Max - review

Title: Max
Director: Menno Meyjes
Cast: John Cusack, Noah Taylor
Released: 2003

Here was something that sounded interesting when I first heard the concept, a story about Hitler's life as an artist. I went into the cinema with an open mind and few expectations, and overall, came out fairly satisfied, if not entirely challenged intellectually. John Cusack plays Max, and Noah Taylor really impresses as the young 'corporal' Hitler in this stylish, artistic insight into what is essentially one very fascinating 'what if?'

The film revolves around the life of art dealer Max Rothman, who is an affluent, cultured German/Jewish family man, returning from the First World War with a missing right arm, which seems to have brushed away any hopes he himself had of being an artist. Hitler too has just returned from the First World War, and is depicted as a very proper, functional, yet extremely lonely human being. His only love is art, and he approaches Rothman with a view to getting some of his art placed in a gallery. That's where it gets slightly interesting, as art itself is brought into the equation. Hitler despises modern art; he has a more direct, functional view of creativity, (for example, drawing nice, pleasant and realistic paintings) whereas Rothman deals mainly in the more progressive, abstract & cubist art forms of the day in Europe.

At times, we get glimpses of Hitler's wild side, and this is where Noah Taylor's performance really does begin to cement itself in your head, you can feel the hatred in his voice, and more than that, you can see the spit and venom flying from out of his mouth. I often find that the more extreme a role is, the easier it is to play, which in some way makes sense, as Max Rothmans infinitely more intelligent and subtle character is just as difficult to appreciate or relate to from the audiences perspective. But, apart from using art (a little too obviously at times) as a way of indicating the difference between these two people, one of the main themes of this film is fundamentalism. I saw in Taylor's performance, remnants of people that I have known, people who have fundamentalist tendencies, people who, as Rothman notes of Hitler "tend to find a slight (insult) towards them in every single comment". It's so interesting, and indeed rewarding to see Hitler like this, because the history books, and media have always subconsciously drummed into us the notion that Hitler is more of a symbol, a marker for all of us 'normal' people to simply point to and say " that's what evil looks like." However, this film shows that it is rarely that black and white in real life.

What fascinates me about this film is the questions it raises, can this fundamentalist character be subdued? Reasoned with, and calmed by art? Or will fate ultimately dictate that his/her life will move in a certain direction, in Hitlers case, the wrong direction. I tend to believe in the latter a little more, although it must be said at this point that the films portrayal of Hitlers supposed 'pure' love of art, and indeed Rothmans overly sentimental 'nice-guy' attitude towards Hitler both seem a bit unrealistic. If any Jewish art dealer had heard Hitler spouting his anti-semetic hate at it's most potent, it would be highly doubtful that he would then offer to "buy him a lemonade", as Rothman does, whilst putting a sympathetic arm around Hitlers shoulder. Despite this however, and even despite the fact that the story is about Hitler, this is an important film. For the more thoughtful viewer, the questions it raises may well find an answer after the film has ended, whereas for the more thoughtless viewer, it may be a frustrating, pointless journey, but there are undoubtedly moments of true art in the direction, and in the subtle character-traits of the two equally interesting men.

Realistic it probably isn't, even Max Rothman himself is a fictitious character, based on many of the Jewish art-dealers that Hitler was supposed to have spoken to during his life as an artist, however it's what the film raises about people and attitudes that really struck me. To have many reviewers of this film criticising it for 'humanising Hitler' seems completely absurd to me, given that he clearly was a human being, and as such, was just as much entitled to have a love for art as anyone else, that view also assumes that the audience are complete fools, and would instantly be endeared to Hitler just because we see a more vulnerable side to him. As well that, there is the fascinating historical perspective within the film itself, which throughout has you watching Hitlers every move, every word, every piece of art, that eventually points to one destiny, the destiny of the Adolph Hitler we have come to learn about since. What many of those scared critics seem to not want to accept however, is that we are all human beings, and we can all be driven to greatness, as well as evil. We have those two dichotomies inside us, and to deny that would be to deny our humanity. This is one such story where the ignorance and evil took a hold of a man, where art may have taken him in another direction. Overall, this is a very well made and thoughtful film, and well worth the viewing; something to see with friends, talk about, and take as much as you can from.

Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi, 27 Oct 2003