Comments on: Defiance (2008)

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:07:20 +0000

Yes, by that standard, it sucks. Took a great story and flattened it like a pancake.

By: Rod

Rod — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:26:10 +0000

That’s pretty accurate. But it therefore counted as a major disappointment – a bunch of Hollywood pretty people cavorting around in a standardized action movie based on an important story.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:23:10 +0000

I don't think Defiance sucks. I think it is just so generic that it could have been about anyone.

By: Adam Zanzie

Adam Zanzie — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:05:29 +0000

See, I didn’t even SEE Defiance. Edward Zwick is a hack–and I say that as somebody who enjoys The Last Samurai as a guilty pleasure.

Marilyn, thanks for the courteous reply. Ryan and I hope you enjoy our joint piece; we’ll make sure to cover all of the questionable things about the film so that we can provide answers to everyone’s quibbles over it (and Ryan has much of the same problems with the film as you do, so your own arguments will be in good company, I can assure you).

Also, my apologies for the poor way I formatted that post above… I didn’t mean to put those two paragraphs in Italics. Screw WordPress’s HTML system!

By: Rod

Rod — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:42:53 +0000

I'd just like to say that Defiance sucks.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:22:33 +0000

Adam – I remember the shooting scene as you describe it, so thanks for the clarification. As for your commentary are the film, I must say those are persuasive comments, though I still think from a cinematic POV, the shower scene is one of those “gotcha” moments Spielberg likes so much, truthful or not. I look forward to reading the piece in its entirety.

By: Adam Zanzie

Adam Zanzie — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:01:16 +0000

The few comments that I will leave here won’t be over Defiance but just some responses to the things some of you have said here about Schindler’s List. I’m not planning to start a major debate here but I just want to leave some points here to follow everyone else’s so that anybody who reads Marilyn’s review here will find them later.

-Greg claims that in the “I pardon you” scene, after Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) immediately goes back to shooting at the Jews from the balcony, we see the killings from his point of view. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Greg is confusing that scene with an earlier scene in the film in which we DO see the sniping of the prisoners from Goeth’s point of view–and this is long before he and Schindler have the “power” talk. After the “power” talk, however, when Goeth tries pardoning the Jews but immediately starts shooting them again, we see the angle not from Goeth’s point of view, but from the Jews down on the ground. There is a clear shot of Liesek, the boy being shot at by Goeth, nervously trying to walk away from Goeth’s gunshots. And then there is a clear shot of Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) walking quietly past Liesek’s dead body. All of this is seen from their points of view, not Goeth’s.

-Marilyn has said several times in this thread that the shower scene wouldn’t have happened this way. But, Marilyn, it DID happen that way–to those particular women, I mean. In the real incident, when Schindler’s women were accidentally shipped off to Auschwitz, they were stranded at that camp for three weeks (and not just a few days, as implied in the film). This, of course, means that during their stay at the camp, Schindler’s women took SEVERAL showers, and not just one. Couldn’t they have only feared the worst every time they went in? True, Spielberg doesn’t show Jews being gassed. But that doesn’t mean there is no indication of gas chambers in the film: when the women walk out of the showers, Spielberg pans over to a long line of OTHER Jews descending into barracks. Up above the barracks, a chimney is blowing out funnels of smoke. And that says it all. Those Jews are being gassed.

-The little girl in the red coat doesn’t represent “the generations of European Jewry that will never blossom and grow.” She represents the sheer obviousness of the Holocaust on the face of the planet at the time. I think the reason she’s in red is because red is such a provacative color–and how could the rest of the world not recognize an ugly, provocative piece of genocide that was as obvious as a little girl in a red coat? She makes two appearances in the film, both of which serve as a sort of wake-up call to Schindler: when she first appears in the ghettos, it’s an omen to Schindler that his Jews will be sent to the concentration camp. When she sppears much later, dead, in a pile of corpses, it’s a WARNING to Schindler that if he doesn’t do something quick, his Jews will be sent to the death camps and all hope will be lost.

-The purpose of the “I could have done more” speech is to remind the audience of the fact that while Schindler saved some, he inadvertently condemned others to die. I’d be very surprised if I ever met anyone who felt good after hearing the speech when they’re supposed to get the exact opposite reaction from it. The scene is there to remind audiences that the movie is not only about the Jews who lived. Many more perished. Yes, its basic narrative is focused on those who survived, but isn’t The Pianist just as much of a film about survival? For that matter, Tim Blake Nelson’s The Grey Zone is the only great Holocaust movie I can think of that is situated solely on the ones who died.

All of the above is going to be covered in a joint piece Ryan Kelly and I are writing in discussion of this film–to be included in our Spielberg blogathon in the next two weeks or so.

By: Sam Juliano

Sam Juliano — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:19:23 +0000

Marilyn: I have cooled to THE PIANIST since its awards run, but while I can’t say you are wrong that there is some manipulatyion in SCHINDLER, I feel that on balance its hugely effective. I almost feel that Spielberg earned his few missteps in that sense. But again, we all have different criteria in coming to our conclusions. I won’t be placing it at the #1 position of the 90′s, for that I would think more in terms of Tarr’s SATANTANGO, Kiarostami’s TASTE OF CHERRY or THE WIND WILL CARRY US, Egoyan’s THE SWEET HEREAFTER, Kieslowski’s RED, DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE, or DEKALOGUE, Rivette’s LA BELLE NOISEUSE, Techine’s WILD REEDS or perhaps Nichols’s GATTACA or Yimou’s RAISE THE RED LANTERN, but you can see the company I place it in. Still, it’s just one opinion.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:15:52 +0000

Sam - I respect your feelings about Schindler's List, but I can tell you that my assessment is not based on less-than-intense feelings in reaction to the film. If anything, I would say it is based on more-than-intense feelings, feelings that I felt manipulated into. Awards have nothing to do with my feelings about this, as I thought The Pianist, which also won Oscars and plaudits, was an exemplar of a Holocaust film.

By: Sam Juliano

Sam Juliano — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:25:37 +0000

I completely disagree with the general concensus here on SCHINDLER’S LIST, which by any barometer of measurement is one of the greatest films of the 1990′s. The emotional resonance of the film is deep and lasting, and re-viewings of the film have strenghthened my original sentiments. The issues brought to the table here, while valid and thoughtful, seemed poised to defend a position that was instigated by a less-than-intense emotional reaction to the film. I do believe it’s wide-popularity, critics awards and general status as one of the greatest of Holaucaust films has not served it well over the long run, but in my view it has not compromised the film artistically in the slightest. As always I greatly respect the opinions of many here.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:58:47 +0000

The cast of Rubies is a mix of Jews and non-Jews, but I wouldn't want to cast a film strictly along religious lines anyway. I felt it rang true and compared favorably with an Israeli film, My Father, My Lord, that examined the Orthodox Jewish community. Besides, it's the only contemporary English-language film I could think of that actually cares about something other than the Holocaust.

By: Peter Nellhaus

Peter Nellhaus — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:37:31 +0000

Sorry Marilyn, but I have a problem with A Price above Rubies, probably because the stars were as Jewish as those in Marjorie Morningstar. How about Sidney Lumet's Bye, Bye, Braverman? How much braver Hollywood was in the late Sixties.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:37:07 +0000

Yann, The level of ignorance in this country about history is appalling, particularly when it comes to histories outside of the United States. Even there, history is written by the victors. Many schools teach little about the history of our own Holocaust toward Native Americans these days. We're in a dark time with the advent of teaching to the tests mandated by No Child Left Behind, which emphasize English and math. As for anti-Semitism, I'd hardly call it latent. I refer you to this article for a look at what is part of mainstream America: http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/07/farrakhan-blames-michael-jacksons-death-on-zionist-conspiracy.html As for the shower scene, I can't say that you're not right, but in this movie, it's clear that these women were not being showered only to lull them for later extermination. They were meant to be saved, which makes the scene manipulative of what audiences know about the death camp methods.

By: Yann

Yann — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:26:30 +0000

Marilyn – I’m glad you didn’t take this the wrong way and that we can have a civil discussion. It seems our different takes on the film are strongly influenced by the attitudes we see towards Jews in our respective societies. I am quite surprised that the climate of latent anti-semitism and ignorance you describe exists to such an extent in the US. Coming from Europe, I certainly won’t deny that such attitudes exist here, but they are mostly at the very margins of society and being anti-semitic or denying the Holocaust would lead to immediate exclusion at least from my social circles. Also, you learn so much in school and on TV about the Nazis, that ignorance about these matters is considered more or less inexcusable, and those who claim ignorance or actively go against the mainstream historical consensus have to make a deliberate decision to relegate themselves to the radical fringes. So I would say that “Schindler’s List” represented pretty much a mainstream view of the matter and that the facts presented surprised very few people, but rather that it was the emotional impact a Spielberg film can have on the masses which brought out latent emotions connected with this period such as shame and pity.
I agree with your point regarding the need for a hero people can identify with and the inability of most mainstream films to consistently stick with the perspective of the victims – and sometimes this drives me nuts as well. Most Vietnam and more recently Iraq war movies, for instance, even those highly critical of the war, stick to a US perspective and I wish just once in a while at least film-makers would dare to tell the story from the point of view of a Vietnamese peasant or a normal Iarqi family caught up in the chaos and destruction of war. But, as you yourself pointed out, this is a standard Hollywood device (thanks for the tip on “Bent”, incidentally I was thinking of “Philadelphia” as well, when I wrote the previous post), and I find it a bit unfair to single out Spielberg here.
One last point regarding the shower scene: I am not quite sure when or where I read about this, but I think it was common practice in the camps to have the women shower first with water, so that when they finally would be gassed, after having been used for cheap labour, there would be no outcry and panic. But I might be mistaken.

By: Greg F

Greg F — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:31:29 +0000

(For the record, I didn’t think “Ha, ha, look. Amon is back to his old ways again! Ha, ha, will he never learn?” at the target practice scene. I was appropriately appalled.)
Rick, there are different stories for this according to different people. As for my friend, and me, we both experienced the same thing. In the theater, when the camera cuts to Goeth taking aim, making it clear he has clearly abandoned the forgiveness strategy, my friend in his theatrical experience and me in mine heard… laughter. Yes, there were chuckles. Those chuckles wouldn’t come from you or me or anyone we know, probably, but they came because that is how the scene is set up.
Let me make this more clear: I don’t believe for a second Spielberg wanted it to be funny.
I am saying he incompetently set it up that way because he is so well-versed in cinematic technique and so emotionally deficient in… EVERYTHING (which is why I am consistently disappointed by his dramatic work while others are wowed) that he mindlessly gave a comedic context to an appalling scene. He did so because emotionally he is a child and didn’t understand why it was the wrong technique to use. That’s why SCHINDLER’S LIST for me is filled with wrongheaded moves (the shower scene, the girl in red, the scene I just discussed) because Spielberg doesn’t understand he’s using the wrong techniques for the individual scenes.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:34:52 +0000

Yann – Thank you for your considered comments, and I apologize if my remarks proved insensitive to your very legitimate concerns. We do forget the many Nazi victims – in the camps and on the battlefields – who weren’t Jews, probably because of this heightened emphasis on the Jewish Holocaust. Those victims deserve as much consideration and honor. I would recommend Bent as an excellent example of the resistance of homosexuals to the Nazis.
As for whether all Gentiles want that relief, of course, the answer is “no.” But many do, and I’ve met them. Read as much Holocaust denial literature as I have, and you’ll see that there are plenty of people who don’t share a sense of responsibility for humanity and, indeed, still hate Jews. Live in a largely Catholic town, as I do, and see the level of ignorance about Jews. Seeing Schindler’s List is not likely to win Jews many fans – the pain is too great – unless Gentiles in the audience can identify with a good guy. The same device was used in Philadelphia, with Denzel Washington standing in for the straight community. It’s a standard cinematic device.
I know how devastating this film was to non-Jews; I went under protest to see it with my ex-husband, a Catholic. He was extremely jarred, which I admit, made me kind of angry because I was wondering what he was expecting? Didn’t he know? I can get pretty angry about such ignorance, though I realize not everyone was raised in the spotlight of the Holocaust. If Schindler’s List raised consciousness on this issue among a new generation (or even the old one), then I guess Mr. Spielberg did good. If he felt the only way to raise people out of their torpor was to poke them hard emotionally, then maybe he’s right, and I’m wrong.
I wonder, however, if his work prompted people not already inclined to help current victims of atrocities. It’s not enough to feel bad about the past; it must translate to action, or the film becomes a kind of sadomasochistic exercise. (Not that film has to mobilize people, but it seems a logical hope.) I guess I’ll never know for sure unless someone comes forward to say it changed their life.
As for the question of dignity, I’m afraid I have to stick to my guns on this one. It’s a sore point with me, this continued Supreme Victims label. Again, what is the point of putting a bunch of naked women in a shower and then actually showering them? That’s not what happened. It’s like what Spielberg wished would happen, but it falsifies their story and robs them of their real fates – while naked, no less. I did think that was undignified.

By: Yann

Yann — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:49:28 +0000

Hi Ferdy, I love your blog and I am not trying to stir up a fight or anything, but I simply have to comment on your views regarding “Schindler’s List” and specifically your statement that the film:
“milked it for cheap emotion that helped Gentiles in the audience feel good about themselves.”
and was
“pandering to a Gentile population whose parents and grandparents looked the other way while Jews were being slaughtered and denied safe haven in America.”
I think you’re badly mistaken both as regards the film itself and your dichotomy between Jews and “Gentiles”.
If providing such comfort was really Spielberg’s intention, which I think is highly doubtful in the first place, then he seemed to have failed miserably: all of the “Gentiles” I know, including some children and grandchildren of perpetrators and fellow-travellers, were positively devastated and depressed after having seen “Schindler’s List”.
The fact that Schindler was able to save some thousand Jews did not make these people feel better about themselves at all, but on the contrary highlighted what a drop in the ocean his efforts were. Anybody who knows anything about the Nazi terror will view this story against the background of the unbelievable death and destruction that occurred and it would be totally ignorant to “feel better” about it, because somebody managed to save a few victims.
I find it offensive to assume that “Gentiles” would be longing for such cheap relief and would be dumb or ignorant enough to so easily forget about the larger context. I’m afraid your statement becomes even more offensive, when we consider the fact that, depending on how you want to count it, up to 18 million victims of the Nazi terror were “Gentiles”. And since we are talking about the descendants of those involved, I have a hard time understanding how you come to think that there is a clear dividing line between those whose ancestors were victims, fellow-travellers and perpetrators.
As far as the aesthetical and ethical merit of “Schindler’s List” is concerned, one can certainly criticize Spielberg’s approach, but again, accusing him of “robbing the victims of their dignity” seems to be way off base to me. Maybe the only sound way of dealing with the death and destruction brought about by the Nazi terror is a 10-hour screening of “Shoa” – but then how many people have seen it as opposed to “Schindler’s List”?

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:10:37 +0000

No, not particularly. I just wanted to nuance some of your — and Ed’s and Greg’s — arguments. Spielberg goes over the top — early and often — in wringing emotion out of a situation. And his desire to pander to his audiences’ need to feel good can produce offensive results; as I said, I think you’re right on with your criticism of him assuaging Gentile guilt. I’ve only seen “Schindler’s List” once before, and have little desire to see it again.
Actually, I agree with Ed that Spielberg’s action films are among the best, but that his “serious films” are seriously flawed.

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:51:06 +0000

Really? I’m surprised. You sounded like you were on its side.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:29:48 +0000

Spielberg’s film was a failure freak show masquerading as noble.
I’ll buy that.