Topic: Schindler’s List (1993)

[Antares]

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.

[Kathy]

Antares,

Have your ever seen Paragraph 175?


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.

[Antares]

No, but it's going on my wishlist.

Thanks

[Najemikon]

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...

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.

[Antares]

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. 

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.

[Jimmy]

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.

[Critter]

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.

[Najemikon]

Bless you for that! 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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?

[Touti]

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.

[Najemikon]

  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.

[Jimmy]

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...

[Touti]

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.

[Jimmy]

He had always said that his film must be shown in class as real document on the holocaust. Sound like documentary to me.

[Touti]

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.

[Touti]

Kathy why did you delete your post ?