Spielberg Schindler Stern
Interpreting the development and change of the relationship between Schindler and Stern through the analyse of Schindler's List's camera language
Introduction
Schindler's List, Directed by Steven Spielberg, is a magnum opus in film history, which has reach a peak that other films will find very hard to surmount. The film won seven Academy Awards, including Art Direction, Cinematography, Directing, Film Editing, Music, Best Picture and Writing.
“The film presents the indelible true story of the enigmatic Oskar Schindler, a member of the Nazi party, womanizer, and war profiteer who saved the lives of more than 1,100 Jews during the Holocaust. It is the triumph of one man who made a difference, and the drama of those who survived one of the darkest chapters in human history because of what he did.”
---- the synopsis on the official web of Schindler's List: http://www.schindlerslist.com
The Cinematography of Schindler's List has so many respects which are worth to study and analyze, especially the use of camera language. The reason for choosing this topic is: Stern, the accountant in Schindler's factory, the second protagonist in the film, is rather important in the unforgettable saving. Compare with the haphazard and passivity of Schindler's action which is guided by his conscience, the saving of Stern does come from his heart and the instinctive commiseration for his Jewish compatriots: it was more active and unprompted. Furthermore, Not only in a direct way but also indirect way, Stern aroused his boss and urged him to save Jewish compatriot (Kolker 2000). This opinion is also expounded by Garrett (2007) in his new book The gospel According to Hollywood: Stern encouraged his boss to take the saving action more actively. In other words, Stern aroused Schindler's conscience.
I adult even if there was not Schindler but only Stern in the history, there still might be some Jews who could survive owing to Stern. But without Stern, would there be any Jew who could survive in Schindler's factory? Schindler changed from a sheer businessman to a hero who has a moral obligation which was beyond his cognation's belief and education under an involuntary and inenarrable situation. Both Schindler and Stern knew fairly well despite they had never bluntly stated (Ebert 1993)
This may be ignored by some people but Spielberg: By the skillful use of framing, shot and lighting, Spielberg subtly presented two sublime heroes: Schindler and Stern, and the dynamic relationship between those two protagonists. There was always an invisible thread in Spielberg's two-shot scenes, which divided each frames, unfolded the complex and variational relationship. As Bordwell point out that any frame is not only “a neutral border”, it has its specifically use to guide audience to observe certain objects which the director wants audience to note. (Bordwell & Thompson 2008 P182)
Therefore, this essay will focus on the change and development of the relationship between Schindler and Stern by analyzing the camera language in Schindler's List. This essay will be separated into four parts according to the four obvious stages of their relationship: Firstly, they were boss and employee, then their relationship developed to a savior and a pilgarlic when Schindler saved Stern from the train which was going to the dead camp, next they became business partners and friends after the factory earned a lot of profits, finally, they were brothers, comrade in arms, damon and pythias.
First Stage: Boss VS. Employee
In the beginning of the film, Schindler dominated Stern in their relationship. Schindler talked to Stern with the absolute confident when the first time they met: He requested Stern to be the accountant in his factory. Schindler knew fairly well their different situation and believed that Stern should understand the meaning of his offer: It was not only a job but also money, safety, stableness even the hope of existence in that special terror. On the arrangement of framing, Spielberg intentionally increased the sense of distance between Schindler and Stern, and emphasized Schindler's ascendancy.
The camera scale and division of this frame is nearly the same: Schindler and Stern occupy the same space in half. Because their relationship is only boss and employee and they are on an equality in the respect of personalities.
However, Spielberg suggests Schindler's dominance by other cinematographic dimension, such as lighting, framing and the angle of a shot. In this two-shot above, Schindler and Stern are located at the two sides of the frame, but Schindler looks like a big hall which almost blocks the light through the window from outside. Lighting and shadow in a frame can help to build up the whole sense of roomage, and guide audience to notice a specific part (Bordwell & Thompson 2008 P182). In this scene, the brightest part is the window and Stern also faces to the light and situates a brighter part whereas Schindler is the darkest object: Schindler has the strong contrast with the whole background. The similar case can be found in The Grifters (U.S.A., 1990): Cusack's mother was back to the window and faced to her son when they were spatting. Obviously, the female character was dominant in that situation because her position was higher than Cusack and she was in a black clothes on a bright frame (Giannetti 2005 p70). As Louis Giannetti point out that the darker image dominates other in a brighter scene.
Furthermore, Schindler seated on the table and located at the top of the frame: His position was much higher than Stern's. It is generally believed that the top of a frame suggests power, influence and ascendancy. Many directors prefer to arrange an object at this field when they attempt to suggest the character's power or importance to spectator (Giannetti 2005). In the frame above, Schindler brought a sense of powerful, stress and dominant to audience through being emplaced at the top of the frame by Spielberg. In a short word, he dominates Stern.
Moreover, the angles of frame in Schindler's List are admirable. I notice that Spielberg ably handled the camera's position by using the distinct height of Schindler and Stern in most of the two-shots: For Stern, those frames were straight-on angle, whereas for Schindler, they were low-angle. Because Schindler is much higher than Stern. Similarly, some shots were straight-on angle for Schindler but high-angle for Stern. There are so many frames can illustrate besides the frame above:
It has been widely accepted that a low-angle shot can make the figure look bigger than its actual size, and then the figure seems to be powerful and ambitious. On the other hand, a high angle shot can make the object look smaller, weak and defenseless. Therefore, in most of two-shots in Schindler's List, Stern looks dominated by Schindler (Dick 1990). Similar opinion can be found in many books, such as Gianetti's Understanding Movies (2005) and Monaco's How to Read a Film.
Second Stage: Savior VS. Pilgarlic
The second stage of the development of two protagonists' relationship is the savior and the pilgarlic: when Schindler saved Stern who forgot to bring work permit from the train to the dead camp, their great disparity tends to be increased. In this stage, Schindler was not only Stern's boss, but also his benefactor: he saved his life. Spielberg advisedly placed the camera very low. This is an extreme low-angle framing:
In this scene, Schindler's figure seems to be especially lofty and situates in front of the frame. He was completely dominant: He was Stern's savior. Compare with Schindler, Stern, who is essential short, was almost edged out of the frame by Schindler's bulky figure. This framing adequately presented the situation in that unusual case and suggested that Stern was nervous, fidget and grateful. In most film, directors often place a character, who he or she hope to present the puniness and defenceless, at the bottom of a frame and lower the level of the frame (Giannetti 2005).
Spielberg placed the camera, in this scene, at a similar level as Stern's heigh. As the statement above, for tall Schindler, this frame is a low-angle, but for Stern, it is nearly a straight-on angle.
Moreover, in my opinion, Spielberg also used the same method to kill two birds with one stone in the respect of shot: He used the big difference heights of two roles to make the different types of shot in the same frame. For example, in the scene above, it is a medium shot for Schindler but a close shot for Stern. Therefore, it can not simply to classify a frame or a shot and to indiscreetly judge its meaning. Nichols (1981) argues that the codes of the cinematography are neither unchangeable nor simplex. It should be analyzesed and comprehended by combining the specific context and situation.
Through the camera language above, the director's intent can be transmitted to audience: Spielberg guide us to notice Schindler's exclusive vigour and Stern's willies. Because a medium shot can stress on the character's pose and action, and a close shot may emphasizes the character's expression (Bordwell & Thompson 2008). Withal, the distribution of this frame is remarkable unbalance: Schindler almost filled a half of the frame but Stern only shrink at the corner. Giannetti (2005) also mention that in a same frame, the bigger or higher figure who is close to the top is more likely to be regnant and predominate other figures.
Third Stage: business partners
According to the plot, the relationship of Schindler and Stern gradually developed. They cooperated in harmony: Schindler dealed with the publica relationship of the factory and communicated with the German Army, on the other hand, Stern managed the facotry's operation. As a result, the factory earned a lot of money. At the same time, it saved many Jews. Schindler and Stern became good business partners and their statuses tended to equality. This has been described by Baron (2002 pp106-109) that “the dynamic of this partnership does…. rather the reciprocity between Stern who had the brains to make employing Jews profitable and Schindler whose heart was big enough to adopt them as his extended family….”.
In the division and scale of their two-shot frames, there are less than less the shots which used to lean to Schindler. This tendency can be illustrated by two outstanding scenes: Stern's close-up shot and the scene of the toast.
The first time that Stern got a close-up shot appeared when Schindler resigned to Stern his business and said: “You run my business.” This was a sign which meant Schindler began to trust Stern, and treat him as a good partner, a loyal assistant, a close friend. At that situation, Stern dropped a blob of thankful tear. The blob of tear not only means thank and appreciation and happiness, but also means the respect and the recognition from a nationality to another. This is an infrequent obverse close-up of Stern: we can feel his appreciation, tenacity of purpose and manliness from his face. Spielberg let Stern's face filled the whole frame. This close up also is a method of emphasis (Dick 1990).
Spielberg used many detail to present the change of Schindler's attitude to Stern. The most obvious scene was the toast. In this scene, In spite of they still seated at the two sides of the table, but the bridge above the table: the arms which hold the glasses, shortened their distance.
This is a typical horizontal composition which suggests unanimity, harmonization and comity (Dick 1990).
Whatever any dimension, in this scene, is very symmetry: Schindler and Stern situated a same level high, their figures were the same size, their poises are similar and they had the same gestures. This symmetrical composition is often used in a special context which suggests unification and the community of interests. A very similar case can be found in Greed (U.S.A. 1924) which directed by Erich von Stroheim: the director used a “highly symmetrical designs” when the two characters toasted each other (Giannetti 2005 pp59).
Fourth Stage: comradeship of damon and pythias
With the development of the relationship of Schindler and Stern, the invisible thread on Spielberg's camera tends to disappear. In the second half of Schindler's List even had two frames which there were not any distance and spacing between Schindler and Stern: One is they as thick as thieves walked in the factory and Schindler cuddled his accountant and whispered, another is in the scene of final valediction. In my opinion, Spielberg uses the tightknit design of frames to suggest the comradeship which has been beyond boss and employee or savior and pilgarlic or business partner: They have become damon and pythias.
The first frame they walked as thick as thieves in the factory. When Stern was suspicious of Schindler changing the measure of the shells which their factory manufactured, Schindler said they could buy shells from other factory as their products. In the face of Stern's bepuzzlement, he smiled and whispered:‘If the shells can actually be fire, I will be very unhappy.'Spielberg made many change of the patterns of photography which he used frequently in the first part of the movie, to adjust to Stern's height.
In this scene, Spielberg framinged from a straight-on angle instead of the wonted low-angle. The straight-on angle can revert figures' actual modality without artistic distortion and embellishment (Mitry 2000). Therefore, Schindler, in the frame does not seem extreme high and powerful or dominant any more, and Stern seems higher and sturdy than he used to be in the first part of the film. Moreover, Spielberg gave the two protagonists a medium shot here and placed Stern on the middle of the frame. It is worth noticed that in the first part of Schindler's List, Spielberg rarely used the middle of the screen for Stern expect for few close-up shots. Giannetti (2005 p53) indicate: “The central portions of the screen are generally reserved for the most important visual elements….We (audience) expect dominant visual elements to be placed there.” Furthermore, in this scene, the two characters occupied almost the same proportion and scale of the photo: Stern walked in front of Schindler and hided a half of Schindler's body, though Schindler's shape was bigger than Stern's. The director did not ‘partialize' Schindler any more in framing.
The most impressive scene in Schindler's List may be the final valediction. “I could save more”, when Stern presented the gold finger ring which made of a Jewish worker's gold tooth, and told Schindler they engraved the Talmudic wisdom that “Whoever saves one life saves the entire world” on it, Schindler soSterned and enclasped Stern and blamed himself: “I could done more….”
Spielberg used a medium shot here to emphasize that they cuddled each other. This is the first time that Schindler's position is lower than Stern's. But just like most of frames in Schindler's List, Spielberg still places Schindler at the right side of the frame where the intrinsical visual barycenter is (Giannetti 2005). The director used different cinematic elements, such as height, weight, lighting and framing, to balance the frame and emphasize the specific polt. In this frame, obviously, Schindler is brittle in sentiment: his position is lower than Stern. On the other hand, he is a sublime and wealthy in spirit: he is the brightest part and situates in the right side of the frame. Their relationship here became morally comradeship and spiritual damon and pythias: It traversed the distance between two people and overstep the difference of two nations.
Conclusion
In Schindler's List, the relationship between Schindler and Stern is multidimensional, subtle and transformational (please see the table of the four stages of their relationship below):
Context |
Relationship |
Position and status |
Employed Stern |
Boss & employee |
High VS. low |
Saved Stern from the train |
Savior & pilgarlic |
Lofty VS. wretched |
Schindler consigned his business to Stern and toasted him |
Copartner and friend |
Equal and balance |
The final valediction |
Comradeship of damon and pythias |
Tightknit and indiscrete |
Schindler and Stern influenced each other, at the whole process, Schindler completed himself's transformation from a Nazi business to a sheer human who had divine conscience and moral. This change, in a remarkable part, contributed to his Jewish assistant: Stern (Fulwood 2003). The director, Spielberg, used different codes of Cinematography to adjust to the development of plot.
Firstly, from the framing, we can predigest the process and change of camera division to a simply antitheses table below:
Secondly, though analyzing the angle and distance of camera, the frame of those two-shot in the four stages of their relationship can indicate Spielberg's purpose: at first Schindler was dominant and then he and Stern became equal and uniform:
Schindler |
Stern |
Medium close ups |
Small and short |
Big elevation + a trucking shot |
Almost out of the frame |
Side shot |
Close-up + front feature |
Horizontal |
Horizontal and balance |
In conclusion, Spielberg, in his monumental Schindler's List, used a very clear clue: The ingenious and various cinematographic technique such as framing, shot, lighting in the whole mise-en-scene to led and guided audience to notice the development of relationship between characters, to understand their profuse world of their inwardness, to apperceive their spiritual sublimation.
:
Bibliography
Baron, L. (2002). The Holocaust in American Film (review). An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies: Volume 20, Number 4, summer 2002, pp. 106-109./a>
Bordwell, D & Thompson, Kristin (2008 Eighth Edition). Film Art: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill
Dick, B, F (1990). Anatomy of Film. New York: St. Martin's Press
Ebert, R. (15 Dec 1993). A Review of Schindler's List:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19931215/REVIEWS/312150301/1023(18/02/2008)
Fulwood, N. (2003). One Hundred Violent Films that Changed Cinema. London: Batsford
Garrett, Greg. (2007). The Gospel According to Hollywood. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press
Giannetti, L. (2005 Tenth Edition). Understanding Movie. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall
Kolker, R. (2000 Third Edition). A Cinema of Loneliness. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Mitry, J. (2000). Semiotics and the Analysisi of Film. London: The Athlone Press
Monaco, J. (2000) How to read a film: the world of movies, media, multimedia : language, history, theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Nichols, B. (1981). Ideology and the Image: Social Representation in the Cinema and Other Media. America: Indiana University Press.
Synopsis on the official web of Schindler's List: http://www.schindlerslist.com (20/02/2008)
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
