Film is a unique form of media that allows the audience to experience worlds that—otherwise—would not exist. The incorporation of visual imaging further strengthens the nature of storytelling and offers insight into human imagination. Directors Claude Lanzmann and Steven Spielberg exemplify such qualities in Shoah, a documentary about Holocaust witnesses, and Schindler’s List, a historical drama about a Nazi officer and his transition to hero. Both films offer perspective into life during and after extreme genocide through use of themes, portrayal of characters and interviewers, and various film techniques. In Shoah, Lanzmann presents themes of witnessing, guilt, interrogation, and importance of detail. Rather than focusing on profound, thought-provoking
…show more content…
However, this technique is very effective because it breaks down those being interviewed—it makes them vulnerable. In terms of witnessing, Lanzmann presents voice from people that saw, understood, and comprehended what was happening. They were real-life people who know that the Holocaust happened. They were there, and they are present to inform the audience that genocide occurred amidst our time. Thus, Lanzmann offers hope through the ability of story-telling: the ability for one generation to tell future generations what it has learned. This is a film about witnessing (and the pain of it). It offers a return of the voice—being able to see, then witness. In contrast, Spielberg’s Schindler’s List presents the theme of triumph through the human spirit. In the face of evil, Jews demonstrate determination and an unbroken spirit. For example, the couple that falls in love and decides to get married in Palszow has virtually no future to look forward to; however, they marry in hopes of surviving. They even manage to stay true to ceremonial Jewish traditions, which symbolizes hope for the survival of the Jewish race. In addition, …show more content…
It does not contain images from the 1940’s (newsreel shots, interviews with death camp survivors, or war crime trial coverage); instead, it is photographed by the same man—Lanzmann—over a five to six-year span. He uses the faces of his witnesses and intercuts their testimony with tranquil, pastoral scenes where death occurred, such as the train tracks where steam engines took Jews, Poles, and more. Other times, the image is of people gathered in a doorway, church, or kitchen. Lanzmann film (and dress) style is very casual, but his methods are occasionally underhanded. For example, he uses hidden cameras on Nazi officials that refuse to have their identities revealed. At one point, the Nazi asks for confirmation that the interview is private, and Lanzmann assures him. This proves that he will go to any length to obtain honest and true testimony. Organizationally, the material is not chronological, but arranged in a more poetic way that appeals to Lanzmann himself. This, in addition to the mild language barrier—meanings are often lost in translation, leaves the audience to think, wonder, and digest such heavy information. On the other hand, Schindler’s List is filmed in black and white. This effectively evokes a World War II vibe that deepens the meaning of the story. (Sparing) use of color thus signals a shift in time or suggest a key scene, like the girl in the red coat. In addition, black and white
However, this technique is very effective because it breaks down those being interviewed—it makes them vulnerable. In terms of witnessing, Lanzmann presents voice from people that saw, understood, and comprehended what was happening. They were real-life people who know that the Holocaust happened. They were there, and they are present to inform the audience that genocide occurred amidst our time. Thus, Lanzmann offers hope through the ability of story-telling: the ability for one generation to tell future generations what it has learned. This is a film about witnessing (and the pain of it). It offers a return of the voice—being able to see, then witness. In contrast, Spielberg’s Schindler’s List presents the theme of triumph through the human spirit. In the face of evil, Jews demonstrate determination and an unbroken spirit. For example, the couple that falls in love and decides to get married in Palszow has virtually no future to look forward to; however, they marry in hopes of surviving. They even manage to stay true to ceremonial Jewish traditions, which symbolizes hope for the survival of the Jewish race. In addition, …show more content…
It does not contain images from the 1940’s (newsreel shots, interviews with death camp survivors, or war crime trial coverage); instead, it is photographed by the same man—Lanzmann—over a five to six-year span. He uses the faces of his witnesses and intercuts their testimony with tranquil, pastoral scenes where death occurred, such as the train tracks where steam engines took Jews, Poles, and more. Other times, the image is of people gathered in a doorway, church, or kitchen. Lanzmann film (and dress) style is very casual, but his methods are occasionally underhanded. For example, he uses hidden cameras on Nazi officials that refuse to have their identities revealed. At one point, the Nazi asks for confirmation that the interview is private, and Lanzmann assures him. This proves that he will go to any length to obtain honest and true testimony. Organizationally, the material is not chronological, but arranged in a more poetic way that appeals to Lanzmann himself. This, in addition to the mild language barrier—meanings are often lost in translation, leaves the audience to think, wonder, and digest such heavy information. On the other hand, Schindler’s List is filmed in black and white. This effectively evokes a World War II vibe that deepens the meaning of the story. (Sparing) use of color thus signals a shift in time or suggest a key scene, like the girl in the red coat. In addition, black and white