....revisiting "Schindlers List" 25 years later....
Sept 26, 2018 20:57:50 GMT
spiderwort, teleadm, and 2 more like this
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 20:57:50 GMT
.....yea, I probably viewed this film twice in the mid 1990's, once at the theater, and again on VHS. Haven't felt the need to look at it again, for two reasons.
One: I'm terminally fascinated about how an exceptional Western Society could become an 'horrific nightmare of Biblical proportions' in ten years time. Anyone doesn't think so, doesn't understand how Berlin, 1920's, was certainly one of the most forward leaning artistic cultures of the 20th Century. UFA Films, Fritz Lang, Murnau, Kurt Weill, Emil Jannings, Marlene, Thomas Mann? There's a serious argument to be made it was the cultural 'epicenter' of the Western World. "Pandora's Box", anyone? (Even the films under Goebbels were artistically sound. Leni Riefenstahl's two films, about the Nazi's and the Olympics, while taboo today? Are "Kubrickian" in their stunning technical imagery.) The 'nightmare part' needs no explanation.
...which leads me to number two: We've kind of heard it all before for the last 70 years, right? Handled in Ricky Gervais's brilliant "Extra's" series, listen to Kate Winslet mock the whole thing
All that said, I made it through the three hour film in between last night and this morning.
I have to say? I was more affected by the film this viewing than either of the first two. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a good film with a worthwhile story, and it probably 'teary eyed' me in the theater. I just wasn't a huge fan of Spielberg, and his rather 'broad stroked' 'white hat/black hat approach to 'good guys vs bad guys'. In fact, I was a bit of a film snob back then, who much preferred the indie scene to Hollywood.
TBH, it sort of holds true in "SL", even after this viewing. The way Neeson's portrayal (at the direction of Stephen) creates this really LOUD "Good Time Charlie" vision of Schindler, and transversely, Ralph Fiennes portrayal of Goethe is broadly sadistic.
However, on this viewing, somethings kept nagging at me: the relationship between those two, as well as the fact Schindler was basically an arms dealer. The way human life was valued strictly in dollar terms by everyone, including Jewish helpers at the ghetto's and the camps. Especially Schindler and Goethe, who really had a financial partnership. They made all their money on the backs of slave labor, so? Up until the final reel, wherein Schindler 'spends' much of his fortune saving lives, many of the gestures beforehand struck me as? Well, self serving. The only character who seemed exempt from this corruption was Ben Kingsley's character, and the few dozen peripheral victims in the film.
To sum up? This viewing was more rewarding for me, because I allowed myself to go into the 'grey areas' of the tale, the subtext. I believe Spielberg was aware of it, put it in 'nuance', and continued with his strength of 'bold stroking'.
I'm glad I watched it again. I think it was on Netflix.
As an afterthought? there are some historical inaccuracies, like? Schindler certainly didn't die broke, etc. He didn't actually 'sit down, and one by one make a list', etc. But the nuts and bolts of it are true.
One: I'm terminally fascinated about how an exceptional Western Society could become an 'horrific nightmare of Biblical proportions' in ten years time. Anyone doesn't think so, doesn't understand how Berlin, 1920's, was certainly one of the most forward leaning artistic cultures of the 20th Century. UFA Films, Fritz Lang, Murnau, Kurt Weill, Emil Jannings, Marlene, Thomas Mann? There's a serious argument to be made it was the cultural 'epicenter' of the Western World. "Pandora's Box", anyone? (Even the films under Goebbels were artistically sound. Leni Riefenstahl's two films, about the Nazi's and the Olympics, while taboo today? Are "Kubrickian" in their stunning technical imagery.) The 'nightmare part' needs no explanation.
...which leads me to number two: We've kind of heard it all before for the last 70 years, right? Handled in Ricky Gervais's brilliant "Extra's" series, listen to Kate Winslet mock the whole thing
All that said, I made it through the three hour film in between last night and this morning.
I have to say? I was more affected by the film this viewing than either of the first two. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a good film with a worthwhile story, and it probably 'teary eyed' me in the theater. I just wasn't a huge fan of Spielberg, and his rather 'broad stroked' 'white hat/black hat approach to 'good guys vs bad guys'. In fact, I was a bit of a film snob back then, who much preferred the indie scene to Hollywood.
TBH, it sort of holds true in "SL", even after this viewing. The way Neeson's portrayal (at the direction of Stephen) creates this really LOUD "Good Time Charlie" vision of Schindler, and transversely, Ralph Fiennes portrayal of Goethe is broadly sadistic.
However, on this viewing, somethings kept nagging at me: the relationship between those two, as well as the fact Schindler was basically an arms dealer. The way human life was valued strictly in dollar terms by everyone, including Jewish helpers at the ghetto's and the camps. Especially Schindler and Goethe, who really had a financial partnership. They made all their money on the backs of slave labor, so? Up until the final reel, wherein Schindler 'spends' much of his fortune saving lives, many of the gestures beforehand struck me as? Well, self serving. The only character who seemed exempt from this corruption was Ben Kingsley's character, and the few dozen peripheral victims in the film.
To sum up? This viewing was more rewarding for me, because I allowed myself to go into the 'grey areas' of the tale, the subtext. I believe Spielberg was aware of it, put it in 'nuance', and continued with his strength of 'bold stroking'.
I'm glad I watched it again. I think it was on Netflix.
As an afterthought? there are some historical inaccuracies, like? Schindler certainly didn't die broke, etc. He didn't actually 'sit down, and one by one make a list', etc. But the nuts and bolts of it are true.
