I agree with Tim Panton, who wrote:
> Shawn Levy writes :
> > but in sum I must agree with the earlier post that said that what
> > is wrenchingly human about the atrocities in the film -- and the
> > holocaust in general -- is not the specific death of a sole person
> > but the vast, barbaric totality.
> Not in my opinion. The point of "Schindler's Ark" (the book - I have
> not seen the film) was that _individuals_ are important. Schindler,
> on his own, made a difference - to the individuals he saved.
After all, what was the point of the bizarre (and much remarked upon)
scene where the women are "accidentally" sent to the wrong camp, and
endure a "shower room" which actually turns out to be a shower...
We see Schindler going to the Nazi bureaucracy, INSISTING that he must
have these particular women back. The Nazis respond, any other women can
do the work. And if we are to accept Schindler as humanitarian, then we
must wonder whether it is important that Schindler saves any Jews, any
specific number of Jews, or these particular Jews. (I suppose it could
be argued that these particular women are important because they are
related to the particular men who have already been saved... but that
argument has its own problematic and perhaps offensive dimensions.)