I recently saw the movie Look Who's Back, or Er Ist Wieder Da, released in 2015, based on the book of the same name from 2012, by Timur Vermes.
If you have even heard of this movie, I'm sure you know what it's about. Hitler (portrayed by Oliver Masucci) wakes up in Berlin 2014, and learns what has become of Germany and the world.
The movie has a lot of political commentary that is relatively direct. At the center of it all is the question "Could fascism rise in Germany again, and how would that happen?", where "Adolf" is mostly a stand-in for modern attitudes that are compared to attitudes of the 1930s.
I found LWB to be entertaining and interesting. But thought that question was not handled as well as it should have been. So I wanted to take a deeper look at the commentary, and how I think it holds up. In this text, I will discuss most of it, both what I agree and disagree with.

Adolf on the Streets

One important aspect of the movie is that it uses real footage of "Adolf" conversing with various non-actor civilians the crew met randomly around in Germany, somewhat akin to a political campaign, but without a large “crew”.
This way, the movie switches a bit back and forth between script and non-script. This is not a problem to the narrative, as on the surface, it appears very easy to make out the difference between what's scripted, and what's a "genuine" conversation between civilians and an impersonator of der Fuhrer. Based on clues such as how the civilians behave, unprofessional camera angles, lighting and that sort.
Thus the movie appears as a bit of a social experiment, to see what sort of "Hitler-esque" views modern Germans would agree with. In that way, it is similar to Die Welle (2008), and the real event that movie is based on.

Of course, some people are displeased to see even an impersonator, but the editors have included little of that sort. What we see most of is people that agree with Adolf on a number of topics, such as TV distracts people from real problems, immigration is harming the country and it's people, and suppression of such criticisms, both officially and by claims of "xenophobia".
This is the major topic of the movie, and probably the reason for the making of it, as well as the book. LWB directly compares these political views to the climate that led to the rise of Hitler, and implies that because people hold such beliefs today, there is substantial ground for the return of fascism.
But does that disqualify such concerns? Certainly not. Though I will come back to that at the end of this text.

Taken at face value, it raises a question. What went on inside the heads of the non-actors Adolf spoke to?
If they really are random people, they must have thought of Adolf as a joke, and it is strange to think they presumably ended up in a serious conversation with someone they saw as a joke.
It's hard to answer, but as it should be addressed it might be easier if the question is directed at the movie itself.

Genuineness?

Did the people on the streets reveal their views to Adolf, and get their picture taken with him, and were touched by his poetry, because this man, with his tiny mustache, truly spoke to their disenfranchised beliefs?
It is of course possible, if you encounter enough people, you’re sure to hear all sorts of opinions. But I'm afraid it might not be so simple.
After I had first seen the movie, there were two such “non-scripted” scenes that stuck out to me as a little suspicious.

In the first one, a youth with "Germany must die" on his jacket shows up around what seems to be a group of sports fans. The youth shouts "Fuck Germany, you're all Nazis".
Adolf encourages bystanders to not put up with such talk, and they gang up on the youth that shouts "down with Germany" as several people abuse him, and Adolf gag him with tape and they try tying him up to a tree.
The imagery here is clear, Adolf incites political violence, and prevents a youth from speaking, just because he doesn't like the homeland, and random people comply because the kid bothered them as well.
I have a hard time believing this truly happened. Would Masucci be willing to incite such unscripted violence for real? Would he be willing to risk arrest, or a lawsuit for the sake of political commentary? Maybe, but this, as well as how perfect the image is as a metaphor made me just a little suspicious.

The second scene I found odd is when Adolf talks to Department Chairman of the National Democratic Party of Germany, where the NPD member says some stupid things. Such as agreeing that "The worse the situation is, the better it is for people like us". It ends with Adolf asking "would you do anything I ordered?". The Department Chairman says to turn off the camera, which is only lowered to the ground. As audio is still recorded, the man is heard saying "If you were really him, I probably would".
Now, I have heard of people in Germany that are increasingly becoming Nazi (allegedly), but why would this man admit to something like that to a stranger putting on a character? And why would they do it with a camera anywhere near as they said it?
This too, I find hard to believe was unscripted, as the person in question seems downright stupid.

But if these two scenes are not enough to convince someone that some of the allegedly unscripted events are not real, I found an even more convincing scene.
Adolf goes to NPD's headquarter, a rundown little basement in Munich and rings the bell.
Supposedly this is meant to be another footage with non-actors. But if this is true, how come the camera films Adolf from inside the house for one shot before the door is opened to them?
Down in the basement, it's also a little suspicious that throughout that scene, only two people, other than the main cast, actually say a single word.
Because of this, I was not at all surprised to find that these two people are both credited on IMDB as actors. "Federal Chairman Ulf Birne" is portrayed by Maximilian Strestik, and the kid that opens the door is portrayed by Jakob Bieber. Both having acted in other movies before LWB.

Although the former two examples are hardly evidence, the latter is clearly not a non-actor scene, though it appears to be at first glance. This lends even less credibility to the other two scenes, not to mention that it makes it seem like anything in the movie could be scripted, and false.
I can believe that the team might have traveled around, making conversations with random people, and I can believe some of the conversations in the movie are truly unscripted. I will even admit that there is a chance the first two scenes really did happen. But how are the audience supposed to judge which scenes are genuine, and which are made up?
They can’t.

As such, I'm afraid the "social experiment" aspect of this movie is more or less dead. Which is a pity, as it is interesting as well as entertaining.

Modern technology

Technology is also an important theme of this movie. Which becomes apparent very early, when Adolf first encounters the modern TV, he marvels at it, but is displeased that it only broadcasts nonsense, which Goebbels would not have liked.
Only the mention of Goebbels (minister of propaganda) makes it clear what Adolf would have used such technology for. Adolf decides to get back into politics and he must capture the attention of the German people. At every turn the modern technology aids him, and I will go over this.
“There is no such thing as bad publicity” comes to mind.

One example of what role technology plays is the previously mentioned scene where Adolf incites violence against the anti-German kid.
This also acts as a bit of a turning-point for Adolf's "campaign", as well as the narrative. This clip is followed by a lot more people that want their picture with Adolf, as well as finally garnering a lot of public attention through tweets and Facebook.

First off, because the violence Adolf participates in, and the clear rise of his popularity is in the same segment and has the same background music and doesn't cut away, it acts as a way for the audience to think “despite what he just did, he’s able to get more popular?”
It also implies a link between the two events, that the violence he participated in is partially the cause of his rise in popularity, and that he can get away with anything, just because he’s funny.
At least that's what the audience is meant to think from this segment. It tells them to be on guard for any politically minded person in the real world that might get popular through similar methods.

In another scene Adolf is introduced to the internet, and immediately searches for "World supremacy", and is overwhelmed by the overflow of information.
The purpose is to say that the freedoms of the internet to anyone is dangerous, as some people can misuse or misunderstand that information.
Yet no attempt is made to explain what Adolf supposedly finds online that the rest of us would not want him to have. The movie just leaves it to the audience's imagination, expecting them to be frightened by the image of one of history's most power-hungry maniacs with access to unlimited knowledge.
I'm sure the makers also had in mind that the availability of alternative media, promoting views and facts that are counter to the mainstream opinion is part of this danger. Of course, that might be a bit of an over analysis on my end, but I think it's not far beyond reasonable suspicion.

Later, there is also a segment where social media, Youtube in particular, plays a large role in popularizing Adolf such as a series of meme-remixes, like Nyanhitler and animated Hitler dancers.
Several real German Youtubers are also shown discussing whether or not it's acceptable to have this sort of portrayal in the current day.
At first, I thought this might be part of the "social experiment", and people had really published these videos on the internet as a reaction to Masucci portraying Hitler on the streets. But no. I was not able to find any of these videos, so they must have been made for the movie.

"What he's talking about is serious and he's kind of right" says one YTer, "I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing" says another. But the audience of the movie, knowing better than these characters that this is the real Hitler, knows where that road goes, would clearly condemn them for supporting his rise in popularity and the sort of satire he does. The sentiment expressed is that when dealing with someone like Adolf, the only solution is to completely prevent the popularization of them. Stopping to question it will only help him.

All in all, the movie is pessimistic about all the modern technological freedoms we have today. I believe it is not justified in this. I believe this sort of open discussion will lead to people being more informed and consider a larger variety of opinions and coming to conclusions of their own, while the alternative, censorship, will only make things worse.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to say for certain, as the internet is still a relatively new technology. But I think I have demonstrated that the movie at least partially exaggerates these dangers.
Other than that, there’s not much I can do other than say “I disagree” and leave that point there.

Summary of "the warning"

Now that we’ve discussed both the means and the background used to explain the rise of Adolf, we’re finally able to get back to the question of "How could fascism return in modern day?".
As the movie is clearly meant as a dark warning of what is similar today, as well as different from the 1930s, let’s explain the movie’s warning of how “fascism” will return this time.

First, there must be a certain wish of the people to have large political change. And when someone understands this wish, they can appeal to those people. largely through jokes because through jokes, one is often allowed to say things not socially acceptable otherwise. These jokes will also catch the attention of skeptics and convince some that "I hadn’t thought of that, but it makes sense". This way the person will eventually rise to the status of populist.

As this person has built a base that trust them, they bring up more bold topics, pushing the envelope piece by piece, and wrapping them up with rhetoric about how difficult everything is, and the only solution are very drastic measures. As this is the only solution offered at all, many people will agree with this as well, feeling they have no real option.

Social media will also portray the populist as just a joke, which only props them up, as it's a lot easier to become "noticed" in the internett-era than ever before.
Their popularity will grow to the point where even “legacy media” like newspapers and talkshows are forced to at least talk about them regularly. If they try to cancel them, or stop reporting on them, their own audience will stop reading and viewing their products. The populist has now managed to get control over the media, without them realizing it.

Complaints that the populist is a dangerous person are ignored, because "it's just a joke, don't be so sensitive". The populist might even have fans in powerful positions willing to bend the rules for them, even without any sort of order.

When something horrible about this person is revealed, such as the killing of a dog, it only becomes a momentary setback. Not long after, they will make their comeback, with a fresh start of a large following that are willing to put the past aside, hoping it was a one-of event.
By the time it’s already too late, the truth that this is how terrible the populist actually is, will no longer be ignored, but downright suppressed.
And this all happened because people gave them absolute support purely for the comedic factor, and kept excusing them time and time again. Even though they are painfully honest about who they are, people thought it was all a joke.

In short: A disenfranchised people appealed to by comedy. A media too focused on riding on the populist movement to ask questions. And a spread to the citizens that are only in it for laughs.

The end?

All in all, I think the basics of how the movie maps out the rising Cult of Personality is itself a very good explanation, and also of how it -could- happen in the digital days.
The movie concludes that the political miljø of the current day is very similar to the 1930s, and we cannot ignore the problems of the rising rightwing or treat it as a joke. Even going so far as to show images of Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders as Adolf narrates that “I can work with this”.

But wouldn't it be the same for lefttwing populists as well?
After all, populism rarely (if ever) appears out of thin air. More often than not, they appear because of serious concerns that are not being addressed. The movie even points this out but still expects viewers to just ignore those concerns.
That’s not to say a populist is always legitimized, it just means dismissing someone as a populist is only going to increase concerns for the topics they try to talk about.

Furthermore, I think the conclusion of the movie can be better phrased as “we can’t treat a real problem as a joke, as it will only grow while we ignore it”. And I actually agree with that. But not the way the movie wants us to.

Many of the things the civilians say comes from a real point of contention. The migration is making the job market worse, it causes a rise of violence and those who try to talk about it are either ignored, censored, or called “xenophobe” or an equivalent. These and many other problems aren’t limited to Germany but are seen all over most of Europe.
But these problems largely affect the working class, rather than the politicians, media moguls and other higher-ups that are in control of how things are dealt with and talked about.

The movie does several times point out that there is truth to some of the things Adolf talks about, so why ignore such truths?
If the ruling politicians are creating a problem, and a certain group of people try to bring up that problem, should the topic be condemned just because the wrong people are talking about it?
This sort of attitude will surely make the situation and the affected people increasingly desperate.
If only the fringes of the political world talks about it, the fringes will grow as more people notice the problems. If however a more moderate party managed to deal with these problems, wouldn't that take support away from the extremists?

In the chaos of today's world, and all its’ polarization I can't say for certain that we won't see a return of extremist rightwing tyranny somewhere in the western world. But I am certain that the best way to prevent it is to have non-extremists deal with the problems. In order to do that, moderate populists need to gain political power before things turn so bad only extremists remain.

Besides, even if the fear of the right wing is legitimate, that does not mean the left wing can’t become tyrannical, does it? If information and ideas are censored to prevent the rise of the right, they certainly appear to be.

On the other hand, I suppose I am grateful that the movie actually has the gonads to even bring up these political topics, even if it's making fun of them. After all, the main issue I have with the current situation, is that people are not allowed to entertain the questions for even a minute.

Personal Conclusions

As a movie, I liked it. It was funny, and more thought-provoking than your typical stoner/romance comedy. It also gave me something to analyze and pick apart, so even though I disagree with a lot of it, I am glad I watched it.

The social commentary however…
It definitely has clever elements to it, and at first I only disagreed with the conclusion of the movie, as it sets up a black-white dichotomy, but after further thinking, I realized this lack of nuance is present in the entire movie. Especially as the “social experiment” part fell through after more analysis.
The theme about being cautious of populists and how much support they get, I can somewhat agree with, but only in a more general sense that includes not only the right wing, and also does not disqualify someone simply for being a “populist”.

In my opinion, the movie raises a much more interesting question that a lot fewer fictions have tried to deal with in an interesting way. "When does a joke go too far and where does the line go?" That’s a difficult question but talking about that would be an entirely different text, and as we're already at the end of this blog, it will have to be some other time.

As a movie, I give it a 6.8/10. And I will probably rewatch it one day.
As social commentary, I give it a C- for dishonesty and lack of nuance (When I first started writing this, that was a B-)