When, some years ago, in the 2003, I began my research about the criterions of representability concerning the link existed in the course of the time between the cinema and the Holocaust, I did it because I was feeling some pressures inside of me. The first one, and that one I consider most important of all, concerns the fact that something is undoubtly changed in the way by which any viewer can approach the subject by the filmic medium now.  What I claimed at that time, and what I think still now, is the fact that we were more and more in front of a new and real cinematographic genre. It’s been always clear to me that, for many reasons, it’s not so easy to accept this evidence, but it’s a fact. Even I, with a deep belief inside about this, had to be very cautious, with myself first of all, in maintaining this idea. At that time, many experts about the Holocaust and historicians. I met in fact wanted to confute my theory. Yet at the end of my research I had collected so many proofs that the evidence could be touched, for real. A “genre”, in fact, it’s the “locking” itself of a subject and the pigeonholing of it in semantic and syntactic structures that, first of all, have to be easily recognizable. So an “unprecedented ontologic problem” risks to become an empty box, just a pattern that, always repeated in its own form by one specifical kind of cinema, ceases to ask the viewer inescapable questions, for giving him, instead, just banal answers, answers that seriously risk  not to be so expected the eventuality that a tragedy like that could happen never more.