Musings on... Henia Bryer: Prisoner Number A26188

As I mentioned here, I have a (severe) fascination with the history of the Holocaust and the transmission of its memory into contemporary politics and culture. Sunday 27th January was the UK’s Holocaust Memorial Day - a time to reflect on the Holocaust itself, and to commemorate other genocides around the world. For those interested, the 27th of January is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. 

The BBC commissioned a documentary to mark the day, which I heard about via Radio 4. Henia Bryer, a survivor of four separate concentration camps, including Auschwitz, spoke to John Humphrys of the Today Programme. She explained that she wanted to keep her Holocaust tattoo “as a witness” to what she had suffered. With my brain full of Holocaust denial-related stuff, it was a must-see. (You can listen to the specific interview here)

One of the first things I noticed was the dedication at the beginning, which read “For Henia, from her niece Lisa.” Turns out her niece directed and produced it. The film is all about hers and her family’s survival, and it was made all the more real in that it was directed by a family member. It also became clear that Henia was not one to talk about her experiences and her suffering, and neither were her family. To this day, Henia does not know what her brother did during the war when they were separated. The documentary seemed to be portrayed as a gift, somewhere that Henia could express that episode of her life. 

It is different, in my mind, from some other Holocaust documentaries. In purely aesthetic terms, there is a lot of archive material that I have personally never seen before, which considering the subject topic, can be interesting and revolting in equal measure. But, it was also very successful in concentrating solely on Henia’s experiences, and what she saw and felt throughout her time in the concentration camps. There was no ‘factual’ voice verifying her dialogue (aside from archive material) and she was simply just given her platform to speak. Apart from short additions by a couple of members of her family, it was only her voice. It was focused on short anecdotes that gave brief but pertinent insights into her experiences, an example of which is the day the officers came to her barracks to collect the prisoners to give blood. Because of the nature of their diets and the physical labour they were forced to do, those that gave blood (we're talking many pints) didn't survive long. She managed to survive, by convincing an officer that she had Typhus. A close shave. 

With Holocaust denial an obvious influence in the way I interpreted this documentary, this focus on her personal and raw testimony is an important one. The personalisation of the Holocaust is important in its translation into history, and is a crucial focus in the generalised notion of the six million. Soon there will be no survivors to tell us their tales. 

All in all, I thought it was a moving and sensitive documentary, one that really drove home the human and emotional implications of such a tragic historical events. After the war, Henia found her mother in Germany, and moved to Paris with her uncle in an attempt to rebuild their lives. They made it to Israel, where she managed to find her brother. She met her husband there and emigrated with him to South Africa, where she has had a happy and fulfilled life She has so much dignity and so little anger, and tells her story in such a matter-of-fact way. An inspiring watch. 

Henia after the war

Musings on... The Mary Berry Story

Here's a little light relief from the morbid tone of the last few posts. (Don't fret, got one on the Holocaust coming up...)

Anyone that knows me will be aware of my serious infatuation with all things Mary Berry. Imagine my sheer delight at the discovery that there is a two part documentary about her life! And what a joy it was. She is such a fantastic woman, humble and gentle, with a rich life and career spanning many decades. She beat the war, she beat polio and (coming up next week) she suffered tragedy in the death of her 19 year-old son. AND she makes cakes. Is there anything she can’t do?!

N'aaaaawwwwwww

The documentary mainly followed Mary around as she revisited the places of her childhood and adolescence, including her family home and school. It is voiced by Mel Giedroyc (Mel from Mel & Sue) which I thought was a nice touch - I like to think they’re best friends. Interspersed with her interviews were archive material relating to the war and after, and most interestingly, recreations of recipes she used back in the day. Aside from the fact that the recipes were a little bland in comparison to the things she makes on the Bake Off Masterclasses, we got to go to her kitchen (!!!!!!) 

But, (and there’s usually a but, even with Mary Berry), it seems that this could possibly be one British Bake Off related thing too far. I imagine that if you’re not a fan of Mary Berry then this documentary will probably seem a bit bonkers. But most people love her, so that’s alright. 

Musings on... A Thin Blue Line

It would appear that I’ve gone for a bit of a crime/death mad in the last few weeks, apologies. I appear to have an unhealthy fascination for it. Not sure what that says about me... 

Following on from this post, I wanted to investigate some of Errol Morris’ work. The best place to start, I felt, was his relatively famous documentary, The Thin Blue Line, released in 1988. The film tells the story of Randall Dale Adams, a man convicted and sentenced to death in 1976 for a murder he did not commit. On the back of the documentary, Adam’s case was reviewed and he was released in 1989. 

In brief, the film centers on the murder of Dallas police officer Robert Wood. It painfully reconstructs the scene of the crime, in which Wood pulls over the car for a routine check. He is then shot at point blank range as he approaches the window. In the aftermath, it was pretty much Adam’s word against the 16 year-old David Harris’. 

It was on Harris’ testimony that Adams was arrested and convicted - he identified Adams as the murderer by claiming that he was in the passenger seat of the car at the time of the shooting. The film is constructed around interviews with people involved in the case, including Harris, Adams, witnesses, detectives and the judge. In Morris’ usual style, he allows the interviewees to speak directly to the camera, with no voiceover at all. This made following the intricacies of the case pretty difficult. Frustratingly, probably because I’m a bit impatient, the film kept you guessing. It wasn’t clear who was in prison, who was guilty  and what actually happened. But, as all good films aim to do, it slowly started to give the information that I wanted. I can’t decide if it was too slow, or, like I said, I was too impatient. 

All in all, it’s a pretty simplistic documentary. It has a style that you don’t often see nowadays, based I think on the stationary camera during the interviews. There are repetitive, simplistic shots that have a key importance to the story, specifically the incessant repetition of the crime recon, built carefully on the witnesses’ statements. These are key in telling the story of how the evidence could have been misrepresented in order to place a man at the scene who, allegedly, wasn’t even there. But, crucially, the film does not recreate the version of events in which Harris shoots the police officer, which is the version promulgated throughout. It is instead a subtle assertion, leaving the ending ‘unfinished’, but in reality, it has carefully placed an opinion in your head throughout. 

Randall Dale Adams

In a way, the time spent on small details during the film (for example, the fact that a Vega car and a Comet car were mixed up) shows just how crazy it was that Adams was convicted in the first place. It almost mocks the justice system by showing seriously obvious flaws from the beginning to end. Most shocking is an assertion made by a number of people related to the case. Adams was the ‘criminal of choice’, because, of the two, Adams was the only one that could be sentenced to death under Texas law, ie. it can't execute minors.

There is no denying the genius of Morris in his ability to translate a complicated legal story onto the screen, and crucially make it interesting. His technique filming interviewees straight on, with only head and shoulders in sight, encourages you to stare at them, and mentally assess their answers, almost like an interrogation. It’s exhausting in a good way. 

Dave Harris

Even so, it left me uneasy. Maybe it was the fact that the film was almost two films, one being the careful and slow interviews of all those involved, and the other the repetitive recon. Maybe it was the fact that it reeeeeeally took its time to get going. Maybe it was because I had no clue who was telling the truth on camera, and still don’t now, particularly Dave Harris - he was pretty slimy. Maybe it’s because the thought of putting a man on death row for something he didn’t do is undeniably awful. Either way, this film encourages an interaction with its subject and the people it explores, and lets you be the detective for a little while. 

The recon... again and again...

On a side note, nobody has been held accountable for the murder of Robert Wood. Despite some clear suggestions that Harris was responsible for his murder, he was never charged after Adams was released. Innocent until proven guilty I guess.... He was, however, executed in 2004 by lethal injection for the unrelated 1985 murder of Mark Mays. Make of that what you will! 

Musings on... Inside Death Row With Trevor McDonald.

In mind of my last post, I managed to grab some time to watch "Inside Death Row With Trevor McDonald". A warning now: I have a serious soft spot for him. In this two part documentary on ITV, Trevor heads to Indiana State Prison, one of the most notorious maximum security prisons in America. There, he meets various inmates from across the prison, but also comes face to face with the twelve on death row. What is immediately obvious, and what every inmate on death row has in common, are the deplorable and disgusting acts that have landed them there. The prison's most hated offender, Fredrick Baer, was convicted of murdering a 24 year old mother and her 4 year old child by slitting their throats, and has been on death row for 8 years. With most inmates beyond death row convicted of similarly gruesome crimes, the prison is not for the faint hearted. 

One of the most bizarre aspects of the prison is its pet programme, where an inmate can request a pet as a privilege. In light of the general nature of the people in Indiana State, this seems a curious feature. Apart from being a little cruel in my eyes (the pets, in most cases cats, were locked up with the inmates for 23 hours a day), it was really unnerving to see a man convicted of slitting a child's throat, love and care for a a pet. Errrrr... what? 

Poor kitty. 

The greatest thing about Trevor is that he seems to rationalise what you're hearing by being calm, softly spoken and brave. Instead of being repulsed by what these guys had done, I was more able to listen to what they were saying (that said, I was still a little bit repulsed). I could almost (stressing the word almost) imagine myself in the same situation. I also liked the shots of Trevor walking along through the prison with his guide, and the camera following from behind - he seemed to plod along like it was a normal place to take a stroll.  

Trevor McDonald has some similarities, in my mind, with Louis Theroux in terms of his style. He asks extremely probing questions that almost make you cringe (and in this case worry for his safety), but inevitably achieves the most interesting answers. And his probing questions served an important aim: to look seriously at capital punishment and the people that are affected by it. What are the differences between serving a jail sentence of 150 years, and living in the shadow of a death sentence? 

The single and most important difference is hope, or the absence of it. Trevor interviewed a man who had managed to get off death row, and although he will die in prison nonetheless, he said it was easier to live knowing that there is a (really) small chance to be free. 

The inmates were all presented in a humane way, all (0f those that were spoken to) given the time to explain their reasons for being in prison. I couldn't help but emphasise with them while listening to the circumstances of their crimes and their usually less-than-ideal upbringing. One that particularly struck a chord was Robert L. Sanford, convicted of killing two elderly women at the age of 13. He is eligible for parole in 100 years time. He has never been to prom, never driven a car, never been abroad. Despite his horrific crime, it still evoked a sense of sadness in me. It also resonated with the British case of James Bulger (aged 3) who was murdered by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, both 10, in 1993. They were both released on license and have new identities, a chance to live again. Although it is probably something to do with the law on the age at which a child knows right from wrong, and completely apart from your own opinion on their deserved sentences, it is interesting that they should be allowed to have that chance, while Sanford will die in prison. 

By far the most chilling was the visit to the execution room, where the bed is always laid out ready for the administration of the lethal injection. Trevor interviews the Superintendent, and it becomes clear that being responsible for the execution of inmates on death row takes its own personal toll. He will have a connection with most of them and visits death row once a week. 

Well worth a watch on ITV Player (how cool is their new app/rebrand?) if you can deal with the morbid subject matter. But Trevor will almost certainly get you through. 

Musings on... Mr Selfridge

Who doesn’t love a period drama? ITV have hit the nail on the head with this one - it’s a fabulous insight into Britain in 1909. It follows Mr Selfridge, the captivating American who opens a new store in London, and aimed to revolutionise the shopping experience in the process. The first episode was good, but wasn’t as good as the most recent one. This one was oozing sexual tension and the bitchy women came out to play - a bit meatier, which I guess benefits from the character development that comes with a second episode. The acting is sometimes a little forced, especially George, the anxious brother of Aggie. But, the best thing about it for me has to be the way the joviality is matched with a sense of unease, which I think comes in part from Harry Selfridge (Jeremy Piven), who conveys a slight forced charisma. This is matched perfectly by the supporting cast, who all seem to have their issues.

This episode pretty much gave a full lesson in the art of seduction and was brilliantly sexual without any explicit scenes, which is obviously in keeping with the 1900s. One of the things that struck me immediately was the incredible set - ‘the back end of Oxford street’, old style tube stations and Selfridges itself, in all it’s marble glory, and the beautiful products adorning the counters. I’m a bit of a fan of 20th century fashion, and the costumes do not disappoint. Hats galore! I would also really like to know how the women pile all that hair on their heads... it completely defies gravity... HOW?! 

See what I mean about the hair??

As for the rest of the series... who knows. I feel the story is probably slightly predictable (likeable character to start with, potential fall into disrepute, struggle to maintain reputation/fortune/wife etc) but if it continues to entertain me along the way, I don't really care!

Musings on... Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr

I have a bit of an unhealthy interest in the Holocaust. For some reason, it has completely fascinated me since I was at school - I did my A level coursework looking at whether or not the Allies should have bombed Auschwitz. True to form, I’m doing my dissertation on Holocaust denial. 

Errol Morris is a bit of a dude. He’s a renowned documentary maker and famous for a number of docs, including The Thin Blue Line, a documentary that saved a man who was wrongly convicted of murder, by demonstrating the inadequacy of the case against him, and is a critically acclaimed documentary. Mr. Death looks at Fred Leuchter, an American execution expert, who was asked to testify at the trial of Ernst Zundel - a Holocaust denier and the author of the leaflet entitled ‘Did Six Million Really Die?’ This, unsurprisingly, landed him in court in Canada, and he faced the task of proving his claims. Leuchter, in his own words, “was the only person in the world that could provide that defense” due to his intricate knowledge in the execution of convicted criminals. He went to Auschwitz in order to ‘test’ whether or not the gas chambers could have been used for genocide. In order to do this, he got a chisel and hacked off bits of wall from inside the gas chamber, sent it to a lab and got it tested for cyanide residue. He also looked at the remains of the chambers as functioning execution equipment, coming to the conclusion they couldn’t possibly have been used to gas hundreds of thousands of prisoners, as it wasn’t airtight. 

The documentary clearly portrays Leuchter as a strange man - lingering shots of his odd facial expressions and creepy family photos of his business building execution equipment. There is a chilling aspect too - the opening credits are dominated by a flashing, horror film like picture with Leuchter sitting in what looked like a weird, electrified cage. It also made my eyes hurt. 

Weird....

What I found interesting is, despite his clearly wrong and dangerous assertions, he was the main narrator of the documentary, without much editing from Morris - this is a classic Morris technique and has a powerful effect. For me, it made it all the more sinister, especially at the beginning as he was describing his business. He chats about killing people as if it was an office job. At one point, he argues that there are more viable ways of killing that the Nazis would have used if they were indeed exterminating the European Jews, like hanging fifty people at once. He is also portrayed to be a complete idiot, mainly because he is one, and also by the techniques of Morris and the edit. He would say a sentence, usually something ridiculous, and one of his critics would say something to reveal his stupidity and call him on his motives. David Irving, the infamous British Holocaust denier describes him as a “simpleton”, which I think sums him up as he is portrayed in the film (although that doesn’t stop him from attributing his disbelief in the Holocaust as based on his findings). 

Whilst having a gander around my dissertation reading, there is a mention of Mr Death in Deborah Lipstadt’s book describing her trial. (David Irving sued Lipstadt in 1995 over defamatory comments about Irving being a dangerous Holocaust denier - Lipstadt won pretty much hands down). Mr Death was released in 1998, during which the trial was being prepared for by a team of scholars and lawyers. She saw a version pre-release and commented that there was nothing that explicitly said that he was an idiot, and suggested that Robert Van Pelt, an expert on Auschwitz, should comment. Van Pelt features in the final film, so we can only guess that Morris took her advice, despite Morris’ belief that the audiences would grasp that Leuchter was a nut.

I can’t help but feel a bit sorry for Leuchter, he seems generally a bit up shit creek - I don’t believe he really understood the ramifications of his report. He describes himself as a “reluctant revisionist” and others believe him to be lost, and under a bit of a spell. I bet he regrets the whole thing, seeing as his wife divorced him and he lost his job... 

I’ll finish with some words of van Pelt that pretty much sums up the doc for me: 

“Holocaust denial is a story about vanity. It is a way to get in the limelight, to be noticed, to be someone”. 

If you'd like to find out a little more about Holocaust denial, go to www.hdot.org - a great little website that sums up its key features. 

Musings on... Queen Victoria's Children

I am a little bit biased when it comes to this excellent documentary as I worked on it over the summer. That said, I genuinely really enjoyed it... and here’s why: 

1. The Victorian Royal Family are a seriously interesting bunch of people - loads of children, therefore loads of messed up family relationships.
2. It revealed a side to Queen Vic and Albert that I had never really heard about. The picture you get at school is of a matriarch, a great woman who did much for her country, and a long-serving Queen, ruling for 63 years. Or at least that’s the impression I got... I might not have paid attention. In this documentary, she is portrayed as a horrible mother with the worst parenting skills imaginable. Being those kids sounds pretty terrible. 
3. There was focused attention on each of her children individually, which I can’t imagine there was much of when they were alive - there were 9 of them. 
4. Showed in depth the effect that Albert's death had specifically on the lives of the children, rather than the effect it had on Victoria. Although, it becomes clear that Victoria's obsession with Albert, and her grief over his death, had more of a negative effect on the children than Albert's death itself. 
5. There were some nice location shots of palaces and parks and little children playing with toys, very British and very lovely. 
6. There was one expert called Professor Jane Ridley and she was hilarious. She was chuckling away for a lot of it and told some cheeky anecdotes about the family. 
7. There were some crazy German accents going on, and although some said it was distracting, I felt it lightened everything up. 
8. The BEST thing about it was (for me) the fact that I saw the process and was aware of what the work I did looked like on the screen. Mostly I trawled through the archives to find suitable paintings/photographs to suit the voice over (and got to go on some of the interview shoots). So, when discussing Victoria’s uncle, the Mad Kind George, I was told to look for a portrait of George looking slightly mad. It’s a lot harder than it sounds.

On the production I was working with some fab people, and was extremely jealous of their jobs as researchers/APs. Their advice was pretty invaluable. Crucially, the documentary made me doubly sure that TV Production is what I want to do... but I annoyed my family with my shouts at the TV ... “I found that picture!!!”

I didn't find this picture... but this is the royal family at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, their family home, in May 1857.