Customer Reviews

Max

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(20)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

****1/2 Countless films have dealt with Adolph Hitler the monster, the madman, the unprecedented mass murderer. But very few have attempted to go beyond this image, to conceive of Hitler in less than larger-than-life terms and to try to figure out what it was exactly that made this most infamous of modern dictators "tick."

This is certainly understandable, for how is one to "explain" an Adolph Hitler? How is one to reconcile the man who was responsible for the deaths of millions with a flesh-and-blood person who lived and breathed like the rest of us? The answers to these questions have eluded sociologists, psychologists and artists for decades now and it is the rare person who even attempts to provide us with some possible explanations. It is for this reason that writer/director Menno Meyjes deserves extraordinary praise for bringing "Max" to the screen. Is it possible for a single film - especially one that runs a mere 108 minutes - to successfully address this bewilderingly complex subject? Probably not, but "Max" certainly takes a bold first step in trying to piece together this most mystifying of psychoanalytical puzzles.

Meyjes begins his story in 1918, immediately after the Germans have suffered a crushing defeat in World War I and now face further humiliation in the form of punitive measures meted out by the Versailles Treaty. We see Hitler as essentially an embittered 30-year-old social misfit, a rootless, impoverished, down-on-his-luck painter whose work shows some promise but who keeps being told that he needs to find that "authentic voice" that will distinguish his work from that of his more successful artistic contemporaries. One of the people who tells him that is Max Rothman, a wealthy Jewish art dealer who, like Hitler, served his country in the war and who, also like Hitler, has a good reason to feel embittered about the experience. It seems that Rothman's career as a great and promising artist was cut short by the loss of his arm in battle. Thus, while Hitler burns with a sense of nationalistic fervor (he blames everyone but the Germans - at least the Aryan ones - for his country's defeat), Max seems less inclined to declare total devotion to his country. This is just one of the many points of contention that define this fascinating relationship between the two men.

What Meyjes is able to do so well is to show just how Hitler transitioned from being basically a petty angry young man filled with feelings of personal doubts and inadequacy to being a bold, confidant visionary of a new world order based on German domination with himself at the helm. Through these two main characters, Meyjes paints a brilliant portrait of the times, of a country in ruins, of a people desperate to find scapegoats on which to pin their suffering. Even Hitler's anti-Semitism is initially vague and ill defined until some army leaders groom him to become one of the spokesmen for their new system known as "propaganda." Hitler is, obviously, a tightly coiled malcontent who, when he discovers he cannot convey his ideas successfully on canvas, changes his medium to that of speechmaking. Max, who has been encouraging him to pour his feelings into his artwork and to stay away from rabblerousing in the streets and beer halls, can do little but sit back in awe watching this seemingly insignificant young man beginning to exert his influence on the world around them. Although Hitler in many ways admires and respects this Jewish "friend," he can't get beyond the burning envy he feels towards the easy life that money and a privileged family have bought for Max. It is the great irony at the end of the film that Max becomes the unwitting first victim of Hitler-inspired hooliganism and violence and that, through this action, Hitler himself loses his opportunity to make a name for himself in the art world. The closing scene has a kind of perfect symmetry about it. These two men's lives intersect at a crucial moment in history, not in the way they intended, perhaps, but more as the result of a cruel trick of fate. A great theme that runs throughout the film is the old "what if" scenario. What if Hitler had been able to find acceptance in the art world? What if the Treaty of Versailles had not exacted so harsh a penalty from the German people? This theme is beautifully caught in microcosm in a scene where Max stages a small play lamenting the loss of his arm and his ability to paint and pondering over what works he might have produced had things turned out differently.

Because we know what ended up happening in the years following the events depicted in the film, "Max" is filled with a haunting sense of sadness and foreboding. For instance, we see the Jews of Max's family enjoying their luxury and wealth totally unaware of what awaits them in the near future. It's as if the Sword of Damocles were poised precariously above their heads, yet they are serenely unaware of its existence and the danger they are in. Even the astute Max seems only vaguely cognizant of the threat Hitler and people like him pose to his way of life or the health and lives of those he loves. For without the 20/20 hindsight that experience affords, who could ever rationally conceive that a man like the Hitler portrayed here could bring the entire world crashing down around him? That, in fact, seems to be Meyjes' point, that "evil" can arise where we least think to look for it - in the banal, the mundane, the mediocre people who surround us unnoticed - until one day we wake up and see it all around us, when it is too late to do anything about it. The real tragedy of the story is that Max, for all his insight into life and art, cannot see that the ultimate evil of our times happens to be standing right there next to him in a shabby overcoat and worn out shoes. For much of the film's duration, Max sees Hitler as, essentially, a benign misfit, one who simply needs to channel his somewhat disturbing beliefs in a more positive direction, i.e. his artwork. It is Max's obliviousness to the true potential of his "protégé" that gives the film its air of chilling menace. Meyjes writes dialogue that is sharp, sophisticated and meaningfully witty. For instance, he embodies much of his theme in lines that grate on our ears and our sensibilities in their almost irreverent casualness, but which make perfect sense in the context of the story - lines like "I'd like you to meet Adolph Hitler...I've never heard of him" or "Hitler, let me buy you a lemonade." Such statements throw us off balance and make us giggle - until we realize just how beautifully they portray the meaning of the work, that at one time Hitler was just a name like any other, not imbued with any special evil significance - just like the man himself. We almost expect the people in the film to jump back in horror from his sheer presence or the mere mention of his name - yet how were they to know what was to come? How were they to know they needed to flee or at least do something proactive to counter his growing influence and power? These are the questions that haunt us.

John Cusack as Max and Noah Taylor as Hitler give brilliant, insightful performances. Taylor does the well nigh impossible job of making Hitler seem strangely human while, at the same time, helping us to understand just how quick a leap it can be from disillusioned outcast to maniacal dictator.

"Max" is a brave and noteworthy triumph, a film that takes chances and sets a high standard for future historical dramas on the subject.

A standard question concerning ethics asks if you could go back in a time machine and have the chance to kill Adolf Hitler as a baby, would you do it? Another "what if?" concerning Hitler has to do with his attempts to be an artist. Hitler's artwork is rather cold and uninspiring, but it seems reasonable to speculate that if he had been a better artist he would not have turned to politics and the 20th century would have been completely different.

Writer-director Menno Meyjes explores this idea in the 2002 film "Max," in which Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) is still living in military barracks in Munich as Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles and is trying to make a name as an artist. He shows his work to Max Rothman (John Cusack), a Jewish art dealer who lost an arm in the World War and who is consumed by the idea of the subversiveness of modern art. Hitler disparages such ideas, considering them "blood poisoning." Rothman and Hitler argue about art, both in terms of the futurist movement and Hitler's lack of an "authentic voice" in his own work.

Meanwhile, at the barracks of the decommissioned army, Hitler is folding laundry and being courted by Captain Mayr (Ulrich Thomsen), who is teaching a class on propaganda. Mayr is a historic figure and it is in his responses to Mayr and others in the barracks that Hitler is his most articulate and persuasive in dispensing his particular brand of venom.

The major fault I find in this film is that both the script and Taylor's performance play too quickly to the ranting Hitler. One of the great distortions of Hitler's legacy is that the black & white film footage of Hitler speaking comes from the climax of his speeches, when he has worked himself and his audience into frenzy. But Hitler always built to such a crescendo. He would show up late for speeches, making his audience wait in anticipation, and then stand there until the audience got quiet, and then would stand some more, building the drama. Then he would begin speaking softly, so that his audience strained to hear him. Hitler was a devastatingly effective public speaker and every time his oratory is reduced to rants and raves we have an incomplete and inadequate understanding of the monster.

What lies at the heart of the film is the idea that you either take the view that Hitler is a madman born in sulfur who wrecked havoc on the world or that he was a kind of hustler. Meyjes goes with the later view, presenting Hitler as a frustrated artist whose evil was rooted in that frustration and his inability to express himself. It is in his engagements with Rothman and Mayr that Hitler finds his "authentic voice," and comes to the fatal conclusion that politics will be his art and the German people his canvas.

"Max" ends the relationship between Rothman and Hitler on an ironic note, which is exactly what I expected. After all, by both his failure and his success with Hitler, Rothman is pushing Hitler towards the horrors of Nazi Germany, and his fate in the film symbolisms what is to come. Meyjes is not trying to tell a true story here; after all, Hitler had a handlebar mustache during this period after the war, but having Taylor play the future Fuhrer clean-shaven seems appropriate for this provocative story.

Of course this film is provocative; it should be. Reducing Hitler and the Nazis to being anti-Semitism misses the whole fascist dynamic of the struggle towards order that became the Cold War mentality. Meyjes takes the rather simplistic idea that if someone like Rothman had been a better patron to Hitler the artist that everything would have been different. But the script is so intelligent and the performances so compelling for the most part that we are willing to think along these lines at look at Hitler in a new light. This does not mean that we see him as being a better person, but rather than we better see him for what he was by considering how he became that way.

First impressions can be deadly. Promises broken can cause real pain. Watch what you say and do because you never know who's watching. As a mainline protestant I believe that man, while he may strive to be good is essentially evil. `The road to hell is paved with good intentions,' if you will. I believe jealousy, greed, and avarice are very much a part of the human condition and its only through the grace of God we are not lost.

I say this to illustrate a point. MAX is the story of two men, each on a quest to do something good. Each has a noble goal and yet both end up on a collision course with History. The first man is Max Rothchild (John Cusak, High Fidelity) a German Jew who has just returned from WWI missing an arm. He has settled back into his comfortable life of wealth and prosperity, with his beautiful wife (Molly Parker, Kissed) and his beautiful children. He has a mistress (Leelee Sobieski, My First Mister), and is a chain smoker. He probably drinks more than he should as well. He is also unable to do what he really loves, which is paint, so he does the next best thing. He becomes an art dealer. If he cannot create art why not discover the next great artist.

The other man is Adolph Hitler (Noah Taylor, Almost Famous) a German, who has returned from the war with nothing. He lives in the army barracks because he cannot afford a home for himself. He follows the rules and is straitlaced. He will not smoke. He does not drink (not even coffee) and he loves his country, a German all the way. But he does long to be a great artist.

One day these two men start a relationship. It is amicable if strained. Max takes Hitler under his wing. Trying to get him to open up and embrace his art. Hitler becomes fed up and is dragged away from his art by the army. They have given him the platform he's always wanted, and with this platform Hitler begins to rail against the Jews, and those that threaten the great country that is Germany. In the end this one man is forced to chose between art and power. Real history tells us what decision he made.

MAX is a fictional account of the early life of one of history's most evil men. But what I really liked about it is that it makes an attempt to get to heart of why people make the decisions that they do. Why did German nationalism lead to violence and genocide? Why do some people who are tested by pain survive and thrive, and others can be in the same place and become bitter? Why and what turned Hitler himself into a monster? Did he have a run in with a Jew that broke a promise or treated him like crud? All these questions come to mind and MAX tries to come to gripes with them.

What I also like about this movie is it has no hero, but allows you as the audience to be empathetic to these men. Maybe Hitler has a point. Maybe he has the right the feel put upon by the world. Why, when he plays by the rules, does he live in the gutter, while a fast talking, hard drinking, chain smoking, adulterer has a warm bed? It would make me mad too and doesn't jealousy make us do some pretty drastic things.

Writer/ first time Director Menno Meyjes (The Seige `Screenplay') has crafted a compelling and challenging story. The film makes a monster into a human being, not by praising him but by asking the one question we all ask, why? It doesn't begin to editorialize on what Hitler became, but presents us with a man who can make the right decision or walk down the wrong road. Of course we can never change the past, but we can try to find out where it all went wrong.

John Cusack does a marvelous job of painting the picture of a good guy with a great heart, but too many flaws. There is a great scene near the end of the film where his wife confronts him with his adultery. Max never once says he's sorry, and I don't think his wife expects him too. But she loves him too much to run away. Will Max change his ways, maybe?

Noah Taylor's Hitler has the perfect nuance. On one hand he's a bottled up ball of rage about to explode, on the other he's this wide-eyed dreamer looking for a shot. This is the hardest kind of part to play because the audience already comes in with the picture of what and who Hitler is, and not who he is at this moment. While he is an object of scorn, and rightly so. You can and must empathize with him, or the performance is lost. Taylor plays the right chords, and it works.

My favorite scene in the films comes as Hitler is giving a speech about the supremacy of the Aryan race and Germany in a local bar and nobody is paying attention to him. Except one kid. Later in the film Hitler is giving a similar speech to a room of about a hundred people and guess who's sitting there. That single kid has turned into hundreds. An idea, no matter how wrong and misguided, has power. It reminds me of those KKK rallies, they show on the local news. Sure hundreds show up to berate these people, but if one person hears and is mad at the world, they can be easily swayed. Makes you think, that maybe what we say and do can have an effect on the people around us.

MAX was my favorite film from last year and rightly so. It's bold, controversial, and asks a lot of questions, other films haven't. But mostly it's a human story about two men and their unlikely friendship. It's about striving to do what's right and it's about the power of art. It's about propaganda and politics--Hero's and madmen. MAX is a great film. ***** (Out of 5)

Max (Menno Meyjes, 2002)

Menno Meyjes (Empire of the Sun, Ricochet) steps behind the camera for the first time to direct his own controversial script. Like most controversial scripts, this one got built up a lot more than it should have by people who probably haven't even seen the blasted thing.

The story centers on Max Rothman (John Cusack), a wealthy Jewish art dealer not long after the end of World War I, before the massive German depression kicks in. He is a staunch modernist, but modern art isn't selling too well in a Germany that just got its head handed to it on a platter, and Rothman is looking for a new angle. He meets a young, promising artist by the name of Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor, from Almost Famous). Rothman and Hitler develop a testy friendship of opposites, with Rothman's libertinism and Hitler's asceticism grating against one another mercilessly, but the two men have a grudging respect for one another, and Rothmann has a genuine desire to help Hitler's career (if, one thinks, only for Rothman's impending success as an art dealer).

The story of the making of Max is a tale of Hollywood political correctness run roughshod over creativity. The film was originally to be produced by Amblin Entertainment, but Spielberg-though he thought the script a brilliant one-pulled out at the last minute because of fears of a backlash from the Jewish community. With production at a standstill, Cusack immediately forewent his salary because of his belief in the viability of the film. (In the end, it was produced by an international conglomeration of companies, including Film Council UK (Formula 51, Bend It Like Beckham) and Canadian producers Alliance (eXistenZ).) It is also a tale of how even unwelcome publicity is publicity, and by the time Max was finished, many people expected the best thing since sliced bread.

Max is a good film. About that there can be no doubt. But it is not a great film. While it doesn't, as Spielberg so euphemistically put it, "dishonor the memories of holocaust survivors," it doesn't exactly tread much controversial ground, either; if the struggling artist had been anyone but Adolf Hitler, Max would likely have opened unheralded, played arthouses for a few weeks, and been seen afterwards only by hardcore fans of one of the movie's stars. The ideas in it are wonderful ones, and there is much that deserves criticism by those who are better at such things than me (for example, Rothman's constant exhorting that Hitler must find his distinct voice in art, and the wonderfully ironic resolution of that statement not long before the film's climax), but the film itself is just not quite the equal of all that. It ends up with the same general feel of 2001's In the Bedroom; a lot of great stuff that just doesn't gel quite right. ***

A fictional "what if" account. Max Rothman, an art dealer and WWI veteran meets young Adolf Hitler, an aspiring artist in Munich. Rothman encourages Hitler's art, attempting to mentor him, but the two end up arguing, and Hitler is angsty and unfocused. Hitler appears to be the kind of guy who is gung ho for whatever ignites his passion in the moment, and unfortunately art did not take a stronger hold than politics. Max tried to encourage Hitler to find his own voice-artistic voice-but Hitler eventually found his platform - a dangerous one-after being something of a dismissed misfit in all his other previous incarnations. This is a fascinating take on the question of what if. It imbues personality and complexity and depth to the man Hitler might have been before he rose to power. There are several reviews here on Amazon that are extremely well written and convey the foreboding, ominous feeling one feels while watching this film, knowing what happens in real life. I highly recommend this well-acted and tastefully, intelligently done film and agree wholeheartedly with the other reviewers who have written far more eloquently about the film than I have.

This is a great movie that gets people thinking about how an evil dictator such as Adolph Hitler came into being by examining his younger days as an artist in Vienna during the forming of the Nazi party. As a european "history" "student" pointed out in a previouse review it is not historically accurate. But movies are art, and unlike history, which is always written from a point of bias or blandly with dull facts, they get people thinking creatively in order to come to their own understandings.

To me the conflict is between Hitler's love of art, and the need to be in control, which hinders him because he is simply not able to let go and create any piece of work. He is rigid, cold, logical, and a perfectionist when he attempts to create art and is unable to express himself, which many artists may have exerienced at on time or another. I produce music and sometimes I think too much about what the song I'm writing is accomplishing or going to accomplish rather than just writing it, and to Hitler every piece of art should have meaning and be better in technique than previous works of art. So Hitler, who is acted well by Noah Taylor, can't seem to release his feelings on a canvas. He finds his niche that allows him to vent his feeling of frustration and anger and starts doing rousing political speeches for a group affiliated with the army where he yells rants and raves like an unsuccessful artist would rant against the glamorous pop culture we have.

This is a great movie for those who like dark movies that deal with psychological reasons as to why someone is or would become a social outcast or a bad seed. If you liked "Taxi Driver" then you'll enjoy this movie.

I first caught a glimpse of this film when I was flipping through the premium channels and I came across a film that appeared to have a relatively interesting premise. Needless to say I found it intriguing enough to attempt to track down. Well I finally found it and I've watched it in it's full. The movie starts off very strongly, but unfortunately it takes a fairly weak turn towards the end. I'll go over this in some detail.

Now I will say that what really caught my attention was the fact that this is a movie about Adolf Hitler, for the most part, and post World War I Germany. Basically the premise is between the end of World War I and Hitler's rise to power, what if Hitler had returned to realistically pursue his art career rather than go immediately into politics. I have to admit, it's a very interesting and ambitious supposition. To further make this of interest to us the primary encouragement Hitler has to pursue art is an art dealer named Rothman, who also happens to be Jewish. Surely this throws a kink into the character of the anti-Semitic ruler history knows. Again, another ambitious supposition. Unfortunately the movie has some striking weak points and a lot of that had to do with Hitler's character.

First I'll talk about Cusak's character Rothman. It's pretty clear the viewer is supposed to really like this character and also dislike him. Both Rothman and Hitler have this duality in the film. He's an enjoyable and cynical fellow, but his infidelity puts a black mark on his character, so he's not flawless. There's certainly no taking the high road here. I thought this was wonderfully played by Cusak and I think Rothman was the better developed character in the end. This is probably also due to the fact that I didn't have any preconceived notions of who he was prior to going into the film.

As far as Hitler is concerned I think they got his character wrong on many fronts. It was as if Noah Taylor never actually studied anything about the historical Hitler except for a few snippets of what pop-culture has to show us, but there was no depth! I feel I should point out here that I have read "Mein Kampf," I've read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and I've read a few speeches given by Hitler. Unfortunately the Hitler that these writings portray is not the one we have in this film. Taylor's Hitler is a very meek man, one who is uncertain of his abilities on every front. However, it is alluded to that he understands a great deal about the political situation of the times and is very well read (this is close to the historical Hitler). In this film you are intended to pity Hitler and I can't help but think that you are supposed to believe that Hitler didn't want to be anti-Semitic. Sure he harbored the beliefs in the film, but due to his friendship with Rothman you are led to believe that he may not have really believed any of it.

However, when one sits down and reads Mein Kampf he truly believed everything. In fact he believed it passionately through and through. In this movie it is the military that urges him to begin speaking in public. However, Taylor doesn't exude the strength the true Hitler had for public speaking. Most of the speeches presented in the movie are far from eloquent or even remotely rational. Having read a couple of speeches that Hitler had given, even early on in 1921, I am confronted with a Hitler that really thought out his position. He was very rational in connecting the dots to his conclusions. Granted they were entirely wrong on many fronts, but it doesn't change the fact that they were very methodical. The speeches Taylor gives in this film are not eloquent in the least, they're not rationally presented and they did nothing to make me feel like I was watching the confident leader of the Third Reich. Most of the speeches consist of saying "We were stabbed in the back" numerous times and in one speech that supposedly swayed the crowd on a major scale concluded with him yelling "Bloodjew" numerous times. I'm sorry, these lines just lacked passion and they were the majority of the "speech". Only in the final speech does he deliver a single sentence that even remotely goes down the path the real Hitler would have, but the movie does not keep that up. Just because Taylor is physically yelling the line does not mean he gives off a feel of passion.

I fully understand what "Max" was trying to do in their portrayal of Hitler. It has the added "what if" scenario in terms of Hitler being primarily influenced by the army to go into public speaking when he really wants to commit to an art career. I realize that art was a major influence in Hitler's life growing up and as he got older. In fact he goes on quite a bit about the importance of art in "Mein Kampf", so you can tell he still had a passion for that subject. The movie ends in a manner that shows no matter what happens history cannot be changed. It's also a film that focuses quite a bit on art concepts, so it is helpful if you're fairly open minded as a viewer. I do consider myself to be fairly open minded, but I just wasn't buying into their portrayal of Hitler. I think Taylor did a good job acting this out, but I don't think he was distinctly trying to be the historical Hitler; this may not have been his decision. He may have been doing what the writers and directors asked. If they asked him to play Hitler in this fashion, then he did it perfectly. Nevertheless, for the historian in me, I couldn't buy into it and it really put an end to the film for me.

I have no doubt that many would consider this kind of movie somewhat controversial and provocative. It does make you think about the different possibilities that exist within any kind of timeline (don't worry; I will avoid the drawn out concepts of parallel universe theory in light of quantum physics). I honestly can't fully recommend the film as a good drama, because it just didn't pan out in a sensible way. It was almost like there were too many "what if" scenarios for me to really get behind the plausibility factor. Maybe if you're a much more forgiving person you can find some real merit in this. I mean, I thought the premise and acting was pretty good, just the overall execution didn't pan out for me in the end.

Who hasn't wondered what the course of the world would have been if Adolf Hitler had succeeded as an artist and stayed out of the political arena? The popular theory of some years back of the "Butterfly Effect"--that the beating of a butterfly's wings could set into effect a chain of events leading to a hurricane or such--came into my mind as I watched this evocative period piece set in post-war Germany, 1918, as a 30-year-old Corporal Hitler checks out of the army and tries to get a showing of his art work. At this point in his life political speeches are just something he does at the behest of his former Army superiors who have recognized his brilliance and intensity and wish him to tout their new National Socialist party. Like the Hollywood parking valet or waiter who REALLY considers himself to be an actor, young Hitler sees himself as an artist. If only he could have succeeded! Events as small as that butterfly's beating wings, however, conspired to frustrate him and turn to the one thing he was doing well at that point in his life--rabble rousing in beer halls and lecture halls. The actor portraying Corporal Hitler astonished me, whether he was showing a very low-key, depressed, starving artist with stubborn pride that bucked himself up despite apparent obscurity and failure or the terrifyingly effective political speaker learning his "moves" and vocalizations during his performances or the vegetarian, animal-loving naturalist who worried about caged birds in parks. To the woe of the world, Hitler couldn't allow himself to be sufficiently vulnerable to show himself in his artwork; he instead externalized via the political arena ("Politics is the new art!"). If some quibble that the actor doesn't resemble Hitler enough to be credible, focus on his eyes and check out some photos of Hitler circa 1918 or the early 1920's (I recommend the book "Hitler Close-Up"); that chunky, full-faced look came later in his life. Right out of the trenches, Hitler was quite lean. This movie also features an amusing, wry performance by John Cusak as the German-Jewish art dealer Max Rothberg (who lost an arm in WWI; as the film points out, many, many German Jews volunteered to fight for their country); this character also allows some glamor and humor to lighten what could have been an unrelentingly dark film. Cudos to Mr. Cusak for also backing this fascinating film (note the film credits) when he couldn't have failed to know it would not pull in the bucks like a feel-good movie would have done. See this film. Western Civization teachers, when this film is in VHS and DVD assign it for your classes; the course of history hangs by a thread at times, and everyone's reactions to choices in their lives can count.

In post World War I Germany, a young Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) returns from serving four years in the trenches and pursues his interest in painting. He soon meets Max Hoffman (John Cusack) who eventually agrees to put Adolf's paintings in one of his art shows. But soon Adolf has to face the fact that he is a failure as an artist and instead becomes a speaker for a radical group within the German army that blame the Jews for the economic depression of their country. The fact that Max is a Jew eventually leads to a drastic change in their friendship.

The performance of Noah Taylor as a young Adolf Hitler completely steals the show. He brilliantly captures Adolf's insanity and social awkwardness, especially while public speaking, right down to the detail of having bad teeth. It's enough to leave goosebumps on your arms.

Without Taylor's excellent protrayal of Adolf Hitler the rest of the cast of MAX suffers. He is the only reason why I gave this movie four stars. Although this movie was titled MAX, John Cusack failed to engage me. I am not sure of the historical accuracy of MAX except for the fact that the character of Max Hoffman is fictional so I cannot account on that. But otherwise MAX is a good movie, if simply to witness the brilliant performance of Noah Taylor.

"It doesn't have to be beautiful. It doesn't even have to be good. It just has to be true."

While "Max" is a historical movie, taking place in Germany after World War I, it shouldn't be viewed as a historical document. The movie has a much more powerful point to make about the nature of art and what the creation of art can come to mean to the creator. It's more of a "what-if" story, raising questions about what might have been had things turned a little differently, had chance played some different cards for a young man struggling to express himself -- a young man named Adolf Hitler.

Perhaps the most daring thing the film does is to actually treat the subject of Hitler without demonizing him, without casting him automatically as the monster. The film is not especially kind to Hitler -- in it he is portrayed as nervous, reactionary, arrogant, opinionated, prejudiced against Jews (though he repeatedly protests this) and not particularly intelligent (though not stupid either). However, he is also not shown as the pure evil many would associate him with. He doesn't kill puppies, he doesn't hurt anyone, and other than one memorable scene, he doesn't even get very violent at all. Through the film we see him trying to develop his expression along two lines: the visual arts, which he has struggled with since before his service in the war, and the art of politics, which is really the art of swaying public opinion. He goes back and forth between the two; as one seems to be succeeding, the other is left lagging for a while.

The performance of Noah Taylor as Hitler is really the standout role in the movie, but the other actors are also quite good. John Cusack plays the title role of Max, a former artist, now an art dealer due to the fact that he lost his right arm (his painting arm) in the war. Through the film, Max also struggles with expressing himself in different ways, and is frustrated several times. Max, however, seems more resigned to his life after the war, and Cusack plays the character with a subtlety and complexity that is remarkable. The lovely Molly Parker plays Max's wife, who is supportive of him, even when she knows he is having an affair. Leelee Sobieski plays Max's sometime lover, also supportive of Max, though in different ways.

But it is Taylor's performance that I keep returning to when I think of the movie. He played Hitler not as a monster, not as a simpleton, not even as an ideologue, but just as a man -- a frustrated, flawed man who had lots of ideas but didn't know what to do with them. At first, Hitler seems to fear the blank canvas; it's a feeling any artist knows well, the intimidation of possibility on an unmarked page. At one point, he paints a single tiny line...and then stops, uncertain of what to do next. Max repeatedly entreats Hitler to "go deeper" in his art, to explore his feelings and paint them. Finally, in a powerful scene, he does so: Hitler returns from an outing with some girls Max knows, angry at himself and at them, and now he can work. He slashes paint onto his canvas, mixing colors indiscriminately, hitting the canvas with the brush, grimacing, sweating, breathing hard...and then he stops, and looks at what he's done. A few moments later, he destroys it in rage. We never get to see what he painted, which makes you wonder all the more -- was this what might have been?

Of course, we know how this story ends. It's no spoiler to say that Hitler eventually abandons his visual art and devotes himself to his dark political visions of the future. But it's the way this happens -- more because of his own choices and limitations rather than anyone else's -- that makes the film so compelling. One is left with the impression that, had he made different choices, or had he devoted himself to the visual arts more fully, a great disaster could have been averted.

There's another way of looking at the film which is a little frightening, but no less valid for that. At one point, Hitler says that he "knows" he is destined to be a great artist, someone that will be remembered. As he turns more and more in the direction of fulfilling his political vision, as his strange visions of the future become his outlet, I began to wonder -- perhaps he was right. Some artists are remembered for their most offensive works, for the things that leave the deepest impression because they disgust. Hitler's final work was not beautiful, and it was far from good. But maybe, for him, it was what was true.

"Max" is a movie which engenders this kind of thought process. It is not a perfect movie, but it is a thoughtful, subtle movie -- worth seeing for anyone, but especially for those who are willing to consider the possibilities of art and of creation, and to see that the most infamous man in recent history was still just a man. In one way, it is comforting to think that Hitler had flaws just like anyone else, that he was human, that he wasn't larger than life. In another way, it is deeply troubling.

This is the essence of what "Max" is about -- we all start with a blank canvas. What we do with it, what happens in the process, and the consequences of our act of creation, all result from our own choices.