The Holocaust in Memory... 70 Years On
Two-thousand-fifteen marks seventy years since the liberation of the Nazi death camp, Auschwitz. Auschwitz is the most well known death camp of the Holocaust. The current site of the three camps is visited by millions each year, to either pay their respects to the victims of the camp, or perhaps for less-than-ethical reasons. The memory of Auschwitz has changed and transformed through the centuries, with many films, books, oral testimonies and music on events within or surrounding Auschwitz. This blog post will attend to discuss two different forms of memory associated with the Holocaust and Auschwitz and the problems associated with them.
Perhaps one of the most influential forms of cultural memory is the medium of film. Films about this genre generally fall into two categories. The first type tends to focus on the broader aspect of the Holocaust, while the second references a particular event or place; such as Auschwitz. The historical fiction movie Schindler’s List is one that fits into both. Schindler’s List, directed by Steven Spielberg is regarded as one of the most accurate portrayals of the Holocaust. Spielberg based his film from the source material of similar name, Schindler’s Ark written by Thomas Keneally. Keneally used the witness testimonies of ‘Schindler's Jews’ to accurately portray both the lives of the Jews under Oskar Schindler’s control, and Schindler himself. Spielberg uses Keneally and Keneally’s source material in order to create a dramatic and emotive portrayal of the treatment of Jews in Eastern Europe and the good of one man in the midst of all the horror. However once the dramatic techniques are removed from the film, the historical accuracy falls flat. Spielberg portrays all Nazis as one monotonous all drinking all gambling, there is little attempt (apart from Oskar Schindler) to show Nazis as morally grey. This a point of historical inaccuracy, not all humans can be shown as morally black or white, 99 percent are grey; this applies to the Nazis too. (I must point out that I am not in defence in the Nazis, just in search of a more accurate representation). Perhaps Spielberg should of made more of an effort to show the Nazis as morally grey characters, whom did not just flatly follow orders, but thought about their decisions and the guilt associated with them. Spielberg’s characterisation also falls flat on the ground of speech. There is very little German spoken throughout the film, the majority is in British or American English. The seemingly cultural ignorance disallows the audience to be fully immersed in the historical fiction. It is clear that English was chosen as the prime language because of appeal to the Western audience, but clear subtitles would also serve this purpose and not retract from the ‘cultural immersion’.
Where Schindler’s List deals with the broader aspect of the Holocaust, Tim Blake Nelson’s The Grey Zone focuses on the Twelfth Sonderkommando in the Nazi death camp of Auschwitz. Again, the director uses primary or secondary source material to have basic historical accuracy, also similarly to Schindler’s List; English is the main language spoken. However there are some critical differences. Nelson in filming The Grey Zone ordered the construction of a 80 percent scale model of Auschwitz, he used the original architectural plans and similar materials that were used in the original construction of the camp. Where Nelson also differs to Spielberg is the examination of the human condition and how the atrocities of the camp should be shown on screen. He does this by first examining the moral ‘greyness’ of the Sonderkommando, as shown in the film, the Sonderkommando had to deal (with extreme difficulty) the unbearable fact of killing their fellow humans. He also re-invents the image of the ‘weak Jew’ as portrayed in Schindler’s List by showing that the Sonderkommando were planning an uprising (which partly played off), and not just docile play toys of the Nazi regime. The second difference lies in Nelson’s attitude to film making, in the director’s notes on The Grey Zone, Nelson explains that “If we are never to repeat certain chapters in history, they must be explored thoroughly, without limit to particular media. To my mind there can be no exceptions. No event is sacred.” Nelson’s mindset here explains why The Grey Zone did not do as well at the box office as opposed to Schindler’s List. But In terms of historical accuracy, The Grey Zone is indeed more accurate. Nelson does not paint everyone with the same brush, he attends to the minute detail and wants to represent the film as accurate as possible to the conditions of Auschwitz. Yes he does differ from the source material in some aspects, but by creating an immersive and realistic film, it does not differ too far from what we know as the real truth.
A short analysis of these two films now poses the question, what does this mean for memory and memory culture? Film is perhaps the most widely accessible form of portraying historical memory and there are certain problems with this. Directors are allow a certain amount of dramatic license when portraying a historical event, and sometimes the distinction between fact and fiction is blurred. Spielberg for example shows the crematoria chimney at Auschwitz emitting flame and ash, something that the Nazis specifically designed the chimneys not to do. Points such as these that remain in not just Spielberg’s or Nelson’s films but in the broader context of historical films can misrepresent the facts, which can lead to a degradation of what the public regard as the real historical memory of the event. It is indeed difficult to accurately portray a historical event that remains in-line with how the memory of it should be represented, and one that should be taken into account when watching a historical fiction.
In a relatively different medium to that of film, is literature. Where film is more accessible, literature is more widely spread and more detailed in comparison. Literature was and still is the most prominent form of recording different accounts of the Holocaust. Many survivors either during or after the atrocity wrote down their experiences of themselves and those around them. However much of these journals were not published till many years after because of the extreme hardships many faced after the Holocaust, survivor Elie Wiesel is one such. His most prominent work, Night was based on his experiences of several concentration camps including Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Wiesel’s work was one of the first survivor testimonies to emerge after World War Two and is also one of the most harrowing. It reads both as a novel and a set of fragmented memoirs. The majority of the content in Night is undisputed facts and when cross referenced with other contemporary journals, most of the facts correlate. But the reason I choose to analyse Night in terms of historical memory is the controversy that surrounds it. For the past 45 years, Night shaped American conscience on how to view and remember the Holocaust, in more recent times however historians have came to find major holes in Wiesel’s work. Many point out that it was almost near impossible for Wiesel to stay with his father the four years he was a prisoner, as claimed in Night. Another facet of controversy is Wiesel’s refusal not to show his prisoner tattoo that everyone prisoner in Auschwitz would have branded with upon entering. Does this suggest that Wiesel’s account is less credible than before? Or should the holes in his story be taken with a certain amount of hindsight because of how Wiesel remembered it? If we are to take the arguments against Wiesel as legitimate than this drastically alters the memory of the Holocaust. Night is such a widely known and prominent work on the Holocaust that it shaped many millions of people’s perceptions of the Holocaust, especially the horrific and tragic detail of the death camp process and the endeavour of the human spirit. But if his work is to be known as largely false, it throws into doubt the memory people have of the Holocaust.
Film and literature are only two facets of representation and memory, but they are the most widely known forms. Their popularity serves to alter our memory of history, and in this instance the Holocaust and Auschwitz. The main problem however with these mediums is that is only serves for us to see someone else's memory, whether is be the author, director, artist, translator. Also what is to say that their form of representation and memory is entirely correct? At best it is an interpretation of what the creator wants us to see and remember. In the wider context, what purpose do film and literature serve to memory? People may watch a movie such as Schindler’s List or The Grey Zone then proceed to create their own memorial to the Holocaust, or advise their peers to watch it in proclamation that films of this genre need to be watched in order that we do not forget. But perhaps historical film and literature in regards to memory, anesthetizes us from the real tragedy of the Holocaust. Film and literature place images and stories in our mind and can possibly disengage us from alternate meanings that should be thought freely, away from external influence. How very true that is, is impossible to determine accurately. But what can be summarised from historical film and literature in terms of memory is that, one way or another film and literature on the Holocaust perform an invaluable task of keeping the memory of one the darkest periods in humanity alive. Even by discussions such as this, it still enables the memory to be sustained through constant re-evaluation of what is presented and how it could change.
Perhaps one of the most influential forms of cultural memory is the medium of film. Films about this genre generally fall into two categories. The first type tends to focus on the broader aspect of the Holocaust, while the second references a particular event or place; such as Auschwitz. The historical fiction movie Schindler’s List is one that fits into both. Schindler’s List, directed by Steven Spielberg is regarded as one of the most accurate portrayals of the Holocaust. Spielberg based his film from the source material of similar name, Schindler’s Ark written by Thomas Keneally. Keneally used the witness testimonies of ‘Schindler's Jews’ to accurately portray both the lives of the Jews under Oskar Schindler’s control, and Schindler himself. Spielberg uses Keneally and Keneally’s source material in order to create a dramatic and emotive portrayal of the treatment of Jews in Eastern Europe and the good of one man in the midst of all the horror. However once the dramatic techniques are removed from the film, the historical accuracy falls flat. Spielberg portrays all Nazis as one monotonous all drinking all gambling, there is little attempt (apart from Oskar Schindler) to show Nazis as morally grey. This a point of historical inaccuracy, not all humans can be shown as morally black or white, 99 percent are grey; this applies to the Nazis too. (I must point out that I am not in defence in the Nazis, just in search of a more accurate representation). Perhaps Spielberg should of made more of an effort to show the Nazis as morally grey characters, whom did not just flatly follow orders, but thought about their decisions and the guilt associated with them. Spielberg’s characterisation also falls flat on the ground of speech. There is very little German spoken throughout the film, the majority is in British or American English. The seemingly cultural ignorance disallows the audience to be fully immersed in the historical fiction. It is clear that English was chosen as the prime language because of appeal to the Western audience, but clear subtitles would also serve this purpose and not retract from the ‘cultural immersion’.
Where Schindler’s List deals with the broader aspect of the Holocaust, Tim Blake Nelson’s The Grey Zone focuses on the Twelfth Sonderkommando in the Nazi death camp of Auschwitz. Again, the director uses primary or secondary source material to have basic historical accuracy, also similarly to Schindler’s List; English is the main language spoken. However there are some critical differences. Nelson in filming The Grey Zone ordered the construction of a 80 percent scale model of Auschwitz, he used the original architectural plans and similar materials that were used in the original construction of the camp. Where Nelson also differs to Spielberg is the examination of the human condition and how the atrocities of the camp should be shown on screen. He does this by first examining the moral ‘greyness’ of the Sonderkommando, as shown in the film, the Sonderkommando had to deal (with extreme difficulty) the unbearable fact of killing their fellow humans. He also re-invents the image of the ‘weak Jew’ as portrayed in Schindler’s List by showing that the Sonderkommando were planning an uprising (which partly played off), and not just docile play toys of the Nazi regime. The second difference lies in Nelson’s attitude to film making, in the director’s notes on The Grey Zone, Nelson explains that “If we are never to repeat certain chapters in history, they must be explored thoroughly, without limit to particular media. To my mind there can be no exceptions. No event is sacred.” Nelson’s mindset here explains why The Grey Zone did not do as well at the box office as opposed to Schindler’s List. But In terms of historical accuracy, The Grey Zone is indeed more accurate. Nelson does not paint everyone with the same brush, he attends to the minute detail and wants to represent the film as accurate as possible to the conditions of Auschwitz. Yes he does differ from the source material in some aspects, but by creating an immersive and realistic film, it does not differ too far from what we know as the real truth.
A short analysis of these two films now poses the question, what does this mean for memory and memory culture? Film is perhaps the most widely accessible form of portraying historical memory and there are certain problems with this. Directors are allow a certain amount of dramatic license when portraying a historical event, and sometimes the distinction between fact and fiction is blurred. Spielberg for example shows the crematoria chimney at Auschwitz emitting flame and ash, something that the Nazis specifically designed the chimneys not to do. Points such as these that remain in not just Spielberg’s or Nelson’s films but in the broader context of historical films can misrepresent the facts, which can lead to a degradation of what the public regard as the real historical memory of the event. It is indeed difficult to accurately portray a historical event that remains in-line with how the memory of it should be represented, and one that should be taken into account when watching a historical fiction.
In a relatively different medium to that of film, is literature. Where film is more accessible, literature is more widely spread and more detailed in comparison. Literature was and still is the most prominent form of recording different accounts of the Holocaust. Many survivors either during or after the atrocity wrote down their experiences of themselves and those around them. However much of these journals were not published till many years after because of the extreme hardships many faced after the Holocaust, survivor Elie Wiesel is one such. His most prominent work, Night was based on his experiences of several concentration camps including Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Wiesel’s work was one of the first survivor testimonies to emerge after World War Two and is also one of the most harrowing. It reads both as a novel and a set of fragmented memoirs. The majority of the content in Night is undisputed facts and when cross referenced with other contemporary journals, most of the facts correlate. But the reason I choose to analyse Night in terms of historical memory is the controversy that surrounds it. For the past 45 years, Night shaped American conscience on how to view and remember the Holocaust, in more recent times however historians have came to find major holes in Wiesel’s work. Many point out that it was almost near impossible for Wiesel to stay with his father the four years he was a prisoner, as claimed in Night. Another facet of controversy is Wiesel’s refusal not to show his prisoner tattoo that everyone prisoner in Auschwitz would have branded with upon entering. Does this suggest that Wiesel’s account is less credible than before? Or should the holes in his story be taken with a certain amount of hindsight because of how Wiesel remembered it? If we are to take the arguments against Wiesel as legitimate than this drastically alters the memory of the Holocaust. Night is such a widely known and prominent work on the Holocaust that it shaped many millions of people’s perceptions of the Holocaust, especially the horrific and tragic detail of the death camp process and the endeavour of the human spirit. But if his work is to be known as largely false, it throws into doubt the memory people have of the Holocaust.
Film and literature are only two facets of representation and memory, but they are the most widely known forms. Their popularity serves to alter our memory of history, and in this instance the Holocaust and Auschwitz. The main problem however with these mediums is that is only serves for us to see someone else's memory, whether is be the author, director, artist, translator. Also what is to say that their form of representation and memory is entirely correct? At best it is an interpretation of what the creator wants us to see and remember. In the wider context, what purpose do film and literature serve to memory? People may watch a movie such as Schindler’s List or The Grey Zone then proceed to create their own memorial to the Holocaust, or advise their peers to watch it in proclamation that films of this genre need to be watched in order that we do not forget. But perhaps historical film and literature in regards to memory, anesthetizes us from the real tragedy of the Holocaust. Film and literature place images and stories in our mind and can possibly disengage us from alternate meanings that should be thought freely, away from external influence. How very true that is, is impossible to determine accurately. But what can be summarised from historical film and literature in terms of memory is that, one way or another film and literature on the Holocaust perform an invaluable task of keeping the memory of one the darkest periods in humanity alive. Even by discussions such as this, it still enables the memory to be sustained through constant re-evaluation of what is presented and how it could change.
Cover Photo: http://andberlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/sinti-roma-memorial-berlin1.jpg
Credit to: http://andberlin.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/andberlinblog
Sources Used:
Keneally, T. Schindler's Ark. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1982.
Nelson, T.B. The Grey Zone: Director's Notes and Screenplay. New York: Newmarket Press, 2003.
Raven, G. "Schindler's List: A review." The Journal of Historical Review 14/3 (1993): 7-11.
Wiesel, E., and Wiesel M. Night. New York: Hill and Wang, 2006.
Films:
Schindler's List. DVD. Directed by Steven Spielberg. 1993; Washington, D.C.: Universal Pictures, 1993.
The Grey Zone. DVD. Directed by Tim Blake Nelson. 2001; Toronto International Film Festival: Millennium Films, 2002.
Credit to: http://andberlin.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/andberlinblog
Sources Used:
Keneally, T. Schindler's Ark. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1982.
Nelson, T.B. The Grey Zone: Director's Notes and Screenplay. New York: Newmarket Press, 2003.
Raven, G. "Schindler's List: A review." The Journal of Historical Review 14/3 (1993): 7-11.
Wiesel, E., and Wiesel M. Night. New York: Hill and Wang, 2006.
Films:
Schindler's List. DVD. Directed by Steven Spielberg. 1993; Washington, D.C.: Universal Pictures, 1993.
The Grey Zone. DVD. Directed by Tim Blake Nelson. 2001; Toronto International Film Festival: Millennium Films, 2002.
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...