Looking for Artistry in the Commercial World: The Spielberg Canon

[Dead & Messed Up]

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.

You have a very good point about the middle section with his family, which also strikes me as incomplete. But my God, the warmth and hope of that spectacle at the end. It's orgasmic. Truffaut gesturing to the lead alien and smiling is one of THE moments of cinema for me. I'll never forget it.

[StanleyK]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Raiders]

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

[balmakboor]

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]

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]

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

[transmogrifier]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

[Pop Trash]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

[Irish]

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.