| ||| | || |      | |    |||    || ||||| || ||||||||||||||||||||||

    F i l m - P h i l o s o p h y
    ISSN 1466-4615
    http://www.film-philosophy.com
    Volume 3  Number 41
    October 1999

| ||| | || |      | |    |||    || ||||| || ||||||||||||||||||||||



    Marty Fairbairn

    The Ethics of Representation
    A Review of _Jakob the Liar_; An Interview with Peter Kassovitz

    Report from the Toronto International Film Festival 1999



_Jakob the Liar_ (1999)
Director: Peter Kassovitz.
Screenplay: Jurek Becker (adapted from his novel), Peter Kassovitz and
Didier Decoin.
Producers: Nick Gillott, Steven Haft, Robin Williams, Marsha Garces Williams.
Cast: Alan Arkin, Bob Balaban, Zoltan Barabas, Michael Jeter, Liev
Schreiber, Robin Williams.

_Jakob the Liar_ is a film about hope in the face of hopelessness, faith in
the face of overwhelming evidence of doom. During World War II, in
Nazi-occupied Poland, poor Jewish cafe owner Jakob (Robin Williams)
accidentally overhears a radio news bulletin signalling Soviet military
successes against German forces on the Eastern front, only 400 kilometres
away from the miserable Jewish ghetto in which he and his whole community
are held captive. After Jakob tells Mischa about the Russian front, news
travels fast, setting off wild speculations as well as endangering Jakob's
life. Jakob's friends assume he has a radio, and radios are strictly
forbidden by the Nazi authorities. Some fear German reprisals and want
Jakob to destroy the radio. One man is shot dead simply trying to tell some
concentration camp-bound prisoners locked in a box-car the news about the
Russian advances. 'The truth can kill', but it can also save lives. Jakob
decides to keep offering people fictitious news bulletins about Allied
advances against the Nazis in order to fight the widespread depression in
the ghetto, as well as its accompanying suicide rate. Jakob's lies keep
hope and humour alive among the people of the ghetto. However, the Germans
soon learn of the mythical radio and begin a search for the 'resistance
hero' who dares to operate it.

Director/co-screenwriter Peter Kassovitz has crafted a fairy tale set amid
the chaos of desolation. Jakob is one who has, as the saying goes,
greatness thrust upon him. He doesn't want the job, he just wants to be
left alone; but just as he has a moral obligation to take care of the
little girl he finds outside the ghetto walls, he has a similar obligation
to take care of his fellow prisoners by making the best use of the fateful
misunderstanding that has befallen him. Heroism, it seems, is a combination
of circumstances and obligation, not a function of some special, unique
character trait. What is uplifting about this is that, surrounded by the
forces of dehumanization, ordinary people in the ghetto rose to
extraordinary heights of humanity and bravery, refusing to *become* brutal,
like their captors.

The film features a sensitive central performance by Robin Williams as
Jakob, as well as strong supporting performances by Bob Balaban as Kowalski
the barber, Liev Schreiber as Mischa the boxer, and Alan Arkin. Williams
and Kassovitz show appropriate restraint, reigning in Williams's formidable
comedic gifts, allowing the humour to come out of the situations instead.
The Polish streets still show signs of having been a war zone some 54 years
ago, the scarred buildings bearing silent witness to the horrors committed
in their shadows. But this is not a romantic Hollywood film; it is not a
film about rescue, pace Spielberg (_Schindler's List_, 1995), nor is it a
film about victims, such as Claude Lanzmann's _Shoah_ (1983); instead, it
is a film about resoluteness in the face of adversity, and how the force of
circumstance can turn anyone into a hero. Comparisons with 1998's _Life is
Beautiful_ are as inevitable as they are wrong-headed: inevitable because
here is another uplifting 'comedy' about the Holocaust (a phrase which
freezes the fingers to the keyboard); wrong-headed because this superficial
descriptor is where the comparison begins and ends. Kassovitz's film shows
us the horrors of life in the Jewish ghetto in all their grimness, even
going so far as to shoot the film on the original locations; whereas
Roberto Benigni's film avoids the more brutal aspects of the Holocaust,
choosing instead to concentrate on the comic innocence of boyhood.

For a film ostensibly about the positive effects of certain lies, _Jakob
the Liar_ has surprisingly little to say on the subject. In the end, we're
not certain where (or if) the truth lies, but it doesn't matter. What
matters is that human beings maintained their humanity in the face of
unspeakable horrors.


An Interview with Peter Kassovitz

Conducted Saturday, September 18, 1999

Representation of the Holocaust in dramatic terms is problematic at best,
at worst obscene. [1] Claude Lanzmann, producer of the venerated Holocaust
documentary _Shoah_ (1985), in an essay entitled 'Holocauste, la
representation impossible', went so far as to claim that representation of
these events in any quasi-fictional drama is a betrayal of their
fundamentally irrepresentable nature, at least from a moral point of view.
[2] On the other hand, the importance of conveying the horrors of the
Holocaust to a contemporary audience is generally thought to be a moral
imperative. And narrative representations may turn out to be preferable to
the documentary form, for, as Paul Ricoeur puts it: 'Fiction gives eyes to
the horrified narrator. Eyes to see and to weep. The present state of
literature on the Holocaust provides ample proof of this . . . one counts
the cadavers or one tells the story of the victims'. [3] Navigating this
moral minefield from the perspective of the director's chair is, among
others, Peter Kassovitz, director and co-screenwriter of _Jakob the Liar_.
I spoke with Mr. Kassovitz, himself a Holocaust survivor, about the ethics
of representation the day following the North American premiere of his
film. We started the interview by reading what Jean-Francois Lyotard says
in _Heidegger et les 'juifs'_ about representing the Holocaust in images:

'To represent 'Auschwitz' in images . . . is a way of forgetting it. I'm
not just thinking here of B movies and soap opera series and pulp novel or
testimonies. I'm also thinking of those (narrative) representations which
can and could best make us not forget by virtue of their exactness or
severity. Even such efforts represent what should remain unpresentable in
order not to be forgotten precisely as forgotten. Claude Lanzmann's film,
_Shoah_, is perhaps a singular exception. Not only because he resists the
use of representation in images and music, but also because he hardly
offers a single testimony where the unrepresentable character of the
extermination is not indicated, even momentarily, by an alteration of
voice, a tightening of throat, a tear, a sob, the disparition of a witness
out of frame, an upset in the tone of the narrative, some uncontrolled
gesture. We thus know that the witnesses are surely lying, or 'playing the
role' or hiding something, however impassive they may appear.' [4]

Peter Kassovitz: Well, what can you say? He's right. But you could also
say, 'can you represent handicapped children?', 'can you represent a blind
man?', 'can you represent starving Africans?' So, I understand someone
saying this; it's right, but who owns the property? _Shoah_ is not a
feature film; it's witnessing. But even witnessing is problematic. You've
been there; you tell the story for the camera, but you have make-up on, you
are being filmed, and you are telling the story in your own way, from your
own perspective. So, then perhaps you can only have black and white photos
of the real thing? I think there should be colours. I don't think that this
is the only thing you can say. I don't think the Holocaust is like private
property such that you can't touch it.

But it's true that it is physically impossible to make an exact
representation of the camps . . . because you don't have a thousand people,
extras, who weigh just 30 kilograms. These must remain memories.

But it's true that it is very touchy to make a feature film which tries to
communicate with a large audience. Suddenly, Jews are talking English, . .
. they look like Robin Williams, etc. You know when you see this that it's
a movie. The researcher's representation can be expressed in a documentary
form, rather than in a movie.

Marty Fairbairn: Yes, in fact Lyotard talks about misrepresentation of
historical events by lying witnesses.

PK: Yes. Not only that, but in the case of the documentary there is also a
director, a cameraman, an editor, maybe also a music supervisor. There is
only maybe one film which you cannot accuse of being false and that is
Alain Resnais's _Nuit et Brouillard_, which consists of document footage
showing the deaths of many people. [5] He just had the real documents. It
was terrible.

MF: I'd like to ask you about Spielberg's Holocaust film, _Schindler's
List_ (1995). My own reaction, for example, was anger; anger because
Spielberg's is a 'Hollywood' film, a film about 'rescue' in the midst of
genocide! It seems to me that your film shows more respect for its subject.

PK: Yes, but it started it, don't you think? It's a start. It's a vision,
an interesting vision. I think the vision he offered of the ghetto and the
camps was very realistic. It was very dark, showing those who died and how
they died. All this was very real. I agree with you insofar as at the end,
there is some Hollywood romanticism; like: 'We are all friends; we can
shake hands, and we are all brothers.' For me, this ending looked more like
Russian cinema, a big, romantic vision of humanity. But that's only at the
end. For me, the rest was dark.

And it is important for audiences to see something very strong about this
period of history. For those who don't know about it, it's important for
them to see it. This is the criticism which _Life is Beautiful_ is
vulnerable to: he just avoids the horrific elements of life in the camps,
so there could be some misunderstanding from this film, such that the
viewer could think: 'Oh, well, that wasn't so terrible.'

MF: _Jakob the Liar_ strikes me as a story about faith in the face of
desolation, faith being defined as a belief in something for which one has
no evidence, a story about hope in the midst of hopelessness. This is
something that people in that situation would have to face every day; how
can I believe that things are going to get better in the face of all the
evidence to the contrary?

PK: Yes, this is one thing you *can* learn from the Holocaust: you can keep
your *humanity* even when the situation is desperate. Actually, there is
not really hope. The hope is that you will not lose your humanity. You
might go to the gas, you might be exterminated, but you will be a human
being. This requires self-discipline.

MF: So, the challenge, aside from just staying alive, is not to succumb to
the brutality and become brutal oneself?

PK: Yes, It's the same anywhere there is this kind of inhuman treatment --
Africa, Kosovo. Actually, the film shows some of this temptation to give
hope because hope is more necessary than food. The novel was more dark in
the sense that in the book he doesn't pretend that there is any hope. [6]
Of course Jakob has to give hope because people in the ghetto are
committing suicide and this is worse. This is why he has to go on. But
Becker doesn't believe there is any hope.

MF: So, is it better to feel better by believing in a lie, or at least by
entertaining a lie, than it is to hang onto the truth with both hands and
be desolate?

PK: Well, the leader of the small community, 'the professor', knows that
Jakob is lying but he appreciates that he is at least trying to have hope,
so he says that he must go on; but others, like Kowalski, find the truth
unacceptable and decide to end their suffering. So, everyone has a
different relation to the truth.

MF: On a broader level, what do you believe is the relationship between art
and culture? What is the responsibility of the artist? Is he or she a
truth-teller, an entertainer, philosopher?

PK: I think there are a lot of different options; there is no rule. This is
something that changes from time to time and from society to society.
Sometimes art plays an important role in a culture, sometimes not. Besides,
you can never predict exactly what effect your art is having on a culture.
For instance, we have this impression that the movies are very important,
but I think it's a bit overdone, by the people who are doing the movies.
They think that the movies are very powerful influences, that they can
change people's minds.

MF: They have an interest in believing that.

PK: Lenin said so, too! He knew that film was an important propaganda tool.
Maybe in some way movies cause change, but maybe not in the way we think.
Certainly young Europeans wear blue jeans because they see them in the
movies, but can a film like _Jakob_ change people's minds about the
Holocaust, about fascism? Frankly, I don't know. I think there are much
more subtle, insidious, underground ideas circulating over the TV, the real
impact of which we won't really understand for a hundred years. But
nevertheless you still have a responsibility with respect to what you are
doing as a film maker, even if it doesn't change anything. You still have
to be careful. I like the French saying: 'You can laugh about everything,
but not with everybody.' So, you have to be careful and consider who can
use your work; who will use it and how?

We make films to earn a lot of money. But on the other hand, thanks to the
money people, we can do a film about the Holocaust. Who will abuse it? You
don't know. But we'd like the audience to see the film, so we meet with
journalists to talk about it. But they are free to say what they want to .
. . it's a dance. Some aspects are controlled by the studio, but what
relationship the film will have with the culture, no one knows.

MF: As an artist, do you ever get discouraged by this perpetual dance?

PK: No, not really. I am generally more concerned with more practical
questions such as: how are we going to get the film made?; are we going to
be able to get the cast together?; etc. My theory is that you don't have to
*try* to express your personality. Your personality will be there, if you
have one. You can call this personality or talent. I like to call it
talent, and it will show.

MF: Of course, there are levels of consistency of expression. You may have
all kinds of talent but may not be able to work your way through the
minefield of production.

PK: Yes, of course, exactly, but that is a special skill, to let your
talent express itself. Of course there are a lot of people who are very
talented but no one will ever know it because they don't have the special
talent to carry it through to the end.

*

As the interview draws to a close, I show Mr. Kassovitz a quote from David
Mamet's _Make-Believe Town_, where he talks about Spielberg's _Schindler's
List_, and ask him for a reaction. Mamet writes:

'It is to my mind _Mandingo_ for Jews. _Mandingo_ was a slave epic made for
those interested in watching well-built black men being mistreated.
_Schindler's List_ is another example of emotional pornography. It is not
the Holocaust we are watching. It is a movie, and the people in the film
are not actually being abused, they are acting out a drama to enable the
audience to exercise a portion of its ego and call that exercise
'compassion'. _Schindler's List, _Dances with Wolves_, _Gentleman's
Agreement_ -- these films show a member of a dominant culture who
condescends to aid those less racially fortunate than himself -- who tries
to save them and fails, thereby ennobling himself and, by extension, his
race. This comfortable theme is more than a sham -- it is a lie . . . The
very assertion that the film is instructive is harmful. It is destructive.
The audience comes to the theatre in order to, and leaves the theatre
feeling they have looked down on actions that they have been assured --
this is the film's central lesson -- they would never commit. This 'lesson'
is a lie. The audience is not superior to 'those bad Nazis'. Any of us has
the capacity for atrocity -- just as any of us has the capacity for
heroism. But the film panders to the audience. It invites them (as does any
melodrama) to reward themselves for Seeing That the Villain's Bad; and, in
the Liberal Fallacy, of feeling this perception is a moral accomplishment.'
[7]

PK: Yes, it's true and yet not true. It's terribly hard, but
thought-provoking. I have this feeling, too, but on the other hand I think
it's great for the Jews to say: 'Yes, this guy was a fascist pig, but he
*became* a human being.' There is not necessarily any contradiction. Mamet
is being a little unfair I think.

Kassovitz would likely agree with Paul Ricoeur when he writes: 'By fusing .
. . with history, fiction carries history back to their common origin in
the epic. More precisely, what the epic did in the sphere of the admirable,
the story of victims does in the sphere of the horrible. This almost
negative epic preserves the memory of suffering, on the scale of peoples,
as epic and history in its beginnings transformed the ephemeral glory of
heroes into a lasting fame. In both cases, fiction is placed in the service
of the unforgettable.' [8] As Hannah Arendt has said, quoting Isak Dinesen:
'All sorrows can be borne, if you put them into a story or tell a story
about them.' [9]

Guelph, Ontario, Canada


Footnotes

1. See, for example, Yosefa Loshitzky, ed., _Spielberg's Holocaust_,
especially pp. 119-139; Jean-Francois Lyotard, _Heidegger et les 'juifs'_;
Richard Kearney, _Poetics of Imagining_, pp. 251-55; David Mamet,
_Make-Believe Town_, pp. 141-42; Paul Ricoeur, _Time and Narrative, Volume
3_, pp. 180-192, especially pp. 188-89. I use the word obscene in both its
well known sense, that is, offensive to decency, and in its less well known
sense, ill-omened or ominous. _Schindler's List_, for example, is ominous
in the sense that it opens up the possibility of treating the Holocaust as
grist for the melodrama mill, and hence with less than the appropriate
solemnity and respect.

2. Kearney, _Poetics of Imagining_, p. 252.

3. Paul Ricoeur, 'Life in quest of narrative', pp. 22-3; as quoted in
Kearney, _Poetics of Imagining_, p. 253.

4. Quoted in Kearney, _Poetics of Imagining_, p. 252.

5. Wartime footage that is inter-cut with a serene, post-war Auschwitz of
the 1950s.

6. Jurek Becker wrote the novel, and also co-wrote the screenplay.

7. David Mamet, _Make-Believe Town_, pp. 141-42.

8. Paul Ricoeur, _Time and Narrative, Vol. 3_, pp. 188-9.

9. Hannah Arendt, _The Human Condition_, p. 175, as quoted in Ricoeur,
_Time and Narrative, Volume 3_, pp. 320-21 n. 8.


Bibliography

Arendt, Hannah, _The Human Condition_ (Chicago: Chicago University Press,
1958).

Kearney, Richard, _Poetics of Imagining: Modern to Post-modern_ (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 1998).

Loshitzky, Yosefa, ed., _Spielberg's Holocaust: Critical Perspectives on
_Schindler's List__ (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997).

Lyotard, Jean-Francois, _Heidegger et les 'juifs'_ (Paris: Galilee, 1988).

Mamet, David, _Make-Believe Town: Essays and Remembrances_ (New York:
Little, Brown and Co., 1996).

Ricoeur, Paul, _Time and Narrative, Volume 3_ (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1988).
--- 'Life in Quest of Narrative', in David Wood, ed., _On Paul Ricoeur:
Narrative and Interpretation_ (London: Routledge, 1991).


Copyright © _Film-Philosophy_ 1999

Marty Fairbairn, 'The Ethics of Representation: A Review of _Jakob the
Liar_; An Interview with Peter Kassovitz', _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 3 no.
41, October 1999
<http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy/files/fairbairn4.html>.


    **********

_Film-Philosophy_ articles are published on the email salon to allow for
immediate response by salon members. So send your thoughts on this article
and its subject to:

    [log in to unmask]

    ********************************




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%