Polanski's THE PIANIST [Archive] - FilmLeaf

bix171

12-28-2002, 05:40 PM

I read the article you referenced and I thought it was poorly written and agenda-driven. I also roamed the web site--it's new and not very compelling--and found a brief bio of the guy who wrote it. His background did not have enough information to justify his take on Germany (oh, I forgot, he lives in Europe so he's an expert) and what credentials he did have did not justify his take on the German Volk, as he calls them.

That said, as a child of two Holocaust survivors (and whose family is either dead at the hands of the Nazis or scattered in pockets all over the world), I do have a knee-jerk reaction to Germans and, unfortunately, have yet to meet one whose buttons couldn't be pushed far enough to finally utter some kind of damning, implicating phrase that told me more than I wanted to know.

Not that I tried hard in pushing those buttons. It just seems that some of the Germans I have come in contact with (some very closely) are thin-skinned and prepared to spout philosophy much easier than others. Others seem blissfully ignorant of their incendiary views, as if it's okay to have them. While expressing dismay over their actions, they don't seem overly obliged to offer an apology.

I don't know what I expect at this point so I realize my family's background (by the way, my parents were Polish and the knee-jerking I feel extends to the Poles as well) implicates me as well. I want very much to forgive and look for some guidance in my faith--which I don't get; Jewish guilt extends far beyond one's mother--to get on with it. (From a purely commercialized standpoint, I want my faith to give me permission to buy a Mercedes and I have lust in my heart for BMWs.) But it's hard to let go of what my parents went through. My mother said "Schindler's List" was accurate but was about one-tenth of what she actually experienced. And I thought "Schindler's List" was pretty harrowing myself.

I think I'd like to give "The Pianist" a chance because Polanski is much more cerebral than Spielberg. But I thought "Schindler's List" was a remarlable undertaking nonetheless. And while Spielberg did try to show the humanity of certain Germans, I think Polanski--who was there--is a pragmatist whose films are nothing if not brutally honest. ("Bitter Moon" comes to mind as a film made by an auteur who couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of him.)

Johann

12-31-2002, 03:13 AM

(From a purely commercialized standpoint, I want my faith to give me permission to buy a Mercedes and I have lust in my heart for BMWs.)

To quote Clinton, I feel your pain. I ride to work each day with a guy who drives a seven series beemer. Luxury engineering if there ever was... I can only sniff the leather interior. (You know it has a heated glove compartment lined with mouse fur?) My wages allow me to enjoy public transit on a regular basis..

Re: The Pianist, for the first time this year I cried at the movies. Actually, it was on the way home after. This should finally get Polanski some due recognition. PREDICTION: This film will be nominated for best foreign film, but due to Polanski's exile, he won't win. It's OK though, because he got the Palm D'or. I love Cannes. Why the hell don't they let the public attend?

All hail Romek Polanski. (Bitter Moon is my favorite guilty pleasure film. It's no wonder he married that bombshell Seigner)

oscar jubis

01-01-2003, 02:57 PM

I plan to read Grim's review and return to this forum after watching THE PIANIST this week. For the time being, I need to say that categorical thinking is erroneous and simplistic when applied to human beings. When you assign a person a certain characteristic based on national origin you are robbing him of his humanity, his unique nature. To approach another with preconceived notions is to deny oneself the chance to really know him. To borrow from Doc, it does nothing to promote understanding.

I'd like to call attention to POLANSKI'S MACBETH, a superb, visually rich film that few have seen due to the director's legal problems when released. MACBETH is now available on DVD(widescreen, great transfer)

I think THE PIANIST cannot be nominated for the foreign language Oscar because this international production is largely in english.

Johann

01-02-2003, 05:24 AM

I have the Macbeth DVD, and it IS gorgeous. I remember seeing it in grade 12 english class and thinking: man, this is VIOLENT. (A response to the murder of Sharon?)

I got the DVD the day it came out. Polanski is in my top 5 of fave directors. i've seen all of his films- even Two Men and a Wardrobe & The Fat and the Lean. I actually prefer Repulsion & Knife in the Water to Chinatown, which gets heaps of praise. Bitter Moon and Death & the Maiden are incredible entertainment. Must sees imho.

I liken Roman to Elia Kazan: say what you want about the man's life, the films are what matters, and both are genius incarnate. If I were to go to film school, Lodz would be my choice.

oscar jubis

01-02-2003, 11:01 PM

I named REPULSION fave horror film ever in "my top 10 movies" thread. Guy once told me I'm more afraid of my fragile mind than monsters or demons. The tension and dread are masterly sustained by Polanski and Deneuve. Then the final shot revealing succinctly the etiology of her sexual repression and paranoia.

I have enjoyed all of his films but, to be honest, TESS('79) is the last Polanski to make my top 10. I also think CUL-DE-SAC is special, but it's not available in any format. CHINATOWN manages to add political infighting, use of natural resources and social consciousness into typical film-noir narrative. Polanski's intense cameo. Nicholson, Dunaway and Huston. And again, just like in REPULSION, sexual abuse rears its grotesque, ugly head.

I don't want to judge Polanski or Kazan's life. "The films are what matters"(Johann) Now, how do I evaluate THE BIRTH OF A NATION and TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, genius in the service of evil?

Johann

01-03-2003, 01:45 AM

Hmmmmm.

Birth of a Nation. I always sidestep the racism wholly apparent in the film because it was "the times". If we had cinema back when they burned witches at the stake we would be faced with the same question- should we support such images? Personally I cherish my right to see these films. A bigger issue would be the censoring of these historic movies. But then a studio would chop away at that by giving us The Passion of Joan of Arc, so all would not be lost. (There's always some Oliver Stone ready to hack at the status quo)

Triumph of the Will is a little more difficult to "explain away". Leni was Hitler's favorite filmmaker, and considering the climate in her country, you could hardly fault her for endorsing the reich. At least she made a masterpiece documentary (If she made a shitty film then I don't think we'd be talking about her)

Chris Knipp

01-09-2003, 04:32 AM

I gather that some of us would recognize that Polanski made some most excellent films in the past--if he has faltered a bit lately. Rather than engage in pointless polemics about Naziism or the guilt of the German people, I'd rather go back to Polanski's "The Pianist," which is where this discussion started. There hasn't been much focus on the film itself. I'd suggest that it presents the experience of Wladyslaw Szpilman (or something very like it) and that experience, in all its mystery, sadness, and humanity, that triumph of the human spirit and music, is all we need to get out of watching Polanski's remarkable new creation.

Polanski has always had a coolness and a clear perception of evil that may help explain why his depiction of the Germans in Poland in the war is so convincing. He also happens to have been there (in Krakow anyway, if not Warsaw), as a younger person, hiding out and surviving as Szpilman did. If we recognize the validity and specificity of the experience "The Pianist" presents, all the ideas and generalizations fall back into their proper places where they belong. "The Pianist" is not a polemic but the recreation of an experience of considerable emotional power and of a decidedly tragic dimension. Controversial and unpalatable as this material is, it is the material of art, not of polemic. (Nonetheless I agree with bix171 that the filmmaker is more cerebral than Spielberg: it's this that gives his emotional story conviction.) Polanski himself moreover deserves treatment as an artist, here, not as a pathology or a legal case.

Marina

01-10-2003, 10:43 AM

I saw The Pianist twice and thought it was amazingly well done.

I agree with the last post on the irrelevance of the German People tangent. It seems inappropriate to me and, at some points, rather offensive. I feel a little embarassed even having to write this, but I know many Germans who would never utter a "damning, implicating phrase," no matter how far they were pushed.

Speaking of relevance, or irrelevance ... I agree that Polanski deserves treatment as an "artist," but I don't think that necessarily precludes treatment as a "legal case." Simply because someone creates good art, it doesn't mean you mustn't consider that person in other ways. The fact that Polanski raped a 13 year-old girl isn't relevant to a discussion of his films, but it's still important for me to know. You know, as a, yes, feminist, but more significantly, as a human being.

- Marina

Chris Knipp

01-10-2003, 02:38 PM

To Marina: What you say is quite true, but I was trying to get back to a discussion of the film in question, which so far hardly anyone here seems to have seen or commented on directly. I'd like to hear specific comments from people who have seen it. Do they think, as David Denby says, that the hero is a blank, and that the film is without great originality or imagination? Do they think, as he has written, that Schindler's List has better acting and is more "complex"?

I have a feeling that a lot of Americans are wearing blinders when they see "The Pianist" and seeing what they want to see instead if it.

Johann

01-11-2003, 02:17 AM

I can only comment that The Pianist should be compared with only one thing: Polanski's other films. It's moot to compare it with Schindler's List because while the time-frame is the same, they are two separtate stories. (Just like every person who was persecuted during that time has their own story)

If any film can be compared to The Pianist, it's Holland's Europa Europa. Both have characters who face horrifying odds and have to act accordingly. Kubrick made a great point about Schindler's List:

"It was about success, wasn't it? It wasn't about the Holocaust. The Holocaust was about 6 million people who lost their lives. Schindler's List was about 600 who didn't."

I have to let my opinions of The Pianist gestate for a while. It affected me in a way only the best films do: purely emotional. It pushed ALL of my buttons.
So I'll perhaps comment later when I form a concrete analysis. (Kubrick's films did the same thing to me)

Chris Knipp

01-11-2003, 03:07 PM

..are odious, he saying goes. But they're inevitable. Everybody is comparing "The Pianist with Schindler's List, so why shouldn't we respond? Why not compare it with anything we like? But Europa, Europa is a good one to bring in. It does have important points in common. But so does Schindler's List: the Warsaw ghetto.

Johann

01-14-2003, 04:15 AM

Sad to say, but World War II will always be a wellspring for film directors. So many great films about this time in history:

Stalingrad
The Anne Frank Story
A Bridge Too far
The Devil's Brigade
Das Boot
A Midnight Clear
Patton
Saving Private Ryan
Memphis Belle etc etc

Chris Knipp

01-14-2003, 01:46 PM

I would like to add to that list “Die Brücke,” directed by Bernard Wicki (1959), one of the best anti war films of all time. I saw it when I was just out of college and I could not speak for two hours. I saw it again recently and it has not lost its power. It’s about Germany in 1945 when no one is left to fight but teenagers. You know who they all are when their futile battle begins and the effect is devastating.

Johann

01-15-2003, 01:56 AM

The Bridge is indeed awesome. I knew that Spielberg had to have seen it before he started SPR. A few scenes were very familiar...My Name is Ivan is also a masterpiece. While not a war film per se, A Man Escaped was a harrowing watch.

Chris Knipp

01-15-2003, 02:35 AM

I'm glad that you've seen The Bridge. It doesn't seem to be very well known --unless you're German!-- and videos of it are pretty rare around here. Your movie knowledge impresses me. Maybe it influenced Speilberg (it would be like him to have seen everything, of course) but SPR is mealy-mouthed and flabby compared to Die Brücke.

Johann

01-15-2003, 02:54 AM

This site is great because it attracts people who know what the fuck they're talking about. (and who have language/social skills)

There are a few movie "chat" sites on the net that are saturated with people who are immature, bullies, or are just "hangin'". I don't waste time on the internet. I like to learn from others-others who enjoy movies as I do.

I think the lack of talk about The Pianist is due to the fact that the film hasn't been seen. It played a week here in Canada, and will be back next week for a healthy run before the oscars. I'll be seeing it again-no doubt about that. I'm even going to buy the book it's based on. YES IT'S THAT GOOD. For the love of Yogi people, see it.

Chris Knipp

01-15-2003, 03:45 AM

Indeed. Besides that this site seems to have the virtue of being relatively small, so individuals can be noticed, and I've also observed with pleasure that the fellow in charge is civilized and kind.

Now I hope somebody else has something more to say about The Pianist that hasn't been said before and that does it honor. I've said about all I can say about it for now but I'd like to hear from other people because I think it's a truly fine piece of work. I was--to return to that--a bit shocked at the way the New Yorker reviewer, who's presumably quite influential--damned it with such faint praise.

oscar jubis

01-17-2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by docraven [ The Eternal Nazi: Watching Roman Polanski's The Pianist in Germany By William Grim. It was originally published on December 2, 2002.

There are some extreme, even outrageous points made in this review.

No kidding: "I was tempted to bitch slap a couple hundred Germans but I managed to hold my fire", "The German soul is a deep abyss, a fetid, stinking morass..." "I pumped my fist and yelled out U S A!"

One grandiose, delusional hatemonger.

oscar jubis

01-17-2003, 01:51 AM

Comparisons with Schindler's List are useful because for many Spielberg's notorious film is the only holocaust film seen. Spielberg's film is about an aryan hero within a large canvas while Pianist is told from the point of view of a jewish survivor. Pianist refuses to demand our tears the way List does. The Warsaw ghetto recreated here is quite a sight-especially after being bombed and emptied out- but Polanski never shows off. It can be argued that this straightforward conception is a bit stodgy but others would say that's the best approach given the grim, bizarre subject matter. I did not see a better english language film in 2002; Polanski's mastery of filmic narration and rhythm are in ample evidence, particularly during the perfectly orchestrated first half. He wisely casts actors we don't recognize(except for Brody) to facilitate verisimilitude. Now allow me to play devil's advocate: Does it have anything new to say or find a different way to say it? Your answer depends on your familiarity with holocaust filmography: The Pianist will feel fresher and bolder if you haven't seen De Sica's Garden of the Finzi Contini's, Malle's Au Revoir les Enfants and Lacombe Lucien, Holland's Europa, Europa and Korczak, the dutch The Assault, and the inventive czech film Divided We Fall. Personally, I appreciate how Polanski makes palpable both the jewish collaboration and resistance, and details the class system within the ghetto. In conclusion, I'm glad Roman Polanski got to make his movie.

Chris Knipp

01-17-2003, 02:31 AM

The link for me with "Schindler's List"--a very important one-- is the Warsow ghetto. The roundup of Jews in the ghetto in "Shindler" was very terrifying to me, the most terrifying single sequence. However, Polanski's film doesn't try to terrify; rather, it horrifies, and does so casually ("the Banality of Evil"). The thing that sets "The Pianist" apart is that the final long sequence is meandering and lonely and in an odd way (despite all the artillery and explosions) quiet, (the hero barely speaks) and it's not punctuated by much of anything that we remember other than the moving and unexpected scene where Szpilman plays Chopin for the German officer who's caught him hiding and forraging. This scene has many layers of meaning. Even the actor Brody himself was almost literallystarving and freezing at the moment when that scene was shot, which is to say perhaps his method acting really worked, because the moment is impressive, again, beyond words. The music in that harrowing situation is symbolic of the other side of humankind, the side worth living for. The whole final meandering sequence gives us a chance to meditate on what the whole film is about and to soak up the experience. "Au revoir les enfants" is very powerful too--I saw it in Paris and I started to cry only when I got outside in the street under a drizzly rain--it has a subtle powerful buildup of emotional impact. But it's quite a different story. The Garden of the Finzi-Contini ends--also very powerfully, with that amazing lament-- at a point that is only midway in the story the "The Pianist" tells. They're all different. But the power of "The Pianist" is tremendous, because of its rather comprehensive picture of the Holocaust (except for the main thing, the extermination camps!) and its focus on one Jewish adult survivor who was there through it all in a major city that is being destroyed brick by brick. The material is familiar to all of us, in a sense, and also, in a sense, unknown to all but a very, very few of us who cannot imagine what it was really like. But even if you have seen all the other films, on the contrary upon reflection this one actually does seem quite fresh and bold, I think.

vbloom

01-20-2003, 08:30 PM

I read what Grim said about the reaction of the German audience. It certainly did not speak well for German attitudes toward the Jews or the Holocaust. But I would suggest that the laughing was from unconscious sources, not necessarily from hatred of the Jews, but the laughter of people who are made nervous "nervous laughter," which is not glee, but disturbance. It was certainly disturbing to see what their German forbears actually did. Tormenting the weak and vulnerable is a childhood tendency, as children torture wounded birds or frogs or helpless turtles. It gives children a feeling of power to be the torturers rather than the tortured, and many children feel tortured when their (German) parents were cruel and punishing. German parents before WWII were given to 'train' their children like dogs, rewarding with food and punishing with whippings and scoldings. The tittering Germans are more to be pitied than scorned.

Chris Knipp

01-20-2003, 11:43 PM

Before we take William Grim’s story about a German audience of Polanski’s “The Pianist” too seriously, I suggest we take a good look at his writings on the Web such as his wildly fantastic and scandalous “Top 20 Predictions for 2003” (http://www.iconoclast.ca/MainPage.asp?page=/newPage6.asp) on The Iconoclast, a rightwing satirical site where his latest editorial column starts out “George W. Bush is a cowboy? You're durn tootin' -- and we can all thank God for that.” It’s hard to guess his motives in the “Pianist” piece, but he is an over-imaginative, ultra-conservative writer whose comments are picked up on sites such as www.brassknuckles.net; www.unpopularspeech.net, a site for right-wing pro-gun Jews; and the bluntly named www.rightwingnews. If Grim’s piece about a German audience pops up on the Web on “Pianist” related sites, that may be leading to some unfortunate misunderstandings. There are a great many reactions in Europe to Szpilman’s autobiography that are more relevant to the subject, and it might be better to go simply to the Szpilman book, CD, and movie website (http://www.szpilman.net/index1004273107.html) for some information about the sources of the movie and the reactions to Polanski’s creation. Let's not take this guy Grim seriously, and let's talk about topics truly relevant to the film.

vbloom

01-21-2003, 03:08 PM

Why should we not take Grim's description of the German audience reaction literally? True, what he described can be interpreted various ways, but he is making a point that the German character is never far from Nazism and the Superman mentality. Do you question that opinion? What is your own opinion instead of trashing Grim on the basis of his conservative orientation. Are you saying there is no value to the conservative orientation?

oscar jubis

01-21-2003, 03:31 PM

Let me think: if there is a "German character", there must be a Spanish character and an American one. Who gets to decide what " American character" means? When you refer to a nation's character you are stereotyping, and when you assign negative traits to that character, you are being prejudiced and hateful.

Chris Knipp

01-21-2003, 04:22 PM

I was not "trashing" William Grim, but suggesting that his remarks be taken with a healthy grain of salt, given both their import and their provenance. I urge anyone involved in this discussion to read carefully Grim's column, "The Eternal Nazi: Watching Roman Polanski's The Pianist in Germany" (for the text of this column, see http://www.zcportal.com/2002/1202/pianist.asp). I salute Grim's assertion there that The Pianist is "a great film" and I do not quarrel with anything else Grim asserts in the column about the film itself.

However, what about, in the opening paragraph "There's an old joke that inside every German there's a Nazi yearning to get out. While a gross overstatement, there is, I'm unhappy to report, more than a little truth to that old chestnut"? And what about (midway in the column), "There is something terribly wrong with Germany and the German volk. The German soul is a deep abyss, a fetid, stinking morass that befouls the community of nations"?

Such remarks, I would suggest, are beyond the fringe, and tend to call into question not only Grim's motives in commenting on the film, but his credibility and judgment as an observer of the Munich audience's reactions to scenes in The Pianist, which the websites where his writings have a home also make one suspicious of. The Internet is a large and open source of information. We have to use all our knowledge and instincts to judge the validity of that information.

I do indeed question Grim's opinions, and any generalizatons about the "German character" and what it is "never far from," and I think it is unfortunate that he used comments on as fine a film as The Pianist as a springboard for his expressions of suspicion and hate. Even if his observations of laughter during the Munich showing of the film that he attended are accurate, we have no reason to accept his interpretations of them.

There was a similar incident of laughter by Black school kids in an Oakland, Calififornia theater when Shindler's List was first shown. It was said that they were an expression of hatred and indifference, but upon closer study they turned out to show only confusion and ignorance. At the very least, Grim is guilty of gross oversimplification of reactions that must be very complex for any German, old or young, knowledgable or ignorant, who was watching The Pianist in Munich that day.

vbloom

01-21-2003, 08:29 PM

Chris Knipp is quite correct that there is no German character, that the whole concept tends to stereotyping and bigotry. That said, it must be admitted that there remains in Germany a deep core of resentment about their defeat in WWII and an undercurrent of regret that the FINAL SOLUTION was not completely carried out. There is a long history in Germany of anti-Semitism, despite a short period of time in which German Jews were lulled into a false confidence that they were truly assimilated as Germans. The Nazi regime ended that fantasy. The undercurrent of German arrogance and superiority has never disappeared and now the revival of anti-Semitism is well-documented.

That said, Germany has been generous and cooperative in reparations to Holocaust survivors and support of Israel, at least until recently. The youth of Germany admirably keeps the diary and story of Anne Frank alive, and in Berlin there is a new Holocaust Memorial Museum. Germany has searched its soul, no doubt, but I think the search must be ongoing.

The American character is free, spontaneous and generous. The Spanish character is romantic and musical, with touches of the bullfight and flamenco.
The Italian character is... the Greek character is... the French character is...

Chris Knipp

01-21-2003, 08:59 PM

That's simply nonsense, and toning it down doesn't make it any more coherent.

vbloom

01-24-2003, 12:25 PM

You don't recognize irony when you see it, unfortunately!

Chris Knipp

01-24-2003, 04:50 PM

Sorry. This is not a medium in which irony flourishes.

vbloom

01-24-2003, 05:18 PM

Irony flourishes where the soil is rich. It is a literary device historically respected, and if done well, admired. It takes a special mind to fully appreciate it.

Chris Knipp

01-24-2003, 07:28 PM

I am a great admirer and longtime appreciator of irony. I was referring to the medium of internet threads, in which answers come hard and fast out of nowhere and in which context is very often not well enough established to allow for the precise perception of such subtleties of tone and language as irony requires. But you may, if you wish, disregard my clumsy self defense and choose instead to think that I was just being dumb. It happens.

You need not defend irony, though.

It sometimes seems that what flourishes best in this medium is the non sequitur.

oscar jubis

01-24-2003, 07:40 PM

I wish you would tell us where in your post you express a meaning that is the direct opposite of the intended one. Where is the irony in your prejudiced comment that in Germany "there is an undercurrent of regret that the final solution was not completely carried out" or elsewhere in the first paragraph. Maybe you used irony in the second paragraph, you know, about a Holocaust Museum in Berlin,etc. Well, Berlin's Jewish Museum is Europe's largest, a gorgeous building in the shape of an elongated Star of David, with wings dedicated to Holocaust history as well as other periods. Please show me the irony.

vbloom: I do not know you. I cannot judge you, only your comments. They are vile, prejudiced and hateful. Your excuse (being ironic) falls apart under minimal scrutiny.

Chris Knipp

01-24-2003, 08:27 PM

I would not want to be as harsh toward vbloom as Oscar Jubis is here -- not quite, anyway! But it begins to seem that what vbloom is calling "irony" is simply an unwillingness to take a clear position. I still think as I said earlier that there is every reason not to take William Grim's account of the German audience of "The Pianist" at face value. Even if the audience did laugh or titter as much as Grim said, they might not need to be either pitied or scorned. They may have been expressing incomprehension. But I would agree with Oscar Jubis's suggestion that vbloom's statements about German and other national characters are too confused to be taken as irony. If it is right to say that there's no such thing as a German national character, as vbloom began by granting, then you can't go on and say that Germans are sorry they lost the war and failed to exterminate the Jews. vbloom wrote: "it must be admitted that there remains in Germany a deep core of resentment about their defeat in WWII and an undercurrent of regret that the FINAL SOLUTION was not completely carried out." This is exactly of the same order as saying that all Germans are at heart still Nazis, and it is reprehensible, and surely false. It may be that vbloom suffers from deep confusion here, of a nature that is both intellectual and moral.

vbloom

01-24-2003, 11:14 PM

The irony is in ridiculously characterizing the Spanish character, the Greek character, etc., as if such generalizations can truly be made. I mean the opposite--- such generalizations cannot be made. I did say that in Germany there is "an undercurrent" of feeling regret or disappointment that the Nazis didn't win or that all the Jews weren't killed. This was later interpreted (falsely) as my saying ALL Germans feel this way, which is certainly not the case. Would he deny the undercurrent? I don't know how large or deep it is. Can anybody tell me or venture a guess or know something from personal experience? Grim was grim, but not all wrong. One does not titter over incomprehension. There is more than a trace or suggestion of 'schadenfreude.' Would anybody care to dispute this contention?

Chris Knipp

01-24-2003, 11:39 PM

You misquote yourself, vbloom. You did not say "an undercurrent" of "feeling regret or disappointment," you said "a deep core of resentment."

There is a significant difference between these two ways of stating it. What you originally said is far more sweeping and emphatic. You seem to have a tendency to shift your views back and forth, sometimes even within a single statement, sometimes between separate statements, here.

vbloom

01-25-2003, 01:11 PM

Chris Knipp, give me a break! I am 71 and my memory does not always serve me well. Still, I am consistent when it comes to the deep core of my belief. You misquoted me as saying that ALL Germans have this Nazi inclination. I never said that and do not believe that. However, would you deny that a deep core or undercurrent of Nazi ideology continues in present day Germany? I don't know how prevalent it is. Perhaps you can inform me.

Chris Knipp

01-25-2003, 01:50 PM

vbloom

01-25-2003, 02:12 PM

Why should you get a break? You don't have to have a good memory because we have our texts right in front of us to refer to on the screen. Yes, I do disagree with your assertion that "a deep core or undercurrent of Nazi ideology continues in present day Germany" (I'm cutting and pasting so I don't quote you wrong). I even question whether there was ever "a deep core or undercurrent of Nazi ideology" in the Germany of any time, taking this statement as comprehensively as it is phrased. Most of all I don't see the value or purpose of such vague, sweeping accusations in a world where reconciliation and healing are what we most need. The burden of proof is with you. Why do you keep repeating these statements? If you "don't know how prevalent it is," in short don't know what you're talking about, why don't you cease and desist?

Since I don't get a break for memory... using the exact words I used before, but having the same meaning, I have copied and pasted your last entry. Since you question whether there WAS EVER a deep core OR undercurrent of Nazi ideology, instead of writing a long treatise on my shock and amazement, I will simply refer you to Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners." Before we discuss whether you ever read the book, heard of the book or refute the book, you sound very much like a Holocaust revisionist. Let me ask you, since I think this exchange is getting personal, whether or not you are a young German who is interested in the image of Germany and would prefer to remember it as the country of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schiller and Goethe, rather than of Hitler, Goering, Goebbels and Eichmann. The real Germany is an amalgam of good and evil, civilized and barbaric, just like any other nationality. It is true that this has always been a world where reconciliation and healing are sorely needed, but good cannot come from a denial of history and reality.

Chris Knipp

01-25-2003, 04:10 PM

I return to what docraven wrote about William Grim’s piece at the outset of this thread: “There are some extreme, even outrageous points made in this review. I not only find them difficult to believe, but think they suggest a characteristic of the German people that is inflammatory — does nothing to promote real understanding.”

I have studied Grim’s piece carefully (I'd hesistate to call it a review: it's too agenda-driven) and I can find nothing in it to contradict docraven's original comment on it.

I'd like to remind vbloom of what he originally wrote about the laughter Grim describes in the German audience of ‘’The Pianist”: "I would suggest that the laughing was from unconscious sources, not necessarily from hatred of the Jews, but the laughter of people who are made nervous ‘nervous laughter,’ which is not glee, but disturbance. It was certainly disturbing to see what their German forbears actually did.”

I have no desire to become personal but I am none of the things vbloom suggests. I am a participant in Filmwurld forums who is sorry that Grim’s inflammatory article led us away from our discussion of Roman Polanski’s powerful “The Pianist,” which we are here to talk about. I admire the film greatly and think that the events it recounts are substantially true. It is not a fabrication. There was a Holocaust. Hitler did have “silent executioners.” He also had millions of passive victims. But unlike vbloom, unlike William Grim, I don’t want to jump from a viewing of the film to assertions about modern Germans feeling “ an undercurrent of regret that the FINAL SOLUTION was not completely carried out" (vbloom's words), or that inside every German today there is a Nazi gesturing to be let out (William Grim's assertion). My disagreements with William Grim and with vbloom do not make me a Holocaust denier. How could I admire “The Pianist” if I were? This is not a rational assertion. In responding to a film as powerful as “The Pianist” concerning events as horrific as the ones it recounts, we need balance and compassion, and we need to stay away from stereotypes. But obviously for some that's a tall order. However bix171 describes himself as the child of HOlocaust survivers and writes that he wants "very much to forgive" and "to get on with it." One would hope that a film like "The Pianist" would provide a kind of cathartic experience that could help people to "forgive" and"get on with it" -- without ever forgetting.

"The Pianist" is a vivid reminder. But it's not a treatise on the German character.

vbloom

01-25-2003, 09:21 PM

Mr Knipp seems to feel that the appropriate and timely response to "The Pianist" is one of healing and compassion. He would feel differently if he were a Jew, especially a Jew who was subjected at a tender age to vicious and ongoing anti-Semitism. I was such a Jew, a child of the streets of the Bronx, New York in the 1930's. My tormenters made no bones of the fact that they wished that Hitler won the war, so that the Nazis could come to America and throw me into the ovens. It was 1939. I was 8.

A movie is a work of art, and a real work of art provokes different thoughts and feelings in different people, and people vary in what they require to come to a stage of healing and compassion. What is required of some is purging, ventilation, of deepseated feelings of fear and anger. This is necessary for true healing, and not just covering up and acting 'nice.'

"The Pianist" was just such a work of art, as have been some of the others mentioned, "Schindler's List," "Europa, Europa," "The Glass Box" and "Judgment at Nuremberg."

In "The Pianist," what was shown was the extent of Nazi barbarism, completely unprovoked by the helpless, hapless, innocent, civilian Jews. What Mr. Knipp fails to realize is that the details of this great film, shown in stark reality, remind the audience of what happened. Those who are Jews, or who can identify with Jews, react differently from those who are not.

How is it possible to understand the full extend of the FINAL SOLUTION, and the details, including random shootings, beatings, humiliation, torture, torment, debasement without having some question about THE GERMAN CHARACTER? How is it possible to understand the systematic, relentless nature of the murders and robberies, the extraction of gold from the teeth, the lampshades made of human skin, the tattooing of numbers, erasing the identity of individuals on a massive scale, without having some question about THE GERMAN CHARACTER?

What is wrong with my speculating about THE GERMAN CHARACTER? What harm does it do, except to Mr Knipp's desire, admirable though it may be, to skim over the question of THE GERMAN CHARACTER.

Let someone come forward and give some explanation for history's worst example of barbarism and evil, before we leave the question of THE GERMAN CHARACTER.

If Mr. Grim raises the grim question of THE GERMAN CHARACTER, it is not without some reason, some rationale, no matter what else he has said about anything.

oscar jubis

01-26-2003, 01:39 AM

vbloom

01-26-2003, 06:58 AM

The roots, causes, and circumstances surrounding the expression of man's inhumanity to man are not to be found in the "character" of a specific nation. It goes deeper. It is not that simple. Demonizing descendants of Nazi Germany will not help prevent future holocausts. I felt sad reading about you being tormented as a child. It is difficult to practice good judgement and clear analysis at your level of personal involvement. Moreover, you seem to have a tendency toward stereotypical thinking, in general. The quote below is further proof.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vbloom

Mr Knipp seems to feel that the appropriate and timely response to "The Pianist" is one of healing and compassion. He would feel differently if he were a Jew...

To Mr Jubis I ask, if the roots, causes and circumstances surrounding the expression of man's inhumanity to man are not to be found in the "character" of a specific nation, but go deeper, where are they to be found?

I am not "demonizing" the descendents of Nazi Germany; I am merely raising a question.

I appreciate Mr. Jubis feeling sad at my being tormented as a child. Does the fact of my having feelings about it take me out of the realm of good judgment and clear analysis?

What detachment and absence of personal experience and feeling enable one to be qualified for "good judgment" and "clear analysis?"

Do you think Roman Polanski's film "The Pianist" was one to foster good judgment and clear analysis?

NO! It was to reveal what happened and show the depths of depravity which a people at a certain place and time were capable of!

He showed evil Germans and evil Jews and evil Polish people. He showed what humans are capable of, which we amazingly call--- "inhuman."

I don't say that only Germans have the potential and capacity for evil. It is present in all humans. That is a generalization I don't believe any aware and thinking person would deny.

But questions have been raised, by others than myself and Mr. Grim, that something has to be said about THE GERMAN CHARACTER, after World War I, the "War to End All Wars," that the German people would rally around a Hitler and his evil crew.

The Holocaust was singular in human history for the degree of bestiality which rose to sustained action in World War II.

So far no one has successfully explained why the most extreme evil in the history of man arose from a people with such members as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.

Polanski raises this question with the German officer who played the Moonlight Sonata and spared the life of the Jew who played Chopin.

Why only one German?

vb

vbloom

01-26-2003, 01:37 PM

... in general...

I have a tendency toward stereotypical thinking... in general.

That is a generalization, typical of stereotypical thinking. The human mind has a tendency toward stereotypical thinking, and not all of it is bad or wrong. Not all of it leads to misguided thinking or prejudice or racism.

There are certain generalizations which hold true, that Mediterranean people are more apt to be overtly emotional than the Nordic or Anglo-Saxon types. For movie afficionados, consider the films of Fellini and Bergman as illustrative.

Of course there are exceptions. The German officer who played the Moonlight Sonata and didn't kill Szpilman is an exception to the Nazi stereotype. However, "The Pianist" was replete with brutal Nazi stereotypes, based on recorded history, with many eye-witnesses, documents and film footage as reference data. The many Holocaust movies and memorial museums document Nazi history and revealed a stereotype of the German Nazi as largely uncivilized and brutal.

It is true that not all Germans were Nazis. I am not saying that every German living today is a Nazi sympathizer or a potential Nazi. But the undercurrent is there in THE GERMAN CHARACTER and many people have observed it since WWII. The most blatant form is manifest in the skinheads and Holocaust revisionists.

Stereotypical thinking is a shortcut method of the brain in learning and adaptation. Some generalizations are apt and generally accepted. Others, of course, are in dispute.

Another stereotype currently in dispute is of Islam and Muslims, especially Arab Muslims. Some say they are basically merciful and compassionate, according to the dictates of Allah. Others say, viewing current events, that being an Arab Muslim you are likely to hate Americans and Jews and justify the killing of them, according to a Jihad which is commanded by Allah.

But each Arab Muslim is an individual, and has his own opinion and is capable of some choice. Some choose to live peaceably and would like to negotiate. Others choose being a suicide-bomber, hoping to be a martyr. Others are simply sympathetic to the justifications and aims of the terrorists.

Is it stereotypical thinking to say that anti-Semitism is endemic and growing within Islam and Europe?

Johann

01-27-2003, 05:24 PM

vbloom

01-27-2003, 07:03 PM

If you wanna know how powerful a leader Hitler was (and how he came to believe that he was doing the right thing for the future of humanity) read Mein Kampf. I read it as a curious civilian who wanted to know how "Hitler arose from the nation that gave us Beethoven" (paraphrasing). Also see the film Triumph of the Will.

"Triumph" will show you:

- How he made the crowd wait for HOURS before appearing to speak. (He was the first to exploit "fashionably late" imho)

-How when he finally did appear he would be silent until it "was time" to speak.

- How when he finally spoke he spoke softly, gently, drawing his people into his inspiring words (!)

-How he would build in performance- shaking his fists, shouting at the gods, declaring the Reich as the end-all be-all of kingdoms on earth. What peasant german wouldn't be aroused?

Hitler had the powers of persuasion all charismatic people posess:
JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffman, hell, even Oscar the Grouch & Hulk Hogan have the same power to captivate..

'Ol Adolf was a psychopath-just like Napoleon Bonaparte.

__________________
"I always direct the same film."- Federico Fellini

I copied and pasted your note just to be sure I get all the words right. In the past I was chided for paraphrasing incorrectly and accused of suggesting that ALL Germans are potential Nazis. I don't think so.

I certainly don't think you are the skin-head type, Johann. And I did see "Triumph of the Will". I looked forward to seeing it after the documentary on Leni Reifenstahl. I do believe she was an artist first and last and not necessarily a Nazi-sympathizer. An artist can not resist the opportunity to create, so I don't blame her at all for making that film, which is a historic document, as you say, which teaches, in a way, how a madman can sway a crowd, hold them spellbound, and in time create a national psychosis.

Part of what I think is in THE GERMAN CHARACTER is the potential to be swayed by a criminal psychopath. I believe there are many countries in which such a charismatic leader would be hooted and ridiculed. It is sad to learn that the German masses were so bereft, that they would wait rather than leave if the 'fuhrer' were late. It is tragic that World War I left them so downtrodden that they would be craven to be supermen, the Master Race, instead of dealing realistically with their plight and understand that rebuilding did not require murder, robbery and mayhem. Where were Germany's Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela? Where were Germany's religious leaders? What happened to their Christianity--- Catholics and Lutherans? The religious leaders were afraid to die? What does that say about their faith in God? What does that say about their role-model, the Jew, Jesus Christ, who martyred Himself for the common good, for everlasting life?

The film, "The Pianist" raises these questions again and again, which have only been partially answered, given all the historical realities. Of course it is easy to blame others. It was the fault of the Allies, the Treaty of Versailles, the failure of the League of Nations, the collapse of the German economy. Was war and conquest the only way to inspire the Germans?

The blacks of South Africa showed more intelligence, common sense and decency than the Nordic 'master race.' Perhaps they learned something from history. Why didn't the Germans learn from history? They were an educated people. It wasn't only the peasants who followed Hitler.

pmw

01-27-2003, 09:04 PM

Vbloom, just for your reference, try the "quote" button at the end of a person's message. It will format their comments as a quote offset from your response. Give it a shot; makes it easier to differentiate between your comments and what you're quoting.
P

Marina

01-28-2003, 10:23 AM

they think, as David Denby says, that the hero is a blank, and that the film is without great originality or imagination? Do they think, as he has written, that Schindler's List has better acting and is more "complex"?

------------------
I read that review and was kind of surprised by the fact that Denby seemed to be denying the very legitimate power of allegory. The flat-versus-round character opposition is useful sometimes, sure, but I don't like the way it has led to these assumed hierarchies with the psychologically nuanced, complex character at the top ... especially when you think about all the exciting ways people rehaul character in twentieth-century film and literature. I don't see why we have to be so obsessed with one type of character development ... Instead of bemoaning the fact that the character isn't fleshed out, he could have asked what purpose that might serve. What happens when there is that type of character, almost a vacuum, at the center of a movie, where is our attention drawn, how does that absence make us concentrate on other things in the narrative, etc.?

As far as Holocaust movies go, has anyone mentioned Sophie's Choice? Someone must have ... There's also Aus Einem Deutschen Leben, which I saw a couple of months ago. It traces the life of the Auschwitz commander Franz Lang. I thought it was a painfully good example of the whole "banality of evil" concept ... you could hear Adolf Eichmann in Lang's (really pathetic, it goes without saying) defense of his actions. Still, it was a little shocking for me, as an American, because I'm used to films that follow that unwritten rule that the Holocaust victims themselves must be put unflinchingly at the center. So there was something unsettling about seeing a Holocaust movie where concentration camp prisoners are almost completely absent, on the periphery. I guess it was necessary for this particular movie (to present an idea of what Franz Lang thought he was) but I left feeling that something essential was missing.

- Marina

vbloom

01-28-2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Marina
they think, as David Denby says, that the hero is a blank, and that the film is without great originality or imagination? Do they think, as he has written, that Schindler's List has better acting and is more "complex"?

------------------
I read that review and was kind of surprised by the fact that Denby seemed to be denying the very legitimate power of allegory. The flat-versus-round character opposition is useful sometimes, sure, but I don't like the way it has led to these assumed hierarchies with the psychologically nuanced, complex character at the top ... especially when you think about all the exciting ways people rehaul character in twentieth-century film and literature. I don't see why we have to be so obsessed with one type of character development ... Instead of bemoaning the fact that the character isn't fleshed out, he could have asked what purpose that might serve. What happens when there is that type of character, almost a vacuum, at the center of a movie, where is our attention drawn, how does that absence make us concentrate on other things in the narrative, etc.?

As far as Holocaust movies go, has anyone mentioned Sophie's Choice? Someone must have ... There's also Aus Einem Deutschen Leben, which I saw a couple of months ago. It traces the life of the Auschwitz commander Franz Lang. I thought it was a painfully good example of the whole "banality of evil" concept ... you could hear Adolf Eichmann in Lang's (really pathetic, it goes without saying) defense of his actions. Still, it was a little shocking for me, as an American, because I'm used to films that follow that unwritten rule that the Holocaust victims themselves must be put unflinchingly at the center. So there was something unsettling about seeing a Holocaust movie where concentration camp prisoners are almost completely absent, on the periphery. I guess it was necessary for this particular movie (to present an idea of what Franz Lang thought he was) but I left feeling that something essential was missing.

- Marina

Sophie's Choice is another film which makes me wonder about THE GERMAN CHARACTER. I can't imagine an American soldier perpetrating such a sadistic cruelty on a mother with two small children. But these are things that German soldiers did! Including ripping an infant out of a mother's arms and bashing it's head against the wall! We should just forget? We have to understand... and so far, we do not understand.

Marina

01-29-2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by vbloom

Sophie's Choice is another film which makes me wonder about THE GERMAN CHARACTER. I can't imagine an American soldier perpetrating such a sadistic cruelty on a mother with two small children. But these are things that German soldiers did! Including ripping an infant out of a mother's arms and bashing it's head against the wall! We should just forget? We have to understand... and so far, we do not understand.

-----------------------------
The Holocaust and its methods of extermination are unique and terrible, yes. I don't want to gloss over that fact. However, you should know that American soldiers have perpetuated sadistic cruelities ... they too have victimized and tortured civilians (and with racist motivations). The US military's role in the American Indian genocide is an obvious example. It's not too farfetched to draw parallels between, say, the concentration camp death marches and the Trail of Tears, a forced march during which over 4000 Cherokee died. You can find many many individual stories of Indian persecution at the hands of the US military online. (I can give you some links if you're interested.)
It would be unfortunate and irreponsible for anyone to use these stories to create an idea of the "American Character."

- Marina

vbloom

01-29-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Marina

-----------------------------
The Holocaust and its methods of extermination are unique and terrible, yes. I don't want to gloss over that fact. However, you should know that American soldiers have perpetuated sadistic cruelities ... they too have victimized and tortured civilians (and with racist motivations). The US military's role in the American Indian genocide is an obvious example. It's not too farfetched to draw parallels between, say, the concentration camp death marches and the Trail of Tears, a forced march during which over 4000 Cherokee died. You can find many many individual stories of Indian persecution at the hands of the US military online. (I can give you some links if you're interested.)
It would be unfortunate and irreponsible for anyone to use these stories to create an idea of the "American Character."

- Marina

Marina, you are quite right to give examples of the cruelties of Americans. Are these the exceptions or the rule? The massacres of the Indians were largely in the 19th and 18th centuries. The New World was young then, (it still is!) and aggressive land-grabbing was the rule of the day, commonplace and accepted by the world as a given.

Germany in World War II was an old country with a highly developed civilization and cultural values. The barbarism of the Nazi soldiers was in stark contrast to the prevailing values of civilization. It was widespread and ongoing. I don't believe that Americans of the 20th century would be capable of such atrocities on such a large scale.

I believe that the American character, mostly moral and religious, is superior, that is, more civilized, than THE GERMAN CHARACTER, the barbarism of which was vividly portrayed in "The Pianist." People can say that there is no such thing as the character of nations, or that the subject is not appropriate for discussion. They can opt out if they so wish, or give philosophical, moral or historical arguments as to why the character of a nation is not fit for discussion or debate.

vb

stevetseitz

03-10-2003, 02:54 PM

I would add "The Longest day" and "Come and See" to that list of worthy WWII films.

Vbloom said:

>>Is it stereotypical thinking to say that anti-Semitism is endemic and growing within Islam and Europe?<<

It certainly is growing or should I say "blooming" in Europe. The stench of Anti-semitism hangs over the throngs who rush into the streets to protest America hard line on Iraq.

In Islam, it's not only the religion but the culture that breeds Anti-Semitism and Anti-American sentiment. The most important and influential Islamic philosopher on this subject was Sayyid Qutb, a former leader and theoretician for the Muslim Brotherhood. His contention was that Western civillization separated the realm of God from the realm of society and put those two realms into a conflict with each other. He claimed that in the west science and reason had annihilated religion.

Qutb's alternative to the west's "jahiliyya" (a condition of social chaos, moral diversity, sexual promiscuity, polytheism, unbelief and idolatry) was Islam. Not simply as a religion but also a economic, political and civil system based on Islam that enforced the teachings of Mohammed. To this day, many Muslims believe that it's impossible to "practice" Islam within a secular framework.

tabuno

04-09-2003, 12:31 AM

I found Adrien Brody's character hollow and as the central figure in the movie, I found it difficult to develop much sympathy for him. As those around him suffered even greater indignities and sacrifices, Brody's character through luck and his artistic talent appeared to survive. Yet even throughout the movie, there is very little that we find out about Brody's character's feelings, his thoughts in the darkened nights, the terror on the streets. While the audience gets many images, Brody's central presence almost cries out for how such horrific events played on the blankness of Brody's character. For so much happening, there was so little character development, so little meaningful interaction between characters. I get more in terms of emotional empathy and emotive feelings fifteen minutes of watching a television series such as "24" than I did in The Pianist. The shock value of the brutal, random killings does echo harshly, but yet somehow, I found something central missing in this movie...it was the lack depth of passion, interaction, the humanity the survived in the war in addition to just the strength of the music itself.

vbloom

04-09-2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by tabuno
I found Adrien Brody's character hollow and as the central figure in the movie, I found it difficult to develop much sympathy for him. As those around him suffered even greater indignities and sacrifices, Brody's character through luck and his artistic talent appeared to survive. Yet even throughout the movie, there is very little that we find out about Brody's character's feelings, his thoughts in the darkened nights, the terror on the streets. While the audience gets many images, Brody's central presence almost cries out for how such horrific events played on the blankness of Brody's character. For so much happening, there was so little character development, so little meaningful interaction between characters. I get more in terms of emotional empathy and emotive feelings fifteen minutes of watching a television series such as "24" than I did in The Pianist. The shock value of the brutal, random killings does echo harshly, but yet somehow, I found something central missing in this movie...it was the lack depth of passion, interaction, the humanity the survived in the war in addition to just the strength of the music itself.

Tabuno___ A writer for The New Republic, Michael B. Oren, makes the same point in the March 17 issue. I took exception to it then as I do now. As a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst I know that some people, for varied and many reasons, learn to hide the outward show of their emotions. This does not mean that they are hollow or superficial. Ever hear of the saying, "still waters run deep?" The clue to Szpilman's depth and emotionality is the quality of his playing. No one can play Chopin like that without deep feeling. One has to appreciate music, musicianship and creativity to fully understand that.

Further, the Brody character, as you cooly put it, is not just a person, but the embodiment of an entire race of people, a people who survive despite all obstacles and all brutal assailants. The history of the Jewish people seems to indicate that we survive by accident, despite anti-Semitism and the genocidal impulses of a hostile and barbaric world.

Szpilman is a poetic image, a metaphor, of the contrast between the barbarism of the anti-Semites and the civilization of the Jews. The fact of our survival hints at some divine plan. Maybe the Jews ARE CHOSEN, to carry the torch of civilization in spite of everything. The movie shows that with some help and some accidents and some divine providence, Szpilman survives, Chopin survives, art survives, humanity survives bestiality.

The aristocracy of this seemingly implacable Jew, who doesn't even care that he is a Jew, doesn't declare that he is a Jew, is evident in his bearing, and in the ability of Chopin's music to touch the soul of a Beethoven lover. The movie transcends mere human emotions and shows the universalizing magic of music and reflects to all the arts.

In the horrible carnage of World War II and the Holocaust, artistic passion unites the Jew and the Nazi and so the movie depicts the real purpose of the Jew on the face of the earth, to show the world that civilization is superior to barbarism and cannot be trampled or stifled.

How does this happen?

As if by magic.

vb

stevetseitz

04-09-2003, 03:17 AM

Looking at the performance from that point of view puts it in a new light for me.

Chris Knipp

04-09-2003, 03:39 AM

Vbloom: After previous exchanges I didn't know that we could agree on anything but I like very much your eloquent defense here of Szpilman's personality and the validity and importance of the character as he is played by Adrien Brody. It's approprate to evoke the sense that "Still waters run deep." It is unfortunate that some viewers see the Szpilman character as empty; it seems to me that the experience the film evokes is one about which, ultimately, nothing can be said, because it is too horrific and too powerful. There are times when what one needs to do is feel, not speak, and thus the silence at the center of The Pianist is a profound and richly meaningful one, a silence to be relieved only by the sound of Chopin, because no human words can evoke the enormity of the Holocaust. You, vbloom, increase and enrich my already strong sense that this is an important and masterful film, and precisely for its centering on "the aristocracy of this implacable Jew." Well said, indeed.

tabuno

04-10-2003, 12:36 AM

I can agree that personality can be submerged and what we get on the surface appears hollow but underneath there is a seething roar of personality. If The Pianist were a stage production on Broadway, I might be able to accept the hollow persona of Adrian Brody. But as a movie, to NOT use a narrative voice over to penetrate the inner sanctum of Adrian Brody's real character is unforgiveable, if this movie is to be awarded an Oscar for Best Actor and Best Director. There was so much left unspoken, too many questions left unanswered. It don't think it's fair to force Adrian Brody's character to carry the weight of the entire Jewish race, being a composite representation of a religious group. As an individual personality, I wanted to know more, experience more, feel more than the music.

vbloom

04-10-2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by tabuno
I can agree that personality can be submerged and what we get on the surface appears hollow but underneath there is a seething roar of personality. If The Pianist were a stage production on Broadway, I might be able to accept the hollow persona of Adrian Brody. But as a movie, to NOT use a narrative voice over to penetrate the inner sanctum of Adrian Brody's real character is unforgiveable, if this movie is to be awarded an Oscar for Best Actor and Best Director. There was so much left unspoken, too many questions left unanswered. It don't think it's fair to force Adrian Brody's character to carry the weight of the entire Jewish race, being a composite representation of a religious group. As an individual personality, I wanted to know more, experience more, feel more than the music.

Tabuno, I appreciate what you say, but I have an entirely different opinion. To me, if there was a voice-over, that would kill it. It would be as if the movie director was dictating to the audience what the reaction or the understanding should be. That would be, in my estimation, talking down to the audience, as if it didn't have the capacity to intuit what is under the surface. Lest this seem as too simple a disagreement, let me add my opinion that this particular movie is like poetry, which is part of its magic and greatness. Poetry includes metaphor, imagery and condensation. Much is said in a few words and the meaning is complex and multi-layered, and different readers get different messages from a poem. In the same way, I see Szpilman as the emodiment of the Jewish race, associated with the highest level of civilization and art. Music talent is like a gift from God, just as God supposedly 'Chose' the Jewish people to represent Him. And so music and art survives, the Jewish people survive. That is how the film spoke to me. It can speak to you in an entirely different way. I don't think it is 'unfair' to force Adrian Brody's 'character' to carry the weight of the entire Jewish race. I thought it not only fair, but great casting to make this implacable, aristocratic and enigmatic personna to represent the entire Jewish race. Such was Jesus Christ Himself. Szpilman's survival was like a miracle. He was born, he suffered, he made glorious music, he died and he survived.

Chris Knipp

04-10-2003, 05:54 PM

vbloom--

Again I agree with you completely: as I said earlier, the message is beyond words, so a "voiceover" would have been deadly. Szpilman's opposition and survival were wordless things. He did not expose himself or go around making declarations: all his focus was on simply surviving during that time. People who think this part of the film "drags" fail to recognize that "mere" survival can be a tremendous act of courage, and that it must be witnessed, that you cannot rush it. Through this technique "The Pianist" becomes both a depiction of the Holocaust and a meditation upon it. It is not a lecture. It is an experience. And one of tremendous power, for those who tune in to it.

tabuno

04-12-2003, 08:15 AM

If I wanted poetry or photography or song to wash over me, I'd read a poem, look at a photograph, or listen to a CD. I'm one of those in the minority when it came to Bladerunner and the original voice over that Ridley Scott took out in his director's cut, which effectively killed the film noir of the movie. In The Pianst, the mental struggle, the detailed inner emotionally turmoil as in Diary of Ann Frank brings a deeper, biting, and chilling experience that was lost in this movie. War, brutality, inhumanity take its toll on the human spirit - but it's so often seen in terms of images and behavior, but what goes on inside is even more riveting and usually kept secret, hidden inside. This movie could have been so much more...but what the audience gets is what it has seen before, the evil Nazi indiscriminately killing, the suffering of the marked Jews. What was surprisingly absent in this movie than most others was the emotional connections between people other than the family and even the family wasn't given the depth of development to get to really know them. The disjointed development of the brother for example when he goes through a sudden transformation from spoiled brat to reserved, quiet gentlemen. Of all the characters, it was Adrien Brody who seemed to accidentally survive, in small part only because of his musical talent (not his will to survive), in some ways the weakest of characters compared to those who sacrificed their lives for him. What was this man thinking? What was his mental condition as he became ill? Even the Nazi hatred of Jews wasn't sufficiently addressed when he was in hiding and then suddenly the explosion of hatred from his neighbor when he was in hiding. Did Adrien Brody's character know this...suspect this...? Why didn't we know about it? Too many questions, too many puzzles left locked in Adrien Brody's mind to allow the images and sounds to wash smoothly over us... instead it screams for answers and flows so slowly that it makes sledge build up in one's brain.

cinemabon

05-08-2003, 11:25 AM

I must apologize for having posted so late, but I only saw "The Pianist" a couple of weeks ago. My reaction, as I am sure was almost universal, was to the brutality of the Nazi occupation. As in "Schindler's List", watching Nazi's persecute Poles or anyone else during the war is difficult at best. How we call this entertainment, I will never understand.

What I do understand is acting, having been an actor since I was three and a writer/director since I was in sixth grade. Brody was able to carry this film on his ability to emote so purely at times, there could be no doubt about who would win the Oscar this year. I've seen many fine cinematic performances in my life, but Adrian Brody's performance is historic. The pathos which he gave will burn in my memory for years to come.

I am almost "full blooded" German. I am proud of many of the great German minds and accomplishments. But the holocaust wipes out just about all that the Germans ever did that was good, and replaces it with a memory of having done the worst crime against humanity in the history of the world. Add "The Pianist" to the list of films which preserve that sordid memory.

dcmarkham

05-27-2003, 01:48 AM

tabuno wrote:
=====================
But as a movie, to NOT use a narrative voice over to penetrate the inner sanctum of Adrian Brody's real character is unforgiveable....There was so much left unspoken, too many questions left unanswered.
=====================
...I'm one of those in the minority when it came to Bladerunner and the original voice over that Ridley Scott took out in his director's cut, which effectively killed the film noir of the movie. In The Pianst, the mental struggle, the detailed inner emotionally turmoil as in Diary of Ann Frank brings a deeper, biting, and chilling experience that was lost in this movie.
=====================

Well Tabuno, I'm glad you consider yourself in the minority with the above statements. I always figured that the majority of movie-goers felt this way -- considering voice-over narrative a strength in a film instead of what it really is: a storytelling crutch. Less is more, my friend.

Voiceover works well for a rare few works -- a perfect example is Spike Jonze's Adaptation, because the bulk of the movie actually TAKES PLACE in the protagonist's mind.

What would you think about a movie 20 years from now, which follows the events closely of a survivor of one of the World Trade Center towers? Minute by minute he races for a venue of escape, panicking, passing both dead and burning people. He manages to get out of the building -- suddenly a woman's body hits the concrete only a few feet from him, and then rebounds 15 feet back up into the air. The towers crumble and he's buried in drywall soot.

Now imagine that the filmmakers decide to provide his voiceover narrative as the events unfold -- maybe we hear his panicked thoughts as he races for escape -- or maybe he dictates his reactions as he "looks back" on these events.

If the filmmakers did this, what did they just do to the audience? I'll tell you what they did -- THEY ROBBED THE AUDIENCE OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF EXPERIENCING THESE EVENTS AS *FIRST HAND* AS POSSIBLE. The audience is now locked into living the events through the protagonist's PERSONAL perspective instead of being able to formulate their OWN reactions and feelings should they be in the protagonist's shoes.

The question should NEVER be "What was going through [the protagonist's] head?" A GREAT movie should only cause one to ask "What would be going through MY head if I experienced these things?" Because the second question can be emotionally challenging to the average movie-goer, most Hollywood movies attempt to appeal to the lowest-common-denominator of movie watchers. Adding voiceover, or drenching scenes with unnecessary dramatic music, or nicely tying up everything into some forced happy ending, or (what I hate the most) using a paragraph or two to sum-it-all-up, or provide useless "future information" -- all these tactics merely DULL or falsely MANIPULATE a viewer's emotional reaction to the events of the film. They turn emotion into sentiment. They turn "faithful re-creation of events" into "dramatization". They turn movies that COULD be great, into movies that are merely "good". LESS IS MORE.

You say: "There was so much left unspoken, too many questions left unanswered." In the Pianist, WHAT WORDS could have been used that would not have detracted from the visual and audio experience of the Adrien Brody character? By choosing NOT to use words, Roman Polanski is telling you that THERE ARE NO WORDS that can describe what he is feeling, and what he is experiencing, without cheapening these things.

I ask you: What's wrong with leaving questions unanswered? I'm not talking about confusing the hell out of the audience by leaving out key story elements; I'm talking about focussing on the important, relevant information that is necessary to tell a compelling story, and either leave out tangent storylines, or leave them incomplete and let the audience ponder. Why is it not better to leave certain things unanswered or in the "gray"?

A film's power to challenge the audience is far more intriguing than its ability to provide the inner details of a person's personal thoughts. The visual and audio art of cinema is the perfect medium for such a challenge -- whereas a book must spell it all out for the audience in words, and only the author's skill of language can transend the medium.

Chris Knipp

05-27-2003, 02:24 AM

I welcome you and your smart comment. I completely agree on The Pianist. He is a recessive character as we observe him too (I don't know what he's like in his memoir), another reason for not having a voice-over narration. Many are uncomfortable with the long silent passage in The Pianist when Spilman is hiding, alone. It's just not comfortable for people to watch. They want something to break the intensity of the unmediated experience we get watching; they want a voice to mitigate the terrible aloneness. But of course you are right about the treatment Polanski uses. It not only fits the experience, but the specific character.

In other cases where the protagonist is a writer, a voiceover narration may be appropriate. I seem to recall several French New Wave movies with voiceovers that are great. The more literary effect of a voiceover narration can be charming and amusing, especially in adapting a novel. Doesn't Richardon's Tom Jones have constant voiceover? And that's right because in the novel the narrator--the authorial voice, not the protagonist's-- is very obtrusive. Tom Jones is one of the best screen adaptations of a great English novel. But it's about very talky people, not about a musician who can't play his instrument (another way he's silenced) hiding alone cut off from everyone.

I don't see the point of t's comparing The Pianist to the Diary of Anne Frank or Bladerunner--not relevant. But I tend to agree with having the voiceover for Bladerunner, or liking it anyway, because of the hardboiled private eye effect it creates. One thing is sure--a voiceover is obtrusive, and acts as a mediator of the experience on screen, as your excellent Twin Towers example shows.

tabuno

05-27-2003, 11:19 PM

Too many questions left unanswered. Your World Trade Center example just doesn't fit. There is no comparison. The events, as is typical of American fast and simple, are compressed into a few minutes whereas the long, drawn out days and months, and years of The Pianst just beg for explanation. World Trade Center is visceral, action-oriented, thrilling, popping action of the terror and horror of war whereas in the case of The Diary of Ann Frank as well as The Pianst we are looking at the lengthy period of the traumatic exposure to Holocaust. The audience isn't interested in knowing what they themselves think, the audience is interested in the character. How do events impact the character not us. What was the character thinking? What was happening while he was sick during the lengthy time in bed. What thoughts were going through his mind? How did he think? What were his emotions? What was his reasoning and how did they deteriorate. The surface features as just that superficial without the supremely unique feature of human thought and feelings. Each person is unique. If the picture were about animals, a voice over wouldn' t be necessary, because the dog or cat emotions and surface features are all that really exist and count. But even the focus is on a singular individual over the length of this movie oer a period of years, the inner most spirit of the human mind is what makes this movie truly special and without it, The Pianst becomes more an empty shell to be filled in with everyman's experience - not too inspiring project then.

stevetseitz

05-28-2003, 02:40 AM

>>THEY ROBBED THE AUDIENCE OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF EXPERIENCING THESE EVENTS AS *FIRST HAND* AS POSSIBLE. The audience is now locked into living the events through the protagonist's PERSONAL perspective instead of being able to formulate their OWN reactions and feelings should they be in the protagonist's shoes.<<

I have to disagree with you there. It has to be done with skill and deftness. In "Bladerunner", it's debatable that the voiceover was too much exposition. I see the film noir aspect that appealed to fans but I also don't need to be told what "skin-job" means or why I can't understand Gaff's langauge.

For a good example of skill and deftness in this regard, look no further than "Saving Private Ryan". As we see Captain Miller make his way up Omaha Beach, Spielberg let's us experience both the sound and fury of the events while taking time out to show us Tom Hank's personal perspective with the "muted" segment. He repeats this effect at the end as the P-51 Mustang destroys a tank he is firing at with his side arm. A similar technique was used to good effect in "Copland". While neither of these examples is a voice-over, both techniques allow the viewer to understand the protagonist's personal perspective.

If the storyteller's intent is to subject the audience to the events "first-hand" that is one thing, but often a storyteller wants the audience to come along for the ride.

Look at "Hamlet" if we, the audience, were simply to experience the events (a death, a ghost, a break-up, a murder, a trip, a duel) in the play it would be a totally different experience than seeing through the eye of the young Danish prince.

Chris Knipp

05-28-2003, 01:51 PM

Yes, but there's a bit of a difference between Hamlet's monologues and a voiceover.

I would concede that The Pianist could be done with voiceovers during the long period of hiding. That would satisfy those who are uncomfortable with the unstructured feeling and their sense that it goes on too long. It would change things a lot though, and I like things very much they way they are. A long lonely period of isolation and anguish is well experienced as the lack of any internal voice in a movie where there are visuals. A play works differently and a novel differently also.

cinemabon

05-28-2003, 04:18 PM

The great thing about film is it is a VISUAL medium. A voice over isn't necessary if the the visuals on the screen portray the message the filmmaker intends to send.

All of the esoteric dialogue concerning meanings is pure semantics, gentlemen. This is the story of a survivor of not just some event we label the "holocaust", because Jewish people were not the only ones who suffered pursecution. Many many others joined the Jews in deathcamps all over the region. I would say that Jews were the main focus of the Nazi Party, but the SS and Gestapo were relentless in rounding up any opposition to the party, including dissidents, homosexuals, the Russians (who suffered five times the losses compared to the "holocaust") and ethic minorities considered inferior.

This story of Spillman is significant because it tells us that despite the odds, some of us can survive something as horrific as Nazi pursecution. This is a tribute more to the human wit than anything else, as in guile.

The filmmaker, Roman Polanski, is a visual artist whose stories are rather straight forward. There are no surprises here. Because of this man's incredible talent, there were those who chose to risk their own lives to save him. Like a priceless oil painting or vase, it was in everyone's interest to save his life. It was as if he was more like a commodity than a person at times. Yet his struggle was brilliantly told, without an oral voice over narrative because one wasn't necessary.

Polanski's style, as it was in Chinatown, is to further the narrative with short vignettes rather than visuals with a voice in the background telling us what to make of the images. To further agonize over what the character is going through is told through the actor's performance. We don't need to see what "he sees". It is redundant. This isn't philosophy 101. It is the world of cinema. The best films explain nothing. They allow every member of the audience to form his or her own opinion. They leave speculation to the critics and first year filmschool students.

The only film a voice over ever worked in was Double Indemnity, and even then, it's corny. Hearing Fred MacMurray telling us what to think and how to interpret the visuals almost seemed a copout on the part of Billy. But that's another discussion.

As for anti-semitism... I would say that prejudice and hatred of many people, including Jews, is alive and well in our own backyard, let alone some other region of the world.

Chris Knipp

05-28-2003, 05:01 PM

Certainly I agree with you on The Pianist and I also agree with you that a voiceover is not necessary in general and in some cases is downright redundant and irritating. However there are cases in movies when a voiceover adds to the style which I have mentioned before, particularly in an adaptation of a novel which keeps the literary style of the movie, as in Tony Richardson's classic adaptation of Fielding's Tom Jones. To say that a voiceover is not called for in The Pianist you don't have to go overboard and insist that voiceovers are junk. Sometimes they are an essential part of a certain movie's style.

oscar jubis

05-29-2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by cinemabon
The great thing about film is it is a VISUAL medium. A voice over isn't necessary if the the visuals on the screen portray the message the filmmaker intends to send. It is the world of cinema. The best films explain nothing. They allow every member of the audience to form his or her own opinion. The only film a voice over ever worked in was Double Indemnity, and even then, it's corny.
I find myself in the unusual position of defending an overused tool borrowed from literatute, a favorite device of filmmakers who lack imagination or condescend to the audience. As Chris pointed out, there are appropriate usages of voice-over narration, even in some visionary films. (Chris mentions the French New Wave. Indeed, I recall Godard using it to complicate, even to confound meaning).
Consider for instance the lengthy "News of the Hour" sequence in our beloved Citizen Kane. It provides a sanctioned, documentary version of the life of the man we see die in the poetic, opening scene. It stands in contrast to the incisive attempt thereafter to penetrate Kane's psyche.
Wong Kar-Wai uses voice-over narration in Ashes of Time, my candidate for most visually arresting film of the 1990s.

stevetseitz

05-29-2003, 01:45 PM

Excellent point re: Citizen Kane.

tabuno

05-30-2003, 01:08 AM

Just because film originally was a singular visual event when it was first invented in with 1890s and then sound was added soon after and became common place by the 1920s, 1930s...doesn't mean that motion pictures must restrict themselves to the visual experience...as the many Disneyland rides that rely more on physical, visceral experiences that provide an emotional high and active excitement, true serious drama shouldn't necessarily ignore the opportunity of bringing the greatness of the written text, the book, the novel to the screen. The opportunity to combine both the intellectual depth of the word and sound with the eye-popping, collision of color and sight should not be overlooked.

To simply expect the audience to become dumbed down by omitting the more important meaning and mental thoughts is to deny the quintesential element of motion picture's potential. Dr. Zhivago is probably the classic example where the omission of a voice-over was at its best. Comparisons of The Pianst again to a movie like Saving Private Ryan, again ignores the context in which the beginning action takes place in real time over the brief (long for those experiencing) with bullets whistling by, one's life on the life (there was no time for thought). Survival by instinct and just plain human emotion is just what Saving Private Ryan was about but not The Pianst. There must of have been thousands of thoughts that the audience never had an opportunity to experience to make the substantive and sophisticated connection of the Holocaust real in the context of human thought, not just emotion, not just experience, but human mental thinking.

What was Spelmann thinking while sick. Was he a selfish egoist more concerned about himself and his art? Or was he despondent over the deaths of his family? Was he delusional? What did he think of his neighbors? Was he scared or just plain bored? Did he think about music while in bed? What kept him alive his thoughts, will-power, his dreams, or just plain luck. It seemed that he lived life passively, letting luck and other people take him along, surviving not through any real unique character but being in the right place at the right time having the right talent with the right people. It's hard to believe that this particular movie was anything really significant, meaningful...except a brief excursion into an experential horror of war and "the accidental tourist" of everyman caught up in it.