On to analysis. What I got most out of both the book and the movie was Wlady's interactions with Hosenfeld, the Nazi soldier who helped shelter him & feed him. I had never read the book until now, and the addition of a portion of his journal was so eye-opening to me. I probably couldn't even think of a handful of accounts by actual Nazi Party members that show remorse and disgust at their actions. The historical record shows that anti-Semitism was a pervasive issue throughout central Europe, so to see this soldier's anger at his countrymen is quite inspiring to me. Luckily some were able to hold on to their humanity.
Wlady's first hand accounts in the book really get more into his psyche than does the movie. When he describes the beggars in the ghettos as such: "Dozens of beggars lay in wait for this brief moment of encounter with a prosperous citizen, mobbing him by pulling at his clothes, barring his way, begging, weeping, shouting,threatening. But it was foolish for anyone to feel sympathy and give a beggar something, for then the shouting would rise to a howl." One of my friends described a township in South Africa as being similar. This is what abject suffering and poverty do. The scene from the film which most closely mirrors the utter despair of the Polish Jews is when Wlady is being shot at and he tries to dodge bullets and screams "I am Polish, I am Polish!" Violence was just a part of life and consciousness at that point. All he could do was hope that his voice could be heard.
I think Polanski sought mostly to cover the entire story of the Jews of Poland, through Wlady unique and beautifully heartbreaking story. He did this very successfully, but reading the book alongside the film was a worthwhile experience because I feel we were able to establish much more about Wlady the person. He takes up more of a metaphor for all of Poland in the film, I believe. This is likely because Polanski can see himself in Wlady, having also survived the Holocaust as a Polish Jew. This exercise in similar narratives but in both 1st & 3rd person achieves an excellent comprehension of the Polish situation in the Holocaust.
I am not sure your example of Szpilman's shouting at the Poles who are shooting at him really fits what you are trying to say about abject poverts and the human response to it, but it is interesting to contemplate. A scene that might better fit is one that would link Szpilman's observations to those of Elie Weisel? Can you think of some similarities. Doing that would also help you see how each writer creates a sense of the individual in a situation where only a mass identity is allowed. The Poles in the last scene see only a Nazi, and that is an important point. They are not shooting at him because they, the Poles, are beggars; they are shooting at him because he represents the enemy. Beggars cannot afford to let anyone see that they see their targets as enemies.
ReplyDeleteGudan: Comment on J. Rogers blog on The Pianist
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that you point out how the book gives audiences more insight into Szpilman’s psyche. I also thought the book was much more revealing, although, as an autobiography, this is something to be completely expected. Aside from some of the more poignant insight readers are privileged to, I thought the book also had a lot to say about how Szpilman felt about not only his fellow Jews, but also of the class structure of society in general. Regardless of their nationality, Szpilman seems to have a marked prejudice against members of certain social classes and, naturally, preferences for others. While it is understood that he would dislike the upper-class Jews living in the Ghetto, seeing as they pursued ridiculously extravagant lifestyles, he also seems to have a disdain towards the bourgeois class, as evident in his ever-present preference for “the intelligentsia.” Both before his imprisonment in the ghetto, as shown in his preference for artistic, intellectual company, and during his time there, likewise wishing to perform among the artists and philosophers, Szpilman shows a clear partiality. Also, his choice neighbors during his period of hiding out in Warsaw after he escapes the ghetto, Szpilman assumes that those neighbors who would argue amongst themselves and turn in a Jew to save themselves are decidedly less admirable people on account of their lower class, as opposed again to the intelligentsia Poles who would hide him along the underground railroad. While his favoritism makes sense, especially during and after his time in the ghetto, it seems that it existed before his times of troubles.