Hunters (2020)

What to make of Amazon's HUNTERS? I can't be comfortable with it and yet find it compelling. However, no matter what the makers say, it represents the Tarantinisation of history and the fetishism of Nazism. I also felt the Jewish "hunters" played like caricatures; those thick accents and all those shoulder shrugs. 

In episode two, we are introduced to the team of hunters and they are shown on screen with an explosive graphic as though each was the star of his or her own grindhouse movie. Wow... just, no.

Look at the cast. Al Pacino, playing the wise, wealthy, leader of the Nazi Hunters. He lays it on thick but it's Pacino (a non-Jewish Italian American) and so it's okay. He brings his screen history and energy to the performance. Is he being excellent or is it caricature? I genuinely do not know the answer to this question. 

So, too, with Carol Kane. Carol is the reason I watch the show. She is Jewish and she lays it on extra thick. And she is wonderful. 

(Kane hasn’t worked with Pacino since DOG DAY AFTERNOON in 1975. It’s good to see them sharing screen time again.)

Logan Lerman is strong and troubled as the young man - Jonah - through whom we enter the world of the hunters and discover the extent of the Nazi infiltration of 1970s America. (For example, the US had invited Hitler's rocket scientists to help them beat the Soviets in the Space Race; those Nazis were able to blend in and assume a certain status in American society.) Lerman gives a great performance, not tipping into caricature, instead playing with nuance his fascination with - and horror of - the history to which he becomes exposed and the methods the Hunters use to trap and kill their prey. 

The trouble with cinema is it responds to violence and characters who effect change. An obvious case is THE TERMINATOR. Michael Biehn might play the hero but it is Arnold's near silent bad guy terminator who galvanises the action when he appears... it's he whom we love. He makes things happen. Biehn does not, and we do not love him; he simply exists to protect.

In HUNTERS a young Nazi hitman played by Brit actor Greg Austin has a similar effect to Arnie. He is confident and certain in his actions. There is no stuttering around, or shrugging of the shoulders; he simply says what he wants and then goes about getting it. He causes violence. He is a perfect character for cinema. He makes things happen.

So, how should we feel about him? Is it wrong to perk up when he enters a scene? Should we *ever* feel that way about a Nazi character who wants to help the coming of the Fourth Reich? Of course we shouldn't, but cinema rewards and elevates his character because of how cinema works. There's nothing we can do about that.

David Mamet rejected Spielberg's SCHINDLER'S LIST because it perpetrated the idea of Jews as eternal victims. How would he feel about HUNTERS, where the Jews are both victims and avenging angels? 

Maybe it's okay to have mixed feelings about this series.

There have been complaints about some fictitious scenes set in the camps, most notably a chess match played with Jewish prisoners. When one chess piece takes another, the piece has to slit the other's throat. As a writer, I understand the invention of that. "Let me show you had bad it was, and also how creative I am." But do we need to add invention to something that is already extremely horrific? And if we do, are we saying the real events weren't "interesting" or "creative" enough? 

What do you think of the show?