The Meaning of Hitler

Assortment of Hitler -Nazi themed, but otherwise unrelated people, events, stories, etc. Absolutely no central theme, no chronology and limited context. Apologies to many well spoken experts possibly unaware editors were third-graders. The title is as obscure as it is misleading. At best the film portrays contemporary neo-nazis and right-leaning groups. What is the meaning of "The meaning of Hitler"?

This was a rather lame attempt to vilify Adolf Hitler and his personality. A documentary should at least make a cursory attempt to present both sides of the coin. Instead we get a hodgepodge of Hitler haters and ill-equipped pseudo historical speculators. The non-credential talking heads they used to justify the points they unconvincingly spewed out discredited the documentaries dubious message.

Anyone with any actual historical knowledge of the title character gets mocked and libelled. There was nothing mentioned about how Hitler became so enormously popular among the German people; nor any mention of his many accomplishments. Since his time frame in history is mainly focused around the Second World War, perhaps something should have been mentioned about the numerous battles his military engaged in; both successful and unsuccessful.

It should also be noted that no one has yet to lay claim to the cash award offered by the British historian David Irving.

Greetings again from the darkness. The Holocaust and Nazi Germany. No subjects are likely even close in regards to the number of documentaries on topic. Yet somehow, there always seems to be more to mine. Co-directors Peppa Epperline and Michael Tucker have based their project on the 1978 book by Sebastian Haffner. The objective is to pull back the curtain on the self-conceit at the center of the cult of Hitler. How did this happen? How has it been repeated? How do we expose this without adding to the fascination of Hitler? It's quite a conundrum, and one not easily navigated.

One of the first points made near the film's beginning is that most agree understanding Hitler is not possible. So by that definition, a cinematic pursuit for meaning is a futile undertaking. But that doesn't stop the filmmakers from trying. On their quest, they interview many experts and travel to various places of interest - museums, historical sites, camps, and even Treblinka.

Hollywood's fascination with Hitler is discussed, including Mel Brooks' THE PRODUCERS (2005) and the "Springtime for Hitler" sequence, Quentin Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009), and the superb DOWNFALL (2004). An excellent point is made in regards to the film comparisons of how Hitler's suicide is typically portrayed behind closed doors, while Holocaust victims are not afforded such dignity. There is even a segment on Leni Riefenstahl's documentary on the Nazi way, TRIUMPH OF THE WILL (1935). Novelist Francine Prose labels the work, "kitsch".

Infamous Holocaust denier David Irving is featured, and we hear him describe Auschwitz as "not important". The technological advances in microphones are explained in regards to how the "Hitler bottle" allowed him to be more demonstrative during speeches, often resulting in working the audience into a frenzy. Interviews are included throughout the film, and feature historians (Saul Friedlander), authors, deniers, psychologists, and even Nazi hunters.

"Fascinating Fascism" is examined as pageantry and spectacle and other enticing aspects. The theatrical presentation that led to this fetish might today be termed marketing. It's a bit of a relief to see the filmmakers avoided focusing too much on the parallels to a particular modern day phenomenon, despite the timing being right to study similarities. They do, however, make the comparison to Beatlemania, and how history has a tendency to repeat itself in various forms.

The film bounces around some, with certain segments more insightful than others, and there are some astounding points made. One of those interviewed states, "The Nazi ideals were acted out by people who were absolutely normal." It's a frightening thought. Another discusses the human conflict: humans are animals that kill, as well as being herd animals. The Nazi mission played into both. What the film left me with was the belief that the Nazi propaganda has been repurposed as history, leading to the fascination, whereas the focus of that era should be something else.

"The Meaning of Hitler" tries to do a lot of things. It broadly succeeds in some of them. But what was this documentary actually trying to do?

Well, let's first look at what it does succeed with:

It draws our attention to the fact that Hitler was initially just a regular guy. However, Hitler was very unusual for the fact that he had no friends, no family, had no children, was socially "outside". These would seem to be the symptoms, not causes, of his delusional megalomaniac rise. Also apparent through the documentary, is the observation that Nazism and its monstrous crimes are things that really happened because humans are capable of it.

Where "The Meaning of Hitler" loses its message a little is (perhaps) in looking at the recent return of the hard-right ultra-nationalist movements. These dangerous developments should give us cause for concern that the lessons of history have not been learned. Today's younger generations know nothing of war. We need to work to make sure they never do.

"The Meaning...." deals summarily, severely and correctly with anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers.

Overall, this documentary does succeed in pointing out and attempting to rectify and remove the strangely attractive characterisations that Hitler has been given in some parts of modern culture. We must learn the lessons of history and not repeat the mistakes. A little incoherent, but necessary watching.

This is an odd enterprise that seems to be an endless series of prefaces without a main analytical claim or narrative. Initially, it purports to shine new light on the relevance of the myth of Hitler and the fissures or wounds in a social culture that make fascism seductive for many people, but despite lining up some famous historians, these experts are never allowed to shape a coherent argument or narrative, but are often edited to speak in gnomic, mysterious sound-bytes that the documentarians use to launch, free-associationally, to literally some other person, place and a new set of observations. The documentary also clutters its path with the voguish but already tedious convention of lavishing screen-time on the clap-board apparatus of each interview. This is telling, as the documentary is more obsessed with its appearances and its mechanics than in being insightful or explanatory. It changes locales and interviewees about every 90 seconds, yet the film spends over ten minutes with a dull, clownish anti-historian notorious for claiming Hitler had no role in the Holocaust and was a "friend to the Jews." The documentarian says "how could we make a documentary about Hitler and not talk to" this guy? Uh, they could/ should have, and stuck to their original claim. Due to the experts it does allow to speak, the whole film is still interesting, but it tantalizes and torments more than it informs and spends too much time recycling known iconography, film clips (I bet you never saw clips of "Triumph of the Will" before), and familiar biographical and historical material, thus evading the promise of the film, which was to explain the appeal of fascism, which is now tormenting the West again, as many politicians in the first decade after the war were terrified it eventually might. They merely needed to live long enough to see a culture filled with apocalypse-courting, nationalistic, conspiracy-minded, half-educated truth-deniers with cheap, online broadcast opportunities. The moment 1940s experts feared is here. How our moment apparently resembles the 1930s in key ways, despite obvious economic differences, and how and why Hitler, a failure at everything but hypnotizing a nation of 80 million people into joining him in a suicide pact, appealed to Germans in the 1930s, is not made a coherent argument. The best thing the film may do is advertise the 1978 book by Sebastian Haffner, "The Meaning of Hitler"--that is a compact book-length argument (though it is itself debatable and odd in several ways--neither the film nor the book explain how German plutocrats and even aristocrats c. 1933 thought they could use Hitler as a simple tool, and then discard him). Though the film borrows some chapter titles from the book, it doesn't really reveal Haffner's analysis.