I think that the point I take from Lanzmann, against showing certain
things, needn't depend on his politics. I don't agree with his politics.
I also don't like the fact that you would never learn from "Shoah" that
in addition to Jews, hundreds of thousands of Romany, many disabled
people, and thousands of homosexuals were murdered by the Germans, and
I've always regretted that my critique didn't include this complaint.
(But soon I will link my Web version of my critique to this discussion!)
I cannot support a state that has twice elected a mass murderer (see:
Saba and Shatila) as its leader any more than I can support anti-Israel
terrorism. And because "Shoah" is against showing certain things, that
doesn't mean other artists might not make great -- and morally valid --
art that shows the things "Shoah" excludes, in the same sense that
Bresson's opposition to using trained actors is a laudable and
fascinating theoretical argument that illuminates his films and other
films as well, but does not exclude the possibility that Jayne
Mansfield's performance is an important and successful part of "Will
Success Spoil Rock Hunter?" (I explicitly mean to include the delightful
little squeal she emits on hearing the words "titular head of the
company") or that Dorothy Malone is key in "Written on the Wind" (I'm
choosing extreme "acting" cases, obviously). The line of thinking that
"Shoah" is a part of goes back to the Old Testament's prohibition
against graven images, as J. Hoberman pointed out when the film was
first released, and to Adorno's famous "After Auschwitz, it is
impossible to write poetry" dictum (which he recanted years later on the
grounds that good poetry had been written) and also informs the art of
Christian Boltanski. I wouldn't apply this line of thinking to Goya's
prints, but I guess I do think it applies to "Night and Fog," in the
sense that that film's use of the corpse imagery seems crude to me, and
the intercutting with fields over-obvious. Which doesn't mean that I
don't think it should not be shown where it's needed and helpful.

It's worth pointing out that Lanzmann includes some of his own
obnoxiousness, and as I say in my article his own lies, within the body
of "Shoah" itself. If someone would like to post a translation of the
French that Paul posted, that would be great, but it makes sense to me
that Lanzmann would claim some kind of exclusivity, for his film argues
that there *is* only one correct way of treating this subject. That
doesn't mean that there *is* only one correct way, any more than
Bresson's films "mean" that you can't use actors.

I haven't seen "Tsahal," though a friend who loved "Shoah" echoed Fred
V.'s objections to it, nor "Paper Clips." I don't defend the blowing up
of homes or other activities of the Israeli army either, though it's
also worth reflecting on where the Palestinians would be today if in
every terrorist attack, beginning with the horrendous and revolting
murder of Israel's Olympic athletes in Munich in 1972, the terrorists
had killed only themselves. It seems to me that they would have long
since had their own state.

I admire Bill's purity of response to corpses. I think that was my own
first response, actually, or at least, that's what I thought it was --
pure and distanced revulsion. Only later did I realize that looking at
images of corpses also made me feel like their owner and creator. I
suspect that many do have similar reactions, however subconscious.

- Fred C.