The Grey Zone (2001) Reviews

• A must see film

  myschrec2004-04-18

  Many Holocaust films present the ethical dilemna of trying to stay alive at the cost of allowing others to die or even sending others to their death. A few films might focus on the dreaded Kapos in the camps -- or on the elitist Jewish Council members who helped organize the transport groups -- or on the musicians/performers who entertained the Nazis -- all of whom hoped that they would be allowed to survived. But this film focuses on the Sonderkommandos -- the special workers -- who ushered Jewish victims to the gas chambers and burned the bodies. They too hoped to survive. But they must have known that they were going to be murdered eventually, if only because they had become the most dangerous witnesses to the cold Nazi horror. And the film begins by informing us that these groups of Sonderkommandos were never allowed to live longer than four months. There are several reasons you must see this film. First, it is based on the diary of Dr. Miklos Nyiszli, a Hungarian Jew chosen by Josef Mengele to be the head pathologist at Auschwitz. And it dramaticizes the true attempt by Sonderkommandos to destroy the Auschwitz gas chambers. Second, it focuses on ethical dilemnas faced by Dr. Nyiszli and the various Sonderkommandos who are trying to save themselves, their families, or ... just someone ... anyone. To say that these men were "co-opted" by the Nazis is to ignore the horror of the coercion, debasement and dehumanization that the Nazis inflicted -- not only on their prisoners, but upon themselves. One can imagine that some Sonderkommandos were selfish -- just as some Kapos were cruel and some doctors who assisted the Nazis were accomplices. But the question remains -- what would you have done in the face of such coercion and duress? Third, the film -- based on Tim Blake Nelson's play -- is not the typical Holocaust film. There is very little redeeming behavior. There is no uplifting ending. The grey zone of moral ambiguity is presented as a cold, unfeeling, horrifying place -- where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't -- which means that they are all damned! For the first third of the film, the script is obtuse, confusing, and disconnecting -- as it should be, considering that we may as well be taking the point of view of someone who just arrived on a train and entered the gates of hell. How can any of this make sense? In the opening scene, the Doctor is asked to save the life of a Jew who attempted suicide. How absurd can that be -- to save the life of someone who will sooner rather than later be murdered by the Nazis anyway?! In conclusion, the play/film contains dialogue and scenes that are memorable. This is one of my favorites. One Jewish leader is demanding that they destroy the gas chambers as soon as possible. But another Jewish leader is still planning on escape, arguing that he has every right to expect to live. The first leader replies, something to the effect that, after what he has seen and done, he does not want to live! Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, April 18, 2004. Last night, after seeing a Holocaust documentary on Kurt Gerron ("Prisoner of Paradise") a friend of mine asked me what I would have done? I told her that it would depend on whom I was caring for -- my wife and my daughters -- my parents. It was then that I realized that I would have probably done everything that every Jew did during the Holocaust. I would have tried to save myself and my family. I would have abandoned others -- even betrayed others. I would have killed. I would have fought the Nazis. And I would have probably been killed for it. I would have despaired -- tried suicide -- become depressed, useless to everyone. I don't think I would have survived. I think the only question in that regard -- and it shows how irrelevant the question really is -- is "how soon would I have died." That is why I remember Holocaust Memorial Day -- so that I will never forget -- and I can help work towards a time when such a hell will not occur in Europe, in Africa, in the Middle East, in the US, ... anywhere.

• THE GREY ZONE is so good it's literally painful to watch.

  stedrazed2003-04-11

  This might not sound like a recommendation, but when you consider the film's subject matter, "painful" is actually a good word to describe THE GREY ZONE's brilliance. Director Tim Blake Nelson has crafted a fascinating portrayal of the Sonderkomando, Jewish concentration-camp prisoners who help the Nazis in order to ensure for themselves a few extra months of life, as well as creature comforts denied to the other prisoners. The script and cast are equally effective. David Arquette proves himself to be not merely the idiot bastard son of the Arquette family with a powerful performance; Harvey Kietel and Steve Buscemi are brilliant as always. The film's real strength, making it the greatest Holocaust film I've ever seen, is its relevance; we may think ourselves to noble to sell out our brethren to save our own lives, but we would certainly reconsider if actually faced with this choice. In the end, Nelson brilliantly implies that perhaps the nightmare world of the Sonderkomando is really not so different from our own workaday reality.

• The Best I have seen

  scott-stevens-12006-02-23

  I think I am approaching this film with a slightly different perspective than a lot of people here. 2 months ago I visited both Auschwitz, and Birkenau as I passed through Poland. It is arguably the most horrifying and at the same time the most important thing I have done in my life. I watched the 'Grey Zone' some months before I left, and yes to echo some I found the acting somewhat overdone in places and the first bit of the movie rather confusing. Having come back, it is a different story. The acting is heavy because the emotion of the place is heavy. The confusion you might feel in the first part of the film is what you *should* feel. Never forget, that Auschwitz is where the rule of law, decency and normality ceased to apply. This movie will not make you feel good, so don't expect it too...it is not its intent to present a happy victorious story. Its intent is to show those who have not lived through or visited Auschwitz just a small part of the horror of everyday existence, the juxtaposition of what may be right, and what you would do for another day of life. Having seen the cells in Block XI, having seen the womens camp, having stood in the remaining gas chamber and crematoria at Auschwitz I, I can assure you that this movie does its best to do justice to the memory of those who died. It is well worth seeing. Scott

• Stark and Unflinching!

  KUAlum262005-08-04

  Tim Blake Nelson takes his stage play--an adaptation of a book by Miklos Nyiszki--to the big screen,and what a story it is! An unthinkable,unconscionable deal has been worked out between a certain group of Nazi death camp inmates and their captors: in order to avoid the ovens(in all likelihood,only temporarily),these inmates would use their talents(among them,musical) to placate and ease along the funneling of other Jews and "undesirables" into the death chambers. A strong cast and an even stronger screenplay/script is augmented by very intelligent cinematography. Particularly good turns by David Arquette,Steve Buscemi,Daniel Benzali and Mira Sorvino as the inmates,all desperate,all convinced of what they have to do to survive and in Arquette's character's case,not even certain if it is even worth it. It would be tempting to slam "Schindler's List" after seeing this,but I won't. SL is meant as an epic,a tribute,a story of the upside of surviving through the most dense of human tragedy,whereas GZ is a decidedly darker exploration of what happens to people in the same situation but are pushed into much less noble,much more selfish and desperate devices. Both are strong examples of the genre,but where GZ triumphs is that that it explores the most damning actions through the consciences of people faced with decisions that nobody should have to make. It is an unflinching portrait of a dark chapter in human history,rife with detail and completely lacking of lecturing. THis film is for anyone who wants to see an unvarnished and stark portrayal of the human condition brought to its lowest denominator. A must-see for college classrooms and Holocaust museums anywhere!

• Incredible film

  bri-802002-11-02

  I've seen this film twice. The first time it was such a shocking, horrifying spectacle I vowed to never see it again. It is absolutely among the most graphic, violent films ever made, save slasher/horror films. I saw it again to see what was buried underneath the gore. It was surprising. As a historical document alone The Grey Zone is unique and impressive. Countless small details contribute to its originality: the blue-green color of the Zyklon B crystals, the sprinklers constantly working the lawn beside the crematoria, the clear, pretty daylight when the trains arrive, the intimate building-to-building geography of Birkenau -- only the film Shoah manages to make these small historical details count so much. What's left to be said about the Holocaust? These things. Small things. Details. The grass, the sound ovens make, sunlight hitting brick. Shoes. Luggage. The Grey Zone is so unique that it has been misinterpreted. There is virtually no music, nothing to tell you how to feel. It is exactly the opposite of melodrama. The mundane repetition of the killings actually numbs you after awhile, and this is intentional since this is how the main characters are affected. There is no uplifting message, and no cliched Zionist coda like Schindler's List suggesting that all the suffering had a destination and a design. There are some awkward elements in the film. But these are minor next to the clarity of purpose and originality. The Grey Zone should not become marginalized in the canon of Holocaust art because it refuses to be sentimental. Hopefully it will be referenced and reviewed for a long time.