Aware that this was a Netflix production, I made a bet with myself about how long it would take before a Person of Color conspicuously and inappropriately showed up in what was, in reality, an all-white milieu.
It took less than ten minutes. (It turns out, according to this film, that one of Prime Minister Chamberlain's top staff members at 10 Downing Street -- in fact, the one who gives the orders to the film's hero - was a black man. Who knew?)
The other most egregious departure from reality is that the Munich conference is depicted as a one-off -- a sudden dramatic last-ditch last-minute get-together -- whereas in fact it was the third of three meetings in different German settings over the course of two weeks, during which Hitler scarily and humiliatingly increased his demands.
In other respects, the film is just a dumbed-down, truncated retelling of the actual history, with an insignificant little side plot grafted on -- an attempt to warn Chamberlain that Hitler can't be trusted -- that in the end doesn't count for much. It seems to me, after reading the genuinely thrilling accounts by William Shirer, David Faber, Tim Bouverie, and others, that the real story would have been fascinating enough.
A few random notes:
Jeremy Irons, as Chamberlain, really is the best thing in the movie.
It's amusing -- as someone here has pointed out -- that Ulrich Matthes, who plays Hitler, played Goebbels 18 years ago in "Downfall." Unfortunately, he still looks more like Goebbels. (With that moustache, he also bears a strange resemblance to, of all people, George Orwell.)
I hated the pointlessly quivering camera trying to create false tension with that cliched "handheld camera look." It's permissible when it's following rapid action; it's ridiculous when someone is sitting quietly in a chair and the camera is deliberately shaking.
In one key scene in the ultimately inconsequential spy plot, the young German spy has to pass a stolen top-secret document to his British friend. He dashes away from the conference, leading the Brit on a complicated chase through the city, even, at one point, leaving a card for him on a deserted park bench, the camera wavering and weaving like crazy... and the Brit finally catches up with him and the two sit down to talk in, of all places, a crowded cafe filled with Nazi soldiers. Honestly, the transfer takes place in a crowded cafe where, in fact, one of the Nazi soldiers -- someone we know is hostile and suspicious -- recognizes the young German, thus jeopardizing the entire plot. (Is the Robert Harris novel really that stupid?)
P. S. The top-secret document itself is basically just confirmation of the things Hitler has already said quite publicly in "Mein Kampf."
There actually were anti-Nazi plotters in the German military, but I'm not sure the film makes clear enough what their plan was. They didn't want Hitler to succeed at his game of chicken against the British and the French; they knew that if his gamble paid off and he was able to acquire part of Czechoslovakia without a fight, his triumph would further cement his power -- whereas if he were forced to back down, he might be overthrown.
As in so many films -- too many -- the hero is given a nagging wife who doesn't want him to go off and put himself in danger. (Her part is usually, and correctly, described as "thankless.") In this one, the hero is about to accompany the Prime Minister to a conference on which hangs the fate of the entire world -- Britain is already preparing for war, trenches are being dug, gas masks are being distributed, etc. -- and she berates her husband for not staying home with his family. This sort of thing is really tiresome.
This film requires Chamberlain and Hitler -- powerful leaders who were normally surrounded by various underlings and advisors -- to be alone with, respectively, the young Brit and the young German, to express a fond interest in these young men, and even to open up their souls to them. I get why it's necessary for dramatic reasons, but it's never convincing.
The film also makes Chamberlain's famous "piece of paper" -- on which he got Hitler to affirm that their two nations would never again go to war -- the result NOT of Chamberlain's own long cherished hope for peace and his attempt to justify his capitulation at Munich, but rather the result of his enlightening encounter with the film's young hero. Well, okay.
As David Faber makes clear in the opening of his book, there were so many thousands of grateful Britons streaming to Heston Aerodrome outside London to greet Chamberlain on his return that the roads were blocked for miles and people abandoned their cars and simply walked. In this film, you get maybe 20 or 30 people waving flags.
Unlike the many films celebrating Churchill for his determined opposition to appeasement, this one gives Chamberlain the last word. He not only gets to explain himself; the film ends with the explicit onscreen claim that by giving Britain an extra year to prepare for war, he essentially saved the country. It's an issue that's still debated by historians - especially because, while Britain had another year to prepare, so did Germany.
It took less than ten minutes. (It turns out, according to this film, that one of Prime Minister Chamberlain's top staff members at 10 Downing Street -- in fact, the one who gives the orders to the film's hero - was a black man. Who knew?)
The other most egregious departure from reality is that the Munich conference is depicted as a one-off -- a sudden dramatic last-ditch last-minute get-together -- whereas in fact it was the third of three meetings in different German settings over the course of two weeks, during which Hitler scarily and humiliatingly increased his demands.
In other respects, the film is just a dumbed-down, truncated retelling of the actual history, with an insignificant little side plot grafted on -- an attempt to warn Chamberlain that Hitler can't be trusted -- that in the end doesn't count for much. It seems to me, after reading the genuinely thrilling accounts by William Shirer, David Faber, Tim Bouverie, and others, that the real story would have been fascinating enough.
A few random notes:
Jeremy Irons, as Chamberlain, really is the best thing in the movie.
It's amusing -- as someone here has pointed out -- that Ulrich Matthes, who plays Hitler, played Goebbels 18 years ago in "Downfall." Unfortunately, he still looks more like Goebbels. (With that moustache, he also bears a strange resemblance to, of all people, George Orwell.)
I hated the pointlessly quivering camera trying to create false tension with that cliched "handheld camera look." It's permissible when it's following rapid action; it's ridiculous when someone is sitting quietly in a chair and the camera is deliberately shaking.
In one key scene in the ultimately inconsequential spy plot, the young German spy has to pass a stolen top-secret document to his British friend. He dashes away from the conference, leading the Brit on a complicated chase through the city, even, at one point, leaving a card for him on a deserted park bench, the camera wavering and weaving like crazy... and the Brit finally catches up with him and the two sit down to talk in, of all places, a crowded cafe filled with Nazi soldiers. Honestly, the transfer takes place in a crowded cafe where, in fact, one of the Nazi soldiers -- someone we know is hostile and suspicious -- recognizes the young German, thus jeopardizing the entire plot. (Is the Robert Harris novel really that stupid?)
P. S. The top-secret document itself is basically just confirmation of the things Hitler has already said quite publicly in "Mein Kampf."
There actually were anti-Nazi plotters in the German military, but I'm not sure the film makes clear enough what their plan was. They didn't want Hitler to succeed at his game of chicken against the British and the French; they knew that if his gamble paid off and he was able to acquire part of Czechoslovakia without a fight, his triumph would further cement his power -- whereas if he were forced to back down, he might be overthrown.
As in so many films -- too many -- the hero is given a nagging wife who doesn't want him to go off and put himself in danger. (Her part is usually, and correctly, described as "thankless.") In this one, the hero is about to accompany the Prime Minister to a conference on which hangs the fate of the entire world -- Britain is already preparing for war, trenches are being dug, gas masks are being distributed, etc. -- and she berates her husband for not staying home with his family. This sort of thing is really tiresome.
This film requires Chamberlain and Hitler -- powerful leaders who were normally surrounded by various underlings and advisors -- to be alone with, respectively, the young Brit and the young German, to express a fond interest in these young men, and even to open up their souls to them. I get why it's necessary for dramatic reasons, but it's never convincing.
The film also makes Chamberlain's famous "piece of paper" -- on which he got Hitler to affirm that their two nations would never again go to war -- the result NOT of Chamberlain's own long cherished hope for peace and his attempt to justify his capitulation at Munich, but rather the result of his enlightening encounter with the film's young hero. Well, okay.
As David Faber makes clear in the opening of his book, there were so many thousands of grateful Britons streaming to Heston Aerodrome outside London to greet Chamberlain on his return that the roads were blocked for miles and people abandoned their cars and simply walked. In this film, you get maybe 20 or 30 people waving flags.
Unlike the many films celebrating Churchill for his determined opposition to appeasement, this one gives Chamberlain the last word. He not only gets to explain himself; the film ends with the explicit onscreen claim that by giving Britain an extra year to prepare for war, he essentially saved the country. It's an issue that's still debated by historians - especially because, while Britain had another year to prepare, so did Germany.