Worthy examination of moral complexity

Rating: Null/10 (13 August 2004)

In general, I do not rate Spielberg all that highly, primarily because of his history of big-budget garbage like ET and Jurassic Park - movies that appeal to the most base aspects of humanity - but I think that he redeemed himself with this movie. Firstly, if I were to be a cynic, I would say that the choice of the Holocaust as a setting for a drama that would establish Spielberg's artistic credentials is a little too obvious. I am not going to be a cynic, however, but instead will share a couple of thoughts that I have about the story. What I find is the most significant aspect of the movie is the way the character of Oskar Schindler fits nicely between his initial role as a war-profiteer through to his eventual role as a local saviour.
What I am saying here is that the ambiguity which a number of you have expressed regarding the character of Schindler can be answered quite succinctly whilst simultaneously demonstrating that Spielberg had not established a character whose 'virtue' was defined at the outset and which was exposed to the evils of the Nazis. The most important details about Schindler are that he was a cynical, exploitative, manipulative opportunist who always kept his real motives hidden from others. We see glimpses of this in his relationship with his wife, and the introductory scene where he essentially establishes his Nazi support-base by presenting himself as someone who he is not, but, through a convincing performance, as a confident, wealthy and important businessman (which he was not at that time). Combine this with his tactical resourcefulness in securing the capital for his enamel factory from a couple of wealthy Jews and his entrance into the Jewish underground market, and we see that Schindler cements his position in the movie as a man of power through the use of cynical, selfish methods. The moral complexity of Schindler, however, comes when he uses exactly the same methods to secure the lives of his workers. If he had not been the cynic as I described, there would have been no way for him to secure a position in which he would have been able to save the workers.
So for those who may have some qualms regarding Schindler as a man, the lesson is that the very vices that he had were precisely the reason why he was able to do what he did. To place this in the wider context of the Holocaust, what we learn through the movie is that in a situation that is so incredibly dire and hopeless, normal understandings about morality and virtuous character have no application. A genuinely 'good' man would have been powerless to resist the Nazi deathmachine; only a 'bad' man like Schindler would ever have been able to find a place within that climate to do what needed to be done to resist the genocide. This exploration of the dual-nature of vice, being reprehensible under ordinary circumstances (the fact that he was a failure before and after the war) but absolutely essential to do good in exceptional circumstances is, I believe, one of the most significant lessons that Spielberg portrayed in "Schindler's List". It was certainly a relief from the usual wholly good heroes that Spielberg seems to love in his other movies. Bravo.