MovieChat Forums > Max (2003) Discussion > good film, but it does contain certain h...

good film, but it does contain certain historical inaccuracies...

posted 20 years ago by Le_philosophe85
7 replies | jump to latest

It is entirely true that Adolf Hitler orginally wished to become an artist, but this was before the great war of 1914, not after. Hitler, who is austrian by birth, moved from his hometown of Linz to Vienna several years before WWI in the hope of becoming a well known painter. Unfortunately his paintings had little artistic merit and were judged to be mediocre at best.His lack of natural talent and artistic abilities is what caused him to be denied entrance to a prestigious viennese art institute to which he applied twice and was refused both times. He left Vienna at the outbreak of WWI to join the german army (he didn`t like the austro-hungarian empire much, far to ethnically diverse and un-germarnic for his teutonic tastes). When he left Vienna for Germany he was almost certainly quite disillusioned with the art world of that period. After the war, and the movie takes place in 1919 I believe, Hitler did not try and revive his artistic career, he did however work as a spy/rabblerouser for the german army for several months (as seen in the film) and quickly became enraptured by the complexe world of post WWI german politics and became involved in a then finge party known as the national socialists wokers party. The movie points out all these details but makes it seem like Hitler was torn between art and politics, which as far as I or any other histoiran knows was not the case. He never seriously considered becoming an artist again after his early rejections and disapointments.

Anyways I don`t want to seem like to much of a stickler for details, this film is fairly interesting and does offer its viewers an almost unique perspective of Hitler`s formative years. Technicaly I shouldn`t even bother to critisize because Cusack's caracter is fictional, the plot is entirely based on a hypothetical situation, namely what if Adolf Hitler was enticed into becoming an artist after all.

[–] cg476 20 years ago

First, it's not a documentary but a work of fiction.
Secondly, there is not much known about H and his activities during his spare time in Munich (he must have had a lot of time since he was not in a daily routine.)
Third, I think it is more or less common knowledge that H looked upon himself as an artist even after his failed attempts to join the Viennese academy of fine arts. He made sketches for his project of a new center for Linz etc. (even after he became Reichskanzler.) He did not stop drawing sketches etc after the Vienna experience.
In my opinion the director of the movie made a hypothetical that does not - directly - contradict the historical facts as they are known. So I would concur with your concluding paragraph.

[–] Le_philosophe85 20 years ago

I realized, shortly after having posted my message, that my comments are rather superfluous because they're fairly obvious and my conclusion pretty much defeats the purpose of my first paragraph (critisizing the historical accuracy of this film). If I could I`d probably retract my post because it seems uneccesary.

I concur with your commentary, Hitler did consider himself an artist and a connoisseur of the arts throughout his later years and tenure as Führer. He was quite heavily implicated in the cultural and art world of the third reich (as Führer how could he not?), which ,of course, was quite restrictive.

[–] HENRYCHINANSKI 20 years ago

I found the film interesting enough, and the performances were superb. I was particularly interested to see Cussack's undobted abilities brought to the surface in this film. He has proved himself with excellent work in the past, but he seemed to carry this part with a particular maturity that I don't recall having noticed previously; and it is certainly far removed from the big-budget Holywood movies that he has some times been involved with.

I do have, however, a personal gripe with the seeming hypothesis of the film- namely that Hitler would have turned away from the path of Fascism if only he had had a little better luck... if only he had sold a little art then the whole dark history of the period could have been avoided! I beleive that the film does play around with this concept.
There is no doubt that particular experiences that pushed him in the direction of Fascism could have occured differently- and the heavily fictional aspect of the story is interesting for this, as it stands! But Fascism itself, and in particulay German Fascism, did not evolve because of the influence of one twisted individual- with superb speaking skills- as the case often seems to be put.
Would there have been a Fascist dictatorship in Germany without Hitler? (if he had only sold a little art?) Well of course there would have been. In a period of extreem ecconomic unrest; the rise of the most powerful socialist organisation in the world (German Social Democracy) and an increasingly militant working-class- holding in mind the examples of 1918 and 1921- not to mention the recent Bolshevik victory in Russia- then big-buisness; bankers; military officers, and eventually an angered middle-class torn between hostility to socialism and the corrupt rich at the top of society- began to look at the Fascist thugs as a means of escape from the danger of a socialist victory and the ending of their wealth, power and priviledges in a revolutionary upsurge.

The very contradictions inherent within the capitalist system, constantly produces periods of crisis and a responding rise in working-class militancy; big-business- relying on a bitter and fickle middle-class- pull back the democratic structures in an attempt to protect their own interests. This is what Fascism is- and why, and how, it could develop again.

[–] agrocz 20 years ago

I think you're confusing two ideas here: the idea that Hitler would not have followed the Fascist path had he become a succesful painter, and the idea that there would have been no large scale Fascist movement without Hitler.
The film only plays with the first idea, which isn't entirely implausible in itself. And, as you say yourself, there certainly would have been an influential Fascist movement without Hitler. This film however does not claim that. I am thus not entirely certain what you are having a 'personal gripe' with...

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Doug_Steckel 20 years ago

"Max" is similar to the movie, and play of the same name, "Amadeus". They are rooted in historical times and characters, but they play more as character studies; exploring grand "What if..." scenarios, sometimes forgoing exact accuracy in order to tell the story. Personally, I can accept that angle. As long as it's not trying to claim to be something it's not, I will go for the ride on which the author/filmmaker wants to take me.

While "Amadeus" is one of my alltime favorite films, I thought "Max" was lacking...a certain something. I did not hate it, and respected the interesting topic it was discussing. But, my enjoyment mainly was due to Noah Taylor's outstanding performance. I was not 100% engaged throughout the film, and I'm still trying to disect why.

[–] ryanyunryan 20 years ago

I found Max extremely gripping. Whatever the inaccuracies, Max captures something about the Germans and the Jews like no other films on the subject has. Max Rothman, a German-Jew, is presented as a 'life artist' and not a victim, as Jews are so often protrayed, whereas Hitler, the Aryan, is a figure to be pitied. I have been living Berlin for over 15 years now. It's hard to live here and not wonder what madness occurred in this country once known as the Land of Philosophers. The schizism I find in Germany today is while there is constant presentation of the second world war on TV and in the schools (The Holocaust is taught from a remote perspective, lots of figures and historical reasons but little pyschological analysis), on a personal level there is massive denial by the generation that lived through it. I know a lot of elderly Germans who still thinks Hitler was good for the country, though they do feel bad about what happened to the Jews but it is something they would never openly discuss. While holocaust monuments and museum were popping up everywhere in the world after WWII, it took Berlin more than 50 years to erect a museum. (German's reservations about Jews is revealed in a recent survey, 9 in 10 Germans would prefer not to live next door to one. (Don't quote me on this, I heard it from a German acquaintance.)

What the director gets right on the money is the psyche of the Germans at the time - self-pitying and desperately looking for scapegoats. Max Rothman returns from war with his right arm amputated. Despite losing the very limb that enables him to create art, he immediately goes about recreating himself as an art dealer. Yes, he might be seething underneath at what he sees as bourgeoise and superficial life led by his wife and family while he himself has gone from hell and back, but he keeps this in check and uses it as fuel for his performance art. Max, on the other hand, is practically spitting self-pity and venom at what he sees as the unfairness of his life - poverty,lack of job opportunities and anger at how well people like the Jews were doing, as experienced by millions of other Germans at the time. In contrast, the Jews came to Germany less than two hundred years ago. Only those who could pay the outrageously high sum demanded by the Prussian king were given residency in Berlin, which could be rescinded at the king's whim. They were banned from practicing most professions, building synagogues or attending schools or universities. Only the oldest son or daughter was permitted to stay in the city, other siblings had to purchase their permission or leave. To top of off, they were also not allowed to use any of the Berlin city gates except the Rosenthaler Gate reserved for livestock, and then they had to pay the same charge equivalent to a head of cattle. In spite of the odds piled against them the Jews prospered and thrived and within a century became an educated and cultured elite. In this light, Max Rothman's transformation is merely what his predecessors have always done to survive. According to prominent journalist Sebastian Haffner, a Jew who returned to Germany after the war, he wrote that unlike the French with their epicurean fervor or the English and their gardens and animals, the Germans' tragedy is that they had little talent for the small joys of life, in its place they developed a culture of complaining and self-pitying. Hitler as seen in the movie encapsulates all this. Today I believe only a non-German director can do a film like this (this is what my German husband thinks too), because for the Germans this is still a subject too hot to handle. A great big hand for Menno Meyjes.