Talk:Downfall (2004 film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Downfall (2004 film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Why not leave it at Der Untergang which was unambiguous? It's the original title, after all. dab (ᛏ) 07:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also intended to write about this. I feel it is repectful of other cultures (and of original artworks) to use titles in original languages. I also favour "Der Untergang". --Liberlogos 18:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree (On a sidenote, I can't believe this movie didn't get an Oscar!). Brutulf 15:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

ok, I moved it back... dab (ᛏ) 16:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that in general. However, is that the general convention with film or book titles? --62.64.223.207 23:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wiki policy is to use english titles. See for example In Search of Lost Time--a much harder call, because most people known the English title as "Remembrance of Things Past". I just now did a Wiki search for "Downfall" and found the film way down the list at 30 percent relevancy! Most people search for this article in an English-language Wiki will have the English-language version of the film in mind, and will be searching for Downfall, not Untergang, esp now that it is available in DVD format. --Cubdriver 11:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy states that it should be at the most commonly known name. If a film is known by its foreign language name, like Das Boot it would be found there. This film, is not know by english speakers as "Der Untergang", thus, in articles it should be listed as "Downfall" which would need to be dissambiguated to reach this page. I suggest moving this page to Downfall (film). If there are no objections, I will do so in a few days... -- Samuel Wantman 00:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of the US and Italy, this film is known by the title "Der Untergang" in most of the world. It is not called "De Ondergang" in The Netherlands.. IMDB lists it as "Der Untergang" as well. The Americanized title you suggest is a redirect already, so why move it? JeroenHoek 10:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

IMDB policy is different from Wikipedia's. They always use the original name of a film. Wikipedia's policy is to use the name something is most known by speakers of English. If "De Ondergang" was the name in England and Australia, then there would be a good case for leaving it be, but I don't think that is the case. The English language Wikipedia is for speakers of English. I would probably agree to changing the Wikipedia policy to only have the original foreign language names of books and films, but that would be a policy change. -- Samuel Wantman 09:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It was released as Downfall in the UK, and was shown on British TV on 2nd March 2006, promoted as Downfall by Channel 4. Channel 4 are usually pretty good with retaining foreign titles where they are applicable, but I believe the ditributor in this instance thought the literal translation, "The Fall", would not have had the desired meaning. Brilliant film though, Ganz should have won an Oscar. Bigpinkthing 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely known as Der Untergang up here in Canada Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And in the US.

The introductory paragraph describes Der Untergang as a controversial film, but nowhere in the article is the nature of this so-called controversy stated. — JonRoma 20:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the controversy pertains to the portrayal of Hitler. It's not commonly acceptable to show him as anything else but an evil caricature or a raging madman. (Not that I would be a Nazi sympathizer) Jbetak 20:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

still, the controversy should be somehow described, with pointers to people who objected to the film, or else the descriptor "controversial" should be removed. It is uncommon to portray Hitler "up close and personal", but I don't think anybody actually questioned the film's good faith. I cannot remember serious controversy, in any case. Some people liked it, some didn't, but you can say that of most movies. dab (ᛏ) 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. Perhaps we could mention what we *believe* was the source of some uneasiness, if not controversy. I offered my best guess, hope others might too. Cheers Jbetak 21:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all for responding. While it is indeed uncommon — and some would even say unconventional — to depict Hitler as anything but an evil madman, this uniqueness is not in itself controversy. Still, I have found some comments by critics who felt the film too "sympathetic" to Hitler, while others felt the film depicted Hitler and his clique not as monsters but as human beings, albeit despicable ones. (My own POV fits into the latter group; though the film moved me to feel pity for Hitler, I left the theater detesting him, his ideology, and his actions as much as I did when I entered.) I'll try to incorporate some of the critical viewpoints in an addition to the article shortly. — JonRoma 22:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on your edits - great job! I spent quite some time in Germany and came to realize that the conventional explanation and portrayal of Hitler quite likely out of synch with historical reality. I'm glad this move was made while a few eye witnesses were still alive. It helps one to understand better, it popularizes a historically more accurate depiction of the events instead of promoting a myth out of excessive fear of a continued cult of personality. Jbetak 02:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your praise, Jbetak. You must have spotted my edits "right off the presses"; I hadn't even had time to add a snippet to this talk page! Anyway, all I was going to say here was "Hope this edit didn't make the article too long."

One thing I think the article could use is a bit more detailed plot summary (with appropriate spoiler warning). Also, the articles referring to the debate in Germany on the film were roughly contemporaneous with its release, and I would be interested for any references to how the debate has shaken out, now that the film's been exposed to German audiences for over a year now. I've read quite a few accounts that this powerful film leaves people in stunned silence, but I'd like to know what they're discussing after they recover their voices. — JonRoma 02:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That is just it—Hitler was very much human. To never show this and only caricature him as an evil madman is to lay the path for the next fascist dictator. Never forget. 128.194.23.41 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on the moderated WWII Usenet discussion group about the offensive nature of the Goebbels family suicide (or more exactly, murdering the kids). Certainly a number of people in that discussion found the movie controversial! More generally, many find any humanizing portrayal of Hitler offensive; the film was damned on that account by several reviewers in Britain and the U.S. --Cubdriver 11:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know how the Goebbels family suicide was found 'offensive'. Granted it's an extremely distasteful act, but if the film aims to be true to life, any alteration to such a horrible act only trivialises it, or am I missing the point? Douglasnicol 15:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Beats me! But someone did indeed find the movie upsetting, hence a controversy. --Cubdriver 20:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What are these people thinking? Did they expect the depiction of the final days of a war and of a horrid regime to be pleasant? The Goebbels' murder of their six children is particularly shocking, as is the "explanation" attributed to their mother: "They belong to the Third Reich and to the Führer, and if these two cease to exist there can be no further place for them."

As for the "humanizing" portrayal of Hitler, the dictator was, like it or not, a member of homo sapiens — he wasn't a space alien. As Roger Ebert concludes in his review of the film,

What I also felt, however, was the reality of the Nazi sickness, which has been distanced and diluted by so many movies with so many Nazi villains that it has become more like a plot device than a reality. As we regard this broken and pathetic Hitler, we realize that he did not alone create the Third Reich, but was the focus for a spontaneous uprising by many of the German people, fueled by racism, xenophobia, grandiosity and fear. He was skilled in the ways he exploited that feeling, and surrounded himself by gifted strategists and propagandists, but he was not a great man, simply one armed by fate to unleash unimaginable evil. It is useful to reflect that racism, xenophobia, grandiosity and fear are still with us, and the defeat of one of their manifestations does not inoculate us against others.

— JonRoma 09:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I watched this film recently and was startled to find myself fascinated by the multi-faceted interpretations of what Hitler meant to his followers. For some, fanatacism, for others, blind faith that he was some kind of ultimate being - "But he is the Fuhrer!", for yet others, just a leader of a people who was hopelessly out of touch with reality. I imagine the film's title, on the lines of 'American Psycho', might not necessarily be about the environment around the man, but of his slowly crumbling mental state and delusions of grandeur before the reality check finally kicks in. The acts of murder and suicide were shocking acts of brutal loyalty, and arguably, immeasurable stupidity. Overall, I was familiar with the subject matter but simply blown away its interpretation in the remarkable performanc by Bruno Ganz. It is sad that such a role will never win strong support for an actor who portrayed one of the most hated men in history. Bigpinkthing 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about a movie, and I'm afraid the controversy somehow overshadowed the movie itself. I know a Wikipedia article is not a fan page, but I think someone should find a way to nevertheless give the devil his due; i.e: Bruno Ganz (an actor unknown to me) did an astounding job as Hitler and sent chills down my spine (the "Mein Person! Mein Person! Mein Person!" bit almost gave me nightmares), and the movie was just about the best I had seen all year. Rayaxe 03:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In the synopsis section "desperately ordering counterattacks that will never happen, from armies that exist only on maps, commanded by men who are most likely dead" is written. I believe that there is no suggestion in the film that any of the commanding generals are dead. I will change this if no one objects Hobo 10:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit (by Mervyn) to the Trivia section says:

Prior to this film, Thomas Kretschmann (SS Gruppenführer Hermann Fegelein) is the only German actor who had previously portrayed a Nazi, in Stalingrad, U-571, The Pianist, In Enemy Hands and Head in the Clouds.

The original text didn't qualify the context and simply stated the only actor who had previously portrayed a Nazi. The edit changed it to the only German actor, which is plausible but (IMHO) unlikely. My thought that it is the only actor in Der Untergang's cast. If anyone has a source, let's use it and clear up the ambiguity. IMDb doesn't mention this trivia item. — JonRoma 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the German bit (rather hastily) because it seemed to make sense of a completely ambiguous sentence, but as you say it cant surely be true. "the only actor in Der Untergang's cast" seems most likely, but is it accurate? mervyn 10:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the only sensible way to read the sentence, and it does't seem unplausible. Actual verification is another matter, of course. dab (ᛏ) 08:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Bruno Ganz is Swiss, not German, as far as I'm aware. He was born in Zurich, and makes this statement in an interview - "I am European, but I’m very strongly Swiss. I can’t hide it. My childhood was in Switzerland, and this is my home." Slideyfoot 09:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, we have established that the meaning of the statement is that Kretschmann was the only German on the set who had previously played a Nazi. Neither have there been no other Germans portraying Nazis, nor were all actors on the set German. ok? Ganz is Swiss, but I don't see what this has to do with anything, or the statement about Kretschmann in particular. Please read the comments above. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What I was referring to was this section in the previous revision: "the film broke one of the last remaining taboos by its depiction of Adolf Hitler in a central role by a German actor (as opposed to using actual film footage of Hitler)". That clearly indicates, erroneously, that Ganz is German. I thought the correction didn't warrant its own section, but wanted to raise the point in case someone else had information that he was in fact German. Slideyfoot 12:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

this is true, and significant. It is not a coincidence that a Swiss actor played Hitler. The taboo-breaking would have been driven home much more if a German had played the role. dab (ᛏ) 13:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Ganz is indeed Swiss (albeit German-spaking). Perhaps the statement should have been "the first German film release where Hitler is depicted by an actor [as opposed to actual newsreel footage of Hitler himself]". In any event, seems like this point needs further confirmation/detail (from the German Wikipedia site, among other sources). — JonRoma 21:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, being honest Ganz is a Swiss actor but hes living in Germany for years. They wanted an austrich actor, because Hitler was austrich nocht german but they couldn*t find anyone who wanted to do the job because the austrich dont want to see that hitler was one of them::_ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.136.213.247 (talk • contribs) .

I am from Germany and I have to admit that I even didn't know that Ganz is a Swiss before I read this discussion. Of course it was some kind of a taboo before, but it is not more or less a taboo, because a not German but German-speaking person plays the role of Hitler. There would had been no different, when a German actor had played him. It is the fact that it is a German film, which portrays Hitler.

And the second, why is it so important, that Kretschmann portrayed a Nazi this often? Why you discussed this point so often?

According to his insignia in the movie, and according to the German Wikipedia and other on-line sources, Günsche was Sturmbannführer in april 1945, not Hauptsturmführer. I'm editing the article to reflect this, but please correct me if I am mistaken. JeroenHoek 14:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. User:ratzinger81

Is there a DVD avaliable? Would be interesting to show my history teacher.63.146.46.202 04:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is — check Amazon or your favorite retailer. See it in a theater first if you can, however. — JonRoma 06:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody know who is the guy whose picture Hitler looks in the Bunker's wall when Traudl Junge enter in his room (sorry for my poor english)? --201.8.246.224 00:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it could be Frederick the Great Douglasnicol 22:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It is, Hitler would often look at the portrait for inspiration as Frederick II of Prussia overcame attacking forces, turning defeat into victory and elevating Prussia from European backwater to a strong state

Anyone know what model of car they used in the film?.:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 01:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are the two Generals/Field Marshals who kill themselves in the bunker near the end of the film? I know Jodl and Keitel both survived the bunker and went on trial, but I wonder who these two were. Douglasnicol 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if these were the generals represented, but William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich states that most of the remaining members of Hitler's entourage departed the Führerbunker during a mass breakout on May 1 or May 2, 1945. Shirer stated that it was believed that Generals Hans Krebs and Wilhelm Burgdorf did not join in the exodus and instead shot themselves in the cellar of the New Reich Chancellery. — JonRoma 08:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The two generals are indeed Krebs and Burgdorf. (Greetings from Germany)

Holy shite the "Plot" section is overkill. Why is it necessary to have a complete play-by-play of the entire movie? Absolutely ridiculous. I admire the dedication of someone typing that up so I'm not deleting it for that reason... but seriously, it's just way too much. There's just no reason to summarize every 5 minutes of the movie like that. Pariah23 02:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I second that. It's supposed to a short summary. Please shorten it considerably. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it is very badly-written. I suggest someone who watched the movie re-write it. Herunar 12:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think whoever wrote the plot synopsis probably doesn't speak English as a first language. I'd love to rewrite the whole section, and I've seen the film, but it's a huge undertaking; I'd need to watch the film a few more times, I think. And if my editing of this article in the past has lead me to believe anything, it's that the non-native English speaker who wrote the original synopsis will revert major changes to her/his work. Blah. Avalyn 05:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The plot section needs to be shorten substantially. It has to be cut to one fifth of its current length at the very least. -- EnemyOfTheState 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep it. I enjoyed reading the synopsis having watched the film itself. The film is around 2 hours 20 minutes therefore the synopsis reflects that. Why cut it briefly for convenience's sake? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.195.74 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

The ending might not come as a shock for most, but should there be a spoiler warning? 24.22.210.14 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The long synopsis was most helpful. I have the German DVD with Dutch subtitles and I don't speak German or Dutch. Indeed several scenes were missing from the synopsis and I can only guess what is happening. I can assure you not every 5 minutes has been summarised! Could somebody rewrite it in even more details, please.

The synopsis was extraordinarily useful. I would not have understood the historical meaning of half the movie without it. --71.112.16.145 (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, which of you people is going to hold the knife and make the cut? The only votes in favour of keeping the synopsis - which is overlong sixth-form drivel, I imagine the writer was typing with his right hand whilst jerking off with his left hand - are anonymous IP addresses, whose opinions are meaningless. This is an article about a film about Hitler, why has it attracted so many weak people? Did Hitler have that effect in real life? Was he a magnet for internet typists? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started the synopsis edits. If I find the patience later, will keep trimming it. DJRafe (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the article about Traudl Junge and saw that the story of the movie differs from reality on a very important subject. The subject of what happened with her after the war. This is a quote from page about Traudl Junge:

Traudl Junge was not as is shown in the movie 'Der Untergang', saved by a boy by walking with him through Russian lines, but was imprisoned and raped many times (as were many other German women by Russian soldiers) and was for several months the 'personal prisoner' of a high-ranking officer in Soviet intelligence

Should we not have something in this article about that? It seems like the movie creators wanted a "happy ending" and that should be important to note. --Mailerdaemon 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done.Michael Dorosh^Talk 05:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The movie has her dressed in a SS uniform for this reason. They seem to hint at this in dialogue, right before they leave the bunker. Donbas 08:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought that ending was dodgy. The bit with the bicycle was way too contrived. -88.109.185.96 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is touched on twice in the movie and the article: “Meanwhile, Hitler discusses his scorched earth policy with Speer”. And later: “Finally, he meets Hitler himself, and confesses that he had been ignoring and acting contrary to most of his orders [especially scorched-earth orders] given over the past several months”.

This confession was first reported by a French author in 1952, but in Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth (pp 529-531), author Gitta Sereny reports that it never took place. She quotes Speer’s “Spandau draft” (manuscripts smuggled out) in which he says: “There can be no question of a touching scene [for his last meeting with Hitler] or, even more than that, of a confession such as the Frenchman reported”. However in Speer’s later writings such as the published version of Inside the Third Reich he himself repeats the confession version. Either he had forgotten it was made up, or perhaps he thought the false story would help rehabilitate his reputation in post-war Germany. Speer’s last meeting with Hitler was on April 24 1945, and according to pp491-2 of Sereny’s book, the last time he discussed the scorched earth policy with Hitler was on 29 March 1945, about two weeks before the events depicted in Downfall. Far from making an unsolicited confession, on this occasion it was Hitler who angrily attacked him with Martin Bormann’s evidence of Speer’s disloyalty in not carrying out the scorched earth policy. Speer’s reaction was to unequivocally stand by Hitler and promise to carry out the orders, though in the Spandau draft he wrote that he had no intention of doing so (Sereny, pp.497-8).

Moving an event in time for dramatic effect may be a legitimate movie-making tactic, and Speer did much to prevent scorched earth being carried out. Overall, though, the effect of the movie is to depict Speer with his ‘confession’ in a much better light that he deserved, and by also depicting Hitler’s acquiescence to it the impression is given that Hitler relented on the policy. For these reasons I think the main article should contain a brief note that the ‘confession’ and Hitler’s acquiescence did not actually happen.Rexparry sydney 06:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speer was a very cunning liar. If the truth about him had been known at Nuremberg, he would have been hanged. Read Adam Tooze's new book on the Nazi war economy, which makes his deep guilt over the use of slave labour very clear. Adam 06:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon watching the film I'm curious what kind of poison was meant in the film when the doctor stated it caused death in 1 - 2 seconds. I thought it was cyanide, but to my knowledge it wouldn't take effect nearly that quick. Anyone know and want to add some info to the article? It would also be nice to see a section on historical accuracy for viewers who are curious how much of what they just saw was reliable and how much fabricated or altered.Thelastemperor 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Kershaw, page 1038, footnote 156 of Chapter 17 from Hitler: Nemesis, the poison used was prussic acid and it was a superlative poison. Note that Kershaw discounts the notion that Hitler took acid and then shot himself because the speed of the poison would have hampered his ability to hold the gun, although we never do see Hitler actually take poison in the film. Additionally, Kershaw states that contrary to some accounts nobody actually heard the gunshot. However the scene in the room after Hitler's body is removed-specifically the position of the blood and the gun-I am proud to say is exactly as Kershaw describes it. Hitler was sitting on Eva’s left and had bled through his right temple, and his gun was lying on the floor. (Mchelada 19:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

I changed it to read 'fourth'. In the Joachim Fest article I changed it to read 'third german playing hiter' because in that article is mentions "feature" films. I dont think Hitler - ein Film aus Deutschland was such a film and more an art house movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.231.97 (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

"Controversy also followed after the films end texts where the director only mentioned one race that were murdered by the Nazis but no other ethnic group like the Romani were mentioned which lead many to believe that the director only looked for a job in Hollywood."

This line I feel is rather POV and needs a citation. I agree with the section where it mentions that no other groups were mentioned, but the "director only looked for a job in Hollywood". Well thats a bit slanted. First off the film was primarily for a continental audience otherwise it's likely it would have been dubbed or English speaking actors cast (not that I would have agreed with such a move). Just putting "Some people thought the director was after a Hollywood career" isn't enough. If you have citations from film reviews or whatever, fair enough. Douglasnicol 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, and he's been blocked. DurinsBane87 20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I fixed the references. If you find a mistake please tell me so I can correct them. Webhat (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

At over 4,000 words, the plot summary had been marked as overlong for several months. I've trimmed it to a more appropriate length and level of detail, using an older revision [1]. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Any room for all the Parodies on the scene where they tell him they are defeated? Hitler gets banned from Xbox live, HD DVD's downfall, Hitlers car gets stolen, hitler on Second Life, hitler installs Vista, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.158.181 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be some mention of this relatively recent Internet phenomenon. KHorberg (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So do I - I came here looking for that. I think it deserves its own stub and there should be a link to it from here. Does the phenomenon have a name yet ? - like "hitler rant" or "downfall scene" ? Machete97 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm yet another person who came here and was surprised there was no mention of this internet meme. 216.69.223.249 (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. The parodies have been viewed millions of times and absolutely need to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.112.2 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Who amongst you has the courage and the wherewithal to do anything about this? Who will write the first sentence? I'll help you; here, here and here are three entire articles about this phenomenon in two of Britain's leading newspapers, plus The Guardian. If you haven't got the gumption to turn those concrete references into at least a short paragraph, there's no hope for you; that's why you're anonymous IP addresses and I am Ashley Pomeroy, me, real-life human being, author, photographer, and robot dancer. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be a mention about the Extended version of the film. It was shown in german tv and is also available on DVD. The extended version is 22 minutes longer and has lots of additional scenes.

...the youtube 'dubbed' subtitles for the scene where Hitler goes off his nut, er, where they point at the map and the girl starts crying.--Editor510 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, actually. This is how a lot of people learned about the film; it's heavily parodied and should probably get a "cultural impact" section. 75.150.135.249 (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It says in the article that Weidling lifts the Iron Cross at his neck at Burgdorf when asked to explain himself. I can't remember the scene myself, but it sounds like the Knights Cross to me(carried around the neck), not just the Iron Cross.....83.109.85.160 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Iron Cross 1st class is worn on the breast pocket, the 2nd class is the small red ribbon sometimes seen on the buttonhole of a uniform jacket and the Knights Cross (and it's additions like Swords, Oak Leaves etc) are worn at the neck. Douglasnicol (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheres the basic reception section? The usual Rotten Tomatoes and so on? I mean the point with currently have are taken into context as a debate over some of the film's context rather than a pros and cons check. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"The scene changes to a large office building, where "Clausewitz" has been put into effect."

Ever since I first saw Der Untergang, I've been quite curious as to what exactly this refers to. I'm vaguely familiar with the Prussian general of the same name and his military theories, but I'm guessing these two aren't related as burning documents and moving stolen art doesn't exactly relate to military doctrine. What exactly is this Clausewitz plan about, and what's its history? -- MiG (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[snip] I however found something that really bothers me, I found that on certain movie placards, those showing Hitler and he's Natzi friend outside the bunker a.k.a. "The last picture of Adolf Hitler Alive" are completely photoshoped :O I mean completely. They lowered Hitlers head and moved hes hands from the back to the front. It's a HISTORY FORGING ffs (!)

Just compare the original, http://www.flickr.com/photos/njuuton/2541182348/ to the faked one, http://www.language.iastate.edu/main/department/calendar/pix/downfall.jpg.

I can't take this shit, why spend €13,500,000 on a great movie and then ruining it by a little enormous hoax ?

Where in the article should I put this ?

Uhm, it's a movie, the poster photo is of the actor Bruno Ganz and was taken only a few years ago. It is not at all the same photo. You do understand, don't you, that when watching the movie, you didn't see Adolf Hitler, but rather, a professional actor playing a role? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha.. but yes, I have seen the movie and do understand that it's not Adolf Hitler himself that act as Hitler. But how can you be sure of that it's a hole new photograph ? To me it seems very similar, do you have any sources ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njuuton (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

They may seem more or less alike at first glance but when one looks carefully, nothing matches up. The angle is telltale, also AH's coat. If you want to put something about this in the article, it's you who will need to find reliable sources about it to cite. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been countless youtube videos exchanging the subtitles of the bunker scene with hilarious dialouges. Why is there no mention of this in the article either under pop cultural impact or trivia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.150.17 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See Adolf Hitler in popular culture where that stuff belongs, but mind, Wikipedia doesn't link to copyright violations. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A CBS report says that some recently loaded parodies have Adolf screaming about being removed from Youtube, while conversely, in a clip featured on ifmagazine.com, the frustrated uniorchidate apparently rants about the news that the Downfall meme will never die. As this has made news, perhaps the fact that the meme has now become self-referential should be mentioned.

I also think perhaps it's time the meme stuff had an article of its own, as it really has very little to do with the film as a dramatic work. It just uses the scene as some handy German-language footage of Hitler, portrayed by an actor, ranting at his generals. Tasty monster (=TS ) 04:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This movie has been rated R by the MPAA for strong violence, disturbing images and some nudity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmills62 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

An IP's comments on this topic were excised by Gwen Gale, but I don't think this was reasonable, so here they are:

The protagonist of the movie was Traudl Junge, played by Alexandra Maria Lara. The tall, doe-eyed Lara stands as the moral center while around her everything goes to pieces. She is positively radiant in the role, from start to finish. Not a smidgen of Nazi depravity adheres to her. I was sickened by her performance and the positive light cast on her by the filmmakers. Are there no published movie reviews that note the incongruity of Lara's Florence Nightingale-like performance and Junge's actual complicity (albeit as a minor, subordinate figure) in the Nazi machine?--84.58.21.196 (talk) 9:26 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Cite sources, see also WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I am asking for editors to supply sources! I am using this page for the purpose that it is designed for -- suggesting ways to improve the article!--84.58.21.196 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As the IP is specifically asking if reliable sources exist, this is a fair comment. The film is indeed narrated from her point of view, so she is the protagonist, something we should note more clearly: "Narrated from the perspective of Hitler's secretary, Traudl Junge".[2]; "It's Junge who remains the audience's entree into the inner circles of absolute power, as well as being the main avenue for understanding Hitler's powerful allure with ordinary Germans... played with a nice blend of star-struck innocence and fresh-faced shyness by Alexandra Maria Lara ("The Tunnel," "Naked"), that sets her apart from the rest of the monomaniacal or conflicted characters."[3] Her portrayal has indeed been criticised: Peter Longerich, a modern history prof, has said that "Traudl Junge never admitted she was a member of the Nazi party; but of course she was a member of Nazi organisations - far from the innocent, naive young woman we see in the film."[4] John Harris on Newsnight Review said "Then there are the innocents caught in the midst of it all - I don't think Traudl Junge, the secretarial character, by her own admission, was quite as innocent as she made out but nonetheless she is there showing the distorting effects on simple humanity of this madness and evil."[5]. "At the end of Downfall, two of its characters, Hitler's private secretary Traudl Junge and the young Hitler youth Peter ride (on a bicycle) into the sunset. They are innocent, the film suggests, and, with the Nazi regime in tatters, they are ready to build a new Germany. This, too, is not a new view of history, but one that once had much currency in the postwar Germanies, where the downfall of the Hitler regime was equated with a new and unencumbered beginning [...] Rather than depicting Traudl Junge as an innocent and, literally, wide-eyed German, the film could have made much of the life of the real Traudl Junge. She actually appears at the very end of the film; her reflections on her own involvement are infinitely more interesting than anything Downfall's recreation of the last days in the bunker has to offer. But we learn nothing about why she chose to work for Hitler, and what she thought when she became privy to his thoughts and deeds."[6] etc. etc. Fences&Windows 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've put in the whole thread, above. Thanks for coming up with some sources, as I had reminded the IP to do. Please do put them in the article if you want (and have the time to do so). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would disagree as to including some of it. Some of what is in the "thread" above is just POV; newpaper cited opinion articles. Further, one must remember the film is a dramatization not a documentary. Junge is the protagonist device through whom the story is mainly told; from her perspective. And membership in "Nazi organisations" could mean something like being a member of the female branches of the Hitler Youth (HJ), such as: (BDM) – "League of German Girls" or "BDM Belief and Beauty Society" (the branch of the "League of German Girls" began in January 1938 and open to girls age 17 to 21). One must also remember that membership was mandatory, in later years. As for "riding (off) into the sunset", the film also does not show, nor tell that Christian, Krüger, Manziarly and Junge were raped by soldiers of the Red Army. Should not that have been shown or told, as well for more realism; I am sure the director would say, again this is a dramatization, not a documentary or bio film. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if its a documentary or fiction. if reliable sources have taken an issue with the film and multiple sources have done so then it is worth mentioning. We don't get to leave it out because we think its irrelevant. That is a neutrality issue.--Crossmr (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you note, NPOV issues was one of my main points. I was not arguing irrelevancy, but you can't say it "doesn't really matter if its a documentary or fiction". Of course it does as that is partly how one judges (context) what the writers and director are driving at as far as characters, realism, fact and fiction in portrayal of same (and events). Kierzek (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because we're not judging it. We let reliable sources judge it however they want and we simply compile that information and make an encyclopedic article out of it. If you're judging it, you're committing original research and violating WP:NPOV.--Crossmr (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are making assumptions. The problem is the process and dissemination of what is being said or claimed. In the study and/or writing about history, historical or biographical matters (including historical dramas) it can be similar; unless the writer was there then it is always information coming from a secondary source. And even eyewitnesses can see the same thing and not state the same facts as to events. So one must first look at what is stated; then look at the source or sources (and many newspaper articles are weak sources and have hearsay problems); then look at the CONTEXT and cross check things, if possible. The fact is not all sources are "reliable" nor NPOV, as you know. And when dealing with a film, usually even more "liberties" are taken for drama, artistic effects and time constraints of a film. Further, I am not saying that minority views should be excluded, either. In the end, truth in history, historical or biographical matters are generally a matter of consensus (and certainly Wikipedia is a matter of consensus). I believe we can agree on that, I trust. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

With the above said, I would suggest something like this (with proper cites added, which I don't have at present): The portrayal of secretary Traudl Junge (the protagonist in the film), has also been criticized by some for the innocent, naive young woman we see in the film.(cite) As John Harris pointed out, Traudl Junge, the secretarial character, by her own admission, was not quite as innocent as she made out but nonetheless she is there showing the distorting effects on simple humanity of this madness and evil.(cite) Kierzek (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, something along those lines. I didn't exhaust the available sources by any means. There are scholarly articles on this topic, but I'm not shelling out $30 a piece to check what they have to say about Junge's depiction! I found a book that refers to it though, it says how showing the viewer the events from Junge's naive perspective allows the viewer to comfortably relax unlike when watching more uncomfortable films like Life is Beautiful: "it is her sympathetic gaze that cues the audience to the tragic sentiments the narrative conveys".[7] Fences&Windows 19:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha, some more interesting analysis![8] This source argues that the film shouldn't be criticised for showing the film from the limited perspective of those in the bunker, including Junge, as the aim is precisely to show their "claustrophobic viewpoint" and to question the reliability of eyewitnesses, as is confirmed when the real Junge appears at the end. The film is a "challenge to viewers to investigate their own perceptions and mindsets." Fences&Windows 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And another source: "Downfall is focalized through Hilter's[sic] young secretary, Traudl Junge. Through her eyes we see the German officers, both Nazi and army, trying to bring some reason into an insane world [...] [it] reminds us that in the same situation, we would probably behave in just the same way."[9] Fences&Windows 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting finds. It goes to what I was saying earlier above that she is a protagonist device through whom the story is mainly told and this is a (historical) dramatization. I did add your suggestion, Fences, as to pointing out the narrative was from her perspective. That was a good point to add. Feel free to have a stab at the article (with cites, as well). Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In the scene where Dr Schenk and his adjutant come across some "deserters" being shot. They are described in the article as German Military Police. In the script, you can hear Schenks adjutant call them "Greifkommando" which was a more ad hoc group that only formed after military discipline and order had largely disappeared. The deserters were actually, fairly old men who probably deserted from their Volkssturm unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.84.18 (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The original, as far as i can tell, was this one in spanish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RTYO0TT5C8 as no older ones can be found! [Unknown user]

The person above is right. Altough the "Gets banned from Xbox live" was the one which started the meme big time, it was definitely not the first one. Similar parodies were made nearly a year before. So the section in the article should be removed or heavily modified El Ucca (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The original meme, the one that started it all, was "Sim Heil: Der Untersim" in August 2006, a full year before the XBL parody. In this video, Hitler is furious at the numerous bugs and poor performances of Flight Simulator X, and threatens to switch to X-Plane. The file was incidentally the first one to be forcibly removed by Constantin Film and was never again uploaded by its author. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/downfall-hitler-reacts/ Kaminari (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't they really make a version of the famous "angry Hitler" scene? In Iron Sky the female president of the U.S. receives bad news from some employees, asks those of lowest rank to leave her office, then with a shaking hand removes her glasses and starts some angry rant and cursing at the remaining officers. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be making several additions to this film page, as part of a project that I am doing for my English class. I encourage any crticism and critiques by any user of Wikipedia. My goal is to provide a neutral and accurate portrayal of the film Der Untergang A.K.A.(The Downfall). Please do not hesitate to post any edits to my work and let me know what your thoughts are on this page. JMHENDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMHENDER (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to change anything on the Wikipedia page. I want to add several sections that will give the reader a more detailed description of specific things in the film, all the while adhering to Wikipedia’s standards. This film is unique in the sense that there are several units of the German army depicted, that are rarely publicized. I intend to create a section that will describe different types of uniforms worn by these units and also create links to pages that give a testimony of the unit itself. I will also add a section that discusses the relation of several characters commiting suicide. I will also add to the plot several scenes in the film that are not discussed on the page. There is also a serious question attached to a film such as this; that question is authenticity. Anyone that follows history would like to know how accurate this film is. I will provide a section that takes a specific testimony and examine its authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMHENDER (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

JMHENDER-additions are fine as long as they are not too lengthy and on topic. There are, for example, already several pages as to German uniforms and units. One doesn't need to go into a lot of detail in those areas; a mention and Wiki link to main articles on those subjects will do. Also, as noted in subsequent "clean up" watch your information as to description and spell check your work, as well. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Description of the plot is very helpful, not too long for me. I suggest that the wiki-editorial block saying plot is too long should be removed. Thanks! --d-axel (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to comment, but I found the detailed plot description very helpful. I watched the film for the first time yesterday, and had a hard time differentiating the characters; this page was incredibly helpful and although there is a tag at the top that says the plot description is too long, it was very useful to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.191.110 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The YouTube Parodies are now a such a huge internet phenomenon, and have so little to do with this film, that they deserve (or at least need) their own separate article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly wrong. Hitler was played by Albin Skoda in The Last Ten Days as early as 1955. It is unsourced anyway, so I'll delete it. If anyone wants to revert, please discuss. 91.6.138.20 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This section:

A few journalists in [Germany] wondered aloud whether the "human" treatment of Hitler might not inadvertently aid the neo-Nazi movement. But in his many rants in [the film] Hitler says that the German people do not deserve to survive, that they have failed him by losing the war and must perish – not exactly the sentiments [...] that would spark a recruitment drive. This Hitler may be human, but he's as utterly degraded a human being as has ever been shown on the screen, a man whose every impulse leads to annihilation.

with its square brackets is clearly a pov quote, yet it is not indented and marked as such. Is it part of the quote block that is just above it? --Elmeter (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downfall (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130323023042/http://www.svtplay.se:80/video/1110425/del-2-av-12-hitlerhumor to http://www.svtplay.se/video/1110425/del-2-av-12-hitlerhumor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downfall (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031010218/http://www.theguardian.com/internetting/hitler-downfall-video-youtube to https://www.theguardian.com/internetting/hitler-downfall-video-youtube

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of this quote from the film, and I am struggling to find other sources from reviewing other pages regarding the death of Adolf Hitler or his final days. If I remember correctly, it is either said at the dinner table when Hitler is informed of Himmler attempting to negotiate surrender, or the conference room when he assures General Walther Wenck's 12th Army will rescue Berlin. Following this quote and I cannot determine whether his generals agreed the attack could not be commenced or whether it was somewhat ignored in the rest of the script.

Can someone provide a link or add further detail on what discussion happened after this?

many thanks,

ToonIsALoon (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it, but why was there a link Igor Romanov (actor) in the first place? Did that article exist? There is another dead link, but it has an article in German Wikipedia.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downfall (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711182434/http://berliner-unterwelten.de/myth-of-germania.1882.1.html to http://berliner-unterwelten.de/myth-of-germania.1882.1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6029357/Elon-Musk-tweets-hilarious-parody-video-Hitler-shorting-Tesla-stock.html

I added a substantial amount of info to the section on parodies.

Another user removed it, and commented, "removing commentary; undue weight; this article is about the movie."

That's a good point. However, it seems to me that for this particular movie, the parodies are the biggest reason for notability. I myself had never heard of the movie until the parodies came about, and I suspect that this is true for most other people as well.

Perhaps a separate article should be created for this extra information about the parodies?

What do other users think?

I will obey whatever the consensus is.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I saw the movie when it came out and have not seen, and am not interested in seeing, any of the parodies. The material you added was interesting but too long and with too many quotations. Could we compromise on a one-sentence summary, supported by the same reference? --John (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think you can write it in one sentence, that would be great. It would be better than not including it at all. Since you haven't seen the parodies, I think you may be unaware of their impact. Perhaps in the future there will be consensus in favor of a separate article, but I certainly won't start one now. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think another article on the parodies alone is the way to go. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep the parodies section as is, as long as it is, and on this page, and — Fegelein! Fegelein! FEGELEIN! — stop taking yourselves so seriously. FYI, there is even a YouTube user who specializes in them. In case anybody is interested, my all-time favorite parody is (needless to say)… Hitler rants about the Hitler Parodies (especially at 1:45)… Asteriks (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Among the parodies of the parodies, I like this one better -- but I agree with you about keeping the parodies section. As the cited article from the Globe and Mail comments, "Four years after the controversial film's North American release, it has reappeared in the cultural landscape – only this time, as farce." This is now a significant aspect of the information about the film.

JamesMLane t c 12:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Some time ago the meme was also used after Square Enix decided to ban a number of Final Fantasy 11 players on all of the servers for using exploits. It wasn't just a few, it was a substantial number including some of the better known players out of all the servers. The subtitles were replaced with a lot of the game terms and it is still widely circulated by the playerbase. I wanted to add this as well, but it does look rather lengthy already. CharlieP216 (I'm not sure if my old wikipedia user page is still around)

Information about the parodies' resurgence and the second removal sweep by Constantin has been removed from the article. I was in the process of finding sources for this. So why was it removed? it's relevant to the parodies section. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is too much space given to parodies which is not something that adds to an encyclopedia article such as this one. I believe they should be mentioned in a few lines, only. However, if they must be kept, then state a smaller sample of the most famous of them. A last option is to have another article on the parodies alone, as Gwen Gale suggests above. Kierzek (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The parodies are a meme, and many memes have their own articles on Wikipedia, so i would support moving them to their own page. However, I also believe in democracy, so I think we should put it to vote. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth my outlook is that the parodies are notable on their own as another topic altogether. I would think putting them in their own article might end any weight worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the above stated, I therefore cast my vote for moving the parodies to their own topic page/article. Kierzek (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll see about starting up its own page, but we'll need to add to it when it's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggctuk (talk • contribs)

As far as anyone I've ever talked to about this meme/parody is concerned, the parody section should remain, as this movie owes any notoriety it now has to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.86.125 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

it was the parody clips that led me to see the original (and well done) film. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have some doubts about the historical accuracy of this film. First of all, all those Russian soldiers just dancing and staring at the Germans seems unlikely. What about executions on the spot, rapes, robberies....? Hitler's bunker is depicted as a place where the officers and guards are openly drinking alcoholic beverages and playing with half-naked women. None of the witness accounts tells about anything like this. There was some sort of panic and desperation in that bunker, but the discipline was maintained until the end. Mazarin07 (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The reception has pretty much explained what most critics thought surrounding the accuracy of the film, are you asking about a potential section for the inaccuracies to be laid out? NowIsntItTime (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)