Because I happened to be reading Richard Kearney's "on stories", one of the three cases the author cited was an example of Lanzman's accusation against Spielberg, so I bought it.
The argument is actually very simple. Lanzman believes: "It is wrong to reproduce the Holocaust in the form of a story ("Schindler's List"). The "Bible" says:'You can't make an idol.' Take that catastrophe. Acting as a spectacle will lead to voyeurism and schadenfreude. To shape death camps in accordance with Hollywood's psychodrama model is to indulge in the disgraceful shock caused by vile empathy."
Lanzman said: "The Holocaust First of all, it is very unique, because there is a fire around yourself, and the boundaries cannot be crossed, because an absolute terror cannot be communicated with words. If you pretend to cross the boundaries, you will commit the most serious crime of transgression. Fiction is a kind of arrogance. I deeply feel that there is a prohibition on reproduction."
I guess Spielberg would be ridiculous to this critic who fell from the sky, because people are too easy to accept that more than two hours. , The plot is compact and the plot is ups and downs "Schindler's List", and I have almost never heard of Landzman, and I didn't want to watch the more than 8 hours-long tortured documentary.
However, I can clearly feel that Lanzman's "prohibition order" is right. Because in "Catastrophe", you can only see the effort and rush of a Lanzman, a person who only wants to record that period of history, hear the narration over and over, and even the narrator leaves the scene choked and speechless. In "Schindler's List", there are too many commercial factors, too many bait, even though it is a bait labeled with human nature. Although "Schindler's List" has been out of mainstream, historical, and artistic in Hollywood, it has always been a deliberate or inadvertent profanity.
View more about Shoah reviews
