The Zone of Interest (2023) - new Jonathan Glazer/A24 film

[sevendaughters]

Hoess isn't 'humanised' in the sense that we, as the audience, sympathise with him, or see some extra layer of his persona that makes us understand his drive or motivations.

Disagree - he is seen as enjoying status, use, and the respect it generates him professionally and the love it generates within his family. In that sense, he is very humanised as an ordinary egotistical being. His drive or motivation is clearly stated as internal and external - the price for not doing it is presumably death.

You clearly had a strong reaction to the film and that's legitimate and valid, but I think your positioning of this as being some sort of failure on Glazer's part seems slightly absurd.

I didn't say it was a failure on Glazer's part: he made the film he clearly intended to make, and I disagree that it was the right thing to do given the stakes involved. When we're being drawn to the bourgeois ironies of gardening in the midst of holocaust, we just making a parlour game of problems; we are gardening in the midst of holocaust. I cannot see it any other way. The point about the banality of evil has been made banal these days.

[/quote]

I don't think pretending that the Nazis - or their modern-day ideological descendants - were/are all dead-eyed psycho killers is at all helpful in any way.

Neither do I: Heimat does the same thing much better. It's not an either/or situation.

[iamcoop]

Thanks for your reply.

I'm not sure we have the same definition of somebody being 'humanised' here.

It seems to me you think it to mean somebody being portrayed as enjoying regular, human things. Having a family, going about their day to day life, enjoying the trappings of status and wealth.

I'd argue that the 'humanisation' of a character means we see elements of their behaviour or actions that lead us to sympathise with that character in some way. Perhaps to feel sorry for them, or to put us, as the audience, in a position that makes us feel uncomfortable because there's a part of us that thinks "Ok, maybe I can see why they're behaving this way. Perhaps I'd behave that way too, if I was in a similar situation".

This film does nothing of the sort.

Yes, it shows us Hoess being a human. But that's the point. They were all humans. That's what makes their crimes all the more terrifying.

When we're being drawn to the bourgeois ironies of gardening in the midst of holocaust, we just making a parlour game of problems; we are gardening in the midst of holocaust. I cannot see it any other way.

I'm not trying to be flippant or insulting but I genuinely don't understand what you mean by this at all. Again, it seems like you would like any film that portrays genocide, or the periphery of it (so to speak) to be some relentless slog that exposes the sheer horror of what took place.
Well in my opinion any art that exposes the horrific mundanity of the lives of the people that facilitated horrendous chapters of history (which is largely the case, unfortunately) only goes to hammer home the grotesque capabilities of human beings.

Anyway, I'll leave it there. Happy to agree to disagree.

[sevendaughters]

Last I'll say lest this turn into a dull argument - I think by invoking Auschwitz, this shared symbol for the worst aspects of humanity, for me, you just can't play a silly intellectual game with it. That's what I think this film does. As I stated in my first long post, that same device may be interpreted as a brilliant inspiration to vigilance by someone else.

However, depiction of massacre and war isn't a binary where you can only show brutal misery to make a cogent point. It simply wouldn't work; it would either be too hard to look at, or too easy.

There are many excellent examples of films that take creative means to a thoughtful exploration of holocaust(s). Shoah does a very great job by looking and listening to people speak and penetrating the spaces where these deeds happened. I Do Not Care If We Go Down In History As Barbarians uses stylisation and heterogeneity to confront how humanity has become complacent, politicised, and binaristic about holocaust commemoration and eased into subtle forms Nazi sympathy. Heimat shows how an already casually racist people pretended they didn't know because it was politically and socially expedient to do so.

[Mister Six]

@sevendaughters, would it be fair to say that your primary concern is that it uses the Holocaust to make a wider point, rather than looking at the Holocaust itself as the primary focus?

[convulsivespace]

Movie of the year. One of the best films of the last few decades. Glazer does it again.

[convulsivespace]

Last I'll say lest this turn into a dull argument - I think by invoking Auschwitz, this shared symbol for the worst aspects of humanity, for me, you just can't play a silly intellectual game with it. That's what I think this film does.

I don't really understand your point. One can't make an intellectual point in a movie framed around the Holocaust, which you acknowledge is the "shared symbol for the worst aspects of humanity"?

Seems like you  misinterpreted it as making some kind of comment about moral relativism or closing our eyes to the horrors around us, but if anything it's the exact opposite. There's no ambiguity that all of the characters in the movie, even the children, know what is going on over the wall. It's making a more nuanced point about human nature and how we engage with the world (or seek transcendence from the world). The ending is not heavy handed moralism: the flash-forward scenes are drawing a parallel, not a contrast, with Hoess.

[sevendaughters]

I don't really understand your point. One can't make an intellectual point in a movie framed around the Holocaust, which you acknowledge is the "shared symbol for the worst aspects of humanity"?

You obviously can try as this film does. I just don't think the Holocaust is device or metaphor; it is sui generis, it is the epistemic extreme, it necessarily includes all complicity toward it as much as the actual act of contributing to mechanised human slaughter. Intellectual points bounce off it, they are flimsy when you consider the actual horror.

Seems like you  misinterpreted it as making some kind of comment about moral relativism or closing our eyes to the horrors around us, but if anything it's the exact opposite. There's no ambiguity that all of the characters in the movie, even the children, know what is going on over the wall. It's making a more nuanced point about human nature and how we engage with the world (or seek transcendence from the world). The ending is not heavy handed moralism: the flash-forward scenes are drawing a parallel, not a contrast, with Hoess.

Disagree and I stated that it is possible to see the film and come out 'enlightened' in my first long post on the film (to some this is a brilliant evocation of how we are blind to suffering and choose to screen it out of our lives, even though the guilt tips in (ash fluttering through the window, constant noises in the background). You're the third person to tell me what I'm saying on this and it is a bit tiresome.

Besides, I don't think the Holocaust is a good device to make 'nuanced points about human nature'. The point is that we're deluded barbarians whose scientific and engineering excellence has simply made us more efficient at death-making. End point. No nuance. We are scum. Nuance is liberal pablum at times like this.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

The point is that we're deluded barbarians whose scientific and engineering excellence has simply made us more efficient at death-making. End point. No nuance. We are scum. Nuance is liberal pablum at times like this.

lazy point of view imo. plenty of nihilistic cinema out there

[sevendaughters]

lazy point of view imo. plenty of nihilistic cinema out there

I'm no nihilist nor do I think Glazer's film is nihilism nor do I think we should set off down the road of making nihilist cinema so not sure what you're saying really. The holocaust is beyond metaphor, beyond device. I think that is, at heart, a humanist opinion.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

I'm no nihilist nor do I think Glazer's film is nihilism nor do I think we should set off down the road of making nihilist cinema so not sure what you're saying really. The holocaust is beyond metaphor, beyond device. I think that is, at heart, a humanist opinion.

it's not a nihilist film. more the 'we are scum' spiel.

[sevendaughters]

it's not a nihilist film. more the 'we are scum' spiel.

when it comes to the Holocaust and genocide I can't see any other credible reading, any nuance that helps. it is the ultimate worst. kind of starting to feel like everyone's knives out for me for not liking this film, so going to bow out.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

when it comes to the Holocaust and genocide I can't see any other credible reading, any nuance that helps. it is the ultimate worst. kind of starting to feel like everyone's knives out for me for not liking this film, so going to bow out.

not sure we're disagreeing. it is the worst. it's the most abject and the most unthinkable, which was precisely what made the movie effective. auschwitz is so unbearably awful that it's almost numbing, hence the general difficulty in making potent cinema about it.

[convulsivespace]

You obviously can try as this film does. I just don't think the Holocaust is device or metaphor; it is sui generis, it is the epistemic extreme, it necessarily includes all complicity toward it as much as the actual act of contributing to mechanised human slaughter. Intellectual points bounce off it, they are flimsy when you consider the actual horror.

This point of view is certainly something that I think the film (rightly) is opposed to, which may be what is rubbing you the wrong way. I think Glazer in a very sensitive way is trying to defetishize the Holocaust.

Why should it be "sui generis"? Genocide is a recurring feature of human history, certainly of war. In fact there is a matter-of-fact genocide taking place right before our eyes as we speak, broadcast on social media. The crucial fact for understanding the Holocaust or any other genocide is that it is committed by human beings, not demons or nameless Indiana Jones henchmen. Genocide floats past human society through space and time as people still have go about their business from day to day, whether that is acting as a bureaucratic functionary, or sweeping the floor of a former gas chamber. What does that say about the human condition writ large? I don't think the question or the answer need to be nihilistic, nor do I think the movie is nihilistic.

I'm sure Glazer was drawn to this story because the scale of the Holocaust is sui generis, and because the way it was conducted led to absurdities like middle class families living next to infamous death camps, but the movie is making broader points it's not just about the Holocaust. If you don't think anyone should ever be allowed to use the Holocaust to make an intellectual or philosophical point, that's fine but it's a political position and not a valid aesthetic criticism of the movie.

[iamcoop]

I'm sure Glazer was drawn to this story because the scale of the Holocaust is sui generis, and because the way it was conducted led to absurdities like middle class families living next to infamous death camps, but the movie is making broader points it's not just about the Holocaust. If you don't think anyone should ever be allowed to use the Holocaust to make an intellectual or philosophical point, that's fine but it's a political position and not a valid aesthetic criticism of the movie.

Obviously not a prerequisite of making a film about this subject matter, but Glazer has also mentioned that it's a subject that's been fairly omnipresent in his life, given he's Jewish.

Of course that doesn't make any difference in how one could or should criticise the film itself, but it's at least worth bearing in mind if we're discussing what his intentions may or may not have been.

[popcorn]

This reminded me a lot of Resident Evil, first from the initial title, whose font/styling reminded me bizarrely of this:



And then all the shots of people walking around in buildings cross-cutting between rooms and corridors. Felt like Hoss was constantly looking for a saferoom with a typewriter.

I suppose in a way Resident Evil would have worked as an alternative title for the film.

That's all the critical analysis I'm able to offer about this film. I hope it has enriched the conversation.

[Noodle Lizard]

Anyway, The Zone of BOREDOM, more like, amirite??? I thought the film was technically impressive - especially the sound work - but seemed to say all it had to say in the first 10 minutes or so. Maybe in the first handful of scenes. After that it just felt like variations on "look at this fucking psycho cunt" over and over. The Hesses being unbothered by genocide in the garden, the Hesses being unbothered by genocide in the bedroom, the Hesses being unbothered by genocide at the dinner table...

I'm glad it exists, but I don't think there's a terribly good reason for anyone to watch it, unless they want to study how it was made.

Agreed, I was quite disappointed. I don't know anything about the book, but I can imagine it working a bit better in that form. As a (feature length) film, I don't think it really works.

A couple of nice shots and the sound design was excellent in parts. It might be one of those films which sticks in my head and bothers me until I watch it again and fall in love, but I'd be surprised.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Agreed, I was quite disappointed. I don't know anything about the book, but I can imagine it working a bit better in that form. As a (feature length) film, I don't think it really works.

The book is very different as it's a fictional account of one of the officers having the hots for the commandant's wife, and a lot of upper class Nazis discussing fine wine and food and how awful Jews are via several character POVs, and also one from a Sonderkommando. It's not about Hoss or Auschwitz although they are the obvious inspiration. The film pretty much just takes the title and one of the POVs (the commandant) and bases it on actual facts/real characters and location.

It's an OK book, but I think the film (which I haven't seen yet) is probably a lot better. The novel kind of felt like an episode of Dynasty with Nazis, bit icky.

[iamcoop]

I thought it was an absolute masterpiece. I was utterly gripped from the second it started until the end, and I can't recall a film I've seen recently where I haven't glanced at my watch at least once during the final third.

Only mild criticism would be that

Spoiler alert

I don't think the final scenes of modern day Auschwitz were needed. The film is powerful to stand on its own. I think I understand Glazer's motivation for including them, and they were undoubtedly moving but I think it says what it needs to say without out.

[close]

Anyway, absolute banger, deserves all the awards the bore-fest Oppenheimer will undoubtedly get instead.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

spoiler

think that was subverted by its brief return to the stairwell scene. it would have felt hackneyed had it been a straightforward epilogue scene

[popcorn]

I was really moved by the end sequence even before it cuts back to the stairwell. It was the way it's  inserted into the film in the same inert, unemotional way the rest of the film was shot. And the way Hoss retches is almost like he's feeling the edit happening to him.

[scarecrow]

Spoiler alert

Is the present day section intended as a critique of the 'Holocaust industry' with the museum staff effectively desensitised to the horrific exhibits as they carry out routine tasks? Couldn't tell if that was the point, or if Glazer was trying to let the objects speak for themselves.

[close]

[bgmnts]

I think the only way to make these banality of evil aren't humans bastards is to explore the level of violence towards non-human animals, namely in terms of mechanised, industrial farming, as it's the only pure evil aspect of humanities existence that is still brushed aside by 99% population. Nothing showcases the absolute contempt for sentient life than that. It's a genocide everyday innit.

Think that'd be a genuinely brave fiction film to try and make.

Obviously it's a hiding to nothing but who knows maybe one day.

[popcorn]

Spoiler alert

Is the present day section intended as a critique of the 'Holocaust industry' with the museum staff effectively desensitised to the horrific exhibits as they carry out routine tasks? Couldn't tell if that was the point, or if Glazer was trying to let the objects speak for themselves.

[close]

Personally I didn't see it that way at all.

[convulsivespace]

Spoiler alert

Is the present day section intended as a critique of the 'Holocaust industry' with the museum staff effectively desensitised to the horrific exhibits as they carry out routine tasks? Couldn't tell if that was the point, or if Glazer was trying to let the objects speak for themselves.

[close]

That was my takeaway, though not necessarily a critique as much as an attempt to draw parallels to Hoess.

Spoiler alert

If the goal was just an Spielbergesque "remember how bad it really was" as some people are interpreting it, I don't see why he deliberately highlighted the cleaning crew performing mundane tasks. It's an absurd situation if you view it in the abstract, people sweeping away tourist litter in a former gas chamber.

[close]

[popcorn]

He's definitely mirroring, no argument about that, but I just can't see how the film would be condemning those people in the way it condemns the Nazis. They're just people doing important, quiet jobs in an important place that needs to be looked after. Even though there was nothing reverential about it, I saw it as sort of sacred ritual they were carrying out, in the context of the film. It was like an inversion, a sort of gentle, peaceful, sad "life goes on" thing.

[Mister Six]

I thought Hoess was supposed to be having a sudden vision of the future, From Hell-style, at a moment when, very possibly, his own doubts and fears are bubbling up within him. Suddenly he sees all his meticulous calculations and plans for what they are: a hideously brutal, yet ultimately futile act. He's traumatised his kids, alienated his wife, and stained his soul completely by participating in the mass murders of millions of people - all for nothing. The Jews survive. The Nazis fail. His grand plan is reduced to, essentially, a memorial to his monstrosity and failure visited by tourists and cleaned up by staff as disinterested in his psychopathic vision as he was in the horrors inflicted on the camp's victims.

[popcorn]

That's how I saw it too. And the fact that he retches but nothing actually comes up - to me it's like he completely fails to rid himself of the poison and so carries on.

I felt like he wasn't having so much a crisis of conscience but that his lack of conscience was almost manifesting itself. Like there was nothing inside of him to even come out. There's something missing inside of him or something that has rotted away.

[checkoutgirl]

The dry heave scene at the end was reminiscent of that film The Act of Killing (2012). The dude finally realised the heinous shit he did and starts retching.

[madhair60]

goin Zone of Interest, want owt

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

goin Zone of Interest, want owt

disinterested