The History of Sobibor - Movie Review Example

When it comes to the aim of revealing the truth, there can be no limitations put on the artist. Discuss this statement in relation to Sobibor and/or Un vivant qui passe. During the world war, the Nazi government committed one of the biggest genocide ever recorded against a single community. In fact, it is said that the genocide was much more extensive than the one in Congo during King Leopold’s rule. This mass killing was perpetrated at the Sobibor “death” camp at a town in eastern Poland. Approximately 170,000 to 250,000 Jews are recorded as having been exterminated there in gas chambers between 1942 and 1943. The corpses of these Jews were buried in mass graves and later incinerated in the open. The concentration camp was ideally meant to house wealthy Jews whose extermination would have led to a public outcry. Using the same propaganda machinery that the Nazis were accustomed to, the camp was concealed as a ghetto camp where the inmates enjoyed their stay. The happenings in this area have been the subject of debate over the years with survivors giving their accounts of the torture that was the death camp. One such survivor is Yehuda Lerner who gives his account and stars in the film Sobibor. The two films, Sobibor, October 14th 1943, 16 hueres and Un vivant qui passé are based on the Jews holocaust that was orchestrated by the Nazis in Poland. In the title of the first film, Claude Lanzmann uses the exact place, day, month, year and hour of the uprising in the Nazi extermination camp. The film consists of material from Claude Lanzmann’s interviews with Lerner in 1979 in which Lerner describes the uprising in detail, from the planning to the execution stage. Lerner was 16 years of age on that afternoon and used an axe to slit a Nazi guard. At the time of the revolt, planned by an ex officer of the Red Army, there were about 650 inmates. In the face of machine gun and landmines, only about 200 hundred managed to escape in nearby forests. Ultimately, only about a quarter of this number survived death. The documentary uses the Lerner interviews coupled with footage of the places that he talks about. In the nine-and-a-half-hour film, there is no use of archive footage. It is solely a slow cross-examination of the survivors and guards of the concentration camp. In addition, it includes candid conversations with local villagers and passive collaborators. The second film in contrast features not a victim but a witness who ‘did not see what he was supposed to see’. It consists of interviews conducted in 1979 with Dr. Maurice Rossel, a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross at the time of the massacre. Lanzmann uses the film to counter the account of Rossel who claims that he saw nothing that resembled torture (Rashke, 1995, pp. 78). In 1943, on his own initiative, Rossel explains having driven to the extermination camp to help the inmates get medical supplies. On arrival, however, the army commandant blatantly denied him access to the camp. Later on, however, in 19944, the Nazis granted him permission to inspect the camp together with some other delegates. In his report, Rossel describes the conditions of the camp as ‘satisfactory’ and therefore fit for human existence. It is written that for almost a year before the visit by the Red Cross delegates, efforts had been made to make the camp look like a ‘ghetto model’. Starving Jews, in their thousands, were hidden from view and a recreational park that was normally closed was opened up. Inmates that had never played chess before were put in front of large chess boards to portray the impression that they were enjoying their stay there. A disappointing thing to note, nevertheless, is the fact that he does not express any signs of remorse or guilt for the genocide that happened under his watch. In fact, he asserts, in the film that he would still sign against that report again (Blatt, 1997, pp. 39). At a time when Germany had mastered the art and science of propaganda, it was very difficult for the outside world to believe the massacre that was happening in the camp. Disguised as a concentration camp for the Nazis’ enemies, the camp turned out to be a death trap for the many that found themselves in it. Actually, for about half a century since the genocide, most of the people did not believe that the killings really happened. The works of various artists, historians and journalists are geared towards refuting claims made in the Nazi produced propaganda film that had portrayed the camp as a ‘ghetto model’. The artistic objective of revealing the truth, even where the truth is dangerous, knows no bounds. It has no limitations whatsoever, as is seen in the two films directed by Claude Lanzmann. The artists have, therefore, in their own little way preserved the many Holocaust images that have been obscured by time and by the Nazis’ own attempts to cover their tracks. The first film is particularly important in pointing out the discrepancies that abound between what the Nazis want the world to know and what is true. In the wake of the 1994 visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Nazis sponsored a film titled The Führer Gives the Jews a City. In the propaganda film, the daily life in the Theresienstadt is falsely depicted. Since the Nazis had succeeded in fooling Maurice Rossel and by extension the Red Cross, they now had fresh impetus to revive their earlier plan. The false film depicts the camp as an autonomous ghetto in which the prisoners were to organize their own housing, medical care, food and children care. The film also claims that the camp was governed by a Council of Elders which is not true. These are among claims that Lanzmann aims to critic in his film. The lie that the camp was only a concentration camp is blatantly refuted by the accounts of many victims and eyewitnesses. To validate his claims, Lanzmann uses accounts of the guards that were manning the camp. It is also not true that the camp was governed by a council of elder. In fact, no such organization existed in the camp; it could only have existed within the confines of the propagandist minds of the Nazis (Skoller, 2205, pp. 138). The title of the propaganda film was carefully chosen to give the notion that the camp was a gift to the Jews and that it was a plan to resettle them. The filming had been started a long time before the Red Cross visit and the real intention was to film the documentary to the delegates thus reinforcing the credibility of the Nazis. The contents of this film appear to be a motivation for Lanzmann’s work that totally refutes the perceptions in the film. In fact, his work appears to be like a choreographed opposite of the assertions in the film. The quest to reveal the truth ultimately suffices as more people get to understand the real happenings in the Sobibor camp. In the propaganda film, the Jewish prisoners are forced to act in a ‘movie’ that is directed by their tormentors. Moreover, they are required to act in a way that shows that things are normal in the full glare of their guards. The film shows the Jews enjoying a park that is in reality closed to them concealing their distress. It also captures those playing recreational games when in reality they were being worked up to death. The film conceals the actual state where Jews die in large numbers by showing them receiving excellent healthcare. However, Lanzmann’s films disapprove of these falsehoods as he interviews victims that were present during the time. The films, especially the first one, talk about these stories in detail. In one account, a woman witness confesses that they were forced into a pool while they were naked in the glaring sight of children they knew. The torment that these prisoners underwent is in contrast with the picture portrayed in the propaganda film. This is the gap that such artists as Lanzmann aim to bridge in their artistic writings. For example, by sourcing for the true accounts of witnesses that were present during the Holocaust, Lanzmann discounts the falsehoods that are projected in the Nazi-sponsored propaganda film. In the Sobibor film, Lanzmann not only breaks the norm in what to present but also how to present it. The unusual approach that he selects proves useful in revealing truths that would have otherwise not been revealed in a contemporary movie. The film, for example, visits vital institutions that provide a snippet of the reality that was during the Holocaust. The presentation of such places as the tailor shop and the cobbler shop provides the viewers with a picture of how the prisoners would meet each other to plan the revolt. This narrative is well captured in the Sobibor film. Lanzmann goes out of his way to trace the individual accounts of the camp’s survivors thereby showing Sobibor within a wider network of installations. In tracing the journey of Lerner, for instance, who had been detained in eight previous camps, the film shows the aspect of growing hate for the Nazis. The Jews had become tired of the violations inflicted on them by the Germans and therefore worked out an escape plan. By presenting to the viewer the path that Lerner walked, it exposes the various institutions within which the Sobibor camp was located. In sharing out his story, Lerner helps to decipher the workings of the Nazi government and how it was non uniform. For example, after his escape, Lerner says that he went to a different camp where prisoners worked and received food from the civilians. Had he stayed in the ghetto, he would have been killed by Nazis on patrol. The mere fact that conditions were better at the latter camp shows that the Nazis were concerned with tormenting the Jews alone (Blatt, 1996, pp. 68). With the Sobibor film, Lanzmann is able to make the ambient, present-day landscapes awaken people’s imaginations about events that were witnessed in these same fields some years back. This fact is evidently shown in the way that the film uses the power of spoken history to capture the viewer’s attention. The film takes on a different perspective of the prisoners depicting them as heroes who helped in defeating their tormentors. By portraying the revolt as successful, the film casts hope on minority groups that are facing abuse in the modern world. The extent to which the film goes in revealing the truth about the incident is particularly noteworthy. This is despite the style used in the film. Not even time can be a limiting factor in the revelation of truth. This is attested to in the second film that is directed by Lanzmann. The film features exclusive interviews with Rossel, some thirty-five years after the uprising. In the interview, Maurice Rossel is quick to absolve himself of any blame or responsibility in the killings that took place. He goes further to deny having seen any glows or fumes. Not even odors from burning flesh. The camp had been pacified at the time of the visit and conditions in the camp made to look normal. Despite the self defense by the Nazis, Lanzmann insists on revealing the truth. It is quite remarkable that, he does not rely solely on the account of just the victims but also prods Rossel, one of the key witnesses. By interviewing Rossel, his findings get a balance and achieve more credibility (Haggith, 2005, pp. 102). In another excerpt from the film, Rossel is asked if the people he saw gave him an impression that they were suffering and dying. To this, he responds in the affirmative, perhaps to skirt around the question. He does not stop at that, however. He goes ahead to question his integrity because that is not what he had indicated in the report. Surely, the people had looked at him as someone who was visiting them from the living; like they were dead and he was alive. To them, he represented a hope that their grievances would still be heard, even after their death. It is this revelation that had cost the death of so many Jews just because they had not been aired out in good time. Lanzmann then uses the film to get more background information on the events that happened prior to the visit. His quest for the truth is not limited to the happenings of the time but studies how things took the turn that they did. It is through this hindsight that the world gets to know that Rossel had been to the camp before, albeit unwelcome and uninvited. Rossel discloses that in the second visit, upon the invitation, he had the premonition that the conditions would be a farce. This is because the visit was ordered and was therefore expected. Lanzmann, a former soldier knows this fact very well – that in any war, when something is expected, there is a set-up. Because Rossel had been invited, it should have been clear to him, that everything he saw was not real. Furthermore, they had never been invited to visit a camp with civilian internees before. Through this information, Lanzmann questions the decision of Rossel to even visit the place in the first place. He states that he should not have gone, knowing very well that everything had been framed. Towards the end of the film Rossel is asked by Lanzmann if he regrets having signed the report as it was. He replies that he stands by what he wrote then and would still do the same under the same circumstances. Rossel does not seem ashamed or remorseful of what he did then. That is the irony of the statement he gives before a closer look at his face reveals something different. Perhaps, Lanzmann focuses the camera on Rossel’s face to reveal this truth to us. His eyes portray some evidence of guilt and shame despite his not accepting it. It could be that Lanzmann’s film was intentional in telling that truth or that Rossel hopes that people can decipher this truth from his eyes. All in all, the truth is revealed through the film. The two films, though filmed in totally different styles, serve to prove one point; that the artist’s goal of revealing the truth cannot be limited by anything. In both settings, Lanzmann goes beyond our imaginations in searching for truths that would have otherwise been portrayed to the world as lies. In this noble quest, the world gets to know of one of the largest ever genocide against the Jews. In addition, the world also gets to know of the uprising that happened in the Sobibor camp. References BLATT, T. T. (1996). Sobibor: the forgotten revolt, a survivor's report. Issaquah, WA, H.E.P. BLATT, T. T. (1997). From the ashes of Sobibor: a story of survival. Evanston, Ill, Northwestern University Press. HAGGITH, T. (2005). Holocaust and the moving image: representations in film and television since 1933. London [u.a.], Wallflower Press. RASHKE, R. L. (1995). Escape from Sobibor. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. SKOLLER, J. (2005). Shadows, specters, shards making history in avant-garde film. Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10194389. Read More