Week X

Friedman, Lester: Citizen Spielberg

Summary:

Friedman begins by discussing his own experiences as a Jewish-American who, like Spielberg, grew up without the Holocaust being a ubiquitous part of American popular culture, as it is today. He then goes on to discuss the ways in which, after the Holocaust was brought into the public sphere in the 1960s, it has been co-opted in different ways by different groups. For American Jews, it is one of very few unifying themes between them. For America at large, it serves as a parable that pushes American values and retellings of America's role in WWII. For the media, it is the benchmark of ultimate horror, which can be turned into scripted tales some accuse of being exploitative and morally oversimplified. As survivors dwindle, Friedman argues, these transmissions of the Holocaust narrative become even more important. This is what he views Schindler's List as doing. It pulls the narrative into the next generation, by focusing on those who survived and those who fought back. By confronting his own experiences with anti-Semitism and making a film with complex, multi-dimensional characters and situations, the film brings Spielberg into maturity as a director. However, there are inevitably issues of representation. Who owns the Holocaust? Is it possible to represent something so horrible? Do the Hollywood narratives that allow viewers to empathize with the characters cheapen the experience? Is it wrong to indulge humans' dark desire to see how depraved people can become? All of this issues made some critics pre-disposed to dislike the film, some because it was too realistic, some because it was not realistic enough. As Friedman sees it however, by fostering connections between viewer and viewed, the film bonds the living to the dead and raises awareness of the very issues that made the Holocaust a reality.
Friedman goes on to explore how Spielberg's Jewish identity played into the film and the emotional toll filming such a film, in the actual locations where these events took place no less, had on him.
Then he gets to the film: Friedman uses various scenes from the film that are often criticized to combat common complaints about it. He argues that using many people instead of a few families allowed Spielberg to show that the Holocuast affected all kinds of people - not just middle-class families - and create a community, which become more interconnected and personalized with each viewing. Though he is accused of not representing the Jewish persepctive - Schindler, after all, being a German gentile - the character of Stern is not only the one to put the viewer and Schindler into the perspective of the film, he is its real hero. He takes the viewer out of the sweeping overview Schindler's character gives and gets down into the nitty gritty of things. One of Schindler's triumphs is earning this man's respect, elevating Stern above some subservient Jewish sidekick of Schindler's. Although some critics accuse Helen, the Jewish maid, of being a tool of sexuality, Friedman shows another perspective: she is a tool with which we may see, and be disgusted by, Goeth's gross abuse of power and pathetically unconvincing - even to him - anti-Semitic ideology. Additionally, Goeth is not a glorified, compelling figure as some critics claim, but a middle-man and a sadist who shows no signs of development throughout the film.
Friedman concludes with a look into the cinematic elements of the film, which include heavy use of hand-held cameras, the artful uses of music, sound, and bridges, and the choice to shoot in black and white before concluding that, despite criticisms, the film's artistic mastery and compelling narrative ultimately make it a good, if not fully accurate, representation of the Holocaust. Because, really, who does own it?

Thoughts:

I liked this article, especially because it dealt with issues of representation in tragedies - or even triumphs - that one or another institution or group attempts to claim as its own and no one else's.

Week VIII

Buckland, Warren:

Summary:

The majority of Buckland's analysis is divided between two areas: Spielberg's use of allusion to film history in Raiders and his use of offscreen space. In the first category, Buckland examines how the film migh actually appeal more to the "informed" spectator, who recognizes these homages to past films and, especially, serials and sees it as enhancing their movie-going experience, than the "uninformed" spectator, who only enjoys the film for what's on the surface. This makes film-watching just as ambitious as film-making. Buckland goes on to examine the various sources of inspiration Spielberg draws from in many of his sequences in Raiders, in particular focusing on the sound serial Nyoka and the Tigermen. He identifies some particular allusions, but more broadly, its use of episodic structure, a delayed resolution, and cliff-hangers afer each "episode", of which he sees the film as having six. However, Buckland argues, Spielberg also uses dialogue, cinematography, and location to "elevate the B-movie serial to the level of the A-movie blockbuster." After another section comparing chases scenes in Duel and Raiders, an example of Spielberg's self-referentility, Buckland moves on to examining Spielberg's use of offscreen space. He is especially interested in the sequences in Marion's bar, in which off-screen space is used to delight and trick the viewer, making them feel they have more knowledge than they actually do by disguising Indiana's presence, before revealing that they actually know less.