British directorAlfred Hitchcockadapted many books in his career. Had the dice landed differently,Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler’s 1925 diatribe, might have joined the list of his crowded filmography. As explored inHitchcock and Selznick, producer David O. Selznick jumped at the chance to obtain the US film rights days after Pearl Harbor with the Title Registration Bureau.Sensing war with Germany was imminent, he outlined a war picture written by Ben Hecht and directed by Hitchcock. What direction the independent producer intended to take the source material remains a mystery.
Hitchcock was in his prime, coming off of his US debutRebecca. Like Hitchcock, Selznick was no slouch when it came to transforming must-reads into blockbuster movies. Selznick was the hottest producer, having mastermindedGone With the Wind, butchoosing the idiot who wroteMein Kampfas his next subject presented problems ultimately insurmountable. Finally outfitted with a budget commensurate with his talent, moving to Hollywood, Hitchcock was asked to dramatize Hitler’s life story. Incidentally, Hitler destroyed the German film industry, a personal blow to Hitchcock. Thus, not only had Hitler furnished the plot and marketing, but he had just delivered the best and brightest German actors and screenwriters on a silver platter, ready to seek their revenge in exile in sunny southern California.
Not even production notes or a script ever popped up in the archives. Hitchcock never got the chance. We can assume it would have been an unflattering or tongue-in-check biopic, both Selznick and his contracted director despising the Führer. With their pick of German expats at their disposal for authenticity, and money being no object, it wasn’t a logistical issue. So what derailed the film?
A Tale of Two Artists
Hitler-themed filmscontinue to lure in new generations fascinated with the personification of evil. We shouldn’t be shocked that the British director would take notice of the world figure, a fellow immigrant and creative mind whose career went in a radically different direction.Mein Kampfwas pieced together while the Austrian and his conspirator-turned-editor Emil Maurice were locked up in Landsberg Prison for attempting to overthrow the German government.
It is not a good sign when you get your cellie to edit your political manuscript, even more bizarre as Hitler’s best buddy and editor was also part Jewish. The most intriguing part of the whole book is the backstory of its creation and how he used it to enrich himself rather than the passages found within the book, the work dictated by Hitler over copious amounts of beer, as prison records reveal. Never mind that he bragged he was above such mortal temptations.
These humanizing anecdotes would have provided interesting plot lines forMein Kampf: The Motion Picture, which was abandoned in pre-production.World War II Goes to the Movies & Television Guideindicates thatart director William Pereira was attached to the filmat some period in the early ’40s to reconstruct Munich in a Burbank sound stage. That’s where the trail goes cold.
Hitchcock madeSaboteurinstead as his next film in 1942, another war picture in the vein of 1940’sForeign Correspondentand 1946 noir-spy classicNotorious. His romantic thrillerRebeccainstantly cemented his reputation in America in 1940 but clashed with employer Selznick for artistic control. The obstacles were clear.Hitchcock faced the problem of translating the hackneyed and disorganized contents into a narrative, all while his boss breathed down his neck. Not everyhigh-profile bestsellerhas the makings ofGone With the Wind, and Adolf Hitler was no Margaret Mitchell.
Alfred Hitchcock Almost Exposed the Greatest Secret of WWII as a Gag
MacGuffin, national security breach, what’s the difference?
Adolf Hitler: Shakespearean Villain or Tragic Buffoon?
Hitchcock, funnily enough, was no stranger to Germany, learning the art of filmmaking while visiting pioneering director F.W. Murnau in the silent era. A spectator at the heyday of German cinema, he warmly remarked “From Murnau I learned how to tell a story without words.” He understood the politics and the stakes.
Knowing Hitchcock, it’s hard to think he could take Hitler seriously. Charlie Chaplin’s pseudo-comedy,The Great Dictator, had already debuted the prior year, 1940. Hitler parodied as “Adenoid Hynkel,” this farce mixed pratfalls with schmaltzy socialist messaging, an amusing but vapid film that didn’t bother to explore the pathology of mass movements or the psychology of post-war Germany in any depth. The door was wide open for a real biographical film.
The BFI recountsthe director’s lingering confusion about how to write the Hitler role years later, tasked with the greatest artistic conundrum of his life, “If he [Hitler] is acted as the proverbial sageor cinema villainthe film would have no value, and if the part is played to reflect his hysteria the audience would laugh in the wrong places.”
For those wondering, no,the mustachioed one wouldn’t have ever seen a dime, as this film would have been released after Germany declared war on the US. That’s not why it was neglected. Across the pond, any theoretical UK ticket proceeds designated for Hitler would have been transferred to the UK Red Cross, as happened to his book royalties.Royalties in the US had ceased by the war’s start, redirected to the War Claims Fund,according to Cabinet magazine.
At the onset of conflict in 1939, the tome began to fly off shelves, implying there was an audience keen to see Hitler on film, satire or otherwise. Hitchcock had a penchant for spy yarnsand black humor, so it’s difficult to think he’d have gone the full Mel Brooks route, but there’s little doubt he’d have used the opportunity to lampoon Hitler, using every bit of Freudian symbolism possible. We can only guess what Hecht would have contributed.
The One Controversial Stephen King Book You’ll Probably Never See Adapted
Stephen King’s books are known for never holding back but its that same trait that sometimes make them too controversial to be adapted.
A Matter of Poor Taste or Poor Sales?
As the war dragged on, the idea must have lost its appeal. It faded into Hollywood lore, never to be touched again, at least as it pertains to an adaption ofMein Kampf.Satires and sober dramas have appeared from time to time depicting Hitler;Jojo RabbitandMaxwere well-received despite theever-lasting taintthat is associated with the Third Reich.In the proper hands, a Hitler film isn’t necessarily radioactive. But a Hitler film in 1942 wouldn’t have been as marketable as Hitchock’s more beloved work, like the escapist Best Picture WinnerRebecca.It all comes down to a matter of timing.
AsThe Atlantic noted, Hitler’s writing career was built on a lie, a case of corruption, not a natural gift. He used his position to inflate his book sales, with the Nazi regime buying up millions of copies and dumping the manifesto into the hands of every single newlywed couple in the Reich.Mein Kampfis the phoniest bestseller of all time, unable to succeed on its own intellectual merits. Maybe it’s good this turkey was left on the shelf, leaving all involved to pursue other, more fulfilling projects instead of fixating on one attention-seeking tyrant.
