Here is a piece I wrote for the New Statesman recently. It is self-explanatory. Jonathan Glazer’s profoundly subtle and disturbing film, The Zone of Interest, no sooner won an Oscar for Best International Feature than its director delivered an apology for his Jewishness so grovelling in its emotional simplicity it would have made the angels – of any religion – weep.
The Zone of Interest is one of the most important and disturbing films I have ever seen. One possible read of the film is that it is a film about the horrors of the Holocaust; another that it is a film about the horrors that can be applied more generally to any conflict, once we dehumanize the other. Both readings can coexist, but for me, as an Israeli, the second one was the more uncomfortable. It is important to remember that the film was made before October 7, but post October 7 it is impossible to watch the film and not think about the ongoing conflict.
There are important points you make here that I absolutely agree with you on, and others I want to challenge you on (respectfully), if I may. The phrase “refute their Jewishness” was indeed a clumsy formulation, and I can absolutely understand why it was so hurtful to many Jews. I also agree with you that perhaps it was unnecessary. But since having a respectful conversation on the Israel-Palestine conflict is nearly impossible without you being immediately labeled as antisemite, or a self-hating Jew, when you approach this subject you have to preface your criticism of Israeli policy by declaring that “I am not an anti semite, but”, or “I’m Jewish/Israeli, but…” (Note how I began my comment with the context that I was an Israeli). So for me, it is a sad reality. We should be allowed to say what we think without declaring what identity group we belong to. But I don’t think the current climate allows it.
I resonate with “unite, rather than divide”. But unite behind what idea? That what Israel is doing is justified, or that ALL human lives - Jewish and Palestinian - have the same value? I so wish that “the horrors felt by every Jew at the death toll in Gaza” was true. Unfortunately, it is not. My mother and brother are perfectly fine calling ALL Palestinians terrorists, including the starving babies. My best friend in Israel reports to me about her every day life in Tel Aviv without ever mentioning, or knowing about the death tolls only a few km away from her. She tells me she doesn’t want to know, because she doesn’t want to “become confused”. My Montreal Jewish community at large is horrified with what is happening in Gaza, but I can’t claim that this is the dominant majority opinion. I wish I could.
Unfortunately, despite Glazer’s clumsy phrasing, he does make a valid point. The Holocaust is distastefully evoked, and weaponized to justify the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Listen to former PM Naftali Benet, continuously refer to Gazans as “Nazis”. He is not the only one. “Never again” is referring to the Holocaust. But “never again” for the Jews, or never again for anyone? I personally stand with the second statement. And I think Glazer does too. His phrasing was clumsy and hurtful. I accept that criticism. But I think this was his way to “resist” dehumanizations. His voice and hands were shaking. He knew that he would be harshly criticized, as anyone who dares to speak out against Israel’s actions. And for that, however clumsily he did it, I respect him.
I’ll go further by saying that speaking against the absolute horrors that Israel is inflicting right now on innocent Palestinians is not an act of “self-hating”, but an act of self-respecting resistance. And I find this bashing and cancelation of Glazer alarming and disheartening to be honest. It does not encourage a serious, respectful conversation at all, does not unite, and only contributes to the division. The brilliance of The Zone of Interest is to remind us that we are all human beings - capable of the worst atrocities, and the greatest acts of generosity and kindness. ALL of us. No one is exempt from this uncomfortable examination. I write this with a heavy heart. I have to constantly check in with myself that my moral compass leans towards humanization and not dehumanization. If only everyone did the same work, I think the world would be a better place. That is just what I think…
Elegantly and persausively written essay, Howard. I also have not yet seen the movie and wish to; but Glazer's speech was profoundly disturbing in a way you describe just the right way. Thank you.
I had read about the movie but have not seen it. I was thinking I would like to read the source book, even though the reviewer discussed the many differences between the two forms.
I had heard that a theme of this movie, was how “otherization” of human opponents (on both sides) facilitates conflicts.
Based on your fabulously G-dlike commentary, it sounds like a very powerful picture, one that I do not want to miss. It sounds like sadly, it might have given you an upset tummy, but I hope that’s not correct.
Thank you for your recommendation! I’ll go see it for the first time today!
Marvellous in every way, except that assertion that every Jewish person feels anguish over what is happening in Gaza. Many who also happen to write publicly on the conflict clearly don’t feel that way.
I saw the film, and was moved, stunned and deeply affected by it. Near the end the ovens are being cleaned and prepared. Rudolf Höss is promoted - put in charge of the impending genocide of 400,000 Jewish Hungarians due to arrive. Ethnic cleansing, and genocide are a terms that DON't deserve to be hijacked for all manner of political virtue signalling. They are rare. They have specific intent and a clear plan to execute that intent. This film illustrats these, with raw social and historical context and clarity.
Thank you, Howard. Searingly honest and moral. Invoking Amos Oz's profound way to think about this is so very salutary. Please revisit these issues as this history unfolds.
I wrote about the film as well after the Oscars. Like you, I thought it deserved all its awards but at the time struggled to understand his convoluted acceptance speech. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt but given the confusion, I’m surprised he hasn’t made a clarifying statement. He spent sooo much time over the last year telling us how to read his film, why not this?
Hit the nail bang on the head as usual. So very true. You've still not come back to me about Abraham Events. We'd love to have you any time from mid-August.
Love this piece. Nobody need feel ashamed of their ethnicity or the religious background of their family -- not the Jews or the Palestinians or the Germans. Not even, though it pains me to say it, the Jehovah Witnesses.
The Zone of Interest is one of the most important and disturbing films I have ever seen. One possible read of the film is that it is a film about the horrors of the Holocaust; another that it is a film about the horrors that can be applied more generally to any conflict, once we dehumanize the other. Both readings can coexist, but for me, as an Israeli, the second one was the more uncomfortable. It is important to remember that the film was made before October 7, but post October 7 it is impossible to watch the film and not think about the ongoing conflict.
There are important points you make here that I absolutely agree with you on, and others I want to challenge you on (respectfully), if I may. The phrase “refute their Jewishness” was indeed a clumsy formulation, and I can absolutely understand why it was so hurtful to many Jews. I also agree with you that perhaps it was unnecessary. But since having a respectful conversation on the Israel-Palestine conflict is nearly impossible without you being immediately labeled as antisemite, or a self-hating Jew, when you approach this subject you have to preface your criticism of Israeli policy by declaring that “I am not an anti semite, but”, or “I’m Jewish/Israeli, but…” (Note how I began my comment with the context that I was an Israeli). So for me, it is a sad reality. We should be allowed to say what we think without declaring what identity group we belong to. But I don’t think the current climate allows it.
I resonate with “unite, rather than divide”. But unite behind what idea? That what Israel is doing is justified, or that ALL human lives - Jewish and Palestinian - have the same value? I so wish that “the horrors felt by every Jew at the death toll in Gaza” was true. Unfortunately, it is not. My mother and brother are perfectly fine calling ALL Palestinians terrorists, including the starving babies. My best friend in Israel reports to me about her every day life in Tel Aviv without ever mentioning, or knowing about the death tolls only a few km away from her. She tells me she doesn’t want to know, because she doesn’t want to “become confused”. My Montreal Jewish community at large is horrified with what is happening in Gaza, but I can’t claim that this is the dominant majority opinion. I wish I could.
Unfortunately, despite Glazer’s clumsy phrasing, he does make a valid point. The Holocaust is distastefully evoked, and weaponized to justify the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Listen to former PM Naftali Benet, continuously refer to Gazans as “Nazis”. He is not the only one. “Never again” is referring to the Holocaust. But “never again” for the Jews, or never again for anyone? I personally stand with the second statement. And I think Glazer does too. His phrasing was clumsy and hurtful. I accept that criticism. But I think this was his way to “resist” dehumanizations. His voice and hands were shaking. He knew that he would be harshly criticized, as anyone who dares to speak out against Israel’s actions. And for that, however clumsily he did it, I respect him.
I’ll go further by saying that speaking against the absolute horrors that Israel is inflicting right now on innocent Palestinians is not an act of “self-hating”, but an act of self-respecting resistance. And I find this bashing and cancelation of Glazer alarming and disheartening to be honest. It does not encourage a serious, respectful conversation at all, does not unite, and only contributes to the division. The brilliance of The Zone of Interest is to remind us that we are all human beings - capable of the worst atrocities, and the greatest acts of generosity and kindness. ALL of us. No one is exempt from this uncomfortable examination. I write this with a heavy heart. I have to constantly check in with myself that my moral compass leans towards humanization and not dehumanization. If only everyone did the same work, I think the world would be a better place. That is just what I think…
Elegantly and persausively written essay, Howard. I also have not yet seen the movie and wish to; but Glazer's speech was profoundly disturbing in a way you describe just the right way. Thank you.
I had read about the movie but have not seen it. I was thinking I would like to read the source book, even though the reviewer discussed the many differences between the two forms.
I had heard that a theme of this movie, was how “otherization” of human opponents (on both sides) facilitates conflicts.
Based on your fabulously G-dlike commentary, it sounds like a very powerful picture, one that I do not want to miss. It sounds like sadly, it might have given you an upset tummy, but I hope that’s not correct.
Thank you for your recommendation! I’ll go see it for the first time today!
Marvellous in every way, except that assertion that every Jewish person feels anguish over what is happening in Gaza. Many who also happen to write publicly on the conflict clearly don’t feel that way.
What are your thoughts on the readers letter in response the NS published?
I saw the film, and was moved, stunned and deeply affected by it. Near the end the ovens are being cleaned and prepared. Rudolf Höss is promoted - put in charge of the impending genocide of 400,000 Jewish Hungarians due to arrive. Ethnic cleansing, and genocide are a terms that DON't deserve to be hijacked for all manner of political virtue signalling. They are rare. They have specific intent and a clear plan to execute that intent. This film illustrats these, with raw social and historical context and clarity.
Thank you, Howard. Searingly honest and moral. Invoking Amos Oz's profound way to think about this is so very salutary. Please revisit these issues as this history unfolds.
I wrote about the film as well after the Oscars. Like you, I thought it deserved all its awards but at the time struggled to understand his convoluted acceptance speech. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt but given the confusion, I’m surprised he hasn’t made a clarifying statement. He spent sooo much time over the last year telling us how to read his film, why not this?
Nonsense
Thank you Howard.
Hit the nail bang on the head as usual. So very true. You've still not come back to me about Abraham Events. We'd love to have you any time from mid-August.
Love this piece. Nobody need feel ashamed of their ethnicity or the religious background of their family -- not the Jews or the Palestinians or the Germans. Not even, though it pains me to say it, the Jehovah Witnesses.