This page is dedicated to any thoughts, questions, reflections you may have following our viewing and discussion of Lanzmann's remarkable and disturbing film.
Does anyone recall where Young talks about the Barber scene in his essays? That was an amazing interview, I'd love to see what he said about it. Also, where is that scene among the 9 hours of footage? What volume?? ~Thanks
On another note, I appreciated the tactlessness of Lanzmann's interviewing strategy...despite apprehensive reactions from the class. I appreciated this in the same way and for the same reasons that I appreciated Resnais' probing into the crematorium spaces. These Frenchmen demand we look, they demand we judge, and more importantly they demand we question ourselves for looking and judging. Like the most treasured memories, these approaches are powerful because of the doubt they engender, the uncertainty and the shadows that they contain even as they expose them.
I honestly felt that nothing could be as disturbing to see than what we have already seen in newsreels and documentaries such as the two we watched early in our class. Also, Survival in Auschwitz and the two testimonies that we saw last week were extremely disturbing and I thought, "How can it get any worse?" Yet, for some reason, reading Shoah was the hardest for me yet. I don't know if it was the gas chamber accounts, the vans, the interviews with those who survived, but it all really became so real and I did have a hard time with it. I was on a deadline to finish the book the night before discussion and was determined, no matter how late I had to stay up, that I would finish and I did. But the nightmares I had! I even entertained thoughts of dropping the class (I know I wouldn't but the thought did occur to me as I was reading the book)because of how horrendous the effect of the reading was on me. I know we can capture so much on videos and testimony. The audiovisual of modern technology brings about such vivid portrayals but still I felt like I was there in that book. Maybe it was the format of knowing these were actual interviews, or maybe it was because most of it talked about the moments of life just before death. That has to be it. We usually see the aftermath but not those moments that were told of those experiences of seeing someone walk to their death. Women with their children were the hardest, being a mother myself. Anyway, the actually documentary that we saw, the very short part of it, did not disturb me half as much outside, of course, the barbershop scene. Abe's silence and then the tears in his eyes after he was trying so bravely to tell his story in such a matter -of -fact way. Such bravery there too in him to even attempt to tell it. Reading the book, it occurred to me that my earliest memories of hearing about what happened to the Jews and the gas chambers were in the sixties and I know it was just a fleeting kind of knowledge, one that I do not remember dwelling on much. Of course I was a child but I do remember not hearing that much but what I did hear was hard to even believe, like it just could never have happened. I was so disconnected until I saw film clips later on and then now taking this class, I hope I have the gumption to keep on reading and watching these scenes. I do have to say, although I know so much can be captured on video, I cannot see how anything can provide a more vivid account in reading about the Holocaust, at least I certainly hope so.
I already gave most of my reflections on the film during my presentation, but I'll just briefly reiterate/rethink them here. From all of my reflections, the one that really got to me was how disturbed and at times frustrated I was with Lanzmann's interviewing techniques.
Having read Arthur's comments, I can certainly appreciate Lanzmann's attempts to get at the truth. However, I was irritated with his badgering of both victims and perpetrators. At times he seemed almost angry with the former non-civilian Germans. (I hesitate to label them Nazis or S.S. or anything else because from watching the film, I got the idea that they didn't associate themselves directly with the slaughter of all those Jews, which is what Nazism is associated with.) From the film, it appeared as though they were perhaps only half-aware of what was happening. This could be a lie on their part, but it might not. Lanzmann, however, assumed that it was a lie (or an exaggeration at best) and spoke to them as though it was, though he had no evidence for it. This was my only concern.
An example of this can be found in Lanzmann's interview of Franz Suchomel, an S.S. officer. He argues with him about the number of Jews who were killed Treblinka, insisting that the number is 18,000 even when Suchomel disagrees. The page number is 96 in the text if you want to look it up.
Watching Shoah is difficult, as it was intended to be. Seeing it in class was an experience I won’t soon forget. Shoah is a brilliant and rare film, but so very dark.
The Holocaust is, obviously, teeming with emotion and this film makes one’s head spin. A feeling Shoah evoked powerfully in me was anger at Lanzmann for his treatment of the barber. I understand that Lanzmann was trying to do something difficult, and he succeeded in bringing the barber’s horribly painful memories to the surface. That this footage is the closest I’ve felt to an understanding of the residue that the constant proximity to death in the “camps” left with survivers, only complicates the dilemma for me.
While acknowledging Lanzmann’s commitment, I believe / wish his goal could have been accomplished in a gentler way.
Then again, it’s always convenient to be angry with someone, I suppose.
Thanks Lauren, for the info. I revisited Shoah a couple nights ago and couldn't help but feel uneasy about Lanzman's approach to the Chelmo survivors and others. You make a good point, I think, about the assumptions he brings to his project, and the practical consequences of this sort of thing. He's clearly not ashamed of his agenda. I still have faith in his principle of confrontation and effrontery, at least in principle. Survivors are privileged enough in our society and this doesn't always make them feel comforted as much as it makes them feel more alienated from non-survivors around them. Being blunt today is more valuable than formalities with the best intentions. Whatever the risk may be.
While reading Shoah, the reader is given images of the Holocaust told in the words of the survivors and by-standers which narrate the event from many perspectives giving the reader a pastiche that is “the Holocaust.” Though the survivors tell of haunting events, it is the testimony of the by-standers that causes surprise. In other testimonies, the by-standers have generally denied knowledge of what happened to their Jewish countrymen or acknowledged awareness and admitted to being afraid to take action. In Shoah there were several testimonies that expressed, not only acknowledgement of the event, but the true feelings of such by-standers that shows the ideas still present in society. In one such testimony, Czeslaw Borowi says the Jews talked in their language sounding like “ra-ra-ra” for then Lanzman asks: “What’s he mean, la-la-la? What’s he trying to imitate? Their language. No ask him. Was the Jews’ noise something special? They spoke Jew. Does Mr. Borowi understand ‘Jew’? No.” (24) This passage shows that the witness Borowi is unsympathetic to the Jewish victims and has a very crass attitude toward the event. Whether he said this out of ambivalence or to mask his true horror of what he witnessed, it is a refreshing statement since it represents utter sincerity that is not present elsewhere. Langer explains that many interviewees are often questioned according to the agenda of the interviewer and thus certain answers are expected. Bystanders are usually questioned to elicit a remorseful remark or an empathetic statement towards the event. The way in which Lanzman questioned Borowi allowed Borowi to express what he really thought of the Jews and their so-called prattle. The way in which Lanzman asks if he understand “Jew” allowed Borowi to express his opinion that otherwise would not be important to interviews regarding the Holocaust. Most interviewers are interested in the details, not the person’s individual feeling toward one detail of the event. The fact that Lanzman includes this detail shows the reader that people, in WWII and now, saw the Jews as “others” that were not understandable and thus, not worthy of empathy. This is the deeper level that Shoah brings to video testimony of the Holocaust.
I find Yolloti's interpretation very useful. It expresses my instinctive appreciation of provocative interviewing strategies we find in The Shoah. Such 'manipulative' approaches to 'innocent bystanders', I'm officially dubbing the 'Borat effect'.
I felt as if Lanzmann was completely badgering his interviewees. I thought that he was insensitive and manipulative. Perhaps I would have felt differently had he himself been a survivor, but the fact that he could not even begin to understand what they had been through was upsetting. I think that people who make films like this have a responsibility to those whom they are representing. If someone doesn’t feel like talking about a particularly painful event form their past, It is their prerogative. It would seem that the way in which he structured these interviews, NOT talking about the most painful experiences was not an option. (I’m thinking particularly about the barber shop scene, which infuriated me when reading the book). I’m not sure how to feel about this film when all is said and done. It seems to me to be an unethical way of revealing the truth of the Holocaust, and I’m pretty sure those who lived through it, deserve to be shown a little ethics by now…
Does anyone recall where Young talks about the Barber scene in his essays? That was an amazing interview, I'd love to see what he said about it. Also, where is that scene among the 9 hours of footage? What volume?? ~Thanks
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I appreciated the tactlessness of Lanzmann's interviewing strategy...despite apprehensive reactions from the class. I appreciated this in the same way and for the same reasons that I appreciated Resnais' probing into the crematorium spaces. These Frenchmen demand we look, they demand we judge, and more importantly they demand we question ourselves for looking and judging. Like the most treasured memories, these approaches are powerful because of the doubt they engender, the uncertainty and the shadows that they contain even as they expose them.
I honestly felt that nothing could be as disturbing to see than what we have already seen in newsreels and documentaries such as the two we watched early in our class. Also, Survival in Auschwitz and the two testimonies that we saw last week were extremely disturbing and I thought, "How can it get any worse?"
ReplyDeleteYet, for some reason, reading Shoah was the hardest for me yet. I don't know if it was the gas chamber accounts, the vans, the interviews with those who survived, but it all really became so real and I did have a hard time with it. I was on a deadline to finish the book the night before discussion and was determined, no matter how late I had to stay up, that I would finish and I did. But the nightmares I had! I even entertained thoughts of dropping the class (I know I wouldn't but the thought did occur to me as I was reading the book)because of how horrendous the effect of the reading was on me.
I know we can capture so much on videos and testimony. The audiovisual of modern technology brings about such vivid portrayals but still I felt like I was there in that book. Maybe it was the format of knowing these were actual interviews, or maybe it was because most of it talked about the moments of life just before death. That has to be it. We usually see the aftermath but not those moments that were told of those experiences of seeing someone walk to their death. Women with their children were the hardest, being a mother myself.
Anyway, the actually documentary that we saw, the very short part of it, did not disturb me half as much outside, of course, the barbershop scene. Abe's silence and then the tears in his eyes after he was trying so bravely to tell his story in such a matter -of -fact way. Such bravery there too in him to even attempt to tell it.
Reading the book, it occurred to me that my earliest memories of hearing about what happened to the Jews and the gas chambers were in the sixties and I know it was just a fleeting kind of knowledge, one that I do not remember dwelling on much. Of course I was a child but I do remember not hearing that much but what I did hear was hard to even believe, like it just could never have happened. I was so disconnected until I saw film clips later on and then now taking this class, I hope I have the gumption to keep on reading and watching these scenes.
I do have to say, although I know so much can be captured on video, I cannot see how anything can provide a more vivid account in reading about the Holocaust, at least I certainly hope so.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteArthur, the scene that you're looking for is in the third disc, at 0 hrs, 16 mins, 13 sec.
ReplyDeleteI already gave most of my reflections on the film during my presentation, but I'll just briefly reiterate/rethink them here. From all of my reflections, the one that really got to me was how disturbed and at times frustrated I was with Lanzmann's interviewing techniques.
ReplyDeleteHaving read Arthur's comments, I can certainly appreciate Lanzmann's attempts to get at the truth. However, I was irritated with his badgering of both victims and perpetrators. At times he seemed almost angry with the former non-civilian Germans. (I hesitate to label them Nazis or S.S. or anything else because from watching the film, I got the idea that they didn't associate themselves directly with the slaughter of all those Jews, which is what Nazism is associated with.) From the film, it appeared as though they were perhaps only half-aware of what was happening. This could be a lie on their part, but it might not. Lanzmann, however, assumed that it was a lie (or an exaggeration at best) and spoke to them as though it was, though he had no evidence for it. This was my only concern.
An example of this can be found in Lanzmann's interview of Franz Suchomel, an S.S. officer. He argues with him about the number of Jews who were killed Treblinka, insisting that the number is 18,000 even when Suchomel disagrees. The page number is 96 in the text if you want to look it up.
SHOAH – Claude Lanzmann
ReplyDeleteSeptember 22, 2010
Watching Shoah is difficult, as it was intended to be. Seeing it in class was an experience I won’t soon forget. Shoah is a brilliant and rare film, but so very dark.
The Holocaust is, obviously, teeming with emotion and this film makes one’s head spin. A feeling Shoah evoked powerfully in me was anger at Lanzmann for his treatment of the barber. I understand that Lanzmann was trying to do something difficult, and he succeeded in bringing the barber’s horribly painful memories to the surface. That this footage is the closest I’ve felt to an understanding of the residue that the constant proximity to death in the “camps” left with survivers, only complicates the dilemma for me.
While acknowledging Lanzmann’s commitment, I believe / wish his goal could have been accomplished in a gentler way.
Then again, it’s always convenient to be angry with someone, I suppose.
Thanks Lauren, for the info. I revisited Shoah a couple nights ago and couldn't help but feel uneasy about Lanzman's approach to the Chelmo survivors and others. You make a good point, I think, about the assumptions he brings to his project, and the practical consequences of this sort of thing. He's clearly not ashamed of his agenda. I still have faith in his principle of confrontation and effrontery, at least in principle. Survivors are privileged enough in our society and this doesn't always make them feel comforted as much as it makes them feel more alienated from non-survivors around them. Being blunt today is more valuable than formalities with the best intentions. Whatever the risk may be.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Shoah, the reader is given images of the Holocaust told in the words of the survivors and by-standers which narrate the event from many perspectives giving the reader a pastiche that is “the Holocaust.” Though the survivors tell of haunting events, it is the testimony of the by-standers that causes surprise. In other testimonies, the by-standers have generally denied knowledge of what happened to their Jewish countrymen or acknowledged awareness and admitted to being afraid to take action. In Shoah there were several testimonies that expressed, not only acknowledgement of the event, but the true feelings of such by-standers that shows the ideas still present in society. In one such testimony, Czeslaw Borowi says the Jews talked in their language sounding like “ra-ra-ra” for then Lanzman asks:
ReplyDelete“What’s he mean, la-la-la? What’s he trying to imitate?
Their language.
No ask him. Was the Jews’ noise something special?
They spoke Jew.
Does Mr. Borowi understand ‘Jew’?
No.” (24)
This passage shows that the witness Borowi is unsympathetic to the Jewish victims and has a very crass attitude toward the event. Whether he said this out of ambivalence or to mask his true horror of what he witnessed, it is a refreshing statement since it represents utter sincerity that is not present elsewhere. Langer explains that many interviewees are often questioned according to the agenda of the interviewer and thus certain answers are expected. Bystanders are usually questioned to elicit a remorseful remark or an empathetic statement towards the event. The way in which Lanzman questioned Borowi allowed Borowi to express what he really thought of the Jews and their so-called prattle. The way in which Lanzman asks if he understand “Jew” allowed Borowi to express his opinion that otherwise would not be important to interviews regarding the Holocaust. Most interviewers are interested in the details, not the person’s individual feeling toward one detail of the event. The fact that Lanzman includes this detail shows the reader that people, in WWII and now, saw the Jews as “others” that were not understandable and thus, not worthy of empathy. This is the deeper level that Shoah brings to video testimony of the Holocaust.
I find Yolloti's interpretation very useful. It expresses my instinctive appreciation of provocative interviewing strategies we find in The Shoah. Such 'manipulative' approaches to 'innocent bystanders', I'm officially dubbing the 'Borat effect'.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thejewishweek.com/arts/film/shoah_25_nothing_will_be_forgotten
ReplyDeleteCheck out this article.
I also agree with Yollotl the interviews are very stratigic and it feels as if the audience is being manipulated into thinking one way.
ReplyDeleteI felt as if Lanzmann was completely badgering his interviewees. I thought that he was insensitive and manipulative. Perhaps I would have felt differently had he himself been a survivor, but the fact that he could not even begin to understand what they had been through was upsetting. I think that people who make films like this have a responsibility to those whom they are representing. If someone doesn’t feel like talking about a particularly painful event form their past, It is their prerogative. It would seem that the way in which he structured these interviews, NOT talking about the most painful experiences was not an option. (I’m thinking particularly about the barber shop scene, which infuriated me when reading the book). I’m not sure how to feel about this film when all is said and done. It seems to me to be an unethical way of revealing the truth of the Holocaust, and I’m pretty sure those who lived through it, deserve to be shown a little ethics by now…
ReplyDelete