I’d agree that, most of the time, all Spielberg is doing is making popular entertainment, but I’d argue pretty strongly that it wasn’t his primary goal with Schindler’s List. A goal, sure, but he wasn’t thinking “Hey! I wanna make a bazillion bucks! Let’s slap together this story about an anti-Nazi Nazi! People love that shit!” Holocaust movies weren’t really a cottage industry at the time SL was made (and, for better or for worse, SL is probably one of the reasons that they became a bit of one).
Just because it made money doesn’t mean it didn’t have a worthwhile story to tell, and it was a story that hadn’t been told before and that is pretty deserving of remembrance.
It’s been said before, but again: How do you properly convey the deaths of six million people? How do you give that enough “weight,” when it is in fact the context of the story you’re telling, and not the exact center of the story itself? How do you not make if feel cheap and tacked on? Elie Wiesel focused almost entirely on his personal story in Night. Did he fail? Was he being selfish?
Missed edit window in continuing respose to Martiju:
I don’t disagree, but the thing is, I think we have to acknowledge that it isn’t portrayed in anything like a complete fashion, in the context of six million people deliberately murdered. Such an easy figure to rattle off, but to sit down and seriously think about it – probably more people than I’ll ever know in my life – makes me gasp for air, or maybe puts me in danger of having my head explode as Jester says above. But that’s what such an enormity demands, if you can see what I mean. It demands to throw me off kilter, not just shock or anger or inspire me, but to make me say “whoah” and start to question just what the hell kind of species are we – including myself – that such things would ever happen?
'Course not, and I don’t really mean to be anti-Spielberg, SL is obviously a good movie. (Also, I confess that I haven’t seen Night.) But I guess I mean to point out that movies have some unavoidable constraints, such that even when Spielberg isn’t out to make a bazillion bucks he still adheres – necessarily, because he’s a good filmmaker – to certain conventions that would distort our understanding of events if the films were viewed in a vacuum. And our cultural context is such that I fear that’s just the way they are viewed, if you know what I mean.
On that one, we’re definitely in agreement. SL is in no way the be-all, end-all of Holocaust film. Instead, I see it as just part of a tapestry; it tells a compelling and effective story that, stitched together with other, different compelling and effective stories, begins to give us some feasible way into the enormity of what an event like the Holocaust truly is (rather than, as you say, rattling off numbers). The head-spinning enormity of it is only going to come across when we see the head-spinning number of truly personal, disparate stories that emerged from it.
Oo, is that the one with the gal who was The World’s Stupidest Paleontologist? The one who cautions about not interfering and blah blah responsible scientist babble until she sees Da Liddle Baby Dinos and starts touching them and getting dino blood on her and all that? I wanted to hit her.
Sorry to interrupt this holocaust thread with a petty rant against a well liked movie :dubious:
I don’t have a cite handy, but I remember hearing that this was an homage to the original Fugitive TV program where David Janssen always seemed to easily get a ride whenever needed.
I wouldn’t say that Sean the psychologist was more unhinged than Will. Far from it. He might have had issues about connecting with people after his wife’s death, but he was articulate, well-educated, and law-abiding. Will was out of control; the only reason he was coerced into therapy in the first place was that he was facing jail time for assaulting a police officer.
Also, I don’t think the message was that manual labor was demeaning for a smart person. If you remember, Sean spent much of the film trying to talk Gerald, Will’s mentor, out of forcing Will into a think tank before he was ready. The movie was trying to say that it was wrong for Will to settle for manual labor without making a careful, well-thought-out decision which he was incapable of doing because of his psychological issues. Will wasn’t doing manual labor because he liked it; he was simply afraid to try anything else.
The virtue of manual labor aside, Will is wasting his time on that construction site. Chucky says as much to him at the end of the movie, and Chucky’s the best friend Will ever had. Sean might have used some powers of persuasion to make Will see the light, but come on! No one could force Will to do anything he didn’t want to do. Hell, in the end, Will didn’t even take the job in the think tank. He went off to re-connect with Skylar, which is probably the first brave independent decision he ever made.
I loved Good Will Hunting, and my complaint has nothing to do with the story. It’s the casting. Robin Williams playing a Southie who can bench 285 and manhandle Matt Damon? Riiiiiight. The guy didn’t even have a Boston accent.
Yup! She makes this whole speech about how they can’t even toss cigarette butts on the ground (fair enough), and then not a moment later, she’s up close, taking pictures of the baby steg, stroking it, and then after the adults attack, she doesn’t even have the good grace to look ashamed.
And yeah, she walked around for hours in a bloody vest in dino country. Stupid!
And at one point, she lectures Ian Malcolm for coming to rescue her because it’s not necessary, not at all.
The only person in that movie I had the slightest bit of respect for was Roland Tembo, the big game hunter.
I had a different problem with that scene. It showed that the toys were voluntarily acting like toys and could “break the rules” if they chose and reveal themselves to people.
So why did Buzz, who didn’t admit he was a toy, follow the toy rules? He thought he was a regular person so why didn’t he act like a regular person? It would have been in character for him to talk to Andy and say “Hello, giant alien, my name is Buzz Lightyear and I’ve come to your planet to meet your leaders.”
Maybe a “The Holocaust in Cinema” or “The Holocaust and Art” thread should be started by lissener or Alessan or someone else. I’m curious, have either of you seen The Grey Zone and what did you think of it?
My minor rant about Toy Story 2 – and it’s really a minor rant, as I love the film overall – is that none of the Cowboy Woody toys in the Comic Book Guy’s Apartment (aside from the actual doll figures) is sentient, like the other toys in the movie. They’re the only toys that are “frozen” in toy form. So when Woody knocks out the teeth in the Giant Woody Head with the beanbags, it’s just an inanimate head. And so is the Snake in His Boot.
Maybe they thought it would be Just Too Creepy if those toys were aline, as well. Not to mention complicating the interactions between StinkyPete, Jessie, and the Horse
I’d be interested in reading that. Also, perhaps a thread about Speilberg as a self-hating Jew, since that’s kind of interesting, even though I don’t really see it at all.
I never thought about that, Cal, but you’re right.
My conclusion? The other toys weren’t alive because Toy Barn Al murdered them. He was a toy necromancer who planned on sacrificing Woody, Jessie, Stinky Pete, and Bullseye in a ceremony during the next full moon.
I can’t understand why the Pixar people won’t return my phone calls.
Seeing as how the actual judge refused to sequester Sheppard’s jury, did not order them to ignore media reports, and on the first day of trial said, “Well, he’s guilty as hell. There’s no question about it,” I was OK with that part.
Why the Chicago Police thought he was a cop killer, when several people on the subway witnessed that he was not, was more irritating.
Actually, I was being sincere there. This movie didn’t minimize the Holocaust, it told the story of one small group of Jews and the NAZI who defied expectations. It is not meant to convey the whole of the Holocaust in itself. Frankly, I don’t understand your views at all.
That’s certainly a valid opinion about the reality of the circumstances and the what the movie should have been. But Speilberg didn’t agree.
That’s an interesting interpretation, though not the one they intended. They intended to say that she chose to be ugly, and Shrek loved her anyway. But it didn’t come off that way to me, either.
Well, it is that easy when you have a Death Star. Also, the lack of notice is a concession to the size of the Galaxy. Communications are not instantaneous.
Obviously, T-rex tip-toed.
They actually show the aliens in Close Encounters? How did I miss that?