Film Review: ‘Max’ (2002)

‘Max’ (1) is a film which deals with what many would consider controversial subject matter. It details the fictional story of a rich jewish ‘modern art’ dealer and enthusiast named Rothman and his relationship with a Reichswehr corporal named Adolf Hitler. The film is very much centred on the origin of Hitler’s beliefs, which would later lead to him becoming the legendary leader of the Third Reich.

It is important to note that while the story is itself fictional it is based on various claims concerning the origin of Hitler’s thought and in particular that which relates to jews. ‘Max’ begins by portraying Hitler as a struggling artist desperate in the aftermath of the First World War to get into a career concerning the world of art. Rothman being an art dealer that Hitler sees as an opportunity to get exhibited and known. Throughout the film we are reminded that Hitler is just desperate for recognition in the world of art and Rothman throughout plays the role of the tender mentor who is taking a world of time, trouble and economy to help this struggling young soldier realise his dreams.

Of course, the sub-text of all this is that Rothman is trying to push Hitler into producing ‘modern art’. Hitler’s works of art seen in the film are of beautiful real-life sketches and watercolours - usually of animals, landscapes and architecture - which are very pleasing to the eye, but Rothman - with the jewish preference for the unnatural and the ‘avant-garde’ - wants Hitler to produce ‘modern art’ for him. He does not want Hitler to present him with high quality sketches and watercolours. Rather he wants - in typically Freudian style - Hitler to ‘unleash what is inside’ onto canvas.

Eventually Hitler - after many scenes of disappointment and rage (designed to give the impression of Hitler as being mentally unstable or ill, which was certainly not the case) - produces a series of sketches, which predict the uniforms, symbols, architecture and achievements of the Third Reich: one of the autobahns, one of the later SS uniforms etc. Rothman is enthralled by these pictures since they to him represent ‘a future world’ he promises Hitler a showing after seeing these works. He tells Hitler to meet him that evening to iron out the details and prepare the show. However, before he is to meet Rothman; Hitler has something else to do. He has a speech - for Hitler has already discovered he has a great gift for oratory - to give on behalf of the fledgling NSDAP to an audience in a hall sponsored by the Reichswehr.

This brings us on the other major theme of the film ‘Max’; that of the origin of Hitler’s thought especially as regards jews. Hitler is at first portrayed as encountering racial anti-Semitism during a special course that he is talked into by an army officer concerned with dealing with the menace of the communists and the left in general. The recruits to this program - of which Hitler is but one - are shown watching a special puppet show for their edification and enlightenment which is a very basic - almost primitive - espousal of the concept of superior and inferior races using the jews as the prime example of the inferior and the Aryan as the example of the Germanic superior race. The impression conveyed to the audience - the recruits to this Reichswehr program as well as those viewing the film - is supposed to be one of humour and to wit the recruits all laugh apart from Hitler. Who is depicted sitting still and then shouting at the other recruits to ‘shut up’ because he wants to listen. The implication made by ‘Max’ here being that while all the other recruits took it as comic puppet show: Hitler took it seriously. This impression given to the viewer of the roots of Hitler’s weltanschauung and National Socialism by this sleight of hand on the part of ‘Max’ is obviously one of ‘pop culture gone bad’.

This is taken further throughout the film with an important speech made by the army officer in charge of said program where he tells the now graduates of this program that they are in their speeches to blame anybody they like for the ills of Germany, but the central goal is he asserts is to declare that ‘Germany did not lose the war’. This scene seems to have been calculated to give the impression that Hitler’s anti-jewish thought was based on ‘blaming the jews’ for things ‘they didn’t do’. This subtle impression is - as would be expected of a film about Adolf Hitler - false for the simple reason that if one reads Hitler’s speeches and writings as well as ‘Mein Kampf’ (2) then it becomes readily apparent that Hitler is reasoning from observation of the jews and performed his analysis based on what he saw as well as what he had read.

This is confirmed by the next scene; where we find Hitler giving a speech to an ad hoc crowd about alien elements - i.e., the jews - being responsible for the loss of the war and the misfortunes which Germany has suffered since 1918. What is of note in particular about this is that Rothman is also present this time less as a ‘modern art’ dealer, but rather in the pose of a valiant ex-soldier in the cavalry who lost his right arm for Germany standing around with a group of soldiers acting as their superior officer. Rothman - after noting what Hitler is saying to the crowd about jews - tells his soldiers that is just the same old stuff and is nothing new. The sub-text of this is again that the root of Hitler’s anti-jewish thought was based on ‘blaming the jews’ for things that ‘they didn’t do’. Since what is being subtly asked is how could Hitler verbally attack this heroic jew who ostensibly lost an arm for Germany (and that therefore anti-Semitism is based on lies)? Or as contemporary jewish and philo-Semitic writers on ‘anti-Semitism’ declare (without sufficient evidence for doing so): the ‘delusions’, ‘prejudices’ and ‘fantasies’ of the anti-Semite are superimposed onto real jews and the real jews never put a step wrong but get irrationally blamed for everything. (3) This alleged irrationality - combined with allusions to mental instability/illness - one of the key emphases which is placed upon Hitler by the film.

The origin of this ‘irrationality’ is hinted at in the film - in so far as Rothman takes the rather shy Hitler out to have a chat with his female ‘friends’ one of whom is his mistress - it is suggested she is not a jew but rather a German. Hitler here is portrayed as completely unable to deal with women and to be very obviously inadequate around them; almost to the point of being ‘asexual’ as we are told all he does is ‘talk and rant about politics’ while the lecherous jew Rothman canoodles up to his mistress and the other lady whom he has brought along.

This is likely a play to the typical jewish pattern of thought - Freudian and non-Freudian - in regards to Hitler in that he did what he did because he was sexually inadequate and by statement or implication was ‘a sexual deviant’ of some sort. This is especially notable in the portrayal of the ostensibly suave and charming jew Rothman compared with the portrayal of the difficult and mentally unstable Hitler.

This open contrast is meant to play up the delusion that Hitler had an inferiority complex around women and hence ‘projected’ this onto jews in line with the arguments alleging jews deflowering Aryan maidens to debase their blood. (4) When in fact Hitler was well known to confident and suave himself not having a shortage of desirable ladies - often of aristocratic heritage - wishing to help him and desiring him in both a loving and sexual manner (5) as well having several known and healthy sexual relationships prior to Eva Braun. (6) If you wish to read some of the more disgusting ideas about this as discussed from a jewish racial perspective then I suggest reading Ron Rosenbaum’s ‘Explaining Hitler’ (7) which covers just about every libellous claim made about him and his motivations with explicit focus on the sexual theories there-in. (8) This effective slander against Hitler purported by ‘Max’ is however very much with a purpose since it demonizes and dehumanizes Hitler to the audience making him a form of comical monster that can be laughed and jeered at from the safety of one’s own living room as well subtly give the audience the message that only such sad figures as the Hitler projected in ‘Max’ are anti-Semites.

We then watch a scene where Hitler has gone to Rothman to receive Rothman’s latest rebuke about his fine art and ‘encouragement’ to sketch/paint ‘modern art’ where Rothman declares to Hitler about how anti-jewish arguments are all lies and how jews are just as German as any other German. The Hitler of ‘Max’ does not respond; rather he meekly takes the abuse that Rothman throws at him because of his stated ideas with the implication to the audience that as above Hitler’s anti-jewish thought is irrational and in essence ‘pop culture gone bad’. This is yet again a subtle allusion on the part of ‘Max’ to Hitler’s thought being undesirable, because few people like to think of themselves as ‘following the trend’ (although the clear majority of minds do so) and if Hitler has created a bad trend then they don’t wish to follow in his footsteps and make his mistake (which is clearly alluded in the film as being his anti-Semitism).

This leads us again to the DAP/NSDAP speech before Hitler’s meet up with Rothman. Here we begin to see a very specific intention behind the plot when Hitler walks into the hall. He states to those organising the speech that this will be ‘the last one’, because he is going to be a great artist when Rothman exhibits his drawings for the future state. Hitler’s speech is what the producers likely consider to be ‘extremely anti-Semitic’ - even though it is not particularly so in my personal opinion - and causes a number of drunken Kriegsmarine sailors - although the film does not tell us why there are a number of Kriegsmarine sailors in uniform in Munich - to get so passionately inflamed about the pernicious jewish influence on Germany at the time they go out looking to beat up and potentially murder a jew or some jews.

These sailors then surprise Rothman who is returning from the Synagogue having ‘found religion’ (Judaism not Christianity) (i.e., it is implied that this is the root of his jewishness rather than his race) again for reasons the film does not make clear and proceed to kill him in a long beating. Rothman, of course, does not keep his meeting with Hitler, and the implication at the end of ‘Max’ is that Hitler then continues with his politics and becomes the Leader of Germany in 1933 and the rest as they say is history.

This is an extremely stereotypical jewish allusion, in so far that - by implying that Hitler only did what he did – because he was let down by a jew through no fault of the jew’s but rather Hitler’s own actions/psychological pathology: the ‘Holocaust’ occurred. The film ‘Max’ is trying to portray Hitler’s loathing for jews as both utterly irrational and as coming from his disappointed aspirations an artist. Ergo if his anti-jewish speech had not been made then he would have had a chance to fulfil his artistic ambitions. Hence the jews make themselves responsible - for not showing Hitler how wonderful they were - and not responsible - since it was Hitler who in ‘Max’ causes his own failure as an artist - at the same time for the entire of Hitler’s later actions, while maintaining their status as the perpetual and eternal victim of supposedly ‘irrational’ and ‘jealous’ claims made about them. However - at the same time - the jews claim absolute ownership of their ‘Holocaust’ and tacitly suggest that the persecution and mass murder of jews comes about because jews are not allowed to have their way with other races [i.e., since Rothman was not allowed to help the aspiring Hitler it caused the deaths of tens of millions in Second World War]. Thus, we must conclude - as perhaps might seen rather obvious - that the film ‘Max’ is nothing, but an orgy of jewish egoism, nepotism and unnatural sexual obsessions. All disguised under dramatic license as ‘realistic pseudo-history’.

‘Max’ itself is not a particularly good film to watch and gets rather tedious at times, but if you wish to study the jew and how the jew influences and manipulates - in terms of propaganda and ideological warfare - the nations and countries they inhabit in the Diaspora, then ‘Max’ is an excellent part of any course of study. To this end I recommend that every individual and group who wishes to study the jewish mind and perverseness of its logic and ‘interpretation’ should study ‘Max’ to gain an idea of how the mind of the jew actually works.

References

(1) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290210/

(2) A reasonably representative selection of these can be read in Max Domarus, Patrick Romane, 2007, ‘The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary’, 1st Edition, Bolchazy-Carducci: Wauconda.

(3) See for example: Sidney Osborne’s, 1939, ‘Germany and Her Jews’, 1st Edition, Soncino Press: London, Cecil Roth’s, 1943, ‘The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation’, 2nd Edition, East and West Library: London, Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin’s, 1983, ‘Why the Jews?: The Reason for Anti-Semitism’, 1st Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York, Benjamin Ginsberg’s, 1993, ‘The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State’. 1st Edition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago and Walter Laqueur’s, 2008, ‘The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism: From Ancient Times to the Present Day’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: Oxford, for a reasonable sampling of this point of view.

(4) With some justification although the reality was not always as lurid as some authors made out. Never-the-less this allegation as far as I have able to ascertain is based on a certain phenomenon relating to jews in general, and jewish males in particular, where-by if a member of the opposite sex refuses their advances they turn very abusive and sometimes physically violent, because of their ingrained belief that as the ‘Chosen of Ha-Shem’ they are entitled to whatever they wish and nobody should ever say no to them. Freud would call this ones ‘inner child’, but we can just simply state it is just how jews are as a race.

(5) These ladies are described best in Cris Whetton’s, 2004, ‘Hitler’s Fortune’, 1st Edition, Pen & Sword: Barnsley, which is written from an avidly anti-Hitler point of view, but never-the-less factually describes what the evidence suggests about Hitler’s finances and situation (and necessarily the ladies who were partly responsible for it as well as their relationship to Adolf Hitler) while debunking many of the myths that he was ‘funded by jews’ or ‘funded by big business’.

(6) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/addressing-some-historically-illiterate

(7) Cf. Ron Rosenbaum, 1998, ‘Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of his Evil’, 1st Edition, MacMillan: London.

(8) See my articles: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-adolf-hitler-a-homosexual; https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-adolf-hitler-into-sexual-sadomasochism; https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/did-adolf-hitler-only-have-one-testicle; https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-adolf-hitler-a-paedophile-andor