German director Oliver Hirschbiegel who shot to fame with his critically acclaimed film, The Experiment, brings us the story of the final days of the Third Reich in his chilling politically charged film, Downfall. The film is set in Berlin, in the last 48 hours of the Third Reich, mostly from the point of view of Hitler’s inner circle inside the Führerbunker, as the world collapses around them. Downfall is not the first movie to address this subject, but is definitely the most revelatory. In fact this seminal film could be described as a film about the decline of a single, insane man, holding onto his delusions until his final breathe, as much as it is about the collapse of an entire regime, ideology and way of life. For audiences interested in the politics of war, Downfall documents the inner circles of absolute power precisely, showing the consequences of decisions made by strong minded men behind closed doors.

Downfalls fascination with humanizing Hitler throughout the film is central to its reflection on fanaticism. What the Nazi saw was not a sycophant madman focused on ending the world, but rather a strong leader who promised them a new Germany, an Aryan utopia. The scenes throughout the film of young Nazi’s who won’t abide capitulation remind us of the deplorable nature of ideological zealotry; these characters throw away their lives as we, the audience, watch with sheer despair; how could they be so devoted to something that was so iniquitous?

The film received heavy criticism because it attempted to humanize the Nazi’s, but this is the films impetus; the Nazi’s were not monsters, they were human, just like you or I. This choice, of depicting Hitler and his henchmen as something human, instead of monsters, was commendable. The film does not attempt to force a point of view on its viewers; each viewer is entitled to form their own opinion. Too often World War Two films focus on the horrors inflicted by the Nazi regime, depicting them as monsters. In the real world perfectly normal human beings can be cruel and merciless if they are blinded. Hitler had the choice, and he chose to do what he did, he chose murder and destruction; a human being lost respect for the lives of other human beings and his decisions led a country to commit genocide on a scale unknown in modern history. Ultimately he loses respect for all life and starts sacrificing his own soldiers at random, this is the strongest point of Downfall, going against the grain and making a human Hitler a tangible idea.

Downfall is best described as an attempt by Germany to analyse its torturous history. Even now, it is hard for Germany to contemplate what occurred during the reign of the Third Reich. Generations have tried to understand such an infamous history. Downfall’s attempt to tackle the suffering which Germany had to bear through the Third Reich, somewhat reduces its value as a tool for understanding the past. This is unfortunate, as the film has much to offer. It is a powerful portrayer of the extremist mind, not as we would envision it today, but still relevant for the study of today’s religious fundamentalism. Ultimately though, the film’s mistaken attempt to cast Germany as a casualty reminds us of the struggle Germans face in coming to terms with their history.

While Downfall can be disturbing, and at times, extremely difficult to watch, it is an enormous achievement that should not be missed. A powerful look at the innards of a totalitarian regime at the brink of destruction, while also showing the effect this has on the people in power. As an examination of historical events and a human drama, Downfall delivers well. The film also distresses the viewer greatly, this is required, it has to pose its questions about human nature and the nature of politics otherwise it would be an empty and forgettable gesture. The film’s searing portrayal of an utterly ruthless fanaticism is its most enduring effect. While heavily distressing, this is a film which must be seen.


  1. Carol Rice

    “a powerful portrayer of the extremist mind, not as we would envision it today, but still relevant for the study of today’s religious fundamentalism”

    Carol writes: Hitler admired Darwin’s theory of “survival of the fittest” and implemented it. Unfortunately, he took it to the illogical conclusion, as did many (world-wide) at that time, to help evolution move “faster” by eliminating those deemed undesirable. In the U.S.A. 50,000 people were forcibly sterilized to prevent their having children. If you research the beginning of Planned Parenthood, it was created to eliminate births among the poor and illiterate, targeting non-white areas and neighborhoods. This is similar to what Hitler did. He endorced the confiscation of properties and elimination of Jews, blacks, and gypsies. He wanted only those of white German ancestry to live/be allowed to have offspring. He also targeted homosexuals as well, sterilizing or killing them, in case there was a genetic link involved.

    As far as fundamentalists today, including those we would consider extremists, they seem to be following a moral code. Hitler, with his denunciation of god or God, had no basis for a moral code other than whatever he wanted bases upon his personal goals. Until you have a set standard when can you know you are within set bounds or outside them?

    Today, evolutionists are still at work eliminating opposition in unfair and immoral ways (but again, what do they know about moral law without having a moral code or a standard of exelence?). Each cell within our bodies is like a miniature city with each interconnected part being dependent upon all the others. If you were to ask HOW these cells could function so intelligently, and have a self-healing and self-replicating design without their having had an intelligent designer you would be fired if worked for almost any university in the U.S. We are talking about merely asking a question and attempting to find answers for the many complexities of life. Yet, right now, saying we got here by riding on the back of a crystal or were left here by drive-by intelligent beings in a UFO makes about as much sense as saying we were created by God. Professors and journalists are losing their tenure, their jobs, their credibility over asking the wrong questions.
    Think about it: how can their be wrong questions? There might be wrong and useless answers or bad attitudes; but wrong questions?
    Until the least are safe and free, none of us are. What happens to others can happen to us. It’s just a matter of time. ~Carol

  2. dave

    you raise some really interesting points, unfortunately with a word limit, in was only able to dig so deep.

Leave a Comment