While watching “One Life,” the latest film starring Anthony Hopkins, I found myself reflecting on my response to two recent releases that both delve into the narrative of the Holocaust. Despite addressing similar subject matter, these films approach the storytelling in contrasting manners. Personally, I was more emotionally engaged and positively inclined towards “One Life,” a sentiment that appears to be in the minority among critics.
This divergence in reactions prompts a deeper consideration of how individuals connect with cinematic experiences and what truly elicits an emotional response from a viewer. By delving into my own emotional journey with “One Life,” I aim to offer insights that could assist you in determining whether this film aligns with your cinematic preferences.
The central narrative unfolds in 1987 Britain, focusing on Nicholas Winton, portrayed by Hopkins, as he stumbles upon an old briefcase in his office, triggering profound reflections conveyed eloquently through his nuanced performance.
The storyline shifts back to the tumultuous aftermath of the Munich Agreement, where a younger Winton (played by Johnny Flynn) traverses Czechoslovakia, encountering Jewish families fleeing the Nazis from Austria and Germany, only to find themselves still imperiled.
Despite his privileged background as a stockbroker, Winton, spurred by empathy, collaborates with his mother (Helena Bonham Carter) to orchestrate the relocation of these children to safety in England, placing them in temporary foster care during the war, ultimately saving close to 700 lives. However, the weight of those he couldn’t rescue lingers, propelling him to seek closure and information on their fates.
His altruistic endeavors come to light through a modest television program, “That’s Life,” where Winton reunites with the children he successfully rescued and their descendants, evoking a deeply touching and poignant response within me. The authenticity of emotion portrayed by Hopkins, coupled with his understated yet powerful portrayal, resonated profoundly.
Witnessing a humble hero like Winton, who shied away from acclaim, confront the profound impact of his actions on generations, stirred a profound emotional reaction within me, evoking a sense of admiration and reverence.
Despite its poignant narrative and stellar performances, “One Life” occasionally veers into melodrama and sentimentality, risking dilution of the gravity of the Holocaust narrative. In contrast to “The Zone of Interest,” which attempts a broader commentary on human indifference to suffering, “One Life” stands out for its sincerity and emotional resonance.
While “The Zone of Interest” posits a bleak worldview implicating even the ostensibly innocent in complicity, I found its approach overly cynical, lacking the emotional authenticity that “One Life” embodies. The latter, despite its conventional storytelling, succeeds in capturing the raw anguish and horror of the Holocaust, fostering a genuine connection with the audience.
In a cinematic landscape where darkness often pervades, films like “One Life” reaffirm humanity’s capacity for compassion and goodness in the face of adversity. Drawing parallels to “Schindler’s List,” the film underscores the transformative power of individual acts of kindness amidst profound human suffering.
As a fervent admirer of filmmakers like Spielberg, who illuminate the inherent heroism in humanity’s darkest moments, I find solace in narratives that celebrate human decency and resilience. “One Life” may not be groundbreaking in its narrative approach, but its sincerity and ability to evoke genuine emotions justify its manipulation of the audience’s sentiments.