SCREEN-L Archives

March 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text 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]>
Cary Nathenson <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 8 Mar 1994 16:34:17 +0100
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (26 lines)
S. Hart and others respond to my posting on the the "shock" experience of
awareness after watching _Schindler's List_.  I appreciate that for many,
regardless of educational level, basic information about the holocaust may
be new and received for the first time through Spielberg's version.  This
isn't what interests me, however.  I'm also aware that information
received via film gets its legitimacy in ways different than, say, a
history book.  My posting asks for responses about specific tactics
Spielberg uses in the film to inspire this sense of "shock," especially,
but not exclusively, among people who aren't hearing about Nazis for the
first time.  Why believe Spielberg more than _Res Dogs_, for an example of
two films that contain "shocking" violence?  Are there risks anyone cares
to mention in association with the lack of ironic distance that I assume
lends credence to Spielberg's version? (I have to assume because I haven't
seen it yet.  It's only been playing here for a couple of days.)
One final note, re: inaccuracies.  In Israel a survivor recently told
Spielberg that the regime under the film's camp commander was a picnic
compared to the reality he experienced.
*       Cary Nathenson                            *
*       Freie Universitaet Berlin                 *
*       Washington University in St. Louis        *
*                                                 *
*       <[log in to unmask]>       *