ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

Holocaust

I’ll Find You – Music, Love, and War

by Leave a Comment

It is hard enough for star-crossed lovers to find a path to happiness, but when you stick the Holocaust in the middle of it all, it seems impossible. I’ll Find You, directed by Martha Coolidge, takes us into a world where young lovers have their lives torn apart and must find a way back together. The film is inspired by stories of Polish musicians, although it is done in English.

Robert Pulaski (Leo Suter as an adult, Sebastian Croft as a youth) is new at the Music Academy in Lodz, where he first encounters Rachel Rubin (Adelaide Clemens as an adult, Ursula Parker as a youth), another student there. Their early meetings are like oil and water, but there is also a tenderness between them.  They have very different backgrounds: Robert is Catholic, Rachel is Jewish.

After a two year absence to study voice in Germany, Robert returns to find Rachel engaged. He’s devastated but begins a campaign to win her back. The love between the two blooms again, but her family will be leaving for Switzerland, trying to avoid the German invasion of Poland. But the day they were supposed to leave is when the Germans attack, and the family is trapped. Robert joins the Resistance, but when Rachel’s family is captured and sent to Auschwitz, he sets out to find a way to rescue her.

Robert goes to Berlin to enlist the help of his voice mentor Benno Moser (Stellan Skarsgård), who has many contacts among the Nazi elite. Soon Robert is even singing before Hitler himself. Moser’s contacts confirm that Rachel is in Auschwitz where she is part of the orchestra. They arrange to perform in the camp, where Robert at least sees his love. But can they arrange to get her out? Robert will stop at nothing to be reunited with Rachel, even after the war ends, he keeps following clues from one place to another, never giving up.

The romantic part of the film is a bit more complete than the clandestine search for Rachel. The first half of the film blends well the love story, the music, and wonderful production design that reflects pre-war Poland.

There are some gaps in the storytelling that could have profitably been filled in. For example, we really don’t see the ethical anguish that Robert had to go through to switch so quickly from the Resistance to singing for Hitler—even if it is for the cause of finding Rachel. Also, Rachel tells her family that music is part of who she is, yet the experience in the camps pushes her away from music. We only see a touch of that turmoil before it is resolved.

In the end, the film is a story of love. It is about love that will not let go, even when all seems hopeless. It is also the story of love that brings healing to the deep wounds that have been suffered.

I’ll Find You is in select theaters and available on VOD.

Photos courtesy of Gravitas Ventures.

Betrayed – The guilt of doing nothing

by Leave a Comment

In some ways Betrayed, from director Erik Svensson is like many other films about the Holocaust. It tells the story of the deportation of Jews from Norway in 1942. (Actually, we start three years earlier, in more normal times.) But this film doesn’t quite follow the pattern of other Holocaust films, which gives it a very different feeling.

The film focuses on the Braude family, especially Charles Braude, a boxer who lives with his parents, sister and two brothers. Charles is in love with, and eventually marries a Gentile, and they begin their life together. But the German occupation soon brings disruptions. Soon the men are all sent to a workcamp, where they face abuse at the hands of Norwegian Nazi sympathizers.

Meanwhile authorities are cataloguing the belonging of Jewish households. When the time comes, state police sweep through the town arresting all the Jewish women and children to be taken to the port to be shipped off. We learn at the end of the film that the Germans deported or imprisoned over 700 Jews from Norway. Only twenty-eight survived. When we thing of the Holocaust, we often think of the millions, but that may make us miss the more human side of a small community completely destroyed.

Where this film veers away from most Holocaust films is that we are used to such films being about heroics. Either the oppressed fighting back, or the heroics of neighbors who saved Jews from the sure death. It is precisely the lack of such heroics that gives Betrayed its power. Instead we see the people around them acquiesce—and even cheerfully so—to the orders that come down. We know that the German occupying power is behind all this, but it is Norwegians who are actually doing the terrible things.

The film tells us that in 2012 the government of Norway issued an apology. That apology stated that although the Germans did the killing, it was the Norwegian people who arrested and drove people to the docks. That was an acknowledgement that as a nation, they participated in the evil of the Holocaust. Does the power of the German occupiers mitigate that guilt? To some extent, but certainly not entirely.

Films that show heroes in the midst of the Holocaust may serve as examples for us to imitate in the facing of evil (and there are surely evils that we need to face in our own society).  But this film that shows the failure to act heroically is just as powerful by holding up a mirror to the may times we have failed to act—to allow the evil around us to flourish by our inaction, and sometimes even by our active participation because we’re just going along with the power.

Betrayed is in select theaters and available of VOD.

Photos courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films.

The Meaning of Hitler – Does History Mean Anything?

by Leave a Comment

Hitler. A name that for much of the world connotes absolute evil. But that name is burnt into history in such a way that we continue to struggle with the legacy that left millions dead. Petra Epperline and Michael Tucker bring us The Meaning of Hitler, a film framed by the 1987 book by Sebastian Haffner. The film is not so much an attempt to discover the meaning of Hitler in history as it is trying to understand why that worldview, something we see as so evil, continues in many ways in today’s world.

The filmmakers began the project during the time of the UK voting on Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and rising nationalist and anti-immigrant movements in many places. There was a very clear shift going on in the world that reached something of an apex at Charlottesville, and the rally of the extreme right that featured Nazis prominently. Since that time comparisons to fascism and Nazis have flown in accusations (going towards both the right and the left). Trump was often compared to Hitler. Was that a fair comparison?

The film begins with an interview with writer Martin Amis, who talks about the similarities (and the dissimilarities) of the two. It follows Hitler’s life and career through comments by a series of historians (including both the Hitler apologist David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt, whom Irving sued for libel [cf. the film Denial]) who shed light on the history and the present from different perspectives.

Petra Epperlein and Michael Tucker’s THE MEANING OF HITLER. Courtesy of IFC Films. An IFC Films release.

The film looks at Holocaust denial, the return of anti-Semitism in various forms, and the ways history is being rewritten so that the very concept of truth is being questioned. The film even questions whether a film such as itself can really find the truth amidst so much conflicting opinions and the rhetoric that fills everything around Hitler and his legacy.

Until a few years ago, I might have thought that the world had moved past that ugly period in our history. But like the filmmakers, I too have been shocked, deeply saddened, and at times angered by the growing sentiments (that I especially notice in my own country) that parallel the kind of authoritarian nationalism that was such a key part of Nazism. And while the filmmakers point out, Trump is not Hitler, they also point out the many ways Trump has used very similar techniques.

The fact that we do makes those comparisons, justly or not, between Hitler and modern situations (that are not limited to the US), is the reason that this film is needed. It allows us a chance to question the rhetoric of both sides. More important, it allows us to see ourselves in an evolving historical moment that may well lead either away or closer to the kinds of abuses of the past. If we associate Hitler with absolute evil, will these comparisons change the way we see that evolving world?

The Meaning of Hitler is in select theaters and available on VOD.

Photos courtesy of IFC Films.

Operation Finale – Capturing a War Criminal

by Leave a Comment

“We’re all animals fighting for scraps on the Serengeti.”

One of the most celebrated trials of the twentieth century was when Israel put Adolph Eichmann on trial. Eichmann headed the SS Office for Jewish Affairs and was one of the key architects of the Holocaust. But before they could put him on trial, they had to find him and get him to Israel. Operation Finale is the Mission Impossible style account his capture.

In 1960, Eichmann (Sir Ben Kingsley) is living with his family under an assumed name in Argentina. There is a community of Nazi supporters there, including many in the Catholic Church. When a young Jewish girl connects that this person is Eichmann, word gets to Israel. In the past Israel has looked for Eichmann to assassinate him, but now the government wants him captured to be put on trial for his crimes. A select group of Mossad (intelligence) and Shin Bet (security) agents develop a daring and dangerous plan to capture him and smuggle him out of the country on a special El Al plane.

Among the Israelis on this team is Peter Malkin (Oscar Issac). Malkin had taken part in an earlier assassination attempt that targeted the wrong man. As the plan develops, Malkin is the man who actually grabs Eichamnn just a few yards from his house. But after the capture things get complicated. The team is now told that they must get Eichmann to sign a document saying he agrees to be tried in Israel. At the same time, the right-wing Argentine security forces begin the hunt to rescue Eichmann.

As the time for the getaway draws near, Eichmann is understandably reluctant to cooperate. He says he should be tried in Germany. He says he could never get a fair trial in Israel. Only one person on the team was to negotiate with Eichmann, but when no progress was made, Malkin offered a different approach. Over a period of days Malkin and Eichmann discuss the realities of war, of nationalism, of human nature. Finally, Eichmann agrees, but they must still get him out of the country before being found.

Much of the film is a thriller—both the plan to capture Eichmann and the cat-and-mouse game between the Israelis and Argentinians. But what elevates this over other such films is the near philosophical discussion between Malkin and Eichmann. Both men have agendas that they bring to this dialogue, but in their back-and-forth they move each other to deeper levels of understanding. Eichmann strives to manipulate Malkin by pushing him on a personal level.

That seems to be a major difference between the two men. For Malkin (and the other Israelis) this is something that touches their lives. All had lost people in the Holocaust. For Eichmann it is about massive numbers. There is a sense in which 6 million Jews may overwhelm us, but there is more power in the knowledge of a single person we know. Eichmann did not know those whose death he oversaw. They were annoyances to be exterminated.

The actual trial of Eichmann is something of an anti-climax in the film. It is shown briefly, but the real testimony of the film is in these scenes of speaking about victims, justification, and our common human nature.

While the film doesn’t accept Eichmann’s rationalizations for his crimes, it does show him to be a man who cared for his family and his country, just as Malkin and the other Israelis cared for their families and nation. It is this humanizing factor that serves to point out the basis for all of Eichmann’s sins in the Holocaust—the failure to see that humanity in others.

Photos courtesy of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures

Bringing Evil to Justice – 1on1 with Lior Raz (Operation Finale)

by Leave a Comment

I recently had the opportunity to talk by phone with Lior Raz, who plays Isser Harel in Operation Finale, the story of the 1960 Israeli covert mission to capture Adolph Eichmann in Argentina. Since Lior is an Israeli, I focused on the importance of this story in Israel today.

How much does the story of the Eichmann capture and trial still resonates in Israel?

In Israel, it is a story that every kid knows. Because we are learning about the Holocaust since we are very young. We are learning about what happened there, and what Israel did, and about the Eichmann trial, and all the evidence. So I was very familiar with this story of Adolph Eichmann and the capture of him.

So does that bring a special meaning for you to be in a film like this?

Of course. I think it’s a very important movie now. And I think it’s important because in those days we had genocide, we had racism,  we had antisemitism all over the world. I think this movie comes out and shows the world: don’t forget what happened and we don’t want history to repeat itself. We need to stop it. We can’t stand outside and just watch horrible things happening. So being an Israeli, and a Jew, and a man with a family, it’s very important that these values go to everyone in the world.

Lior Raz stars as Isser Harel in OPERATION FINALE, written by Matthew Orton and directed by Chris Weitz, a Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures film.
Credit: Valeria Florini / Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures © 2018 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc.  All Rights Reserved.

The film plays out as a thriller. I’m not sure how much was added to enhance that aspect, but it is true that they were trying to get Eichmann out of the country while Argentine forces were trying to find them, right?

That’s true. It happened. Those people in the Mossad, what happened to them was very dangerous for them and the people who helped them. All the agents risked their lives in order to bring someone to justice in Israel, and not just kill them over there to revenge. And still those Mossad people do crazy stuff every day that we don’t know, but it was amazing what they did then.

It was interesting that Israel made the decision that they wanted Eichmann brought back to Israel for trial, not just to assassinate him.

Because it is very easy to assassinate. The decision was a very hard decision. It was Israel’s decision to bring him to justice and not to kill him over there. This decision is about morality. It’s about real justice. I think in those days in Israel all the Holocaust survivors wanted another way of revenge. It was to hear everything that happened and to be heard. So the trial was well published and it was on television every day. And it was a big thing in those days in Israel, people just wanted to be there and to understand what happened. To see this mastermind, master of evil, come to justice in a Jewish state.

I think that was an important decision, and as it plays out in the movie it was hard for those taking part in the capture because it was personal for them.

Yes, it is. But one thing, as you know, you have to be better than him. It was the easy way to assassinate him. But although all of them had been hurt by the Holocaust in a way, they were very professional, and just wanted to bring him back to Israel.

The Zookeeper’s Wife – Providing Sanctuary

by Leave a Comment

“I don’t belong here. They don’t belong here. You don’t belong here.”

The Zookeeper’s Wife opens in an almost Edenic world. Jan (Johan Heldenbergh) and Antonina (Jessica Chastain) Zabinski live on the grounds of the Warsaw Zoo, where Jan is the head zookeeper. Their son sleeps with lion cubs. When Antonina bicycles around the zoo, a young camel runs along with her. It is a happy and carefree existence. Not quite carefree, because war is looming. The serpent of this Eden is Lutz Heck (Daniel Brühl), the visiting head of the Berlin Zoo. He is obviously taken with Antonina, but claims he isn’t involved in politics.

When Germany invades on September 1, 1938, beginning the Second World War, the zoo is bombed with the rest of Warsaw. Animals are loose and in fear. Many are killed. Soon Heck is back, in an SS uniform, to take control of the animals, to ship the best to Berlin (for “protection”) and to try to use the zoo’s bison to breed long extinct aurochs (a reminder of the Nazi’s concern with eugenics and scientific exploitation). But soon, the Germans are forcing Jews into the Ghetto, and perhaps worse fates await.

The Zabinskis at first secretly harbor Antonina’s best friend, but as the world inside the Ghetto gets worse, they ask the Germans for permission to use the zoo as a pig farm to feed troops, and to feed the pigs with garbage from the Ghetto. Each day Jan goes to pick up the garbage, and smuggle out some of the Jews who are given refuge in the zoo. Through the years, over 300 persons made their way to the safety of the zoo. The Zambiskis, of course, are risking their lives by doing this. They not only provided safety; they provided friendship and even a bit of culture. Each night after the German guards left the zoo, Antonina would play the piano to let those in hiding know they could come out. That time became almost like an evening salon of conversation and companionship.

The film is based on a book by Diane Ackerman, which is a more extensive telling of the Zabinskis’ true story. As is often the case, time constraints require that things are often left out in adaptations of books. Here, we get very brief glimpses of parts of the story, such as Antonina’s pregnancy and Jan’s going off to fight with the Resistance, leaving Antonina alone to deal with their guests.

The Zabinskis’ decision to harbor as many Jews as they could was a courageous act—and a very illegal one. They were well aware of the threat that the Germans represented—both to the Jews and to those who harbored them. Yet, for them, the humanity of their neighbors took precedence over the laws that history has shown to be abhorrent. The idea of offering sanctuary to those in danger has a long history—and continues to be a valid question for people today. We live in a world filled with refugees of various kinds. Many have a difficult time finding a safe and welcoming place. More and more nations are closing their borders to those in need—or seeking to deport those already here. Some—including many churches—are seeking ways to provide a haven for those in need and fear. Stories from the Holocaust, like this one, are a reminder of how important those havens are.

Available July 4 on Blu-ray, DVD, and On Demand; available now on Digital HD. Special features include deleted scenes, the making of the film, and a look at the Zabinski family. 

 

 

Five Came Back – Hollywood Goes to War

by Leave a Comment

For those who enjoy film, the names John Ford, Frank Capra, George Stevens, William Wyler, and John Huston will be familiar. All are Oscar-winning directors (with a total of 14 Oscars between them). They were also part of the World War II war effort as military filmmakers. Five Came Back is a three-part documentary about these five directors and how they used their filmmaking expertise during the war. The series is streaming on Netflix.

When the U.S. entered World War II after Pearl Harbor, there were many people who left their worlds of safety and comfort to fight in this war. These five filmmakers knew they had talents that could be of import to the war effort. Each volunteered and spent the war in uniform making films for the military. Each had different approaches to the task. For some it took them directly into battle—on Midway and at D-Day, or flying on bombers on combat missions. Others made films that helped American understand why this war had to be fought. But each found a way to serve their nation with the skills they had developed entertaining people with film. Some of their work was essentially newsreel material, often with a good dose of propaganda included. It served to bring the war back to Americans in such a way to keep morale high.

There are some big name directors of today who relate the stories of these earlier filmmakers: Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Guillermo del Toro, Paul Greenglass, and Laurence Kasdan. They understand how difficult it is to make films under the best of circumstances. They relate the hardships and trials (which included pushing to make the films their way) faced by the early group.

The series introduces us to their work before the war, but the bulk of the film focuses on their wartime work. It also shows us how this experience changed them. For example, George Stevens (who filmed D-Day and, eventually, the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp) was known mostly as a director of comedies before the war; after the war he never made another comedy (but some marvelous serious films).

This is an excellent piece of film history, plus a nice bit of the history of the Second World War as seen by these filmmakers. Netflix is also streaming some of the wartime films so that viewers can not only learn the story of these men, but also the stories they brought back with them. Among the ones I’ve added to my list on Netflix are: The Memphis Belle (Wyler), The Battle of Midway (Ford), The Negro Soldier (Capra), Know Your Enemy—Japan (Capra), and Let There Be Light (Huston).

29 Aug 1943, London, England, UK — Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS

2017 Oscar Nominated Short Documentaries

by Leave a Comment

Filmmakers often bring us the things we may read about in the news in a very personal manner. That is the case for all the films nominated for Best Short Documentary. Three of the films cover very similar territory but each has a different perspective. The films, in alphabetical order are:

4.1 Miles (26 minutes, directed by Daphne Matzlaraki). In the last few years, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have attempted the deadly voyage between Turkey and the Greek island of Lesbos, seeking safety and life. This film focuses on a coast guard boat that goes out each day seeking to rescue many of those. It reflects the chaos of the rescues and the pathos of the dangers and loss.

Extremis (24 minutes, directed by Dan Krauss). Within a hospital ICU this film shows us the angst involved in making decisions about end of life issues. As a doctor tells us, “Here’s the reality: We’re all going to die…. It’s good to have a little bit of say in how.” These can be ethically challenging issues. It can also be a time when faith may play an important role in the decision making for families. This film can currently be streamed on Netflix.

Joe’s Violin (24 minutes, directed by Kahane Cooperman). 91 year old Holocaust survivor Joe Feingold donated his violin to a school music program. It found its way to a seventh grade student, Brianne Perez. Their stories and the history of the violin are a reminder of the hope and joy that can be found in music—and in giving.

Watani: My Homeland (39 minutes, directed by Marcel Mettelsiefen). This film shows us glimpses over a three year period of a family from Aleppo, Syria. The father is a commander in the Free Syrian Army. As the war progresses, the mother takes the four children to Turkey, and eventually Germany looking for a new, safe life. As they are leaving their home, one of the daughters says, “We love you Syria. Forgive us.” Even in the comfort of their new home in Germany, they continue to think of Syria as their homeland.

The White Helmets (41 minutes, directed by Orlando von Einsidel). Also set in Aleppo, this film focuses on a few of the civilian volunteers who rescue people from the rubble after the frequent bombings the city as suffered during the Syrian Civil War. The ones we meet are a former builder, blacksmith, and tailor. Now they spend their days in the humanitarian struggle. As one says, “Any human being, no matter who they are, or which side they are on, if they need our help, it’s our duty to save them. But even as they work to rescue others, they fear for their own families as well. This film is currently streaming of Netflix.

There is power to all these films. Those dealing with the Syrian Civil War and the refugees associated with it are especially timely and provide a way for us to personalize the tragedy that may overwhelm us by the numbers involved. But my favorite among them was Extremis, because it is a very emotional film that shows the difficulty doctors and families face in very trying times. It is a setting that many have found themselves in, and many more will surely confront.

Photos courtesy of Shorts HD

Denial – Does Truth Matter?

by Leave a Comment

Does truth even matter anymore? I receive frequent emails from FactCheck.org that looks at the statements made by political candidates and rates their accuracy. It may not come as a surprise that some statements are blatantly false. Is the truth just an annoyance that gets in the way of what we’d like to say and believe? Standing for the truth is the core of Denial, a true story courtroom drama about a professor who is sued by a Holocaust denier for libel.

Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), a professor of history at Emory University, has made a name as one who has studied Holocaust denial. In a book she mentions David Irving (Timothy Spall), a British self-taught historian of World War II, as a Holocaust denier and Hitler apologist. He sues her for libel leading to a sensationalized trial in London. Her defense team, led by solicitor Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) and barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson), sets a strategy that troubles Lipstadt—to not put her or any Holocaust survivors on the stand. Rather, they planned to focus on Irving and his racist, anti-Semitic views that had led him to distort history.

DENIAL

While much of the film is the courtroom drama (and all of the courtroom dialogue is taken verbatim from the trial transcripts), it is also the personal story of Dr. Lipstadt through this persecution. (The film is based on her book, Denial: Holocaust History on Trial.) Often we sense her solitude in the midst of all the media frenzy. Even when with her legal team, she is often alone. They have their legal experience and strategy. For them, her defense is all important, but for Lipstadt the truth is what really matters and that is why she is not willing to settle. She wants to make it clear that fact of the Holocaust is not subject the whim of whoever may not want to acknowledge it. She wants the pain of the Holocaust victims to have voice. For the others involved, the truth does matter, but it seems to be secondary to winning.

DENIAL

Irving, on the other hand, is portrayed as a self-aggrandizing egotist. For him, the truth is what he wants it to be. He relishes the acceptance this trial seems to give to him and his ideas. It is exactly that approach which is the target of the legal defense. Rampton, in his cross examination treats him as totally unimportant. He refuses to even look at him. It is not so much that he is worthy of contempt. They want to portray that he is not even worthy of notice because he cares nothing about truth.

The film does, of course, speak to the veracity of the historical truth of the Holocaust. That, however, is only a minor part of why the film is important. It is not so much about whether the Holocaust actually happened. (We are expected to already know the fact about that.) Rather this is about what credence we should give the various lies that people speak in order to gain acceptance. Which brings us back to the current electoral process. Sites such as Factcheck.org and Politifact.com (which will rate some things as “Pants on Fire) try to help us get a handle on the truth, half-truths, and sometimes outright lies that candidates and their proxies tell us. But often, even in debates and interviews, those half-truths, errors, and lies go unchallenged. Denial reminds us that the truth matters and that sometimes we have to stand up and demand that lies and those who tell them must be called what they are.

Photos courtesy of Bleeker Street

Germans & Jews: Can They Live Together?

by Leave a Comment

“What did his grandfather do?”

Does it seem odd that the fastest growing Jewish community in Europe is found in Berlin? When filmmaker Tal Recanati (a Jewish American) traveled to Germany and found a vibrant Jewish community that has grown in the seventy years since the Holocaust, she thought there was a story here that needed to be discovered. Germans & Jews is the personal stories of both Jewish and non-Jewish people living in Germany reflecting on the commonalities and differences they face.

germanjewishvoicesnewspapers

The film includes a brief history of the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust, but for the most part, it is made up of individual interviews of mostly young adults who are two generations separated from those events. A few of the Jews are from families that returned to Germany right after World War II, others have come from Israel or Russia in more recent years. The gentile Germans have had an education that includes much information about the Holocaust as a way of dealing with their national past. With seventy years having passed, can these two groups coexist in their nation? Is seventy years long enough for such deep wounds to heal and trust to be established? Must new generations carry the guilt of their grandparents (regardless of their ancestors’ actual participation or non-participation)? Can there be reconciliation between peoples who have such a violent and oppressive history?

germanjewsdinner

As an American watching the film, I felt a bit like an outsider. To be sure, the Holocaust is a part of our cultural awareness—but often just as a point in history that continues to have influences in world affairs. But for those we meet in the film, the Holocaust is an ongoing part of their culture whether or not they are Jewish. As more Jews move into Germany (although they still make up only 0.2% of the population) the relationship between Jew and non-Jew will continue to be a growing phenomenon. The key question is to what extent can these peoples find reconciliation and begin to live not just side by side, but actually be in community together? That is the question that seems to be central not just to the film, but may also be a question that the whole world needs to consider in the many ways national, religious, and cultural divides occur.

Photos courtesy of First Run Features