A Critique of Schindler's List

In Schindler's List, Steven Spielberg presents an excellent treatment on the themes of choice and authority through using the well known story of the Jewish Holocaust of World War II. Specifically, he uses the lesser known story of Oskar Schindler as an effective way of reaching his audiences. While most have heard of and are familiar with the subject of the WWII Holocaust, I was very intrigued by the idea of a more modern and methodical (in the sense of acting) treatment of the subject by Steven Spielberg (an obviously excellent filmmaker). By examining Spielberg's opposition of Schindler and Commandant Goeth-two very similar, yet very different, people-one is able to understand a great deal about the ideology and purpose of this film.

Firstly, Spielberg uses a classical narrative structure for the film, which makes sense as this film is definitely an attempt at a realistic (as opposed to formalist) approach to the Holocaust. The protagonist, Oskar Schindler, is introduced early on in the movie, and we quickly discover his defining characteristics during the exposition; he is clearly a womanizer and obsessed with money from the start. Schindler's motivation changes from making money to saving lives as the movie progresses. The conflict that Schindler repeatedly comes into contact with in trying to change his motivation to saving the Jews are his own desires-namely, money and women. However, these desires are best represented by the antagonist, which is the Nazi party as epitomized by Commandant Goeth. At the climax of the movie, Schindler finally succeeds in saving the Jews by giving up the very thing that stood in his way. In addition to spending outrageous amounts of money to accomplish the task, Schindler also stops his "womanizing ways" and gets back together with his wife. There may be many reasons for the use of the classical paradigm, but most of them revolve around the subject matter of the movie. Though this is a fairly innovative film, it still deals with a subject-the Holocaust-which is fairly familiar, yet very foreign to American audiences at the same time. While almost everyone had heard of the Holocaust, there were probably few who had seen a realistic representation of the historical event in film, and probably even fewer had heard the story of Oskar Schindler at the time of the making of this film. Because there was no set genre of films that this film fell into, it follows that audiences would not have been prepared for a non-familiar or non-classical representation. A formalistic, out-of-order plot structure would have been contrary to the realism of this film anyway.

Secondly, the ideology of this film is leftist in its dealing with authority, though it is implicit as exposed to explicit. The film is not exactly leftist propaganda in dealing with authority, but the criticism is there. Neither, however, is this surprising, since the film is dealing with Nazi Germany, which was and is generally agreed upon as a bad authority. Most importantly, both Oskar Schindler and Commandant Goeth have authority. Goeth has direct authority over the life and death of many Jews, and he abuses that power. Schindler, on the other hand, also has power over the life and death of many Jews, but in a different way. His authority starts out in the form of money and his position as a technical member of the Nazi party. As the film progresses, money and favorable membership in the Nazi party are the very things that he must give up in order to save the Jews. The climax of conflict between the authority of Goeth and Schindler comes when Schindler is sharing a drink with Goeth-who is incredibly drunk-on his balcony. Schindler confronts Goeth on his use of authority to mindlessly and mercilessly slaughter Jews by explaining that true authority and power is having the ability to take someone's life but not killing the person. This, in fact, is the very authority Goeth is unable to overcome. The next day, he starts by attempting to be merciful to the Jews with whom he is displeased (the boy with the saddle, the girl who was smoking on the job, the boy who was cleaning the tub, etc.). His downfall comes when he looks in the bathroom mirror after he has "pardoned" the boy. He looks at himself and admires his pose as he "pardons" an imaginary Jew, showing that his true motive is not saving anybody, but his own glorification. His authority has clearly corrupted him. Oskar Schindler on the other hand overcomes his authority; he gives it up completely when he spends his whole fortune trying to save the Jews. In the end, when he is at his car and about to flee, he has the final realization of this. He looks at his car and several other things and says "I could have got more..." and then breaks down crying. He finally realizes that he could have saved more Jews by giving up his authority. So, in the end, Oskar gives up his authority and is successful, and Goeth, up until the moment when he is about to be hanged and says "Heil Hitler," refuses to turn from the system of authority and consequently fails. Also, Spielberg makes a clear distinction between the right and wrong use of authority; in the beginning of the movie, we see a close-up of a typewriter where a list of Jews (who would eventually be killed) is being created, and, later, we see a close-up of another typewriter where Oskar Schindler is making the list that will save the Jews. They are two different lists that represent life and death.

Ultimately, the intent of this film is to show how the role of personal choice and authority played an important part in determining the fate of many. Schindler was, in the end, able to forsake his authority and save the Jews. This anti-authority theme, however, is implicit and not explicit since this movie is obviously dealing with the authority of the Nazis, who really were a bad authority. Therefore, it is slightly difficult to say this liberal theme is an explicit critique on our current society. Also, since he was dealing with a real story and wanted to present it in a believable manner, Spielberg maintained his fairly realistic vision; camera angles, dialogue, and other things were reasonably normal. The only thing that was not realistic was his usage of black and white instead of color. Although he did this to create a historical feel for the film, it still shows his manipulation of our interpretation (which would be a formalistic technique).

In conclusion, I must say that I loved this film. I am probably not alone in saying that I was nearly brought to tears at the end when Schindler broke down crying because he "could have got more..." I was also greatly and equally impressed by the actor that played Amon Goeth, by whom I was also greatly moved (albeit, in a different way). This film was definitely successful in its attempt at showing the hope that can be found even amidst the greatest of evils committed by corrupt, authoritarian powers.

Sources:
Film - Schindler's List
Book - Understanding Movies, 11th edition, by Louis Gianetti
Wikipedia, for the spelling of certain names