My intention is not to discuss the limits in agency of both the films and producers nor do I wish to discuss the technical aspects which war played on the documentation of such cinema or simply compare and contrast the various films in their stylistic techniques. However, such subjects can never be disregarded, especially when they co-relate to the broader picture. My working hypothesis, rather, will discuss the inner workings of both films and their primary ambitions of memorialization via alienation in order to assert itself as “a document to serve our collective memory” (Memory of the Camps). I would like to also investigate the reasoning behind the original films pre-mature conclusion. Was it truly due to the need for the Allies to restore relations with the Germans or was the timing of such a film simply not compatible due to the beginning of the Cold War between the US and the Soviets?
Based on the amount of research I have conducted thus far, I believe my main sources that will help in my exploration of such a subject would be the various Holocaust documentary films released in the similar era, most prominently Andre Singer’s Night Will Fall along with Billy Wilder’s Death Mills and Alain Resnais’s Night and Fog. Professor Aaron Kerner’s Film and the Holocaust: New Perspectives on Dramas, Documentaries, and Experimental Films provides an insightful new perspective into the representation of the Holocaust via documentary films as well as questions the realistic aspects of such films. The sources listed above are vital in my working argument since they all provide various opinions of the reality of this horrific event through different mediums.
-The above two paragraphs are the beginnings of my introductory/scholarly dialogue, I haven’t been able to shape it up too much but any feedback on transitions and phrasing would be really helpful! Thanks.
humanisticmusings 
Hey!
I think that you overall have a really good start. You are very clear and obviously know what you are talking about. One thing I did notice though was at times you sound somewhat wordy. In an attempt to sound scholarly you seem to add a lot of extra words, which makes your appear run on in some places. A good example of this such is when you say the cold war between the US and the soviets”, this is redundant because it is known that the cold was was primarily between the US and the soviets. I think that you have an amazing complex idea that you are working with here, and sometimes its hard to not make that wordy in an attempt to delineate your point.
But a good way to fix this is read it out loud, and if you have to slow down for any part, or if anything sounds awkward then change it, sometimes it is hard to catch these things while reading in your head. To continue, I loved how clear you were about your sources and why you wanted to use them. One thing you may conceder changing is using more commentary. This excerpt of your paper is a lot of facts and sophisticated language and ideas, maybe try to slow it down and give your input a little more. Overall, I think your paper is super original and you are really off to an amazing start!
-Alethea
LikeLike