I think the way they showed Rudolf Höß' evil was in the details from the start with the blood on the boots, his apparent rape of the young girl etc. But we never see anything directly, we have to deduct it from the clues. And the sounds from the camp gradually getting louder as during the movie was brilliant. Mark Kermode called it 'A study in looking away'. I think that is a good description.
This is by far the best commentary and analysis of the movie, linking it with Arednt's Banality of Evil and our present obsession with upward mobility that makes us morally blind and complicit with the atrocious evils of today. Brilliant!
Such an interesting analysis of a very challenging film. The film left me stunned from the first moments until the very end. One very stark scene for me was early in the film when the family are walking home from the river and Rudolph is carrying the baby in his arms. A baby is heard screaming hysterically. It took me a few seconds to realise that it wasn't the baby we see on screen that was screaming. This was the moment I understood that I needed to listen carefully to everything. The zone of interest will haunt me for years to come. Only 2 other films have affected me like this before: the grey zone and Son of Saul.
I have read a number of comments for videos about this movie that have mentioned Son of Saul, it sounds like an excellent movie, I'm going to watch it next week. This was only the second time in my life I have ever watched a movie in the theaters twice. The first time I watched it I was concentrating on reading the subtitles and following the narrative that I was not really able to notice some of the more subtle things like what you just mentioned, but once I knew the general plot, I went back again and it was like a different movie.
I was still settling in to my chair when that 1st baby cry you described was showing, so I didn't catch it. But I'm going to see it again with my boyfriend and will look out for it; thank you for mentioning it. This film does require deep listening. I will also look up the other 2 films you mention. After watching this film, I looked again for a book I always meant to read "Promise Me You'll Kill Yourself," about the mass suicides of ordinary Germans who could not live with what they ignored. Time to read the book.
Yes! The soundscape is juxtaposed with the idyllic scenes is brilliant. And the way you constantly have to look at what goes on in the background ect. Like the servant washing hus boots, and you can just make out that the water turns red. So chilling.
Excellent video essay. And your analysis on Hedwig's character is on point. She really is the most developed villain of the film, if there is such a thing as a "villain" in the real world. That's one of the big question marks we end up with when the film is finished. Maybe that's where resides what you point as being the lack of characterization when it comes to Rudolf's character. In the end, when he's in the stairs, vomiting, it's his body acting, not his character. Then it cuts to the world today, when fiction meets documentary. Maybe Glazer wishes to tell us that, no matter how much we repress the banality of evil, the body tells inevitably a different story. That's what we hear all along The Zone of Interest isn't it ? Repressed bodies shouting and screaming off the screen.
Thank you for your thoughts! For me, the best way to engage with these events is listening to the testimonies of the survivors. I am looking forward to seeing this film because what happened is so unimaginable, and maybe this treatment can provide a much needed insight of how something like this can actually occur. I have visited several concentration camps, and it is indeed striking how just behind the electric fence there can be buildings where the perpetrators lived seemingly "normal" lives. Our morality has a lot of blind spots and inconsistencies - for example, some animals we love and almost treat as persons, while others we kill and eat every day. Or we think of ourselves as being very warm hearted and generous, but it turns out we are only that way toward a small group of "friends", while we do not care so many people around us are doing bad, are very lonely, get sick or have to live in unsustainable conditions out on the streets. Or companies work toward aligning our personalities and "fullfillment" with the company goals, but have the freedom to hire and fire us at will from one moment to the next. Being "OK" with people behind the fence getting starved, worked to death and killed is only a more extreme expression. The make of this film reminds me a lot of Michael Haneke ("Amour", "Funny Games"/ "Benny's Video") that also use a dry and factual tone to shed light into abysses of the everyday, underneath the inconspicious surfaces and between the lines of burgeous life. Have you seen "Son of Saul" - do you have thoughts in this one as well?
I really appreciated the mention of Michael Haneke and your examples of how we treat humans and animals based on very arbitrary distinctions. I haven't seen 'Son of Saul' yet (just saw the trailer) -thanks for the recommendation!
"I argue that one direct consequence of living in such an achievement-oriented society, is a deterioration of our relationship with ourselves" - This really stuck with me as a great one sentence summary of today's world - the majority of 'evil' stemming from very mundane ambitions despite our expectation that evil people are DRAMATICALLY evil. This is such an amazing video, and great analysis of the film! I learned a great deal about Arendt's book on Eichmann as well, thank you :)
Just listened to your review and appreciate that you articulated the disparity in character development between Hedwig and Rudolf. Subtle, but there. Or maybe because we as an audience are more horrified that a mother would insist her children continue to live near a concentration camp when given the opportunity to move away. I'm not sure that I want to watch this movie again, but am wondering if any other reviews make this same observation.
Yes, it's heartbreaking for me to hear a baby's cry, which signifies hope and life, mingled with screams from victims, representing death and despair, and to see that the mother was okay with it.
Very nice job. Interesting ideas. I would only argue one minor point, that the desire to become someone else seems to me to be an ongoing and natural state of affairs. Listening to our callings to transform in some way helps - I have found - to prevent despair. A fear of evolving toward where Providence beckons us or worse, a lack of faith that change is even possible, now that is what can truly drive one to despair. And resentmentment and rebellion. Not so much embracing evil as rejecting the notion that anything good is even achievable.
I saw this film as very symbolic of what's happening in Palestine today at the hands of Israel: a music festival happening mere kms away from a separation wall where an entire people are ghettoized and subjected to siege and frequent wars. I don't think people who attended that festival are demonic. It's their complacency and indifference that's chilling.
@@robertbernier4101 how do you feel about the 17 years long siege and the 5 wars on Gaza in that period and the fact that 25% of children in Gaza die before the age of 5 from kidney diseases due to the water pollution caused by the barbaric siege? Just wondering.
This was a wonderful treatment of the film "The Zone of Interest" which I saw yesterday. Thank you most sincerely for elaborating on the link with Hannah Arendt. I will meditate on several of the insightful points you made about this very effective film. Personally I particularly appreciated the movie's most baffling unexplained seemingly arbitrary throw-away references and episodes -- not all landed, but most did. I might have wanted the mother's character to be sharpened-up a bit.
An excellent presentation by you, Dr. Yan. I'm thinking, that, in other words, there are more individuals, that I, or others think, who are real psychopaths. After all, most psychopaths look and seem perfectly "normal"; it's when psychopaths go up against not getting what they want, is where their true natures are exposed. They are extremely sneakily nefarious and only care if threatened with getting caught. Not much difference between a psychopath and a narcissist. - just the degree of evilness and cleverness - on a "spectrum of evil".
Yes, a significant debate surrounding Arendt's concept of the banality of evil questions whether Eichmann truly embodied this banality, or if he was, instead, masquerading as perfectly normal… as you said, some people with malicious intentions can pretend to be perfectly “normal.” Thank you for your support!
Absolutely agree with you. The film shies away from deepening into his character and leaves it with the same shallowness that characterizes the characters themselves.
Excellent analysis. The concept of the banality of evil is apt, of course, but I really appreciated your use and application of the achievement society. It fits so well. I also appreciated your point of Rudolph’s character being less developed than Hedwig’s. One thing I thought of in regard to this is how infrequently we see him out of uniform or Nazi-related attire. I don’t know if this was purposeful to be used as symbolism that his humanity is often overwritten by his position and achievements within the regime-in the end, his very name is used as a code name for an extermination operation, after all. This feels related to another analysis I saw here on RUclips that Rudolph consistently flees to the light onscreen. There is so much darkness in the house but he doesn’t appear comfortable in it. And the final shots of him descending into the dark feels very connected. None of these are fully formed thoughts, just speculation brought about by your fantastic video essay. Thank you so much for making and posting it.
Fascinating. I love the insight that his humanity is often overshadowed by his position or achievements. This is absolutely true. Ironically, in an achievement-driven society, being defined by one’s position often becomes a personal goal, even unintentionally. People actually want to lose themselves and become symbols of success and prestige. The dynamics of lightness and darkness are equally intriguing. Lightness can symbolize many things-hope, positivity, freedom, enlightenment, safety. Of course we want to stay in the light. But lightness could also represent an escape from the weight of responsibility, or a flee from the darkness of conscience and inconvenient self-examination. In the end, Rudolph seems to descend into a total darkness that punishes him from the inside and outside reality. I remembered his nausea - the revolting against the self. I’m curious where the director stands on this contrast. Thank you for your comments! This is enjoyable 😊.
Loved the video! You have a very good and clear speech, and I thought you discussed the themes you wanted to bring in a cohesive line. I respectfully disagree on your thought of Rudolf's character, I believe that the banality of evil is, of course, one way to understand the movie, but it's not the only one. If you go for a choice in film-making, there is not a single close plan in the family in the entire film, thus showing the director's will of wanting to become distant of the family and to not focus on what happens in the camp. For me, one of the best choices of the director, because this way the film does not surf in the pain of the people who died in the holocaust, just like most films do. I'm sorry if it has not a perfect undertanding in my text, english is not my native language (I am brazilian 🇧🇷 haha) but I really liked your video, and I'm going to watch others of yours :)
Spoiler: We are that couple with what's going on in Gaza and us being complicit but unphased and apologetic for the terror happening behind the Gaza wall. We are looking away.
I understand what you’re saying about Hess’ (Doll in the film) character not being exposed. But this film is based on a novel which I highly recommend! And that’s why you don’t see Hess/Doll in that light. It’s is based on an already existing story. I don’t know who wrote the screenplay, but this is how they’re portrayed in the source material. Kind of the point of the film (he looks so clean and normal, etc.). I’d guess most people who choose to watch this film already know what’s going on behind the walls; it’s been shown thousands of times in film. But not how he acted “at home.” So I feel your disappointment is misplaced here.
this feels so deeply familiar with how we have turned out backs before during the holocaust to busy ourselves with our helplessness and reliance on wishful thinking to change tragedies, and how it is repeated now during the gaza genocide, its very very unsettling and painful to swallow. Thank you for this essay, your elaboration and organization of your points were so digestible, it wasn’t too difficult to follow! appreciate it sm ❤ and im interested in reading arrendt’s works now. I was discouraged to read her work by a close friend in college, but I’m realizing now it’s due to arrendt’s opposition to communist ideology.
Good video, well presented and well worth the time. You are, I believe, correct about the lack of development in the depiction of the Rudolph Höss character. But this is not so much a failure of the film, but rather, how the film reflects the entrenched compartmentalization of both physical and temporal space, largely defined by traditional constructs of gender: clearly it is Hedwig, for example, who dominates in the domestic household space. Rudolph may sit at the head of the table at the family dinner, but it's Hedwig who runs the home. She is both the keeper and the foundation of the family's well being. And this is the "zone of interest" that the film focuses on - an unusual perspective given few, if any, holocaust films look at the domestic life of Nazis. We never truly venture beyond the wall that lines the garden and peer into the camp beyond where Rudolph holds dominion - the place where, as Glazer himself said, the purported "real" film takes place. As a result we never see Rudolph's character completely realized. But let me interject: this is not a regular commercial narrative film, so expectations of fully rounded character portraits aren't really the point. Instead, this is a film about complicity and how far it extends.
What did you make of the scenes with the girl placing the apples where they used a different looking film? Was that supposed to be in the camp? But there was a scene later on when they heard a man in the camp being shot and we were told that it was someone trying to steal an apple, I guess leading us to believe that it was one of the apples left by the girl. I can't imagine that a little girl would just be able to ride their bicycle into the camp and leave food for the prisoners. Was that one of his daughters? There was a scene where Rudolph sees his daughter sitting in the hall at night and he asks her what she is doing and she says something about handing out "sugars"not apples,who was the girl leaving the apples, did any of it actually happen or was it a fantasy,why did it look different than the rest of the film? I do think there were moments when Hedwig felt a very small degree of discomfort, the scene when she put on the lipstick that was in the fur coat, she had a split second of disgust on her face and she got up from the chair, and after her mother left, we don't see the note the mother left,but it probably had to do with not being able to stand what she was experiencing next to her. Hedwig then went down to eat breakfast and she saw that the servant put a plate of food down for her mother not knowing she had left and Hedwig got very angry accusing the servant of mocking her and she said something like "my husband could spread your ashes". Hedwig's mother leaving so abruptly caused her to face a little bit of the reality of what was happening on the other side of the wall and she became defensive and took it out on the servant. Why was Rudolph vomiting at the end, was it from some unconscious guilt, when you repress something it never disappears,it makes itself known in other ways,many times manifesting in the body.
I did a bit of research and their was a young woman from a Polish village nearby that did leave some food where the prisoners could find it. Apparently the film maker spoke to a the woman himself. She died before the film was finished.
Gracias por el analisis de la pelicula, no la conocia y cuando pueda la vere. Creo que todos somos propensos a ser personajes como hedwig, todos buscamos lograr metas que nos hagan felices y si bien esas metas no son malvadas, lo malvado puede ser el modo en que las logramos. El egoismo de la "felicidad" personal hace que no veamos a nuestro alrededor, si los demas sufren, no nos importa siempre y cuando yo sea feliz. Creo que hay muchas personas que no les importa lo que ocurra a su alrededor siempre y cuando ellas esten bien. Hay una cuestion de moral del individuo, para poder ser consiente de que al lograr un pbjetivo personal no sea a costa del dolor de otras personas. Aunque algunas veces en la vida real la tristeza de uno puede ser la felicidad de otro. Tambien hay personas que se niegan a ver la maldad que puedan tener dentro de uno y solo quieren ver y creer que son personas buenas y que son incapaces de hacer algo malo, ocultando lo que jung denomino como la sombra. Tu video me hizo reflexionar acerca de que no puede ser feliz si estoy rodeado de personas que sufren o estan tristes, que las metas que logre no debe ser a costa del dolor de otros y que no puedo cerrar los ojos para sentirme bien. Mis valores morales deben prevalecer en todo momento. Gracias por el video, saludos desde Peru. (Recomiendo ver una pelicula que se llama (Conspiracy,2001) donde se habla como si fuera una reunion de trabajo sobre la solucion final)
No not at all. That couple, particular Mr. Hoss, designed and implemented a system to kill 2.5 million people by his own admission. Simply living your life is not the same as what he did
Hi and thanks. Great analysis; you are going a bit too fast though and it would be good to have some poses between thoughts I think (I believe you also misread "crematorium". You said "cemetery" and your video is reverse... I saw that with the book you showed us ) For your disappointment, I think that Hedwig is the most interesting character of the movie and probably the most important; she is the "queen of Auschwitz". Hoss character turned around her. Even if the end focuses more on him, when we see the modern scene with the people cleaning the camp, we directly link that to the scenes in the house with Hedwig going through the clothes, trying the fur coat and lipstick coming from the camp and supervising the maids and cooks in the house. (we almost always see the maids around, even in the garden. I wrote a few thoughts about the black dog in the movie. I would love to share them with you if I may.
Videos like this make RUclips interesting and I love to accidentally get them presented by the algorithm. On the other hand, I find it unfortunate that you compare Höss, and thus the banality of evil, to Voldamort a grotesque made-up villain who is a metaphor of evil rather than character of flesh blood. That weakens your argument about how special "The Zone of Interest" is. Your conclusion that Hoss was actually more evil and far less banal than he was portrayed the film and therefore deserved a more thorough portrait I find interesting, and I've thought about that for a long time. But is perhaps Hedwig as a character better developed than Rudolf, simply because Sandra Hüller is a better actor than Christiaan Friedel ? What I missed most in the last act of the film was context / background, as there was in the first part. The meeting of the generals where it was decided to step up Jewish persecution and extermination was at a time when it was already clear to the realists among them that the war was lost. The general staff knew that, the Eastern Front was stalled, the Sixth Army defeated at Stalingrad. To pretend against their better judgment that the death camps could make a difference was at that moment as unreal as growing vegetables against the backdrop of the incinerators. Nevertheless, a wonderful video.
I found the scene where Commandant Hoss is explaining to Hedweg that a major push is coming to wipe our the Hungarian Jews and that hed be coming back to the camp. She thought that was a good thing.
You want to find who the people are who are capable of committing horrendous atrocities, just go and look in the mirror, look at your workmates, look at your parents, and grandparents, and at your brothers and sisters. In other words, the enemy is us. Atrocities are committed by ordinary people. Atrocities are committed every day by very ordinary people. People who carry out evil atrocities like the Holocaust can just be caught up in the environment of the time, causing them to do things they would never do at any other time in their lives. The Hosses are no different to you and me, apart from being a little more boring and unimaginative. Hoss never got involved in the actual killing. He was too busy running the largest KL in history. Also, what about the meeting of all the other KL commandants? They all had families and children. They all lived next to their camps. You are trying to find out what made the Hosses act the way they did. What about those other camp commandants, and all the other countless atrocities that humans have committed in the 20th century where people did nothing? Who killed six million European Jews? We all did. You and me, and everyone else in the world.
Great video. I couldn't help but think how this moral apathy is perpetuated in Israel-Palestine and the ethical cleansing of Palestinians just so Israelis can live in peace and prosperity.
THE ZONE OF INTEREST movie. Here are my thoughts after just watching "The Zone of Interest" and coming home. I had heard about the movie and watched many reviews. I had even heard about what the director said and felt he just demonized Jews while making a movie about the Holocaust and thus proves he is an ignorant fool. But I figured I must see this movie as it isn't maybe even about the family and more about the culture. So I went to see it. I was pleasantly surprised for the following points: 1) The father is damned. How? He stands to process the Jews from the train and thus is doing the work on the days that matter for a death camp called Bergen-Belsen & the general concentration camp of Auschwitz. They don't show it, but then the reason must be that they want to show you the idea of not damning him. You saw nothing. The director tipping his hat to his hate, so to speak. 2) The wife is damned. How? She finds a diamond in toothpaste and wants more. Why? Because in the processing there is very little the workers are allowed to take from the Nazi state as all is categorized and documented. Stealing from the Nazi state a diamond is her crime. She wants to do it more as taking toothpaste will not be cared about with the Nazi state and she knows the diamonds are untraceable anyway unless documented by being found by the workers in the camp. 3) The mother-in-law is damned. How? She realizes a woman is suffering (a Jew) who out bid her in an auction and is not worried about her. She shows no caring for her or any of them (Jews). What she hates is the burning of human flesh, the noise, and the proximity of it all to her personally. She never voices a concern for her grandchildren and their safety or upbringing. These are the three main characters and they all are damned. They are Nazis; they should be damned. Do all people who view this movie get this message? No. Some may think only of how they existed in a moment and chose and performed based on the stimuli that affected them. Of course they did. Don't we all? What is the lesson of the holocaust? Let us look at facts in regards to Triblinka and learn the lesson of the holocaust. In 16 months, 68 Germans with the help of 360 Jews slew over 600,000 Jews. The field had some evidence of buildings having been there. Nothing would have been known of the facts of Triblinka had not the Nazi state kept meticulous records of their accomplishments. What is the value of this movie? It does not show anything that would damn them. You only hear of the suffering and killing and know this man is in charge of all of it enough to be promoted to improving efficiency in all Nazi death camps and concentration camps throughout all of Europe and efficient enough to be brought back to the largest and most famous death camp and concentration camp in the history of the whole world: the death camp called Bergen-Belsen & the general concentration camp of Auschwitz. History records that the Nazis in trials after WWII and over the radio in South America while still free abroad after WWII stated aloud "Six (6) million was not enough." This is significant. It means the Nazis did not care about the fourteen (14) million killed in the holocaust. Why should Nazis care about slaying Poles, gypsies, and dissidents in Europe against the Nazi state? The HONOR and the GLORY of the Nazi mindset was in killing the people of Yahweh in large numbers. Americans today are now being asked in universities throughout our great land and through the speeches of the Democratic politicians within the Senate and Congress whether they will be antisemetic or if they support Israel. I find it absolutely amazing that the impetious for this question was Palestinians beheading Jewish chidlren, burning alive Jewish mothers, and the fucking of Jewish minors in cars as they drove them to Gaza Strip. It is abhorrent and explains why Yahweh's Holy Bible states upon Palestine being whole it melts in Isaiah 14:28-31 which is a time when Anti-Christ is identified for the whole world to know and this text states "None shall break rank" meaning Anti-Christ will melt inside Palestine whole not long after it is made whole per the text. Yahweh then declares in the Holy Bible He will destroy all nations off the face of the Earth for all nations will have been against Israel per Zechariah 12:3 and Zechariah 12:9. ruclips.net/video/7jd48jTsZYI/видео.html
A Jewish settler state in the Middle East where most Jewish people haven't lived for a couple thousand years is at least as stupid as the movement to send blacks back to Africa. 🤦♀️ Many people confuse antisemitism with antizionism. Both antisemitism and the child of Antisemitism, Zionism, are forms of racism and all forms of racism suck.
I saw the movie and it is BS. Nothing happens that affects the characters by the end, you have to have knowledge about the holocaust to infer when it takes place , and the blatant manipulation with the sounds (from the camp and the crematorium, that were build in such a way that it wouldn´t be heard ) and framing (it was filmed so you are a voyeur that watches a family ) The Höß Family is very 2 dimensional : Rudolf is a push over , Hedwig is vapid, every kid has a different hobby so you can tell them apart and the servants are scared to death. The most realistic one is the grandmother. It will probably win best movie because holocaust stories always attract attention.
Free Israel. From Zionism. Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing and genocide as Israel has always done. Israel requires a "final solution" for Palestinians as the people they pretend never existed (a land without a people) do exist. Damn inconvenient for Israel. Zionists didn't colonize Palestine with the intention of becoming part of the community. They came to displace and exclude the people of Palestine from their homes and land physically and politically. Its really no surprise that this hasn't worked out well for anyone, is it? The world should be sanctioning Israel as it did South Africa until Israel ends the apartheid and genocide of the people of Palestine.
Zone of Interest should be called No Interest. Because I have no interest in seeing yet another film about WW2/the Holocaust. I've already seen hundreds of such films, some depicting Auschwitz, some depicting Höss. No Interest in seeing another one. And is there really a need to keep making WW2/Holocaust films? Wake me up when directors come up with some new subject matter.
This film was not “about” Auschwitz at all. It was about us. Your cold distaste and head-in-the-sand dispassion toward horror is part of the themes dealt with in this film.
shallow analysis. Your talk about the lack of character development shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the film. I usually do not comment on youtube interpretations, but this is an important topic. If you would like to deepen your understanding, you can read Didi-Huberman, Images in Spite of All
Can you imagine watching The Zone of Interest and assuming there is a singular, "correct" understanding of it? You also ignored 19 minutes of her 20 minutes discussion
I think the way they showed Rudolf Höß' evil was in the details from the start with the blood on the boots, his apparent rape of the young girl etc. But we never see anything directly, we have to deduct it from the clues. And the sounds from the camp gradually getting louder as during the movie was brilliant. Mark Kermode called it 'A study in looking away'. I think that is a good description.
This is by far the best commentary and analysis of the movie, linking it with Arednt's Banality of Evil and our present obsession with upward mobility that makes us morally blind and complicit with the atrocious evils of today. Brilliant!
Thank you! You summarize the point so well.
Such an interesting analysis of a very challenging film. The film left me stunned from the first moments until the very end. One very stark scene for me was early in the film when the family are walking home from the river and Rudolph is carrying the baby in his arms. A baby is heard screaming hysterically. It took me a few seconds to realise that it wasn't the baby we see on screen that was screaming. This was the moment I understood that I needed to listen carefully to everything. The zone of interest will haunt me for years to come. Only 2 other films have affected me like this before: the grey zone and Son of Saul.
The juxtaposition of a baby's cry with the screams of victims also left a profound impression on me. Thanks for the film recommendation.
I have read a number of comments for videos about this movie that have mentioned Son of Saul, it sounds like an excellent movie, I'm going to watch it next week. This was only the second time in my life I have ever watched a movie in the theaters twice. The first time I watched it I was concentrating on reading the subtitles and following the narrative that I was not really able to notice some of the more subtle things like what you just mentioned, but once I knew the general plot, I went back again and it was like a different movie.
I was still settling in to my chair when that 1st baby cry you described was showing, so I didn't catch it. But I'm going to see it again with my boyfriend and will look out for it; thank you for mentioning it. This film does require deep listening. I will also look up the other 2 films you mention. After watching this film, I looked again for a book I always meant to read "Promise Me You'll Kill Yourself," about the mass suicides of ordinary Germans who could not live with what they ignored. Time to read the book.
Yes! The soundscape is juxtaposed with the idyllic scenes is brilliant. And the way you constantly have to look at what goes on in the background ect. Like the servant washing hus boots, and you can just make out that the water turns red. So chilling.
Excellent video essay. And your analysis on Hedwig's character is on point. She really is the most developed villain of the film, if there is such a thing as a "villain" in the real world. That's one of the big question marks we end up with when the film is finished. Maybe that's where resides what you point as being the lack of characterization when it comes to Rudolf's character. In the end, when he's in the stairs, vomiting, it's his body acting, not his character. Then it cuts to the world today, when fiction meets documentary. Maybe Glazer wishes to tell us that, no matter how much we repress the banality of evil, the body tells inevitably a different story. That's what we hear all along The Zone of Interest isn't it ? Repressed bodies shouting and screaming off the screen.
This is an amazing analysis. Thank you! The scene at the end where Rudolf felt sick and tried to vomit also left a deep impression on me.
Your video essay is really good and well researched. This film deserves recognition!
Thank you!
Great analysis, one of the best I've come across so far! Thank you
Wow, thanks!
Thank you for your thoughts! For me, the best way to engage with these events is listening to the testimonies of the survivors. I am looking forward to seeing this film because what happened is so unimaginable, and maybe this treatment can provide a much needed insight of how something like this can actually occur. I have visited several concentration camps, and it is indeed striking how just behind the electric fence there can be buildings where the perpetrators lived seemingly "normal" lives.
Our morality has a lot of blind spots and inconsistencies - for example, some animals we love and almost treat as persons, while others we kill and eat every day. Or we think of ourselves as being very warm hearted and generous, but it turns out we are only that way toward a small group of "friends", while we do not care so many people around us are doing bad, are very lonely, get sick or have to live in unsustainable conditions out on the streets. Or companies work toward aligning our personalities and "fullfillment" with the company goals, but have the freedom to hire and fire us at will from one moment to the next. Being "OK" with people behind the fence getting starved, worked to death and killed is only a more extreme expression.
The make of this film reminds me a lot of Michael Haneke ("Amour", "Funny Games"/ "Benny's Video") that also use a dry and factual tone to shed light into abysses of the everyday, underneath the inconspicious surfaces and between the lines of burgeous life.
Have you seen "Son of Saul" - do you have thoughts in this one as well?
I really appreciated the mention of Michael Haneke and your examples of how we treat humans and animals based on very arbitrary distinctions. I haven't seen 'Son of Saul' yet (just saw the trailer) -thanks for the recommendation!
Did you see the Haneke film The Seventh Continent? It's a fascinating film that addreses these same questions.
"I argue that one direct consequence of living in such an achievement-oriented society, is a deterioration of our relationship with ourselves" - This really stuck with me as a great one sentence summary of today's world - the majority of 'evil' stemming from very mundane ambitions despite our expectation that evil people are DRAMATICALLY evil. This is such an amazing video, and great analysis of the film! I learned a great deal about Arendt's book on Eichmann as well, thank you :)
Thank you! Yes, it is what’s happening in today’s world…
Just listened to your review and appreciate that you articulated the disparity in character development between Hedwig and Rudolf. Subtle, but there. Or maybe because we as an audience are more horrified that a mother would insist her children continue to live near a concentration camp when given the opportunity to move away. I'm not sure that I want to watch this movie again, but am wondering if any other reviews make this same observation.
Yes, it's heartbreaking for me to hear a baby's cry, which signifies hope and life, mingled with screams from victims, representing death and despair, and to see that the mother was okay with it.
Very nice job. Interesting ideas. I would only argue one minor point, that the desire to become someone else seems to me to be an ongoing and natural state of affairs. Listening to our callings to transform in some way helps - I have found - to prevent despair. A fear of evolving toward where Providence beckons us or worse, a lack of faith that change is even possible, now that is what can truly drive one to despair. And resentmentment and rebellion. Not so much embracing evil as rejecting the notion that anything good is even achievable.
I saw this film as very symbolic of what's happening in Palestine today at the hands of Israel: a music festival happening mere kms away from a separation wall where an entire people are ghettoized and subjected to siege and frequent wars. I don't think people who attended that festival are demonic. It's their complacency and indifference that's chilling.
The irony , you and Hoss both hated the Jews.
@@daddyrabbit835that's all you've got☠️
What happened to those people was disgusting and you are disgusting.
And yet no European Jew ever beheaded the baby of a Nazi...it's almost like Palestine is the bad guy
@@robertbernier4101 how do you feel about the 17 years long siege and the 5 wars on Gaza in that period and the fact that 25% of children in Gaza die before the age of 5 from kidney diseases due to the water pollution caused by the barbaric siege? Just wondering.
This was a wonderful treatment of the film "The Zone of Interest" which I saw yesterday. Thank you most sincerely for elaborating on the link with Hannah Arendt. I will meditate on several of the insightful points you made about this very effective film. Personally I particularly appreciated the movie's most baffling unexplained seemingly arbitrary throw-away references and episodes -- not all landed, but most did. I might have wanted the mother's character to be sharpened-up a bit.
Thank you!
An excellent presentation by you, Dr. Yan.
I'm thinking, that, in other words, there are more individuals, that I, or others think, who are real psychopaths. After all, most psychopaths look and seem perfectly "normal"; it's when psychopaths go up against not getting what they want, is where their true natures are exposed. They are extremely sneakily nefarious and only care if threatened with getting caught.
Not much difference between a psychopath and a narcissist. - just the degree of evilness and cleverness - on a "spectrum of evil".
Yes, a significant debate surrounding Arendt's concept of the banality of evil questions whether Eichmann truly embodied this banality, or if he was, instead, masquerading as perfectly normal… as you said, some people with malicious intentions can pretend to be perfectly “normal.”
Thank you for your support!
Keep up with your great work ✨
soooo well researched !! I loved the zone of interest and I love this video
Thank you so much!!
Absolutely agree with you. The film shies away from deepening into his character and leaves it with the same shallowness that characterizes the characters themselves.
Excellent analysis. The concept of the banality of evil is apt, of course, but I really appreciated your use and application of the achievement society. It fits so well. I also appreciated your point of Rudolph’s character being less developed than Hedwig’s.
One thing I thought of in regard to this is how infrequently we see him out of uniform or Nazi-related attire. I don’t know if this was purposeful to be used as symbolism that his humanity is often overwritten by his position and achievements within the regime-in the end, his very name is used as a code name for an extermination operation, after all. This feels related to another analysis I saw here on RUclips that Rudolph consistently flees to the light onscreen. There is so much darkness in the house but he doesn’t appear comfortable in it. And the final shots of him descending into the dark feels very connected.
None of these are fully formed thoughts, just speculation brought about by your fantastic video essay. Thank you so much for making and posting it.
Fascinating. I love the insight that his humanity is often overshadowed by his position or achievements. This is absolutely true. Ironically, in an achievement-driven society, being defined by one’s position often becomes a personal goal, even unintentionally. People actually want to lose themselves and become symbols of success and prestige.
The dynamics of lightness and darkness are equally intriguing. Lightness can symbolize many things-hope, positivity, freedom, enlightenment, safety. Of course we want to stay in the light. But lightness could also represent an escape from the weight of responsibility, or a flee from the darkness of conscience and inconvenient self-examination. In the end, Rudolph seems to descend into a total darkness that punishes him from the inside and outside reality. I remembered his nausea - the revolting against the self. I’m curious where the director stands on this contrast.
Thank you for your comments! This is enjoyable 😊.
This is summarized and explained well.
Loved the video! You have a very good and clear speech, and I thought you discussed the themes you wanted to bring in a cohesive line. I respectfully disagree on your thought of Rudolf's character, I believe that the banality of evil is, of course, one way to understand the movie, but it's not the only one. If you go for a choice in film-making, there is not a single close plan in the family in the entire film, thus showing the director's will of wanting to become distant of the family and to not focus on what happens in the camp. For me, one of the best choices of the director, because this way the film does not surf in the pain of the people who died in the holocaust, just like most films do. I'm sorry if it has not a perfect undertanding in my text, english is not my native language (I am brazilian 🇧🇷 haha) but I really liked your video, and I'm going to watch others of yours :)
Thanks for sharing your view and support from Brazil! ❤️
Thank You for Your very careful thoughts on the important themes of this incredible film.
So timety. Thank you
Thanks!!
Beautiful insights. Thank you.
Thanks! Hope see u with 1M subs soon 😊 Grettings from Colombia.
Thanks! 😃
Thank you for making this video :) Have a great day
Thanks for watching! Have a great day!
Eloquently put - thank you!
My pleasure!
Spoiler: We are that couple with what's going on in Gaza and us being complicit but unphased and apologetic for the terror happening behind the Gaza wall. We are looking away.
Excellent exposition
Thanks!
Thank you very much. Great teaching.
Thank you!!
excellent analysis. Thank you.
Glad you liked it!
I understand what you’re saying about Hess’ (Doll in the film) character not being exposed. But this film is based on a novel which I highly recommend! And that’s why you don’t see Hess/Doll in that light. It’s is based on an already existing story. I don’t know who wrote the screenplay, but this is how they’re portrayed in the source material. Kind of the point of the film (he looks so clean and normal, etc.). I’d guess most people who choose to watch this film already know what’s going on behind the walls; it’s been shown thousands of times in film. But not how he acted “at home.” So I feel your disappointment is misplaced here.
this feels so deeply familiar with how we have turned out backs before during the holocaust to busy ourselves with our helplessness and reliance on wishful thinking to change tragedies, and how it is repeated now during the gaza genocide, its very very unsettling and painful to swallow. Thank you for this essay, your elaboration and organization of your points were so digestible, it wasn’t too difficult to follow! appreciate it sm ❤ and im interested in reading arrendt’s works now. I was discouraged to read her work by a close friend in college, but I’m realizing now it’s due to arrendt’s opposition to communist ideology.
Thank you! Glad to hear that you’ve got interest in reading Arendt!
Thank you!
Thanks for sharing your brilliance ❤
Thank you!
Such a good review
Good video, well presented and well worth the time. You are, I believe, correct about the lack of development in the depiction of the Rudolph Höss character. But this is not so much a failure of the film, but rather, how the film reflects the entrenched compartmentalization of both physical and temporal space, largely defined by traditional constructs of gender: clearly it is Hedwig, for example, who dominates in the domestic household space. Rudolph may sit at the head of the table at the family dinner, but it's Hedwig who runs the home. She is both the keeper and the foundation of the family's well being. And this is the "zone of interest" that the film focuses on - an unusual perspective given few, if any, holocaust films look at the domestic life of Nazis. We never truly venture beyond the wall that lines the garden and peer into the camp beyond where Rudolph holds dominion - the place where, as Glazer himself said, the purported "real" film takes place. As a result we never see Rudolph's character completely realized. But let me interject: this is not a regular commercial narrative film, so expectations of fully rounded character portraits aren't really the point. Instead, this is a film about complicity and how far it extends.
Do you know 454th rifle company of Red Army?
What did you make of the scenes with the girl placing the apples where they used a different looking film? Was that supposed to be in the camp? But there was a scene later on when they heard a man in the camp being shot and we were told that it was someone trying to steal an apple, I guess leading us to believe that it was one of the apples left by the girl. I can't imagine that a little girl would just be able to ride their bicycle into the camp and leave food for the prisoners. Was that one of his daughters? There was a scene where Rudolph sees his daughter sitting in the hall at night and he asks her what she is doing and she says something about handing out "sugars"not apples,who was the girl leaving the apples, did any of it actually happen or was it a fantasy,why did it look different than the rest of the film?
I do think there were moments when Hedwig felt a very small degree of discomfort, the scene when she put on the lipstick that was in the fur coat, she had a split second of disgust on her face and she got up from the chair, and after her mother left, we don't see the note the mother left,but it probably had to do with not being able to stand what she was experiencing next to her. Hedwig then went down to eat breakfast and she saw that the servant put a plate of food down for her mother not knowing she had left and Hedwig got very angry accusing the servant of mocking her and she said something like "my husband could spread your ashes". Hedwig's mother leaving so abruptly caused her to face a little bit of the reality of what was happening on the other side of the wall and she became defensive and took it out on the servant. Why was Rudolph vomiting at the end, was it from some unconscious guilt, when you repress something it never disappears,it makes itself known in other ways,many times manifesting in the body.
I did a bit of research and their was a young woman from a Polish village nearby that did leave some food where the prisoners could find it. Apparently the film maker spoke to a the woman himself. She died before the film was finished.
@@Ludmillawings That's very interesting, thanks for letting me that.
Gracias por el analisis de la pelicula, no la conocia y cuando pueda la vere. Creo que todos somos propensos a ser personajes como hedwig, todos buscamos lograr metas que nos hagan felices y si bien esas metas no son malvadas, lo malvado puede ser el modo en que las logramos. El egoismo de la "felicidad" personal hace que no veamos a nuestro alrededor, si los demas sufren, no nos importa siempre y cuando yo sea feliz. Creo que hay muchas personas que no les importa lo que ocurra a su alrededor siempre y cuando ellas esten bien. Hay una cuestion de moral del individuo, para poder ser consiente de que al lograr un pbjetivo personal no sea a costa del dolor de otras personas. Aunque algunas veces en la vida real la tristeza de uno puede ser la felicidad de otro.
Tambien hay personas que se niegan a ver la maldad que puedan tener dentro de uno y solo quieren ver y creer que son personas buenas y que son incapaces de hacer algo malo, ocultando lo que jung denomino como la sombra.
Tu video me hizo reflexionar acerca de que no puede ser feliz si estoy rodeado de personas que sufren o estan tristes, que las metas que logre no debe ser a costa del dolor de otros y que no puedo cerrar los ojos para sentirme bien. Mis valores morales deben prevalecer en todo momento.
Gracias por el video, saludos desde Peru. (Recomiendo ver una pelicula que se llama (Conspiracy,2001) donde se habla como si fuera una reunion de trabajo sobre la solucion final)
Thank you for your comment and support from Peru! I will definitely check out the movie Conspiracy. Gracias!
if you're not currently helping someone you are that couple.
No not at all. That couple, particular Mr. Hoss, designed and implemented a system to kill 2.5 million people by his own admission. Simply living your life is not the same as what he did
Everyone deludes themselves about being on the right side of History.
Excellent video. Have I stumbled into the rabbit-hole containing intelligent and substantial content? That would be nice
😂 thanks for the comment!
Hi and thanks. Great analysis; you are going a bit too fast though and it would be good to have some poses between thoughts I think (I believe you also misread "crematorium". You said "cemetery" and your video is reverse... I saw that with the book you showed us ) For your disappointment, I think that Hedwig is the most interesting character of the movie and probably the most important; she is the "queen of Auschwitz". Hoss character turned around her. Even if the end focuses more on him, when we see the modern scene with the people cleaning the camp, we directly link that to the scenes in the house with Hedwig going through the clothes, trying the fur coat and lipstick coming from the camp and supervising the maids and cooks in the house. (we almost always see the maids around, even in the garden. I wrote a few thoughts about the black dog in the movie. I would love to share them with you if I may.
Very interesting. 감사합니다.
Thank you!
@@SijinYan You are welcome.
Question: Why are the atrocities committed by Japan during World War II not taught in Japanese schools ?
the juxtaposition of evil and peace needed only 5 mins of the film.
Videos like this make RUclips interesting and I love to accidentally get them presented by the algorithm. On the other hand, I find it unfortunate that you compare Höss, and thus the banality of evil, to Voldamort a grotesque made-up villain who is a metaphor of evil rather than character of flesh blood. That weakens your argument about how special "The Zone of Interest" is. Your conclusion that Hoss was actually more evil and far less banal than he was portrayed the film and therefore deserved a more thorough portrait I find interesting, and I've thought about that for a long time. But is perhaps Hedwig as a character better developed than Rudolf, simply because Sandra Hüller is a better actor than Christiaan Friedel ?
What I missed most in the last act of the film was context / background, as there was in the first part. The meeting of the generals where it was decided to step up Jewish persecution and extermination was at a time when it was already clear to the realists among them that the war was lost. The general staff knew that, the Eastern Front was stalled, the Sixth Army defeated at Stalingrad. To pretend against their better judgment that the death camps could make a difference was at that moment as unreal as growing vegetables against the backdrop of the incinerators. Nevertheless, a wonderful video.
I found the scene where Commandant Hoss is explaining to Hedweg that a major push is coming to wipe our the Hungarian Jews and that hed be coming back to the camp. She thought that was a good thing.
You want to find who the people are who are capable of committing horrendous atrocities, just go and look in the mirror, look at your workmates, look at your parents, and grandparents, and at your brothers and sisters. In other words, the enemy is us. Atrocities are committed by ordinary people. Atrocities are committed every day by very ordinary people. People who carry out evil atrocities like the Holocaust can just be caught up in the environment of the time, causing them to do things they would never do at any other time in their lives. The Hosses are no different to you and me, apart from being a little more boring and unimaginative. Hoss never got involved in the actual killing. He was too busy running the largest KL in history. Also, what about the meeting of all the other KL commandants? They all had families and children. They all lived next to their camps. You are trying to find out what made the Hosses act the way they did. What about those other camp commandants, and all the other countless atrocities that humans have committed in the 20th century where people did nothing? Who killed six million European Jews? We all did. You and me, and everyone else in the world.
Great video. I couldn't help but think how this moral apathy is perpetuated in Israel-Palestine and the ethical cleansing of Palestinians just so Israelis can live in peace and prosperity.
THE ZONE OF INTEREST movie.
Here are my thoughts after just watching "The Zone of Interest" and coming home. I had heard about the movie and watched many reviews. I had even heard about what the director said and felt he just demonized Jews while making a movie about the Holocaust and thus proves he is an ignorant fool. But I figured I must see this movie as it isn't maybe even about the family and more about the culture. So I went to see it.
I was pleasantly surprised for the following points:
1) The father is damned. How? He stands to process the Jews from the train and thus is doing the work on the days that matter for a death camp called Bergen-Belsen & the general concentration camp of Auschwitz. They don't show it, but then the reason must be that they want to show you the idea of not damning him. You saw nothing. The director tipping his hat to his hate, so to speak.
2) The wife is damned. How? She finds a diamond in toothpaste and wants more. Why? Because in the processing there is very little the workers are allowed to take from the Nazi state as all is categorized and documented. Stealing from the Nazi state a diamond is her crime. She wants to do it more as taking toothpaste will not be cared about with the Nazi state and she knows the diamonds are untraceable anyway unless documented by being found by the workers in the camp.
3) The mother-in-law is damned. How? She realizes a woman is suffering (a Jew) who out bid her in an auction and is not worried about her. She shows no caring for her or any of them (Jews). What she hates is the burning of human flesh, the noise, and the proximity of it all to her personally. She never voices a concern for her grandchildren and their safety or upbringing.
These are the three main characters and they all are damned. They are Nazis; they should be damned. Do all people who view this movie get this message? No. Some may think only of how they existed in a moment and chose and performed based on the stimuli that affected them. Of course they did. Don't we all?
What is the lesson of the holocaust? Let us look at facts in regards to Triblinka and learn the lesson of the holocaust. In 16 months, 68 Germans with the help of 360 Jews slew over 600,000 Jews. The field had some evidence of buildings having been there. Nothing would have been known of the facts of Triblinka had not the Nazi state kept meticulous records of their accomplishments.
What is the value of this movie? It does not show anything that would damn them. You only hear of the suffering and killing and know this man is in charge of all of it enough to be promoted to improving efficiency in all Nazi death camps and concentration camps throughout all of Europe and efficient enough to be brought back to the largest and most famous death camp and concentration camp in the history of the whole world: the death camp called Bergen-Belsen & the general concentration camp of Auschwitz.
History records that the Nazis in trials after WWII and over the radio in South America while still free abroad after WWII stated aloud "Six (6) million was not enough." This is significant. It means the Nazis did not care about the fourteen (14) million killed in the holocaust. Why should Nazis care about slaying Poles, gypsies, and dissidents in Europe against the Nazi state? The HONOR and the GLORY of the Nazi mindset was in killing the people of Yahweh in large numbers.
Americans today are now being asked in universities throughout our great land and through the speeches of the Democratic politicians within the Senate and Congress whether they will be antisemetic or if they support Israel. I find it absolutely amazing that the impetious for this question was Palestinians beheading Jewish chidlren, burning alive Jewish mothers, and the fucking of Jewish minors in cars as they drove them to Gaza Strip. It is abhorrent and explains why Yahweh's Holy Bible states upon Palestine being whole it melts in Isaiah 14:28-31 which is a time when Anti-Christ is identified for the whole world to know and this text states "None shall break rank" meaning Anti-Christ will melt inside Palestine whole not long after it is made whole per the text. Yahweh then declares in the Holy Bible He will destroy all nations off the face of the Earth for all nations will have been against Israel per Zechariah 12:3 and Zechariah 12:9.
ruclips.net/video/7jd48jTsZYI/видео.html
A Jewish settler state in the Middle East where most Jewish people haven't lived for a couple thousand years is at least as stupid as the movement to send blacks back to Africa. 🤦♀️
Many people confuse antisemitism with antizionism. Both antisemitism and the child of Antisemitism, Zionism, are forms of racism and all forms of racism suck.
Voldemort? really? why didn't you pick Hitler?
I saw the movie and it is BS. Nothing happens that affects the characters by the end, you have to have knowledge about the holocaust to infer when it takes place , and the blatant manipulation with the sounds (from the camp and the crematorium, that were build in such a way that it wouldn´t be heard ) and framing (it was filmed so you are a voyeur that watches a family )
The Höß Family is very 2 dimensional : Rudolf is a push over , Hedwig is vapid, every kid has a different hobby so you can tell them apart and the servants are scared to death. The most realistic one is the grandmother.
It will probably win best movie because holocaust stories always attract attention.
Same with what palestine does to israel...free 🇮🇱 🇮🇱 🇮🇱 🇮🇱 🇮🇱
Free Israel. From Zionism.
Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing and genocide as Israel has always done. Israel requires a "final solution" for Palestinians as the people they pretend never existed (a land without a people) do exist. Damn inconvenient for Israel.
Zionists didn't colonize Palestine with the intention of becoming part of the community. They came to displace and exclude the people of Palestine from their homes and land physically and politically. Its really no surprise that this hasn't worked out well for anyone, is it? The world should be sanctioning Israel as it did South Africa until Israel ends the apartheid and genocide of the people of Palestine.
Zone of Interest should be called No Interest. Because I have no interest in seeing yet another film about WW2/the Holocaust. I've already seen hundreds of such films, some depicting Auschwitz, some depicting Höss. No Interest in seeing another one. And is there really a need to keep making WW2/Holocaust films? Wake me up when directors come up with some new subject matter.
Wake me up when humans get their own heads out of their zones of self interest.
This film was not “about” Auschwitz at all. It was about us. Your cold distaste and head-in-the-sand dispassion toward horror is part of the themes dealt with in this film.
Dieser Film ist anders,unvergleichbar mit allen bisherigen Filmen über das Thema.Er lädt Zuschauer nicht zum weinen sondern nur zum wundern ein.
shallow analysis. Your talk about the lack of character development shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the film. I usually do not comment on youtube interpretations, but this is an important topic. If you would like to deepen your understanding, you can read Didi-Huberman, Images in Spite of All
Can you imagine watching The Zone of Interest and assuming there is a singular, "correct" understanding of it? You also ignored 19 minutes of her 20 minutes discussion
So, shallow people, what deep understanding do you have about the movie besides only referring people to read another book?
Didn't yet watched the movie. But I want to say that I really I am so sorry. Can't express my words. I am so sorry
What a naive title? how not be that couple? are you serious?