Conference bookie::movies

  The critics are all raving about this movie. Newsweek ran a cover story
calling it the movie of the year. Siskel and Ebert were on Jay Leno and both
agreed it was the best film they'd seen this year and all the other critics
who have seen it seem to agree.

  It appears to be filmed in black and white.

  George

 RE: filmed in black and white
    
    I saw/heard Spielberg say it was becasue he couldn't "see" the movie in
    color...when he said see, he kind of closed his eyes and held his hand
    to his head like he was gesturing he couldn't "visualize" it in color
    so he did it in black in white.   I  just found that to be an
    interesting comment...
    
    Jt
    

    SF WEEKLY's review under the title "Brimstone and treacle" says that
    the first two-and-three-quarters hours "could well be the best
    Holocaust filmmaking ever."  But "in the film's final 20 minutes all of
    the director's Hollywood schmaltz comes out of remission.  Spielberg
    cuts loose, in familiar territory at last and relapsing like a
    junkie.... <many spoiler examples>  I've seen divas die faster than
    this movie ends.  It's enraging to spend two hours and 45 minutes
    frightened, challenged and otherwise torn apart by a film only to sit
    through its penultimate minutes cold as stone in the face of cheesy
    manufactured sentimentality."
    
    Ray

    
    	ah, now THAT sounds like the Spielberg I know (and detest).... :-)
    
    	I always get dragged into seeing his movies because the reviews are
    	always so enthralled with him. Every time, I leave feeling 'taken',
    	swearing I'd never see another Spielberg film again. Last time I
    	caved in was "Jurassic Park" because everyone was saying what an
    	"excellent movie" it was. Ach, it happened _again_. Sitting there
    	through typical Spielberg schmaltz and poor characterization of 
    	women, when I _knew_ better the whole time. Hooked in again.
    	Yet another $7 of mine into the Speilberg reward - wish there 
    	was some way I could take it back upon feeling cheated
    	afterwards...
    
    	I hate his style! 
    
    	And now he's ventured away from doing comic book storylines into
    	serious material - and again with the rave reviews - help! I'm being
    	hooked in again!! :-)
    
    	-Erik
    
    

    I left the theatre angry at the end of both "The Color Purple" and
    "Empire of the Sun" -- 2 earlier "serious" Spielberg movies.  I have
    been dreading his treatment of the Holocaust.  But I will probably go
    to the film, anyway...

    One reason for the post-WWII generation for not seeing WWII and the
    Holocuast in color - the vast majority of preserved images of the period 
    (newreel, photos) are black and white.  Spielberg has referred to this
    in his interviews - the images he grew up with were black and white.
    
    I remember seeing some color WWII footage (filmed by George Stevens) and 
    thinking how artificial it looked.

    
    Not only is it in black and white, the film also has the black
    static that you often see on an old film.  An interesting
    effect I thought.  I also enjoyed his sparing use of color.  
    
    I was impressed at the way the violence was filmed.  Not dressed
    up at all, no music, VERY graphic.
    
    Leeham Neeson and Ben Kingsley were both great.   I'm sure this
    will sweep the Oscars this year.
    
    Adam
    

    Don't let Ted Turner get a hold of it!  ;-)
    
    

    
    much as it pains me to say so (since i, too, extremely distrust
    spielberg), i thought 'schindler's list' was terrific. liam neeson
    is incredible.
    
    

    Anyone know when this film will go into wide distribution? So
    far it is restricted to a couple theaters in the Boston area.
    I'm looking forward to seeing it at a theater in southern NH.
    
    -- Bill

  I went to see Schindler's list tonight. While it's a pretty good movie it
just doesn't live up to the rave reviews it's been receiving. 

  Schindler's list is the story of a German capitalists named Schindler who
gives some aid to a number of Holocaust victims by giving them work in his
factory. Liam Neeson gives a good performance as Schindler and Ben Kingsley
gives an Oscar quality performance in a supporting role as Schindler's
accountant. 

  The movie has some truly dramatic moments and does a fair job of telling
Schindler's story but it does have some problems, most notably with the
development of Schindler's character. It was never clear if Schindler started
out as a ruthless capitalist and underwent a transformation or if his original
intention was to infiltrate the German command masquerading as a capitalist to
help those with whom he became involved. Also we never really understood what
motivated Schindler and why he took the course he did while so many other's
around him were so much more callous and ruthless. 

  By contrast, Ben Kingsley did a phenomenal job of bringing his character to
life. While I was never quite sure what Schindler was thinking or feeling,
Kingsley allowed us to understand the conflicts and emotions of his character
in depth. 

  All and all it's a pretty good movie with an important message but it would
have made it's point much clearer with some editing of some scenes that
seem to go on a bit too long and a bit more explanation of who Schindler was,
where he came from and what motivated him. 

  Hangs together well as a movie but has it's flaws.
  ***,
  George

    I've not seen the movie yet, but a few comments based on the book.    
    
    The same problem with understanding Schindler's motivation occurs in 
    the book.  Though "Schindler's List" is technically a novel, Keneally 
    seemed to bend over backwards not to invent motives or dialogue.  
    It seems to walk a fine line between novel and non-fiction.  
    
    One of the Boston Globe reviewer commented that some of Spielberg's
    dramatic scenes seemed incomplete and unsatisfying.  Again, I found
    this to also be true in the book - key dramatic scenes that were not
    witnessed are not reconstructed.
    
    

    My wife and I saw Schindler's List on Sunday. We both agreed that this
    was one of the most powerful movies we have viewed. It brings tears to
    think of the atrocities that happened during this era.
    
    I would rate this ***** out of *****.
    

    
    re:.11
    
    to me the best thing about the movie was exactly the ambiguity you
    mention. i don't think schindler, as brilliantly portrayed by neeson,
    knew himself what he was doing. makes his final scene that much
    more heart-rending.
    
    

  That's fine, I don't mind a movie about a guy who's not sure what he wants
to do. However the movie is never clear that this is what's happening.

  At the beginning it is not clear if Schindler is:

  - A ruthless capitalist out to make a buck who undergoes a transformation
  - An activist who's original intention was to infiltrate the German high
    command to save the victims
  - A confused guy who thinks he should do one thing then decides to do another
  - Something else we haven't thought of

  I don't mind any of those stories but it would have been a better story if
we had known where he was starting. Or if the producers didn't know from where
he was starting they could have told us that a number of ways. For example
they could have told the story from the view point of one of the characters
who would explain to us that Schindler started out as an enigma. But as it was
done, his character just ended up coming across as vague. 

  One other problem was that there was a bit too much violence. They could
have cut out half of the violent scenes and there would have still been more
than enough to make their point. Also that would have cut the movie down to
about 2.5 hours. At 3 hours it was a bit long. For example, "Sophie's Choice"
depends heavily on understanding the tragedy of the Holocaust but they get
the point across with far less violence then we saw here.

  Still don't get me wrong, this is definitely a good movie. It's just not
the 5 star classic the critics claim that it is. It has some brilliant scenes
and a 1st rate performance by Ben Kingsley but it also has it's flaws.

  George

    
    re:.15
    
    well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. everything you list
    as a fault i see as a virtue, even the violence (how could a movie
    about the holocaust be too violent?) and length (the length made
    it that much more nerve-wracking).
    

    I think the confusion about Schindler in the film merely mirrors
    real life.  Some of the articles I've read have mentioned that 
    no-one knows why Schindler did what he did, and it's still a bit
    of a mystery.  He died broke, by the way, supported to some extent
    by the people he'd saved.
    
    		-John Bishop

    I thought it was fairly evident that in the beginning, Schindler was
    quite the self-centered opportunist who saw a chance to make a lot of
    money and took it.  It was the Kingsley character, Izthak, who
    implemented the nobler aspects of the factory.  Schindler did not want
    to know (that's made clear in the scene with the old, one-armed man).
       
    By the end of the movie, Schindler is a better man.  Fictional
    character development or not, the changes in the character were nicely
    done throughout the film.  
    
    I cannot really find fault with this movie.  If I had only one word to
    describe it, I'd call it riveting.  If Spielberg does not get his Oscar
    for this (I'm not counting the concillatory Thalberg Oscar here), he's
    not going to get one, period.  I would not have thought this a
    "Spielberg" film, really.  Liam Neeson does a great job, as does the
    versatile Ben Kingsley.  The actor who protrayed Armon Goeth deserves
    an Oscar as well -- a very, very chilling performance.
    
    I've never seen a movie house so QUIET during and AFTER a movie.
    
    This movie is NOT for the squeamish.  This film deserved its R rating,
    parents take heed.  
    
    **** out of ****
    
    kim

        The terms harrowing, gut-wrenching, riveting, and heart-breaking
    seem to fit this extraodinary film. I had tears dripping down my face
    through most of the movie; I could hear people all around me, both men
    and women, sniffling and crying. When the film ended, there was a
    silence like I have never experienced at the end of any film. 
    
        I can understand, but disagree with, the criticism of the
    ending of the movie. I think that if it had ended any differently, it
    would have taken much too long for the audience to compose itself and
    leave the theater.
    
        To avoid spoiling it for anyone who has yet to see it, I can only
    say that you will see some of the most memorable scenes ever in a
    motion picture. 
    
        The film certainly deserves an R rating, but I think it appropriate
    to take some younger children. I took my family, including my
    10-year-old son and 14-year-old daughter. This is history, not fiction.
    Children younger than my children lived, and died, through this
    horrible time. The violence is certainly graphic but I am sure can't
    begin to compare to what it was really like. The Holocaust is arguably
    THE defining event of this bloody century.
    
        ***** out of *****  In my opinion, a movie classic.
    
         Mike
                                         

    As I mentioned in an earlier note, I had doubts about this.  However, I 
    think Spielberg has indeed managed the difficult task of making a popular 
    Hollywood movie about the Holocaust that is direct enough about the 
    historical reality, and serious enough in its treatment of character, that 
    it doesn't trivialize its subject.  It is true that in the last half hour 
    or so things become simpler, and the movie sort of collapses into a more 
    conventional production.  However, I can accept that.   

    I found Schindler a credible character, and his story an interesting one, 
    right through to the end.  I also was very impressed by the use of black 
    and white and colour and the dramatic quality of many of the scenes.

    I agree with many others that this is a very good movie.  
    
    -Stephen

    re "why did he do it":
    
    The New York Review of Books has a lengthy review of the movie.
    Included is a reference to an interview by someone else with 
    Schindler's wife.  Even she couldn't figure it out--apparently
    she found out he was a jerk when she married him (his mistress 
    showed up for the wedding or something like that) and he continued
    to be a jerk after WWII (example was that he was given $1000 by 
    some survivors to give to her and kept half).
    
    		-John Bishop

    re .21, well, it's no surprise that people and their motives can be
    complex, is it?
    
    
    Lorna
    

  I'm a little confused about the criticism of the ending. In general I felt
that the quality of the movie was very consistent through out. Since it's the
ending I'll put it behind a spoiler warning.

SPOILER


  In particular are the people who are complaining about the ending complaining
about the fact that the people survived or are they talking about the very
end where the actors and real people are placing the rocks on Schindler's grave?

  If it's the fact that the people survived, then it makes sense since that
really happened. As for that part at the end, I felt it was a very touching
part of the movie and was done really well. I was really moved. 

  George

 What I meant:

<spoiler>


About half an hour from the end, there is the scene in which the women from
Schindler's factory are sent by accident to Auschwitz after all.  Their hair 
is shaved, they are marched into a room with plumbing fixtures on the ceiling, 
the lights go out, they begin to wail, the camera pulls back to look through 
a small window into the room...and water comes out of the plumbing fixtures.  
We have been led to believe they will be gassed; we are supposed to feel their 
joy and relief.  

After this escape, both the sense of overwhelming danger and the moral shades
of grey are gone from the film.  We already know that Schindler is 
whole-heartedly on the side of "his" Jews, and from this point to the end of 
the movie, we know that no further harm will come to them. By  now, Schindler 
is no longer the amoral, unpredictably human capitalist exploiter, but the 
protector of the Jews.  The story becomes a matter of tying up loose ends, and 
moving toward a "happy" ending.  We see the end of the war announced, and 
scenes of rejoicing, gratitude, etc.  Most of the interest of this last 
section is in the behaviour of Schindler; the surrounding horror of the 
Holocaust, which dominated most of the film, has been banished.  Finally, we 
see the survivors as they are today, and the value and importance of 
Schindler's actions is affirmed.

As I wrote, I don't really have a problem with this.  As you say, the reality
was that this group survived, and naturally honoured Schindler for what he did.
However, the scene at Auschwitz signals a change of tone.  The guards at the 
camp in Schindler's home town are ineffectual; Schindler humiliates them 
almost without effort.  There are scenes of celebration, ceremonies of 
gratitude and remembrance.  We take satisfaction from the triumph (in this one 
case) of good over evil.  This is appropriate; but it might have been more 
subtly done.  


-Stephen 

RE                    <<< Note 403.24 by 58776::S_BURRIDGE >>>

  Well yes but:

ENDING SPOILER


>After this escape, both the sense of overwhelming danger and the moral shades
>of grey are gone from the film ...

  I agree with all that you said but as you mentioned, that's what really
happened. Wouldn't it have been somewhat incomplete if they didn't show us what
happened once they crossed the boarder? After all, they were still in Nazi
territory and presumably their luck could have turned bad once again. 

  I believe that without that ending the story would have left the audience
dangling wondering weather or not they survived the war and if so how. Also
they brought out several important points, telling how they deliberately
built shells that wouldn't fire, Schindler's control of the guards, his
escape, the help he got from his workers, and even a hint as to what happened
to the people once the war ended.

  In general I don't like stories that end abruptly when the main characters
walk out of danger. I like to see a bit of what happens to them afterward
and to see at least some of how they readjust to normal life, even if it's
only an epilogue.

  I don't see how this story would have been complete without that information.

  George

    
    furthermore, schindler's last scene is the emotional pivot of
    the whole thing. sure, we know what he's done and how he's
    changed, but *he* doesn't know. his beginning to realise the 
    magnitude of what has happened and what he's done is one of
    the most poignant scenes i've ever seen.
    
    

It was indeed a poignant scene.  For whatever reason, I didn't experience it 
as the "emotional pivot of the film."  Perhaps because the strongest emotions 
I felt were evoked by plight of the Jews and the behaviour of their 
persecutors.  My attitude toward Schindler was more detached.  His story was an 
interesting one, but not to me the emotional centre of the movie.

-Stephen

    Sarah, my 18 year old, and I saw Schindlers List on Saturday.  It really 
    hit home with me.  I grew up in a predominately Jewish neighborhood (about 
    85%).  One of my friends from school had a father in a wheel chair, and I 
    didn't find out until many years after graduation, that Mr. Iskowitz had 
    been at a concentration camp, as an early teen, and had been experimented
    on.  They broke his legs so many times, just to see how long it would
    be before his legs wouldn't heal any more.  Mr. I always wore long
    sleeves, when outside the house, so that his tattoo wouldn't show.. he
    was very embarrassed by it.  While a Senior in highschool on of my
    teachers brought in a German/Nazi made film, "glorifying" what they were
    doing to the Jews.  It had been confiscated from one of the deathcamps.  

    I really feel this movie should be a *MUST* to everyone.... so that it
    never happens again.  (I know, I know, atrocities are happening right
    now... but not at the same magnitude... 6,000,000 Jews and at least
    that many non-Arians... heart breaking, just heart breaking)

    If Speilberg doesn't get an award for this one, he never will!

    M-L                              

    Repy to 403.4
    Don't let your hard earned $7.00  be taken again!!!.....
    		GO to a matinee for a measley $4.00
    Then you won't feel so bad when you walk out dis-illusioned

>    Repy to 403.4                                                      
>    Don't let your hard earned $7.00  be taken again!!!.....           
>                GO to a matinee for a measley $4.00                    
>    Then you won't feel so bad when you walk out dis-illusioned        

 Well, I guess it's true that I give people too many chances but I paid $7 for
 yet another Steven Spielberg event again...  



 ..and I am SOOOO glad I did! This was an incredible motion picture experience.
 It must be seen on the big screen.  It was well worth the price of admission.

 As much as I dislike most of Spielberg's past work, my hat is off to him here.
 The film is amazing and he resisted so many opportunities to "be Spielberg"
 with a scene.  All the way until the end of the movie, yes even at the
 gravestone scene, there were many moments where involuntary realizations would
 spring to mind with a potential for him to do something Spielberg and 'cheesy'
 with the moment, and he didn't.  A first rate job and first rate film through
 and through.  He treated it with the respect it deserves, and proved so on
 ample occasions.  Spielberg further surprised me in that he also avoided the
 common cheap anti-deutsch threads altogether where I felt and feared he would
 thrive on them in a blurred focus frenzy for easy attachment with the American
 audience so used to it (his Indiana Jones no exception).  But his focus was
 sharp, and again he avoided the easy cheesy icons, giving the film the
 intellectual weight and honest respect it deserves.

 The film was an incredibly emotional experience.  I think it was for most of
 the audience.  It's hard to describe really.  For me at least, it wasn't
 emotional in a Hollywood way, where a scene was so geared and so crafted for
 an _immediate_ formula emotional response (oh I dunno, something like "The
 Champ" where a young boy is crying over something like a puppy and all
 indicators in the scene make you superficially emotional in that moment and
 then it's all over as soon as the next scene pans in), but "Shindler" is
 emotional in the long term, and sinks deep.  It builds up gradually, scene
 after scene, building up, until your heart is so heavy toward the end that
 tears come without you even realizing it.  Not so much for the specific scene
 in front of you at the moment, but for that scene combined with all the ones
 before it.  And that emotional state was slow-charged so deep into you over
 the three and a half hours, that it lasted inside you all the way until the
 next day and beyond.  It was hard to speak or even get up after the film.  A
 good many people just sat there - unable to get up - in such a deep emotional
 trance.  Few films have ever done that to me.  I needed an emotional cool-down
 period like I need a cool-down walk after a run.  After the lights came on,
 you felt like you needed to catch your breath.

 I too found the last half-hour a _tiny_ bit more Spielberg than the first
 three, but it did not interfere with the movie for me.  I felt a character
 inconsistency in the movie at the end with Shindler, the exaggerated shift
 felt unrealistic to me after getting to know the character during the first
 three hours.  During the scene I said to myself that he (the movie character
 as I came to know him) would not have acted visibly in such a radically
 different way, it was a break in the character and felt such during the scene.
 Sort of a "now wait a minute..." reaction, it's over-done, it doesn't 'go'.
 But somehow despite that, that reaction didn't interfere with the emotions and
 statements in that scene (perhaps due to the slow-charge emotional state you
 are in at that point).  The scene was still powerful, still incredibly moving.

 I _liked_ his colorization of the candle flame.  Very powerful.  Visually it
 struck deep chords in me (similar to feelings I had growing up with real lit
 candles on our Bavarian Christmas trees).  The air seemed to change for me as
 soon as the candles came to life on screen. 

 Conversely, I had an immediate and strong _dislike_ for his colorization of
 the red dress.  For me it screamed out in the very obtrusively forceful way
 that "YOU ARE HERE!" red arrows do on maps.  It bothered me, and as much as I
 tried I couldn't get past it as long as the scene lasted (you are here you are
 here you are here).  When I saw the reason why he did the colorization (as if
 you couldn't tell from the outset), I felt he took the easy way out via
 technology rather than thinking of other inventive ways to accomplish the same
 thing (using film angles, the camera focus to make the dress stand out in a
 crowd, or even accompanying it with big unique hat).  But that and the little
 bit overdone character shift in Shindler to drive home the point were the only
 Spielberg negatives.  Even for me, someone who is extremely sensitive toward
 Spielberg'ness and who lived in fear scene to scene half expecting them, I
 found them _extremely_ minor and they quickly get lost in the enormity of this
 film.

 There were so many things done extraordinarily well in the movie that I won't
 even begin to list them.  It would go on for pages.  All I can say is that it
 is Extremely powerful and I recommend it.  I don't think you will forget this
 film-going experience. 

 -Erik

    
    re:.30
    
    well put! i agree completely!
    

    possible spoiler  
    
    re .30
    
    I still haven't gotten to see the movie, but based on your description
    I'd guess that the scene that made you uncomfortable was Schindler's
    speech to the SS in the factory.  According to the book, this is the
    only speech of Schindler's that is fully documented.  Two workers in
    the factory at the time transcribed the speech as he made it.  It is 
    believed that his intent was to convince the SS guards that there was no
    point in further action since the war was lost, hoping they'd walk
    away.  That may account for some of the "overdone" nature, as Schindler
    was playing to an audience.  
    
    The child in the red dress is a very specific incident recounted in detail 
    by at least one survivor. 

    re. .32 re: .30

    spoiler alert

    


    I think what he was talking about was not the speech, but when
    Schindler and his wife actually left the factory and went outside to
    leave in the car.  I will NOT say any more, as you said you have not
    seen it yet.... but suffice it to say, the totally unemotional man
    became VERY emotional.  And I personally thought that scene added to
    the movie.... he finally, in my mind, became human, instead of money
    monger.

    MHO

    M-L

    -1

    	That was it. The speech I liked and was more in-line with the
    	movie character. It was his extreme emotional outburst that didn't
    	fit with the character. While _I_ was feeling that way at the time,
    	and while I could envision many men reacting that emotionally, I
    	could not imagine Shindler doing so to such a _visible_ extreme,
    	even _if_ he truly felt such a sudden extreme rush of emotion
    	for the first time internally. He was too polished, he had a
    	lifetime's practice of only showing calculated con-man faces and
    	presented images, in total control of his every facial movement. He
    	also, as I read the movie character, was never a man who
    	experienced things, anything, even his wife, emotionally. And his
    	groveling seemed a tad over-done imo, and went on for just a
    	little bit too long. (alright already)

	But again the scene still worked for me as I said...

    	-Erik

    
    My *god*, what a terrific movie.
    
    	I'm still in awe - if he doesn't get the Oscar for this, it'll be a
    crime
    
    	'he' referring to both Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Neeson.  Very powerful
    film, very convincing and heartfel performance.  Wow.  The absolute
    best I've seen.  
    
    	Is it me, or is this a fantastic season for good, quality films? -
    The Piano, Shadowlands and now this one.
    
    						- Jimbo 

    
    I saw Schindler's List over the weekend. I can't hink of enough
    superlatives to call it. Somehow, powerful, gripping, gut-wrenching are 
    not enough.
    
    The first three hours are perhaps the most well-done, horrifying bits
    in movie-making history. I WAS there. I (embarrassed at crying so much) 
    looked around several times, and there were people with tears streaming
    down their faces, apparently unaware they were crying.
    
    At the very emotional end, I actually had to keep myself from sobbing
    (how embarrasssing) but this was due to deliberate tear-jerking in the 
    part of Spielberg.
    
    Like other noters have stated, after the movie, people moved from the
    seats in utter silence, almost like automatons. To speak seemed somehow 
    blasphemous.  
    
    Much as has been discussed before, Sielberg did a magnificent job of 
    avoiding his usual ploy of going for the emotional cheap-shot. There
    were many instances where I thought he could have exploited the
    material, but her didn't. His use of color, during the balck-and-white
    portion of the movie, at first bothered me, it was like "I get it,
    alright?" But it worked at the end.
    
    
    The performances of Liam Neeson, Ben Kingley and the actor who played 
    Amon Goetz, are nomination material. I especially liked Kingsley. He 
    only displayed a minimal amount of emotion in one scene, but it was 
    *real*. 
    
    BTW, has the actor who played Goetz been in anything as Lee Harvey
    Oswald? He bears an uncanny resemblance to him.
    
    ***** out of ******
    
    
    
    More follows in spoiler comments:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Spoiler:
    
    
    I, like some previous noters did not like the ending scene of the
    "real" movie. I felt the crying scene at the end, in which Schindler 
    regrets not saving more people was Spielberg being Spielberg. No doubt
    something like that probably happened, but I have a hard time believing 
    the calculating Schindler would break to that point.
    
    Conversely, the transformation of Schindler, from go-for-the-buck (or
    Reichsmark) profiteer to humanist worked for me. I had not doubt he went 
    to make his fortune and use the Jews themselves to bankroll him, and then 
    he saw them as individuals he came to care about and felt he had to do 
    whatever he could to save them. I also felt he got a perverse pleasure 
    of getting the Nazi military to do as he wanted. It was he who had the 
    power, as he described in the scene with Amon Goetz.  

    
    Someone told me that the producers (or whoever makes these decisions)
    of Schindler's List were approached about the possibility of reducing
    the admission cost to $1 for all school age children.  Has anyone else
    heard anything about that?
    
    

  It's too long for school age children.

  Also, I can't imagine in this time when everyone is bleating about the
effects of violence on children that this idea would work, this has to be one
of the most violent films I've seen in a good long while. 

  
  George

    re .38, yeah, but this would be teaching a lesson, from history, that is
    important for everyone to know.  It's not the same as some Friday the
    13th type of thing.
    
    Also, there's a wide range in age amongst school children.  Are they
    talking 7 yrs. old, or 15, for example?
    
    Lorna
    

  Actually I think this movie is somewhat limited as a teaching tool for
children. The problem is that it's all effect and no cause. It tells you that
the Holocaust happened and that it was really tragic but not word one on why it
happened. 

  If I were going to teach the Holocaust to children I think that 15 minutes or
so if what happened would be plenty. From then I'd go into who the Nazi's were,
why they were inclined to do what they did, and then the big question, how
could people like that come to power in a civilized country. 

  Also the length of the film would go way beyond the typical kids attention
span. About an 30 minutes to an hour into the movie kids will start leaving to
go to the head and by 2 hours they would be horsing around, fighting over
popcorn and generally raising commotion, and by 3 hours if they were not gone
they'd be ready to hang who ever locked them into the theater. 

  No, this is not in any way a movie for kids. I don't think it would hurt
all that much but I doubt that it would make much of an impact, at least not
the one that you would want made. 

  George 

    Re the last few,
    
    Kids is a relative term. I think a movie like this is a must for all 
    teen age kids. I don't think 14/15 is too young to grasp the meaning
    of this movie.
    
    Also, I don't necessarily see it as a teaching tool for Nazi or even 
    strictly WWII atrocities, but for the things people do to other people 
    regardless of the cause. The effect is horrific enough. This (albeit
    in a smaller scale) is what is happening in Bosnia today. Perhaps if
    the people of that area would have had a Schindler's List in their 
    youth, they wouldn't be doing what they're doing to each other today.
    
    OK, I'm off my soapbox now.....
    
    
    Marilyn

    I do know that in Worcester a woman paid for the whole Jr class in the
    Worcester public school system to see the film, about 900 of them....

    
     Last week's Boston Globe had a small article about a Calf. school group
    that was kicked out of this movie. They went to see it for a fieldtrip
    but many students laughed out lould during a part when some helpless
    old lady was shot in the head. Many of the other patrons were upset at
    the poor behavior shown by the students. Eventually the theater stopped
    the film halfway through, asked the students to leave, and then
    continued on with the film. The theater recieved many thanks afterwards
    from other patrons who were being disturbed by the laughing and
    giggling from the students.
    
     The principal of the school claims that the kids laughter was their
    way of dealing with the horrors shown on the screen. (Nervous laughing, 
    or something like that) Another teacher said that the students weren't 
    laughing at the plot of the film, but rather the funny/fake/phoney way 
    that an old lady fell and died after being shot.
    
    
     The students were mostly minorites and the purpose of the fieldtrip
    was to teach them about attrocities to other minorities in previous
    times.
    
     Bob
                                   

  There is no need to weep for the future, it should have been obvious that
that was going to happen. 

  As I said, the problem with Schindler's list as a teaching tool for teaching
the Holocaust to children is that it is all effect and no cause. There is not
one word of why the holocaust happened and it's somewhat ambiguous as to who was
involved. 

  Those of us who are Baby Boomers or older grew up with Walter Cronkite's CBS
series about World War II and with 1st hand accounts from our parents as to
what had happened just a couple decades earlier. We went into the theater
understanding the scale and senselessness of the murder of those people and with
an understanding as to who was who. 

  By contrast, preadolescent children don't have the ability to comprehend the
magnitude of what happened and teenagers most likely have not been prepared to
understand what the Holocaust was. Going to Schindler's list won't help them
because it spends no time explaining the scope of what happened, who was
involved, or why it happened. 

  In defense of the movie, it is obviously not their goal to explain the
Holocaust, rather it's their goal to explain who Schindler and his workers were
and how they dealt with the horror of the Holocaust. 

  This is definitely not a film for children and it is only good for teenagers
who have been given substantial background on the Holocaust. 

  George 

    Well, my daughter saw this movie and she was extremely moved by it. 
    She's a sophomore in college (19), and her reaction was much the same
    as the people who replied here.  She said she thought it was an
    excellent movie, but that she could never bring herself to sit through
    it again because it was so depressing and sad.  She's not a baby boomer
    and she can't remember Walter Cronkite's news reports or first hand
    accounts.  (To my knowledge even I have never actually met anyone who
    was in a concentration camp.)  But, guess what?  My daughter has had
    history in school (both high school and college) so she knew what the
    movie was all about.
    
    Don't they teach history to kids anymore in school?  Or, maybe some of
    these kids just don't pay attention.
    
    I told my daughter I'd like to see the movie, and she said, "Oh, mum,
    it was wonderful, but I could never sit through that again.  It was
    just too emotionally draining."
    
    Lorna
    

    I dunno; if you spend enough time trying to convince people that "it's
    only a movie," and that all those deaths and maimings are just special
    effects, I'm not sure you can fault somebody for commenting on the
    effects just because the movie is based on fact... And, of course,
    there's the "adolescent desperate not to admit to any sensitivity"
    reaction, and the nervous-laughter phenomenon - and, I'm sure, some
    degree of lack of empathy.
    
    What I find supremely ironic about all the reactions to this film is
    that people seem much fonder of emoting about tragedies long past than
    they do about dealing with current ones. Anyone who comes out of this
    movie saying "This must never happen again!" and does not also take
    some action to stop the ongoing atrocities around the world seems (IMO)
    to have missed the point...
    
    -b

    
    Re -1 
    
    I agree with Beth on the last point she made. It mirrors my previous
    comment that that is what is happening in Bosnia today, and we are not 
    doing anything about it. Does it have to be 6 million+ before we step
    in?
    
    With regards to the students acting up during the movie. Kids will act
    like this whatever the subject or activity if:
    
    1) They are seated together with no immediate supervision
    
    2) They really have lost all regard for loss of life in a movie, due
       to the violence of today's movies
    
    3) They feel their peers will think less of them if they seem moved by
       a movie (or whatever)
    
    I still think all teenagers should see a Schindler's List (or
    equivalent) but perhaps mass showings is not the right avenue. It will
    mean very little if afterwards there is no one to explain the things 
    that were going on if they had no previous knowledge. However, the 
    Holocaust (as other atrocities) are not as powerful in written form
    as seeing them in stark realism on the screen.
    
    I think it's probably a sadder commentary on today's public school
    system, than anything. I can't see anyone doing that when I (or my
    sister who is much younger) if it had been posed as a school
    assignment.
    
    
    Marilyn
    

  I think it's a bit questionable as to weather someone 19 years old is really
a teenager. Yes the sound "teen" is in nineteen, but by 18 most people are
considered to be adults. When people say "children" I usually think of kids
pre-13 and teenagers 13-17. This movie is not for the 1st group at all and it
is for the 2nd only if they have had a lot of preparation, far more than you
would get in a history class covering all of World History.

  Regarding that preparation they get in school, it's was my experience that
during grade school we alternated World History and U.S. History each year. And
with U.S. history we generally finished the year with the events around WWI. If
they did get to WWII, it probably wouldn't be until May. 

  It was also my experience that about half the class, especially including the
half that was most likely to raise hell at a movie, didn't pay that much
attention to anything. I believe that it is almost a lock that if you took any
group of 13-17 year olds and showed them this film in mass that they would get
restless long before the 3 hours were up and that the bottom half, history
wise, would laugh and giggle at the violence since they would not understand
what was going on. 

  If you really wanted to teach these kids the Holocaust, a much shorter 15
minute version followed by about a half hour of discussion on how it all
happened would work much better. After that you are going to lose half the
teenagers in the 13-17 year old group no matter what you are trying to teach
them.

  George

        My first reaction after I watched this movie was one of shock.
    In high school I learned of the holocaust and the impacts it had on
    the Jewish people.  However, these were just statistics from a history
    book and had no real impact on me until I saw this movie.
        My wife and I both looked at each other after we seen the movie
    and I took a quick look around at the rest of the audience leaving the
    theatre.  Everyone looked as though they just left a funeral of close
    relative.  Personally, that's how I felt.  
        I realize how lucky I am to never have to witness or even
    experience the brutal torture that these people have.
    How dare people write trash to say that the holocaust never happened!
    What kind of an idiot would stand up and claim him/herself as a 
    Neo-Nazi and raise their hand to "Heil Hitler".  What kind of people
    are we to sit back and allow this infectious evil to swell?  
    
        It happened once.....it could happen again.
    
    Just my two cents worth.
    
    Blair
    the brutal torture these people have

    -1
    
    That's how I feel. BTW, it *is* happening again. Just read any book
    dealing with the situation in Bosnia. To date, it's on a smaller scale
    but I hope we don't let it get worse.
    
    For those interested in dealing with this, Schindler
    specifically, there is a new topic in the History notesfile. I don't
    know how to do the bit where you add it to your notebook via a KP7, but
    I can enter the data to add it if anyone's interested.

For the first time in a long while, I worked at home yesterday and (on my
break of course) watched a bit of Sally Jesse Raphael ... the theme being
teenage racists.  One 17-year-old strongly and emotionally denied that the
Holocaust ever occurred ... she seemed quite upset that this hoax was being
taught to her and her fellow students.

People don't change, it doesn't matter what the date is.  As someone else on
the show pointed out, it isn't a matter of black and white, it's a matter of
intelligence and ignorance.

RE       <<< Note 403.51 by 16913::MILLS_MA "To Thine own self be True" >>>

>    For those interested in dealing with this, Schindler
>    specifically, there is a new topic in the History notesfile. I don't
>    know how to do the bit where you add it to your notebook via a KP7, but
>    I can enter the data to add it if anyone's interested.

  While in notes type

  SET NOTE 403.51/CONFERENCE=notefile-spec

where
  notefile-spec is the name of the HISTORY notes file.

OR

  while in NOTES type HELP SET NOTE /CONFERENCE and it will explain how it's
done.

  George

    Re -2
    
    I've got a book at home, "A Pictorial Record of the Holocaust" kids like
    that would be welcome to borrow, and determine for themselves whether it
    really happened or not. I blame the parents, though. Swastika posters, 
    tattoos, etc. should be a warning sign that their kids are getting into
    something ugly.

    (SET SARCASM= ON)
    
    And a fifteen year old drop-out (or student) is such a knowledgeable
    source of things that have happened thousands of miles away, fifty
    years ago.
    
    (SET SARCASM= OFF)
    
    It just goes to show that, if its whispered, regardless of any other
    credible arguments, some people will believe it.  Take "logic" out
    of the equation, and it gets very frustrating.

    Chip
    

    
    
    I agree with reply-1. I was watching the E channel with Greg 
    Lamiere(sp) and they show a talk show with this great looking
    young redheaded girl saying how the bible says all Jews should be
    killed. Brilliant logic there (NOT!). They cut back to Greg and he says
    "It just goes to show you the line is being blurred between rehead and
    redneck".                     
    
                 -=-=-R~C~W-=-=-

  Keep in mind that for the most part this is not really ignorance. What you
are hearing are followers of the same group that caused the Holocaust in the 1st
place trying to figure out a way to do it again. 

  For the most part they are a fringe group and their violence is limited to a
small scale but they sill aspire to gain control so that they can continue to
carry out their white supreamist plan. Down playing the holocaust is their
attempt at making people believe they are main stream so that they have another
chance at power.

  Movies that cover the holocaust go part way toward reminding people of what
actually happened but they could do that more effectively if they included some
material on how one of these fringe groups actually did get control of an
entire country back in the 30's. That would help explain why it happened
instead of just concentrating on what happened.

  Here again, I don't mean to criticize Schindler's List because of this. It's
main goal was obviously to tell Schindler's story, not to save the world. 

  By the way, Oscar nominations are announced today. Schindler's List is
expected to be nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director. 

  George 

    Schindler's List was nominated in 12 categories, Best Picture, Best
    Actor (Liam Neeson), Best Director (Spielberg), and others.
    
    Getting back to the movies for a moment, I've just finished the book
    and have a comment on "the scene" (at the end).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Spoiler:
    
    The last scene in the movie, where Schindler is given the ring and
    breaks down bothered me, I just didn't see him doing that, and indeed, 
    per the book, it did not happen that way.
    
    It seems that Schindler was very subdued and scared at the end. He only
    wanted to make a quick getaway, lest he should be found by the
    Russians. This was somehow hampered by the fact that someone cut a wire
    in the engine of his Mercedes, delaying his and Emilie's departure for
    a while. BTW, they were accompanied by 8 of his "people" who vouchsafed
    for him till they were safe. The letter he was given was kept and filed
    by the Americans, one of the three or four times they were stopped.  

re .56  I wonder if it was the same girl that I saw on the SJR show.  She
made quite a fool out of herself.  At the end of the show a man asked her to
act like a Jew.  She seemed totally confused and at a loss as to what to do,
and eventually refused.  He asked her "if you can't show us how a Jew is
different from you, why do you hate them so much?"  She looked incredibly angry
and confused, then just let loose with a stream of profanity and walked off the
stage.

    Re-1
    
    Great comeback! I wish I could have seen that.
    
    
    MArilyn

    Speaking of the Academy Award Nominations, Schindler's List was
    nominated for best (Art Direction?) and one of the people nominated in
    that category is Ewa Braun. Wasn't that the name of Hitler's long-time
    girlfriend/companion?
    
    
    Marilyn

I thought the exact same thng myself when I read the nominations.

Peter.

    If I remember correctly, in German the w is pronounced as our v so Ewa
    is pronounced Eva.
    
    Anyone speak German out there, who can rule of this?
    
    
    Marilyn

	> If I remember correctly, in German the w is pronounced as our v so Ewa
	> is pronounced Eva.
    
	>    Anyone speak German out there, who can rule of this?
    
    
	The German 'v' is pronounced more with a 'fe' sound so Eva
	would be more 'Afa' rather than 'Ava'... so take it from there...8^)}..

    But how do you pronounce Ewa?
    
    
    Marilyn

	>    But how do you pronounce Ewa?
    
	As you had already said, 'Ava' as in Gardner...


	Eva...    Afa
	Ewa...	  Ava


	(except I don't think Ewa is Germanic but Scandewegian...)


	(Hey, I'm no expert, just what I can remember from my German
	teacher in Munich...8^)}...)

    Thanks. Now does anyone remember how Hitler's "sweetie" spelled her
    name?
    
    BTW, I wish I'd been a fly on the wall when they interviewed her for
    the job. Your name is WHAT???  :^)
    
    
    Marilyn

    Eva and Ewa surely have the same origin, Eva is the form used in the
    german speaking countries, and Ewa is the form used in the eastern european
    countries. So I know a polish woman whose name is Ewa.
    
    In German you pronounce the "v" like an "f" in this case. 
    
    Andrea
    

      Recently I had the opportunity to visit Germany, took a 4 hour side
    trip to see the memorial at the concentration camp at Dachau just
    outside of Munich. Never Again, is the large sign at the museum. It is
    a memorial to thousands of prisoners who were sent to the camp and died
    there. The pictures and film were graphic. The walkways had plaques
    that described how prisoners were summarily shot for stepping off the
    stone path and on to the grass. A jewish life was worthless in the
    camp, guards and officers shot or tortured people at random just to
    instill fear in others. 
      I also saw Schindler's List this past weekend and walked out after
    with my wife and friends feeling like I had just attended a wake.
    Somehow I could not believe that anybody could see both Dachau and
    Schindler's List and deny it ever happened. The movie was extraordinary
    in that nothing was sugar-coated, it was graphic in detail and showed
    how utterly brutal the Nazis were. Many scenes were sickening and I
    can't imagine a jewish person sitting through it. My neighbor has given
    lectures on her experiences in the Holocaust, what hell it must have
    been.
    
    Paul

    I saw Kinnealy, the author, on the news the other night when the
    nominations were announced.  I realize he's the author of the book
    Schepisi's 1976 movie "The Devil's Playground" was taken from, and in
    which he has a cameo as the priest who comes and does the retreat.
    

    
    
     I saw Schinder's List this weekend. The theater was packed out. I
    thought that the movie was excellent. Like another noter in here I
    took note of the people leaving the theater when it was over. Some
    were crying, others simply looked stunned.
     World War II, the Nazis and the Holocaust are subjects which I have
    studied for 25 years but never have I seen anything which brought the 
    brutal horror of this era to life for me....until now.
    
     A definite "must see" **** out of ****
    
     RG
     

    My wife and I saw it but were disappointed by the acoustics of the
    theater (Bedford NH), at least I assume it's the theater not the film.
    
    I put my vote in with those who thought this was a great film,
    deserving of several Oscars. But I also think Neeson's big scene
    near the end wasn't "right", I can't see that sort of behavior in
    Schindler's character. But I would fault Spielberg, not Neeson.
    
    Regrettably I missed one key (?) part of the movie. My wife asked me
    about something (I'm sure it had to do with the poor sound quality)
    and while explaining it we missed the end of the scenes with the little
    girl in the red dress. Can somebody explain what happened? Using a
    spoiler alert, of course. Thanks,
    
      John

About the little girl in the red dress...

I assume you mean the scenes during the liquidation of the ghetto when Schindler
first sees her wandering the streets...  She enters a building and hides in a
cabinet.  Later you see soldiers shooting up the ghetto buildings, including
shooting into cabinets, but you don't see her specifically.

Later, when Schindler is at the camp and the bodies are being burned, he sees
the little girl's body on a cart being pushed to the fire.

						Tracy

    
    
    	I haven't seen the film yet, but I know it is in black and white,
    	so how is it possible to be talking about a little girl in a
    	red dress from a black and white film ?. 
    
    			Curious.

    Because it was the only spot of color in the film.  (and, I might add,
    strangely done.  It looked badly off).  
    
    You'll understand more when you see the film.
    
    
    kim

    
    
     The "red" was her coat, at least I think it was (minor nit, I'll
    admit).
    
     The red was very faint. It almost looked "water color", I would
    suppose to simulate the "color" photography of the time (some of it
    anyway).
    
     RG

    John,
    
    The sound was fine when I was at Bedford... keep in mind that there are
    several times that the sound is suppose to be off in the distance, so
    only a few of the speakers were used.  I read that Spielberg did this
    to make it seem like you were there.... So, it might not have been bad
    accoustics, you might not have been prepared for the sound not being
    from all the speakers at all times!
    
    M-L
    
    PS tell Merge I said HI, Thanks

    PS.. another minor nit....
    
    behind a spolier
    
    
    
    
    the little girl in the red coat hid under a bed, and the soldiers shot
    up through the floor.  There were others hiding in cabinets, pianos and
    in floors hide-aways..... but she was under a bed, where most little
    kids would think it was safe.

  I guess I feel differently about this (what else is new) but I thought the
scene with the red coat worked really well. It was kind of eerie and a very
effective way to draw attention to someone in a crowd in a black and white
film. 

  George

    I too thought it was very powerful... as were the colored candles.

    I can't add much, but will say that the parts people have objected
    to worked for me (red dress, breakdown scene, color stuff at the
    end), though the movie wouldn't have been weaker if the breakdown
    scene were gone.  I was very moved, I dreamed about the Holocaust
    the night after I saw the movie, and am still thinking about it
    now.
    
    In an way this reminds me of "Amadeus".  In that movie, the use of
    lots of music by an authentic genius made you believe the rest of
    the movie was greater than it was; in "Schindler's List", the use
    of a real tragedy of huge scale makes you think the rest of the 
    movie greater than otherwise.  But I'll agree that this is the movie
    of the year, and far better than other Spielberg would have lead you
    to expect, and that it is significant in a way that most movies are
    not.
    		-John Bishop

    Saw this last night. Neeson's performance blew me away - he personified
    the amiable-amoral Schindler, and owned every scene he was in (well,
    OK, so he co-owned the scenes with Kingsley and Fiennes, each of whom
    played off him to *perfection*). Fiennes' performance, too, was as
    impressive as I'd heard, and Kingsley's was outstanding. Indeed, the
    only drawbacks I found were a few nits about detail (I've seen too much
    of the real-life documentary footage, so during the camp scenes I'd be
    thinking, "They're not gaunt enough/frail enough/dirty enough, etc.";
    though it would be asking a lot of a cast of thousands to have _all_ of
    them pull a Tom Hanks for a movie...) - and the Spielbergism of Oskar's
    departure, which I'll discuss farther on.
    
    Loved the colored candles fading to black. Found the little-girl-in-red
    thing too heavy-handed; he could have made the connection by using a
    distinctive hat or hair ribbon or braid on the coat. But what the heck.
    
    *Loved* the black-market discussion in the cathedral; it was
    delightfully perverse, and rather funny, yet conveyed very quickly the
    walking-on-eggshells atmosphere of the times.
    
    Then there was the "power of belief" theme: at every step, the Jews
    believed that this was as bad as it could get, and that belief kept a
    lot of them from taking any action to prevent the next step. When
    Schindler's factory became known as a safe place, the people's belief
    in him sustained them (and very likely lured him into his later
    actions); and of course his belief in himself - his utter confidence
    that he could woo, win, overwhelm, or buy anyone or anything that he
    needed - made him stand out at a time when so few people could even
    pretend to be certain about anything. [Hell, I think Neeson should have
    gotten the damned Oscar just for standing there looking impressive;
    talk about selling a character in a single scene!]
    
    Folks have raved about Fiennes' demonic Goeth, so I'll just say, "Me,
    too," and hope the guy gets some really juicy roles after this so we
    can find out what else he can do. Schindler trying to convince
    Goeth to try mercy was like trying to charm a cobra; he loomed and
    smiled and exuded cameraderie, all the while knowing that the guy could
    just as easily react by shooting the next person he saw. And then Goeth
    giving it a try, tasting each "act of mercy" to see how he liked it,
    and never for a moment thinking of the potential victims' part in it
    all.
    
    And I really enjoyed watching the Schindler/Stern scenes - the outgoing
    vs. the reserved, both of them trying to convey information without
    stating it outright, trying to determine how much they can trust each
    other, and - yes - how much they can manipulate and/or use each
    other... It was wonderful to see.
    
    Now for the parts I wasn't that thrilled with:
    
    [Spoiler warning...]
    
    
    The now-infamous "breakdown" scene didn't work for me at *all*. Even if
    that's what had happened in real life (I don't think it was), it would
    have felt wrong; the character, as depicted to that point, always
    played to the audience, and would have done any breaking down in
    private. (I suppose it's possible that such a collapse could have been
    staged - by another director, perhaps - in a way that didn't jar me out
    of the story, but in this case, when it happened I just disconnected
    and waited for it to be over.)
    
    Indeed, the  entire post-Auschwitz sequence seemed rushed (yes, even at
    the end of such a long movie!), and didn't convey very much of the real
    doubt and fear on everybody's part as to what would happen. The
    prisoners didn't know what "liberation" would mean - the Russian army
    had a pretty rough reputation; the soldiers had even more reason to
    fear the Russians; the prisoners' experience of German soldiers left
    them in considerable doubt as to whether their guards were going to
    obey the orders to kill them all or not; and Schindler himself was
    facing the knowledge that everything he'd built up, the contacts, the
    money (what was left of it), the property, was gone now, and he was at
    considerable risk of imprisonment. I didn't pick up very much of this
    atmosphere from that final sequence - as somebody mentioned earlier, it
    seemed a bit too pat, with Oskar never seriously challenged again,
    whereas in reality there were a couple of very dicey moments near the
    end when the balance could have tipped the other way. Perhaps the
    purpose of playing all this down was to give the audience's presumably
    harrowed feelings a chance to recover, but I found it unsatisfying.
    
    The rocks-on-the-grave sequence bothered me at first; it was a pointed
    reminder that this all happened to real people (which isn't a bad thing
    to be reminded of), but its presentation felt like major-league hype:
    "See how important this is! This is the guy's real grave! Be _moved_,
    dammit!" But after my initial reaction to that, I found myself
    impressed by seeing the real survivors side by side with the actors who
    had portrayed them. It wasn't subtle; but it appears it was a needed
    affirmation that "we are not making this up!".
    
    But I think I'd have preferred that epilogue to be in the form of a
    "Making of 'Schindler's List'" documentary or something, and to let the
    story tell itself.
    
    Despite the bits that I found flawed, I was very much impressed by the
    movie. (Oddly enough, I don't think it's Spielberg's best job of
    directing; but it's certainly his most powerful cast!)
    
    -b

    Saw this at the weekend in Geneva. It was the Version Originale but the
    problem was it also had German and French subtitles which is ok apart
    from the fact that the sub-titles at the end explaining what happened
    to Oskar Schindler after the war were also translated and between
    wiping away tears and trying to translate the french, I missed what
    happened to him.
    
    Could someone explain what did happen to him after the war (behind a
    spoiler of course)
    
    Many thanks
    Alan.

	I also saw this over the weekend and it was indeed quite moving
	(except for the parts where artistic license was obviously used).

	My major complaint is actually only a small nit, the WHITE
	subtitles were heard to read, I wish they had been YELLOW.

	I couldn't believe the Tynsboro-6 sold *out* of tickets for
	a 8:20pm Sat. show for a movie that has been in release for
	three months!!!

    Re .83 (Schindler's fate after the war):
    
    
    
    He tried his hand at a number of businesses, some in South America, but
    never had much success. He kept in touch with many of the Jews he
    rescued, and also asked them for money... They provided for him when he
    needed assistance, but his nature didn't seem to change much, and he
    was just as open-handed and profligate as ever, so he was nearly always
    broke. His marriage didn't work any better after the war than during.
    But, for all his faults, he did remain high in the regard of the people
    he'd saved, and in his later years he asked to be buried in Jerusalem.
    He died of - I forget, but whatever it was it's amazing, considering
    his lifestyle, that he lasted as long as he did - and was buried in
    Jerusalem as per his request.
    
    -b

    
    
    I don't know if this has already been answered but was Oscar Schindler
    a Jew?
    
    
    
    
    				EWAN

No. He wouldn't have been allowed in the Nazi party if he had been....and he's
honoured in Israel as a righteous gentile.

    I think Schindler's family was Catholic.

    Schindler was a czech.
    

    This is the first movie I can remember seeing where the audience sat
    through the credits.
    

    R.e. -1

    I never thought of that at the time, but you're absolutely correct !!

    Ian.

  ... happens all the time in Star Trek films. Trekies often watch the
credits to pick up trivia.

  George

One other movie that had a similar effect on the audience is "Amadeus". 

The final sequence is riveting (no spoilers) and the entire audience was
sitting, quiet, absorbed, almost in shock, all the way through the credits
until the house lights came up.  Then we all kind of shook ourselves loose
from the effect, and left the theater subdued.

-- Ken Moreau

    "Apocolypse Now" had the same affect. I saw this at our university
    theatre. They started bringing up the house lights during the ending
    credits, and everyone yelled "TURN THEM OFF!!!". They quickly darkened
    the room again, and everyone sat fascinated and watched as the napalm
    exploded throughout the credits.
    		Jim

    See 403.73.
    
    

    
    we must never forget
    

"Schindler's List" will be broadcast on your local NBC station, Sunday Feb.
23 at 7:30pm, commercial-free, with two intermissions sponsored by Ford.

See http://www.nbc.com/entertainment/specials/SchindlersList/

That's this Sunday!

-Jeff

> "Schindler's List" will be broadcast on your local NBC station, Sunday Feb.
> 23 at 7:30pm, commercial-free, with two intermissions sponsored by Ford.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	agagagagagagagag, those network bozos really must believe
	what they say about TV rotting our brains...

	David Letterman last year aired one night a highly publicized
	show that was also touted to be commercial-free.  While they
	never cut to a traditional "commercial", it probably contained
	more advertising for the sponsers during that show than with
	traditional commercials.

	Even PBS isn't commercial-free, the commercial's are just
	aired near the beginning and at the end of the show instead
	or in intermission form.

	I hope they at least broadcast this film un-cut and in
	letter-box (ie. wide screen) format?

	>I hope they at least broadcast this film un-cut and in
	>letter-box (ie. wide screen) format?
    
    I know there are destined to be some edits, but I don't know about the
    letterbox....
    
    DFW

Actually, with the length of the movie, two intermissions will probably be a
good thing. The above statement came verbatim from the NBC web page, so we'll
see how it plays out in real life.

I think that the commercial-free thing must be costing Ford a good deal of money
and I applaud them for the gesture. Of course, if they get George Lucas to add
some new scenes with Oskar Schindler driving a Taurus, I may change my mind...

-Jeff

    As I understand it, the intermissions will be ninety seconds long, with
    nothing on screen but the Ford logo.
    
    I think this is a wonderful thing for both the viewer and the company.
    NPR said yesterday that Ford is paying about $6 million for the
    privilege of showing this movie. In exchange, they get their name
    mentioned in ninety-nine promotional spots advertising the movie
    beforehand, and they get their name associated with a quality
    production. It makes me nostalgic, actually. IBM and Hallmark used to
    do the same sort of thing -- put on a production of The Nutcracker or
    some other special feature, with only one long commercial in the
    middle. I hope other companies pick up on this strategy.
    
    btw, the company says that the selection of Schindler's List had
    nothing to do with the fact that Henry Ford himself was a rabid
    anti-Semite, who regularly published articles about Jewish conspiracies
    in newspapers in the 1920's. They basically feel that this regrettable
    foible on the part of the founder is ancient history.
    
    				Jim

    
    I applaud Ford, and am glad that this film will reach a broader
    home audience now because of them.

    However I have to admit that the promos which showed the black and
    white title shot but with the colourized blue "Ford" symbol stamped
    upon it, made me chuckle, suggesting that we could see more Spielberg
    colourization 'cheesy-ness' than just the red coat, perhaps a red
    Taurus would be seen in a pan shot by someone's garage. It just reminded
    me how much that use of colour bothered me. Seeing the bright blue
    against the black and white image brought it right back to mind again,
    I had forgotten about it. Funny how memory recall works...
         

NPR reported that 1/3 of America watched last Sunday's telecast. 

    
    	How many is that ... 90M or so, give or take?
    

> How many is that ... 90M or so, give or take?

	CNN HN reported 60M, and said it was twice the number that saw
	the film in it's theatrical release.

	I wasn't one of those who watched it.  I turn the tube on for
	a few minutes to see if it would be letterboxed (thus preserving
	it's artistic integrety) or edited (thus losing 1/3 or more of the
	visual image) to fit TV screens.  Sadly it was edited to fit the
	TV screen.

	I was happy to hear that at least the film was left mostly unedited
	for content (nudity, language, adult situtations, etc), and was in
	fact the first show/film/etc to be broadcast on national TV with
	the "M" rating of the new TV rating system.  This apparently has
	upset some conservative Washington politition because the film
	was broadcast in prime time.

I watched it for the first time on Sunday, including the interesting commentary
by Speilberg before and after the movie. There are few films I would use the
term masterpiece to describe. This would be one of them.

-Jeff