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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached for detailed comments, overall my suggestions are to

(1) state the main claim earlier and more explicitly

  something like? This article argues that Defiance reframes Jewish resistance to include cultural and religious persistence, challenging dominant narratives of Jewish passivity and expanding cinematic depictions of the Holocaust.

(2) discuss cinematic aspects, not simply narrative aspects, of film; engage with film studies literature

     show how visual strategies connect to the film’s presentation of Jewish practice, resistance / defiance (e.g., does the camera treat prayer scenes reverently? is violence glamorized through editing?) -- connect scenes of Jewish practice (mezuzah, wedding, lamentation) with cinematic techniques (e.g., intercutting, montage) and emotional or thematic effects

   if White's historiophoty is the primary theoretical lens (and it would probably be better to incorporate other film studies discussions of history on film, perhaps in light of recent explosion of literature around Zone of Interest), then historiophoty would need to be analyzed further and pointed to at various points in cinematic analysis throughout article

(3) is reception an important part of the argument? if so, be explicit about the audiences discussed -- US, Western European, ... ? does this argument take into account the very different reception of film in Eastern Europe? that may be beyond the bounds of the article

      if not, move film reception into footnotes

(4) reorganize argument to make historical context, reception (if necessary), and narrative analysis distinct sections - or, better, have forms of resistance as sections and incorporate context, reception, narrative analysis as needed

(5) begin each paragraph with a topic sentence to orient readers in argument and clearly state claims

(6) define terms and be especially careful with ideas about historical accuracy, truth, authenticity, etc.

(7) don't take scholarship on Jewish resistance in Germany as being uncomplicatedly applicable to Eastern Europe

(8) clarify geopolitics of region (Polish, Soviet, German)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Hello Reviewer,

Thank you for your tremendously helpful comments for revision. I have extensively revised the article to address your feedback. I've added more than 2000 words to the article, including more engagement with other scholars' work as well as more discussion of cinematic techniques to support my argument. Let me know if you have any questions or additional feedback. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this article is interesting enough, but it is more of an essay than a scholarly text. The theoretical frame is thin: not much more than historiography on Jewish resistance. The cited book by Terry Lindvall is the only relevant source the author uses, (but it is not mentioned in the list of references); the book by Daniel Anker in the list of references could be relevant, but it is not referred to in the main text. The Bloomsbury Companion to Religion and Film (2013) could offer a useful theoretical background; it even has a chapter on Holocaust movies.

 

The method used does not go far beyond the description of scenes and especially the dialogues with a disregard for the cinematographic techniques that could offer an extra layer of meaning and that makes film a different genre from literature.

 

The author’s interpretation of the film is very positive, but, particularly with respect to the religious elements, some critical reflection is needed. The topic of vengeance is a good example. The desire for vengeance seems to be justified with an appeal to God’s words, ‘Mine is the vengeance’, with the Bieslski brothers (especially Zus in this case) acting as the executioner of God’s will. The possibility that this would go against the third commandment, ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain’, is not even considered.

Likewise, maintaining the rituals by non-religious Jews could be seen as a mindless and hanging on to empty traditions (line 411).

The tension between the concept of God’s protection of (this part of) His people and man’s role in this rescue is, theologically speaking, of more importance than the little attention it receives in this article.

 

The article contends that, contrary to most Holocaust movies, the actors took painstaking trouble to learn the local languages, Russian, German, Yiddish, Polish, but the fragments on the Imbd site are all in (a heavily accented) English.

 

The references are insufficient. Where can one find ‘Yad Vashem, 2025’ for instance (lines 138, 142); references to websites are not according to the conventions. The cited reviews in lines 147-173 are not referenced. Just a name and a year are insufficient when referencing a concrete statement, a page number should be added (line 502).

 

 

The topic of this article is interesting enough, but it is more of an essay than a scholarly text. The theoretical frame is thin: not much more than historiography on Jewish resistance. The cited book by Terry Lindvall is the only relevant source the author uses, (but it is not mentioned in the list of references); the book by Daniel Anker in the list of references could be relevant, but it is not referred to in the main text. The Bloomsbury Companion to Religion and Film (2013) could offer a useful theoretical background; it even has a chapter on Holocaust movies.

 

The method used does not go far beyond the description of scenes and especially the dialogues with a disregard for the cinematographic techniques that could offer an extra layer of meaning and that makes film a different genre from literature.

 

The author’s interpretation of the film is very positive, but, particularly with respect to the religious elements, some critical reflection is needed. The topic of vengeance is a good example. The desire for vengeance seems to be justified with an appeal to God’s words, ‘Mine is the vengeance’, with the Bieslski brothers (especially Zus in this case) acting as the executioner of God’s will. The possibility that this would go against the third commandment, ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain’, is not even considered.

Likewise, maintaining the rituals by non-religious Jews could be seen as a mindless and hanging on to empty traditions (line 411).

The tension between the concept of God’s protection of (this part of) His people and man’s role in this rescue is, theologically speaking, of more importance than the little attention it receives in this article.

 

The article contends that, contrary to most Holocaust movies, the actors took painstaking trouble to learn the local languages, Russian, German, Yiddish, Polish, but the fragments on the Imbd site are all in (a heavily accented) English.

 

The references are insufficient. Where can one find ‘Yad Vashem, 2025’ for instance (lines 138, 142); references to websites are not according to the conventions. The cited reviews in lines 147-173 are not referenced. Just a name and a year are insufficient when referencing a concrete statement, a page number should be added (line 502).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text is sometimes repetitive or redundant, see lines 88-89, 323-324, 327.

Numerous typos and mistakes in prepositions and particles (lines 38, 45, 48, 52, 73, 75, 108, etc.).

When talking about the content or meaning of the film, the phrase 'to the audience' should be deleted as superfluous (lines 76, 206, 482, 485, 491, 553).

Author Response

Hello Reviewer,

Thank you for your tremendously helpful comments for revision. I have extensively revised the article to address your feedback. I've added more than 2000 words to the article, including more engagement with other scholars' work as well as more discussion of cinematic techniques to support my argument. Let me know if you have any questions or additional feedback. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is dedicated to the 2008 film Defiance, which tells the story of partisans during World War II. The authors discuss the depiction of cultural memory of resistance in the Holocaust. I am convinced that the structure of the paper corresponds to its aim and the methodology used. I would have welcomed the implementation of more ACTUAL secondary literature. This approach might be better suited to engage a wider audience, both general and lay. After this addition, I recommend publishing the article. 

Author Response

Hello Reviewer,

Thank you for your tremendously helpful comments for revision. I have extensively revised the article to address your feedback. I've added more than 2000 words to the article, including more engagement with other scholars' work as well as more discussion of cinematic techniques to support my argument. Let me know if you have any questions or additional feedback. Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

revisions make a much stronger article; in attached file, find just a handful of suggestions regarding the organization of the opening sections (pp. 1-7) and one question about a citation on p. 15

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reread the article on the film Defiance with great interest. It has indeed improved, though more in the area of cinematic techniques than in that of religion. All in all, I would agree with publication.