MovieChat Forums > The Grey Zone (2001) Discussion > I have the book..

I have the book..

posted 12 years ago by anna_goddess71
4 replies | jump to latest

I have the book this movie is based on. It's an amazing read. This film is based on a very small part of the book. A lot of it reads like a medical procedural text with him detailing the 'work' he had to do dissecting twins etc and his interactions with Mengele.

[–] ricky1319 12 years ago

Is the book the same name as the movie? I just finished reading a book called Auschwitz: Eyewitness...I thought it was a very good book. It is also about a guy who survived the camp and worked in the crematoriums..

[–] mycroftson 12 years ago

that is a much better book, as Mueller was an eyewitness and wrote about what he saw.

The book that the film is based on, written by Dr. Nyiszli was full of secondhand information.

[–] naples-884-346409 8 years ago

The book that the film is based on, written by Dr. Nyiszli was full of secondhand information.

That's not true.

Nyiszli's book is his account of what he saw in Auschwitz.

He also was a witness in trials.

It's true however, that there are mistakes in his book, because he wrote
it quickly after the war and it was published in 1946.

At that time he didn't know the real numbers.
And his memory is sometimes not 100% accurate concerning details.

But most of it is true and valid,
because it fits many other accounts.

Even Filip Mueller, the Sonderkommando whose book you recommanded,
said about Nyiszli that he was "an outstanding man".
And that Nyiszli's book contained some errors.

But those errors make it even more believable for me,
because he couldn't have known everything in 1946.
And he couldn't have had total recall.

All in all Nyiszli's book is an important account of what happened.
But it should be read in a new edition with notes by a historian,
like the Penguin one.

Prof.Gideon Greif did recommand the book, too.

[–] mycroftson 8 years ago

fair enough.

I do not say that it is only second hand information. Just that there is much there that he did not witness, but that people told him.

I stand by what i said and maintain that the proof is in his text. This does not prevent him from being 'an outstanding man'. But it also accounts for the errors.