Campbell-Aspects of Genocide

The three characters introduced to us from Pow Wow Highway and “Saint Marie” dealt with modern day psychological, economic and social genocide differently from each other, but they all took what they were going through and manipulated them, whether intentionally or not, to fit their lives.

Buddy Red Bow fought against the economic aspect of the genocide by trying to stop his white oppressors from taking over his land. He was hell bent on keeping his land while his friend Philberto Bono left the modern day norm and decided to find his warrior identity. Bono handled his situation by purposefully almost out casting himself from the injustices seen around him by looking for his warrior identity. He was all right with that in my opinion. When the two men leave for a road trip to save Red Bow’s sister, the learn more about themselves and each other as they encounter various situations that allude to the modern day issues seen against their people in America such as the mistreatment of their people by their white oppressors.

Marie had to handle the emotional and social aspects of genocide with Sister Leopolda around. Marie at first seemed to just accept her fate with Sr. Leopolda. Marie allowed Sr. Leopolda to abuse her and accepted the truth that she was doing it out of love, but when enough was enough, Marie took control and wound up being considered a saint by the other sisters. Marie was socially out casted by Sr. Leopolda when she separated her from the other girls and kept her close by to ward off the Dark One. She suffered emotional distress because she was getting burned and stabbed with a fork all because she was Indian and was thought to have Satan in her.

The Native American genocide is closely related to the Holocaust for Jews because the Jews were social outcasts considered responsible for the economic decline of Germany. However, while the Native Americans were being out casted, they were taken advantage of by being used to gain land and profit from their work.

The white people kept trying to take more and more from Red Bow until Red Bow decides no more. Marie showed Sister Leopolda who was boss when she commanded her to kneel before her while she sat in bed. All the characters unintentionally took control of their injustices and worked it to their advantage.

Native American genocide is not as well known as the Holocaust, but it is just as unjust and also has people who took what they were given and made a change, at least in their life.

Pauli - Be Invisible

Even though I am not able to give credit for this quote I still believe it is important, "if you do not stand for something you can fall for anything."

Bent directed by Sean Mathias is about the prosecution homosexual Jews during WWII. The main character, Max is a homosexual male that lives in Berlin with his boyfriend Rudy. After Max drunkenly brings home an SS officer, Rudy and Max are forced to flee the city. Throughout Max's time with Rudy, Max constantly belittles Rudy even when he is the only one working to earn money. However, one can see that Max does care for Rudy because he is not willing to leave Germany without him. When the two men are caught, they are forced onto a train heading toward a work camp. Rudy is approached by an officer, wearing glasses who forces Rudy to step on his own glasses. This is symbolic because even when officers shared a similar disability they did not sympathize with others. Next Rudy is taken into another room and beaten. Max is frustrated by Rudy's cries and seems to want to help. However, a man on the train, Horst warns him that helping will do nothing for Rudy and the only way to survive is to become INVISIBLE. This is extremely important because this idea allows Max to give up his own beliefs and unconsciously take on what the Nazi's wish. When Rudy is brought back to Max full of blood, Max denies knowing Rudy and even participates in beating him. Max denying Rudy and his homosexuality is the beginning of him losing what identity he had. Max constantly repeats, "this is not happening" on the train. Max would rather be blind to the horrific events rather than accept his homosexuality and his part in killing Rudy. Once off the train, Max puts on a yellow star suggesting he is Jewish instead of a pink triangle identifying him as homosexual. He constantly states he will survive. Since the Nazi's did not want the Jews and homosexuals to survive the only way one could make it through the Holocaust in most situations was to silence their beliefs and identity. When Horst tells Max he loves him, Max says, "Do not love me because I will kill you." This statement not only represented Max's role in Rudy's death but also foreshadows Max's role in Horst's death. Max does not help Horst when the officers kill him; Max only stands and watches his love be murdered. When Horst is dead, Max continues speaking to him as if he were still alive, which represents Max's denial. However, once Max realizes Horst is gone, Max puts on Horst's jacket with the pink triangle and electrocutes himself. At the very end, Max accepted his homosexuality. 

Max in the beginning of the film is a true victim. The only thing he could possibly be blamed for is not treating Rudy better. However, when Max decides to become more invisible and deny who he is, he slowly accepts the "Nazi way." Max denies knowing Rudy and takes part in killing him. Max TRANSFORMS from the victim into a victimizer. He loses feeling and becomes what Horst states as "mean" and "rough." Eventually, Max is even responsible for killing Horst. 

"Good" by C.P. Taylor is a play about a man, John Halder who slowly takes on the Nazi persona. Halder never portrays a strong sense of identity. He constantly is being influenced by his wife, mistress, mother, other Nazi party member, etc. Halder joins the Nazi party upon his wife's request and realizing this would further his career. Halder ceases the opportunity to rise by stepping on others. Halders "only friend," Maurice is Jewish and constantly asks Halder to help him escape Germany. However, Halder is more concerned with the dangers of meeting with his friend then Maurice's life. Anne, Halder's mistress states that smart Jews would have left. However, when Maurice wanted to leave Halder protested he could not do anything and was only interested in Maurice's house in the forest. Halder is extremely selfish. He does not even take proper care of his mother and does not seemed concerned when she says dying would be better. Halder unconsciously turns from into a victimizer. He joins the Nazi party, burns books, and eventually makes his way to a concentration camp.

Halder's lack of strong identity allows him to be influenced easily. Halder believes the prosecution of Jews will blow over soon. This belief is his way of accepting what is truly taking place. Selfishly Halder joins the Nazi party and as the play progresses, one can see him adopting Nazi ideas. Toward the end of the play, Halder states that maybe the Jews are to blame. 

In Night, the reader is able to see Wiesel change. The young boy loses his innocence and idea of God when he witnesses the cruelty in the concentration camp. Wiesel cares for his father but toward the end, is getting tired of having to look after him. Wiesel felt a sense of relief when his father died. Wiesel is a victim but one could argue the line blurs when he gives up his strong beliefs in God and wishes to be rid of his father. 

It is obvious that the desire for survival can transform an individual from a victim into a victimizer. Even though the line is blurred and people can take on both roles, it is important to note how individuals handle their situations. Halder made the choice to join the Nazi party and silence his true thoughts. Max made the choice to silence his identity and help kill his lovers. However, Max was able to recognize his transformation and tried to recover himself in the end. Halder is still oblivious to how he has changed and believes he is a "good" man. It almost seems like not recognizing an individuals impact is a crime in itself.

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.

Asmussen The Pianist Repost

The Pianist is the amazing true story of Wladyslaw Szpilman’s life and struggles during the holocaust. The book was published right after the war ended but was suppressed quickly thereafter. Later Roman Polanski, a fellow holocaust survivor, made a movie based on the book. While I felt that the movie captured the general ideas from the book and showed similar scenes, there is an obvious difference between hearing the story from the first person perspective versus seeing it from the third person point of view.

One of the things that differs between the two perspectives is that in the book Szpilman describes everything in great detail. This gave me the impression that he was very attentive and always alert to his surroundings. In the movie is seems like he glazes by everything without paying very much attention. One of the scenes in the book that showed Szpilman’s attention to detail in the ghetto was his description of the “lady with the feather.” He meticulously describes her appearance and the color of the garments she is wearing. He analyzes her actions and even remarks on the tone with which she talks to people on the street. In the movie we are not given this insight because from a third person perspective is appears that he is simply brushing past this odd woman in the marketplace.

Another thing that is different between the movie and the book is Szpilman’s relationship with his brother. In the movie we are once again only able to see the outside perspective of their relationship. It appears harsh and competitive, it seems to go beyond brotherly quarrels. However, in the book we are given Szpilman’s perspective of their relationship and the reader sees that him and Henryk do care about each other and how they understand that their quarrels are insignificant. In this way we can see that while Szpilman doesn’t appear to have a very close relationship with any of his siblings, in the book we know how much he thinks about them. We are shown a side of understanding as he discusses how each of his siblings thinks and why they act the way they do.

The one large difference I see between the movie and the book is Szpilman’s thoughts about death. In the movie we see how he has to walk by dead bodies in the street all the time. However, it doesn’t seem to affect him very much. He might give them a glance once in a while but doesn’t appear to pay much attention to them. The movie portrays him as being desensitized to the corpses on the sidewalks. I felt that this took away the humanity that we see in him throughout the book. In the text I think that he shows how he never truly got used to seeing so much death. He mentions dead bodies frequently in the book. He describes their appearance, smell and how other people ignore them. I think the movie lacks when showing how the war is truly affecting him. The book paints him as being a much warmer and compassionate person while in the movie I thought he was shown as having been damaged by the ongoing war to the extent that he has lost his humanity and has now grown accustomed to the inhuman actions taking place around him.

Dacula - Music as Hope

While reading the book and watching the film The Pianist, the same question resonated and became stronger in my mind as I continued diving into these works: what makes life worth living? What would motivate someone to survive in the face of adversity, hatred, and blatant disregard for the value of another human being’s life? After finishing both the book and film, I feel like while I do not have a definitive voice to say what the answer to this question is, these films have brought me closer to figuring it out.

Władysław Szpilman was a well-known Polish-Jewish pianist in Warsaw. His world as pianst for the Polish radio in Warsaw is shattered when the Germans invade Poland in September1939. From there, we follow Szpilman’s suspenseful and horrific journey for survival amidst the hell that the Germans inflict on Polish Jews. Szpilman witnesses several horrifying accounts of his fellow Jews being beaten to death and mercilessly shot. Countless accounts from Szpilman from the film and book resonate in my mind: a German soldier shooting a woman in the head just for asking where they were being taken, Szpliman himself being beaten by a German soldier for dropping bricks, the lineup of Jews being shot after the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising fails, Szpilman’s chance separation from his family as he is moments away from being taken to Treblinka for extermination. From there, Szpilman’s quest to survive also resonates in my mind; from the book and film I empathized with him as he moved from place to place, never certain about what would happen to him there. Just as he became comfortable with living in a certain hiding place, an attack would ensue or his hideout would be discovered, leading him to have to flee and be nomadic once again. Throughout these moments, the same question echoed in my mind: what makes life worth living amidst this hell on earth? It’s the more subtle and less gruesome moments of the book and film that help me reason out an answer.

Szpilman, throughout his narration, clung to hope and memories of times when he was in consolation as motivation for him to stay alive. Every time it seemed like Szpilman did not have a chance at survival, he was blessed with the help of good people who, in spite of the serious risks they took in helping him, did so anyway. At several points of the film, we see evidence that while the Holocaust was indeed hell on earth (a vast understatement), people still existed at this time who genuinely cared for the well-being of those persecuted. We saw that Szpilman never suffered alone, a testimony to human unity among suffering, and we witnessed empathy among human beings. In the midst of a seemingly hopeless situation, Szpilman held onto hope for dear life. I believe that his music also played a vital role in his striving to survive. We see evidence of the power that music can have on an individual when Szpilman plays for a German soldier named Hosenfeld towards the end of the film. This moment in the film, while brief, encapsulates the solidarity and unity among people that musicians play in life. When Hosenfeld asks Szpilman what he plans to do once the war is over, Szpilman unhesitatingly replies that he will be a pianist once again for Polish radio. His life as a musician, as a pianist who has the ability to unite people regardless of race or ethnicity, is perhaps his ultimate reason to want to survive.

Fisher - The Pianist

This week we looked at The Pianist. Both the film and book version. The book is an autobiography by Polish-Jewish musician Wladyslaw Szpilman. It is a first person telling of his time during the war. The film, directed by Roman Polanski, is a third person retelling of the story with Adrian Brody starring as Wladyslaw Szpilman. The viewer is thrust into the turmoil immediately in the opening scene of the movie. Szpilman is at the Warsaw radio station giving his final performance while the city is being besieged by the German army. Polanski's portrayal of these first moments, during the siege of Warsaw is very moving and powerful for the viewer. However, Szpilman's vivid description in his autobiography is moving on a personal level, as many of his friends and family died that day. This is an example of how we are effected through different mediums.

The film not being first-person, the viewer is unaware of Szpilman's thoughts and is left to meerly speculate. Polanski's rendering of the book is quite moving on the other hand. A Holocaust survivor himself, Polanski has the firsthand experience to put on display the grotesque artistry of the horrors of the war. He succeeds in evoking emotions in the audience with his depictions of the atrocities Szpilman has witnessed. From the soldiers forcing the people to dance, to the executions, and pulling the broken body of the boy from under the wall, Polanski does not fail to elicit a response from his viewers.

Yet the movie is not completely true to the book. The autobiography is based on Szpilman's experiences, witnessed by his own eyes. While reading, we know of his internal struggles, how he deals with what is happening around him. It is a much more personal telling of the tale. The film version is a representation of what Szpilman saw, shown to us by Roman Polanski. An example of a major change from book to film is the scene with Wladyslaw Szpilman playing for the German officer Wilm Hosenfeld. In the film, we see Adrian Brody play the Chopin Ballade m 1 in G minor on a decently tuned parlor piano without any practice. While in reality, and as we read in the book, Szpilman played c#-minor Nocturne on an aged, unkept, out-of-tune piano without having played or practiced for 2 1/2 years. Not only that, he was also malnourished, exhausted, terrified, in no state to play the rendition that Brody's Szpilman gives for the Nazi. This is a major change between book and film. That pivotal moment when it seemed Szpilman's life is hanging in the balance and he was told to play, he choose c#-minor Nocturne an "autumnal and introspective" piece. Polanski's choosing of Chopin played at that moment could be his own artistic view of his theme for the Pianist/Holocaust.

Pauli - The Pianist

The Pianist, originally titled, The Death of a City is an autobiography by Wladyslaw Szpilman, a Polish musician. The memoir recounts Szpilman's journey to survival in Warsaw. Szpilman was an accomplished pianist who played for a radio show. However, the musicians days of playing on the air were put to a hault when the Nazi's begin their extermination of the Jewish community. Szpilman is eventually separated from his family and put to work. Once he is able to escape the brutal work force, Szpilman is forced to rely on non-jewish people for survival. 

There are many pros and cons to film versus literature. 

The book is a memoir which is told from the first-person perspective. This view allows the reader to "understand" and connect with the author. The reader is allowed inside of Szpilman's head and can "hear" his thoughts about suicide (which he cannot bring himself to commit) unlike the film, The Pianist (2002) directed by Roman Polanski. 

The adapted film is from a third person perspective which puts the audience further away from the protagonist. Unlike the novel, the viewer is not able to hear Szpilman's thoughts. However, the movie allows one to hear an important aspect, which the novel cannot translate, the music. In the film, I was able to feel a deep connection with the scene where Szpilman plays for the German officer, Wilm Hosenfeld. Being able to hear the music definitely intensified the impact, more so than the novel reporting the music. However, the film does not focus on the music the way Szpilman's memoir does. In the novel, the reader understands how important music is to the author, much more than the film portrays. In the book, the author is mainly concerned with playing the piano. It is as if playing the piano is his reason to live. Szpilman is constantly concerned with his hands. In the film, Adrien Brody, who plays Szpilman does not have this overwhelming passion to live because he wishes to play the piano. Instead, Brody almost seems to being living just to survive. Both mediums have a detached quality about them, which I'm sure stems from the war "turning a heart to stone" (21).  Even though the novel was written shortly after the events had taken placed, Szpilman writes "clearly" without emotion over powering the story. I found a similar quality in the film. Brody, never gets extremely emotional about having to let go of his family, the dead children in the street, or in the end, being confronted by a German officer. Another difference between the film and novel is the absence of Dorota, played by Emilia Fox. 

Even though I usually prefer novels over film, I did enjoy both mediums. I think the film did a good job of remaining close to the book. The film and the novel seemed to compliment each other. In the film, one was able to see events taking place and hear the music. In the novel, the reader was able to be closer to the author and "hear" the personal thoughts of Szpilman. 

Interesting observation: In his book, Szpilman says, "I played in front of the microphone for the last time on 23 September. I have no idea how I reached the broadcasting center that day. I ran from the entrance of one building to the entrance of another." 

I felt like this foreshadowed the rest of the novel. Szpilman hid in different places trying to avoid being caught by the Germans. It is amazing he was able to survive.