Movie Review: 'Schindler's List'

by Gott

29 March 2004

First off, maybe I didn't make it clear enough in my "Passion" review, but I am 100% for Gibson and for his movie. I thought I said that, but it must have gotten buried in the tech stuff. I should have said it better, and also should have said that reviewing it from a tech angle is fairly pointless as it is so much more than just a movie. "Passion" is a real event the way the overwhelming majority of films are not.

I saw the Spielberg movie when it came out and found much of it hilarious - and that was before I had worked out my feelings and thoughts about the war and what happened to the jews. Even then, the movie struck me as empty and conventional - the product of a hack, not an artist. The Gibson film isn't inspired in the use of technique, but Spielberg's movie isn't even competent. Also, it lacks conviction and is remarkably inconsistent, being just one more example of slick assembly line Hollywood 'product' with an agenda. The Gibson movie has conviction in large measure. A few of the shock effects in the Spielberg picture made me jump, for instance the Hollywood Nazi commandant shooting the jewess architect at the beginning, but for the most part I snickered at the transparent manipulations.

One reason the movie doesn't work is because half of it cancels out the other half. The jew victimhood agenda fails because it is too obvious and the formal treatment too Hollywood slick and pretty. The starving jews in their German-constructed hellhole? They don't look remotely starving to me with that early-on jewess who gets shot in the head an excellent example. Other than the fashionably shaved head or crew cut (I can't remember exactly) she has so much energy and bounce that it is tiring just watching her rant and nag. And, here and everywhere else in the picture, the Hollywood lighting does what it was designed to do - make the things being lit look maximum pretty. But how does 'pretty' fit this agenda? It doesn't.

On the other hand, scenes that show good-for-jews situations are dramatically ineffective and terminally conflict with the victimhood angle. Besides the logical inconsistency, they are just wish-fulfillment fantasies, which no even mildly reasonable person can accept. For instance, happy jews dropping junk into German weaponry on the slave assembly line, documented by a smarmy tracking shot and scored with bouncy comedy music. It is all so pretty and upbeat and drolly amusing...oh those clever jews! Logic would dictate that the Germans would catch and punish fraud on such a massive scale with appropriate measures...unless of course, they really weren't such bad guys at all. The jews are victims, but they can easily outsmart the dumb ass Germans? How can this kind of logic work? It can't.

Even more illustrative of Spielberg's third-rate mind is the scene in which he stages a thrilling, life-affirming 'last-minute rescue' as Neeson saves 'his jews' from Auschwitz. But Steven, what about the thousands, or is it millions(?) of other jews who are not saved? No problem to Mr. Spielberg because they are only Hollywood extras, not even bit players, let alone principals. The jew Hollywood mindset in action. No intelligent filmmaker would go near such a situation because of its potential to raise far more disturbing issues than it could ever settle. But Spielberg is not intelligent and can't see the moral dilemma this scene raises. Here as elsewhere, Spielberg's lack of intellectual, let alone technical, gifts result in one agenda canceling out another. What we are left with is unintentional insight into the jew point of view which is addicted to fantasy and runs in horror from reality; which is a black hole where logic and reason ought to be. Hitchcock does something similar, but intentionally, in "Vertigo" where the second half of the picture effectively cancels out the first half in order to raise some highly disturbing thoughts and emotions in the viewer. But Spielberg does it unintentionally and in so doing provides an excellent illustration of the negation that is the defining characteristic of the jews.

Shooting it in black and white (other than for fraudulent 'documentation' purposes) screams desperation. Apparently the only way Spielberg could manage to differentiate the jewess child from the other cardboard cutouts that pass for characters in this picture was by tinting her coat red. He might just as well have given her a follow spotlight or provided a comic-strip verbal balloon with the words "look here" inside it. A more startling and contemptible example of cluelessness in the handling of dramatic material would be difficult to come by.

Equally inept is the truly ridiculous cutting that alternates between the commandant beating his jew sex-slave mistress and a joyous jew religious service. This is the part of Spielberg's movie I was thinking of when I knocked Gibson's handling of transitions between present tense and flashbacks as literal and heavy handed. What Gibson does is subtlety itself next to this freshman exercise in montage.

I involuntarily laughed out loud ( I wasn't a rude National Socialist then - now I would laugh out loud on purpose) during the last dramatic scene, where the title character blubbers, slobbers, whimpers, snivels and crawls about on all fours - interminably. The awful performance the actor gives (I can remember as if it were yesterday how my face flushed with embarrassment at the spectacle the actor was making of himself) is typical of Spielberg, and of most jew directors. Just think of all the nebulous male characters in Kubrick films for instance ("2001," "Barry Lyndon," etc.). With Spielberg, on top of the jew mindset that veers away from male towards female, you also have distinct lack of talent in the selection and handling of actors. As Neeson rips off wristwatches, rings, stickpins and such amidst bouts of blubbering, waving of the hands in the air and falling down, we are again provided with an unintentional insight into the way jews think. Here we graphically see and hear the only true jew value: money. Over and over again the scene says there is an exact equation between people and money; that those two things are interchangeable and of equal value. My skin crawled.

That final, non-dramatic scene, in which a collection of the world's ugliest and most repellent jews, wearing the worlds ugliest and most repellent leisure suits and Hawaiian shirts, troops in formation by something or other to each drop a rock was a fitting climax to this movie. 'Moving' only to jews or to the effectively brainwashed, to anyone else it is far funnier than anything official jew comedians like Allen ever approached.

Spielberg is just another Potemkin Village fraud - none of his movies are any good, and most of them don't even make money. He's just one more no-talent jew who other jews fuss about and give awards to in just the same way they do in all other fields.

As an example of just how full of their own bullshit the jews are - Hollywood jews in particular - Spielberg recently remarked that 'proof' of the holocaust was to be found in his movie and in his shoa (business) foundation. He didn't mention the mountain of physical evidence that such an historic event, which took place on such a supposedly vast scale, would obviously leave behind. No, he mentioned a Hollywood fiction film that he himself made. He isn't aware that a Hollywood fiction film isŠfiction? Talk about mental illness. Perhaps someone should tell Steven, and the rest of the jews in the world, that there is a distinct difference between fiction and reality. Those who can't tell the difference usually pay for it eventually. Let us hope that eventually is just around the corner.


Back to VNN Main Page