Violent events, such as the Holocaust, are perceived aberrations or anomalies from the cultural norm. Whether reason's include popular culture's morbid curiosity, a film director's desire for a contrived image, or a writer's need to make credible otherwise incredible events there seems an almost unending need for their retelling. A narration back into the apparent sociological standard which they defy.
Film/Video testimony and written text are two forms of Holocaust representation that have been adopted by individuals to shape, interpret, testify and reflect the 'facts' of the Holocaust.
The purpose of this particular inquiry is to explore kind's of meaning and expression that each of the above mentioned forms create. In addition compare the strength's and weaknesses of each medium.
If you have ever watched Claude Lanzmann film Shoah it would seem to the undiscerning eye a very atypical form of expression. A question is asked, the victim responds, the viewer assesses the response and subsequently reacts.
But is it all so common place? There must be something within the video testimony which causes, in some cases, very strong responses from the viewer.
Film and video narrative is a basic structure with at least two levels of narrative intersect. That of film which consists of its lateral movement, editing, and related images and of the survivor's own story from which the video medium revolves around.
The purpose of filmed testimony is not to document experiences or present related facts but to preserve broken pieces of memory through the filming of Holocaust survivor's recollections. Unto that a documentation of the understanding and meaning of events generated in the activity of testimony itself.
In addition video testimony secures time and space, ties continuities through a combination of experienced events (which then creates new perpetuity and new insights), highlights cause and...