I wanted to comment on the brilliance of this scene. First, notice the way the song starts out sweet and gentle and seductive and then picks up in tempo and force. And the angelic face of the boy takes on a hard look and the hat is put on the salute is given. The use of a song is also very effective in showing how authoritarian movements pick up tempo and support. We see people rising to sing but realize they are doing so much more.
In addition there is some very good historical analysis here. Nazis first took over the university campuses and then moved into the general population. It started very much as a movement of the young that dragged in the older crowd as it pick up support.
And the oldest member in the audience looks around perplexed at what he is seeing, wondering what is this.
And the music to the song is so appealing. After posting it I was walking through Berlin and found myself humming “Tomorrow belongs to me” -- not necessarily a good place to do it. And the real horror of it is that the song was stuck in my head and I was humming it as I passed the memorial sign in Wittenbergplatz listing the death camps.
Of course when the music starts out no one knows it is going to becomes o threatening as the song progresses. And that is the allure of fascism exemplified. It is always imposed for noble things and only turns ugly later -- but by the time that happens it is often far too late.
This is excellent cinematography. It is brilliantly written. Cabaret remains one of my all time favorite films.
I am not worried about this at all. Not because I agree with Rudy, but because he is behind in the polls and and finished 8th in Iowa. I am more worried about Romney... Mormons are weird.
I agree--the clip was well done. The quote from Rudy, though... That struck me about the same as those surveys where a decent percentage of high school students thought the First Amendment provided for too much free speech.
Rudy's remarks are too Freudian for Hitler.
Hitler never asked for submission to authority. The Nazis knew it would never happen.
Nobody trusted them that much. Which is why the chemical plants at Auschwitz were built in Poland, not Germany.
Therefore the speech to children.
Note that what Hitler really does is suggest. He appeals to a sense of obligation and romance. He starts to paint a picture of a wonderful future as reward for what he asks, then stops to let the listeners fill in their own blanks. I have heard over and over that his audiences heard what they wanted to hear. Even Roosevelt of Hitler's speech which was to guarantee the freedom of Poland.
Giuliani is too blatant, too easy to dismiss, to easy to push out a backlash.
Hitler promised tomorrow, he promised world domination- that's a lot. Is Rudy offering more than maybe a bit of safety? Think about it.
But he probably is speaking his mind.
iknowkeith: With any luck Romney would flip-flop again. Actually I wouldn’t worry about him either. The Republicans are about as far behind in the national poll as Giuliani.
Anonymous: In a way your point is more scary about Rudy. He’s openly more authoritarian than the Nazis. You are right that the Nazis repeatedly advocated altruism, sacrifice for the good of the collective. The Nazis were more like the Democrats when it came to the policies they promoted and more like the Republicans when it came to scapegoating others.
I was putting away DVDs for shipping and because of today's post ended up watching Caberet again. I highly recommend the whole film. It is a enjoyable film to watch and the music is great. And it still has one of the best comeback lines in any film in the history of the world:
"So do I."
You have to see it to understand it. And Michael York delivered it perfectly. And Liza had just the right look on her face when he did. I still can't get over how many times Liza sounds just like her mother when talking.
I think I'm the first one to point this out: Isn't what Giuliani is saying exactly the basis of the social contract? This is a tradition of democracy that's been around since Locke and Hobbes, and it's one of the most important ideas of democracy. What makes democracy different is that citizens choose the person to whom they cede their authority - as compared to Nazi Germany, for example, where Hitler executed a takeover that was democratic in propaganda only. I agree, Rudy came across as a bit power crazed, but I think his basic idea is correct. Don't get me wrong, I'm no supporter of his. His obsession with the media bothers me, and I would quite frankly have a hard time voting for any of the Republicans currently in the race. But don't malign Giuliani's solid education in political science as pure lust for power.
I think the videos were about authority going bad; seeing Adolf on the latter. I didn't watch 'em because it took ages to load them; stupid Internet these days...
However, I think authority is very important; to establish a certain kind of freedom. If we would all fall into Anarchism, surely it would be a much messier place, and there would most likely be communes forming, with their own behavior codes, like all civilizations before us. Government, authority, is there to lead is into the right direction, to force us to work together, to establish the means to live happier lives than we would fighting for our lives each day in Anarchy. We need other people, a commune, to be free to be who we want to be, it is a love-hate relationship; on one hand we are restricted in our freedom (we can't just kill Bush), but on the other hand, that restriction gives other freedom, the freedom to judge Bush (without being killed).
Authority is here to make sure, the huge amount of less intellectual people don't fall into the barbaric state from which we have been trying to rise ever since the Roman Empire. Civilization is what authority is about, without civilization, there is chaos and no humanity; though barbarianism may be the purest form of humanity.
Sure, authority can get nasty, but it's a matter of time and evolution before we establish the better kinds of government, which will not so easily go into world war like the US, Germany, France, Japan, etc. etc. My vision of the world at it's best, is a world with just a few huge nations, with each their own special type of governing; American Democracy, Communism, Totalitarianism, etc. All distilled to its purest form in which people are at peace.
Derreck: There are two kinds of authority. One is when we say “X is an authority on that subject.” The other is when we refer to “the authorities.” The first is an authority because he has knowledge, the second is because he has power. Never confuse power with knowledge.
You speak of authority granting freedom. And then mention the freedom to judge Bush. Yet he is precisely the second kind of authority not the first. The first doesn’t need power because he has wisdom. The second needs power precisely because he lacks it.
You seem to think that when the second kind of authority is established that it will be run by good people. At the same time you want to complain about Bush implying that authority is not run by good people.
GBM: That is philosophically incoherent. Notwithstanding Rudy's record for authoritarianism as Mayor of NYC, his argument made no mention of the delicate balance between freedom and authority. He believed then as I suspect strongly he believes today that freedom is far too dangerous, and if given the choice we must chose authority because at the end of the day most Americans would much rather feel "safe," than to be free. RG knows this and as his campaign has been showing, he is exploiting that fear to the limit, never failing to remind us "they want to take your freedom away," and "they want to kill you," that amorphuous "They" we're always told by politicians to fear, whether "They" be judges, minorities, liberals (or conservatives), Big Government or Big Business. There must always be an antagonist to reign in and destroy in order for the "rest of us," to feel safe.
That is Hobbesian theory on steroids, but what you and Rudy seem to ignore is the Lockean view that we only enter into this social contract on the promise that authority cedes to us a disproportionate level of freedoms as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and that should our freedoms ever be abrogated for whatever reason we have the right to revolt (see: the Declaration of Independence and the famous Jeffersonian Kentucky Resolution).
Admittedly, I also found a strong element of Edmund Burke in Rudy's speech. His remarks on how society's changed and moved away from its traditional values is quintessential Burke. But even the great Tory understood none of those things ever truly matter if at the end of the day our lives can be changed by the thoughts and whims of a higher power. No, GM, I do not see this as some brilliant understanding of philosophy, I see it as a distorted view of what a city mayor's job honestly is: to have the trash picked up on time. I tremble what he thinks a president ought to be doing.
Commenting by HaloScan
