Why would one refuse to watch Schindler's List?
October 11, 2005 8:11 PM Subscribe
Why does one of my professors refuse to watch Schindler's List?
I was recently at a screening of the film Hotel Rwanda (which I enjoyed thouroughly). At this screening, one of the professors at my university gave a mini-lecture about the film and human rights in general. Someone in the audience mentioned Schindler's List, as it seems fairly similar plot-wise. The professor said as an aside that she refuses to watch that movie (and thus has not seen it). Because it was more of an aside, she didn't go into more detail and I didn't inquire further (nor did anyone else). So my question is why might someone object to viewing Schindler's List.
Note: it occurred to me that she could have meant that it might be too extreme for her or something, but I didn't get that impression from her; it seemed like her choice was based on some kind of principle.
I was recently at a screening of the film Hotel Rwanda (which I enjoyed thouroughly). At this screening, one of the professors at my university gave a mini-lecture about the film and human rights in general. Someone in the audience mentioned Schindler's List, as it seems fairly similar plot-wise. The professor said as an aside that she refuses to watch that movie (and thus has not seen it). Because it was more of an aside, she didn't go into more detail and I didn't inquire further (nor did anyone else). So my question is why might someone object to viewing Schindler's List.
Note: it occurred to me that she could have meant that it might be too extreme for her or something, but I didn't get that impression from her; it seemed like her choice was based on some kind of principle.
It could be anything. If you care enough to ask thousands of strangers, why not email the professor and ask?
posted by fvw at 8:15 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by fvw at 8:15 PM on October 11, 2005
If I could hazard a guess - a problem with Schindler's List, and for that matter with Life Is Beautiful (? the semi-comedy with Benigni), is that they bring art and an aesthetic to the utterly horrible. Even if they manage to convery ugliness and horror, it's artful, and the coloured lights of the cinema turn it into something at some level pleasurable. Many people (Celan, Adorno, ...) have observed that after the Holocaust, art became impossible...
Further, both those films are structured as a story focussed on individuals whose suffering is necessarily privileged by being singled out for attention. In narrowing our attention to these few, and experiencing the relief (however bittersweet) of seeing some flashes of goodness (again necessary to the imposed arrative) we forget what really happened and reduce the whole thing to cinematic triviality. The story turns historic awfulness into backdrop, whereas in fact the Holocaust is the story.
Some people (not me) have a very strong views along these lines and your professor might be one of them.
Lastly, Spielberg turns everything to sentimental shit, eg Empire of the Sun. Even if you didn't have issues with Holocaust emo-porn, you might find his heavy hand offputting.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:22 PM on October 11, 2005
Further, both those films are structured as a story focussed on individuals whose suffering is necessarily privileged by being singled out for attention. In narrowing our attention to these few, and experiencing the relief (however bittersweet) of seeing some flashes of goodness (again necessary to the imposed arrative) we forget what really happened and reduce the whole thing to cinematic triviality. The story turns historic awfulness into backdrop, whereas in fact the Holocaust is the story.
Some people (not me) have a very strong views along these lines and your professor might be one of them.
Lastly, Spielberg turns everything to sentimental shit, eg Empire of the Sun. Even if you didn't have issues with Holocaust emo-porn, you might find his heavy hand offputting.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:22 PM on October 11, 2005
I can't help but feel this question is a little silly, but now I'm also curious. Ask her and tell us!
posted by Krrrlson at 8:31 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by Krrrlson at 8:31 PM on October 11, 2005
my spleen: If you're right, wouldn't the professor avoid Hotel Rwanda for similar reasons? I could see some viewers distinguishing between one genocide and another because of personal connections, but this professor seems concerned about human rights atrocities in general.
posted by mullacc at 8:32 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by mullacc at 8:32 PM on October 11, 2005
joe's_spleen, that wouldn't explain why he was able to watch (and discuss) Hotel Rwanda, which was also a gorgeous-looking movie about genocide.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:32 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:32 PM on October 11, 2005
Response by poster: It could be anything. If you care enough to ask thousands of strangers, why not email the professor and ask?
posted by fvw at 8:15 PM PST on October 11 [mark as best answer] [!]
Well I wasn't sure if I was missing something obvious or if there was a history of this kind of thing in relation to this film and it seemed like a rather insignificant thing to randomly email her with (don't even know her very well).
And what's wrong with asking "thousands of strangers"? It's Askme after all.
But thanks for you input.
posted by Stauf at 8:32 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by fvw at 8:15 PM PST on October 11 [mark as best answer] [!]
Well I wasn't sure if I was missing something obvious or if there was a history of this kind of thing in relation to this film and it seemed like a rather insignificant thing to randomly email her with (don't even know her very well).
And what's wrong with asking "thousands of strangers"? It's Askme after all.
But thanks for you input.
posted by Stauf at 8:32 PM on October 11, 2005
Holocaust denier?
... or maybe they were under the impression that it was inaccurate and also had personal ties to the situation?
If you want to know, talk to the person. "Hey, I remember you mentioned that...... if you don't mind my asking, I'm intruiged as to why you refuse to watch it? Is there something about the movie that I don't know about?"
posted by PurplePorpoise at 8:44 PM on October 11, 2005
... or maybe they were under the impression that it was inaccurate and also had personal ties to the situation?
If you want to know, talk to the person. "Hey, I remember you mentioned that...... if you don't mind my asking, I'm intruiged as to why you refuse to watch it? Is there something about the movie that I don't know about?"
posted by PurplePorpoise at 8:44 PM on October 11, 2005
I am with joe's spleen. Schindler's List is a romanticized account of the doings of someone who may or may not be some kind of hero. Hotel Rwanda is, in my opinion, a very straight-forward account, and therefore, more correct historically speaking.
As an aside, I Love Empire of the Sun!
posted by snsranch at 8:44 PM on October 11, 2005
As an aside, I Love Empire of the Sun!
posted by snsranch at 8:44 PM on October 11, 2005
Maybe your professor disputes the veracity of Schindler's role in saving people from the Holocaust as well as any war profiteering he carried out. Maybe she felt that the release of Schindler's List in 1993 was meant to bolster the video sales of Jurassic Park (also released in 1993). Perhaps she disputes his support of Israel.
Note: I do not necessarily share these beliefs. I'm just pointing out some criticisms I've heard.
posted by acoutu at 8:44 PM on October 11, 2005
Note: I do not necessarily share these beliefs. I'm just pointing out some criticisms I've heard.
posted by acoutu at 8:44 PM on October 11, 2005
Response by poster: If you want to know, talk to the person. "Hey, I remember you mentioned that...... if you don't mind my asking, I'm intruiged as to why you refuse to watch it? Is there something about the movie that I don't know about?"
Maybe I should clarify. I think I may have mispoke when I said "one of my professors". I meant one of the professors at my university. I don't normally come into any contact with this person.
posted by Stauf at 8:53 PM on October 11, 2005
Maybe I should clarify. I think I may have mispoke when I said "one of my professors". I meant one of the professors at my university. I don't normally come into any contact with this person.
posted by Stauf at 8:53 PM on October 11, 2005
Wow - an ask.mefi tribeca (8:44 PM PST on October 11 [!] x3).
Maybe I should clarify...
Ah, this makes it a little more difficult. The person is a "public figure" (faculty at a [mostly] public event), I say, open season. The worse is that they reply scathingly (but since they're not "your" professor, what are the consequences if they take it poorly?).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 8:56 PM on October 11, 2005
Maybe I should clarify...
Ah, this makes it a little more difficult. The person is a "public figure" (faculty at a [mostly] public event), I say, open season. The worse is that they reply scathingly (but since they're not "your" professor, what are the consequences if they take it poorly?).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 8:56 PM on October 11, 2005
If I heard someone say something of that sort, I would definitely fall back first on the "doesn't want to consume Spielbergian dreck about a subject they care about" explanation.
posted by matildaben at 8:57 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by matildaben at 8:57 PM on October 11, 2005
Haven't seen Hotel Rwanda, so can't comment. However, I might speculate that the professor might be a "Holocaust is unique" dogmatist. snsranch might also be on the right track; there is some dispute about the facts of the Schindler case, and the movie was based on Kenneally's novel anyway.
Apropos.
The more I think about this though, the more I think you should simply ask her. One great thing about being at a university is that you can engage with clever people who are NOT directly involved in your particular studies. Go to it.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 9:10 PM on October 11, 2005
Apropos.
The more I think about this though, the more I think you should simply ask her. One great thing about being at a university is that you can engage with clever people who are NOT directly involved in your particular studies. Go to it.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 9:10 PM on October 11, 2005
Maybe she felt that the release of Schindler's List in 1993 was meant to bolster the video sales of Jurassic Park (also released in 1993).
Seriously? How could that possibly be so?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 9:13 PM on October 11, 2005
Seriously? How could that possibly be so?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 9:13 PM on October 11, 2005
One possible explanation is that Schindler's List could be seen as a case of someone profiting off the suffering of others. Of course, it might not make sense for the person to watch Hotel Rwanda if this were the case, except that the genocide in Rwanda is much less well known, so that the movie could reasonably have been produced in order to inform people about what went on.
Schindler's List is interesting in that it's art that is very nearly impossible to criticize in public. It is about the Holocaust, after all. In this way, it was a very safe investment for Spielberg.
I've personally never watched either movie, as it seems a bit too voyeuristic to do so. It's not that I refuse to, just that neither appeal to me. Of course I read history and the news, so perhaps this objection is without merit.
posted by dsword at 9:37 PM on October 11, 2005
Schindler's List is interesting in that it's art that is very nearly impossible to criticize in public. It is about the Holocaust, after all. In this way, it was a very safe investment for Spielberg.
I've personally never watched either movie, as it seems a bit too voyeuristic to do so. It's not that I refuse to, just that neither appeal to me. Of course I read history and the news, so perhaps this objection is without merit.
posted by dsword at 9:37 PM on October 11, 2005
My dad doesn't like Holocaust movies because they break his heart. Maybe it's the same with your professor.
posted by interrobang at 9:39 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by interrobang at 9:39 PM on October 11, 2005
Pardon me. I said video sales when I meant general film release.
posted by acoutu at 10:21 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by acoutu at 10:21 PM on October 11, 2005
it took me years to get around to watching Schindler's List because i was under the assumption that it would bum me out to no end.
i was happy to see that it was not a downer at all. it was a story about a hero in a messed up situation.
posted by tsarfan at 10:22 PM on October 11, 2005
i was happy to see that it was not a downer at all. it was a story about a hero in a messed up situation.
posted by tsarfan at 10:22 PM on October 11, 2005
I love Schindler's List, but many have been critical of Spielberg for overly romanticizing Oskar Schindler, who was, by many accounts, a deeply flawed man. (Business troubles, motivated by money, problems with his wife, etc.)
posted by xyzzy at 11:13 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by xyzzy at 11:13 PM on October 11, 2005
Personally, I know a few people who feel that Schindler's List is a money-making venture built on the backs of the Holocaust victems more than it is a memorial to them. They've also expressed doubts about Speilberg's ability to treat the subject with the proper dignity. And they refuse to see the film on those grounds.
I saw the film and felt kind of "meh" about it.
What's really absolutely, devistatingly, hearbreaking, and soul-crushing is the raw film footage of the ghettoes, the cattle cars, the concentration camps, and the mass graves, so I'm not sure that the professor is avoiding the film due any fear of being confronted by anything even vaugely resembling a graphic portrayal.
posted by Jon-o at 11:23 PM on October 11, 2005
I saw the film and felt kind of "meh" about it.
What's really absolutely, devistatingly, hearbreaking, and soul-crushing is the raw film footage of the ghettoes, the cattle cars, the concentration camps, and the mass graves, so I'm not sure that the professor is avoiding the film due any fear of being confronted by anything even vaugely resembling a graphic portrayal.
posted by Jon-o at 11:23 PM on October 11, 2005
Not a downer at all? Are you mad?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:34 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by five fresh fish at 11:34 PM on October 11, 2005
She lectures on Hotel Rwanda and human rights but is a Holocaust denier? That seems implausible.
I'm also curious so please ask her.
posted by 6550 at 11:43 PM on October 11, 2005
I'm also curious so please ask her.
posted by 6550 at 11:43 PM on October 11, 2005
Schindler's List did not receive universal acclaim -- and yes, the idea that it was released just in time to help JP video sales was floated at the time. Some reviewers felt that Spielberg did not adjust enough from JP mode when directing the film. Others simply cynically noted that Spielberg made a picture that the Academy could not refuse -- they would have to give him the Best Picture Oscar this time. (Wags noted that Schindler's first name was, well, Oskar ...) Many were troubled by his use of a common, cynical Hollywood plot device -- telling the story of a victimized class trhough the point of view of a non-victim. Since Jews -- including Holocaust survivors -- are an accepted part of American society today, some actually felt this represented a step backward in recreating a discourse about Jews that treated them as the "other".
Here's a typical savaging, from Reason (around 1996):
Allow me to dissent from this pedagogical utopia. SCHINDLER'S LIST is not an especially good movie, let alone one of the greatest ever made, let alone a project that will save the world.... Neeson delivers so convincing a portrait of Schindler's evolution from self-absorbed ne'er-do-well to altruistic hero that one might not notice the fact that the screenplay offers no clues as to why he, but so few others, would undergo this change. And any remotely competent director, given the Holocaust as his subject, can create powerful scenes. The trick is weaving those scenes together into a worthy story, one that says something more meaningful than "mass murder is bad." ... Manipulative, melodramatic, and offensively self-important, SCHINDLER'S LIST pales in comparison to other movies about the Holocaust ... SCHINDLER'S LIST poses the audience a question: Would you give up your riches to save thousands of lives, or would you selfishly serve the Nazis? And we all allow ourselves to believe that we would be as noble as Oskar Schindler, and pat ourselves on the back. (This must be the first feel-good movie ever made about a genocide.)
Jonathan Rosenbaum and others felt theat Schindler's List commercialized the Holocaust, made it safe for big-budget weeper movies. Here's another essay that calls it dishonest, a kind of ET set in the Holocaust.
My film professor in college had seen A Clockwork Orange exactly once, when it was first released, and refused to watch it ever again; he considered it a pornography of violence, a position not dissimilar to some of what's been said about SL.
posted by dhartung at 11:57 PM on October 11, 2005
Here's a typical savaging, from Reason (around 1996):
Allow me to dissent from this pedagogical utopia. SCHINDLER'S LIST is not an especially good movie, let alone one of the greatest ever made, let alone a project that will save the world.... Neeson delivers so convincing a portrait of Schindler's evolution from self-absorbed ne'er-do-well to altruistic hero that one might not notice the fact that the screenplay offers no clues as to why he, but so few others, would undergo this change. And any remotely competent director, given the Holocaust as his subject, can create powerful scenes. The trick is weaving those scenes together into a worthy story, one that says something more meaningful than "mass murder is bad." ... Manipulative, melodramatic, and offensively self-important, SCHINDLER'S LIST pales in comparison to other movies about the Holocaust ... SCHINDLER'S LIST poses the audience a question: Would you give up your riches to save thousands of lives, or would you selfishly serve the Nazis? And we all allow ourselves to believe that we would be as noble as Oskar Schindler, and pat ourselves on the back. (This must be the first feel-good movie ever made about a genocide.)
Jonathan Rosenbaum and others felt theat Schindler's List commercialized the Holocaust, made it safe for big-budget weeper movies. Here's another essay that calls it dishonest, a kind of ET set in the Holocaust.
My film professor in college had seen A Clockwork Orange exactly once, when it was first released, and refused to watch it ever again; he considered it a pornography of violence, a position not dissimilar to some of what's been said about SL.
posted by dhartung at 11:57 PM on October 11, 2005
I'm surprised so many jump on the 'denier' bandwagon. My German teacher in HS would not watch it either. More than likely it was his experience of growing up in Nazi Germany and losing half of his family fighting in the resistance. He never explicitly gave reasons for not watching it (I was in 11th grade when it came out so it generated some discussion in our class), but we all pretty much knew. He taught us well; I would have never had the patience for Shoah had it not been shown in class.
if she is a good professor, I'd give her a break, it could be any number of reasons that she does not want to watch it.
posted by efalk at 1:06 AM on October 12, 2005
if she is a good professor, I'd give her a break, it could be any number of reasons that she does not want to watch it.
posted by efalk at 1:06 AM on October 12, 2005
I have yet to watch it (hmm, look at my mefi nick).
Emotionally, from youth, I have been reminded about what the Holocaust, was, and as a reminder of what could be,
if we don't remember.
I'll say it: fucking revisionist assholes
It's personal, I have family who died, and I met relatives that knew them/escaped.
It has nothing to do with Spielberg, rather there's no way I can watch it and not have it trigger all the emotion that goes with the death of over ten million people (and I'm not just talking my people)
There's no way that I can watch that movie without it being a downer. No matter how happy the ending is.
Don't ask by email, where you're isolated and asking a professor to make something of written record. If you're asking this here, You care about what this professor thinks. Go visit her, tell her you have no judgements regarding her opinion, merely, you respect her opinion enough that you'd like to know a "why", but she's under no obligation to feel she has to respond.
posted by filmgeek at 2:51 AM on October 12, 2005
Emotionally, from youth, I have been reminded about what the Holocaust, was, and as a reminder of what could be,
if we don't remember.
I'll say it: fucking revisionist assholes
It's personal, I have family who died, and I met relatives that knew them/escaped.
It has nothing to do with Spielberg, rather there's no way I can watch it and not have it trigger all the emotion that goes with the death of over ten million people (and I'm not just talking my people)
There's no way that I can watch that movie without it being a downer. No matter how happy the ending is.
Don't ask by email, where you're isolated and asking a professor to make something of written record. If you're asking this here, You care about what this professor thinks. Go visit her, tell her you have no judgements regarding her opinion, merely, you respect her opinion enough that you'd like to know a "why", but she's under no obligation to feel she has to respond.
posted by filmgeek at 2:51 AM on October 12, 2005
If she had family that died in the holocaust or was affected in some other way (maybe just by being Jewish), I can't imagine she'd want to watch a film about it, no matter what its message is.
posted by Lotto at 2:58 AM on October 12, 2005
posted by Lotto at 2:58 AM on October 12, 2005
Well, the Nazis speak English in this movie, which in itself already makes clear anything shown is staged.
posted by ijsbrand at 3:25 AM on October 12, 2005
posted by ijsbrand at 3:25 AM on October 12, 2005
My dad doesn't like Holocaust movies because they break his heart. Maybe it's the same with your professor.
posted by interrobang at 9:39 PM PST on October 11 [!]
This is my reason for never seeing it. I personally don't like movies about inhumanity - life is bumpy and bummy enough without piling more on, IMHO.
posted by yoga at 4:47 AM on October 12, 2005
posted by interrobang at 9:39 PM PST on October 11 [!]
This is my reason for never seeing it. I personally don't like movies about inhumanity - life is bumpy and bummy enough without piling more on, IMHO.
posted by yoga at 4:47 AM on October 12, 2005
My film professor in college had seen A Clockwork Orange exactly once, when it was first released, and refused to watch it ever again
Incidentally, I think the tacked-on Spielberg ending of A.I. is cosmic retribution on Kubrick for leaving off the last chapter of A Clockwork Orange.
posted by dagnyscott at 4:54 AM on October 12, 2005
Incidentally, I think the tacked-on Spielberg ending of A.I. is cosmic retribution on Kubrick for leaving off the last chapter of A Clockwork Orange.
posted by dagnyscott at 4:54 AM on October 12, 2005
I bought the movie, watched it 15 mins and HAD to shut it off.
The reality of the pain and suffering that is detailed in the movie is too much emotionally for me to handle.
I am not dissing the holocaust, I just can't handle viewing it.
posted by phredhead at 6:13 AM on October 12, 2005
The reality of the pain and suffering that is detailed in the movie is too much emotionally for me to handle.
I am not dissing the holocaust, I just can't handle viewing it.
posted by phredhead at 6:13 AM on October 12, 2005
Saying you don't like the movie is different from saying you won't watch it. Your teacher isn't a film critic, but it's a nonstarter to dismiss a movie without having seen it.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:18 AM on October 12, 2005
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:18 AM on October 12, 2005
Jenga writes "Anyway, I'd say holocaust denial is the best bet until further information about her objections come along."
I'd urge you to ask her. I disagree vehemently with Jenga about the most likely explanation for her refusal. It's much more likely, as many in this thread have pointed out, that she doesn't watch it for the opposite reason-an excess of connection to the Shoah. And calling someone a Holocaust denier is not something to engage in lightly, unless they, like Mel Gibson and his dad, are, in fact, deniers.
I've never seen the movie, and I have to say that the reason is because it was made by Spielberg. I don't perticularly like him as a director, I was suspicious of his reasons for making the movie (personal gain), and I thought that he added lard to the butter by making the movie black and white. Everything cried out to me that it was a calculated bid for artistic bona fides from a director who had previously chosen to work in the most populist fashion in what I took to be an entirely different argument about the power of art. Also, and this is a less formed sentinement, Spielberg's ideas about heroism and narrative arc seem particularly out of place, and indeed undermined, by the enormity of the Shoah.
I have no idea why the professor doesn't watch it.
posted by OmieWise at 6:20 AM on October 12, 2005
I'd urge you to ask her. I disagree vehemently with Jenga about the most likely explanation for her refusal. It's much more likely, as many in this thread have pointed out, that she doesn't watch it for the opposite reason-an excess of connection to the Shoah. And calling someone a Holocaust denier is not something to engage in lightly, unless they, like Mel Gibson and his dad, are, in fact, deniers.
I've never seen the movie, and I have to say that the reason is because it was made by Spielberg. I don't perticularly like him as a director, I was suspicious of his reasons for making the movie (personal gain), and I thought that he added lard to the butter by making the movie black and white. Everything cried out to me that it was a calculated bid for artistic bona fides from a director who had previously chosen to work in the most populist fashion in what I took to be an entirely different argument about the power of art. Also, and this is a less formed sentinement, Spielberg's ideas about heroism and narrative arc seem particularly out of place, and indeed undermined, by the enormity of the Shoah.
I have no idea why the professor doesn't watch it.
posted by OmieWise at 6:20 AM on October 12, 2005
I know a few people who feel that Schindler's List is a money-making venture built on the backs of the Holocaust victems more than it is a memorial to them.
According to the IMDB trivia page for Schindler's List, Spielberg didn't take a salary for making the movie and "at his insistence, all royalties and residuals from this film...are given to the Shoah Foundation."
I thought that he added lard to the butter by making the movie black and white.
Although color photography and film was available during World War II, it was rare, and most people think of World War II as being black and white, since most of the photography and film from the period is black and white. It might have seemed odd (or even a little too Hogan's Heroes) to film Schindler's List in color. Besides, there are artistic reasons for using black and white.
If you don't see the movie, you're missing a fantastic, chilling performance by Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth. (Ben Kingsey and Liam Neeson are both very good in the movie, but Fiennes stands out.)
posted by kirkaracha at 7:20 AM on October 12, 2005
Anyway, I'd say holocaust denial is the best bet until further information about her objections come along.
Uh, no. The "best bet" is what was said earlier:
'I would definitely fall back first on the "doesn't want to consume Spielbergian dreck about a subject they care about" explanation.'
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:30 AM on October 12, 2005
Uh, no. The "best bet" is what was said earlier:
'I would definitely fall back first on the "doesn't want to consume Spielbergian dreck about a subject they care about" explanation.'
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:30 AM on October 12, 2005
I'm with Phred; it's filled with horrific scenes. That mountain of bodies. Who the hell wants to see that?
posted by atchafalaya at 7:30 AM on October 12, 2005
posted by atchafalaya at 7:30 AM on October 12, 2005
Response by poster: Hm, interesting ideas. If I see her again, I'll see about bringing it up.
posted by Stauf at 7:32 AM on October 12, 2005
posted by Stauf at 7:32 AM on October 12, 2005
Neeson delivers so convincing a portrait of Schindler's evolution from self-absorbed ne'er-do-well to altruistic hero that one might not notice the fact that the screenplay offers no clues as to why he, but so few others, would undergo this change
For the record, around the time the movie was released, I attended a lecture by Thomas Keneally, the author of the book on which it was based. During the Q&A, pretty much the only question on the audience members' minds was how exactly Schindler went from being an asshole to a saint. Keneally said that it was the question he was most often asked in regards to the book and that, despite all his research, he just didn't know the answer. It was a mystery. He pointed out that, after the war, Schindler basically went right back to being a selfish, shallow, lazy jerk.
posted by Clay201 at 7:36 AM on October 12, 2005
For the record, around the time the movie was released, I attended a lecture by Thomas Keneally, the author of the book on which it was based. During the Q&A, pretty much the only question on the audience members' minds was how exactly Schindler went from being an asshole to a saint. Keneally said that it was the question he was most often asked in regards to the book and that, despite all his research, he just didn't know the answer. It was a mystery. He pointed out that, after the war, Schindler basically went right back to being a selfish, shallow, lazy jerk.
posted by Clay201 at 7:36 AM on October 12, 2005
No way to know why the prof won't watch it without asking her.
I may be misremembering because I've only seen it once or twice, and never all the way through. But from memory, I don't like it very much at all because:
(1) It cleans up the Holocaust. There aren't many piles of emaciated naked bodies. There aren't many 6-foot-tall men weighing 80 pounds doing forced labor. By cleaning it up, by refusing to show some of the real horrors, it does the Nazis' work for them.
(2) It makes the holocaust safe and remote. The Nazis we see are sick, evil, nasty people. But most weren't. The holocaust was run by decent enough people who got up in the morning, went to work and helped plan or execute the murder of millions of innocent people, and went home and were nice to their families and played with their doggies. By making all of the bad people clearly BAD PEOPLE, it makes them safely Not Like Us. It's something that they did, not something that we (humans) did or something that I could have found myself a part of. By making it seem entirely the work of deranged psychopaths, we can feel safe that this won't happen again unless we somehow have an incredible glut of deranged psychopaths like the Germans must have had. But that just ain't so.
(3) It's a cheap, safe, glurgey movie with Hallmark sentiments and crass emotional manipulation, about a topic where none of that is remotely necessary.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:09 AM on October 12, 2005
I may be misremembering because I've only seen it once or twice, and never all the way through. But from memory, I don't like it very much at all because:
(1) It cleans up the Holocaust. There aren't many piles of emaciated naked bodies. There aren't many 6-foot-tall men weighing 80 pounds doing forced labor. By cleaning it up, by refusing to show some of the real horrors, it does the Nazis' work for them.
(2) It makes the holocaust safe and remote. The Nazis we see are sick, evil, nasty people. But most weren't. The holocaust was run by decent enough people who got up in the morning, went to work and helped plan or execute the murder of millions of innocent people, and went home and were nice to their families and played with their doggies. By making all of the bad people clearly BAD PEOPLE, it makes them safely Not Like Us. It's something that they did, not something that we (humans) did or something that I could have found myself a part of. By making it seem entirely the work of deranged psychopaths, we can feel safe that this won't happen again unless we somehow have an incredible glut of deranged psychopaths like the Germans must have had. But that just ain't so.
(3) It's a cheap, safe, glurgey movie with Hallmark sentiments and crass emotional manipulation, about a topic where none of that is remotely necessary.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:09 AM on October 12, 2005
The historical importance of the Holocaust lies in its preponderance of documentary record-keeping, ie. the first genocide that was well documented through first-hand narratives and photographs. This has helped to keep it alive in the public imagination.
My guess is we would see more stories about other episodes of genocide if the victims could produce more material to tell the story sufficiently for history's bystanders. That being said, genocide is a routine human phenomenom in the broad view of history, and racism / nationalism are intrinsically linked. You must create a sense of 'other' to promote nationalist identity.
Wikipedia has a good list of historical genocides. Clearly, the Holocaust has benefitted in terms of awareness due to successful public relations. Let me be the first to say, never again.
posted by letterneversent at 8:11 AM on October 12, 2005
My guess is we would see more stories about other episodes of genocide if the victims could produce more material to tell the story sufficiently for history's bystanders. That being said, genocide is a routine human phenomenom in the broad view of history, and racism / nationalism are intrinsically linked. You must create a sense of 'other' to promote nationalist identity.
Wikipedia has a good list of historical genocides. Clearly, the Holocaust has benefitted in terms of awareness due to successful public relations. Let me be the first to say, never again.
posted by letterneversent at 8:11 AM on October 12, 2005
This is along the lines of what people have said, but is it possible that she won't watch it in more of a "I won't watch Dances with Wolves" sort of way because it's the story of the oppressed told essentially through the eyes of a member of the oppressor class? I'm aware that Rusesabagina was a Hutu as far as Hotel Rwanda goes, but he was a moderate Hutu and that may have some bearing.
posted by jessamyn at 8:20 AM on October 12, 2005
posted by jessamyn at 8:20 AM on October 12, 2005
My dad was a young Jewish boy, living in London, during the blitz. He lost family members and grew up in a scathingling anti-semitic environment (during school assemblies, the headmaster would often say, "Now we will all pray, except for the dirty little Jewish boys.") He grew up obsessed about the Holocaust and has read every book and seen every movie about WWII. He hated "Schindler's List." He felt it was wrong that the ONE major holocaust film should glorify a German, even a good one. Out of all the heroes, why not pick a Jewish hero to tell a story about?
For the record, I disagree with him. Or rather, his reasoning leaves me cold (naturally, given his history, I understand the reasons he feels the way he does.) I don't think about art as a political/social force. I know that puts me in a minority here. I really don't care what SL's point-of-view is. I just care whether or not it tells a good story. Though I'm not, in general, a Spielberg fan, I think SL is a damn good yarn, which is all I care about. (Please don't think that I don't care about holocaust victims. I do. I just don't PERSONALLY like movies to reality. So they are all morally neutral to me.) By the way, my dad (a film historian) agreed with me. He thought the film was masterfully made -- just morally suspect.
posted by grumblebee at 8:46 AM on October 12, 2005
For the record, I disagree with him. Or rather, his reasoning leaves me cold (naturally, given his history, I understand the reasons he feels the way he does.) I don't think about art as a political/social force. I know that puts me in a minority here. I really don't care what SL's point-of-view is. I just care whether or not it tells a good story. Though I'm not, in general, a Spielberg fan, I think SL is a damn good yarn, which is all I care about. (Please don't think that I don't care about holocaust victims. I do. I just don't PERSONALLY like movies to reality. So they are all morally neutral to me.) By the way, my dad (a film historian) agreed with me. He thought the film was masterfully made -- just morally suspect.
posted by grumblebee at 8:46 AM on October 12, 2005
It seems that at least one of the primary reasons behind people either disliking or not watching SL is that for them it either does not go far enough to show the reality of the Holocaust or they object to cinematic treatment of the subject.
I would rather have one movie that covers a fraction of the Holocaust than none at all. I would rather see any movie made upon the Holocaust (minus denial base) than none ever being made.
For some people the only way history is touched upon in their lives is through the moving media, and the Holocaust and its lessons are too important a subject to be delegated to books and lectures in the classroom. As Hotel Rwanda proved, until its released, a lot of people had either forgotten of the genocide in Africa or simply never heard of it.
posted by Atreides at 8:51 AM on October 12, 2005
I would rather have one movie that covers a fraction of the Holocaust than none at all. I would rather see any movie made upon the Holocaust (minus denial base) than none ever being made.
For some people the only way history is touched upon in their lives is through the moving media, and the Holocaust and its lessons are too important a subject to be delegated to books and lectures in the classroom. As Hotel Rwanda proved, until its released, a lot of people had either forgotten of the genocide in Africa or simply never heard of it.
posted by Atreides at 8:51 AM on October 12, 2005
Well, I can only give the reason I won't watch it as a possible explanation: it was directed by that loathsome saccharine merchant Spielberg. Whenever I've watched anything he's made since 'Jaws" I've needed to vomit copiously for several hours afterwards. The last time I made this foolish mistake Was to see the execrable "AI". That resulted in several nights in a psychiatric care ward.
As an aside, "Life Is Beautiful" was one of the most disgraceful and shameful movies I've ever seen.
posted by Decani at 9:23 AM on October 12, 2005
As an aside, "Life Is Beautiful" was one of the most disgraceful and shameful movies I've ever seen.
posted by Decani at 9:23 AM on October 12, 2005
I'm surprised anyone would suggest holocaust denial or the "too painful" suggestion. The obviously discomfiting thing about Schindler's List is precisely that it is kind of a "feel good" movie about the holocaust, that focuses on a tiny group of people who were given a break, and makes the one who gives them a break out to be a great hero. But schindler's actions are the absolutely least one could do in such a situation. That he is held up as a hero basically for declining to participate in genocide is kind of sad, don't you think?
posted by mdn at 9:23 AM on October 12, 2005
posted by mdn at 9:23 AM on October 12, 2005
I would rather have one movie that covers a fraction of the Holocaust than none at all. I would rather see any movie made upon the Holocaust (minus denial base) than none ever being made.
But we already had movies that covered the holocaust. We had documentaries made by the soldiers who liberated the camps.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:26 AM on October 12, 2005
But we already had movies that covered the holocaust. We had documentaries made by the soldiers who liberated the camps.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:26 AM on October 12, 2005
kirkaracha writes "Although color photography and film was available during World War II, it was rare, and most people think of World War II as being black and white, since most of the photography and film from the period is black and white. It might have seemed odd (or even a little too Hogan's Heroes) to film Schindler's List in color. Besides, there are artistic reasons for using black and white."
Um, but then he made Saving Private Ryan in color, so I'm not sure I buy the "just evoking WWII bit." Sure, there are a lot of good reasons to make a movie in b&w, my feelings about the project in general lead me to think that Spielberg was gunning for an Oscar and that he made a lot of decisions based on that.
posted by OmieWise at 10:28 AM on October 12, 2005
Um, but then he made Saving Private Ryan in color, so I'm not sure I buy the "just evoking WWII bit." Sure, there are a lot of good reasons to make a movie in b&w, my feelings about the project in general lead me to think that Spielberg was gunning for an Oscar and that he made a lot of decisions based on that.
posted by OmieWise at 10:28 AM on October 12, 2005
maybe one would rather watch Nuit et Brouillard, or Shoah.
posted by matteo at 10:32 AM on October 12, 2005
posted by matteo at 10:32 AM on October 12, 2005
But we already had movies that covered the holocaust. We had documentaries made by the soldiers who liberated the camps.
And unfortunately, short of the occassional network special on the Holocaust or History Channel watchers, I doubt many will ever find themselves watching these films. A major cinematic production by design reaches nearly everyone.
posted by Atreides at 2:46 PM on October 12, 2005
And unfortunately, short of the occassional network special on the Holocaust or History Channel watchers, I doubt many will ever find themselves watching these films. A major cinematic production by design reaches nearly everyone.
posted by Atreides at 2:46 PM on October 12, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by mischief at 8:14 PM on October 11, 2005