As a follower who values both art and humanity, I deeply admire Steven Spielberg for his unwavering integrity and compassion. His decision to refuse his cut from Schindler’s List and instead donate it to the University of South Carolina Shoah Foundation speaks volumes about his character. It is not often that we come across individuals who can combine artistic brilliance with philanthropic dedication in such a profound way.
Making money for Steven Spielberg is as straightforward as crafting excellent films, and this talent has significantly contributed to his impressive net worth. Forbes magazine ranks him second among the wealthiest directors, with a fortune estimated at $5.3 billion, trailing only George Lucas on this list. His wealth primarily stems from the success of his movies (which have collectively earned over $10 billion) and dividends from DreamWorks Studios, a company he co-founded with David Geffen in the mid-’90s. Additionally, Spielberg earns a share from every ticket sold at Universal theme parks, as his Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park franchises are major attractions there.
In 1994, when Spielberg established DreamWorks, he might have found millions of dollars useful due to his financial situation at the time. However, in contrast, after creating Schindler’s List a year earlier, he declined his entire salary for that film, despite it being a must-watch movie regardless of one’s political views. This movie raked in an impressive $322 million at the box office, meaning Spielberg – who typically takes a portion of the gross income from each of his movies – would have received a substantial amount. Yet, he opted to not take it. The reason behind this decision remains unclear.
Why Spielberg Refused to Take a Check
According to Thomas Keneally’s 1982 novel “Schindler’s Ark,” the film “Schindler’s List” is a powerful movie about the Holocaust that contributes to Hollywood’s ongoing discussion on the complex relationship between Nazi tyranny and heroism. This film offers a unique perspective through its black-and-white cinematography, and it is both poignant and deeply sad as it tells the true story of a factory owner who, with some self-reflection, makes an effort to help his loyal employees during this difficult time.
To start with, the character Oskar Schindler, played by Liam Neeson in this context, initially acted out of financial gain. He filled his factories with Jewish workers for their cheap labor. However, as he became aware of the intense persecution Jews were experiencing under the Nazi regime, his motives shifted. Instead, he aimed to rescue as many people as possible. It’s believed that approximately 1200 Jewish lives were saved by Schindler during this time.
In a past interview on Today, Spielberg expressed a statement that could have left other filmmakers of movies based on real-life tragedies feeling remorseful. He disclosed that he chose not to cash his check for Schindler’s List, as he viewed it as “tainted money.” His unyielding principles prevented him from profiting from a story about individuals who endured and perished.
Once I determined to produce “Schindler’s List”, I declared that if the film generates any earnings, they should not be for myself or my kin, but instead, they should be channeled towards benefiting humanity at large.
Spielberg’s decision to donate his earnings from “Schindler’s List” aligns with the film’s poignant and thought-provoking nature, as it tends to inspire altruism in viewers. He chose to contribute this money to the University of South Carolina Shoah Foundation, a non-profit organization that records testimonies from Holocaust survivors and witnesses (known as Shoah in Hebrew). Today, their archive houses more than 115,000 hours of video footage, with each account typically lasting around two hours.
Regarding the video and audio collection at the South Carolina Shoah Foundation, Spielberg said:
I wish these resources will find use in schools, libraries, Holocaust museums, and other institutions globally. I hope they’ll serve as educational tools for the youth, demonstrating the devastating consequences of unchecked hatred. These are real-life examples, and there are still survivors who can share their experiences.
It’s possible that Hollywood could gain an even greater appeal if more directors followed in the footsteps of Spielberg. After all, acts of kindness are admirable, and the more we practice them, the brighter the future may seem.
Spielberg Almost Rejected the Movie Too
When MCA and Universal president Sid Sheinberg shared a New York Times review of Schindler’s Ark with Steven Spielberg, the filmmaker was deeply moved and decided to acquire its movie rights. Yet, he questioned whether he possessed the maturity required to tackle such heavy subject matter. As detailed in the book Steven Spielberg: A Biography, he extensively searched for a suitable director to helm the film. Surprisingly, many directors turned down Spielberg’s offer. Known as “Spielberg’s List,” names like Roman Polanski, Sydney Pollack, Billy Wilder, and Brian De Palma were approached, but they all declined due to reservations.
In time, Steven Spielberg decided to take on the task personally, as he noticed that Holocaust denial was gaining prominence in the news media. The surge of neo-Nazism post-Berlin Wall fall was a concern, and the filmmaker felt compelled to intervene, aiming to halt intolerance before it escalated to the levels seen during the 1930s.
To alleviate concerns that Spielberg might be too affected by the film’s themes, Universal executive Sid Sheinberg approved the project on the condition that Spielberg direct Jurassic Park first. He consented to this arrangement. The production was then granted a budget of just $22 million since it was believed at the time that Holocaust films wouldn’t be profitable. However, luckily, Schindler’s List proved this notion wrong.
Schindler’s List
is available to rent in the US on Amazon, Apple TV+ or Spectrum
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-09-22 20:01