How disheartening it is to know that you weren't horrified by the atrocities
inflicted on the victims of the Holocaust in "Schindler's List", just
because their characters weren't developed well enough, or because in your
you words, you didn't "know" them. I think that an attitude like that is
tragic when considering the content of the film. But that's my opinion.
Mattie ([log in to unmask])
In message Sun, 6 Feb 1994 08:26:59 +0500,
Craig Shipman <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> I went to see "List" last night
> I was dissapointed.
> Allow me to intro myself before i explain why, for this is my first post.
> I am a writer/playwrite, i have had one of my plays produced and am
> currently working on my first novel. It is my belief that all works, film
> or literature are to tell a story. I envision myself to be a storyteller
> over a writer. Any story is centered around characters, without them you
> have no story. Every time you stray from them, you are not telling a
> There were effective scenes in "List". Whenever Steve centered on a
> character and revealed to us motives and general development, he was
> effective. Per esempio; the scenes with Schindler and Kingsly. If he had
> spent less time horrifying and more time with the characters, the movie
> would have driven home the horror. Actions do not horrify, characters do.
> It was not horrifying to see people i do not know kill people i do not
> know in a place that was foreign.
> I was confused as to the transformation of Schindler from capitalist to
> humanist. Where was the transformation, how did the character change and
> why? Some may say that in the face of what was being presented to him he
> was bound to change and it was obvious. I will argue that others never
> changed, so why did he. I wanted the movie to be about someone! It was
> about something and, in my opinion, that is not storytelling.