Hitler - La naissance du mal

No wonder that the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the groundbreaking Hitler biography, who originally was the scientific consultant for this TV film, dissociated himself from it. The film is historically just too incorrect. The mistakes start right away when Hitler`s father Alois dies at home, while in reality he died in a pub. In the film, Hitler moves from Vienna to Munich in 1914, while in reality he actually moved to Munich in 1913. I could go on endlessly. Hitler`s childhood and youth are portrayed way too short, which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. Important persons of the early time of the party, like Hitler`s fatherly friend Dietrich Eckart or the party "philosopher" Alfred Rosenberg are totally missing. The characterization of Ernst Hanfstaengl is very problematic. In the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises Hitler. The script obviously follows Hanfstaengl`s own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. In fact, Hanfstaengl was an anti-semite and was crazy about his "Fuehrer". But the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of Hitler himself. He is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly,has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. After watching the film, one wonders, how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. Since we all know, what an evil criminal Hitler was, naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray Hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. But facts is, that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. His comrades didn`t follow him because he constantly yelled at them, but because they liked this strange man. Beyond all those historical mistakes, the film is well made, the actors are first class, the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.

I have to admit that I'm commenting this production after seeing the first half only.But it's pretty clear to see where this is going. Now, the directing is not bad, the acting pretty good, but the script could be the work of a six year old kid (no offense to kids everywhere) who has read too many comic books. Adolf Hitler was not someone I would have wanted to get close to, espescially in the 30's and 40's, but by all means he was not the one-sided character we get to see in this film.Nobody is! "Hitler" is so badly written that the Fürher passes as a comic book bad guy. It's typical to make him an all-the-time raging nut (which he was!) but it doesn't get beneath the surface. The childhood of Hitler is so condensed (without mentioning the historical mistakes made!) that we lose sense of what really motivated the nazy leader. Duguay has to fight the material constantly in order to make everything hold together. And where we would expect a character study, even of a very very bad person (see "Raging bull", this one works!), we get something along the birth of the penguin in Batman. Now what is right for comic books isn't correct with historical figures, and certainly not with Adolf Hitler who changed the course of history in such an infamous way. More depth and less fancy camera work would have been needed to make this believable. Not sure I will watch part 2...

As an amateur historian of WW2/Nazi Germany, I couldn't wait for this to come out on DVD. I missed it when it was first on in 2003. I don't want to repeat what's already been said in the previous 8 pages of comments about the historical inaccuracies. A better job could've been done portraying the "charming" Hitler. I also had a small problem with some of the casting choices, not so much for their acting, but for their appearances. Peter Stormare doesn't look much like Rohm, why didn't they make Babson as Hess wear a wig? And my biggest complaint..so much has always been made of Hitler's striking blue eyes, why didn't they make Carlyle wear blue contacts? On the plus side, I thought the actors who played Goring and Drexler looked pretty good. Again, as long as people watching this understand that this is supposed to be entertainment 1st, history 2nd I don't think a lot of harm will be done.

The best bits in this are the convincing recreations of the look of the Reichstag and other places associated with the rise of Hitler. It may involve CGI, but this is CGI that works (unlike in many much more expensive productions).

The script is ropey. Especially in the early stages the characters lecture each other with historical information they would all already know, for the benefit of viewers - a classic mistake. Later we have Hindenburg talking about defending democracy. Hindenburg was not a democrat. He believed it was his duty to serve the state and to uphold its constitution.

Many have noted that Robert Carlyle's ranting Hitler would never have come to power. He'd have been certified. Why the makers of this went for this one-dimensional treatment is a mystery.

The film suggests that the Nazis could provoke an election just by walking out of the Reichstag chamber - an over-simplification to say the least.

The scenes with the newspaper man do not ring true at all, and are an embarrassment.

It all gets very rushed once Hitler becomes chancellor. The key election after the Reichstag fire is omitted. There is no mention of the Communists and Social Democrats who were missing from the session which passed the enabling law in an atmosphere of fear. The Night of the Long Knives appears to come immediately after this, although it took place 15 months later. It's a hopeless jumble.

An entertaining miniseries, filmed mostly in Prague and with good production values, about Adolf Hitler and his rise to power, taking him from his childhood (dealt briefly) until the night of long knives.

Unfortunately, and presumably in order to avoid any charge of creating sympathy for Hitler, the filmmakers portray him as an always angry and ranting sociopath. Yet, according to most historians, Hitler, despite being an undeniable political monster directly responsible for the death of millions of people, could be also charming and charismatic. Hitler, as portrayed by the Scottish actor Robert Carlyle, is so off putting, you wonder why anyone would decide to follow him. (In this movie, even as a child, Hitler seems to be channeling the bad seed). Some other Hitler movies have been more honest in this respect: the German film Downfall is the first movie that comes to mind, but even the little known Hollywood film from 1944 "The Hitler gang" shows Hitler as friendly and charming with his associates.

I found it also somewhat disappointing that most of the actors don't resemble their characters much: the actor playing Goebbels is the one that resemble it most; the legendary Peter O'Toole is fine in his brief turn as Von Hindenburg; Carlyle don't look a lot like Hitler; the actors playing Goering and Rohm none at all. Also unfortunate is that some major associates of Hitler like Himmler do not appear at all here, while the relatively unknown Ernst Hanfstaengl (played by Liev Schreiber) is one of the major characters here.

These objections aside, I must finally say that this miniseries is undeniably entertaining and never boring, despite being three hours long.