By now, everyone has heard that British filmmaker Jonathan Glazer made controversial remarks about Israel’s current war in Gaza while accepting the award for Best International Feature for his Auschwitz-focused movie, “The Zone of Interest,” at Sunday night’s Academy Awards ceremony.
But for those who haven’t heard, Glazer, who is Jewish, walked onstage at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood to accept his award and as part of his speech said, “Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people.”
Glazer’s comments were a response to Israel’s retaliatory war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, following Hamas’ brutal Oct. 7 attack against Israel.
But less clear was what he was actually saying.
On social media, one thing everyone — whether pro- or anti-Israel—agreed on was that Glazer’s phrasing was confusing.
In fact, immediately after Glazer spoke, many people, according to their X posts, were rewinding the ABC broadcast so that they could listen more closely to his speech. And on social media, one thing everyone — whether pro- or anti-Israel—agreed on was that Glazer’s phrasing was confusing.
In the end, Glazer’s comments were both baffling and offensive.
I didn’t think “The Zone of Interest” was a great movie. The premise — a Holocaust drama that doesn’t physically take the viewer inside the Auschwitz concentration camp but instead focuses on the idyllic household immediately next-door to the camp, a home inhabited by a Nazi commandant and his family — is an intriguing one. The filmmaker appears to have applied a tactic employed by Steven Spielberg when that director made his famous blockbuster, “Jaws” — that is, the less you show the shark, the scarier it is — to his depiction of the concentration camp. While viewers of “The Zone of Interest” are never taken into the camp, gun shots and screams, among other sounds, from the other side of the wall attempt to capture the horror.
But the experience of watching the film left me with neither a deeper understanding of what the Jewish victims, whom we never see, endured, nor sufficiently repelled by the Nazi family with whom we’ve spent the entirety of the film.
Except for a couple effective scenes, including an early one where the mother of the Nazi household models a fur coat in front of her bedroom mirror — the viewer implicitly understands the coat was confiscated from a Jewish inmate — one gets the sense that the filmmaker did not appreciate the gravity of the material he was working with when constructing the film.
Much like he didn’t appreciate the gravity of his ill-advised words on Sunday when he attempted to use his platform to criticize Israel’s war in Gaza.
It’s the latest example of Hollywood elite criticizing Israel as a form of virtue-signaling. A handful of attendees on Sunday night, including Mark Ruffalo, Billie Eilish and Ramy Youssef, wore red buttons at the ceremony to signal their support for a ceasefire.
And no one offered the narrative from the other side. That includes Spielberg, the Oscar-winning director and Hollywood royal who had the opportunity to push back on Glazer’s comments while presenting the award later in the evening for Best Director.
Steve Geiger, founder of the Mensch Foundation, was one of many leaders in the community who was angered by Glazer’s remarks as well as by the applause the director’s remarks generated. He called Glazer’s message “totally inarticulate” and questioned why, all night long, “nobody mentioned the hostages, that they’re still being held there in Gaza.”
“Everybody has a right to their stupid opinion, but what do you mean ‘ceasefire’?” Geiger added. “Hamas is still shooting rockets. People in Israel are still at risk from these schmucks.”
Of course, there was no mention of Hamas culpability at Sunday’s ceremony. Five months since Oct. 7, there are those who’ve all but forgotten about the brutality committed by Hamas that tragic day.
But Glazer, of all people, should know: We never forget.
Ryan Torok is a contributing writer for the Jewish Journal.
Jonathan Glazer’s Words Were Baffling and Offensive
Ryan Torok
By now, everyone has heard that British filmmaker Jonathan Glazer made controversial remarks about Israel’s current war in Gaza while accepting the award for Best International Feature for his Auschwitz-focused movie, “The Zone of Interest,” at Sunday night’s Academy Awards ceremony.
But for those who haven’t heard, Glazer, who is Jewish, walked onstage at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood to accept his award and as part of his speech said, “Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people.”
Glazer’s comments were a response to Israel’s retaliatory war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, following Hamas’ brutal Oct. 7 attack against Israel.
But less clear was what he was actually saying.
In fact, immediately after Glazer spoke, many people, according to their X posts, were rewinding the ABC broadcast so that they could listen more closely to his speech. And on social media, one thing everyone — whether pro- or anti-Israel—agreed on was that Glazer’s phrasing was confusing.
In the end, Glazer’s comments were both baffling and offensive.
I didn’t think “The Zone of Interest” was a great movie. The premise — a Holocaust drama that doesn’t physically take the viewer inside the Auschwitz concentration camp but instead focuses on the idyllic household immediately next-door to the camp, a home inhabited by a Nazi commandant and his family — is an intriguing one. The filmmaker appears to have applied a tactic employed by Steven Spielberg when that director made his famous blockbuster, “Jaws” — that is, the less you show the shark, the scarier it is — to his depiction of the concentration camp. While viewers of “The Zone of Interest” are never taken into the camp, gun shots and screams, among other sounds, from the other side of the wall attempt to capture the horror.
But the experience of watching the film left me with neither a deeper understanding of what the Jewish victims, whom we never see, endured, nor sufficiently repelled by the Nazi family with whom we’ve spent the entirety of the film.
Except for a couple effective scenes, including an early one where the mother of the Nazi household models a fur coat in front of her bedroom mirror — the viewer implicitly understands the coat was confiscated from a Jewish inmate — one gets the sense that the filmmaker did not appreciate the gravity of the material he was working with when constructing the film.
Much like he didn’t appreciate the gravity of his ill-advised words on Sunday when he attempted to use his platform to criticize Israel’s war in Gaza.
It’s the latest example of Hollywood elite criticizing Israel as a form of virtue-signaling. A handful of attendees on Sunday night, including Mark Ruffalo, Billie Eilish and Ramy Youssef, wore red buttons at the ceremony to signal their support for a ceasefire.
And no one offered the narrative from the other side. That includes Spielberg, the Oscar-winning director and Hollywood royal who had the opportunity to push back on Glazer’s comments while presenting the award later in the evening for Best Director.
Steve Geiger, founder of the Mensch Foundation, was one of many leaders in the community who was angered by Glazer’s remarks as well as by the applause the director’s remarks generated. He called Glazer’s message “totally inarticulate” and questioned why, all night long, “nobody mentioned the hostages, that they’re still being held there in Gaza.”
“Everybody has a right to their stupid opinion, but what do you mean ‘ceasefire’?” Geiger added. “Hamas is still shooting rockets. People in Israel are still at risk from these schmucks.”
Of course, there was no mention of Hamas culpability at Sunday’s ceremony. Five months since Oct. 7, there are those who’ve all but forgotten about the brutality committed by Hamas that tragic day.
But Glazer, of all people, should know: We never forget.
Ryan Torok is a contributing writer for the Jewish Journal.
Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.
Editor's Picks
Israel and the Internet Wars – A Professional Social Media Review
The Invisible Student: A Tale of Homelessness at UCLA and USC
What Ever Happened to the LA Times?
Who Are the Jews On Joe Biden’s Cabinet?
You’re Not a Bad Jewish Mom If Your Kid Wants Santa Claus to Come to Your House
No Labels: The Group Fighting for the Political Center
Latest Articles
Brain Surgery, Film Noir, Accidental Love: Marcus Freed Is Still Out There
Washington’s Promise, America’s Test
Thoughts on Radiation
The October 8th and October 9th Jew
Rethinking Rabbinical Education for a New Era
The Hidden Cost of Campus Antisemitism: Faculty Mental Health
Quo Vadis after October 8th: A Pledge for a New Direction in Memory Politics to End Political Homelessness
Remaining politically homeless is not a defeat; it is a commitment to a truth that refuses to be simplified.
The Crisis in Jewish Education Is Not About Screens
If we want to produce Jews who carry Torah in their bones, we need institutions willing to demand that commitment, and not institutions that blame technology for their own unwillingness to insist on rigor.
Theodor Herzl’s Liberal Nationalist Leap of Hope – and America’s
Herzl recognized nationalism as a powerful but neutral tool, capable of bringing out the best in us – or the beast in us.
Nation of Laws – A poem for Parsha Mishpatim
I live in a nation of laws but the laws seem to change with the flick of a tweet.
Borrowed Spotlight Art Exhibit Pairs Holocaust Survivors with Celebrities
Cindy Crawford, Wolf Blitzer and Chelsea Handler are among the celebrities who were photographed with survivors.
A Bisl Torah — Holy Selfishness
Honoring oneself, creating sacred boundaries, and cultivating self-worth allows a human being to better engage with the world.
A Moment in Time: “Choosing our Move”
Waiting for Religious Intelligence as for AI and Godot
Award-Winning Travel Author Lisa Niver Interviews Churchill Wild Guide Terry Elliott
Print Issue: One Man’s Show | February 6, 2026
How Meir Fenigstein Brings Israeli Stories to the American Screen
Does Tucker Carlson Have His Eye on The White House?
Jason Zengerle, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, and staff writer at the New Yorker wrote a new book about Carlson, “Hated By All The Right People: Tucker Carlson and The Unraveling of The Conservative Mind.”
Michelle Heston: Valentine’s Day, Cake Love & Chocolate Ganache
Taste Buds with Deb – Episode 142
Love Stories – A Persian Love Cake
Love is precious and this Persian Love Cake is the perfect way to show a little love to your friends and family.
Table for Five: Mishpatim
Empathy for Strangers
Meir Fenigstein: One Man’s Show
How Meir Fenigstein Brings Israeli Stories to the American Screen
Rosner’s Domain | In 2026, It’s Right vs. Right
The elections of 2026 will not be “right vs. center-left.” They will be “right vs. right.”
Bret Stephens Has Kicked Off a Long Overdue Debate: Are Jews Fighting the Right Way?
Why is it that despite the enormous resources and money we spend fighting antisemitism, it just keeps getting worse?
Why “More Jewish Education” Keeps Making Things Worse
If we want a different future, we must be willing to examine what already exists, what has failed, and what is quietly working.
Cain and Abel Today
The story of Cain and Abel constitutes a critical and fundamental lesson – we are all children of the covenant with the opportunity to serve each other and to serve God. We are, indeed, each other’s keeper.
Belonging Matters. And Mattering Matters Too.
A society that maximizes belonging while severing it from standards produces conformity, not freedom. A society that encourages mattering divorced from truth produces fanaticism, not dignity. Life and liberty depend on holding the two together.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.