No room for interpretation heh. I think from your quote Lanzmann is clearly wrong. The Holocaust can be viewed in many ways. His is not the correct version. It is as he says a generalization. I'm sure if you spoke to someone that experienced the concentration camps they would have a similar, but personal view point of it. If most of what Spielberg wrote and filmed is made up then it is a shame. I think that for purposes of a film, a director is allowed to take artistic license for the sake of the story. Spielberg did not make a documentary. Lanzmann is not capable of distinguishing the differences between his and Spielberg's films. I don't understand what is motivating Lanzmann's attack, is it jealousy over the critical success of Spielberg's film? How sad. If Spielberg had made a documentary, then Lanzmann would be right to criticize based on inaccurate or shoddy work. The comparison is between an apple and a carrot. Also Lanzmann misses the essential point in Spielberg's story, that within all the evil of the Holocaust there was an individual who took a tremendous risk to save others. Spielberg does not ignore what happened to the Jews. He made a film of one particular act of bravery by an individual with compassion for his fellowman that transcended race, nation of origin, and personal risk. There is nothing wrong with making a film that celebrates that which we cherish and indeed makes as humans. In the end the Holocaust is period of horror and of honor and remembrance for the massacre of millions of innocent people based soley on their race. It is also in the end a celebration of liberation, of freedom, the triumph of good over evil, a return from death to life. To focus soley on the death is not life. I don't understand what he wants.