The outstanding qualities of this film have already been discussed at length, I want to address some of the criticisms levelled against this film by 'the experts' (critics and historians).
Why are they so outraged by a film that portrays the nazi leadership as human beings? The actions and mannerisms shown in this film are entirely consistent with how those people acted in real life. Yes, Hitler was a genocidal leader, but he was just a man, not a demon. He was capable of great cruelty but was it is often remarked that he was capable of decent conversation with people and was generally amiable but patronising in his dealings with subordinates. These attributes, I feel, were accurately portrayed in the film.
What about the film portraying war criminals (eg, keitel, jodl, speer) in a positive light, as brave and honourable men? This film made it clear that it was a representation of the final days and hours of the nazi regime. the death camps have been liberated by the advancing allies, the victories of 1939-41 a distant memory. Yes, these people were guilty of war crimes but that doesn't mean they would act like in a cowardly or dishonourable way when their homeland was under siege.
Take a look at any good film, book or just at humanity in general, you will see that ALL people are capable of cruelty but also of honour, bravery and loyalty.
Why is it controversial to portray the nazi leadership in such a way? I think the film displays well the internal tug-of-war - loyalty to their leader against reality and self-preservation - taking place in each persons head while they deal with the inevitable capitulation.
Finally, where are these critics when Hollywood produces some awful pap that portrays historical events emerges? Whether they re-write history (eg. braveheart or mel gibsons patriot) or try and play 13th century characters with 21st century liberal emotions (eg. kingdom of heaven) these films escape the large scale criticisms levelled at der untergang.
Why does Hollywood produce this nonsense? Is the true story of what happened (the American revolution, the crusades, ww2) not interesting enough for cinema viewing? I think it is and the accurate, human portrayal of Hitler and the German people in der untergang proves this.
Why are they so outraged by a film that portrays the nazi leadership as human beings? The actions and mannerisms shown in this film are entirely consistent with how those people acted in real life. Yes, Hitler was a genocidal leader, but he was just a man, not a demon. He was capable of great cruelty but was it is often remarked that he was capable of decent conversation with people and was generally amiable but patronising in his dealings with subordinates. These attributes, I feel, were accurately portrayed in the film.
What about the film portraying war criminals (eg, keitel, jodl, speer) in a positive light, as brave and honourable men? This film made it clear that it was a representation of the final days and hours of the nazi regime. the death camps have been liberated by the advancing allies, the victories of 1939-41 a distant memory. Yes, these people were guilty of war crimes but that doesn't mean they would act like in a cowardly or dishonourable way when their homeland was under siege.
Take a look at any good film, book or just at humanity in general, you will see that ALL people are capable of cruelty but also of honour, bravery and loyalty.
Why is it controversial to portray the nazi leadership in such a way? I think the film displays well the internal tug-of-war - loyalty to their leader against reality and self-preservation - taking place in each persons head while they deal with the inevitable capitulation.
Finally, where are these critics when Hollywood produces some awful pap that portrays historical events emerges? Whether they re-write history (eg. braveheart or mel gibsons patriot) or try and play 13th century characters with 21st century liberal emotions (eg. kingdom of heaven) these films escape the large scale criticisms levelled at der untergang.
Why does Hollywood produce this nonsense? Is the true story of what happened (the American revolution, the crusades, ww2) not interesting enough for cinema viewing? I think it is and the accurate, human portrayal of Hitler and the German people in der untergang proves this.