T
This year’s lineup of best picture nominees features grand depictions of mass violence (probable victor “Oppenheimer” and “Killers of the Flower Moon”), heart-wrenching stories of human relationships (Past Lives, The Holdovers), clever criticisms of race and gender (American Fiction, Poor Things), and a necessary commercial success (Barbie).
The movie “The Zone of Interest” is a collaboration between the UK, Poland, and America, directed by Jonathan Glazer. It has a unique approach and stands apart from other films. Instead of a traditional narrative, it focuses on immersing the audience through observation. The characters are morally lacking and the setting is stark, minimalist, and subdued. The brilliance of the film lies in its omission – what is implied but not shown, what we hear in the form of grunts, gunfire, and the constant drone of genocide. The sound design is particularly impressive.
This portrayal of the Holocaust depicts the restrained yet effective means of one Nazi bureaucrat family’s idyllic life, alongside their petty insecurities, next to the Auschwitz concentration camp. The Höss family, consisting of Rudolf (played by Christian Friedel), his wife Hedwig (played by Sandra Hüller), her mother Linna (played by Imogen Kogge), and their children, are separated from the atrocities by a high wall and a disturbing disconnection. Many have applauded the film’s portrayal of the mundane nature of evil; Glazer avoids cliches and emphasizes the unsettling reality that humans are capable of compartmentalizing, self-justifying, and, disturbingly, ignoring their actions.
Disregard advertisement for newsletter.
after newsletter promotion
The Glazer project, along with a few other 2023 films such as All Dirt Roads Taste of Salt and The Taste of Things, are deviating from the mainstream cinema’s reliance on plot. The Zone of Interest, loosely based on Martin Amis’ 2014 novel, prioritizes sensory experiences such as sight, sound, and imagined smells and temperatures. The dialogue is minimal and unimpressive, the characters are enigmatic, and their actions are mundane, yet tinged with evidence of the brutality happening around them (which may change the way one views ash). This fact is not a secret, as even the children are aware of it on some level. However, it is not significant to them and is overshadowed by more pressing concerns like their next meal.
Glazer deviates from the norm of the family dynamic only a few times, the most impactful being the ambiguous and thought-provoking conclusion that jumps ahead to the present. I concur with AA Dowd’s viewpoint, expressed in Vulture, that Höss’s retching is not a manifestation of remorse, but rather a realization of one’s insignificance in the larger context of history. The Zone of Interest boldly and painfully depicts the Holocaust as a mere project or accomplishment for a middle manager to include on their resume, as noted by Dowd. It is deeply unsettling and poignant to witness the sociopathic detachment and ambition to excel in one’s role as a perpetrator of genocide.
The Oscars are a popularity contest and The Zone of Interest, which is as brutal and nauseating a film as I can remember without showing almost any violence, will not be the most popular. If this were a morality vote, it certainly has one of the strongest cases for how cinema, as an art form, can illustrate humans’ capability for such monstrous crimes against other humans. But the Oscars, in theory, are supposed to reward an achievement of craft and on that front The Zone of Interest is impeccable. It deserves recognition for its rigorous, precise execution of style, its feat of immersion, and for its impressive gambit of perspective. It is about time the Oscars reward one of, if not the most, audacious films of the year.
Source: theguardian.com
