Hitler's Children (1943)

People sometimes forget that the Americans had propaganda during WWII too. It would be hard to find a better example of it than "Hitler's Children." Consider the subject matter - the use of children to carry out Hitler's evil plans. It seems insidious. Still, with such lurid subject matter, this film doesn't really go as far as it could. Of course, this isn't really so much a story of Nazi youth, that was probably a bit too shocking for 1943. The youngsters here are in their 20's. And while the film isn't as clutching as it could be, it does have some very lurid moments for it's time. Forced sterilization and sex without marriage are even discussed quite bluntly. While this is pretty tame stuff now, the film does have really wonderful moments of stark cinematic touches that make it more than just a period piece.

The film begins perfectly with the image of books burning in a bonfire. The image is haunting and, once upon a time in America, it was considered a horror. It still should be. This single idea, the destruction of education and the formation of a new education, is carried continuously throughout the film. Of course, the film never mentions that, in it's own highly patriotic way, it is attempting to educate as well, if not re-educate. Nazis are, of course, shown to be evil and uncaring. It's done several ways: The idea that Nazi's insidiously brainwash their youth is depicted a couple of times. The idea that the weak and the mentally challenged will be sterilized to keep them from reproducing is explored. The idea that this may also happen to those who oppose the Nazi ideal is also touched upon. The re-education of youth always lies somewhere in the film's story. This is particularly interesting in a scene where a woman who appears to be a social worker visits a lower-class family. She tells the mother that if she has 5 children (presumably for Hitler's army) she will not have to repay a government loan. But we are supposed to be really disgusted when the male children of the woman express the idea that they want to fight for Hitler in the army. One wants to fly a plane and drop bombs. Is this really unusual or shocking? Weren't American boys dreaming of fighting for Uncle Sam as well? The idea here, of course, is that these boys are different from our own children because they don't see the evil of Hitler. They are dupes because they unknowingly want to fight for evil whereas our children are moral because they knowingly want to fight for good.

What is more chilling about watching the film, now several years after it's making, is it's similarity to Orwell's "1984." Many of the ideas expressed in the author's oppressive government of "Big Brother are also a part of Nazi tactics. In another of the film's chilling moments, a father expresses the idea that he can't speak his mind in front of his children because they might "tell" on him. As he is outside talking to a friend, two young, Aryan boys in Nazi youth attire step outside and walk past him. They give their father a stern, suspicious look that could burn holes in solid steel. It will send chills down your spine. Also, the idea of "thought crime" and fornicating for the good of Big Brother (known here as Hitler) are also depicted. As a big fan of 1984, I've read the book and seen the movie several times. And yet, I never realized exactly how much Orwell drew from Nazism. It's as if he watched this film constantly for inspiration. Keep in mind that the novel appeared some 5 years after this film was made.

Director Edward Dmytryk can craft haunting moments here. The opening shots of a Hitler youth rally are filmed in stark, sharp shots. The Nazis tour over us. And a scene in which an elderly couple verbalize their fear while standing behind an iron gate, which obviously represents a jail cell or a concentration camp fence, is particularly engrossing. And note that the children get progressively younger here as the film unspools. It's a bit disquieting. Then, eventually, children seem to simply disappear from the film. This may be the film's script more than a conscience effort on Dmytryk's part. Who knows. either way, it's troubling and eerie. And then Dmytryk can also use humor to prove his point. An early scene where a girl uses a "Heil Hitler" to overcome a foe is particularly humorous.

But all of Dmytryk's moments get sidelined by a silly, soap opera plot-line and an apparent lack of funds - or at least a hurried timetable. The film uses some stock footage and some simple sets which distract from the film's dominating tone. We are also forced to listen to endless voice-over narration from Kent Smith, our pedantic narrator as if the script was rushed without adequate time to depict what is being explained. Of course, it was 1943. America was in the middle of the war. Resources and time were surely limited, so much of this can be forgiven.

The film seems to steal a bit from Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" (1940). Not only does it have a character named Henkel, but the film also uses a public denunciation of Nazi ideals during a radio broadcast to the whole of Germany as it's finale. It's a bit silly and totally obvious, but it does wrap up the film neatly.

Keep in mind that, at the time in America, it was mainly women at home and in the theaters, so the soap opera storyline is probably appropriate. It's just a little simple. Tim Holt plays a German born in America and Bonita Granville plays a American born in Germany. Holt, as Karl, is a Nazi youth. Granville, as Anna, is attending an American school in Germany because her naturalized parents, who live in America, want her to experience Germany. Of course, the schools are side-by-side. At first the two play high school students, and look much too old for their parts, but the story takes several years to unfold and eventually the two look more like their supposed age. Karl, of course, has to intervene in Anna's life several times. She is recruited unwillingly into the Nazi party even though she is from America (but born in Germany remember) and despite the fact that she adamantly believes in democracy. Of course, Karl loves her but must oppose her at almost every turn. Their love is taboo. When the worst seems near at hand, we have little confusion as to how it will all turn out.

Holt is really pretty interesting here. He plays a Nazi party member who struggles with his love for Granville quite convincingly. At times, we can see his dilemma in his face. He expresses much here with his looks and demeanor. Too bad he has a little more trouble verbalizing his thoughts. Holt seems a little stiff when speaking. Good thing he's playing a Nazi. Granville is interesting as the voice of reason. She is passionate and demonstrative. But, unfortunately, she has no chemistry with Holt. We never believe their taboo love. This is probably more Holt's fault. As it is, Granville seems much better suited for her teacher/mentor Smith, a professor. We really want her to escape Germany and settle down with him in the end.

Several well-known character actors also fill in the cast. Otto Kruger, H.B. Warner and Lloyd Corrigan all have good turns here but the best known of the secondaries, Hans Conreid, seems sorely out of place. We're more used to seeing Conreid in comedic roles, so it a bit disquieting to see him playing a staunch Nazi here. We keep expecting him to ham it up or look buffoonish, but he never does. It's becomes slightly distracting.

With a screenplay by Emmet Lavery based on a novel called "Education for Death" by Gregor Ziemer, "Hitler's Children" is a pretty typical example of American propaganda during WWII. Most of the things we expect from the genre pop up somewhere throughout the film. there's even the obligatory stock footage of the Fuehrer. It seems odd that so much of what we think of as Nazism is in the film. Did we really know that much about what was going on in Hitler's Germany in 1943? How much was truth and how much was speculation. Gassing citizens is even mentioned here. Did we really know about that in 1943? Hindsight being 20/20 vision, one must ask themselves while watching the film; Is this an accurate view of Nazism circa 1943 - or is it Hollywood's vision of it? Is this overblown propaganda or is this a mirror of the truth. These questions are not asked easily. The film is more than a period piece. 50 years after it's making, "Hitler's Children" is still a valid movie.

Note: Music by Roy Webb. Director of Photography is Russell Metty.

A quote by Goethe is used throughout the film.

Leonard Maltin's "TV Movie and Video Guide" (1990 edition) lists Irving Reis as a director in addition to Dmytryk.

In the same year, 1943, Douglas Sirk directed a film called "Hitler's Madmen."

Review written in 1995

Report Card

Script: C+

Acting: B

Cinematography\Lighting: A

Special Effects\Make Up: D

Music: C

Final Grade: B-