The judgment of the master Director was unforgiving. “Schindler’s list” was “the story of a triumph,” said Stanley Kubrick a few years before his death. “In the Holocaust, but six million people died.” Kubrick had plans for a Holocaust Film, Steven Spielberg beat him to it.
After the success of “Schindler’s list” saw Kubrick for a Film no need any more. He was wrong: Spielberg’s Film was the cornerstone of a separate “Holocaust Genres”, as critics called the increasing cinematic dramatizations of the European destruction of the Jews disparagingly. “Schindler’s list” has been influenced by the images in discourse about the Holocaust much.
The moral positions seem, 25 years after the German cinema historically. What is a new Thinking makes them no less important. The Hungarian Nobel laureate in literature, Imre Kertész, a Survivor of the Shoah, described Spielberg’s Film as a “Kitsch”. In his Essay “Who owns Auschwitz?” he said in 2001, that the mere figure established the crimes of the Jews as “something of human nature Foreign”. You try to banish the Holocaust “from the realm of human experience”. A similar Tenor Claude Lanzmann was wrong, had completed ten years earlier, his life’s work, “Shoah”: “fiction is a Transgression.” There were things that were said in the presentation.
Scolded for dramatic Gimmicks
The cinema is less sensitive in dealing with Holocaust-pictures, what is not least in the change of our visual culture. Roberto Benignis “life is beautiful”, tried it in 1999 tragi-Comedy, Polanski “The Pianist” (2002), biographically, László Nemes with “Son of Saul” (2015) is radically subjective. And always, there was reason for skepticism.
“Schindler’s list” has significantly contributed to our view is the Non-representable jaded. The infamous shower scene irritated even 25 years later, still in their dramaturgical perfidy: A group of naked women into the showers of Auschwitz concentration camp, the camera faces only stealthy in the supposed gas chamber, is then very close to it. However, as the shower heads open, the air flows out of them – only water.
For such a dramatic Gimmicks Spielberg has been to Olten right speed, for sure he would shoot this scene today. But she is now entered in film history. As well as the often tried to contrast of good and evil German: Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler, Nazi profiteer, rescuer of Jews, and Ralph Fiennes as the sadistic SS commandant Amon Göth (a true character) who shoots for fun from the balcony to the prisoners.
mostly a Film about the German
many of the scenes in “Schindler’s list”, give the accusations against Spielberg still valid today. The Jewish protagonists, even Schindler’s accountant Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley), are slaughter cattle, without Action. An anonymous mass. A little girl stands by her red cloak from the corpse mountains, in a tasteful Black-and-White. “Schindler’s list” is, above all, a Film about the German, not the victims.
More about
third party programs Holocaust “show” A fraction of the generations
Markus Lücker
So much for ethical criticism. At the same time, can overestimate the social importance of “Schindler’s list”. 15 years after the series, “Holocaust,” told Spielberg to a new Generation of the ultimate crime against humanity. Its video interviews with Jewish contemporary witnesses are now in the archive of the Shoah Foundation. 51 000 certificates, an Oral History of the Holocaust. Spielberg may be a naive filmmaker, but he proved far-sighted: “‘Schindler’s list’,” he said in 2013, ” I am confirmed in the Belief that movies can make a difference. The people must remain for the images only receptive.“
