The social context of Schindler’s List emerges through examination of several reviews of the film. The editorials were mostly concerned with the technical aspects, and sometimes noted the weight of the film’s content. Most critics revered the film for its cinematography, editing and screenplay. Yet, they are divided as to whether the film is a reasonable portrayal of history, and if it is even possible to represent such an “intimidating subject” (Carr 91), one “too vast and tragic to be encompassed in any reasonable way by fiction” (Ebert 1). Schindler’s List goes “beyond the usual boundaries of film” (Carr 91), in order to depict the overwhelming atrocity included in, and stemming from the Holocaust. One must wonder why and to what extent Americans consider the Holocaust so horrific. A noteworthy characteristic of the film, eagerly analyzed by critics, is the utilization of black-and-white film, with the sporadic use of color. The colorless images remind the audience of the grisly newsreels and photographs that surfaced following the Holocaust and World War II. Indeed, “the ways in which the images and sounds [are] produced will not distinguish sharply between a fiction film and a documentary” (Bordwell, Thompson 131). In contrast, the use of color “intensifies most of the emotional values” of the film (Stone 4). Specifically, Oskar Schindler notices a Jewish girl, dressed in a bright red coat (apparent to the audience) in a Ghetto street, and later among the dozens incinerated. This obvious use of color only enhances the audience’s, and Schindler’s ability to sympathize with the victims of the Holocaust.
Reviewers recognized several other facets of the film as exceptional. For example, Spielberg’s use of a hand-held camera for a large portion of the movie creates a unique point of view for the audience. This creates a “near documentary” feel about the film, which enhances the credibility and authenticity of the story (McCarthy 2). This source credibility can be defined as, “an arguer’s ability to be believed and trusted by recipients” (Inch, Warnick 81).As well as recognizing the technical aspects of the film, reviewers acknowledged the “three staggeringly good lead performances” (McCarthy 1) by Neeson, Kingsley and Fiennes. Similarly, Steven Spielberg is revered as a master of film, so far as to claim that “neither he nor the Holocaust will ever be thought of in the same way again” (Maslin 1).Overall, critics were consumed by the extraordinary quality of the film, rather than the content. Thus, we must question whether or not Americans are able to confront the horror of the Holocaust. Furthermore, we must wonder if this American memory is culturally and ethically correct.
A discussion of Steven Spielberg’s career and reputation sets up an even clearer picture of the social context in the United States. Even before Schindler’s List was released, Steven Spielberg had tremendous source credibility as a film maker. Through the releases of blockbuster movies such as E.T., Jaws, and Jurassic Park, Spielberg validated his place as Hollywood’s most “famous, influential, and successful director” (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 1). In the film E.T. (1983), Spielberg successfully evokes emotions of the audience, while at the same time displays a carefully developed masterpiece of a film. Ten years later, Jurassic Park was released, and was the biggest movie moneymaker up until that time. Even though Schindler’s List didn’t even make half as much money as Jurassic Park, it was “destined to have a permanent place in memory” and “earn something better” than money (Maslin 3). Due to Spielberg’s undisputable success, his source credibility is greatly enhanced. He has made several movies in the past which were presented in a way that audiences could easily follow the story, and allowed them to emotionally identify with the main characters. Identification can be defined as, “influence that occurs because people find a source attractive and wish to enhance their own self-concept by establishing a relationship with the source” (Inch, Warnick 83). Additionally, Spielberg’s films are always beautifully crafted, through careful editing, casting, and unique screenplays. He continued this pattern in making Schindler’s List, even though he was faced with the challenge of telling the story of an event that is “totally and irrevocably Other” (Hansen 134).
I will argue that the Holocaust, as represented in Schindler’s List is an Americanized memory. In order to support this claim, I will provide a historical context of the Holocaust and examine specific factors inside and outside the United States during World War II that contributed to the Americanization of the Holocaust. In connection, I will argue that the main character in the film is a parallel case to American involvement in the Holocaust. Then, I will explain the defensibility of an interpretation in film, about an event in history, or book about history. Finally, I will discuss how Steven Spielberg constructs a memory of the Holocaust in Schindler’s List, and how that memory is one that has been Americanized. This argument is controversial because it suggests that Steven Spielberg, a Jew himself, has misrepresented the narrative surrounding the Holocaust.
The term “Holocaust” refers to the Nazi extermination of around six million Jews throughout Europe. Additionally, the Nazis murdered another nine to ten million people- Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled. The Holocaust was characterized by genocide, “a systematic destruction of a people solely because of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality or sexual preference” (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 1). The Nazi regime in Germany from the years 1933-1945 is known as the Third Reich. This time period began when Hitler was named German Chancellor and the first concentration camp was established. Progressively, Jews lost more and more rights, including citizenship. On November 9, 1938, numerous anti-Semitic riots occurred in Germany and Austria during Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass). That same year, Jews began to be sent to concentration camps. In 1942, mass killings using the gas Zyklon-B began at the concentration camp in Auschwitz-Birkenau. In July 1942, about 100,000 Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto were transported to Treblinka death camp. Those Jews who were not transported, and continued to be quarantined in that specific Jewish district staged an uprising in early 1943, and were exterminated later that year. The Soviet and American Armies began liberating the Jews in 1944, while Nazis tried to hide evidence of death camps. Following the end of World War II, many Nazis were put on trial for war crimes (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 1).
American involvement in the Jewish Holocaust consisted of ignorance, and lack of priority. In August 1942, the State Department received news “confirming Nazi plans for the murder of Europe’s Jews” (Holocaust Encyclopedia 1). That report was not passed on to the American public, and was not recognized for its severity. Similarly, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was informed of mass murder in the Warsaw Ghetto, but no “immediate executive action was taken” (Holocaust Encyclopedia 1). The lack of attention on the part of the United States government is only emphasized more in the fruitless begging by Jewish leaders for the bombing of gas chambers and railways leading to Auschwitz-Birkenau. The U.S. government clung to their policy of non-involvement in rescue, and refused to bomb the actual buildings in which thousands were ruthlessly murdered. This concept was only validated by other important figures in American culture during this time. Charles Lindbergh insisted that “meddling in foreign affairs is a peril” (Holocaust Encyclopedia 1). Bountiful propaganda surfaced in the 1940’s, equating Jewry with communism. In addition to this ignorance, the refugee policy of the U.S. State Department made it “difficult for refugees to obtain entry visas” (Holocaust Encyclopedia 1). Thus, if the Jews wanted to escape from grips of Nazi control, they had virtually nowhere to go. Overall, Americans were only slightly involved in the Holocaust, and therefore couldn’t fully experience the atrocity it produced.
Nearly fifteen years after the liberation of Europe’s Jews, the term “holocaust” finally surfaced in American culture. And not until the 1960’s did that word begin to represent the Jewish genocide in the 1930’s and 40’s. Further, the Holocaust began to “take shape as a distinctly Jewish nightmare” (Ehrenhaus 329). It took years before images of the Holocaust surfaced in the United States. These photos can be said to be “of something we were not a part of, and cannot do anything to affect; [we] couldn’t feel or relieve the suffering” (Sontag 20). This can be interpreted to mean that only those who suffered, the Jews, would be directly affected by the Holocaust. And since America was, and continues to be, a predominantly Christian society, we find it difficult to identify with the blatant atrocities. This characteristic causes an amplified interest in the oppression of minority cultures. Scholars believe that ethnic groups within the United States strive to be recognized as “first and worst” and to receive “officially recognized suffering” (Ehrenhaus 329). Ethnic minorities have consistently been treated as victims, and are in competition with one another to attain the pity of American society. Thus, it can be concluded that American see themselves as liberators. We must ask why are unable to see ourselves as the victims, the criminals, or the apathetic.
This question, specifically concerning the Americanization of the Holocaust, can be addressed through reflection upon our past, and our cultural identity. First, the concept of Americanization must be defined. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia states that to Americanize is “to make or become American in character, assimilate to the customs and institutions of the United States.” Thus, the memory of the Holocaust has been molded to fit these requirements for American acceptance. One can conclude that our memory of the Holocaust differs from that of Europeans, Germans, Jews, etc. Yet, it is difficult to claim which memory is more defensible. Peter Ehrenhaus argues that there are three separate aspects through which we can begin to explain how our memory of the Holocaust is Americanized. They are as follows, the 1967 Six Day (Arab-Israeli) War, the emergence of ethnic identity and education, and the myth of salvation.
The Six Day War was the “defining moment for the American Jewish community, as well as for the state of Israel” (Ehrenhaus 329). The Middle-East Jews encountered severe and violent threats from the Arab world. Each group wanted control of Jerusalem and the area surrounding the Jordan River. The Jews were forced to take up arms and eventually reclaimed their holy city, and stood at the walls of the Second Temple once again. This validates the claim that “Jewish national identity [is] built upon strength, resistance, and self-interest” (Ehrenhaus 330). This can also be applied to the Holocaust, in that the Jews obviously had to exert a large amount of resistance and strength in order to survive that terrible time. The Jewish population has endured several hardships through which they have learned to fight back. Yet, in the contemporary world, the Jews are never “fully accepted, often debated, and repeatedly the object of genocidal hatred” (Ehrenhaus 330). Further, for Jews, militancy is necessary in order for survival to be an option, even though it is usually the cause of compromise, loss and death.
In the mid- to late 1960’s, American colleges and universities began to offer courses about minorities, and about the Holocaust. As stated before, the predominantly Christian population of the United States tends to victimize those we can’t identify with. On a different level, this surge of new education enabled minorities within the United States to learn about their heritage and begin to identify with others with similar pasts and characteristics. Essentially, the United States promoted the idea of understanding your differences from the stereotypical Christian American. This just meant that you would be victimized. This concept was only supported and taught further in America’s schools. Many unfamiliar cultures have produced compelling histories of heroics and failures. We are told about these, only according to what we are allowed to learn, according to our country. The “Holocaust memory is also a beneficiary of an unfortunate consequence of the rising recognition of minority histories” (Ehrenhaus 329).
Americans have applied the “myth of salvation” to many events throughout history. Those who suffer justifiably encounter the darkness, because it is necessary in order for them to experience the light. They must pass through the “gates of hell” and are then “purified by suffering and by blood” (Ehrenhaus 329). If this is true, the European Jews during World War II were as pure as they could possibly be. This concept is central to, and easily traced throughout, American Christian theology. In order to be completely virtuous, you must sacrifice your innocence, renew your spirit, and redeem yourself. This model makes complete sense, in explaining how we have Americanized the memory of the Holocaust. We remember the European Jews during World War II as sacrificing themselves to the Nazis, then finding courage within themselves to renew their spirit, and finally redeeming themselves through opposing the higher power, and through liberation. Thus, these Jews have justified the outpouring of pity towards them, and have proven that their story is one worth remembering.
Due to the overwhelming presence of Christianity in America, we must ask whether anti-Semitism played a role in our involvement and eventual memory of the Holocaust. Scholars have suggested that the Jews in the film are “portrayed by anti-Semitic stereotypes” and are “lowered to generic types incapable of eliciting identification or empathy” (Hansen 132). Were we really as tolerant as we proclaimed ourselves to be? Did we only get involved in the rescue of Holocaust Jews because we felt obligated? In addition to anti-Semitism, we must examine the factor of past crises in America when discussing our memory of the Holocaust. Our fascination with the Holocaust can be explained by our struggle to find an adequate way of “memorializing traumata closer to home” (Hansen 148). We can easily relate the Holocaust to our own years of slavery, American-Indian genocide, and the Vietnam War. These events held consequences we have trouble facing, and we may have not faced them at all. In these circumstances, we were the ones killing others. That action is hard to justify. When faced with a crisis such as the Holocaust, which happened in another country, we are reminded of our inhumane moments in history. Will we ever be able to face such catastrophes objectively, and finally take responsibility for our actions? We may have taken a step forward with the making and reception of Schindler’s List, but we must analyze the legitimacy and impact of an historical story re-told through the media.
Before discussing how and if Spielberg created a defensible account of the Holocaust in Schindler’s List, one must ask how such a story can be adapted from history. The film was originally adapted from the 1982 book with the same title, by Thomas Keneally. To claim that Keneally’s account of the Holocaust is reasonable is a totally different argument. The fact that both the book and the film are based on actual characters and events greatly increases their credibility. This usually overpowers the fact that the events were presented by actors in an unoriginal setting, during a very separate time from when the actual event occurred. We must remember that, unless it is blatantly stated that it is a documentary, we have been conditioned to understand that it is a fictional film. Differing from documentary, fictional film “presents imaginary beings, places, or events” (Bordwell, Thompson 130). Thus, the events depicted in Schindler’s List may be viewed as exaggerated, and may not be reasonably internalized by an American audience. Internalization can be defined as “a process in which people accept an argument by thinking about it and by integrating it into their cognitive systems” (Inch, Warnick 83).
Schindler’s List can be said to be a docudrama, in that it is a dramatic portrayal of a historical topic. Historical fact and dramatic form are fused, producing an “interpretation of the past” (Sturken 85). Along the same lines, docudramas such as Schindler’s List embody a “screen memory” that “covers a traumatic event that cannot be approached directly” (Hansen 147). Further, they provide a “means through which uncomfortable histories of traumatic events can be smoothed over” (Sturken 85). We must ask why the American public is not able to directly face the events of the Holocaust. We are living in a time of popular modernism, a time of “leisure, distraction and consumption” (Hansen 144). We are consistently distracted by materialism, our reputations, and being viewed as tolerant, that we tend to forget about the issues that really deserve our attention. Rather than face them head on, we feel the need to “externalize…modernity’s catastrophic features onto another nation’s failure and defeat” (Hansen 148).
Along the same lines, historical films function differently than historical texts. The director decides what to include in his film, and therefore what the public will view/learn about history. In the case of Schindler’s List, the public could read the book and view the film, and encounter two very different accounts of the Holocaust. Robert A. Rosenstone claims that “a film is not a book” (506). Therefore, a film is not expected to meet the criteria for a historical text. Essentially, an historical film is open to great interpretation. And the way it is presented greatly influences what interpretations are possible. Hollywood has come accustomed to making films with certain elements that make it more attractive and popular among American audiences. In order for a film to present history, it must have a story of heroic individuals “who do unusual things for the good of others” (Rosenstone 507). Additionally, the film usually embodies the historicity of the event by including issues that are “personalized, emotionalized, and dramatized” (Rosenstone 507). Schindler’s List’s “textual devices belong to the inventory of classical Hollywood cinema” (Hansen 143). In this sense, Schindler’s List is said to have “turned the Holocaust into a theme park” (Hansen 130). These concepts greatly impact the public’s perception of the film, and especially the main character.
From the beginning of the film, we are given the impression that Oskar Schindler pities the Jews, and does not view them in the way Nazis do during World War II. He conducts business with Jews inside a Catholic Church, suggesting his support and validation for Jewish commerce. These actions, in no way, could save Jews from the Holocaust’s wrath. He progressively strengthens his actions in order to improve the lives of those taken captive by the Nazis. For example, Oskar tries to reason with Amon Goeth, and convince him not to randomly shoot innocent Jews in his labor camp. Further, when the Jews from his list are horded on a train bound for his factory, he orders the overseeing Nazis to hose down the train cars. The temperature was extremely hot, and the viewer can interpret this action to mean that Schindler wanted the Jews to be comfortable. This action toward a Jew had not yet been seen in the film, and thus came as a surprise. At the end of the film, Schindler admits he would be pursued by the German government because he was a criminal. He transgressed against the beliefs and laws of the Nazi regime. This elicits a sense of pity from the audience, and enables us to identify with Schindler even more, because of the abundance of human emotion.
This is only emphasized in one of the very last scenes of the film. Schindler exclaims that he had not saved enough people, and he could’ve done more. His outcries are met by an emotional and physical embrace from those Jews whom he saved. Izhtak Stern then gives Oskar a ring, engraved with the Hebrew words meaning: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entirely.” This quote further validates that Oskar’s actions were enough, and he made a significant difference. This concept can be said to have been applied to American involvement in the Holocaust, as evidenced in an earlier excerpt from this essay. We were barely involved in the beginning, and then progressively took more action. This may have been due to our sense of pity and obligation to help the minority, or those different from us. At the conclusion of the Holocaust, it can be concluded that the American government may have felt inadequate in their preservation of the European Jewish race during World War II. But the fact that we were involved at all, and saved as many Jews as we did, meant more than if we hadn’t done anything at all.
Bibliography
Bordwell, David, Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw
Hill, 2004. 130-132.
Carr, Jay. “A Hero in Hell.” The Boston Globe 15 Dec. 1993: E91.
Ehrenhaus, Peter. “Why We Fought: Holocaust Memory in Spielberg’s Saving Private
Ryan.” Critical Studies in Media Communications 18:3 (2001): 321-337.
Hansen, Miriam Bratu. “Schindler’s List is not Shoah.” Visual Culture and the Holocaust.
Ed. Barbie Zelizer. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2001. 127-148.
“The Holocaust (1933-1945).” Infoplease: All the Knowledge you Need. 2004. Columbia
University Press. 29 Nov. 2004
Inch, Edward S., and Barbara Warnick. Critical Thinking and Communication. 4th ed.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2002.
Maslin, Janet. “Schindler’s List: Imagining the Holocaust to Remember It.” New York
Times 15 Dec. 1993: C19.
McCarthy, Todd. “Schindler’s List.” Daily Variety 6 Dec. 1993.
Rosenstone, Robert A. “JFK: Historical Fact/Historical Film.” American Historical
Review Forum. Apr. 1992: 506-511.
Schindler’s List. Dir. Steven Spielberg. Perf. Liam Neeson and Ben Kingsley.
Universal Pictures, 1993.
“Schindler’s List.” RogerEbert.com. 24 June 2001. The Chicago Sun-Times. 29 Nov.
2004
“The 1967 War (The Six-Day War).” Infoplease: All the Knowledge you Need. 2004.
Columbia University Press. 29 Nov. 1004
Sontag, Susan. On Photography. New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc, 1979.
“Steven Spielberg.” Infoplease: All the Knowledge you Need. 2004. Columbia
University Press. 29 Nov. 2004
Stone, Alan A. “Spielberg’s Success.” Boston Review: A Political and Literary Forum.
1993. Boston Review. 29 Nov. 2004
Sturken, Marita. Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the
Politics of Remembering. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
“The United States and the Holocaust.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum. 29 Nov. 2004.
United States and the Holocaust.
No comments:
Post a Comment