Historical Background

Downfall tells the story of Hitler’s last days in his Berlin bunker at the end of WWII, narrated by Traudl Junge, Hitler’s final secretary.

Based on the books: "Inside Hitler's Bunker" by Joachim Fest and "Until the Final Hour" by Traudl Junge and Melissa Mueller

Awards & Nominations The film has won Best Foreign Feature

Film in Austria, the Bavarian Film Award and Audience Award, British Independent Film Award, ALFS Award (London Film Critic Awards) as well as many other awards for acting (Bruno Ganz) and screenplay in various countries around the world.

It has also been nominated for an Oscar and many other awards.

The Filmmakers Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel Producer: Bernd Eichinger Author of ‘Inside Hitler’s Bunker’: Joachim Fest Authors of ‘Bis zur letzen Stunde’: Traudl Junge

and Melissa Müller

Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel A German director who

has directed two other films: Das Experiment (2001) and Mein letze Film (2002)

His films show that he is a specialist of dramas set in claustrophobic environments.

Producer: Bernd Eichinger Also well-known for:

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2003), Extinction (2007), Afterlife (2010)Fantastic Four (2005, 2007)Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (2008), Hitler: Ein Film aus Deutschland

Author: Joachim Fest Best known for his biography of Hitler

(1973) Known for: Hitler – Eine Karriere, Virtual

History- The Plot to Kill Hitler An influential journalist, historian and

author who was fascinated by Adolf Hitler He assisted Albert Speer in writing his

memoirs and helped him reinvent himself so that people would forget that he was one of Hitler’s most faithful henchmen, and Downfall showed Speer in a positive light

Authors: Traudl Junge and Melissa Müller

Bis zur letzen Stunde: Junge’s memoirs of her life as Hitler’s secretary

Settings, Details and Design Accurate depiction of setting – "Downfall" tells not

only the historically accurate tale of the last days of Hitler and his henchmen, which they spent in a bunker under the streets of Berlin, but also, in state-of-the-art battle sequences, of the civilians and soldiers fighting and dying on the savaged streets above as the Soviet Army turned the city into a pile of rubble

Settings, Details and Design

• Uncanny resemblance! Very similar outfits too! YAY Hitler FTW

Historical Accuracy

Major events reflecting Nazi’s downfall are accurate and in chronological order

Portrayal of main characters and living conditions in the 12 days are realistic and accurate

Historical Accuracy Details may not be exact: Goebbels children were

injected with morphine by Kunz, many different ideas on how the Goebbels died, many controversies surrounding what actually happened

Events that occur in the bunks and during meetings as well as decisions made by Hitler may or may not happen that way, portrays filmmakers’ own interpretation of Hitler’s last days

Behavior• Actors accurately portray appropriate behaviours of

characters • Ganz indeed displayed a great command of the

awkward Bavarian-Austrian accent which Hitler spoke and manages to give a natural edge to Hitler's notorious outbursts.

“The producers sent me a tape, secretly recorded in Finland in 1942, with Hitler's natural voice - not the screaming orator we are used to, but a soft, attractive voice, a calm baritone. I tried to capture that.” – Bruno Ganz

• There is an actual newsreel of Hitler presenting medals to the Hitler Youth a few days before his death, and it is clearly seen that his hand was shaking – likelihood of having Parkinson

Behavior Witnesses say he was kind to dogs, charming to

women, nice to children, but then he could just say: "Let's kill 5,000 people." In the film, when he and his generals are discussing military problems, one says to him: "What about the 100,000 young German officers on the eastern front? They are going to die." He says: "But they are born to die." He was completely pitiless. – This side of Hitler was also accurately portrayed by Bruno Ganz

Portrayal of Hitler Director Oliver Hirschbiegel stated that the film-makers

wanted to give Hitler a 3-dimensional personality.  Portrays him as a kind man in his daily life, treats the

people around him well, loves his dog. However, critics believe that this does not make up for his actions during the War. Many people still view him as a ruthless monster, and do not believe that he should be portrayed as a typical human being with a heart.

Eg: He praised the cook’s cooking, gave Junge a second chance.

However, the film also does portray him as a terrible person during his rants about how the Germans who are weak should die etc.

Portrayal of Hitler Hitler was also portrayed to be very ‘human’. He

looked utterly broken and hurt when told that he had been betrayed by Himmler

He was shown to be delusional. Even when it was clear that there was no way the Germans could win the war, he still gave instructions about the movement of the armies. As quoted from the film, ‘He moves divisions that exists only on his map’.

Historical Inaccuracies When the drug for the Goebbels children is mixed,

the Erlenmeyer flask is postwar as you can clearly see from the logo (Schott Mainz). The company moved there in 1951/2.

The soap dispensers in the bunker's restrooms were, despite their classic looks, not invented until 1950 in France. They are called "Savon rotatif" (rotary soap) and were - more or less a piece of soap on a wall-mounted stick - a standard issue in French schools and magisterial buildings for many years.

• In the document Gen. Krebs hands over to Gen. Zhukov when they first meet for peace negotiations, the term "Nachfolge Regierung" appears. But in German, writing two nouns as isolated words with no visible connection is wrong (the correct writing would be either "Nachfolgeregierung" or "Nachfolge-Regierung"). While this is in itself a factual mistake, it is also an anachronism, since this mistake was not common before the English language started to influence German. Back in 1945, this was certainly not the case.

• The last day of the war, Weidling's speech to the German soldiers is transmitted via car with loud speakers. This car is actually a Soviet car GAZ-63 and its production has begun 3 years later - in 1948. There's Russian text visible on the hood of the car: "Avtozavod imeni Molotova" - Molotov's car factory.

• SS-Doctor Ernst-Günther Schenck speaks to a German officer near a tank before his way to an abandoned hospital. That tank is supposed to be a T-VI (Tiger-I) according to the shape of its turret. But the width of tracks corresponds to the soviet tank T-34, not T-VI (550 mm for T-34 and 725 mm for T-VI). It is clearly visible that a tank cannon (especially its blast reducer) is a fake and almost all small details of the turret are inaccurate. The front turret armor plate is a painted wooden board. The movie maker most likely used a modern Russian's tank as a basis for that camouflage.

 • Toward the end of the film when SS Doctors Ernst-Günter

Schenck and Werner Haase are walking through the bunker on their way to see Adolf Hitler, an SS officer is seen wearing a Wehrmacht Officers hat.

Error in geography: About 17th minute of the movie. A one-armed war veteran has found his son Peter Kranz near an air defense gun on the street of Berlin. It's supposed to be a German 8,8-cm-Flugabwehrkanone (88 FLAK) - these cannons have been often used as anti-tank guns. But in the movie shown is a Soviet air defense gun 52-K (caliber of 85 mm). This part of movie has been made in St.Peterburg in Russia.

Does the overall look of the film reflect the period? The bunker—recreated in accurate, minute detail by

director Olver Hirschbiegel and his team—becomes a scene of stark inhumanity and insanity.

The war scenes are vividly realistic, and the film in general seems to authentically recreate wartime Berlin.

Has the filmmaker included details that enhance the historical atmosphere and viewing experience?

Under Hirschbiegel's direction, Rainer Klausman's camerawork is dark and gloomy (sometimes too dark and gloomy), befitting the drab bunker setting of much of the film. You can almost feel what it must have been like to be in that isolated, claustrophobic environment.

It depicts the claustrophobic atmosphere in the bunker as well as the chaos reigning outside on the streets as Russian troops close in on the city.

Themes

"The final days [in Berlin] tell us a lot about how the mass fanaticism functioned in the regime’s earlier years and how it continued until the bitter end…. In terms of German film history, we are breaking new ground here, since there is no cinematic frame of reference … We wanted toshoot this film in the German language with German actors and a German director. The Nazi regime and World War II are certainly the most traumatic events in German history. My generation was born after the war, but of course it is our history too and we have to deal with it. I think it was time for German filmmakers to have the courage to bring this material to the screen themselves. It should be a statement to all generations that intolerance, racism and fanaticism lead inexorably into the abyss.“

Bernd Eichinger, Producer

Theme: Intolerance During Hitler’s marriage to Eva Braun, they were

both asked if they were of pure Aryan descent. Shows Hitler’s intolerance of Jews and other

‘Undesirables’ as according to his anti-Semitic views

Hitler’s belief in social Darwinism also reflects another kind of intolerance towards people whom he deemed to be weak. He said in the film that those who are weak deserved to die.

Themes: Fanaticism Evident through how Hitler’s generals and soldiers were all willing to

commit suicide if Berlin falls to the Soviet Union, even to the extent of murdering their own children (Magda Goebbels). She said, ‘They are too good to live in a world without National Socialism.’ – They were faithful and loyal to Hitler.

Children (eg. Peter) who were young but were committed to Hitler – willing to risk their lives to defend Berlin, and willing to take their own lives if their defence was broken

Traudl Junge and Gerda Christian: Refused to leave Berlin even though Hitler had arranged a plane for them. Insisted on staying with Hitler in the bunker.

The Nazi faithful saw Hitler as a forceful leader who promised them Aryan utopia.

Their commitment to the Nazi cause is appalling to us as audiences.

Themes: Fanaticism

Dr Schenck (above) is shown to be chastising Nazi diehards for their heroic plans for suicides when the Russians come.

Modern Point of Film Victimization of German people:

Dr Schenck’s character shows the suffering of the German people during the war and that they too were victims of Hitler. (eg. underground bunkers where the sick and wounded were, leaving the old in the hospital to die, amputations of the Germans). Hitler did not care for the Germans and his scorched earth plan showed his plan to bring Berlin to its demise with him.

Follows the trend in the post-reunification Berlin Republic

Modern Point of Film At the end of Downfall Traudl Junge and the young

Hitler youth Peter ride into the sunset. They are portrayed to be innocent and with Germany and the Nazi regime in tatters, they are ready to build a new Germany.

This is not a novel view of history, but one that had much currency in both postwar Germanys, where the downfall of the Hitler regime was equated with a Stunde Null, a new and unencumbered beginning, and where it was assumed that the vast majority of Germans were at worst responsible for having been gullible and for having let themselves be seduced by ‘the Nazis’.

In one respect, however, Downfall is indeed new. It emphasises German victimhood, and thereby follows a significant trend in the post-reunification Berlin Republic. Admittedly, Germans’ propensity to identify as victims is in itself not new: when visiting Germany in the late ‘40s, Hannah Arendt had already noted that Germans preferred to bemoan their own misery rather than empathise with their victims. But, until the early ‘90s, the preoccupation with German victimhood was merely a strong undercurrent, lacking respectability. Germans had a first inkling that the memorialisation of German victims, and equations that accounted for German victims and victims of Nazi Germany on the same balance sheet, were becoming respectable, immediately after reunification. Then the Kohl government rededicated the Neue Wache memorial in East Berlin – formerly a memorial against fascism and war – to honour all those killed during and as a result of World War II, including Jews, Sinti and Roma, German civilians and soldiers, German expellees, and German postwar victims of Stalinism. Some ten years later, the historian Jörg Friedrich published a widely celebrated account of the bombing of German cities. The book’s reception proved that a patriotic focus on German victims had by now become socially acceptable.

Filmmakers’ Agenda Fest claimed that ‘Hitler wanted to exterminate

primarily two peoples: the Jews, and then in the end also the Germans’.

Downfall subtly implies a symmetry between German victims and the victims of Nazi Germany.

Fest, Eichinger and Hirschbieger were all very fascinated by Hitler, having written books and produced and directed films about him. Hence, there is no hidden motivation behind this film but it was simply to portray Hitler in his final days.

Reviews• Downfall’s main deficiency is its failure to engage with German

(and Germans’) responsibility. Rather than trying to convey on screen why Hitler was a fascinating person, the film should have tried to understand why Germans willingly let themselves be fascinated by him. Downfall is testament to Fest’s fascination, but it does not help us to understand why Hitler was elected in 1933, and thereafter supported by an overwhelming majority of Germans. It does not help us to understand why and how ordinary Germans became implicated in Auschwitz. Bernd Eichinger, the film’s producer, has remarked: ‘I think it’s about time that we tell our history with our own means, and that we have the courage to put the main protagonists onto the screen’. Obviously, for Eichinger and Fest (and numerous other German writers and filmmakers, particularly of the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s), ordinary Germans did not play a significant role in Nazi Germany, and do not deserve to be anything other than extras.

Reviews Wim Wenders felt that the film did not present the

film to be as barbaric as it was, and instead presented an uncritical view towards it, glorifying effect etc.

ending of film did not show actual history where after the fall of Berlin, an estimated 2 million German women were raped by the Soviets, while the film women managing to escape unharmed when the Soviets came