How Reliable is Schindler’s List As A Representation

Schindler's List is a blockbuster movie based on Thomas Keneally's book, 'Schindler's Ark', which is based on 50 eye witness accounts of the Holocaust. The movie is based around the life of Oskar Schindler, a rich German business man (who is by no means a flawless hero) who risks everything in a bid to save as many lives as possible nearing the end of the Holocaust. Steven Spielberg, a well known Hollywood director, made this movie and tried to keep it as close to the book as possible.He liked the idea of this book as Keneally kept it as close to fact as possible so as he wouldn't debase the original event, but it drew people in emotionally because it was told from an eye witness point of view. Spielberg made this movie to inform people about the Holocaust, but also to make money, so he threw in a mix of fact and fiction, which is why we need to explore this further.

We can tell from the film what is fact reasonably easily because of our thorough knowledge of the Holocaust already, and also our source pack is useful here.We are shown how the Jews are treated in great detail in this movie, beginning with them being herded into ghettoes to live, and the conditions in the ghettoes are shown to be appalling. Many people died from 'natural reduction' - starvation, illness and general suffering from the sub human conditions. We know that this is true from our own knowledge.

Next, the Jews are taken from the ghettoes to work camps and death camps. In the movie, we see how badly they are treated and how they are transported to the even worse conditions awaiting them. They were driven into these cattle carts and squeezed in to the maximum capacity.They were deprived of water and of course air, which we see in the movie when they call out from their 'compartment' and Schindler sprays them with the hose to deliver them some relief, even though it was under the guise of taunting them. This detail of their traveling conditions is backed up by the picture in source 12 of the cattle carts they were taken in, and Borowski's writing in source 13.

Upon arrival, the humiliation began immediately. Everyone was ordered to strip and to run around naked. After that, the healthy were separated from those who could not work, which includes separating a mother from her child.This is backed up by a number of our sources, including Samuel Willenberg's writing in source 11 and Yehuda Bakon in source 16. After that, the women had their hair shaved off to stuff mattresses, and this is depicted in the film - one of the women later on in the film claimed that she had heard a rumor that this was the motivation for cutting their hair and they weren't actually being kept alive, which is accurate, of course. They had been deceived from the beginning until the end - the only hint at their fate was the cruelty being dished out.

This idea of deception is echoed by Bakon and Willenberg again.In regards to the cruelty they encountered, there is a scene in Schindler's List that is particularly prominent in my mind regarding this. Goeth (the high ranking Nazi in the film) stands out on his luxurious balcony, high above the hard working Jews and simply shoots at random. This seems to be part of his routine, as he just returns to his normal business after he becomes bored. This casual attitude towards something so horrific is typical of the SS officers' attitude towards Jews at that time. In fact, Gilbert claimed that this was a 'favorite sport' of the officers.

Source 15, Turkel, gives us some information on the cruelty that the Jews suffered on a regular basis. Granted, we are given information on only one camp and on female officers in particular, but our own knowledge backs this up as well as the source. On top of the cruelty and constant fear the Jews suffered from, the conditions in the camps were appalling. In the movie we are shown how the women were crammed into a room with a selection of bunk beds and one dim light bulb in the centre of the ceiling.

This image is shown exactly by Turkel in our source pack, so we know that this is accurate.The prisoners did not receive proper nourishment, which is again shown by Turkel, and we know that their 'water was contaminated' (14A, SS officer). The contrast between the conditions for the Nazis and the Jews' living quarters is shown well in the film. We see that Schindler is forever bringing gifts of exotic fruit and cigarettes, luxuries reserved for the rich at that time. There are plenty of parties right next to the camp in Goeth's residence, and Schindler sneaks food to Stein (his Jewish right hand man who has been taken into Goeth's camp) from one of these parties.

This underlines the significant difference in the conditions and this is backed up by source 14A. Steven Spielberg's handling of the movie also made it such a good portrayal of the Holocaust. Spielberg claimed that he had 'hungered' to make this movie, but there was a ten year gap between his realization that he wanted to do this and the actual beginning of creating the movie. I believe that this was a good thing, and did indeed help him to make this a better portrayal.The ten year delay meant that he was mature enough to deal with the task and also meant that he knew the characters very well and was able to convey this to the actors involved. This brought about a high degree of authenticity, as it meant that the actors were as close to their characters as possible, making the film very realistic and true to the real people.

Liam Neeson (played Oskar Schindler) went so far as to say, "Steven is Oskar Schindler, he is also Itzhak Stein, Amon Goeth and all the Jewish survivors", showing that Steven's portrayal of these people is, indeed, reliable.A huge effort was made to ensure that the film looked as authentic as possible, which is done through the use of the set, costumes and hairstyles. The filming began in Krakow, one of the few Polish cities that was unblemished by World War II, and Spielberg used many original locations, such as Schindler's old factory and his elegant apartment, which remain almost exactly the same as they had been fifty years ago. The movie set for the forced labor camp Plaszow was built using plans from the original camp.Anna Sheppard, the costume designer, created over 1800 costumes in total, using original pieces were possible. Spielberg, along with Sheppard and Smith (the make-up designer), researched the period thoroughly to give the film a truly authentic feel.

It was shot in black and white to be true to Spielberg's image of the Holocaust as seen in documentaries and books, and to make it true to the period, and 40% of the movie was shot using hand held cameras to give it a documentary feel. Both of these tricks helped to make the movie more authentic and really bring the message home to the audience.However, even though this was such a success in giving the movie an authentic feel, this isn't necessarily a good thing from a historian's point of view. This can draw us in and make us believe that everything in the movie is indeed fact, when it is not. It is easy when watching Schindler's List to think that it is a documentary, or a source filmed at the time of the Holocaust, but it's important to remember that this is actually a dramatization. Therefore the tricks Spielberg used possibly detract from the film's reliability.

There are certain things which may further detract from a so far relatively reliable source.Steven Spielberg himself was a Jew, which raises the question of bias or exaggeration. I don't think this was a major issue, as Spielberg wouldn't risk letting his personal feelings interfere with what was to be such a famous movie for fear that it would discredit the entire effort. In that, we must acknowledge that this was intended to be a money making blockbuster, which means that it must be highly entertaining, mixing fiction with fact. The use of big stars, glamour and sex scenes is necessary for a blockbuster, and I don't think they take much away from the film's reliability.

The only thing that raises a doubt in my mind is the mix of fact and fiction, which means that a vast majority of people watching the movie won't be able to distinguish the two. A final complaint about the movie is the claim that Spielberg under played the violence suffered by the Jews, and I do feel that this detracted from the portrayal but Spielberg must have felt that, as a responsible movie maker, it was his duty to keep the violence to a minimum, especially at that time, but there are some quite graphic scenes of violence in the film, even if they have been underplayed.In conclusion, I believe that Schindler's List was a reasonably reliable representation of the Holocaust. I believe this because nearly everything that was included in the movie that happened to the Jews can be backed up by our sources and our own knowledge, and the fact that all eye witness accounts included in Keneally's book were consistent. Keneally's critically acclaimed book wanted to stay as close to the facts as possible, as did Spielberg with his film. The fact that Spielberg spent ten years researching the Holocaust and Schindler's Jews means that the movie was going to be very accurate and therefore very reliable.

He doesn't portray Schindler as a saint, or show all Jews to be victims, which means that he keeps it very close to the real life situation, as Schindler was a womanizer and had a drinking problem and some Jews actually made money out of the war. Even though he doesn't show what other, non-Jewish people went through, I still believe that the movie was quite reliable, but it is still important to keep reminding ourselves that it isn't a documentary and Steven Spielberg isn't a historian.