Sunday, March 14, 2010

SCHINDLER'S LIST

I am thankful this film exists. Steven Spielberg delivers a genuine work of art- the film is a triumph of restraint and intelligence- the most definitive Holocaust drama.
The movie is 184 minutes long, and like all great movies, it seems too short. It begins with Schindler (Liam Neeson), a tall, strong man with an intimidating physical presence. He dresses expensively and frequents nightclubs, buying caviar and champagne for Nazi officers and their girls, and he likes to get his picture taken with the top brass. He wears a Nazi party emblem proudly in his buttonhole. The authorities are happy to help him open a factory to build enameled cooking utensils that army kitchens can use. He is happy to hire Jews because their wages are lower, and Schindler will get richer that way. Thus, here is a man who saw his chance at the beginning of World War II. His goal was to become a millionaire. Schindler's genius was in bribing, scheming, conning. He knows nothing about running a factory and finds Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley), a Jewish accountant, to handle that side of things. Stern moves through the streets of Krakow, hiring Jews for Schindler. Because the factory is a protected war industry, a job there may guarantee longer life. But even as the movie progresses, by the end of the war, Schindler had risked his life and spent his fortune to save those Jews and had defrauded the Nazis for months.
Why did he change? What happened to turn him from a victimizer into a humanitarian? It is to the great credit of Steven Spielberg that his film does not even attempt to answer that question. Any possible answer would be too simple, an insult to the mystery of Schindler's life. The Holocaust was a vast evil engine set whirling by racism and madness. Schindler outsmarted it, in his own little corner of the war, but he seems to have had no plan, to have improvised out of impulses that remained unclear even to himself. In this movie, the best he has ever made, Spielberg treats the fact of the Holocaust and the miracle of Schindler's feat without the easy formulas of fiction.
The relationship between Schindler and Stern is developed by Spielberg with enormous subtlety. At the beginning of the war, Schindler wants only to make money, and at the end he wants only to save "his" Jews. We know that Stern understands this. But there is no moment when Schindler and Stern bluntly state what is happening, perhaps because to say certain things aloud could result in death. Stern, in fact, becomes Schindler's conscience in a process of awakening that begins during the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto. Sitting mightily on horseback, gazing down at the chaos, Schindler spots a little girl in a red coat (the only bit of color in the black-and-white frame) wandering through the crowd. Spielberg and screenwriter Steven Zaillian don't hype this wake-up call too much, but the point is clear: Drawn into identification with this lonely, anonymous girl, Schindler sees the Jews as actual, suffering people, not cheap labor. And he launches a conscious, aggressive plan to save as many of them as possible, losing his fortune in the bargain.
This subtlety is Spielberg's strength all through the film. His screenplay, by Steven Zaillian, based on the novel by Thomas Keneally, isn't based on contrived melodrama. Instead, Spielberg relies on a series of incidents, seen clearly and without artificial manipulation, and by witnessing those incidents we understand what little can be known about Schindler and his scheme.
We also see the Holocaust in a vivid and terrible way. Spielberg gives us a Nazi prison camp commandant named Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) who is a study in the stupidity of evil. From the verandah of his "villa," overlooking the prison yard, he shoots Jews for target practice. Goeth is one of those weak hypocrites who upholds an ideal but makes himself an exception to it; he preaches the death of the Jews, and then chooses a pretty one named Helen Hirsch (Embeth Davidtz) to be his maid and falls in love with her. He does not find it monstrous that her people are being exterminated, and she is spared on his affectionate whim. He sees his personal needs as more important than right or wrong, life or death. As Amon Goeth, Ralph Fiennes is magnificent.
Shooting in black and white on many of the actual locations of the events in the story (including Schindler's original factory and even the gates of Auschwitz), Spielberg shows Schindler dealing with the madness of the Nazi system. He bribes, he wheedles, he bluffs, he escapes discovery by the skin of his teeth. What is most amazing about this film is how completely Spielberg serves his story. The movie is brilliantly acted, written, directed and seen. Individual scenes are masterpieces of art direction, cinematography, special effects, crowd control. Yet Spielberg, the stylist whose films often have gloried in shots we are intended to notice and remember, disappears into his work. Neeson, Kingsley and the other actors are devoid of acting flourishes. There is a single-mindedness to the enterprise that is awesome.
At the end of the film, there is a sequence of overwhelming emotional impact, involving the actual people who were saved by Schindler. We learn that "Schindler's Jews" and their descendants today number about 6,000 and that the Jewish population of Poland is 4,000. The obvious lesson would seem to be that Schindler did more than a whole nation to spare its Jews. That would be too simple. The film's message is that one man did something, while in the face of the Holocaust others were paralyzed. Perhaps it took a Schindler, enigmatic and reckless, without a plan, heedless of risk, a con man, to do what he did. No rational man with a sensible plan would have gotten as far.
The French author Flaubert once wrote that, "An author in his book must be like God in the universe, present everywhere and visible nowhere." That would describe Spielberg, the author of this film. He depicts the evil of the Holocaust, and he tells an incredible story of how it was robbed of some of its intended victims. He does so without the tricks of his trade, the directorial and dramatic contrivances that would inspire the usual melodramatic payoffs. Spielberg is not visible in this film. But his restraint and passion are present in every shot.

8 comments:

  1. I totally agree. Its sensitive topic handled with perfection.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ahaan... A vivid, to the point, absolutely wonderful description of one of the finest films ever!! it was u know after watching that piece of art, that i realized the extent and the sheer inhumanity of the genocide of the European Jews... And a tear rolled down my right cheek!! something that doesn't happen to me often!! but that movie had u know created an indentation!! Di, u literally gave me goosebumps while reading!! superb...

    ReplyDelete
  3. @tushar
    it absolutely is..
    thank you for the comment.
    @Somu
    :D !!
    hugs

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe the penultimate sequence where Oscar Schindler breaks down and says that he could have saved more Jews was the coup-de-grace by Spielberg. That was the only explicit demonstration of Schindler's actual degree of empathy that he harboured for the Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Amar
    yeah..even I thought it was a very powerful scene..though a lot of material that av read about the movie hints that that was where Speilberg let the movie become bigger than the idea..in the sense that it puts Schindler's trauma and agony before that of the Jews'..who after all were the actual victims..
    to each their own..
    thanks for the comment

    ReplyDelete
  6. @mystish
    But i think that it was the suffering of the Jews which Spielberg has tried to channel through Schindler..as in, Schindler did break down because he realized that the Jews he could not save were suffering at that very moment..moreover he thought that he did have the capability of saving some more but he didnt try as hard as he could have , or that he started too late.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Amar
    of course..I am in complete harmony with what you think..If you ask me, the whole treatment of the film was such that the insanity and violence mostly operated at a substratal level..Subtlety has been the mainstay of the film..While watching this particular scene, I didn't feel for even a moment that Speilberg was victimizing Schindler thereby robbing the Jews of any strong emotion that the viewer might feel toward them..It was, according to me, an intelligent departure from any run-of-the-mill scene that the Director could have shot- analysing the situation from the perspective of someone on whom the war had little adverse effect socially or culturally; but tremendous effect emotionally and psychologically..
    By the comment above I only wished to represent what critics have said about the scene..but then again, who has ever understood what motivates critics in the first place!

    ReplyDelete
  8. ohh and..you don't have to call me mystish Amar.you know my name!!

    ReplyDelete