Recent Viewing Part IV

I'm not sure what that means: it seems he was very clear on what he wanted to make from the get-go, so why wait so long until you find something that fits your already preconceived mood and concept?



In Shame you'll find a similar theme of a man who is utterly incapable of controlling his circumstances (and life), so that might be a comparable style figure. I found it an interesting, but ultimately flawed film.
Flawed, because it ultimately takes the theme of the film to a conclusion that is utterly contrary to how the actual affliction works. And thus throws credibility to the wind for the sake of effect.
So here again it seems there's a thematic similarity.
That bit annoyed me greatly.
But overall it's a very good film.



Yeah. Well. That's my point.
That it would be good to approach the subject WITHOUT immediately resorting to those excesses.



But that's exactly my problem: Schindler's List as a setting was to do with the destruction of the jews. The whole POINT was the utter annihilation of people. To compare the holocaust to slavery makes no sense at all (except maybe on the level of philosophical concepts like morality or suffering).

My point is that the violence in Schindler's List served a historical purpose (i.e. destruction. Which was the very crux.), while for slavery it's far less poignant and even questionable! (WHY would an owner destroy a valuable piece of property?)

Again -it cannot be emphasised enough- the suffering of slaves is a huge and terrible one. The degradation of your very humanity is a burden on the soul that -thank God- I cannot even imagine.
But I have a problem with the pretty much exclusive translation of that suffering into one of physical violence on screen.



Again, it makes no sense.
Whipping, mutilating, maiming simply made no economic sense.
It happened! Of COURSE it happened!
Simply not as exclusively and thoroughly as Hollywood would have us believe.
The plight of the slave was NOT not knowing whether he'd suffer pain at any given day, but the utter lack of hope, of being stripped off his destiny and personal choices, of his name and his humanity. Of having his very freedom unquestionably being regarded as wrong.



Yes, there were.
But it's really utterly incomparable. Race had EVERYTHING to do with how you were treated, and the 'white slaves' were more of 'indentured servants' (which is bad enough), but as bad as they had it (which was pretty much on par with other "proper" slaves) at least they felt they still had their skin colour to be 'proud of', as that still clearly made them "better".
This, incidentally, is how much of the truly virulent racism in the US got started: not from the slave owners (why would they care very much?), but from cheap white labour forces who were competing with an (overall) well fed, strong "free" (as in 'already paid for') slave work force.

The end of slavery made it even worse, when the newly freed slaves -usually in much better condition than the poor whites- now started competing for money!
It's a deeply disturbing and bitterly ironic historic paradox that freeing the slaves at the time (generally) made their practical situation worse.