MIs COMENTARIOs SOBRE EL FILM "Hanna Arendt", la película de Margarette Von Trotta. (Decir que las víctimas del Genocidio "cooperaron en ser destruidas", es culpabilizarlas de su propio final! Inadmisible. Los Nazis torturaban y asesinaban a todos los que, sin distincion, se negaban a "cooperar". Las víctimas no tenían otra opción, ninguna otra opción.) “A good but polemic film by Margarette Von Trotta on Hannah Arendt. It’s good because it is a biographical featuring of her personality, her outlook of the Genocide and the new concepts about man’s evil she generated as a philosopher. Also, it includes documentary films of the Eichmann legal case before the Jury in Jerusalem (in 1961). I had never seen such a sarcastic, ironic mimics in the face of anyone, until I saw Eichmann’s being questioned and listening to the Judges… Now the polemic issues that the film brings out from History: 1) Arendt considered that Eichmann wasn’t a monster, a Satan, etc. but a “common bureaucrat”, who obeyed the nazi orders without questioning them, (and she called this “banality of evil” that gave way to “radical evil”). Thus she founded a new concept of evil for the contemporary massive urban societies saying the evil is inherent to the organization of modernity (and civilization). Z. Baumann would develop this concept further years later. (This was not the outlook of the majority of people because the crimes to humanities were of such extent (in quantity and quality) that was not heard before in History, and because those who survived the extermination camps were terrified by their murderers). 2)Arendt said that the Jewish Committees that were chosen by the Nazis to organize internally the deportation from ghettos, etc, (4 or 5 Jewish leaders) were a perverse manner in which the Jews leaders (threatened by the Nazis) “cooperated” to organize the massive deportation and final extermination. This of course was outrageous for the Jewish lawyers and intellectuals post Second W.War!! And still is. How could she say that the victims (in a way) destroyed themselves. Yet she acknowledges there was no possibility of resistance, but she does not accept this kind of “cooperation”. What she leaves aside is the fact that the Jewish leaders thought that if they obeyed the Nazi commands, they would be able to somehow save themselves and their families and children and young people, postponing the moment of their death, and, more important, I think Arendt couldn’t expect martyrs or heroes from common men (since if they said no, they would be killed right away). 3) The third “polemic” aspect is somewhat an omission (deliberate?). The story shows a Heiddeger very abstract and nice, not participating in the Nazi project at all, when it is very true that he joined the Party when he badly wanted to be appointed head of the Friburg University, knowing that all Jewish professors had been fired out from the University for being Jewish (especially Husserl who had been Heiddeger’s teacher but with whom he competed a lot). An opportunistic person whose philosophy became again in fashion in the postmodern days. TERESA PORZECANSKI
Posted on: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 12:53:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015