He [Eichmann] was not stupid. It was sheer thoughtlessness – something by no means identical with stupidity – that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals of that period. And if this is “banal” and even funny, if with the best will in the world one cannot extract any diabolical or demonic profundity from Eichmann, that is still far from calling it commonplace. It surely cannot be so common that a man facing death, and, moreover, standing beneath the gallows, should be able to think of nothing but what he has heard at funerals all his life, and that these “lofty words” should completely becloud the reality – of his own death. That such remoteness from reality and such thoughtlessness can wreak more havoc than all the evil instincts taken together which, perhaps, are inherent in man – that was, in fact, the lesson one could learn in Jerusalem. But it was a lesson, neither an explanation of the phenomenon nor a theory about it.
Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963/1964)
How was | able to survive in Auschwitz? My principle is: I come first, second and third. Then nothing, then again I; and then all the others.
Primo Levi, The Drowned and the Saved (1986)
Just before Ophüls drops me off, I ask him, after all he has learned about the venality of nations, whether he is as patriotic as he was when he was a boy, fleeing through this same landscape. “No,” he says. “I’ve come to believe that patriotism is a lie, and anyone who is a patriot is a fool. Even though I’ve been a French citizen since 1938, most of them still think of me as a German Jew. An axe-grinding, obsessive German Jew who wants to bash France and go on and on about the treatment of Jews.” (The Guardian, 24/05/2004)
It is perhaps difficult to imagine today how Marcel Ophuls’ 1969 film, Le Chagrin et la Pitié [The Sorrow and the Pity] could call down upon itself such censor and condemnation on the occasion of its limited release in France, in 1971. Ten years would have to pass before the country’s state television would be authorised to screen what originally had been meant for television. In the words of the director of the ORTF of the time, Jean-Jacques de Bresson, “This film destroys the myths which the French people still need”. And the central myth, in this instance, was a Manichean myth of the French people united, as nation, in resistance against the German Nazi occupation. (Le Monde, 17/05/2025)
And yet the depth and intensity of Ophuls’ documentary – a film that sought to explore the responses of the French people to German occupation and their reasons for tending toward resistance or collaboration, focusing on the Auvergne region and the city of Clermont-Ferrand, through interviews with those who lived in the region at that time – continues to resonate beyond strictly French national concerns, because it bears witness to a palette of individual moral reactions and ethical postures before the violence of extreme nationalism, by conqueror and conquered, the ambiguity and banality of motives, the plurality of characters and, finally, the impossibility of collective moral superiority or guilt, that are revealed in very similar situation anywhere.
In Ophuls’ words: “For 40 years I’ve had to put up with all this bullshit about it being a prosecutorial film. It doesn’t attempt to prosecute the French. Who can say their nation would have behaved better in the same circumstances?” (The Guardian, 24/05/2004)
Among his documentary films, after The Sorrow and the Pity, we find The Harvest of My Lai (1970), A Sense of Loss (1972) – on the Troubles in Northern Ireland –, The Memory of Justice (1973–76) – on the Nuremberg Trials, the Vietnam War, and the nature of war atrocities –, Hôtel Terminus: The Life and Times of Klaus Barbie (1988), November Days (1990) – on the euphoria and uncertain future of German unification, Veillées d’armes (The Troubles We’ve Seen: A History of Journalism in Wartime) (1994), and an unfinished film, Unpleasant Truths – about the continuing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, to be co-directed with Israeli filmmaker Eyal Sivan.
And throughout this impressive body of work, Ophuls’ films are powerfully political without falling into simplistic ideological arrogance. Ophuls is far too sensitive to and conscious of the fragility of human commitment to assume the role of incorruptible judge. Yet, from the plurality of those who speak, as selected and arranged by Ophuls, an ethical criticism of a situation does gain form, a criticism animated by the simple and profound desire for justice.
Marcel Ophuls died this last May 24th. And we continue to celebrate his art.
Continue reading →
Miquel Amorós: The new internationalism in the struggle for de-globalisation
From Redes libertarias (17/12/2024)
I am asked to reflect on the constraints imposed by state frameworks – borders, languages, national idiosyncrasies – when building relations on a global scale. Such a reflection cannot be carried out in the abstract, but rather on the basis of a given situation at a given time. Let’s say we are in Europe today, when, without thinking too much about it, a social movement with libertarian characteristics, originating in local struggles, considers linking up with other similar movements in other states. One might think that the movement in question should be sufficiently consolidated and enlightened to set itself more ambitious goals, beyond the local sphere in which it was circumscribed. We would then deduce that a cumulative process of experience would have culminated and that the degree of development achieved would allow the “globalisation” of the movement. The overcoming of the state framework would therefore necessarily take place from the inside out. However, there are historical examples to the contrary. The International Workers’ Association was not first constituted in spaces delimited by the state. A local committee convened a congress attended by various delegates with different levels of representativeness; the idea caught on and soon “regional” organisations were formed and further congresses were held. State frameworks were not an obstacle. A general atmosphere was in the air in the various social scenes of the capitalist world prior to the emergence of the IWA. The local was at the same time universal. The proletarian condition extended to all corners of the planet in the same way, so that any worker could feel the most geographically distant struggles as his own. Contrary to the struggles of the bourgeoisie, which pursued the constitution of national states, proletarian struggles transcended any state barrier: they were internationalist by nature. Moreover, the First International saw itself as the bearer of the seeds of the future society. Such a society would result from the universalisation of the organisation of the International. Only the bridge between reality and the future would have to be built either through the parliamentary action of strong political parties, according to the Marxist current, or through “a powerful but always invisible revolutionary collectivity preparing the revolution and leading it”, according to the Bakuninist current.
Continue reading →