Xixax Film Forum

Film Discussion => News and Theory => Topic started by: mutinyco on June 12, 2003, 08:54:44 AM

Title: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 12, 2003, 08:54:44 AM
Hey, all, I got to see Spielberg in person last fall at Lincoln Center. I wrote about it. If anybody's interested go to:

http://www.movienavigator.org/spielberg.htm
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: ono on June 12, 2003, 12:25:36 PM
Interesting.  I disagree very much, but it's still a good read.

You nailed Scorsese (I like the guy, but he's only made one picture of real consequence: Taxi Driver), but Spielberg is incredibly overrated I mean simply not that great a filmmaker.  He has yet to do anything of substance.  E.T. was great, yes, but he neutered it, and my opinions of it, with that bullshit CG.  Schindler's List was his "gimmeOscarplease!" pic; I was assigned to watch it for a history class when it aired (uncut) on NBC, and I was thoroughly bored and unaffected (except for knowing I never wanted to see it again).  (And note how convenient it is that when something is "historical" the FCC won't bat an eye or edit it, but when it's artistic or otherwise controversial the FCC is all on the film's back, butchering it for "cleanliness".  But that's beside the point.)  Saving Private Ryan was one of the worst films I've ever seen.  Seriously.  That's not hyperbole.  Minority Report was his most promising film yet, but it reeked of L.A. Confidential, a superior film, and its ending was terrible; a total cop-out.

I liked your comments on Kubrick, though.  You're right - he did ace everyone with Eyes Wide Shut.  I can't wait until everyone else realizes how great a film that was.  It takes time, though, as with all his other pictures.

But Coppola?  C'mon.  Apocalypse Now wasn't that great.  Oddly, I found the ending to be the best part, unlike most people.  The Godfather was decent, but that was because of the acting, and not anything Coppola did.  The Godfather: Part II was overblown and sprawling, and could have easily been split into two better movies.  And, besides The Conversation (which I haven't seen yet), he hasn't done anything noteworthy since.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: xerxes on June 12, 2003, 02:55:25 PM
i'm not going to say anything about your comments on spielberg because i partially agree with you. but he is a great technical director, but his films are sometimes very overrated.

ok, but i will comment on your coppola ranting. the godfather was decent??? the acting was amazing, yes, but it also has one of the best stories put to film. yes, the godfather II could have easily been split into two seperate movies, but would that have made it better??? ok, i'm just gonna stop now...

anyway, nothing wrong with someone's opinion, just had to get some stuff off of my chest.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: modage on June 12, 2003, 03:14:13 PM
yeah he should have just said "IT STINKS!"
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 12, 2003, 03:21:12 PM
mutinyco, I got to the part about you saying Raging Bull was inferior, then I stopped. I'm sorry, but you are evil. Of the purest kind. From the deepest bowels of hell. As Rose would say "you deserve to die alone for what you've done".

Just wanted to get my opinion out. I will disrupt this thread no more.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Redlum on June 12, 2003, 03:56:53 PM
Come on they're all good. Damn, what it would be to be a kid again watching Spielberg's movies. Funny thing is (as far as I know) all these directors have a great deal of respect for each other, and probably enjoy each others movies.

Also, 'over hyped' and 'over-rated' are cop-out explanations. The song remains the same and so does the film.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: modage on June 12, 2003, 04:07:34 PM
i agree. saying things are "over hyped" is overrated anyways.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 12, 2003, 09:52:50 PM
I stand by everything I wrote. Know why you're upset, cause nobody else has ever had the balls to print it. In my opinion, there have been very few genuine 4-star films ever made. I think under this perception, Martin Scorsese is a classic 2 1/2 star filmmaker. One day I'm going to reedit Taxi Driver to prove this.

And yes, Coppola was, Kubrick aside, the greatest filmmaker of the 1970s. Just think: 3 screenplay Oscar wins (Patton, Godfather, Godfather II), 2 Best Pictures that he directed (Godfather, Godfather II -- not including Patton, which he just wrote), 1 Best Director (Godfather II), 4 straight Best Picture nominations as director (Godfather, Godfather II, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now), 2 subsequent Best Director nominations (Godfather, Apocalypse Now), plus he produced American Graffiti which was a Best Picture nominee, plus he won 2 Palme d'Ors at Cannes. He had the greatest career inside 10 years! On top of that, Sight and Sound voted The Godfather #3 of all time, and then voted Apocalypse Now the greatest film of the past 25 years. Period. End of argument.

Of all the generally accepted greatest filmmakers, Martin Scorsese is the only one that never really impressed me. I've never stuck any of his films in my DVD player or VCR and felt the need to repeatedly watch them. Read what I wrote with calm, then watch his films again and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Ghostboy on June 12, 2003, 09:57:01 PM
I read it calmly, but I still feel the urge to watch Last Temptation Of Christ, Raging Bull, After Hours, and of course Taxi Driver, just like I always do! I just can't get enough. I just can't get enough. (cue catchy Depeche Mode song NOW).
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 12, 2003, 09:59:28 PM
Ghosty, the only one of those films I like is After Hours. That and Goodfellas were the only ones where it all came together.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Ghostboy on June 12, 2003, 10:00:38 PM
Goodfellas, curiously, is the only one I don't feel like popping in at the drop of a hat. It's brilliant, to be sure, but it's not my favorite.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 12, 2003, 10:14:59 PM
Watching Scorsese's older films I used to joke that I could still see the grease pencil marks on them.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 13, 2003, 08:49:21 AM
What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you on crack? Is this a fucking joke? If so, it's working perfectly, because you've successfully enraged me. I can put up with so much disagreeing with my opinion on this board, but THIS is the line. I can see the fucking grease pencil marks on your posts, you ass. How did you find a PTA message board? Why are you here? Read calmly and watch again, and I'll see what you're talking about? Why don't YOU fucking watch again, because YOU obviously missed something. Man.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 13, 2003, 10:45:08 AM
So, Mr. Now Then,

Since I'm such a crackhead, why don't you make the case. And without cursing. Just why do you think M.S. is such a good filmmaker. I have yet to find anybody who could make a serious case without resorting to: VISUALS...HE MOVES HIS CAMERA A LOT...HE LIKES VIOLENCE...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 13, 2003, 10:52:36 AM
Yeah, okay. I would love to go on and on about MS. Should I do it in PM, though? Do you want me to name a movie specifically, or do his whole career?

I think the man is the single greatest director. Ever. He is my personal hero. I deify him. I am shocked that a "lover of film" doesn't like St Martin.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 13, 2003, 10:57:43 AM
You're making the case. Choose your ways and means.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 13, 2003, 11:01:43 AM
Well, I'm at work, so if I wanna post something here, can you give me until lunch time, so I can actually write something? I don't wanna ruin your post, but I guess everyone should be able to read it, unless you absolutely want a PM.

But again, do you want a whole career summation, with snippets of films? Or a film specifically?
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: MacGuffin on June 13, 2003, 11:07:10 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdientertainment.com%2Fimg%2Flgrtrlogo.gif&hash=139d7abe1c9a3b01ca83f1948f71512bc4f8ee1f)
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 13, 2003, 11:09:26 AM
Hehehe...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 13, 2003, 11:16:42 AM
Focus on him. Why is he such a great director in your estimation? Stick to him and use references to his work to bolster your argument.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 13, 2003, 11:18:34 AM
'kay. Cool. I will post here by early afternoon.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: modage on June 13, 2003, 11:21:37 AM
this  is gonna be good.
*(grabs popcorn) :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Alethia on June 13, 2003, 12:09:37 PM
cant wait
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 13, 2003, 01:27:42 PM
okay, here goes...

WHY I LOVE MARTIN SCORSESE
an essay (?) by Sean Corbett


I'm not gonna get all technical here, because if I start using too many big words, or thinking too much, it'll smother the raw passion that I feel for Marty's work. So I'll go with the guts of what I feel -- the stuff that "curls in your belly, makes you wanna freaky deaky".

Also, the following are some reasons why I love his films. I don't profess to know why anyone else does. This stuff is personal. Yet I truly wish everyone loved him as I did...

Okay, so what makes a director amazing, and doesn't have to do just with the "visuals, and violence", as you said. Well, I gotta bring visuals in at some point, because these are Moving Pictures, and as we all know, a picture is worth 1000 words. It's the visuals that get the story across. And Marty happens to be a master at visual kinetic storytelling. But more on that later. Anyway, what really makes a director (what essentially "is" a director) is the choices he makes for his film. Being the General on set, the director will oversee everything that happens, and give his stamp of approval (depending on how much control he is afforded by the financers -- in Marty's case, he has always exercised as much control as possible, given the situation). So the first and foremost important choice the director can make is what kind of stories he wants to tell. In this, I feel Martin is superb. He seems to gravitate towards struggles for redemption, sometimes specifically dealing with how to live life according to Christian principles, when it seems so impossible in the real world (Mean Streets, Last Temptation Of Christ). His subjects are not "good" men (but really, who is?),  rather they are sinners who know they sin, and frequently loath themselves because of it... and go out of their way to punish themselves for it. I can relate to this because it seems to be how I've chosen to live my life. Of course, in Scorsese movies the punishment is usually more exciting, but that's all down to his great showmanship of drama. But these stories are not morality tales; he never tells us the "right" thing to do, because Marty does not pander to an audience. He just shows the effects (personally and externally) of his main characters' choices. This, I feel, seperates him from a gross majority of filmmakers who feel a need to prove a "point", and suss out a "bad guy", when that bad guy is in each of us, and until we learn to look in the mirror and deal with ourselves (Raging Bull), things are just gonna get worse.

Some may say that Martin just resorts to violence in his films, as an easy way out. But how can one make this claim? His characters are violent men, raised with violence, almost taught to understand that violence is an acceptable way to solve things, and frequently -- when confused as to how to think something through -- put this attitude into sudden and horrendous effect. This is why he works so well with Paul Schrader scripts. Paul is so affected by this notion of "manhood" and its historical connections with violence as progress vs violence that afflicts and stagnates us. But I digress. Shit, too many fancy words. Back to the game: Casino is a great example of people confusing Marty's screen violence as exploitation/smut/what-have-you. Pehaps, up until that point, viewers were exhilirated by Joe Pesci's actions. I dunno. Maybe they thought what he did was "cool". Well, this is why Marty has such a brutal final killing scene. You liked Joe? Well, watch as his best friends beat him to (near) death with bats, then bury him as he still breaths. This where his lifestyle got him. This is where it all ends. Live by the sword and die by it. Clearly, Marty continually comdemns violence, but has to be realistic and say Violence has existed, and will exist, forever. Especially when all these flashy things are up for grabs (Vegas casino money, chicks, power and fame, good tables at restaurants...) some people are gonna try and take them by force. The man is exploring one of our most human traits/flaws from the beginning of time. His stories are important.

His other common themes include Lonliness, Blind Obsession/Dedication, Loyalty, and as I said before, Redemption. Now, I'm not saying he is unique in this aspect, but pointing out that his mix (his "palette" if you will) is very interesting, at least to myself. He has, and continues to, explore these subjects in depth, with an almost perverse fascination. Most of his main characters (upon some moment of catharsis) undergo a baptism of sorts (attributed to his Roman Catholic roots) with blood. They are Cleansed by the Blood Of Christ, so to speak. No other contemporary director has worked this intensely with religious imagery in a non-satiric way. Look for a spray of blood (most times from the neck) for this: Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Gang Of New York, obviously the whole crucifiction in Last Temptation. Sometimes this bloodletting is negative (signalling a significantly low moment for the character): Raging Bull last fight, Casino bar stabbing, Bringing Out The Dead. The images are consistent and effective throughout his work.

Now, what better way to segue into the visuals of Scorsese? How can one accuse the man of being overindulgent with his camera? Have you ever seen the way he moves and speaks in real life? This is the celluloid representation of how he feels. Intense, kinetic, constantly flowing and evolving, with the opportunity to explode at any second (the perfect match for the stories he picks!). He takes forms from all the greatest directors of the past, and merges them into both a celebration of cinema, and a unique voice all his own. In the movies, style definitely counts for something. And Marty has style. In terms of influencing our best directors of today, the man is like The Beatles to Pop Music. He has taken fluctuating camera speed, and raised it to perfection, when having to deal with characters' heightened states of perception (see Taxi Driver, the slow-mo Travis POV shots). He has a very specific use of this, which I believe is exclusive to his films, in terms of its presentation and context. Of course, assisting these visuals is his wonderful ear for music. Not just the great source songs we are all familiar with, but with his choice of score as well. How amazing was the scene from Taxi Driver, where we went straight into a Jackson Browne song, after being intoxicated with Bernard Hermann's lovely score up until that point. But then this rock song explodes in, and we see Travis staring at the tv, zoning out, gun in hand. Very subtle zooms and inch-long dollies help enhance this scene, as it is made concrete to us that Travis is ready for his long descent into extreme violence and perhaps madness -- the True Force he thinks he must attain. This is my favorite scene ever, in cinema. Shivers down the spine, ladies and germs, shivers.

As I said before, choices are key here. And another important choice in filmmaking is who you surround yourself with. Granted, Marty has been blessed to work with some of the notable talents of our time. But he has always brought out the very best in them, so that much of their other work pales in comparison. Peter Gabriel's music for Last Temptation (and his bit in Gangs), I'd have to say is the high water mark of his musical career. He has been known to agree. Same can be said for Michael Chapman, a fine DP, who was on his A-game for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. Thelma, his editor, with his support and guidance, has forged a cutting style as unique and influential as anything in the business. And of course, we come to his actors. His casting decisions are superb, and who else could show us the brilliance of Joe Pesci? All actors admit to great joy upon working with Martin. He always makes sure to tell the story, but will take breaths to show people just living their lives (how they cook, what music they listen to, etc), which must be nice to performers who are continually made to be slaves of some contrived plot. Most talked about (for good reason) is his allowance of improv to flesh out a performance. He gives enough freedom for an acting artist to bring a full and wonderful interpretation, yet can still bring in the reins to keep the movie on track. Whether it be with character actors (the several greats in Bringing Out The Dead), or huge stars (Color Of Money, Paul Newman's deserved Oscar), this man is a true Actor's Director.

As I can't quite fit these into formal prose, I will list off some other reasons I think Marty is great:

- shows he can work in many genres (thriller, crime, comedy) and inject new life into each
- eschews the pat 3 Act Structure of films, and has developed his own sequential/episodic storytelling that suits his stories so well (studies of character more than plot)
-  well respected in the industry, even by directors like Spielberg, who I consider to be his 180% opposite
- hugely influencial, especially on Tarantino and PTA
- a true, passionate lover and supporter of film -- and one of our most learned cinephiles (see his documentaries)

I would like to close with a description of the 2nd last sequence of Raging Bull, which can summarize most of what is great about Scorsese. Firstly, I note that even though it would have had to be marketed as a Boxing Picture, he doesn't let that tie him down from telling the proper story of the man: Jake LaMotta. It is not the tale of just a boxer, but of a man who deals with his problems outside the ring as he does inside; with violence and rage. But of course, outside the ring, he will not be celebrated for his victories, but will be punished. He almost craves this punishment. He allows himself to be beaten to a pulp against Robinson, but still this doesn't work. Because no one can solve Jake LaMotta's problems except Jake LaMotta. So he is put into a cell, where he is FINALLY forced to confront himself. He bashes his fists to the wall, the wall feels no pain, it is he who feels the pain. He can't contain it. He can't explain it. This is a man who is known not for his great boxing finesse, but for the fact that he can take so much punishment. But he can take no more. He breaks down: screaming, kicking, punching, then finally, crying. "I'm not an animal... I'm not that man...", says DeNiro. Yes, the great performance was given by the actor... but Marty had to put him in that context, create that situation for him, so that the great performance would bloom. And look at that scene! He has Chapman barely light it. You can't even see DeNiro! But you feel it. You feel his pain so much. This scene staggers me. It is the apex of the film. Where it all pointed to. This man must fight himself, come to terms with his own demons, like we must on a daily basis when we fail. At the end of the day, you have yourself. To blame. To love. To be true to or not. Violence. Lonliness. Loyalty. And finally, if it's possible (and Marty shows that he believes in some ways that it is)... Redemption.

*As a note, this scene was originally written to be something else, by Paul Schrader. They deemed it un-actable, and set to coming up with a new one. Right before shooting, together on an island getaway, Marty and DeNiro fleshed out the whole script, and came up with this scene. So, essentially, Marty did the final rewrite on Raging Bull, which is why I attribute the scene so much to him.

And this is why I truly believe Martin Scorsese is a brilliant, passionate, important director, who should (and will) be considered among the greatest of all time.

Cheers

(ps - sorry I sweared at you before, mutinyco, I was a little pissed off, and cranky this morn. I hope this expresses my opinion in a more mature fashion).

-- I will not edit this post, as it is from the heart. So, sorry in advance for spelling/grammer mistakes. Also, sorry for leaving so much out, but this is what I can come up with now. I could go on about Marty forever.--
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Sleuth on June 13, 2003, 01:41:04 PM
WORD
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: children with angels on June 13, 2003, 01:47:47 PM
That was good! Looking forward to round two...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 13, 2003, 07:01:41 PM
Greetings. Time for my take.

I think that every reason you gave as to why he's a great filmmaker, aside from his unyielding support for the medium and its restoration, is why I dislike his films. I don't find his Christian approach interesting, but intellectually archaic. I don't appreciate his frantic visual style – just like you said, it's a demonstration of his personality, which clearly lacks focus. And I don't feel he's been successful in multiple genres, that his excursions into costume drama, historical epic and religious exploration are flat and misguided, at best.

First, the Christian thing. I would argue that any filmmaker who attempts to be intellectually relevant, yet cannot get past the clank of Catholicism, isn't worth his beans. This is why somebody like Stanley Kubrick, who was considered by just about everybody who knew him to be the most intelligent person they'd ever met, was an atheist, agnostic at best. Intelligence requires skepticism, and I don't see that in Marty's work. Punishment and redemption aren't interesting or particularly deep. They are little more than emotional rationales. This is particularly destructive to Raging Bull, and the unwatchable Bringing Out The Dead.

I think Raging Bull is a boring film, first and foremost. It's dramatically monotonous, alternating between beautiful, overshot fight sequences and repetitious scenes of LaMotta being uncommunicative and arguing with everybody. The improvs are tedious. Repetitious. "I heard things." "What things? "I heard things." And on and on. No attempt is ever made to explain why LaMotta might be the way he was, even though much of who he was could probably be attributed to his formative years in boarding school. He's like a machine. Just keeps doing and not learning. The abrupt switch to years later again makes no attempt to explain how somebody who could barely maintain a conversation earlier could now be a social sleaze. He is, like most of Marty's characters, a moron. Stupid people doing stupid things. And this distances me from an emotional involvement. I've never had an emotional reaction to the jail scene. It comes so late in the film that I'm usually zoned out by then. And yes, I'm well aware that the original scene had him trying to masturbate, but failing to achieve an erection. That would have been better. It would have had balls, no pun intended, and been extremely humorous at the same time. It also would've been a great illustration of the link between his masculine sexuality and violence. That was the logical conclusion. But Marty instead focused on his "redemption."

Bringing Out the Dead was embarrassingly bad. A clear example of how out of touch he was as a director. He was consciously trying to return to a scenario he'd approached quite messily 20 years earlier. Whereas Taxi Driver was gritty, Dead was polished. It looked like a music video and hit too many beats he'd employed countless times before. Even the soundtrack was stale. It's boring to watch him cut his films to 1970s rock at this point. Get over it. You've done it too many times already. We all know your musical taste, and sometimes you even repeat songs. Move on.

This is all about choices. And I don't think they're interesting. Yes, directors make many of the decisions, including what story to tell. I don't think he makes good choices. I think he repeats himself too often and uses the same actors in the same parts too often. Do you realize that of his first 6 major films, 5 of them are set in NY and invariably feature low-level crime to one degree or another? That is not somebody interested in variety. That's not somebody who likes to stretch himself. Not somebody with a great deal on his mind.

As for eschewing the 3-act structure, so what? So did Fellini, Kurosawa, Bergman, Kubrick, Coppola, The Coens, Antonioni, Altman, etc. And he's done it in the least interesting ways, in my opinion. Fellini stretched between reality and fantasy. Kurosawa shuffled time and POVs. Bergman juxtaposed dreams of youth with age. Kubrick jumped 4 million years into the future. Coppola got off the boat. The Coens cut off their Johnson. Antonioni had his plot vanish. Altman perfected the ensemble. Scorsese preferred to mix choreography with improv to be episodic.

His incapacity for coherent storytelling is plainly displayed in Taxi Driver, a mess of a film. Scenes are out of order dramatically. So not only does this jumble the flow, but it also provides poor continuity, as Travis' hair length keeps changing. A perfect example of this is when he picks up Palantine in the cab. That scene should take place later on in the film. It should've been the spark to his mohawk, as the first time we see it is at a Palantine rally. Why does the scene occur right after Betsy tells us he won't be in town for a few weeks? Hello? Marty was doing a lot of coke and infamously rearranged the script in the editing room to Paul Schrader's horror. Second point, there are several scenes in the film that DO NOT BELONG. This is a first person narrative. That means Travis is telling the story. Period. There can't be any scenes outside of that. Yet there are. How would Travis know what Shepperd and Brooks talk about at work? How would Travis know that Foster and Keitel dance together? He wouldn't and the scenes are dramatically out of place. They don't belong, no matter how entertaining they may be. Yes, they're giving the audience information, but the audience IS Travis in a film like this. They're unnecessary and sloppy. (He even suggests as much on the Taxi Driver DVD.) And the ending is God awful. A trite attempt at irony that fails miserably. It should have ended with the bloodbath. That was the dramatic conclusion. Thematically, a baptism by blood isn't interesting. Know what is? Playing up the consequences of the military and its disregard for training clearly unstable people to kill, sending them off to kill, then returning them to society and expecting them to act normally.

This poor judgment extends deeply into his visual storytelling. He doesn't, in my opinion tell stories with pictures. He whizzes his camera around in an incoherent manner because he lacks discipline. He can never just allow a scene to take its natural flow. He has to rush everything and force it with unnecessary visual gimmicks. He's said that his two biggest influences were Welles and Casavettes. And that was obvious to me the first time I watched any of his work. I only heard him admit so years later. If there were ever two directors at polar ends of the spectrum whose work does not blend, it's Welles and Casavettes. One preferred tight visual choreography, the other loose improvisation. Unfortunately, Marty isn't very good at either. His Cassavettes is repetitious and lacks life. His Welles is based more on long lenses and quick editing, where Welles preferred wide compositions and long takes. (The Copa shot notwithstanding.) Welles was a master at staging the camera with his actors, letting it move with the action and within spaces. Marty isn't capable of staging. He has to let his camera do it for him. Put the camera here. Put the camera here. Move it here. His filmmaking is interesting because what he's dramatizing isn't. Gangsters enacting violence on each other? What's interesting or informative about that? Or idiots sitting around improvising dumb conversations?

He uses the most brazen techniques to accomplish what should be done subtly. Composition and lighting do so much. Spielberg and Kubrick were and are masters of this. Welles too. Look at the way they place multiple characters and pieces of information within their shots. Scorsese has to get individual shots of things, then paste it all together. It breaks the natural flow of events and calls its technique to attention. Art is an illusion. If your seams are constantly showing, then you're a lousy illusionist.

I could go on, but I'll wait for your response now.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Cecil on June 13, 2003, 07:14:16 PM
Quote from: mutinycoArt is an illusion.

says who?

are you talking about all art or just filmmaking? or just certain movies?
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 13, 2003, 07:26:47 PM
All art. It is not real. Yet you are accepting it as a form of reality. Whether paint of a canvas or pictures on film. In film's case. There isn't even actual motion. It's a series of still images that run at 24 fps to create an illusion of motion. And so on.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Ghostboy on June 13, 2003, 07:32:41 PM
Well.......I think you're 95% wrong, mutinyco, but only in contrast to my own opinion of what's right. I'll stay out of the debate, though...let's let the two opponents keep squaring off unhindered.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 13, 2003, 09:57:31 PM
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...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 13, 2003, 10:56:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 14, 2003, 03:54:15 AM
Peace, indeed.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: children with angels on June 14, 2003, 06:23:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Alethia on June 15, 2003, 05:49:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 15, 2003, 07:06:56 PM
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!
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: AlguienEstolamiPantalones on June 15, 2003, 10:03:34 PM
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
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: modage on June 15, 2003, 11:59:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: phil marlowe on June 16, 2003, 05:34:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Redlum on June 16, 2003, 07:05:24 AM
Aye.

Don't talk about the death of Spielberg, I shall cry that day.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 16, 2003, 09:04:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 16, 2003, 11:21:51 AM
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
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 16, 2003, 11:56:57 AM
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
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 16, 2003, 12:02:27 PM
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?
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 16, 2003, 12:18:02 PM
Yeah, it's worth watching. Better to be pissed off, than pissed on...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Gold Trumpet on June 16, 2003, 12:20:55 PM
I don't mind how you found your belief nor was it my intention to say you found it through your parents or anything forced upon you, but even if you wanna say differently, age 6 is a very young age to even start thinking of things or even be able to adequately think of things to make any decision.

Me, myself, I just followed what my parents told me on what to believe and then quietly dropped out of my catholic faith around 18 years of age. I was even questioning my age for 18 then as maybe too young to be able to determine such a move, but since my belief is now agnostic, the idea of being questionable is a fitting way to think for me in making such a move.

~rougerum
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 16, 2003, 05:23:17 PM
You'd be surprised how clearly you can see if you don't have filters foisted upon you. 6 isn't a particularly young age for somebody of relative intelligence. But to understand my point of view, you're dealing with somebody who has since that age, for 22 years, understood that to be what was going on. I'm as hardened in my observations as others are in their faith.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 18, 2003, 09:35:21 AM
Well, if you're not religious, then why are you using symbolism of something you don't believe in? If you don't believe and you're using it, then at least use it in a way to show how silly it is. You shouldn't use it to make things larger, but to contrast how small things really are...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: children with angels on June 18, 2003, 09:52:10 AM
Mutinyco: what do you think about the really rather blatant Christ imagery in ET? The sacred heart, the white robe, the outstretched arms, ascending into Heaven, toward the end?
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 18, 2003, 09:57:06 AM
The great majority of North American storytelling draws some imagery/symbolism/what-have-you from the Bible, just because it was (and hopefully still is...) the major religion that both Canada and USA as we know it were founded on. Plus, whether you believe or not, these allusions still resonate because they are well-known references. Like Greek mythology or Shakespearian themes...

Some common ones: prodigal son, sins of the father, redemption through love, tower of Babel (lack of communication), Moses (leadership through blind faith)... etc
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 18, 2003, 07:17:24 PM
I don't think it's Christ imagery. He's a space alien. It's just like in 2001 -- the space aliens are so far evolved in relation to humanity that they might as well be gods. It also wouldn't make sense in the case of E.T., because Spielberg is Jewish.

I think he's simply a symbol for world peace, as I said. There was a rather large movement in the early to mid-'80s to ban nukes. That was kind of the liberal cause du jour.

As for general religious symbolism, yeah, it's so much a part of society that it's kind of hard to avoid. However, many of the examples used are elements of life that exist free from religious implications -- they're just facts of life. If you can only see them through the rose tint of religion, then you need to take off your sunglasses.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: children with angels on June 18, 2003, 09:13:43 PM
Quote from: mutinycoI don't think it's Christ imagery. He's a space alien. It's just like in 2001 -- the space aliens are so far evolved in relation to humanity that they might as well be gods. It also wouldn't make sense in the case of E.T., because Spielberg is Jewish.

Ohhh, come oooonnn: it's so Christ imagery! And the fact that he's Jewish just backs up the point that you don't necessarily need to believe in the religious imagery you show: it just makes the whole thing seem grander...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 18, 2003, 09:21:13 PM
It's generic religious symbolism. Your Christian mindset is telling you it's Christ. It's totally generic. Most myths worldwide have a great deal in common. And it was done in relation to the peace movement at the time -- Michael's wearing a NO NUKES shirt, etc...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 18, 2003, 09:38:58 PM
Yeah, the ET post got snuck in on me. I have no idea if ET specifically was, I was just saying there's a lot of it around, generally...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: children with angels on June 19, 2003, 03:26:04 PM
Sorry, SoNowThen - I'll butt out after this one...

Mutynico - even if it is just generic symbolism (which I don't necessarily agree with you about: it always seemed far too specific to me), it's still certainly religious imagery - as you said. You're saying Speilberg wanted to him to be a symbol of peace, backing up the banning of nukes, I'm saying that in order to do that he has employed religious imagery to make his point grander, whether he believes it or not - which is what you were saying people shouldn't do. I think it's perfectly acceptable.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 19, 2003, 03:54:54 PM
Children, no need to butt-out. I'd prefer you to take the reins. I was just making that one point before, but I didn't know there had been another post, and mine came off as commenting on that one. That's all I meant by "snuck in a post".

Please, continue the discussion. I will observe now, as I said all I had to say last page.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 19, 2003, 06:46:11 PM
Actually, I think that moment when E.T. comes out of the van amidst white smoke, etc., is generally embarrassing. I cringe whenever I see it. It's the one false note in the film, because I don't believe it was necessary.

But considering that we actually have people who are gullible enough to believe a virgin gave birth, that the person was the son of some god, and grants life eternal -- perhaps it was necessary for the masses. After all, in a 1996 USA Today poll 60% of this country believed that in the year 2000 Jesus Christ would come back to battle Satan.

Do your history checks. Throughout history virtually every civilization has had a myth of some similarity. It was even promoted during Ghengis Khan's life that he'd been born of divine conception and that he wasn't truly human.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 19, 2003, 06:50:31 PM
And even more so, I'd like to say that the mere continuation of religious symbols for any purpose other than to show their fraudulent nature, is wrongheaded. It's time for humanity to grow up. There's no point in reinforcing nonsense.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: children with angels on June 19, 2003, 07:02:51 PM
But it is religious imagery. That's all I'm saying.

But, this really doesn't matter - it's such a tiny moment in the film to argue over. I too always cringe at that moment: that's why I was bringing it up, to see what you'd make of it with your stance on using religious symbolism.

I see that you feel strongly about the subject of religion, man: but I think you're being a little arrogant in the way you're talking to those who believe (I am not one of them, I'm just saying...). If I was an atheist I'd probably have the same viewpoint, but I'd like to think I wouldn't be quite so openly dismissive to the face of someone to whom religion is a huge, massive point in their life - just out of, I don't know, being friendly...

But, please please, let's not make this into a religious debate now. I'm an agnostic, that's the end of it for the moment. I think we've reached another point on which no amount of argument will solve anything. Scocese vs Spielberg, God vs nothingness...!
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Alethia on June 19, 2003, 07:46:25 PM
fuck, i think the most religious spielberg film is close encounters
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on 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.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Alethia on 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
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on 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.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Alexandro on 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
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on 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!
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Sleuth on June 24, 2003, 01:26:31 PM
Yeah man, you need to post more
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on 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.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on June 24, 2003, 02:18:22 PM
:?

*sigh*
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Alexandro on 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...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on 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]
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: SoNowThen on 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?
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on 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. :)
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Alexandro on 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...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Alexandro on 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...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on 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.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Alexandro on June 26, 2003, 09:53:10 AM
Quote from: mutinycoObviously, 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.

Yes, I've read your stuff...that Eyes Wide Shut essay is so great I have it saved on my computer and wanna send it to everyone...Finnally someone takes the film as seriously as it deserves...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 26, 2003, 12:38:16 PM
Well, then, thank ya' very much.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: cowboykurtis on June 26, 2003, 05:17:53 PM
Quote from: mutinycoOne day I'm going to reedit Taxi Driver.

your mother will be so proud of you..she may even let you have a cookie!
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 26, 2003, 09:06:16 PM
I'm going to re-edit my mother too...
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: Sleuth on June 26, 2003, 09:07:36 PM
Quote from: mutinycoI'm going to re-edit my mother too...

Wait...was that an edit by the admins?
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: mutinyco on June 26, 2003, 09:19:38 PM
No, it was a joke.
Title: Re: (Spielberg) in person
Post by: NEON MERCURY on July 22, 2004, 12:16:31 AM
Quote from: satan of cinemaNow, 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.


oh dear.......i am not going to get into a religious arguement w/ you since you mentioned that you have "been an aeithist since the age of 6"......believe what you wanna believe....but as a general rule you should have more respect or ________ than to just attack peoples doctrines like this regardless if they worship Jesus or a bag of gummi worms...its about respect........i have been reading your posts and i think you are a smart guy..its just your lack or respect is unprofessional man..............chill


but.....the reason why i think your agruement about "basing characters around religion being simpleminded" is silly is b/c you dont "get it" man...
and it has nothing to do w/ just Christainity but different religions in general.......there are many films whose charcters and themes deal w/ the worlds others religions and being a person whose a spiritual guy i think when religion is used right in film its not "simpleminded" but powerful .........[some examples: 'it is accomplished" in last temptation of Christ, the begging/ redemption crying by kingsley in house of sand and fog, THE THIN RED LINE, there are som many powerful films that deal w/ all forms of religion.........i  need to sit back and think of some more i apologize for my lack of examples........and maybe you think my examples are bad.....w/ religion its always hard b/c of varying opinions..

but ...

maybe you are the one whose is being "simpleminded"....by not opening your mind to directors who roll w/ religious vibes..........im not saying you should believe in these religions, i m just saying you need to understand where the director is coming from........just let down your guard some......be a little vulnerable.........