Emotional, but lacking.

Rating: 7/10 (1 April 2010)

Articulating my thoughts on this movie has been difficult, given my mixed feelings for it. Schindler's List introduced me to the holocaust and encouraged me to learn more about it. No film has ever made me cry more. Yet I find myself agreeing with some of the common criticisms of the film, that it is emotionally manipulative at the expense of promoting a more complex understanding of the Holocaust.
I respect Spielberg for showing little restraint in depicting the horrors of the holocaust. Schindler's List provides a general overview of the subject, from the initial discrimination against Jews, to the liquidation of the Ghettos, to the concentration camps. This is without a doubt Spielberg's most emotionally gripping film. Some of the more memorable moments for me were the scenes where children escape death by hiding in toilets, and the chimneys at Auschwitz. John William's theme earned the score an academy award all on its own; the rest of the movie might as well have had no music. Ralph Fiennes gives a chilling performance as the film's villain, Amon Goeth, and the black and white documentary style gives it an unparalleled feeling of authenticity.
To be honest though, that seems to be all there is to this movie. It is purely emotional, with little intellectual value. I believe this is in part due to the way Spielberg treats his characters. The two supporting characters, Itzhak Stern and Amon Goeth, would have been more interesting characters than the lead, Oscar Schindler. Stern, as Schindler's personal assistant, is able to avoid many of the hardships faced by his fellow Jews. I would imagine this would present an interesting moral dilemma for Stern: it is in his best interest to remain Schindler's assistant, but how can he remain loyal to his people in this somewhat privileged position? He soothes his conscience by trying to prod Schindler into saving more Jews. Goeth is presented as a psychopath who shoots Jews from his balcony for sport. The historical record verifies that he indeed partook in such abominable acts, but Spielberg tries to meld him into a three dimensional character with only partial success. Goeth kills Jews because it makes him feel powerful, but Oscar Schindler challenged this definition of power when he said that true power is permitting someone to live, rather than killing them. Goeth attempts to exert Schindler's definition of power by not punishing a Jewish servant, but he quickly reverts to his old ways by shooting him on his way out the door. Another scene involves his sexual attraction to a Jewish servant, but he ends up severely beating her, and blames her for trying to subvert him. These two characters are very different, but they have one thing in common: they are involved in a personal struggle over their own beliefs. Stern has to find a way to remain loyal to the Jewish people while saving his own skin, while Goeth attempts to change his sadistic ways, but fails. Unfortunately, their status as supporting characters limits what Spielberg can really do with them. The film never explains Goeth's brutal ways other than chalking it up to his psychopathic, sadistic tendencies, which pertained to some Nazis, but not all. Nevertheless Goeth is one of the more interesting characters in the film.
Oscar Schindler, the main character, does not have an equivalent struggle over his own identity, only a moral struggle, over whether he should challenge the Nazi power to save his workers, which would put his life, as well as his business, in danger. He is strictly an observer to the horrors around him, not a participant, which makes him the least interesting character in the film. He witnesses a series of atrocities and looks sadder and sadder each time. Basically, the message about this character is pretty clear: he's a greedy businessman, but he has a soul, and it's only a matter of time before he does the right thing. He decides to save 1100 of his workers, ending the film on a happy note, but still reflecting on the millions who did not make it. A flawed character such as this would make for some great character analysis, but he feels distant, like an empty vessel for the audience to slip into. Perhaps this was Spielberg's intention. But the character's development takes such an obvious, unsurprising course that it almost feels like the film is just delaying the inevitable for three hours.
Optimism is truly Spielberg's forte. Whenever he takes on a depressing, complicated subject, he portrays it in the most simplistic and comforting ways. I find it most interesting that Spielberg, a Jewish filmmaker, would make a Holocaust movie that does not focus on Jews that much. Stern is the only Jewish character who is developed to any degree. I am not trying to accuse Spielberg of being anti-Semitic. I just believe that focusing on the Jews in this story would have been inconsistent with Spielberg's optimistic style of film making, because only Schindler had the power to save them. But focusing on Schindler so much almost robs the Jews of any agency, making them all the more pitiful. This gives the film a strictly emotional core rather than an intellectual one. I admit this is more of a subjective criticism than an objective one, because who says the emotional route is not as legitimate as the intellectual, but I believe a film can be emotional and intellectual at the same time.
Schindler's List packs an emotional punch that few films have matched, and for that, it is a must see. Despite this, the most admirable quality of the film is not a characteristic of the film itself, but how it has promoted awareness of the Holocaust. Schindler's List is an excellent introduction to the Holocaust and I believe it will continue to encourage people to learn more about it, but if you are looking for deep analysis, look elsewhere.