Lanzmann PDF

In an Era of Testimony: Claude Lanzmann's Shoah
Author(s): Shoshana Felman

Source: Yale French Studies, No. 97, 50 Years of Yale French Studies: A Commemorative
Anthology. Part 2: 1980-1998 (2000), pp. 103-150
Published by: Yale University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2903217
Accessed: 21-04-2015 07:37 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.192.155.196 on Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:37:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SHOSHANA FELMAN
In an Era ofTestimony:Claude
Lanzmann'sShoah*1
I
Historyand Witness,ortheStoryofan Oath
"Ifsomeoneelse couldhavewrittenmystories,"writesElie Wiesel,"I

wouldnothave writtenthem.I have writtenthemin orderto testify.
My role is the role of the witness.... Not to tell,or to tell another
story, is ... to commitperjury."2
To bearwitnessis to takeresponsibility fortruth:to speak,implic-
itly,fromwithinthe legal pledgeand the juridicalimperativeof the
witness'soath.3To testify-before a courtofLaw orbeforethecourtof
historyand of the future;to testify, likewise,beforean audienceof
readersorspectators- is morethansimplyto reporta factoran event
orto relatewhathas beenlived,recordedandremembered. Memoryis
conjuredhereessentiallyin orderto addressanother,to impressupon
a listener,to appeal to a community. To testifyis always,metaphori-
cally,to takethewitness'sstand,orto takethepositionofthewitness
insofaras thenarrative accountofthewitnessis at once engagedin an
appeal and boundby an oath.To testify is thusnotmerelyto narrate
butto commitoneself,and to committhenarrative, to others:to take
*FromYaleFrenchStudies79 (1991):Literature and TheEthicalQuestion.C 1991

byShoshanaFelman.
thechapteron
1. The presentessayis partofa moreextensivestudy,constituting
Shoahin myforthcoming book:In an Era ofTestimony: in Litera-
CrisesofWitnessing
ture,Psychoanalysisand History(London:Routledge,1991;volumecoauthoredwith
DoriLaub,M.D.)
2. "The LonelinessofGod,"publishedin thejournalDvar Hashavu'a (magazineof
thenewspaper Davar):Tel-Aviv(1984).MytranslationfromtheHebrew.
3. "To tellthetruth,thewholetruth,andnothingbutthetruth";an oath,however,
whichis always,byitsnature,susceptibletoperjury.
YFS 97,50 YearsofYaleFrenchStudies,Part2, ed.PorterandWaters,C 2000
byYale University.
103
104 YaleFrenchStudies
responsibility-inspeech-for historyor forthe truthof an occur-
rence,forsomethingwhich,by definition, goes beyondthepersonal,
in havinggeneral(nonpersonal) validityand consequences.
Butiftheessenceofthetestimonyis impersonal(toenablea deci-
sionbya judgeorjury-metaphoricalorliteral-about thetruenature
ofthefactsofan occurrence;to enablean objectivereconstruction of
whathistorywas like,irrespective ofthewitness),whyis it thatthe
witness'sspeechis so uniquely,literallyirreplaceable?"If someone
else could have writtenmystories,I would not have writtenthem."
Whatdoes it mean thatthe testimonycannotbe simplyreported, or
narrated byanotherin itsroleas testimony? Whatdoes it meanthata
story-ora history-cannotbe toldbysomeoneelse?
Itis thisquestion,I wouldsuggest,thatguidestheground-breaking
workofClaude Lanzmannin his filmShoah (1985),and constitutesat
once theprofound subjectand theshockingpoweroforiginality ofthe
film.
A VisionofReality
Shoah is a filmmade exclusivelyof testimonies:first-hand testi-

moniesofparticipants in thehistoricalexperienceoftheHolocaust,
interviewed and filmedby Lanzmannduringthe elevenyearswhich
precededtheproductionofthefilm(1974-1985).In effect, Shoah re-
vivestheHolocaustwithsucha power(a powerthatno previousfilm
on the subjectcould attain)thatit radicallydisplacesand shakesup
notonlyanycommonnotionwe mighthave entertained aboutit,but
ourveryvisionofrealityas such,ourverysenseofwhattheworld,cul-
ture,history, andourlifewithinit,areall about.
Butthefilmis notsimply,noris itprimarily, a historicaldocument
on theHolocaust.Thatis why,in contrasttoitscinematicpredecessors
on thesubject,it refusessystematically to use anyhistorical,archival
footage. It conductsits interviews,and takes itspictures,
in thepresent.
Ratherthana simpleviewaboutthepast,thefilmoffers a disorienting
visionof the present,a compellingly profoundand surprising insight
intothecomplexity oftherelationbetweenhistoryand witnessing.
It is a filmaboutwitnessing:aboutthewitnessingofa catastrophe.
Whatis testified to is limit-experienceswhoseoverwhelming impact
constantly putsto thetestthelimitsofthewitnessesand ofthewit-
nessing,at the same time thatit constantlyunsettlesand puts into
questiontheverylimitsofreality.
SHOSHANA FELMAN 105
Artas Witness
Secondly,Shoahis a filmabouttherelationbetweenartand witness-

ing,aboutfilmas a mediumwhichexpandsthecapacityforwitness-
ing.To understand Shoah,we mustexplorethequestion:whatarewe
as spectatorsmadeto witness?This expansionofwhatwe in turncan
witnessis,however,due notsimplyto thereproduction ofevents,but
to thepowerofthe filmas a workofart,to the subtletyofits philo-
sophicaland artisticstructureand to the complexityof the creative
processit engages."The truthkills the possibilityof fiction,"said
Lanzmannin a journalisticinterview.4 Butthetruthdoes notkill the
possibilityofart-on the contrary, it requiresit forits transmission,
foritsrealizationin ourconsciousnessas witnesses.
Finally,Shoah embodiesthecapacityofartnotsimplyto witness,
but to take the witness'sstand: the filmtakes responsibility forits
timesbyenactingthesignificance ofoureraas an age oftestimony, an
age in whichwitnessingitselfhas undergonea majortrauma.Shoah
givesus towitnessa historicalcrisisofwitnessing, and showsus how,
out ofthiscrisis,witnessingbecomes,in all thesensesoftheword,a
criticalactivity.
On all thesedifferentlevels,Claude Lanzmannpersistently asks
thesamerelentlessquestion:whatdoesit meantobe a witness?What
doesitmeantobe a witnessto theHolocaust?Whatdoesitmeantobe
a witnessto theprocessofthefilm?Whatdoestestimony mean,ifitis
notsimply(as we commonlyperceiveit) theobserving, therecording,
theremembering ofan event,butan utterlyunique and irreplaceable
topographical positionwithrespecttoan occurrence? Whatdoestesti-
monymean,ifitis theuniquenessoftheperformance ofa storywhich
is constitutedbythefactthat,liketheoath,it cannotbe carriedoutby
anybodyelse?
The WesternLaw ofEvidence
The uniquenessofthenarrativeperformance ofthe testimonyin ef-

fectproceedsfromthewitness'sirreplaceableperformance oftheact
ofseeing-fromtheuniquenessofthewitness's"seeingwithhis/her
own eyes." "Mr. Vitold,"says the JewishBundleaderto the Polish
Horror:The Man behind

4. An interviewwith Deborah Jerome("Resurrecting
Shoah"),TheRecord,25 October1985.
CourrierJanKarski,who reportsit in his cinematictestimonythirty-
fiveyearslater,in narrating how the Jewishleaderurgedhim-and
persuadedhim-to become a crucial visual witness: "I know the
Westernworld. You will be speakingto the English.... It will
strengthen yourreportifyouwillbe able to say:'I saw it myself.
"' 5
In the legal, philosophical,and epistemologicaltraditionof the
Westernworld,witnessingis based on, and is formallydefinedby,
first-handseeing. "Eyewitnesstestimony"is what constitutesthe
most decisivelaw of evidencein courtrooms."Lawyershave innu-
merablerulesinvolvinghearsay,the characterofthe defendant or of
thewitness,opinionsgivenbythewitness,and thelike,whicharein
one way or anothermeant to improvethe fact-finding process.But
morecrucialthananyone ofthese-and possiblymorecrucialthanall
puttogether-istheevidenceofeyewitnesstestimony."6
Film,on the otherhand,is the artpar excellencewhich,like the
courtroom(althoughfordifferent purposes),calls upon a witnessing
by seeing.How does the filmuse its visual mediumto reflectupon
eyewitnesstestimony, bothas thelaw ofevidenceofitsownartandas
thelaw ofevidenceofhistory?
Victims,Perpetrators,
and Bystanders:
AboutSeeing
Because the testimonyis unique and irreplaceable,thefilmis an ex-

plorationofthedifferencesbetweenheterogeneous pointsofview,be-
tweentestimonialstanceswhichcan neitherbe assimilatedinto,nor
subsumedby,one another.Thereis, firstofall, thedifference ofper-
spectivebetweenthreegroupsofwitnesses,or threeseriesof inter-
viewees;therealcharacters ofhistorywho,in responseto Lanzmann's
inquiry,playtheirown roleas thesingularly realactorsofthemovie,
thosewhowitnessedthedisasteras its
fallintothreebasic categories:7
victims(thesurvivingJews);thosewho witnessedthe disasteras its
perpetrators(theex-Nazis);thosewho witnessedthe disasteras by-
standers(thePoles).Whatis at stakein thisdivisionis notsimplya di-
5. Shoah,thecompletetextofthefilmbyClaude Lanzmann(New York:Pantheon

Books,1985),171.Quotationsfromthetextofthefilmwillrefer tothisedition,andwill
onlybypagenumber(intheparentheses
be indicatedhenceforth following thecitation).
6. JohnKaplan,"Foreword"to ElizabethR. Loftus:EyewitnessTestimony(Cam-
bridge, Mass. andLondon,England:HarvardUniversityPress:1979),vii.
7. Categorieswhich LanzmannborrowsfromHilberg'shistoricalanalysis,but
whichthefilmstrikingly embodiesandrethinks. Cf.,RaulHilberg,TheDestructionof
theEuropeanJews(NewYork:HolmseandMeier,1985).
SHOSHANA FELMAN 107
versityofpointsofvieworofdegreesofimplicationandemotionalin-
volvement,but the incommensurability of differenttopographical
and cognitivepositions,betweenwhich the discrepancycannotbe
breached.Moreconcretely, whatthecategoriesin thefilmgiveto see
is threedifferentperformancesofthe.act ofseeing.
In effect,
thevictims,thebystanders, and theperpetrators arehere
differentiated not so muchby what theyactuallysee (whattheyall
see, althoughdiscontinuous,does in factfollowa logic ofcorrobora-
tion),as bywhatandhowtheydo notsee,bywhatandhowtheyfailto
witness.The Jewssee,buttheydo notunderstand thepurposeandthe
destinationofwhattheysee; overwhelmed byloss and by deception,
theyareblindto thesignificanceofwhattheywitness.RichardGlazar
strikingly narratesa momentofperceptioncoupledwithincompre-
hension,an exemplary momentin whichtheJewsfailtoread,ortode-
cipher,thevisual signsand thevisiblesignificance theynonetheless
see withtheirowneyes:
Thenveryslowly,thetrainturned offofthemaintrackandrolled.. .
througha wood.Whilehelookedout-we'dbeenabletoopena win-
dow-theoldmaninourcompartment sawa boy... andheaskedthe
boyinsigns,"Wherearewe?"Andthekidmadea funny This:
gesture.
a finger
(draws acrosshisthroat)
...
Andoneofyouquestioned
him?
Notinwords,butin signs,we asked:"what'sgoingonhere?Andhe
madethatgesture.
Likethis.Wedidn'treallypaymuchattentionto
him.Wecouldn't
figureoutwhathemeant.[34]
The Poles,unliketheJews,do see but,as bystanders,
theydo not
quitelook,theyavoidlookingdirectly,and thustheyoverlookat once
theirresponsibility
and theircomplicityas witnesses:
Youcouldn'tlookthere.
Youcouldn't
talktoa Jew.Evengoingby
ontheroad,youcouldn't
lookthere.
-Did theylookanyway?
Yes,vanscameandtheJews weremovedfartheroff.
Youcouldsee
but
them, onthe In
sly. sidelong
glances.[97-98]
The Nazis, on theotherhand,see to it thatboththeJewsand the
extermination will remainunseen,invisible;thedeathcampsaresur-
rounded,forthatpurpose,witha screenoftrees.FranzSuchomel,an
ex-guardofTreblinka,testifies:
108 Yale French Studies
Woveninto the barbedwire werebranchesof pine trees.... It was
known as "camouflage".. . . So everythingwas screened.People
couldn'tsee anything
to theleftorright.
Nothing.
You couldn'tsee
through
it.Impossible.
[110]
It is nota coincidencethatas thistestimonyis unfoldingit is hard
forus as viewersofthefilmto see thewitness,who is filmedsecretly:
as is the case formostoftheex-Nazis,FranzSuchomelagreedto an-
swerLanzmann'squestions,but not to be filmed;he agreed,in other
words,to givea testimony, but on the conditionthat,as witness,he
shouldnotbe seen:
Mr.Suchomel,we'renotdiscussingyou,onlyTreblinka.Youare a
veryimportant
eyewitness,
and youcan explainwhatTreblinkawas.
Butdon'tusemyname.
No, Ipromised... [54]
In theblurryimagesoffacestakenbya secretcamerathathas to shoot
througha varietyof walls and screens,the filmmakes us see con-
bythecompromiseit unavoidablyinflictsuponour act ofsee-
cretely,
ing(which,ofnecessity,becomesmateriallyan act ofseeing through),
howtheHolocaustwas a historicalassaulton seeingandhow,evento-
day,theperpetratorsare stillby and largeinvisible:"everything
was
screened.You couldn'tsee anythingto theleftor right.You couldn't
see throughit."
Figuren
The essenceof the Nazi schemeis to make itself-and to make the

Jews-essentiallyinvisible.To maketheJewsinvisiblenotmerelyby
killingthem,notmerelybyconfining themto "camouflaged," invisi-
ble deathcamps,butbyreducingeventhemateriality ofthedeadbod-
ies to smoke and ashes, and by reducing,furthermore, the radical
opacityofthesightofthedeadbodies,as well as thelinguisticreferen-
oftheword "corpse,"tothetransparency
tialityandliterality ofa pure
formand to thepurerhetoricalmetaphoricity ofa merefigure:a dis-
embodiedverbalsubstitutewhich signifiedabstractlythe linguistic
law ofinfiniteexchangeability and substitutability.
The dead bodies
are thusverballyrendered invisible,andvoidedbothofsubstanceand
by beingtreated,in the Nazi jargon,as Figuren: that
of specificity,
which,all at once,cannot be seen and can be seen through.
SHOSHANA FELMAN 109
The Germans evenforbadeus touse thewords"corpse"or"vic-
tim." Thedeadwereblocksofwood,shit.TheGermans madeus refer
tothebodiesas Figuren,
thatis,as puppets,
as dolls,oras Schmattes,
whichmeans"rags."[13]
Butitis notonlythedeadbodiesoftheJewswhichtheNazis,para-
doxically,do not "see." It is also, in some strikingcases, the living
Jewstransported to theirdeaththatremaininvisibleto the chiefar-
chitectsoftheirfinaltransportation. WalterStier,head ofReichRail-
ways Department 33 of the Nazi party,chieftrafficplannerof the
death-trains("specialtrains,"in Nazi euphemism),testifies:
Butyouknewthatthetrainsto TreblinkaorAuschwitzwere-
Ofcoursewe knew.I was thelastdistrict. methetrains
Without
couldn't
reachtheirdestination
...
Did youknowthatTreblinkameantextermination?
Ofcoursenot.... Howcouldweknow?I neverwenttoTreblinka.
[135]
Youneversaw a train?
No,never....I neverleftmydesk.Weworked
dayandnight.
[132]
In the same way,Mrs. Michelshon,wifeof a Nazi schoolteacherin
Chelmno,answersLanzmann'squestions:
Did yousee thegas vans?
No.... Yes,from theoutside.
Theyshuttled I never
backandforth.
lookedinside;I didn't inthem.I onlysawthings
seeJews from
outside.
[82]
The Occurrence as Unwitnessed
Thus, the diversity

ofthe testimonialstancesofthevictims,theby-
standers,and theperpetratorshave in common,paradoxically, thein-
commensurability of theirdifferentand particularpositionsof not
seeing,the radicaldivergenceof theirtopographical,emotional,and
epistemologicalpositionsnot simplyas witnesses,but as witnesses
who do not witness, who let theHolocaust occuras an eventessen-
tiallyunwitnessed.Throughthe testimoniesof its visual witnesses
the film makes us see concretely-makes us witness-how the
Holocaust occursas the unprecedented, inconceivablehistoricalad-
ventofan eventwithouta witness,an eventwhichhistoricallycon-
sistsin the schemeofthe literalerasureofits witnessesbut which,
moreover, philosophicallyconsistsin an accidentingofperception, in
a splittingofeyewitnessing as such; an event,thus,not empirically,
but cognitivelyand perceptuallywithouta witnessbothbecause it
precludesseeingandbecause it precludesthepossibilityofa commu-
nityofseeing;an eventwhichradicallyannihilatestherecourse(the
appeal)tovisualcorroboration (tothecommensurability betweentwo
differentseeings)and thusdissolvesthe possibility ofanycommunity
ofwitnessing.
Shoah enables us to see-and gives us insightinto-the occur-
renceoftheHolocaustas an absolutehistoricaleventwhoseliterally
overwhelming evidencemakesit,paradoxically, intoan utterlyproof-
less event;theage oftestimonyis theage ofprooflessness, theage of
an eventwhose magnitudeofreference is at once below and beyond
proof.
TheMultiplicity
ofLanguages
The incommensurability betweendifferent testimonialstances,and

theheterogeneous multiplicityofspecificcognitivepositionsofsee-
ingandnotseeing,is amplifiedand duplicatedin thefilmbythemul-
tiplicityoflanguagesin whichthetestimoniesare delivered(French,
German,Sicilian,English,Hebrew,Yiddish,Polish),a multiplicity
whichnecessarilyencompassessome foreigntonguesand whichne-
cessitatesthepresenceofa professional translator
as an intermediary
betweenthewitnessesand Lanzmannas theirinterviewer. The tech-
nique ofdubbingis notused,and thecharacterofthetranslator is de-
liberatelynot editedout ofthefilm-on thecontrary, she is quite of-
tenpresenton thescreen,at theside ofLanzmann,as anotherone of
therealactorsofthefilm,becausetheprocessoftranslation is itselfan
integralpartoftheprocessofthefilm,partakingbothofits scenario
and ofits own performance ofits cinematictestimony. Throughthe
multiplicity offoreigntonguesand the prolongeddelay incurredby
the translation,the splittingof eyewitnessing which the historical
eventseems to consistof,the incapacityofseeingto translateitself
spontaneously andsimultaneously intoa meaning,is recapitulated on
thelevel oftheviewersofthefilm.The filmplaces us in theposition
ofthewitnesswho sees andhears,butcannotunderstandthesignifi-
SHOSHANA FELMAN 1ll
cance ofwhatis goingon untilthelaterintervention, thedelayedpro-

cessingand rendering ofthesignificance ofthevisual/acousticinfor-
mationbythetranslator, who also in somewaysdistortsand screens
it,because (as is testifiedtobythoseviewerswho arenativespeakers
oftheforeigntongueswhichthe translator is translating,
and as the
filmitselfpointsoutbysomeofLanzmann'sinterventions andcorrec-
tions)thetranslation is notalwaysabsolutelyaccurate.
The palpableforeignness ofthefilm'stonguesis emblematicofthe
radicalforeignness ofthe experienceoftheHolocaust,not merelyto
us,butevento itsownparticipants. Askedwhetherhe hadinvitedthe
participants to see thefilm,Lanzmannansweredin thenegative:"in
whatlanguagewouldtheparticipants have seen thefilm?"The origi-
nal was a Frenchprint:"Theydon'tspeakFrench. "8 French,thenative
languageofthefilmmaker, thecommondenominator intowhichthe
testimonies(andtheoriginalsubtitles)aretranslated andin whichthe
filmis thoughtout andgives,in turn,itsown testimony happens(not
by chance,I would suggest)not to be the languageofanyofthewit-
nesses.It is a metaphorofthefilmthatits languageis a languageof
translation, and,as such,is doublyforeign: thattheoccurrence, on the
one hand,happensin a languageforeignto the languageofthefilm,
butalso,thatthesignificance oftheoccurrencecan onlybe articulated
in a languageforeign to thelanguage(s)oftheoccurrence.
The titleofthefilmis,however,notin Frenchand embodiesthus,
once more,a linguisticstrangeness, an estrangement, whose signifi-
canceis enigmaticand whosemeaningcannotbe immediatelyacces-
sible even to thenativeaudienceoftheoriginalFrenchprint:Shoah,
theHebrewwordwhich,withthedefinitearticle(heremissing),des-
ignates"The Holocaust" but which,withoutthe article,enigmati-
callyand indefinitely means "catastrophe," herenamestheveryfor-
eignnessoflanguages,theverynamelessnessofa catastrophewhich
cannotbe possessedby anynativetongueand which,withinthelan-
guageof translation, can onlybe named as the untranslatable:that
whichlanguagecannotwitness;thatwhichcannotbe articulatedin
one language;thatwhichlanguage,in its turn,cannotwitnesswith-
outsplitting.
givenbyLanzmannon theoccasionofhis visittoYale University,

8. Interview and
Dr. Dori
filmedat theVideoArchiveforHolocaustTestimoniesat Yale (Interviewers:
LaubandLaurelVloch),on5 May 1986.Transcript,
24-25. Hereafter,citationsfromthis
tobytheabbreviation
videotapewillbe referred "interview," followedbyan indication
transcript.
ofthepagenumberin its(unpublished)
TheHistorianas a Witness
The taskofthedeciphering ofsignsand oftheprocessingofintelligi-

bility-what mightbe calledthetaskofthetranslator9-is,however,
carriedout withinthefilmnot merelyby thecharacteroftheprofes-
sional interpreter,but also by two otherreal actors-the historian
(Raul Hilberg)and thefilmmaker (Claude Lanzmann)-who, like the
witnesses,in turnplay themselvesandwho,unlikethewitnessesand
like the translator,
constitutesecond-degree witnesses(witnessesof
witnesses,witnessesofthe testimonies).Like theprofessional inter-
preter, in
although verydifferent in
ways,thefilmmaker thefilmand
the historianon the screenare in turncatalysts-or agents-of the
processofreception,agentswhose reflective witnessingand whose
testimonialstancesaid ourownreceptionand assistus bothin theef-
forttowardcomprehension and in theunendingstruggle withthefor-
eignnessof signs,in processingnot merely(as does the professional
interpreter)theliteralmeaningofthetestimonies, butalso someper-
spectiveson theirphilosophicalandhistoricalsignificance.
The historianis, thus,in thefilm,neitherthelast wordofknowl-
edgenortheultimateauthority on history,butrather,one moretopo-
graphicaland cognitivepositionof yet anotherwitness.The state-
ment of the filmmaker-andthe testimonyof the film-is by no
meanssubsumedbythestatement(orthetestimony) ofthehistorian.
Thoughthefilmmaker doesembracethehistoricalinsightsofHilberg,
whichhe obviouslyholdsin utterrespectandfromwhichhe getsboth
inspirationand instruction, the filmalso places in perspective-and
puts context-the disciplineof historyas such, in stumblingon
in
(andgivingus to see) theverylimitsofhistoriography. "Shoah," said
Claude Lanzmann at Yale, "is certainlynot a historical film.... The
purposeofShoahis notto transmit knowledge, in spiteofthefactthat
thereis knowledgein thefilm.... Hilberg'sbook,The Destructionof
the European Jews,was reallymyBibleformanyyears .... Butin spite
ofthis,Shoah is nota historicalfilm,it is somethingelse.... To con-
densein one wordwhatthefilmis forme,I wouldsaythatthefilmis
and thatthewholeprocessofthefilm
an incarnation,a resurrection,
0
is a philosophicalone."' Hilbergis the spokesmanfora unique and
in Illuminations,trans.
9. Cf.,WalterBenjamin,"The Task of the Translator,"
HarryZohn,ed.HannahArendt(New York:SchockenBooks:1969),69-82.
10. "An EveningwithClaude Lanzmann,"4 May 1986,firstpartof Lanzmann's
SHOSHANA FELMAN 113
impressiveknowledgeoftheHolocaust.Knowledgeis shownby the
filmto be absolutelynecessaryin the ongoingstruggleto resistthe
blindingimpactof the event,to counteractthe splittingof eyewit-
nessing.Butknowledgeis not,in andofitself,a sufficiently activeand
sufficiently actofseeing.The newnessofthefilm'svision,on
effective
theotherhand,consistspreciselyin thesurprising insightit conveys
into theradicalignorancein whichwe are unknowingly all plunged
withrespectto theactualhistoricaloccurrence.This ignoranceis not
simplydispelledbyhistory-on thecontrary, it encompasseshistory
as such.The filmshowshow historyis used forthepurposeofa his-
torical(ongoing)processof forgetting which,ironicallyenough,in-
cludes thegesturesofhistoriography. Historiography is as muchthe
productofthepassionofforgetting as itis theproductofthepassionof
remembering.
WalterStier,formerheadofReichrailwaysandchiefplannerofthe
transportsoftheJewsto deathcamps,can thustestify:
Whatwas Treblinkaforyou?... A destination?
Yes,that'sall.
Butnotdeath.
No,no...
came toyouas a bigsurprise?
Extermination
Completely...
Youhad no idea.
Likethatcamp-whatwasitsname?It wasin
Nottheslightest.
theOppelndistrict.... I've gotit:Auschwitz.
Yes, Auschwitz was in the Oppeln district.... Auschwitz to
Krakowis forty
miles.
Nota clue.
That'snotveryfar.Andweknewnothing.
ButyouknewthattheNazis-that Hitlerdidn'tlike theJews?
Thatwe did.It was well known.... Butas to theirextermination,
thatwasnewstous.I mean,eventodaypeopledenyit.Theysaythere
by Yale University.
visitto Yale, videotapedand copyrighted of the first
Transcript
videotape(hereafter toas "Evening"),2.
referred
couldn't Is ittrue?I don'tknow.That'swhat
havebeenso manyJews.
theysay.[136-38]
To substantiatehis own amnesia(ofthename ofAuschwitz)and his
own claim ofessentiallynot knowing,Stierimplicitlyrefershereto
the claim of knowledge-the historicalauthority-of"revisionist
historiographies,"recentworkspublishedin a varietyofcountriesby
historianswho prefer to arguethatthenumberofthedead cannotbe
provenandthat,sincethereis no scientific, scholarlyhardevidenceof
theexactextentofthemass murder, thegenocideis merelyan inven-
tion,an exaggeration oftheJewsand theHolocaust,in fact,neverex-
isted." "But as to theirextermination,thatwas news to us. I mean,
even today,people denyit. They say therecould not have been so
manyJews.Is it true?I don'tknow.That's whattheysay." 'I am not
theone who knows,buttherearethosewho knowwho saythatwhat
I didnotknowdidnotexist.'"Is it true?I don'tknow."
Dr. FranzGrassler,on theotherhand(formerly Nazi commissioner
oftheWarsawGhetto),comeshimselfto mimic,in frontofthecam-
era,theverygestureofhistoriography as an alibitohis forgetting.
Youdon'trememberthosedays?
Not much.... It's a fact:we tendto forget,

thankGod, the bad
times...
I'll help you to remember.In Warsawyou wereDr. Auerswald's

deputy.
Yes ...
Dr. Grassler,thisis Czerniakow'sdiary.You'rementionedin it.
It'sbeenprinted.It exists?
He kepta diarythatwas recentlypublished.He wroteon 7 July

1941...
11. Cf., forinstance, Robert Raurisson: "I have analyzed thousands of documents. I
have tirelesslypursued specialists and historianswith my questions. I have in vain tried
to finda single formerdeporteecapable ofprovingto me thathe had reallyseen, with his
own eyes,a gas chamber."(Le Monde,16 January 1979.)We have "a selectiveview of
commentsBillMoyers."Welivewithina mythology
history," ofbenignandbenevolent
experience.... Itis hardtobelievethatthereexistabouta hundred booksall devotedto
teachingtheideathattheHolocaustwas a fiction, thatitdidnothappen,thatithasbeen
madeupbyJewsfora lotofdiversereasons.. ." Interview withMargotStrom,inFacing
Historyand Ourselves(Fall1986),6 and7.
SHOSHANA FELMAN 115
7 July1941?That'sthefirst
timeI'verelearned
a date.MayI take
notes?After
all,itinterests
metoo.SoinJuly
I wasalready
there!
[175-
76]
In linewiththedenialofresponsibility and memory, theverygesture

ofhistoriographycomesto embodynothingotherthantheblankness
ofthepageon whichthe"notes"aretaken.
The nextsectionofthefilmfocuseson thehistorianHilberghold-
ing,and discussing,Czerniakow'sdiary.The cinematiceditingthat
followsshiftsback and forth,in a sortofshuttlemovement,between
thefaceofGrassler(whocontinuesto articulatehis own view ofthe
ghetto)and thefaceofHilberg(who continuesto articulatethe con-
tentof the diaryand the perspectivethatthe authorof the diary-
Czerniakow-gives of the ghetto).The Nazi commissionerof the
ghettois thusconfronted structurally,notso muchwiththecounter-
statementofthehistorian, butwiththefirsthand witnessofthe(now
dead)authorofthediary,theJewishleaderoftheghettowhomthein-
oftheghetto'sdestinyled to endhis leadership-andsign
eluctability
his diary-withsuicide.
The mainroleofthehistorianis, thus,less to narratehistorythan
to reversethesuicide,to takepartin a cinematicvisionwhichLanz-
mannhas definedas cruciallyan "incarnation"and a "resurrection."
"I have takena historian,"Lanzmannenigmaticallyremarked,"so
thathe will incarnatea dead man,even thoughI had someonealive
whohadbeena director oftheghetto."'12 The historian
is thereto em-
body,to givefleshand blood to,the dead authorofthe diary.Unlike
the Christianresurrection,though,thevisionofthefilmis to make
Czerniakowcome alive preciselyas a dead man. His "resurrection"
doesnotcancelouthis death.The visionofthefilmis at once to make
thedeadwritercomealiveas a historian, andto make,in turn,history
andthehistoriancome alive in theuniquenessofthelivingvoice ofa
deadman,andin thesilenceofhis suicide.
TheFilmmakeras a Witness
At the side ofthe historian,Shoah finallyincludesamongits list of

characters(itslistofwitnesses)theveryfigureofthefilmmaker in the
processofthemaking-or ofthecreation-ofthefilm.Travellingbe-
12. Statement madein a privateconversationthattookplacein Paris,on 18January
1987: "J'aiprisunhistorien pourqu'il incarneun mort,alorsque j'avais un vivantqui
6taitdirecteur du ghetto."
tweenthelivingand thedead and movingto and frobetweenthedif-
ferentplacesandthedifferent voicesin thefilm,thefilmmaker is con-
tinuously-thoughdiscreetly-presentin the marginof the screen,
perhapsas the most silentlyarticulateand as the most articulately
silentwitness.The creatorofthefilmspeaksandtestifies, however,in
his own voice,in his triplerole as the narratorof the film(and the
signatory-thefirstperson-of the script),as the interviewer of the
witnesses(thesolicitorand the receiverof the testimonies),and as
theinquirer(theartistas the subjectofa quest concerningwhatthe
testimoniestestify to; thefigureofthewitnessas a questioner,and of
theaskernotmerelyas thefactualinvestigator butas thebearerofthe
film'sphilosophicaladdressandinquiry).
The threerolesofthefilmmaker intermixand in effectexistonly
in theirrelationto each other.Sincethenarrator is, as such,strictly a
witness,his storyis restrictedto thestoryoftheinterviewing: thenar-
rativeconsistsofwhattheinterviewer hears.Lanzmann'srigoras nar-
ratoris preciselyto speak strictlyas an interviewer(and as an in-
quirer),to abstain,thatis,fromnarrating anything directly in his own
voice, exceptforthe beginning-theonlymomentwhichrefersthe
filmexplicitlyto thefirstpersonofthefilmmaker as narrator:
The storybeginsin thepresent
at Chelmno.... Chelmnowas the
placeinPolandwhereJewswerefirstexterminatedbygas.... Ofthe
fourhundredthousand men,women,andchildren whowentthere,
onlytwocameoutalive.... Srebnik,survivorofthelastperiod,was a
whenhewassenttoChelmno....I found
boyofthirteen himinIsrael
andpersuaded
thatone-time toreturn
boysinger withmetoChelmno.
[3-4]
The opening,narratedin thefilmmaker's own voice,at once situates

thestoryin thepresentand sumsup a pastwhichis presentednotyet
as thestorybutratheras a pre-history,ora pre-story:thestoryproper
is contemporaneous withthefilm'sspeech,whichbegins,in fact,sub-
sequentto thenarrator'swrittenpreface,bytheactualsongofSrebnik
re-sung(reenacted)in thepresent.The narratoris the"I" who "found"
Srebnikand "persuaded"him to "returnwithme to Chelmno."The
narrator, is theone who opens,orre-opens,thestoryofthe
therefore,
pastin thepresentofthetelling.Butthe"I" ofthenarrator, ofthesig-
natoryofthefilm,has no voice;theopeningis projectedon thescreen
as thesilenttextofa mutescript,as thenarrative voice-overofa writ-
ingwithno voice.
SHOSHANA FELMAN 117
On the one hand,then,the narratorhas no voice. On the other
hand,thecontinuity ofthenarrative is ensuredbynothingotherthan
Lanzmann'svoice,whichrunsthrough thefilmandwhosesoundcon-
stitutesthe continuous,connectivethreadbetween the different
voicesandthedifferent testimonialepisodes.ButLanzmann'svoice-
the activevoice in whichwe hear the filmmaker speak-is strictly,
once again,thevoice oftheinquirerand oftheinterviewer, notofthe
narrator. As narrator, Lanzmanndoes notspeakbutrathervocallyre-
cites the wordsof others,lends his voice (on two occasions)to read
aloud two writtendocumentswhose authorscannotspeak in their
ownvoice:theletteroftheRabbiofGrabow,warningtheJewsofLodz
ofthe extermination takingplace at Chelmno,a letterwhose signa-
torywas himselfconsequentlygassed at Chelmno with his whole
community("Do not think"-Lanzmannrecites-"that thisis writ-
tenby a madman.Alas, it is thehorrible,tragictruth,"[83-84]),and
theNazi documententitled"SecretReichBusiness"and concerning
technicalimprovements ofthegas vans ("Changesto specialvehicles
... shown by use and experienceto be necessary,"[103-05]), an extra-
ordinary documentwhichmightbe said to formalizeNazism as such
(thewayin whichthemostperverseandmostconcreteextermination
is abstractedintoa purequestionoftechniqueand function). We wit-
ness Lanzmann'svoice modulatingevenly-withno emotionand no
comment-the perversedictionofthisdocumentpunctuatedby the
unintentional, coincidentalironyembodiedby the signatory's name:
"signed:Just."
Besidesthisrecitationofthe writtendocuments,and besideshis
ownmutereference tohis ownvoiceon thewrittencinematicpreface
ofthesilentopening,Lanzmannspeaksas interviewer andas inquirer,
butas narrator, he keepssilent.The narrator letsthenarrative be car-
riedon byothers-bythelivevoicesofthevariouswitnesseshe inter-
views,whosestoriesmustbe able to speakforthemselves,iftheyare
to testify, thatis, to perform theirunique and irreplaceablefirsthand
witness.It is onlyin thisway,bythisabstinenceofthenarrator, that
thefilmcan in factbe a narrative oftestimony, ofthat,pre-
a narrative
cisely,whichcan neitherbe reported, nornarrated, by another.The
narrative is thusessentiallya narrative ofsilence,thestoryofthefilm-
maker'slistening;thenarrator is thetellerofthefilmonlyinsofaras
he is thebearerofthefilm'ssilence.
In his otherroles,however,thatofinterviewer and ofinquirer,the
filmmaker, on the contrary, is by definitiona transgressor, and a
breaker,ofthesilence.Ofhis own transgression ofthesilence,thein-
terviewer saysto theintervieweewhosevoice cannotbe givenup and
whose silence mustbe broken:"I know it's veryhard.I know and I
apologize"(117).
As an interviewer,Lanzmannasksnotforgreatexplanationsofthe
Holocaust,but forconcretedescriptions ofminuteparticulardetails
and ofapparently trivialspecifics."Was theweatherverycold?" (11).
"Fromthe stationto the unloadingrampin the camp is how many
miles? . . . How long did the trip last?" (33). "Exactly where did the
camp begin?" (34). "It was the silence that tippedthem off?. . . Can he
describe that silence?" (67). "What were the [gas] vans like? . . . What
color?"(80).It is notthebiggeneralizationsbut theconcreteparticu-
lars which translateinto a vision and thus help both to dispel the
blindingimpactoftheeventandto transgress thesilenceto whichthe
splittingof eyewitnessingreducedthe witness.It is only through
the trivial,by small steps-and not by huge stridesor big leaps-
thatthe barrierof silence can be in effectdisplaced,and somewhat
lifted.The pointedandspecificquestioningresists,aboveall, anypos-
sible canonizationofthe experienceofthe Holocaust.Insofaras the
interviewer challengesat once the sacredness(theunspeakability) of
deathandthesacrednessofthedeadness(ofthesilence)ofthewitness,
Lanzmann'squestionsareessentiallydesacralizing.
How did it happenwhenthewomencame intothegas chamber?...
Whatdid youfeelthefirsttimeyou saw all thesenaked women?...
ButI askedand youdidn'tanswer:Whatwas yourimpressionthefirst

timeyou saw thesenaked womenarrivingwithchildren?How did
youfeel?
To have a feelingaboutthat... it was veryhard
I tellyou something.
to feelanything,
becauseworking theredayandnightbetweendead
people,betweenbodies,yourfeeling youweredead.You
disappeared,
hadnofeelingatall.[114-16]
Shoah is the storyof the liberationof the testimonythroughits de-
sacralization;thestoryofthedecanonizationoftheHolocaustforthe
sake of its previouslyimpossiblehistoricization.What the inter-
vieweraboveall avoidsis an alliancewiththesilenceofthewitness,
the kindof empathicand benevolentalliance throughwhich inter-
SHOSHANA FELMAN 119
viewerandinterviewee oftenimplicitlyconcur,andworktogether,
for
themutualcomfort ofan avoidanceofthetruth.
It is thesilenceofthewitness'sdeathwhichLanzmannmusthis-
toricallychallengehere, in orderto revive the Holocaust and to
rewritetheevent-without-a-witness intowitnessing,andintohistory.
It is the silenceofthe witness'sdeathand ofthe witness'sdeadness
whichpreciselymustbe brokenand transgressed.
Wehave todo it. Youknowit.
I won'tbeabletodoit.
Youhave todo it.I knowit'sveryhard.I knowand I apologize.
Don'tmakemegoonplease.
Please. Wemustgo on. [117]
Whatdoesgoingon mean?The predicament ofhavingto continueto
bearwitnessat all costs parallels,forAbrahamBomba,the predica-
mentfacedin thepast ofhavingto continueto live on, to survivein
spiteofthegas chambers,in thefaceofthesurrounding death.Butto
have to go on now,to have to keep on bearingwitness,is morethan
simplytobe facedwiththeimperative toreplicatethepastandthusto
replicatehis ownsurvival.Lanzmannparadoxically nowurgesBomba
tobreakoutoftheverydeadnessthatenabledthesurvival.The narra-
torcalls thewitnessto come back fromthe meremode ofsurviving
intothatofliving-and oflivingpain.Iftheinterviewer's roleis thus
tobreakthesilence,thenarrator's roleis to ensurethatthestory(beit
thatofsilence)will go on.
Butit is theinquirerwhosephilosophicalinterrogation and inter-
pellationconstantlyreopenwhat mightotherwisebe seen as the
story'sclosure.
Mrs.Pietrya,youlivein Auschwitz?
Yes,I wasbornthere...
WerethereJewsin Auschwitzbeforethewar?
Theymadeupeighty ofthepopulation.
percent Theyevenhada syna-
here
gogue ...
in Auschwitz?
Was therea Jewishcemetery
Itstillexists.It'sclosednow.
Closed?Whatdoesthatmean?
Theydon'tburytherenow.[17-18]
The inquirerthusinquiresintotheverymeaningofclosureandofnar-
rative,political,and philosophicalenclosure.Of Dr. Grassler,theex-
assistantto the Nazi "commissar"of the Jewishghetto,Lanzmann
asks:
isphilosophical.
Myquestion mean,inyouropin-
Whatdoesa ghetto
ion?[182]
Differences
Grasslerofcourseevadesthequestion."Historyis fullofghettos,"he
replies,once moreusingerudition,"knowledge,"and theverydisci-
plineofhistory, to avoidthecuttingedgeoftheinterpellation: "Perse-
cutionofthe Jewswasn'ta Germaninvention,and didn'tstartwith
WorldWarII" (182).Everybody knows,in otherwords,whata ghetto
is,andthemeaningoftheghettodoesnotwarranta specifically philo-
sophical attention:"historyis full of ghettos."Because "history"
knowsonlytoowell whata ghettois, thisknowledgemightas well be
anddoesnotneedin turnto be probedbyus. "History"
leftto history,
is thususedbothto denythephilosophicalthrustofthequestionand
to forgetthespecificity-thedifference-ofthe Nazi past.Insofaras
thereplydeniespreciselytheinquirer'srefusalto takeforgrantedthe
conception-let alone the preconception-ofthe ghetto,the stereo-
typical,preconceivedanswerin effect forgetstheaskingpowerofthe
question.Grassleressentiallyforgets thedifference,forgetsthemean-
ingoftheghettoas thefirststepin theNazi overalldesignpreciselyof
theframing-andofthe enclosure-of a difference, a difference
that
will consequentlybe assignedto theultimateenclosureofthe death
campandto the"finalsolution"oferadication.Grassler'sanswerdoes
not meet the questionand attempts,moreover,to reduce the ques-
tion'sdifference.Butthe questionoftheghetto-thatoftheattempt
at thecontainment (thereduction)ofa difference-perseveresbothin
thespeechand in thesilenceoftheinquirer-narrator. The narratoris
preciselythereto insurethatthequestion,in its turn,willgo on (will
continuein theviewer).The inquirer, in otherwords,is notmerelythe
agencywhichasks the questions,but theforcewhichtakesapartall
previousanswers.Throughouttheinterviewing processtheinquirer-
narrator,at theside ofGrassleras ofothers,is at once thewitnessof
SHOSHANA FELMAN 121
the questionand the witnessof the gap-or of the difference-be-
tweenthequestionand theanswer.
Often,theinquirerbearswitnessto thequestion(andthenarrator
silentlybearswitnessto the story)by merelyrecapitulating wordby
worda fragment oftheanswer,byliterallyrepeating-likean echo-
thelast sentence,thelast wordsjustutteredby theinterlocutor. But
thefunctionoftheecho-in theveryresonanceofitsamplification-
is itselfinquisitive,and notsimplyrepetitive."The gas vans came in
here,"Srebniknarrates:"thereweretwo hugeovens,and afterwards
thebodieswerethrownintotheseovens,andtheflamesreachedtothe
sky" (6). "To the sky [zum Himmel]," mutterssilentlythe inter-
viewer,openingat once a philosophicalabyssin the simplewordsof
thenarrativedescription and a black hole in theverybluenessofthe
imageofthesky.Whenlateron, thePoles aroundthechurchnarrate
howtheylistenedto thegassedJews'screams,Lanzmann'srepetitious
echoesregister theunintendedironyofthenarration:
Theyheardthescreamsat night?
The Jewsmoaned.... Theywerehungry.
Theywereshutin and
starved.
Whatkindsofcriesand moanswereheardat night?
TheycalledonJesus inGerman
andMaryandGod,sometimes ...
TheJewscalled on Jesus,Mary,and God! [97-98]
Lanzmann'sfunctionas an echois anothermeansbywhichthevoice-
lessnessofthenarrator and thevoice oftheinquirerproducea ques-
tion in theveryanswer,andenacta differencethrough theveryverbal
repetition. In thenarrator as thebearerofthefilm'ssilence,theques-
tion of the screamspersists.And so does the differenceof what the
screamsin factcall out to. Hereas elsewherein thefilm,thenarrator
is, as such,boththeguardianofthequestionand theguardianofthe
difference.
The inquirer'sinvestigation is preciselyinto(boththephilosophi-
cal andtheconcrete)particularity ofdifference."What's the difference
betweena specialand a regulartrain?,"theinquirerasks oftheNazi
traffic plannerWalterStier(133).Andto theNazi teacher'swife,who
in a Freudianslip confusesJewsand Poles (both"the others"or "the
foreigners" in relationto theGermans),Lanzmannaddressesthefol-
lowingmeticulousquery:
SinceWorldWarI thecastlehadbeenin ruins.... That'swherethe
Jewsweretaken.Thisruined
castlewasusedforhousinganddelousing
thePoles,andso on.
TheJews!
Yes,theJews.
Whydo youcall themPoles and notJews?
I getthemmixedup.
Sometimes
There'sa difference
betweenPoles and Jews?
Ohyes!
Whatdifference?
ThePolesweren't andtheJewswere.That'sthediffer-
exterminated,
ence.Anexternal
difference.
And theinnerdifference?
I can'tassessthat.I don'tknowenoughaboutpsychology
andanthro-
pology. Thedifference betweenthePolesandtheJews?
Anyway,they
couldn't standeachother. [82-83]
As a philosophicalinquiryintotheungraspability ofdifference
and
as a narrativeof the specificdifferences betweenthe variouswit-
nesses,Shoah impliesa fragmentation ofthetestimonies-a fragmen-
tationbothoftonguesand ofperspectives-thatcannotultimatelybe
surpassed.Itis becausethefilmgoesfromsingularto singular, because
thereis no possiblerepresentation of one witnessby another,that
Lanzmannneedsus to sitthrough tenhoursofthefilmtobegintowit-
ness-to beginto have a concretesense-both ofourown ignorance
and ofthe incommensurability ofthe occurrence.The occurrenceis
conveyedpreciselyby this fragmentation of the testimonies,which
enactsthefragmentation ofthewitnessing.The filmis a gathering of
the fragments ofthe witnessing.But the collectionofthe fragments
does notyield,evenaftertenhoursofthemovie,anypossibletotality
or anypossibletotalization;thegathering oftestimonialincommen-
surates does not amount eitherto a generalizabletheoreticalstate-
mentorto a narrative monologicsum.Askedwhatwas his conceptof
the Holocaust,Lanzmannanswered:"I had no concept;I had obses-
sions, which is different.. .. The obsession ofthe cold.... The obses-
sionofthefirsttime.The firstshock.The firsthouroftheJewsin the
camp,in Treblinka,thefirstminutes.I willalwaysask thequestionof
SHOSHANA FELMAN 123
the firsttime.... The obsession of the last moments, the waiting,the
fear.Shoahis a filmfulloffear,and ofenergytoo.You cannotdo such
EverytheoreticalattemptI triedwas a failure,
a filmtheoretically. but
these failureswere necessary.... You build such a filmin your head,
in yourheart,in yourbelly,in yourguts,everywhere" (Interview,22-
23). This "everywhere"which,paradoxically, cannotbe totalizedand
whichresiststheoryas such,this corporealfragmentation and enu-
merationwhichdescribesthe"building"-or theprocessofthegener-
ation-of thefilmwhileit resistsanyattemptat conceptualization, is
itselfan emblemofthe specificity-oftheuniqueness-of the mode
oftestimonyofthe film.The filmtestifiesnot merelyby collecting
and by gathering fragments ofwitnessing,but by activelyexploding
anypossibleenclosure-any conceptualframe-thatmightclaim to
containthefragments andto fitthemintoone coherentwhole.Shoah
bearswitnessto thefragmentation ofthetestimoniesas theradicalin-
validationof all definitions,of all parametersof reference,of all
knownanswers,in theverymidstofits relentlessaffirmation-of its
materiallycreativevalidation-oftheabsolutenecessityofspeaking.
The filmputs in motionits surprising testimonyby performing the
historicaland contradictorydoubletaskofthebreakingofthesilence
and of the simultaneousshatteringof any given discourse,of the
breaking-orthebursting open-of all frames.
II
A PointofArrival
The filmopensin thefilmmaker's

own mutevoice,whichaddresses
thespectatorfromwithintheverywritingon thescreenthatconsti-
tutesthefilm'ssilentopening.
Ofthefourhundred thousand men,women,andchildren whowent
there,onlytwocameoutalive:Mordechaf PodchlebnikandSimon
Srebnik. survivor
Srebnik, ofthelastperiod,was a boyofthirteen
whenhewenttoChelmno...
I foundhiminIsraelandpersuadedthatone-time tore-
boysinger
turnwithmetoChelmno. [3-4]
Somethingis found,here,in Israel,whichembodiesin effecta point
of arrivalin Lanzmann'sjourney,as well as the beginning-orthe
startingpoint-of the journeyof the film. "I foundhim in Israel"
(Myemphasis).I wouldsuggestthattheartisticpowerofthefilmpro-
ceeds,precisely,fromthisfinding:the eventof Shoah is an eventof
finding.
Whatis it exactlythatLanzmann,at theoutsetofthefilm,finds?
The inauguraleventoffindingis itselfalreadyconstituted by a num-
of
ber implied-and incommensurable-discoveries, which the film
setsout to exploreon different
levels.
1) The finding,firstandforemost, is thefindingofSimonSrebnik,
the astonishingwinningsurvivor,"that one-timeboy singer"who
was literallyexecuted(shotin the head) and yetmiraculously, more
thanonce,fooleddeathandsurvived:
Withhisanklesinchains, likeallhiscompanions, theboyshuffled
through thevillageofChelmno eachday.Thathewaskeptalivelonger
thantheothers he owedtohisextreme whichmadehimthe
agility,
winner ofjumping contestsandspeedracesthattheSS organized for
theirchainedprisoners.Andalsotohismelodious voice;severaltimes
a week... youngSrebnik roweduptheNarew,underguard, ina flat-
bottomed boat.... He sangPolishfolktunes,andinreturn theguard
taught himPrussian militarysongs.. .
Duringthenightof18January 1945,twodaysbefore Soviettroops
arrived,theNaziskilledall theremaining Jewsinthe"workdetails"
witha bulletinthehead.SimonSrebnik wasamongthoseexecuted.
Butthebulletmissedhisvitalbraincenters. Whenhe cameto,he
crawled A Polishfarmer
intoa pigsty. foundhimthere.Theboywas
treatedandhealedbya SovietArmy doctor.A fewmonths laterSimon
leftforTel-Avivalongwithothersurvivors ofthedeathcamps.
I foundhiminIsraelandpersuaded thatone-timeboysinger tore-
turnwithmetoChelmno. [3-4]
2) The findingis thusalso,at thesame time,thefinding ofa siteof
entering:thediscoveryofIsraelis thefinding ofa place whichenables
Lanzmann,forthe firsttime,to inhabithis own implicationin the
storyoftheOther(Srebnik'sstory).
3) The findingis thefindingofthetestimony-ofitssingularsignifi-
canceandfunctioning as thestoryofan irreplaceablehistoricalperfor-
mance,a narrative performance whichno statement(no reportand no
description)canreplaceandwhoseuniqueenactment bythelivingwit-
nessis itselfpartofa processofrealizationofhistorictruth.Insofaras
thisrealizationis,bydefinition,whatcannotsimplybe reported, ornar-
rated,byanother, LanzmannfindsinIsrael,precisely, thatwhichcannot
be reported,boththegeneralsignificance andthematerial,singularcon-
cretizationsofthetestimony (Srebnik's
testimony,as wellas others').
SHOSHANA FELMAN 125
4) Finally,the findingis the findingof the filmitself:Shoah re-
thinks,as well,themeaningandtheimplicationsoftheadvent(ofthe
event)ofitsownfinding. To findthefilmis tofinda newpossibilityof
sight,a possibility
notjustofvision-but ofre-vision. Lanzmannfinds
preciselyin thefilmthematerialpossibilityand theparticularpoten-
tialofseeingagainsomeonelike Srebnikwhom,afterhis shooting, no
one was likelyorsupposedto see everagain.Evenmoreastonishingly,
thefinding ofthefilmprovidesin general,in history,thepossibilityof
seeingagainwhatin factwas neverseenthefirsttime,whatremained
originallyunseen due to the inherentblindingnatureof the occur-
rence.
TheReturn
The filmdoes notstop,however,at thesiteofits ownfinding(s), does

notsettleat its initialpointofarrival,butrather,uses thearrivalas a
pointofdeparture foranotherkindofjourney,a returntripwhich,go-
ingbackto theoriginally unperceivedhistoricalscene,takesplace as a
journeyto anotherframeofreference, enteringintowhatFreudcalls
eine andereLokalitdt-intoanotherscale ofspace and time:"I found
himinIsraelandpersuadedthatone-timeboysingertoreturnwithme
to Chelmno."
Why is it necessaryto returnto Chelmno?What is the return
about?Who,orwhat,returns?
Weare,I am,youare
bycowardiceorcourage
theoneswhofindourway
backtothisscene13
a knife,
carrying a camera
a bookofmyths
inwhichournamesdonotappear.14
The returnin Shoah fromIsraelto Europe(Poland,Chelmno),from
theplace ofthe regeneration
and the locus ofthe gathering
ofHolo-
13. "The film,"Lanzmannsays,"is at momentsa crimefilm.. ., [onthemodeof]a
criminalinvestigation.... Butit is a Westerntoo.WhenI returned
to thesmallvillage
ofGrabow,orevenin Chelmno.... Okay.I arriveherewitha camera,witha crew,but
fortyyears after.... This creates an incredible ... event, you know? Well ... I am the
firstmanto comebackto thesceneofthecrime,wherethecrimehas beencommitted
. . ." (Panel Discussion), 53.
14. AdrienneRich,Divingintothe Wreck(New Yorkand London:W. W. Norton,
1973),22.
caustsurvivors backto theprehistory oftheiroppressionandsuppres-
sion,backto theprimalsceneoftheirannihilation, is at oncea spatial
and a temporalreturn,a movementback in space and timewhich,in
attempting to revisitandto repossessthepastis also,simultaneously,
a movementforward towardthefuture.
The returnto Chelmnoby theboysingerforwhomtheChelmno
periodendedwitha bulletin theheadconcretizesat thesametime,al-
legorically,a historicalreturnof the dead. In a way,the returning
forty-seven-year-old Srebnik("He was then forty-seven yearsold,"
[4]),reappearingon the screenat the site oftheannihilation,theim-
probablesurvivor whoreturns fromIsraelto theEuropeansceneofthe
crimeagainsthim,is himselfrathera ghostofhis own youthfulper-
formance,a returning, reappearing ghostof the one-timewinnerof
chainedracesandoftheboysingerwho movedthePoles andcharmed
theSS, and who,like Scheherazade,succeededin postponinghis own
deathindefinitely by telling(singing)songs.Thus, if Srebnikon the
screenat forty-seven,in thesceneofChelmnooftoday,embodiesa re-
turnofthedead,his improbablesurvivaland his evenmoreimproba-
ble return(hisghostlyreappearance)concretizesallegorically, in his-
tory,a returnof the (missing,dead) witness on the scene of the
event-without-a-witness.
Srebnikhad,duringtheHolocaust,witnessedin effecthimself,in
Chelmno,a returnofthedead-a returnto lifeofthehalf-asphyxiated
bodiestumblingoutofthegasvans.Buthe witnessedthisrevival,this
returnofthedead,onlyso as tobecomea witnessto theirsecondmur-
der,toan evenmoreinfernal ofthelivingdead,by
killing(orre-killing)
a burningoftheirbodieswhile thoseare still alive and consciousof
theirburning,consciousoftheirown encounterwiththe flamesby
whichtheyareengulfed, devoured:
When[thegas vans]arrived,theSS said: "Open thedoors!". . . . The
bodiestumbled rightout.... Weworkeduntilthewholeshipment
wasburned.
I remember thatoncetheywerestillalive.Theovenswerefull,and
thepeoplelayontheground. Theywereallmoving, theywerecoming
backtolife,andwhentheywerethrown intotheovens,theywereall
Alive.Theycouldfeelthefireburnthem.[101-02]
conscious.
Srebnik'switnessdramatizesbotha burningconsciousnessofdeath,
oftheboundaryline whichseparates
and a crossing(and recrossing)
thelivingfromthedead,anddeathfromlife.ButwhenSrebniksaw all
SHOSHANA FELMAN 127
that,he was notreallya [living]witnesssince,likeBomba,15likePod-
chlebnik,16he toowas alreadydeadened.
WhenI saw all this,it didn'taffectme.... I was onlythirteen,
andall
I'd everseenuntilthenweredeadbodies.MaybeI didn'tunderstand,
maybeifI'dbeenolder, butthefactis,I didn't.
I'dneverseenanything
else.Intheghetto inLodzI sawthatas soonas anyonetooka step,he
felldead.I thoughtthat'sthewaythings hadtobe,thatitwasnormal.
I'd walkthestreets ofLodz,maybeonehundred yards,
andthere'd be
twohundred bodies.Theywentintothestreet andtheyfell,theyfell
So whenI came ... to Chelmno,I was already.. . I didn'tcareabout

anything.
[102-03]
Therefore, it is onlynow,todaythatSrebnikcan becomea witnessto
theimpactofthefalling(andtheburning) bodies,17onlytodaythathe
can situatehis witnessingin a frameof referencethat is not sub-
mergedbydeathand informed solelybyFiguren,bydeadbodies.It is
thereforeonlynow,in returning with Lanzmannto Chelmno,that
Srebnikin effectis returningfromthe dead (fromhis own deadness)
and can become,forthefirsttime,a witnessto himself,as well as an
articulateandforthefirsttimefullyconsciouswitnessofwhathe had
beenwitnessingduringtheWar.
TheReturnoftheWitness
Urgedby Lanzmann,Srebnik'sreturnfromthe dead personifies, in

thisway,a historically
performativeandretroactive
returnofwitness-
ingto thewitnesslesshistoricalprimalscene.
SrebnikrecognizesChelmno.
It'shardto recognize,
butit was here.Theyburned peoplehere....
No
Yes,thisistheplace.No oneeverlefthereagain.... Itwasterrible.
one can describeit.... And no one can understandit. Even I, here,
now.... I can'tbelieveI'mhere.No,I justcan'tbelieveit.Itwasal-
waysthispeacefulhere.Always.Whentheyburned twothousand peo-
15. Bomba:"I tellyousomething.To havea feelingaboutthat... itwas veryhardto
feelanything, becauseworkingtheredayandnightbetweendeadpeople,betweenbod-
youweredead.You hadno feelingat all." (116).
ies,yourfeelingdisappeared,
16. Podchlebnik:"Whatdiedin himin Chelmno?Everything died"(6).
17. On theimpactofthefallingbody,in conjunction withan innovativetheoryof
reference,cf.,CathyCaruth,"The Claims ofReference," in Yale JournalofCriticism
(Fall1990),vol.4, No. 1.
pie-Jews-everyday,itwasjustas peaceful.
No oneshouted. Every-
onewentabouthiswork.Itwassilent.Peaceful. as
Just itis now.
[6]
ChelmnorecognizesSrebnik.The Polishvillagersremember well
who "had to . .. [singwhen]his heartwept" (6),
the childentertainer
and theyidentifyand recognizethe pathos and the resonance,the
lyricsand themelodyofhis repeatedsinging:
anda halfyearsold.He hada lovelysinging
He wasthirteen voice,and
weheardhim.
A littlewhitehouse
lingersinmymemory
Ofthatlittlewhitehouse
I dreameachnight.[4]
"WhenI heardhim again,"one ofthe Polishvillagersremarks,"my
because whathappenedhere. .. was a murder.I re-
heartbeat faster,
allyrelivedwhathappened"(4).
LanzmannplacesSrebnikin thecenterofa groupofvillagersbefore
thechurchin Chelmno,which,at thetime,servedas a prison-house for
thedeported Jewsandas theultimatewaystation on theirjourney-via
gas vans-to theforest,wherethe (dead or living)bodieswerebeing
burnedawayin so-calledovens.The villagersat firstseemtrulyhappy
to see Srebnik,
whomtheywelcomecheerfully andwarmly.
Aretheyglad tosee Srebnikagain?
Very.It'sa greatpleasure.
They'regladtoseehimagainbecausethey
knowall he'slivedthrough. Seeinghimas he is now,theyarevery
pleased.[95]
Whydoesmemorylinger?,theinquirerwouldliketo know.Whatmo-
tivatesthislivelihoodoftheremembrance?
him?
Whydoes thewholevillageremember
They rememberhim well because he walkedwithchainson his an-
kles,andhesangontheriver.
He wasyoung,
hewasskinny,
helooked
readyforthecoffin.... Eventhe[Polish]lady,whenshesaw thatchild,
shetoldtheGerman: to?"
"Letthatchildgo!"He askedher:"Where
"To hisfatherandmother." said:
Lookingat thesky,[theGerman]
"He'llsoongotothem."[95-96]
WhenLanzmanngets,however,to thespecificsubjectoftheroleof
theChurchin thepastmassacreoftheJews,thePolishtestimony be-
SHOSHANA FELMAN 129
comes somewhatconfused.The evocationofthememoriesbecomes
itselfunknowingly
taintedwithfantasies.
whentheJewswerelockedin thischurch?
Theyremember
Yes,theydo...
Thevanscame to thechurchdoor!Theyall knewtheseweregas vans,
togas people?
Yes,theycouldn't
helpknowing.
Theyheardscreamsat night?
TheJews
moaned, ...
theywerehungry
Whatkindofcriesand moanswereheardat night?
TheycalledonJesus inGerman
andMaryandGod,sometimes ...
TheJewscalled on Jesus,Maryand God!
wasfullofsuitcases.
Thepresbytery
TheJews'suitcases?
Yes,andthere
wasgold.
How does she know therewas gold?Theprocession!We'llstopnow.
[97-98]
Like theNazi teacher'swife(whoonly"sees thingsfromoutside,"
[82]),the Poles embodyoutsidewitness-presentan outsideview of
theJewishdestiny, butan outsideviewwhichnonethelessbelievesit
can accountfortheinside:in trying to accountfortheinnermeaning
oftheJewishoutcryfrominsidetheChurch,andin accountingforthe
inner,unseencontentoftherobbedpossessionsoftheJewsinsidethe
confiscated suitcases,thePolesbearin effect false witness. Out ofem-
pathyin the firstcase, withrespectto the imaginedmoaningofthe
JewishprisonersoftheChurch,out ofhostilejealousyand ofcompet-
itiveaggression in thesecondcase,withrespectto theimaginary hid-
den treasuresand enviedpossessions,the Poles distortthe factsand
dream theirmemory,in exemplifying boththeirutterfailureto imag-
ine Othernessand theirsimplifiednegotiationofthe insideand the
outside,bymerelyprojecting theirinsideon theoutside.It is to their
ownfantasy, thatthePoles bearwit-
to theirown (self-)mystification
ness,in attempting to accountforhistoricalreality.Theirfalsewit-
ness is itself,however,an objectiveillustrationand concretization of
theradicallydelusionalqualityoftheevent.
The sceneis interrupted bythesilence-and thesoundofbells-of
the procession,a churchritualexecutedby younggirlsdressedin
white,whichcelebratesthebirthoftheVirginMary.
This ritualcelebrationof the images of youthand the predomi-
nance of whitein the religiousceremonyconnotethe innocenceof
childhood,thepureintegrity andtheintactnessofvirginity, whichthe
ritualis evokingas theattributes oftheHolyVirgin.Andyet,thepres-
ence ofSrebnikat thesceneremindsus ofanotherkindofchildhood,
and thecontiguity ofthisratherunvirginalandviolatedchildhood(of
thechildwho had to singwhenhis heartwept)withtheimmaculate
virginity hereenacted,ofitselfcreatesan almostsacrilegious,and de-
sacralizingresonance,in an astounding, andbreathtaking
vertiginous,
cinematiccondensationand juxtapositionofdifferent dimensions,of
different ofspaceandtime,ofdifferent
registers levelsofexistenceand
experience.The sudden,unexpectedsuperimposition of the Holo-
caust in whichthe churchservedas a deathenclosure(as the ante-
chamberto the gas vans) and ofthepresentChristiancelebrationof
thebirthoftheVirginMary,bringsout a terribleand silentirony,ofa
churchthatin effectembodiesa mass tomb,at thesame timethatit
celebratesa birth,ofa sitewhosehistoryis stainedwithblood,at the
same timethatit is thestageofan obliviouscelebrationofan ethical
virginityand of an intactlywhite immaculateness.Verylike the
whitenessofthesnowcoveringtheforestsofSobibor,Auschwitz,and
Treblinka,thewhitenessoftheritualitselfturnsout to be an image
which,quite literally,coversup history,as the embodiment(and as
thedisembodiment) ofa whitesilence.
Viewingtheprocession,one recallsBenjamin'sdiscussionofcon-
temporary artand,particularly, ofphotography and filmas vehicles,
specifically,of desacralization,as acceleratingagentsin the modern
culturalprocessofthe"shattering"-andofthe"liquidation"-of the
cult-valuesoftradition:
in theserviceof a
We knowthattheearliestartworksoriginate
ritual-firstthemagical,thenthereligiouskind.... [Now]forthefirst
timeinworldhistory,
mechanical
reproduction andfilm]
[photography
theworkofartfromitsparasitical
emancipates on rit-
dependence
ual.... The totalfunctionofartis reversed.Insteadofbeingbasedon
ritual, beginstobebasedonanother
[art] practice-politics.18
18. WalterBenjamin,"The WorkofArtin theAge ofMechanicalReproduction,"

op.cit.,223-24.
SHOSHANA FELMAN 131
Lanzmann'scameraconverts,in the church
In a surprisetranslation,
scene, the religiousand the artisticinto the political.The church
scenethusbecomestheunexpected,suddencinematographic exhibi-
tionofuncannydepthsofpoliticalsignificance withintheveryritual
oftheprocession.
The ReturnofHistory
Aftertheprocession, tothe
Lanzmann-who doesnotforget-returns
interrupted
subjectoftheinsideoftheJewishsuitcases.
The lady said beforethat the Jews'suitcases were dumpedin the
houseopposite[thechurch].Whatwas in thisbaggage?
Potswithfalsebottoms.
Whatwas in thefalsebottoms?
objectsofvalue.Theyalsohadgoldintheirclothes...
Valuables,
Whydo theythinkall thishappenedto theJews?
ManyPoleswerealso exterminated.
Becausetheyweretherichest!
EvenPriests.
[99]
Lanzmann'stourde forceas interviewer is to elicitfromthewitness,
as in this case, a testimonywhichis inadvertently no longerin the
controlorthepossessionofitsspeaker.As a solicitorandan assembler
ofthe testimonies, in his functionas a questionerbut mainly,in his
functionas a listener(as thebearerofa narrativeoflistening),Lanz-
mann'sperformance is to elicit testimonywhich exceeds the testi-
fier'sownawareness,to bringfortha complexity oftruthwhich,para-
doxically,is not available as such to theveryspeakerwhopronounces
it. As a listener,Lanzmannendowstheinterlocutor withspeech.It is
in thisway thathe helpsboththe survivorsand the perpetrators to
overcometheir(verydifferent kindof)silence.FacingLanzmann,the
Polishvillagers,in turn,exhibitfeelingsthatwouldnormallybe hid-
den.Butthesilentinterviewer and thesilentcameraurgeus notsim-
plyto see thetestimony, butto see throughit:to see-throughoutthe
testimony-thedeceptionand the self-deception which it unwit-
tinglydisplays, and to which it unintentionally testifies.
Whydo theythinkall thishappenedto theJews?
Because theywere the richest!Many Poles were also exterminated.
EvenPriests.
132 Yale FrenchStudies
In responseto Lanzmann'squestion,Mr. Kantorowski,
theplayerof
theorganand thesingerofthechurch,findshis wayout ofthecrowd
whichsurroundsSrebnikand,pushinghimselfin frontofthecamera,
overshadowsSrebnikand eclipseshim:
Mr. Kantorowskiwill tell us what a friendtold him. It happenedin
Myndjewyce,nearWarsaw.
Go on.
The Jewsthereweregatheredin a square.The rabbiaskedan SS man:
"Can I talk to them?"The SS man said yes. So the rabbisaid that
aroundtwothousand
yearsago theJewscondemned
theinnocent
Christto death.Andwhentheydidthat,theycriedout:"Lethisblood
fallon ourheads and on our sons' heads." Then therabbitoldthem:
"Perhapsthetimehas comeforthat,so letus do nothing, letus go,let
us do as we'reasked./"
He thinkstheJewsexpiatedthedeathofChrist?
thinkso,oreventhatChrist
He doesn't sought Therabbisaid
revenge.
it.Itwas God'swill,that'sall.19[99-100]
Throughthevoiceofthechurchsingerwhichseemsto takeon the
to speakforthewholegroup,and throughthemythicmedi-
authority
ationbothofarchetypal ofanti-Semitism
stereotypes andoftheChris-
19. On thegeneralizable historicalsignificance ofthispassage,cf.,PeterCanning's

remarkable analysisin "JesusChrist,Holocaust:FabulationoftheJewsinChristianand
Nazi History":"The compulsiveritualofaccusingtheJewsofmurder(orbetrayal,or
well-poisoning, ordesecrationoftheHost)andattacking themis inscribed withbodies
in history;it is not prescribedbut onlyimplicitlysuggestedin the New Testament,
whichpreacheslove and forgiveness. In theGospelit is 'theJews'who call downthe
wrathofGod on themselves:'Let his bloodbe on us and on ourchildren!'(Mt.27:25)
Recitingthistext,thePolishvillagerswhomClaude Lanzmanninterviewed. .. excuse
themselves, theGermansandGod-all areabsolvedofresponsibility fortheHolocaust.
Once again,'theJewsbrought it on themselves.'The Crucifixion was theircrime.The
Holocaustwas thepunishment whichtheycalleddownontheirownheads,andontheir
children.
The biblicalmythfunctions as an attractor,notonlyofothernarratives butofongo-
ing events which it assimilates. What I must risk calling the Holo-mythof
Christianity-divine incarnation, crucifixion,resurrection-isnot the one sourceor
cause oftheHolocaust,it 'attracted' othercausalfactorsto it (thewar,inflation,politi-
cal-ideologicalcrisis,socioeconomicconvulsions), absorbedthemand overdetermined
theirresolution.... Those othercriticalfactors, and theirresolutionin a fascistsyn-
cretism,werenotalonecapableofturning antisemitism intosystematic mass murder.
Nazism reactivatedthe clich6it had inheritedfromthe ChristianHolomythand its
reenactment intheeventofritualmurder, buttransformed itintoa regular,
mechanized
destruction process.(171-72).In Copyright 1,Finde sikle 2000 (Fall 1987).
SHOSHANA FELMAN 133
tian storyofthe Crucifixion,
the Poles endowthe Holocaust witha
strangecomprehensibilityand witha facileand exhaustivecompati-
bility with knowledge: "It was God's will, that's all.... That's all.
Now youknow!"(100).It is bydehistoricizing
theeventsofrecenthis-
tory,and by subsumingthemunderthe propheticknowledgeof the
thatthePoles areliterallywashingtheirhandsofthehis-
Scriptures,
toricalextermination
oftheJews:
So Pilatewashedhishandsandsaid:"Christis innocent,"
andhesent
Barabas.ButtheJewscriedout:"Lethisbloodfallonourheads!"
That'sall.Nowyouknow.[100]
Thus thePoles misrepresent, oncemore,theJewsfromtheinside,and
theobjectivenatureoftheJewishdestinyand slip,once more,across
theboundarylinebetweenrealityandfantasy;theyunwittingly begin
to dreamrealityand to hallucinatetheirmemory.In testifying to a
murderwhich theygo so faras to call suicide,the Poles bear once
againfalsewitnessbothto thehistoryofNazism and to thehistoryof
theJews.
Butonce again,thismisrepresentation (thisfalsewitness)is itself
attributedpreciselyto theJewsand represented as theirinsidestory.
Like theNazis, who maketheJewspay fortheirowndeathtraffic and
participate-through"work details"-in the managementof their
own slaughter, the Poles pretendto have the Jewsprovidetheirown
oftheirhistoryandtheirownexplanationoftheirmur-
interpretation
der.Kantorowskithusclaimsthathis own mythicaccountis in fact
theJews'ownversionoftheHolocaust.
He thinkstheJewsexpiatedthedeathofChrist?
He doesn't
thinkso,oreventhatChristsought Therabbisaid
revenge.
it.Itwas God'swill,that'sall. [100]
In forging, so to speak,therabbi'ssignatureso as to punctuatehis
own false witness and to authorizehis own false testimony,Kan-
torowskidisavowsresponsibility forhis own discourse.In opposition
to the act of signingand of saying"I" by which the authenticwit-
nesses assume at once theirdiscourse,theirspeechact and theirre-
sponsibility towardhistory("I foundhimin Israelandpersuadedhim
to return... ," says Lanzmann;"I understandyourrole,I am here,"
says Karski;"I can't believeI'm here,"says Srebnik),Kantorowski's
testimony is destinedto remainunsigned.
Mr.Kantorowski, afterall,doesindeedin somewaysremainsilent.
Not onlybecause,as he claims,it is thewordsofthe dead rabbithat
speakforhim.Butbecausewhatspeaksthrough him(insucha wayas
to accountforhis roleduringtheHolocaust)is, on theone hand,the
(historic)silenceoftheChurchand,on theotherhand,thesilenceof
all givenframesofexplanation,thenon-speechofall preconceived in-
terpretive schemes,whichdisposeofthe event-and ofthebodies
by reference to some otherframe.The collapse ofthe materiality of
historyandtheseductionofa fable,thereductionofa threatening and
incomprehensible eventto a reassuring
mythic,totalizingunityofex-
planation,is in effectwhat all interpretiveschemestendto do. Mr.
Kantorowski'ssatisfiedand vacuous interpretation stands,however,
forthe failureof all ready-made culturaldiscoursesbothto account
for-and to bearwitnessto-the Holocaust.
The film'sstrategyis not to challengethe falsewitness,but to
make the silence speak fromwithinand fromaroundthe falsewit-
ness: thesilencewithineach ofthetestimonies;thesilencebetween
varioussilencesand varioustestimonies;the irremediable silenceof
the dead; the irremediablesilence of the naturallandscapes;the si-
lenceofthechurchprocession;thesilenceoftheready-made cultural
discoursespretending to accountfortheHolocaust;and above all, in
thecenterofthefilm,Srebnik'ssilencein frontofthe church,in the
middleofthetalkative,delirious,self-complacent Polishcrowd.The
church scene is an astonishingemblem of the multiplicityand
the complexityof layerswhichunfoldbetweenthis centralsilence
andthevariousspeecheswhichproceedfromit and encroachuponit.
Like a hall ofmirrors,thechurchsceneis a hall ofsilencesinfinitely
resonantwithone another."Thereare manyharmonies,"says Lanz-
mann,"manyconcordancesin thefilm.I knewveryquicklythatthe
filmwouldbe builtin a circularway,witha stillnessat thecenter,like
theeyeofa hurricane."20
The silencereenactstheeventofsilence."Itwas alwaysthispeaceful
here,"Srebnikhadsaid,"Always.Whentheyburnedtwothousandpeo-
ple-Jews-everyday,itwas justas peaceful.No oneshouted.Everyone
wentabouthiswork.Itwas silent.Peaceful.Justas itis now" (6).
20. Quotedin "A MonumentAgainstForgetting," TheBostonGlobe,3 November

1985,3.Cf.,Lanzmann'sremarks inhisinterviewwithRogerRosenblatt, forchannel13
(PublicTelevisionWNET,USA 1987): "Whenone deals withthe destruction of the
Jews,one has to talkandto be silentat thesame moment.... I thinkthereis moresi-
lencein Shoahthanwords."
SHOSHANA FELMAN 135
Indeed,thechurchsceneis notjusta hall (a mirroring) ofsilences,
buttheverystageoftheperformance-oftheexecutionand therepe-
tition-of an act ofsilencing.AlthoughSrebnikherepersonifies the
returnofthewitness-the returnofwitnessingintotheverysceneof
the event-without-a-witness,what the churchscene putsinto effect
and playsout,notin memorybut in actual fact(andact),is how the
real witness,in returningback to historyand life,is once againre-
duced to silence,struckdead by the crowd.The scene is even more
complex,sincewhatthecrowdpointsoutas theJews'crimeandas the
reasonforthe Holocaust is the Crucifixion,or the Jews'murderof
Christ.ButthePolishvillagersarenotawarethattheythemselvesare
in turnactingoutpreciselysuch a ritualmurderstory;21 theyareun-
awareoftheprecisewaysin whichtheythemselvesare actuallyen-
actingboththe Crucifixionand the Holocaust in annihilatingSreb-
nik,in killingonce again the witnesswhomtheytotallydisposeof,
andforget.
What Kantorowski'stestimonychooses to deny-his signature,
his voice,thePoles' responsibility-itthusperforms, reenactsbefore
oureyes.Whatis notavailablein words,whatis denied,whatcannot
and whatwill notbe remembered or articulated,
nonethelessgetsre-
alized.Whattakesplacein thefilm,whatmaterially andunexpectedly
occursand whatreturnslike a ghost,is reference itself,theveryob-
ject-and theverycontent-ofhistoricalerasure.
I wouldsuggestthatwhatthefilmshowsus here,in action,is the
veryprocessofthere-forgetting oftheHolocaust,in therepeatedmur-
derofthewitnessandin therenewedreductionofthewitnessingto si-
lence.The filmmakesthetestimony happen-happen inadvertently
as a secondHolocaust.The silentSrebnikin the middleofthispic-
ture-with his beautifully dignifiedand tragicmutesmile,and with
his mutelyspeakingface (a face signedby his silence)is in effecta
ghost:a ghostwhich,as such, is essentiallynot contemporaneous;
contemporaneous, in reality,neitherwith the voices of the crowd
whichsurroundshim,noreven withhimself-withhis own muted
voice. What the churchscene dramatizesis the only possible en-
counterwiththeHolocaust,in theonlypossibleformofa misseden-
counter.22
21. Foran acutedescription ofthefunctioning ofthe "ritualmurderstory"in his-

tory,cf.,again,PeterCanning,"JesusChrist,Holocaust:FabulationoftheJewsin Chris-
tianandNazi History"(op.cit.,170-73).
22. Cf.,Lacan'sconceptionof"theReal" as a "missedencounter"and as "whatre-
I wouldsuggestpreciselythatthefilmis abouttheessenceofthis
missed contemporaneity betweenSrebnikand the semicirclewhich
surrounds him,betweenSrebnik'svoice andhis own silence,andfun-
damentally,betweentheHolocaustexperienceand thewitnessofthe
Holocaustexperience.
Shoahaddressesthespectatorwitha challenge.Whenwe aremade
to witnessthisreenactmentofthemurderofthewitness,thissecond
Holocaust thatappearsspontaneouslybeforethe cameraand on the
screen,can we in ourturnbecomecontemporaneous withthemean-
ingandwiththesignificance ofthatenactment?Can we becomecon-
temporaneous withtheshock,withthedisplacement, withthedisori-
entationprocessthatis triggeredby such testimonialreenactment?
Can we,in otherwords,assumein earnest,notthefinitetaskofmak-
ingsense out oftheHolocaust,but the infinitetask ofencountering
Shoah?
III
TheReturnoftheSong
If the churchscene is thuspunctuated,signedby Srebnik'ssilence,

whereis Srebnik'stestimony,here lost, to be found?The filmin-
cludes,indeed,an elementthroughwhichtheverysilencingofSreb-
nik'svoice can be somehowreversed,throughwhichtheveryloss of
Srebnik'stestimonycan be somehowrecovered,or at least resistits
own forgetting and itselfby reencountered,
in the repetitionof the
in
melodyand thereturnofSrebnik's"melodiousvoice" in his reiter-
atedsinging.In spiteofhis ownsilencingandofhis silence,thereturn
ofthewitnessundertaken bythefilmnonethelesspersists,takesover,
and survivesin the returnof the song. In the absence-and the
failure-ofthe contemporaneity betweentheHolocaustand its own
witness,the songneverthelesscreatesa differentkindofcontempo-
raneitybetweenthe voice and the historical(revisited)site of the
voice,betweenthe songand theplace at whichthe songis (andwas)
heard,betweenthevoice and theplace to which,at thebeginningof
thefilm,thesongin factgivesvoice:
... itwas here.... Yes,thisis theplace. [5]
turnstothesameplace."Le Sgminaire, livreXI,Les Quatreconceptsfondamentaux
de
la psychoanalyse
(Paris:Seuil: 1973);trans.AlanSheridan,TheFourFundamentalCon-
ceptsofPsychoanalysis(NewYork:W.W.Norton:1978)chapters3-5.
SHOSHANA FELMAN 137
The songcreates,indeed,an unexpectedcontemporaneity
betweenits
resonanceand theverysilenceoftheplace.
reiterated
It was alwaysthispeaceful
here.Always.... It was silent.Peaceful.
Justas itis now.
[6]
At thesametime,thiscontemporaneity betweenpresentandpast,be-
tweenthesingingvoice and thesilentplace,remainsentirelyincom-
prehensible
to,and thusnoncontemporaneous with,thewitness.
No one can understandit. Even I, here,now.... I can't believeI'm
here.No, I justcan'tbelieveit. [6]
It is in hovering
betweenthewaysin whichitis at oncecontempo-
raneouswith the place and noncontemporaneous with the witness
(withthesinger),thatthesongreturnsto theinconceivablehistorical
site ofits own singing,and thattheharmoniesand thedisharmonies
ofthisreturnof the songprovidean entrance,or a threshold, to the
thefirstto speakafter
film.It is thesongwhichis thefirstto testify,
the voicelessopeningofthe narrator. The songencroacheson-and
breaks-at once thesilenceofthelandscapeand themutenessofthe
writingon thescreen.ThroughSrebnik'svoice,thefilmintroducesus
intothe soothingnotesand the nostalgiclyricsofa Polishfolktune
whichitself,however,dreamsabout,andyearnsfor,anotherplace.
A littlewhitehouse
lingersinmymemory
eachnight I dream.
[4]
The WhiteHouse
Srebnik'svoice inhabitshis own song.But does anyoneinhabitthe

"whitehouse" of which he sings?Who can enterthe whitehouse?
Does the"I" ofSrebnik(the"I" who "can'tbelievehe's here")inhabit
whathis voice is so dreamilyand yearningly evoking?Whatin factis
thereinsidethe"littlewhitehouse"?Whatis therebeyondthethresh-
old,behindthewhitenessofthehouse?
The longingforthewhitehouse recallsthewhitevirginity ofthe
procession.The whitehouse seemsas safe,as wholesome,as immac-
ulate in its invitationand its promise,as thewhiteprocessionofthe
youthful virgins.Andyet,we knowthatit is notonlyvirginity,butan
aberrantviolationoflives and ofthe innocenceofchildhood, that is
implied ironicallyand silentlyby the juxtapositionof the church
scene,andbythewhitenessoftheritualceremony.
Virginity is what is not writtenupon. The whiteis, on the one
hand,thecolorofthevirginpagebeforethewriting-thewhitehouse
sungbeforethewritingofthefilm-but also, on the otherhand,the
verycoloroferasure.23 Fortheviewerwhohas seenthefilm,andwho
has comefullcircle-like thefilm,likethesong-to startagainat the
beginning, the "whitehouse" bringsto mindnotjust the snow that,
whitelycoveringthepeacefulmeadows,coversup theemptiedgraves
fromwhichthe dead bodies were disinterred so as to be reducedto
ashes,burnedaway,but similarlyin a different sense,thelaterimage
ofwhitehousesin thePolishvillageofWladowa,a villageonceinhab-
itedbyJewsbutwhoseJewishhouseshavebeensincevacated(likethe
gravesunderthesnow)bytheiroriginalinhabitants in ex-
(obliterated
terminationcamps)and are now occupied,owned and inhabitedby
Poles. The littlewhitehouse yearnedforthusturnsout to be itself,
ironicallyenough,a ghosthouse;a ghosthousethatbelongsat onceto
dreaming("Of thatlittlewhitehouse / Each nightI dream")and to
memory("A littlewhitehouse /lingersin mymemory").
Callingus intoa dream,thewhitehouse,paradoxically, will also
forceus to wake up. Plungedintothedreamybeautyofthelandscape
and into the dreamyyearningofthe melodyofthewhitehouse,the
spectatoras a witness-like the witnessofhistory-has literallyto
wake up to a realitythatis undreamtof,wake up,thatis, intotheun-
thinkablerealizationthatwhathe is witnessing is notsimplya dream.
We will be calleduponto see thefilm-and to viewperception-crit-
ically,to discriminaterealityfromdream,in spite of the confus-
ingminglingofmemoryand dream,in spiteofthe deceptivequality
of what is given to directperception.On the borderlinebetween
dreamingand memory,the song-as a concrete,materialresidueof
history-is that"small elementofrealitythatis evidencethatwe are
notdreaming."24 The residueofan implicitviolence(theunquantifi-
able ransomwithwhichSrebnikhas to keepbuyinghis life)whichat
thesametimeis luringly soothing,thesongincorporates therealboth
in
in itsliteral,andyetalso, its deceptivequality.As a purveyor ofthe
23. Whiteis thus,forinstance,thecoloroftheblankpageofforgetfulness on which

theex-Nazicommissioner oftheWarsawghetto, claimsto "takenotes"to
Dr. Grassler,
"refresh"thetotalblanknessofhis memoryabouthis Nazi past.
24. As Lacanputsitin an altogether
different
context.Cf.,'Tuche andAutomaton"
(Chapter5:2),in TheFourFundamentalConceptsofPsychoanalysis, op.cit.,60.
SHOSHANA FELMAN 139
real,thesonginvitesus, at thethreshold ofthefilm,to crossoverfrom
thelandscapeandthewhitehouseintoan encounter(a collision)with
the actualityofhistory.It melodiouslyinvitesus to a crossingofthe
distancebetweenartand reference. And no one can suspectthatthis
melodiousinvitationwas in history, and is now in thefilm,an invita-
tionto theshockofan awakening;ofan awakeningto a realitywhose
scrutiny requiresa degreeofvigilance,ofwakefulnessand ofalertness
suchthatit exceedsperhapshumancapacity.No one can suspectthat
whatawaitsus frombehindthewhitehouseis notsimplya nightmare,
buttheurgency ofwakingup intoa historyanda realitywithrespectto
whichwe arenot,andperhapscannotbe,fullyand sufficiently awake.
The place fromwhichthesonginvokesus at the thresholdofthe
filmand to whichit points,at the same timeas the locus ofthe real
andas theoriginofsinging,designates, I wouldsuggest,theplace ofart
withinthefilm:thesongbecomesitselfa metaphorforthewholefilm
whichis inauguratedby its melody,and whichregistersthe impact
andtheresonanceofitsreturns.Openedbythesong,thefilmdoesnot
simplyshowitself,it calls us. It calls us throughthesingingit enacts.
It is askingus to listento,andhear,notjustthemeaningofthewords
butthecomplexsignificance oftheirreturn,and theclashingechoes
of theirmelodyand of theircontext.The filmcalls us into hearing
both this clash and its own silence. It calls us into what it cannot
show,butwhatit nonethelesscan pointto. The songinauguratesthis
callingand thisact ofpointing.
Yes,thisis theplace...
Shoahbeginswiththeapparentinnocenceofsinging,onlytothrustus
moreprofoundly and astonishingly
intothediscrepancybetweenthe
lyricsand theircontext,onlyto pointus moresharplytowardtheam-
biguitythatlies behindthatinnocence.
A littlewhitehouse
lingersinmymemory ... [4]
repeatssweetlythesong.Butanothervoiceproceedsto speakoverthe
resonanceofthesong:
WhenI heardhimagain,myheartbeatfaster,
becausewhathappened
here... wasa murder.
[5]
in Polish,thefirstvoice-over-whoseoriginis notim-
Thus testifies,
mediatelyidentifiable,locatable-in the words of one of the by-
one ofthePolishwitnessesofhistory.
standers,
Then Srebnik'sfacein a close-up-the face thatcarriesboththe
lightness,theenticingsweetnessofthesongand theweight,theout-
rageand the cruelty,ofhistory-twiststhe silenceofits pain into a
smileand gazes vacantly,incredibly,
incredulouslythroughsurvival,
death,and time,throughpiles of vanishedburnedbodies into the
greentrees,thebrownearth,and theperspectiveoftheblue horizon:
Yes,thisis theplace.... No oneeverlefthereagain.[5]
Darum, Warum
The contradictionsriddlingtheverybeautyofthefirstsongareaggra-
vated,underscored, and sharpenedby the appearanceof the second
songwhich,narratively,is a singingreplica-or a melodiouscounter-
part-to thefirstsongbutwhich,rhetorically andmusically,setsup a
dissonanceand a sharpcontrastwiththeharmoniesand withthein-
nocenceoftheinitialsinginginvitation.
He sangPolishfolktunes,and inreturn
theguardtaughthimPrussian
militarysongs.[3]
don'tyoucry,
You,girls,
don'tbeso sad,forthedearsummer is nearing
...
andwithitI'llreturn.
A mugofredwine,a pieceofroast
is whatthegirlsgivetheirsoldiers.
Therefore.-Why?
Therefore.-Why?
[Darum.-Warum?,Darum.-Warum?]
[Therefore-Wherefore?,
Therefore-Wherefore?]
Whenthesoldiersmarchthrough thetown,
thegirlsopentheirdoorsandwindows.
Therefore.
Why? Therefore.
Why?
Onlybecauseofthis[sound]
Bum! [Cymbals,
Tschindarrassa: Drum].[6]25
The twosongssungbySrebnikarecontrasted andopposedin many
ways.Althoughtheyarebothfolktunesandareboth-by implication
thedialoguebetweenthetunein Polish
or explicitly-aboutreturns,
anditscounterpartin Germanis morethana meredialogueofforeign
25. Translation all theGermanlyricsthatare

modifiedand expanded,transcribing
clearlyaudiblein thefilm.
SHOSHANA FELMAN 141
tongues.Whereasthesongaboutthewhitehouseconcretizes a dreamof
arrival-an implicitdreamofreaching-thePrussianmilitarysongis
markedbya departure anda passageandis a ritual,notofarriving orof
comingtoinhabit, butofleaving.The actofleaving,at thesametime,is
disguised,denied,and maskedbya discursiverhetoric ofcomingback
andbya promiseofreturning. Apparently,thePrussiansongis as sweet
initsyearning andas harmlessas thePolishsong.Andyet,theelements
oflureon theone hand,and on theotherhandofa subordinating force
become(almost)apparent. Byvirtueofitsfunction as a military march,
and throughthe forcefulbeats of its percussions("Tschindarrassa,
Bum!";"Darum,Warum"),thePrussiansong26incorporates thelatent
rhythms andbombs.Hintingat boththemalignancy
ofartillery ofthe
deceptionand theviolenceto come,the songimplicitlyincludesthe
military connotations-andthemetaphoric, tactilecontiguity-of war,
ofbloodshed("a mugofredwine"),ofbrutality ("a pieceofroast"),and
ofphysicalinvasion("thegirlsopen theirdoorsand windows").The
wholesong,withthebeatsofitsrepeatedrhymes betweenitsquestions
and its answers("Darum,Warum"),and withits metaphoricfemale
giftsofdrinking,eating,andofopening("thegirlsopentheirdoorsand
windows"),is a figurefora sexualinterplay;buttheinterplay is one of
conquestand of transitory militaryand sexual occupation.It is as
thoughtheenigmaofthewhitehouse-the enigmaofa spacethatis in-
violateandintimate, sungin thefirstsong-were,so to speak,invaded,
cancelledout,forcedopenby thesecond.No wonderthat,behindthe
lureofits enticingsurface,thecharmoftheGermansong(whichpri-
marilyplaysout a sexualtease)turnsout to be itselfa sadistictoolby
whichthesingingchildbecomesa hostageto theGermans,an instru-
mentoftorment andabusethrough whichyoungSrebnikis reducedby
his adult spectatorsto a chained,dancingmarionettetransformed-
playfully andcruelly-intoa singingtoy.
The WordofOur Commander
It is in thiswaythattheshiftbetweenthePolishsongand itsGerman
reply("and in return,theguardtaughthim Prussianmilitarysongs")
is accomplishedat thethresholdofthefilm,as a subtle-and yetomi-
nous-transaction,an invisible-yetaudible-exchangebetweenthe
26. In myanalysisofthePrussiansong,I owe bothgratitude to Dr.
and inspiration
ErnstPrelinger,
who has providedme witha sophisticatedexplanationoftheoriginal
Germanlyricsofthesong,an explanationwhichinformsmydiscussionofithere.
music of the victim and the music of (and fromthe point of view of)
the perverseoppressor.
Another song which, later in the film,will mark Nazi perversity
and Nazi violence much more explicitly and in which the victim,
equally, will have to sing the point ofview ofthe oppressor,is the song
whose singersare today entirelyextinguishedand to which only the
ex-Nazi Suchomel is able to bear witness, by singingit to Lanzmann.
In much the same way as the singersofthe song sang it in a voice that
was not theirs-the voice ofthe oppressor-Suchomel, inversely,now
reproduces the forced singing of the victims in the alien and jaunty
voice ofthe ex-Nazi. It is thus that Suchomel repeatsto Lanzmann the
Treblinka hymn that the camp prisonerswere forcedto sing, forthe
guard'spleasure:
Lookingsquarelyahead,braveandjoyous,at theworld,
thesquadsmarchto work.
All thatmattersto us nowis Treblinka.
It is ourdestiny.
That'swhywe'vebecomeone withTreblinka
in no timeat all.
WeknowonlythewordofourCommander,
we knowonlyobedienceandduty,
we wantto serve,to go on serving,
untila littleluckendsit all. Hurray!
"Once more, but louder," Lanzmann requests, in response to Su-
chomel's completed singing. Suchomel obliges Lanzmann. "We're
laughing about it," he says with a mixture of complicity and conde-
scension, "but it's so sad."
No oneis laughing.
Don't be soreat me. You wanthistory-I'mgivingyouhistory.
Franz
wrotethewords.The melodycomesfromBuchenwald.CampBuchen-
wald,whereFranzwas a guard.New Jewswhoarrivedin themorning,
new "workerJews,"weretaughtthesong.Andbyeveningtheyhadto
be able to singalongwithit.
Singit again.
All right.
Butloud!
It's veryimportant.
Lookingsquarelyahead,braveandjoyous,at theworld,
thesquadsmarchto work.
SHOSHANA FELMAN 143
Allthatmatters tous nowis Treblinka.
Itis ourdestiny.
That'swhywe'vebecomeonewithTreblinka
innotimeatall.
WeknowonlythewordofourCommander,
weknowonlyobedience andduty,
wewanttoserve, togoonserving,
untila littleluckendsitall.Hurray!
[105-06]
Havingthusrepeatedonce again the song,Suchomel,proudand be-
musedat his ownmemory,concludes:
Satisfied?
That'sunique.No Jewknowsthattoday![106]
The self-complacency, the eagernessof Suchomelin obligingLanz-
mannsuggestthathe, too,in effectenjoysand takesimplicitlysadis-
ticpleasurein theact ofhis own singing,in his own staged,imitative
musicalperformance andin theinconceivablediscrepancy ofhis own
representation ofthevictims."You wanthistory-I'mgivingyouhis-
tory."Can historybe given?How does Suchomelgive history,and
whatdoes the act of"giving"-the giftofreality-heremean?Ironi-
callyenough,thesongis literallyhistoryinsofaras it conveysthishis-
toricaldiscrepancy and thissadisticpleasure,at thesame timethatit
speaksthrough thehistoricalextinctionofthemessageandtheobjec-
tificationofthevoice. As a literalresidueofthereal,the songis his-
toryto theextentthatit inscribeswithinitself,precisely, thishistori-
cal discrepancy, this incommensurability between the voice of its
sadisticauthorand thevoice ofits tormented singers.Whatis histori-
cally"unique"aboutthesongis thefactthatitis a Nazi-authored Jew-
ish songthat"no Jewknowstoday.""You wanthistory-I'm giving
youhistory. " In theveryoutrageofitssingingdoubly,at twodifferent
moments(in the camp and in the film,by the victimsand by Su-
chomel)in a voicethatis not,andcannotbecome,itsown,thesongis,
so to speak,theoppositeofa signedtestimony, an antitestimony that
consists,once more,in theabsenceand in theveryforging ofits Jew-
ish signature.Like Mr. Kantorowski's mythicalaccountoftheHolo-
caust,theNazi narrativeoftheJews'victimization(bothin thecamp
songandin Suchomel'srevoicingofit)is a speechact thatcan neither
ownitsmeaningnorpossessitselfas testimony. "You wanthistory-
I'm givingyouhistory."As theextinctionofthesubjectofthe signa-
tureandas theobjectification ofthevictim'svoice,"history"presents
itselfas antitestimony. Butthefilmrestitutesto history-andto the
song-its testimonialfunction.Paradoxicallyenough,it is fromthe
veryevidenceofits enactmentas an antitestimony thatthe songde-
rivesthetestimonialpowerofitsrepetition andthehistoriceloquence
ofits unlikelyand ghostlyreturn:"Sing it again.... It's veryimpor-
tant.Butloud!"
The Quest oftheRefrain,ortheImperativeto Sing
I would suggestthattheimperative,"Singit again,"is theperforma-

tiveimperative thatartisticallycreatesthefilmandthatgovernsboth
its structureand its ethicaland epistemologicalendeavor:to make
truthhappenas a testimony throughthehauntingrepetition ofan ill-
understood melody;to makethereferent comeback,paradoxically, as
somethingheretofore unseenbyhistory;to revealtherealas theim-
pactofa literality
thathistorycannotassimilateorintegrate as knowl-
edge,butthatit keepsencountering in thereturnofthesong.
"Our memory,"writesValery,"repeatsto us whatwe haven'tun-
derstood.Repetitionis addressedto incomprehension."27 We "sing
again" whatwe cannotknow,whatwe havenotintegrated andwhat,
consequently, we can neitherfullymasternorcompletelyunderstand.
In Shoah, the song standsforthe activationof the memoryof the
wholefilm,a memorythatno one can possess,and whoseprocessof
collectingand of recollectingis constantlytornapartbetweenthe
pull,thepressureandthewill ofthewordsand thedifferent, indepen-
dentpull ofthe melody,whichhas its own momentumand its own
compulsionto repeatbut whichdoes not knowwhatin factit is re-
peating.
The whole film,whichends onlyto beginwiththe returnofthe
song,testifiesto historylike a hauntingand interminable refrain.28
The functionoftherefrain-whichis itselfarchaicallyreferred to as
"theburdenofthesong"-like theburdenofthevocal echowhich,as
thoughmechanically, returnsin theinterviewer's voice thelastwords
ofthediscourseofhis interlocutors, is to createa difference through
therepetition,toreturna questionoutofsomethingthatappearstobe
27. Valery,"Commentaire " in Oeuvres(Paris:Gallimard,

de Charmes, bibliotheque
de la P1kiade:1957),vol. 1, 1510;mytranslation.
28. "Shoah,"saysLanzmann,"had to be builtlike a musicalpiece,wherea theme
appearsat a lowerlevel,disappears, comesbackat a higherlevelorin fullforce,disap-
pears,and so on. It was theonlywayto keepseveralparameters together"(PanelDis-
cussion,44).
SHOSHANA FELMAN 145
an answer:Darum,Warum("Therefore.-Why?") The echo does not
simplyreproducewhatseems to be its motivation,but ratherputsit
intoquestion.Wheretherehad seemedtobe a rationale,a closureand
a limit,therefrainlike
repetitionopensup a vacuum,a crevice,and,
through it,theundefinedspace ofan openquestion.
Theflames
reached tothesky.
Tothesky.. . [6]
TheSinger'sVoice
Whatgivesthisrefrainlike structureofthefilm-the repetition ofthe

song and of its burden,the returnof the resonanceof the refrain-
thepowernotmerelyto moveus butto strikeand to surpriseus, the
powereach timeto astonishus andhave an impactuponus as though
forthefirsttime?WhenSrebniksingsthe two songsofthe opening,
andwhentheecho ofthesecondsongputsintoquestiontheapparent
harmonyand innocenceofthefirsttune,whatconstitutesthepower
of the singingand the strength-theeloquence-of Srebnik'stesti-
monythroughit, is neitherthe lyricsnor even the music (someone
else'smusic),buttheuniquenessofthesingingvoice.The uniqueness
ofthevoice restoresthesignatureto the repeatedmelodyand to the
cited lyrics,and transforms them fromantitestimony into a com-
pellingandunequalledtestimony. Whatmakesthepowerofthetesti-
monyin the filmand what constitutesin generalthe impactofthe
filmis not the wordsbut the equivocal,puzzlingrelationbetween
words and voice, the interaction,that is, between words,voice,
rhythm, melody,images,writing, and silence.Each testimonyspeaks
to us beyondits words,beyondits melody,like the unique perfor-
manceofa singing, andeachsong,in itsrepetitions, participatesin the
searchingrefrainand recapitulatesthe musical quest of the whole
film.LikeLanzmann,Srebnikfacingan unspeakableeventat thirteen
and a half,and againat thebeginningofthefilm-as a singerwho re-
mainedalive because ofhis "melodiousvoice"-is in turna sortof
artist:an artistwhohas losthiswordsbutwhohas notlosttheunique-
ness ofthesingingvoice and its capacityforsignature.Whatis other-
wise untestifiable is thustransmitted by the signatureof the voice.
The filmas a visualmediumhinges,paradoxically, notso muchon the
self-evidence ofsightas on thevisibilityit rendersto thevoice,andon
theinvisibility itrenderstangibleofsilence.The filmspeaksin a mul-
tiplicityofvoices that,like Srebnik's,all transmitbeyondwhatthey
can say in words.In muchthe same way as thesingingcrematorium
witnessedandevokedbyPhilipMuller,thefilmresonateslikea whole
chorusoftestimoniesand ofvoices that,withintheframeworkofthe
film,singtogether:
Theviolenceclimaxed whentheytriedtoforce thepeopletoundress.
A fewobeyed, onlya handful.Mostofthemrefused tofollowtheorder.
Suddenly, likea chorus,theyallbegantosing.Thewhole"undressing
room"rangwiththeCzechnational anthem, andtheHatikvah. That
movedmeterribly ...
Thatwashappening tomycountrymen, andI realized
thatmylife
hadbecomemeaningless. Whygoonliving? Forwhat?So I wentinto
thegas chamber withthem,resolvedto die.Withthem.Suddenly,
somewhorecognized mecameuptome.... A smallgroup ofwomen
approached. Theylookedatmeandsaid,right thereinthegaschamber
. . . "Soyouwanttodie.Butthat'ssenseless.Yourdeathwon'tgiveus
backourlives.That'snoway.Youmustgetoutofhere,alive,youmust
bearwitnessto . .. theinjusticedoneto us." [164-65]
The singingof the anthemin the crematorium signifiesa common

recognition,bythesingers,oftheperversity ofthedeceptionto which
theyhadbeenall alongexposed,a recognition, therefore, and a facing,
ofthetruthoftheirimminentdeath.The singing, in thisway,conveys
a repossessionoftheirlost truthbythedyingsingers,an ultimatere-
jectionoftheirNazi-instigated self-deceptionand a deliberately cho-
sen, consciouswitnessingof theirown death.It is noteworthy that
thisis theonlymomentin thefilmin whicha community ofwitness-
ingis createdphysicallyandmentally, againstall odds.Erasingitsown
witnessesand inhibiting its own eyewitnessing, thehistoricaloccur-
renceoftheHolocaust,as we have seen,precludedby its verystruc-
tureany such communityofwitnessing.29 But thisis what the film
triespreciselyto createin resonatingwiththe singingchorusofthe
dyingcrematorium, whose manysignaturesand manyvoices are to-
dayextinguished and reducedto silence.The film,as a chorusofper-
formancesand testimonies,does create,withintheframework ofits
structure,a communalityofsinging,an odd communityof testimo-
nial incommensurates which,held together, have an overwhelming
testimonialimpact.
29. See above,in partI, the sectionentitled"The Occurrenceas Unwitnessed,"

109-10.
SHOSHANA FELMAN 147
TheDisappearanceoftheChorus
Mullerwishesto die so as to belong,to be partofthiscommunity, to

join thesinging.Butthedyingsingershave it as theirlast wish to ex-
clude himfromtheircommondeath,so thathe can be not an extin-
guishedwitnesslikethem,buta livingwitnessto theirdyingandtheir
singing.The singingchallengesanddarestheNazis. The actofsinging
and ofbearingwitnessembodiesresistance.ButforMuller,theresis-
tancecannotmeangivingup life;it has to meangivingup death.Re-
sistancespellsthe abdicationofsuicidaldeathand the enduranceof
survivalas itselfa formofresistanceand oftestimony. Resistancesig-
nifiesthepriceofthehistoricalendurance-in oneself-of an actual
returnofthewitness.As a returning delegateofthe dead witnesses,
Mtller'sact oftestifying andhis testimonialafterlife
can no longerbe,
however,partofa livingcommunity. Facinghis singingcompatriots
in thecrematorium, Mtillerunderstands thatthegiftofwitnessthey
requestfromhim,andhis responsive, mutecommitment to bearwit-
ness,leave him no choice but to standalone, to step outsideof the
community30 as well as ofsharedculturalframesofreference, outside
of the supportof any sharedperception.The holdingand the inner
strength ofthecommonsingingempowersMuillerand allows himto
escapeandto survive.Buthis survivalcannotsimplybe encompassed
by a commonsong,and his afterlife ofbearingwitnesscan no longer
lose itselfin a choralhymn.Ifhis livingvoice is to speakforthedead,
it has to carrythroughand to transmit, precisely,thecessationofthe
commonsinging,the signatureofthe endurance,thepeculiarityand
theuniquenessofa voice doomedto remainalone,a voice thathas re-
turned-andthatspeaks-frombeyondthethresholdofthecremato-
rium.
Mtiller,Srebnik,and the others,spokesmenforthe dead, living
voicesofreturning witnessesthathaveseentheirowndeath-and the
30. Cf.,RudolphVrba'sdecisionto escape,afterthe suicideofFreddyHirschthat

abortstheResistanceplanfortheuprising oftheCzechfamilycamp:"Itwas quiteclear
to me thenthattheResistancein thecampis notgearedforan uprising butforsurvival
ofthemembersoftheResistance.I thendecidedto act ... [by]leavingthecommunity,
forwhichI [was]coresponsible at thetime.The decisiontoescape,in spiteofthepolicy
oftheResistancemovementat thetime,was formedimmediately.... As faras I am
concerned, I thinkthatifI successfully
managetobreakoutfromthecampandbringthe
information to therightplaceat therighttime,thatthismightbe a help .... Not to de-
layanything buttoescapeas soonas possibletoinform theworld"(195-96).
deathoftheirown people-face to face,addressus in the filmboth
frominside life and frombeyondthe graveand carryon, with the
aloneness of the testifying
voice, the mission of the singingfrom
withintheburning.
from
Suddenly, thepartofthecampcalledthedeathcamp,flames
shot
up. Veryhigh.In a flash,thewholecountryside,
thewholecamp,
seemedablaze. And suddenlyone of us stoodup. We knew ... he'd
been an operasingerin Warsaw.... His name was Salve,and facing
offire,
thatcurtain hebeganchanting
a songI didn'tknow:
MyGod,myGod,
WhyhastThouforsaken
us?
Wehavebeenthrustintothefirebefore
butwehaveneverdeniedtheHolyLaw.
He sangin Yiddish,
whilebehindhimblazedthepyreson which
theyhadbegunthen,in November 1942,to burnthebodiesin Tre-
blinka.... We knewthatnightthatthedeadwouldno longerbe
buried,they'd
beburned.[14]
A WinningSong
The entirefilmis a singingfromwithintheburningofa knowledge:

"Weknewthatnight. . .". The knowledgeoftheburningis theknowl-
edge-and theburning-ofthe singing.At thebeginningofthefilm,
Srebnik'ssongincorporates theburnedbodieswithwhose deathand
withwhoseburningit stillresonates.In singing,on theone hand,as
he has been taught,about the girls"openingtheirdoors"to soldiers
who pass by,in the veryway that he himself,uncannily,is com-
mandedbytheSS to "openthedoors"ofthearriving gas vansso as to
receive-and to unload-the bodiesto be burned,in singingalso, on
the otherhand,his originalmelodiousyearningforthe sweetnessof
thewhitehouse,Srebnik'ssingingandhis singular,compellingvoice,
is the bearerof a knowledge-and a vision-a vision of the half-as-
phyxiatedbodies comingback to lifeonlyto feelthefireand to wit-
ness,conscious,theirencounterwith,and theirconsumptionby,the
flames:
When[thegasvans]arrived,
theSS said:"Openthedoors!"Weopened
them.Thebodiestumbled out.... Weworked
right untilthewhole
wasburned
shipment ...
SHOSHANA FELMAN 149
I rememberthatoncetheywerestillalive.Theovenswerefull,and
thepeoplelayontheground. Theywereallmoving, theywerecoming
backtolife,andwhentheywerethrown intotheovens,theywereall
conscious.Alive.Theycouldfeelthefireburnthem...
WhenI sawall this,itdidn'taffect
me.I wasonlythirteen,andall
I'deverseenuntilthenweredeadbodies.[101-02]
The deadeningofthelive witness,theburnofthesilenceofthethir-
teen-year-old childwho is "not affected," passes on intohis singing.
The unique expressionofthevoice and ofthe singingbothexpresses
andcoversthesilence,in muchthesamewayas theuniqueexpression
oftheface-of Srebnik'sfaceat theopeningofthefilm-both covers
and expressesthedeliberateand striking absenceofdeadbodiesfrom
Shoah'sscreen.It is indeedthelivingbodyandthelivingfaceofthere-
turning witnessthat,in Shoah,becomesa speakingfigureforthestill-
nessandthemutenessofthebodies,a figurefor,precisely, theFiguren.
Whatthe film doeswiththeFigurenis restoretheirmutenessto the
to
singingof the artist-child, to revitalizethem by exploringdeath
through life,andbyendowingtheinvisibility oftheirabstraction with
theuniquenessofa face,a voice,a melody,a song.The songis one that
has wonlifeforSrebnik,a life-winning songwhich,framedwithinthe
filmand participating in the searchingrepetitionofits refrain,wins
forus a heightened consciousnessand an increasedawareness,bygiv-
ingus a measureofan understanding thatis nottransmittablewithout
it. As a fragment ofrealityand as a crossroadbetweenartand history,
the song-like the whole film-enfoldswhat is in historyuntestifi-
able and embodies,at thesame time,whatin artcapturesrealityand
enableswitnessing. In muchthesamewayas thetestimony, thesong
exemplifies thepowerofthefilmto address,andhauntingly demands
a hearing.LikeMullercomingback to testify and speak-to claiman
audience-frombeyondthe thresholdof the crematorium, Srebnik,
thoughtraversed bya bulletthathas missedhis vitalbraincentersby
purechance,reappearsfrombehindthethresholdofthewhitehouse
to singagainhis winningsong:a songthat,once again,wins lifeand,
like thefilm,leaves us-through theveryway it wins us-both em-
powered,andcondemnedtohearing.
WhenI heardhimagain,myheartbeatfaster,
becausewhathappened
here... wasa murder.
[5]
He was thirteen
anda halfyearsold.He hada lovelysingingvoice,and
weheardhim.[4]
A littlewhitehouse
lingersin mymemory.
eachnightI dream.

Lanzmann PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lanzmann PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In an Era of Testimony: Claude Lanzmann's Shoah

Author(s): Shoshana Felman

"Ifsomeoneelse couldhavewrittenmystories,"writesElie Wiesel,"I

*FromYaleFrenchStudies79 (1991):Literature and TheEthicalQuestion.C 1991

Shoah is a filmmade exclusivelyof testimonies:first-hand testi-

Secondly,Shoahis a filmabouttherelationbetweenartand witness-

The WesternLaw ofEvidence

The uniquenessofthenarrativeperformance ofthe testimonyin ef-

Horror:The Man behind

Because the testimonyis unique and irreplaceable,thefilmis an ex-

5. Shoah,thecompletetextofthefilmbyClaude Lanzmann(New York:Pantheon

The essenceof the Nazi schemeis to make itself-and to make the

The Occurrence as Unwitnessed

Thus, the diversity

The incommensurability betweendifferent testimonialstances,and

cance ofwhatis goingon untilthelaterintervention, thedelayedpro-

givenbyLanzmannon theoccasionofhis visittoYale University,

The taskofthedeciphering ofsignsand oftheprocessingofintelligi-

Not much.... It's a fact:we tendto forget,

I'll help you to remember.In Warsawyou wereDr. Auerswald's

Dr. Grassler,thisis Czerniakow'sdiary.You'rementionedin it.

He kepta diarythatwas recentlypublished.He wroteon 7 July

In linewiththedenialofresponsibility and memory, theverygesture

At the side ofthe historian,Shoah finallyincludesamongits list of

The opening,narratedin thefilmmaker's own voice,at once situates

ButI askedand youdidn'tanswer:Whatwas yourimpressionthefirst

The filmopensin thefilmmaker's

The filmdoes notstop,however,at thesiteofits ownfinding(s), does

So whenI came ... to Chelmno,I was already.. . I didn'tcareabout

Urgedby Lanzmann,Srebnik'sreturnfromthe dead personifies, in

18. WalterBenjamin,"The WorkofArtin theAge ofMechanicalReproduction,"

19. On thegeneralizable historicalsignificance ofthispassage,cf.,PeterCanning's

20. Quotedin "A MonumentAgainstForgetting," TheBostonGlobe,3 November

21. Foran acutedescription ofthefunctioning ofthe "ritualmurderstory"in his-

If the churchscene is thuspunctuated,signedby Srebnik'ssilence,

Srebnik'svoice inhabitshis own song.But does anyoneinhabitthe

23. Whiteis thus,forinstance,thecoloroftheblankpageofforgetfulness on which

25. Translation all theGermanlyricsthatare

The WordofOur Commander

The Quest oftheRefrain,ortheImperativeto Sing

I would suggestthattheimperative,"Singit again,"is theperforma-

27. Valery,"Commentaire " in Oeuvres(Paris:Gallimard,

Whatgivesthisrefrainlike structureofthefilm-the repetition ofthe

The singingof the anthemin the crematorium signifiesa common

29. See above,in partI, the sectionentitled"The Occurrenceas Unwitnessed,"

Mullerwishesto die so as to belong,to be partofthiscommunity, to

30. Cf.,RudolphVrba'sdecisionto escape,afterthe suicideofFreddyHirschthat

The entirefilmis a singingfromwithintheburningofa knowledge:

You might also like