 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Yes, I admit it. There is a begrudging admiration for Speilberg. Not as a Director of Film, but as a Capitalist. He has found out what the public wants, is able to give it to them in spades, and has become rich (and made his partners rich as well). As an avid (some may say rabid) free- market capitalist myself, I have to hand it to him.The following is for those who may be thinking "What has he got against Speilberg?".
The problem is, art should be personal. A Monet painting, A Bergman film, A Beethoven symphony (not Mozart - I learned that lesson from Victor) all contain the personal "interaction with reality" ( I lifted that from a sadly deleted Romy post) of the artist. That is what ultimately prevents art from being a commodity for sale.
I read a news story recently where Speilberg said that his latest film ("Catch Me if You Can" I believe) was the only time that he drew upon the memory of his parent's divorce for a film. It may also make it have some artistic merit, instead of just big box office numbers.
I gave at the office!
Follow Ups:
...that seems to be the question here. His movies are very entertaining. Are they "art." Don't know - don't care. It's the difference between Stephen King and James Joyce (or any of the "classic" authors).King's pretty much entertainment and not art. On the other hand, "Ulysses" is a fairly difficult read, and I'm not sure, at the end of the wade through the words, it was all that entertaining.
Or, the difference between a Big Mac, and a buffaloe steak filet served with raspberry chipotle sauce and blanched asparagus spears. I don't go to a fast food place looking or expecting the gourmet meal.
Why do you expect "art" or something that truly "moves you" (whatever that means or is) from Spielberg? He is obviously there to dish up entertainment - and there's nothing wrong with that.
If you can't get into a dinosaur stomping an attorney sitting on a toilet - well, then you apparently just can't be entertained.
I'd suggest you watch "Citizen Kane" for the 43rd time...
at all - BUT Spielberg is considered by many to be a "great director" - and to me, that is someone who creates art. So Spielberg is a great producer of product, but not a "great director" - that was the point of my post. You seem to agree.PLUS, believe it or not, by saying I admire Spielberg, I was trying to be nice. Some who post here HATE him. I'm much more mild-mannered than that.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to get to the tatoo parlor - I'm having "Rosebud" tatooed on my chest.
I gave at the office!
I guess it depends upon your definition of "great director." He is a great director on several levels. He knows how to tell an entertaining story, his camera work is very good, and he (mostly) picks good scripts to direct. Is he a "great art film" director? No, because he's not making art films.There is one scene in "Jaws" that always gets me. It's just a little camera move that is subtle but interesting in concept. Roy Scheider is sitting in the beach chair and the kid is thrashing around in the water, which get's Scheider's attention. The camera is pointed directly at his face and then dollies back and the lens is pushed (zoomed in) to final framing. It gives a terrific dynamic to what should be a standard "reaction shot."
He also has fun with a lot of his films, which is something I like to see. In "Close Encounters," the scene with Richard Dryfuss in his bathrobe throwing shrubs through the kitchen window is priceless.
Yeah, he does "product," but it's mostly a quality product with a pretty good entertainment value. Within a certain genre (entertainment films) he is certainly one of the best.
I'd like to have you give me some of the directors who make "art" so that I can get an idea of who you like and consider a great director and more importantly, why?
??The whole sled, just the word - or both??
on my chest, the sled goes elsewhere.Jaws - my favorite is when Scheider first sees the shark, and says "Your gonna need a bigger boat" - classic. And "Jaws" on the whole was a decent film. But the audience was wowed not by the story, but by the mechanical shark. So it's like Spielberg, along with the rest of Hollywood said "AH! That's what will sell movies - big special effects and action sequences" - and the rest is history.
See the thread below about "great American directors", and add the usual suspects from the international ranks - Fellini, Bergman, Kurosowa, etc. and you'll have a good idea of what I consider "art". But I admit some ignorance of foreign directors - especially recent ones. Victor and Patrick are a much better source.
I gave at the office!
Does one great film make a great director? Or, does the director need to do more than one film of a certain "art" stature before he (or she) is considered "great"? (Orson Welles certainly peaked and/or flamed out right after "Citizen Kane," for example.)You see, here's my problem with the entire premise of a director making "art." Movies (and therefore the directors who make them) fall into different categories as to why the movie is considered a classic or great movie.
1. Films that have broken technological ground and have had an undeniable influence (both positive and negative) on altering or advancing the development of cinema.
2. Films that have special qualities of excellence in acting, directing, script or story writing, scoring, or production that have blended together to create a critically-acclaimed "great film."
3. Films that have won major recognition with film awards and other honors from annual film award organizations
4. Films that have a legendary, satisfying, never-fading appeal.
5. Films that represent the peak of achievement for a screen performer or director.
6. Films that are the best and primary examples within a film genre.
People seem to want to limit consideration of a film being "great art" to category #2, and then specifically limit their considerations only to directing, script or story writing.
My question is why?
For example, while Billy Wilder made many classic movies, you never see him thought of as a director of "art" films along with Bergman, et al.
How about "Double Indemnity" (1944)? It was nomnated for seven Academy Awards. Wilder wrote the script, and directed the movie (nominated for both). That was his fourth Acadamy Award nomination for writing and his first nomination for best director (his third movie).
"Double Indeminity" defines the film noir style. So, is Wilder considered a director of an "art" film? Probably not, because "Double Indemnity" was a commercial success, which seems by "art film" definition, to disqualify both the film and director.
Doesn't have the "arty cachet" of a money loser, under-appreciated, great script, film, director - whatever. This is one of main reasons the film snobs depricate Spielberg's films - he has the temerity to actually make films that are popular and make money.
such as "pop art", "folk art", etc. - But what they all do is reflect and communicate the individual artist's interface with reality. In film, this does not need to be limited to one genre - the so-called "art film". A film like "Saving Private Ryan" could have been art - if Spielberg would have drawn on his personal emotions or experiences and show us (through the performance of an actor, dialogue, lighting, cinematography, whatever) those emotions or experiences.You can have an action/adventure, a comedy, a drama, a sci-fi movie, and they can all be "art".
Also, a lot of the great classic films DID make money in their day. The problem is that today's audience wants the movie equivalent of fast food.
I gave at the office!
A film like "Saving Private Ryan" could have been art - if Spielberg would have drawn on his personal emotions or experiences and show us (through the performance of an actor, dialogue, lighting, cinematography, whatever) those emotions or experiences.It's too much to define what art is. A film like Saving Private Ryan, IMO, demands the director to be as objective as possible. Spieldberg clearly has enough crafts and skills to be qualified as an artist. But it's not about the knowledge but the choices that he makes. It appears his recent films are always made in a "timely" fashion with respect to current politics and culture to satisfy popular demands. If that has always been his intention, then the film values won't last very long as politics as well as culture change.
OTH, there's no reason for an artist not to make a little cash once in a while. Deniro did it; Brando did it, perhaps ahead of his time.
mvwine, you seem very attached to this idea of "personal connection" in art. i think you need to consider that a little more.does it matter if i told you that michelangelo's greatest work was commissioned by someone who wanted him to decorate their ceiling with a certain theme in mind? or that a painting of leonardo da vinci's was paid for by a rich man who told him what he wanted in the painting?
the art that we find in these things is the application of technique.
contrast this with stephen king, who probably writes horror because that's what he's personally most into, and who's rich enough that he can write whatever he wants without thinking about how much it'll sell.
so it all goes back to my question to you, which is, "what's the value of making these distinctions?"
the fact that something made money, or was comissioned does not necessarily preclude it from being art. The definition of art is that it reflects something personal.And the importance of making these distinction is, well, personal.
I gave at the office!
NT
I gave at the office!
No doubt in my mind that Steven Spielberg is very talented. He's not a hack like Chris Columbus or other Hollywood schlockmeisters I could name. His mastery of technique and his visual imagination are remarkable. He has an instinctual feel for movies - design, editing, cinematography, effects. He can infuse the screen with crackling energy and eye popping imagery.But he doesn't move me. Millions disagree. They weep over ET and Saving Private Ryan. Not me. Not yet.
Despite his visual audacity, he doesn't have a feel for great screenwriting. And it shows.
In addition, I've found there is just...*something* about his sensibilty as a filmmaker I can't embrace. In his serious films, he doesn't lay it on the line every time, he frequently seems to be holding something back, making it too easy for him to rely on technique and sentimentality for effect. It's beyond superficiality, a charge frequently leveled at Spielberg.
I just don't believe in his emotional "truth", I find the emotional pay off in films like AI, Saving Private Ryan and Minority Report rings false. He can't, or won't, go deep enough - there's a lot of sound and fury and intensity in his films, but peel back the layers, nothing much is really there, it's all on the surface. Schindler's List suffers less from this than his other films, aided by the subject matter, a superior script and some truly fine performances. (God, what Scorsese could have done with this!)
On the other hand, Spielberg seems lost in juvenalia with his genre films, a cartoon-like mentality with the monster/adventure flicks like Jaws, Jurassic Park, etc. I confess to mightily enjoying Raiders of the Lost Ark, a felicitous match of Spielberg's preoccupations and talents. But Temple of Doom was positively offensive. I don't mind when Hitchcock manipulates me in say, North By Northwest. But Spielberg's audience manipulation in films like Jaws, Jurassic Park and others makes me literally squirm in my seat.
I think I tend to prefer his failures, like AI, Empire of the Sun, even The Color Purple.
You're onto something with the notion that SS's films aren't truly personal. It isn't that he doesn't have a "personal" style of directing - indeed he does, and a strong, sweeping visual style it is too. But either he can't select the material, or he can't go deep enough into the personal, or there simply isn't enough "there" there.
Many times over the years I have wanted to like Spielberg's films better. He disengages me nearly every time. But who knows, maybe I'll love Catch Me If You Can.
(I hope LOTR/TTT buries it.)
Perfectly stated. What Speilberg needs to make is his own "Lawrence of Arabia" (not a remake of LOA). A movie CAN be large in scope, and be visually stunning, and dig deep into personal relationships, emotions, and experences. Is that a tall order? Of course, but if he's the "great American director" that is what he should be capable of.It's been pointed out that "Duel" and "Jaws" were grittier, more real films - and I think they were. But since, SS has traded those qualities for Flash and Bigness. Of course, so has nearly all of Hollywood.
And your right - Speilberg is no hack. He has a lot of technical talents. So there's hope that I will see a movie of his in the future that really "gets" me.
I gave at the office!
"He has a lot of technical talents"I can't deny that, but he need to go back to school for his writing skills.
My comments:1. So what? What's your comment got to do with Spielberg's films? Why does your classification of art as such-and-such matter? In other words, how or why does your view change the way I appreciate or watch Speilberg's films?
2. If Speilberg is not an "artist", than neither are the studio directors - Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, John Huston, Billy Wilder, etc., etc. (all names from your list below).
His films are overdone and overrated, and then he goes back to reedit them to make them more politically correct. I dislike him so much as a person that I try to avoid watching his films wherever possible. The few that I've seen lead me to believe that I haven't missed much.Todd
"His films are overdone and overrated, and then he goes back to reedit them to make them more politically correct. I dislike him so much as a person that I try to avoid watching his films wherever possible. The few that I've seen lead me to believe that I haven't missed much."We got the same feeling about him, I completely agree, each word and all words. But, I'd like to add something; Spielberg can't handle suspense and complex story, that shows in his serious and overrated films. As a exemple;
- Saving Privated Ryan, 2 hours of shooting, no suspence and no story and caracter developement. After the impressive first scene, I fell asleep.
- AI, I like the idea that came from Kubrick, but hate the sentimental part of Spielberg. Not bad, but it could be much much better if only Kubrick had directed that film. He didn't have a woman or kid's heart like Spielberg.
- Schinlert List: no story, no suspence, 3 hours of jews's slaughter, and it look like a documentary. At the end, Spielberg suprised(not a suprise if you know him well) us a crappy ending.
- A Close Encounter of the Third Kind. Some consider it as a classic and I rented it... I couldn't believe how boring this films is.
- Amisted; like the 1st part, but the second...
As a conclusion, the way I see it: Spielberg got the first good notes, but he can't keep the beat and rythm.
Just stating mine. And I disagree about other "studio" dirctors. Note that I didn't say art (in my stated definition) shouldn't make money, or that it couldn't make money. Just that the first order of art should be to reflect a feeling or experience of the artist, not to contrive something with box office grosses in mind.If you like Speilberg, fine. If you don't care to measure his films against other directors, using artistic acheivment as a scale, fine also.
BTW, I did like "Jaws", and think that the subject of "Schindler's List" is such an important one, that I was just glad to see a film made that a lot of people would see. I would just like to see Speilberg make a more "personal" film - that, combined with his other obvious talents, might make me a fan!
I gave at the office!
I wasn't meaning to bust your chops by suggesting, "Your discussion is piontless". I can see how it could be taken like that, so sorry.Let me say it in different words: Why does it mean to you where Speilberg falls on the artistic scale? Does it make his movies less enjoyable or respectible than they already are?
It seems to me that films like "Ben-Hur", "North By Northwest" and "Stagecoach" are also impersonal. Their first order wasn't to get at something personal. I don't see how you can argue that Speilberg puts the box office in front of personal passions any more than someone like Hitchcock.Speilberg has said that he makes the kind of films that he wanted to see as a kid. Certainly you can see how "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" or "E.T." have deep personal meaning for him. I mean, it's not god or death that he's fixated on, but those films capture a lot of the emotions and passions in discovery, friendship and childhood. As he's grown older, he's started to explore historical subjects with "Schindler's List", "Amistad" and "Saving Private Ryan". Some heady themes in there, but again there's a personal passion going on in his choice of films. (Not to mention the un-box office choice of using black and white.)
I do think that the personal connection and themes are there; he just doesn't present them as people sitting in a somber room talking about death. He just does it through the medium where his skills are: Louis Armstrong has his horn, but Speilberg has his camera.
Similarly, Woody Allen has his comedy. His most insightful, most personal films have always dealt with the issues through comedy: the joke that introduces Annie Hall tackles and sums up his world view more succesfully than the heavy-handed lecturing that he attempts in his Bergman-esque films. Given how you argue that Speilberg's films are pure audience-pleasing fare, it seems to me that you would have to say that Woody Allen is no more an artist than Jim Carey, and John Ford is no more an artist than McG.
To illustrate further take a scene from "North by Northwest" - one of my favorites, and since you mentioned it. When Cary Grant tosses the matchbook with the message over the railing, and it falls on the floor. The suspense is palpable - will Martin Landau (or James Mason) see it? It's done perfectly - the director MUST have felt that kind of tension at some point to be able to convey it that convincingly.This is something that could have been either overdone to the point of stupidity, or underplayed so that you missed the whole thing. So where many point to "North by Northwest" as being the father of all blockbusters (which it may be), it's done so well, and communicates so well, that it becomes art. Not to mention that it has subtexts - the crush Landau's character has on Mason's, for example.
And I think that's where films succeed, be it a "blockbusters" or not, is to what extent it makes you feel those real life feelings and experiences.
And I'm not sure what your point is about Woody Allen's use of comedy. Yes, he uses comedy many times, but it still makes me feel what the character is feeling. And it serves to highten the moments of poignancy when they occur. You and I may agree on one thing - I would put "Annie Hall", "Crimes and Misdemeanors", and "Hannah and her Sisters" all ahead of "Interiors" - a good movie, but not his strongest.
If you see such effective communication of emotions and experiences in Spielberg's films, than I have obviously missed the boat and am willing to try to see it.
I gave at the office!
To try to sum it up:It sounds like you and I agree that great art can come as comedy, adventure or drama. Bergman makes his art best through drama; Woody makes his art best through comedy. That was what I was trying to say on Woody Allen and comedy. Similarly, I think Spielberg makes his art best through adventure.
You and I disagree on two things, I think.
One, whether Spielberg's films come out of a personal passion like Woody's obviously do. Here, I think yes: in many of his films, Spielberg explores discovery, wonder and awe in the way that Woody explores adult relationships in many of his. (Woody once said in response to Spielberg's comment that he makes the films he wanted to see as a kid, I make the films that I want to see as an adult.)
Second, whether Spielberg hits the emotional "oomph" that, say, Bergman or Woody do with their good films. Here, it's really a matter of personal taste.
Great discussion. I think your last paragraph nails it.Cheers
I gave at the office!
Actually, Duel & Schindler´s List & The White shark, were not too bad....
about Duel and Jaws, anyway. I guess my real gripe is that Speilberg is thought of by so many as THE American film director, and he churns out so much rubbish - slick, pretty, feel-good rubbish - that doesn't ever touch you.Schindler's List - Important subject, Fiennes and Kingsley were great, but what did it say? Did it teach, touch, move, or just document? (Same questions about SPR, but without the good performances). Help me out here, Patrick, or anyone, if I'm missing something. I'm not adverse to watching it again if I have, it's been awhile.
I gave at the office!
....He tried all four.
Your own personnality & sensibility will make the difference.
It is like a window ( we like this one, we audiophile ) on the past...
What proves his good home work ( Spielberg ) was to let us see the corruption of the SS, that was not done to often, I think he show us the quintessence of all the horrors, I mean in the two hours or so, it was a tour de force, he ain´t no Lanzmann !
Most assuredly, individual sensibility plays a role. Much like I don't seem to connect much with Picasso's paintings (except "Guernica", which immediately hit me), my connection with Schindler's just hasn't "clicked".
After looking at my post, however, I do seem to be a bit harsh - any director who can coax such performances - or let them be, which may be a harder task - deserves a great deal of credit.
I gave at the office!
you....hmmmm, reminds me of Shania Twain´s new "TronLike" video;
heard a critic say whole CD like that, just lalala surface skimming.
Wonder what happened? The gal once wrote some tunes that touched
me... - AH
my three favorites. - "Schindlers List" I passed on for same reason
as "Saving Private Ryan". - AH
Two years ago I visited Auschwitz, and believe me, Spielberg got it right, the atmosphere, the dark poesie, the feeling, even if some critisized him, as the real was even more intolerable...
he did a wonderful job on this.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
