Disc Specs
- Region:
2 - Released:
12th April 2004 - Country:
United Kingdom - Running Time:
197 minutes - Screen Format:
1.85:1 Anamorphic PAL - Discs / Sides / Layers:
2 / 1 / Dual - Soundtracks:
English 5.1
English DTS - Subtitles:
English HOH - Special Features:
Documentary on Schindler
Presentation of the Shoah Foundation's work
Detailed filmographies - Distributor:
Universal
Film Specs
- Certificate:
15 - Released:
1993 - Country:
United States of America - Director:
Steven Spielberg - Starring:
Liam Neeson
Ben Kingsley
Ralph Fiennes
Caroline Goodall
Jonathan Sagall
Embeth Davidtz
Malgoscha Gebel
Shmulik Levy
Mark Ivanir
Béatrice Macola
Andrzej Seweryn
Friedrich von Thun - Genre(s):
Blockbuster
Historical Drama
Live Action

Schindler's List
09-04-2004 02:00 | 21087 views | Mark Boydell | Show Backlinks
Oskar Schindler, a Sudeten-born salesman, arrives in Krakow hoping to get rich. More a capitalist than a philanthropist, he sees an opportunity in the enamel factory to the southern suburbs. He tracks down Itzak Stern, a Jewish accountant, to check out the potential for profit and see if he can get some of the rich members of the Jewish community, now barred from making almost any financial transaction, to invest in it. Employing Jewish workers is much cheaper than using Polish nationals so with an exclusive Jewish workforce, Schindler will have a cutting edge over the competition and simultaneously provide his workforce with the needed documents to avoid being deported to the death camps.

Emotional pornography was David Mamet's lapidary assessment of Schindler's list - a statement that flew in the face of the public mood and gave Mamet a certain status as an arch Agent Provocateur, but his clumsy use of hyperbole shouldn't hide the reason why Schindler's List is not by any stretch of the imagination one of the best films ever made. It is vitally important at this point to distinguish between the film's subject topic and the film itself - you can without doubt produce a very bad film about a most worthy subject matter; Makhmalbaf's Kandahar or Wenders' The End of Violence are two examples of films that fail to varying degrees despite the author's best intentions. Despite the stark black and white film stock and the above average performances from the cast, Schindler's List does sadly very much the same.

There is something desperately Hollywoodesque about it despite the pretension of being outwith or beyond it - the use of black and white may be an attempt by Spielberg to vividly show to the viewer this isn't your normal popcorn flick but, on almost every single level, it completely fails to differentiate itself from them. From the outset, one is left with no doubt that this is a Spielberg film before being anything else - his Manichean vision of the world glares through the celluloid, be it with his inability to cast much ambiguity into Schindler's character or his failure to give Amon Goeth the depth that Keneally gives him in the novel. Goeth is the quintessential villain who is the embodiment of evil and shows no cogent signs of remorse - a bit like the shark in Jaws or the T-Rex in Jurassic Park, he lives to kill and destroy but there is no interest in giving him a third dimension or even a past. He is a simple plot device to focalise our hate, disgust and revulsion at the Third Reich's genocide and Fiennes gives us another rehash of the evil German accent that British actors seem to have to specialise in if they want to make a career in Hollywood and subconsciously places Goeth alongside the Die Hard bad guys - irrational, Germanobritish and very, very angry...
Some spoilers are included in the following paragraph - if you want to avoid them please skip to the DVD section.
And then there's Spielberg's heavy-handedness - something you can put up with in the likes of ET or Raiders of the Lost Ark but this story called for a certain amount of restraint. It's quite easy to horrify an audience senseless but incredibly complicated to not overstate your case. For example, late in the film, a trainful of Schindler's workers end up in Auschwitz - they all get rounded up and sent into the showers which are then hermetically shut and locked. For about a minute, he toys with the audience's knowledge of what happened in the showers at Auschwitz, letting us imagine the horrible outcome until, as a Deus Ex Machina, cold water springs out of the showerheads. By that point, he had completely lost me as a viewer because he was pulling a cheap cinematic thrill when it was completely unnecessary especially given the gravity of the subject matter. Though The Pianist provides the audience with many narrow escapes for Szpilman and Louis Malle does roughly the same in Au Revoir Les Enfants, these are barely perceptible to the audience. It's a question of fine measure and Spielberg regularly oversteps the mark by a mile with the aforementioned tricks as well as with Williams' overwrought and pious score. In fact, Williams inclusion epitomises the film's flaws: bar some cosmetic changes, Spielberg seems to have approached Schindler's List like just another project. To be fair to Spielberg, he originally felt he wasn't the right person to direct this type of film and only made it after failing to coax Roman Polanski into taking the director's seat. Although Schindler's story is nothing short of heroic, it couldn't have been worse served than by this kind of treatment. To claim this to be the seminal film about the holocaust (a claim amazingly made upon the film's release) seems to be at best myopic - ten years after the Holocaust, Resnais came nigh close to perfection with his grave and sober Night and Fog (now available from Criterion). In comparison, Schindler's List looks like Holocaust-light - simplistic and insipid.

The DVD:
The image:
The stock used to film was intentionally grainy and the DVD transfer renders it very well. This makes the film naturally lack a certain amount of crispness and precision but that was obviously intended. Of course, the original aspect ratio of 1.85:1 is retained with an anamorphic transfer and there were no signs of print damage at all. Due to the inclusion of the extras and the DTS track, the film has been split over two discs with the first two hours of the film on the first disc and the remaining hour and the extras lodged on the second. I found the point chosen for the break rather poorly chosen and it breaks the films flow quite noticeably. Still since this allows the inclusion of the DTS track, this is a minor problem.

The sound:
There are two available mixes: DD 5.1 and DTS. Both mixes are rather subtle and shy away from being too flashy - Saving Private Ryan this is not - but there is some effective use of surrounds in the open air scenes and also of frontal stereo effects in the more intimate scenes. The dialogue tends to be centralised and relatively clear though Spielberg's insistance on getting the actors to speak English with a heavily accented German accent makes the dialogue a bit difficult to decipher at times and I occasionally had to turn on the subtitles to clarify some of the speech.
The extras:
The main extras focus on the Shoah foundation that Spielberg set up following the film - both are given a 5.1 mix and a 4:3 transfer with optional English subtitles. The first documentary runs for 78 minutes and has the people saved by Schindler recount their stories as well as Schindler's - Spielberg introduces and concludes the documentary telling us it will be a more powerful than any film about the Holocaust and indeed it is. Though the film's contains good acting and cinematography, Spielberg's inability to find the correct tone completely spoils the movie. Though obviously aspiring to greatness, the film fails to be much more than entertainment.

The second documentary (12 mins) is a promotional film for the Foundation narrated by Morgan Freeman, showing some of the foundations work and their aims.
Finally, the usual filmographies and bios are featured - these are quite detailed and well written but hardly an essential extra.
Conclusions:
Though the film will probably continue to divide audiences, it's hard to escape from the harsh reality that this is a film I could not recommend for the aforementioned problems. If you want an accessible account of the Holocaust, buy Art Spiegelman's Maus or Alain Resnais' Night and Fog, which are both artistic but sober. The DVD is also quite sober with little padding and an excellent extra in the shape of the documentary.

Emotional pornography was David Mamet's lapidary assessment of Schindler's list - a statement that flew in the face of the public mood and gave Mamet a certain status as an arch Agent Provocateur, but his clumsy use of hyperbole shouldn't hide the reason why Schindler's List is not by any stretch of the imagination one of the best films ever made. It is vitally important at this point to distinguish between the film's subject topic and the film itself - you can without doubt produce a very bad film about a most worthy subject matter; Makhmalbaf's Kandahar or Wenders' The End of Violence are two examples of films that fail to varying degrees despite the author's best intentions. Despite the stark black and white film stock and the above average performances from the cast, Schindler's List does sadly very much the same.

There is something desperately Hollywoodesque about it despite the pretension of being outwith or beyond it - the use of black and white may be an attempt by Spielberg to vividly show to the viewer this isn't your normal popcorn flick but, on almost every single level, it completely fails to differentiate itself from them. From the outset, one is left with no doubt that this is a Spielberg film before being anything else - his Manichean vision of the world glares through the celluloid, be it with his inability to cast much ambiguity into Schindler's character or his failure to give Amon Goeth the depth that Keneally gives him in the novel. Goeth is the quintessential villain who is the embodiment of evil and shows no cogent signs of remorse - a bit like the shark in Jaws or the T-Rex in Jurassic Park, he lives to kill and destroy but there is no interest in giving him a third dimension or even a past. He is a simple plot device to focalise our hate, disgust and revulsion at the Third Reich's genocide and Fiennes gives us another rehash of the evil German accent that British actors seem to have to specialise in if they want to make a career in Hollywood and subconsciously places Goeth alongside the Die Hard bad guys - irrational, Germanobritish and very, very angry...
Some spoilers are included in the following paragraph - if you want to avoid them please skip to the DVD section.
And then there's Spielberg's heavy-handedness - something you can put up with in the likes of ET or Raiders of the Lost Ark but this story called for a certain amount of restraint. It's quite easy to horrify an audience senseless but incredibly complicated to not overstate your case. For example, late in the film, a trainful of Schindler's workers end up in Auschwitz - they all get rounded up and sent into the showers which are then hermetically shut and locked. For about a minute, he toys with the audience's knowledge of what happened in the showers at Auschwitz, letting us imagine the horrible outcome until, as a Deus Ex Machina, cold water springs out of the showerheads. By that point, he had completely lost me as a viewer because he was pulling a cheap cinematic thrill when it was completely unnecessary especially given the gravity of the subject matter. Though The Pianist provides the audience with many narrow escapes for Szpilman and Louis Malle does roughly the same in Au Revoir Les Enfants, these are barely perceptible to the audience. It's a question of fine measure and Spielberg regularly oversteps the mark by a mile with the aforementioned tricks as well as with Williams' overwrought and pious score. In fact, Williams inclusion epitomises the film's flaws: bar some cosmetic changes, Spielberg seems to have approached Schindler's List like just another project. To be fair to Spielberg, he originally felt he wasn't the right person to direct this type of film and only made it after failing to coax Roman Polanski into taking the director's seat. Although Schindler's story is nothing short of heroic, it couldn't have been worse served than by this kind of treatment. To claim this to be the seminal film about the holocaust (a claim amazingly made upon the film's release) seems to be at best myopic - ten years after the Holocaust, Resnais came nigh close to perfection with his grave and sober Night and Fog (now available from Criterion). In comparison, Schindler's List looks like Holocaust-light - simplistic and insipid.

The DVD:
The image:
The stock used to film was intentionally grainy and the DVD transfer renders it very well. This makes the film naturally lack a certain amount of crispness and precision but that was obviously intended. Of course, the original aspect ratio of 1.85:1 is retained with an anamorphic transfer and there were no signs of print damage at all. Due to the inclusion of the extras and the DTS track, the film has been split over two discs with the first two hours of the film on the first disc and the remaining hour and the extras lodged on the second. I found the point chosen for the break rather poorly chosen and it breaks the films flow quite noticeably. Still since this allows the inclusion of the DTS track, this is a minor problem.

The sound:
There are two available mixes: DD 5.1 and DTS. Both mixes are rather subtle and shy away from being too flashy - Saving Private Ryan this is not - but there is some effective use of surrounds in the open air scenes and also of frontal stereo effects in the more intimate scenes. The dialogue tends to be centralised and relatively clear though Spielberg's insistance on getting the actors to speak English with a heavily accented German accent makes the dialogue a bit difficult to decipher at times and I occasionally had to turn on the subtitles to clarify some of the speech.
The extras:
The main extras focus on the Shoah foundation that Spielberg set up following the film - both are given a 5.1 mix and a 4:3 transfer with optional English subtitles. The first documentary runs for 78 minutes and has the people saved by Schindler recount their stories as well as Schindler's - Spielberg introduces and concludes the documentary telling us it will be a more powerful than any film about the Holocaust and indeed it is. Though the film's contains good acting and cinematography, Spielberg's inability to find the correct tone completely spoils the movie. Though obviously aspiring to greatness, the film fails to be much more than entertainment.

The second documentary (12 mins) is a promotional film for the Foundation narrated by Morgan Freeman, showing some of the foundations work and their aims.
Finally, the usual filmographies and bios are featured - these are quite detailed and well written but hardly an essential extra.
Conclusions:
Though the film will probably continue to divide audiences, it's hard to escape from the harsh reality that this is a film I could not recommend for the aforementioned problems. If you want an accessible account of the Holocaust, buy Art Spiegelman's Maus or Alain Resnais' Night and Fog, which are both artistic but sober. The DVD is also quite sober with little padding and an excellent extra in the shape of the documentary.


Comments
Member
Posts: 218
The showerscene was a chilling scene because as an audience that knows his history we know what happened in those showers, I felt a big relieve when water came through those shower heads. Did not feel that it was meant as a cheap thrill.
This movie showed the heroics of one man that tried to save people from the Nazis.
Yes there are other great movies about the holocaust and this is one.
Contributor
Posts: 1651
------
Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site
Member
Posts: 61
I did not feel it was a cheap thrill.
Member
Posts: 61
A 'Deus Ex Machina' is when an improbable plot device is used by the director to extricate the film from a difficult situation. The shower scene was not a difficult situation - it was presenting reality. It could have gone either way, they could all have been gassed. This is the reality that the director is trying to bring home to the viewer. It isn't used as a plot device.
I know it's great to have an opinion, and you are certainly entitled to yours, but did you approach this movie with an open mind? From the tone of your review, it makes me think otherwise.
Contributor
Posts: 485
------
DVD Times Reviewer
Best DVDs 2008 | All My Reviews
Account Disabled
Posts: 29
Contributor & Filmmaker
Posts: 980
------
We do not tell time, time only tells us.
Contributor
Posts: 136
My opinion is clouded / I don't have an open mind
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here - are you implying that because I didn't like a film that treated of the Holocaust, I'm closed-minded? I just found the film manipulative and over the top in its treatment of the topic - I don't see how my opinion is narrow just because it doesn't coincide with your own...
Deus Ex Machina it was - just as the other scene where none of Goeth's numerous pistols work. The realistic outcome of those two scenes is clearly weighted one way but somehow they narrowly escape thanks to some unprobable event - I suggest you rewatch that shower scene and note down all the cues he's giving out that they are going to be gassed...
I've corrected the mistakes though - no matter how many times I read over reviews, they seem to get through. Not sure how levity got in there though :confused:
On-screen captions - they were AFAIR the originals, burnt into the image...
Member
Posts: 61
However my disagreement with you simply stems from the intensity with which you write off this film. Consider your sentence at the end of the film review part:
"Although Schindler's story is nothing short of heroic, it couldn't have been worse served than by this kind of treatment."
I would say that while this movie is by no means perfect, it is however a very good film, and to argue that the story "couldn't have been worse served" by Spielberg's approach to the movie is a severely exaggerated take on things.
I agree that many "Spielbergian" elements are present in the film, but to say that "Spielberg seems to have approached Schindler's List like just another project" is crazy.
Yes, he chose John Williams for the score (and while Williams' scores are often self-derivatively repetitive, I thought the Schindlers List score was actually really good) but in many other ways this film showed a side of Spielberg we had never seen before.
I just got the feeling reading your review that because it was a successful movie which a huge number of people enjoyed (an inappropriate word, but I hope you get my meaning), you felt obliged to take the counter position of "it can't be good if it's that popular".
I'm pleased you wrote the review, though, because it made me think, and indeed I sought out other reviews and I have to say that I agree far more with Roger Ebert's take on the film, which in many ways is diametrically opposed to your points, here:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1993/12/894536.html
Contributor
Posts: 611
Member
Posts: 61
Is there really "an overwhelming pressure to state how good it is"?
I don't think so, although I do concur that it is important as a reviewer to not simply 'ride the bandwagon of positive reviews' in the way people like Paul Ross do.
This is not to say, however, that when a film has received excessive praise and adulation, that a reviewer should go out of their way to present an excessively biased review taking the opposition view.
ANYWAY I'm happy to be outnumbered on this. To quote Richard Fish... bygones! ;)
Contributor
Posts: 136
It is to a large extent it is extremely difficult to criticise a film that -whether I like or not- is the bedrock of lots of people's understanding of the Shoah. Much as I'd like to wax lyrical over it (as I did over the pianist ), I felt this was as fair an assesement I could give. Though some people were much more sanguine in their reviews, I think I've argued in Spielberg's favour - that he sins more by excess than by being purely exploitative.
This is not to say, however, that when a film has received excessive praise and adulation, that a reviewer should go out of their way to present an excessively biased review taking the opposition view.
I don't think this review is that - it didn't really work for me and I found it rather OTT - that's it really.
Member
Posts: 5
I thought this was actually a very fair review
That doesn't surprise me. I actually thought you had written the review. It's always refreshing to read something that does not follow the generally accepted view but it sounds sometimes a bit too much like Pauline Kael and her adepts to me. And that's hardly original.
If you want an accessible account of the Holocaust, buy Art Spiegelman's Maus or Alain Resnais' Night and Fog, which are both artistic but sober.
Personally I wouldn't have compared a dramatic movie with a comic book and a documentary but I'm pretty sure that Schindler's List has had (and will have) much more of an influence on making people aware of the Holocaust than the (for a mass audience) obscure Maus and Night And Fog ever will. That doesn't make Schindler's List a good movie automatically but if Spielberg resorts to manipulation and heavy-handedness to reach an as large as possible audience, he's got my blessing. You may ask yourself what is better in dealing with something as incomprehensible as the Holocaust - making a sober artistic statement that most likely will only reach the intelligentsia or a statement that may be perceived to be too popular in some circles like Schindler's List but that will reach a broad audience?
The matter at hand is too important imho to be clouded by something as personal and obscure as artistry.
Member
Posts: 60
Contributor
Posts: 136
I didn't - I recommended them as superior pieces of work and art than SL, which I think few people would argue with.
That doesn't make Schindler's List a good movie automatically but if Spielberg resorts to manipulation and heavy-handedness to reach an as large as possible audience, he's got my blessing.
This film would have reached a huge audience regardless. Besides, I don't think you should applaud manipulative film-making just because more people will see the film... :confused:
You may ask yourself what is better in dealing with something as incomprehensible as the Holocaust - making a sober artistic statement that most likely will only reach the intelligentsia or a statement that may be perceived to be too popular in some circles like Schindler's List but that will reach a broad audience?
The matter at hand is too important imho to be clouded by something as personal and obscure as artistry.
But what did SL achieve (bar provide funds for the Shoah foundation)? It can hardly be seen as an in-depth study of the horrors of the Holocaust - interestingly, Spielberg was quite troubled when he heard that a group of schoolkids laughed all the way through it though that he went to explain to them that it wasn't a piece of fiction...
Contributor
Posts: 611
Hitch Fan: I'm not sure if you're taking a pot-shot at me or what I've done to deserve it. But being compared to Ms Kael has always struck me as the greatest compliment it's possible to pay someone writing about film, so I imagine Mark is rather delighted.
In any case, what is "Schindler's List" full of if not 'excessive artistry'. From the decision to shoot in monochrome to produce sufficient bogus significance to the constant attempts to provide suspense so that the audience doesn't get bored, it's a work that is as self-consciously 'produced' as any film ever made. I don't think Spielberg - one of the greatest manipulative directors ever to work in America, and I don't mean that as a criticism - could make a film any other way.
DVD Times Princess
Posts: 92
While I don't fully agree with you about the film, I applaud your posting such a controversial review. Nice job, by the way! :)
------
My Top 20 Films
Contributor
Posts: 136
Nice to see you back Tiffany - I must say I was expecting some controvery with this film more than The Outsider :D
Member
Posts: 14
I was also delighted this was mistaken to be Mike's work - if I'm writing as well as Mike, that can hardly be a bad thing :)
That, and the fact that whenever a lengthy polemic on the alleged shortcomings of this particular film is posted over at the Forums, chances are author is either Mike or a certain Michael Brooke. But given that the latter has long since 'left' for reasons I forget, it's pretty much just Mike these days. Which is fair enough, but I do have a hard time getting my head around the fact that seemingly he rates such questionable works of 'art' as "Ecks vs Sever" or "American Ninja" (which I admittedly haven't seen) over Schidler's List. :D
As for the comments on how Goeth is depicted in the film, seemingly everything I've come across on the subject suggest that he was, if anything, an even nastier piece of work than is shown. Now of course it's very possible I'm hearing only one side of the story, but regardless I think Spielberg does just enough with the Goeth character (e.g. his curious relationship with the one Jew he 'forgives') to make him more interesting than merely a single-minded monster.
Contributor
Posts: 611
I'm not entirely sure why my opinions bother you quite as much as they seem to. I have many problems with Schindler's List but simply because I take the time to try and explain and justify them doesn't necessarily make my views any more or less valid than yours. I'm delighted that anyone takes the time to disagree or agree with me but at the end of the day, we're simply talking about opinions.
As for "Ecks Vs Sever", that's a bad film but I thought it had a few unexpected points of interest which made it worth discussing. "American Ninja" is a bad film but great fun. "Schindler's List" is a bad film pretending to be great art and thus deserves to be condemned far more than either of the aforementioned two films. I found it a lot more obnoxious on every level than "Ecks Vs Sever". But why anyone would 'have a hard time getting their head round' anything I write is puzzling. If you don't like my opinions or my writing, I don't see the point in reading them.
Member
Posts: 61
I think you've summed up the problem there. He gave it 3/10, you'd give it 0/10... and my question is "is this a fair and balanced viewpoint?"
Sure, it is the duty of a film critic to express his/her opinion about the quality of a film, but I don't think sufficient justification of "why" this film is so terrible was given in the review, or in the posted comments, to convince me that these scores are deserved.
And MikeSutton, you are perfectly entitled to 'hate' whatever films you like, but when you say that Schindler's List isn't even worth 1 out of 10, yet are happy to give risible fare such as Addams Family Values, Gangs of New York and The Tailor of Panama 8 out of 10, it makes me think that you aren't acting rationally!
Clearly, a critic who is analytical in his/her review of a film is always preferable to one who goes along with the sheep to applaud or decry the same films as everyone else... but the worst kind of critic is one who takes an unconvential view towards a movie simply to stand out from the crowd.
Interestingly, IMDB has Schindler's List as the 6th highest rated film of all time in it's database; and only 5% of the 78,300 people who have cast a vote for it believe it worthy of 3/10 or less, while 91% of people think it is worthy of at least 6/10.
Of course you can attempt to argue that these statistics are meaningless, and that they only highlight what a lot of ignorant unenlightened fools there are in the world, if it makes you feel any better :D
Member
Posts: 14
If you don't like my opinions or my writing, I don't see the point in reading them.
I don't have a problem with your writing at all; what reviews of yours I have read seem well written even though I may not necessarily agree with everything you say. Surely you can't expect (or indeed want) everyone to like all of your opinions?
I was only being half-serious (note the smilie) but at any rate, surely you can't boldly declare that you'd give a film such as this one 0/10 and have everyone agree? What sort of reaction did you expect?
At the end of the day this is "only a film", and we'd just have to "agree to disagree." No need to take things personally. :)
Contributor
Posts: 136
Of course you can attempt to argue that these statistics are meaningless, and that they only highlight what a lot of ignorant unenlightened fools there are in the world, if it makes you feel any better
So we get back to the fact that because lots of people liked it neither Mike nor I have the right to not like it? Anyway, I don't really pay much attention to imdb polls when writing a review - do you really think I should? You'll probably find as many gushing reviews on the web that will make up for the 95% or viewers who thought it was worth more than what we rate it as.
As to why the score is deserved, I think I made it relatively clear in the review why it was given that score. If it's not exploitative, it certainly uses excess as if it were a virtue, infantile dualism as a panacea and leaves the viewer no room to do any mindwork since Spielberg (and Williams) are to tell you what and when to laugh, cry, feel pity and disgust.
Account Disabled
Posts: 29
Member
Posts: 61
I have the right to respond to your review, and state my counter opinion - that I think it is a better film than you make it out to be, and that I think some of the wording you have used suggests an irrational take on the movie, therefore making your review not particularly balanced. Those sentences again:
"Spielberg seems to have approached Schindler's List like just another project"
"Although Schindler's story is nothing short of heroic, it couldn't have been worse served than by this kind of treatment."
"From the outset, you're left with no doubt that this is a Spielberg film before being anything else - his Manichean vision of the world glares through the celluloid"
Please don't take this personally. For the most part I find your writing eloquent. I just happen to disagree strongly with your review of the film, and that is why I'm posting in the 'comments' section of your review - that's what this section is for, comments from people about the film, and your review of it.
Page: 1, 2