Indelible Shadows: Film & the Holocaust
As the number of
Holocaust-themed films grow, many questions arise from the attempt to depict
this tragedy on screen.
By Annette Insdorf
Reprinted with permission from Indelible
Shadows: Film and the Holocaust, third edition (Cambridge University
Press).
Filmmakers and film critics confronting the Holocaust face a
daunting task--finding an appropriate language for that which is mute or defies
visualization. How can we lead a camera or pen to penetrate history and create
art, as opposed to merely recording events? What are the formal as well as
moral responsibilities if we are to understand and communicate the complexities
of the Holocaust through its filmic representations?
Growing Genre
Such questions seem increasingly pressing, for the number of
postwar films dealing with the Nazi era is steadily growing. I had seen at
least 60 such films from around the world by 1980; when I completed the first
edition of Indelible Shadows in 1982, another 20 had been produced; and
by 1988 there were approximately 100 new films--40 fiction, 60
documentary--that merited inclusion.
My point of
departure is therefore the growing body of cinematic work--primarily
fiction--that illuminates, distorts, confronts, or reduces the Holocaust.
Rather than prove a thesis, I wish to explore the degree to which these films
manifest artistic as well as moral integrity. A number of central issues have
emerged from this rapidly expanding body of films:
1) the development of a suitable cinematic language for a
unique and staggering subject. I contrast Hollywood's realism and melodramatic
conventions with the tense styles and dialectical montage of many European
films, as well as present notable American exceptions;
2) narrative strategies such as the Jew as child; the Jew as
wealthy, attractive, and assimilated; characters in hiding whose survival
depends on performance; families doomed by legacies of guilt;
3) responses to Nazi atrocity, from political resistance to
individual transformations of identity, to the guilt-ridden questions posed by
contemporary German films;
4) a new form--neither documentary nor fiction--that shapes
documentary material through a personal voice. Here, attention is paid to the
films made by survivors, their children, and especially to the works of Marcel
Ophuls.
Moral Issues
A major question is how certain cinematic devices express or
evade the moral issues inherent in the subject. For example, how is Alain
Resnais's tracking camera in Night and Fog involved in moral
investigation? In what ways does editing not only shape but embody the very
content of The Pawnbroker or The Memory of Justice? And to what
degree can montage be manipulative?
On a national scale, what change in attitude, if any, is
implied by the sudden surge in the early '70s of French films dealing with
deportation and collaboration? What about the increasing number of German films
that are finally turning their lenses onto the Nazi era? Whether the film is a
dark comedy like Ernst Lubitsch's To Be or Not to Be or an enlightening
drama like Andrzej Munk's Passenger, these works suggest both the
possibilities and limitations of non-documentary approaches to World War II,
especially the ghetto and concentration camp experience.
Defining "Holocaust"
The term "Holocaust" requires definition, for
popular usage has particularized it from a general idea of disaster to the
brutal and massive devastation practiced by the Nazis during World War II. I
have chosen to use the word in this latter sense, and more precisely to refer
to the genocide of European Jewry. For unlike their fellow victims of the
Nazis--such as political opponents, Gypsies, and homosexuals--Jews were stripped
not only of life and freedom, but of an entire culture that flourished
throughout Eastern Europe in the early 1930s.
As chronicled in Josh Waletzky's superb documentary Image
Before My Eyes (1980), Polish-Jewish civilization was highly developed between
the wars and included experimental education (a Montessori school in Vilna),
progressive politics (the Bund, a Jewish Socialist party), and ripe artistic
movements (Yiddish writers' groups like "Di Khalyastre"). The Nazis'
avowed intention was not merely to annihilate the Jews, but to wipe their
traces from history, and to destroy the very notion that a Jew was a human
being.
Even within the concentration camps, the Nazis developed a
hierarchy among inmates; political prisoners were enemies, but Jews were
insects. Hitler declared, "Anti-Semitism is a form of de-lousing... a
matter of sanitation." Among the female inmates in Auschwitz, for
instance, only the Jewish women's heads were shaved.
Who "Owns" the Holocaust?
One of the dangers inherent in my argument, however, is the
assumption that the Holocaust "belongs" to--or is the domain of--one
set of victims more than another. Does the Holocaust belong to the survivors?
To those who were killed during World War II? To those who died in concentration
camps or ghettos? To the Jews who were the main targets of the Nazis? To all
Jews today?
Some individuals claim the Holocaust as a personal tragedy.
Many Jews claim it as a religious one. And then there are those who had no
direct experience of the Holocaust but feel transformed by learning of its
cruelty and mass indifference--as well as of resistance and survival.
And to whom do the dead "belong"? The ending of Just
a Gigolo (1979), an otherwise negligible British film, presents a chilling
image of appropriation: a bumbling young man (David Bowie) with no interest in
politics is accidentally killed in a street fight between a Nazi group and its
adversaries. The Nazi leader (David Hemmings, who also directed the film) takes
the corpse, dresses it in the brown-shirted uniform of the SA, and has the
young "hero" displayed and buried as a Nazi.
How many of the dead are likewise unable to defend
themselves from the post-factum appropriation of groups who claim the Holocaust
as theirs?
Annette Insdorf is Director of Undergraduate Film Studies
at Columbia University, where she holds the title of Professor as well as Chair
of the Doctoral Program in Film Theatre.
(c) 1990, Annette Insdorf. Reprinted with the permission
of Cambridge University Press.