(Spielberg) in person

Started by mutinyco, June 12, 2003, 08:54:44 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions

mutinyco

#60
June 20, 2003, 11:05:20 AM
Yeah, it probably is. In fact, you could probably trace a lot of the current UFO phenom back to it -- even the design of the aliens. But again, other than Neary's quest and the etherial aesthetics of the spaceship confrontation, it's not specific religious imagery. It's just a general sense that culminates in first contact with the other...

There's always been a sense of AWE in Spielberg's films, as if there is something higher, though ultimately intanglible -- HOWEVER, I think Empire of the Sun portrays what he really believes. Basically, that there's wonder and beauty around us at all times, but ultimately death is death. Same with A.I.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Alethia

#61
June 20, 2003, 02:08:41 PM
as much as i love spielberg - i will say that sometimes (and I mean sometimes) it is hard to see what he really is saying in a movie due to the sugar he sometimes coats it with - but i cant think of anybody who does that better than him (meant in a good way).  I dont think that is more apparent than in AI

mutinyco

#62
June 20, 2003, 03:26:24 PM
It's going to take a while before people accept A.I. Kubrick was right in choosing Spielberg. He was the perfect Trojan Horse to get those ideas across.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Alexandro

#63
June 24, 2003, 10:55:25 AM
Being the fact that those three guys (spielberg, kubrick and scorsese) are my three favorite directors, is kind of hard for me to listen to all this criticisms for them, by people who at the same time are comparing them...

They are all greart artists, cause their work comes directly from their heart. It's honest. For me, that's the key word, that's what makes it work for me...

The intelectual reasoning behind their honestly is secondary to me...So, Kubrick was an atheist, so that's why his films are more intersting?? He was not an atheist, or at least that doesn't show, or that doesn't seem to be his belief, if you watch 2001 closely...If he didn't believed in a God, at least he seemed to believe in man's deidety...Spielberg has also used his religion on his films, and of course Scorsese has...this things, this beliefs, makes their art. Martin Scorsese makes mostly films from the catholic point of view cause he is catholic...so what? I'm not catholic or anything in particular yet I can understand his themes...Fuck, if the entire destiny of this planet has been affected by the different religious faiths, occupying your artistic expressions talking about it is not a handicap, it gives you a great canvas to work with...

These three guys are all visual masters...Each in it¿s own way...someone said here scorsese is like the beatles to pop music...that's right, his influence is everywhere. Spielberg is amazing too, I'm always pissed to hear people disqualify him for not being an artist of soem sorts, he's given us some of the best films in history!!!

If I understand properly, these three guys have (had) a mutual admiration, big time...Kubrick gave spielberg his a.i. project, spielberg loves kubrick's movies...it was spielberg the bigger supporter on marty's oscar campaign this year...he thought gangs of new york was great!!!

They are all truly great artists...you can see that plainly on his films...you can like or dislike them, but you can't deny their importance, and you can't deny their personal signature, which is what makes great art...and they have all been misunderstood by audiences...Time will have to pass for people to realise what amazing masterpieces of film are EYES WIDE SHUT, ARTIFICIAL INTELIGENCE and GANGS OF NEW YORK

WORD

SoNowThen

#64
June 24, 2003, 11:49:11 AM
That was a fucking beautiful post. Even though I have not been able to stand any Spielberg films, I may watch AI and Schindler's List because of what you just wrote. That was from the gut, and I appreciate it.

Cheers!
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Sleuth

#65
June 24, 2003, 01:26:31 PM
Yeah man, you need to post more
I like to hug dogs

mutinyco

#66
June 24, 2003, 02:12:15 PM
Just a quickie. I liked that post too. But Kubrick was in fact a non-believer in God. What he was suggesting in 2001 was that these aliens, which have existed for much longer than humanity, are defacto gods to us because they're so much more advanced.

And one other thing, Gangs will never be a great film. It's a botch on the level of Heaven's Gate, only Marty had 3 decades of acclaim behind him.

My criticisms of him aren't based so much on a general reaction to his work, so much as it is based on other people's reactions to his work. I think that his position does not fit his body of work. He's so revered that in my view an equal position in the opposite is required to bring him back down to reality. What Miramax did during the Oscar campaign was no different than what the Bush administration -- or any political operation -- does on a regular basis: manipulate public sentiment.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#67
June 24, 2003, 02:18:22 PM
:?

*sigh*
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Alexandro

#68
June 24, 2003, 03:15:57 PM
Quote from: mutinycoJust a quickie. I liked that post too. But Kubrick was in fact a non-believer in God. What he was suggesting in 2001 was that these aliens, which have existed for much longer than humanity, are defacto gods to us because they're so much more advanced.

And one other thing, Gangs will never be a great film. It's a botch on the level of Heaven's Gate, only Marty had 3 decades of acclaim behind him.

My criticisms of him aren't based so much on a general reaction to his work, so much as it is based on other people's reactions to his work. I think that his position does not fit his body of work. He's so revered that in my view an equal position in the opposite is required to bring him back down to reality. What Miramax did during the Oscar campaign was no different than what the Bush administration -- or any political operation -- does on a regular basis: manipulate public sentiment.

Well, I guess Kubrick wanted to show how man's potential is Godly, how divinity is achievable for human beings, or will be, as part of an evolutionary process...I know he was a declared atheist but I think his atheism was more founded on a dislike for organized religion than on a lack of spirituality or spiritual belief of some sort...he clearly believes in non tangible things...he spent his life, his shootings, waiting for "the magic" to happen with his actors...

As for Gangs...it is a great film now, it will not become one...people will realise that later on...even Heaven's Gate has a lot more fans now than back then, and back then it was declared the worst film ever...counting that Gangs is already being called a masterpiece and had crittical success of some sort...I can see it becoming an "official" masterpiece in some years...

I think Marty's reverence and position on today's film world is a direct result on the tremendous inffluence he's had on the industry and the new filmmakers...His body of work is just as respectable as the one frome Kubrick, Spielberg and pretty much every other director who can rightfully adress himself as an artist...for some reason, his films have charmed in a visceral and intellectual way to a lot of the new filmmakers. A lot of persons in this world have decided to be filmmakers after seeing a martin scorsese picture. The same can be said for Kubrick and Spielberg...that's where the position comes...

You make some valid arguments cause, in the end, is your opinion, and you don't have to like anything, but saying that his films are not that important is not something you decide, is the audience, and the other filmmakers...

mutinyco

#69
June 24, 2003, 04:12:54 PM
>>As for Gangs...it is a great film now, it will not become one...people will realise that later on...even Heaven's Gate has a lot more fans now than back then, and back then it was declared the worst film ever...counting that Gangs is already being called a masterpiece and had crittical success of some sort...I can see it becoming an "official" masterpiece in some years... <<

No, I disagree. I know many well-established prople -- film critics et all -- who would tell you the opposite. People who have genuinely given it a second or third chance. In fact, their opinion has only worsened. They see, just like I do, that it is a film that was worked on and tinkered with far too much. It lacks a cohesive narrative and never seems to settle on what story it wants to tell. There are scenes that don't even qualify as scenes -- they're ideas for scenes, but come off as a half-chop. Going further, it never meshes the plot with the history. They're like 2 different films and the history is more interesting than the story. The villain is more interesting than the hero. And the history is bogus. It's been manipulated to fit the dramatic needs, and if any other filmmaker had distorted things as Marty had he'd be called on it. Look what happened to Tim Robbins when he made And Cradle Will Rock. He was nuked.

Nothing will make it great. Even its supporters called it flawed.
[/quote]
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#70
June 24, 2003, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: mutinyco>>As for Gangs...it is a great film now, it will not become one...people will realise that later on...even Heaven's Gate has a lot more fans now than back then, and back then it was declared the worst film ever...counting that Gangs is already being called a masterpiece and had crittical success of some sort...I can see it becoming an "official" masterpiece in some years... <<

No, I disagree. I know many well-established prople -- film critics et all -- who would tell you the opposite. People who have genuinely given it a second or third chance. In fact, their opinion has only worsened. They see, just like I do, that it is a film that was worked on and tinkered with far too much. It lacks a cohesive narrative and never seems to settle on what story it wants to tell. There are scenes that don't even qualify as scenes -- they're ideas for scenes, but come off as a half-chop. Going further, it never meshes the plot with the history. They're like 2 different films and the history is more interesting than the story. The villain is more interesting than the hero. And the history is bogus. It's been manipulated to fit the dramatic needs, and if any other filmmaker had distorted things as Marty had he'd be called on it. Look what happened to Tim Robbins when he made And Cradle Will Rock. He was nuked.

Nothing will make it great. Even its supporters called it flawed.
[/quote]

If you look at it in terms of hero and villian, I can see why it might not work for you. I went in with that attitude, but I found that the film read more as pushing DDL's character as the Main Character. Simply put. Scorsese doesn't want to deal with good vs bad guys, because in his movies all guys are bad guys. He wouldn't even do Cape Fear until he found a way to make the family more flawed.

Anyway, I thought we covered this before. These are just opinions. If some of us love Gangs, you can't just say it's be-all-end-all bad... it's just one man's opinion. Many people though AI was flawed as hell, but you obviosuly don't. We don't tell you you're wrong. But why must you insist on telling us we are?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

#71
June 24, 2003, 04:43:22 PM
Reread what I've written. Especially the last one. There are quite a few "I's" or "my opinion," and so forth. It is just an opinion. I'm just aggressive about it. :)
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Alexandro

#72
June 25, 2003, 02:28:11 PM
Quote from: mutinyco>>
No, I disagree. I know many well-established prople -- film critics et all -- who would tell you the opposite. People who have genuinely given it a second or third chance. In fact, their opinion has only worsened. They see, just like I do, that it is a film that was worked on and tinkered with far too much. It lacks a cohesive narrative and never seems to settle on what story it wants to tell. There are scenes that don't even qualify as scenes -- they're ideas for scenes, but come off as a half-chop. Going further, it never meshes the plot with the history. They're like 2 different films and the history is more interesting than the story. The villain is more interesting than the hero. And the history is bogus. It's been manipulated to fit the dramatic needs, and if any other filmmaker had distorted things as Marty had he'd be called on it. Look what happened to Tim Robbins when he made And Cradle Will Rock. He was nuked.

Nothing will make it great. Even its supporters called it flawed.
[/quote]

What can I tell you? I never had any problem while watching the film with all these things you are mentioning...I look at it as an opera...for me, the main story and the historical background are connected, since the characters work more as allegories than as individual characters. I've always mantained too, that the main character is actually Bill TheButcher, and Iwouldn't buy scorsese having a black and white hero and villain story anyway...Scorsese isthefirst to admitt that he distorted the historical aspects of it. The film is not meant to be taken literally,it's filled with symbols and signs. It talks about present, past, racism, polithics...To truly  appreciate ityou have to forget about all this "how to write a screenplay" crap and look at the big picture...So if the movie is not meant tobe takenliterally, why should it be presented "literally"...I guess it was Greenaway who said that film should not be about storytelling...he said: "if you wanna be a storyteller, be a writer"...it's kind ofharsh, but I think it's a valid point of view...why limit movies to be a storytelling medium?? since some past films like apocalypse now and taxi driver, or recently a.i. and waking life, not to talk about 2001, have proven that film can bephilosophical and analytical without having to follow the storytelling rules...

My guess isthat if a person can't understandthechaotic structure of Gangs of New York, that's that person limitation,not thedirector's...you shoulld check it out again...

Alexandro

#73
June 25, 2003, 02:50:31 PM
There is also something Amsterdam says at the beginning that may help you get the movie more easily:

"Some of it I half remember,the rest I took it from dreams"

And I love this quote: "You see this knife? I'm gonna teach you to speak english with this fucking knife!!!" How patriotic...

mutinyco

#74
June 25, 2003, 04:29:42 PM
Obviously, you haven't read anything I've written. The films you mentioned are among my favorites. In fact, 2001 is my favorite. But nothing will change the fact that Gangs is a mess. Period.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions