Claude Lanzmann’s 1985 film, Shoah, is unique in its attempt to portray the horrors of the holocaust without showing footage of mutilated bodies, starved prisoners, death marches etc. Instead, Lanzmann takes us to specific places where Jews lived and died fifty years ago, showing us how they look today. At the same time, we hear what happened through the voices of men and women whose experiences and memories were, and remain, very different from one another.

This paper provides the opportunity for you to reflect on what one gains, and perhaps loses, from this kind of presentation. Among the questions you should bear in mind while watching the film, and should then reflect upon in your paper are:

1) Why do you think that Lanzmann chooses this approach in the first place? What, in other words, is the value of doing the kind of film that he’d one?

2) Why does Lanzmann make this a more than 9 hour film? Would it have been as powerful had it been shorter?

3) What are some moments, or specific examples from the film, that really do bring home the horrors of the holocaust and how does Lanzmann achieve this?

4) Though the film is very much a documentary, and not a propaganda film, are there parts of the film that seem overly manipulative? What responsibility, as film maker, does Lanzmann have to those he’s interviewing and what responsibility does he have, if any, to us?

5) Are watching films of/about the holocaust sufficient? If so, why? And if not, what do we gain by reading books? By listening to talks, especially from survivors?

6) Last, what is gained by creating holocaust museums, or exhibits? What does one gain by going to one? Here, you need to actually go to one such museum or exhibit — Even if you’ve already been to one before. we will be going as a class to the Museum of the Jewish Heritage in Battery Park, New York City. This museum attempts to look at the holocaust within a larger historical context. One of the questions you should bear in mind when visiting the museum is: how effective is this effort? i.e., does it help visitors put the holocaust in perspective, in terms of Jewish history, world history and American history (hence its location near the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island)? Or does it make those voices and exhibits that seek to portray the horror of the holocaust less powerful? Does this museum, in other words, have TOO broad a focus, or is this breadth part of the museum’s value and/or appeal? If you can’t go with us to NYC, you should buy tickets on your own. Alternately, I would encourage you to visit the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington (you won’t find the same breadth of focus, but its depth of focus is astonishing). In your paper, try as much as possible, to draw on specific examples of how the museum/exhibit was valuable. You might also mention materials/exhibits you would like to have seen that the museum did not include.