Schindler's List, 1993 - DVD

There are times in my life that I'm ashamed of being human. I mean as a definition, seeing as how it puts me in the same species as some.

Lately, I haven't been a Spielberg fan. I haven't enjoyed his movies. Catch Me If You Can, Minority Report, A.I. Artifial Intelligence, The Lost World... I haven't seen Amistad, and I can tolerate Saving Private Ryan, to a point... but those four films are not the Spielberg I know and love. His earlier films are some of the greatest achievements in film history, and I won't go through the list.

This is a very difficult film to critique. I mean, what are you going to say that hasn't either been said or would go against a film that won seven Oscars, made over $300 million dollars worldwide and is about the Holocaust?

Ok, well, I'll give it a shot.

Not being a Spielberg fan (lately) has gotten me into a lot of debates. Some online, some off. In my review of AI I went and made a very angry list of the films Spielberg has made, with the possible how's and why's, all my own opinion of course. And then I did some research and found out I was wrong on more than a few points.

Here's what I had to say about List:

Schindler's List. Another pinnacle sell-out movie. Sure, it's a good film. Sure, it's about the HOLOCAUST. I mean, come on, who isn't going to like this movie. It would be bad of you not to like it. It's based on a novel, like a lot of his previous work (safe, adaptations are safe, because your demographic (the readers) are already intelligent enough to have read the book, or know about the book, or will read the book once the movie's over).

It's the second production that Spielberg uses camera genius Janusz Kaminski. Now, I love this guys work. I think he's a god behind the camera, and he's the main reason that List looks so goddamn good. But, this is not a Spielberg movie, as much as it's a Spielberg production.

Producer Spielberg - I know, I know! We'll make it in black and white! Just like Scorsese did in Raging Bull, except, you know, this won't be about boxing!

Producer Kathleen Kennedy - I don't know Steven. People don't really like black and white films, now-a-days.

Spielberg - Trust me. This movie is about a time and place where people associate it with black and white television. It's a perfect thing, this "Holocaust", to capitalize on.

Now, you know that was something that was running through their minds. I don't remember hearing anything about the money this movie made going to holocaust survivors. I don't remember anything like that. And if money did go, the only reason is because it was 'expected'.

Do I regret saying some of those things? Well, read on.

Do I think this is a sell-out movie? When I wrote that review, it was after watching one of the worst films I've ever seen in my life, and man was I pissed. I can't remember why I was pissed... I think it was because I wasted a beautiful afternoon watching a movie that was just an awful waste of time. Kubrick would never have let something like that go...

I wrote that review because I was tired of all the Spielberg defenders out there. I wasn't doing it to go against the grain, I was just speaking up. So, keep that in mind when you read that review, because it is HARSH, in the strictest sense of the word. Steven, if you're reading this... well, contact me, we'll talk.

So, sell out movie. Spielberg, one of the most influential people in Hollywood, decides to steer away from making action, adventure and sci-fi movies to a movie about the Holocaust. You have to admit, some bells and whistles went off in my head when I heard that one. Why? What was the purpose? Was he tired of his usual fare? Did he want to do a film that had more meaning than just entertaining?

Ok, I can understand that. But once you get to a certain point in Hollywood, you have to do things to keep yourself there. That's just nature, so don't fight me on that one. Spielberg has a knack for chosing projects, it's true. I mean, that 'knack' could be defined as making sure, marketing wise, that the film will not fail. His name is attached. He gets another name to star in the film. He makes sure that the films effects are cutting edge. He makes sure that the story is easy to swallow.

All of those things are marketing. They're not chosen to ultimately entertain, they're to ensure the investors don't lose their money.

With List... the film had a budget of $25 million dollars, which is very small for a Spielberg production. That reads, to me, the film was personal. The film doesn't have special effects in it, but it has some incredible locations, extras and photography, all of which were deserving of special attention.

There are some wonderful Spielberg moments in this film, both with humor and plain old horror. He's able to formulate some serious tension in this film, which is to his credit. I think that someone who just used the script as a blueprint instead of a template would not have achieved as remarkable a film as this.

I was very impressed with his work on this film. More impressed than I have been with him in a long time. And it wasn't until after I saw the movie, again, that I found out that Spielberg did not take a salary on this film, siting that it would be 'blood money'. For that, he's gained about a million respect points from me, and changed around my entire take on the film as a sell-out film. It's funny, what happens when you find out the story behind a film. When you don't know, strange things pop into your head. And for what reason?

In addition to him not taking any salary, "all royalties and residuals from this film that would normally have gone to Spielberg instead are given to the Shoah Foundation, which records and preserves written and videotaped testimonies of Holocaust survivors." (from IMDB.com). This, too, was a perfect gesture, maintaining his pure standards on this project.

Saying that the picture was 'safe'... well, I agree with that, kind of. People aren't going to say bad things about this film because of the subject matter. They will appear insensitive or they're an Aryan... one of the two. Adaptations, as a rule, are safe to make. If the book has done well, and the subject matter is good for a large demographic, then chances are, with the right cast and director, the film will make money. We've seen it happen a large number of times over the past ten years.

I don't think anyone could have written such a story and have it be so affecting. Based on the real life experiences of Oskar Schindler, Spielberg and Sid Sheinberg (who originally purchased the rights of the book) could not have picked a better personality to bring to the screen. The story is heart wrenching, uplifting, frightening. With the real experiences of a man who was not only there, but who did so much to help... you cannot fault the film on the premise, alone.

The subject matter... you know, there's a saying in screenwriting. "You can make a bad movie from a good script, but you can't make a good movie from a bad script." Now, would it be possible, if this film was crap, to have a bad movie made from this script, and it still be good because of the subject matter? It's a hypothetical question, but I think it's a valid one.

What makes this film special? is not a good question. What makes this film unique? is a much better question.

First off, the two main characters in the film. Schindler and Stern. I don't consider Amon Goeth one of the main characters because his character is incidental. He could be any one of the Nazi's. Any one of the carbon copies could have taken his place. That's not to say that Fiennes didn't do an excellent job, but I'll get to him later.

Neeson and Kingsley are two incredible actors. You've seen their movies, I don't have to go into a resume. But they weren't superstars by any stretch of the imagination. They were names, certainly. Kingsley is most recognizable. Neeson, prior to this film, had been in only a few mainstream films. Who they were able to portray were people they would have wanted to be... and I think that made the transition into character not only easy but seamless.

There isn't a moment when either of them are on the screen that we do not feel empathy or sympathy or any other kind of -athy. We can see the bond growing between them, and the growth of the human spirit in Schindler throughout the film. It's strong, remarkably strong, and it propels us through the violence and the tragedy that we know is going to be coming around the corner at any moment.

Fiennes plays an incredible roll in this film as the disaffected German. He's without emotion most of the time, and you can still see his thought processes and frustrations churning as he does his job without remorse. He is incredible in this roll, and I don't think that Tommy Lee Jones's portraying in The Fugitive was worth winning for.

I can't say the same about Liam Neeson not winning against Tom Hanks... that was a tough call. How Kingsley wasn't nominated I don't know.

When I mentioned that this wasn't so much a Spielberg film as it was a Spielberg production... I was wrong there. I admit it. After watching the film again (and it's been a great many years since I've watched this film in its entirety), this is a genuine Spielberg film. The last I've seen, but none the less genuine.

Ok, I'm being cynical, it's true. But I don't have much faith in him at the moment. Let's hope he gets on the right path again.

When I mentioned that it was a production and not a film of his, I used Janusz Kaminski as an example of why this film looks so good. Kaminski is a genius behind the camera, and was well deserving of the Oscar for cinematography. His use of lighting in this film is some of the most beautiful I've seen. You have to wonder what films he watched to get a strong feel for the lights and darks of the scenes. Shooting in black and white provides too many problems when it comes to lighting a scene.

One of those problems was worked on by production designer Allan Starski who, matched with Kaminski, helped bring this picture to life. I think they are both chiefly responsible for how well this film looks. He took home the Oscar for this film (shared with Ewa Braun) but, for some reason, never worked with Spielberg again. Strange. It seem he only works in Europe, looking at his list of credits.

This is a great movie with a wonderful message. Is it meant to educate? On a moral level, definitely. On any other level, I don't think so. I think that if people are going to learn about the tragedy of the Jews in Europe at that time, they should do so from the original sources. History books in the US tend to gloss over things, but I'm certain there are comprehensive books out there that detail (unfortunately) the horrors of the time.

This film should be taken for what it is. A documentation (loose) of a man who saved the lives of over 1,000 people. It should be seen as how one person can change the world.