various

Nov. 4th, 2016 11:29 am
kindkit: A late-Victorian futuristic zeppelin. (Airship)
[personal profile] kindkit
1) I saw the movie Denial the other night. It's about the trial of Deborah Lipstadt, a history professor who was sued for libel by Holocaust denier David Irving after she called him a Holocaust denier. The script created a surprising amount of suspense and tension from a story to which most people know the ending (Lipstadt was acquitted on the grounds that everything she said about Irving was true), and the acting was great. Rachel Weisz may have overacted a little bit in some scenes, but it's hard to be sure because she was playing a brash American among a bunch of restrained middle-class English people. Andrew Scott was great as Lipstadt's solicitor, Tom Wilkinson marvellously nuanced as her barrister, and Mark Gatiss imbued a small role with a quiet, mysterious charisma. Anyone who thinks Scott and/or Gatiss can't act should see this film.

The script, by David Hare, is a delicate balancing act. The plot trajectory is almost that of a feel-good film, in which truth wins out and the bad guy is reproved and shamed. But the truth that wins out is one of the greatest atrocities in human history. The film, especially in the final sequence, sharply restrains our celebratory reactions. In the end, that's what I liked most about it.


2) After seeing the film, I read Lipstadt's book on the Eichmann trial (I haven't been able to get hold of her book on Holocaust denial yet, but I want to read it although it's well out of date by now.) The Eichmann book was disappointing. It's inevitably in the shadow of Hannah Arendt, even though it's trying to be a different kind of book, one more closely focused on the trial itself and on what's knowable of Eichmann's actions and character. Arendt was wrong about a lot of things, sometimes factually and sometimes morally (e.g. her condemnation of Jewish councils as collaborators, her essentially racist disdain for most Israeli Jews) but Eichmann in Jerusalem is an important, troubling, question-raising book, while Lipstadt's The Eichmann Trial is mostly just a narrative history, with a few forays into Israeli national identity. Lipstadt's chapter analyzing Arendt's book, while mostly balanced and informative, has some flaws, I think. Lipstadt asserts that Arendt saw Eichmann as almost childlike, or at least too stupid to understand his own culpability. My own sense is that Arendt argues that Eichmann was morally empty. He's a sort of sort of nightmare of modernity, who doesn't distinguish between being good at his murderous job and being a good person; Arendt sees this as a widespread but resistible human condition.

Arendt's point about the banality of evil, the way that genocide is enabled not just by megalomaniacs and ideologues but by ordinary people at their desks doing their jobs, is the lasting legacy of Eichmann in Jerusalem. The fact that Lipstadt and other historians have shown that Eichmann himself was much less of a banal functionary than he wanted to claim, and much more of a monster, is important for our understanding of Eichmann's own story, but I don't think it touches Arendt's argument at all.



3) In (somewhat) lighter reading, I've been thinking about re-reading Tana French's Dublin Murder Squad books so that I can finally read Secret Place and then the new one. I need to be reminded of the characters' backstories and interactions, but I'm not sure I can take that much concentrated bleakness in one big dose.

I'd like to know why so many contemporary mystery writers think the only story worth telling is one that makes you wish that whole human race would be wiped out in an asteroid strike.


4) Work post-mortem gathering tonight. I'm going, because I want to try to maintain relationships with people, but I can't say I'm eager. Hopefully the people I particularly want to see will be there, and not too many of the ones I don't.

Date: 2016-11-04 06:36 pm (UTC)
tree_and_leaf: Watercolour of barn owl perched on post. (Default)
From: [personal profile] tree_and_leaf
I hesitate to use the words 'enjoy' about it, but I recently read Klaus Wachsmann's "KL", which is a comprehensive account of the concentration camp (as opposed to extermination camp, though he does deal with them where relevant, particularly as regards Auschwitz, which had both elements), and a superbly researched examination of the system and the people within it (victims and perpetrators), which I think does do justice to the moral aspect, and the question as to how people end up committing atrocities or (more rarely in this instance) don't, and how immoral systems change people. It's a grim book, but a good one.

Date: 2016-11-05 11:22 am (UTC)
tree_and_leaf: Watercolour of barn owl perched on post. (Default)
From: [personal profile] tree_and_leaf
Can't blame you for that.

Date: 2016-11-04 08:40 pm (UTC)
cathexys: dark sphinx (default icon) (Default)
From: [personal profile] cathexys
Yes! I so agree with your analysis of Arendt. Just like 'the facts sometimes are not the most compelling thing about an eyewitness' territory (I always have in mind Lawrence Langer's example of 3 chimney's blowing up, because one blowing up is as unimaginable as three and it doesn't negate the survivor's account, bc historical fact is not exactly the same as the witness's), you're totally right that Arendt's making a much broader argument. In a way, Eichmann is a (retroactively not great) exemplar of the dangers of modernity Horkheimer and Adorno talk about...

I've heard a lot about the film but haven't had a chance to see it yet. Your review makes me really want to search it out now. Thanks!!!

Date: 2016-11-04 10:54 pm (UTC)
batdina: rostopovich playing cello as the Berlin Wall comes down (fiddling while rome burns)
From: [personal profile] batdina
I've been wavering on seeing that film. Thanks for the review. I'll probably wait for netflix or its ilk, which is what I often do. I did read Lipstadt's first book. I don't find her to be a skilled writer. I finished it, but haven't bothered with the one on Eichmann. Arendt is a dissertation topic for me so I'll spare you.

Re KL: I have it in both old fashioned book form, and as a book on tape. I'm about half way into it, and I take major breaks because I need to. But the tape piece has helped me continue reading in ways that have been a surprise to me.

Date: 2016-11-05 12:35 am (UTC)
likeadeuce: (Default)
From: [personal profile] likeadeuce
Re: French, I think Faithful Place is the only one you need to reread before TSP & The Trespasser. They actually would make a pretty good sequence I think.

Date: 2016-11-07 03:21 am (UTC)
likeadeuce: (Default)
From: [personal profile] likeadeuce
Yeah I can understand the conflict! I occasionally think of rereading them all from the start, but it's a lot to take in.

Faithful Place is the only one that has major characters who directly show up in Secret Place and The Trespasser, though. Or I guess going back to The Likeness for Frank, who does show up in TSP.

Profile

kindkit: A late-Victorian futuristic zeppelin. (Default)
kindkit

September 2025

S M T W T F S
 123456
789 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 15th, 2025 01:32 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios