Imaginary Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust Reviews
[font=Century Gothic]The documentary starts off in the 1930's, ascribing a lack of anti-Nazi films to the potent anti-Semitism of the time. Actually, government policy never directly addressed the Holocaust and so, neither did the propaganda. It also had to do with the perennial fact of Hollywood that its producers and directors would make films they think other people want to see, not what they themselves want to see. This might explain why the only major cinematic attack on the Nazis of this period came from Charles Chaplin with "The Great Dictator."[/font]
[font=Century Gothic]After World War II, the Italians were quickly deep into neo-realism while Hollywood was still in fantasy mode.(Another of the documentary's faults is that it does not survey European films to compare and contrast.) It is unfair to attack the 1959 version of "The Diary of Anne Frank" for not going into a concentration camp because it is unnecessary.(And it also unfair to attack blacklistees who were probably the most fervent of anti-Nazis. Look at Chaplin for example.) By 1965, reality was creeping back with "The Pawnbroker" which might also have been one of the first Hollywood films to contain nudity. The final shot in the film is of the real street corner of Park Avenue and 116th Street in New York City.[/font]
[font=Century Gothic]Television would take the lead with the miniseries "Holocaust" and "War and Remembrance" but the documentary does not even mention "Playing for Time." Not until "Schindler's List," would the Holocaust be an economically viable topic for a major Hollywood film.[/font]
[font=Century Gothic]But none of the movies mentioned can hold a candle to actual newsreel footage of the liberated concentration camps. Despite this, as the documentary puts it, there is a power to the images in any film which can be used to impart history. For example, in the remake of "To Be or Not To Be," I learned for the first time that gays were also persecuted by the Nazis. For more information, check out the documentary "Paragraph 175." So, it should be interesting to see how Hollywood depicts other genocides.[/font]
Beside the tempered tone, the other real caveat to share is that it ruins the end of a lot of movies. And I?m not talking about how the war ended. It?s good for film historians. And it is not just a bashfest on Hollywood, because like any traditional Hollywood movie, the hero triumphs at the end.
My words cant do this documentary justice. I would encourage you to watch it and see for yourself.
It is not my intention to trivialize the Holocaust, as you no doubt know. I also believe that it's very important for movies on the subject to get made. The more it's in the public eye, the less ground those ridiculous deniers can gain, for one. We need to see that footage. We need to see it over and over again. We need to keep it in our minds for the rest of our lives. We especially need to try using it to remind us of places where it's happening now. Perhaps if the Armenian Genocide had been so well documented, the Holocaust might not have happened. Though all things considered, I find it rather unlikely. It's just that I've never even heard of this--obviously, I got it because it starts with "I"--and it's won two awards. Oh, it's from festivals I've never heard of, too, but that's just the way things go. On the other hand, it finally worked with Stephen Spielberg, long the Academy's most-ignored director.
Before the War, Hollywood was awfully wary about making anti-Nazi films. Part of this was the Breen Office, which insisted that no foreign institutions or persons should be treated unjustly. There was no way of knowing just how justly that would be treating them. At any rate, when those few movies were made talking about the Nazis, the whole of the country seemed up in arms about the Jew menace. Even Charlie Chaplin's masterpiece [i]The Great Dictator[/i], discussed in this space already, was considered a Jew slander, despite the fact that Chaplin was not, in so many words, Jewish. It was only when the real film, the film from the camps, was released in the US that the US public stopped seeing it as mere propaganda. And even then, things faded until the seventies, until [i]Holocaust[/i] and [i]Sophie's Choice[/i] brought things back into the public eye. [i]Schindler's List[/i], of course. What Hollywood does is imaginary, true, but the point is that even the imaginary can be important.
One of the great debates in the movie is the sanitization of the camps. Most of the time, the horror is cleaned up. This is for several reasons, not least because a lot of Holocaust-based films are either shown on TV or intended for a younger audience. On the other hand, there is the avoided ending of [i]The Diary of Anne Frank[/i], also discussed here. The movie ends with her declaration about the basic goodness of people, and it doesn't show her last days, the illness that killed her in conditions more horrific than we can imagine. There's the fact that the TV dramatization of the Nuremberg trials wasn't permitted to use the word "gas" for fear of offending the sponsors. Even today, showings of [i]Schindler's List[/i] get trimmed of sex, nudity, and violence.
I think part of the problem is that it's hard for us to really believe it's real. I would imagine that even those who lived through it now see it in some kind of dim haze. It must be hard to remember it's even really real. The whole thing is so mind-numbing. The machinery of the system was so huge, the system so broad, the demands of the population so enormous, the actions of the leaders so heinous. How do you take all of that in? We've been trying for sixty-five years, and it doesn't get any easier. It won't get any easier. In fact, I suspect it's getting harder and harder as time passes and survivors die. Soon, all that will be left for us is words in books, the flickering images on film, the buildings either crumbling or preserved so we won't forget. That's what Hollywood can do for us.
It's fashionable to badmouth Hollywood. It's apparently one of my failings as a highbrow critic; I can't do it. I've never been able to. I can only badmouth certain aspects of anything, and never an entire industry or faction thereof. It is shameful that the industry was prevented and prevented itself from showing what needed to be shown early. It is shameful that we needed the movies to do it for us in the first place. Hollywood pays attention to things for us. Oh, sure, there are a dozen or more [i]Scary Movie[/i]s for every [i]Schindler's List[/i]. A couple of dozen. More, even. However, they are still willing to give it a chance now and again.
Powerful and thought provoking.
Imaginary Witness is an overview of films made during and after the second world war that relate or perhaps fabricate and other times misstep fiction from truth. The documentator's goal was simple, seed out Hollywoods censorship, and propraganda. For me all it did was tell me what i already knew and what little Americans still don't know. My grandmother was born and raised in Germany during WW2, her stories alone would have made for a better summerization!