contradictory evidence on many of the incidents in the film.  However, based on my research, it appears that the movie is factually accurate for the most part.  Keneally is a reputable author and his novel was well researched.  He understandably labeled the book a novel because he invented dialogue.  This is not particularly unusual in the field of historical fiction.  Also, the Schlinderjuden have verified the accuracy of the film.

            Oskar Schindler’s personality and modus vivendi are realistic.  If anything, he was a bigger cad than Neeson portrays him as.  Emilie was certainly a forgiving wife.  This was no one woman man.  Neeson gets the charm right.  What is downplayed a bit in the film is Schindler’s voluntary involvement with the Nazis prior to Krakow.  The movie leads you to believe he was a Nazi just because it was good for business.  This overlooks his more active role in the Abwehr (German intelligence) before arriving in Krakow.

            The role of Stern is apparently close to the real Stern.   The “partnership” angle may be overplayed.  There is evidence that the list was more the work of a Marcel Goldberg and may not have had a lot of input from Schindler.  Goldberg was a loathsome figure who accepted bribes to get people on the list which resulted in people being removed from the list.  The Schindlerjuden did not have fond memories of him and he would have made a poor character in this film.  Some critics claim Schindler was in jail for bribing Goeth at the time the list was compiled and that Stern was not working for him any more at the time.  I lean toward Spielberg’s take on this issue.

            Goeth is accurately portrayed.  The essentials are there.  He did snipe at inmates, but from a hill (his house did not have line of sight to the camp).  The evil "haunted mansion on the hill" was justified in the film.  When Goeth was executed after the war for war crimes, it was specifically for killing over 500 Jews personally.  It could be argued that the real Goeth was more evil and without any redeeming qualities.  It is highly unlikely that Schindler was able to even temporarily humanize him.  As far as his creepy relationship with his Jewish housekeeper Helen, she appears to be a fictional character.

            The depiction of the massacre in the Krakow ghetto is realistic.  There even was a little girl in a red coat although the movie does not try to be accurate on her.  She survived.  Living conditions in the camp are well done.  The scene in Auschwitz gives a good idea of what that camp must have been like.

            The time line is admirably correct.  The movie does not take events out of sequence.  There is a simplifying of how quickly his first plant went from having a few Jewish workers to all Jewish workers, but this is cinematically excusable.  

            With regard to the anecdotal events in the film, they are a mixed lot.  Several are obviously fictional:  Schindler rescuing Stern from deportation, Schindler witnessing the ghetto evacuation from a hill, the Jewish engineer execution.  The kissing of the Jewess at the birthday party is true, however.

            The most problematical scene is the women being shipped to Auschwitz.  It appears to be added to the film for emotional manipulation.  It is based on an incident at the same time of some women being rerouted to a camp called Gross-Rosen.  A name that doesn’t quite have the impact of Auschwitz, does it?  As to the women being shoved into what appears to be a gas chamber, that is almost surely bull shit.  Highly effective bull shit.

            Interestingly, the movie does not go far enough in the redemption area.  Schindler’s progression to sainthood may seem Hollywoodized, but it leaves out all the efforts he made for his workers beyond giving them the security of employment.  He spent his own money providing them food, clothing, and medical care.  The movie underplays his encouragement of their religious rituals which included Jewish burial rites.  Most significantly, the screenwriter chose to leave out an incident where Schindler accepted shipment of two boxcars of literally frozen Jews and personally aided their recovery.  One less justifiable omission is the role that Emilie played at the second plant.  She achieved sainthood herself by cooking for the workers (who got 2,000 calories as opposed to the usual 900) and caring for the sick.  The movie gives her nothing to do except stoically support her philandering husband.

            Speaking of Hollywoodizing, the closing pushes the limits of realism.  Not surprising for a Spielberg film.  The bit about the ring (as someone sniffed, you can’t melt gold the way they did) and the final speech are on the cheesy side.  It might have been a good idea to tack on the actual survivor scene to leave that as the last image.

CRITIQUE:  Is it possible to make a film about the Holocaust that shows its horrors and yet is inspirational and has a happy ending?  This would seem undoable without hitting a hornet’s nest worth of derision.  Amazingly, Spielberg has pulled it off.  The achievement is awe-inspiring.  This is especially impressive because Spielberg stepped out of his comfort zone to make a movie that was not aimed at 14 year old boys.  It is really his first adult movie and he deserved to be rewarded for it. 

            The movie is technically top notch.  The choice to go black and white was a daring gamble that pays off big time.  It is now hard to imagine the movie in color.  The cinematography was an easy choice for the Oscar.  The lighting enhances the lensing.  The look of the film is not ostentatious, however.  You do not marvel at what you are seeing, you just register its proficiency.  John Williams (who at first thought he was not up to the seriousness of the film) is nicely understated and does not push emotional buttons like you hear in many epic movies (including some of Spielberg’s more recent films).  His Oscar was deserved.  It was his last victory.

            The acting is fantastic.  Neeson gives his best performance.  He nails the complex personality of Schindler.  Schindler’s redemption arc must not have been easy to play.  The character is refreshingly multi-dimensional .  Neeson even handles the final speech without marring the rest of his restrained work.  Ralph Fiennes matches him.  Fiennes gained almost thirty pounds by drinking a lot of beer to get ready for the role.  He is the embodiment of malevolence.  AFI placed Goeth at #15 on its list of Top 50 Villains (Goeth is the highest nonfiction character).  Kingsley has a less flashy role, but his portrayal of the wary and wily Stern is perfect.  The supporting cast is solid.  Special note goes to Embeth Davidtz as Helen Hirsh who lives in constant fear of Goeth’s mood swings.  The scene where he soliloquys to a petrified, very vulnerable Helen and goes from positing that Jews are not subhuman vermin to ruthlessly beating her is a strong scene with great acting.  There are several scenes in the movie that showcase the talents of the cast. 

            The plot is linear and traditional.  There are surprises within the structure, but the general flow is toward your typical Spielberg positive ending.  Thankfully, the ending is relatively true so it does not come off as contrived.  Although there is no evidence for it, you would think Spielberg looked hard for a Holocaust script that had a happy ending.  Those are pretty rare.  (“Escape from Sobibor” had already been filmed.)  The themes are fairly clear.  Obviously redemption is one of them.  Some others are that evil exists and can’t be cured.  One man can make a difference is another.  Lastly, the movie emphasizes the role of conscience in human behavior.  Goeth’s lack of conscience makes him, not Helen, subhuman.  The film is thought-provoking.  You can’t watch the movie without wondering what you would have done in the situations presented in it.

CONCLUSION:  “Schindler’s List” is the best Holocaust movie.  You can argue that it is not relentlessly bleak enough to truly replicate the horror, but that would have defeated the purpose of reaching a mass audience.  The movie has enough horror to teach fools that the Holocaust was horrific.  There is nothing wrong with having positive role models in a Holocaust film.