Question about the gun that wouldn't fire in Schindler's List (1993)
 

SPOILER

Basically there is the scene when Goeth wants to execute the rabbi character, and the gun won't fire. Goeth pulls back on the guns bolt and let's it go forward to reload the next shot. Won't fire, Goeth tries to reload the next shot again and again and it won't fire.

However, when Goeth was pulling the bolt back and forth, no cartridges were coming out of the gun. The gun was empty therefore, wasn't it? So didn't Goeth realize that the reason why both his pistols wouldn't fire is because they were both empty?

I'm not really sure how accurate this is but...


"the magazine was not letting a round chamber. Schindler was in charge of those parts including shell casings for mortars. He went around messing with the machines calibration so no mag or rounds fired correctly."

Re: Question about the gun that wouldn't fire in Schindler's List (199
 

*ironpony watches scene in which a Jewish man narrowly survives execution*

“What’s up with the Nazi’s gun?”

Re: Question about the gun that wouldn't fire in Schindler's List (199
 

I think Ironpony meant why couldnt Goeth figure out what was going on.

I think the answer to that would be that Goeth was so blinded by rage and hatred he couldn't figure out something obvious. He seemed to get off on murdering the jews, so he was unable to 'get off' in that moment, infuriating him.

But Schindler didn't get into producing munitions until later into the movie. At this point, his factory was just manufacturing pots and pans, and enamelware and things like that. So why would two guns jam by total coincidence at the same time?

I thought the nazis had good fire arms at the time.

Re: Question about the gun that wouldn't fire in Schindler's List (199
 

Which thing are you asking about: the gun not firing, or the character's reaction to it?

Divine intervention obviously.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BK9y2o5CUAA57w7.jpg

Re: Question about the gun that wouldn't fire in Schindler's List (199
 

Not sure if I'm remembering correctly, but doesn't another Nazi grab the gun after Goeth gives up on it and either examine it or try to fire it at the Rabbi himself?

Re: Question about the gun that wouldn't fire in Schindler's List (199
 

Yeah, part of the problem with these questions is that usually there's an obvious answer that was just missed or is forgotten, and nobody feels like rewatching the film to confirm it. That's happened to me a few times with one of the many "isn't this a plot hole?" question threads.

Re: Question about the gun that wouldn't fire in Schindler's List (199
 

I'm with lostonmulholland haha

I just watched this movie recently and was thinking the same thing about this part though.

The getting off part?

The fact that Goeth got off on killing is evident in the film.
And your theory on the gun was good - but (after reviewing the clip) it doesn't explain the two other Nazi's (who don't appear overly frustrated) unable to make the TWO guns work or figure out what's wrong with them. One gun jamming would be understandable, but two is a bit of a coincidence.

So the question is: did Speilberg mean for this to suggest divine intervention since it's a coincidence that pushes the boundaries of belief?

Re: Question about the gun that wouldn't fire in Schindler's List (199
 

I think I just caught another goof that I would have never noticed if I hadn't watched the clip again...

The second handgun Goeth pulls out of his pocket is - well, I don't know what they're called - but it's a small, smooth, compact cartridge weapon. Yet when he drops that gun on the ground it appears to be a revolver with a longer barrel, and when the other Nazi picks it up and tries to fire it in the air it looks like a revolver complete with a cylinder.

Take a look and let me know what you think.

There are a few 'goofs' going on in the scene that I noticed.



Honestly, I've always just seen this scene as audience manipulation by Spielberg. I think it's hinting at divine intervention while also showing the evil of Goeth. The scene was tense as hell the first time I saw this film, and I was relieved that he didn't get shot, but other than holding the audience in suspense, I'm not sure what else Spielberg was trying to do or tell us here. Or how I feel about it, honestly.

The gun not firing, as I was wondering why the character didn't realize the gun was empty. But now someone said a catridge would not load into the chamber so that makes sense.

I thought it was empty since no catridges were spitting out of the side.

Spielberg does that in the shower scene as well, where you think someone is going to die, then they don't and they are fine after.

It happening with 2 seperate guns was showing it to be divine intervention. When I first saw the scene I took it as that and that the cold weather made the guns freeze up.

Is there a link also telling of this occurence or saying it never happened?

Re: Question about the gun that wouldn't fire in Schindler's List (199
 

Well I watched the whole movie again. Since this movie is about such a tragic event, does diving intervention for saving one person's life have a place in this movie, since divine intervention failed to save so many other people in this tragedy?

Re: Question about the gun that wouldn't fire in Schindler's List (199
 

From what I remember of my studies of WWII, the standard issue sidearm for German officers was the Luger, which was and has always been notoriously unreliable. They were known to both accidently discharge, as well as jam or fail to fire.

Allied soldiers were often wounded by trying to takes these as souvenirs. Although the odds of 2 such pistols jamming or failing as depicted in the movie would be pretty high, but it is possible under the right circumstances.

It's likely that this was recounted by one of the survivors to Thomas Kenneally and was included in his book, Schindler's Ark, which used first hand accounts and documents kept by various survivors, most notably Poldek Pfeifferberg. So it is highly likely the incident happened and not simply added for dramatic purpose. In a story as moving and brutal as it is, there is no need for such exaggerations, where truth is already both more strange and sad than fiction. So perhaps it was intervention, but perhaps it was one of those rare oddities where 2 guns were defective for whatever reason.

Is it possible that these officers gave their weapons to a junior soldier to clean them rather than do so themselves, and perhaps during the course of which there was something happened during the cleaning or reassembling of both the pistols that caused the malfunction - perhaps a spring missing or placed wrong, which caused these to fail? I don't know. I could be talking out of my ass for all I know, as I've never held a gun, much less fired one and certainly never cleaned one, to know if this could happen, but it seems feasible. And although officers were required to look after their sidearm, is it not feasible this was a duty that senior officers may have assigned or delegated to a subordinate to attend to on their behalf?

Just a theory.