AJ's Doc Talk

Alan Resnais’ Night and Fog is an examination of the Holocausts, the mass genocide, taking place during World War II. Now, the details of this event is something generally unknown to the modern world. Death camps used to exterminate people are seen as tourist attractions and used in sight seeing tours. Although most people can associate the camps with the tragedy that occurred, understanding of the actual hardships are almost left completely benign. Resnais’ film captures the horror of the Holocausts in a way that can shock an audience to the core. The inhumanity, the evil, the consternation, agony, and anguish felt by the people affected is in the face of the spectators forcing them to deal with the actuality of the death that occurred in these camps. Resnais shot the film with a mix of archival, real footage, as well as full color shots of the same areas to show contrasting perspectives. Barnouw calls this shift, “brilliant, by a simple device.” Barnouw also mentions that documentarists did not turn to the skeletons of World War II automatically. Only after the dust settled was more visual information presented and films created. Night and Fog stood as a foundation for real information of the war crimes committed during WWII to be presented to the public. Moving back toward the visual discussion, the transition as a whole stood as a contrast the desolate tranquility found at camps such as Auschwitz. The visual aspect of the film is meant to show the diffusion of guilt and the lack of responsibility assumed by the aftermath of WWII. Many of the practices shown in the film are contested to be untrue. The include the collection of hair from corpses for reuse and the creation of soap from the bodies. Upon research I cannot say I found definitive proof these practices occurred however, many accusations point toward the possibility that these and  more horrific actions took place on a regular basis. The film is almost meant to be sickening when showing these scenes such as a room filled with human scalps and hair. The grounds of the death camps are abandoned which points as to why the film shows them in color as more calm sights which greatly goes against the actual events that transpired. On top of the visual aspects presented, Resnais represents the war as well as the Holocaust in unique ways with not only the transition of visual scenes, but by a different device: sound.

By sound I am referring to the commentary written by Jean Cayrol. Now Resnais would not agree to make the film unless Cayrol’s script writing was present. Cayrol played an extremely important role in the film. Without the commentary the film could stand alone. This would be a silent, yet visually striking account of death camps of WWII. However, the commentary, in my opinion, acts as a major catalyst in film evoking all of the emotion from the audience through explanation of the transition from death camp to “verdant surroundings” as Barnouw puts it. Commentary puts every visual image into context properly and almost pulls feelings of dismay for previous ignorance of this event. I don’t think this was an intention of the film however, commentary leaves the viewer looking on in disbelief and almost nonacceptance of practices of the death camps. It is even more compelling to get the sense that Cayrol experienced the events first hand when, in fact, he is a survivor of  Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. This film is an account of actual footage mixed with commentary from an individual that survived the era plagued by death. Sight and sound are utilized as one entity in this film instead of separate. This film is probably one of the most striking and memorable I have ever seen. It does not end with hope, or peace. It ends with unanswered questions, fear, and ambiguity of the malice seen in a time where everyday life became not only a gift but a privilege.