MovieChat Forums > Er ist wieder da (2017) Discussion > Smart comedy marred by ham-fisted ideolo...

Smart comedy marred by ham-fisted ideology at the end


I thought the first half or so of this film was really brilliant satire, a twisted version of the comedy trope of the straight man and the comedic foil. Hitler was played with great subtlety as the straight man, being "Hitler" without being the cartoon version most commonly seen in Western media or the dark psychopath type like Bruno Ganz's version in "Downfall".

The man-in-the-street types played in the first half were the comic foils, with the whole thing feeling like a more realistic version of Sacha Baron Cohen's "Ali G" characters when he plays them so straight that the humor is in the unstaged reaction of the innocent man on the street who isn't in on the joke and doesn't realize that his straight reactions are what's funny, not the obvious character's behavior.

After about 1/2 or 2/3rds of the way through this film, though, it seemed to get too caught up in it's morality play about the careerist TV executive and his collapse after seizing power. That was too much of an obvious parallel to Hitler's career himself -- the TV executive in his office was Hitler in his bunker, explaining how he would stop the Russians only to be told his army had collapsed.

The very end with the news footage of anti-immigrant protests just seemed ham-fisted, as if the audience had to be told what its message was. All of the irony and humor in the first half was evaporated by then and we were just being beat over the head with another screed.

Far better would have been continuing the straight man routine, with Hitler's bizarre but accurate critiques of modern Germany turning its political conceits on their heads. The bit about Hitler respecting the Greens for their environmentalism was genius.

reply

I agree 100%! What was a brilliant satire devolved into sanctimonious propaganda. It was a shame that the film did not adhere more closely to what was in the book.

Carpe Cine

reply

totally agree 100%

reply

100% agree, the movie had a brilliant idea at the beginning with him coming to grips with Germany's socio-political issues of modern times. I craved more of that, why did they go for the "hollywood" route in the end?

reply

I think to a certain extent there's a desire to preserve Hitler's iconic bad guy status. By placing him in the modern era and making the character into a human being, which I think was necessary for the narrative to work, they risk making him somehow normal and rational which also risks making his ideas seem normal and rational.

Partly they need it -- since part of their thesis seems to be that there's a strand of nationalism and xenophobia in the current era that's somehow compatible with Nazism, yet the risk is by updating and demonstrating stains of Nazi philosophy among contemporary people I think they risk normalizing these ideologies or making them seem appealing.

Part of the challenge in placing historically evil political figures in modern settings is that I think that the reality is most of them really were very rational, insightful and intelligent people who had a strange charisma that allowed them to attract followers. They might just end up being people you would like to have at a dinner party.

Of course the opposite scenario could be pretty interesting, too -- take an iconic good guy from history and put them in modern times and then make them unlikable as people. Imagine Abraham Lincoln in the modern era as a backwoods hick who's not afraid to brawl.

reply

I think we should be open to the idea that Hitler may have been right.

reply

The movie industry is unfortunately dominated by leftists. Whilst they may be very creative, they have an infantile view of the world outside the celebrity bubble, hence their cringe worthy political views.

reply