Jump to content

The Panda

BOT's Top 100 Movies of All Time - Hindsight is 2020 Edition

Recommended Posts



9 minutes ago, The Stingray said:

Also, more people need to watch the 1990 masterpiece Tremors starring Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more charming and enjoyable movie.

I agree that it's charming and enjoyable, but it isn't a top 100 level movie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFjXX8b.png

 

zeoGK8v.png

 

"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis


"An ancient Ring thought lost for centuries has been found, and through a strange twist of fate has been given to a small Hobbit named Frodo. When Gandalf discovers the Ring is in fact the One Ring of the Dark Lord Sauron, Frodo must make an epic quest to the Cracks of Doom in order to destroy it. However, he does not go alone. He is joined by Gandalf, Legolas the elf, Gimli the Dwarf, Aragorn, Boromir, and his three Hobbit friends Merry, Pippin, and Samwise. Through mountains, snow, darkness, forests, rivers and plains, facing evil and danger at every corner the Fellowship of the Ring must go. Their quest to destroy the One Ring is the only hope for the end of the Dark Lords reign." - IMDb

 

Its Legacy

 

"Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings was a standard set in the genre of Fantasy that has now become one of the greatest trilogies of all time. The Lord of the Rings as an alternate universe is the fact that it’s something that aligns to everyday viewers of the films and book. The Lord of the Rings has sparked fan fiction all over the world, with fans creating their own versions of Middle Earth in the modern day. Not only has LOTR become a key point in success for fantasy genre but, Peter Jackson’s filmmaking has solely surpassed what anyone anticipated or expected for J.R.R Tolkien’s exclaimed work. The essay itself will discuss the preliminary idea of Alternate Universe and how it’s used in Tolkien’s book and Jackson’s viewership. Then focussing on the adaption element, itself and how it became a success, despite Saul Zaentz deeming it impossible to recreate Middle Earth in film. Saul Zaentz had owned the rights for LOTR for over 25 years and had declined a vast number of filmmakers before Jackson, due to not finding their version worthy. Jackson said back in 1998 “You shouldn’t think of these movies as being ‘The Lord of the Rings.’ ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is, and always will be… one of the greatest (stories) ever written. Any films will only ever be an interpretation of the book. In this case, my interpretation.” (Peterson, 2012)

 

Jackson even believed that you should just thank Tolkien’s work and that the films cannot ever be better than the book and Jackson himself would re-read each individual page whilst filming each scene to make sure he got it right. Screen Narrative was one of the reasons why LOTR became such a successful trilogy. This was because of the on location shooting and use of New Zealand as a film set, what this does for the film is the fact the scenery is epic in scale and beauty, the shoot of the films was done back to back and took over 274 days whilst added pickups took the film to take over a span of three years. Using screen narrative to successfully create Middle Earth for all its grandeur by using New Zealand as his back drop further explained in later chapter. Jackson also succeeded in the relationship that he could make with the characters Barker and Mathijs said “how fully audiences are absorbed in and “go along with” with film’s events: the stronger the bond with one or more characters, the stronger the involvement in the film.” (Barker and Mathijs, 2007) Noting the fact Jackson made the characters more relatable due to their human nature and the reason that they seemed to be doing the quest as a group and many people relate to the bond they had in the films. How the story was told from the perspective of multiple characters rather than a singular character focus point, this providing the on screen telling of their group bond and the Fellowship. Weta Digital has become a co-founder in modern visual effects and use of actors to manipulate and control effects is breath-taking. Weta was founded by Peter Jackson and others in 1993, No VFX was available in NZ at the time, Weta went on to be extremely successful for other filmmakers and has won five academy awards, including Avatar and obviously LOTR (Com and Floyer 2016).

 

The reason to focus primarily on the idea of the alternate universe is the fact that Tolkien’s world is relatable in so many ways, Tolkien shaped the way fantasies are based upon and set a benchmark that many other authors followed e.g. J.K. Rowling. It can be related to in many ways but characters are something that Jackson makes so enjoyable. You feel like you’ve known someone or connected to dies such as Boromir when he gets shot multiple times or the fact it’s breaking this unstoppable (well what we believed as viewers and readers) group on their quest. An example of this is the connection the viewer feels when one of the ‘heroes’ dies. Boromir’s death breaks the unstoppable/invincible perceived group of heroes on their quest this makes it relatable and brings us back to reality. The concept of a group of either high-born or an unknown and smaller race of Hobbits doesn’t matter in the film, it’s still all about the quest and how the group they form eventually breaks which makes this such a captivating story. My rationale for focussing on the alternate universe is because it seems fit that people find these films so obsessive to watch with their extended versions and ongoing fan fiction allowing fans to further delve into the world Tolkien created whilst staying within reality itself.

 

‘Overall The Lord of the Rings trilogy succeeds in its attempt to adapt prose onto the screen. Jackson’s trilogy conveys the tone which made the books so outstanding, less antiquated, whimsy and more medieval grunge for the screen and while not a religious adaptation, the divergences from the source material serve to illustrate a genuine attempt to render the story in a truly cinematic fashion. ‘(Rogers, 2015) Jackson could never be accused of not being enthusiastic, especially with the release of the extended editions of the films which feature many scenes which were left on the cutting room floor and not included in the theatrical release. Despite some of the changes the essence of Tolkien’s novels remains intact. ‘Jackson’s decision to forgo the obscure, extra details that round out the author’s trilogy didn’t lessen the thematic and narrative meat of Tolkien’s work,’ (Sparknotes.com, 2004) and the conflation or elimination of characters from the novels ultimately does not change the story very much. The films and the novels are not interchangeable, but the films prove as faithful as they can be to the novels without testing the limits of viewers’ patience and attention. (Snerdley, 2014) ‘The editing process which took place for the theatrical release was appreciated by many, although the ending of The Return of the King was criticised for its length, while the extended cuts were still available to those enthusiastic enough about the material with the time to spend watching all of it.’ (Rogers, 2015)

 

Jackson stated from the beginning he didn’t want to make a traditional fantasy film, he wanted to make something that felt much more than that. ‘Tolkien writes in a way that makes everything come alive and more real for the audience and we wanted to set that realistic feeling of an ancient world-come-to-life right away with the first film, then continue to build it as the story unravels.’ (Jackson, 2002) Constantly referring to the book Jackson would get as close to the best book to film adaption. The likes of Ian McKellen has stated the films being. Game of Thrones is a new and upcoming show that has been going on for a few years but some may relate this to the success of Tolkien’s writing which George R.R Martin has admitted to being a huge influence whilst the battle sequences and storytelling can be similarly related to Jackson’s trilogy and would question whether if Lord of the Rings trilogy would have not been filmed would we have Game of Thrones? Martin’s series is ‘darker, grittier fantasy claims the medieval turf of blood, and gore, infanticide and incest. The great dynastic houses are weakened, and petty fights for the throne undermine the need for a united defence against the looming enemy beyond the Wall. But the basics in The Lord of the Rings and A Song of Ice and Fire are the same. Like Tolkien’s Sauron, willing to slaughter however many it takes to gain power of the ring, Martin’s fantasy series is fuelled by primitive motivation: killing something to get something.’ (Ciabattari, 2014) Another book that then went on to be adapted was The Golden Compass, ‘the trilogy’s success also demonstrated that fantasy was no longer for a niche audience, unleashing floodgates for films such as Stardust, Snow White and the Huntsman, Clash of the Titans, John Carter etc.’ (Ciabattari, 2014) Even the manner of their production was imitated by high-profile blockbusters such as The Matrix Reloaded/Matrix Revolutions and Pirates of the Caribbean:  Dead Man’s Chest/At World’s End, instalments which were filmed simultaneously. While this wasn’t new to the film industry, the risk that New Line Cinemas took on developing an entire untested concept was staggering. (Liptak, 2016)

 

CGI has dominated fantasy-films but it’s the way it’s used in The Lord of the Rings which allows it to still create a spectacle and storytelling in contemporary cinema. ‘According to Tolkien, one of the main attractions that the story world of fantasy holds for the audience is an imaginative escape from the primary or known world and real life. However, it is important to remember that this does not mean that fantasy story worlds are unable or unwilling to engage with the primary real worlds in which they are produced and consumed.’ (Furby and Hines, 2012) Rather, as we have argued, fantasy is about much more than escapism and, typical of cinema, there is often a direct correlation between the making of fantasy films and major social, cultural and ideological shifts. (Furby and Hines, 2012) Lord of the Rings is a universe which is parallel to ours in many a way as Tolkien wanted it to be our history. It’s all possible in the way it’s portrayed-on screen. This could have happened in a way but it’s the way the narrative is built with all aspects of technology and Jackson choosing what was the best to keep in flow of the films. The way Lord of the Rings shaped fantasy films for the next decade onwards was a turning point that will always have been a film that future fantasy directors will admire. As well as the success of the films it also generated a huge amount of media surrounding the franchise, with games and even just musical events of live scores being performed for years after which has allowed fans to either play or be a part of the world of Tolkien. Texts set in the future or in alternate universes are open to fan activation: the fantasy included in the original text legitimises the flights of fancy engaged in by the fans as they revise, continue and rework plot lines. Producerly texts invite fans to incorporate their own ideals and practices into the original narratives. (Mathijs, 2006) Jackson made Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings as close as many of us readers would have liked it I mean there was always going to be parts missed out but it’s what he kept in and the way it all flows that makes Jackson’s telling of the novels the best. Jackson allows us to follow his vision and be a part of what we all wanted to see in its best format. I believe Lord of the Rings to be the best book adaptations out there. Whilst it’s not perfect it’s as close as anyone has got so far and think will. Jackson created this universe that aligns to us the viewer and makes us want to be a part of it and delve deeper."

All Answers Ltd. (November 2018). Significance and Impact of Lord of The Rings. Retrieved from https://ukdiss.com/examples/lord-of-the-rings-significance.php?vref=1

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

746180180ddc0bd9c892f8c862a4ddd7.jpg

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"So that’s what the fuss is all about. I mean the passion, the devotion, the obsession of people for whom the fate of fictional characters who live in Middle-earth—players named Frodo and Gandalf, Aragorn and Elrond, Gollum and Sauron—means more, at times, than the fate of the real people who live next door. It’s not usually necessary, or shouldn’t be, to announce one’s lack of familiarity with literary source material in order to assess a movie’s qualities as a movie. But, remembering the ferocity of high school classmates—boys, mostly—who steeped themselves in Elvish arcana while the girls wallowed in Salinger and Sylvia Plath, I open by saying that I have never read the fantasy series by the tweedy British scholar J.R.R. Tolkien, the modern lit classic known as The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

 

And I follow quickly by saying that The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is thrilling—a great picture, a triumphant picture, a joyfully conceived work of cinema that (based on this first installment, with two more ready for release in the next two years) would appear to embrace Tolkien’s classic with love and delight, and rewards both adepts and novices with the highest compliment of all: an intelligence and artistry as a movie independent of blind fidelity to the page. The Middle-earth of this Fellowship—as directed by Peter Jackson with all the graceful inventiveness hoped for from the maker of Heavenly Creatures—is vibrantly, intricately alive on its own terms. This is what magic the movies can conjure with an inspired fellowship in charge, and unlimited pots of gold.

 

One of the Fellowship‘s most exemplary attributes is the ease and good instinct with which Jackson regularly shifts perspectives, both structurally and visually, from the epic to the intimate and back again: Thousand-year-old, thousand-creature battles (depicted with of-the-moment computerized assistance) really do look and feel as awesome as such mythological battles ought to but rarely do—and then the focus shifts to the tenderness expressed in the close-up half smile of a gentle wizard. Having laid out the saga’s prehistory in a thunderous yet (blessedly) comprehensible prologue—the Great Rings of Power created by the Dark Lord Sauron, the Elven Kings, the Dwarf Lords, the Mortal Men, the one master ring capable of shifting the balance of power in the world, the whole fantastical yada yada—Jackson carries us to the Shire, home of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), his young cousin, Frodo (Elijah Wood), and all their pint-size, hairy-footed, pointy-eared fellow hobbits, living in an idyllic village of excellently cozy wee homes such as Real Simple magazine would swoon to photograph.

 

The cast take to their roles with becoming modesty, certainly, but Jackson also makes it easy for them: His Fellowship flows, never lingering for the sake of admiring its own beauty. There’s no time, anyway. Despite the fact that this first episode runs some two and a half hours—and despite the fact that (scholars tell me) some characters from the book have been excised in the mellifluous screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Jackson—there’s a massive amount of story to cover. Every detail of which engrossed me. I may have never turned a page of Tolkien, but I know enchantment when I see it."

- Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly

 

User Opinion

 

"Mmm-mmm-mmmh. " - @Jack Nevada

 

"Simply the best ... a near perfect motion picture.  Crazily, the extended edition of this film makes it even better.

 

Perfect blend of character development mixed with exciting action set pieces. 

 

Boromir is one of my favorite characters and his death scene along with the score from the film is so haunting.  Boromir's last stand at Amon Hen may be my favorite moment of the trilogy because of the emotion that builds.  So sad and tragic.

 

I didn't see this in theaters, but rented it the following summer and was hooked enough to check out The Two Towers in theaters and that was it ... fan for life." - @AdamKendall

 

"I watched this again today to get the juices flowing to see the Hobbit, but all it made me do was miss the brilliance of this trilogy, so yea, probably hurt my desire to see the Hobbit more than it helped tbh >__>. Everything about this movie is just so iconic and memorable. Hobbit I cannot even remember any character's name or one musical note or magnificent shot. This movie is just so full of them, and that's only the first one! The music is one of the best scores in modern history. Everything about something like the Moria scene feels so practical and visceral. Just spectacular. I think PJ was starting to get in his own ass with the multiple endings and multiple deus ex machinas in ROTK, but the first two are absolutely blockbuster perfection." - @Cmasterclay

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

Out from the Shire

 

Skip past Old Tom Bombadil

 

Fall in Moria

 

DgEq0vzWkAssgbm.jpg

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 2, 2013 - 5, 2014 - 7, 2016 - 3, 2018 - 1

 

Director Count

 

Steven Spielberg - 5, James Cameron - 4, Alfred Hitchock - 4, Stanley Kubrick - 4, Francis Ford Coppola - 3, Peter Jackson - 3, Richard Linklater - 3, Hayao Miyazaki - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Martin Scorsese - 3, Lee Unkrich - 3, Brad Bird - 2, Alfonso Cuaron - 2,  David Fincher - 2, Akira Kurosawa - 2, John Lasseter - 2,   David Lean - 2, Sergio Leone - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Christopher Nolan - 2,  Andrew Stanton - 2, Quentin Tarantino - 2, Robert Zemeckis - 2, Roger Allers - 1, John G. Avildsen - 1, Ash Brannon - 1, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, John Carpenter - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Michael Curtiz - 1, Frank Darabont - 1, Jonathan Demme - 1, Pete Docter - 1, Stanley Donen - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, Victor Fleming - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Bong Joon-Ho - 1, Gene Kelly - 1, Spike Lee - 1, David Lynch - 1, George Lucas - 1, Sidney Lumet - 1, Katia Lund - 1, Michael Mann - 1, Fernando Meirelles - 1, George Miller - 1, Rob Minkoff - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Jan Pinkava - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,  Ridley Scott - 1, Guillermo del Toro - 1, Gary Trousdale - 1, Orson Welles - 1, Peter Weir - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Lana and Lilly Wachowski - 1, Kirk Wise - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Pixar - 9, Cameron - 4, The Lord of the Rings - 3, Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Scorsese - 3, Studio Ghibli - 3, Toy Story - 3, WDAS - 3, Alien - 2, Before Trilogy - 2, The Godfather - 2, Nolan - 2, Spider-Man - 2, Star Wars - 2, Terminator - 2, Back to the Future - 1, Die Hard - 1, Hannibal - 1, Incredibles - 1, Indiana Jones - 1, Jaws - 1, Jurassic Park - 1, Mad Max - 1, The Matrix - 1, Monty Python - 1, Oz - 1, Predator - 1, Rocky - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1930s - 1, 1940s - 3, 1950s - 7, 1960s - 7, 1970s - 11, 1980s - 12, 1990s - 20, 2000s - 17, 2010s - 16

 

 

 

Edited by The Panda
  • Like 17
  • Astonished 1
  • Sad 1
  • Disbelief 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites











20 hours ago, The Panda said:

Some more of the just misses

 

EzBXmN3.png

 

Hru5a7T.png

 

"A film that pretty much predicted the rise of the cable news outlets, it's actually rather scary how spot on it was. The script is razor sharp, the performance don't strike one false note. It's as good as films get and I love Rocky but this should have been your best picture winner of 1976." - @DAR

 

4fhpxUn.png

 

LqOA1Ul.png

 

"A masterpiece, probably my favorite movie of all time with one unforgettable scene after another."  - @rb02

 

"This is in my top 10.Maximus! Maximus! Maximus!" - @Ozymandias

 

"This movie is boring as fuck" - @Ethan Hunt

 

"Well, I agree with pretty much everything that's been said in this thread so far." - @CoolioD1

 

1xr1o0t.png

 

TTgU3jh.png

 

"I'm a big fan of the second season of the show, so I decided to finally check out Fargo, one of the Coen Brothers most famous films. It was definitely worth seeing. It's underwhelming at points, until you realize just what you saw happen in a mere hour and a half. It's packed with plot, humor, and perfect performances. McDormand, Buscemi, Stormare, and Macy - all incredible. I need to see more Coen Brothers films, but in this, the direction is pitch perfect and the script is fun with a lot of great moments. Roger Deakins always delivers a beautiful film, although this is pretty unassuming with the exception of a few establishing shots, but it works. Carter Burwel's score is also pretty lovely, quiet at appropriate moments. Fargo is a very pleasant film that's hard to put into one genre, which is always a surefire way to make it memorable. Really enjoyable."  - @Blankments

 

qzp5q5O.png

 

aVd85Wl.png

 

"I would have said the same thing after my first viewing. If there's a clear example of a film that truly benefits from repeated viewings, it's Chinatown. I don't think I had realized the full brilliance of the script until I watched it for the third time.

 

it's really just a magnificent piece of filmmaking.

 

Watched it for about the 19th time. Damn, that ending. It's like you spend two hours standing on the tracks, unable to move, but still hopeful and having a good time - not having seen it in three years, I was actually a bit surprised at the number of funny moments in this movie - and in the end this train just inevitably comes and hits you at full speed. Completely devastating. It's been just shy of 5 years since I've seen Chinatown for the first time and in those 5 years I haven't seen a better film, although a few came close. " - @Jake Gittes

 

lQzSggT.png

 

ZzqE1MI.png

 

"MARGOT ROBBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE" - @CJohn

 

 

tumblr_nzq1p4XDgv1spk3foo1_500.gif

  • Haha 4
  • Astonished 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



w4TDnkT.png

 

HUz37iS.png

 

"Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire."

 

About the Movie

 

Synopsis

 

"Oskar Schindler is a vain and greedy German businessman who becomes an unlikely humanitarian amid the barbaric German Nazi reign when he feels compelled to turn his factory into a refuge for Jews. Based on the true story of Oskar Schindler who managed to save about 1100 Jews from being gassed at the Auschwitz concentration camp, it is a testament to the good in all of us."

 

Its Legacy

 

"When I first heard that Steven Spielberg was set to make a film version of Thomas Keneally's “Schindler's Ark”” the special 10th anniversary of edition of “Schindler's List” comes out this week” I worried. I feared that in the story of Oskar Schindler, Spielberg, like Keneally, had found a gentile prism, rather than a Jewish one, through which to tell the horrific events of the Holocaust era. Although Oskar Schindler saved more than 1,000 Jewish lives during the Holocaust, there were many aspects of his story that bothered me. There was something offensive about the paternalistic attitude of Schindler toward “his Jews.” Conversely, the devotion of the Schindlerjuden to him, basically supporting him for the rest of his life, seemed like an unhealthy Stockholm syndrome-like reaction. But that was not my biggest concern. I worried that the story of Schindler would be misleading, that the emphasis would be on Schindler and not the Jews.  “For one Oskar Schindler, how many collaborators were there?” Elie Wiesel once wrote in TV Guide. Schindler and the others deemed “the Righteous” and “the Just” stand out because they were the exceptions to human behavior during those dark years. As Wiesel noted, in his own Holocaust experience there were no Schindlers: “None of the Just crossed my path during the war. None of our Christian neighbors in my small village of Sighet, in Romania, risked his life to take in, to hide, to rescue a Jewish child or Jewish friend.”

 

I worried that the story of Schindler, rather than showing the truth of what occurred, would create a dangerous myth: That not only were non-Jews in Poland not complicit in the murders, but regular people, Nazi Party members like Oskar Schindler, saved Jews — Jews who were too weak, too powerless, too lacking in any heroism to even save themselves. This would be a slur on the survivors and a second death for the murdered. Such is the problem of making an example of the exceptional.  Then I saw the film and all my reservations disappeared. I succumbed to the power of the movie making. It was as if Spielberg had used all the tools at his disposal to tell a compelling and engrossing story. He checked his ego at the door and let the story be the star. It was an amazing achievement: Spielberg used Liam Neeson as the handsome gentile to seduce the audience into caring, much as Schindler seduced the Nazis into saving lives. It was a valid way, even a commercial way, to tell the story of the Holocaust. For once he had not made a Spielberg film. For that he received an Oscar. For that the film went on to make a fortune. Spielberg used the money to fund the Survivors of the Shoah Foundation once again, reaching beyond himself to make something that would have a lasting impact on others. But I still didn't grasp the full impact of the film until that evening in my hotel room in Ukraine.

 

Annette Insdorf, author of “Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust,” the definitive and essential tome on the subject, feels “Schindler's List” also made it easier for Holocaust films to get made, because, as she wrote me by e-mail, “despite the difficult subject matter, hefty running time and choice of black and white, it had both commercial and critical success.” In the recently published third edition, which looks to be about three times as thick as the first, Insdorf notes that since her last update in 1989, she's seen approximately 170 Holocaust-related films. As she notes in her introduction to the third edition, “The number of cinematic reconstructions” fictional as well as documentary  is staggering. They both reflect and contribute to the fact that awareness has replaced silence about the Shoah.”  Further, in founding the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, Spielberg has dramatically increased our storehouse of knowledge. The recording of 52,000 Holocaust survivors™ testimonies is a great accomplishment, a monumental resource for historians, students” it gives succor and satisfaction to Holocaust survivors and their families, that their experiences are recorded for history for posterity. At best it gives lie to the intention of the Nazis and their henchmen that their crimes and the lives they plundered would be forgotten, would disappear like the ashes dispersed to the wind from the crematoria chimneys at Auschwitz and the other extermination camps.

 

Ten years after the release of “Schindler's List” our knowledge is wider, but is it deeper? What has “Schindler's List” taught us? Certainly, Spielberg has said that the movie shows how one person can make a difference. But that speaks to the good in man. What does “Schindler” teach us about evil? As concerns the Shoah, itself, the search for meaning must remain elusive. The words of Pinhas Epstein, a survivor of Treblinka, still ring in my ears: “Whoever was in Treblinka, will not go out of it, and whoever was not in Treblinka, will not go into Treblinka.” The Holocaust is not a thing to be understood. It is an event to be remembered. It can serve as inspiration, as lesson, as reminder, as a spur" but even the survivors themselves who experienced it are at a loss to understand it. Even more difficult, we must ask some tough questions: What good has it done to have released “Schindler's List” all over the globe in the last decade? To what end?

 

It is a curious coincidence that even as “Schindler's List” is released on DVD and its 10th anniversary is celebrated, the media has been headlining the subject of the power of film to foster anti-Semitism rather than extinguish it. “The Passion” is the 800-pound elephant in the room. No one brings it up in public, but when I mention the 10th anniversary of “Schindler” to friends, they bring up “The Passion.” As if “The Passion” is payback or backlash for years of Holocaust films. As if “The Passion” were saying: “You've had your turn making important Holocaust films, now I want to tell you the most important story for the Christians — one as horrific and violent as anything that occurred during World War II. A story that the world needs to hear, know and see. A story that many people, to this day, denied occurred.” As if “The Passion” is not so much anti-Semitic as it is pro-Christian, and anti-Jewish. “The Passion,” you see, is not a film about the Christ killers. Instead, it is a film that responds to the Christ deniers. Because that's who the Jews are: The people who deny that Christ is the messiah. Crazy? Sure. That's why I write “As if.” But it does bring me back to my point: What 10 years later is the impact of “Schindler's List”?

 

To answer that question, I watched “Schindler's List” again, this time on DVD. I was more aware of the film's artistry this time” which Insdorf details with great precision in her book. What Schindler accomplished did not seem possible: women arrived at Auschwitz, were there in fact for three weeks and Schindler was able to rescue them. It was true but never did fact seem more like fiction.  Finally, I was struck by the moral universe presented in “Schindler's List.” In Schindler we are presented with absolute evil” embodied in Amon Goeth and witnessed by the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto; and absolute good” in the words of Itzhak Stern, “The list is life.” In between the two is a world of moral ambiguity.  Sid Sheinberg, the former MCA executive who first brought the novel “Schindler's List” to Spielberg's attention, told me this week that for him the essential drama of the movie is simply: “Why did he do it?” Schindler, a Nazi Party member and war profiteer, loves wine, women and fine food. He appears to be amoral in every way.  Then I recalled a peculiarity of Jewish belief” the yetzer harah, or evil inclination. As Rabbi Joseph Telushkin explains in “Jewish Literacy,” Jewish tradition would have us born with the evil impulse, while the impulse to be good and altruistic, the yetzer hatov is thought to be a learned trait.” As Jewish lore reminds us on several occasions, the evil impulse (ego, envy, lust) has often fueled great accomplishments, even good deeds. This is the story of “Schindler's List,” I realized: How greed, wine, women, lies and bribes saved Jewish lives. Schindler saved Jews by appealing to people's basest impulses.

 

It now appears that we were wrong to think that a movie, even one as powerful as “Schindler's List,” would rid us of Holocaust deniers, or even reduce anti-Semitism. That is not the way the world works. The evil impulse is always among us. However, we must never forget that one Schindler can subvert the evil inclination, and induce people to accomplish great things. That is man's challenge and our never-ending struggle. And, 10 years later, the lesson of “Schindler's List.”

- Tommy Wood, Jewish Journal

 

From the Filmmaker

 

 

 

tumblr_o1acxkrxTf1qetb0ho1_1280.jpg

 

Why It's the Greatest

 

Critic Opinion

 

"Steven Spielberg has made his own Holocaust museum. In Schindler’s List (Universal), an adaptation by Steven Zaillian of Thomas Keneally’s book, Spielberg has created a 184-minute account of the fate of Kraków’s Jews under the German occupation, centered on the German businessman and bon vivant, Oskar Schindler, who devised a ruse to save 1,100 Jews from the Auschwitz ovens. A closing note tells us that in Poland today there are fewer than 4,000 Jews but in the world there are 6,000 “Schindler Jews,” survivors and descendants.  For this film Spielberg has done the best directing of his career. Much of his previous work has been clever and some of it better than that, but Schindler’s List is masterly. He has, with appropriate restraint, shot it in black and white (except for two closing sequences in color). Janusz Kaminski’s superb cinematography uses shadows like prosody—illuminates with shadows. Michael Kahn has edited with intensity and line, never breathless, always fast. (One demurral: the intercutting between a Jewish wedding in a camp, a wild German officers’ party and a German officer’s boudoir romp is heavy.) John Williams has arranged a score, with Itzhak Perlman doing violin solos, that for the most part is quiet: Jewish melodies on woodwinds or a small children’s chorus under scenes of inhumanity.

 

Spielberg has not used one trite shot, one cheap tear-jerking assemblage. Tears are evoked, but honorably; his aim was to make a film that gripped us with authenticity. To this end he often uses newsreel angles and newsreel cutting. Yet he is not band-held-camera nutty: where a panorama is needed--Jews in a long street assembling for deportation, Jews in a (seemingly) mile-wide file coming over a great field toward liberation--he understands how to present it and leave it alone. (Most of this picture was filmed in Poland.) Imagination, talent, commitment shine in every flame.  This film is a welcome astonishment from a director who has given us much boyish esprit, much ingenuity, but little seriousness. His stark, intelligent style here, perfectly controlled, suggests that this may be the start of a new period in Spielberg’s prodigious career."

- Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic

 

User Opinion

 

"Appropriate that my first review on the new site should be dedicated to the most moving, powerful, and best film of all time, Schindler's List. From top-notch acting, with a compelling lead by Neeson, who dominates as Oskar Schindler in one of the most moving roles I've seen on screen, to powerful storytelling, it's a must see. Fiennes delivers a haunting performance as psychotic Amon Goeth, the new "caretaker" of the camp. His performance is as captivating as Neeson's. Ben Kingsley also delivers a stunning performance. All around, excellent acting. The story is superbly crafted, and the ending is a tear-jerker. One of the greatest scenes in cinematic history is Schindler's personal epiphany of ways he could have helped save more Jews, by selling a car or a ring, etc. Very moving scene in a bleak and tearjerking movie that should be witnessed by everyone." - @The Creator

 

"The filmmaking on display is so good it transcends the utter blackness of the subject matter. I saw it five times in theaters. The first time, it was still in limited release, and I drove 40 miles to San Francisco to see it by myself (I was 19 and none of my friends were interested). There was this old man seated next to me (honestly, I didn't even really notice him until the end), and when the credits were rolling and everyone in the theater was just sitting there, pole-axed, he turned to me and said, "I was there, in one of those camps."I was so flabbergasted and stunned all I could manage was, "oh wow..." (Surely one of the more idiotic things I could've said), and then he got up and left.The 40-mile drive back home was a thoughtful and powerful one." - @Plain Old Tele

 

"I saw it when I was in University in Ottawa.  Saw it with 4 friends.  We drove home in silence.  No one knew what to say.  You're just speechless after watching something like that.  IMO, Spielberg didn't need that film to show us how good a film maker he was but for all those who just thought of him as someone who directed light hearted movies for kids, they never thought that again after this.  And I don't think you'll ever have another director have a year the way he did in 93.  Jurassic Park destroyed box office records and then Schindler's List kills it at the Oscars." - @baumer

 

The Panda's Haiku

 

What a scene I saw

 

As she passed through the horror

 

Why did I not act?

 

tumblr_ntx7xtXdkd1qetb0ho1_1280.jpg

 

Factoids

 

Placement on Prior Lists

 

2012 - 21, 2013 - 10, 2014 - 15, 2016 - 10, 2018 - 15

 

Director Count

 

Steven Spielberg - 6, James Cameron - 4, Alfred Hitchock - 4, Stanley Kubrick - 4, Francis Ford Coppola - 3, Peter Jackson - 3, Richard Linklater - 3, Hayao Miyazaki - 3, The Russo Brothers - 3, Martin Scorsese - 3, Lee Unkrich - 3, Brad Bird - 2, Alfonso Cuaron - 2,  David Fincher - 2, Akira Kurosawa - 2, John Lasseter - 2,   David Lean - 2, Sergio Leone - 2, John McTiernan - 2, Christopher Nolan - 2,  Andrew Stanton - 2, Quentin Tarantino - 2, Robert Zemeckis - 2, Roger Allers - 1, John G. Avildsen - 1, Ash Brannon - 1, Mel Brooks - 1, Frank Capra - 1, John Carpenter - 1, Damien Chazelle - 1, Ron Clements - 1, Michael Curtiz - 1, Frank Darabont - 1, Jonathan Demme - 1, Pete Docter - 1, Stanley Donen - 1, Clint Eastwood - 1, Victor Fleming - 1, Terry Gilliam - 1, Michel Gondry - 1, Rian Johnson - 1, Terry Jones - 1, Bong Joon-Ho - 1, Gene Kelly - 1, Spike Lee - 1, David Lynch - 1, George Lucas - 1, Sidney Lumet - 1, Katia Lund - 1, Michael Mann - 1, Fernando Meirelles - 1, George Miller - 1, Rob Minkoff - 1, Adrian Molina - 1, John Musker - 1, Bob Persichetti - 1, Jan Pinkava - 1, Sam Raimi - 1, Peter Ramsey - 1, Rodney Rotham - 1,  Ridley Scott - 1, Guillermo del Toro - 1, Gary Trousdale - 1, Orson Welles - 1, Peter Weir - 1, Billy Wilder - 1, Lana and Lilly Wachowski - 1, Kirk Wise - 1, Kar-Wai Wong - 1

 

Franchise Count

 

Pixar - 9, Cameron - 4, The Lord of the Rings - 3, Marvel Cinematic Universe - 3, Scorsese - 3, Studio Ghibli - 3, Toy Story - 3, WDAS - 3, Alien - 2, Before Trilogy - 2, The Godfather - 2, Nolan - 2, Spider-Man - 2, Star Wars - 2, Terminator - 2, Back to the Future - 1, Die Hard - 1, Hannibal - 1, Incredibles - 1, Indiana Jones - 1, Jaws - 1, Jurassic Park - 1, Mad Max - 1, The Matrix - 1, Monty Python - 1, Oz - 1, Predator - 1, Rocky - 1

 

Decade Count

 

1930s - 1, 1940s - 3, 1950s - 7, 1960s - 7, 1970s - 11, 1980s - 12, 1990s - 21, 2000s - 17, 2010s - 16

 

 

 

Edited by The Panda
  • Like 15
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites















Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.