The Debt (2011)
directed by John Madden is a remake of a 2007 Israeli film by the same name by
Assaf Bernstein. Madden’s version, starring Helen Mirren as Rachel Singer, has
many differences from the original film which can be helpful in determining its
ideology as a film. In Madden’s retelling, it is Rachel and Stefan’s (Tom
Wilkinson) daughter Sarah (Romi Aboulafia) who writes the book about their past
military accounts as Mossad agents while in the original it is Rachel herself
who authors the original book about their exploits capturing Nazi war criminal
Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen) aka “The Surgeon of Birkenau.” However, all of
the details of that mission have not been written in the book Rachel’s daughter
has published, and therein lies the true ideological problem dealt with in
Madden’s The Debt.
Let’s keep in mind the definition of ‘explicit ideology’: “thematically orientated movies that aim to teach
or persuade as much as to entertain; patriotic films, many documentaries,
political films, and movies with a sociological emphasis; usually an admirable
character articulates the values that are really important (like Bogart’s
famous speech at the end of Casablanca)”
(429-430). While the movie seems to overlook the morality of the Holocaust
issue, the point then becomes the daily struggle each of the agents must face
with lying about their mission. The main difference between implicit and
explicit is that the characters clearly do something to tell you which way they
feel. Since Rachel’s confession letter to the journalist at the end of the
story mentions she wanted to do something to make her daughter proud, I take
that to be the embodiment of her values, making this an explicit
interpretation. This letter, coupled with their partner David Peretz’s (Sam
Worthington) suicide, seems to imply total explicitness as Stefan suggestion
that David took his life out of fear he would be found out to be lying about
the mission that made him a national hero. While it is clear what the
characters in the film think, the overall view of the film can be argued
differently. The movie does not reward any of the characters for their actions
as David loses his life and it is unclear if Rachel survives her final
confrontation with Vogel. Additionally, the movie does not attempt any issues
regarding the Holocaust, nor does it encourage Rachel to leave her husband for
the man she loves. In this perspective, the film itself can be seen as quite
neutral since it does not take a stand on anything really, just depicts the
explicit characters.
the two scenes I used were Devaid's suicide and Rachel's confrontation with Vogel at the end.
ReplyDeleteDavid*
DeleteI disagree with your position that the film itself does not take an ideological stand in regard to the background stories of the Holocaust and Nazi terrorism. While it is true that morality played a larger part in the individual perspectives of the major characters, Rachel, David, and Stefan, the general story that played out during the display of their personal histories put forth a bold message that intends to rally the audience's approval: that the original mission to capture Dr. Vogel (now living a different life as Dr. Bernhardt) from his own country and take him away from the laws of his own government in order to bring him to trial in Israel was not only acceptable, but also applaudable in spite of its ethical and political deficiencies. The general story in the film also explicitly gave favor to Rachel's falsified story of heroism, as the murder of Dr. Vogel had been unquestionably celebrated for thirty years before his "actual" death.
ReplyDelete