The Zone of Interest

Combined Rating: 9.3 (Peter 9.7, 8.9)
Combined Best Picture Ranking: #1 (Peter #1, Dad #4)

Peter: Without a doubt, the greatest achievement in film over the last year and I’d argue one of the great achievements of the century so far. 

Joe: I was completely transfixed by this film but just generally knowing Peter’s passion for it, I am genuinely terrified to be dialoguing with him about it.  

Peter: I’ve seen a common sentiment around this movie that goes something like “It’s objectively brilliant and important but not something I’d want to revisit.” The first half of that sentence is right on the money. I do, however, want to revisit this masterpiece, many, many times. It unlocked indescribable feelings in me, and glued me to the screen, unable to look away, like few films (I alternate between calling them “films” and “movies” a lot, but The Zone of Interest is unquestionably a “film”) have before. 

Joe: I just breathed a sigh of relief that I used “film” in my opening comment. 

Peter: A couple months ago, we watched a strange little French film that the most reputable film publication in the world declared the greatest of all time: Jeanne Dielman. Now, I think the debate over whether a film this insanely inaccessible and obscure deserves to stand for an entire medium is valid, but I do think it’s one of, if not the most fascinating film I’ve ever witnessed in my life. The routine mundanity of Jeanne’s life forces us to focus on the tiniest of disruptions, the tiniest of cracks forming in her dull facade. Then, when that shocking violent “climax” comes, we don’t get an intense or satisfying resolution. We just sit with it, re-examining in our minds everything we just witnessed over the last 3 and a half hours. I bring up Jeanne because Zone elicited very similar feelings in me, and I’m sure it at least served as somewhat of an inspiration to Jonathan Glazer. Both these films help me understand the brilliance of the other better. The most obvious connection in the filmmaking is in his use of fixed camera shots throughout, subverting the “manipulation” inherent to the language of film through the lack of camera movement. The discomfort in the experience of watching Zone of Interest is heightened by how, like Jeanne, it demands you just sit in it. The decision to both begin and end the film on several minutes of black screen is one of the most provocative. And that score swallows you up and throws you into the abyss of darkness. Perhaps the most universally noted and admired aspect of the film is the sound design, the method with which it reveals man’s duality. C’mon Academy. Oppenheimer is an admirable effort in sound work, but this film tells an entire narrative through its sound.

Joe: Further enhancing the sound design (which I’d say is insanely manipulative, unlike the fixed-camera approach), is a technique that Glazer throws at us pretty much right away in which he subjects us to a few long-lasting blank screens while incomprehensible sounds monopolize our senses. For me, it was somehow both frighteningly alienating and yet also, somehow, rather useful in calibrating or re-calibrating our sensibilities to adjust what we’re experiencing on the screen. The effect sort of reminded me of abstract expressionism pieces by painters like Rothko or Pollock.

Peter: It’s hard to find an aspect of Zone that doesn’t leave me shaken in my seat and send chills down my spine. I mentioned the “shocking violent climax” in Jeanne Dielman, and I think Zone has an equivalent jaw-dropping climax. The party scene at the end has me a little confused about its purpose… until Rudolf Höss calls up his wife and tells her what he was thinking about the whole time. Recontextualizes everything. This film just keeps topping itself in brilliance with each bone-chilling display of wasted humanity. And the Höss family IS humanized, terrifyingly so as we do not want them to be. Yes, those moments of unflinching cruelty are difficult to watch, but the scene where Rudolf and Hedwig Höss share an innocent laugh in bed is equally difficult. We’re forced to look inward and examine what it is that makes us uncomfortable. It’s not the lack of humanity, but the presence of it. This “banality of evil” idea could be tired and one-note, but I think the film has so much to say beyond that. 

Joe: Peter describes it so well. Another one of these bone-chilling moments in the party scene is when Rudolf departs it and starts puking at the bottom of the stairwell. Which I gather is a symbolic show of the body reacting to the evil being perpetrated by the soul that presumably resides within it. As I watched the scene, I thought, okay here’s where he will show us that he is aware of the heinous genocide that he and his comrades are responsible for. I was waiting for a long-awaited grimace on his face or hesitation in his eyes. Nope. He just straightens back up like normal and keeps striding out of the picture… and back to Auschwitz.   

Peter: We should talk about that ending. Killers of the Flower Moon’s ending has Marty reframing the story for the present. The Zone of Interest has the past and present staring at each other in the eye, forever fated to live in harmony. It’s such a finely edited sequence, almost making it appear as if the museum workers are downstairs, beneath Rudolf’s ominous staircase descension. 

Joe: Since you mentioned KotFM, I’ve been thinking about the different approaches Scorsese and Glazer took to tell the story of a genocidal society. Until he breaks the fourth wall at the end, Marty’s approach is much more conventional, sequential, and panoramic – show the tables both the murderers and murdered sit around, the cars they drive or are driven in, the way each side dreams or schemes. Marty also reveals his alliance to Molly from the first time we see her come on screen. Glazer is more inscrutable. Probably the closest thing we get to a character we can hitch our wagon to is Hedwig’s mother, and she’s a small-minded racist, but at least has the shred of humanity that causes her to flee from the hellscape in the middle of the night. The Hoss’s Jewish servants are mute throughout the movie – the only character in the movie whom Glazer gives us to align with – the girl who performs acts of resistance by hiding apples – is also silent and even more so is shown in thermal imaging, which makes her seem all the more remote from our grasp. We’re trapped in closed, often confined spaces with the Hösses, and the complicity which that sort of forces on us as viewers is tough to stomach.  

Peter: There (probably) isn’t a single solitary shot from this film that doesn’t still haunt me. The apple-hiding girl provides a beacon of light, albeit a light that’s impossible to find through the disorienting filmmaking style. Children, and the intergenerational effects they struggle to break, play a fascinating role in this narrative. If we continue with this Jeanne Dielman comparison, we can see how The Zone of Interest examines a much broader scope of humanity through its observation of banal routine. The fact that it accomplishes all of its ambitions in a runtime equal to Past Lives just makes this masterpiece all the more impressive. Another comparison the film demands and deserves is with the great Stanley Kubrick, for the cold atmosphere and multi-dimensional view of how conformity eats away at humanity. As this was a rare film that reminded me of the way I felt watching 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time. It’s a fitting comparison. It needs to be said that Sandra Hüller is absolutely sensational and chilling here as well. She should’ve received the rare double-nomination for leading and supporting in the same year. 2023 was her year. 

Joe: For our readers who keep track of such things, I sense that Hüller may be sneaking up on Julianne Moore as the leading lady in Peter’s heart, cinematically speaking. 

Peter: I can’t think of a single thing to criticize. It’s the kind of masterpiece that reminds us, as corny as this sounds, of the power of cinema. The power of cinema is NOT in providing answers or escapism. I want to have my senses shaken and my world questioned, and I am sure I will be revisiting The Zone of Interest to uncover its dark mysteries many, many more times.

The Killing (1956)

Peter Rating: 9.1
Criminally underrated Kubrick crime film may not be his debut (he had Fear and Desire/Killer’s Kiss earlier), but with his known hatred of those first two films, he would probably like to pretend it such. The non-linear, time-jumping structure gives the films noticeable parallels to other later crime films, specifically Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs (which is also part of this blog cycle), and the ending is one of the most memorable in the director’s discography (he has no shortage of great ones). As many point out, the film is not perfect, but its most noted imperfection (the soulless narration) is no fault of Kubrick’s. He was not a well-established director at this point, and he did not have complete control over his projects until Dr. Strangelove in 1964. The studio wanted the addition of narration, much to his dislike. Still, this is one of the most influential crime films of all time, and a seminal work in an incredible director’s filmography.

Dad Rating: 9.0
This flick has a gritty B movie feel to it, but in the hands of 28-year-old Stanley Kubrick, who wrote the screenplay and directed it, it’s really a noir gem. A bunch of lowlifes collaborate on a complex criminal caper at a racetrack which is being planned by the always fantastic Sterling Hayden. He ended up being sort of a second-tier actor—never exactly a leading man but someone who always made every movie he was in immeasurably better. Think about Dr. Strangelove, certainly, and another great example is The Godfather, where he only appeared in a few different scenes as the crooked Captain McCluskey, but man was he great in those scenes…right up until the point where he received a bullet in his throat and forehead at Louis Italian-American Restaurant. But anyway, back to The Killing. Like most heist movies, Kubrick spends a lot of time exploring the quirks, idiosyncrasies, and distrustful relationships between each of the co-conspirators. But he builds the movie in a way that is so much more clever and chess-like than the typical, shallow hack job most directors would spit out. You can really see this movie as a prelude to the all-time classics he’s soon to start creating. Also memorable in this movie is the performance by The Maltese Falcon’s Elisha Cook Jr., who plays the role of a cuckolded schmuck about as good as it can be played.

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Peter Rating: 9.1
The film that broke Quentin Tarantino into the mainstream, and remains a landmark in the history of independent film making, still holds up incredibly well today. Featuring excellent performances from the whole cast, with Michael Madsen being a particular standout, plus a great soundtrack (that’s used appropriately), Reservoir Dogs has all the trademarks that would come to define Tarantino: violence, profanity, non-linear structure, pop culture references. However, it’s arguably a bit more substantive story and theme-wise than his more recent material. Tarantino himself has a small part at the beginning at the film, but (thankfully) few lines.

Dad Rating: 8.7
This movie is Tarantino’s Mean Streets. Both movies are the first defining works of major American directors. Both movies focus on low-tier criminals/gangsters in the gritty underbelly of their respective cities (NYC and LA). And both, while often brilliant and intense, are a bit overrated critically. To me, Reservoir Dogs is a movie that reveals Tarantino is still figuring out exactly how to control his fastball. There are some amazing scenes, for sure. The opening scene—capped by the crew walking in slo-mo from the diner to their cars while “Little Green Bag” by George Baker Selection plays on the soundtrack and the credits roll—is an all-timer. And the famous (or infamous) ear scene with Michael Madsen’s Mr. Blonde packs a huge punch, though it is tough to endure, The scene, and I suppose this is part of Tarantino’s brilliance, is made all the more unforgettable by the fact that the barbarity is incongruously accompanied by the soft-rock Stealers Wheel song, “Stuck in the Middle With You.” That’s another similarity between Tarantino and Scorcese—they are the two most brilliant users of ‘60s/’70s music as soundtrack staples in their respective soundtracks. So where does Reservoir Dogs fall flat? To me, the movie’s focus is just too narrow; it wallows in too limited of a squalid pool of humanity. Contrast it to Pulp Fiction or Inglourious Basterds or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which develop real characters with real arcs. Still though, a damn fine movie, no doubt.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

Peter Rating: 8.8
Out of all the films I saw from 2019, this was the only one I saw in theaters. Despite the runtime over 2 and a half hours, I wasn’t bored for a second. The film isn’t really held together by a concrete plot. It’s more an exploration of a changing environment in Hollywood at the end of the 1960s from the point of view of two friends. The story is complemented by a beautiful Los Angeles backdrop and excellent cinematography. Leonardo DiCaprio is fun to watch as a faded action star, but it’s Brad Pitt who really steals the show. He’s fantastic, and his scenes are the most memorable, the best of which is the atmospheric sequence at the Manson Family Cottage, my favorite scene from any 2019 film. Pitt won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and while it was well deserved, it’s not much of a supporting performance. Shameless category fraud. The ending of the film is brilliant. Not to spoil too much, but Sharon Tate, played by Margot Robbie, isn’t important in any way. This makes her segments in the film all the more questionable. Her scenes don’t add very much to the film, and while the decision to make her a significant character was intended to draw connection to the Manson murders, it doesn’t work due to her shallow portrayal. As is always the case for Tarantino, the soundtrack is excellent. And speaking of Tarantino….

Dad Rating: 9.4
Unquestionably Tarantino’s second greatest movie. I’ve only seen it once in the theaters with Peter last summer but I know that I could watch it another 5 times at least and still get something new out of each successive viewing. This is a movie made by a guy who knows how to make a damn movie. The film takes its time, but never feels labored. It’s two hours and 41 minutes long but it felt like it was an hour shorter. It’s similar to its namesake, Once Upon a Time in the West, in that way. A real sign of Tarantino’s talent is how he made Leo DiCaprio actually seem natural and perfectly suited for a part….which to me is a first in LD’s highly overrated career. He’s been kind of tough to take in every single Scorcese movie he’s ever done. Just so forced and try-hard-ish. Leo usually reminds me of when Tom Cruise tried to become Serious Actor Guy in roles like Born on the 4th of July. But in OUaTiH? Spot-on brilliant. And as good as his performance was, Brad Pitt’s was two times better—on par with Samuel Jackson’s supporting acting performance in Pulp Fiction. Tarantino didn’t give Margot Robbie a lot to work with in the Sharon Tate role. The alternate-reality ending he invented for the Manson Family plot line was really thought-provoking. I kept thinking about it days later. Anyway, a real masterpiece by Tarantino, and one I can’t wait to watch again.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Peter Rating: 9.5
While I do need to rewatch Fargo, No Country is the best Coen Brothers film I’ve seen, and currently, the best film made in the 21st century that I’ve seen. Every element of the film works. The direction, cinematography, and performances are fantastic (Brolin is good, but Jones and Bardem are incredible), but what I thought was most brilliant about the film was the complete lack of a score. It creates such a haunting atmosphere that makes the film unforgettable. The ending has really stuck with me: I’m still not quite sure how to interpret it, but it’s not one I’ll be forgetting. An excellent film.

Dad Rating: 9.0
Less brilliant than another Coen brothers’ classic, Fargo, but still plenty brilliant. The movie is more monochromatic than Fargo—no dark comedy and less of a spectrum of human foibles. But No Country does have one of the most riveting characters of any movie of the past 30 years—the terrifying Anton Chigurh, played with a super-slow-burn intensity by Javier Bardem. The movie centers on three different male characters played by Jardem, Josh Brolin, and Tommy Lee Jones. All are excellent but I feel like one of the movie’s shortcomings is that it doesn’t get everything it should have out of Jones’ sheriff character. The Coens make great use of the Rio Grande border-town location. It reminded me of Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil, filmed 50 years prior.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)

Peter Rating: 8.9
A classic from the ’70s. Nicholson is at his best here in what is most likely his strongest performance ever, and Louise Fletcher (although I don’t agree with the Academy’s classification of her as a lead) is also amazing. Some scenes aren’t necessarily important to the plot, but the focus is on developing the characters, and there’s nothing wrong with that. This has to be at least a Top-5 all-time movie ending. It works so especially well because the audience feels such a connection to the characters.

Dad Rating: 9.6
OFOTCN is one of those rare cases where an amazing book inspires an equally outstanding film adaptation. This movie is close to flawless. First of all, it marks, in my opinion, Jack Nicholson’s best-ever performance. The ’70s were the pinnacle of movies centered around anti-establishment loners. I’m not sure I can think of one better than this movie. There are great ensemble performances, including actors who’d become famous such as Danny DeVito and Christopher Lloyd. And Louise Fletcher’s performance as the stone-cold Nurse Ratchet is justifiably famous. I guess if I wanted to find one thing to criticize, it would be that the script leans a bit too heavily toward wanting us to identify with Nicholson’s Randle McMurphy character, so that it can feel maybe a little forced. But that’s a small complaint—this is a top-15 all time movie.

Network (1976)

Peter Rating: 8.7
In recent years, Network has been especially talked about for its relevance in today’s news cycles. It’s also an incredibly frustrating film, as it comes so close to brilliance but misses for such stupid mistakes. The film has 3 acting Oscars (tied with another film we reviewed right before this one, A Streetcar Named Desire). Peter Finch definitely deserved his, but not for lead. He doesn’t have very much screen time, and the focus of the film is more on the network’s attempts to exploit him. It’s especially criminal because that was the same year as Robert De Niro’s brilliant performance in Taxi Driver. This is the main problem in Network: the film spends too little time focusing on Finch’s character, and too much time focusing on plot lines that add immeasurable melodrama. A subplot focusing on the romance between Faye Dunaway and William Holden’s characters is a notable example. There are moments of brilliance, though, and certain elements of the film feel prophetic today.

Dad Rating: 7.9
Peter and I watched this Sidney Lumet film a couple of weeks after watching another, far superior movie of his, Dog Day Afternoon. Watching Network 44 years after it was made definitely takes away its impact. The whole “news is manipulated to drive ratings” theme is the least surprising thing in the world since television has long ago adopted that as standard operating procedure. So, Network becomes more interesting to watch as an actor’s playground. Five different people in the cast were nominated for acting Oscars and three won: Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch, and Beatrice Straight, who had no more than five minutes of screen time. Only Finch deserved the honor (although not even him, really, since he was mistakenly deemed to be more masterful than De Niro as Travis Bickle). Dunaway overacts like a maniac—probably getting in shape for one of the most infamous overacting performances of all time five years later: Mommie Dearest.

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)

Peter Rating: 8.9
This is a film worth watching for Brando, and just Brando. He’s outstanding in what may be the greatest performance in film history. The film itself feels a little too connected to its roots as a play, but that’s pretty easy to forgive. The main focus of the film is actually more on (the also fantastic) Vivien Leigh’s character, but it’s Brando who really makes this a classic.

Dad Rating: 8.9
This rating is based almost solely on Marlon Brando, who absolutely owns this movie. The plot revolves around Blanche Dubois, who is played well, if somewhat scene-chewingly, by Vivien Leigh. And Karl Malden and Kim Hunter both won supporting actor/actress Oscars for their fine performances. But Brando gives one of the greatest acting performances of all time. Anytime he’s on screen, you’re watching only him. And anytime he’s off screen, you get impatient waiting for him to return on camera. In that way, this movie sort of reminds me of The Dark Knight with Heath Ledger. Streetcar on the whole is very stagy (not surprising since it’s based on Tennessee Williams’ famous play) and it can feel sort of labored at times. But whenever Brando is on screen, it’s electric.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Peter Rating: 9.3
I believe there’s a difference between an enjoyable film and a great film. However, it’s a special film that can be both enjoyable and great. Pulp Fiction, perhaps one of the most famous and beloved films ever made, is the signature “double-threat” film. It’s a film that’s loved by both hard-core cinephiles, as well as people who just want to sit down for an enjoyable watch. There are so many deeper meanings and hidden messages to be found, but it’s Tarantino’s incredible, Oscar-winning script that brings it all together so beautifully. Maybe it’s one of the greatest scripts ever written. Performances from John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Christopher Walken, and Uma Thurman are top-notch. However, Samuel L. Jackson is the real standout. Martin Landau won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (Ed Wood) in 1994, and that’s a great performance, but Samuel L. Jackson’s performance here is one of the greatest of all time. Supporting actors are a big strength of Tarantino’s, which is strange because Tarantino himself is one of the worst supporting actors I’ve ever seen. The short scene he’s in is the one tiny flaw in this fantastic film. I’m glad he stopped with his cameos.

Dad Rating: 9.6
It’s a good thing mom was out of the house when Pete and I watched this one. The profanity is indeed prodigious. The movie still holds up really well 26 years after it was first released. Tarantino’s rapid-fire dialogue style has become almost a cliche by this point but it really was groundbreaking and redefining the way PF made it pop and also feel genuine to its characters. He also gifted career-defining performances for multiple actors in this movie: Samuel Jackson, Uma Thurman, and John Travolta (maybe Saturday Night Fever was more defining for him, but this movie resurrected his flailing career in 1994). And similar for Bruce Willis—Die Hard is probably his peak, but he was terrific in this movie, and it cleaned up his reputation a lot after a bunch of flops like Hudson Hawk and Last Boy Scout. Long story short, Pulp Fiction is an incredible movie with at least a half dozen utterly classic scenes that any average movie would be thrilled one or two of. Harvey Keitel as the cleaner, reviving Thurman with the adrenaline shot, the unfortunate fate of Marvin in the car, and the infamous Gimp scene, to name just a few. An all-time, no-doubter classic movie.

We’re Back!

We know it’s been a while since we last posted (about 21 months ago). In that time, Julia graduated from college, Laura graduated from high school, Jane entered college, Peter became a high schooler, Lynne kicked cancer’s ass, and Joe continued to wear t-shirts that are more than 35 years old.

In the time since that last review in Fall 2018, Peter and Dad have seen at least 50 movies. Some of those movies are too faded from memory to properly write about, but many remain fresh in the minds of the two of us. Now that the blog is resuscitated, they will begin by posting reviews of movies that we watched quite a while ago, which we can recall well enough to describe.

We are very happy to return!