Contemporary Insanity

Adolf Hitler, a name that is synonymous with the systematic slaughter of millions. His name has been undeniably etched into our collective conscious because of his atrocities during the Holocaust. When we see Hitler in any given text, it is socially accepted as the norm that he is represented as a pure demon. No other individual in surrounded by such an aura of pure malice that it truly reaches mythical proportions. But is this representation steeped in bias because of a moral agenda?

Andrew Green reveals the issue of representing Hitler in texts, and how author’s moral obligations to Holocaust victims distorts the truth.

Adolf Hitler, its amazing how one name can trigger a thousand thoughts and emotions. How can one name so easily send shivers down our spines and send our minds into a frenzy of thought in the same breath? The main reason behind this is we are aware that Hitler was largely responsible for the Holocaust, by far the largest and most gruesome genocide in modern history. An estimated 50 million lives were lost during this era, the mourning for those lost will echo through the ages. However, as time elapses since the Holocaust we are beginning to see an emergence of a new Hitler in contemporary texts that begin to humanize him, rather than demonize. Until now, the mainstream representation of Hitler is that of a stereotypically �evil’ discourse. These texts paint a very dark picture.

The FÐ"јehrer, his dominating presence demands explicit attention. His eyes, both wild and lifeless, sweat and spittle literally exploding off him, he stabs the roof with his rigid salute. The crowd emulate his salute and scream “ZEICH HEIL!”.

This is the scene that would greet a viewer of Hitler: Rise of Evil, a BBC mini-series that showcases a dramatized biography of Adolf Hitler. The story follows his disturbed childhood, to his failed teenage years as an artist in Vienna, his national service for Germany in World War One and his sequenced rise to power in the Nazi Party. The story climaxes at the death of President Paul von Hindenburg which consolidates Hitler’s totalitarian rule over Germany. The rest is taken as said. Hitler: Rise of Evil conforms to the norms of demonizing Hitler.

The dominant representation of Hitler: Rise of Evil adhere to the stereotype of the author shamelessly dramatizing history to further demonize Hitler. The author deliberately represents Hitler as totally inhuman and uses certain creative imagery to emphasize this technique. The audience is shown a glimpse of humanity in Hitler, and then systematically rips this away and replaces it with demonic imagery. In essence, Hitler is replaced with a �cardboard cut-out’ for evil constructed specifically by the author. This is evident throughout Hitler: Rise of Evil in various instances.

An example of this is from the very beginning where the audience is shown a child Hitler suffering some heavy handed discipline from his father. The audience is positioned to feel sympathetic for poor little �Addy’. This sympathy is promptly shot down as the viewer sees young Hitler’s expressionless face as he’s being beaten. Revolted as the audience realise he is not an ordinary child but likened to something of �The Omen’ franchise. As the story progresses, there are continuous instances in which these polarized representations are present. In the World War One scene, Hitler is in the midst of couriering across the battlefield where he stumbles upon an orphaned dog taking shelter under its owner’s corpse. He then picks up and rescues the terrified and shaking dog which he affectionately names �Foxy’. Later when Foxy disobeys his command, Hitler consequently shoots down his humanitarian representation by beating and whipping his dog.

Perhaps of all these binary opposite representations, the most riveting is where Hitler helps his niece Geli after she falls of her bike and shows sympathy. He then reduces Geli to tears as he forces her to run around him in circles through thick scrub in a scene of metaphorical rape. Could all of these scenes be to reinforce a moral agenda?

Maybe the majority of texts that depict Hitler rely on this stereotypically �evil’ discourse because they have a moral obligation to show respect to the victims of the Holocaust. Most have a blatantly obvious moral agenda because if they represented Hitler in contrast to evil, this would be disrespectful to the millions of lives lost, and further generations of these victims. Majority of these texts rely on dramatic license to emotionally engage an audience rather than provide accurate historical detail. Afterall, who would want to see Hitler in a positive light? A clearly biased view, privileging those opposed to Hitler, influences the discourse of a text whether written or visual.

Text that represent Hitler rarely portray Hitler in contrast to evil, so as to avoid controversy and to fulfil a moral obligations. But honestly, as a reader wouldn’t an alternative viewpoint pique your interest more than the lame repetitive mainstream? Downfall, a 2004 German film based on the last days of Adolf Hitler in his