Spoilers General Disco Chat Thread

[Jadeb]

I devoured the show. A friend and I wrote a film treatment based on it.
The camp was run by an incompetent Luftwaffe officer and a bumbling Sergeant. Klink and Schultz were not Nazis.
The Nazis were the antagonists, the show was not about them. It was about our plucky Allies heroes stopping their nasty plans with the unknowing assistance of Klink and Schultz.

That’s a rather amazing read, considering how much time Klink spends fretting about pleasing the fuhrer. They weren’t presented as unwilling Germans covertly helping the allies. But I understand why a fan of the show would want to mount a defense — it’s an uncomfortable premise by modern standards. That was my point: The ‘60s had different attitudes toward comic foils. Do you disagree?

 

[Tim Thomason]

The idea of a "clean Wehrmacht" was a major piece of political propaganda enacted during the Cold War to distance the Nazis and their war crimes from the regular German army (Wehrmacht), and Hogan's Heroes was either a party to this or (more likely) a victim of it, with the cast and crew believing in the dichotomy of the German militarized system. Just like many (including Star Trek) professed a belief in Nazi efficiency that has since been heavily discredited.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That’s a rather amazing read, considering how much time Klink spends fretting about pleasing the fuhrer. They weren’t presented as unwilling Germans covertly helping the allies. But I understand why a fan of the show would want to mount a defense — it’s an uncomfortable premise by modern standards. That was my point: The ‘60s had different attitudes toward comic foils. Do you disagree?

Klink was a middle manager trying to keep his job and avoiding being sent to the front. He sucked up when he had to, but was less than enthusiastic when he didn't. And Schultz did give a damn about politics. No they weren't "unwilling Germans covertly helping the allies.". Hogan was a con man who tricked them into helping the Allies They were unwitting allies.

What about the premise makes people uncomfortable? Come on, current TV has shows where the protagonists are drug dealers, murderers and worse. But a show set in a German POW in WWII is somehow over the line???? Because someone had the idea that Klink and Schultz must be hardcore racist genocidal Nazis?

 

[Jadeb]

I saw some episodes of Hogan's Heroes on TV Land probably around 1999 or 2000. Beyond that, I'm not super-familiar with it, but I think I know enough.

Luftwaffe and his underlings struck me as totally incompetent and a complete fool. The only reason the Good Guys couldn't escape was because if they didn't, there wouldn't be a series. The same reason why Gilligan couldn't ever get off the island.

I liken Harry Mudd to the Joker. When he was introduced in 1940, he was a killer. Then, after that, up through the '50s and '60s, they turned him into someone who was more like a prankster who wasn't really doing anything that bad. Then, in 1973, the turned him into a killer again. (Then we get to 1988 where he's crippling Barbara Gordon and killing Jason Todd, but that's a whole other story... )

The idea was that killers and other serious criminals couldn't be sympathetic and that crime always pays. It's the Hays Code (and Comics Code) mentality that was in place in the mid-century. Harry Mudd never got away with his schemes so that covers "crime never pays" but we (or at least I) kind of liked him after his two TOS appearances. If they outright said he killed Leo Walsh in "Mudd's Women", I don't think they ever would've tried to make him likable.

I didn't like the Nazis in Hogan's Heroes. It was more like "What are these buffoons up to now?" If I was laughing, it was at them, not with them. And we all know the Nazis ultimately ended up losing the War. So, for the purposes of Hogan's Heroes, we know the joke's on them and they won't "get away with it".

Harry wasn’t going to get away with it, either.

I made the Hogan’s Heroes analogy to show that we can’t assume modern attitudes applied then. I think you’re right that the idea was that by ridiculing the Nazis, we took power from them. But I can’t imagine that concept for a TV sitcom would be greenlit today. Even JoJo’s Rabbit got some backlash recently, and that was after HH had mainstreamed the bumbling Nazi trope.

Ironically, both Werner Klemperer, who played Klink, and John Banner, who played Sgt. Shultz, were from Jewish families that fled Europe during the rise of the Reich. Klemperer agreed to the part only if Klink was never allowed to be seen as competent.

The actor who played the French POW, LeBeau, had been interned in an actual concentration camp, Buchenwald. I wonder what making the show was like for him.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The idea of a "clean Wehrmacht" was a major piece of political propaganda enacted during the Cold War to distance the Nazis and their war crimes from the regular German army (Wehrmacht), and Hogan's Heroes was either a party to this or (more likely) a victim of it, with the cast and crew believing in the dichotomy of the German militarized system. Just like many (including Star Trek) professed a belief in Nazi efficiency that has since been heavily discredited.

Possibly. But Robert Clarey (LeBeau) spent time at the Buchenwald concentration camp. John Banner (Schultz) and Werner Klemperer (Klink) are Jewish and both lived in Europe as the Nazis rose to power. Banner lost many family members to the Holocaust.

 

[Jadeb]

Klink was a middle manager trying to keep his job and avoiding being sent to the front. He sucked up when he had to, but was less than enthusiastic when he didn't. And Schultz did give a damn about politics. No they weren't "unwilling Germans covertly helping the allies.". Hogan was a con man who tricked them into helping the Allies They were unwitting allies.

What about the premise makes people uncomfortable? Come on, current TV has shows where the protagonists are drug dealers, murderers and worse. But a show set in a German POW in WWII is somehow over the line???? Because someone had the idea that Klink and Schultz must be hardcore racist genocidal Nazis?

Well, the Germans did kill millions of people, including many family members of the Hogan’s Heroes cast. Some would say making Schulz and Klink likable and harmless is a disservice to history and the war’s victims.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that we should wipe the tapes of Hogan’s Heroes. Just that we should look at it in the context of its times. Klemperer and Banner gave great comic performances, only in parts they probably wouldn’t be offered today.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well, the Germans did kill millions of people, including many family members of the Hogan’s Heroes cast.

Yes, I'm aware. See previous post.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that we should wipe the tapes of Hogan’s Heroes. Just that we should look at it in the context of its times. Klemperer and Banner gave great comic performances, only in parts they probably wouldn’t be offered today.

I wonder if people who were actually there might have more knowledge of the context than someone from over half a century later.
People are still being cast as WWII era Germans and Nazis.

 

[Jadeb]

Yes, I'm aware. See previous post.


I wonder if people who were actually there might have more knowledge of the context than someone from over half a century later.

Sure, but until someone invents a time machine, what are we to do? Surely you wouldn’t argue against trying to understand history as best we can?

You haven’t disagreed with my actual point, which is that attitudes about these things can change over time. “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” also isn’t getting made today, at least not as it was then.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sure, but until someone invents a time machine, what are we to do? Surely you wouldn’t argue against trying to understand history as best we can?

You haven’t disagreed with my actual point, which is that attitudes about these things can change over time. “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” also isn’t getting made today, at least not as it was then.

Oh course we should. But I just don't see why Hogan's Heroes is problematic. It's a racially and nationally diverse group of heroes sticking it to the Nazis. I like it when we stick it to the Nazis. The father of a friend of mine served in WWII and was shot down over Germany and spent time it a POW camp. He loved the show and thought it portrayed camp life somewhat realistically. (Minus the whole Covert Ops team angle ) I'm trusting his experiences, while understanding that not every POW has the same story.

I don't disagree, but Breakfast At Tiffany's isn't Hogan's Heroes.

 

[Jadeb]

Oh course we should. But I just don't see why Hogan's Heroes is problematic. It's a racially and nationally diverse group of heroes sticking it to the Nazis. I like it when we stick it to the Nazis. The father of a friend of mine served in WWII and was shot down over Germany and spent time it a POW camp. He loved the show and thought it portrayed camp life somewhat realistically. (Minus the whole Covert Ops team angle ) I'm trusting his experiences, while understanding that not every POW has the same story.

I don't disagree, but Breakfast At Tiffany's isn't Hogan's Heroes.

I don’t necessarily disagree — I just don’t think studios would consider the idea these days, especially in the age of social media. Today, pop culture is OK with Nazis as supervillains but not so much as human beings, which is also a disservice to history, I think. Painting them in all black makes it easier to forget how huge numbers of regular people became servants to one of the worst causes in human history. There’s an important lesson there.

I actually think one of the most interesting things about the show is that it was made in a time when most of the audience would have lived through the war. It’s an interesting historical artifact, as Turnabout Intruder is.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Possibly. But Robert Clarey (LeBeau) spent time at the Buchenwald concentration camp. John Banner (Schultz) and Werner Klemperer (Klink) are Jewish and both lived in Europe as the Nazis rose to power. Banner lost many family members to the Holocaust.

Absolutely. It's an interesting thought that these people, who clearly have a larger understanding of the historical situation of World War II as they lived through it, would be apart of such an exercise as promoting the so-called "myth" (I'm not saying it's false, just that it's a recontextualizing of history to fit a specific narrative). Klemperer and Banner were both onboard with promoting the foolishness of the German soldiers, and Clarey publicly stated many times that POW camps and concentration (or death) camps should not be seen as comparable experiences.

It was a comedy show that was controversial in its own day, but is often still misunderstood because we see it through a specific lens of our own experience and knowledge. I think it came to fruition because of the clean Wehrmacht myth being promoted by those in power, and taught to the newest writers on set, but it did subvert expectations in many ways, even if it falls victim to some of the worst fallacies.

Good show, though.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I don’t necessarily disagree — I just don’t think studios would consider the idea these days, especially in the age of social media. Today, pop culture is OK with Nazis as supervillains but not so much as human beings, which is also a disservice to history, I think. Painting them in all black makes it easier to forget how huge numbers of regular people became servants to one of the worst causes in human history. There’s an important lesson there.

I actually think one of the most interesting things about the show is that it was made in a time when most of the audience would have lived through the war. It’s an interesting historical artifact, as Turnabout Intruder is.

Man in the high castle is well-liked. Nobody balked at nazis being human there.

 

[Lord Garth]

For entirely selfish reasons, I'm glad DSC S3 isn't coming out just yet. (I never thought I'd say this!)

In the spring of 2010, I bought a 42" TV, LCD screen. And it just conked out. It looks like I just about got exactly 10 years out of it. Literally.

No way am I going to watch the third season of Discovery on my computer monitor. So I guess I have a new goal: buy a new TV before the season starts!

 

[Quinton]

For entirely selfish reasons, I'm glad DSC S3 isn't coming out just yet. (I never thought I'd say this!)

In the spring of 2010, I bought a 42" TV, LCD screen. And it just conked out. It looks like I just about got exactly 10 years out of it. Literally.

No way am I going to watch the third season of Discovery on my computer monitor. So I guess I have a new goal: buy a new TV before the season starts!

I bought a 52” TCL last year. 4K and all that jazz. I spent $349 USD on it and I’ve seen go for even lower at Costco. It’s actually a pretty damn decent set considering the price tag.

Just FYI!

 

[DigificWriter]

I've resumed my (re)watch-through of Discovery and have reached episodes that I never saw when the season was brand-new. I'm currently on Episode 6, "The Sound of Thunder", and it's making me wonder if I should have first watched the Short Trek "The Brightest Star".

I'm also starting to wonder if I should plan on watching the Short Trek "Runaway" before I get to the Season 2 finale.

Thoughts?

 

[Jinn]

I'm also starting to wonder if I should plan on watching the Short Trek "Runaway" before I get to the Season 2 finale.

You should.

 

[DigificWriter]

I think I might hold off watching The Brightest Star and Runaway for a different rewatch of DSC because I kind of feel like trying to watch them in the middle of Season 2 is going to throw off the "flow" of the story.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I think I might hold off watching The Brightest Star and Runaway for a different rewatch of DSC because I kind of feel like trying to watch them in the middle of Season 2 is going to throw off the "flow" of the story.

Not really sure how two 15 minute shorts can 'throw off the flow' when they are important to story. Just think of them as flashbacks.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Because I'd be backtracking in internal narrative time rather than moving forward if I paused to watch them.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

^ Because I'd be backtracking in internal narrative time rather than moving forward if I paused to watch them.

The Brightest Star is a flashback no matter when you watch it. And Runaway doesn't actually make it at all clear when it happens (except that it happens before the S2 finale).