Morons who won't see good films

I think we’re talking past each other here. First, being armed and wearing a uniform doesn’t make someone a caricature of evil by any stretch of the imagination. You can depict someone carrying out evil policies (ie, shouting “JUDEN VERBOTEN!”) without resorting to caricature, too.

If you can’t recognize Fienne’s performance as Goeth as telegraphic, I can’t help you. It had two notes, a twitchy psychotic routine that looked like a lampoon of Peter Lorre, and a ridiculously overstated cold dispassion that bordered on robotic. That in itself was cartoonish, but not enough for Spielberg. No, he had to use directed lighting effects to highlight Goeth’s Rasputin-like gaze in every other scene, and any number of other melodramatic devices.

Yes there is: realistically. When you translate everything into movie shorthand, that’s when you minimize the horrors of the Third Reich. When you use the same techniques and cues that tell the audience that “The Empire” is bad, and “The Rebels” are good, you reduce history (and the personal horrors of millions) to something rather thin.

One of the most effective shots in The Pianist shows an old man dancing for a couple of Nazi soldiers in Warsaw ghetto. It has the frankness of an anecdote, and the banal (almost documentary) realism of it is what makes it so profounding horrifying and heartbreaking. The old man’s desperation is palpable. The soldiers are clearly having a good time. They are enjoying a moment of amusement and relaxation. Just an ordinary break from their routine. They are not shown as leering sadists. They’re just… soldiers. Their pleasure is as ordinary as yours or mine. Whatever defect of character allows them to be so free and easy, so light-hearted, when they are in the middle of (and actively participating in the creation of) such an incomprehensible amount of totally senseless human suffering, is a mystery. Whatever their fault was, it was so commonplace that most German citizens weren’t even capable of recognizing it. It may be comforting to say “The Nazis were inhuman,” but we mustn’t ever forget that, on an individual level, Nazis were ordinary human beings, who somehow went along with something so unspeakably inhuman that it’s hard to examine it closely without becoming physically ill. How is this possible? Could something similar happen again? The realistically depicted Nazis in The Pianist are far more horrifying than Spielberg’s cartoon Nazis, because they don’t seem so unlikely. There’s no insulating feeling that it all happened long ago and far away. The people on both sides are real people, just like us.

Germany didn’t just spawn a generation of monsters. There wasn’t something in the water that bred sociopaths. Nationalism and xenophobia somehow got so far out of hand that something unspeakable happened, and the people responsible for carrying it out regarded it as perfectly rational.

It really is important to remember that the most evil person you’ll ever meet isn’t necessarily going to come across with a Freddy Kreuger vibe. When a movie has pretensions to be a historical document (Spielberg has made free copies of the film available to every high school in the U.S., right?) then it’s downright irresponsible to simplify things to the point of White Hats and Black Hats. This is why Schindler’s List is a good popcorn flick but not much more.

No argument, the Third Reich is the most outstanding example of capital E Evil in modern history. If the lesson we learn from it is that groups of people who do evil do it because they are fundamentally inhuman, and recognizable as such at twenty paces, then we’re looking in the wrong lesson book. Big time.

Henry James was an absolutely brilliant writer, but I’d rather chew up a big ball of tin foil than read another of his novels. I feel the same way about Fellini’s films. Does that make me a fool?

Why is everyone so hot to make a distinction between the two? From Aristotle to Wallace Stevens, there’s a long line of Great Thinkers[sup]TM[/sup] who argue that to be great, art must be both entertaining and educational. The really great films are the nexus points at which art films and popular cinema intersect, as someone said earlier about Pulp Fiction; Casablanca is another that springs to mind. (I’d also make a case for There’s Something About Mary, but that’s probably a hijack for another thread sometime.)

And on preview, I agree with everything Larry Mudd said.

Bingo. Satan was “the most beautiful of the angels.” The danger of Satan isn’t that he’s a roaring, horned beast who jumps out of the shadows and grabs you; Satan’s the guy who comes across like your best friend, subtly helping you rationalize your way into evil. (I’m atheist, but there’s some undeniably powerful and wise material in the Bible.)

Because jacklope, you miss the point, there is no distinction. There is only a evolutionary directive and subsequent reward.

And as for you Larry Mudd, excellent point. But the scene in * The Pianist* with the old Jew dancing a jig was overdone. Even Nazi soldiers would not have “typically” confronted convention by instigating the abominable dance of the old jewish man while other people watched. These atypical dramatic scenes in movies serve to demonize and seperate the atrosities commited by humankind from the more subtle inhumanities commited by average people too much like you and me.

Notwithstanding your excellent point.

Ha! I guess that goes some ways toward showing that plausibility is a pretty relative quality.

I scratch my head when a friend of mine says that she’s a fan of a certain daytime drama because she’s enthralled by some of the actors (by their acting, I checked!) In a way, I’m a little envious of her naïveté. It must really broaden her capacity to be effected by movies, if she can buy stuff like that as credible.

I guess I should be glad I can elicit a similar response once in a while. :smiley:

Wallace Stevens seems like the worst possible example here. I don’t think he believed poetry was… or SHOULD BE… educational. He was caught up in the essential gaudiness of poetry, poetry for poetry’s sake, and wrote entire verses that were jests… interesting images, intersting sounds. I think of Stevens as somewhat similar to Nabokov in his aesthetic enterprise… he loved art for art’s sake, he was an aesthete. I have to scratch my head in amazement that you would pick Stevens here, but it does intrigue me.

Educatonal doesn’t strike me as the right word, anyway. Many artists might believe their work is “important” or “enlightening”, but “instructive”? That makes me think more of disposable novels that use some esoteric field or place as an “angle.” The stamp collector is found dead in his den, and on the way to the solution of the crime, the hamfisted author will instruct us on the art of philatelistry or whatever its called. Educational sounds didactic, something most people consider a crime among artists.

Having read the non-fiction book Schindler’s List, I can tell you the Kommandant was pretty much as portrayed in the movie. It is unfortunate he wasn’t more lackadaisical in his tyranny, so that future cinematic portrayals would have versimilitude and appease those artistic gourmets that want nothing but staid villains or else. The scene with Oskar at the end was also described by the harsher critics as overdone. Again, it was also true. Life isn’t always realistic. I meet people all the time that are caricatures. The Japanese sushi chef who made my dinner was a caricature, but there he was, in flesh and blood, being Japanese, making sushi. Reality is written by a hack.

Upon reflection, it was really the goddamned survivors who ruined the movie. It was really poor form to be held in a concentration camp by a man as ruthless as their concentration camp kommandant. Knowing that future films would be made, they should have requested relocation to a camp mastered by a Mr Rogers type fellow who plays with puppets and wears sweaters and only occasionally participates in genocide. A quiet, unassuming monster. Theirs would have been a classier movie that way. It was unpoetic and selfish of them to stay in the camp commanded by a historically certifiable lunatic.

What is with all the Spielberg hate? I guess it’s en vogue to bash Schindler’s List for some reason, as this isn’t the only place i’ve seen it. I think some of it has to do with people being upset he wasn’t more vocal of his opposition to the Nazi regeim, but since that would just make the movie 5 seconds long as he is immediatly shot, boo hoo. Despite the Nazis being a horrible government, the whole situation was not entirely black and white, and you should stop judging the movie entirely on your feelings towards the Nazis in general.
That said, i find the movie okay, but not great. It was good in that it raised awareness of things that went on, and probably helped people come to terms. It had it’s hack parts, but doesn’t deserve the scorn people in this thread are showing it.

Entirely possible. I was at work and in a hurry as I wrote, and Stevens’s essay on “The Supreme Fiction” leapt to mind. Well, actually it was Hugh Kenner’s essay on Stevens’s essay I was thinking of. The defining idea that I picked up from it was that the Supreme Fiction should be enlightening (I think that’s a better term than “educational” in the context of art), but also entertaining.

Checking what I wrote, I can see why you made that connection. I wasn’t being clear, though. Of course OS wasn’t a flawless hero. What I was trying to say that when faced with complex matter, Spielberg resorts to Hollywood formula. I don’t know if this is on purpose (because he thinks that he needs to make it clear cut and simple, i.e. trivializing the subject) or because he’s not able to portray something deeper.
Your description of Nazis, with their uniforms, rethorics, genocide programs ASF doesn’t answer why? in any way. Unless you can prove that Germans have some genetical defect, I’ll say that being of German stock and belonging to the Nazi party, wearing a black or grey uniform and toting a gun, is in no way the answer as to why these autrocities were made. Seeing what’s happened the last 25 years in former Yugoslavia, parts of Africa, Myanmar, Cambodia, not to mention the whole evil empire that was USSR, we have no way of explaining the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.
And that evil doesn’t always come across as a ‘monster’ in black uniform and high leather boots.

I don’t hate him. I enjoy his moviemaking, as long as he sticks to what he does best. He’s a master of toying with the emotions of the audience, often portraying things in a very sentimental way, and I can enjoy that. It’s just that when he tries his hands as something more difficult, he comes across as less than subtle. For me, every time he’s tried to do something more serious, it’s been a failure. Since this has happened very single time, my conclusion is that he’s not capable of dealing with more serious subjects.
And then, connecting back to the OP, holding up one of those movies as important film making, is very strange, because all Spielberg ever manages to do, is fluff.

A point I don’t think has been made yet is that some people pretty much dislike movies, period.

Personally I find it too controlling to submit to someone else’s choices in what I should look at and hear and experience for hours on end. Where’s the room for my own mind to interact with the input? The camera all too frequently insists on following that person off in that direction, while I was much more intrigued by the brief glimpse of some minor character and want to follow his story instead. Which isn’t a problem – I have an imagination, I can work out a personally satisfying continuation of the story that does interest me – except those damn images that suited someone elses tastes and interests are still blaring into my eyes and disrupting my thoughts. they yank me back to that story, killing my own ideas, for a short while, and then I escape down some other by way.

Or maybe I enjoyed the setting more than the characters, period, and I want to learn more about the socioeconomics of this strange town – and instead that is ignored, so they can show me two boring-to-me characters share drinks and thoughts that I don’t find interesting…

Yes, I have the same trouble with television shows frequently.

I prefer books. When something sparks off my own train of thought, I can lower the book and develop my own ideas as long as I please, while the book/author waits patiently.

Now, I know most of you are thinking, fine, let her read books instead, no skin off my nose…but the truth is that this society demands you have a certain degree of familiarity with movies (and their close relatives, tv shows) and judges you to be an oddball if you don’t have it. You are expected to have seen the latest blockbuster and that hit series and be able to discuss them on coffee breaks, and if you haven’t, then you face questioning with a definite degree of condemnation in it.

I thank god I have some friends who still accept me despite this weirdness, and who help me out by thoroughly spoiling the movies for me. This lets me fake my way through most of the movie discussions I get trapped in.

Why is certainly an important and fair question, but I don’t think anyone has yet found that answer, so I think you’re being hard on Spielberg for not answering a question that has eluded our best philosophers and political scientists. That Spielberg was able to depict “what” happened should be more than enough to garner praise for his work.

And I’m sorry that my posts were too harsh.

You say “oddball” like it’s a bad thing! :smiley:

Hey, don’t sweat it. It’s a subject that’s close to the bone, it’s only natural that we should feel strongly about our opinions.

For my part, I can see where you’re coming from, and understand why someone might consider the commentary against Schindler’s List as overcritical. I really comes down to the different yardsticks we use to measure the quality of a film.

Personally, I think melodrama cheapens a movie, and place a high value on realism and credibility. I recognize that it’s a subjective value, too. So Spielberg was faced with the task of conveying what kind of man Goeth was. There are many different approaches he could of taken. How do you really put something like that across, when you know that you’ve only got people’s butts in those seats for a mere three hours, and the man is only a part of the story?

A survivor’s first-hand account of the man famously summed it up as “When you saw Amon Goeth, you saw Death.” This has an undeniable emotional truth, and it’s tempting to literalize it when you work in a visual medium. You can’t show everything he did in a documentary fashion. There’s not even time enough to show all the murders he committed by his own hand, much less those that were carried on his orders. How do you go about emphasising how much worse he was than what you have time to show? One path you can take is to show a fraction of his crimes, never showing him in anything less than full-throttle Monster mode, and use the usual filmic techniques to say, “This guy is bad. Really bad.” Yeah, this method offends my tastes. I get that a more naturalistic approach offends your tastes, because it seems that showing anything apart from how evil he was seems beside the point to you. Different tastes.

The techniques that Spielberg used in Schindler’s List seem (to me) similar to those used in The Deliberate Stranger. Every time Bundy is on screen, the filmmaker uses creepy music or worse, the infamous “startle chord” when his victim looks up and sees the smiling stranger approaching her in the parking lot. It works for people who take it at face value: The director is telling me something scary is happening. For other people, it makes the scene into a farce. Of course, Spielberg’s Schindler is much better art than The Deliberate Stranger, which has very little in the way of redeeming qualities. The Deliberate Stranger is almost pure schlock, while Schindler’s List has a lot going for it, and there are only a few elements which seem (to some, myself included,) to be unfortunate flaws in an otherwise fine film. Just a matter of taste.

For what it’s worth, I know for certain that there are plenty of things that I regard as “sublime art,” which some people are quick to condemn as “bad taste.” Of course, that’s because they’re a bunch of ignorami. :wink:

I try not to reply to OPS when I’m really irritated, but heck, it’s the pit so I’m gonna. Let me see if I can type this calmly:

It’s Friday night. I’ve had a long stressful week. I’ve rushed home, fed the kids and now I’m going to plug in a movie on the VCR and veg out. Should I

  1. See something to make me laugh, relax, or maybe a nice romantic chick flick, or,

  2. See something that will make me cry, get me depressed or horriffy or scare me and ruin my weekend?

I’d pick (1) every single time. I know that a war movie or a violent movie or a sad movie or a horror movie will mess with my emotions for days. I won’t sleep well. I’ll have flash backs. How do I know this–I’ve tried them. It’s a lot like food–I’ve tried olives often enough to KNOW that I don’t like them. I accept that they are good food, nutritious food. But I don’t LIKE them. And I don’t need to try one more to know that.

Now, maybe you can see something about the holocaust or about mass murder or the occult or aliens and then say to yourself “good movie, good special effects, plenty to think about” and go about your normal life the next day. I can’t. You have chosen one extreme way of looking at this–you fling about a hostile judgement–I’m a wuss and have no taste in movies. At the other extreme, one could say that YOU are shallow and unfeeling and able to turn your emotions on and off with a switch.

Alternatively, we avoid both of these extremes and accept that people do know what they want to see and that their friends and family should give them credit for knowing what they want. They are under absolutely no obligation to explain anything to you.

Oh, and of the movies you list, the only one I’ve seen is The Great Escape. I had nightmares for weeks about getting trapped in the tunnel. I get shakey even thinking about it now. NO THANK YOU. Where do you get off mandating what anyone should see in order to avoid being labeled a moron?

So, in conclusion, F*ck you and the horse you rode in on. I’m not going to watch a movie that will bum me out for you or anybody else and I don’t give a hoot whehter it’s a “good” movie or not.

I can’t find the direct quote, but if I’m not mistaken, Hitchcock was asked a question during the 60’s or early 70’s about why he didn’t make movies that were more realistic. I’ll paraphrase from a 20 year old memory (and imagine Hitch’s voice):
A housewife, who spends her days washin up, doing laundry, cleaning the house and taking care of three kids with runny noses has found a baby sitter for Saturday evening and goes to the cinema with her husband. Do you really think she wants to see a picture with ‘a housewife, who spends her days washin up, doing laundry, cleaning the house and taking care of three kids with runny noses’?

Depends on what you think a “good film” is. Schindler’s List is a must see for me ~ but I haven’t seen it yet. Being of the Jewish faith, I’ve reserved this movie for a strong time in my life in the company of an empathetic mate. I expect that since I was born in 1971, this movie will change my life and my views of the world. I just can’t rent it as a “must see”. I have to be ready.

The only other movies I’ve seen in your list is Silence of the Lambs (Incredible. Worth reading the book also) and Pulp Fiction. I have to tell you the first time I saw PF, I wasn’t impressed. I was FORCED to see it again and at this point, I could appreciate SOME artistic talent.

I do intend to see Bowling For Columbine; as for the other movies you listed, I can take 'em or leave 'em.

Sorry if I’m going too “Café” on you guys, but there are two movies which I highly reccomend. Goodfellas which I’ve seen 71 times. This movie is marvellously layered in analogies and lessons and humour. Every time I watch it, I see something new. Secondly, Natural Born Killers. That’s one FUCKED up movie… but deep as shit. Both get into the modern mind and way of thinking and make you recognise how fucked up we think.

seventy one times? Jesus christ man. No pun intended, I guess. :smiley:

I think you’re putting way too much stock in Schindler’s List. Pick up Shoah and Night and Fog.

[QUOTE=Mach Tuck]
So I have this goat out back, and I’m training it to force-felch anyone I point at. QUOTE]
so am I the only one here whos wondering HOW hes training that goat?

you are one sick twisted freak!