Hi gang; and thanks to Dave Ressler and Shelly and Phil for their
public
comments about my posts. I don't know what it is. I know I don't
matter,
but on the other hand, sometimes I get private mail that hints some
people
are still reading my stuff but don't necessarily want it known they
agree or
disagree w/me in public. I'm fine with it, really. I don't bite. My
ego
always needs a boost (I'm not insecure about my writing skills, but I'm
still insecure about a lot of things, like whether my opinions are
full of
s***, because sometimes they are.) I know I DO TRY to moderate my
bombast
with stuff that doesn't across-the-board offend. Not like I used to,
anyway.
-----------------
But I wanna be clear about the following about WOTW, before commenting
on
Kirby's review:
1) I hated the ending, that is, that portion dealing with who survives
and
who doesn't. It's typical sappy Spielberg. He gives us all this
menace,
pessmism and mayhem, and you think he's finally going to make a
straight
B-line to the end without coating it with sugar, but he almost blows it
completely with how he deals with the fate of his "family."
2) This leads to my issue w/Spielberg's problems. And though I'm a
big
fan, I still have enough detachment to talk about 'em. In my view,
Spielberg's greatest strengths AND weaknesses are the same. He's a
master
at connecting audiences on a visceral level -- yet he's so concerned
with
sending people out with optimism that he seems (even in Schindler's
List,
which was a masterpiece until the end) incapable of tying up things
w/something as simple as, "hey man, s*** happens, and all can't be
sweetness
and roses." This continues to bother me about him. When you see
WOTW, I
think Dave's right -- it has the mark of "masterpiece" for the sci-fi
genre
written all over it -- but in my view, he kicks the ball out of bounds
--
AGAIN. And it's only because of the ending.
-----------------
It's a shame that a great director like Spielberg is still defending
himself
after 30 years, that he won't be considered legendary in the same way
as
Alfred Hitchcock, because of this singular, admittedly acute flaw.
Yet his
skills as a technician and cinematic storyteller are too compelling to
dismiss. I've seen every Spielberg film for this reason. I've never
walked
out saying, "wow, this was 100% junk." I just nitpick.
Now I read that for the first time since 1993, he's going to release
two
films in the same year, a box office pleaser (WOTW), and a serious
document
of history at Christmas, an untitled drama about the hunting down and
disposal of terrorists who murdered the entire Israeli Olympic team at
the
1972 Munich games. He is, if nothing else, daring in this regard.
The last
time he went to such polar opposites in the SAME year with smashing
success
-- was indeed 1993, with Jurassic Park and Schindler's List released
within
months of each other.
Spieberg, I believe, can be successful in every genre thrown at him --
EXCEPT -- musicals, comedies and historical dramas set before 1930.
The
idea of Spielberg taking on Jane Austen, for example, sounds ludicrous.
Scorcese can make a valiant effort, and fail nobly (Age of Innocence
and
Gangs of New York), but not Spielberg. When I first read Spielberg was
going to make WOTW as a pure horror film, with no punches pulled, I was
skeptical. I go in skeptical in spite of my high regard for him. I
come
out joyous for the most part, but then three minutes after leaving the
theater, I get a little p***ed because I'm reminded of things that
prevent
his films from being considered flawless by people who hate him. And
believe me, out here in California, especially in Los Angeles, there
are
people who HATE-HATE-HATE Steven Spielberg, what with his power and
influence -- what some feel are his corrupt intrusions on filmmakers
who are
producing "true art." People in the industry FEAR him, they hate that
he's
a box office success; they want him to fail and they tell stories of
being
black-balled because of an ill-timed word blurted out at parties.
-----------------
But think of this. Spielberg is the type who can sometimes draw
people,
even old people like me, out to the theater on sheer reputation alone.
What
is central to the box office success of American cinema among
Americans has
little to do with intelligence -- it's about demographics. People who
go to
movies regularly (at least three times a month) -- people who are
disproportionally responsible for the business success of films and
music --
are not people like me. They are people under 30. Historical dramas
based
on fact don't win over kids used to crashes, explosions and
sex-sex-sex.
The fact that Kirby McDaniel, a man of refined taste, can bring
himself to
see a Spielberg film that is clearly not set within his genre of
choice, nor
his favorite director -- says volumes about Spielberg, the critics'
response
to most of his films (always an event) and whether they're compelling
enough
to pay good money and spend a few hours to scrutinize. Kirby's review
is
pretty much on the mark. Hence my segue into commenting about his
thoughts:
-----------------
I saw WAR OF THE WORLDS tonight and it is neither the masterpiece
that some
devoutly wish it to be nor the dreck that some have claimed.
Yup, I agree. It's an "A-" but it's not an "A+" because of the ending.
I would say that taking a child under the age of seven would be
inappropriate at best. There is a kind of primitive dread that gets
on your
nerve, and I think that many children would find this film unpleasant.
Absolutely correct. This is pure menace, pure evil on film. People
are
pulverized, corpses quietly float down a river, ferry boats flip over,
freeway overpasses are wrecked, planes crash, the monsters are clearly
not
pretty and they're certainly not trying to make peace with earthlings.
I found myself pulled in at times and just as quickly cast off.
Which parts? For me, those parts were just the "set up" and the
"ending."
In the "set up," I'm thinking, "yeah, yeah, this isn't Eugene O'Neill,
so
just show me the aliens, get on with it." I don't care that Tom
Cruise's
character is divorced and a selfish Dad. I'm here for the aliens.
Like
Jurassic Park when I wanted to see the dinosaurs, for WOTW, I'm not
here to
hear sparkling David Mamet writing. This genre doesn't appeal to me
anyway,
so let's get this "set up" out of the way. And with respect to the
"ending"
of WOTW, I'm thinking, "why, Spielberg, why?"
People have criticized the acting, but I don't think that the acting
is so
bad, but the script lacks direction at times and it sorely tries our
suspension of disbelief.
I agree. But saying it's "not so bad" implies it's not good at all. I
don't think the acting is bad. It's superb for this genre. This is a
story
about surviving the unexplainable, not about dealing with common
dysfunctional families. As Dave Ressler alluded to yesterday, how much
pathos and human emotion can you put into a 2-hour script when the
primary
theme is predator vs. prey? People are fleeing constantly in this
film.
This isn't "Kramer vs. Kramer."
The ending is strictly DEUS EX MACHINA
Quit using phrases like "deus ex machina," Kirby! (Grin.) Like the
phrase
"de rigueur" (which roughly means "to be in fashion"), using such
phrases it
exposes us as snobs. It's obvious we both read east coast pubs like
the New
Yorker. But my friends don't talk like this! Even at parties, you
won't
hear me using such words. Ugh. BTW, for my in-laws who might be
reading
this (they're mostly blue collar and they hate when I use stuck-up
words),
"deus ex machina" (you can google this) is when an "author uses an
improbable and clumsy plot device" to work a story out of a jam.
and Spielberg uses his neat ending to fill in the film with his
characteristic feel-good goo. E.T. phone home!
Yup, as previously discussed above. Even his darkest and grittiest
films
like "Schindler's" and "Private Ryan" are afflicted with this. I won't
throw him out the door, however, because 9/10ths of what Spielberg
puts on
the screen is still great.
I always hold up ALIEN and ALIENS as good examples of what polished
and
smart examples of this type of sci-fi fantasy films should be. This
ain't
that.
Wow, ALIEN vs. ALIENS? "Polished and smart?" These are your
benchmarks for
sci-fi? Those are two VERY different films. Alien (1979) was pure
gory
menace executed by an accomplished artist (Ridley Scott, the guy who
brought
us Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Black Hawk Down and Gladiator, all
CLASSICS of their type). ALIENS, however (1986), was pure action with
no
other redemptive value other than to offer fine entertainment. THAT
was
helmed by "Terminator" and "Titanic" director James Cameron. And
those two
gjys are on different planets.
But it is reasonably entertaining, and there is some considerable
spectacle.
"Reasonably entertaining." This is just like A.O. Scott of the New
York
Times. He used those exact words in his review, which BTW, was 7/8ths
favorable. Why do you use the qualifier "reasonable"? I don't
understand
"reasonably entertaining" unless it's another way of offering a
grudging nod
about a film from a director people have a tough time praising. This
seem
code for: "I found some parts boring." Well for me, WOTW was a lot of
things, but boring isn't on the list. It's entertaining with no
qualifiers.
I nitpick parts of it because I'm a critic. And anybody can be a
critic.
I can't direct or do a better job making a film. As Woody Allen said
in
Annie Hall, "those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach
gym."
It's funny, but it's an ultimately degrading remark to our underpaid
teachers. The point is it's easy for me to criticize, "as if I could
do
better." And I can't. But when people criticize my writing or a story
I've
written, I'm tempted to say, "well, OK, hot shot, where were you when I
started with a blank page?"
-----------------
With movies, what matters to me is the experience. Spielberg is
brilliant
at connecting with audiences. What irritates is he is genius who can
tackle
or reinvent almost any genre of film -- (he can even take a "light"
movie
like "Catch Me If You Can" or "The Terminal" and make 'em fun) -- but
what
brings him down is the stuff that's chased him for 30 years. It's not
his
sentimentalism. That's fine cuz you want to be emotionally invested
in the
actors in any film. It's sentimentalism at the close. You can feel
his
need to induce OVERT and unnecessary optimism, NO MATTER the
situation. We
would feel this anyway, as we did in Private Ryan, without showing it
on
camera or having it verbalized from lines in a script. I don't like
his
compulsion to state the obvious in film or to add "silver linings" to
his
endings. Again, I'm focusing on his endings.
Not wide screen either! That surprised me.
Yeah, I don't know the deal with that. All big studio films released
before
1953 were 35mm, not widescreen. Maybe he was trying to pay a
subconscious
"homage" to the original film. If so, only cinema geeks like ourselves
noticed.
Steven Spielberg isn't the best director around
What? Of course he is. No I'm kidding. But I still say he's ONE OF
THE
BEST directors around, and NOT just because he's been the most
commercially
successful. His power allows him now to take risks with drama, and the
results, while not always successful, have ALWAYS been interesting.
but when he is "on", he makes very kinetic films, able to get at the
visceral very quickly.
Yes. To that, I say, "right on, Kirby."
-koose!
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
