Schtonk

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?

This is one of my all time favorite comedies. It only works if you manage to see the irony behind it, though. (But it's so obvious that it's hard to miss). It is easily the best of Dietl's works I've seen so far and addresses topics such as responsibility of the media, coming to terms with the past (or rather not coming to terms with it?), greed and ethics in journalism. The acting (especially Götz George) is awesome. It's one of those few movies that I can watch over and over again and still keel over with laughter at some scenes. Konstantin Wecker's score is one of the best I know and perfectly supports the plot.

Based on the true case (!) of master-forger Konrad Kujau who, in 1983, fooled the renowned German magazine "Stern" by selling it his faked Hitler diaries for millions of Marks. Kujau was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months in prison but was released after 3 years because of cancer. He became so famous through this affair that, in 2006, faked Kujau fakes were sold on ebay.

Against the backdrop of these true events Dietl develops his story of greedy men who bring out the worst in each other and who are going blind to an extend that it borders delusion.

It's a straight 10 out of 10!

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!

I was a kid when this incident happened. I still know the turmoils when the Stern magazine reported about the Hitler diaries, which were faked by the forger Konrad Kujau (in the movie: Fritz Knobel). The Stern Magazine payed 9,3 million Deutsche Mark for the faked diaries and made a big repotage, which short after turned out to be a canard, careless enquiered. The journalist who pushed the story was to fixated to his career to better check the authenticity of the diaries. So this is a movie about a real incident that happened nearly like the movie describes it. (1983 we didn't have the Euro as currency; 1 Euro was 1,95 Deutsche Mark).

'Schtonk!' shows how the incident happened, but also shows it a little overdrawn in a naive and sober way of storytelling. On the other hand the acting is very good, the production used some of the best German actors. I like the red line that goes through the storry, which is easy to follow. I like the increasing escallation of the story, step by step. It's a clear recommendation for people who want to know about that incident and also for people who like good press stories. This one is authentic.

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.