(Spielberg) in person

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

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SoNowThen

well, I am indeed surprised. If you have no emotional response to the Raging Bull scene, then there's absolutely nothing I can say, nothing, to make you enjoy these films. But I will address what you said, best I can.

Um, okay, first, some of us like repitition in dialogue. I personally find the cadence and rhythm of dialogue way more interesting than what is being said. The best dialogue I have ever heard is Glengarry Glen Ross, where Mamet plays off the repitition and makes it poetic. I find this is what Marty uses as well. So the whole "things, what things, I heard things" bit, I find great. I love the dialogue in his films. What you find annoying, I find amazing. I guess because it sounds like real people talking, just at a more sharp beat. You would probably disagree, or you would say that movie dialogue shouldn't be realistic. Well, I dunno. I truly am speechless. How can you defend that? I guess I can't.

As to using the same actors, so what? What in the hell is wrong with that? Don't change something if it works. Plus, each major character DeNiro played is a different, amazing character. Johnny Boy, Bickle, Rupert, Jimmy Doyle, LaMotta. Again, though, you say you hate it (?), I say I like it, there's no objective way to prove this. I guess I could say that many directors have used repertory players to fine point, I would put Marty in that group.

Okay, well, the Christian thing, you're just wrong. Can't be intellectual if you deal with religion? That's a ridiculous statement. One must deal with emotion and faith and grace. Dostoevsky dealt with it, Bresson dealt with it, they are considered huge intellectuals. While you may not find this subject "interesting" or "smart", being a Christian myself, I find what Scorsese does interesting and insightful. Yet, you go on and on about "why does he do what he does", "we need explaination about LaMotta". Why do we need explaination? Who the hell do you think you are that you can give a cut and dried reason why LaMotta might beat his wife? He does, so let's explore the results, that's where the drama is, not with the causes. What I find putrid in films is when someone feels the need to justify everything by using the characters' past as a reasoning. Even in Bringing Out The Dead, when he has to show the Rose flashback, he's filling in a very specific event that directs with the plot, but certainly doesn't provide a reasoning behind why Cage is burnt out. Why do that? He's running himself down. I've done that before. I can't pinpoint the exact reasoning, but the important part is either beating it, or being beaten by it. This taking the dramatic thread to its simplest. But through simplicity we can find something that becomes transcendent and beautiful. Not every film must be a puzzle of intellect that one must solve, we can still see some raw emotion. This is a direct vein to PTA. This is the reason why I love him as well.

Now, Marty changed the ending to Raging Bull because, like I said, the scene was unactable. The audience gets the point between the sexuality and violence. This has already been addressed in the "kiss the boo boo" scene. See, that's not important to moving the narrative forward. The jail scene where LaMotta must confront himself, that's what the movie is moving toward the whole time. To have that other scene would have undercut the whole film.

As to cutting his films to 70's music, well I happen to love the music he cuts to. What should he do, sell out and use rap? The Van Morrison song that threads through the whole movie works. It works, for fucks sakes. That's such a cop out to say "oh, he's done it before, he's using old music, how outdatted". That's like saying "oh, he's got a character wearing a green sweater. Green. He's done that before. He has to change the color. For change's sake".

Oh, and "Coppola got off the boat, The Coens cut off their Johnson", what, did you run out of examples and decide to say something cute and funny? I agree that all those directors are great. But Marty is just as great. His structure is like Opera on speed, with his sequences rumbling along and carrying the movie with them. The choreography and the acting style doesn't affect the overall structure, what are you on? I'm talking about his arrangement of events.

As to shuffling scenes around in Taxi Driver, besides the hair thing (which I have noticed, and so what? There's continuity problems in every film), his moves are justified. Schrader's draft didn't have Iris until way too late. Marty had to fix that stuff to have the "crumpled $20 fare" scene where it needed to be -- earlier. And what's this stuff about the military, and consequences? Again, you want some kinda perfect explanation? Fucking bullshit. That's not at all what the movie is about. Travis is lonely, and can't connect with people, and desperately tries in the worst ways. He needn't be a Vietnam Vet to be lonely and antisocial. Anybody can be this, and most people have felt this way at sometime or another, and that's why the movie resonated so well. The bloodbath carries the impact visually so he doesn't have to resort to pat explanations.

And while composition and lighting DOES tell a story, such is Marty's unique talent that he uses movement and blocking to do this. His unique style. That is VERY influential, and powerful. And as to showing seams, well Godard made a career out of this, and he is one of the most important film artists ever. Making people aware that they are watching a film is just another tool to tell your story and show the audience how to read your film. To disregard this is to be ignorant.

Lastly, I think we should applaude Marty's blending of what you call "Welles and Cassavettes". If we do not challenge our approach to narrative, there's really no point in trying to make lasting films. Again, what doesn't work for you, attracts me to his approach.

No matter what we say to each other, it degenerates into "I think it's cool", "no, I think it's shit". I really see no objective reasoning in anything you say. I tell you why it affects me, you say why it "is wrong". Art is not right or wrong. You try, and you fail, sometimes you succeed. In this case he succeeded for me, failed for you. I can't make an equation that will make you like Scorsese. I tell you what I love in Marty's films, you list off other directors and how they are different, and you use that as your reasoning. So I guess Marty missed the "how to be intellectual and compose slow paced films" class. He is a different and interesting filmmaker. I'm not saying I wanna make films in his style. I personally lean more toward approaching things in a Malick type of way. But because it's not the style I can work in, doesn't mean it's not an incredible style, and an incredible body of work. That will stand the test of time. You say everybody tried to push Marty on you by saying "the visuals, and the violence". Well, this is how closed minded you come off by saying Marty is "wrong" in mixing improv and tight choreography. You're just making some dull statement, and expecting it to be a good explanation. You can take this "debate" as a victory, because I cannot penetrate your wall. I'm just gonna run in circles if we go forward. So, I guess I must bow out...
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

I suppose that means you've finally confronted yourself.

A few quick things. I love repetition. The Coens use it wonderfully. So did Kubrick. Scorsese doesn't for me. There's no wit. It doesn't go anywhere.

Also, I don't feel the need to explain why characters do what they do. However, if you're making a biography of somebody and there are documented events which add a great deal of dimension to your character,  why exclude it? It only adds another layer. A successful film that offers no character background, yet forces the viewer to understand its characters and their actions is Full Metal Jacket. Or take Barry Lyndon, which shows an entire life and the gradual disintegration of somebody. No redemption there.

And as for the Christian aspect, I've been an atheist since age 6. It was the only thing that made sense. I have better things to do than delude myself with fairytales.

You're right. We do see things differently. And we won't convince each other of our points of view. Peace.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

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.

children with angels

I loved reading all that stuff (SoNowThen's more maybe, but that's just because I agree with him) - it's always so good to hear someone's personal philosophy of a film or a director's work.

We should have a forum that's just for, like, extended, personal, ranting essays about why we passionately love certain films or directors (and no "Why I hate (insert film)" essays)... That would be great! There's so much negativity often, it's nice to get back to the core of why we're all here (on the board, or in this life, depending on how deep your philosophical love of film goes...!): our personal passions for movies.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

Alethia

that was most entertaining, although im gonna have to lean more to sonowthen's side, althought i think every single filmmaker mentioned, bashed or praised, is wonderful.

mutinyco

I'd like to add a few things for my own personal edification, regardless of whether the debate is over. Just to flesh out a few things.

My primary gripe with Scorsese, all things said and done, is that I don't believe he's particularly versatile. While some people may like that they can immediately tell his style, I think that's a bit of a downfall. You could never say that about Francis Ford Coppola or Woody Allen during his Gordon Willis years. Each film they made looked and felt totally different. Even a filmmaker like Stanley Kubrick, while being partial to wide symmetrical compositions, used different approaches for his films. He built visual themes inherent to what he was saying in each film. Or latter-day Spielberg – you'd never know that E.T., Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report and Catch Me if you Can were visualized by the same person. Yes, there are occasional similarities, but he's pushing himself each time out.

Scorsese did this a little during the '90s. He worked with different cinematographers – Roger Deakins, Robert Richardson – but, of course, they were basically bringing their "look" to his movement. This is something I noticed really early on – aside from his movement and cutting, Scorsese had no real grasp of lighting. Yeah, Raging Bull was in B&W, but it was a standalone. He confirmed this in an interview. He said that he'd never paid much attention to light. For him growing up in the city light was a light bulb. That's all. What this says is that all he understands is movement and cutting. And I don't even think he understands composition all that well. I don't think he places things in his frames in a particularly interesting manner. He doesn't have a decent grasp of depth. He likes to focus on one thing at a time. Look at Spielberg's frames, in comparison – even back to Sugarland Express and Jaws – he was constantly moving people and objects within his frames, moving them in depth. If you have any experience directing, you'll know how much more complex it is to do that than to simply get lots of shots of things, then edit them together. If you want to see an excellent example of concise storytelling watch the first half of Full Metal Jacket. There isn't a single shot that doesn't exist solely to tell the story.

This goes into something else, as well. NowThen referred to his blocking. In fact, I don't think Scorsese does much blocking at all. He blocks his camera, but I don't feel like he blocks his characters' actions in an interesting manner. I think he's making up for all his shortcomings by putting too much emphasis on movement and cutting. He tries too hard at it. And while he often does very creative things, just as often he falls flat. It's just that everybody excuses his valleys because of their in awe of his peaks. To me, uneven is uneven. I talked to Peter Travers about this after he named Gangs of New York best film of 2002. He acknowledged how flawed the film was (disaster in my view), but thought the peaks were higher than anybody else's so it overcame its faults.

It's like he can never relax. Like he's never finished. When I watch a Scorsese film I never feel it's finished. When I watch films by the other filmmakers I've mentioned, I feel like they've completed what they set out to. I feel they've solved their equation, so to speak. But Marty's stone is still rough, not smooth. Sorry if I'm mixing metaphors. That's why I said that I used to joke that I could still see the grease pencil on his films. They feel incomplete. Not fully thought out. And the example of how Scorsese corrected the dollar bill in the editing of Taxi Driver proves this. That's not something that should have been fixed in the editing stage! That should have been fixed in the writing stage. The way he did it was sloppy.

Now, to his themes. Christianity, pardon you believers, is dog dick. Hairy dog dick. Grow up. Pick up a fucking science book. Read A Brief History of Time, for Christ's sake! I'm not interested in salvation because I don't acknowledge the existence of sin. It's all human action – action decided on by millions of years of evolution as well as varying circumstances. For me, basing your movie's intellectual center around religion, which is a bullshit fairytale, or irrational emotion, is simpleminded. I've never watched any of Scorsese's films and had to return because I didn't get things. It's not like watching the Coens or Kubrick, where you're constantly discovering new details and clues. With M.S., it's all straight forward. I don't mean to suggest, as NowThen suggested, that slow-paced intellectual films are necessarily superior. Of the directors I've referenced throughout my essay, only Kubrick would fit into that mold. The problem is, speed notwithstanding, I don't feel there's ANYTHING intellectual about Scorsese's work. It's based on a flimsy foundation.

If Scorsese were truly versatile, he'd do more than low-level crime films and religious escapades. He has no variety. Kubrick made war films, science fiction, horror, satire, historical epics. And redefined them each time out. Same with Coppola. Same with Spielberg. Marty hasn't shown that ability to me. Working in various genres isn't just interesting because of the varying subject matter, but because each genre best explores different themes. Again, Marty uses the same themes, same settings, same actors, same everything over and over again. What didn't he get already? I think his two best films, in terms of fullness of execution were probably After Hours and Goodfellas, which, in my opinion, owes a great deal to Kubrick. And I think Raging Bull is boring because – aside from the fact that I don't care about a single character – it has no forward momentum. It's a scene here. A scene there. And not a great deal leading from one to the next. I don't mind episodic structuring. I love Altman's films, and I use it a bit myself sometimes. However, where Altman is concerned, his directorial approach is drastically different. Altman's genius was to have everybody wired, then filmed with multiple cameras. Everybody would have to be doing something because they never knew when they'd be on camera. He created a multi-layered environment. It's the total antithesis of what Scorsese does. And I think Altman is more interesting, and makes films with a greater diversity and depth.

And that's the truth, Ruth!
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

i think picking on speilberg is basiclly the same as saying " hi i dont ever want to work in hollywood again " and picking on shindlers list, well is reallllllllly gonna go a long way to helping a person sabotage there career, i mean i would think that would be his baby pic, and i am sure slamming it means more to him then slamming E.T



say what you will but he is the most powerfull directer ever, and well he has the power to crush careers


as far as my opinion, well i was a 80's baby so DUHHHH his golden age is gonna have a sweet sentimental thing for me.

i didnt watch AI Or minority report so i dunno much about his new shit

modage

i feel the same way.  i know that anybody that grew up with Jaws and ET and Close Encounters and Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park grew up LOVING them.  because kids dont turn their noses up easily.  its only when a lot of people go to film school and start hearing all the anti-spielberg talk and criticism do they start to think their tastes are more mature.  it seems like there was a similar feeling about Hitchcock in his day.  he made movies that audiences liked.  but there wasnt any "real artistic merit" to his popcorn flicks. its not until way down the line does everyone realize, "oh shit.  he was a fucking genius", and realize that he is just as important to movies as anything in the french new wave or whatever else was going on at the time.  i have a feeling that Spielberg will be remembered the same way.  only after he's dead will people realize that he was truly one of the greatest storytellers of our time.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

phil marlowe

Quote from: themodernage02i feel the same way.  i know that anybody that grew up with Jaws and ET and Close Encounters and Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park grew up LOVING them.  because kids dont turn their noses up easily.  its only when a lot of people go to film school and start hearing all the anti-spielberg talk and criticism do they start to think their tastes are more mature.  it seems like there was a similar feeling about Hitchcock in his day.  he made movies that audiences liked.  but there wasnt any "real artistic merit" to his popcorn flicks. its not until way down the line does everyone realize, "oh shit.  he was a fucking genius", and realize that he is just as important to movies as anything in the french new wave or whatever else was going on at the time.  i have a feeling that Spielberg will be remembered the same way.  only after he's dead will people realize that he was truly one of the greatest storytellers of our time.
thumbs up man! that was a great great read and i agree with you 100%.

all hail to the mainstream whore that lives deep in our souls and feeds of the great experience that is to watch first class entertainment such as indiana jones and jurassic park.

Redlum

Aye.

Don't talk about the death of Spielberg, I shall cry that day.
\"I wanted to make a film for kids, something that would present them with a kind of elementary morality. Because nowadays nobody bothers to tell those kids, \'Hey, this is right and this is wrong\'.\"
  -  George Lucas

SoNowThen

Funnily enough, the only 'Berg movie I could stand as a kid was Jaws. I hated ET when I saw it, and on repeated viewings of Hook and Jurassic Park, I hated those. I could never get even 10 min into Indiana Jones.

Awww, mutinyco, what can I say? I bowed out fairly gracefully, and you run behind and stab me in the back over religion. That's a shame. Because, buddy, you're missing out big-time on a lot of life experiences if you're not recognizing the spiritual. Sin exists. Please. But I guess I can understand why you're so anti-Marty, if you have those ideas in your head. But there's nothing I can say to change your mind about that...

I gotta stay away from these 'Berg threads. I end up raging. You may take great heart that most of my weekend was overshadowed by my intense confusion that someone who cared about films can't experience the joy of a Scorsese film. But, well, now I shouldn't care. I'll get enough joy out of them for the two of us.
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.

Gold Trumpet

I'm sad I missed out on this argument. I prolly could have gotten into it and all. I'm not going to even attempt to read it all. I read some of it and skimmed a lot. But I would like to say a few things:

- Stanley Kubrick was a confirmed agnostic. Read his interview from Playboy 1968 for that one.

- A complaint of mine for christians is how they are brought in to believing their religion through baptisim and how a lot of them just take this baptism for granted and rest their belief on it instead of coming to a good age on what to believe or not. Mature age can bring about a good intelligence in studying each religion. That brings me to my question: Mutinyco, how can you be an atheist since age 6 without falling into these categorizations of christian belief among so many people?

And sorry if I may be missing the point on some of these, because I only read a little. I got to stop skipping most of these director threads and show my face more.

~rougerum

mutinyco

Trumpet: I never fell into any trappings because my parents weren't religious. It just wasn't around. It was only upon entering grade school and through socializing with other people who had all these different beliefs -- all of which were forced upon them like dogma -- that I realized what nonsense it all was. Life and experience has only confirmed this for me.

NowThen: I didn't go behind your back. There was more I wanted to say before you ended the debate. Just wanted to get it out. But yeah, Hook does suck. Check out:

Duel
The Sugarland Express (ONLY WATCH IT IN WIDESCREEN!!!!!)
Jaws
Close Encounters
Raiders of the Lost Ark
E.T.
Empire of the Sun
Schindler's List
Saving Private Ryan
A.I.
Minority Report
Catch Me if You Can
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

Yeah, I try to watch everything WS if I can, unless the only thing available is old shitty video. I have seen:

Jaws
Raiders
ET
Saving Private Ryan
Minority Report

and extremely disliked them all (except Jaws, which I don't mind). But I will not get into it, because it'll just be an apples and oranges thing like the Scorsese talk. But I would like to see Close Encounters. Mostly for Truffaut, Dreyfus, Zsigmond, and the fact that Schrader did an uncredited write. Is it worth watching this, even though I have always been pissed off at the end of each of his films?
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

Yeah, it's worth watching. Better to be pissed off, than pissed on...
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe