Tango01 | 02 Jan 2020 10:32 p.m. PST |
"The most expensive film produced in the Third Reich, Veit Harlan's Kolberg (1945) represents a culmination of Nazi cinema's interwoven ideological and artistic ambitions, aiming simultaneously to entertain, impress, and instruct spectators. Joseph Goebbels, who served as the film's unofficial executive producer, conceived it as a psychological miracle weapon capable of preserving national unity in increasingly hopeless circumstances and turning the tide of the war. In theory this was to be achieved by drawing a parallel between the civilian militia's successful defense of Kolberg during the Napoleonic Wars and Germany's situation in early 1945. However, close study of the film's production, distribution, and reception suggests that the film largely failed to achieve its propagandistic goals for a variety of factors, especially Goebbels' obsessive meddling with the script and editing process…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
Glengarry5 | 03 Jan 2020 12:57 a.m. PST |
I have it on DVD. It's crazy. It's bizarre how much effort was put in making this film while the Reich was collapsing around their ears. |
Patrick R | 03 Jan 2020 4:24 a.m. PST |
Goebbels was always a bit too full of himself when he kept on harping about the power of images. It's all very "Film school theory" and little else. I doubt very much that even the big epic Triumph des Willens really "convinced" people. The ones that were particular to Hitler followed him regardless and those more critical could probably tell it was an exercise in blatant propaganda. The idea that Goebbels is some kind of piper who can turn you to nazism through a comedy like Frauen sind keine Engel is somewhat preposterous. I think in that in Goebbels' case people made links that are nowhere near as strong as they would love to believe. When people approach nazi propaganda they almost always assume it was highly successful. |
Tango01 | 03 Jan 2020 12:51 p.m. PST |
I have it too… so bad that became funny… how they managed to put there so many men with the need of soldiers in the front line?…. Amicalement Armand |
138SquadronRAF | 03 Jan 2020 2:26 p.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 04 Jan 2020 12:03 p.m. PST |
Thanks my dear cousin!. (smile) Amicalement Armand
|
138SquadronRAF | 05 Jan 2020 1:41 p.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 05 Jan 2020 4:22 p.m. PST |
Thanks also…! Amicalement Armand |
Handlebarbleep | 05 Jan 2020 5:38 p.m. PST |
For those of us interested in the Hitler's Sweater contagion heuristic thought experiment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagion_heuristic Does the manner of it's being made dilute the pleasure of watching the battle scenes? |
SHaT1984 | 07 Jan 2020 8:24 p.m. PST |
So whats changed- first, they delude themselves… hmmm |
ConnaughtRanger | 23 Jan 2020 3:18 p.m. PST |
This thread piqued my interest so I obtained a copy from the States via Amazon. It was interesting from an historical (WW2) point of view but of negligible value for the Napoleonic enthusiast due to its almost comic book portrayal of the period. There are few sweeping battle scenes – apparently Goebbels had most of the violent scenes removed – so the thousands of extras are almost wasted? It's fascinating to compare a similar British piece of wartime filmmaking – "Went The Day Well" – and the respective views of resistance to the enemy. Hardly surprising the Germans (or "Nazis" as the BBC requires me to refer to them) lost? |