Hannah Arendt is a biographical film dramatizing the development of a controversial theory by a highly influential 20th century German-Jewish philosopher. The eponymous scholar coins the phrase “the banality of evil” to explain the actions of the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. She does not defend Eichman nor sympathizes with his predicament. Nevertheless, many of her contemporaries, especially from the Jewish community, vehemently criticize her theory because she does not condemn the Nazi officer as pure evil. The film examines her thought process as she attempts to understand why many ordinary humans refuse to extricate themselves from evil.
In 1961, Nazi “hunters” capture Eichmann hiding in Argentina and bring him to Israel. Arendt, who left Europe for the U.S. during World War II, is a New York City professor. She attends Eichmann’s trial, examines Eichmann’s persona, and defines his motivation for participating in the Holocaust.
Arendt, played by the German actress Barbara Sukowa, believes that there are two different forms of evil. Primarily, people commit morally reprehensible acts for selfish reasons, perhaps to gain money or power. On the other hand, a “radical” form of evil is associated with sociopaths who derive pleasure by harming others. The Holocaust is an example of this extreme version of evil. There is no easily definable selfish reason for exterminating Jews but to take away their humanity. However, Arendt believes that Eichmann’s role in the genocide does not represent radical evil.
Barbara Sukowa in Hannah Arendt
Although Eichmann benefited from the atrocities, rising through the ranks of the Nazi leadership, Arendt feels that he was divorced from the political ideology. Instead, Eichmann simply followed orders. She believes he is ordinary but not stupid. Instead, he chose not to think. But if he did, he would have known that his actions were evil. But because he did not think, he is “banal” and unexceptional. She does not excuse his actions and is ambivalent to his judicial fate. But she understands why so many Nazis, who are ordinary like Eichmann, were complicit in the atrocities.
Hannah Arendt (bbc.com)
And evil did not disappear with the downfall of the Nazi regime. In a video posted on Instagram, a man tells Fox News host Tucker Carlson that he is the “worst human being known to man” for killing people with vaccine misinformation. But how would Hannah Arendt view Tucker Carlson’s role in the pandemic? Are his actions banal? Or is Carlson radically evil?
It’s impossible to know what truly motivates Carlson. But it’s probably unfair to assume that he enjoys seeing people gasping for breath, being put on a ventilator, and dying alone in an ICU bed. So he is probably not radically evil. Instead, he may be motivated to be a successful TV host that caters to an audience favoring conspiracy theories over science.
But Carlson is hardly ordinary or unexceptional, hosting the most-watched show in all of cable news. To imagine that Carlson does not think about his actions is far-fetched. If he is not thinking, he would not hide his vaccine status. Unless all his actions are guided by someone else in the Fox News universe, scripting his words and crafting his ideology. He may be a mere puppet in a business conglomerate benefitting from misinformation.
Tucker Carlson (thedailybeast.com)
And Carlson’s words have been crafted by a horrible human being. His head writer, Blake Neff, resigned in July 2020 after secretly posting racist and sexist remarks under a pseudonym. But Carlson may have hired Neff because he echoed the TV host’s ideology, not because he guided Carlson’s message.
However, even if Carlson is thinking, not just following orders or reading a script, his attention may be centered on appealing to his audience and increasing the show’s ratings. Perhaps, if he thinks about the consequences of his messages, he would act differently. It’s plausible that he refuses to reflect on how his words may result in numerous unnecessary deaths. In that scenario, Carlson is analogous to Arendt’s version of Eichmann, an example of the banality of evil.
Arendt’s theory sheds light on the countless Germans who supported the Nazi regime, whether they were complicit or willfully ignorant of genocide. Even a high-ranking Nazi officer, such as Eichmann, may have been too preoccupied with his job to think about the consequences. But in the Nazi hierarchy, Eichmann was no Tucker Carlson.
Adolf Eichmann on trial in 1961 (wikipedia.org)
Carlson is arguably the most visible contemporary media figure trumpeting right-wing rhetoric, including vaccine misinformation. Carlson is similar to Joseph Goebbels, the chief propagandist for the Nazi Party. If Goebbels did not commit suicide and was brought to trial, it’s unlikely that Arendt would have considered him ordinary. And if any of the more than 600,000 American deaths from Covid-19 can be attributed to vaccine misinformation, Tucker Carlson shares the blame. His stature in the propaganda universe is too high for him to be labeled banal.
Hannah Arendt is a difficult film to watch. The seemingly endless dialogue alternates between German and English as unspectacular cinematography navigates claustrophobic sets to reveal a slow-moving plot. However, the narrative is balanced, showing Arendt’s brilliance as well as her biases. The audience is left to resolve whether she struggles to explain evil or is an arrogant contrarian seeking attention, publishing her findings in a popular magazine, New Yorker, rather than in an academic journal.
Arendt’s political theory is based on the observation of an individual, not on scientific experimentation. But it is thought-provoking. As we continue to witness unthinkable acts of cruelty and inhumanity, it is interesting to see how a brilliant thinker defines flawed humans as other than simply evil.
Andrew’s Grade: C
Comments