Schindler's List

[iluv2viddyfilms]

Schindler's List (1993, Steven Spielberg)

http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/images/27/spielberg/schindlers_list.jpg

Schindler's List will forever be Spielberg's great serious film. I discount any notion that because Spielberg is Jewish, that he has some sublime connection to the material. People who suffered during the Holocaust have a connection to the material. Also people who's direct relatives suffered during the period. I want to make it clear that any praise of the film regarding Spielberg's special position is silly. I have Irish ancestory, but that doesn't qualify me any more than an Italian to make a movie about the Irish Potato Famine. I wasn't there. Spielberg wasn't there during the Holocaust.
I enjoy the stylistic touch of shooting it in black and white. I think more films should be shot in this method. It does give it a sense of age and place. World War II is afterall a war which has been forever viewed in black and white, whether through actual footage and photographs or old classic films.
Despite the excellent raw first half of the film in which we see Schindler (Liam Neeson) gather up Jews for his factory and the massacre of Krakow ghetto, it slowly descends into Spielberg sentimentality. I did appreciate not knowing the motivations of the Schindler character who starts out as an opportunist looking for cheap Jewish labor in the war, to penniless savior. There are hints at his change. It's done very subtly and masterfully.
The other main character in the film is Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) who murders without thought. His character is a bit too evil for me in that Spielberg way of seeing things in shades of black and white. Clearly Schindler is flawed but in Spielberg's mind he is a white character because he does good. Goeth is a black character. He does bad. This is one of my main complaints against the film. Despite their dealings with one another, the audience is lured into cheering when we see Goeth hanging in the last scenes of the film. Never do we stop to question him or feel sympathy for his nature. He is a character straight out of Billy Budd. Claggart. He hates because he hates himself. That is why he cannot pardon, because he cannot pardon himself. Spielberg quickly gives us a glimpse at this and then tosses it aside. Simply put, the Nazis are the bad guys, the Jews are the good guys, and there's a good German and a bad German.
The girl in the red dress, which remains a touchstone of the film, provoked no emotion out of me. In real life she lived. In Spielberg's world she dies. The film drags on with the scenes of Schindler's Jews going back and forth on the trains. The ending of the film is embarrasing with Schindler's breakdown, "I could have saved one more." At this point William's musical score hits its climax. I also dislike Spielberg's choice to show the actual survivors with their actor counterparts putting stones on Schindler's grave. Overkill to a message already hammered home. Schindler's List shows promise during the first half, but ultimately it dives into sap. With Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List behind his belt, Spielberg seems to connect with World War II as its great modern storyteller, placing himself no doubt just behind Schindler and Eisenhower in scale of importance.
I much prefer The Pianist directed by Roman Polanski who was actually offered Schindler's List to direct, but turned it down. Polanski's film is much more touching without being sentimental and Polanski luckily doesn't see the world in the "black and white" shades that Spielberg looks through.

Grade: B-

[Powdered Water]

Seems like a pretty negative review for a relatively high rating.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

Seems like a pretty negative review for a relatively high rating.

B- is above average. It was definitely an above average film, but I don't think it's great as many people seem to.

I did focus on things I enjoyed. Liam Neeson, shooting in black and white, most of the first half of the film.

[Powdered Water]

I can agree with you there. I don't love the movie. I'm not sure I could ever love a movie about the holocaust. It's a powerful movie to say the least. Does it deserve to be so high on the AFI list? I don't think so, but it is.

Whatareyougonnado?

[martian leader]

A real good powerful movie about World War 2.

I give it a 5/5 rating. :yup:

[mark f]

I honestly prefer not to say one word because you're obviously baiting me, but I'll just say that your personal animosity towards Spielberg is clear since you spend half of the review of Schindler's List criticizing Spielberg as some simple-minded boob who believes that he's a Messiah, and I honestly don't understand how anyone short of a "Claggart-type character" could make such an interpretation. You twist your own personal hatred for the man into some kind of "insight" into how he thinks and makes movies. Then you want to make sure that somehow people always "cheer" at a Spielberg movie? I've seen the film many, many times, at the theatre, at school and at home, and I've never seen or heard one person cheer at all during the film.

This is a one-off because this fish is too smart to take the next line of bait.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

I can agree with you there. I don't love the movie. I'm not sure I could ever love a movie about the holocaust. It's a powerful movie to say the least. Does it deserve to be so high on the AFI list? I don't think so, but it is.

Whatareyougonnado?


Night and Fog was a very good documentary about the Holocaust with some very disturbing images. Most films about the subject seem to use that documentary as a reference point. They even showed clips from it in Judgement at Nuremberg.


I enjoy The Pianist very much.

Also The Search, but that's not really about the holocaust so much as a young child survivor. I don't know if any film has ever been just about the holocaust.

The Pawnbroker is a great movie that deals with the long term psychological after effects.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

I honestly prefer not to say one word because you're obviously baiting me, but I'll just say that your personal animosity towards Spielberg is clear since you spend half of the review of Schindler's List criticizing Spielberg as some simple-minded boob who believes that he's a Messiah, and I honestly don't understand how anyone short of a "Claggart-type character" could make such an interpretation. You twist your own personal hatred for the man into some kind of "insight" into how he thinks and makes movies. Then you want to make sure that somehow people always "cheer" at a Spielberg movie? I've seen the film many, many times, at the theatre, at school and at home, and I've never seen or heard one person cheer at all during the film.

This is a one-off because this fish is too smart to take the next line of bait.


I am no more baiting you than you bait me whenever you comment on a David Lych film negatively. We just don't agree on certain films or filmmakers.

As far as the word "cheer" goes I was talking about how people internally cheer. Of course they're not going to cheer aloud. Next time I'll be sure to paint that more clear the way a Spielberg movie spells things out.

And I don't buy into the idea that I can somehow seperate an "auteur" film from the director. Of course Spielberg was also the producer. It was his baby. Do you expect me not to talk about Scorsese when looking at Mean Streets or not to talk about Polanski when looking at The Pianist?

I know you think I'm a Claggart type character because I dislike many of Spielberg's films.

I think Schindler's List is a good film, but it has things in it I strongly dislike.

As far as Spielberg goes I do enjoy several of his movies. Duel and Catch Me If You Can both get an "A" grade from me.

[Harry Lime]

Schindler's List (5/5)

[n3wt]

This is a supurb and moving film set in WW2 and I cant understand how a small minority who think it is a bad movie as it is a cinamatic great. It has so much depth to the movie and the whole film is well executed, no punn intended lol

[Powdered Water]

Nobody said it was a bad movie.

[krisha]

Schindler's list is not an accurate historical "retelling" of what actually happened, it is first and foremost a Hollywood movie, who's main aim is entertainment and subtle manipulation.

[Caitlyn]

Interesting review Viddy... not sure I totally agree with your thoughts on the lack of connection Spielberg has with the Holocaust though... because, given the fact he is Jewish, he more than likely had relatives who were there... which, to me, puts him in a closer relationship than some to understand the horrors of the Holocaust...

[Yoda]

Yeah, I believe so. There's a fairly short article from 1993 called "Steven Spielberg Faces the Holocaust (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/spielberg.html)." It says that "[Spielberg's] family had direct ties to the Holocaust: relatives died in Poland and Ukraine."

Anyway, I don't think such ties are necessary for Spielberg to have a "connection" to the material. Seems an odd sentiment, really -- would anyone say the same thing to an African-American who made a film about slavery, or a Native American who made a film about the founding of America? I may be fair to say he does not necessarily have a special connection to the material, but I don't see why anyone would suggest he definitely doesn't. Being Jewish, and having even distant relatives who were involved, must have an effect that a non-Jewish individual can not expect to entirely identify with.

[Sir Toose]

I get what you're saying, Viddy, RE: The Speilberg Touch. To me it just plays out as optimism in the face of the horrific but I really can see how it might grate on someone's nerves particularly considering some of the content of the film.

[n3wt]

Nobody said it was a bad movie.
I didnt mean in this thread I ment in general when I have spoked about this movie to friends and other people online.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

Yeah, I believe so. There's a fairly short article from 1993 called "Steven Spielberg Faces the Holocaust (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/spielberg.html)." It says that "[Spielberg's] family had direct ties to the Holocaust: relatives died in Poland and Ukraine."

Anyway, I don't think such ties are necessary for Spielberg to have a "connection" to the material. Seems an odd sentiment, really -- would anyone say the same thing to an African-American who made a film about slavery, or a Native American who made a film about the founding of America? I may be fair to say he does not necessarily have a special connection to the material, but I don't see why anyone would suggest he definitely doesn't. Being Jewish, and having even distant relatives who were involved, must have an effect that a non-Jewish individual can not expect to entirely identify with.

I agree it is an odd sentiment, but people make it all the time, or rather critics, reviewers, and audiences do. I do disagree with thinking someone needs to have a personal connection to the material to make greatness.

Did Ridley Scott ever go to Los Angeles 2019 when he made Blade Runner?
Did Sergio Leone gundown bandits in the Old West before he made Once Upon a Time in the West?

Directors clearly don't need connections, however when they do a film's experience can be heightened. The Pianist for example.

My critique is this... in comments and reviews I've read people give the movie praise in part because Spielberg was Jewish. I think this is a void reason to hail the film. Unless he suffered during the Holocaust, it doesn't make sense.

Spielberg may have had relative ties to people who did suffer, but did he know them, did he see them often? Was he close to them?

I have family ties to people who were coal miners, but I didn't know them, nor was I close to them. Now I could make a movie about coal miners? Yes. Should I use the fact that I have had family members who were coal miners as a promotion/praise tool for the film? Unless I was close to them, no.

That's the point I was trying to make. Judge the film on its own merrits, but I see a lot of reviewers praising the film because Spielberg made it and he was Jewish.

And I disagree with the claim that just being Jewish connects him with the material. Technically it does, but realistically it doesn't. For example I don't feel that Spike Lee is anymore entitled to make a movie about slavery because he's black and blacks were slaves than a white person.

Spike Lee was never a slave. Spike Lee never was close to anyone who was a slave.

Now if Spike Lee wants to make a movie about racism in Brooklyn during the 80's and use his experiences as a tool for promotion. That's fine. He was there. He experienced it.


I think people do this "personal connection" sort of thing all the time. For example someone may be talking about homosexuality and make the claim, "I know gay people," as a basis for their authority on the topic. Hey that's great... you know gay people. But you youself are not gay and you yourself have not had to deal with the pressures of that and breaking it to your family.

Basically it comes down to empathy vs. sympathy.

Spielberg can sympathize for the victims of the Holocaust just like anyone use. But neither Spielberg, nor myself, or a large part of the film's audience can empathize with it.

[Yoda]

I've moved the political argument to this thread so as not to interfere with any discussion of the film:

Schindler's List and the Middle East (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=23661)

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck_]

Spielberg can sympathize for the victims of the Holocaust just like anyone use. But neither Spielberg, nor myself, or a large part of the film's audience can empathize with it.

You've got it the wrong way round. Empathize means to intellectually understand someone's feelings. For example, if I knew someone whose parent had died, I could emphasise with them as I could imagine how horrible it would be for me. However sympathy is sharing a common feeling. Someone else whose parent had died would be able to sympathize with the person I know because they have experienced that feeling directly.

[Gunny]

4.5

[nebbit]

Being Jewish, and having even distant relatives who were involved, must have an effect that a non-Jewish individual can not expect to entirely identify with.
I am not Jewish, I was married to a Jewish guy who cared for Holocaust survivors :( I feel I have a connection to these events :yup: I found the movie very sad :( and my partner at that time couldn't watch it at all :nope:

[alx1992]

This movie the most amazing movie about WWII and the Russian movement.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

You've got it the wrong way round. Empathize means to intellectually understand someone's feelings. For example, if I knew someone whose parent had died, I could emphasise with them as I could imagine how horrible it would be for me. However sympathy is sharing a common feeling. Someone else whose parent had died would be able to sympathize with the person I know because they have experienced that feeling directly.

Hrmm, we might need to consult the dictionary. Sympathy and empathy are similar and the dictionary definitions for both don't really help much.

I think I have it the right way though.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-sympathy-and-empathy.htm

[iluv2viddyfilms]

gah double post.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

I am not Jewish, I was married to a Jewish guy who cared for Holocaust survivors :( I feel I have a connection to these events :yup: I found the movie very sad :( and my partner at that time couldn't watch it at all :nope:

I've never understood this logic, outside of the human need to connect or find relevance to something big and important in this world.

As I explained my thoughts to Yoda; I don't believe that because a person is Jewish that they have some inherent connection to all things holocaust. They are no more connected than blacks are today to slavery because they're black, and no more connected than I am connected to slave-ownership because I'm white.

The movie isn't that sad, but the historical events are very sad, but it's one episode in the many where humans have treated themselves and each other cruely. In fact, I view it as a human issue and not a Jewish or whatever else issue. Unless you knew someone - had talked to them, socialized, huged them whatever - who died in the Holocaust, you're no more sad than I am or have a special "right" to the historical events than anyone else. So while your husband may have a special connection, unless you were along with him caring for the survivors, you are no more connected than I. My girlfriend had cancer before I met her. This makes me no more sad when watching a movie about cancer than anyone else. Now had I known my girlfriend while she had cancer, then yes I would have a special connection. Yes a non-Jewish person can get sad over watching the film, the same as a Jewish person can.

Anyway.

[nebbit]

I've never understood this logic, outside of the human need to connect or find relevance to something big and important in this world.
Well thats you but some people do:yup:

As I explained my thoughts to Yoda; I don't believe that because a person is Jewish that they have some inherent connection to all things holocaust. They are no more connected than blacks are today to slavery because they're black, and no more connected than I am connected to slave-ownership because I'm white.
As a race a lot of people feel a connection with ancestors and their journey's, whether they are persecution or slavery. Just because you don't doesn't mean others should feel the same as you :nope:

The movie isn't that sad, but the historical events are very sad, but it's one episode in the many where humans have treated themselves and each other cruely. In fact, I view it as a human issue and not a Jewish or whatever else issue.
It was a Jewish issue, they were targeted as a race :( Yes Humans can be terrible to other Humans but this was a Jewish issue :yup:

Unless you knew someone - had talked to them, socialised, hugged them whatever - who died in the Holocaust, you're no more sad than I am or have a special "right" to the historical events than anyone else.
Well I am actually sad about People being killed for no other reason than because they are of a certain race :yup: Just because you can't doesn't mean all of us are like you :nope: Actually I have hugged saviours :(

So while your husband may have a special connection, unless you were along with him caring for the survivors, you are no more connected than I.
It is my makeup to feel connected and feel empathy for people I don't know :yup: That is what makes me a good counsellor :) I hope

My girlfriend had cancer before I met her. This makes me no more sad when watching a movie about cancer than anyone else. Now had I known my girlfriend while she had cancer, then yes I would have a special connection. Yes a non-Jewish person can get sad over watching the film, the same as a Jewish person can.
That is where we differ, I can :yup: I don't need to go through something myself or with a friend or family member to connect with them or their pain, again as I said maybe that is what makes me an empathic counsellor, I have been told this by many X clients :)

[Yoda]

As I explained my thoughts to Yoda; I don't believe that because a person is Jewish that they have some inherent connection to all things holocaust. They are no more connected than blacks are today to slavery because they're black, and no more connected than I am connected to slave-ownership because I'm white.
Everything you're saying hinges on what you mean by "connected," doesn't it? If you mean that they are owed nothing in a moral or legal sense, and are not inherently "wronged" by virtue of being of the same race, then I'd agree. But I don't think I'd go any further than that.

Anyway, I think a Jewish person has an inherent connection to all things Jewish, which includes the Holocaust.

The movie isn't that sad, but the historical events are very sad, but it's one episode in the many where humans have treated themselves and each other cruely. In fact, I view it as a human issue and not a Jewish or whatever else issue.
Jewish issues are encompassed by "human issues," so there's no need to introduce the phrase as a replacement.

Also, as nebbit pointed out, the Holocaust was about Jews being targeted as a race. It's not a terrible crime that just happens to have happened to a certain group of people -- who they are is integral to why it happened. That's probably one of the reasons some feel more "connected" to it than other, similar tragedies. A Jewish person today knows that they've been fortunate enough to have been born during a time (and in a place) that is much more tolerant of their people than many places were just 70 years ago. I'm sure it's a very humbling thing to realize this. The idea that something terrible could have easily happened to us has a way of bringing it home and making it seem more real than it otherwise might have.

If I'd lived in Germany in the 30s, I'd have been fine; to be in danger I'd have to be in a different time, a different place, and I'd have to be a different person. A Jewish person has one less factor to remove them from the event, and thus might feel closer to it as a result. I guess in a perfect world everyone would feel this kind of identity and kinship with all groups of people all the time, but as flawed beings we tend to respond more when the tragedy could have happened to us, and the degree to which we feel that has a lot to do with how far removed our current circumstances are from those that caused each respective tragedy.

Unless you knew someone - had talked to them, socialized, huged them whatever - who died in the Holocaust, you're no more sad than I am or have a special "right" to the historical events than anyone else.
I find this kind of interesting. You seem to be agreeing--despite everything you've said above--that being closer to the event really does give someone more of a "connection" to it. Does it, or not?

If it does, it seems a little arbitrary that this would disappear after that first degree of separation. What about the grandchild of a Holocaust survivor, for example? They might not have known much about their grandparents, but they're related to them, and the are the offspring that the Nazis were specifically trying to stop from coming into being. If the Holocaust had succeeded, they wouldn't exist; this is true of many Jewish people today.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of anyone trying to use their race or religion to lord some kind of "I'm sadder than you are" moral authority over anyone else, but I don't think we have to play down the link between Jewish people and the Holocaust to reject that.

[Gunny]

Schindler's List was amazing. Easily one of the 100 greatest films ever made.

Masterpiece.

[Xanatos]

Schindler's List was amazing. Easily one of the 100 greatest films ever made.

Masterpiece.

I agree. I also completely disagree with this thread's review of the movie. The aspects of the movie that were criticized (the ending "I could have saved more" and the ending with the actual jews) I found the most powerful and memorable parts of the film. I hate this mentality that if a movie has a relatively happy ending and is emotional than it is dismissed as "sentimental". I've heard the same thing applied to The Shawshank Redemption and Forrest Gump, both two of my favorite movies. I think some people need to just lighten up and realize that just because it's got a touching ending it doesn't mean that the movie isn't good.

Just my two cents

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck_]

Hrmm, we might need to consult the dictionary. Sympathy and empathy are similar and the dictionary definitions for both don't really help much.

I think I have it the right way though.


I did consult the dictionary. Sympathy is sharing the feeling of a person, because you have experienced the same emotions. Empathy is understanding the feelings of another person.

The dictionary definition's pretty clear:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sympathy

[TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck_]

I agree. I also completely disagree with this thread's review of the movie. The aspects of the movie that were criticized (the ending "I could have saved more" and the ending with the actual jews) I found the most powerful and memorable parts of the film. I hate this mentality that if a movie has a relatively happy ending and is emotional than it is dismissed as "sentimental". I've heard the same thing applied to The Shawshank Redemption and Forrest Gump, both two of my favorite movies. I think some people need to just lighten up and realize that just because it's got a touching ending it doesn't mean that the movie isn't good.

Just my two cents

I think it was the fact that the movie was about the Holocaust, which did not have such a 'touching' ending, and the movie had been refreshingly objective throughout. Nobody needs a film to tell them that the Holocaust was horrible.

I rated the movie highly though because the cinematography was brilliant and were it not for a few misjudgements, it might have been a five-star film.

[nebbit]

Nobody needs a film to tell them that the Holocaust was horrible.
Some people do :yup:

[christine]

I don't think you have to have any race/religion/patriotic connection to anyone to feel for someone else's suffering. We're all human beings.

[earlsmoviepicks]

You don't have to be Jewish to appreciate what happened in this movie--imagine being plucked off the street because you had a D in your last name, or some other manufactured reason. That stuff is still going on all over the world as we speak. Fact is, it's a competent, well-made film about a man who is changed by horrendous events surrounding him.

[Gabrielle947]

Just turned on Schindler's List soundtrack.I listen to it from time to time but only now I really listened carefully and just thought about it.I love it.Like the violin just pierces your heart. :))

[foster]

I think this is the greatest film ever made.

[cinemaafficionado]

I wouldn't view this film simply in terms of black and white. Obviously the same people that spawned Goeth also produced Schindler.
There are only a few great movies about the Holocaust: The Pianist, Sophie's Choice and Schindler's List, for it's sheer scope, cinematography, and belief in redemption.

[Watch_Tower]

B- is above average. It was definitely an above average film, but I don't think it's great as many people seem to.

I did focus on things I enjoyed. Liam Neeson, shooting in black and white, most of the first half of the film.

A few years ago, I would have said B- was too late but after having watched the movie again about a month ago, I have to say, it felt a lot more cheesy than the first time. There were completely nonsensical scenes which seemed to be there just to pull at the heart strings.

Schindler's wife was portrayed as plain stupid, seriously that relationship was barely developed and all of a sudden he turns around and wants her back?

It's still a beautiful shot movie with Liam Neeson providing a career best turn as Schindler.

[cinemaafficionado]

A few years ago, I would have said B- was too late but after having watched the movie again about a month ago, I have to say, it felt a lot more cheesy than the first time. There were completely nonsensical scenes which seemed to be there just to pull at the heart strings.

Schindler's wife was portrayed as plain stupid, seriously that relationship was barely developed and all of a sudden he turns around and wants her back?

It's still a beautiful shot movie with Liam Neeson providing a career best turn as Schindler.

Personaly, I would have edited the whole scene where Schindler breaks down and says " I could have saved more ". It just seemed too contrived, unnecessary and superflous. Barring the other few blatant attempts at pulling the heart strings, this movie could have been perfect.

[Watch_Tower]

Personaly, I would have edited the whole scene where Schindler breaks down and says " I could have saved more ". It just seemed too contrived, unnecessary and superflous. Barring the other few blatant attempts at pulling the heart strings, this movie could have been perfect.

I dunno about perfect but yes, getting rid of some of those scenes and trying to create a more believable central romance would really have helped the movie. It's weird how the passing of time can change opinion, the first time I watched this movie I found it to be up there as possibly Spielberg's best work.

[Gabrielle947]

I liked the "could have saved more" scene.But I feel that the red girl is sentimental,however popular she has become.

[mark f]

...trying to create a more believable central romance would really have helped the movie. It's weird...
This movie needs some romance? I left your next quote to echo my feelings about that. :)

[Watch_Tower]

This movie needs some romance? I left your next quote to echo my feelings about that. :)

It doesn't need it but a romance where someone cheats on his wife multiple occasions and abandons her (not accurate to the real Schindler story, his wife was very much an integral part in saving the Jews) all of sudden to then have a change of heart and go back to her and she takes him back. This, in a movie supposedly based in reality, feels jarred by moments such as this, leading to a sense of unreality, almost fantasy. It's a minor gripe really as I like the film and it's still terrific, just not as good as when I first saw it.

[MrBumble]

I liked the "could have saved more" scene. But I feel that the red girl is sentimental, however popular she has become.

Putting on the gold pin at the beginning and removing it at the end are bookends. The climactic line of dialog is "I could have gotten one more person... and I didn't! And I... I didn't!" That dialog, the scene where it's spoken, and the movie as a whole are about the girl in red..

[xSookieStackhouse]

havent seen that movie for ages D=:eek:

[flinkscorn]

I love the movie and how Liam Neeson portrayed his character.

[rambond]

its just mind boggling how nazis would should some poor jew in the head just for doing 1 thing wrong...great film indeed

[Annie9416]

I found Schindler's List to be thought-provoking, memorable and a must-see!

[ironpony]

I thought it was really good, and possibly put it in my top ten movies of all time. Definitely top 20.

However, one part of the movie, have trouble identifying with is, I do not understand why the writers felt they needed to have a main antagonist (Amon Goeth). It seems to me that the nazi army in general, was enough to get the point across, and we didn't need a single soldier to be the lead baddy if that makes sense.

I felt that perhaps the subplot with his housekeeper slave was unnecessary as the point of the Jews suffering was already more than well made, which is good, and the housekeeper subplot feels like extra icing on the cake that doesn't really add anything perhaps.

But still very good. What do you think?

[Yoda]

As people we feel greater empathy for (and have greater interest in) individuals than we do groups, so pretty much all storytelling involves grafting larger issues onto individuals. Sometimes it's done well and works, and sometimes it doesn't, but the mere attempt is intrinsically justified by the decision to tell a story at all as opposed to, say, making a documentary.

[ironpony]

That's true. I guess that's why Schindler's List is a more popular movie than Shoah perhaps, cause it deals with those characters more, where as Shoah concentrates more on the events?

[Camo]

Think Schindler's List is more popular than Shoah because it's not a 9+ hour documentary consisting almost entirely of interviews.