From the perspective of the movie alone, this is not a particularly good-looking movie, with a gentle rhythm and obscure relationships between characters. But judging from what the movie tries to convey, it's worth thinking about. If you don't understand the background at that time, and you are not familiar with some related philosophies, you may be confused. The tragic massacre of 6 million Jews by the Nazis is beyond the comprehension of a person. When Eichmann stood in the dock of the court, this was not a pure trial, but a historical truth.
Hannah Arendt reviewed the court trial video and related materials, and after thinking about evil, she came up with "the banality of evil" (the banality of evil). She discovers that Eichmann is a normal person and tries to understand Eichmann's behavior. The court condemned Eichmann for his guilt, and from his point of view, he was just following the orders of his superiors, which in his eyes were the law. Eichmann's role in this massacre is just a nobody, a nobody with no thinking ability. And it is not some people who are only full of evil thoughts and have no good intentions that cause this tragedy, it is the result of the joint action of countless such nobody. This is the banality of evil. At the same time, Arendt also suggested that in this massacre, the choices of some Jewish leaders exacerbated the massacre. The defense of Eichmann and the accusations against the Jews of his own ethnicity undoubtedly made Arendt point out for a while.
In this tragedy, the Jews never knew that the true intention of the Nazis was to exterminate all Jews. The Nazis subtly alienated the Jews, telling them that people with special talents could not die, and this made Jews think that as long as they can prove that they have special talents, they will survive. The elected leaders became pawns for the Nazis, who looked after the rest of the Jews. This is why millions of Jews did not unite and fight against it.
In the film, Arendt suffered a lot of abuse, insults and even the breakup of friends. What impressed her most was the letter read aloud by the assistant, denouncing Arendt's face as hard as stone and evil in his eyes. Arendt's words were so disgusting and stained the entire magazine that he dared not use them. When I touched the paper with my bare hands, I had to put on gloves to tear it off, and because I felt that these words were too dirty and not worth burning with fire, I had to throw them in the trash... A battle of opinions, but a personal insult. Under such pressure, Arendt always insisted on speaking up, and the debate in the open class at the end of the film was refreshing. But it can not help but make people reflect, even in the academic circle where the smartest brains gather, people's views on dissent are driven by hatred and national righteousness, and they use public opinion and power to suppress Arendt's voice. The scene before Hans and Arendt broke up is also very interesting. Hans stood on a high place, looked down at Arendt, and accused her of being arrogant and arrogant. In fact, it can be seen from this detail that what the film wants to convey is that those who condemn Arendt's arrogance are actually the ones who really look down, choose to close their ears, and stand on the so-called moral high ground to look down.
Recently, I also experienced Arendt's thoughts in Professor Liu Qing's Lecture Notes on Modern Western Thought, which is more profound and far-reaching than the content expressed in the film. The banality of evil has its origin in rationalism. Rationalism brings light and removes the charm of myth, however, as rationalism becomes more and more powerful, it becomes a new kind of myth. People began to pursue the ultimate perfection, hoping to create a perfect society through their own designs. In their eyes, the Jewish people have become redundant, just like weeds in the garden. Although they are not a threat to anyone, they are beautiful. , but also laborious to remove, so there is ethnic cleansing. This kind of "superfluous" is essentially an extreme evil. It denies the existence of human beings, tramples on dignity, and even negates the instrumental value of human beings, and even has no motive for cruelty. And in the Nazi organization, everyone played a step, a part in this purge. Rationalism reshapes the social structure into a machine-like mechanism, in which the individual's role may simply be to sign a document that transports a Jewish prisoner, the accumulation of these seemingly sinless steps that culminate in a crime. Heinous sins were committed. And among those who exercised these steps, most of whom were unable to think independently, just felt that they had accomplished their task and felt at ease.
But if people don’t do evil with their own hands, they really can’t make independent judgments, and can they really have no conscience? Arendt reminds us that, as hard as it is, someone did it.
Anton Schmidt, an ordinary German soldier who provided Jews with escape documents and transportation, was eventually arrested and executed by the Nazis. Franz Lucas, a doctor in the concentration camp, in order to save the prisoners, stole medicine from the pharmacy, bought clothes for the prisoners out of his own pocket, and managed to save some people in the gas chamber. In the court of the Nazis, he Said he could not recover from his experience in the concentration camps.
Just imagine, if more than 80% of the nobody can choose to be true to themselves like these two, this purge will not happen.
On the other hand, Eichmann is a villain who has lost independent judgment and chose to give up his conscience. Arendt is not actually defending him, but trying to understand him from his perspective to explore evil. What is admirable is that when countless saliva poured in, she used her own energy to fight back and reply. She also uses her own actions to explain the courage to insist on independent judgment despite the rejection of emotional nationalism, as she cites the example of German soldiers and doctors.
Maybe it's because you can stick to your own independent judgment. Such a person is sober, wise, and thinking
View more about Hannah Arendt reviews
