Watching the news from Kosovo, we are again reminded that
human beings can sink to the lowest levels of depravity. We
are also reminded of the sad fact that people in general
tend not to learn anything from history, nor do they know
how to apply that knowledge properly. As a result, the last
decade of this sad century, with the tragic events in former
Yugoslavia, Caucasus or Central Africa, looks like nothing
has changed, that the mankind is again in danger to be
sucked into another vicious cycle of ethnic, religious and
racial hatred. The only comfort is in the fact that the
intolerance never managed to reach the levels of Holocaust.
Holocaust is the word most often associated with the World
War Two. It was also the word that became almost universal
synonym with the worst evil imaginable. Events like the
Holocaust happened before, and, sadly, it would probably
happen again, but the scope, magnitude and utter
irrationality of the event is something quite unique. It
shocked the contemporaries, who had been used to much lower
standards of human conducts than us, and it still baffles
many historians, philosophers, psychologists and other
scholars. Holocaust also inspired numerous works of art.
Among those works of art, Hollywood also gave its
contribution, which shouldn't surprise anyone due to the
strength and influence of Jewish lobby within American
motion picture industry. SCHINDLER'S LIST, "Oscar"-awarded
1993 film by Steven Spielberg, may not be the best among
them, but it is definitely the best known.
The film is based on the book by Thomas Keneally, which
described the fascinating true story about Oskar Schindler,
one of the more unusual and perhaps a little bit brighter
episodes in that darkest chapter of world history. The film
begins in 1939, after the conquest of Poland by German army.
That country becomes anything but happy place for local
Jews, who are forced to abandon their careers, property and
homes and live in overcrowded ghettos, experiencing hunger,
disease and utmost poverty. Their situation is an excellent
opportunity for Oskar Schindler (played by Liam Neeson),
small-time German businessman from Sudeten region of former
Czechoslovakia. He comes to Krakow and buys local factory
with the money he had borrowed by local Jews, who got raw
deal in the process. He employs local Jews as the cheapest
labour force available, and begins making large amounts of
money. He actually doesn't run the factory - his trusted
Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) is doing all
the work - and instead spends all his free time drinking and
womanising. But, things are about to change when the Final
Solution starts showing its final and ugly face. When SS
units, led by sadistic Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) begin with
pogroms, Schindler is at first worried about the loss of his
labour force. But gradually, he begins worrying less about
the money and more about people he is going to save.
Unlike most of the other stories that inspired filmmakers,
story of SCHINDLER'S LIST is an excellent opportunity for
all those who want to have a broader perspective of the
Holocaust, perspective that transcends simple formulas and
simple explanations. First of all, screenplay of book by
Thomas Keneally and screenplay by Steve Zaillian are evading
some popular myths. First of all, Holocaust, although
ignited by Nazism, wasn't some unexplainable aberration that
came to Europe out of blue; it was a nothing more than a
case of old anti-semitism driven to extreme; and it wasn't
uniquely Nazi nor German. Second, as some newer examples may
show, pure irrational hatred wasn't the sole motive -
Holocaust was fine opportunity for many shady characters to
fill their pocket. Protagonist of this film, who at
beginning, wants to bleed Jews dry of their money, is a fine
illustration of that, often overlooked, economic aspect of
the Holocaust. What happened to Jews in WW2 Europe was
heinous crime, but it was also good business for those who
knew to use opportunity.
Perhaps that was the greatest quality of SCHINDLER'S LIST.
It evades black-and-white characterisation and gives us a
protagonist who is hardly example of virtue. His motives, as
well as his moral alignment, gradually changes through time.
At first he is nothing more than war profiteer - probably
the slimiest category of all people we might see during the
armed conflict. But in the same time, Liam Neeson portrays
him with irresistible charm - the charm of the same
magnitude that saved thousands of innocent people and
brightened Schindler's reputation among critical historians.
As movie gradually progresses, and Schindler transforms into
good Samaritan, we are still left with the mystery - why did
that character change. But, in the end, it didn't matter
much to the people he had saved and who would always be
grateful to him.
The movie doesn't have just a complex protagonist, it has
similarly complex and, in a perverse way, seductive villain.
Amon Goeth, played by British actor Ralph Fiennes, is in a
way similar, but very different than Schindler. He is a
sadistic thug, who is seduced by the enormous power given to
him by the specific historical circumstances. This movie,
like many other, actually tries to explain his villainy by
indicating that sadistic and murderous behaviour was
motivated by his ulterior weakness. For some, this might
look oversimplification of Nazi psychology, but Fiennes, who
gained 13 kilograms just for the purpose of this role, plays
Goeth as twisted version of Schindler. Like him, Goeth is a
hedonist who likes women, alcohol and money, and even has
certain charisma of evil, but whenever we are ready to
forgive him, he shows again his ultimate dark side. Fiennes
was really incredible in this role, and even managed to
outshine Neeson.
Actors were, however, outshined by director. Steven
Spielberg made this film partially for personal reason,
trying to finally come to grips with his own Jewish
heritage. But it was also opportunity for him to improve his
reputation of film artist, much tarnished with commercially
successful, but artistically disappointing JURASSIC PARK.
And that opportunity was exploited in almost every regard.
Spielberg made film different from everything he had ever
made and very few people would recognise his style. First of
all, he used black and white photography by Janusz Kaminski,
which was good choice. Most people associate Holocaust with
black and white photographs, and by being monochromatic,
SCHINDLER'S LIST became more realistic and thus more
powerful. Another thing that distinguishes SCHINDLER'S LIST
from previous Spielberg's work is the use of steadycams and
constant movement of cameras that also provided more realism
and brought viewer right in the middle of the story.
Finally, unlike in all of his earlier films, Spielberg felt
unrestricted with his reputation of family entertainer -
SCHINDLER'S LIST contains scenes of unimaginable atrocities,
random violence and graphic bloodshed, as well as foul
language and nudity. Considering the subject matter, such
elements were necessary and many critics argued that
Spielberg, by refusing to compromise on them, actually
matured into real cinema artist.
Unfortunately, Spielberg might have been able to defeat
self-censorship, but he wasn't able to defeat himself. There
is a very small, but significant difference between very
good films and true masterpieces. For almost all of its 197
minutes SCHINDLER'S LIST looks like it belongs in the latter
category. But at the very end, Spielberg the Artist
surrenders to Spielberg the Entertainer and we are exposed
to the now infamous speech by Liam Neeson, speech that
revealed Spielberg as unable to resist the urge to fill this
film with cheap and unecessary sentimentality. Without that
speech, SCHINDLER'S LIST would have been one of the greatest
films of all times.
However, even with such flaw, SCHINDLER'S LIST is a very
good film, probably one of the best in 1990s. Perhaps it
didn't stand the test of time, perhaps it won't be as
immemorable as some had predicted. It also probably isn't
the ultimate film of the Holocaust (SHOAH was, in the humble
opinion of this author better; and Benigni's LIFE IS
BEAUTIFUL was at least equally good). It also probably did
very little to educate modern generations of the historical
evils (it was reported that skinheads in some German cinemas
actually cheered during the scenes involving massacres of
Jews), and the world probably isn't the better place because
of this film. But, nevertheless, it is very good piece of
cinema and those who are ready to spend three hours in front
of the screen would be rewarded with powerful,
thought-provoking piece of seventh art.
Copyright © 1999 Dragan Antulov