Hitler and Film: The Führer’s Hidden Passion by Bill Niven

Abstract

MLR, .,   have started a little more from that pole. is feature enables great writing always to be in two places at the same time. R I A H R Hitler and Film: e Führer’s Hidden Passion. By B N. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. . xi+ pp. £.. ISBN ––– –. Written by Bill Niven, a British historian known for his research on Germany’s dif- ficult past, Hitler and Film is part of a growing trend at university presses to publish books aimed at a general readership. Like Ben Urwand’s e Collaboration: Hollywood ’s Pact with Hitler (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Harvard University Press, ), this most recent contribution feeds the unending fascination with Nazi cinema as both the ultimate other of classical Hollywood and the most extreme example of the politicization of film. Aer years of ideology critical studies, film theoretical analyses, and Cultural Studies readings, both books also contribute to a renewed interest in the role of individuals, whether studio bosses or Fascist dictators, in controlling all aspects of film production and reception. Hitler and Film will be a satisfying read for history buffs and film fans interested in the ird Reich. e book is written in a fluid, highly readable style and provides a vivid account of the personal and political ambitions that propelled Hitler to take an intense interest in film as a technology of mass entertainment and a form of political indoctrination. ere are many details involving Hitler’s film-viewing habits, his heated arguments with Goebbels over films in production, and his alternately obsequious and menacing behaviour towards film actresses. Aside from drawing extensively on archival sources from the Bundesarchiv, Niven makes effective use of the numerous memoirs written by Ufa stars trying to justify their professional choices and to profit from the widespread fascination with what is oen described as the first media dictatorship. Hitler’s comments about individual films (e.g. ‘good’, ‘bad’) reveal him as an ardent film fan—but one with surprisingly ordinary tastes and limited powers of discernment. His interventions in ongoing film productions and his interactions with celebrities requesting special treatment confirm the conclusion reached by countless biographies of Hitler, namely, that the Führer enjoyed exercising control over all things major and minor. However, in what ways his decisions shaped a national film culture defined as much by its hierarchical power structure and ideological objectives as by the opportunism, pragmatism, and mediocrity of those working under these conditions remains an open question. Niven introduces the main story of his book by reconstructing Hitler’s intense love of film through the daily screenings at the Berghof and his repeated clashes with Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. e chapters on Leni Riefenstahl, from her first party rally films to Triumph of the Will () and Olympia (), cover familiar ground explored in numerous monographs on (or by) Riefenstahl on her  Reviews life and work. Subsequent chapters document the public relations efforts surrounding Hitler’s appearances at film premieres, his representation in wartime newsreels, and his extensive socializing with celebrities at official functions and society events. Niven rightly highlights the difference between the pre-war and war years. Not only did Hitler become closely involved in the approval process for wartime newsreels and anti-Semitic films such as Jew Süss () and e Eternal Jew (); together with Goebbels, he also created the List of the Divinely Gied that protected film professionals from being sent to the front. Significantly, Hitler’s growing need for shaping the image of Nazi Germany for posterity coincided with concerted efforts to minimize his own film appearances—and conceal his Parkinson’s disease. For scholars of German cinema and media and historians working on the ird Reich, this book does not offer much new information or interpretation. Niven does not engage with the existing scholarship, whether on film propaganda (i.e. newsreels , state-commissioned films) or the kind of mainstream cinema that has inspired numerous studies on studio histories, film genres, and the star phenomenon. As a result, opportunities for deeper engagement are missed: how the kind of top-down approach chosen by Niven complicates...