What Should’ve Won That Could’ve Won: 1993

The Year: 1993
What the Nominees Were: The Fugitive, In the Name of the Father, The Piano, The Remains of the Day, Schindler’s List
Other Movies That Should Have Been Considered: Groundhog Day, which belongs on any shortlist for the greatest movies of all time (and certainly one of the most profound) was not even nominated!

What Should’ve Won and Did Win: Schindler’s List
How Hard Was the Decision: This is the hardest decision I had to make for this book. Groundhog Day is a perfect movie, and Schindler’s List is an imperfect movie, so the decision should be easy, but what kind of monster takes away the Oscar from Schindler’s List?? I just couldn’t do it. I rewatched the movie and found it stunningly well-made and less problematic than I found it in the theater, so I decided to stick with it.

 
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: Steven Zaillian, based on the book Schindler’s Ark by Thomas Keneally
Stars: Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes, Embeth Davidtz

The Story: German Industrialist Oskar Schindler employs Jewish work camp laborers to make a cheap buck, but becomes bound to them and eventually spends his fortune to protect them from the Holocaust.

Any Other Nominations or Wins: It won Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Score, Editing, Cinematography, and Art Direction. It lost Actor, Supporting Actor for Fiennes, Makeup, Sound and Costume Design.
How It Won: A movie about the Holocaust was overdue and one this artistic and serious was a shoe-in for the Award, as well it should have been. Even better, the movie was actually a success at the worldwide box office, and Spielberg also made Jurassic Park the same year, earning enormous Hollywood goodwill.

Why It Won:

1. As I say in my books, irony is the heart of all meaning, and what could be more ironic than to have the hero of your Holocaust movie be a German Nazi Party member? That’s actually a tricky question to answer, and it certainly came under criticism at the time (Spielberg didn’t help his case by later making a terrible slavery movie whose hero was Matthew McConaughey.) Is it obscene to celebrate a German, or is this the only way to tell the story? The Jews in the story, of course, have no agency, and doesn’t a hero need agency? Ultimately, this choice of hero for Hollywood’s only in-depth exploration of this tragedy is deeply problematic, but it does make for a powerful and, yes, ironic movie, so I can see why he did it.
   
2. I’m usually not a fan of Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography, which is often too sun-dappled and pretty, but Spielberg gets amazing work out of him here. Spielberg rejected his usual commitment to storyboarding and made Kaminski work hand-held with source lighting to mimic a documentary feel. Kaminski paints astounding black and white images with what light he was allowed. The result isn’t quite documentary, it’s almost more neo-noir, but it’s exactly what his project needed.
   
3. Ben Kingsley is half (Muslim) Indian and half (Quaker) English, so what parts should he be allowed to play? Just biracial roles? Fully Indian roles, such as Gandhi? All-white Shakespearean roles? What about Jewish, which he does quite convincingly here? (He has said, “I’m not Jewish, and though there might be some Russian-Jewish heritage way back on my mother’s side, the thread is so fine there's no real evidence.”) The rules on what we allow are always shifting, but it’s hard to complain that he got this part, which he delivers powerfully. Here he plays the accountant who gently coaxes Schindler into his act of heroism, and does great work with eye-contact, assiduously avoiding it except for a few powerful assertions.
   
4. It seems insane that Ralph Fiennes didn’t get an Oscar for this movie, but Tommy Lee Jones was so delightful in The Fugitive, and he was overdue, whereas it seemed like Fiennes (making his stunning feature debut) would get another chance soon enough. But, as of this writing, it’s never happened. It’s always been someone else’s turn. He steals this movie as an actually-evil Nazi, Amon Goeth. Spielberg said of Fiennes’ audition that “I saw sexual evil. It is all about subtlety: there were moments of kindness that would move across his eyes and then instantly run cold.” Admitting the sexual nature of evil, which movies are often loath to do, elevates the performance and the movie.
   
5. Spielberg optioned the novel and then spent ten years trying to get other directors to make it, including Roman Polanski, who survived Krakow and Auschwitz, and, of all people, Billy Wilder, whose entire family died in the camps. Ultimately, he chose to make it himself (Polanski said “I certainly wouldn't have done as good a job as Spielberg because I couldn't have been as objective as he was.”) Spielberg would indeed seem a poor choice, because of his lack of personal connection, yes, but more so because of his innate desire to entertain. (He is quoted as saying to himself, “That’s not what the public will accept from you. What they will accept from you is thrills, chills, spills, and awe and wonder and that sort of thing.”) Ultimately, this may be an “only Nixon could go to China” moment. Only a master entertainer could find it in him to make something this darkly powerful. (Polanski would eventually make an excellent Holocaust-adjacent movie, The Pianist, but that movie was too small-scale to be the defining document of the horror, in the way this movie is.)
6. Interestingly, I usually bawl during movies that are even slightly tragic, but I didn’t cry watching this one until we meet the real families at the very end. Is that because the movie is not emotionally manipulative or because I am immune to Spielberg’s efforts (as I frequently am)? I think it’s the former. I think the movie takes a somewhat antagonistic relationship to the viewer, preferring to beat us up rather than tug our heartstrings, and that was the right instinct. The most horrifying moment in the movie is when the women on Schindler’s list are accidentally shipped to Auschwitz. They have heard rumors that when you arrive there the Nazis will tell you they are giving you a shower but then gas you instead. Sure enough they get stripped and sent to the “showers.” They wait in absolute terror, then from out of the nozzles above them comes …water! They really are being showered. It’s one of the biggest moments (sighs? moans? yelps?) of relief in any movie, but it feels like more of an FU to the audience than an attempt to get us to cry. It’s a necessary reminder that, despite all the efforts of these two men, survival in the face of all-consuming evil was still mostly about sheer luck.
   

Ah, 1993: Let’s skip it this time.