Cinema. Like great food and high fashion, hallmark cinematography is a source of pride and of meticulous execution among the French. In that tradition, good films have something to say about human nature and are implemented with the touch of an artist. Shoah, a 1985 documentary about the Holocaust by Claude Lanzmann proves to be no exception to this tradition of exceptional French cinema. Over 9 hours long and taking 11 years to complete, Shoah is not only heralded as the greatest Holocaust documentary of all time, but as peer Marcel Ophüls states "the greatest documentary about contemporary history ever made." Having had the privilege of viewing some of this extraordinary film, I can certainly attest to its masterful and sensitive treatment of the subject matter. However, excellence alone does not constitute creativity.
While Lanzamann certainly showed great technical skills in the production of Shoah, it is how he broke with traditional convention that shows his cinematographic creativity. Up to this time, documentaries concerning the events and aftermath of the Holocaust relied heavily on historical footage to 'set the stage' for the Nazi regime and the persecution of the Jews. Lanzmann rejects this, only using current interviews and footage garnered at the time of production. Specifically, he chose to film those interviewed in locations that were connected to their experience. In the instance of a Jewish barber who cut the hair of women to be exterminated in Treblinka, Lanzmann filmed him at work years later in Tel-Aviv.
Before Lanzmannn, in order to convey the events as they happened and understand those events, interviewees where often in positions of authority within the regime. Rather than the established 'top-down' narrative of exploring events, Lanzmann chose not to limit his focus to the views of former high-ranking officials. In order to compile a greater (and truly the first cohesive) understanding of all groups involved, Lanzmann interviewed perpetrators, survivors, and bystanders.
The use of the various viewpoints and choice to limit the film to interviews, combined with the way the film was assembled, may show something of the conscious/unconscious relationship in creativity. While the segments of the film have rough sections based on the different geographical regions, the overall compiling of the interviews could feel rather random. But as one watches, patterns flow from the structure, something that is more perceived than reasoned through. It is possible that given the vast amount of footage (over 350 hours) that forming a cohesive film seemed too daunting. Lanzmann took to roughly sorting the footage as best he could, but solving the problem of specific arrangement may have been left to the subconscious. That is why when the ideal arrangement fell into place, it is less clear why it is perfect other than that it 'feels' correct. The flow we feel when we watch the film is a result of our subconscious' making connections we do not perceive, but that nonetheless please us.
The progression of the film itself, like the massive amount of source material used, does not follow a chronology of the 'Final Solution.' Rather, the piece compiles like a mosaic, inviting the viewer, when all is shown and told, to assemble for yourself the 'greater meaning.' In his interviews, Lanzmann does not ask the "big questions" of how and why in any attempt to garner great philosophical understandings. Witnesses are not to be burdened with answering the great questions of the Holocaust (though some may choose to do so) nor are perpetrators allowed to set the agenda and determine these answers.
The very title of the work, Shoah, utilizes the Hebrew word for the Holocaust as to show the power of the persecuted over the lasting impact of the crimes. While Lanzmann was originally commissioned by the Israeli government to create a film about the Jewish perspective on the Holocaust, after years had gone by, his original backers had pulled out. Upon moving forward, Lanzmann was intrinsically motivated. He wanted to not only craft a cinematic masterpiece, but also put his skills to the service of the victims. As shown above, Shoah is acclaimed for content and cinematography, even with his unconventional approach to the subject matter. His shift to focusing on the story of the witnesses, specifically the victims, became a marked change in the historical research and remembering of the Holocaust as we see it today.
Sources:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-shoah-1985
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/jun/09/claude-lanzmann-shoah-holocaust-documentary
I'm going to have to add this film to my watchlist. I love how you talk about the mosaic nature of the documentary, because that is how life really works. We often do not see the events occurring around us as part of a larger narrative with an intro and climax and ending. We often see the things that happen in our life as very random and complex, just as I am sure that a lot of people in the holocaust saw the events unfolding around them.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting also that you talk about how Lanzmann lost his financial backers for this film. As a filmmaker myself, I am constantly confronted with needing money for projects. But it often said that the more producers and financial backers you have for a film, the less control you have over it. In this film, it seems that Lanzmann had to lose those backers in order to gain more control over his work. And it seems like that paid off in the long run!
This is incredible. I found your paragraph on how the film was put together extremely interesting. I don't think I've ever experienced a film that doesn't follow a specific time line and lays the story out for the viewer. It would be incredibly interesting to watch a film that allows the subconscious to piece the story together.
ReplyDelete