Talk:Shoah (film)/Archive/20062007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Documentary? and Should Cricism be Added?

Is Shoah really documentary?

Should i add criticism of the movie?

The film Shoah is indeed a documentary, though "criticism" of it is not NPOV. It may be better to point the reader to criticism of the movie (positive and negative) that exists outside Wikipedia. -- Modemac

Although I agree with Modemac in principle, I do believe that an NPOV acount of the popular and critical reception of/reaction to the film is appropriate. In other words, it shouldn't be "What I think of the movie" or even "What my favorite critic thinks of the movie," it should be a more balanced account of the different positions critics took, or the kinds of discussions common, after the release of the film. I think this is true for articles on any book or movie, but especially so here given that Lanzman deliberately made a different kind of movie about the Holocaust, and I vaguely recall the various reviews being rather thoughtful and useful in bringing up important points about both the Holocaust and "documentary film." I'd add, though, that anyone who isn't sure whether the movie is really a documentary is probably not in the best position to provide an accurate account of the critical (or popular) reception. Slrubenstein
If you look at pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, they state that for an article to be done well, it needs criticism, but they call it Reception (this heading also includes Box office and Awards). Cbrown1023 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Polonism

I have found this comments (amazon.com) of the book and movie:

“ Sigmund Gorson, a Polish Jew, has written an expose of the numerous historical inaccuracies in the film Shoah. Gorson's article can be found in the library of Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, CT. Among other things, Gorson points out that: 1) Two million Polish Christians were also murdered by the German Nazis during the Holocaust, 2) The Warsaw Ghetto uprising had far more extensive supply of arms by the Polish underground than the token one-gun shown in the movie, 3) The scene where uniformed Polish soldiers shot Jewish women and children is a vicious lie, 4) Overall, more Christians than Jews perished in the hands of the German and Austrian Nazis, 5) True instances of Polish collaboration with the Germans against the Jews were very rare, and were punished by death by the Polish underground, etc. So for those who think that Shoah presents gospel truth, I would advise them to read Gorson.

Lanzmann did not get it right, and I wonder why. He depicts the Jewish ghettoes as guarded by Polish-collaborator police. But this is not the way it usually happened: In the vast majority of cases, the ghettoes were guarded by Jewish collaborators--the Judenrate. It was the Judenrate which played the major role in sealing off the ghettoes, preventing Jews from escaping, and even killing those who did try to escape.

This text is the equivalent to the movie "Triumph of the Will"...that is to say, it is a shameless propaganda piece. Worse, it serves to make fun of and dehumanize a whole country. Over three million non-Jewish Poles were murdered during the war. What about their story? Most Jewish people are ignorant of the plight and suffering of Poles. I think more understanding is what is required in this world, not more hate. This text promotes hate. If I were Jewish I would be very embarassed to be associated with this viewpoint. But if this text has done its job, I would be too full of hate for Poles to care.

There is no pretense that this book or the film were objective. There is no telling of the tale from the other side. There is no argument. No walk down the Blvd of the Rigtheous Gentile. No understanding of the meaning of Nazi Death warrants issued against those brave souls who aided Jews. This film and book may be the most vicious Polish joke of all. And perhaps because of what bigotry begats, the most vicious Jewish joke.

 ”

The first comment about Gorson (Holocaust survivor) should be added (with little changes) to the article.--Emax 21:30, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

"A lot of criticism"? Who were the critics, besides Gorson? Jayjg | (Talk) 21:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Humans like me and You ;) The first three comments were signed as "A reader" the last one as "Jeremiah".--Emax 22:21, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous Amazon reviewers really don't count, and 3 out of 6.5 billion humans isn't a lot. Do you have anything more substantive? Jayjg | (Talk) 22:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why not? Wikipedia is maked by "anonymous people" :) With which parts of the comments You disagree?--Emax 22:46, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
"Many critics" implies something significant. Perhaps you can source someone discussing this issue, that would be helpful. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's not satisfactory. I want to see primary, published documents. A quick search on google turns up nothing. --Viriditas | Talk 02:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Viriditas, Do you need Tarski, Twardowski and Sierpinski to know that 2+2 is 4? :) I allready showed You why it is an Anti-Polish movie, if You still disagree - its Your turn to showing me, that im not right, and that this movie is not Anti-Polish. How would You describe a movie called "Holocaust", that dont mentioned Jewish victims but showing them as collaborators? I guess Anti-Semitic.--Emax 10:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
As the claimant, you have the burden of proof. I am not required to prove a negative. So far, the evidence you have posted does not support the claims you have added to the article. --Viriditas | Talk 10:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigmund Gorson

Please post links to any published works by Sigmund Gorson. --Viriditas | Talk 02:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Ok, some googling - in first few minutes: http://www.iahushua.com/Zion/zionrac13.html "In SHOAH, Claude Lanzmann's nine hour epic on the Holocaust (33) (Shoah is the Hebrew name for, and a part of the continued Zionisation of, the Holocaust) the conclusions reached are typically racist and reactionary. The Holocaust could not, apparently, have occurred in civilised France; forgetting Drancy concentration camp, the large number of French Jews betrayed to the Gestapo, Vichy anti-Semitism and the deportation of Ost-Juden. Poland however was ready made for the extermination of Jews; in the words of Yitzhak Shamir, Poles "imbibed anti-Semitism with their mother's milk". It is forgotten that Poland suffered more than any other country at the hands of the Nazis, its intelligentsia exterminated, that the Polish working class and a section of the peasantry had opposed anti-Semitism. The Zionist movement inside and outside Poland had close relations with the anti-Semitic governments there, Begin's revisionist militia was even allowed military training facilities (34)."

Israel Shahak was supposedly criticing this movie in some letter to NYT in January 29 1986 , i can;t find it: he was ridiculing it in one of his other interviews saying "No doubt, had a survivor from one of the many small towns of conquered USSR, where most of the Jews had been already exterminated, arrived at a typical Passover celebration of spring 1942 in the Warsaw Ghetto, or at one of the numerous public balls, concerts, etc., he would have said, __if he was as stupid as the survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto whom [Claude] Lanzmann picked [for the documentary film Shoah]__, that while Jews were killed in his area, in the Warsaw Ghetto "life went on as naturally and normally as before."

In Polish by Ratajczak (he is revisionist though..) http://www.starwon.com.au/~korey/Ratajczak/DR%20tematy_niebezpieczne.htm

Note that Lanzmann for example criticised Wajda for "Korczak" because he WAS NOT SHOWING Polish collaborators, but instead showed only rich Jews etc. http://muzeum.gazeta.pl/Ascii/Raporty/Wajda_filmy/040rap.html

aaa merde just one quote, since i got tired of pasting hundreds of links: http://www.niniwa2.cad.pl/BIKONT.HTM

Few quotes from Lanzmann: "You are all kapos!" "There a re no different point of views. You should think in proper way" "Q: Do you think that Poles should not made movie about Holocaust? A: I would not be impertinent to made movie about Palestinians"

"I was not doing document. This is art"

"Holocaust would not be possible in France"

Quote from Polish translator for the movie (Initially Lanzmann did want to waork with her, because she was not Jewish) :"He was despising people with whom he talked."

He edited out every scene when Poles when talking about their compassion or about help for Jews. He left only those scenes, where he could find anti-semitic. From Karski interview he cutted out Karski talking about his feelings in ghetto. Whole story about Poles who were providing food to Jews by Henryk Gawkowski was cutted out. He cut out Karski speaking about his meeting with Roosevelt.

He was not talking with Bartoszewski, and he lied that Bartoszewski was not "camera-able" enough. He was immeditiale countered by Bartoszewski's son, whos aid that Bartoszewski was ready for itnrview, bu tLanzmann never talked to his father (Bartoszewski was leader of Zegota) Bartoszewski himself "Lanzmann asked me: do you saw executions of Jews? No. Then we have nothing to talk about"

Turowicz from "Tygodnik powszechny": Whole movie of Lanzmann is about thesis, that holocaust is natural result of christianity and Poles, as catholics, have to be anti-semites.

You have to understand that the movie was always smashed in Poland.

http://www.opcja.pop.pl/numer18/18wie.html

interview with WOjciech Wierzewski: "There is a scene, in which Jew is saying that he esceped because of Polish help. But the english translation says that he was caught by Poles and put back to the train, so he couldnot escpae his fate!"

Szopen 09:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You were asked to post links to published works by Sigmund Gorson or reputable, primary source documents. You did not do this. You posted links to conspiratorial websites that make claims which cannot be verified. The content you have added to the article cannot be substantiated, and as such, does not meet the basic requirements of a Wikipedia article. --Viriditas | Talk 09:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Uhm? Primary source? Primary sources about criticism of Lanzmann movie?
Besides, largest newspaper in Poland (gazeta.pl) and on of its top journalist (Anna Bikont is author specialising in POlish-Jewish relationship, she also wrote few books, including one about Jedwabne). The leader of organisation of helping the reconcilation of POlish-Jewish is also not conspirational. Only two first links (to Ratajczak and that first) could be labelled that way, Cut them out if you want, and answer the rest.
Note that I am not saying that criticism is valid or not. I am saying only that there existed criticism and it was widespread in Poland. Just enter Shoah Lanzmann in Polish google and every second or third link there are words as

"anyt-polski" "kontrowersyjny" "tendencyjny" "falszujacy historie" etc.

Somehow, even holocaust revisionist is mentioned. in holocaust article; but criticism of Lanzmann movie is not?
Anyway, my mitake that i posted it below "gorson" instead of creating new subject, ubt i am damn lazy,

Szopen 11:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Lanzmann had edit all the scenes of Poles talking about their compassion to Jews. You can see in a small town an old couple, living in a jewish house, talking about how they miss the jews, and also the old man said he speak yiddish very well. Also you can see when an old man in red, in Treblinka, showing the former lager, cry because of that horror. I think that a lot of Poles are anti-semitic, because at the end of the war, there was a progrom in Kielce, with people killed survivors of the Shoah, and now also there are ant-semitic graffitis in many polish cities, like Lodz. But that don't minimize the polish help to jewish people.--Enkiduk (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also found something about Jerzy Turowicz, and Ireael Shahak, both called the films as Anti-Polish biased: (sorry in Polish) Film Lanzmanna jest dziełem wielkim - pisał Jerzy Turowicz w "Tygodniku Powszechnym" w 1985 roku, po powrocie z Oksfordu, był wówczas jedną z niewielu osób wśród zabierających głos w dyskusji, które film widziały, . - Zdaniem Turowicza film jest jednak podporządkowany tezie, że eksterminacja Żydów była ostateczną kulminacją antysemityzmu chrześcijan, a dla reżysera z samego faktu, że Polacy są katolikami, wynika, że muszą być antysemitami. "Niestety, jeżeli chodzi o sprawę polską - pisał Turowicz - film jest zdecydowanie nieobiektywny, tendencyjny i w ostatecznej wymowie - antypolski".
Należy wspomnieć także o naukowcu izraelskim, urodzonym w Polsce, profesorze Israelu Shahaku, który 29 stycznia 1986 roku wystąpił na łamach New York Review of the Books" z bardzo ostrą krytyką antypolskich uogólnień Lanzmanna w filmie Shoah.
(indirect comments, that i have found)
By Norman Davies
Marek Edelman is one of several key witnesses who do not appear in Claude Lanzmann's film Shoah, though he saw much more than most. In 1942 he had stood every day by the gate of the Umschlagplatz in Warsaw and watched 400,000 people walk by to their deaths. He still works as a heart surgeon in Lodz. Lanzmann interviewed him; but chose not to use what he said. Among other things, Edelman wonders whether the fighting in the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 can really be called an uprising. He describes Zionism and the state of Israel as a "historic failure"; and he calls the Poles, among whom he has lived all his life, "a tolerant people." Indeed, as a heart surgeon he has devoted his career to saving Polish lives. "One is supposed to speak with hatred and pathos," he says at one point. But he cannot.
(The New York Review of Books November 20, 1986):::::In the introduction to the 1979 Pantheon Books edition of Stroop's report, Andrzej Wirth acknowledged that "Jewish armed resistance would be impossible without outside help." Stroop wrote that his soldiers "have been repeatedly shot at from outside the ghetto," prompting historian István Deák of Columbia University of New York to ask: "I wonder whether anyone fired a shot elsewhere in Europe on behalf of persecuted Jews." "Polish bandits" is the name given by Stroop to members of the Polish underground who came to the assistance of the Jewish fighters.
Marek Edelman, the last surviving leader of the Warsaw ghetto revolt:
"We didn't get adequate help from the Poles, but without their help we couldn't have started the uprising. You have to remember that the Poles themselves were short of arms. The guilty party is Nazism, fascism-not the Poles."
Marian Fuks, Jewish historian, writing in the Bulletin of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw:
It is an absolutely certain fact that without help and even active participation of the Polish resistance movement it would not have been possible at all to bring about the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto."--Emax 10:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

BTW did You know that Jewish fighters of the Ghetto-Uprising raised a Polish flag on a building, when the Uprising was started?--Emax 10:50, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Right noew in Polish, in two hours i willt ranslate. Note that my position is not that whether the movie IS or NOT anti-polish, but that it was conisdered anti-Polish by many Poles. That there was torm about it in Poland IS fact. I wont scan newspapers from twenty years ago to prove it, if you consider Polish newspapers on the web as "conspirational"


http://www.ziemiaprzyszlosci.pl/wiecej.php?temat=CLAUDE_LANZMANN_::_PRASA During Claude Lanzmann visit in Poland: Dziennik Lodzki:

Note: i post it only to make you see that there indeed were many (enough to made journalist to always include question about it in interviews) people who considered that movie anti-Polish.

These are quotes from definetely pro-Lanzmann side in Polish press.

[quote] "Ewa Kwiecińska: What would you say about receiving your movie "Shoah" which will be soon seen in public TV, as anti-Polish?"

"Claude Lanzmann: None of my movies is anti-Polish. Each one is just true" [/quote]


Gazeta Wyborcza - Łódź, dodatek FABRYKA [quote] Polish TC showed until now only shortened, an hour and half version of Shoah, reduced to Polish threads. There is for example scene in Chelmno nbear the curch - the peasants are discussing why Jews were dying. Who wants, he sees in that Polish anti-semitism in one capsule. Many Polish publicists stress anti-Polish chracter of the movie. They announced Lanzmann largest Pole-eater.

Lanzmann: - It's absurd! In Shoah there are many scenes showing that many Poles suffered looking at that Jewish tragedy, On the other side it is factthat death camps were located in Poland.

When he is faced with accusations that in Shoah there are practically no Poles helping Jews, he answers: I've made a movie about death, not about life!

He once said, jokingly, that he don't care whether Poles will see his movie, it's enough that whole world will see it. Today he wants Polish TV to emit his movie, but in full version, with subtitles, not lector. It's scheduled to February.

In meeting with Lodz journalists Lanzmann was omitting some question about "Sobibor". He was constantly talking about "Shoah?": This is not movie, this is art form. If there are seven arts, then "Shoah" is eights - he said, confusing the journalists" [/quote]

To repeat: I don't want the article to say, that it was anti-Polish movie. I want it to say that there were people, especially in Poland, who were criticising the movie and saying it was anti-Polish. This is not POV, this is fact. I posted two qutoes above to show that he was faced with such criticism on almost every meeting during his visit in Poland. Szopen 12:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From other: dejanews, o saw not this interview, but from guy who saw it: http://groups.google.pl/groups?hl=pl&lr=lang_pl&threadm=11543-38B7FFC5-22%40storefull-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlanzmann%2520%26hl%3Dpl%26lr%3Dlang_pl%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg

There was peasant who was laughing in the movie when asked what happened to the Jews taken from his village. In Polish TV he said that Lanzmann asked him ten times the same question, and when it was tenth time he can't satnd the absurdiness of that situation and started to laugh. Of course it ws that part, not earlier, which were choosen to movie.

http://groups.google.pl/groups?hl=pl&lr=lang_pl&threadm=b1odke%247sd%241%40atlantis.news.tpi.pl&rnum=18&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlanzmann%26hl%3Dpl%26lr%3Dlang_pl%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN The link contains several reviews and statement yb American Polonia organisation

What Karski said: that from 8 hours of interview with him, Lanzmann chosen 40 minutes - and that he left out things Karski himself thought were most important - the part when he was saying about his mission to western allies. He generally liked the movie, though

There is part about ghetto uprising when it is ignored AK help for ghetto, though Lanzmann had to know about it.

[edit] Controversies

Generally current statement is quite OK, IMHO. I would want to add - in some time in the future - something more about controversies in Poland, explaining why such controversies happened and what was the Lanzmann answer for them. No avoid needless revert war, I would warn people who were editing the article before and first put the proposed sentences here, in talk page. I am not sure when I will have more time, but You Will Be Warned (tm). Ok? Szopen 09:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) Bold text

[edit] Not a documentary?

According to the common classification, all films are either fiction or documentaries. I understand Lanzmann used somewhat unconventional methods for a film about a historical event, focusing on interviews with subjects in the modern day, rather than archival materials. But that does not mean that his film is not a documentary. Many documentaries in fact focus on current events entirely.--Pharos 22:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just dropped in having been requested to look at this. Shoah is a documentary by any academic definition of the term. I should know, I've written papers on this film and have cited it many times in academic discussion. Regardless of what anyone including Lanzmann says on the subject, I'm not sure the "quasi" is appropriate and I feel it is misleading. Quasi-documentary is a term that generally applies to scripted interjections, a hybrid of drama and documentary. I think reconsideration should be applied. Particularly given the nature of the subject matter. --Zleitzen 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if Lanzmann was choosing the interviews and sometimes, acc. to some of what I have read, mistranslating them just to made a point which we wanted to make? Szopen 06:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Choosing the subjects is natural to all documentaries, and manipulation is unavoidable. But where have you read that there was deliberate mistranslation? --Zleitzen 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.antyk.org.pl/teksty/ozydach-27.htm "Mistranslations and omitting of the part of the text in translation from Polish into French and English" I based my opinion on this and on some discussions on usenet few years ago. Frankly, I have not saw the whole movie. I think also that version which was shown in Poland many years ago was also only 30hours version of the movie, concentrating on "Polish" threads, which may created additional impression that main topic of the movie is Polish anti-semitism and Polish responsibility for holocaust. Szopen 09:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Although that doesn't change the definition, that's intersting information you have there. I'll look into it in more detail when I have the time.--Zleitzen 06:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The last few paragraphs of the section on archetypes are not neutral, rather they read like a critical essay. I'm tempted to just remove them, but maybe someone wants to have a go at NPOVing them first. - Randwicked Alex B 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed them. - Randwicked Alex B 05:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)