Huller

2023 Oscars Best Picture Review: The Zone Of Interest

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment
Sandra Huller plays the wife of a top Nazi in Auschwitz in the haunting The Zone Of Interest.

It would be naturally impulsive to dismiss The Zone Of Interest as ‘another Holocaust film.’ If you watch it, you will see it’s about more than just the Holocaust.

Many people will say that Holocaust films have done countless times before. Even if it is true, there are many angles one can see the Holocaust. This is a story of a different kind. There are a lot of things that will remind people of certain overlooked aspects of the Holocaust that will also disgust them further. First is the Höss’ house built just outside the walls of Auschwitz. I don’t know if there were ever houses built just outside the walls of Auschwitz, but having such in the film is very representative of the two worlds of Germany in World War II. There were the Nazis who had their day in the sun at the time and the Jews and other people Hitler deemed inferior being killed, tortured and even made slaves for the high-ranking Nazis.

Second is the Nazis lived very comfortably. What you see in the film is the Hoss family living their daily home life like a common family. You also see General Hoss following his genocidal Nazi orders and planning out methods and arrangements of the deaths of millions as your common “business as usual.” Seeing that in the film will bring back your feelings of disgust seeing people live “the good life” at the cost of human torture. Seeing how the Höss family sleeps comfortably while the sounds of gunshots and screaming coming from the behind the walls shows how close but far apart those two Germanys were. Even seeing how Hoss and the Nazis treat their genocidal plans to look like a simple day at the office shows the insensitivity at the time and how the Nazis felt that’s how it should be. Making all this destruction of a continent and the planning for genocide look like simplicity is all it’ll take to want to infuriate you.

Additional scenes include the train coming in and out of Auschwitz to drop new prisoners off, the smoke coming from the camp’s gas ovens and crematoriums, and the Höss’ ordering the prisoners they use as slaves around will add to your anger. We forget that the Nazis intended for most prisoners to be killed and a small percent to be used as slaves. Even seeing Hedwig threaten one of her servants to have her gassed will remind you of how remorseless they were.

Despite the Höss family representing the comfortable live from the torture of the War, there are signs of humanity still happening. The most notable is the two scenes of the Polish girl sneaking out and giving food for the prisoners to eat. It’s a reminder that even in the times of the worst of human activity, the values of humanity still existed. They were often hidden or done so at the risk of one’s life, but they did make themselves present at that time.

SPOILER PARAGRAPH: Another thing that will make some people made is that the film doesn’t have an ending with the Hoss’ and all the other Nazis get their day of reckoning. That’s frequently the case in Holocaust movies and that’s normally the ending we want in such a movie. Even though the ending of the Nazis getting a brutal defeat, there are signs on Rudolf that their comeuppance is looming. That the separate worlds of the Nazis living the good life and the torture at Auschwitz will collide. The first scene is when Rudolf and the children are swimming in the river. Soon they’re dirtied by the flow of bones and ash thrown from the camp into the river. Another sign comes when Rudolf gets a female prisoner to perform a favor of a fellatio on him. The third being right after Rudolf speaks to Hedwig after a phone call in Berlin and he gets sick in the empty hallways. Then as it fast forwards to the present where the cleaning women in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum clean the gas ovens and the windows of displays, that scene shows the fate Rudolf sealed for himself. A fate of an executed criminal after the war ends and a name that will live in infamy.

Top respect should go to director/writer Jonathan Glazer. The film is based on a 2014 novel of the same title. Interestingly, the novel features the first half of an unnamed Nazi meant to mirror the life of Hoss and his family. In the second half, it’s the aftermath set in 1948. Here it appears the film is based completely on the first half. Nevertheless, it is a telling tale of a Nazi and his family living a normal daily life, making his work look like a typical day at the office and a feud between him and Hedwig about his promotion to Berlin look like a common husband/wife feud. Also raising eyebrows is how it mirrored Hoss’ life well from fathering five children, the last born in 1943, his orchestration in Auschwitz and even the months he was away in Berlin. It’s obvious in doing so, Glazer wanted to send a message about how people, especially the Nazis, can live next door to the evil they’ve created and live comfortably. He does an excellent job in doing that with the story and the various camera effects.

One thing about the acting is it’s very low-key compared to most of the acting in the other Best Picture nominees. The standout of this film is the storytelling. Nevertheless, the acting in the film is still very good. Christian Friedel did a very good portrayal of Rudolf Hoss. Despite his performance not being too showy, his acting added to the storytelling. Also great is Sandra Huller as Hedwig. Although her performance pales in comparison to that of Anatomy Of A Fall, she also does a good job in making a hateful Nazi seem like an everyday person and even a common wife. She’s even able to get you thinking at times the film is more about Hedwig than about Rudolf.

The technical elements of the film also add to the story and the message to get across. The cinematography from Lukasz Zal really added to the theme of the film. He features many scenes with unorthodox imagery in the film. Most noteworthy, the scenes of the Polish girl giving prisoners food done looking like a film negative added to the statement Glazer intended to make. The music from Mica Levi helps create the atmosphere for this dark subject matter. The sound crew have to have delivered possibly the most profound contribution to the film. The mixing of sounds like the gunshots and screaming mixed with scenes of the Hoss’ living the comfortable life serve as a reminder of the hidden things that are happening.

This film has had a lot of awards buzz in 2023. It first gained notice at the Cannes Film Festival. Although Anatomy Of A Fall won, this film was a nominee and director Glazer won the Grand Prix and the FIPRESCI Prize. How about that? Two films starring Sandra Huller at the 2023 Cannes Film Fest and both were the most lauded! Interestingly, this film is the UK’s third Oscar nomination in the Best International Feature Film award. It does seem odd for the UK to even have a submission, but Jonathan Glazer being British and the film being in German, Yiddish and Polish, the UK can submit I as their entry. Those other two nominations were back in the 1990’s and were for Welsh-language films. At the time, entries had to be in a language native to the nation. Not anymore. It’s now more about the citizenship of the director. Oscar rules are interesting, aren’t they?

The Zone Of Interest is not the Holocaust film you expect it to be. It’s a film about the Holocaust which Glazer has something to say and is often told through sights and sounds.

And there you go! That’s the last of my reviews of the ten Best Pictures nominees. My blog of my predictions for the Oscar wins coming soon!

2023 Oscars Best Picture Review: Anatomy Of A Fall (Anatomie d’Une Chute)

Jon The Blogcentric2 Comments
Sandra Huller plays writer Sandra Voyter suspected of killing her husband in the courtroom thriller Anatomy Of A Fall.

DISCLAIMER: This is from a blog of four reviews I originally posted on March 2, 2024. The original blog has been removed.

Anatomy Of A Fall first appears to be a common courtroom drama with a story of intrigue. Over time, you’ll learn it’s a film that’s a lot more.

Courtroom dramas have caught our intrigue time and time again. We’re presented with a criminal scenario or a legal scenario, but it’s up for us to decide whether they’re guilty or innocent or who to side with in a dispute. We learn the verdict and we’re left to decide if it’s the right verdict or not. This story is a unique story. It presents a case of a death from a fall. The deceased is the French husband of a German novelist. The fall happens from a chateau in a remote mountainous area of Grenoble. The first to notice the fall is the seeing-eye dog of the blind son. Questions arise. We learn of the troubled marriage. People turn against the woman. The prosecutor is determined to prove her guilty. The son watches despite his blindness, and seems like he doesn’t know what to think. Could he hold the truth? Could his seeing-eye dog also provide clues to the truth?

This isn’t simply a story of whether Samuel’s death is a murder, a suicide or an accident. It’s a story that develops over time with each new fact exposed, opinions from people in the story coming about, and your own opinions being formed. As we learn of Sandra Voyter, her turbulent marriage, and her recent liaisons, some of us are tempted to look down upon her and even suspect her of possible murder. As we learn about Samuel and his immaturities and later of his depression over the last few years, will that change our mind? The film is as much about how we see things and see people as it is about our story itself. Even possibly exposing sexist attitudes we didn’t think we had. There’s even the angle of the trial as seen through Daniel: the child caught in the middle. A blind boy, he has the biggest sense of the friction his parents have been going through. He lost his father and he’s at risk of losing his mother if she’s found guilty. During the time, he doesn’t know what to think of his mother and often feels lonely. Almost as if Snoop, his seeing-eye dog, is the only one who loves him and he can trust. Sometimes your concern shifts from how Sandra will be found by the courts to what will happen to Daniel. It’s like the film is two stories in one. Even Daniel’s testimony at the end will make you reconsider your stance in the case.

Top respect goes to director/writer Justine Triet. Triet has become only the eighth female director to be nominated for the Best Director Oscar. This film is actually a project she co-wrote with Arthur Haran for actress Sandra Huller to star in after the two worked together in 2019’s Sibyl. She creates a great story that presents a death and the question if it’s an accident or a murder. She presents it as a story of a French-speaking wife and a German-speaking husband who use English as a common ground to sort things out, but it adds friction. The death, the courtroom drama, the turbulent marriage, the communication barrier, and the son caught in the middle adds to the story. Even the ending which allows you to draw your own conclusion of the incident adds to the film.

Along with Triet, there was great acting from Sandra Huller. Her acting in this story helps create the character along with the actions and allows the audience to make their decisions in the case. Huller is as much of a storyteller as Triet herself. Also great is the performance of Milo Machado-Graner: the son caught in the middle. There are many times in the story, some thanks to camera shots of the courtroom drama, where one can think the film is as much about Daniel as it is about Sandra. He’s trying to make sense of what is happening. He is suspicious of his mother but is scared he will lose it all. There are times he tries to be tough with him teaching himself piano by sound clips, but you can tell he could break down. It seems like the dog Snoop is his one friend, especially with his sheltered upbringing. Graner makes him a boy you want to hug. Adding to the film is Messi The Dog as Snoop. Through Messi, we see Snoop is more than Daniel’s seeing-eye dog and best friend. He’s also one that hold clues to what could expose the truth. Additional great acting performances include Samuel Theis as Samuel Maleski, the husband that struggled with mental illness whose struggles threatened the family, and Antoine Reinartz as the prosecutor who will get you wondering if he wants justice done or simply to have Sandra found guilty.

This film has been lauded with buzz since the Cannes Film Festival. The film won the Palme d’Or at the and Triet became only the third female director in history to win. You know how I talked about Messi The Dog adding to the story? At Cannes, Messi was even given the Golden Dog Award for his efforts! Even after Cannes, film festival after film festival it was entered in would have this come away as the big winner. The film also won six European Film Awards. The film was not France’s official submission in the Best International Feature Film category. I assumed it’s because there’s too much English in the film, but other articles are suggesting there may be politicking.

Anatomy Of A Fall is a great legal drama that tells the story of a death in question and doesn’t only leave its fate to the juries, but for the audience to decide for themselves what they believe to be the truth. Even Triet herself won’t say if Sandra is guilty or not. All your call!