I always felt that unlike in a lot of his other films, and given the specific subject, Spielberg was able to skillfully balance on the line between dramatic storytelling and kitsch in Schindler’s LIst, until that scene.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the film is great, but this scene is just too much. Surely it is important for character development, but I think that could’ve been done in a less “in-your-face” kind of way.
I know that that scene is too on the nose compared with the level of what comes before it, yet I always find that scene incredibly moving none the less. It could be the level of the performances or just the sheer emotional weight descending, who knows? Perhaps I’m just trying to embrace whatever hope I can out of the film but I fully understand why many find it out of place.
Speilberg is coming to your class??
Yes he is.
cool
tell Spielberg NOT to remake Oldboy…
Is he planning too Sekzee???
Whether or not it’s emotionally manipulative I don’t think that scene works too well. I also have doubts as to whether the film may be too entertaining- the play with audience fears when the women go in the showers, the “i pardon you” section, the suspense, the charismatic central performances…i was very impressed with the film when it came out but i do have my doubts
i look forward to a film on the romanies and the holocaust, which is a neglected subject.
yes he is…we need to persuade him before its too late!
Its a slight problem only because the film that surrounds it is SO powerful. At the time many questioned whether Spielberg could make a film outside his comfort zone, not to mention do justice to the memory of Holocaust victims. I think he came very close to reaching his goal and Schindler’s List is a near classic. In this one moment, however, he goes a step too far. The result tipped toward melodrama and was not consistant to the feel of the rest of the film. Still, its sad that many dismiss the entire film because of this scene. It recovers to reach one of the most emotionally moving epilogues in film.
Can we merge this with the stupidest things ever said in a movie thread?
In my opinion, that scene is fine. Nothing wrong with giving Schindler the unconditional, heart-felt appreciation that he deserves.
I’m always amused at how many jump on the “Spielberg is being emotionally manipulative” bandwagon. Here is an opportunity to totally glorify Schindler, to tack on a happy ending about the triumph of good over evil, and what are we left with? The hero, unable to find any comfort in his actions, breaks down in the realization that what he has done is ultimately insignificant in the grand scheme of the tragedy.
That’s hardly a contrived, happy Hollywood ending. I will concede that this is a flaw of many of Spielberg’s films – War of the Worlds notably – but for me, Schindler’s List strikes the right note all the way to the end. I consider it Spielberg’s masterpiece, and that scene gets me every time.
It’s poignant. Yes.
I like that scene. It hits me pretty hard. I might have handled it a bit differently, myself (not so differently, mind you), but I think that what Spielberg did was a good thing. It totally works.
Savvy
I would have favored a more restrained approach, and then letting the weight of the brilliant documentary epilogue (which is much more moving than the scene in discussion) be the real emotional climax. I did not feel that that scene was all that consistent with who Schindler was.
“The hero, unable to find any comfort in his actions, breaks down in the realization that what he has done is ultimately insignificant in the grand scheme of the tragedy.”
Which makes him ten time more heroic in the audiences mind. Smells like happy Hollywood spirit to me.
This could double as a thread about Natasha Richardson. He should have done more…
I’m not Spielberg’s biggest fan, but it was a great scene. I would have felt exactly the same way as Schindler. He lived a life of excess, without realizing that someday it would all come to an end, and when the Nazi’s lost he may be left with nothing. Now he had nothing, and he could have indeed saved more people. The holocaust was over, and the weight of the whole thing was beginning to sink in. The people who he had saved would now go on and start new lives, but just think of how many more could, had he tried a little harder. He is now penniless and broke, and realizes more than ever that LIFE is what is most important.
He should have done more.
I think it is awful; Spielberg giving in to his ‘sugary side’ at the last minute.
While I am not a particular fan of that film, I think it is Spielberg’s best attempt at adult film-making and yet he still goes overboard at the very end.
>Which makes him ten time more heroic in the audiences mind. Smells like happy Hollywood spirit to me.
That’s nice, Mike – And I guess the survivors who would certainly not have lived into old age, but for Schindler (they wouldn’t have lived longer than a few months in the camp, actually), the ones we see in the epilogue of the film, are also only concoctions of that “happy Hollywood spirit” you smell…
>Which makes him ten time [sic] more heroic in the audiences [sic] mind.
Do you mean your mind? Audiences don’t actually have a mass-mind…Man, get over yourself, already.
When Schindler was honored at Yad Vashem in Israel in ‘63, it made him, like, ten times more heroic in the audience’s mind!
I don’t understand how Schindler’s List inevitably and without fail brings up these fulminations against the film—some of which tread closely to a disbelief of the facts, of the absurdities and absolutely bizarre conditions of the Holocaust. If indeed you think that the film is “happy” or “sugary” – this long, miserable black-and-white film shot on location in the camps and ghettos and featuring some of the most realistic summary executions ever captured on film, then I do think you’ve got other, extraneous things obstructing your view of the film in the first place.
Of course looking back now it seems kitsch, but considering the context and the time that the film was released I’d say that that scene is indeed poignant.
However, more importantly (to me at least), is not this subjective badminton game of “kitsch or not”, but rather the question, “Is it entirely necessary for the line to be spoken?” I mean, considering all that happened before, do we really need Schindler to express what everyone in the audience already knows? This is Spielberg’s weakness IMO – he doesn’t know when to just leave things alone (he actually reminds me of the cinematic equivalent of Stephen King – The Shining was fine until we have “menacing topiaries” [in the book] … “It” was fine until the gargantuan clown spider monster … “The Dark Tower” series was fine until there was a random Seven Samurai tribute right in the middle of it).
Spielberg ruined Minority Report with the “all things explained” ending (what would’ve made Minority Report perhaps one of the best Philip K. Dick adaptations is if Spielberg would’ve ended the film right where Cruise’s character shoots the supposed “killer” and comes to the realization that one cannot escape fate – now that is a Dickian ending, not Von Sydow getting his comeuppance), he ruined A.I. (such as it was) with the same sentimental bollocks that he insists on throwing in every film he’s ever made – the list goes on.
But back to Schindler’s List … I just think that Spielberg, while being a very technically innovative filmmaker, really needs to take his hand out of the narrative and do away with the overly sentimental tack-on endings.
Every sequence in Schindler’s List are kitsch.
The only sequence that’s poignant is the movie where the film ends, and you start realizing it’s all over.Wow, that was such a great moment after 3 hours of pure bullshit.What a moment.Spielberg is a conaisseur.
I hope one day we can all agree to like one movie for once. What a glorious day that will be
No use pretending that’s possible, Ryan. :(
It won’t be a glorious day at all Ryan.
Imagine the conversation on something we all agree on.Just imagine it.The beauty of it all is to have different opinions on each movie.
That’s what activates debates, not mutual likenesses.
Forgive me if this sounds stilted but it’s from my blog that I keep to document anything interesting that happens at USC, for the purpose of having people back home read. It sounds consciously “written”, if you know what I mean, but I hope you enjoy it regardless.
Last night, Steven Spielberg came to his namesake class being taught at USC for a Q&A. It was a night of surprising revelations and some really funny anecdotes.
Spielberg talked about his relationship with Stanley Kubrick. Spielberg said that he tried to approach him as a student would a master, but Kubrick would have none of it. In fact, when Spielberg became a “fanboy”, Kubrick would shoot him right down; he wanted to be colleagues. Kubrick, who lived outside London, conducted most of his relationships via phone. According to Spielberg, he once had a NINE HOUR phone conversation with Kubrick, with only two pauses. First, when a thunderstorm was passing over Spielberg’s house, he got nervous and said that he’d heard if lightning struck your house you could be electrocuted. Kubrick told him that was “Bullshit” but Spielberg hung up the phone just to be safe. Later, when it was dinnertime for Kubrick and lunchtime for Spielberg, Kubrick suggested that since Christiane, his wife, was fixing him a sandwich, they should each eat a sandwich and continue their conversation. So Spielberg left the phone and came back with a sandwich. When he got back on the phone, Kubrick asked Spielberg to write down a lengthy phone number. When Spielberg asked what the number was for, Kubrick told him that he was currently choking on his sandwich, and that the number was Christiane’s number down the hall; if he heard a long pause on the other end of the phone, call the number!
Our professor has been stressing in class that the common thread in all of Spielberg’s films is that they all contain elements of the fairy tale. So when one of the students asked Spielberg whether he consciously includes elements of the fairy tale, our professor turned to Spielberg and jokingly reminded him that his own credibility was riding on how Spielberg chose to answer the question. When Dr. Casper explained his thesis, Spielberg paused and said:
I should be taking this class on myself!
Other cool topics were: the use of motion capture technology in his new film “Tin Tin”; how to balance budgets and that pesky thing called perfectionism; the relationship between Judaism and his film making; the turning point in his decision to finally make “Schindler’s List”, which came when he and the screenwriter Steve Zallian visited Auschwitz.
Some surprising revelations were that “Hook” was originally supposed to be a musical (the numbers were cut out from the film, which he claims made it sag), that the project he most regrets getting away from him was “Rain Man” (he had worked with Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman for five months until George Lucas excitedly told him he had the perfect idea for the third "Indiana Jones film and that they had to do it NOW!), and that he may be working on “Jurassic Park IV”. (This was of course met with huge applause.)
Now, I didn’t have a question at first, and I was originally going to ask a question about his relationship with Kubrick, but someone beat me to it. I still wanted to introduce myself, so I ended up coming up with a question about his relationship with Janusz Kaminiski, the cinematographer responsible for the gorgeous photography in “Schindler’s List” as well as every other film Spielberg has done thus far. I introduced myself, and like most others, mentioned how much his films influenced me; though when I mentioned that the number of times I’d seen “Raiders of the Lost Ark” bordered on the absurd, he laughed. According to him, he first saw Kaminski’s work watching Diane Keaton’s directorial debut on the Lifetime network. He was so impressed, he convinced a director to hire him for a TV pilot. When he saw the dailies for the show, he met with Kaminski and asked if he wouldn’t mind shooting his next film, which was going to be in black and white. Kaminski told him that he was in luck; he’d worked on only B&W in his native Poland.
It was a really fun night, and I was struck by how down to Earth Spielberg was. He seemed truly happy to be there, and very gracious. After the Q&A, there was a 35 mm screening of what he claims is his favorite film of his own, “Schindler’s List”….
Touching and poignant-the reason it probably seems corny to some people is that we are so jaded we cannot believe anyone would care this much about others.
Touching and poignant-the reason it probably seems corny to some people is that we are so jaded we cannot believe anyone would care this much about others.
Nick Kostopoulos
Watched “Schindler’s List” (1993) a couple of days ago. I’m here at USC taking a class on Spielverg and he’s actually coming into tonight for a Q&A….
The “I could have done more” scene seems to be a huge point of contention; as for me, I’m always surprised when people accuse Spielberg of emotional manipulation in that scene. Granted, films like “The Color Purple” or “E.T.” certainly are viewed as manipulative, but Neeson’s realization in the scene that he could’ve gotten at least two more people with a mere watch always strikes me as truly harrowing and heart-breaking.
Please tell me I’m not the only one that thinks that scene is beautiful? It seems very few people do….