Spielbergs Treatment of History in Schindlers List and Amistad - Essay Example

With Amistad, I kind of dried it out, and it became too much of a history lesson” (Spielberg). Discuss Spielberg’s treatment of “history” in Schindler’s List and Amistad. Movies are one of the most profitable and effective means of entertaining. Since Thomas Edison and Etienne Marey worked out how to create motion pictures at the end of the nineteenth century, profitability of moving photography has always been a key motivation. Some successful directors have a big enough fan base to create movies that have an underlying agenda. These successful directors can promote personal opinions without losing money. Steven Spielberg is considered to be one of the most famous film directors in American cinematic history. In both films, Schindler’s List and Amistad, Spielberg takes liberties with history in two ways; changing documented events to fit within the film’s agenda and the omission of crucial parts of the story to create a different impression of history than what documented facts show. Steven Spielberg is one of only a handful of directors that could change history through his movies without losing profits. This allows Spielberg to fulfil both objectives of making money and promoting his view of history. This essay will examine Spielberg’s treatment of history in his two films, Schindler’s List and Amistad in an attempt to show that movies can be inspired by history, but in reality are a work of fiction. Spielberg did not portray the violence that the book Schindler’s List by Thomas Keneally describes. Characters were portrayed differently. Many factors made the book and movie different. Even though Schindler’s List, the movie was based on Schindler’s List, the book, Spielberg made the movie his own. Amistad was also Spielberg’s creation. Spielberg took Amistad and tried to teach a moral lesson. The only problem is Spielberg made Amistad from the point of a white man, not an African American. Thus, the moral lesson became the white men involved in the case came to the realisation that the Africans were human also. This point of view made white Americans and Spielberg feel better about the enslavement of African Americans by showing that not every American at the time was pro-slavery. An African American director, like Spike Lee, would have shown more of the African American experience. One look at Amistad and Roots shows the difference of the black and white point of view concerning slavery Schindler’s List Schindler’s List begins in the present day, the picture is full of colors and shows some Jewish people performing religious rituals in Hebrew. Then, Spielberg goes back in time to 1939 when Germany conquered Poland. The Jews in Poland were asked to register their names. Oscar Schindler is presented first when he puts on the swastika to indicate that he is of the Nazi party. In this scene he appears to be a very important man with a lot of charisma. In reality, Oskar Schindler was in the right place at the right time, and of the right race; German. Schindler’s List was released in 1993, the same year in which the Holocaust museum was opened in Washington D.C. It has been suggested that Spielberg chose 1993 for Schindler’s List’s release for the following reasons: … the imminence of the fiftieth anniversary of the liberation of the camps and a deep anxiety over the gradual disappearance of Holocaust survivors (Vice, 90). Vice continues to say that the release of Spielbergs film added to a sense of 1993 as the year of the Holocaust(Vice, 90). It could also be suggested that Spielberg chose this year for his film’s release because of the free publicity survivors readily gave his film. Although Spielberg never profited monetarily from Schindler’s List,1 the numerous awards the film generated gave Spielberg even greater accolades in the movie industry. Money was not a factor for the making of Schindler’s List’s, so Spielberg’s underlying agenda must be explored. Steven Spielberg is Jewish and his approach to the making of Schindler’s List was affected because of the link between the subject and his personal life: “His family had direct ties to the Holocaust: relatives died in Poland and Ukraine” (Weinraub). For Spielberg Schindler’s List was personal. In fact during an interview with Weinraub Spielberg admits “The director was offered the project a decade ago but admits that he was frightened of undertaking the Holocaust then” (Weinraub). Whether it was his fear, personal feelings, or pertinent basics of movie making, Spielberg did not follow history when making Schindler’s List. Some of his diversions from history are subtle, but others are glaring. When Spielberg made this film, certain facts about the Holocaust were omitted. Events were also twisted to fit the screen version. The book that Spielberg made his movie from was Thomas Keneally’s book Schindler’s List. Schindler’s List, the novel, is based on a literal documents, including Schindler’s own testimony of the war years and over fifty survivors’ interviews” (Vice, 93). Yet, a problem arose with the historical accuracy in Keneally’s work. Vice reports: critical controversy over Thomas Keneally’s novel Schindler’s List centers on two issues. The first to do with its genre and attendant debates over accuracy (if it is primarily fact) and adeptness (if it is fiction). The second concerns the books choice of Oscar Schindler, Holocaust rescuer, as it is subject. On the representation of such stories of rescue, the historian Raul Hilberg says: “there is nothing to be taken from the Holocaust that is imbues anyone with hope or any thought of redemption. But the need for heroes is so strong we’ll manufacture them”_ meaning that Schindler was hardly a hero. Omer Bartov also sees its atypical nature as the story’s weakness: “the fact that this “actually happened is, of course, wholly beside the point, since in most cases it did not: accuracy must, apparently, include all details of a particular event including its context” (90) Vice suggests that Keneally molded Oskar Schindler into a hero based on his own feelings and those of grateful survivors. Despite the argument that there were not actually such heroes in this lone instance of the holocaust Spielberg’s movie was based on this book. The first departure from history is in the film character Amon. Goeth, played by Ralph Fiennes in the movie, was historically much more brutal than Spielberg portrays. One flawed scene about Goeth is when he shot random Jews not working. This scene only tells the half truth (“Schindler’s List”). According to the text, Amon Goeth shot prisoners at random nearly every morning: The first morning Commandant Goeth stepped out his front door and murdered a prisoner at random, there was a tendency to set this also, like the first execution on Chujowa Gorka, as a unique event, discrete from what would become the customary life of the camp. In fact, of course, the killings on the hill would soon prove to be habitual, and so would be Amon’s morning routine.” (Keneally, 192) This quotation shows that the one killing Spielberg includes was only one of hundreds (Keneally 192). Another point is that in the film Goeth only killed workers not working; this was not true, Goeth killed randomly for reasons only he knew (Keneally, 192). The other mistake the film makes is small, but noticeable to anyone with a little Holocaust knowledge. There is a scene in the movie with German Shepherds muzzled (“Schindler’s List”). Nazis never muzzled their dogs around Jews. One of the cruel games played by Nazis was turning their dogs on helpless prisoners. Nazis would not have taken time to take the muzzles off the dogs, when around Jews. Of all the survivors’ accounts researched for this paper, there was no mention of muzzles on the German Shepherds in the Plaszow concentration camp. In a picture taken in the Plaszow concentration camp at the time, the German Shepherd has no muzzle (“Holocaust:..”). Goeth killed Jews at random. His unpredictability made it hard for the Jews to anticipate his actions. For example Goeth killed “the Warrenhaupt girl” for not cleaning his limo windows, and “a mother and daughter Amon had noticed through a kitchen window. They had been peeling potatoes too slowly” (Keneally, 246). Goethe could show mercy on a whim. He ordered his cleaning woman taken out a shot by other prisoners. Yet, Goeth had a change of heart saying “Bring the bitch back. There’s plenty of time to shoot her (Keneally, 278). Goeth did not show a clear pattern of behavior except unpredictable violence; he shot Jewish prisoners sometimes for trivial matters but at other times seemed to reconsider his actions. Spielberg portrayed some of Goeth’s violent nature, but since Schindler’s List is just over three hours, it would have been impossible to additionally show Goeth’s cruelty. The scene where the Jewish architect is arguing about the foundation of the building and Goeth has her shot in the movie, Schindler’s List, comes verbatim out of Keneally’s book (167-169). This shows that Spielberg utilised some aspects of the book accurately. Another example of character difference in Keneally’s book and Spielberg’s movie is Oskar Schindler himself. In the movie, Oskar Schindler is portrayed as a good natured business man who saved Jews and had one mistress. According to the book, Oskar Schindler had two mistresses, a wife, an addiction to alcohol, and a gambling habit (Keneally, 14). The movie downplays Schindler’s faults. If Spielberg had portrayed Schindler honestly, Schindler would not be seen as a hero or the saver of Jews, he would have been labeled a war profiteer. Movie goers want a clear definition of good and evil, with good ultimately triumphing. Documentation shows Oskar Schindler could not be seen as an upstanding citizen. Keneally reports Schindler came to Poland in hopes of making money from the war effort and to keep from being drafted into the German army (39). At first when Schindler employed Jewish workers, because he paid the Germans little to nothing for the Jewish labor. This might be one reason Schindler was so keen to keep his workforce safe. But Schindler realized something about the situation that all the other Germans could not grasp because of their hatred. Because the Jewish people were slaves, they had monetary value and Schindler knew that slaves that were happy worked harder, making him more money. There is little doubt that after time, Schindler grew attached to the Jews on his list, but all of this is speculative. Vice points out the facts: the historical record does not make clear Schindler’s motives in saving the Jews in occupied Poland during the second world war, and Keneally’ text does not fully substantiate either Schindler’s motives or his reasons to his reasons for keeping them…(91) Spielberg’s movie shows Schindler as a more sympathetic character than historical records state, including Schindler’s own accounts and Keneally’s text One theory derived from Keneally’s book on what motivated Schindler is his hatred for Amon Goeth. Keneally supports this theory with the following quote: It is certain that by this stage of his history, in spite of his liking for good food and wine, Herr Schindler approached tonight’s dinner at Commandant Goeth’s more with loathing that with anticipation. There had in fact never been a time when to sit and drink with Amon had not been a repellent business. Yet the revulsion Herr Schindler felt was of a piquant kind, an ancient, exultant sense of abomination---of the same sort as, in a medieval painting, the just show for the damned. An emotion, that is, which stung Oskar rather that unmanned him. (Keneally, 15) Schindler’s revulsion at Goeth’s obviously cruel and vicious treatment of the Jews made him more sympathetic towards the Jews under Goeth’s control. Another quote from Keneally’s book reveals Schindler’s eagerness to get the best of Goeth in a bet “In the end, he signed the marker, Oskar picked up all the chits he’d won that evening for Amon and returned them. Just look after the girl for me, he said, till it’s time for us all to leave” (Keneally, 280). Oskar had won Goeth’s maid in a card game. Spielberg’s movie did not delve deep enough into Goeth and Oskar’s competitive nature to make this a motivation behind Schindler’s actions. If Spielberg had brought out this aspect of the two men’s relationship, he would have had shown Schindler as a gambler and the fact that Schindler never stood up to Goeth directly. Spielberg removed this aspect of their relationship in order to make Schindler’s heroic qualities stand out. The final mistake with Spielberg’s film is the omission of what happened to Oskar Schindler after World War II. This could be because the hero of this film turned into a financial failure, relying on the Jews he saved to support him for the rest of his life (Bülow). Schindler moved to Argentina where he failed as a farmer, went into business in West Germany until a business partner found out about Schindler’s saving of Jews during the war, and was then refused entrance to America because of his former Nazi party membership (Bülow). Although Keneally mentioned these facts in his book, Spielberg left these parts out because a contemporary American audience would not have reacted well to this type of bad-press. In the end, Spielberg told Schindler’s story, but stayed true to the Hollywood formula: by making it a glorified version of heroism in the worst example of genocide in recent history. : . Schindler’s List had all the elements of a good film; a protagonist (Oskar Schindler) that people could love and relate to, an antagonist (Amon Goeth) whom everyone could hate, and most importantly, a happy ending for the spared Jews. Spielberg did not focus on the harsh reality that over six million Jews lost their lives in the gas chambers. Even if a movie is historically correct, movies that are depressing do not make box office hits. Whether Spielberg wanted to educate or make money, he managed to captivate the whole world with his movie. Amistad In Amistad, Spielberg goes along with history a little more accurately than in Schindler’s List. Amistad is based on true events about a ship named Amistad carry illegal slaves. The slaves revolted and ended up on American shores. There are however a few problems with the movie historically. There is too much focus on the court process rather than the events on the Amistad or what brought the slaves to be on the Amistad. The abolitionists were portrayed as having minimal influence on the Amistad captives and trial. Morgan Freeman’s character, Mr. Johnson is fictional (Hinks). There never was a Mr. Johnson. He is an invention of Steven Spielberg’s mind (Hinks). Also, there was a lack of the morality of slavery and only vaguely address the slavery issue in the United States (“Amistad”). World leaders are also misconstrued in this film. All of these inconsistencies show Spielberg desire to create another Hollywood blockbuster despite the truth. Unlike Schindler’s List, Amistad is based not on one book, but many historical documents and sources. Amistad shows in the first scene one man freeing himself, then freeing his friends from the bondage of chains in a dark ship’s hold. Historical records from the U.S. show that the men freed themselves using a spike of wood to move the mechanisms in their chains. The captives passed the spike between each other. Walter Dean Myers states: Each man called the name of the next to take the spike. The captives could hear the scratching of the spike against the ratchet of the iron cuff. Then, one by one, the men announced that they were free. (29) This quote from Walter Dean Myers shows Spielberg deviated from history. However, instead of taking time to show these scenes on the ship, Spielberg paid minimal attention to the slaves’ actual uprising on the Amistad. Instead Spielberg chose to focus on the legal aspect of the Amistad with a majority of court scenes. Another aspect of the movie that Spielberg minimises is the African involvement of the slave trade. Spielberg does shows a scene in which some Africans sell other Africans in order to get weapons (“Amistad”). Yet historical documentation shows most of the Amistad captives were captured by fellow Africans. Sengbe Peih, or Cinque as the Spanish named him,” a freeborn man from a tiny village in the Mende region of West Africa, had just become a slave” (Jurmain, 12). Cinque’s captors were Africans of the Vai tribe (Myers 16-17). Although flashbacks show Cinque’s capture and journey, Spielberg could have explained the Amistad’s captives’ origins in more detail. The film Amistad did base the general description of the lead character on historical records. According to Suzanne Jurmain’s Freedom’s Sons: The True Story of the Amistad Mutiny, Cinque was a very strong, noble, and dignified African when he was captured: “he was a tall, powerful man about twenty-five years of age” (Jurmain, 11). The actor portraying Cinque, Djimon Hounsou, displayed all of the characteristics that the documents and drawings of Cinque exhibited in Walter Dean Myers’ Amistad: A Long Road to Freedom on the inside front and back covers (Myers). The accounts also state that Cinque was a natural leader. After taking over the ship in the rebellion, Cinque, “made it clear that he would be in command of the ship” (Kromer, 23). Spiielberg kept this aspect of the movie accurate according to the sources. Although very important to slavery’s history in America, the abolitionists barely get mentioned in Spielberg’s Amistad. When they are mentioned, the abolitionists are portrayed in a negative light: Pasty, dour, drearily-dressed, hymn-droning, the abolitionists are apparently loathed by Cinque as "those miserable-looking people" while at another time one of his fellow captives contemptuously rips the Bible from an abolitionists’ hands when told by him "I will pray for you." and “The Africans are of concern to the abolitionists for one reason alone: what they can facilitate for the cause--the great Christian mission of ending once and for all the most sinful of all forms of human exploitation, slavery (Hinks). In historical documents the abolitionists played a major role with the Amistad captives whom they treated as friends. Arthur Abraham asserts “The Amistad Case provided a focal point for rallying the dispersed ranks of the abolitionists, as they all came out in defense of the captives, fully convinced of their innocence.” The abolitionists basically paid for the defense attorneys during the trial, the living expenses when the Amistad men were freed, and raised money to send them back to Africa (Abrahams). Abrahams also states that the Amistad captives also lived with the abolitionists while raising the money to send them back to Africa. .Despite playing a key role in Spielberg’s retelling of the history of Amistad, Mr. Johnson is not based on any historical account. Hinks raises the issue about the fictional character Mr. Johnson: However, a problem with Telling the Story emerges in the movie, a problem that we might begin with Mr. Johnson but by no means ends there. Mr. Johnson never existed even though he is made to occupy a pivotal role in Steven Spielberg’s historical treatment of the Amistad drama. Instead of Mr. Johnson, Spielberg could have written in a real character with the same traits, like James Covey the interpreter for the Amistad captives (Myers, 15). Yet, Spielberg chose to create Mr. Johnson to relate his version of what happened to the Amistad. Spielberg chose to create a character that promoted his agenda; to further the perception of what he thinks about the whole Amistad incident. Spielberg made Amistad without addressing the domestic issues of American slavery. By picking the Amistad incident, Spielberg effectively evaded the issue of domestic slavery. Eric Foner explains “In fact, the Amistad case revolved around the Atlantic slave trade — by 1840 outlawed by international treaty — and had nothing whatever to do with slavery as domestic institution.” This trial had nothing to do with slavery; it had to do with illegal slave ships on international water. By using this incident, Spielberg effectively evaded the issue of American slavery at the time. Spielberg also takes liberties with history in Amistad regarding Queen Isabella II and President Van Buren. In the movie Queen Isabella wants the Amistad cargo back, but American records show only one Spanish diplomat dealt with America (Abraham). The Americans only mention the following: The Spanish Minister, de la Barca, wrote to the Secretary of State, John Forsyth, a former Minister to Spain and a known defender of Negro slavery, that when the Amistad was " rescued," she should have been set free to return to Cuba so that the Africans on board could have been "tried by the proper tribunal, and by the violated laws of the country of which they are subjects." (Abraham) This quote shows that only the Spanish Minister negotiated with the Americans. President Van Buren is also portrayed in unrealistic light. In Amistad, “President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour” but at that time presidents did not campaign for president (Foner). In the movie, Van Buren seemed overly concerned with the case, but in reality he just wanted the case to go away by having the courts decide (Abrahams). Van Buren did not want the responsibility of a decision because of in the upcoming elections he needed support of the Southern states. If Van Buren would have been portrayed in a more realistic light, the whole film’s agenda would have changed. By having the president concerned over the Amistad it created the affect that the Amistad occurrence was a matter of global concern. Spielberg used this to focus attention more on the legal aspects of the Amistad event than the issue of slavery. Both Schindler’s List and Amistad were two of Steven Spielberg’s cinematic triumphs; both were nominated for numerous film awards, including the Oscars and the Golden Globe awards. Schindler’s List was produced with a personal agenda to institute a memorial fund for victims of the Holocaust (in Spielberg’s name), while Amistad was made more for financial profit. Surprisingly, Amistad did not make profits in the same region as huge success of Schindler’s List. Both movies have parts that historically correct, but both movies also have deviations from history. Spielberg is a Hollywood film director and his primary task is to earn money, not to provide a history of events or create budget films for aesthetic reasons. His films are forms of fiction and influenced more by the expected income a film will return than by their historical legacy. Bibliography Abraham, Arthur. “The Amistad Revolt: The Historical Legacy of Sierra Leone and the United States.” USINFO.STATE.GOV. 26 May 2006. USINFO. 26 May 2006 http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/amistad/ Amistad. Dir. Steven Spielberg. Morgan Freeman, Nigel Hawthorne, and Anthony Hopkins. Universal. 1999. Bülow, Louis. “Aftermath.” The Oskar Schindler Story. 2005-2007. The Oskar Schindler Story. 26 May 2006 http://www.oskarschindler.com/index.htm Foner, Eric. “The Amistad Case in Fact and Film.” History Matters. Mar. 1998. History Matters. 24 May 2006 http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 Hinks, Peter, P. “on the History of the Amistad Conflict.” Amistad America. 2006. Amistad America. 24 May 2006 http://www.amistadamerica.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=D93F3BD2-B7CD-7952-62C27DADFC6F7166 “Holocaust: Photograph of a Portrait of an SS Guard with His Dog at the Plaszow Concentration Camp.” About. 2006. The New York Times Company. 28 May 2006 http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blplaszow3.htm Jurmain, Suzanne. Freedom’s Sons: The True Story of the Amistad Mutiny. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard Books, 1998. Keneally, Thomas. Schindler’s List. New York: Serpentine Publishing Co. Pty Ltd., 1982. Kromer, Helen. Amistad: The Slave Uprising Aboard the Spanish Schooner. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1973. Myers, Walter Dean. Amistad: A Long Road to Freedom. New York: Dutton, 1998. Schindler’s List. Dir. Steven Spielberg. Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, and Ralph Fiennes. Universal. 2004. “Spielberg’s ‘List’ teaching tolerance ten years on: Director hopes that ‘Schindler’s List’ and the Shoah Foundation it inspired will remain a living reminder of the horror of hatred.” Today Show Interview: Katie Curic and Steven Spielberg. March 18, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4548509/. Date accessed: 20-05-06. Vice, Sue. Holocaust Fiction. London: Routledge, 2000. Weinraub, Bernard. “Film: Steven Spielberg Faces the Holocaust.” 1993 Dec. 12. New York Times. 24 May 2006 http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/spielberg.html Read More