Worst portrayal of Hitler ever

1. "So this film is about Hitler?" No, and saying that shows you not only deliberately misstate what I said, but don't seem to get that a secondary character can and should be played with as much depth as possible. Apparently you only demand more than superficial performances from the leading actor.

2. "How would I have Hitler react? Patient and understanding?" Another ridiculous comment that once more entirely missates what I said and demonstrates your limitations in understanding what an actor should do. Of course Hitler would be raving at times -- who ever said otherwise? The question is how well Adler portrayed him. In my view, he played Hitler like a buffoon. Okay, you think it was a performance of genius and spot-on. I think that's nonsense. That's a difference of opinion. But what you persist in missing is that it's not an issue of showing Hitler raving -- it's how this is portrayed. Adler showed Hitler as calm before the bombing. That was a more restrained portrayal, but even so in my view a rather limited one. We don't see any real shadings in Hitler's demeanor; what we see are Adler's inadequate attempts to convey them, but he still comes across as a silly, unidimensional, cartoonish charater. But as to shadings -- aren't you the one who said there was no "room" for three dimensions in this film?

3. Yes, I did see this film. Many times. Another asinine comment. And saying Bruno Ganz's performance was even more raving than Adler's is irrelevant to Adler's performance, and in fact makes it sound as though Adler's was a poor performance in its own right. We don't see the shadings in Hitler's demeanor; we see Adler making what come across as silly attempts at such shadings.

4. Where do you get your information about what Hitler's body language was like -- especially in private meetings? Or that Adler had studied it? We know that by 1944 Hitler shook violently at times even when he wasn't raving, but even if Adler was trying to capture Hitler's demeanor accurately, in my opinion he failed spectacularly. He came across as a laughably oafish boob, not as a man genuinely in the throes of mania and not in control of himself. Again, you think this is a performance of great skill. I don't. That's a difference of opinion. And in any case, there's more to this performance than simply getting the man's physical movements right...which there is no evidence Adler managed to do anyway.

5. "More dialogue = more length." Who says there has to be more dialogue in either of Adler's scenes? If you're claiming that only by having more lines or screen time could Adler portray Hitler in more than one dimension, you're only confirming my view that he didn't give a good performance. A good actor can make a lot out of even a small part and little screen time. In any case, yet again you entirely miss, and misconstrue, the point. I agree with your synopsis of what was occurring in the scene with Hitler and Rommel (the crises Hitler was facing). But those aren't dimensions -- it's a list of problems Hitler was faced with. Adler's response was to play Hitler in an almost burlesque manner. This has nothing to do with the individual issues as such. It may have been appropriate to show Hitler raging and out of control. But what I've been saying is that Adler failed miserably to give a nuanced, subtle, shaded portrayal, which would have been far more effective and realisitc. The lack of dimensions has to do with Adler's perfomance, not the number of problems Hitler was facing.

6. Once more, another false statement. No, I am not asking that Adler "crowbar" every facet of Hitler into his two scenes. Of course that's neither possible nor even appropriate. That is another ridiculous statement, and a misstatement of what I wrote. You also falsely state that I ignore the bunker scene, which is untrue. But your most remarkably idiotic claim is that we get two dimensions of Hitler -- one in each scene. What? Now you're equating dimensions shown with the number of scenes Adler's in, as you equated the number of dimensions with the number of problems Hitler's dealing with in the scene with Rommel? The mind boggles. In any event, we should be getting a three-dimensional characterization in both Adler's scenes. We don't, although you say we do in the first -- thereby contradicting your silly claim that it's impossible to get three dimensions in one scene because the role is too short.

7. Schizophrenia. First -- "How old am I?" What the hell does that mean? I may as well ask, How much of an idiot are you? A preposterously irrelevant and moronic comment. Learn to spell. Second -- you're the one who's unbelievable. It's you who said there was no "room" for more than one dimension -- yet you brought up Adler's different demeanor in the bunker scene. Once more, you seem to think that a supporting player cannot and should not manage more than one dimension per scene. This is absurd. Third -- I'm angry: are you dishonest, or really this stupid? I never said Hitler was schizophrenic. You're the one who raised the subject. The quote you lifted from my post specifically says "I don't think so" in that regard! I stated (and you quote me) that the contrast in his behavior was depicted in the movie. You say it wasn't -- then go on to cite precisely the two scenes where his behavior is depicted as different, even going so far as to say they took place days apart by way of explaining the contrast. Then, having spent so much time claiming no one could give a three-dimensional performance because there was no room for it, you turn around and say this was such a performance, and not an example of schizophrenia. It wasn't a 3-D performance (opinion), but I never said Hitler was schizophrenic (fact). At this point we're in some biazarro-world of your creation, not only being untruthful but completely contradicting things you yourself cite or write.

8. Changes in Hitler's character. You know, this is getting more and more ridiculous. It's not about depicting the changes in Hitler's personality, in the sense of showing them change over time. It's about depicting his mood swings, the changes in his demeanor, in each scene. Adler fails to show this, or at least doesn't do it well. The fact that the movie is about Rommel doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't get a solid, shaded performance.

9. Here is a "straight-up" answer to your question: the last time I saw this film was about three months ago. I have seen it perhaps 40 times in as many years. I own a copy of it. Hitler does laugh, in the so-called bunker scene, when he cracks the joke about Goering moving slowly because he's fat. No, it's not a huge belly-laugh, but that's not the issue.

Bottom line to all this is that you think Adler did a good job. I do not. That's simply a difference of opinion. But you've made so many contradictory assertions -- saying that here wasn't 'room" for more than one dimension, then asserting we saw a three-dimensional performance, or confusing "dimensions" with the number of scenes, or issues within a scene; so many misstatements about things I wrote, to the point of citing quotes totally at variance with your false assertions; and so many foolish remarks ("How old are you?" and the like) -- that I have to wonder how smart you really are.

Anyway, I don't intend to continue arguing this matter at this length any longer. You have your opinion about Adler's performance, I have mine. Most of the rest of what you wrote is just erratic nonsense, argued without fact or logic.