I teach History outside Dachau and have been involved with the memorial site and give tours around Munich. So I know the history behind this adaptation of the book. Seeing the trailer, I was excited to see familiar buildings such as the former Führerbau (where I met the author, Robert Harris) even if there was the disquieting knowledge that the city (as well as Berlin I noted) allowed once again to have American money justify decking the town in Nazi flags.
I don't want to get into the historical aspects too much- it's impossible to do justice to the period within the confines of a two hour drama and books have been written concerning the real Chamberlain and the type of characterisation employed here. So a few observations: 1. I don't understand the tension. Will war be avoided or not? Well, we know it was... for about a year. Given it took place regardless, what's the point about being worked up about Munich?
2. The Macguffin in the form of the document outlining Hitler's real plans. Why does it have to be hand-delivered to Chamberlain personally? How was it even possible? OK- Hitler's really planning for war. We knew that! Why rely on some document when we had Mein Kampf published back in 1925? We knew he'd eventually turn on the Soviets; that's why we took Stalin's support for granted. I just don't get it. Chamberlain is expected not to sign the Munich agreement within the next couple of hours- against the most profound wishes of the vast majority of his country- because of some German document he can't read (he never brought any German speakers to the conference!), has no idea where it comes from, who produced it, how legitimate it is... Meanwhile the Germans themselves are showing no interest in getting rid of Hitler- they'd just taken Austria!
3. All the tension seems to be artificial to create it.
I) So the German protagonist somehow gets a private interview with Hitler in his Prinzregentplatz apartment. Able to smuggle a gun in. Will he shoot Hitler or not? The tension... What tension? Why is this guy even against Hitler in the first place? The show makes such a big deal about how this guy was a Nazi fanatic. He's even shown out of control in a restaurant openly expressing loudly his Hitler support (in a restaurant he didn't want to go to because I assume he thought it wasn't Nazi enough?). Hitler never changed. His views never changed. He wasn't a libertarian at first and then woke up and came up with this diabolical plan. So how does this guy completely change? And given how eccentric he is depicted as being, how does he ever get into a position of such responsibility in the first place?
Ii) His SD mate attacks the hero in his hotel. Huh? This is a guy who is one of, what, six guys in the British delegation officially representing the UK. Some guy breaks into his room and then beats him up in uniform! Does that even make any sense?
Iii) The female characters are unfortunately two dimensional. This is understandable given the period of time, but because they have no power, influence, role, they're reduced to being emotional, self-absorbed people. The hero's wife is more concerned that her husband isn't spending enough time on her rather than him successfully help prevent a second world war. They have a son- isn't she concerned that he'll grow up in a much more dangerous world that may require him to fight and die? Seriously- what is her problem? Why is she even involved in the story besides create a sense of artificial tension (or, for an excuse to give role for women and minorities)? If anything, it just emasculates the hero so much (I forget his name he's so forgettable) that one is embarrassed to be British.
3. Roles created for minorities are reduced to token characters. The secretary is now an East Indian albeit actually from Nottingham. Why the need to turn her into a minority- an even greater one in 1938? The actress involved stated that she was inspired to take on the role (a colourblind white role played by an ethnic minority) by the story of real-life heroines like Noor Inayat Khan who was was murdered near where I live, bravely fighting in the resistance against Nazism whilst at the same time being bitterly opposed to British control of her country. That's what inspired her understanding of her character who happens to be nothing more than a typist? I find that insulting.
Nevertheless she's of course sassy and opinionated and just the sort of person to entrust the Prime Minister's planned speech for secret transmission.
A top ranking British official has to be black. This is 1938 nearly two decades before immigration from the Caribbean. This historical revisionism is dangerous given the message it sends. The British are portrayed as, if not multicultural, at least open at the time to colonials when we still had India and 1/4 of Africa. There was no reason given- such a character is not fleshed out but exists simply to present a black face. Besides my criticism about the need nowadays to create superfluous, token roles by which to reduce actual humans into mere memes, this is important for such a show- the British and Americans were plenty racist at the time. Brits for the most part weren't going on about the Jews as they are made to do here- the Evian conference showed that. They took part in the 1936 Games despite the violence directed against Jews (and others). And yet here the British are told at one point that they're not in any position to take a moral stand without any reason ever given.
4. And finally, in terms of characters. Whilst I thought Irons did a good job as Chamberlain such as the part created for him, Hitler was just strange. Gaunt within an oversized uniform, it finally struck me- the actor had earlier payed Göbbels in Der Untergang. Talk about being typecast.
I don't want to get into the historical aspects too much- it's impossible to do justice to the period within the confines of a two hour drama and books have been written concerning the real Chamberlain and the type of characterisation employed here. So a few observations: 1. I don't understand the tension. Will war be avoided or not? Well, we know it was... for about a year. Given it took place regardless, what's the point about being worked up about Munich?
2. The Macguffin in the form of the document outlining Hitler's real plans. Why does it have to be hand-delivered to Chamberlain personally? How was it even possible? OK- Hitler's really planning for war. We knew that! Why rely on some document when we had Mein Kampf published back in 1925? We knew he'd eventually turn on the Soviets; that's why we took Stalin's support for granted. I just don't get it. Chamberlain is expected not to sign the Munich agreement within the next couple of hours- against the most profound wishes of the vast majority of his country- because of some German document he can't read (he never brought any German speakers to the conference!), has no idea where it comes from, who produced it, how legitimate it is... Meanwhile the Germans themselves are showing no interest in getting rid of Hitler- they'd just taken Austria!
3. All the tension seems to be artificial to create it.
I) So the German protagonist somehow gets a private interview with Hitler in his Prinzregentplatz apartment. Able to smuggle a gun in. Will he shoot Hitler or not? The tension... What tension? Why is this guy even against Hitler in the first place? The show makes such a big deal about how this guy was a Nazi fanatic. He's even shown out of control in a restaurant openly expressing loudly his Hitler support (in a restaurant he didn't want to go to because I assume he thought it wasn't Nazi enough?). Hitler never changed. His views never changed. He wasn't a libertarian at first and then woke up and came up with this diabolical plan. So how does this guy completely change? And given how eccentric he is depicted as being, how does he ever get into a position of such responsibility in the first place?
Ii) His SD mate attacks the hero in his hotel. Huh? This is a guy who is one of, what, six guys in the British delegation officially representing the UK. Some guy breaks into his room and then beats him up in uniform! Does that even make any sense?
Iii) The female characters are unfortunately two dimensional. This is understandable given the period of time, but because they have no power, influence, role, they're reduced to being emotional, self-absorbed people. The hero's wife is more concerned that her husband isn't spending enough time on her rather than him successfully help prevent a second world war. They have a son- isn't she concerned that he'll grow up in a much more dangerous world that may require him to fight and die? Seriously- what is her problem? Why is she even involved in the story besides create a sense of artificial tension (or, for an excuse to give role for women and minorities)? If anything, it just emasculates the hero so much (I forget his name he's so forgettable) that one is embarrassed to be British.
3. Roles created for minorities are reduced to token characters. The secretary is now an East Indian albeit actually from Nottingham. Why the need to turn her into a minority- an even greater one in 1938? The actress involved stated that she was inspired to take on the role (a colourblind white role played by an ethnic minority) by the story of real-life heroines like Noor Inayat Khan who was was murdered near where I live, bravely fighting in the resistance against Nazism whilst at the same time being bitterly opposed to British control of her country. That's what inspired her understanding of her character who happens to be nothing more than a typist? I find that insulting.
Nevertheless she's of course sassy and opinionated and just the sort of person to entrust the Prime Minister's planned speech for secret transmission.
A top ranking British official has to be black. This is 1938 nearly two decades before immigration from the Caribbean. This historical revisionism is dangerous given the message it sends. The British are portrayed as, if not multicultural, at least open at the time to colonials when we still had India and 1/4 of Africa. There was no reason given- such a character is not fleshed out but exists simply to present a black face. Besides my criticism about the need nowadays to create superfluous, token roles by which to reduce actual humans into mere memes, this is important for such a show- the British and Americans were plenty racist at the time. Brits for the most part weren't going on about the Jews as they are made to do here- the Evian conference showed that. They took part in the 1936 Games despite the violence directed against Jews (and others). And yet here the British are told at one point that they're not in any position to take a moral stand without any reason ever given.
4. And finally, in terms of characters. Whilst I thought Irons did a good job as Chamberlain such as the part created for him, Hitler was just strange. Gaunt within an oversized uniform, it finally struck me- the actor had earlier payed Göbbels in Der Untergang. Talk about being typecast.