Hitler - The Rise Of Evil

[Trash Man]

Did anyone else watch this fantastic programme? Was on CH4 the last two saturday nights. If you did miss it you can get it on DVD as from next week http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page...2&title=131503


Amazing acting on all parts and a real eye opener as well. We all know quite a bit about Hitler during the second world war years but this started from his childhood and it really makes you think all the way through it.

Just ordered the DVD so I can watch it again next week

[Theo]

Yeah, I enjoyed it quite alot too, although I wouldn't have minded if they had made an extra episode and including the fall of the Nazis and his suicide, etc. All in all, though - got to be Robert Carlisles best performance since "Looking after JoJo". I think my other half will probably buy it :>

[Bindibadgi]

Fantastic! Robert Carlyle was SUPERB! It was kind of funny having german nazi's with very british accents though :S but the whole thing was great.

[telfer12000]

I thought it was toilet tv. I couldn't watch it - the script was pants and Bobby Carlyle must have been short of money to make this nonsense. I think if they hadn't called it Hitler (and removed all the references to Germany and the Nazis)and just called it something else it might have been OK for light viewing.
For example, Hitler beating a dog to show you all what a bad man he was - come off it what tripe....HO, HO, HO

[Bindibadgi]

Originally posted by telfer12000
For example, Hitler beating a dog to show you all what a bad man he was - come off it what tripe....HO, HO, HO

But he was a complete psychopath. I thought it was a true script written from journals/papers/historical documents and stuff about him wasnt it?

[ReDOcToBeR]

I missed this due to the fact I was out on the lash both weekends and as I forget to put the video on but thanx 2 Trash Mans link I have now ordered it and so will reserve judgement on it until I have watched it in detail.
Tbh it's not gonna be everyones cup of tea and the only reason I have ordered it is that part of the past interests me.
If it gives me a bit more insight into the workings of a madman than imho that's not a bad thing.

[telfer12000]

Once someone is dead you can say anything u like about them (just about).

For example, once they'd died, books came came out which stated that the great actor John Wayne was a wife beater and that the thirties heart-throb and actor Errol Flynn was a Nazi Spy not to mention the countless allegations about Diana. I don't know if any of the allegations are true or not but no one can confirm or deny because they are dead.

Hitler was very,very bad man but whether he beat a dog or added sugar to his wine (which is still quite common in eastern europe today because of the acidity) is based on fiction and not fact.

It's not bad fact it's just not based on any evidence and therefore it is impossible to refute.

The problem is that Hitler and the Nazis sell!! They still sell books, and they sell films and documentaries. People remain fascinated by the Nazis which is both good and bad. Good because it makes us all remember the horror of what man can do to man and bad because the historians and the media are able to pervert the truth and present fiction as fact which is sometimes positive and sometimes negative. There was a great docu on BBC 4 last week about the relationship between the great German film-maker Lenny Riefenstahl and Hitler which was wonderful but it was yet another documentary preoccupied with the Nazis and based on partial truth to suit the politics of the film-maker.

Mankind still can't get to grips with Hitler and the Holocaust so we imbue him (Hitler) with extraordinary powers of evil (even as a young man)just so we they can rationalise what happened in the thirties and forties.

Last weeks film was just another example of mankinds attempts to explain and thus rationalise Hitler.

The problem historians have is that if they can't explain why something happened then there is no way of ensuring that it doesn't happen again.

I didn't actually mind the Carlyle film but I did think that it was made to sell to the USA cable stations (which is probably why Bobby Carlyle agreed to play the part $$$$$$) and thus the script was based on what the USA audience would like rather than the facts.

[Bindibadgi]

ok the USA audience thing is true, i see that, but even as a work of fiction i enjoyed watching it. He's the classic insane evil man though, that's why there is so much stuff about him.

Ya cant say things about em when they are alive cause a) they answer back and b) they sue.

[Trash Man]

Originally posted by telfer12000
I thought it was toilet tv. I couldn't watch it - the script was pants and Bobby Carlyle must have been short of money to make this nonsense. I think if they hadn't called it Hitler (and removed all the references to Germany and the Nazis)and just called it something else it might have been OK for light viewing.
For example, Hitler beating a dog to show you all what a bad man he was - come off it what tripe....HO, HO, HO

You ever read any books on Hitler? I have and he did beat a dog to death during the great war in front of troops, but he used a rifle butt, not a belt.

[telfer12000]

You completely missed my point.

Whether Hitler killed a dog or not is irrelevant.

My point is that the use of this scene as a means of conveying something about the monster of Hitler the man is infantile in the extreme.

I can just imagine the director/scriptwriter sitting down in best Hollywood traditions and asking each other how they could convey the true evil of Hitler to an American audience and then one of them says "let's use that dog beating story, if people see Hitler beating a dog they will realise just how evil he was" - as I said tripe TV.

[Trash Man]

Never mind, I enjoyed it muchly

[telfer12000]

Trash m8, it wasn't as bad as I'm making out.

I'll tell you what really p***ed me off and that was that I'd heard about a year ago that Bobby Carlyle was going to play the part of Hitler in a film and I got quite excited and was looking forward to seeing the finished film and when I eventually saw it, I was mucho disappointed.

A bit like waiting years for Gangs of New York and then getting a wooden script and Leonardo Di Caprio acting like sh**.

[spikegifted]

I guess it's good acting, but then again I've idea how the real persons behaved like all those years ago. At least the history appears to be accurate.

[Trash Man]

Originally posted by telfer12000
Trash m8, it wasn't as bad as I'm making out.

I'll tell you what really p***ed me off and that was that I'd heard about a year ago that Bobby Carlyle was going to play the part of Hitler in a film and I got quite excited and was looking forward to seeing the finished film and when I eventually saw it, I was mucho disappointed.

A bit like waiting years for Gangs of New York and then getting a wooden script and Leonardo Di Caprio acting like sh**.

I never knew anything about it until about a month ago and I never really get excited about films or stuff on TV anyway so I tend to enjoy stuff more that way.

As for Gangs of New York, I am with you on that one. Daniel Day-Lewis was top notch in that film, as he is in all his films, but he was let down big time by Leonardo Di Caprio.