First, this is not my first time seeing Roman Polanski’s The Pianist. It is a very well done film. However, does the film really need to be two and a half hours long? Granted, I know that Polanski knows just a little more about filmmaking than I do, but there were a few time in the film where I felt that there was no progression. One example is when he is hiding in the Warsaw ghetto and is locked in a room. Yes, it was good to see the physical struggle of lack of nutrition that Szpilman was going through. However, that was already evident in the starvation others were suffering. Namely, his brother.
In terms of the first and third person viewpoints, there is a sense of bias attached to many first person narratives. In Szpilman’s autobiography and supported by Polanski’s film, a first person bias was not evident. Rather, Szpilman portrayed a feeling of truth and reality to the reader. Dr. McCay indicated in her notes sheet how in the film, the audience was not truly brought into the situation. The example she stated and a defining event in my own reading of the autobiography was the ignorance or the lack of generosity rich Jews showed to children. In the film, Szpilman’s borderline interrogated a little boy as to what he was doing with the money he made from selling snacks in the ghetto. This two-minute encounter in a film that is one hundred and fifty minutes takes away from the first-person narrative. Meaning, this sort of injustice within the ghetto was much more evident in the autobiography.
Lastly, I had an issue/observation regarding the names of individuals in the film. Polanski of course did this on purpose. We are only given the first names of characters in the film as opposed to the autobiography. Also, the only time in the film when we are given a last name is when Wilm asks Szpilman his name. At the conclusion of the film, the audience is reintroduced to Wilm as a prisoner of war. He wants to send his remarks to Szpilman, but can not remember his name. When the messenger asks for Wilm’s name, the Russians hush him. Thus, the complete message was not sent to Szpilman. However, the memory of Wilm still lives on thanks to Szpilman’s autobiography.
Although a first person narrative can in many times be biased, a third person film is much more biased. When telling a story over again, key moments and the personal thoughts (such as the rich jews’ ignorance of the suffering) are not so much manifested in film so that the audience listens to the director’s message.
Tran: Comment on Jeff Ramon's Week 4 Blog
ReplyDeleteWhen I looked at the minutes for this movie, I couldn't believe it was going to be 150 minutes long! I think it actually took me less time to read the book than to watch the movie. Szpilman's account was swift, detailed, and intense all at the same time. In the Epilogue of the memoir, Wolf Biermann states how Szpilman wrote his memoir right after the war while everything was fresh and while he was still trying to process and comprehend everything. In writing the book so soon after his experiences, he was able to record everything accurately, but it almost seems as if he is still detached from those experiences and still trying to deal with his emotions and the everything he went through. I agree with you about how it doesn't feel bias at all because he is simply stating what he saw and felt. He didn't have time to analyze anything, he just wrote what he witnessed. I was impressed with how the film was able to capture almost everything that was in the novel. Even though I think some of those hiding out in Warsaw scenes were a tad long, I still think they were important. It reflected the isolation, desperation, anxieties, and hope that he felt daily. In the book he writes how he had to be quiet and still most of the day to make sure he didn't get caught and those scenes play out like his life, emphasizing what he had to endure with those long, quiet, lonesome time by himself.
Names are essential to identity. What does Polanski's choice of using only first names do in terms of creating a sense of intimacy and familiarity with characters?
ReplyDeleteWhile reading you blog post, I initially disagreed with some things that you were saying, but as you went on to discuss those beliefs, your points were all valid. I jumped to the conclusion that Spzilman's autobiography would be the most biased, but in some ways, the film was actually the more biased one. Your examples were strong and are what swayed me. Polanski had the power to show only what he wanted to show, while Spzilman seemed more forth coming. Spzilman wrote in order to cope while Polanski, though he could relate to the story, had to create a movie that sold.
ReplyDeletePolanski does know more about movie making than both of us, however, trying to focus and drive a point home can sometimes be overkill. When you discussed how the film seemed to have little progression, such as the part where Spzilman is hiding in the Warsaw ghetto and is locked in a room, it was frustrating. It was impacting to see what he was going through and the suffering from lack of food, but instead of focusing on how terrible and upsetting it was, I was ready for it to move in. It is important to keep points like this short and concise in order to cause an initial shock and then move on to let it sink in.
your*
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how to go back and edit these comments. I noticed I put you instead of your.
I think a lack of using names of characters was definitely a conscious point by Polanski. I think, as a Jew with Poish heritage, he wanted to create a film which would show his nation's history in the war. In this sense, individual names were of less important to him. While it is the story of Szpilman first and foremost, the larger metaphor is that of the Polish Jewish struggle. That also seems to me to be why Polanski chose not to focus on more interpersonal interactions such as the poverty among children, and the greed of some bourgeoisie Jews. Leaving these out takes some of the intimacy of a first person narrative away, but as has been documented, the movie was already extremely long, and I imagine Polanski is beyond pleased with how the film turned out, both as art & a historical narrative of his people.
ReplyDelete