MovieChat Forums > The Grey Zone (2001) Discussion > What do you think of the choices they ma...

What do you think of the choices they make?

posted 21 years ago by AndytheDirector
17 replies | jump to latest

This is a very tough thought for me and I ama interested in what others think: were they right to steal away an extra four months of life so they could help destroy the crematoriums, or were they wrong to lie to people so they could be killed mindlessly? And what of Arquette's character beating the man to death?

My thoughts: They were able to save uncountable people. They stopped operations for a few days at least, stealing enough time to save people, even perhaps delaying time just enough so they would make it to the point that the war ended. Also, there is a story in "Shoah", the film, which I read where a man was a barber. He even had to cut his wife's hair. At one point he gave up and walked in to the chamber, but someone inside who was going to die forced him out, saying he must live to tell what happened and what was done. This is aknowledged in the film when they say that the guards wouldn't let them live since they knew so much. However, they helped murder thousands and wore their remains on them all the rest of their days. What is right is hard to say.

On the beating murder: I think he had reached insanity, if just temporary, so while he was not right or justified, I can understand what happened to him. I think he was trying to vindicate himself by saving the girl.

Overall, an amazing and heartbreaking film. Never lets anything like this or even remotely resembling this happen again.

[–] chimpanzee72 20 years ago

I don't think I could have done what they did. I would have attacked one of the nazi guards and they would have been forced to shoot me. I can understand them having hope that the war would end and they would be freed before they died.

[–] Verbal-17 20 years ago

It's easy to say that, since you've never been in that situation. I too would like to think that I would fight back rather than do what these characters do, but like Arquette's character says, you just never know what you would do to save your own life until you're forced to make a choice like that.

Think about the millions of people all over the world who endure genocide and opression every day; they vastly outnumber their opressors and could overthrow them anytime they want. But to do so would risk their own lives and thus they make the same choice the characters in this movie make: they allow suffering and murder to continue in order to save themselves. I think that ultimately, this is what Tim Blake Nelson's story is all about (although I could be dragging my own interpretations into it).

"Now get your patchouli stink out of my store!"

[–] zirbes 20 years ago

What I don't understand is the apathy. I mean, I think that I would try to do something if somebody killed someone next to me and I knew I would be the next. In the movie at least three executions were shown and only once a person tried to do something, wich was to escape.

The final scene was the most impressive one. Everybody lying down, waiting to be shot. Why not try to do something???? Anything would give them a better chance to survive than doing nothing.

Zirbes

[–] Xardas 20 years ago

A better chance to survive? Are you kidding? They were all already dead, it was just a matter of time.

People shouldn't try to 'understand' this film, only accept it as it is, since there's NO WAY any of us can put in the position of any of the persons involved in The Holocaust. Sure, 'I would've done this, I would've done that' That's BS.

[–] mr_interlocutor 20 years ago

Probably the movie fails in its attempt to understand and portray the mindset of the Sonderkommando (indeed, to understand it fully might lead to madness); they nonetheless existed and many more Sonderkommando waited for execution without fighting back to any degree before the uprising of October 10, 1944 and the burning of Crematorium IV. One must take into account the fact that they weren't offered the position while relaxing on their sofas at home, but arrived there only after months and years of starvation, sickness and brutality in the ghettos and then the cattle-car transports to lager. Who can guess what s/he might do under those circumstances? And then after several weeks of oneself assisting in the disposal of family, friends, and townsmen, might one not come to be numb with regard to death? That the Hungarian Jews were the rebels of Auschwitz then makes some sense, for the Jews of Hungary were not under direct Nazi rule until much later, hence a shorter time, than the Jews of Poland, Russia and other countries.

To argue that "anything would give them a better chance to survive than doing nothing" does at least indicate that the seed of collaboration is planted within many more of us than one might imagine from the comfort of the couch or movie theater seat...

[–] pickled_pickles_7337 20 years ago

They didn't stop operations for any amount of time, well except for the few hours it took for them to shoot and load up the bodies. If you read the blurbs at the end of the movie there was more than one creamatorium, and they only disposed of half the ovens that were at the camp with their uprising. I think what they did was wrong but it was also right. They were wrong in assisting in the termination of their people, but they were right in making a stand and trying to save people in the future. Based on my opinion on what i gathered from the movie if they could have done the uprising sooner they would have, but it took them the extra four months to orchestrate the uprising and to get the guns and the gun powder for the explosions. So while countless people died by thier hands you also have to think of the ones that were saved. Because once they held thier uprising and destroyed the ovens, the destroyed ovens were never repaired. Therefore cutting out the amount of people they could burn in a day and hopefully cutting down the number of people were gassed.

Now onto the guy beating the other up over the watch... Everyone has seen a prison movie or a show about life in prison (like OZ for example) now we all know what goes on there. If you have something that someone else wants you go after it. Arquette wanted the watch so he took it. It doesnt matter if you are the same as others when you are in a prison, it is everyone fend for themselves. He also got the watch to help them with the uprising although i am not exactly sure what they needed it for because they were used to living without time anyway, and they going by when the shifts changed and the first explosion was made....

I think when he saved the gurl it wasnt to redeem himself for killing the man, but rather because he didnt think they would keep her alive, he probably figured they would put her out of her misery before they were made ot burn her corpse... unless of course he was the one arguing against killing her once they got her back to the barracks or where ever it was they took her (as you can tell i only had my eye half on the movie at this point, i was more listening)

overall i would have to say they did an extrodinary job on this movie, considering it is hard to impress people with movies these days without alot of nudity, explosions and sex... This movie was done tastefully, and i would even recommend it to people i know who are overly obsessed with the war.

[–] dorylus 20 years ago

I think their choice was despicable- some justify it with the rebellion, but they proceeded with that only when they thought they were going to be killed- they helped kill more people than they saved- and it woud not have been so easy to kill the people if not for their help- it's strange, the new "crew" would help kill off the "old" crew so there was no doubt really what they were in for, so I don't think they can even claim the "Live to tell" line because they knew there was no chance of that, anyway- and maybe there would have been alot more in the "camp" who could live and tell if they had not agreed to do their jobs so efficiently- in fact, I don't think many of these did "live to tell"- I only know of one- Mueller- and it's not like they were the only ones who knew- many in the camps knew what was going on and what "selection" meant- one survivor even said they posted someone to tell the people coming in that they were going to be gassed and they didn't believe it- some even going up to the SS and saying, "We're being told we are going to be gassed- is that true?"- but I'm sure the presence of the jewish crew helped many go further- I might change my mind on this in the future- but at the moment, I don't think their choice of joining the crew can be justified.

[–] ewusia_gapusia 20 years ago

How can you even try to to judge those people? That is why I like the movie (though I found it to be a bit too smoot around the edges) - it doesn't pass judgement on the people who joined the Sonderkommandos, just gives an account of their actions. I can't understand how people can just sit in their comfortable homes and say things like "I'd never do that" - how the hell do you know what you'd do? No one really knows until faced with the problem and many people do exactly the opposite of what they'd thought...
I mean it's like one of the guys says - He doesn't want to be alive after all of this ends because he won't be able to live with his own choice. I'm pretty that before he got there he did not think that he'd be cremating his fellow Jews...

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, dum dum dum da-dee...

[–] VVirgo 19 years ago

It is fairly easy to sit back and judge without having the experience of being at Auschwitz. I think that the writing of Charlotte Delbo, who is an Auschwitz survivor, gives the best insight into how being in Auschwitz is beyond description, and how the place defies all logic and common sense. She says that people figure that the body may be broken, but the mind and spirit can still be free. However, the opposite is true when you are starving and dying of thirst. Issues of morality that are pondered by people sitting in front of computers, with food and drink on hand, dont do justice to the realities of the experience.

If you want insight into whether telling people what is about to come as they are prepared for the gas chambers I recommend watching Shoah. In that movie a barber who was at Treblinka describes having to cut the hair of family and friends prior to them entering into the gas chambers.

The issue of "saving lives" also takes on an entirely new meaning in places like Auschwitz. After Hoess, the first commandant of the camp, was promoted a new person took charge. Things got a bit better for the inmates, and they were able to stay alive at a higher rate. However, the same numbers of people were being shipped there for extermination, and the number of places for live prisoners in the camp did not increase. So the fact that conditions were better simply meant that other people died- which is a paradox that is shown in the Grey Zone in scenes where the doctor tries to save his own family. The only way to disrupt the genocidal machine was to destroy the instruments of killing, and so the uprising ultimately saved quite a few lives. As a side note, this last point is the reason why there is still debate to this day about whether the allies should have bombed Auschwitz.

[–] jewelz519 19 years ago

Firstly, let me just say that this was one of the best films I have seen. My Great Aunt survived the holocaust...she was only 5 years old, and she is still alive today. Her brother was only 16, and he and my aunt survived. They were in Belgium, where the camps were bad, but were not death camps like Auschwitz/Birkenau or Belzec or Tremblinka...thank g-d.
I have heard every story, seen so many films, documentaries, read so many books...this film showed what others didnt...the INNER WORKINGS...the stories i havnt seen in other films, but heard from my family. It was a shocking film, that was marvelously casted...I was a bit unsure about David Arquette, at first, but then saw the film and was really impressed by his performance. His choices were so strong, and right on the money...the insanity, the guilt that was written all over his body, it all showed, so powerfully. I was also very much impressed by David Chandler's performance...he brought to the character such an undertone of GUILT and so much darkness and pain...he looked, moved, spoke in such exaustion and brilliance...i was also very much moved by Kamelia Grigorova's portrayal of the young girl who survived the gas chambers...i dont remember her ever saying one word, but her choices were so strong...and at the end when she runs away, she runs with such fear, and though you cant see her face, it seems as though she was just crying, her body was crying...BRILLIANT FILM! BRAVO!

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mr_interlocutor 19 years ago

What do you mean by saying that "this film showed what the others [presumably the films, documentaries, and books you mention just prior] didn't... the INNER WORKINGS"? The mechanics of the destruction are there to be studied in innumerable accounts, but when you come right down to it, what is the value of showing them on a screen, aside from sating the appetite for a kind of holocaust money shot and providing fodder for obsessive deniers, who will doubtless object that David Arquette was never in katzet? Please read Ohad Landesman's article on Night and Fog (http://www.reverseshot.com/spring04/night/html), in which he cites Claude Lanzmann on the idea of showing "the inner workings" and Godard on the tracking shot as a question of morality and reconsider your fascination with this movie which, by naively attempting to transmit the intransmissable, does more to obscure history than to illuminate it and has you crying "BRAVO" in response to the depiction of genocide.

"Not understanding has been my iron law." -- Claude Lanzmann.

[–] Trampyre 19 years ago

I say "Bravo" too...
While I've had the DVD for several months and didn't watch it, I just finished watching the PBS mini-series on "Auschwitz", and what amazed me was having watched this documentary, everything that happened in THE GREY ZONE made perfect sense- Tim Blake Nelson did a superb job of capturing the experience. What I found interesting is that despite the outstanding work from all the performers, I DID concentrate on the horror of the surroundings, rather than the individual characters themselves...so for me, in a way, this played like a "fictional" documentary along the lines of what I'd seen on PBS.
This is NOT a movie to be entertained by- it is NECESSARY that EVERYONE experience it...to know what has been done in the past, and might be attempted in the future. This horror must force us to always be on our guard, and to take a stand. That THE GREY ZONE reinforces in me how I must live my life makes it one damn powerful motion picture!

[–] mr_interlocutor 19 years ago

"everything that happened in THE GREY ZONE made perfect sense"

that's precisely my problem with the movie -- if it's supposed to communicate what happened during the destruction, then how can it make perfect sense? if men like Primo Levi and Jean Amery could not ultimately come to terms with what had happened to them, how is it the place of someone like Tim Blake Nelson to come along and twist their words into a poetic "whole" that people can swallow like a pill and say that at last they understand the holocaust? i still maintain that the movie has placed a tragically mistaken emphasis on externals (scale models of kz birkenau, the grim details of operating ovens) to cover up the fact that it really has nothing to say. the exact mechanics of destruction will never be precisely the same -- look at your statement that the movie will show us what "might be attempted in the future". what do you mean "might be attempted in the future"? it's being done successfully in darfour today. different color skins, different m.o., same old genocide. so who's on their guard against that? who's taking the stand? and for god's sake, what lessons from the lager can be applied to everyday life, i'm still waiting to hear.

[–] antonia_stefanova 19 years ago

chak pa brilianten film ne e. malko preuvelichavash!

[–] barbarafriedman 19 years ago

It is hard to believe that the word choice describes what these individuals experienced.
Being faced with certain death, who would not look for any avenue of survival?
Certainly, young men and women were desperate to try to go on.
Those who had families were desperate to believe they would be reunited with their loved ones.
It is unimaginable to understand what their choice was.
What is the most unimaginable is the reality that human beings can create an environment that reduces thier fellow man to beast.
I do not believe that I question their choice, I question how man and society allowed this to happen.

[–] bzb2001 18 years ago

Hope. I think everything was done out of hope. I agree with some of the arguments made about the story being too cut and dry, but that is assuming the movie is about understanding The Holocaust, which it is not. Maybe if I stay still I will disappear or they will run out of bullets or they'll just let me go because I'm being so good. These are all irrational thoughts, but I think that is why people just sat there waiting to be shot. It was inevitable, but they probably weren't even thinking about that at the time.

As for the killing of the man with the watch, I think it was a sort of emotional self defense. This guy was saying how terrible he was for being a Jew helping the Nazi's kill people, this is something he has probably buried deep down and lashed out when it was presented to him in such a harsh fashion.

The idea to destroy crematoria was probably after a biological instinct to survive. Perhaps it was a way to relieve a little about what they are doing. The end justifying the means. I would hope to not do what they did, but I have a feeling I would and that most of us would. Maybe they will let us go, maybe they'll keep us on instead of killing us. Maybe the war will end and the Russians will save us, etc.