and why/ why not?
2006-08-27 23:44:13 · 15 answers · asked by bernice 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Neither, because it was just there to realistically document the horrible things that were done.
2006-08-27 23:50:07 · answer #1 · answered by cdf-rom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that with showing nudity in Schindler's List, Spielberg tried to present a realistic account of the atrocities committed by the Germans in Auschwitz. It is clearly not pornographic - but we have to be aware of the sad fact that there are people who might feel thrilled at the sight of such pictures. This is unsavoury - but it happens and every filmmaker knows these effects and has to weigh the pros and cons of showing such pictures very carefully. I think that Spielberg did his very best!
Those who wrote that art is about beauty are wrong - art is not necessarily about beauty. On the contrary, some of the best works of art present and reveal the dark and repellent sides of life, imagination, and humankind - such as Goya's Los Caprichos which are definetely art but aren't beautiful at all. They are not meant to be beautiful. Art is about strong reactions - be it bliss or disgust.
The problem with Schindler's List is that it cannot, like all art concerned with the Holocaust, do its subject justice - that is impossible. The Holocaust in a way is indescribable. All art that deals with the Holocaust can only be an approach or approximation to the horror that took place. And as such I understand Spielberg's attempt to show the vulnerability of humans who are 'allotted' to be 'extinguished' by showing them naked in front of cruel, fully dressed 'Herrenmenschen'. That was an artistic decision, even if the scene was consistent with the actual events.
But in the end, it's nothing but a harrowing, terrifying picture - something we will never be able to imagine despite the movie's attempt to be realistic - but Spielberg gives an idea of it and that's
his meritoriousness.
2006-08-28 07:33:01 · answer #2 · answered by msmiligan 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the poster that said "art is about beauty porn is about lust" I agree with this, very well put! . And I think that this part of the movie is neither. It was not a thing of beauty and it was not at all about lust. Anyone that says they were turned on by this is either lying to get a rise out of you or a very very sick person.
The reason that I say that it is not a thing of beauty? Because it was way to sad. It invoked emotion alright. But I did not look at the nude humans as a thing of beauty. It was not meant as beautiful but rather tragic. Had the director choose not to show that scene with full nudity then the depth of emotion that he was trying to convey would have been lessened.
It is a wonderful movie!
2006-08-28 05:36:48 · answer #3 · answered by Candice B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think either of those fit. People look at pornography to become aroused - People look at art to appreciate it and the artist that did the work.
Now if you watched Schindler's list and the got aroused during those brief scene's and or appreciated those people being put through those embarrasing situations for their captors - then the watcher is the sick one.
It was part of the *real life* story telling of what those people had to go through and how low in mind body and spirit they were taken - including having to parade naked in front of their captors.
Just my opinion.
2006-08-27 23:58:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
are you for real!?! Schindler's List depicts the Holocaust and the horrors that we could never of imagined happened in WWII and you want to discuss the nudity aspect... its not pornography... its a realistic portrayal of POW camps.
2006-08-28 02:54:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if you refer to the scenes of the slaughter of jews, their nudity is telling it like it is....essential to the revealing of the total depravity of nazis during ww2, as well as so many other members of the wehrmacht...it is definitely not pornography, and in the context I just described, I cannot view it as art....it is truthful revelation. there is nothing artistic in the murder of more than 6 million Jews and another million miscellaneous people.
Mario's answer reveals him to be a sick puppy and he needs serious help and probably institutionalization to get it.
Sandra finds it artistic to depict the brutal slaughter of innocent men, women, and children...Jews and others. Some of the people who answer these questions need help.
2006-08-27 23:54:07 · answer #6 · answered by Slewpy D 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i still havent had a chance to watch that movie but as far as i know steven spielberg will not commit for pornography. he is such an artistic director and he has no intention to bulgarized the story of the past holocaust. it depends for the viewers on how they will accept the nudity of the movie
2006-08-27 23:51:51 · answer #7 · answered by muttley 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
nudity in this movie was to portray the treatment of human life and its desecration. its art porno graphy is when you display nude people to try and evoke the lust.In the movie it was not portrayed for this reason it was to show you how it really was
those who don't learn from the past are LIKELY to repeat it
and if people cant handle it DONT WATCH IT
2006-08-28 00:18:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How could it be pornography? It shows in a cold, meticulous way the way in which Jewish people were chosen to either work or die. It's not pornographic. It's not art either. It's just heart-wrenching. Cold, blatent and heartbreaking.
2006-08-27 23:51:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
it depends on the receiver...
if artist consider it as art.
if sex maniac its nudity.
there are people who is weak in receiving such kind of information. even just a small flesh it triggers their arousal.
a simple test ask your self how do they feel if they see naked human being?
but i prefer not to show that in public.
2006-08-27 23:59:11 · answer #10 · answered by happydoods 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋