Valkyrie: Can Hollywood save Germany?

George Bush, Walmart and the “World” Series are normally enough reason to dislike the United States. But if you’re a “rational” soul, and yet still unsure why the world simply cannot run out of reasons to malign the United States; go borrow yourself a couple of mates and run to your local cinema to check out Valkyrie. Of course, if Tom Cruise nauseates you as much as pawpaw and cow dung on a spring roll and watching another Hitler film isn’t really your idea of a night-on-the-town: spare yourself and your friends the misery of witnessing cultural imperialism at its height.

Valkyrie is a German story, based on real events during the latter part of World War II.

It is 1944 and with Nazi Germany looking down the barrel of inevitable defeat, a number of high-ranking officers secretly plan the demise of Hitler; Germany’s surrender to the Allies and thereupon the take over of Germany. Valkyrie is actually the name for the German reserve army; to be used only in a declared state of emergency.

The plot therefore revolves around an ambitious plan to assassinate Hitler, blame the secret police and usher in a state of emergency, therefore conning the reserve army Valkyrie into reorganising the German state.

Sounds pretty good so far, don’t it?

But pencil in Cruise as the key protagonist General Stoffenburg, Kenneth Branagh as Major-General Henning von Tresckow and Bill Nighy as Colonel Friedrich Olbricht; add unapologetic American and British accents to poorly researched and mismatched dialogues (would a Nazi really ask for a cuppa tea?) and suddenly the film seems corrupt, even for Hollywood standards.

Sure, Tom Cruise will get you bums on seats but why select such a seriously crafty topic if candy Cruise was your ambition?

Apparently Cruise resembles Stoffenburg himself.

But this is quite an asinine decision considering none of us, including many Germans have ever heard of Stoffenburg, let alone ever saw a picture of him. Stoffenburg is not Madiba, Gandhi or Chairman Mao, who would need some picture-perfect resemblance.

Besides, Cruise turns every role into some hybrid form of impossible schmaltzy hullabaloo that makes you wish you could just burn up into your seat.

History argues these men braved the German army, the secret police and that little thing called common sense — en route a mission to eliminate Hitler — but Hollywood will still find a way to whore the intricacies of this remarkable war story into another American adventure of the ego.

Sure, the film is pretty to look at (if one-eyed Tom Cruise is your kind of pretty) with superb cinematography and set and costume design. But awesome production values are a given in Hollywood these days; *beep* no kudos for that.

The simple truth is that in spite of a racy second half, the British and American accents, expressions and one-dimensional characters bound together by Cruise turn this intense German war story about Germans facing up to Hitler (read: wow) into a collapsible and very laughable segment of cinematic bollocks.

It is not as if we need to have exaggerated accents that turn every spoken word into lanky blondes humourlessly mixing “w” with “v” and “th” with “z” as they moronically exclaim, “Vait! I vant to tell you zumsthing”; characteristic “of all ze old American var moowies”.

But surely films like Valkyrie, with a concrete story to tell over and above pointless explosions; need to be more authentic?

In fact, save for the opening and closing scenes, there is hardly anything German about this film. Interestingly, the accents were so inappropriate that audiences could be forgiven for thinking the delinquent, mutinous Germans were actually American or British spies.

But they weren’t! They were ze Germans!

As usual, Hollywood assumes they can simply jump in, tell someone else’s story on their own terms and America’s existing stranglehold of the international consumption of culture and storytelling would do the rest. Valkyrie, again, is an illustration of America’s cultural arrogance to assume that this global product (which is what Hollywood films are) will be naturally deemed acceptable, and consumed happily by a homogenous global consumer, uninterested in authenticity.

Once more, it is that ostentatious presumption that superb cinematography and direction will transport brainless audiences back to 1940s where it is totally acceptable to watch English speaking Germans (with incredible CNN or BBC accents) cynically attempting to save Germany from itself.

Sure, this is Hollywood, to be taken with a pinch of rough salt, lime and shot of vodka for good measure; but the perspective presented in such films of this nature are often perceived as “fact” and “fairly accurate”: why should it be thought of otherwise?

As it is, the film has sparked immense debate in Germany regarding the truthfulness of the film in its depiction of Stoffenburg as a defiant resistor to Hitler and his claim to fame as a heroic figure. Critics are torn between the possibilities of this film becoming a huge PR exercise for Germany as a rare depiction of resistance to Hitler and the historical facts which suggest that Stoffenburg and his merry men were normal Nazis and not awesome humanistic revolutionaries as the film implies.

Firstly, Stoffenburg and his band of merry men were planning on advancing a new government based on the same authoritarian structure set out by Hitler, meaning that democratic values were not nigh. Secondly, these mutineers were Nazi card carriers; supportive of the regime from the early days of Hitler’s rise to power and weren’t resisting out of principle, but rather out of self-preservation.

The film makes no attempt to demonstrate any dimension or depth in the characters, and the good German soldiers (the mutineers) who are arrested ultimately, are the heroes who “at least tried”, when their coup de’état that failed was more about saving their own skins than the displacement and gassing of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and ze communists

Also, part of the debate is another set of ideas that argues this film might allow Germans to feel less guilty or embarrassed about allowing Hitler to run wild (though Austria should feel worse having bore him), because the new story, as pushed by Hollywood is: “But Stoffenburg tried”.

But does this mean Hollywood should simply stick to telling their stories?

Not at all; this would be like sending a wish list to Hollywood requesting more Rockys, Rambos and saving the world from aliens plots (well, these are never going to stop). Of course we want to see our stories; Hollywood is the key platform to shout out loud. American films are easily the most marketable and therefore the most accessible.

Ask any DVD pirate. Hollywood is their bread and butter (along with chiken tikka).

Needless to say, American film makers are incredibly talented story tellers; create the most awesome explosions and have the world’s most beautiful, airbrushed women.

But Hollywood still needs us: for the world is the storyteller’s oyster: Clint Eastwood is old and The Unforgiven was indeed the last of the cowboy movies.

The point is that times are changing; the overarching political discourse which guided Hollywood’s success over the past decades has shifted and films like Valkyrie are rapidly being recognised as nothing more than pompous American fluff.

The 8 Oscar winner Slumdog Millionaire is finally showing in South Africa. It is shot with an Indian cast, shot on location in the slums in India with slum dwellers (the virtues thereof another debate altogether). Whereas Valkyrie is old-fashioned, Hollywood ego-driven, Slumdog Millionaire is story-driven, without the hang-ups.

Actually, on second thoughts, forget about Valkyrie; I think it might even have been removed from the circuit. Take your friends for Slumdog Millionaire instead. You have more chance of retaining them.