I’d be interested in a sequel. Schindler was shunned by post-war Germans because he helped the Jews. Antisemitism was still strong in the nation (and probably most of Europe) after the war and Schindler often depended on support from the survivors.
Having read that article it states specifically that he was threatened by ex-Nazis and that’s why he felt (probably accurately) that he wasn’t safe.
There is potentially a larger story about how the Cold War changed the priorities of Western governments which lead to a lapse in Nazi-prosecutions as attention focused on the Soviet threat, leaving people like Schindler feeling exposed to retribution, but I think he ended up depending on support because, if we’re honest, he probably wasn’t a very good businessman.
Right, at heart I think he was more a salesman than a businessman. He did lose at least one good job when his boss, who was not a Nazi party member but was as antisemitic as any German after the war, found out that Schindler had helped Jews.
It is something you don’t see much in mainstream films about the post-war, but it’s not like only the Nazi Germans were against the Jews, and it’s not like that intense antisemitism could simply be turned off by their defeat. If anything, I’m sure many Germans blamed the Jews of the world for their defeat in World War 2 just as they had for World War 1.
Wow severly disappointed with the last episode of House of Cards… specially since apparently that’s the last of it… it really needed a bit more time to show the fallout of what was building throughout the season, and instead it just stops there… =/
Anyways, I actually enjoyed it until that last episode… It helps that I was getting bored and tired with Frank Underwood, and Robin Wright is mesmerizing to watch… so I was on-board for it… heck, I’d watch a S7 with her.
Watched Bohemian Rhapsody last night. I love Freddy, and the actor portraying him (Rami Malek) deserves Oscar nomination, but the movie is rife with chronological errors and inaccuracies, that seems so nebulous. I mean, it perhaps works as a meditation on Freddy’s inner self, but if you expect close biographical movie, you’ll be dissappointed.
On a brighter note, beside main actor, live scenes are f-- epic.
We watched the first Harry Potter film today - I hadn’t seen it in full since being dragged to a midnight showing when it first came out, many years ago now.
It’s actually aged pretty well - the effects hold up, the adult performances are largely pretty good, and there’s enough of a sense of magic and wonder throughout to hold the attention of even fairly young kids for its full two-and-a-half-hour running time (and to paper over the cracks of the often slightly ropey child actors).
Although I’ve read all the books and seen most of the films - all except the last one - I’ve never been a massive fan of the franchise (although I can recognise what it does well, in both the books and the movies).
But rewatching this first film has raised my opinion of it slightly, and from memory they get better with films three and four, so I’m looking forward to working our way through these and getting onto the later movies.
I can’t wait to watch the Harry Potter movies again, when the kids are a wee bit older.
I’ve never been an obsessed fan but I really enjoyed all of the movies.
I found them brilliant, and regretted not following the journey. Don’t think anything else in any media (sitcoms, maybe) have followed actual change in their main characters growing up. Were I the same age as Harry in the movies it would have been some powerful magic. I find it quite insightful, overall.
I could have done without the stinger scene at the end of 8, tho.
He’s not a kid, but Dredd is done in real-time. I think Savage Dragon is too, his son now having taken over the mantle.
The Before Sunrise films spring to mind too. Although that’s obviously more intermittent.
Soap operas are the obvious ones. There’s actors on Coronation Street in the UK who’ve been there since the 60s, and there are characters in their 30s now who were born on the show.
My kid is now old enough to read all the books and he’s watching the movies after he’s done each book. He and his mom are big fans.
When they watch the movies I will do something in the other room. I don’t like the franchise at all. Outside of a stretch around the 3rd and 4th book/films, I find it pretty hard to sit through, highlighted by the fact that Harry himself is just such a twat.
The movies do have excellent art direction and effects, though.
I did that a few years ago, and it’s part of why I don’t love the movies. There’s just so much cut out of each film, and often in ways that don’t make sense. The later ones, where they add in stuff that’s not in the books, work better for me in that regard.
I’m glad that we got a new franchise with Harry Potter rather than rehashing something for previous generations. I think it’s an excellent series and the kind of thing that should be continued. They could really do with having a TV series set in that universe.
The only time I remember this being a real problem was in Half-Blood Prince. In that they cut out pretty much all of the mystery that the film itself is named after!
Yeah, I know it’s a bit fashionable to look down your nose at Harry Potter, especially if you were a bit old for it at the time (as I was) but I really think this was ‘the’ franchise of a certain generation, and it felt like something of their own.
It’s no wonder so many twentysomethings (and older) are flocking to these new Fantastic Beasts movies.
There’s a bunch. Goblet of Fire has a huge chapter, explaining in detail the villain’s plan, motivations, and how he did everything. In the movie, they just unmask him Scooby-Doo style and basically say “Oh, it’s that guy.”
Prisoner of Azkaban in the books has a creeping sense of dread that intensifies across the nine months the book is set over; the movie feels like it happens in one week.
In Deathly Hallows, we’re supposed to care about a wedding between one character who had a very small role three films earlier and someone who had never been seen before. They could have just changed it to a different wedding! There were other characters, who were in the movies, married offscreen!
They’re not major problems, but they really annoyed me having just read the books (listened to the Stephen Fry audiobooks actually).
That’s interesting, I don’t remember any of those (although I only read each book once and didn’t follow the movies that closely, so wouldn’t appreciate all the differences in the same way).
Reading the books probably helped me gloss over that stuff in the movies though. I always had a sense at the time that the movies were confident enough that the majority of viewers would have read the books that they felt able to leave some functional scenes out, although I still think the movies should stand alone.
It’ll be interesting to see if this stuff crops up for me as we carry on working our way through the movies.
I’ve no idea if they did, but those versions must have had some influence in proving the market for unabridged, full audiobooks.
That’s me. Pottermania hit when I was in my twenties, and I pretty much brushed it off as kids’ stuff. I didn’t hate it, but I had no intetest in it.
I caught bits and pieces of the first movie on HBO, and thought it was fairly by-the-numbers kiddie fare. Then I started watching Deathly Hallows on HBO, and was it all dark and broody, the characters are all on the run and fighting and dancing to Nick Cave songs, and I found myself interested how they got from the magic castle to the grey wasteland.
I picked up the films on blu-ray and read the books and became a big fan. Coming into it my thirties, it really captures that sense of childhood wonder at the world that we lose as we grow older.