Alain Resnais's landmark documentary fails the tests of time, journalism, and art.
Let me get this out of the way. I am not an anti-Semite. And Night And Fog is not a good documentary, assuming it can even be called a documentary.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
26 - Dan Schneider
Richard: 'Finally, anticipating your ever-constant air of patronization: I do realize - in reading your review and subsequent posts - that you are probably much smarter than me. I'd appreciate it if you don't connote as such should you choose to respond.'
Nice attempt at trying to have your cake and eat it, too, but stand behind your point. And patronization is when there is a reasonable and good faith argument and one party tries to belittle another. Most of the other commenters have not argued in good faith; and their stupidity is open for dismemberment. As to your point:
'How can you claim detachment while judging a film from a decidedly modern perspective?'
Emotional detachment knows no chronology. People read Shakespeare over Dryden today because Willy's stuff held up. No one cares of the courtly intrigues of long forgotten despots.
'I don't think that art should constantly compete with the future, something that you seem to imply.'
Where? I think you are imbuing for you are starting w a predisposition.
'Standing it in the path of future documentaries on the Holocaust is an ineffective and unsatisfying way of trivializing this particular work. If you are to criticize this film, it should be done on it's own qualities. Granted, you do scrounge around in this film enough, but it doesn't make your point any less inconsequential.'
A classic emotional response. On the one hand you admit I crit the film on its own qualities, but you are dissatisfied. If the review were more positive I doubt I'd be typing a reply right now. That wd seem to make your point inconsequential, as well as silly.
'Dracula definitely seems old fashioned from a perspective like yours: viewing great art as immortal. The problem with this view is the subjectivity with which you can apply it.'
Which is why I objectively look at art, and disavow emotion. There is bad art I like and great art I do not like, but my likes are irrelevant to an objective and fair critique.
'These "Greek tragedies" can be seen in just as antiquated a light as something like Dracula or Night and Fog.'
They can, if they lack an eternal or universal quality. If they have it your point is moot. That was my point.
'It's all about how willing one is to retrogress - a process which is more than reasonable given the ever-moving progress of culture (in which art and language are of course helplessly confined).'
The viewer/critic/percipient has no obligation to engage an artwork. There are some works which can yield greater reward if engaged more deeply, but if the work lacks a deeper or more substantive appeal the percipient has no obligation. The artist has an obligation to try to communicate- art is communication, but the responsibility is his alone. The whole 'it's art because the artist says so' ideal is silly, just as the idea that art has to be judged by the standards of its creation, alone.
Here is a list of great films I made, and I distinguish between great works and genre great works, like silent films. Silent films simply cannot be as totally great as sound and color films, for many reasons, but in their limited circumstances, they can achieve a limited greatness. A few- like City Lights, transcend their limits.
27 - FATRABBIT
"Yes, we see bodies plowed into holes, stacks of skulls and mounds of human hair, and while that may have shocked years ago, one must be aware that Bela Lugosi’s original turn in 1931’s Dracula, by Tod Browning, was also considered by some to be far too scary for film. Now it’s hokum, and Night And Fog is the documentary equivalent of Dracula."
I hope the above (ahem) observation may be blamed on stimulants trumping reflection, as its bizarre and frankly vulgar claims undercut the far more serious and noteworthy arguments you address.
Basing your comparison of the material N+F uses to illustrate the end product of the Holocaust (whether that term embraces Jews alone or includes other victims of the nazis' genocide machine) to the imagery of a horror movie, whenever made, is unbelievably thoughtless and ill-informed. There is simply no comparison between the outer limits of films made to entertain an audience (name dropping, say, ‘In a Glass Cage’ or the Guinea Pig series) and hundreds of emaciated corpses bulldozed into a ditch. One is fake, the other is real, full stop. While perhaps children can't discern the difference, and thus the consequences, we aren't them anymore, right?
Nonetheless, you come quite close to saying modern audiences require more than just simple tapes of corpse disposal, like maybe video records of mengele's twin experiments, to give a fuck about what happened/s. If it's true that you require such imagery before including N+S in the canon of 'Holokaust Klassiks,' please don't indict the rest of us. And please don't hide your justifiable anger against Israel/Zionism/etc. behind a condemnation of an early documentary whose primary and inestimable worth is the terrible clarity with which it made the world aware of what happened. It’s this evident worth and this barely displaced anger that make your other critiques of N+S (the translated narration can't encompass what appears? the score is out of place? the color of the subtitles are poorly chosen?) ring so hollow that your garish and, dare I say, disgusting idea peals out all the louder.
28 - Dan Schneider
Fat:
'I hope the above (ahem) observation may be blamed on stimulants trumping reflection, as its bizarre and frankly vulgar claims undercut the far more serious and noteworthy arguments you address.'
The observation is neither bizarre nor vulgar, but your observation is flatout silly, and pointless.
'Basing your comparison of the material N+F uses to illustrate the end product of the Holocaust (whether that term embraces Jews alone or includes other victims of the nazis' genocide machine) to the imagery of a horror movie, whenever made, is unbelievably thoughtless and ill-informed.'
No it's not, because the comparison is to the outmoded shock effect the documentary has in relation to the outmoded scare effect of the other film. It's a rather good and effective comparison.
'There is simply no comparison between the outer limits of films made to entertain an audience (name dropping, say, 'In a Glass Cage' or the Guinea Pig series) and hundreds of emaciated corpses bulldozed into a ditch. One is fake, the other is real, full stop. While perhaps children can't discern the difference, and thus the consequences, we aren't them anymore, right?'
But adults can understand the concept of metaphor. Google the term- it's when you use one things as basis of comparison to another. But, if that gets in the way of your smarmy moralizing and haughtiness, heaven forfend! Your claim of 'simply no comparison is thus a revelation of your own limited mindset. And whose problem and fault is that?
'Nonetheless, you come quite close to saying modern audiences require more than just simple tapes of corpse disposal, like maybe video records of mengele's twin experiments, to give a fuck about what happened/s. If it's true that you require such imagery before including N+S in the canon of 'Holokaust Klassiks,' please don't indict the rest of us.'
You said it, not me. A discerning audience needs more than just the same old same old. There is nothing revelatory in the film- from the images to the disproved stats. In short, any art worth a damn needs more than just shock value; and that's all Night & Fog offered. 5 decades later it's nil. This is why gimmick art always fails, because it does not hold up to multiple experiences. As the old slogan might entail- there's no beef in this film.
'And please don't hide your justifiable anger against Israel/Zionism/etc. behind a condemnation of an early documentary whose primary and inestimable worth is the terrible clarity with which it made the world aware of what happened.'
Again, you are imbuing your own addled ideas with what I wrote. I don't give a damn of Zionism, and do not condemn it in the review. In short, nice straw man. Hug it closely tonight. And, as the film came out a decade after the war, and years after Nuremberg, 'twas nothing new to begin with.
'It's this evident worth and this barely displaced anger that make your other critiques of N+S (the translated narration can't encompass what appears? the score is out of place? the color of the subtitles are poorly chosen?) ring so hollow that your garish and, dare I say, disgusting idea peals out all the louder.'
Again, your own bile has so twisted your mind one could make a strudel out of it.
So, was there a point to your post, save to scream your anonymous ignorance to the world?
29 - FATRABBIT
“The observation is neither bizarre nor vulgar, but your observation is flatout silly, and pointless.”
Er…well, the meat is on the way, I’m sure of it. Though you may be technically right about ‘silly’ and ‘pointless’ " on review I’m pretty sure ‘bizarre’ and ‘vulgar’ are antonyms.
“No it's not, because the comparison is to the outmoded shock effect the documentary has in relation to the outmoded scare effect of the other film. It's a rather good and effective comparison.”
I had to break this down a bit more for the sake of my handicap. All errors mine:
(1) The scariness of a horror movie is concomitant with its present day worth. 1931's Dracula had scary imagery, but it doesn’t scare today’s audiences. Thus, 1931's Dracula is almost totally worthless today.
(2) The shock effect created by a Holocaust documentary is a major factor as to its present day worth. 1955’s Night And Fog had imagery that created a shock effect, but such [imagery doesn’t shock/imagery’s shock effect is outmoded for] today’s audiences. Thus, on the basis of shocking imagery, 1955’s Night And Fog is almost totally worthless today.
So as I understand it, you say Night And Fog isn’t worth much today because its shock effect, as created by bulldozed corpse etc., is old hat to today’s iron youth? If that’s the case, then I think we agree now, as we did initially, as to the point at hand.
But maybe what you’re also saying, very indirectly, is that the film’s relevancy is doomed not only by its lack of shocking imagery, but also with its unrealized pretensions. If so, maybe you should make your point explicit before making me carry the water.
“But adults can understand the concept of metaphor. Google the term- it's when you use one things as basis of comparison to another. But, if that gets in the way of your smarmy moralizing and haughtiness, heaven forfend! Your claim of 'simply no comparison is thus a revelation of your own limited mindset. And whose problem and fault is that?”
I assume, to the extent you address anything of substance here, you’re saying (note upcoming use of ‘as,’ making this a simile, not a metaphor " Thanks Wikipedia!) as Tod needs more gore-drenched-titties to possibly uphold any interest, so Night And Fog needs more and better pleading, screaming, dying subhumans to rate more than a twitch of the ol’ death nerve. I still say you’re wrong. In fact, I’m so set in my ways I’m still willing to say (as I did initially) that horrific imagery capable of sickening and terrorizing even today’s jaded horror movie audiences is ZERO next to real death and suffering.
“You said it, not me. A discerning audience needs more than just the same old same old. There is nothing revelatory in the film- from the images to the disproved stats. In short, any art worth a damn needs more than just shock value; and that's all Night & Fog offered. 5 decades later it's nil. This is why gimmick art always fails, because it does not hold up to multiple experiences. As the old slogan might entail- there's no beef in this film.”
OK then. Let’s unpack together. As a discerning modern consumer, you need beef. In fact, you need revelatory beef. Beef is revelatory, if, for one thing, it holds up to multiple experiences. Multiple experiences are possible if the beef is based on the proper material. Proper material arises from perpetually relevant ideas and aesthetics. If material arises from ideas and aesthetics that are supposed to be shocking but aren’t, then the material is de facto irrelevant. Since N+F’s value is predicated on material that’s not shocking, N+F isn’t relevant, so it can’t hold up to multiple experiences, thus it’s false beef.
Whew. Anyway, you appear to conclude (admittedly, from my extrapolations) that ‘shock’ is not a valid basis for permanence. Then again, part of your acknowledgement that the medical torture of children may be an acceptable replacement for deathpiles is that at least such footage is “more than just the same old same old.” From your comment, am I wrong to infer that if material is so shocking it can prize open even your distended asshole a bit further than normal, such material may be revelatory? Then you and I are in complete agreement!
Unfortunately we’re then back to our initial disagreement, that is, the length and girth necessary to induce revelation. I say N+F delivers the goods " you don’t. Too bad you’re on record that N+F is poorly made, otherwise you could maybe back out of committing to the artistic achievements arising from ‘Night and Fog 2010’s’ high-definition surround-sound atrocities.
“Again, you are imbuing your own addled ideas with what I wrote. I don't give a damn of Zionism, and do not condemn it in the review. In short, nice straw man. Hug it closely tonight. And, as the film came out a decade after the war, and years after Nuremberg, 'twas nothing new to begin with.”
Yeah I was wrong about that claim’s textual support. In retrospect, your ire appears to arise from the offense you take towards the exploitation of the Holocaust, a sentiment I share. You were wrong about N+F being nothing new, though " while the existence of the nazi genocide was widely known in 1955, N+F is the first time visual records were made widely available.
Again, your own bile has so twisted your mind one could make a strudel out of it.
I wish that were true, but thanks anyway.
So, was there a point to your post, save to scream your anonymous ignorance to the world?
We have many areas of overlap. The conviction that public masturbation is better is one.
30 - Dan Schneider
"The observation is neither bizarre nor vulgar, but your observation is flatout silly, and pointless."
Er...well, the meat is on the way, I'm sure of it. Though you may be technically right about 'silly' and 'pointless' - on review I'm pretty sure 'bizarre' and 'vulgar' are antonyms.
Still no point, but since you are arguing with yourself, do you sell popcorn?
"No it's not, because the comparison is to the outmoded shock effect the documentary has in relation to the outmoded scare effect of the other film. It's a rather good and effective comparison."
I had to break this down a bit more for the sake of my handicap. All errors mine:
(1) The scariness of a horror movie is concomitant with its present day worth. 1931's Dracula had scary imagery, but it doesn't scare today's audiences. Thus, 1931's Dracula is almost totally worthless today.
(2) The shock effect created by a Holocaust documentary is a major factor as to its present day worth. 1955's Night And Fog had imagery that created a shock effect, but such [imagery doesn't shock/imagery's shock effect is outmoded for] today's audiences. Thus, on the basis of shocking imagery, 1955's Night And Fog is almost totally worthless today.
So as I understand it, you say Night And Fog isn't worth much today because its shock effect, as created by bulldozed corpse etc., is old hat to today's iron youth? If that's the case, then I think we agree now, as we did initially, as to the point at hand.
That was one of many points why the film fails. Bad narrative poesy, anomic aims, and factual inaccuracy are other major factors.
But maybe what you're also saying, very indirectly, is that the film's relevancy is doomed not only by its lack of shocking imagery, but also with its unrealized pretensions. If so, maybe you should make your point explicit before making me carry the water.
The pretensions are realized lest they would not be able to be pointed out. Their lack of realization would have garnered no comment- even by you.
"But adults can understand the concept of metaphor. Google the term- it's when you use one things as basis of comparison to another. But, if that gets in the way of your smarmy moralizing and haughtiness, heaven forfend! Your claim of 'simply no comparison is thus a revelation of your own limited mindset. And whose problem and fault is that?"
I assume, to the extent you address anything of substance here, you're saying (note upcoming use of 'as,' making this a simile, not a metaphor - Thanks Wikipedia!) as Tod needs more gore-drenched-titties to possibly uphold any interest, so Night And Fog needs more and better pleading, screaming, dying subhumans to rate more than a twitch of the ol' death nerve. I still say you're wrong. In fact, I'm so set in my ways I'm still willing to say (as I did initially) that horrific imagery capable of sickening and terrorizing even today's jaded horror movie audiences is ZERO next to real death and suffering.
Well, yes, and as someone whose seen numerous people killed and murdered, this is manifest, but it's an utter digression from your unsupported 'simply no comparison' moralizing. Again, is there a point?
"You said it, not me. A discerning audience needs more than just the same old same old. There is nothing revelatory in the film- from the images to the disproved stats. In short, any art worth a damn needs more than just shock value; and that's all Night & Fog offered. 5 decades later it's nil. This is why gimmick art always fails, because it does not hold up to multiple experiences. As the old slogan might entail- there's no beef in this film."
OK then. Let's unpack together. As a discerning modern consumer, you need beef. In fact, you need revelatory beef. Beef is revelatory, if, for one thing, it holds up to multiple experiences. Multiple experiences are possible if the beef is based on the proper material.
Proper? Quality and depth are specific things- proper- again, you fall into moralizing terminology with stunning ease.
Proper material arises from perpetually relevant ideas and aesthetics.
Perhaps proper material, but not quality, but, since you are arguing points that you've made, go on. Aesthetics are based upon emotional responses, and emotion has no place in criticism.
If material arises from ideas and aesthetics that are supposed to be shocking but aren't, then the material is de facto irrelevant. Since N+F's value is predicated on material that's not shocking, N+F isn't relevant, so it can't hold up to multiple experiences, thus it's false beef.
Well, since just a few points ago I delineated multiple areas in which the film failed, as I did in the piece, again, you are arguing with your own claims- i.e.- strawmanning. Still waiting for the point. Oh wait, here is Godot, Point was delayed.
Whew. Anyway, you appear to conclude (admittedly, from my extrapolations) that 'shock' is not a valid basis for permanence. Then again, part of your acknowledgement that the medical torture of children may be an acceptable replacement for deathpiles is that at least such footage is "more than just the same old same old."
Well, I never said this; but, there are plenty of doc's that have shown the torture of children and animals- see PETA or Human Rights Groups who seem to think that drumming people over the head with- say, circumcised labia or machinery mashing little chicks, is somehow more compelling than simply reasoned argument. Wait, here is point, waving on the horizon.
From your comment, am I wrong to infer that if material is so shocking it can prize open even your distended asshole a bit further than normal, such material may be revelatory? Then you and I are in complete agreement!
Let's assume you mean prise, not prize, since, if you are going to argue with yourself, good grammar is acceptable. But, no- I said none of that. Shock and revelation have no formal connection, but, perhaps in your wee mind they do. Point says Cabo was wonderful.
Unfortunately we're then back to our initial disagreement, that is, the length and girth necessary to induce revelation. I say N+F delivers the goods - you don't. Too bad you're on record that N+F is poorly made, otherwise you could maybe back out of committing to the artistic achievements arising from 'Night and Fog 2010's' high-definition surround-sound atrocities.
Point says, 'Whodat?'
"Again, you are imbuing your own addled ideas with what I wrote. I don't give a damn of Zionism, and do not condemn it in the review. In short, nice straw man. Hug it closely tonight. And, as the film came out a decade after the war, and years after Nuremberg, 'twas nothing new to begin with."
Yeah I was wrong about that claim's textual support. In retrospect, your ire appears to arise from the offense you take towards the exploitation of the Holocaust, a sentiment I share.
There was no ire, only boredom. It's interesting how so many passive-aggressive folks imbue anger or its kith into others' reactions. 'Twas dull- an ill wrought, passe, and dull film.
You were wrong about N+F being nothing new, though - while the existence of the nazi genocide was widely known in 1955, N+F is the first time visual records were made widely available.
Except for extensive coverage in newsreel footage from the post-War period...whoops.
Again, your own bile has so twisted your mind one could make a strudel out of it.
I wish that were true, but thanks anyway.
So, was there a point to your post, save to scream your anonymous ignorance to the world?
We have many areas of overlap. The conviction that public masturbation is better is one.
So, that sticky goo explains the typos. Point turns to Homer. Homer says, 'D'oh!'
31 - CCB
Dan,
As I read through these comments, I find the most amazing part is your refusal to acknowledge anyone else's opinion as, if not valid, worthy of respect. You vehemently disagree with every response made to your article, as well as the subsequent reactions to your commentary. If you ever acquiesed or gave a single nod to a comment that countered yours, I missed it. (If I did miss it, I apologize for the assumption, yet the fact that there were too few to notice illustrates my point nonetheless.) Failing to recognize the value of others' opinions, in and of itself, puts everything you say into question. When one cannot see past his or her own viewpoint enough to recognize reasonable arguments or even simply that other viewpoints are no less worthy of being considered as his or her own, that person demonstrates a lack of intelligence and open-mindedness.
Dispute facts or assumptions all you want; however, don't disrespect or discount diverging viewpoints simply because they are, in fact, divergent. You present yourself as idiotic when you do.
Another thought to consider is your continued insistance that your review is of the artistic value of the piece alone; still you continue to argue the political and/or factual opinions offered. I would think, if you wanted to remain focused on the art, you would eschew such commentary and return the focus back to the cinematic elements. I recognize that, at times, you attempted to do such a thing, like in your continued defense of comparing Night and Fog to Dracula. However, much of the time you focused on the political, historical, etc. (At this point, please forgive me as I digress a bit. In regards to your assertion that the film loses artistic value simply because its images no longer shock at the level in which they were intended, I must counter that something can remain artistically valuable despite the way time alters the anticipated effect on an audience. Case in point: the original Psycho; you cannot begin to argue that this film does not remain significant within the cinematic community for its brilliance despite the fact that the suspense of modern films have lessened its impact on the psyche when watching it. Disagree? What about 2001: A Space Odyssey? or Blade Runner? or so many more? Please don't begin to argue that these are fictional films and not documentaries, making them different. You are claiming that art is the focus, and art transcends genre.)
To conclude, the defensive nature of your comments creates the sense in a reader that you lack a solid basis for your argument. It's sad, really, because I enjoy hearing people whose opinions differ greatly from mine. Your rhetoric, however, is anything but enjoyable.
32 - Dan Schneider
CCB:
Dan,
As I read through these comments, I find the most amazing part is your refusal to acknowledge anyone else's opinion as, if not valid, worthy of respect.
To do so, the opinion would have to be free of emotion, and show the person offered something of value. I have debunked opinions, as one does in dialectic. The respect comes in answering the opinions at all, and in detail, and in showing they were wrong. Respect is not, 'Oh wow, that opinion, even though you're the 37, 356th person to parrot it, now it all makes sense.'
You vehemently disagree with every response made to your article, as well as the subsequent reactions to your commentary. If you ever acquiesed or gave a single nod to a comment that countered yours, I missed it. (If I did miss it, I apologize for the assumption, yet the fact that there were too few to notice illustrates my point nonetheless.) Failing to recognize the value of others' opinions, in and of itself, puts everything you say into question.
To the last question, says you. It's not some logically foregone conclusion. Nut, even were it, again, I value the claims with my responses. What is more demeaning than total ignorance of one's existence?
When one cannot see past his or her own viewpoint enough to recognize reasonable arguments or even simply that other viewpoints are no less worthy of being considered as his or her own, that person demonstrates a lack of intelligence and open-mindedness.
Manifestly, I have seen past my POV, or else I would not have bothered to reply, but, since most of the arguments are based on emotions or faulty reasoning, they are NOT worthy. The very ability to discriminate (in the good sense of the term) between stupidity and intelligence shows intelligence, and the willingness to reply to it (even when barraged by it, as here) amply demonstrates open-mindedness. I am, however, waiting for an intelligent point to this latest emotional outburst.
Dispute facts or assumptions all you want; however, don't disrespect or discount diverging viewpoints simply because they are, in fact, divergent. You present yourself as idiotic when you do.
Look at how many times you have tossed about epithets w/o making a single claim about the film. Manifestly, you've not even bothered to weigh my opinions. Idiot, therefore, more aptly describes what yuo are presented with in reflection.
Another thought to consider is your continued insistance that your review is of the artistic value of the piece alone; still you continue to argue the political and/or factual opinions offered. I would think, if you wanted to remain focused on the art, you would eschew such commentary and return the focus back to the cinematic elements. I recognize that, at times, you attempted to do such a thing, like in your continued defense of comparing Night and Fog to Dracula. However, much of the time you focused on the political, historical, etc.
Did it ever occur to you that I addressed the political aspects of the film- even by stating I am not anti-Semitic up front, because there is a history, on film blogs, and such, for this very sort of tautological and puerile dialectic that you and the others are engaging in? It wd be like writing of the Great Dictator and not commenting on the political content of the final speech vs. its place in the film and the times.
(At this point, please forgive me as I digress a bit. In regards to your assertion that the film loses artistic value simply because its images no longer shock at the level in which they were intended, I must counter that something can remain artistically valuable despite the way time alters the anticipated effect on an audience. Case in point: the original Psycho; you cannot begin to argue that this film does not remain significant within the cinematic community for its brilliance despite the fact that the suspense of modern films have lessened its impact on the psyche when watching it. Disagree? What about 2001: A Space Odyssey? or Blade Runner? or so many more? Please don't begin to argue that these are fictional films and not documentaries, making them different. You are claiming that art is the focus, and art transcends genre.)
Now you are strawmanning. I argued and wrote of this film. Psycho's shock value has nothing to do w its quality. So, here I am responding to claims you made, not I. That qualifies as open-minded in any reasonable definition of the word.
To conclude, the defensive nature of your comments creates the sense in a reader that you lack a solid basis for your argument.
The basis is laid out in the piece. To claim defensiveness when I merely reassert my view in counterbalance to manifestly puerile and emotional arguments is absurd. If I did not reply you'd likely counter that was because I could not, for I lacked a solid basis for my argument. Damned if I do or don't. But, solipsistic on your part.
It's sad, really, because I enjoy hearing people whose opinions differ greatly from mine. Your rhetoric, however, is anything but enjoyable.
I have been pointed and on target in every reply I've made, because I respect people- even the dumb, enough to look them in the proverbial eye and say you're wrong. If more critics did the same art would be much better off. So, at the end of your post, I am left with not a single point re: the film made, yet I have given you pointed and courteous replies that you diss. 'Tis you who need the lesson in respect.
33 - Dan Schneider
To end, as this piece was cut off:
I have no responded point by point to your pointless post, and done so w clarity and courtesy. 'Tis you who need to learn what respect is.
34 - CCB
Dan, that was the most intelligent, reasonable and respectful rebuttal you have made in all of this. Bravo! I actually liked reading the opinions you expressed in that one. Finally, something worth my time! Thank you.
35 - CCB
Oh, I forgot to mention that your comment ("So, at the end of your post, I am left with not a single point re: the film made") is dead-on. I had no intention of focusing on the film, but rather on your continued commentary. But since you mention it...I personally find the film intriguing, haunting and all the more interesting because of when it was made. I believe the contrast between the music and the imagery made the imagery all the more powerful. I did not mind that it played to my emotions; I actually cannot imagine any film documenting the Holocaust not intentionally or unintentionally doing so. Though there may, in fact, be more accurate, thorough and, perhaps, better documentaries on this time in history, the brief nature of Night and Fog lends itself to be appreciated in avenues in which the others would not. For example, there is no way my high school students would sit through 8 hours of documentary; however, this film gives them the chance to get some idea of the realities without tuning out. The political focus of the film is rooted in the time it was made, and because of that, carries a sense of propaganda with it. Does that lessen it's artistic value? I argue that it does not as some of the most prolific images in art come from political propaganda.
Is this a film worthy of an Oscar, Nobel Prize, or other such award for its artistic merits? Probably not. But should it be held up as a valuable piece in the archives of film on the Holocaust? Certainly.
Now, before you take apart my post piece by piece, I want you to be fully aware that I am neither arguing any point you made, nor speaking really to your opinion at all. I am simply offering my own. Secondly, there is no emotional venting in this post...in case you didn't notice!
36 - Dan Schneider
I had no intention of focusing on the film, but rather on your continued commentary.
Ok, but, then you have enough time to waste in your life replying to 3rd party arguments that do not address you? Must be nice to be independently wealthy, Say hi to Paris for me.
I did not mind that it played to my emotions; I actually cannot imagine any film documenting the Holocaust not intentionally or unintentionally doing so.
Note, you just admitted your critical limits. If you can only toot along in a jalopy, why should I, or others, wait for you with our Ferraris?
The political focus of the film is rooted in the time it was made, and because of that, carries a sense of propaganda with it. Does that lessen it's artistic value? I argue that it does not as some of the most prolific images in art come from political propaganda.
That's a general statement I don't disagree with. But, as applied to the specifics of THIS film, I do.
But should it be held up as a valuable piece in the archives of film on the Holocaust?
Agreed. But a log book of which Gypsies or which Jews died on August 23rd, 1944, in Bergen-Belsen, while archive-worthy, is not via that fact, a piece of literature.
37 - CCB
"Ok, but, then you have enough time to waste in your life replying to 3rd party arguments that do not address you? Must be nice to be independently wealthy, Say hi to Paris for me."
You're funny. And I will be glad to say, "Hi," to her for you!