Defiance (2008) and the Cultural Memory of Resistance in the Holocaust

Abstract

The film Defiance (2008) explores the true story of the Bielski Partisans in the Second World War, led by the brothers Tuvia and Zus Bielski. While the film is in many ways a conventional action-packed war story of resistance to Nazi domination during the war, the filmmakers conscientiously depicted the myriad and sundry ways Jews resisted Nazi racial hatred and the attempted extermination of European Jewry. The Bielski partisans are portrayed as violently opposing the Nazi domination and their Belorussian supporters in armed conflict; as engaging in acts of sabotage and destruction to hamper the Axis war effort; as preserving and engaging in Jewish culture and religion to ensure its propagation, even in the most extreme of circumstances; and as continually struggling for survival against Nazi efforts to murder them. Their struggle for freedom from oppression inspires these acts of resistance. Furthermore, the filmmakers explore the theological problem of understanding the Jews as God’s chosen people as they fight for their lives against Nazi policies of extermination.

The World War II action film Defiance has been largely well received since its debut in 2008.1 It is in many ways a conventional war story that portrays a small but courageous group of resisters who struggled for survival against Nazi domination as the German military and its allies advanced eastward into the Soviet Union. Defiance tells the true story of how the Bielski brothers—Tuvia, Zus, and Asael (played by Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, and Jamie Bell respectively)—took to the forests of Belarus when the Wehrmacht invaded their homeland, and how they successfully protected and provided for hundreds of Jews, known as the Bielski partisans (or the Bielski Otriad). The film presents for cultural remembrance how the Bielski partisans resisted and survived, as they evaded and fought the German forces invading eastward in their offensive against the Soviet Union and their attempted extermination of European Jewry. Jews who fled before the German advance, or those who somehow survived the massacres, often escaped into the vast and dense forest for protection. Bands formed and resisted against the German occupation by sabotage, ambush, or whatever means they could. The Bielski group was one such partisan group, yet this group included young and old, men and women, and even children, Jews struggling for survival. Defiance is a distinctive film of World War II as it focuses on Jewish resistance in myriad forms, illuminating the nature and meaning of Jewish opposition to the Nazis.

The filmmakers provide a rich and thoughtful exploration of the Bielski partisans and Jewish resistance to Nazi domination in the Second World War. Their resistance includes violent opposition, sabotage and destruction of property, ensuring the survival of cultural and religious practices, and the mere fact of staying alive—all contrary to Nazi antisemitic polities and actions to eradicate European Jewry. This article will examine the myriad forms of resistance depicted in the film and their significance the context of the Second World War, demonstrating the complexity of Jewish resistance against the Nazi state and its ideology of destruction. Moreover, the article will examine how the film presents freedom as a core value in their struggle to resist Nazi oppression. Lastly, the filmmakers present for the audience a theological interpretation of the Bielski partisans, that they are among the chosen of God, and thus, bear the responsibility of making God known to the world, a message aligned with a traditional reading of the Hebrew Bible. Yet this portrayal is held in tension with another perspective, a secular perspective, that the Jews must save themselves—and cannot hope for God to save them. This contrast between the two perspectives provides dramatic tension between the characters and gives modern audiences insight into one of the fundamental religious questions of the Holocaust: Where was God amid the suffering? The article will begin by presenting the historical context of the Bielski partisans and of the film in relation to other resistance films set in the European Theatre in the Second World War. It will then examine the various ways the film depicts Jewish resistance and how this is often shaped and informed by the Jewish religious tradition.

This article will explore how the film presents for cultural remembrance the resistance of the Bielski partisans and its significance for modern audiences. The article will not focus on how the historical facts were presented (or not presented), how they may have been altered for dramatic effect, or how historical figures and timelines may have been conflated to serve the plotline. Instead, the article will focus on how the film operates as a form of historiophoty, a term coined by the philosopher of history Hayden White, to refer to ‘the representation of history and our thought about it in visual images and filmic discourse.’ (White 1988) More specifically, this article will examine how the film represents the story of the Bielski partisans for modern audiences, as a way to remember the Second World War, Jewish resistance to the Nazis, and the religious meaning of opposition in the face of evil. Throughout the film’s depiction of the Bielksi partisans’ struggle for survival, it clearly presents for audiences the complexity of Jewish resistance under Nazi domination.

The film is significant in part because it reflects an on-going conversation about Jewish resistance Nazi persecution. Scholars have argued that there are degrees of opposition to the Nazi regime, and that we cannot presume that all acts against the regime are the same. Ian Kershaw, for example, has presented a useful model for understanding approaches to the Nazi government (Kershaw 1983, pp. 2–4). He defines resistance (Widerstand) as “an organized attempt to undermine the regime and plan for its demise” (Kershaw 1983, p. 170). This would include the resistance activities of the White Rose and the Scholl siblings (Hans and Sophie), Georg Elser and his bomb plot attempt on 9 November 1939 at the Burgerbräukeller in Munich, and the conspirators of the 20 July 1944 bomb plot against Hitler. Kershaw applies the term “opposition” to refer to any action that aims to limit the dominance of the Nazi state, including a broad range of activities such as sabotage of munitions factories, refusing to adhere to bans on race relations, and even sermons in opposition to Nazi ideology and leadership (Kershaw 1993, p. 170). Dissent is the last category in Kershaw’s framework and it includes any kind of speech or action that “in any way whatsoever run[s] counter to or [is] critical of Nazism” (Kershaw 1983, pp. 3–4). Acts of this type could be jokes at Hitler’s expense or complaints about the war effort. The intention of dissent is not to work toward the downfall of the regime, but simply to express non-conformity.

Scholars critical of this kind of framework point to the problem that it does not take into account the context of the action or the person taking the action (Fox 2004). Martyn Housden contends that this kind of framework “risk[s] imposing artificial structures on a morass of actions rendered incomparable and entirely distinct by the unique life experiences and character of each actor (Housden 1997, p. 166). Resistance for a Jew would take on different meanings compared to resistance from an “Aryan.” While Kershaw’s framework would apply to the “Aryan,” a good case can be made that a Jewish man or woman could resist the Nazi regime by simply fighting for survival and the continuation of their culture and religious practices—given Nazi policies of extermination of European Jewry. Defiance illuminates and clarifies the nature and meaning of Jewish resistance to Nazi domination in the context of the Second World War and the resistance of other groups, such as Russian partisans.

The film Defiance is significant in part because it reflects a growing body of historiography that demonstrates the many different kinds of ways Jews resisted Nazi persecution. The historian Wolf Gruner has conducted significant research to show how Jewish men and women resisted in a variety of ways, including protesting persecution in written and verbal forms, in undermining Nazi propaganda efforts, and even defending themselves from violence at the hands of the nazis. He convincingly “prov[es] that the traditional assumption of Jewish passivity Nazi Germany was utterly wrong” (Gruner 2023, p. 140). The Jews were not passive in confronting Nazi persecution. Defiance provides numerous examples of Jewish men, women, and children resisting in various ways against Nazi domination, whether through violent action such as ambushes and assaults, maintaining and practicing Jewish religious life, and even simply staying alive despite being forced from “civilization” and compelled to rebuild society deep in the Belorussian forests.

The filmmakers are clearly focused on staying true to the history of the war and making the story of the Bielski partisans accessible to modern audiences. The film was written by Clayton Frohman, the historian Nechama Tec (whose book this film is based upon), and Edward Zwick, who also served as director.2 The film opens with archival footage of the German army’s invasion into Poland as a way to historically ground the narrative in the Second World War and to introduce the violent German occupation of Belarus. The filmmakers use this footage as a way to orient the audience to the terror the Belski brothers and their fellow villagers faced. As the archival footage continues, the shot stops on a cameraman filming with an 8 mm camera, as if he is capturing the scene on film. The black and white footage slowly fills with color and the black “print scratches” fade, placing us as the audience right there in the action. This transition from black and white to color is nearly seamless, as the audience transitions easily from the history of the invasion to the drama of the Bielski’s ordeal. The film’s black and white opening infers a documentary style, objectively grounded; the move to color adds immediacy, sweeping the audience into that time and place. Jaimie Baron has written extensively on the use of archival film in modern filmmaking, arguing that filmmakers use “audiovisual documents” to create a “spectatorial experience” for the viewer and that “this encounter endows these documents with a particular kind of authority as ‘evidence’” (Baron 2012, p. 102). Thus, this technique cleverly affirms the first words on the screen after the title of the film, “A True Story.”

Defiance is a well-made and thought-providing film on the possibilities and costs of resistance in Nazi-occupied Europe.

1. Historical Context

Defiance is one in a long line of films to explore the historical events of the Holocaust, the attempt of the Nazi regime to exterminate European Jewry. Among the most well-known are Escape from Sobibor (1987), a film about the famous revolt of prisoners against their captors at a concentration camp; Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List (1993), the story of the businessman Oscar Schindler and his efforts to save his factory workers from deportation and execution; and the Pianist (2003), the story of Wladyslaw Szpilman struggling to survive virtually alone in Warsaw, Poland, during the war. Defiance is the first film as far as I am aware that depicts the story of the Bielski partisans.

It almost goes without saying that any film based on an historic event is going to present historical inaccuracies for the simple fact that film is a medium that demands a quickened pace and refined plotting. Scholars and reviewers have pointed out the historical discrepancies and dramatic license the filmmakers employed to tell the story of the Bielski partisans.3 One can expect the conflation of time and locations, the fusion of two historical figures into one or the creation of another character out of whole cloth, or the transference of one event to another location. These historical revisions are commonplace in historical films and do not generally undermine the historical importance of what the film is trying to convey about the individuals and events described. The film Defiance is no exception, and one can point to numerous historical inaccuracies in the film. For example, when the partisans come down with typhus, the Bielski brothers find their way to a cache of ampicillin in a police station. The historical inaccuracy is that ampicillin was not created until after the war. Likewise, some critics have argued that the film romanticizes the Bielski brothers, especially Tuvia and Zus, as they struggle to fight and survive.4 Yet, the film also presents the darker side of their resistance, undermining this claim of lionizing the Bielski brothers. For example, in the film Tuvia goes to the police captain who led the action against the Jews and murders him in his own home before his family, shooting his two sons in front of him before putting a bullet in his head.

Presenting stories of the Holocaust on film comes with significant challenges for the filmmaker. They are attempting to put the unimaginable onto the big screen. They are not aiming to entertain so much as to transport the audience to another time and place that has little resemblance to our own. The filmmakers of Defiance have striven to create an authentic representation of the Bielski brothers and the partisans, but this comes with challenges. Commenting on films of the Holocaust generally, Franziska Reiniger argues,

The certain authenticity and illusion of truth has its advantages of bringing the memories of the Holocaust into viewers’ daily lives, making them witnesses and helping them to understand the complex past events and their various outcomes. On the other hand, film has the power to manipulate and to distort these memories and to use them for narrow individual interests. The filmmaker confronting the Holocaust has unique power to create a sensory experience for the viewer. She or he stands before the difficult task of finding an appropriate language and a representative image for that, which is mute or defies visualization.

(Reiniger n.d.)

Likewise, Spielberg has famously said that “[t]he Holocaust is perhaps the most difficult story to put on film, and I think the reason Hollywood hasn’t made many Holocaust pictures is because it’s an ineffable experience only understood by those who survived the camps” (Quoted in Reiniger n.d.). The filmmaker has the tremendously difficult job of presenting onscreen a virtually unimaginable world in which civilization has collapsed upon itself and the values have been turned upside down. Filmmakers have to present a dystopian world that is difficult for us to imagine today.

Daniel Anker’s documentary film Imaginary Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust (2004) reveals the struggle of filmmakers in the 1940s and 1950s to clearly identify and name Jews as the victims of Nazi persecutions, as well as to tell their stories of survival and resistance. Moreover, the documentary highlights the trajectory of storytelling about the Holocaust as American and European audiences came to terms with the history of what happened. Films such as The Pawnbroker (1964) treated the impact of the memories of the Holocaust on survivors, while miniseries such as Holocaust (1978) and War and Remembrance (1988–1989) captured for the first time for modern audiences the brutality and horror of the Holocaust. Anker (2004) also notes the problem of films such as Schindler’s List (1993) that present Jews as passive victims of Nazi persecution. Defiance is thus a rare Holocaust film that presents the inspiring story of an organized and armed resistance movement of hundreds of Jews, demonstrating their agency, courage, and resilience in confronting Nazi terror.

Moreover, the scholarship on Holocaust films offers four predominant schools of thought that have emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War (Blizek 2013, p. 166).5 The first is that it is obscene to depict the unimaginable horror of the Holocaust. Any representation trivializes the events. The second is that trivialization is a valid concern, but a more pressing danger is loss of memory of the Holocaust from cultural memory. Stories in the form of film and television must be told so the events are not forgotten. The third main school is that realism should not be a primary concern in depicting the Holocaust, as film allows for imaginative depictions that can advance the truth of the horror in ways that realistic portrayals cannot. Thus, filmmakers should tell their stories with a style they deem best to get their vision across. The fourth and last main school of thought is that, according to Blizek, “ordinary conventions used in cinema to depict the Holocaust are insufficient” as the “Holocaust was traumatic to the survivors and also in the collective memory of Western culture” (Blizek 2013, p. 166). Applying this schema to the film Defiance, it is clear that the filmmakers are using the typical conventions of a war film, such as action, suspense, and high-stakes. In addition, they clearly wish to remember the Bielski brothers and the partisans as heroes, with admitted flaws, who struggled valiantly against the Nazi domination of Europe and the persecution of the Jews. Thus, Defiance aligns solidly with the second school of thought.

One noteworthy yet conventional way the filmmakers represented this time of despair and persecution was with the muted color palate throughout the film. The filmmakers utilized a desaturated palette of forest greens, browns, gray and black to reflect the psychological weight of the oppressed Jews in this time. Detenber et al. contend that “for certain types of scenes desaturated colors, or black and white, can produce stronger emotional reactions” (Detenber et al. 2000, p. 335). Drawing on Zettl’s “desaturation theory,” they contend that desaturated colors actually invite the viewer “into” a scene, leading to “a more profound emotional experience of the event portrayed” (Zettl 2000, p. 335).6 The filmmakers use desaturation to great effect in this film, as the color palette reveals the inner turmoil of the characters and their desperate struggle for survival in Nazi-dominated Europe.

However, there are a couple stand out exceptions to the color tone of the film. The first is the bright yellow star of David on the clothing of Jews in the ghettos, a sign of their persecution by the Nazis. Jews tear off this symbol from their clothes when they flee the ghetto for the safety of the forest. The second exception is Tuvia’s bright white, beautiful, and noble horse, which he uses to patrol the forest, and which he is compelled to sacrifice to feed the partisans to avoid starvation in the dead of winter. One may interpret the sacrifice of the steed as a symbol of Tuvia’s sacrifice of himself and his freedom and nobility—even morally compromising, such as when he murders a mutinous partisan—to ensure the safety of the partisans. Indeed, the muted color palette may reflect the moral ambiguity of the Bielski partisans, forced as they are to steal from the local villages just to survive. These cinematic choices draw the audience into the story of the Bielski brothers and the partisans, making for a more evocative and thoughtful film.

Critics have lauded Defiance as inspiring and well-produced, and for presenting an authentic vision of the Bielski brothers and their resistance activities. Mattie Lucas of The Dispatch asserted that Defiance is “The kind of big, old-fashioned prestige entertainment Hollywood seems to have forgotten how to do” (2019). Bob Bloom of the Journal and Courier argued, “More than anything, ‘Defiance’ is a celebration of survival against overwhelming odds” (Bloom 2009). Likewise, Will Leitch of Deadspin notes, “Zwick wants to tell timeless stories on a grand scale. I know that’s not what people want anymore. I know it’s not breathtaking. But it’s not something many are doing now, and definitely not doing it this well” (2013). Critics were also impressed by the work of the leads Craig and Schreiber, particularly in giving the film a sense of authenticity. The bestselling historian Roger Moorhouse notes, “I applaud the ‘feel’ of the film. It doesn’t manipulate emotions with too much soaring score, and most importantly it does not baby the viewer. Germans speak German, Poles speak Polish, Russians speak Russian. That is how it was—there are subtitles—get over it… [A]nd one has to consider that the two leads were required to speak Polish and Russian in many scenes. When one bears this in mind, the speech coaches employed on the movie deserve Oscars of their own” (Moorhouse 2009).7 As Moorhouse notes, the attention to historical detail is evident throughout the film. There are no British sounding Nazis as typical in films set in the Second World War. The film was shot on location in Lithuania, just one hundred miles from the actual sites of the Bielski camp. The efforts of the filmmakers to create a film that draws the audience into the experiences of the Holocaust received tremendous critical acclaim. The film was named one of the Top Ten Films of 2008 by the National Board of Review, and was nominated for several awards, including for Best Original Score in the Oscars and the Golden Globes, as well as for Outstanding Visual Special Effects in a Feature Motion Picture by the Visual Effects Society.

But it should also be noted that the film has its critics. Some have criticized the film for being a conventional war film that lacked excitement. Steven Rhodes argued, “As well-intentioned and earnest as it is lifeless and plodding” (Rhodes 2009). Andrea Gronvall wrote a review in the Chicago Reader, noting that “Zwick, intent on correcting the perception of Jews as passive victims, lets the action set pieces overwhelm the more intimate scenes, several of which are already diminished by stilted dialogue” (Gronvall 2009). Despite these criticisms, Defiance demonstrates the problem of the old canard that the Jews went like “lambs to the slaughter” during the Holocaust, that the Nazis simply rounded up Jews and murdered them without resistance. The film depicts the resistance of the Bielski partisans from start to finish.

At this point, it is necessary to discuss the historical background of the Bielksi partisans before moving forward in the analysis.8 Defiance focuses on the Bielski brothers, Tuvia most of all, who serves as the central protagonist of the film. The group began to form in the Belarusian forest in 1942. By the end of 1942, the numbers of the Bielski partisans swelled to more than 300 people. The Bielski partisans basically lived a nomadic existence in the forests until the late summer of 1943, when German forces initiated a massive action against partisans in the region. They sent over 20,000 soldiers, SS, and policemen, and even offered a reward of 100,000 Reichsmarks for information leading to the capture of Tuvia. Tuvia and the Bielski brothers faced a considerable problem: the larger the group, the greater likelihood that they would be found captured; also, the larger the group, the more difficult it would be to provide and care for everyone. Moorhouse insightfully sums up the problem for the Bielski partisans, “Stuck between the horror of the Nazis and the equally repugnant (and anti-Semitic) forces of the Soviet partisan movement, the Bielskis were truly stuck between a murderous rock and an at best indifferent hard place” (Moorhouse 2009). By the fall of 1943, the group increased to 700 people. It was at this time that the group set up a permanent base in the Naliboki Forest, an area of land difficult to find and access.

Tuvia was motivated to save as many Jews as possible (Tec 1993, p. 2). As presented in the film, Tuvia and his supporters encouraged Jews in ghettos to escape and join them in the forest. In historical fact, this occurred in the ghettos of Lida, Nowogrodek, Minsk, Iwie, Mir, Baranowicze, and others. The Bielski partisans frequently sent guides into the ghettos to escort people to the forest. Scouts constantly searched the roads for Jewish escapees in need of protection. Under Tuvia’s leadership, the group refused to turn away any Jewish refugees, regardless of age or gender. The set up their own little Jewish settlement, dividing up labor into farmers, cobblers, tailors, carpenters, leather workers, and blacksmiths. Though not depicted tin the film, they had a mill, bakery, a laundry, a school, infirmary, synagogue, and even a jail. The Bielski partisans fought against German forces, attacked Belorussian police, and local farmers who killed Jews. They sabotaged German trains, blew up railroads, and destroyed bridges. And they did this until the Soviet Army invaded farther and farther west, liberating the people from German occupation in the summer of 1944. Over 1200 Jews survived the Holocaust because of Tuvia and his brothers (Klug 2023; Tec 1993, p. 184).

2. Violent Resistance

The film is most obviously a depiction of Jewish violent resistance against the Nazi regime’s aim to exterminate all European Jewry. Through the moral courage and the organizational talents of the Bielski brothers, the Bielski partisans were able to physically fight for their survival through the war, as portrayed in the film. Their violent resistance functioned in numerous ways: to defend themselves; to seek vengeance for crimes against their families and other Jews; and to undermine Nazi dominance in their region in Belarus.

The theme of freedom is at the heart of their willingness to fight against the Nazis and their allies. Throughout the film, at a few key moments, the partisans use weapons—rifles, machine guns, pistols, anything at their disposal—to violently resist German soldiers and their allies invading into their camp. They violently resist, even to the point of dying on the battlefield. Defiance is a war film, and it is in this context of violent resistance that the story of their survival is set. At one point, their approach to fighting is given vivid expression by Asael while instructing new arrivals to shoot weapons, many of whom had never fired a weapon previously. He helps them to see their resistance in a long line of Jewish resistance, going back to the days recorded in the Hebrew Bible. Asael instructs them, “This is not a gun. To you this is Bar Kochba’s spear. It is Samson’s jawbone. It is Ehud’s sword. It is the slingshot young David used to bring down the monster Goliath. And we will become warriors like the Maccabees and the Tsicceri. Brave men and women fighting for their freedom, as they were…” (1:05). They are among the great Jewish leaders of old, men and women, chosen of God, fighting for their freedom against the empires that wage war against them.

This theme of freedom is inextricably tied to the idea of the Jews as the chosen people of God. Indeed, freedom is at the heart of the tension between the Bielski partisans as people of God—as a persecuted segment of God’s chosen people—and their own role in forging their own rescue. While many demonstrate faith in God, whether in choosing Tuvia to lead them or providing a way of escape in the final moments in the film, they must still choose to actively resist Nazi oppression to live free and on their own terms. The film presents for the modern viewer an acknowledgment of the importance of faith for identity and meaning, yet still insists that the people of God (however defined) must make a choice and actively resist evil, striving to do good for the blessing of the world. A central message of the film is that that life of faith is active, not passive. Even the chosen people of God cannot simply hope for God’s deliverance from evil, but must actively struggle against it.

Moreover, the freedom to act is underscored by the recurring temptation of vengeance in the film, a theme emphasized early in the film, thereby setting the tone that the Bielski brothers and the partisans will not bow to Nazi domination without fighting back. The first act of violent opposition in the film is a depiction of Tuvia’s revenge for his parents’ murder. As previously mentioned, he leaves the forest to go to the home of the Belarussian police captain, and executes him after killing his sons when they get in his way. Justice is mingled with vengeance in this act of resistance. Likewise, after Zus learns of the murder of his wife and child, he questions why they—those in the forest—are alive and not dead. He says, “Better to be hiding in the woods like rabbits, hunted. No.” Zus then takes a band of men to go out and get “blood for blood.” He then invokes Scripture, “Vengeance is mine” (Deuteronomy 32:35, King James Version) inferring that his act of revenge is aligned with God’s will. Moreover, this statement can mean that he understands himself as a tool of God’s vengeance. But Tuvia, having learned from his previous act of vengeance that it got him nowhere, calls him out, saying, “What? This is God’s work you’re doing now…We must not become like them.” Tuvia warns Zus that violence has limits, and that vengeance does not lead to abundance—a flourishing life—for the group. Zus replies, “No, but at least we can kill like them.” Subsequently, Zus goes on a raid, kills Nazi collaborators, and then ambushes German troops, killing them and taking their weapons and materials. He has clearly placed himself in line with what he interprets to be God’s will in attacking the Nazi menace head-on. Yet, in appealing to the Scripture that says, “Vengeance is mine,” he appears to use God’s name to justify his own desire for retribution, a clear violation of the commandment not to “take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Exodus 20:7, KJV). While vociferously aligning himself with God’s will and justice, he exposes his own consuming desire for vengeance. But Tuvia sees right through his brother’s argument and remains unconvinced, knowing that revenge would only jeopardize the security of the partisans.

The themes of vengeance and violence recur throughout the film, and is most evident in the sibling rivalry between Tuvia and Zus. Tuvia is the nuanced and calculating thinker, a diplomat, one who understands that seeking vengeance and needlessly provoking the Nazis could lead to their discovery in the forest and thus endanger their lives. Yet Zus is the muscle and brute force of the Bielski brothers. He believes that the violence the Nazis and their collaborators have inflicted upon the Jews demands justice, and there is no one left to mete this justice than them. And so they must actively resist violently. Tuvia and Zus debate the best strategy to follow, even coming to blows in one scene. One may certainly see echoes of the biblical story of Cain and Abel as they knock each other senseless about how to most effectively lead the partisans to survival in the forest. Zus draws first blood by striking Tuvia in front of onlookers, and, when he is defeated, he is then compelled to leave the camp. He then chooses to fight alongside the Soviets to wreak havoc on the German forces and supply lines.

Indeed, vengeance is depicted as intertwined with justice, as the partisans have no recourse to a legitimate government to ensure justice is done. For example, late in the film the partisans have captured an SS soldier, whom they bring to camp and then taunt and abuse. Tuvia looks away, focusing instead on the documents found on the soldier, and the crowd becomes increasingly violent. They shout Nazi crimes at the man, spitting upon, kicking, and striking him. Tuvia gets up and looks upon the man being hit and threatened. One partisan says, “How many of us did he kill!” Another shouts, “Murderer! We want justice!” Some partisans try to get the crowd to stop, without success, and implore Tuvia to intervene to stop the abuse. But he does nothing as the crowd shouts at the man injustices inflicted upon them, the people taken from them, the lives lost, as if he were the one who committed each specific crime. They strike, shout, and finally murder the man, as Tuvia watches closely, doing nothing to stop them. He seems to acknowledge the justice of the crowd’s action, yet the man is unarmed and a prisoner of war. They mete justice and execute the man as a mob.

Furthermore, one of the central conflicts of the film is how to violently resist the Nazis and their Belorussian allies while also rescuing and providing for Jews (Ebert 2009). The fundamental question is, how can they fight to survive without losing their humanity. Even without the issue of vengeance at stake, Tuvia and Zus have contrasting positions. For example, early in the film, the brothers must decide what to do with a milkman whom they encounter on a lonesome road on the outskirts of the village. While Tuvia would spare the milkman and take only half his milk, which was the man’s quota reserved for the German army, Zus prefers to take all the milk and kill the milkman so as to prevent him from leading the enemy to their camp. They choose the former; yet Zus is right to be worried, as the milkman eventually does lead the enemy to their camp later in the film. This episode demonstrates that there is a high price to pay to keep one’s humanity in a situation such as that of the Bielski partisans.

The filmmakers at times use cinematic techniques to portray the chaos and confusion in their violent resistance and struggle for survival. In one scene in particular, the aforementioned scene when Zus and a small band of partisans raid a police station to destroy their transmitter and steal much needed medicine to combat a typhus outbreak, the colors saturate, the frames per second decrease—as if filmed in slow motion—and the only sounds are pistol and machine gun fire. Bright flashes of fire from riffle muzzles envelop much of the screen. It is as if the scene exudes an eruption of violence; the emotional intensity surges. Rex Provost argues that “Using slow-mo in action scenes allows filmmakers to ‘paint’ within the chaos, create drama on a grandiose scale, and achieve a deeper impact” (Provost 2013). The transitions to Tuvia’s face as he hears the firefight indicates this scene could be his imagination of what might be happening, with debris flying, muzzle flashes illuminating the room, and blood splattered on the walls. But certainly the sequence illustrates the violence and chaos of the raid upon the station—an act that results in theft, sabotage, and the killing of several police officers. In this one scene, the filmmakers evocatively reveal the sacrifices required for survival—including the risk of life and limb. All but Zus died in the raid.

While depicted less often, acts of sabotage and destruction also illustrate the Bielski partisans’ violent resistance against the Nazi regime. This is most evident in the efforts of Zus and his followers who partner with Soviet partisans to sabotage and destroy infrastructure, such as train tracks, and in this way to disrupt the Nazi war effort. While their resources and numbers are limited, the film depicts the Bielski partisans as attempting to balance survival with active and violent resistance to the Nazis. But their resistance took various other forms as well, such as struggling to ensure the preservation of Jewish culture and religion.

3. Cultural and Religious Survival

The filmmakers of Defiance conscientiously portrayed the concerted efforts of the Bielski partisans to ensure the cultural and religious survival of their people. This story of their priority to preserve culture and religion is interwoven throughout the film. In this way, the filmmakers demonstrate that the Bielski partisans’ “defiance” is aimed at the broader spectrum of Nazi anti-Jewish measures that were aimed at the eradication of Jewish life in all its aspects. When the Second World War erupted in September 1939, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, and then in 1941, when the Nazi regime invaded the Soviet Union, it applied its murderous Jewish policies to their newly conquered territories. As the story of Defiance unfolds in 1942, the Nazi regime had already initiated the “Final Solution,” rounding up Jews and murdering them in the forests of Belarus.

Defiance portrays the Bielski partisans as deeply committed to preserving their culture and religious practices even amid the terrors of the Holocaust. Within the first four minutes of the film this theme is made clear and unequivocal. When the Bielski sons prepare to leave their family farm after their father has been murdered, Zus uses a knife to pry the mezuzah off their doorpost (the word “mezuzah” means doorpost) for the brothers to keep and preserve.9 Presumably, he means to take the mezuzah and attach it to the doorpost of a future home. It is important to note that the mezuzah contains a small scroll with verses from the Torah, from Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and 11:13–21. The text proclaims the “Shemah Yisrael” in the opening line, and it speaks to the central role of the law in the lives of Jews. Given the importance of this scene in the film, the text will be quoted in full:

Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Bind them as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your forehead, and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates…

If you will only heed his every commandment that I am commanding you today—loving the Lord your God and serving him with all your heart and with all your soul—then he will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the later rain, and you will gather in your grain, your wine, and your oil, and he will give grass in your field for your livestock, and you will eat your fill. Take care, or you will be seduced into turning away, serving other gods and worshiping them, for then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain, and the land will not yield its produce; then you will perish quickly off the good land that the Lord is giving you.

You shall put these words of mine in your heart and soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and fix them as an emblem on your forehead. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise up. Write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied in the land that the Lord swore to your ancestors to give them, as long as the heavens are above the earth (New Revised Standard Version).

The text itself provides a key to understanding how the filmmakers treat the cultural and religious survival of the Jews in the film; even while hunted by the Nazi regime, the Bielski partisans continue to cherish the law, holding it close (literally on their person), reciting it to the children, and passing it on. This scene, while short and without dialogue, presents the Bielski brothers as custodians and guardians of their cultural and religious heritage. They are safekeeping their faith during a terrible time of persecution.

The mezuzah reappears later in the film at a crucial moment. When the Bielski partisans are about to attack a German-held radio transmitter station, and when Tuvia realizes he is too sick to fight, he hands Zus the mezuzah and says, “For luck. Take it.” He is a man of few words. Does Tuvia believe in luck? Perhaps. But it could also be a way for Tuvia to wish God’s protection for him and his men.10 Indeed, his insistence that Zus take the mezuzah and the look on his face indicate he sincerely believes it can protect his brother. The Bilski brothers are literally the bearers of God’s law amid the Nazi onslaught of chaos and destruction. While the Bielski partisans represent various religious perspectives, such as orthodox, reformed, agnostic and even atheist, they are depicted as the preservers of God’s law.

More broadly, this theme of cultural and religious preservation is emphasized throughout the film in more mundane ways, indicating their intentionality and resolve. The partisans set up a school for the young, and they debate philosophy and religion. Significant figures in the story include a teacher, Shimon Haretz, and an intellectual, Isaac Malbin, who are shown to be out of their element early in the film, and yet demonstrate their importance to uniting the community and making their shared existence more fruitful and dynamic. For example, Shimon Haretz, played by Allan Corduner, is the former school teacher of Tuvia. He realizes that with all his wisdom and learning, he was totally wrong about the Nazis. They play chess and read books. These activities may not seem significant on first glance, but when one reflects on their precarious life in the forests, hunted by the Nazi regime, they take on greater meaning. The partisans take the time and make the effort to preserve and maintain the chess board and the pieces as well as the books. They acknowledge that these activities—and these physical objects—are worth preserving and maintaining for the future.

The partisans take the time to debate politics and philosophy, and to maintain a lively intellectual environment for anyone interested in participating. A fascinating political discussion occurs between the aforementioned characters Haretz (the teacher) and Malbin (a self-described intellectual). The scene picks up midway through their conversation as they are digging trenches and building huts for shelter:

Malbin: So, you’re telling me that all politics is meaningless?

Haretz: In the West, a monster with a mustache, in the East, a monster with a big mustache. This is all I need to know about politics.

Malbin: Your messiah will have a mustache, too. And a full beard.

Haretz: No. The messiahs are all in politics and they are killing us.

Malbin: No, you’re…

At which point Zus interrupts and says, “What’s killing me is all your talking!” This humorous exchange is meant to demonstrate that despite the circumstances, and the fact that they are fighting for their lives, they are literally rebuilding civilization out in the forests. Part and parcel to rebuilding is political discussion—how best to govern a society. A scene later they are still debating, this time about Descartes and human subjectivity. This theme of governance threads throughout the entirety of the film as the Bielski partisans have to learn to live together and work to common purposes.

In presenting these scenes of cultural and religious preservation as a way of resistance, the filmmakers draw a clear parallel to violent resistance. Both are valid and important form of resistance to Nazi domination. Even the non-religious who maintain religious rituals, perhaps out of habit, do so in opposition to the Nazi aim to eradicate Judaism and Jews in the Greater German Reich. For example, the film depicts an evocative sequence when Zus and his fighters lay in wait to ambush a German patrol, while at the same time, just kilometers away at the home camp, Asael and his bride Chaya prepare to take their wedding vows.11 On a snowy day the partisans gather around Asael and Chaya for their wedding ceremony. Rabbi Haretz prays,

Blessed art Thou, our God, king of the universe, who created man in his own image, and fashioned out of himself for us a lasting place. Blessed art Thou, our God, king of the universe, who created all things for his glory. O gladden these loving mates as Thou did anciently gladden Thy creatures in Eden. Blessed art Thou, our God, who gladdens the bridegroom and the bride.

He then reads in Hebrew as Asael places a ring on Chaya’s finger. As the rabbi speaks, the scene is intercut with Zus and the partisans waiting in ambush for a transport. As the music and dancing at the wedding begins, the soldiers open fire on unsuspecting German forces.12 The two scenes are cut together to form one montage of resistance in two forms. Both events, in their own ways, are resistance to Nazi oppression. The fighting—most obviously—is actively resisting the Nazi forces. The wedding is a form of resistance as it maintaining Jewish religious customs and culture at a time when the Nazis want to eradicate Jews and their culture from the earth. A wedding is also the beginning of a new life, two becoming one flesh; the wedding celebration is juxtaposed to the ending of life as Zus and his team ambush the enemy. The Bielski partisans are marrying, they are choosing to live, and they are even having children, as difficult as it may be in the forests.

The Bielski partisans’ focus on cultural and religious preservation is a form of resistance to Nazi dominance and antisemitic policies because they are ensuring the continuance of Jewish identity well into the future, long after they are gone. Even in the most difficult of circumstances, deep in the Belorussian forests, they are taking the time to ensure that they and their descendants remain Jewish in their cultural and religious identity. Even for those Jews who may not be religious, their rites and rituals are Jewish, such as Asael and Chaya’s marriage ceremony. These practices reinforce who they are as a people; they remind them of their heritage; and they reaffirm their identity as God’s chosen people (as the rabbi’s recitation of the biblical text suggests).

This emphasis on cultural and religious preservation is given extraordinary attention in a profound prayer of lamentation in the latter half of the film, as winter and hunger oppress the partisans in the forest. At a funeral Shimon Haretz prays,

Merciful God, We commit our friends Ben Zion and Krensky to your care. We have no more prayers, no more tears. We have run out of blood. Choose another people. We have paid for each of your commandments. We have covered every stone and field with ashes. Sanctify another land. Choose another people. Teach them the deeds and the prophecies. Grant us but one more blessing. Take back the gift of our holiness. Amen.13

This is an insightful and evocative prayer for a number of reasons. First, it reflects the dire situation of the partisans in the dead of winter deep in the forest. Many are sick of typhus, and there is not enough food and medicine to go around. They are at the end of their resources and their hope is fading. Second, it reflects the understandable spiritual despair of the people. Many, like Haretz, believe in God and yet cannot understand why they suffer as they are, trying to survive the crushing oppression of the Nazi regime. But they are in hiding and need God’s protection. They are physically and spiritually tired and need rest.

While one may contend that his prayer is only a reflection of Haretz’s own personal spiritual anguish, I would contend that the filmmakers present him as a spokesperson for all the people in the camp. He is before them all as their spiritual leader, praying to God, using the first-person plural, petitioning God to be released from the covenant God established with Abraham. The covenant stipulated that God would be their God and they would be God’s people, and in this relationship, through their conscientious abiding by the law, the nations would come to know the God of Israel. They would become part of the blessing of the nations. With this prayer Haretz tells God that the people do not have anything more to give. Yet, even though they are experiencing despair, they are still looking to God to care for their friends in the afterlife—they “commit” their friends to God’s care, knowing and trusting he will indeed care for them.

Third, the prayer affirms that Haretz and by extension the people see themselves as God’s chosen people. Even in this situation, they pray to God, and their assumption is that they are still God’s chosen people. So, Haretz asks God to choose another people to serve the world in sharing the law and the prophets. While they wish to relinquish this title because of their suffering, they still see themselves as God’s people. Haretz petitions God twice to “Choose another people,” to reveal the law and the prophets to another people. This is a heartbreaking moment in the film as the audience realizes the depth of their suffering not simply in material terms—their lack of food, medicine, and shelter sufficient to hold back the cold—but their spiritual suffering as well.

Lastly, one may argue that the prayer demonstrates for the audience how to pray a prayer of lamentation, similar to the prayers of lamentation found in the Hebrew Bible Psalter (the Book of Psalms). Terry Lindvall has contended that films throughout the decades have demonstrated for audiences how to pray, whether in the holiday classic It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), the Will Ferrell comedy Talladega Nights (2006), Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life (2011), or the war film Hacksaw Ridge (2016). He writes, “Alas, so it is that movies in aiming at authenticity and verisimilitude or sheer fantasy and satire, indirectly, and mostly unintentionally, provide a primer on how one is to pray” (Lindvall 2019, p. 328). Prayers in films reveal not just the inner lives of the characters, but they also provide models of prayer for the audience. Defiance provides just such a model for a prayer of lamentation, literally presenting for the nations of the world how to draw to God even in the most terrible of circumstances.)

4. Staying Alive as Resistance

As the Nazi regime pursued a policy of the extermination of European Jewry, the mere determination to survive—despite the extraordinary efforts of the Nazis to murder Jews—is an expression of resistance. The Bielski partisans made a conscientious effort to flee the Nazi sweeps and deportations, which many were convinced would lead to their death, and instead they chose survival in the forests. If they were going to die, they were going to die as free people and not at the hands of the Nazis. Indeed, historians have documented cases in which Jews preferred death by suicide rather than Nazi execution by bullet, gas, or starvation in the camps (Tec 2013). The forests presented tremendous dangers for the partisans, especially for those who did not know the forests (as the Bielski brothers did) or had no experience braving the elements. This theme of freedom is central to understanding survival as a means of resistance, as the partisans’ freedom to survive in the forests meant that they directly undermined and resisted the Nazi policy of extermination.

In this struggle for survival, the filmmakers utilize cinematic techniques to portray the forest as a character in the film. Defiance includes numerous wide shots, pans, and tracking shots of the Belorussian forest, revealing the vastness of the space, and in turn, the smallness of the survivors. Thus, the forest is presented as an awe-inspiring aspect of nature, capable of subsuming and protecting an immense number of Jewish refugees. It this way it serves as a sanctuary from the evil of the Nazi regime. But the forest also serves as a kind of prison from which they cannot escape (or they would face death by the German army). They are forced to stay and make due in a new place far from their homes and conveniences of life. As captured in the wide and panning shots, the cinematography reveals the isolation of the partisans in the vastness of the Belorussian forests, which mirrors their isolation as Jews in an expansive Nazi-dominated Europe.

Defiance presents the struggle for mere survival as a key theme of Bielski partisans’ resistance to the Nazis throughout the film. For example, after suffering two casualties on a raid led by Zus in revenge on the Germans, Tuvia outlines his approach to resistance. They will not take revenge—as it is too costly in lives and endangers the group—but they will focus on surviving. They will survive without becoming a burden to the neighboring villages. He says,

We will map out where we have been, so as not to visit the same farms too often, and we will take only from those who can afford to give, and we will leave those who can’t alone… Our revenge is to live. What I am saying is we are not thieves or murderers. We may be hunted like animals, but we will not become animals…Every day of freedom is an act of faith. If we die trying to live, at least we die like human beings [emphasis added].

Likewise, later in the film Tuvia says, “This is the one place in Belorussia where a Jew can be free.” Tuvia’s perspective is that they will maintain their dignity, even though they are driven from civilization by the Nazi forces. As presented in the film, Tuvia’s perspective is that the mere survival of the Jews, no matter how close to danger and death, is a meaningful response to the Nazi regime and its ideology of death and destruction. Though the Nazis might apply the force of the German state with all its might against the Jewish people, the Jews will fight back to live. To live, then, is to resist. Moreover, to Tuvia’s point, to live and to live well as human beings is the best form of revenge, the best finger in the eye to the Nazis, to flourish as just and moral human beings even in the worst of circumstances. This is revenge, to live in a manner that reveals the lie of Nazi ideology.

In saving these men, women, and children, the Bielski brothers have taken upon themselves tremendous responsibility to care and provide for them. This is an enormous burden as they sought to survive themselves. Indeed, this responsibility is made explicit as Haretz quotes the Talmud to the Bielski brothers after they recklessly seek revenge on German soldiers, “If you save a life, you must take responsibility for it.” This very act of surviving in the forests and taking responsibility for the Jews in their care is made all the more difficult as more and more Jews seek the Bielskis’ protection. With more people, there are more mouths to feed, more health concerns to expend needed medicine, and it makes it all the more difficult to move when needed. This is why one of the core rules of the camp since its founding, according the film, is that pregnancies are prohibited because they cannot properly care for a child in the forests. Yet even this rule must bend to breaking with the promise of new life. In a memorable scene, Tuvia discovers that a young woman named Tamara has become pregnant and has given birth. He hears the child’s cries. He tells his love interest Lilka that the young woman and the father must take the child and leave the camp. Lilka confronts Tuvia and says, “You tell us to hold onto our humanity. Not to become like animals. And what better way than by bringing life into this world of suffering and death. It is our only hope.”14 Tuvia acknowledges her point and acquiesces. Caring for a newborn is a powerful action that demonstrates their conscientious protection of life against the Nazi threat of death and persecution. They will do what they must to survive, but more than this, to protect and care for innocent life.

The film presents for the audience two interpretations of the Bielski partisan’s survival and resistance in the forests of Belarus. The first is that of Haretz, who interpreted their experiences as divinely orchestrated, and so he thanks God for choosing a leader in Tuvia to deliver the people out of the hands of the German army and their allies. This is a theological explanation that relies upon acknowledgment of the chosenness of the Jewish people and the goodness of God to deliver. The second interpretation is that of Tuvia himself, that they are all just doing their best to survive in an impossible situation, including himself as their leader. God is not involved, and it’s not even acknowledged that God exists. These interpretations are made clear in the final scene in the film. The German forces employ a division to encircle their position in the forest. Significantly, this occurs on the Passover holy day. The film makes a direct parallel with Moses leading the Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt to Tuvia Bielski leading the Jews out of the forest to escape the German attack. Tuvia says to Isaac Malbin, “Tomorrow is Passover. Moses, the Exodus. He left before Pharaoh could stop them.” Malbin asks incredulously, “You want to move them all? The old and the sick, they’ll never make it.” Tuvia simply commands, “We’ll leave now. Spread the word.” They leave the camp immediately, abandoning most of their possessions. The scene is purposefully reminiscent of the exodus story recounted in the Book of Exodus, as the Hebrews left Egypt for freedom in haste. The unleavened bread of the Passover (matzah) is a sign of this haste, as evidenced in the text: “The people baked the dough they had brought out of Egypt into unleavened loaves, since it had no yeast; for when they had been driven out of Egypt they could not delay and had not prepared any provisions for themselves” (Exodus 12:39, NRSV). The Bielski partisans, like the Hebrews of the exodus, leave in haste and carry only what they could.

Believing and unbelieving, they flee together. When they get to the edge of the forest and it opens upon a wide marsh, they face being exposed by enemy aircraft and the German army on the advance. Asael commands the group to start moving across the marsh, to which one woman says, “That’s impossible!” Asael says, “Nothing is impossible! What we all have done is impossible!” Then he confronts Tuvia, who is despondent and kneeling, as if paralyzed, and says, “The troops are coming. God will not part these waters. We will do it ourselves. Not by miracles. We will do it together by our strength.” The comparison to the exodus story is again made explicit. The partisans gather belts and ropes, and create a chain for each to hold as they traverse the treacherous marsh together. They make it across, seemingly miraculously. When they arrive, Haretz, on a stretcher and deathly ill, says to Tuvia, “I almost lost my faith. But you were sent by God to save us.” Tuvia responds as we might well imagine, “Ridiculous.” But Haretz continues, “I know, but just in case, I thank Him, and I thank you.”15 He dies only moments later. The filmmakers raise the issue of God’s possible involvement in protecting the Bielski partisans by choosing and sending a deliverer to lead them to safety, just like Moses in the exodus account.

This is not the first or only time in the film this comparison between Moses and Tuvia was made, raising the issue of Tuvia’s calling. In an argument about Tuvia leading Jews out of the Baranowicze ghetto to safety in their camp, Zus sarcastically says to him, “So, now you are Moses, huh?”16 Zus is concerned that leading scores or hundreds of Jews will jeopardize the Bielski camp. Tuvia is no Moses, Zus infers. When Tuvia and Asael go to the ghetto to try and convince Jews to escape, Tuvia calls on one rabbi to counter a Jewish elder’s assertion that time is their greatest weapons, that they will wait out the Germans and survive. Tuvia looks at the rabbi, and says, “Rabbi, Rabbi, please.” The rabbi responds, “We are waiting on God.” Tuvia will not wait on God; he takes action. Yet in the climax of the film, Haretz infers that God put Tuvia just in that position because of his character and willingness to act. Both Haretz and Tuvia are convinced their own interpretations are correct.

Throughout the film and the depiction of these myriad forms of resistance, the filmmakers seek to cultivate in the audience a sense of empathy. How would we have reacted if we were Jews living in this time? One way they do this is through cinematic techniques. At times the filmmakers frame scenes to position the audience as curious onlookers, which the modern audience in fact is, looking into the lives of the resisters from a distance. This is oftentimes through the leaves and trees of the forest, as may be expected, but at other times the effect is more conspicuous. For example, when Tuvia meets with a local farmer to hide family members, the camera is clearly positioned outside the house, looking in through the window at an angle, as if the audience is sneaking a look at resisters engaged in subterfuge. When Germans and their allies later identify the same farmer as a resister and hang him, the camera looks from a distance, from behind a structure, to see Tuvia and Zus burying the man. We as the audience are interlopers, looking in and trying to understand what happened and what these partisans must have gone through. These cinematic techniques create distance between the audience and the resistance fighters, emphasizing the danger and the precarious circumstances the Bielski partisans experienced, as well as our own distance from these events and risks as a modern audience. Ironically, this technique only draws us deeper emotionally to their story of survival.

This sense of empathy is also developed through the use of close-ups on Tuvia and Zus in particular to reveal the emotional toll of Nazi persecution and their resistance. When Zus learns of the murder of his wife and child, the camera focuses on his face, clearly revealing his agony. The same is true when Tuvia and the partisans flee the German army in the climax of the film and they come upon a wide open swamp. Tuvia must make the choice to expose the partisans to aerial attack, like fish in a barrel, or wait for the German army to sweep through their position. The camera close-up reveals Tuvia’s despair and despondence at the impossible dilemma. He moves only when his younger brother Asael gives him and the partisans courage by affirming that they must have a hand in their own survival—God will not part the sea for them.

5. Conclusions

Defiance is more than a conventional action film about the Second World War. It explores the myriad and sundry ways Jews resisted Nazi persecution during the Holocaust. Indeed, from start to finish, the film presents Jews resisting in violent opposition, in preserving their culture and religion, in simply staying alive and caring for fellow Jews. Each action, in its own way, defies Nazi ideology and policies meant to eradicate European Jewry.

The film presents the heroism of Belorussian Jews, and the Bielski partisans in particular, for cultural remembrance, a theme that has universal appeal. Films such as Defiance create and affirm a cultural memory of resistance that can oftentimes serve a present purpose, such as encouraging audience members to imagine themselves in the position of the Jews, encouraging the development of empathy and understanding. Moreover, Mercedes Camino argues that “Cinematic representations of resistance have constructed a popular history that highlights the roles of ordinary citizens, often fostering a basis for co-existence… These films are, at once, historical documents and monuments: that is to say, sites of memory” (Camino 2015, p. 98). Defiance affirms that no matter the racial, ethnic, or religious tradition, resisters to Nazi Germany fought for their families, communities, and their way of life, motivations that just about anyone can understand.

At its core, this resistance is based upon the desire for freedom. The film depicts the Bielski partisans as grounding their struggle for freedom in the same desire to throw off oppression as the great Hebrew and Jewish warriors of old, such as Samson, King David, and Bar Kochba. Their freedom allows them to live as human beings, not as animals, to live and die as they choose. But this means their existence in the forest is constantly under threat, and they must hope and trust in God, or themselves, or both. In this way, as Tuvia asserts, “Every day of freedom is an act of faith.”

The religious themes in the film orient the audience to understand the Bielski partisans as the people of God struggling for survival. The prayers and rituals throughout the film depict the Jews as the people of God, seeking guidance and security from God. Tuvia is presented as chosen to lead his people to freedom, like Moses. The climax of the film is a literal exodus story as the partisans cross a swamp to flee the pursuing German army. Yet still, the film offers the perspective of Tuvia and Zus, that God may or may not exist, and that even if he did, their survival is up to them. They must act to save themselves and all the Jews who came to them for protection. Defiance demonstrates the courage of the Bielski brothers and serves to preserve and advance their memory in our culture today, while providing a thoughtful and moving presentation of the religious life amid persecution.