“For the dead and the living, we must bear witness.”
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
Holocaust: Night Will Fall
I’ve been trying for the past three days to write something
about this documentary which aired on Channel 4 on Saturday night and have
really struggled – in many ways I think the documentary speaks for itself and
you should just go and watch it. No words can really do it, or the footage it
shows justice. Just watch it.
It’s tough and not pleasant viewing, but it is a wonderful
piece of craftsmanship. I’m glad the Imperial War Museum decided to finish the
piece Bernstein and his team began all those years ago and that Singer and his
team documented that process. Simply put - just watch it.
.............................................................................................
Since watching the documentary I watched the brief clip on
the Channel 4 website which sees director, Andre Singer and producer Sally
Angel talk about the process of making the documentary and it was an
enlightening five minutes. Both spoke openly about the process and made some
very thought provoking statements which have added to the impact Night Will Fall has had on me as a
viewer.
To begin with, Singer recalls how they’d begun with the
intention of making a historian/expert led piece, but quickly realised the need
to tell it from the perspective of those who were there and so ditched all the
material they had already recorded and began again. He goes on to say that this
documentary:
“has a particular resonance, number one, because it is the 70th
anniversary of the liberation of the camps at the end of the war and the
generation that participated either as victims, or saw it or were there, sadly
of course are dying and this is probably the last chance to look back from living
memory”.
I mean how true – yet
it’s probably not something many of us think about, or don’t wish to think
about. It is in living memory – most of what we know is told by those who lived
through it and who survived, yet at the same time, it’s seems like so long ago
because we struggle to comprehend a society in which that could be allowed
happen (I know there are recent and on going events that spark comparison but
I’m concentrating on this one event for the moment).
The importance of the
documentary is further compounded by a comment by Angel:
“I think it’s a kind of undocumented side of things that people who do
bear witness to atrocity, cameramen, journalists and film makers often have to
carry quite a lot of stuff with them that they can’t then share with other
people, so for me there is an important element that actually we have to look
at ways in which we honour people who bear witness to atrocity…”
In the documentary, those
cameramen who recorded the footage are overcome with emotion as much as those
survivors who recalled their experiences. They’ve been traumatised too, and
again that’s not something I’ve often thought about.
Therefore, in finishing the film,
the IWM have completed an act of remembrance; a way in which to honour the
people who made it and have had to live with those experiences, because they
were ordered to go into the camps and film what they saw; just as much as it
honours the memory of those who lost their lives there as victims, by recording
what happened. It provides context for the material, you’re not just watching
archive footage, but are told the story of who was involved and why. As Angel
comments, ‘it’s a really important piece
of documentary evidence about what happened when the Allies went in and
liberated the camps” and having finished that, as the original film makers
intended, has meant that that record is now preserved for many years to come.
I’m sure there will be critics of
this documentary, those who say it is too macabre and graphic in its imagery, but
it appears all these decisions were ones Singer didn’t make lightly:
“We had to make quite severe choices about how much archive to put in
and for me the biggest dilemma in the whole making of the film was how far do
you got to show really horrific atrocity footage, to a public?…”
The intention originally was to make a film that would show
the Germans what the Nazi’s had done in their name, to spread guilt. But the
delay in finishing meant it lost its relevance and became politically sensitive
so was shelved by the British Government. Times have moved on and it holds
different meaning now, but that footage is still as horrific for anyone to view
and I am sure, as Singer describes, “you
don’t become anaesthetized to seeing the material”. We may be a modern
audience with different sensibilities but that degree of human suffering is
undoubtedly just as difficult to see today as it once was.
I’m forced to think about the first blog in this series
where I discussed the idea that every child should go to Auschwitz, or another
camp and I question my decision. The footage I saw when I watched this was very
unsettling for me as a 23 year old – I can’t imagine how I’d have responded as
a 15 year old. It’s tricky, because I stand by my original argument – I
wouldn’t be the person I was today if I hadn’t been, yet to reveal the unedited
truth, as the documentary and film footage depict, to a ‘child’… I don’t know.
That takes the education to a whole different level and I think, one that is
age sensitive.
Singer’s closing remark goes as follows:
“I’ve been quite shocked at how
little generations under my generation and certainly under the generation who
were there during the war, know really, about what happened, it’s kind of
already distant history and it shouldn’t be because it’s our living memory,
it’s our living history.”
I really don’t like to think of this as being true. I mean
can it be distant history after only 70 years? It still feels very recent to me,
I suppose because it is an event in living memory and I have been fortunate to
hear people recall their extra ordinary experiences first hand. It’s dominated
the school curriculum for so long and there is so much ‘history’ written about
that period, can people really know so little about what happened?
Singer goes on to talk about the modern relevance of the
documentary and the issues its raises – again issues I’ve thought about and
engaged with over recent weeks -:
“The subject matter I think has become more
relevant now because of what we’re seeing across Europe, across the world
perhaps, sort of an increase from the right… fundamentalism if you want to call
it that, or anti-Semitism and so on, are on the increase rather than decrease
and I think it’s a timely reminder of what happened last time, in the 1930s,
when that swept across Europe.”
We live in scary times and I hope to god it doesn’t take
another dramatic turn of events like this for society to reconfigure our sense
of tolerance and accept that we now live in multi-cultural and multi-faith
societies. An idealistic view perhaps but I’m sure I’m not alone.
The final words of the short video are given by Angel who
recites the last lines of the script - ‘unless the world learns the lesson
these pictures teach, night will fall. But by God’s grace we who live will
learn.’ She then concludes ‘well the question is, have we really learnt?” and I
ask you now the same question.
Link to press release - Sunday, 25 January 2015
Review: Perspectives: Warwick Davies - The Seven Dwarfs of Auschwitz
Ever since last week’s blog and having recalled my own visit
to Auschwitz-Birkenau back in 2007, I’ve thought a lot more about the Holocaust
and my previous interest has resurfaced with a vengeance. As I wrote last time,
the 70th anniversary of liberation and Holocaust Memorial Day occur this week and
as such there have been a flurry of programmes which I’ve found myself watching
or recording. I thought perhaps I could blog about them as one unit but I think
actually, I will take them one at a time and if all goes to plan produce series
of blogs this week, culminating I hope, with a rather special article that will
return to questions I raised in my first blog and address why my trip still resonates
so strongly with me, both as a historian and a global citizen.
I read somewhere after watching the programme that Perla had
a condition that had to be met if
she were to give consent for the interview in 1999. She would not allow the interview to take place within her house where people would be distracted by the interior modifications. It was important for her, that her experiences were what came across and that her words were what are remembered. A wise and insightful lady - for her closing lines are ones I will not forget in a hurry. Firstly she explained how she didn’t feel able to hate Dr Mengele, because if it had not been for his experiments and his fascination with the family, they would unlikely have survived - 'I was saved by the grace of the devil" she said in an interview with Koren and Negev (1).
But then she goes on to say:
 |
| http://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep2week13/perspectives |
So the first programme I viewed this week was Perspectives: Warwick Davies – The Seven
Dwarfs of Auschwitz. Through hour long programmes, ITV’s ‘Perspectives’ series,
sees well known celebrities set off around the world to explore more about a
person that has inspired them. In this particular episode Warwick Davies
examines the lives of the Ovitz family, born in Romania and of the Jewish faith,
who made a living as entertainers. However rather uniquely, the family was
composed of 10 siblings, 7 of whom like their father suffered from Dwarfism,
while the other three were like their mothers, ‘tall’. In giving his reasons for
why he finds this particular family inspiration, Davies explains how he’d always
wanted to investigate them, through the eyes of a fellow little person and
entertainer and how they ‘didn’t let size get them down’. They were an educated
and musically talented family, who, performing under the stage name the
Lilliput Troupe, played to large audiences of 800-1000 people a night and were
hugely popular at the time.
However when Northern Romania was invaded by the Nazi regime,
the Ovitz family’s fate, like many others, took an unimaginable turn and consequently
today, the family are better remembered as the Seven Dwarfs of Auschwitz. Throughout
the programme Davies retraces the experience of the Ovitz family, visiting the
village where they had lived, the ghetto they were moved too and finally Auschwitz,
where they were transported in 1944 and lived until liberation.  |
| The Ovitz family http://themicrogiant.com/warwick-davis-the-seven-dwarfs-of-auschwitz-2013 |
I first heard of the Ovitz family back in 2007 when I was doing
research ahead of our trip to Poland and so when I saw this programme was being
re-run this week, having originally aired in March 2013, I was interested to revisit
the topic and see how it was approached. I wasn’t disappointed. In fact I was
really impressed. Something that has come across though writing many of the
blogs I’ve written is that straying from the mainstream narrative and big
events in history, is a hugely positive step and this programme firmly places little
people into the historical narrative of this period.
The producers drew on experts from Imperial College, the
Holocaust Research Centre RHUL, and Auschwitz Museum. You also had the authors
of Giants: The Dwarfs of Auschwitz,
Eilat Negev and Yehuda Koren who offered valuable historical context, as well
as survivors and amazingly, footage of an interview conducted with the youngest
sibling, Perla Ovitz from 1999, which was interwoven throughout the whole
programme. I don’t want to say too much more in case you watch, it I’d like to
mention the few things really stuck out for me.  |
| Certainly worth a read I think! |
The first was the contextualisation provided by Koren and
Negev. As a viewer we are told that the 1930s “were really they heyday of the
interest in dwarfism….” (Negev) and how around the world there were some 75 agents
recruiting little people for the entertainment business and who would “mak[e] a
living out of exhibiting their deformity” (Koren). What I hadn’t considered as
well, was that in 1937, Disney released Snow White which infamously has 7
dwarfs as main characters and it transpires this movie really propelled the
craze to its height. I had never even considered the connection between the two,
or relatedly, that the Nazi’s would have used the story of Snow White as a
piece of propaganda to spread the message of the master race. I think Disney
movies are in a sense timeless, and I for one certainly over look how they fit
into the time period in which they are made and the impact they might have had.
However to return to point, Koren strongly emphasises that the
Ovitz’s tried to avoid this craze; they wanted to be recognised for their abilities
and not an act based on gimmicks. The Ovitz’s were performers and entertainers,
that’s how they wanted to be known and I think it was really important that
this was re-established that at the centre of this programme. The central
message being to remind us that they were an ordinary family with aspirations just
the same as everyone else and that they shouldn’t be defined by what happened
to them during the war. They were individuals and much more than ‘the seven
dwarfs of Auschwitz’.
As the narrative progresses, we reach the part where the train
arrived in Auschwitz and are told how the Ovitz family were ‘saved’ because of
Dr Mengele’s fascination with physical deformity and desire to conduct
experiments on those not seen as belonging to the ‘master race’. He had particular
interest in identical twins, people with different coloured eyes and little people
– the Ovitz family providing a unique case study - here were 9 siblings and
their families (one had escaped round up and was executed once captured), a
number of whom who all suffered with the same condition. Dr Mengele arranged
for them to be moved into special living quarters, where they were then exposed
to horrific human experimentation.
Armand Leroi, Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Biology
at Imperial College, is interviewed for the programme and describes
how Mengele was of the generation of scientists who were influenced by
comparative biology. Yet Leroi concludes that nothing valuable could be learnt
from the experiments Mengele carried out, saying how they were:
“Bizarre, irrelevant, appalling experiments…. it’s a sort of moral vacuum
in which scientists had opportunity to do whatever they wanted, no matter what
the cost or the consequences. It’s a rite over life and death…”
The experiments the Ovitz’s were inflicted with are beyond
comprehension – it was invasive, rigorous and relentless and only liberation brought
it to an end. The Ovitz’s all survived the war and lived to grand old ages,
having emigrated to Israel in May 1949 and within months, were back on the
stage performing as the Lilliput Troupe – an ending at the beginning of the
programme you may not have anticipated.
I thought the programme was really well put together, a
great balance of archive footage and interviews and poignant remarks by all (then
again, how could they not be when talking about the Holocaust). The programme was
very much a personal voyage of discovery for Davies and one which focused on
the experiences of this one particular family; but what an amazing story, told
by amazing people.
As Davies draws the programme to a close he concludes:
“we look at pictures and we read stories and accounts of things…
somehow you feel remote from it. It’s when you go to the places that you really
start too… and realise, hang on a minute these aren’t tales, this is something
that happened and this is where is happened…”
He carried out his investigation and offered a candid and
honest description of his experiences. |
| Perla Ovitz http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-December-2007 |
she were to give consent for the interview in 1999. She would not allow the interview to take place within her house where people would be distracted by the interior modifications. It was important for her, that her experiences were what came across and that her words were what are remembered. A wise and insightful lady - for her closing lines are ones I will not forget in a hurry. Firstly she explained how she didn’t feel able to hate Dr Mengele, because if it had not been for his experiments and his fascination with the family, they would unlikely have survived - 'I was saved by the grace of the devil" she said in an interview with Koren and Negev (1).
But then she goes on to say:
‘I put on make-up because I don’t want people to pity me… as the saying
goes ’the lips smile, but the heart weeps’…
Pity was not a feeling I felt when I watched this
programme and heard her recall her memories – I was purely struck by the
unfathomable strength this family displayed throughout their wartime experience
and its aftermath.
Sunday, 18 January 2015
Auschwitz-Birkenau: To go or not to go?
2014 and 2015 mark the anniversaries of some of the ‘big’ events in history and acts of commemoration and memorialisation seem to be dominating the news. Last year the centenary commemorations of the First World War began with stupendous force – world gatherings attended by thousands of people, local memorial services and of course the hugely talked about art installation at the Tower of London, being just a few. There was also the 25th anniversary of the falling of the Berlin Wall and this year we have the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta and the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. It also means that it marks the anniversary of the liberation of the notorious concentration camps and January 27th, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, is of course Holocaust Memorial Day; a day for remembrance and education and one I expect will be even more poignant on what is the 70th anniversary.
As such there have been a number of articles appear on twitter in recent weeks; some reflective, some thought provoking, but all inspiring discussion. This week however, two have particularly caught my eye for the questions they raise and the differing attitudes of their authors.
The first was titled ‘70th anniversary of Auschwitz liberation: 'Why I had to visit this monstrous memorial' and was written by Simmy Richman who had long been critical of what the article describes as the ‘macabre tourism’ that now surrounds the sites that were once the locations of such horrific acts (1).
He writes:
‘…. the idea of ever returning to any of the scenes of the Nazis' crimes never particularly appealed. The very thought of visiting the concentration camps themselves felt positively macabre. I have known many Jewish people who have done this as a rite of passage. But, I reasoned, there are also those who jump at the chance to visit any site of historic evil – Ground Zero, the killing fields of war, the trails of serial killers and so on. Why didn't they just tear Auschwitz down after the war, I would ask whenever the subject came up. Who needs to see such monstrousness in person, and why?’
These are all perfectly reasoned and justified views which I
am sure are held by many and not just Richman, himself of Jewish ancestry. But
what I found interesting was that following a discussion with a relative who is
a “survivor”, actively involved with the Holocaust Education Trust and believes
that “everybody should” visit; Richman made the journey to Auschwitz-Birkenau .
His article is therefore very much a reflection of the personal journey he went
on and of his responses throughout that experience. His expectation’s that there
would be things you’d instinctively detest were met and there were clear political
undercurrents at play, but Richman concludes, somewhat surprisingly, by saying that his ‘eyes have been opened and
that ‘[he], too… now believe[s] that everybody should visit these miserable
memorials…’.
I’ve never felt as cold or as numb as when we stood as a group, lit candles of remembrance and said a prayer on the site. Even now thinking about it I get shivers down my spine and can still see the exact scene before my eyes. It’s a memory I will never forget and an experience that has changed my perspective of the world.
As such there have been a number of articles appear on twitter in recent weeks; some reflective, some thought provoking, but all inspiring discussion. This week however, two have particularly caught my eye for the questions they raise and the differing attitudes of their authors.
The first was titled ‘70th anniversary of Auschwitz liberation: 'Why I had to visit this monstrous memorial' and was written by Simmy Richman who had long been critical of what the article describes as the ‘macabre tourism’ that now surrounds the sites that were once the locations of such horrific acts (1).
‘…. the idea of ever returning to any of the scenes of the Nazis' crimes never particularly appealed. The very thought of visiting the concentration camps themselves felt positively macabre. I have known many Jewish people who have done this as a rite of passage. But, I reasoned, there are also those who jump at the chance to visit any site of historic evil – Ground Zero, the killing fields of war, the trails of serial killers and so on. Why didn't they just tear Auschwitz down after the war, I would ask whenever the subject came up. Who needs to see such monstrousness in person, and why?’
 |
| 'Arbeit Macht Frei' Authors own Photo |
I then came across a second article that’s title drew me in immediately-
‘Why every child must visit Auschwitz’, which was published on Holocaust Memorial
Day 2014 (2). Having just read an article where an adult had struggled to
reconcile with whether visiting a concentration camp was the right and
appropriate thing to do, with some very convincing and poignant remarks, I was somewhat
conflicted by the ideas this second author was putting across. Yet,
incidentally they are views I happen to share.
Writer of the second article, Tom Walters, made the visit to
Auschwitz and offers a personal yet insightful reflection on his trip, putting
forward the opinion that schools and colleges should run trips to Auschwitz-Birkenau
and that ‘with history’s lesson firmly in mind, it should be a compulsory trip.
Young people need these lessons from history to help shape perspective [and] to
learn lessons that cannot be taught in the classroom’. And, I agree strongly with what Walters
writes here, having myself been one of a group of students to go on such a trip
organised by my school. Having opted to take GCSE history, we were offered the
chance to visit Krakow and to go to Auschwitz-Birkenau back in 2007, and it
was a hugely eye-opening trip for me and an experience I still remember vividly
to this day.
At the time we were asked to write a short piece about why
it was we’d like to be considered to go as there were a limited number of
places, and looking back at what I wrote, it’s very much in keeping with the
ideas Walters encourages, if perhaps a little naïve and idealistic.
‘…by going I hope that I will not only
learn, but to be able to come back and tells others about the experience and do
everything in my power to ensure that it never happens again. I think the way
of being able to do this, is to witness and visit the place where it happened.’
I certainly learnt a lot on that trip and at the time, I did
come back and speak about my experiences, something that I still do today. It
made what is written in books and spoken about become real - it seems so intangible
that the crimes committed actually happened, that I think to see the place where it happened, is oddly, the
only way to believe it. And so if those sites had been torn down as Richman once believed they should have been, you lose part of what makes it a reality for those who did not experience those events at the time. Being told about it is one thing, but to see it is another.
It is Walters’ second paragraph that really captured exactly
how I remember the experience, he writes:
‘Predictably, a visit to Auschwitz was harder than you could have ever imagined, something which just cannot be forgotten. The experience wraps itself around you, changing forever your perspective of the world and the people that reside in it. Emotions are robbed from you leaving you numb, unable to comprehend the magnitude of the systematic terror brought upon so many people. Ten minutes, fifteen minutes, an hour passes but still nothing. You're almost thankful for the numbness it brings for if emotion was to get the better of you, the suffocating pressure of history would leave you unable to breath’.I’ve never felt as cold or as numb as when we stood as a group, lit candles of remembrance and said a prayer on the site. Even now thinking about it I get shivers down my spine and can still see the exact scene before my eyes. It’s a memory I will never forget and an experience that has changed my perspective of the world.
 |
| "I still live and will live
on/
and will never more keep silent about/
I
have seen I Have Seen |
I was 15 at the time and perhaps not what you’d strictly
call a child, but I do think it’s an appropriate age to make such a trip and to
have that experience. By the time you’re an adult, as Richman discovered, you’ve
had chance to really formulate opinions and almost become cynical about it – I don’t
mean that disrespectfully, but you do get stuck on the fact that a tourism has
formed around these sites, gift shops and cafes can be found there and visitor
experience is taken into consideration. While political motives are also strongly
at play, each invested party trying to impart its own historical narrative. In
many ways you have to try and detach all that from the history and from peoples
experiences; I suppose treat it like any other historical source. You have to
analyse and critique what you see – but there is something about the sense of
place that is evoked by standing there that pushes that all to be a latter
consideration. It’s so inconsequential in that moment.
 |
| Authors own Photo |
Just to stand there and to experience it is something else.
It’s not enjoyable by any stretch of the imagination. It’s tough, it’s
emotional, it’s infuriating, it’s overwhelming but I am so glad I was given the
opportunity to go as young person. Both articles conclude the same way by
saying that “everybody should go” and I agree. Furthermore, with a more mature
head on my shoulders now, it is something that sometime in the future I’d hope
to do again, for there is more to learn than any 15 year old can comprehend, but it
is a very good place to start.
Sunday, 11 January 2015
The Monuments Men: A New Angle on a Familiar Topic
It’s been a while hasn’t it? What with the festive season
and the fact I’ve been busy working on my PhD application, blogging has fallen
a little by the wayside…. But enough of those excuses, let’s try and get back
into the swing of things shall we…
I saw a link to an article this week entitled “20 things
only history students understand” (1) and read it with some amusement - a
number prompting a smile or even a ‘lol’ moment and the only obvious omission being:
‘when pub quizzing everyone always expects you to get the history questions
correct… do you not know the breadth of what the subject “history” covers”!!!!
That said and all jokes aside, the second statement really stuck with me,
because its true isn’t it? To quote the article, “you’ve had enough of learning
about the Nazis – yes you understand their significance and accept why they can
be fascinating, but you’ve had it drilled into your throughout your whole
education – give it a rest!” I mean no disrespect at all in repeating that article;
I personally find it one of the most fascinating periods of history and have
chosen to continue studying it in higher education for that reason. In fact, I
chose my University based on the expertise of staff who specialised in the
Second World War and Holocaust Studies (I know, how I got onto the Victorians
and animal history is a blog for another time)… but it did become quite oppressive.
It is all I remember about secondary school history and the
majority of A Level history too. There may be a little bit about Motte and Bailey
castles, the abolition movement and history of medicine mixed in there, but
predominately I have good recall on events in Europe during the Second World
War. It’s a shame in a way, because it becomes so drilled into students that I do
think it loses that originality which makes it an interesting topic to learn
about and engage with. If you’re told the same things over and over again there
comes a point where you’re not open to the new and more interesting narratives
that might be being offered to you.
It’s become clearer to me recently that there is actually a
lot more to the events of this period than we are ever told at school or indeed
that are so far missing from the mainstream that very few people actually know
about them. Of course topics and events like the Weimar Republic, Rise of
Hitler, the Anschluss, and Holocaust take precedence when examining European
events, while at home the Blitz, rationing and evacuation dominate the narrative.
But the Second World War was all encompassing and as such resonated within so
many different areas of society; a fact I think is all too easily often
forgotten and one that certainly isn’t shown to students. I know they are
taught what is on the curriculum in order for them to complete coursework and
pass exams, but I just wonder what the effect would be if an alternative
approach was taken (I think I shall do some investigation into the curriculum
changes for a future blog and follow up on this point).
One of my favourite projects conducted as part of the MA was
the research paper I wrote on a fascinating set of sources I found by chance at
Surrey History Centre. These were the diaries of Philip Bradley, a fairground
enthusiast, which were filled with notes and newspaper clippings that gave invaluable
insight into the affect the war had on fairgrounds and their professionals. I
was fascinated to read how rationing impacted what prizes were offered and how
steam engines were commandeered for the war effort, in particular demolition
work. At a high level we are taught the basic concepts; the policies, reasoning
and impact, but very rarely are we shown the impact at a grass roots level and
this project on fairgrounds showed me that. It took one group of professionals
and highlighted their plight and huge contribution to this life changing
conflict - it really brought it home for me.
And this brings me nicely on to what prompted this blog in
the first place – the 2014 film The
Monuments Men, directed by George Clooney. I’d heard about the film and was
intrigued by the plot but until I received it for Christmas I hadn’t got around
to watching it. So last night I got cosy with a cup of tea and some chocolate
(so much for the January diet I hear you cry) to see what it was about. I’ll be
honest, it was a slow burner but it did raise some very thought provoking
statements, well obviously if it prompted this blog.
 |
| The Monuments Men, 2014. |
The film is based on the true story of The Monuments Men, a
group of men and women from thirteen nations, who volunteered for service in
the MFAA – Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Section – in order to save as much
of European Culture as they could from being destroyed, both accidently and deliberately,
during the war. Amongst them there were museum directors, curators, art
scholars, artists and architects all of whom entered professions which would
see them dedicated their life to culture, whether creating it, restoring it or critiquing
it. So when war broke out it almost seems natural that they would step forward
to protect it from ultimate destruction. I therefore ask, why has it remained
one of those aspects of war very few people know about?
In this opening speech Clooney as lead character Frank
Stokes, presents his argument for the taskforce to the President, stating that “we
are at a point in this war that is the most dangerous to the greatest
historical achievements known to man” and that “while we must and will win this
war, we should also remember the high price that will be paid if the very foundation
of modern society is destroyed…”. Stokes and team then go on to salvage stolen works of art from houses and mines, and if it can be taken as a true reflection of what was identified and found, then it was an astounding amount. As the film develops you realised that in Stokes' mind, art, culture and history are the basis of identity and if that is lost, then
it is as if those people, societies and generations never existed. This was a fight for identity.
The narrative is actually very poignant and emotionally
charged, especially when you consider that many people posed the question, “is
art worth a life?” when they heard of this work. But when you understand the
motives of those involved and why they were willing to risk their lives, than the answer to
that question becomes clear.
I was left asking myself a great many questions. Would we,
in modern society, react in the same way? Would there be people who put their
lives on the line to protect and secure art from destruction and return it to
the many? Is our cultural identity as tied to these traditional and priceless
works of art as it once was, or has time moved on? And, would we still look to
preserve the classics, or would we just be looking to preserve modern art, the
likes of Warhol and Hirst?
.JPG) |
| Authors own Photo |
It is hard to envisage the reckless destruction that
occurred during that time, but it highlights another side to the war – the
assault on cultural identity and questions of ownership. I can’t imagine not
having seen first-hand the Mona Lisa or Venus De Milo in Paris - just imagine
what it would be like to only know of these artworks and not be able to
experience them first hand. It was a great thing those of the MFAA did and I am
glad that this film has highlighted their work. I just think it is so important
we try and find ways of communicating these aspects of the war to students and
not just the more conventional narrative, it could be hugely successful way of
reinvigorating interesting and putting a stop to those “give it a rest!”
comments. I for one will be looking into this in a little more depth!
For another perspective on the film I found a great blog piece here - http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/monuments-men-wonders-art-worth-life
For another perspective on the film I found a great blog piece here - http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/monuments-men-wonders-art-worth-life
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)