The Zone of Interest

I have a bit of a complicated relationship with director Jonathan Glazer. I like some of his films a lot, others practically not at all, and I'm glad Zone of Interest falls into the former group. I'm also happy that it ended up looking a little different than I expected. Glazer's Holocaust drama is very much built on working with sounds, but mostly with the viewers and their knowledge. You have to know what family you're looking at all the time, who Rudolf Höss was and what atrocities he committed. Zone of Interest doesn't explain anything, you could say that we learn practically nothing about the protagonists, because there's no need to, and Glazer is counting on you paying attention in history class, or at least reading the synopsis before entering the cinema. This allows him to focus solely on establishing atmosphere, combining hints of the horrors happening behind the walls of the family home while showing the ordinary little Nazi domestic bliss of the Hösses and their children. They come across as extremely ordinary, and that they are cynics and human monsters is something you have to surmise from their actions, as they balefully ignore the hell they themselves have unleashed or are willingly profiting from. Perhaps my only complaint is that I would have expected Zone of Interest to make it a little harder (like, say, the new Scorsese) and more uncomfortable for me as a viewer. On the other hand, Glazer's attempt to merely chronicle the family life of two monsters who tend a greenhouse, organize family get-togethers in the garden, and invite a loving mother to their home, only to occasionally subtly remind us who we're actually dealing with, works well too. An original and compelling drama capable of being very uncomfortable at the right moments. (02/08/2024)

Yes, I understand that Jonathan Glazer wants to be different and make the usual stuff at least a bit special, and yes, I understand that he wants to experiment, but at what cost, for God's sake? Because this is a very soporific film without a single minute worth praising, and it is without question the worst 100 minutes of my life. Nothing happens at all, and the concentration camp connection is only on paper, as we don't get a single look behind the walls of the main Nazi's house, we don't get a single shot of Auschwitz, and all we get are occasional sounds and gunshots. I've never been so bored in a cinema, and realistically watching people fidgeting around, waiting for the end credits and looking at their watches every five minutes was far more entertaining than the film itself. This for me is a total waste and a wannabe arthouse pseudo-film that offers nothing at all, really nothing at all. If anyone praises this, I want whatever they are taking that made them flip out on while watching, otherwise I absolutely cannot explain why anyone would praise this shit. I understand that the director wanted to offer a view of the subject matter from the side of Nazis as "regular people", but I could have read this in one sentence and not had to watch 100 minutes without any technical, filmmaking or acting value added. Because if someone serves us literally eight minutes of a scene where the wife talks about her kohlrabi grows, or the final five minutes with a cleaning lady sweeping the floor in the camp, and deems it a thing worthy of admiration on screen, there must be something really wrong. Now, come on, you drooling critics. (02/08/2024)

Zone of disinterest. One of those films that the teacher puts on in history class, but 80% of the students would rather pull out their cell phones and scroll through Instagram because it's almost as boring as regular class. The film is completely empty in terms of information, so it doesn't even serve an educational purpose. We follow the banalities of the daily life of a concentration camp commander and his family. We learn nothing about the characters, the dialogues are cut down to the minimum, Auschwitz is not shown, so again a film for book readers, where the viewer has to figure everything out (fck you!!), it has no script, the atmosphere doesn't work at all, there’s no build-up, no tension or escalated drama between the Nazis, the emotions below zero, and in the end, instead of showing a pile of corpses, they show only shoes. The film is so empty, slow and boring that even if you skips twenty minutes, you won’t miss anything crucial. Son of Saul was thematically similar, but somewhere else. An intimate arthouse of the highest order. 3/10. (02/22/2024)

Such is the daily routine of a family of ordinary, decent citizens. They grow kohlrabi and carnations in the garden, keep the house in perfect order, pet the dog and frolic in the swimming pool, and all this is provided by the head of the family, who goes to work every day in an exemplary manner and who - by the way - is the director of the most monstrous concentration camp. He is, again by the way, at work dealing with, for example, the more efficient incineration of Jews in ovens, and does it with the same emotional involvement as when you and your wife are deciding what to buy for dinner at the supermarket. And behind the walls of this middle-class family's property, behind those ominous walls, is a human-scale Mordor where the most monstrous acts against humanity are taking place, and you feel an immense oppression thanks to the ingenious sound work and the ominous visual details in the distance, such as the smoke from the ovens, or from the locomotives bringing in more and more human fuel. The film doesn't shove down your throat horrific imagery about how monstrous the Holocaust is, it does it on a subliminal basis, working with your subconscious, and that actually makes it all the worse. It made me sick, but at the same time I bow down to Jonathan Glazer for this bold cinematic experiment that says more about us humans than you'd expect. (02/20/2024)

The Zone of Interest depicts the concentration camps and the Holocaust from a truly novel point of view, and this is why it will not be lost among the thematically close films. Jonathan Glazer's film does not primarily target the audience's eyes, but rather their ears and general awareness of the horrors of war: at first glance we see the ordinary life of an ordinary family, but on second viewing (or listening) and placing the film in the context of the time, it evokes extremely uncomfortable feelings. On the one hand we have an idyllic, almost 'Garden of Eden', on the other (behind the fence) we can hear screams and gunshots, while in the distance we watch the smoke (of death). To the sound of a sometimes literally poignant musical score, we witness that pure evil can take on a completely mundane, innocent form. As in Anatomy of a Fall, Sandra Hüller gives a supremely impressive performance and I'm curious to see what roles await her in the future. Last but not least, I praise the play with negative imagery, which contributed to the film's unpleasant atmosphere. Perhaps only the closing documentary insert left me with mixed feelings. (02/17/2024)