The Architecture of Doom (1989) User Reviews

A Refreshing and Eye-Opening Thesis about the Nazis

[jacksflicks · 9/10 · 5 May 2000]

It's hard to examine the Nazi movement without seeming sensationalistic and lurid. "Architecture of Doom" achieves the difficult task of illustrating its thesis without sensationalizing it.

I have seen and read many histories of the Nazi period, and because of the aesthetic impact implicit in Nazism, the overarching impression I had wasn't the monstrous brutality and inhumanity, but the the uniforms, the rallies, the Wagner. After this film, I was left with a new way of looking and thinking about the Nazis.

That the narration is not to some tastes is, to me, a quibble. Actually, I like Sam Gray's narration. The phrasing is novel and very effective. In fact, the "inflectionless" style lends a kind of boldface to the words.

This is powerful stuff. There are debatable points, but the general thesis - that Nazism is murder in pursuit of an aesthetic - is mighty compelling.

Interesting look at the Nazi artistic ideal and how that may have lead to genocide, eugenics and the horrors of the Second World War.

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 15 September 2006]

This fast moving film postulates that the ideas that the Nazi hierarchy held about art influenced the drive to cleanse the race and make it pure. The Nazi's loved the classical ideal and hated anything that was impressionistic or modern and used it as proof of genetic impurity. The film recreates a lecture that toured Germany which showed how modern or degenerate art was based on deformed people. We see the images from the degenerate art and how they are compared to the mental and physically handicapped. This, the film argues, allowed the Nazis to then begin to sculpt the German people into the perfect physical being through murder (after all they are less then human).

Its an interesting idea but I don't think it was as big a deal as the film makes it out to be. Certainly there was the drive to create the perfect little Nazi, but I don't think it was as formalized as the movie says. I think the nice ideas of art and race were less intertwined as this film thinks. That said this movie is kick in the pants and in the head. The ideas it puts forward were probably at the very least operating on a subconscious level as a form of positive re-enforcement. Its all very plausible, which is scary.

Definitely worth seeing for anyone wanting to further color their understanding of Nazi ideas. You may not wholly agree with whats presented, but it will make you think, which isn't a bad thing.

Competent, judicious narration

[gring0 · 8/10 · 27 February 2010]

A documentary worthy of the work of Richard J Evans, looking in depth at the importance f art to the NSDAP regime and top Hitler's weltpolitik. However, I'm not clear as to why many reviewers have singled out Sam Gray's narration for particular derision. True, there are a couple of instances where his pronunciation is not perfect, such as Berchtesgaden, and referring to "the Grecian capital" seems strange, but then he's American and perhaps it's like others referring to Beijing as Peking; to each his own. One can also hear gasps of air and creaking of chairs, particularly when Hitler's Berghof chalet is described which seems a bit careless of the producer, and the sounds of birds chirping during Hitler's three hour tour of Paris are incongruous to say the least. However, Gray's narratives competent and judicious which is not surprising as he has played judges and doctors for so long on television: Judge Greenspan in The Sopranos, Judges Chabot and Leon in Law and Order, Dr. Hough in Equal Justice, Judge Weiss in the film Suspect, Dr. Henry Spivak in C.A.T. Squad, Judge Kaufman in Concealed Enemies, Judge Mineon in Rage of Angels, Dr. John Wolff in Hanky Panky and Dr. Bernstein in A Little Sex. Remark has also been made as to this monotone delivery but, again, I don't know how else he should speak- in the same excitable manner as that of the German propaganda films? www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com

Very deep, fairly narrow, extremely good.

[OneSentence · 10/10 · 11 September 2003]

One of the best documentaries i have ever seen. The disecting of nazism and especially Hitlers various obsession of race, purity, strength, the german people and the ideas and architecture behind it all is nothing but brilliant.

So many excellent photos and films and so well "framed" through the music and the narrator that i cant even begin to describe the feeling you will get from seeing this masterpiece!

Just take my word for it - if you are historically interrested into nazism and its background you have to make time for this one here.

The Raise and Fall of the Nazism, in the Megalomaniac Dream of Rebuild Germany First and Later the World, in a Artistic and Aesthetic View

[claudio_carvalho · 10/10 · 12 October 2003]

The raise and fall of the Nazism, in a artistic and aesthetic view, is brilliantly showed in this film. I regret only that the economic situation of Germany is not presented at the same time, to give a complete big picture of Germany along this dark period of history. The focus is the megalomaniac dream of a sick leader of rebuilding the world in a standard of beauty. This is exposed magnificently in this stunning documentary. Probably it is one of the best ever made. It should be part of the curriculum of any high-school around the world. Indeed, the history teacher of my daughter recommended their students to watch this fantastic movie as a complementary of their class. The raise and fall of the nazism, their concern with arts, the megalomaniac dream of Hitler with pure race and a beautiful and aesthetic Germany first and then the world, are amazingly well presented in this great documentary. The research of Peter Cohen is great, and the clear, didactic and logical presentation gives a class of history to the viewer. Outstanding and remarkable. Two points along this film called mainly my attention: the first one is the dream of Hitler in designing a Berlin more beautiful than Paris (with an Arc of Triumph larger twice than the French one). The images in the end of the documentary shows how it ended. If the viewer has a chance to watch also Roberto Rossellini's movie 'Germany Year Zero' (of 1947), he will have a chance to see the rest of this megalomaniac dream. The other point was the initial preoccupation of Hitler in not dropping bombs in Greece, due to its historical patrimony to mankind. Unfortunately, recently in Iraq, the same respect was not demonstrated, and we watched on TV the destruction of a great patrimony of mankind, with museums, archaeological fields and other historical monuments being bombed. In Brazil, this film is spoken in German with subtitles in Portuguese. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Arquitetura da Destruição" ("Architecture of the Destruction")

Fascinating insight to what drove Hitler and his ideals to fruition.

[amsvegas · 10/10 · 11 February 2007]

This is an excellent documentary and exposé into the psychology and ideals that, in great part, were responsible for Hitler's passion and vision that would drive the dynamics of Germany's politics. As absurd and surreal his ambitions may have been... there was a part of his dream that oddly seems honest and noble but character flawed. By no means should anyone admire the reality of his vision but be fascinated by how fast and furious Hitler and the Nazi doctrine brought a crushed post WWI Germany and its people to the brink of world domination in less then a decade. Indeed Hitler was an example of extreme self anointed indulgence and a deluded fantasy that millions paid the price by being murdered and exterminated as human vermin. A tragedy and a mind that I hope will never see the light of day ever again.

Highly recommended 9/10

Provocative documentary undermined in English version

[kev-22 · 30 April 1999]

"The Architecture of Doom" is the best surgical picking apart of Hitler's brain I've seen. It thoroughly examines Hitler's aesthetic worldview and how it could have lead to an artistic obsession to recreate the world to fit that vision. Its thoroughness is something Hitler himself might have admired! However, the power of this film is regrettably blunted quite a bit by the poor English narration. Perhaps Bruno Ganz's original narration with subtitles would have been better--though I haven't seen the latter to say for sure. In any case, narration is crucial in films like these (For a great example, listen to Trevor Howard in "Memory of the Camps"), and this lifeless, inflectionless reader really hurts a film that deserves a lot better treatment.

See what happens when the artists take control?

[cfb3 · 6/10 · 2 September 1998]

An interesting idea (Nazism as an aesthetic movement) fairly convincingly presented, although sometimes it stretches to make a point (eg, the movie tries to make more of the use of Zyklon-B for pest as well as human extermination than the interesting coincidence it seems to be). The periodic sequences of similar looking Nazi art get boring after while, which is the point, but overmade. The narration is rather monotonous; it's possible that impression is the result of having to read it.

The power of incompetent narration

[Tabarnouche · 2 April 2008]

The film approaches the Nazi period from a refreshing angle: the seldom-documented (in film) visions that informed official Nazi aesthetics, given priority by a host of top Nazis who, like their Fuehrer, were failed artists. It offered a number of insights, such as the role played by architectural sketches Hitler had made in his youth and the future propaganda value of gargantuan Greek-influenced architecture (e.g., Reich buildings were designed to decompose along the lines of Roman ruins so as to impress archaeologists centuries later).

But the English narration by Sam Gray was so atrocious that it was difficult to separate it from the visual and conceptual qualities of the film itself. Imagine a Beethoven symphony where the strings are played without passion and several beats off from the other sections – no reflection on the composer, but still hard to listen to. So great was the impact of the narration, in fact, that I expected to see ratings averaging 5 or 6 (my vote) on the IMDb site. Gray's uneven, indifferent inflection applied to a script he clearly (to judge by his mispronunciations) had not familiarized himself with gave the film an amateurish quality that it surely did not have in the original Swedish or the German versions. Moreover, the English translation, done by a German, was awkward in places.

As tragic an oversight as the choice of the English narrator was, Peter Cohen and the producers ultimately retain responsibility for letting it pass, especially since Cohen had worked in English before. Any educated native English-speaker asked to review it would have cautioned them, after a single listening, not to underestimate how much the narration undermined its effectiveness. Engaging another narrator surely would not have broken the budget.

Had I the choice, I'd see this film again with the Swedish or German narrations, subtitled in English.