Talk:Downfall (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Title

Why not leave it at Der Untergang which was unambiguous? It's the original title, after all. dab (ᛏ) 07:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also intended to write about this. I feel it is repectful of other cultures (and of original artworks) to use titles in original languages. I also favour "Der Untergang". --Liberlogos 18:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree (On a sidenote, I can't believe this movie didn't get an Oscar!). Brutulf 15:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
ok, I moved it back... dab (ᛏ) 16:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with that in general. However, is that the general convention with film or book titles? --62.64.223.207 23:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wiki policy is to use english titles. See for example In Search of Lost Time--a much harder call, because most people known the English title as "Remembrance of Things Past". I just now did a Wiki search for "Downfall" and found the film way down the list at 30 percent relevancy! Most people search for this article in an English-language Wiki will have the English-language version of the film in mind, and will be searching for Downfall, not Untergang, esp now that it is available in DVD format. --Cubdriver 11:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy states that it should be at the most commonly known name. If a film is known by its foreign language name, like Das Boot it would be found there. This film, is not know by english speakers as "Der Untergang", thus, in articles it should be listed as "Downfall" which would need to be dissambiguated to reach this page. I suggest moving this page to Downfall (film). If there are no objections, I will do so in a few days... -- Samuel Wantman 00:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
With the exception of the US and Italy, this film is known by the title "Der Untergang" in most of the world. It is not called "De Ondergang" in The Netherlands.. IMDB lists it as "Der Untergang" as well. The Americanized title you suggest is a redirect already, so why move it? JeroenHoek 10:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
IMDB policy is different from Wikipedia's. They always use the original name of a film. Wikipedia's policy is to use the name something is most known by speakers of English. If "De Ondergang" was the name in England and Australia, then there would be a good case for leaving it be, but I don't think that is the case. The English language Wikipedia is for speakers of English. I would probably agree to changing the Wikipedia policy to only have the original foreign language names of books and films, but that would be a policy change. -- Samuel Wantman 09:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It was released as Downfall in the UK, and was shown on British TV on 2nd March 2006, promoted as Downfall by Channel 4. Channel 4 are usually pretty good with retaining foreign titles where they are applicable, but I believe the ditributor in this instance thought the literal translation, "The Fall", would not have had the desired meaning. Brilliant film though, Ganz should have won an Oscar. Bigpinkthing 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely known as Der Untergang up here in Canada Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And in the US.

[edit] Controversy?

The introductory paragraph describes Der Untergang as a controversial film, but nowhere in the article is the nature of this so-called controversy stated. — JonRoma 20:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the controversy pertains to the portrayal of Hitler. It's not commonly acceptable to show him as anything else but an evil caricature or a raging madman. (Not that I would be a Nazi sympathizer) Jbetak 20:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
still, the controversy should be somehow described, with pointers to people who objected to the film, or else the descriptor "controversial" should be removed. It is uncommon to portray Hitler "up close and personal", but I don't think anybody actually questioned the film's good faith. I cannot remember serious controversy, in any case. Some people liked it, some didn't, but you can say that of most movies. dab (ᛏ) 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Point taken. Perhaps we could mention what we *believe* was the source of some uneasiness, if not controversy. I offered my best guess, hope others might too. Cheers Jbetak 21:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to all for responding. While it is indeed uncommon — and some would even say unconventional — to depict Hitler as anything but an evil madman, this uniqueness is not in itself controversy. Still, I have found some comments by critics who felt the film too "sympathetic" to Hitler, while others felt the film depicted Hitler and his clique not as monsters but as human beings, albeit despicable ones. (My own POV fits into the latter group; though the film moved me to feel pity for Hitler, I left the theater detesting him, his ideology, and his actions as much as I did when I entered.) I'll try to incorporate some of the critical viewpoints in an addition to the article shortly. — JonRoma 22:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Congrats on your edits - great job! I spent quite some time in Germany and came to realize that the conventional explanation and portrayal of Hitler quite likely out of synch with historical reality. I'm glad this move was made while a few eye witnesses were still alive. It helps one to understand better, it popularizes a historically more accurate depiction of the events instead of promoting a myth out of excessive fear of a continued cult of personality. Jbetak 02:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for your praise, Jbetak. You must have spotted my edits "right off the presses"; I hadn't even had time to add a snippet to this talk page! Anyway, all I was going to say here was "Hope this edit didn't make the article too long."
One thing I think the article could use is a bit more detailed plot summary (with appropriate spoiler warning). Also, the articles referring to the debate in Germany on the film were roughly contemporaneous with its release, and I would be interested for any references to how the debate has shaken out, now that the film's been exposed to German audiences for over a year now. I've read quite a few accounts that this powerful film leaves people in stunned silence, but I'd like to know what they're discussing after they recover their voices. — JonRoma 02:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
That is just it—Hitler was very much human. To never show this and only caricature him as an evil madman is to lay the path for the next fascist dictator. Never forget. 128.194.23.41 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on the moderated WWII Usenet discussion group about the offensive nature of the Goebbels family suicide (or more exactly, murdering the kids). Certainly a number of people in that discussion found the movie controversial! More generally, many find any humanizing portrayal of Hitler offensive; the film was damned on that account by several reviewers in Britain and the U.S. --Cubdriver 11:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know how the Goebbels family suicide was found 'offensive'. Granted it's an extremely distasteful act, but if the film aims to be true to life, any alteration to such a horrible act only trivialises it, or am I missing the point? Douglasnicol 15:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Beats me! But someone did indeed find the movie upsetting, hence a controversy. --Cubdriver 20:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
What are these people thinking? Did they expect the depiction of the final days of a war and of a horrid regime to be pleasant? The Goebbels' murder of their six children is particularly shocking, as is the "explanation" attributed to their mother: "They belong to the Third Reich and to the Führer, and if these two cease to exist there can be no further place for them."
As for the "humanizing" portrayal of Hitler, the dictator was, like it or not, a member of homo sapiens — he wasn't a space alien. As Roger Ebert concludes in his review of the film,
What I also felt, however, was the reality of the Nazi sickness, which has been distanced and diluted by so many movies with so many Nazi villains that it has become more like a plot device than a reality. As we regard this broken and pathetic Hitler, we realize that he did not alone create the Third Reich, but was the focus for a spontaneous uprising by many of the German people, fueled by racism, xenophobia, grandiosity and fear. He was skilled in the ways he exploited that feeling, and surrounded himself by gifted strategists and propagandists, but he was not a great man, simply one armed by fate to unleash unimaginable evil. It is useful to reflect that racism, xenophobia, grandiosity and fear are still with us, and the defeat of one of their manifestations does not inoculate us against others.
— JonRoma 09:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I watched this film recently and was startled to find myself fascinated by the multi-faceted interpretations of what Hitler meant to his followers. For some, fanatacism, for others, blind faith that he was some kind of ultimate being - "But he is the Fuhrer!", for yet others, just a leader of a people who was hopelessly out of touch with reality. I imagine the film's title, on the lines of 'American Psycho', might not necessarily be about the environment around the man, but of his slowly crumbling mental state and delusions of grandeur before the reality check finally kicks in. The acts of murder and suicide were shocking acts of brutal loyalty, and arguably, immeasurable stupidity. Overall, I was familiar with the subject matter but simply blown away its interpretation in the remarkable performanc by Bruno Ganz. It is sad that such a role will never win strong support for an actor who portrayed one of the most hated men in history. Bigpinkthing 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about a movie, and I'm afraid the controversy somehow overshadowed the movie itself. I know a Wikipedia article is not a fan page, but I think someone should find a way to nevertheless give the devil his due; i.e: Bruno Ganz (an actor unknown to me) did an astounding job as Hitler and sent chills down my spine (the "Mein Person! Mein Person! Mein Person!" bit almost gave me nightmares), and the movie was just about the best I had seen all year. Rayaxe 03:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis

In the synopsis section "desperately ordering counterattacks that will never happen, from armies that exist only on maps, commanded by men who are most likely dead" is written. I believe that there is no suggestion in the film that any of the commanding generals are dead. I will change this if no one objects Hobo 10:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only German? Indeed, is he German?

The latest edit (by Mervyn) to the Trivia section says:

Prior to this film, Thomas Kretschmann (SS Gruppenführer Hermann Fegelein) is the only German actor who had previously portrayed a Nazi, in Stalingrad, U-571, The Pianist, In Enemy Hands and Head in the Clouds.

The original text didn't qualify the context and simply stated the only actor who had previously portrayed a Nazi. The edit changed it to the only German actor, which is plausible but (IMHO) unlikely. My thought that it is the only actor in Der Untergang's cast. If anyone has a source, let's use it and clear up the ambiguity. IMDb doesn't mention this trivia item. — JonRoma 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the German bit (rather hastily) because it seemed to make sense of a completely ambiguous sentence, but as you say it cant surely be true. "the only actor in Der Untergang's cast" seems most likely, but is it accurate? mervyn 10:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
That's the only sensible way to read the sentence, and it does't seem unplausible. Actual verification is another matter, of course. dab (ᛏ) 08:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Bruno Ganz is Swiss, not German, as far as I'm aware. He was born in Zurich, and makes this statement in an interview - "I am European, but I’m very strongly Swiss. I can’t hide it. My childhood was in Switzerland, and this is my home." Slideyfoot 09:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, we have established that the meaning of the statement is that Kretschmann was the only German on the set who had previously played a Nazi. Neither have there been no other Germans portraying Nazis, nor were all actors on the set German. ok? Ganz is Swiss, but I don't see what this has to do with anything, or the statement about Kretschmann in particular. Please read the comments above. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What I was referring to was this section in the previous revision: "the film broke one of the last remaining taboos by its depiction of Adolf Hitler in a central role by a German actor (as opposed to using actual film footage of Hitler)". That clearly indicates, erroneously, that Ganz is German. I thought the correction didn't warrant its own section, but wanted to raise the point in case someone else had information that he was in fact German. Slideyfoot 12:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
this is true, and significant. It is not a coincidence that a Swiss actor played Hitler. The taboo-breaking would have been driven home much more if a German had played the role. dab (ᛏ) 13:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Ganz is indeed Swiss (albeit German-spaking). Perhaps the statement should have been "the first German film release where Hitler is depicted by an actor [as opposed to actual newsreel footage of Hitler himself]". In any event, seems like this point needs further confirmation/detail (from the German Wikipedia site, among other sources). — JonRoma 21:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, being honest Ganz is a Swiss actor but hes living in Germany for years. They wanted an austrich actor, because Hitler was austrich nocht german but they couldn*t find anyone who wanted to do the job because the austrich dont want to see that hitler was one of them::_ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.136.213.247 (talk • contribs) .
I am from Germany and I have to admit that I even didn't know that Ganz is a Swiss before I read this discussion. Of course it was some kind of a taboo before, but it is not more or less a taboo, because a not German but German-speaking person plays the role of Hitler. There would had been no different, when a German actor had played him. It is the fact that it is a German film, which portrays Hitler.
And the second, why is it so important, that Kretschmann portrayed a Nazi this often? Why you discussed this point so often?

[edit] Otto Günsche

According to his insignia in the movie, and according to the German Wikipedia and other on-line sources, Günsche was Sturmbannführer in april 1945, not Hauptsturmführer. I'm editing the article to reflect this, but please correct me if I am mistaken. JeroenHoek 14:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. User:ratzinger81

[edit] DVD?

Is there a DVD avaliable? Would be interesting to show my history teacher.63.146.46.202 04:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is — check Amazon or your favorite retailer. See it in a theater first if you can, however. — JonRoma 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Anybody know who is the guy whose picture Hitler looks in the Bunker's wall when Traudl Junge enter in his room (sorry for my poor english)? --201.8.246.224 00:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it could be Frederick the Great Douglasnicol 22:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It is, Hitler would often look at the portrait for inspiration as Frederick II of Prussia overcame attacking forces, turning defeat into victory and elevating Prussia from European backwater to a strong state

Anyone know what model of car they used in the film?.:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 01:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who are the Generals

Who are the two Generals/Field Marshals who kill themselves in the bunker near the end of the film? I know Jodl and Keitel both survived the bunker and went on trial, but I wonder who these two were. Douglasnicol 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if these were the generals represented, but William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich states that most of the remaining members of Hitler's entourage departed the Führerbunker during a mass breakout on May 1 or May 2, 1945. Shirer stated that it was believed that Generals Hans Krebs and Wilhelm Burgdorf did not join in the exodus and instead shot themselves in the cellar of the New Reich Chancellery. — JonRoma 08:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


The two generals are indeed Krebs and Burgdorf. (Greetings from Germany)

[edit] Plot

Holy shite the "Plot" section is overkill. Why is it necessary to have a complete play-by-play of the entire movie? Absolutely ridiculous. I admire the dedication of someone typing that up so I'm not deleting it for that reason... but seriously, it's just way too much. There's just no reason to summarize every 5 minutes of the movie like that. Pariah23 02:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that. It's supposed to a short summary. Please shorten it considerably. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site.
Peter Isotalo 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it is very badly-written. I suggest someone who watched the movie re-write it. Herunar 12:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think whoever wrote the plot synopsis probably doesn't speak English as a first language. I'd love to rewrite the whole section, and I've seen the film, but it's a huge undertaking; I'd need to watch the film a few more times, I think. And if my editing of this article in the past has lead me to believe anything, it's that the non-native English speaker who wrote the original synopsis will revert major changes to her/his work. Blah. Avalyn 05:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The plot section needs to be shorten substantially. It has to be cut to one fifth of its current length at the very least. -- EnemyOfTheState 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep it. I enjoyed reading the synopsis having watched the film itself. The film is around 2 hours 20 minutes therefore the synopsis reflects that. Why cut it briefly for convenience's sake? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.195.74 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
The ending might not come as a shock for most, but should there be a spoiler warning? 24.22.210.14 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The long synopsis was most helpful. I have the German DVD with Dutch subtitles and I don't speak German or Dutch. Indeed several scenes were missing from the synopsis and I can only guess what is happening. I can assure you not every 5 minutes has been summarised! Could somebody rewrite it in even more details, please.

The synopsis was extraordinarily useful. I would not have understood the historical meaning of half the movie without it. --71.112.16.145 (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Traudl Junge a rape victim

I read the article about Traudl Junge and saw that the story of the movie differs from reality on a very important subject. The subject of what happened with her after the war. This is a quote from page about Traudl Junge:

Traudl Junge was not as is shown in the movie 'Der Untergang', saved by a boy by walking with him through Russian lines, but was imprisoned and raped many times (as were many other German women by Russian soldiers) and was for several months the 'personal prisoner' of a high-ranking officer in Soviet intelligence

Should we not have something in this article about that? It seems like the movie creators wanted a "happy ending" and that should be important to note. --Mailerdaemon 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done.Michael DoroshTalk 05:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The movie has her dressed in a SS uniform for this reason. They seem to hint at this in dialogue, right before they leave the bunker. Donbas 08:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought that ending was dodgy. The bit with the bicycle was way too contrived. -88.109.185.96 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speer's 'confession' of disobeying Hitler's scorched earth orders

This is touched on twice in the movie and the article: “Meanwhile, Hitler discusses his scorched earth policy with Speer”. And later: “Finally, he meets Hitler himself, and confesses that he had been ignoring and acting contrary to most of his orders [especially scorched-earth orders] given over the past several months”.

This confession was first reported by a French author in 1952, but in Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth (pp 529-531), author Gitta Sereny reports that it never took place. She quotes Speer’s “Spandau draft” (manuscripts smuggled out) in which he says: “There can be no question of a touching scene [for his last meeting with Hitler] or, even more than that, of a confession such as the Frenchman reported”. However in Speer’s later writings such as the published version of Inside the Third Reich he himself repeats the confession version. Either he had forgotten it was made up, or perhaps he thought the false story would help rehabilitate his reputation in post-war Germany. Speer’s last meeting with Hitler was on April 24 1945, and according to pp491-2 of Sereny’s book, the last time he discussed the scorched earth policy with Hitler was on 29 March 1945, about two weeks before the events depicted in Downfall. Far from making an unsolicited confession, on this occasion it was Hitler who angrily attacked him with Martin Bormann’s evidence of Speer’s disloyalty in not carrying out the scorched earth policy. Speer’s reaction was to unequivocally stand by Hitler and promise to carry out the orders, though in the Spandau draft he wrote that he had no intention of doing so (Sereny, pp.497-8).

Moving an event in time for dramatic effect may be a legitimate movie-making tactic, and Speer did much to prevent scorched earth being carried out. Overall, though, the effect of the movie is to depict Speer with his ‘confession’ in a much better light that he deserved, and by also depicting Hitler’s acquiescence to it the impression is given that Hitler relented on the policy. For these reasons I think the main article should contain a brief note that the ‘confession’ and Hitler’s acquiescence did not actually happen.Rexparry sydney 06:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speer was a very cunning liar. If the truth about him had been known at Nuremberg, he would have been hanged. Read Adam Tooze's new book on the Nazi war economy, which makes his deep guilt over the use of slave labour very clear. Adam 06:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poison?

Upon watching the film I'm curious what kind of poison was meant in the film when the doctor stated it caused death in 1 - 2 seconds. I thought it was cyanide, but to my knowledge it wouldn't take effect nearly that quick. Anyone know and want to add some info to the article? It would also be nice to see a section on historical accuracy for viewers who are curious how much of what they just saw was reliable and how much fabricated or altered.Thelastemperor 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Kershaw, page 1038, footnote 156 of Chapter 17 from Hitler: Nemesis, the poison used was prussic acid and it was a superlative poison. Note that Kershaw discounts the notion that Hitler took acid and then shot himself because the speed of the poison would have hampered his ability to hold the gun, although we never do see Hitler actually take poison in the film. Additionally, Kershaw states that contrary to some accounts nobody actually heard the gunshot. However the scene in the room after Hitler's body is removed-specifically the position of the blood and the gun-I am proud to say is exactly as Kershaw describes it. Hitler was sitting on Eva’s left and had bled through his right temple, and his gun was lying on the floor. (Mchelada 19:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] number of germans playing hitler films

I changed it to read 'fourth'. In the Joachim Fest article I changed it to read 'third german playing hiter' because in that article is mentions "feature" films. I dont think Hitler - ein Film aus Deutschland was such a film and more an art house movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.231.97 (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Controversy

"Controversy also followed after the films end texts where the director only mentioned one race that were murdered by the Nazis but no other ethnic group like the Romani were mentioned which lead many to believe that the director only looked for a job in Hollywood."

This line I feel is rather POV and needs a citation. I agree with the section where it mentions that no other groups were mentioned, but the "director only looked for a job in Hollywood". Well thats a bit slanted. First off the film was primarily for a continental audience otherwise it's likely it would have been dubbed or English speaking actors cast (not that I would have agreed with such a move). Just putting "Some people thought the director was after a Hollywood career" isn't enough. If you have citations from film reviews or whatever, fair enough. Douglasnicol 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, and he's been blocked. DurinsBane87 20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi, I fixed the references. If you find a mistake please tell me so I can correct them. Webhat (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary

At over 4,000 words, the plot summary had been marked as overlong for several months. I've trimmed it to a more appropriate length and level of detail, using an older revision [1]. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] parody / in pop culture

Any room for all the Parodies on the scene where they tell him they are defeated? Hitler gets banned from Xbox live, HD DVD's downfall, Hitlers car gets stolen, hitler on Second Life, hitler installs Vista, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.158.181 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be some mention of this relatively recent Internet phenomenon. KHorberg (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extended version

There should be a mention about the Extended version of the film. It was shown in german tv and is also available on DVD. The extended version is 22 minutes longer and has lots of additional scenes.

[edit] Maybe we can discuss...

...the youtube 'dubbed' subtitles for the scene where Hitler goes off his nut, er, where they point at the map and the girl starts crying.--Editor510 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weidlings Iron Cross

It says in the article that Weidling lifts the Iron Cross at his neck at Burgdorf when asked to explain himself. I can't remember the scene myself, but it sounds like the Knights Cross to me(carried around the neck), not just the Iron Cross.....83.109.85.160 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)