Schindler's List!

Started by Lt. Col Baby Dinosaur, December 08, 2003, 12:17:19 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

godardian

#45
December 10, 2003, 07:16:50 PM
Quote from: ewardi dunno, i just get mad when people bash spielberg.

Believe me, you're not the first or only one to feel that way. I think he is a nice person, which is probably part of why it's upsetting to people when he's criticized and taken to task. But a lot of nice people aren't that creative or interesting, and a lot of creative, interesting people aren't very nice. Sad but true. Kubrick and Hitchcock being primo examples. And Spielberg's niceness as a person doesn't, for me, compensate for his undeserved cultural-juggernaut status.

You know who's really an exceptionally nice person and someone I consider a cinematic artist? Todd Haynes. Most gracious, down-to-earth, modest yet articulate "famous" person I've ever met.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Alethia

#46
December 10, 2003, 07:31:15 PM
well, i meant bash him as a director, but he is a pretty nice guy isn't he?  godardian, would you ever want to meet him?

mutinyco

#47
December 10, 2003, 07:46:26 PM
I suppose that means you haven't met many famous people. (Todd Haynes famous! Ha! Just kidding. He is nice.)

Um, part of the flaw of your argument is that you ARE being simple-minded. If that's your idea of cinematic history it's naive. Spielberg and Lucas didn't set out tp change filmmaking. Both Jaws and Star Wars were predicted to be catastrophes until they opened. And as far as I'm concerned there never was a cinematic utopia.

What happened was a generation gap. Plain and simple. That and Vietnam and Watergate. The movies Hollywood normally made -- big dumb all-star musicals and epics -- weren't making money. A few no budget movies came out that did all right, so it opened the door for some decent filmmakers. And a lot of great films got made. BUT MOST OF THEM DIDN"T MAKE MONEY AND MADE THEIR REPUTATIONS BY SURVIVING.

When Jaws and Star Wars broke out the corporations saw this and bought into Hollywood. What happened in the late-60s/early-70s was a FLUKE. It wasn't the norm. A glitch. Hollywood found what now made money -- the youth market (baby boomers) that had comprised the audience for Easy Rider and 2001 were now getting married, having kids and working for corporations. THESE were the kinds of movies they wanted to see -- FAMILY FILMS. If you've got a family, you don't take 'em to see Raging Bull, you take 'em to see Raiders of the Lost Ark. Point is: IT WAS THE SAME AUDIENCE! ONLY ITS TASTE CHANGED.

And another thing, S.S. and Lucas sure as shit didn't intend to hurt other filmmakers -- they're friends! They just had a better sense of the American public. That's why I still say E.T. is a more important film than Raging Bull. It affected more people worldwide and had a greater cultural impact.

And Spielberg DOESN'T dumb down his films. Why do you think his last few films have done only moderately well against modern giant blockbusters? They're too intelligent. (Even the critics missed the ending of A.I.)

I've said this before -- the person who most represents what Spielberg haters hate is RON HOWARD. Get over it.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Jeremy Blackman

#48
December 10, 2003, 09:00:39 PM
Quote from: mutinycoWhat happened in the late-60s/early-70s was a FLUKE. It wasn't the norm. A glitch.

It could have been a permanent revolution, but it was soundly destroyed in the late 70s. Have you seen "Decade Under the Influence"?

Quote from: mutinycothe youth market (baby boomers) that had comprised the audience for Easy Rider and 2001 were now getting married, having kids and working for corporations.

And that just happened suddenly? What about Rocky, Jaws, & Star Wars?

mutinyco

#49
December 10, 2003, 09:10:05 PM
They're JUST MOVIES! This wasn't supply-side filmmaking. Those movies came out at a certain time where the baby boomers were settling down. There were a ton of movies coming out, but those were the movies they wanted to see and S.S. and Lucas understood that. The studios understood it too. That's all. You can't have a revolution without popular support.

And Rocky...did that even have a budget of a million? It was a tiny tiny tiny movie starring an unknown. It had uplift and found an audience. After Vietnam and Watergate people needed uplift. They needed to feel safe again.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Jeremy Blackman

#50
December 10, 2003, 09:20:06 PM
Quote from: mutinycoAfter Vietnam and Watergate people needed uplift. They needed to feel safe again.

I'll give you that, but...

Quote from: mutinycoThey're JUST MOVIES!

Just the three largest grossing movies of the 70s, which happened to occur in succession at the end of the 70s, and happened to be followed by a decade of complete crap movies.

In "A Decade Under the Influence," they talk about those three movies (Star Wars especially) and how after them the media shifted focus to determining the success of movies from how much money they made. And when I say "they," I mean the people interviewed in the movie, who are all the revolutionaries from the 60s and 70s... so I personally think I can trust them.

godardian

#51
December 10, 2003, 09:24:26 PM
Quote from: mutinycoAfter Vietnam and Watergate people needed uplift. They needed to feel safe again.

People needed to bury their heads in the sand and be blissfully ignorant... yes, true perhaps, but dull to the point of being grotesque. This is not aesthetic theory or movie-love talking; this is Faith Popcorn-style trendspotting, with no point of view, just lackadaisical observation. "The consumer base does this because the world is doing this." To me, that's robotic and defeatist if not cynical; it leads to the kind of bandwagon-hopping thought you get in the "lifestyles" section of your newspaper.  Market research and demographic trend-shifts can be duly noted, but that doesn't mean the films that resulted weren't bad, or bad for movies.

Give me Network over Star Wars or Jaws any day. I don't think it's too simplistic to say that, for whatever reason they were successful, the success of those two films put up barriers to the kinds of exciting films being made for and seen by mass audiences during that brief, happy window earlier in the decade.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

godardian

#52
December 10, 2003, 09:30:44 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanthe media shifted focus to determining the success of movies from how much money they made. And when I say "they," I mean the people interviewed in the movie, who are all the revolutionaries from the 60s and 70s... so I personally think I can trust them.

That is true, and goes back to what I was saying about the Spielbergian influence leading the nation (and much of the world) to look at movies as if they were a horse-race. David Mamet has written provocatively about how people used to discuss the MOVIES- now, they discuss the box-office. The media does influence how people perceive movies, and the media's line post the three late-70s blockbusters mentioned is that a "successful" movie, the "winner" of a movie you should take your wife and 1.7 smiling children to this weekend, is one that makes a lot of money, particularly if it breaks records or has some other quantifying characteristic to talk about instead of talking about the damn movie itself.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Alexandro

#53
December 11, 2003, 02:04:59 PM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanthe media shifted focus to determining the success of movies from how much money they made. And when I say "they," I mean the people interviewed in the movie, who are all the revolutionaries from the 60s and 70s... so I personally think I can trust them.

That is true, and goes back to what I was saying about the Spielbergian influence leading the nation (and much of the world) to look at movies as if they were a horse-race. David Mamet has written provocatively about how people used to discuss the MOVIES- now, they discuss the box-office. The media does influence how people perceive movies, and the media's line post the three late-70s blockbusters mentioned is that a "successful" movie, the "winner" of a movie you should take your wife and 1.7 smiling children to this weekend, is one that makes a lot of money, particularly if it breaks records or has some other quantifying characteristic to talk about instead of talking about the damn movie itself.

anyways, that's not spielberg's fault...it's like blaming tarantino for all the cheesy bad made "cool crime" movies that came out after pulp fiction...

saying that spielberg doesn't deserve the audience and criticcal aclaim he has is blindness...the other great directors admire him too...only european angry persons like godard talk about the guy like he's some kind of conspirator against film as an art form...

I'm thankful for him and his movies, for E.T., the Indiana Jones movies, Schindler's List, A.I....I'm thankful for the movies he's produced, the Back to the Future trilogy is great entertainment, Who Framed Roger Rabbit...etc...Cape Fear was cool too...

it's useless to argue I guess

Alethia

#54
December 11, 2003, 04:19:56 PM
i like you

Jeremy Blackman

#55
December 11, 2003, 06:02:27 PM
Quote from: Alexandroanyways, that's not spielberg's fault...it's like blaming tarantino for all the cheesy bad made "cool crime" movies that came out after pulp fiction...

Spielberg imitations didn't break the film economy... Spielberg did (with Lucas).

Quote from: Alexandroonly european angry persons like godard talk about the guy like he's some kind of conspirator against film as an art form...

Well, he kind of is. Not that I think he's a bad director.

Pubrick

#56
December 11, 2003, 10:42:07 PM
oh whatever JB.

i like spielberg very much. so he's a rich jew, nodody's perfect.
under the paving stones.

©brad

#57
December 12, 2003, 03:43:49 PM
i do too. i started w/ his movies. i grew up w/ them, and i still love them.

the misconception that anything big budget and mainstream is bad and anything low-budget/independent is good bothers me. u mostly see it amongst intro. to cinema freshman who think it's cool to hate the mainstream. why? there's a lot of good stuff that comes out of hollywood and there's a lot of bad stuff that comes out independently.

is this the argument here? i didn't really read the other posts.

godardian

#58
December 12, 2003, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: ©bradi do too. i started w/ his movies. i grew up w/ them, and i still love them.

the misconception that anything big budget and mainstream is bad and anything low-budget/independent is good bothers me. u mostly see it amongst intro. to cinema freshman who think it's cool to hate the mainstream. why? there's a lot of good stuff that comes out of hollywood and there's a lot of bad stuff that comes out independently.

is this the argument here? i didn't really read the other posts.

That absolutely was not my argument. Not at all. I never boiled anything down that black-and-white. I never mentioned budgets or supposed cultural category, really. I tried to be very specific about Spielberg and his work, and my displeasure with his elevation in the public esteem to some kind of creative genius when I think he's nothing of the sort. I think most people grossly overestimate the profundity, quality, and efficacy of Schindler's List. It has nothing to do with its budget; I suppose it may peripherally have something to do with it being "mainstream" because we wouldn't be talking about it like this if it weren't so widely accepted and glorified, but I tried not to oversimplify my opinion when it came to that.

My reason for disliking it definitely is not just because it's "mainstream." I hope my approach is different from what Pants' was in days of yore, where everyone was wrong 'cos they were trying to be too cool and rebel against the "mainstream." I hope my view of things is a little bit deeper than that. Indie has its bullshit and mainstream has its bullshit, too. A really great work is pretty rare in either of those categories, or in between.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

©brad

#59
December 12, 2003, 03:54:42 PM
well like i said, it's my bad b/c i didn't really read the posts.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions