Talk:Downfall (2004 film)

Re-submitting this as a good article

The article has been fixed up, and what was needed to be added has been added. I believe this is ripe for a good article review now, so I am submitting this again. Last time I had removed the nomination myself to fix issues someone pointed out, such as the production of the film and its lead section. If there are still issues you may have noticed then please let me know. --NowIsntItTime 21:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Critical reception section reeks of direct quotes. Consider reducing the amount of quotes, see WP:QUOTE and WP:RECEPTION, and try building a commentary out of those reviews. See The Shawshank Redemption and American Beauty for excellent examples on how to do this. Also, what do German film critics have to say about the movie? It's very important to report on the film's reception in Germany. A lot of the reviews in the article came from Western publications. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok, up until now I had no idea that direct quotes would have been a problem, so I'll get right to changing that up! I'll also look around for the German critics so that it's well balanced. --NowIsntItTime 04:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There are some statements that I tagged as unsourced/needing a better source, so please resolve them. Can you find a citation that says the movie was well received in Germany? Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Done! Added sources, but I had to change it to reflect its divided reception at first. I also added another reference for Hermann Graml, but I didn't know whether you meant the whole of Germany or the critics for Germany. Which one do you mean? --NowIsntItTime 16:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Nah never mind that one. I searched it myself but yielded no results. I will expand on the DVD/Blu-ray releases shortly instead. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Review: Round 1

This review is transcluded from Talk:Downfall (2004 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 12:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Will review as soon as possible. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Nominator here. Great! Looking forward to the review. I think I've gathered every notable publication that I could find on the internet for the film's production, box office, and critical response. If you find issues in your review let me know and I'll do my best to fix them. NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@NowIsntItTime: Will do, sorry this is taking so long... I had to move quite suddenly and it's been taking up a lot of my time as you can imagine. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: No problem! Take your time. I actually only saw your comment yesterday when I edited the page because I didn't add it to my watchlist. NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 14:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment I'd suggest this nomination be withdrawn as a lot of work is needed before the article covers main aspects (#3a). The Release section contains no release dates and next to no information. There's no Themes section, though sources exist analyzing the film [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Although a secondary item of importance, there's no WP:FILMHIST section either, although sources exist on that too [6] [7] For such a popular, well-known and recent film, I'd have expected more than 61 sources and more book sources; I would think a Casting section would be fairly easy to research and put together. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The release date was actually misplaced; I put it in the box office section instead. Other than that, I agree with you Ribbet32. I can see that I failed to add what you've mentioned before when I was looking for information, and it really would have helped the article to add a themes and historical accuracies section. I will withdraw my nomination and try to work on the issues, hopefully I can submit it again sometime in the future. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@NowIsntItTime: Hey! I was going to post my comments today. Would you agree for me to post them anyway for future reference and then let me close the nomination? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Sure! Go ahead mate. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• While the meme can be included in the lead, considering that it takes up quite a part of the article, the last half sentence about the copyright issues I think are too trivial here. Adressing them in the article proper is enough, I think.

 Done

Plot

• You use surnames for all people but Traudl Junge. Use the last name instead of first name here as well.

 Done

Production

• First sentence: The word "perplexed" might not be the best here. Maybe "discouraged"?

 Done

• The years given for the books do not seem to be the release years. Also, not all of them give year numbers, just some. There should be consistency here.

 Done

• Second paragraph mentions Hirschbiegel, without having mentioned him in the article yet. So, wikilink and give full name and who he is. Maybe you can even find a source about his hiring?

 Done

Release

• The Bild headline seems out of place here, this should go into the reception section.

 Done

• Overall, I am not sure if this section is necessary at all. You could move "home media" down below Reception and cut the entire release part since it does not give significant information. It would be different if you could give more info on the release, like were the premiere was and when. When was it released in Germany and by whom? When and by whom was it released in the UK and the US?

 Done Added information about the premiere in Toronto, and its first release in manhattan. I couldn't find anything about the UK though, but there's the part about its strapline for channel 4, not sure if that counts in this situation.

Reception

• Generally, I feel like the controversy surrounding the movie should be given more space, probably in its own section. There are plenty more sources who discuss the issue, like here or here.

 Done

• Note 1 about Mohnke and Schenck gives context, but no source for the statement. You need to add one here!

 Done

• At the end of the paragraph, you mention that Mohnke denied the accusations, but since the accusations are given in a footnote, this leaves a reader who has not read the footnote wondering what exactly he denies doing. I would recommend moving the footnote into the prose.

 Done

Parodies

• You might think about maybe shortening this section. While the movie is significant for its meme, it seems undue weight in the article right now. A section about the Hitler controversy should, in my view, be longer than the one about the meme.

 Done and I'll see what I can do when I put the controversy section together. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 20:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As by the suggestion of the nominator, I am closing the nomination for now. I hope that the article will find swift work on the issues raised above. @NowIsntItTime: Feel free to ping me if you re-nominate this, I would not mind looking at this again in the future. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@NowIsntItTime: Also, check out some of the Bruno Ganz obituaries, they can give new information for the article as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Naming?

I'm wondering... Outside of the Anglosphere Der Untergang seems to be the more used title, plus it's the original title. And for older movies generally the original titles are used from what I remember. So why is the Englified title used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:1234:1:C50:7924:D52B:EAB5 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The film was released under its English title outside Germany, in which case it should be used as the article's title, as per Wikipedia's naming conventions for films. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

GA fix-ups

@Zwerg Nase: Hello. I've had almost a week of free time to work on the article. Just want to let you know that I've done almost half of what you've asked me to do so far and I'll be looking for more info to do the rest in the future. Oh and I had an idea to add a section for the score, but I don't know if it exists yet. NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 03:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Would you want to take a look at the state of the article now to see how it's coming along? I'd like some comments on what I can do next to improve the article, even if I have to end up re-submitting it later. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Unless you are willing to go over it again, as I have fixed the issues you had with the article, I am going to request that another reviewer come on-board to determine whether it now qualifies or not. Just giving you notice, as you've been inactive in checking on its progress for a while now. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@NowIsntItTime: Hey! Since this review here is closed, you will have to open a new one anyway. I will see, if I find the time to do the second review. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. I will open the second review page in the meantime. I will give you a few weeks or so to come back and re-review it. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 11:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

NowIsntItTime, you are not allowed to open a GA review page for someone else, and you are especially not allowed to open a GA review page when you're the nominee. Please request a deletion for Talk:Downfall (2004 film)/GA2 right away (see WP:G7 for instructions on how to do so). Zwerg Nase is the one who needs to open the review, assuming they get around to doing so; if they don't, it might get taken up anyway, since there's a GAN backlog drive going on at the moment. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@NowIsntItTime and BlueMoonset: Yeah, please delete the review page. I will not be able to come back too this review at this time unfortunately. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, shit. I'm so sorry. When Zwerg said I needed to open a new review I thought they meant for me to open up another page, my bad, I'll delete it right away.

@Zwerg Nase: that's too bad you won't get around to reviewing it. The next person, then, will do it. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 11:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for having it deleted, NowIsntItTime. I've adjusted the GA nominee template (the page should still be 2). The note you added is not necessary, but I've left it in. The nomination is now ready for a new reviewer to come along; I hope it happens soon, but it can take quite a while, unfortunately. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yah not a problem. I just had no idea you couldn't do that for someone else, but now I know for next time. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 15:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Parodies again

Surely it's the Fegelein tirade that's been most used? Perhaps this can be sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Downfall (2004 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spintendo (talk · contribs) 15:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this is round 2 for the article, let's hope this one works out well. Let's start with a run-though of the article followed by the usual checks, including any from round 1.

In lieu of adding my signature after each entry below, I'm just going to place a date stamp. That way, when a response is given from the nominator, the date stamp (along with threading the responses) will act as natural barriers between what I say and the nom's reply. (My sig contains a red circle, which very quickly becomes distracting after dozens of them start to appear on a page.)  Spintendo  15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Prose — sectional issues

LEAD

• The screenplay was also based on the books Inside Hitler's Bunker by historian Joachim Fest and Until the Final Hour by Hitler's former private secretary Traudl Junge, among other accounts of the period. "The screenplay was also" implies that something about the screenplay was mentioned just before — yet this is the first time the screenplay is being mentioned. Suggest removing also. 15:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• It was, in part, controversial with audiences for showing the human side of Hitler and its portrayal of members of the Third Reich. "In part" implies that the other "parts" are also to be mentioned at that point in the text. The only reason to mention something as being a "part" is when either mentioning many parts or contrasting the part with the whole. But no contrasting is taking place here in the text. Suggest omitting "in part". 15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

PLOT

No issues.

I know you said no issues, but I noticed that there are eight separate paragraphs that I don't remember spacing apart, so I will end up combining them after writing this. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

PRODUCTION

Development

• Producer-screenwriter Bernd Eichinger wanted to make a film about Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party for 20 years but was, at first, discouraged after its enormity prevented him from doing so. This is not referenced. 15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• After reading a publication about the book by historian Joachim Fest called Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich (2002), he became inspired by Fest's work for inclusion in the film. This should read as "Eichinger was inspired to begin after reading Inside Hitlers Bunker by Joachim Fest." 15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• After completing the script for the film, Eichinger presented it to director Oliver Hirschbiegel who hesitated at first because he "reacted to the idea of Nazism as a taboo", as he was German. He eventually agreed to helm the project. This sentence is too choppy. It's not clear who did the hesitation, what happened after the hesitation (because it says "at first", which implies that whatever his reaction was second, should be listed), and isn't clear why being German makes the subject taboo (was this something Hirschbiegel mentioned as being part of the reason for it being taboo, "being German", or was that added on?) Please clarify. 15:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried to fix it for clarification on how being German made it feel taboo to him, but I need to see if you like the way it came out, or if it still needs to be changed. Here's what I wrote: Though he was interested in exploring how the people of Germany "could have plumbed such depths", as a German, Hirschbiegel hesitated to take it as he "reacted to the idea of Nazism as a taboo". Please tell me if this fits or is still unclear. I fear I might be misunderstanding you haha. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Casting

• I had some doubts when I was first offered the part of Hitler in Downfall. I asked myself whether I really wanted to get involved in this ugly, terrible stuff. But it was also a temptation—the subject has a fascinating side—so I agreed. The style of quote used here is distracting from the other text. Since it's only two sentences, it doesnt really need to be offset like this. 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, removed quote and simply made it a sentence in the prose. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• In order to prepare for the role, Ganz conducted four months of research and studied a recording of Hitler in private conversation with Finnish Field Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim in order to properly mimic Hitler's conversational voice and Austrian dialect. The first part is redundant. It can simply be worded as "Ganz conducted four months of research studying the Hitler-Mannerheim recording in order to closely mimic Hitler's conversational voice and Austrian dialect." 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ganz also became convinced that Hitler had Parkinson's disease after seeing him in the newsreel Die Deutsche Wochenschau presenting medals to Hitler Youth, and had visited a hospital to observe patients with the disorder. This is almost a word for word copy of the text from the Guardian interview with Ganz. It should be paraphrased or placed in quotes. 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Tried my best to paraphrase Ganz's words. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Numerous actors were cast in the roles for members of the Nazi Party and the other people in the bunker; Juliane Köhler, Ulrich Noethen, Ulrich Matthes, Corinna Harfouch, Heino Ferch, and Michael Mendl were cast as Eva Braun, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Magda Goebbels, Albert Speer, and Helmuth Weidling respectively. This passage is unnecessary, as there is a cast list already in the article. 16:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Filming and design

• Principal photography lasted 12 weeks, in the period from September to November 2003, under the working title Sunset. Extra comma; keep just the one between 2003 and under and delete the one between weeks and in. 16:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Since the The film is set mostly in and around the Führerbunker; Hirschbiegel said he made an effort to accurately reconstruct the look and atmosphere.... 16:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• ...of World War II through eyewitness accounts, survivors' memoirs, and other historical sources→.← (period) by filming Hirschbiegel filmed in the cities of Berlin, Munich, and Saint Petersburg, Russia, where with an industrial district slum along the Obvodny Canal was also used to portray the historical setting in Berlin. 16:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Her Lara's other colleagues briefly stopped during production to do other activities suggest: "To lighten the mood, Lara's colleagues engaged in other non-production related activities such as football." 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ganz kept a happy mood in between takes for his scenes. This is not clear how and in what way Ganz kept that happy mood, nor has any particular way in which he kept it been mentioned. 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hirschbiegel also noted the shoot to be deeply depressing and said he had to find relief at home after filming by listening to Johann Sebastian Bach's music. Since there is much use of the term also in a lot of these passages, I'm assuming that these were written by a native German speaker, as that language often uses the word. In English however, the word is omitted or placed elsewhere depending on the context of how its being used - which is almost always when mentioned along with something else which is similar or relevant. In this passage, the also is meant to indicate that the director also used coping techniques during production to lighten the director's own moods. But since this paragraph is mentioning multiple incidents of coping mechanisms, the use of also is not needed, as they can be described individually with a prepatory statement that mentions no one in particular. Example: "Several members of the cast and crew indicated that due to the tone of the film and its subject, other activities were needed to encourage levity. Hirshbeigel found relief through the music of Bach, while Ganz used ____ (needs to be specified for Ganz, as mentioned earlier), while other members of the production team played football" -- or something to that effect. Describing it that way enable the word also to be omitted. 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I'll attempt to explain the frequent use of "also": I can't be sure, because I included most of the article's information months and or a year ago, but I think the numerous misplaced instances might have either been bad English on my part or an attempt to paraphrase the original German-written article. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• There was also tremendous interest for the film during filming which lead the Russian press to visit the set, making the producers uneasy and occasionally defensive. Yana Bezhanskay, director of Globus Film, Constantin's Russian partner, raised her voice to Russian journalists and said: "This is an antifascist film and nowhere in it do you see Hitler praised." I understand that this comment was made during filming, but I think that it would be best placed in the section describing the reaction to Hitler's portrayal. 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• The director quote is styled the same as another quote which I suggested being changed, but this particular quote is placed at the end of a passage, which I believe makes it alright to remain where it is, as it doesn't confuse itself with following text.  Spintendo  20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

THEMES

• The film explores Hitler's decisions and motives during his final days through the perspective of the people in the Führerbunker. The overlying idea, according to Eichinger, was to make a film about Hitler and war-time Germany that was very close to historical truth, as part of a theme that would allow the German nation to save their own history and "experience their own trauma". This reads better having the two parts flipped, so it says "According to Eichinger, the overall idea was to make a film about Hitler and war-time Germany that was very close to historical truth, as part of a theme that would allow the German nation to save their own history and "experience their own trauma". In service of that idea, the film explores Hitler's decisions and motives during his final days through the perspective of those individuals who occupied the Führerbunker at those times." 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hitler and the Nazi party

• During production, Hirschbiegel came to the conclusion that Hitler often charmed people with his personality, saying that he was "like a shell", attracting people with his self-pity, but inside the shell was only "an enormous will for destruction". Many of the people in the film, including Traudl Junge, are shown to be enthusiastic in interacting with Hitler instead of feeling threatened or anxious by his presence and authority. Hirschbiegel said that the production team sought to give Hitler a three-dimensional personality, telling NBC: "We know from all accounts that he was a very charming man – a man who managed to seduce a whole people into barbarism. This needs to better explain which theme is being discussed here, which I beleive is that of trauma (also mentioned in the opening paragraph of this section) which in a sense, also means betrayal (a more standardized theme) - in that Hitler's charm was a betrayal of those individuals whom were charmed. All that would be needed is a revised sentence at the begining of this passage which mentions betrayal. (I'm open to other suggestions on what themes are being explored by showing Hitler's effect on people who worked with him. Those themes should ideally be taken from the standard ones described under Theme (narrative) or some other equivalent Wikipedia article discussing themes specific to film - I haven't searched for any of these, but finding them and Wikilinking them would be helpful.) "Hitler and the Nazi party" used as the subheading now is actually the subject and not really the theme. 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Betrayal is also now the theme heading instead of "Hitler and the Nazi Party". -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Also the phrase "came to the conclusion" I think would be best worded as "believed that". There are two instances where this can be changed, the first use is in the Casting section. 18:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

RELEASE

• The film, at first, failed to find a distributor, but was released by Constantin Film in Germany on September 16 "After first failing to find a distributor, the film was eventually released in Germany by Constantin Film." 18:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 19:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

• I think that this section should be placed under the Reception section after Critical response, and that the Release section should just have information about the release of the film.  Spintendo  18:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I also did some more re-arranging, moving the Box office section with release, and I also ended up adding a legacy section which includes the parody and home video sections. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 19:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if DVD section should go here? I'll have to check other film articles to see where that is usually placed, I see its in the legacy section here. 21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Box office and awards

• I'm curious why being popular at the Norweigian box office is significant? It just seems strange singling that one out. 21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done (removed). Don't even know why that's there; I doubt I was the one that added it. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• According to IMdB the film won many award outside of the US, I think the prominent ones which have their own Wikipedia pages ought to be included here (a Table will probably be necessary here, I'll work on finding the right formatting and the reference citations):

European Film Awards Bruno Ganz nominee

National Board of Review - NBR winner for foreign film

London Film Critics Circle Awards 2005 - Best Foreign Film

Deutscher Filmpreis - Nominee in 3 categories

Bayerischer Filmpreis - Winner in 3 categories

Chicago Film Critics Association Awards 2005 - Nominee

Et cetera....

• (A table might be a bit too much (it's a lot of work) so I'll leave it up to the nominator to decide if they want to add one.

Suggestion for awards table

Award Date of ceremony Category Recipient(s) Result Ref(s) European Film Awards date needed European actor Bruno Ganz Nominated National Board of Review Date needed NBR Award Best Foreign Film Downfall Won German Film Awards Date needed Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role Bruno Ganz Nominated Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role Corinna Harfouch Nominated Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role Juliane Köhler Nominated

 Spintendo  21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

RECEPTION

Critical response

• Reviews for the film were often very positive, despite debate surrounding the film from critics and audiences upon its release. I think a {{See below|#Controversy}} would work here right after the end of this passage. 21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 00:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think the Kershaw statement about the film should be placed before the Graml quote. Both are independently notable, but I feel that Kershaw is arguably more prominent as a biographer of Hitler, and I would want to know his opinion first. Sadly, I've not heard of Graml before today, which is perhaps my failing. (I'm thinking just to move the Kershaw quote and not the Wenders review, which is less prominent than either Kershaw or Graml.) 21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• There is only one criticism in this section, but I suppose that is offset by the criticisms that are mentioned in the next section.  Spintendo  21:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

---

Checklinks

No issues.

Copyvio check

No issues.

 Spintendo  18:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Issues from round 1

• I agree with the first reviewer that the Theme section needs to be added to with more scholarly works. Here are a few which should be used:  Spintendo  21:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Gilbert, Christopher J. (1 December 2013). "Playing With Hitler: Downfall and Its Ludic Uptake". Critical Studies in Media Communication. 30 (5): 407–424. doi:10.1080/15295036.2012.755052. ISSN 1529-5036.
2. Hake, Sabine (2012). "Entombing the Nazi Past: On Downfall and Historicism". Films from Germany: History, Cinema and Politics since 1945. Palgrave Macmillan UK: 99–131. doi:10.1057/9781137032386_5.
3. Pelzer, Jurgen (1 March 2007). "The Facts Behind the Guilt? Background and Implicit Intentions in Downfall". German Politics and Society. 25 (1): 90–101. doi:10.3167/gps.2007.250105. ISSN 1045-0300.
4. Evans, Owen (2013). "Memory, Melodrama and History: The Return of the Past in Contemporary Popular Film in Germany". European Studies. pp. 241–269.
5. Haase, Christine (15 March 2007). "Ready for His Close-up? Representing Hitler in Der Untergang (Downfall, 2004)". Studies in European Cinema. 3 (3): 189–199. doi:10.1386/seci.3.3.189_1. ISSN 1741-1548.
6. Rosenberg, Joel (2013). "The Good, the Bad, and the Fatal: Ben Urwand on the Hollywood Moguls and Hitler". Jewish Film & New Media. 1 (2): 190–214. doi:10.13110/jewifilmnewmedi.1.2.0190. ISSN 2169-0324.
7. Sell, Richard (2012). "Downfall and the Male Fantasies of Mastering the Past". Male Subjectivity and Twenty-first Century German Cinema: Gender, National Identity, and the Problem of Normalization (Ph.D. thesis). University of South Carolina. pp. 57–88. Document No.3507146 – via ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

The following scholarly work is already used in the article. The |DOI= parameter can be added to its citation template in addition to the |JSTOR= parameter already used, since DOIs are theoretically more stable:

1. Bendix, John (1 March 2007). "Facing Hitler: German Responses to Downfall". German Politics and Society. 25 (1): 70–89. doi:10.3167/gps.2007.250104. ISSN 1045-0300. JSTOR 23742889.

 Spintendo  18:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate your formatting these for me! W̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶d̶e̶f̶i̶n̶i̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶g̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶l̶i̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶l̶u̶d̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶m̶a̶t̶e̶r̶i̶a̶l̶.̶ I'll end up putting the books into a separated bibliography as well so readers can keep better track of them. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So I am not able to read all of these books right now, as I don't have the money for all of them and I, just recently, don't have as much time as I'd like to buy, read, and include all of their information right before the review can be completed. I also want to try my best to include the information without making frequent mistakes that could be made while rushing through each page, if that makes sense to you. I'll have to rescind my nomination, which I admit should have been placed once enough scholarly works had been added, and just continue to work on the article for the time (and money) available to me right now. @Spintendo: I am really sorry about this, as you have put a lot of time into reviewing the article for me, I am sure. By all means, feel free to complete your review, and I'll do my best to tend to the issues you've placed. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Review table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are slight grammar issues, predominantly innocent ones — such as those particular to German/English transliteration — but these would have been easily corrected had the review continued.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are scholarly aspects of the film and its reception and impact on wider culture that could not be covered due to access issues with the source documents. The nominator is urged to consider submitting an application to WP:LIB in order to obtain free access to materials.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The nominator has clearly worked very hard on improving this article and that is to be commended. I see only two hurdles in passing GA review: the completion of the grammar check and the incorporation of the suggested scholarly works, which would give readers a better appreciation of the film through the analysis offered by those sources.

 Spintendo  00:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Oppa Hitler Style" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Oppa Hitler Style has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19 § Oppa Hitler Style until a consensus is reached. BDD (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)