We tend to believe that populations are capable of understanding the causes of the history we live through. However, history has been repeated in various scenarios, demonstrating that minority thinking can transform realities and distort public opinion, even provoking many to join the ideological systems that undermine the stability of countries.
Over the course of four seasons, The Man in the High Castle became a platform for reflection. The television show produced by Amazon has resonated in a particular way at a time when a wave of neo-Nazi movements, totalitarian governments, xenophobia and racism at the highest political level has awoken around the world. The show touches on relevant issues of moral choice and moves on unstable terrain by portraying Nazi characters from another perspective, but the good visual and historical handling has allowed it to deliver a good message and not one that exalts political and totalitarian extremes.
The television series, based on Philip K. Dick’s book, shows different alternate realities. The show’s multiverse concept exposes a cycle in which patterns are repeated until each character understands their situation. The main plot unfolds in a universe where the Nazis and the Japanese empire won World War II and the United States was divided into two: the East Coast dominated by Germany in the Great Nazi Eastern Reich and the West subjugated by Japan in the Western Pacific States. The rest of this fictitious world was also fragmented by the two powers.
The proposal is quite significant for television today. The relevance is obtained by being a window to the reasoning about what would have happened if… And this television experiment invites reflection on the decisions that can generate changes in real life. In these moments, some social groups have revived a feeling of hatred and intolerance towards certain sectors, based on the fear of the unknown and the idea of superiority. This means that political leaders with speeches that promote this resentment are achieving better results in the electoral processes of different countries.
Part of the audience is not prepared to see the Nazis win and they feel a sense of rejection towards the production for showing so many threatening symbols. Reality cannot be hidden, although it may be hard for some people, and it is a relevant argument at this time. We are not in a perfect world and these kinds of stories can reach a large number of people and provoke important states of reflection on decisions for the present and the future.
It is common for all of us to believe that we would act correctly if a similar circumstance arose, but The Man in the High Castle plays with that thought, particularly with Smith, a former U.S. soldier who, when it came time to decide, was inclined to join the Nazis to save his life and the life of his family. The character shows depth, with the cravings for power that determine much of his future. Smith had many opportunities to act differently and reveal himself to the Nazis, but took more power under circumstances that seemed to destroy him.
The Man in the High Castle shows several fascinating premises, one based on how we position ourselves on important historical events and the consequences of decisions. On the other hand, it questions our perspective today: are we defending the right causes or being the puppets of those who have the power, influence and control of information?
Another argument highlighted by the television series shows us how people manage to adapt to any situation and let themselves be carried away by the tide. The TV show portrays American families fervently believing in Nazi and Imperial Japan principles, completely changing their way of life and raising their children under those parameters, at first as a method of survival, but then acting under their policies and reasoning in a natural way.
Populations can adapt to injustice and oppressive regimes. What causes us horror and discomfort in the present circumstances may become the rule under other conditions where totalitarian institutions take control. The series emphasizes that not only is the fault of the culture of each country, but that the behaviors and decisions are part of human nature, the most primitive essence of survival where compassion and empathy are forgotten.
Despite this, it also shows that there will always exist some nonconforming groups that are able to give their lives for freedom, and that is the role of the protagonist, Juliana Crane, who through their different lives is always fighting for a better world regardless of the circumstances. This does not mean that it is perfect because their decisions also trigger facts, and some of them propitiated by mistakes.
The plot creates a resonance that can help to generate more critical thought, which does not remain just an alternate reality, but can be compared with contemporary history. The warning is also observed in the use and power of propaganda to influence the masses and alerts to bans on books, films and music that can provoke public agitation. The destruction of content is related to the war on truth, where the control of lies prevents questioning. They not only create a new history, but also manage to manipulate it for a long time, an idea understood by Goebbels, Hitler and other leaders of totalitarian regimes through the ages.
History can repeat itself in different parts of the world under different contexts; changing the details does not diminish the importance of ideologies that promote ethnic or thought cleansing. The message of scenario normalization must be enlightening today to avoid falling into similar conditions. Caution in the face of certain rhetoric allows us to preserve, in practice, the concepts of democracy and freedom.