Downfall (film)/Archive 1 - Reception

Reception

While treatment of the Third Reich was still a sensitive subject among many Germans even 60 years after World War II, the film broke one of the last remaining taboos by its depiction of Adolf Hitler in a central role by a German-speaking actor (as opposed to using actual film footage of Hitler). Ganz conducted four months of research to prepare for the role, studying a ten-minute recording of Hitler in private conversation with Finnish Field Marshal Mannerheim in order to properly mimic Hitler's conversational voice and distinct Austrian dialect.

The film's impending release in 2004 provoked a debate in German film magazines and newspapers. The tabloid Bild asked "Are we allowed to show the monster as a human being?"

Concern about the film's depiction of Hitler led The New Yorker film critic David Denby to note:

As a piece of acting, Ganz's work is not just astounding, it's actually rather moving. But I have doubts about the way his virtuosity has been put to use. By emphasizing the painfulness of Hitler's defeat Ganz has made the dictator into a plausible human being. Considered as biography, the achievement (if that's the right word) is to insist that the monster was not invariably monstrous – that he was kind to his cook and his young female secretaries, loved his German shepherd, Blondi, and was surrounded by loyal subordinates. We get the point: Hitler was not a supernatural being; he was common clay raised to power by the desire of his followers. But is this observation a sufficient response to what Hitler actually did?

With respect to German uneasiness about "humanizing" Hitler, Denby said:

A few journalists in wondered aloud whether the "human" treatment of Hitler might not inadvertently aid the neo-Nazi movement. But in his many rants in Hitler says that the German people do not deserve to survive, that they have failed him by losing the war and must perish – not exactly the sentiments that would spark a recruitment drive. This Hitler may be human, but he's as utterly degraded a human being as has ever been shown on the screen, a man whose every impulse leads to annihilation.

After previewing the film, Hitler biographer Sir Ian Kershaw wrote in The Guardian:

Knowing what I did of the bunker story, I found it hard to imagine that anyone (other than the usual neo-Nazi fringe) could possibly find Hitler a sympathetic figure during his bizarre last days. And to presume that it might be somehow dangerous to see him as a human being – well, what does that thought imply about the self-confidence of a stable, liberal democracy? Hitler was, after all, a human being, even if an especially obnoxious, detestable specimen. We well know that he could be kind and considerate to his secretaries, and with the next breath show cold ruthlessness, dispassionate brutality, in determining the deaths of millions. Of all the screen depictions of the Führer, even by famous actors, such as Alec Guinness or Anthony Hopkins, this is the only one which to me is compelling. Part of this is the voice. Ganz has Hitler's voice to near perfection. It is chillingly authentic.

Addressing other critics like Denby, Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert wrote:

Admiration I did not feel. Sympathy I felt in the sense that I would feel it for a rabid dog, while accepting that it must be destroyed. I do not feel the film provides "a sufficient response to what Hitler actually did", because I feel no film can, and no response would be sufficient. 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.

Hirschbiegel confirmed that the film's makers sought to give Hitler a three-dimensional personality.

We know from all accounts that he was a very charming man – a man who managed to seduce a whole people into barbarism.

The film was nominated for the 2005 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in the 77th Academy Awards. The film also won the 2005 BBC Four World Cinema competition.

The film is set mostly in and around the Führerbunker. Hirschbiegel made an effort to accurately reconstruct the look and atmosphere of the bunker through eyewitness accounts, survivors' memoirs and other historical sources. According to his commentary on the DVD, Der Untergang was filmed in Berlin, Munich, and in a district of Saint Petersburg, Russia, which, with its many buildings designed by German architects, was said to resemble many parts of 1940s Berlin. The film was ranked number 48 in Empire magazine's "The 100 Best Films Of World Cinema" in 2010.

Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a "Certified Fresh" rating of 91%, based on 133 reviews (121 "fresh", 12 "rotten"), with an average score of 8.0/10. The site's general consensus is: "Downfall is an illuminating, thoughtful and detailed account of Hitler's last days". Metacritic gave the film a score of 82 out of 100, based on 35 reviews, indicating "Universal Acclaim".