"Max" Not taken as literal history, I hope (SPOILERS)
Richard
Cusack
really took the cake. I wonder how many people, ignorant of history
will
regard this movies as history? For those who haven't seen it, the
movie
concerns Cusack, a Jewish art gallery owner and his friendship (sort
of)with
a young (1920-21) Adolph Hitler.
Hitler fancied himself a great artist. He was apparently only
mediocre.
In real life, he was rejected from admission to a prestigious art
school
on these grounds and this helped shape his opinion of the Jews, whom
he
believed were most responsible in the school for rejecting his
artistic talents. This isn't what happens in the movie. In the
movie, Max tells Hitler that his paintings are not really evocative of
what Hitler could do if he put
his soul into the work. Max and his clients want modern art and
Hitler only
wants to do classical art. Hitler is driven to rage because he is
unable to
produce the kind of art Max has asked for. Meanwhile, Max and Hitler
have had
discussions on the fact Hitler, despite denying it is anti-Semitic.
This is the ironic part; Hitler says he admires Jews because they are
intelligent and stick to their own kind, the same ideals of the as yet
uncreated
Nazi party. Max claims that he's heard this before and it just isn't
true.
But the Max himself is good example of this. He's witty, intelligent,
urbane,
has a beautiful Jewish wife who he obviously wont leave but also(as
Hitler points out) a beautiful WASP commie (she likes to put on plays
about
social conditions) girlfriend. The girlfriend seems to be around to
provide
Max with bragging rights as in "He look, fellas, I've got a
non-Jewish, leftist Aryan Girlfriend; Aren't I just the hippest guy?"
There are manipulative scenes designed to sway the audience opinion
away
from sympathy for Hitler. Bear in mind that this is Hitler before
Mein Kampf
and the Nazi party, just your average German WW1 veteran.
He fought in WW1, won the Iron Cross for bravery, but can't find
gainful employment so first off we have a scene of him eating
charity food, apparently provided (because they show this big read
star on
the building he's near) by the local communist party. Hitler despised
the
communists so one of the first scenes we get is them feeding him.
Oh the irony!
Then, we see that the leader of Hitler's military unit (after WW1)sees
Hitler as a potential spokesperson for a new National Socialist Party
he
and his fellows are forming. He convinces Hitler to give small
speeches
and confirms Hitler understands the meaning of the new science of
propaganda.
So Hitler is torn between the desire to be an artist and the need to
establish
himself as a political operative, something he appears (in the movie,
anyway)
to not be interested in.
Max asks Hitler why he wants to politically indoctrinate the lower
stratum
of society. Hitler tells Max in essense that you start a movement
from the
bottom with the bottom dwellers.
Max tells Hitler to stay out of politics and Hitler does not seem too
interested
in a political life anyway, he wants to be a noted artist. Max gives
the destitute Hitler some advance money for as yet to be produced
"good art."
Finally, the crazy movie payoff comes. Hitler can't produce a
painting.
He throws a fit. Then Max sees Hitler's sketches of his concept of a
new Germany, complete with buildings that would later take shape under
Nazism.
Max is intrigued because Hitler has layed out the whole new society
concept
right down to uniforms for military men. He offers Hitler a gallery
showing of
this material and arranges for Hitler to meet him at a cafe where he
can see
the rest of Hitler's sketches. Hitler is thrilled, he's finally going
to get
into the art world.
But, Hitler has been asked by the head of the National Socialists to
give another speech, to rouse the troops. Hitler agrees but says this
is the last
time, he's finished with politics because Max is giving his art a
public showing.
So what does Hitler do? He incites a mob by outlining the concept of
the parasitic "blood Jew" that exists to the detriment of Germany.
Some of the
rabble he screeches his speech to run into the streets, and low and
behold
the first person they meet is Max, whom they proceed to beat to death.
Meanwhile, there's Hitler, furiously leaving the cafe because Max
stood
him up. No Max, no show, no art career, then comes Nazism. It's all
so simple!! Hitler sabotaged his own art career and dragged down
Germany with him
all because of one beerhall speech!
The movie is a clever and simple story but it is not history. Movies
like
this should come with disclaimers at the beginning. In order to get a
good
understanding of why things really developed the way they did, the
rise of
vocal anti-semitism in Germany and Europe, and Hitler's rise to power,
I'd suggest reading a good book on the era, from 1914-1945.
-Rich
Jay G
> I've heard of artistic license, but the movie "Max" starring John
> Cusack really took the cake. I wonder how many people,
> ignorant of history will regard this movies as history?
I dunno, how many people regard "Shangai Knights" as
history?
-Jay
claguire
You might hit closer to home if you consider it a philosopical work,
examining the ordinary face of the monster. I think, though, that you
really just have to take this drama on its own terms. Forget even the
glib bit that this film raises the question "could Hitler and history
have been turned if only he could have been an artist?" That's a sales
pitch. Something to simplify the story and make it easy to describe.
This film answers that question firmly, and that answer is NO. It
seems clear that's the answer early on. And to me, that's what is
fascinating about the picture. It's a small story about two people, a
passionate and driven story that is almost unimportant, almost
ordinary, with Big History hanging over it. And what's more, in my
opinion, even if history weren't hanging over it, if it were set in a
fantasy world where we didn't know the outcome, the story would still
be the same--we'd still have a sense of what the stakes really are for
these characters.
In particular, what I found effective and fascinating, is that Max
clearly senses something important in this pathetic, scruffy little
guy. These characters have strange insight into one another, and a
strange magnetism between them that makes them value each other's
opinions, even on things they shouldn't. (WHY does Max ask Hitler what
he thinks of that disastrous bit of anti-military perfomance art? He
knows full well Hitler's opinions, and yet it's as if he also knows
that Hitler is the only one who understood it.)
This is a reasonably well researched, and extremely well performed,
drama that gives us insight into two very nicely delineated characters.
It's about character, not history. It also makes a social statement
about the ordinariness of evil, and how we see it. (And yes, I think
Max sees it.) It doesn't make any recommendations. It doesn't imply
that there is something specific to be one. It just lays it out there
for the sake of understanding.
I think the direction was a little sloppy, although I can't put my
finger on specifics. The script seemed uneven, and not always timed
right. I also think some of the best stuff was so subtle that it got a
little lost under the big emotional shadow of history. (For instance,
toward the end, Hitler's big antisemitic speech is intercut with scenes
of Max and his father attending temple. The temple scene is really
beautifully done as we see Max watching his father worship, and then
joining in. We can see he has been healed--ironically by his
relationship with Hitler. But the fearsome power of that speech
overwhealms everything of meaning in the temple sequence.)
There's a lot that could have been done with the balance and timing,
but lets face it, it was a first time director dealing with a very
heavily loaded subject. And the performances and quiet moments are
superb. It's not perfect, but it's worth watching.
Camille