Hating Max *spoilers* - Max (2003) Discussion

[–] innoirwriterhell 20 years ago

Finally, somebody said it. Thank you.

That being said, Cusack's performance was fantastic. He should have gotten more recognition. He pissed off all of his thirtysomething female cult following (my wife is in this group) by portraying a selfish character who cheats on his gorgeous thirtysomething wife with a woman almost young enough to be his daughter. My wife's friends refused to even watch the film because of this and not because it was based on Hitler. Women can be like that. LOL

reply

[–] easter.egg 20 years ago

That's interesting, because I thought he was quite a sympathetic character. I think we must have different standards for what sickens us. I don't see the borrowing of money- from a bank, friend, or family member- in an attempt to become successful as sickening.

I don't see selling art as conning anyone, at least no more of a con than working for any business that requires a person to convince others to buy something. I suppose if you see art as colours on canvas, and therefore without value beyond the price of the materials used to make it, then yeah, he's a cheat. If you accept that art, like a lot of things, is worth as much as someone thinks it is, then he's not a cheat. Real estate agents do no better.

Yeah, he cheats on his wife, which is not an admirable thing to do. But he's good with his kids. In addition, cheating is not uncommon. I've known otherwise very likable people who've done it.

You both mention that she's beautiful. Who cares whether she's pretty or ugly when it comes to his adultery? Does that make his cheating worse? If she was a dog, would it make him more sympathetic? I don't believe one's partner's level of attraction is a factor in the gravity of one's infidelities.

He's a melange of likable and dislikable characteristics. The fact that Max is less than perfect helps the story, if anything. If he was a cookie-cutter good boy, then I'd be less inclined to sympathize. I don't generally identify with people who are without fault; I think that they're being dishonest. I can sympathise with many of the characters in the movie, even Hitler.

One last point: I think the sailors knew him to be a Jew because they saw him take off his yarmulka from the balcony. You can see them motioning to one another as soon as he did this.

reply

[–] Autlan 20 years ago

He's sympathetic if you are rich and live a relatively care free life. He's the perfect Jewish stereotype if you're one of the struggling working class of the time that bought the nazi talk. Living it up while the rest suffer in squallor. He might just as well have been wearing a pin that named him worst Jew. There's no guarantee even if he hadn't lost his arm that he would have made it as an artist. You're right that in any business where you're selling something there's some moral ambiguity, but I wasn't even convinced he thought he was doing something worthwhile. It all seemed like something to keep him interesting and different. Like the self indulgent play, it wasn't the art that stole the show, it was him.

I wasn't trying to equate happiness in marriage solely to how beautiful your bride is either. I just meant he has nothing to be unhappy about in regard to his wife. She's not only stunning, but also very accepting and from what we saw, easy to live with aswell. So I'm at a loss to understand why he would run off and sleep with other women, unless maybe he thought she wasn't interesting enough for him.

Because he's far from perfect, and Hitler appears to revolve around his acceptance, alot of the reasoning behind Hitler's hatred for Jews fits snuggly on his shoulders. Then, it looks like someone has a change of heart and the sailors hand it back to being purely Hitler's own doing. Just seems like a tightrope walk along the boundaries of political correctness to me.

reply

[–] Kanadier 19 years ago

Good points all around. Wasn't a big part of the movie's appeal that the characters weren't one dimentional. I mean how often is Hitler portrayed in a human fashion. I've heard that many holocaust survivors opposed the realse of the footage of Hitler playing with his dog and interacting with children as humanizing him too much. We all know what Hitler did and that he was evil guy, but sure he *beep* just like everyone else and had a normal life at one point, and interacted with women and such. I like movies where you can sympathesize with those who aren't all good.

Its refreshing to see a movie where every character isn't bark-at-the-moon mad or conversly a saint/Christ figure.

reply

[–] Autlan 19 years ago

The demonizing of Hitler is wrong, but I dislike it because it stops the warning getting to those who are most prone to falling into the same sinkhole as he did. What I can't understand is why you would want to see him *beep* just like everyone else. If a man rises to fame for killing a pair of schoolgirls, you're not going to take an interest in him for his recipe for sunday roast. No matter how good it tastes you'll despise him and never be able to forget about his despicable crimes as you take each bite. Hitler is no different, a killer, unusual, and that's why people pay attention to him. I threw a stick to a dog yesterday and the thought of gasing Jews and then burning them in an incinerator never crossed my mind. You know why? Because they are completely unrelated, one has nothing to with the other.

So while you're trying to convince me that the movie represented the Jewish population accurately and seemingly that Hitler's message was misunderstood, I'll question your motives for wanting to sympathise instead of educating yourself about a time period that is distant and becoming foggier with every production like this one.

reply

[–] Kanadier 19 years ago

I don't understand your first paragraph at all. From what I gather I guess we should all just study how Hitler killed millions of people, and nothing else because in the pantheon of history he is simply a mass murderer. We then can assume that he magically appeared out of the ether as the physical embodiment of evil.

As for your second paragraph all I can say is that I don't think this movie makes the early interwar period any foggier, or distant, in fact I think it makes it seem surprisingly tangible. In addition maybe you can enlighten me as to how the movie is anti-semetic because I honestly can't percieve it.

Also, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, frankly I couldn't care less about what you think. I'm just discussing a few bits of a movie I have no involvment with, so don't take it so personally.

reply

[–] Autlan 19 years ago

I don't understand your first paragraph either. Are you trying to use this movie to form methods of identifying emerging Hitlers? Studying Hitler on any other level than the attrocities serves no other purpose than to glorify him. That was the point I was making. If you want to do a character study I'm sure books would be a better format, albeit duller and more realistic.

Studying the structure of the political system and general living conditions would serve more of a purpose than studying a man that was simply there in time to give hope and promises of cultural reform by pointing out someone to blame for the deficiencies present in all men. Something this film does not deliver. It neglects everything that falls outside the fancyful story being told. (See a few of the posts towards the bottom of the thread) We live in a relatively poorly educated world, historically, and I'm worried alot of viewers will take anything offered as fact.

reply

[–] Kanadier 19 years ago

Yeah, I dunno. Think we're on different pages.

I'm just saying that I think a movie about the mass murders/genocide/ethnic cleansing by Hitler is pretty pointless, we all know about it, we all know Hitler's a bad guy. The point I guess I was trying to make is that movies like Max are good (in my opinion) because although fiction they portray Hitler as somewhat human, probably as human as he was. Making people think twice about the whole period of history. I think when movies portray Hitler or Nazis as mindless evildoers, it makes them to easy to dismiss. Then people tend not think about the issues, or reality behind the headlines. They just dismiss all the one-dimensional characters as fictional, when in reality before Nazism was popular they were just normal people (relatively). Although what I just wrote is kind of garbled I guess what I'm trying to say is I liked the movie because it made the times tangible, and I also like how Hitler was a human and people could see him for what he was and not just take the stardard treatment as gospel.

I think if anyone is worried about getting the wrong message from the movie concerning history they shouldn't be, its just a movie, and anyone who watches a movie about Hitler probably has a working knowledge of him, any movie will hopefully add another facet to the story. If it doesn't, if it just retreads common ground then there's no point to making it.

It just seems to me when they portray him as this larger than life evil guy, as der Furher, no matter how negatively it kind of glorifies him, it sort of justifies him in a way. As where when you show him as a person, he's not threatening, and you've deflated the whole grandiose treatment he gets in popular culture. You can kind of look at him objectively, think, reflect constructivly about Nazism and internalize the lessons. As opposed to just repeating everything thats said without learning.

reply

[–] nanna_m 19 years ago

Goodness, I've never read a similarly controversial thread here ...
Just a few words ..
Hitler was born in Austria, Salzburg (Braunau am Inn, that's right at the border to Germany). There are drawings by Hitler. I don't know much abt art, but they're far better than I could ever get. So this is why they got the idea. Hitler was involved with arts. But he was never discovered by anyone. His father was a tyrant. His mother was weak. He was proud when he didn't cry after being beaten by his father. He wanted to attend the Akademie der bildenden Künste Wien but was rejected for lack of talent. (I'm not trying to be sympathetic. I've been rejected at an academy as well and don't go kill off people.)

As for women. Hitler did interact with them. Two killed themselves. When Berlin was about to be conquered he committed suicide, and with him Eva Brown, who he had married only shortly before.

As for food made by a murderer. This reminded me of a composer of the second half of the 17th century. Carlo Gesualdo was born in the south of Italy (Venosa). He was married to a wife. He knew that she cheated him. He took a gun (yes, they had already guns. guns were invented in 1331) and shot her I don't know how many times together with her lover. He pulled the bodies out and left them on the street. A monk passing by committed necrophilia with her.
They had had a son, and Gesualdo decided that the child wasn't his. So it had to die as well. He built a swing for it to play, but at a terrible height, right before the window at the highest storey, where he wrote his compositions. I don't recall how he did it, but the swing consisted of a kind of basket so the little boy couldn't jump out. He put him into it and watched him dieing. And while the child was starving Gesualdo wrote his madrigals. No one ever charged him, for, you've got to know, he was actually the prince of Venosa. He even married a second time.
I like his music, although I'm appalled by what he did. It's really great when you're down, but nothing for the weak. Knowing that, I think I could eat anything that was cooked by a murderer (assuming it isn't poisoned).

reply

[–] Autlan 19 years ago

I can understand it's possible to disconnect a man's life from his work as in the case of Gesualdo as you kindly illustrated. I'd have a problem with this in the case of Hitler though. I have no idea about his real art work, but from the stuff I saw in the movie it seemed very wrapped up in his nationalist feelings that focused on removing diverse influence and ended up driving a culture to genocide. I don't think I'm being foolish in thinking that some of his debating mastery could spill over onto the canvas. Unconditional pride is something that worries me, and I believe that is the only emotion that his work could invoke.

reply

[–] nanna_m 19 years ago

Well, I've seen a bit of his real art and it didn't invoke any emotion since it is as emotional as a street lamp. He depicted streets and alleys in average technique and with no emotion. That's the contrast to Gesualdo apart from the fact that he killed off a whole people; or tried at least.

Sir, there is a multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder.

reply

[–] taxrice 19 years ago

I think the important part of the movie is not Max or Hitler, but the terms of the peace -- the stab in the back.

History is written by the winner. The peace required Germany to accept full fault for WWI and to pay the costs of war to the victors -- this is stated in the movie. American general Pershing was not pleased with that peace treaty. As is said in the movie, the peace of WWI was the start of WWII.

I bet we all remember that WWI began because of an assasination of an Austrian Arch Duke (Ferdinand I think). The treaties set the sides. The German's were on the side of the victim. Why did America choose to side with the assasin when entering the war?

Before entering the war, America sold munitions to both sides of the war. The first American ships sunk in the war were sunk by the allies. Was America picking who it wanted to win the war based on its own economic advantage?

As I apprecaite the situation before WWI, the French were growing angry because the German economy was doing better and the German citizens where enjoying more extravagences. Would america prefer to defeat an industrial power that would serve as competition, or would it prefer to defeat a lesser industrial nation that is more consumer than producer?

Without beating our heads in, the movie states most of the economic nightmare that the peace brought to Germany. The resulting anger is to be expected. Germany has a major depression.

In our national wisdom, we converted Germany to a democracy after WWI. Germany elected Hitler. Hitler was a human being driven by hate and anger to commit some of the worse attrocities in history. This is an extreme example of abuse begot by abuse.

U.S. Ambassador to England Kennedy supported Hitler -- this ended his political career but was forgottenfor his children: John, Robert & Ted. The Catholic Church struck a deal with Hitler. Why did some intelligent people endorse Hitler?

For me, Max explores the basis for these seemingly odd aliances. History repeats itself and we must learn from history or face the same events again.

America learned from WWI and handled the peace in WWII differently. We did not devistate Japan and Germany after WWII and now they are powerful allies to us.

Will we be able to say the say about Iraq?

- Michael

reply

[–] Steve Dave 17 years ago

You're wrong. Hitler shat from his mouth and pissed from his butt. Unlike everyone else.

reply

[–] wintressanna 18 years ago

<<<You both mention that she's beautiful. Who cares whether she's pretty or ugly when it comes to his adultery? Does that make his cheating worse? If she was a dog, would it make him more sympathetic? I don't believe one's partner's level of attraction is a factor in the gravity of one's infidelities. >>>

My mother upon watching this film asked me why he would have cheated on such a beautiful, talented, amenable wife and mother. I really dont understand this question because cheating has little to nothing to do with the other spouse, and everything to do with the cheater's insecurities. Even when the adulterous relationship is a substitute for unhappy relations at home, it is the insecurities that hold the cheater back from making a clean break before loosely committing her or himself to someone else's arms.

reply

[–] Autlan 18 years ago

The point I was trying to make was that really apart from his one missing arm he has it made. I mentioned her beauty perhaps a little more than I should have. Not even Max could expose a flaw in his wife to justify his cheating. Most adulterers would complain about not getting on with their spouse or feeling no emotion from them. As far as I could see there was absolutely nothing wrong with her or the way she treated him and he knew it. He was emotionally negligent to her despite her comforting him and caring for their children during that difficult time. At the same time I can't understand what he found so appealing about the girl he cheated on her with. I suppose he might have felt that he wasn't good enough for Nina and by the end of the film when no solid reason for his infidelity had cropped up, I thought so too.

reply

[–] MuaPetahl 20 years ago

I think the point is made very clearly throughout the film that Rothmman knows how privledged he is to come home from the war to wealth and family while Hitler comes home to nothing - the twist being that Hitler is free to follow his dreams (being an artist) while Max's ambition of being being an artist has literally been cut off. The fact that Max is Jewish seems ALMOST coincidental to me, however it does give the story alot more depth to be played upon.

Rothman's affair is with an artist - a miserable attempt to feel "complete" as the man he wants to be. Max himself tells her he is "half doll/half man" and his wife also refers to the affair as him needing the reassurance of who he is. We never get the feeling that Max has found himself until he leaves the citidal to go meet Hitler to discuss his show.

Hitler's plight is the ying to Max's yang. He is physically capable to fulfilling his dreams of becoming an artist but has no financial or moral support to see it into the light. Hitler's infidelity is with the army - which pays for the necessities of life. He finds his brief freedom after delivering his last speech for the party and going to the cafe to meet with Max.

Both men are once again destroyed by the Nazi party.
Max meets his physical death
Hitler meets his spiritual death.

reply

[–] Autlan 20 years ago

That's a very good way of looking at it. Two men that could combine their talents if they could find a way to get along. I do have a difficult time seperating Hitler from the Nazi party to make him a victim though, because his success as a speaker was so instrumental in gathering initial support. In the film he doesn't seem to realise what effect his speeches will have apart from the energized response from the audience. For example in the pub where he stands and shouts his head off for half an hour with no warm response and just shrugs it off as a job he's being paid for. He seems more interested in the science of speaking than actually organising people to go out and murder Jews. We know that not to be true from history. He either held a pretty strong grudge against Jews or was willing to target a vunerable group to be the scapegoat for his revolutionary campaign. Either way he's not an innocent that the Nazi party corrupts.

For the story to give me the same message that Hitler's exposure to this one man had a direct influence on the next five years and the spin off fourty odd years, Max has to be Jewish. The sailors couldn't have been ordered to eliminate the artistic competition for Hitler's future. They were seen sitting in the front row at his "final" speech looking quite skeptical. By the end they look so tightly wound they probably would off one another if he'd been speaking about the danger of sailors. Then it was simply unlucky coincidence that turned his actions to the one man that had the connection to turn them back on him and cement his irrational hatred. Yet we are still given this horribly stereotypical view of Jews that makes the movie seem to have atleast a twinge of anti-semitism beneath the surface.

One last thought. If Max had made his dream of becoming an artist a reality, would it really have made much difference? That form of architectular art isn't very broad in terms of exploration and he was already having trouble finding alternative forms of expression. I could see him becoming more and more obsessed with his vision until he ended up involved in an equally bloody cultural reform.

reply

[–] MuaPetahl 20 years ago

Ahh so much more going on in this film than a casual viewing gives you :-)

Trying to keep on the original subject of the thread "hating Max" which I interpret to be the character...not the film.

Don't get me wrong, I am not denying that anti-semitism is a critical element of this movie - how can you do a movie involving Hitler and it NOT be?

For all Rothman's flaws, I don't connect any of them directly to the fact that he happens to be Jewish.

It's difficult to view this fictional "what if" account knowing the facts of history.....however, let's suppose for a moment that the "unknown soldier" in the story remains "unknown". Does not knowing who Hitler ultimately becomes change how you view his character?

- after leaving the bar where Rothman takes him to meet "those wonderful creatures that make you feel artistic", Hitler is attempting to paint unsuccessfully when the officer knocks on his door and seduces him into speaking for them again. Mocking "the muses" yet still stroking his ego as an inspiring artist.

- when Hitler tells them that will be his last speech as Rothman is giving him a show, the Party instills doubts once again by telling him Rothman won't come through (which they arrange to make happen).

- Hitler also warns Rothman that even though he is well-born, there are those that do not like him. He also tells Rothman on several occassions (as confused or in denial as it may be) that he is indeed NOT anti-sematic and admires the Jews.

All that being said, to me, I do feel that the "unknown soldier" in this story was indeed a victim whose soul was lost to the dark side. He was a man that had potential and certainly desire to become something other than what we know him to be in history. Hitler's character is like clay ready to be molded, and the conflict was who was to mold him. Hitler chose, regardless of all his apparent character flaws, Rothman.

Of all the seeds that are planted, which ones take root???

reply

[–] Autlan 20 years ago

I did mean the character Max and not the movie because it is interesting if a little hard to understand the motivations for making it.

I have to say firstly that I'm not connecting rothman with being Jewish because of his flaws, but rather I'm worried when I watch this and notice that with exception to his wife and child (who don't really develop) the Jews in the film are portrayed as flawed. I had an inkling in the scene in the courtyard with hitler on the soapbox, sheets hanging on the the lines and soldiers gathered around him that the soldier rothman spoke to about his anti-semitic speeches might have been Jewish himself. It would have been nice to have some confirmation since he had nowhere but the barracks to sleep either. It would dispell this myth that all Jews lived a grandiose life in the lap of luxury. If the Jewish homelife in the film was shot from Hitler's imagination then it wasn't clear enough.

I don't think I'd take hitlers amarous comment about the Jews keeping their blood lines clean as an admission of not actually being anti-semitic. He never had anything nice to say before that scene and I think he was trying his best to find a compliment amongst his confused thoughts. In the scene with the puppets he's shown to agree with the idea that the Jews are keeping their own race's blood clean while polluting theirs. His war will save his own blood lines against contamination. The reason he gets mad I think is just insult over the childishness of a puppet show demonstration to his simple fellow soldiers.

I'd be content if they added two things to this movie. Firstly some confirmation of the soldier in the courtyard I mentioned being Jewish. Secondly it isn't clear the officer in charge of the national workers party ordered those sailors, though I'm now convinced you're right and he did. I had wondered how they knew he was Jewish and someone pointed out that they see him take off his Jewish cap. I just watched that scene over a couple of times and they don't act like they make the decision to kill him there and then. It's quite cold outside and they have clubs with them which leads me to believe they are waiting for him. Why would the man play the violin with the window open if it was cold, was he in on it? It would be nice to see a scene after the speech with Hitler leaving and the officer chatting to the sailors. What threw me off was the shot of "stabbed in the back" scrawled on the wall which suggested to me hitler word was spreading and that he was just the first victim of a random racial attack.

reply

[–] Rogosjin 19 years ago

A few random and somewhat unconnected notes.

1. (Question of this Thread): No we arn't supose to hate Max despite his flaws
which are non but what we may refer to as human errors.
Noone is perfect and flawless.

Max really is quite a sympathic person, he fought for his country just like
the unknown soldier, his great crime is being rich and having something to come
home to where as Hitler did not.

2. "stabbed in the back."
This is a referance to the belief that Germany was not militarily defeated
in the Great War, but rather that she was betrayed by evil politicians etc.
(Jews, Democrats (jews), communist (jews), capitalists (jews))

This particular wiev was highly propganded by nationalist, revisionaries and
nazi's alike, and was one of the important factors that help the nazi's gain
power later on in history.

3. "the myth about the wealthy jews".
It's important to see this in a connection with European history.
In the good old dark middle ages and up through time "dealing with money
matters" was considered a dirthy and unnoble things, so there for the owners
(the Nobles) hired members of the fairly well organized minority group the jews
to do the dirty job of handling the money, and thus jews became affiliated
with moneymaters and in a world where you where born, grew up and took the same job as your parents held, certain jewish families became bankers, lawyers
accountants and such like. People who dealt with money in a very visible way.

Hence being part of a minority group who have always had to suffer the fate being looked upon as second class humans (thus is the life of any minority anywhere, even today, only the scale changes), they became an easy target...
the irony is that antisemitism put _some_ jews in the position of the welth
they later became the target of having...

It should also be mentioned that without having any demographical knowledge
it would probably be safe to place at least 70% of all german jews in the cathegory of poor working class, but you only see that which you focus on.

4. Are we supose to feel sorry for Hitler being lured into the evil claws
of the nazi party?.
He had the intrest in it, he already held his anti semetic beliefs and he spoke about those in the begining of the movie.
Where as the movie suggest that it wasn't his predetermined fate to become who he did, and there could have been another way out for him, it never actually
lets go of the fact that he throughout the film contains the potential to become history's most infamous human being.

5. "strange but true".
In the first world war Hitler recieved the Iron Cross for heroic deeds.
his Seargent who put him up for the reward, was a jew, who later left and moved
to the United States, even after United States got involved in the second world
war, this man recieved his army pension.

Rogosjin.

reply

[–] Autlan 19 years ago

"Max really is quite a sympathic person, he fought for his country just like
the unknown soldier, his great crime is being rich and having something to come
home to where as Hitler did not."

Really the question is if there were enough redeeming characteristics to counter his bad ones. A murderous rapist could go off and fight in WWI and come back with a medal and probably the undesirable qualities he left with too. I try to picture what Max would have been like before he was humbled by his accident and shudder.

"It should also be mentioned that without having any demographical knowledge
it would probably be safe to place at least 70% of all german jews in the cathegory of poor working class, but you only see that which you focus on."

Which is also one of my arguements against the film. The lens was stereotypical. It seemed to only capture rich Jews. There's one scene I remember when Hitler is walking through the market, beneath the massive star of david. Like entering through a gate into a foreign kingdom. It's not clear to me that the people in the market are normal working class Jews, but they must be because you get a paranoid unwelcome feeling from Hitler as they all stare at him walking through. I liked that, but if the movie's intent was to thrust the audience into his perspective I'd have liked to have more visible reminders that this was happening.

The history of the money handling is interesting. I didn't know where the stereotype had started.

reply

[–] jacobdtober 19 years ago

And It is not a "Jewish Cap", it is either a Kipa(pronounced keepa and Hebrew), or a Yamulke(Yiddish)... or even a skull cap.

reply

[–] Kanadier 19 years ago

I really don't think the movie is anti-semetic at all. I mean if you look at it the statistics of the day Jews in preWWII Germany were overrepresented in professional occupations, doctors and such, as well as in the arts. That sounds antisemetic to some I'm sure, but its also a fact.

I guess I missed the sterotypical view of Jews. None of them seemed obsessed with money, had large hooked noses, were dressed as Orthodox, or lurid children away from their parents as depicted in anti-semetic propaganda, like Der Gifte Pils.

reply

[–] bennizeeb 19 years ago

I think its really sad, that watching the movie , you guys couldn't switch off that stupid political corectness thing.
Two things in particular.
Who the *beep* cares, whether or not jonny cheats on his wife?(let alone the question of what the wife looks like) I mean, these guys live in a time, where they burn the floor, because turning the light on seems to be too bourgouise a thing to do. Nazis and communists alike are roaming the streets killing each other and adolf hitler is about to make a descission, thats going to change the face of this world forever.
It's just not very clear to me how a simple adultery has the ability to impress you in that context.
Secondly, enough with the anti-semitism *beep*
Yes. He's a rich art selling Jew. I just can't see a moral failure in that. On the cotrary, I even think, that he realizes the potential danger in hitler's ideas and tries to contain them by preventing him from going into politics(he says something along the lines of:"this stuff belongs in gallery" as in "this stuff definetely doesn't belong on the streets".) Cusack is as much of a "save the day - all American nice guy hero" as ever. Nothing sickening about him, ergo no hidden anti-semitism.
As for the missing social conflict and all the poor Jews living on the streets of munich,well, that's just not what the movie is about.
In the 1920ies the german jewish community had a huge influence on the art scene. Artists like paul klee and writers like georg trakl totally dominated the era of "Expressionismus". There actually were a whole lot of very rich Jews supporting these artists. This is the setting of the movie.
Oh! I've got a brilliant idea. From now on every time they show a rich black guy on mtv, they should have to post a short notice saying: "this person does not represent the mayority of the african-american community in the US. Please don't forget about all the poor people living in detroit.Thank you."
If you want to see a movie about poor Jews, fast forward to the 1940ies and try steven spielberg.

reply

[–] Autlan 19 years ago

You've taken a quick glance at this topic and unjustly decided to lower it to the level of pc. Political correctness protects the weak who don't have the capacity to defend themselves. I don't think a film dealing with an important topic like this can afford to get elements of historical social context wrong.

"these guys live in a time, where they burn the floor, because turning the light on seems to be too bourgouise a thing to do. Nazis and communists alike are roaming the streets killing each other and adolf hitler is about to make a descission, thats going to change the face of this world forever."

My arguement is over these elements never making onto film. That lends validity to Hitler's mantra by conforming the world to his viewpoint. Where is the evidence of the bourgeois in the film? Only upper and lower class are touched on in depth. The only vaguely middle class characters are the mistress and other minor characters, mostly artists, that only spend a minute onscreen. The upper class are all Jews. I see rosewood parquette and hear the tread on wooden planks from start to finish. There's hardly an indoor scene without a lightbulb and there are twice as many in Rothman's home as in the barracks and the ones in the barracks don't even work properly. Where are the roaming thugs beating one another? Could it be that none of that happened, of course not. You might as well set it all in an art gallery for your arguement to work.

"Yes. He's a rich art selling Jew. I just can't see a moral failure in that. On the cotrary, I even think, that he realizes the potential danger in hitler's ideas and tries to contain them by preventing him from going into politics(he says something along the lines of:'this stuff belongs in gallery' as in 'this stuff definetely doesn't belong on the streets'.) Cusack is as much of a 'save the day - all American nice guy hero" as ever.'

Rothman is apathetic to anti-semitism. To quote him when confronted with Hitlers racist ravings, "Nothing new, nothing new". Your hero has no idea what is coming in the next decade. Dealers of all trades want lots of stock coming through to sell in their market. He see's Hitler's dedication to his art and he has nothing to lose by bringing any art approved by himself into his gallery.

"Oh! I've got a brilliant idea. From now on every time they show a rich black guy on mtv, they should have to post a short notice saying: 'this person does not represent the mayority of the african-american community in the US. Please don't forget about all the poor people living in detroit.Thank you.'"

MTV is a poor example, the worst representation of real society. I wouldn't expect them to paint a different picture than a black man only being wealthy when he'd won the lottery or become a rockstar. How many airheads watching MTV have walked through other neighbourhoods or have first hand experience with other cultures? You can joke about disclaimers and then call my post pc and use terms like african-american all you want. The US is many years away from complete racial integration and films like this coupled with the Zionist situation in Israel don't alleviate any "semitic-american" tensions at all.

reply

[–] tmf_scipio 19 years ago

Autlan,

"Rothman is apathetic to anti-semitism. To quote him when confronted with Hitlers racist ravings, "Nothing new, nothing new". Your hero has no idea what is coming in the next decade. Dealers of all trades want lots of stock coming through to sell in their market. He see's Hitler's dedication to his art and he has nothing to lose by bringing any art approved by himself into his gallery."

First off, this has been an interesting discussion to read. I have a thought about the above quote. I wouldn't say that Rothman is apathetic to anti-semitism. His statement, "Nothing new, nothing new," isn't apathy, its just an acceptance of that as part of life. He is comfortable in his own world.

Dealing with artists on a daily basis, I have found that they are, even comercial artists, not quite focused on the world around them. When you work with the more avant guard artists, they have an even tighter focus.

Rothmans experiences in WWI had a dramatic effect on him, as well as that entire generation. I would even go so far as to say that it was the pivital event in the 20th century. Everything else that happened politically, scientifically and artistically was deeply affected by WWI.

Your last line about Rothman seeing Hitlers dedication is all that Rothman sees because he is consumed by that one particular passion.

"I've seen detergents leave a better film than this." - Waldorf

reply

[–] Autlan 19 years ago

Even if "Nothing new, nothing new" is just him accepting the world, it seems a bit resigned. It worries me that he would ignore the second most passionate item on Hitler's list when he had had that finger pointed at him. Art is about expression and although painting would have been a milder outlet for his anger than the one he took, Rothman couldn't possibly have known. I can't help but think accepting that into his gallery was a bit morally defunkt.

That said I agree with you atleast in part. You'd expect anyone that dedicated to something to be disconnected from everything else happening around them. Perhaps he thought this difficult period in Hitler's life had temporarily made him a bit loopy and that it would pass.

reply

[–] tmf_scipio 19 years ago

"Perhaps he thought this difficult period in Hitler's life had temporarily made him a bit loopy and that it would pass."

True, he also knew that Hitler was in the war and so Max could have related his own experiences into how Hitler was acting, thus misinterpreting those actions.

"I've seen detergents leave a better film than this." - Waldorf

reply

[–] jacobdtober 19 years ago

PC is like the treaty of Versailles, where people feel they are being mentally opressed by one group's(so called or neo-liberals) views/rules/regulations. Mental slavery, thought police. It only angers people.

The elements you claim are lacking are lacking for a good reason. Learn something about writing a screenplay, structure, setting and story telling in general.

As for Max Rothman, not knowing what was to come hardly anyone did. While Pogroms were fairly common, nothing like the Holocaust/Shoah had happened since like Biblical times. "nothing new, nothing new" was a common mantra and still is for Jews. Look at Israel, France.

What the hell do you mean by the "Zionist situation in Israel"? You blame Zionists for anti-semitism? You should blame the occupants Warsaw, for the destruction of those at Aushvitz.

Max Rothman was human, it is you who is sickening.

reply

[–] Autlan 19 years ago

The elements you claim are lacking are lacking for a good reason. Learn something about writing a screenplay, structure, setting and story telling in general.

I fail to see what good comes from playing up stereotypes, unless you want to revive that mode of thought.

What the hell do you mean by the "Zionist situation in Israel"? You blame Zionists for anti-semitism? You should blame the occupants Warsaw, for the destruction of those at Aushvitz.

The two are geographically unconnected, but I can connect the stupidity of both the situations. That the occupants in Warsaw were so easily manipulated into thinking that the Jews they put into Aushwitz were the enemy is equal to the stupidity of Jews being convinced that re-establishing a Jewish state in Israel was necessary and that a people that had lived there for thousands of years were going to give up their homes. How many lives are meant to be sacrificed to that "holy" soil?

Max Rothman was human, it is you who is sickening.

So I'm sickening and inhuman, these personal attacks are only revealing the unstable bedrock of your arguments.

reply

[–] madcatzara 19 years ago

"Throughout this film I was totally sickened by Rothman."

Exactly. The same as how Hitler is sickened by Rothman. Perhaps the film wants us to adopt some of Hitler's viewpoints in order to understand him. Just my two cents. :)

reply

[–] jacobdtober 19 years ago

Autlan,

I believe you are the true anti-semite. You may not be but you are definitely uneducated, or at the least, seemingly so.

Why I believe you are an anti-semite, you see the portrayal of well-to-do Jews and inside you arises feelings of anti-semitism. As if the thought of Jews being prosperous gives you ill mental images, and that if Jews were weaker, economically, or socially the would seem more acceptable to you.You would probably hate to see me and my family portrayed in a film, I work in TV/Film, my dad was in radio and my uncle is a print journalist. I know we Jews in the media only raise thoughts you are not ready to deal with. As for which Jews the film portrays, it is a film and confined to limited time, for the story the scene he shows was very appropriate and not in a bit anti-semitic. My family emigrated from Austria, Germany's border, and any German Jew will tell you that before the 30's Germany was a great place to be a Jew, equal to the U.S. of today.

reply

[–] Autlan 19 years ago

Well thank you, you seem to know me better than I know myself. Maybe you're the one that's not able to confront this and that's why you rip out a page of the anti-semitism manual and try to pin it to my chest.

As if the thought of Jews being prosperous gives you ill mental images, and that if Jews were weaker, economically, or socially the would seem more acceptable to you.

You're missing the point. In every racial group we see divisions of lesser, equal or greater prosperity, infact it's necessary for our social system to work. Why would you say this is not applicable to religious groups also? You cay be proud of your family's success, that's not wrong, but do you look down on the near penny-less enterprising Jew trying to set up his own business or a man who makes a point to be poor because he disagrees with wealth? I hope not. Why do you imply then that it isn't important that these people aren't represented? A common arguement from that manual you're trying to confront me with is that every Jew is better off than their neighbours, that they are all born with a silver spoon in their mouth and that they exploit everyone around them. While a select few from any demographic could fit in with this, what about all the innocents that were smeared with this image and sent to die during the time period in question? That's what my quarrel with this film is.

you are definitely uneducated, or at the least, seemingly so.

If I'd known someone was going to take such offence at me calling a Kipa a "Jewish cap" I would have taken more care. Really though I don't take any offence, belittle people if it makes you feel safe in your egocentric approach to life.

reply

[–] Col_Zechs 18 years ago

Only person I didn't like was Leelee Sobieski's character. I thought she was a stuck up piece of *beep*

reply

[–] taibunsuu-1 17 years ago

I happen to like imperfect characters in films, and Rothman is a good example. I didn't see him as 'Worst Jew' but a German who happened to be Jewish. Losing a war, losing an arm when he wanted to paint, being disabled all make him a bit decadent, and that's more interesting than the 'Best Jew' who's perfect to his wife, defender of the faith, super person, etc.

reply

[–] Autlan 17 years ago

I'm not fond of horseback heroes dressed in dazzling white either, the thread title was perhaps not so well chosen. I was trying to gauge if anyone else felt that making both the main and support characters reprehensible took away any positive experience you could get from this film.

Though the film deals a heavy hand to Rothman, I felt that too many were too afraid to stop making apolgies for him. After WWI, Rothman landed -- minus an arm -- on a soft cushion when a lot of his fellow countrymen with similar injuries landed on cold, hard floor. One imperfect character would be fine; if this story wasn't just an exploration of possibilities, Hitler could well have been twisted enough to damn an entire religion based on one bad encounter at a critical moment.

Yet, what I saw when watching this film -- which a few in this thread have called me an anti-Semite for -- was the beginnings of a brave uprising of national socialist workers against devious Jews, who pulled hard on their money strings to manipulate the struggling poor into giving them more, daubed with a brush still wet from painting warm appreciative representations of the French and Russian revolutions. It didn't seem right that the film presented only the gut-wrenchingly wealthy and snobbish elite of German Jews when its lens peered back on a time when Germans followed sly suggestions of racial inequality to a system of subjugation and genocide.

These apologist depictions belong in 1939-45: in german school books, in propaganda pamphlets and on the Fuerer's blood stained wall. Not replicated in modern fantasy pieces that pander to the ignorant majority of a removed generation.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Autlan 17 years ago

i think i am so not missing the point ... like, how can a movie about the greatest oppressor of Jews since Pharaoh show the people he oppressed and stuff? ... max, yeah max!!!! they show max and he was a jew!

I guess it's too bad he's a guy even I would like to hit. He really is the filth crusting my treads. The guy has the trappings of a member of the Royal court. His fellow countrymen are struggling to survive following the war and he does nothing to help them. He sits on his parapet and ocassionally glances towards the suffering, before flinching away. His artistic efforts ignore the outside world and focus instead on his own loss. How can you turn around and say he's the hero? Really, it sounds like the westerns have done their damage, kid. "Rich, popular, nice, great with women." He fits into the first category, what convinced you of the rest?

The excuse ("for what Hitler becomes") is burned into the screen. You're equating Hitler with some dizzy blonde that's managed to convince himself that oranges are bad for him. The film then tries to say that there were no oranges that weren't like Max Rothman. So what, I'm supposed to sit back and think, well if all the Jews in Germany before 1939 were so rich and obnoxious, then this was all a class struggle? Those are the words of neo-nazis.

He wasn't evil incarnate, but his warped ideas shouldn't be presented in a context that appears to lend them even a shred of validity to the wrong people. You know what? It's no use. We can't protect ourselves from something like that happening again. Throughout history, people have been hoodwinked into war. Over and over. You know why? People are stupid.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Autlan 17 years ago

At this point the discussion ended, when the other party launched into a chair-smashing tantrum, spewing nonsensical statements atween the splinters.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nowave-1 17 years ago

This whole discussion reminds me of a passage in Neil Gaiman's American Gods about the nature of goodness. The passage describes a man, initially not saying what is job is. The man leads a good life, he has a loving wife and kids who he dotes on. He works hard and he believes in what he does.

About halfway through the passage it is revealed that he is a nazi working in one of the german death camps, gassing jews. He leads the jews into the showers and takes their clothes. He does this with a clear conscience because his world view says it's the right thing to do. In fact, the only time he ever questions his own goodness is moments when he feels sorry for the jews. The last line in the passage is "If he were a truly good man, he wouldn't ever have a problem of purging the world of pests and vermin."

Everyone, even hitler, is a person, with a moral code and world view and a sense of right and wrong. It's only when we understand that code that we can truly understand what drove a man and a country to these deeds.

reply