Photos
Featured reviews
I saw the film "Elie Wiesel: Soul on Fire" at the Museum of Tolerance. It was well done in conveying the essence of the man, with a revealing mix of narration (much Wiesel's own words) and animation. The film was not without bias, however, as where it played a clip of Wiesel speaking in the 1990s about the rights of the Palestinians, at a time when many felt peace was at hand, before Arafat rejected a peaceful resolution and launched the Second Intifada. This context was missing from the film, and thus Wiesel's words drew an ignorant smattering of applause from a few people in the audience. The film also dedicated much attention to Wiesel's dispute with Ronald Reagan over the President's intended visit to the Bitburg Cemetary in Germany when it came out some SS soldiers were buried there (for Reagan, his visit was obviously driven by geopolitical considerations in the cold war against the Soviets, intended to solidify the U. S. partnership with modern post-Nazi Germany). Treatment of this issue in the film, showing the interchanges between Wiesel and Reagan, was interesting, however.
The Q&A with director Oren Rudavsky, on the other hand, was disappointing. As is (seemingly) mandatory in Hollywood, his comments had a decidedly partisan spin. At one point he even said he misses Jimmy Carter. But more troubling was the "lesson" he claims the film imparts, that the film is intended to move beyond the Holocaust to validate the pain caused by the individual traumas we all have experienced. NO. He is terribly wrong. There is no comparison between the horror and scope and magnitude of the Holocaust and the individual "traumas" we may experience. This is comparing apples to oranges. The individual or group need to see one's self as a "victim" and the demand that one's pain must be validated sometimes comes from a place of narcissism and self-obsession, wholly different from the intense pain caused Wiesel through his experience of overwhelming catastrophe. Rudavsky's attempt to make Wiesel's Holocaust experience relevant to our individual personal "traumas" was horribly misplaced. Despite this, "Elie Wiesel: Soul on Fire" is a film worth watching.
The Q&A with director Oren Rudavsky, on the other hand, was disappointing. As is (seemingly) mandatory in Hollywood, his comments had a decidedly partisan spin. At one point he even said he misses Jimmy Carter. But more troubling was the "lesson" he claims the film imparts, that the film is intended to move beyond the Holocaust to validate the pain caused by the individual traumas we all have experienced. NO. He is terribly wrong. There is no comparison between the horror and scope and magnitude of the Holocaust and the individual "traumas" we may experience. This is comparing apples to oranges. The individual or group need to see one's self as a "victim" and the demand that one's pain must be validated sometimes comes from a place of narcissism and self-obsession, wholly different from the intense pain caused Wiesel through his experience of overwhelming catastrophe. Rudavsky's attempt to make Wiesel's Holocaust experience relevant to our individual personal "traumas" was horribly misplaced. Despite this, "Elie Wiesel: Soul on Fire" is a film worth watching.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 27 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content