Precious Bodily Fluids

Black Book


Black Book (Zwartboek), as has no doubt been written elsewhere, is something of a departure from the more standard genre of World War II films that has lasted from the 40s up until relatively recently. Spielberg’s Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan represent good but nevertheless pretty textbook examples of this trend. While the former film is based on a Holocaust account and the latter takes combat as its focus, the films pit good against evil as one would expect from WWII films: Allies = good; Axis = evil; male hero; etc. Oskar Schindler may have had his faults, but he was really one of the good guys, whereas Ralph Fiennes’ character, sniping Jews from his concentration camp penthouse suite, embodies the worst of the records about Nazi officers. Incidentally, Spielberg’s films and the general lack of genre variety about the Holocaust reflect the nearly global inability to see WWII and especially the Holocaust with anything other than the tried-and-“true,” regurgitated outlook that dominates both popular and academic histories. Alan Alda said in Crimes and Misdemeanors that “comedy equals tragedy plus time,” and while no one here suggests that it’s time to start joking about the Holocaust, its status as untouchable except within prescribed boundaries is remarkable, to say the least. It is actually more acceptable to joke about and offer alternate theories or histories of 9/11 than the Holocaust and all things related, though 9/11 is significantly more recent. Spielberg’s outspoken disdain for Roberto Benigni’s La Vita è Bella (Life Is Beautiful) confirms Spielberg’s highly conservative outlook regarding the Holocaust and his unwillingness to visualize that history through alternate spectacles. Undoubtedly, this reality regarding Holocaust history has a complex and long-established history, one that won’t be studied here. Still, this point is important to acknowledge.


A sort of counter-argument manifestation of this phenomenon might be seen in a recent news item, in which a self-exiled German man, repeatedly accused of Nazi war crimes, was finally deported by the US back to Germany last week after a higher court overturned a ruling by a lower one, which had argued that the man should remain in the US and not face trial on account of his delicate health. While this anecdote doesn’t disprove the seriousness with which the Holocaust is still taken, it illustrates that the atrocities committed are not (yet) ancient history. People who suffered, people who fought, and people who committed horrors are still walking the earth. Perhaps it’s for precisely this dual reality—the temporal distance and the physical closeness—that makes a film like Black Book worth making and, possibly, worthwhile.


A final observational tangent related to Black Book is this: it happens to be in style right now to blur boundaries between pretty much anything: truth and falsehood, good and evil, beauty and ugliness, reality and illusion, etc., etc. This has been an increasingly popular theme in film, particularly, and it probably has more to do with liminality than hybridity. Whereas hybridity is a both-and, liminality connotes the problem when ambiguity surfaces at an in-between level. Black and white are not as interesting as grey; neither-nor but also, kind of, both. This being the case, it’s not surprising that Paul Verhoeven (who blurred lines between, for example, human and machine in Robocop and Total Recall) would make a film like Black Book.


The vision of humanity in Verhoeven’s films isn’t very bright. His most utopian film to date might be Starship Troopers, which may have valorized bravery, but it still really amounts to squashing a lot of giant alien bugs. Black Book begins with a war that is winding down and ends with a war that is just starting up. Following the pre-flashback prelude, the character of Rachel is found in Nazi-occupied Holland about a year before liberation. Following the flashback, we see her back in Israel, where she’s settled following WWII, and the Suez Crisis begins just before the closing credits. In the Netherlands, Rachel, a Jew, is living in hiding with a family who imposes their Christian faith upon Rachel. It is implied that she only eats when she successfully memorizes Bible verses. This early vilifying of religion continues throughout the film with a forceful presence. Verhoeven’s atheistic reaction to Nazi evils is ironic in light of the victims of Nazism. This extreme cynicism in the film rather forgets that faith was one of the few things capable of sustaining not only the Jews but the other victims of the Holocaust. While this might seem a digression, Black Book associates religion with self-righteousness, impotence, and ignorance on numerous occasions.


Perhaps most important in setting apart Black Book from its related genre is the role of the woman as heroin. The traditional WWII film, even in its only slightly nuanced Spielbergian version, rarely heroizes the female above the male. If the woman is given heroic status, it is by virtue of assisting the man. This has entailed the art of feminine seduction, as illustrated in films like Where Eagles Dare and a Sophia Loren WWII film, which I think is called Operation Crossbow. The only differences between those films and Black Book is that Black Book shows the audience a lot more of the seduction and it keeps the woman at the narrative’s center. In theory, this could give her more agency as a person than the more common trope of the heroine only defined by giving her body for the cause. To ensure that Black Book succeeds, the film emphasizes the willingness, the free will with which Rachel operated. Having lost her family (her sense of self through social connection), she maximizes her new role as woman-only, not “daughter” or “sister.” As a mere “woman,” Rachel pits her imposed self against the imposers, only to find that among those imposers are others who, like her, have been reduced to an idea. The Nazi officer she is sent to seduce shows her the gray space between good and evil, where they desire to make a home. The postwar chaos, replete with atrocities of the Allies, reveals a world in which the two characters are again unwelcome and, worse, marked for the crimes that let them survive the previous regime. Rachel’s fate in the postwar prisoner camp is punishment – punishment very distinctly tailored to her as a woman – for surviving in the only way (as the film has it) that a woman can survive. Herein again is the aforementioned cynicism. Aside from these concerns, however, Black Book ably defeats much of its own cynicism through free will; determination over determinism.

blackbook6 blackbook9blackbook8

This entry was published on April 13, 2009 at 9:57 pm. It’s filed under 2000s Cinema, Dutch Film and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.

2 thoughts on “Black Book

  1. Great review! I completely agree with your views on movies on the subject of World War II in general, and Holocaust in particular – the tendency of directors to present stories & characters as black and white, good and evil. However I felt that holds strongly for Black Book as well – people are either completely good or completely bad, without any shades of gray. The only difference between this movie and the rest perhaps lies in the fact that here the good guys do not just belong to the Resistance, and the bad guys are just restricted to the Nazis. In fact a number of characters here appear like caricatures. This could have been intentionally done by Verhoeven, considering the enfant terrible that he is, but it failed to put the movie in a different light – at least for me. The production values are gorgeous, and the story (despite some really absurd plot developments) is slick and engaging. But beyond that I failed to see any inherent greatness as some (perhaps including you) have found. To me it was nothing more than a fast, old-fashioned thriller. Only very few movies, like Closely Watched Trains, managed to achieve what you mentioned about Black Book – blurring the line between the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’. An excellent review, nonetheless.

  2. What you say is thoughtful. I think you may be correct about Black Book not actually avoiding moral caricatures in its characters, although it pretends or at least sets out to do so. Perhaps the production values, as you say, along with the quintessentially “thriller” pace of the film help to cover up some of its more conventional aspects. I’m not sure how much I would say about its “inherent greatness,” but the film is worthy of study, if, for nothing else, for its audacity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: