Don't get me wrong, I did like the movie a lot. But didn't it seem a little sugarcoated? Perhaps that's the wrong word I'm using. What I mean is, it didn't seem very deep. Sure the people were treated badly, but it didn't seem as extreme as one would expect a concentration camp would be. It definately seemed like it was toned down by A LOT.
Anybody else notice that when they watched this?
I think it was to. Read the book if you havent, its a lot better.
"And what's the real lesson? Don't leave things in the fridge." - Spike Spiegel (Cowboy Bebop)
There was a book? I had no idea...
I'll definately have to check it out then.
Of course it is slightly sugarcoated. You have to remember that the idea of this movie, and the book, is to be able to bring this topic to the attention of our children. Children would not be able to handle the complete truth - simply due to their age, but this gives them an introduction and allows them to have a jumping-off point to do more research and learn more. This is not meant to be the ultimate tool for learning about the Holocaust - just a beginning.
shareThe complete truth? How about you tell your children that the Germans killed 270,000 people while the Russians, the good guys, the allies, killed 30 million people. Tell your children that, study the Russians and the holocaust does noy seem so damm bad, does it.
shareAlso keep in mind that this movie was made for t.v. If they made it as if it was a real window into a concentration camp they wouldn't be able to air it; it would be too violent.
sXe... smoke that druggies
I think it was exactly as violent as it needs to be to get the point across. You see just enough to be able to "fill in the blanks" and realize that you were just seeing what happened to the main character and her relatives/friends/neighbors. You are supposed to then be able to "do the math" and multiply it as needed to comprehend the actuality.
shareThis is going over a very delicate part of history. They can't show the full extent of the horror. It would be like replaying it all over again.
shareTo aussie:
Get your facts straight
It was 11 million (innocent) people, not 270,000
2Day 4 U!
I'm flying high Defying Gravity!
Aussie's obviously a holocaust denier - thank heaven there seem to be very few about on the imdb boards.
shareBertrambunter,
Aren’t you on record, on these very discussion boards, as stating very forcefully that the governments of Israel and the United States are (and I believe I quote correctly) “fascist”? The US and Israeli governments are fascist, in your stated and published opinion.
Let me repeat that. You think that the Israeli and American governments are fascist? Please correct me if I have misinterpreted something. That stated opinion of yours, among several other sources, is here:
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804522/board/nest/101742264?d=104611549# 104611549)
If you want to watch a more realistic and graphic account of the Holocaust, I recommend in this order:
1. The Pianist
2. Schindler's List
3. Escape from Sobibor
4. Sophie's Choice
5. The Diary of Ann Frank
Yes, those are all better films. There are some historical inaccuracies in this film. Firstly, during the "rounding up" phase of the Jews in Poland and throughout Eastern Europe, many Jews were shot outright, and others beaten, not only by the SS, but by anti-semetic locals. The peaceful round up at the wedding was not believable. Secondly, in was standard SS practice to dispose of all children and all but the strongest women immediately. Additionally, Jews in work camps were rarely fed, and were worked to death. Also, this film takes place in 1941?, I don't believe the Germans were using Zyclon B that early, there either shot people or gassed them with the exhaust from a motor vehicle. I guess this film is meant for young people, so they wouldn't go into such gruesome and graphic detail. In that sense, this is a "sugar-coated" account of the Holocaust.
But the Holocaust was gruesome and graphic beyond comprehension, and it needs to be seen that way so it is never forgotten.
Exactly Jep.
share270,000!!!
The estimated death of Auschwitz alone was 1.1 million. Add in Treblinka (870,000) ... Belzec (435,000) ... Sobibor (200,000) ... Warsaw (200,000) ... Stutthof (100,000) ... Sachsenhausen (100,000) ... Maly Trostenets (207,000)... Chelmno (152,000)... Bernberg (100,000) ... and countless other under 100,000.
Shame on you!
Could you name your source for those numbers? I'm really not sure where you got that 270,000 from, since most military historians believe there were over 1.1 million Soviet casualties in the battle of Stalingrad alone.
(and since I asked you for a source, here's a link to mine: https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Stalingrad)
And if we want to talk about the "good guys" killing people, let's talk about the Americans, who killed 80,000 Japanese civilians in one day, turned around three days later to kill 40,000 more, then left about 120,000 additional ones to die slow horrific deaths (for comparison, there were 40,000 Soviet civilian deaths over the course of the entire six month siege of Stalingrad). And those are the conservative estimates.
its meant to be "sugarcoated." its a tv movie from 10yrs ago. it needed to be clean and clear. its not the best representation of the Holocaust but i think its good for a young audience.
shareIt's based on a children's novel, so yes it's sugarcoated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCah8KZoQq8share
I think it was still powerful although it wasn't really graphic. Like the others said, it was made for a younger audience and it had to be "sugarcoated" or age appropriate.
Don't eva let nobody tell you you ain't strong enough
[deleted]