I was somewhat puzzled by the following comment in Douglas Baldwin's posting, re: "historical _inaccuracies_ in *Schindler's List*" >Further issues concern Spielberg's occasional use of German at crucial >moments during the film, the lack of any reference to the Warsaw uprising, >the failure to create developed empathy for any who are subsequently >killed, and other scholarly/critical questions raising ideological >readings of the film. It's not clear to me in what sense the use of German could constitute an inaccuracy, nor do the rest of the "issues" raised here - dramaturgical choices, perhaps, but *inaccuracies*? It seemed to me, for instance, that the "failure to create developed empathy for any who are subsequently killed" is a smart move. Thus, rather than merely rely on developing empathy for the victims in the course of yet another Hollywoodification of the holocaust, we are presented with an unusual (and, irony of irony, an unusually *accurate*) depiction of the relative anonymity and lack of "character" which these "sub-human" faceless and numbered (but unnamed) victims had for the Nazis, that is, for their murderers. This, it would seem to me, is an entirely sensible thing to show, even if it's also quite disturbing. And in addition to being sensible, it's also historically accurate: that's how the Nazi prison camp guards were trained... All of which is to say: I'm glad Spielberg dispensed - if only in this one matter - with the inanity of developing empathy a la Hollywood. Rather than developing our empathy, Spielberg insists (even if somewhat clunkily) that the Nazis felt none for their victims. Thus the implicit juxtaposition of Schindler's list with that of the Nazis: S's list is filled with characters, the Nazis on the other hand, had a list of numbers. As a result, S's "family" of employees gets the monopoly on empathy (very much in the Hollywood mold). Ok, ok, it's a bit obvious as a move, but well intentioned, no? And surely not an inaccuracy. david levin email: [log in to unmask]