Killing Kasztner (Saturday, December 5, 2009) (185)

Killing Kasztner is a very interesting and complicated documentary about a controversial man, Israel Kasztner, and his role in saving 1700 Hungarian Jews from being killed in Nazi death camps. There are three parts to this documentary that are layered on top of one another throughout the course of the film.

The first part addresses the historical story of Kasztner in Budapest during the Nazi occupation there. As the Nazis were quickly moving Hungarian Jews to concentration camps, Kasztner met with Adolf Eichmann, the head of the SS in the Hungarian region, to figure out a deal to save as many people as he could. Through an elaborate and still-unclear deal involving bribes, Kasztner secured a trainload of people who were ultimately given passage to Switzerland.

The second part of the story shows how after most of these people moved to the newly-formed nation of Israel in the late 1940s and early 1950s, they were treated as second-class citizens, as it was believed that considering they didn't fight or struggle (they were rescued and never went to concentration camps) they were less honorable and heroic. In the mid-1950s, Kasztner was the target of a right wing Israeli tabloid attack accusing him of colluding with the Nazis for personal gain. The argument was that he mad a deal with Eichmann to save his family and and friends and got a percentage of money that was taken from the passengers on his train. In addition, he was considered guilty of killing the Hungarian Jews who died in German camps because he did not rescue all of them.

Kasztner sued the publisher of the paper for libel and the court case took on epic proportions in Israel in the late 1950s. To many (especially on the Right) he was seen as a symbol of corruption and weakness in their government. Exactly how he was supposed to rescue so many people was never totally discussed - I think the suggestion is that it would have been better for everybody to die than for some to live and most to die. In any event, he was shot in the street by a radical Right Wing group as part of a larger political signal against the Israeli government.

The third part of the film shows the present-day survivors of the so-called Kasztner Train and their children as well as Kasztner's own family, his daughter and granddaughters. Much of the history of bile has been forgotten in the past 50 years, but they now fight to get their story, the story of Kasztner's rescue of their families, recognized by people the way Oskar Schindler's act is. In most holocaust museum's, including Jerusalem's Yad Vashem, Kasztner is simply not mentioned and the fact that he saved 1700 people is totally glossed over because the topic is seen as too explosive. To many, he is still a cowardly traitor who made a deal with the enemy and was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of souls.

This is a fascinating film about a topic I really didn't know anything about. The politics are very interesting and the moral dilemma is very compelling. Is it acceptable to save 1700 people, knowing that thousands more you can't save are going to die? If one person in a group is going to die, should everybody die? Is it fair for a single man to decide who is going to live while others not selected die? Is it more acceptable if that man doesn't know the people who he's condemning to death? Is it right for people who were saved, as passive passengers, to be treated like weaklings because they did not fight for their salvation?

I think it's a great shame that this story is not taught along side those of Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg as examples of people being enterprising in securing as many lives as they could. Taking politics and guilt out of the situation, he did save many lives and deserves credit for doing that - and the people he saved should not be held as culpable traitors themselves.

I found the film engrossing throughout, though I think it ran a bit long. At just over two hours, I think director Gaylen Ross should have cut out 10-15 minutes. I think the story could have been simplified a bit; the understanding of the historical narrative was not helped by inter-cutting the three parts. I think a more chronological approach would have been clearer and more appealing overall.

Stars: 2.5 of 4