Max

Why this film is so seldom mentioned and so often put down is surprising, when you consider how well-made it actually is... but I suppose the explanation lies in the controversy of it, and peoples' inability to accept an idea so unheard of as true. The idea in this case is that Adolf Hitler was not born the Antichrist, but shaped by the world around him. As several other reviewers mention, this film and the ideas it presents as well as the character study of a young Hitler is long overdue. The film revolves around Hitler, who recently returned from war(WWI) and his relationship with Max Rothman, a Jewish art dealer. Rothman senses much talent and promise in Hitler, and encourages him to follow up on painting. Hitler, frustrated with an inability to create anything, and a talent for public speaking leans more towards a political career. I guess we all know how it ends... but the story itself is still interesting, even though we basically know the ending. I don't know how authentic this film is, but I do know that it takes some liberties with history. That doesn't bother me. The important thing is the core of it, and whether or not it has some interesting ideas to offer. And I think it does. Most definitely. All the well-known(and some lesser known) traits of Hitler's personality are there. One could argue that the Jews in the film are somewhat stereotypically presented, but it's about the environment as well as the characters. The reason Hitler had such ease with blaming the Jews for Germany's problems, the reason he could turn an entire nation against them was that was how people saw them. If we didn't understand that, if we didn't get a clear image of that, the film would be worthless. The acting was very good; Noah Taylor pretty much becomes Adolf Hitler. I don't care what you say, I felt his frustration and outrage; he made me feel for this man, recognize him as a fellow human being, despite how much time so many people have spent trying to make him appear as some inhumane monster. He was a terrible man, yes... but he was a man. A despicable human being... but still a human being. John Cusack brings a fire to his character that pretty much carries the film. The direction was quite impressive for a first time effort; the writer/director showed great promise, and I hope he will make more films like this. We definitely need them. I recommend this to anyone interested in the subject who isn't put off by a fairly loose approach to history. 7/10

Not very long ago several art historians sought an American publisher for a catalogue of paintings by Adolf Hitler that had survived the Gotterdamerung in the Berlin bunker and the acquisitive hordes of Russian occupiers, perhaps the greatest conquering locusts of modern times. No one would publish the book and several reasons were proffered. The most interesting was that it would be virtually obscene to examine a human side of the twentieth century's greatest monster (Stalin ranks up there too but this isn't the place for that digression).

Why shouldn't every aspect of Hitler's life be open for examination, including his paintings? Hitler was a human being: his younger years and his attempts to become an artist are part of the probably ultimately impenetrable mystery about his development. Let's study everything about him.

Director/Writer Menno Meyjes's "Max" brings the battle-scarred, thirty-year-old Austrian, Adolf Hitler, to turbulent 1918 Munich where he seeks to make sense of the battered city and country while pursuing his dream (fantasy, actually) of becoming a respected and original artist. So much of the film is true. The corporal, still in the army, largely but not exclusively painted the detailed but uninspired and flat urban scenes bought by tourists. Meyjes also has Hitler drawing his ideas about what would later be National Socialist iconography, a reflection of his increasing obsession witn politics..

"Max", a fictional character, is a womanizing, married art dealer. Max Rothman, like Hitler is a former soldier. Rothman literally gave his right arm for "Kaiser und Vaterland," but he seems to accept his sacrifice without deep bitterness. John Cusack as Rothman, the avatar of an emerging German Expressionism, is excellent as he enjoys his pre-Bauhaus mansion while seeking every opportunity to steal away from his lovely and devoted wife, Nina (well-played by Molly Parker) to exercise his libido with his mistress, Liselore (a sultry and cultured young woman whose spirit is captured by Leelee Sobieski).

Hitler shows up delivering a case of bubbly for a Rothman gallery soiree and a conversation begins a weird friendship. Max wants Hitler to be a better artist which in his view is synonymous with being a better man. What a project! Noah Taylor is intense, on fire, as the future fuehrer. Can this bantering Odd Couple seem real when we know what the future holds for Hitler and for Jewish families like the Rothmans who, both in this film and to a large degree in the Germany of the Versailles Treaty, had no inkling that anti-Semitism was being stoked and would emerge rampant before very long? Would we never have heard of the monster Hitler had he been accorded respect (and money) as a painter? That's the film's truly superficial question. Hitler's life wasn't that reductionist.

My answer is that this film should be absorbed as a bifurcated experience. As drama, the acting is compelling. The direction is strong and one scene in which Hitler's rants are rapidly alternated with a Jewish service is blindingly powerful. As German veterans decry a military defeat and the "Stab in the Back" theory begins its awful climb to a national excuse for losing the war the Rothmans, their children and extended family, seem to enjoy a barely inconvenienced life of sumptuousness. The story works well at that level.

Where it fails is that the projected Hitler-Rothman relationship lacks the depth some have found. More than a few critics have suggested that Meyjes sends a message about blindness because Max can't see the anti-Semitic screeching of Hitler as an adumbration of Germany's future. The real reason Max doesn't take Hitler all that seriously is that he himself isn't a very serious fellow except when he tries to sell art and pursue parallel but antagonistic romantic relationships.

How would a Max Rothman have divined the potential of a miserable, hungry corporal in a city where such fellows were common and where they constituted a public menace as the fear of communists and the shakiness of a wrecked economy brought disorder? Impossible. (A prologue title mentions that 100,000 Jews served in the German Army in World War I. My father was one of them and I recall his recollection of disarming warring, urban civilians and quasi-military bands after the Armistice.)

So Max puts his arm around Hitler, offers to buy him lemonade and tells him he isn't an easy guy to like. That brought one of the few guffaws in the theater today. It's not revelatory cinema, it's silly and superficial. The weakest parts of the film are when Max tries to be a pal to his new find.

Charlie Chaplin had Hitler's number and his impersonation of the by-then Nazi leader is an indelible screen classic, a work of acting genius. Noah Parker's younger Hitler is intense and mesmerizing. I wonder if an Oscar nomination can go to an actor portraying one of the most evil characters in all history, one whose mark leaves deep scars in many living today. I have my doubts. We'll see.

Original, different, flawed, often fascinating, in parts a bit foolish.

7/10.

First impressions can be deadly. Promises broken can cause real pain. Watch what you say and do because you never know who's watching. As a mainline protestant I believe that man, while he may strive to be good is essentially evil. `The road to hell is paved with good intentions,' if you will. I believe jealousy, greed, and avarice are very much a part of the human condition and its only through the grace of God we are not lost.

I say this to illustrate a point. MAX is the story of two men, each on a quest to do something good. Each has a noble goal and yet both end up on a collision course with History. The first man is Max Rothchild (John Cusak, High Fidelity) a German Jew who has just returned from WWI missing an arm. He has settled back into his comfortable life of wealth and prosperity, with his beautiful wife (Molly Parker, Kissed) and his beautiful children. He has a mistress (Leelee Sobieski, My First Mister), and is a chain smoker. He probably drinks more than he should as well. He is also unable to do what he really loves, which is paint, so he does the next best thing. He becomes an art dealer. If he cannot create art why not discover the next great artist.

The other man is Adolph Hitler (Noah Taylor, Almost Famous) a German, who has returned from the war with nothing. He lives in the army barracks because he cannot afford a home for himself. He follows the rules and is straitlaced. He will not smoke. He does not drink (not even coffee) and he loves his country, a German all the way. But he does long to be a great artist.

One day these two men start a relationship. It is amicable if strained. Max takes Hitler under his wing. Trying to get him to open up and embrace his art. Hitler becomes fed up and is dragged away from his art by the army. They have given him the platform he's always wanted, and with this platform Hitler begins to rail against the Jews, and those that threaten the great country that is Germany. In the end this one man is forced to chose between art and power. Real history tells us what decision he made.

MAX is a fictional account of the early life of one of history's most evil men. But what I really liked about it is that it makes an attempt to get to heart of why people make the decisions that they do. Why did German nationalism lead to violence and genocide? Why do some people who are tested by pain survive and thrive, and others can be in the same place and become bitter? Why and what turned Hitler himself into a monster? Did he have a run in with a Jew that broke a promise or treated him like crud? All these questions come to mind and MAX tries to come to gripes with them.

What I also like about this movie is it has no hero, but allows you as the audience to be empathetic to these men. Maybe Hitler has a point. Maybe he has the right the feel put upon by the world. Why, when he plays by the rules, does he live in the gutter, while a fast talking, hard drinking, chain smoking, adulterer has a warm bed? It would make me mad too and doesn't jealousy make us do some pretty drastic things.

Writer/ first time Director Menno Meyjes (The Seige `Screenplay') has crafted a compelling and challenging story. The film makes a monster into a human being, not by praising him but by asking the one question we all ask, why? It doesn't begin to editorialize on what Hitler became, but presents us with a man who can make the right decision or walk down the wrong road. Of course we can never change the past, but we can try to find out where it all went wrong.

John Cusack does a marvelous job of painting the picture of a good guy with a great heart, but too many flaws. There is a great scene near the end of the film where his wife confronts him with his adultery. Max never once says he's sorry, and I don't think his wife expects him too. But she loves him too much to run away. Will Max change his ways, maybe?

Noah Taylor's Hitler has the perfect nuance. On one hand he's a bottled up ball of rage about to explode, on the other he's this wide-eyed dreamer looking for a shot. This is the hardest kind of part to play because the audience already comes in with the picture of what and who Hitler is, and not who he is at this moment. While he is an object of scorn, and rightly so. You can and must empathize with him, or the performance is lost. Taylor plays the right chords, and it works.

My favorite scene in the films comes as Hitler is giving a speech about the supremacy of the Aryan race and Germany in a local bar and nobody is paying attention to him. Except one kid. Later in the film Hitler is giving a similar speech to a room of about a hundred people and guess who's sitting there. That single kid has turned into hundreds. An idea, no matter how wrong and misguided, has power. It reminds me of those KKK rallies, they show on the local news. Sure hundreds show up to berate these people, but if one person hears and is mad at the world, they can be easily swayed. Makes you think, that maybe what we say and do can have an effect on the people around us.

MAX was my favorite film from last year and rightly so. It's bold, controversial, and asks a lot of questions, other films haven't. But mostly it's a human story about two men and their unlikely friendship. It's about striving to do what's right and it's about the power of art. It's about propaganda and politics--Hero's and madmen. MAX is a great film. ***** (Out of 5)

Greetings again from the darkness. What a phenomenal script! Dealing with the absolute most controversial subject possible, Menno Meyjes (writer and director), provides a fascinating look at the early years of history's most despised figure. "What if" Hitler's art had won over his politics? So much of history would have changed, one can only imagine. As a matter of fact, how about a script showing what could have been? This one teases us with the fork in the road. Noah Taylor is absolutely chilling as a frustrated Hitler, just back form WWI and struggling to find his place in a crippled Germany. John Cusack, as art dealer Max Rothman, is tremendous in what is truly his first role as an adult (no wise-ass or chick flick here). Comparing the two and how they deal with post-war syndrome is enthralling. So similar, yet so different. I doubt this film gets made without Cusack and I doubt it will find much of an audience due to the fear of many to this day to even entertain the thought of Hitler as a human being. Trust me, this is not a sympathetic view of Hitler, merely a glimpse into his formation. Molly Parker has a nice turn as Cusack's wife. Where has she been? More than 20 film credits and I don't recognize her! It is always a pleasure to see Leelee Sobieski ("Joy Ride") although she has very little to do in this one. Wonderful script, mediocre direction and two fabulous performances make this one worth seeing ... although, sadly, very few will.

These are stellar performances by John Cusack and Noah Taylor. The story draws you in such that when the movie abruptly ends, you want to see and hear more. What were Hitler's influences? Was he a product of his environment? Without a doubt, Hitler was an angry man when returning from WWI to nothing. Many were in the same boat. Anti-semitism was alive and well long before Adolf took it and carried it to the extent that he did. And Hitler, like many others, found solice in nationalism.

One criticism of this movie was its depiction that Hitler had developed his emotional oratory skills at a young age. The historical accounts (Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) seemed to indicate that he didn't really find his speaking voice until later. This was 1918 and Hitler is only 29 or 30 years old.

Also, the scene where Taylor riles up an auditorium full of Germans with an anti-semitic speach didn't fit with the rest of his portrayal of a timid, weak-minded, lost-soul, young Hitler. This scene seems to defy the rest of the image of Hitler we are given.

This is not to criticize Noah's portrayal. It is absolutely stunning. He had to have spent hours watching footage of Hitler in action.

This movie leaves you wanting more information. What else made him become the monster presented in the textbooks?

It is unfortunate that the Academy could not pay more attention to the performances in this movie, as both Taylor and Cusack both deliver. I believe that Hollywood has a fear of treading anywhere close to this subject matter except to deliver stereotypical portrayals of the historical people and events.