Jonathan Glazer’s 2023 Film, The Zone of Interest, takes a very different approach to what is made visible than most holocaust pieces. Instead of focusing on graphic depictions of violence or dehumanization, Glazer depicts the family life of an Auschwitz commandant and the mundanity of their day-to-day life. Through this methodology, we learn a different side of nazism than is often depicted. We see how dedicated their whole family is to all facets of nazi ideology instead of just to the often-portrayed violence and hatred. All their children are stereotypically Aryan, Hoff’s son is in the Hitler youth, and when asked to move away to follow Hoff’s career, his wife pleads that their home represents the life the “Fuher” has preached. However, cinematically, it also shows things that are not often seen in a traditional film framework. On occasions during the film, the 180-degree rule of editing is broken, which entails the camera crossing over the axis of action- an axis kept to maintain spatial continuity in a scene. One example of this is when we see all angles of Rufus walking through the house garden at night.
The scene starts with a wide angle of Rufus walking from right to left on the screen.
The scene then snaps to a medial view of the shower.
Finally, the film cuts 90 degrees to now be behind Rufus, and we see the entirety of that side of the garden.
These shots together create a very unnatural and unnerving feeling, helping to build an aura of general fear for Rufus’s actions
This fear is capitalized on in the next scene, perfectly illustrating what we don’t see in this film. We never see depictions of the violence that takes place just over the wall at Auschwitz. However, the audience is still made extremely aware of it. We see Rufus approving designs for crematoriums and gas chambers. However, it’s made even more evident in the next scene. The scene opens with a long hold on Rufus, clouded by a plume of smoke.
At first, there are just the sounds of machinery before we hear pained screams of Jews being murdered. Rufus’ demeanor does not change, and the screams continue as the shot fades to white.
I think presenting the scene this way made the film more disturbing. It’s a holocaust film. We expect to see graphic violence, but when all we can do is hear blood-curdling screams and imagine the violence, it leaves a more profound impact as we become an active participant in the film and are now creating the violence in our own minds. I think this obstruction of the violence in this scene also helps to preserve the family in our minds. I don’t believe that we are supposed to root for the family, but I think we are supposed to stay connected and invested in them, which would be harder to maintain if we saw Rufus clearly partake in horrible violence.
Hi Jasper,
I think your analysis of how The Zone of Interest approaches the Holocaust by not showing violence is spot-on. The choice to focus on the mundane, everyday life of the Höss family rather than the atrocities happening at Auschwitz, creates a striking contrast that amplifies the horror in a deeply unsettling way. Your point about how the broken 180-degree rule enhances the sense of unease during Rufus’s night walk through the garden is really insightful—it definitely helps build that feeling of fear and dread around his actions, even though we don’t see them directly.
I also agree that by leaving the violence off-screen, Glazer makes the audience complicit, forcing us to imagine the atrocities. This method, as you mention, makes the film even more disturbing because it requires us to actively participate in the horror through our imagination. The comparison to the typical expectation of graphic violence in Holocaust films really highlights how subversive Glazer’s approach is, pushing us to reflect on how easily people can compartmentalize their own moral responsibilities.
The scene with the screams also stood out to me. The fact that Rufus remains completely unphased while the audience hears the pained cries of those being murdered underscores the chilling indifference of those who perpetuated the Holocaust. Your observation that Glazer’s restraint in showing violence helps maintain our connection to the family is really interesting—I hadn’t thought about it that way before. It definitely keeps us engaged with the characters, even as we are horrified by their moral indifference.