Spielberg and the 6 Million

[Bonnie Surfus (ENG)]

On Tue, 11 Jun 1996 LBernier at tribune.com wrote:

> 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)
> 

I agree.  Some transformation must have occurred.  If nothing else points 
this out, we can look to the fact that Schindler ended up penniless (yes, 
you could say, bad investments, I suppose) because he ended up pouring 
his money into the works.  And he NEVER made profits on the mittelwerke.  
In fact, he took his $ to buy the black market goods he "produced" for 
the Nazis.  This info, I take from the British documentary (award 
winning), SCHINDLER.  Listen to the survivors speak of Schindler in that 
film.  See if they care aobut his original motivations.
> > 
> >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?
I think it was explored in SL.  What we see in SL is that it is a FINE 
LINE for one individual to consider/cross.  Think about your own work, 
tenure-hunting, salary-negotiating.  How much of your/our motivation to 
"enlighten" is NOT inspired by AT LEAST SOME monetary consideration?
> >
> >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."
By the way, not to blow my own horn as I never am sure if it's a good 
idea or not, I ALWAYS show NIGHT AND FOG as an introduction to the 
Holocaust unit.  It usually ends with little or no discussion.  I let 
students leave.  We discuss it next time we meet.  And the 
overwhelming chorus sounds: "we never knew."  > 
> 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.
> Of course, it's hard not to, but in this case, I tend to agree.
> 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.
> 
> this "bigger issue" might be one to discuss--we have, in the past.  It 
seems a worthwhile endeavor: explore the relationships between 
"historical knowledge" and the willingness, or lack thereof, of students 
to investigate it.  Usually, once they catch wind of anything smacking of 
conspiracy, they are intrigued.  And all the English majors become 
History majors and my work is done.

Bonnie > > >