Talk:Schindler's List

Malaysia

Should be something on how it was initially banned in Malaysia, with the initially-stated reason for the ban being something along the lines of "It presents Jews in too favorable a light"... AnonMoos 18:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Source? I better find something on that in my papers. Alientraveller 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just remember it from ca. 1993 media coverage at the time... AnonMoos 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Schindler's List (1993) - was initially banned for being too sympathetic towards Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Malaysia#Films_banned_.5B22.5D)

BBC: "Five years ago Malaysia's censors also initially refused to screen Steven Spielberg's Holocaust epic Schindler's List on the grounds that it was sympathetic to Jews." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/392036.stm)

NYT: It was Malaysia that initially banned the film as "propaganda with the purpose of asking for sympathy." (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2DD163EF934A35757C0A962958260)

Note that it was the same Mr. Mahathir that stirred controversy on October 16, 2003, by the statement that "the Jews rule the world by proxy."Thaum1el (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I think the lead could be expanded? Any ideas what to include? LordHarris 09:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave expanding the lead until we got as much possible information into the article, but certainly mention can be made of the film shooting on real-life locations in Poland, and the hand-held cinematography. Alientraveller 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok makes sense. LordHarris 10:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Little Girl in a Red Coat

from the article: "Though the film is primarily shot in black-and-white, red was used to distinguish a little girl in a coat. Later in the film, she is seen dead. Her name was Roma Ligocka, and she published a book called The Girl in the Red Coat: A Memoir."

Am I right in thinking that the girl in the movie is fictional and who Roma Ligocka is a holocaust survivor that saw the movie and then borrowed the image of the girl to tell her own story? The article seems to be saying that the girl in the movie is meant to portray Ligocka. Bygmesterfinn (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you read the whole paragraph, you'll understand Spielberg took inspiration from the real-life person, and killed her off to symbolise what could have been lost. Alientraveller (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that that's what the paragraph says, and that's also what is cited source says, but I'm questioning the accuracy of the claim from the source that this woman was an inspiration for the girl in the movie. I've not read Ligocka's book, but my understanding is that Ligocka does not make that claim. See, for example: http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/schindlerslist.php. Bygmesterfinn (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Chasingthefrog a reliable source? Alientraveller (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This type of foreshadowing is actually well known in American cinema. For example, in the original Star Trek series, any new crew members with a red shirt inevitably wound up dead by the end of the episode. Zaphraud (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing Image description

[[Image:Schindlers list red dress.JPG|thumb|250px|right|Schindler sees a little girl wearing a red coat, who is later killed]] I believe the description in the image box of the Girl in Red Coat need to be edited by deleting the term "who is later killed". I had done that but it got reverted. So I am giving my reasons here. I do agree as an encyclopedia, wikipedia can have spoilers with no warnings, but we should see the purpose also. For those who haven't seen the film that description is a terrible spoiler seriously diluting the feelings when Oskar see her deadbody.I was such an unlucky person! Also for those who haven't seen the film, the girl is just a character who gets killed in the holocaust. There is not much of information in it. For those who have seen the film, they already know that the girl gets killed and there is no significance for those words in that way either. Please refer to the imagebox of the corpse in Saw (film). If it had the description "which is not actually a deadbody and is the psycho himself" or something, how terrible it would be. I am changing the description of the Girl in Red Coat image so as to state that its the only instance of colour in B&W scenes in the film--Anoopkn (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Alientraveller (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody changed the description to "one of the few" from "one and only". I think its the only color instance in the B&W scenes in the film. Pls check & modify the description, if needed--Anoopkn (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not the only use of color in the film. Near the end of the film a candle flame in a religious service is also in color. I question the citation needed comment after the line that says that it is one of the few uses of color in the film. Anyone who watches the film can see this is true; why would anyone need to have this verified with a reliable source. The movie itself is a verifiable source! Warm regards, Rick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.216.102 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 February 2009

Music

"Oyf'n Pripetshok" is not a folk song. It was written and composed by Mark Warshawsky (1840-1907), aka Warshavsky. See http://jhom.com/topics/letters/songs.html and http://www.ibiblio.org/yiddish/songs/pripetshek/mw.html. 203.214.7.136 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)paramucho

"AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies" article says...

...it is #9, not #8? Mistake?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years..._100_Movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howcome? (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Schindler german?

In the movie it says he was Czechoslovakian,not german. Maybe i saw it differently, maybe he is a german that lived in Czechoslovakia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.2.244 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There were many ethnic Germans (who spoke German) living in Czechosolovakia. That was the excuse Hitler used for annexing part of the country, the Sudetenland, in 1938. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Academy awards?

How come the list of all 7 awards is not found in article? --79.101.185.174 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Göth or Goeth?

This article uses Göth, as does the Wikipedia article on Amon Göth. However, the IMDb entry for the movie as well as the movie's own web site use the spelling Goeth. As this is an article about the movie and very clearly the movie prefers "Goeth", shouldn't that be the way it is spelled in this article? Thoughts? Jbarta (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an article about the movie, I agree that the spelling should be as in the movie.--Parkwells (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Schindler's List/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I'll be conducting this article's GA review. From a quick glance, I already see that quite a bit of work is needed in order for it to properly cover all of the criteria. However, because the film (and therefore its article) is so very notable, I'm hoping that the main contributors here will work diligently to raise it to GA standards. All comments/suggestions will be listed in bullet format, so feel free to reply to each one as they are individually addressed. María (habla conmigo) 02:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

• There are several clean-up tags listed in this article, which actually puts it in danger of being quickfailed. Again, I'm hoping that this can be taken care of during the review process. I moved the tags to the top of the page as per normal placement; "tags" is not a viable header.
• The lead section does not currently fulfill WP:LEAD in that it isn't a summary of the entire article. I would say that it could be expanded to three or four meaty paragraphs once all expansion/etc. is completed.
• The plot is too long. Per WP:FILMPLOT, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot." This film does not, in my opinion, have too complicated of a plot, so I would suggest aiming for between 400 and 700.
• Is the cast section necessary if a majority of the actors/characters are already listed in the plot summary? From what I gather, if there is one, there's no need for the other.
• Some of the quotes throughout "Production" do not have citations.
• Watch the overlinking; Schindlerjuden is linked at least three times, twice in one paragraph, for example.
• Although a great idea, the "Symbols" section is skimpy and seemingly random. It needs an introductory paragraph, something that introduces the importance of the various symbols in the film. Also, are there really only two worth mentioning? I'm honestly curious.
• No section on "Themes"?

• This is the most important issue: I'm a little concerned about the caliber of the references. With better refs comes better research. Since this is such an important film, there is actually a nice selection of academic sources available out there. I did a quick search at Worldcat, and I found some works that may be useful; incorporation of just two or three would instantly raise this article's status. Here is just a sampling that are available even at my dinky uni's library:

• Fensch, Thomas. Oskar Schindler and His List: the Man, the Book, the Film, the Holocaust and its Survivors. Forest Dale, Vt.: Paul S. Eriksson, 1995.
• Loshitzky, Yosefa. Spielberg's Holocaust: Critical Perspectives on Schindler's List. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997.
• Mintz, Alan L. Popular Culture and the Shaping of Holocaust Memory in America. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001.
• Palowski, Franciszek. The Making of Schindler's list: Behind the Scenes of an Epic Film. Secaucus, N.J.: Carol Pub. Group, 1998.

Okay, so those are the major things that stand out without prose nitpicking. Once the above issues have been addressed satisfactorily, I'll move into close-reading/copy-editing mode. For now I'm putting this article on hold. If there are any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 02:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm failing this article due to inactivity. I hope to see it improve and expand before its next nomination at GAC. María (habla conmigo) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

this article is insane and irresponsible

in the book that the movies is based upon it says that this story is a work of fiction. and this article starts off by saying that it is a true account. it isnt true. its a false story. so why is it offered here as being true? Statesboropow (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What a rude title. :P The book might be marketed as historical fiction, because it dramatised history. Schindler did save 1100 Jews you know. Alientraveller (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the film, not the book. What matters is what the disclaimer in the rolling credits of the film says. Jay (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well what this person is saying is it didn't happen. Well it did. Biographical films can take liberties, but this is based on a historical event. This topic opening was either poorly phrased or just wrong. Alientraveller (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

the boy that the commandant commander was shooting at in the film and killed actually survived. Amon Goeth didnt shoot anyone from the balcony of his house because he had no view of the camp from that location. there is also a scene where it shows little children being led into a building and then the camera pans up and shows smoke coming out of the chimney. is this to suggest that children were thrown into a furnace? and if this was an extermination camp, why is there no scene in the movie that shows people being gassed? the book is fiction and the film is fiction and passing it off as anything else like the director of this movie did is insane and irresponsible. Statesboropow (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Spielberg is insane and irresponsible? False alarm, I thought you were trying to improve the article, not insult everyone just because there were showers in concentration camps. Actually, I should have known this from the uncivil header and never responded in the first place. LOL! Alientraveller (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

who said there werent showers there? but there were no gas chambers used to kill anyone. Statesboropow (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

are you actually trying to deny the use of gas in the death camps? i can tell you i have been to Majdanek and i have seen the left over canisters myself, i have seen the blue tinge on the walls and ceiling where the gas reacted with the lead paint. Colt .55 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have, both seen the film and read the book, and you see differences, you can create a "Differences from the book" section in the article. For reference see such sections in these films: Congo, and some from the Harry Potter series Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban, Philosopher's stone, Chamber of Secrets.

If you feel many of the events depicted in the book are inaccurate, you can discuss this at Talk:Schindler's Ark. Jay (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't add such a section, as they typically become a haven for cruft/trivia. There's already quite a bit of work that needs to be done for this article to fulfill the Good Article criteria (see review above), although I fear it will have to be failed anyway if no work is done soon. María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Information and commentary about decisions made in the adaptation process and their effects are valuable additions to the Production and Criticsm/Response sections. Relegating them to a section focused "differences" between the adaptation and its sources trivializes them and removes the context. If you find anything significant about the film and its development — appropriately sourced — merge it into those sections. This adds so much more to the article than the onanistic process of listing unimportant details.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a true account, Schindler was a real person. All the people the film depicts him saving were real too. the people seen at the end of the film (spoiler) are not actors, they are the real people. to deny the validity of this film is to deny the holocaust, which exremely offends a lot of people. Colt .55 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Squeamish

I changed the controversy section's phrase describing Christian fundamentalists as having been "squeamish" to being "critical of the film," as I thought squeamish might be a bit of a value judgement on those groups. I'm not a part of one of these groups, but it didn't seem like an objective description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.9.155 (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a work of fiction.

and that needs to be in the first paragraph. i updated it. i know i will catch hell for that. Statesboropow (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no need to state that explicitly because the word "novel" is sufficient to state that it is not a historical account. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

then why is it passed off as being true? Statesboropow (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it? JFW | T@lk 02:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Listen, i have read the book. the 'fiction' does not just mean a work of imagination where the characters are not real. fiction also means a dramatised story or narravitve as apposed to non-fiction which is documentative or factual this means when the book says its fiction, it means it does not mean to say it isnt real. it means to say that it is a dramatised account of true events, rather than a timeline of facts concerning the subject.

all the events and characters in the book and film are real, they happened. maybe the dialogue and the screenplay is dramatised, but otherwise if you bothered at all to do any proper research you will find the truth for yourself.

and before you ask me if i have done research, then yes, i have been to Plaszow, i have been to Amon Göth's house.Colt .55 (talk)

oh, so Goeth did shoot that boy from the balcony of a house that in real life had no view of the inmate areas? and they did take children down into a room and threw them into a furnace as is "dramatized" in the movie? the movie is Hollywood, pure and simple Statesboropow (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Listen, are you trying to say the death camps are a lie, that 6 million Jews and millions of other people didnt actually die? Where's half my family, you bastard? Did they just get lost? I know people who were there, and watched their siblings die. So dont try to say it didn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.207.32 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

six million jews did not die in world war two. the death toll at auschwitz was revised to 1.1 million down from 4 million in the late 1990's, so the six million figure is and has been dead for years. Statesboropow (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, we really don't need to turn this into a holocaust denial debate. The film is dramatized, but is based on true sources in the sense that the creators of the film did not make it all up. Save your conspiracy theories for the page on the holocaust, not one on a film about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.9.155 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that the Holocaust denier who started this absurd rant about Schindler's List being fiction has been banned from Wikipedia. His talk page is very interesting to read. -OberRanks (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Only Jews

It was a long time since I watched this film, so correct me if I'm wrong. But why did he only save jews? What about the gypsies, communists, homosexuals, political opponents etc? Did the real Schindler also only save jews? Why was that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.156.198 (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Haha, yeah. You should try asking that simple, genuine question on the IMDB forums and watch yourself be shouted down as "anti-semitic" for daring to point out that while Jews were killed, they were not the only group to be targeted or the only group to be executed in the same concentration camp/gas extermination ways. Pretty much bigotry really. 203.171.199.159 (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Only a guess, but probably because the Jewish workers were the ones he could get cheap (see the beginning of the movie), so that was who was laboring in his factory. 69.115.19.58 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Other questions on Göth

There are a few things I noticed about Göth. In my opinion, he was made to look like a mid 20s person who is to highly ranked for his age. He is thin, as if he would be a workoholic. In reality, he was a fatso in his mid 30s, who may have been ranked for his membership in the NSDAP. Any other opinions of his charachter?

Even Schindler was puzzled on Gört's behaviour. Schindler said "I supply with good drinks to this villa, so please get of this motor oil". Anyone with an idea of what "motor oil" he was drinking. (both questions made by Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Goeth Portrayal

The article says Goeth was portrayed as being too much of a villain. However, Leon Leyson says the opposite was true. I think this should be added to the article. Here is the link. http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_B_hanukkah06.32a5802.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.60.105 (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Leo John was very much a real person

I happened to notice that a few months ago a gang of folks got a hold of the Leo John article and changed it to say he was a fictional character and then later redirected it here, effectively blanking it. For now, that probably is the best thing to do, but I would like to state Leo John IS a real person and was stationed as Amon Goeth's assistant. Leo John's SS record is available at the National Archives in College Park although there is virtually nothing in it (a cover page and one or two sheets of misc correspondence). I should add Rudolf Czurda's record is in the same state and doesnt even have that much. But anyway, Leo John isnt fictional and was a real person. Just wanted to set the record straight. -OberRanks (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)