By Michael B. Bobrow
July 1994 –All people of good will and common sense agree that the historical account of the Nazi genocide during World War II against millions of Jews and others, such as Gypsies and Slavic peoples, must be told and retold. Indeed, for the past two generations countless pupils in American high schools have been taught this, not in trendy special Holocaust studies programs, but simply as part of modern European and world history courses. Whether it be the Nazi Holocaust, or the slaughter during World War II of a million Armenians in Turkey, or Communist tyrants killing millions in China, Cambodia and the former Soviet Union – or the American Holocaust where over 30 million unborn children have been legally put to death (with approval not only of the U.S. Supreme Court, but now also the White House) – there is no more heinous and evil crime than the mass destruction of innocent human beings.
The subject of the Nazi Holocaust has now captured the nation’s and world’s attention with the film Schindler’s List. This overall very worthwhile, well-acted movie has, however, been tarnished with several totally unnecessary indecent and sexually immoral scenes. The oldest Jewish religious authority in America, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, representing over 600 rabbis and a half million religious Jews, angrily protested the nudity and obscene language in Schindler’s List as “a disgraceful insult to the Holocaust victims” as well as “a violation of morality.” The usual media, which do not look kindly upon traditional moral values, gave relatively little coverage to this rabbinical criticism of the film.
This writer happens to feel that such an important and historically accurate film as Schindler’s List should indeed be shown on a wide scale to people over the age of thirteen – but with one absolutely clear understanding: that several morally objectionable and indecent scenes featuring pornographic sex and (non-erotic) total frontal nudity, as well as frequent use of obscene language, be deleted. This must especially be the case when the film is shown to schoolchildren, as is now the case where many school boards and principals have authorized its showing to children.
Regrettably, up to now the film’s director, Steven Spielberg, has “adamantly” insisted that there be no cuts in the film – “not even one cut” – supposedly in the interests of a better understanding of the Holocaust and in presenting realism. I fail to understand what, for example, a scene showing film hero Oskar Schindler having intercourse with his mistress has to do with understanding the Holocaust.
And as for realism, why didn’t Spielberg have the film’s dialogue in German, Yiddish and Polish with English subtitles? What is realistic about Hitler’s soldiers shouting in perfect English, but with slight Pennsylvania Dutch accents? With Hollywood, of course, realism usually means license for sex and nudity!
In a most interesting and revealing report in the New York Times of last April 7, several Moslem countries such as Egypt, Malaysia and Indonesia were considering allowing Schindler’s List to be shown, but only if the offending sexually explicit scenes were cut. Spielberg, however, refused to make the few cuts necessary to accommodate conservative Moslem sensibilities. Here was an ideal opportunity to have the film shown and perhaps create better understanding between Moslems and Jews, and a greater appreciation by Moslems of the horrendous sufferings of Jews in the Holocaust.
This “not even one cut” position of Spielberg compels this writer to consider that, aside from arrogance and egoism on Spielberg’s part, this could well be an indication of another motive – the all too well-known desire by many in Hollywood and the cultural elite to break down remaining sexual taboos and moral codes in socially conservative societies both abroad and at home. Yes, to use the highly acclaimed Academy Award-winning Schindler’s List as a means to help bring this about.
And here is the real rub: When eventually, and the time may be very near, Schindler’s List is scheduled for showing on regular network television, will Spielberg then allow the usual TV cuts for nudity, and allow bleeping out of four-letter obscene words? Or will he again insist that “deference to the Holocaust” (actually, deference to Spielberg and Company) demands that there be no cuts – “not one?”
And will the television companies go along? If so, Schindler’s List could well be used as a battering ram to further break down moral values on TV, setting a precedent for far greater corruption of both TV and TV-watching American youngsters.
Needless to say, this is a matter that deserves being addressed by the religious and lay leaders of all our
major faiths. 
