The existence of films with far greater value than other meanings is reflected in the length of the film. After reading it in one day, I dozed off twice in the middle. Lanzman fully acknowledges the subjectivity of documentaries and uses them to the extreme. The documentary materials are completely abandoned, and there are only two kinds of empty shots of interviews and related locations. The former conveys powerful emotions through close-ups, while the latter stimulates the audience's imagination. It is almost a combination of the advantages of information documentary and feature film. It is no wonder that Lanzman has a lot of opinions on Schindler. It is mentioned in the interview that whether the audience is the victim, perpetrator or bystander of holocaust, the film takes the audience from the outside of the Holocaust into the inside. That is, from the overall history of reason to the details of the individual, the typical exterior is the wonder of the girl in red in Schindler, and the interior is filled with Jewish train timetables and slogans on the walls of the dressing room. Another major feature is the sound dominance, which is to add pictures to the sound. If the language of film is generally believed to be superior to the expression of words, if the opponent still has the right to speak, this film is the best example. It is very interesting that the translation process in different languages is also fully demonstrated. If this part is removed, the film can be at least three hours less. This part first expresses the loss of the right to speak of the Jewish people in different cultures, and second, the foreign language part without subtitles can be treated as an absent presence, allowing the audience to pay attention to the picture at this time and feel the emotions in the close-up of the narrator Or imagine the scene behind the empty camera, where the audience staggered back and forth to receive audiovisual messages sent out at the same time. The technique is very clever. On the issue of documentary ethics. If utilitarianism can be accepted, the problem will turn into measuring the harm of a documentary to the subject and the value to the society. In the final analysis, it is the self-confidence of the documentary creator. Obviously, Lanzmann clearly realizes the value of his film, so it is acceptable to force interviewees to recall and secretly film interviews with Nazi officials. Facts have proved that this is indeed the case.
View more about Shoah reviews
