Movies I Will Never See: Schindler's List
Filed under: Drama, Fandom, Steven Spielberg, War
That's right, Slappy. I'm a so-called Professional Film Critic, and I've never seen Schindler's List. Hell, I recently admitted -- publicly, no less -- that I've never seen Lawrence of Arabia, either. So I may as well go out on a limb and 'fess up to missing this one, too.In both cases, my initial non-viewing was purely circumstantial. I just somehow never found myself watching these particular movies. In the case of Lawrence of Arabia, I'd certainly like to see it, but it's something like 43 hours long, so it rarely shows up on cable. Maybe someone will give me the DVD for Christmas or my birthday, and I'll take a few vacation days off to stare at Peter O'Toole's blue eyes. It could happen.
But Schindler's List? I can confidently say that I'm never going to watch it. As a cultural icon, I can appreciate its existence -- the film illuminated the horrors of the holocaust at a time when much of the world seemed happy to let it start fading into memory. It inspired programs that recorded the audio histories of survivors, and raised awareness of global genocide. For these things alone, it's a valuable piece of cinema.
But it's also a movie. Just a movie. One that I'll never watch.
The reasons I never saw it in the first place are simple. When it was released at the end of 1993, I had a lot of other things on my mind. For starters, I'd been working 60-hour weeks as a chef, and rarely got to the movies. When I wasn't at work, I was usually sleeping, leading to a rare gap in my pop-culture knowledge. The only reason I saw any of the first season of The X-Files was because I was occasionally dating a guy who refused to miss it. For someone who's been a lifelong addict of TV and film, this was a freakish drought for me.
Secondly, Schindler's List was in theaters when my mother was hospitalized and then died, so I took an extended leave of absence from work to deal with all of the legal nonsense, like sorting through her lifetime of belongings and selling her house. If I did decide to take some time for myself and go to a movie as a diversion, I can assure you that Schindler's List wouldn't have been my choice.
But that doesn't explain why I haven't seen it since, or why I don't intend to. That's a little more complicated. Mostly, it has to do with my feelings about Steven Spielberg.
I'm a devoted fan of early Spielberg. I love Raiders of the Lost Ark and Close Encounters, and I believe Jaws is one of the greatest American films ever made. But his work in the late 1980s got problematic. I loathed Temple of Doom, and I'm not fond of his sentimental side (The Color Purple, Always). Hook was a mess, and despite some great visual gee-whizzery, Jurassic Park left me cold.
Then came the preachy trifecta of Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Amistad, summed up best as "Nazis? Bad. War? Bad. Slavery? Bad." Way to take a controversial stand on hot-button topics there, Steve.
It's a personal thing, and not a judgment on anyone who genuinely enjoyed these films, but me, I just didn't care what he had to say on the topic. Still don't, really.
Also, and I say this having obviously not seen the film, I hate the very idea of Spielberg using that touch of color in the film, the girl's red dress, as a way of having the main character recognize one person in a pile of corpses. It's Spielberg at his most trite, and also indicates that the director himself felt that mass genocide alone isn't enough to inspire sympathy. No, there must be one special dead person, and a child at that, to make us care. That's offensive in so many ways, and manipulative, and condescending.
The girl in the red dress is, I know, inspired by a story told at the trial of Adolf Eichmann (you'll find it here) and I understand why Spielberg used it. But as a cinematic device it's painfully precious, even if you know the source.
Of course, there's always the possibility that it works better on film than in concept. It's highly likely that Schindler's List is as brilliantly conceived, acted, and shot as the 96 percent of positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes indicate. I'll never know. And I'm fine with that.
_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
Robert Downey Jr. Wants to Retire?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
8-13-2009 @ 4:38PM
scott said...
okay.
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 10:22AM
ElevatorHappyFun said...
These segments are not good for the site.
Change the name of the column to:
"Convince me to watch this movie"
list the reasons you don't want to see it, and we can try and convince you to see it
8-13-2009 @ 4:40PM
sombra said...
"I don't like that movie."
"Have you seen it?"
"No. But I don't like it."
Um.
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 4:53PM
Brassy said...
hahaha, I know these articles are the dumbest thing, lets feture people who are closed minded about the films they won't see, and then criticize the work they've never seen and never plan of seeing. on a film webstie. really?
8-13-2009 @ 7:51PM
benbligh said...
That was the most pointless garbage I've ever read. The contents of the film aside. You truly can't call yourself a "film critic" if you refuse to see films based on peer evaluation. And critiquing a film you haven't seen no less...
This column is destroying the integrity of the site. Boo.
8-13-2009 @ 4:52PM
Corey Atad said...
As a film fan you must see this film if only for it's display of truly spectacular filmmaking. It's not considered on of the greatest films ever made just because it's about the Holocaust. It's because it truly is an amazing film.
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 11:24PM
fleaonmarket said...
i must say i'm stoked...and not only by the obvious reasons (i.e.not having seen schindler's list, being a film critic and saying saving private ryan and amistad are bad films), but at the fact that you tear apart the metaphor of the girl in the red dress...yeah, whatever, call it cheesy and manipulative, but it's cinema at its highest point and the level of emotion it involves is beyond your understanding - obviously!
this film triumphs for its story nonetheless, but if you would see it, you would understand its appraisal - it reaches emotional peaks that few movies in the cinema history manage to do it. with the risk of repeating myself i must say this movie has delivered what any great movies are supposed to - an array of emotions and exquisite directional skills!
8-13-2009 @ 4:53PM
Jaded said...
I've never seen it either and I have seen films that no intelligent human should be subjected to. I was out of the country when it screened in theaters. A few years later I bought it on DVD and had every intention of seeing it then, but it was never the right time. I was too sad, too happy, not in the mood, you name it I had an excuse. Every time I go to my DVD collection to watch something it never strikes me, and I move onto something else. I'm sure one day I'll sit down and watch it. Who knows when that will be.
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 6:46PM
Kevin said...
Wow, Jaded, I honestly wish you were writing for this website because that is the first intelligent "article" I've seen written about why someone won't see a film. You just never got around to it, it never struck you as the right time to see it, you just didn't feel like it, etc. But to say that you won't see a movie because of the faults of the film is simply ludicrous.
8-13-2009 @ 4:56PM
Michael said...
Honestly this is one of the worst arguments for not seeing a movie. This is also one of the worse condemnations of Spielberg I have ever read. I can see you having a problem with Amistad for being preachy but "Schindler's List" You got to be kidding me..... AND "Saving Private Ryan". These are both important films and brilliant representations of the time. The events they depict are gritty and unflinching and thats what they need to be. I am a film student and every single one of my classes has cited both of these films for technical, structural, and writing achievements. As for your interpretation of one specific scene in the film. You should just strike that because YOU HAVENT EVEN SEEN THE ENTIRE FILM!
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 4:56PM
NP said...
As Holocaust/WWII dramas go, I'll take The Pianist over Schindler's List any day.
Reply
8-15-2009 @ 12:57AM
danfox said...
As long as you've seen both films, then your opinion is valid. Though I don't agree.
8-15-2009 @ 1:08AM
NP said...
I so wouldn't say that unless I had seen both! Heheh. It's not that I dislike Schindler's List. Just, The Pianist affected me in a different way.
8-13-2009 @ 5:56PM
Linda said...
I'm with you. I have never seen Schindler's List, and I don't think I ever will. I wish I could say the same of Lawrence of Arabia. Took me a week to watch and it bored the crap out of me.
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 5:00PM
Christian M. Howell said...
I wouldn't feel bad. The definition of a cinema purist is not if you've seen every "great" movie but how you relate these great movies to life. That (Schindler's List) really seems too depressing anyway. I've read the script and have seen clips but I don't think I've "slacked off" because I have to budget my time like I work full time.
Hell you can't possibly watch every movie anyway.
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 5:01PM
Carmack said...
Seems like a weird stand to take. I really don't even get your point. Let's say someday three or four people you're hanging out with are going to watch the movie. Is your response going to be, "Hold up guys, I can't do this. I've wrote a blog article about this once, I can't go back on that now."
I'm not saying it's bad to believe you'll never see the film. I just think it's weird to make such a point of it.
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 5:06PM
Dan said...
In general, I entirely understand your point. However, I'd like to try responding to one point that bugs me.
I don't find the use of color and singling out individual victims manipulative or offensive. I would argue that in a world in which we so often deal with death in large statistics, genocide absolutely has to be associated with the individual tragedy in order to strike home. While the Holocaust was a tragedy on the scale of millions, Spielberg's point is to clarify that those millions were more than just a number but an enormous sum of individuals. The power of the film derives from its portrayal of many individuals, some singled out for only a frame.
That being said, I do agree with much of the rest of your take on Spielberg. I found Amistad terribly heavy-handed at times, though I have to admit I haven't seen Saving Private Ryan. So, Schindler's List isn't a 'must' film, as no film is really a 'must'. I would still recommend it, however.
Reply
8-14-2009 @ 9:06AM
j said...
When people hear that 1000 people died in a Tsunami somewhere in the Indian Ocean, they usually feel sad to a degree, but the sorrow soon passes and they're on to the next article on how Lindsay Lohan is further screwing up her life. When the story focuses on the poor couple from your home town who lost a 2 year old baby girl in the flood, your heart breaks for them. Spielberg was merely trying to make the point personal to the main character in the same way that we naturally do ourselves. To not see this is poor judgment on Dawn's part, and to blow the movie off over misinterpreted motivations of a revered director is unprofessional and damaging to her own reputation as a movie critic, especially if she's ever seen a Michael Moore or Oliver Stone movie after the fact.
8-13-2009 @ 5:06PM
Revo said...
"Do you like the taste of urine?"
"No."
"Have you ever drank it?"
"No, but I used my powers of observation to deduct that since I know where it comes from and don't really care for the smell, instead of drinking piss, I might just have a Coke."
"Oh."
"But then again, I probably wouldn't start a new segment called "Why I Won't Drink Piss". Because, ya know, I'm not really bringing anything to the table."
Reply
8-13-2009 @ 5:18PM
James said...
That's cool and all. You just didn't say why. Just curious.
Reply