Friday, September 2, 2011

Ramon- Week 2; Victims of Victims

The question of victim and victimizer is a tough problem to judge. When analyzing a play, novel, or film, one can believe to sympathize with one character for being victimized, but then the tables could turn when the victimized turns victimizer. First, in Cecil P. Taylor’s 1981 play Good, the reader is supposed to sympathize with Halder in the beginning. He is merely an educated person who happens to be a part of Nazi Germany. He becomes involuntarily in a way brainwashed by the Nazi rule. The vicious victimization circle begins with Prof. Halder’s way of thought from a cool and collected instructor to one who sees the Nazi ‘Final Solution’ as perfectly legitimate. Thus, his victimization involuntarily turned Halder into a victimizer of countless innocent people.

Moving onto an easier way to see victimization, the 1997 film based off the 1979 play by Martin Sherman, Bent, is the story of victimization of homosexuals in Nazi Germany. First, the main character, Max, plays both role of victim and victimizer. In the most basic terms, he is a victim of the Nazis because he is a homosexual and a prisoner for that fact. He is also a victimizer as he is brainwashed by the Nazi way. When he is given his identification patch, he was supposed to get a pink downward facing triangle to show his homosexuality. However, he struck a deal with the SS so that he could have a gold star, symbolizing that he was a Jew. He is brainwashed so much that he denies his homosexuality and condemns homosexuality altogether. Thus, he becomes a victimizer to his homosexual work friend, Horst.

Back track a bit in the film, there is another situation in this film I would like to examine. After Max, is taken into captivity onto the train, Nazi SS Officers bust their way onto Max’s train car. The SS choose Max’s ‘lover’ of sorts, Rudy, because he is wearing glasses; a sign of weakness in the Nazi view. They him into the next car and beat him half to death. The SS brings back the half-beaten man, and asks Max a series of questions on if he knows the man. He tells Max to hit his ‘lover’ with a club. For a brief second, the camera shows the commanding SS officer sitting down alone and rubbing his eyes in sadness, he also has glasses himself. That shows an example of how the organization is the victimizer in many cases and how the system victimizes the individuals within that system.

In conclusion, it is not a valid solution to try to eliminate a certain victimizer. Rather, it makes more sense to seek out the organization from which that victimizer comes from.

8 comments:

  1. Jeff,
    I cannot agree more. Victimizers are usually victims themselves. This does not in any way validate what they do, but the societal construct must be looked at. In the case of Halder, he was a victim of his society and was molded into a victimizer. He started out as a decent man, but growing up it is engrained in a person’s mind that authority is always right and it must be followed. In a way we are brainwashed. We are not taught to question what is right are wrong. Halder could not be faulted for what he was taught was right. He joined the Nazi organization and did what they told him. He was brainwashed by this authority to believe everything that they said and that euthanasia was best. So instead of just faulting him, everyone is responsible for their actions, the construct should be attacked too. The entire Nazi organization, not just Halder is at fault and responsible for victimizing these people. One can have sympathy for Halder being stuck in such a situation where he is a victim of this societal construct, however, he can be stronger and not be a victimizer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You bring up a great point, when you mention the scene of the SS solider wearing glasses showing emotions of sadness. He is only human, how could all the soldiers just watch the horrific acts of violence take place and not be affected at all? The man being beating as you said for just wearing glasses, because the Nazi believed this is a sign of weakens. That is one of many stereotypes they would put on people, just to beat or kill them. I also agree with you on how the film shows many easier examples victims, then the book, does. The book somewhat plays both sides. I try to think to myself, if maybe I would have been victimized had I been a part of the Holocaust era. Mostly likely they could have found something wrong with me or many of my family members to sentence us to punishment. These individuals had way too much power over people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's an interesting feeling to be forming opinions on all of this 70+ years after it happened. Sometimes I think I know the answer, what people could have done to avoid this mess.
    When the word 'brainwashed' came up on your post I involuntarily rolled my eyes. My first thought was 'Who could be brainwashed into killing millions of people?, Who could be brainwashed into beating someone he so dearly cared for?' but then I catch myself being so incredibly insensitive.
    Many people were brainwashed in the Nazi regime. Made to believe that a race was superior to another (as we have seen happen many times over the course of history).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jeff, Your point about the officer with glasses brings up an important issue. In order to deny the weakness he attributes to Rudy, he tortures him and then has Max beat him. Even though he wears glasses, he is in control, so the glasses don't make him weak, but if he were a Jew or a homosexual and wore glasses, those glasses would be a signal of his weakness. I am glad you brought up the point. The officer is engaging in transference.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I really liked your point about Max being both victim and victimizer. Originally I saw Halder as the oppressor and Max as the victim; after reading your post and the comments on it, I can clearly see how Max is both. I also think its an excellent point that most victimizers are really victims themselves. Part of "breaking" Max on the train to the concentration camps is pushing him into the denial of his identity. He does not want to be labeled as "gay" because he is taught to associate it with "weak" (the bottom rung on the ladder in the camps). He allows himself to be manipulated into Nazi thought. I'm still unsure whether or not he really had a choice. This is where I see a clear division between Halder's situation and Max's--everything Max did, he did to survive. Halder had more of a choice, he benefited from being an S.S. officer and it is unclear whether he would have suffered if he refused or whether he could have escaped it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is an interesting thread of conversation. When Elissa discusses how Max is manipulated into thinking like a Nazi, she asks if he really had a choice. I would suggest that, no, he did not. When people are thrown into an arena where their only chance for survival is barbarism, I think many will jump right in. Some will have moral trepidations, or will be skilled at going largely unnoticed and unchallenged. But for many, their survival will be a marathon every day, and they will beat down anyone they need to, and do anything they must to stay alive. Max was clearly this type of person before he met his new boyfriend at the concentration camp.

    ReplyDelete