(France 1985 565m) DVD1/2
I will give them an everlasting name
p/d Walter Lanzmann ph William Lubtchansky, Dominique Chapuis, Jimmy Glasberg ed Ziva Postec, Anna Ruiz
Shoah is a problematic film in many ways. Not just for its subject, but in its very essence. It troubles you in ways few other films could dream of. That in itself is part of its power, both to appal and shock. The very word means annihilation, and that’s in many ways what Lanzmann does to cinematic convention. Compare it, say, to the stark and poetic simplicity of Alain Resnais’ Nuit et Brouillard. It has been argued that Resnais’ gets over the disturbing truth about the Holocaust with more clarity than Lanzmann. Certainly he did so with more succinctness. Shoah can be a painful film to watch, again not just for its content, but for its technique. Parts of it are excruciating, and yet one remains immersed; it literally has all the fascination of a public execution.
Claude Lanzmann spent over a decade making and compiling Shoah, his nine hour testament to the Holocaust, the devastating wind that still haunts us sixty years and more on. He uses no archive footage, no dramatic reconstructions, absolutely no artifice whatsoever, merely recording in a series of interviews, the testimonies of the survivors, both the ‘lucky’ (hardly the right word) Jews to survive, and even surviving members of the SS. It’s discomforting viewing, for sure. He even dares to cross over the moral boundaries by secretly filming Nazi sympathisers who wished to remain anonymous on grainy black and white 16mm. Others might be understandably disturbed by the often close to bullying interview techniques he employs to ensure he gets what he wants to uncover the truth about this Geheime Reichssache.
In some ways parts of it have to be taken with a pinch of salt, with some of the testimonies dubious, to say the least. But it also uncovers much to be worried about, from the fact that the inherent anti-Semitism that allowed Nazism to come to power is still alive and well in Eastern Europe, and in that many of the collaborators have no remorse for what happened to their Jewish countrymen; some even say that the Jews saw it coming. On the other side, we have the matter-of-factness of the Nazi officials who explain how some camps – such as Auschwitz – were factories of death, while others – like Chelmno – were merely “primitive but efficient production lines of death.” These are contrasted with the brave testimonies of the victims, none more so than the valiant, ever-smiling Michaël Padchlebnik, who shows how being a survivor is by no means an indicator of being still ‘alive’. The story of how he had to place his wife in a grave and asked to be killed, only to be told he’s still fit for work is one of the most upsetting in the entire piece.
Lanzmann takes time to show how the Nazi ideology was hardly new, merely a rehash of doctrine dating back the Lutherans of the 16th century and merely an updating of the old-fashioned Pogroms. However, it shows how the Nazis took it that step further, by actually eliminating the Jews once and for all. Lanzmann’s style is bold, but it could hardly be called cinematic. In truth, it’s an anti-cinematic attack on anti-Semitism. It remains a masterpiece, however, if not one of cinema, then of audio-visual testimony. Testimony not merely of an event, but of a cataclysm the like of which the world has never seen. It can also be seen, through showing the hatred that still exists in the area, as a warning to make sure it never happens again. Lanzmann himself has said that “making a history was not what I wanted to do. I wanted to construct something more powerful than that.” One would have to admit, whatever our reservations might be, that he succeeded admirably in doing so. Shoah truly is a monumental piece of work, one which every man and woman should see in their lifetime. As David Parkinson observed, and I could put it no better, “putting a face on inhuman misery, this remarkable achievement demonstrates film’s unique power.” Manipulative? Undoubtedly. Controversial? Indisputably. It is also the final testament on the final solution.
A very well-written review on a film I have not…endured yet. I do want to see it, but only when I can devote myself to it fully. Hence I’m debating whether or not to put it atop the “Wonders” queue. This is probably the worst time for me to attempt a 9-hour film, certainly in one sitting, perhaps even (given the attention the subject matter demands) broken up.
Yes, you need to devote a full day to it really. Holidays are the best time for this one, if you can bear the emotional fallout it generates.
Only Allan could recommend a pleasant holiday viewing of Shoah. Great writeup, though. I too really need to see this one, though I haven’t managed to psych myself up for it yet.
LOL Ed!!! Yes, this one won’t induce that relaxed state of mind that so many of us would appreciate at this time, but Allan seduced us with the Rainer, and has now return to the heaviest of all subjects. Yet, as generally masterful as this film is, Resnais’s NIGHT AND FOG was more compelling in it’s scant half hour running time, methinks.
TREMENDOUS CHOICE-EXCELLENT ESSAY. One of the true documentary titans of all-time. A film that you see, and remember (whether you want to or not) FOREVER. I remember well the tearful and harrowing story of the man you speak of in your essay and the imagery his tale set off in me when I first heard it has never left me. This testament of a film, agreed, should be seen by all and be made mandatory in schools. I’d combine this with Spielbergs SCHINDLER’S LIST for a full filmic effect of the Holocaust on viewers who are about to learn this horrifying time in history. Check my list: SHOAH was no. 2
BTW-you could not have picked a more fitting and harrowing image for the cap above. Even grown out by foliage, the skelton of the buildings of Auschwitz still remain, as for all time, a reminder to us all a period when (as Rod Serling wrote) “men became inhuman monsters”. The shells of the concentration camps still stand, and should stand, for eternity, as a road sign warning of where our arrogance should never be allowed to take us again. I agree with you Allan, this film is like watching a bloody train wreck, and its stories (which I’m recalling again since reading your essay) are making me stop for a moment, to collect myself, and try to go on with the rest of my day. Its my kind of reaction, even after years go by from seeing it, that Lanzmann was going for. He succeeded in everything he set out to do. This movie haunts you for the rest of your life. PERIOD. I have nothing more to say. God Bless the fallen.
Fantastic comments here Dennis. I know your long affinity for this work, as painful ,exhaustive and draining as it’s viewing is. Yep, I saw that #2 placement too.
I watched sections of this, but never the full multi-hour presentation. It’s spellbinding but most disorienting.
Oh I was never able to make it through this one. The interviews were endless, but like the subject it covers, what is unearthed is endless (and can never be forgotten) Nice review.
Allan sums it up perfectly with this one sentence:
Shoah can be a painful film to watch, again not just for its content, but for its technique. Parts of it are excruciating, and yet one remains immersed; it literally has all the fascination of a public execution.
That’s exactly the feeling I had while watching it. It’s hard enough to sit through 9.5 hours of ANY film and the content of Shoah makes that even more difficult. There’s a conflicting feeling of wanting to turn off the movie, while also wanting to know more. In the end, watching it was a very rewarding experience and despite the since discovered (by me) inaccuracies in the movie, I found I learned a lot.
I have a fleeting memory when it comes to movies and yet even having watched this over 12 years ago, the images from it and the emotion that came with it, have stayed with me.
Some quibbles with my wording — “inaccuracies” seems too harsh and should probably be read as “biases”. Also, the “(by me)” is more accurately stated as “(to me)”. I certainly wasn’t the one who discovered these things!
Indeed Troy, indeed. You make your own compelling testimony to the lingering power of this nine-hour film, and the dual-response of wanting to watch further and tune out all at once. Allan’s comparsion there was most telling, I agree. Thanks very much for the personal testimony here.
Hi! Allan, Sam Juliano, and WitD…
“Compare it, say, to the stark and poetic simplicity of Alain Resnais’ Nuit et Brouillard. It has been argued that Resnais’ gets over the disturbing truth about the Holocaust with more clarity than Lanzmann. Certainly he did so with more succinctness. Shoah can be a painful film to watch …”
Personally, I think that all films about the atrocities that occurred during Hitler’s regime of terror are…incomparable, but since I have never watched the film I have to accept as fact, that this film is more direct than Lanzmann’s film.
By the way, How very apropos that this film is on Allan’s list with all the talk of QT’s IB in the blogosphere. Because I noticed that some bloggers, instead of, focusing on Quentin Tarantino’s film Inglourious Basterds were focusing on the holocaust or infamous people in Hitler’s regime. Allan, all I can say is thanks for bringing this film (Shoah) to my attention… interesting.
DeeDee 😉
Allan,
Looks like all of the films on your countdown since this have been either “saved” on Netflix, unavailable on Netflix, or already seen by me…so this remained atop the queue, and the first disc will be coming Tuesday. Looks like I’ll be watching it sooner rather than later (albeit in pieces, which may not be such a bad thing). But after Come and See & this, I do hope the next movie to crown my Wonders queue is light, pleasant, and fluffy, Fish.