User Reviews (21)

Add a Review

  • I really did want to appreciate this movie for tackling a series of monumental subjects - corporate dehumanization, guilt by association (especially concerning the Holocaust), Orwellian destruction of meaningful language, and the fallibility of psychoanalysis. However, watching this made me realize why the similarly dense subject material from novelists like Don DeLillo and Thomas Pynchon rarely make it to the big screen is that they are much too diffuse, internal, and cerebral to even attempt in the plot-action-event world of film. I love film, and I love ideas, but all good film (even the most arty and pretentious) is about action first and ideas second. This film starts with the ideas and never lets the characters out from under them. A movie should never be about words, just as a novel should never have directions for camera angles.

    I can't make a conclusive evaluation of whether I loved it or hated it, so I give it a 5 out of 10. It fails in doing the impossible, so I have to give it some credit. This movie is a prime example of why some novels should never be made into films.
  • La question humaine is a difficult movie, not entertaining, but very rewarding. It gets slowly under your skin and makes you reflect about who you are, who we are, what our parents, have transmitted us generation after generation. Basically, it is a movie about transmission, about languages, about words that echo across time.

    That's why I believe it is simplistic to say that Nicolas Klotz and scenarist Elizabeth Perceval are comparing the way companies are managed today to the way the shoah was "managed". They are much more subtle than that. What Elizabeth says in the interview which accompanies the DVD is something close to this: "When Simon is reading the technical report written during the war by Theodor Jüst, he is touched by the words used, the structure of the sentences, their cold, technical tones, of which he finds echoes in his own industrial psychologist language." In a similar vein, on wikipedia, you can find the following quote by Nicolas, in French, which says something similar. As Nicolas himself says, there is something hazy, "gazeux" about the film, about these "résurgences" from the past. Which, again, does not mean that industrial companies like SC Farb (reference the product used in gas chambers) are modern-day gas chambers...

    There are many beautiful, touching, although painful moments in this movie. I think in particular of Lynn's account (Valerie Dreville) of Matthias Jüst, discovering when he was young the atrocities committed by his father. She says she was in love with the boy he once was. Then he had the courage to confront his father. As an older, powerful man, CEO of a large business unit, he seemed to have lost that kind courage.
  • writers_reign17 May 2008
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is clearly aimed at the art house audience rather than the Multiplexes though there are those among the popcorn pillocks who may well appreciate the brilliant interplay between Michael Lonsdale and Mattieu Alamric as CEO and in-house psychologist respectively of a large German corporation in France. Ostensibly Alamric is asked to cosy up to Lonsdale in an effort to ascertain if his mental state to give the Board pause but of course what on the surface is straightforward turns out to be much more complex with the task 'getting' to Alamric and invading his personal life. The acting throughout is uniformly excellent with the two leads beyond excellence and it's good to see Edith Scob back on screen. Will reward the patient viewer.
  • This film led me on a journey, not one I would have willingly taken but in the end I was glad I stayed on board. It was painful, it was a little long but the acting, the filming and the message made it a positive experience for me.

    Anyone who is looking for a "Feel Good" movie, don't watch La Question Humaine (Why did they have to change the title for the anglophone market?) A recent visit in Hiroshima was a similar experience. I felt very distressed at the end of the visit, but I was glad I hadn't ducked out.

    I think this film has something to say for all Europeans. For me it's a stark reminder of why the EU was launched and why we still need it more than ever.
  • I start by saying how sorry I feel for the Director, Nicolas Klotz. His name is the German cognate of "block" or "lump" and like his name that's what he delivers - a lump of celluloid intent on blocking any aspirations to aesthetic of philosophical appeal. It is distasteful to the highest magnitude. The comments by fellow reviewer greenforest56 from San Francisco are a good summary on this horrid film, in particular Greenforest's first lines.

    By now I should have learnt my lesson with French films and the pretencions of music e.g. "Un Coeur en Hiver (A Heart in Winter)" For reasons only known to Napoleon they just can't pull it off. It seems as if the pretend auteurs need to inject some music to give their films a stamp of Gallic approval.

    Watching the film and the making of was sheer torture - for reasons given by others. I'm not sure it could be improved but if it could the first thing to vanish would be the boring and annoying long takes. What was the idea of the over long take at the rave party? The director said he wanted it shown in a documentary style. But why? And what was the long shot of the railway line? Was it supposed to be a very sick subliminal metaphor for the track leading to Auschwitz? Maybe it was quite simply pathetic editing?

    Klot's analogy or metaphor of modern day techno-fascism in comparison with the Gestapo beggars belief. What on earth was Elisabeth Perceval thinking of when she wrote this drivel? The comparison between illegal immigrants trying to access Europe and the Gestapo gassing trucks is truly bizarre. No matter that she talks about the technology used today to detect the sound of a heartbeat by immigrants hiding in trucks(hence the title) but to compare it with the technology devised by the Nazis to kill millions requires either a few bottles of wine or a perverse course on left bank Marxist tripe.

    It's only when one analyses each of the themes that it falls apart like a cheap dress.

    It was such a shame to see that fine actor Mathieu Amalric put his name to this truly awful film.

    Lastly. This will be a film that the arty critics and teachers at film schools will simply adore. They will be able to talk and write forever on all the nuances, depth, texture and Mis En Scene. Avoid them and the film at all costs!

    Points Minus 9.5. It would have been 10 but I always make an allowance for those who write the end credits.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    NB: SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

    Neither the symptomatic alcoholism of despair apparently rife on the production line at SC Farb, the French branch of a German petrochemical company, nor the suicidal depression of it's boss merit more positive counselling remedies. Defective performance merits only elimination. This is the business of the firm's 'Human Resources' Department.

    Tasked with this soulless duty, Simon suffers a personal crisis when his official persecution of Just, the CEO of Farb, only brings him face-to-face with 'mon semblable, mon frere' in the form of the family and corporate guilt that has finally overwhelmed Just. Simon must unwittingly trace lineal descent from the Nazi past in the deadly ruthlessness of the managerialist expedients his own job demands. Thereafter he suffers nightmares, both sleeping and waking, that seem to expose a vast and unrelenting corporate attack on the integrity of human nature.

    Simon begins to realise that his inability to admit love or empathy for another is destroying his own closest relationship. Soulless techno music, which is the chosen relaxation of his professional colleagues, is designed to pound human sensibilities into mindless oblivion - the rhythmic tabula rasa which is the necessary conditioning for unquestioning de-personalized adherence to corporate doctrine. By contrast, it is shocking to experience the intense spirituality of the passionate and moving fado and flamenco performances elicited from some talented individuals at a 'works outing' organised by Simon.

    Ironically, this musical enterprise was merely intended by Simon as a false flag cover for his investigation of Just, who was once himself a greatly talented musician, and at one time sufficiently enlightened to encourage such personal endeavours amongst his staff. A recording of Just's own performance in the Schubert string quartet 'Death and the Maiden' is heard, which strikes a beautiful and sombre note in the midst of corporate cultural savagery. Simon finds that he cannot bring in the damning report his superiors expected. He diverges from corporate 'new-speak' to utter the truth: Just is not mad - he is tired. It has become obvious to Simon that Just is tired from years of repressing his sense of guilt - he is, in point of fact, finally coming to his senses. And where the conscience-stricken Just leads, Simon follows with relief.

    Notable is the aforementioned use of uplifting music in counterpoint to nihilistic rock. Also effective is the final reading from German engineering and managerial reports on the research and development of Nazi technology for the efficient mass extermination of human beings, that suddenly identifies such dishonest and perverted language as the origin of modern corporate group-think.

    The film is not a political thriller in the racy Costs-Gavraz mode, but more a brooding journey into the European Heart of Darkness; feelings of Revulsion, rather than Revolution, being the intended effect.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Here's a movie with a serious theme, undone by the earnestness of the director and writer. We know how serious the theme is because it involves Nazi death camps, and not just as a reminder of what humans are capable of, but as an odd metaphor for humanity's current business conditions.

    "Did you know," says one character, "we don't have poor people anymore? Only people on modest incomes. We no longer talk of "issues," such as social issues, but "problems" that our specialists split up into a series of technical details. For each one, they'll find the optimum solution."

    That may or may not be true, depending on one's own social enthusiasms, but Nicolas Klotz, the director, and Elisabeth Perceval, the screenwriter, seem to be making the case that corporate downsizing is the moral equivalent of Nazi extermination actions. The parallel is not only grotesquely naive, but thickheadedly trivializes some of humanity's worst atrocities. One has to admire, and I mean this seriously, their earnestness, but their earnestness leads them into the fatal flaw of some artists: That their passion for social justice equates as artistic talent.

    The Human Question (the English title, Heartbeat Detector, is confusing) gives us a good start. A corporate psychologist at SCFarb, a giant German company with a major Parisian subsidiary, is called upon by Karl Rose, the firm's deputy manager, to secretly report on the mental health of SCFarb's head, Mathias Just (Michael Lonsdale). Our man, Simon Kessler (Mathieu Amalric), is told that Just has been behaving erratically. Simon is given this assignment because of how effective and dedicated he had been in his role during a major downsizing. Simon gets more than he bargained for. He discovers something called the Farb Quartet, which several years ago played for employees. Just was the violinist. This gives him cover to meet with and evaluate Just to discuss the possibility of a Farb employee symphony. After two meetings and a visit to Just's home, it's clear to Simon that Just is exhausted, in the midst of some sort of crises and is racked by a deep sadness. And then Just tells Simon he knows all about Simon's assignment...and that Karl Rose was a child from a Nazi program to increase the numbers of Aryan children. Then there are the letters Just gives him, letters that talk about the role of Just's father at a death camp. This is followed by anonymous letters Simon begins to get which artfully combine sections of Simons recommendations for downsizing and old Nazi instructions for killing people.

    And on it goes for nearly two-and-a-half hours. There is no drama to speak of, just lots of long takes, long monologues and long scenes. There are lots of secondary issues that move around without resolution. It takes 80 minutes to get to where tension in Simon's assignment starts to build and where we think there might be something wrong in the relationship between Just and Rose. It takes 95 minutes to get to the point of the movie...activities at Nazi extermination camps and the lack of emotion about how people are treated today. "The business world is unforgiving," says Just. "How do you reconcile 'the human factor' with the company's need to make money?"

    Some viewers become angry or sarcastic when faced with movies like this. My emotions are sadness and boredom. Sadness because the serious intent of the movie's creators exceeds their abilities. Boredom, because no matter how earnest the intent of a movie, a movie's first responsibility is to engage the viewer at some meaningful level, even if that level is based only on technique. For me, Heartbeat Detector missed that requirement, especially at the level of technique. But in an unintended bit of irony, we also figure out that being a company psychologist must require all the supple morals of a physician who assists in "robust" interrogations of prisoners. Michael Lonsdale, however, is a fine actor. It was almost worth seeing the movie to watch him.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In this complicated philosophical thriller and meditation on modern varieties of evil, Simon Kessler (Matthieu Amalric), who narrates (echoing the source book by François Emmanuel), is a corporate psychologist working in the "human resources" department of the French branch of SC Farb, a German petrochemical company. A high-ranking official, Karl Rose (Jean-Pierre Kalfon), assigns Kessler the delicate task of investigating the mental state of company CEO Matthias Just (Michael Lonsdale). Kessler meets Just on the pretense of working up a plan for employee musical groups; years ago Just himself was part of a string quartet made up of staff members. (At 77 Lonsdale is still impressive, immense; to see him and the brilliant Amalric, 43, play off one another is worth the price of admission.) Just appears to be coming apart, yet he seems tired rather than crazy, and there is nothing specific. But what Kessler discovers, in Just, in the company, in the past of some of the employees, and in himself, leads him to come apart himself.

    This is a cold, dark-suited world inhabited by expressionless but dangerous men and women who smile, but bite back. The cinematography is of a chilly beauty. Music is a powerful thematic element. Schubert is associated with Matthias Just. American-educated French musician Syd Matters composed for the film. To unwind, Kessler and colleagues go to raves and, dance wildly to techno, and come unglued. The strobe lights' flashing seems a metaphor for the dirty secrets peeking out of hiding. Music torments Monsieur Just. He has never recovered from the death of a child and he comes unglued listening to an old tape of the company quartet playing Schubert's 'Death and the Maiden' when Kessler visits his house. The calm of classical music seems false. Some of its master composers come from the land of the Nazis.

    Despite the cute English title, in French this film is called 'La question humaine,' 'The Human Question.' Klotz, whose partner Elizabeth Persival collaborated on the adaptation, is working in the same mode of Claire Denis in The Intruder/L'Intrus and Arnaud des Pallieres in 'Adieu,' films that focus up close on highly culpable individuals but consider vast social issues and historical wrongs which they explore in challengingly fractured ways but in a language that is visually and aurally rich. Denis' "hero" was associated with various illegalities, including illegal organ sales. Adieu considers questionable business practices and the repression of immigrants. Heartbeat Detector gestures meaningfully toward apparently French executives' relationship with the Shoah.

    A little over halfway through the film Just delivers his bombshell to Kessler. First he points out that he knows Karl Rose (not his real name; it was Kraus) is having him investigated. He points out that in the recent company overhaul that eliminated over half the employees, Kessler played a big role in deciding who was to be axed. Then he explains Rose/Kraus's actual origins.

    Letters and papers begin to be passed back and forth. Some of them are in the hands of Just, recuperating from a dubious "suicide" attempt. There is a close examination of a German "shipment" whose passengers never survived in which someone's father was closely involved. The euphemisms of Nazi extermination where people are "pieces" or "units" seem not so far from the language of corporate "restructuring." Has the mentality of the Third Reich reformatted itself in western European industrial society? As Kessler comes apart, he loses his protective jargon. His "investigation" which Just called "une machination" (a plot) organized by Karl Rose, has turned into a probing of the human condition and the tentacles of the twenty-first century have been traced back into the middle of the twentieth.

    At its best 'Heartbeat Detector'/'La question humaine,' which is a little long, is as challenging and haunting as L'Intrus and Adieu and even more powerful and contemporary. At certain moments it seems to be lecturing us, but it also finds time to be fractured and funny.

    Presented as part of the Rendez-Vous with French Cinema at Lincoln Center, New York, February 29-March 9, 2008. US distributor: New Yorker Films.
  • First, this film is very morally flawed. It equates rounding up illegal aliens and deporting them with rounding up Jews and gassing them. This is, itself, a moral perversion.

    Second, there are too many 'moral' messages. The director/producers tried to address too many issues: corporate fascism, impersonal government technocracy, the murder of the Jews, illegal aliens, etc. Rather than make one point well, they made many points poorly.

    Third, it is badly written, produced, and directed. You could eliminate the protagonist's girlfriend altogether and not only not harm the movie but actually improve it. There were scenes, like the rave, that made no sense at all. There were other relationships, like the protagonists involvement with the blonde, that also made no sense. In other places, character development is flawed as is plot development. In all, you could cut over an hour from this film and have a better film.

    Example: there is one excruciatingly awful singing episode that you sit through thinking the director would not torture you with this unless it was important. Alas, it is merely torture....

    And that is the great weakness of this film. There are many scenes that do not enlighten, inform, educate, entertain or move the plot forward. They seem to be there for no reason at all. The producer's thinking seems that the more you ignore plot development and dramatic tension the more 'artsy' your film is.

    If painfully boring is great art this picture belongs in the Louvre.

    The pretense of a 'moral message' is no excuse for bad film making. This film is over rated at 6 stars.
  • A highly intelligent, interesting film that does a great job of showing the impact that the ripples of Nazi Germany still have on the modern world. It's half a study of that, half a character study of Mathieu Amalric's character, a psychologist for a large, anonymous company. This character is completely breaking down throughout the film as a result of living in such a shady, paranoia filled society. I have to admit that there is some stuff that went over my head. There's a subplot involving an almost underground society of these business types who take these boats to a place where they pop drugs and rave. I'm sure that the whole thing has a symbolic meaning but for me it just provided a stunning catharsis and more depth into Amarlic's character. His performance in the film is absolutely stunning. It's a very quiet, subtle portrayal that is one of the most...calculated performances I've seen in quite a while. You can tell that he put so much thought into every move that the character makes. Every turn of the body, slight movement of the eyes, it's all important for the performance. But the genius of him as an actor is that you realize he is putting importance into all of those moments, but he is so great at putting himself into the character that you just think it's important for the character and don't think about the man acting as the character until after the film is over. A very intelligent, complex performance in an intelligent, complex film.
  • BenjAii30 December 2008
    I'll start with what I liked about 'Heartbeat Detector'. It's poetical, discursive style is something I love in cinema when it's done well. I long for stories that break from the formulaic and say what they have to say while stretching the boundaries of cinematic story telling; 'Heartbeat Detector' is aiming for that. It's beautifully photographed too, it's washed out colours and florescent glare a study in disjointed alienation.

    Oh, and there is some great acting going on too, but I'm going to have to get trite at this point, because I'm afraid it's all a wasted effort.

    At heart this is a morality play, but it's lesson is a perversity, in that there is none at all. It's a meditation on the horrors on the Nazi death camps, that leads the protagonist to realise his role in firing employees in a downsizing European multi-national may equate to the culpability of Nazi functionaries involved in the slaughter of the death camps.

    Many people will find this insulting, and it is, doubly so. Insulting to those who died in the Nazi death camps and insulting to victims whose deaths could be found comparable today.

    A message to the film makers. Do you want to make a film about a man who slowly realises the banality of evil that lead to the death camps is still with us in the 21st century ? Perhaps ponder questions like why several million children in Africa die every year from diseases due to a lack of clean drinking water, while we in the West spend more than is needed to prevent this on the frivolity of bottled mineral water.

    Instead how ironic under the banner of exploring awareness of social problems, the film makers show about as much social awareness as the aristocracy before the storming of the Bastille.
  • This is an abominable film whose premise is a vile attempt to link the inhumanity of the holocaust with the inhumanity of corporate business.

    Only a pretentious left wing French pseudo-intellectual neo-feminist could conflate the behaviour of men in suits with that of men in Nazi uniforms. Elisabeth Perceval (whoever she is) has come up with a richesse d'embarras which has to be suffered to be believed.

    What is ironically amusing is that the film is set in France, where the power of the unions has cosseted the workforce to levels undreamed of in the rest of the Western World. With their protected 35 hour maximum working week, job security, pension and health-care privileges, impromptu blockades and strikes, the French worker can feel himself perhaps a little more empowered than the average internee in Nazi Germany.

    Finally as to the semiotic rubbish which reaches its portentous climax at the closing blank screen voice-over, I would point out that we live in an age where we agonise endlessly to find appropriate signifiers which will not offend or dehumanise the hoi polloi. You won't find "janitors" any more, they are "site managers". There are hospital wards for "older people" (not "Geriatric" or "old") and the oppressive servitude implied by "personnel manager" has been replaced with the touchy feely "human resources executive". Personally, I think it would be quite fun to be called a "Unit".

    Having said all that though, a French film totally devoid of any wit or humour whatsoever for its entire 140 minute duration deserves some kind of recognition.
  • This is an interesting movie. The pace is slow, and the subject is painful, so it takes some effort to watch it from end to end. But in the end, it's worth it.

    The music is very effective in inducing empathy with the main character, who's going through a life-changing crisis.

    The main point is that today's corporate speak is dehumanizing ('units' to designate workers, 'efficiency', 'objectives'), in the same way as the Nazi's ruthless technical language of death was. Language can be a tool of destruction with a clean conscience.

    Not perfect - a bit over-obvious sometimes. Also, the people speak like books, which, for me, induced a distance and made suspension of disbelief harder. Good acting though.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is a truly awful film, devoid of any redeeming features.

    Throughout the film you are left wondering what is happening and more importantly why. Characters and scenes just appear with no context to the main story which is at best half baked.

    It is overlong - nearly 2 and half hours and in desperate need of a good editor who can trim it down and a good writer who can explain what the story is really about and...

    --SPOILER ALERT-- give it an ending, as it just fades away without wrapping any of the story up.

    Some may say this is intentional but it smacks of poor writing, editing and directing.
  • I last saw Mathieu Amalric as Jean-Do in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Winner of a César for that performance and two others, he is an accomplished actor. He displays his considerable skills in this film, which has him in the role of a psychologist who must interpret words and actions of others.

    He is charged with assessing the mental state of the company CEO, Mathias Jüst, played brilliantly by Michael Lonsdale, who has two César nominations himself, and a BAFTA nomination for the 1973 version of The Day of the Jackal. This occurs soon after the company undergoes a massive downsizing.

    The verbal give and take between the two was captivating. It became really interesting when Jüst sprung upon him that he knew he was being investigated, and gave information the reached back to the Third Reich.

    The involvement of the principles in the extermination of Jews was reveled in a way that was similar to the discussion of the reduction of employees in the company. People were referred to as loads or units in each case, not as humans.

    The inhuman language of extermination becomes the inhuman language of business, and the children of the Reich are left to deal with their father's sins.

    Powerful.
  • lee_eisenberg21 September 2008
    A story of a corporation's links to Nazi Germany sounds like it would make one good movie. Unfortunately, "La question humaine" doesn't. If anything, it's boring. I was having trouble keeping my head up while watching it. The English title ("Heartbeat Detector") makes sense, since the viewer's heart might not be beating at the end of the movie.

    Look, just avoid this one. A really good recent movie dealing with the Third Reich is the Austrian movie "Die Falscher" ("The Counterfeiters" in English), so there's no reason to waste your time on this. The French film industry should be ashamed of itself for this poor excuse for a movie. Seriously, NOTHING happens in it. Total zero.
  • This ship wreck of a movie has got to be one of the most boring, irritating and absurd films I've ever watched. It ranks up there with only a couple others that I almost walked out on many, many years ago.

    No plot, no character development, irritating music and camera angles, bombastic dialogs, idiotic sequences and pointless scenes that drag on and on and on....

    I'm a grown man with a keen appreciation for art in all its forms, and do not consider myself averse to artistic, profound, philosophical movies, quite the opposite. But this is none of that. As I painfully watched, boredom turned into outright anger at the thought of wasting two hours of my life with this rubbish. And believe me, I've been known to waste some time on silly past times! This is just too much. I'm almost embarrassed, no, worse, incensed that I sat through it.

    Do yourselves a favor and avoid this load of you-know-what at all cost.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    La Question Humaine (or Heartbeat Detector -English Title) is a sophisticated film which draws history into the present day consciousness.

    Dealing with the lingering reality of the Holocaust in present day French business the film thankfully doesn't openly place blame or accusation. Instead it forms an ambiguous critique of modern day business and lifestyle which subtly starts to form into a comparison with how the Nazi party operated.

    Whilst this may sound like a drastic comparison to make, the film deals with it very well. Drawing on language and structure the film tries to open a discussion about how something like the Holocaust can be sanctioned by 'civilised' society.

    Whilst dealing very well with these questions the film does to some extent negate certain further character development - I wanted more of the new employee. Apart from this i found it to be an intense and thought provoking film which deals with history and the Holocaust in a mature and interesting way.

    Strongly Recommeded.
  • If I am tired and want some mind-numbing entertainment, I don't mind a film that presents its issues in black and white - the baddies are bad, the goodies are good and the moral dilemmas are no more taxing than first grade arithmetic.

    Heartbeat Detector does not fall into that category. It is not entertainment. Everything about it says this is a film to think about and take seriously. The web of lies, the conflicts between different players' sense of reality, they all cry out to us: art-house, subtlety, layers of meaning. How disappointing then that the film gradually degenerates into a simplistic (and false) moral message.

    The true awfulness of the film is only discovered at the very end when the final scene thrusts its trite moral message upon us in a way that clearly implies (I won't spoil it for you by saying how) that the viewer is being blessed with an earth-shattering profundity. In fact it is nothing more profound than a reminder of something which has been presented in the cinema many times before, and presented with more artistry, subtley and ambiguity. I am being a bit cryptic to avoid giving it all away. Surprise is the one good thing about the ending and if I removed that, nothing good would remain.

    The film has other flaws too, already discussed by other reviewers, but I give it 4 stars because I agree with some of the positive comments made.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is one of the rare movie, that prove "the last word can change the meaning of the whole sentence" - or the last scene can turn the message of the movie.

    Yes, it is dull, boring, long, unbearable - most of it's time - and you'll keep asking "why do I watch this?". But, the end will not only compensate for all the time of cinematic torture, but it will explain its meaning and importance. At the end you will be thankful, that you did get there and that you have seen this unknown, but breakthrough movie.

    Simply put - even in its form it uses the language of the topic, that it describes - and that is dehumanization of contemporary world, soulless work environment, corporate business. It not only shows you "the thing" and says it is not OK, it lets you experience, feel, live the thing.

    Now the part that may contain spoiler: Three sequences that stuck in my head - Boring and dehumanized talking of the corporate bosses among the present (but futuristic or distopian) exteriors of the glass & steel business centers. Next, yuppies "relaxing" on the party - according to the 0/1 digital approach of life. Maximum performance versus maximum limbo, from the top to the absolute bottom. Next, the discussion about the reduction or renewal of the work positions, optimizing, job-applicant's tests etc.

    The end - shocking, sharp and true comparison of our machine-like terminology related to work/job, "human resources", "working units", reduction, performance, effective - that is identical to the language that Nazis have used when describing human extermination process.
  • I understand why some people object to this movie's equating the plight of illegal immigrants and exploited factory workers with the Shoah (the Holocaust).

    The Jewish people are at this moment at greater risk than they have been since the Germans exterminated them in Europe during World War II. They are surrounded by hordes of brutal, ruthless monsters no less dedicated to their destruction than the Germans were 70 years ago.

    But it's worse now, because they are effectively all alone against a force thousands of times larger than they are (billions against a few million), with NOBODY on their side, not even their former official "Protectors", the British.

    During the Shoah, most civilized countries supported the Jews' right to exist (in theory, at least); but now the whole world prefers the Palestinians, whose declared aim is the total destruction of Israel. Israel's only remaining friends - the Americans - currently seem more interested in courting Israel's enemies than in insuring Israel's survival.

    Anybody who says the nation Israel is not the same as the Jewish people is either criminally deluded or a liar. Israel's enemies hate it because it's Jewish. Period. If they could wipe out the Jews all over the world they'd do it gleefully, but Israel is a much more convenient target, an isolated, vulnerable surrogate for the whole.

    In the light of this alarming situation, to compare France's arresting illegal immigrants to Germany's systematically murdering Jewish children is appalling. Nevertheless... I was bowled over by this movie.

    It is a deceptively powerful movie - deceptive because it seems to amble so slowly and randomly toward its conclusion; powerful because it makes old news new and vitally important. Instead of cheapening the Shoah, for me it made that horror realer than I thought possible after a long lifetime of learning about it.

    I DON'T think the current plight of illegal immigrants (or Palestinians, who are a particularly rapacious sort of illegal immigrant) is anything like the Jews' plight during the war, but this movie doesn't force me to accept that absurdity. It makes what was done to the Jews real, and it strengthens my commitment to Israel's survival rather than diluting it.