Talk:Shoah (film)/Archive 1

Documentary? and Should Cricism be Added?

Is Shoah really documentary?

Should i add criticism of the movie?

The film Shoah is indeed a documentary, though "criticism" of it is not NPOV. It may be better to point the reader to criticism of the movie (positive and negative) that exists outside Wikipedia. -- Modemac

Although I agree with Modemac in principle, I do believe that an NPOV acount of the popular and critical reception of/reaction to the film is appropriate. In other words, it shouldn't be "What I think of the movie" or even "What my favorite critic thinks of the movie," it should be a more balanced account of the different positions critics took, or the kinds of discussions common, after the release of the film. I think this is true for articles on any book or movie, but especially so here given that Lanzman deliberately made a different kind of movie about the Holocaust, and I vaguely recall the various reviews being rather thoughtful and useful in bringing up important points about both the Holocaust and "documentary film." I'd add, though, that anyone who isn't sure whether the movie is really a documentary is probably not in the best position to provide an accurate account of the critical (or popular) reception. Slrubenstein

If you look at pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, they state that for an article to be done well, it needs criticism, but they call it Reception (this heading also includes Box office and Awards). Cbrown1023 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism

I have found this comments (amazon.com) of the book and movie:

“ Sigmund Gorson, a Polish Jew, has written an expose of the numerous historical inaccuracies in the film Shoah. Gorson's article can be found in the library of Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, CT. Among other things, Gorson points out that: 1) Two million Polish Christians were also murdered by the German Nazis during the Holocaust, 2) The Warsaw Ghetto uprising had far more extensive supply of arms by the Polish underground than the token one-gun shown in the movie, 3) The scene where uniformed Polish soldiers shot Jewish women and children is a vicious lie, 4) Overall, more Christians than Jews perished in the hands of the German and Austrian Nazis, 5) True instances of Polish collaboration with the Germans against the Jews were very rare, and were punished by death by the Polish underground, etc. So for those who think that Shoah presents gospel truth, I would advise them to read Gorson.

Lanzmann did not get it right, and I wonder why. He depicts the Jewish ghettoes as guarded by Polish-collaborator police. But this is not the way it usually happened: In the vast majority of cases, the ghettoes were guarded by Jewish collaborators--the Judenrate. It was the Judenrate which played the major role in sealing off the ghettoes, preventing Jews from escaping, and even killing those who did try to escape.

This text is the equivalent to the movie "Triumph of the Will"...that is to say, it is a shameless propaganda piece. Worse, it serves to make fun of and dehumanize a whole country. Over three million non-Jewish Poles were murdered during the war. What about their story? Most Jewish people are ignorant of the plight and suffering of Poles. I think more understanding is what is required in this world, not more hate. This text promotes hate. If I were Jewish I would be very embarassed to be associated with this viewpoint. But if this text has done its job, I would be too full of hate for Poles to care.

There is no pretense that this book or the film were objective. There is no telling of the tale from the other side. There is no argument. No walk down the Blvd of the Rigtheous Gentile. No understanding of the meaning of Nazi Death warrants issued against those brave souls who aided Jews. This film and book may be the most vicious Polish joke of all. And perhaps because of what bigotry begats, the most vicious Jewish joke.

”

The first comment about Gorson (Holocaust survivor) should be added (with little changes) to the article.--Emax 21:30, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

"A lot of criticism"? Who were the critics, besides Gorson? Jayjg | (Talk) 21:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Humans like me and You ;) The first three comments were signed as "A reader" the last one as "Jeremiah".--Emax 22:21, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Amazon reviewers really don't count, and 3 out of 6.5 billion humans isn't a lot. Do you have anything more substantive? Jayjg | (Talk) 22:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Wikipedia is maked by "anonymous people" :) With which parts of the comments You disagree?--Emax 22:46, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Many critics" implies something significant. Perhaps you can source someone discussing this issue, that would be helpful. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's not satisfactory. I want to see primary, published documents. A quick search on google turns up nothing. --Viriditas | Talk 02:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, Do you need Tarski, Twardowski and Sierpinski to know that 2+2 is 4? :) I allready showed You why it is an Anti-Polish movie, if You still disagree - its Your turn to showing me, that im not right, and that this movie is not Anti-Polish. How would You describe a movie called "Holocaust", that dont mentioned Jewish victims but showing them as collaborators? I guess Anti-Semitic.--Emax 10:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

As the claimant, you have the burden of proof. I am not required to prove a negative. So far, the evidence you have posted does not support the claims you have added to the article. --Viriditas | Talk 10:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sigmund Gorson

Please post links to any published works by Sigmund Gorson. --Viriditas | Talk 02:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, some googling - in first few minutes: http://www.iahushua.com/Zion/zionrac13.html "In SHOAH, Claude Lanzmann's nine hour epic on the Holocaust (33) (Shoah is the Hebrew name for, and a part of the continued Zionisation of, the Holocaust) the conclusions reached are typically racist and reactionary. The Holocaust could not, apparently, have occurred in civilised France; forgetting Drancy concentration camp, the large number of French Jews betrayed to the Gestapo, Vichy anti-Semitism and the deportation of Ost-Juden. Poland however was ready made for the extermination of Jews; in the words of Yitzhak Shamir, Poles "imbibed anti-Semitism with their mother's milk". It is forgotten that Poland suffered more than any other country at the hands of the Nazis, its intelligentsia exterminated, that the Polish working class and a section of the peasantry had opposed anti-Semitism. The Zionist movement inside and outside Poland had close relations with the anti-Semitic governments there, Begin's revisionist militia was even allowed military training facilities (34)."

Israel Shahak was supposedly criticing this movie in some letter to NYT in January 29 1986 , i can;t find it: he was ridiculing it in one of his other interviews saying "No doubt, had a survivor from one of the many small towns of conquered USSR, where most of the Jews had been already exterminated, arrived at a typical Passover celebration of spring 1942 in the Warsaw Ghetto, or at one of the numerous public balls, concerts, etc., he would have said, __if he was as stupid as the survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto whom [Claude] Lanzmann picked [for the documentary film Shoah]__, that while Jews were killed in his area, in the Warsaw Ghetto "life went on as naturally and normally as before."

In Polish by Ratajczak (he is revisionist though..) http://www.starwon.com.au/~korey/Ratajczak/DR%20tematy_niebezpieczne.htm

Note that Lanzmann for example criticised Wajda for "Korczak" because he WAS NOT SHOWING Polish collaborators, but instead showed only rich Jews etc. http://muzeum.gazeta.pl/Ascii/Raporty/Wajda_filmy/040rap.html

aaa merde just one quote, since i got tired of pasting hundreds of links: http://www.niniwa2.cad.pl/BIKONT.HTM

Few quotes from Lanzmann: "You are all kapos!" "There a re no different point of views. You should think in proper way" "Q: Do you think that Poles should not made movie about Holocaust? A: I would not be impertinent to made movie about Palestinians"

"I was not doing document. This is art"

"Holocaust would not be possible in France"

Quote from Polish translator for the movie (Initially Lanzmann did want to waork with her, because she was not Jewish) :"He was despising people with whom he talked."

He edited out every scene when Poles when talking about their compassion or about help for Jews. He left only those scenes, where he could find anti-semitic. From Karski interview he cutted out Karski talking about his feelings in ghetto. Whole story about Poles who were providing food to Jews by Henryk Gawkowski was cutted out. He cut out Karski speaking about his meeting with Roosevelt.

He was not talking with Bartoszewski, and he lied that Bartoszewski was not "camera-able" enough. He was immeditiale countered by Bartoszewski's son, whos aid that Bartoszewski was ready for itnrview, bu tLanzmann never talked to his father (Bartoszewski was leader of Zegota) Bartoszewski himself "Lanzmann asked me: do you saw executions of Jews? No. Then we have nothing to talk about"

Turowicz from "Tygodnik powszechny": Whole movie of Lanzmann is about thesis, that holocaust is natural result of christianity and Poles, as catholics, have to be anti-semites.

You have to understand that the movie was always smashed in Poland.

http://www.opcja.pop.pl/numer18/18wie.html

interview with WOjciech Wierzewski: "There is a scene, in which Jew is saying that he esceped because of Polish help. But the english translation says that he was caught by Poles and put back to the train, so he couldnot escpae his fate!"

Szopen 09:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You were asked to post links to published works by Sigmund Gorson or reputable, primary source documents. You did not do this. You posted links to conspiratorial websites that make claims which cannot be verified. The content you have added to the article cannot be substantiated, and as such, does not meet the basic requirements of a Wikipedia article. --Viriditas | Talk 09:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uhm? Primary source? Primary sources about criticism of Lanzmann movie?

Besides, largest newspaper in Poland (gazeta.pl) and on of its top journalist (Anna Bikont is author specialising in POlish-Jewish relationship, she also wrote few books, including one about Jedwabne). The leader of organisation of helping the reconcilation of POlish-Jewish is also not conspirational. Only two first links (to Ratajczak and that first) could be labelled that way, Cut them out if you want, and answer the rest.

Note that I am not saying that criticism is valid or not. I am saying only that there existed criticism and it was widespread in Poland. Just enter Shoah Lanzmann in Polish google and every second or third link there are words as

"anyt-polski" "kontrowersyjny" "tendencyjny" "falszujacy historie" etc.

Somehow, even holocaust revisionist is mentioned. in holocaust article; but criticism of Lanzmann movie is not?

Anyway, my mitake that i posted it below "gorson" instead of creating new subject, ubt i am damn lazy,

Szopen 11:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Lanzmann had edit all the scenes of Poles talking about their compassion to Jews. You can see in a small town an old couple, living in a jewish house, talking about how they miss the jews, and also the old man said he speak yiddish very well. Also you can see when an old man in red, in Treblinka, showing the former lager, cry because of that horror. I think that a lot of Poles are anti-semitic, because at the end of the war, there was a progrom in Kielce, with people killed survivors of the Shoah, and now also there are ant-semitic graffitis in many polish cities, like Lodz. But that don't minimize the polish help to jewish people.--Enkiduk (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I have also found something about Jerzy Turowicz, and Ireael Shahak, both called the films as Anti-Polish biased: (sorry in Polish) Film Lanzmanna jest dziełem wielkim - pisał Jerzy Turowicz w "Tygodniku Powszechnym" w 1985 roku, po powrocie z Oksfordu, był wówczas jedną z niewielu osób wśród zabierających głos w dyskusji, które film widziały, . - Zdaniem Turowicza film jest jednak podporządkowany tezie, że eksterminacja Żydów była ostateczną kulminacją antysemityzmu chrześcijan, a dla reżysera z samego faktu, że Polacy są katolikami, wynika, że muszą być antysemitami. "Niestety, jeżeli chodzi o sprawę polską - pisał Turowicz - film jest zdecydowanie nieobiektywny, tendencyjny i w ostatecznej wymowie - antypolski".

Należy wspomnieć także o naukowcu izraelskim, urodzonym w Polsce, profesorze Israelu Shahaku, który 29 stycznia 1986 roku wystąpił na łamach New York Review of the Books" z bardzo ostrą krytyką antypolskich uogólnień Lanzmanna w filmie Shoah.

(indirect comments, that i have found)

By Norman Davies

Marek Edelman is one of several key witnesses who do not appear in Claude Lanzmann's film Shoah, though he saw much more than most. In 1942 he had stood every day by the gate of the Umschlagplatz in Warsaw and watched 400,000 people walk by to their deaths. He still works as a heart surgeon in Lodz. Lanzmann interviewed him; but chose not to use what he said. Among other things, Edelman wonders whether the fighting in the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 can really be called an uprising. He describes Zionism and the state of Israel as a "historic failure"; and he calls the Poles, among whom he has lived all his life, "a tolerant people." Indeed, as a heart surgeon he has devoted his career to saving Polish lives. "One is supposed to speak with hatred and pathos," he says at one point. But he cannot.

(The New York Review of Books November 20, 1986):::::In the introduction to the 1979 Pantheon Books edition of Stroop's report, Andrzej Wirth acknowledged that "Jewish armed resistance would be impossible without outside help." Stroop wrote that his soldiers "have been repeatedly shot at from outside the ghetto," prompting historian István Deák of Columbia University of New York to ask: "I wonder whether anyone fired a shot elsewhere in Europe on behalf of persecuted Jews." "Polish bandits" is the name given by Stroop to members of the Polish underground who came to the assistance of the Jewish fighters.

Marek Edelman, the last surviving leader of the Warsaw ghetto revolt:

"We didn't get adequate help from the Poles, but without their help we couldn't have started the uprising. You have to remember that the Poles themselves were short of arms. The guilty party is Nazism, fascism-not the Poles."

Marian Fuks, Jewish historian, writing in the Bulletin of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw:

It is an absolutely certain fact that without help and even active participation of the Polish resistance movement it would not have been possible at all to bring about the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto."--Emax 10:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

BTW did You know that Jewish fighters of the Ghetto-Uprising raised a Polish flag on a building, when the Uprising was started?--Emax 10:50, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Right noew in Polish, in two hours i willt ranslate. Note that my position is not that whether the movie IS or NOT anti-polish, but that it was conisdered anti-Polish by many Poles. That there was torm about it in Poland IS fact. I wont scan newspapers from twenty years ago to prove it, if you consider Polish newspapers on the web as "conspirational"

http://www.ziemiaprzyszlosci.pl/wiecej.php?temat=CLAUDE_LANZMANN_::_PRASA During Claude Lanzmann visit in Poland: Dziennik Lodzki:

Note: i post it only to make you see that there indeed were many (enough to made journalist to always include question about it in interviews) people who considered that movie anti-Polish.

These are quotes from definetely pro-Lanzmann side in Polish press.

[quote] "Ewa Kwiecińska: What would you say about receiving your movie "Shoah" which will be soon seen in public TV, as anti-Polish?"

"Claude Lanzmann: None of my movies is anti-Polish. Each one is just true" [/quote]

Gazeta Wyborcza - Łódź, dodatek FABRYKA [quote] Polish TC showed until now only shortened, an hour and half version of Shoah, reduced to Polish threads. There is for example scene in Chelmno nbear the curch - the peasants are discussing why Jews were dying. Who wants, he sees in that Polish anti-semitism in one capsule. Many Polish publicists stress anti-Polish chracter of the movie. They announced Lanzmann largest Pole-eater.

Lanzmann: - It's absurd! In Shoah there are many scenes showing that many Poles suffered looking at that Jewish tragedy, On the other side it is factthat death camps were located in Poland.

When he is faced with accusations that in Shoah there are practically no Poles helping Jews, he answers: I've made a movie about death, not about life!

He once said, jokingly, that he don't care whether Poles will see his movie, it's enough that whole world will see it. Today he wants Polish TV to emit his movie, but in full version, with subtitles, not lector. It's scheduled to February.

In meeting with Lodz journalists Lanzmann was omitting some question about "Sobibor". He was constantly talking about "Shoah?": This is not movie, this is art form. If there are seven arts, then "Shoah" is eights - he said, confusing the journalists" [/quote]

To repeat: I don't want the article to say, that it was anti-Polish movie. I want it to say that there were people, especially in Poland, who were criticising the movie and saying it was anti-Polish. This is not POV, this is fact. I posted two qutoes above to show that he was faced with such criticism on almost every meeting during his visit in Poland. Szopen 12:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From other: dejanews, o saw not this interview, but from guy who saw it: http://groups.google.pl/groups?hl=pl&lr=lang_pl&threadm=11543-38B7FFC5-22%40storefull-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlanzmann%2520%26hl%3Dpl%26lr%3Dlang_pl%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg

There was peasant who was laughing in the movie when asked what happened to the Jews taken from his village. In Polish TV he said that Lanzmann asked him ten times the same question, and when it was tenth time he can't satnd the absurdiness of that situation and started to laugh. Of course it ws that part, not earlier, which were choosen to movie.

http://groups.google.pl/groups?hl=pl&lr=lang_pl&threadm=b1odke%247sd%241%40atlantis.news.tpi.pl&rnum=18&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlanzmann%26hl%3Dpl%26lr%3Dlang_pl%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN The link contains several reviews and statement yb American Polonia organisation

What Karski said: that from 8 hours of interview with him, Lanzmann chosen 40 minutes - and that he left out things Karski himself thought were most important - the part when he was saying about his mission to western allies. He generally liked the movie, though

There is part about ghetto uprising when it is ignored AK help for ghetto, though Lanzmann had to know about it.

Controversies

Generally current statement is quite OK, IMHO. I would want to add - in some time in the future - something more about controversies in Poland, explaining why such controversies happened and what was the Lanzmann answer for them. No avoid needless revert war, I would warn people who were editing the article before and first put the proposed sentences here, in talk page. I am not sure when I will have more time, but You Will Be Warned (tm). Ok? Szopen 09:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) Bold text

Not a documentary?

According to the common classification, all films are either fiction or documentaries. I understand Lanzmann used somewhat unconventional methods for a film about a historical event, focusing on interviews with subjects in the modern day, rather than archival materials. But that does not mean that his film is not a documentary. Many documentaries in fact focus on current events entirely.--Pharos 22:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just dropped in having been requested to look at this. Shoah is a documentary by any academic definition of the term. I should know, I've written papers on this film and have cited it many times in academic discussion. Regardless of what anyone including Lanzmann says on the subject, I'm not sure the "quasi" is appropriate and I feel it is misleading. Quasi-documentary is a term that generally applies to scripted interjections, a hybrid of drama and documentary. I think reconsideration should be applied. Particularly given the nature of the subject matter. --Zleitzen 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if Lanzmann was choosing the interviews and sometimes, acc. to some of what I have read, mistranslating them just to made a point which we wanted to make? Szopen 06:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Choosing the subjects is natural to all documentaries, and manipulation is unavoidable. But where have you read that there was deliberate mistranslation? --Zleitzen 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.antyk.org.pl/teksty/ozydach-27.htm "Mistranslations and omitting of the part of the text in translation from Polish into French and English" I based my opinion on this and on some discussions on usenet few years ago. Frankly, I have not saw the whole movie. I think also that version which was shown in Poland many years ago was also only 30hours version of the movie, concentrating on "Polish" threads, which may created additional impression that main topic of the movie is Polish anti-semitism and Polish responsibility for holocaust. Szopen 09:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Although that doesn't change the definition, that's intersting information you have there. I'll look into it in more detail when I have the time.--Zleitzen 06:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The last few paragraphs of the section on archetypes are not neutral, rather they read like a critical essay. I'm tempted to just remove them, but maybe someone wants to have a go at NPOVing them first. - Randwicked Alex B 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed them. - Randwicked Alex B 05:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph "documentary" question needs revision

The current formulation: "director Lanzmann considers it to fall outside of that genre,[1] as, unlike most historical documentaries, the film does not feature reenactments or historical footage..." seems like a cop-out. While I appreciate the sensitive and indeed emotional nature of the issues, they are important enough IMO to merit a more careful introduction of the "documentary" issue.

Reading the Lanzmann quotes above in the Talk section, and elsewhere (for instance http://www.eurekavideo.co.uk/moc/catalogue/shoah/ where Lanzmann is quoted thus: “Making a history was not what I wanted to do. I wanted to construct something more powerful than that” – Claude Lanzmann) makes it clear that his rejection of the term "documentary" is not due to its lack of reenactments or historical footage - rather that his intention explicitly differs from that usually attributed to (purely) documentary works. For starters, I would remove the word "as" from the quote above, and start a new sentence with the word "Unlike" - this at least decouples the two phrases.

Perhaps including the Lanzmann quote "...something more powerful..." would help in expressing CL's intention to produce an artistic, evocative work of non-fiction, rather than a comprehensive historical narrative. I agree that every documentary work has a viewpoint, but it might be said that maintaining a neutral POV was not one of CL's expressed goals in making the work.

86.42.95.228 (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is Responsible for the Tone of the Last Section?

I mean I'm sorry, I'm not a Jew and I hate the state of Israel and think the reflex accusations of anti-Semitism for anything criticizing Israelis or Nazi-hunters is annoying, but- was this section tampered with by someone anti-Semitic? It's clearly biased against the filmmaker, it defends (and attempts to elicit sympathy for) the Nazis and the Polish 'bystanders' (ie, those who stood by and watched an entire race get murdered), and generally is really creepy and weird and wrong. Fix it or I will. Or hell, why not go the rest of the way and make a section about how Shoah might be a vast hoax, since the Holocaust never happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.108.126 (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please, add your comments below, not on the top.
• "the Nazis and the Polish 'bystanders' (ie, those who stood by and watched an entire race get murdered)" - would you be so kind to learn, how were the Polish 'bystanders' exterminated, robbed and deported during WWII, not only by the Germans? Why the Polish bystanders are attacked rather than the ones outside Poland? Xx236 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Fix it or I will." I thank God that the illustrious composer of the sentence "Updike sucks." in the John Updike article has made his way here to the Shoah (film) article and is giving us his (unsigned, of course) take on responses to The Holocaust. Schoolyard bullies wearing Notre Dame jackets are now barging into encyclopedia editing rooms and redefining the world the rest of us live in! Saints Be Praised! But wouldn’t you feel more at home scrawling your insults on the urine-stinking rest room walls of your local Fighting Irish tavern? CMUMailman (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Archetypes section

Just perusing the "Archetypes" section, it struck me as unencyclopedic. It reads like a high school essay. No references. As I understand it, this kind of material doesn't belong in Wikipedia and should be removed. (Sorry!) --Smithfarm (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Funding

This article in New Left Review says that Shlomo Sand "later drew the ire of Claude Lanzmann with his 2002 book in Hebrew, Film as History, in which he not only passed scathing judgement on Lanzmann’s Shoah, but also revealed that the film had been secretly funded by the Israeli government." I'm not sure if that indirect reference is enough; does anyone know more about this? Zero^talk 07:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

i agree (mike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.12.58 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Henryk Gawkowski, who drove one of the trains while intoxicated with vodka

Now we know who is responsible for the Holocaust - intoxicated Henryk Gawkowski, whose face accompanies the article. Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Lanzmann and Bartoszewski about the film

I haven't produced a documentary, It's fiction in which the reality of the Shoah is being lived on once more(?). It's an object of art. (Lanzmann to Anna Bikont, published in 1997 in Gazeta Wyborcza http://niniwa2.cba.pl/BIKONT.HTM ).

I don't work with goyim (Lanzmann to his future interpretator in Poland Barbara Janicka).

The film shows only very primitive people (in Poland). What harm if one diplomed technician or one Righteous among the Nations were present in the movie? (Władysław Bartoszewski).Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reception and Awards

I added this section. I hope everyone is happy with it. This is a very serious film and deserves serious consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancynancywhy (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixing this article

This entire article needs help. This is an extremely important film to the world as it shows real life interviews of holocaust survivors, bystanders and perpetrators, something that could never be recreated as these people have now (for the vast majority) passed on. This is an extremely important and unique film. Yet this article has a poor wandering synopsis and I recently deleted a 'Controversies' section that was incredibly poorly written and biased. It is of the utmost importance to note controversy, but both sides of the controversy need to be explained in order to remain neutral. The intro appears to be the only part of this article that is acceptable. User:Flessner89

Fixing by removing rather than rewriting. The poor "Steretypes" section hasn't been removed? Why streotypes of dangerous Afroamericans or greedy Jews are wrong but stereotypes of dumb Pollacks are O.K.?Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see this article moved away from "who is really to blame for the Holocaust" narrative completely. I don't think that discussion has a place on this page. While I do recognize that this discussion takes place, I don't see that this is the page to have it. I just think that's a historical discussion, and because this is a documentary of a historical event it has never been seen as a complete narrative. At the end of the day, it is a film project and shouldn't be hijacked by political or historical discussions. I have found no significant amount of opinion claiming Shoah is bias whatsoever and none from a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancynancywhy (talk • contribs) 01:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Poles about Claude Lanzmann and Shoah

Anna Bikont with Claude Lanzmann: http://niniwa2.cba.pl/BIKONT.HTM "AB: Can you recognise, that there are other points of view?" "CL: There is no other point of view, there is only proper point of view." About Polish movie about Korczak: "AB: Do you consider as improper solely the fact, that the movie about Holocaust was made by Poles?" "CL: I don not want to go into this, but I wouldn't be so audacious to made a movie about Palestinians"

Janicka, Polish translator who worked with Lanzmann: "Yes, I did sometimes changed Lanzmann questions. He despised his Polish interviewers. For example he asked them those golden teeths you were given, were they still blooded"?"

He ignored ALL fragments about Poles helping Jews. Karski talked a lot about that; Gawkowski, Pole who drove a train with Jews was talking about Jews who were helped during escape by Poles. One Jewish survivor asked Lanzmann to find a daughter of Pole, who helped him. NONE of this was in the movie.

Lanzmann about why he cut Karski "I wasn't making a document." Bartoszewski, who was member of Zegota, organisation which helped the Jews "Lanzmann asked me >>did I witnessed execution of Jews? No? then we have nothing to talk about<<"

And that's why this was not a documentary. Szopen (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also read your other contributions and basically what you keep saying is that Lanzmann paints an unfair picture of the Polish people. I think you're right about that. Shoah mainly shows indifferent Poles who don't care that much (if at all) about the Jews being gassed. Lanzmann completely ignores the Polish resistance and gives the impression that everybody in Poland agreed with the nazis. Simply put, in Shoah there are only bad Germans, indifferent Poles and innocent Jews. I agree with you that this an unbalanced view.

However, it's Lanzmann's view. Every documentary has a point of view and every director will cut out stuff that doesn't fit this view. In some cases it's more obvious than in others. A documentary may be biased, but it's still a documentary. It doesn't matter if the viewer agrees with the content or not.

Lanzmann does not present fiction as fact. The Germans he interviews ARE nazis, the Poles he interviews ARE indifferent, the Jews he interviews ARE innocent victims. There must have been others too, of course. Good Germans and bad Jews. But they don't fit in Shoah. That doesn't matter. Somebody else can make a documentary about them. The point is that the people in Shoah are speaking THEIR truth, THEIR facts. It's not fiction. It may only be one side of the story, but it's a true side. Which, in my book, makes it a documentary.  Channel ®    11:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good propaganda is always based on facts.

There is a novel The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum - the power of media is terrible. Somebody else can make a documentary about them. - the documentaries exist, but you don't know them, the same as millions of other people, including some Holocaust academicians, who quote Shoah as an ultimate prove of the evilness of all Poles. Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

For Lanzmann the setting in Catholic Poland was crucial, not incidental, to the Holocaust. He makes no reference to Catholic regimes in Croatia, Slovakia or Vichy France. For him Catholic antisemitism means Polish, peasant antisemitism. - see Jewish Quaterly [1]. Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The English article currently cited to support the statement that "some Poles have accused Lanzmann of being selective in his use of Polish subjects, that he mistranslated some dialogue and that he edited the film to create the impression that Poles willingly co-operated with the Nazis, cutting out anything which contradicted this view" doesn't include these specific accusations. As far as I can see, the closest it comes is in the 3rd paragraph:

after the Paris premiere of Shoah, the conclusion presented in the French mass media was that the Poles had their share in the guilt and responsibility for the extermination of the Jews. (E.g., the title in the Paris daily Liberation: “La Pologne au banc des accusés“/ “Poland in the dock.”) In several interviews and statements Mr. Lanzmann himself has also practically subscribed to this opinion.

Does the mistranslation claim come, rather, from the Polish article that Szopen links to? Dependent Variable (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Complaints about bias in this film are well-founded, whether it's a documentary or NOT. It is strange that Lanzmann would focus only on Polish people's participation in the Holocaust. I think that it's obvious to state that many French went along with it too. That Lanzmann's film centers particulary on Poland and its people seems, to put it mildly, unfair. I'm not Polish, and have no Polish ancestors and live in the U.S. But from reading the synopsis of the film it sounds like Lanzmann has an anti-Polish bias or prejudice that he does not want to admit. This obvious bias actually undermines the credibility of his entire film. Why would I want to see a film that does not give the story from all sides? Why would critics call this a good film when it really sounds like a piece of one man's very skewed opinion of history and an entire people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism/controversy

How could Pauline Kael's parents be Holocaust survivors, when according to "Pauline Kael" entry in Wikipedia: "Kael was born on a chicken farm in Petaluma, California, to Isaac Paul Kael and Judith (Friedman) Kael, Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her parents lost their farm when Kael was eight, and the family moved to San Francisco.[2] In 1936 she matriculated at the University of California, Berkeley, where she studied philosophy, literature, and the arts but dropped out in 1940 before completing her degree"? Pauline Kael was born in 1919, and unless her parents decided to go back to Poland before the outbreak of WW II, which is highly unlikely, they were Jewish immigrants NOT Holocaust survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.92.117 (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. Correction added with reliable third-party source. Poeticbent talk 19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Any evidence Lanzmann actually said it's not a documentary?

I wrote the current intro on the supposition of someone who insisted that Lanzmann denied it was a documentary. This seemed plausible to me (artists often like to say that their work is genre-breaking), and so I tried to work it into the article in an NPOV way. However, looking around a little, I'm not so sure. Is there any evidence that Lanzmann ever actually made such a statement?--Pharos 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

An article from Yale French Studies (Volume 79, 1991) titled "Seminar with Claude Lanzmann, 11 April 1990" transcribes a seminar Q&A Lanzmann held at Yale. On page 96 of the article, we find

Karen Fiss: You told us about one story that wasn't included in the film. I'm wondering what you did with all the other information that you gathered? Was it recorded?...What are you doing with the film that wasn't included in the final...
Lanzmann: With what is not in the film? You want to know my deep wish? MY wish would be to destroy it. I have not done it. I will probably not do it. But if I followed my inclination I would destroy it. This, at least, would prove that Shoah is not a documentary.

Although this comment, in terms of substantiating your introduction, is more cogent within the context of this article, I think it's essential to note that Shoah is not a documentary, according to the typical use of this term. Hopefully this quote helps. --Ibickerstaff 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this entire 'documentary or not' discussion a bit academic, to be honest. Of course Shoah is a documentary. That Shoah mainly consists of 'talking heads' doesn't make it in anyway special or different. There are numerous similar documentaries, also without historical footage or reenactments. I can understand Lanzmann's reluctancy to call it a documentary, because that's box-office poison. Documentaries don't sell well. But let's call a spade a spade. There's no shame in making documentaries and Shoah is a bloody good one. (By the way, if a trainride to Treblinka isn't a reenactment, then I don't know what is.)  Channel ®    20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not documentary because Lanzmann made the movie to made a point. He didn't "document", he only took those materials which suited his point and ditched all others. Szopen (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A documentary contains creative image of the others - eg. dumbs Pollacks. A biased movie about yourself is a biased movie, propaganda, lies. Why did he select the Poles of more than twenty nations of bystanders? Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[2] Jerzy Turowicz' article.Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lanzmann clearly says his film is not a documentary [University College Utrecht here]. Though he doesn't wholly make clear why not, he does say many things about his purpose. Pincrete (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing background information

This article does not say why the Holocaust scholars living in Poland were not contacted for the making of this film in 1985. The same idea of interviewing only peasants was picked up by Robert Faurisson, another Frenchman, who visited Poland in 1988 and spoke through his personal interpreter only with "non-intellectual" locals — again, quite intentionally. The aging Polish farmers who never read any "paper historians" (as Faurisson said) and therefore knew little if anything about the broader picture, could tell a much more suiting story for his own research. Both foreign guests got the idea of making a trip to Poland roughly at the same time. Undoubtedly the trial of John Demjanjuk in 1985–1988 was directly related to the renewed interest in the subject, in France as well as elsewhere. Poeticbent talk 17:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Although at the exact opposite ends of the same Holocaust spectrum, both Faurisson and Lanzmann knew exactly where they were going with their research, but it was Faurisson who found the winner in a Polish farmer by the name of one Marian Olszuk (allegedly born in Wólka Okrąglik near Treblinka, a young boy in 1942-43) who reportedly "did not notice" any signs of "homicidal activities" there (said Faurisson). Faurisson, who does not understand Polish (neither of them does), got excited, and in his subsequent writings called Olszuk a "clear-headed", "exceptional witness, and indeed a guide". – However, nothing is found in the Polish language about one "Mariam" (Marian?) Olszuk online as if he never existed... not a single mention of such a name anywhere in the country. By the way, Holocaust denial is punishable in Poland (Dz. U. z 1998 r. Nr 155, poz. 1016). Poeticbent talk 22:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sight & Sound poll cited in the lead paragraph

Poeticbent,

I will assume good faith regarding your reversion of my edit, and presume that you found my cited source unreliable only by mistake. If this is not the case, I must then inform you that the British Film Institute's decennial Sight & Sound polls – regardless of my own thoughts on their rankings – are arguably the single most respected source for the films considered the best. Film critic Roger Ebert has even famously called them the only ones taken seriously by most aficionados of cinema.

Also, it is highly advisable for openings of Wikipedia film pages to give the extent to which such films are revered by today's scholars. The lead section of Shoah previously had only discussed reception upon initial release – which, while relevant, has oftentimes in film history been different from retrospective reviews. One of the first paragraphs of the page for Andrei Rublev (1966), for example, informs the reader that the work is now considered one of the greatest movies of all time, and notes the film's high placements in the Sight & Sound polls.

For these reasons, I have undone your edit – once again assuming good faith and your mistake. AndrewOne (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you happen to work for bfi.org.uk, Wikipedia recommends that you reveal your conflict of interest. – Also, did you actually read what that blog says? It is called the Greatest Films Poll. They invite you to "Support and join" i.e. to become one of their participants. Film "Shoah" is listed as 29th by their "Critics" poll, and 48th by their "Directors" poll. It is not, therefore "one of the greatest films ever made" according to their own members. And please, do not play possum with me next time. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 01:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

While not a fan of your conduct, I will nonetheless take the time to respond to your remarks. You have made these reversions without truly knowing what you're talking about – and please do not believe I say this as an insult, or as part of a "possum" game.

Firstly, I do not work for bfi.org.uk, and no conflict of interest exists on my part. In fact, I would like to add that I disagree with many of the rankings of the 2012 Sight & Sound polls – and so it would have been a conflict of interest on the opposite side of the spectrum, if anything.

Secondly, bfi.org.uk is the official website of a charitable organization, not simply a blog. It appears you lack knowledge regarding how the institute conducts the decennial Sight & Sound polls. It is not a poll of BFI benefactors and/or "members". Every 10 years, the institute asks hundreds of critics and directors, from around the world, to select the 10 films that they consider to be the greatest. As I have said before – with factual basis rather than a conflict of interest – these polls are among the most widely respected on the subject of world cinema. If you still believe that it is unheard of, or wrong, to cite them in the lead section of a Wikipedia page, just take a look at the lead sections for Man with a Movie Camera (1929), The Godfather (1972), Mulholland Dr. (2001), and The Tree of Life (2011), among many others.

Now, your assertion that the film's placements show it is not truly considered "one of the greatest" ever made is debatable at the very least (as opposed to objectively wrong). Some people would indeed say that only a film in the top five, or top 10, is "one of the greatest." I would note, however, that thousands of movies are produced every year, and that the art of film has been around for nearly 130 years. With this in mind, to place a film within the 50 greatest of all time is still very high praise. Because whether Shoah is considered "one of the greatest" is disputable, I will forego the phrase and simply add either that the film is widely regarded by critics as a "masterpiece," or cite a BFI poll of the greatest documentaries – once again, not due to a conflict of interest, but because the British Film Institute's polls are a reliable source which add relevant and scholarly information to the article.

I will assume good faith and your mistake. AndrewOne (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to report you to administration. Please consider yourself forewarned. The new link you just added is a nasty trick. Poeticbent talk 05:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The onus was on me to prove that the British Film Institute was a reputable source whose citation added relevant information to the article, and I satisfied that onus. You can bust the inclusion of truly unreliable sources all you want, but you cannot consider the Sight & Sound polls to be a mere "blog" because it isn't true.

The statement that "the Sight & Sound polls are influential among film aficionados" is a fact. It is not something with which you agree or disagree. No one is forcing you to agree with the rankings (as in many cases I don't), and nobody said that Shoah is objectively one of the greatest movies of all time. You would not, however, refer to someone's citing one of the polls as "a nasty trick" unless you were uninformed of film scholarship. AndrewOne (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I now understand you had called the link "a nasty trick" because you had falsely believed that the link would infect editors with a virus. That was cleared up on the administrators' noticeboard, so I won't go into it now.

In any event, your addition gave the sentence a rather awkward wording (e.g., too many "by"'s). The inclusion that the polls are conducted by a British organisation is not necessary for a lead section as the organisation asks critics and directors from all over the world. AndrewOne (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion it is not appropriate for the lead. Properly reported and sourced, it might be appropriate somewhere else in the article. Zero^talk 03:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Support the Zero0000 comment. The poll is not appropriate for the lead. It did not require the same effort as critical analysis attributed to Polish and American critics. The poll is not being identified as British in the lede, as if, in an attempt to hide its scope. I tried to find a middle ground by keeping the poll in there with clarifications (although it was, and still is inappropriate for the lede in my view), but I was being reverted by AndrewOne, which – under the circumstances - could no longer be attributed to good faith but rather his unwillingness to seek agreement. I'd like to encourage you to step back and look at the broader perspective. Poeticbent talk 06:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum. I don't have time for a far-reaching study of that poll right now, but by simply looking at specifics it can be shown that the results are localized. In the 2012 Poll not a single Polish professional voted for it. A fair number of participants were not critics at all, but programmers (by their own self-description). Among the 39 votes in section critics, 8 came from the UK. There were 7 votes from actual critics in the US, the rest were programmers and others including Graham Fuller from the CIA. I think the poll could be better described in bodytext, on a side note which I already proposed earlier before revert (see the full list of participants). Poeticbent talk 19:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

AndrewOne, please see the Bob Dylan example in WP:PEACOCK. "Wordiness" is needed to avoid peacock terms. I've revised this in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't have here to judge on a personal level but to give a balanced state of the art of what is the current general critical opinion about this movie. This opinion, I think I can say, is that, even having provoked at its appearing some harsh critique, regarding the exposed Polish interviewees' antisemitism and the lack of an historical general context, the film is considered now a ”masterpiece” (Witness by Richard Brody, 2012-03-19, The New Yorker). The article by Pauline Kael, so oftentimes cited, is also considered as an ”'almost comically obtuse negative review of the movie, published in this magazine....” (Look Again by David Denby, 2011-01-10, The New Yorker). For these reasons I am of the opinion that the current lede is biased and should be rewritten substantially. Other considerations may be raised also.

• It should be emphasized even more that the movie is almost only based on interviewed survivors, witnesses, and German perpetrators and that Lanzmann completely ”omitted photographs, newsreels, and documents (all the usual historical materials)” (Look Again).
• That Lanzmann didn't master Polish, Hebrew and Yiddish languages is only one, and the less important, of reasons that explains movie's duration. It's also an artistic choice.
• The last two sentences should be replaced by something simple and short, along the lines of: ”At its release in 1985 the film aroused controversy and criticism; nevertheless it received critical acclaim and won notable awards, and is now considered a masterpiece.” All details should be placed in the pertinent chapter.

Carlotm (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Erik,

I understand why the first sentence in the Bob Dylan example is puffery; it certainly and obviously is. No encyclopedia can ever state as fact that a person or a thing is "brilliant" or "defining." But is it truly an example of WP:PEACOCK to say what something is considered? Is it puffery to say that a film opened to acclaim from many critics, or that many critics panned the work? If this is truly the rule, countless film pages' lead sections have broken it and continue breaking it (without losing their validity as encyclopedic writings).

I won't be arrogant and say "You're totally wrong" – but a sentence such as "Dylan is regarded by many critics as one of the greatest songwriters in the history of rock music." is considerably different, in content or effect, from "Dylan was a brilliant songwriter."

If I am missing something here, please reply. Thanks – and, once again (just to inform you), editors have broken the rule hundreds, possibly tens of thousands, of times if this is the case. AndrewOne (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Remove from the lead: "Shoah was ranked one of the "50 Greatest Documentaries of All Time" in a December 2015 poll by the British Film Institute. -- it's not clear from the linked article why this poll is particularly notable, or what the methodology is and why it should be called out in the lead. Further, this content is appropriately (at least at first glance) included within the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman,

What is your recommendation for the lead instead? AndrewOne (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur with wording suggested by @Carlotm: ”At its release in 1985 the film aroused controversy and criticism; nevertheless it received critical acclaim and won notable awards, and is now considered a masterpiece.” Other suggestions above by the same editor also work for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Source query

Does anyone know what this source is? The link is the Hebrew University of Jerusulem, it's in Hebrew, and it isn't a paper:

• Michael Meng. "Rethinking Polish-Jewish Relations..." (PDF file, direct download 145 KB). Department of History. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. pp. 1–10. Retrieved 2013-05-10.

SarahSV ^(talk) 20:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The citation has been rewritten and is now:

• Michael Meng. "Rethinking Polish-Jewish Relations during the Holocaust ..." (PDF). Conference on Polish - Jewish Relations held from March 17 to 19, 2009. Department of History, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities: 7–8, 1–10. Retrieved 2017-04-07 – via direct download, 145 KB, from Internet Archive. ...some of the film's most stunning scenes come from an intentionally portrayed dark, drab, poor, and anti-Semitic Poland.^[32] (See Timoth Garton Ash, "The Life of Death." New York Review of Books, December 19, 1985).

Where was it published? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Michael Meng, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (2009), Conference on Polish - Jewish Relations. Saint James Vicariate For Hebrew Speaking Catholics in Israel. Poeticbent talk 21:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• So the citation is:

• Michael Meng, "Rethinking Polish-Jewish Relations during the Holocaust in the Wake of 1968", Conference on Polish–Jewish Relations, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, March 2009.

That's unpublished or self-published (unless the proceedings were published). Usually these papers are delivered in preparation for publishing somewhere, but Meng doesn't list anything like it in his list of publications (that I can see).

It would help a lot if you would write citations clearly (author, book or article title, work or publisher, date, page number). It has taken hours to decipher the ones we've been discussing, and the Treblinka citation (Kopówka) is still not explained. Would you mind sorting that one out so we can move on? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Gustaw Herling-Grudziński

• I have integrated two phrases about GHG.
• He had Jewish roots but wasn't Jewish, one of his books has been sometimes accused as anti-Semitic. Xx236 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It is an act of witness

Extremal manipulation.Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A Christian, Karski sneaked into the Warsaw ghetto and escaped to England

Karski was a Home Army officer supported by many people, some of them died to help him to fulfill his mission. escaped, really.Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"Shoveled coal into the engine's firebox"

I have a question about the "man in the poster" section (current version). The section is about Henryk Gawkowski, who worked on and drove trains into Treblinka. In the English transcript he describes himself as an "assistant machinist with the right to drive the locomotive". French transcript: "Il était aide-machiniste avec le droit de conduire la locomotive." He mentions throughout the interview that he drove the trains. The transcript includes outtakes.

This is the section before my edits. It said: "The female translator insists on calling him the train's operator (or conductor in Polish); nevertheless, Gawkowski stated that he only shoveled coal into the engine's firebox ..."

Poeticbent added this in September 2015. [3][4] VoxLuna added the word "only". [5] Then more from Poeticbent. [6]

If he did say this, I would like to restore it, but I can't find it in the English transcript. The original interview is here. Poeticbent and VoxLuna, can you point me to where he said it? Also, I'm wondering what the point was of adding that the translator was a woman. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• The parts of the Gawkowski interview used in the film are available in English in Shoah: The Complete Text Of The Acclaimed Holocaust Film (Da Capo Press, 1995), pp. 25–26, 29–31. On p. 31 he says that he drove the trains 2 or 3 times a week for about a year and a half. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Enzo Traverso

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/claude-lanzmann-shoah-holocaust-antisemitism Xx236 (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Jews from France, Greece, Holland and Yugoslavia

I doubt Gawkowski travelled to Greece or France. The text does not accuse those who brought the trains into occupied Poland,Gawkowski is responsible for the whole Europe. A French family would have sued Lanzmann, the Poles before 1989 could have not.Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker. Does the text suggest that Gawkowski travelled abroad? He conducted the mentioned trains in General Government.Xx236 (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Karski

Karski went also to the USA, where he tried to convince Roosevelt and Frankfurter, but failed. The footage has been released by Lanzmann in 2010. It's mentioned in an another section, which misinforms. Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Rudolf Vrba, 1946 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

hidden camera / airwaves

This only makes sense when you know that that the hidden electronic camera was (illegally) transmitting to a recording van. Which was practically the only way to do this, but still not very much advanced technology, at the time. At least that's according to my recollection about all that. Maybe someone wants to verify the details and add the information to the article if I'm correct. --BjKa (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
[Offtopic: On the one hand I think Suchomel's quote about the "well-functioning assembly line of death" is one of the most memorable moments of the documentary, and his testimony strong evidence against the claims of any Holocaust Denial. On the other hand, lying, cheating, breaking promises and breaking laws to obtain footage is morally dubious, to say the least, and individuals like Ophüls, who wholeheartdly condone such behaviour without thinking twice... I guess I'll better stop typing there.] --BjKa (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Suchomel

"Suchomel agreed to be interviewed for 500 Deutschmarks, but refused to be filmed, so Lanzmann used hidden recording equipment while assuring Suchomel that he would not use his name" In the footage it doesn't look as if Suchomel wasn't aware of being filmed. The 'hidden recording equipment' also looks rather mobile at times. 105.4.1.241 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)