 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Anyone picked this up yet? Found it for 16.99 + tax at Target (beats Best Buy by a buck).First of all, they got rid of the damn amaray case (or whatever you call it). Those cases are flimsy and always feel like they ain't got too many more openings-and-closings left in their life! Nice thick glossy carboard case.
Secondly, since the movie is so long, they made the single disk a flipper.
Thirdly, watched some short segments on my computer--a great, great movie. Fiennes and Neeson are superb. Their conversation on the balconey when Goethe is drunk and falls to the ground is riveting.
I don't know how true the movie it real life, but it is often claimed that Schindler was just an opportunist. But didn't the opportunist save a 1,000 Jewish lives? Who else can make that claim?
regards, townsend
Follow Ups:
Schlinder's List is a compelling movie and while it may not be exactly accurate, the major theme of the movie is wholly indisputable. Part of the problem in the US is that people do not want to deal with the harshness of reality and therefore they turn their heads and "pretend" the matter away.Unfortunately, those who do not know history are bound to repeat it. Hitler exterminated millions of Jews in an attempt to wipe out an entire race...and almost accomplished it. If that doesn't get your attention, maybe the movie's depiction of the ovens will....
What is truely amazing is that this event in history occurred only about 60 years ago; all when the sentiment in the US was not to get involved. The exact same sentiment today when it comes to dealing with foreign powers gone nuts.
You need to see this movie for no other reason than to realize the danger of US foreign policy apathy. Had the US gotten involed earlier, many millions of lives would have been preserved.
The U.S. had a non interference policy...they worried about their own country. So they get blamed for joining late.Today they see or believed that Saddam was pulling a Hitler and secretly ammassing weapons so they proactively go in and stop it while the rest of the world - like WWII - sat back and watched Hitler build Tanks, planes, ships - even though under the Versaille act they were NOT supposed to. America today jumped in and what happens everyone whines and complains about how bad America is for going in.
Of course Bush believed they had WMD's. If it was a big lie America would have PLANTED the evidence.
And stepping back a bit - if it were not for Canada keeping the supply lines open to Britain that war would have been LOST a good year before America got involved. Canada seems not to tout and over exagerate what it does.
Over the Dieppe raid there were 4000 Canadian soldiers several hundred Brits and 50 US Rangers who were there to WATCH. In the NY Times following the raid the newspaper article said (paraphrase)America and Britain storm Dieppe ..." Huh?
"those who do not know history are bound to repeat it."
Unfortunately History also gives evil people an opportunity to learn from mistakes the first time around and get better at killing.
People in power know th history...we still have attempted genocides.
The reason Schindler's List works is to help PREVENT the apathy. A subdued public is perfect for those in power. That film shows that one drunken womanizing out for pure profit businessman can actually do a lot to stop the evil going on around him.
I would not call it " US " apathy but just " men ". After the terrible experience of the WW1, I can understand the slow move. It is just but human.
We never can says thanks enough to W. Churchill! In the later case.
I haven't seen this since it's original theatrical release.This might be a bit controversial . . .
But just as a MOVIE it's only OK. Feines was truly remarkable in this role, but a lot of the movie is obvious and trite. The red coated girl comes to mind as extremely manipulative and just a cheap and obvious gag. This kind of tripe is Spielberg's trademark. If it's in a movie about any other subject and he's villified for the sappy shlockmeister he is, but in this movie it's forgiven.
The holocaust was the worst thing to happen to humanity in centuries. I am not belittling it, OK? But I think that making a moving film about this piece of history is . . . well . . . easy. The story is loaded with SO MUCH feeling and emotion that it only takes a very light touch of those psychic buttons to set us off. It's the ultimate cheap shot.
What I find incomprehensible, is this movie is supposed to be entertainment or a factual historical document? It was too depressing and violent for me to be entertained by it (so I certainly won't watch it again), and it was too "Hollywood" and (judging by the other posts in this thread) historically inaccurate to be a factual historical document.
Firstly it is historically accurate...small details are adjusted for the screen. That does not make them historically innacurate if the historically accurate big picture is met. The girl in the red coat was a main highlight of the book and not some Spielberg add in. But of course people latch onto one or two reviews by people who hate Spielberg and make assumptions beased on past films of manipulative ploys?? Still tryying to figure out why Spielberg manipulates and Kirosawa and Kubrick don't - they do it just as much in a different way.Lots of films on this subject matter like the Pianist didn't move me because the director wasn't nearly as talented.
Judging the historical content by what people here say is rather funny. I'm minoring in history and mostly German history from 1900 through 1950. I can tell you that of all the historical docu-dramas made Schindler's remains as one of the most even handed dispartial films on any historical content ever.
A Hollywood historical film would be "The Patriot" -- Now this is a film that everyone can freely rant against because the historical innacuracy one sidedness and general LIES is utterly shocking. This is Hollywood. Spielberg is responsible for the hollywood blockbusters only because he makes far an away the best of them. If others could make a film remotely as good people probably wouldn't complain. But unfortunately we get Michael Bay.
Goeth.
E + is one of the most famous German Poet, comparable to William.
Schindler was certainly a fairly man. If you see the real man on film living in Frankfurt, you can breathe it. That he did want money & women and power...Who donīt?
I saw this film when it first came out. Needless to say it is a very powerful film. My problem is that the explicit depiction ot the killing of the Jewish people by the nazis was so horrible I just cannot watch it again. The history is very important and we all need to know about it and try to not let it happen again. I have seen other films books and news accounts of the Holicost but this film really moved me.
And my reaction to the documentary Shoah was even more intense. I'm not sorry for seeing either, but the experience was too painful for a repeat.
"In this world, you must be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant. Well, for years, I was smart. I recommend pleasant".
-Jimmy Stewart, as Elwood P. Dowd
I am torn here. On one hand, if the film made even a few people, previously oblivious of the events, shudder in horror, then it has right to exist.I think it does that.
On the other hand - Patrick is right, it presents a romantic version, and it is in fact so Hollywood, one expects the pink Cadillac convertible to appear at any moment.
So - a bad film about incredibly important events - taken from that perspective it makes a passing grade.
First of all this film soft peddles nothing. Certainly doesn't soft peddle the book.This is no Hollywood film. It's an art film that managed to net a wide audience because of the talents of the people involved.
Here's part of the reason your conclusion of this being a Hollywood film.
1) At the time of release it had 3 central characters with the names Ben Kingsly, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes. Nobody knew the latter because this was his first film. Liam Neeson, also an unknown to audiences, Ben Kingsly may have been remembered as the guy from Ghandi a decade previous and since Ghandi had done nothing the masses would have seen. Heck most of the masses didn't see Ghandi.
2) 3 hours and 16 minute run time in Black and White with an unknown cast about the Holocaust? What exactly in your head could possibly think this movie would be of any interest to Hollywood. There was no interest from Hollywood. The only way this is shown is because the director had the money to get it done. Which explains why there was virtually no advertising prior to the film's release on Christmas Day.
3) The director's purpose was to hope this would be used by schools and Stephen expected it to be a box office flop for reasons 1 and 2. Historical black and white 3 hour films with a bunch of nobodies in the leading roles is hardly something Hollywood is going to bet big money on. No! They're going to put money on a bunch of Orks, Elves, Merlins and sorcery so they can sell lots of posters, dolls, toys, video games, happy meals make it a trilogy so they can nail you three times at the box office and three times fro popcorn. That my firend is a Hollywood film.
Schindler's List...all the money made was donated off after covering costs (which was under 30 million meaning that $350 million give or take was donated to pay for the screenings and put to the Shoah foundation), screens were subsidized by Spielberg for FREE showings to high school kids. Yeah, Hollywood film. This is the one of the most ridiculous arguments I've read for trying to dismiss this film. Most film critics serious or otherwise wouldn't even make this kind of statement.
I don't think you'll ever see an art film gross $350+ million world wide. The fact that Spielberg made an art film gross like a Hollywood blockbluster doesn't mean to say it's a Hollywood film but it sure does say a lot about its director. One of the most underrated directors because he has decided to be a story teller instead of self indulgent wind bag of tripe like Fellini. Spielberg also makes more dreck than the likes of Kubrick. Then again Eyes Wide Shut was ATROCIOUS garbage so nobodies perfect.
Whether a film is "Hollywood" or not has nothing to do with its gross earnings, how they are spent, the choice of actors, the subject or many other things.It has to do with the language the movie (and the director) speak.
The List speaks Hollywood.
We know someone is speaking Italian after just a couple of words - no matter what is the subject... we may not even understand it at all, but the flavor of the language is immediate.
You are concentrating on the superficial things here. I couldn't care rat's ass where the earnings went - he could have bought his wife another $200M diamond ring for all I care - that is his right, and he has done that many times over.
I already commented on the subject - but as important as it is, it doesn't make a film Hollywood or not.
But the unmistakable flavor of the tinsel town is all over the film. One catches it quickly once exposed to it in good doses.
It is as easy to spot as the dreaded "made for TV, based on real events" kaka we all know. Or something made for the woman's Lifetime channel - they all exude strong easily identifyable flavors.
Spielberg speaks Hollywood language because he knows no other. He is as Hollywood as Hollywood itself... heck, he IS Hollywood.
You make no sense. Ok. Schindler's List has some of the best production values of any film ever. From Cinemetography throughout. Hollywood is certainly superior to foreign films when they want to be because they have the BUCKS to get the BEST artisans in the industry and not have to use the camera as a stunt to suck in the low-brows who think they're high brows because a film is in subtitles.Then there is the indie flicks which are mostly garbage that some yahoo will dribble all over touting words like realism.
I have seen no Hollywood film that has the same taste as Schindler's List.
I remember long ago that Spielberg was going to give this film to Roman Polanski...the artsy fartsy lovers lve this director. Well after his Pianist a good solid film I'm so VERY thankful Spielberg made the movie because the Pianist was so weak willed in comparison.
By the way I'm not against small films or foreign films...a great deal are in my top 100.
I'm thankful most critics and reviewers saw through the anti-Hollywood and Anti-Spielberg and actually judged the film not the director's previous work and were objective viewers.
Of course the srange thing is judging his previous work is not so bad. Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, E.T. are classics within their respective genres. I can't think of a better thriller on the water than Jaws or a better action/adventure film than Raiders or a better family film than E.T. (Most people miss the homage to Casablanca - which IMO works better than Casablanca because the LINES aren't as stilted and silly - and it can also be viewed as a pseudo Christ story).
Saving Private Ryan if he had chopped the bookends of the movie or fixed them up a bit would be bonafied masterpiece. Some of the dialogue could have been worked over. Definitely more engaging with two views because the story is lost on many after the draining 30 minute beach sequence. Plenty of depth and layered story is there - good critics and reviewers can see it - bad critics are too busy with their anti-spielbergisms to look. But then they didn't get Shakespeare or Mozart at the time they wrote and composed either.
I think you missed that part.I said it had strong Hollywood smell... you objected... then stated only Hollywood can make certain things - that is true... that also means Hollywood smell.
No one else could make the ET but the Hollywood - doesn't matter that I consider it kaka, but no one else could.
Ditto for the List. It could only be made by a Hollywood mogul.
You seem to think "Hollywood" only means negative things... well, today that is largely so, but that was not the point of the post.
So - I stand firm where I started: The List is 100% a Hollywood film, and it could never be made anywhere else.
SPR? Please, don't get me started. It was a disgrace to the movie making.
Hollywood Or Spielberg films or anything presumably "like" them.Basically you're saying only Spielberg and Hollywood can make a big production value effort...which is probably correct.
Movies are supposed to be more than self indulgent whining by a director with no more good ideas(alla Fellini's 81/2). He has the gaul to think he's deep. His point for that film was what exactly? A story about the creative process? Directing? shockingly simplistic movie which with all the hot air would have best been served filling a balloon.
But hey not everyone likes the same things.
The whole point is that the artist needs no point.The art is not about some point either present or missing, it is not about the subject, the actors, the plot or the budget - it is all about the expressive means, and there Fellini has no equals.
What was the point of many of Chardin's paintings? Of beautiful Dutch landscapes?
So you like films about nothing? 81/2 has a point it has actors it has a screenplay. It most certainly is about something. A director struggling with creative process and not knowing what to make - feeling that he is a fraud in the movie business. Judging by this film...it is a fraud that suckered a lot of people and reviewers. The commentary on the film business isn't particularly insightful either - maybe he should have made the sci-fi film instead of the self indulgent and pretentious nothingness he presented.As for paintings, if I don't like one after 1 minute I can look elsewhere, i'm not trapped in for 2 hours while a director prattles on about what is a film version of a writer's block.
The psychic telling sequence is certainly an interesting one because the Fellini certainly pulled the wool over many eyes. If the film had even been noteworthy cinemagraphically I would have been a bit more impressed. The entire, presuambly, sexual fantasy of all the women in his life was amusing, pointless but amusing.
If it's some sort of psuedo existensionalism it doesn't really work...not that existensionalism really ever works in any medium.
Throwing around terms as beautiful or lush without context is meanigless artsy fartsy fluff.
Perhaps Fellini is a master at this type of film-making. However, the master of nothing is of nothing to be proud.
I don't get it. You said there was no story... then you provided somethng that looked like a pretty substantial story to me - a far more a story than many the movies are based on - he-he... what's the foundation of the Lost in Translation, if you need the War and Peace size story in every film?... and then you said that was not story enough.Like many other such stories, the Fellini's one was not too deep perhaps, but PERSONAL. To say it was irrelevant is to say Fellini himself is irrelevant, which is something someone here already said once. OK as a one person's opinion, not light enough to float.
Fellini is one of the pilars of the modern movie, and as such all his stories are relevant to the viewer.
However, all that is simply a response to your demand for something behind the beautiful acting and presentation - sort fo playing along with you, without agreeing. As I said, I don't *really* need a story - I watch the mastery of expressive means. There were tons of it in that film.
You avoided my analogy of the simple Chardin painting, apparently because you couldn't answer it properly. Does Chardin keep you riveted for 2 hours? It sure does me. Does it keep you coming back? It does that to me.
The world of art is full of the "pointless" works you seem so critical about. Most opera is based on something that would seem like a rather silly small story if taken all by itself. Much of classical music falls into the same category. Is it the theme that makes the Beethoven's 3rd a great symphony? Or his Pastoral one? By no means.
Fellini is a master painter. Like paintings by Corot or Hobbema some of his works might *seemingly* lack the plots, but his works are NOT "films about nothing" - far from it, they are films about people, to whom love and suffering are not really "nothing". So a story of a prostitute who lost her illusions might be "nothing" to you, to me it is a deep human tragedy, masterfully told.
I'm not saying a film has to be about huge social issues. Lost in Translation was about a middle aged man in a marriage that is SORT of happy. His career is in the dump forcing him to Japan to make adverts. He hates himself for pandering to the dollar. Johanssen is a young girl at the beginning of her road in a marriage she thinks is a mistake - she's probably right.Fellini's film is all EGO. His creative block he posts to the screen. I have no problem with the premise if it had been handled competantly with character development.
There is no relation whatsoever to paintings so I didn't really respond to it. 81/2 didn't move me in any way exceopt make me feel anger toward the Director for being an ego-maniac.
I'm sure it was personal it was about him. Suffering? Yeah I'm sure he was hurting financially after his career. Suffering because he couldn't think of a fresh story is hardly suffering. To the artist it might be suffering but snort some coke or take Laudinum like all the other artists who have blocks and stop whining to me.
One person's opinion? Well if people actually saw this movie - if it did remotely anything at the box office and wasn't coveted by a small group of Art film fans this film would have ended up in the dung heap.
But then there are people who actually think The Great Gatsby was a good book too or theat Leo Tolstoy was more than just a long winded romance novelist.
If he had chopped them off we wouldn't get to see that delicious blonde playing one of the daughters...
Personally I didn't think much of SPR first view. Impressive battle sequence and the rest was standard GI movie. I happened on it on home video and the beach sequence I was prepared for. So, I watched more closely the story. Spielberg often has little details, messages and shots buried under the pomps and pipes surface. Not unlike George R. Romero having commentary on Vietnam an Consumerism in the United States under the endless blood and gore of Night And Dawn of the Dead.SPR has a great deal on the mental state from several character points - all in the ridiculousness of sending several people into save one. For the flag for popularity for feeding the propaganda engine for hicksville America.
The book ends - actually on second thought aren't that bad - an adjustment to the scoring perhaps but something felt a little strained or forced about it.
Interestingly, People have often said Spielberg manipulates, most site SChindler's as the exception. What I don't get about these statements is that before SL he never made a truly serious film. The Colour Purple was it really and Spielberg said he regreted making it and should have given the project to someone else. He basically said it was a mistake...not bad 11 nomination mistake.
E.T. of course is geared to kids and this kind of thing you hope he can get some laughs, tears have a big memorable score. A Boy and his dog story really.
The Raiders and Dino movies are for fun - no tear jerking or attempted manipulations. Jaws and Close encounters...action sci-fi - no manipulation there. What the heck is left? The Sugarland Express was a good small indi-like-film wth no happy ending. Dual was too long ago for me to remember but it was thriller no?
Other than Amistad being a total train wwreck of a film, along with Hook, 1941 and the mishandling of A.I.(Now this is definitely cheese when it comes to trying to get tears - no argument from me).
He saved 100,000 jews, not a 1,000 like S-ler.
I'm sure he had plenty of drama in his life too.
Preferably in color this time.
There are many stories that can be made. Whay should Schindler's NOT be told? One of the reasons to make Schindler's story is because he was a small time Nazi businessman who was not really a likeable person. The point was to say if this kind of person can do this much then there is hope.There is no question that Spielberg is an optimist, his films look for the good. It's a shame that many can only like a film if the ending is depressing or the entire mood is generally dour.
The Pianist made by the artsy fartsy lover's preferred director Roman Polanski was about a guy who saved no one did nothing and was a nobody. It was a good story but not terribly insightful. People obviously felt there was a reason to tell this story - It was worth telling - as was Life Is Beautiful.
It's a rather depressing look at his efforts. Stellan Skarsgard was Mr. Wallenberg. Saw it years ago.
.
A fine man and a diplomat.
Too bad the Stalin machin killed him!
Most of the people who did survived the holaucost critisised Spielberg for having be to " soft " with the hard truth....
This was the first commercial film on holicost that hit me with just a glimse of the reality of that horrible part of history. Obviously I can never feel the total reality of those events because I was'nt there and have no direct relatives that were.I have read many books and seen newsreels of the discoveries that were found at the end of the war, also been to the museum in Washington D.C. This was the first time I almost felt the horror and disrespect for human life that occured during that time.
Go for " Nuit et Brouillard " and " The Sorrow and the Pity " for more insight. And when you are at it see ( or resee ) " La Grande Illusion ".
I have seen three " Death Camps ". Boy ô Boy.
n.t.
Most people? The vast minority who get a stage to shout the loudest perhaps.The film could have been a lot worse. Doctors who forced pregnant women's legs close and then forcing labour...Amon throwing kids in the air for target practice - yes there was worse but to much actually show. It doesn't serve the viewer or the story which we should remember is ABOUT Schindler and what he did. The Holocaust is the backdrop. The fact that the Backdrop is easily better than any other film on the subject's main story is just an aside.
So learn please to behave. In Germany and else where and I remember well said that Mr. Spielberg did only show a " romantised " version of the events.
Vast minority?
Is that meant to be ironic?
that should be required viewing in history classes. No movie is spot-on accurate but "Schindler" conveys the energy, pain, and terror that the Holocaust was. It's an important lesson about man's inhumanity to man that should be oft repeated to each generation.
You don't get history from films - great films like this one give you the jumping off point and got the bigger issues right. People who bicker of the details - don't understand history or what historians are out to do.The greatest service though is to generate discussion. Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners" certainly did that. He argued that the VAST majority og the German public WANTED Jews killed and most all of them enjoyed killing when given an opportunity. Talk about a viewpoint.
This was the movie that made me decoide to get a minor in history...well one more course to go this summer and I can say I have the minor. Naturally I foussed it on this period.I was going in thinking that I would probably find things to pick and to my surprise I actually ended up liking the film a LOT more because of the very subtle points the film makes as a side discourse that are so "UP" on even current debates between the some very notable historians such Christopher Browning and D.J Goldhagen. Schindler's List manages to take a more centerist view which considering the Director is Jewish and had an obvious close tie to the subject matter manages to stay detached.
There are three scenes where criticism often comes for this film and all three I consider to be brilliant moves by the director. Spielberg uses one long colour sequence with a girl in a Red Dress. We see her twice. The first time it is used to offset innocence from evil - this scene was highly stressed from testimony used for the Thomas Keneally's novel, and to serve Oscar Schindler's REAL look at what was really going on. Yes there is war and there is the wholesale slaughter of fellow citizens. Historians argue that many Germans didn't "know" what is going on - or didn't want to see. Well Schindler did...this scene opens up - in combination with several others - another complaint people have which was Schindler's break-down at the end of the picture. The "I could have done more" speach which never actually happened - well not at that time.
Spielberg did his homework. Well after the war it is strongly indicated that Schindler was never the same man - he felt an enormous amount of guilt, became an alcohic and lived off handouts from Jews until his death. Spielberg took those after war events and placed that into the final scene. Some argue it but if you know his life after the war it make sense...because in fact he COULD have done more. I can't imagine a worse guilt than knowing you could have sold a few meaningless trinkits to save someone's life.
The third scene some grumbled about was the Gassing scene where the woman were not gassed and just sprayed with water. This actually did happen to the Schindler Jews and I think it was a vry strong sequence. Spielberg doesn't need to show what happened here - Instead he uses a woman to glance back at that stacks leaving the rest for imagination - which is more tasteful.
Certain characters were combined. Itzhak Stern for example was a real Jewis Accountant but his actions in the film are composites of several Jews. The obvious reason to combine several people's actions into one man makes obvious cinematic sense - and since the character was also serving as Schindler's conscience - this too is acceptable historical maneuvering. It's the big picture we're after so long as the small things aren't twisted to throw us off.
Some complained that Amon Goethe should have been a German just following orders and torn up about commiting these acts. While that would have made a deeper Camp commandant cinematically I don't think Spielberg could bring himself to lie for cinematic reasons. Amon Goeth's history suggests that he entirely enjoyed what he was doing.
In fact Spielberg and Fiennes bring an incredible amount of undeserved "niceness or charisma" to Amon that I doubt from the records was actually there. Amon Gothe did far more horrendous things than this film portrayed. There is a scene where the Jewish mechanic is cleaning the road of suitcases. In the book that Jewish mechanic prior to that scen witnessed Amon throw a toddler in the air and shoot him. Something for obvious reasons which was not shown - but perhaps part of the editing room floor film.
Scenes where he attempt to shoot an old man and the guns keep sticking apparently were real as was the maid the target practice the lost chicken and mass shootings. Both the Browning and Goldhagen books wil support the mass shotting of innocents of even regular German citizens in Police Battalions.
Naturally, no 3 hour film can cover this subject matter in full but it manages to cover a heckuva lot of the essential parts and the progression highly effectively. Spielberg uses Fiennes and we see a LOT of charisma in the man - sadistic. But we get a glimpse as to why people followed the Nazi Regime or even got sucked into it. After all joining you would get a new big house money people to push around. for the 20-30 people in all societies who border on the psycho or sociopathic lines this is the group to join. And that doesn't even count the ignorant morons out there that just need to blame some group for their lot in life.
The Nazi engine was all about propoganda and image and of course hypocracy. They even get this in there when Amon who supposedly believes that all Jews are rats manages to fall for or at least get horny for one of these rats.
Fiennes I have down as my number one supporting performance of the 1990s for this role which is the lynchpin forthe whole thing working. He has to be both a sadist but he has to instill a hefty and scary amount of charisma. He has to create depth from a one dimensional sadist - and he does it better than I've ever seen it done frankly by anyone in any role IMO. But hey it did make his career.
Cinematically, it is simply a great looking film with unparallelled cinematography. There are shots in this film - on the balcony looking in - as if we are Jews looking at Amon and Oscar deciding our fate. Unlike Citizen Kane which Uses the Camera as a stunt which works to distance the audience from feeling, Kiminski has the Camera distanced from the events with a chilling view of what will come.
Great soundtrack by one of the great violonists - great performances throughout. Fiennes was robbed of an Oscar, Kingsly and Davidtz were robbed of nominations, and Neeson, if he was going to lose, should have only lost to Anthony Hopkins in Remains of the Day. But what does the academy award know. At least they got the film right which IMO has happened twice since 1990.
IMO, Schindler's List is the best film of the 1990s to current and quie frankly there isn't anything that I find even close as a total moviegoing experience.
The German did know what was going on. NO doubt. They just did not want to see.
The common tenor is..When we should have said something we would have been killed ourselves.
That is a point.
But NO point for civil courage.
No German soldier or otherwise was ever killed during any part of world war II for not following orders to kill Jews.The general public was in fear no doubt because of propoganda.
I highly recommend both the Christopher R Browning(Ordinary Men) and Daniel J Goldhagen (Hitler's Willing Executioners) books on the general public's attitudes during this time. Both books were around the same time and after Schindler's List and it is quite interesting how well Schindler's manages to stay impartial - and Keneally too a decade before for tht matter.
In fact some of the batallions that were ordered to go out and shoot Jewish kids in the forrest were given the option not to. These were not soldiers or Nazi's but police battalions. 11 out of 500+ opted out with no punishment. The rest were quite happy to one presumes.
Killed or not ( who could swear that nobody was killed for refusing this order), no but they used " freiwillige "..( volunteers ).
Not only of the propaganda...They could get a certain time in KZ or jail!
I know the book but my experience of 35 years in Germany and all the questions and answers that I asked are more important to me!
The nazis did some others things..Like lynching US pilots who have been caught as PO.
Deletations were common too.
The " Wehrmacht " did also horrible crimes.
Oh I'm sorry I didn't mean to suggest people were not afraid of the Nazi's. I have no doubt people may have thought they'd be killed or detained for helping Jews. The Nazi's kept outstanding records however of everything. Two things they get credit for. Record keeping and propaganda. You say the same lie loud enough long enough people will start to believe it.For example: The Nazis claimed the Jews were dirty lice riddles people like verman. They were spoutingthis well before 1939. At the time of course People would not have seen this to be the case. But after kicking the Jews out of their homes giving them little to no food and stealing all their money and possessions and having 12 to a room for 4 years well - they began to look dirty had lice and met the descriptions the Nazis were spouting the entire time.
A great two part diary from Vitor Klemperer is a fascinating read because unlike the less weighty Anne Frank(which is more for average Shmoe) Klemperer was an Academic teaching at a University in Germany. Victor was classed as a Mischling because he was married to a German woman so the Nazis were slower and different in their treatment to them. His accounts which span 1939 to the end of the war are highly fascinating and carry a lot of historical weight from yet another perspective.
I agree with most of what you're saying. But remember Schindler's List is not directly ABOUT the Holocaust - it is about one man that managed to save lives during this period and THAT can't be forgotten either. Because if one man can do that in that time under that threat against those odds -- that means something.
About your comments on the condition of living of the Jews that was true for the one living in the Ghettos.
I have the books.
Slower until the Wannsee conference. ( there is avery good film on it, as you will certainly be aware of )
Not directly*? I think one can dispute your point of view. In my eyes it was!
For the rest I agree entirely.* Actually Schindler was in the yes of the storm.
PS: Nuit et brouillard and The sorrow and the Pity
I found this one particularly chilling.
Yes, and more as a documentary as a film.
It just sounds " true ".PS : Have you see " The Gathering Storm " I saw it twice and it was even getting better the second time, a real good performance of one of Britainīs best actor.
I have not seen this but will keep an eye peeled for it. Thanks.
and one who ran the show brought his pregnat wife along to watch the shootings...pictures say so much.
Schindlers widow, who acted as a consultant for the film, painted a very different picture of the man than the one that was portrayed by Spielbergs direction
The saccharine image that Ralph Fiennes played was a pale shadow of the actual man and a gross inaccuracy
Spielberg should have stuck to the facts and it would not only have made for a better story; but given the seriousness of the subject, accuracy should have been a given and the distortion of those same facts is unforgiveable (the Nazis themselves were masters of distorting facts to suit their agenda)
Spielberg does the same thing again in "Saving Private Ryan", he gets the dry cough of an MG machinegun, the sidevalve V-8 roar of a landing craft and accuracy of uniforms and equipment down frighteningly pat then serves up endless flaky dialog that no WW2 grunt would have ever uttered(!)
Spielberg knows his target audience and is quietly taking a perverse delight at heaping on his own ersatz spin of the ball
He should have stuck with fantasy and fiction rather than historical portrayals that require a less fanciful touch
Upraised middle finger to Mr. Spielberg!
Grins
I would not put too much weight on Schindlerīs widow. She was, I hink very frustated at her man many sexuals encounter with other women, and I think jealous on another level too.
She was in the film at the end. She doesn't deny what Schindler did other than giving food, which she can't know. And probbably that she wasn't represented as much in the film. Perhaps she's part of the over 1 hour they cut.
Or perhaps you too did not do your homework on a subject where "accuracy should have been a given"?
The SS officer Amon Goeth, the Commandant of the Plaszow labor camp, had made the final 'liquidation' of the Crakow ghetto and had experience at three death camps in eastern Poland, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka.Did you get that impression from the mivie?
I thought he was frightening but more like a guy who'd whack a family for some pork bellies, not someone who was responsible for deaths of tens of thousands of people.
He liquidated the Cracow ghetto in the film. If your complaint is that Schindler's List - a film about Schindler and Schindler Jews and you think a different movie should have been made about Amon Goeth and the history of Amon Goeth then I missed something.Gas chambers, contrary to popular belief, was not the holocaust. Gassing occurred by many estimates as late as 1944. This film is about one group of people and what happened to them and their savior.
Amon during this specific period is the only thing that matterred.
A lot of people prefer the lone holocaust story from Single perspectives like Ann Frank or a film like the Pianist which have next to no detail on the holocaust or really any of the big picture. It makes for a better human drama - though the Polanski's film managed not to and of course making it a far weaker film in all respects. But that's another story.
Actually it was 1940! And generalised in 1942.
No show me where and who said this. Reports in 1940 were of gas vans. November 1942 is the early date of use from my references at established camps. Wide scale actual gassing came later - probably as late as when Hitler and cronies began to see the inevitable loss.
Chamber gas or chamber vans..I do not make no difference, the matter is when did the nazis started to kill this way, as or 1942 we both agree.
The thing is it's very difficult to pin down because there is no record of an actual order for the gassing written down anywhere. And from a group that was very very well documented.Much of the killing in Schindler's is cold blooded shooting. Harder than flipping a gas switch. Or it should have been. But they enjoyed doing what they did. No German was ever killed for disobaying an order to kill Jews. This little fact is rarely discussed and it's pretty big.
My psychologuy instructor once said 20-30% of a population borders on psychopathic and or sociopathic behavior. The Nazi's would draw such people. "I get to kill as many people as I want and not go to jail?" Great way to draw the puss of society to one group.
Zyclon B / 1941
Actually gas chambers was an inventions of commisars, in 1918, during Civil War in Russia. During 1918 - 1922, were killed millions of russians, ukrainians and others by "bolshevicks" - under Trozkiy, Sverdlov, Tuhachevskiy, Yagudi and so on... So Gitler didn't invent anything new- he just borrowed idea from "kommisars".Regarding racial theory and eliminations and "surgery" - it's was also stolen from USA "scientists". In 1930's were a lot of experiments and so on on real people, and it was (and is) even protected by the law in many USA states.. This practice was keeping until 1976 (last time in Sweden).
Needles to say, that everybody know that "Man of the year", by "Time" magazine in 1939, in USA was Gitler.
So, I'm just wondering, why people don't see to whom humankind should be grateful for mass-murder?
Just MHO. Regards!
A resounding YES!
Of course not! But you can pinpoint where the " B " did go .
That no one was killed..Hum..I wonīt swear...Toward the end of the war a lot of soldiers have been killed mostly under the pretex of desertion...
I am not complaining about anything.
I didn't believe Fiennes performance in the role of Amon Goeth, that's all.
but I will stick to my guns; the portrayals and Keneally novel were engaging 1/2 truths when the subject was serious enough to warrant a grain or two more truth
Spielberg went to extreme efforts to ensure accuracy of costume and even locations; one scene has a steam train arriving through the gates of Auschwitz and I have stood on that platform when I visited Poland, what upsets me is that that level of accuracy was achieved, yet the story is fatally flawed as the portrayal of Schindler does not show this man as he really wasGrins
What in this movie are you picking on about the facts. For a start Emily Schindler did do much - and this was left out of the film...once again any history of an individual is never 100%. If you think ANY film on ANY history of anything is accurate you don't have competancy in history. Claude Lanzman film is 9 hours long and has about 1hour of actuyal historical merit the rest is deeply flawed - and proven so. Historically it's far worse than the small things that were "bent" for Schindler's List.There is no way for Emily Schindler to know what Oscar was doing 24 hours a day. Survivor's themselves provided much of the info on What Schindler did. Emily is 86 at the time of that interview.
She denied nothing of what he did other than providing food. Spielberg presented Oscar as an alcoholic and a womanizer cheating on his wife numerously. Nothing about him was a saint.
I kinda didn't pay attention to Neeson, since I didn't know his story was different.
I watched it twice.
First time was moving [for personal reasons], second time I barely sat through it.
Glad you liked it enough to buy the dvd.
Not for me. The movie was much more dramatic the second time I saw it. It was several years between viewings though.
The same for me. But it is a film that I respect for his educational use.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
