First of all this film is provocative and poignant - but this could just be a result of the subject matter alone without Glazer's film. The performances are excellent and I actually enjoyed the "kitchen sink" drama displayed. However, this does mean the film might be considered boring or slow because there is little in the way of actual plot. Really the story consists of Rudolf Höss (Christian Friedel), a Nazi commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp, who lives beside the camp with his family and his wife Hedwig (Sandra Hüller) who becomes upset when told he (and subsequently the family) might be transferred. The horror of the Holocaust and the crimes taking place within Auschwitz are never shown on screen, instead the sounds associated with the death and torture of the camp are only ever heard over the wall dividing the Höss family home (and garden) and Auschwitz.
For this review, I was going to write about the final scene(s) because I think it's something that might divide those who like/dislike The Zone of Interest. Rudolf Hoss is back in Germany, I think, and meeting with his Nazi superiors to receive orders regarding his future in the party and employment. He is informed that he has being doing "a good job" and thus returning to his position at Auschwitz to oversee the arrival of many Hungarian Jews. The operation is given the name "operation Höss" and when Rudolf phones his wife to tell her, he is clearly very proud of the fact this will be his namesake. He then is witnessed, soon after, heading down the stairs to leave (presumably to return to Auschwitz). As he defends the stairs (of ann empty grand building) into ever increasing darkness, he stops several times as if he is about to throw up. I'm conflicted as to what this is portraying, as because until now, neither of the two main characters of Rudolf and Hedwig have shown any remorse for their actions or complicity, and so perhaps this is indeed Glazer's attempt to show Rudolf does have some remorse about his own role in the horrific Holocaust. He then stops and looks at a dark corridor where a small circle of white light is seen. The audience are then transitioned to modern day, in a jarring juxtaposition, where workers at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum are seen opening the gates, and then cleaning, sweeping and vacuuming the floors and displays. Now, I understand that some people have taken this scene to demonstrate the true cost of what was occurring over the wall and within the confinements of the Auschwitz concentration camp because the displays show the incinerators, the empty gas chambers, and the possessions of the Jewish prisoners piled high in disregard by the Nazi's at the time. It is somber and startling because if, indeed, there is an audience to 'The Zone of Interest' who does not know what happened at Auschwitz then this is the film's chance to finally show this. However, if this was Glazer's intention alone then there is no need for him to show the displays etc alongside the cleaners going about their work.
I think Glazer intentionally includes the cleaners and staff almost in an accusatory way to us as spectators of the film, visitors or "tourists" off Auschwitz and wider (and current) events occurring in the world. The theme of The Zone of Interest is exposing the "banality of evil" and in this regard, this scene serves to further this point to us. As the cleaners go about their work, they inevitably will become desensitised to their surroundings, particularly if they are working there daily, and this is not their fault. But then is Glazer asking whether Auschwitz again has become a place of banality or mundanity? Secondly, another reading of this sense, that I instantly took after seeing the film, was that instead of the museum being a place of memoralisation and reflection to those who suffered and died, is it actually in danger of us just giving evil people like Rudolf Hoss a legacy? As Rudolf looks on to, as suggested, visualise these modern day museum scenes, is he proud that we still visit it and disturbingly awe (even if in disgust) at his "work"? Much in the same way he is proud of the operation of the Hungarian Jews being named after him? It's a difficult feeling to contend with as a viewer, and if this is the case, I don't think Glazer is saying we are doing it willingly or with a conscious evil intent, but then isn't this part of history of the holocaust, in that many people knew something was going on but they chose not to think too deeply or it was too far away, or it was too hard to stop and control under the threat of brutal authoritarianism.
This is why I actually think the final scene saves the film, and ensures that Glazer has something new to say and add to a plethora of Holocaust artefacts, literature and film. But the film as whole is also teetering the line of boredom, being too symbolic and "artsy" for the sake of it, and thinking it is cleverer than it is when actually it is more overt than it is would like. Therefore I'm in the middle and can only give the film a 5/10.
For this review, I was going to write about the final scene(s) because I think it's something that might divide those who like/dislike The Zone of Interest. Rudolf Hoss is back in Germany, I think, and meeting with his Nazi superiors to receive orders regarding his future in the party and employment. He is informed that he has being doing "a good job" and thus returning to his position at Auschwitz to oversee the arrival of many Hungarian Jews. The operation is given the name "operation Höss" and when Rudolf phones his wife to tell her, he is clearly very proud of the fact this will be his namesake. He then is witnessed, soon after, heading down the stairs to leave (presumably to return to Auschwitz). As he defends the stairs (of ann empty grand building) into ever increasing darkness, he stops several times as if he is about to throw up. I'm conflicted as to what this is portraying, as because until now, neither of the two main characters of Rudolf and Hedwig have shown any remorse for their actions or complicity, and so perhaps this is indeed Glazer's attempt to show Rudolf does have some remorse about his own role in the horrific Holocaust. He then stops and looks at a dark corridor where a small circle of white light is seen. The audience are then transitioned to modern day, in a jarring juxtaposition, where workers at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum are seen opening the gates, and then cleaning, sweeping and vacuuming the floors and displays. Now, I understand that some people have taken this scene to demonstrate the true cost of what was occurring over the wall and within the confinements of the Auschwitz concentration camp because the displays show the incinerators, the empty gas chambers, and the possessions of the Jewish prisoners piled high in disregard by the Nazi's at the time. It is somber and startling because if, indeed, there is an audience to 'The Zone of Interest' who does not know what happened at Auschwitz then this is the film's chance to finally show this. However, if this was Glazer's intention alone then there is no need for him to show the displays etc alongside the cleaners going about their work.
I think Glazer intentionally includes the cleaners and staff almost in an accusatory way to us as spectators of the film, visitors or "tourists" off Auschwitz and wider (and current) events occurring in the world. The theme of The Zone of Interest is exposing the "banality of evil" and in this regard, this scene serves to further this point to us. As the cleaners go about their work, they inevitably will become desensitised to their surroundings, particularly if they are working there daily, and this is not their fault. But then is Glazer asking whether Auschwitz again has become a place of banality or mundanity? Secondly, another reading of this sense, that I instantly took after seeing the film, was that instead of the museum being a place of memoralisation and reflection to those who suffered and died, is it actually in danger of us just giving evil people like Rudolf Hoss a legacy? As Rudolf looks on to, as suggested, visualise these modern day museum scenes, is he proud that we still visit it and disturbingly awe (even if in disgust) at his "work"? Much in the same way he is proud of the operation of the Hungarian Jews being named after him? It's a difficult feeling to contend with as a viewer, and if this is the case, I don't think Glazer is saying we are doing it willingly or with a conscious evil intent, but then isn't this part of history of the holocaust, in that many people knew something was going on but they chose not to think too deeply or it was too far away, or it was too hard to stop and control under the threat of brutal authoritarianism.
This is why I actually think the final scene saves the film, and ensures that Glazer has something new to say and add to a plethora of Holocaust artefacts, literature and film. But the film as whole is also teetering the line of boredom, being too symbolic and "artsy" for the sake of it, and thinking it is cleverer than it is when actually it is more overt than it is would like. Therefore I'm in the middle and can only give the film a 5/10.