Spielberg and the 6 Million

[davemarc]

At 05:30 PM 6/11/96 +0100, you wrote:
>LBernier at tribune.com writes:
>
>>         The only redeeming virtue of Schindler's List--which, afterall,     
>>         glorified a businessman who utilized slave labor and soft-pedaled   
>>         the horror chambers of Auschwitz--was Y. Perlman's haunting score,  
>>         IM--humble--O.
>
>>   So, would it have been better if Schindler had been a flawless man who 
>>   chose not to utilize slave labor, and all those people had died?  This is 
>>   not a black & white issue.  Do not judge it as such.
>
>Note, Steely is accusing Spielberg (of `glorifying' Schindler), not
>Schindler. Kennealy managed not to `glorify' Schindler - and that's
>one of the best features of the book, the way it presents his frailty,
>his selfishness, the tarnish to his magnanimity. I have not seen the
>film (no intention of doing so) but judging by previous output I doubt
>SS's version was capable of presenting such subtle and ambivalent
>truths. 

Maybe you ought to give the film a try, then.  Although I dislike many of
Spielberg's films, I think that he did a good-enough job with *Schindler's
List*.  It shows a lot of promise, in fact.  And, as far as I know, Keneally
found it satisfactory too.

>He is indeed no Leni Riefenstahl. Whoever said Nature abhors a
>vacuum was clearly unacquainted with SS's oeuvre.

Are you suggesting that Riefenstahl presented "subtle and ambivalent
truths"?  That her film work, which consisted primarily of acting in
"mountain movies" and making propaganda films glorifying the Nazi regime, is
less vacuous than that of Spielberg?  

davemarc