Fascism in Film:

Part 1 - Schindler’s List.

by Bryn Gatehouse.

In this series of short essays I will attempt to show how 20th Century film responded to the rise of fascism across the European continent. Using a number of post-war films, including films made in allied and axis countries I will analyse attempts to explain the fascist mindset that entranced mainland Europe, simultaneously examining how continental philosophy and psychology attempted to explain fascism. The first film I am choosing to use is Schindler’s list (Steven Spielberg, 1993) , American director Steven Spielberg’s arguable magnum opus. This film follows the life of Oscar Schindler during Nazi rule, focusing on the extraordinary (if at times small focused, choosing to film the small rebellion from one German businessman rather than the far more influential subservience of those partaking in the horrors of the Holocaust) act of saving over a thousand jews from death in the extermination camps of occupied Poland.

Before beginning my analysis, I feel the need to explain the Deleuzo-Guattarian construction of desire formed in Anti Oedipus (1977) DELEUZE, G., & GUATTARI, F. (2003). Anti-Oedipus: capitalism and schizophrenia. London, Continuum. . In this key work on the early Freudian mindset that dominated both the modern age and the rise of fascism, Deleuze and Guattari subvert Freud, Lacan, and the representational depiction of the psyche. Instead they construct an image of the psyche better suited to explaining the trends of the 20th century, emphasising the productive nature of desire, and describing psyches as being desiring-machines (Deleuze and Guattari, 2003) DELEUZE, G., & GUATTARI, F. (2003). Anti-Oedipus: capitalism and schizophrenia. London, Continuum. . This contrasts the lack that defines desire in orthodox Freudian theory. For Deleuze and Guattari, desire produces social realities, and thus desire is integral when looking at the development of fascism. Building on Reich, ignorance cannot explain fascism, people wanted it, desired it.

The genius of Schindler’s List comes from the character of Amon Goeth. Obsessed with power and sadistic, he may at first come across as one of the most brutal antagonists in 20th century film. However, upon closer inspection, one may see how Spielberg uses desire and sexuality to mirror the productive desire of the Fascist regimes in Europe. Through doing this, Spielberg, perhaps without the intent of doing so, attempts to reveal to the audience the mindset of fascism.

Schindler's List, 1993, Universal Pictures.

Two scenes show this productive desire through Amon Goeth best. The first of these is a scene in which Goeth stands on the balcony of his watchtower / home, rifle in hand, and begins shooting at the Jewish workers in the camp below. Important to note here are two elements of the scene. First, Göth stands proudly shirtless. Second, the simultaneous use of both a cigarette and a rifle. These elements build up to create an overtly sexual image of this classic Nazi figure. The gun is phallic, attached to this shirtless strutting man. The cigarette is, and always has been, a rebellious, sexual icon. This is not a figure of complete repression and semiotic conservatism, but is instead more reminiscent of Hollywood sex symbols, a young Marlon Brando or James Dean. Spielberg exposes us to the erotic nature of the Nazi regime. How can we possibly argue that fascism is built on sexual repression, as those like Reich do, when such erotic images exist? Just as Hitler did for the fascists in Germany, Spielberg aims to, almost perversely, turn on the audience through such an image.

The second of these scenes is an interaction between Göth and Helen Hirsch, a Jewish woman assigned as Göth’s housemaid. After having chosen her from a group of those interned in the camp, Göth seems to develop an affection, or more accurately a lust, for her. In the climax of their relationship, he enters the basement of his home, gropes her, and then proceeds to beat her, all the while questioning whether he could be attracted to her in a soft voice, close to a whisper. The sensuality of the scene allows for a massive build up of tension, made all the more tense by Helen’s clear discomfort with the contradictory nature of Göth’s soft spoken voice and his violent actions. Later, Schindler tells Helen that Göth will not kill her because he “enjoys you too much”, thus showing his treatment of her ultimately not as contradictory, but rather an sadistic, erotic game played on Helen for his own enjoyment. The scene culminates in Goeth rejecting any potential ideas of romantic attraction towards Helen, instead violently beating her. For Göth, this replaces the sexual act, showing the explosive role of desire in forming destructive relations of erotic power within the fascist system.

Helen Hirsch in Schindler's List, 1993, Universal Pictures.

The still-present repressive element of the Nazi regime is portrayed by Spielberg using numerous characters, from Göth, to Schindler and his wife. For Göth, the repressive element is revealed in a moment of (perhaps manufactured) tenderness towards Helen Hirsch, in the same scene as discussed previously. Standing close to her, Göth questions whether her face is that of a “rat” and whether or not a Jew has “eyes”. Not only does this allow for some complexity in Göth’s character, as he admits the failures of the dehumanising element of Nazism, but also presents a man incredibly conflicted with his own desires, between a sexual desire and a ideological desire. The former is seen to be at most times dormant, excluding in a small number of moments such as this one, and the overtly sexual repression in comparison to what I would define more as erotic desiring-production characterises the tragedy of Fiennes’ character, whose monologues almost take a Shakespearean tone.

Spielberg shows Schindler and his wife too as being victim of the repressive mindset that undoubtably played a part in the growth of fascism across Europe. This is most obvious in the liquidation of the Krakow Ghetto, in which after witnessing the start of the removal of the Jews from the Ghetto, both Schindler and his wife choose to leave rather than witness any more of the horrors that take place within the event. Rather than facing the horrors that they as Germans have helped to create, they turn their backs on the Ghetto. This is not an act of ignorance, but of repression, the inability to hold themselves to account or to even recognise the violence that is taking place within the fascist system. Rather than showing the ignorance of the German people, Spielberg instead exposes the repressive nature of the German mindset at the time, completely aware of violence but unwilling to act upon it. This in turn mirrors accounts from labour camps across the European continent, with many simply unwilling to face the violence of the fascist system. This irrational repression of one’s own emotion in response to violence mirrors the irrationality proposed by Willhelm Reich, one that he argues to be the result of sexual repression in the early 20th century (Reich, 1970) REICH, W. (1970).The mass psychology of fascism. New York, Farrar, Straus & Giroux. . However, as I shall now argue, this does not seem to be the case.

Schindler's List, 1993, Universal Pictures.

Contrary to this view that sexual repression is the main psychological explanation for the rise of fascism, Schindler’s List, if perhaps not intentionally, provides evidence for the view that the productive image of desire within those in Europe rule allowed for the growth of fascism and the fascist mindset. From the factory setting of the film, to the industrial nature of the Nazi killing machine, the film depicts a productive system. This is built upon an initial erotic desire that the Nazis tap into, and thus shows this desire as productive in forming the fascist image, gaining from the elements of fascism that lie dormant in many. This is not a repressive mindset, as Amon Göth shows as he takes delight in the murder of numerous innocent people, but is instead productive, turning on the fascists within Europe. This productive, sadomasochistic element of fascism is thus explored by Spielberg through setting, recurring images, and characters.

It is clear to see that the Fascist regimes in Europe openly used erotic imagery in order to capture desire and form the social realities seen in Italy and Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. From the images of Aryan youth to the uniform designs focusing on aesthetics over practicality, and even the warring aims of the Nazi party itself with Lebensraum, aiming to foster community and the sense of continuity that defines eroticism in comparison to the discontinuity of everyday life (Bataille, 1986) BATAILLE, G. (1986).Erotism: death & sensuality. San Fransisco, City Light Books. . Contrary to what many may think, the fascist movement is not built upon some suppression of sexual freedom, but instead a sadomasochistic embrace of desire and eroticism to produce this fascist mindset across Europe. Desire has the possibility to be dangerous and explosive, and may result in destruction just as it may result in the construction of reality.

This first part, focussing on Schindler’s List, has aimed to provide an account for how fascists used the productive nature of desire to their advantage, utilising eroticism and desire to awaken an element within humans across Europe and the globe that is predisposed towards fascism. This study of micropolitics of desire with reference to fascism is displayed by Spielberg through sadomasochistic elements within the film, fetish within fascist ideals, and ultimately explosive, violent desire portrayed by the representative of Nazism within the film, Amon Göth. The series will continue with an analysis of Pasolini’s Salò, an even more brutal film on the fascist regimes across Europe, this time set within the birthplace of fascism, Italy.

by Bryn Gatehouse, July 2022.