One's enjoyment of The Zone of Interest will likely largely be determined by how the very concept of "movie" is interpreted. Should a film have a narrative that actively causes feelings/emotions, or can film simply "stumble upon" an interesting situation, set up a camera, and let it roll? The Zone of Interest is far more former than latter.
For a very basic overview, this film tells the story of Rudolph Hoss (Christian Friedel), the Commandant of Auschwitz, and wife Hedwig (Sandra Huller) living quite literally across the wall from the camp.
If that overview seems sparse, it isn't for any intentional exclusions on my part. The Zone of Interest simply is about a German/Nazi family living their lives in the shadow of the Holocaust--nothing more, nothing less. There are no plot points (other than simple life events) to speak of, nor are there any dramatic flourishes--other than a few musical codas--to punctuate emotion.
On one hand, I sort of understand director/writer Jonathan Glazer's approach here: show the banality of life in Nazi Germany with the immediate backdrop of horrific human travesties. There is an almost unparalleled contradiction between those two things that will forever be fascinating to human studies.
That being said, having a near-plotless film strains the credulity of the "motion picture" definition. If I wanted a medium with no external devices to hook my investment, why would I not just watch a documentary or read on a book on the same topic? Those mediums are far better equipped to handle such topics, and I'd be highly interested in either. In other words, I'm basically questioning whether such sparse plotting as seen in The Zone of Interest is the best way to portray such interesting material.
Overall, I'll give The Zone of Interest 4 stars because it is such an unsettling concept and there are a (precious) few moments in which it breaks its banality and unearths some real emotion. But overall I cannot take a ton of enjoyment out of a film that might as well be a camera set up in a house recording its day-to-day activities. Even the specter of Auschwitz looming in the background isn't enough for me to be fully invested.
For a very basic overview, this film tells the story of Rudolph Hoss (Christian Friedel), the Commandant of Auschwitz, and wife Hedwig (Sandra Huller) living quite literally across the wall from the camp.
If that overview seems sparse, it isn't for any intentional exclusions on my part. The Zone of Interest simply is about a German/Nazi family living their lives in the shadow of the Holocaust--nothing more, nothing less. There are no plot points (other than simple life events) to speak of, nor are there any dramatic flourishes--other than a few musical codas--to punctuate emotion.
On one hand, I sort of understand director/writer Jonathan Glazer's approach here: show the banality of life in Nazi Germany with the immediate backdrop of horrific human travesties. There is an almost unparalleled contradiction between those two things that will forever be fascinating to human studies.
That being said, having a near-plotless film strains the credulity of the "motion picture" definition. If I wanted a medium with no external devices to hook my investment, why would I not just watch a documentary or read on a book on the same topic? Those mediums are far better equipped to handle such topics, and I'd be highly interested in either. In other words, I'm basically questioning whether such sparse plotting as seen in The Zone of Interest is the best way to portray such interesting material.
Overall, I'll give The Zone of Interest 4 stars because it is such an unsettling concept and there are a (precious) few moments in which it breaks its banality and unearths some real emotion. But overall I cannot take a ton of enjoyment out of a film that might as well be a camera set up in a house recording its day-to-day activities. Even the specter of Auschwitz looming in the background isn't enough for me to be fully invested.