Already people are criticizing this movie because of the suggestion that if Hitler had become an artist, we might have prevented the Holocaust. I would have to disagree with them, in that this is not what the film was trying to convey. What this movie was about was Hitler's odd relationship with a Jewish art dealer named Max Hoffman. This takes place when Hitler was aged 30 years old (post WWI, pre WWII). Hitler is trying to be an artists, but refuses to listen to advice and seems to find the slight in every comment about him or what he stands for. He claims NOT to be an Anti-Semite, but what I got from the film was he was sort-of peer pressured into the propaganda.
By then end of the movie, Hitler has failed as an artist, as he did in real life. He claims to have disovered a new art in politics, and pursues a career in the Socialist Party rather than becoming an artist. Does this sound familiar?
While this movie may not be a true account of what actually happened, it did portray Hitler's falling out of his pursuit towards being an artist, boasting the message: some people can't be changed. Cusack's character, Max, constantly tries to become Hitler's friend throughout the movie, but this is difficult because hitler is anti-social, rude, closed-minded (obviously), basically just a hard person to like. The film's message is not to show what could have been, but what never, ever had a chance of happening. Even if Hitler had succeeded as an artist, nothing would have changed.
The movie succeeded in what it was trying to do, which I think was show how Hitler had every opportunity to choose a different path, but he didn't. He had a Jewish friend that never did him wrong, yet he failed to see the goodness and humanity, the common link that binds us all. Perhaps the movie's message was, some people can't be helped, no matter how hard you try.
I'm sure the idea when it was being written was, what if Hitler had a Jewish friend that could have made a differnce? There you have it. None at all. The rest, as they say, is history.
I thought this was a brilliant film. The acting was terriffic, the directing good, and the pacing was not slow at all, it's just the audience that's impatient. Bonus: the camera-pull back in the end to show the architecture of the squares forming a swatstika, ingenius.
By then end of the movie, Hitler has failed as an artist, as he did in real life. He claims to have disovered a new art in politics, and pursues a career in the Socialist Party rather than becoming an artist. Does this sound familiar?
While this movie may not be a true account of what actually happened, it did portray Hitler's falling out of his pursuit towards being an artist, boasting the message: some people can't be changed. Cusack's character, Max, constantly tries to become Hitler's friend throughout the movie, but this is difficult because hitler is anti-social, rude, closed-minded (obviously), basically just a hard person to like. The film's message is not to show what could have been, but what never, ever had a chance of happening. Even if Hitler had succeeded as an artist, nothing would have changed.
The movie succeeded in what it was trying to do, which I think was show how Hitler had every opportunity to choose a different path, but he didn't. He had a Jewish friend that never did him wrong, yet he failed to see the goodness and humanity, the common link that binds us all. Perhaps the movie's message was, some people can't be helped, no matter how hard you try.
I'm sure the idea when it was being written was, what if Hitler had a Jewish friend that could have made a differnce? There you have it. None at all. The rest, as they say, is history.
I thought this was a brilliant film. The acting was terriffic, the directing good, and the pacing was not slow at all, it's just the audience that's impatient. Bonus: the camera-pull back in the end to show the architecture of the squares forming a swatstika, ingenius.