Chinmay Dande The Appropriateness of Roberto Benginis Life is Beautiful20378350The representation of the Holocaust in artistic form has been an ongoing debate in the public sphere. The debate is purely based on ones perception of the horrific event. This is prevalent especially in films, for which critics and holocaust survivors question the authenticity and general aesthetic of the cinema. The clash between survivors and non-survivors occurs frequently, it creates an unhealthy image of holocaust art and completely politicizes the subject. There are two types of critics that arise within the public sphere; one that looks at the picture in its art form and one that looks at it in a historical perspective. When it comes to a film such as Roberto Benginis Life is Beautiful there is a great deal of controversy in the public. What sets Life is Beautiful apart from most holocaust pictures, is its use of comedy. With its use of comedy, the picture has a polarized view amongst critics and holocaust survivors/non-survivors alike. Critics on the offensive have condemned Bengini for satirizing such a horrific event and at the same time they criticize the film for its the lack of realism and actuality. On the other hand critics on the defensive, tend not to focus of the actuality of the event rather they focus on the moral message the film is trying to convey as well as the way the filmmaker tells the story. The main difference between the critics; defensive critics have objective view of the film whereas offensive critics will have a subjective view. In this paper I will examine and review the arguments from both the defensive and offensive; mainly concerning the critics; David Denby (Offensive) and Heliene Flanzbaum (defensive) however I will also be using the arguments from other critics on both sides of the debate to better understand the arguements of Denby and Flanzbaum. David Denbys New Yorker article harshly criticizes the picture from its portrayal of the holocaust to Benginis direction, story and use of its set pieces. Denby calls the picture the most unconvincing and self-congratulatory movies ever made (Denby, pg 137) adding the laughter died in my throat, I came out of the theatre feeling ash gray, as if my soul had been mugged (Denby, pg 137). Denbys article shows hostility towards the use of comedy in a holocaust film. In the midst of his article he begins to call out Benginis comic personality saying statements such as As he opens his mouth wide, his teeth form a donkeys grin as well as Bengini is happy, noisy viral clown. Denbys portrays Bengini as a clown who is oblivious to what is happening in his films (Denby, pg 138). He goes on to say that Bengini does not know how to use the sets he has built and points out that he is a performer like Chapin and Jerry Lewis but not a serious director. Denby further claims that the press kit contained a list of archived photographs, consulted survivors, experts on Austwitz and then goes on to say that Bengini said that he was creating a fable and wanted to avoid the realism which led Denby to state what then, was the purpose of his research(Denby, pg 138). David Denby wants the reader to think that Bengini wanted authority over the holocaust rather than the actuality. The problem here is Denby is looking at this too subjectively, as if he had felt threatened of the comedic persona of a character in the dark realm of the holocaust, the exterminations camps. Denby further points out the lack of actuality in the film stating; Surely he knows that a young child entering Austwitz would immediately put to death, and that at every camp people were beaten and humiliated at random. He shows us nothing like that (Denby, pg 139). Denby has not looked at the film in the sense that Bengini wanted the audience to look at it, it was a fable trying to convey a moral message with the setting of the holocaust in the background. The movie can be divided into two, the first half of the movie, is a love story between Guido and Dora this half, parodies the facism of Italy through humiliating Doras former finance (a facist official) and then wins Doras heart. The second half is about the relationship between Guido and Giosue, the display of their comical relationship in the camp was in no way intended to portray the holocaust as a joke, rather to show a father comforting his son amidst the real horrors of the extermination camp. With that in mind we as the viewer are put in the shoes of Dora and Giosue to feel protected and loved by Guido. Denby states He just loves that boy, and he desperately wants us to love him (Denby, pg 139). It was as if Bengini wanted Guido to have an indirect relationship with the audience by not only charming Dora or clowning around with Giosue but also the viewer. Therefore the viewer would feel empathy and a kinship with Guidos character and is also shielded from the harsh reality. Even Denby states; In the end, Bengini protects the audience as as much as Guido protects his son, we are all treated like children (Denby, pg 139). He further criticizes Bengini for making the audience feel sentimental towards him; Denby believes that the audience watching the film cannot handle the actuality and the realism of the holocaust, Leading Denby to ask Bengini, to be a much tougher man than he is (Denby, Pg 139). Denby states that Bengini is in the fantasy of his own, saying if the tough little boy had taken over and tried to protect Guido in his illusions, the movie might have achieved the power of the great ironic fable (Denby, 139). In the second half of the movie, it shown that the boy is taking the situation more seriously than the father, he doesnt realize the illusion Guido has created. In hindsight what Denby is trying to say is that the fathers attempt to set up a fantasy for the boy is turn creating a fantasy for himself, the only reason he is creating this fantasy is that he is fearful as well. However, Denby argues that since the boy is the only one looking at the reality, he should protect the father in order to achieve that power of the fable. Denby is unhappy the way the movie ended, he was disappointed at the fact that, Bengini made the father the hero. Adding; the picture ends sentimentally, in a burst of self-sacrifice that celebrates Bengini the life giving clown. (Denby, pg 139). Denby argues that the use of comedy was senseless stating that even Chaplin thought that his spoof of Hitler and Mussolini was inadequate as well as Jerry Lewiss The Day the Clown Cried, a film about a clown that entertains children who about to go into the gas chamber, a film that was never released. Clearly, Denby thinks there is no room for comedy or joy in holocaust art and nothing proves it more than his last point; Life is Beautiful is benign form of holocaust denial. The audience comes away feeling relieved and happy and rewards Bengini for allowing it, at last, to escape (Denby, pg 139). The picture was tragic, the moral message behind the film lies within the character Guido, a man with hope and optimism lives life to the fullest in his darkest hour. His clown like persona was to entertain us (in the shoes of his son) while in the background is the horrific display of the holocaust. Denby fails to understand the difference between historical accuracy and filmmaking/storytelling. According to Denby, there are rules to making holocaust films and the cardinal rule being; you have to make it authentic and present the Holocaust in its actuality. The problem with that is, the filmmaker has no room for experimentation and cannot explore new ideas. Above all else, Denby failed to understand the moral message of the film because he was too distracted by the comedic essence of Roberto Benginis character. It is unfortunate that Denby did not see that, only to see the film in a historical perspective and only looking at the technicalities. Denby is blinded from the true magical essence that for Guido life was beautiful. Heliene Flanzbaum is on the defensive end for Life is Beautiful however in her article it seems she is defending holocaust art in retrospect. Her defense on holocaust art rests upon the perception of the audience. When referring to a lecture she gave based on the television miniseries Holocaust, she notes that some of the survivors and their children condemned the film because it Americanized the Holocaust. However there were some surivors who stated that they liked the film because it portrayed the Holocaust in the public view. Flanzbaum states this prickly interaction between audience and critic, surivior and non-survivor regularly occurs in the public sphere, and points to a complex and unhealthy dynamic in the reception of Holocaust art (Flanzbaum, pg 273). She states that Life is Beautiful has polarized view amongst audiences. Such as Abraham Foxman, the president of the Anti-defamation league and a holocaust survivor who publicly defended the film by saying it was an important contribution to our understanding of the holocaust (Flanzbaum, pg 273). While others condemned the film, as described in reviewers words it is not a valid contribution of the holocaust (Flanzbaum, pg 273). She further goes on to say that, the reactions of the holocaust ought to be instructive to us not because they witnessed because they can suggest a practical approach to this sensitive subject. Due to the fact that, in the publics eye the Holocaust has become hopelessly intellectualized and dangerously politicized (Flanzbaum, pg 274). An important point Flanzbaum makes is that critics and filmmakers feel like caretakers, as if we need certain etiquette when dealing with holocausts authenticity. The critic and holocaust survivor, Imre Kertesz argued that as holocaust survivors get older, who owns the authenticity of the holocaust? Furthermore he discusses the ambiguous way survivors jealously insist that the holocaust is exclusively theirs as if they the Holocaust is their intellectual property. Kertesz states Nonetheless, the decades have taught me that the only passable route to liberation leads us through memory (Kertesz, pg 133) .The fact of the matter is, most holocaust survivors want to be liberated from the event and one of the ways survivors can come to terms with themselves is by seeing it in the public sphere through art, images, literature or film. Furthermore, Kertesz states that more often, their experience during the holocaust is taken away from them and turned into cheap consumer goods (Kertesz, pg 133). In this way, the survivor is told by the artist to think about what they, the survivor, has experienced. With that in mind, Kertesz feels that artist has conformed to sentimentalizing with the victims and the audience by trying to get the authenticity of the holocaust as precise as they can. Flanzbaum states a similar point; The past twenty years have given rise to a growing number of critics who cleave to this notion of authenticity above all else (Flanzbaum, pg 274). Flanzbaum and Kertesz illustrate a good point, the Holocaust is a sensitive subject with regard to how it is portrayed and films such as Schindlers List and Life is Beautiful which, face critical and public scrutiny for the way they depict the reality of the event. The main reason its becoming a cheap consumer good is because it is always compared to the actual event, as if fictionalizing it ruins the authenticity. It is true that tampering with historical events can change the publics perspective on the event itself. However as an art form it is trying to convey a larger moral message about the way the historical event is presented. On that note Flanzbaum states; the assumption that realism as an aesthetic category is the most effective means by which artists can portray the truth has been debunked for at least a century (Flanzbaum, pg 274). However, Flanzbaum states that with the Holocaust, most artists had to become historians due to the fact the assumption of authenticity still prevailed with Holocaust and adding representations of the holocaust have always occupied a special artistic category (Flanzbaum, pg. 274). As a special artistic category, the artist had to portray the picture as close to verisimilitude (truth) as possible. Flanzbaum goes on to say that documentary evidence is the best kind of evidence, in that case if artists wanted to be more appreciated for their work then they would make it as real as possible. However, Flanzbaum argues that these Holocaust art expectations gave rise to a set of conventionsof what could and what could not be portrayed in movies, television and books (Flanzbaum, pg. 275). Which is why the artists involved in creating pictures and images of the Holocaust are deemed as caretakers. Kestesz even points out that the historical significance of the event changes as it is passed on generation to generation (Kestesz, pg. 132). Flanzbaum calls Life is Beautiful the caretaker of commemoration because the picture was highly polarized amongst critics (Flanzbaum, pg. 281). Flanzbaum reviews the arguments by the critics, that were as he states were predictable (Flanzbaum, pg. 281). Flanzbaum states that the general argument would be; Life is Beautiful fails the test of authenticity; it is in fact, a crass popularization doesnt come to telling its audience what the Holocaust was really like; thus, it must be exposed for the fake that it is because it brings us a step closer to denial. (Flanzbaum, pg, 281). In essence he was right, majority of the critics who were on the offensive had mainly criticized the film with regard to its authencity. One critic he was particularly right about was David Denby. He stated; perhaps no critic was more outraged by the success of Life is Beautiful than David Denby. Denby reviewed the film twice and both times he ridiculed its portrayal of the Holocaust (as stated above). Flanzbaum questions Denbys assertion that the movie would promote holocaust denial, stating that the claim makes no sense. Since Denby questions the actuality of the film, Flanzbaum claims that critics such as Denby are fearful of these kind of films misguiding the public. Many offensive critics state that no artist can have authority over actuality. Flanzbaum states since the offensive crtics are fearful, when they visualize the audience viewing this film, the critics assume that the public would see misrepresentation of concentration camps and the harsh reality about the conditions. This would give the public,ammunition, to deny the Holocaust. Flanzbaum argues; Who is this person? Does he or she actually exist? Not only would this viewer have to be ignorant and malevolent, he would have to be anti-semetic. (Flanzbaum, pg. 182). Flanzbaum further claims that should we as an audience first concur with scholars and critics who complain about the historical accuracy and authenticity of the film. We neednt do any of that, because the rule authenticity over actuality is outdated. The fact of the matter is, the public already sees the realistic images and has access to the historical facts through; the internet, museums, survivor testimonies, books, old films, stock and archival footage. Therefore it makes no sense for critics on the offensive to argue against Bengini, for not using realistic images. Flanzbaum states that Life is Beautiful is not a documentary nor does it inundate, overwhelm or desensitize viewers to the horrors of the Holocaust.. (Flanzbaum, pg. 283). She points out that, unlike many films which have actuality, Life is Beautiful accepts its limitations as a work of art (Flanzbaum, pg. 283). Flanzbaum defends Bengini by stating, Bengini plays to a sophisticated audience---one that has seen plenty of graphic and horrific cinematic scenessome about the holocaust, and some not (Flanzbaum, pg. 283). Bengini was not trying to show any physical pain rather psychological suffering of his character while trying to entertain the audience. Flanzbaum feels that the critics condemn the film out of ignorance and malevolence. She states that Bengini has re-envisioned the holocaust and found a new way to present it. Additionally she says If critics believe that the events of the holocaust are important enough to bear telling, again and again, then artists must continue to find new ways of telling it (Flanzbaum, pg. 284). Flanzbaum states that critics like Denby inaibit a paradoxical and infinite regress in which critics feel obligated to repeat that the Holocaust cannot ever be truly represented, while at the same time, these same critics vigoursly complain each time an individual representation insufficiently portrays the event (Flanzbaum, pg. 284). There is no point in criticizing these films if the critics such as Denby continue using the same hypocritical arguments. Flanzbaum suggests that we move away from these same bengin criticisms and analyze the art itself rather than the realism and verisimilitude it lacks. Films such as Life is beautiful offer small glimpses of morality and human ingenuity to a larger audience. Kestesz who also favoured Life is Beautiful stated; the soul of Life is Beautiful is authentic and it moves us with the power of the oldest kind of magic, the magic of fairy tales (Kertesz, pg.134). Kertesz refers to fairy tales because he knew that in reality the events of Life is Beautiful were next to impossible, but it had a humanity that is not present in most Holocaust films. Furthermore, Kertesz admits, the film lack authencity but nonetheless, appreciated the dramatic structure of the movie calling it the simple precision of good tragedy (Kertesz, pg.134). Finally, Kertesz and Flanzbaum agree that Bengini is a new representative of Holocaust art and his movie shows the audience that he has the strength to preserve the events of Holocaust by presenting it in a comedic light. Amongst other critics, J Hoberman spoke about the film the same way David Denby spoke, alluding that the simple fable, is neither simple nor truthful (Hoberman, pg. 127). Hoberman also asserts that within the fable is a moral message;lying makes life bearable, what he is referring to is the illusion that Guido created for his son and ultimately, the viewer. Hoberman further exclaims that films such as Life is Beautiful are meant to be absurd because the context of the Holocaust is used inappropriately. He concludes by saying; Life is Beautiful could have only been made about Jews. For, as twentieth century pop culture has instructed us Jews, are entreatingly smart, funny, family oriented little people and, moreover, their Holocaust is now ancient history-the stuff of myth (Hoberman, 130). This statement is irrational because it presents the movie inappropriately, claiming that the Holocaust is ancient history is an unfair criticism to the film and those who praised it. Like Denby, Hoberman lacks the ability to understand the theme of the film which is human ingenuity, however only sees it for its historical accuracy. Charles Taylor also delivers the same kind of review, but in his case, he directly criticizes the usage of comedy. Taylor exclaims; the sheer callous inappropriateness of comedy existing within the physical reality of the campeven imagined the reality of the movie (Taylor, pg. 1). He further goes on to criticize Benginis acting by stating; Bengini also lacks the effortless precision of the great physical clowns, and the manic spark beneath their surface calm (Taylor, pg.1). Taylor claims Life is Beautiful is nothing more than uninspired bits and worked up whimsy (Taylor, pg. 1). Just like Hoberman and Denby, Charles Taylor argues the film has failed to show the straight forward realism of the Holocaust and ultimately criticizes Guidos comedic persona which is blinding him from the story. Roberto Bengini in hindsight is getting the same criticism that Leni Riefenshtal had received. Riefenshtals critics also focused on the context of her film. Ridiculing her for making a propaganda film and accused her for working closely with the Nazis. That is not the case here with Bengini, however critics of both films looked at the picture ignorantly and did not see what the filmmaker wanted them to see. With Bengini, it was the fable and its moral message of humanity while Riefenstahl wanted the audience to see the monumental images of the Nurmeberg rally and the way in which she portrayed the thrilling political events and the culture. Riefenstahl wanted to only focus on the technical merits of the film while Bengini was trying to capture the humanity of the Holocaust through the use of comedy. Even though both films are controversial, they still captured history in a different aesthetics. For films like Life is Beautiful, if critics are so anal on the historical accuracy leading them to say they are a benign form of Holocaust denial, what then is the purpose artistic form and creativity? If all films based on historical events have to capture the reality and have to be as accurate as possible, where does that leave room for a story to capture the imagination of the audience. With films such as Life is Beautiful and Schindlers list, it is all about how the filmmaker wants the audience to perceive the film, it is unlikely that they are going to be historically accurate. The filmmaker wants to deliver a moral message through the story and the characters in the setting of a historical event. Therefore, Life is Beautiful is about the humanity and the self-sacrifice of Guido. Guido is a man on a quest to win over the woman he loves and shield his son from the horrors of the death camp by his comical clown-like performances because, Guido is the living embodiment of what makes life beautiful.Page 8 of 10