Closure in Holocaust films

I attended a fascinating talk by Giacomo Lichtner on The Pursuit of Closure: Mourning in Holocaust Cinema. How can one tell a Holocaust narrative in a meaningful way. You can seek to explore the lessons of the Holocaust, and for some the lessons of the Holocaust are simple: 'The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews', moral arguments about 'Man's inhumanity to man' distorts the memory of the historical reality of the Holocaust. An other way of approaching the narrative is as an account of mourning, an account of loss. But the scope of the loss is almost beyond the scope of the narrative. And there is the third way, depicting the Holocaust through the memoirs of survivors, a tribute to remembrance. The great problem with survivor narratives is that these focus on the survivors who are willing to talk, yet the real story is that of murder, of death, of the horror of those who cannot speak, the story of the dead and the mute. Film makers face all these problems with the additional problem that the narrative has to have some kind of satisfying ending, a happy ending, the triumph of suffering over evil, or whatever uplifting fate of survival is told, or the grim horror and death that must not be forgotten. Holocaust in films, and Holocaust in real life have no closure. Happy endings, or the dramatization of horror are not closure. Only saying kaddish for those who had been killed is an acceptable closure.