View the h-holocaust Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-holocaust's May 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-holocaust's May 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-holocaust home page.
> It seems to me that Steve Paulsson's argument, substantiated by his > examination of specific moments of translation in the film Shoah, > deserves to be more fully articulated in the form of a published essay. I > wonder why he has waited a long time to share these thoughts, and why he > doesn't share them by publishing them. His points are convincing but I'd > like to see a more fully drawn out critique, etc. Some day when/if I have time. > > > Whichever side of this debate you take, however, you should be aware > > of Lantzmann's procedures, and that Shoah is a literary work rather > > than a work of historical scholarship. It is an effective J'Accuse, > > not an accurate historical portrayal. > > Well, its not literary but "filmic." It's a film, not a work of > literature. Its techniques are different fromthose of a literary work. So > what does "literary" stand for here? I should probably have said 'artistic'. I mean that he sets out to achieve an effect by manipulating his material, and doesn't confine himself to rational or conscious means. His aim is to get his message across by the most powerful and effective techniques at his disposal, and if that involves fictionalizing or distorting the evidence, or leaving out bits that are inconvenient, then so be it. Historians try not to do this kind of thing. Sometimes they fail, and when they do they expect to be called account for it by their peers. A historical work that is shown to be biased or riddled with errors will have a rather short lifetime in the academic world. On the other hand, a powerful work of art may live for a very long time, despite historical errors. No one is going to take Richard III off the shelves because it libels the king, and we are likewise stuck with The Merchant of Venice and the Prioress's Tale. An artistic work, in other words, is one that is judged by its evocative power and its illumination of 'higher truth', regardless of its literal accuracy. A historical work tries to be as accurate as possible. On these criteria, Shoah is an artistic work -- Lanzmann's personal vision -- rather than a work of 'oral history'. There is nothing wrong with that -- quite the contrary. It says important things, and its effectiveness is enhanced by its apparent realism. But we do have to understand that we are being manipulated, and that we have to take some of it cum grano salis. > Well, I'm not content with thinking that the film is nothing more than > Lanzmann's personal view of history. I do think, though, that we need to > be better "readers" of this film. More critical, but in an attentive > rather than a dismissive fashion. I trust that you don't think I'm being 'dismissive' merely because I point out errors. Steve Paulsson
|