Chapter 489
Thirteen professional media wrote movie reviews for the first time after the premiere, which can definitely be called a lot of attention! You must know that there are only about 40 professional film magazines in North America. Of course, in addition to these professional film media, other comprehensive media have more reports, but they will not rush to write film reviews after the premiere, but will write reviews after the opening weekend or the second weekend. , so that the audience can have more buffer time.
After the premiere of "Schindler's List", there was a frenzy of commentary from thirteen professional media. It can be seen that professional film critics can't wait to express their inner views on the film after watching the film. This also proves from the side the fact that the number of people watching the movie before the release of the movie is innumerable.
There are many comments, but what about the content? It is praise or criticism, success or failure, positive or negative...
Among the first batch of thirteen media reviews, Roger Ebert of the "Chicago Sun" unexpectedly took the lead in expressing his views on the film, not the "Los Angeles Times" or the "New York Times", not the "The Hollywood Reporter" or "Variety" is actually the "Chicago Sun", which is really surprising.
Although the "Chicago Sun" is not one of the four major media in the film industry, Roger has a top level in the industry as a film critic. Even film critics have a good reputation for Roger. authority! As the first film critic ever to win the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism, his film reviews have been published by more than 200 newspapers around the world, and he even has his own film review program. It can be said that his influence is one of the most influential in the industry. The existence of the top inside, few people can match.
Roger has such a high level of authority because of his aesthetic standards. He describes the way he reviews films as "relative, not absolute." It is to consider the overall value of the film, including artistic value, commercial value, viewing value, etc. In other words, he will not blindly pursue art films and belittle commercial films, but he will not pay too much attention to technology and ignore entertainment.
In general, he assigns four stars to high-quality films and half stars to the worst, unless the film is "unartistically" or "morally repulsive" before giving it zero stars.
Roger once said in the twenty-first century, vividly describing his standards of film review, "When you ask me if 'Hellboy' is good, my answer is, On a scale of four, if 'Superman' is a four, then 'Hellboy' can get a three, and 'The. Punisher' a two."
In addition, Roger insists that it doesn't make sense to look at his ratings without looking at the reviews, because his ratings and reviews would be very mismatched. For example, "The. Manson. Family", he gave the movie three stars because it served the purpose it was made for, but he wouldn't recommend it because it wasn't a movie worth going for. Works to watch in movie theaters.
Roger's commentary style has earned him a place in the competitive industry of film critics, and his authority has been recognized by many audiences. This time, Roger gave his own comment on "Schindler's List" at the first time. For this movie, Roger gave a four-star evaluation. If it is judged according to the hundred-point system, he will give One hundred points, and the recommendation index is also a full four stars. There is no doubt that Roger sent all the praises to "Schindler's List"!
"If Oskar Schindler was a traditional hero who fought for what he believed in, it would have been easier to understand him. But in fact, he was a flawed man, alcoholic, Gambling, emotional play, greed, luxury, so, it made his life a mystery.
At the beginning of World War II, he saw the opportunity and came to Krakow under Nazi occupation to open a factory and hire Jews to work for himself at extremely low wages. His goal was to become a millionaire. Towards the end of the war, he risked his life, sacrificing his personal wealth to save the Jews; he deceived the Nazis for months into setting up a non-existent military factory.
Why did he change? What happened to turn him from a perpetrator to a humanitarian? The movie 'Schindler's List' makes no attempt to answer that question at all, and credit must be given to Steven Spielberg. Because any answer could be too simplistic, and for Schindler's life, that would be an insult.
The Holocaust is a giant engine of evil, fueled by racism and fanaticism. But Schindler defeated it with wisdom in his own little corner. However, he seemed to have no plan and acted purely on impulse, and even he himself could not fully understand it. These. This is Spielberg's best work so far. He restores the truth of the Holocaust and the miracle created by Schindler. In the process, he did not resort to those simple narratives.
The film is one hundred and eighty-four minutes long, and like all great films, it still seems too short.
At the beginning of the film, Schindler, played by Liam Neeson, appears on the stage. He is tall and does not feel angry and arrogant; he is well-dressed and often hangs out at night, buying roes for Nazi officers and the girls around them. Sauce, elephant soldiers, he also likes to take photos with senior officers. He proudly pinned the swastika on his clothes. He also eats well on the black market, where he can get nylon, cigarettes and brandy. The authorities were happy to help him open a factory to make kitchen utensils for military cooking classes. He was also happy to hire Jews, believing that they were paid less than Poles, so that he could make a fortune.
Schindler's genius lies in bribery, conspiracy, deception. He doesn't know anything about running a factory, so he finds Isaac Stein, a Jewish accountant played by Ben Kingsley, to take charge of the piece. Stein walked the streets of Krakow, hiring Jews for Schindler's factories. Because this is a protected military-industrial enterprise, if you can work there, you can save your life.
Spielberg handled the relationship between Schindler and Stein very delicately. At the beginning of the war, Schindler only wanted to make money, and at the end of the film review, he only wanted to save 'his' Jews. We know Stern knows what's going on here, but we never see the two talking about it in the film; that's probably because of the circumstances, talking loudly about something could be fatal.
This delicacy is the strength of Spielberg throughout the film. The screenplay, adapted by Steven Zellian based on Thomas Keneally's novel, has nothing to do with drama. Instead, Spielberg chose a series of events, presented clearly and unmistakably. Deliberate manipulation of emotions. Seeing these times, we also understand how secretive Schindler and his plans are.
He also brought the Holocaust to us in a vivid, horrific way. The Nazi officer Amon Goss, played by Hugo Lancaster, is the best case study of evil stupidity. Standing on Yantai in his villa overlooking the concentration camp, he shot Jews at will just to practice marksmanship. And Schindler was able to persuade him to give up the habit by pandering to his vanity, which Schindler did so clearly, almost as if he was insulting him.
Goss is one of those vulnerable hypocrites who try to uphold an ideal but exclude himself; on the one hand, he preaches the killing of Jews; Helen, a Jew, was a maid and fell in love with her. He did not find it strange that her countrymen were being devastated, and that she had been spared because of his love on a whim. In his view, his own personal needs are more important than right and wrong, survival and destruction.
Shot in black and white, and using many of the locations where the scene took place, Spielberg shows us how Schindler dealt with the madness of the Nazi system. He bribed, he coaxed, he bragged, he managed to not be seen through. In one of the film's most daring passages, a train full of his hired workers mistakenly looks at Auschwitz, and Schindler himself goes to the death camp and boldly persuades the administrators to let the Jews go and save them from death. Edge was rescued and put on a train bound for his factory.
One of the most surprising things about the film is that Spielberg is so completely at the service of the story. The film is well-acted, well-written, well-directed, and looks good. Each individual play is a masterpiece of art direction, cinematography, special effects, and extras management. But Spielberg himself, with his outstanding personal style, and his previous works, who were full of gorgeous shots that deliberately drew our attention and remembered, disappeared from the works this time. Actors such as Neeson, Kingsley, Lancaster, etc., did not have that kind of dazzling performances, and everyone just worked hard for the same goal.
At the end of the film, there is an overwhelming emotional impact, with those who were rescued by Schindler in person. We learn that Schindler's Jews and their descendants now number 6,000, and the Jewish population of Poland is only 4,000. This seems to tell us the obvious, that Schindler did more alone than a nation to save the Jews. But this conclusion alone is too simple. The message of the film is that in the face of the Holocaust, some people do certain things, while others are insensitive.
The French writer Gustave. Flaubert once wrote that he disliked 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' because the author kept preaching against slavery. ‘Have to comment on slavery? ' he asked, 'describe it; that would suffice. ' He added, 'The author must write a book and be like God in the universe, everywhere but undetectable. ’ This can also be applied to the film’s author, Spielberg.
He describes the evil of the Holocaust, and he tells an incredible story of how certain people who should have been victims were spared. In the process, he did not use the tricks of the film industry, those directing and dramatic methods that would only evoke the usual formal reaction. In this film, you can't detect Spielberg's presence, but in every shot, his restraint and passion are everywhere. "