Excellent. I can’t help to wonder how the film would have landed if I went into it completely blind, with no idea what the film was about. I watched it Amazon, so it had yellow descriptive subtitles at the top of the screen along with the English subtitles at the bottom. Like (gunshot) or (scream) If I turned them off and watched it blind, I wonder how many distant gunshots would it have taken before I realized that they were gunshots. Definitely, will watch it again.

I think I need to watch this again with headphones. My hearing is fucked.

I really enjoyed it, but I've liked all of Jonathan Glazer's films. He has that rare talent of getting images/scenes to stay in your head long after it's over - the burglary in Sexy Beast, the long-tracking shot of the jogger at the start of Birth, the ending scene in the woods from Under the Skin. For The Zone of Interest, I keep thinking of the final scene on the stairwell.
Has anyone read the Martin Amis novel? I heard that this is very loosely based on it.

The review in the New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-f ... holokitsch

“If this sounds borderline hilarious, it should, because the movie is an extreme form of Holokitsch; it’s this year’s “Jojo Rabbit.” What??

Finally got a chance to watch this in full, last night.

The fact that some folks don't get the conceit is kind of depressing. I feel like I need people's cell phone numbers so I can call them and say "THE HOUSE IS A METAPHOR, FFS."

There is so much implied violence, too. Yes, there's screaming and gunshots off-camera, but there's also the bullying of the youngest boy by his older brother, the way Hedwig treats the help, the infidelity.

The underground passage from Hoss' office to the House? Another massive hint at the metaphor.

I dunno, man, maybe we live in a society where our brains have been Marvel-ized into mush. That alone should concern us for the very reason this film is important.

atomjackfuser wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 12:02 pm The review in the New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-f ... holokitsch

“If this sounds borderline hilarious, it should, because the movie is an extreme form of Holokitsch; it’s this year’s “Jojo Rabbit.” What??

"The movie’s prime drama is the conflict between professional life and family happiness.

FFS, this guy gets paid to write about his thoughts.

In contrast with the above, I thought this was a good read. I think about the “depiction as dehumanization” thing quite a bit: https://lwlies.com/articles/zone-of-int ... -genocide/

pldms wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:23 pm Count me in the 'it's brilliant' camp, but I can appreciate it may do nothing for some people. I was very uncomfortable when I left the cinema, but it's not an obviously horrific film (in the UK its rating would allow kids to see it), although the family are subtley shown to be quite disturbed. It's a bit like the The White Ribbon I suppose.

dontfeartheringo wrote: I read about 1/3 of a really arch and academic Bad Review on substack or some shit, last week.

The few negative reviews I've seen have been disappointingly poor quality. Enjoy, for example, this New York Times review which seems to object to ... it being well made? Not showing Höss goose stepping over corpses?

“These conventions can create a sense of intellectual distance and serve as a critique, or that’s the idea. They also announce (fairly or not) a filmmaker’s aesthetic bona fides, seriousness, sophistication and familiarity with a comparatively rarefied cinematic tradition. They signal that the film you’re watching is different from popular ones made for a mass audience. These conventions are markers of distinction, of quality, which flatter filmmakers and viewers alike, and which finally seem to me to be the biggest point of this vacuous movie.”

Barfffff…

At this point it seems like the lady doth protest too much, honestly.

A film that critiques middle class disinterest in the horrors happening just on the other side of the wall (how much more literally can we be shown this? Heddy's own mother asks "And the camp's just on the other side of that wall?") and disconnection from what's being done in our names can't be so obtuse that all of these Well Educated people are missing the point. I mean, can it?

I have had the great luck of having listened to all of the first two seasons of the Blowback podcast and then reading "A Brief History of Seven Killings" back to back to back, and the NY Times has really played its role in being the mouthpiece for the CIA specifically and neoliberalism in general for about 75 years.

Am I just so far gone now that I see people intentionally missing the point as confirmation of my bias? Or is everyone just so invested in their roles in the media class that they're never going to get a concept that their salary depends on their not understanding?

Is our critique of history going to be left in the hands of people who object to fascism on aesthetic grounds? Orange Man Bad, but leave the cages on the border? All that? Maybe history would have been different if we could have had David Simon call Hitler a "perfectly corpulent fart stain" or something? I dunno, man. Liberals.

brephophagist wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:21 pm In contrast with the above, I thought this was a good read. I think about the “depiction as dehumanization” thing quite a bit: https://lwlies.com/articles/zone-of-int ... -genocide/

"The Zone of Interest is executing a concept. Its imagery is so metaphorical that the film has in turn been likened to an art installation. But while this cool intellectualism effectively conveys its theme, banality is not the only marking of a Nazi. There is also sadism. Unlike his family, Höss was not detached. He inflicted daily cruelty upon his prisoners, striking with the fanatical hand of hatred. In a closely cropped shot, the empty, victimless sky behind Höss as he barks at the prisoners is deliberate."

Finally.