You are here:   Claude Lanzmann > Underrated: Claude Lanzmann
 

In the Literary Review (February), David Cesarani claims that The Patagonian Hare reads "like an exercise in Gallic rodomontade". Is it unfair to see this as a displacement sideways on to "the French" of the apprehension, common among English Jews, that one of our people is shouting the odds, as well as blowing his own trumpet and paddling his own canoe with a vigour that just might make waves for bien-pensant trimmers? 

In his early book, Justice Delayed, and in the recent Major Farran's Hat, Cesarani has been diligent in researching British reluctance to prosecute outrages against Jews, but he does it in plodding prose which acquits him of any charge of uncomely indignation or (key phrase) self-importance. The English Jew may sigh, but he never points. It is not surprising that the first man in England to write at length about the Holocaust, in 1943, was not the worthy All Souls pundit Isaiah Berlin, but the arriviste Arthur Koestler, in Cyril Connolly's Horizon. Nor is it uncharacteristic that Cesarani deplored the egotistical Koestler's sexual predations in his 1998 biography, The Homeless Mind. In much the same head-magisterial spirit, he winces at Lanzmann's shameless delight in erotic activity, although modesty forbids any mention of Lanzmann's dismay at Le Castor's disclosure, when he first shacked up with her, that he had six current rivals for her favours. They still order these things differently in France.

It may be true that France is systematically anti-Semitic, as David Pryce-Jones has argued, in Betrayal: France, the Arabs and the Jews, but French Jews have learnt that reticence and decorum procure neither respect nor security. The Patagonian Hare pulls no punches and does not fail to land a few blows on the reputation of Lanzmann's one-time maître-à-penser Sartre, whom he blames, in part, for the suicide of his sister Evelyne.

Cesarani pays tribute, à sa façon, to   Lanzmann's role in the Resistance, but still wonders whether he hopes "to be taken seriously". If Cesarani had a personal history of the same order, or had created a masterpiece of the quality of Shoah, he might have some right to pose that condescending question. He hasn't; and he doesn't. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Expatinvader
April 1st, 2013
10:04 PM
"Daniel also said, on reflection, that the film was unfair to the Poles. Was it?" Sure was - see this note on the translation techniques by a respected Holocaust Scholar http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-holocaust&month=... eg "Thus, for example, on two occasions Lantzmann asks : 'What language were they [the Jews] speaking?', and the witness answers 'po zydowsku', which means 'Yiddish' (literally, 'Jewish'). Janica renders this incorrectly into French as 'juif' instead of 'yiddish', and the subtitlist then compunds the error by taking 'juif' to be a noun. The end result in English is: -- What language were they speaking? -- They were speaking "Jew". which makes it sound as if the witness is using some untranslatable but no doubt offensive word." and "In another place, Lantzmann tells Janica to ask a group of people: 'Are they glad there are no more Jews here, or sad' The spokesman for the group starts off: -- 'Wie pani, oni mnie nie przeszkadzali ...' which means: -- 'You know, ma'am, they didn't bother me ...' Janica renders this as: -- 'Ils me ne derangaient pas' The subtitlist evidently hears this as 'il me ne derangeait pas', and the English comes out as: -- 'It doesn't bother them.' "

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.