DVD Collectors Online
DVD Reviews => Movie Reviews => Topic started by: Antares on February 10, 2010, 06:10:14 PM
-
Schindler's List
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/025192386626f.jpg)
(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/2185/threeandhalf.jpg)
Year: 1993
Film Studio: Universal Pictures, Amblin Entertainment
Genre: Drama
Length: 195 Min.
Director
Steven Spielberg (1946)
Writing
Thomas Keneally (1935)...Book
Steven Zaillian (1953)...Screenplay
Producer
Irving Glovin
Kathleen Kennedy (1953)
Branko Lustig (1932)
Gerald R. Molen (1935)
Robert Raymond
Lew Rywin (1945)
Steven Spielberg (1946)
Cinematographer
Janusz Kaminski (1959)
Music
John Williams (1932)...Composer
Stars
Liam Neeson (1952) as Oskar Schindler
Ben Kingsley (1943) as Itzhak Stern
Ralph Fiennes (1962) as Amon Goeth
Caroline Goodall (1959) as Emilie Schindler
Jonathan Sagall (1962) as Poldek Pfefferberg
Embeth Davidtz (1965) as Helen Hirsch
Malgoscha Gebel (1955) as Wiktoria Klonowska
Shmuel Levy as Wilek Chilowicz
Review
Since this films release in 1993, it has been shrouded in a cloud of political correctness that has kept anyone from criticizing it from a purely cinematic viewpoint. When I first saw this film back in 1993 in a sold out movie theater, I was completely blown away by the scenes of brutality and the cold, callous disregard for human life that the Nazi's possessed. When it was played on television for the first time in an uncut form with no commercial interruptions, I watched it again and felt that it wasn't as disturbing the second time. After I purchased the DVD release, and viewed it for the third time, I realized that on the whole it was a slightly above average movie, not an exceptional one. Had I become de-sensitized to the violence by repeated viewings? No, the reason that it didn't move me quite as much was the fact that it had been made by a director who was unequal to the task of telling the story in any other way but by shocking, startling, and repulsing his audience.
Steven Spielberg has never been renowned for making good dramatic films; he's essentially a blockbuster B movie maker for the masses, and a very successful one. But when you take away his ability to use special effects, he resorts to cheap cinematic devices to tell his stories. For example, when the train of women & children arrive at Auschwitz, we see them having their hair shorn, followed by their removal of clothing as they are about to be taken to the ‘showers’. They are lead into the chamber, the somber, yet searing music intensifies, and we see the fear in their eyes at what they're anticipating. Then the lights go out, they start to cry and scream, and then...and then...the water starts to flow from the showerheads. Are you kidding me?!!! No director worth his weight in salt would dare use a ‘bus effect’ scene in a film that’s supposed to be a testament to the fallen. When I originally saw this film in the theater, I was repulsed by this moment of cinematic chicanery. What made it even more reprehensible was the fact that Spielberg discards all historical truth for this one ‘gotcha’ moment. It is a known fact that women and children that were sent to Auschwitz, never came back. No reprieve, they were killed…period. But it is something I should have expected from Steven Spielberg, who has never been anything more than filmdom’s version of P.T. Barnum. I've always wondered what this film would have been like if it had been made by a talented storyteller such as David Lean, Stanley Kubrick, or Sidney Lumet, directors who understand the word subtlety.
Now I know that I will be incurring the wrath of all the P.C. sheep out there by criticizing this film and it's ‘wunderkind’ director, but this a movie, not an historical transcript. It is told from the Jewish perspective and recounts only atrocities inflicted by the Nazi's upon Jewish people. At the end of the film a caption appears on screen stating, ‘This film is dedicated to the 6 million’. One thing that has always bothered me about this and other movies about the Nazi death camps is how only the 6 million Jews are mentioned. What about the other 8 million Poles, Slavs, gypsies, homosexuals and mentally incompetent that were also put to death in the camps? When you fail to include these other tortured souls in the total, you inflict your own personal genocide by exorcising their existence.
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Schindler’s List is a bad film, I’m just stating that it doesn’t quite reach the strata of other films I’ve seen on the subject of the Nazi’s ‘Final Solution’. Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah, Adelson & Taverna’s Lodz Ghetto, episode #20 (Genocide) of the World at War documentary and Alan Resnais’ Nuit et brouillard had already shown the world the historical atrocities committed by the Nazi’s in their quest for racial purification. While the television mini-series Holocaust dramatized the events without passing itself off as historical testament. Should you see Schindler’s List? By all means, yes. But always remember, it is just a movie…a movie made to manipulate your emotions and nothing more.
One last note; From time to time, I have heard people ask, how could the German people have been taken in by such a charlatan as Adolf Hitler? How they themselves would have never been swept up in the Nazi fervor that catapulted Hitler into power. To those people I say this; I have heard many people, on many occasions state, that everyone should be required to watch this film at least once, well... German citizens were required to read Mein Kampf.
Ratings Criterion
5 Stars - The pinnacle of film perfection and excellence.
4 ½ Stars - Not quite an immortal film, yet a masterpiece in its own right.
4 Stars - Historically important film, considered a classic.
3 ½ Stars - An entertaining film that’s fun or engaging to watch.
3 Stars – A good film that’s worth a Netflix venture.
2 ½ Stars - Borderline viewable.
2 Stars – A bad film that may have a moment of interest.
1 ½ Stars – Insipid, trite and sophomoric, and that's its good points.
1 Star – A film so vacuous, it will suck 2 hours from the remainder of your life.
½ Star - A gangrenous and festering pustule in the chronicles of celluloid.
-
I know that my review will be visited by the scorn of some, as it did when I originally wrote it six years ago. I caught a lot of Hell for it on the DVDSpot forum, and I expect to get it again, but I felt my observations were true and that it deserved to be listed on this forum also.
-
Not by me, but it's hard to bad talking a film like that because of the political correctness. You have no idea of how many problem the fact of having a dissident view and the idea of using historical fact had caused me when I was at the university. I'm always pissed off and I've lost a lot of respect for some of my professor even 10 years later...
But if you want a proof of how Spielberg was thinking his viewers were idiot I'll give you one : the little girl with the red coat when the ghetto was closed...
And I won't talk or write more than this about this subject.
-
And I'm glad you did. I disagree with you, entirely, but still, mine is only other review on here of this film so it's good to see a counter-point. Matthias already expressed some critiscm after that so you're not alone and I doubt you'll be villified. It's not about being "politically correct" and I think that is a dreadful accusation on either side.
However, you dismiss Spielberg as glibly as Tarantino! :tease: What rot. Yes, he is a showman, but the film has some incredible sequences all the better for how understated they are. The casual brutality of Fiennes' commander for one. And the present day segment is manipulative, but also quite beautiful and demonstrates the very soul of the film. But then, Jimmy, I thought the red coat sequence was devastatingly brilliant.
You focus on the shower sequence and ok, yes, it is a "ta-da!" moment, but you go on to say no-one left Aushwitz alive? Actually, Spielberg did bend the truth by making it seem like they were there for a few hours... in fact they were there for three weeks, but they did get released because of Schindler.
Your other major critiscm is one I have never been able to understand when applied to any historical film: what they didn't show. Steven Spielberg is Jewish and he wanted to make a very personal film about his heritage. To expand and show the equally brutal treatment and near extermination of other races would compromise his central message. To save one life, etc. Oscar wasn't saving the gypsies or the Poles, sadly he could only focus on what he did do. You treat this like Spielberg had some sort of duty, but he had no such thing.
Finally whatever you think of the film, it's importance should never be underestimated. Maybe there are better films about the holocaust, but frankly, so what? None of those filmmakers were in a position to form The Shoah Institution for instance, which is very valuable. You can't judge Schindler's List as a film, or as art (though as both it is beyond reproach), it's legacy makes it exempt. 3.5 stars? Good grief!
You do him a disservice. The whole film is a fine symphony. He used his power to draw in a typical blockbuster audience and gave them something they would never forget or dismiss.
-
I know that my review will be visited by the scorn of some,
Not from me either. I think your review is pretty accurate, maybe even too forgiving.
Should you see Schindler’s List? By all means, yes. But always remember, it is just a movie…a movie made to manipulate your emotions and nothing more.
I agree. The problem is not so much Spielberg's mediocre movie, but the way it has been "canonized" as the ultimate Holocaust movie, used as teaching material in schools all around the world. That is what really, really disturbs me.
He used his power to draw in a typical blockbuster audience and gave them something they would never forget or dismiss.
Nonsense! (sorry, Jon) Of course the "blockbuster audience" can't be bothered to sit through 10 hours of Lanzmann's Shoah. Well, if they think the terrible fate of those millions and millions of people isn't worth that time, then they will have forgotten Spielberg's movie pretty soon after they had their oh-my-god-that's-horrible moment. A false sense of authenticity combined with kitschy melodram and happy ending - what Spielberg has created is the new Auschwitz lie.
-
But if you want a proof of how Spielberg was thinking his viewers were idiot I'll give you one : the little girl with the red coat when the ghetto was closed...
Thank you for mentioning that scene, it was the other moment in the film that drove me absolutely nuts.
-
Your other major critiscm is one I have never been able to understand when applied to any historical film: what they didn't show. Steven Spielberg is Jewish and he wanted to make a very personal film about his heritage. To expand and show the equally brutal treatment and near extermination of other races would compromise his central message. To save one life, etc. Oscar wasn't saving the gypsies or the Poles, sadly he could only focus on what he did do. You treat this like Spielberg had some sort of duty, but he had no such thing.
My response was more directed at all the films I've seen detailing 'The Final Solution'. The only film I've watched that even mentions the others is the mini-series Holocaust. Albeit in a sort of left-handed way. The sister of James Woods' character is deemed feeble-minded and gassed in one of the mobile CO trucks. She's feeble-minded, yet Jewish.
You can't judge Schindler's List as a film, or as art (though as both it is beyond reproach), it's legacy makes it exempt.
It's legacy makes it exempt! :redcard: Sorry Jon, but when you give the film the look of WWII filmstock by using B&W tone to make it appear like an historical treatise, then you open yourself up to criticism.
Have you ever heard the story of why Paul Revere is so famous in the US? It is because of the poem written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. Because it was such a successful bit of prose for its time, it has come to be regarded by a good measure of the population as historical fact today.
Whose to say that in another hundred years, because of the way that it was made, that Schindler's List won't be taken as fact. Especially with generations of children being raised who have no proclivity towards historical curiosity and accuracy.
3.5 stars? Good grief!
When I originally saw it in the theater, I gave it 4.5 stars, but after the second viewing mentioned, I dropped it to 4 stars. When I finished watching it for the third time and wrote my review, it had slipped to 3.5, due to the reasons mentioned.
He used his power to draw in a typical blockbuster audience and gave them something they would never forget or dismiss.
I was going to write a prolonged diatribe on this statement, but Matthias summed it up best with his answer to it.
-
Nonsense! (sorry, Jon) Of course the "blockbuster audience" can't be bothered to sit through 10 hours of Lanzmann's Shoah. Well, if they think the terrible fate of those millions and millions of people isn't worth that time, then they will have forgotten Spielberg's movie pretty soon after they had their oh-my-god-that's-horrible moment. A false sense of authenticity combined with kitschy melodram and happy ending - what Spielberg has created is the new Auschwitz lie.
I couldn't have put it better myself. :thumbup:
-
He used his power to draw in a typical blockbuster audience and gave them something they would never forget or dismiss.
Nonsense! (sorry, Jon) Of course the "blockbuster audience" can't be bothered to sit through 10 hours of Lanzmann's Shoah. Well, if they think the terrible fate of those millions and millions of people isn't worth that time, then they will have forgotten Spielberg's movie pretty soon after they had their oh-my-god-that's-horrible moment. A false sense of authenticity combined with kitschy melodram and happy ending - what Spielberg has created is the new Auschwitz lie.
That's unfair and flippant. "Can't be bothered?" Why should they? Drama helps people understand and connect, but if they have to put effort in, forget it. That's the way of the world. And the fact is, much as we movie lovers hate it, modern audiences don't like old, abstract, subtitled, b&w or god forbid, all three. Because it was Spielberg they gave it more than a chance. And to say they'd forget! You do have a dim view of the average person! I said that line in the last response specifically because of people I know who were a) affected by this film and remember it vividly to this day; and b) cannot in anyway comprehend why anyone would want to watch the before-said categories of movies (old, foreign, etc).
Hmmm, a happy ending? No. Really, no. What I love about the story is that it demonstrates how much difference one man could make, but oh how rare that effort is. There's this contrast between the fact he saved 1100 people! But only 1100 out of millions. If there had been 10 more Schindler's, it still wouldn't have dented the awful total. I'm not happy about that. That doesn't give me a big grin.
As for being concerned about the teaching material use, well on one hand it is used as a stepping stone to the Shoah foundation material, and that is more valuable than the film ten times over. Second, be a little more generous! My history education was woeful. Schindler's List helped me realise the impact of the Holocaust and I wish I could have seen it while at school.
Whose to say that in another hundred years, because of the way that it was made, that Schindler's List won't be taken as fact. Especially with generations of children being raised who have no proclivity towards historical curiosity and accuracy.
So you'd rather the film not be made then. Because if that were the case, it would absolutely be a case of "Holocaust? What Holocaust?" by now.
At least the film exists and had an impact enough to make people realise. Because I truly believe they do realise, where they wouldn't have from say, The Pianist. Note I am sticking with "mainstream". Internationally there is no point at all considering anything else as something future generations will pck up.
Children should be taught how to put things into context, then all historical films could be used as stepping stones. Both you and Matthias are treating people like fools! Look, shameful though it is what with me living a couple of hundred miles from Scotland, I had no idea who William Wallace was until I saw Braveheart. Do I think he spoke with an occasional trans-Atlantic/Aussie accent? Well, obviously he did. Because that's what he sounded like in the movie. ::)
-
You can't judge Schindler's List as a film, or as art (though as both it is beyond reproach), it's legacy makes it exempt.
Sorry Jon but I don't see why this film can't be judged as a film. Because of the subject everyone is supposed to say it's the best film ever made, Sorry but it isn't a perfect film. It had historical error in it, he use cheap tactic for cheap drama (why you think I don't like the little red coated girl), it makes the German look like caricature, ...
This isn't even the best film on this subject. Holocaust already mentioned by Antares is way better and credible, Escape from Sobibor (even if it had error also) is better, Night and Fog is better and I'm sure that many others are.
-
You can't judge Schindler's List as a film, or as art (though as both it is beyond reproach), it's legacy makes it exempt.
Sorry Jon but I don't see why this film can't be judged as a film. Because of the subject everyone is supposed to say it's the best film ever made, Sorry but it isn't a perfect film. It had historical error in it, he use cheap tactic for cheap drama (why you think I don't like the little red coated girl), it makes the German look like caricature, ...
This isn't even the best film on this subject. Holocaust already mentioned by Antares is way better and credible, Escape from Sobibor (even if it had error also) is better, Night and Fog is better and I'm sure that many others are.
And you bring me full circle. I don't mean to imply it is the greatest film ever or is faultless. When I say it can't be judged as a film, I mean that the general everyday audience won't see it as such.
That's why it doesn't matter how much better or worse other films on the same subject are. You aren't going to see them on TV, but because it's Spielberg, because it was a success, you will see List regularly. And that's a good thing.
I ask again, to all of you, would you prefer this film did not even exist? Because no other filmmaker in the last twenty years has even got close to the exposure Spielberg got for this subject.
-
I ask again, to all of you, would you prefer this film did not even exist?
Since it play with the historical facts and Spielberg wants his viewers to believe it's a 100% factual film that must be shown in school my answer must be yes. If the movie was presented as a movie and not a documentary my answer would be the opposite.
-
When I say it can't be judged as a film, I mean that the general everyday audience won't see it as such.
Which is exactly why I find Shindler's List problematic, but not Braveheart. And your Braveheart comment together with the one above exactly proves my point.
I ask again, to all of you, would you prefer this film did not even exist?
No. Like Antares, I would prefer it would be treated as a movie.
-
:2cents:
A film is a film is a film
Just as I don't take Star Wars or the Princess Diaries seriously I see Schindlers List as a film... it may be historically in correct :S but its a film.
:2cents:
-
So you'd rather the film not be made then. Because if that were the case, it would absolutely be a case of "Holocaust? What Holocaust?" by now.
:redcard: I'm sorry Jon, but I have to red card you again.
First, nowhere in my review or my responses do I intimate that I think the film shouldn't have been made. But I wish that it wouldn't be treated as some sort of Gospel according to Steven.
Second, to say that by now we would have blanket acceptance of the 'What Holocaust' scenario is naive at best. With Auschwitz, Birkenau and Dachau still standing as memorial museums, the films taken by the Allies when they liberated the camps, the History Channel, PBS and the BBC still churning out documentaries on the subject, that scenario will never come to fruition.
-
When I say it can't be judged as a film, I mean that the general everyday audience won't see it as such.
Which is exactly why I find Shindler's List problematic, but not Braveheart. And your Braveheart comment together with the one above exactly proves my point.
Damn, you beat me to the punch again.
-
Antares,
Have your ever seen Paragraph 175?
(http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/7391/paragrah175gk1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Overview:
The Nazi persecution of homosexuals may be the last untold story of the Third Reich. Directed by Oscar winners Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman (Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt and The Times of Harvey Milk), Paragraph 175 fills a crucial gap in the historical record, and reveals the lasting consequences of this hidden chapter of 20th century history.
This epic story is told through personal accounts of men and women who lived through it: the Jewish gay resistance fighters who posed as a Hitler Youth member to rescue his lover from a Gestapo transfer camp; the Jewish lesbian who escaped to England with the help of an older woman she had a crush on; the photographer and loyal German citizen who was arrested and imprisoned for homosexuality, then joined the army on his release because "he wanted to by with men."
These are stories of survivors- sometimes bitter, but just as often filled with irony and humor; tortured by their memories, yet infused with a powerful will to endure. Their moving testimonies, rendered with evocative images of their lives and times, tell a haunting, compelling story of human resilience. Intimate in its portrayals, sweeping in its implications, Paragraph 175 raises provocative questions about memory, history and identity.
-
No, but it's going on my wishlist.
Thanks
-
When I say it can't be judged as a film, I mean that the general everyday audience won't see it as such.
Which is exactly why I find Shindler's List problematic, but not Braveheart. And your Braveheart comment together with the one above exactly proves my point.
Why don't you find a film that takes extreme liberties with a history that is considered almost personal to some people, problematic? There's a pattern forming here... :hmmmm:
First, nowhere in my review or my responses do I intimate that I think the film shouldn't have been made. But I wish that it wouldn't be treated as some sort of Gospel according to Steven.
Never said you did. And I've never treated it as "Gospel" either. Just very important. I was more responding to Jimmy at that point, but I am picking up something and I hope I'm wrong.
It's this flippancy toward Spielberg, like none of you have any respect for him as a 'proper' film-maker, so therefore you can't take him seriously, and so you believe he is approaching the story as an entertainer would. Therefore Schindler's List should be considered nothing more than a movie, because this upstart is nothing more than a showman who makes movies.
So essentially you're annoyed because this guy who makes popcorn movies about cute aliens has become recognised as producing the benchmark of Holocaust films (whether it is or not is irrelevant). And you wish everyone else could see The Emperor's New Clothes?
When this was discussed before after my review, I told Matthias I owned and had seen Night and Fog, but there was no way to say which one was better. He felt this was absurd, but I say it again. You cannot distinguish, because what Steven Spielberg does better than any other mainstream film-maker (because that's what he is) is connect with the audience. Which brings me to...
Second, to say that by now we would have blanket acceptance of the 'What Holocaust' scenario is naive at best. With Auschwitz, Birkenau and Dachau still standing as memorial museums, the films taken by the Allies when they liberated the camps, the History Channel, PBS and the BBC still churning out documentaries on the subject, that scenario will never come to fruition.
Well, I can only speak as someone of my generation here in the UK. When I was at school and was taught about the second world war, it felt like it was centuries ago. It didn't happen to us or anyone we knew. It was just facts and figures that had no context. Documentaries like you refer to are marvellous, but back then, just more grainy footage of people I didn't know from long ago. I saw those clips from the camps and they shocked me, but I still couldn't put them in context.
Schindler's List changed that. I understood for the first time who these people were and when they were and more importantly perhaps, it showed me this was living history and there were possibly two generations of people who could actually remember when it happened. And that what happened was still casting a terrible shadow. It did this through drama, by showing me one man putting his life on the line for a few others and understanding what a price that could incur.
I don't mind admitting that Schindler's List affected me on a personal level. By suggesting it is rewritten history suggests I haven't the intelligence or will to put it into context and seek out other material on the subject. But that's what I have done. And that's what Spielberg did too, using the film to build the Shoah videos, which are as valuable as any documentary.
-
Never said you did. And I've never treated it as "Gospel" either. Just very important. I was more responding to Jimmy at that point, but I am picking up something and I hope I'm wrong.
It's this flippancy toward Spielberg, like none of you have any respect for him as a 'proper' film-maker, so therefore you can't take him seriously, and so you believe he is approaching the story as an entertainer would. Therefore Schindler's List should be considered nothing more than a movie, because this upstart is nothing more than a showman who makes movies.
So essentially you're annoyed because this guy who makes popcorn movies about cute aliens has become recognised as producing the benchmark of Holocaust films (whether it is or not is irrelevant). And you wish everyone else could see The Emperor's New Clothes?
See here is where I think you're misunderstanding my point. I do believe that Spielberg approached this initially with the intent on making a 'proper' film as you say. But was unequal to the task of accomplishing it and had to resort to the cheap chicanery I alluded to. Can you honestly tell me that the three directors I mentioned in the review, would have done the same things? I think not.
As to the Emperor's New Clothes, I've learned one thing in the many years I've been discussing films. No matter what, you can't sway people when they have their mind set on a belief, and I would never even attempt to do so. You think it's the Holy Grail of Holocaust drama, I don't. I appreciate your position, but just as I can't sway you in your belief, you'll not change mine. :shrug:
Well, I can only speak as someone of my generation here in the UK. When I was at school and was taught about the second world war, it felt like it was centuries ago. It didn't happen to us or anyone we knew. It was just facts and figures that had no context. Documentaries like you refer to are marvellous, but back then, just more grainy footage of people I didn't know from long ago. I saw those clips from the camps and they shocked me, but I still couldn't put them in context.
Then I guess we are definitely from two different generations then. I didn't learn about the Final Solution in school, in fact it was a Saturday night back in 1975 when I was enlightened as to this most horrific part of history. PBS had been running an episode of the World at War each week and when they got to episode 20, I sat there in completely shock at the atrocities shown. I was 14 at the time and that 50 minute episode completely changed my outlook on humanity. Seeing a British bulldozer plowing in to a mass grave the skeletal bodies, sickened me and I was able to easily grasp the concept of what the Nazi's had done.
-
Then I guess we are definitely from two different generations then. I didn't learn about the Final Solution in school, in fact it was a Saturday night back in 1975 when I was enlightened as to this most horrific part of history.
Jon and me doesn't have a big age difference and I sure don't understand that his big exposition to the holocaust was with this film. At 10 years old I known already about this from the books I've read at home (I must thank my mother for that). I know the kids don't read anymore but we did, don't tell me Jon that it was different for you.
-
I know the kids don't read anymore but we did, don't tell me Jon that it was different for you.
I am currently 19 years old and when I first learnt about the Holocaust, I must have been 15 or 16 an I learnt everything I know today from books and the film Schindler's List. This film was extremly important to me as it brought to life the horrific images I had only witnessed from books and something that my teachers at school and their documentaries seemed unable to properly shed light on. The film for me seemed to tell the story in a great and terrifying manner, while leaving nothing out which left me feeling like I finally understood the true desctruction of the holocaust for the first time. I did not watch this film in a classroom but rather tracked it down and watched it myself. To this day I find it difficult thinking of another film that affected me as much as Schindler's List and taught me so much about a large part of human history. If I had to rate this film I would not be able to, I usually rate a film on how much I enjoyed watching it. Needless to say I did not enjoy watching Schindler's one bit, it was haunting and an almost horrific cinema experience, but to this day I consider it one of the most important films I have seen.
-
Bless you for that! :thumbup:
Jimmy, from a very early age my mum taught me to read and books have always been very important to me. But the Holocaust was shamefully not taught specifically in school and no-one told me about it. I honestly don't think my mum and dad's generation were absolutely aware of it. I have no idea why, I really can't guess. :shrug:
But surely this demonstrates my point? Maybe you came to Schindler's List already fully understanding what had happened and saw it as not much more than a dramatic reconstruction. For me, and it seems so with Critter, it was a trial by fire.
Antares, I don't consider it the Holy Grail though! That would imply all has been said and done, which is absurd. As to his skills as a film-maker in general, I hold him in very high regard, where you clearly don't! Looks like it really is another Tarantino. :laugh:
As to the Emperor's New Clothes, I've learned one thing in the many years I've been discussing films. No matter what, you can't sway people when they have their mind set on a belief, and I would never even attempt to do so. You think it's the Holy Grail of Holocaust drama, I don't. I appreciate your position, but just as I can't sway you in your belief, you'll not change mine. :shrug:
While I agree with that, you, Matthias and Jimmy have not acknowledged that it is possible that Spielberg communicated a subject to a new generation, who became enlightened and deeply affected by it. The implication, I'm sorry to say, is that if you learned anything from Spielberg's 'movie', you must be a gibbering moron. I hope I've demonstrated I'm quite the opposite and that you can believe me when I say that here, in the UK, many of my generation felt the same. This was an important movie where the other Shoah films would have found no audience. And now we have Critter. 19 years old! Yet still with a balanced view. Spielberg has hardly poisoned us, has he?
-
Interesting thread. Yesterday when I read Antares' review I didn't like it because of the first sentence which seemed like it was saying "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong and didn't look at it the right way, if they had they could only come to the same conclusion I did".
The op says "in a purely cinematic point viewpoint". What is that ? How does one watch and evaluate a movie from a purely cinematic viewpoint ? Does it mean that I am supposed to block out everything the movie talks about and only look at the colors, the acting, the script and other technicalities ?
Movies tell stories. What makes them good is not only the story or how it tells it, it's a combination of both to different degrees. When a great story is told in a great way then you have a great movie. I don't think one can criticize a movie from a "purely cinematic viewpoint" because to me it seems like it would require to disregard what it says and look only [at how it says it which is not what movies are about.
I find it interesting to see how a comment from Antares saying he feels people are blinded by political correctness on that movie has turned into a discussion on the holocaust and Spielberg's qualities (or lack of) as a film maker. Everyone (talking in general, not necessarily about everyone here) seems to think that Schindler's list shows the holocaust and the horrors of WWW II and what the Nazi's have done. I've never looked at it that way. I think it's a movie showing that not everyone living in countries occupied by the Germans just put their head in the sand and willingly ignored what was happening. Some were trying to do something and that's what this movie tells us.
-
:thumbup: Very well put, Eric.
One thing I had forgotten from my childhood that my mum had told me: The Diary of Anne Frank. That was a heartbreaking introduction to what had happened, though of course couldn't show you the scale.
-
While I agree with that, you, Matthias and Jimmy have not acknowledged that it is possible that Spielberg communicated a subject to a new generation, who became enlightened and deeply affected by it.
I've never said that. What I've said is that this movie is a movie not a documentary like Spielberg and some others want us to believe. I just say that it's a film and like any film it must be watched with a critical eyes, even if there is some truth in it there are also some fabricated facts and it's normal since it's a work of fiction (as Pearl Harbor, U-571 or JFK are). I just find that it make no sense to present this as a 100% truthfull definitive version of the holocaust, but for what it is it's a good story about a Czechoslovakian bussinessman who had saved some jews.
To be honest if one of my professor would have presented it when I was at the university telling that it was a documentary, I would have been the first to get out and quit his class...
-
But who says it's a documentary ? I see it printed on the overview of the DVD's but does that come from Spielberg or from the studio ?
I've seen Spielberg in a few interviews talking about the Shoah Foundation but I don't recall him every calling Schindler's list a documentary.
-
He had always said that his film must be shown in class as real document on the holocaust. Sound like documentary to me.
-
That's different then. It doesn't take anything from the movie but it's still a movie, not a teaching document. If we were to start using movies for teaching then I would suggest in this case that "Judgment at Nuremberg" and "Nuremberg" would both be better choices.
-
Kathy why did you delete your post ?
-
Kathy why did you delete your post ?
I decided it was too sad - I hate sounding so depressing.
-
There's nothing wrong with expressing feelings, I think you should ask Karsten to put it back. :2cents:
-
As to his skills as a film-maker in general, I hold him in very high regard, where you clearly don't! Looks like it really is another Tarantino. :laugh:
Actually, I hold him in much higher regard than I do Tarantino, Spielberg has made some good films in his career without resorting to sampling and plagiarism. :tease:
I am not saying that Spielberg is not a master of his craft, quite the contrary, he 's a master at mesmerizing an audience through imagery and special effects. But when it comes to the use of subtle statement, he's quite amateurish.
Let's take for example, the scene where the Germans are rounding up the children for transfer. Spielberg tracks the shot of one child running through the camp searching for a place to hide. Every nook and cranny he comes to is already taken by another child desperately hoping to avoid detection. Finally he jumps through the open hole of the camp latrine and into the malodorous muck of human waste. Now you would think that this would be enough of a statement of desperation that no further exposition would be necessary, but you would be wrong. Spielberg now cuts to inside the trough, at eye level to the child, to bring the audience down into the horrendous hiding spot. We see the child covered in human excrement, shivering in fear and then a cut to other children who are already there, telling him that he has to leave.
Now, wouldn't this scene have been just as powerful if he had employed a little restraint by doing it this way...
The scene would play out exactly as before, except when we reach the point where the child jumps through the hole. Now instead of cutting to the child in the waste pit, the camera stays at the hole entrance. There is a slight moment of silence, then we hear the voices of the other children telling him to leave. The camera then pans to the open door of the latrine and we watch the chaos ensuing in the campground.
Well, what do you think? A lot more subtle, yet just as powerful without the cheap visual statement.
The implication, I'm sorry to say, is that if you learned anything from Spielberg's 'movie', you must be a gibbering moron.
:redcard: Once again Jon, I have to red card you. Never once in my review or my postings have I made that kind of statement.
-
Yesterday when I read Antares' review I didn't like it because of the first sentence which seemed like it was saying "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong and didn't look at it the right way, if they had they could only come to the same conclusion I did".
:yellowcard: You read into something that was not there, and never my intent.
The op says "in a purely cinematic point viewpoint". What is that ? How does one watch and evaluate a movie from a purely cinematic viewpoint ? Does it mean that I am supposed to block out everything the movie talks about and only look at the colors, the acting, the script and other technicalities ?
What I meant by that, is exactly what we have been discussing over the last few pages, the deification of this film as a de facto documentary of the Holocaust.
I reviewed this film from a viewer's standpoint, I took the blinders off and judged it for its artistic merit. The blinders being the general atmosphere surrounding this film that you could not criticize it because of its subject matter or who made it. Jon's earlier response of the films lofty position only enhances my statement. You may disagree, but I don't see it as a truly great film. And that is my whole point, its a good film, not a great one.
Everyone (talking in general, not necessarily about everyone here) seems to think that Schindler's list shows the holocaust and the horrors of WWW II and what the Nazi's have done. I've never looked at it that way. I think it's a movie showing that not everyone living in countries occupied by the Germans just put their head in the sand and willingly ignored what was happening. Some were trying to do something and that's what this movie tells us.
Agreed :thumbup:
-
Wich post? She posted the 16th message and I haven't seen nothing after. :shrug:
But Kathy if you have post a message to disagree on something we have posted it's ok (note that I've no idea of what message Eric talk about). We are between adults and friends here, everyone of us can say his/her opinions whatever it may been...
So Kathy please repost it, your point of view is as important than my point of view or the point of view of Jon.
:2cents:
I deleted it and have no idea how to get it back. Karsten if you can get it back I don't mind if you re-post it. It wasn't that interesting - just a sad story of my friends and families experiences during this time.
-
I deleted it and have no idea how to get it back. Karsten if you can get it back I don't mind if you re-post it. It wasn't that interesting - just a sad story of my friends and families experiences during this time.
On the contrary, I found it to be very interesting and moving. Thank you for sharing that. I have no idea if Karsten can restore it, but I can offer this copy from my browser cache:
Although I found this film interesting it did not, or maybe it could not, impact me the way it has some of you. It might very well be because I am a lot older than most of you and my experiences were quite different.
My family was impacted directly by the atrocities that occurred during this time. The impact was far reaching and an entire generation or two was lost or altered forever. I have family and acquaintances who fought in WWII including former POWs. I was raised with an acute realization of the impact this war had on individuals as well as the world.
My maternal side of my family is German. My grandmother and her sister were born in the same house - one was born in Austria, the other Germany. They were forced to leave everything they had to come to America. My great grandmother and great grandfather would not talk about what they saw during this time. They were traumatized for the rest of their lives and refused to discuss anything that occurred before they came to America - that time ceased to exist.
On my paternal side, my grandparents were driven out of Poland and also were forced to leave everything behind. When they came to America, they even dropped their name - Tarapacki became Harris. It wasn't until my grandfather was about to graduate from high school that he took back a piece of his heritage. Denial of the past affected this side of my family also. It wasn't until very late in their lives that this side of my family started to open up about what happened.
I have found that people who lived and survived this period of time find it very difficult to discuss that part of their lives. It takes a long time and lots of trust to get them to discuss what happened. The reality of what they lived through was so much worse and can never be adequately brought to the screen - not by anyone who wasn't there, who didn't survive. Documentaries are the only medium, in my opinion, that can scratch the surface of the realities of that time.
Some of the most poignant moments of my life has been taking my friend's father, who was a POW, to his Veteran reunions. He opened up to me because, after multiple surgeries including the removal of most of his neck, shoulder and his tongue, I was one of the few who could understand him talk. He never discussed his past with his family - not ever. But, when he wanted to go to his first reunion after surgery he asked me to go to translate for him because of his disability. On the long drive there he opened up to me about that terrible time.
Surprisingly, or maybe not, most of his buddies were able to understand him. But he always wants me to take him and so I do - every year. All I do is nothing - nothing but listen and cry - it is the least I can do.
-
Thank you for finding that, Matthias. And thank you for posting it in the first place, Kathy, and being so open. It's important to hear stories like that. While I don't want to open another discussion, it reminds me of Spielberg's reasons for making Saving Private Ryan. He said how his father would never speak of what happened, except when his friends would visit and even then, only between themselves.
As to his skills as a film-maker in general, I hold him in very high regard, where you clearly don't! Looks like it really is another Tarantino. :laugh:
Actually, I hold him in much higher regard than I do Tarantino, Spielberg has made some good films in his career without resorting to sampling and plagiarism. :tease:
I am not saying that Spielberg is not a master of his craft, quite the contrary, he 's a master at mesmerizing an audience through imagery and special effects. But when it comes to the use of subtle statement, he's quite amateurish.
Let's take for example, the scene where the Germans are rounding up the children for transfer. Spielberg tracks the shot of one child running through the camp searching for a place to hide. Every nook and cranny he comes to is already taken by another child desperately hoping to avoid detection. Finally he jumps through the open hole of the camp latrine and into the malodorous muck of human waste. Now you would think that this would be enough of a statement of desperation that no further exposition would be necessary, but you would be wrong. Spielberg now cuts to inside the trough, at eye level to the child, to bring the audience down into the horrendous hiding spot. We see the child covered in human excrement, shivering in fear and then a cut to other children who are already there, telling him that he has to leave.
Now, wouldn't this scene have been just as powerful if he had employed a little restraint by doing it this way...
The scene would play out exactly as before, except when we reach the point where the child jumps through the hole. Now instead of cutting to the child in the waste pit, the camera stays at the hole entrance. There is a slight moment of silence, then we hear the voices of the other children telling him to leave. The camera then pans to the open door of the latrine and we watch the chaos ensuing in the campground.
Well, what do you think? A lot more subtle, yet just as powerful without the cheap visual statement.
The implication, I'm sorry to say, is that if you learned anything from Spielberg's 'movie', you must be a gibbering moron.
:redcard: Once again Jon, I have to red card you. Never once in my review or my postings have I made that kind of statement.
No, you're right, you didn't make that statement, but you did allude to it, even when you said that List was protected by political correctness. Honestly, in the UK, I have never come across anything like that and by suggesting it is, you're making me and others who say they were affected by it complicit in some degree. Either that or we're too daft and easily led to see what must be obvious. Eric did pick up the same vibe. :shrug: To be honest, normally I wouldn't give a damn and I'm sure I've said similar about other films, but you're treading on what for me is a very special film.
I like Spielberg's style and I do think it is a lot more than just special effects in all his films. At his best, he is very David Lean-ish, no accident considering the urban legend about his love for Lawrence of Arabia. As for that scene, well, it won't surprise you to know I think it well judged and powerful, like the rest. :tease:
I know what you mean about your version of the scene, but there's a solid honesty about Spielberg's staging and he is always about detail (see the amount of work that goes into the most briefly used sets in any of his films). It's important that we switch almost to the child's POV to see the others though because the narrative emotion is following the child and if we only heard the other voice, it may feel like the film, in fact us, were rejecting the child. The other children's ruthlessness would be lost as well.
Overall I think it is superbly constructed. The way certain characters are followed and brought together is so graceful, and he shows excellent judgment on pacing. Yes there are 'cinematic' moments, but for me they never feel out of place. Where they are not needed, it is horribly stark. I always get the feeling that it is a journey into hell as it starts with some black humour (the family forced to move and thinking they have a large room for themselves; Kingsley getting stuck on the train), but such scenes gradually continue to give way; almost as if the characters are holding onto hope, but finally they have to give up and admit the sheer scale is too much. At that point, Schindler is well into his operation, so the narrative finds a new release for the viewer as we concentrate on his incredible efforts. But it is never glossed over that the wider situation is hopeless.
Why there is still discussion about movie versus documentary, I don't know. I've never seen it as anything other than a superb film and I'll say it again, a stepping stone to humanize the documentaries.
-
No, you're right, you didn't make that statement, but you did allude to it, even when you said that List was protected by political correctness.
Honestly, in the UK, I have never come across anything like that and by suggesting it is, you're making me and others who say they were affected by it complicit in some degree.
Maybe in the UK it has been that way, but over here in the States it definitely has not. It's as if this film is surrounded by a thick teflon veneer that you are not allowed to scratch.
Larry David, in an episode of Seinfeld, took a shot at this premise. Remember the episode where Jerry is caught by Newman making out with his girlfriend in the theater. Yes, the thought of making out during a film with a subject so horrifying is reprehensible, but David's point is that it is only a movie, and the thought that you must conform to the emotions of the masses around you in the theater is equally frightening.
Now if you feel that my opening statement is implying complicity, then I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent, but your false assumption. :hmmmm: :tease:
Look, let's just agree to disagree.
You think it's great, I think its good.
We both obviously like the film, who cares to what degree. :friends:
-
Spielberg obviously wasn't only making a movie here, he wanted to convey a message. If this will be done through a movie and it has to attract people and the only way to do that is to add some "cinematic moments". I think the concept is pretty simple here, make a movie that will attract the mass and hope that a reasonable portion of it will see past what hits the eye.
Because of what I've said in my first post in this topic I think this movie is important and that there should be more like it. We've seen countless movies in the last 60 years about the Allies and the Nazi's but there isn't that many about the unknown heroes of that war, those who have done unbelievably courageous things, outside of the armies and risking their own lives, people that hardly anyone ever heard of. Their stories should told and remembered, it's important. I knew such a man and tell my friends about him whenever I have a chance.
-
Look, let's just agree to disagree.
You think it's great, I think its good.
We both obviously like the film, who cares to what degree. :friends:
Fair enough... :cards:
:laugh:
Spielberg obviously wasn't only making a movie here, he wanted to convey a message. If this will be done through a movie and it has to attract people and the only way to do that is to add some "cinematic moments". I think the concept is pretty simple here, make a movie that will attract the mass and hope that a reasonable portion of it will see past what hits the eye.
Because of what I've said in my first post in this topic I think this movie is important and that there should be more like it. We've seen countless movies in the last 60 years about the Allies and the Nazi's but there isn't that many about the unknown heroes of that war, those who have done unbelievably courageous things, outside of the armies and risking their own lives, people that hardly anyone ever heard of. Their stories should told and remembered, it's important. I knew such a man and tell my friends about him whenever I have a chance.
Another excellent summation, Eric. But I'm intrigued to know about the man you knew.
-
Look, let's just agree to disagree.
You think it's great, I think its good.
We both obviously like the film, who cares to what degree. :friends:
Fair enough... :cards:
:laugh:
Thank God, I was getting carpal tunnel from all the responses I was typing. :whistle: :o :laugh:
-
Another excellent summation, Eric. But I'm intrigued to know about the man you knew.
All I know about his time in Europe is what my mother told me, I've known him since the age of 5 and until he died 20 years ago but I never discussed it with him. As Kathy stated earlier today, many don't want to talk about it, I suppose it brings back memories.
Well anyway, here's what I know of him, his name was Max and you better get yourself something to drink because this is gonna be a long read.
He was born in a Romanian Jewish family during the first war or shortly after. When he was around 18 he left Romania and moved to France where he became a doctor. If I'm not mistaking, in the late 1930's the Nazi's were using the medias to lure Jews that had left back into the country by making false promises of jobs and a better life. I am not sure this is related to that but at some point he received a letter from his father who was telling him not to believe anything he'd hear on the radio or read in the papers, to stay in France and never go back to Romania. So in France he stayed. When the German armies invaded and occupied France, he joined the resistance to fight the Nazis. I don't know the circumstances but he got caught by the Germans with his friends and was sent in a camp in Belgium.
Since he was arrested in France with the resistance, the Germans didn't know he was Jewish so they kept him there instead of deporting him to a death camp. During his stay there, as a doctor he was forced to care for Nazi's, mostly Gestapo and army officers. As I understand it they didn't care much for the regular soldiers and they wouldn't mind letting one die of bad injury or disease to give priority to a Gestapo member or an officer regardless of how insignificant his sickness or injury was.
Once he told my mother the story of this German that they brought him, I think he had been in a tank that was shot or that he walked on a mine. I don't quite remember but the point is that he was in very bad shape, almost dead, he used to say that he ressuscitated him a few times. Max was forced to work on him for many hours during which a German held a gun near his head and repeatedly said "If he dies.........you die". He told my mother that he came close many times of just killing him and be killed but what kept him going was that the Germans also let him take care of other prisoners.
As a doctor he had certain privileges because the Germans used him to care for their own. One such privilege was that he'd get a small piece of bread with his soup. He'd often give either or both to another prisoner who was in worse condition than him. His rationale for healing the Germans was that as long as he was alive he could help others.
One of the ways he did so was by putting together an escape plan with a French Colonel. I don't know the details but they organized a few escapes and many prisoners were able to escape and get to a safe country because of them. One day, while they were getting ready for another escape, word came that one prisoner had told the Germans about them, he basically sold them for a bit of food and an extra blanket or something like that. Fortunately another prisoner who had heard of it told Max and Delage (the French Colonel) and it was decided that they would escape as well before they were arrested.
When time to leave came, Max didn't want to, he wanted to give his place to someone else. He was convinced that the Germans wouldn't touch him because they needed him. Delage told him that it wouldn't work this way, that there was no way they would let him get away with that no matter that he was a doctor. He told him they had to make an example of him. Unfortunately Max was stubborn as a donkey, and he still wouldn't bulge on this so Delage knocked him out and carried him out of the camp.
Their escape plan took them to Spain through the Pyrenees. It is during the escape that he met his wife, a Spanish woman who, with her father, helped people cross to Spain. I was 14 when my mother told me that story and I remember how impressed I was by the cliff. While they were in the Pyrenees the German armies were after them and they ended up on a cliff only a few inches wide with soldiers and dogs on both sides trying to find them. Max held that woman all night so she wouldn't fall while holding himself on a rock with his other hand. When they finally managed to get to Spain, the woman's father asked Max to take her with him and made him promise he would take care of her all their lives.
From Spain they got to Canada, once here and after he got his health back he wanted to join the Canadian Army and go back to fight but the Government wouldn't allow that. He settled in Montreal, did his residency at a hospital which was required (and still is) for doctors who hadn't got their degrees here and then he opened his office and started practicing medicine.
-
Thank you so much for sharing that, Eric. What a brilliant story and such a courageous man.
...after he got his health back he wanted to join the Canadian Army and go back to fight but the Government wouldn't allow that.
That just made my jaw drop. What spirit. To have escaped by the skin of his teeth and have the will power to want to go back. Someone make this film! :thumbup:
-
Jon this man had the strongest will I've ever seen. In the 60's my mother became his secretary and he was a big smoker, 4 packs a day. One afternoon she walks into his office and tells him that it stinks, that he's receiving sick patients there and some with breathing problems.
He just looked at her and didn't say a word, she left his office thinking she had lost her job but at the end of the day he went to see her, thanked her making him see something that he had not realized. He threw all his packs of cigarettes in the garbage and never smoked another one.
Once he was on a hunting trip with a friend who got sick of an acute appendicitis. There was no road, they had been taken there by a plane which was going to pick them up 4 days later. Like any good hunter they had brought booze so they had 2 bottles of gin.
He used most of one to get the guy drunk, used some to sterilize his hunting knife and used it to operate on the man. He had no choice, the appendix had ruptured and the man would have died. He sewed him back with regular tread and an ordinary needle and stayed awake 4 days and 3 nights (or maybe "only" 3 days and 2 nights) caring for him and making sure the wound wouldn't get infected.
Oh.........and he spoke 7 languages.
Anyway, I think the whole point is that there was hundreds if not thousands of men and women like Max during the second world war, true heroes who risked their own lives without hesitation and it's extremely unfortunate and frustrating to see how history is forgetting them.
If a movie like Schindler's list can make one of them be remembered I believe that in itself is worth it and should be above any other considerations.
-
It always reassures me to hear about such people. It proves no matter what disaster strikes or what evil we might face, there will always be a natural balance created by these "small" acts of courage. I got the same sense during the 9/11 coverage as the stories of what people did started to filter through even while it was still going on.
-
Someone make this film! :thumbup:
Agreed, what a story! :thumbup:
-
Antares,
Have your ever seen Paragraph 175?
(http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/7391/paragrah175gk1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Overview:
The Nazi persecution of homosexuals may be the last untold story of the Third Reich. Directed by Oscar winners Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman (Common Threads: Stories from the Quilt and The Times of Harvey Milk), Paragraph 175 fills a crucial gap in the historical record, and reveals the lasting consequences of this hidden chapter of 20th century history.
This epic story is told through personal accounts of men and women who lived through it: the Jewish gay resistance fighters who posed as a Hitler Youth member to rescue his lover from a Gestapo transfer camp; the Jewish lesbian who escaped to England with the help of an older woman she had a crush on; the photographer and loyal German citizen who was arrested and imprisoned for homosexuality, then joined the army on his release because "he wanted to by with men."
These are stories of survivors- sometimes bitter, but just as often filled with irony and humor; tortured by their memories, yet infused with a powerful will to endure. Their moving testimonies, rendered with evocative images of their lives and times, tell a haunting, compelling story of human resilience. Intimate in its portrayals, sweeping in its implications, Paragraph 175 raises provocative questions about memory, history and identity.
I have to thank you Kathy for suggesting this DVD. My wife and I just finished watching it, and we both really thought it was a fantastic documentary.
I really felt bad for the Alsatian man and the man who went to work for his brother after the war. The latter seemed to be in need of releasing his repressed feelings on the subject of his imprisonment. Very powerful film, I recommend it highly.
Once again, thank you Kathy. :thumbup:
-
Not looking to stir the pot again, but I found this article very interesting. The first link is for the writer's original viewpoint. The second link is his lengthy response to the backlash that his original statement made.
http://www.tabletmag.com/100-films/84314/no-100-schindler%E2%80%99s-list/ (http://www.tabletmag.com/100-films/84314/no-100-schindler%E2%80%99s-list/)
http://www.tabletmag.com/arts-and-culture/85945/listless/ (http://www.tabletmag.com/arts-and-culture/85945/listless/)