The Zone of Interest is easily the best film I’ve seen this year, it blew me away! What are your thoughts, and are you planning to see it? Let me know below!
Although the film did not reveal anything I did not know before, as I have been in Poland and Berlin, even before the "Fall of the Berlin Wall", your explanation and review did change my "personal approval rating" for the film. I expected more from the film, given the subject matter. The point was made in the first ten minutes (the camp wall seen from the garden) and I kept wanting more of something to happen. But maybe THAT is the point you make here: That we are so inured to violence and brutality on social media, that we want an action film, even at the expense of our vision of humanity. Thank you for your superb review.
I kept wondering about the dog, pushed away, yelled at, nameless. But it was clear when the dog on the street is fussed over as being of rare coloring. Some dogs are mutts, and others are purebred. The latter is called beautiful, asked its name, age, fosters childhood memories.
A pure masterpiece. What an approach - how he presented the banality of evil. Relaxing domestic scenes of the nazi family and the horrifying background sounds...letting you make your own visions of what is going on on the other side...
I like the detail that Hedwig on the opposite to her mother can easily sleep comfortably whole night while her child is non stop crying. She is basicly so used to the noise of this madness that she can't even hear the suffering of her own children.
The girl in the night sequence is based on a real person. The director met her in person to learn her story. She died not long ago. The film is dedicated to her.
@@George-hx4vsHer name was Alexandria “She lived in the house we shot in. It was her bike we used, and the dress the actor wears was her dress. Sadly, she died a few weeks after we spoke. “That small act of resistance, the simple, almost holy act of leaving food, is crucial because it is the one point of light. I really thought I couldn’t make the film at that point. I kept ringing my producer, Jim, and saying: ‘I’m getting out. I can’t do this. It’s just too dark.’ It felt impossible to just show the utter darkness, so I was looking for the light somewhere and I found it in her. She is the force for good.”
Did anyone else feel that the older son putting his son in the greenhouse and smiling as he watched his brother screaming to get out (whilst holding a big stick) was the older child copying the behaviours of what they hear over the wall?
Terrific insights into this movie. It really is a haunting film. You’re right about the children. They were really showing signs of distress. The one little girl kept sleep walking, and the little boy was bothered by the things he heard while playing alone by himself. But then he responded out loud in a punishing voice. The baby cried all of the time. And the dog was jumpy. Did you notice that? Also, towards the end, did you notice that when the big brother locked the little brother in the greenhouse, he made a hissing sound? He knew what was going on in the camp’s “showers”. So much to process…
Interesting interpretation. I wondered whether the hissing was like the snake, a metaphor for the devil (in the garden of Eden, their garden next to autschwitz) and acting on evil?
Whenever you watch a film and you cannot stop thinking about it later, sometimes for days, weeks, or months, you know it has accomplished what the film makers had intended. Bravo to this team of talent.
Especially now with what is going on in gaza and you feel complicit but can't do anything. Unintentionally and unfortunately, the movie is very contemporary.
They did not just coincidentally live next to the camp, he was the head of the camp and he was purposefully relocated there. So it is much more than turning a blind eye on the neighboring atrocities. They were directly responsible for them.
I recommend reading a summary of the last interviews with Rudolf Hoess. It shines a new light on what you've brought up. He was fully aware of the harm he was commanding, he wasn't a psychopath, what's more he was kind of sensitive (what's shown in the film as well, they chose an actor who has delicate voice, and generally doesn't behave like a criminal, and is kind for his horse - a being he doesn't require him to put a mask on, like humans). He also talks about how SS-mans were trained to desensitize looking at violence and he said it didn't really work on him. He accepted the responsibility fully and understood what he did / what he was doing. He was just extremely obedient, what derived from his personal history, upbringing, and later on probably he had to follow along, otherwise he'd be dead and someone else would simply replace him. He'd feel that what he was doing was wrong and violence repulsed him, yet he would never question the command, or oppose in any way. Not because he was scared, but because it was his psychological setup. A perfect execution robot which puts a very low value on his own feelings and thoughts and actively rejects them. He never intended to work as a commander, he wanted to be a soldier, but being so conformable and dutiful made him perfect for that role, and he would ask for the change of decision but never strongly opposed even in terms of his own "career" path. And just accepted that it lead to his death sentence, as a logical consequence. As much as we loathe the evil, or can't even comprehend this, the defense mechanisms is an everyday part of our human psychologyand we better learn about them before it's too late, as I'm sure everyone thinks "I would never" and we truly believe IT WILL never happen again (even thinking like that is a bias!) . Until it happens. In Rwanda, Yugoslavia, North Korea, in Ukraine. People are more involved in Palestine/Israel because of the media. But yeah. It did happen, and will happen again until we all educate ourselves and work on ourselves very actively. Until then, we are the ones responsible for the atrocities. Being passive is also a choice. It's happening all the time, until now, but we're ourselves behind the wall.
@@OCEAN_OF_FOXESHe is a perfect representative of the professional managerial class, the technocrats who think everyone agrees with them, are just doing their jobs because they have “responsibilities,” and why their stomachs are too delicate to contemplate the actual consequences of their actions, they believe they are the moral superiors of their critics.
I read his book Commandant of Auschwitz and he was literally responsible not just for the running of the camp but for building and expanding it. He talks about lacking money and other necessary resources to the point that he had to steal barbed wire for the project. He also made a point of criticizing the selection process for taking too many people at a time for labor and thought they should've only selected the strongest and healthiest as to ensure better production. That also would've meant gassing even more people at selection.
@@OCEAN_OF_FOXES We literally are just that, right now! We know for a fact that the Cobalt used in our phones comes from the mines of Congo where little boys and girls are sent into collapsing caves in the Earth, the Chinese kids slave laboring away in a sweatshop half a world away, all the crimes and brutalities happening along the supply chains, to get you the smartphone/PC you are using to write this comment down on. And yet, we type away, watching TH-cam videos about this exact same message, playing with the idea, and then moving on just like that. What Hoss and his family did were more overt, and immediate evil. But I wonder about our own involvement in all the suffering- may be not like Hoss himself, but at the least like his indifferent family.
The way that Rudolf has more love and affection to animals like his horse and how playful he was with the dog on the street while he was completely unfazed by the horrors of people in the camps. Truly reflects our society.
and did you notice that all the animals...their dog, the horse and the little dog he pets...they are all Black. Like his heart. There is so much in this film. Especially in the second watch.
@@JAmediaUK And what about all the hatred and segregational behaviour that went on during cvid? We were forced to have passports to eat in a restaurant or cafe!!!!!!
I loved the girl in the night sequence, for despite the horror, it exhibited humanity too, I was so moved when she received the sheet of music as a thank you for the food
I liked how the evil of the Holocaust was being committed right out in broad daylight but the good deeds of the girl going out and leaving fruit was done in the cover of dark, but was lit an angelic bright white. Pretty cool.
the scenes that showed how they couldn't ignore the camp next door is shown through the river scene where there was contaminants,the grandma scene leaving the home,Hoss being sick at the end ,the kid in his room telling himself not to look outside the window ,the teeth scene
@shannonscully705 I agree but Hoess was an animal and pretending he had any conscience or reflection of his foul deed us strictly 2024 pop psychology with no basis in fact whatsoever.
The cheery rose pink sundress Hedwig is wearing contrasts with her mother’s dark and somber attire. It shows the latter is more in touch with the atrocity happening next door, while the former is trying to live in a technicolor fantasy land.
I wanted to stop watching it so bad, my psyche could barely stand it, my stomach was in knots, but I made it to the end. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A MUST SEE FOR EVERYONE! Especially today.
I love the shot where she waits for the soldiers to pass and sneaks off down another path on her bike. A simple shot, but it was nerve shreading to watch!
@davidlean1060 I just got done watching it, and I agree with you. We don't know who the girl is, but the fact that she is helping by leaving food for them, we're automatically on her side. The two scenes of her leaving food in the middle of the night is nerve-wracking, cause we don't want her to get caught. It made me think, "In the middle of all this evilness, there is still some hope in humanity close be.
@@mattbernabeThe film has Hoss telling his kids that bedtime story while she does it. That's clever too. For him, it's just a story. He's unaware that there's a young woman out in the dark, risking her skin to help strangers. Glazer is good at creating tension. In Sexy Beast, he manages to make the words, 'where's Don?' absolutely terrifying because of the situation Gal finds himself in and of course, Ian McShane's excellent perfromance as the villain Teddy.
@@pipparice2043I forgot about the pig! That's significant too. A pig walks free, but the prisoners don't have the same freedom! It kind of reminded me of Animal Farm, as if Glazer suddenly started depicting Nazi soldiers as farm animals!
@@amirleo2051 generally, they were murdered en masse by gassing and then the bodies burned. There are some documented incidents of people being burned alive in uprising incidents. Generally they were gassed in the chamber shown in the present-day scene
That shot of Rudolf in his white suit smoking while all you see is the smoke from the train behind the trees... what. a. shot. what an awful awful awful image. just brilliant.
I love that the director put all his heart and soul in it because he truly understands suffering of that kind.. Especially since he also called out the Genocide in Gaza
to me, his speech was not necessarily about the Genocide in Gaza. It was about us still turning a blind eye on suffering, caused by no reason whatsoever. Both sides think they're right in causing the others suffer, just like in the movie. He emphasizes that the movie is about the present, not the past.
@@AY-ln1mk " Both sides think they're right in causing the others suffer, just like in the movie." oh for the love of god, I know you're trying to be nice but did you really have to trivialise the genocide and the fucking holocaust ? You were doing great until you blurred the metaphorical line that even a blind guy can see. "Both sides, both sides, both sides" There is no "both sides" here my wilfully ignorant friend, there's the oppressors and there is the oppressed. The nazis were the oppressors, oppressors can suffer, but that doesn't mean they should oppress the oppressors. Just like israel, it's the oppressor, the Palestinians are the oppressed. The Palestine issue is complex, but it's not that complex, israel never had any moral high ground here.. neither the nazis, they both were cowards that victimised themselves to justify genocide, israel's oct 7 is the nazi's irrational fear of Jews under mining the white race.
I appreciate your remarks about Glazer's film, where we observed a "normality" of Hoess's family suspended over total horror. We also observe wars, famines, climate disasters, and the evils that befall the people around us. But we all have an empathy deficit. We only feel empathetic where it seems most appropriate and convenient to us. We use circumstantial words to say that the world "sucks". But how many people courageously raise their voices to say: "I don't agree!" How many dare to proclaim the truth when doing so might be inappropriate or even dangerous? In Glazer's film, a young girl brings food to the prisoners at night. It represents hope for the future. But if we look at the past, we must recognize that few have said "no!" to injustice-the few martyrs, like Navalny, sacrificed their lives in the name of truth.
A couple things : It’s interesting that later in the film u head the horrific encounter of prisoners and guards that the little hoss boy overhears while playing in his bedroom and the guard says “they’re fighting over an apple” and when the little hoss boy says “don’t do that again” it’s up to interpretation if he’s saying it out of mimicking the guards or wanting to save the life of someone by telling them not to do it again, I think in general, the child is disturbed and doesn’t want the entire encounter to happen again - it’s like that mix of frustration you feel when u have no control and want to blame the victim but really u want to save the victim
All of that could be possible. I thought he was talking to himself bc I do that when I think of something that is unimaginable or terrifying - like if I start to think what would happen to my child if I were to pass (as her dad has), I will literally tell myself, outloud, to “stop it!”
The black and white girl isn’t part of the family though. That’s a Polish girl from the neighboring town. The Höss children show no inner conflict at all. In fact, nobody except the grandmother and crying baby show any sign of discomfort with the camp. That’s what makes it so terrifying. The black and white girl leaving apples is the only slight slimmer of hope and humanity in hell.
Adding: the black and white girl is based on a real life Polish resistance girl, Alexandria, that Glazer spoke to at the age of 90. He talks about her in several interviews and the movie is dedicated to her.
But the young son who looks out of the window when he hears the sounds of a man being executed says 'Don't do that again' as he turns away, and Höss himself seems to be having a physical reaction, which we see when he visits the doctor. I saw both of these things as inner conflicts manifesting themselves.
The young son was repeating the exact phrasing of the guard who yelled those words at the prisoner before executing him. I saw or heard no clues of (moral) doubt in Höss actions or words, so I cannot reasonably believe his physical reaction comes from an inner conflict. In real life Höss didn't show any conflict either. Only after he was convicted he wrote in letters that he saw his previous actions and work as wrong. Of course a movie leaves room for interpretation and debate, so I will not say that your view is wrong. However I interpreted it (slightly) different. @@robinkerman
Did the grandmother leave because she was uncomfortable with the situation? To just up sticks and go without leaving a note- she must have been really shook.
The phrase has be misunderstood by more than a few in regards this movie. People take it to mean evil becomes ordinary if you surround yourself with it, but as you point out, the phrase is actually saying 'evil' people appear quiet normal
There was a scene where Hedwig’s mother left without warning, only leaving a note. I believe her note detested the holocaust/Nazi party, or her family, which would explain why she immediately put it in the furnace, eliminating the possibility of others reading it. Only a minor detail but I think it’s Glazer’s way of demonstrating just how much the Nazi Party controlled the thoughts of the general population via fear and intimidation. I believe Hedwig would have been concerned about the consequences if anyone were to find that note. Incredible film, will stick with me for a long time
In real life Hedwig showed no remorse and never renounced her faith in national-socialism. She even claimed to not have known what happened in the camp. I thus find it very hard to believe she was intimidated into destroying the note, being the rampant Nazi that she was herself. I find it more plausible that her pride was tarnished, also because she made such an effort into impressing her mother with the house and garden.
At first the mother was fine with getting all the belongings of the Jewish people and she makes the joke about her old employer being over the wall. I guess the reality of the furnace got to her. It was a striking moment
i didn't know what this movie was about. i just kind of heard a buzz and saw the name around a lot without clicking into any of the articles. Then i watched the trailer and still didn't understand. when i watched it...i was floored, shocked and felt so uneasy and the meaning of it can relate to many things we are experiencing - war in gaza, ukraine and what we are doing to animals we raise for food. But i need to come here to understand more.
seeing Höss vomit but not really intending to vomit, is more disgusting than seeing Isabelle Andjani vomit in Possession, because it really shows how dead he feels as a human being, just like Anwar Congo in The Act Of Killing
This is real film art, something "The Academy" mormaly doesn t understand. This film is told on so many levels.. it is a masterpeace par excelance! Chapeau!
We saw the movie on Saturday night and it's still on my mind. I think the way the story is told visually is stunning. The way we are brought into the family makes us feel almost like a part of it. It's a chilling movie and I was so moved by it. It deserves any and all accolades it gets.
I liked the video, but I disagree with your interpretation of the quote at 6:20. He IS comparing people to these Nazis. People in the USA, UK, Canada, etc. have historically been complicit in imperialism, colonialism, or outright genocide. Despite the Nazis industrializing the murder of Jews, Americans (and company) too have tended to their gardens while their governments enslaved and slaughtered people. Without even thinking about current conflicts like Palestine, this is clear when thinking about the UK in India, the USA in Vietnam (or Laos or Cambodia or Indonesia or Guatemala, the list goes on), Canada with its indigenous population, etc. These countries were built on genocide and exploitation, and they have continued committing systemic atrocities even after the Nuremberg trials. Hitler said he wanted to do to Europe what the USA had done to its indigenous population. I think the film was saying that the difference between these histories is not as big as we make it out to be.
I feel like it’s nearly impossible to have a discussion about this subject matter over text, but I will say I think you and I are essentially making the same point about the quote. I was more saying that we’re not like Hoss and the Nazis in the way that they run the concentration camp directly and preach the values of eradicating an entire race. But having said that, I do agree with your entire comment, and I’m sure Jonathan Glazer would too, the parallels are more apparent than we may think. We do live alongside and benefit from some of the most heartless practices. I’m glad you posted this because sometimes I may be too brief on certain points, especially in the non-spoiler videos, so thank you for this, I appreciate it!
People, as usual, are looking for the 'bad guys' to be other than us, but the point Glazer is making is these people are ordinary. They could be us, given a certain set of circumstances. I agree though. America was fine with eradicating the Native population if they got in the way of the settlers' passage west. Britian ensured famine in India and Ireland....we could go on.
The gagging and retching as Höss walks down the steps and it cuts to the cleaning ladies.....then after that cuts back...that made me weep but i cant put into words why.
Such a deep and multilayered film. You’ve nicely laid out the themes and structure. We didn’t see you this time but the clips were nice chosen and assembled. Take care.
Meine Meinung.... Es sollte nie "bester Ton" werden! Unsere Sinne sollen ganz andere Dinge in diesem Moment aufnehmen und verarbeiten. Leider verstehen dies viele Menschen nicht, es geht um das Gefühl!
I want to add one perspective, among others of current wars or consumerism, an uncomfortable for most I guess - because this is the most real and directly analogous, everyday subject for many because it is about beings that are deprived of voice to speak about their suffering and enslavement and cannot advocate for themselves. I do not wish to offend anyone, but widen the perspective and encourage to think about your own Wall. The philosophy is known since Isaac Singer, yet the movie shows perfectly how it is to engage in the defense mechanisms without directly speaking of the crime, what is our own perspective. Because we almost always focus on the oppression and the victims - the results, and rarely give any attention to how it begins. The film "Zone of Interest" transcends its narrative to serve as a profound metaphor, not just about the historical atrocities of the Nazis, but about the pervasive and often overlooked parallels in how society collectively turns a blind eye to the suffering of others, including animals. It's a poignant exploration of the defense mechanisms we employ to shield ourselves from the uncomfortable reality of our complicity in cruelty and suffering, akin to the way individuals in the film rationalize their actions or inactions within the Nazi regime. Polish-American author Isaac Bashevis Singer, who received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1978, made the comparison in several of his stories. In the 1968 The Letter Writer, the protagonist says, "In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka." In The Penitent the protagonist says "when it comes to animals, every man is a Nazi". There's a direct analogy with the way prisoners and animals treated. The exploitation of their bodies, workforce, and then mass execution, objectifying a living being for someone's own gains. R*ping the cows and exploiting their reproductive system to steal the milk that in nature is supposed to feed their children, taking the calfs away, killing male chicks because they will never produce eggs, using animals for experimentation, keeping them in inhumane conditions, insults to autonomy, freedon, infliction of unnecessary suffering, skinning, removing hair, teeth (horns, tusks..), using bones and other remains, (e,g, to make soap - I'm sorry if it sounds horrifying - that's what Nazis did), ; factory farms are literal concentration camps with the same deathly smell. The obsession with making their death more optimal, efficient, less costly with technology, is perfectly shown in Hoess'es mind. And it doesn't include only killing farming animals, why do we make breeds of pets that have difficulty breathing, walking or are affected with health issues in various ways, just to make a pet look "funny", or get that "pure form" and "perfect race"? Do you realize what happened with the pets that didn't align with the breeding standard? What happens to 'meat' animals when they don't meet the market standards? How we can find any ideology to just make ourselves okay with the violence we inflict upon another living and feeling beings. Excuses, justification. We even try to incorporate religion, a system that's supposed to teach us morality, kindness, to lie to ourselves that this is violence, but we're allowed to be violent, therefore it's not bad. Just like any offender that blames their victim, or their parents. The movie adeptly showcases how the physical and psychological walls we erect, much like the literal wall in the film, serve to compartmentalize and distance ourselves from the pain and suffering we contribute to or ignore. Hoess can easily discuss the "load" and the details of burning the bodies without using a single word that indicates these are people. This is eerily similar to how we, in modern society, distance ourselves from the plight of animals subjected to the horrors of factory farming and slaughterhouses. The use of euphemisms like "livestock," "meat," and "poultry" mirrors the dehumanization and objectification seen in the film, making the subjects of our harm more palatable to our conscience. The secrecy what happens behind the closed doors and namelessness of the victims are crucial, so we can all benefit from the proceders yet maintain a safe distance from the 'objects' of exploitation. Furthermore, the film's depiction of the normalization of violence and the desensitization to suffering is a powerful commentary on our own societal detachment from the cruelty inflicted upon animals. The scenes where characters become accustomed to the smells and sounds of atrocity echo our own acclimatization to the hidden brutalities of animal agriculture. Just as the atrocities behind the walls of the camp become a normalized backdrop to the lives of the characters, the suffering of animals remains a conveniently ignored truth, hidden behind the neatly packaged and sanitized products we consume. "Zone of Interest" does not just challenge us to reflect on the historical evils of Nazism but prompts a deeper introspection into our current attitudes and actions towards animals (among other evil things that we are involved in). It forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that our defense mechanisms and moral disengagements in the face of animal suffering are not unlike those employed by individuals during one of humanity's darkest periods. By drawing parallels between the past and present, the film serves as a compelling call to action, urging us to dismantle the psychological and societal barriers that prevent us from recognizing and addressing the suffering we cause to other sentient beings. If we truly believe that Hoess family are monsters, we are saying it about ourselves. Only the atrocity of human execution can show us how bad is our everyday behavior, when there are billions of beings slaughtered each day just for the minutes of our own pleasure, our own garden with the pool. The movie shows the ultimate indifference. They were just doing their job. I'm a great commander, I'm a great homemaker. Consequences of my choices are supported by society, therefore I don't need to think about the morality of my actions. I don't need to oppose because it would be really uncomfortable, not only psychologically, but also socially. We never care about speciesm because within our standard low emotional intelligence and immaturity, we're often in a survival mode that requires conformism as we fear we are either the killers, or the killed. By disowning our own responsibility, by nurturing the denial, we believe that we're not guilty, even while consuming directly the dead body of a tormented animal. The system allowed us to detach completely from the reality of how it became something we consider our "food". Sometimes this is pushed to the limits, for example when producers label or advertise their products / company as something that is utterly good for the animals (I mean all the happy cows on the grass, while the reality of industrial farming is vastly different, or labels like "the valley of good" which sounds quite disturbing within the context). The film is a stark reminder of the dangers of indifference and the moral imperative to extend our circle of compassion beyond the confines of our own species. Just as the characters in "Zone of Interest" are challenged to confront the reality beyond their walls, we too are faced with the choice to acknowledge and act upon the suffering of animals in our midst. The question then becomes not whether we can see the similarities between ourselves and the oppressors of the past, but whether we have the courage to break down the walls of denial and indifference that allow such suffering to continue unchallenged. Because, after all, what would happen if nobody stopped the Nazis? If we're not actively speaking against, we're compliant and responsible. But our comfort requires feeding the biases as shown in the movie. It's behind the wall, you get used to it - as Singer said, we're ""victims of conditioned ethical blindness".
I read this comment about a week ago, after I watched the video. Around the same time I started reading Primo Levi's "If This Is a Man/The Truce" and I sometimes found myself thinking of your comment again. There is a passage in the book where Levi, a Jewish chemist imprisoned in Auschwitz, is examined by a German, Dr. Pannwitz, to see if he is knowledgeable enough to work in a chemistry lab. Of the encounter he writes, "When he finished writing, he raised his eyes and looked at me. From that day I have thought about Doktor Pannwitz many times and in many ways. I have asked myself how he really functioned as a man; how he filled his time, outside of the Polymerization and the Indo-Germanic conscience; above all when I was once more a free man, I wanted to meet him again, not from a spirit of revenge, but merely from a personal curiosity about the human soul. Because that look was not one between two men; and if I had known how completely to explain the nature of that look, which came as if across the glass window of an aquarium between two beings who live in different worlds, I would also have explained the essence of the great insanity of the third Germany." There is a divide between us and animals which makes it unnecessary for us to dehumanize them, because they are not human. If we try to understand their suffering we inevitably impose our own logic onto beings that don't share ours. What makes historic events like the Holocaust so hard to explain is that it's humans viewing other humans as a different species, subhuman, inhuman. I kept thinking how Levi, among the horrendous torment and utter indifference for human suffering, would have reacted had his situation been likened to that of a chicken. I too suffer from a soft heart and refused to eat meat from an early age, so I am not saying this as some meat enthusiast. I am fully aware of what's going on in factory farming (I live in a town where half the people are employed by a very large meat plant). I personally would never make such a comparison though. One more perspective I would like to give: Isaac Bashevis Singer himself has never been in a concentration camp. He emigrated to the US years before the Holocaust. He himself experienced a great amount of detachment from the tragedy as he was on another continent and his family was safe as well. I think that's why you see him drawing these parallels so easily but not the actual Auschwitz survivors. Neither the suffering of animals nor our justification for said suffering is comparable to that of the Holocaust. That being said, I don't mean to fight with you about it and you're free to believe whatever you would like. Just thought I'd give my perspective if you care!
@@cappuccinobean2442 Thank you for sharing your perspective, and I truly appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the topic. It's nice to hear you thought about my comment and appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further. (Also I like your nick, had to make a cappucino to reply lol) I understand your concern about making direct comparisons between the Holocaust and the suffering of animals, and I want to clarify that my intention is not to diminish the horrors of the Holocaust or the experiences of its survivors. However, I'd like to emphasize that drawing parallels between the two can serve as a powerful metaphor to highlight the mechanisms of indifference, dehumanization, and moral disengagement that allow for widespread suffering, whether human or animal. Primo Levi's encounter with Dr. Pannwitz, as you mentioned, reflects the profound disconnect between the oppressor and the oppressed, a chasm of empathy that is disturbingly similar to the way we often distance ourselves from the suffering of animals. It's crucial to recognize that while animals are not human and do not share our logic or experience, they are sentient beings capable of suffering. The moral imperative to reduce suffering does not solely apply to humans but extends to all sentient beings. By examining our own behaviors and justifications for inflicting suffering on animals, we can gain insights into the broader human capacity for indifference and cruelty. This doubt you present here is heavily influenced by creationism, which has shaped Western culture in many ways, leading to the belief that only humans, as divine creations, are capable of intelligence, creativity, emotions, and suffering. This viewpoint, however, overlooks the biological and evolutionary fact that humans are also animals, and there is no fundamental division between animal pain and human pain. We have evolved for thousands of years before we became homo sapiens, and share most of the body functionalities (including feeling pain - a very basic one) with other species. In considering movies like "The Zone of Interest," the focus should be on the nature of causing suffering itself, not just its portrayal. The comparison to the Holocaust, while potent, underscores that causing immense suffering, regardless of the victims, is inherently wrong. The difference lies in the fact that the Holocaust has ended, but the exploitation of animals continues to escalate. I don't necessarilly insist on calling this another holocaust, but I do think this is the same outcome, starting with different reasons, but using the same psychology on us 'normal people', and that was my point. This movie encourages us to think about ourselves as the perpetrators (not only to animals, but I didn't mention that to avoid digression, but it's the same with modern slavery - but, animal industry is clearly similar with all the death and organization) and not many will want to dismantle their biases and their peace, their walls, as you're trying to defend yours. Understanding the reality of animal farming reveals the harsh truths (also about how it harms us as individuals, and humans overall) and requires courage to confront them. Despite the limited actions we can take beyond avoiding animal products and advocating against their use, it is clear that denying animal suffering as equivalent to human suffering is a common defense mechanism. Tribalism, the bias you mentioned, leads us to devalue the suffering of other species compared to our own. To harm another human, we often dehumanize them, a process mirrored in how we treat animals. Many cultures engage in this "othering" process, which historically facilitated tribalism-a survival mechanism that has now become a cognitive error in modern societies or a reason to let go off the steam. Despite being a different species, animals share more similarities with us than most people realize. From a scientific perspective, non-human animals possess brain regions and pain behaviors strikingly similar to humans. For instance, when pets are in pain, they display behaviors like rocking, distress calls, and changes in breathing, akin to human pain responses. Fish, too, have been shown to feel pain, exhibiting uncharacteristic behaviors when hurt and responding to pain relief similarly to humans. Pain is a survival mechanism that helps sentient beings avoid danger. This includes emotional pain, as seen in mother cows and orcas mourning their offspring, or dogs suffering from separation anxiety. Such evidence underscores that animals experience both physical and emotional pain. The notion that humans are more capable of suffering due to intellectual sophistication is misguided. Animals might suffer more in some cases due to their inability to understand the cause and duration of their pain, unlike humans who can rationalize their suffering. Ultimately, the degree of pain is irrelevant; what matters is the capacity to suffer and the moral obligation to prevent unnecessary pain. The defensive mechanisms that lead us to ignore animal suffering also desensitize us to human suffering. Industrial animal farming not only causes immense animal suffering but also contributes to environmental degradation and exacerbates climate change, impacting humans globally. It's interesting to note how you referred to having a "soft heart illness" as if empathy is a weakness, or you compare being good to being naive. It's far from that. This perspective suggests a bias that views empathy as a flaw rather than a fundamental human trait. Empathy evolved as a crucial mechanism for social cohesion and survival, not as an "illness." It's a sign of a well-functioning, moral individual, not an ailment. Extending this empathy to animals is a logical and necessary step, as failing to do so only perpetuates unnecessary suffering and hinders our moral progress. By acknowledging and addressing animal suffering, we not only uphold ethical standards but also reinforce the interconnectedness of all living beings. Ignoring animal suffering ultimately leads us nowhere, fostering a society that is desensitized to pain and incapable of true compassion. Mass animal farming, with its enormous consumption of resources and environmental toll, affects everyone. The defensive mechanisms that numb our empathy towards animals can similarly blind us to human suffering, fostering a dangerous apathy. This indifference can lead to broader societal harm, including climate-induced conflicts and resource shortages, leading to wars, hunger and our own destruction. After all, the tribalism is strongest in the times of uncertainty and this is crucial in all nations' propaganda to lead wars (see: Russian propaganda examples, what they want Russians to believe about Ukrainians). By denying empathy towards all sentient beings, we're constantly on the verge of falling into things like that because most people, unfortunately, aren't educated as their mind and psychology works, and prefer to feel as a part of the group, even if they feel the group is wrong. We as culture encourage evilness to grow within people who have an aptitude for becoming abusive and violent, as they usually start with harming animals to practice, and there's a wide spectrum what society will accept and what is legal. We create these holes. Ultimately, the goal is not to equate the suffering of animals with that of Holocaust victims but to use the comparison as a lens to examine how societal norms, defense mechanisms, and moral disengagement perpetuate cruelty. By confronting these biases and defense mechanisms, we can build a more compassionate and morally responsible (which basically means surviving) society. Whether you agree with comparing holocaust which, in the end, is in fact a human cultural phenomenon, to mass animal genocide and torture that involves most humans as perpetrators, or not. I do not think that commonness of this practice lessens moral severity of it, and with certainty, doesn't mean that other species' suffering is less important.
@@OCEAN_OF_FOXES Hey! :) I'm really sorry it took this long to answer, I have been stretched thin recently. You mentioning drinking a cappuccino made me smile :D I totally agree with most things that you're saying. The parallels are very striking and I often find it bizarre to see how removed people are from how we procure animal products. It's almost like they forget these items at the store come from animals. So I totally get your perspective. I think at the time I was so devastated after having read Levi's book that your comment felt almost a bit absurd to me. Now that the initial shock of it has worn off I can see the parallels more clearly without allotting different values to them due to my human bias. One thing I am just not really a fan of is when people use words like r*pe for the artificial insemination of a cow. That was one of the examples I was referring to when I mentioned "imposing our own logic onto beings that don't share ours". I wasn't trying to say that animals can't feel sad or frightened, often by the same things we do. I just feel like "loss of autonomy/freedom", "r*pe/virginity", "awareness of ones own mortality" are all to an extent socially shaped pains that have been perceived differently across time and are even today not felt the same way in all cultures. I didn't mean that the animals can't feel the pain of those experiences, but they are not part of the broader culture ("logic") in which these terms have been given meaning to. That's why I don't like it when these "human terms" are imposed on animal suffering. I wanted to ask you something regarding a comment you made, outside the Holocaust discussion. My stance is that our empathy for humans is inherent, whereas our empathy for animals is learned, simply because we had no other choice but to see animals as a food source in the past. No "othering" needed to view animals as other. Probably also because we can't speak the same language. Do you think differently? I would be very interested to know :) Also, what is your stance on eating animals sustainably? Like local fishing from a river, keeping a few chickens on your land etc. Sorry that this comment deviated from the original discussion! You don't have to answer me at all if anything is too personal or you just don't feel like it :) Have a good day!
@@cappuccinobean2442 1/2 Well, sure, as you can see I'm a talker and when someone reads all that it exceeds my expectations by hundreds %, let alone answer.. or ask questions….Don't encourage me! Oh I get it. I believe that words are meant for communication. If a word fits a definition, it can be used, because why not? To me, r4ping is the labeled action, not the act of being forcibly inseminated. So, the cow won't say it was r4ped, but since we are humans using the language between ourselves to communicate, there's not much difference for me. The intent behind the act doesn't matter to me, as sexual violence against humans isn't always about sexual desire - it's more anger-based, about control, dominance, and power. We have literally no conditions related to the victim, to call the action what it is. It doesn't matter if the victim is intelectually capable, what age they are, what gender, race, origin, what was their level of awareness, so why species would be something else? Unless we coin a term for mass rape of humans, it might not be suitable for animals. If you dig into the history of Homo species, from 300,000 years ago (when we coexisted with other Homo species) to relatively modern history, it's very clear that we struggle with being empathetic. There's always "the other." It must have been for our safety, a very basic mechanism: Can I trust this being, or will it kill me? It's such an interesting topic for me (I'm from Europe) how racism is even possible in the US. This teaches me so much about human nature. It was quite a realization for me when I visited a museum and saw with my own eyes what I couldn't see in boring school data: we coexisted with other human-like species for a long time and even mixed with them sometimes. Doesn't it feel like our perspective on being "The Humans" in the animal kingdom is quite ridiculous? Empathy, often romanticized as a pure and innate human trait, is, in reality, a more complex and acquired phenomenon. The notion that empathy is inherent in humans is overly simplistic; we are born not with empathy itself but with the potential to develop it. This potential is rooted in our fundamental survival abilities, such as mimicking, and being social, which is crucial for learning and interaction, and surviving. There are multiple forms of empathy: compassionate empathy (understanding others to provide support), emotional empathy (feeling what others feel), and cognitive empathy (understanding another's perspective). This spectrum illustrates that empathy is not a monolithic concept but a versatile tool that we apply in various contexts. But I wouldn't stop at defining it as an experience, as this is quite meaningless. The significance of empathy, for me, lies in the fact that empathetic concern for others can motivate altruistic behavior, where individuals act to benefit others *at a cost to themselves*. (C. Daniel Batson, the empathy-altruism hypothesis). The mirror neuron system should work just fine on anything that has a pair of eyes, or even resembles a face. We see faces and emotions in inanimate objects, so of course, we can see a mammal in pain and we're usually not that stupid not to understand this. And since you mention empathy as something innate, why kids (over 2 years old) show greater empathy towards animals, and would be rather devastated to see them slaughtered in front of them? Why would they rather choose to put an apple in their mouth, than to twist a small animal's neck? We need empathy to make other people trust us so we don't die. By fostering social bonds and cooperation, empathetic behavior can enhance group cohesion and increase the chances of survival for individuals within a community. But with the great focus on socializing with other people, we are taught being further and further from other animals, we loose the connection with nature, with other beings. I'm sure you've seen how babies interact with pets. What we call empathy is something that we often perceive as complex, and we should because it's interconnected with many rules that are purely cultural. When infants are socialized wrongly, they will not develop what we call general 'empathy'. The environment in which a person is raised can either nurture or hinder empathetic development. Supportive, nurturing environments tend to foster greater empathy, while neglect or abuse can lead to difficulties in empathizing with others. That can be learned from true crime, lol. We learn how to be empathetic throughout our whole life; it can be cultivated through education and life experiences. Programs aimed at promoting emotional intelligence and empathy, exposure to diverse cultures and experiences, showing other people's lives, can help individuals develop a deeper understanding of others' perspectives. In each culture it slightly varies what behaviors are considered empathetic (biggest differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures). When it comes to cross-species empathy, it's common. Every species has its own language because of the environment it evolved in, but not only can we humans learn other animals' languages (like, we do understand our pets, don't we?), but animals can understand us as well. Studies have revealed shared neuronal circuitry across species, including primates, elephants, whales, and even birds like crows and parrots, which may underpin empathetic responses. Animals can experience "emotional contagion" or "resonance" with nearby animals. This primal form of empathy involves sharing emotional states, particularly fear (obvious). Dogs are known for their ability to sense human emotions and often respond empathetically, like comforting their owners when they are sad or distressed. Traumatized parrots are paired with veterans who also have PTSD to comfort each other. Wild dolphins have a history of assisting humans in distress in the open sea, guiding lost swimmers back to shore or protecting humans from shark attacks, suggesting they can empathize with human fear. Bonobos have been seen caring for injured birds. We did not only "see animals as a food source in the past," but we also bonded with them and cooperated with them. The findings support the theory that dogs and humans coevolved by choosing each other, rather than humans solely domesticating wolves. This mutual selection process was facilitated by the strong bonds formed, particularly through the involvement of women in the care and integration of dogs into human families. Yes, I agree we had to eat whatever was possible to survive, and today, in many places on Earth, we not only don't have to hurt other beings to survive, but it can also make us thrive, with all the resources and knowledge we have access to. That's why we had to develop the ability to put up an emotional wall. This wall is the same, as we spoke, to whatever hurt we experience and cause (this suggests that hurting others, after all, is also painful to us). Denial is a psychological defense mechanism when an individual refuses to accept reality or facts. It acts as a method of self-protection, helping a person avoid confronting painful or distressing realities. It temporarily shields them from emotional turmoil by allowing them to ignore or reject the truth. It would be a disaster if we cried over a dead animal when there hasn't been anything to eat for the past week. Every animal prioritizes its survival, and this is not a choice, just an instinct.
@@cappuccinobean2442 2/2 Sustainability is another big topic, so I'll just try to keep it short. The problem with sustainability is that from the Earth’s perspective, there is no way every human on the planet could eat a diet full of animal products. There are too many people for that. The Earth simply doesn't have the capacity to support a global diet heavy in animal products. Raising livestock requires significant land, water, and feed resources, causes enormous pollution, gas emissions, and deforestation, which impact not only local communities but, in some cases, everyone globally. So how can we eat meat three times a day? Right now, the disparity between economies allows Westerners to overconsume, and many developing countries give away their resources. Developing countries often export their agricultural resources to meet the demand for animal products and other resource-intensive foods in wealthier nations. This leads to environmental degradation, water scarcity, and reduced food availability in these exporting countries, not to mention biodiversity loss and animal extinction. The focus on exporting high-value crops and animal products undermines food security in developing countries. Local farmers prioritize cash crops over subsistence farming, leading to reduced availability of affordable, nutritious food for local communities. This is possible because poorer countries often put more emphasis on economic growth than 'doing good for the Earth' (national-level survival mode). That's why the US/EU can export trash to Asia. But, back on track; that's why choosing to eat animal products is not only a matter of empathy towards other animals but generally towards those Others. What we can't see, we don't care about. Having said that, I don't really believe in individual choices. As far as I know people's psychology and distorted ways of thinking, it will always come down to using propaganda to make this culture evolve. People don't make their own choices; they're influenced. They want to be a part of the group, to believe they do something good for themselves or are being perceived as good people, and they want to have resources for those who are considered 'their peers.' These are all temporary, ego-based reasons to choose avoiding harm. Most people change their diet for health reasons. I'm always happy when an individual decides to stop supporting this ill system by reducing their impact. I don't judge these individuals for particular choices; I do think we're all responsible. But I'm realistic about the capacity for understanding complex issues and further perspectives than one's own. I really do think we struggle with empathy, and I'd rather advocate for self-growth and education than particular food choices or impact the way people see animals. It would all come with awareness. But before we manage to address the climate crisis and kill ourselves, I don't think nations will upgrade their education systems to achieve that. It would take generations. We have instant access to knowledge, yet most people don't even know how their bodies work. What are you going to do? What did you have in mind exactly, asking what is my stance, did I answer your question? Do you think you'd be capable of killing an animal with your own hands and then put their body in your mouth, if it's not for someone doing it in a way you don't have to face it? And if yes, or you did that, what was going in your mind? Sometimes I do kill bugs, mostly when I fear them, or it becomes unhygienic, but I also own cats as pets and they must eat meat, so I often experience how this dissonance works. Having to switch yourself off..
I’ve been waiting to see this on demand and wish I had seen in theater. Great analysis and very thoughtful. I’ve been immersing myself with WW2 historical events, particularly Hitler and the atrocities committed by the Nazi’s. I lost most of my family in the Polish ghettos and subsequent concentration camps. Trying to pass our families history to my son- each generation must be educated so that history is never repeated. Thank you for your sensitivity discussing this very hard subject matter 🙏🖤
I’m so thankful we have this film available at this moment in history, and hope many will watch it fully. It is phenomenally done, a perspective I didn’t think we’d ever get. Bravo♥️
Thanks for your content. Your approach to reviews are essay/subjective style is definitely unique. I can tell it takes a lot of thought to make these. Thanks!
So well explained and thought out. I saw this movie last night...the last on my list of Oscar nods for best film. I knew it would be a tough one. It is an extraordinary depiction of literally the other side...the many hidden sides of The Holocaust. A kind of unspoken silent portrait that speaks volumes to the human condition and horror of maintaining a life amongst such atrocities. Thank you for your incites. This film is sooo Oscar worthy!
8:27 might I add another interpretation of mine that these cuts to black,red and white are representative for the Nazi flag at the time. These cuts directly confront us.
I work at a museum in the Midwest and the display from the local native history to the early pioneers is displayed smoothly like one section to the next. This film makes me reflect my areas history and relate to the cleaners at the end.
Great video! Id love a spoiler video where you break down thesymbolism and family response more - i feel i saw most but would love your perspective on it!
A normal and banal couple. Rudolf and Hedwig could be you, could be me. What gives us goosebumps is that the Höss family could be any of us. The couple represents our apathy and our neglect, today and now.
Finally, FINALLY got to watched this powerful film. I think the coat scene got to me the most for how mundane it feels. It's like the ladies got their personal shops for free, at the cost of deaths next door. It made me think not just about ongoing wars, but also our current state of consumerism. The way we are willing to ignore the suffering of others for personal beauty & comfort. It's too true & harrowing, especially observing how ignorant/desensitized we are today.
I’m curious if you or anyone else reading these comments, took her feeling around the bottom of the coat to indicate that she was searching for Jewels or other valuables that may have been sewn into the lining. I’m sure she was all too aware of this practice, given she was in a position to know so much about the realities of the camp and the outcomes of the poor soul who were taken there. (Not that SHE thought they were poor souls.)
my favorite thing about the cameras in this film are how they're angled. In the beginning when you're first introduced to the family, the camera is parallel to the height of an average adult's shoulder, scenes were filled with the family house and the structures surrounding it. if not at shoulder height, the cameras were down low and aiming up slightly, where the walls and fences block out the camp next door, and the only thing you can see are tips of the roofs or the smoke of the trains. As the film goes on, people from outside of the house were introduced (Mrs.Hoss's mother, for example) and the camera slowly rise in altitude, at one point near the top of the first floor of the house and aiming down, showing much more of whats behind the walls. In these shots the concentration camps' buildings were much more dominant and obvious. The black smokes and orange roof tiles just stand exposed under the sun, behind the very lively characters, reflecting and contrasting. I love the cinematography of this film so much, the flatness of it all really highlights the intricacies of the design in other departments, i.e. sound, music, costume, dialogue, etc.
The scene in the stables reminded me of the moment in The Act of Killing where Anwar teaches his grandchildren not to be cruel to the chickens. Very good movie.
@@lucasblue20 I guess I should subscribe! I always avoid anything written about a film before i see it, and sometimes even buy a ticket at the theatre to avoid seeing the Rotten Tomatoes rating. But my friend sent me this and said it was not a "review" with an opinion on the quality of the film, and not a spoiler. Thanks.
@gamma517 omg I see that you are subscribed, thank you! And yeah a lot of my newer videos are spoiler-free so I think you’ll enjoy them, thank you again so much!!
I am happy for this film as a German whose grandfathers fought in World War 2. I will never be able to comprehend the bottomless abyss that opened up at Auschwitz. I will never forget. We shall never forget! Great analysis by the way. Thank you!
Brilliant illustration, but two very important ‘metaphorical’ scenes must be highlighted. 1. The ashes coming from mouth and noses 2. The horrific last scene
Εξαιρετικη ταινια που κατα την γνωμη μου αγγιζει την τελειοτητα. Μεσα απο μια ειδυλιακη μεν παγερη δε καθημερινοτητα που σου σφιγγει το στομαχι αναδεικνυει την υπαρξη και υπουλη δυναμη του κακου και στελνει ενα ηχηρο και πολυ επικαιρο μηνυμα. Ολος ο θρηνος, η οργη, η οδυνη μονο στην μουσικη του. Απιστευτα δυνατη η στιγμη που ο Ες αντιλαμβανεται με αηδια το αποτελεσμα των πεπραγμενων του και του καθεστωτος (αν το καταλαβα σωστα). Εξαιρετικα ευρηματικη η επιλογη της γλωσσας δεδομενου οτι η ταινια δεν ειναι γερμανικη.😅😅
Unfortunately I can’t articulate my thoughts and feelings as well as others but I will say that This film has left more of an impact on me than any film I’ve seen this year. I saw it a few days ago and it just won’t leave my head but that’s ok because it’s welcome to stay there rent free.
12:10 This is a thought one has who has compassion and can't process others who are not just suppressing their emotions, but there is very little compassion for others exist. Not much to supress.
Great video i saw this film over a month ago and I cannot stop thinking about it it’s so powerful. You should do a spoiler video on the night vision scenes and the ending. 👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you for the beautiful text, I fully agree with your words. I have always admired Jonathan Glazer's work and I believe that your analysis is intense, intelligent and also written from the heart. Thank you, Roberto
i love how you wrote this review without a single mention of Gaza even though Glazer made the link in his interviews / oscar speech himself incredibly obvious, it almost feels like you missed the mark here. we are compared to the perpetrators not because “they’re human too and not pure evil” but because we are watching genocide live on our phones and we look away just the same as the family. i think this is the true banality of evil in the film
To be fair he did mention war generally being beamed into the backgrounds of our lives when the news channels cover them before the latest sports results and tomorrow's weather. The video is a movie critique not a political statement.
@@fatpinkteddy There's a genocide being committed right now which is deeply affecting many people, and he chose to mention it when reflecting on a movie about the banality of evil.... what don't you get?
@@fatpinkteddy whether you like it or not there are direct parallels to whats going on in the world right now. maybe you missed the mark on what the movie is truly about if you can say wholeheartedly "stop bringing politics here"
What if I lived in a country that went berserk, and opting out was not an option? If I didn’t commit to the government policy I would be jailed, at the least? Who would I be? And Mr and Mrs Smith next door? And what if the country was Muslim? Or Jewish? I think it can happen in any society, any religion, any race. If the entirety of the governments laws forced us to cooperate, who of us would be the resistance? I ask myself, often. Sorry to get kinda deep here.
I think we are approaching that here (in the USA). I read in a recent popular but even-keeled book that we may be seeing American become a "One Religion Nation" , and many will be deported or told to leave. I don't think it wil happen in one generation but the seeds are being planted where 'OPTING OUT IS NOT AN OPTION". Thanks for your comment.
we are seeing this in real time with the current Israel vs Palestine conflict. its interesting how history continues to repeat itself, despite the lessons we learn from history
The other "side". That's Israeli propaganda. The other "side" to occupation is THE OCCUPIED PEOPLE. I've already exited the Israeli brainwashing system of lies. And that is why people don't object to those systems. They are brainwashed. Israel has been in the propaganda lying murder business for longer than the state of Israel.
Totally agree! It’s so uncompromising and powerful, i couldn’t stop thinking about it. This videos was a must for me, and it means so much to hear you enjoyed it, thank you!
The problem with the movie is that it tried to suggest that Hoss felt some tinge of remorse or guilt for what he did? This was Glazer's imposing his view on the real character to achieve some sense of divine justice. In fact, Hoss was unrepentant and quite pleased with the work he did even as he was mounting the gallows. He only regretted that he hadn't spent enough time with his family like some overworked CEO. None of the characters expressed any discomfort with their situation other than to object to being reassigned to a new location. The whole movie can be summarized as A lovely German family shares a pleasant vacation at a Polish resort next to a human incinerator.
You are absolutely right and Hoess had no regrets to the end. He wrote some ersatz apology for his action the night before his execution, but he didn't mean anything he wrote at the time. Supposedly, and like Hans Frank, he returned to his Catholic faith while imprisoned. Rudy was a little late on that one I suppose.
Hello! Firstly, I'd like to express my appreciation for the depth of your reflections shared in this video. Your analysis has prompted me to think more critically about the subject matter, and it's sparked a particular curiosity in me regarding the auditory elements you discussed. I'm especially intrigued by how sirens and various sounds are utilized within this context. Could you delve deeper into your perspective on the conceptualization of these sounds? How do you perceive their role in the broader narrative or theme? I'm eager to understand the nuances of your interpretation and how these auditory elements contribute to the overall impact of the work. Thank you for sparking this intriguing line of thought!
I've never seen this film, bit i intend to. To me, it seems like we see what we want to see and turn our backs on people who are suffering. Our wall.goes up and they cease to exist. It's still like that today.
Thanks... I would not say though in the introduction "an ordinary German family living next to the camp" ; this is the family of Rudolph Hoss, the camp's commander.
Honestly ,I was so engrossed by the imagery and there normal everyday life and then i remembered what was over the wall and i had to re-evaluate myself. The screams and shots in the background was so evident but yet were ignored because we were too busy looking at the beautiful garden side
I can only imagine how awkward I would have felt if I watched this movie in a public theater! That said, I think I'm going to watch it a few more times. Very well put together video, thanks!
I have not seen yet the film. However, I found this review to be the best one after I watched so many reviews of this film, and triggered me to watch the film!!!!
This movie and book got its inspiration from Sophie’s Choice!!! It’s like they saw the 3rd act of Sophie’s Choice, when she arrived at the camp, and said let’s copy this.
One more thing I noticed, there were a couple of scenes where the scene faded out. These included the beginning where it was black, then when the train arrived where it fazed white, and then during the flower scene where the colour fazed out to red. All these colours collectively symbolise not only the violence that occurred during the holocaust but it clearly demonstrates the swastika symbol aswell
Wow I’m honestly so thrilled to hear this (and slightly relieved) because I wasn’t sure how my thoughts would be taken on this one with this subject matter. It means the world truly, thank you so much simply for letting me know!
When you read some of the comments, you realize that many people don't understand the message and are still distancing themselves from current events. No, not that was once... it happened then and it's happening now, different places, but it's happening and it concerns us all! And those who only want to see what happened back then in the movie, what are they doing right now?
I saw it a few days ago and it was amazing. After watching it, I was curious to see if you did a review about it, and was very happy to see there was one.
I have wondered how "we", can plan a vacation to a country so close to Ukraine for example and enjoy a vacation to Europe when someone, just not to many miles away, is suffering the unimaginable suffering of a war. We all know that to a certain extent, in so many ways, we choose to ignore because these injustices are outside our control. We, the ordinary humans who go to work, feed our children, tide up our homes, are not capable of confronting the powers that promote and feed economies with the profit of wars. Or we can stop them?
Sure--the conflict started by Hamas killing 1200 unarmed and innocent Israelis. Hamas doesn't give a crap about their own people so spare me the comparison between Auschwitz and the Gaza you fool. Hamas would be the ones stuffing people in the gas chambers with unmitigated glee. Jesus Christ what a stupid thing to write!
I read somewhere awhile back that the concentration camp was established in a geographic locale that Germans called the "Auschwitz Interest Area." I believe that is the source of the title, "Zone of Interest."
This is a great video and great narrative around a tricky and complex movie that it could be so easy to just say is about the banality of evil. We are never given an opportunity to get up and close with the family. No tight close ups, they are always moving and we are always just an observer. Yes we can say it’s about the banality of evil but it’s also about the ongoing banality of our maintenance of the memory of evil with the cleaners at the end which I found really really interesting. The wife putting on the lipstick for me was the most shocking and obscene lipstick so mundane and pedestrian but it is so intimate in a way. One tiny note the surname is not pronounced Hoss but Hoess a bit like the ö in say “danke shön”. Kind of like the English word hearse. Edit: this is how the filmmakers are pronouncing it so colour me confused 😂
It is actually happening at the moment but not in a camp. It is in a biggest open air prison in the world which called Gaza. People can be much more evil than we imagine
ALSO - I’ve been reading some interpretations of the films ending and while I think it’s left a big opening for multiple interpretations that all serve the same purpose - for example, whether u believe hoss was having a premonition to the end of the war or if glazer was just using symbolism, the effect of the ending leaves everyone with the same enlightenment. However, I didn’t see anyone mention hoss’s execution. I’ve read that hoss was hung, and I know that often they used short ropes on the nazis, which means the death was slower, so I couldn’t help but relate this to his gagging in the stairwell as well. Foreshadowing possibly.
@@SuperNevile No, he was executed at in front of his office at Auschwitz I--several accounts about it on TH-cam. Their home was at Auschwitz II-Birkenau which is 3 kilometers from A1. Out of curiosity I looked it up yesterday. He died by the short drop method of hanging and was actually strangled by that method.
@@chuckbuckbobuck I did "the tour" back in the 90s. I know what I know. Incidentally, the smoking in the distance (as seen from the house) is from the two crematoria at Birkenau (A2). The brick buildings you see from the house at AI were originally Polish army barracks, that the Nazis commandeered. A2 had wooden barracks, except for the brick built entrance, two crematoria and a few ancilliary buildings
@@SuperNevile You obviously didn't read my reply back to you which isn't surprising. I NEVER SAID THAT HOESS HOME WAS NOT AT AUSCHWITZ-BIRKENAU (also addressed as Auschwitz II). That is where most of the killing was done. Where you are wrong, and believe me you are definitely wrong is stating he was hanged only a couple of hundred of yards from home there. He was not hung at Auschwitz-Birkenau but at Auschwitz 1 which, and this is according to Wikipedia which I checked on three times just to make sure, is 3 kilometers (about 2 miles) from gate to gate. His main office was at Auschwitz1 (not Birkenau which is why he had visitors at his home if they came there for official visits) and at the request of the Polish people he was hanged facing that office. He was not a few hundred yards from his home at Auschwitz I but 3 KM as I just stated. You are welcome to refer to Wikipedia and to videos on You Tube if you don't believe but you are wrong in you statement about how close the hanging was to his home. Your tour guides should have pointed that out. There is a plague at A-1 visibly and clearly stating that this is the site of Hoess's public hanging--the last one in Poland I might add.
I enjoy the film It was shot beautifully The sound design is extremely important The long camera shot is language all in it own Dialogue is minimal but effective. But let it be clear You know what is going on next door The camera keeps you close to the family and the house.
Thank you for this outstanding analysis! I really was struck and thankful for how this movie managed to look so "modern". As Glazer said in the quote you cited: It's not a museum film, but much more closer to us and our lives. I've seen a bunch of historical movies that played at this time and they mostly felt, well historical. Especially all these TV movies about German people being sooo heroic and conflicted that we have here in Germany...cut that crap. All this happened not that long ago. And this movie was finally able to catch this. The garden, the house, the conversations...all that made me feel uncomfortably close!
The tale of Gretel and Hansel is used to metaphorize the hollocaust, as the witch is thorwn into an oven and the bird offers gems and pearls for bread crumbs (just like they took all the jewelry and gold of the jews in the hollocaust and fed them only with bread crubs)
I very much agree that the voyeuristic feel of the movie makes the audience participate in a feeling of complicity. It is a strong and prescient message.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
The Zone of Interest is easily the best film I’ve seen this year, it blew me away! What are your thoughts, and are you planning to see it? Let me know below!
Although the film did not reveal anything I did not know before, as I have been in Poland and Berlin, even before the "Fall of the Berlin Wall", your explanation and review did change my "personal approval rating" for the film. I expected more from the film, given the subject matter. The point was made in the first ten minutes (the camp wall seen from the garden) and I kept wanting more of something to happen. But maybe THAT is the point you make here: That we are so inured to violence and brutality on social media, that we want an action film, even at the expense of our vision of humanity. Thank you for your superb review.
If I were an academy member Glazer would get my vote for best directing. The man is inspired.
I kept wondering about the dog, pushed away, yelled at, nameless. But it was clear when the dog on the street is fussed over as being of rare coloring. Some dogs are mutts, and others are purebred. The latter is called beautiful, asked its name, age, fosters childhood memories.
A pure masterpiece.
What an approach - how he presented the banality of evil. Relaxing domestic scenes of the nazi family and the horrifying background sounds...letting you make your own visions of what is going on on the other side...
the sound was absolutely amazing
I like the detail that Hedwig on the opposite to her mother can easily sleep comfortably whole night while her child is non stop crying. She is basicly so used to the noise of this madness that she can't even hear the suffering of her own children.
I wondered why Hedwig didn't come shout at the servant girl for letting the baby cry but your comment totally makes sense 🤯
Good catch!
Oh. Great catch.
That comparison was kind of funny, I did laugh it out how she slept so well
Oh my god ur totally right
The girl in the night sequence is based on a real person. The director met her in person to learn her story. She died not long ago. The film is dedicated to her.
The black/white or thermal looking shots?
the thermal ones@@PF9O
Name?
At first I thought these sections were the dreams of the daughter
@@George-hx4vsHer name was Alexandria “She lived in the house we shot in. It was her bike we used, and the dress the actor wears was her dress. Sadly, she died a few weeks after we spoke.
“That small act of resistance, the simple, almost holy act of leaving food, is crucial because it is the one point of light. I really thought I couldn’t make the film at that point. I kept ringing my producer, Jim, and saying: ‘I’m getting out. I can’t do this. It’s just too dark.’ It felt impossible to just show the utter darkness, so I was looking for the light somewhere and I found it in her. She is the force for good.”
Did anyone else feel that the older son putting his son in the greenhouse and smiling as he watched his brother screaming to get out (whilst holding a big stick) was the older child copying the behaviours of what they hear over the wall?
I looked at my husband and "This sick little f***er. Training is working".
Definitely! I instantly thought of that too!
He even hisses! I thought it was like a weird teasing thing but I think it’s the sound of gas?
I had exactly that thought.
no shit
I love the final look directly towards the camera. It's like, deep down, he knows:
History is looking at him and his crimes.
It reminded me of the elevator scene at the end Angelheart if you’ve every seen it (it’s pretty old now)
@@hayleymarch5022 Exactly like it!!! Sutile fourth wall fall.
He tried to run afterward. Escape. He was executed in 1947, I believe.
@@yvonneplant9434 He was hanged in Auschwitz in 1947.
And after that, he continues to go down the stairs into the darkness. Which for me symbolises going down to hell.
Terrific insights into this movie. It really is a haunting film. You’re right about the children. They were really showing signs of distress. The one little girl kept sleep walking, and the little boy was bothered by the things he heard while playing alone by himself. But then he responded out loud in a punishing voice. The baby cried all of the time. And the dog was jumpy. Did you notice that?
Also, towards the end, did you notice that when the big brother locked the little brother in the greenhouse, he made a hissing sound? He knew what was going on in the camp’s “showers”.
So much to process…
The dog seemed excited to hear the dogs that were always barking behind the wall. Would not want to meet those other dogs tho😅
@@zachsutton6195 good interpretation! I didn’t think about that. I read somewhere that the dog is the main actress’s dog in real life.
A huge amount to process , I agree
the hissing thing, i thought that was strange but your explanation is right in and so disturbing. what a film. will stay with me the rest of my life.
Interesting interpretation. I wondered whether the hissing was like the snake, a metaphor for the devil (in the garden of Eden, their garden next to autschwitz) and acting on evil?
Whenever you watch a film and you cannot stop thinking about it later, sometimes for days, weeks, or months, you know it has accomplished what the film makers had intended. Bravo to this team of talent.
Especially now with what is going on in gaza and you feel complicit but can't do anything. Unintentionally and unfortunately, the movie is very contemporary.
There is something we can do. There has got to be!
@@enterthevoidIiit is very intentional, and deliberate. We are meant to see ourselves.
@@enterthevoidIiDon’t even try to compare what’s going on today to the holocaust. Nothing will ever match that level of evil.
That's me today
They did not just coincidentally live next to the camp, he was the head of the camp and he was purposefully relocated there. So it is much more than turning a blind eye on the neighboring atrocities. They were directly responsible for them.
I recommend reading a summary of the last interviews with Rudolf Hoess. It shines a new light on what you've brought up.
He was fully aware of the harm he was commanding, he wasn't a psychopath, what's more he was kind of sensitive (what's shown in the film as well, they chose an actor who has delicate voice, and generally doesn't behave like a criminal, and is kind for his horse - a being he doesn't require him to put a mask on, like humans).
He also talks about how SS-mans were trained to desensitize looking at violence and he said it didn't really work on him.
He accepted the responsibility fully and understood what he did / what he was doing. He was just extremely obedient, what derived from his personal history, upbringing, and later on probably he had to follow along, otherwise he'd be dead and someone else would simply replace him. He'd feel that what he was doing was wrong and violence repulsed him, yet he would never question the command, or oppose in any way. Not because he was scared, but because it was his psychological setup. A perfect execution robot which puts a very low value on his own feelings and thoughts and actively rejects them. He never intended to work as a commander, he wanted to be a soldier, but being so conformable and dutiful made him perfect for that role, and he would ask for the change of decision but never strongly opposed even in terms of his own "career" path. And just accepted that it lead to his death sentence, as a logical consequence.
As much as we loathe the evil, or can't even comprehend this, the defense mechanisms is an everyday part of our human psychologyand we better learn about them before it's too late, as I'm sure everyone thinks "I would never" and we truly believe IT WILL never happen again (even thinking like that is a bias!) . Until it happens. In Rwanda, Yugoslavia, North Korea, in Ukraine. People are more involved in Palestine/Israel because of the media. But yeah. It did happen, and will happen again until we all educate ourselves and work on ourselves very actively. Until then, we are the ones responsible for the atrocities. Being passive is also a choice. It's happening all the time, until now, but we're ourselves behind the wall.
@@OCEAN_OF_FOXESHe is a perfect representative of the professional managerial class, the technocrats who think everyone agrees with them, are just doing their jobs because they have “responsibilities,” and why their stomachs are too delicate to contemplate the actual consequences of their actions, they believe they are the moral superiors of their critics.
I read his book Commandant of Auschwitz and he was literally responsible not just for the running of the camp but for building and expanding it. He talks about lacking money and other necessary resources to the point that he had to steal barbed wire for the project. He also made a point of criticizing the selection process for taking too many people at a time for labor and thought they should've only selected the strongest and healthiest as to ensure better production. That also would've meant gassing even more people at selection.
@@OCEAN_OF_FOXES We literally are just that, right now! We know for a fact that the Cobalt used in our phones comes from the mines of Congo where little boys and girls are sent into collapsing caves in the Earth, the Chinese kids slave laboring away in a sweatshop half a world away, all the crimes and brutalities happening along the supply chains, to get you the smartphone/PC you are using to write this comment down on. And yet, we type away, watching TH-cam videos about this exact same message, playing with the idea, and then moving on just like that.
What Hoss and his family did were more overt, and immediate evil. But I wonder about our own involvement in all the suffering- may be not like Hoss himself, but at the least like his indifferent family.
@@shimmer8289 the Boy in the Striped Pajamas is bad history. Utterly fantastic plot that bears no resemblance to the awful reality.
The way that Rudolf has more love and affection to animals like his horse and how playful he was with the dog on the street while he was completely unfazed by the horrors of people in the camps. Truly reflects our society.
Not our society… German society..
Have you lived in Germany lately…
It is the gas-chamber of Europe
So true. You only have to look at Gaza today..
and did you notice that all the animals...their dog, the horse and the little dog he pets...they are all Black. Like his heart. There is so much in this film. Especially in the second watch.
@@madelynsclosets While he was dressed in pure white mufti when out of uniform.
@@JAmediaUK And what about all the hatred and segregational behaviour that went on during cvid? We were forced to have passports to eat in a restaurant or cafe!!!!!!
I loved the girl in the night sequence, for despite the horror, it exhibited humanity too, I was so moved when she received the sheet of music as a thank you for the food
She was a real person, a Polish girl living in a nearby village. Her name was Aleksandra Bystroń-Kołodziejczyk
even better thank you
I liked how the evil of the Holocaust was being committed right out in broad daylight but the good deeds of the girl going out and leaving fruit was done in the cover of dark, but was lit an angelic bright white. Pretty cool.
the scenes that showed how they couldn't ignore the camp next door is shown through the river scene where there was contaminants,the grandma scene leaving the home,Hoss being sick at the end ,the kid in his room telling himself not to look outside the window ,the teeth scene
The river scene is true--cremains were shoveled into the Vistula river on a frequent basis by the prisoners under supervision by the camp guards.
@@chuckbuckbobuckthis film is amazingly historically accurate.
@shannonscully705 I agree but Hoess was an animal and pretending he had any conscience or reflection of his foul deed us strictly 2024 pop psychology with no basis in fact whatsoever.
@chuckbuckbobuck he had guilt. He fully accepted his death sentence
The cheery rose pink sundress Hedwig is wearing contrasts with her mother’s dark and somber attire. It shows the latter is more in touch with the atrocity happening next door, while the former is trying to live in a technicolor fantasy land.
I do not write this often - this film is a masterpiece.
So your a nazi supporter?
almost is!
Yes. Masterpiece.
It was dreadful
Every movie you watch and see a review in youtube is masterpiece bro
The scenes of the Polish girl were shot with a thermal camera, not infrared. Brilliant movie! Amazing breakdown!
infrared are thermal cameras!!! Infrared is felt as heat. If you know this is a special thermal camera that works differently, please explain.
I wanted to stop watching it so bad, my psyche could barely stand it, my stomach was in knots, but I made it to the end. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A MUST SEE FOR EVERYONE! Especially today.
That scene of the girl leaving food behind is really something.
I love the shot where she waits for the soldiers to pass and sneaks off down another path on her bike. A simple shot, but it was nerve shreading to watch!
@@davidlean1060yes, with the pig lol
@davidlean1060 I just got done watching it, and I agree with you. We don't know who the girl is, but the fact that she is helping by leaving food for them, we're automatically on her side. The two scenes of her leaving food in the middle of the night is nerve-wracking, cause we don't want her to get caught.
It made me think, "In the middle of all this evilness, there is still some hope in humanity close be.
@@mattbernabeThe film has Hoss telling his kids that bedtime story while she does it. That's clever too. For him, it's just a story. He's unaware that there's a young woman out in the dark, risking her skin to help strangers. Glazer is good at creating tension. In Sexy Beast, he manages to make the words, 'where's Don?' absolutely terrifying because of the situation Gal finds himself in and of course, Ian McShane's excellent perfromance as the villain Teddy.
@@pipparice2043I forgot about the pig! That's significant too. A pig walks free, but the prisoners don't have the same freedom! It kind of reminded me of Animal Farm, as if Glazer suddenly started depicting Nazi soldiers as farm animals!
The smoke plumes in the outdoor scenes really hit hard
Were they burned alive?
@@amirleo2051yes
@@amirleo2051 generally, they were murdered en masse by gassing and then the bodies burned. There are some documented incidents of people being burned alive in uprising incidents. Generally they were gassed in the chamber shown in the present-day scene
That shot of Rudolf in his white suit smoking while all you see is the smoke from the train behind the trees... what. a. shot. what an awful awful awful image. just brilliant.
The crematoria. The smoke was another character in the film. It was devastating.
I love that the director put all his heart and soul in it because he truly understands suffering of that kind.. Especially since he also called out the Genocide in Gaza
to me, his speech was not necessarily about the Genocide in Gaza. It was about us still turning a blind eye on suffering, caused by no reason whatsoever. Both sides think they're right in causing the others suffer, just like in the movie. He emphasizes that the movie is about the present, not the past.
@@AY-ln1mk " Both sides think they're right in causing the others suffer, just like in the movie." oh for the love of god, I know you're trying to be nice but did you really have to trivialise the genocide and the fucking holocaust ? You were doing great until you blurred the metaphorical line that even a blind guy can see.
"Both sides, both sides, both sides" There is no "both sides" here my wilfully ignorant friend, there's the oppressors and there is the oppressed. The nazis were the oppressors, oppressors can suffer, but that doesn't mean they should oppress the oppressors. Just like israel, it's the oppressor, the Palestinians are the oppressed. The Palestine issue is complex, but it's not that complex, israel never had any moral high ground here.. neither the nazis, they both were cowards that victimised themselves to justify genocide, israel's oct 7 is the nazi's irrational fear of Jews under mining the white race.
Genocide in Gaza? Nope. The Israelis are not committing a genocide.
@@jeffcarlin5866cope and lie to urself more
What an insult to real victims of genocide to call what is happening in Gaza that. You strip meaning of the word when it is overused.
I appreciate your remarks about Glazer's film, where we observed a "normality" of Hoess's family suspended over total horror. We also observe wars, famines, climate disasters, and the evils that befall the people around us. But we all have an empathy deficit. We only feel empathetic where it seems most appropriate and convenient to us. We use circumstantial words to say that the world "sucks". But how many people courageously raise their voices to say: "I don't agree!" How many dare to proclaim the truth when doing so might be inappropriate or even dangerous? In Glazer's film, a young girl brings food to the prisoners at night. It represents hope for the future. But if we look at the past, we must recognize that few have said "no!" to injustice-the few martyrs, like Navalny, sacrificed their lives in the name of truth.
Had me until Navalny lol, do you know anything about his beliefs outside of his opposition to Putin?
A couple things :
It’s interesting that later in the film u head the horrific encounter of prisoners and guards that the little hoss boy overhears while playing in his bedroom and the guard says “they’re fighting over an apple” and when the little hoss boy says “don’t do that again” it’s up to interpretation if he’s saying it out of mimicking the guards or wanting to save the life of someone by telling them not to do it again, I think in general, the child is disturbed and doesn’t want the entire encounter to happen again - it’s like that mix of frustration you feel when u have no control and want to blame the victim but really u want to save the victim
All of that could be possible. I thought he was talking to himself bc I do that when I think of something that is unimaginable or terrifying - like if I start to think what would happen to my child if I were to pass (as her dad has), I will literally tell myself, outloud, to “stop it!”
The black and white girl isn’t part of the family though. That’s a Polish girl from the neighboring town.
The Höss children show no inner conflict at all. In fact, nobody except the grandmother and crying baby show any sign of discomfort with the camp.
That’s what makes it so terrifying.
The black and white girl leaving apples is the only slight slimmer of hope and humanity in hell.
Adding: the black and white girl is based on a real life Polish resistance girl, Alexandria, that Glazer spoke to at the age of 90. He talks about her in several interviews and the movie is dedicated to her.
@davidmurciaaristizabal5381 we can only guess what was on her note, that Hedwig Höss burned.
But the young son who looks out of the window when he hears the sounds of a man being executed says 'Don't do that again' as he turns away, and Höss himself seems to be having a physical reaction, which we see when he visits the doctor. I saw both of these things as inner conflicts manifesting themselves.
The young son was repeating the exact phrasing of the guard who yelled those words at the prisoner before executing him. I saw or heard no clues of (moral) doubt in Höss actions or words, so I cannot reasonably believe his physical reaction comes from an inner conflict. In real life Höss didn't show any conflict either. Only after he was convicted he wrote in letters that he saw his previous actions and work as wrong. Of course a movie leaves room for interpretation and debate, so I will not say that your view is wrong. However I interpreted it (slightly) different. @@robinkerman
Did the grandmother leave because she was uncomfortable with the situation? To just up sticks and go without leaving a note- she must have been really shook.
Superb analysis. ‘The banality of evil’ by Arendt...‘terrifyingly normal’
Thank you so much!!
The phrase has be misunderstood by more than a few in regards this movie. People take it to mean evil becomes ordinary if you surround yourself with it, but as you point out, the phrase is actually saying 'evil' people appear quiet normal
There was a scene where Hedwig’s mother left without warning, only leaving a note. I believe her note detested the holocaust/Nazi party, or her family, which would explain why she immediately put it in the furnace, eliminating the possibility of others reading it. Only a minor detail but I think it’s Glazer’s way of demonstrating just how much the Nazi Party controlled the thoughts of the general population via fear and intimidation. I believe Hedwig would have been concerned about the consequences if anyone were to find that note.
Incredible film, will stick with me for a long time
In real life Hedwig showed no remorse and never renounced her faith in national-socialism. She even claimed to not have known what happened in the camp. I thus find it very hard to believe she was intimidated into destroying the note, being the rampant Nazi that she was herself. I find it more plausible that her pride was tarnished, also because she made such an effort into impressing her mother with the house and garden.
@@Boowl29 that sounds more credible to be honest. Thanks for the insight!
At first the mother was fine with getting all the belongings of the Jewish people and she makes the joke about her old employer being over the wall. I guess the reality of the furnace got to her. It was a striking moment
@@hayleymarch5022was she drinking in that little bedroom? It was a quick shot of a short scene. I wasn’t sure if it was her.
@@ccharles848I thought that was the nanny? The mother was sleeping in the room with the twin beds with the other daughter I thought
i didn't know what this movie was about. i just kind of heard a buzz and saw the name around a lot without clicking into any of the articles. Then i watched the trailer and still didn't understand. when i watched it...i was floored, shocked and felt so uneasy and the meaning of it can relate to many things we are experiencing - war in gaza, ukraine and what we are doing to animals we raise for food. But i need to come here to understand more.
Zone of Interest literally gave me nightmares. I haven’t had a movie do that to me in awhile. A real life horror movie.
ur soft if it gave you actual nightmares lmao
It was the scariest non horror movie I have ever seen. I saw it a few weeks ago and am still thinking about it.
The fawking music OMG
What do you think about the intro to The Shining?
@@clg8568yeah super chill movie 🙄
seeing Höss vomit but not really intending to vomit, is more disgusting than seeing Isabelle Andjani vomit in Possession, because it really shows how dead he feels as a human being, just like Anwar Congo in The Act Of Killing
That scene in The Act of Killing was exactly what I thought of too.
Can you explain that ending though?
This is real film art, something "The Academy" mormaly doesn t understand. This film is told on so many levels.. it is a masterpeace par excelance! Chapeau!
We saw the movie on Saturday night and it's still on my mind. I think the way the story is told visually is stunning. The way we are brought into the family makes us feel almost like a part of it. It's a chilling movie and I was so moved by it. It deserves any and all accolades it gets.
I liked the video, but I disagree with your interpretation of the quote at 6:20. He IS comparing people to these Nazis. People in the USA, UK, Canada, etc. have historically been complicit in imperialism, colonialism, or outright genocide. Despite the Nazis industrializing the murder of Jews, Americans (and company) too have tended to their gardens while their governments enslaved and slaughtered people. Without even thinking about current conflicts like Palestine, this is clear when thinking about the UK in India, the USA in Vietnam (or Laos or Cambodia or Indonesia or Guatemala, the list goes on), Canada with its indigenous population, etc. These countries were built on genocide and exploitation, and they have continued committing systemic atrocities even after the Nuremberg trials. Hitler said he wanted to do to Europe what the USA had done to its indigenous population. I think the film was saying that the difference between these histories is not as big as we make it out to be.
I feel like it’s nearly impossible to have a discussion about this subject matter over text, but I will say I think you and I are essentially making the same point about the quote. I was more saying that we’re not like Hoss and the Nazis in the way that they run the concentration camp directly and preach the values of eradicating an entire race. But having said that, I do agree with your entire comment, and I’m sure Jonathan Glazer would too, the parallels are more apparent than we may think. We do live alongside and benefit from some of the most heartless practices. I’m glad you posted this because sometimes I may be too brief on certain points, especially in the non-spoiler videos, so thank you for this, I appreciate it!
@@lucasblue20 Thanks for the nice response. After reading this comment I can see on how you meant to get that across in the video.
The world keeps repeating itself….good and bad will always live side by side. My opinion. Sad
You could go back centuries on wars, genocide etc, it's not just in the west, but globally all great civilisations have brutalised human beings.
People, as usual, are looking for the 'bad guys' to be other than us, but the point Glazer is making is these people are ordinary. They could be us, given a certain set of circumstances. I agree though. America was fine with eradicating the Native population if they got in the way of the settlers' passage west. Britian ensured famine in India and Ireland....we could go on.
The gagging and retching as Höss walks down the steps and it cuts to the cleaning ladies.....then after that cuts back...that made me weep but i cant put into words why.
Such a deep and multilayered film. You’ve nicely laid out the themes and structure. We didn’t see you this time but the clips were nice chosen and assembled. Take care.
Wow I’m so happy to hear this, thank you so much! And I’ll be back in the videos soon, you can trust me!
Meine Meinung....
Es sollte nie "bester Ton" werden! Unsere Sinne sollen ganz andere Dinge in diesem Moment aufnehmen und verarbeiten. Leider verstehen dies viele Menschen nicht, es geht um das Gefühl!
Zone is one of the best and most terrifying film about the Holocaust. And I have seen many of them.
You clearly haven’t watched any holocaust movies tbh. This movie was by far the worst version.
I want to add one perspective, among others of current wars or consumerism, an uncomfortable for most I guess - because this is the most real and directly analogous, everyday subject for many because it is about beings that are deprived of voice to speak about their suffering and enslavement and cannot advocate for themselves. I do not wish to offend anyone, but widen the perspective and encourage to think about your own Wall. The philosophy is known since Isaac Singer, yet the movie shows perfectly how it is to engage in the defense mechanisms without directly speaking of the crime, what is our own perspective. Because we almost always focus on the oppression and the victims - the results, and rarely give any attention to how it begins.
The film "Zone of Interest" transcends its narrative to serve as a profound metaphor, not just about the historical atrocities of the Nazis, but about the pervasive and often overlooked parallels in how society collectively turns a blind eye to the suffering of others, including animals. It's a poignant exploration of the defense mechanisms we employ to shield ourselves from the uncomfortable reality of our complicity in cruelty and suffering, akin to the way individuals in the film rationalize their actions or inactions within the Nazi regime.
Polish-American author Isaac Bashevis Singer, who received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1978, made the comparison in several of his stories. In the 1968 The Letter Writer, the protagonist says, "In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka." In The Penitent the protagonist says "when it comes to animals, every man is a Nazi".
There's a direct analogy with the way prisoners and animals treated. The exploitation of their bodies, workforce, and then mass execution, objectifying a living being for someone's own gains. R*ping the cows and exploiting their reproductive system to steal the milk that in nature is supposed to feed their children, taking the calfs away, killing male chicks because they will never produce eggs, using animals for experimentation, keeping them in inhumane conditions, insults to autonomy, freedon, infliction of unnecessary suffering, skinning, removing hair, teeth (horns, tusks..), using bones and other remains, (e,g, to make soap - I'm sorry if it sounds horrifying - that's what Nazis did), ; factory farms are literal concentration camps with the same deathly smell. The obsession with making their death more optimal, efficient, less costly with technology, is perfectly shown in Hoess'es mind. And it doesn't include only killing farming animals, why do we make breeds of pets that have difficulty breathing, walking or are affected with health issues in various ways, just to make a pet look "funny", or get that "pure form" and "perfect race"? Do you realize what happened with the pets that didn't align with the breeding standard? What happens to 'meat' animals when they don't meet the market standards?
How we can find any ideology to just make ourselves okay with the violence we inflict upon another living and feeling beings. Excuses, justification. We even try to incorporate religion, a system that's supposed to teach us morality, kindness, to lie to ourselves that this is violence, but we're allowed to be violent, therefore it's not bad. Just like any offender that blames their victim, or their parents.
The movie adeptly showcases how the physical and psychological walls we erect, much like the literal wall in the film, serve to compartmentalize and distance ourselves from the pain and suffering we contribute to or ignore. Hoess can easily discuss the "load" and the details of burning the bodies without using a single word that indicates these are people. This is eerily similar to how we, in modern society, distance ourselves from the plight of animals subjected to the horrors of factory farming and slaughterhouses. The use of euphemisms like "livestock," "meat," and "poultry" mirrors the dehumanization and objectification seen in the film, making the subjects of our harm more palatable to our conscience. The secrecy what happens behind the closed doors and namelessness of the victims are crucial, so we can all benefit from the proceders yet maintain a safe distance from the 'objects' of exploitation.
Furthermore, the film's depiction of the normalization of violence and the desensitization to suffering is a powerful commentary on our own societal detachment from the cruelty inflicted upon animals. The scenes where characters become accustomed to the smells and sounds of atrocity echo our own acclimatization to the hidden brutalities of animal agriculture. Just as the atrocities behind the walls of the camp become a normalized backdrop to the lives of the characters, the suffering of animals remains a conveniently ignored truth, hidden behind the neatly packaged and sanitized products we consume.
"Zone of Interest" does not just challenge us to reflect on the historical evils of Nazism but prompts a deeper introspection into our current attitudes and actions towards animals (among other evil things that we are involved in). It forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that our defense mechanisms and moral disengagements in the face of animal suffering are not unlike those employed by individuals during one of humanity's darkest periods. By drawing parallels between the past and present, the film serves as a compelling call to action, urging us to dismantle the psychological and societal barriers that prevent us from recognizing and addressing the suffering we cause to other sentient beings. If we truly believe that Hoess family are monsters, we are saying it about ourselves. Only the atrocity of human execution can show us how bad is our everyday behavior, when there are billions of beings slaughtered each day just for the minutes of our own pleasure, our own garden with the pool. The movie shows the ultimate indifference. They were just doing their job. I'm a great commander, I'm a great homemaker. Consequences of my choices are supported by society, therefore I don't need to think about the morality of my actions. I don't need to oppose because it would be really uncomfortable, not only psychologically, but also socially. We never care about speciesm because within our standard low emotional intelligence and immaturity, we're often in a survival mode that requires conformism as we fear we are either the killers, or the killed. By disowning our own responsibility, by nurturing the denial, we believe that we're not guilty, even while consuming directly the dead body of a tormented animal. The system allowed us to detach completely from the reality of how it became something we consider our "food". Sometimes this is pushed to the limits, for example when producers label or advertise their products / company as something that is utterly good for the animals (I mean all the happy cows on the grass, while the reality of industrial farming is vastly different, or labels like "the valley of good" which sounds quite disturbing within the context).
The film is a stark reminder of the dangers of indifference and the moral imperative to extend our circle of compassion beyond the confines of our own species. Just as the characters in "Zone of Interest" are challenged to confront the reality beyond their walls, we too are faced with the choice to acknowledge and act upon the suffering of animals in our midst. The question then becomes not whether we can see the similarities between ourselves and the oppressors of the past, but whether we have the courage to break down the walls of denial and indifference that allow such suffering to continue unchallenged. Because, after all, what would happen if nobody stopped the Nazis? If we're not actively speaking against, we're compliant and responsible. But our comfort requires feeding the biases as shown in the movie. It's behind the wall, you get used to it - as Singer said, we're ""victims of conditioned ethical blindness".
I read this comment about a week ago, after I watched the video. Around the same time I started reading Primo Levi's "If This Is a Man/The Truce" and I sometimes found myself thinking of your comment again.
There is a passage in the book where Levi, a Jewish chemist imprisoned in Auschwitz, is examined by a German, Dr. Pannwitz, to see if he is knowledgeable enough to work in a chemistry lab. Of the encounter he writes, "When he finished writing, he raised his eyes and looked at me. From that day I have thought about Doktor Pannwitz many times and in many ways. I have asked myself how he really functioned as a man; how he filled his time, outside of the Polymerization and the Indo-Germanic conscience; above all when I was once more a free man, I wanted to meet him again, not from a spirit of revenge, but merely from a personal curiosity about the human soul. Because that look was not one between two men; and if I had known how completely to explain the nature of that look, which came as if across the glass window of an aquarium between two beings who live in different worlds, I would also have explained the essence of the great insanity of the third Germany."
There is a divide between us and animals which makes it unnecessary for us to dehumanize them, because they are not human. If we try to understand their suffering we inevitably impose our own logic onto beings that don't share ours. What makes historic events like the Holocaust so hard to explain is that it's humans viewing other humans as a different species, subhuman, inhuman. I kept thinking how Levi, among the horrendous torment and utter indifference for human suffering, would have reacted had his situation been likened to that of a chicken.
I too suffer from a soft heart and refused to eat meat from an early age, so I am not saying this as some meat enthusiast. I am fully aware of what's going on in factory farming (I live in a town where half the people are employed by a very large meat plant). I personally would never make such a comparison though.
One more perspective I would like to give: Isaac Bashevis Singer himself has never been in a concentration camp. He emigrated to the US years before the Holocaust. He himself experienced a great amount of detachment from the tragedy as he was on another continent and his family was safe as well. I think that's why you see him drawing these parallels so easily but not the actual Auschwitz survivors. Neither the suffering of animals nor our justification for said suffering is comparable to that of the Holocaust.
That being said, I don't mean to fight with you about it and you're free to believe whatever you would like. Just thought I'd give my perspective if you care!
@@cappuccinobean2442 Thank you for sharing your perspective, and I truly appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the topic. It's nice to hear you thought about my comment and appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further. (Also I like your nick, had to make a cappucino to reply lol) I understand your concern about making direct comparisons between the Holocaust and the suffering of animals, and I want to clarify that my intention is not to diminish the horrors of the Holocaust or the experiences of its survivors.
However, I'd like to emphasize that drawing parallels between the two can serve as a powerful metaphor to highlight the mechanisms of indifference, dehumanization, and moral disengagement that allow for widespread suffering, whether human or animal. Primo Levi's encounter with Dr. Pannwitz, as you mentioned, reflects the profound disconnect between the oppressor and the oppressed, a chasm of empathy that is disturbingly similar to the way we often distance ourselves from the suffering of animals.
It's crucial to recognize that while animals are not human and do not share our logic or experience, they are sentient beings capable of suffering. The moral imperative to reduce suffering does not solely apply to humans but extends to all sentient beings. By examining our own behaviors and justifications for inflicting suffering on animals, we can gain insights into the broader human capacity for indifference and cruelty. This doubt you present here is heavily influenced by creationism, which has shaped Western culture in many ways, leading to the belief that only humans, as divine creations, are capable of intelligence, creativity, emotions, and suffering. This viewpoint, however, overlooks the biological and evolutionary fact that humans are also animals, and there is no fundamental division between animal pain and human pain. We have evolved for thousands of years before we became homo sapiens, and share most of the body functionalities (including feeling pain - a very basic one) with other species.
In considering movies like "The Zone of Interest," the focus should be on the nature of causing suffering itself, not just its portrayal. The comparison to the Holocaust, while potent, underscores that causing immense suffering, regardless of the victims, is inherently wrong. The difference lies in the fact that the Holocaust has ended, but the exploitation of animals continues to escalate. I don't necessarilly insist on calling this another holocaust, but I do think this is the same outcome, starting with different reasons, but using the same psychology on us 'normal people', and that was my point. This movie encourages us to think about ourselves as the perpetrators (not only to animals, but I didn't mention that to avoid digression, but it's the same with modern slavery - but, animal industry is clearly similar with all the death and organization) and not many will want to dismantle their biases and their peace, their walls, as you're trying to defend yours.
Understanding the reality of animal farming reveals the harsh truths (also about how it harms us as individuals, and humans overall) and requires courage to confront them. Despite the limited actions we can take beyond avoiding animal products and advocating against their use, it is clear that denying animal suffering as equivalent to human suffering is a common defense mechanism.
Tribalism, the bias you mentioned, leads us to devalue the suffering of other species compared to our own. To harm another human, we often dehumanize them, a process mirrored in how we treat animals. Many cultures engage in this "othering" process, which historically facilitated tribalism-a survival mechanism that has now become a cognitive error in modern societies or a reason to let go off the steam. Despite being a different species, animals share more similarities with us than most people realize.
From a scientific perspective, non-human animals possess brain regions and pain behaviors strikingly similar to humans. For instance, when pets are in pain, they display behaviors like rocking, distress calls, and changes in breathing, akin to human pain responses. Fish, too, have been shown to feel pain, exhibiting uncharacteristic behaviors when hurt and responding to pain relief similarly to humans.
Pain is a survival mechanism that helps sentient beings avoid danger. This includes emotional pain, as seen in mother cows and orcas mourning their offspring, or dogs suffering from separation anxiety. Such evidence underscores that animals experience both physical and emotional pain.
The notion that humans are more capable of suffering due to intellectual sophistication is misguided. Animals might suffer more in some cases due to their inability to understand the cause and duration of their pain, unlike humans who can rationalize their suffering.
Ultimately, the degree of pain is irrelevant; what matters is the capacity to suffer and the moral obligation to prevent unnecessary pain. The defensive mechanisms that lead us to ignore animal suffering also desensitize us to human suffering. Industrial animal farming not only causes immense animal suffering but also contributes to environmental degradation and exacerbates climate change, impacting humans globally.
It's interesting to note how you referred to having a "soft heart illness" as if empathy is a weakness, or you compare being good to being naive. It's far from that. This perspective suggests a bias that views empathy as a flaw rather than a fundamental human trait. Empathy evolved as a crucial mechanism for social cohesion and survival, not as an "illness." It's a sign of a well-functioning, moral individual, not an ailment. Extending this empathy to animals is a logical and necessary step, as failing to do so only perpetuates unnecessary suffering and hinders our moral progress. By acknowledging and addressing animal suffering, we not only uphold ethical standards but also reinforce the interconnectedness of all living beings. Ignoring animal suffering ultimately leads us nowhere, fostering a society that is desensitized to pain and incapable of true compassion. Mass animal farming, with its enormous consumption of resources and environmental toll, affects everyone. The defensive mechanisms that numb our empathy towards animals can similarly blind us to human suffering, fostering a dangerous apathy. This indifference can lead to broader societal harm, including climate-induced conflicts and resource shortages, leading to wars, hunger and our own destruction. After all, the tribalism is strongest in the times of uncertainty and this is crucial in all nations' propaganda to lead wars (see: Russian propaganda examples, what they want Russians to believe about Ukrainians). By denying empathy towards all sentient beings, we're constantly on the verge of falling into things like that because most people, unfortunately, aren't educated as their mind and psychology works, and prefer to feel as a part of the group, even if they feel the group is wrong. We as culture encourage evilness to grow within people who have an aptitude for becoming abusive and violent, as they usually start with harming animals to practice, and there's a wide spectrum what society will accept and what is legal. We create these holes.
Ultimately, the goal is not to equate the suffering of animals with that of Holocaust victims but to use the comparison as a lens to examine how societal norms, defense mechanisms, and moral disengagement perpetuate cruelty. By confronting these biases and defense mechanisms, we can build a more compassionate and morally responsible (which basically means surviving) society. Whether you agree with comparing holocaust which, in the end, is in fact a human cultural phenomenon, to mass animal genocide and torture that involves most humans as perpetrators, or not. I do not think that commonness of this practice lessens moral severity of it, and with certainty, doesn't mean that other species' suffering is less important.
@@OCEAN_OF_FOXES Hey! :) I'm really sorry it took this long to answer, I have been stretched thin recently. You mentioning drinking a cappuccino made me smile :D
I totally agree with most things that you're saying. The parallels are very striking and I often find it bizarre to see how removed people are from how we procure animal products. It's almost like they forget these items at the store come from animals. So I totally get your perspective. I think at the time I was so devastated after having read Levi's book that your comment felt almost a bit absurd to me. Now that the initial shock of it has worn off I can see the parallels more clearly without allotting different values to them due to my human bias.
One thing I am just not really a fan of is when people use words like r*pe for the artificial insemination of a cow. That was one of the examples I was referring to when I mentioned "imposing our own logic onto beings that don't share ours". I wasn't trying to say that animals can't feel sad or frightened, often by the same things we do. I just feel like "loss of autonomy/freedom", "r*pe/virginity", "awareness of ones own mortality" are all to an extent socially shaped pains that have been perceived differently across time and are even today not felt the same way in all cultures. I didn't mean that the animals can't feel the pain of those experiences, but they are not part of the broader culture ("logic") in which these terms have been given meaning to. That's why I don't like it when these "human terms" are imposed on animal suffering.
I wanted to ask you something regarding a comment you made, outside the Holocaust discussion. My stance is that our empathy for humans is inherent, whereas our empathy for animals is learned, simply because we had no other choice but to see animals as a food source in the past. No "othering" needed to view animals as other. Probably also because we can't speak the same language. Do you think differently? I would be very interested to know :) Also, what is your stance on eating animals sustainably? Like local fishing from a river, keeping a few chickens on your land etc.
Sorry that this comment deviated from the original discussion! You don't have to answer me at all if anything is too personal or you just don't feel like it :) Have a good day!
@@cappuccinobean2442 1/2
Well, sure, as you can see I'm a talker and when someone reads all that it exceeds my expectations by hundreds %, let alone answer.. or ask questions….Don't encourage me!
Oh I get it.
I believe that words are meant for communication. If a word fits a definition, it can be used, because why not? To me, r4ping is the labeled action, not the act of being forcibly inseminated. So, the cow won't say it was r4ped, but since we are humans using the language between ourselves to communicate, there's not much difference for me. The intent behind the act doesn't matter to me, as sexual violence against humans isn't always about sexual desire - it's more anger-based, about control, dominance, and power. We have literally no conditions related to the victim, to call the action what it is. It doesn't matter if the victim is intelectually capable, what age they are, what gender, race, origin, what was their level of awareness, so why species would be something else? Unless we coin a term for mass rape of humans, it might not be suitable for animals.
If you dig into the history of Homo species, from 300,000 years ago (when we coexisted with other Homo species) to relatively modern history, it's very clear that we struggle with being empathetic. There's always "the other." It must have been for our safety, a very basic mechanism: Can I trust this being, or will it kill me? It's such an interesting topic for me (I'm from Europe) how racism is even possible in the US. This teaches me so much about human nature.
It was quite a realization for me when I visited a museum and saw with my own eyes what I couldn't see in boring school data: we coexisted with other human-like species for a long time and even mixed with them sometimes. Doesn't it feel like our perspective on being "The Humans" in the animal kingdom is quite ridiculous?
Empathy, often romanticized as a pure and innate human trait, is, in reality, a more complex and acquired phenomenon. The notion that empathy is inherent in humans is overly simplistic; we are born not with empathy itself but with the potential to develop it. This potential is rooted in our fundamental survival abilities, such as mimicking, and being social, which is crucial for learning and interaction, and surviving.
There are multiple forms of empathy: compassionate empathy (understanding others to provide support), emotional empathy (feeling what others feel), and cognitive empathy (understanding another's perspective). This spectrum illustrates that empathy is not a monolithic concept but a versatile tool that we apply in various contexts. But I wouldn't stop at defining it as an experience, as this is quite meaningless. The significance of empathy, for me, lies in the fact that empathetic concern for others can motivate altruistic behavior, where individuals act to benefit others *at a cost to themselves*. (C. Daniel Batson, the empathy-altruism hypothesis).
The mirror neuron system should work just fine on anything that has a pair of eyes, or even resembles a face. We see faces and emotions in inanimate objects, so of course, we can see a mammal in pain and we're usually not that stupid not to understand this. And since you mention empathy as something innate, why kids (over 2 years old) show greater empathy towards animals, and would be rather devastated to see them slaughtered in front of them? Why would they rather choose to put an apple in their mouth, than to twist a small animal's neck?
We need empathy to make other people trust us so we don't die. By fostering social bonds and cooperation, empathetic behavior can enhance group cohesion and increase the chances of survival for individuals within a community. But with the great focus on socializing with other people, we are taught being further and further from other animals, we loose the connection with nature, with other beings. I'm sure you've seen how babies interact with pets.
What we call empathy is something that we often perceive as complex, and we should because it's interconnected with many rules that are purely cultural. When infants are socialized wrongly, they will not develop what we call general 'empathy'. The environment in which a person is raised can either nurture or hinder empathetic development. Supportive, nurturing environments tend to foster greater empathy, while neglect or abuse can lead to difficulties in empathizing with others. That can be learned from true crime, lol.
We learn how to be empathetic throughout our whole life; it can be cultivated through education and life experiences. Programs aimed at promoting emotional intelligence and empathy, exposure to diverse cultures and experiences, showing other people's lives, can help individuals develop a deeper understanding of others' perspectives. In each culture it slightly varies what behaviors are considered empathetic (biggest differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures).
When it comes to cross-species empathy, it's common. Every species has its own language because of the environment it evolved in, but not only can we humans learn other animals' languages (like, we do understand our pets, don't we?), but animals can understand us as well. Studies have revealed shared neuronal circuitry across species, including primates, elephants, whales, and even birds like crows and parrots, which may underpin empathetic responses. Animals can experience "emotional contagion" or "resonance" with nearby animals. This primal form of empathy involves sharing emotional states, particularly fear (obvious). Dogs are known for their ability to sense human emotions and often respond empathetically, like comforting their owners when they are sad or distressed. Traumatized parrots are paired with veterans who also have PTSD to comfort each other. Wild dolphins have a history of assisting humans in distress in the open sea, guiding lost swimmers back to shore or protecting humans from shark attacks, suggesting they can empathize with human fear. Bonobos have been seen caring for injured birds.
We did not only "see animals as a food source in the past," but we also bonded with them and cooperated with them. The findings support the theory that dogs and humans coevolved by choosing each other, rather than humans solely domesticating wolves. This mutual selection process was facilitated by the strong bonds formed, particularly through the involvement of women in the care and integration of dogs into human families. Yes, I agree we had to eat whatever was possible to survive, and today, in many places on Earth, we not only don't have to hurt other beings to survive, but it can also make us thrive, with all the resources and knowledge we have access to. That's why we had to develop the ability to put up an emotional wall. This wall is the same, as we spoke, to whatever hurt we experience and cause (this suggests that hurting others, after all, is also painful to us). Denial is a psychological defense mechanism when an individual refuses to accept reality or facts. It acts as a method of self-protection, helping a person avoid confronting painful or distressing realities. It temporarily shields them from emotional turmoil by allowing them to ignore or reject the truth. It would be a disaster if we cried over a dead animal when there hasn't been anything to eat for the past week. Every animal prioritizes its survival, and this is not a choice, just an instinct.
@@cappuccinobean2442 2/2
Sustainability is another big topic, so I'll just try to keep it short. The problem with sustainability is that from the Earth’s perspective, there is no way every human on the planet could eat a diet full of animal products. There are too many people for that. The Earth simply doesn't have the capacity to support a global diet heavy in animal products. Raising livestock requires significant land, water, and feed resources, causes enormous pollution, gas emissions, and deforestation, which impact not only local communities but, in some cases, everyone globally. So how can we eat meat three times a day?
Right now, the disparity between economies allows Westerners to overconsume, and many developing countries give away their resources. Developing countries often export their agricultural resources to meet the demand for animal products and other resource-intensive foods in wealthier nations. This leads to environmental degradation, water scarcity, and reduced food availability in these exporting countries, not to mention biodiversity loss and animal extinction. The focus on exporting high-value crops and animal products undermines food security in developing countries. Local farmers prioritize cash crops over subsistence farming, leading to reduced availability of affordable, nutritious food for local communities. This is possible because poorer countries often put more emphasis on economic growth than 'doing good for the Earth' (national-level survival mode). That's why the US/EU can export trash to Asia. But, back on track; that's why choosing to eat animal products is not only a matter of empathy towards other animals but generally towards those Others. What we can't see, we don't care about.
Having said that, I don't really believe in individual choices. As far as I know people's psychology and distorted ways of thinking, it will always come down to using propaganda to make this culture evolve. People don't make their own choices; they're influenced. They want to be a part of the group, to believe they do something good for themselves or are being perceived as good people, and they want to have resources for those who are considered 'their peers.' These are all temporary, ego-based reasons to choose avoiding harm. Most people change their diet for health reasons. I'm always happy when an individual decides to stop supporting this ill system by reducing their impact. I don't judge these individuals for particular choices; I do think we're all responsible. But I'm realistic about the capacity for understanding complex issues and further perspectives than one's own. I really do think we struggle with empathy, and I'd rather advocate for self-growth and education than particular food choices or impact the way people see animals. It would all come with awareness. But before we manage to address the climate crisis and kill ourselves, I don't think nations will upgrade their education systems to achieve that. It would take generations. We have instant access to knowledge, yet most people don't even know how their bodies work. What are you going to do?
What did you have in mind exactly, asking what is my stance, did I answer your question? Do you think you'd be capable of killing an animal with your own hands and then put their body in your mouth, if it's not for someone doing it in a way you don't have to face it? And if yes, or you did that, what was going in your mind? Sometimes I do kill bugs, mostly when I fear them, or it becomes unhygienic, but I also own cats as pets and they must eat meat, so I often experience how this dissonance works. Having to switch yourself off..
I’ve been waiting to see this on demand and wish I had seen in theater. Great analysis and very thoughtful. I’ve been immersing myself with WW2 historical events, particularly Hitler and the atrocities committed by the Nazi’s. I lost most of my family in the Polish ghettos and subsequent concentration camps. Trying to pass our families history to my son- each generation must be educated so that history is never repeated. Thank you for your sensitivity discussing this very hard subject matter 🙏🖤
In German ghettos set up by the Germans, who occupied the Polish soil. Watch your language, please.
I’m so thankful we have this film available at this moment in history, and hope many will watch it fully. It is phenomenally done, a perspective I didn’t think we’d ever get. Bravo♥️
Thanks also for explaining the infrared parts. I thought it might be animation, and I didn’t pick up on the fact that she was resistance.
She was actually a real person that Jonathan met, and who sadly passed weeks after their meeting.
Thanks for your content. Your approach to reviews are essay/subjective style is definitely unique. I can tell it takes a lot of thought to make these. Thanks!
I’m really thrilled to hear this, I always wanna make stuff that isn’t already out there and captures a unique point of view, so thank you for this!
right, this approach as you said made me aware of other themes, damn right
The ambient sounds throughout the camp/house scenes were truly impressive - almost always a low hum, gun fire, shouting etc
So well explained and thought out. I saw this movie last night...the last on my list of Oscar nods for best film. I knew it would be a tough one. It is an extraordinary depiction of literally the other side...the many hidden sides of The Holocaust. A kind of unspoken silent portrait that speaks volumes to the human condition and horror of maintaining a life amongst such atrocities. Thank you for your incites. This film is sooo Oscar worthy!
8:27 might I add another interpretation of mine that these cuts to black,red and white are representative for the Nazi flag at the time. These cuts directly confront us.
I work at a museum in the Midwest and the display from the local native history to the early pioneers is displayed smoothly like one section to the next. This film makes me reflect my areas history and relate to the cleaners at the end.
Great video! Id love a spoiler video where you break down thesymbolism and family response more - i feel i saw most but would love your perspective on it!
A normal and banal couple. Rudolf and Hedwig could be you, could be me. What gives us goosebumps is that the Höss family could be any of us. The couple represents our apathy and our neglect, today and now.
Finally, FINALLY got to watched this powerful film. I think the coat scene got to me the most for how mundane it feels. It's like the ladies got their personal shops for free, at the cost of deaths next door. It made me think not just about ongoing wars, but also our current state of consumerism. The way we are willing to ignore the suffering of others for personal beauty & comfort. It's too true & harrowing, especially observing how ignorant/desensitized we are today.
I’m curious if you or anyone else reading these comments, took her feeling around the bottom of the coat to indicate that she was searching for Jewels or other valuables that may have been sewn into the lining. I’m sure she was all too aware of this practice, given she was in a position to know so much about the realities of the camp and the outcomes of the poor soul who were taken there. (Not that SHE thought they were poor souls.)
my favorite thing about the cameras in this film are how they're angled. In the beginning when you're first introduced to the family, the camera is parallel to the height of an average adult's shoulder, scenes were filled with the family house and the structures surrounding it. if not at shoulder height, the cameras were down low and aiming up slightly, where the walls and fences block out the camp next door, and the only thing you can see are tips of the roofs or the smoke of the trains. As the film goes on, people from outside of the house were introduced (Mrs.Hoss's mother, for example) and the camera slowly rise in altitude, at one point near the top of the first floor of the house and aiming down, showing much more of whats behind the walls. In these shots the concentration camps' buildings were much more dominant and obvious. The black smokes and orange roof tiles just stand exposed under the sun, behind the very lively characters, reflecting and contrasting. I love the cinematography of this film so much, the flatness of it all really highlights the intricacies of the design in other departments, i.e. sound, music, costume, dialogue, etc.
This most brilliant movie will never leave your memory after watching it (and listening to it!). Your video is very thoughtful and impressive, Lucas.
The scene in the stables reminded me of the moment in The Act of Killing where Anwar teaches his grandchildren not to be cruel to the chickens. Very good movie.
Great review as usual. And I really like your evolving presentation style. ❤🎉😊
It means so much to hear the style changes are appreciated, I’m really having fun with it and I’m so glad you are too! Thank you!!
@@lucasblue20 I guess I should subscribe! I always avoid anything written about a film before i see it, and sometimes even buy a ticket at the theatre to avoid seeing the Rotten Tomatoes rating. But my friend sent me this and said it was not a "review" with an opinion on the quality of the film, and not a spoiler. Thanks.
@gamma517 omg I see that you are subscribed, thank you! And yeah a lot of my newer videos are spoiler-free so I think you’ll enjoy them, thank you again so much!!
I am happy for this film as a German whose grandfathers fought in World War 2. I will never be able to comprehend the bottomless abyss that opened up at Auschwitz. I will never forget. We shall never forget! Great analysis by the way. Thank you!
I just saw it, and the final was painfully shocking and even I was crying. Definitely a masterpiece ❤❤
LOL grow up.
@@philmcclenaghan7056 grow some empathy
Thank you Lucas Blue you have best description of the movie on TH-cam. Thanks for doing it helps explain a lot!
I just saw this tonight. Absolutely stunning film in every respect.
Brilliant illustration, but two very important ‘metaphorical’ scenes must be highlighted.
1. The ashes coming from mouth and noses
2. The horrific last scene
The last scene where the monster meets darkness in the basement... will haunt me forever!!!
Εξαιρετικη ταινια που κατα την γνωμη μου αγγιζει την τελειοτητα. Μεσα απο μια ειδυλιακη μεν παγερη δε καθημερινοτητα που σου σφιγγει το στομαχι αναδεικνυει την υπαρξη και υπουλη δυναμη του κακου και στελνει ενα ηχηρο και πολυ επικαιρο μηνυμα. Ολος ο θρηνος, η οργη, η οδυνη μονο στην μουσικη του. Απιστευτα δυνατη η στιγμη που ο Ες αντιλαμβανεται με αηδια το αποτελεσμα των πεπραγμενων του και του καθεστωτος (αν το καταλαβα σωστα). Εξαιρετικα ευρηματικη η επιλογη της γλωσσας δεδομενου οτι η ταινια δεν ειναι γερμανικη.😅😅
Unfortunately I can’t articulate my thoughts and feelings as well as others but I will say that This film has left more of an impact on me than any film I’ve seen this year. I saw it a few days ago and it just won’t leave my head but that’s ok because it’s welcome to stay there rent free.
12:10 This is a thought one has who has compassion and can't process others who are not just suppressing their emotions, but there is very little compassion for others exist. Not much to supress.
Great video i saw this film over a month ago and I cannot stop thinking about it it’s so powerful. You should do a spoiler video on the night vision scenes and the ending. 👍🏻👍🏻
Instant follow wow you have such an incredible knack for film analysis!
omg this seriously means so much, I'm so glad you enjoy these and I can assure you there will be new videos very soon! Thank you so much!!
Thank you for the beautiful text, I fully agree with your words. I have always admired Jonathan Glazer's work and I believe that your analysis is intense, intelligent and also written from the heart. Thank you, Roberto
Fantastic analysis of a fantastic film!
Thank you so much! So glad you loved the movie too!!
i love how you wrote this review without a single mention of Gaza even though Glazer made the link in his interviews / oscar speech himself incredibly obvious, it almost feels like you missed the mark here. we are compared to the perpetrators not because “they’re human too and not pure evil” but because we are watching genocide live on our phones and we look away just the same as the family. i think this is the true banality of evil in the film
To be fair he did mention war generally being beamed into the backgrounds of our lives when the news channels cover them before the latest sports results and tomorrow's weather. The video is a movie critique not a political statement.
Stop bringing politics here. So sick of people like you making everything about yourself and Gaza.
@@fatpinkteddy There's a genocide being committed right now which is deeply affecting many people, and he chose to mention it when reflecting on a movie about the banality of evil.... what don't you get?
@@fatpinkteddy whether you like it or not there are direct parallels to whats going on in the world right now. maybe you missed the mark on what the movie is truly about if you can say wholeheartedly "stop bringing politics here"
@@nicholas8785 he completely doesn't understand the movie
What if I lived in a country that went berserk, and opting out was not an option? If I didn’t commit to the government policy I would be jailed, at the least? Who would I be? And Mr and Mrs Smith next door? And what if the country was Muslim? Or Jewish? I think it can happen in any society, any religion, any race. If the entirety of the governments laws forced us to cooperate, who of us would be the resistance? I ask myself, often.
Sorry to get kinda deep here.
I think we are approaching that here (in the USA). I read in a recent popular but even-keeled book that we may be seeing American become a "One Religion Nation" , and many will be deported or told to leave. I don't think it wil happen in one generation but the seeds are being planted where 'OPTING OUT IS NOT AN OPTION". Thanks for your comment.
@@gamma517 And thank you for your reply. I didn’t want to go too far in implicating our country, but yes, this is exactly why I’ve thought about this.
we are seeing this in real time with the current Israel vs Palestine conflict. its interesting how history continues to repeat itself, despite the lessons we learn from history
@@cheapbongs Unfortunately I have heard both sides use this analogy to bolster their claims.
The other "side". That's Israeli propaganda. The other "side" to occupation is THE OCCUPIED PEOPLE. I've already exited the Israeli brainwashing system of lies. And that is why people don't object to those systems. They are brainwashed. Israel has been in the propaganda lying murder business for longer than the state of Israel.
I don’t want to make light around a film like this, but as a lover of experimental hip-hop, I was impressed that his dog was called ‘Dilla’!!
that's an entirely relevant comment, thanks for that.
Thank you for this great analysis. Seeing this again on Friday. Haven’t been able to stop thinking about it since I saw it about a month ago
Totally agree! It’s so uncompromising and powerful, i couldn’t stop thinking about it. This videos was a must for me, and it means so much to hear you enjoyed it, thank you!
The problem with the movie is that it tried to suggest that Hoss felt some tinge of remorse or guilt for what he did? This was Glazer's imposing his view on the real character to achieve some sense of divine justice. In fact, Hoss was unrepentant and quite pleased with the work he did even as he was mounting the gallows. He only regretted that he hadn't spent enough time with his family like some overworked CEO. None of the characters expressed any discomfort with their situation other than to object to being reassigned to a new location. The whole movie can be summarized as A lovely German family shares a pleasant vacation at a Polish resort next to a human incinerator.
You are absolutely right and Hoess had no regrets to the end. He wrote some ersatz apology for his action the night before his execution, but he didn't mean anything he wrote at the time. Supposedly, and like Hans Frank, he returned to his Catholic faith while imprisoned. Rudy was a little late on that one I suppose.
even if he consciously didn't feel any remorse, his body may have by proxy. It's called psychosomatics.
Hello! Firstly, I'd like to express my appreciation for the depth of your reflections shared in this video. Your analysis has prompted me to think more critically about the subject matter, and it's sparked a particular curiosity in me regarding the auditory elements you discussed. I'm especially intrigued by how sirens and various sounds are utilized within this context. Could you delve deeper into your perspective on the conceptualization of these sounds? How do you perceive their role in the broader narrative or theme? I'm eager to understand the nuances of your interpretation and how these auditory elements contribute to the overall impact of the work. Thank you for sparking this intriguing line of thought!
I've never seen this film, bit i intend to. To me, it seems like we see what we want to see and turn our backs on people who are suffering. Our wall.goes up and they cease to exist. It's still like that today.
Even the family dog turned in a stellar performance. That's how good it was.
Thanks... I would not say though in the introduction "an ordinary German family living next to the camp" ; this is the family of Rudolph Hoss, the camp's commander.
Honestly ,I was so engrossed by the imagery and there normal everyday life and then i remembered what was over the wall and i had to re-evaluate myself. The screams and shots in the background was so evident but yet were ignored because we were too busy looking at the beautiful garden side
Lucas Blue has a magnificent voice.
Beautiful.
I can only imagine how awkward I would have felt if I watched this movie in a public theater! That said, I think I'm going to watch it a few more times. Very well put together video, thanks!
such a quiet subtle movie just punches you straight in the gut. it is more shocking than any holocaust documentary i feel. it's a masterpiece.
I have not seen yet the film. However, I found this review to be the best one after I watched so many reviews of this film, and triggered me to watch the film!!!!
This movie and book got its inspiration from Sophie’s Choice!!! It’s like they saw the 3rd act of Sophie’s Choice, when she arrived at the camp, and said let’s copy this.
One more thing I noticed, there were a couple of scenes where the scene faded out. These included the beginning where it was black, then when the train arrived where it fazed white, and then during the flower scene where the colour fazed out to red. All these colours collectively symbolise not only the violence that occurred during the holocaust but it clearly demonstrates the swastika symbol aswell
the true horror is that within us all resides the heart of darkness.
I would like to think not. I have too much of a heartache to have room for a heart of darkness.
The best of the best analysis ever done and I mean it
Wow I’m honestly so thrilled to hear this (and slightly relieved) because I wasn’t sure how my thoughts would be taken on this one with this subject matter. It means the world truly, thank you so much simply for letting me know!
This is a great, great video analysis. Thanks for your thoughts.
Thank you. For the comments. I watched it not long ago. It was amazing we need more foreign films in the States.
When you read some of the comments, you realize that many people don't understand the message and are still distancing themselves from current events. No, not that was once... it happened then and it's happening now, different places, but it's happening and it concerns us all! And those who only want to see what happened back then in the movie, what are they doing right now?
I saw it a few days ago and it was amazing. After watching it, I was curious to see if you did a review about it, and was very happy to see there was one.
Very great video and explanation, congrats!
I have wondered how "we", can plan a vacation to a country so close to Ukraine for example and enjoy a vacation to Europe when someone, just not to many miles away, is suffering the unimaginable suffering of a war. We all know that to a certain extent, in so many ways, we choose to ignore because these injustices are outside our control. We, the ordinary humans who go to work, feed our children, tide up our homes, are not capable of confronting the powers that promote and feed economies with the profit of wars. Or we can stop them?
Are you Russian?
This movie summed up Hannah Arendts quote perfectly… The banality of evil. In it’s entirety.
A good parallel to current Gaza Strip
Sure--the conflict started by Hamas killing 1200 unarmed and innocent Israelis. Hamas doesn't give a crap about their own people so spare me the comparison between Auschwitz and the Gaza you fool. Hamas would be the ones stuffing people in the gas chambers with unmitigated glee. Jesus Christ what a stupid thing to write!
No.
@@joaoleonel1217absolutely
Absoloutley! It's happening and people carry on regardless 💔
I read somewhere awhile back that the concentration camp was established in a geographic locale that Germans called the "Auschwitz Interest Area." I believe that is the source of the title, "Zone of Interest."
This is a great video and great narrative around a tricky and complex movie that it could be so easy to just say is about the banality of evil.
We are never given an opportunity to get up and close with the family. No tight close ups, they are always moving and we are always just an observer. Yes we can say it’s about the banality of evil but it’s also about the ongoing banality of our maintenance of the memory of evil with the cleaners at the end which I found really really interesting. The wife putting on the lipstick for me was the most shocking and obscene lipstick so mundane and pedestrian but it is so intimate in a way.
One tiny note the surname is not pronounced Hoss but Hoess a bit like the ö in say “danke shön”. Kind of like the English word hearse. Edit: this is how the filmmakers are pronouncing it so colour me confused 😂
really great analysis, well done Lucas!
It is actually happening at the moment but not in a camp. It is in a biggest open air prison in the world which called Gaza. People can be much more evil than we imagine
ALSO - I’ve been reading some interpretations of the films ending and while I think it’s left a big opening for multiple interpretations that all serve the same purpose - for example, whether u believe hoss was having a premonition to the end of the war or if glazer was just using symbolism, the effect of the ending leaves everyone with the same enlightenment. However, I didn’t see anyone mention hoss’s execution. I’ve read that hoss was hung, and I know that often they used short ropes on the nazis, which means the death was slower, so I couldn’t help but relate this to his gagging in the stairwell as well. Foreshadowing possibly.
interesting
Hoss was executed a few hundred yards behind the house his wife didn't want to leave.
@@SuperNevile No, he was executed at in front of his office at Auschwitz I--several accounts about it on TH-cam. Their home was at Auschwitz II-Birkenau which is 3 kilometers from A1. Out of curiosity I looked it up yesterday. He died by the short drop method of hanging and was actually strangled by that method.
@@chuckbuckbobuck I did "the tour" back in the 90s. I know what I know. Incidentally, the smoking in the distance (as seen from the house) is from the two crematoria at Birkenau (A2). The brick buildings you see from the house at AI were originally Polish army barracks, that the Nazis commandeered. A2 had wooden barracks, except for the brick built entrance, two crematoria and a few ancilliary buildings
@@SuperNevile You obviously didn't read my reply back to you which isn't surprising. I NEVER SAID THAT HOESS HOME WAS NOT AT AUSCHWITZ-BIRKENAU (also addressed as Auschwitz II). That is where most of the killing was done. Where you are wrong, and believe me you are definitely wrong is stating he was hanged only a couple of hundred of yards from home there. He was not hung at Auschwitz-Birkenau but at Auschwitz 1 which, and this is according to Wikipedia which I checked on three times just to make sure, is 3 kilometers (about 2 miles) from gate to gate. His main office was at Auschwitz1 (not Birkenau which is why he had visitors at his home if they came there for official visits) and at the request of the Polish people he was hanged facing that office. He was not a few hundred yards from his home at Auschwitz I but 3 KM as I just stated. You are welcome to refer to Wikipedia and to videos on You Tube if you don't believe but you are wrong in you statement about how close the hanging was to his home. Your tour guides should have pointed that out. There is a plague at A-1 visibly and clearly stating that this is the site of Hoess's public hanging--the last one in Poland I might add.
And yes , a incredible piece of art
You really gave a meaning to me. Thank you
I enjoy the film
It was shot beautifully
The sound design is extremely important
The long camera shot is language all in it own
Dialogue is minimal but effective.
But let it be clear
You know what is going on next door
The camera keeps you close to the family and the house.
Thank you for this outstanding analysis! I really was struck and thankful for how this movie managed to look so "modern". As Glazer said in the quote you cited: It's not a museum film, but much more closer to us and our lives. I've seen a bunch of historical movies that played at this time and they mostly felt, well historical. Especially all these TV movies about German people being sooo heroic and conflicted that we have here in Germany...cut that crap. All this happened not that long ago. And this movie was finally able to catch this. The garden, the house, the conversations...all that made me feel uncomfortably close!
Great as always 👌 you're one of the best❤️❤️❤️❤️
Omg you’re way too kind haha but it really means a lot to me, thank you so much!!
@lucasblue20 I'm not ☺️ I really mean it and thanks to you sooo much 💖💖💖💖
The tale of Gretel and Hansel is used to metaphorize the hollocaust, as the witch is thorwn into an oven and the bird offers gems and pearls for bread crumbs (just like they took all the jewelry and gold of the jews in the hollocaust and fed them only with bread crubs)
I very much agree that the voyeuristic feel of the movie makes the audience participate in a feeling of complicity. It is a strong and prescient message.
I had no idea this was based on true and real life.