Why were Ida's mother, father, and cousin murdered by the Polish farmer? Was it simply in order to take over
their property? Was his father trying to save the family, and the son decided to kill them, or was the father
complicit?
Was it simply in order to take over their property?
Was his father trying to save the family
the son decided to kill them
was the father complicit?
Dear Sook-Yongsheng, Thanks for writing, and thanks for moving forward to the next logical questions. I agree with you on all points. Red-1970
shareI disagree slightly. We don't really hear the son's motives, but we see 1) that he's extremely defensive and worried about the property, and 2) that he seems to have collapsed weeping in the grave, and 3) that he's anxious to save his dying father from further problems with the aunt and niece--all of which could suggest that he's not as evil as all that, or at least not one-dimensionally evil.
So another possibility is that the Nazi noose was tightening, and those Poles who were hiding Jews were learning that they had put themselves in enormous danger. The son then may have carried out the killings to save his own family. The fact that he saves the baby is significant in reading his character, isn't it? That doesn't make him a hero or anything, obviously--he still murdered a husband, wife, and little boy! But it does suggest that his motives weren't ONLY greed.
Anybody else have other interpretations?
he's not as evil as all that, or at least not one-dimensionally evil.
The son then may have carried out the killings to save his own family.
I agree. Not good enough.
I don't see how his father could have lived knowing that âsshôle was his own son, after that. What a horrific strain on a close family relationship. I would have disowned him if was his father.
As I've posted further down on this discussion, the director states, "What I first had in the script was that Szymon took them in — and remember there was a death penalty for anyone who was hiding Jews — and he was clearly in love with Ida’s mother. His son was furious that he was risking the lives of his family members for the sake of this Jewess."
So the obvious question is concerning the father's reaction to the son's actions ... did the father not know? He says they were good people, hid them in the woods, fed them ... when confronted with having killed them there is only silence, however, he's clearly remembering the time when asked if the boy was scared ... he closes his eyes and turns his head to the side, away from Ida and Wanda ...
"horrific" to say the least
Not to mention that the only reason the son agreed to show them where the bodies were was because in doing so, Ida and her aunt would give up any claim to the property.
sharethe only reason the son agreed to show them where the bodies were was because in doing so, Ida and her aunt would give up any claim to the property.
This was a movie, not pudding. Of course the son didn't want his land taken from him, but that doesn't "prove" that as his motivation for murder.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Just saw it last night, and I think your interpretation rnmackenzie is the right one. Certainly the son's actions were horrific and wrong, but the threat of the family being discovered by the Nazis was the reason for the murders.
shareI agree with rnmackenzie. I don't think the director that made this film would have been interested in so prosaic a motive as simple greed for the property. Why would the man have bothered to save the girl if that was all there was to it?
It seems much more likely that they tried to hide them (as was stated) but as the Nazi's got closer they feared for their own safety. Perhaps the father could not bring himself to do it, or just wanted to wait a little longer, but the son took matters into his own hands. He did feel some guilt, so he saved the only one he reasonably could...a baby girl (so not circumcised) who (presumably) could not talk, as the adult woman could.
His modern day concern for the farm is understandable, given that they had almost nothing already and losing it would doom his own family to poverty, but not, I think, the main motive for the killings.
Thanks to Hollywood, we're so used to one-dimensional, irretrievably evil villains, especially in films about WWII, that it can be hard to see beyond that, but I have to believe this directory was implying more was going on. It would also explain Ida's (apparent) forgiveness of the man (in making no more trouble for him, though she also gave her word.) As for Wanda's not prosecuting, I think she was just plain broken. She had found her son and put him to rest, and had little more to live for after that.
This interpretation also raises much more interesting question. What would you do as the Nazi's go closer? In my opinion it's impossible for anyone to say how they would act when such a thing is actually happening to you. It's one of the things people like the Nazi's depend on to get their way.
But all that said, it's the beauty of films like this, that don't spell out every single detail, that you get to make up your own mind.
I agree with you rnmackenzie. For those of you who disagree, I wonder how old you are and whether you ever saw the movie "Sophie's Choice" or other movies about Jews in WW II. The choices people make during war and in fear of death can definitely be atrocious, but what would do in that situation? The part about the land...the current family has now lived there nearly 20 years. A disruption would put the man's family out and he would most likely have to admit to the world that he had killed the Jews, or surely it would be found out. Loved the directing, photography, and music. Good acting.
shareI wonder how old you are
whether you ever saw the movie "Sophie's Choice" or other movies about Jews in WW II.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Agreed - likely the son really got cold feet and felt that the risk to their whole family was too great - or at least, this is a fairly common outcome in these circumstances.
shareYour interpretation is pretty much mine. I think there were references to the fact that the Polish family was hiding the Jewish one, and then the son killed them. He did save the one child whom he was able to save.
It sounded to me as if the Polish father had undertaken to hide the Jewish family in what may have seemed at the time to be a temporary emergency, then with the passing time the burden and danger he had taken on became more clear. Ultimately killing them was the way out of a dilemma. And probably, given the reality of the situation, more humane than turning them in (if anything in this context can be interpreted as humane).
By the time the story takes place, of course, the Polish family is in possession of the property, and wanting to stay in possession of it is probably also a factor.
Your deduction almost perfectly fits with reasons described by a Polish sociologist Barbara Engelking in a book "Jest taki piękny słoneczny dzień" (There is such beautiful sunny day) treating about different fates of Jews seeking help in a province... Obviously, there were cases, when firstly a man had good intentions, but after a year or two or hiding Jews in a constant danger, it could start to be a burden, hard to bear... I wish, that there would be a mention in the movie, that there was a death penalty for hiding Jews - it may be not obvious for foreign viewers.
I agree. I think the telltale sign was when he said that 'the boy was dark and circumcised' like that meant he had to kill him but not her because he was obviously Jewish and she wasn't. That means to me that his motivation was to kill them but to protect his family from being found out. It was still wrong but it wasn't just that he wanted their property.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I think it's clear that the family was killed for the reason you suggested, because hiding Jews put the son's own family in danger of being killed (do I really need to say that I am not justifying this behavior?). The son tells the two women - from his seat within the grave he has just dug up - that Ida was saved because she did not look Jewish, but the young boy had to be killed because he was "dark and circumcised." If he had killed the family only out of greed, why make this distinction?
shareI think your idea that the killings might have been motivated by the Nazis finding out that his family was hiding a Jewish family has merit. He even mentions that the young boy was too dark, indicating that he could not hide the fact that he was Jewish, but with the baby girl,no one could really tell by looking at her. And you are right, it doesn't make him any less guilty or less cowardly.
shareTo my understanding, these people originally saved the family, but at some stage they could not hide them anymore and that's why they killed them. Polish farmers have taken Jewish property, they did not have to kill them for that, they could have just send them away, it would have been the same result.
shareat some stage they could not hide them anymore and that's why they killed them.
they did not have to kill them for that
they could have just send them away
it would have been the same result.
You're wrong Sook. They were murdered to prevent the nazi's from discovering they were hiding Jews. The greed, property justification is specious. Yes he wants to keep the property now since he has a family and they're poor but as he said, he spared Anna because no one would know she was Jewish. He said the boy was dark and circumcised so he couldn't give him away, they'd know he was Jewish.
Your analysis of the film, the characters and their motivations is superficial and lacks understanding of basic psychological needs.
Wanda could have exacted revenge, I don't know why she didn't have the killer jailed and executed but killed herself instead.
To Red and Sook:
The Polish people were terribly abused first by the Nazis and then by the Russian occupation. They made survivalist decisions under a great duress, something we cannot comprehend. Unless you read Polish history to understand the psyche of these poor oppressed souls, you will not understand why this man killed the family. It's simple. He was afraid for his own survival. Both Nazis and Russians killed thousands of Poles, and especially if they were caught hiding Jews. Wanda and Ida both know the man is penitent as he weeps in the grave. There is no court of justice under Russian communism in 1962 for their property. And very likely no justice available for the murder of their family under communist rule.
So which was the driving factor in his killing of the family?
I say it was the property. The man could have successfully hidden them if he had followed his father's advice in doing so.
And if he didn't care to do so because he was simply afraid of being "found out" for hiding Jews, he could just have driven them off. He could have told them to go because he no longer felt that it was viable to keep them there without endangering his own family.
He didn't have to kill them -- if he had driven them away, there were plenty of Nazis around who would have done the deed for him. He did not have to do it himself.
No -- there was always the chance that they would survive and come back after the war to demand the property back if he didn't kill them.
His desire for the property was the deciding factor when he perpetrated murder.
There is no court of justice under Russian communism in 1962 for their property. And very likely no justice available for the murder of their family under communist rule.
The man could have successfully hidden them if he had followed his father's advice in doing so.
Wanda could have followed up on it, if she had really wanted to. She was in a position to do so.
Under communist rule, her power as a judge would be severely limited.
I think you are missing the larger context when you look at this man's actions.
Apparently Wanda is partly modeled on a real-life judge named Helena Wolińska-Brus
Wanda is a judge. Helena Wolinska-Brus was a prosecutor.
no where in your Wikipedia link is it even remotely suggested Wanda's character was partly modeled on Wolinska-Brus.
You've taken your position to bizarre and dizzying heights
by now I think you may just be seeking companionship on these boards
[deleted]
So which was the driving factor in his killing of the family?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
You're wrong Sook
You don't understand because you are unable or refuse to look deeper.
No, I'm not "wrong." My interpretation is just as valid as yours.
That's what is shallow-sounding to me. The son wanted the property; the circumstances of the war allowed him to kill for it with impunity.
You've got no evidence to the contrary -- when did he come right out and say he did it because he was "afraid for his family"?
Excuse me, but you're not god. Your analysis is what looks specious to me.
I mean -- "the man she believed murdered her family"? He murdered her family. Period. Why try to make it any more complicated than that?
I am satisfied with my opinion, and I stand by it.
Good lord, how bombastic you sound. You must be a yammering high schooler.
And you won't change anyone's mind by ranting and shouting.
Yowza! God complex indeed...do you expect anyone to actually read the drivel you're spewing? People probably can't even hear themselves think around you, you're that loud.
I'm the one who feels embarrassed -- for you.
Only Lovers Left Alive: 8
Oculus: 7
Joe: 10
Locke: 10
Blue Ruin: 9
Belle: 8
Ida: 9
A fascinating discussion ... so I thought the director's take would be of interest to all ...
Question: All of the characters in this film seem to have a lot of baggage. I was fascinated by the character of Szymon, who hid Ida’s parents for part of the war but who had a very complicated relationship with the family.
Answer: Yes. I had a whole back story about him that I ended up dropping because it would have been too much. What I first had in the script was that Szymon took them in — and remember there was a death penalty for anyone who was hiding Jews — and he was clearly in love with Ida’s mother. His son was furious that he was risking the lives of his family members for the sake of this Jewess.
Full interview @ http://www.cinephiled.com/interview-director-pawel-pawlikowskis-explores-polands-complicated-jewish-past-ida/
I've read several excellent interviews but so far this was the only one to specifically touch on the motivation of the son.
Great article, palace!
That (potential) background about the son perpetrating what he did because of rage over his father's attachment to Ida's mother is illuminating. It adds an entirely new dimension to the story.
Thanks for the link.
Only Lovers Left Alive: 8
Oculus: 7
Joe: 10
Locke: 10
Blue Ruin: 9
Belle: 8
Ida: 9
I'd say that at the time that he did the murders he did it because he didn't want the nazis to find out he was harboring jews. That was what he was thinking about when he did it. Getting caught harboring jews was too risky.
With the benefit of 20 years of hindsight, we see that he now (in the mid-1960s) wants to keep the property. But, keeping the property wasn't why he did it in the first place. It's just his motivation for striking the bargain to show the ladies where the bodies are buried in order to be able to keep the property. And, yes, now (in the mid 1960s) he has remorse. The reason he did it--risk of harboring jews--is no longer relevant and he does regret what he did.
Interesting angle but it's not in the movie I saw. The movie didn't include that stuff. Based on the movie, he did it because of the risk of getting caught and then he struck the deal with the ladies in order to avoid a dispute about the ownership of the property. By the mid-1960s, he seemed to also regret what he had done.
shareIf you're interested in this subject, I can reccomend to you another (very controversial here, in Poland) movie: Pokłosie (Aftermath) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2209300/
Have you seen it?
Not available yet on netflix, but I "saved" it and maybe they'll have it sometime soon. I haven't seen it.
shareI actually rather read his "drivel" than your obnoxious childish rebutals. Man, grow up, I suspect you are not a child anymore, but you sure act like one...
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The son killed them to protect his family. When he sat in the grave and confessed to Ida that he killed Ida's parents and cousin, the son told Ida that her parents looked Jewish and further, the boy had been circumcised. The girl was a baby, not obviously Jewish, so he took baby Ida to the orphanage.
shareDear rj, Thanks for writing. I think you're right, but I think that was only half of it. I also think he wanted their farm. Red-125
shareRed-125; I agree he wanted the farm. The fear of the Nazi's was the initial motivation, at least that is his rationalization, and how he explained it to Ida. Now that I think about it, perhaps he really killed them to take the farm, using the Nazi's as an excuse to fool others, and even deceive himself. Sitting in the grave, I think he is realizing that trading his soul for a farm was a bad deal.
shareDear rj, Thanks for writing again. You have stated the situation very eloquently. I don't have anything to add. Sincerely,
Red-125
He already had the farm. That played no role in the murder, unless you believe that he has psychic powers that foretold that the Nazis would lose the war and that these people would be able to come back later and claim the farm.
shareI don't think any character in Ida can be attributed one-dimensional motivations. Everyone we meet operates on many levels (with the possible exception of the saxophone player, who just seems like a nice guy.)
I felt a great deal of sympathy for the farmer's son. The Nazis had passed a law specific to Poland stating that every family member of a Pole caught hiding Jews would be executed. No other Nazi-occupied country had this edict. If the farmer or the farmer's son had been caught with Anna/Ida's family everybody, including baby Anna and the farmer's family, would have been killed.
After Wanda left with her son's bones the farmer's son collapsed in the grave, sobbing, with his hands hiding his face. When Anna, no fool, asked him why she was not in the grave too, the explanation provided gives him a little more humanity. He saved what life he could.
I wonder if it was it necessary for him to bury the bodies in the first place. No one would have investigated the murders of a Jewish family.
Sure, he took the property. What was he supposed to do? Go down to the land office and say, "You know that land that belonged to those Jews? We were hiding them but I had to kill most of them because I got scared. One of them is still alive, though, so do you mind letting the farm lie fallow in case she comes back in about twenty years?"
I'm not saying that what the farmer's son did was right. Far from it. The noble thing would have been to continue hiding Anna's family, damn the consequences.
Guesstimating the farmer's son's age makes me think he was in his late teens when he killed the family. A frightened young man can be a dangerous thing at the best of times - I know, I've raised three.
Dear Mel,
Thanks for this very useful and important commentary. I hadn't heard about the special law for the Polish people. None of us knows what we would do in a real situation where we have no safe alternative. I'm certainly not saying that I would have kept hiding the Jewish family if I had been the farmer's son. Of course, he could have told them that they had to leave, and then they would be alive and might have had a chance. However, with two young children, that chance would have been very, very small. As in many Holocaust films, even ones where you barely see the Nazis, they are the source of the evil. If people weren't forced into those horrible situations, most of them would not have done the evil they did. (Some would, but I think most wouldn't.) Red-125
I wonder if it was it necessary for him to bury the bodies in the first place. No one would have investigated the murders of a Jewish family.
Because they were Jewish in the second world war. Sadly.
[deleted]
Dear Bluesdoctor,
Thanks for writing. Yes--I agree. "All of the above." Red-125
It is nonsensical and absurd to paint Polish anti-semitism with the same brush that defines the Holocaust, the Nazi-German persecution and murder of Jews.
Hundreds of years of some kind of Polish-Jewish cohabitation existed, and Jewish life in Poland flourished, in cities and in sthetls, before nazism came along and killed off Polish Jewry. For centuries, many thousands of Jews fled from other European countries to find a relatively safe haven in Poland. Before the war, 3 million or 10% of the Polish population consisted of Jews. A higher percentage than in any other European nation. And for a reason.
As in any other civilized country, this led to social tensions - like with blacks (AND Jews) in the US, Turks and Moroccans in Western Europe, Poles in the UK etc. Even though their percentages are much lower.
It is a fact that like all minorities in MODERN western countries today, Jews in Poland could lead their lives like any other civilians, to create their own communities, their own schools, their own unions, their own political parties; they could speak their own language and take to their own cultural habits.
It was Germany and Germany-imported fascism and nazism that put an end to all that.
Arab-hating Jews exist in Israel, muslim-hating Dutch in The Netherlands, blacks-hating Americans in the US, Jew-hating French in France. You can find them by the dozens. Just like there are, and were, Jew-hating Poles in Poland. No one in their right mind denies that rather trivial fact.
But to easily assume that some Pole 'must be' motivated by antisemitism demands some kind of explanation from your side. Had the family been of Roma ancestry, or Romanian ancestry, or German ancestry, or Swedish ancestry, would your conclusion have been that the farmer's son was motivated by antiziganism, antiromanism, antigermanism or antiswedishism?
My guess is: no. You attribute antisemitism to this one individual on the basis of what you assume is some typical Polish trait.
If true, this makes your contribution smell of sheer bigotry. Doesn't it?
Particularly because you insist that "Confiscation of property, exile, rape, assault and murder have for centuries been staples of European persecution of the Jews". Do you really think that millions of Jews chose to come to, and stay, in Poland if they were continually stolen from, exiled, raped, assaulted, and murdered? Get real. Read history. Learn a thing or two.
When you continue your drivel by stating that generally "the Poles" won't be airing "their atrocities", you show your true nature as a bigot, attributing the vices of individuals to the community and people they belong to. As if I would brand today's Americans as 'murderous thugs' for what their Ku Klux Klan did to the blacks.
You probably are not aware of, or chose to not acknowledge, the fact that most of the people who are honoured at the Israelian institute of Yad Vashem for aiding Jews during the Holocaust are POLES. They risked their lives, and the lives of their family, to help Jews under the gravest of circumstances.
It is an open question whether YOU would show the same courage that these Poles did. Would I trust my family's lives to a modern-day bigot like you?
I am not so sure I would.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I checked this link http://global100.adl.org/#country/poland and i find it very strange questions.
1. Jews are more loyal to Israel than to [this country/to the countries they live in]
I dont understand, does it ask for Israel Jews living in *this country* or any Jew? And so, what does it mean with loyal?
2. Jews have too much power in the business world
3. Jews have too much power in international financial markets
How can anyone possibly answer to those questions? Is the answer known? I myself have no information to answer such question in any reliable way. Any answer from me would be a pure guess....
4. Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust
So, if i answer "Yes" it makes me anti-semitic? I mean, i think its pretty obvious that the group of holocaust victims who are discussed are mostly Jews, we talk a lot less about other people that were also victims of holocaust, Gypsy's for example or even Poles although I must say that this year there were quite a few movies telling the German exterminations of Poles.
5. Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind
Well, they were often a pretty closed group keeping for themselves. Not always of course. Which does'int mean that they don't care for anyone else, but it is natural that you first tend to person you know rather then unknown and that is the way I almost understood the question! Because it is just too obvious "No" and implausible that the meaning of this question is what it actually states.
6. Jews have too much control over global affairs
Impossible to answer...
7. Jews have too much control over the United States government
Israel might have too much control over USA, It might be the case, does that make me anti-semitic? If I say that Russians has too much control over Belarus am I anti-russian? See the lack of logic here?
8. Jews think they are better than other people
Well, I believe that Israel government behave like Palestinians right to land is less worth then Israelis right to the same land. Actually, I think all governments are to see to their people's first.
9. Jews have too much control over the global media
What? I don't know how anyone can know answer to this one...
10. Jews are responsible for most of the world's wars
Just funny, is this a joke?
11. People hate Jews because of the way Jews behave
Poles might feel offended by movies where they are accused of murdering Jews when in fact their families helped Jews and those are many... I hate of being accused, especially if I am not guilty. Now hate is a very strong word, but I do understand some people who might feel disappointed and unfairly treated when they see movies where main story resolves around Poles killing Jews.
Summing it up:
Those statements are lacking in logic. Some are suggestive and some even easily misunderstood.
Indeed, bluesdoctor,
Telling, as well, that Jews living in Poland, still today, are referred to as "Jews in Poland", rather than "Polish citizens who are Jewish".
The devil is in the details.
Best wishes,
Beth
Nonsensical, Beth. Many national minorities call themselves for who or what they are. Many blacks in the US call themselves black people, not 'American citizens who are black'. Many Poles in the UK call themselves 'Poles' rather than 'British citizens who happen to be Polish'. Many Moroccan and Turkish people in my country call themselves 'Moroccans' or 'Turks' in the first place, and never 'Dutch who are Moroccan/Turkish'.
Your interpretation of the details is rather devilish.
Best wishes,
Michel
Whilst in the USA, I do hear African American, Italian American, Polish, etc,
I've not heard: Catholic American,
Lutheran American,
Jewish American,
Episcopal American,
Et al.
Judiasm is a religion, not a nationality.
Best wishes back to you, Michel,
Once persons, in syllogism, resort to ad hominem attacks, the opportunity to learn from one another is lost.
I trust that you and I are of the intellect to know how to discuss a comment without attacking the commenter.
You might be aware that there is a difference between how people from various minorities call themselves, and how they are called by the politically correct-minded or in formal, public settings.
'Native Americans' do not call themselves 'Native Americans' at home, among themselves. Only on national tv etc.
'African Americans' do not call themselves 'African Americans' at home, among themselves. Same thing.
The word 'Jews' may relate to people defined by religious or ethnic aspects, or both, depending on the context.
I guess you are totally correct that in the US, Catholics do not call themselves 'Catholic Americans'. Nor Jews call themselves 'Jewish Americans'. And when they call themselves 'Catholics' or 'Jews', they do not mean to deny their American citizenship. If you call them 'Catholics' or 'Jews' (assuming that you belong to neither group), you do not deny their American citizenship either.
Similarly, if Jews in Poland call themselves 'Jews', they do not deny their Polish citizenship. And neither do non-Jewish Poles who speak of 'Jews' in their country.
Similarly, if I speak of 'Turks' or 'Moroccans' in my country, I do not deny their Dutch citizenship. I just follow the customary language usage. I am not a fan of the mealy mouthed policor alternative 'Dutch citizens of Moroccan ancestry' or so.
Lastly, you are accusing me of having resorted to an ad hominem attack. You are mistaken. I did not call you names, I did not attribute negative qualities to your person. Heck, I don't know you at all. I only gave a qualification of the *interpretation* you presented. That is, if anything, a qualification of an *object* or a *message*, not of a person. The qualification that I used, 'devilish', was an echo of the qualification you gave in your own message, in which you conjure up some 'devil' behind the usage of the expression 'Jews in Poland' for Jews living in Poland.
[deleted]
Dear Wesisa,
Thank you for your interesting reply. Somehow, I dropped this thread and didn't respond to you or several others who wrote to me. Sincerely, Red-125
[deleted]
Not sure when the father and mother were murdered. Don't forget that they were Jewish and the Nazi threat was apparent when the young "boy" was killed because he was "dark skinned and had been circumcised" so he couldn't be passed off, as Ida was.
shareDear ShippedCutOut, Thanks for writing. Consensus appears to be that the young Polish man wanted the farm, and he knew no one would care if he killed Jews. He had just enough decency to realize that he had no need to kill Ida, as the nuns wouldn't know (or probably wouldn't care) if she were Jewish. Red-125
shareWe have no idea of how long they were hiding them but I can safely assume they started around 1941-42 when Germans were exterminating Polish Jews. No doubt they lived in fear of being denounced by someone from their village and it looks like it was the father's decision to hide them. The son resented it and killed them most likely without the father's knowledge or approval solving the problem and eventually taking over the property. What speaks against the theory he did it purely out of greed is the fact he saved Ida who, if she made it alive, would be a legal heir to the property. If that was his only motive, he would have killed her as well. Yet he saved her because she looked like a gentile child and was too young to incriminate him in the future. He couldn't save Roza if he intended to kill her husband and her sister's male child, who were the greatest risk, so she had to die.
It can be deducted that the son lived alone for a long time. He is in his late 30's, early 40's but has a very young child. Seventeen years after the war, he finally settles down and he gets visited by Wanda and Ida. It's not shocking that his number one fear is a perspective of his family being homeless. It doesn't automatically mean he killed The Lebensteins just for the property. Jews who survived faced similar situations countless times. Upon return to their villages they were met with hostility because Polish peasants took over their homes and were afraid they would be thrown out. They didn't have to commit murder to struggle with the same issue.
Dear NuYorkie, Thanks for writing. I agree that probably the son killed the family for several reasons--the fear of disclosure, the anticipated acquisition of property, and possibly his own anti-Semitism. You appear to have a deep knowledge of the time and place--which I don't--so you can answer a question. Instead of killing the Jewish family--other than Ida--could he have just forced them to leave and fend for themselves? Or, once they were captured, would they have reported him and would the Germans have retaliated? I assume the latter, but I'm not sure what happened in those horrific times. Red-1970
shareThis whole situation is very hard to judge even though I'm appalled by the son's deed. Without food the family couldn't survive outside with such small children especially during a brutal Polish winter so the fate of those two kids would have been grim if he had thrown them out. It would have been an indirect murder. They would most likely wander around trying to find some place to hide, begging for food or stealing it (it was common) and eventually get into trouble by either being denounced or if caught, shot immediately or taken to the nearest ghetto. Or maybe they would get lucky and find another shelter.
Whether they would betray their host is questionable - not likely unless out of revenge or in some dire circumstances but the risk was still there. A much scarier possibility was someone local who would try to extort money or whatever from the people who hid them in exchange for silence or denounce out of fear. My friend's extended family died when Germans found quite a number of Jews hidden in a small village. They burned it to the ground with all its inhabitants, guilty or innocent of the crime.
Also, based on my ex husband's family history, I can tell you that good people who wanted to help feared neighbors who were either scared for their lives or openly anti-semitic. Germans would never be able to find Jews in hiding on their own. When they were rounding up the Jews in their village, my ex father - in -law, who was 7-8 years old, ran away to the woods with his two older brothers, his father and a little sister. His mother, gran, aunts and others perished in an extermination camp. Than his father tried to find a shelter but people were too afraid to take them all in. One peasant family agreed to take the two youngest - my father-in-law and his 4-5 year old sister - and hide them in their barn cuz they wouldn't survive in the woods. The other three would come out at night for food. I must stress that they had very little money left so this family helped them out of compassion, virtually for free. One day the little girl wandered outside and my father-in law didn't notice. He was a kid himself and got distracted. Someone must have pointed her out or maybe it was just a sheer bad luck that Germans were around because they came, shot her together with that poor family as the terrified boy watched from his hiding place. After this incident, his father had trouble finding another family to take them in. Locals were terrified. Still, there were courageous, good people out there who risked their lives for another human being so eventually they managed to secure another place in a neighboring village and survived the war.
Dear NuYorkie,
Thanks so much for this detailed information. It's hard to even imagine being in such a scenario, let alone know how you or I (or anyone) would react. Yes--I have heard and read about courageous, good people. It's good to know they existed. I hope I would have been one of them, but who can say?
Red-1970
Consensus appears to be that the young Polish man wanted the farm, and he knew no one would care if he killed Jews.
Dear Jim, Thanks for writing. That was my take on the consensus. What's your take? Red-125
shareThe Nazis were ruthless with anyone who hid or aided Jews, I think that was the reason.
shareDear MacacoBanditi, Thanks for writing. It may well be that simple fear was the reason, although I think greed played a role too. He could kill the family--making himself safer, and steal their farm--making himself richer. Red-125
shareLook how long this thread is. So many ideas, all speculation. In other words, the film did not communicate a clear idea on this crucial turning point. one of the reasons I didn't much care for the film as a whole. (Please don't try the old cop-out of "It's up to the viewer to make of it whatever makes sense to them.")
shareDear Deschreiber, Thanks for writing. I see your point, but it would have been strange if the farmer had said to them, "Well, here are the reasons I killed your family: one, it kept me safe from the Germans, and two, I wouldn't have to feed them, and three, I knew I could take over the farm." It certainly would have clarified the situation, but it would have been a bizarre bit of filmmaking. I think that we viewers have a right to interpret unclear aspects of a plot--that's not a cop-out.
Think about "Hamlet." What was the crucial turning point? Red-125
The thing is. The Polish family knew that if they would continue to hide the jewish family, they would eventually MOST likely be ratted out or otherwise get caught and executed.
The son wasn't as brave as the father, and killed them for fear of death. That is why I think that it wasn't for greed.
And the reason why he didn't want to lose the farm when Ida and aunt came, was that it had been his home for like 20 years, and he had a daughter and a wife who propably knew nothing of his actions during the war.
When someone is fearing for his/her life, only a psychopath could think of money and stealing a property. And I dont think a psycopath would have been weeping in that open grave.
Dear Packiderm, Thanks for writing. It's hard to know what went through his head. Certainly fear, but I wouldn't rule out greed playing a role as well. We can't know--in real life or in movies. Red-125
share[deleted]
Dear Packiderm,
Somehow I lost this thread, so I didn't reply to your useful note. Thanks for contributing your thoughts. Sincerely,
Red-125