Polanski's THE PIANIST

Mr Knipp seems to feel that the appropriate and timely response to "The Pianist" is one of healing and compassion. He would feel differently if he were a Jew, especially a Jew who was subjected at a tender age to vicious and ongoing anti-Semitism. I was such a Jew, a child of the streets of the Bronx, New York in the 1930's. My tormenters made no bones of the fact that they wished that Hitler won the war, so that the Nazis could come to America and throw me into the ovens. It was 1939. I was 8.

A movie is a work of art, and a real work of art provokes different thoughts and feelings in different people, and people vary in what they require to come to a stage of healing and compassion. What is required of some is purging, ventilation, of deepseated feelings of fear and anger. This is necessary for true healing, and not just covering up and acting 'nice.'

"The Pianist" was just such a work of art, as have been some of the others mentioned, "Schindler's List," "Europa, Europa," "The Glass Box" and "Judgment at Nuremberg."

In "The Pianist," what was shown was the extent of Nazi barbarism, completely unprovoked by the helpless, hapless, innocent, civilian Jews. What Mr. Knipp fails to realize is that the details of this great film, shown in stark reality, remind the audience of what happened. Those who are Jews, or who can identify with Jews, react differently from those who are not.

How is it possible to understand the full extend of the FINAL SOLUTION, and the details, including random shootings, beatings, humiliation, torture, torment, debasement without having some question about THE GERMAN CHARACTER? How is it possible to understand the systematic, relentless nature of the murders and robberies, the extraction of gold from the teeth, the lampshades made of human skin, the tattooing of numbers, erasing the identity of individuals on a massive scale, without having some question about THE GERMAN CHARACTER?

What is wrong with my speculating about THE GERMAN CHARACTER? What harm does it do, except to Mr Knipp's desire, admirable though it may be, to skim over the question of THE GERMAN CHARACTER.

Let someone come forward and give some explanation for history's worst example of barbarism and evil, before we leave the question of THE GERMAN CHARACTER.

If Mr. Grim raises the grim question of THE GERMAN CHARACTER, it is not without some reason, some rationale, no matter what else he has said about anything.

The roots, causes, and circumstances surrounding the expression of man's inhumanity to man are not to be found in the "character" of a specific nation. It goes deeper. It is not that simple. Demonizing descendants of Nazi Germany will not help prevent future holocausts. I felt sad reading about you being tormented as a child. It is difficult to practice good judgement and clear analysis at your level of personal involvement. Moreover, you seem to have a tendency toward stereotypical thinking, in general. The quote below is further proof.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vbloom

Mr Knipp seems to feel that the appropriate and timely response to "The Pianist" is one of healing and compassion. He would feel differently if he were a Jew

---

The roots, causes, and circumstances surrounding the expression of man's inhumanity to man are not to be found in the "character" of a specific nation. It goes deeper. It is not that simple. Demonizing descendants of Nazi Germany will not help prevent future holocausts. I felt sad reading about you being tormented as a child. It is difficult to practice good judgement and clear analysis at your level of personal involvement. Moreover, you seem to have a tendency toward stereotypical thinking, in general. The quote below is further proof.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by vbloom

Mr Knipp seems to feel that the appropriate and timely response to "The Pianist" is one of healing and compassion. He would feel differently if he were a Jew...

To Mr Jubis I ask, if the roots, causes and circumstances surrounding the expression of man's inhumanity to man are not to be found in the "character" of a specific nation, but go deeper, where are they to be found?

I am not "demonizing" the descendents of Nazi Germany; I am merely raising a question.

I appreciate Mr. Jubis feeling sad at my being tormented as a child. Does the fact of my having feelings about it take me out of the realm of good judgment and clear analysis?

What detachment and absence of personal experience and feeling enable one to be qualified for "good judgment" and "clear analysis?"

Do you think Roman Polanski's film "The Pianist" was one to foster good judgment and clear analysis?

NO! It was to reveal what happened and show the depths of depravity which a people at a certain place and time were capable of!

He showed evil Germans and evil Jews and evil Polish people. He showed what humans are capable of, which we amazingly call--- "inhuman."

I don't say that only Germans have the potential and capacity for evil. It is present in all humans. That is a generalization I don't believe any aware and thinking person would deny.

But questions have been raised, by others than myself and Mr. Grim, that something has to be said about THE GERMAN CHARACTER, after World War I, the "War to End All Wars," that the German people would rally around a Hitler and his evil crew.

The Holocaust was singular in human history for the degree of bestiality which rose to sustained action in World War II.

So far no one has successfully explained why the most extreme evil in the history of man arose from a people with such members as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.

Polanski raises this question with the German officer who played the Moonlight Sonata and spared the life of the Jew who played Chopin.

Why only one German?

vb

... in general...

I have a tendency toward stereotypical thinking... in general.

That is a generalization, typical of stereotypical thinking. The human mind has a tendency toward stereotypical thinking, and not all of it is bad or wrong. Not all of it leads to misguided thinking or prejudice or racism.

There are certain generalizations which hold true, that Mediterranean people are more apt to be overtly emotional than the Nordic or Anglo-Saxon types. For movie afficionados, consider the films of Fellini and Bergman as illustrative.

Of course there are exceptions. The German officer who played the Moonlight Sonata and didn't kill Szpilman is an exception to the Nazi stereotype. However, "The Pianist" was replete with brutal Nazi stereotypes, based on recorded history, with many eye-witnesses, documents and film footage as reference data. The many Holocaust movies and memorial museums document Nazi history and revealed a stereotype of the German Nazi as largely uncivilized and brutal.

It is true that not all Germans were Nazis. I am not saying that every German living today is a Nazi sympathizer or a potential Nazi. But the undercurrent is there in THE GERMAN CHARACTER and many people have observed it since WWII. The most blatant form is manifest in the skinheads and Holocaust revisionists.

Stereotypical thinking is a shortcut method of the brain in learning and adaptation. Some generalizations are apt and generally accepted. Others, of course, are in dispute.

Another stereotype currently in dispute is of Islam and Muslims, especially Arab Muslims. Some say they are basically merciful and compassionate, according to the dictates of Allah. Others say, viewing current events, that being an Arab Muslim you are likely to hate Americans and Jews and justify the killing of them, according to a Jihad which is commanded by Allah.

But each Arab Muslim is an individual, and has his own opinion and is capable of some choice. Some choose to live peaceably and would like to negotiate. Others choose being a suicide-bomber, hoping to be a martyr. Others are simply sympathetic to the justifications and aims of the terrorists.

Is it stereotypical thinking to say that anti-Semitism is endemic and growing within Islam and Europe?

If you wanna know how powerful a leader Hitler was (and how he came to believe that he was doing the right thing for the future of humanity) read Mein Kampf. I read it as a curious civilian who wanted to know how "Hitler arose from the nation that gave us Beethoven" (paraphrasing). Also see the film Triumph of the Will.

"Triumph" will show you:

- How he made the crowd wait for HOURS before appearing to speak. (He was the first to exploit "fashionably late" imho)

-How when he finally did appear he would be silent until it "was time" to speak.

- How when he finally spoke he spoke softly, gently, drawing his people into his inspiring words (!)

-How he would build in performance- shaking his fists, shouting at the gods, declaring the Reich as the end-all be-all of kingdoms on earth. What peasant german wouldn't be aroused?

Hitler had the powers of persuasion all charismatic people posess:
JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffman, hell, even Oscar the Grouch & Hulk Hogan have the same power to captivate..

'Ol Adolf was a psychopath-just like Napoleon Bonaparte.

If you wanna know how powerful a leader Hitler was (and how he came to believe that he was doing the right thing for the future of humanity) read Mein Kampf. I read it as a curious civilian who wanted to know how "Hitler arose from the nation that gave us Beethoven" (paraphrasing). Also see the film Triumph of the Will.

"Triumph" will show you:

- How he made the crowd wait for HOURS before appearing to speak. (He was the first to exploit "fashionably late" imho)

-How when he finally did appear he would be silent until it "was time" to speak.

- How when he finally spoke he spoke softly, gently, drawing his people into his inspiring words (!)

-How he would build in performance- shaking his fists, shouting at the gods, declaring the Reich as the end-all be-all of kingdoms on earth. What peasant german wouldn't be aroused?

Hitler had the powers of persuasion all charismatic people posess:
JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffman, hell, even Oscar the Grouch & Hulk Hogan have the same power to captivate..

'Ol Adolf was a psychopath-just like Napoleon Bonaparte.


__________________
"I always direct the same film."- Federico Fellini

I copied and pasted your note just to be sure I get all the words right. In the past I was chided for paraphrasing incorrectly and accused of suggesting that ALL Germans are potential Nazis. I don't think so.

I certainly don't think you are the skin-head type, Johann. And I did see "Triumph of the Will". I looked forward to seeing it after the documentary on Leni Reifenstahl. I do believe she was an artist first and last and not necessarily a Nazi-sympathizer. An artist can not resist the opportunity to create, so I don't blame her at all for making that film, which is a historic document, as you say, which teaches, in a way, how a madman can sway a crowd, hold them spellbound, and in time create a national psychosis.

Part of what I think is in THE GERMAN CHARACTER is the potential to be swayed by a criminal psychopath. I believe there are many countries in which such a charismatic leader would be hooted and ridiculed. It is sad to learn that the German masses were so bereft, that they would wait rather than leave if the 'fuhrer' were late. It is tragic that World War I left them so downtrodden that they would be craven to be supermen, the Master Race, instead of dealing realistically with their plight and understand that rebuilding did not require murder, robbery and mayhem. Where were Germany's Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela? Where were Germany's religious leaders? What happened to their Christianity--- Catholics and Lutherans? The religious leaders were afraid to die? What does that say about their faith in God? What does that say about their role-model, the Jew, Jesus Christ, who martyred Himself for the common good, for everlasting life?

The film, "The Pianist" raises these questions again and again, which have only been partially answered, given all the historical realities. Of course it is easy to blame others. It was the fault of the Allies, the Treaty of Versailles, the failure of the League of Nations, the collapse of the German economy. Was war and conquest the only way to inspire the Germans?

The blacks of South Africa showed more intelligence, common sense and decency than the Nordic 'master race.' Perhaps they learned something from history. Why didn't the Germans learn from history? They were an educated people. It wasn't only the peasants who followed Hitler.

Vbloom, just for your reference, try the "quote" button at the end of a person's message. It will format their comments as a quote offset from your response. Give it a shot; makes it easier to differentiate between your comments and what you're quoting.
P

they think, as David Denby says, that the hero is a blank, and that the film is without great originality or imagination? Do they think, as he has written, that Schindler's List has better acting and is more "complex"?

------------------
I read that review and was kind of surprised by the fact that Denby seemed to be denying the very legitimate power of allegory. The flat-versus-round character opposition is useful sometimes, sure, but I don't like the way it has led to these assumed hierarchies with the psychologically nuanced, complex character at the top ... especially when you think about all the exciting ways people rehaul character in twentieth-century film and literature. I don't see why we have to be so obsessed with one type of character development ... Instead of bemoaning the fact that the character isn't fleshed out, he could have asked what purpose that might serve. What happens when there is that type of character, almost a vacuum, at the center of a movie, where is our attention drawn, how does that absence make us concentrate on other things in the narrative, etc.?

As far as Holocaust movies go, has anyone mentioned Sophie's Choice? Someone must have ... There's also Aus Einem Deutschen Leben, which I saw a couple of months ago. It traces the life of the Auschwitz commander Franz Lang. I thought it was a painfully good example of the whole "banality of evil" concept ... you could hear Adolf Eichmann in Lang's (really pathetic, it goes without saying) defense of his actions. Still, it was a little shocking for me, as an American, because I'm used to films that follow that unwritten rule that the Holocaust victims themselves must be put unflinchingly at the center. So there was something unsettling about seeing a Holocaust movie where concentration camp prisoners are almost completely absent, on the periphery. I guess it was necessary for this particular movie (to present an idea of what Franz Lang thought he was) but I left feeling that something essential was missing.

- Marina

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Marina
they think, as David Denby says, that the hero is a blank, and that the film is without great originality or imagination? Do they think, as he has written, that Schindler's List has better acting and is more "complex"?

------------------
I read that review and was kind of surprised by the fact that Denby seemed to be denying the very legitimate power of allegory. The flat-versus-round character opposition is useful sometimes, sure, but I don't like the way it has led to these assumed hierarchies with the psychologically nuanced, complex character at the top ... especially when you think about all the exciting ways people rehaul character in twentieth-century film and literature. I don't see why we have to be so obsessed with one type of character development ... Instead of bemoaning the fact that the character isn't fleshed out, he could have asked what purpose that might serve. What happens when there is that type of character, almost a vacuum, at the center of a movie, where is our attention drawn, how does that absence make us concentrate on other things in the narrative, etc.?

As far as Holocaust movies go, has anyone mentioned Sophie's Choice? Someone must have ... There's also Aus Einem Deutschen Leben, which I saw a couple of months ago. It traces the life of the Auschwitz commander Franz Lang. I thought it was a painfully good example of the whole "banality of evil" concept ... you could hear Adolf Eichmann in Lang's (really pathetic, it goes without saying) defense of his actions. Still, it was a little shocking for me, as an American, because I'm used to films that follow that unwritten rule that the Holocaust victims themselves must be put unflinchingly at the center. So there was something unsettling about seeing a Holocaust movie where concentration camp prisoners are almost completely absent, on the periphery. I guess it was necessary for this particular movie (to present an idea of what Franz Lang thought he was) but I left feeling that something essential was missing.

- Marina

---

Sophie's Choice is another film which makes me wonder about THE GERMAN CHARACTER. I can't imagine an American soldier perpetrating such a sadistic cruelty on a mother with two small children. But these are things that German soldiers did! Including ripping an infant out of a mother's arms and bashing it's head against the wall! We should just forget? We have to understand... and so far, we do not understand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vbloom


Sophie's Choice is another film which makes me wonder about THE GERMAN CHARACTER. I can't imagine an American soldier perpetrating such a sadistic cruelty on a mother with two small children. But these are things that German soldiers did! Including ripping an infant out of a mother's arms and bashing it's head against the wall! We should just forget? We have to understand... and so far, we do not understand.

---

-----------------------------
The Holocaust and its methods of extermination are unique and terrible, yes. I don't want to gloss over that fact. However, you should know that American soldiers have perpetuated sadistic cruelities ... they too have victimized and tortured civilians (and with racist motivations). The US military's role in the American Indian genocide is an obvious example. It's not too farfetched to draw parallels between, say, the concentration camp death marches and the Trail of Tears, a forced march during which over 4000 Cherokee died. You can find many many individual stories of Indian persecution at the hands of the US military online. (I can give you some links if you're interested.)
It would be unfortunate and irreponsible for anyone to use these stories to create an idea of the "American Character."

- Marina

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Marina


-----------------------------
The Holocaust and its methods of extermination are unique and terrible, yes. I don't want to gloss over that fact. However, you should know that American soldiers have perpetuated sadistic cruelities ... they too have victimized and tortured civilians (and with racist motivations). The US military's role in the American Indian genocide is an obvious example. It's not too farfetched to draw parallels between, say, the concentration camp death marches and the Trail of Tears, a forced march during which over 4000 Cherokee died. You can find many many individual stories of Indian persecution at the hands of the US military online. (I can give you some links if you're interested.)
It would be unfortunate and irreponsible for anyone to use these stories to create an idea of the "American Character."

- Marina

---

Marina, you are quite right to give examples of the cruelties of Americans. Are these the exceptions or the rule? The massacres of the Indians were largely in the 19th and 18th centuries. The New World was young then, (it still is!) and aggressive land-grabbing was the rule of the day, commonplace and accepted by the world as a given.

Germany in World War II was an old country with a highly developed civilization and cultural values. The barbarism of the Nazi soldiers was in stark contrast to the prevailing values of civilization. It was widespread and ongoing. I don't believe that Americans of the 20th century would be capable of such atrocities on such a large scale.

I believe that the American character, mostly moral and religious, is superior, that is, more civilized, than THE GERMAN CHARACTER, the barbarism of which was vividly portrayed in "The Pianist." People can say that there is no such thing as the character of nations, or that the subject is not appropriate for discussion. They can opt out if they so wish, or give philosophical, moral or historical arguments as to why the character of a nation is not fit for discussion or debate.

vb

I would add "The Longest day" and "Come and See" to that list of worthy WWII films.

Vbloom said:

>>Is it stereotypical thinking to say that anti-Semitism is endemic and growing within Islam and Europe?<<

It certainly is growing or should I say "blooming" in Europe. The stench of Anti-semitism hangs over the throngs who rush into the streets to protest America hard line on Iraq.

In Islam, it's not only the religion but the culture that breeds Anti-Semitism and Anti-American sentiment. The most important and influential Islamic philosopher on this subject was Sayyid Qutb, a former leader and theoretician for the Muslim Brotherhood. His contention was that Western civillization separated the realm of God from the realm of society and put those two realms into a conflict with each other. He claimed that in the west science and reason had annihilated religion.

Qutb's alternative to the west's "jahiliyya" (a condition of social chaos, moral diversity, sexual promiscuity, polytheism, unbelief and idolatry) was Islam. Not simply as a religion but also a economic, political and civil system based on Islam that enforced the teachings of Mohammed. To this day, many Muslims believe that it's impossible to "practice" Islam within a secular framework.

I found Adrien Brody's character hollow and as the central figure in the movie, I found it difficult to develop much sympathy for him. As those around him suffered even greater indignities and sacrifices, Brody's character through luck and his artistic talent appeared to survive. Yet even throughout the movie, there is very little that we find out about Brody's character's feelings, his thoughts in the darkened nights, the terror on the streets. While the audience gets many images, Brody's central presence almost cries out for how such horrific events played on the blankness of Brody's character. For so much happening, there was so little character development, so little meaningful interaction between characters. I get more in terms of emotional empathy and emotive feelings fifteen minutes of watching a television series such as "24" than I did in The Pianist. The shock value of the brutal, random killings does echo harshly, but yet somehow, I found something central missing in this movie...it was the lack depth of passion, interaction, the humanity the survived in the war in addition to just the strength of the music itself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tabuno
I found Adrien Brody's character hollow and as the central figure in the movie, I found it difficult to develop much sympathy for him. As those around him suffered even greater indignities and sacrifices, Brody's character through luck and his artistic talent appeared to survive. Yet even throughout the movie, there is very little that we find out about Brody's character's feelings, his thoughts in the darkened nights, the terror on the streets. While the audience gets many images, Brody's central presence almost cries out for how such horrific events played on the blankness of Brody's character. For so much happening, there was so little character development, so little meaningful interaction between characters. I get more in terms of emotional empathy and emotive feelings fifteen minutes of watching a television series such as "24" than I did in The Pianist. The shock value of the brutal, random killings does echo harshly, but yet somehow, I found something central missing in this movie...it was the lack depth of passion, interaction, the humanity the survived in the war in addition to just the strength of the music itself.

---

Tabuno___ A writer for The New Republic, Michael B. Oren, makes the same point in the March 17 issue. I took exception to it then as I do now. As a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst I know that some people, for varied and many reasons, learn to hide the outward show of their emotions. This does not mean that they are hollow or superficial. Ever hear of the saying, "still waters run deep?" The clue to Szpilman's depth and emotionality is the quality of his playing. No one can play Chopin like that without deep feeling. One has to appreciate music, musicianship and creativity to fully understand that.

Further, the Brody character, as you cooly put it, is not just a person, but the embodiment of an entire race of people, a people who survive despite all obstacles and all brutal assailants. The history of the Jewish people seems to indicate that we survive by accident, despite anti-Semitism and the genocidal impulses of a hostile and barbaric world.

Szpilman is a poetic image, a metaphor, of the contrast between the barbarism of the anti-Semites and the civilization of the Jews. The fact of our survival hints at some divine plan. Maybe the Jews ARE CHOSEN, to carry the torch of civilization in spite of everything. The movie shows that with some help and some accidents and some divine providence, Szpilman survives, Chopin survives, art survives, humanity survives bestiality.

The aristocracy of this seemingly implacable Jew, who doesn't even care that he is a Jew, doesn't declare that he is a Jew, is evident in his bearing, and in the ability of Chopin's music to touch the soul of a Beethoven lover. The movie transcends mere human emotions and shows the universalizing magic of music and reflects to all the arts.

In the horrible carnage of World War II and the Holocaust, artistic passion unites the Jew and the Nazi and so the movie depicts the real purpose of the Jew on the face of the earth, to show the world that civilization is superior to barbarism and cannot be trampled or stifled.

How does this happen?

As if by magic.

vb

Looking at the performance from that point of view puts it in a new light for me.

Vbloom: After previous exchanges I didn't know that we could agree on anything but I like very much your eloquent defense here of Szpilman's personality and the validity and importance of the character as he is played by Adrien Brody. It's approprate to evoke the sense that "Still waters run deep." It is unfortunate that some viewers see the Szpilman character as empty; it seems to me that the experience the film evokes is one about which, ultimately, nothing can be said, because it is too horrific and too powerful. There are times when what one needs to do is feel, not speak, and thus the silence at the center of The Pianist is a profound and richly meaningful one, a silence to be relieved only by the sound of Chopin, because no human words can evoke the enormity of the Holocaust. You, vbloom, increase and enrich my already strong sense that this is an important and masterful film, and precisely for its centering on "the aristocracy of this implacable Jew." Well said, indeed.

I can agree that personality can be submerged and what we get on the surface appears hollow but underneath there is a seething roar of personality. If The Pianist were a stage production on Broadway, I might be able to accept the hollow persona of Adrian Brody. But as a movie, to NOT use a narrative voice over to penetrate the inner sanctum of Adrian Brody's real character is unforgiveable, if this movie is to be awarded an Oscar for Best Actor and Best Director. There was so much left unspoken, too many questions left unanswered. It don't think it's fair to force Adrian Brody's character to carry the weight of the entire Jewish race, being a composite representation of a religious group. As an individual personality, I wanted to know more, experience more, feel more than the music.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tabuno
I can agree that personality can be submerged and what we get on the surface appears hollow but underneath there is a seething roar of personality. If The Pianist were a stage production on Broadway, I might be able to accept the hollow persona of Adrian Brody. But as a movie, to NOT use a narrative voice over to penetrate the inner sanctum of Adrian Brody's real character is unforgiveable, if this movie is to be awarded an Oscar for Best Actor and Best Director. There was so much left unspoken, too many questions left unanswered. It don't think it's fair to force Adrian Brody's character to carry the weight of the entire Jewish race, being a composite representation of a religious group. As an individual personality, I wanted to know more, experience more, feel more than the music.

---

Tabuno, I appreciate what you say, but I have an entirely different opinion. To me, if there was a voice-over, that would kill it. It would be as if the movie director was dictating to the audience what the reaction or the understanding should be. That would be, in my estimation, talking down to the audience, as if it didn't have the capacity to intuit what is under the surface. Lest this seem as too simple a disagreement, let me add my opinion that this particular movie is like poetry, which is part of its magic and greatness. Poetry includes metaphor, imagery and condensation. Much is said in a few words and the meaning is complex and multi-layered, and different readers get different messages from a poem. In the same way, I see Szpilman as the emodiment of the Jewish race, associated with the highest level of civilization and art. Music talent is like a gift from God, just as God supposedly 'Chose' the Jewish people to represent Him. And so music and art survives, the Jewish people survive. That is how the film spoke to me. It can speak to you in an entirely different way. I don't think it is 'unfair' to force Adrian Brody's 'character' to carry the weight of the entire Jewish race. I thought it not only fair, but great casting to make this implacable, aristocratic and enigmatic personna to represent the entire Jewish race. Such was Jesus Christ Himself. Szpilman's survival was like a miracle. He was born, he suffered, he made glorious music, he died and he survived.

vbloom--

Again I agree with you completely: as I said earlier, the message is beyond words, so a "voiceover" would have been deadly. Szpilman's opposition and survival were wordless things. He did not expose himself or go around making declarations: all his focus was on simply surviving during that time. People who think this part of the film "drags" fail to recognize that "mere" survival can be a tremendous act of courage, and that it must be witnessed, that you cannot rush it. Through this technique "The Pianist" becomes both a depiction of the Holocaust and a meditation upon it. It is not a lecture. It is an experience. And one of tremendous power, for those who tune in to it.

If I wanted poetry or photography or song to wash over me, I'd read a poem, look at a photograph, or listen to a CD. I'm one of those in the minority when it came to Bladerunner and the original voice over that Ridley Scott took out in his director's cut, which effectively killed the film noir of the movie. In The Pianst, the mental struggle, the detailed inner emotionally turmoil as in Diary of Ann Frank brings a deeper, biting, and chilling experience that was lost in this movie. War, brutality, inhumanity take its toll on the human spirit - but it's so often seen in terms of images and behavior, but what goes on inside is even more riveting and usually kept secret, hidden inside. This movie could have been so much more...but what the audience gets is what it has seen before, the evil Nazi indiscriminately killing, the suffering of the marked Jews. What was surprisingly absent in this movie than most others was the emotional connections between people other than the family and even the family wasn't given the depth of development to get to really know them. The disjointed development of the brother for example when he goes through a sudden transformation from spoiled brat to reserved, quiet gentlemen. Of all the characters, it was Adrien Brody who seemed to accidentally survive, in small part only because of his musical talent (not his will to survive), in some ways the weakest of characters compared to those who sacrificed their lives for him. What was this man thinking? What was his mental condition as he became ill? Even the Nazi hatred of Jews wasn't sufficiently addressed when he was in hiding and then suddenly the explosion of hatred from his neighbor when he was in hiding. Did Adrien Brody's character know this...suspect this...? Why didn't we know about it? Too many questions, too many puzzles left locked in Adrien Brody's mind to allow the images and sounds to wash smoothly over us... instead it screams for answers and flows so slowly that it makes sledge build up in one's brain.

I must apologize for having posted so late, but I only saw "The Pianist" a couple of weeks ago. My reaction, as I am sure was almost universal, was to the brutality of the Nazi occupation. As in "Schindler's List", watching Nazi's persecute Poles or anyone else during the war is difficult at best. How we call this entertainment, I will never understand.

What I do understand is acting, having been an actor since I was three and a writer/director since I was in sixth grade. Brody was able to carry this film on his ability to emote so purely at times, there could be no doubt about who would win the Oscar this year. I've seen many fine cinematic performances in my life, but Adrian Brody's performance is historic. The pathos which he gave will burn in my memory for years to come.

I am almost "full blooded" German. I am proud of many of the great German minds and accomplishments. But the holocaust wipes out just about all that the Germans ever did that was good, and replaces it with a memory of having done the worst crime against humanity in the history of the world. Add "The Pianist" to the list of films which preserve that sordid memory.

tabuno wrote:
=====================
But as a movie, to NOT use a narrative voice over to penetrate the inner sanctum of Adrian Brody's real character is unforgiveable....There was so much left unspoken, too many questions left unanswered.
=====================
...I'm one of those in the minority when it came to Bladerunner and the original voice over that Ridley Scott took out in his director's cut, which effectively killed the film noir of the movie. In The Pianst, the mental struggle, the detailed inner emotionally turmoil as in Diary of Ann Frank brings a deeper, biting, and chilling experience that was lost in this movie.
=====================

Well Tabuno, I'm glad you consider yourself in the minority with the above statements. I always figured that the majority of movie-goers felt this way -- considering voice-over narrative a strength in a film instead of what it really is: a storytelling crutch. Less is more, my friend.

Voiceover works well for a rare few works -- a perfect example is Spike Jonze's Adaptation, because the bulk of the movie actually TAKES PLACE in the protagonist's mind.

What would you think about a movie 20 years from now, which follows the events closely of a survivor of one of the World Trade Center towers? Minute by minute he races for a venue of escape, panicking, passing both dead and burning people. He manages to get out of the building -- suddenly a woman's body hits the concrete only a few feet from him, and then rebounds 15 feet back up into the air. The towers crumble and he's buried in drywall soot.

Now imagine that the filmmakers decide to provide his voiceover narrative as the events unfold -- maybe we hear his panicked thoughts as he races for escape -- or maybe he dictates his reactions as he "looks back" on these events.

If the filmmakers did this, what did they just do to the audience? I'll tell you what they did -- THEY ROBBED THE AUDIENCE OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF EXPERIENCING THESE EVENTS AS *FIRST HAND* AS POSSIBLE. The audience is now locked into living the events through the protagonist's PERSONAL perspective instead of being able to formulate their OWN reactions and feelings should they be in the protagonist's shoes.

The question should NEVER be "What was going through [the protagonist's] head?" A GREAT movie should only cause one to ask "What would be going through MY head if I experienced these things?" Because the second question can be emotionally challenging to the average movie-goer, most Hollywood movies attempt to appeal to the lowest-common-denominator of movie watchers. Adding voiceover, or drenching scenes with unnecessary dramatic music, or nicely tying up everything into some forced happy ending, or (what I hate the most) using a paragraph or two to sum-it-all-up, or provide useless "future information" -- all these tactics merely DULL or falsely MANIPULATE a viewer's emotional reaction to the events of the film. They turn emotion into sentiment. They turn "faithful re-creation of events" into "dramatization". They turn movies that COULD be great, into movies that are merely "good". LESS IS MORE.

You say: "There was so much left unspoken, too many questions left unanswered." In the Pianist, WHAT WORDS could have been used that would not have detracted from the visual and audio experience of the Adrien Brody character? By choosing NOT to use words, Roman Polanski is telling you that THERE ARE NO WORDS that can describe what he is feeling, and what he is experiencing, without cheapening these things.

I ask you: What's wrong with leaving questions unanswered? I'm not talking about confusing the hell out of the audience by leaving out key story elements; I'm talking about focussing on the important, relevant information that is necessary to tell a compelling story, and either leave out tangent storylines, or leave them incomplete and let the audience ponder. Why is it not better to leave certain things unanswered or in the "gray"?

A film's power to challenge the audience is far more intriguing than its ability to provide the inner details of a person's personal thoughts. The visual and audio art of cinema is the perfect medium for such a challenge -- whereas a book must spell it all out for the audience in words, and only the author's skill of language can transend the medium.

I welcome you and your smart comment. I completely agree on The Pianist. He is a recessive character as we observe him too (I don't know what he's like in his memoir), another reason for not having a voice-over narration. Many are uncomfortable with the long silent passage in The Pianist when Spilman is hiding, alone. It's just not comfortable for people to watch. They want something to break the intensity of the unmediated experience we get watching; they want a voice to mitigate the terrible aloneness. But of course you are right about the treatment Polanski uses. It not only fits the experience, but the specific character.

In other cases where the protagonist is a writer, a voiceover narration may be appropriate. I seem to recall several French New Wave movies with voiceovers that are great. The more literary effect of a voiceover narration can be charming and amusing, especially in adapting a novel. Doesn't Richardon's Tom Jones have constant voiceover? And that's right because in the novel the narrator--the authorial voice, not the protagonist's-- is very obtrusive. Tom Jones is one of the best screen adaptations of a great English novel. But it's about very talky people, not about a musician who can't play his instrument (another way he's silenced) hiding alone cut off from everyone.

I don't see the point of t's comparing The Pianist to the Diary of Anne Frank or Bladerunner--not relevant. But I tend to agree with having the voiceover for Bladerunner, or liking it anyway, because of the hardboiled private eye effect it creates. One thing is sure--a voiceover is obtrusive, and acts as a mediator of the experience on screen, as your excellent Twin Towers example shows.

Too many questions left unanswered. Your World Trade Center example just doesn't fit. There is no comparison. The events, as is typical of American fast and simple, are compressed into a few minutes whereas the long, drawn out days and months, and years of The Pianst just beg for explanation. World Trade Center is visceral, action-oriented, thrilling, popping action of the terror and horror of war whereas in the case of The Diary of Ann Frank as well as The Pianst we are looking at the lengthy period of the traumatic exposure to Holocaust. The audience isn't interested in knowing what they themselves think, the audience is interested in the character. How do events impact the character not us. What was the character thinking? What was happening while he was sick during the lengthy time in bed. What thoughts were going through his mind? How did he think? What were his emotions? What was his reasoning and how did they deteriorate. The surface features as just that superficial without the supremely unique feature of human thought and feelings. Each person is unique. If the picture were about animals, a voice over wouldn' t be necessary, because the dog or cat emotions and surface features are all that really exist and count. But even the focus is on a singular individual over the length of this movie oer a period of years, the inner most spirit of the human mind is what makes this movie truly special and without it, The Pianst becomes more an empty shell to be filled in with everyman's experience - not too inspiring project then.

>>THEY ROBBED THE AUDIENCE OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF EXPERIENCING THESE EVENTS AS *FIRST HAND* AS POSSIBLE. The audience is now locked into living the events through the protagonist's PERSONAL perspective instead of being able to formulate their OWN reactions and feelings should they be in the protagonist's shoes.<<

I have to disagree with you there. It has to be done with skill and deftness. In "Bladerunner", it's debatable that the voiceover was too much exposition. I see the film noir aspect that appealed to fans but I also don't need to be told what "skin-job" means or why I can't understand Gaff's langauge.

For a good example of skill and deftness in this regard, look no further than "Saving Private Ryan". As we see Captain Miller make his way up Omaha Beach, Spielberg let's us experience both the sound and fury of the events while taking time out to show us Tom Hank's personal perspective with the "muted" segment. He repeats this effect at the end as the P-51 Mustang destroys a tank he is firing at with his side arm. A similar technique was used to good effect in "Copland". While neither of these examples is a voice-over, both techniques allow the viewer to understand the protagonist's personal perspective.

If the storyteller's intent is to subject the audience to the events "first-hand" that is one thing, but often a storyteller wants the audience to come along for the ride.

Look at "Hamlet" if we, the audience, were simply to experience the events (a death, a ghost, a break-up, a murder, a trip, a duel) in the play it would be a totally different experience than seeing through the eye of the young Danish prince.

Yes, but there's a bit of a difference between Hamlet's monologues and a voiceover.

I would concede that The Pianist could be done with voiceovers during the long period of hiding. That would satisfy those who are uncomfortable with the unstructured feeling and their sense that it goes on too long. It would change things a lot though, and I like things very much they way they are. A long lonely period of isolation and anguish is well experienced as the lack of any internal voice in a movie where there are visuals. A play works differently and a novel differently also.

The great thing about film is it is a VISUAL medium. A voice over isn't necessary if the the visuals on the screen portray the message the filmmaker intends to send.

All of the esoteric dialogue concerning meanings is pure semantics, gentlemen. This is the story of a survivor of not just some event we label the "holocaust", because Jewish people were not the only ones who suffered pursecution. Many many others joined the Jews in deathcamps all over the region. I would say that Jews were the main focus of the Nazi Party, but the SS and Gestapo were relentless in rounding up any opposition to the party, including dissidents, homosexuals, the Russians (who suffered five times the losses compared to the "holocaust") and ethic minorities considered inferior.

This story of Spillman is significant because it tells us that despite the odds, some of us can survive something as horrific as Nazi pursecution. This is a tribute more to the human wit than anything else, as in guile.

The filmmaker, Roman Polanski, is a visual artist whose stories are rather straight forward. There are no surprises here. Because of this man's incredible talent, there were those who chose to risk their own lives to save him. Like a priceless oil painting or vase, it was in everyone's interest to save his life. It was as if he was more like a commodity than a person at times. Yet his struggle was brilliantly told, without an oral voice over narrative because one wasn't necessary.

Polanski's style, as it was in Chinatown, is to further the narrative with short vignettes rather than visuals with a voice in the background telling us what to make of the images. To further agonize over what the character is going through is told through the actor's performance. We don't need to see what "he sees". It is redundant. This isn't philosophy 101. It is the world of cinema. The best films explain nothing. They allow every member of the audience to form his or her own opinion. They leave speculation to the critics and first year filmschool students.

The only film a voice over ever worked in was Double Indemnity, and even then, it's corny. Hearing Fred MacMurray telling us what to think and how to interpret the visuals almost seemed a copout on the part of Billy. But that's another discussion.

As for anti-semitism... I would say that prejudice and hatred of many people, including Jews, is alive and well in our own backyard, let alone some other region of the world.

Certainly I agree with you on The Pianist and I also agree with you that a voiceover is not necessary in general and in some cases is downright redundant and irritating. However there are cases in movies when a voiceover adds to the style which I have mentioned before, particularly in an adaptation of a novel which keeps the literary style of the movie, as in Tony Richardson's classic adaptation of Fielding's Tom Jones. To say that a voiceover is not called for in The Pianist you don't have to go overboard and insist that voiceovers are junk. Sometimes they are an essential part of a certain movie's style.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cinemabon
The great thing about film is it is a VISUAL medium. A voice over isn't necessary if the the visuals on the screen portray the message the filmmaker intends to send. It is the world of cinema. The best films explain nothing. They allow every member of the audience to form his or her own opinion. The only film a voice over ever worked in was Double Indemnity, and even then, it's corny.

---

I find myself in the unusual position of defending an overused tool borrowed from literatute, a favorite device of filmmakers who lack imagination or condescend to the audience. As Chris pointed out, there are appropriate usages of voice-over narration, even in some visionary films. (Chris mentions the French New Wave. Indeed, I recall Godard using it to complicate, even to confound meaning).
Consider for instance the lengthy "News of the Hour" sequence in our beloved Citizen Kane. It provides a sanctioned, documentary version of the life of the man we see die in the poetic, opening scene. It stands in contrast to the incisive attempt thereafter to penetrate Kane's psyche.
Wong Kar-Wai uses voice-over narration in Ashes of Time, my candidate for most visually arresting film of the 1990s.

Excellent point re: Citizen Kane.

Just because film originally was a singular visual event when it was first invented in with 1890s and then sound was added soon after and became common place by the 1920s, 1930s...doesn't mean that motion pictures must restrict themselves to the visual experience...as the many Disneyland rides that rely more on physical, visceral experiences that provide an emotional high and active excitement, true serious drama shouldn't necessarily ignore the opportunity of bringing the greatness of the written text, the book, the novel to the screen. The opportunity to combine both the intellectual depth of the word and sound with the eye-popping, collision of color and sight should not be overlooked.

To simply expect the audience to become dumbed down by omitting the more important meaning and mental thoughts is to deny the quintesential element of motion picture's potential. Dr. Zhivago is probably the classic example where the omission of a voice-over was at its best. Comparisons of The Pianst again to a movie like Saving Private Ryan, again ignores the context in which the beginning action takes place in real time over the brief (long for those experiencing) with bullets whistling by, one's life on the life (there was no time for thought). Survival by instinct and just plain human emotion is just what Saving Private Ryan was about but not The Pianst. There must of have been thousands of thoughts that the audience never had an opportunity to experience to make the substantive and sophisticated connection of the Holocaust real in the context of human thought, not just emotion, not just experience, but human mental thinking.

What was Spelmann thinking while sick. Was he a selfish egoist more concerned about himself and his art? Or was he despondent over the deaths of his family? Was he delusional? What did he think of his neighbors? Was he scared or just plain bored? Did he think about music while in bed? What kept him alive his thoughts, will-power, his dreams, or just plain luck. It seemed that he lived life passively, letting luck and other people take him along, surviving not through any real unique character but being in the right place at the right time having the right talent with the right people. It's hard to believe that this particular movie was anything really significant, meaningful...except a brief excursion into an experential horror of war and "the accidental tourist" of everyman caught up in it.