Tourists as post-witnesses in documentary film: Sergei Loznitsa’s Austerlitz (2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s KZ (2006)

This article compares two documentary films that address an apparent crisis of post-witnessing at memorials that commemorate the victims of National Socialism. In the context of contemporary debates about appropriate behaviour for tourists at sites of “dark” or &ldqu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	David Clarke
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law 2020-06-01
Series:	Oñati Socio-Legal Series
Subjects:	documentary dark tourism post-witnessing sergei loznitsa rex bloomstein national socialism documental turismo negro post-testimonio nacionalsocialismo
Online Access:	http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/1047

id	doaj-2dfc4f1fc573478bb776073d0ae15319
record_format	Article
spelling	doaj-2dfc4f1fc573478bb776073d0ae153192020-11-25T03:18:09ZengOñati International Institute for the Sociology of LawOñati Socio-Legal Series2079-59712020-06-01103642663888Tourists as post-witnesses in documentary film: Sergei Loznitsa’s <em>Austerlitz</em> (2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s <em>KZ</em> (2006)David Clarke0University of Cardiff<p>This article compares two documentary films that address an apparent crisis of post-witnessing at memorials that commemorate the victims of National Socialism. In the context of contemporary debates about appropriate behaviour for tourists at sites of “dark” or “difficult” heritage, Sergei Loznitsa’s <em>Austerlitz </em>(2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s <em>KZ </em>(2006) take very different approaches to observing the act of visiting concentration camp memorials. Whereas Loznitsa adopts an observational documentary mode, constructing a cultural hierarchy between the touristic observer and the cinematic observer at memorials in Germany, Bloomstein’s film uses a participatory mode to prompt the viewer to consider the complexities of the affective-discursive practice of tourists engaging with the suffering of victims at the Mauthausen memorial in Austria. The article argues that Bloomstein’s decision to adopt a participatory approach is more productive in allowing us to think about the significance of responses to victims’ suffering at such sites.<br /><br /> Este artículo compara dos documentales que giran en torno a una aparente crisis del post-testimonio en monumentos a las víctimas del nacionalsocialismo. En el contexto del debate actual sobre cómo deben comportarse los turistas en lugares de herencia “oscura” o “difícil”, <em>Austerlitz </em>(2016), de Sergei Loznitsa, y <em>KZ</em> (2006), de Rex Bloomstein, observan de forma muy diferente el acto de visitar antiguos campos de concentración. Mientras Loznitsa adopta un modo de observación documental, construyendo una jerarquía cultural entre el observador turístico y el cinemático, Bloomstein opta por un modo participativo para exhortar al espectador a considerar las complejidades de las prácticas afectivo-discursivas de los turistas que se comprometen con el sufrimiento de las víctimas. El artículo argumenta que la decisión de Bloomstein de adoptar un enfoque participativo es más productivo a la hora de propiciar nuestra reflexión sobre el significado de las respuestas al sufrimiento de las víctimas en esos lugares.</p><p><strong>Available from: </strong><a href="https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1045" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1045</a></p>http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/1047documentarydark tourismpost-witnessingsergei loznitsarex bloomsteinnational socialismdocumentalturismo negropost-testimonionacionalsocialismo
collection	DOAJ
language	English
format	Article
sources	DOAJ
author	David Clarke
spellingShingle	David Clarke Tourists as post-witnesses in documentary film: Sergei Loznitsa’s <em>Austerlitz</em> (2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s <em>KZ</em> (2006) Oñati Socio-Legal Series documentary dark tourism post-witnessing sergei loznitsa rex bloomstein national socialism documental turismo negro post-testimonio nacionalsocialismo
author_facet	David Clarke
author_sort	David Clarke
title	Tourists as post-witnesses in documentary film: Sergei Loznitsa’s <em>Austerlitz</em> (2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s <em>KZ</em> (2006)
title_short	Tourists as post-witnesses in documentary film: Sergei Loznitsa’s <em>Austerlitz</em> (2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s <em>KZ</em> (2006)
title_full	Tourists as post-witnesses in documentary film: Sergei Loznitsa’s <em>Austerlitz</em> (2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s <em>KZ</em> (2006)
title_fullStr	Tourists as post-witnesses in documentary film: Sergei Loznitsa’s <em>Austerlitz</em> (2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s <em>KZ</em> (2006)
title_full_unstemmed	Tourists as post-witnesses in documentary film: Sergei Loznitsa’s <em>Austerlitz</em> (2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s <em>KZ</em> (2006)
title_sort	tourists as post-witnesses in documentary film: sergei loznitsa’s <em>austerlitz</em> (2016) and rex bloomstein’s <em>kz</em> (2006)
publisher	Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law
series	Oñati Socio-Legal Series
issn	2079-5971
publishDate	2020-06-01
description	<p>This article compares two documentary films that address an apparent crisis of post-witnessing at memorials that commemorate the victims of National Socialism. In the context of contemporary debates about appropriate behaviour for tourists at sites of “dark” or “difficult” heritage, Sergei Loznitsa’s <em>Austerlitz </em>(2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s <em>KZ </em>(2006) take very different approaches to observing the act of visiting concentration camp memorials. Whereas Loznitsa adopts an observational documentary mode, constructing a cultural hierarchy between the touristic observer and the cinematic observer at memorials in Germany, Bloomstein’s film uses a participatory mode to prompt the viewer to consider the complexities of the affective-discursive practice of tourists engaging with the suffering of victims at the Mauthausen memorial in Austria. The article argues that Bloomstein’s decision to adopt a participatory approach is more productive in allowing us to think about the significance of responses to victims’ suffering at such sites.<br /><br /> Este artículo compara dos documentales que giran en torno a una aparente crisis del post-testimonio en monumentos a las víctimas del nacionalsocialismo. En el contexto del debate actual sobre cómo deben comportarse los turistas en lugares de herencia “oscura” o “difícil”, <em>Austerlitz </em>(2016), de Sergei Loznitsa, y <em>KZ</em> (2006), de Rex Bloomstein, observan de forma muy diferente el acto de visitar antiguos campos de concentración. Mientras Loznitsa adopta un modo de observación documental, construyendo una jerarquía cultural entre el observador turístico y el cinemático, Bloomstein opta por un modo participativo para exhortar al espectador a considerar las complejidades de las prácticas afectivo-discursivas de los turistas que se comprometen con el sufrimiento de las víctimas. El artículo argumenta que la decisión de Bloomstein de adoptar un enfoque participativo es más productivo a la hora de propiciar nuestra reflexión sobre el significado de las respuestas al sufrimiento de las víctimas en esos lugares.</p><p><strong>Available from: </strong><a href="https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1045" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1045</a></p>
topic	documentary dark tourism post-witnessing sergei loznitsa rex bloomstein national socialism documental turismo negro post-testimonio nacionalsocialismo
url	http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/1047
work_keys_str_mv	AT davidclarke touristsaspostwitnessesindocumentaryfilmsergeiloznitsasemausterlitzem2016andrexbloomsteinsemkzem2006
_version_	1724628533210251264

Tourists as post-witnesses in documentary film: Sergei Loznitsa’s <em>Austerlitz</em> (2016) and Rex Bloomstein’s <em>KZ</em> (2006)

Similar Items