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]> * ***************************************************