![]() ![]() He would never have understood that his crimes were too heinous and numerous for cinema to depict him in that light. He likely would have viewed himself as a tragic hero, or worse a misunderstood martyr. As an enthusiastic cineaste and certifiable egomaniac, he probably would not have been pleased by the portrayals. Watching one of his performances-I call his speeches performances-because it was not what he said, but how he said it that was extraordinary, one is immediately struck by how well thought out and structured they were, with every gesture and movement of the body orchestrated to give meaning to the the torrent of words pouring forth. He was probably the greatest actor of the twentieth-century who used first Germany and then the World as his stage, mesmerizing it with performances of such messianic passion that he transported his audiences away with him to some unattainable inner Valhalla of their own making. But did he have greatness, as well? His nemesis, Winston Churchill offered this assessment, "If evil can be great, we cannot deny him greatness." He certainly had genius. Taking a position on Hitler's moral character is not difficult he was the embodiment of evil. One could examine him from a historical, psychological, or sociological perspective. How does one approach the towering figure of Adolf Hitler, a figure so out-sized in his cruelty, so colossal in his infamy, that it staggers the imagination to conceive that he actually lived and breathed? Yet he was as human as you and I and gifted with some of the virtues and most of the flaws that flesh is heir to. Reviewed by GulyJimson 10 / 10 Hitler: The greatest performing artist of the twentieth-century? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |