As offensive as the saying 'Polish concentration camps' - Essential Killing (2010) Discussion

[–] mencken22 13 years ago

I found it neither particularly antiAmerican or antiPolish or proTaliban for that matter. The Americans were shown, fairly dispassionately, doing what we all know happens. Waterboarding and interrogation is not a surprise at this point even if not often depicted. If he wanted to be truly damning of the Americans he could have done so staying well within the bounds of what is commonly known by included Abu Garib methods such as naked pyramids, electrodes attached to prisoners genitals, dog attacks, extended stress positions or much more extensive beatings. It was pretty tame. He got yelled at, briefly waterboarded and hit once.

It is notable, if factual, that he "is then transferred to some unknown camp or transit point in god of all places Poland" as there were exactly such transit points there:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006586
and from the hardly liberal Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/22/polish-probe-urged-of- cia-black-site-torture/

Essential Killing and Four Nights with Anna are both good, solid and artistically worthy films but do not look to be making political statements or historical documents. By trying to diminish Polish acquiescence, your post reads as having more of a political agenda than Mr. Skolimowski's film. If not for the few words of Polish it could be taken for anywhere in Eastern Europe.

I do agree that saying 'Polish concentration camps' rather than 'German concentration camps in Poland' is ignorant, wrong and offensive but I don't see that as equal to this film. No one is going to mistake it for trying to be a true story and the only offense it commits is shining a light on some issues that some would prefer to keep in the dark.

I also agree on both Dersu Uzala and The Human Condition being great films.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sclerozo 13 years ago

I found it neither particularly antiAmerican or antiPolish or proTaliban for that matter. The Americans were shown, fairly dispassionately, doing what we all know happens. Waterboarding and interrogation is not a surprise at this point even if not often depicted. If he wanted to be truly damning of the Americans he could have done so staying well within the bounds of what is commonly known by included Abu Garib methods such as naked pyramids, electrodes attached to prisoners genitals, dog attacks, extended stress positions or much more extensive beatings. It was pretty tame. He got yelled at, briefly waterboarded and hit once.

It is notable, if factual, that he "is then transferred to some unknown camp or transit point in god of all places Poland" as there were exactly such transit points there:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006586
and from the hardly liberal Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/22/polish-probe-urged-of- cia-black-site-torture/

Clearly he was captured by the Americans, interrogated and tortured and yes Skolimowski and his dear wife as screenwriters did not go into further details. No doubt he did kill American soldiers who were portrayed as plainly "stupid".

He was transferred by air to some northern winter-land destination for no apparently obvious reason. The fact that he disembarked and was being transported by truck indicates that this was the likely destination, surely not for a night at a Holiday Inn.

The casual viewer will in all likelihood conclude that it was some eastern country; however, anyone familiar with the Polish language will know right away where this is.

I don't buy for a minute, the dire need for transporting Talibanis and any other insurgents to that destination mentioned in a magazine. What would they do there? Cut trees? Undergo clandestine medical experiments? Or is it some form of a Gulag Concentration Camp for "insurgents"?

Skolimowski was out of film making for about 17 years and he should have stayed out and any comparison to the likes of Polanski and Wajda is demeaning to them ... oh and there was also Kieslowski a genius who left us much too early, just imagine what movies he could have made.

I suggest that Skolimowski collaborate with his wife on a new movie and title it "Seven Days with a Goat".

reply

[–] mencken22 13 years ago

I'm not really sure what's you're getting at or how this makes it "as offensive as the saying 'Polish concentration camps'".

Clearly he was captured by the Americans, interrogated and tortured and yes Skolimowski and his dear wife as screenwriters did not go into further details. No doubt he did kill American soldiers who were portrayed as plainly "stupid".

Yes. Are all Americans geniuses and are they so portrayed even in American films? It could have been far worse if that was the director's agenda. That the Americans in it are not particularly sympathetic does not automatically make the movie propaganda by extension. We are mostly seeing the situations through the eyes of 'the enemy' in this film but it is not entirely sympathetic to him either.

He was transferred by air to some northern winter-land destination for no apparently obvious reason. The fact that he disembarked and was being transported by truck indicates that this was the likely destination, surely not for a night at a Holiday Inn.

As with almost every aspect in this film, we don't know. It is another point of speculation or interpretation (it is a movie...) It could be a holding facility near the airfield or it could be a point of destination as these 'enhanced interrogations' were carried out not in the US. Closest that we know of being Guantanamo.

The casual viewer will in all likelihood conclude that it was some eastern country; however, anyone familiar with the Polish language will know right away where this is.

I don't buy for a minute, the dire need for transporting Talibanis and any other insurgents to that destination mentioned in a magazine. What would they do there? Cut trees? Undergo clandestine medical experiments? Or is it some form of a Gulag Concentration Camp for "insurgents"?

You may or may not "buy" it but such facilities did (past tense) exist in Poland and elsewhere. This has been all but an open secret for years and last year the Polish Government itself released official flight records documenting a pattern of collaboration with the CIA relating to the operation of a CIA black site close to Szymany Airport, very near Skolimowski's home. Is this what you find so offensive?

Also as the other poster pointed out, there was no direct evidence of him being Taliban and the way the intro was set up it was hard to know if he was even a militant.

Ultimately it looks like Skolimowski was just looking for a reasonably plausible way to get his character into a completely alien environment. This is no bigger a plot stretch than in any typical action movie.

Skolimowski was out of film making for about 17 years and he should have stayed out and any comparison to the likes of Polanski and Wajda is demeaning to them ... oh and there was also Kieslowski a genius who left us much too early, just imagine what movies he could have made.

Yes on Kieslowski. Wajda has been very positive about this movie http://www.se.pl/multimedia/video/show/2241/andrzej-wajda/ Skolimowski has said this was intended as a "pure fantasy" and he was not trying to tell a true story as Wajda did with Katyn.

I normally keep quite on these forums but I still find equating this movie with being "as offensive as the saying 'Polish concentration camps'" to be pure hyperbole.

reply

[–] sclerozo 13 years ago

You may or may not "buy" it but such facilities did (past tense) exist in Poland and elsewhere. This has been all but an open secret for years and last year the Polish Government itself released official flight records documenting a pattern of collaboration with the CIA relating to the operation of a CIA black site close to Szymany Airport, very near Skolimowski's home. Is this what you find so offensive?

Also as the other poster pointed out, there was no direct evidence of him being Taliban and the way the intro was set up it was hard to know if he was even a militant.

Ultimately it looks like Skolimowski was just looking for a reasonably plausible way to get his character into a completely alien environment. This is no bigger a plot stretch than in any typical action movie.

There certainly are some left wing-nut write-ups about a facility for "high-value" insurgents in Szymanow and Lithuania ... guess that would make it a torture base ... camp.

Perhaps the US was sending high-value Talibanis for special interrogation at these camps. Certainly that would dispel any doubts about Mohammed here not being a Talibani and perhaps a high-value one as that?

Again, the average Americani viewer will likely not ever know or figure out that the country where Mohammed was flown to was in fact Poland ... yet Skolimowski could have left the destination a total mystery place if he wanted BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO .

reply

[–] mencken22 13 years ago

There certainly are some left wing-nut write-ups about a facility for "high-value" insurgents in Szymanow and Lithuania ... guess that would make it a torture base ... camp.

Seems to be more than fringe nut-job conspiracy theories that some sort of facilities functioned at those sites but it, like so much in the film, is left to speculation as to what actually took place.

Perhaps the US was sending high-value Talibanis for special interrogation at these camps. Certainly that would dispel any doubts about Mohammed here not being a Talibani and perhaps a high-value one as that?

There was no doubt that Mohammad had done something when he was aprehended and was not a total innocent regardless of what his life was before that moment. It looked like he was suspected or accused of something larger given the photograph in the interrogation.

Again, the average Americani viewer will likely not ever know or figure out that the country where Mohammed was flown to was in fact Poland ... yet Skolimowski could have left the destination a total mystery place if he wanted to.

That's true.

reply

[–] netrek 13 years ago

You think what happened at Abu Garib was hardcore torture? B*ITCH PLEASE! Look what the Jihadists due to prisoners, they don't subject them to humiliation they CUT OFF THEIR HEADS! Now that is real torture. Not to mention the other nasty things they do. What happened at Abu Garib was enhanced interrogation not torture. You may not like it, but it produced valuable intel that led to capturing/killing very nasty people who would have killed many innocent people. Your moral calculus is very naive.

><> <><

reply

[–] mencken22 13 years ago

You think what happened at Abu Garib was hardcore torture?"

What I wrote was that what was shown was "well within the bounds of what is commonly known by included Abu Garib methods such as naked pyramids, electrodes attached to prisoners genitals, dog attacks, extended stress positions or much more extensive beatings. It was pretty tame. He got yelled at, briefly waterboarded and hit once."

I don't believe I engaged in the moral calculus of competing methods or of what constitutes "enhanced interrogation" rather than "torture", where the dividing line may be between them or the 'value' or either.

reply

[–] fox-fairandbalanced-news 12 years ago

die

reply

[–] netrek 12 years ago

Yes you would die if the maniacal deranged Islamic terrorists got a hold of your dumb liberal ass.

><> <><

reply

[–] fox-fairandbalanced-news 12 years ago

i'm more scared of you, you psychopath.

reply

[–] thornsthorns 12 years ago

Cutting someones head of is not torture it is an execution. Not saying it is right or wrong, but it is not torture.

What happened in abu ghraib was not torture but enhanced interrogation?

Are you a complete moron, how about if your local police used that kind of enhanced interrogation to interrogate you or your loved ones?

I don't think you'd be calling it anything other than torture then.

reply

[–] netrek 12 years ago

Wow great logic you! Cutting off head = OK (not torture) but water boarding is torture. you are crazy, typical insane liberal!

><> <><

reply

[–] fox-fairandbalanced-news 12 years ago

you seriously don't understand the difference? you are not even worth talking to. ignored.

reply

[–] mbrooke 13 years ago

The Americans are portrayed as ruthless, barbaric torturers reminiscent of the Gestapo. After undergoing terrible humiliation and torture our Talibani hero is then transferred to some unknown camp or transit point in god of all places Poland!!!!

There's no evidence that he's Taliban, and it's a matter of initially suppressed but now admitted fact that Poland has been a transit point for rendition flights - something that Skolimowski accidentally discovered a couple of years ago.

The implied complicity of the Poles with the the American barbarians is made clear. What unfolds is an escape of the Talibani after an opportunistic murder of several American barbarians and he flees into a bleak winter landscape of Poland being pursued by both the Americans and the Poles.

None of the deaths in the film are "opportunistic" - as its very title suggests, they're a matter of basic survival. Note that he doesn't kill the woman on the bicycle - and it's very important that he doesn't do so, because she doesn't pose any kind of threat.

Skolimowski should be ashamed of this film, deeply ashamed and this will definitely wither on video store shelves.

He's anything but ashamed - he said a few months ago that it was his best film, and both repeated and elaborated on the claim when he introduced it in London last night.

Skolimowski and the disturbed Jack Nicholson who is so fond of this movie should be made to watch "Dersu Urzala" and "The Human Conditions" at least ten times and Skolimowski might consider making a movie about the forced deportation of Poles to Siberia during the onset of WWII and what they suffered ... at least no matter how pathetic it would be historically correct.

Skolimowski wasn't trying to make a "historically correct" film - Essential Killing is a near-abstract parable about what happens when a man reduced to the most basic essentials, deprived of food, warmth, language and almost everything else. The scenes at the start merely establish how this situation comes about, and are emphatically not intended as any kind of political statement.

reply

[–] mencken22 13 years ago

None of the deaths in the film are "opportunistic" - as its very title suggests, they're a matter of basic survival. Note that he doesn't kill the woman on the bicycle - and it's very important that he doesn't do so, because she doesn't pose any kind of threat.

This is furthered by the example of the fisherman who he does not kill as he also does not pose a threat.

reply

[–] duolian 13 years ago

Poland's largest daily newspaper on the existence of CIA prison and prosecutor's intent to charge former Prime Minister and others 5/30/11:
http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,9689626,CIA_mialo_wiezienie_w_Polsce.html

related, in English:
http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/25137,Prosecutor-preparing-to-charge-former-PM-over-CIA-prison-allegations

This is causing problems for both of the main political parties - SLD and PiS - though bigger problems for SLD: "The Gazeta Wyborcza daily publishes documents today showing that Prosecutor Jerzy Mierzewski, who was dismissed from the case two weeks ago due to “administrative changes” said a state lawyer last week, wanted to charge members of the SLD government, in power during the time the alleged prisons existed in Poland (2002-05) for breaking Poland’s Constitution, unlawful imprisonment, as well as being party to crimes against humanity."

reply

[–] netrek 13 years ago

Crimes against humanity?! HAHAHAHA. Wow. If one wants ample evidence of crimes against humanity they need only survey the recent and distant history of most Muslim countries! They will find no shortage of genocide, forced conversions, raping, false imprisonment, destruction of churches, institutional racism, etc.

Rendition of terrorist scum whose goal is to kill as many innocent people as they can is hardly a crime against humanity! Only if you are a moronic liberal would you think that. We are in a game with the very highest stakes, this is not a Utopian world and sometimes you must do unpopular and even mean things to protect the many from the evil few. The Jihadists have NO moral or legal strictures on them. If the liberals in the EU can't live with capturing and interrogating Jihadist scum then we the US have to pick up the slack for the good of even the EU! Sometimes following the letter of the law is immoral. But no, in the liberal binary, moral calculus you must treat terrorist scum who want to literally destroy Western civilization and usher in a global Islamic Caliphate with every possible legal right! F*UCK THAT! Europe now has a huge problem with homegrown terrorism thanks to the foolish liberal policies that welcomes tens of millions of Muslim immigrants into Europe. They do not want to assimilate into the prevailing culture, they want to follow oppressive Sharia Law, and now they have the luxury and privilege of being able to use our liberal democratic laws against us as they sit in their council subsidized flats while living on the dole and plot terrorist acts from the heart of Europe! It's no wonder the huge attacks in England and Spain happened from Muslim citizens of their own countries. If they had stayed in Jordan or Saudi Arabia it would have been much harder for them to successfully carry out their attacks because the intelligence services and laws in those countries are much harsher and much more effective! But it may be too late for Europe, they welcomed the Trojan Horse into their midst and it sure isn't going anywhere!

><> <><

reply

[–] thornsthorns 12 years ago

I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
W.H. Auden

Do evil to a people, they will learn from you and do evil in return.

Muslims had no problems with the USA before ww2, before the USA started invading, murdering, stealing, raping and pillaging Muslims lands, after oil, gas, minerals were discovered in Muslim lands after ww2.

If America starts minding its own business, removes all its military soldiers, bases from Muslims countries, you won't have any problem with Muslim terrorists again, as you did not before ww2.

And if you want ample evidence of crimes against humanity, you only need to look at your own history. WW1, WW2, holocaust, trail of tears, holocaust of native Americans, ethnic cleansing in Nicaragua, Vietnam, school of the Americas, Pepsi and coco cola assassinations in Latin America.

reply

[–] fox-fairandbalanced-news 12 years ago

I agreed until this point:

If America starts minding its own business, removes all its military soldiers, bases from Muslims countries, you won't have any problem with Muslim terrorists again, as you did not before ww2.

...

it's too late guy, no matter how we handle this situation, the cat is out of the bag - there is a large group of people who hate this country, and that will continue as long as this country exists.

not saying i agree with the American Govts policies, just saying that as far as the middle east is concerned, no matter what we do, terrorism and islamic terrorism especially is here to stay.

reply

[–] mysikot 11 years ago

You need to get more guns and ammo and hide in the hills. Make sure there's 'nuff possum around for you to chew on.

reply

[–] netrek 13 years ago

>Skolimowski wasn't trying to make a "historically correct" film - Essential >Killing is a near-abstract parable about what happens when a man reduced to the >most basic essentials, deprived of food, warmth, language and almost everything >else. The scenes at the start merely establish how this situation comes about, >and are emphatically not intended as any kind of political statement.

So wrong. Nice try, but I can easily find hundreds of millions of counter-examples in history where people found themselves in MUCH harsher conditions than the main character in this film did (Even permanent conditions which they spend their ENTIRE lives enduring!) and 99.99% of them did not resort to such barbaric and evil acts as he did and kill tons of innocent people! And he absolutely does make a anti-American statement with this film. I can think of myriad ways in which this film could have been more interesting, actually produce a positive, meaningful statement and not be utterly pointless, but that would take intelligence and some sort of rational moral compass on the part of the director!

><> <><

reply

[–] www.wedd 13 years ago

And as for the depiction of Americans, if I may add my two cents, I found the three men killed at the beginning fairly sympathetic (certainly didn't feel they deserved to be blown into atoms), and that goes, too, for the men he kills in the jeep.
As for what he was doing in that photo, it could have been ANYTHING.

reply

[–] jungetorless 13 years ago

I also found most of the American characters sympathetic. Wasn't one of them on the phone with his wife who had just given birth right before he was shot? Is that the way they demonize movie villains these days? Furthermore I don't think anyone is supposed to take moral and political lessons from a film where a man steals milk from the breasts of lactating women and vomits blood onto a white stallion--clearly we're in the realm of symbolism and abstraction.

http://dasfilmblog.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] brent8577 13 years ago

truth hurts

reply

[–] Sanchez6 13 years ago

...only when it needs to.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] netrek 13 years ago

As someone who has Polish heritage I agree completely. Skolimowski must have been inspired after watching the pile of sh*t film "Kingdom of Heaven" where the Muslims are portrayed as enlightened peace lovers and the European Christians as barbaric, savage, imperialist warmongers on a blood lust!

><> <><

reply

[–] ofumalow 13 years ago

Skolimowsky wanted the protagonist's background, nationality and politics as well as the locations to be ambiguously unidentified. Here are some interview quotes from him on the film:

"The political aspects of the situation didn’t interest me: to me politics is a dirty game and I don’t want to voice my opinions. What is important is that the man who runs away is returning to the state of a wild animal, who has to kill in order to survive....I don't even say whether the film starts in Afghanistan, Iraq or maybe some other place, whether it's an American military base, where the prisoners are kept, whether it's situated in any of those countries. I don't say whether the plane which is landing somewhere in Europe is really landing in Szymany, in Poland....In the facial features of Vincent Gallo there is something that is difficult to identify. Nobody knows where he is. I was hoping that even if Vincent will not be received as a native Arab or Muslim, and so it will always be different, neither here nor there. Besides, it could be someone like John Walker Lindh, the famous Californian who was Taleb and joined Osama bin Laden affiliates."

So, for better or worse, he was trying to create a purely experiential portrait of a person in flight from captivity, leaving the exact political context for the viewer to guess about. I'm not saying those of you who are outraged by the film are WRONG, but you're projecting your own politics and narrative assumptions on a movie intended to be deliberately cloudy about everything but the protagonist's extreme, "wild animal"-like physical odyssey. You might call that intent in itself irresponsible, but the exact interpretations people are levying on this movie are purely your own. (And just because Polish viewers would recognize a location as being Polish doesn't mean most of the film's international audience will have the faintest idea of the same.)

reply

[–] filterite 13 years ago

The idea that this film can offend anyone is purely down to political points of view rather than anything else. Also, I don't think you're to have sympathy for Vincent Gallo's character nor do we have go against him for the same reasons. We have to view the scenario in an impassive state. This is the problem with political films in general, I find. Whereas personally, I love the film because it boils down to the simple story of man who has to survive despite being placed under adverse conditions. However and given the political climate that is around at the moment, our feelings are mixed with our politics and that is what gets in the way. I don't see any anti-American bias though nor do I see pro-Taliban tendencies. I do wish that people could judge the film on it's artistic merits rather than putting their own brand of politics towards the proceedings. But then Steven Spielberg said the very same thing about Munich and got the same backlash.

reply

[–] duolian 13 years ago

Well said.

reply

[–] thornsthorns 12 years ago

truth hurts.

kingdom of heaven was a pile of propaganda bull. The truth is even more harsh for a racist like you.

The Europeans were even more barbaric, savage, imperialist warmongers on a blood lust than they showed. And the Muslims were more peace loving enlightened people than portrayed on film.

As proven by the fact that salahuddin bankrupted himself to free the christian prisoners of war with his OWN money, and it was not forced onto him, but he chose to do it out of moral integrity. The kind of moral integrity that the Muslims had, but your 13th century KKK ancestors did not.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (6241938) 12 years ago

Because THE WERE LIKE THAT AT THAT TIME. For example, when crusaders took Jerusalem they butchered everyone they could, Muslims, Christians, Jews (yes, there were Jews and Christians living normally under the Muslim rule).

reply

[–] MrBelette 13 years ago

"the disturbed Jack Nicholson who is so fond of this movie"

People who don't share your opinion are automatically disturbed ?

reply

[–] pauldada 10 years ago

Oh, come on! Everybody knows Jack is disturbed!

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]