The Zone of Interest
兴趣区

Though it’s been seven months, I remain haunted by “The Zone of Interest.” When I first watched writer-director Jonathan Glazer’s radical take on the Holocaust back in May, I couldn’t quite pinpoint what was so startling about it. There have been many films on this horrific chapter in history—from “Night and Fog” to “Schindler's List” to “The Pianist,” and as recently as “Occupied City”—all asking the viewer to bear witness to unfathomable suffering under a genocidal regime’s brutality. It would be a mistake, however, to interpret Glazer’s adaptation of Martin Amis’ same-titled novel as him asking viewers to simply witness. It’s a disturbing work, guided by a discomforting sense of immaculateness that chills the viewer. It is the sanitation the film performs, which speaks to the now, in a way few Holocaust films have done before.  
尽管已经过去七个月了，我仍然被“兴趣区”所困扰。五月份，当我第一次观看编剧兼导演乔纳森·格雷泽 (Jonathan Glazer) 对大屠杀的激进看法时，我无法准确指出其中有何令人震惊的地方。有很多电影都讲述了历史上这一可怕的篇章——从《夜与雾》到《辛德勒的名单》，再到《钢琴家》，以及最近的《被占领的城市》——所有这些都要求观众见证在一个令人难以想象的痛苦之下。种族灭绝政权的残暴。然而，如果将格雷泽对马丁·艾米斯同名小说的改编解读为他要求观众只是见证，那就错了。这是一部令人不安的作品，由一种令人不安的完美感所引导，让观众感到不寒而栗。这部电影所表现的卫生，以一种以前很少有的大屠杀电影所做的方式，讲述了现在的情况。

The close correlation speaks to the repulsively intimate relationship Rudolf and his family have with destruction. They profit off an entire people’s death in unspeakable ways: In one scene, one of Rudolf’s sons has a flashlight in bed. But he’s not rifling at a comic book in the dark; he’s rummaging through his collection of gold teeth. In another scene, Hedwig receives a fur coat. She tries on the fine pelt, twisting her body to catch her every angle in the mirror. In one of the pockets, she discovers the previous owner's lipstick; in the next scene she tries the lipstick on. Their easeful proximity to murder is thrown in stark relief when Hedwig’s mother arrives. At first, her mother is impressed by their “scenic” home. “You really have landed on your feet, my child,” she says to a proud Hedwig. But when the emanating sounds and smells become apparent to Hedwig’s mother, she reacts in a way that shocks Hedwig. 
这种密切的相关性说明了鲁道夫及其家人与破坏之间令人厌恶的亲密关系。他们以难以形容的方式从整个人民的死亡中获利：在一个场景中，鲁道夫的一个儿子在床上有一个手电筒。但他并不是在黑暗中翻阅漫画书，而是在黑暗中翻阅漫画书。他正在翻阅他收藏的金牙。在另一个场景中，海德薇收到一件毛皮大衣。她试穿了那件精美的毛皮，扭动着身体以捕捉镜子中自己的每一个角度。在其中一个口袋里，她发现了前主人的口红；在下一个场景中，她试了口红。当海德薇的母亲到来时，他们轻松地接近谋杀，这让他们更加轻松。起初，她的母亲对他们“风景如画”的家印象深刻。 “你真的站起来了，我的孩子，”她对骄傲的海德薇说道。但当海德薇的母亲明显感觉到散发出的声音和气味时，她的反应令海德薇震惊。

In a film predicated on dissonance, the Höss’ persistent tidying up looms large. Whenever Rudolf takes off his boots, there is a Jewish prisoner there to clean them. When soot from the camp touches the river, Rudolf’s kids are scrubbed down with scalding hot water. When Rudolf has affairs, he washes his privates in a slop sink before returning to his wife’s bedroom. Weeds are pulled and human ashes are used to replenish. Every misdeed by the Höss family functions on this cycle of obfuscation. Composer Mica Levi’s foreboding score, which can be guttural and dirty in infrared scenes, wherein a girl picks up food from the mud, participates in the dichotomy of polishing and revealing. The use of the color white—new sheets, sleek suits, and sterile office walls—depends upon this blurring. Even the language, the way everyone speaks about death in mechanical terms and technicalities, works to wash over the truth. If you’re always talking in circles about your crimes, isn’t it easier to continue performing them in a straight line? 
在一部以不和谐为基础的电影中，霍斯夫妇坚持不懈的整理工作显得尤为突出。每当鲁道夫脱下靴子时，就会有一名犹太囚犯在那里清洗靴子。当营地的烟灰接触河水时，鲁道夫的孩子们会用滚烫的热水擦洗。当鲁道夫有外遇时，他会在污水池中清洗私处，然后返回妻子的卧室。杂草被拔掉，用人骨灰补充。霍斯家族的每一项不当行为都在这个混乱的循环中发挥作用。作曲家米卡·莱维（Mica Levi）的预感配乐，在红外线场景中可能是喉音和肮脏的，其中一个女孩从泥巴里捡起食物，参与了抛光和揭示的二分法。白色的使用——新床单、时尚的西装和无菌的办公室墙壁——取决于这种模糊。甚至语言，每个人用机械术语和技术性谈论死亡的方式，都在掩盖真相。如果你总是绕圈子谈论你的罪行，那么继续直线实施它们不是更容易吗？

As much as Glazer’s film is about a specific moment in time, it’s equally concerned with how history records tragedy. Consider when Rudolf is transferred from Auschwitz to Oranienburg; Hedwig wants to stay in the dream house, in the reality she’s crafted for herself. Rudolf on the other hand, for the first time, openly speaks on the phone to his wife about murder without softening the language. Her reaction is grim; his words barely register. “It’s in the middle of the night and I need to be in bed,” she disturbingly replies. He hangs up on her, leaves the office and descends the stairs. While walking down the steps, he vomits several times until he comes to a barely lit hallway. Editor Paul Watts makes a narrative-breaking cut to present-day Auschwitz. It’s being cleaned—swept, mopped, and vacuumed—for visitors to witness the artifacts (shoes and luggage) now without owners. 
尽管格雷泽的电影讲述的是一个特定的时刻，但它同样关注历史如何记录悲剧。考虑一下鲁道夫何时从奥斯威辛转移到奥拉宁堡；海德薇想留在梦想中的房子里，但事实上她是为自己打造的。另一方面，鲁道夫第一次在电话中公开地与妻子谈论谋杀，但语言却没有软化。她的反应很严峻。他的话几乎没有被记住。 “现在是半夜，我需要上床睡觉，”她不安地回答道。他挂断电话，离开办公室，走下楼梯。走下台阶时，他呕吐了好几次，直到来到一条几乎没有灯光的走廊。编辑保罗·瓦茨 (Paul Watts) 对当今的奥斯维辛集中营进行了突破性的剪辑。它正在被清理——清扫、拖地和吸尘——以便游客亲眼目睹现在没有主人的文物（鞋子和行李）。