How We Are Taught to Feel - The Book Thief

I realise I ended up being a little lax with this post as many things were thrown my way when I began writing this. It was however very interesting to watch two very different films set during the Second World War in such quick succession. I would suggest that these two films are polar opposites of how to use war as the main theme for popular entertainment. So last time I gave a reasonably scathing review of Monuments Men, and I hope you will agree for good reasons. Today I would like to take you to the other end of the spectrum where we find The Book Thief. What this film does is bring you into the story with the characters and makes you feel everything they do. Perhaps a brief synopsis is needed.

Adapted from the book by Markus Zusak, The Book Thief starts in January 1939, shortly before Germany declares war on England, where a young girl (Liesel) and her brother are sent to live with in couple in Molching because their mother can no longer look after them. Interestingly the film is narrated by death and we see him take the life of Liesel's brother on the train on the way to Molching. At the beginning we find out that Liesel cannot read, and we see her develop a love of literature as the film progresses. Through this story, Liesel encounters different tropes of the Second World War. The persecution of the jews, the propaganda enforced in Germany and the effects of the War on civilians amongst others.

Reviews of The Book Thief have been rather underwhelming, as one Guardian review says 'it tries to blend heartwarming moral observation with ill-fitting metaphysical contrivance', whilst another writes 'It's a worryingly lenient and obtuse approach to history and historical evil, which are smothered in feelgood tragi-sentimental slush'. I would suggest that we need to remember first and foremost that this is meant as a piece of fiction as much as it is using the backdrop of the Second World War in Germany. Therefore the writer and the filmmakers have the opportunity to add resolution at the end of the film whilst adding tragedy throughout. It has also been compared unfavourably to two very influential stories/films regarding the Second World War - Schindler's List and The Diary of Anne Frank. Both masterpieces, it is difficult to better such incredible work and the effects they have on the emotions of the readers/viewers. I would say however that The Book Thief can be seen to work on a similar level in which we are made to feel highs and lows throughout the story and there is still some light at the end of the tunnel from such a horrific time in recent history, but perhaps the story doesn't feel as real to follow as its predecessors.

I would like to continue to compare it to Monuments Men. So why is it that we are compelled to feel so many emotions throughout this film that the viewer couldn't engage with in Monuments Men? MM feels very much like a lighthearted account of an obscure part of the War in which the effects on the populations under German rule at that time are particularly skirted over for this linear plot line. In The Book Thief, we are exposed to various parts of the effects of the Nazi regime on average people. We see the Hitler Youth, the persecution of the Jews, the censorship of knowledge and how the people reacted to these changes. Additionally, the filmmakers have created an atmosphere that almost physically puts you in the setting of this small German town, as you can feel the fear as the bombs are falling as they hide in the bomb shelters. The history itself does not feel as whimsical as it did in MM, it appears to be more researched, following the timeline very effectively throughout. Overall, we cannot amount this work to the likes of Anne Frank or Schindler, but as the public is becoming conscious one again of the World Wars, this film is playing on this public consciousness to bring in viewers and does so in a way that keeps them constantly on edge and feeling for the characters throughout.

Monuments Men falls a little flat...

Though this is perhaps a little off topic from history documentaries, I felt I should give you a little review of what I thought about Monuments Men. I know there has been a lot of criticism for this Clooney film, but I decided I should have a crack at it as well.

So the film is set during the final years of the Second World War, and a team of art and architecture experts are brought together by FDR to find and retrieve pieces of artwork stolen by the Nazi regime and return them to their owners. Because, in Britain, we are ceaselessly reminded of the the history of this important war from various but sometimes overworked perspectives, this could have been an interesting way of bringing out a really interesting and quirky story that had such a huge impact. There was room to bring in the context of the Second World War out in more depth and shine a light on some of the smaller yet just as important episodes in this life-changing war. In my opinion, what the audience are given is an extremely linear story without any sense of anything being particularly difficult or dangerous to do.

There were chances to add a little more depth to narratives that sprung from the main story such as the Jews and the Hitler Youth. Perhaps we are seeing Clooney trying to move away so much from the conventional history that he pushes it out almost completely. For example, we never see Hitler other than in a silhouette, nor do we hear him speak. Further, though we see some of the effects on the Jews, they are very passive. You see barrels of gold rings and teeth, and Jewish houses ransacked with anti-Semitic language scrawled on the walls, but as an audience member I was not compelled to feel anything about these situations. So what is making this story feel so unenticing?

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Clooney is questioned about the making of the film. When asked about how accurate he claimed the film to be he answered:

'Listen, the good news is, 80 percent of the story is still completely true and accurate, and almost all of the scenes happened. Sometimes they happened with other characters, sometimes it happened in smaller dimension. But that’s moviemaking. We’re not killing Hitler in a movie theater. And I loved Inglourious Basterds. We’re landing at the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944. We’re not landing there when it was convenient for us to land there. We follow all the rules, we just made the characters more interesting, I think. Not that the real people weren’t interesting. It’s just that, you know, you’re not going to know if somebody had a drinking problem, and we kinda would like to have somebody with a drinking problem.' 

My opinion on why it tends to fall a little flat may stem from this: I think that we need to remember first and foremost that the job of historical films and dramas is to entertain using the past as a backdrop. This is not to say that the history should not be as accurate as possible, but there are levels to how much of the truth the film/TV makers want to bring to light. My issue with MM is (beyond the statement that 'the story is still completely true and accurate' because that is somewhat impossible with history) that maybe Clooney needed to realise that by adding a little more fiction to his script it may have grabbed the attention of the audience a lot more, and he could have brought an identity to the film. By this I mean that there were jokes, but it wasn't exactly a comedy. There were deaths and inferences of suffering, but the audience was not particularly compelled to cry or empathise in any meaningful way. And there were triumphs, but they felt so simple (such as finding the Madonna and Child sculpture in the last mine they encountered before they had to leave the country at the end of the War) that there was little suspense or a willingness of the audience to join them on their journeys. The failure seems to be in trying to make it 80% accurate. As a film watcher and not a documentary watcher, I wanted it to bring so much more emotion in such a dark time in our recent history.

Overall, this film appears to be a way of expressing his need to make something epic, lets hope its not his swan song though. The talent of such an impressive cast including Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Hugh Bonneville, Cate Blanchett and of course how could we forget John Goodman, is wasted on a film that has tried so hard to be 'historically accurate' that is lacks what film watchers want: excitement, tears, fear, suspense, elation. I think that in future, Clooney should avoid the confusion between film and documentary, and leave the historical films to those who can do them justice.

(image sourced from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/02/05/review-george-clooneys-monuments-men-is-important-but-mediocre/)

What's it all about?

Hello to those who have chosen to read my ranting on history on television.

I will be using this blog to write critiques on television programmes about the past. I hope to carry out a PhD on historical television following on from my Masters dissertation. I have therefore decided to puts some of my thoughts down on paper as it were about these programmes, both new and old. For now, watch this space and there will be more to follow.