It captures horror through a horrifying everyday life, using the viewer's cinematic memory to reflect the perversion of the Holocaust off-screen. The invisible look at the daily life of a family that has achieved their aspirations as human beings, at the same time dehumanizes them, and the introduction of expressive overhead shots breaks that invisibility to show the most direct reality. The director takes risky decisions that manage to integrate perfectly, and an ending that places us directly in the horror of the denials of the reality that we constantly live.
Quite a frustrating watch. It has this great concept of showing mundane, everyday life juxtaposed with horrifying imagery and sound hanging in the background, many reviewers have referred to it as the banality of evil. It's an inventive way of doing a Holocaust movie, but there's not much else to this. Glazer spreads the concept really thin over the 105 minute runtime, and I started to check out around the halfway mark. It's lacking in structure (no character arcs or big plot developments), every time it threatens to go somewhere it turns out to be an excuse to use the same bag of tricks. The acting and stilted cinematography are both pretty decent, but because they're both meant to serve the understated tone and nothing else, it can't fall back on those aspects. Again, if the tone is enough to carry this experimental film for you, your experience might be different. However, I became increasingly numb towards the repetitive nature, eventually feeling rather indifferent towards the experience (which is the last thing I want with a movie like this).
4.5/10
This is a very weird movie, but not by its content. Hard to tell whether it was worth watching.
Visually it's nice, extremely clean and ordered. But 90% of what happens has absolutely no interest. Family picnic. Wife showing the garden to her mother. Some random conversations. Dictation of work letters. Administrative work. It is very boring, soporific even.
The only interest comes from knowing who those people are and the whole context, and the contrast with the banality of their lives, with the clinical simplicity of administrative decisions.
The whole camp is hidden behind a wall. There is just a background noise, far away, muffled, some cries, some gunshots. And the chimneys smoke.
Among what is banal but extremely shocking by the context:
- The mother complaining she could not get her neighbour's curtains.
- The commander getting a new post, but her wife complaining about losing her garden
- The sales pitch of the new generation crematorium
- Being so happy that the plan is named after him that he calls his wife in the middle of the night
- Ashes used as fertilizer in the garden
The only small moments that acknowledge the violence are:
- the wife, upset, threatening the maid that she could have her incinerated just like that
- the commander having a young girl sent to his office
- in the commanders meeting, the word "extermination" is said once, but all the rest is just logistics and quotas
At the end, a cutscene shows people cleaning the camp, and it takes a while to realize they are cleaning the current day Auschwitz museum, I guess showing the continuity of mundane tasks in all circumstances.
So in the end, this is definitely a work of art that succeeds in what it's trying to achieve. However the boringness is what makes it special, and you can't avoid the fact that it is mostly boring. Not to watch when sleepy or tired.
The biggest strength of this film is the extreme contrast between the story of the Höss family and the story taking place on the other side of the wall. The former gets most of the attention, with the movie playing out like a slice-of-life family drama. But the latter, which exists only in the background, unspoken and off screen for most of the film, is what packs the punch. The writers leverage the knowledge that most audiences already have - we all know what was happening. And that's where the contrast is - watching a man help orchestrate one of humanity's darkest moments without any acknowledgement is disturbingly compelling. That said, this isn't my favorite kind of film, as it feels less focused on building a narrative arc and more focused on the thematic ideas. Just a little too arthouse for my tastes.
What the fuck even happened here :sob:
Without a doubt a technical masterpiece, the sound design rivalling movies like Oppenheimer even, the camera angles, cinematography and the colors all compliment the premise of the movie beautifully.
But here's the thing: as stunning as it looks and as horrifying as it sounds. There is absolutely no direction in terms of plot or character arcs. It's like wandering off in a beautiful landscape without any sense of direction or a map. The acting is solid and it does a good job at exploring the cruelty of war, but without any narrative development. It feels like a repetitive slob making me nod off more than twice.
Beauty Will Take You Only So Far
Thumper said it best in Bambi: “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.”
I try to avoid writing lengthy pieces about material that I do not enjoy. If it wasn’t fun or interesting the first time around, revisiting it for another hour or two while I ruminate on all of the intricacies isn’t exactly an attractive premise; the lack of a statement is usually a statement on its own. However, when that movie is nominated for five Academy Awards (Best Picture among them) and has a hefty momentum going into the season, it’s hard to simply say nothing.
It has long been my mantra that just because you or I don’t like a piece of art, it does not mean that the piece of art is, in and of itself, bad. Not everything is for everyone. A far more meaningful (and interesting) question beyond if you merely liked something, then, is why you did or didn’t enjoy it. It puts the conversation back into criticism and creates an invitation.
All of this being said, I am simply baffled by The Zone of Interest.
Finally receiving a wide release from A24, the premise behind this film is borrowed from a 2014 book of the same title by Martin Amis: a Nazi commander in charge of the Auschwitz concentration camp lives with his family next door to the site of unspeakable horrors and atrocities. The trouble I run into with giving a brief synopsis is that that’s about it – nothing much else happens in this movie. The idea is startling on the surface, but when most of the movie is long takes of mundane day-to-day actions, I find that the startling nature of the idea is somewhat diluted by how stagnant the action is. There is much to be said about the impartiality with which the characters go about their lives even as thousands are being tortured and murdered just yards away – the “banality of evil” conversation is a heavily-trod path in discussions about this movie.
I certainly applaud the conceit of disturbing the audience with telling two different stories, one visual and one audible. Through every scene of the family having conversations about going to school, or getting the groceries, the background noise is permeated by gunshots, shouts, and screams. The characters sometimes even need to raise their voices to hear one another over the charnel sounds coming from Auschwitz, and yet never acknowledge what is going on next door. At night, a warm glow illuminates the rooms of the family home – a glow that comes from the fires bursting out of the chimneys next door. The strongest points here are when we most poignantly experience the contrast between evil and ordinary.
Despite having a really strong concept, this movie’s monotony of plot (or lack thereof) makes it a tough sell for general audiences. It has been polarizing, and will absolutely continue to be no matter the results of the Academy Awards in March. Most of the film is shot at a distance, making us experience the entire thing at a remove. This leads to the characters becoming inaccessible. With nary a plot point in sight, and characters that we can’t connect with, what could have been devastating ends up more provocative in concept than in practice. Though perhaps this indifference is intentional, to mirror the way in which this family treats the horrors just over the garden wall. And as Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel reminds us:
The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.
– U.S. News and World Report (October 27, 1986)
It's boring, that's the problem. The Zone of Interest is completely uninteresting.
Scenery, wardrobe and all of that is very well done, which infuriates me because they could have done such an interesting film if they'd had shown the funcioning of Auschwitz. In that camp there were stories worth telling. Anyways, I regret having spent money in the cinema for this one.
This is a nearly perfect movie, from Hüller's performance, to the editing, to cinematography, production design, and I don't even need to mention sound. I'll admit it almost lost me in the middle, but there are enough memorable scenes throughout to land it firmly on the "Best Films I'll Never Watch Again" list. By keeping the truth of the holocaust just offscreen, Glazer lets the horror of that knowledge grow in the viewer's mind far more effectively than if he had put some horrible image on screen (this is Spielberg's Jaws effect). And it's that constant knowledge, juxtaposed with images of pretty flowers that so effectively creates this "Horror through Complacency," putting the viewer squarely in the shoes of the Höss family. Glazer is pointing the finger at you, at the audience, at the world, demanding "how do you live with yourself!?" He calls into question not only the actions of those involved at Auschwitz, but of humanity's actions across history, into the present. As we say every year at Passover, "If not me, who? If not now, when?"
I like the concept of the mundane acts seen from the family throughout, it enunciates the horror of the situation.
There are some good scenes, i particularly thought the auschwitz museum scene was powerful.
I of course can’t deny that this film is artistically good and moving, but it also felt like I wasted 1hr45 minutes of my time a little bit.
For me it seemed like some things went unanswered and were just confusing, i’ll perhaps look them up to explore the plot more.
It’s a shame as this film sounded right up my street.
There are some films that you just have to let sink in after watching, and "The Zone of Interest" is definitely one of those. Without directly showing the atrocities committed in the concentration camp of Auschwitz, director Jonathan Glazer nevertheless succeeds in conveying the horror of the death camp. The sound design in particular contributes to this, constantly reminding the viewer of what is actually happening behind these walls. The cinematography is also strong, as the apparent idyll on the one hand and the signs of genocide in the background on the other form a stark contrast.
There is no classic plot in a deeper sense, as the main characters hardly undergo any development. And yet, Christian Friedel and Sandra Hüller as camp commander Rudolf Höß and his wife Hedwig are extremely effective in giving a face to the banality of evil. The dialogue is difficult to bear in the face of incredible ignorance and inhumanity. I actually had to take a deep breath a few times.
Even though "The Zone of Interest" is not a horror film, it is clearly one of the most intense horror experiences of the year for me. It is a must-see movie if you want to learn about the Holocaust. This chilling perspective of the perpetrators has certainly never been seen before.
Such a simple and powerful movie, I feel it will cause a lot of wine. Yes, they lived like that, this is not hyperbole, look around, many still do. Then they said that they didn’t know, some even believed it. In this boredom and everyday life, there is all the horror. When the sweet smoke over the ivy fence doesn’t interfere with life. Will there be an Oscar?
This is a film that focuses on the foreground but presented in a way that forces your attention to the background. The visceral details and images of Auschwitz are already imprinted in everyone's mind and compelling the viewer to call upon those on their own instead of recreating them is powerful.
Undoubtedly a piece of art kind of movie with every frame having a special meaning. The cinematography, sets, costumes, score, sound... it's all peak cinema. The only problem is I didn't feel anything watching it. There's no real character arcs or story or even emotion (made me think of Skinamarink at times) it feels empty. The horror happening in the background thing and the scenes with the flowers are a brilliant idea. The sound is disturbing at first, sure, but I got over it after a few scenes and it doesn't have anything else to offer for the remaining runtime that's really worth experiencing except for the brilliant cinematography.
I want my four minutes of black screen at the beginning back!
"The Zone of Interest brilliantly captures the complexities of humanity amidst the horrors of WWII, offering a haunting exploration of love, morality, and the banality of evil. With powerful performances and thought-provoking storytelling, it's a film that lingers in the mind long after the credits roll."
Masterpiece Cinema
The Zone of Interest tells a story that is far more interesting than the pictures it displays on the screen. It is heart-wrenching to watch a family living ordinary lives while such atrocities are taking place in their backyard. The film is great, but not always entertaining.
A very bizarre movie that is nevertheless quite effective in what it wants to show. Seeing this tranquil family life while on the other side of the wall the horrors of a Nazi concentration camp is in full swing is just stunning. Overall very well executed film that shows a different side of what we usually see in films that deal with this topic. Definitely worth a watch.
The kind of film that will haunt you for days. It's scary to think this piece of history didn't happen all that long ago.
Interesting but a little boring
only complaint is the captions were small and white which made it SO difficult to read 30% of the time
The good old times. Boring movie tho. My visit (school) in Dachau in the 90s had a bigger impact than this.
Great movie and a good reminder for those who seem to have forgotten their past.
Bizarre and really unsettling. Not showing anything that happens 'behind the walls' is what makes this movie stand out. It's pacing is very slow and for a large part of the movie we just watch the family going about their day, but the absurdity of precisely that is what made it work for me.
I'm very sad to see people cannot sit through a film such as this. What is not seen is much more powerful than what is.
Must be watched with a home theater audio system. Sound design plays a huge part in this movie. Those who say it's boring or frustrating should watch it properly.:)
The movie is on par with Oppenheimer top two movies of the year. You must see it.
I thought that this movie is, in a way, a metaphor for our wealthy life. For every moment you live in paradise, there's someone suffering in a third-world country.
"The Zone of Interest" is deservedly gaining attention among cinephiles for its indirect approach in addressing the Holocaust. The film limits itself to painting a slice of life of the commandant of the Auschwitz camp, letting only the sound effects allude to the horrors happening beyond the fence. The characters are mostly shown through distant, clinical shots that project an almost voyeuristic allure. Character portrayals are primarily conveyed through distant, clinical shots, creating an almost voyeuristic allure. The film has no plot and is solely made of visual suggestions, perhaps aiming to explore the human capacity (or incapacity) to calibrate their sensitivity and normalize horror through mundane routines. However, despite the initial impact of its presentation, the film ends up feeling dreary and repetitive very quickly, suggesting that a short feature could have been a more suitable medium to convey the message.
It’s really difficult to rate this movie. It’s not a compelling story that really draws you in, with definite stanzas, a setup, the main events, drawing to a climax and then a conclusion. It’s just banal uninteresting life of a standard every day family. The type of family whose neighbours would say “They’re such a kind loving happy family”.
But it IS a great art piece that achieves exactly what it set out to do. That is, to show that the real monsters in this world aren’t Hollywood styled evil masterminds cackling away behind large desks. In the real world the biggest monsters are every day mundane people. The type of family whose neighbours would say “They’re such a kind loving happy family”.
This is the movie which will win the Oscar in the International Film category but I did not find it that amazing. The directing is the best achievement here. The story is so plain, but the movie makes it interesting, and that is because of Jonathan Glazer as the director, who works very well with his editor, but at the end, the story doesn't become more interesting or inventive, or purposeful. Maybe it is original, because of the idea of telling a simple story about a way of living that we might not have seen. The sound is a good achievement: we never see anything of what happens on the other side of the wall but we hear a lot, and that is terrifying.
Please avoid this sh1t, nothing happen.
The horror of being human in no uncertain terms.
I can't understand why the script made the message more complex than necessary.
People that expect a plot-driven film (which is going to be a lot because of the acclaim and award nominations it's getting) are going to be sorely disappointed. This is slow cinema. It's about how nazis weren't just monsters but family people.
We see so much hatred today, you wonder how these far right social media personalities and politicians can find someone who would form a family with them and keep going about their lives.
While the cinematography is well done and the incredible sound design is haunting, this didn’t move the needle for me. Out of the 10 Oscar nominees for best picture, I’d place this last. Just felt like I was an observer of awful people, while terrible things are happening offscreen.
I am both elated and grounded by this movie. It has such a clever way of representing a mundane, human life with the repulsive and mortifying horror of war and concentration camps. My disappointment only comes because there doesn't feel like a payoff throughout the film. It's a fraction of time during a horrific period in history, but a time when the war was ongoing, therefore no complex story arcs or "big bang" ending. Moreover, it's representation of banality is what it delivers throughout. The night scenes, the credits and the stark camera angles are what really draws its audience. Great movie, however I feel it's been done better before.
What an unreal double bill this and 'Samsara' was! Two humanizing art experiments that I got to witness with packed audiences.
Not going to read any reviews for this cos I just know they're all gonna be pretentious as fuck lol.
Brilliant film though.
And I'm praying Mica releases the score just so I can hear that end credits track again. She might have outdone herself with that one.
Before watching I had heard enough about this film and its approach that I expected it would be exploring the nature of evil by subtly juxtaposing the everyday life of Auschwitz's camp commandant with the off-screen horrors he was perpetrating. I was thrown off-guard by a film that was starker and more black and white than I expected.
One of the things that I find most unsettling about people who do monstrous things is the idea (which thankfully I have no direct experience of!) that evil people can "compartmentalize" themselves and that in other contexts they can exhibit charming or even loving/lovable behaviour, and that others can show an uncanny ability to fail to see terrible deeds going on around them.
In this film, however, the evil being perpetrated - even if 'just off screen' - is almost continuously present, either audibly or through very direct, un-coded discussion of what was being done by all the characters there. Moreover, there is very little effort made to show the commandant and his wife as anything but emotionally stunted, profoundly selfish people, so much of the tension I expected between the way they behaved on the "two sides of the wall" was absent.
All of this said, as I have reflected on it, I may be being unfair to the film simply because it was not what I expected - something approaching a fictionalized near-documentary. Perhaps it might be better seen as more of a morality tale or fable, drawing on real and ghastly facts. Certainly, it was visually striking and inventive, it did have some genuinely unsettling moments (particularly involving the moral corruption of the commandant's children). Its novel approach to the subject matter may be more effective for some than a more straightforward depiction would be. I wouldn't want my own impression to put anyone off going to see it and to judge for themselves.
Review by JCVIP 4BlockedParent2024-02-07T07:36:18Z
A very interesting portrayal of the banality of evil. The horror is not in what’s shown, but what isn’t. The compartmentalization, the routine. While gunshots and screams echo and smoke billows, they have their idyllic little life, better than they dreamed. Anything that brings too much attention to the other side of their life is an intrusion, an annoyance, like the mother who can’t stand the flames. The droning score and the bright colors underscore this, banging at the door to be let in and acknowledged and shut out by this family. Most striking of these was Rudolf under a blindingly white sky while a soundscape of death paints the picture, and a close up of the flowers of their happy garden while the ashes of the people they’ve murdered rest in the soil.
The revulsion the film inspires with Rudolf sharing how the only thing he could think about at a party was the logistics of how to gas them all, as if it’s a fun thought experiment and anecdote, is impressive. As is Hedwig’s entitlement towards her idea of a perfect life and her lashing out at the Jewish servants when it’s threatened. Or the eldest son playing a cruel trick on his younger brother, licking him in a greenhouse door and imitating a gas chamber.
It’s all so innocuous to them. Just background noise of their life. The repetition is as droning as the score, leaving you desperate to escape this mindset and terrified of the ways that we too suffer from it.