Cardon - District 9

The story of District 9, directed by Neill Blomkamp, shows significant correlation between the historical genocides of the Jewish population during Nazi Germany and that of the African Apartheid. It takes a unique approach on the issue by incorporating a completely distinct species from another planet juxtaposed with the already conflicted human race. The alien spacecraft lands over Johannesburg in South Africa, filled with the emaciated foreign population. The government sets up a camp for the “prawns”, a derogatory name in reference to their unattractive shell appearance. They fabricated the idea of their threat to humanity as a reason for their isolation. This is much like the rationality for the concentration camps developed for the Jewish. We see how the aspect of business and power comes into play as the military sees the value in the aliens advanced weaponry. They want to extract this intelligence by any means whatsoever, regardless of the cruel torture inflicted on the prawns. This is similar to the experiments and persecution the Jewish faced since they too were seen as less than human.

Soon the camp turns into an overcrowded slum in which the prawns are forced to reside in squalor. The government makes a new agenda to move the prawns into a new location, designated District 10, under the pretense that it will be in the best interest of prawns. The task of organizing this façade to make the prawns appear willing is assigned to an official named Wikus van de Merwe. In this way, it will seem like a more humane and lawful solution to the issue of how to handle treatment of the Prawns. Wikus’s character comes off as somewhat frivolous and unaware of the true nature of the plight of the Prawns as well as the consequences of his intended actions. He soon finds himself relying on one of the members of the group after being infected with an unknown substance. As his is DNA slowly starts mutating him into the creature he once looked down upon, he begins to find himself in the midst of an awakening upon which he discovers their interrelatedness. His role takes on a similarity to that of Schindler and Clive Owen’s character in Bent, making the transformation from aversion into compassion and even identification with the Stranger or other. They as well as Don Cheadle’s character use their leadership roles as means of bringing salvation to the group they once worked to eliminate. Schindler’s attitude was apathetic at first and was just happy to have the Jews in his factories to make money. After time and interaction with the Jews, Schindler’s attitude changes and he realizes he needs to help/aid in their survival. We even see this compassion in little Bruno from The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Even though Bruno wasn’t aware of the immensity of his friend’s situation and his father’s role in it, he was able to empathize with his friend because he “lost” his father. Some of the characters we have viewed this semester were forced into understanding the stranger’s position and others came to the understanding on their own. The important thing is that they came to the realization. The route to the realization is important and significant but the ultimate goal is being able to understand someone else’s suffering.

Cardon - Rwanda

The first time that I had ever even heard of the mass genocide in Rwanda was when the movie, Hotel Rwanda, was released. I was probably in seventh or eighth grade and had a pretty good understanding of what took place during the Holocaust but no knowledge whatsoever of other genocides. After reading several articles online, I would say that the movie accurately portrays the sentiment the Western world had towards Rwanda. Being an extremely poor country with few natural resources to offer, there was nothing in it for other countries to come to their aid. It simply wasn’t worth the time or effort, but watching Brazil kick ass in the World Cup was. Rather early on in the film, Don Cheadle’s character is sitting at the hotel bar with Joaquin Phoenix, and Cheadle is explaining to him the difference between the Hutus and the Tutsi’s. Phoenix then asks the two girls at the next table what they are. He is in amazement that one is Hutu and the other Tutsi, because there appears to be no difference between the two. The genocide only lasted one hundred days, but the death toll was close to a million, compared to the Holocaust’s, which was around 11 million (some say it could be around 20 million) in the time span of twelve years. The Hutu’s managed to “exterminate” almost a million “cockroaches” in about a third of a year. The novel, Murambi, came about through the initiative of African writers in hopes of commemorating and reflecting on the atrocities that happened in Rwanda. The novel’s main character is Cornelius Uvimana, a young history teacher who returns home to Rwanda four years (1998) after the genocide. The sole survivor of his family is his uncle Simeon Habineza. Both men try to continue living their lives. Cornelius attempts to work through his inner issues by turning his (the genocide) story into a play. Even though he was able to seek asylum in Djibouti, once he returns home he has no knowledge of what happened to his family and friends. In a way his absence can be seen harmful in the sense that it has left him so disconnected from what has happened to his people, compared to his uncle who stayed and endured the pain. Another issue that reappears throughout the novel is the idea of the victim versus the perpetrator. At one point Cornelius refers to himself as “the perfect Rwandan: both guilty and a victim.” He then goes on to say, “Maybe it was absurd of the victims to keep proclaiming their innocence so obstinately.” With this it is implied that in order for the victims to “redeem themselves as subjects of history” they must move on positively towards forgiveness.

Cardon - Sarajevo

This blog is on the novel The Cellist of Sarajevo and the movie Welcome to Sarajevo both being depictions of the Siege of Sarajevo. The siege of Sarajevo lasted from April 5, 1992 to February 29, 1996 with a death toll totaling 10,000 including 1,500 children. The worst years were the first two. Multiple mass- Mass killings of civilians and structural damage to nearly every building in the city left its demoralized inhabitants in dire straights. Serbs forces targeted hospitals, schools, and public areas which placed the citizens in a medieval state of living. The Cellist of Sarajevo is a fictional telling of three different peoples, Kenan, Dragan, and Arrow, perspectives of the miserable life in the city under siege. Their stories center around a Bosnian cellist who played in the same place at 4:00 pm everyday for 22 days in memory of 22 innocents killed by a mortar bomb while in line for bread. This was an actual cellist born of Bosnia, Vedran Smajlović, who would play in the ruined buildings of Sarajevo during the siege. Smajlović escaped the city in 1993. The movie, Welcome to Sarajevo follows two reporters who live in the city during the siege and attempt to tell the story to the world. The characters have different objectives and motives but work toward the same goal. Michael Henderson, an ITN reporter attempts to convey the story through the images of an orphanage while American star reporter Jimmy Flynn tries to capture the big picture. They do this for different reasons but the ultimate goal is to tell the world about what was happening in Sarajevo. For selfish motives or selfless motives, the world needed to know about the horrors of the siege and they were the only people there to tell it. In reality, the siege was mostly ignored by the media, and the world left the situation resolve itself. The movie shows some of the dehumanization that was occurring in the siege. The book also paints a picture of the citizens of Sarajevo's horrid daily lives. This type of dehumanization is only found in genocides or war. These stories stress the idea that we must respect our fellow man and come to his/her id when needed.

Cardon - Powwow Highway & Saint Marie

I was rather surprised to read and view material on Native Americans considering that the name of the course is Holocaust in Literature in Film, but it was a nice break from the familiar scenery and storylines. It was also nice to have some female characters with Marie Lazarre and Bonnie Red Bow. The two mediums dealt with identity much differently compared to one another. Red Bow and Phil were very proud and protective of their culture/heritage compared to the short story’s main character, Marie, who was more focused on hiding her ethnicity. She also went to the extreme of converting to Catholicism because of the Sacred Heart nuns. The Sacred Heart Convent was interesting to see in the reading, because I attended the Academy of the Sacred Heart on St. Charles and we were always taught about Philippine Duchesne and how she taught the young Indian children. The tribe that she taught was the Potawatomi who gave her the name of “Kwah-kah-kum-ad,” the Woman Who Prays Always. We were never taught the discrimination faced by the Indians from the hands of the religious, such as Sister Leopolda. Erdrich brings up the fact that through the feeling/emotion of displacement can stem racism. Marie and Leopolda understand one another and more importantly each knows the extent to which the other will go to manipulate the power granted through institutionalized religion. In Powwow Highway, the one particular scene that screamed to me how Red Bow and Phil feel towards the white man is after they leave the Christmas powwow and stop at the rest stop by the factory/power plant. They are sitting at a picnic table and Red Bow is going off on how the white man intends to rape their land and resources (their history & culture as well) for a profit. Even though Phil through out the film appears to be aloof and somewhat out of it, his intentions and desires to be a warrior for his Cheyenne tribe are really shown. Red Bow’s intentions are good as well, but his rough exterior sometimes got in the way of him properly expressing himself. He doesn’t appear to be quite so in touch with the traditions that Phil is so intrigued and respectful of. We also see this as they are driving to Santa Fe and Red Bow finds the spider in the glove compartment. Phil swerves so Red Bow wont kill the spider. He believes that it is one of the three tokens that are good luck or what he calls medicine in helping them on their “journey” of sorts. In the end they wind up sort of “sticking” it to the white man: Phil busts Red Bow’s out of jail, he takes about four thousand grand in cash from the police vault, and they escape the cop chase successfully.

Cardon - The Pianist

The Pianist is definitely one of my favorite films that we have watched so far. Out of all the other films, this one had an overwhelming feeling of isolation. The two mediums through which we learn about Szpilman’s journey are from two different perspectives as well. I found the movie more effective, which I was even surprised by. One would think that Szpilman’s own words of his account would be more personal and effective, but I found that being able to observe him (&what he was going through) really depicted the struggle and pain of his experience. Around 1:06 in the film Szpilman is trying to escape the bombs, we as the audience hear nothing but ringing. This has the effect of putting us right there with him in that moment. This same effect took place more towards the end of the film when he is on the run and finds refuge for a short while in what appears to be an abandoned hospital. We see him sitting in a room pretending to play the piano. As the audience we hear what he hears in his head. At this point in the film there hasn’t been a lot of dialogue and the pace has slowed down. You begin to relate to his situation. His life seems stagnant but in another way forever changing. I do wish that Polanksi had addressed what happened to the rest of the Szpilman family. Szpilman himself in the book says that he too was unsure of their true fate but assumes that they were “exterminated” after last seeing them board the train. Addressing the question Professor McCay posed in the video lecture…How does Polanski’s personal life affect his ability to tell the truth through art? In many situations/circumstances, one finds themselves troubled with separating the person from their job. This can be said for any elected official, actors, priests, doctors, lawyers, judges, athletes, etc. Polanski’s rape trial without a doubt has affected the public’s view of his credibility, but it is also undeniable the fact that his film’s are noteworthy and well told. Polanski, as a survivor of the Holocaust, had/has an obligation to reveal the truth not only about the war but also about his own life mistakes. Even though the young girl said that the sex was consensual, he ultimately knew that it was wrong (as did the Nazis). I’m not saying that his actions are equivalent to that of the Nazis; rather I am trying to make both of their moral dilemmas similar in understanding them. Back to the role of the artist…I think that it is clearly evident that the German officer spared Szpilman, because he saw value/worth in his musical gift. As great as that was, that shouldn’t have been the sole purpose (that’s how it came off). First and foremost the officer should have wanted to spare his life because he was a human being. I did google Hosenfeld and found out that he saved numerous other Jews, but that he met his demise in a Soviet detention camp. Szpilman was saved because he was able to put something beautiful back into the world, music. By killing him, the officer would have been killing the art as well.

Cardon - Schindler & Wallenberg

First I would like to address Raoul Wallenberg by analyzing his emotional demeanor, which was depicted in the film. Grede (the film’s director) depicted Wallenberg’s emotional responses scarcely. Was this done on purpose to show his ability to disconnect from the emotional aspect and completing a job? If he let his innate reactions get the best of him them perhaps he would have been unable to complete such heroic acts. Even after he was advised to return home to Sweden, Wallenberg stayed, because he knew it was wrong if he left the Jews he had been trying so desperately to help, just so he himself could flee danger. Although I had trouble reading his emotional responses throughout the film, his resilience and perseverance came through loud and clear. In present day the question of why more people didn’t stand up in defense of the Jews is often brought up. Hitler and the Nazis were an extreme force to go up against, and the consequences were grave. People feared death and endangering their loved ones. In the beginning of the film Wallenberg mentions that he is familiar with death (b/c of his father). Maybe Wallenberg felt as if he had nothing to loose, therefore he had no plausible excuse not to assist in saving the Jews. One scene that I thought was particularly interesting was when Wallenberg returns to the house where Marja stays, and he takes off his coat, tie, and shirt. He then tells her that his shirt has a tare, remaining in his undershirt. I may be reading too much into this, but I took it as he was trying her method of disrobing. Early on in the film she says that she wants to be naked to remind the soldiers of their humanity (they have real hair, breasts, etc). Was Wallenberg attempting to simply “feel” after all of the horrific events he had just witnessed? I often find myself having trouble being able to separate the individual from the good deed that they have done (i.e. Martin Luther King Jr plagiarizing his dissertation, JFK’s womanizing, etc). I’m not trying to say that what Schindler did is negated by his personal actions, but it does bring up an interesting argument. It does appear that Schindler’s initial intentions (& sentiment) changed over the course of time, because he became aware of the real effect he was having on these peoples’ lives. At first he was simply using the Jews for his own benefit and hell I guess they get to live too. Thankfully in the end we see a change of character in that he ends up spending all his money in an effort to save his workers. He had been driven/compelled in continuing to help the Jews survive even if it were only a few. A lot of this is also because of Schindler’s relationship with Stern. We are able to see Schindler’s transformation from a flawed, greedy, womanizing, Nazi into an open hearted flawed Nazi. One scene in particular really summed up the attitude of the Nazis. As Amon Goeth is standing on his balcony, he begins shooting the Jews for sport, simply because he has the “authority” to do so. Although Schindler didn’t witness this particular occurrence, I believe that it is that sort of behavior that ultimately flicked the switch for him. Goeth’s character throughout the film has a couple of what looks like possible turning points but turns out to be inevitably diabolical.

Cardon - Bent & Good

“The victim stance is a powerful one. The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy,” (Zur Institute). When relating this definition of a “victim” to Max’s character from the film Bent, I wouldn’t necessarily say that it applies. In the beginning of the film I would say that Max bullied Rudy (his obsessive boyfriend of sorts) up until the point where they were captured. Even while Rudy was doing manual labor in the fields, Max wasn’t contributing in earning expenses for their escape. On the train ride to the camp when Rudy is being beaten, Max is told not to help because he will be killed as well. Here is where I find myself in a dilemma. Should Max have fought for his loved one? Or did he do the right thing, knowing that it wouldn’t actually help? Once he arrives at the camp, he opts out of being categorized as a “queer” because they are considered the lowest. I would consider this to be among the most cowardly things Max does throughout the entire film. Only after he had to submit to the Nazis did he become a true victim. One could even argue that Max didn’t become a true victim until he accepted himself as a gay man in the concentration camp by putting on Horst’s pink triangle shirt. I don’t think that Max was a completely shitty person, because he did perform some selfless acts. He went down on one of the officers in order to get medicine for Horst (making the officer believe he was the one who needed it). In Taylor’s play, Good, John Halder (the protagonist) is brought in by the Nazis to reaffirm the use of euthanasia. I believe Holder to first be a victim and then eventually turns into a victimizer. He felt that he had no other choice but to assist the Nazis (he being victimized). Eventually it appears that his “honorary” position goes to his head a bit, i.e. leaving his wife, abandoning Morris, etc. I don’t think that Halder was necessarily an evil man, but I don’t really see how he was a particularly “good” one either. It was much easier to empathize with his character in the written text compared to the movie version, although the audience ends of feeling the same about Halder at the end of both artistic mediums. The picture I have included is of Rudolph Brazda, the last known gay Holocaust survivor who just passed away this August. He spent his imprisonment at Buchenwald concentration camp.