Bismarck (1940) User Reviews (4)

Blood and Iron

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 2 July 2016]

Blood and Iron may have been Otto Von Bismarck's trademark slogan in forging a united German nation, but as the film Bismarck shows he could be quite subtle when he had to be. The film is a propaganda homage from the Third Reich to the founding of the Second Reich.

As such we don't quite get the picture of the real Bismarck who was every inch part of the Prussian aristocracy. The domestic scenes with Paul Hartmann and Kathe Haack as the missus shows them almost middle class, a kind of Mr.&Mrs. Germany with the wife and three kids. All that was needed was a dog.

Freidrich Klaybler plays Wilhelm I the Prussian King who when Bismarck is finished is the Emperor of Germany, their first out of 3 Hohenzollern Kaisers. Klaybler doesn't always understand Bismarck's reasons, but he's real satisfied with the results.

The Nazi authoritarian state is very justified in Bismarck. The parliamentary politicians are shown as naive quibblers, it's Bismarck with his blood and iron that is building the German nation. With scenes of German military might just overrunning everything due to the policies of the far seeing Bismarck, what more could Joe Goebbels want for a propaganda justification for some of the current German military activities?

For a German audience schooled in this view of the world this was great stuff. Unless you've studied 19th century European and German histories a lot of this you won't understand.

Not one of Herr Goebbals better efforts, but I'm sure audiences in 1940 in the Third Reich ate this one up.

Honest review: impressive masterpiece

[thedecimator1337 · 10/10 · 6 June 2018]

I suspect that the other reviews of this film are poor or tenuous because their writers felt compelled to write them as such due to the period the film was made in. This, naturally, is unjust and irrelevant, so this review will be honest and free of political intimidation. If you have any background knowledge of the setting whatsoever you already know what this is about: the German statesman that saw the big sponge of German states become an iron block, the mighty Kaiserreich. However, this is marked as containing spoilers because of the amount of detail it goes into, and just to be safe. Approaching the film, I had high expectations. It is a film about Germans, made by Germans, and free from the political spin of their rivals. Not to say there is not spin, but more on that below.

I thought the film was very well made. The casting-choices are good, for the actors fulfill their roles competently and are sufficiently remarkable to distinguish from one another, even for a viewer who is not a native speaker. Now, the entire film is pervaded with imagery, nationalistic, patriotic, and militaristic. Personally, I enjoy this sort of thing very much, especially since I recognise all of the aesthetics and melodies used. The parade of the Prussian military at 1 hour and 4 minutes in is one of the best displays I have ever seen in a movie, especially the march sequence with Preußens Gloria and piercing step. It is exceptional and inspiring, an example for all military aesthetic to follow.

However, not all of the movie resonated so well with me. The only part that truly came close to boring me was the ballet scene. I understand it was important, as it contains the political intrigue that inevitably accompanies such things, but it is hardly the centrepiece of the film.

Absolutely worth mentioning is one of the last scenes, where the Battle of Königgrätz is depicted. If anyone is familiar with the background of the Königgrätzer March, it was composed for this event, so hearing it play in one of the most climactic moments of the film was an incredibly pleasant surprise. The buildup to that scene was very well done too, especially the conversation that the Kaiser and Bismarck have about the Crown Prince leading the Second Army. He could be relied upon to arrive and relieve in the Battle, Bismarck argued, because crown and country depended upon it.

The whole film, overall, is a veritable masterpiece. If another film were made of the Kaiserreich today, it would be negative, anti-patriotic, and disrespectful. I repeat, this film of Germans, by Germans, and for Germans, treats its subject matter respectfully and lovingly. That is more important than a revisionist's idea of historical accuracy. After all, that last item is a straw-man: I saw no historical discrepancies at all, let alone ones that are sufficiently grave to interfere with the film.

Sink this 'Bismarck'!

[F Gwynplaine MacIntyre · 2/10 · 8 March 2003]

The 1940 film 'Bismarck' was one of the Staatsauftragsfilme: the 'state-produced films' of the Third Reich which were clearly meant as Nazi propaganda. Rather than blatantly extolling Hitler, these films typically chose a powerful figure from German history and depicted him favourably, careful to stress similarities (real or invented) between this protagonist and Adolf Hitler, the founder of the Third Reich. In this particular film, the similarities are more obvious than elsewhere ... as the protagonist of 'Bismarck' is the diplomat who founded the Second Reich.

'Bismarck' is a selective recounting of the life story of Otto von Bismarck, the prime minister of Prussia who achieved military victory over Austria, humiliated the French government, and proclaimed Kaiser Wilhelm the First as the Emperor of Germany. Early on in this long movie, we get a feeling of what we're in for as Bismarck addresses the Landtag. Speaking directly into the camera, actor Paul Hartmann (as Bismarck) tells us: "The great questions of the present will not be solved by speeches and parliaments, but by iron and blood." He doesn't say "Sieg heil!", but you get the message, ja?

This film carefully sets up parallels between Bismarck and Hitler. As soon as Bismarck becomes prime minister, the next scene shows him building up the army that will create a German empire. (Hitler did much the same as soon as he became chancellor.) Figures in Bismarck's life are presented as equivalents of figures in Hitler's career. Although Bismarck installed Wilhelm as emperor, this movie shows Bismarck challenging the Kaiser's authority and urging him to form a military non-aggression pact with Russia to strengthen Prussia's eastern flank. Wilhelm is depicted as a man who has outlived his usefulness, who should step aside for a stronger and greater leader: in other words, he's the equivalent of Paul von Hindenburg, the president of the Weimar Republic who was displaced by the ambitious Hitler.

The period detail in 'Bismarck' is excellent, and the production values are impressive ... but then, Germany's UFA film studio was able to use cheap labour in wartime. In the central role, Paul Hartmann gives a lacklustre performance. Not much better is Friedrich Kayssler as Kaiser Wilhelm. (Kayßler was murdered for political reasons less than a week before Hitler committed suicide.) In the role of the Empress, Lil Dagover is darkly beautiful ... still looking remarkably like the pale heroine she depicted in 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari' and 'Destiny'.

Many of Nazi Germany's propaganda films had some genuine artistic merit and interesting scripts, notwithstanding their political agenda. But 'Bismarck' is long on Nazi agitprop and short on redeeming features. The most interesting thing about this movie is its sequel: 'Bismarck' was a huge hit at the Third Reich's box office, reaping a profit of nearly two million reichsmarks. The propaganda office straight away commissioned a sequel: 'Die Entlassung'. This is a much better film than 'Bismarck', with the same director but with a much better actor taking over the role of Otto von Bismarck: the great Emil Jannings. I'll rate 'Bismarck' 2 points out of 10.

Did not manage to attract my attention

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 15 June 2015]

This is a 1940 German movie about famous politician Bismarck. If you know the very basics of history, you will realize that this was made during the early years of World War II. And yet, there is not that much propaganda in it as you may have seen on several other films from around that time. Here and there, it has a bit, but it's not particularly antisemitic all in all compared to other films that were made roughly 75 years ago. And just like today, it was a common trend to make films about people who had a severe historical impact, no matter if friend or foe. The film is in black-and-white of course and was directed by Wolfgang Liebeneiner. And even if this name is probably hardly known to anybody today, he directed over 100 projects until his death in the 80s. If you count his very early years as an actor, he had a career lasting over 50 years. He was not the most prolific writer compared to his work behind the camera, but here and there he also worked on the scripts for his films. "Bismarck" is one example.

The cast includes Paul Hartmann and Lil Dagover, who you may have heard of if you have quite an interest in German cinema from the first half of the 20th century. Or maybe you also read about the latter in crossword puzzles, where they occasionally ask about her first name. Anyway, to me personally this film was not too appealing, but that is just a subjective attitude. I myself enjoy a good politically-themed film here and there, but the years before World War I (or maybe even World War II) never really interested me particularly and this film did not get me interested in this ear either. It's certainly an interesting watch taking into account that this film was made in Nazi Germany and how Bismarck was seen and displayed there, but that is pretty much it. You can be very sure that Joseph Goebbels had great influence on which scenes were shown in this film and which weren't. A core topic in this film are turf wars. I won't go a lot more into detail about the action, but you really should not watch this film without a great historical interest in the times depicted here. Otherwise it will be as underwhelming for you as it was for me. Not recommended.