THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES #11. Schindler’s List (1993)

 

“Schindler’s List” was released in 1993 and immediately took a position among the great movies of any genre.  It was produced and directed by Steven Spielberg.  Modestly, he tried to convince Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, and Billy Wilder to direct the pic, but for various reasons they turned him down.  Spielberg refused to make any “blood money” for the film.  The movie is based on the novel Schindler’s Ark by Thomas Keneally.  Keneally was inspired to write the book by one of the Schindlerjuden (“Schlinder Jews”).  The movie was shot on location in Krakow, Poland.  The scenes at Auschwitz used a replica outside the camp because Spielberg was refused permission to film in the camp.  The film won numerous awards.  It was awarded Oscars for Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, and Original Score.  Liam Neeson was nominated for Best Actor and Ralph Fiennes for Best Supporting Actor.  It was the most expensive black and white film made up to then (topping “The Longest Day”).  It had been 33 years since a black and white movie had won Best Picture (“The Apartment”).  It is #8 on AFIs latest list of greatest American motion pictures.

The movie opens with words telling us that after the fall of Poland, Jews were ordered to register and relocate to major cities.  Krakow was one of those cities.  Oskar Schindler (Neeson) strolls into the film nattily dressed and exuding confidence.  He goes to a night club and schmoozes some local Nazis.  He is a playa and a free-spender. Schindler meets a Jewish accountant named Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley).  Schindler proposes a scheme where wealthy Jewish men will invest in a factory making war supplies.  Stern will run the firm and Schindler will be the front man.  He wants to make money.  At first Stern is repulsed by Schindler and turns him down, but soon he has an unexplained change of heart and the company is up and running.  Jews working in the factory are saved from going to a concentration camp.

Schindler gradually develops a conscience and attempts to help the head of the camp get one.  SS-Lieutenant Amon Goeth enjoys sniping Jews from his balcony overlooking the camp. The movie has several memorable scenes. The Nazi clearing of the Krakow ghetto focuses on a little girl in a red coat (the only color in the film). The scene is horrific. Later, Schindler tries to help Jews crowded in box cars. Schindler opens a new factory. The “list” refers to the workers he employs making (defective) war supplies. Many of the women make an unexpected trip to Auschwitz.

        

ACTING:   A +               

ACTION:   N/N

ACCURACY: N/A      

PLOT:  A               

REALISM:   B

CINEMATOGRAPHY:   A+

SCORE:   A

SCENE:  the clearing of the ghetto

QUOTE:  Itzhak Stern:  Let me understand. They put up all the money. I do all the work. What, if you don't mind my asking, would you do?

·  Oskar Schindler: I'd make sure it's known the company's in business. I'd see that it had a certain panache. That's what I'm good at. Not the work, not the work... the presentation.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  This is a difficult movie to analyze for historical accuracy.  There is contradictory evidence on many of the incidents in the film.  However, based on my research, it appears that the movie is factually accurate for the most part.  Keneally is a reputable author and his novel was well researched.  He understandably labeled the book a novel because he invented dialogue.  This is not particularly unusual in the field of historical fiction.  Also, the Schlinderjuden have verified the accuracy of the film.

            Oskar Schindler’s personality and modus vivendi are realistic.  If anything, he was a bigger cad than Neeson portrays him as.  Emilie was certainly a forgiving wife.  This was no one woman man.  Neeson gets the charm right.  What is downplayed a bit in the film is Schindler’s voluntary involvement with the Nazis prior to Krakow.  The movie leads you to believe he was a Nazi just because it was good for business.  This overlooks his more active role in the Abwehr (German intelligence) before arriving in Krakow.

            The role of Stern is apparently close to the real Stern.   The “partnership” angle may be overplayed.  There is evidence that the list was more the work of a Marcel Goldberg and may not have had a lot of input from Schindler.  Goldberg was a loathsome figure who accepted bribes to get people on the list which resulted in people being removed from the list.  The Schindlerjuden did not have fond memories of him and he would have made a poor character in this film.  Some critics claim Schindler was in jail for bribing Goeth at the time the list was compiled and that Stern was not working for him any more at the time.  I lean toward Spielberg’s take on this issue.

            Goeth is accurately portrayed.  The essentials are there.  He did snipe at inmates, but from a hill (his house did not have line of sight to the camp).  The evil "haunted mansion on the hill" was justified in the film.  When Goeth was executed after the war for war crimes, it was specifically for killing over 500 Jews personally.  It could be argued that the real Goeth was more evil and without any redeeming qualities.  It is highly unlikely that Schindler was able to even temporarily humanize him.  As far as his creepy relationship with his Jewish housekeeper Helen, she appears to be a fictional character.

            The depiction of the massacre in the Krakow ghetto is realistic.  There even was a little girl in a red coat although the movie does not try to be accurate on her.  She survived.  Living conditions in the camp are well done.  The scene in Auschwitz gives a good idea of what that camp must have been like.

            The time line is admirably correct.  The movie does not take events out of sequence.  There is a simplifying of how quickly his first plant went from having a few Jewish workers to all Jewish workers, but this is cinematically excusable.  

            With regard to the anecdotal events in the film, they are a mixed lot.  Several are obviously fictional:  Schindler rescuing Stern from deportation, Schindler witnessing the ghetto evacuation from a hill, the Jewish engineer execution.  The kissing of the Jewess at the birthday party is true, however.

            The most problematical scene is the women being shipped to Auschwitz.  It appears to be added to the film for emotional manipulation.  It is based on an incident at the same time of some women being rerouted to a camp called Gross-Rosen.  A name that doesn’t quite have the impact of Auschwitz, does it?  As to the women being shoved into what appears to be a gas chamber, that is almost surely bull shit.  Highly effective bull shit.

            Interestingly, the movie does not go far enough in the redemption area.  Schindler’s progression to sainthood may seem Hollywoodized, but it leaves out all the efforts he made for his workers beyond giving them the security of employment.  He spent his own money providing them food, clothing, and medical care.  The movie underplays his encouragement of their religious rituals which included Jewish burial rites.  Most significantly, the screenwriter chose to leave out an incident where Schindler accepted shipment of two boxcars of literally frozen Jews and personally aided their recovery.  One less justifiable omission is the role that Emilie played at the second plant.  She achieved sainthood herself by cooking for the workers (who got 2,000 calories as opposed to the usual 900) and caring for the sick.  The movie gives her nothing to do except stoically support her philandering husband.

            Speaking of Hollywoodizing, the closing pushes the limits of realism.  Not surprising for a Spielberg film.  The bit about the ring (as someone sniffed, you can’t melt gold the way they did) and the final speech are on the cheesy side.  It might have been a good idea to tack on the actual survivor scene to leave that as the last image.

CRITIQUE:  Is it possible to make a film about the Holocaust that shows its horrors and yet is inspirational and has a happy ending?  This would seem undoable without hitting a hornet’s nest worth of derision.  Amazingly, Spielberg has pulled it off.  The achievement is awe-inspiring.  This is especially impressive because Spielberg stepped out of his comfort zone to make a movie that was not aimed at 14 year old boys.  It is really his first adult movie and he deserved to be rewarded for it. 

            The movie is technically top notch.  The choice to go black and white was a daring gamble that pays off big time.  It is now hard to imagine the movie in color.  The cinematography was an easy choice for the Oscar.  The lighting enhances the lensing.  The look of the film is not ostentatious, however.  You do not marvel at what you are seeing, you just register its proficiency.  John Williams (who at first thought he was not up to the seriousness of the film) is nicely understated and does not push emotional buttons like you hear in many epic movies (including some of Spielberg’s more recent films).  His Oscar was deserved.  It was his last victory.

            The acting is fantastic.  Neeson gives his best performance.  He nails the complex personality of Schindler.  Schindler’s redemption arc must not have been easy to play.  The character is refreshingly multi-dimensional .  Neeson even handles the final speech without marring the rest of his restrained work.  Ralph Fiennes matches him.  Fiennes gained almost thirty pounds by drinking a lot of beer to get ready for the role.  He is the embodiment of malevolence.  AFI placed Goeth at #15 on its list of Top 50 Villains (Goeth is the highest nonfiction character).  Kingsley has a less flashy role, but his portrayal of the wary and wily Stern is perfect.  The supporting cast is solid.  Special note goes to Embeth Davidtz as Helen Hirsh who lives in constant fear of Goeth’s mood swings.  The scene where he soliloquys to a petrified, very vulnerable Helen and goes from positing that Jews are not subhuman vermin to ruthlessly beating her is a strong scene with great acting.  There are several scenes in the movie that showcase the talents of the cast. 

            The plot is linear and traditional.  There are surprises within the structure, but the general flow is toward your typical Spielberg positive ending.  Thankfully, the ending is relatively true so it does not come off as contrived.  Although there is no evidence for it, you would think Spielberg looked hard for a Holocaust script that had a happy ending.  Those are pretty rare.  (“Escape from Sobibor” had already been filmed.)  The themes are fairly clear.  Obviously redemption is one of them.  Some others are that evil exists and can’t be cured.  One man can make a difference is another.  Lastly, the movie emphasizes the role of conscience in human behavior.  Goeth’s lack of conscience makes him, not Helen, subhuman.  The film is thought-provoking.  You can’t watch the movie without wondering what you would have done in the situations presented in it.

CONCLUSION:  “Schindler’s List” is the best Holocaust movie.  You can argue that it is not relentlessly bleak enough to truly replicate the horror, but that would have defeated the purpose of reaching a mass audience.  The movie has enough horror to teach fools that the Holocaust was horrific.  There is nothing wrong with having positive role models in a Holocaust film.