Talk:The Zone of Interest (film)

Misunderstanding of events in synopsis
"Höss approves the design of a new crematorium, which soon becomes operational. Höss notices human remains in the river. He gets his children out of the water and sends a note to camp personnel, chastising them for their carelessness." The note he sends to camp personnell is about them damaging the flowers around the camp, not the human remains in the river. The reason he gets the children out of the river isn't stated explicitly, but I think it's implied that he's afraid of residual toxicity or pathogens in the water - he had expected he had taken the boat far enough upstream and was surprised to find remains even there - rather than carelessness regarding the disposal of the remains themselves, one of the kids is seen playing with human teeth in an earlier scene. Fisk0 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree- this section could be reworded. His discovery of human remains in the water and his warning the camp personnel over their carelessness with the 'lilacs' is unrelated, and the synopsis should not imply that they are. Choc761 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. The most likely explanation is that the “lilacs” are prostitutes. While this is uncertain, there is no link at all with finding remains in the river.Steepleman (t) 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this idea of his comment about "lilacs" being some sort of code for the intended recipients. He is the camp commander, why would he need to speak in code to his underlings? How could they understand him if he did? I think, in the context of the film's real life setting, this should simply be taken as a stand alone event and interpreted literally - no coded message to his staff. BUT I think the real 'coded message' is outwith the film's action: it is intended for the audience of the film. (See below under "Coded note") This matter still seems to me to be handled clumsily in the article itself. CatNip48 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The Polish Girl
Meanwhile, a Polish servant girl at the Höss villa sneaks out every night, hiding food at the prisoners' work sites for them to find and eat. I believe this to be incorrect- nowhere in the film is it implied that the girl seen in the night vision sequences works at the Höss villa, and the film's screenplay identifies her as a separate character to the servants we do see working there. Choc761 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oscars speech
why is there no mention of the directors oscars speech 2003:F1:1702:60C4:A9C9:5596:7F86:5CEF (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Breaking of fourth wall
In the Synopsis section of this article, prior to the sentence "Back in 1943, Höss continues downstairs without retching and descends further into the darkness," shouldn't we add a mention that, directly following the scenes of the modern-day Auschwitz camp museum being cleaned, the Höss character briefly breaks the fourth wall and looks directly into the camera (i.e., us/the future)? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Does he? He is a rather small and somewhat distant figure at that point and so, hard to tell. CatNip48 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: this film's budget. It was US$15 million, right? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"Coded note"
What exactly is the "coded note" referred to in the Synopsis section of the current version of this article? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I have just seen this film this very evening and I have difficulty relating my memory of it to several things written here. Are we to assume his missive to the SS about only picking flowers in the camp if they can do it cleanly, not allowing them to "bleed", supposed to be the "coded message"? I must say, it doesn't make obvious sense to me. CatNip48 (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Might I further suggest that any "coded message" was intended for us, the audience, rather than for the camp's SS guards. That is, contrasting his punctiliousness over the picking of camp flowers vs the everyday reality of the camp's business. Makes more sense to me! CatNip48 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Using Polish name of the city of Oświęcim
The article uses term Auschwitz as the KL Auschwitz, the city of Auschwitz during the German occupation of Poland, the current-day Museum and Archives, as well as the present-day city of Oświęcim.

I did propose a change on ( 10:19, 13 March 2024‎ 88.156.131.62 ) while I wasn't yet a registered user, but it was reverted without explanation. I assume perhaps it was due to an editing or etiquette mistake rather than content. But because I'm not sure, I'll try to present my case here before I attempt to repeat that edit. Hopefully, I'll find help among you.

I'm raising this issue because I find it inaccurate to continue calling the current Polish city of Oświęcim by its German name Auschwitz in an English article, given the history it brings.

The city battles with the stereotypical perception associated with the camp and its horrible history. Some tourists are actually surprised that there is an 800-year-old, 40,000-person city of Oświęcim next to a camp, not vice versa. This is anecdotal on my part, but here is a link (Polish, but easily translatable) about the city's actions to overcome the negative perception associated with its history. (Section 2)

The article perpetuates this stereotype.

There should be clear distinction, for the sake of clarity;

Auschwitz - German name of the city of Oświęcim (dating back to the Middle Ages).

Auschwitz concentration camp - refers to the camp during its active period.

Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum - or simply Auschwitz Museum, refers to the current museum and archives in both Oświęcim and Brzezinka (Birkenau). This name should be used when someone mentions, "I visited Auschwitz Museum to look up photos and plans," etc.

Oświęcim - Oświęcim: Polish name of the city (also dating back to the Middle Ages). In my opinion, it should be used everywhere else, where the camps or museum don't fit. An argument for this is that the fact that the city was under German occupation during that time shouldn't call for a name change when discussing it in the present. In English Wikipedia articles, temporary possession or occupation of land or a city doesn't necessitate a name change when describing that period. German-occupied Lorraine doesn't become Lothringen, just as Russian-occupied Berlin is not Берлин.

Couple examples from the article.

"Filming took place primarily around Auschwitz in summer 2021" - The filming didn't take place only around the Auschwitz Museum or the former KL grounds. It should clearly mention Oświęcim because some of it was filmed near the river, several kilometers away from the camp. Unused footage was filmed in the historical town square, and most importantly, the stage was not inside the current museum or former camp. Screenshot of the Google Maps of the place where it was filmed: https://i.imgur.com/HF9LQnT.png

He made several visits to Auschwitz - refers to this article, https://www.screendaily.com/features/jonathan-glazer-on-the-zone-of-interest-i-wanted-to-remove-the-artifice-of-filmmaking/5188230.article which has similar problems to this article; it doesn't distinguish between the camp, German, and Polish city names. If he made visits to the Auschwitz Museum and Archives, perhaps it is better to stress that. If he made trips to walk through the grounds of the old camps in Auschwitz and Birkenau, then it should properly mention that.

"Principal photography began in Auschwitz in summer 2021 and lasted approximately 55 days. Additional filming took place in Jelenia Góra in January 2022." - The second city is mentioned by its Polish name, but it could as well be called Hirschberg (Deer Hill), because that's the German name for it, and the city wasn't Polish until after the war. Why would the article not mention Oświęcim by name when the film shooting took place in modern times, in the modern city, with the help of local actors and workers?

Front façade of the former house of Rudolf Höß at Auschwitz (photo taken in 2012) - a modern photo of modern (currently privately owned) Hoss house yet the German name.

The former house of Rudolf Höß at Auschwitz. This side entrance gives onto the gate leading to the camp (photo taken in 2024) - same argument as above.

Thank you for finding time to read it.

Konrad Conrado.Hue (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The film is set around Auschwitz concentration camp and filming took place around the camp so I don't think your first example is inaccurate. Your second example uses the terminology given in the source so I think it is fine. As for the filming in the town, I don't think it is necessary to be so pedantic about where Auschwitz ends and “Oswiecim” begins. It would just be confusing for no point when in reality they are the same thing. The main focus on the film is on Auschwitz and we should use the spelling consistent with that. Steepleman (t) 23:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and participating in the discussion.
 * 1. The film is set around Auschwitz concentration camp and filming took place around the camp so I don't think your first example is inaccurate.
 * First example is not inaccurate as you say, but doesn't give full picture. A short fragment like the one below, however modified:
 * The city of Oświęcim served as the primary production location for ‘The Zone of Interest’ as the filming unit utilized the surroundings of Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp, which has now been turned into Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum.
 * Don't you think it is more accurate, paints bigger picture and gives justice to the city? I don't think this is much more convoluted and difficult to wrap your head around it. If you keep the article lacking or inaccurate for the sake of easy readership then what's the point?
 * I've seen people asking in Reddit threads (one of the couple examples) or Facebook groups (private) where was the movie filmed and this article doesn't answer that fully and it could do that easily with just minuscule changes.
 * 2. I don't think it is necessary to be so pedantic about where Auschwitz ends and “Oswiecim” begins.
 * How is that pedantic? And what's with the quotation marks?
 * Auschwitz Museum is IN Oświęcim, that's the case, it is not next to it, there is no case where it ends and where it begins. It's like arguing about whether Central Park is in New York, and whether we should include name of New York city in the article if some of the footage was shot near Empire State Building, because it is still "around" the Central Park, right? The distance in both cases is 2.5 km, but they are still in the same cities.
 * But if we are being pedantic about it, it is clear where Auschwitz ends, both today and in the past, there are walls, there are maps,plans, and signs saying that.
 * 3. [...] when in reality they are the same thing.
 * Actually that's the point I'm trying to make, is that's not true. Not only it is not true, but as I mentioned it is hurtful to the city (I will repeat; the city struggles with misinformation about the camp on many fronts), and the whole perception of what concentration camps were.
 * If in a conversation about Turkey someone would stubbornly say Constantinople instead of Istanbul, same for conversation where someone constantly uses Leningrad instead of Saint Petersburg, or German spelling for other notable Polish names like Danzig (Gdańsk), Breslau (Wrocław), Posen (Poznań) by saying this, that person means something and perpetuate that, often nefarious notions.
 * 4. Your second example uses the terminology given in the source so I think it is fine.
 * I agree here, I stand corrected.
 * 5. Examples 3, 4, 5 are fine? Conrado.Hue (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4. Your second example uses the terminology given in the source so I think it is fine.
 * I agree here, I stand corrected.
 * 5. Examples 3, 4, 5 are fine? Conrado.Hue (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 5. Examples 3, 4, 5 are fine? Conrado.Hue (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I am Polish, the main author of the article Rudolf Höß and Strefa interesów (film) (pl: The Zone of Interest) on pl:wiki. Conrado.Hue is mostly right. KL Auschitz was established in the city of Oświęcim. And these two areas cannot be equated. Rudolf Hoess's house was not located within the Auschitz camp, but in the area adjacent to it. Also, the house that was used in that movie is not located on the grounds of KL Auschwitz, but in Oświęcim ([under pictures]: „Front façade of the former house of Rudolf Höß at Auschwitz (photo taken in 2012)”. + „The former house of Rudolf Höß at Auschwitz”). While preparing to work on the film, Glazer looked at the surroundings of Oświęcim and the areas of Auschwitz („Filming took place primarily around Auschwitz in summer 2021” + „Principal photography began in Auschwitz in summer 2021 and lasted approximately 55 days” + [Glazer] „made several visits to Auschwitz and was profoundly affected by the sight of the Höss residence”). Jacek555 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that the house is right next to the Auschwitz concentration camp, I think it would be clearer to just say “next to the Auschwitz concentration camp” or similar, rather than repeatedly presenting tautologous statements such as “in Oświęcim, next to KL Auschwitz” which pretty much means “in Auschwitz next to the Auschwitz concentration camp”. Steepleman (t) 01:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

On the open letter
Is it worth mentioning the fact that the open letter denouncing Glazer's speech was open to the public, and the actual number of "Jewish creatives" was likely lower than the stated thousand?69.124.250.13 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)