Shakespeare in Schindler's List
Iorav Marz
did anybody notice the line of Shakespeare (right out of Merchant of
Venice) that occurs when Aamon (I'm not sure how to spell it- he is the
the real evil Nazi [the one that shoots the Jews from his Villa for no
reason]), is talking to Helen Hirsch in his basement, and he eventually
beats her in the same scene. Anyway, did anyone notice that he
practically repeats Shylock's soliloquy when he says:
...Is this the face of a rat?
"...Hath not a Jew eyes?"
William and Sumi Ryan
Iorav:
Yes, I heard the character say it. The character's name is Amon Goeth,
and he's very well played in the movie by Ralph Fiennes. Some years ago I
began working on a book on the Holocaust. I abandoned the project for
several reasons, not the least of which were the unspeakably horrible
things about which I read. I simply couldn't go on with it. "Schindler's
List" -- as powerful as it is -- doesn't even scratch the surface of the
horrors of that era.
I'll tell you, I did have a problem with the way Goeth was portrayed in
the film, as if he were some sort of depressed, neurotic fellow, pressed
to the breaking point by the demands of his job. Sure, he shoots people
at random from his balcony in the morning, sure, he's insanely erratic,
and committed to cruelty, and he takes real pleasure in murder, but you
get the impression that with compassion, understanding and therapy, he'd
be just fine. Bah! The Nazis were thugs, sadists and murderers, utterly
irredeemable. I doubt if many of the death camp commandants could quote
Shakespeare. Most of them were low, brutal thugs; some had extensive
criminal records. Fascism always elevates the criminally insane to power.
As a footnote: Last year I saw an interview with Amon Goeth's girlfriend
(she's still alive) in a Cable TV special about the real Schindler. "He
didn't hate Jews," she said, "He didn't hate anyone." She kept insisting
that he simply had a job to do. May we all be spared from the fury of men
who "simply have a job to do."
Will
Iorav Marz <Io...@voicenet.com> wrote in article
<331243...@voicenet.com>...
Thomas Larque
I share Will's revulsion at the Nazi regime, and its brutal mass murders
- and I certainly hope that if somebody gave me a similar "job to do" I
would refuse or try to find some way of getting out of it (if it was -
kill these Jews or we kill you - which for the high-ranking Nazi officers
it almost certainly wasn't).
There are problems however with denouncing the "evil" of individual
Nazis, and much greater problems with suggesting that the Nazis were "low
brutal thugs" who certainly couldn't quote Shakespeare.
The most frightening thing about the Nazi regime is that it could have
happened almost anywhere (given the right circumstances). It didn't. It
happened in Germany. America and Britain managed to avoid falling under
the psychotic spell of Nazi-like racist ideologies, and national hatreds.
The reasons for this are both social and economic. A facist
Britain or a facist America was certainly not impossible, however. Given
a few (fairly large) tweaks in History, and probably fewer than we would
like to imagine, both America and Britain had enough people with similar
views for this sort of political ideology to have developed.
Mass murder of Jews is a European heritage, and almost every European
country has carried out massacres at one stage or another in its history.
I don't know how America has treated its Jews, but the Ku Klux Klan and
similar groups behaved in very Nazi-like ways towards black Americans.
The people involved in this sort of activity were not necessarily "evil"
- although a small number were genuinely psychotic or sadistic even
before the Nazi regime gave them an excuse to behave like this with
public sanction. The terrifying thing is that the vast majority of the
rest were probably fairly normal and in many cases likeable human beings.
Many of them will have been just like us, apart from a few rather vicious
prejudices and a hole where their conscience used to be.
As for the artistic tastes of the Nazi concentration camp guards and
commanders - these were often very good. I remember hearing a program on
radio about the Jewish Jazz Groups that existed in (I think it was
Auschwitz) one of the concentration camps. The Nazi officers liked Jazz
(banned by Hitler). They saved Jewish Jazz players and singers from the
gas-chambers, gave them instruments and took pleasure in listening to
them perform. One of the Jewish concentration camp inmates that they
interviewed for this radio program (still alive today) told his story of
being literally snatched from the jaws of death. The Nazis examined the
incoming Jewish prisoners and separated them into two groups. This man,
although he didn't know it, had been placed in the line for the Gas
Chambers.
Just before his group was marched off, one of the other Jewish prisoners
- a long term inmate of the camp, playing jazz to the Jewish prisoners as
they came in - recognised him as a fellow Jazz musician (they had played
together before the war). He immediately pointed him out to a
high-ranking Nazi officer who pulled him out of the line for death, and
put him into the line for life. "Why didn't you tell us you were a Jazz
musician?", said the officer, "We were about to kill you, and that would
have been such a waste."
He played Jazz for the Nazis, and other Jewish prisoners (including those
going to the Gas Chamber, I seem to remember - the Nazis wanted them calm
and organised with no reason to fight back or panic, the Jewish musicians
decided that (a) they had no choice and (b) if these people were going to
die anyway, there was no point in them going to death terrified and
alone, when they could walk to death with music).
Horrible. Absolutely. The very thought makes me feel physically ill,
but it happened. Many of the Nazis were very cultivated, cultured,
artistically responsive individuals. How, then, could they do what they
did? I don't know, but quoting Shakespeare is no sign of a man's moral
value.
Even if a particular Nazi WAS a low, brutal thug with no culture (and
many were - especially in the early days when the Nazis were political
thugs - the Brownshirts etc. - rather than the later days when they were
the government of an entire nation), he is VERY likely to have been able
to quote from Shakespeare's THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. Why? Because THE
MERCHANT OF VENICE, given the most racist and anti-semitic possible
reading, was one of the Nazi party's favourite plays. Shylock was a
"normal Jew", they suggested, greedy, avaricious, murderous, crafty,
lending money and wanting human flesh in return.
It is impossible to say for certain whether Shakespeare originally
intended to make the play an anti-semitic propaganda tract. What we do
know is that - during the Renaissance, and in the time immediately
afterwards - the story was received as exactly this by many of those who
watched and retold it. "The Jew of Venice" - a 1701 version of
Shakespeare's THE MERCHANT OF VENICE contained a prologue which said : -
"Tonight we punish a stock-jobbing Jew
A piece of justice, terrible and strange,
Which, if pursued, would make a thin Exchange".
No sympathy for Shylock there.
A more sympathetic (although not entirely positive) reading of Shylock's
character is made possible by lines within the text - but the first
actors to start attacking the traditional view of Shylock as villain
(whether comical villain, or genuine evil monster) and start portraying
him as a human being began in the 19th Century.
The Nazis, of course, ignored such innovations and returned to the Jew as
monster. Shakespeare, however, was one of their favourite playwrights.
John Gross in SHYLOCK - FOUR HUNDRED YEARS IN THE LIFE OF A LEGEND -
makes this very clear.
"Whatever other cultural changes they inflicted, the Nazis retained the
traditional German respect for Shakespeare ... in September 1939 he was
the one author exempt from the official ban on enemy dramatists".
His plays, especially THE MERCHANT OF VENICE played repeatedly in Nazi
Germany - as Nazi propaganda. "THE MERCHANT OF VENICE enjoyed special
popularity from the outset. In 1933 there were no less than twenty
separate productions; between 1934 and 1939 there were another thirty.
The emphasis was in every case strongly anti-semitic ... and there were
commentators on hand to make sure that the audiences did not miss any of
the implications".
In 1943, the Nazi Gauleiter for Vienna - Baldur von Schirach - ordered a
performance of the play in Vienna's Burgtheater. He had made a speech
the year before the play, saying :
"every Jew active in Europe is a danger to European culture. If people
want to criticise me for deporting tens of thousands of Jews from this
city ... I can only answer that I see it as a contribution to European
culture".
The Nazis used Shakespeare's play as an example of "culture" against the
Jews. They gleefully claimed that Shakespeare was a dramatist with
obvious Nazi sympathies.
As the Nazis acted THE MERCHANT OF VENICE in Vienna, they steadily,
methodically, carried out their campaign to exterminate the Jews.
A Nazi being able to quote from Shakespeare's play is hardly surprising,
THE MERCHANT OF VENICE was being used as anti-semitic, pro-Nazi
propaganda.
THOMAS.
P.S - Anybody who wants to read more on this subject should have a look
at HISTORY TODAY (a British History magazine, internationally available)
which is going to publish an article on the Nazi use of Shakespeare's
plays - next month, I think.
I don't have the magazine to hand to check out the full details (it
appeared in this month's listing of future articles), but I am fairly
certain that the article will be covering this topic - and will appear in
the next issue. If anybody wants to know for certain, just send me an
E-Mail, and I'll double-check it and let you know.
Caroline Pruett
I thought this scene in "Schindler" did a wonderful job of showing the
power of Shakespeare to transcend whatever particular interpretation his
work is forced into. Whether Goeth was "cultured" enough to know
Shakespeare isn't really relevant (although I don't doubt he was. Lots
of Nazis had "high" cultural tastes, to the extent that many of the great
art treasures of Europe went into German officers' private collection.
And the film makes a point of demonstrating the contrast between the
Nazis' brutality and their cultivated taste, as with the storm trooper
who plays the piano, while the two others argue about whether it's Mozart
or Bach). He would have likely have been introduced to "Merchant" as
pure anti-Semitic propoganda. It's not all that different, superficially,
from the infamous propoganda film "Jud Suss" (sp?).
But the thing is that the character of Shylock subverts this simplistic
reading. Shakespeare provides Shylock with enough genuine depth that he
isn't just a cartoonish caricature.
Goeth, at some point, stumbled on the "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech,
and he can't quite overcome the feeling that the Bard is onto something.
Fiennes's delivery of the line is brilliant; it's difficult to describe,
but he recites it as if it were the obvious thing to say; this clearly
isn't the first time he's thought of it. Shylock is no more the innocent
victim of racism that some modern productions try to twist him into than
the evil subversive the Nazis saw in him. But Goeth, however
unconsciously, recognizes the ambiguity of the character. This allusion
is particularly appropriate, b/c what Spielberg does w/ Goeth is not
*that* different from what Shakespeare does with Shylock. He is
thoroughly evil and completely impossible to sympathize with, but he
manages not to be a cartoon. Goeth is all the more scary and all the
more interesting simply because he's human.
Carrie
William and Sumi Ryan
Caroline:
Both you and Thomas make excellent points. There were lots of Nazis, even
among the SS, whose educations and tastes provided them with a kind of
cultural glaze. There were also many who were just plain thugs. For
example, the SS "Colonel" (I hate to apply military rank to these death
camp officers -- it aggrandizes them and makes them appear to be leaders
and fighting men. They weren't. They were despicable murderers and utter
cowards.) who commanded Auschwitz (forgive me, but I've forgotten his
name. It may have been Rausch.) from its initial construction through 1944
had served several years in prison for murder in the 1920s and early 30s.
His victims were Jews, however. Hitler had him released from prison and
gave him a commission in the SS. Unfortunately for him, he eventually
proved too much even for the SS. He was tried for embezzlement and hanged
in 1945.
You really have to get into the details of the Nazi murder machine to
realize how sick it all was, and what a collection of thieves and
murderers they were. Heydrich, one of Himmler's chief henchmen, called
his SS senior commanders and leaders together at a conference at Wannasee
resort in the early stages of the war to work out a strategy for the
extermination of the Jews. A student of modern management, Heydrich put
his commanders in competition with one another. On the Eastern front,
Jews would be shot (or should I say continue to be shot) by special troops
known as Einsatzgruppe. Among the death camps, some would be equipped
with gas generators designed to produce as much carbon monoxide as
possible, and experiments would be done in mass killing using diesel fuel
and gas engines as the primary weapons. In another set of camps,
experiments would be made using poison gas. The "winner" would become the
model for the final solution.
As for Nazis stealing art works, I doubt if love of art had anything to do
with it. I'm sure their main motivation was greed. In fact, I'm sure the
main motivation for the murder of the Jews was greed. Certainly
anti-Semitism was there, but that was only the excuse for mass robbery.
The death camps were money-making machines, carefully calculated to
squeeze the maximum profit from the human beings they destroyed. That's
why they attended so much to the accounting for every one and everything,
and worked out the minute details of calorie use versus calorie
consumption. In one of the Schlindler's List scenes, the women are
mistakenly sent to the wrong camp and their hair is shorn. Do you know why
it was cut? It was collected and sold to felt makers. Human hair makes
the finest, warmest softest felt of all, and the Germans needed a lot of
felt to line the boots of their troops fighting in Russia, Norway and
Finland. The felt makers bought the hair from the SS, and made it into
boot liners and hats, which they then sold to the German Army. Everyone
made a profit.
Schlinder was just one of the many who saw the profit potential in the War.
Schlinder, however, had a conscience, although one that was atrophied
by years of neglect. He also had the courage to follow that conscience,
as it gradually reawakened. I think both the role, as written, and Liam
Neeson's performance, were without parallel.
As for Goeth, I understand your point. Were he a flat, raging monster,
a characature, he would be less human and less chilling. I do think he was
played a little too sympathetically, though. I can't watch the film
without thinking that the character isn't for real.
That nonsense about the SS officer playing the piano while his two rather
stupid friends can't figure whether the music is Bach or Mozart, was a
silly conceit of Speilberg's, a device to put the music into the
soundtrack. I wouldn't take it as an indication of Nazi tastes or cultural
depth.
Just a footnote: The Merchant of Venice was played in Germany until, I
believe, 1943 (forgive me if the year is wrong -- I'm doing this from
memory) when it was banned. It just wasn't anti-Semitic enough for the
Nazis. Besides, there are various ways of interpreting the play, and one
can even argue that the play isn't anti-Semitic at all, that Shakespeare
was trying to make a statement for the common humanity of all people
cleverly concealed in a play that seemed to cater to popular prejudices.
Will
Caroline Pruett <MME...@prodigy.com> wrote in article
<5f2lt1$18...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>...
Thomas Larque
William and Sumi Ryan wrote:
> believe, 1943 (forgive me if the year is wrong -- I'm doing this from
> memory) when it was banned. It just wasn't anti-Semitic enough for the
> Nazis. Besides, there are various ways of interpreting the play, and one
> can even argue that the play isn't anti-Semitic at all, that Shakespeare
> was trying to make a statement for the common humanity of all people
> cleverly concealed in a play that seemed to cater to popular prejudices.
>
> Will
I have no problems at all with any of these points, or with Will's
detailed description of Nazi attrocities. But I would point out that if
performances of THE MERCHANT OF VENICE were banned only two years before
the end of the war, this does not mean that everybody will instantly
forget the lines they knew from the play.
As for Shakespeare's own attitude towards Shylock, we can never tell -
and as I suggested in my postings on THE SHREW, THE MERCHANT OF VENICE
does give voice to both the racist opinions and the non-racist responses
- so there is quite a lot to support either interpretation as
Shakespeare's own. The play can certainly be performed very effectively
in both ways.
The point of that line from THE MERCHANT OF VENICE in SCHINDLER'S LIST -
the film - is surely that the Nazi character (I forget his name) is
similarly voicing both opinions at the same time as part of his personal
crisis in relation to (I can't remember her name - Helen?) his Jewish
maid.
The point, within the film itself, is surely that he can demonise Jews
and kill them indescriminately as long as he can keep that emotional
distance between them and himself - one of the definitions of a
psychopath, I seem to remember, is that he has no concept of other human
beings as individuals with thoughts and feelings. As long as he can look
at his victims and regard them as beneath him, as sub-human - he can
treat them as objects. When he actually lets a Jew get under his
emotional guard, by living in close proximity to her and getting to know
her as a person and NOT as a sub-human, he suddenly finds that his
anti-Jewish prejudice is not as fixed and immutable as he thinks.
"Hath not a Jew eyes?" - in this case sexually attractive and emotionally
expressive human eyes. Eyes have often been called the door to the soul,
and by looking into Helen's (? - still not sure if I have the right name)
eyes he has suddenly to face a crisis in his anti-semitic faith. Perhaps
there are some Jews, or just one Jew, that is different.
In somebody less viciously prejudiced, this first crack could lead to a
slow collapse of all those built in racist convictions. Because if THIS
Jew is human, then what about that Jew, and that Jew, and that one. The
film then comes back to Will's original assessment of the character -
this is not a man who is genuinely forced into his actions by the
pressures of his jobs, he briefly wavers on the edge of altering his
convictions (forgiving the Jewish stable boy, loving Helen) but when he
realises what is happening within himself he tries his best to crush such
conflicting emotions and return to his original prejudice and hatred
(shooting the Jewish stable boy, striking Helen). My own interpretation
of the film's attitude towards this character was that his momentary
lapse into forgiveness was in itself evidence of his hunger for absolute
power (the argument which Schindler that almost convinced him was
something along the lines that the power to kill a man is less of a real
power than the power to forgive him and spare his life, which puts you
forever in your debt). Again, this is evidence of a huge ego and a lust
for power rather than any sort of mercy or conscience - and having
experimented with this sort of power, the character immediately falls
back into his old behaviour. Lust for power, and lust for a woman are
all that even momentarily bring him towards more human actions.
In the film, at least - and I don't know anything about the real man - he
goes to his death with his facist convictions absolutely unchanged.
There is, of course, and I seem to remember it has already been mentioned
by somebody - the other link between THE MERCHANT OF VENICE and
SCHINDLER'S LIST in that the racist anti-semites in each case, are
willing to reject the Jew with contempt and hatred, but cannot stop
themselves from wanting to accept and if possible take over the life of
the beautiful Jewish daughter.
The beautiful Jewess has been a two-sided figure in English Literature
for a very long time. In Marlowe's JEW OF MALTA and Shakepeare's THE
MERCHANT OF VENICE she is good, while her father is corrupt or evil. In
one of Chaucer's CANTERBURY TALES the beautiful Jewess lures a Christian
child into her father's house and sacrifices him (tales of the Jewish
religious murder of Christian children were one of the old anti-semitic
legends). Again in SCHINDLER'S LIST both views of the girl are held by
the same individual - seconds after revealing his tender feelings for
her, he turns around and accuses her of deliberately trying to seduce
him.
THOMAS.
dmurp...@aol.com
>William and Sumi Ryan wrote:
>> I'll tell you, I did have a problem with the way Goeth was portrayed in
>> the film, as if he were some sort of depressed, neurotic fellow, pressed
>> to the breaking point by the demands of his job. Sure, he shoots people
>> at random from his balcony in the morning, sure, he's insanely erratic,
>> and committed to cruelty, and he takes real pleasure in murder, but you
>> get the impression that with compassion, understanding and therapy, he'd
>> be just fine. Bah! The Nazis were thugs, sadists and murderers, utterly
>> irredeemable. I doubt if many of the death camp commandants could quote
>> Shakespeare. Most of them were low, brutal thugs; some had extensive
>> criminal records. Fascism always elevates the criminally insane to power.
I understand what the Ryans are saying, but I'd like to respectfully submit that it is the rather child-like Schindler who describes Goeth (in a scene with Yitzhak Stern) as someone under pressure, who wouldn't be a bad man if it weren't for the war. "He can't enjoy killing...war brings out the bad in people, never the good," etc. I think Spielberg's point-of-view, on the other hand, is represented by Stern, who responds to Schindler's naive comments by telling him various horror stories that make it absolutely clear that Goeth is a sadist to the root.
.
Thomas Larque wrote:
>Even if a particular Nazi WAS a low, brutal thug with no culture (and
>many were - especially in the early days when the Nazis were political
>thugs - the Brownshirts etc. - rather than the later days when they were
>the government of an entire nation), he is VERY likely to have been able
>to quote from Shakespeare's THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. Why? Because THE
>MERCHANT OF VENICE, given the most racist and anti-semitic possible
>reading, was one of the Nazi party's favourite plays. Shylock was a
>"normal Jew", they suggested, greedy, avaricious, murderous, crafty,
>lending money and wanting human flesh in return.
>
>It is impossible to say for certain whether Shakespeare originally
>intended to make the play an anti-semitic propaganda tract. What we do
>know is that - during the Renaissance, and in the time immediately
>afterwards - the story was received as exactly this by many of those who
>watched and retold it. "The Jew of Venice" - a 1701 version of
>Shakespeare's THE MERCHANT OF VENICE contained a prologue which said : -
> (snipped)
>"Whatever other cultural changes they inflicted, the Nazis retained the
>traditional German respect for Shakespeare ... in September 1939 he was
>the one author exempt from the official ban on enemy dramatists".
>
>His plays, especially THE MERCHANT OF VENICE played repeatedly in Nazi
>Germany - as Nazi propaganda. "THE MERCHANT OF VENICE enjoyed special
>popularity from the outset. In 1933 there were no less than twenty
>separate productions; between 1934 and 1939 there were another thirty.
>The emphasis was in every case strongly anti-semitic ... and there were
>commentators on hand to make sure that the audiences did not miss any of
>the implications".
>
(more snipped, for the sake of brevity), then Thomas addes in another post:
>There is, of course, and I seem to remember it has already been mentioned
>by somebody - the other link between THE MERCHANT OF VENICE and
>SCHINDLER'S LIST in that the racist anti-semites in each case, are
>willing to reject the Jew with contempt and hatred, but cannot stop
>themselves from wanting to accept and if possible take over the life of
>the beautiful Jewish daughter.
>The beautiful Jewess has been a two-sided figure in English Literature
>for a very long time. In Marlowe's JEW OF MALTA and Shakepeare's THE
>MERCHANT OF VENICE she is good, while her father is corrupt or evil. In
>one of Chaucer's CANTERBURY TALES the beautiful Jewess lures a Christian
>child into her father's house and sacrifices him (tales of the Jewish
>religious murder of Christian children were one of the old anti-semitic
>legends). Again in SCHINDLER'S LIST both views of the girl are held by
>the same individual - seconds after revealing his tender feelings for
>her, he turns around and accuses her of deliberately trying to seduce
>him.
In response to Thomas' excellent and informative post, I'd like to comment that it's very difficult for those of us who adore WS (or Joseph Conrad...et al) to admit that our beloved muses were limited by the prejudices rampant in their time. Sad, but true. Still, I'd like to suggest that when it comes to a genius of WS's caliber, one finds some odd things happening to those common prejudices. For instance, I doubt one could do a production of Marlowe's JEW OF MALTA in which the playwright's anti-semitism was debatable, unlike MERCHANT. When a mind is as wide-ranging as WS's, one finds all common assumptions up for grabs, and the "villain" Shylock approaching Lear's status as one "more sinned against than sinning." (For example, Shylock's wonderful line about having learned his villainy from Christians.)
Fascinating story about the MERCHANT production in Vienna...Thomas, do you have any idea how the Nazis handled Jessica in their productions? Jessica, portrayed by WS as a minor heroine, is fully Jewish, though she leaves her father and converts to Christianity when she marries Lorenzo; the Nazis, OTOH, for whom the prejudice seemed to have more to do with race, God knows, than with religion, didn't hesitate to send even baptized Christians to the camps if one grandparent could be proved to be Jewish. (No Jessicas allowed in Nazi Germany!)
BCNUall,
Debra Murphy
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
("...so we'll live, and pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh at gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues talk of court news, and we'll talk with them too--who loses and who wins, who's in, who's out, and take upon's the mystery of things as if we were God's spies; and we'll wear out in a walled prison packs and sects of great ones that ebb and flow by th' moon." --King Lear, Act V)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Debra Murphy <DMurp...@aol.com>
William and Sumi Ryan
dmurp...@aol.com wrote in article
<19970305034...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> In article <331494...@dial.pipex.com>, Thomas Larque
<thomas...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
> >William and Sumi Ryan wrote:
>
> I understand what the Ryans are saying, but I'd like to respectfully
submit that it is the rather child-like Schindler who describes Goeth (in a
scene with Yitzhak Stern) as someone under pressure, who wouldn't be a bad
man if it weren't for the war. "He can't enjoy killing...war brings out
the bad in people, never the good," etc. I think Spielberg's
point-of-view, on the other hand, is represented by Stern, who responds to
Schindler's naive comments by telling him various horror stories that make
it absolutely clear that Goeth is a sadist to the root.
> .
>
> BCNUall,
> Debra Murphy
>
Debra,
The problem is that Spielberg (or should I say his screenwriters) keeps
altering his point of view. I have trouble believing in a Goeth as they
portrayed him -- the character is constructed as a man under stress who
easily erupts in murderous fits, but, you just know that if he had
access to a little help . . . It's just too California. The impression is
reinforced by Schindler's comments, but it's there all through the film.
Stern's revelation of the horrors they had to endure under Goeth does
little to offset that impression. A few scenes later, there's good old
Goeth risking his neck to get Schindler out of jail, and, again, there he
is philosophizing while Schlinder is hosing down the freight cars on a hot
day in Krakow. He even has his men help Schlinder, while commenting,
"You are cruel; you give these people hope." Despite all we've been
shown, we're left feeling almost ambivalent about Goeth. You know he's a
monster, but you think he just might make a good drinking pal.
Spielberg has Goeth murder people you don't know, and Goeth never really
manhandles anybody; he just shoots them. As a result, the murders mean
little to you emotionally, you get inured to the violence, and while you
may feel intellectual revulsion, your emotions are dimmed. Then, after
having Stern relate his story -- a story that almost changes the balance --
Spielberg blunts the effect and further confuses your emotions by having
Goeth get Schindler out of jail. To me, Spielberg's film is too
consciously clever, too slick, too over-directed. I would have liked a
movie that was grittier, less replete with Speilberg's abortive attempts
at artistry (the little girl in the colored coat was a bit much), and with
fewer directorial conceits (I could have done without the Nazi playing
Mozart while his friends murdered innocent people.). A lot of it was good,
the acting was marvelous, and the intent was fine. But, in the end,
the movie was like your new Chevy -- it looks good, works ok, but you
know it could have been made better.
Just my opinion,
Will
dmurp...@aol.com
All very good points, but I suppose these things eventually get down to personal reaction; I've seen the film a half dozen times, and it never occurred to me that Goeth was anything but evil just because he, as has every other real villain in human history, had his moment's of something resembling human feeling. Sort of reminds me of Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" comment. Jeff Dahmer loved roses and his old granny, and worked in a chocolate factory. His neighbors seemed to think he was rather nice, it's just that his apartment always smelled like a dead animal. There are many WWII commentaries on the various little "human" foibles of folks like Eichmann, who put in a hard day's work gassing Jews in Auschwitz, then went home to tend his garden and play with his children. Personally, I think these little evidences of humanity make the evil even MORE horrific than if the villain were a wholesale monster.
As a matter of fact, we're having a similar discussion along these lines over in misc.writing, where the consensus certainly seems to be that its bad fictional policy as well as just plain unreal to create villains without any "human" moments. Just as unreal as to create a wholly unblemished hero.
I offer these comments as MHO, as I'm wholly prejudiced on the subject of Steven Spielberg: for over twenty years of some of the best moviegoing experiences of my life, and at least one Masterpiece, I would happily kiss his dirty shoe. In fact, I have this ongoing fantasy of heaven: sitting around a cozy fireplace, a glass of dry sherry in hand, with WS on one side and Spielberg on the other. I think the unlikely pair have a helluva lot in common, and I would love to be there to hear them compare notes!
anne frances nowinski
On 5 Mar 1997, William and Sumi Ryan wrote:
>
> Debra,
The little girl in the red coat was an active character in the book. She
had a name and a family. The scene in the book was fairly the same as the
scene in the movie. Schindler and his mistress do witness the clearing of
the ghetto and this little girl is distinctive with her red coat. It has
been two years since I have read the book but I am fairly certain she
does not die.
In the book, Schindler also has great contempt and hate for Geoth. He
does not kid himself into believing that Geoth doesnt really like
killing. In the book, Goeth enjoys killing, kills for no particular
reason and does not justify his actions.
anne
William and Sumi Ryan
anne frances nowinski <nowi...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970305...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>
> The little girl in the red coat was an active character in the book. She
> had a name and a family. The scene in the book was fairly the same as the
> scene in the movie. Schindler and his mistress do witness the clearing of
> the ghetto and this little girl is distinctive with her red coat. It has
> been two years since I have read the book but I am fairly certain she
> does not die.
>
>
> In the book, Schindler also has great contempt and hate for Geoth. He
> does not kid himself into believing that Geoth doesnt really like
> killing. In the book, Goeth enjoys killing, kills for no particular
> reason and does not justify his actions.
>
> anne
Anne:
I suspected all that. I didn't read the book, but someday I will. The
film, though, has to stand alone. The episode of the girl in the red
coat was not well done -- it came off as Spielberg schmaltz, a tacky
directorial invasion of strong scene that didn't need any more pathos than
it already had.
Again, just my opinion,
Will
Caroline Pruett
Re: Amon Goeth
It seems that the Ryans would like to see this nazi portrayed as a
completely and totally evil person with no hint of a possibility of
redemption. To me, however, this was the first portrayal of a Nazi that
I have really been able to believe in, precisely because he seemed to
operate like a human being. There are basically two schools in
portraying these characters -- one is that they are insane, inhuman
madmen, while the other is the Hannah Arendt "banality of evil" thesis of
"just following orders". Neither of these viewpoints seems to me
adequate on its own, and I think they find a chilling synthesis in Goeth.
For all the things he may be, he is clearly not insane. He is following
orders, but he relishes the power that those orders give him.
In response to the question of why Christian doctrine teaches us not to
pass judgment on others, C.S. Lewis wrote (and this is a bit of wisdom
that applies no matter what religious faith we ascribe to) that not one
of us knows what he or she would do given the circumstances and
psychological makeup of (his example) Himmler. Whatever pathologies
might be at work on Goeth's mind, if he were born today in America, he
could not do the same amount of damage. The structure of the Nazi regime
freed Goeth to act out his fantasies of power on people that he had been
convinced were not human, in a manner that was condoned if not praised by
his superiors. This does not excuse Goeth, and neither I nor spielberg
am attempting to do that. Schindler is also a Nazi, he is part of the
same society, but he acts differently. While very few of us would have
been Goeths in this situation, it seems to me that even fewer would have
been Schindlers. But none of us who did not live through that experience
will ever know what we would have been. A good therapy group would not
help Goeth, but take away the poison of Nazi doctrine that has been
poured into his ears, and take away the social structure that reinforces
his belief that he is doing right -- who knows? That I think is what
Spielberg and Fiennes do a wonderful job of getting across. I think it
took great courage on their part to remind us that a Nazi has a soul as
surely as a Jew has eyes. This does not for a minute condone any of
Goeth's actions, but makes them more appalling.
The one thing that I didn't particularly like was the implication that
Goeth's violent nature was to some extent a function of sexual
frustration, but that's another argument.
Carrie
Jeremy BTD Keys
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Thomas Larque wrote:
[lots of snipping throughout]
> > be just fine. Bah! The Nazis were thugs, sadists and murderers, utterly
> > irredeemable. I doubt if many of the death camp commandants could quote
> > Shakespeare. Most of them were low, brutal thugs; some had extensive
> > criminal records. Fascism always elevates the criminally insane to power.
>
> I share Will's revulsion at the Nazi regime, and its brutal mass murders
> - and I certainly hope that if somebody gave me a similar "job to do" I
> would refuse or try to find some way of getting out of it (if it was -
> kill these Jews or we kill you - which for the high-ranking Nazi officers
> it almost certainly wasn't).
>
> There are problems however with denouncing the "evil" of individual
> Nazis, and much greater problems with suggesting that the Nazis were "low
> brutal thugs" who certainly couldn't quote Shakespeare.
I agree with Thomas here. I certainly would not want to pass judgement on
anyone who has found themselves in such a situation as the Nazi officers.
Peer pressure coupled with power are powerful weapons. We cannot presume
to know exactly how much any individual officer may have known or have
been able to quote.
Shakespeare gives us examples of good, sympathetic or learned men who go
wrong when they get too much power (I'm sure this could be debated).
Bolingbroke in Richard II, Brutus in Julius Caesar, Angelo in Measure for
Measure, etc. Can you imagine the implications it would have if children
could command adults? Power corrupts, eh?
> > As for the artistic tastes of the Nazi concentration camp guards and
> commanders - these were often very good. I remember hearing a program on
> radio about the Jewish Jazz Groups that existed in (I think it was
> Auschwitz) one of the concentration camps. The Nazi officers liked Jazz
> (banned by Hitler). They saved Jewish Jazz players and singers from the
> gas-chambers, gave them instruments and took pleasure in listening to
> them perform.
> Horrible. Absolutely. The very thought makes me feel physically ill,
> but it happened. Many of the Nazis were very cultivated, cultured,
> artistically responsive individuals. How, then, could they do what they
> did? I don't know, but quoting Shakespeare is no sign of a man's moral
> value.
Thomas makes some excellent points about the productions of Merchant of
Venice. I look forward to the article he mentioned.
The point I hope to make is that it is easy to pass moral or ethical
judgement on historical figures, but we rarely have the benefit of full
environmental surroundings. If we CAN say that some Nazi leaders were
phsychopaths and/or insane (see excellent posting on Hamlet and Iago
regarding these terms) are they to be held to blame? If not, and we look
at the Nazi leaders who had no mental conditions guiding their actions, we
must still remember the effects of cultural conditioning (we've already
discussed elsewhere the difficulty in evaluating racism in Shakespeare by
modern standards) coupled with power and peer pressure.
No, we can't use the ability to quote Shakespeare or the love of Mozart as
a method for judging mankind's moral status. Instead, I think we should
fear most those minds who CAN be in all respects intelligent, rational
and cultured people- but still blind to the atrocities they commit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Jeremy Keys jhk...@pogonip.scs.unr.edu +
+ +
+ "Since life is growth and change, +
+ A fixed point of view kills anyone who has one." +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
William and Sumi Ryan
dmurp...@aol.com wrote in article
<19970305134...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> All very good points, but I suppose these things eventually get down to
personal reaction; I've seen the film a half dozen times, and it never
occurred to me that Goeth was anything but evil just because he, as has
every other real villain in human history, had his moment's of something
resembling human feeling. Sort of reminds me of Hannah Arendt's "banality
of evil" comment. . . . SNIP!!! Personally, I think these little
evidences of humanity make the evil even MORE horrific than if the villain
were a wholesale monster.
>
> As a matter of fact, we're having a similar discussion along these lines
over in misc.writing, where the consensus certainly seems to be that its
bad fictional policy as well as just plain unreal to create villains
without any "human" moments. Just as unreal as to create a wholly
unblemished hero.
>
> BCNUall,
> Debra Murphy
>
> Debra Murphy <DMurp...@aol.com>
Debra:
Oh, I more than agree. The monster must be drawn in three dimensions to
be fully appreciated. The problem here is not only the monster, who, to
me, just doesn't ring true, but also the victims. We don't know them.
If you're going to tell a story, your artistry has to be complete, and
the victims, too, have to be drawn in three dimensions for the audience
to know fully the pathos of the story. Think of the characters created by
Zola or Solzhenitsyn. Those writers can present the monster with a human
face, yet we are never confused. In their novels we never emphasize with
the baddies. That is art.
As for Arendt, her comment was made in response to those writers who, in a
distorted, romantic way, would portray evil as mysterious and elegant,
as if its practice were a fine art (in contemporary evilspeak, "the dark
side of the force"). Evil, she said, is banal, coarse and ugly, and its
practitioners low, brutal and stupid (which is what almost all of the Nazi
murderers were.). There is a tendency these days to portray Nazis as
cultured, sophisticated, intelligent, and very well dressed in very
spiffy uniforms, almost admirable. In fact, the SS men and women
involved with the genocide were a disgusting collection of sadists and
sociopaths. There are several films that portray them very well, with
more art than Spielberg's. "Playing for Time," for example, is a wonderful
film about survival in a death camp, better, in my opinion, than
"Schlinder's List."
Regarding Eichmann, he's easy to humanize. He never really killed anyone,
you know. He was at the Wannsee Conference (where Heydrich et al plotted
the genocide), and he was part of the inner circle of logisticians and
administrators, but in his one exposure to the camps, he vomited and had
to be taken away. Himmler was the same, a vicious little administrator,
but too squeamish to be up the real task of murder. He, too, took ill in
his one time in the field. Contrast these two desk pilots to the real
fabric of the murder machine, men like those in the Einstazgruppe, who
shot people by the tens of thousands, often face to face. Do you think a
man who spends all day shooting whole families by the score has many
redeeming virtues? Sometimes there are monsters who are only monsters,
and it doesn't help to "humanize" them in any way.
Well, just my opinion.
Will
>
William and Sumi Ryan
Jeremy BTD Keys <jhk...@scs.unr.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.93.97030...@surfer1.surf.scs.unr.edu>...
> The point I hope to make is that it is easy to pass moral or ethical
> judgement on historical figures, but we rarely have the benefit of full
> environmental surroundings. If we CAN say that some Nazi leaders were
> phsychopaths and/or insane (see excellent posting on Hamlet and Iago
> regarding these terms) are they to be held to blame? If not, and we look
> at the Nazi leaders who had no mental conditions guiding their actions,
we
> must still remember the effects of cultural conditioning (we've already
> discussed elsewhere the difficulty in evaluating racism in Shakespeare by
> modern standards) coupled with power and peer pressure.
>
> No, we can't use the ability to quote Shakespeare or the love of Mozart
as
> a method for judging mankind's moral status. Instead, I think we should
> fear most those minds who CAN be in all respects intelligent, rational
> and cultured people- but still blind to the atrocities they commit.
>
Jeremy:
I know how well-intentioned your point is, and I know, as well, the
ethical dangers of moral self-righteousness. Allow me to explain a few
things, however, that you might not have known. The SS Officers -- who
ran the camps -- were all volunteers. Generally, they were Nazi party
hacks, recruited from some pretty low sources. Rausch, for example, who
built and commanded Auswitz, had served several years in prison for murder
(he was even too much for the SS; they eventually hanged him for
embezzlement). Don't confuse them with the German Army, or the police, or
the ordinary citizenry. The camp managers and extermination troops were
thugs, murderers, and thieves. They were chosen for the job because they
were greedy, they wanted it, and they had the stomachs for it. Some may
have been educated thugs, but thugs and murderers they were. Read a few
books on the subject. It is the most documented villainy in history. I
promise you will not emerge from any serious study of Nazi policy and its
implementation without a very strong sense of moral revulsion and utter
disgust.
I'm not sure what you mean by "cultural conditioning," but if you want me
to judge Nazi murderers in terms of their culture, then I will. Their
culture -- the German subset of Western culture -- is the culture of Bach,
Beethoven, Kant, Mozart, Goethe, Kleist, Koch, Schiller, Mann, and
so many other great, great men and women. By the most sacred tenants of
that great, moral, Judeo-Christian culture, they were fiends.
Jerermy, these were people who volunteered to wantonly slaughter
defenseless human beings, or to work them to death. It was cold-blooded,
highly engineered mass murder done with full conscious intent. If you
can't act with moral revulsion towards the Nazis, if they cannot be
judged, then there are no morals, there is no evil, and there is no
good.
Will
Caroline Pruett
>I'm not sure what you mean by "cultural conditioning," but if you want
me
>to judge Nazi murderers in terms of their culture, then I will. Their
>culture -- the German subset of Western culture -- is the culture of
Bach,
> Beethoven, Kant, Mozart, Goethe, Kleist, Koch, Schiller, Mann,
and
>so many other great, great men and women. By the most sacred tenants
of
>that great, moral, Judeo-Christian culture, they were fiends.
>
what a better term is) of Nazi Germany was essentially the same as in the
rest of the West, why did it produce so many more fiends and evil men
than other countries of the time? It is good and well to say "These
people were evil, period" but this doesnt' really get us anywhere.
Assuming that about the same number of evil people are born in all places
and at all times, why did this behavior surface in these particular
people? The modern social sciences, not to mention contemporary
philosoply and theology, have spent a lot of energy attempting to resolve
these questions. Spielberg's use of Mozart and Shakespeare may not be
particularly accurate -- he certainly does this for artistic effect, sort
of like General Zaroff in "The Dangerous Game" being a connosieur (sp?)
of champagned classical music etc -- but it's really a different issue
than whether war criminals like Goeth should be treated as real people
with human motivations. Spielberg shows us thugs, but Goeth is not meant
to be a typical character any more than Schindler is. I can imagine, in
the same vein, members of James's court protesting that Macbeth was
portrayed too sympathetically.
Carrie
William and Sumi Ryan
Caroline Pruett <MME...@prodigy.com> wrote in article
<5fvg6d$1u...@newssvr02-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> If the "culture" (and I don't really like this word, but I'm not sure
> what a better term is) of Nazi Germany was essentially the same as in the
> rest of the West, why did it produce so many more fiends and evil men
> than other countries of the time?
I don't think that's necessarily true. Read "The Gulag Archipelago," or,
if you prefer, Ulam's "Stalin," for visions of a totalitarian government
at least as bad as Hitler's. The aftermath of WWI bred a host of criminal
governments possessed of varying degrees of evil in Europe (Spain, Italy,
Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, et cetera). And, the Nazis would never
have been anywhere near as successful in their murder campaigns had it not
been for the enthusiastic compliance of Ukrainians, Lithuanians,
Hungarians, Romanians and others. The problem isn't "culture" so much as
it is human nature. Totalitarian or military-run governments readily
degenerate into criminality. Look at Argentina during the 1980s, San
Salvador of the 80s and 90s, Chile after Allende, Cambodia under Pol Pot
(what could be worse?), Peru under Stroesser, or any other dictatorship.
Take any country, put criminals and psychopaths in charge, and see what
happens.
It is good and well to say "These
> people were evil, period" but this doesnt' really get us anywhere.
> Assuming that about the same number of evil people are born in all places
> and at all times, why did this behavior surface in these particular
> people? The modern social sciences, not to mention contemporary
> philosoply and theology, have spent a lot of energy attempting to resolve
> these questions.
Yeah, I know. I've read a lot of it. Their difficulties, however, don't
justify what Spielberg did, which in my opinion was phony.
Spielberg's use of Mozart and Shakespeare may not be
> particularly accurate -- he certainly does this for artistic effect, sort
> of like General Zaroff in "The Dangerous Game" being a connosieur (sp?)
> of champagned classical music etc -- but it's really a different issue
> than whether war criminals like Goeth should be treated as real people
> with human motivations. Spielberg shows us thugs, but Goeth is not meant
> to be a typical character any more than Schindler is. I can imagine, in
> the same vein, members of James's court protesting that Macbeth was
> portrayed too sympathetically.
>
>
For me, it isn't so much that Goeth was played too sympathetically, it's
that the part was written badly. Let's compare him to Macbeth. No one can
watch Macbeth and envy the character. From the time of Duncan's murder,
his life degenerates. Even as king, he does nothing but fret and fume.
In the end, his enemies conquer him and cut off his head. Goeth is beyond
good and evil. He murders with impunity, partys hard, wears a nifty
uniform, sleeps with a beautiful woman, is surrounded by a coterie of
aids and toadies, and seems to have a hell of a lot of fun. And, he's
cultured, sophisticated, and not without charm. Sure, he has his low
moments, but he's soon at another party having fun. The way Speilberg did
the film, there is something darkly attractive about Goeth. Some people
would like to be Goeth. Some people like nifty uniforms and absolute
power. Goeth is a Hollywood Nazi (meaner than most, but a Hollywood Nazi
none the less), in the same tradition as the Nazis of "The Holocaust," or
"The Young Lions," or "The Eider Sanction," or any number of second-rate
Hollywood epics. Speilberg based the character on the other Hollywood
Nazis and, to me, the portrayal is phony. For my money, "Playing for
Time," with Vanessa Redgrave (it was also televised) was a much more
powerful film, and did a much better job of portraying Nazis as they
really were. Speilberg should have stayed with movies like ET. He's just
too light weight to do something like "Schindler's List."
Just an opinion.
Will
Caroline Pruett
(William and Sumi Ryan wrote:)
>Take any country, put criminals and psychopaths in charge, and see
what
>happens.
You’ve got a point; I’ve actually read quite a bit about Stalinism, and
the striking thing is
that the good people are generally in the prisons, which are being run by
crooks. But I’m
not sure that all the Nazis were thugs who would have been in prison if
they lived in, say,
Britain or the U.S. You’re discounting the importance of ideology. The
striking thing
about someone like Goeth is that he does what he does because he believes
in it. And
that’s the scariest thing.
> For me, it isn't so much that Goeth was played too sympathetically,
it's
>that the part was written badly.
I strongly disagree -- the part was extremely well-written, IMO, the best
part of the film.
You may not agree with the portrayal, but it is unquestioningly well-
written (not to
mention marvelously acted, but that’s a given.)
> He murders with impunity, partys hard, wears a nifty
>uniform, sleeps with a beautiful woman, is surrounded by a coterie of
>aids and toadies, and seems to have a hell of a lot of fun. And,
he's
>cultured, sophisticated, and not without charm. Sure, he has his
low
>moments, but he's soon at another party having fun. The way Speilberg
did
>the film, there is something darkly attractive about Goeth. Some
people
>would like to be Goeth. Some people like nifty uniforms and absolute
>power. Goeth is a Hollywood Nazi...Speilberg based the character on the
other
>Hollywood Nazis and, to me, the portrayal is phony. .
I *really* disagree with you here. Goeth is completely unlike any
Hollywood Nazi I’ve
ever seen. I doubt that anyone would want to be Goeth; if they did, they
don’t understand
the movie at all. Look at the character, particularly the way he is
contrasted with
Schindler. Besides his shocking fits of violence, he is petty and
greedy, he can’t take his
liquor and, if I remember the uncut version of the film correctly, it
seems very likely to me
that he is impotent (we don’t ever see him making love to that beautiful
woman he shares
the bed with do we?) Goeth’s only power comes from having a gun and
having the law
on his side; he lacks, as Schindler makes painfully clear, the real will
to power, which is
power over the self. And, at the end of the movie, he dies a humiliating
death. Contrast
him with Schindler who is unquestionably a Real Man (somehow Liam Neeson
has beome
the incarnation of healthy virile masculinity -- see also “Rob Roy” and
the contrast with
the prissy but sexually predatory Tim Roth), and who is always completely
in control of
himself and of the situation. Which one would anyone in their right
mind envy?
Carrie
William and Sumi Ryan
Caroline Pruett <MME...@prodigy.com> wrote in article
<5gcohb$j...@newssvr02-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> Look at the character, particularly the way he is
> contrasted with
> Schindler. Besides his shocking fits of violence, he is petty and
> greedy, he can’t take his
> liquor and, if I remember the uncut version of the film correctly, it
> seems very likely to me
> that he is impotent (we don’t ever see him making love to that beautiful
> woman he shares
> the bed with do we?) Goeth’s only power comes from having a gun and
> having the law
> on his side; he lacks, as Schindler makes painfully clear, the real will
> to power, which is
> power over the self. And, at the end of the movie, he dies a humiliating
> death. Contrast
> him with Schindler who is unquestionably a Real Man (somehow Liam Neeson
> has beome
> the incarnation of healthy virile masculinity
SNIP!
Which one would anyone in their right
> mind envy?
>
> Carrie
>
>
Carrie:
I agree with you on an intellectual level. I can see the contrast between
Goeth and Schlinder, and certainly, to me, Goeth is loathsome. I don't
think the role works too well on the emotional level, though. Maybe I've
been too close to the subject and can't retain my objectivity. Perhaps,
too, I was so affected by Liam Neeson's portrayal of Schlinder that
everyone else (to me) paled in comparison, even the redoubtable Ben
Kingsley.
Will
>
Amber Laila
✅▶️▶️ CLICK HERE Full HD✅720p✅1080p✅4K✅
WATCH ✅💻📺📱👉https://co.fastmovies.org
ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ ✅📺📱💻👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
✅WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴💚 Really Amazing ️You Can Try This💚WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>
👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴💚CLICK HERE Full HD✅720p✅1080p✅4K💚WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>
👉https://co.fastmovies.org
✅🔴▶️▶ Really Amazing ️You Can Try This ◀️◀️🔴✅
✅▶️▶️ CLICK HERE Full HD✅720p✅1080p✅4K✅
WATCH ✅💻📺📱👉https://co.fastmovies.org
ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ ✅📺📱💻👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
✅WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴💚 Really Amazing ️You Can Try This💚WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>
👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴💚CLICK HERE Full HD✅720p✅1080p✅4K💚WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>
👉https://co.fastmovies.org