Jonathon Glazer's 'Zone of Interest' needs two things.
1. More Clarity.
2. Less Cinematic Self-Indulgence. Less calling attention to the fact that what we are watching is, indeed, a film.
And I'll tell you why. The subject is too important by far for there to be as much lack of clarity as there is regarding the film's major plot points. Yes, there are times when it's fine for a film-maker to leave it up to the viewer to decide 'yes' or 'no', 'bad' or 'good'. But here we have an example of too much going on throughout the length of the movie that leaves us with a big '?' above our heads.
The story is this. Adjacent to the Auschwitz Concentration Camp there are homes for officers and their families. The camp's Commandant has a wife who adores her life there. And so when her husband is ordered to transfer to another, less attractive camp (can you imagine?) she insists on staying. Her husband may go, but not her. This sets the table for the events that follow.
There are scenes in an animated-like black and white that seem to do nothing for the story. One in particular during which a makeup compact is discovered in the forest. Add to this the a sub-plot regarding a real woman's makeup compact which at first viewing does nothing, but may, in fact, be a major plot point. Or ... not. How these events tie together might be discerned by the genius-viewer, but for most this is one of many examples of the film's trying to be more cute than clear. There are long stretches where the screen is blank; Why? Dunno. There is a terrible horn that blares from time to time; Why? Dunno. Are you getting the idea? I do hope so.
I suppose it would be impossible to not recommend the film. Those scenes that are more easily understood are certainly worth the time. And, in fairness, they do take up much of the running time.
So, sure, go ahead. See it. As they say, 'Couldn't hurt'.
1. More Clarity.
2. Less Cinematic Self-Indulgence. Less calling attention to the fact that what we are watching is, indeed, a film.
And I'll tell you why. The subject is too important by far for there to be as much lack of clarity as there is regarding the film's major plot points. Yes, there are times when it's fine for a film-maker to leave it up to the viewer to decide 'yes' or 'no', 'bad' or 'good'. But here we have an example of too much going on throughout the length of the movie that leaves us with a big '?' above our heads.
The story is this. Adjacent to the Auschwitz Concentration Camp there are homes for officers and their families. The camp's Commandant has a wife who adores her life there. And so when her husband is ordered to transfer to another, less attractive camp (can you imagine?) she insists on staying. Her husband may go, but not her. This sets the table for the events that follow.
There are scenes in an animated-like black and white that seem to do nothing for the story. One in particular during which a makeup compact is discovered in the forest. Add to this the a sub-plot regarding a real woman's makeup compact which at first viewing does nothing, but may, in fact, be a major plot point. Or ... not. How these events tie together might be discerned by the genius-viewer, but for most this is one of many examples of the film's trying to be more cute than clear. There are long stretches where the screen is blank; Why? Dunno. There is a terrible horn that blares from time to time; Why? Dunno. Are you getting the idea? I do hope so.
I suppose it would be impossible to not recommend the film. Those scenes that are more easily understood are certainly worth the time. And, in fairness, they do take up much of the running time.
So, sure, go ahead. See it. As they say, 'Couldn't hurt'.