You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
To view the Holocaust from within a group psychoanalytic frame it is necessary to treat the actual Holocaust in the manner of memory; to distinguish the one remembered from the mythic or metaphoric one. The actual Holocaust left in its wake questions about silence, criminality and the long term effects of trauma on individuals, families and groups. On the other hand it left unanswered questions about the appeal of Nazism as a political (group) movement. It also left behind less significant questions about whether something as profound as the Holocaust can be portrayed in a narrative form. The eloquent plea that the historical story of the Holocaust be told (Weisel, 1960) is held in a paradox since it is doubtful whether words, art or cinematic images can convey any part of its actual meaning. Further complicating this issue is a necessary distinction between the actual people, historical events and the transmission of trauma and defences from generation to generation. In focusing on this American film, particular attention is given to the special appeal of certain kinds of leaders coupled with America's underlying ambivalent attempt to unhitch itself from anything European and therefore historical (Roth, 1993).
In this paper I will illuminate certain group dynamic aspects of the film Schindler's List and perhaps of Spielberg's other film efforts. It is not my intent to either criticize or honour the film, nor do I intend to minimize its inaccuracies and cinematic licence nor divergence from the source material or historical facts. Others have better credentials to do so and have done so already. (See Gourevitch, 1994 for a critique of the film and Crowe 2004 for recent research on Schindler.) It is my hope that this endeavour will exist in harmony with these other efforts while demonstrating that dynamic group meanings are discernible operating as an organizing principle in the structure of this film. suggests that affiliation determines perception in writing of the