Looking for Artistry in the Commercial World: The Spielberg Canon [Archive]

Raiders

11-30-2010, 02:09 AM

http://www.gameguru.in/images/spielberg-wii.jpg

Well, I know what you're thinking. Spielberg? What's the point? And yes, my last attempt at such a project, the King Hu thread, failed; largely due to the fact that I simply didn't have the time or ratio to download all his stuff via Karagarga, but also because I realized after his first film I wanted to go slowly with viewing his stuff for the first time.

But here, with Spielberg, I have seen almost all of them, and let's face it, few filmmakers get discussed more and yet have such varying degrees of admiration and hatred. It's unique on this board for us to really want to talk at length or depth about a Spielberg film, namely because we don't have much of a dog in the fight. His best films are among the most widely seen and his supposedly weaker films among the most uniformly disliked.

He's so visible, so widely seen, and yet in skimming this site, there is little conversation that really digs at his work. Likely we find it ho-hum, boring and pointless. Rightly so perhaps. But I hope to change that, at least in some respect. Let the thread be a launching board for a wealth of discussion that I believe he deserves. Like him or hate him there are few figures in the global film landscape as prevalent or powerful and while we can rightly cling to our indie geniuses and avant-garde gurus, the big boys deserve their threads too.

So what new can be brought to the table? Nothing perhaps. But it struck me as I was sitting and glancing over my DVD collection that when it comes to his best work, in my eyes, there are few filmmakers and films I love to sit and watch more. I decided I really wanted to watch them all again and even watch the two or three I haven't seen. I have faith this undertaking will sustain and I will easily finish since I own most of his films already and those I don't are easily available. I also look forward to going through his canon and see the films I have loved for years and those I have hated. He's a common discussion in the "is he?" category for those that love the auteur theory and I hope to be able to pick up on those threads. My Demme project yielded such wonderful nuances and results and I hope that even now, I can uncover something interesting in Spielberg's work. If not, maybe I'll try George Lucas next... or jump off a bridge, whichever is less painful.

The Viewing List:

Amblin' [short] (1968) (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=304948&postcount=18) - ***
Duel (1971) (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=305310&postcount=25) - **½
The Name of the Game: L.A. 2017 [TV] (1971) (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=306873&postcount=104) - **½
Something Evil [TV] (1972) (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=307590&postcount=105) - **
Savage [TV] (1973) (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=308041&postcount=110) - **½
The Sugarland Express (1974) (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=308745&postcount=113) - ***½
Jaws (1975) (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=310293&postcount=120) - ****
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=312999&postcount=149) - ***
1941 (1979) (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=349921&postcount=204) - **
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Poltergeist (1982) *official directing credit given to Tobe Hooper
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
The Color Purple (1985)
Amazing Stories: The Mission (1985)
Empire of the Sun (1987)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Always (1989)
Hook (1991)
Jurassic Park (1993)
Schindler's List (1993)
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
Amistad (1997)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
AI: Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Minority Report (2002)
Catch Me if You Can (2002)
The Terminal (2004)
War of the Worlds (2005)
Munich (2005)
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

DavidSeven

11-30-2010, 02:36 AM

Saw this clip recently, and I think it says a lot about Spielberg in relation to where fits in with the auteur theory:

UcM6sDKrX1M

Raiders

11-30-2010, 02:53 AM

Irish

11-30-2010, 03:00 AM

It's a little weird he picks out two guys working withing the studio system and compares them to guys like Hitchcock or Scorcese.

I'm not sure what he means by "style." In one moment he seems to imply it's a kind of thematic concern, in others he implies it's more visual flourish.

soitgoes...

11-30-2010, 03:01 AM

Have you seen Amblin' Raiders? It's available on KG for a small ratio hit if not or for free on google video here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=43788283083660 60201#). It would be a neat place to start for this thread. Looking forward to reading either way.

Raiders

11-30-2010, 03:02 AM

DavidSeven

11-30-2010, 03:09 AM

Well, yeah, it is fairly obvious that he isn't someone out looking to make "his movie" every time. I think it makes perfect sense that he sees himself as a modern-day Curtiz. Nonetheless, he wields a very God-like control over the direction of his projects that I think he likely has more motifs and film-to-film characteristics than he realizes. I mean, I would say the same about Michael Bay (that he has a noticeable through-line in his work), so it isn't a statement of quality as much as for all the different types and genres Spielberg dabbles in, there are definitely relations between them that can help to define his career.

In any case, we'll see where this leads.

Yeah, I'd agree and certainly think he has a more consistent aesthetic then he lets on. (Hello, beams of light!). As a craftsman, I probably see him nestled somewhere between a Lumet/Hawks on one extreme and a Scorsese/Hitchcock on the other. In terms of themes, there's definitely recurring things going on there.

Spinal

11-30-2010, 03:41 AM

Sounds good.

Dead & Messed Up

11-30-2010, 03:43 AM

I watched Sugarland for the first time this year, and the method of dialogue, and the way he developed the story, felt very much like what he was doing in Jaws and Close Encounters. There's a bit of Pakula and Altman in how the characters speak, and how he holds the shots.

I wish I could express myself better, but his films seem a little more specific, of a certain method, in his early years. His craft broadened as the years went by, to the point that he does seem oddly anonymous at times. I mean, you can check for his daddy issues and occasional motifs (flashlights, falling stars), but he seemed a more focused artisan back in the day.

Adam

11-30-2010, 04:16 AM

Lookin forward to this

I watched Sugarland for the first time this year, and the method of dialogue, and the way he developed the story, felt very much like what he was doing in Jaws and Close Encounters. There's a bit of Pakula and Altman in how the characters speak, and how he holds the shots.

I wish I could express myself better, but his films seem a little more specific, of a certain method, in his early years. His craft broadened as the years went by, to the point that he does seem oddly anonymous at times. I mean, you can check for his daddy issues and occasional motifs (flashlights, falling stars), but he seemed a more focused artisan back in the day.

I know what you mean and I would include Empire of the Sun in that group, as well. They all have fantastically subtle visual elegance and an utterly genuine sense of humanity. But for whatever reason, Spielberg's not as effectively earnest as he used to be. Also, some of his most pronounced strengths as a filmmaker aren't as compatible in the commercial films of today as they were in the era he started out in

Somewhat related, I think - To tie back to Raiders' previous thread, Spielberg was "ruined" in some of the same ways by Schindler's List as Jonathan Demme was "ruined" by Silence of the Lambs

TripZone

11-30-2010, 04:18 AM

I love his camerawork. The sci-fi trilogy of the naughties is probably the best of his body of work, to me.

B-side

11-30-2010, 04:18 AM

Cool.

Boner M

11-30-2010, 07:13 AM

The sci-fi trilogy of the naughties is probably the best of his body of work, to me.
Yep.

Lookin' forward to this.

ledfloyd

11-30-2010, 07:34 AM

very cool, i will be following.

Morris Schæffer

11-30-2010, 10:52 AM

He's my favorite director. So many four star movies.

Duel
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Jaws
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Schindler's List
Minority Report
Saving Private Ryan

Even when there's script problems, or things get typically schmaltzy (to which I don't always object) his craft is at times bewildering as can be seen in for instance Saving Private Ryan.

balmakboor

11-30-2010, 11:46 AM

I really think that Spielberg is a reluctant auteur. He's been saying that he considers himself a kin to Curtiz and De Mille for decades almost as a way of downplaying his directorial signature. It's right there though for all eyes to see and all ears to hear.

Interestingly, looking at the list of movies, the movie I consider to be the thematic centerpiece of his work is also soon to be the halfway mark of his career. I consider all of his films to be riffs on the story of Peter Pan.

StanleyK

11-30-2010, 03:04 PM

Coincidentally, I'm also on my way through a Spielberg binge, having already seen Duel (****) and The Sugarland Express (***½). Since he's easily one of my favorite directors, I approve of this thread.

Raiders

12-01-2010, 03:05 AM

AMBLIN'
(1968)

http://i51.tinypic.com/4jvyi9.png

Made on a budget of $15,000, Spielberg's first "commercial" film was this 25-minute short that was distributed as the opening act for Otto Preminger's Skidoo. The film is entirely free of dialogue with only the expressions of the actors and the alternately jovial and melancholic score to visually and aurally stimulate the emotions. Due to its own restrictions (according to Spielberg both intentional and necessary for the budget), the film is a very simple story that is part cute romance and part road movie. It is about a boy and a girl, both hitchhikers who meet while making their way to the Pacific Coast. She is playful and outgoing, he more reserved and shy, especially about the contents of his over-sized guitar case.

What is most striking here is the cinematography which was done by Allen Daviau who would go on to accompany Spielberg on E.T. and Empire of the Sun as well as some other notable feature films. The opening part of the film nicely gives us the introduction to our "road movie" via a series of motion shots, either static camera with moving vehicles and people or tracking shots that follow the action on screen. Other notable sequences include an expressive scene in a small cave with our two characters in silhouette and the following scene that displays via some embossed images the whirling delight after a few puffs of a joint.

http://i52.tinypic.com/15miogl.png

Spielberg himself has been subsequently critical of this film, dismissing it as a nicely done Pepsi commercial and stating that, "No wonder I didn’t go to Kent State... No wonder I didn’t go to Vietnam or I wasn’t protesting when all my friends were carrying signs and getting clubbed in Century City. I was off making movies, and Amblin’ is the slick by-product of a kid immersed up to his nose in film." Spielberg had been making movies since he was 12 (he was 21 when he made this) and indeed you can see with this film that his motives are purely cinematic. The film in general feels a little self-consciously arty and at the same time laid back and non-confrontational. It's a rather slight and at times ineffectual film, mostly coasting on pretty vistas, wide open spaces and the cute glances of its attractive stars.

Nonetheless, Spielberg is slighting what is a terrific little ditty of a film and a great introduction to the rest of his career. This is more than just the film that got him a seven-year studio deal, but it also is a genesis of sorts for the kind of artist he was to become. There's a lot of sentiment and humanity built into the small glances, the very same that as the budgets grew also was able to become (for good and bad) more pronounced. Also, for all his savant-like skill, there's a joy located in a beautifully edited scene like the seed spitting contest here that is simply missing from some of the more bloated projects he would go on to create. This isn't simply a low budget calling card but a filmmaker pouring in all his visual creativity to create something that would allow him to create even bigger things. It may not resonate, and there may be way too many establishing shots dwarfing the two against the landscape or too many moments that exist only to show us how many ways you can film the same motions and content, but in those 25 minutes it has moments that aren't far from pure small-scale cinema bliss.

Rating: ***

MadMan

12-01-2010, 06:23 PM

He's one of my favorite directors, although I'm not sure if I'll ever finish his filmography. Regardless I've viewed 15 of his movies, and several of them are among my favorites: The Indy series, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, and Jaws of course. Radical thread idea, man.

soitgoes...

12-02-2010, 12:12 AM

AMBLIN'
(1968)
Rating: ***It's an enjoyable enough film. It's interesting to compare Scorsese's student film, The Big Shave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83i8G6o0quc&has_verified=1) (NSFW: Youtube page has some questionable suggestions for videos on this page!!) made the year prior to Spielberg's. Both made for next to nothing, yet Scorsese sets his sights higher, striving for something with depth as opposed to Spielberg's whimsical film. Both accomplish what they set out to do, but like scoring diving or gymnastics, Scorsese's is the better film because of a higher degree of difficulty. Yeah the two films have zero in common, the comparison is because their careers both started around the same time.

DavidSeven

12-02-2010, 12:46 AM

soitgoes...

12-02-2010, 01:21 AM

I prefer Scorsese's playful It's Not Just You, Murray! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onXHGZtAT4g) from four years earlier. Tons of trademark Scorsese-isms. Might make for a better comparison piece to Amblin since Scorsese was probably 21 or 22 when he made it, and it's comparable in length. Looks like he was around 26 when he did The Big Shave.The release dates and the fact that they are both considered two of the most powerful men in Hollywood, were the reason for the comparison. I don't want to get into an extended Scorsese discussion in a Speilberg thread. Let's just say I greatly prefer The Big Shave to Murray, and also there's plenty of Scorsese to be found in the The Big Shave.

balmakboor

12-02-2010, 02:17 AM

You should consider including The Mission. It combines all of Spielberg's major themes into a fun combination of WWII war movie and fantasy film. It's available in season one of Amazing Stories.

This is already one of my favorite threads because I finally saw Amblin, another film heavily indebted to the eternal child ("Peter Pan", "Little Prince") archetype.

Btw, I'm also a big fan of The Big Shave. But my way of bringing Scorsese into the conversation is to say that The Aviator is the best Spielberg film Spielberg should have made.

Qrazy

12-02-2010, 02:31 AM

It's an enjoyable enough film. It's interesting to compare Scorsese's student film, The Big Shave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83i8G6o0quc&has_verified=1) (NSFW: Youtube page has some questionable suggestions for videos on this page!!) made the year prior to Spielberg's. Both made for next to nothing, yet Scorsese sets his sights higher, striving for something with depth as opposed to Spielberg's whimsical film. Both accomplish what they set out to do, but like scoring diving or gymnastics, Scorsese's is the better film because of a higher degree of difficulty. Yeah the two films have zero in common, the comparison is because their careers both started around the same time.

Although in the interest of being fair to Spielberg I think in Amblin' (much like many of his other works) there's an interesting sub-text to the work that's frequently overlooked because of Spielberg's sentimental/whimsical tone. On the one hand we have this light-hearted film with a collection of cute/funny little set pieces. On the other hand we have this story about a guy and a girl meeting up, sharing a mutual attraction, consummating that attraction and then the girl leaving the guy because he's not the bullshit archetype, the ideal that she has in her mind of the kind of person she wishes to be with. That is to say he doesn't actually carry a guitar in his guitar case, he's not some sexy musician, he's basically just a roaming bum. You can see the 'edge' to their 'relationship' throughout the whole film... from when they first meet and he's carrying her stuff, to the seed spitting fight, to the difficulty of getting a ride, to the looks she gives him when he won't let the people in the van use his guitar and finally when she opens the case. At the end of the film she finally leaves him floundering around in the ocean, content because he thinks she's there with him. Contrast his emotions with those before he met her near the beginning of the film and it's no stretch to imagine how things will be for him once he realizes she's gone.

All of this provides an interesting commentary on the free love generation. On the surface it's all fun and games but as with any relationship which features a coming together and a moving apart, there are lasting emotional repercussions for these characters... even if we aren't privy to them.

Raiders

12-02-2010, 03:21 AM

DUEL
(1971)

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lawnogpid61qcly1xo1_400 .jpg

Spielberg's second effort, and his first feature-length film (still originally a TV production) has little more dialogue than his entirely silent debut. It was also a lean, quick production, shot in only 16 days and edited in just three weeks. The efficiency is evident in almost every frame of the film. It is also evident in the list of characters of which there is only one main, David Mann played by Dennis Weaver. The real characters are the man's car, the mouse in our chase, and the menacing tractor trailer, the cat. There is no establishing reason for the chase outside David's initial encounter in which he passes the truck on a barren, dusty road on his way to meet a client (he's a salesman). Beyond that, there is no premise, no story, no end narrative goal except to choose a winner.

The film exists entirely for the chase scenes which are models of kinetic filmmaking. Spielberg's camera practically fetishizes the grimy, rusted behemoth that inexplicably chases and chases and chases. Almost every establishing shot of the truck shows us a different perspective of its mechanics, from the wheel axles to the grill to the bumper to the roof; Spielberg elegantly characterizes the truck as the primary character of the film.

http://i55.tinypic.com/1z1u06c.png

It's a symbol of evil masculinity which is a necessity given the efforts by the film to portray David as a henpecked, modern-aged and emasculated man. There is a scene early in the film with David on the phone to his wife where she is harassing him and he is meekly arguing, and Spielberg films these shots through the frame of a washing machine, cannily trapping David in the frame of the door and in the domesticity the machine symbolizes. It's interesting to note that in this film, David's family (his wife and mother specifically) are sources of frustration and anxiety. There is none of the director's trademark humanity and warmth and love for the fractured family unit. The film also contains meek voice-overs by David and an early-film radio caller explaining how he can't fill out the "head of household" census form, laying on much too thick what those simple establishing shots and Weaver's performance captured perfectly.

It is admittedly also a very silly and uneven film. I think the beauty of its craft and the formidable talents on display somewhat mask how ridiculous scenes such as inside the cafe and the bizarre gas station-cum-snake exhibit. Both ultimately kill the momentum (the latter is short and pointless and as weird as it sounds), and in particular the cafe goes on for much too long to ultimately take us nowhere different than we were before (what, you mean all these faceless men wear cowboy boots, look at Weaver funny and could be the truck driver?). It exists to establish Weaver's fish-out-of-water scenario and further isolate him, but the film's greatest asset is the momentum and propulsion of its chase and the scene is not only pointless but a bit of a drag. This all is to say nothing that I'm not sure I buy David's determinism in continuing forward, most especially after he is almost run over by the truck, manages to get away and hide and then after waiting an hour for the truck to go on ahead, he continues in that direction instead of turning around and going home. But, without it there's no movie, yada yada...

Nonetheless, the film is still a moderate success thanks entirely to the staging of the chase scenes. Not just in the way the camera juts in and around both vehicles, but the way Spielberg often restricts us to inside Weaver's car, jolting between the rear-view mirror and the side mirrors, leaving us to look for a glimpse of the truck just as the character does. I wasn't sold on the ending (did he really not see him jump out of the car?), but the abruptness and openness of David's future is well handled and I was satisfied when it was over. Ultimately, I don't think the film was anywhere near my recollection of it and I was definitely disappointed, but it is still at times a great thrilling entertainment and Spielberg's craft is often immaculate.

Rating: **½

Irish

12-02-2010, 06:19 AM

It is admittedly also a very silly and uneven film.

I was with you until right there. Granted, I haven't seen it in awhile so like you my memory of it might be better than the movie, but:

- astonished this was a tv movie
- plays as a borderline horror
- more tense, more edge of your seat, than theatrical stuff produced today

I like Spielberg better early on, when he was doing work for hire stuff like this. Without the budgets and the control he doesn't have the opportunity to indulge his more idiotic impulses.

Anyway, good write-up. I enjoyed reading that one.

Morris Schæffer

12-02-2010, 10:46 AM

DUEL
(1971)

This all is to say nothing that I'm not sure I buy David's determinism in continuing forward, most especially after he is almost run over by the truck, manages to get away and hide and then after waiting an hour for the truck to go on ahead, he continues in that direction instead of turning around and going home. But, without it there's no movie, yada yada...

I think it becomes a matter of principle after a while, and David trascends his flesh & blood nature and becomes, the word escapes me (trope? Symbol? archetype?), more than simply a character who wants to live. He looks like a guy who's been pushed around a bit, has had a boring life (you seem to agree when you discuss the phonecall to his wife and the washing machine) and the truck plays along. The school bus sequence, I feel, is a challenge, a call to David to accept that challenge. That's a great sequence right there. **** from me. ;)

balmakboor

12-02-2010, 12:33 PM

It isn't that he has a boring wife. She is bored because she expects him to be some kind of man that he isn't. She's the type of woman who will cheat (and probably already is cheating) with the nearest man who satisfies her masculine ideal. It's a theme that runs through much of Spielberg's work, the wimpy hero who finds a way to defeat the macho bully.

Amblin showed this in draft form with the girl becoming dismayed by the wimpy guy. He's just in the way as all these men try to pick her up. Amblin doesn't feature anything as satisfying as a big dirty truck for a macho antagonist or said truck being destroyed as a catharsis though.

This continues soon in Jaws with all of its "I'm a bigger man than you because I have a bigger scar than you" one upmanship. An there as well, the macho guys gets eaten and the wimp survives.

Raiders

12-02-2010, 12:53 PM

I'm not arguing that the very end isn't clearly informed by the earlier conversations. It would have to be otherwise that material would be useless and pointless. I'm just saying that up to those last moments when he is waved by the last time, it is silly and absurd that he continues in that direction, particularly when the truck passes him and keeps going. I don't really mind it all that much, but it just compounded what I already felt were weaknesses of the film. It's immaculately made, I wouldn't and didn't argue that. It just wasn't nearly as satisfying as I remember.

Pop Trash

12-02-2010, 02:13 PM

I think you are viewing Duel too literally. I think it's allegorical almost to the point of supernatural. The truck might be driving itself ala Maximum Overdrive for all we know.

I lump it in with Two-Lane Blacktop and Vanishing Point as these minimal early 70s driving movies without many easy answers. It also has shades of Deliverance, Easy Rider, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre as one of those films that pits nice, civilized people against the terror of provincial America.

Raiders

12-02-2010, 02:18 PM

I think you are viewing Duel too literally. I think it's allegorical almost to the point of supernatural. The truck might be driving itself ala Maximum Overdrive for all we know.

I don't think I am; in fact I'm not even sure what you mean. The truck most definitely has a driver. The truck itself is the character of course, but I already talked at lengths about that. Not sure what that has to do with me being too literal.

I lump it in with Two-Lane Blacktop and Vanishing Point as these minimal early 70s driving movies without many easy answers. It also has shades of Deliverance, Easy Rider, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre as one of those films that pits nice, civilized people against the terror of provincial America.

Right. Obviously. I haven't said anything different.

Qrazy

12-02-2010, 06:23 PM

I was with you until right there. Granted, I haven't seen it in awhile so like you my memory of it might be better than the movie, but:

- astonished this was a tv movie
- plays as a borderline horror
- more tense, more edge of your seat, than theatrical stuff produced today

I like Spielberg better early on, when he was doing work for hire stuff like this. Without the budgets and the control he doesn't have the opportunity to indulge his more idiotic impulses.

Anyway, good write-up. I enjoyed reading that one.

He had the budgets and the control from Jaws on, so that's not really the reason for his later decline.

Qrazy

12-02-2010, 06:26 PM

balmakboor

12-02-2010, 07:19 PM

It is clearly established in the film that this is not the case.

I think it is equally clear though that the truck is the character and it is a horrific extension in the Dennis Weaver character's mind of the man who made a pass at his wife at the party. I don't think it was even necessary to have the truck stop cafe scene where he tries to figure out which driver is the driver.

Bosco B Thug

12-02-2010, 07:34 PM

He had the budgets and the control from Jaws on, so that's not really the reason for his later decline. I don't see how this necessarily discounts Pop Trash's statement. I mean, it doesn't seem very controversial of a statement in the first place, since increasingly modern budgets and an evolving "control" seem like very natural reasons for later missteps.

It is clearly established in the film that this is not the case. "The truck might as well be driving itself" is the idea I got from his post. Which I think is true.

Don't really know how I feel about Duel. I tend to favor it a lot in Spielberg's canon because it's his small film, low-budget and not over-produced, but it's true the story doesn't seem much to get worked up about.

Qrazy

12-02-2010, 11:49 PM

I don't see how this necessarily discounts Pop Trash's statement. I mean, it doesn't seem very controversial of a statement in the first place, since increasingly modern budgets and an evolving "control" seem like very natural reasons for later missteps.

Well first of all it was Irish's statement, not Pop Trash. Secondly he said "I like Spielberg better early on, when he was doing work for hire stuff like this. Without the budgets and the control he doesn't have the opportunity to indulge his more idiotic impulses." Spielberg pretty much had carte blanche on final cut and budget on everything after Jaws. So unless Irish is saying he only likes Spielberg's first 2/3 films then the statement doesn't hold. Because having large budgets and creative control have nothing to do with Spielberg's decline.

Bosco B Thug

12-03-2010, 05:20 AM

Well first of all it was Irish's statement, not Pop Trash. Secondly he said "I like Spielberg better early on, when he was doing work for hire stuff like this. Without the budgets and the control he doesn't have the opportunity to indulge his more idiotic impulses." Spielberg pretty much had carte blanche on final cut and budget on everything after Jaws. So unless Irish is saying he only likes Spielberg's first 2/3 films then the statement doesn't hold. Because having large budgets and creative control have nothing to do with Spielberg's decline. Firstly, whoops, sorry Irish/Pop Trash.

Now, the argument I was trying to make is, yes, he had budget and control since Jaws, but I still don't think that discounts the statement. In some sense, "enhancing" budget and control, or an increasing sense of those things, or just what budget and control means now that movie-making has changed so much, has resulted in compromised Spielberg films. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, for it is simplistic reasoning if given too much weight, but there's nothing outlandish about it. I don't see why it means Irish only likes 2/3rds of his films (maybe he does!). It does mean he sees decline, and that "budget" and "control" aren't static values. Taken non-literally, I didn't think the statement should be summarily dismissed, and deserved defending.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 05:30 AM

Firstly, whoops, sorry Irish/Pop Trash.

Now, the argument I was trying to make is, yes, he had budget and control since Jaws, but I still don't think that discounts the statement. In some sense, "enhancing" budget and control, or an increasing sense of those things, or just what budget and control means now that movie-making has changed so much, has resulted in compromised Spielberg films. I'm not trying to say you're wrong in any way, but taken non-literally, I don't think the statement should be summarily dismissed and deserved defending.

Well I think it should be summarily dismissed. Budget and control is not the problem given the fact that he made perfectly excellent films with said control.

Here are more likely reasons why his films have gone downhill...

First we have to assess how they've gone downhill because his craft is certainly still strong (perhaps Crystal Skull aside). I would argue that for the most part the largest problem with his later work has been third act problems with the script and wanting to have things both ways. That is to say that he's taken to making more serious films than he used to but for the most part he still wants to wrap them up with forced sentimental/happy endings and it just doesn't work. On Spielberg on Spielberg he talks about how if he had made Close Encounters now he might not have let the Dreyfuss character leave his family and get on the mothership. Perhaps having a family now has affected his ability to end a story in a more hard hitting manner. On the other hand very few filmmakers make their best work later in their career. Some degree of decline is frankly to be expected and really those filmmakers who either remain incredibly strong throughout their career or peak late are the rarity.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 05:33 AM

Bosco B Thug

12-03-2010, 06:03 AM

Well I think it should be summarily dismissed. Budget and control is not the problem given the fact that he made perfectly excellent films with said control.

Here are more likely reasons why his films have gone downhill...

First we have to assess how they've gone downhill because his craft is certainly still strong (perhaps Crystal Skull aside). I would argue that for the most part the largest problem with his later work has been third act problems with the script and wanting to have things both ways. That is to say that he's taken to making more serious films than he used to but for the most part he still wants to wrap them up with forced sentimental/happy endings and it just doesn't work. On Spielberg on Spielberg he talks about how if he had made Close Encounters now he might not have let the Dreyfuss character leave his family and get on the mothership. Perhaps having a family now has affected his ability to end a story in a more hard hitting manner. On the other hand very few filmmakers make their best work later in their career. Some degree of decline is frankly to be expected and really those filmmakers who either remain incredibly strong throughout their career or peak late are the rarity.
I said it would mean he only likes his first two or three films (the 'director for hire' films... which itself is debatable given that even though he didn't have cart blanche with Sugarland and Jaws he had a ton of creative control), not 2/3rds of his films. The bolded sections make no sense to me. You're taking my point in a disproportionately literal and harsh sense. Thinking of "budget" and "control" in a sort of diaphanous sense, I understand what Irish was getting at (despite inconsistencies about "work-for-hire"-ness, etc.). Your combativeness here (just here! I actually defend your gib in most other cases... :)) is off-putting.

Of course he's made perfectly excellent films down the line with said control. But for some reason, many of these unspecified "excellent films" do not resonate, and in fact do just the opposite, with many critics. You try to explain this in regards to screenplays or his recent endings, but that's really the least of it. You write things off as if you won't accept the notion of decline at all.

In this diaphanous sense, "budget and control" also means use of enhancing technology, special effects, techniques in cinematography, etc. These things are changing, and, to some, at a detriment to Spielberg's quality.

The matter of a director peaking, that's definitely incontrovertible, and definitely a great thing to acknowledge. I've concluded it's something to just accept, since, to avert it, it would just mean stopping artists from creating to their heart's content.

[ETM]

12-03-2010, 06:30 AM

I'm looking forward to Close Encounters. I've rewatched it recently (the longest cut) and found myself intensely disappointed with it. It's one of my early favorites, and now I barely consider it any good at all.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 06:40 AM

You're taking my point in a disproportionately literal and harsh sense. Thinking of "budget" and "control" in a sort of diaphanous sense, I understand what Irish was getting at (despite inconsistencies about "work-for-hire"-ness, etc.). Your combativeness here (just here! I actually defend your gib in most other cases... :)) is off-putting.

Of course he's made perfectly excellent films down the line with said control. But for some reason, many of these unspecified "excellent films" do not resonate, and in fact do just the opposite, with many critics. You try to explain this in regards to screenplays or his recent endings, but that's really the least of it. You write things off as if you won't accept the notion of decline at all.

In this diaphanous sense, "budget and control" also means use of enhancing technology, special effects, techniques in cinematography, etc. These things are changing, and, to some, at a detriment to Spielberg's quality.

The matter of a director peaking, that's definitely incontrovertible, and definitely a great thing to acknowledge. I've concluded it's something to just accept, since, to avert it, it would just mean stopping artists from creating to their heart's content.

I obviously do accept the notion of the decline as I pointed out in my last post, but the point is the vast majority of the man's career occurred post-Jaws and the decline certainly didn't commence at that juncture. And as I've said a few times I don't think budget or control has anything to do with his decline since he's almost always had both.

To be clear, Jaws was his second and/or third film if we're counting Duel. So Close Encounters, Raiders, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, etc and so forth all came after. Which is to say again that his 'director for hire' period was extremely minute.

Bosco B Thug

12-03-2010, 07:36 AM

I obviously do accept the notion of the decline as I pointed out in my last post, but the point is the vast majority of the man's career occurred post-Jaws and the decline certainly didn't commence at that juncture. And as I've said a few times I don't think budget or control has anything to do with his decline since he's almost always had both.

To be clear, Jaws was his second and/or third film if we're counting Duel. So Close Encounters, Raiders, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, etc and so forth all came after. Which is to say again that his 'director for hire' period was extremely minute. You're still working from the assumption that anyone ever claimed Jaws was his peak, which was your presumption from your very first reply. I don't even think I'm just arguing on behalf of Irish anymore (that is, I'm arguing for myself, now) when I say you're assuming arguments from mere nitpickings, and that if you take your bolded sentence out of context and semantically think about the word "control," your committed rejection of that word is out of wack. He may have had full control since Jaws, but exacerbation exists, occurs over time, and your example of what he'd do to Close Encounters now is a prime example of why "increased control," in SOME sense, is the problem.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 08:05 AM

You're still working from the assumption that anyone ever claimed Jaws was his peak, which was your presumption from your very first reply. I don't even think I'm just arguing on behalf of Irish anymore (that is, I'm arguing for myself, now) when I say you're assuming arguments from mere nitpickings, and that if you take your bolded sentence out of context and semantically think about the word "control," your committed rejection of that word is out of wack. He may have had full control since Jaws, but exacerbation exists, occurs over time, and your example of what he'd do to Close Encounters now is a prime example of why "increased control," in SOME sense, is the problem.

You've continually misread my posts somehow. So I'll say it one more time and then I'm done.

1. Irish said he prefers Spielberg's director for hire films.
2. I pointed out that he only made two perhaps three films in that capacity and then he had total creative control and nearly limitless budgets to work with ever since.
3. Therefore if Irish prefers Spielberg's director for hire films then he is by extension making the claim that he thinks Duel, Sugarland Express and Jaws are Spielberg's best films and there has been a decline ever since.

4. He HAD total control when he made Close Encounters. The issue you're raising re: close encounters has nothing to do with control. It has to do with where Spielberg is in his life now. That's an entirely separate issue.

5. In ZERO sense is increased control the problem (because you can't have any more control than total control and he's had that more or less since Jaws) unless you commit yourself to the position that his best works are Duel, Sugarland and Jaws and everything since then has been him 'indulging his idiotic impulses'.

Bosco B Thug

12-03-2010, 08:27 AM

You've continually misread my posts somehow. So I'll say it one more time and then I'm done.

1. Irish said he prefers Spielberg's director for hire films.
2. I pointed out that he only made two perhaps three films in that capacity and then he had total creative control and nearly limitless budgets to work with ever since.
3. Therefore if Irish prefers Spielberg's director for hire films then he is by extension making the claim that he thinks Duel, Sugarland Express and Jaws are Spielberg's best films and there has been a decline ever since.

4. He HAD total control when he made Close Encounters. The issue you're raising re: close encounters has nothing to do with control. It has to do with where Spielberg is in his life now. That's an entirely separate issue.

5. In ZERO sense is increased control the problem (because you can't have any more control than total control and he's had that more or less since Jaws) unless you commit yourself to the position that his best works are Duel, Sugarland and Jaws and everything since then has been him 'indulging his idiotic impulses'. And you've somehow been continuously dismissive of any and all points I've made toward reconsidering your literalistic angle for a possibly helpful way to acknowledge the decline that has been claimed effects his career. I appreciate your bolded sentences above for getting with such clarity to your fundamental disagreement with me, but, to be honest (and this isn't at all completely separate from the Spielberg concession I've been trying to get out of you), I'm a bit irked that you first think I've "misread" your posts, rather than the alternative, that I'm (perhaps rather irritatingly) just arguing points pushing past your matter-of-fact arguments.

I know, I'm being combative. Hey, nothing personal.

It doesn't take that much to assume Irish meant more than "director-for-hire," since it doesn't mean much ultimately anyway, Spielberg directing "frivolous genre pics" well into his prestige years... "frivolous genre pics" that, aha, are a decline from his early frivolous genre pics. IMO.

Irish

12-03-2010, 08:29 AM

He had the budgets and the control from Jaws on, so that's not really the reason for his later decline.

He had some budgets to play with (1941 was huge), but he didn't have the control, the final say.

I'm talking about producer and executive producer control, the kind he has now. He didn't get to that level until E.T. was a smash hit and Raiders was turning into a successful franchise.

Close Encounters and 1941 both lost money. At the producing level, he was messing around with other duds like Used Cars and Continental Divide. Arguably, Raiders and George Lucas saved his ass.

After that, he kind of exploded. He produced anything and everything that came his way, doing Steve Spielberg presents kind of stuff on tv and exec producing family friendly junk like *Batteries Not Included.

That's not to say he didn't have input into the process. But being a director on work for hire* stuff, even a successful director, is very different than being the exec producer and the director. (For one thing, you can't get fired off a project. For another, you have complete control over the script.)

Edit: Anyway, my original point was that he was better, leaner, no-nonsense in some of his earlier stuff. Certainly not the self indulgent, overly stylized, maudlin director who made Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

* I'm defining "work for hire" as a project where his major responsibility is directing.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 08:29 AM

And you've somehow been continuously dismissive of any and all points I've made toward reconsidering your literalistic angle for a possibly helpful way to acknowledge the decline that has been claimed effects his career. I appreciate your bolded sentences above for getting with such clarity to your fundamental disagreement with me, but, to be honest (and this isn't at all completely separate from the concession I've been trying to get out of you), I'm a bit irked that you first think I've "misread" your posts rather than the alternative, that I'm (perhaps rather irritatingly) arguing points beyond my not understanding you and your rightness.

I know, I'm being combative. Hey, nothing personal.

I understand your position and find it to be total nonsense, also nothing personal (< I mean this genuinely as I like you and agree with your logic often but in this case I don't agree with your argument at all).

It's also not a stretch to say you've misread my posts when you thought it was Pop Trash not Irish and then assumed I said 2/3rds not 2 or 3. This amongst other things was what I was referring to.

Bosco B Thug

12-03-2010, 08:38 AM

I understand your position and find it to be total nonsense, also nothing personal (< I mean this genuinely as I like you and agree with your logic often but in this case I don't agree with your argument at all).

It's also not a stretch to say you've misread my posts when you thought it was Pop Trash not Irish and then assumed I said 2/3rds not 2 or 3. This amongst other things was what I was referring to. SIGH. HARSH.

And you bring back the Pop Irish thing again. Thanks.

:P

Bosco B Thug

12-03-2010, 08:44 AM

Irish

12-03-2010, 08:59 AM

See, "control" under multiple lenses: how invested he is in a project, tonal and genre aims, what he feels the need to recoup, what he doesn't feel the need to recoup, the fact of the producer role, etc.

To me the major difference is if he had anyone pushing back on his ideas. Once he gets to about the mid-1980s, he doesn't and I think after that his stuff becomes progressively more self indulgent and less interesting.

Call it the "Lucas Effect" of creative control. Talented, successful, bright people (Anne Rice, Stephen King, George Lucas, Tarantino etc) seem to run into major creative issues when there isn't anyone standing around telling them, "No, don't do that. It's a really bad idea."

Pop Trash

12-03-2010, 01:28 PM

Not to derail this thread, but Tarantino has yet to make a bad film IMO.

Raiders

12-03-2010, 02:14 PM

I went ahead and added L.A. 2017 and Murder By the Book since I can get a hold of both and figured I'd be as thorough as possible.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 04:33 PM

He had some budgets to play with (1941 was huge), but he didn't have the control, the final say.

I'm talking about producer and executive producer control, the kind he has now. He didn't get to that level until E.T. was a smash hit and Raiders was turning into a successful franchise.

Close Encounters and 1941 both lost money. At the producing level, he was messing around with other duds like Used Cars and Continental Divide. Arguably, Raiders and George Lucas saved his ass.

After that, he kind of exploded. He produced anything and everything that came his way, doing Steve Spielberg presents kind of stuff on tv and exec producing family friendly junk like *Batteries Not Included.

That's not to say he didn't have input into the process. But being a director on work for hire* stuff, even a successful director, is very different than being the exec producer and the director. (For one thing, you can't get fired off a project. For another, you have complete control over the script.)

Edit: Anyway, my original point was that he was better, leaner, no-nonsense in some of his earlier stuff. Certainly not the self indulgent, overly stylized, maudlin director who made Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

* I'm defining "work for hire" as a project where his major responsibility is directing.

Close Encounters did not lose money at all. It was a huge hit actually. It cost $20 million and grossed $116 million domestic. 1941 came after that and was a failure and Spielberg admits it was a failure and cites the reason as two-fold. For starters he made the film 'too loud' which drowned at the comedy, and secondly because he micro-managed the production. He cites the film as the one which taught him how to delegate more successfully.

In terms of the producer/exec-producer 'control' you've brought up this issue before. Your understanding of what a producer is/does seems to me predicated on an understanding of the earlier studio system. By the 70s and onward the role of the director had shifted. Even in the earlier studio system some of the best directors were able to achieve an extremely high degree of control over their work (without achieving a producer credit). But by the 70s any powerhouse director once they'd established themselves could usually achieve primary control over a work.

This idea that a film is primarily a producer's vision and that a director is a cog in the machine does not hold water post the classic Hollywood system. At this point individuals can achieve producing credits for almost nothing. Being a producer has become somewhat of a joke. Now a good producer may still have some creative input, but they are not the driving force in a production (for instance in 12 Monkeys the producer pushed Gilliam to shoot/include the final shot in the film). Alternatively a bad producer/the company involved in production may gum up the works and force a director to cut the film differently. Only in specific instances do producers supersede the creative side of a film they are not directing... Lucas, Spielberg, etc.

Jaws is most certainly a Spielberg film... not a Richard Zanuck or David Brown film.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 04:47 PM

To me the major difference is if he had anyone pushing back on his ideas. Once he gets to about the mid-1980s, he doesn't and I think after that his stuff becomes progressively more self indulgent and less interesting.

Call it the "Lucas Effect" of creative control. Talented, successful, bright people (Anne Rice, Stephen King, George Lucas, Tarantino etc) seem to run into major creative issues when there isn't anyone standing around telling them, "No, don't do that. It's a really bad idea."

In the special edition of Close Encounters the studio forced him to include a shot inside the mothership which he didn't want to do and which hurt the film. Lucas had control by Empire Strikes Back and decided to delegate the directing credit perhaps because he realized his own limitations back then. He funded the film with most of his own money and if we call it a Lucas film and we probably should then imo it's his best film. His decline really started with the prequel trilogy when he took a long hiatus, forgot what made films interesting and fell too in love with his toys.

Wow speaking of which apparently Kershner just died a few days ago.

Irish

12-03-2010, 08:06 PM

This idea that a film is primarily a producer's vision and that a director is a cog in the machine does not hold water post the classic Hollywood system. At this point individuals can achieve producing credits for almost nothing. Being a producer has become somewhat of a joke. Now a good producer may still have some creative input, but they are not the driving force in a production (for instance in 12 Monkeys the producer pushed Gilliam to shoot/include the final shot in the film). Alternatively a bad producer/the company involved in production may gum up the works and force a director to cut the film differently. Only in specific instances do producers supersede the creative side of a film they are not directing... Lucas, Spielberg, etc.
I wouldn't describe them as "cogs" but you're vastly underestimating the influence of producers and don't seem to understand how this system works.

That director-as-creative-maverick-model ended in the 1970s with the rise of the blockbuster summer film.

These days, a multinational corporation isn't going to someone $200 million dollars and then leave them alone. They're going to have people constantly giving notes on the script and production details, they're going to have people visiting the set, they're going to be involved every step of the way.

There's too much riding on it to do otherwise, because every other movie now is a tentpole movie, and if you don't make the numbers you're probably losing your job.

Do you think Marvel/Disney or Warner Bros hands out franchises to their most valuable properties to guys like Christoper Nolan and Jon Favreau, guys with until-then severely limited directorial experience, and not be all over them and their movie every minute of every day?

The way you describe it, Jerry Bruckheimer is handing Michael Bay a bag full of cash and saying, "Now go make me a winner, Mike! See ya in six months!"

That ain't happening.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 08:31 PM

I wouldn't describe them as "cogs" but you're vastly underestimating the influence of producers and don't seem to understand how this system works.

That director-as-creative-maverick-model ended in the 1970s with the rise of the blockbuster summer film.

These days, a multinational corporation isn't going to someone $200 million dollars and then leave them alone. They're going to have people constantly giving notes on the script and production details, they're going to have people visiting the set, they're going to be involved every step of the way.

There's too much riding on it to do otherwise, because every other movie now is a tentpole movie, and if you don't make the numbers you're probably losing your job.

Do you think Marvel/Disney or Warner Bros hands out franchises to their most valuable properties to guys like Christoper Nolan and Jon Favreau, guys with until-then severely limited directorial experience, and not be all over them and their movie every minute of every day?

The way you describe it, Jerry Bruckheimer is handing Michael Bay a bag full of cash and saying, "Now go make me a winner, Mike! See ya in six months!"

That ain't happening.

You're speaking about enormous blockbusters and people like Favreau and Bay who are weak to terrible directors. The conversation was about Lucas, Spielberg and as I explicitly said "any powerhouse director", you know like people who actually count. Such as I don't know PTA, the Coens, Scorsese, etc. As I acknowledged obviously non-powerhouse directors working within the system will not have the same kind of control. Most of what Hollywood puts on the market are purely group think driven films.

Irish

12-03-2010, 09:00 PM

You're speaking about enormous blockbusters and people like Favreau and Bay who are weak to terrible directors. The conversation was about Lucas, Spielberg and as I explicitly said "any powerhouse director", you know like people who actually count. Such as I don't know PTA, the Coens, Scorsese, etc. As I acknowledged obviously non-powerhouse directors working within the system will not have the same kind of control. Most of what Hollywood puts on the market are purely group think driven films.

The comparison between workaday industry guys and Spielberg isn't a qualitative one. That doesn't even enter into the conversation. You might think Michael Bay or Tyler Perry or Kevin Smith are shit directors, but it doesn't matter here. What matters is each of those guys make films that make money. Same goes for Nolan and Favreau. (Notice that Nolan has producing credits on The Dark Knight and Inception, but didn't on Batman Begins).

I'm saying Spielberg was in the exact same position for the first 10 or so years of his career. It wasn't until the back to back success of ET and Raiders that he had the chance to seriously move into producing. Every time he rang the franchise bell, his influence, clout and power grew because he raked in the cash for the studios.

That's the only way you're getting this kind of control. By demonstrating you can bring in the box office.

You might not like Bay, but since the late 90s he's got 27 producing credits. He's now in a position where he's producing his own stuff, moving from work-for-hire gigs to producing gigs just like Spielberg did.

As an aside, "Hollywood" and "group think drive films" ... you seriously think, with his 127 producing credits, family friendly, wide-appeal directorial efforts, Spielberg isn't a part of that?

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 09:22 PM

The comparison between workaday industry guys and Spielberg isn't a qualitative one. That doesn't even enter into the conversation. You might think Michael Bay or Tyler Perry or Kevin Smith are shit directors, but it doesn't matter here. What matters is each of those guys make films that make money. Same goes for Nolan and Favreau. (Notice that Nolan has producing credits on The Dark Knight and Inception, but didn't on Batman Begins).

I'm saying Spielberg was in the exact same position for the first 10 or so years of his career. It wasn't until the back to back success of ET and Raiders that he had the chance to seriously move into producing. Every time he rang the franchise bell, his influence, clout and power grew because he raked in the cash for the studios.

That's the only way you're getting this kind of control. By demonstrating you can bring in the box office.

You might not like Bay, but since the late 90s he's got 27 producing credits. He's now in a position where he's producing his own stuff, moving from work-for-hire gigs to producing gigs just like Spielberg did.

As an aside, "Hollywood" and "group think drive films" ... you seriously think, with his 127 producing credits, family friendly, wide-appeal directorial efforts, Spielberg isn't a part of that?

Spielberg has said multiple times that the success of Jaws gave him final cut privilege for future films (with a select few exceptions... I believe Lucas had final cut on Indy). So no, you're wrong. You're also wrong that Close Encounters did not make money. You can derail the conversation to Favreau and Bay, but they're not really who we were talking about.

Irish

12-03-2010, 09:53 PM

Spielberg has said multiple times that the success of Jaws gave him final cut privilege for future films (with a select few exceptions... I believe Lucas had final cut on Indy). So no, you're wrong. You're also wrong that Close Encounters did not make money.

You can derail the conversation to Favreau and Bay, but they're not really who we were talking about.
I was attempting to provide examples of career paths that are similar to Spielberg's. I was also attempting to describe the differences between producing and directing, and why a producing gig is a coveted role.

Final cut is within the scope of that role, but doesn't encompass the whole of it. You can get final cut written into your contract without producing the project, or having creative influence in other areas (like writing and casting).

Take Schindler's List. That project was a trade-off, a vanity thing. He got the financing for it by agreeing to do Jurassic Park first. The year after that movie premiered, he co-formed Dreamworks. I'm saying these events are connected.

My initial statement was that I preferred Spielberg's early, work for hire stuff. Specifically, Duel, Jaws, and Raiders. I think all three of those movies exhibit an almost perfect narrative leanness that is absent in his later work (especially post 1985). My speculation is that there's a correlation between the increasing amount of creative control he had over his projects and their decreasing quality.

You seem to be arguing that Spielberg had total control post 1975. But to make that claim is to ignore the existence of George Lucas, and to fundamentally misunderstand producer roles and how studio projects are made.

Russ

12-03-2010, 09:59 PM

My initial statement was that I preferred Spielberg's early, work for hire stuff. Specifically, Duel, Jaws, and Raiders. I think all three of those movies exhibit an almost perfect narrative leanness that is absent in his later work (especially post 1985).
Yeah, gotta say I agree with you on this. However, there's no reason to make it personal...

Arguing with you is like arguing with a machine. A broken down, rusted machine that spits electricity and throws sparks every time it comes across a compound sentence and the occasional metaphor.
After all, you don't really want us to tell you what arguing with you is like?

Do you?

balmakboor

12-03-2010, 10:06 PM

soitgoes...

12-03-2010, 10:11 PM

I lose patience with people whose utter lack of social grace makes Comic Book Guy look like Cary Grant. /shrug. Jesus, are you serious? "Hello kettle! I'm a pot. You're black."

DavidSeven

12-03-2010, 10:17 PM

Lucas had control by Empire Strikes Back and decided to delegate the directing credit perhaps because he realized his own limitations back then. He funded the film with most of his own money and if we call it a Lucas film and we probably should then imo it's his best film.

I'm curious about this. Empire always stood apart, for me, from the other five films primarily because it seemed more artfully directed. Kershner was a former photographer and one Lucas's film professors. Why do you feel this is more of a Lucas film than a Kershner one, especially after conceding that he may have let it go because he realized his own limitations?

Irish

12-03-2010, 10:19 PM

Jesus, are you serious? "Hello kettle! I'm a pot. You're black."
I do bristle at the continual curt, obnoxious dismissals that come out of Qrazy's mouth. I've noticed that he behaves this way with other people as well.

I think he's a dick. And to be honest, that's pretty much fine. I mean, we're on a movie message board and on the internet, so being a bit of a dick is almost a god given right. It's practically a time honored tradition.

But by the same token, when he's repeatedly curt and obnoxious with me, I'm going to push back.

If you guys want to rail on my for saying what I said and the way I said it, that's perfectly fine with me. (I think you're right that my obvious ad hominem was out of line and unnecessary). But maybe we should take it out of Raider's thread to "Random thoughts" or whatever.

Edit: I'll remove my comments in the interest of cleaning up the thread and keeping it on track. I like where Raiders is going and don't to piss on the effort because of some personal beef.

Edit 2: Mods (?), please feel free to delete this post as needed.

Irish

12-03-2010, 10:23 PM

He's had a few duds, but one thing I don't see is this "decline" so many are talking about. AI and Minority Report are two of the best sci-fi movies ever. Catch Me If You Can is so much better than people give it credit. Schindler's List and to a slightly less extent Saving Private Ryan are masterpieces. I feel like I've wandered into some alternate universe when I read people dissing them.

I'll wait until Raiders posts his write ups before commenting on these specific films but ... man, I gotta warn you now: It's not going to be pretty.

soitgoes...

12-03-2010, 10:28 PM

I saw Amistad when it came out in the theaters. I have no recollection of it now, so it needs to be rewatched. Otherwise I've seen it all besides his early TV stuff, except for Duel. I'm gonna grab Something Evil so I have something to say when Raiders gets to it. How about Savage Raiders? I'll put up the reseed request bites on KG if you're interested.

I'd agree that Spielberg did make the bulk of his great films during the first part of his career, but the cutoff can't be 1985 because that leaves out Empire of the Sun, which is his second best film.

Russ

12-03-2010, 10:30 PM

Back on topic...

He's had a few duds, but one thing I don't see is this "decline" so many are talking about. AI and Minority Report are two of the best sci-fi movies ever. Catch Me If You Can is so much better than people give it credit. Schindler's List and to a slightly less extent Saving Private Ryan are masterpieces. I feel like I've wandered into some alternate universe when I read people dissing them.
We're not dissing those (well, maybe Catch Me...), but just making a distinction between (and a preference for) the ones with a perfect narrative leanness (on-the-nose terminology, Irish) and the later, more indulgent ones.

I remember the first time I noticed this was with Close Encounters: remember the scene where Richard Dreyfuss attempts to recreate Devils Tower in his living room with outdoor detritus? A lot of the domestic scenes tested poorly with audiences and were in some cases altered (the mashed potato sculpting) or practically removed (the living room recreation), for the recut version three years later. That's the perfect example of the creeping excesses that seem to characterize much of his later work (imho).

D_Davis

12-03-2010, 10:31 PM

He's had a few duds, but one thing I don't see is this "decline" so many are talking about. AI and Minority Report are two of the best sci-fi movies ever. Catch Me If You Can is so much better than people give it credit. Schindler's List and to a slightly less extent Saving Private Ryan are masterpieces. I feel like I've wandered into some alternate universe when I read people dissing them.

Catch Me if You Can is one of my favorite Spielberg films. I also love Saving Private Ryan, but I'm used to the flack that film gets from the greater film community. And I also like AI and Minority Report quite a bit, the former more than the later. I also really, really like War of the Worlds. I haven't seen Schindler's List.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 11:02 PM

I was attempting to provide examples of career paths that are similar to Spielberg's. I was also attempting to describe the differences between producing and directing, and why a producing gig is a coveted role.

Final cut is within the scope of that role, but doesn't encompass the whole of it. You can get final cut written into your contract without producing the project, or having creative influence in other areas (like writing and casting).

Take Schindler's List. That project was a trade-off, a vanity thing. He got the financing for it by agreeing to do Jurassic Park first. The year after that movie premiered, he co-formed Dreamworks. I'm saying these events are connected.

My initial statement was that I preferred Spielberg's early, work for hire stuff. Specifically, Duel, Jaws, and Raiders. I think all three of those movies exhibit an almost perfect narrative leanness that is absent in his later work (especially post 1985). My speculation is that there's a correlation between the increasing amount of creative control he had over his projects and their decreasing quality.

You seem to be arguing that Spielberg had total control post 1975. But to make that claim is to ignore the existence of George Lucas, and to fundamentally misunderstand producer roles and how studio projects are made.

Yeah, obviously you're saying this, and I am arguing that I think this is a poor assumption to make given the factual evidence I have provided. If you had said I prefer Spielberg's earlier works or I prefer his work as a young man I would have had no problem with such a statement because I think those things have something to do with his more recent decline. I'd probably even agree with your assessment that he's better suited to less serious material, even if I admire much of his later work a great deal. But you're saying the issue is with budget and creative control and I don't agree and have provided evidence to support that perspective. You on the other hand have provided specious claims and at times outright false information. If you want to disagree with what Spielberg has explicitly said himself then fine but don't expect me to just go along with it because you posses the capacity to spew rhetorical claims such as that I don't understand the studio system.

Also Spielberg wanted to make Jurassic Park. He's gone on record as saying he always wanted to make a film about dinosaurs but it wasn't until Chrichton came along with his fossilized mosquito idea that Spielberg saw an interesting way of doing such a project.

In terms of Indy, Lucas and Spielberg were friends. That was a joint project. It was also made when both of them had control over their work. So again budget and control were not the issues here for Lucas or Spielberg. They were still able to make a great film with budget and control. Later they collaborated again on Crystal Skull and made a bad film. This I think has more to do with being past their prime, not having a worthwhile script and over relying on spectacle.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 11:04 PM

He's had a few duds, but one thing I don't see is this "decline" so many are talking about. AI and Minority Report are two of the best sci-fi movies ever. Catch Me If You Can is so much better than people give it credit. Schindler's List and to a slightly less extent Saving Private Ryan are masterpieces. I feel like I've wandered into some alternate universe when I read people dissing them.

For myself I'm only speaking of recent history with The Terminal and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I also found War of the Worlds flawed although I quite liked it.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 11:06 PM

I'm curious about this. Empire always stood apart, for me, from the other five films primarily because it seemed more artfully directed. Kershner was a former photographer and one Lucas's film professors. Why do you feel this is more of a Lucas film than a Kershner one, especially after conceding that he may have let it go because he realized his own limitations?

I agree with you in regards to Kershner bringing an excellence to the film but I only meant in regards to overall creative influence on the project. Whereas I don't usually agree that the producer is the driving force behind a film, in this case I do think the producer was the driving creative force and Kershner simply made Lucas's ideas more cinematically successful. The Star Wars universe is Lucas's brain child.

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 11:08 PM

I do bristle at the continual curt, obnoxious dismissals that come out of Qrazy's mouth. I've noticed that he behaves this way with other people as well.

I think he's a dick. And to be honest, that's pretty much fine. I mean, we're on a movie message board and on the internet, so being a bit of a dick is almost a god given right. It's practically a time honored tradition.

But by the same token, when he's repeatedly curt and obnoxious with me, I'm going to push back.

Stop saying stupid shit with little to nothing to back it up and I would stop railing on you. I recognize my own brusqueness, you on the other hand seem unaware of the way in which you present yourself.

To clarify:

'I can't believe they expect this gay movie to be sellable!' = Stupid shit

Qrazy

12-03-2010, 11:26 PM

Dead & Messed Up

12-03-2010, 11:36 PM

Despite my comments earlier, I do think that the past decade was full of interesting Spielberg, both idiosyncratic and intellectually rich. My personal favorite was probably Minority Report, but even his least efforts felt off-beat and alive. That includes Crystal Skull.

Irish

12-03-2010, 11:50 PM

Despite my comments earlier, I do think that the past decade was full of interesting Spielberg, both idiosyncratic and intellectually rich.

Intellectually rich? How so? I mean, the intellectual attractions of AI, Minority Report, and War of the Worlds aren't coming from Spielberg but from other people. Namely Brian Aldiss (and Stanley Kubrick), Philip K Dick, and HG Wells.

I don't see Spielberg adding anything to those stories. In the case of Minority Report, he excised a crucial character aspect that left the story rather inert.

Irish

12-04-2010, 12:12 AM

But you're saying the issue is with budget and creative control and I don't agree and have provided evidence to support that perspective. You on the other hand have provided specious claims and at times outright false information. If you want to disagree with what Spielberg has explicitly said himself then fine but don't expect me to just go along with it because you posses the capacity to spew rhetorical claims such as that I don't understand the studio system.

There's an enormous difference between the power he enjoys now, as an Academy Award winner, a repeatedly bankable director, a partner in his own studio and his working relationships in the early to mid 1980s.

We're talking about a period just after Cimino's disastrous Heaven's Gate, which destroyed the Easy Rider, Raging Bulls era you're so fond of. Given that he had just produced his own expensive bomb and the climate of the time, there's no way he's getting the kind of free ride in 1981 that he enjoys now.

And no, lines from a few interviews don't constitute irrefutable "facts" in anyone's mind except yours.

Edit: Here's a fun fact for you, as you're so fond of them: Raiders has a budget of $18M dollars. (Today, that would be about $50M and a little less than the cost of Scott Pilgrim vs The World.) ET had a budget of $10M, which would be about $23M today.

Qrazy

12-04-2010, 01:25 AM

There's an enormous difference between the power he enjoys now, as an Academy Award winner, a repeatedly bankable director, a partner in his own studio and his working relationships in the early to mid 1980s.

We're talking about a period just after Cimino's disastrous Heaven's Gate, which destroyed the Easy Rider, Raging Bulls era you're so fond of. Given that he had just produced his own expensive bomb and the climate of the time, there's no way he's getting the kind of free ride in 1981 that he enjoys now.

And no, lines from a few interviews don't constitute irrefutable "facts" in anyone's mind except yours.

Edit: Here's a fun fact for you, as you're so fond of them: Raiders has a budget of $18M dollars. (Today, that would be about $50M and a little less than the cost of Scott Pilgrim vs The World.) ET had a budget of $10M, which would be about $23M today.

And yet I find them to be more compelling evidence than your idle speculations predicated upon... nothing.

Scar

12-04-2010, 01:29 AM

http://media.scout.com/media/forums/emoticons/7/ScarJo_popcorn.gif

Raiders

12-04-2010, 02:03 AM

I'm glad we're generating discussion, but damn, I have only gotten through two!

I'll do Savage as well if the re-seed goes through on KG. But there's so much to get to I won't sweat missing one if it doesn't happen in time.

Irish

12-04-2010, 02:07 AM

And yet I find them to be more compelling evidence than your idle speculations predicated upon... nothing.

Of course you do. Stroking yourself while reading an F&F Spielberg on Spielberg reinforces your own biases.

My speculations are based on my knowledge of film history, the industry, and my own research.

This stuff doesn't happen in a void. Spielberg didn't sail through his career untouched by his own missteps like 1941 and disasters like Heaven's Gate.

If you can't follow these threads and come to your own conclusions, then, we've quite literally nothing to talk about -- because your entire argument boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong."

balmakboor

12-04-2010, 02:28 AM

For myself I'm only speaking of recent history with The Terminal and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I also found War of the Worlds flawed although I quite liked it.

I've liked War of the Worlds better each of the three times I've seen it. But, yeah, you've zeroed in on what I mostly referred to as his duds. (I do want to see The Terminal again though.)

balmakboor

12-04-2010, 02:32 AM

Catch Me if You Can is one of my favorite Spielberg films. I also love Saving Private Ryan, but I'm used to the flack that film gets from the greater film community. And I also like AI and Minority Report quite a bit, the former more than the later. I also really, really like War of the Worlds. I haven't seen Schindler's List.

I've only brought myself to watch Schindler's List twice, once opening weekend in Seattle and once a few years ago on DVD.

balmakboor

12-04-2010, 02:35 AM

One thing is absolutely for sure. This thread needs more Scarlett Johansson.

balmakboor

12-04-2010, 03:02 AM

I'll wait until Raiders posts his write ups before commenting on these specific films but ... man, I gotta warn you now: It's not going to be pretty.

I'll make note of it.

I don't think we're destined to agree though. 1941 is one of my biggest "guilty pleasures" and I think Heaven's Gate is a flat-out masterpiece.

In spite of my feeling protective of post E.T. Spielberg, my greatest fondness is for a few of his earlier works, especially Duel and Jaws.

Melville

12-04-2010, 03:04 AM

your entire argument boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong."
Qrazy has pretty clearly presented a reasoned argument with evidence to support it. But I'm more interested in why someone who says of himself that he's mostly interested in what movies say never talks about that, but instead argues incessantly about how they should conform to genre norms, what class of film they fall into, what market they're aimed at, how and why they were made, and how people who don't care about such issues or disagree with your stance on them are 'pendants', sport neck-beards, and are prone to pleasuring themselves.

Irish

12-04-2010, 04:30 AM

Qrazy has pretty clearly presented a reasoned argument with evidence to support it.
Qrazy's argument is based around a pretty basic misunderstanding of what I'm saying, and what I'm trying to say, completely missing my point that there is an arc to Spielberg's career, just like there is with anyone's.

He's also conflating final cut rights with producer roles, which is misleading and inaccurate.

His only "evidence" has been a vague reference to Spielberg interviews. I'm not sure how you get well reasoned from that.

But I'm more interested in why someone who says of himself that he's mostly interested in what movies say never talks about that, but instead argues incessantly about how they should conform to genre norms, what class of film they fall into, what market they're aimed at, how and why they were made, and how people who don't care about such issues or disagree with your stance on them are 'pendants', sport neck-beards, and are prone pleasuring themselves.

Well said. I know you meant that as a criticism and a negation of some of my points, but I don't think these viewpoints are mutually exclusive. It's possible to enjoy the business aspect of it, or find that interesting, and still connect with the art on a personal or intellectual level.

Qrazy

12-04-2010, 05:26 AM

Qrazy's argument is based around a pretty basic misunderstanding of what I'm saying, and what I'm trying to say, completely missing my point that there is an arc to Spielberg's career, just like there is with anyone's.

He's also conflating final cut rights with producer roles, which is misleading and inaccurate.

His only "evidence" has been a vague reference to Spielberg interviews. I'm not sure how you get well reasoned from that.

Nah. I've provided box office data, evidence from interviews (which can be found on youtube Spielberg on Spielberg, and a few other sources, but feel free to check the info) and information about how producer roles have changed post-classic Hollywood for the creation of films by powerhouse directors. Your original post was about how budgets and control have ruined Spielberg. Control is closely tied to final cut privileges. If I am misunderstanding what you originally said then perhaps you should have used different words to express different content because it is the words that you wrote down which I disagree with.

One last time...

I disagree that Spielberg's decline was caused by large budgets or greater creative control (for evidence see everything I've already posted about his career). You can like/dislike whichever Spielberg films you want to but this sentence is what I disagree with... "Without the budgets and the control he doesn't have the opportunity to indulge his more idiotic impulses." And my disagreement has nothing to do with a lack of understanding about how films are made or the arc of Spielberg or Lucas's careers. They had creative control when they made Raiders, Lucas had it when he made Empire, and so on.

Your arguments on the other hand are based upon generalizations and straight up factually incorrect info (such as that Close Encounters did not make money).

Irish

12-04-2010, 05:49 AM

Nah.
This entire post was yet another variation on "I'm right and you're wrong."

You've offered little to no counters to my central premise.

You've misunderstood the weight of anyone having "final cut" on a film.

You've ignored the role that the industry plays in people's careers, ie (the importance of producers).

You've ignored the impact of film history and the major shift away from big budgets and independent creative control in Hollywood films after 1980.

You've ignored budget data showing that, in today's terms, both Raiders and ET were small to midsized films.

You've completely ignored the Spielberg's career post 1982, where a large part of my argument resides.

The only thing you've managed to do is (1) restate your "argument" a half dozen times and (2 - no surprise here) point out small factual inaccuracies that don't negate my central premise at all.

So. "Well reasoned" indeed. :rolleyes:

B-side

12-04-2010, 05:52 AM

You're both wrong, now shut up.

Duncan

12-04-2010, 05:53 AM

Gotta say, I don't think Qrazy has done any of those things.

DavidSeven

12-04-2010, 06:11 AM

Irish: I think Spielberg's work dipped after he got more creative control.
Qrazy: It has nothing to do with that.
Irish: Why?
Qrazy: Because I don't agree with when you think he got creative control.
Irish: You and I have fundamentally different definitions of "control".
Qrazy: I agree.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQD6lKOTvW3h GiyBsl3Ew--AY0cDanJbiEfl1tzUBY3WL21rTGL

BuffaloWilder

12-04-2010, 06:27 AM

Well, this is just starting to be embarrassing.

Irish, seriously dude.

soitgoes...

12-04-2010, 06:31 AM

Qrazy

12-04-2010, 06:42 AM

You're both wrong, now shut up.

http://img3.visualizeus.com/thumbs/09/07/05/lol,animals,funny,bird,seagull ,destrucci%C3%B3n-41acb12aa7662068ca7427913b1808 56_h.jpg

B-side

12-04-2010, 06:48 AM

I kid, of course. Qrazy's probably right despite the overwhelming odds against such a notion. Irish just seems to be wrong a tad more often, so I'm going with the statistically reasonable choice.

MadMan

12-04-2010, 07:45 AM

The Name of the Game: L.A. 2017 [TV] (1971)
Columbo: Murder By the Book [TV] (1971)
Something Evil [TV] (1972)I've only heard of the Columbo episode/TV movie. The rest, nope.

Kurosawa Fan

12-04-2010, 02:01 PM

soitgoes...

12-04-2010, 06:07 PM

Raiders - Savage has seeders now.

Qrazy

12-04-2010, 06:12 PM

I love how Irish rails on Qrazy for his "I'm right and you're wrong" approach, when that's exactly what he's doing as well. This entire conversation is entertaining as hell. Seriously, keep it up guys.

Sorry to disappoint :P but I feel like I've laid out my position clearly, nothing else to say on the matter really... but bring on The Sugarland Express!

Irish

12-04-2010, 06:23 PM

Sorry to disappoint :P but I feel like I've laid out my position clearly, nothing else to say on the matter really... but bring on The Sugarland Express!

Likewise.

BTW, if anyone hasn't seen it, Sugarland Express is available on Netflix InstantWatch:

http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/The-Sugarland-Express/70001767

Russ

12-04-2010, 06:59 PM

I love The Sugarland Express. It really is one of my favorite Spielberg films. Anxiously awaiting Raiders' writeup.

Raiders

12-04-2010, 07:07 PM

The Columbo episode wound up not being one of the discs Netflix is streaming. I'm not that interested in viewing it, even for completist sake. Since I will be adding Savage, I'm dropping the Columbo episode.

MadMan

12-07-2010, 12:19 AM

Likewise.

BTW, if anyone hasn't seen it, Sugarland Express is available on Netflix InstantWatch:

http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/The-Sugarland-Express/70001767Sweet. I haven't seen that one.

Raiders

12-07-2010, 03:16 AM

L.A. 2017
1971 [TV]

http://i52.tinypic.com/10miiig.png

Unfortunately this is only available on a poor quality print clearly ripped from a rather old VHS. There appears to be a lot of visual expressiveness that is unfortunately somewhat muddled by the lack of clarity in the images. The "film" is a 75-minute (90 with commercials) episode of the rather bizarre early 70s TV series The Name of the Game which rotated through three lead characters, who all reported for an important news publication. Thus, despite the overarching storylines, each episode was often a stand-alone story.

Gene Barry plays the lead in this episode, and the story is apparently even strange for this series as Barry's character Glenn Howard loses consciousness while driving his car--he was also recording a report to the president regarding his opinion on an upcoming environmental meeting--and awakes 46 years into the future, the year 2017. The future is a scorched Earth fable, a mass-scale infection outbreak (somehow linked through algae and bacteria--it wasn't too clear) caused the Earth's water supply to become toxic and eventually forced mankind to live underground. The government collapsed and corporate America, hinted at being potentially a cause for the pandemic, seized the opportunity to take power and corporatized the world ("U.S.A., Inc." Barry glibly quips). Naturally, the liberal writer is none-too-happy with the state of affairs and ultimately refuses to cooperate with the corporate leaders who want him to restart his former profession and help spread ease about the current affairs.

Spielberg's vision of the dystopian future predicts the same that Ridley Scott would see in Blade Runner, just over a decade later. Spielberg creates a burnt, orange sky and a dry, dead landscape for the exterior of this future world. Of course, Spielberg's society is underground, stuck in a series of hallways and corridors (filmed via effective tracking shots in a sewage treatment plant), handwritten signs on walls, grimy and artificially-lit. Practically every room is a voyeur nightmare, filled either with cameras or faceless government "doctors" peering from above (think Minority Report's temple). The "chapel" is also an interesting scene, a minister replaced by a computer program spitting out life's answers based on an algorithm. In general, Spielberg nicely makes it a casually horrific vision; the inhumanity is left to ponder and sneak up on you (such as the slowly but suddenly creepy turn a friendly drink of milk takes).

http://i55.tinypic.com/219oyva.png

Ultimately, the story is rather archetypal and broadly sketched. Most of the details are either spoken in dull stories or merely omitted altogether, in particular why the heck "management" cares so much about Barry's character and a lot of the events are not really given much context other than "this is the future, it is different and bad." Still, Spielberg is able to stage a few great sequences, in particular is a harrowing scene where Barry interrogates an old acquaintance who survived the fallout but who has been reduced to a mumbling basket case. Spielberg has the man recount his tale unblinkingly directly to the camera with Barry sympathetically peering from overhead. There is also an interesting geriatric club scene that is almost humorously off kilter.

I think most of us can see the ending coming. The intro gives away what the reveal and twist will be. I expected it but was still disappointed. It's necessary given the fact that this is a series where the character must move forward, but it undercuts the drama given that the bookends don't properly set up any sort of environmental crisis. Green is always "in" but you have to do better than just preaching a fantastical horror story to have any resonance. Without a craftsman such as Spielberg giving a plaintive artistry to the film, this is just an interesting but dull paranoia story filmed for a (from all reports) strange TV series.

Rating: [**½]

Raiders

12-08-2010, 10:00 PM

SOMETHING EVIL
1972 [TV]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8gp5e261XDI/S0lfU_tyg-I/AAAAAAAAAXM/Vpu6bj8nARE/s400/eviltitle.jpg

Spielberg was still working his way through his lengthy contract (seven years for Universal) when he came upon this one. The screenplay for this is by none other than Robert Clouse... yes, he of Enter the Dragon fame. Unfortunately, it is a rather woeful piece of writing. In retrospect, the title for this TV film is very apt. I had expected it to be a solvable mystery about the titular evil and its identity, but ultimately this is a film with no answers or explanations supplied. It has something to do with the house, but really all we know is that something is causing all of the weird feelings, eerie baby crying sounds and worst of all, malicious winds. That thing is not explained, but we are given an awesome glimpse into a potential answer: a jar filled with EVIL RED GOO (side note: apparently there exists some quasi-MST3K version of this film with added-in demon sounds and text on the screen stating “The Red Goo!” every time it appears).

It’s all as silly as it sounds, but then really so is the whole film. I had to laugh at a scene where the central character, an artist-by-hobby who moves in to the house with her ad exec husband and two children, nonchalantly has painted a pentacle on the children’s bedroom floor and goes over with them how to use it. Nothing strange here kids. The entire film is a weird, unbalanced mess of occultist paranoia. A character randomly cuts open chickens and flings their blood about the grounds, the mother makes pentacle necklaces for her family, there’s a lot of talk about devils, and the opening scene has a man killed by the same malevolent wind that apparently one day found its way to M. Night Shyamalan. There’s also a random character who is well versed, naturally, in the business of the occult, as well as his nephew who the film can’t make up its mind about whether he is good, evil or just plain creepy (Spielberg’s framing of his eyes in one scene has him peering eerily through a door chain).

Spielberg is working overtime here with this material and developing his craft along the way. A lot of this resonates far more than it should as well as the tension for such silly moments is made almost unbearable on a couple of moments, Spielberg’s playing the Hitchcockian suspense card to perfection. The director is able to suggest a lot without being supported by the screenplay. In particular is the empathy displayed towards the mother. Over the film, she slowly grows weary and paranoid about the house. Her husband is gone most days in New York at his job and the isolation drives her paranoia even further. Some credit must go to Sandy Dennis as well; her performance is captivating and she does a magnificent job emanating internal struggle and pain with just small gestures and facial expressions.

I think the greatest effect both Spielberg and Dennis have is to shift the focus away from the lame occult nonsense and all the talk of devils and pentacles and onto a maternal crisis. Though not really supported by any context in the screenplay, the film does a great job giving the impression of uncertainty in the root cause of these events and Dennis’ weary visage shows a level of concern over herself and substantiates the unbelief her husband expresses. The final coup is in the scene where she locks her children in their room and mentally breaks down, apologizing to them that she has failed and cannot care for them any longer. The pain in her voice is easily the most emotional moment in the entire film.

But, the ending undercuts this path and brings us back to the gallows with a floating kid, more evil wind and a revelation hinted at but seemingly random (so this something can possess—did he drink the red goo?). Still, there is a grace note in there (and equal credit here is reluctantly given to the script) where we see the evil spirit warded off by a profound profession of love and it damn near justifies the entire point Spielberg and Dennis were pushing and if we ignore about 60% of the foolishness here, we can see a subtle outline of a very personal journey. Even in the thick of shit, Spielberg finds an iconic image that undoubtedly would reappear (in Poltergeist for sure, AI as well) of a mother and child, surrounded by horror and sci-fi paranoia but placing the camera and film’s full emphasis on the intimacy between them. Chalk it up to one ending he got right.

Rating: [**]

soitgoes...

12-08-2010, 10:12 PM

A shame, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I was interested in seeing this one, not expecting greatness, but maybe something akin to Duel.

Raiders

12-08-2010, 10:16 PM

Well, surprisingly it seems very well liked from all I read about it. And honestly, I think I'm probably a tad harsh on it (for what it wants to be, I don't think it could have been much, or any, better). But honestly, a lot of it is just silly. I'm shocked there isn't more internet mocking of some of the material here. Maybe I'm just out of touch with how early 70s occult films operate? The Exorcist certainly had a more effective story.

soitgoes...

12-08-2010, 10:38 PM

I think my problem is I never read more than a single line blurb about an evil house terrorizing a family, which sounded interesting enough especially with Spielberg's name attached.

I've made up my mind, I am going to watch this today. If I don't now, it will sit on my hard drive forever.

soitgoes...

12-09-2010, 09:07 AM

Raiders

12-09-2010, 11:29 PM

SAVAGE
(1973) [TV]

http://i51.tinypic.com/2ljkciu.png

I didn’t actually realize before watching that this was a TV film-length pilot for a series that was never picked up. It was the last for-hire TV project Spielberg was coerced into doing under his Universal contract. It is also easily the most workmanlike of his early TV films, though surprisingly enough not the weakest. The material for his previous project, Something Evil, gave him much more room for innovation but it also was as dumb and silly as could be. Here, the material is much more polished though also much more rote and uninteresting and ultimately less memorable. The premise is that Martin Landau is Paul Savage, a kin fellow to Edward R. Murrow and Mike Wallace, and the show follows his investigative journalism making him as much a sleuth and detective as a newsman.

From just this episode we can tell the basic opening and closing structure where Savage just makes it in time for the airing of his program, often running onto stage after an important meeting or solving a case. These scenes are replete with the stock producers and assistants running around and barking orders and demanding to know where Savage is. Spielberg edits these scenes frantically, using motion and splicing to create the whirling effect of putting together a last-minute, on-the-fly news program, or at least the more romantic version of it.

The actual plot for this episode is your typical political intrigue; a Supreme Court nominee has incriminating pictures brought to the surface (given by the incriminating lady to Savage just before her death) and there is of course a powerful figure behind them attempting to wield his political clout and use coercion to have his voice heard. Savage is along for the ride investigating the death of his source (the woman) and stumbles into the bigger plot. To the pilot’s credit, the Court nominee is more sympathetic and complex than a typical such character and the ultimate moral quandary of the episode is Savage’s duty to “the truth” and whether or not his persistence is always for good or harm (the resolution is also nicely ambiguous in whether the filmmakers agree or not). Still, it’s all very “been there done that” and seems likely the reason the network passed on picking up the series.

http://i51.tinypic.com/w0q42s.png

Nonetheless, for those more interested in Spielberg than early 70s TV artifacts, there is a lot to admire. Particularly, this pilot is the first time Spielberg really uses a dramatic contrast between dark and light. Many scenes start, end or play out entirely in the dark, most impressively a suspenseful scene on the set of Savage’s news program where a character attempts to murder a potential “loose end” and the spatial relationship between the two is often kept a secret through Spielberg’s use of light and blocking, superbly creating a highly suspenseful sequence.

Moderately entertaining, but considering that the directors would rotate and producers are kings on TV, the material here wasn’t that strong and the decision to not pick this up makes sense. Luckily, from here Spielberg would move on to much more.

Rating: [**½]

balmakboor

12-12-2010, 02:38 AM

Took another look at Sugarland Express this evening. Now I'm definitely looking forward to your write-up. I love Goldie Hawn in this.

Raiders

12-12-2010, 05:05 AM

Took another look at Sugarland Express this evening. Now I'm definitely looking forward to your write-up. I love Goldie Hawn in this.

Did my viewing tonight, will have the write-up tomorrow. I'm pretty sure you'll be pleased with my opinion.

Raiders

12-12-2010, 04:06 PM

THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS
(1974)

http://cinemasights.files.wordpress.c om/2010/10/sugarland-fun.jpg

Well here it is: Spielberg’s first real theatrical film which to this day gets a shockingly small amount of discussion in cinema circles. Long have discussions seemed to start with Spielberg’s first great box office hit, Jaws. That may be retroactively the film where we see Spielberg almost single-handedly (with the assistance of friend George Lucas) create the modern multiplexes and $250 million budgets. But to actually see the start of the modern-day cinema giant, we must truly begin here.

The genesis of a great director is always interesting to witness, but particularly given that Spielberg is not only among the most influential figures in Hollywood history but that the kind of massive-yet-intimate stories he would go on to tell, the bloated epics and historical tragedies, are far removed from this film. Much of the film plays more like an 80s Jonathan Demme piece of Americana, only with a more frantic camera and less melting pot music. The two central figures are as much tied to America as apple pie.

They are two petty criminals, one (Hawn) just out of prison and the other (Atherton) with only four months left on a larceny charge. Hawn convinces him to break out with her as social services has taken their son from her and she needs Atherton to get him back. They clumsily kidnap a young greenhorn trooper in an ad hoc, done-gone-wrong scenario and force him to drive them across the state to take their son from his foster family. Hilariously, Spielberg slowly adds more and more police cars in their rear view, often panning humorously from their car to the hordes chasing them. Two petty crooks just going to get their son and somehow, the entire state of Texas law enforcement is out to get them.

The two inhabit that great New Hollywood romanticism of charismatic outlaws (epitomized in Bonnie and Clyde). Here they are less malicious and dangerous, simply two dimwits foolishly going for their son. The film smartly never even has them openly discuss what they will do after they grab him, just a small afterthought quip about going to Mexico. They are placed front and center in the classic idyllic road movie that brought filmmakers such as Wim Wenders calling to our mid-west in search of beauty and lost dreams.

The film’s screenplay won an award at the 1974 Cannes film festival and it really is no wonder. Rarely has a film so casually observed its characters with as much grace and honesty as here. The opening act of Jaws is often called Spielberg’s “Altman moment,” but I would argue this film is from beginning to end an Altman-esque journey. The dialogue flies seemingly not from a screenplay but from the whims of the situation and the characters’ scattered thought processes. Many of the scenes happen very naturally and organically. Think of the scenes at a fried chicken drive-thru or the sudden desire for Texas Gold Stamps. These spring perfectly from the psyche of these characters; their inexperience, naïveté and genuine benignity. Nothing feels like a plot convenience or contrivance.

In particular are two scenes that are so perfect in their minutia that I am confident Spielberg can never recreate the joy and beauty of their images. The first, the car has run out of gas at the crest of a hill and Atherton comes up with an idea—cut to a scene with the police captain pushing their car with his car. There Spielberg forms a connection between the captain and the two kidnappers and forms a vertical split-screen in which the captain peers into the back of the car and Hawn, improvisational as can be, silhouettes a “HI” in the back window. The second scene is with the two characters in an RV next to a drive-in theater, watching Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. Atherton begins narrating in the sound effects and Spielberg cuts to his face with a reflection of the film, and slowly his expression changes as we see the Coyote continuously fail and crash down to earth.

http://cinemafanatic.files.wordpress. com/2010/10/1974_sugarland_express.jpg

The film isn’t absolved of all weaknesses. The most notable may be the foster family themselves; the characterization of them not only wavers but is never firmly established (I found the moment of the foster dad offering to use his gun to shoot the two birth parents awkward). As well there is the occasionally overdone moment during the chase, most obvious is when the captain shoots the wheels out from a news van which leads to what appears to be a fatal car crash. Still, these moments do not dominate the film and thankfully the “action” is kept to a minimum during the chase, which Spielberg elegantly keeps well-paced and almost lackadaisical; relishing in the idiosyncrasies of his characters.

The performances are outstanding; in particular is Hawn at the center. Her portrayal of her character’s genial nature and almost cluelessness is fascinating; her ability to turn childlike insolence into a dangerous disconnect superb and frightening. Atherton plays, in spirit, a distant relative to Dennis Weaver’s henpecked husband from Duel (a spiritual cousin to his film no doubt), Michael Sacks does well as the kidnapped trooper who is just young enough to sympathize and connect with his captors (he also gets the saddest ending: left with the personal knowledge of just how unnecessary the resolution to the plight was and the guilt of not stopping it), and finally Ben Johnson does what Ben Johnson does so well as the stern, committed yet caring captain.

So, next time you see or hear a discussion of Spielberg and people start it with Jaws, just remember that he did have a theatrical film before it. And make sure most importantly you bring it up, tell people to seek it out and let them know there is another masterful film in the Spielberg canon.

Rating: [***½]

balmakboor

12-12-2010, 08:06 PM

Nice write-up.

One only need compare this car chase filled debut with Ron Howard's similar but relatively very clumsy debut Grand Theft Auto (fun as it is) to recognize Spielberg's mastery of cinematic storytelling. Few directors share his instinctive genius with a camera.

I love the two scenes you singled out -- the split screen image using the rearview mirror and the window reflection that superimposes the Roadrunner cartoon over their faces. I think they still stand among Spielberg's most perfectly crafted images.

One thing I'm reminded of during the Roadrunner scene is that Spielberg has always seemed uncomfortable dealing with adult sexual situations. It's tied into what I consider the most interesting aspect of his work -- what I call the Peter Pan/Eternal Child theme. I also consider it one of his limitations.

There is also a class (semi-)consciousness here that I find in many of his films. The protagonists and kidnapped state trooper are clearly working class while the adoptive couple are -- underdeveloped as they are -- clearly upper class. There is a suggestion that there is no hope of their getting their child back because he is now in the hands of the untouchable rich and powerful.

This is similar to the working class Anderton versus the rich and powerful and untouchable Burgess with Anderton only being able to defeat Burgess in a dream. (My interpretation of course.) It is also similar to the rich and powerful couple at the end of Wars of the Worlds being miraculously untouched, unaffected by the horrors of the preceding two hours, so much so that they even have their grandson back alive and well.

I find it peculiar and interesting that this class conflict thing is so often present in his work -- it clearly means a lot to him -- and yet it is almost always the least successfully thought out aspect. Is it simply that he is a very limited liberal thinker -- like most these days -- who is troubled by the fact that he himself is very rich and powerful?

StanleyK

12-15-2010, 12:20 PM

'sall right if I post my own really short pseudo-reviews on Spielberg? Wouldn't want to steal your thunder or anything.

I just rewatched Jaws and it remains awesome. The screenplay really is a thing of wonder; there's no line of exposition wasted, no character thinly developed, and the tension is always grounded on the relationship between the people on the island. This review (http://www.jabootu.com/jaws2.htm) put it best by saying that the Jaws sequels are about a shark killing people, whereas the original is about people reacting to a killer shark. Bruce works as an external catalyst, triggering the fears of the characters; the film is ingenious in shifting focus away from it, which is why I feel that the second half suffers in being too preoccupied with establishing over and over again what a super-badass shark it is that they're up against. But even with that, the segment feels like a natural extension of the first half, whittling down the several factors around Brody and Hooper until the film becomes a battle of wits between them and Quint, a treatise about excessive machismo and hero complexes.

Still, there's something about the film which feels a bit... workmanlike, like Spielberg's heart wasn't really invested in the film's themes; not like his future filmography, which is much more nakedly emotional, very vulnerable for that, which is something I like. Jaws is a great movie, but I'm okay with saying it's not one of my favorites anymore.

Raiders

12-15-2010, 12:39 PM

I don't mind at all, though it may be best if you post it after I have gotten to the film. But, no matter. I'll hopefully be watching Jaws tomorrow.

Morris Schæffer

12-15-2010, 04:38 PM

Really like Sugarland Express, but Richard Atherton will always be Dick Thornberg! :)

Sven

12-15-2010, 04:55 PM

I'm surprised more of your review does not focus on the strength of the amazingly fluid (given Spielberg's newness) camerawork and editing. There are some chase sequences here on par with what Miller got in The Road Warrior.

Sven

12-15-2010, 04:56 PM

Still, excellent review all the same!

Raiders

12-17-2010, 04:52 PM

JAWS
(1975)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__mokxbTmuJM/TDZbBlK0MzI/AAAAAAAAFLw/V6C0bVIAyxk/s1600/jaws.jpg

Thinking back over the years, I don’t think there is a film I have seen more times than Jaws. It was almost a monthly ritual at my house growing up. The TBS network was an enabler back in the 90s, airing this film practically every other week and a premium channel could typically be counted on as well. Most of those times were partial viewings, both broken up by commercial breaks and lack of time. It helped that this was one of my mother’s absolute favorites and she was always game to sit down and watch a film with me. We rarely agreed (she was a Doris Day disciple herself), but when it came to Spielberg’s film, there was great common ground.

I began to think of film in terms of cuisine, and it occurred to me that over the years, Jaws became my macaroni and cheese. Pure and glorious comfort food: wholesome, always easily accessible and available, and intensely satisfying. I didn’t ever grow tired of it; put it in front of me and I would consume it without a second’s thought. Its texture and flavor were second nature to me, each aspect anticipated and thoroughly enjoyed. The satisfaction is predetermined and unsurprising and when standing at the buffet line selecting what to scoop up next, there is always a pause.

So it is that I approached this new viewing of Spielberg’s first great success with a little trepidation. What more could I really glean from it? I wasn’t looking forward to this viewing as much as the rest (possible exception of Raiders of the Lost Ark for the same reason). Much to my shock, I discovered that there were some flavors here I had not really noticed before, or maybe I had just been too accustomed of a viewer to critically pare them away. My familiarity with this film had been developed at a relatively young age and early cognitive development. My appreciation for the film was almost completely new and different than before.

http://blog.emerson.edu/ploughshares/jaws.jpg

Despite over the years hearing how the film spends a lot more time on land than we think, I still didn’t believe it. But sure enough, there I was looking at the counter and I’ll be damned if we didn’t spend more than half the film in Amity. And what textures there are on land! Spielberg beautifully carried over the Altman-esque qualities of his first theatrical film and created a town almost from the ground up (Quint’s sly amusement and assertion at the town-hall meeting immediately took me to McCabe’s first encounter with the bustling bar in Presbyterian Church). Despite getting to know very few characters beyond a couple sentences, the film nonetheless weaves a beautiful texture of a community fraught with two kinds of fear—that of the shark and that of their well-being and the potential financial loss of closing the beaches. Making the setting an island is a very effective move, forcing the characters to eventually deal with this situation. Surrounded by water and no place to run; the shark effectively cuts this town off from comforts of society, terrorizing them from the outside in--think of the foretelling moment where after a final attack, Brody peers out from the “protected” pond into the vast sea, the shark having cut off the final respite and forcing the film off the island out into the deep blue.

For most viewers, the second half is where the rubber hits the road and where most of the water cooler discussion and quoting of the film occurs. From the bustling town with its bureaucratic entanglements to three men on an undersized boat in the middle of the ocean, almost as if the shark herself wanted to simplify the chase. The dynamics aboard the boat have been discussed countless times, but I think for the first time I myself saw how much of Spielberg himself came through, mainly through Matt Hooper. He’s young, a new age of shark hunter so to speak. He comes equipped with a lot of gadgets and new ideas which are rejected by Quint, the old sea dog. Reports indicate Spielberg requested and changed during production that Hooper survive where in the book he is killed by the shark. Spielberg had been battling with veteran executives and filmmakers since he started at Universal, often given projects he had little interest in (I love the scene where Quint, lording over the boat, turns side-to-side looking to see which task to delegate to who—after telling Brody to chum, the camera peers up and Quint is merely silhouetted menacingly against the sky).

If the first half was upon first glance Altman, the second half confirms perhaps the real cinematic root here: Howard Hawks. The presence of this film is almost exclusively male-dominated; from the politicians to the fisherman to the policemen, the shark is railing against the masculinity of this community. There are three notable female presences (Brody’s wife, Mrs. Kitner and the opinionated friend of the Brodys whose name, fittingly, I don’t remember, if it is ever said at all); Mrs. Brody is largely the human and homely comfort for Chief Brody and her final scene in the film has her crying, explicitly for fear of her husband’s safety and implicitly that she has no say in any of this and her place in this story is over; Mrs. Kitner is the grieving mom of the second victim who helps keep the bravado in perspective while the men all celebrate their first shark capture and creates the necessary determinism in Brody; and the last lady is the most vocal citizen at the town hall meeting until she is quieted by Quint’s screeching fingernails on the chalk board (Spielberg highlights her reaction over all others). The final act is three men, three male presences each with their own unique characteristics, each representing a different aspect of the masculine center and as Pauline Kael noted, the film ultimately subverts the dominant traits and coming to a treatise, the same Hawks would come to on such films as Only Angels Have Wings, but Spielberg does it without even having a woman present.

http://heinesight.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/3432914902_cdb11034bb.jpg?w=50 0&h=256

I also came to realize that despite all the squabbling over genre purists about whether this is a "horror" film or not (it is), Spielberg was never illusioned about what it was and the man was playing for keeps. The opening scene still strikes as a little campy, what with the girl being thrashed about almost comically as though the shark wanted to give her a piggy back before devouring her. But, it is a classic slasher moment, the teenage blond wandering too far into the moonlit-night and wham, dead. But the moment that the Kitner boy goes out too far and that gray mass leaps from underneath and we see the boy, flailing, drug down against the rising redness and that camera pans in on Brody in the classic Hitchcock Vertigo-effect, that's playing for keeps. We act as though Carpenter shooting a little girl in the chest in Assault on Precinct 13 is shocking, but Spielberg wasn't playing sentimental when establishing the bureaucratic mistake of leaving the beaches open. I still get chills when watching that scene followed by the mother frantically scanning the mass of people for her son.

This viewing also brought about the realization that discussion of the film’s characters tends to almost-singularly revolve around that great Ahab, Robert Shaw’s inimitable Quint. To be sure, Spielberg and Shaw make the character larger than everyone else, larger than the shark or even the film itself. The scene where we see Quint’s barn where he has countless shark jaws on display, a sanctuary to his feats of shark killing that initially seems excessive and cruel directly links itself to the film’s most chilling scene, the great monologue on the USS Indianapolis. It is almost shocking how human he becomes in that moment, yet his flaws after that only mount and become disastrous. His determinism is both frightening and charismatic, and like Melville’s great, tragic anti-hero, Quint’s own internal struggles with his demons become the downfall of him as he slides down into the shark’s mouth, his temple of fury (the boat) slide down with him.

Yet, after watching I truly believe not enough praise can be given to Roy Scheider’s work here. It is a thankless role, particularly in the second half. He is the everyman, the audience surrogate who is neither powerful enough to close the beaches as he wants to, he is not an islander having transplanted from New York and only been in Amity for less than a year and he is afraid of the water thus an ineffectual presence on the boat. But Scheider’s dominance of the tone for the character is remarkable. I first noticed it in the scene where Hooper crashes the Brodys’ dinner after the scene where Mrs. Kitner has slapped Brody for allowing the beaches to stay open. There is a sly, almost-bemused look on Scheider’s face as Hooper helps himself to some food and nerdishly explains to Mrs. Brody his background. Spielberg smartly places him center-frame so despite the action happening around him (as it does most of the film), Scheider’s mannerisms are the highlight. He is able to encapsulate a man of intelligence and supposed authority but who can only rail against all the experts and politicians and fisherman and everyone else who disapproves and that scene beautifully shows a man baffled by his situation (it almost amusingly ends with his quip that he can do anything, he’s the chief of police despite all evidence to the contrary).

So, despite having had this mac and cheese fifty times and believing I knew every nuance of flavor and every element of its consumption, I found that even the fifty-first time could be illuminating. I found aspects I hadn’t fully grasped before and angles I had not bothered to explore. We can all say Spielberg has had bigger films, more personal films, more adventurous films and so forth, and he has. But after this viewing, I can’t claim he has ever had any that even after having just watched it, yet again, I could immediately repeat. Again and again. There isn’t a higher compliment I can pay any film.

Rating: [****]

Russ

12-17-2010, 05:35 PM

Terrific review.

I've always thought it was a darn-near perfect film. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote.

D_Davis

12-17-2010, 06:07 PM

I love the first half of Jaws, but I always lose interest during the second half. I prefer the suspense and island dynamics to the long, drawn out section on the boat. It just seems to go on and on. I also think the music during the first half is much better. Some of the music during the second half is really upbeat and bouncy, like something out of one of those old Disney nature films, and creates a sense of whimsy, rather than tension and action.

Still though, Jaws is a film that I can throw on most of the time and still enjoy a great deal. I just really, really like its first half.

Bosco B Thug

12-17-2010, 08:47 PM

Excellent write-up!

I like Jaws, although I think it only becomes superlative when it enters its starker, man vs. nature 2nd half (or at least once Quint becomes a featured player). That moment with Quint lording over the boat probably is my fave part.

Qrazy

12-17-2010, 09:44 PM

Derek

12-17-2010, 09:57 PM

I like that the film's final shot is an homage to The African Queen.

I would like that too if only The African Queen weren't terrible.

Jaws is great, however, as is your review, Raiders.

Qrazy

12-17-2010, 11:32 PM

I would like that too if only The African Queen weren't terrible.

Jaws is great, however, as is your review, Raiders.

It's not terrible. It's thoroughly mediocre but it's not terrible. Plus without it Jaws would probably have a weaker final shot. so meh.

Morris Schæffer

12-18-2010, 09:23 AM

JAWS
(1975)
But Scheider’s dominance of the tone for the character is remarkable. I first noticed it in the scene where Hooper crashes the Brodys’ dinner after the scene where Mrs. Kitner has slapped Brody for allowing the beaches to stay open. There is a sly, almost-bemused look on Scheider’s face as Hooper helps himself to some food and nerdishly explains to Mrs. Brody his background.

Yeah, I remember this scene very well. It's a great little moment.

One of my favorite movies. Indubitably!

StanleyK

12-18-2010, 01:18 PM

MadMan

12-21-2010, 03:49 AM

Excellent review on Jaws. There are times when I feel the movie is overrated, but every viewing reminds me why its one of the best movies I've ever seen. And honestly I do think its a horror movie, although that may also be a testment to the fact that the film has some truly frightening moments, as Raiders noted in his review.

Dead & Messed Up

12-21-2010, 04:42 AM

Great review. I liked your insight on Ellen, and particularly on Hooper as a Spielberg stand-in, which I hadn't considered; it's actually pretty obvious, since using an avatar for himself is something he would go on to do several times in his career.

What do you make of Quint's USS Indianapolis monologue? As great as it is, I'm having trouble determining its relevance in the context of the film. "Anyway, we delivered the bomb" is such an evocative line; it can't be just about the sharks.

If Quint hand-waves the Indianapolis by claiming that, in the end, they achieved their goal, what does that mean he'll do to Brody and Hooper while in pursuit of his shark? I've felt for a while that Pauline Kael cued into the heart of the movie:

...you feel that Robert Shaw, the malevolent old shark hunter, is so manly that he wants to get them all killed; he's so manly he's homicidal...The director, Steven Spielberg, sets up bare-chested heroism as a joke and scores off it all through the movie.

StanleyK

12-22-2010, 01:14 PM

If Quint hand-waves the Indianapolis by claiming that, in the end, they achieved their goal, what does that mean he'll do to Brody and Hooper while in pursuit of his shark? I've felt for a while that Pauline Kael cued into the heart of the movie:

That makes a lot of sense. It's the logical conclusion of their game of tough-guy one-upmanship, from physical scars to psychological ones.

I rewatched Close Encounters of the Third Kind; 'wow' just about sums up my reaction. Looking forward to Raiders' thoughts.

Dukefrukem

12-22-2010, 01:15 PM

Which is better? Jaws or Close Encounters? They're pretty damn equal in my eyes.

Morris Schæffer

12-22-2010, 03:08 PM

Which is better? Jaws or Close Encounters? They're pretty damn equal in my eyes.

Gosh, both are really kinda perfect. The spaceship interiors I'm no fan of though.

[ETM]

12-23-2010, 04:56 AM

I rewatched Close Encounters of the Third Kind; 'wow' just about sums up my reaction. Looking forward to Raiders' thoughts.

Again, this one is going to be fun. I rewatched it myself, and my reaction was closer to 'I actually liked this?'

Spaceman Spiff

12-23-2010, 06:05 AM

Close Encounters is the far better movie, but many seem to think differently for some reason. In any case, the finale is one of the most emotionally stirring moments in all of cinema for me.

Morris Schæffer

12-23-2010, 08:17 AM

Close Encounters is the far better movie, but many seem to think differently for some reason. In any case, the finale is one of the most emotionally stirring moments in all of cinema for me.

Which is amazing considering there's hardly any drama on a human level unless you think that Neary fulfilling his purpose in this world is compelling human drama.

If there's indeed extra-terrestrial life somewhere among the stars, Spielberg's movie is the most convincing argument, and not some Nasa discovery about water once being present on Mars. That fascinates me also, but that's just water. CEotTK made me believe.

[ETM]

12-23-2010, 08:35 AM

If there's indeed extra-terrestrial life somewhere among the stars, Spielberg's movie is the most convincing argument, and not some Nasa discovery about water once being present on Mars. That fascinates me also, but that's just water. CEotTK made me believe.

Why? It's quite the opposite, really. It just ties together the Bermuda Triangle-type myths with alien abductions and UFO sighting stories, wraps it all up neatly with a bow on top, and offers the most saccharine of all possible endings. It's plain old wish fulfillment with little to no base in reality. If anything, it paints pretty much the least likely scenario of our encounter with alien life.

Of course, it worked for me as a kid, but going on that "made me believe" factor alone, I'd say "Flight of the Navigator" remains a much more positive experience for me.

transmogrifier

12-23-2010, 09:49 AM

Close Encounters is the far better movie......

Nope.

Scar

12-23-2010, 03:20 PM

Nope.

Word.

Spaceman Spiff

12-23-2010, 07:32 PM

Nope.

Derek needs to add this to his ever-growing list of Transanity.

Raiders

12-23-2010, 07:39 PM

Derek needs to add this to his ever-growing list of Transanity.

That Jaws is better than CEOTK is a crazy assertion? I imagine you are in fact in the minority.

As for my viewing, it will not be until after Christmas unfortunately. No time this week.

Spaceman Spiff

12-23-2010, 07:40 PM

You all need to be locked up and straight-jacketed.

Qrazy

12-23-2010, 07:43 PM

I really liked Close Encounters the first time around but I remember finding the story a little slight the second time through although still remarkably executed.

StanleyK

12-23-2010, 08:12 PM

You all need to be locked up and straight-jacketed.

This.

Jaws is a fine work of craftsmanship. Close Encounters is one of the best directors ever baring his soul on the screen. It's downright a rapturous experience.

Milky Joe

12-23-2010, 08:30 PM

This.

Jaws is a fine work of craftsmanship. Close Encounters is one of the best directors ever baring his soul on the screen. It's downright a rapturous experience.

You and me, we ain't so estranged.

Morris Schæffer

12-24-2010, 08:12 AM

;311923']Why? It's quite the opposite, really. It just ties together the Bermuda Triangle-type myths with alien abductions and UFO sighting stories, wraps it all up neatly with a bow on top, and offers the most saccharine of all possible endings. It's plain old wish fulfillment with little to no base in reality. If anything, it paints pretty much the least likely scenario of our encounter with alien life.

Well, that's harsh I suppose. I think it is very delicate with the way it presents these possible theories/myths and "these planes were reported missing in 1945" is all you get. And it's spine-tingling. What is a realistic way of portraying an alien encounter anyway? There's no precedent.

And what you see as saccharine, I see as supremely moving, connecting thanks to the power of FX and music. You've got little to no dialogue, just people staring at the most extraordinary thing they've ever seen.

BuffaloWilder

12-24-2010, 08:42 AM

Well, I don't know that Close Encounters is supposed to realistic, at all - it seems to have a larger, more mythic quality and scope than that.

[ETM]

12-24-2010, 08:53 AM

And what you see as saccharine, I see as supremely moving, connecting thanks to the power of FX and music. You've got little to no dialogue, just people staring at the most extraordinary thing they've ever seen.

The very notion of it is diabetes-inducing. The small, children-aliens, the tall one with long limbs, the Spielberg-standard alien... but the logic of it all... so much of the film is devoted to the military/scientific effort and preparations, and in the end it was all useless, save for the musical communication. I don't know, I've never written a coherent analysis myself, but I just don't see any lasting greatness in the film beyond nostalgia and pure technical merit of any scene involving aliens.

Raiders

12-28-2010, 06:57 PM

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND
(1977)

http://moviemusereviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/close_encounters_of_the_third_ king_1977.jpg

Following the enormous success of Jaws, the film many cite as the end of New Hollywood and the beginning of the current tentpole model that seemingly gets worse every year, Spielberg in what I consider an interesting move, pushed further and deeper inward. His vision expanded, his budget enlarged and his scope exponentially greater, Spielberg nonetheless turned inward to his own beating heart and his childlike wonder and created the first of many films, often science fiction that examined the events from a place of innocence and naïveté.

This is the only film in which Spielberg has ever received a sole writing credit, and the production story behind the film clearly shows many different writers had a hand in the final product, yet it feels right that Spielberg’s name stands alone. There is likely no other film in his canon where his “authorship” over the material is more apparent and less questionable; whether or not the term “auteur” applies to him in general is moot when looking at this film alone. This is even more apparent when looking at this in retrospect and seeing the many ways Spielberg would work around the same, or similar, themes and to see the genesis for so much of that material likely found here.

“Theme” is the word for this film; indeed so much of the characterization is left relatively thin. Whereas in his prior two films Spielberg’s camera had followed, observed and created complex personalities, with this film he is less concerned with the individual characters themselves—or at least less concerned with making them dynamic personalities. All major types that we would expect are represented here; the believers (Dreyfuss and Malinda Dillon); the scientists (Truffaut); the cautious and militaristic army men; the doubters (Teri Garr). The most important character is likely the small, four year-old Barry who experiences everything without any predilections and with the innocence of not having any fear or any selfish desire. But rather because of his age, allows himself to explore (and be explored) everything the encounter has to offer.

The (lack of) characterizations or strong personalities works for the most part—Truffaut’s passionate and fair curiosity, Dillon’s deterministic search and recovery of her child—but it is not so successful with Dreyfuss. I think it is telling, and resonate, that Spielberg has since changed his opinion on the Dreyfuss character’s ultimate decision at the end, stating he would not make it that way today. The scenes where he depicts his single-minded, possessed intensity on creating the object ingrained in his mind after his close encounter are never properly dealt with. Garr’s character, the doubter, naturally had to be removed, but she is treated almost as excess baggage. The three children seem like peripheral collateral damage. It is a great scene at the dinner table following his mashed potato sculpture (the tear in his son’s eye is almost devastating), and I suppose Spielberg wanted to transfer that emotion into the next scene when Dreyfuss goes off the deep end. But it felt too jovial and Spielberg’s camera never seems to catch Dreyfuss from the eyes of his wife and children, never grounding itself in their milieu. Once their gone, the film plays it as out of sight out of mind as not only is the final decision one that doesn’t even take Dreyfuss’ personal life into account, but the only emotion for another person is his sudden affection for Dillon’s character. I understand the rapture of the final scene overwhelms, but Spielberg’s childlike naïveté that causes Dreyfuss to make that fateful decision is unfortunate. His ultimate fantasy resolution is callous and cold, but for his own unguarded giddiness he can’t even see it.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/close_encounters.jpg

This should not fully detract however from the gloriousness of that final section. Spielberg’s own innocent, optimistic wonder has its advantages, and through this he creates an overwhelmingly beautiful view of humanity’s first major encounter with aliens. The awe the images inspire is palpable and even viewing it today, the visuals are still amazing and the effects, supervised by 2001 effects designer Douglas Trumbull, breathtaking in their clarity and tangibility. Even more, the use of music as a communication between separate beings is a great invention and when the mother ship performs her opus for everyone it is a truly transcendent moment. The power of the final section is also directly linked to the way it is preceded. Immediately before, the film has reached its tension apex as Dreyfuss and Dillon are pursued by the military with a poisonous gas that the general claims only makes them sleep for a few hours (there seems to be more than a little skepticism about this point) and as soon as they reach the top, all tension is released and the platform where the encounter is set is seen as an oasis. It’s another gorgeous moment that provides an interesting calm at the point where many science fiction and alien encounter films increase the suspense.

I did unfortunately leave the film with the impression that the gloriousness of the finale (and its greatness should not be understated) overshadows a lot that doesn't quite work in this film. Many scenes struck me as awkward. In particular the scene where the policemen chase small alien ships along the road was very ridiculous (the aliens joyride?) and the moment when the crazy redneck almost bemusingly goes on about Big Foot in front of the ad hoc government tribunal was very lame. I also have to admit the sequence when the alien ship accosts Melinda Dillon and her son annoyed me, what with the aliens seemingly able to control every device in the house separately and the omnipresent way they surround the house; despite the effective visuals (including the famous shot of the boy opening the door) the whole scene was rendered more silly than frightening.

Still, this is without a doubt not only the most personal film Spielberg made up to this point but easily one of the most personal of his career. His vision and heart drive the film and though it’s a heavily flawed film, the weaknesses and the strengths are directly his own. Such that even if it is the weakest of the three theatrical features he had made to date, it is also the most interesting and fascinating to critique, particularly when viewed within the full body of his work.

Rating: [***]

Morris Schæffer

12-28-2010, 07:23 PM

Also great: the conversation between the airplane traffic controller and the pilots of the airplane.

And that moment when the "car" behind Neary suddenly goes vertical!

Dead & Messed Up

12-28-2010, 07:32 PM

StanleyK

12-29-2010, 12:47 PM

My favorite scene is when Truffaut and Balaban asks the crowd where they heard the notes, and every single arm shoots up and points to the sky. I mean, if you wanted to, you could write an entirely different review about what this film says about the quest for God, and how important that can be to someone of Jewish faith (Spielberg explored the concept with more frivolity in Raiders). Anymore, the aliens strike me as a proxy for all that is transcendent.

Similar but not exactly the same as a quest for God, I think Close Encounters is about the journey for artistic enlightenment. Note how the aliens give everybody they encounter the image of Devil's Tower (also a suggestive name), which they in turn represent as best they can with paintings or sculptures of it. Roy has at first the idea, but he doesn't know what it means or how to convey it, experimenting with shaving cream and mashed potatoes (the 'underground' artist phase, working with no budget). Later he updates to a huge pile of dirt and several materials; he has the means, but not yet the meaning. 'This means something. This is important.' But what, and how? And then he sees the TV report, and suddenly everything comes into focus. Now he knows exactly what he's doing, and most importantly, why.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is, to me, just about the best representation of the creative process, which is why the last 30 minutes are so, as you put it, orgasmic. Imagine an artist having the chance of meeting the source of their divine inspiration, of embarking with them to the unknown depths of the human imagination. It's a similar ending to 2001, only a much more optimistic one because Roy doesn't give up his humanity in the process.

Raiders, I'm glad you agree that the last 30 minutes are awesome, but I think you're underestimating what comes before. The whole movie, slowly and systematically builds up to the ending; just like the shark in Jaws, here we're shown the aliens sparingly at first, and the movie is focused on the effect they cause on the people they interact with. By the time of the house invasion, we're still not sure if they're benign or not, which is why the sequence works so frighteningly well; same thing with the road chase, which establishes that they're already causing considerable havoc in even such a small community. I don't think there's anything silly or awkward about this film. The Bigfoot thing might have been lame if he actually started monologuing, but it was cut short and is just a brief comic relief moment.

The only criticism I can empathize with is the mishandling of Roy's wife and kids. Although I feel that it makes the film feel a lot more honest than if he'd stayed with them (as I said before, vulnerability is an attractive trait in art for me), it's true, they do kind of get the shaft. But it's only a minor problem for me; did it really leave such a sour taste in your mouth that you knocked off a whole star because of it?

Raiders

12-29-2010, 01:55 PM

The only criticism I can empathize with is the mishandling of Roy's wife and kids. Although I feel that it makes the film feel a lot more honest than if he'd stayed with them (as I said before, vulnerability is an attractive trait in art for me), it's true, they do kind of get the shaft. But it's only a minor problem for me; did it really leave such a sour taste in your mouth that you knocked off a whole star because of it?

Well, it severely hampered the final moments for me so yes, it did have a significant impact. I also mentioned that unlike you, I did find certain scenes awkward and ineffective prior to the last segment. My rating felt appropriate.

StanleyK

01-01-2011, 09:31 PM

Well, it severely hampered the final moments for me so yes, it did have a significant impact. I also mentioned that unlike you, I did find certain scenes awkward and ineffective prior to the last segment. My rating felt appropriate.

Fair enough. I will agree that having Roy and Jillian hook up in the end was bizarre and unnecessary, and a little (but only a little) distracting.

megladon8

01-01-2011, 09:33 PM

Just wanted to say that while I haven't been posting in here, I've been following the thread loyally.

Some fantastic writing, Raiders.

StanleyK

01-06-2011, 02:01 PM

1941 is... not awful. Bad, yes, but the second half held some redeeming qualities for me.

Raiders

01-06-2011, 02:08 PM

1941 is shipping from Netflix today. Will watch it this weekend.

balmakboor

01-06-2011, 05:31 PM

I like 1941. My dad and I went to see it in the theater in 1979 while my mom and sister went to see Kramer vs. Kramer. I still think we made the right choice.

Sven

01-06-2011, 06:00 PM

1941 is so much better than its reputation. Not exactly "good", per se, but far from "bad" and has quite a few laughs and a few interesting setpieces.

Russ

01-06-2011, 06:05 PM

I'd still put the USO dance sequence up there with the best that Spielberg has done.

transmogrifier

01-06-2011, 06:11 PM

No, 1941 is atrocious. It is like one very long, one-note screech from beginning to end, and totally unfunny. One of the worst films I have seen in like 5 years. I want to scrub my brain out and forget I wasted over two hours of my life on that crap.

transmogrifier

01-06-2011, 06:12 PM

I like 1941. My dad and I went to see it in the theater in 1979 while my mom and sister went to see Kramer vs. Kramer. I still think we made the right choice.

I hope you and your Dad got better at movies :)

Kramer vs. Kramer is like the second coming of cinematic genius compared to Spielberg's atrocity.

Russ

01-09-2011, 01:29 AM

Thanks to Raiders' stroll thru Spielberg's filmography, I revisited AI: Artificial Intelligence today. You know that I'm not the biggest Spielberg fan around, and I've always been a bit mixed on this film. However, I came away from today's viewing with a bit more favorable impression, particularly on two fronts: (1) Haley Joel Osment, whom I've always found a bit creepy in this film, actually gives a remarkable performance. In spite of the fact that I find his mannerisms somewhat irritating, I can't deny that this is the most perfect representation of what it's like to not be human (while trying very hard to be human) that I've seen. Also, (2) There are many brilliant individual scenes scattered throughout (as, I guess, is par for the typical Spielbergian course). I especially found the imprinting scene between David and "mommy" particularly moving. I just loved the way he filmed that sequence.

My past reservations aside (the themes of tragedy and abandonment, and the sometimes cruel tone of the first half), I sometimes think this may rank with Spielberg's very best. And to reiterate, so much of it, I think, is grounded in Osment's understated (and underappreciated?) performance. Of course, Spielberg really set the tone for that performance by finding ways to film him as eerily alien an entiy as he could in the early going.

A pretty fascinating film that I'm glad has proved to be a rewarding rewatch.

StanleyK

05-18-2011, 01:55 AM

Since it's been a while, is it okay if I start posting my thoughts as I go? Don't wanna hog the spotlight or nothing; I promise, they won't be nearly as well-thought out or insightful as yours.

Raiders

05-18-2011, 01:56 AM

Go ahead. My only reservation is having lengthy convos before I have even gotten to the film. But, it's cool. I've watched 1941 (Sunday night) and hope to have it up in a day or two.

StanleyK

05-18-2011, 02:27 AM

Neat, thanks! Here's what I wrote on 1941 on January, unedited:

Spielberg is good at directing mayhem, and the latter half of 1941 is practically nothing but. That USO dance chase is a blast, and the camerawork and editing are never less than impeccable; the man is just a born filmmaker, I guess. And amidst all the chaos, in which we have 'americans fighting americans' like Aykroyd's character admonished, americans shooting down american aircrafts, a theme emerges, if to be left relatively unexplored, that in the wartime, it's difficult to tell friend from foe.

The film's damning flaw is that it's not funny. Like, not even remotely. I laughed zero times and may have cracked one or two smiles during its entire running time. The humor in 1941 is insultingly broad, grossly unsophisticated, reeks of misogyny, and has ultimately little to do with its themes. If it was anything but a comedy, it might have been passable; as it is, we have Spielberg's biggest (or so I hope) clunker.

And here's what I wrote on Raiders of the Lost Ark, actually a while before I rewatched it. I didn't really finish it, or expand on it later, because I was a bit demotivated- it went from all-time top 10 material to a maybe top 100 film.

The deus ex machina is perhaps the most reviled narrative trope, which is why it's so noteworthy that Spielberg seems to be particularly fond of it, and uses it to great effect in many of his films. Raiders of the Lost Ark ends with a literal example, as God himself springs from the Ark of Covenant to obliterate the nazis. The heroes, tied to a post and unable to act, escape from His wrath simply by closing their eyes, shielding themselves from His magnificent image which is too awesome (in the literal sense of the word) for a mere mortal. But we, the audience, obviously don't follow the advice; we watch, and so we're implicated with the villains. It's a pretty ballsy move from a mainstream action film, to suggest that the audience is actually not worthy of watching it.

This is, of course, contrary to most other mainstream action films, a genre particularly riddled with audience wish-fulfillment. Your typical action hero is devoid of personality (for us to project ourselves onto them), physically and mentally superior (for us to feel that way vicariously). Not so with Indiana Jones. He's smart and strong, to be sure, but not to an exaggerated extent, and certainly not invincible. He gets hurt, he bleeds. He's human. He's flawed: his search for the Ark borders on obsession, and he pursues it to the detriment of his relationships with people. He succeeds through a mixture of quick thinking and luck. His actions are thrilling not because we imagine ourselves in his place, but because we like Indy. He's a man with a goal (the basic staple of storytelling) and we want him to achieve it.

The Ark being a macguffin, what Indy really wants is what it represents; it's a 'radio for talking to God', a way to get in touch with one's spiritual side, one's artistic side. Like Roy Neary in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and like Spielberg with Close Encounters. Here comes into play Spielberg's other big fondness, the author avatar. The artist has already achieved enlightenment in Close Encounters, and now he's just as ready to renounce it (note that Raiders of the Lost Ark follows the by most accounts too indulgent 1941- this film is a redemption of sorts for him). So at the climactic moment, Dr. Jones closes his eyes, he humbly declines to tap into his innermost, and is rewarded for it by surviving. The nazis, way in over their heads, defame their artistic inspiration for nefarious purposes, and are punished by way of exploding heads and melting faces.

I still think all that applies, but this fourth viewing I picked up on a lot of little flaws (some editing choices, like unnecessary cutaways to a close-up of something easily noticed in the wide shot, breaking the flow of the action; Indy's casual attitude towards killing, understandable but always unpleasant to me; the film's slight portrayal of the natives)- none of them terribly significant by themselves, but put together they diminished my enjoyment of it.

StanleyK

05-18-2011, 03:10 AM

With E.T., it's clear that Spielberg's biggest preoccupation early on his career was achieving legitimacy as an artist, and he went about it by making films detailing journeys into enlightenment (religious, artistic, personal...); his favorite recourse is to use an otherworldly phenomenon as a metaphor for the impulses which compel people towards this goal. In this film, the protagonist is Elliot, a little boy dying to grow up but not quite possessing the emotional chops yet, and the metaphor is E.T., who he will befriend, temporarily lose, and finally let go, learning in the process what the didn't learn the first time he lost someone (his father, another common Spielberg theme): that adulthood is comprised of just such bonds being made and broken, and one has to deal with the pain. In the end, he realizes this and thus makes his first step towards growing up (tellingly, Spielberg's next film was his first stab at a 'serious' movie, The Color Purple).

The film's biggest flaw is that, paradoxically to its most important theme of growing up, the finale is a protracted exercise in child empowerment, a self-indulgent fantasy where kids are the heroes and save the day, continuously outsmarting friggin' FBI agents. I also wish I could have seen the original version of the film, rather than the 20th anniversary one; besides the infamous gun/walkie-talkie thing, updating the visual effects to modern CGI is a monumentally bad idea. The CGI E.T. clashes with the 80's film aesthetic, at best distracting, at worst irritating.

To end on a positive note, I'll point out that Spielberg's direction is phenomenal. He really understands how to use the frame itself as the main storytelling device, letting sound and images do the talking even during dialogue scenes. Here's possibly my favorite shot, from a scene which provides a touching shade of humanization to the film's antagonists:

http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad271/PTA-Dre/cap004.jpg

Pop Trash

05-18-2011, 06:18 PM

Nice. Spielberg's best films (eg A.I.)often use those warped reflections to express the state of mind of the characters.

Dead & Messed Up

05-18-2011, 09:00 PM

To end on a positive note, I'll point out that Spielberg's direction is phenomenal. He really understands how to use the frame itself as the main storytelling device, letting sound and images do the talking even during dialogue scenes. Here's possibly my favorite shot, from a scene which provides a touching shade of humanization to the film's antagonists:

http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/ad271/PTA-Dre/cap004.jpg

The film is very savvy with its antagonists. They're treated as the real aliens, with their imposing suits and mysterious ambitions and hidden faces...and then they're revealed as a bunch of normal people, almost as invested as Elliott in this mysterious being, and just as awed. Peter Coyote's character of Keys obviously holds some power as an archetype of the 'berg's Flawed Father, but he's also a grown up kid. He relates to Elliott. The chases that transpire afterwards don't suggest malice so much as the quote-unquote villains impeding a vital deadline (ET returning to his ship). Which is why I can understand Spielberg wanting to delete the guns (even if I don't agree).

Regarding the chase...it's not that they outsmart the feds - they have a natural superiority given their more maneuverable vehicles and better understanding of the world around them. A few moments play as childish reversals (the men parking their car at the bottom of the hill), but most of it is plausible and ties in directly to the motif of adults being less perceptive of the world around them than children. Elliott's mom, after all, is the last one to realize there's a space creature living with her children.

Anyway. Great stuff. I should watch The Color Purple so I can enjoy the next review.

StanleyK

05-23-2011, 05:46 PM

Anyway. Great stuff. I should watch The Color Purple so I can enjoy the next review.

I forgot that there's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I gotta say, I'm not really looking forward to it.

Just for kicks, and to see how my predictions will fare, these are the Spielberg movies I think will hold up:

100% sure I'll still love them:
Jurassic Park
Schindler's List

Pretty positive:
Artificial Intelligence: AI
War of the Worlds

These have a very good shot:
Minority Report
Saving Private Ryan

Maybe these ones...
Catch Me if You Can
Empire of the Sun
Munich

The rest I'm seeing pretty much out of obligation, but I'm open to being pleasantly surprised.

StanleyK

05-25-2011, 12:56 AM

I've probably said this before, and I'll end up saying it again repeatedly: Spielberg is the best action filmmaker ever. All of his action sequences have clearly defined goals, spatially coherent and wonderfully choreographed action with just enough grit to make it believable, and they're all presented through clear cinematography and sharp editing. While all that's present in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, this isn't what I'd pick as an example of Spielberg at his prime. There's several occasions where he cheats the audience by showing Indy at mortal danger on a close-up, only for a wider shot to reveal that he's actually much further from whatever's threatening him (this happens with the spiked ceiling and the conveyor belt, at the very least). That, and some of the more far-fetched escapes (such as dropping from a falling plane in an inflatable boat) strip away the tension of the scene. As the climax went on, I found myself increasingly exhausted; thinking back to Raiders of the Lost Ark, the last action scene in that film happened 20 minutes from the ending, and the rest of the running time is devoted to sneaking around and dramatic stand-offs, with the finale being essentially a horror scene. That was much more exciting than the escalating action in Temple of Doom.

Outside of the action, the movie holds up about as well as I could've expected. While its attitude towards casually dispatching bad guys and the portrayal of natives still bother me, the aspect I found most bothersome is the misogyny. Willie Scott is a shrill, shallow character; Indy hates her, the movie hates her and it wants us to hate her too by making her as much of a burden as possible. And so she constantly gets in Indy's way, and he has to roll his eyes and bail her out. I think the ending where he manhandles her is somehow supposed to be endearing, but I thought it was just disturbing. I have mixed feelings towards Short Round. About half of his lines are funny ("Maybe he like older women?"); the other half are insultingly stupid attempts at comic relief (he literally points at something we're supposed to find funny and says, "ha ha, very funny!").

Overall, Temple of Doom is deeply flawed but very entertaining. It doesn't have Spielberg's usual mastery of the visual form to convey themes (Indy's motivation of "fortune and glory", evoked occasionally but never given enough context to resonate, can't hold a candle to his creepily obsessed stares at the Ark in Raiders), but it does have one some of the most grim and challenging violence ever to be found in children's entertainment, and while a racially complicated at best image, the ending with all the children returning to the village has an important place in the Spielberg canon. Plus, you gotta respect any action movie that starts with an elaborate musical sequence; that takes some balls.

Russ

05-25-2011, 12:59 AM

I've probably said this before, and I'll end up saying it again repeatedly: Spielberg is the best action filmmaker ever.
I might lobby for George Miller, but that's probably splitting hairs. Yeah, I can see it.

StanleyK

05-25-2011, 02:28 AM

I might lobby for George Miller, but that's probably splitting hairs. Yeah, I can see it.

All I've seen from Miller are the Mad Max's and Happy Feet; judging from those, it's not even close.

Dead & Messed Up

05-25-2011, 04:14 AM

All I've seen from Miller are the Mad Max's and Happy Feet; judging from those, it's not even close.

The Road Warrior climax is brilliantly executed.

...can't hold a candle to his creepily obsessed stares at the Ark in Raiders...

Seriously? You think so? Check it:

http://www.theraider.net/films/todoom/gallery/dvdscreenshots/260.jpg

Irish

05-25-2011, 06:12 AM

Overall, Temple of Doom is deeply flawed but very entertaining.

Fantastic write-up. Even when I disagree with your conclusions, I love reading your stuff.

Temple of Doom is one of the worst things Spielberg and Lucas ever produced together. (I'll blame George for most of it, because he's copped to its awfulness in interviews.)

While it has great set pieces, it's a structural and dramatic mess. The heroes don't even get to the outside of the temple until a whopping 45 minutes into the runtime. It's too self-serious. Instead of John Rhys-Davies' gentle comic relief we get a kid yelling his dialogue in a coolie accent, and a female lead that tries too hard to be the polar opposite of Karen Allen's Marion Ravenwood. Indy is alone up there, and worse, because the villains are cartoonish cultural stereotypes it doesn't seem to matter. The stakes aren't big enough.

When I first saw this movie, I actually forgot what artifacts Indy was after, and why they mattered. That's a helluva change from Raiders.

On top of that, in my mind this is the movie that helped ruin modern cinema. It helped create the awfulness that is "PG-13" and an environment that keeps American movies in a state of persistent pubescence, where we substitute set piece action for real drama and sell a peculiar, bloodless hyper-violence to kids.

Pop Trash

05-26-2011, 06:46 AM

Some days I love Temple of Doom more than life itself.

Dukefrukem

05-26-2011, 12:41 PM

Some days I love Temple of Doom more than life itself.

Does that mean Raiders and Last Crusade are above life?

StanleyK

05-26-2011, 03:59 PM

The Road Warrior climax is brilliantly executed.

David Bordwell would agree with you, which makes me want to revisit it, but both times I saw it I thought it was just pretty good. I think I preferred Beyond Thunderdome.

Seriously? You think so? Check it:

Okay, that is one creepily obsessed stare. Don't know how I missed it.

On top of that, in my mind this is the movie that helped ruin modern cinema. It helped create the awfulness that is "PG-13" and an environment that keeps American movies in a state of persistent pubescence, where we substitute set piece action for real drama and sell a peculiar, bloodless hyper-violence to kids.

I don't think it's fair to fault a movie for whatever imitations or trends it spawns. Besides, Temple of Doom is gory and disturbing as hell; I doubt the bloodlessness of modern PG-13 films is inspired by it.

Irish

05-26-2011, 04:03 PM

I don't think it's fair to fault a movie for whatever imitations or trends it spawns.

I agree; mostly that was an excuse to voice my hatred of PG-13 and give voice to the #4 on my Why George Lucas is My Mortal Enemy list.

Rowland

05-26-2011, 07:41 PM

The Shanghai prologue is my favorite bit from ToD. Otherwise, I find it a bit of a slog, exacerbated by its tone-deaf approximations of "darkness" that clash with its juvenile sense of humor and how irritatingly written and performed are the Short Round and Capshaw characters.

transmogrifier

05-26-2011, 08:12 PM

Does that mean Raiders and Last Crusade are above life?

Temple of Doom is leagues better than Last Crusade. Last Crusade is as conventional, cookie-cutter and inspiration-free as Spielberg has ever been. Crystal Skull is the worst film, but it tries new things.

Dukefrukem

05-26-2011, 08:22 PM

conventional, cookie-cutter?? Oh man I gotta here more.

transmogrifier

05-26-2011, 08:25 PM

conventional, cookie-cutter?? Oh man I gotta here more.

Better yet, just watch the movie. Or rather, don't.

Qrazy

05-26-2011, 08:33 PM

Temple of Doom is leagues better than Last Crusade. Last Crusade is as conventional, cookie-cutter and inspiration-free as Spielberg has ever been. Crystal Skull is the worst film, but it tries new things.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/265/3/b/french_lolwut_pear_by_neil95-d2zamjd.png

Dead & Messed Up

05-26-2011, 09:13 PM

I find Last Crusade charming. Its action is rote and relatively uninspired, especially compared to the pioneering first film and the house-of-horrors sequel, but the Connery/Ford relationship is delightful, and its most inspired moments (Indy meets Hitler, Indy lancing a Nazi, "He chose poorly") are just as iconic and vivid as the best moments of the earlier films.

I'd reserve the charges of conventional and cookie-cutter and inspiration-free for The Lost World, whose dino-chasery cannot begin to compensate for the boring father/daughter dynamic, the derivative imagery, and the awful hunters/scientists dichotomy. Even with the trailer chase and compy attack on Stormare, the film's a total wash.

D_Davis

05-26-2011, 09:40 PM

Rowland

05-26-2011, 09:41 PM

The Last Crusade is easily the most square film of the series, and Spielberg's direction reflects that, but at least I don't find it actively abrasive like much of ToD. The prologue sets a sort of boy's-adventure-tale tone that the film actively maintains throughout, and it's certainly charming enough, if featherweight and probably earnest to a fault. It's also a bit of a slog to sit through, but I recall it more fondly than ToD for the most part.

transmogrifier

05-26-2011, 10:11 PM

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/265/3/b/french_lolwut_pear_by_neil95-d2zamjd.png

I'm going to assume that this red X is someone showing a big thumbs up.

Irish

05-26-2011, 10:15 PM

I find Last Crusade charming. Its action is rote and relatively uninspired, especially compared to the pioneering first film and the house-of-horrors sequel, but the Connery/Ford relationship is delightful, and its most inspired moments (Indy meets Hitler, Indy lancing a Nazi, "He chose poorly") are just as iconic and vivid as the best moments of the earlier films.

I agree that the Connery/Ford chemistry makes the film. But in a way, that's a shame. The only reason to view it is for the two of them.

That's far afield from where the series started, in a great adventure movie with spectacular set pieces and action on action in every scene.

Qrazy

05-26-2011, 11:52 PM

The final trials at the end of Crusade are just as iconic for me as the opening sequence of the first film. Also it's a great final shot to end the series on... shame about that wedding bullshit in the fourth crapfest.

StanleyK

05-28-2011, 01:46 AM

The Color Purple is so inert that I get the impression Spielberg was just going through the motions to get his first dramatic narrative done without any investment with the material or any consideration for what might actually suit it. Todd Alcott (http://toddalcott.livejournal.com/190201.html) articulates my problems with the movie's presentation perfectly:

Spielberg's typically fluid, seamless direction doesn't feel like it matches the material and leads to hyperbole and cartoonishness. Everything is overdone -- Harpo isn't just a poor carpenter, he's a bumbling oaf who repeatedly falls through rooftops. His juke-joint doesn't merely leak in the rain, it becomes a veritable indoor shower. Miss Millie isn't merely a poor driver, she's a caricature of a hysterical, swerving madwoman. Mister's farm doesn't just fall into ruin, he ends up with goats in the kitchen and shutters falling off the windows on cue. Shug doesn't merely refuse a poorly-cooked breakfast, she hurls it across the hallway so that it leaves primary-colored splatters on the wall.

The film's tone-deaf swerving between histrionically performed drama and the silly slapstick, the cartoonish villains and the unconditionally good protagonist, the heaps of white guilt through the mayor's wife subplot, everything works towards robbing the story of the emotional impact it should have and rendering it unchallenging and safe.

A slog to sit through as it may be, I want to give the movie props for at least being brave enough not to shy away from the lesbianism angle of Celie and Shug's relationship, and the letter-reading scenes were interesting in that they weren't literal renditions, but rather Celie's interpretations of Nettie's accounts. Otherwise, The Color Purple rests squarely on its perfomers' shoulders, and instead of Goldberg, Avery or Winfrey, I want to single out Danny Glover for praise. The man takes a nonthreatening buffoon and manages to make him a scary presence (in at least the scenes where he's supposed to be scary; I wish he'd have kept a menacing edge in the lighter comedic scenes, but I believe he did the best with what he was given).

StanleyK

06-01-2011, 10:59 PM

From The Color Purple to Empire of the Sun, Spielberg seems to have learned to be a lot more willing to step outside of his comfort zone. And so, instead of a suffering saint for a protagonist, we get a child who switches allegiance at the drop of a hat and looks out mostly for himself. Instead of cartoon slapstick for comic relief, we get grim humor (Jim repeating the Hershey's Bar taunt to a littler child; or when it looks like he's going to give a hand to a beaten man, and instead grabs a rock to carry and avoid the same beating) which feels a necessary part of the whole rather than a simple distraction from its horrors. Most of all, instead of a safe movie which provides us all the easy answers, we get a complex and unflinching look at the effects of colonialism, the obliviousness of the upper class, and the amorality necessary to survive in extreme situations. From the opening shot of the coffins floating down the river, to the closing shot which echoes it with Jim's suitcase in the same river, all the traumatic experiences which reshaped him from a clueless kid to a shell-shocked survivor floating adrift, this is Spielberg's most potent film yet, standing alongside Close Encounters of the Third Kind as some of the most arresting imagery he's ever captured, his use of pure sound and images to convey meaning and evoke emotions as keen as ever.

Irish

06-01-2011, 11:29 PM

StanleyK

06-02-2011, 03:01 AM

Spielberg runs into trouble when he pushes too hard for profundity or emotion. It ends up mawkish and false. The guy just can't do subtlety at all.

I agree with this on The Color Purple, which is phony and doesn't trust its audience, but Empire of the Sun is very effective and rewarding of emotional investment. The dreamy quality of early scenes such as the limo ride through the crowded streets make a sharp contrast with the grit of the camp, reflecting Jim's journey from an utopian, sheltered life to having to face the harsh reality. Towards the end of the film, the dreaminess and grit merge (the kamikaze planes taking off to the music which goes on even after Jim stops singing, the A-bomb which feels like a soul going to heaven) as his sanity slips, coming to a head in the "I can bring everyone back" scene, where he confronts himself: his lost innocence, his selfishness, all the people he's hurt, the consequences to his actions. It's a very powerful moment because it's the pay-off to the whole movie's build-up of the character, a rich portrayal which doesn't sanctify or demonize, idealize or distance from him. I find it very emotionally honest, as far from mawkish or false as drama gets.

Bosco B Thug

06-02-2011, 07:51 PM

152 minutes of pure pain.

I haven't seen this in years, having viewed it once is one times too many.

Spielberg runs into trouble when he pushes too hard for profundity or emotion. It ends up mawkish and false. The guy just can't do subtlety at all.

Which is fine, because the other things he does, he does very well.

As always, Stanley, great write up You are one tough cookie, Irish. Never anything positive to say. :) I'm what you call not a Spielberg fan, and I thought Empire of the Sun was superb. As Stanley says, it's the one film of his that leaves safe zones.

Irish

06-02-2011, 07:57 PM

It's a very powerful moment because it's the pay-off to the whole movie's build-up of the character, a rich portrayal which doesn't sanctify or demonize, idealize or distance from him. I find it very emotionally honest, as far from mawkish or false as drama gets.

You are one tough cookie, Irish. Never anything positive to say. :) I'm what you call not a Spielberg fan, and I thought it was superb.

To be honest, I'd have to see it again. It's been yeeeeeeeeaaaaars since I watched it.

Given what you've both said here, I'm tempted to give it another watch.

soitgoes...

06-02-2011, 08:11 PM

Yeah, Empire of the Sun is my second favorite Speilberg film. So good.

Bosco B Thug

06-02-2011, 08:26 PM

To be honest, I'd have to see it again. It's been yeeeeeeeeaaaaars since I watched it.

Given what you've both said here, I'm tempted to give it another watch.
That's better. :cool:

Oh, and I watched Schindler's List. It's solid. Well-arrived documentary impulse throughout (balancing out Spielberg's often manic stylizing) and a strong dramatic device in the dual storylines of Schindler and Goeth.

Irish

06-02-2011, 08:27 PM

Grabbing it off iTunes, will watch tonight.

Bosco B Thug

06-02-2011, 08:32 PM

Grabbing it off iTunes, will watch tonight. Oh my God.

*runs around like a chicken that got its head cut off, then prepares for possible battle*

Raiders

06-02-2011, 08:34 PM

Fuck 1941. I'll come back to it. I just have no interest in writing about it given the limited amount of free time I have to write anything substantial. I'm moving forward.

StanleyK

06-03-2011, 11:32 AM

Fuck 1941. I'll come back to it. I just have no interest in writing about it given the limited amount of free time I have to write anything substantial. I'm moving forward.

Throw us a bone. Did you absolutely hate it? Think it was not that terrible? Sometimes funny, or never at all funny?

transmogrifier

06-03-2011, 11:47 AM

Fuck 1941.

The perfect review of that movie.

Raiders

06-03-2011, 01:47 PM

Fine...

1941
(1979)

http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/1941-1979-dan-aykroyd-ned-beatty-pic-4.jpg

Nothing is more subjective, perhaps in all the world, than the art of comedy. It is almost impossible to pinpoint in each of us what makes us laugh; why we laugh at certain humor and not others. Often discussion of comedy comes down to a "different strokes" agreement with "I found it funny" and "I didn't" being about as much as we can defend. After watching Steven Spielberg's 1941, still the director's only pure attempt at comedy, it can objectively be said that it is loud. Very loud. Almost every character is pitched at a great volume both in personality and in their vocal delivery. What cannot be said is that it is funny, at least not to me.

Spielberg builds the comedy much the same way he builds a summer action spectacle. In the process, he unfortunately drowns out and suffocates the actual humor. The film cannibalizes its own strengths. John Belushi doing what John Belushi does winds up simply matching the scenery instead of being the high-pitched highlight; Robert Stack's deadpan calm fails to be as effective as in Airplane! because it simply gets swallowed up. There is no "comic timing" in the film, it is one long view of hysteria pitched at 11 for its whole length.

Yet, in this over-produced mayhem comes a kind of admirable ridiculousness. There's a quaintness, yes quaintness, to the film's screaming and shouting and all-out absurdity despite it never once coming to ground for any breaths. Even if the film is almost never actually funny, it has some kind of eloquence in throwing everything at the viewer it can think of (I particularly liked Ned Beatty's obtaining an anti-aircraft gun to mount on his beach-front property and Stack’s response to Dumbo—a mildly funny moment but also subtly interesting comment on his remove from the mayhem outside, burying himself instead in a classic moral children’s film).

What ultimately happens is the realization Zemeckis and Gale had something here. There is an idea in there about finding the comedy in the post-Pearl Harbor west coast mindset, about how decorum and common sense become lost in the panic. There is a nice cultural look at LA in the time period, not only in the war paranoia but as well the zoot suits. If only Spielberg and his crew had showed some restraint in characterization and tone, a lot of the events could have seemed almost surreal, a kind of deadpan hysteria that I believe would have been not only a lot funnier but more thoughtful in the nature of what it was dealing with. But Spielberg doesn’t deal well with the largely plotless affair, frenetically cutting back and forth and losing any momentum and winds up creating too much story and too much noise.

Still, if nothing else, you have to give Spielberg, the man largely responsible for Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, credit for taking such an irreverent stance to World War II. It can be said with near certainty we will never see this again from him, and even if this result is rather poor, that does make me a little sad.

[**]

Dukefrukem

06-03-2011, 01:51 PM

I'm loving the Last Crusade love here.

StanleyK

06-03-2011, 11:21 PM

What ultimately happens is the realization Zemeckis and Gale had something here. There is an idea in there about finding the comedy in the post-Pearl Harbor west coast mindset, about how decorum and common sense become lost in the panic. There is a nice cultural look at LA in the time period, not only in the war paranoia but as well the zoot suits. If only Spielberg and his crew had showed some restraint in characterization and tone, a lot of the events could have seemed almost surreal, a kind of deadpan hysteria that I believe would have been not only a lot funnier but more thoughtful in the nature of what it was dealing with. But Spielberg doesn’t deal well with the largely plotless affair, frenetically cutting back and forth and losing any momentum and winds up creating too much story and too much noise.

Still, if nothing else, you have to give Spielberg, the man largely responsible for Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, credit for taking such an irreverent stance to World War II. It can be said with near certainty we will never see this again from him, and even if this result is rather poor, that does make me a little sad.

I agree with basically everything you say, this part especially. I got the impression that there was some kind of powerful statement or something about wars bubbling under the surface, which could've come across if only the movie wasn't so desperate (and failing soundly at) to entertain. Even the USO dance brawl, which is the best part, is more impressive than actually funny.

Russ

06-03-2011, 11:30 PM

I got the impression that there was some kind of powerful statement or something about wars bubbling under the surface.
I'm a bit of a 1941 defender, I guess, but what the heck gave you that idea?

StanleyK

06-03-2011, 11:40 PM

I'm a bit of a 1941 defender, I guess, but what the heck gave you that idea?

The Wild Bill Kelso shenanigans did:

And amidst all the chaos, in which we have 'americans fighting americans' like Aykroyd's character admonished, americans shooting down american aircrafts, a theme emerges, if to be left relatively unexplored, that in the wartime, it's difficult to tell friend from foe.

Raiders

06-03-2011, 11:59 PM

I think it is intended to be the Maple Street syndrome to an extent; in time of hysteria and panic, we turn on each other.

Watashi

06-16-2011, 06:49 AM

I can has updates?

Dukefrukem

06-16-2011, 12:50 PM

I can has updates?

An update on Spielberg?

Hollywood Reporter is saying director/producer Steven Spielberg has been meeting with screenwriter Mark Protosevich to kick around ideas for how to reboot the lucrative dino-tale. (They can't get it off the ground just by using the the moniker "3-D"?) Both Universal, which released the trilogy, and Spielberg's camp stress that no one has been engaged to write a script and that the discussions have been purely exploratory.

StanleyK

06-16-2011, 02:29 PM

Always feels to me like the epitome of a director who doesn't care going through the motions. Imagine the blandest, most watered down Hollywood romance, with glaringly artificial characters (and their disconnect from reality isn't part of any theme) who talk exclusively in 'cute' comic relief and 'deep' philosophizings. Not a single moment in the film feels sincere, it's one of the phoniest and most workmanlike I can remember seeing in quite some time. Dreyfuss' character, the protagonist, is a total asshole, spending the little time he's alive putting down his friends and girlfriend with sarcastic remarks. The main conflict of the film is that after he's dead, he has to let his girlfriend move on (which is pretty backwards and fucked up now that I think about it), and so he has to learn to stop being controlling and obsessive and makes her have an epiphany. But in the end, as the movie doesn't consider the possibility that people can be happy single, he hands her off to his protégé, condescendingly calling them 'my girl... and my boy'. He's no less of an asshole, he's just a different kind of asshole, and with the same hero complex. Nothing has been learned, and my time has been wasted. It's kind of impressive how death itself is rendered uninteresting by how boring this story is; in fact, at several instances I felt I was going to pass out of boredom. Spielberg's movies tend to, even at their weakest, be at least entertaining; this is, by my estimation, his worst by far, taking the distinction away from the occasionally interesting 1941.

balmakboor

06-16-2011, 02:46 PM

Nah, I like Always. My only problem is the pacing is a bit too slow.

For Father's Day every year, I make my daughters sit down without cellphones and watch a movie with me. They've never seen Jaws. I'll fix that on Sunday.

Irish

06-16-2011, 02:55 PM

Well said. Always is an awful movie. Too bad it was one of Audrey Hepburn's last roles.

Can't wait for the write up on Hook.

Sven

06-16-2011, 03:01 PM

Nah, I like Always.

Haha. Yeah, I like it too. Looks like StanleyK and I are looking for different things.

StanleyK

06-16-2011, 03:08 PM

Nah, I like Always.

Haha. Yeah, I like it too. Looks like StanleyK and I are looking for different things.

What do you guys like about it?

Well said. Always is an awful movie. Too bad it was one of Audrey Hepburn's last roles.

Can't wait for the write up on Hook.

Just curious: how many Spielberg movies have you seen? And were there any ones that you enjoyed?

Irish

06-16-2011, 03:25 PM

Just curious: how many Spielberg movies have you seen?

All of them except Sugarland Express, Color Purple, and 1941.

And were there any ones that you enjoyed?

Sure. I like a lot of the stuff he did in the 70s and 80s. After that, I think he relies heavily on cheap emotion (Shindler's List) and big spectacle (Private Ryan). I think he gets far too much credit for being some kind of master auteur when in reality, he's a journeyman moviemaker and always has been.

Watashi

06-16-2011, 05:50 PM

Hook is a movie I make sure to see every year.

Still is amazing with every rewatch.

Watashi

06-16-2011, 05:52 PM

I haven't seen Sugarland Express, 1941, Always, or Amistad.

I need to rewatch Empire of the Sun, The Last Crusade, and Catch Me If You Can.

transmogrifier

06-16-2011, 06:02 PM

I haven't seen Sugarland Express, 1941, Always, or Amistad.

I need to rewatch Empire of the Sun, The Last Crusade, and Catch Me If You Can.

Except for Empire of the Sun, you probably have his 6 worst films listed there.

StanleyK

06-24-2011, 11:52 PM

transmogrifier was right: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is bland, superficial and unexciting. Which is very strange, considering it's the most overt yet use of the 'distant fathers' theme Spielberg is so fond of. I think he's better off dealing with it in more metaphorical ways, such as in Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T. Those movies were sincere and heartfelt; here, like in his other effort of the year, the people and their drama are held at a distance, scrutinized rather than being involved with, likely due to the film's light and jokey tone. Nothing is taken very seriously, everything is comically exaggerated: Henry Jones Sr. isn't just absent, he straight up doesn't give a shit about anything that happens with Indy; the opening doesn't just show Indy's first adventure, he acquires basically every piece of his mythos in the course of one evening; it's not enough that we know the nazis are bad, we have to see them at a book-burning rally; and so on. The film's action, I must say, is top-notch, and the climax at the cave is very well-handled, but with no emotional weight to any of it, it ends up very dull, just a technical feat to be admired rather than a genuinely gripping story.

Dukefrukem

06-25-2011, 04:01 AM

Ezee E

06-25-2011, 05:02 AM

Yeah, Last Crusade might actually be my fave of the bunch.

amberlita

06-25-2011, 06:05 AM

After that, I think he relies heavily on cheap emotion (Shindler's List)

I don't think that's fair to the film. It's powerful with a brutal honesty for the entire running until the final 5 or 10 minutes when it cheapens itself. But a weak coda doesn't ruin how brilliant the rest of the movie is.

Irish

06-25-2011, 11:47 AM

I don't think that's fair to the film. It's powerful with a brutal honesty for the entire running until the final 5 or 10 minutes when it cheapens itself. But a weak coda doesn't ruin how brilliant the rest of the movie is.

Honesty? I don't know about that. When I talk about cheap emotion, I'm talking about stuff like this (QUJ187mkMq8).

If you watch the movie, pay careful attention to incidents of violence and tension. You'll notice that Spielberg's camera is no more than 5 seconds away from framing a small child in the center of the screen at every incidence of Nazi insanity. He doesn't just do this once or twice, but every time. That alone is manipulative as hell.

The movie contains a lot of powerful, emotional images and sequences. But then so does any book, documentary, or comic about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

For a dramatic, narrative filmmaker, getting an emotional reaction out of your audience with this kind of material is a gimme. It's a done deal, and in that sense, cheap, because Spielberg doesn't have to work any anything. He doesn't have to bother with story arcs or characters because only someone made of stone wouldn't well up at Amon Goth's random brutality.

StanleyK

06-25-2011, 02:52 PM

"No Ticket!" / The chair sequence with the spinning wall / breaking through the crypt at the library / The entire scene when we meet Connery for the first time....

I liked the "no ticket" bit. The rest of these were very 'meh' for me.

Chac Mool

06-25-2011, 03:41 PM

Last Crusade bland? Hell no. It has some of the best banter/comic relief in the entire series!!! Not to mention, the best opening.

"No Ticket!" / The chair sequence with the spinning wall / breaking through the crypt at the library / The entire scene when we meet Connery for the first time....

Agreed. It's hard to say which of the Trilogy is the best of the bunch, but "Last Crusade" is as much a contender as any of the others.

StanleyK

06-29-2011, 10:43 PM

Hook is another bland, disposable film with surprisingly shallow insights into Spielberg's favorite theme. This is the kind of movie where, to show that Robin Williams is a distant father, it resorts to showing a scene of him missing his son's baseball game. I never liked this cliché. Who gives a crap about some kid's lameass baseball game? We're supposed to cheer when his wife throws his cellphone out the window, and I hate movies that celebrate careless behavior that disregards consequences. The whole movie is such a celebration of Neverland, of boys who refuse to grow up and how having a job is like being a mean pirate. Buncha bullshit. It's also tonally inept and riddled with glaring inconsistencies in its internal logic:

Capt. Hook invades Wendy's home and kidnaps Peter's children. Why? That is, why now? Why is Hook kidnapping Peter's children now? How did he get to London? Can he travel back and forth between Neverland and our world at will? If so, why London? Why not kidnap Peter's children in Los Angeles, where they live every day? And why this night? Did he know Peter would be out of the house? How? If he knows so much about Peter's comings and goings, why is he so surprised to learn that he's grown up? For that matter, how could Hook hatch a devious plan to kidnap Peter's children and not understand that that means that Peter is grown up?

The action is really good, Spielberg rules visually, blah blah blah. This isn't offensively bad and dull like Always, but still definitely one of his weakest movies. The best thing I can say about it is that now I'm free to watch Jurassic Park and Schindler's List.

Oh, wait... I forgot about Twilight Zone: The Movie. I'll have to go back in the timeline and see that one next. Hook is worthless. Fuck Hook.

Dukefrukem

06-30-2011, 12:27 AM

I grew up on Hook, therefor I enjoy it thoroughly.

Irish

06-30-2011, 12:34 AM

Hook is another bland, disposable film with surprisingly shallow insights into Spielberg's favorite theme.

Somewhere, Watashi just burst into tears and has no idea why.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about Hook. The concept looks great on paper, but the whole thing feels like it was rushed into production based on the merits and bankability of the cast.

The adventure is pretty bland, and the "be true to yourself" bullshit borders on the insulting, even for a movie from Spielberg that's ostensibly aimed at children.

One bit of advice: At least watch Jurassic Park next, if not Schindler's list. No reason to punish yourself by viewing back to back bad Spielberg.

Winston*

06-30-2011, 12:40 AM

The concept looks great on paper

Does it? To me "middle aged Peter Pan" looks pretty terrible on paper.

Watashi

06-30-2011, 12:46 AM

Clearly, StanleyK is a pirate.

Irish

06-30-2011, 12:50 AM

Does it? To me "middle aged Peter Pan" looks pretty terrible on paper.

More "grown up" than "middle aged." As a concept, I think it's a pretty good question to ask, "What happens when the boy who never grows up actually grows up?"

Then you cast a guy in the lead who's got a ton of frenetic energy and no small amount of boyish charm. Sure, Williams was forty when the movie was made but hey! Forty is the new thirty right? He's also coming off popular performances in Dead Poets and Good Morning Vietnam and was about to do Aladdin and Mrs Doubtfire.

So at this moment in time, he's bankable as hell. Audiences love him and looking back, I think this period was really the height of his career.

It all looks good on paper, but unfortunately the movie never makes use of his talents.

Barty

06-30-2011, 01:07 AM

Hook really is a great film, in pretty much every possible way.

Dead & Messed Up

06-30-2011, 02:53 AM

Hook was fun when I was a kid and pretty indiscriminate. Nowadays? Not so much. I'm especially confused by the film's message that Peter has to regress to childhood as a means of maturation. His problem is his selfishness, and the film only points that out sideways, when he discovers his "happy thought" is his children. Up to then, it's a lot of stupid "Be like a kid" crap. "You're doing it, you're imagining!" Gag.

Watashi

06-30-2011, 03:01 AM

So many pirates on here.

"You need a mother very, very badly!"

Pop Trash

06-30-2011, 03:35 AM

I have a friend that loves Hook so much, he gets downright insulted if I tell him I don't like it; like I insulted his mom. We've agreed not to talk about it, and agree on our mutual love for Indiana Jones.

Qrazy

06-30-2011, 04:22 AM

Rufio! Rufio! Rufio!

Derek

06-30-2011, 04:29 AM

Does it? To me "middle aged Peter Pan" looks pretty terrible on paper.

Uh, kid who never wants to grow up grows up then becomes young again and learns how to grow up properly this time...what's not like?

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l194/kevinwilliams2012/Seinfeld/bania.gif?t=1241974775

Dukefrukem

06-30-2011, 12:30 PM

Uh, kid who never wants to grow up grows up then becomes young again and learns how to grow up properly this time...what's not like?

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l194/kevinwilliams2012/Seinfeld/bania.gif?t=1241974775

I've given out too much rep in the past 24 hours. I will try again later.

StanleyK

07-06-2011, 09:02 PM

Without any previous experience with or knowledge of The Twilight Zone, I watched Twilight Zone: The Movie, and for 50 minutes I was bored to death. The first two segments are absolutely painful to sit through; ridiculously blunt, heavy-handed moralizing/aesop without a trace of artistry. Luckily, Dante's and Miller's segments are pretty great! It's a Good Life isn't very scary, but it is hilarious and boasts some impressive visual wit; Nightmare at 10000 Feet is more straightforward but it's well-directed and has plenty of fascinating background detail. Both of these segments have an underwhelming ending but they're great fun and they salvage the movie from awfulness to mediocrity.

Anyway, this is the Spielberg thread, so I'll say that Kick the Can is seriously terrible and easily the worst thing he's ever made. Watching it made me sad knowing that one of the most gifted visual storytellers was wasting his craft on this facile bullshit. If I didn't know the segment's name before watching I wouldn't have known it was his because he seems to have put no effort in it and nothing of his own style.

Watashi

07-06-2011, 10:09 PM

Two Hour Conversation with Spielberg hosted by JJ Abrams and Jim Cameron. (http://www.dga.org/Events/2011/08-august-2011/75th-Spielberg-Event.aspx#anchor)

StanleyK

07-29-2011, 12:27 AM

Jurassic Park is such an amazing film. Even more than Raiders of the Lost Ark, this I the one I tend to think about when I say Spielberg is the best action filmmaker. His way of establishing the geography of the scene with a wide shot, and then isolating its main elements in closer shots, making the editing and the action flow with one rhythm, is probably at its pinnacle here. Of course it helps that I have a strong emotional connection with it (even after the numerous times I've seen it, today I still cheered and felt a tingle in my spine at all the appropriate places), but I also find it one of this most thematically interesting. If you'll allow me to be lazy, I'll quote what I said about it a while back:

The ultimate argument that fun action movies are capable of being just as intelligent, and just as worthy of analysis and discussion as 'serious' movies. The spectacle of Jurassic Park reflects the spectacle of cinema, with its characters being a stand-in for the audience, and John Hammond (who wants nothing more than to bring entertainment and joy to people, entertainment that's real as he puts it) a stand-in for Spielberg; when they first catch sight of a dinosaur, their amazement is our amazement; when they don't see a Dilophosaurus, they're disappointed, we're disappointed; when we're shown all the toys and t-shirts and merchandise for the park, the movie is selling itself. Pretty heady stuff, and it helps that Spielberg is at the top of his game here- it's one of the most entertaining movies ever, and apart from some issues of exposition and acting, the filmmaking is impressive.

The dinosaurs are shown early on to pique our interest and make it doubly disappointing when they don't show up for another 40 minutes (there's only a sick Triceratops in the meantime); when finally a T-Rex shows up we're conflicted because he's totally awesome, but we don't want the characters to get eaten. Spielberg is challenging the idea that just because something looks good, it is good (a mistake which many big visual effects-driven movies make).

It's not new for Spielberg to make a film about audience engagement. The Sugarland Express was also about a large spectacle; Close Encounters climaxes with a big crowd gathered around a major happening, just watching; the opening scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark is all about Alfred Molina watching Indy do his work; the protagonist of Always is dead, so of course he can do little but watch, his point-of-view is ours. Jurassic Park is simply Spielberg's richest film in that regard; Jurassic Park the ride is a close metaphor for Jurassic Park the movie.

I know it's common for people to be embarrassed by the stuff they wrote in the past, but should I be worried that I'm embarrassed by something I wrote as recently as 1 year ago?

A bit rough, but it's the gist of my interpretation of it.

It's not a perfect film. As iconic as the score is, John Williams has a bad tendency to telegraph the emotions we're supposed to be feeling; the 'I know UNIX'! scene is indeed pretty cringe-worthy; it could stand to shave off some on-the-nose dialogue; and Alan's arc with the kids (while wisely carried out entirely through action and not exposition) is maybe a bit cheesy. The overall quality of the film is so high that they register as mere gripes; Jurassic Park is one of the best films by one of the best directors.