Is Germany Running Away From Its Past?

    

Twyker, T. (Director). (1998). Run Lola Run [Motion Picture]. Germany: X-filme creative pool.

Is Humanising Hitler Problematic?

The history of Hitler and the Nazi regime is well known and documented throughout the world. Hitler seemed to be a complicated man meaning that documentation and re-enactments of him in film and other texts throw up complications of how to portray him.  Hitler the man or Hitler the murderer?  In recent years films such as Downfall (Hirschbiegel, 2004) humanise Hitler showing a story based on true events. The film Downfall shows Hitler in his last few days of power alongside showing scenes of him with his wife. Showing scenes such as this make him a relatable character, loving his family and going through struggles at work. It is argued that this is problematic; an article featured in the Guardian from an acclaimed Hitler biographer posed the question "Wasn't there the danger, in seeing Hitler as a human being, of losing sight of his intrinsic evil and monstrous, demonic nature, even of arousing sympathy for him?" (Kershaw, 2004).

  However, previous to films such as Downfall where the audience are almost made to sympathise with Hitler there have been many comedic versions of Hitler where we are made to laugh at him. This also seems to trivialise all the terrible things he has done as we as an audience are now finding comedic relief in him and smiling at his face instead of being filled with hate, anger or sorrow. A famous example of this is The Charlie Chaplin movie The Great Dictator (Chaplin, 1940) where Chaplin famously wears a costume very similar to Hitler himself and performances a speech in classical Hitler style to great laughs from audiences. As Roger Ebert writes however this portal of Hitler was not well received after the full extent of Hitler’s actions came to light “As it was, the film's mockery of Hitler got it banned in Spain, Italy and neutral Ireland.” (Ebert, 2007). This is where humanising Hitler becomes problematic it can offend people to the extent that the movie must be banned. However it can be argued that to this day we satire Hitler even more with photo shopped pictures of him and even jokes in televisions shows such as The Simpsons but we are conditioned to not be offended by this to the same extent anymore.

Haase purposes that “There is a fear that by personalizing and psychologizing Hitler – or other Nazi figures of prominent stature – one starts to explain them as people, and hence starts to explain ‘away’ the ultimate evil inherent in their ideology and actions.” (Haase, 2007) This is a perfect explanation of why humanising Hitler can be so problematic, once people can sympathise and relate to someone they can to start to make excuses for them and justify their mistakes. This is not to say that due to these representations of Hitler everyone will excuse Hitler for all he has done but the representation of him may sway peoples view on him even if only for the duration of the movie.

Works Cited

Chaplin, C. (Director). (1940). The Great Dictator [Motion Picture].

Ebert, R. (2007, september 27). The Great Dictator . Retrieved november 19, 2014, from Roger Ebert : http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-great-dictator-1940

Haase, C. (2007). Ready for his close-up? Representing Hitler in Der Untergang (Downfall, 2004). Studies in European Cinema, 3, 191.

Hirschbiegel, O. (Director). (2004). Downfall [Motion Picture].

Kershaw, I. (2004, september 17). The human Hitler. Retrieved novemeber 10, 2014, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/sep/17/germany

German Expressionism:Cinema or Theatre?

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari [Motion picture]. (1920). Germany.

How did new Labour ideology affect British film making during the 90's and 00's ?

New labour's attitude towards the British film industry was very different than the conservatives approach during Margret Thatcher’s rule. Prior to the new labour being formed and taking power in 1997, the conservatives approach to the British film industry was to more or less leave it to its own devices. Tax incentives were withdrawn, Eady levy was closed (although this was being exploited by American filmmakers and not the best working system) and the National film finance corporation (NFFC) was closed. When New Labour came into power they issued the 'A Bigger Picture' act in relation to culture, media and sports. This aimed to double the domestic market share for British films, bring in a larger and more diverse audience, bring in training provisions to meet needs of the industry, encourage sustained investments and export and attract further inward investments. As well as these plans National lottery funding was also put in place which is now at £28 million per annum. As well as tax breaks being reinstated. Due to this increased interest and funding in the British film industry it was able to thrive like never before. An article from the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/29/labour-good-for-film-industry) states that "Since 1997, this government has invested £665 million into the British film industry". Richard Curtis is arguably the most famous writer and director of this time. Working on films such as, Bridget Jones (2001),Notting Hill (1999), Love Actually (2003) and Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994). These films have all been big success both here and some even international success in America. These films are famously London-centric showing a postcard picture version of Britain. They show the lives of Middle class British people unlike new wave British cinema which showed more working class people living in the Midlands and North of England. These films have also now produced their own stars that are associated with this style of films, Hugh Grant, Colin Firth and Bill Nighy in particular. All of which are also considered stars in America, Colin Firth even won an oscar in 2011 for The Kings Speech which could also be considered a British film. This success in British Cinema would not have been possible without the new Labour ideology. The funding and support from the Government has helped the British Film industry to flourish. As Richard Curtis films show, a new cinematic/auteur style has also come out of this revival in British cinema. This style has helped to make British cinema recognisable across the world and popular in many countries. The advantage of showing a postcard picture of Britain is that it makes the film light-hearted and transnational so that they can be easily enjoyed and understood by people from any culture. However, some would argue that this is also a disadvantage as we are sacrificing are cultural heritage for financial success. This is an argument that may continue for years to come. However, one thing that cannot be argued is how new Labours contribution to British Film industry was monumental and should forever be remembered.

Was 'A Taste Of Honey' a typical film of the British new wave?

Evergreen (1934), Victor Saville, Gaumont British Picture Corporation.