Max

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.

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.

Overall, I would say the film wasn't bad. Full marks for embracing the radical concept that Hitler was a human being.

Reading many of the comments posted here, I would say that the film has been somewhat misunderstood. Understandably, the viewers focus on the portrayal of Hitler. But the film is titled "Max", not "Adolf." Max, the art dealer, is the focal character of the story, not Hitler. I think that the film shows the blindness of so many Germans in the interwar years, people who saw what they wanted to see in Hitler and ignored the rest. Max saw Hitler as an amusing ex-soldier artist and futurist, and brushed off the ideology underlying his futurist visions. Max is emblematic of an army that saw his desire to rearm and ignored the ideology that would strip the army of its historic identity, of business owners who saw his committment to controling labor but ignored the ideology which would also put a stranglehold on business, of ordinary Germans who saw a strong leader to deal with their country's problems but ignored his desire for war and conquest. As recently pointed out in Woody Allen's "Anything Else", there were German Jews who supported Hitler, because they saw a strong leader. To me, "Max" is the story of the blindness that overcame so many Germans, blindness that paved the way for Hitler's rise to power.

I've read in a few comments that Hitler claims, in the film, to have not been anti-Semitic. That is not correct. Rather, as he says in the barracks, he opposes "emotional" anti-Semitism. In his mind, anti-Semitism should be based on "scientific" fact rather than raw emotions. To him, it is a self-evident truth arrived at logically by observing the Jews and their ways. This is historically correct. His big anti-Semitic speech at the end of the film is taken straight out of Mein Kampf, and shows this approach.

This movie was fantastic if you are open minded enough to view it with a "what if" attitude. Of course there are plenty of people out there complaining because they cannot separate fiction from reality and entertain the idea of Hitler having taken a different path. However, this movie is worth seeing. Great performances by Cusack(Max Rothman) and Noah Taylor(Adolph Hitler).

Also people always wonder how Hitler could be so influential if he was so whacko and the movie gives a great insight as to how it might have happened.

If for no other reason, the movie is worth seeing just to hear the line "Come on Hitler, I'll buy you a lemonade..."

I never would have guessed I'd hear that line in a million years.

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