Odd journalistic disclosure

Slate sometimes has been pretty lightweight examples of column filler, and there's one up at the moment about how its Deputy Editor (!) Julia Turner finally made herself watch Schindler's List by having a half dozen people (most of whom had also been sort of avoiding the film) over for a viewing party.

This strikes me as a very odd idea.  If a famous feature of a movie is its emotional impact, why watch it in a setting presumably designed to lessen its emotional impact?  (Unless you actually do have a history of depression or nervous breakdowns.  I guess that might give you a fair enough reason.)

Anyway, she ends up thinking the movie is "worth watching", but her analysis is rather flawed by one of the strangest critical confessions I have ever read:

 We took a break for tacos about 80 minutes in; no one talked much, apart from trying to distinguish the spicy chicken from the extra spicy. (I also admitted that I’ve long found it hard to tell Neeson and Fiennes apart. I thought Neeson was Fiennes until Fiennes himself showed up.)

That's just bizarre.  Perhaps an eye test is in order, Julia?