SCREEN-L Archives

June 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Denis Hennelly <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 14 Jun 1994 13:19:22 EST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (41 lines)
the red coat was most certainly for the audience's benefit and not
only a schindler p.o.v.  it must be remembered that spielberg consistently
portrays issues by reducing them to a child's eyes.  nothing becomes
real in a spielberg film until a child sees it, feels it, hears it, or
wants it.  this works sometimes, and not others.  think how spielberg
would have filmed one of the most effective scenes of last year,
the axing of the finger in the piano.  we would have seen the
axe rise, then we would see anna paquin's face as her mother's finger
was cut off... the camera would have likely stayed on paquin as her
mother stumbled by and then followed her as she ran into the woods
to find baines.  campion on the other hand has the guts to take the
chance of showing us nothing but holly hunter's face, a brilliant choice...
's camera holds on hunter's face then passively watches her walk
into the mud isolated and alone... the daughter is no where to be seen
until she reappears searching out baines.  this is ada's moment.
spielberg approached this purity of filmic expression with the execution
scenes in schindlers.  i'm not necessarily trying to badmouth speilberg
here, but what i am doing is trying to point out that the red coat CHOICE
(because even if it is in the book, spielberg made the choice to include
it in the film... i'm also assuming that this isn't the only mention of
color in the book, and once again i am assuming, but i doubt if the book
portrays itself in black and white, yet another questionable choice
spielberg made) is about the filmmaker, not really about schindler.
spielberg uses children, this is his territory.  is it appropriate in
this sort of film?  is it puppetish (as has been suggested by someone
on this forum)?  an even more important question perhaps is whether
a film like this is even appropriate... should a film be made
about the holocaust?  there are two sides.  in one sense we must not
forget, the typical argument raised in favor.  but on the other hand,
any effort at portraying such a large evil is going to be degrading to
the enormous scope of the actual event.
which brings up a second point.  is this film a biopic of schindler,
or is it a historical drama?  the problems of leaving out facts and
figures in biopics has been raised... how does this relate in
leaving out and dramatizing facts regarding a historical event of
this magnitude?
[log in to unmask]