MovieChat Forums > Er ist wieder da (2017) Discussion > Do you think this film/book is basically...

Do you think this film/book is basically a flawed argument against...

posted 9 years ago by yakushijtenzen
9 replies | jump to latest

Populism (sorry, titles must not be too long).

I read/watched both the book and the film, and the gist of the propaganda message (let's be honest, all German films with Nazis/Hitler must have some kind of message) is the following:

The film does not make fun of Hitler or Nazis as foreign films would usually make.
Basically, Nazism/Hitler is NOT portrayed as a man that lies all the time, but as a man who just speaks the truth that the people want to hear, and addresses the problems the people have, especially by attacking the establishment which is obviously flawed and full of problems.
But of course this is bad. Because the point made, is that Hitler/Nazis, although they said the truth, used that popular approval to install a totalitarian regime.

But here is where I don't get this German argument: WHAT IS REALLY THE SOLUTION THEN?
Should the people basically never trust any politician with a list of problems the people want fixed?
Should the people just keep voting for the main parties like Zombies, because "otherwise its populism"?

I feel the argument made is basically again democracy itself.
You cannot trust democracy and the people, so its better to keep a Technocratic elite in power (Merkel and her government), instead of a populistic government which will of course assassinate people (especially minorities).

Do you not think this is an extremely simplistic argument that not only ridicules democracy but also insults the people? Are the people never allowed to be right and to want a government which represents them?

[–] timlin-4 9 years ago

The people want to follow, Merkel is just a negative Hitler, promising martyrdom rather than victory. Not really sure what the message of the movie is, with a Jewish author it's probably cynical

[–] yakushijtenzen 9 years ago

I have trouble seeing Merkel as a Hitler figure, because she is basically the anti-thesis of populism (she flaunted the entirety of the German will in the past months). The only comparison might be her authoritarian nature in government.

I did not realize the author was Jewish (Timur Vermes), looked it up and he is.
Interesting. A lot makes more sense now.
It's easy now to interpret the title in German "Er ist wieder da" (He is back again), as simply a warning to any German populism.

[–] Crocodile (3129) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Simulacrum7 9 years ago

The film, in my opinion, argues the dangers of using populism as a response to the limitations of democracy. In one scene, for example, a citizen comments that they are powerless because they are just a "little person." Hitler responds, "yes, but many little persons can band together . . . and get one strong person to fix things." This is contrary to the democratic idea that people should ban together to fix things themselves. Hitler's answer to the problems of democracy is fascism (of course), but while this may benefit some it also completely disenfranchises others and removes the power from the populace. Whether you personally prefer democratic solutions or fascist solutions is another subject.

[–] sick_desperation 9 years ago

That "democratic idea" exists pretty much nowhere, really. All western countries are republics, in which the people only "rule" by proxy, that is, a political 'class' out of which the transitory leader is elected.
People don't fix things themselves; they elect some (fewer) people who takes their money to get other people to fix things.
And, with increasing % of non-participation in elections, you could argue that the populace in general doesn't have much power. It actually has much less than corporations that can build their candidates at will with campaign donations.

So in the end it's really not that different.

[–] luckiest_strike 8 years ago

switzerland is the one true democracy in the world. most western nations are ruled by corporations and fat cats through their lobbyists. people are complacent and just vote for the big parties. to what horrible ends this can lead: look at america. how can people truely call the USA a democracy when any vote for a 3rd party is essentially wasted. i much prefer the german electorial system over the US one but it still has many flaws and is succeptible to lobbyism.

so today we have countries ruled by capital and countries without civil rights. and sometimes both (china).

i think that you cannot blame people to long for a extreme solution when corporate political meddling leaves them feeling powerless. when your government lies to you and continues to make laws that benefit the rich but step on the poor, what are you left with?

[–] mobocracy (894) 5 years ago

Hitler and his flavor Fascism arose specifically as an alternative to Weimar democracy, which was considered weak and ineffective, and plagued by splintered and increasingly radical parties. Even in the US, there are people starting to question the limits of democracy. IMHO, the "right" criticism looks for ways to shore up democracy's effectiveness vs. strong-man appeals.

Capitalism has its "market failures", a generic term that describes situations where free markets don't work, and I think the concept can be applied to democracy, too. When you have extreme political divisions and no or very tenuous majorities, democracy doesn't work very well. It either doesn't advance public policy effectively (the water system is toxic, the roads crumble, schools fail, etc) or it winds up defaulting to populism and the strong-man as a means of forcing political cohesiveness.

Right now I would consider a lot of the west flirting with "market failure" in democracy. Irreconcilable differences, ideological alliances triumphing over reason and fact, and politicians of the left and right promoting solutions which enforce their political will on their opponents.

[–] christer-soneson-254-597056 8 years ago

Democracy has failed.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> Democracy has failed.

All forms of government will fail sooner or later. The problem always stems from power and corruption. Governments are usually formed on good intentions to build a great society but are eventually infiltrated by people with selfish goals.

It's happened or is happening to every society with more than a few thousand people.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?