Schtonk

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.

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.

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!

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

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.