There are those who think it’s time for a moratorium on Holocaust movies, and there are those who stand by the belief that there won’t be enough until there’s been 6 million produced and released. As of 2003, we were up to at least 442 titles, according to Annette Insdorf’s book Indelible Shadows. And due to last year’s boom of Holocaust-related features, it seems as though Insdorf could easily add another 100 more to the list in her next edition.
But there’s no need to put an end to Holocaust films, anymore than there’s a need to cease making any genre of movie. A good film is a good film, no matter if it’s set in a concentration camp, features Nazis or merely alludes to the Shoah. And a bad movie is a bad movie, an exploitative movie is an exploitative movie and Oscar bait is Oscar bait. Beginning this Tuesday, when The Boy in the Striped Pajamas arrives on DVD, those hungering for more Holocaust movies will get another shot at seeing 2008’s contributions to the genre, but they’ll also start to see why critics were getting tired of these films. It wasn’t the subject matter, though, and it wasn’t necessarily the quantity so much as it was the quality. These days, Holocaust films are more dependent on clichés and are adversely affected by trends than ever before, even when they appear to be intent on breaking with conventions. Here is an excellent bit from a Mr.Cranky review of Defiance:
Here’s the thing: the more bad Holocaust films you make, the more Holocaust clichés you employ, the more the Holocaust itself becomes a cliché. The first few Holocaust films had a message and were probably intended to be meaningful. The last hundred were commercial vehicles designed to play on audience sympathies and line the producers’ pockets with money. Ultimately, Hollywood has done what every Jew on the planet pleas desperately to never happen: made the Holocaust meaningless on a pop culture scale.
As soon as filmmakers can completely abandon all ten of the following problems with the Holocaust genre, the better off we’ll be in getting to those 6 million titles without further protest. …Read more
In 10 out of 14 years, the winner of the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role has gone on to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. If this year marks the 11th such congruence, Meryl Streep will take home the Oscar. Yet there is an odd circumstance with the Academy’s nominations that hurts Streep’s chances. Another one of the Academy’s Best Actress contenders also received a SAG Award Sunday night: Kate Winslet, who won the supporting actress trophy for The Reader. At the Oscars, this role has been recognized as a lead performance, one that is likely a favorite to win.
Yes, it is a strange situation, one that shocked and confused Oscar prognosticators (especially this writer) on Thursday morning. Winslet’s Reader performance was campaigned as a supporting role, and she was recognized as such by the Golden Globes, the Broadcast Film Critics Association, the Chicago Film Critics Association and of course the Screen Actors Guild. A few organizations did nominate her for a lead award for The Reader, though few people take the Satellites seriously, and the BAFTA Awards are different than most in that they permit Winslet to compete against herself in the same category (she is also nominated for Best Leading Actress for Revolutionary Road).
Some now believe the Academy’s deviation will in fact cost Winslet the Oscar she could have won in the supporting field. Either voters will be confused about what film she’s nominated for (unless I’m simply less observant than elderly Academy members, which may indeed be the case), or she will now split the majority vote with Streep and thus allow Anne Hathaway or Melissa Leo to slip ahead (Angelina Jolie is believed to have no shot). Another idea is that voters will dismiss Winslet due to doubts over which category the performance belongs in. But since enough members of the Academy made it a point to nominate her as lead actress in the first place, this is hardly a reasonable theory.
Don’t you just hate when the movies make you care about a bigot? Sure, racists are technically humans, but that doesn’t mean we need to sympathize with them, right? No matter how great the film, it should be very difficult to accept the softening of intolerant people.
Yet the lovable racist is not uncommon in cinema. In fact, out in theaters right now are two films dealing with this type of character. The Reader presents a cold Concentration Camp guard (Kate Winslet) for whom we’re meant to shed a tear, and Gran Torino focuses on a War Veteran stereotype (Clint Eastwood) who may evoke from the audience as much amusement as disgust.
Maybe it’s like picking a scab, watching these kinds of movies. Some great films, such as Downfall, may only welcome an understanding of someone so heinous as Adolph Hitler, but other films have allowed us to totally enjoy racist protagonists of lesser offense. Check out the following examples to see some of the many intolerant heroes we’ve easily tolerated. …Read more
It’s more difficult to be convincing as a real person when acting on film than on the stage. The camera can get closer and your image ends up projected many times larger than life size. So, despite giving a Tony Award-winning performance as Richard Nixon in the theater version of Frost/Nixon, Frank Langella was not initially thought of as worthy to reprise the role in Ron Howard’s movie adaptation of the play. Part of it was that he’s not a big name, but another reason was that he looks nothing like Tricky Dick.
Ultimately, Langella did get the part, and while he doesn’t resemble the former president, he apparently does a bang up job in the role. But the transition could easily have been as awkward as Ralph Bellamy’s reprisal of his Tony-winning portrayal of Franklin Roosevelt in Sunrise at Campobello. In the film version of that play, Bellamy’s vocal impersonation comes off more like a Scottish brogue (he sounds exactly like Sean Connery, in fact) than FDR’s signature “Locust Valley lockjaw.” Instead, Langella is on track for an Oscar nomination, and is sure to join the following actors who also gave convincing performances as world leaders.
As a handicap, SpoutBlog has limited the selections to modern era leaders whose real persona exists on film/tape and are therefore more easily comparable to actors’ representations. …Read more
Way back in May, I discovered (long after the rest of the world, I thought) that the 2005 German film Downfall had become unlikely fodder for a huge number of YouTube spoofs. This weekend, Virginia Heffernan looked into the meme for the New York Times. In my post, I commented on the irony that although millions of people have now been exposed to Downfall via the various YouTube spoofs, the videos don’t work as compelling advertisements for the movie itself. Now Heffernan notes that the ubiquity of Downfall as seen out of context not only fails to promote the film, but actually damages the experience of watching it:
I was really into that video that was going around last week, of the scene from Downfall transformed via subtitles into the story of Hillary Clinton’s last stand––not just because I dislike Hillary Clinton, but because there’s a goofiness to it that makes it seem more clever than your typical “this politician is just like Hitler!” joke. A lot of my favorite parts are too obscene to excerpt, although I do like it when s/he slams “those fainting sissies over at MoveOn.org” for “choking on their tofu because I voted for the Iraq war!” But I think I was most impressed by what I thought was the novel choice of material––a 3-year old German film detourned into YouTube propaganda? How imaginative!
Um, turns out, it’s not as novel as I thought. A twitter from Chuck Tryon alerted me to the news that Downfall has been the basis of YouTube parodies long before the Hillary clip came to light. Many of these parodies reconfigure Hitler as a frustratedXbox user; Hitler also has problems using Vista, is unhappy to hear that his favorite soccer team has lost the Champions League Final, and is absolutely irate at an underling’s suggestion that he buy a new Mustang. There are so many Downfall spoofs on YouTube that I’m almost positive I was the last one to know that spoofing Downfall was, like, a thing that people did.
Almost all of these clips have view counts on YouTube in the six or seven figures. Downfall was the second-highest grossing foreign language film of 2005, but it still only made about $5.5 million. Almost certainly, more people in this country have now seen a clip from the film wrangled into a new context than would have ever seen the film in its original state. Downfall thus becomes part of the cultural conversation, but at the same time, it seems unlikely that any of these clips could effectively function as commercials for the film. Maybe it’s sad or maybe it’s totally appropriate, but it seems clear that the general YouTube user would be able to summon way more excitement for the concept of Hitler on the phone with Microsoft tech support, than they would for the concept of Hitler…doing Hitler stuff.
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
