Schindler's List!

[Gold Trumpet]

more fiction than fiction.

That reminds me of what Van Gogh said about art being "more true than literal truth."

I also see it along similiar lines as well. I think two excellent films that show what Godardian means by this is Dr. Strangelove and How I Won the War. In those films, the aim of absurdity embodies the narrative and filmmaking so the possibilities are explored. Fuller is more conventional and skirts around this idea.

[mutinyco]

I have really mixed feelings about Schindler's List. First of all, on a purely cinemtic level, the film really is an astonishing accomplishment. Scene after scene. My biggest problem with it is the final 45 minutes or so -- basically the 3rd act.

Everything changes in the 3rd act. The momentum. The tone. It's no longer about survival, because he basically saves them at the beginning of the 3rd act. Then it's mostly about a sort of return to normalcy. He lets them conduct the sabbath, tells the guards to back off, etc. Even the ending where he says goodbye is too thought-out. In reality, Schindler cut out in the middle of the night with a trunk filled with loot. That's more interesting and ironic to me. But Spielberg felt a 3-hour film about the Holocaust NEEDED some type of resolution. After 3 hours of murder, he thought audiences needed that type of release. And as much as I dislike that part, I'm not questioning his instincts -- because that's what made the film for most people. People were REALLY blown away by the scene with the real-life survivors.

We can talk and debate and whatever now 10 years later from a safe distance. But this WAS NOT a commercial-minded film. It's 3 hours. In B&W. About the Halocaust. Yet it grossed $90 million domestically. It was a phenomenon. It affected people from all walks. There's a reason why it made the top 10 in the AFI's poll of the 100 greatest American films. The most recent film before that was The Godfather from 20 years earlier.

Spielberg was trying to make a DRAMATIC film. He used the score. He contrived scenes for drama and suspense. That's the difference with this and The Pianist. With Schindler's you're constantly being reminded what a catastrophe it was, but with Polanski, an actual survivor, he felt the presentation should be almost matter-of-fact in its banality.

One other thing. In 1993, Spielberg wasn't Oscar's golden boy. He'd never won before. He was like Scorsese or Kubrick. He'd been so successful and everybody knew he was so good that for him to actually win the bar was raised to absurd heights. He silenced everybody by going so far beyond what they expected. That's part of my opinion about Scorsese -- I don't think he's capable of pulling off that epic masterpiece which EVERYBODY gets behind. The bar is too high. And he's too inconsistent.

As for Godard...he's irrelevant at this point. He had his time late-50s-60s. If he really felt the need to take on America and crass Hollywood commercialism he should've gone after Disney. That's more appropriate. But then he'd be getting his ass sued. S.S. was an easier target for him. And let me stress this: Godard is incapable of creating anything along the level of Schindler's List, in terms of both craft, narrative, scale and historical importance. His films are sketches. Not murals.

[godardian]

He was like Scorsese or Kubrick.

In his wildest, most fantastical and self-aggrandizing dreams, he was. We all saw him painfully trying to ride those Kubrick coattails with A.I., which was just disrespectful. Just because they all hadn't won an Oscar... Spielberg panted for it far, far more than those two did- he clearly cares much more about mainstream acceptance, I mean that's just bluntly obvious- and it shows in his middlebrow, "serious" (but not TOO serious, not too "depressing") work.

Spielberg may be a "master" craftsman, but Godard is an artist. Better sketches by a real artist than technically proficient yet unintersting, utterly compromised murals by a craftsman.

"Think that was about the Holocaust? ...That was about success, wasn't it? The Holocaust is about six million people who get killed. Schindler's List is about six hundred people who don't. Anything else?" - Stanley Kubrick on Schindler's List

Spielberg is always and only about success.

[Gold Trumpet]

Excellent post, Mutincyo. The last paragraph may spark a large fight, but you came through like I knew you would on clearing some things up about Schindler's List.

[Gold Trumpet]

"Think that was about the Holocaust? ...That was about success, wasn't it? The Holocaust is about six million people who get killed. Schindler's List is about six hundred people who don't. Anything else?" - Stanley Kubrick on Schindler's List

Kubrick shouldn't talk. He was about to film a novel about the Holocaust that got nowhere near the true horror of the Holocaust. It was a survival story of an aunt and her nephew who forge papers and aliases to keep out of the ghetto. Kubrick was merely continuing his fascination with false aliases and identities at the expense of the subject. Kubrick withdrew from making the film because he didn't want yet another film to follow another highly publicized on the same subject and because, as his widow says, "he's read everything on WW2 so what story could he write to show all his knowlegde?" At least Speilberg set his story in the depths of some of that pain.

[Fernando]

Kubrick shouldn't talk. He was about to film a novel about the Holocaust that got nowhere near the true horror of the Holocaust. It was a survival story of an aunt and her nephew who forge papers and aliases to keep out of the ghetto. Kubrick was merely continuing his fascination with false aliases and identities at the expense of the subject.

Well, he didn't make it so unfortunately it's impossible to know what he would do with Wartime Lies.

[mutinyco]

I don't think Spielberg is middlebrow at all. But I do think Godard is irrelevant. The fact that one director's films have been embraced by billions of people doesn't make him a craftsman or a hack. And just because Godard is a misanthrope whose films are ignored doesn't mean he's an artist. They both have just as much control over their work. Spielberg controls every aspect of his films. If all he cares about is making audiences like him, I'm sure he'd do more test screenings. In fact, he doesn't do test screenings because he trusts his instincts. And there's one other thing -- Spielberg has a much greater responsibility than Godard  because his films are more successful. He has businesses and charities to deal with. What exactly does Godard have to offer except what rattles around in his own small head? What great international causes does he contribute to?

And aside from an argument like this, you don't see Spielberg admirers routinely trashing Godard or Truffaut (who starred in Close Encounters). Spielberg loved the French New Wave. I think it's simple insecurity on the part of Godard fans.

[godardian]

If all he cares about is making audiences like him, I'm sure he'd do more test screenings. In fact, he doesn't do test screenings because he trusts his instincts. And there's one other thing -- Spielberg has a much greater responsibility than Godard  because his films are more successful. He has businesses and charities to deal with. What exactly does Godard have to offer except what rattles around in his own small head? What great international causes does he contribute to?

And aside from an argument like this, you don't see Spielberg admirers routinely trashing Godard or Truffaut (who starred in Close Encounters). Spielberg loved the French New Wave. I think it's simple insecurity on the part of Godard fans.

-In my opinion, the reason Spielberg doesn't need to do test screenings is that from the beginning, he's been his own ideal test-screening audience; his "instinct" is to make something that will be a "hit." He has an instinct for the mindless, for the escapist, for the heartwarming, for the "get up and cheer," and that's absolutely fine... until you go applying it to the Holocaust. Speaking of insecurity, what could seem more insecure than an ultra-successful filmmaker with a talent for being an entertainer who makes all these bad, pedestrian "serious" films in a clear attempt to gain elusive respect? Godard doesn't care about being respected; Spielberg does, and how.  

-I already posited earlier that contributing to great international causes is all well and good, but it means nothing about a filmmaker's actual work, however much it might mean about them as a person. It doesn't support your position very well when you have to defend a filmmaker's movies by pointing out what a great philanthropist they are (or attack another for not publicly trumpeting their business and charitable dealings).

[modage]

He has an instinct for the mindless, for the escapist, for the heartwarming, for the "get up and cheer," and that's absolutely fine... until you go applying it to the Holocaust. Speaking of insecurity, what could seem more insecure than an ultra-successful filmmaker with a talent for being an entertainer who makes all these bad, pedestrian "serious" films in a clear attempt to gain elusive respect? Godard doesn't care about being respected; Spielberg does, and how.

i think spielberg isnt as focused on those things as you think.  i think he just likes telling stories.  and his career path isnt as purposefully back and forth for respect and money, as it is just being able to tell different types of stories.  lots of different things interest him and i dont think Empire Of The Sun, Schindlers List, Amistad, etc. were intentionally 'oscar bait'.  he just has an interest in history and wwII that brings his attention to these sorts of stories.

mutinyco, where were you for the xixax-a-thon?! we needed you on some spielberg votes.  also: mutinyco, a little off topic, whats YOUR favorite spielberg film and why?

[Alethia]

He has an instinct for the mindless, for the escapist, for the heartwarming, for the "get up and cheer," and that's absolutely fine... until you go applying it to the Holocaust.

yeah but...i didn't exactly get up and cheer at the end of schindler's list....did anyone else?  i don't think I felt very warm inside either.....

[mutinyco]

I honestly can't say what my favorite film is. Too much variety. I love The Sugarland Express, but I only recommend seeing it in widescreen. I think Close Encounters is pretty successful, as is E.T. I think Spielberg captured the Baby Boom suburbs better than anybody -- especially if you also add Gremlins, Back to the Future and Poltergeist. I think Raiders and Temple of Doom are great popcorn adventures. I think Empire of the Sun is gorgeously done. Then I'd skip to his last 3 films. I'm not big on Jurassic or Schindler's or Ryan, though they're well-made.

And yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong with having the instinct for hitmaking. And I don't think it's warm fluff in the slightest. Schindler's and Ryan are possibly the most violent mainstream films ever made. Hits? Lots of great artists were hitmakers. The Beatles. Picasso. Shakespeare. Beethoven. Kubrick. Warhol. It seems to me only in the modern age that popularity has been the sign of artistic corruption. Nobody makes a social art like movies and doesn't care if anybody sees it or it doesn't make money. If they tell you that they don't deserve the budget in the first place, cause that's being irresponsible. The idea is to be successful at what you do. Not to be great because you're not successful. And I know there are 2 types of success: artistic and commercial. But the best art usually tries to find a common ground. There's no point in saying something if you can't find a means of reaching people. And it's often the messenger that isn't working properly than the message. That's why Kubrick's films were so great -- he found a way to make uncompromised pictures that were popular successes.

[modage]

I love The Sugarland Express, but I only recommend seeing it in widescreen.

i just saw that for the first time a month or two ago.  TCM showed it in widescreen and i was just flipping channels when i stopped on the Robert Osbourne introduction. i was like "!"  my favorite is ET.  i loved it as a kid, and  then didnt see it for years and years till i saw the rerelease in theatres last year, (while hardly remembering what happened in the film) and it hit me then probably more than ever before.  i was awestruck at how much i loved it, (so much moreso than any of the other films i'd been seeing in the theatres) and i wish more movies had the impact that that one does.

[godardian]

And yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong with having the instinct for hitmaking. And I don't think it's warm fluff in the slightest. Schindler's and Ryan are possibly the most violent mainstream films ever made.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having an instinct for hitmaking either, as long as you can cop to it without being so goddamn self-important. I will always have a healthy respect for Stephen King for writing in the introduction to Different Seasons, "I know I'm the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries" (I may be paraphrasing a bit). He's honest about it, he has a sense of humor, and he's good at what he does. Spielberg may have had a bit of that too, once upon a time, but lord knows he doesn't now.

I don't disagree that Schindler's or Ryan are unusually violent or disturbing for "mainstream" films. I maintain that both, particularly Ryan, DO go for the warm fuzzies, and the violence is neither here nor there. You can have all the violence in the world in your film and still make the overall product tidy and acceptable to literal-minded, black-and-white thinkers.

I have never claimed that any film is bad simply because it's popular, nor that a true artist doesn't care about being popular and packing the seats. The argument always degenerates into that, and it's at once too elaborate and too simplistic.

My points are only this:

-Steven Spielberg has earned his reputation as a hitmaker, but he absolutely has not earned a reputation as an artist. Some can be both; he obviously can't. I'm not making generalizations; I'm not saying "This is the only way a real 'artist' can do it." I'm not saying, "You have to be as contrarian and smart as Godard to be a real artist." All- and I mean all- I'm saying is that, judging from his work alone, I feel the massive public and critical regard for it is very misplaced and even destructive.

-In addition to the distraction the deafening acclaim for Spielberg represents for other, less appreciated filmmakers, his effect on the the practice of cinema has been almost wholly destructive. There was a brief time before Spielberg/Lucas when producers and audiences seemed more willing to take a chance on something more complex, more subtle, more inspired, more interesting than anything we have now. There were many bridges between the "artists" and "the money"; there were hints of cinematic utopia in this. A film had time to grow; a film didn't have to beat every record to be a success. I feel that Spielberg, with his particular manias and commercial instincts, had a direct hand in blocking those hints of utopia out, and the film biz has never been the same since It's all ghettoized and compartmentalized now. And I think that's for the worst. As Michael Jackson is to music, Spielberg is to film; it's about beating records, it's about "winning." That's hardly necessary to be commercially viable, but it apparently is necessary to be the "king" or the "best" of anything.

Please don't boil my opinions down into "well, the REAL artist doesn't care about the audience." Of course they do- they care more about the audience than anyone, because won't insult them and slowly wear down their ability to approach a film intelligently the way Spielberg and Co., over time, have done. A real artist will find a way to get their work seen by as many people as possible without compromising their vision. A real artist may accept less money (i.e. less responsibility to producers/financiers), a smaller audience, and even less acclaim to put that vision onto celluloid.

There is a conscientous way of approaching the audience and giving them something- and any artist intends to give their audience something- and then there is a greed for an audience, a greed for success, that leads to a lowest-common-denominator, fearful, desperate product. And I really do feel Spielberg falls into the latter category. I don't respect him because for me- and without giving in to silly, simplistic, "this is 'commercial,' this is 'art'" distinctions, because I know very well that those lines can be blurred in myriad ways- he is one of the most obvious symptoms of the shrill, monolithic dumbing down of our culture. He has actually shifted the meanings of the word "commercial" and the word "art"; his own lack of perspective has permeated film culture to such a degree that skepticism and resistance to it is, I feel, worth my while as a movie-lover.

[Alethia]

i honestly can't imagine someone who loves movies is numb to the feeling of joy most of us get while watching a good spielberg film.

i can't say i ever plan to be the kind of filmmaker he is, nor do his films really inspire me that much (except for maybe one or two), but goddamn would i be a liar if i said i don't get excited when a new spielberg film is coming out.  but i guess that's neither here nor there.  at least this has been a valid argument.  godardian, i don't really agree with you, but it's nice to see you have points to back up your arguments, which is rare in a spielberg debate i think.

i can't even say he's in my top fifteen (maybe my top twenty-five...), but i dunno, i just get mad when people bash spielberg.

[ono]

The idea of Schindler! the musical?  Priceless.  Hilarious.  Gotta love it.

And I love you godardian.  Well said!  It's so refreshing to be in a place where everyone and their uncle isn't constantly rushing to inflate and fellate Herr Spielberg's ego and overpraise his poorly-realized films.  I've already said enough on that, though, for a lifetime, in the Spielberg forum.