Spielberg on "Beautiful"
Andrys D Basten
=====
From: NY Daily News
News and Views
Monday, March 15, 1999
Benigni's 'Life' Isn't Beautiful for Spielberg
Oscar rivals Steven Spielberg and Roberto Benigni sure looked like buds at
the recent Director's Guild Awards. But looks may be deceiving.
Word is that Spielberg doesn't think much of Benigni's "Life is
Beautiful," because it mixed too much laughter with the tears of the
Holocaust.
Spielberg has said privately that he could barely sit through the movie.
"He wanted to walk out of the theater," says one source who has spoken
with the "Saving Private Ryan" director. But Spielberg only stayed because
his wife, Kate Capshaw, reminded him his exit would be noticed, the source
said.
"She said it would send a bad message," says the source. "She told him to
sit down, which he did."
Spielberg's opinion has been the subject of much speculation because he
has become Hollywood's guiding light on the Holocaust since winning the
Oscar for "Schindler's List" and setting up the Survivors of the Shoah
Visual History Foundation.
But the director has been guarded in discussing Benigni's film publicly.
Spielberg told one reporter he felt "uncomfortable" commenting on "Life is
Beautiful" beyond saying, "I'm happy when anyone makes a movie that says
the Holocaust happened."
Of course, he simply may not want to praise the competition too loudly,
since "Life" is facing "Ryan" for Best Picture at the Oscars.
In an interview several years ago, Spielberg insisted that any good
Holocaust movie "cannot in the least come across as entertainment."
The president of the Shoah Foundation has applauded Benigni's film,
which tells the story of a father's comic attempts to shield his son from
Nazi horrors.
"Like many inmates in concentration camps and ghettos, Benigni uses
humor as a weapon of the oppressed, and he does so masterfully," Dr.
Michael Berenbaum told the L.A. Times.
Spielberg's spokesman, Marvin Levy, told us he didn't know what
Spielberg thought of Benigni's film, but that he liked Benigni personally.
"He was really taken by his energy" when the two met at the Director's
Guild this month, said Levy. Indeed, Spielberg described the antic actor
as "an Italian Furby," adding, "I want to take him home to live with me."
A spokeswoman for Miramax Films, which released "Life is Beautiful," said,
"Steven Spielberg has been gracious to Roberto."
=======
--
===========================================================
Andrys Basten, 510/235-3861, CNE (Novell)
http://www.andrys.com/books.html - Classical-Music Searches on one page
Search CDs, VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, Gramophone/Fanfare Reviews
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html -Peru photos w/Canon Elph
Have music, will travel: piano, harpsichord, recorders
Mary
passing year. I guess this means, in Spielberg's mind, that the humor in
Life is Beautiful will encourage us all to disregard the horrors of the
Holocaust because, after all, we're too *stupid* to react otherwise. Reminds
me of the patronizing attitude prevalent in all of Spielberg's movies; he
can't count on us to use our intelligence in absorbing his messages just once
- he has to keep hammering the points in his films over and over again. Did
we really need his "Am I a good man?" bookends in Saving Private Ryan? Was
it really necessary to create a fictional closing speech by Schindler to his
departing workers? Too bad Spielberg couldn't have concentrated more and
*learned* a few things from Life is Beautiful, namely, the value of heartfelt
emotions and characterizations (without the overwhelming use of special
effects, shock value and bombastic John Williams scores). And, most
importantly, to never insult the intelligence of your audience. For that
quality alone, Mr. Benigni has Best Picture/Director nods in *my* book.
In article <andrysF8...@netcom.com>,
and...@netcom.com (Andrys D Basten) wrote:
> Article from yesterday posted, for any opinions ...
>
> =====
> From: NY Daily News
> News and Views
> Monday, March 15, 1999
>
> Benigni's 'Life' Isn't Beautiful for Spielberg
>
> Oscar rivals Steven Spielberg and Roberto Benigni sure looked like buds at
> the recent Director's Guild Awards. But looks may be deceiving.
>
> Word is that Spielberg doesn't think much of Benigni's "Life is
> Beautiful," because it mixed too much laughter with the tears of the
> Holocaust.
>
> Spielberg has said privately that he could barely sit through the movie.
[remainder snipped to conserve space]
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Gorgon
start acting like a sore loser.
YodaIsPhat
"F*ck me gently with a chainsaw. Do I look like Mother Theresa?"
"I don't patronize bunny rabbits!"
"You want to f*ck with the eagles, you have to learn how to fly."
Julian Pye
Well, Spielberg is of course entitled to his personal opinion.
Interesting enough this is the very first opposing opinion to the
usage of humor in 'Life is beautiful' that I have read. I always
wondered why it was marketed as a 'controversial' film, when everyone
was praising it.
However, I am a bit concerned about Spielberg's attitude. I see him as
a great entertainer, who seems to be wanting to be taken seriously,
and probably always fantasized about having intellectual capacity and
a historian's ability of telling stories as 'they happened'. Neither
do I believe is true. I remember reading Claude Lanzmann's statement
entitled (I read the German translation 'Ihr sollt nicht weinen!')
'You should not cry' on 'Schindler's List' in which Lanzmann argued
that any movie on the Holocaust that enables an emotional response by
the audience will fail to portray an historic incidence as the
audience's tension will be relieved and vented via the influence of
typical dramatic stylistic elements such as music soundtrack, designed
sets, actors and fictional dialogues. Personally for me, the first
time 'Schindler's List' was very gripping, although the final
fictional dramatic sequence ('What if I would have sold my ring, my
car...') was quite awful. However the second time most of the scenes
that I reacted extremely emotional to during the first viewing got a
weaker reaction from me. The effect of using dramatic stylistic
elements to tell a story had worn off and I understood Lanzmann's
concern. So I don't really believe that using a dramatic film
(especially in a claimed 'realistic way') can do justice to a real
event and probably less than a comedy ('Love and death' is still the
best anti-war film for me) or a more artistic/poetic film (e.g. 'The
thin red line') can do. And I especially have concerns with the way
that Spielberg sometimes overuses his dramatic license (in SPR
especially the concept of complexity of the 'enemy', which for me
makes TTRL a film so much superior with its ingenious portrayal of the
Japanese that it is beyond comparison). Especially the character of
Steamboat Willy renders SPR a farce and destroys all its possible
achievements in its final carthaic execution sequence (which could
have been so much better, if we had not seen the identity of Captain
Miller's killer).
Anyway, back to the main point. After reading many interviews with
Spielberg (mainly in UK and German media) I become concerned that he
starts to consider himself an authority on historic events such as the
holocaust and WW2 (and to a minor element African American issues via
TCP and Amistad). Spielberg is a great director and 'Empire of the
Sun' proved that he can be a very good dramatic storyteller, too.
However SL and SPR personally for me are in no way 'realistic', they
are still escapist entertainment for me (the supposed realism becoming
a sense of 'being there' like in a Universal studios ride) although I
believe that they can provide a lot of people the necessary base of
interest to dwelge deeper into a subject (e.g. pupils viewing SL
studying the Holocaust in more depth).
Well, that's just my opinion, too.
Julian
Trent
in the Indiana Jones film. Yes, they were depicted as bad guys, but you
can't look at them without thinking of the Holocaust and all the other
baggage the Nazi imagery carries with it. I personally have no problem
with Spielberg's use of the Nazis in the Indiana Jones movies, but it
just seems inconsistent of him to think "Life is Beautiful" trivializes
the Holocaust, too (if that is indeed what he thinks, since he hasn't
really said so).
On another note, doesn't it seem strange that the soldiers in the Star
Wars films are called Storm Troopers? Why would Lucas do that?
-----> Trent
"High ping builds character."
emo...@my-dejanews.com
Beautiful" is on the Holocaust. From the title of the movie, I am led to
believe that Benigni wanted to show that life really is beautiful if you go
about it with the right attitude. Throughout the movie, Benigni's character
is a very happy, energetic person, which to me, shows that he is enjoying
himself (which then leads me to believe that his life was beautiful to him).
Then he marries this woman that he has fallen in love with, continuing his
beautiful life. Then the Holocaust hits home with him and his family is
swept away to this concentration camp. Benigni's character is obviously
fully aware of what is happening, but he never lets on to his son what is
really happening. He tries to protect the image of the "beautiful life" for
his son, so that this horrible event won't prevent him from having his own
beautiful life (he does this through keeping his son alive by making the
holocaust out as a big game). I feel that Benigni chose to use the Holocaust
because of it's obvious horrible image and outcome. I do feel, however, that
he could have used any negative event in history to portray his meaning that
life is beautiful. He just chose to use the mother of all catastrophes. Now
I realize that probably not too many people out there may agree with me, but
I just had to express my general feelings about this discussion.
Louis
> Anyone that says that Spielberg is pure escapism is just plain stupid. He is
> the filmmaker of our generation,
No my generation, sonny boy.
> and while he has made many movies (not
> films-note the difference), his FILMS are solid, true and very moving.
For those with IQs below 50, and who can mistake cheap, tawdry sentimentality
for genuine emotion.
> Who can doubt the realism in the opening sequence from SPR?
I can. For the very simple reason that it is a movie, not "reality".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cervo
>Life is Beautiful will encourage us all to disregard the horrors of the
>Holocaust because, after all, we're too *stupid* to react otherwise.
Not just us.
He "improved" Oscar Schindler's actions and emotions to the point that would be
more acceptable to Homo Hollywoodus.
I mean the "breakdown" scene so ably satirized by Larry David in "Seinfeld".
He gets more pathetic with every public action--he's on his way to earning the
Stanley Kramer Award for Lifetime Achievement.
John Gonzales
Rivenstar wrote:
> Matt Martinez wrote:
>
> But as a human being, I can understand what it's like to love someone like
> Begnini loves Dora, to be loved so unconditionally and wholly by parent like
> they love their son, and to lose someone you love--oh no, that's horrible. So
> that is why I admire, respect, and love Life is Beautiful so much--because it
> gave people like me what no other Holocaust movie has to such an extent--the
> chance to cry for all these people in the Holocaust who led and possessed such
> full interesting ordinary yet extraordinary lives.
That's what I kept thinking about during the second half of LIB. While it may not
have been about anyone in particular, the relationship between Dora and Guido
*could* have occured during the holocaust. That belief managed to supercede the
idea of a child hiding for days (months?) from Nazis.
John
Julian Pye
['ride' snipped without comment]
>Anyone that says that Spielberg is pure escapism is just plain stupid. He is
>the filmmaker of our generation, and while he has made many movies (not
>films-note the difference), his FILMS are solid, true and very moving. Who can
>doubt the realism in the opening sequence from SPR?
I dislike the concept of 'reality' being represented via film. No
staging of an event can ever present it 'as it was'.
Nevertheless, yes, let's say it is 'realistic'. What does this mean
then? That modern film technology with elements such as multichannel
digital surround sound, lots of new improvements on camera technology
(such as the triggered 'shaking' effect) create an incredible
atmosphere that feels real. These elements are used to create a
sensation of 'being there'. The first battle scene is a thrilling
experience. And it would be even more so in 3-D. And I would pay to
watch it.
However, what is the benefit of such a sensation? SPR's battle scenes
are great achievements in creating a very tense atmosphere. But will
the film help us to understand more about the complexity of war, about
why people fight and what goes on inside a soldier? No, but that is
not what SPR was meant to be. The film is mostly an adventure, but
somehow via its final scene and the enclosing cemetary scenes seems
like it was tried to be pushed afterwards to be a more serious look at
WW2 and a tribute to the soldiers. And this tribute may feel adequate
as the realist scenes make us feel what hell it might have been to be
in such battles. But SPR ultimately always accepts the war, accepts
leadership 'for a good cause' and Spielberg also adds to this theme in
interviews by thanking the veterans for 'stopping the Holocaust',
which I think makes the issue endlessly complex as this was never the
reason why the Allies fought. Only afterwards it became a good cause
for justifying the sufferings and victims amongst Allied soldiers and
affected population. Ultimately I believe that SPR may have very
atmospheric scenes, but it is not a very honest movie. I would argue
that the ultimate truth about war is probably too depressing for
modern Hollywood studio cinema (though Cimino presented it so
perfectly in his 'Deer Hunter').
>Even technically speaking,
>the handheld grainy film usage speaks to the cinema verite.
And the comparison stops here. The usage of the material for cinema
verite was mainly used to fight costs and to enable enough exposure at
bad lighting conditions. Something SPR surely did not have to deal
with. Additionally a film like Zelig also uses these techniques to
make it seem more real, when in fact it is a pseudo-documentary. So
this argument is actually not in SPR's favor.
>Sure, Spielberg is
>a storyteller, but I for one dont think that's a bad thing. Many of you might
>disagree.
One thing that suprised me about Schindler's list was that Spielberg
was able to make a film about the Holocaust with a relatively 'happy
ending'. Likewise SPR has a final meaning about the mission. The
problem with documenting real events using his storytelling methods
becomes that these films have some sort of final closure and logic in
the actions of the main characters. This is why a film like 'The thin
red line' might not 'look' more realistic to me, but does 'feel' more
so, as it lacks the parameters that push everything into a story with
3 chapters. To just say something about Spielberg's style: Could you
imagine Spielberg to do a filmic version of the life of Anne Frank,
ending with her death, then the credits? Or would he somehow, either
via a coverstory or something equivalent add some 'meaning', when
everyone can agree that even though millions have read her diary, it
is one of the most meaningless deaths ever documented? Spielberg is a
Hollywood filmmaker, while I give him a huge benefit in that he is
able to encourage people to get interested in the topics he choses, I
don't believe that he is able to ever create a film that does not
'please' its viewers. Neither can most of the studio pictures, I
guess. And probably the deep truth of the most serious issues is too
depressing to be ever depictured on the 'big screen'. And this is
where I think documentaries and independent art house films often have
a better chance at being 'real', not as to the atmosphere, but as to
life.
Julian
CyberJohns
Indeed, it's a serious subject, and his film on the matter certainly qualifies
as a serious exploration. However, there was one unintentional bit of humor in
the film (I say "unintentional" because neither the movie nor its topic are
supposed to be funny): In one scene, some guards were trying to shoot this guy
and they fail: their guns stick or something. This goes on for a few minutes
until a new guard with an Uzi ends the comic relief (though I'll wager the poor
guy did not think this was a joke -- I'll bet he was praying to God the guns
would stick forever or something like that) with fatality.
>Then he marries this woman that he has fallen in love with, continuing his
>beautiful life. Then the Holocaust hits home with him and his family is
>swept away to this concentration camp. Benigni's character is
obviously
>fully aware of what is happening, but he never lets on to his son what is
>really happening. He tries to protect the image of the "beautiful life" for
>his son, so that this horrible event won't prevent him from having his own
>beautiful life (he does this through keeping his son alive by making the
>holocaust out as a big game).
This sounds like the "We got to protect our children from the entertainment
media" cliche to me...
Louis
> I understand he wasn't crazy about the movie making light of the Holocaust.
> Indeed, it's a serious subject, and his film on the matter certainly qualifies
> as a serious exploration. However, there was one unintentional bit of humor in
> the film (I say "unintentional" because neither the movie nor its topic are
> supposed to be funny): In one scene, some guards were trying to shoot this guy
> and they fail: their guns stick or something. This goes on for a few minutes
> until a new guard with an Uzi ends the comic relief (though I'll wager the poor
> guy did not think this was a joke -- I'll bet he was praying to God the guns
> would stick forever or something like that) with fatality.
>>>>
An Uzi? Sorry, but Uzi is an Isreali manufacture weapon at least 15-20 years
in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang
Titanic, Spielberg took a lot of liberties with Oscar Schindler, the man.
I also find it funny that when Schindler's List came out Spielberg made a huge
deal about the child in red, the innocent, seemingly unaffected by the horror
around her. He made a huge deal about it in the press, in the movie blah blah blah.
So what is LIB but a father trying to give his son that same innocence? What is
wrong with that? We have all been in horrible situations at certain times, not the
holocaust but bad times for ourselves, didn't you make light of it from time to
time to each other and those around you?
LIB is the 3rd movie the Pope has every seen (He's a survivor and did not see
SL). LIB has received all the same awards from the Jewish community that SL has.
Survivors love both equally. Survivors I've talked to personally always talked
about ways they made it through, comedy was a big part, telling jokes ect.
Personally I think leaving comedy out of holocaust movies for the past 50 years
has been a disservice to the survivors. The picture painted is one of being treated
like human cattle (which is true) and the Jews reacting like human cattle, all
emotion gone. People do not survive without emotion, they laughed, they cried, they
loved, they were real people surviving day to day.
Wolfgang
CyberJohns wrote:
> I understand he wasn't crazy about the movie making light of the Holocaust.
> Indeed, it's a serious subject, and his film on the matter certainly qualifies
> as a serious exploration. However, there was one unintentional bit of humor in
> the film (I say "unintentional" because neither the movie nor its topic are
> supposed to be funny): In one scene, some guards were trying to shoot this guy
> and they fail: their guns stick or something. This goes on for a few minutes
> until a new guard with an Uzi ends the comic relief (though I'll wager the poor
> guy did not think this was a joke -- I'll bet he was praying to God the guns
> would stick forever or something like that) with fatality.
>
K.J. Locci
> On another note, doesn't it seem strange that the soldiers in the Star
> Wars films are called Storm Troopers? Why would Lucas do that?
Actually, I thought it was a perfectly easy signifier of EVIL to use.
Lucas' use of the name "Storm Troopers", a translation of the Nazi's
vaunted and sadistic SS, was a natural evocation.
Another thing to mention about the Storm Troopers in SW was the fact that
they had White Uniforms (Body Armor...): an obvious reference to the racial
ideology (of "Aryan" superiority) of the SS.
Kevin
Peace Electric
> [...] I personally have no problem with Spielberg's use of the Nazis
> in the Indiana Jones movies, but it just seems inconsistent of him to
> think "Life is Beautiful" trivializes the Holocaust, too [...]
Well, last time I heard Spielberg *had* disowned his use of Nazis in
the two Indiana Jones movies. Also, this sudden insistence of his on
not (consciously) trivializing Nazis and WWII is apparently what's
blocking the sequel to 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit'. And it doesn't bode
too well for that fourth Indy film I desperately want him to make.
Hopefully he eventually lightens up and realizes that turning the Nazis
into cartoon villains isn't going to make us forget the real horrors of
the Holocaust.
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Man, I couldn't believe we were making it. I would have paid them to
let me do it. ... Until now I'd always thought that 'How to Get Ahead
in Advertising' was the darkest movie ever made. And this movie may
just be that dark, that fucking sick."
-John Cusack on 'Being John Malkovich'
Louis
>>>>
Come on...at least do a little research. The "SS" ("Schutz staffel") literally
means, "protective echelon", not "storm troopers;" see the "SA".
The Waffen SS on the other hand were in fact "storm troopers".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K.J. Locci
> > "K.J. Locci" <kjl...@uci.edu> writes:
> > Trent wrote:
>
> > > On another note, doesn't it seem strange that the soldiers in the Star
> > > Wars films are called Storm Troopers? Why would Lucas do that?
>
> > Actually, I thought it was a perfectly easy signifier of EVIL to use.
> > Lucas' use of the name "Storm Troopers", a translation of the Nazi's
> > vaunted and sadistic SS, was a natural evocation.
>
> > Another thing to mention about the Storm Troopers in SW was the fact that
> > they had White Uniforms (Body Armor...): an obvious reference to the racial
> > ideology (of "Aryan" superiority) of the SS.
>
> >>>>
>
> Come on...at least do a little research. The "SS" ("Schutz staffel") literally
> means, "protective echelon", not "storm troopers;" see the "SA".
>
> The Waffen SS on the other hand were in fact "storm troopers".
Research? You're kidding, right? So, I forgot to add the Waffen in
front of SS, a fact I remembered after I posted it, incidentally. But
instead of appending a new post for a relatively small detail, I was
assuming that the people who knew, would understand the omission.
Besides, the point gets across in any case.
Do you ever post any substantive comments, or do you just gripe?
Sheesh,
Kevin
Fleas-o-Grimace
>> Who can doubt the realism in the opening sequence from SPR?
>
>I can. For the very simple reason that it is a movie, not "reality".
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No1U2fan didn't say "REALITY" , he said "REALISM". I know you were
just looking for anything to complain about but there is a difference.
-Fleas-o-Grimace
Louis
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:13:36 GMT, Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
> >> Who can doubt the realism in the opening sequence from SPR?
> >I can. For the very simple reason that it is a movie, not "reality".
> No1U2fan didn't say "REALITY" , he said "REALISM". I know you were
> just looking for anything to complain about but there is a difference.
>>>>
Randon House Dictionary:
"Realism: interest in or concern for the actual or real."
"Reality: the state or quality of being real."
Either way---> a movie offers the illusion of realism/reality at 24 frames per
second, not the actual event/situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Wilner
>> crimy@chimini (Fleas-o-Grimace) writes:
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:13:36 GMT, Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
>
>> >> Who can doubt the realism in the opening sequence from SPR?
>
>> >I can. For the very simple reason that it is a movie, not "reality".
>
>> No1U2fan didn't say "REALITY" , he said "REALISM". I know you were
>> just looking for anything to complain about but there is a difference.
>
>Randon House Dictionary:
>
>"Realism: interest in or concern for the actual or real."
>
>"Reality: the state or quality of being real."
>
>Either way---> a movie offers the illusion of realism/reality at 24 frames per
>second, not the actual event/situation.
No, realism itself is the illusion. If a given film attempts to create an
authentic reproduction of an actual event, by your supplied definition that's
"realism" -- an interest in, or concern for, the actual or real. Tbe opening
sequence of "Saving Private Ryan" attempts to re-create, with careful attention
to detail, the landing at Omaha Beach. No one claims that it's the real thing --
Tom Hanks wasn't at the actual event, for starters -- but realism was the
filmmakers' foremost concern.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
buttn...@aol.com
Trent
Nothing. People are just assuming he didn't like it based on his
actions and the fact that he never said he *did* like it. I'm sure if
Spielberg liked it, he would have said so. I don't believe that BS
about him snubbing the film because it is competing with SPR. I don't
think Spielberg is that shallow.
Wally
In article <36F146...@sk.sympatico.ca>, Peace Electric
<pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Trent wrote:
>
>> [...] I personally have no problem with Spielberg's use of the Nazis
>> in the Indiana Jones movies, but it just seems inconsistent of him to
>> think "Life is Beautiful" trivializes the Holocaust, too [...]
>
> Well, last time I heard Spielberg *had* disowned his use of Nazis in
> the two Indiana Jones movies. Also, this sudden insistence of his on
> not (consciously) trivializing Nazis and WWII is apparently what's
> blocking the sequel to 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit'. And it doesn't bode
> too well for that fourth Indy film I desperately want him to make.
>
Does this mean he won't be doing "Hogan's Heroes"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
modern society without organized religion
would be like a crazed maniac without a chainsaw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Adams
debate. If only Life Is Beautiful had come out a year earlier! Back then,
practically everyone was convinced that there is *no* justifiable grounds
for introducing humor into a Holocaust story.
Nah, then again, maybe I'd better not go there...
Louis
>>>>
You've seen Goonies, right?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleas-o-Grimace
>> crimy@chimini (Fleas-o-Grimace) writes:
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:13:36 GMT, Louis Ham...@xteleport.com wrote:
>
>> >> Who can doubt the realism in the opening sequence from SPR?
>
>> >I can. For the very simple reason that it is a movie, not "reality".
>
>> No1U2fan didn't say "REALITY" , he said "REALISM". I know you were
>> just looking for anything to complain about but there is a difference.
>
>>>>>
>
>Randon House Dictionary:
>
>"Realism: interest in or concern for the actual or real."
>
>"Reality: the state or quality of being real."
>
>Either way---> a movie offers the illusion of realism/reality at 24 frames per
>second, not the actual event/situation.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, so SPR would have been more real for you had you been
sundered by bullets during the screening? Probably for me as well.
Naturally, I'd find a safer theater next time. Or perhaps Spielberg
could murder our brothers or boat everyone one of us to Omaha beach
and dash our torn bodies upon ground with artillery fire.
I suppose all movies just serve to ridicule the lives of real
people.
-Fleas-o-Grimace
Andrys D Basten
Rivenstar <rive...@aol.com> wrote:
>Matt Martinez wrote:
>
><Strange thing is, one of the first things that ran through my head
>(after,"God, this is one of the greatest films ever made!") was that LIFE IS
>BEAUTIFUL made me feel the Holocaust more tan SCHINDLER'S LIST did. It could
>be just the fact that it chose to focus on one set of characters, rather than a
>huge portion, but LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL had me in tears in a way SCHINDLER'S LIST
>never did.>
>
>you know, i felt the exact same way--I never cried in Schindler's List and I
>don't think I could ever see it again, but Life is Beautiful moved me to tears
>and I've seen it three times--and I felt guilty about it. I mean, I fully
>level. Because my small mind cannot even begin to comprehend the horrors of
>mass murders of family and religious kin, concentration camp, base
>hopelessness--it's mind-numbing, it _numbs_ my mind so I can't feel anything,
I'm one who didn't enjoy the first half of Life is Beautiful
because the comedy seemed so lame to me and the man so annoying
(loud happiness that is a cover for fear of sadness, it struck a
couple of us).
But in the 2nd half, I was struck by 'experiencing' a camp
from the perspective of someone we had come to 'know' and who
was suddenly taken away, with his child, from his home. I
remember that in Schindler's List I admired how Spielberg
brought home how 'routine' this horrible activity was and how it
was done so easily, without people objecting. The rubber-
stamping of the hands of those whose lives were taken away
showed not only the inhuman coldness of this process but also
how 'neutral' the feeling involved in doing this - it was all in
a day's work for the soldiers.. No feeling for the people. So,
I was struck by both these movies.
But, since I had not realized the people in Schindler's List
were based on real people, their appearance at the end just did
me in. I don't think I've ever been so badly affected as I was
at the end of that movie. I had laryngitis later.
Even then, LIB made me more aware of what it was like from the
perspective of someone living it. SL tended to be from the
perspective of the Germans a lot of the time, even if the main
character was crazy (the country was crazy). I felt as if I
were watching a play from a distance.
Here, we weren't looking AT the people in the camps but living
among them. The goofy main premise demanded we suspend
disbelief (often) to look at the darker truths close up. The
loss of freedom seemed more felt for me than 'watched' ... SL
seemed more a 'study' while this made me feel as if we'd been
thrown in, the door shut behind us.
The strong moments in LIB were worth, for me, the weaknesses
in the movie. I didn't cry during this movie, by the way, but I
certainly felt the horror of that event in a deeper and more
personal way than I have with other movies.
--
===========================================================
Andrys Basten, 510/235-3861, CNE (Novell)
http://www.andrys.com/books.html - Classical-Music Searches on one page
Search CDs, VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, Gramophone/Fanfare Reviews
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html -Peru photos w/Canon Elph
Have music, will travel: piano, harpsichord, recorders
Dragan Antulov
K.J. Locci wrote in message <36F14593...@uci.edu>...
>> On another note, doesn't it seem strange that the soldiers in the Star
>> Wars films are called Storm Troopers? Why would Lucas do that?
>Actually, I thought it was a perfectly easy signifier of EVIL to use.
>Lucas' use of the name "Storm Troopers", a translation of the Nazi's
>vaunted and sadistic SS, was a natural evocation.
>Another thing to mention about the Storm Troopers in SW was the fact that
>they had White Uniforms (Body Armor...): an obvious reference to the racial
>ideology (of "Aryan" superiority) of the SS.
Imperial officers also have uniforms very much like Imperial German military
in WW1.
Dragan Antulov a.k.a. Drax
Fido: 2:381/100
E-mail: dragan....@st.tel.hr
E-mail: dragan....@altbbs.fido.hr
E-mail: dr...@purger.com
K.J. Locci
> K.J. Locci wrote in message <36F14593...@uci.edu>...
> >> On another note, doesn't it seem strange that the soldiers in the Star
>
> >> Wars films are called Storm Troopers? Why would Lucas do that?
> >Actually, I thought it was a perfectly easy signifier of EVIL to use.
> >Lucas' use of the name "Storm Troopers", a translation of the Nazi's
> >vaunted and sadistic SS, was a natural evocation.
> >Another thing to mention about the Storm Troopers in SW was the fact that
> >they had White Uniforms (Body Armor...): an obvious reference to the racial
> >ideology (of "Aryan" superiority) of the SS.
>
> Imperial officers also have uniforms very much like Imperial German military
> in WW1.
Interesting. I'm going to have to plead ignorance on that one. Basically, I
was just keying off the "storm trooper" elements of the film.
Thanks, I'll take a look.
Kevin
J. Speck
*Sigh* Another year with Whoopi, the nontalent... How sad is this... My
appologizes to those who like her brand of comedy but come on... We aren't
talking about Late Night \ Comedy Central, this show is HUGE.. Ratings go
through the roof and the Ads that are placed have potiental viewership like
that of the Super Bowl... Billy isn't bad and Letterman could do if he was
givin' another chance (He admited that he was very nervous and had trouble
constructing material..) Whoopi like many "actors" are egomaniacs but the
trouble with her is she shows it on screen and that is a BAD combo...
J. Speck
Regina Alexandra Robbins
Could you give an example of what Whoopi does that is so egomaniacal? I
honestly don't know what you mean. It also does seem an odd complaint,
since the Oscar show itself is pretty much the film industry giving itself
a blowjob.
Also, are you not aware that Whoopi Goldberg is considered a very
important person in comedy? She had a one-woman show on Broadway in the
80's. I personally prefer her Oscar-hosting to Billy's; at the very
least, I don't think she's in a different comedy universe. And she,
unlike Crystal, is an Oscar winner...a nice touch.
RAR.
Neil Sarver
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, J. Speck wrote:
> > *Sigh* Another year with Whoopi, the nontalent... How sad is this... My
> > appologizes to those who like her brand of comedy but come on... We aren't
> > talking about Late Night \ Comedy Central, this show is HUGE.. Ratings go
> > through the roof and the Ads that are placed have potiental viewership like
> > that of the Super Bowl... Billy isn't bad and Letterman could do if he was
> > givin' another chance (He admited that he was very nervous and had trouble
> > constructing material..) Whoopi like many "actors" are egomaniacs but the
> > trouble with her is she shows it on screen and that is a BAD combo...
> Could you give an example of what Whoopi does that is so egomaniacal? I
> honestly don't know what you mean. It also does seem an odd complaint,
> since the Oscar show itself is pretty much the film industry giving itself
> a blowjob.
No doubt.
> Also, are you not aware that Whoopi Goldberg is considered a very
> important person in comedy? She had a one-woman show on Broadway in the
> 80's. I personally prefer her Oscar-hosting to Billy's; at the very
> least, I don't think she's in a different comedy universe. And she,
> unlike Crystal, is an Oscar winner...a nice touch.
I agree. I've enjoyed Whoopi's previous Oscar shows quite a bit. I
think she has the right combination of having a sense of the traditional
style of awards show comedy but with a bit of an edge.
Personally, I thought Letterman's appearance was indeed underrated and
Billy Crystal does a fine enough job of doing the usual white bread host
thing. I think Whoopi is really entertaining as a host and I hardly
think if she lost that many viewers or affected the ability of
advertisers to promote their products, she would be back for the third
time.
--
Neil
--
The Bleeding Tree
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/
--
"Then I shall unleash a firestorm of humility the likes of which this
Universe has never seen!"
-- Space Ghost
Franknseus
I've never understood why people reacted with so much hatred toward the
Letterman appearance. I'm not that old but I've watched the Oscars since I was
a kid and I can't ever remember another host being very funny. I watched it
with several friends and we were all laughing throughout - something I've never
witnessed watching the Oscars (or Emmies or Grammies or what have you). Usually
the biggest laughs you get are unintentional, like a few years ago when they
did montages as a "tribute to comedy," where they used Wayne's World and the
Three Stooges as examples of the straight man/funny man technique and scored
everything with Danny Elfman's music from Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Back to
School (a cheapass ploy since the two scores were released on the same CD).
Letterman's show was hilarious, I guess in part because he sort of
deconstructed the Oscars in the same way his show originally did to talk shows.
Sure, he seemed a little thrown off not having Paul Shaffer there and some of
the jokes in the monologue fell flat (as all talk show monologues do) but there
were plenty of big laughs throughout the night. I remember people in this
newsgroup were actually offended by Letterman saying to Tom Hanks, "It wouldn't
have killed you to wear a tie, would it?" as if Hanks has no sense of humor and
left the stage with tears in his eyes.
All I can figure is that people outside of Hollywood really do try to take
the Oscars as seriously as some of the people inside Hollywood and were
offended by Letterman doing nearly-subversive things like forcing millions of
people to think about Cabin Boy for several minutes. (I will never forget Barry
White's audition.)
Oh well, I guess it wouldn't be so funny if it was widely accepted. But it
still bothers me that comedy as stale as that from the Comic Relief camp is
considered better than Letterman's.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
--
http://www.bucketheadland.com/visitorcenter/
"I just thought I might, uh... mosey over to the war room for a few minutes,
see what's doin' over there."
Agustin
J. Speck wrote:
>
> *Sigh* Another year with Whoopi, the nontalent... How sad is this... My
> appologizes to those who like her brand of comedy but come on... We aren't
> talking about Late Night \ Comedy Central, this show is HUGE.. Ratings go
> through the roof and the Ads that are placed have potiental viewership like
> that of the Super Bowl... Billy isn't bad and Letterman could do if he was
> givin' another chance (He admited that he was very nervous and had trouble
> constructing material..) Whoopi like many "actors" are egomaniacs but the
> trouble with her is she shows it on screen and that is a BAD combo...
>
> J. Speck
Connie Boner
I agree, I would rather see anyone host the Oscars than Whoopi Goldberg.
She just isn't funny.
--
Best wishes,
Tommy Boner
J. Speck <a_su...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<36f46...@news.netwalk.com>...
FRAJM
[deletions]
> I've never understood why people reacted with so much hatred toward the
>Letterman appearance. I'm not that old but I've watched the Oscars since I
>was
>a kid and I can't ever remember another host being very funny.
>Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
>--
When I was a kid in the 50s, which is probably when the Academy Awards show
started to become the Big Deal it is today, the perennial host of the Oscars
was Bob Hope.
Now I had two great show-biz heroes in those days, men who Could Do No Wrong:
one was Walt Disney and the other was Bob Hope. I loved the jokes he made at
his own expense about not ever getting an Oscar himself. He was, or seemed to a
hick kid, wry, sophisticated, in-the-know, and very, very funny.
Please, no one, don't try to disabuse me of my fond childhood memories. They're
still precious to me.
So it always seems to me that all the talk about Whoopi and Billy and Dave and
so forth is really at its core about still trying to replace Bob Hope, the
classic Oscar host.
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
http://members.aol.com/frajm/
"All over the room throats were being strained and minds broadened."
-- P. G. Wodehouse, Piccadilly Jim
eins...@wt.net
**Well, that's the catch. Spielberg's great gift is his ingenious ability
**to entertain. Even when he fancies himself as a Serious Artist, he
**finds himself at odds with his compulsion to please. Maybe he takes the
**overeffusive praise of certain critics (such as the uncharacteristically
**giddy Owen Gleiberman) to his head. Whether he (and his overeager
**supporters) wants to acknowledge it or not, he transformed WWII, twenty
**minutes aside, into a wow'em, sock'em action movie. And here he has the
**temerity to be get angered at Benigni? Spielberg's the modern Capra,
**the new patron saint of the feel-good. Maybe he's just afraid to take
**responsibility for what he has wrought. He doesn't want to face the
**possibility that LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL is the logical apotheosis of the
**Spielbergian aesthetic -- it's the ultimate "uplifting" tale.
**
**
**MM
What? A wow'em sock'em action movie? You must have been watching 1941. I don't
remember watching SPR and coming away thinking it was an action film. That's
pretty superficial. Speilberg is simply the greatest director of the past 25
years and this seems to piss off alot of people. He is both talented, popular,
and very rich. For some reason, this engenders a great deal of hostility against
him.
What was feel good about Ryan? What? Please let us know? I dont' think Life is
Beautiful is half the film that SPR is.
Fox
J.D. Baldwin
> Could you give an example of what Whoopi does that is so egomaniacal?
> I honestly don't know what you mean.
Possibly you missed the part where she told a lame joke and then
giggled uncontrollably at it, then congratulated herself on her wit
and style, then revisited the same incredibly lame joke later, with
further congratulations?
Or if you missed that, maybe you caught one of the other 30 or 40
instances where she did the exact same thing?
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J.D. Baldwin
<frank...@aol.com> wrote:
> I've never understood why people reacted with so much hatred toward
> the Letterman appearance.
Maybe I can explain it to you:
Letterman made jokes at the expense of some of the pompous, overblown
celebrities in the industry. Not cute little "loving" softball quips,
but real, genuine, witty cracks with some real sting to them. They
HATE that. Letterman will never, ever be forgiven by Hollywood for
his performance at the Academy Awards.
William Dold
At best Letterman always was and always will be a complete immature
moron !
Matt Martinez
Of course Disney's recent films have caused me to wonder when we would be
getting their animated musical version of the Holocaust.
I wouldn't mind an animated (non-musical) version of Art Spiegelman's "Maus,"
though.
--
"I guess it all comes down to a simple choice: get busy livin' or get busy
dyin'."
--The Shawshank Redemption
Matt Martinez <mma...@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Home Skully
Late Night show. my theory is that because of the movie
superiority-vomplex over tv, people didnt appreciate some guy coming on
with spinning dogs. his jokes werent funny to most people, not just the
hollywood celebrities. the audience can take a beating and still laugh--
they laughed hardest at the joke about the omission of hoop dreams in the
top ten list (which was the ONLY thing funny about the Top Ten list). he
was awful, thoug I think he was far better than whoopi was this year!
J.D. Baldwin
No, but everyone tells some lame ones. Letterman's recovery was
pretty funny, I thought.
My favorite moment in all of Oscar history was when Letterman
introduced Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. "Pay attention, kids,
you can bet they're pissed off about *something*!" Robbins obviously
thought it was pretty funny. Sarandon was fuming. Made my week.
Nate Pfeffer
>
>No, but everyone tells some lame ones. Letterman's recovery was
>pretty funny, I thought.
>
>My favorite moment in all of Oscar history was when Letterman
>introduced Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. "Pay attention, kids,
>you can bet they're pissed off about *something*!" Robbins obviously
>thought it was pretty funny. Sarandon was fuming. Made my week.
>--
The "Wanna buy a monkey?" sketch was an all time classic!
Nate