Concerning 'Schindler's List' as the "definitive Holocaust movie":

I believe I've made this point elsewhere on this forum, perhaps even repeatedly, but 'Schindler's List' is the story of a German war profiteer who develops a conscience in the face of the atrocities commited in a Concentration Camp, particularly by the clearly psychopathic camp commander Amon Göth, and saves 1,200 Jews from certain death. This cannot be a "definitive" movie about the Shoah - the "industrialised" murder of six million Jews with the complicity of numerous Germans who "just did their job", "followed order" or willfully ignored what was going on.

Personally, I believe that no (fiction) movie could ever do justice to the Holocaust as a whole. The best a movie can hope for is to tell an individual story, a small snippet of history, and try to focus on one aspect of the Shoah (which, to be fair, 'Schindler's List' does very well).

Yep. Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day anyone?

Tora Tora Tora is a perfect example. The Longest Day at least shows some artistry.

I think the point being though that Spielberg picked a guy whose individual story had a significant net effect on the events in question, meaning Oskar Schindler's story could become the defining Hollywood take on the Holocaust (as much as possible in 3 hours) by extension.

If you were to make a defining WWII drama through the eyes of 1 individual, Adolph Hitler would make more sense than a random German Private.

Well, it’s nice that you think my point is strong



Also, just for fun, how about Malcolm X?



You can dismiss what I’m saying by using pseudo-intellectuals favourite word “pretentious” if you want, but, in my opinion, Schindler’s List is not the definitive Holocaust film. It certainly isn’t considered so outside of the United States (my previous point) and is often used as a prime example of Americanisation of the Holocaust.

Holocaust portrayal is a sensitive subject and with such subjects I would say verisimilitude is important. This is why I believe Shoah , a wonderfully crafted and heartbreaking film, which captures people’s remembrance of the Holocaust, is a superior and possibly definitive Holocaust film. For me, Schindler’s List cannot be definitive, by which I mean ’ultimate’ and ’authoritative’, because it Americanises and abstracts the memory of its subject matter.

You know, I’m probably being pretentious again, can I join the unwashed masses?

I am not sure whether I understand your post correctly. Are you saying that Oskar Schindler's saving of ca. 1,200 Jews had a significant effect in the context of the Holocaust as a whole? Of course, saving one person from certain death is significant in itself, but in the light of approxiamtely 6 million Jewish victims of the Nazis, 1,200 is negligible. That is exactly my problem with decribing 'Schindler's List' as the "definitive" (i.e. authoratitive) movie on the Holocaust.

0790497 has a point when he refers to the "Americanisation" of the Holocaust in 'Schindler's List', if he means "Hollywoodisation". 'Schindler's List' tells an inspirational story of personal redemption, of one man who takes on an oppressive system, of the triumph of humanity over barbarism, of survival against the odds - i.e. a typical mainstream Hollywood story. If you look at the bigger picture, this story - truthful as it is - is not only not representative of historical events, it is an exception.

That doesn't mean that the story of Oskar Schindler is not worth telling in a movie - I believe it is - but it is misleading to call it a "definitive" cinematic take on the Holocaust.

Unke -



Of course 1200 doesn't put much of a dent in 6 million. But as an individual it's hard to think of anyone who had much more of an impact that Schindler. Okay 1200 isn't much in the grand scheme of the genocide, but it's 1200 more than the next guy. If there had been a factory owner who'd saved a million then Spielberg would have made a film about him.



I doubt it's an exception per sa. It's an exception in terms of scale, which is why Spielberg made a film about it, but the Nazi who saved Szpilman's life in the Pianist also deals with the said triumphs but on a much more localised scale. There were no doubt many individal Nazi officers who help save Jews when their superior's backs were turned. Only not on the scale of Schindler.



Of course it is. It's a great film.



It's the most encompassing Hollywood take that springs to mind.

I don't think you understood my point. You were condescending, and thus looked down upon the unwashed masses. So, no, you can't join the unwashed masses until you stop being condescending.

Why did you go back into the fact that Shoah is great? I know you think Shoah is great. My point is that you cannot compare a 9 hour documentary to a feature-length narrative film. You absurdly mention it has more verisimilitude. Of course it has verisimiltude: it's a documentary. Night and Fog is another great one, incidentally. But if you wish to argue me, stop beating the Shoah drum -- I've already acknowledged that it's more comprehensive than Schindler, it just belongs in a separate category -- and come up with a more definitive Holocaust narrative film than Schindler.