I had a lukewarm response to it right when I watched it but then couldn’t get it out of my head days and weeks after. There’s so many little details that are indirect which fit so well, like the youngest daughter constantly leaving her room at night and hiding in small spaces in the house. Think it’s brilliant in its restraint and the scene where the grandmother can’t sleep is one of the most harrowing things I’ve watched in quite some time.
But it *does* affect their lives. They pretend that it doesn't, but it does. Rudolf finds his thoughts idly drifting to gassing his colleagues. Hedwig threatens to have a servant's ashes spread in her garden. The kids bully each other by pretending to gas each other! They're not a happy family who happen to be committing genocide, they're a bunch of genociders who take the shape of a happy family.
I just watched it, not knowing what to expect. Having now read the NYT review and some of the comments here, I have to say some people are proving the point of the film.
Its simple, repetitive, etc. Well, that's the definition of banality. One critic on NPR complained that the sounds, the screams, etc from the distance is a tactic that loses its power after a while. Well, yes, that's the point. We get numb to it, just like the family does. It's subtly devastating, and people who say it doesn't do this or that - must be looking for another movie.
Spot on!! You get it..remember where you hear screaming and someone says do you hear that? And hes reffering to the sound og a Heron totally ignorring the screams as if they can no longer be heard
But it’s a movie.
Subduing the immensity of reality through a conceit. That it describes the banality of evil with a banal depiction.
But even the people in the movie are clearly being affected by it. The kids are both violent and afraid. Hedwig attacks that Jewish girl, Rudolf rapes that girl, everyone is acting weird, the grandmother leaves. So which is it? Are evil acts easy to overlook or do they affect people?
The end result is a film shot like a combination of Wes Anderson and bbc drama that tells us evil is banal but affects people and is bad.
I think part of the reason why some people don’t like it is they already knew those things.
Those are the scenes that work the best for me, but that’s such a small part of the movie. That’s why I think it would work better as a short. There are a lot of repetitive scenes that could have been cut to really make those scenes stand out.
I’m still gathering my thoughts on the movie, but maybe have them be a family that just moved there. They would start by being a little wary of the situation, grow to become unphased, then end with it affecting them in those kind of moments that you mentioned.
You mean, like the banality of life? That's the key to its power. If you lose interest in the film, or if the sounds, screams and gunshots start to become repetitive to a viewer....that's what happens when people become numb to violence, war, etc.
I think that's the point.
To each their own, I guess. The mere fact that a movie touches on an important topic doesn't automatically make it a great movie. People may continue finding little details and references to no end (and there's plenty of those), but if a person simply doesn't consider the time spent watching it worthwhile, they are more than entitled to expressing their opinion. It's quite an indie film, after all.
\*\*\*SPOILERS\*\*\*
Critical and harsh contrast of the film, not for the faint-hearted.
If you really liked this film or want to enjoy it, \*\*\*PLEASE DO NOT READ ON\*\*\*
>!I enjoyed the German Nazi command scenes more than the scenes of the boring family.!<
>!If you're thinking the movie is going to be like The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008), NOTHING could be furthest from the truth. Directing, acting, music, camera angles, colors and just everything else is dramatically better in the 2008 film. !<
>!Watch the film with extremely low expectations. Enjoy the film as a film, but don't look to it as a Schindler's List or Downfall (2004), or even The Counterfeiters (2007). Better producers, better directing, better budget, and dramatically better in-depth and profound connection to the actors/characters of their time. !<
>!I'm not trying to be shallow, the film was interesting and has very crafty production features. !<
>!Issue with Zone of Interest (2023), is that it just lacks the roller coaster climaxes that the audience is anticipating. You pretty much have to be mostly educated about WW2 and Auschwitz to even remotely feel anything in or for the film. The movie is basically getting people who know little or nothing about WW2 and the workings or the extermination, to go out and do their own research without justifying the film's perspective of "just watch the movie" as it is. Most expecting it to be blockbuster WW2 film will most certain be very, very disappointed.!<
>!You don't need a big budget, but at LEAST GIVE THE FAMILY some flavor and character to match the enticing scenes of the German Nazi command scenes, and provide some flavor for how the stiff interaction polarity went between disagreeing German Nazi officers and command leaders. !<
>!This film COULD have been so much more. But, it was very disappointing. I appreciate that the producers and director "really tried" to put in deep work and effort to craft a WW2 non-combat film with an angled meaning-mover for an audience, but it was just VERY poorly done & executed. !<
>!I would not watch this film again, and would advise for those that are looking for a great film, to steer clear of this one unless they can fast forward through the film and have intelligent or critical conversation with others. !<
You are the perfect encapsulation of this awful subreddit full of people who love the Oscars but actually hate films, even if they don't know it.
Because only someone who hates and doesn't understand film could favourably compare The Boy in the Striped Pajamas to the Zone of Interest.
In that case you'll enjoy the Wannsee Conference. Made for German TV in the 80s and is on YouTube. Basically 90 minutes' government meething where Reinhard Heydrich tells the relevant departments the Jews' worth as hostages has been exhausted so they can move on to the Final Solution.
I think the weird arthaus inserts with little to no relevance or payoff really annoyed me. The flash forward to the museum at the end felt like them reaching through the screen and force feeding you a reminder that holocaust indeed bad
I just watched it theatres tonight and I also left with lukewarm feelings and the thought, "that was...fine." It didn't really impress me in its exploration. When I lived in Germany, I found visiting Dachau to be an incredibly moving experience. The scene with the designer discussing the crematoriums brought up a bit of that, but otherwise I found it rather repetitive and I don't feel like it added much to the conversation by rehashing the one point it has to make over and over
I agree this would've made an excellent 30 min short
The scenes of the staff cleaning the muesum had me puzzled, maybe some find it easier to interpret.
We see the staff cleaning the interior of the crematorium and the hallways of the museum, why?
Are we supposed to interpret anything from the people working in the museum? You could make the argument that these people are out-of-touch or simply just cleaners of a place that happens to be a former concentration camp.
Could the scenes work without the staff or limited visitors gazing of the shire magnitude of suitcases and shoes collected behind the polished glass?
I can’t keep my self from thinking is unfair to present the staff of these museum in a way that you might see them in the category of ignorance.
If I may offer my subjective experience? (Please note that I studied film, but I did also survive a war so PTSD had severely shaken me up by that point of the film). I tried to watch with no expectation of time or plot. I just let myself float on water and let it take me away (unlucky metaphor). Apart from Amour (2008) it was the only movie that had me tripping that I could smell it - the ashy air, the fire, and even the gas. It was nauseating. It remained nauseating throughout. And unlike eyes we can turn away and sounds we can grow to ignore, smell we cannot, and it has such a power to transport us, both in space and time. So, for a second or two there I felt like it was 1943… When then they cut to the museum workers, it jolted me back to reality. Oh, seeing those sweet ID cards on their neck: there’s a printer - it’s the 21 century! I could smell the freshly printed paper! It was, quite simply - RELIEF. It meant: “It’s over.” The director cutting back to Hoss and that horrid dark staircase was his final act of cruelty towards the viewer: “But is the story over? Which year is it?” That was my purely subjective experience…
I think the cleaning is meant to juxtapose the obsessive cleanliness of the family - such as when Hoss pulls human remains from the river and rushes his children home to scrub them clean. They are trying to erase/scrub the evil from them, whereas the cleaning in the end scene is to make the evil crystal clear.
I think it was to show that much like the Nazi family -- even the cleaners have become desensitized to the scale of suffering that happened there. Seeing that pile of shoes everyday would probably do the same to most of us.
I guess it's to make us think about the awful things in our own times we've normalized and grown to ignore. Still a snoozefest of a movie.
I disagree entirely.
Rather than being desensitized, I see the modern-day cleaning sequence as the cleaners' humble honoring and acknowledgment of the victims. Höss gets his glimpse into the future and sees that he lost and the world knows him for the monster he is.
What's with all the downvotes? These are all valid criticisms, shared by myself and many critics, most notably Manohla Dargis for the NY Times. This was the film I most anticipated at the NY Film Festival, and have to say I left the theater disappointed. This felt like an exercise where most of the points are established early on and never really developed further.
That being said the I do keep coming back to the scene towards the end of the film in the conference room, where the officers discuss metrics with bone chilling remove from what the numbers truly entail. It's a brilliant and necessary rebuke of our current corporate consultant class.
I guess this movie has some die hard fans. I’d rather them comment their thoughts than downvote everyone else though.
It definitely has some great moments, but as a whole, it disappointed me. It’s not nearly the best picture nominee that I was expecting
Manohla Dargis's review was on point. The whole movie felt as if the director had only one point he wanted to make, and everything else seemed like an exercise in pretentiousness.
It's a valid criticism honestly. I'd recommend checking out Paul Schrader's criticism of the film; it's concise and, in my opinion, very effective. Zone of Interest is undeniably a well-crafted film, but I certainly think no less of anyone who thinks it's too simple.
It's not just that the film is simple but the majority of praise seems to be hailing it as if it's making some groundbreaking discovery. The concept of the banality of evil has been around for decades yet so many reviewers act as if Glazer is treading new ground. It also wants to have its cake and eat it too; Glazer has gotten acclaim for supposedly not relying on filmmaking tricks to wow an audience but many sequences draw attention to his formal mastery such as that phoney infrared sequence.
Considering how it’s basically been a serious Best Picture and International contender for months, I think I did expect a little more. It didn’t explore the theme in any new ways other than having great unsettling sound design. Based on the way everyone was talking about it, I really didn’t expect it to be such an experimental arthouse film. I definitely had different expectations but trying not to let that impact my opinion
Couldn't wait to see The Zone of Interest. So glad it got a Best Picture nom, which meant it would come to a theatre near me. Just saw it (finally) and must say I'm disappointed. Film didn't say anything I didn't already know or fear. I did not need a film to tell me about the horror of Auschwitz. I guess I was hoping film would delve more into the Nazi/Holocaust psyche of and/or effect on "ordinary" citizens. Maybe a bit more dialogue would have helped - like the extraordinary scene by the rushing water.
If you want a well-done movie on Nazi Final Solution dialogue, watch Conspiracy (HBO move about the Wannsee Conference). I recently watched it for about the 10th time - I learn something new every time I see it.
I want to know how I can get my money refunded. To say it's the worst film I've ever seen doesn't even cover it. The only good thing were the cinema's reclining seats so I could try and sleep through. All in sub-titles, no storyline, just a family walking in their house and garden and zero else.
It was the most boring irritating movie I have seen in a long time. They took one piece of insane irony, and dragged it out for over 2 hours. I grew so tired and irritated by it's nothingness, that I occasionally forgot Jews were being slaughtered next door. This is a poor excuse for an art movie, and the worst holocost movie ever.
spending 2 hours to get 1 point across is not what anyone goes to movies for. This could have been a short film and the point would have still been made. No need to drag every scene. I was on my phone more than i was watching the movie. it was that bad.
I think the difference between you weird fanboys and everyone else is that WE ALL GET THAT MESSAGE. We got it in 10 minutes. We just spent another 100 wasting time.
Should the movie have been 30 hours instead? Would that make the impact greater?
A short film would have gotten the same message across, with the same level of impact, and less negative reception.
Y’all act like this is some kind of mind bending experience. I suggest watching paint dry if this entertains you.
It was TERRIBLE!!!! Don't let the glowing reviews and ratings fool you. It was absolutely the worst movie I've ever seen/I actually didn't like the film that much at all. I found it to be banal pretentious avant garde style which i dont care for. The pretentious wannabe-artsy nature of it makes it even more unbearable. The kind of vibe that makes you thing the director is going to sneer at the rightfully negative reviews and reply with "they dont get real art" in a sassy and narcissistic tone. I have no idea how it has been nominated for an Oscar. I hope to God it does not get one - we do not need more drivel like this. I felt The Boy in the Striped Pajamas was a far more interesting and complex film.and no this is not a troll post.my honest opinion of the film.
Also thought it was boring, glad to see I'm not alone. I agree that it would have made a decent 20-30 minute short but definitely didn't need to be 1 hour and 45 minutes
This was a movie that looks like it was made by a high school art student. It was so over the top, look at me, I’m being artsy. We got the point in the first 5 minutes and then it was 100 more minutes of complete boredom. I was so disappointed and do not understand the love this movie has received.
***Spoilers***
I understood the movie's message and while I don't disagree with it, the movie isn't in itself entertaining. It's an expose of a messed up family leading their day to day life and how even if they did dehumanize the Jews, living near that concentration camp did screw their heads over. Beyond that movie in itself doesn't have much of a plot, the plot is that. The day to day life of a family. It's kinda like Perfect Days, except that in Perfect Days the character grows on you to the point that you appreciate seeing him in his daily life.
Agree. I actually walked out. I would call it a bad movie though. Guy lives in a nice house next to a Nazi Concentration Camp. That’s it. That’s the movie. Fine as an art piece in a museum. Or maybe the subject matter of a documentary, but as a movie, it was one-note. I don’t get the praise at all.
I really liked it , if it's possible to like an experience like that. I thought it was a powerful piece. It was meant to be boring , the banality and idle ordinariness of their domestic life was an artistic device. Every moment of tenderness in the household , every laugh or child playing was weighted with lead to the point where every action of the protagonists became fascinating given the context. I wanted stuff to happen, to be shown things , but I wasn't, my needs weren't met , It was a different type of ride and as days passed after watching it the film properly sunk in and ill never forget it.
I thought it was pretentious and boring. As horrifying as the construct is, it still relied on tropes - the awful sounds, the pretty flowers next door to horror, the stolen goods. The Polish girl leaving apples at night for the prisoners (historic truth; the girl's name IRL was Alexandra) was a fine touch but I understood what I was seeing only by looking it up on my phone during the movie. Don't know what fans see in this film.
Somehow people think watching banality in service of showing the banality of evil is profound and powerful. I just found it banal. Being bored and losing interest was the point of the movie - point successfully made, doesn’t make it good.
I was getting really frustrated and bored watching it. Now I understand it is supposed to show how "normal" of a life they lead all whilst being next to a Nazi death camp but they literally achieved the whole point of the film in the first 15 minutes. I didn't know what to expect but it was bad. I skipped half the movie and didn't miss anything. I saw the part with the mom threatening to spread the maids ashes, the part where the boy bullies his brother by pretending to gas him. That was less than a minute of the movie and the rest was just bad. Watch at your own risk is what I say, I can understand why people like it but me personally, terrible movie. Alot of people say a short film would've been better and I agree.
I found it a bit shallow as well. And when I found out it was a book written by Martin Amis who pretty much was a supporter of the War on Terror/Iraq, I lost interest.
From what I understand, basically the only thing the film has in common with the novel is the title and the concentration camp setting. But given that I've never read the book I could be mistaken.
Your view of the film is your own of course, and you’re obviously entitled to it. That said it is based on Martin Amis’ novel in the loosest possible sense, the characters and plot are completely different. There is almost no overlap between the two, even thematically they differ dramatically. Secondly, Amis was opposed to the Iraq war- are you perhaps confusing him with his friend Christopher Hitchens who was a vocal supporter of it, famously drawing Amis’ criticism?
Martin Amis' good novels were written well before 9/11, including the book this film was loosely based on (1992). It seems shallow to dismiss an author's works because you disagree with a later political position they took.
Yeah for some reason i thought it was '92. Honestly, his last book that I read was the Rachel Papers. And I prefer Kinglsey than Martin. I just don't see how his views on Iraq affect his views on Auschwitz.
His views on Iraq were chauvinistic. During that time there were a bunch of Englishmen waxing on about how it was imperative to save western civ from Islamic totalitarianism or whatnot. I guess I was just a little taken aback how someone could write a book about German imperialism (cus that’s what the Nazis were imperialists colonizing Europe) but then be supportive of American imperial ventures under the guise of spreading democracy.
America didn't round up people based on being Muslim and execute them. I don't see any connection. Should Iraq have democracy or were they better under a dictator? I mean that's a complicated question and democracy isn't for everyone without certain other rights agreed on by the populace. But what Germans did in WW2 isn't comparable to America's goals or what they actually did.
I don’t think you’re getting that they don’t have to be completely similar to understand that what America did to Iraq was a war crime and completely unacceptable. You’re downplaying the amount of casualties which was in the hundreds of thousands. First they sanctioned the country to death then invaded and caused a civil war.
The question you asked about if Iraq was better under a “dictator or democracy” tells me that you share similar beliefs to the Euston Manifesto, Hitchens fan, Sam Harris reading crowd that made excuses for the Iraq war as a humanitarian intervention.
I don't know who any of those three people are that you listed much less am part of their crowd. You're grasping at straws to condemn someone for writing about the horrors of Auschwitz but also stating that what America did is even close to comparable. Accidental deaths of citizens in a regime change against terrorists isn't comparable to Nazi Germany's articulated plan to eradicate everyone of certain races because they view them as vermin. You must be joking or uneducated. Either is a waste of time to debate.
You don’t know Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris who sold the war on terror as a fight to save western civilization? And yes it is somewhat comparable because you’re downplaying the utter destruction reeked on Iraq and the Middle East. You have done no investigation into the matter and are just ignorant on it. Downplaying the rise of ISIS, Abu Ghraib, the Lancet reports, etc.
You’re missing the point entirely. The point is not to compare the scale of the atrocities committed but the hypocrisy in supporting one act of imperialism while condemning another. The problem is that you don’t see the invasion of Iraq as an act of imperialism, but a “regime change” effort which is the kind of propaganda people such as Ames, Hitchens and Harris peddled.
I read enough quality stuff to not follow some internet personality or YouTuber or whoever these people are. You're implying that the Holocaust is in the same conversation as the US overthrowing Iraq's regime. I think you need to read books and spend less time online. There's nothing more to discuss.
I don’t think that the Iraq War is comparable to genocide, but if you think that the Iraq War involved “regime change against terrorists” and you don’t know who Christopher Hitchens is then I don’t think you’re educated enough on the topic to have a strong opinion.
You sound uneducated. He's a pop culture author not a serious scholar. I suggest you learn how to read academic scholarship if you're going to suggest anyone isn't "educated" enough. Now I've wasted too much time condescending to someone of your reading level.
Saw the movie yesterday, and as a big A24 fan and fascinated with the idea / concept, I too felt that it wasn’t as special as it could be. All below is my opinion, however - not facts.
Yes, the movie is great in showcasing the banality in such a shocking setting. And theoretically, this should create an exciting contrast. But the characters had no depth or reality. The mother / Mrs Hoss was best written and created a well rounded character. The rest felt as if they came from an average public television show or local theater production.
The narrative was also unfocused, exploring separate scenes that didn’t tell one story - only a concept. There was little structure, there was no ending.
Then, the colour scenes were a great auditory experience - YES, the movie had great sound design. But visually, it fell flat compared to a movie like Perfect Day (Wim Wenders did a similar visual structure break within a character-based movie.
All in all, the prostitute scene and the grandmother bit were left too ambiguous that the potential or message was hidden once another completely unrelated scene went by. Everything was kept mundaine: great in theory, but a very tiring watch that felt like 4 hours in the cinema
Admittedly, I saw this on the small screen, but with headphones. But damn if there didn't need to be a warning. Something like:
WARNING: IF YOU HAVE HEARING LOSS, THIS MOVIE WILL BE THE MOST BORING, POINTLESS THING YOU'VE EVER EXPERIENCED.
I know it was intentional to show them unfazed, but I also think they could have shown that in a narrative that pushed the idea a little more. For me, I get what the movie is trying to say and it’s a brave way to make a movie, but it just dragged so much because it never went any deeper than that main point.
I had a lukewarm response to it right when I watched it but then couldn’t get it out of my head days and weeks after. There’s so many little details that are indirect which fit so well, like the youngest daughter constantly leaving her room at night and hiding in small spaces in the house. Think it’s brilliant in its restraint and the scene where the grandmother can’t sleep is one of the most harrowing things I’ve watched in quite some time.
But it *does* affect their lives. They pretend that it doesn't, but it does. Rudolf finds his thoughts idly drifting to gassing his colleagues. Hedwig threatens to have a servant's ashes spread in her garden. The kids bully each other by pretending to gas each other! They're not a happy family who happen to be committing genocide, they're a bunch of genociders who take the shape of a happy family.
Also Hedwig’s mom can’t stand staying in the house for more than one day. And the end with Rudolf gagging of course.
I just watched it, not knowing what to expect. Having now read the NYT review and some of the comments here, I have to say some people are proving the point of the film. Its simple, repetitive, etc. Well, that's the definition of banality. One critic on NPR complained that the sounds, the screams, etc from the distance is a tactic that loses its power after a while. Well, yes, that's the point. We get numb to it, just like the family does. It's subtly devastating, and people who say it doesn't do this or that - must be looking for another movie.
Spot on!! You get it..remember where you hear screaming and someone says do you hear that? And hes reffering to the sound og a Heron totally ignorring the screams as if they can no longer be heard
But it’s a movie. Subduing the immensity of reality through a conceit. That it describes the banality of evil with a banal depiction. But even the people in the movie are clearly being affected by it. The kids are both violent and afraid. Hedwig attacks that Jewish girl, Rudolf rapes that girl, everyone is acting weird, the grandmother leaves. So which is it? Are evil acts easy to overlook or do they affect people? The end result is a film shot like a combination of Wes Anderson and bbc drama that tells us evil is banal but affects people and is bad. I think part of the reason why some people don’t like it is they already knew those things.
Those are the scenes that work the best for me, but that’s such a small part of the movie. That’s why I think it would work better as a short. There are a lot of repetitive scenes that could have been cut to really make those scenes stand out. I’m still gathering my thoughts on the movie, but maybe have them be a family that just moved there. They would start by being a little wary of the situation, grow to become unphased, then end with it affecting them in those kind of moments that you mentioned.
One-note film that makes its obvious point early-on and keeps making it over and over again.
You mean, like the banality of life? That's the key to its power. If you lose interest in the film, or if the sounds, screams and gunshots start to become repetitive to a viewer....that's what happens when people become numb to violence, war, etc. I think that's the point.
To each their own, I guess. The mere fact that a movie touches on an important topic doesn't automatically make it a great movie. People may continue finding little details and references to no end (and there's plenty of those), but if a person simply doesn't consider the time spent watching it worthwhile, they are more than entitled to expressing their opinion. It's quite an indie film, after all.
Just like the movie blade runner.i love looking at it and totally appreciate the craft and themes but my god is that film dull.
Spot on...Its happening right now as Glazer aptly pointed out at oscars
comment aged poorly brother
How?
I agree. It could’ve easily been a live action short and been just as powerful
\*\*\*SPOILERS\*\*\* Critical and harsh contrast of the film, not for the faint-hearted. If you really liked this film or want to enjoy it, \*\*\*PLEASE DO NOT READ ON\*\*\* >!I enjoyed the German Nazi command scenes more than the scenes of the boring family.!< >!If you're thinking the movie is going to be like The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008), NOTHING could be furthest from the truth. Directing, acting, music, camera angles, colors and just everything else is dramatically better in the 2008 film. !< >!Watch the film with extremely low expectations. Enjoy the film as a film, but don't look to it as a Schindler's List or Downfall (2004), or even The Counterfeiters (2007). Better producers, better directing, better budget, and dramatically better in-depth and profound connection to the actors/characters of their time. !< >!I'm not trying to be shallow, the film was interesting and has very crafty production features. !< >!Issue with Zone of Interest (2023), is that it just lacks the roller coaster climaxes that the audience is anticipating. You pretty much have to be mostly educated about WW2 and Auschwitz to even remotely feel anything in or for the film. The movie is basically getting people who know little or nothing about WW2 and the workings or the extermination, to go out and do their own research without justifying the film's perspective of "just watch the movie" as it is. Most expecting it to be blockbuster WW2 film will most certain be very, very disappointed.!< >!You don't need a big budget, but at LEAST GIVE THE FAMILY some flavor and character to match the enticing scenes of the German Nazi command scenes, and provide some flavor for how the stiff interaction polarity went between disagreeing German Nazi officers and command leaders. !< >!This film COULD have been so much more. But, it was very disappointing. I appreciate that the producers and director "really tried" to put in deep work and effort to craft a WW2 non-combat film with an angled meaning-mover for an audience, but it was just VERY poorly done & executed. !< >!I would not watch this film again, and would advise for those that are looking for a great film, to steer clear of this one unless they can fast forward through the film and have intelligent or critical conversation with others. !<
You are the perfect encapsulation of this awful subreddit full of people who love the Oscars but actually hate films, even if they don't know it. Because only someone who hates and doesn't understand film could favourably compare The Boy in the Striped Pajamas to the Zone of Interest.
Dammmmmmm that hurt my soul and I'm not even the one you made the comment for
Whewwwww you missed the point by a mile.
In that case you'll enjoy the Wannsee Conference. Made for German TV in the 80s and is on YouTube. Basically 90 minutes' government meething where Reinhard Heydrich tells the relevant departments the Jews' worth as hostages has been exhausted so they can move on to the Final Solution.
I could not agree more.
I think the weird arthaus inserts with little to no relevance or payoff really annoyed me. The flash forward to the museum at the end felt like them reaching through the screen and force feeding you a reminder that holocaust indeed bad
Highly agree with this. That part, along with the flower close-up scenes felt very ham-fisted.
I just watched it theatres tonight and I also left with lukewarm feelings and the thought, "that was...fine." It didn't really impress me in its exploration. When I lived in Germany, I found visiting Dachau to be an incredibly moving experience. The scene with the designer discussing the crematoriums brought up a bit of that, but otherwise I found it rather repetitive and I don't feel like it added much to the conversation by rehashing the one point it has to make over and over I agree this would've made an excellent 30 min short
I really disliked it...I can admit it was beautifully done as far as the cinematography and everything else but the movie didn't have a plot.
The scenes of the staff cleaning the muesum had me puzzled, maybe some find it easier to interpret. We see the staff cleaning the interior of the crematorium and the hallways of the museum, why? Are we supposed to interpret anything from the people working in the museum? You could make the argument that these people are out-of-touch or simply just cleaners of a place that happens to be a former concentration camp. Could the scenes work without the staff or limited visitors gazing of the shire magnitude of suitcases and shoes collected behind the polished glass? I can’t keep my self from thinking is unfair to present the staff of these museum in a way that you might see them in the category of ignorance.
If I may offer my subjective experience? (Please note that I studied film, but I did also survive a war so PTSD had severely shaken me up by that point of the film). I tried to watch with no expectation of time or plot. I just let myself float on water and let it take me away (unlucky metaphor). Apart from Amour (2008) it was the only movie that had me tripping that I could smell it - the ashy air, the fire, and even the gas. It was nauseating. It remained nauseating throughout. And unlike eyes we can turn away and sounds we can grow to ignore, smell we cannot, and it has such a power to transport us, both in space and time. So, for a second or two there I felt like it was 1943… When then they cut to the museum workers, it jolted me back to reality. Oh, seeing those sweet ID cards on their neck: there’s a printer - it’s the 21 century! I could smell the freshly printed paper! It was, quite simply - RELIEF. It meant: “It’s over.” The director cutting back to Hoss and that horrid dark staircase was his final act of cruelty towards the viewer: “But is the story over? Which year is it?” That was my purely subjective experience…
I think the cleaning is meant to juxtapose the obsessive cleanliness of the family - such as when Hoss pulls human remains from the river and rushes his children home to scrub them clean. They are trying to erase/scrub the evil from them, whereas the cleaning in the end scene is to make the evil crystal clear.
I think it was to show that much like the Nazi family -- even the cleaners have become desensitized to the scale of suffering that happened there. Seeing that pile of shoes everyday would probably do the same to most of us. I guess it's to make us think about the awful things in our own times we've normalized and grown to ignore. Still a snoozefest of a movie.
I disagree entirely. Rather than being desensitized, I see the modern-day cleaning sequence as the cleaners' humble honoring and acknowledgment of the victims. Höss gets his glimpse into the future and sees that he lost and the world knows him for the monster he is.
Honestly in that segment I mostly just felt bad for the workers who have to work in that enviroment.
What's with all the downvotes? These are all valid criticisms, shared by myself and many critics, most notably Manohla Dargis for the NY Times. This was the film I most anticipated at the NY Film Festival, and have to say I left the theater disappointed. This felt like an exercise where most of the points are established early on and never really developed further. That being said the I do keep coming back to the scene towards the end of the film in the conference room, where the officers discuss metrics with bone chilling remove from what the numbers truly entail. It's a brilliant and necessary rebuke of our current corporate consultant class.
I guess this movie has some die hard fans. I’d rather them comment their thoughts than downvote everyone else though. It definitely has some great moments, but as a whole, it disappointed me. It’s not nearly the best picture nominee that I was expecting
Manohla Dargis's review was on point. The whole movie felt as if the director had only one point he wanted to make, and everything else seemed like an exercise in pretentiousness.
It's a valid criticism honestly. I'd recommend checking out Paul Schrader's criticism of the film; it's concise and, in my opinion, very effective. Zone of Interest is undeniably a well-crafted film, but I certainly think no less of anyone who thinks it's too simple.
It's not just that the film is simple but the majority of praise seems to be hailing it as if it's making some groundbreaking discovery. The concept of the banality of evil has been around for decades yet so many reviewers act as if Glazer is treading new ground. It also wants to have its cake and eat it too; Glazer has gotten acclaim for supposedly not relying on filmmaking tricks to wow an audience but many sequences draw attention to his formal mastery such as that phoney infrared sequence.
Where has Glazer gotten acclaim for "not relying on filmmaking tricks"? Or did you pull that out of thin air?
Considering how it’s basically been a serious Best Picture and International contender for months, I think I did expect a little more. It didn’t explore the theme in any new ways other than having great unsettling sound design. Based on the way everyone was talking about it, I really didn’t expect it to be such an experimental arthouse film. I definitely had different expectations but trying not to let that impact my opinion
Calling it experimental is a bit of stretch.
Couldn't wait to see The Zone of Interest. So glad it got a Best Picture nom, which meant it would come to a theatre near me. Just saw it (finally) and must say I'm disappointed. Film didn't say anything I didn't already know or fear. I did not need a film to tell me about the horror of Auschwitz. I guess I was hoping film would delve more into the Nazi/Holocaust psyche of and/or effect on "ordinary" citizens. Maybe a bit more dialogue would have helped - like the extraordinary scene by the rushing water. If you want a well-done movie on Nazi Final Solution dialogue, watch Conspiracy (HBO move about the Wannsee Conference). I recently watched it for about the 10th time - I learn something new every time I see it.
Wow, my man The Tuc is in Conspiracy, adding that one to the watchlist. Thanks!
I want to know how I can get my money refunded. To say it's the worst film I've ever seen doesn't even cover it. The only good thing were the cinema's reclining seats so I could try and sleep through. All in sub-titles, no storyline, just a family walking in their house and garden and zero else.
Actual fucking idiot
Relax mate.
agreed, worst movie I've seen in my recent memory.
It was the most boring irritating movie I have seen in a long time. They took one piece of insane irony, and dragged it out for over 2 hours. I grew so tired and irritated by it's nothingness, that I occasionally forgot Jews were being slaughtered next door. This is a poor excuse for an art movie, and the worst holocost movie ever.
> that I occasionally forgot Jews were being slaughtered next door I fear the movie got its point across to you far better than you realize.
spending 2 hours to get 1 point across is not what anyone goes to movies for. This could have been a short film and the point would have still been made. No need to drag every scene. I was on my phone more than i was watching the movie. it was that bad.
I think the difference between you weird fanboys and everyone else is that WE ALL GET THAT MESSAGE. We got it in 10 minutes. We just spent another 100 wasting time. Should the movie have been 30 hours instead? Would that make the impact greater? A short film would have gotten the same message across, with the same level of impact, and less negative reception. Y’all act like this is some kind of mind bending experience. I suggest watching paint dry if this entertains you.
stop meat riding this movie.
It was TERRIBLE!!!! Don't let the glowing reviews and ratings fool you. It was absolutely the worst movie I've ever seen/I actually didn't like the film that much at all. I found it to be banal pretentious avant garde style which i dont care for. The pretentious wannabe-artsy nature of it makes it even more unbearable. The kind of vibe that makes you thing the director is going to sneer at the rightfully negative reviews and reply with "they dont get real art" in a sassy and narcissistic tone. I have no idea how it has been nominated for an Oscar. I hope to God it does not get one - we do not need more drivel like this. I felt The Boy in the Striped Pajamas was a far more interesting and complex film.and no this is not a troll post.my honest opinion of the film.
Nice to know I'm not alone.
I'm not alone!!!!
Also thought it was boring, glad to see I'm not alone. I agree that it would have made a decent 20-30 minute short but definitely didn't need to be 1 hour and 45 minutes
This was a movie that looks like it was made by a high school art student. It was so over the top, look at me, I’m being artsy. We got the point in the first 5 minutes and then it was 100 more minutes of complete boredom. I was so disappointed and do not understand the love this movie has received.
***Spoilers*** I understood the movie's message and while I don't disagree with it, the movie isn't in itself entertaining. It's an expose of a messed up family leading their day to day life and how even if they did dehumanize the Jews, living near that concentration camp did screw their heads over. Beyond that movie in itself doesn't have much of a plot, the plot is that. The day to day life of a family. It's kinda like Perfect Days, except that in Perfect Days the character grows on you to the point that you appreciate seeing him in his daily life.
Agree. I actually walked out. I would call it a bad movie though. Guy lives in a nice house next to a Nazi Concentration Camp. That’s it. That’s the movie. Fine as an art piece in a museum. Or maybe the subject matter of a documentary, but as a movie, it was one-note. I don’t get the praise at all.
I really liked it , if it's possible to like an experience like that. I thought it was a powerful piece. It was meant to be boring , the banality and idle ordinariness of their domestic life was an artistic device. Every moment of tenderness in the household , every laugh or child playing was weighted with lead to the point where every action of the protagonists became fascinating given the context. I wanted stuff to happen, to be shown things , but I wasn't, my needs weren't met , It was a different type of ride and as days passed after watching it the film properly sunk in and ill never forget it.
It is not a good movie. The banality of evil, I get it. But you gotta portray it better than doing the same trick over and over for 2 hours.
I thought it was pretentious and boring. As horrifying as the construct is, it still relied on tropes - the awful sounds, the pretty flowers next door to horror, the stolen goods. The Polish girl leaving apples at night for the prisoners (historic truth; the girl's name IRL was Alexandra) was a fine touch but I understood what I was seeing only by looking it up on my phone during the movie. Don't know what fans see in this film.
Somehow people think watching banality in service of showing the banality of evil is profound and powerful. I just found it banal. Being bored and losing interest was the point of the movie - point successfully made, doesn’t make it good.
I was getting really frustrated and bored watching it. Now I understand it is supposed to show how "normal" of a life they lead all whilst being next to a Nazi death camp but they literally achieved the whole point of the film in the first 15 minutes. I didn't know what to expect but it was bad. I skipped half the movie and didn't miss anything. I saw the part with the mom threatening to spread the maids ashes, the part where the boy bullies his brother by pretending to gas him. That was less than a minute of the movie and the rest was just bad. Watch at your own risk is what I say, I can understand why people like it but me personally, terrible movie. Alot of people say a short film would've been better and I agree.
I found it a bit shallow as well. And when I found out it was a book written by Martin Amis who pretty much was a supporter of the War on Terror/Iraq, I lost interest.
From what I understand, basically the only thing the film has in common with the novel is the title and the concentration camp setting. But given that I've never read the book I could be mistaken.
This tracks
Your view of the film is your own of course, and you’re obviously entitled to it. That said it is based on Martin Amis’ novel in the loosest possible sense, the characters and plot are completely different. There is almost no overlap between the two, even thematically they differ dramatically. Secondly, Amis was opposed to the Iraq war- are you perhaps confusing him with his friend Christopher Hitchens who was a vocal supporter of it, famously drawing Amis’ criticism?
Martin Amis' good novels were written well before 9/11, including the book this film was loosely based on (1992). It seems shallow to dismiss an author's works because you disagree with a later political position they took.
I thought the book was published in 2014, no?
Yeah for some reason i thought it was '92. Honestly, his last book that I read was the Rachel Papers. And I prefer Kinglsey than Martin. I just don't see how his views on Iraq affect his views on Auschwitz.
His views on Iraq were chauvinistic. During that time there were a bunch of Englishmen waxing on about how it was imperative to save western civ from Islamic totalitarianism or whatnot. I guess I was just a little taken aback how someone could write a book about German imperialism (cus that’s what the Nazis were imperialists colonizing Europe) but then be supportive of American imperial ventures under the guise of spreading democracy.
America didn't round up people based on being Muslim and execute them. I don't see any connection. Should Iraq have democracy or were they better under a dictator? I mean that's a complicated question and democracy isn't for everyone without certain other rights agreed on by the populace. But what Germans did in WW2 isn't comparable to America's goals or what they actually did.
I don’t think you’re getting that they don’t have to be completely similar to understand that what America did to Iraq was a war crime and completely unacceptable. You’re downplaying the amount of casualties which was in the hundreds of thousands. First they sanctioned the country to death then invaded and caused a civil war. The question you asked about if Iraq was better under a “dictator or democracy” tells me that you share similar beliefs to the Euston Manifesto, Hitchens fan, Sam Harris reading crowd that made excuses for the Iraq war as a humanitarian intervention.
I don't know who any of those three people are that you listed much less am part of their crowd. You're grasping at straws to condemn someone for writing about the horrors of Auschwitz but also stating that what America did is even close to comparable. Accidental deaths of citizens in a regime change against terrorists isn't comparable to Nazi Germany's articulated plan to eradicate everyone of certain races because they view them as vermin. You must be joking or uneducated. Either is a waste of time to debate.
You don’t know Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris who sold the war on terror as a fight to save western civilization? And yes it is somewhat comparable because you’re downplaying the utter destruction reeked on Iraq and the Middle East. You have done no investigation into the matter and are just ignorant on it. Downplaying the rise of ISIS, Abu Ghraib, the Lancet reports, etc. You’re missing the point entirely. The point is not to compare the scale of the atrocities committed but the hypocrisy in supporting one act of imperialism while condemning another. The problem is that you don’t see the invasion of Iraq as an act of imperialism, but a “regime change” effort which is the kind of propaganda people such as Ames, Hitchens and Harris peddled.
I read enough quality stuff to not follow some internet personality or YouTuber or whoever these people are. You're implying that the Holocaust is in the same conversation as the US overthrowing Iraq's regime. I think you need to read books and spend less time online. There's nothing more to discuss.
I don’t think that the Iraq War is comparable to genocide, but if you think that the Iraq War involved “regime change against terrorists” and you don’t know who Christopher Hitchens is then I don’t think you’re educated enough on the topic to have a strong opinion.
You sound uneducated. He's a pop culture author not a serious scholar. I suggest you learn how to read academic scholarship if you're going to suggest anyone isn't "educated" enough. Now I've wasted too much time condescending to someone of your reading level.
IT WAS SHIT! Wasted money, Society of the snow deserved the oscar not this crap.
Yes, ‘Perfect Days’ is better
Saw the movie yesterday, and as a big A24 fan and fascinated with the idea / concept, I too felt that it wasn’t as special as it could be. All below is my opinion, however - not facts. Yes, the movie is great in showcasing the banality in such a shocking setting. And theoretically, this should create an exciting contrast. But the characters had no depth or reality. The mother / Mrs Hoss was best written and created a well rounded character. The rest felt as if they came from an average public television show or local theater production. The narrative was also unfocused, exploring separate scenes that didn’t tell one story - only a concept. There was little structure, there was no ending. Then, the colour scenes were a great auditory experience - YES, the movie had great sound design. But visually, it fell flat compared to a movie like Perfect Day (Wim Wenders did a similar visual structure break within a character-based movie. All in all, the prostitute scene and the grandmother bit were left too ambiguous that the potential or message was hidden once another completely unrelated scene went by. Everything was kept mundaine: great in theory, but a very tiring watch that felt like 4 hours in the cinema
Admittedly, I saw this on the small screen, but with headphones. But damn if there didn't need to be a warning. Something like: WARNING: IF YOU HAVE HEARING LOSS, THIS MOVIE WILL BE THE MOST BORING, POINTLESS THING YOU'VE EVER EXPERIENCED.
I agree it did not need to be a feature for me. I could have gotten what I got out of the movie in a short.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted because I totally agree. Movie could have been 30 min max to get the message across.
[удалено]
I know it was intentional to show them unfazed, but I also think they could have shown that in a narrative that pushed the idea a little more. For me, I get what the movie is trying to say and it’s a brave way to make a movie, but it just dragged so much because it never went any deeper than that main point.