Defiance (2008)

Mainly, I measure a movie by how much I suffer, how much I want the movie to just end. The less I suffer, the more I enjoy the movie. I suffered through a long stretch of Defiance. Eventually, I stopped my DVD player with little intention of returning to finish the movie.

I’m glad I returned to Defiance.

In writing workshop, we often talk about payoff, which can be understood in terms of economics. Does the viewer’s investment produce a high, profit-yielding return? Or, from the writer’s perspective, does a decision (killing off a character, possibly) produce the desired effect (we’re happy to see a character’s still alive)? Somtimes, the payoff is worth the suffering.

Defiance does not kill a character and bring him back, but a character does go away and return, and that character saves the day, and it sounds cheesy, but I found the payoff to be extremely high.

For those unfamiliar with the film, Defiance is based on the true story of Jewish brothers who begin living in the forest to escape the Holocaust and eventually lead a refugee colony which survives the end of the war. One brother (Zus), aggressive and uncompromising, leaves the colony after a spat with his brother (Tuvia) to fight with the Russians, who are aware they share the forest with the refugees. While in camp with his new comrades, Zus learns that the Russians, aware of an impending German attack, will retreat from the forest. The scene ends ambiguously as Zus’s allegiance is obviously called into question.

The refugee camp is left for dead by the Russians and the German slaughter begins. Tuvia, the leader of the refugees, outflanks the Germans and picks off only enough so that the Germans redirect their attack in his direction. Tuvia’s death is certain. Then, German soldiers begin to fall inexplicably. As only film can do, the camera zooms out to a bird’s eye a view and it’s clear that Germans are being attacked from the other flank. They are being shot from behind. Zus, the deserting brother, and a small number of Russian troops, save the day.

I use the term “save the day” facetiously. Because in no way did I find it cheesy that Zus returned. In no way, did the illusion of the story break down. Here are some reasons why:

1. Zus does not return alone; he is accompanied by Russian soldiers.

2. The ambiguity of the scene with Zus and the Russian commander leaves it unclear as to who did the “right” thing, who decided to help the refugees (Was it Zus? Was it the Russian commander?).

3. The love expressed by Zus’s return was not romantic love; it was love for his brothers and love for his Jewish brethren.

Zus as solitary hero, Zus giving the Russian commander a metaphoric middle finger, and Zus returning to the woman of his dreams are common tropes that remind us (me) the story / film is only an illusion.

So, the formula, is pretty simple: Step 1 – Establish a relationship. Step 2 – End the relationship. Step 3 – Renew the relationship.

Step 4 requires magic. Make me believe I’ve never seen this formula. That’s the return I want on my investment.

...I have more to say...Update coming soon...