The Zone of Interest (2023)

[Winston T. Boogie]

Title: The Zone of Interest

Genre: Drama, History, War

Director: Jonathan Glazer

Plot: A Nazi officer stationed at Auschwitz becomes enamored with the camp commandant's wife.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Director Jonathan Glazer is one of the true visionaries to have emerged in the film circuit the last decade. After all, his ultra-stylized 2000 gangster film “Sexy Beast” turned heads for its stunning visual palette However, Glazer only got better after that, having given us only two films since then: the highly underrated “Birth,” and his masterpiece: “Under the Skin,” starring Scarlett Johansson as a roaming alien sent to Glasgow to feed off of innocent and pathetic male pedestrians. ”Under the Skin” was one of the great achievements of this last decade, even being named the 12th best movie of the 2010s in our mega critics poll. Needless to say, its been 7 years since that movie and Glazer seems to have taken his time to make his next one.

Today we learned that Glazer has actually been shooting a new film since August in Auschwitz, Poland. This is stunning news given that this latest project has been delaying its production for quite a few years now. The shoot is set to continue for another month, at least. A Cannes 2022 World Premiere is such an obvious possibility at this point.

What we do know about this new project, a holocaust-set story, is that Glazer has been working on it for nearly five years, with A24 attached to produce. The film is said to be based on author Martin Amis’ novel “The Zone Of Interest.” The book synopsis tells the story of a Nazi officer who finds
himself falling for the wife of the camp’s commandant. The plot follows their torrid, love affair, while the spurned husband begins to suspect his wife.

Jonathan Glazer is Currently Shooting His WWII Holocaust Drama in Auschwitz — World of Reel

Director Jonathan Glazer is one of the true visionaries to have emerged in the film circuit the last decade. After all, his ultra-stylized 2000 gangster film “Sexy Beast” turned heads for its stunning visual palette However, Glazer only got better after that, having given us only two films since the

www.worldofreel.com

 

[TravisR]

Seems about right for Jonathan Glazer.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Seems about right for Jonathan Glazer.

I'm sure it is going to be strange and intense and probably will stick with you long after you have watched it. To me this guy is three for three so I am very excited to see this.

 

[Malcolm R]

Sounds like another period drama aimed at old people who apparently don't go to the movies anymore (or so I've heard). Though the nazi angle probably makes it Oscar-bait.

 

[TravisR]

Sounds like another period drama aimed at old people who apparently don't go to the movies anymore (or so I've heard). Though the nazi angle probably makes it Oscar-bait.

But Glazer probably makes it too strange and dark for that audience and for any chance of Oscars.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Sounds like another period drama aimed at old people who apparently don't go to the movies anymore (or so I've heard). Though the nazi angle probably makes it Oscar-bait.

The truth is probably only a small number of people have seen any of Glazer's pictures and at least two (Birth and Under the Skin) of them would likely infuriate a bunch of viewers. So, yes, I would expect a small number of people see this new film. It would be cool if Glazer or his picture got nominated for an Oscar but this will probably be way too "indie" for that. So, probably a cult film for a small number of fans that either like his work or oddball cinema.

He's a great filmmaker but pretty much under the radar. I've not read the novel it is based on but may give it a shot before this comes out. As I understand it this will be "loosely" based on the novel and having seen his other pictures I am certain the movie will probably be something different than the book.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

He is cutting this now I guess and the odd rumor is he may create more than one version of the film. Each version would be the story told from a different character's perspective. No explanation how that would be released, as I can't think of pictures that have been created so you see the film more than once from different character perspectives. I am very curious to see this and will watch different versions if that is what he ends up doing but I have a feeling they will start by just putting out a single version of the film and letting people see that first. Releasing multiple versions at once will likely confuse people.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Today I learned an exclusive, that Glazer has been in a unique post-production phase on his film. In a nutshell, Glazer is, at the very least, considering the idea of multiple cuts for his upcoming “The Zone of Interest.” Perhaps not just different lengths, but maybe also different POVs.

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/10/ukb6f3gz6v6j4e6vml8govywu26v4z

 

[Alex...]

In theaters December 8th.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

 

[JoeStemme]

Director Jonathan Glazer isn't very prolific with only three prior films over the past 23 years, but each is marked by a distinctive vision (SEXY BEAST, BIRTH and UNDER THE SKIN). ZONE OF INTEREST is no different with an even more controlled conception.

Loosely adapting Martin Amis' novel, Glazer creates a setting, a tableu, and never lets go. Opening with a long ominous musical overture by Mica Levi the viewer is plunged into a seemingly tranquil German family home. Uniformed Nazi officers are about, served by compliant women. A commandant, Rudolf Hoss (Christian Friedel) returns home to his family including his wife Hedwig (Sandra Huller, superb as she also was in this year's ANATOMY OF A FALL) and five children. Hedwig's mother, Linna (Imogen Kogge) comes to stay with them. Their yard is idyllic save for a high concrete fence that partially masks an industrial looking building just behind it. Auschwitz.

Lukasz Zal's (IDA, COLD WAR) camera never moves. The set-ups are often at quite a distance, as if it were all a set-piece on a stage. As officers come and go, the viewer overhears snatches of conversation about how to more efficiently run the camps, Rudolf attententively leads the discussions. Hedwig runs the home, with a determined, yet outwardly calm demeanor. The banality of evil has rarely been depicted with such domesticality. The children play outside as most kids would do, only with a faint everpresent chimny smoke wafting into the sky. There are a couple of departures from the regimented compositions when dark children's fairy tales are depicted as if a camera negative. Levi contributes additional chilling music cues.

As placidly chilling as the visuals are Sound Designer Johnnie Burn creates a malevolent maelstrom of audio effects mixing in gunshots, dog barks, mayhem and human voices. Glazer never shows the insides of the camp, yet the sound and visions more than carry his intent. Even more so, since they burrow into the audience's subconscious.

Glaser has crafted a movie with a precise, if a bit self-limiting, goal. There are some moments that don't work (particularly late in the film), but one never doubts that it is uniquely his own. For those willing to take the bleak journey, Levi's exit music will haunt one long after it fades out.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Sounds like another period drama aimed at old people who apparently don't go to the movies anymore (or so I've heard). Though the nazi angle probably makes it Oscar-bait.

But Glazer probably makes it too strange and dark for that audience and for any chance of Oscars.

The truth is probably only a small number of people have seen any of Glazer's pictures and at least two (Birth and Under the Skin) of them would likely infuriate a bunch of viewers. So, yes, I would expect a small number of people see this new film. It would be cool if Glazer or his picture got nominated for an Oscar but this will probably be way too "indie" for that. So, probably a cult film for a small number of fans that either like his work or oddball cinema.

He's a great filmmaker but pretty much under the radar. I've not read the novel it is based on but may give it a shot before this comes out. As I understand it this will be "loosely" based on the novel and having seen his other pictures I am certain the movie will probably be something different than the book.

The Oscar-baiting (or whatever one might call it) has apparently been thoroughly underestimated (and this will probably receive waaay more mainstream exposure than ever imagined)...

I haven't actually gotten around to seeing any of his other films though I had at least intended to see Sexy Beast and Under the Skin... but I did go see this... and well, you can find my bits of thoughts on it over in the current, ongoing, main Oscar discussion thread...

_Man_

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Under the Skin

It’s a very interesting, unusual film that’s more about vibes than plot. It’s taken from a novel that had a very specific plot with a clear understanding of character and story, and then Glazer sort of adapted all of the things that happen in the book without providing a narrative to allow the audience to easily follow why the things that are happening, happen. (It’s an even more extreme example of that than “2001” the film vs “2001” the novel.) It’s visually striking, haunting, and well worth a rental.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

The Oscar-baiting (or whatever one might call it) has apparently been thoroughly underestimated (and this will probably receive waaay more mainstream exposure than ever imagined)...

I haven't actually gotten around to seeing any of his other films though I had at least intended to see Sexy Beast and Under the Skin... but I did go see this... and well, you can find my bits of thoughts on it over in the current, ongoing, main Oscar discussion thread...

_Man_

Basically, like Kubrick, he is a very exacting filmmaker. His films tend to be designed to make you ask questions not to answer them. I think all of his films have been outstanding, I am particularly partial to Under the Skin but if you watch any of his pictures, you do sort of absorb them, they are not designed to tell you things, but to force you to examine how you think/feel about them.

Also, like Kubrick he does a lot of preparation before he shoots and can discover things while he is shooting. It's why he tends to take a long time between films. I think this kind of filmmaking limits his audience because people seem to much prefer entertainment that answers the questions it asks.

This film I believe is meant to be very timely with the idea that we observe people that casually go about their daily routine while horrors take place just beyond a wall. We are, quite sadly, moving toward facing that here, in the United States and while this film is a warning many people should see...not sure many people would sit through it nor would the ones that most need to absorb it be able to do so.

It's an extremely important picture of our time, based on that, I would tell people they must see it.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

^IF that's his goal, then I think it largely fails because most people will not want to sit thru it and just find it pretentious if they do manage to do so.

I sat thru it, understood it just fine (as such) and still feel like it's more pretentious than it probably needed to be (and have no desire to see it again)... for this particular subject matter. I had no need for this film to get me to think about such. I already often enough think about such (of course not usually specific to the Holocaust). And I suspect most who would "get" this film are also like me in that way to some extent, ie. we're probably not actually the ones who need to "get" this.

This kinda approach might work better for something else me thinks. But even then, most people simply wouldn't wanna watch something like this anyway.

American Fiction (and its source novel), for instance, also seeks to make people think some, but w/out this kind of pretentiousness. And that would succeed far more even though that's not exactly a flawless film.

Seems like what it succeeds most is getting a few of us in this specific kinda niche circle to debate about it (and for garnering good reviews/ratings from those who happen to be tickled by this kind of film), but most people couldn't be bothered w/ such. And if we approach them w/ such, they'll probably just find us pretentious as well.

_Man_

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

^IF that's his goal, then I think it largely fails because most people will not want to sit thru it and just find it pretentious if they do manage to do so.

I sat thru it, understood it just fine (as such) and still feel like it's more pretentious than it probably needed to be (and have no desire to see it again)... for this particular subject matter. I had no need for this film to get me to think about such. I already often enough think about such (of course not usually specific to the Holocaust). And I suspect most who would "get" this film are also like me in that way to some extent, ie. we're probably not actually the ones who need to "get" this.

This kinda approach might work better for something else me thinks. But even then, most people simply wouldn't wanna watch something like this anyway.

American Fiction (and its source novel), for instance, also seeks to make people think some, but w/out this kind of pretentiousness. And that would succeed far more even though that's not exactly a flawless film.

_Man_

Yes, I essentially agree, it is not a film that is going to have wide appeal and yes, I agree that the people that do understand it are probably not the people that need to see it. It's an odd conundrum really. The most common comment after people have seen it is "It's brilliant, I never need to see it again."

His other three pictures, I would agree, have a much higher rewatch factor.

 

[Tino]

Deciding whether to go see this today free as part of AMC-A list or purchase blind for $19.99.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Deciding whether to go see this today free as part of AMC-A list or purchase blind for $19.99.

Definitely do **not** blindbuy this for $20, especially if you can just go see it via A-List first.

You might even plan on potentially seeing something else at the same AMC 30min after the showtime for this as contingency plan (in case you feel like just walking out after 15-30min), LOL.

_Man_