the holocaust is represented in the film. Dargis assumes that Nelson has some moral responsibility to the subject matter. “The desire to personalize the Holocaust is reasonable but it is a hazardous point of departure for a story as difficult and immense as that of the Nazi extermination camps, in part because personalizing that story is to risk trading understanding for empathy, even where none is warranted” (Dargis).There are many ways The Grey Zone frustrates the viewer. The film has no hero and there is no “good guy”. The film is too graphic, there are too many dead bodies and too many torture scenes. There is also the frustration of the film not having a good ending, nothing turns out good in the end everyone ends up killed.
Dargis feels like the filmmakers had good intentions on making The Grey Zone saying: “ There is little doubt that everyone involved in the making of "The Grey Zone," had the best of intentions when they embarked on this project” (Dargis). But in the end good intentions can only get you so far. “The problem is that good intentions are as useless as artistic ambitions at Auschwitz, where neither art nor sentimentality has a place. It isn't just that there's something unsettling about a film that aestheticizes a crematorium; it's that there's something trivializing about the very effort” (Dargis). She is very critical of the film, wondering whether or not it should have been made at all.