If you’re serious here–although your tone is dismissive and sarcastic, so I suspect not–but if you are, I should point out that the reason *SL *is a denier’s Holocaust movie is precisely *because *“some Jews live.” The movie minimizes the Holocaust, and reduces it to about the level of “Well THAT’S not so bad” that deniers attempt to reduce the Holocaust to. But again, I’m sure you got that and were just being sarcastic.
The real tragedy of *SL *is that it’s simply the horrific context of his actions that make Schindler seem heroic, when he was only heroic by default: he was merely decent. But in a vacuum of decency, one man’s simple, everyday decency *plays *like heroism. The most important part of the story of Oskar Schindler is NOT what he did, but the fact that no one else was doing it. That’s the horror of his story, and Spielberg relegates it to the background; uses it to deify Schindler, rather than directly condemning it as the real point of the story.
YMMV–probably does, in fact; I’m aware of how critic-proof this movie is. I don’t expect to *convince *anyone to agree with me; I’m just trying to explain my own reaction to this movie.
For a show that was sooooooo supposed to be about getting past superficalness and look at the beauty inside…they make short jokes.
I’ve given up even bringing up this complaint when Shrek comes up and people are singing its praises. They just look at you and dismiss your opinion. Sort of like - well of course short people should be made fun of…
That’s ridiculous. I can analyze Spielberg as an artist, but only if I agree that his religion is off-limits? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
Then be surprised. Search this forum for evidence that most people call it an anti-war film. Let alone the anecdotal conversations I’ve had with dozens of people IRL who believe this.
You’ve obviously never read any of my other posts in this forum. You jump to an extreme misconception based on the discussion of only one movie.
Anymore, you’re probably right. But those preconceptions–my conception of Spielberg as an artist–were formed by watching Schindler’s List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan–his “serious” films–without such preconceptions, and only forming such conclusions as a result of analyzing my reaction to these moves.
I’m not say it’s his “fault,” and of course it’s because he’s grown up in a culture inundated with such images. I just mention it as further evidence of his artistic unawareness, to make up a word I think.
What bugged me most about Shrek is that, for all it’s about the insignificance of exterior appearances, the ugly guy still didn’t get a pretty girl: she had to be uglied down to his level before they could be together.
It doesn’t seem to bother Marty much that his whole existence has been altered upon returning to 1985. Fine, he was somewhat less satisfied in his previous reality but it was HIS damn it!
Now that’s rich. Isn’t the common stereotype of the homophobe that he’s a closeted homosexual? Or I guess it’s simply not possible to describe Roy Cohn and J. Edgar Hoover as “homophobes”, regardless of how many people they attacked on the basis of alleged homosexuality. Otherwise, heavens to Betsy, those fragile gay egos will be all a flutter as you’ve attacked one of their own. Do I have your world view down about right, there?
Not that I really wanna try and throw my hat into this Spielberg argument I do wanna mention that it’s interesting to hear the argument that Spielberg made the movie as a “Self hating” Jew, when he is just re-hashing a true story.
If the story was made up (and/or written and chosen by him) than that might make some sense. But overall I don’t think you can analyze his views on his own Jewishness and any love or hate he might have therein on a story that is true.
No, Lissener. It’s up to *us *to decide whether one of ours is an anti-semite. You mind your own business.
In oyther words, he made the movie he wanted to make instead of the movie you think he should have made. Any point of view other than yours is wrong (why am I not surprised?). Gotcha.
As I said above, to a Jew, the survivors’ tales are the whole point of a Holocaust story. We know how horrible it was. What we need to see is how we came through it. You seem unable to understand this.
It always pissed me off that Lester got mad at his wife for worrying about getting, (was it champagne?), on her couch. “IT’S JUST A COUCH!” he argued. This is mere minutes after learning that he had just bought a 1970 Pontiac Firebird. :rolleyes:
When I saw it a few years ago, I thought that **Thelma & Louise **was going to have “feminist” undertones. I remember I really didn’t feel like seeing it at the time because I had just watched a bunch of movies and a few TV shows that, (I felt), had been quite harsh on men. My girlfriend at the time insisted that I watch it.
At the end of the movie I was stunned. I hated it, and thought it was indeed sexist… towards women. It was just one irrational decision after another. I explained to my girlfriend in detail why I felt this way, and she was pissed that I “ruined her favorite movie”, because she understood and agreed with my argument.
I don’t know what the message was supposed to be, so I’m not sure this fits in the thread
I feel a bit odd learning this late in life that the Holocaust is an exclusively Jewish story and none but Jews have the right to comment on it. I kinda thought it was a story that one could approach from the standpoint of, I dunno, general humanity perhaps. And you Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals and social deviants, y’all be quiet and mind your own business, y’hear?
**Lissener **- well, that’s a relief. Listening to you is hardly my idea of fun, either.
**Koxinga **- My point was that Spielbergs’ is a legitimate point of view, not that it is the sole legitimate point of view. There are lots of stories that can be told about the Holocaust. SL is merely one of them.
Is there some kind of rule that Jewish filmmakers can’t include Christ figures in their films? Or only a certain number? Because Christ like figures seem like they’re just a part of literary/cinematic history and culture. Including one doesn’t mean that you endorse Jesus, but rather that the idea of the misunderstood but ultimately good innocent who sacrifices himself for a humanity that doesn’t grok him is just a big part of our books and movies.
I’m not Jewish, but I once saw a documentary about a young Jewish man who changed his name and joined a neo-Nazi group. They showed an interview with him in an SS uniform, snapping off Heil Hitlers, and parroting the racial philosophies of National Socialism.
I just find it odd–and perhaps revealing–that ALL of Spielberg’s serious films are Christ stories. And it shows up in his less serious films too (cf. ET).
a scene near the end of the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers has always bugged me. Kevin McCarthy’s character leaves Dana Wynter’s character to investigate the sound of human singing. He cautions her not to fall asleep. When he finds (to his horror) that it’s just a radio, and that nearby “converted” people are loading more of the pods into trucks to ship to the rest of the country, he hurries back to her. As he takes her head in his hands, he realizes that she fell asleep, and she’s now “one of them.”
But, wait – you don’t turn into a Pod Person just by falling asleep – you have to fall asleep near a Pod that has copied you, as was shown earlier in the film – more than once. There wasn’t time for a Pod to have grown while he was away (even assuming that one was close by). So she shouldn’t have changed. I’m sure they did this for the SHOCK value, but it’s a pretty serious inconsistency in the story. It jerks me out of the movie every time I see it, and I feel betrayed – Hey! You changed the Rules on me! That’s not Fair!
When they remade the film for the first time, in 1978, they avoided this inconsistency, but they introduced another (and Mad magazine pointed it out in their parody of it). The initial plants in that film fall to Earth as light, airy puffballs, like milkweed seeds, and so end up undetected in flower pots and gardens. But later on in the film, the plants have to use big, clumsy pods instead. Howcum? I understand that they couldn’t show those ungainly, non-aerodynamic pods falling from the sky (SPLAT!). Even Donald Sutherland would notice that. But, again, it’s a gross inconsistentcy. You can handwave all you want, but it sits in the back of your mind like a toothache as you watch the rest of the film.
