manisimmati In the 1970s, historian Lutz Becker discovered a singular contemporary document: the so called "Home Videos" of Eva Braun. The 16 mm images show Adolf Hitler and his entourage in his country home Berghof at Obersalzberg. Becker turned to the young director Philippe Mora, who arranged the Home Videos with other footage from Germany in the 30s. The result was an unusual documentary: "Swastika". It premiered in 1973 at Cannes, where it caused a scandal. The movie had to be stopped halfway through, because the audience was irritated by the seemingly trivializing depiction of Hitler. In France, the movie role was stolen from a cinema and spread over the graves of Jewish Holocaust victims.As you can see, "Swastika" was political dynamite. It was one major decision by Philippe Mora that caused all the fuss: He renounced every didactic commentary. There is no voice-over contextualizing the footage. Whoever watches this movie has to establish the critical distance alone. We have to find our own way through the propaganda Mora confronts us with. That makes for a challenging, captivating experience. The movie isn't completely neutral, though. There might be no verbal commentary, but there certainly is a stylistic one. For instance, in one scene we see Hitler taking a walk with a small girl, where Mora cuts repeatedly to pauperized ghetto children. Interestingly, these direct condemnations form the weakest parts of "Swastika". The movie is at its best when it just shows us the German delirium that was the Third Reich: cheering crowds, swastikas everywhere, sappy art, orotundity à la Riefenstahl, and finally Hitler presenting himself as a cool-headed and insightful leader. This madness ought to be a punch in the gut of every (reflected) viewer.Then there are the color movies that Eva Braun recorded at Obersalzberg. We see a middle-class community enjoying itself, all while the Holocaust is raging. Among them: Hitler the personified evil, shown in all his banality. He's shockingly boring, standing around clumsily, almost dim-witted; talking about the Hollywood classic "Gone With the Wind", pondering the future of technicolor and playing with his dog Blondi. What do these images want to show us? What can they show us? The answer is: not much. At least nothing we shouldn't have known in the first place. Hitler wasn't some kind of monstrosity that came from outer space. He was a human like all of us. If we dehumanize him, we will never understand the catastrophe that was Word War II - insofar it is understandable at all. That's a simple yet important message the movie tells us rather clumsily at times. But "Swastika" shouldn't be reduced to that basic thesis. It shows more than it tells. The juxtaposition of image and sound is especially remarkable. The love song "What Wouldn't I Do for That Man" ironically characterizes not only the relationship between Hitler and Eva Braun, but also the Hitler cult of the Germans. The use of Noël Coward's satirical song "Don't Let's Be Beastly To The Germans" after devastating pictures of mass extermination is downright cynical. To this day, "Swastika" is a brave documentary that omits instruction (almost) entirely. The execution is a bit shaky, but you can't deny the unsettling atmosphere Mora's editing creates.

sempervirentz That's the starkest documentary about the Third Reich, I have seen so far. At the age of 19 Franco-Australian film student Philippe Mora made the archive discovery of his life. With the help of a historian he found the Obersalzberg film roles that Eva Braun once stored in her bedroom at the Berghof and that were later seized by US military personnel. Mora mixed these private recordings with Nazi propaganda material and created a documentary. Only in the second part of the movie he used footage from "the other side". The movie misses any comment. Mora let the pictures speak for themselves. The documentary caused a scandal back then and was first shown in German cinemas 37 years later. The contrast between cosy mountain idyll, martial parades and evil propaganda is hard to overcome. The film conveys a sense of how powerful and thrilling the atmosphere was at that time. The Overture to Wagner's Tannhäuser combined with pictures of a country on the move, politics as religion, the Olympic Games, the eerily beautiful Riefenstahl scenes, Adolf and Eva at the Berghof playing cheerfully with dogs, next to hate speech, first acts of violence against Jews and military armament. We all know what came and had to come. The German population did not know every detail, or did not want to know. Repression as a survival strategy. "Better go with the flow" was the motto. Go with a movement unseen in history. Even in the faraway US there were tens of thousands who got infected by the Hitler mania. (This is also shown in the documentary.) And then the second part of the movie. The great destruction. A crescendo of violence. Bombs, flashes of light, dead bodies, total war; sicker and more intense as any Hollywood production can ever be. Then camera flights over a completely devastated country, images from the concentration camps. So terrible that you don't want to look at them. Time for the end credits? No. The movie ends with a scene at the Berghof in which Hitler is hosting a few guests. Coffee and cake is served. I repeat. Coffee and cake. I can hardly imagine a more bitter contrast. I recommend this movie to anyone who is not only interested in theories about mass psychology and the phenomenon of "ideology as a substitute for religion", but who wants to sense an undertone, a mood, an inkling of what was going on back then. Yes, the first part of the film is dangerous. It depicts Hitler as a human being and shows a country that is completely inebriated. But if one really wants to understand the events of that time, one has to expose itself to this.

Sammy Young I tripped over this movie late at night on Amazon on-demand video. I gotta tell you, it's definitely interesting. It shows the "human" side of Hitler, joking around with staff, making wise cracks here and there, complaining about cigarette smoke, etc. I think the intent of the story (which is basically newsreel and personal movie camera footage in order from 1935 to 1945) is to chronicle the rise and fall of Hitler, as seen in his eyes. You can see how the war wears on him- he gets grayer, starts shaking at times, and even see how he can't stand being in direct sunlight because of the drugs he was on. So, knowing his personal and physical history from what I've read before about the sick Bastard, this movie confirms those conclusions (i.e.- he was mentally ill and took large doses of drugs that blurred his speech, the way he walked, the way he interacted with others, etc. So, it's a good documentary from that end. Suggest watching with the volume down most of the time because hearing all the "Hiel Hitler!"s are enough to make you want to drink...

Joel Nelson Philippe Mora was the person who as a 19 year old film student discovered the now well known personal films of Eva Braun (that would make a fine film in itself). This fascinating color film footage is incorporated into this un narrated documentary along with a wide assortment of original Nazi newsreels and propaganda films to present life in Nazi Germany from 1933-45 as seen through the propaganda filmmakers (and Eva's) camera lens. A wonderful classical music score accompanies. This film is quite rare and is generally unavailable. I believe it was nominated for an award (or won an award). Nevertheless,if you get a chance to see it, buy it, etc, do it. It is the best documentary film on Nazi Germany of it's kind with much never before seen original footage.