Ahavat HaEmet

Paper by Brittany Weinstein. Viewed on DVD.

Throughout the course of history, there have been many traumatic events that will never be forgotten, especially that of the Holocaust. There have been many films, both fiction and nonfiction alike, that attempt to convey the horror that World War II and Hitler’s reign caused, but many films failed in the ways that both Shoah and Night and Fog succeeded. These are both very emotional films that have very convincing aspects on how to tell the story of the Holocaust. Claude Lanzmann (director of Shoah and Alain Resnais (director of Night and Fog) have different opinions on how the Holocaust should be remembered and we’re enlightened to their different film styles from observing the lengthy interviews in Shoah and the shocking images in Night and Fog. Both films are very convincing, obviously in their different ways, but looking deeper, one film could be considered more meaningful for different reasons than one originally thought. Although the films differ in their length, Shoah being nine and one half hours, and Night and Fog being thirty minutes, their messages truly are remarkable and spark such an emotional response, that these films will be forever marked as life changing to some people through what these filmmakers accomplished in their own ways.

Claude Lanzmann was born on November 27, 1925 in France and started out in his career as a filmmaker and writer. He was apart of the French communist party and joined the fight against the Nazis. After which he became really interested in documenting the Holocaust and filmed the movie Shoah which took eleven years to film. This movie consisted of tons of interviews of both Holocaust survivors and former Nazis. Lanzmann is obviously a very dedicated filmmaker and through his filming and trying to get the truth from his interviewees, a former Nazi found out what Lanzmann was doing and was beaten so badly that he was hospitalized for a month. He was a firm believer in not showing archival images of what he was documenting because he felt that “image kills imagination.” He also felt as though if he were to show images of the Holocaust that it would in some ways, historicize the Holocaust and that maybe people would feel that because it happened in the past, that perhaps it wouldn’t happen again in the future. An interesting quote from Lanzmann was “I was beyond hate. The point was not to kill them, but to kill them with the camera, which was much more important,” which in a way sounds like that Lanzmann was trying to almost prosecute or humiliate these former Nazis in a way that would always be documented. The film, being released in 1985, I think has much higher positive reactions because of it being released about forty years after the Holocaust due to the mindsets that most of the population has accumulated about the Holocaust. Although it has been highly praised, through some research, I’ve found that some Polish subjects claimed to be mistranslated and that Lanzmann was selective in his use of the Polish subjects, which definitely jeopardizes the trust between the filmmaker and the social actors. Besides the accusations, Lanzmann’s basic belief is that “the Holocaust is not a fairy-tale, it is not digestible,” like Schindler’s List and Life is Beautiful. Lanzmann takes this film very personally. Throughout the film, the viewers can constantly see him asking his interviewees very specific questions about the exact spot he is standing in or if he is standing in a spot where 250,000 Jews were unloaded off a train just to be gassed. He feels as though if he does this, he can bridge the gap between the Holocaust being an event of the past and bringing it to the present so that everyone can feel as though they have a part in remembering and preserving these events. He does not feel that something this catastrophic should be crystallized as something that happened in the past, and therefor, is not likely to happen again, and that we all need to avoid having history reoccur.

On the other hand, Alain Resnais who was born on June 3, 1922 in France, began released his first movie in 1936, and has been filming ever since. His film, Night and Fog, was “one of the first documentaries to openly deal with the Holocaust.” The film juxtaposed black and white archival footage of the Holocaust and compared that to colored footage of the present day (1955 present day) of the concentration camp locations. This film was widely acclaimed one of the best documentaries made, regardless of the horrifying images portrayed in the film. At first, Resnais was reluctant to take on the role of directing this film, because he felt as though because he didn’t have first hand experience, he couldn’t portray the film properly, but changed his mind when Jean Cayrol (a Holocaust survivor) agreed to take part. A part of this films point is to juxtapose the horrible images of the decapitated
bodies and mass graves in the concentration camps to the beautiful locations that now hold the haunting memories of so many dead and tortured people. The one main way that Resnais differs from Lanzmann in his film making is that Resnais is a fan of using the archival footage for the shock campaign. Watching this film is very difficult and although it is hard to leave after watching it without a tear on your cheek, it is a film that needs to be seen once for that shock. Resnais is actively trying to preserve memories in our head, even though that a lot of people that are watching it, weren’t alive to remember the Holocaust in the first place. Most people think of the Holocaust and know that it was an awful thing in our world’s history, but most people don’t realize how shocking and horrible it is until after actually seeing actual images of the horror. Surprisingly, watching the film, you get little emotional response from the narrator, Jean Cayrol, and you don’t ever get any pointed fingers. It may be assumed that they know who is responsible for all of this catastrophe, but not once is the word Nazi used in the film. The fact that there is no emotional response from the narrator is actually helpful to the audience. If Cayrol was sobbing the whole time talking about the images that popped up on the screen, the film would be unbearable to watch, especially knowing that Cayrol is a Holocaust survivor. Some criticisms that were found about this movie is that it was not showing the full truth in way of who was involved. The film focused on the Jews mass genocide but failed to represent the 300,00 gays that were also killed in the Holocaust. Also, the film was doctored so that nationality couldn’t be identified in a certain scene, for example, a french gendarme could be identified and French censors didn’t appreciate this so it had to be edited out. Also, the fact that everything was so nonchalant in this film, especially when it came to the horrifying images that came up on the screen has been criticized as well, for that it treats everything so equally and that perhaps these shocking images was something that happened in the past, and so that could possibly transfer to the audience that it won’t happen again. Although through the many criticisms that could be acclaimed throughout this film, it is still an extremely heart wrenching topic that shows viewers the horrors of the Holocaust. This film would have the same reaction if watched in twenty years, or even one hundred years which shows that this events memory will never be
diminished through this film and this is shown through a quote from Trauffaut, “Night and Fog is a sublime film about which it is difficult to speak. Any adjective, any aesthetic judgment would be out of place in speaking of this work, which is not an “indictment” or a “poem” but a “meditation” on the deportation. The film’s impact lies entirely in the tone adopted by the filmmakers: a terrifying mildness. You leave the theater feeling “devastated” and not very happy with yourself.”

As far as convincing the viewers, both films hold very strong hands in how they convey their message. It is all a matter of personal opinion that can really show whether a film that is nearly ten hours long and holds nothing but interviews is more convincing than a film that is thirty minutes long and shows unimaginable images of decapitated and starved bodies. Both Lanzmann and Resnais have strong beliefs that in their own ways, they can preserve the Holocaust and keep it from just becoming a page in a history book. Resnais’ point in his film, when he was asked was that “it was all about Algeria.” Now, thinking about the time that this film came out, France was positioned both in Indochina (protecting their global power) and positioned in Algeria (protecting a “part” or “extension” of France). He wanted to make this film so that the message of what could happen whether it was on the same level of the Holocaust or not. He wanted people to question France’s authority in both Indochina and Algeria. Through showing this film of all these atrocities, he shows that what could happen when a larger country (such as Germany and the Nazi’s) can take over smaller countries and remove their possible chance of independence, as it obviously didn’t work out for the Jews, gays, or any other people that the Nazi’s basically didn’t like.

Lanzmann’s point in the film, as previously mentioned, was to kill his interviewees (mainly the former Nazi’s) was to “kill them with the camera,” which is shown when he ‘interviews’ Oberhauser in the bar. He notices the camera, and immediately begins to hide his face, even though Lanzmann seems to be asking pretty harmless questions. He then brings out pictures and shows them to Oberhauser and he is very reluctant and tries to avoid having his picture on the camera all together, because he remembers the people in the pictures, and he is obviously ashamed of what he has done. In the 1980s, there was the case of Klaus Barbie (SS-Haupststumfuher) , who was on trial for his crimes against humanity. He was the head of the Gestapo of Lyon (earned him the name “Butcher of Lyon”) and he was personally responsible for torturing and killing up to four thousand people, including other horrible war crimes. Lanzmann’s film was very similar to the trial in that all of the testimonies given from Barbie’s victims was very similar in that of Shoah’s interviewees, which in way brought back memories from the Holocaust and showed that it did not end after the camps were liberated, and that the atrocities continue today.

This is especially relevant today, because of all the changes our world is going through. We have experienced (in this generation) a major war against the Middle East because of the September 11 tragedies, which is becoming fuzzy to remember because of it being almost ten years ago, and these films really do that same thing for the Holocaust that I’m sure many September 11 films will bring for my generation in the years to come. It is important to remember tragic events such as the Holocaust and all the terrorist attacks that have happened in our world’s history because it is becoming to easy for people to forget about what is really important. Many are concerned with the new phone that is coming out that they need to get, or the new car that makes their car outdated. Now that the generation that was young during the 1940’s is now, unfortunately, becoming old and dying, it is important for their legacy to stay with the younger generations and for the younger generations to continue to share their legacy when they can. Films like these are important. Even though it wasn’t Lanzmann’s goal to historicize the Holocaust, and to make known the people that did wrong in World War II, he really did bring forth that this did happen in our history, and that history has shown to repeat itself. Resnais’ film is important because it shows what has happened. People need to be shown that such tragedies from human to human that are known to be so inhumane exist.

Looking at these two films, in retrospect, Lanzmann’s film really creates a sense of imagination for the viewer. He found it important to not show any archival footage in his film to allow that imagination run wild, and to help all these victims revisit their past and confront the skeletons in their closets. Resnais’ film is important, too because it shows the tragedies that occurred in this time, but Lanzmann’s film really takes the cake in the way that he is so dedicated and spent eleven years creating this nine and one half hour long film. His goal was to help these victims by making them remember what happened and share it with the world so that everyone else can know (not to the extent that they have experienced, obviously) what they have gone through and help create the sense that this is a possible event that could happen in the future, unfortunately. He does not want this to become something of the past, and he does this successfully through his many interviews, and lack of archival footage.

Both of these films are incredible and successful in their goals, and watching both of them has really helped me personally accepting what has happened in the past, and helped accept that it could happen again and not to let arrogance and naivety get in the way. Unfortunately, there are many people in the world that are less concerned with doing the humane thing to do, but more concerned with immense amounts of power and the sense of godliness that controlling other people’s lives can give someone. Unfortunately, there were six million Jews that had to suffer this because they were “different” in some way, and it is important not to let antisemitism get in the way. As Shylock has said in The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare, “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, sense, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.” Thankfully, due to people like Alain Resnais and Claude Lanzmann, we shall always remember these events even if we were not there to experience them, and we shall be forever grateful to them for helping us understand what is so difficult to even comprehend even in the slightest.

Bibliography:
“Claude Lanzmann – Professor of Documentary Film – Quotes.” The European Graduate School – Graduate & Postgraduate Studies Progam – Saas Fee, Switzerland. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. .
“Claude Lanzmann – Professor of Documentary Film – Biography.” The European Graduate School – Graduate & Postgraduate Studies Progam – Saas Fee, Switzerland. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.
.
“Alain Resnais.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. .
“Nuit Et Brouillard / Night and Fog / Alain Resnais / 1955.” French Film DVD Releases – Films De France. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. .
Books—, By Lanzmann:. “Claude Lanzmann – Director – Films as Director and Writer:, Publications.”Film Reference. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. .
“Alain Resnais: Biography from Answers.com.” Answers.com: Wiki Q&A Combined with Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus, and Encyclopedias. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. .
“The Problem of Empathy: Over-identification in Claude Lanzmann’s “Shoah”” MUBI: Your Online Cinema, Anytime, Anywhere. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. .
“Night and Fog (film): Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article.”AbsoluteAstronomy.com. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. .
“Summer Sandhoff: From Night and Fog to Shoah.” UCSB Department of History. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. .
“Klaus Barbie.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. .
Time, By The. “Jewish Quotes, Famous Jewish Quotes, Sayings, Jew Quotes.” Famous Quotes, Famous Quotations & Sayings, Great Quotes. Web. 22 Nov. 2010.
.