Comments on: Hannah Arendt (Germany/Lux/France 2012)

By: keith1942

keith1942 — Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:00:19 +0000

Actually it is in the 1960s that the question of ‘Palestinian lands’ enters interntional awareness. I have started reading Eichman in Jerusalem and it is already apparent that Arendt shared concerns about the legitimacy of the Israeli trial, something at least downplayed in the film. And early comments in the articles suggest she was aware of the questions of ‘peoples’ rights’. I will see how it develops.
As for the question of ‘how much on the plate’ – choices reveal values, and anyway the film is not that long.

By: Roy Stafford

Roy Stafford — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:13:53 +0000

In reply to keith1942. The Eichmann trial was 1961 and my impression is that the Palestinian 'question' at that time was mainly about the refugee camps since sovereignty of the territories before the 1967 war was contested by Egypt and Jordan. I agree that it would have been good to see some mention of the refugee issue, but I think that the film had enough on its plate with the central narrative. On the other hand, I remember some controversy in the UK in the early 1960s about Hollywood films that celebrated the birth of Israel such as Exodus (1960) – primarily because of the representation of the British. I didn't really explain why I found the 'prosthetic memory' idea so interesting. It was because it struck me that the coverage of the Eichmann trial started that whole process in which 'memories' of the Holocaust for those who didn't experience it began to coalesce much more firmly than they had done earlier.

By: keith1942

keith1942 — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:16:38 +0000

I was impressed by the film and by the performances. The judicious use of flashback and internal sound was also impressive. However, I had both aesthetic and political problems with the film.
The film uses archive footage of the Eichman trial and it is cropped [though I think it was also stretched at one point] to fit the widescreen image. This seems to be an increasing tendency even in serious art films. Firstly it is often obvious which is distracting. Secondly I think it distorts the image and that can be a problem.
Politically I thought the film rather lost the emphasis on the problematic nature of the Israeli trial as the film progressed.
And even more serious, there is the [almost conventional] silence of the Palestinians. I think we see a solitary group of Palestinians at one point. I find it difficult to believe that even in the hermetic world of the academy they were completely unware of ‘al nakba’. Even if so, in 2013 I think a film needs to at least acknowledge this. I noted there was a minor Afro-American character – servicing the apartments – who appears three times. It seemed to me a slightly subtle comment on the USA in the early 1960s.