The Different Perspectives Of The Holocaust In The Film Life Is Beautiful

Perspectives of the Holocaust

Steven Gray once said, “Life is a matter of perspective. It can be amazing or wonderful, or it can be depressing and worthless” (Gray. n.d.). Even in the midst of the Holocaust, perhaps the greatest example of a failure in human morality, this is still true. One can see how this perspective can quickly affect one’s actions, even in the direst of circumstances. In the book Night and the motion picture “Life is Beautiful”, the audience is rapidly exposed to two distinct experiences of the Holocaust, one where a son is protected from the horrors by his father, and one where the protagonist is exposed to the depths of human depravity. Interestingly, the differences and similarities in these stories can be best explained

in light of the development of the father, the development of the son, and the nature of their fellow prisoners.
“Life is Beautiful” shows the depth of human character, while Night shows just how low one can fall.

Elie’s father, though he began as a respected man, eventually lost the will to survive, resulting in his death, and even though it is difficult to blame him in light of the horrific circumstances, he failed to protect his son (Night, 2006). This proves Elie’s father to be an ordinary man, one who may love his child dearly, but isn’t willing to clearly and exceptionally sacrifice for his child when faced with his own mortality. However, Guido is an entirely different story; he showed that he was extraordinary in his ability to care for his son. Throughout the whole motion picture, Guido, a formerly silly and largely carefree man, is able to convince his young son that the internment he is experiencing is merely an elaborate game with the prize of a tank, therefore protecting him not only from physical danger, but also from mental trauma (“Life is Beautiful”, 2000). This shows that Guido grew from a simple man to one who did the nearly impossible in protecting his son. Some may say or argue that this amazing ability came from his growing faith in God, his love for his son, or simply the creative liberties taken by the producers, but one this is certain if it is true: Guido was extraordinarily different from Elie’s father. These two men serve as archetypes of where one can turn in difficult circumstances, inward towards one’s self or outward toward others and even to

God.
The development of the sons is equally important to the fathers in discussing the differences and similarities of these stories.

Elie, in Night, goes through a massive psychological, religious, and moral shift away from the faithfully Jewish boy he was before his imprisonment (Night, 2006). These struggles proved to be a crucible that changes and distorts Elie, likely because he was unable to reconcile his faith with the horrors he saw committed. He experienced the lowest possible nature of man which forced him to reevaluate who he believed he was. However, Joshua, Guido’s son, is protected by his father. The game that his father designed is so effective that he does not change significantly during his imprisonment (“Life is Beautiful”, 2000). His young innocence was protected and because of this he is able to continue to be and function as a normal boy. In contrasting these two, one is able to see that Elie experienced the full nature of human depravity, while Joshua experienced nearly none of it. Elie became a man, even a new man, because of his experience, but Joshua remained an innocent boy. The development of the sons, and the difference between the two, is radically important to the contrasting nature of Night and “Life is

Beautiful.”
Another interesting point in the comparison of these accounts is the nature of the surrounding prisoners. In Night, the prisoners are savage, injuring and killing each other for mere pieces of bread (Night, 2006). Though it is a true story, it's possible that this side of the prisoners’ nature is emphasized by the author as a reflection of what he was experiencing at the time. Their generally cruel attitudes could be remembered and influenced by Elie and his dark perspective. Divergently, Joshua and Guido’s fellow prisoners are sympathetic towards Guido’s efforts to shield his son from pain and at very least participated in the charade by not turning them in or revealing the truth to Joshua (“Life is Beautiful”, 2000). The prisoners in “Life is Beautiful” are still capable of compassion even in their suffering because the Holocaust had not fully deprived them of their humanity. Their suffering was likely similar to what Elie experienced, so the difference in description shows the power of perspective in examining the Holocaust. The groups of prisoners and their natures gives a unique ability in examining the difference between Elie and Joshua’s perspectives.
Even in the presence of the glaring similarities of these two accounts of the Holocaust, the differences are crucial. The fathers show that one can turn toward oneself or to God and others in times of trial. The sons are even more distinct, and even though both survived, they are affected in entirely different ways. As for the fellow prisoners, one can see how they are presented in wholly different lights due to the perspectives that the storyteller holds. The most important idea one can take from these two contrasting accounts is that perspective is the basis of interpretation.