“Is That Funny to You?”: Film as a Historical Representation
Ciera Perez
The Shoah is considered to be one of the greatest tragedies in history. This period of Nazi regime, lead by Adolf Hitler, consisted of the mass deportation and genocide of over 6 million Jews, and other races considered inferior to Germans. Some prisoners held by the Nazis were immediately killed in gas chambers, and those who lived were forced to perform grueling labor and live in the worst possible conditions. The deportation began in 1941, and all the camps were not liberated until 1945. This time in history is memorialized today in many forms, such as
textbooks, documentaries, monuments, art, and movies. There was a romantic comedy that involved the Shoah which debuted in 1998, called Life is Beautiful . It is directed by and features Roberto Benigni. This film begins with the comedic main character, Guido, falling in love with a
beautiful woman named Dora. Although it is implied that he is Jewish, and Dora is not, and she is wealthy while he is not, they end up getting married. The film skips ahead to later in their lives where Guido is living contently with his wife and young son Giosue in Italy. When the country is invaded by German forces, Guido’s family is split up and forced into a concentration camp.
Guido tries to make it into a game for his son, and convinces him that they must get 1000 points to win the “grand prize” of a tank and to go home. He mocks the Nazi soldiers and makes light of the whole situation up until he is executed, and finally the camp is liberated the next day
where his wife and son are set free. This film won the Grand Prix at the 1998 Cannes Film Festival and at the 71st Academy Awards, it received Best Foreign Language Film, Best Music, and Original Dramatic Score. Despite all the awards, some critics have found it to be offensive to
use humor in relation to the Shoah. In Melanie J. Wright’s article titled “‘Don’t Touch my Holocaust’: Responding to Life is Beautiful, ” she discusses the positive and negatives to this particular movie and the art of film as a whole. She begins the article by presenting questions that frequently arise when discussing art made about the Shoah, including the types of art that should be made. One important question she brings up is the question of who’s in charge: “Can any individual or group of people legitimately regard themselves as guardians of what Primo Levi called the ‘memory of the offence?’”(20). Not one particular group can describe the Shoah, Wright admits, and the further away in time it becomes, the more problematic the representations seem to be. These questions that she raises, are used as a ‘tee,’ to set up the perfect opportunity for her to examine all the opinions out there as well as to form her own.
Wright goes on to discuss the criticisms and other people’s opinions of Life is Beautiful and Shoah art. She mentions Elie Wiesel’s thoughts that the Shoah cannot be put into literature, as it is beyond the terrors of any event that has ever occurred. Many critics argue that this event
cannot be made into art, and Wright attempts to explain this in her own words: “There is an unbridgeable chasm between art and the extraordinary atrocities of the Nazi era,” and “ a ‘Holocaust film’ cannot be or if it is, it is inevitably an abomination” (20). Although this
criticism that ‘film is inaccurate’ is frequently made, Wright points out that film companies only care about what will make them money and therefore all such films will be ‘distorted’, ‘simplified’, or in someway cliched. Another huge criticism that Wright brings up is that films try too hard to make things that are impossible to recreate, seem authentic. She mentions the film Sophie’s Choice to drive home her point on this problem: “There is something deeply troubling about Meryl Streep starving herself in order to become ‘like’ a camp inmate” (21). This
quote leaves an eery, and wrong picture in the mind of readers. It is questionable, Wright furthers, whether comedy or authenticity should be used to represent the Shoah.
It is important to look at comedy and how it affects the impact of film, so Wright drifts away from negative criticisms and discusses humor and the positive arguments of it’s use. Wright expresses that comedy is underrated by cultural commentators, and that it can be of importance. To defend her argument that comedy isn’t entirely bad, she lists previous comedic Shoah films like The Great Dictator and Seven Beauties, and states that they cannot all be labeled inappropriate: “The existence of one notoriously tasteless example...does not demonstrate the inadequacy or unsuitability of the genre” (22). This means that if other comedic films have been successful, they should not stop making them because one is not as good of a representation as others. As for Benigni using Guido to portray the camp system as a game, Wright argues that this shows his refusal to conform to the powerful Nazis. Wright urges that this “could be interpreted as a defiant parody, a refusal to accept the meanings and limitations imposed by the Nazi regime” (23). After examining Shoah comedies, and in particular Life is Beautiful, Wright makes it clear that one whole medium can’t be dismissed, for it may convey very complex ideas in an easier way for people to understand.
Although the question looms about whether comedic films are appropriate to represent historical tragedies, Wright reiterates that this is more of a romantic comedy than a movie about the Shoah. She suggests that this film is not to be looked at as a realistic representation: “To criticize it because it is not a historically reliable portrait of camp life...is to misunderstand the nature of the film” (25). Overall, she is defining the main points of the movie as being love, sacrifice and the ‘loss of the ordinary’.
In addition to the arguments of others, Wright identifies four main problems with film. One problem that Wright identifies is that film was used for propaganda by the Nazis: “Film played an integral role in the Nazi project” (27). Her criticism is saying that film seems to have ‘fascist
tendencies’ and that it may be backwards to use a ‘Nazi tactic’, when trying to show the Shoah as an atrocity. Adding to the fact that it’s problematic that film is already linked with the Nazism, Wright suggests that film leaves no room for interpretation and creativity: “Film presents both image and sound, leaving less room for the creation of individualised meanings” (27) Wright emphasizes that watching film is a passive experience for the audience. She then brings to attention the problem of audiences becoming so absorbed in films, that they start to believe it is
real. She acknowledges that questions about the possibility of reality pop up, even while watching impossible movies like Life is Beautiful. Wright speculates that film is such an easy experience that no one is forced to feel an emotional connection with the event: “ Life is Beautiful is a dangerously innocent story, one which evokes National Socialism’s own desire to sweep the Jew aside” (29). By never coming out and calling the victims Jews in this movie, Wright declares that we aren’t even made to sympathize with the group that was terrorized and murdered
brutally.
As Wright attempts to wrap up her arguments, she summarizes her opinion into one idea: “At the same time, there remains a need for those who work with film to explore more fully the fascist inner tendencies of the medium” (30). She is informing the readers that film has the
power to control you, and brainwash you into thinking a certain way so it must be used in an appropriate and effective manner. Wright concludes that film will always be a medium used to represent the Shoah, and won’t replace other mediums, but enhance them if used correctly. To be used correctly, Wright argues that the film does not have to be completely accurate, but it must be somehow tied to a bigger picture, one where the viewer must engage in the experience and interpret things for themselves.
While Wright argues that film doesn’t have to be completely historically accurate because it is ultimately impossible, there are some topics that require facts so as not to make it trivial. The movie Life is Beautiful has little fact to it, besides that it shows gas chambers and the fascist
Nazis, and it’s clear that it is mockery because Guido is constantly joking throughout the situation. This movie is making a reference to a serious tragedy, but that intense, nervewracking feeling is not there. Since Wright argues that film must not be an easy experience, these two criticisms can be contradictory. If there is no accuracy, this means that it is all fiction and a made up story, which does not make the viewers visualize the brutal horrors even remotely close to how they happened. There must be a certain point of accuracy and a powerful image ingrained
into the minds of the audience so that they connect film to history and tragedy. reached in order for film to be appropriate for representing a tragedy such as the Shoah. It is implied by Wright that comedy can be an important aspect of film. Although comedy is used in many cultures, there are certain subjects that are not meant to be humorous. One may argue that humor can ease the experience, but that should not be the point. Viewers should be made to look tragedy in the face to understand it. Take the movie The Boy in the Striped Pajamas , for example; it is not comedic and it’s heavy on the emotions; it evokes much more sadness, pity and sympathy from viewers than does Life is Beautiful. In the end, comedy isn’t appropriate when trying to portray a tragedy.
The meaning of Life is Beautiful, in the eyes of Wright, is not about the Shoah but about family, love, and loss of the ordinary. It seems that the Shoah is simply a background to make the emotional connection for the viewers. If the objective of a movie is to attempt to show the actual horrors that occurred in the Shoah, then it would and should explicitly use the term ‘Jew’, and spend a longer portion focusing on the camps and not the love story or family life they shared before the camp. However, by not focusing completely on the Shoah, the film is effective in sending a universal message. The story of the characters in films are what grabs the audience’s attention and is how they receive the message that the director wants to send. A more serious topic, such as the Shoah, should have serious characters to send a message appropriate to how tragic the event was.
Film as a fascist artform is another area of opinion Wright addresses. Wright recalls that film was used in the Nazi era to persuade people by making sure that everyone saw it and heard what the Nazis wanted them to hear. It is possible that a similar problem could be encountered with this generation, where people might become ‘brainwashed’ into thinking certain ways when they watch a film. However, film can not completely be a bad thing. It may not be easy for some people to create a correct image in their head of what the Shoah looked like while reading a book, but film can be used to help guide thinking. On the other hand, if it’s misleading it is possible that viewers will be stuck thinking a certain way because they were misinformed. For example, the bunk room in Life is Beautiful was nothing close to the awful conditions of
concentration camps, and if this was the only perspective someone ever saw they would never see the the barbarity of them. Nazis gained followers within an ethnicity by exploiting others publicly, showing powerful images and having icons speak out on issues. Similarly, if people sit in front of a screen watching famous icons act out such important events, they will often develop perspectives similar to what was portrayed by them. A historical tragedy needs to show realistic situations and create a high intensity visual experience to allow viewers to develop their own feelings towards these things and, in turn, avoid ‘fascist tendencies.’
There have been films made about other controversial topics as well, such as segregation and racism. After slavery was declared illegal in the United States, there was still plenty of racial discrimination going on. In 1876, there were new rules made on segregation that were called the
“Jim Crow Laws.” They were intended to segregate the African American population from the white population. These laws were strictly enforced by authorities, especially in the southern states. In 1896, the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson upheld these laws to be constitutional, and they were not abolished until 1964. The segregation and racism against African Americans by the white population has been a topic that appears in all textbooks, in movies, and several other artforms, and has brought up great controversy. In 2011, the book The
Help by Kathryn Stockett, was turned into a movie and directed by Tate Taylor about the period of Jim Crow laws and civil rights. The movie is set in Jackson, Mississippi during the 1960’s.
The main character, Skeeter is a young, white female who just graduated college and is trying to become a writer. All of Skeeter’s other female friends are the typical trophy wives, and have hired their very own colored “help” as their families have done for generations. Upon Skeeter’s
arrival at home, she finds a job at the local newspaper writing a cleaning column called Miss Myrna. Since Skeeter doesn’t know much about cleaning, she asks her friend Elizabeth Leefolt if she can interview her “help” who’s name is Aibileen. After a while, Elizabeth requests that
Aibileen stops helping Skeeter out, and Skeeter is intrigued to learn more about racial issues and why they are not spoken about. She sees more racial injustices arise, and gets the idea to write a book about “the help” in Jackson which she gets approved by Elaine Stein, a famous editor in New York. Skeeter and Aibileen start meeting in private at Aibileen’s house where she shares all her stories about what life has been like as a housemaid in Jackson. When Aibileen’s good friend Minny Jackson is fired from her job as a housemaid, and seeks revenge by feeding Hilly Holbrook her feces, she decides that she too must share her story in order to keep them safe from being revealed once the book is published. More maids volunteer to speak out and share their story and, finally, Skeeter has a completed book. The book is published and it is the talk of the town, but Hilly knows better than to let people know she ate feces help,” Although Skeeter loses her boyfriend and friends, she is offered her dream job as a writer in New York. The film ends with Aibileen walking away from her last “baby” after being fired by Elizabeth Leefolt, who was instructed to do so by Hilly. This movie and the actors received and were nominees for many awards: Academy Award “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role” by Octavia Spencer (2012), Golden Globe “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture” by Octavia Spencer (2012), and AfricanAmerican Film Critics Association “Top Ten Films” (2011) just to name a few. Despite the public praise, many still consider this to be a problematic film.
People always have input on controversial movies such as these, and Allison Graham publishes hers in an article titled, “‘We Ain’t Doin’ Civil Rights’ ‘The Life and Times of a Genre, as Told in The Help .’” Since Skeeter is perhaps the “hero” of this movie, Graham begins by setting the background for the position of power she is placed in throughout the film. She mentions that by Skeeter “introducing” her family’s “help” to the Civil Rights movement on the black and white television, that she is seem to be made into a revolutionist: “By its conclusion, the significance of the tale and the centrality of the teller have been established. Fictional Jackson has been pulled into history by Skeeter” (55). No one ever points out in the film, that “the help” even had any interest in these movements at that time, as the most you see in that
scene is one of “the help” nod his head. Graham hints at the problems with using television in ‘civil rights’ movies because of “historical improbability” and that it can distort facts vs. fiction.
Further examining televisions in film, Graham claims that televisions are used in The Help and other movies to try and make them seem more authentic. There is a turning point in civil rights films, she reveals, that after this point (late 1980s onward) all the movies had the same two
characteristics: “the reluctant champion (a white southern “insider” whose cultural estrangement provokes social and political upheaval in a Deep South community), and the reliable witness (an unimpeachable source of incriminating evidence against the community)” (55). Graham implies
that The Help does not avoid this cliche. With so many movies, such as Mississippi Burning, using television to portray civil rights events within a film, Graham suggests that it has “become a marker of historical authenticity that it could even be used anachronistically without critical comment” (57). She believes that a black and white television has become such an icon in these films, that people see this and automatically assume that these things are true because they are on the screens and have headlines and news clip (even though these news clips may be fake). In putting into perspective a particular viewpoint, Graham ties all of this to present day opinions by “quoting” the internal feelings of young Americans that feel similar to President Obama: civil rights are looked upon on as “‘the grainy black and white footage that appears every February during Black History Month’” (58).
There are many “stories” involved in The Help, and also several different meanings as to what a “story” is in this film. The term “stories” is used very loosely in this film and can mean many things: “After the term “story” is introduced in the film as a synonym for soap operas, it next
appears as Aibileen’s term for her nightly journal writing” (61). A “story” can be anything from a soap opera, to Hilly’s gossip, to the information “the help” shares with Skeeter. By using the word “story” for so many different ideas, Graham suggests that it downgrades the importance of
civil rights by giving gossip and accounts from “the help” the same title. These accounts that are in Skeeter’s book, fail to be recognized by anyone of importance or by any male: “Whatever social significance resides in the pages of Skeeter’s book, it appears to go unnoticed by the
people who run the shops on Capitol Street, or the City of Jackson, or the White Citizens’ Council…” (62). There is trivialization in the use of the word “stories” because it downgrades the whole purpose of Skeeter trying to encourage “the help” to be noticed and improve their lives.
In the final section of her article, Graham illustrates the effect of things such as a powerful white hero like Skeeter, the use of a television to create authenticity, and the telling of “stories.” These three things combined, as well as a few background details and pulling of the heart strings, have caused viewers from all over the country to seek out these places that seem so real in the movie: “Since the release of the film, the restaurant has served countless tourists, many of them in town for one reason... in other words, to take “ The Help” tour” (64). Even though the film and original novel are not based off true stories, viewers of the film are made to feel an emotional
connection and be introduced to a lesser (fictional) version of the civil rights movement.
To portray Skeeter in such a high position of power, and pose her as the “hero” for colored people in Jackson, Graham declares problematic. This inaccuracy is a huge downfall in civil rights films. It should not make a white person look like the hero or main activist of the movement, for this is a huge inaccuracy. The likeliness of a white woman, trying to speak out on behalf of “the help” in the 1960s was slim to none. Using footage on a television, however, does not seem to be as big of a deal as Graham seems to make it. This movie is not a documentary, and it shows the reality in general of media being an important factor in civil rights in general.
When emphasizing how big of an icon television is in Civil Rights movies, she makes known that trying to use a television to create authenticity is problematic. For the purpose of a television in a movie though, it might perhaps be helpful when used to teach white people about civil rights
movements. It should not be used to have a white person start a civil rights revolution, because that is unrealistic and does not do justice to the work that African Americans through to obtain their rights. On the other hand, Graham is correct in expressing that there is a sense of “distorted
reality” when a television is present because for some reason people see that and immediately believe it. Black and white television is glorified too much as the absolute truth. Besides the events on televisions, people in The Help receive and pass along a lot of information through “stories”, be it gossip, soap operas, or tell ng their own such as Aibileen. Graham has a valid point when arguing that it takes away from the meaning of Aibileen and “the help’s” accounts by using that term. If you categorize all three of these things together, it is to
say they are equally important. Even Aibileen says they’re not doing “civil rights”, they’re just telling “stories,” but in that time and day, a book like that would have been a big deal in the civil rights movement. Graham has a more valid point in saying that Minnie giving Hilly a feces pie
was too big of a focus. It is like a stereotype, and an immature way to represent the resentment “the help” would have actually felt about their employers. There needs to be defined lines in civil rights movies between what is important and what is just the ‘background noise’ to the movie.
There are many fans of The Help and Graham proves this point by listing the places that tourists love to visit just because the movie was filmed there. It is very normal to become wrapped up in a movie, and it is not to say that this is completely bad, but there are some problems with it. If people were to go visit these sights, they are not seeing where any actual history was made since they seem to only care about the movie. If it was filmed more at historical locations, it could persuade viewers into visiting those places and learning the facts. One can not completely disregard nonfactual films, because there is value in that they show younger generations similar situations to the past, that are both interesting and informative by giving a glimpse of certain time periods that they did not have to live through.
As previously mentioned, slavery was the era in American history before Civil Rights, which included many great horrors. Slavery dates all the way back to the 1600’s, when the first slaves were brought from Africa into the new American settlement in Jamestown, Virginia. They built
the economic foundation of America by growing and farming the nation’s crops such as cotton and tobacco. Slaves were not seen as humans; they were seen as property to be sold and traded. Slave masters beat, whipped, and hung slaves if they disobeyed in any way. Women, who also worked in fields or as house servants, were frequently raped by their owners. It was the nightmare that eventually divided the nation into a free north and enslaved south. Although over 4 million slaves were freed after the Civil War by the 13th amendment in 1865, slavery had lasting effects and African Americans did not receive social equality for almost 100 years. The movie directed by Steve McQueen titled 12 Years a Slave was adapted from a novel into a film in 2013, and is a memoir of the account of an actual slave. Solomon Northup was born a free African American man in New York. When his wife and children leave on a short trip, Solomon leaves to go on a paid two week music gig with two white males since he is a talented violinist. Instead, he is drugged and kidnapped by the men and sold into slavery in the south. As an
outspoken and intelligent African American, his quick wit often leads to trouble for him during his life as a slave. Under the name of Platt, he is traded between plantations and abused several times for his lack of cooperation. His only hope throughout the many cruelties he faces, are his
wife, son and daughter back at home who have no clue what happened to him. The process of hard manual labor, abuse, being traded, and watching fellow slaves be beaten continues to be part of everyday life for Solomon’s 12 years as a slave. His freedom is finally obtained when he meets Bass, an abolitionist from Canada, and he agrees to send a letter to his family back in New
York. An old friend comes to get Solomon, and brings him back home. His wife, son and daughter are waiting for him, and his daughter now has a husband and baby boy whom she named Solomon. The film ends with a very sentimental reuniting hug between the family. This
film was very well received and won an Oscar and Golden Globe Award for “Best Motion Picture of the Year,” as well as several other awards.
Paula J. Massood reviews this film and examines it’s success in the Journal of American History in her article titled, “12 Years a Slave”. Massood speaks of her experience watching the film in a public theater before writing this article, where she heard many shocked gasps during
the scenes that showed cruel treatment of Solomon Northup and other slaves. Massood praises that this is one of the only films to so daringly address harsh realities: “The true accomplishment of the film is its masterly use of the melodramatic form to produce an audiovisual experience that many have praised for its skillful rendering of the horrors of slavery and many others out of fear of its “realistic” images of brutality” (357). She describes how establishing this intense identification with a character, allows there to be connection to larger scale injustice and that the
idea of slavery becomes even more “intolerable.”
Even though this is a film adapted from a novel, Massood points out how the details that are cut from one form to another does not lessen the effect, but instead magnifies it. She points out how Northup’s time as free man is abbreviated as well as his previous, unsuccessful attempts of
escape. Furthermore she adds, these small inaccuracies enhance McQueen’s focal point of emotional connection: “Yet, the nature of the omissions here point to the writer’s and director’s desire to reduce historical details from the book to shore up audience identification with the
characters in the film” (359). Massood believes that the overall ideas of the story are still conveyed, but leaving out the less important details keep the audience involved, and therefore makes the cinematic adaptation more effective.
In addition to narrative changes, Massood asserts that image and sound are another powerful aspect of the film. This section suggests that sound effects and music, combined with very graphic images help the audience visualize something they may have never previously
understood: “...image and sound combinations to capture the horrors of slaveryfrom historically specific renderings of the New Orleans slave market to the visceral sounds of a lash as it hits flesh during a whipping” (359). Camera angles and lack of sounds can also have deafening
effects as Massood depicts: “The circular camera movement and absence of music convey slavery’s absolute dehumanization of its subjects” (359). According to Massood, 12 Years a Slave is a very influential and successful film.
This movie is so effective because you are facetoface with the reality of slavery. This is not an easy or passive experience. When Solomon is kidnapped and repeatedly lashed for speaking out, you will cringe every time that he does and hear every whimper that comes from his mouth.
It can not be barbaric to make a film such as this, because this is used to teach a lesson. That it was not, and never will be right to make another race feel inferior. 12 Years a Slave makes the emotional connection between a time in a history book, and today’s idea of what slavery was and instills a feeling of moral wrongness in the viewer. Film may be seen as a ‘fascist artform’ because of it’s tendencies to make a fantasy idea of history that certain people want you to believe, but this film is up front and honest about slavery.
Comedy is an element that is left out of this specific historical film. There is no place for laughter when watching scenes such as Solomon being forced to whip his young friend Patsey, or when watching her be raped in the middle of the night by her master. This is something that needs to be taken seriously through and through, and this film is successful in making the matter seem as serious as it actually was. It can be seen more influential than other slave films such as Django Unchained, that make dark attempts at humor or satire.
Another element of this movie that makes it more successful than movies such as The Help , is that it does not center around a white character. The whole story is focused on Solomon and the trials and tribulations that he faces. A white character is the one that delivers Solomon’s letter
that leads to his freedom, however this act is not overly glorified and the man seems to somewhat disappear after the letter is delivered. By showing Solomon refuse to lose hope, unlike the men who said they would be slaves forever, this emphasizes that he was his own hero and that he got through that experience by his own strength.
From the book that was actually written by Solomon, to the movie there are some inaccuracies, but as Massood says this helps the film rather than hurts it. By not showing his previous life before slavery, it does not downplay the severity of the injustice of him being kidnapped or enslaved. The audience can still fully understand what happens, and is allowed to view more than just one story of slavery. Whereas in Life is Beautiful the concentration camp looked nothing similar to a real one, the plantations in 12 Years a Slave are very similar and there is a very good idea given of what the beatings of a slave would have looked like, such as when Patsey was whipped and you could see flesh afterwards.
Films of historical representations are meant to enhance other artforms, not to teach history.
While textbooks give the exact details and facts, film helps puts a picture to the words on the pages and provoke emotions. With the movie Life is Beautiful , one cannot come close to comprehending the reality of the Shoah, because it is not even remotely accurate and it is too
lighthearted. Being less of a comedic film, The Help is a more accurate representation in relation to the era of Civil Rights, but is far off in letting the audience visualize how poorly the colored people were actually treated and what would have realistically happened to maids that wrote a
book such as that. 12 Years a Slave is the best possible historical representation because it is serious, yet interesting and the audience must see, hear and feel everything that the slaves felt. It would not be right to take away from the severity of historical tragedies, as this could be taken
very offensively by the victims, the victims’ family members, and certain cultural/religious/racial groups as a whole. It is important to keep film about historical tragedies realistic, but not completely factual and dull like a documentary.
Works Cited
Graham, Allison. "“We Ain’t Doin’ Civil Rights”: The Life and Times of a Genre, as Told in
The
Help." Southern Cultures 20.1 (2014): 5164.
Print.
Massood, P. J. "12 Years a Slave." Journal of American History 101.1 (2014): 35760.
EBSCO.
Web.
Wright, Melanie J. "'Don't Touch My Holocaust': Responding to Life Is Beautiful." The Journal
of Holocaust Education 9.1 (2000): 1932.
Print.
The Shoah is considered to be one of the greatest tragedies in history. This period of Nazi regime, lead by Adolf Hitler, consisted of the mass deportation and genocide of over 6 million Jews, and other races considered inferior to Germans. Some prisoners held by the Nazis were immediately killed in gas chambers, and those who lived were forced to perform grueling labor and live in the worst possible conditions. The deportation began in 1941, and all the camps were not liberated until 1945. This time in history is memorialized today in many forms, such as
textbooks, documentaries, monuments, art, and movies. There was a romantic comedy that involved the Shoah which debuted in 1998, called Life is Beautiful . It is directed by and features Roberto Benigni. This film begins with the comedic main character, Guido, falling in love with a
beautiful woman named Dora. Although it is implied that he is Jewish, and Dora is not, and she is wealthy while he is not, they end up getting married. The film skips ahead to later in their lives where Guido is living contently with his wife and young son Giosue in Italy. When the country is invaded by German forces, Guido’s family is split up and forced into a concentration camp.
Guido tries to make it into a game for his son, and convinces him that they must get 1000 points to win the “grand prize” of a tank and to go home. He mocks the Nazi soldiers and makes light of the whole situation up until he is executed, and finally the camp is liberated the next day
where his wife and son are set free. This film won the Grand Prix at the 1998 Cannes Film Festival and at the 71st Academy Awards, it received Best Foreign Language Film, Best Music, and Original Dramatic Score. Despite all the awards, some critics have found it to be offensive to
use humor in relation to the Shoah. In Melanie J. Wright’s article titled “‘Don’t Touch my Holocaust’: Responding to Life is Beautiful, ” she discusses the positive and negatives to this particular movie and the art of film as a whole. She begins the article by presenting questions that frequently arise when discussing art made about the Shoah, including the types of art that should be made. One important question she brings up is the question of who’s in charge: “Can any individual or group of people legitimately regard themselves as guardians of what Primo Levi called the ‘memory of the offence?’”(20). Not one particular group can describe the Shoah, Wright admits, and the further away in time it becomes, the more problematic the representations seem to be. These questions that she raises, are used as a ‘tee,’ to set up the perfect opportunity for her to examine all the opinions out there as well as to form her own.
Wright goes on to discuss the criticisms and other people’s opinions of Life is Beautiful and Shoah art. She mentions Elie Wiesel’s thoughts that the Shoah cannot be put into literature, as it is beyond the terrors of any event that has ever occurred. Many critics argue that this event
cannot be made into art, and Wright attempts to explain this in her own words: “There is an unbridgeable chasm between art and the extraordinary atrocities of the Nazi era,” and “ a ‘Holocaust film’ cannot be or if it is, it is inevitably an abomination” (20). Although this
criticism that ‘film is inaccurate’ is frequently made, Wright points out that film companies only care about what will make them money and therefore all such films will be ‘distorted’, ‘simplified’, or in someway cliched. Another huge criticism that Wright brings up is that films try too hard to make things that are impossible to recreate, seem authentic. She mentions the film Sophie’s Choice to drive home her point on this problem: “There is something deeply troubling about Meryl Streep starving herself in order to become ‘like’ a camp inmate” (21). This
quote leaves an eery, and wrong picture in the mind of readers. It is questionable, Wright furthers, whether comedy or authenticity should be used to represent the Shoah.
It is important to look at comedy and how it affects the impact of film, so Wright drifts away from negative criticisms and discusses humor and the positive arguments of it’s use. Wright expresses that comedy is underrated by cultural commentators, and that it can be of importance. To defend her argument that comedy isn’t entirely bad, she lists previous comedic Shoah films like The Great Dictator and Seven Beauties, and states that they cannot all be labeled inappropriate: “The existence of one notoriously tasteless example...does not demonstrate the inadequacy or unsuitability of the genre” (22). This means that if other comedic films have been successful, they should not stop making them because one is not as good of a representation as others. As for Benigni using Guido to portray the camp system as a game, Wright argues that this shows his refusal to conform to the powerful Nazis. Wright urges that this “could be interpreted as a defiant parody, a refusal to accept the meanings and limitations imposed by the Nazi regime” (23). After examining Shoah comedies, and in particular Life is Beautiful, Wright makes it clear that one whole medium can’t be dismissed, for it may convey very complex ideas in an easier way for people to understand.
Although the question looms about whether comedic films are appropriate to represent historical tragedies, Wright reiterates that this is more of a romantic comedy than a movie about the Shoah. She suggests that this film is not to be looked at as a realistic representation: “To criticize it because it is not a historically reliable portrait of camp life...is to misunderstand the nature of the film” (25). Overall, she is defining the main points of the movie as being love, sacrifice and the ‘loss of the ordinary’.
In addition to the arguments of others, Wright identifies four main problems with film. One problem that Wright identifies is that film was used for propaganda by the Nazis: “Film played an integral role in the Nazi project” (27). Her criticism is saying that film seems to have ‘fascist
tendencies’ and that it may be backwards to use a ‘Nazi tactic’, when trying to show the Shoah as an atrocity. Adding to the fact that it’s problematic that film is already linked with the Nazism, Wright suggests that film leaves no room for interpretation and creativity: “Film presents both image and sound, leaving less room for the creation of individualised meanings” (27) Wright emphasizes that watching film is a passive experience for the audience. She then brings to attention the problem of audiences becoming so absorbed in films, that they start to believe it is
real. She acknowledges that questions about the possibility of reality pop up, even while watching impossible movies like Life is Beautiful. Wright speculates that film is such an easy experience that no one is forced to feel an emotional connection with the event: “ Life is Beautiful is a dangerously innocent story, one which evokes National Socialism’s own desire to sweep the Jew aside” (29). By never coming out and calling the victims Jews in this movie, Wright declares that we aren’t even made to sympathize with the group that was terrorized and murdered
brutally.
As Wright attempts to wrap up her arguments, she summarizes her opinion into one idea: “At the same time, there remains a need for those who work with film to explore more fully the fascist inner tendencies of the medium” (30). She is informing the readers that film has the
power to control you, and brainwash you into thinking a certain way so it must be used in an appropriate and effective manner. Wright concludes that film will always be a medium used to represent the Shoah, and won’t replace other mediums, but enhance them if used correctly. To be used correctly, Wright argues that the film does not have to be completely accurate, but it must be somehow tied to a bigger picture, one where the viewer must engage in the experience and interpret things for themselves.
While Wright argues that film doesn’t have to be completely historically accurate because it is ultimately impossible, there are some topics that require facts so as not to make it trivial. The movie Life is Beautiful has little fact to it, besides that it shows gas chambers and the fascist
Nazis, and it’s clear that it is mockery because Guido is constantly joking throughout the situation. This movie is making a reference to a serious tragedy, but that intense, nervewracking feeling is not there. Since Wright argues that film must not be an easy experience, these two criticisms can be contradictory. If there is no accuracy, this means that it is all fiction and a made up story, which does not make the viewers visualize the brutal horrors even remotely close to how they happened. There must be a certain point of accuracy and a powerful image ingrained
into the minds of the audience so that they connect film to history and tragedy. reached in order for film to be appropriate for representing a tragedy such as the Shoah. It is implied by Wright that comedy can be an important aspect of film. Although comedy is used in many cultures, there are certain subjects that are not meant to be humorous. One may argue that humor can ease the experience, but that should not be the point. Viewers should be made to look tragedy in the face to understand it. Take the movie The Boy in the Striped Pajamas , for example; it is not comedic and it’s heavy on the emotions; it evokes much more sadness, pity and sympathy from viewers than does Life is Beautiful. In the end, comedy isn’t appropriate when trying to portray a tragedy.
The meaning of Life is Beautiful, in the eyes of Wright, is not about the Shoah but about family, love, and loss of the ordinary. It seems that the Shoah is simply a background to make the emotional connection for the viewers. If the objective of a movie is to attempt to show the actual horrors that occurred in the Shoah, then it would and should explicitly use the term ‘Jew’, and spend a longer portion focusing on the camps and not the love story or family life they shared before the camp. However, by not focusing completely on the Shoah, the film is effective in sending a universal message. The story of the characters in films are what grabs the audience’s attention and is how they receive the message that the director wants to send. A more serious topic, such as the Shoah, should have serious characters to send a message appropriate to how tragic the event was.
Film as a fascist artform is another area of opinion Wright addresses. Wright recalls that film was used in the Nazi era to persuade people by making sure that everyone saw it and heard what the Nazis wanted them to hear. It is possible that a similar problem could be encountered with this generation, where people might become ‘brainwashed’ into thinking certain ways when they watch a film. However, film can not completely be a bad thing. It may not be easy for some people to create a correct image in their head of what the Shoah looked like while reading a book, but film can be used to help guide thinking. On the other hand, if it’s misleading it is possible that viewers will be stuck thinking a certain way because they were misinformed. For example, the bunk room in Life is Beautiful was nothing close to the awful conditions of
concentration camps, and if this was the only perspective someone ever saw they would never see the the barbarity of them. Nazis gained followers within an ethnicity by exploiting others publicly, showing powerful images and having icons speak out on issues. Similarly, if people sit in front of a screen watching famous icons act out such important events, they will often develop perspectives similar to what was portrayed by them. A historical tragedy needs to show realistic situations and create a high intensity visual experience to allow viewers to develop their own feelings towards these things and, in turn, avoid ‘fascist tendencies.’
There have been films made about other controversial topics as well, such as segregation and racism. After slavery was declared illegal in the United States, there was still plenty of racial discrimination going on. In 1876, there were new rules made on segregation that were called the
“Jim Crow Laws.” They were intended to segregate the African American population from the white population. These laws were strictly enforced by authorities, especially in the southern states. In 1896, the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson upheld these laws to be constitutional, and they were not abolished until 1964. The segregation and racism against African Americans by the white population has been a topic that appears in all textbooks, in movies, and several other artforms, and has brought up great controversy. In 2011, the book The
Help by Kathryn Stockett, was turned into a movie and directed by Tate Taylor about the period of Jim Crow laws and civil rights. The movie is set in Jackson, Mississippi during the 1960’s.
The main character, Skeeter is a young, white female who just graduated college and is trying to become a writer. All of Skeeter’s other female friends are the typical trophy wives, and have hired their very own colored “help” as their families have done for generations. Upon Skeeter’s
arrival at home, she finds a job at the local newspaper writing a cleaning column called Miss Myrna. Since Skeeter doesn’t know much about cleaning, she asks her friend Elizabeth Leefolt if she can interview her “help” who’s name is Aibileen. After a while, Elizabeth requests that
Aibileen stops helping Skeeter out, and Skeeter is intrigued to learn more about racial issues and why they are not spoken about. She sees more racial injustices arise, and gets the idea to write a book about “the help” in Jackson which she gets approved by Elaine Stein, a famous editor in New York. Skeeter and Aibileen start meeting in private at Aibileen’s house where she shares all her stories about what life has been like as a housemaid in Jackson. When Aibileen’s good friend Minny Jackson is fired from her job as a housemaid, and seeks revenge by feeding Hilly Holbrook her feces, she decides that she too must share her story in order to keep them safe from being revealed once the book is published. More maids volunteer to speak out and share their story and, finally, Skeeter has a completed book. The book is published and it is the talk of the town, but Hilly knows better than to let people know she ate feces help,” Although Skeeter loses her boyfriend and friends, she is offered her dream job as a writer in New York. The film ends with Aibileen walking away from her last “baby” after being fired by Elizabeth Leefolt, who was instructed to do so by Hilly. This movie and the actors received and were nominees for many awards: Academy Award “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role” by Octavia Spencer (2012), Golden Globe “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture” by Octavia Spencer (2012), and AfricanAmerican Film Critics Association “Top Ten Films” (2011) just to name a few. Despite the public praise, many still consider this to be a problematic film.
People always have input on controversial movies such as these, and Allison Graham publishes hers in an article titled, “‘We Ain’t Doin’ Civil Rights’ ‘The Life and Times of a Genre, as Told in The Help .’” Since Skeeter is perhaps the “hero” of this movie, Graham begins by setting the background for the position of power she is placed in throughout the film. She mentions that by Skeeter “introducing” her family’s “help” to the Civil Rights movement on the black and white television, that she is seem to be made into a revolutionist: “By its conclusion, the significance of the tale and the centrality of the teller have been established. Fictional Jackson has been pulled into history by Skeeter” (55). No one ever points out in the film, that “the help” even had any interest in these movements at that time, as the most you see in that
scene is one of “the help” nod his head. Graham hints at the problems with using television in ‘civil rights’ movies because of “historical improbability” and that it can distort facts vs. fiction.
Further examining televisions in film, Graham claims that televisions are used in The Help and other movies to try and make them seem more authentic. There is a turning point in civil rights films, she reveals, that after this point (late 1980s onward) all the movies had the same two
characteristics: “the reluctant champion (a white southern “insider” whose cultural estrangement provokes social and political upheaval in a Deep South community), and the reliable witness (an unimpeachable source of incriminating evidence against the community)” (55). Graham implies
that The Help does not avoid this cliche. With so many movies, such as Mississippi Burning, using television to portray civil rights events within a film, Graham suggests that it has “become a marker of historical authenticity that it could even be used anachronistically without critical comment” (57). She believes that a black and white television has become such an icon in these films, that people see this and automatically assume that these things are true because they are on the screens and have headlines and news clip (even though these news clips may be fake). In putting into perspective a particular viewpoint, Graham ties all of this to present day opinions by “quoting” the internal feelings of young Americans that feel similar to President Obama: civil rights are looked upon on as “‘the grainy black and white footage that appears every February during Black History Month’” (58).
There are many “stories” involved in The Help, and also several different meanings as to what a “story” is in this film. The term “stories” is used very loosely in this film and can mean many things: “After the term “story” is introduced in the film as a synonym for soap operas, it next
appears as Aibileen’s term for her nightly journal writing” (61). A “story” can be anything from a soap opera, to Hilly’s gossip, to the information “the help” shares with Skeeter. By using the word “story” for so many different ideas, Graham suggests that it downgrades the importance of
civil rights by giving gossip and accounts from “the help” the same title. These accounts that are in Skeeter’s book, fail to be recognized by anyone of importance or by any male: “Whatever social significance resides in the pages of Skeeter’s book, it appears to go unnoticed by the
people who run the shops on Capitol Street, or the City of Jackson, or the White Citizens’ Council…” (62). There is trivialization in the use of the word “stories” because it downgrades the whole purpose of Skeeter trying to encourage “the help” to be noticed and improve their lives.
In the final section of her article, Graham illustrates the effect of things such as a powerful white hero like Skeeter, the use of a television to create authenticity, and the telling of “stories.” These three things combined, as well as a few background details and pulling of the heart strings, have caused viewers from all over the country to seek out these places that seem so real in the movie: “Since the release of the film, the restaurant has served countless tourists, many of them in town for one reason... in other words, to take “ The Help” tour” (64). Even though the film and original novel are not based off true stories, viewers of the film are made to feel an emotional
connection and be introduced to a lesser (fictional) version of the civil rights movement.
To portray Skeeter in such a high position of power, and pose her as the “hero” for colored people in Jackson, Graham declares problematic. This inaccuracy is a huge downfall in civil rights films. It should not make a white person look like the hero or main activist of the movement, for this is a huge inaccuracy. The likeliness of a white woman, trying to speak out on behalf of “the help” in the 1960s was slim to none. Using footage on a television, however, does not seem to be as big of a deal as Graham seems to make it. This movie is not a documentary, and it shows the reality in general of media being an important factor in civil rights in general.
When emphasizing how big of an icon television is in Civil Rights movies, she makes known that trying to use a television to create authenticity is problematic. For the purpose of a television in a movie though, it might perhaps be helpful when used to teach white people about civil rights
movements. It should not be used to have a white person start a civil rights revolution, because that is unrealistic and does not do justice to the work that African Americans through to obtain their rights. On the other hand, Graham is correct in expressing that there is a sense of “distorted
reality” when a television is present because for some reason people see that and immediately believe it. Black and white television is glorified too much as the absolute truth. Besides the events on televisions, people in The Help receive and pass along a lot of information through “stories”, be it gossip, soap operas, or tell ng their own such as Aibileen. Graham has a valid point when arguing that it takes away from the meaning of Aibileen and “the help’s” accounts by using that term. If you categorize all three of these things together, it is to
say they are equally important. Even Aibileen says they’re not doing “civil rights”, they’re just telling “stories,” but in that time and day, a book like that would have been a big deal in the civil rights movement. Graham has a more valid point in saying that Minnie giving Hilly a feces pie
was too big of a focus. It is like a stereotype, and an immature way to represent the resentment “the help” would have actually felt about their employers. There needs to be defined lines in civil rights movies between what is important and what is just the ‘background noise’ to the movie.
There are many fans of The Help and Graham proves this point by listing the places that tourists love to visit just because the movie was filmed there. It is very normal to become wrapped up in a movie, and it is not to say that this is completely bad, but there are some problems with it. If people were to go visit these sights, they are not seeing where any actual history was made since they seem to only care about the movie. If it was filmed more at historical locations, it could persuade viewers into visiting those places and learning the facts. One can not completely disregard nonfactual films, because there is value in that they show younger generations similar situations to the past, that are both interesting and informative by giving a glimpse of certain time periods that they did not have to live through.
As previously mentioned, slavery was the era in American history before Civil Rights, which included many great horrors. Slavery dates all the way back to the 1600’s, when the first slaves were brought from Africa into the new American settlement in Jamestown, Virginia. They built
the economic foundation of America by growing and farming the nation’s crops such as cotton and tobacco. Slaves were not seen as humans; they were seen as property to be sold and traded. Slave masters beat, whipped, and hung slaves if they disobeyed in any way. Women, who also worked in fields or as house servants, were frequently raped by their owners. It was the nightmare that eventually divided the nation into a free north and enslaved south. Although over 4 million slaves were freed after the Civil War by the 13th amendment in 1865, slavery had lasting effects and African Americans did not receive social equality for almost 100 years. The movie directed by Steve McQueen titled 12 Years a Slave was adapted from a novel into a film in 2013, and is a memoir of the account of an actual slave. Solomon Northup was born a free African American man in New York. When his wife and children leave on a short trip, Solomon leaves to go on a paid two week music gig with two white males since he is a talented violinist. Instead, he is drugged and kidnapped by the men and sold into slavery in the south. As an
outspoken and intelligent African American, his quick wit often leads to trouble for him during his life as a slave. Under the name of Platt, he is traded between plantations and abused several times for his lack of cooperation. His only hope throughout the many cruelties he faces, are his
wife, son and daughter back at home who have no clue what happened to him. The process of hard manual labor, abuse, being traded, and watching fellow slaves be beaten continues to be part of everyday life for Solomon’s 12 years as a slave. His freedom is finally obtained when he meets Bass, an abolitionist from Canada, and he agrees to send a letter to his family back in New
York. An old friend comes to get Solomon, and brings him back home. His wife, son and daughter are waiting for him, and his daughter now has a husband and baby boy whom she named Solomon. The film ends with a very sentimental reuniting hug between the family. This
film was very well received and won an Oscar and Golden Globe Award for “Best Motion Picture of the Year,” as well as several other awards.
Paula J. Massood reviews this film and examines it’s success in the Journal of American History in her article titled, “12 Years a Slave”. Massood speaks of her experience watching the film in a public theater before writing this article, where she heard many shocked gasps during
the scenes that showed cruel treatment of Solomon Northup and other slaves. Massood praises that this is one of the only films to so daringly address harsh realities: “The true accomplishment of the film is its masterly use of the melodramatic form to produce an audiovisual experience that many have praised for its skillful rendering of the horrors of slavery and many others out of fear of its “realistic” images of brutality” (357). She describes how establishing this intense identification with a character, allows there to be connection to larger scale injustice and that the
idea of slavery becomes even more “intolerable.”
Even though this is a film adapted from a novel, Massood points out how the details that are cut from one form to another does not lessen the effect, but instead magnifies it. She points out how Northup’s time as free man is abbreviated as well as his previous, unsuccessful attempts of
escape. Furthermore she adds, these small inaccuracies enhance McQueen’s focal point of emotional connection: “Yet, the nature of the omissions here point to the writer’s and director’s desire to reduce historical details from the book to shore up audience identification with the
characters in the film” (359). Massood believes that the overall ideas of the story are still conveyed, but leaving out the less important details keep the audience involved, and therefore makes the cinematic adaptation more effective.
In addition to narrative changes, Massood asserts that image and sound are another powerful aspect of the film. This section suggests that sound effects and music, combined with very graphic images help the audience visualize something they may have never previously
understood: “...image and sound combinations to capture the horrors of slaveryfrom historically specific renderings of the New Orleans slave market to the visceral sounds of a lash as it hits flesh during a whipping” (359). Camera angles and lack of sounds can also have deafening
effects as Massood depicts: “The circular camera movement and absence of music convey slavery’s absolute dehumanization of its subjects” (359). According to Massood, 12 Years a Slave is a very influential and successful film.
This movie is so effective because you are facetoface with the reality of slavery. This is not an easy or passive experience. When Solomon is kidnapped and repeatedly lashed for speaking out, you will cringe every time that he does and hear every whimper that comes from his mouth.
It can not be barbaric to make a film such as this, because this is used to teach a lesson. That it was not, and never will be right to make another race feel inferior. 12 Years a Slave makes the emotional connection between a time in a history book, and today’s idea of what slavery was and instills a feeling of moral wrongness in the viewer. Film may be seen as a ‘fascist artform’ because of it’s tendencies to make a fantasy idea of history that certain people want you to believe, but this film is up front and honest about slavery.
Comedy is an element that is left out of this specific historical film. There is no place for laughter when watching scenes such as Solomon being forced to whip his young friend Patsey, or when watching her be raped in the middle of the night by her master. This is something that needs to be taken seriously through and through, and this film is successful in making the matter seem as serious as it actually was. It can be seen more influential than other slave films such as Django Unchained, that make dark attempts at humor or satire.
Another element of this movie that makes it more successful than movies such as The Help , is that it does not center around a white character. The whole story is focused on Solomon and the trials and tribulations that he faces. A white character is the one that delivers Solomon’s letter
that leads to his freedom, however this act is not overly glorified and the man seems to somewhat disappear after the letter is delivered. By showing Solomon refuse to lose hope, unlike the men who said they would be slaves forever, this emphasizes that he was his own hero and that he got through that experience by his own strength.
From the book that was actually written by Solomon, to the movie there are some inaccuracies, but as Massood says this helps the film rather than hurts it. By not showing his previous life before slavery, it does not downplay the severity of the injustice of him being kidnapped or enslaved. The audience can still fully understand what happens, and is allowed to view more than just one story of slavery. Whereas in Life is Beautiful the concentration camp looked nothing similar to a real one, the plantations in 12 Years a Slave are very similar and there is a very good idea given of what the beatings of a slave would have looked like, such as when Patsey was whipped and you could see flesh afterwards.
Films of historical representations are meant to enhance other artforms, not to teach history.
While textbooks give the exact details and facts, film helps puts a picture to the words on the pages and provoke emotions. With the movie Life is Beautiful , one cannot come close to comprehending the reality of the Shoah, because it is not even remotely accurate and it is too
lighthearted. Being less of a comedic film, The Help is a more accurate representation in relation to the era of Civil Rights, but is far off in letting the audience visualize how poorly the colored people were actually treated and what would have realistically happened to maids that wrote a
book such as that. 12 Years a Slave is the best possible historical representation because it is serious, yet interesting and the audience must see, hear and feel everything that the slaves felt. It would not be right to take away from the severity of historical tragedies, as this could be taken
very offensively by the victims, the victims’ family members, and certain cultural/religious/racial groups as a whole. It is important to keep film about historical tragedies realistic, but not completely factual and dull like a documentary.
Works Cited
Graham, Allison. "“We Ain’t Doin’ Civil Rights”: The Life and Times of a Genre, as Told in
The
Help." Southern Cultures 20.1 (2014): 5164.
Print.
Massood, P. J. "12 Years a Slave." Journal of American History 101.1 (2014): 35760.
EBSCO.
Web.
Wright, Melanie J. "'Don't Touch My Holocaust': Responding to Life Is Beautiful." The Journal
of Holocaust Education 9.1 (2000): 1932.
Print.