Showing posts with label Schindler's List. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schindler's List. Show all posts

Saturday, November 30, 2013

An Important Movie



"Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."

Talmud

In reality, there probably was no one who would have seemed less likely to be a hero before World War II than Oskar Schindler.

He was a German businessman and Nazi Party member, greedy, arrogant, a womanizer who lived an opulent life in Poland away from his wife in Germany. At first, he hired Jews to work in his factory because, with their wages set by the Nazis, they cost him less than Poles. That evolved, with the assistance of his accountant (Ben Kingsley), into Schindler's unrestricted use of his factory to protect an estimated 1,100 Jews from deportation and probable death.

It took nearly half a century for Schindler's story to be brought to the big screen. Appropriately, it was Steven Spielberg, perhaps the most popular filmmaker of his time, who told the story to a mostly ignorant world. Many people will tell you it is the greatest movie ever made. The American Film Institute didn't go quite that far. I'm not sure if I would go that far, but I would certainly rank it in the Top 10. It ranked "Schindler's List" eighth on its Top 100 list.

Schindler (played by Liam Neeson in the movie) was AFI's 13th–greatest movie hero — and Amon Goeth (played by Ralph Fiennes) was AFI's 14th–most villainous villain (the highest–ranking nonfiction villain on that list).

And, in the 20 years since its initial theatrical release on this day in 1993, "Schindler's List" has been used countless times as a classroom learning tool.

When you look back at Spielberg's career, you can see certain patterns in his work, as you can with just about any great director, I suppose.

In "Schindler's List," you can see a technique to which Spielberg would return a few years later when he made "Saving Private Ryan" — the vivid re–creation of a harrowing wartime event. In "Ryan," it was the re–creation of D–Day. In "Schindler," it was the liquidation of the Kraków ghetto.

Both scenes were lengthy — and painful to watch but necessary for the viewer to get a taste of what the participants must have experienced. Spielberg himself remarked that he felt more like a reporter than a filmmaker when he made "Schindler's List," as if he had been witnessing the actual events, not re–creating them for a movie.

By the time "Ryan" hit the theaters, you could see how much Spielberg's technique had matured. It was still in its infancy when he made "Schindler's List," but, even so, it packed a punch.

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say "Schindler's List" may well be the most important movie made in my lifetime. I guess it has almost become a cliche for someone to say that a movie project in which he or she was involved was important, but it really does fit "Schindler's List."

The interaction between Schindler and his accountant was one of the things I found especially remarkable.

Under far less extreme circumstances, it was the kind of partnership that usually succeeds in the business world. Schindler was the big–picture guy; Itzhak Stern was the nuts–and–bolts guy, the details guy. Both brought skills to the enterprise that were essential to its success.

But, in the intense atmosphere of the Holocaust, success and failure were entirely different.

I already admired Ben Kingsley's work. A decade earlier, he starred in a movie that really was an important movie, "Gandhi."

Until "Schindler's List," though, I didn't have the same kind of admiration for Liam Neeson. He had been in several movies by this time — I even saw him in one or two — and I was favorably impressed, but I didn't think of him as an important actor until I saw "Schindler's List."

After I saw his scene late in the movie where he spoke of how many more lives he could have saved if he had sold his watch or his car, he became an important actor in my eyes.

I remember the first time I watched "Schindler's List" on TV. It was shown with no commercial interruptions — on NBC, I think, and sponsored by the Ford Motor Company. As I recall, Spielberg spoke at the start of the movie and at the end. In one of those segments, he said that he had been asked if he would permit his children to watch "Schindler's List." He said he wanted all of his children to watch it when they were ready.

That was the kind of thing, Spielberg admitted, that each parent had to decide because children mature at different rates, but he said that, as a general rule of thumb, he wouldn't let young children watch it. But a child in junior high or high school probably could understand the material and ask thoughtful questions after the movie was over. Young children might be traumatized.

I thought that was a reasonable — as well as responsible — thing for him to say.

Consequently, I was astonished the next day when a lawmaker from Oklahoma complained about the nudity in "Schindler's List," and accused Spielberg, NBC and Ford of acting irresponsibly. I wondered if the lawmaker even bothered to watch the telecast. If he had, I thought, he might have realized that the Nazis used nudity as a weapon against the Jews, not as a means of their own arousal. It was an example of the Nazis' cruelty.

Truly, some people can't see the forest for the trees.

There was another element of "Schindler's List" that is worth discussing. I speak of the little girl in the red coat. In real life, she must have stood out in the crowd just as she did in the movie — made almost entirely in black and white — if the little girl ever really existed.

My understanding is that the girl in the red coat was fictional, that she was symbolic of how high–ranking officials in democratic countries like the United States did nothing to prevent the Holocaust even though they were aware of it like "a little girl wearing a red coat, walking down the street."

In fact, though, there was a little girl in a red coat in the Kraków ghetto, and for a time it was thought that the girl in "Schindler's List" either was inspired by her or was a minor dramatization of her story. Her name was Roma Ligocka, and she was remembered by many who were there for that red coat she wore.

In the movie, the girl in the red coat apparently died. I say "apparently" because the camera does not show her actual death, but it does show her limp body, identifiable only by that coat. It was a powerful moment in the movie, and it marked the beginning of Schindler's personal transformation.

But Ligocka did not die in the Holocaust. She survived and lives today in Munich. She is Roman Polanski's cousin.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Finding a Needle in a Stack of Needles



"It's like finding a needle in a stack of needles."

Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks)

There are certain scenes in certain movies that just stand out in one's memory. Quite often, it seems, those scenes occur in war movies.

For example, if "The Deer Hunter" is mentioned, the scene that probably leaps to mind is one of the Russian roulette scenes — which I still think were the most intense, most riveting scenes I have ever watched. Or if you're talking about "Apocalypse Now," the scene you may be most likely to recall is the one where Robert Duvall says, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

Such a scene — a lengthy one — occurred in "Saving Private Ryan," the Steven Spielberg flick that was showing on America's movie screens 15 years ago today.

I'm speaking of the re–creation of the invasion of Normandy, probably the most realistic depiction of modern war ever filmed. The chaos of the battlefield is evident for more than 20 agonizing minutes. You can almost smell the smoke — and the blood. There certainly is enough of it, but it became part of the landscape — as it probably does in real battles. And when the camera took us under water, there was almost a sense of relief that we had nothing to fear — until we saw bullets ripping through the water around us.

Every time I have seen it, I have felt the urge to look away — but I can't. It is gruesome, yet compelling — like a car accident or a train wreck or something similar we are powerless to prevent and incapable of not watching.

It's that kind of perverse fascination — and yet, a Spielberg movie is so much more intellectually satisfying. Watching the invasion of Normandy at the start of "Saving Private Ryan" is not merely some kind of a guilty pleasure or display of special effects prowess. It is an essential part of the story.

But the landing at Omaha Beach really was only the beginning of the story of "Saving Private Ryan."

The war never really went away, and Spielberg did not shrink from showing it in all its brutality and ugliness. As I say, it was something that had to be told in the context of the larger story. When Spielberg made "Schindler's List," it wasn't necessary to show the violence, only to hint at it most of the time. "Saving Private Ryan" was a different kind of story.

Only those who deny the Holocaust do not know — or say they don't — the extent of the cruelty inflicted on so many. I suppose no one really denies that D–Day happened. Far too many men fought in it, and far too many men died in it.

Yet in the midst of all that gloom, there were some shining moments.

After the D–Day battle was over, it was discovered that three brothers had been killed, their mother was about to be notified of all three deaths at the same time, and a fourth brother, who had parachuted far behind enemy lines, was unaccounted for. He might not have survived the jump, or he might have been killed in action. No one knew.

But the decision was made that a squadron would be sent to look for him and, if possible, return him to his grieving mother. She had sacrificed enough. Thus began an improbable quest — to locate that surviving brother, Private Ryan (Matt Damon). Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks) was dispatched with a squad to retrieve the soldier, a mission he compared to "finding a needle in a stack of needles."

Enthusiasm for the mission was relatively high at first, but then when the close–knit unit started losing men, some began to question the mission's validity.
Capt. Miller: He better be worth it. He better go home and cure a disease or invent a longer–lasting light bulb.


I thought "Saving Private Ryan" was a cinematic masterpiece with truly gut–wrenching scenes of combat that gave a realistic depiction of war and a genuinely moving finale. In the buildup to that finale, a dying Capt. Miller told Private Ryan to "earn this" opportunity he had been given to live.

I remember thinking, as I watched "Saving Private Ryan" the first time, how different that portrayal of combat was from the sanitized, gung–ho version my friends and I saw in the John Wayne movies of my childhood and tried to emulate in our games. Surely, this was a more honest representation of warfare, one that young people might respect — even in an age of dazzling special effects.

The same could be said of the ending, in which the now–retired Private Ryan visited the cemetery where Miller was buried. Recalling Miller's final words to him as he stood before Miller's grave, Ryan asked his wife to "[t]ell me I've lived a good life. Tell me I'm a good man."

He sought reassurance that Miller's sacrifice had not been in vain. He needed to know he had earned it.

He may not have cured a disease or invented a longer–lasting light bulb, but if he could believe he had lived up to Miller's expectations, it would all be worth it.

It was the most eloquent example of personal commitment and dedication I have ever seen.

Spielberg received — and deserved — the Oscar for Best Director, but "Saving Private Ryan" lost Best Picture to "Shakespeare in Love." That was sort of a split decision for me.

Many years ago, I remember pulling for "All That Jazz" to win Best Picture because I thought it was the most creative of the nominees. It wound up losing to what I felt was the most realistic portrayal of a common life experience — "Kramer vs. Kramer."

A couple of decades later, I found myself pulling for "Saving Private Ryan," which I believed was the most honest depiction of combat yet committed to film, but it lost to a movie that I thought was arguably the most creative nominee.

Ironic, huh?