Spielberg and the 6 Million
LBernier at tribune.com
LBernier at tribune.com
Tue Jun 11 15:10:41 CDT 1996
Steely replies:
>Jean at the Tribune chastizes me:
>
>> 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.
>
>Pardon the pun, but it was Spielberg who made Schindler and S's List a black-
>and-white issue. And Schindler _is_ portrayed as a nearly flawless man, indeed
>the film is almost a hagiography of the good German, the humane capitalist
>with a conscience, the great father figure who has redeemed himself for
>previous infanticidal fantasies.
And Andrew Dinn also speaks:
> 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. He is indeed no Leni Riefenstahl. Whoever
> said Nature abhors a vacuum was clearly unacquainted with SS's
> oeuvre.
You know, this was not the reading I had of the film. I'm not going to
argue that Spielberg is a shameless and not-so-subtle manipulator - I mean,
this is the man who had the (already red) Georgia dirt painted red for "The
Color Purple" because he thought it wasn't red ENOUGH - but - I did not
find the portrayal of Schindler to be "nearly flawless." My impression was
that Schindler felt an ambivalence towards these people, which is only
transformed when he gets to know them as individuals. And my assumption (I
have not read the book) is that there must have been some transformation of
his character in real life, because in the end, he was taking a risk.
Correct me if I'm wrong on that (and I'm sure you shall)
Steely goes on:
>This is fairy tale theater and (now that Steve has done everything in his
>considerable power to make sure his film is considered the definitive
>statement on the Holocaust) does a grave disservice to those he said he sought
>to honor. A great con artist like Spielberg could never be caught critizing
>the links between capitalism and genocide, could he?
>
>Go to the Spielberg wing of the Holocaust museum, where there are interactive
>computer games on the Holocaust, its like a virtual theme park of the Weimar
>and Third Reich. Just pick up the mouse and you too can try to sneak past the
>drunken SS officer and over the fence at Mauthausen. If you succeed, it's on
>to Sobibor and then Bergen-Belsen. C'mon, learning about genocide can be FUN!
>
Again, I'd agree that Steve SEEMS a bit disingenous on his motives.
One can't help but think "Hey, he finally got his elusive Oscar." But the
man said it was a sincere effort, and he did bring knowledge of the
holocaust to a lot of people who have never heard, nor will ever hear, of
"Night & Fog."
There are kids in this country who think that the holocaust is a myth, for
god's sake. The methods given above, are, absolutely, no question, crass.
Yes, someone, somewhere is making a buck on the holocaust. Capitalism is
not pretty. BUT, if someone, somewhere, gains just a tiny amount of
enlightment, is it all in vain? And do you claim to know ABSOLUTELY that
Spielberg was not sincere in his reasons for making this film? Or in
setting up the interactive computer games and what have you? Don't confuse
method with motive.
I suppose the bigger issue would be why it is necessary to stoop to such
methods to get your average kid to learn something about history. At least
we haven't made a water ballet out of it yet.
Jean.
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list