Representing the Holocaust: How Much Is Possible, How Much Is Permissible?

Representing the Holocaust: How much is Possible, How Much is Permissible?

The release of Roberto Benigni's Italian tragicomedy Life is Beautiful in 1997 stirred much debate that still resonates to this day. Some critics felt offended and furious at the film - "It is...one of the most unconvincing and self-congratulatory movies ever made..." "Life is Beautiful is a benign form of Holocaust denial" - while some other critics agree (to various degrees) to the director's approach: "Aside from the fact that realistic films may give the false impression that the Holocaust can be represented, 'serious' comedy (which, like Life is Beautiful and Mihaileanu's Train of Life, does not laugh at the Holocaust but against its deadening weight) may constitute a viable option." Some questions the film has raised include if Life is Beautiful is a true representation of the Holocaust. If the representation is not true, is it at least adequate? Does this failure to truly represent the Holocaust belittle the genocide; is this kind of (humorous) approach to the Shoah appropriate?

Does the eventual survival of the child distort the nature of the Holocaust?

To answer the first question, to determine if Life is Beautiful is a true representation of the Holocaust, one should probably first consider what constitutes a "true" Holocaust representation. What exemplifies a "true representation"? What is the definition of "true"? Where is the line drawn between true and false? Because the Shoah is a complicated combination of many different aspects taking place in various regions over a span of time, it would perhaps be difficult to assert that a particular piece of work is capable of representing the Holocaust as whole. Even personal accounts of the Holocaust would not likely be a thorough representation of the Holocaust, since they are often individual pieces that reflect only certain aspects of the genocide instead of the entire picture. It then would be absurd to believe that movies could possibly be true, or complete, representations of the Shoah, and Life is Beautiful is no exception. To expect it to truly represent the Holocaust would be a futile hope. In fact, the story of the film seems to be more about a person's attempt to survive (and help his family survive) in adversity, which happens to be the Holocaust. Most aspects of the genocide are left out in the movie and the Holocaust serves more like a background or setting instead of the main issue itself, and, therefore, the brutality of the Shoah in this film, like almost all other aspects of the mass murder, probably seem dimmer than what many people would expect from conventional Holocaust movies. The question then comes down to if it's appropriate to let Holocaust be a mere background of an individual, fictional story instead of presenting the Shoah itself under spotlight, wrapped around by as much information or facts as possible. Will doing so lessen the weight of the Holocaust? Is Life is Beautiful, then, according to The New Yorker's critic David Denby, "soothing and anodyne", a movie that allows the audience "to escape"? The question could roughly be broken down into two parts, one addressing to the director's approach and the other dealing with the story plot.

The approach of the film is unconventional - not unparalleled but at least a relatively rare one - in that it highlights vivid personalities of the characters by employing whimsical elements, even after the family is sent to the camp, that is, during the second half of the movie. This kind of approach has several functions. First of all, it brings life to the characters, so that one could "look at these people as human beings. Not as a statistic, a number." Characters have individual traits and liveliness; they do not blend into a pale conformity of desperate victims. This is thus an individual story, these people's story, instead of a broad story of the Holocaust as a whole without independent emotions. Secondly, the approach