Downfall - The Bunker (1981) Discussion

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

Never watched this film, but Eichinger's "Downfall" which is quite an "opera" in the word's worst meaning. There was nothing human in Hitler. Every attempt to present him as a "human" will fail. He was the personified satan, a black magician, and a mass murderer; just like Stalin, Pol Pot, Caesar, Napoleon, or Mao.

reply

[–] Quarantino_II 14 years ago

There was nothing human in Hitler. Every attempt to present him as a "human" will fail. He was the personified satan, a black magician, and a mass murderer; just like Stalin, Pol Pot, Caesar, Napoleon, or Mao.

To suggest that Hitler and the others you mentioned were not human is an extremely dangerous way of approaching people like them, because it's the very reason why they are able to rise to power without anybody stopping them before it's too late. They only become "Satan", "mass murderer" etc. in retrospect when the full extent of their actions has been exposed. Up to that point, they are very much perceived as human by the people around them and by the masses of followers.

If you live in a fantasy world where evil people are some kind of mythical creatures rather than mere humans who eat, drink, sleep, belch, fart and feel joy, sorrow and pain just like everyone else, you are the easiest target of all. "Surely this new leader of ours can't be dangerous, he has no horns, no tail, no glowing red eyes, nothing! Nice smile too, firm handshake, I like him!".

By dehumanizing them, you actually make them LESS frightening, which is precisely what your defense mechanism is trying to accomplish. "Humans can't be that evil, therefore he can't be human - problem solved". Every time some serial killer or other is captured, it's always the same story: Interviews with friends and neighbors going "Him? Impossible to believe, he was always really social and friendly, and kind to animals too". Never "Oh yeah, I knew it all along, that guy was creepy as **** and I always made sure to stay 50 feet away".

He was very much human, and the more you see him as a human the creepier he becomes. Listen to that audio recording of Hitler having a private conversation (it was picked up by a Finnish journalist who left a tape recorder on during a dinner). He doesn't sound anything like the shrill, mad dictator persona with the screaming high pitched voice. That was just a show he put on in front of crowds. He actually had a dark and soft voice when he spoke privately, no hint of madness at all. Just a calm, casual conversation in a restaurant. That recording is 50 times more unnerving than any film clip where he's doing the mad dictator schtick, shouting and flailing his arms... because he sounds unmistakably human in that recording.

reply

[–] trob226 14 years ago

Agreed. Hopkins's Hitler (and the others in this film) were scarier because they WERE so human.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] linop90 11 years ago

Why put ceaser and napoleon in your list?

Put some brit or American leaders in there instead.

Eat the Neocons.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] waldenpond88 12 years ago

Actually it's not a remake of "The Bunker". "Downfall" is based on Traudl Junge's memoirs. She was one of Hitler's 4 secretaries who worked inside the bunker. The book was just published in 2002 and "Downfall" is based on Junge's book.

reply

[–] waldenpond88 12 years ago

Not quite a remake. I missed Hanna Reitsch (the famous female pilot) in "The Bunker", she was included in "Downfall".
"The Bunker" is based on John O'Donnell's book, "Downfall" is based on Joachim Fest's book and Traudl Junge's memoirs.
Different people have different memories about the same events which is only human. Everybody has different perceptions.
I watched both films on one weekend, liked "The Bunker" even more although it's a 30 year old production, but "Downfall" was very realistic, too.

reply

[–] LAT71 12 years ago

As Downfall was based largely on Traudl Junge's memoirs, many of the scenes are seen from her point of view and her character has many scenes/lines.

The biggest difference with The Bunker is Traudl Junge having a much smaller part and certainly no scenes from her point of view. The secretarial staff do in fact tend to be referred to as "Hitler and his secretaries", they are hardly even referred to by their names.

A notable difference (well, notable IMHO) was the execution of Hermann Fegelein. The Bunker shows him interrogated in the bunker itself with the order of his execution seeming to come from an unexpected change of heart in Hitler. Downfall shows him being executed by his escort before they even reach the bunker, with the suggestion that the order had already been given.

reply

[–] RemiRoyer33 11 years ago

Traudl Junge was also a huge liar who decided in the 1980's to use her association with Hitler to become famous so you can't believe much of what she says since her agenda was to be in the spotlight.

reply

[–] kurt7825 9 years ago

that is true

reply

[–] bkstosell 9 years ago

While Traudl Junge's book is given in the credits as the basis for "Downfall" just as O'Donnell's book is given as the basis for "The Bunker", in truth neither film is taken solely from these accounts. "The Bunker" (the film) was also greatly influenced by Albert Speer's two books as well as transcripts from witnesses who were there at the time. In interviews, the writers, producers and director of "Downfall" have said they tried to talk to as many survivors as were still alive and read all the transcripts they could lay their hands on.

As far as Traudl Junge being a liar. I wasn't there, so I can't speak to that. It is certainly a proven fact that Speer wasn't telling the complete truth about a great many things, some of which made their way into "The Bunker". I would also suggest that people's recollections of past events are often colored by their own perceptions and self images. When 2 or more people witness the same scene, their interpretations of it will necessarily be different based on each one's own personal idiosyncrasies and life experiences. And when giving an account of your own personal history, how many of us wouldn't paint our selves in the most sympathetic light? That's just human nature.

In my opinion, "Downfall" is a more complete film for a number of reasons.

"Downfall" includes what was happening above the bunker which helps greatly with perspective. Of the four films I have seen about the time in the bunker, it is the only one to include this as a major part of the story.

As a tv movie, "The Bunker" had a far more limited budget and shooting schedule. This necessitated casting choices which just didn't fit the subject matter well. I am a proud American, but I have to say that some of the casting choices were just too American (Goebbels and Speer, especially) to be taken seriously. Though Anthony Hopkins (Welsh) and Piper Laurie (from my own hometown of Detroit) were outstanding in my opinion. "Downfall" works better because not only were the actors very talented, but their cultural and geographic proximity to the events of the narrative gave it a much more realistic feel.

You just can't get the truest sense of such an intense story unless it is in its' native tongue. "Downfall" is one of only two films with subtitles that I have watched many times. (The other being the Cuban zombie film "Juan de los Muertos. If you haven't seen it, I urge you to take a look.) It doesn't hurt that I speak a certain amount of German.

In short, my opinion is that the cast and crew of "The Bunker" produced a fine film given the constraints of time, budget and the year in which it was made.

"Downfall" is far superior given that the cast and crew were much closer to the subject, had more access to a larger number of eyewitness accounts that weren't available in 1981 and they had an additional 20 years of perspective.

"The Bunker" was a good film. "Downfall" was a great one.

On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?

reply