SCHINDLER'S LIST
A film review by Michael Har-even
Copyright 1994 Michael Har-even
How can you pass a judgement when the matter is so important? Is SCHINDLER'S LIST a great film? If it is not, is not the fact that it raised the awareness of the Holocaust sufficient by itself? How can we speak about a piece of art when so many feelings are involved?
All those questions are difficult to answer but we must try to find answers because the subject is very important. First, it is necessary to put all our feelings behind. Not that those feelings are not important, their direct connection to the subject might become an obstacle. After all, I would like to believe that the Holocaust is shocking and horrible for every human being. On the other hand, it is impossible to treat the film from a purely artistic point of view. The ethical side of the film must not be neglected.
The fundamental issue is whether the theme of the film is Schindler or the Holocaust. If it is Schindler, the film has no historical importance and it must be treated as any other film. If it is the Holocaust, we must find out if the film is a good representation of the subject. What do I mean by using the word "good"?
The nature of art is to select, to point out what is important. The film describes some local events that should reflect the Holocaust in general. It is necessary to find out if this reflection is credible, typical and most important: if all the difficult questions are tackled. What are those questions?
It is very difficult to perceive the Holocaust as a real event. How could it happen? How could German intellectuals become vicious murders? Why did so many people hate the Jews? Why, only on rare occasions, did somebody oppose?
The film tells the story of 1100 Jews saved by Schindler, a member of the Nazi party. Naturally, this story is untypical to the Holocaust because most of the Jews were exterminated and on every person who saved Jews (and most of them were not Germans) there were thousands of people who deliberately turned Jews to the Nazis. The main characters of the film are Schindler, Goeth, Stern and several Jewish survivors. The main problem of the film is disproportion. On every Schindler there were not one Goeth but several hundreds. Even worse, on every Schindler there were thousands of ignorants who did not care. Those ignorants were the majority and their silent approval made the final solution possible.
After seeing the film, one might presume that the Holocaust was caused by the S.S. The S.S. is not the only source of evil. It is the child of hundreds years of Christian hatred. It is the representative of the German people, who thought that they were superior. If fact, the film is very successful in Germany because every German can believe now that there were also good Germans, that that were many good Germans, that the Nazis were only the minority. Nothing can be further from the historical truth.
The only explanation for the Nazis' behavior is given by Schindler. He says that Goeth is really a good guy. It is the war that made him evil. The spectators cannot except this opinion because it is evident that Goeth is very cruel in his nature. What about everybody else?
The film does not describe other persons. It is only possible to observe that they follow orders and that they consider Jews as animals. Why? What was the source of those opinions?
It seems that the film fails to treat all those important issues. Nevertheless, it has an important role in adding credibility to the Holocaust. It is particularly important because many people claim that the Holocaust never happened. The source of this credibility is mainly due to the fact that all the events in the film were real. In my opinion, the most sensitive scene in the film is the last scene where the story turns into reality. After seeing the film, the spectator, who was unfamiliar with the Holocaust, will have some sense of Holocaust. He will not understand the nature of the Holocaust and he will not know that the historical details suggest that the Holocaust was much worst. For example, Jewish children were shot and the Germans called it "rat hunting." German doctors checked how long it takes to starve an infant to death. Jews were massacred by people of other nations. Jewish doctors were forced to kill babies.
After all those subjects, it seems that it is impossible to evaluate the film artistically. Nevertheless, I shall handle this matter briefly. The fundamental artistic tool used in the film is shooting it in black and white. It seems that Spielberg used it to bring a gloomy atmosphere and to reach some kind of detachment. The only colored scenes in the film are naturally symbolic and impressive. Nevertheless, Spielberg has not used all the means of expression at his disposal. He failed to use lighting in any reasonable and consistent way. It seems that he lacks the understanding of the black-and-white medium. As a result, his film is in black and white but is not a black-and-white film. The wonderful actors make the situation more balanced.
After expressing my opinions, I feel like injuring myself. Seeing hundreds of Jewish spectators all being very silent after the film, I hope that I have not hurt the feelings of any of them. I hope that many people all over the world will go to see the film and become familiar with the Holocaust. I also fear that most of them will get the wrong impression. The Holocaust is not the story of the survivors, nor is it the story of charity or brutality, it is the misfortune of the victims exterminated just because they were Jews.
I believed once that Spielberg is insincere. I was wrong, he is simply blind. I hope that the audience is not blind. I urged everyone to find out all the facts, to ask the difficult questions, to remember and never to forget. Only then, another Holocaust could be prevented.
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews