documentaries are supposed to be objective. - Nuit et brouillard Discussion

[–] cdss 15 years ago

I think the makers had every right to “judge” what is arguably the worst abuse of humanity in history. Or are you one of those people who deny the Holocaust took place?

How anyone can write such a crass and jejune comment as the one above is quite beyond me.

reply

[–] godfather17 15 years ago

i most definatly do believe in the holocaust and it was horrible, but unlike you, i believe thay documentaries should be objective. they should not judge the subjects, no matter how they feel about them.

reply

[–] cdss 15 years ago

I would regard it as a philosophical impossibility for any documentary to be impartial irregardless of the subject matter and even more so in the case of “Night and Fog” especially as the the writer, Jean Cayrol, was an inmate of the camps. This film was made a scant ten years after the liberation of the death camps so I regard the film as a cathartic expression of a terrible time and, as such, it makes for an even more powerful message.

If it takes a little bias on the part of the filmmakers to get that message across, so be it. It detracts not one whit from the brutal truth of the atrocities committed.

=:~)

reply

[–] deuchler 14 years ago

Just where is it written that "documentaries are supposed to be objective"? They are nonfiction. But the filmmaker can slant the truth in any direction without lying or distortion. Film is an art form, not testimony under oath.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"Documentaries should be objective. They should not judge the subjects".

Nuit Et Brouillard judged its subjects objectively.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] cesareoselenio 15 years ago

They have the right to judge but they dont have the right to lie. Industrial planified extermination of jews existed but certain things of the film are mostly based in myth

reply

[–] cesareoselenio 15 years ago

I agree, this movie exagerates certain things and sometimes is based in myths like "...with they bodies they made soap". It is today well known that it is not true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_made_from_human_corpses

reply

[–] koolkidz-1 14 years ago

From the wikipedia link YOU provided:

"Testimony was given both by Nazis and by British prisoners of war about the development of an industrial process for producing soap from human bodies, the production of such soap on a small-scale basis, and the actual use of this soap by Nazi personnel at the Danzig Anatomic Institute."

reply

[–] ObscureAuteur 10 years ago

That ultimately soap was not made from the dead at the camps on a large scale does nothing to redeem the Nazis in any way. It was only for reasons of practicality and cost after an earnest attempt was made that it was not done. Soap making was only found wanting not wrong.

CB

Good Times, Noodle Salad

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 12 years ago

Even IF the soap making was an error or a rumor exaggerated (maybe they just tried and couldn't), do you think it diminishes the horrors presented that are true? So they didn't make soap, just fertilizer and sweaters and furniture. Wow, that changes everything!

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] simsalabimson 15 years ago

You must have seen a different film. Try again.

reply

[–] Local Hero 15 years ago

documentaries are supposed to be objective

So, you start with this premise, a staggeringly naive and inaccurate definition of the documentary genre. This is the kind of assertion that can be made only by those who have not seen many documentaries, certainly not any of the most powerful, critically acclaimed documentaries. Saying "Documentaries are supposed to be objective" is like saying "Art is supposed to convey pleasant, pretty things": it is cultural naivete and philistinism raised to a dangerous level.

Then you demonstrate the full danger of such a naive assumption by making the following statement:

this one sure judges people and lays on the melodrama

This statement (which, judging by your follow-up comment to another poster, actually seems to have been made in earnest), when applied to this harrowing film about the Nazi HOLOCAUST, the most dramatic and horrific event in modern human history, is the most idiotic and absurd utterance I have read on the internet in years. I hope for your sake that you are a young adolescent and that this is merely the shameful and ignorant musing of someone who still has every chance to mature intellectually and morally.

reply

[–] BillieDove 15 years ago

Documentaries are supposed to be objective? Says who? That leaves out some of the the biggest stars and the most mainstream films.

We're the heirs to the glimmering world.

reply

[–] daph60-1 14 years ago

you've got be kidding - are you one of those idiots who believes the Holocaust never happened? An idiot in any event - those were real people in those scenes of all those emaciated bodies being thrown into pits. How could anybody with any humanity not judge that?

reply

[–] AssetsonFire 14 years ago

According to whom? It'd impossible for a documentary to be objective. This film doesn't pretend to be objective, as you're naively presuming it should be. This is a humanist film.

reply

[–] robertodelamar 14 years ago

Such nonsense as the lead thread should be simply ignored for what it is.
No need to react people.

My great grandfather was killed in Treblinka, he is not here to judge.
But I will judge for him.

The music in this movie was completely inappropriate.
It is better not to have any music at all rather than what they used.

The BBC 2005 DVD series AUSCHWITZ is one the most authoritative series on the Holocaust to date (after "The Shoah").

reply