Men described how they would make a throat cutting gesture toward the incoming Jews as they arrived in the death camps, but some said that they made that gestured a warning and others made it in order to taunt. Survivors talked about a deceiving cordiality from the guards, while the others talked about a brutal experience filled with confusion. Due to this the truth becomes almost irrelevant, the effect that those people's experiences have had on them is easily observed. It seems like somehow the past is defined by the present.
Healing seems to be tied in with the process of forgetting for these people, and since they are not capable to overlook the terror they experienced, healing seems impossible, until it becomes apparent that many of the people questioned have become distanced from their stories because they have told them over and over again.
Shoah" tells the story of the Holocaust from a particularly human and "everyman" viewpoint. Lanzmann realized that the victims of this horror were being forgotten and he took the initiative to search out the ones who had those hideous tattoos on their arms and just talk to them. He didn't want to be a part of the picture, Lanzmann had a very unique ability to flatter and even browbeat the experiences out of ordinary people who were subjects to unspeakable horrors.
Lanzmann's documentary wasted no time in establishing what caused the holocaust, it is not an impartial document of what happened. The fact is that it was an opportunity for the victims to describe what they outlived, a sure method in order for the world never to forget. An outstanding testament from those who were there and saw and felt such things as none could have imagined without the help of this documentary.
Holocaust is about people, whether they were the commanders who intimidated the Jews, individuals who had small farms or houses near the concentration camps or even the victims themselves. The director simply let us, subconsciously decode the image of Simon, or the barber, along with their emotions and apply them to the story they were telling, to point our own mental picture of how horrible the extermination camps truly were. Our imagination is much more powerful then any other written text.
All the stories gathered, formed into the watchers minds, a dark but concrete "photo" or reenactment of the events that took place during the World War II. Instead of presenting a series of cold facts about Holocaust, this documentary confronts viewers with accounts of those people that actually experienced the events in question. By doing that, it makes people aware of the specifics and the long-term repercussions of the holocaust.
Lanzmann felt that after forty years from the Jewish extermination, people would forget what murder against humanity meant or simply would not believe, so he wanted his documentary to be seen by those who after only forty years, didn't know, or chose not to believe about the holocaust. The forty years distance between the world war two and the time the director created the documentary does not diminish at all the usefulness of "Shoah" as a historical source. His film becomes a historical document, and an important one two, because he had the courage to take a testimony from the ones that knew best what had all been about.
Shoah" provides a genuine gateway to an understanding of the holocaust. It gave the 20 century man a chance to move beyond simple observation, beyond familiarity with the awful facts, to get past the horror and horrified puzzlement and the awe at the sheer immensity and complexity of the evil, beyond moral or theological perplexity. It is a real insight, a true intuitive grasp of the nature and meaning of the holocaust.
There are rare moments in the movie when the distance between past and present seems to evaporates, and the teller recalls the past with the intensity of the present. In the New York Time there is a review in witch Lanzmann confessed "Making a history was not what...
Auschwitz gave to Promo Levi when he dared to ask the "Why?" question. To be sure, the guard was simply attempting to be cynical and sarcastic rather than reflective or philosophical, but LaCapra is also critical of Claude Lanzmann for failing to ask this question enough in Shoah. All of the Germans who Lanzmann interviewed were either perpetrators of complicit bystanders, and they spent a great deal of time
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now