The director of the highly praised film Son of Saul, László Nemes, has expressed disapproval of director Jonathan Glazer’s Oscars acceptance speech for The Zone of Interest.
At the Sunday event, Glazer stated that he and his colleague, James Wilson, reject any association with their Jewish identity and the Holocaust being manipulated by a dominating force that has caused turmoil for numerous innocent individuals. This includes those impacted by the events of October 7 in Israel and the continued aggression towards Gaza.
Glazer’s remarks have incited both praise and disapproval, including from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), who denounced them as “ethically reprehensible” on Monday.
The ADL shared on their social media platform: “Israel is not using Judaism or the Holocaust for their own gain when defending themselves against terrorists committing genocide. Glazer’s remarks at the #Oscars are not only inaccurate, but also ethically unacceptable. They downplay the tragedy of the Holocaust and justify the most atrocious acts of terrorism.”
Nemes, who also won an Oscar for his film about the Holocaust, shares the same sentiment as Glazer. Nemes’ movie, Son of Saul, depicts the story of a Jewish prisoner who is made to work in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
Nemes states that “The Zone of Interest” is a significant film that breaks away from conventional storytelling. He believes it challenges the traditional principles of cinema. However, the director’s lack of knowledge about history and the underlying factors contributing to the downfall of society, before or after the Holocaust, should have been kept quiet.
If he had accepted the duty that accompanies a film of that nature, he would not have relied on predetermined statements spread by propaganda with the intention of eliminating all Jewish people from the world.
According to Nemes, Glazer’s speech could potentially fuel anti-Semitic sentiments. This is particularly concerning given the rise of anti-Jewish hatred, which is reminiscent of pre-Holocaust levels. Nemes also expressed concern about the acceptance and promotion of anti-Semitism in modern times as the only form of discrimination allowed.
The Guardian has reached out to Glazer for a response.
Both Son of Saul and The Zone of Interest debuted at the Cannes Film Festival, with a gap of eight years between their premieres. These two films both received the grand prix (the second-place prize) at the festival, and are both set during the events at Auschwitz in 1944.
The initial emphasis is placed on Saul, a prisoner of the Sonderkommando, who appears desensitized as he carries out his duties. As news of a revolt spreads, Saul becomes determined to give a proper Jewish burial to a boy who was not cremated. Through the course of the film, we follow Saul’s journey with him at the forefront of the screen, while the atrocities surrounding him are slightly out of focus in the background.
The Zone of Interest takes place largely just outside Auschwitz’s walls, in the domestic paradise created by SS commandant Rudolph Höss, along with his wife, Hedwig. The prisoners are unrepresented in the film, other than through the soundtrack which captures their cries and screams and industrial grindings of the death camp next door.
Rephrasing: According to Nemes, the decision to center on the perpetrators instead of the victims in Glazer’s speech is intentional. Nemes suggests that it may ironically make sense that there is no portrayal of Jewish people in the film The Zone of Interest. He believes that by keeping the Holocaust in the past and not acknowledging the potential for similar events in the future, society runs the risk of carrying out Hitler’s destructive goals in the name of progress and positive intentions.
Before obtaining the rights to Martin Amis’s novel in 2014, Glazer and Wilson had been considering making a film about the Holocaust for a considerable amount of time. The novel, which heavily fictionalizes the Hösses’ story, seemed to align with their ideas.
“When Jon and I originally began discussing this topic in 2014, making a film about it, we were well aware of the existing works such as Schindler’s List and Son of Saul. Our conversations centered around finding a fresh angle on the Holocaust, as the concept of evil was already widely known and seemed like an easy target.”
Glazer added: “But because the subject is so vast and because of the sensitivities involved, I felt I first needed to educate myself in a deeper way. So I spent a couple of years just reading books on the subject, watching documentaries, reading eye-witness testimony. Trying to understand the impulses that drew me to the subject to begin with, before I even tried to put pen to paper.”
During his research, he stumbled upon a passage from Martin Amis’s upcoming novel, The Zone of Interest. He was unsure if he wanted to adapt the novel, but he sensed a connection to it. He stated, “I could sense that the book held something significant for me.”
Nemes, born in Budapest, has resided in Paris, London, and New York but currently resides in Hungary. He proposed that Glazer’s Oscar speech reflected a certain mindset or “perhaps even a shared delusion” prevalent in “authoritative political systems and oppressive religious zealotry.”
He compared this perspective to that of “12th-century archbishops who praised themselves for being righteous and pure, while condemning sin and yearning for perfection.
Nemes proposed that Glazer belonged to the group of influential individuals in Hollywood known as the “overclass” who prioritizes preaching about morality to the public over addressing issues within their own industry.
According to Nemes, the privileged members of the film industry seem to be more focused on preaching moral values rather than fulfilling their professional duties.
Danny Cohen, the executive producer of the film, stated on Friday that he simply did not agree with Glazer’s remarks.
On the Unholy podcast, Cohen acknowledged that these comments have caused a lot of distress and anger among many people, and he empathizes with their emotions.
“I disagree with Jonathan on this matter. My support for Israel remains steadfast. The ongoing war is the fault of Hamas, a terrorist group with genocidal motives. They are guilty of holding and mistreating hostages, using tunnels to protect themselves rather than innocent civilians in Gaza, and allowing Palestinian deaths. While the war and loss of innocent lives are devastating, I hold Hamas accountable for their actions.”
Display the image in full-screen mode.
According to the producer, the speech was a joint effort between Glazer and Wilson.
In the past, Wilson has used his time on the podium to make political statements, while Glazer typically limits himself to expressing gratitude towards his team and supporters. Len Blavatnik, the financier present on stage with them, may not have been aware of what the director would say. Currently, Blavatnik has not publicly addressed the speech.
The complete statement of László Nemes.
It is unusual that the upper class of Hollywood chooses to lecture the public on morality instead of addressing the decline in cinematic quality, the diminishing level of skill and creativity in movies, the suppression of creative freedom by corporations, and the proliferation of low-quality films by streaming services. Rather than striving to produce impactful films in a world that is increasingly fractured and self-destructive, the disconnected, insincere, and privileged members of the film industry are preoccupied – for unknown reasons – with moralizing to us.
Display image in full screen mode.
Their works are unoriginal and scholastic, lacking courage and originality. They conform to a narrow perspective reminiscent of 12th-century archbishops, consumed by feelings of self-righteousness and self-punishment, passionately condemning wrongdoing and striving for perfection. This mindset, akin to a collective psychosis, is only found in totalitarian political regimes and oppressive religious fanaticism.
The Zone of Interest is a significant film that breaks from traditional methods. It challenges the conventions of cinema itself. The director should have remained silent instead of exposing his lack of understanding of history and the destructive influences on civilization, before or after the Holocaust. If he had accepted the weight of responsibility that comes with such a film, he would not have relied on propaganda that ultimately seeks to eliminate all Jewish existence from the world.
In our current era, it is concerning that we are experiencing an increase in anti-Semitic sentiment comparable to that of the pre-Holocaust period. This time, however, it is under the guise of being fashionable and progressive. Strangely enough, the only type of discrimination that is not only accepted but also promoted is anti-Semitism. Perhaps this is all connected – as seen in The Zone of Interest, there is a complete absence of Jewish representation on screen.
We should all be outraged by the horrific events of the Holocaust, which thankfully occurred in the past. We must not forget that there is always a danger of repeating history and completing Hitler’s agenda under the guise of progress and benevolence.
Source: theguardian.com
