Jewish Propaganda.

Rating: 7/10 (1 June 2008)

Oh-dear; I'm afraid I must inevitably ruffle some self-righteous feathers here.
Before the Juggernaut rolls, let me just say that I am not a holocaust denialist. Quite the contrary; I have several books relating to the subject including Martin Gilbert's acclaimed, definitive and enormous work, which I have read right through, and thoroughly accept as fact.
What is shown in this movie is almost certainly as meticulously researched, if for no other reason than that some - like me, perhaps - would shout out 'hey; that ain't true', and make a big fuss about zionist dishonesty etc, etc, if misrepresentations came to light. In any case, there are still enough survivors with suitably vivid memories and whose witness testimony is readily available. One suspects that they, of all people, would most object to any omissions or inaccuracies, depicted in this movie.
So we can take as a kosher work.
But somehow this just didn't cut it for me. I didn't find the principal characters believable. I didn't understand Schindler at all. His reformation from grasping capitalist to saintly cost-no-object saviour was never adequately explained. Perhaps the man himself was too much of an enigma to be understood by others. Whatever the case, I couldn't identify with him. There were times when his suave slightly-reckless, man-of-action persona bore an uncanny resemblance to Indiana Jones, and I began to wonder if Mr Spielberg was having slight de-ja-vue associations with his most famous creation.
Neither could I begin to understand the motivation of Ranulph Feinnes' character. He was evidently a lunatic from my standpoint, but attempts to portray his personality left more questions than answers.
The scenes of brutality were, if anything, rather less harrowing than some of the descriptions I have read. Though they were frightful to behold even so.
And I thought the lighting itself - especially at night - was well worthy of the Oscar that it gained.
It's not clear to me why a child was singled-out for colour treatment in what was a specifically black and white production. Did the director think his audience was too dumb to recognise her, despite the constant camera-tracking? This struck me as particularly crass.
It was a long movie, and perhaps deservedly so. But the specialised nature of its subject makes it one for students of the holocaust rather than mainstream movie fans.
I've described this movie as Jewish propaganda and that deserves explanation. Propaganda is not necessarily lies, but sometimes the truth can be told in different ways. Selective bias, if you like. In this case, we have a movie that was directed by a Jew, financed by Jews, using Jewish facilities (Hollywood), and starring Jews. And, moreover, it depicts Jews as victims and never victimisers - Which is probably how they envisage themselves as a people. And with the best will in the world, I cannot see how that can be anything BUT propaganda.
When the day comes that I see Mr Spielberg make a movie about the sufferings of a people of that ghetto we may not mention - called the Gaza Strip - a people who are crowded together just as the Warsaw Jews were, who are brutalised by their Fascist task-masters in Tel-Aviv; who are starved, beaten, bulldozed, bombed, summarily arrested, tortured and murdered, denied electricity even for essential services, and whose land is stolen by a master-race that claims a higher title to it - well, then l'll begin to believe in the unbiased nature of Hollywood. And the devil will be wearing thermal underwear.
By the way, there are no prizes for guessing why and how it won so many Oscars.