I am sorry but can you back your statement with some proof?
If you haven't seen it, are you resentful that someone is operating a
multimillion budget for the creation of the movie, which in your view
precludes it from being a good film from the onset?
I haven't seen it either, but I am appalled by this attitude on principle.
With respect to movies and historical moments, all epics have been created
on the basis of real/constructed events, which have shaken the national
narratives of specific peoples. The Holocaust is certainly one of them. It's
a delicate subject. The Jewish community has been appalled by La vita e
bella because they considered it a defacing of the human spirit and the
negation of true events. However film like language, as I said earlier, has
not only a referential function (the Holocaust), an expressive one (the
cruelty of the war, the inhumane nature of man, nothingness, the
invincibility of the human spirit) but also an impressive one (the evoking
compassion, respect for a particular moment in history, awe, grief,
indignation). The combination of its expressive, impressive and referential
functions form the basis of the process of commemoration, for which the film
is a vehicle. What you consider film graffiti can be a piece of art. Can a
film carry a meta-linguistic function? Likely yes also. I don't know of the
innovations in Schindler's List, but it portrays a unique type of realism,
which ought to be analysed for its easthetical value. Finally, its budget is
none of your business.
--- ss*p <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > _Schindler's List_ is a kitsch profit focused
> > manipulation.
> > Banality Of (Corporate) Evil.
> >
> > Vukica Djilas
> >
> Ive never seen it but Im 100% sure your right
>
> Melina
>
|