The Zone of Interest (Movie)

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares140 Views

    What It Means to Make Art About Nazis Now

    by

    And is the culture telling the right stories about them, at a time when it’s never felt more urgent?A MAN IN a tie and suspenders smokes a cigar thoughtfully, its ash end hot orange in an otherwise cool blue shot. Its fiery pock is the most lurid thing we see in Jonathan Glazer’s “The Zone of Interest,” even though there’s a crematorium next door.“The Zone of Interest,” winner of the 2024 Academy Award for best international feature, imagines the domestic life of the Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss (Christian Friedel) and his wife (Sandra Hüller), who for a time lived mere yards from the ovens built to burn the bodies of hundreds of Jews a day. The screenplay might have been ghostwritten by Hannah Arendt, so banal is its portrait of evil. Höss fishes with his children, worries about a promotion, enjoys his garden, conducts an affair. We see no victims, nor, other than that cigar, any flame: just a pretty, smoky glow from the furnaces at night.It’s not as if the movie’s intentions could be misread. Without depicting horror itself, Glazer, who is Jewish, wants to show how easily middle-class values like diligence and ambition were adapted by Nazis to horrible ends. But in avoiding what the cartoonist Art Spiegelman, in response to Roberto Benigni’s 1997 movie “Life Is Beautiful,” called Holokitsch — the sentimental exploitation of victims’ suffering to dredge up drama — “The Zone of Interest” approaches it anyway, only now from the other direction, drawing its aesthetic power from detachment instead of engagement.Is that better?Tear-jerking as they may have been, works like “Life Is Beautiful,” the 1979 mini-series “Holocaust” and Steven Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List” (1993) had no trouble plainly acknowledging the murder of six million, which “The Zone of Interest” does only obliquely. If, as the German philosopher Theodor Adorno asserted in 1951, it became “barbaric” to write poetry after Auschwitz, it also, for many, became barbaric not to. What else can artists do with atrocity but make art from it?At the same time, and especially in our time, they are faced with a paradox. The appalling resurgence of antisemitism has made it more important than ever to remind the world of the great crime against the Jews. Yet the names and symbols of Adolf Hitler’s regime — and of Hitler himself, the big rhetorical nesting doll that contains the rest — have been emptied of real meaning by years of overuse as sitcom punch lines (the Soup Nazi from “Seinfeld” nearly three decades ago) and zingers for politicians (Donald Trump called out Joe Biden’s “Gestapo administration” in May). To try to reinvest these ideas with awfulness is to risk aesthetic failure. Not to try is to risk the moral kind.Still, the “Sieg Heil” salutes, SS lightning bolts and swastikas keep coming, even if in most contexts their omnipresence has rendered them not just objectionable but trite. In political discourse, Nazi name-calling almost always diminishes the unique evil of the originals. The words themselves, like amulets, may even burnish the twisted self-respect of those who trade in them. JD Vance, who in 2016 wrote that Trump might be “America’s Hitler,” has had a convenient change of heart, but it’s not clear that Trump minded anyway. That he might just as easily have been called America’s Idi Amin or Joseph Stalin emphasizes the emptiness of the insult.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Zone of Interest’ Oscars Speech Is Defended by Jewish Film Artists

      by

      Remarks about Israel that the director Jonathan Glazer made as he accepted an Oscar for “The Zone of Interest” drew a letter of support after facing criticism last month.More than 150 Jewish actors, filmmakers and other artists signed an open letter that was published on Friday in defense of remarks about Jewishness and the war in Gaza that the director Jonathan Glazer made in his Oscars acceptance speech for “The Zone of Interest,” his film about the Holocaust.Glazer’s speech has become one of the most hotly debated in Oscars history, drawing an open letter of strong denunciation from other Jewish film professionals last month and now one of support.“Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people,” Glazer, who is Jewish, said at the Academy Awards on March 10. “Whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?”The new letter expresses support for Glazer. “In his speech, Glazer asked how we can resist the dehumanization that has led to mass atrocities throughout history,” it says. “For such a statement to be taken as an affront only underscores its urgency.”Its signatories included the actors Joaquin Phoenix, Hari Nef and Debra Winger; the directors Joel Coen, Nicole Holofcener and Boots Riley; the playwright and screenwriter Tom Stoppard; and the artist Nan Goldin, according to Variety, which reported the existence of the letter on Friday. Its signatories were confirmed by Sarah Sophie Flicker, an artist and cultural organizer who helped organize the letter.“We stand with all those calling for a permanent cease-fire, including the safe return of all hostages and the immediate delivery of aid into Gaza, and an end to Israel’s ongoing bombardment of and siege on Gaza,” the letter says.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      Jewish Film Professionals Denounce Jonathan Glazer’s ‘Zone of Interest’ Speech

      by

      An open letter condemned remarks critical of Israel that Jonathan Glazer made when he accepted an Oscar for the film, which is about the Holocaust.Hundreds of Jewish actors, producers and others in the film industry have signed a letter condemning remarks critical of Israel that the director Jonathan Glazer made when he accepted an Oscar for his film about the Holocaust, “The Zone of Interest.”Described as a “statement from Jewish Hollywood professionals,” the letter was signed by the actors Debra Messing and Julianna Margulies; the producers Lawrence Bender and Amy Pascal; and the writer and showrunner Amy Sherman-Palladino, according to Variety, which first reported on it on Monday evening.The signatories were confirmed Tuesday by Allison Josephs, an activist who has promoted Jewish representation in films and television and who helped with outreach for the letter. She said that by Tuesday morning it had nearly a thousand signatures.The letter criticized a speech Glazer made when he accepted the Oscar for international feature at the Academy Awards earlier this month for “The Zone of Interest,” which follows the Nazi commandant who runs Auschwitz and his family as they lead quiet domestic lives just beyond the walls of the camp.“All our choices were made to reflect and confront us in the present,” Glazer, who is Jewish, said as he accepted the Oscar. “Not to say ‘Look what they did then,’ rather, ‘Look what we do now.’ Our film shows where dehumanization leads, at its worst.”“Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people,” he said. “Whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      Oscars, Torn Between Past and Present, Still Had Some Fun

      by

      Even as the telecast indulged in the usual jokes, references to the 2023 strikes and current wars had their place, in our critics’ view.Last year may have been the year of “Barbenheimer,” but this year’s Academy Awards will henceforth be known as the “Oppenbarbie” Oscars. There was plenty of bubble-gum pink to go around, but the 96th Academy Awards effectively belonged to Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer,” his magisterial biographical portrait of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the so-called father of the atomic bomb. The Times’s chief film critic, Manohla Dargis, and its movie critic, Alissa Wilkinson, discuss the show, the awards, the snubs, the jeers and, yes, even movies.MANOHLA DARGIS The movies are back … again! The survival of the medium often feels like a worrying message at the Oscars, but last night’s show felt particularly — and genuinely — ebullient. Attendees are always jazzed to be there, but you could feel the happiness radiating off people, even on TV. Or maybe it was relief. The industry is still struggling in the wake of last year’s strikes by the Writers Guild and SAG-AFTRA, which effectively shut it down for about a half a year even as it was still trying to recover from the pandemic.It’s no wonder attendees couldn’t stop jumping up to give themselves standing ovations. And while there were memorable moments — the shout-out to Yoko Ono, the close-ups of Messi the dog — I was especially pleased when the host Jimmy Kimmel asked the room to join him in giving a hosanna to the industry’s below-the-line workers, or as he said: “The Teamsters, the truck drivers, the lighting crew, sound, camera, gaffers, grips — that’s right, all the people who refused to cross the picket line.” The very same folks who may soon be on strike if their negotiations go badly. Solidarity, but also fingers crossed! How did it play on your TV?The Oscar host Jimmy Kimmel onstage with movie industry workers and crew, honoring them for their support during the 2023 Writers Guild and SAG-AFTRA strikes.Amir Hamja/The New York TimesALISSA WILKINSON I laughed. A lot! Usually my Oscar night is full of groans and eye rolls — remember the “cheer-worthy moment” poll of 2022? Or exhausting monologue vamps on how nobody saw any of the nominees? — but I was genuinely tickled by the bits and the jokes, by John Cena’s perfectly hammy reluctant streaker bit and John Mulaney’s breathless recap of the entire plot of “Field of Dreams.” I loved all the backup Kens, dressed up to pay tribute to “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” in a number full of Busby Berkeley references, and I found the introduction of acting nominees by past winners genuinely moving.Ryan Gosling performing “I’m Just Ken” on Sunday.Amir Hamja/The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      Best Picture Oscar Nominees: Behind the Scenes of ‘Oppenheimer,’ ‘Poor Things’ and More

      by

      In these videos, directors walked us through pivotal scenes from their Academy Award-nominated films.How do you go about crafting the perfect dream ballet? What is the most dynamic way to open your movie? How do you build a dance sequence centered around a character who has never danced before?These were some of the questions that faced the directors of the 10 best picture nominees for the 2024 Academy Awards, which air on Sunday. Below, you’ll hear from first-time feature directors (Celine Song and Cord Jefferson), the most seasoned of veterans (Martin Scorsese) and many others about what it took to get a scene just right.Greta Gerwig on ‘Barbie’Greta Gerwig, the co-writer and director of “Barbie,” narrates this musical sequence, including Ryan Gosling’s performance of the song “I’m Just Ken.”Warner Bros.Christopher Nolan on ‘Oppenheimer’The writer and director Christopher Nolan narrates the opening sequence from the film, starring Cillian Murphy.Melinda Sue Gordon/Universal Pictures, via Associated PressMartin Scorsese on‘Killers of the Flower Moon’The director Martin Scorsese narrates a sequence in which the character Ernest Burkhart, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is cornered by investigators.Apple TV+Alexander Payne on ‘The Holdovers’Alexander Payne narrates a sequence in which two of the main characters, played by Paul Giamatti and Dominic Sessa, have a tough conversation in a liquor store.Seacia Pavao/Focus FeaturesCord Jefferson on ‘American Fiction’The screenwriter and director Cord Jefferson narrates a scene in which the film’s lead, played by Jeffrey Wright, comes up with an idea for a new novel.Claire Folger/Orion PicturesJustine Triet on ‘Anatomy of a Fall’The director Justine Triet narrates a sequence dissecting an argument between two of the movie’s central characters, played by Sandra Hüller and Samuel Theis.NeonBradley Cooper on ‘Maestro’The director Bradley Cooper narrates a sequence from the film in which he stars alongside Carey Mulligan. The scene involves an argument that takes place on Thanksgiving Day.Jason McDonald/NetflixCeline Song on ‘Past Lives’Two characters, played by Greta Lee and Teo Yoo, reunite after many years in this scene narrated by the writer and director Celine Song.Jon Pack/A24Yorgos Lanthimos on ‘Poor Things’The director Yorgos Lanthimos narrates a sequence from the film in which the characters played by Emma Stone and Mark Ruffalo share a dance.Atsushi Nishijima/Searchlight PicturesJonathan Glazer on‘The Zone of Interest’The director Jonathan Glazer narrates a sequence in this Holocaust drama that takes place in the home of the lead characters.A24 More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      In ‘Oppenheimer’ and ‘The Zone of Interest,’ We Hear What We Are

      by

      Humans have spent much of history coming up with novel ways to exterminate one another, but the defining feature of modern violence is its technologization. With a chilling practicality, systems and tools designed to enhance productivity can also separate the killers from the killing, stifling pesky human impulses like empathy and conscience. But a bomb has only one purpose. So does a concentration camp.Both “Oppenheimer” and “The Zone of Interest” tangle with the psychology involved in creating highly efficient killing machines. Choosing to center on people who make and deploy lethal tools at roughly the same historical moment — an era of unprecedented technological advancement — the filmmakers faced a challenge. Viscerally depicting the psychic gulf between methods of massacre and their creators is not simple in a medium like film. Cinema tends to enforce closeness between us and the characters; we see the wrinkles in their skin, understand them as humans, feel their emotions and project our own onto them. To portray cognitive dissonance requires something unexpected.The solution, for both of these movies, lay in the second most powerful tool available to filmmakers: sound. Not the music, but the knocks and steps and whizzes and shrieks. Generally we’re used to the sound in a film supporting the images. In both “Zone” and “Oppenheimer,” though, sound plays against image in a way that draws attention to itself, disconcerting the audience. Both films are up for Academy Awards in multiple categories, including best picture, which means their nominations for sound design are easy to overlook. But the way each uses sound is striking. It’s engineered as an unsettling agent, a means to carry moral weight from the screen to the audience on a level that approaches the subconscious.THE DIRECTOR OF “OPPENHEIMER,” Christopher Nolan, has long played around with sound in his films, which are often very loud and propelled by an intense, driving score. (Watching one of his films can feel at times as if you’re immersed in one very, very long montage.) Nolan also prefers not to rerecord actors’ dialogue, leaving them mixed into the sound as they were recorded during the performance, which can make them a little hard to hear. He knows, and he doesn’t mind.“Oppenheimer,” with sound design by the frequent Nolan collaborator Richard King, is no different. Most of the three-hour movie, about the creation of the atomic bomb, is guys in suits, talking about fission and geopolitics and other brainy matters over a pulsating score by Ludwig Goransson. But right around the two-hour mark, something startling occurs.If you’ve seen the film, you know the moment. The scientists of the Manhattan Project and select military officials have gathered in the New Mexico desert for the Trinity test, the first trial detonation of a nuclear bomb. It is the wee hours of July 16, 1945. If the test goes well, two more bombs will be deployed in mere weeks to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese — and, the scientists hope, end the war.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      How a Domestic Scene Creates Dread in ‘The Zone of Interest’

      by

      The director Jonathan Glazer narrates a sequence from his Holocaust drama.In “Anatomy of a Scene,” we ask directors to reveal the secrets that go into making key scenes in their movies. See new episodes in the series on Fridays. You can also watch our collection of more than 150 videos on YouTube and subscribe to our YouTube channel.This sequence from “The Zone of Interest,” which is nominated for five Academy Awards, including best picture, observes a weekday at the home of Rudolf Höss, the commandant of the concentration camp Auschwitz. That home is positioned directly next door to the camp. In the kitchen, Rudolf’s wife, Hedwig, sits and gossips with friends. In another room, Rudolf meets with the engineers of a crematory. But the scene primarily follows Aniela, a young Polish girl who works in the home, preparing a glass of schnapps to celebrate the commandant’s birthday, and delivering boots to him during his meeting.Discussing the scene, the film’s director, Jonathan Glazer, said that he chose to follow Aniela, rather than the main characters, “because it’s really one of the only times in the film where we can see and connect and spend time with, essentially, a victim of these atrocities.”He explained that he chose to use multiple cameras to shoot the scene, and the film overall, because “I really didn’t want to have sort of the artificial construction of a conventional film to tell this story. Rather, to view them anthropologically, as if we were a fly on the wall.”Read the “Zone of Interest” review.Sign up for the Movies Update newsletter and get a roundup of reviews, news, Critics’ Picks and more. More

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Movies

      Sandra Hüller, Uneasy in the Spotlight

      by

      After Sandra Hüller learned that two movies she stars in — “Anatomy of a Fall” and “The Zone of Interest” — had been selected for the competition at last year’s Cannes Film Festival, she was a little apprehensive about what it might mean for her anonymity. The German actress has always had a prickly relationship with fame: Aside from her role in the bittersweet 2016 feature “Toni Erdmann,” she has mainly kept a low profile, working in German theater.But what happened next outstripped even her boldest expectations. “Anatomy of a Fall,” a French drama in which Hüller plays a woman accused of murdering her husband, went on to win the Palme d’Or, the festival’s top honor, and “The Zone of Interest,” a Holocaust film, took the Grand Prix, or runner-up prize. The Los Angeles Times crowned her the “queen of Cannes,” and, in a few weeks, she will travel from her home in Leipzig, Germany, to Hollywood for the Oscars, where she is nominated for best actress, for “Anatomy.”This attention has been challenging for Hüller — at times overwhelmingly so — and now she is grappling with what the nomination, and its accompanying scrutiny, means for her and her career. “It means being accepted into a circle of people I wasn’t in before,” she said, in a recent interview in Leipzig. “But I don’t know if it means success, or it will make anything easier.”Sitting in a cafe with her black Weimaraner lying under the table, she was warm but a little guarded as she spoke about her newfound global fame. “I like my life. I like my apartment. I like my everyday routine. There’s no lack of anything that I had to fill. I wasn’t waiting for this to happen,” said Hüller, 45. “But it means that people now believe I can do things that perhaps they didn’t believe I could do before.”Justine Triet, the director of “Anatomy of a Fall,” and Hüller during filming.Neon, via Associated PressShe is nominated for an Oscar for best actress for her performance in the film.Neon, via Associated PressIt was also surprising, she noted, because “Anatomy of a Fall” is not a typical Oscars movie. An ambiguous exploration of language, gender dynamics and toxic relationships, it centers on the question of whether Hüller’s character, a German writer also named Sandra, pushed her husband out a window to his death. The movie culminates in a series of courtroom scenes in which a judge — and the audience — must weigh her potential guilt.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More