When he spent his entire fortune buying the lives of almost 1,200 Jews, he was clearly acting out of self interest.

First off, I think it's great that you all know how to make animated smileys. Well done.

I read the book and the movie version of Amon Goeth is faithful.

Um....the book was a NOVEL. It was a fictionalized portrayal of a real person.

The only writing against the film that even approached "brillant" was the Village Voice review by J. Hoberman.

Have you read all critical writings against this film? What about the various writing and interviews with Jean-Luc Godard on the subject? Have you seen Elogie de L'Amour?

Part of the problem with the film is that Spielberg does nothing more than create a visual representation of the horrors of a concentration camp. But by doing that, he fails to convey the Holocaust's singularly horrific significance. The director of Shoah, (the absolute best film on the subject) Claude Lanzmann once said that if he discovered a visual document about the Holocaust he would destroy it. See Shoah to understand why.

Schindler's List is more about money -- about a rich guy who claims he could have done more if only he had more money. Spielberg SO identifies with this guy, and it shows.

Ok - perhaps I didn't phrase it best in my last post, but if Spielberg feels the need to show children hiding in a toilet as a means to get a desired result from the audiece, then he really doesn't have a clue.

When he spent his entire fortune buying the lives of almost 1,200 Jews, he was clearly acting out of self interest.

Again. that is the Spielberg's portrayal. Read what Schindlner's wife said about him.

Actually, on the documentary "Voices from the List" on the Schindler's List DVD they said the main reason Schindler did it is for his own profit. And these are the people who he saved saying it.

If you can find a copy of the book, read the back cover and its genre. "Judaica/Fiction."

It's based on real events and real people but there are liberties taken with the truth.

But then again, it's a movie and I don't think it matters that some of it is false.

Schindler's List wasn't trying to be the definitive Holocaust movie. No movie could, really, excluding perhaps in-depth documentaries. Spielberg with SL was trying to tell one particular story about the Holocaust, that's it. I mean, Lawrence of Arabia wasn't exactly historically accurate either, but then again nobody really liked that movie much anyhow.


BTW that was sarcasm, for the inevitable person(s) who will quote that line and cry foul...

You drop a line about Polanski not exploiting children and have the stones to act surprised at a few smilies?

DOH!

But seriously, the problem is that Spielberg himself declared that this was the definitive Holocaust movie. It's shown in schools, and has basically replaced fact in many people's eyes.

Please provide something (anything) to back this up. If Spielberg himself declared this, there must be a quote available.

This is a complete fabrication. Spielberg has never said any such thing, and has in fact inferred the opposite many times.

What an entertaining thread!

I still can't believe the Polanski quote. That's rich.

>>>>Polanski had no need to exploit little children

Ok you're obviously an amature when it comes to critiquing movies.

"Spielberg does nothing more than create a visual representation of the horrors of a concentration camp."

Spielberg's point in making this movie IS to give its audience a visual picture of a situation, whether fact or fictional in every account is not the point. The goal for a director when making their films is to entertain the viewer by allowing him/her to feel and understand and possibly connect in some way with the characters. If a movie moves you in anyway, it did it's part. The truth is that the movie wasn't made to depict the life of Schindler but rather to understand an era in history. If Schindler really only cared for the jews for his own personal benefit is besides the picture.

"...if Spielberg feels the need to show children hiding in a toilet as a means to get a desired result from the audiece, then he really doesn't have a clue."

Spielberg doesn't have a clue??? Ok, that scene and any other disgusting and sad scene in the entire movie is made to get a desired result from the audience because that is what makes a movie sucessful. Spielberg, in showing you graphic images like this, WAS trying to trigger an emotion, again, to make us connect with the character. If Spielberg, and any other director for that matter, didn't try to draw an emotion and get that desired result then he wasn't making a movie to entertain. The movie is not called "A Documentary on the Holocaust". Not one movie ever was truly 100% factual, unless of course it was a documentary. Scenes are dramaticized, facts are altered slightly, and personal input can always be found in every real life movie. If not, than what's the point. You want a documentary, go watch PBS and stay off the forums for God's sake.



"Ignorant people should just be ****ing shot."

I found Schindler's List to be a bit cloying at times, but the dialogue that I have problems with (i.e. things people would never actually *say* - only other people would say them in retrospect - such as "The List is absolute good... the list is life" just sounds cheesy and cinematic to me) is actually from the novel, so I guess my only problems with the film are problems with the source material.

Yes, the film isn't historically accurate, but what film is? Even documentaries slant the truth.

Whether Schindler did what he did for his own personal gain is irrelevant. His actions produced good whether he intended good or not - and those people in the interviews (which I found 1,000 times more powerful than the film itself) are a testament to that.

Spielberg's point in making this movie IS to give its audience a visual picture of a situation

But can you not see how WRONG that is? Do the words of Lanzmann, and many others, mean nothing to you? The horror of the holocaust is not what happened at the camps, but EVERYTHING that took place to ALLOW it to get to that level. THIS is what Spielberg's film ignores completely. Again, don't take my word for it -- there are a ton of books out there on this very subject.

Ok, that scene and any other disgusting and sad scene in the entire movie is made to get a desired result from the audience because that is what makes a movie sucessful.

And you call me an amateur critic? What you have shown above is an example of emotional manipulation, something Spielberg is the master at. But I guess that's what film is all about, according to your sentence. Have you seen Shoah? Not ONE SECOND of footage, just interviews with various people who were there. They live, their TRUE stories have been told -- it's not necessary to recreate them in glorious black & white -- if anything, what Spielberg is doing is saying that the horrors of this period CAN be recreated -- and that's just it -- they can't.

As for the quote -- I remember him saying something at the time the film came out -- something along the lines of this being the "last" holocaust picture that will need to be made. You'll have to give me some time to dig it up.

I did find something that Kubrick said about the film -- The Holocaust was about the millions of people that died, not two thousand who didn't.

I'd be very curious if you could find such a quote. As mentioned, Speilberg has said pretty much the EXACT opposite of this in every interview I've ever seen on the subject.


And, as far as the Kubrick quote goes... well, that's probably why this film was called SCHINDLER'S LIST and not THE HOLOCAUST.

I don't understand the why the film is being criticized for not being large enough in scope... must *every* film dealing with this subject (or any subject) cover the ENTIRE spectrum? When dealing with such a large subject as the holocaust, it definitely makes sense to just deal with smaller, more personal stories... this is fairly traditional in films, including The Diary of Anne Frank and even the beloved The Pianist. Focus on individuals, show the horrors through their experiences, and let that serve as a window into the larger issue.

Perhaps Spielberg should've killed 6 million people during filming. Would that have made this film enough about the holocaust for you, babybuddha??

Get a grip. Why don't you start a hate thread on every other fictionalized movie out there based on a real event? None of them are perfect documentaries, either.

yeah but according to most people here, all documentaries are 100% accurate, except for bowling for collumbine

I'm not at all about starting hate threads, and your other comment is too stupid to address. Nor am I asking or expecting a fictionalized film to be a documentary. However, Schindler's List has been granted some special status -- been elevated to a point that I don't think it should be at.

You have to agree with me that most people probably believe that Oscar Schindler was as he was portrayed in the film. But that's not the case. That speech at the end, for example ("I could have sold my watch. . .") was deplorable. Complete fabrication.

The red coat scene -- also a travesty. WHY WHY WHY did he have to show it that way? Are we too stupid/shallow/insensitive to FEEL anything otherwise?

Again, from an article by Claude Lanzmann, director of Shoah entitled "'You should not cry at Schindler's List" where Lanzmann argued that any movie on the Holocaust that enables an emotional response by the audience will fail to portray an historic incidence as the audience's tension will be relieved and vented via the influence of typical dramatic stylistic elements such as music soundtrack, designed sets, actors and fictional dialogue.

As for Spielberg, remember how upset he was with Benigni and Life is Beautiful? (He could barely sit through the screening. - see New York Daily News, March 15, 1999)

Here's something from another writer:

[Spielberg] can't count on us to use our intelligence in absorbing his messages just once - he has to keep hammering the points in his films over and over again. Did we really need his "Am I a good man?" bookends in Saving Private Ryan? Was it really necessary to create a fictional closing speech by Schindler to his
departing workers? Too bad Spielberg couldn't have concentrated more and *learned* a few things from Life is Beautiful, namely, the value of heartfelt emotions and characterizations (without the overwhelming use of special
effects, shock value and bombastic John Williams scores). And, most importantly, to never insult the intelligence of your audience."

I think the whole point everyone is trying to make to a few here is that its a movie based on actual events. Its a dramatization that may have some fabrications same with A Beautiful Mind, Hurricane, Perfect Storm, etc... This was a particular story that not too many people knew about and Spielberg brought to us to take as we want it, through his artisitic vision and through the way he makes movies. He should be applauded for trying to do something new instead of remake or rehash some movie already done.

BabyBuddha, just curious about your take on the "Survivors of Shoah Visual History Foundation"?

I don't really think I'm qualified to fully comment on it, being that I've only looked at their website a couple of times, so there's probably a lot more than I'm aware of.

However, from what I have seen it seems like an excellent project. Collecting this information, making it easily accessible (and searchable - key) is a wonderful way of making sure these stories never get lost.

I know that Spielberg was responsible (or at least partly so) for this project, and for that I commend him. It still doesn't change my mind about his film though. . .