Schtonk

As usual, it shows that humour is personal. I think the movie is great. The joke-density, visually, musically and verbally is high, and it is superbly performed. Gotz George is a revelation in this role, as he plays mostly rough, real, troubled men. Jokes are painful as well as light-hearted, the musical score is brilliant, and the still present awe for Hitler is prominently presented as well as ridiculed. The drama unfolds in a fast pace, and is over before you know it. I think, the dislikers expected a very much different approach to the theme, e.g. the commentator who promoted the English version of this journalistic farce. I think it is simply not interesting enough to show that Trevor Roper was sorely misled. The whole point of this German movie is that it shows that the whole affair is largely due to the still present enormous awe of the person of Hitler, and that not only in Germany ! The bizarre notion that "history had to be rewritten, with this discovery" is of course nonsense, which was believed by German journalists as well as foreign experts (or should i say "experts" ). For me this movie is a great German achievement!

How could someone fool so many people ... and make them believe he had Hitlers notes/diary? Actually thinking how people spread disinformation nowadays and how some (former) leaders are still doing it ... it may not be that far fetched.

And while the movie is fiction, it is based on a true story. Something that really happpened and went on to become one of the biggest scandals in journalistic history. Right now it is tough to find good journalism ... it also tough to get through to certain people who believe any conspiracy (lie) they read online ... someone wrote it, is must be true ... which I reckon was something that made the "words of Hitler" also believable to those who wanted to be fooled ... overall a really good movie/comedy, that heightens what happened to add a lot of comedy relief ... how else would someone be able to stomach this madness?

Eventually, somebody had to do a film about the Hitler diaries forgery, and of course it always should have been the Germans. It was theirs to do it. But to be honest, I was afraid of it happening, as the German film industry has all too often proven to be a botcher of good premises. But anyway, the Brits did it fist with their series 'Selling Hitler' (which I haven't seen yet), and boy am I glad that the late Helmut Dietl made this wonderful film. It's German to the core, but without selling out to the usual German comedy audience. All the better that it managed to be a huge success in Germany. And one has to admit the courage Dietl had in doing it as a comedy. At the time, Germany's conflicting with its own past still was problematic. Anything to do with Hitler was only to be seen in rationalistic documentaries and TV magazines - which is not wrong at any rate, but anybody knows that looking at such things from a satiric angle has also its value. But for German media this was long out of the question. Before 'Schtonk', being humoresque about Hitler had never really made it into German mainstream.

Anyway, I won't go into 'Schtonk''s plot details, and unfortunately and obviously some of the humor will be lost on you if you don't speak German; but let me point you to a certain aspect of the film: The acting. Dietl really managed to direct his actors in a way that at the time was not commonplace in Germany. The most blatant example is Götz George's Hermann Willié. My fellow Germans are going to hate me, but I always found George a bit overrated. Yea, he WAS a terrific actor, but not in the way Germans thought (if you want to know more about my stance on German actors, feel free to read my other reviews on German films). George was good when he played himself, which he basically did in his iconic role as Commissioner Schimanski in the long running German 'Tatort' crime TV series. Schimanski's name was basically synonymous for Tatort cops during the 80's in Germany. But once he had to play someone completely else, he was lost. He either drifted in theatre overacting mode or couldn't shake his Schimanski mannerisms (which is why typecasting is not such a bad thing anyway). I think Germans always had a problem recognising that. They just just didn't get it. For example, George was highly praised for his role in 'Der Totmacher', but I was one of the few people who thought that his acting would have been great on the theatre stage but just did not do the film very good. In 'Schtonk' there is also a great deal of overacting across the board to be found, but Dietl uses it in an absolute fitting manner. He especially gets such a fantastic performance out of George that I will always remember it as his best. The mannerisms, the way he utilises George's clipped speaking - it's just perfect for the character. Let me point you to the scene where he confesses to the priest. Just hilarious. And not for a moment you are distracted by any Schimanski residues.

Now, all that praising of George should not take away from the other actors, nor from the film as a whole. It's just worth a watch, and to quote my own review title: Still one of the best German comedies - never unintentionally cheesy, but not too brainy.

Almost 2 hours is a bit two long for its basic story material, hence a film that has wonderful moments and scenes and plenty of satire, but also moments of boredom in which nothing (new) happens. Certainly successful in portraying the circumstances in which a forger could produce the notorious Hitler Diaries (it happened in 1983 and not only German press but the press world wide walked into the trap), the film shows that the yellow press and its sensation-hungry reporters made use of the curious fascination of the public world wide with the Nazi past.; as Harald Juhnke's character says to his chief-editor: "(with Hitler) we never had such a famous writer writing in our magazine ever before!".

For Germany the most painful aspect of the film might be the support for the publication from former Nazis represented by a character played by Karl Schönbock (82 years old here!); as a former intimate friend of Hitler he knows that the diaries are forged but gives full support: the end justifies the means. One of the memorable scenes is the arrival of the guests at the rally of former Nazi's and supporters: a memorable image when the guests walk to the house in the rain under their umbrellas illuminated by torches.

The cast is very good, with Götz George and Uwe Ochsenknecht outstanding. Both have scenes that are side splitting funny: George when he for the first time reads from the diaries and Ochsenknecht when he begins to think, talk and look like Hitler.

But as said, the film is too long for its own good. There are more memorable scenes than the those I have mentioned already, but for instance does the viewer really need to see all 60 diaries made? The use of the old song "La Paloma" in the scene on the boat is a nice idea, but it also takes too long. And what to think of the first scene (before and during the credits); it does not add anything to the things to come and is not funny either.

The for this film composed music itself is mediocre, but the use of recordings of Zarah Leander and that of a small yodel-theme are very clever. All in all: unbalanced, at moments very amusing and certainly worth a view.

I saw this film when I was in Germany in '92. Naturally, I didn't get a lot of the jokes, but to judge from the way the audience was laughing, it really struck a chord with them. However, there were many parts of the movie which even for me were very funny, indeed. I suspect that the less familiar American viewers are with German culture and recent history, the less they will appreciate this movie (which has hardly made a ripple here, not surprisingly).