Opiniones de usuarios

My Rating : 8/10

Surreal, trance-like fairytale nightmare about the little man who wanted to be the most supreme.

Intelligent doesn't cut it for this masterpiece - it is way beyond that. An abstract, eccentric and caricature-ish depiction of the rise and fall of the madness and sickness that is Hitler.

Seek it out if you can.

Ever try tuning in a far away A.M. station? From another country perhaps, or even in your own language? Well, that just about sums up what seeing this movie is like. Part lecture (especially the last quarter), part play, part performance art, part Howdy Doody, this film rises to your conscious level of thinking at times, only to slip away in the wash of images, radio transcriptions and "creative" presentation (i.e. - acting). Challenging on all levels at all times, the viewer cannot help but feel lost some times and playing catch-up at all times. Good film to see when stranded at home, on the couch, with a fever of one-hundred and three. The fever would definitely be a plus.

Exhausting and ridiculously long, and almost impossible to explain. It's incredibly unique, for better or worse, and something I'm impressed with but would struggle to rewatch, and also would hesitate to recommend to just about everyone.

It's something like a fusion of documentary and biographical film, all filmed on a stage (so almost like a play, too), with tons of voiceover - both by actors and through real historical speeches - all of it aiming to unpack who Hitler was, what he did, how he rose to power, how he affected the world, and the implications the existence of such an individual has on the psyche of the world's population. The presentation is strange, sometimes repetitive, surreal, dreamlike, minimalist, and often eerie.

As broad as that sounds, it's also only scratching the surface. It's so dense and filled with so many ideas- some clear, most philosophical, and some presented in a very obscure way. It's the kind of movie you feel like you're drowning in sometimes. But I know it's sort of meant to be this way. It has some degree of power this way, but it renders the film all but impossible to fully digest.

But maybe that's okay. Maybe scratching the surface and still gaining a lot is significant. Maybe anyone brave enough to watch it more than once would have it all made clear.

I don't think I'll ever watch it again. But I don't regret watching/being almost suffocated by it once.

I don't know how to begin to "review" this cinematic experience, as I felt immersed in the film rather than trying to get my mind around it entirely. This work is neither an apologia for Hitler and the Third Reich nor a condemnation, but a serious attempt by a true intellectual and film auteur, Syberberg, to look at it ALL from every side, the horror and evil as well as the cultural, historical, and philosophical foundations of Hitler and the German people.

The film is subtitled "A Film From Germany" because it is plumbs not only the depths of Nazism and World War II but the entire German psyche. It attempts to present, through hard facts, historical documents, films and photographs, and also through dream, metaphor, and stunningly haunting tableaux, what Hitler really MEANT and what he continues to mean. There are many excellent actors portraying both well-known figures like Himmler and lesser known individuals like Hitler's valet who relate what might seem like endless minutiae of Hitler's daily life but do add a great deal to the ultimate picture of the man about whom so much has been written. It seems that if you don't revile him completely, even today, you are suspected of being a neo-fascist yourself, but this film attempts to offer a complete picture and by extension, a baring of the German soul and what is referred to on several occasions as their "happy guilt".

One issue I have is with the English subtitles. There are so many typographical and spelling errors that one could only call it sloppy. I don't know why a film of this magnitude that took so long coming to home video shouldn't have had more scrupulous editing. Considering how many talking heads there are in the film and the volume of exposition, it was hard enough to keep up with the subtitles without stumbling over the mistakes. On the plus side, there is a lot of English voice-over that provides some breathing space for us Anglos.

And one last comment on the historical context. Considering the film was made in 1977, 34 years ago, much has changed in the world, in Europe, and in the global culture, that the film presciently hints at, not the least of which is the continued emergence of Germany and Japan both economically and democratically. One important point "Our Hitler" made was that Hitler was probably the apotheosis of democracy, rising as he did from the middle class and glorifying the common people, and being democratically elected by them. What he did with that mandate was probably the most horrifying and endlessly fascinating stories of the 20th century.

Warning. This is not a movie for an evening of entertainment. Its is 8 hours of surreal images about mass media combining with trivialized pop culture versions of German romantic irrationalizm to create that phenomenon called Hitler, which will never leave the dark corners of human nightmares and the strange world of pop mythology.

I've seen this film twice in a cinema (Berkeley, CA) when it came around. Obviously people willing to subject themselves to eight hours of surrealist images about Hitler as the Great Communicator (the original for you Reagan fans) are going to go in a bit prejudiced. I had not yet seen any other Syberberg films nor read anything about him or his films, as I wanted to experience this for it's own sake without preconceived notions. After intermission, my friend, a warehouse manager, and I couldn't wait to see the rest. The same was true when it returned a few years later and I saw it with an artist friend, who was even more excited. We heard similar buzz from the people around us at intermission. This movie was something special, and after all these years, having re-read the screenplay and amazed at the images, I'd see it again for an all nighter. But I don't really have to because I can replay most of the scenes in my head at any time -- they were that striking and memorable. I guess part of that may have to do with the fact that I am born German, and was once a student of modern German literature, theater, art and lived in Munich when artists like Handke, Thomas Bernhard, Max Frish, Fassbinder, Herzog, Wenders and Syberberg challenged the status quo and awoke Germans to the idea that there is something else besides Brecht, Grass and sighing the Mea Culpa over the Third Reich.

Syberberg had already done films that were hard to get shown (this was before the Video Revolution) and with Hitler he really went overboard. This film could never be a commercial success, but it was worth the making and seeing. It creates images, meant for someone who is steeped in German mythos while at the same time aware of the changes wrought on world media by Edison's invention of the moving pictures. Combine these with mass communication capability, the capability to entrance the masses with the images they want to identify with is the history of both Hitler and Movies. So for eight hours Syberberg bombards the viewer with images of the Black Mary (Edison's studio) as a backdrop, Hitler rising out of Wagners grave in a Roman toga, Radio tranmissions of SS Troopers singing Silent Night direct from Stalingrad, touching personal reminiscances by Hitler's butler of how he liked his underwear pressed, his projectionist eating a sausage picknick at the old Eagle's Nest talking about what a nice regular guy his old boss was.

In short, this movie fills the viewer with indellible images of the capability of mass media to suck in the viewers, give them a sense of intimacy, and trivialize mass murder from a "real life human perspective." No single scene or sermon or 90 minute expose of Auschwitz can ever hope to drive home the real insanity of the mass delusions which created the greatest tragedy of this century. And for Germans the constant cleansing and coping escapism of the post war era (It wasn't us, it was those few bad guys that are now dead) needed a real response by the generation that was born afterwards. And the only way Syberberg could do that was to let all those images of the collective German memory of the great history of its irrationalism and romanticism fight against the attempt to rationalize it's rape by their own philestines.

Memorable quotes include the famous "Every time I hear the word Art I reach for my pistol."

Particularly good are Andre Heller as the melancholy narrator, the dialog between Himmler and his masseur, Christmas stories, and touching human stories about Hitler and his beloved doggies. Those skits are kind of like a news magazine story about the human side of John Wayne Gacey as Bunel and Dali might have filmed it.

I saw this film when in premiered at the Seattle International Film Festival in 1977. Even 25 years later I can recall the stunning imagery and complexity of this landmark film.

To understand Hitler, to understand Germany, to understand the culture of the German people and their subsequent spiral into the vortex of World War II, this film is a must see.

It's unfortunate that it is not available on DVD (or VHS).

At a running time of over seven hours, the film festival people offered two intermissions during the showing. If you ever get to see this film be prepared for a test of your physical as well as your mental endurance.

A four part, 8 hour marathon. Glimpses of genius include Hitler as the captured child molester from M. The third part is a long diatribe by the director looking into the camera and ranting. Fascinating, yet torturous.

Susan Sontag called this film "the most extraordinary film I've ever seen". This may seem like a hyperbolic statement, but after seeing this film, I see where Susan was coming from. This really is an extraordinary film, and I completely understand Sontag's adoration of it. This is a brilliant film, one that has had me thinking for days about it. I watched it over 2 nights, and there's so much in it and so much to take in that I'm planning on renting it again or perhaps purchasing it. Despite its 7 1/2 hour length, there isn't one dull moment in it. I only watched it over 2 nights because I had to go to sleep. If I had had the time to watch the whole thing in one sitting, I would have done so without thinking. I haven't felt this glued to the screen in I don't know how long.

The film is absolutely mesmerizing. This film has been unavailable for many, many years, and this is the first time it's been offered on home video. The director, Hans Jurgen Syberberg, had posted the film on his website, but watching it on a TV or projected is the best way to see it. The film is operatic, theatrical, mind bending, sad, haunting, angry, depressing, and just about everything else you can think of. The 4th part is a little boring (the first 30 minutes of part four is one long monologue), but after this monologue is concluded, the film takes off again to a stunning conclusion. Never does the film feel padded. Like in Wagner's great operas (Wagner figures prominently here), a film like this needs to be long to tell its story, and that should be respected. The actors throughout the film give excellent performances, and the film is one of the most thought provoking films that I've seen in recent memory. This is a filmic masterpiece.

Can someone admire what a film is attempting to do and still not like the film? Although this highly experimental epic is a complex, multi-layered look at madness as expressed by a people hypnotized by a leader they created--most of the folk to whom it's directed would either find it loathsome or more likely, merely be clueless as to it's purpose.

One's enjoyment of such an intellectual puzzle experimentally staged depends on a tolerance for the extreme in theatre and the bizarre in presentation. I must admit after a few hours (in a seven-hour film) I'd had enough of the attitude and shouting and slightly Sophomoric posing--well, for all kinds of reasons, and was in the mood for something more linear. This is not a bad film by any means--it's challenging, sincerely made, and an admirable attempt to get inside a national psyche--but it does go on. And certainly wasn't something I was willing to spend five more hours of my life looking at. I had a difficult time number "grading" this film, as (1) I haven't seen it all, and (2) it's so unconventional. So I come up with "5." '

A viewer interested in the Hitler psyche can probably find more in the mesmerizing fairly recent Downfall--it's a stunning, cogent and frightening film with Bruno Ganz in the most convincing portrayal of Germany's madman I've seen in film. It's a "10."

I came across this film by accident whilst trying to locate another German made film and on discovering that the entire 7 hours is available free in real-time I began to watch. Those seven hours flew by and by the end I was left feeling stunned and somehow very insignificant. This is not a film to invite a few pals round for and throw pizza and beer in for good measure. This is a film to watch alone or maybe with someone who is interested in cinema as a means of transcending time and place. The images and audio presentations you will see and hear may well change your perceptions on life itself. Why this film is so little known is a mystery and perhaps it is only for the few and not the masses. It hits a spot somewhere deep inside and nestles in there and will never be entirely removed. See it and understand why 80 million Germans believed Hitler, a maniac, became for many, a god.

I first have to say that I have a real fascination with Hitler. NOT admiration, fascination. This film was given to me by a friend who shared this intrigue. Rininger, upon giving me this film said "you are absolutely going to love this" Truer words will never be uttered. My friend passed away a few days ago, and I will be forever grateful that he introduced me to this (in my opinion)masterpiece of film making. This film is definitely not for everyone. But those who are able to take heavy doses of beauty and provocative discourse this film is a must. I was absolutely riveted the first time I saw it and continue to return to it on a regular basis to take whatever dose time might permit. The sets are to my eye breathtakingly wonderful. Despite the fact that I don't understand more than a word of German is a none issue. I find that I can ignore the subtitles and lose myself in the sheer passion. This film communicates on so many levels that it is impossible to walk away from it empty. It will probably take many many viewings before I can even scratch the surface of this films visual richness and cultural significance. I highly suggest the viewing of this film for any seriously art minded persons. John R. I thank you for alerting me to this delicious slice of experience. Love ya man.

The New York writer Susan Sontag's famous top-most 1978 essay on Syberberg's extraordinary vision and 'feel' says it all really. 1978 was the year of new wave New York band Television's 'Adventure' album, UK avant-garde band Wire's 'Chairs Missing', Pil's 'Public Image' and the Beeb's academic 'The Voyage of Charles Darwin' reflecting a sense of '70s originality, transcendent significance, 'higher things' and high art - valuable cultural artefacts in these dumbed down times. It has the same heft and ascends to the same intellectual heights as Cozarinsky's 'One Man's War' (1981).

Most of this movie consists of people addressing the camera, while surrounded by ugly puppets and other pieces of junk. I'm astounded by the positive reviews. I'm left with only a slightly better knowledge as to why many Germans followed Hitler. This film would have made a much better book, with footnotes, citations of sources, and suggestions for further reading. But perhaps that was impossible. As I believe George Harrison once said, "Avant-garde means haven't got a clue." What is the difference between someone talking to you while he sits next to a candelabra and your reading what he has to say in a book? The same goes for speakers with old war film clips as background. I suppose one could argue that watching this film is a more visceral experience than reading a book on the same subject. However, this argument is undercut if the visceral experience is nausea.

** (out of four) By Aaron Dumont There's something a bit wrong with Our Hitler, the monumental-but-ultimately-shallow roundabout of culture, art, politics and, in general, things as a whole. It teeters, wobbles and gets usually off-balance when stumbling across the line between the realms of sprawling masterpiece and dried-up encyclopedia. It's a bit magical, lucid and shows off all its cold style marked by monologues ranging from misguided to impassioned, but comes up short to its vast promises, ambitions and illusions, even with its massive eight-hour runtime. Taking place inside a snowglobe, Our Hitler, using static long-takes and, as Sontag said, "exploded mental states" (ones that incorporate symbols and designs that are both stunning and flatulent), mainly functions as a slipstream. It tries to rejoice and realign, but eventually can't, whether for the 20th Century or for itself--the endless child's-play interpretations and just plain annoying remarks and near-sermons (the things that hide some brilliant, gorgeous scenes and quotes, from Syberberg's statement on the overuse of the word 'culture' to Hitler playing the molester in Lang's M) turn from daring to stiff, from lively and fiery to sparse and didactic.

In this way, the movie cannot truly express itself; it eventually degenerates to a string of borrowed, drafted mock-expression some of the time (the pseudo-Anger sets and lights, the Wagner-obsessive theater-dream-visuals, the Marker/Mekas essay style but without the truly developed mind, heart, soul and maturity, etc) and all the headsmackingly indulgent image-is-dead, queasy speeches on war, cinema, the psyche, and of course, the "Hollywood fascists" seems not much more than a flea market of insight, passions and emotions--that is, between the momentary universal feelings and fleeting grace, the movie panders to its audience often more than not.

It sinks and spirals down the rabbit hole of beautiful fantasies and dreamscapes, but never keeps on its feet when venturing off into stylistic experiments and wild narrative tones. It's like a Wikipedia retelling of myths and revolution, a textbook summary on a great work of art--it's like the Sans Soleil of long, bored lectures--it seems at the end of the labyrinth, between the bits and pieces of poetry and the glorious feat of it all, coupled with endless faux-metaphysics, clueless excersises in knowledge and philosophical dress-up, you'd be hard-pressed to find much more than drained thought.

"Our Hitler" is, without question, the very worst film I have ever tried to sit through. I have to admit I did not sit through the entire 7 or 8 hours. I left shortly after a man who claimed to have been Hitler's valet gave a very long speech about Hitler's underpants. At that point, I decided someone must have been playing a very cruel practical joke on me. Apparently, there are a number of people who think very highly of this film. I cannot understand why, unless they are masochists - or unless it really was some sort of surrealistic practical joke. Seriously? You liked seeing someone talking about Hitler's underpants?

I've seen & heard aged Nazis (or their witnesses) - speak on film. However dry, actual Nazi talk and operations data is more POTENT than this gushing "feelings about Hitler" production.

"Our Hitler..." is the extreme example of 1970's

too much talk too little action self absorption (every word we blather out should be preserved- every idea however tangential and unfocused - is precious to preserve ...) film work - but there are still nuggets of visual and verbal power in this way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way too long film.

Near the end (for one of a zillion examples of This Film wandering far far far far off the main point - i.e. Hitler & co) you hear a diatribe about the camera,and its ability to communicate, including a quote from early 20th century film star...they then quote Mary Pickford!!!

Mary Pickford (who has nothing to do with Naziism that I ever heard of) ....and you wonder - Mary Pickford??? mentioned in a film which is supposed to be about "our Hitler".

This film has the grotesque tone/imagery also seen in - CABARET. But the host of Cabaret (played by Joel Grey), tho corrupt, ...doesn't commit the sin in this film of - boring you to death.

The second half of this 7 hour - film cure for insomnia - is slightly more interesting than the first half. ...tho the large Hitler puppet, the stuffed dog doll with a Hitler face, and "Tales of Hoffman" type of scenery .........................are distracting. (Makes me wonder if someone was smoking an illegal substance while writing this script!)

But the second half has some potent quotes from some key Nazis themselves. The quote about Himmler's desire to MILITANTLY enforce his animal protection legislation caught me for a bit, anyway. THAT would have been a potent spot for grotesque images...!

EDIT IT! CUT IT IN HALF!

I saw this film in the 1970's in Madrid Filmoteca Nacional when i was a student. I have seen it again now, in August 2013. The film was then a novelty in its structure and ways of communicating things, I mean what in art theory is called the "form". But I think that after all these years, it is time to discuss the "content" of the film.

Indeed, the film is full of fuzzy situations, texts read while another voice talks in the background, and so on.

The film is divided into four parts, each 90-120'. The two first parts have several good ideas, as to display the sound of a real Hitler speech dealing about the greatness of Germany, while he is working painstakingly painting a wall. Another good idea is to show an actor acting as the servant of Hitler and telling his everyday life, or another one representing the private film projectionist of Hitler, who tells his preferences.

But the two last parts of the film are long monologues, lists of arguments in favor of the Nazis. When you have these arguments presented in short passages, and as deliberately cynical utterances, it is OK. But when the arguments go on during two or three hours, then it is too much, and one starts to be suspicious about the author. He reaches the top of what can be bearable for me when, near the end of the film, and shortly after having mentioned the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, a puppet representing Hitler asks: "What have you done with the World after me?". And one of the last sentences shown in the screen is "After the journey into the World, who is nearer to God than the guilty?". I am sorry, but what I passed over when I was young, is unbearable for me, and makes the author openly suspicious.