Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Schindler's List

Everyone says its a masterpiece but I've never liked Schindler's List. Terry Gilliam comes close to explaining some of what bothers me about the film below:





19 comments:

Alan Glynn said...

Schindler's Ark was a legitimate story for Spielberg to tell, but still, Gilliam is absolutely right. The problem is best illustrated by the gas chamber scene. When has a gas chamber scene ever been so horrifically and realistically (and, up to a point, bravely) represented on screen? But what happens? Only in Spielberg world. The first twenty minutes of the movie, though, Schindler worming his way into the Nazi orbit, almost no dialogue, are superb.

adrian mckinty said...

Alan

I think its Primo Levi who says somewhere that he is incapable of telling the story of Auschwitz because his is the story of a survivor when the real story is the story of those who arrived and were immediately killed.

I just finished a novel by Vasily Grossman called Life and Fate which has an extraordinary series of chapters following a diverse group of Russian Jewish characters who end up in a cattle car together going west. It ends with them arriving at a death camp where everyone of them is unceremoniously murdered.

John McFetridge said...

Yeah, he's right, but all he's really saying is that Kubrick and Speilberg were both products of their times (and "Eyes Wide Shut" is a comedy, isn't it, some kind of parody but I just didn't get the jokes, right?).

I just read an interview with Spielberg in which he points out that "Close Encounters" is about a man who abandons his family and how no studio would approve that script today. Because Gilliam is right, movie studios today feel their job is to comfort and lightly entertain. And really, they always did.

Hollywood studios answer to financiers so their movies are a pretty good way to see what Wall street thinks of the audience. If the audience had rejected "Schindler's List" studios would have made different movies.

adrian mckinty said...

John

I've heard Spielberg say that same thing about Close Encounters but he doesnt blame the studios he says that he wouldn't have written that story that way now because he thinks its unfair of Richard Dreyfus to abandon his family like that. To me that's a bit like George Lucas "fixing" Star Wars to have Han Solo shoot second in the fight in the Cantina. What makes Dreyfus interesting is his monomania, what makes Han Solo interesting is that he's actually a bit of a cad who'll shoot a guy in the back or under a table.

I think there was a good film in Eyes Wide Shut but you can't blame Kubrick for the unlikely and ultimately disastrous fact that Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise had zero sexual chemistry together.

seana said...

I like some films--and books-- where they wrap it up all neatly, and some films where they don't. It really depends more on whether you trust the authority and intention of the director or author, doesn't it? I mean kids making films often have weird enigmatic endings, but you're never really sure if they just wanted to do something cool, or whether there is some actual thought behind it. I'm not really willing to do that thinking that Gilliam talks about unless I'm pretty sure that there is a mind behind the work that's interesting enough to do that for. I was pretty young when 2001 came out, but I think adults too at that point took the ending as slightly mystifying and wrote it off, being much more engaged with HAL. Didn't it become more intriguing as Kubrick became more recognized?

I doubt I've ever seen Schindler's list straight through. But I don't think the story of one person's tiny but successful attempts in the face of overwhelming failure is a bad story to tell. It isn't the story of the Holocaust, but of one individual's decision in the face of evil. I don't think we can really have too many examples of individual heroic resistance, since they are so few and far between.

Matt said...

Mordecai Richler wrote an article called "Why I Hate Schindler's List" maybe fifteen years ago? Can't seem to find it online though.

Dana King said...

I get Gilliam's point and don't disagree with it, though I don't agree completely. You're right in saying the truest Auschwitz story is that of a person who arrives at the camp and is immediately dispatched, but that's not the whole story, either.

Gilliam is absolutely correct about the failure of civilization, but here I think David Simon has the best take on SCHINDLER'S LIST, even though he addressed it via THE WIRE. The system--whatever it is--will not save you. Those who are saved will be saved through the actions of individuals. Whether it's Cutty and his boxing school or Bunny Colvin and Namond Brice or Oskar Schindler and his "employees," victories are most likely to be achieved one at a time.

Anonymous said...

Hold on a minute, Gilliam.

Despite the fact that the story is true or at least based on historical events, this isn't the "right" story to tell?

I might be able to see his point (but probably not even then) if Spielberg and co. had created this fictional universe where some Jews are saved by Schindler, but that's not the case here.

What's so wrong about telling a story where good, albeit in a relatively small way, overcomes unspeakable evil?

Gilliam's fighting the hypo, if you ask me.

-Brian O

adrian mckinty said...

Seana

I like that idea about authority. I think you're on to something. I suspect that it also helped that Arthur C Clarke cowrote the script - one of the smartest of the scifi writers of the golden age.

adrian mckinty said...

Matt

I had a quick look and I can't find it either.

adrian mckinty said...

Dana, Brian,

I don't disagree with your points, but I will say that it was Spielberg himself who said that he wanted to and did make a film about the holocaust. Spielberg calls S.L. a holocaust movie when it isn't.

I also HATE the fact that everyone speaks English with fake German accents. I think that that's an artistic calamity. Even in films like the Longest Day and the Battle of the Britain they had the Germans speaking German not Ve Haf Vays of Making You Talk German.

Peter Rozovsky said...

I've never seen the movie, but I've always felt a bit uneasy about a feel-good movie -- you know, one that "Everyone says [is] a masterpiece -- about the Holocaust.

Primo Levi, on the other hand, because he wrote on such an intimate scale, comes close to being able to encompass the incommensurable in a work of art. ======================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://www.detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/

Rob James said...

Firstly, I absolutely *heart* Gilliam and have done since I was very young but I find his argument a bit trite and a bit pretentious: Spielberg isn't as good because he ties everything up neatly. Film makers who force you to think are therefore better.

Rubbish. There is room for both types and to claim one is better than another is absolute bobbins.

Kubrick is a better film maker than Spielberg. Miles better but I know that I would rather watch Close Encounters or Indiana Jones (not part 4) again than 2001 or Barry Lyndon.

I agree with Brian about Schindler's List;Its a true story that Spielberg waited years to direct. I think he even offered it to Billy Wilder at one point.

adrian mckinty said...

Rob

I'd rather watch Barry Lyndon but thats neither here nor there.

I think there's two points here:

1. Spielberg calls SL a holocuast film so I think its legitimate to ask if its a successful holocaust film? I think Gilliam's right to point out that it isnt a holocaust film because SL is a success story whereas the holocaust was the triumph of human evil and was not a story of success.

2. Does Schindler's List work as a piece of art regardless of its provenance or what the director thought he was trying to do? Again I don't think it does at all. I think the tone is wrong, the humour is forced, the silly accents are distracting, I don't think Liam Neeson is very convincing at all, I think the music is intrusive, the sentimentality is overwhelming and invasive, etc. For me as a work of art it fails on almost every level. (I thought Ralph Fiennes was good and I liked the cinematography).

adrian mckinty said...

Peter

The problem with Primo Levi is that he is too acute as an observer. It's actually painful to read Levi.

Peter Rozovsky said...

The problem with Primo Levi is that he is too acute as an observer. It's actually painful to read Levi

Some of the details of the interactions between the camp inmates are almost unbearable.

Rob James said...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the film, rather attacking the snobby attitude of Gilliam and others.

Surely the response of the people depicted in the film is more important than that of critics in deciding whether the film is a 'Holocaust film' or not. (BTW, 'Holocaust Film' is an ugly, ugly phrase).

Kid said...

Thanks for sharing that -- an extremely fascinating video. Gilliam is so wise. Unfortunately, I don't really like his work :S

Anonymous said...

The review by Mordecai Richler seems to have been published under the name "Mordecai Michler" ... here are the specs:
Cambridge Public Library
Results for Advanced Search Publication Title ("Saturday Night") And
Date (1994-06-01) And Issue Number ("5") And Volume Number (109)
Title: Schindler's List
Author(s): Mordecai Michler
Source: Saturday Night. 109.5 (June 1994): p34.
Document Type: Movie review