The Zone of Interest

Corpsey

Corpsey

bandz ahoy

I went to see this on Monday night. I have been turning it over in my mind ever since. Questions about how effective it was to keep the Nazi protagonists at a distance from us. How effective it was to leave all atrocities more or less off-screen. Where it shaded into pretension, etc.

That said, I found it a really interesting, effective film.

I dug out the Amis novel after watching it and had a skim through sections of it, and it makes a fascinating comparison, because it's totally different. Glazer basically took the scenario of the novel, and the theme of domestic/romantic banality playing out on the very edge of an abyss, and ditched everything else.

What the Amis novel does that the film doesn't, however—and this might not be a good thing—is really impress upon you the disgusting nature of the camp commandant and all the assorted gallery of horrendous Nazis. Their beery, blokey, sexist and (naturally) racist cuntitude. In both their personal relationships (the way they treat each other and their wives) and in their genocidal dealings (the way they treat the victims of their crimes).

This being an Amis novel, these Nazis are somewhat cartoonish (but then, as he himself points out, the real Nazis were almost cartoonishly cruel, greedy, oafish, etc.). Whereas Glazer's film sticks to this presentation of them as being quasi-'normal'. At least in their domestic lives, they're not acting like maniacs—and we never see how Hoss behaves on the other side of that wall.

This, I suppose, is because Glazer wants us to feel like we ourselves, considering ourselves normal, are capable of turning a blind eye to suffering (which is evidently true, see current events)—but at the same time he keeps his camera distant from these banal monsters, refusing to have us sympathise with or like them for even a second.

And the result is that they come as 'blanks'. It's hard to understand why they're doing what they're doing, how they feel about it etc.

This creates an intriguing ambiguity about their motivations, their possible repressed guilt and self-loathing, which is all well and good.

But I thought afterwards it would have been really disturbing if he'd been able to make us sympathise with, enjoy the company of, the family.

Anyhoo, clearly an absolute splurge of unorganised thoughts there but I did really like the film despite my carping and I want to see it again.
 
V

version

Well-known member
Glazer being Jewish whilst Amis wasn't might go some way to explaining their respective approaches. It's unsurprising the former would stress "Look, it's in all of us. This is a warning," whilst the latter might caricature the Nazis somewhat and create some distance. You could also factor in when the book was written and when the film was made as the political climate in 2014 wasn't what it's been since 2016, at least not in Britain and America.
 
Corpsey

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
After discussions with Höss during the Nuremberg trials at which he testified, the American military psychologist Gustave Gilbert wrote the following:

In all of the discussions, Höss is quite matter-of-fact and apathetic, shows some belated interest in the enormity of his crime, but gives the impression that it never would have occurred to him if somebody hadn't asked him. There is too much apathy to leave any suggestion of remorse and even the prospect of hanging does not unduly stress him. One gets the general impression of a man who is intellectually normal, but with the schizoid apathy, insensitivity and lack of empathy that could hardly be more extreme in a frank psychotic.[69]
Click to expand...
 
Corpsey

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
That description seems close to what Glazer portrays in the film. An apathetic, unemotional man, basically a boring person.
 
R

rubberdingyrapids

Well-known member
The main issue for me is it sticks to studied Kubrickish sparsity, thinks thats enough, and doesnt actually take any risks in steering away from it. Its just cold, clinical stuff that like a modern art piece sounds best in the blurb than the actual work itself. That said lol it did make me think about it for weeks. So its def got something.
 
V

version

Well-known member
version said:
Glazer directly addressing Gaza in his Oscars speech was brave. He looked nervous and, predictably, people on social media were immediately trying to twist his words.

www.bbc.co.uk

Zone of Interest director Jonathan Glazer makes Gaza statement in Oscars speech

Jonathan Glazer said he refuted his "Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation".
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

He's getting absolutely ripped to shreds by various groups and people now. They're cutting off the bit about him refuting his Jewishness being hijacked by an occupation and just saying he said he refutes his Jewishness. It's ridiculous to watch. You'd have thought if you have to lie to make your point then you might question whether you're in the right, but alas.
 
WashYourHands

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
Not bad, needs a rewatch

I enjoyed how the overall sense of camera voyeurism around family life - views framed between doorways, through rooms and down hallways - immediately created an uncanny sense of dissociation. The boot cleaning scene and the family river escapades brought the horror much closer to home but the overall sense of distance remained

Big screen speakers provided more detail among the background soundscape - random gunshots, screaming, shouting orders, sounds of industry and machinery as almost drone-like and the kid hearing about an inmate just about to be drowned out of sight while stood earwagging from an upper floor window

The film either fails or succeeds on what it omits or excludes and 99% of the visual field is completely out of sight. I thought the colour intervention where contemporary cleaners arrive going about their tasks, immediately cutting back to the commander, was insanely poignant. The same floors and walls scarred by time and unyielding horrors, this moment alone outweighed the petty thefts of jewellery, coats and personal belongings pilfered from detainees, not to disparage what stolen property in itself signifies

Maybe it’s too detached hence a re-viewing option when work isn’t so full on
 
Corpsey

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
That scene with the stairwell retching and then flash forward to the museum and then back to him staring (into the future, into the camera? dimly aware of his judgement? trying even to curry favour with the viewer, with his vomiting, or sickened deep down with guilt?) is definitely the one that stuck with me the longest
 
shiels

shiels

_
Corpsey said:
But I thought afterwards it would have been really disturbing if he'd been able to make us sympathise with, enjoy the company of,
Click to expand...

Watched this the other day. I wish I hadn’t read too much before because it would have been more uncomfortable. It is very effective, the scenes that stood out were the garden tour scene, the children playing and the argument about the transfer. I wouldn’t watch again, the point has been made and there’s no need to. I do think he could have gone further as you say, we’re almost sympathetic but we don’t like them. Inglorious bastards gave us a likeable SS guy, I’m sure there’s more, Tony soprano a less extreme example. But I did leave wondering if a trick was missed…
 
R

rubberdingyrapids

Well-known member
If he really wanted it to be a film on ordinary ppl ignoring atrocities, then focusing on a high ranking nazi doesnt seem the best way to do it. An ordinary German family in auschwitz would have been a better choice. And the holocaust is so loaded, why not do it on the uk coast, against a backdrop of migrant boats sinking? Or to be more daring, an Israeli family on the border with Gaza. I know the answer is cos the holocaust is a shortcut to getting attention amd eliciting an immediate response due to what we know and how we see it. But its also so well documented, it feels a bit lazy to use it in this way, if that really was his aim.
 
R

rubberdingyrapids

Well-known member
Glazer made a mistake in trying to act like the film was designed to be a metaphor for other murders. Even if that was the plan or intent, i dont think the film really stands up like that. His speech was also kind of messy (not surprising as hes best at images, not messages). That aside, ppl commenting that the oscar response was like a hamas rally makes you wonder if anyone who signedthis letter sees this clearly.
variety.com

Over 1,000 Jewish Creatives and Professionals Have Now Denounced Jonathan Glazer’s ‘Zone of Interest’ Oscars Speech in Open Letter (EXCLUSIVE)

More than 1,000 Jewish creatives, executives and Hollywood professionals have signed an open letter denouncing the Oscars speech from "The Zone of Interest" director.
variety.com variety.com
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
rubberdingyrapids said:
If he really wanted it to be a film on ordinary ppl ignoring atrocities, then focusing on a high ranking nazi doesnt seem the best way to do it. An ordinary German family in auschwitz would have been a better choice. And the holocaust is so loaded, why not do it on the uk coast, against a backdrop of migrant boats sinking? Or to be more daring, an Israeli family on the border with Gaza. I know the answer is cos the holocaust is a shortcut to getting attention amd eliciting an immediate response due to what we know and how we see it. But its also so well documented, it feels a bit lazy to use it in this way, if that really was his aim.
Click to expand...
i remember reading about well-to-do colonial German families having uproarious dinner parties in full view of locals held captive who were starving to death across some water. This would have brought some variety while not letting the Germans off the hook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top