As a cinephile and history enthusiast who has delved deep into the world of cinema and its intricate connections with historical events, I find myself fascinated by the story of Alfred Hitchcock’s unrealized project on Adolf Hitler. Having spent countless hours studying the works of both Hitchcock and F.W. Murnau, it’s hard not to wonder what could have been if this film had come to fruition.
In his career, renowned British filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock often adapted books for film. Under different circumstances, Adolf Hitler’s 1925 book, Mein Kampf, might have been among them. Following Pearl Harbor, producer David O. Selznick swiftly acquired the US film rights through the Title Registration Bureau. As detailed in Hitchcock and Selznick, Selznick envisioned a war-themed picture, penned by Ben Hecht and directed by Hitchcock, soon after sensing that war with Germany was imminent. The intended direction for this independent production remains unknown.
At the pinnacle of his career, following the success of his U.S. debut film “Rebecca,” Hitchcock was not inferior to Selznick, who excelled at turning popular novels into box-office hits. Selznick had achieved fame with the production of “Gone With the Wind,” but selecting the author of Mein Kampf as his next project posed difficulties that proved insurmountable.
No records of production notes or scripts were found in the archives regarding this project, suggesting that Alfred Hitchcock never had the opportunity to make it. It is plausible to infer that the proposed biopic would have been critical or satirical, given Selznick’s and the director’s disdain for Hitler. With a wealth of German expatriates available for authenticity and money being no concern, the logistics were not an issue. Therefore, one might wonder what ultimately prevented the production of this film?
A Tale of Two Artists
Films centered around Hitler remain captivating to younger audiences, drawn by the portrayal of an embodiment of evil. It’s not surprising that a British director would find interest in this historical figure, who shares with him the status of an immigrant and a creative spirit, albeit one whose artistic journey veered dramatically off course. During his imprisonment in Landsberg Prison for their failed attempt to overthrow the German government, Hitler collaborated with his co-conspirator-turned editor, Emil Maurice, on writing Mein Kampf.
It is not a good sign when you get your cellie to edit your political manuscript, even more bizarre as Hitler’s best buddy and editor was also part Jewish. The most intriguing part of the whole book is the backstory of its creation and how he used it to enrich himself rather than the passages found within the book, the work dictated by Hitler over copious amounts of beer, as prison records reveal. Never mind that he bragged he was above such mortal temptations.
The heartwarming stories could have offered engaging storylines for the unmade movie adaptation of Mein Kampf: The Motion Picture. According to the World War II Goes to the Movies & Television Guide, production designer William Pereira was once involved with the project in the early 1940s, intending to recreate Munich on a soundstage in Burbank. However, further information about the production seems to have disappeared at that point.
In 1942, Hitchcock chose to create his next film, another war movie akin to the style of his earlier works such as 1940’s Foreign Correspondent and 1946’s Notorious, titled Saboteur. His romantic thriller Rebecca had already solidified his reputation in America in 1940, but it led to artistic conflicts with his employer, Selznick. Facing the challenge of transforming a worn-out and chaotic storyline into a coherent narrative while dealing with constant oversight from his boss was no easy task. Not every critically acclaimed novel becomes a Gone With the Wind, and Adolf Hitler was no Margaret Mitchell.
Adolf Hitler: Shakespearean Villain or Tragic Buffoon?
Interestingly enough, Hitchcock was quite familiar with Germany, as he honed his filmmaking skills by studying under groundbreaking director F.W. Murnau during the silent movie period. In essence, he was an audience member during the golden age of German cinema, and he fondly stated, “From Murnau, I learned how to narrate a tale without relying on words.” He grasped the underlying themes and the high-stakes nature of the political climate.
Given Hitchcock’s style, it seems unlikely he would have given Hitler much credence, especially considering Charlie Chaplin’s satirical film, “The Great Dictator,” had been released the year prior, in 1940. In this film, Hitler was portrayed as “Adenoid Hynkel,” a mix of slapstick humor and sentimental socialist rhetoric that, while amusing, lacked depth in its exploration of mass movements and post-war German psychology. This left room for a more serious biographical film to delve into these topics.
The British Film Institute reveals that the director struggled for years with the dilemma of portraying Hitler on screen. Faced with the most challenging artistic quandary of his career, he pondered: “Should Hitler be depicted as a wise figure or a movie villain, and the film would lose its worth; if the performance reflected his madness, viewers might laugh at inappropriate moments.
For those curious, no, the mustachioed character never stood a chance of earning any money because this movie was released after Germany declared war on the United States. It wasn’t neglect due to that reason. Instead, in the UK, any hypothetical box office earnings meant for Hitler would have been sent to the British Red Cross, similar to how his book royalties were handled. In the US, by the time of the war, all royalties had already ceased and were redirected to the War Claims Fund, as reported in Cabinet magazine.
In 1939, as tensions rose, it seemed that everyone was eager for a glimpse of Hitler on screen, be it satire or serious portrayal. Given Hitchcock’s fondness for intricate spy stories and dark humor, it’s hard to imagine him going full-blown Mel Brooks, but one can surely speculate that he would have seized the chance to mock Hitler, employing all the Freudian symbols at his disposal. As for Hecht’s potential contribution, we can only imagine what he might have brought to the table.
A Matter of Poor Taste or Poor Sales?
As time passed, the concept of making a film based on war events might no longer have been appealing. It became part of Hollywood legend, remaining untouched in terms of adapting Mein Kampf. Occasionally, productions emerged that portrayed Hitler, such as Jojo Rabbit and Max, which were well-received despite the lingering stigma connected to the Third Reich. A film about Hitler can’t necessarily be considered toxic, but a movie about him in 1942 wouldn’t have been as successful as Hitchcock’s more popular works, like the romantic thriller Rebecca. Ultimately, it boils down to a question of timing.
According to The Atlantic, Hitler’s literary success was not due to talent but rather dishonesty and manipulation. He exploited his power by forcing sales of Mein Kampf, with the Nazi regime purchasing millions of copies and distributing them to newlywed couples in the Reich. Essentially, Mein Kampf is a book that never deserved its bestseller status, relying on deceit instead of its own intellectual worth. It’s almost a relief that this controversial work didn’t gain traction, allowing everyone involved to focus on more meaningful endeavors instead of being consumed by one notorious figure.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-11-01 04:01