Spielberg Antigermanistic?

[Dr. Jones 0]

Hi! At first I`ve to say that this is not a political dicussion, I just want to here opinions and not: "You are wrong....It must be that way!"....etc...

Once I talked about movies with my friend and classmate. About movies we don`t like, about Star Wars, the upcoming Indiana Jones DVD release and at last about our favourite Movies.

When he recognized that all my favourite movies are Spielberg-movies (I called E.T., Indiana Jones, Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan etc..) there was a light shock goinig over his face. I asked if everything was allright; so he called me that

"....of all the dump directors in this world I hate Spielberg the most! He is an antigermanistic a**hole!"

So his speach went on and he told me that he hates Spielberg because with movies like Schindl. List or SPR he prevents that the people forget what the Nazis did during WWII. And he especially hates the line which is said by Henry Jones in Crusade during the Bookburning scene:

"Boy, we are pilgrams in an unholy land!"

I think Spielberg is really not antigermanictic just because he made a few movies against Nazis and if yes, I would not care.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Let your friend dislike Spielberg for whatever he percieves Spielberg is doing wrong.

Meanwhile you can continue to like Spielberg for all the reasons you currently do.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

If someone can find a sympathic hero under the Germans in WW II, I don't think he's really anti-German. And being against Nazi's isn't the same as being against Germans.

- Marc, glad you didn't let your friend convince you.

[scissorhands 16]

Plus Spielberg was criticized for making Amon Goeth a better man than he actually was.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

with movies like Schindl. List or SPR he prevents that the people forget what the Nazis did during WWII.

Actually, very much the opposite.

But offcourse your friend means that Hitler's rise to power ment that Germany's economy got a huge boost, and people were getting jobs again.

Using the Nazi's as villians in 2 Indiana Jones films is hardly a big deal, the Nazis have been reliable screen villians for Hollywood for over half a century now.

Spiwelberg is probably anti-Nazi, which is a good thing, but he's not anti-German.

I remember a BBC interview with him around the time of SPR's release were he said that as far as he know the average German soldier was not any more good or evil then the average US soldier during WWII.

Also, the Spielberg produced Band of Brothers confirms this statement in it's last episode.

Stefancos- who wonders if the commies will be the villians in Indy 4.

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

with movies like Schindl. List or SPR he prevents that the people forget what the Nazis did during WWII.

I'm afraid people here are far too happy to forget what the Nazis did anyway.

Marian - wondering how long our government will last this time.

[Morn 8]

Actually, I can see what he means, most Spielberg films with germany are very one sided. If only SPR had a script more like band of brothers, which was just perfect, perhaps best mini-series ever.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Well, i think that him being jewish could add 'a little' hate for nazis. (very undestandable- and i think he had family there). Making his movies he remembers us what happened few years ago. We cannot forget that, if so, humanity will do it again. History is one thing that must not fall into oblivion.

[Caldeira 0]

So his speach went on and he told me that he hates Spielberg because with movies like Schindl. List or SPR he prevents that the people forget what the Nazis did during WWII.

Well, in my point of you, Spielberg's main concern was/is prevent that the world forgets what Jews suffered in those years of horror and prevent that it happens again. The movie SL just gave an hint of all the atrocities that took place in the WWII and SPR is just a minor reproduction (the best one though, IMO) of what war was/is like . Millions of people were murdered, that shouldn't be forgotten.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Well, he was accused of being blatantly anti-hispanic in the movie Amistad, and among the reasons pointed out were that Spain hasn't exactly been Paradise for jews, historically-wise. Does that make a movie better or worse? Bronenosets Potiomkim is masterpiece of film editting and isn't exactly an objective movie.

-Ross, who thinks Amistad overlooked a lot of aspects about the Spanish side of the story, which could have made it a better film.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Well, he was accused of being blatantly anti-hispanic in the movie Amistad, and among the reasons pointed out were that Spain hasn't exactly been Paradise for jews, historically-wise. Does that make a movie better or worse? Bronenosets Potiomkim is masterpiece of film editting and isn't exactly an objective movie.

-Ross, who thinks Amistad overlooked a lot of aspects about the Spanish side of the story, which could have made it a better film.

I agree a little of that. I don't like he showed the spanish queen as if she were somekind of Amidala, i mean a little girl with full powers (and that does not have anything to do with X-men :roll: ). They didn't mention her regents(SP?) (her mother and Espartero)

Plus i think that he also left out that Cinqué became a slaver after returning to africa.

Anyway, we cannot denny the atrocities made to the african people on that time.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I suspect Spielberg is anti-gun, but pro hippies.

He is anti-shark, anti-Tobe Hooper, and anti-movie's with A in the Title.

[Morn 8]

Sounds like an all round good guy, Joe.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

One must note that to make a historic film is to make an interpretation of History itself. Fiction movies are not documentaries. Their objective isn't to make a historical essay to reach a conclussion. They want to portray emotion by telling a certain story, and objectivity doesn't allow that. So the director picks a side (which isn't necessarily his personal opinion, it's actually dictated by the nature of the story itself) and tells the story through the eyes of that side.

Spielberg didn't want to make a documentary about judaism in WWII with Schindler's List. He wanted to tell the story of the suffering of the Jewish people in that time. As an emotional film, it's a masterpiece. As a historical film it's far from complete and overuses the black and white characters cliché -- plain evil Nazis and plain good Jews -- which is a very grave historical flaw. Does it matter? No. Because the intention of the movie never was to reveal the truth, plain and objective truth.

No movie has that objective. Oliver Stone's JFK is a very obvious case of a political opinion, a historical theory, put into celluloid. The problem is that in order to make that historical interpretation belivable, the director/writer needs to put his opinions as facts (the character of Deep Throat in JFK) which tend to mold the audience's opinion. They believe they are seeing History "as it happened" when it isn't the case.

Of course, the use of music doesn't help. Although John Williams did a pretty good in keeping the tone of JFK down. That was a terrific job.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Sounds like an all round good guy, Joe

well you know I love him Morn.

[Morn 8]

One must note that to make a historic film is to make an interpretation of History itself. Fiction movies are not documentaries. Their objective isn't to make a historical essay to reach a conclussion. They want to portray emotion by telling a certain story, and objectivity doesn't allow that.

That may be true, but I think such topics are often better served by more objectivity than Spielberg has used, I think that such would aid them not merely accuracy/historical interest wise but dramatically. It is a good idea to have the movie more neutral and show what both sides are thinking and planning, adds to the drama. Plus it makes a movie more fair to both sides of it's topic.

So the director picks a side (which isn't necessarily his personal opinion, it's actually dictated by the nature of the story itself) and tells the story through the eyes of that side.  

That depends on the topic, some topics are better served, and I mean served in a dramatic way more than any thing, by attention to both sides. Such as D-Day or Pearl Habour.

As an emotional film, it's a masterpiece

That's the flaw with this film, it's emotional side, it came off as over done and unrealistic (not merely unhistorical). And I didn't buy it emotionally. But I do think that the attention to both sides in that movie is appropriate for it's subject matter.