SOPHIE'S CHOICE

Distasteful, cynical Holocausploitation or a thoughtful and effective character piece? Sophie’s Choice is a film which tends to split its viewership right down the centre. For some it is a ponderous drama which invokes the Holocaust as a means of adding emotional stakes which it quite simply hasn’t earned. For others it is a performance piece which works because Streep is at her most devastating best. For me, I am somewhat disappointingly in the middle. I really wanted to feel strongly about the film one way or another, but the story failed to grab me. There is of course that central performance by Streep but beyond that this is a dry, dull affair which hints at an engaging philosophical discussion, but fails to follow through on it.

To clarify, I don’t believe that filmmakers should be barred from ‘invoking’ the Holocaust or any other piece of humanity’s violent history. To do so would be the worst of slippery slopes – if we cannot mention certain acts in film, why should we be able to mention them in books or in other media outlets? Humanity’s history is both brutal and congenial. It is good and evil, and this duality simply must be reflected in the films we watch, the books we read and the pieces of art we see. The problem in creating a work of art that deals with something like the Holocaust, whether it is a film or not, is to avoid utilising these abhorrent historical acts in any exploitative manner. That is, their inclusion in the story must not be gratuitous – it must be at the very heart of the film, it must serve a point and it must capture the full horror of the event. Should it fail to do these things, the surplus of critical opinion will be against it, media outlets will turn on it and audiences will revile it. Film-makers know the stakes involved in making a Holocaust film and know the penalty involved for not bringing their A-game. We act as the regulating force.

This brings me to Sophie’s Choice. I’ve read a couple of very damning articles which position this film as crass and exploitative. But it’s not enough to just give it that label, even if you rally hard against it and manage to loquaciously convey the reasons that it failed to work for you. Get down to the nitty-gritty: why was this exploitative whilst something like Schindler’s List wasn’t? Perhaps your complaint is that Alan J. Pakula’s film reduces the colossal tragedy of the Holocaust by eclipsing it with a melodramatic post-war love story? If this is the case then I believe you are looking at the film in the wrong manner; it is not a Holocaust film – it is a film about the aftermath of a great tragedy that operates on a personal level, without failing at the same time to acknowledge the great pain and suffering that plagued everybody involved. It is a film about an individual who learns to live on after undergoing intolerable torment and insurmountable guilt. So, unlike those who find this film in some ways exploitative, I find its overall pursuit admirable.

Anybody who has heard of Sophie’s Choice but is yet to see it will likely think one of two things: “Oh, that’s the film where Meryl Streep gives a great performance” or “isn’t that the film where Sophie has to decide which of her kids to give up to the Nazi’s”? Whilst both are true, the second statement fails to capture the overall essence of the film. The ‘choice’ scene is shown in a flashback and is over and done in about a minute and a half. Screen time is given instead to post-war Brooklyn where aspiring novelist Stingo (Peter MacNicol) moves into a room in a boarding house just below that which belongs to Sophie Zawistowski (Meryl Streep) and her lover Nathan Landau (Kevin Kline). The three of them become fast-friends and it’s not long until Nathan’s jealous tendencies and bi-polar personality bubble to the surface. As the story progresses we see flashbacks from Sophie’s life, learning about her relationship with her dad and how she came to be in, and to survive Auschwitz.

Sophie’s Choice works best when it dwells on the philosophical conundrums that lie under its surface. How does one relate to a father whose world view is at odds with one’s own? What would you be willing to do to ensure your children’s survival? How does one survive sending one’s own child to its death? Then of course there is the decision central to this film – how does one choose between which child should have to die when you love them equally? My feeling of disappointment regarding this film is primarily because although Sophie’s Choice flags up these questions it doesn’t bother to pursue them in any meaningful manner. There’s an interesting (albeit uncomfortable) discussion to be had concerning the nature of moral dilemma faced by Sophie, as there is with many aspects of the film, which skirts around the important issues to dwell on the burgeoning love between Sophie and Stingo.

Stingo himself is presented as a dull, characterless sheep who is so prostrated by his admiration for Nathan that he fails to do the right thing for Sophie over and over again. We are told a number of times about his literary ability but this is never believable despite the overly flowery and verbose narration he has to offer. MacNicol is of course completely overshadowed by Streep’s powerhouse performance. It is she who brings together these scenes, be they driven by romance, misery or joy. Had I not known of Streep before this film I would have likely believed her to be Polish, such is the air of believability that she casts on the role. Her suffering is heart-breaking and her triumphs are rewarding.

I have a number of objections about this film. For a start it is far too long and the pacing is way off. Furthermore, the colour-palette cinematographer Néstor Almendros’ utilises for 1947’s Brooklyn is much too reliant on pastel colours. Its worst quality is that it focuses on a dull love story which does not have the pathos to make us truly believe that after all her suffering Sophie has finally found a means to genuine happiness such as she once shared with her mother and father when she was young. Despite this, Sophie’s Choice is worth recommending because of Streep – it is her film all the way through and ought to be watched as a documentation of a master of her craft at the peak of her powers.