FATHER BRESSANI CATHOLIC HIGH SCOOL: A SCHOOL FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND ADVANCED PLACEMENT CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
Monday, March 5, 2012
Post #10: Sharing of Schindler's List
Students are required to spend some time reading and reflecting on peer's initial posts to Schindler's List. Please comment on two peer posts . For each of your posts begin your comments/reflections with, " My response to Post #9 written by (name of student) is..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My response is to post # 9 written by Kyle. Kyle talked a lot about how we may be immature during the course of a movie on purpose, in order to “shield our hearts” from all of the sadness we know to be there. In many ways, words like this can be used to describe our society’s outlook, as a whole. In this world where everything is so happy and wonderful, people can often find it difficult to cope with tragedy, and thus simply choose to see it as a joke.
ReplyDeleteI also think Kyle’s connections about the idea of a Jew and a German working together, as friends, could be related to both the story of Schindler’s list and the boy in the striped pyjamas.
My second response is to post #9 written by Mary-Ann Bui. I think she mad many great points about the ways Schindler was so much the opposite from the German stereotype. He spoke to Jews as if they were people. He was spirited. He also cared very little for his government. That such a person existed surely blew many people away.
I also feel like it was important that she mentioned the ending. As Schindler left his factory, surrounded by all those he had saved, all the good he had done was apparent in the faces of over 4000 Jews. I half expected them to start clapping for him as he started to go. It gave the viewer hope, and it was a beautiful finish. I agree with Mary-Ann’s words, “Evil is not the only thing contained in the human mind”
My response to post #9 written by Samantha Clarizio is based on her comment “I found that watching the motion picture in the view of a German lieutenant was much more shocking than reading about a naive boy or witnessing the events from the perspective of a Jewish person, and what they would have needed to go through.” I completely agree with this because I thought that the perspective of a German officer who knew what was really going on made the film more realistic and meaningful. Even though Bruno did some amazing things that helped to break down barriers, he did them without knowing how important his actions were. Schindler on the other hand knew what he was doing and knew the risks involved yet he still made the choice to save the German people. Unlike Bruno, he also had a lot to lose from his actions and not only risked his life but all his money to fight for what he believed in. For this reason, I think that Schindler’s story was more powerful and shocking than the other forms of literature.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Post #9 written by Ryan Baldinelli is in response to his comment “I was surprised about how Stern and Schindler remained so calm about their situations throughout the movie. Knowing if they were to be caught, both of them would pay the debt of life.” I agree with Ryan’s comment and I think that it made a very good point about how brave Stern and Schindler were. It takes a special kind of person to be able to do something that they know could lead to their death. By choosing to continue to fight for what was right, regardless of the consequences was what them such remarkable men. They took action in a time when many others wouldn’t and their courage lead to dozens of people being saved from certain death. In addition, I think that Stern was especially brave because he knew if what he was doing was discovered he would be forced to suffer in the extreme. He was already hated by the Germans for being Jewish, so if he was caught he would have most likely been tortured and punished in unimaginably brutal ways. The fact that he persevered despite this is a testament to his character.
Two of my peer’s blog posts belong to Sam Clarizio and Thomas Hewitt. I think she speaks for the whole class when she says she expected Oskar Schindler to be like any other Nazi is expected to be- cold, heartless and self-absorbed. Later in the movie we come to realize that he is in fact the opposite. She also mentions the fact that he gave up his money and pretty well his status in German society for these people. If Schindler would have done what all the other Nazi’s were doing and killed the Jews there would be thousands of beautiful lives taken away. I enjoyed Sam’s post very much but I especially enjoyed her closing remarks. She says, “He may have died a poor individual, but definitely rested as a rewarded human being.” I completely agree with this statement. Towards the end of the movie when Oskar breaks down in tears and doubts himself, saying he could have done more, just shows his modesty and humility, but he died a hero and he will always be remembered as one.
ReplyDeleteThomas Hewitt says that he enjoyed this piece of media the most out of all the ones we’ve experienced so far and I completely agree with him. It showed both sides of the story (German and Jewish) but it also showed two sides within the German side. Oskar Schindler was one of the rare Germans- let alone Nazi who treated the Jew with any kind of decency whatsoever. Thomas is also correct when he mentions John Boyne’s comment about the Germans’ complacency. Not all Germans were completely complacent to the things that were happening and Schindler was a great example of one of these people.
My response is to post number 9 written by Caroline. I agreed with her; it really was an eye-opening experience. She mentioned how not all of the Germans were cruel and old hearted during the time of the Holocaust and I agree with her. When you looked at the faces if some of the German soldiers, they were upset about what they were doing, but they tried to mask over their grief by mocking the Jews and firing gunshots. She also mentioned that the purpose of watching Schindlers list was to eradicate the single story out of our mind. I’m pretty sure it did.
ReplyDeleteMy other response is to post number nine written by Zachary. He was right, in my opinion. It was a beautiful story and it was inspiring. People who have watched the story said it was a sad story about the Holocaust, but in the end, it turns out to be a happy(ish) story about one very caring and sympathetic Nazi soldier. I also liked how he noticed that Schindler and Stern were talking man to man, not German to Jew, or superior to waste that will eventually be exterminated. I liked how he made the connection to the Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and how Bruno and Smuel talked to each other as equals.
My response to Post #9 written by Caroline is in regards to her comment on the quote “Power is when we have every justification to kill, and we don’t.” This without a doubt is one of the most powerful lines in the whole movie and therefore out of all the words and phrases expressed, was the one line that had the biggest impact on me and the one I made sure I did not forget. It was so powerful it summarized the whole movie and ultimately finished erasing what was left of the single story in my mind. Oskar Schindler, without literally saying it, undoubtedly admitted that he knew what they, the Nazis were doing, was wrong, inexcusable, inhumane and unnecessary and that he would not stand for it. This statement, completely destroyed any confidence Amon Goeth, one of the major German lieutenants in the film, had of what he was doing. And after this point in the movie, the viewers actually saw that his actions were affected by Schindler’s words. There are small examples that prove this for example when he walked in on the young boy in the shed, who had put the expensive saddle on the floor, and all he did was tell the boy to never do it again. Or when the teenage boy could not get the stains off the bathtub and Amon “pardoned him”. Or, personally the most crucial moment for me, when Amon looked at himself in the bathroom mirror and said, “I pardon you”. Although, he did not quite complete the full 360, we saw he began to hesitate before he made his decisions and ultimately watched him confess to himself that he knew what he did was wrong. Thanks to this statement made by Schindler, Amon’s actions were affected and I was able to get a sense of hope that the world is not all bad. That people that follow through with bad actions can change and that there are people out there that strive to make these changes.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Post #9 written by Erica Smenderovac is regards to her comment about Oskar Schindler and how when “he was feeling pain for what some of his people inflicted” she was not satisfied but just wanted to break down with him. I 100% understand what she felt at this moment because even though we were not watching the movie from the same screen, this scene still almost brought both of us to tears. The situation is painfully and frustratingly ironic, because like Erica and I have both expressed in our posts, Schindler should not have been the only one crying, he should not have even been crying for that matter at all because “so many more had so much more for which to repent”. I felt sympathy because I knew he had put in his heart and soul into creating this “list of life”. I could never imagine what he must have felt when at the end of the whole experience all he could think about was how he could have done more and saved more but at the same time, I almost wanted to slap him across the face. For the life of me, I couldn’t understand how he couldn’t see that what he had done was more than anyone could have even begun to imagine. He did what hardly anyone else was even willing to think about doing but I guess either way the situation did not have the best ending. The end result was very emotional for everyone and I just wish even if it was just for a second, that Oskar Schindler realized that he had done just what Stern had said, “Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire.”
My response to Post #9 written by Zachary. I especially liked how he wrote: "Whenever they talked, it was not Jew to German, or Superior to subordinate. It was man to man." (referring to Schindler & Stern) This is how friendships are, they are between a person and a person. Not a culture and a culture, or one position in society and another. The bond and the relationship between these two men was a friendship. They crossed the border between German and Jew and broke the laws that went against what they were doing and they did something great, together.
ReplyDeleteMy next response to Post #9 written by Sam Clarizio. I admire how she was honest about saying how she started the movie feeling one way about Schindler and finished it feeling the opposite. When we meet people, we don't know a thing about them. Whether it's in real life, or being introduced to a character in a film or a book. We don't know anything about these people, but somehow, we fit them into a pre-made category in our heads based on who or what they remind us of. But, as we get to know these people, as we got to know Schindler throughout the course of the movie, our opinions change because we see who this person really is. We may find qualities in this person that we admire, the flaws we wish could help that person fix, and we can find that this person may have qualities that we have too. I don't think the Nazis understood this during this time period, I think they took that pre-made stereotype and shoved the Jews in there and kept them there without giving them a chance. But, Oskar Schindler proved me wrong throughout the course of this film. He gave these people a chance and he saved so many lives in the process. My first impression of him has been tossed out the window, because now I know who this man really is. This movie gave me hope that there were other people who were like him during this time.
My response to post #9 is written by Kyle Nguyen. I completely agreed and thought it was a great point when he brought up how Schindler grew an emotional relationship with the Jews. At first, he chose to use them as a profit but as the movie carries on he begins to pity their situations and risks his life for them. This really shows a transition in Oskar Schindler’s personality. From having such a determination in making money by taking advantage of the Jews, to him going broke for them due to his generosity and compassion. These emotions demonstrated by Schindler, perhaps could represent a good portion of the German people. In the beginning of the war they were ready to exterminate the innocent people but later came to the conclusion of becoming fed up and sick of taking these peoples lives. My point being from this thought, I believe that there was a transition from hatred to goodness in most German people. The majority of the population was confused of what they were doing and therefore lead into the wrong direction for quite some time. At some point they had come to realization and noticed what they have been doing is wrong. Oskar Schindler saved1100 Jews but mind you he wasn’t the only German to save Jews. There have probably of been many similar stories of German saving Jew during the Holocaust (to a smaller scale) that have never been told of before.
ReplyDeleteMy second response to post #9 is written by Martha Pulnicki. I thought too that the movie had completely eradicated the single story effect of the German culture. The movie showed that despite being a German and part of the Nazi’s doesn’t me you’re a bad person or evil doer. In Oskar Schindler’s case he put the single story approach of the German’s to flames. He went beyond the expectations of changing the single story, saving 1100 Jews and going bankrupt would’ve cost him his head and he was aware of it.
Even though he took them in to his factory you’d think he would make money for his products that would be produced by them but the objects weren’t even sold or profited off of as he did this for the betterment of the Jewish people. Also, by getting rid of the single story approach being that all Germans are evil, creates even more stories and stereotypes that can be grown off the film.
This is my response to Post #9 written by Melissa. I completely agree with her statement, “They didn’t show him [Oskar Schindler] as some war hero who saved the lives of 1300 people; they showed him as someone human who saw right from wrong, and did what he knew was right, no matter the cost that he’d pay.” The amazing thing about Oskar was how he used his power to save the Jews, unlike the majority of Nazis who used it for evil. The movie showed him as a real person who had some morals and ethics and a lot of courage, who wasn’t afraid to take risks and not conform to the single story and stereotypes set by society. In addition, I really liked Melissa’s connection between the movie and the novel “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”. She compared the fence to the factory, in that both were places where two different cultures met, but merged happily into one, almost like a borderland. Both the fence and the factory allowed Germans and Jews to come together without boundaries, without the fear of discrimination, and without superiority or inferiority.
ReplyDeleteMy second response is to Post #9 written by Kyle. I really enjoyed reading his comment, especially his first paragraph in which he basically summarized the movie by highlighting the change in personality in Oskar Schindler; from war profiteer and womanizer in the beginning, to a man with nothing in regards to monetary fortune but so, so much more – the notion that his efforts saved over a thousand Jews. Next, I really appreciated Kyle’s complete honesty in regards to how he viewed the movie – with his “immaturity”, as he put it. I understand where he is coming from; not wanting to get emotionally attached at all in order to avoid facing the inevitable devastation and doom. In regards to this topic of hope versus devastation, although there are points where you feel very hopeful, you almost don’t want to let yourself “fall for it” because you know generally how the story will end. Kyle said he used the worst-case scenarios as a shield around his heart; too scared of destruction to have any hope. Although this is reasonable, I think it is always important to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
My first response from post #9 was written by David. He said that “the film was a perfect example of how ‘The Single Story’ may apply to some people, but does not apply to everyone…” I like how he said that the single story does apply to some people. In my opinion, with everything that we’ve done to learn about the different sides to every story, we begin to forget that the stories do describe some people. They can even describe many people, but not the whole truth. I think that ignoring the single story is like thinking that it is the only story. Forgetting it completely would have the same effect as only paying attention to it. It seems like everyone is commenting on how certain things eradicate the single story, but they forget that it’s not the single story, but a story that we must remember.
ReplyDeleteMy second response to post #9 was written by Mary-Ann. I agree that the movie made the people seem more human. In the documentary, we see only the most horrific parts of the holocaust. The documentary doesn’t show how the people lived before the Holocaust, or how there lives were affected by the constant moving that they were forced to do. In the movie, we can relate more to the people because we can see things that make us similar. I think that showing the people something that’s just like the documentary, something that only shows the scarring parts of the Holocaust, that it would only support one story in their mind.
My response to post # 9 written by Caroline. She says that the film shows us that not all Germans are cold hearted killers. This is very true. Oskar Schindler harbored 1300 Jews in his factory and he was German. He started off as cold hearted greedy man, but he grows to love them and he learns that nothing that Hitler is doing to them is right because they are human just like everyone else on this planet. Caroline also says that we should do what is right even when you aren’t expected to.I would also like to add that we should do good even if it is a risk to our lives. Oskar Schindler does this knowing full well that if Hitler finds out about how Schindler is sabotaging the weapons and employing Jewish people and treating them nicely, Schindler would certainly be in deep trouble.
ReplyDeleteMy response to post #9 written by Zachary Smart. I also found the film inspiring. It was a very interesting film about how Schindler turned his life around and did great things and became a war hero. I agree that Oskar Schindler is a perfect example of how the single story is never true about a culture. It is a story, it might be a true story but it is never the full story. There is always someone in the group that is different and does not meet the stereotypical requirements. I also like how Zachary mentioned the dealings between Oskar Schindler and his assistant Izhak Stern. Oskar Schindler treats him as an equal, even though he is a Jew. Schindler just sees him as someone else who he shares the earth with and is helping him to achieve his goal. Even though Stern is typing the list in that one scene, Schindler does not yell at him for speaking, he welcomes Stern’s contributions and together they achieved their goal.
My response to Samantha Cesario’s post #9, when she said that the flashes of colour throughout the end of the movie meant or symbolized hope. I hadn’t noticed that when I watched the movie, yet when I reflected on the statement she made, I agree wholeheartedly. The fact that the movie ended in colour once again represented freedom for the Jewish people as she said; additionally, I would like to point that hope in a movie with depressing subjects, such as the Holocaust is important. Without hope, one tends to give and succumb to the tragic ending without actually trying to overcome the specific obstacles. When I read her post I thought about the myth about Pandora and her curiosity, how she had unleashed all the evil, yet she had managed to close the box just in time to preserve hope.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Ryan Baldinelli’s post #9, when he reflected on the unlikely relationship between Mr. Stern and Schindler. I agree with his statement “Schindler spoke to Mr.Stern as just another human being not a Jew nor German.” What had started out as a business contract quickly formed a friendship that persevered even through the hardest times. One a Jew and the other a Nazi; both on different sides of the fence, metaphorically speaking, yet both of them achieved what seemed the impossible at the time, and saved many lives.
My response to post #9 is written by Sam Clarizio. I really was able to understand how she felt while waiting for the movie to start. We've slowly began to eradicate the single stories in our heads stating that all Germans were evil Nazis but we know this movie is about a Nazi Lieutenant so people can almost automatically think he's bad due to our somewhat twisted knowledge. When we figured out he saved thousands of Jews, and he was a womanizer and war profiteer I thought he saved the Jews in an almost selfish way just wanting to make money and while doing so he coincidently saved the Jews as well......well I couldn't be more wrong! Like Samantha states this movie showed as another shocking perspective of the Holocaust and even eradicated the single-story that all Nazis liked killing Jews and their "jobs", or that there weren't people like Oskar Schindler saving the Jews even though part of the Nazi party. I also agree that the ending was fairly happy in some context to the rest of the gloomier film because we feel that flicker of hope in us when we see aspiring people like Oskar Schindler doing things we never thought was possible for someone labeled as a Nazi Lieutenant. My response to post #9 is written by Martha Pulnicki is that she gave some really interesting analogies of what the single story was like, and relating the other media sources like the Boy In The Striped Pajamas to the movie too." Believing in only the single story about anything is like watching a 3D movie without wearing the 3D glasses; everything becomes blurry and unclear and it is impossible to fully understand what is going on". I never really thought of a single-story that way but it is really true, we see an image on the screen that is really blurry and confusing without the glasses and don't take in the actual dimensions of the image, it's just an unclear mess. I guess people gain the 'glasses" when we eradicate the single sided stories in our head, and view different perspectives of the same issue or event we are able to see the many dimensions with these new glasses. Everything on the screen is much more clearer. I think watching the movie Schindler's list we have all received our own 3-D glasses. Martha's simile or comparison of the 3-D movie and Single-sided stories is very effective, true and creative. She also compared Bruno and Shmuel's relationship to Oskar and Stern which I didn't really think of when watching this film. She was right when she wrote that they were able to accomplish the same thing at the end of the day, though Bruno and Shmuel did it more obliviously while Oskar and Stern were more aware of their actions they were all able to cross borderlands, except each other's differences and like Martha said "These two men were able to look past the superficial differences that society was putting so much emphasis on and did not view each other as one being superior to the other. They spoke man to man, not German to Jew." These two posts from these two students were very insightful and I believe were relatable.
ReplyDeleteThe ninth post, written by David, is one I’d like to comment on. His last paragraph is what really made me think. In said paragraph he brings up a point that has always interested me about the Holocaust: the children. The different stories of every child can be more emotion-altering than a documentary as gruesome as “Night and Fog”. When I think about all the possible outcomes of their lives during that time period, I can go from impossibly sad to impossibly relieved. I believe these stories affect me the most because the children epitomize the innocent. In religion we studied the beatitudes and one of them says, “Blessed are the pure in heart; they will see God.” In that class, we came to realize the only truly pure in heart are children, infants, babies. The young people who haven’t had the chance to sin or are still pleasantly unaware. To think that they were killed, that they were regarded as “useless eaters”, is something that sickens me almost more than any other aspect of the Holocaust. Children are the future, the people that deserve the love and nurturing of everyone. Imagine how their lives were changed, imagine watching people die? Not nondescript people but your own family? I can’t help but think; perhaps they even believed they were not worth life? What if their young minds were impressionable in that way? This then makes me think about the news I just watched, a reporter telling me that a thirteen year-old boy was just released from custody, after he drove an eleven year-old to suicide!!! Suicide!!! That’s practically unfathomable. What would warp a mind so irreversibly to make a pure-hearted child commit suicide? The Holocaust probably could. Yet David points out the opposite, how they were the only victims that looked happy, and I am reminded of the move “Life is Beautiful”. I can only wonder the extent people went to protect their children, any child forced into a ghetto or concentration camp. What lengths did people go to protect the children without childhoods? I am forced to wonder if I would have given my life for theirs; or if I would have been selfish, or if I only care now because I am a child myself.
ReplyDeleteThe post by Zachary is another I’d like to review. I really enjoyed his entire post, the fact that he can get across so much, so simply and matter-of-factly. What I would really like to quote, though, is his concluding paragraph. Zach says, “Whenever they talked, it was not Jew to German, or Superior to subordinate. It was man to man. So, I think that, just like with Bruno and Shmuel from ‘the boy in the striped pyjamas’, they tore down the fence that divided them so they were two equals.” First off, the “man to man” comment was beautifully insightful, and his connection to the novel allows us to understand the point he is making that much more effectively. I completely agree, just as I completely agreed with Thomas when he said this about “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” (as Zach also did). Both the relationships were almost made unconsciously, although Oskar and Stern knew of the barrier more so than Shmuel and Bruno. Regardless, both sets of friends were equal, were always equal and never needed to prove that to themselves. It was everyone else who made it seem as if they never were, when truly, they always were. This point reminds me of the beauty, the hope that Mr. Racco referred to, that could be found in “Schindler’s List” and even in “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”. So thanks Zach, for reminding me that such darkness cannot exist without light.
My reaction to post 39 written by Zachary is very positive. He brought up many things that I agree with. For instance, he says that the film went from a holocaust movie to a beautiful story. I found this to be true as well. I believe the movie wasn't meant to show how bad the Jews suffered under the Germans, but instead a movie on how human Oskar Schindlier really was. So there are many different ways to argue what the movie was actually trying to get across. But I stand with Zachary on this viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteMy reaction to post #9 written by Caroline is that I think she has a firm grasp on the movie as a whole. She writes in her post, "German[s] do not fit the typical German stereotype that they were horrible, ruthless people.." This proves that our class has started to view things beyond the stereotypes, investigating further. It is not always easy to do, but movies like Schindliers List gives us the foundation to believing that there is always more, than a single story.
My response to post #9 written by Chiara Canaletti. Chiara mentioned a very important piece of information in my opinion when she stated, "I and many others used to have this single-sided image or label of Germans due to the twisted stereotypes we have learned and have been engrained in our heads since we were young. This presentation has helped shed light on this, as well as the book the "Boy In The Striped Pajamas", that not all Germans were Nazi party citizens killing Jews or supported the death of Jews, like Bruno's grandmother. This movie though, showed an actual person , Oskar Schindler who was against the Nazi beliefs but was actually a Nazi Lieutenant/Commandant himself." How true is that? I know for a fact that when I first started learning about the holocaust through previous grades, I began to create a bad image generalizing all German's and labelling them as bad in my head. But having heard all different stories, and understanding that not every German is alike, it began to shed light upon the situation and really gave me a grasp in reality. Think about it, maybe there were hundreds more people that had the same idea as Mr. Schindler and Bruno's grandmother did. We cannot stereotype, and that is what the Hollywood motion picture, 'Schindler's List' taught us.
ReplyDeleteMy response to post #9 is written by Veronica Cesario. She had said in her commentary, "What I saw was two different stories of the Holocaust, (for lack of better terms)—the good German, bad German. Before beginning this culture unit, I had this single-story of the German and Jewish people in my mind." That too goes along the same lines as to what Chiara mentioned, but in my opinion it is till 110% correct. I am so thankful that many others share the same ideas as I. I like how Veronica did a comparision that differed between a good German vs a bad German. I never actually thought about it in that sort of way, but thinking about it now, it seems pretty clear to me that a further label can be made from a stereotype.
Schindler's List was great !!!
My response to post #9 is written by Zachary Smart. I agree with him when he states how Schindler and Stern talk man to man. They aren’t talking as though Schindler is in control, or as if Stern is a weak link. They see each other as men, with no differences.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zachary when he says that Schindler shows that no culture is complete. However, even though Schindler showed a different side to the culture, there are many sides that are still unseen. We cannot fully understand the culture until we see all sides of it. This reminds me of the single story internet video that we watched. Cultures cannot be fully appreciated until we learn to put judgment aside and become unbiased towards them.
My response to post #9 is written by Melissa Paul. I agree with her when she says how Schindler was portrayed as an everyday person who did what he thought was right. I agree with her when she mentions that Schindler didn’t see the Jews as people beneath him. He saw them as equals, as people with lives who deserved to live. I think that Schindler was grounded in this way. He followed what he thought was right.
I also agree with her when she mentions that Schindler and the Jews were like Bruno and Shmuel. Schindler saw Stern as an equal, not as someone who was different because of the star. Bruno had that view as well. The outer labels didn’t matter to either of them; they merely bonded with the person behind the labels that the world gave them.
My response to Post #9 written by Melissa Paul is based on her comment “They didn’t show him as some war hero who saved the lives of 1300 people; they showed him as someone human who saw right from wrong, and did what he knew was right, no matter the cost that he’d pay.” . I really loved this comment because I thought it truly portrayed Oskar. In most movies the ‘hero’ is portrayed distinctly as hero but in this non-fiction, real life movie the hero was shown as just a regular person who like Melissa stated knew what was right and wrong and was willing to do something to stop the wrong, no matter what. Melissa also says that Schindler does not fit the single story and she is right, he does not. Schindler displays his true kindness at the end of the movie when he admits that he could have helped more Jewish people, even though we all know that he did do a lot, saving 1300 Jewish people IS a lot. I also liked how Melissa compared “Schindler’s List” to the novel “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”; she is completely correct that Bruno and Shmuel’s friendship can be compared to Oskar and his Jewish assistant’s relationship. Both relationships saw each other man for man or boy for boy neither German man nor boy felt more superior to the other because of their cultural group. In my opinion, this is the true definition of friendship, seeing the other person not for where they are from but for what they are on the inside. “The story of a culture is not set in stone, where everyone is the same; it is something that people should see both sides before judging.” Melissa says this at the end of her response and I agree with her, we should always see more than the single story, or more than one side before judging someone.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Post #9 written by Sam Clarizio is the following. I agree with Sam that with watching this motion picture, I was able to truly put myself in the Jewish people’s shoes. In doing this, on Friday evening after falling asleep I had a dream that I, myself along with a few of my friends were a part of the Holocaust. We were wearing striped pajamas, living in a concentration camp, hungry and terrified. For some reason during my dream, my friends and I were let out of the camp for a short while. While out of the camp, we encountered some other young girls, around the same age as us; we began talking to them and when a German soldier began approaching us, our faces froze, our new friends asked us why? We then explained to them that we were Jewish, and Germans did not like Jews. These young girls felt extremely sorry for my friends and I and were able to see past our culture and gave us food. While we ate the food they had given us, a German soldier realized what we were doing and gave us no choice but to spit out the food we had in our mouths. He then proceeded to slap us on our backs and took us back into the concentration camp. One specific thing that I remembered about this ‘dream’ was that it was very dark and gloomy, the only colour there really was, was grey. The worst part of my dream was when the solider began to line my friends and I up in a horizontal line, we all just waited. First, my best friend of many years was shot right in the heart and I witnessed her drop to the floor dead, I was shocked, well shocked would be an understatement. Next some other faces of whom people I did not recognize were shot. Bam. Gone. There came a point in my dream were I was so frustrated I just wanted to be shot and killed, I wanted my misery to end. I approached the female soldier in charge of the killing and asked her to be shot, I actually begged her. She laughed in my face; I can still hear the laugh in the back of my head even if it was just a dream. For some odd reason, she made me do some sort of dance before she shot me right through the head. I woke up shaking. I believe it was because of this movie that I had this awful nightmare. The movie really made me think and like Sam said, put myself in the Jewish shoes.
My response to blog #9 is written by Kyle and Maryann.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Kyle’s comment on how Schindler and Stern’s embrace reminded him of Bruno and Shmuel. It doesn’t matter their age, or even their cultural backgrounds (in this case it matched), it is the connection of individuals from either side of the fence. And as I was thinking about that, I realized that as John Boyne said “fences such as these exist all over the world,” so do relationships such as Bruno and Shmuel’s. It is virtually impossible to have a border without at least some urge to cross it. This scene can help us understand that the friendship we witnessed between Bruno and Shmuel is not limited to that of two young boys, but can be applied to anyone anywhere.
Maryann comments on how “the movie was completely different than the documentary”. I experienced this as well; the film seemed to have more of an impact on me. However, I didn’t know why. I think it was very insightful of Maryann when she commented on how much more relatable the film was as opposed to the documentary. I agree with this completely. Rather than staring wide-eyed at horrific images of distorted human remains, we watched events take place that were more similar to our everyday lives. I really appreciate this about the movie. Also, it was a refreshing for the audience to experience certain events in the Holocaust through the perspective of a Jew as seen in the film. I felt that the movie was able to do this in a way the other forms of media couldn’t. Also, it was amazing to see the transformation Schindler went through—as Maryann mentioned—although I didn’t feel so much hatred towards him at first, I was still contented with his revelation.
My response to Post #9 written by David narrows in on his thoughtful eye and insightful interpretation of the children throughout “Schindler’s List.” What David captures in his writing is not perhaps the central message of this movie, but was significantly imposing upon the minor details that carve the “realness” of this movie and historic event altogether. All the children in the camps, although seeing with their eyes, were not understanding fully with their minds and thus the scenery around them could have been as real as a stage set. I think back now and wonder: would I rather have died in the state of a foolish young child, happy until the last moment life resides within me; or have been brutally killed, but aware of it and knowing that my fate was set and life was no longer in my own hands? I wonder, is it easier to be blinded by misconception, or awakened by an ongoing nightmare? Children can be put into any situation and will always have a different reaction than an adult, yet as they grow and their mind opens up to the enveloping world, this reaction changes. Once the truth is present in one’s mind, it can hardly be unseen or un-remembered, thus the time in which a person sees the world as a child is the one and only time that they will – when they die having seen nothing more, it is as if life was at its height before an unforeseen death deprives the future from them. David found something in this movie that I had not seen before, and his effort towards relating this back to “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” simply hit the mark! David says, “Bruno had no idea what was going on and that was why he could be so happy with all the chaos that was going on around his family.” I concur entirely, and would append that Bruno’s naivety ‘makes him and breaks him’ in the sense that it gives him drive, passion and purpose to life, yet unfortunately takes his life at an untimely death.
ReplyDeletePost #9 by Veronica impressed an interesting angle onto this unit of cultural embracement. Veronica particularly takes into consideration the point of view from which “Schindler’s List” is told, “Once the perspective changes, the story changes it with it.” Naturally, I agree completely with this remark, but deem that it is even important to consider the entire media source from which the angle/perspective is being shown. This point suggested by Veronica progressed into my own thoughts on the media of a message interfering with the perspective. I recall that Marshal McLuhan makes a very valid argument in his book “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man”; McLuhan says, “The medium is the message.” This idea represents the many times forgotten influence of actual media sources; for example – when you listen to your IPod, it could be argued that regardless of the music, the device in itself is putting forth the message of individual power and ability to listen to anything at anytime and to be the only person able to hear it. This as opposed to a radio – where the sound is being broadcast to many different people and those around you must gather to hear and listen to. Likewise, I feel that through every different media source, the perspective also undergoes a change. With a subject like the Holocaust, surrounded with a single story, but then open up to a broader understanding, it is crucial for the learner to grasp a 360 degree understanding of each side and purpose of the event. As a movie, this media source was very effective in conveying a new message as well as a fresh source of information. Veronica certainly highlights this in her response!
My response to Post #9 written by Ryan Baldinelli. He is completely accurate when it comes to three sides of the story, the stereotypical side, the non-stereotypical side, and most importantly, the truth. I like the fact that he recognized all 3 sides to what was originally a single story. The stereotypical evil and cold hearted Germans were transformed into the few innocent and caring people. We should not base out thoughts on one thought of another. A person's personality and judgement is supported by their attitude and not their culture. The truth is unknown. As he says, “The complete truth of the Holocaust and the true reason why Adolf Hitler would ignite such chaos is untold.” We will never know why the Holocaust happened, but as Ryan very well pointed out, an event like this can happen at any moment in time. The realization is unwanted, but recognized.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Post #9 written by Thomas Hewitt. This was the most powerful form of literature that we watched, as Thomas had pointed out. It showed us a completely new side of the single story, coming from a German Nazi lieutenant, who was in denial with the Holocaust and the actions victimizing innocent people. Thomas says, “'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' and 'Night and Fog' both portray ALL Nazi’s as heartless beasts who found great pleasure in the death of the Jews. From the film we learn that not all of them were evil but many were. It seems to me that even some of the other forms of literature even embraced the “single story” to a certain extent.” This perfectly describes my initial thoughts. The motion picture really emphasized the Nazi regime, but also showed a sincere man of courage and bravery, going against what he should have done. Thomas is completely right when it comes to the single story.
My first response to post number nine is to Kayla. I disagree with Kayla when she speaks about the sense of pride she had for Schindler. To me I think it was a feeling of approval. I guess it is the same meaning but I think that it should be expected for someone like Schindler to help the Jews. Sure it took guts and you were risking your life but it should be done, to help all those people who are dying for no reason at all. Any human if they were thinking straight should do that. To be humane. And again with not thinking of the single story, to completely eradicate it and to open our eyes and to see the bigger picture.
ReplyDeleteMy second response to post number nine is to Caroline. I again agree that it shows that not Germans were supporting the Nazi occupation, but they were just in it to not get killed and to survive. At times like those the biggest thing on your mind is usually the survival of yourself and your family. Schindler was indeed like that and he hid it with his façade of making money and becoming rich. “Power is when we have every justification to kill, but we don’t.” I really think this is a powerful quote, an incredible one. Schindler displayed this extremely well, saving hundreds of Jews while giving away everything he earned and risking his life.
My first response to post #9 would be for Megan. Her feelings towards the scene where he broke down and cried because he felt that he did not do enough are mutual to mine. I feel ashamed for the people who WERE responsible for the death of millions. They brushed off the guilt no problem, while here a man who actually stood up and did something could not. My second response is directed to Sofia. Two things that I agreed with her are how, “this movie” (out of all media that we have been shown) “portrayed the largest German perspective”. I found that, like her, I was quick to judge Schindler and scrutinize every action that he made to be sure that it was good. While I was reading the rest of her comment, I came across a sentence that struck me. “I sincerely believe that these soldiers were as withheld as the prisoners by invisible fences”. It was true in its own way. Men would not want to kill innocent people for such a flimsy reason like one’s religion. They would not want to shovel bodies day after day. But did they really have a choice? If they opposed the government, they would end up being killed themselves. Even someone that obtains authority such as Schindler was afraid of being caught saving the Jews. He had to be extra careful with every move he took, bribing the officials, buying the soldiers, and listing the names of the Jews that he would take under his wing. What if like all the hopeless Jewish victims, the Germans themselves were also waiting for this horrible nightmare to be over? What if they were trying to find a small sliver of justice but they could not, so their fear bound them back to silence? What if they were unable to save even themselves from the regime of the Holocaust? What if. What if. We will most likely never know unless we open our eyes and try to understand more, to see the bigger picture instead of what people of “power” have laid out for us.
ReplyDelete