 
|
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 |
65.15.103.44
In Reply to: RE: Not a good film, but a major, incredibly important work. posted by Victor Khomenko on December 11, 2018 at 11:59:03
This should be required viewing for all eigth and ninth graders so they can understand true discrimination, slavery, and genocide. Kids are taught by their parents about how.bad they have it and Schindler's List helps to set that straight. Maybe a mediocre film but an important lesson on man's inhumanity to man. The film transcends the Jewish plight to show us what we are all capable of in our hearts and minds. Kids need a hard slap to understand how good they have it and this is it.
Follow Ups:
...good, detailed documentaries on that subjects. One film, however important, is not going to create the sense of awareness in your people. It only gets developed through relentless repetition - something my generation was subjected to day in and day out. While done for totally wrong political reason, and while hiding the real truth of Jewish Holocaust, it still provided fertile ground for future learning.
We simply don't have anything like that here.
to remember that there were tens of millions of OTHER nations citizens who were murdered by Germans in the concentrations camps.
Steven Spielberg is a skilled director but also a propagandist hack.
He is a Mcdonald's of a movie world. Not that I don't admire his skill and don't watch his movies.
There was fundamental difference. While many other people indeed died in the camps, none of those other groups was subject of Final Solution. Simply put - there was no extermination goal set for them. There is some evidence regarding somewhat similar objective towards the Gypsies, about 200,000 of them also perished - out of roughly 1 million who lived in Europe.
Yes, millions (not tens of millions) died of hunger, disease, hard labor and abuse, we should not take those sufferings lightly. But Jews were very special target.
Spielberg naturally picked the subject - I have no issue with that. While I do not consider him skillful director, that part is a personal viewpoint. The importance of that film should not be seen in the same way we consider, for instance, La Strada. It has certain and voluable documentary quality to it.
I stand corrected. It's somewhat difficult to get the total numbers of deaths in all Nazi concentration camps by nation.
Yes , the movie is touching and it has its place.
I prefer somewhat less idealized style, something like "The Pianist" Polanskiego.
This is a rather small story in a much larger picture - one of many Holocaust stories - if you want the complete history of the holocaust and a story of every single person from every single country and a full accounting of each - it ain't coming from a single film or a from a single documentary.
It's like Anne Frank's Diary - this is a TINY story and a drop in the bucket perspective.
A vastly deeper in depth diary of events would come from Viktor Klemperor "I Will Bear witness" But he was an old man and professor - not a pretty young girl - less sympathy I guess.
Damn that Anne Frank - using her own death as propaganda to pull at heart strings.
n
I added it to our queue. I know my wife will not want to see it, and I can't blame her. But I would certainly want to see it.Will mention it to our friends.
Edits: 12/16/18
but I don't think there's anything else quite like it.
Available from Criterion: 566 minutes.
Jeremy
Chilling, and contains some facts that I didn't know. Especially the Holocaust dynamics during the first weeks of the Barbarossa.
One problem with it - it is French production, so there is French voice, English subs - which is generally fine, unless there is English speaker - then there are three ways you need to keep track of. The English guy starts talking, you lock onto him, but then his voice goes down, being replaced by a French one, and you need to switch to the subs. Affects your being absorbed into the film.
I strongly recommend that one.
PBS showed it one year (multiple nights) - that's how I saw it.
I don't enjoy watching such documentaries, but I consider them important, even for someone who already has good familiarity with the subject. One should not consider history "boring", especially that important part of it.I still remember how many people stated they learned a lot about WWII from Saving Private Ryan... that was frightening.
Edits: 12/17/18
Including the fact that her father spent years in nazi camps and finally escaped. Her grandparents all vanished.
Repetition instills rote learning - good for multiplication tables and spelling and grammar practice.The ARTS has the overarching role to create INTEREST in a subject for students/children or adults to then go and critically think about a subject. Boring ass documentaries on the holocaust existed in schools for decades. And yes they will "teach more facts" about the holocaust than Schindler's List. But that's not really surprising is it?
You should not bloody well be learning all your facts from movie or TV screens - it's called books - pick some up sometime.
The ARTS are often commentary of the sociopolitical climate of their time - and yes by the bloody way, that includes a lot of Hollywood films.
Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoevsky, Miller would all be called Social Justice Warrior Snowflakes in 2018! merely presenting an actual injustice even when 100% factually proven means you are an SJW.
And THAT is why Spielberg triumphs as a director because he was smart enough to choose the source material where he could lift the subject matter out of memorization of facts and INVERT the subject matter.
Kenneally's novel was a bottle in the ocean until the film came about. Schindler's List - NOT Lanzmann's Shoah or any other Holocaust film "helped to inspire national educational curriculum changes, the growth of Holocaust degree programmes, the institution of an annual remembrance day in the United Kingdom and the setting up of museums and memorials across the globe."
And WHY? Because Schindler's List had a profound affect on film goers at the time and is often cited as one of the ten best films in history - please show me the list where actual intelligent professionals in the movie industry have chosen the La Rafle. My extra F was subconsciously awarding it it's deserved letter grade!
There are endless critiques - good ones - that can and should be made about Schindler's List - one of the better ones is from Kubrick and Lantzmann who both more or less said
"The Holocaust is about six million people who get killed. Schindler's List is about 600 who don't."
But that is just it - all the largely failed, uninspiring, and most importantly UNSEEN films (and if you want to teach people history through film - they first have to bloody well see it) is that you have to take your film making prowess and create something of - well - a Hollywood Blockbuster!
And to do that you need a protagonist. It is far better to tell any of these kinds of stories through character. I have read most of the criticisms of the film and most all of them fall flat.
The mistake all of these "critics" got wrong is that the story was actually about the power that one person can wield when he values something other than the almighty dollar. It is not a "Holocaust Movie" about the "Holocaust" - It doesn't ram the Holocaust High School lesson down the audience's throats - been there and failed at that!
Other criticisms should have been leveled at the book - I remember laughing at the dimwits who hate Spielberg - "the girl in the Red coat is Spielberg and Hollywood manipulation" - I am quite sure you were first in line with that correct.
Only in Schindler's Ark - the real life Oscar Schindler sat on his horse and gravitated to a small girl in a red coat!!!!
Oh wait - it wasn't a Spielberg ploy after all - it was a recounting of a REAL very likely plausible motivation for Oscar Schindler to decide to DO SOMETHING.
Guess the morons never bother to pick up a F-ing book.
Fortunately one of the most vocal critics against the film re watched it without the fanatical hatred of Steven. Umm but she still needs to read the book and the actual historical Oscar Schindler and Amon Goeth.
Regardless of the historical minutia - that is largely the point of any Historical drama - to get people interested in the subject to learn more. No film of this duration can possibly have the breadth and depth to encapsulate the time frame of events. Schindler's List probably is responsible for a vast number of people renting Shoah or for a film producers to even allow a film like La Rafle or The Pianist even being green lit to get made.
You may not realize this - but even your beloved non Hollywood artsy fartsy nonsense - have backers who ONLY give money to MAKE money - they are greedy soulless pigs in it to make a buck - but since they barely have two coins to rub together they MUST make a movie on a million bucks and you can bet that just like Disney - they want to double their investment. They're not making your precious French/Hungarian/Belarusian love story because they love movies - they are producing them for the exact same reason porn directors make porn movies - they want to make money!
Hollywood goes for the biggest audience - porn industry goes for the horny masses and the niche art-house market focuses on the folks who hate the other two. you aren't smarter or better (as you think you are) than the people who line up to see Deadpool. You are just PLAYED by a "different" money grubbing producer who finds and artsy way to impress a different sort of sheep.
Leave It to Spielberg: A Critic Revisits 'Schindler's List'
By Lisa Rosman
Edits: 12/14/18 12/14/18 12/14/18
...misogynists, racists, xenophobes and ughh NATIONALISTS!
The SJW's are today what brown-shirts were in 1932.
...not the Trumpster's base?And they wouldn't recognize the names you posted.
Edits: 12/16/18
"Other criticisms should have been leveled at the book - I remember laughing at the dimwits who hate Spielberg - "the girl in the Red coat is Spielberg and Hollywood manipulation" - I am quite sure you were first in line with that correct.
Only in Schindler's Ark - the real life Oscar Schindler sat on his horse and gravitated to a small girl in a red coat!!!!
Oh wait - it wasn't a Spielberg ploy after all - it was a recounting of a REAL very likely plausible motivation for Oscar Schindler to decide to DO SOMETHING."
Nevertheless, I for one felt that, in the context of the film, "the little girl in red" was an extremely manipulative technique. This was confirmed when I overheard a couple of folks talking about that scene as they left the theater - "Ooh! Did you see what he did there?" Yes, those folks can congratulate themselves that they have the deep insight to notice such things!
Quite often, with Spielberg's films, I just wince at the all-too-obvious attempts to manipulate the audience's emotions. It's as if Spielberg has never heard of "the art which conceals the art". Although I do like a couple of his films, it's too difficult to get past the manipulation in most of them - in such scenes, I see merely the dollar signs flashing before his eyes! ;-)
why would some total stranger's conversation confirm jack squat to you though?I get the argument but that's just it - it's an argument not a fact. The choice the director made was to follow the source material and the fact that the girl in the red coat was to quote
"Ligocka said in a Guardian interview that "the girl in the red coat in the film is a symbol of all the children killed during the Nazi regime. In Poland alone, 1.5 million were murdered. The experiences of the film character and mine are identical, with one important difference — I survived."
This in my opinion is a far higher form of ART to make your point without words in a fairly short segment of the film to encapsulate what happened to children during the holocaust - and to NOT sugar coat with the happy ending where she lives. Because the vast majority didn't live.
Your argument is a fair one - but like mine - it's just that an opinion. I don't find using the source material manipulative or driving home the fact that children were slaughtered on masse. I don't find matter of fact TRUTH to be manipulative.
Edits: 12/14/18
. . . because I have not read the book and you have, but I must ask: in the book, was the girl in red described as standing out from her black and white surroundings? Because that's what Spielberg hits his viewers over the head with - or so it seems to me. He could have filmed the whole movie (or at least just the whole scene) in color, and gradually focused in on on the girl in red - to me, that would have been SO much more effective! But, no, he seemed to want to play the artiste at this point - to the detriment of the scene, because it gets viewers thinking about his "wonderful" technique, rather than what he's trying convey - at least IMHO.
The girl in red was pronounced in the book and since it's a book there is no colour versus black and white.
If the real Oscar Schindler in fact saw a girl in a red coat and this was his pivotal moment of decision to act - then it's rather a vital part of the book - and if you make a black and white film - there is no way to see Red without using red. It was not the only colour scene in the film anyway - there was a candle scene where the candle was in colour as well.
And since this scene is one of the most remembered by people who loved the movie - often chosen as a cover - well perhaps Steven was fortunate to follow Keneally's novel.
Spielberg filmed in black and white because Spielberg felt the "film should be drained of colour to reflect the draining of life during the holocaust."
To me it's a strength of film making when he can represent all the children of the holocaust and their slaughter in mere minutes in high impact while at the same time providing a possible motivation for Schindler all without a single word of dialog or narrative explanation.
The first 4 minutes of this video has the explanation of why that scene is in the movie - And you can really only debate these things. Spielberg had a valid reason to do it - I think it worked and unfortunately - if it was an art house director who did it I suspect no one would say anything about it - but like in audio people have lots of expectation bias.
He prefers to hit the viewer on the head with a hammer - even if a very old and tired, long ineffective hammer. SL is overloaded with such manipulation. If I were to mention just one - the latrine hiding scene.
The first time I read about such ordeal was probably back in 1962 in one of the Russian books. Back then it generated strong response. But since then, and upon numerous repetition of this idea in many works, I developed strong distaste for that cheap tool. So when the boy went into the outhouse I almost screamed to myself: "Please, not another one!"
But as I mentioned above - I do not see this film as a work of art, but rather an imperfect witness report. For all its faults it hopefully generates the awareness, that is so sorely lacking today.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
