Here’s a fast-paced Holocaust film with able, big-name stars Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber and directed by the accomplished Edward Zwick, who is sympathetically recounting a gripping tale of tough and resourceful Jews. So why is this reviewer disappointed?
By all accounts, the three oldest Bielski brothers were heroic fighters who preserved the lives of 1,200 Jews hiding out from the Nazis in the thick forests of the Belorussian Soviet Republic, now the independent state of Belarus. It is commendable that their incredible story is now told in a movie dramatization, “Defiance.” It is perhaps even fitting that Tuvia, the eldest and most important of the brothers — handsome and gallant in his physical bearing, and steely in his determination — is portrayed by the latest onscreen incarnation of James Bond. But the film is not quite the “true story” as advertised.
We essentially know the facts from the scholarly book by Nechama Tec, “Defiance: The Bielski Partisans” (Oxford University Press, 1993), upon which the film is loosely based and from which it takes its name. A professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut and a child survivor of the Holocaust, Tec researched the story and interviewed survivors in the late 1980s and early ’90s, but the plot strays from her work in important ways. In particular, the movie becomes more shoot-’em-up than factual depiction of how Tuvia Bielski and his brothers maneuvered against myriad challenges and enormous odds to save Jews.
Craig’s Tuvia comes to blows with his brother Zus, played by Schreiber as an embittered hothead intent upon revenge. Tuvia insists on making the rescuing and sheltering of defenseless Jews their priority over killing Germans and their collaborators. Yet, this film, in highlighting scenes of battle, undermines Tuvia’s point and seems to side with its own characterization of Zus. The Bielski brothers engaged in violence out of necessity, but the nobility of their enterprise is that they preserved lives.
Tec explains that, like all partisan bands of the time, the Bielski otriad (as official partisan commands were known in Russian) tried to avoid combat — especially with the Germans — as much as possible. The first goal of all partisans, overarching their ostensible purpose of armed resistance, was to survive. The Bielskis went further by focusing their efforts on rescuing Jews.
Most of their early acts of violence were to kill Belorussian farmers and police who betrayed or hunted down Jews. Their massacre of whole families, leaving notes of explanation, had its impact. Jews fleeing the ghettos in that region were safer because of the Bielskis’ righteous acts of vengeance. But even Tec doesn’t provide the gory details of the possible meaning behind the admission that they killed “families”: Did they execute young children, even babies?
The movie depicts the fully justified demise of one family — and only one. An enthusiastic Jew-hunting policeman and his two uniformed adult sons are shot at their dinner table. But the film leaves the policeman’s wife alive, even as she begs to join her family in death. We may feel the woman’s anguish; in this instance, however, our sympathies are with the killers.
Tec makes the point that the partisans tended to exaggerate their military prowess, in part, to obtain “street cred” with each other. They also needed to impress Stalin’s commissars, secret police and high-ranking officers who parachuted in, as the Soviets acted to impose discipline and order upon disparate gangs and bands that had fled to the forests during the initial disastrous months of the war. These groups were often organized along ethnic lines — Jews, Belorussians, Russians and Poles. Not all were pro-Soviet, and Jews were often excluded, occasionally even killed, by some anti-Nazi forces.
Dramatized in a simplified way in the movie, the Bielski otriad made an alliance with the so-called October otriad under the command of a young Russian officer named Victor Pachenko. The Bielskis lent fighters to Pachenko and to other partisan leaders when required to establish their credibility as a fighting unit. Together, as shown, they engaged in sabotage behind the lines and attacked police stations to procure weapons.
The Bielski otriad had to prove itself doubly: because it was composed of Jews — who were generally regarded as cowards by other groups — and because so many of its members were noncombatants, something that made the Bielski group unique. Tec found Tuvia particularly adroit in his political maneuvering with Pachenko and other partisans, as well as with the general whom the Kremlin had installed as regional commander.
Pachenko appears older than Tuvia in the film, but the reverse was actually true. In fact, Pachenko looked up to Tuvia and sought his advice. The two were more closely allied than the film indicates: They bonded over chess and were further linked by a Jewish woman from the Bielski camp who became Pachenko’s lover for a time. The dangers for the Bielskis were almost as acute from dealing with the interests, egos and prejudices (including antisemitism) of armed partisans and their Stalinist overseers as from fending off the Germans and their collaborationist allies. These are details that could have played well cinematically, but moviegoers will get only a hint of them.
Naturally, a two-hour film could not possibly provide the detail of a scholarly book; a more thorough cinematic account would take at least a miniseries. But, even given the limitations of the genre, the film’s climax is excessively telescoped. And the moments of indecision that Tuvia actually experienced in deciding how to escape a Nazi offensive were not due to being dazed by a bomb blast, as depicted, but because of his genuine confusion as to which way to turn, literally, in leading his people to safety. He was fortunate in choosing the more difficult path — in fact, not a path at all, but a deep marsh — rather than a more inviting route lined with fallen logs, which proved unsafe. The greater human drama was in persevering for a week in an epic trek through the swamp, not in fighting and winning a battle at the end, as the filmmaker chose to depict in his re-creation of the story.
The awesome achievement of the Bielskis to save so many innocents otherwise doomed is cheapened by the image of Hollywood heroes mowing down the enemy, as we’ve seen before in scores of World War II movies. These real heroes had to kill at times, but their story deserves more than a war movie.
To read a Q&A with “Defiance” filmmaker Ed Zwick, click here.
Ralph Seliger is the editor of Israel Horizons, the publication of Meretz USA. He blogs at www.MeretzUSA.blogspot.com.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
The Mirror in the Mikveh
If Rabbis Are Allowed To Intermarry, Get Ready for the Non-Jewish Rabbi
Top 10 Badass Mah Jongg Jews
Auschwitz Museum 'May Not Reflect Real Facts' Says Hungarian Lawmaker
You've successfully signed up!
I met Partisans who survived in Belarus, particulary in Luninetz a town my Grandfather Jack Moraff came from. Every 5 years these survivors come with their families, from Israel, from New York to be honoured by the Russian townspeople. A Lubuvitcher Rabbi officiated at services at a memorial for 8000 Jews killed in the surrounding areas when I attended in 1993..there are many amazing stories...not least of which is Toronto woman Faye Shulman who wrote about her Partisan days when she was a photographer that would make a wonderful movie!
I am one of the sons of irving Resnik who was member of Bielski Partisans. My fathers whole family were mudered by the Nazies, my father did not sit around and whine about his past. he never gave interviews. What he did say was Tuvia Bielsky and his brothers were great people, after the war, he loved to meet with them and party etc, they knew what a day was back then. Tuvia Bielsky came to my brothers Barmitzfa in Stephenville Newfoundland. That was a true simcha, they had lived to see the day. This is a film , I repeat a film, the events that it is based on, did happen, I and my fathers Grandchildren live because of Tuvia Bielsky.his bros. Gary Resnik
When there's a conflict between the myth and facts, go for the myth; it will endure much longer. The legend is a much more powerful legacy. When the Jew as victim is a much more prevalent image from the Holocaust, Jews fighting against their enemies and destroying them in the process is the remedy. Don't complain about it.
I suppose film critics have to criticize, and Mr. Seliger has. However for me the images of Jewish Partisans "mowing down the enemy" was heart warming. All my life (66 years) Jews have been portrayed as passive victims. National myths can have great value. Two generations have grown up to the Yellow star and the horrific images of dead, emaciated Jews. It is about time that someone portrayed our other "capabilities," if some portion of the portrayal is myth, so be it. Every nation on earth has enhanced its past exploits. On the very day I was born safely in New York, the famous Dr. Atlas led his small group of young Jews against the Belorussian gendarmes in my mother's home town who had slaughtered the Jews, including of course relatives of mine. The group went on to kill other Belorussian police who did the actual killing of Jews. What's wrong with that? Should all Jews have acted as Woody Allen so lucratively portrays us?
Hi,I watched the movie this night. I was moved deeply by the great behavior Tuvia did,especially, they did not seek recognization and lived liking nothing happened. They are great mmen!
Ralph Seliger, You truly remind me of everything that is wrong with movie critics, namely that you don't pause and reflect on your own reviews. If you did, you'd realize that you went into a movie with unrealistic expectations and then nitpicked it when the script wasn't a carbon copy of the historical account. What angers me about your review is that you take the very scenes in Defiance that would (by YOUR account) make it a great movie and use these as "evidence" as to why it falls short. You critic that some film scenes were "telescoped," implying that this act of focusing in on key events detracts from the film. Well I've got news for you Ralph, ALL historical films ARE telescoped views. Barring a three-year, 24/7 miniseries, any video account will be telescoped. And seriously, a miniseries? You critique Defiance for not being like a miniseries? If YOU of all people note that such a comparison is unfair, then why do you still let it stand? Again, have realistic expectations. Don't critique the film for not being something it could never be (i.e. the actual historical text). But what all your criticism seems to really boil down to is that the movie had too many battle scenes. So let me get this straight, you criticize an historical WAR movie about Polish Jews who had to FIGHT the Nazi SOLDIERS for having too much fighting. Riiight.... When compared to John Wayne-type movies like "The Longest Day," Defiance's battle-time seems sparse. And unlike the gung-ho action aura you seem to take issue with, keep in mind that the threat of discovery and death was REAL and the will to FIGHT and SURVIVE was real. The fighting scenes were positioned to make a point here, not a spectacle. As for your belief that Daniel Craig (Tuvia) wasn't "genuinely confused" enough, what do you call his dismay prior to crossing the marsh? And the marsh crossing, it WAS a moving achievement. So keep in mind that "persevering" on an "epic trek" doesn't have to take 20 minutes to convey. In short, books convey and detail feelings/ideas that even the best movies strain to attain. And similarly, movies can excel at conveying that visceral, human experience. But the two are not the same. So the next time you want to ding a movie for not being a book, DON'T. All I'm asking you to consider is to REVIEW your own REVIEW before you post.
E.Z. Have you ever read any History about WWII? This movie is genius in that it portrays an aspect of the war not already popularized in the media. It was not 2 hours of gunfire like one award-winning WWII move. It portrays the good side of human nature-what happens when a diverse group shares a common need. If you look up the definition of critic-you will see it doesn't necessarily involve criticizing. It can involve appreciation and analysis. I didn't get your critique, because each criticism such as "The dangers for the Bielskis were almost as acute from dealing with the interests, egos and prejudices (including antisemitism) of armed partisans and their Stalinist overseers as from fending off the Germans and their collaborationist allies. These are details that could have played well cinematically, but moviegoers will get only a hint of them" was weak. I definitely got more than a HINT. I got it. The whole thing. The human emotion. How I would feel. How they felt. This movie deserves awards.
sorry-this should be directed a Seliger-sorry e.z.
Has joined the ranks of the all time favorite movies that I have ever seen. I am so happy to have known of this story and that these brothers did what they did because of who they were. The movie is award winning for sure!
i would have to say that i agree with a lot of the critic's criticisms. there is a sense in which this plays on the hollywood genre of glorifying war and making it look somewhat romantic and glorious. what i am wondering, though, is why this film now? surly it resonates with current politics regarding israel and palestine? how does the history presented in this film intervene in the way in which people are starting to question israel's hardline policies against palestinians? not to start a debate here over middle east peace, but i think the movie at least begs the question regarding israel's stance and whether it is justified or not...what has been lost since the bielski's in the motivations behind defenses over the jewish way of life?
i would have to say that i agree with a lot of the critic's criticisms. there is a sense in which this plays on the hollywood genre of glorifying war and making it look somewhat romantic and glorious. what i am wondering, though, is why this film now? surly it resonates with current politics regarding israel and palestine? how does the history presented in this film intervene in the way in which people are starting to question israel's hardline policies against palestinians? not to start a debate here over middle east peace, but i think the movie at least begs the question regarding israel's stance and whether it is justified or not...what has been lost since the bielski's in the motivations behind defenses over the jewish way of life?