Steven Spielberg

[ie]

Since there was a hotbed of discussion concerning this mythic beast over in the Movie Battles thread...


Funny photo of him. ;D

police386 said:

i'm really getting sick of all the spielberg bashing i see on sites like this and ymdb...the guy had enormous, incredible talent back in the day...movies like raiders, jaws, E.T., and Schindler's List are about as good as directing jobs could possibly get...but this...this is a very, very hard choice. i personally like a few spielbergs better than E.T., though (which i still think is an incredible yet slightly flawed film), so i'll go with the Wild Bunch.

ie said:

Yeah, Jaws could kick your ass. Spielberg actually made a shark - those cute and cuddly little fishies that swim in the water, free as can be, without a care in the world - frightening.

And, you can't really blame Spielberg for the sequels. He may have made a kickass movie, which generally means you get some sequels, but he didn't direct the sequels.


So, um, yeah.

dontdigonswine said:

Jaws is his only film I can say I truly like. Schindler's List- so what? I didn't like it. Doesn't mean I didn't like the content, it means I didn't like the movie. I liked The Pianist better. Saving Private Ryan- apart from the first battle scene (which, even though I'm not a huge fan of war movies, I could appreciate) it just didn't do anything for me. The primary reason I despise Spielberg: he has helped create this vicious beast called mainstream Hollywood. Every one of his movies gets way much more publicity than it deserves. Sometimes it actually seems like he makes a serious "Academy Award-worthy" movie just to make himself look better after making movies like War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park: The Lost World, or Hook. Oh, and not to mention, he's written about 2 decent screenplays ever. Whose films are his, really? Someone elses. He's a decent at best director, to me. That's just my opinion though. Never seen Close Encounters, never really wanted to. I might, though, now that you mentioned it.

Don't dig on either person. You can't talk about movies in general without running into Steven Spielberg. Thus, a mythic beast.

[PTAhole]

...
I LOVE SPIELBERG!!! Misterbalco said something that I completely disagree with: Spielberg has no style. His movies OOOZZEE his touch. You can tell it's a Spielberg flick by just watching a couple scenes. The way he directs actors, the way he shoots a scene, etc. Rarely do I get a good answer from someone who says they don't like Spielberg. It's either that he's overrated, or that his movies are overly manipulative. Well, sorry, but most movies are manipulative in some manner. If you've ever felt any emotion during a movie, you are being manipulated by it. So that means that means if I feel sad at the end of The Virgin Spring, I've been manipulated. Same thing if I feel happy after a Spielberg movie. I don't care if you don't like him, but give me some good reasons!

[criterionmaster]

If you look at a film like Poltergeist, you can clearly see Spielberg's touches on the film. It doesn't say he directed it, but you can tell Hooper didn't do it by himself. He doesn't have a true stamp because he jumps around genres, but he does have something. I could tell a Spielberg film when I see it, he does what he does best, makes films that are popular, but actually have merit. Are you guys telling me you would rather watch a Ratner film over Spielberg? He is the best at making Hollywood films. Look at Andruini, he goes to see so many [terrible] films a year and I can almost bet he wishes the films he was stuck seeing were more like Spielbergs, he makes the only films of his kind worth seeing. And that’s a fact.

And I know misterbalco loves The Color Purple, but for some reason he forgot to mention it!

[ie]

What Mr. Balco said in the other thread:

misterbalco said:

Maybe Spielberg had 'talent' back in the day, but he didnt have a style. He did not have that one thing that each and every great director has, their own stamp on their films. If Spielberg were to throw out a new movie, and I had never heard about who directed the film, I could not tell it was made by him. Thats my problem.

Another problem is that he is a sellout. He makes movies to win Oscars...every movie he is associated with wins multiple Oscars. He produced Memoirs of a Geisha, which won Best Cinematography over The New World? He directed War of the Worlds, which got a nomination for BEST Special Effects (thats really hilarious).

Plus he is a liberal prick.

I haven't really tried to find Spielberg movies with the same kind of gusto I do for other directors, so as a result, I don't have much of an opinion on his work myself.

[dontdigonswine]

I agree. I don't think he has a personal style. What do all his films have in common? . . . This lack of style makes his films bland to me. And when was the last time you actually were required to think during a Spielberg film? That is probably another reason why his films are so bland to me. I mean, Tarantino's films do not require you to think, but he has so much style, thinking isn't necessary to fill up the time. Spielberg is a director who probably strives off entertaining his crowd for the majority of his films, and I am someone who just plain isn't entertained. So I suppose it really does come down to preference.

[PTAhole]

The last Spielberg movie I had to think about was... his last movie, Munich. Very thought provoking. Just because a movie is primaraly entertainment doesn't mean that no thought is needed. Raiders of the Lost Ark doesn't make me question my political or religious beliefs, but thought is required to view it.
As for the style, I can't really describe Spielberg's style, but it is there. If I take away all my knowledge of Spielberg and look at his two most dissimilar films, say, Hook and Schindler's List, I can still say that they're by the same person. Plus if that Spielberg touch is present even in movies he just produced, then he has a style.

[winterhat]

"If Spielberg were to throw out a new movie, and I had never heard about who directed the film, I could not tell it was made by him. Thats my problem." - not sure if that's a problem with him as a director or you as a viewer? i think his films are easily recognizable as his. i am sure others will argue the exact opposite (i.e. i hate him because his movies are TOO recognizable) he definitely has his own style!

as for "mainstream hollywood...he's trying to make blockbuster" arguments...sometimes he shoots for smaller markets, but as a rule, spielberg's target audience is the general public. in doing so, he has several movies that are among the most entertaining ever created. fantastic stories told in a even more fantastical fashion. he's a story-teller without many equals.

as far as thought-provoking or driving home a message, he has his moments (homages to jewish prosecution, WWII, slavery, etc) but a lot of his movies are made for the ride and he does manipulate you. he is trying to lead you somewhere...sometimes subtly, sometimes not so....and that is manipulation. he wants you to feel something, whether it's excitement or sadness, he manipulates with the best of them. that is what most directors TRY to do AND FAIL!

director defined - "the person responsible for the interpretive aspects of a stage, film, or television production; the person who supervises the integration of all the elements, as acting, staging, and lighting, required to realize the writer's conception. "

just because it's not the 'interpretive' product that you yourself enjoy, that DOES NOT MAKE HIM LESS OF A DIRECTOR. there's plenty of directors who aren't my favorites, but i can still recognize that they are doing what they do VERY well.

plain and simple....you just don't like any of his products. and that's perfectly fine. almost impossible to believe, but fine. however, what aspect of directing is he bad at that makes him a bad director? NOTHING. it's like me saying that Vincent Van Gogh sucks at painting because i don't like his paintings. NO, he doesn't suck at painting...the end result is just not my cup of tea. (before anyone comments, i don't think van gogh sucks)

in many people's opinions (us bourgeois), it's a great product and they spend their money and their time to enjoy it.

i agree with 'dontdigonswine', it comes down to preference and i come down on the same side as 'ptahole' on this one. he's a great director with an outstanding resume of films.

[dontdigonswine]

I agree that it truly does come down to personal taste... But I won't give him respect for "manipulating" the audience... Lifetime movies are sad and depressing and manipulate gullible audiences' emotions... But so what? So have thousands of mediocre filmmakers... I'm sure a lot of people cried during Armageddon... But I don't give that film any respect... I will respect him for making movies that a lot of people seem to like, and I give him loads of respect for Jaws, but I won't give him respect for "manipulating" audiences. There, I'm done debating. Agree to disagree. lol

[winterhat]

he doesn't need respect for manipulating the audience!!! i'm pretty sure you know what i meant when i said he can manipulate audiences...lumping him with 'thousands of mediocre' filmmakers by using MY word of 'manipulating' against him is not gonna cut it. i'm sure there's a better word for it.

anyway, lifetime movies? armageddon? in the same argument as spielberg? you are comparing parlor tricks, like a shock-value moment when something jumps into frame....to art, like the real terror hitchcock created in psycho (or spielberg in jaws!)

[kiddo]

A talented guy, but (until now) unable to stimulate my my most significance preferences when it comes to films (Maybe apart from Schindler's list). He makes good thrills and popcorn-fun, but I dislike his unwillingness to be more personal, or to give something more to the audience except superficial emotions. I want something more real from him, something unsentimental and more down-to-earth, because I think he can manage to pull that off. He just got to give the fuck about the money, and make films not just for fun, or only to give audiences fun (not sayint that he always do that), he should explore.

When that's said, I'm a big fan of Jaws, Indiana Jones, Close Encounters, Duel and even Minority Report, in addition to some others.

Conclusion: Overrated, but very talented.

[criterionmaster]

Does anyone on here dislike Schindler's List? If so, what are your reasons? Me and my dad are talking about it and would love to know of some flaws in the film, so please post.

[lordofdance]

I definitely think Spielberg has a style, because it has identifiable things about it that I dislike. The issue isn't that Spielberg is manipulative, because it is true that all directors are, but how he goes about being manipulative. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my third favorite movie of all time, and I think that it is least likely to remind me that I'm watching a Spielberg movie. Maybe everything that Spielberg is truly good at is represented in Raiders, while very little of his bullshit is.

What is Spielberg's bullshit? To me, it's how he manages to be overly sentimental, yet emotionally shallow at the same time. There is a strange insincerity to the emotional aspect of his movies. It's like somebody who doesn't understand feelings trying to pretend that they do by overcompensating. Even watching the intense battle at the beginning of Saving Private Ryan seems like it's lacking something genuine that really connects with the viewer. I heard that World War II veterans cried during that part, but it probably has a lot more to do with their personal memories than the movie. There is nothing sentimental in Raiders of the Lost Ark. It's totally Spielberg thrilling the audience. That's why it's so good.

As for Schindler's List, I like the movie. Probably more than any other movie he made aside from Raiders, though I don't like his other movies all that much. If I have any complaints, they would probably be:

A) The scene at the end where they were visiting Schindler's grave was excessive.
B) The Nazis seemed like caricatures occasionally.
C) I've read that Schindler was cleaned up a bit for the movie. While Spielberg does portray some of his shadier traits, there were things left out that would have made him more complex.
D) That little girl with the colored jacket. Spielberg at his very, very , very worst.

[dontdigonswine]

Thank you, lordofdance, for finding a way to voice how I feel about Spielberg. And I agree wholeheartedly about the ending to Schindler's List. Way to squeeze as many tears out of your audience as possible, Spielberg.

[lordofdance]

dontdigonswine said:

Thank you, lordofdance, for finding a way to voice how I feel about Spielberg. And I agree wholeheartedly about the ending to Schindler's List. Way to squeeze as many tears out of your audience as possible, Spielberg.

I was wondering if my analysis of Spielberg's style would make sense. I've always noticed that his movies left me emotionally detached, despite the massive quantity of sentimentality he injects into them. Spielberg is technically proficient, but there's something hollow about his work.

[criterionmaster]

anyone watch spielberg on spielberg on tcm today??

[PTAhole]

I recorded it, and I'm gonna watch it in a minute here.

[PTAhole]

I watched, and it was fantastic. It reminded be of how good some of his movies are. Jesus, he just has an incredible list of films. Duel, Sugarland Express, Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, E.T., Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, A.I., Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, Munich. I was surprised by some things I learned. Mostly that Kubrick originally intended for A.I. to end the way it did. I always thought that was a Spielberg touch, but I guess not. It's unfortunate, because it would be one of his best movie if it ended where it should have. (It's still a really good movie, though)
New list of 'Berg movies:
1. Raiders of the Lost Ark (10)
2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (10)
3. Jaws (10)
4. Schindler's List (10)
5. E.T. (10)
6. Minority Report (10, ridiculously underrated)
7. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (10)
8. Duel (10)
9. The Sugarland Express (10)
10. Munich (10)
11. Catch Me if You Can (10)
12. Jurassic Park (10)
13. The Color Purple (10)
14. A.I. (9)
15. Empire of the Sun (9)
16. Amistad (8)
17. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (8)
18. Hook (7)
19. Saving Private Ryan (7)
20. The Terminal (7)
21. War of the Worlds (7)
22. The Lost World: Jurassic Park (5)

(Haven't seen Always)

[dontdigonswine]

I've never seen any of the Indiana Jones movies or Close Encounters. Here's how I rate everything else:

1. Jaws- 9+/10
2. Minority Report- 9/10
3. Jurassic Park- 8/10
4. A.I.- 8/10
5. E.T.- 8/10
6. Schindler's List- 7/10
7. Saving Private Ryan- 7/10
8. Catch Me if You Can- 7/10
9. Hook- 6/10
10. The Terminal- 6/10
11. War of the Worlds- 5/10
12. The Lost World: Jurassic Park- 5/10

I agree with you, PTAhole, that Minority Report is an underrated one of his. I really need to see some of his "great movies" like Indiana Jones to solidify whether I like him or not. Right now, I agree that Jaws is great, and Minority Report is good as well, but nothing else really does it for me.

[chrisspielberg]

criterionmaster said:

anyone watch spielberg on spielberg on tcm today??

you guys must have a different schedule on TCM from the one we get over here, i didn't get to see spielberg on spielberg!! :-(

[wkw]

I actually think that Minority Report is overrated. The whole logic behind the crime prevention thing doesn't make sense. If you can see the future and change it, then what you saw is inconsistent with the actual thing. For example:

SPOILER: Click to show

If von Sydow will commit the murder instead of his pawn, then why did the report for the nonexistent murder(by the pawn) even show up?

[wkw]

Also:

SPOILER: Click to show

Wouldn't the psychics see that one of them will be abducted and so prepare the police for Cruise's character?

[Clark Nova]

because the pawn thought Von Sydow was hiring him to murder Anne Lively, so he was fully intent on murdering her, so that's why the Precogs picked up the pawn and Von Sydow got away scott-free.

and it seems like the precogs are only "programmed" to see murder, so why would they see Agatha getting abducted?

[wkw]

I don't buy that what the psychics saw were "intentions". If it were just intentions, why would they pick up details of the actual murder? How would they know which way the waves flow on the lake? Why would Cruise have the intention to kill someone if he doesn't even know who to kill? As for programming to see murder only, why can't they predict minor crimes that are worthy of serious law enforcement like abduction?

[wkw]

Also, since there are only 3 precogs capable of detecting murder only in DC, then why doesn't Sydow just lure Anne outside of DC to kill her?

[Clark Nova]

every murder the precogs pick up are nothing more than intentions, that's why they're always foiled. as for Cruise knowing he'll kill someone and why he gets a brown ball rather than a red ball, he says when he's in the guy's apartment that for the past 5 years he's vowed to kill the man who took his son.

[wkw]

That still doesn't answer the question of why the precogs see the actual details of the murder. Intent is one thing, but seeing the exact future with its details is another.

[Clark Nova]

wkw said:

That still doesn't answer the question of why the precogs see the actual details of the murder. Intent is one thing, but seeing the exact future with its details is another.

Father Merrin told the guy to strangle and drown Anne Lively in exactly so-and-so way, 'cuz he was gonna do it after the fuzz took the guy away.

or something like that.

[wkw]

And I suppose he told the waves to flow one way this time and another way another time?

[Clark Nova]

wkw said:

And I suppose he told the waves to flow one way this time and another way another time?

well, that's how the Scientologist found him out. The waves was where von sydow screwed up.

[wkw]

I knew it, those darn scientologists and their false spirits and deities.