Why? (Do fools dislike Spielberg)

[mutinyco]

Okay. Let's have this out. What fools dislike Spielberg and why?

[ono]

Wow, that's rather harsh.  I could just as easily call people fools for liking Spielberg, and have plenty of reason to do so, but that wouldn't be very constructive.  Surprising you think your opinion is automatically right.  You seem awfully cocky, and you don't even post any reasons why you think he's so great.  There are plenty of reasons to like or dislike the man.  Me, I think he takes the art out of film and makes everything so commercial and bland.  I haven't seen all of his work, but I have seen a lot of key stuff, so I'll just give my thoughts on each of those things:

I haven't seen Jaws which was his first real success.  I will, someday, though those type films don't really interest me.

E.T. - this film is classic, yes.  Problem is, it should have been left alone.  "South Park" is profound thought here: once art is made public, it no longer belongs to the artist; it belongs to the people, and the artist SHOULD NOT change it.  One of the big things that turned me off to Spielberg is his massive ego, exhibitied when he saw fit to use CG to change the guns in the film to walkie-talkies.  Rumor has it this was because his goddaughter Barrymore dislikes guns and gun violence, and he did it to please her.  But there was another reason for this: what had transpired on 9/11.  Spielberg has said he didn't want the scene to be about the guns, so that's why he took them out.  Well, hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't give you the right to change something like that TWENTY YEARS after the fact.

The Indiana Jones movies are big budget B movies at best.  Nothing to write home about.  At least they're not as unwatchable as the Star Wars movies, but that's a whole other thread.

Jurassic Park, I admit, was great.  Had me really scared the first time I saw it.  But he's beating a dead horse now with Jurassic Park IV coming soon.  It's really getting tired.  Sequels should never be necessary.  And if it gets above roman numeral III, it's pretty much a given that it's gonna be horrible.

Schindler's List: up to this point, he hadn't won an oscar.  I see this as his "gimme-oscar-please-i-can-do-drama!" picture.  Scorsese was supposed to do this picture I heard, but he gave it to Spielberg because he's a Jew.  I just find this ... odd somehow.  Because unless Spielberg was a in a concentration camp, or working under Schindler, he couldn't have done the picture any better than Scorsese.  But that's a minor nitpick.  And yes, Spielberg can jerk at your heartstrings and emotionally manipulate you with stories of death and how much of a bad, bad man Hitler was.  But it made me sick more than anything, and simply evoking reaction is not good filmmaking.  Sure, sure, the story was about hope, too, about how Oskar saved all these people and made unusuable supplies to screw over the Germans.  Very touching.  But who wants to watch a film over and over again that ultimately depresses you?  It has no ultimate value after the initial viewing, and after seeing it, you're left drained and depressed, and wanting to never watch one of his movies again.  It's a rather pointless exercise in inflicting depression.

Saving Private Ryan is an abomination of a film.  This is one of the worst films I've ever seen.  And I'm not exaggerating.  The first thirty minutes was gratuitous filth.  They curb sexuality, but this passes with an R rating and is called art?  Spielberg is known to have a love of World War Two.  I don't know how anyone can "love" a war, but he definitely holds it in high esteem.  That, though, a good movie does not make.  After the massacre on the beach, the men walked, and walked ... and walked ... and talked ... and walked some more.  Then thought they found Private Ryan ... but oops!  It was someone else.  OMG THAT'S SO CLEVER!!!  Not.  Then they walked some more.  Then they fought some big bad Germans.  And some of their unit died.  And then they finally found the private.  And then ... they walked some more ... and then ... it finally fucking ended.  But not before Spielberg could wrap it up in a sugary sweet package with a fade between the young and old private Ryan, with an American flag waving in the background.    So we have supreme manipulation of emotions, ultra-violence heralded, and one of the most boring stories ever told.  I hear a lot of talk about how this film was "anti-war."  This film was definitely NOT "anti-war" from where I was sitting.  This film celebrated war and soldiers who fought in wars more than any film I've ever seen.  There are plenty of entertaining anti-war films.  This was not one of them.

Spielberg had a chance to redeem himself with Minority Report.  But he can't seem to get away from those insipid Peter Pan endings where everyone lives happily ever after.  He had me until the end of the film where everything turned out alright.  (There's also the issue of the plot holes in the film, but I won't even go there.)  The film should have cut to black with Anderton in the halo.  That would've sent a message; that would have been a classic film.  And yes, I have heard the THEORIES of how the final part of the film is a halo-induced dream.  But those are only theories, and can't be supported by the film in full.  If Spielberg wanted that to be the case, all he'd have to do is add one final shot of Anderton dreaming in his halo and then cut to black.  But HE DIDN'T DO THAT, because he wanted the "happy" ending.  It's a sickness, an addiction of his, and it's so tiresome.

Catch Me If You Can wasn't horrible.  It was good entertainment,  but nothing to write home about.  And the Tom Hanks character didn't even exist in real life, which kind of put a damper on the whole thing anyway.  If you're gonna tell a real story, why add other characters?  I'm sure he had his reasons, but the story may have well been fiction.  It was a fun two hours, yes, but not great filmmaking.

Spielberg may make films that make a lot of money, but an auteur, he is not.  I don't hate the man; he has some talent, yes.  But the things he gets praised for are representative of everything that I loathe about commercial filmmaking.  He's almost as bad as Lucas, except Lucas doesn't have talent, and I recognize that Spielberg does.

[modage]

what type of film is jaws? what types do interest you?

making alterations to ET twenty years after it was released has nothing to do with the value of the original film.  both are included on the dvd.  watch the original cut if you like.  what is wrong with that film?

see THE COLOR PURPLE and EMPIRE OF THE SUN.  he had attempted drama long before Schindlers List.

whats wrong with jerking your heartstrings and emotionally manipulating the viewer?  why should everything be ambiguous? whats wrong with a director wanting you to feel things a certain way?  the fact that he is able to do this so successfully, shouldnt that be considered a talent that not everyone has?   perhaps films should be made both ways.

apparently a lot of people want to watch a film that ulitmately depresses you, because it made $321 million worldwide and won best picture.  i would be able to agree with this, if it werent true and one of the most horrible atrocities mankind has commited.  i think a film that can tell that story is of value to people for purposes other than entertainment.

[ono]

I consider Jaws to be the "horrific monster movie" type.  Jurassic Park, I've heard, was just a remake of Jaws anyway, so I had avoided it until video but was pleasantly surprised.  (I'm mostly interested in drama, some comedies, and documentaries.  Most films are drama, though, so I realize that's rather broad.)

The finished product as a result of altering the film isn't the issue as much as the process of altering itself.  It's the principle of the matter, and the ego that goes with it.  Same as with Lucas, toying with "his" Star Wars films and withholding the versions the fans want simply for money.  Of course, Spielberg isn't near as bad as Lucas when it comes to that.

As for Color Purple and Empire of the Sun, I'll look in to them someday definitely.  There are just too many movies I have to see.  I've pretty much seen the "best" of what Spielberg has done, save Jaws, so I'm not gonna hold my breath for anything too great.

whats wrong with jerking your heartstrings and emotionally manipulating the viewer? why should everything be ambiguous? whats wrong with a director wanting you to feel things a certain way? the fact that he is able to do this so successfully, shouldnt that be considered a talent that not everyone has? perhaps films should be made both ways.

I'm of the school that it shouldn't be so obvious what the director wants you to feel.  It's rather offensive.  Sometimes, a film can cast judgment and tell you to feel a certain way, when it's obvious you should feel that way.  But other times, and this is true most of the time, the director should leave things ambiguous, and let you feel for yourself.  Things are much more freeing that way.

[modage]

like i've said before.  i find "that" school of thought, to be rather close-minded.   why? why do films have to be made one way?

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.

it sounds like you went into private ryan wanting to hate it.  why not just relax and watch the film?  the film probably came the closest to any, of letting any viewer in on what its like to be in a war.  from the opening 30 min, it doesnt look fun.

classic films cant have happy endings?  why do downer endings constitute a classic film?

i just cant understand why ambigious filmmaking and downer endings=good, and making the audience feel something, ANYthing, and giving a positive resolution=bad.  maybe you should start looking at the way his movies are crafted.  go back and watch the opening of private ryan and try to think about how that was created.  maybe you should quit trying to focus on his endings or how you feel about him, and just watch his movies for what they are.  dont try to seperate things into boxes
magnolia=art.  spielberg=popcorn.  things shouldnt be that simple.

[ono]

I never went to film school.  I may go when I graduate from college, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.  My lukewarm attitude towards Spielberg is totally home-grown, and of my own thoughts.  It is my opinion that films are better left ambiguous, and nothing that has been preached to me.  It comes from my own experiences in writing, and trying to convey thought.  If you can plant an image, something that someone like Lynch or PTA is excellent at doing, it leaves a much stronger impact than if you're beaten over the head with a sledgehammer and if you're yelled at, saying, "DO YOU GET IT?  DO YOU GET IT?"  I like the more subtle approach, is all.  I'm not saying films HAVE to be made that way.  I'm not saying that there is either the subtle route, or the sledgehammer route.  There are many different shades of each, and it's better to tread carefully towards the subtle end, so people are getting the feeling behind the message.  Then, it will stick with them much longer.

That reminds me, I really need to see more Hitchcock.  He was a popular man, and THE filmmaker back when he was around, just like Spielberg.  But the thing I like about the films I have seen of his are the psychological undertones present.  The only problem was in the superfluous explanation at the end of Psycho.  It was kind of a safety net that wasn't needed.  But Rear Window ... I saw it ... but damn, I forget how it ended, 'cause it's been so long.  But I digress.

it sounds like you went into private ryan wanting to hate it. why not just relax and watch the film? the film probably came the closest to any, of letting any viewer in on what its like to be in a war. from the opening 30 min, it doesnt look fun.

I opened my mind, checked out the VHS from the library, and wanted to see what was so great about this film.  I sat down, turned it on, sighed and smiled, and was then repulsed.  He broke that first rule there, I feel.  You ease your audience in before shocking them.  You don't come right out and alienate them.  Trust me, I gave SPR a chance, and my repulsion was based on what I saw, and not any preconceived notions.

classic films cant have happy endings? why do downer endings constitute a classic film?

Sure they can.  City Lights has one of the most beautiful, happy endings ever filmed.  So does It's A Wonderful Life.  So does Some Like It Hot (hilarious, really).

[modage]

whats wrong with breaking the rules?
(it still sounds like you went into it, to hate it).

[ono]

There's nothing wrong with breaking the rules, per se, but what he did right there alienated me as an audience member.  A minute in is a bit too soon to be breaking any rules that are to alienate you to that extent.  And, well, I can't really change if you thought I went in to hate it.  Some movies I'm predisposed to liking more than others, but I think everyone is like that.  Just how things are, but I always try to keep an open mind.  I don't like Dicaprio too much, but I kept an open mind and was pleasantly surprised with Gangs.  Still think he's a walking ego, though, but he's got some chops as an actor.  Still, that's not relevant, just an example.

[modage]

well, i'm not saying you have to like anything you dont like. but it just seems like  you have mentally seperated things into catagories "high art" and "fluff entertainment".  its okay, you can like john carpenter and francois truffaut.  you can like frank capra and tim burton.  you shouldnt try to justify what films are important artistically because sometimes its just not that simple.  films shouldnt have to obey rules, especially any rules that apply to books.  films are a visual medium.  regardless of the story being told, is it interesting?  is the director taking advantage of all the visual possibilities?  "coming at you with both barrels"?  perhaps since film is a visual medium, the story told is irrelevant to the visual impact?  turn off the sound.  watch that opening of private ryan.  or the extermination sequences of schindlers.  or even the underwater sequences in jaws.  its all there in the storytelling.  i would suggest quit being so harsh on the mans views, and just enjoy him for being one of the most talented masters of the medium.

you may not have been interested in picassos subjects, but you have to admit, the mutherfucker could paint!  he knew how to paint, well.  maybe you dont like a picture of a nun, but thats not the point.  look at the brushstrokes.  look at how it was put together.  especially for someone interested in going into film.  you may not like it, but you better start studying up because not many directors have the command of the form that spielberg has.

as far as those subjects, keep in mind.  with the exception of close encounters and AI, he has not written any of his screenplays. so perhaps you should take each of your gripes about the stories up with their respective authors.

[Derek]

Why do people have problems with upbeat endings?

[ono]

Well, I think I may have separated, but not into just those two categories.  There is fluff, high art, and all these in betweens.  Everything is shades of gray for me.  In studying film on my own, I check out a LOT of stuff.  A lot of the "classics" have bored me out of my mind to the point where I get sick of movies, and then, I just HAVE to pop in some sort of movie that's simply fun to watch.  When I was a kid, I could watch My Girl or the animated Robin Hood over and over again, and never get sick of it.  These days, it's When Harry Met Sally... or Pulp Fiction.  They're art, they're not fluff, but they're so incredibly entertaining, too, and that's what films should do.  They should entertain, but they can be art, too.

I never said films HAVE to obey rules.  What I like about film is how flexible the medium is.  But I also have the freedom to object when I see a director do something I don't think is right.  I don't see a lot of art in Spielberg's films.  I guess that's because the films I've seen of his weren't very artistic.  Schindler's List could be argued because of its dreary black-and-whiteness, but it was just way to depressing and manipulative for me to want to go back and look at it in artistic terms.  It hasn't earned that from me.  I can sense that other films of his such as Amistad or The Color Purple may have a lot of art to them, so maybe those understated films are ones I will like better.

Picasso's art is beautiful, as was Dali's.  I'm no art expert, but I like Lynch's ideas of comparing filmmaking to painting, wanting to paint every scene.  You talk about Spielberg and mise en scene, but I don't really see that coming out in his films.  That's more relevant in auteurs such as Lynch, PTA, and Jeunet.  Want to talk iconoclast, though?  Look at Pollock.  His early work was beautiful, but as he got more crazy, abusive, and belligerent, his art suffered (though some still called his dribblings brilliant).  "How do you know you're done with a painting?" he's asked.  He responds, "how do you know when you're done making love."  A great response, which, I guess, could even be applied to his dribbles, and it'd be nice to look at filmmaking like that, where you have all the time in the world to get what you need to show out of the way.

I don't necessarily see Spielberg as "one of the masters of the medium," and I don't find it necessary to study him, because commercial success isn't the same thing as artistic.  It would be NICE to be both commercially and artistically successful, of course.  I think all filmmakers want that.  But I just don't see a lot of command of the form in his work.  I see a story that chugs from one point to another in most cases, and I see memorable moments here and there, which are nice.  But the clichés hide it all, which only shows me that if I am ever going to appreciate Spielberg, it's not going to be based on his big commercial successes, but on the smaller scale pictures you've mentioned, which have more potential to be explored.

And just because an author writes a story, a director can still change it and often does.  Minority Report was based on a story by Philip K. Dick.  Spielberg changed it greatly for the film, Peter-Panning it up.  Haven't seen A.I.  I'm a little wary of that one.  Guess I'm just still saddened by Kubrick passing away, and can't really see the collaboration between one of the greatest filmmakers and one of the most commerical successful as anything other than leaving a bad taste in my mouth.  But I'll take the plunge eventually.

As for upbeat endings, I'm not down on them, I'm not for them either.  PTA said it best, when he said he tries to write the saddest happy ending possible.  I think it all depends on the material.  Whatever ending works for it is what's best.  Like for Clerks.: imagine if the alternate ending had been used.  I don't think Smith would've been near as successful.  The sad ending didn't fit.  But sometimes sad endings do fit.  And vice versa.

[mutinyco]

Many artists in multiple mediums have altered their work upon completion. Kubrick often recut his films while they were playing in theaters. How about Apocalypse Now Redux?

As for breaking a "rule" at the beginning of SPR, there are no rules. If it's rules you're worried about, then being as you consider him too commercial, shouldn't he have eased you into the violence better? He blasted people in their seats in the theater. You saw it on VHS. That scene was an instant classic. If it was so alienating, then how would he have engineered a $200-million gross from possibly the most violent film ever made? (I should note that I'm not a fan of SPR, though for argument's sake I'll defend it here.)

With Schindler's people are like, That's his Oscar attempt. I think it was a totally uncommercial film. A B&W 3 hour film about the Holocaust? Please. He used his leverage to get it made. He owned the rights to the book for a decade, but couldn't bring himself to do it. Scorsese let him do it because he's a Jew? That's cynical, incorrect, and borderline anti-semetic. He directed it because he felt he had to. And Scorsese would've botched it, I can assure you. (How's about The Age of Innocence or Kundun as Oscar hopefuls?) They traded -- Spielberg got respect and Scorsese did Cape Fear and got money. Spielberg gave away all of his profits from the film.

I think the brilliant stroke about Minority Report's 3rd act is that it DOESN'T explain anything. Is it the halo dream or isn't it? What happy ending? It's confusion. It never confirms anything one way or the other. By cutting back to Anderton in his halo you would've had neatness.

[modage]

I think the brilliant stroke about Minority Report's 3rd act is that it DOESN'T explain anything. Is it the halo dream or isn't it? What happy ending? It's confusion. It never confirms anything one way or the other. By cutting back to Anderton in his halo you would've had neatness.

good point. i didnt even think of that.

[ono]

Many artists in multiple mediums have altered their work upon completion. Kubrick often recut his films while they were playing in theaters. How about Apocalypse Now Redux?

Yeah, the difference IMO is that Kubrick did it as the film was fresh out.  Like the story of the painter who sells a painting then goes to the new owner's living room to touch it up.  Big difference from waiting for 20 years, and being prompted by current events and one's own feelings to change it.  As for Apocalypse Now Redux, the original wasn't that great, but I haven't seen the changes yet.  I need to.  I imagine I'll be torn: I'll feel that Coppola should have left it alone, but that the new footage may have added some humanity to the story.  I thought the best part of AN was the end with Brando.  Others thought that was the worst.

As for breaking a "rule" at the beginning of SPR, there are no rules. If it's rules you're worried about, then being as you consider him too commercial, shouldn't he have eased you into the violence better? He blasted people in their seats in the theater. You saw it on VHS. That scene was an instant classic. If it was so alienating, then how would he have engineered a $200-million gross from possibly the most violent film ever made? (I should note that I'm not a fan of SPR, though for argument's sake I'll defend it here.)

I don't really know what to say for SPR.  I think an easing, and some sort of exposition would have been nice.  Then if the violence was necessary, ease in to it.  One shocking moment at the get-go would be fine, but it was just too over the top for me.

With Schindler's people are like, That's his Oscar attempt. I think it was a totally uncommercial film. A B&W 3 hour film about the Holocaust? Please. He used his leverage to get it made. He owned the rights to the book for a decade, but couldn't bring himself to do it. Scorsese let him do it because he's a Jew? That's cynical, incorrect, and borderline anti-semetic.

I don't know where I heard the story from, and so I stand to be corrected.  But I could've sworn the director spot was batted around for awhile on that one, before Spielberg settled in.  Nothing anti-semetic about that, but I still say it's odd that some think only a Jew could've told that story best.

He directed it because he felt he had to. And Scorsese would've botched it, I can assure you. (How's about The Age of Innocence or Kundun as Oscar hopefuls?) They traded -- Spielberg got respect and Scorsese did Cape Fear and got money. Spielberg gave away all of his profits from the film.

I'm lukewarm on Scorsese anyway, and we all know how you feel about him, so let's not go there. ;)

I think the brilliant stroke about Minority Report's 3rd act is that it DOESN'T explain anything. Is it the halo dream or isn't it? What happy ending? It's confusion. It never confirms anything one way or the other. By cutting back to Anderton in his halo you would've had neatness.

The problem, though, is there is no confusion.  There is no ambiguity.  If you weren't sure Anderton was free or in the halo, things would've been better.  But the movie never leaves that up to you.  There is no question that his wife came to rescue him, and that there's this big showdown at the dinner, where Anderton hunts Sydow's character through the kitchen before the confrontation.  Everything is on the screen, and only people who read into it more than is there will try to say that there is something more to the picture than there really is.  That's where I'm coming from.

[modage]

total recall is the same way.  it shows you the whole story, and when i was 9 i accepted that. but now, revisiting the film, you can see that its up to you to decide whether it was all a dream or whether it really happened.  same with minority i suppose.

ps: horrific monster movies rule, okay?