Does anyone else here *not* disparage Steven Spielberg's oeuvre?

[DerekG]

I've been watching Bergman and Kurosawa films since I was 12, so I think I'm in a good position to tell the Spielberg-haters (a rather large cadre here) that you're a bunch of snobs, cut from the same cloth as those who spew their vitriol at Stephen King, since said author has committed the cardinal sin of producing art that attracts a mass audience.

With the exception of Howard Hawks and Billy Wilder, no American director has tackled so many genres and succeeded: whether it be horror ("Jaws"), science fiction ("CEOTTK"), action-adventure ("Raiders"), the war film ("Saving Private Ryan"), fantasy ("E.T."), comedy ("Catch Me If You Can"), and drama ("Schindler's List," "The Sugarland Express").

No, he's not Hitchcock, nor is he Scorsese or Coppola (yet, unlike the latter, Spielberg didn't fizzle out after 1979). He doesn't have to be. Escapism has been integral to cinema since "A Trip to the Moon" was unveiled to the world in 1902; more's the pity if you can not differentiate the maestros (Spielberg, James Cameron, George Miller) from the hacks (Bay/Bruckheimer; Devlin/Emmerich).


Anyone else care to defend this enormously talented filmmaker?

[HeeBGBz]

1. I can hardly wait for War of the Worlds

Looks awesome.

[Swede]

2. I agree with you completely.

I intend to see WotW in the theatre.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. No, I think he's done a lot of good stuff

Specifically, the stuff you mentioned, except for ET.

The only thing that really bothers me about him is that he very heavy-handed with telling us, the viewer, how we're supposed to feel, and manipulating us.

Not in every movie, and not in his early stuff, but to me watching his movies sometimes makes me go "gagh! he's telling me how to feel!" It's noticable. But as I said, not in every movie. Though I have a very strong sneaking suspicion that he's gonna do it in War of the Worlds, and do it constantly. He also misses a lot of opportunities to go for a moment of art.

I don't think he's bad, he's definitely one of the better directors, though I wouldn't put him in the Cameron level, but definitely above the Ron Howard level. And I think he was much better in the Jaws, Raiders, Close Encounters era.

[bettyellen]

6. I know exactly what you mean.......

it's like he tries to get his hand down the pants of my brain. and i'm just not feeling it.

[tridim]

4. But it's cool to hate Spielberg!

I must be very uncool, because I love his work.. With a few exceptions of course. He's certainly not perfect.

Loves:
Jaws
Close Encounters
ET
Raiders
Poltergeist
The Color Purple
Jurassic Park
Schindler's List

[lenidog]

5. I really can't say that I have seen any threads bashing Spielberg

Especially since I am a film buff and naturally attracted to any film threads. Plenty of Lucas bashing threads but those are rightfully deserved after the Phantom Menace and his butchery of the original films. As to Spielberg I notice that he used to have a tendency to get a little to syrupy sweet with the endings of his movies but I haven't seen that in a while. I am looking forward to seeing "War of the Worlds."

[Huckebein the Raven]

7. I will be seeing War of the Worlds

I'm interested in Speilberg's take on it.

[Ladyhawk]

8. I agree with you. Once, a DUer had this (and only this) to say

about Steven Spielberg: "He's an amatuer director." If you're going to insult someone, at least make sure you spell it correctly.

BTW,I also enjoy Stephen King's books, so there.

Pseudo-intellectuals crack me up, so PthtththPhthththththththtththhhthhthttPththth! (So I'm not exactly the most mature person in the world. So what. :D :shrug:)

[hickman1937]

9. I don't get this Scorsese thing. Spielberg is all over the map

as far as doing differant subjects. And yes, he has a tendency to shift his message to the side of honesty and mercy, but Scorsese keeps making the same damn movie. Changes out the actors, the costumes, and the scene where someone get's beaten bloody, and you have a color by numbers director, who is a genius at setting up shots. IMHO.

[DerekG]

10. There are several excellent films that do not fit this mold

Please consider "The Last Temptation of Christ," "Bringing Out the Dead," "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore," "The Age of Innocence" and "Kundun."

[hickman1937]

12. I saw The Age Of Innocence.

It was the same damn thing. The man is fascinated by all the colors of humiliation, and violence. I get it. I plan to rent some of his stuff next week. I hope to be proved wrong.

[saltpoint]

11. DerekG, on Spielberg --

-- it seems to me that you're right-on.

I respect Spielberg because he has a tendency to make films at the masterpiece level. His work is that of an accomplished master of the tale, with the technique and the talent to tell it to wide audiences.

For my part, I am most at home with his "quotes" of life in America. The local yahoo guy who in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS says of aliens (paraphrased): "They've got us in the air but we're miles ahead on the highway." Or when Eliot in ET tells his older brother's formerly-snide pal that E.T. can't just beam up to his home planet: "This is REALITY, Greg."

On rainy nights I'm off to the theater to see Jonathan Cauette's TARNATION or if I'm lucky a re-showing of Louis Malle's MURMUR OF THE HEART, or something dark and brooding from another country... but a director's talent is always a showstopper and Spielberg has talent to spare.

Liked your post very much.

[hickman1937]

13. I saw Sean Penn talking about acting being about art on The

Actors Studio. I think he said something like "if you want entertainment get an 8 ball and a couple of hookers." That enraged me. Drama is easy, and they all revel in it. Comedy is the third rail for them, and Spielburg at least tries to get close to it. Ron Howard is the most underestimated director in hollywood. He's got more guts than Stevie, and Marty put together. Failure in drama is boring, failure in comedy is pain.

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. Ron Howard the most underestimated?

I'd say he's by far the most over-rated.

If I were putting up money for a film, I would never allow him to direct it. if I had written a screen play and, somehow, through some miracle, managed to actually have any input on any aspect of the movie, I would forbid that clueless idjit from even reading the script, let alone be involved in the filming.

Underestimated? I hardly think so. I think he has proven with every movie he's done just how mediocre and bland and, sadly, without the spark of essential creativity that he is.

[hickman1937]

16. I didn't say that he's the best.

He tries. IMHO, comedy is the only true art form. Drama is just regurgitating pseudoreal life, with better lighting, clothing, and houses. Anyone can scream and holler for dramatic effect. Making people laugh is the only true art form. Jim Abrahms was one of the best too.

[hickman1937]

17. I just re-read your post. with respect, I don't agree.

At all. I don't want to get into the whole "whose the better actor, DeNiro, or Tom Hanks" either.

[yardwork]

40. I disagree - Ron Howard is an excellent director

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. p.s. - Sean Penn is correct.

[DerekG]

19. So "Singin' In the Rain" and "The Wizard of Oz" are to be discarded?

Is "Fantasia," "Duck Soup," "Bringing Up Baby," and "Star Wars" to be afforded this same fate?

These six films expend little effort in plumbing the depths of human psychology; they are "mere entertainment." And thank God for them.

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. They go beyond mere entertainment

especially the comedies, like Duck Soup, which don't work unless done very intelligently.

[DerekG]

24. No, they are mere entertainment (and gloriously so)

You are operating under the false assumption that entertainment and intelligence are antagonistic to one another. They aren't, and when these two qualities are wedded, the result is a kind of timelessness. The pop-art that was borne out of craftsmanship ("King Kong" and "Jaws" are two examples) will survive; junk like "Independence Day" and "The Rock" will not. "Kong" and "Jaws" resonate because of the intelligence with which said productions were made--but they are entertainment, nonetheless.

You can try to dissect the thematic underpinnings of "Duck Soup" all you want, but it would be in vain: the Marx Brothers masterpiece ain't "The Magnificent Ambersons." And that's OK. There's room in this world for "Citizen Kane" and "Bambi"; just as there's room in the literary canon for "The Brothers Karamozov" and "Tarzan: Lord of the Apes."

[Rabrrrrrr]

26. I think we've hit a merely semantic differentiation

You said:

"Kong" and "Jaws" resonate because of the intelligence with which said productions were made--but they are entertainment, nonetheless.

I differentiate between "entertainment" and "intelligent entertainment". For me, entertainment is the junky but still maybe-fun movies like Independance Day, Top Gun, etc. - movies that are fun to watch, but really have little or no meaning, and little or no lasting value.

Intelligent entertainment would be as you described - the well done movies, the ones with craftsmanship and a level of intelligence - Kong, Jaws, Duck Soup, Blazing Saddles, etc. Not to say that any of these are worthy of deconstruction (though Kong is, for sure), but they are more than entertainment, they also engage the mind in their own way.

So I think we might agree, we just were likely using different terms.

[DerekG]

28. I guess we do agree then...so let's have a drink!

:toast:

[Rabrrrrrr]

31. Excellent! So let's now argue over whether to have beer, or a fermented

malt beverage!

[hickman1937]

23. Sean Penn is a lazy actor.

He's in it for the fun. All drama, all the time.

[Bouncy Ball]

18. Stephen King's sin, for the past several years, has been writing

crappy formulaic tripe.

BEFORE that, yes, he was good.

[Pale Blue Dot]

20. I aspire to be Spielberg

Anyone who is truly into film that tells you otherwise is lying.

No matter what you think of the subject matter of his films, he is a master a telling a story visually. There is no current American director who is better at this than Spielberg.

[hickman1937]

22. Bingo! He is the Master.

At the end of the day, it's all story telling. The true actors can wear both masks. The geniuses can switch them out in the blink of an eye. With tears in your eyes, you explode into laughter.
edit for bad typing

[LeftyMom]

25. The 70s and 80s stuff is awesome

With the huge exception of Schindler's List his more recent work is spotty. Yes he has a tendency to make things melodramatic, his stuff is popular (which makes it elitist fun to knock it) but he managed to make Jaws a completely awesome movie when the shark wouldn't work, and that alone deserves recognition. That he did so and went on to make Close Encounters, ET and Raiders, is very cool.

I disagree about Cameron though, other than the Abyss and Dark Angel, his stuff is crap. Visually interesting crap, but while Speilberg stuff tends to be syrupy, Titanic is the Boston Maple Syrup Disaster of sickly sweet tooth rotting crap. Oh, and he gave the world Terminator 2, and has yet to issue an apology. After all, T2 set the standard for the "shit blows up loudly" style of summer blockbuster that Bay/Bruckheimer devolved even further to the lowest common denominator.

[hickman1937]

29. T2, agree. Aliens, good story, well told.

The Abyss was better.

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. I don't even consider Titanic a Cameron film

I have to ignore it and put it out of my mind in order to maintain respect for a director I otherwise hold in very high esteem.

"Titanic is the Boston Maple Syrup Disaster" indeed! :puke: How that POS got so many awards I'll never understand except that America is a weird country.

And I think T2 is a fantastic film - yeah, it was lots of shit blowing up loudly, but it was also a really good storyline with a number of compelling and thoughtful scenes. Sadly, the people that picked up on the idea of "Wow - shit blowing loudly really works!" failed to miss the part about "Wow - a storyline and compelling thoughtfulness in the script really works!"

[DerekG]

41. Check out the extended cut of T2

The 20+ minutes adds enormous depth to an already thoughtful film.

[KitchenWitch]

27. I love Spielberg

I do not care what anyone says.

I am also of the mind that most movies are to ENTERTAIN, so movie critics need to get off their soap box and travel outide their Ivory Towers and just be entertained.

[jswordy]

32. HARRUMPH! HARRUMPH!

What DerekG said.

[DrGonzoLives]

33. Damn straight

The funny thing is, all these snobs, if living back in Merry Olde England, would be bashing Shakespeare for targeting the mass market (which he did).

[Chovexani]

34. I love Spielberg's movies!

But I'm a big dork and used to people mocking the stuff I like. :silly:

[redqueen]

35. Eh, people just like to bitch.

I like his movies.

I like Stephen King's books, too.

Let 'em bitch. It won't stop people from watching / reading whatever they damn well please.

[deutsey]

36. Jaws is one of my favorite movies

What I really love about this movie are the good characterizations and the story...and the way he develops a sense of place in the movie. So many films today seem to be set in a generaic Anywhereville.

I'm not crazy about most of his stuff that came after Jaws, though (with some exceptions). It's not snobbery, it's just that I find many of his movies bland and the characters uninteresting.

Having said that, I still think he's an amazing talent. I guess I just feel he doesn't live up to it. It's a matter of opinion and taste, I know, so I doesn't bother me that other people love his movies. Many of them (the movies, that is) just don't work for me.

[Magrittes Pipe]

37. I like "Duel."

[deutsey]

38. That's the one with the truck trying to run Dennis Weaver off the road?

If so, I like that one, too.

[Magrittes Pipe]

39. Yup.

[MadHound]

42. I have no hatred of Spielberg, he is like most directors in the biz

Some of his work is good, some of it is bad, a little flirts with greatness, a little flirts with crap.

My only thing about Spielberg is that all his films absolutely have to have a happy ending. This fault means that his films are a bit predictable, and sometimes it is a film's downfall. For instance, AI, Kubrick's finale that sadly got finished by Spielberg. Kubrick was a great, fatalistic, dark director. The first half of AI looks like it is going to follow this path, and then you can see the moment when Spielberg took over. Movie gets lighter, happier, and winds up having a happy ending tacked on haphazardly. This was a tragic finish to Kubrick's last movie, a butchering of a potential masterpiece.

But other than that, I've always like Spielberg movies. Of course when I'm watching them, I'm really not looking for a grand, insightful, soul searing piece of cinema. I'm looking for a good time, and of course, a happy ending.