Shoah Reflection paper PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay on Shoah...

Description

HIST 4262

The first time I watched Shoah by Roger Ebert it took four different occasions this absolute Goliath of a film. Shoah is over nine hours long, while that is not the most important quality it has, certainly notable. Another unique quality Shoah possesses is the ability to tell the story of the holocaust without stock footage. This is unique especially to Holocaust films, the Holocaust is well documented, so many directors creating a Holocaust documentary take advantage of this stockpile of stock footage, not Ebert. Shoah is nine hours of Holocaust survivors passionately recollecting on their time during the Jewish Holocaust. While I have a few critiques about the style of the movie is presented in, I think it is admirable to create a film this large without using footage provided for you, and I think making films about the Holocaust is commendable, as it leaves you open to such criticism and maybe worse. One issue I have with the film is the pressure applied to the testimonies of those involved. Multiple times you can see the guest become visibly upset and shaken, followed by several minutes of the interviewer trying to convince them to speak. While I understand the sentiment that it is too important for them to not say anything, showing this process on camera was not the right move. The interviewer should have allowed breaks for them to gather their thoughts, or to share things privately. It seems at some points everyone becomes all too uncomfortable, and in a film about the Holocaust why not remove that where you can. My largest issue with this film is the pacing, while I have admitted to being impressed by the length, I think there is an easy hour

to take off. If you chop off all the panning sequences of trees, canoeing, and walking silently while a translator explains the last four minutes of foreign dialogue, this film could be cut down to eight hours. I think Ebert approaches the subject material in a commendable way. It was his intention to teach viewers about the horrors of the Holocaust through touching testimony and it is effective. I think Ebert does a very good job at making every range of testimony impactful, this includes survivors as well as former SS members. This is done intentionally to show the wide range of feelings and memories people have from this time, and I think it is important to include. Ebert also does not censor words, which is important. I will be the first person to say you can remove gore without removing power, but leaving in remarks of antisemitism and a lack of remorse from some of the testimonies is an important addition. Overall, Shoah is like every other Holocaust film in the sense that it searches for a unique way to present repeated information. While I think Shoah effectivley communicates the horrors of the Holocaust, this film will not be saught out by the casual viewer, which in the end makes it less effective....