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. One might argue he’s not to blame, since time and history have swept by his film, but a truly great artist knows that his work will stand up not only upon first peek, but decades later, centuries after that, and as far into the human future as one can envision. This is why the best of Greek tragedies speak to a reader today, and why Night And Fog fails.
And, a final word on the narration, written by Cayrol and voiced by Bouquet. Aside from the pseudo-poetry, there is a condescending tone throughout. Oftentimes, Bouquet chides a viewer for not believing what is being shown (an unwitting invitation to Holocaust deniers in years hence), and then offers platitudes like, "Words are insufficient." Well, not really, not in great art. And while, at 31 minutes, there was obviously no attempt to be comprehensive about the death camps, much less all of World War Two, there is not even an attempt to distill the experience. This lack of focus and air of flippancy make a strange combination for the viewer to chew on, for there is no reflection, no analysis, and what is presented seems almost parodic.
The film’s score is no great shakes either, often being wildly out of touch with the images onscreen. Hanns Eisler plays flute and woodwinds against horrific images, which only further underscores the film’s seeming California surfer dude approach to the subject matter. Music need not be didactic and ponderous, thus recapitulating a terrible image of the dead, but it need not flounce lightly off the carcasses, as well.
Other than the five minute Resnais radio interview, there are only a few essays on the film. As Resnais was still alive at the time of the DVD’s release, one wonders why there are no interviews with him, nor even a commentary. And, as usual, Criterion really flubs it when they use only black and white subtitles, half of which wash out when the white of the black and white segments are shown. All in all, Criterion really shafted the public on this release.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaron Fleming
Well I respect your unwillingness to blindly accept a film merely because it's universally lauded, because it's been thoroughly canonised for whatever reason, I nevertheless feel compelled to say that your likening of the film to Dracula is mad. C'mon, how can you compare shots of mounds of emaciated bodies being shoved into trenches with Bela Lugosi running around like some sort of bad vaudeville act?
2 - Dan Schneider
Aaron: Here is what I wrote:
'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.'
The overused images of the Holocaust are being compared with the fright value of the Dracula film, both of which are passe, in light of later WW2 images, and later 'horror' techniques.
So, I did not 'compare shots of mounds of emaciated bodies being shoved into trenches with Bela Lugosi running around like some sort of bad vaudeville act'. I compared the surpassing shock value of later docs and horror films with each other, and their relation to these two earlier examples of both.
Got it?
3 - Aaron Fleming
OK OK, it's an analogy illustrating the waning of affect, fair enough, I do apologise sir.
4 - Lisa McKay
Congratulations! This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net, which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States, and Boston.comBoston.com, which will allow even more readers to enjoy it.
5 - Lamar Cole
Love is the beacon that guides a solitary heart out of the fog of loneliness.
6 - Adam Parker
I am sorry but I find some of your points just shocking.
How you can call images such as the many skulls and bodies anything more than completely shocking is beyond me. As a person who has seen his fair share of gore and whatnot in cinema and documentary, the image of a pile of real human heads in a basket was more shocking than anything I have seen in any movie or documentary. Also, there are so many who have only seen very tame images of concentration camps and their prisoners in textbooks and BBC documentaries, that such an image is deploring compared to them.
And the 'words are insufficient' comment is completely justifiable...please tell me one media form, whether it be a film, book, poem, song or news article that fully puts across to the viewer millions of deaths, the torture, the mutilation and all of the other shocking atrocities that took place within just one concentration camp. Who are we to say a piece of art can sum it all up so easily just because it pulls on the heartstrings or has dramatic effect?
And do you really need an analysis or reflection on the subject? Can you not think for yourself with the images that are presented to you?
Thank you for replying in advance, and I accept you may not have liked the film, but after recent study on them matter and ethics of holocaust cinema etc, I had to post on here!
7 - Dan Schneider
Adam:
Manifestly you have not watched much cinema or documentaries on war. Great that you are horrified, but that's an emotional reaction, as is your whole post. How about an intellectually justifiable evaluation?
'Who are we to say a piece of art can sum it all up so easily just because it pulls on the heartstrings or has dramatic effect?'
I am to say, because I am the critic. That's what a critic does.
'And do you really need an analysis or reflection on the subject? Can you not think for yourself with the images that are presented to you?'
Yes, the artist should put forth a point of view, esp. in a film so blatantly manipulative that it's really not a doc. And the images are nothing new; even then.
My like or dislike of the film is beside the point, only its artist merit, which is not what many claim.
8 - Manger
This is not a documentary, in your conservative sense of the word. You are obviously unable to appreciate this film, probably because you are obsessed with factuality and accuracy instead of art and thought. Also for your information six million is the number of Jews dead, which is why we "cling" to it. Also, I agree with the comments of Aeron Fleming, in that the Dracula comparison is disgustingly stupid and insensitive. You don't have to like a film, but I think that mounds of actual human hair, bones, and bodies should have a greater effect on you then a man running around with plastic fangs.
9 - Dan Schneider
Manger:
[Personal attack deleted] The comparison is not to Dracula, but its effect as a horror film vs. that to a modern audience. If you cannot even discern a sentence, what makes you think you can a film?
And, again, like has nothing to do with criticism.
'Also for your information six million is the number of Jews dead, which is why we "cling" to it.'
Actually not- the number 6 million only came into play nearly 30 years after the fact, as a political weapon. It also has the effect of diminishing the dead others killed by the Nazis, who died in WW2, and in subsequent genocides.
But, why be sensitive, when it's all about yourself?
10 - Manger
"Actually not- the number 6 million only came into play nearly 30 years after the fact, as a political weapon." Okay, for one the number 6 million was first given by Adolf Eichmann in 1944. Eichmann also stated later that "I will go to my grave happy that I murdered six million Jews." In 1944 the Holocaust was ongoing, it would not end till 1945, so do your research. The figure of six million is an approximation of the number of Jews that died, it is up for debate but most reputable sources confirm that the number is around there. Certain publications, from less educated and qualified individuals, have proclaimed the number to be much lower. These publications have been trumpeted by Nazi-Sympathizers and Holocaust deniers. Jews were the smallest group of those that Hitler targeted but they suffered the largest numbers of deaths in the Holocaust. Approximately 66% of Europe's Jewish population was killed, we wish to honor the memory of those who died during the Holocaust, many of whom were relations of Jewish families today, that is why we "cling" to this number. There are no illusions in the Jewish community that we were the only ones targeted. Yes other dictators have killed a lot of people, but this film is about the Holocaust, not them.
11 - Dr Dreadful
[Dan:
I'm afraid I accidentally deleted your last comment. The Delete button is right next to the Edit button, and unfortunately I hit the wrong one. I attempted to restore it, but to no avail. My apologies.
ASSISTANT COMMENTS EDITOR
P.S. Feel free to re-post your comment, but if you do so, please leave out the personal attack. You know the site policy. Thanks.]
12 - Dan Schneider
When someone insinuates that a film review is ant-Semitic, it is the accuser who is doing the attacking.
The gist was Manger does not understand the political history of the Holocaust. Many leading Nazis- incl. Hitler, tossed out many figures, but the 6 million only became canonical in the 1970s.
The film is not a good film for all the reasons stated, none of which have been refuted in Manger's ant-Semitic racebaiting.
Racebaiting is far worse than calling said racebaiter a moron for such racebaiting; unless Dr. Dreadful, you think racebaiting is a preferred tactic to simply slamming the racebaiter.
13 - El Bicho
"When someone insinuates that a film review is ant-Semitic,"
where did he do that?
14 - Dr Dreadful
unless Dr. Dreadful, you think racebaiting is a preferred tactic to simply slamming the racebaiter
No, I think a preferred tactic is to keep things civil. When you depart from that, you run the risk of falling foul of BC policy.
There are ways of countering your opponents without calling them names. That's all.
15 - Hauscher
I believe that you may not understand it or the meaning of the word anti-semitic. You have claimed that you're not an anti-semite but your poetry speaks for itself. In your poem Free From Want you stated:
"Fatted for death, they sit and reap, while I ponder which son of Normans, or Vikings, or
Celts, first gave me name,
this compound of earth and water- half of that which ancients knew the universe was
admixed with- this rock- well-
Who is to know of such things? Centuries from now
will a descendent of mine still stare back with the features that felled mastodonts?
Will the nose still jut proudly Roman, matted inside with the good fur to warm each
breath?
Will this son of a son of a son distinguish himself from the whims of history?
Be freed from the clutches of the Jew in his Temple, who passes over his 'brethren',
counting only the numbers
his simony can bear? I should hurt him if we should meet-
my blood browned by the African's lust, or fed on the Chinaman's savagery, curdled with
the Semite's toxins,
I hope nothing of him remains, nor anything of me linger in his form."
This is profoundly anti-semitic, among other things, in itself. In fact this poem is a holocaust justification. Your review is therefore written from a bias viewpoint, which makes the review and your arguments flawed.
16 - Dan Schneider
El:
Comments like 'You don't have to like a film, but I think that mounds of actual human hair, bones, and bodies should have a greater effect on you then a man running around with plastic fangs.' and 'which is why we "cling" to it' and the bringing up of 'Nazi-Sympathizers and Holocaust deniers' is a tactic that many racebaiters use.
Since my critique was of the film's failure as art, and not a political statement, to bring up such asides, and then take a haughty attitude (laced w condescension- you know where), is to take an artistic argument, and politicize it, putting me in the seeming position of denigrating mass deaths- of Jews, implying I am insensitive, and Anti-Semitic.
It's rather transparent, but also a de facto cession of the argument over art that Manger had no intellectual leg to stand on.
And, if you have not engaged in dialectic long enough to know such tactics, that is your fault. But, if the term moron is offensive, I'll substitute vulgar, cowardly, and dishonest as terms apt to Mangers thrust and parry. Ok?
Dr: I just did. I attacked Manger's tactics, and not his uber-sensitive person. If one does not stand up to wrongs- even small sleights as Manger makes, what hope is there to stand up to the really dread evils such a film like the above documents?
Hauscher: Here is the link.
And it illustrates your stupidity and utter lack of historical knowledge. The poem's title is Rockwell on Rockwell. The foyr sub=poems are based upon Norman Rockwell's The Four Freedoms, and all four are spoken from the American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell's voice.
Hello? Do you understand anything about art? Was Shakespeare justifying murder when he wrote from Iago's POV? You have now proven that the Internet is filled with illiterates and willfully dishonest people.
A Nazi or Klansman will speak in racist ways. To not have them do so would be ahistorical and dishonest.
I also have poems from the POV of Mao Zedong and George Custer, yet I don't espouse their views, either.
So, now, Dr. Dreadful, you see what happens when you do not stand up to the dishonest detritus that posts on blogs- they will willfully lie and distort what you write.
This is why spades must be called spades, whether you like it or not. And I've just proven that Hauscher has falsely called me an Anti-Semite, but it's wrong for me to call him an idiot? That's silly and dishonest.
17 - Hauscher
I'm sorry If I offended you, I obviously misunderstood the poem. I admit I was wrong, please argue with a more intellectual edge, though I admit that might be hard in the face of my spurious accusation.
18 - Dr Dreadful
As I said, Dan, you can do it without name-calling. As you just demonstrated.
BTW, as a side-note to the argument - and I realize I could be off the mark here - it does seem a bit silly to accuse someone with the last name Schneider of being anti-Semitic...
19 - Hauscher
I'm sorry If I offended you, I obviously misunderstood the poem. I admit I was wrong, please argue with a more intellectual edge, though I admit that might be hard in the face of my spurious accusation. You're not an anti-semite and i'm sorry I made such a heavy accusation without doing my research.
I wrote that accusation in a bit of a rage after finding this poem. It occurs to me now that you do not seem anti-semitic in your writing.
Now, I disagree with your review on several issues. Jean Cayrol was a French Resistance fighter who was thrown in a concentration camp as a result. I believe that he wouldn't have wanted to obscure the face of the French officer. The officer's face would have been very hard to get past censors, so what would you expect?
I agree with you that the film is not a typical documentary. The use of poetry from a man who had seen the concentration camps, was a more abstract method then the regular documentary style. Night and Fog has stood up for 50 years, so what makes you think it will not continue to? The film deals with a subject that is society's symbol of human cruelty, a symbolization that may continue for years.
The number of 6,000,000 is fairly correct, seeing that the number of documented Jews killed sits around 5,750,000 according to Martin Gilbert. Since there were a large number of undocumented deaths 6,000,000 should be pretty close to the actual number dead.
I read an article of yours about Elie Wiesel, were you called him the weasel and compared him to a vampire. I agree with you that Israel's treatment of palestine has been just as disgusting as Palestine's treatment of Israel. It seemed to me as though Elie Wiesel wanted to keep a neutral position on the matter, which he should not be criticized for. Elie has been through a lot and many of the people he went through it with have seen Israel as a safe-haven. Don't you believe that we can forgive him on this issue, instead of attacking him?
Sorry about the accusations, I hope you will forgive them.
20 - Manger
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, the holocaust was the most traumatic occurrence in the lives of those Jews who went through it. Almost all of them lost their families and friends, in addition to this all of them saw sights so disgusting that they would haunt their minds for years. What I am suggesting is that because the holocaust was so disgusting that modern Jews find it hard to forget it. To honor those that died the Jewish people have set up monuments which often reference the number of 6 million dead. As I have said all thorough modern studies seem to confirm that the number was around 6 million. When you say "In the years since, Nazi and Holocaust deniers have denied everything, while Nazi fetishists - is there any other word to call those so obsessed with such degradation? - have claimed thirty million or more. Jews have clung to the canonical Six Million figure, to the exclusion of the millions other dead" I find it misrepresentative of the fact that the Jewish people know that more then just Jews were targeted. Your use of the word "canonical" implies that the Jews think this number is accurate, the reality of the matter is that this number is a result of rounding the number of documented deaths. I have encountered nobody who doesn't understand this, in the Jewish community. If people have become so desensitized by violence that images of bars made from human fat and piles of hair do not effect them no more then a horror film, which is meant to thrill, then it is no surprise that this film is unappreciated. The films music is meant to build a tension of opposites, not to downplay the holocaust.
In addition to this you criticize me of not understanding WWII history, if I appear this way it is only because of your own ignorance. For instance speaking of "the seriousness of the Nuremberg Trials" is laughable. The Nuremberg trials were propagandistic shows meant to both further the denazification of the German people and satisfy the allied peoples blood-thirst. The first hypocrisy rose from the fact that the Soviets who had their own history of genocide and just raped most of Eastern Europe. The second hypocrisy was that British defense lawyers were able to get Nazis off, much to their own enrichment. The final issue with the Nuremberg Trials was that they made examples of the heads of Nazi Germany, at the same time that the allies were placing former Nazis in important positions for the rebuilding of West Germany.
You would do well to use your intellect to argue with me, calling me a moron is just a device to make up for your lack of knowledge. Also if this is simply a movie review, then why include opinions about the Jews and their response to the Holocaust?
21 - El Bicho
And if you are oversensitive, that's your fault.
I don't see any politicization in the line "I think that mounds of actual human hair...." He was the third person to take issue with your analogy. If they all didn't get it, that's also your fault.
btw, you are the first person to bring up clinging and Holocaust deniers in your review, so if it doesn't make you a racebaiter for using them, I don't see why others can't use the terms as well.
I didn't take issue with the term "moron," so you might want to tone down your own haughtiness.
22 - Dan Schneider
Hauscher: At least you're man enough to admit you're wrong. I do not get offended, only disgusted when I see folk willfully toss about terms that imply malice on others because of difference- not just of political opinion, but of not understanding art.
As for the film, my point is that it has been superseded by better and more thorough documentaries, so it becomes a curio out of time, which is why I referenced Dracula- which scared the shit out of audiences in 1931, but is laughably quaint now. What horrified in 1951 is now a report between Ipod commercials on CNN. People yawn. This may not be to anyone's liking, but it's true.
As fpr Wiesel, my dislike of him is that he is a charlatan who has made millions pimping the dead. He is a Nazi fetishist, plus he's ruined dozens of lives w false accusations of being a Nazi. He's no hero in my book. Heroism is not based upon suffering- that defines a victim only.
Manger: 'As I have said all thorough modern studies seem to confirm that the number was around 6 million. When you say "In the years since, Nazi and Holocaust deniers have denied everything, while Nazi fetishists - is there any other word to call those so obsessed with such degradation? - have claimed thirty million or more. Jews have clung to the canonical Six Million figure, to the exclusion of the millions other dead" I find it misrepresentative of the fact that the Jewish people know that more then just Jews were targeted. Your use of the word "canonical" implies that the Jews think this number is accurate'
You brought up the Holocaust Deniers, and there are many counterstudies which show that there were barely 6 million Jews in all of Europe in the 1930s. Right or wrong, if the number is, as was tauight in the 60s and 70s, when I went to school, 3.5-5.3 mill, then folk argue, well if they can misplace 700k people, can't it all be fake?
And it does happen. Late last year I argued with a blogger who was denying the Turkish genocide of Armenians as political BS, even though it is, after the HOlocaust, the most documented genocide on record. This is why it's UBER-important to not play numbers games. Unfortunately, 6 million has become canonical, just as 6000 years of suffering have.
And my family knows the Nazi death camps. My mother's Lithuanian side saw a dozen die, while her German side fled to Argentina after the war, so I know both sides.
And the film is not appreciated because it's simply not good. Great art is not meant for just its time, but all time, and this film clearly fails.
The seriousness of Nuremberg was in their establishing a line in tthe sand for other generations re: personal culpability- i.e.- you can't say my superior made me do it. Case in point, the My Lai massacre saw William Calley, and the Abu Ghraib asses, held accountable. Just because it was a show trial, as are all war crimes trials (think Truman would not have been brought up on war crimes had we lost to Japan?), does not mean it did not establish human rights precedents.
And here is what you typed, earlier: 'Jews were the smallest group of those that Hitler targeted but they suffered the largest numbers of deaths in the Holocaust.'
This is demonstrably false, as the Gypsies, who lost 1.1 of approx. 1.5-2 million, and homosexuals, who lost several hundred thousand of X number were both smaller groups, and the former had a far higher loss of total population. So it's hard to take your claims of historical acumen seriously when you hyperbolize so deeply with an emotional outburst that has no truth.
'You would do well to use your intellect to argue with me, calling me a moron is just a device to make up for your lack of knowledge. Also if this is simply a movie review, then why include opinions about the Jews and their response to the Holocaust?'
The answer to the former is because you, as demonstrated, made no intellectual argument about the art of the film, and insinuated bigotry where there was none. You acted disgustingly and unmanly. I called your spade black. As to the latter, only you, in a simplistic mindset, would look at the essay above, and call it a 'movie review,' simply.
El: The human hair was not an analogy, but a description, and I brought up the Holocaust Deniers for the reasons stated. I did not insinuate any of the former commenters were ones, or Anti-Semites. Manger and Hauscher did, and only one has seen the light. That you don't see this is not surprising. BTW- are you awake, or are you a somnotypist?
23 - Manger
If it is not simply a movie review then why would you write "Since my critique was of the film's failure as art, and not a political statement"?
I don't think you're an anti-semite, I just think that you're not conscientious in your writing. I wish to point out these flaws to you. Also I wish to point out to you that I have never stated my gender, so why assume that I am a man? The misogynistic idea of manliness as being brave and strong, only strengthens my conviction that you're thoughtless. I have confronted you on these issues, without using tactics such as name calling, a far more cowardly approach then speaking my mind. Census data has shown that there were more jews then 6,000,000 in Europe, if there is a study which uses factual evidence to argue a counterpoint, link it.
The Nuremberg trials were not unimportant, they were just flawed on many levels. The Soviet Union killed many people and forced many to work in Siberia. This went against the very principals the Nuremberg trials were trying to establish. Does the fact that Stalin was an ally make his or his soldiers actions alright?
Just because it established Human Rights doesn't mean Human Rights have ever stopped a government from doing what it wants.
When have people yawned at images of human fat being boiled into soap?
Yes you have a point about the gypsies and homosexuals, I neglected to think about them.
The Japanese committed atrocities almost as great as the Germans, because the U.S. was interested in the data from their experiments they were never tried. The Nuremberg trials & the Holocaust have had no affect on people because they chose to ignore it. Why criticize the Jews for remembering?
It is hard to imagine how a documentary could stand the test of time, if you hope for it to be factually accurate for all of time, not just the time it was made.
Whatever you hold against Elie Wiesel don't make things up or make spurious accusations. "Pimping the dead"? read his works. Do you accuse him of using the death of his parents to make money? A "fetishist"? Should the world forget the Holocaust or not hear the experiences of those who went through it? Why shouldn't he charge people for his lectures, he is old and has published quite a few books which offer as much as any lecture. Can a Holocaust survivor not make money in the same way that anyone else does? Should he in his old age not live comfortably? He does seem to view Israel as being exempt from international law, which is hypocritical but how has he ruined lives? What dozens has Elie accused? Where did you read that? Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. He has done a lot of good for the world, a fact which you have overlooked.
I "acted disgustingly", in what way? Are you so arrogant as to believe that someone who challenges you is committing an atrocity?
24 - Dan Schneider
Manger: 'If it is not simply a movie review then why would you write "Since my critique was of the film's failure as art, and not a political statement"?'
So, you admit you are a binary thinker- one can only be A or B, and the other 24 letters of the alphabet be damned.
'I don't think you're an anti-semite, I just think that you're not conscientious in your writing. I wish to point out these flaws to you. Also I wish to point out to you that I have never stated my gender, so why assume that I am a man? The misogynistic idea of manliness as being brave and strong, only strengthens my conviction that you're thoughtless. I have confronted you on these issues, without using tactics such as name calling, a far more cowardly approach then speaking my mind. Census data has shown that there were more jews then 6,000,000 in Europe, if there is a study which uses factual evidence to argue a counterpoint, link it.'
Your opinion of me is beside the point, but your insinuations of it, via poor dialectic or assumption is. As far as conscientious, as demonstrated, I have a far better grasp on the Holocaust history than you do. As for your sex, unmanly is a negative whether applied to a male or female. Again, the binary trap. And manly meaning brave and strong is YOUR interpretation. I meant it as mature and honest. Now you are assuming, as you have thru this whole thread.
You did namecall, only did it using a pseudonym, and did it by insinuation. I called you on your tactics, and used my real name. Next.
There are plenty of census studies showing wildly varying #s of Jews in Europe, and almost all of them are politicized to either indict Hitler (or Stalin, who killed as many or more Jews, albeit over a longer period of time) or lessen his crimes. The fact is that census taking, before the 1950s, in the West, even the US, was scattershot, to say the least. This is why today there is so much nonsense about how kids were smarter 60 years ago, because censuses taken then left out tons of children in poor areas and minority groups.
'The Nuremberg trials were not unimportant, they were just flawed on many levels. The Soviet Union killed many people and forced many to work in Siberia. This went against the very principals the Nuremberg trials were trying to establish. Does the fact that Stalin was an ally make his or his soldiers actions alright?
Just because it established Human Rights doesn't mean Human Rights have ever stopped a government from doing what it wants.'
No disagreement, but I'm still waiting for any critique of my critique of the art, or a defense thereof. Again, you are insecurely arguing a political agenda because you subscribe to it. I detachedly watched a documentary and found it severely wanting. What don't you get about that, and what is so missing from your life that you need to argue with a stranger over it, to try to show that you're a good human being? I don't care one way or the other if you're a saint or a bastard. To me you're just another voice of ignorance in the din of the world.
'When have people yawned at images of human fat being boiled into soap?
Yes you have a point about the gypsies and homosexuals, I neglected to think about them.'
Many Jews, even, have tired of the eternal victim act. Read some of the essays by Philip Lopate- he has written extensively on what he calls Holocaust, Inc.- and he's a Jew. And Gypsies and homosexuals are not all you've neglected.
'The Japanese committed atrocities almost as great as the Germans, because the U.S. was interested in the data from their experiments they were never tried. The Nuremberg trials & the Holocaust have had no affect on people because they chose to ignore it. Why criticize the Jews for remembering?'
Actually, Nazi emissaries reportedly were horrified at the Japanese experiments on the Chinese, and the main reason the Japs were not tried was because they, unlike the Nazis, burnt most of the evidence, whereas the Nazis admitted to much w pride. I don't criticize anyone for recalling a bad past, but fetishizing it and using it as a weapon to demonize others, or extort things out of guilt, is wrong. W/o the Holocaust, do you think Israel wd have the backing of so many Western nations? It wd have gone the way of apartheid era S. Africa. Jimmy Carter is absolutely right in that regard. Grante, they are the most democratic nation in the MidEast, but they are not a true democracy, anymore than the US was in 1850.
I don't care for the film to be 100% accurate, but it should enthrall and educate. Time has been harsh to this film, and time is the ultimate leveler.
'Whatever you hold against Elie Wiesel don't make things up or make spurious accusations. "Pimping the dead"? read his works.'
I have, and the description is accurate. He is, as Lopate calls him, the CEO of Holocaust, Inc., along w the dead Simon Wiesenthal.
'Do you accuse him of using the death of his parents to make money?'
He has pimped his whole life, parents included.
A "fetishist"? Should the world forget the Holocaust or not hear the experiences of those who went through it?'
Answered above. Forgetting and exploiting are diff things.
'Why shouldn't he charge people for his lectures, he is old and has published quite a few books which offer as much as any lecture. Can a Holocaust survivor not make money in the same way that anyone else does?'
Yes, but they should not feed off the bodies of the dead. That is disgusting.
'Should he in his old age not live comfortably?'
Sure, if he earned his profits in a decent way.
'He does seem to view Israel as being exempt from international law, which is hypocritical but how has he ruined lives? What dozens has Elie accused? Where did you read that? Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. He has done a lot of good for the world, a fact which you have overlooked.'
John Demjanjuk, among many falsely accused Nazis whose lives have been ruined. You seem the typical young'un who shoots his/her mouth off w/o all of the facts. Read up first.
'I "acted disgustingly", in what way? Are you so arrogant as to believe that someone who challenges you is committing an atrocity?'
Someone who falsely accuses another of bigotry, and in a backhanded way, is acting, by reasonable standards, disgustingly.
25 - richard
Dan: "I detachedly watched a documentary and found it severely wanting."
"As for the film, my point is that it has been superseded by better and more thorough documentaries, so it becomes a curio out of time, which is why I referenced Dracula- which scared the shit out of audiences in 1931, but is laughably quaint now. What horrified in 1951 is now a report between Ipod commercials on CNN. People yawn. This may not be to anyone's liking, but it's true."
How can you claim detachment while judging a film from a decidedly modern perspective? I don't think that art should constantly compete with the future, something that you seem to imply. 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.
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. These "Greek tragedies" can be seen in just as antiquated a light as something like Dracula or Night and Fog. 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).
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.
Thanks!