Schtonk

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).

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!

Dietl´s movie is based on real events, in 1983 a forger called Konrad Kujau made millions of dollars by writing the bogus diaries of Adolf Hitler. Although the movie has a poor start it developes into a

pretty good comedy, The most amusing parts are the wordgames, and the performances of Uwe Oschenknecht as the slick antique salesman/forger and Götz Georg as equally

slick journalist.

I real life the Stern magazine which bought the diaries had a proper lesson when they received a letter written (in Hitler´s handwriting!) by an anonymous German humorist:

"I hereby confirm that my diaries are real"

Signed: A.Hitler

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?

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.