So I don’t know who decided the correct way to do a verdict was discuss Film 1, discuss Film 2, Verdict. Admittedly, I like it a lot, and it has worked very well until now, but I want to do this slightly differently. Something with a little less structure.
We’ll see how I go. And if you can follow it. And if it’s worth following.
Three Kings
vs
Schindler’s List
First, I wanna touch on two things that are a perhaps a little obvious, but I still feel are important to this verdict.
First:
The Holocaust, and/or, War.There’s a lot of war movies out there. There’s three in this round alone. And there’ll be at least one in the next round. (Although, this counting method does rely on calling
Schindler’s List a war movie, which it’s blatantly not, so we’ll move on.) There seems to be even more movies about the Holocaust. In the last six months or so we’ve had
The Reader,
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and
Good.
And there’s a lot of good reason. The Holocaust has big emotions. Guilt, remorse, grief, pain; they’re some of the biggest an actor gets to play, and they’re some of the most powerful we experience as people. As we’ve seen at this year’s Oscar’s, it’s pretty easy awards bait at the same time. It’s also a great chance to talk about Good and Evil without having to look at the stuff in the middle.
Except here’s the thing. First, it’s the stuff in the middle, the moral greys between Good and Evil that are interesting. It’s easy to talk about Good and Evil, it’s going deeper that’s difficult, and ultimately, more rewarding.
The other thing is, and I don’t mean to be callous, but that’s inevitably how it will come out, I don’t know I particularly care a lot. The Holocaust is before my time, and before even my parent’s time. I’m at least two, if not three, generations, and more than half a century, removed. And maybe that’s a reason for me to care more, to continue to understand these messages, but at the same time, I don’t have the societal guilt that these films almost need to function.
And now that I’ve made a whole lot of you think a whole lot less of me, there’s one more thing I want to touch on before I get into the verdict proper.
Last:
The conditions under which one views.As the above is pretty obvious, so is this. The way you experience a movie changes how it affects you, how much you like it, how fondly you think of it, how highly you regard it. Admittedly, if it does something that does not sit with your sensibilities, no amount of rewatching will change that until your sensibilities change. But certain things will make you think more or less of a movie.
Titus is a great example of this for me. I saw it at the cinema, on quite a large screen. So all those beautiful, powerful images, just totally worked for me. And while I’m sure I’d still love it on the small screen, seeing it like that immediately pushed it into my top five films ever.
Similarly, I watched
Three Kings and
Schindler’s List under certain conditions that will have, inevitably, changed my response, if only slightly. Until I get the chance to watch it again, I cannot say the reason I found
Three Kings to have such energy and adrenaline was actually the movie or the five cups of coffee. And was
Schindler’s List really so touching, or was I slightly tender because I’d just finished reading Gaiman’s
Sandman earlier that day?
In any case, that was how I viewed these movies. And now the verdict proper.
I. An unassuming double feature.So these are a great double feature. Like Adam and Matty spoke about on the last After Hours, these are two films that I wouldn’t immediately assume would go together. But they do. Really, really well.
Let’s look at some of the similarities:
1. Both feature highly stylized cinematography. One goes for black and white, the other is grainy, shot digitally (I’m assuming here - but I can’t really believe that
Three Kings wasn’t shot digitally), but both use colour in very specific, very emotive ways.
2. Both feature stories of men who seek to profit from war. Both then tell the stories of men who find themselves changing their original aims to protect people, both times at a significant monetary loss.
3. Both feature brutal, uncompromising violence.
4. Both are highly nuanced films, much more so than I was expecting when I put them in the player.
So I wasn’t really expecting these ties before I began, but I definitely noticed them, and there were probably more that I’ve forgotten. And I think I’m gonna use these four things as a discussion about the movies, and where I’m going, and why I’m gonna make the choice I think I’m gonna make.
II. Highly stylized vision.So. Why would these directors go to such stylized cinematography? Well, with Spielberg it’s more obvious. As a teacher once told me, for most people, the only footage of the war and the Holocaust is in black and white. It was before colour technology was widely used. I do think there’s also symbolic reasons - something about Good and Evil/Black and White, and grey tones between the two. It also gives him the chance to have the little girl in the red coat.
Three Kings isn’t working, I don’t think, on the same symbolic level that
Schindler’s List is. It’s more just a style thing, a specific look. But it works well. The gritty, grainy look suits this war, just as black and white suits the Holocaust. It places us in a time and a place, really effectively. And like the red coat, it also allows us to have the great moment where we see the bullet piercing the gut, letting green bile that is impossible flow out into the gut.
Which works better? Well, Spielberg’s is more beautiful. That’s certain. But
Three Kings is perfect in it’s own way. It couldn’t have been beautiful like Kaminski could be in moments.
So, I guess I would have to say at this stage that I loved the way they both were shot, and I loved the look. I will also say, that the red coat is a manipulation. But it’s not unwarranted. And it works well. It’s not heavy handed, and it creates a touching moment.
III. A side note - editing and length.Three Kings does some really interesting stuff with it’s edit. I’m specifically thinking of the scene where the muslim woman is shot. It’s pulled right down into slow motion, but not by filming at a higher frame rate. It’s steppy - we see each individual frame, paused to let us comprehend. It’s manipulative, sure, but it works with what the film has been doing to that point, and isn’t manipulative. It’s indicative of a lot of how this film is edited - fast, full of energy, capturing something of this war, just like the cinematography.
As for
Schindler, well, it’s slower, but again, that’s more suited to the subject. The problem, I think, arises with the length. At three hours long, it’s not an easy sit. At the same time, three of my top five movies are long movies (
Titus, 170 odd minutes,
Magnolia, 180 odd minutes,
A Brighter Summer Day, 240 minutes). But I think I forgive length a lot more when I feel it is used appropriately. Or justified. Or something.
Schindler’s List doesn’t need three hours to be successful. Sure it needs length. Length suits it. It gives it room to be slow, expansive, thorough. But there is stuff that can go. We don’t need this movie, as it is, to be three hours. Two and a half, sure. Even pushing two hours and forty minutes. But there is stuff in there that I think could be lost without too much sacrifice at all.
IV. Men and money.We are introduced to Oskar Schindler as a man who knows how to make business and social connections. He then manipulates a group of Jews into giving him money and a business so he can make a fortune from slave labour.
The introduction to our soldiers in
Three Kings is different, due to different circumstances. But the second money enters the picture, they are totally fixated. They leave to steal Kuwaiti gold, irrespective of the people who own that gold, and the greater social situation, in which the absence of American forces is resulting in the severe maltreatment of the people.
Gradually, both realise that monetary concerns matter less than helping the people. For a while they continue to attempt both, making money and saving people, and in both, a moment is reached in which the money has to be sacrificed to ensure the safety of the people.
Admittedly, in both the situations are slightly different. In
Schindler’s List, over 1000 Jews are saved. in
Three Kings, less than 100 muslims. But
Three Kings doesn’t attempt to be
Schindler’s List, and I suppose that’s why it works.
V. A side note - the minor players.It’s worth noting that
Three Kings treats it’s minor players better. They’re more developed. We have a better sense of them. Even tho it’s only simple things, like the guy who wants to be a hairdresser, it’s a sense.
Schindler’s List doesn’t have that. In the final scene, when we see the grave and the Schindler Jews, we see names from the movie proper. And we recognise them. But if you asked me to tell you which one was which before that final scene I couldn’t do it. The names are arbitrary. And that’s what I think is a serious flaw here. You never really have a sense of any of the jews, except Ben Kingsley, and Helen, the maid. And seeing as there’s three hours here, I think we should know more. If this movie was more specific, I feel like it would just be absolutely devastating.
VI. Another side note - the actors.I hate Ralph Fiennes. Don’t ask why, cause I couldn’t tell you. He just does. He’s my number one off-putting actor. That said, he is good here. As are the main players. Liam Neeson, is very strong (except for the monologue right at the end about saving more people - that’s awful, but I’m not gonna blame Neeson specifically over Spielberg or the writers). Kingsley is quiet but powerful. I’m not sure about the accents, but I’ll live.
As for
Three Kings - well, they’re all fine. Clooney and Ice Cube bring the goods. As does Wahlberg, until the scene when he’s in shock (“Did you see that film, goat?”).
VII. Good and Evil, greys, and nuanced moralities.I’m gonna skip over violence, cause I’m already carrying on way too long. WAY too long. but I think there is great stuff here, and I wanna spend some time.
First,
Three Kings. It’s the most nuanced war movie I’ve ever seen. I was expecting a “Rah Rah Yay America!” movie. This is not it. It’s manages to create a highly sophisticated examination of Middle Eastern politics, religion, family, war itself, all the big things, really. I think it really makes a huge effort to get into the nitty gritty, the small details. It makes it specific, and drives it’s points home.
The scene in the village is powerful. Really powerful. The milk truck is amazing. The way the people rush in, scooping milk off the ground, out of the sand, so desperate for this small luxury, is so touching. Then the Iraqi’s arrive, and then there’s the Mexican standoff. And through all of this, it created a tremendous sense of adrenaline, and more than that, I was made uncomfortable. Hugely uncomfortable. And as I’ve said, maybe it was the coffee, but I don’t entirely attribute it to that.
After that, it loses some, but never all, of the nuance. It becomes a more straight action movie, especially by the time they rescue Wahlberg. But before that is possibly the single scene I have found it the hardest to watch. I wanna discuss it in full detail, so, obviously, spoilers.
As Wahlberg is being tortured, he is asked why he believes they are in the Gulf. “Stability”, he replies. His torturer then does something I didn’t understand at first. He grabs his mouth. He forces a CD case in. His assistant is doing something in the background. I suddenly think, “Is that oil?”, and just at that moment, the torturer says, “Here’s your stability” and pours the oil onto the CD case and down his throat.
It’s a scene I found harder to watch than certain scenes in
Hunger. But it’s what I love about this movie. It speaks so powerfully about the war, it’s purpose, the American occupation. It’s a direct critique, and a powerful one, but it’s not heavy handed, it’s not pushed too far, it’s the only really direct attack of the reasons the US went to war. But it’s the scene that will probably stay with me the longest. So kudos to the director.
At the same time, it does suggest that good things have come out of the US being in the region, which is true, so there’s props there as well. And even tho there is a moment of forgiveness as such at the end, it never overwhelms what we’ve seen before, and we have to walk away considering the moral greys of the situation in the Middle East.
As for
Schindler’s List, well, it’s hard to be grey with the Holocaust. Nazis bad, Jews good, right? And that’s how it plays out. But there is enough growth within Liam Neeson to add greys to this. He wants to make money. He is all concerned with making money. He gradually grows to be open to the idea that he is doing more than that. He secretly works to save more people. He subtly works against Goeth, actively attempting to improve the situation. He actively saves people at his own cost.
And it’s that growth that gives it the greys it needs to make it more than just a Holocaust story. And yes, I finally get to it. I complain earlier about Holocaust stories, but I don’t think you can do that with this film. It is so finely made, so moral, so layered, so nuanced, it rises above the problems that films like
The Reader get weighed down by. And it’s scenes like the following that do it.
First, there is a scene where a young woman comes to the factory. She has heard it is a haven of sorts. She asks for protection for her parents. Schindler bristles at this, and in the next shot, gets angry at Kingsley for allowing this to propagate. He then straight away asks for them to work at the factory. We see the young woman waiting outside, and she sees her parents arrive. It’s a beautiful moment.
I also liked the scene where Schindler suggests to Goeth that there is power in sparing a life when one expects to die. I liked the way Goeth went around sparing people, enjoying this new found “power”. And I especially like that Schindler doesn’t lie in this scene, but he manipulates Goeth beautifully.
Finally, the scene where Schindler flees. It’s a conflicted scene for me. As I’ve stated already, I hated the pining about being able to save more people. I thought that was really horribly handled. But the bit before that? The letter? The ring? I wept. Like a baby. And it’s manipulative, yeah. I don’t think it’s entirely natural, I’m sure Spielberg uses his tricks to pull it out. But you give it to him, because he’s done so well and it is a beautiful moment, and I think that if you had showed me that moment on it’s own I still would’ve wept, because that’s what that moment is.
I think Spielberg has done a remarkable job here. It’s a film that deserves the acclaim it receives, and if above I’ve made more complaints about it than
Three Kings, I think it’s because these flaws stand out more because the rest of the movie is of such great quality.
VIII. A verdict.So there are my thoughts. And if you’re anything like me, you’ll have read less than half of it. And if you’ve read more than that, you’re a far better person than me.
I liked both of these, as you’ll realise, a lot. I wouldn’t have a problem putting either of these two through over the other four I’ve watched in round four. And right now, I don’t know I can do it. This morning I was sure I was going to put
Three Kings through, and I do like it a lot. I’m also sorely tempted to put
Schindler’s List through on the off chance that
GoodFellas beats
Glengarry Glen Ross, cause I think
Schindler is more likely to beat GF.
So for now, I’m not gonna post a verdict. I’m gonna wait and see what some others think. Right now I’m leaning one way more than the other. Someone convince me.
IX. The final verdict. Really this time.Ok, so I have a verdict. I've thought long and hard about it, and using several criteria, there is one movie that comes out more and more above the other.
Which film surprised me more? Well,
Schindler's List impressed me with how good it was.
Three Kings actively surprised me.
Which film did I have more fun with?
Three Kings, easy.
Which film is more nuanced? As well as Spielberg does creating a nuanced film with difficult material, it's
Three Kings again.
And finally, if someone said to me, I have
Three Kings and
Schindler's List and time to watch only one. Which film should they watch? Well, even tho I think
Schindler's List is perhaps more important, I'd say to go with
Three Kings. And while I would be sad if
Schindler's List was never seen again, I think
Three Kings is the movie that I would like to see continue on.
So my vote goes to
Three Kings.
