When she put "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" on her Worst Movies of 2008 list, Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwartzbaum referred to the Holocaust melodrama as "Honey, I Gassed the Kids." And, if she honestly believes the movie is as awful as she describes it (and I have no reason to think she doesn't), it is her moral duty as a critic to pummel it with everything she's got. A "dumb summer comedy" can be awful, undendurable; an irresponsible or simpleminded film that exploits and trivializes a "powerful subject" (genocide, racism, pedophilia, rape, suicide, torture, any number of historical atrocities) can be flat-out evil -- precisely because it presents itself as Serious (or Risky or Important or Challenging) Cinema. If filmmakers choose to play with fire, they'd better be morally and artistically equipped to handle the responsibility, or they deserve to get burned.
"The moral of this outrageous, British-accented nonsense appears to be that if you build a death camp, sometimes the wrong people get killed," Schwarzbaum wrote. "Not for the last time, alas, has the Holocaust been co-opted into a kitschy 'universal' story of 'tolerance' about how we're all 'one.' But this one is supposed to be a story for children!"
I can't vouch for Schwarzbaum's take on "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" (although that title made me throw up in my mouth a little, as they say) because I haven't seen it, but I know exactly what she means. I feel the same way about the denial fable of "Life is Beautiful." (Protect your kid from the cruelty and stress of immediate danger by telling him death camps are just fun 'n' games! While you're at it, why not tell him that if he throws himself under a truck it will just bounce off him? And he can really fly if he wants to, too! Don't shatter his dreams!)
As A.O. Scott wrote in a beautiful, insightful New York Times piece about the annual promotion of Holocaust movies, particularly British and American ones, for prestigious high-profile awards consideration (under the memorable headline "Never Forget. You're Reminded):
If the Holocaust can inspire a great work of art, then it can also incubate the ambition to achieve such greatness, and thus open itself up, like everything else, to exploitation, pretense and vulgarity. Worse, the aura that still surrounds this topic -- the sense that it must be treated with a special measure of tact and awe -- can be appropriated by clumsy, sentimental and meretricious films or books, which protect themselves from criticism by a cloak of seriousness and piety. Thus the immodest indecency of a movie like Roberto Benigni's Oscar-winning "Life Is Beautiful" was, during its initial period of triumph, deflected onto those with the temerity to criticize it. Those who resisted its manipulative juxtaposition of sweet, childlike innocence with barbarity were accused of lacking the gravity and sensitivity that Mr. Benigni's travesty required.And a similar defense is invoked, explicitly or implicitly, so routinely that it calls forth cynicism. Why do opportunistic, clever young novelists -- I won't name any names -- gravitate toward magic-realist depictions of the decidedly unmagical reality of the Shoah? For the same reason that actors shave their heads and starve themselves, or preen and leer in jackboots and epaulets. For the same reason that filmmakers commission concrete barracks and instruct their cinematographers and lab technicians to filter out bright, saturated colors. To win prizes of course.
A critic's job is to make a case for his or her point of view. Readers of this blog know that I have excoriated what I consider to be vulgar, pretentious and meretricious exploitation/propaganda movies such as "Life is Beautiful" (and, in non-Holocaust categories, "Mississippi Burning," "Dead Poet's Society," "Crash," "Natural Born Killers," "American Beauty"...) that, intentionally or not, sentimentalize and indulge the specious xenophobic fantasies of the audience. This is why Kevin Smith and Adam Sandler -- no matter how stupid and inept and insulting as their pandering may be -- can never be as evil-affirming as Paul Haggis or Alan Parker. Unless they try a lot harder to be Important. [I have been persuaded -- see comments below -- that dumb comedy can indeed be as evil as serious pretension on occasion.]
What is important is that we are able to articulate what we see. I had dinner with some friends recently, a couple who have been together for a couple months. He loves "Jerry Maguire." She has always loathed it, especially its attitude toward women. But he explained to her what he sees in it, and she can respect that, even if it's not what she sees. At least she knows he doesn't love the movie for the same reason she hates it. As I told them, I've often read critical accounts of movies I stoutheartedly champion and have thought: "Well, if that's the movie I saw, I'd hate it, too! But it's not, because..."
Finally, my respects to Stephanie Zarachek of Salon.com, too, for one of the most enjoyable opening paragraphs I read this year, in her review of "Doubt." Again, I haven't seen the movie yet, but appreciate her take -- which is uncannnily like what I took away from the god-awful trailer I was unfortunate enough to encounter:
John Patrick Shanley's "Doubt" has an insurance policy built right into its title: Have no earthly idea what point Shanley is trying to make? It's all good -- you're just having Doubt! Clueless as to whether you're supposed to think one of the lead characters, Father Flynn (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman), is a pedophile, or just a harmless, compassionate, gay and/or gay-friendly priest? Step right up -- and let your Doubt flag fly! Wondering why the mother of a boy who has possibly been sexually abused (she's played, to a near-miraculous level of believability, by Viola Davis) would just kind of shrug her shoulders and say, "Whatever -- as long as he makes it to graduation"? Jump on the Doubt train, my friend! Nothing in "Doubt" -- which Shanley directed, adapting his own Pulitzer Prize-winning stage play -- is certain, definitive or clear. Least of all the filmmaking.
I would like to re-word that paragraph for "The Dark Knight" or "Synecdoche, New York," or... but that's another post.
First, yes Boy in the Striped Pajamas really is that disgraceful.
One of the real risks of making Holocaust movies isn't being vulgar or exploitative but rather in robbing the material of its power by repetition. By "material" I certainly do not mean the actual events of the Holocaust, but the images and narratives that have been employed in what has become a sub-genre unto itself. In watching the tedious but relatively inoffensive "Defiance," I was really struck by how completely unmoved I was by a shot of a mass grave.
Unmoved by a mass grave? Hundreds of murdered Jews piled on top of each other? Am I sick?
The problem, as crass as it may sound, is "We've seen it all before." This is a work of fiction and no matter how somber its subject, it will be judged as a work of fiction as well as being compared to other Holocaust films.
The same image, shown over and over, loses its power. The same narrative structure, used over and over, loses its power as well. And by power, I'm speaking specifically of the film's ability to tap into the real, to get viewers to grant it the ontological power that derives from the acknowledgment that "It really happened."
Because it didn't. Not that mass grave. That's the same mass grave I've seen so artfully arranged on one set after another in one Holocaust movie after another and it just doesn't mean anything anymore. A la Baudrillard, it no longer refers to the real, it refers to its predecessors in other Holocaust films.
Actually that's a terrible first paragraph of a terrible review by the most consistently terrible film critic working today.
Nice to see you're judging films based on their trailers, though, Mr Emerson. That saves you the trouble of having to see them at all! See it and then if you think she's right... oh never mind, you already read (and sided with, based on your having seen A TRAILER) her review, you'd probably walk in expecting to see the film a certain way. And you'd deserve to see it that way. You and the Zachareks, or Zaracheks, of the world deserve each other.
ps
A world in which a writer like that has the nerve to go after the writing of a writer like Shanley, and can get away with it, and even be praised for it by other writers (writers much more like her than like Shanley, obviously), is a rather unjust one. Obviously.
JE: My point is that a critic should delve into a movie as he or she sees it. I will discover the reason for the title "Doubt" when I see the movie, but the trailer I saw was -- rather shockingly to me -- definitely NOT selling the title quality to the movie's potential audience. I'm having a hell of a time trying to see the year-end movies for myself this December. I live in the northeast part of Seattle. We've been snowed in for a week or more. This kind of thing hasn't happened here since 1990 and I'm going stir crazy. I will soon become Jack Torrance in "The Shining" and start chopping up everything and everyone into little pieces.
Jim,
I was curious if you could expound on the "specious, xenophobic fantasies of the audience" indulged by movies like Life is Beautiful. From what I've read, I tend to agree with your take on the movie, but I'm not clear on how it promotes a xenophobic fantasy.
JE: In this movie, it's the Nazis who are The Other -- just as the Nazis regard the Jews (and homosexuals and intellectuals and Catholics, etc.) as The Other. As long as we stick with Our Own Kind we can pretend to be safe...
Bizarre how Zarachek sort of gets and misses the point of Doubt at the same time. It is, really, just about doubt and how it affects our relationships and perception of the world. It could be about any subject, I guess Shanley thought child abuse would work best.
Jim, reading your posts for months and hearing your beefs with movies like "TDK" and now "Synecdoche" (which I thought was a masterpiece on par with Fellini's best), I think I see why I'm never agreeing with you: you seem to approach movies from an intellectual standpoint, when certain ones are meant to bring you to an emotional conclusion.
And I don't mean like "Stepmom" or "Terms of Endearment" is engineered specifically to make you cry at the end, but more like...the way you feel after watching Herzog's "Signs of Life" or even "No Country for Old Men." I don't think some movies are meant to inspire analytical essays, and I don't think some are trying to give you all the answers (what I hated about "There Will Be Blood").
Movies like "TDK" and "S,NY" and "NCFOM" and even "Doubt" are just meant to leave you alone out in the cold at the end, and it's your job to fill in the rest with your own thoughts and feelings - if you're willing to play.
This is a great post, addressing the one of the aspects of criticism that I find incredibly important: the ability to clearly communicate attributes of presumably well-intentioned films (I'll give these Serious Films the benefit of the doubt) that one finds ideologically suspect or problematic or even hazardous. Though I don't know if I'd use the word "evil," as you do here, to describe the films mentioned above--maybe dangerous but probably not evil.
"it's the Nazis who are The Other -- just as the Nazis regard the Jews (and homosexuals and intellectuals and Catholics, etc.) as The Other. As long as we stick with Our Own Kind we can pretend to be safe..."
Huh? This is a sign of xenophobia? I may be horribly misunderstanding your point (I certainly don't claim to understand it at all, really) but if I were a Jew in a Nazi concentration camp, yes, I would probably stick to "My Own Kind" if for no other reason than the fact that "The Other" is trying to kill me and my family.
If hating Nazis is wrong, I don't want to be right.
JE: Reminds me of that Woody Allen line about how Nazis are best addressed with bricks and baseball bats. What I mean is that before they were Nazis, they were plain old German citizens, who no doubt thought of themselves as good, law-abiding German citizens. They voted for Adolph Hitler -- or they didn't, and later felt they'd better behave as if they had. It's the human ability to go along with evil, to deny and rationalize ("It's best for the country -- and for the future of our species!") that is most terrifying about this evil. I don't see evil as something that exists anywhere outside of human beings; we all have the capability within us. I wrote this in my review of "The Counterfeiters":
Jim,
It is a credit to your writing and wit that I continue to read this blog religiously despite disagreeing with you about 50% of the time. I agree with your sentiments regarding "Boy in the Striped Pajamas" and other manipulative "propaganda" films, as you say; however, your paragraph (regarding Doubt, Dark Knight, and Synecdoche)illustrates what different pages you and I are on quite often.
In one moment you demonstrate uncannily similar taste in film, while in the very next moment I want to come through the computer screen and slap some sense into you!
But no matter what, I always remember 3 things, which keep me coming back to Scanners:
1) You are one of the most entertaining writers of film out there. Intelligent and often hilarious, I love to read your thoughts, no matter what.
2) Disagreement and point of view are some of the great things about film and art. So why expect any different here?
3) You were a strong proponent of Spielberg's brilliant "Munich," which I consider to be his best film since "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"; and that comes from a person who likes pretty much every Spielberg film! When I disagree vehemently with one of your blogs on a film I like, I always remember how vehemently you defended "Munich" against the douche-baggery of small-minded, reactionary people.
The preview for The Boy In The Striped Pajamas was enough to keep me away and I share your view of Life Is Beautiful, a singularly nasty and morally repulsive film that makes me feel unclean.
But it is a legitimate question to ask film producers why they choose the Holocaust as a subject. When you can choose any subject in the whole wide world and you choose the Holocaust, critics are allowed to ask why.
We all know that Hollywood producers will use any tragedy or horrible event they can for story fodder, if they think they can make a profit, or failing that, possible industry approval and maybe some year-end awards! Truly, there are few surer methods to guarantee an Oscar nomination than to make a movie about an “important subject”, you know, like the Holocaust.
Unfortunately though, the real Nazis were no laughing matter. They gave freethinking, liberal, democratic government by the people for the people the greatest challenge for its existence since the Dark Ages. The fact the Nazis were able to run roughshod over most of Europe for more than a decade was shocking in itself. And, lest we forget, those damn Nazis nearly won.
This is what the world found so incomprehensible. There had been horrible wars before WWII, in many ways, WWI was worse. There had been attempts at genocide before Hitler began his efforts against the Jews, in fact, Hitler was emboldened by the lack of any reprisals against the Turks for their attempted genocide of the Armenians, and there had even been huge crimes committed against humanity, like slavery here in the US, before the Nazis ever appeared on the scene.
But the ruthless and calculated efficiency of the Nazis made most of that other stuff pale in comparison. The Nazis were able to turn their concentration camps into virtual assembly lines for murder.
On the one hand, if a filmmaker decides to tell a Holocaust story, I do want them to be respectful and truly think about what they are doing. I feel that all artists, be they poets, painters or filmmakers should have the freedom to create art on any subject that catches their interest.
But on the other hand, I find myself drawn to Elie Wiesel’s idea that the Holocaust should be off limits as a subject. That the Holocaust was an event of such monumental horror that it is beyond the capacity of artists to create anything meaningful about it.
Wiesel described his position in a 1989 article called Art And The Holocaust: Trivializing Memory (which is available on the web).
This article should be required reading, but in a nutshell, Wiesel argues that the very act of reducing the Holocaust to the form of a melodramatic narrative, with a beginning, middle and end is to automatically trivialize it. That human art at best can only approach very specific aspects of the Holocaust and can in no way present the story with the kind of respect and deference it needs.
This may explain why so many films about concentration camps have been about positive events like the TV movie Escape From Sobibor, which told the specific story about the October 1943 mass escape of prisoners from the Sobibor concentration camp, or even Schindler’s List, which wasn’t even about the camps or even the Jews, but about one German man’s dealings with the Nazi’s and how he saved nearly 1100 Jews from extermination.
Film producers seem determined to find a positive message in the Holocaust. But, is that what the Holocaust was about; life affirming sacrifices, brave escapes and humanitarians saving people? Call me cynical, but I don’t think so.
If the message of Holocaust films is ultimately “Never Forget”, then I want to amend that to say, “Never Forget That The Nazis Were Truly Evil Pricks!”
I agree with you that the worst kind of film is that which attempts to promote a false ideal of smug, grandiose superiority to some "other" while hypocritically engaging in the tactics it condemns. But, I must take the side you took on the unnamed movies from above and declare that, while I absolutely adore your review of "Natural Born Killers", I just don't see the same ugly grandstanding you do. If I believed Oliver Stone were going for what you seem to think he is (declaring himself greater than "The Other" - violent movies and critics of them, I suppose), the film would be an inept, appalling failure. But I think it's a masterpiece (flawed, but still a masterpiece) that uses the language of an oppressive, indulgent culture to satirize and reveal the shortcomings of that same culture. It takes full advantage of MTV-style quick cutting, but I think Stone wanted to create a "head trip", as you spoke of "Taxi Driver" and "Fight Club", among others. Obviously, there's much more to it, but I don't think NBK uses the same atrocious vulgarity as even, say "The Graduate" (a repulsively smug attack on cardboard Establishment types without any substance or humanity to back it up), or even "Straw Dogs" (a vile, unrepentant rape fantasy/masculine revenge masquerading as a "social realist" picture, or "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", which sets up its female characters in sexual situations and misogynistically (sic?) laughs at them when they do exactly the same as before (I do need to clarify that one at length some time, as I'm sure it appears confusing. One of these days...) And it may seem like a "dumb comedy" but I really doubt even Alan Parker (whose "Mississippi Burning" and "Pink Floyd The Wall" are trash, by the way, as ugly as humanly possible) could never approach the level of "Dice Rules", an appalling, humorless "comedy" in which Andrew Dice Clay pretends, in the same manner as today's Worst Comedian in the World Carlos Mencia, to mock stereotypes while fully embracing their ugliness and laughing at his victims with all the sincerity of a schoolyard bully or a prison guard. It's the same sense I get from Limp Bizkit's 2000 album "Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water", which I have no idea why I've listened to in its entirety. But anyway, hypocrisy isn't limited to GRAND, IMPORTANT movies like "Doubt", but even the seemingly dumb worlds of FTARH and Dice Rules can shoot its targets with the same disingenuousness.
Lee K: Thank you for sticking with me. Wouldn't it be dull to read someone you agree with all the time? (I know of no such writers -- even my favorites, like Roger Ebert or Manohla Dargis, go off and say the darndest things half the time! They both adore "The Dark Knight" and "Synecdoche, New York," for example -- although I do not see what they see in those movies.
"Film producers seem determined to find a positive message in the Holocaust."
So was Anne Frank. I'm struggling, but I just don't see how this is a bad thing. Life is about finding the positive. Forever dwelling on evil and despair doesn't do anyone any good.
And Andrew, I completely agree with everything you said.
Ted: Once again, coming back to what Jim said, if I felt the same way about "The Graduate" as you did, I would probably dislike it. But I think your reading--and indeed, most conventional wisdom misreads the film. Everyone talks about Benjamin and Elaine running out of the church and sticking it to the Establishment. No one talks about the two sitting in a bus, Benjamin staring forward blankly, and Elaine looking at him expectantly and realizing that he has nothing to say. "We did it! We got away!" is replaced with "Oh f---, we just ruined our lives," within a few seconds. Everyone seems a little cardboard on both sides of the generational divide (except for Mrs. R, of course), but I think there are real moments of humanity on both sides; I actually found Mr. Robinson's reaction to finding out about his wife a bit touching. As with "Fight Club" and "Taxi Driver," the central character is a hypocrite and we see the social order through his eyes (though "Fight Club," perhaps the one most harshly attacked by the critics, is ironically the one that makes most explicit that the "hero" was WRONG, and the only one where the hero himself realizes it). In Ebert's review, he says that he hopes Ben enjoys his career in plastics. Of course, Benjamin will work in plastics (best case scenario for him); he has no shred of imagination. But that doesn't make him unsympathetic; it makes him human, doomed though he (and total pushover Elaine) may be.
("Fast Times" I'd have to see again, but I remember liking it, actually. I didn't really feel that the movie was laughing at, e.g., the girl-who-gets-pregnant, but sympathized with her greatly. Its message seemed less "women shouldn't have sex" as "women are often hurt the most by sex"; and otherwise the movie is fairly egalitarian, with the one guy deciding to break up with his girlfriend to play the field, until he realizes he needs her, and she dumps him; and the one other boy who finishes early is as emotionally traumatized by the sex as the girl is.)
I'm half and half with you on this one, Jim. On the one hand, I completely agree that too often touchy subject matters are used by filmmakers for nothing more than to secure award nominations. It happens both with the holocaust and with the mentally disabled. I was glad to see Tropic Thunder skewer this with the Simple Jack bit, but of course various simple-minded people completely misinterpreted the joke (and refused to listen to reason; I argued with several for almost all of August).
As well, many critics and fans scoff if you dare say a light-hearted comedy is better than any movie that deals with the holocaust, as if the subject matter alone makes it a masterpiece. Recently, a wanna-be filmmaker accused me of being morally corrupt because I said that I thought his documentary, about his grandfathers health problems, was poorly done.
However, I really don't see how Life is Beautiful is exploitive in any way, as well as several of the other films you mentioned. I read your "memo", and it seems as if you disagree with the view point of the film. While you are entitled to, I don't think that makes it exploitive or "evil". As for the xenophobia claim, to think that any Jew in the concentration camps would "stick" with the nazis or try to get along with them is not just ridiculous, but a real example of "evil". It doesn't matter if these are normal people acting within human nature; if they were trying to kill me and my family, I would not sympathize with them.
As for Doubt, it sounds as if Zarachek simply wants the movie to spell out every little detail for her. Since when is there anything wrong with thought-provoking film? Here's looking forward to her 4-star review of Marley and Me.
Life is Beautiful is forever being attacked, however I consider it to be among the most moral films ever made. What LIB was about for me was the extraordinary sacfifices a father was willing to make in order to shield his son from the horrors of The Holocaust. The film for me wasn't about The Holocaust specifically, and was in fact presented as a fable, however it should be noted that he was not an entirely fictional creation.
Janusz Korczak, one of my heroes, was a pediatrician and teacher, who had an opportunity to go to safety, but turned it down and choose to go with his children to certian death, and similarly to what the father does in LIB pretended that that they were going on a picnic. I'm not suggesting that the father in LIB was based on him, but I do think it shows that it's not as fantastical as some people seem to think.
I also don't think your 'xenophobic fantasy' argument is all that valid. LIB is not an exploration of the German people's complicity and nor is it about them at all; it's a potrait of a father attempting to protect his son during this horrific time.
A Holocasut-related film which did offend me was Downfall, not because it dared to humanise Hitler but because it suggested that the German people were victims just like the Jews.
One last comment; I saw LIB once at at a Uni film class with non-Jews and they were all shocked by one of the scenes towards the end, so if LIB is able to shock non-Jews who have no connection with The Holocaust, then I think it's done it's job!
Andrew: I don't think it's too much to ask that a film be emotionally resonant AND intellectually fulfilling at the same time.
And, movies don't choose to inspire analytical essays. The intentions of the creators are irrelevant. The analysis comes from the writer, the thinker, the viewer. I know I've read some damn good writing on some terrible movies that provided insights I'm sure the films' creators never dreamed of fostering.
Jim, I agree with others here that your blog is one of the most entertaining things on the web, and I'm forever grateful for your excellent reviews on Ebert's site while the great man was incapacitated. I have to say, your hyperbole regarding films most people love (American Beauty, Natural Born Killers) bemuses me, and some of your readers seem determined to outdo you (Life Is Beautiful a "singularly nasty and morally repulsive film that makes me feel unclean"? Mississippi Burning is "trash, as ugly as humanly possible"? Heaven knows what they'd say about a movie that's truly morally repugnant, like Funny Games). Anyway, as someone who actually likes (if not loves) Life Is Beautiful, I wanted to question your assertion that LIB is a "denial fable":
"Protect your kid from the cruelty and stress of immediate danger by telling him death camps are just fun 'n' games! While you're at it, why not tell him that if he throws himself under a truck it will just bounce off him? And he can really fly if he wants to, too! Don't shatter his dreams!)"
Well, obviously you're right; that would be a terrible moral under normal life circumstances. But isn't the point in LIB that dad KNOWS his son is going to die horribly in the very near future? What the hell would be the point in rubbing his noise in it? The father doesn't need to worry about the long-term effects of his parenting skills, because, as far as dad knows, the kid isn't going to live through the year.
There may be other reasons not to like LIB, but I think the specific one you mention is spurious.
This post also reminds me of the "Extras" episode where Andy is on the set of a movie where Kate Winslet plays a nun during the Holocaust--a double whammy. Kate Winslet states it simply: she is doing this film to win an Oscar. At the end of the film, she talks about playing "mentals" gaining Oscars, too. (The same joke as Simple Jack, but perhaps braver since it comes from Winslet playing a [theoretically] greatly expanded version of herself.) Going straight for tragedy guarantees an aura of importance; but the aura doesn't guarantee anything else..
I find myself agreeing with all of you, although you take somewhat different conclusions, you've expressed something that's bothered me ever since I watched Schindler's List in a film class and learned just how "reprehensible" a film it was. We also dissected The Little Mermaid for sexism and racial stereotypes (notice the lips on Sebastien the Crab--very coon-like--and not to forget the French chef, who I suppose is also a racist depiction of foreign people or something).
Sometimes this kind of criticism makes absurd leaps of logic and sweeping statements, but other times they result in invaluable discussions. Nowadays, the only time the Holocaust is ever discussed on a substantial critical level is either when some dense politician or pundit calls his enemies Hitler (like Ben Stein), or when films like The Boy in the Striped Pajamas pander to our sensibilities, and use the Holocaust as a tool to create cloyingly self-important art. In a way, they're keeping us from forgetting about the Holocaust by reminding us how NOT to memorialize it. If you can't even begin to approach the immensity of the Holocaust, you might as well start by talking about how you can't talk about it.
I was delighted to see Roger's selection of Groundhog Day for his list of Great Movies. Just as people immediately assume that a film about the Holocaust must be profound, they similarly fail to see how a modest film starring a former SNL comedian can be "deep." It's the same reason I'm itching to see WALL-E nominated for Best Picture, regardless of whether it's really deserving of the honor, if only because it would shake things up a bit and maybe inject a little light-heartedness into an award category crowded with "prestige" pictures.
William,
That's even funnier because Winslet has taken on two pure Oscar-bait roles this year in two of the worst films I have seen, the utterly loathsome Revolutionary Road and the not-quite-loathsome-but-still-dreadful The Reader.
Are you sure she wasn't just being interviewed in that episode? :)
it's funny you ended your post referencing your dislike for my two favorite films of the year, because this entire time i was thinking about how i still read everything you write even though 95% of the time i thoroughly disagree with your opinion. and it's because of the "well, if i'd seen THAT movie, i wouldn't like it either, but i saw an entirely different one..." feeling that you get when reading reviews. amazing that you can disagree with a person and still respect them. although i still thinking you're missing something with TDK....
mentioning The Dark Knight in this context was spot on. whenever I complain to someone that it was chaotic, fragmented, poorly directed, a fanboy immediately comes to its rescue saying that "yeah, because it was about the Joker, who is an agent of chaos, so it was chaotic on purpose!"
yet noone seems to defend the Bourne Identity for being confusing and dreamlike, although for me that the point of the whole film.
Jim, thanks for pointing out Zacharek's review of "Doubt," with which I largely agree. I've been trying to describe my own "doubts" with that film, partly in comparison to my preference for "The Reader" (which you may not like--certainly the reviews have been largely mixed to negative), which also leaves us with a certain sense of ambiguity. I shall, perhaps, reuse some of her words.
Oh, and I do agree with your point that many of these pretentious Oscar bait-type films can be far more dangerous than anything that Adam Sandler can dish out. This is, indeed, the Oscar-bait season, but usually one can spot these films by their trailers and the feeling of "throw up in my mouth," as you say.
Christopher Long: Ha! Well, Winslet has always appeared in Oscar-bait roles that might not actually be that good anyway (starting from Titanic), so I guess it's not surprising. Part of the fun of Extras is how closely it follows many of the stars' personalities (whereas sometimes it alternates them). But I forgive her all her trespasses because of Heavenly Creatures and Eternal Sunshine.
Christopher Olson: Not that I doubt it, but what makes Schindler's List a reprehensible film?
I'm curious what Jim (and others) think of other Holocaust films like Schindler's, The Pianist, The Shop on Main Street, the film version of The Diary of Anne Frank....
I like a lot of the stuff you write, but I really think your criticisms here are dubious and hypocritical. Your blog is very often devoted more toward the craft of film criticism than the craft of filmmaking, and I think that's a valid goal in itself. You do undermine yourself slightly, though, when you reveal your prejudices about films you have never seen.
Which is more of a cliche when it comes to 'serious-subject' films: the predicable praise or the predictable backlash? I would argue that both cliches are equally annoying, and neither one gets to the heart of the matter. Which is more ridiculous: filmmakers intentionally aiming for awards, or viewers who judge a film based on their own conjecture about who was aiming for awards? Which is the more self-important: these films themselves, or the category of critics who preaches to us about how 'reprehensible' they really are?
People should approach movies with an open mind, judge them on their own merits, and not devote time to such external concerns. If you want to pick apart any movie and argue how it could have been improved, then I'm all for that type of conversation. Instead of describing their own reactions to the work, many people get into the game of "I think this filmmaker was trying to get X-reaction out of Y-people, and A-people will probably like it for B-reason, and therefore it's a bad movie." It feels like movie critics get into these high-school level politics far too often.
I also dislike the general tone of this debate. A reviewer should always respect that a movie was put together by real people, and you should write the same things you would say to the person if they were standing right there next to you. Instead, movie reviews themselves tend to contain levels of pretentiousness, even as they lodge that very same criticism against movies. Very often a critic will bash a film as over-the-top, and then proceed to launch into a parade of hyperbolic insults. Critics themselves too often focus on the flash, often a competition to come up with the most demeaning insult against a film, rather than the substance of criticism (and just like filmmakers, they are motivated to do so because they hope to receive praise).
I believe film criticism is a form of art itself that should embody the same ideals that it invokes. If you're against things like pretentiousness, self-importance, preachiness, hyperbole, etc. then you should 'show' it through your writing rather than 'tell' people about it in a hypocritical fashion.
JE: That's an excellent point in your final paragraph, but a review of a film and a blog post about the critical receptions of films are two very different things. This blog is indeed mostly about film criticism -- always has been. Among the "hypocritical" myths I've tried to expose is the one of critical "objectivity." Unless you're lucky enough to see a film at an early screening or an un-hyped film festival showing, you are (like most audiences) going to be exposed to some studio marketing spin -- whether directly from publicists and filmmakers, or from unwitting exposure to advertising -- on the web, in publications, billboards, lobby posters and standees, trailers before other films (or stuck onto DVDs). It's almost impossible to avoid forming some kind of opinion, even if it's ("that looks interesting" or "that doesn't look interesting"). I think we should be honest that critics are also exposed to all that. And previous exposure to the work of certain directors, writers, actors is going to affect your expectations about what they have to offer...
Sean: Just to clarify: I'm totally up-front about which films I've seen, and am quoting what others have said about them to bolster a counter-argument that it's OK for critics to pan "dumb summer comedies" but not more "ambitious" fare. I've found it interesting that "Boy in the Striped Pajamas" and "Doubt" and "The Reader" have all received such strongly positive and strongly negative reviews. I won't know how I feel about them until I can get out of the house (in which I've been snowbound for about two weeks) and see them. If you read what I wrote, my point is that if a critic thinks one of these serious, high-profile year-end releases is morally (or aesthetically) reprehensible, then it's his/her duty to say so and explain why. Just because a distributor is positioning a film for awards consideration doesn't mean the film is worthy. That can only be determined by looking at the film itself -- which is the job of critics.
Excellent post Jim!
I still consider Crash to be the worst film of the past decade for the reasons listed above. The film did nothing but allow white people to pat one another on the back for coming together and saying "being a racist is bad" (not to mention the laughably contrived plot twists and horrible acting by half the cast, namely Bullock and Dillon)
I disagree with the comments on Doubt, I don't think it is an "insurance policy" so much as the whole point of the film. The film could be good or bad with a central premise of Doubt, I don't think not knowing he truth of what happened protects a film against criticism in that sense though.
I'm happy to see a blog post about the subject of wrong-headed 'Oscar-bait' films.
I'm amazed that there aren't more people who think that "Life is Beautiful" is a repulsive/lame/'unconsciable' film (probably by the same people who think that Seventh Heaven is a great family drama show). I've been known to refer to Life is Beautiful as "Ernest Goes to Auscwitz" -- because I'm still not convinced that it isn't an unused Jim Varney script that was slightly retooled for Europe. I'm baffled by all of its undeserved praise & awards. There are other reasons to dislike or even hate the film in addition to the points you brought up about it in your 'Life is Wonderful' faux American remake ideas memo on Cinepad -- I also don't care for the film's cloying meet cute/courting/stalker section or Roberto's bad attempts at channeling something along the lines of Chaplin's classic comedy-pathos combo. La Vita è bella was easily one of the worst 'feel-good' dramedies of its decade. One of the few scenes I found interesting was when Benigni runs into an old acquaintance in the camp and...is asked for help on a riddle.
While I'm glad you point out the problems some of us have with certain 'important' movies, I still disagree with you on "The Dark Knight". I've not yet seen "Synecdoche".
I saw The Boy in the Striped Pajamas a few weeks ago and was amazed at how it seemed to play like a parody; Holocaust Movie, if you will. I think if I had chosen to read the film seriously I would have been much more angry at the filmmakers. I'm surprised at the generally positive critical response to the film, which I imagine is the real motivation behind Schwartzbaum's review -- to balance the critical scales. I was disappointed to see Speed Racer on her 'Worst' list. I thought that was the most successful 'summer' movie I saw this year.
Great post, Jim. You've spelled out some thoughts for me that I've been playing with for a while.
We get the Nazis we deserve. The Nazis we get in The Boy In Striped Pajamas are not monsters. They're everyday careerists, as seen through the eyes of an 8 year old boy and his 13 year old sister who, as Christoff says in The Truman Show, "accept the world as it is given to them." They're also patriots, doing ugly but necessary work to keep their country safe and make the world a better place. Sometimes their old fogy parents don't understand what has to be done to accomplish the glorious future their grandchildren deserve to inherit. I dare say that the people who run Guantanamo and ran Abu Ghraib, and their defenders, feel the same way about their work today. For all the absurdity of its premise and the cheap melodrama of its conclusion, BISP is the very opposite of a film about the Other. It is a film about what is normal and recognizable in ourselves.
Your quote: "A critic's job is to make a case for his or her point of view. Readers of this blog know that I have excoriated what I consider to be vulgar, pretentious and meretricious exploitation/propaganda movies such as "Life is Beautiful" (and, in non-Holocaust categories, "Mississippi Burning," "Dead Poet's Society," "Crash," "Natural Born Killers," "American Beauty"...) that, intentionally or not, sentimentalize and indulge the specious xenophobic fantasies of the audience. This is why Kevin Smith and Adam Sandler -- no matter how stupid and inept and insulting their pandering may be -- can never be as evil-affirming as Paul Haggis or Alan Parker. Unless they try a lot harder to be Important."
This paragraph has four sentences that don't much follow from one another. Let's look at them one by one, shall we?
"A critic's job is to make a case for his or her point of view."
Sure. Or, rather, that's -part- of a critic's job. Another part is to describe the movie. Yet another part is to describe one's reaction to the movie (and then to make the case for it). I'm not sure the reaction (and the making a case for the reaction) are all that important, frankly. Sometimes just a description -- especially an objective one -- is all I need to know whether or not I should pursue seeing a particular film.
"Readers of this blog know that I have excoriated what I consider to be vulgar, pretentious and meretricious exploitation/propaganda movies such as "Life is Beautiful" (and, in non-Holocaust categories, "Mississippi Burning," "Dead Poet's Society," "Crash," "Natural Born Killers," "American Beauty"...) that, intentionally or not, sentimentalize and indulge the specious xenophobic fantasies of the audience.
And how does this relate to sentence 1? Oh yes, making a case for a point of view. But isn't it true that reviewers must make their case for a point of view about a particular film? It seems you're talking about making a case for a particular type of film. This is a different thing entirely. It's one thing to dislike a movie because of specific defects, and quite another to dislike a movie because it falls into a particular category. In the latter case, the category should be relatively apparent even before you saw the film. (Indeed, you're excoriating "Doubt" and "Striped Pajamas" without even having seen either film.) In that case, why bother providing a review at all?
For instance, I don't like contemporary country music. There are no exceptions (that I'm aware of) to this rule. Do you think, then, that I'm a good judge of contemporary country music? Should I be offering up my views on the subject in a blog? Why should I bother typing up cleverly worded reviews to contemporary country LPs just so I can find new ways to say "I hated this"? And who would my readers be? Who would benefit from this?
"This is why Kevin Smith and Adam Sandler -- no matter how stupid and inept and insulting their pandering may be -- can never be as evil-affirming as Paul Haggis or Alan Parker."
Here's where you lose me. What does "this" refer to at the beginning of these sentences? Kevin Smith and Adam Sandler can never be evil because you dislike a specific kind of vulgar, sentimental, and meretricious film? Huh? I don't think you're meaning what you're saying here. Exactly what you are meaning, then, I can't really reckon.
"Unless they try a lot harder to be Important."
Ah, here your meaning becomes clearer. As far as this argument goes, I'll say this: Stupid is stupid, and it doesn't matter if the filmmakers are conveying a certain "Importance" or not. One could argue, easily I think, that Sandlers films celebrate a certain kind of American stupidity, one that's rampant in our culture today, one that is anti-intellectual, one that seems only to revere sarcasm and irony, especially in its cheaper, easier-to-understand forms. Aren't his films, then, in some sense, as objectionable as "Crash" or "Mississippi Burning"?
What I'm saying is: Don't all films "sentimentalize and indulge the specious ... fantasies of the audience"? All filmmakers -- all artists -- make assumptions about the world. If you like that filmmaker's works, then you must agree with his assumptions. In some sense, then, that filmmaker must be indulging your "fantasies," and those fantasies by definition must be specious to someone, possibly everyone, even though they are important to you.
Michael Haneke -- a smart man, even though I know you dislike his work -- says that as works of propaganda there is little difference between "Battleship Potemkin" and Harrison Ford's "Air Force One" -- except that the propaganda in "Air Force One" is more cleverly disguised. Perhaps your problem with "Dead Poet's Society" and "Crash" is not the fact that those films have messages that can be viewed as propaganda -- but that the propaganda is so poorly hidden. The films of Kevin Smith and Adam Sandler are worse, in my view, because their propaganda is hidden behind a veil of insignficance. The fantasies indulged by their films reinforce worldviews I personally find abhorrent and destructive, but they do so in a very clever manner.
(That and the fact that they're not funny. Such films make me feel like my brain is rotting. At least I can enjoy moments, sometimes entire scenes, of "Mississippi Burning" or "Crash" -- films I hated -- without feeling like I'm losing IQ points by the second.)
JE: First, thanks for your careful, intelligent scrutiny of my post! Please also see my reply to you and William B. I thought I should respond point by point here, too, though:
1) The way a critic chooses to describe the movie -- while citing actual examples from the film itself -- is essential to the practice of criticism. Every interpretation has to be based on observations of the movie. I feel the worst, and laziest, examples of criticism are those that, for instance, cram in a few graphs of plot description followed by a few graphs of adjectives and opinions. If you're saying that the critical verdict (or "reaction") is not all that important to you, that is something I have often said. It's not the "thumbs-up/thumbs-down" that matters to me; its the reasoning, the observations, that led the critic to that conclusion. I might see the movie itself completely differently, but a good critic must explain what he/she sees.
2) Remember that this whole post was a response to the assertion that it's OK to criticize "dumb summer comedies" but not more serious or ambitious films. I'm citing counter-examples, big-name movies that have been taken quite seriously by Academy Award voters and some high-profile critics, that have also been excoriated (for good reasons) by other critics, including me. So, no, I'm not at all saying a movie is good or bad because it falls into a certain category. On the contrary, I'm using examples to show why I think the categories Patrick Goldstein was using are irrelevant. Yes, reviewers must make their case for a point of view about a particular film -- NOT just because it's a "dumb summer comedy" or a "year-end awards contender." That's exactly what I'm saying.
3) You will notice that I do not offer one word of criticism about "Doubt" or "Boy in Striped Pajamas" -- because I explain that I have not seen them. Instead, I offer examples of other critics who have loathed them (serious, ambitious films both -- one based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning play), and presented some of their reasons for doing so, in order to again emphasize the point above, which is that critics (not just Manohla Dargis, in Goldstein's example) can come down just as hard on these as on "dumb summer comedies."
4) I don't disagree that Sandler or Smith's films "celebrate a certain kind of American stupidity" and anti-intellectualism that is indeed "evil-affirming," and that "intentionally or not, sentimentalize and indulge the specious xenophobic fantasies of the audience." I am wrong to assume that just because they make routinely dismissed "stupid comedies" the attitudes they express are any less serious. I was, instead, trying to make the reverse case, that movies presented as serious artistic statements are not necessarily any more "worthy" (or serious or artistic) than the aforementioned "dumb summer comedies." When I wrote that, the only thing I could think of that would be worse than the garden variety Sandler or Smith movie was one with serious artistic pretensions. That may or may not prove to be the case (should such a film ever be made), but the fault is with my example, not with the point I failed to make with it.
5) You are wrong to oversimplify my opinion of Michael Haneke, as many entries on this blog will show you. In fact, the only film of his that I find spurious (and self-congratulatory, in ways that flatter or patronize the audience not unlike "Crash" or "Dead Poet's Society" or "Natural Born Killers") is "Funny Games" (both the original and the nearly shot-by-shot remake). I've written about those at great length. And I've also written about why I think "Cache" and "Code Unknown" and "The Castle" and "The Piano Teacher" and others are exciting and challenging films that I value greatly. You raise an interesting question, though: Which is worse, poorly done propaganda or well-done propaganda? Again, I'd say it depends on the individual movie.
Also, at the risk of belaboring what should be obvious, I find I often need to make one point explicitly: If, for example, I say that I "like" Haneke as a filmmaker and I "dislike" Haggis as a filmmaker, it's because of their films that I've seen. That's what the like or dislike is based upon, not the other way around ("Why, I hate that film because it has Paul Haggis's name on it; whereas I will like anything that has Michael Haneke's name on it"). That's not being a critic, it's just being a partisan -- or a cinematic football fan. I think there are some fine moments with Tommy Lee Jones in "Valley of Elah" -- and that's Haggis! True, there are filmmakers on whom I have given up because they've been doing the same things again and again for years. I don't see their latest films because I don't have to. But in the extremely unlikely event I had to review one, I'd probably have to catch up first. And if people I respect told me a new one was really worth it, I'd see it. In the meantime, like all filmgoers (and life-livers), I have my "Life Is Too Short For..." list in my head.
P.S. I don't think a gung-ho action movie in which Harrison Ford plays the US President outwitting and out-fighting terrorists aboard Air Force One is terribly "cleverly disguised" propaganda. Do you?
Hiya, I wanted to comment on this blog because I took a class called Film And The Holocaust last semester at San Francisco State (before Boy in the Striped Pajamas came out). Although he admired and respected some fictional Holocaust films (The Pawnbroker, for example), the professor had a somewhat lower opinion of them in general compared to the documentaries. Indeed, the documentaries Night And Fog and Shoah were by far the most devestating movies we watched. The only film that really seems to stand next to those is Schindler's List, and as unflinching and moving as that film is, even it is sugar-coated compared to Shoah, which dives head first into the full tragedy and scope of the Holocaust. I haven't seen Striped Pajamas (I've had quite my full share of Holocaust films for a while, thank you very much), but from what I've heard it's pretty lightweight for the topic. Thank's for an interesting blog!
I think Johnny Shiv pointed out something I've been thinking about since you started this blog entry (and which I haven't been able to articulate). If a film is openly ambitious, and makes clear, to some extent, that it is tackling serious subject matter, how does that actually make it more dangerous than something that is meant to be "fun" but sends similar messages?
To be honest, I'm not bothered so much by Kevin Smith movies; there is some nastiness in the films, at times, but I don't think the movies ever really have outright bad messages, from what I've seen. (Chasing Amy, probably his most "serious" film, is problematic in the way it simplistically equates lesbianism with promiscuity, but even that isn't too bad considering that promiscuity is not portrayed as a negative in his films.) But as Ebert has pointed out, a lot of Adam Sandler movies more or less encourage mean-spirited behaviour as "funny" and "cute" when it's anything but. At least something like American Beauty, in which Kevin Spacey more or less acts similarly, is trying, albeit I'd argue failing, to question his morality.
If a "dumb summer comedy" presents xenophobia in it as normal (examples are escaping me), isn't that more damaging than if a film like Crash tries to present the universality of racism and fails to do it well?
Johnny Shiv, William B.: Some excellent points, both, but in some cases I think you're turning my argument on its head. I was responding to Patrick Goldstein's assertion, quoted and paraphrased in this and previous posts, that critic Manohla Dargis's
I'll sum up my argument this way:
1) There are differences between attempts to "tackle difficult material" and attempts to exploit or simply appropriate seemingly "difficult" (or "challenging" or "serious") material. Doing so does not necessarily require a display of "empathy" from a critic. It depends entirely on the critic's analysis of the movie.
2) Because "dumb summer comedies" are considered "fair targets" for a critic's wrath, the implication is that the more "ambitious" films are not. Again, I'm not making any blanket statement, but saying that no film should be exempt from "evisceration" simply because of its subject, just as no film should be deemed automatically praiseworthy because of its subject.
William B. writes: "If a film is openly ambitious, and makes clear, to some extent, that it is tackling serious subject matter, how does that actually make it more dangerous than something that is meant to be "fun" but sends similar messages?"
It doesn't. But a film that takes on serious subject matter also takes on the risks inherent in doing so -- something a silly summer camp comedy may avoid. But both are capable of being egregiously bad. To use another blatant example: If, say, the silly summer camp comedy were set in Auschwitz, it might conceivably be more offensive than if it were set in Camp Gitchy-Goomie. Maybe not -- completely depends on what the filmmakers do with their premise. On the other hand, As you say, a comedy that encourages meanness and bullying (as I've written, I walked out of "Porky's 3: The Revenge" because its hatred for women (and humanity in general) made me physically ill) should be called out for what it is.
I am NOT pre-judging any particular film -- especially ones I haven't seen. I'm saying a good critic should build a devastating case (which can only be built from actual observations of the movie -- "description" is both evidence and analysis) against any particular movie, if he/she thinks the film merits it. Not because it's been labeled (if only by the release schedule and the marketing department) as a "dumb summer comedy" or a "year-end prestige picture."
William B. writes: "If a "dumb summer comedy" presents xenophobia in it as normal (examples are escaping me), isn't that more damaging than if a film like Crash tries to present the universality of racism and fails to do it well?"
Great point. I can see how my argument can be taken too far in one direction or the other, depending on the individual films under scrutiny. (That's why film criticism has to be rooted in specific examples from particular films.)
William B does make an excellent point, so I will help him out by providing some examples of xenophobic/stereotypical characters in dumb comedies:
Rob Schneider as a Palestinian terrorist in Adam Sandler's You Don't Mess with the Zohan.
Rob Schneider as an Arab prince in Adam Sandler's Click.
Rob Schneider as a Chinese waiter in Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights.
Rob Schneider as an Italian pizza guy in Adam Sandler's Mr. Deeds.
These guys must be stopped.
Ha, thanks Mike C, we've got to watch out for that group of people.
Jim, thanks for the reply. I can't say I disagree with any of your points here.
Thanks, Jim, for your in-depth response to my post. My reactions are below:
1) I completely agree with you. Wonder why so few critics offer these kinds of reviews?
2) "Remember that this whole post was a response to the assertion that it's OK to criticize "dumb summer comedies" but not more serious or ambitious films. I'm citing counter-examples..."
I don't see that. You did offer a link -- a irrelevant one, I thought, upon first reading -- to the article about Dargis. But your post was about your agreement with Schwartzbaum's review and about your assertion that "a 'dumb summer comedy' can be [merely] awful", while an "irresponsible or simpleminded film that exploits and trivializes a 'powerful subject' can be flat-out evil -- precisely because it presents itself as Serious (or Risky or Important or Challenging) Cinema."
Of course I disagree. In my view either type of film can be "evil" (to the extent that a work of art can be evil). But it's true that "Important" films will always be taken more seriously by the Academy, and by a certain segment of the critical audience. It's hard to say why this is: certainly comedies are as difficult to make as "serious" films; but for some reason the tone of such films conveys superficiality. A certain distance is required, perhaps, to laugh at a given subject.
3) "You will notice that I do not offer one word of criticism about "Doubt" or "Boy in Striped Pajamas" -- because I explain that I have not seen them."
True, up to a point. You do say "Striped Pajamas" title made you "throw up in your mouth" and that Zarachek's review of "Doubt" aligned well with your opinion of the film's trailer.
"Instead, I offer examples of other critics who have loathed them (serious, ambitious films both -- one based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning play), and presented some of their reasons for doing so, in order to again emphasize the point above, which is that critics (not just Manohla Dargis, in Goldstein's example) can come down just as hard on these as on "dumb summer comedies."
As I said, I didn't see that (the fact that your post was an argument against the idea that critics can't attack serious film the same way they attack comedies) in your post. But I agree with your assertion here.
4) Okay, I agree with you there.
5) "You are wrong to oversimplify my opinion of Michael Haneke ..."
You're right. I recalled that you'd hated "Funny Games" and extrapolated from there. Sorry about that.
"P.S. I don't think a gung-ho action movie in which Harrison Ford plays the US President outwitting and out-fighting terrorists aboard Air Force One is terribly "cleverly disguised" propaganda. Do you?"
It depends on the viewer. I doubt many people who eagerly saw "Air Force One" in the theater realized they were watching propaganda. In fact, many viewers/readers would be surprised by such a view. That's probably not the case with films like "Battleship Potemkin" or "Triumph of the Will." With films like "Air Force One," people don't know they're being manipulated.
I should say here, Jim, that I although I disagree with some of what you say here, I enjoy your posts/blog and find the conversations you initiate stimulating. Please keep up the good work.
Pretty much any Frenchman in any American movie, ever, is xenophobic/stereotypical.
Jim- I read Life is Beautiful in a different way. To me, his hiding events from his son served another purpose: to help him survive. It seemed that he was doing these things so that his son would go along with the plans that would help him live through his ordeal. This became most apparent at the end, to prevent his son from freaking out and trying to save his dad. Of course, you have to throw realism out the door with this movie. Aside from this, I don't know if I agree with you that a parent shouldn't in every case protect their children from the realities of the world at a certain age. Especially when those realities are so excruciating, that most humans probably wouldn't recover from experiencing them. Even if, in hindsight, a parent should expose their children from these horrible truths, you can't blame him for wanting to shield his son from them, especially if there's another purpose to it. I thought the theme revolved around this human connection amidst systematic atrocities. And in this way, by refusing to give into and revel in the horror, it struck me as actually kind rebellious.
William B: I saw Schindler's List for the first time in High School because my history teacher clearly felt it was his duty to have us witness this piece of history, albeit as a dramatization. In College, I watched the film because the teacher thought it transformed the memory of the Holocaust into "entertainment," and in University, we discussed the film as part of a larger body of Holocaust work, including documentary film and the biographies of Holocaust survivors.
I could never consider the film reprehensible myself, but I can understand what some critics deem its flaws. The mere idea of hiring actors to impersonate the suffering of Holocaust victims could be considered reprehensible to some, including actual survivors. Some have argued that violence is too thrilling for some people to NOT be entertained, even if the violence we see is associated with a terribly sensitive topic like the Holocaust. Spielberg, in the views of some, made it possible to enjoy the massacre of an entire race of people.
The problem is that the audience has been conditioned to enjoy movies which feature violence and action, and so using violence as a device to instill horror and sympathy automatically makes one think of a Quentin Tarantino film instead. Is it any surprise then that Tarantino's next film is Inglorious Basterds, in which Jewish Americans savagely kill German soldiers as revenge for the Holocaust?
But if Schindler's List has done anything bad at all, it's opening the floodgates for films that are even less discrete with the depiction of the massacre of Jews.
Johnny Shiv:
"With films like 'Air Force One,' people don't know they're being manipulated."
That's the best kind of propaganda, no?
While we're on the subject, I have to lob a brick at Downfall, for it's wrong-headed "women behind the men" approach to viewing Nazi Germany and it's last-minute nods to the extermination of the Jews when it was afraid we might think it had forgotten. We know about the holocaust; you don't have to tell us again. And the women who spent their time looking good in make-up were a cheap, gimmick-y point of entry.
Oh, and Everything Is Illuminated, we know the holocaust was terrible. You don't have to beat us over the heads with it.
It's as bad as rap music. "You don't know how it is!"
"Yes, I do, because you've told me a hundred times."
"No, I don't think you get it, because it didn't happen to you. And because all the times we told you didn't get the point across, I'm gonna make sure you get it this time by telling you again! We was in the ghetto! The Warsaw Ghetto! Yee-ah, goy! That's how it was, goy!"
Life is beautiful is NOT a "Holocaust" movie. The Holocaust is simply a backdrop for the message that bringing joy to loved ones, can sometimes be done even in the most dire of situations.
If the movie's goal was to get you to laught at the Holocaust, it would be reprehensible. But the movie's protagonist simply uses laughter as a tool to deal with a horrible situation.
But here's the real question: How, oh Mr. Blogger, can a movie be made in this day and age, that's NOT "exploiting" it in your eyes? How can a well-intentioned director make a movie about the Holocaust, in a way that wont bring criticism of just trying to "exploit" or "cash in" on horrible event?
In other words, way to miss the point.
It seems as if every time "Life is Beautiful" gets slammed, here or elsewhere, a few posters (myself included) take some pains to point out that there is nothing reprehensible about a father trying to protect the innocence of a 5-year-old child who is facing what appears to be certain death. I realize that most people probably wouldn't be able to rise above the despair in such a situation. But surely one can see how it might not be ideal to huddle in a corner with a 5-year-old, who is literally incapable of understanding the situation, and repeat "Timmy, this is horrible! We're gonna die! The world is a hell! God has forsaken us!" I'd like to think that I, like Benigni's character, would at least try to protect the child from the truth and give him a few moments of play and happiness before the end.
Typically, no one ever responds to this point, which has already been made by a few previous posters. Could someone please explain what is evil or meretricious about it? I'm genuinely curious.
Don't get me wrong - no film is above criticism, and I can understand those who have other problems with "Life is Beautiful," and even those who suggest that such films are perhaps better left unmade. I just feel that much of the hate comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of Benigni's character.
JE: I don't question the motivations of Benigni's character; I question his sanity and his wisdom as a parent. Here's an idea: "Timmy, let's not call undue attention to ourselves or these Nazis might separate or kill us. They don't like us. Remember that."
Maybe it's been too long since I saw the film, but doesn't Benigni figure out pretty quickly that they're not likely to make it out alive? If so, why not try to make it fun for the kid and maybe even try to come up with some schemes to give him a shot at survival? Otherwise, they're just waiting to die, and the kid's final moments are undiluted misery.
SPOILER: Yes, I know the boy survives, miraculously - perhaps even ridiculously - but his father couldn't know that would be the outcome. He could hope for it and work toward it, but only as long as he didn't sink into utter despair.
And hey, maybe we're supposed to question his sanity -- extreme situations affect different people differently. As Dan's post on December 25 at 5:41 AM suggests, at least one real-life Holocaust victim acted in a manner similar to Benigni's character. As I said, I can understand objections to such a fable-like treatment of the Holocaust on the grounds that it exploits tragedy (even though I don't agree that said exploitation is heinous in this case). I just don't see what's so heinous about Benigni's actions, even if one disagrees with them.
Agree to disagree. Thanks for the response, Jim!