 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) In my view, since the film was about Schindler's List, anyone outside of the direct effect of The List is irrelevant to the film. That's not to say their deaths weren't tragic or aren't signficant, but they are beyond the intended scope of the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) I believe that an omission is a lie. So, to omit the whole history of the Holocaust and focus only on one group of people that suffered and died, and to repeat and repeat only that part of the history (allowing the other stats to be obscured) (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) Ah! Now I see where you're coming from. I still hold that, in itself, the film can't be blasted for failing to address matters outside its scope, since to do otherwise would by definition require that everything address everything--a (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) Yes! Thanks, I was having trouble recalling his name and didn't want to butcher it. :) (...) Well, I admire any artist willing to use their celebrity status in a positive, non-egocentric way. It breaks my heart when an artist like Spielberg (a (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
I was thinking of not putting anything into this thread. Tough to stay out of though. Lots of good points are being made by all parties and clearly this is a nicely behaved and well reasoned thread, kudos to all posters. (...) Good point. But where (...) (23 years ago, 25-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
