Treasure

Realistic portrayal of the way trauma carried on within families of Holocaust survivors. Just because the war ended didn't mean that all the wrongs were righted. This shows how those atrocities were resolved over time only by the people willing to acknowledge them and do the work, both victims and good Samaritans. And, likewise, there still existed people that kept the spoils of war and continued to profit from it.

Science only recently learned how trauma can literally be transferred through DNA (by causing stress responses to be expressed in offspring that would not otherwise have been). This is probably an evolutionary adaptation to increase the survival of offspring in a particularly stressful environment. Interestingly, this story might actually demonstrate that process at work. I believe the writers are referencing this phenomena when they show Ruth having nightmares about lice in her bed. Although the actual memory is not inherited, the stress response would have been, triggered by reading the history. Adding to the fact of also being raised by survivors who suffered from PTSD, it correctly characterizes her as an extended victim of the Holocaust.

There is some other stuff going on here, too, including messages on body positivity and grief over losing a loved one. I really like that they go on this physical journey as a representation of their inner transformation, because places, especially associated with ancestors and childhood are extremely powerful in shaping us. So, returning to them in order to reprocess memories and heal, is a believable scenario of change. It also seems that as a society, as we put wars behind us, we pretend as if those people and places no longer exist, never returning to them, or preserving them and refusing to change them. I think there's some commentary here about the unhealthiness of this, even if revisiting it can help people heal. Perhaps it can change once all the people heal & can move on. But, of course, there are legitimate reasons that we should maintain these memories as a society.

American journalist "Ruth" (Lena Dunham) had long planned a trip from the USA to her ancestral home in Poland only to find her effervescent father "Edek" (Stephen Fry) has decided to join her. A fluent speaker and full of a slightly annoying joie de vivre, they embark on a trip to the tourist sites, but that's not what she wants. She wants to head to the family home in Lodz where they were a successful industrial family before the Nazi's confiscated their wealth, property and sent "Edek" and his wife to Auschwitz. What is clear is that dad is not so keen on this itinerary, nor is he at all keen on train travel - and the remainder of the film takes us on a family journey that will open the eyes of the daughter whilst bringing back the demons for the father. This tries quite effectively at times to introduce some humour into what is quite an emotional topic, especially when their trip does eventually take them (and us) to his haunting place of incarceration where he finds a flood of memories readily come back to him. Fry over-eggs the accent a bit, but he does manage to convey something of the harrowing nature of his incarceration, and of his mind's determination to protect itself from opening that door to trauma again. Dunham also serves well enough as his independently-minded daughter to support that increasingly troubled characterisation. It's quite a poignant drama that encourages us, as D-Day 80 is still fresh in the mind - to imagine the horrors visited on the Polish people by the Nazis and to realise that in many cases (this is set in 1991) their houses and businesses were still pretty much as they were left in 1941 - only largely dilapidated and with new, poverty-stricken occupants. I did rather like the conclusion - it poses quite an interesting question about what we might do in her place. As a drama, it maybe doesn't need the cinema, but the photography at the now silenced death camp is still blood-curdling.

This is a better , rawer version on Auschwitz travel.

Daughter drags dad, an actual survivor to seeing the the most remembered place of modern history. The opening is a good sample of what to expect, a daughter who actively researched the actual Nazi scripts on how the Jews are to be treated, and a Dad , a survivor who does not want to be there.

The contrast is extremely well handled through the few days of this journey. In contrast to the much acclaimed RESL PAIN, this story actually ventures into their old home taken away by force, with previous things , hence the title. You can't stop the burst of tears when the Dad hugs and reminisces the tragedy with his father's jacket. And the china, a crisp reminder of how well the community lived before being trashed. The best scene was when the dad calls of a mistake in the guide's narration of where the victims arrived , and finds the actual submerged rail tracks. Really heart-wrenching, if you are well into the story and the backdrop itself I wish this one more celebrated than the relatively shallow depiction in real pain,

After the loss of her mother, Ruth decides to make a pilgrimage to Poland and learn about her parents' past. Her father, Edek, decides to join her and make it a daughter-father's trip. As Ruth and Edek travel through Poland, they learn and relive the Jewish people's history and experience how things are in the present. As they travel together, Edek and Ruth learn more about each other, share their burdens, and grow closer.

This film is based on the true story of the child of two Auschwitz death camp survivors and her journey to learn about her family. The story is approached delicately. While the subject is heavy, the story is told simultaneously in a manner that is both serious and lighthearted. The story develops slowly, making the audience feel the nearly two-hour runtime. This film has multiple themes the audience can focus on, and by the end, it is a very gratifying watch. This is a decent watch once it is available to stream.

My husband is Polish and I've been to Poland many times. We saw the premise, and that it starred Stephen Fry, and so we decided to watch the film, as an opportunity to laugh at Stephen Fry. My husband is very particular when judging foreigners pretending to be Polish. When he saw Sophie's Choice he enquired who was that foreigner trying to pretend to be a Lithuanian? (Meryl Streep), but he was impressed with Fry's spoken Polish 'only a wift of a foreign accent' he says. He was less impressed with Fry's Polish accent when speaking English, but beggars can't be choosers. Personally I think it would have been better to cast a Polish actor in the lead role and I'm not sure if Lena was best cast in her role either. But I find that it's the kind of film that is made the more fascinating and memorable by its flawed and surprising casting. The cinematography is intelligent and carefully done without ever being pretentious or patronising and the script is unnerving; a little messy and flitting from genre to genre - just like real life (the Polish supporting cast are also great.) I found this film to be one of those golden nuggets that hangs around me afterwards. I find myself thinking about this film a lot. There is plenty of nuance in this film; a lot of depth and realism and details that are easily missed if you watch this film in the wrong mood or have too narrow an expectation of what a film of this subject matter ought to be. Watch the film with an open mind and laser focus, and you will get the most out of it.