Dave,
I'm no Spielberg 'is God' fan by any means. For the '...credit
belongs to the man in the arena" as Teddy Roosevelt so aptly put
it. But Spielberg has proven himself in many different genres and
by any measure as one of the truly great filmmakers. Sure he's more
commercial than Welles, more prolific than Coppola and more versatile
than Hitchcock. But still, too many find fault in success, not in
technique, not in style, not in ability, but in the very fact that
someone has risen to such heights makes them the easiest target.
I am far more a fan of the esoteric, the Wellesian grandness, the
theatricality of the supernatural offerings of a Guillermo Del Toro,
Alejandro Amenabar or Juan Antonio Bayona. Still, I will not even
consider an argument on this issue; Steven Spielberg is far and away
one of the most influential filmmakers in history and anyone who
thinks otherwise needs to do some research.
Hmmm, what other Director in history would you compare Spielberg to...?
Patrick
On Jul 23, 2008, at 2:15 PM, David Kusumoto wrote:
Phil: I thought your story about Spielberg/Tarentino/Rodriguez was
hilarious. Your comments about how it's hip for some to hate
Spielberg mirror those I wrote in May to MoPo when I claimed the
new Indiana Jones movie "does not stink," e.g. --
** Finally, I think there will always be a great reservoir of
resentment that makes it almost "fashionably cool to hate
Spielberg." Some will never concede he's good at anything except
making money -- and feel they must always qualify their praise --
that is, if must give him a prop for anything he does well – they
must also take something away that has the sum effect of giving
people the impression that he's is the purist definition of being
"overrated" and/or the personification of "mediocrity" in
Hollywood. The new Lucas/Spielberg effort was about an "8" on a
1-10 scale -- and thank goodness -- it was NOT the "Phantom Menace"
disappointment I feared. It will be forgotten in a few months --
but it accomplishes what it sets out to do. More wonderful -- was
seeing hundreds of children in the audience, many with their
parents, thoroughly engrossed with the film. I always love to see
this. Not every scene must be filled with breath-taking action.
There was even applause as the end credits rolled.
I also agree w/you and Kirb that only film buffs notice or care
about the names of directors of most films. That's OK. It helps
us sift the wheat from the chaff to determine whether something is
worth spending $$ and a few hours to see while the rest of the
public is lured by "captivating" movie trailers or big ads in
newspapers or on TV. I wrote yesterday that my admiration for
Spielberg is a "minority view" on MoPo -- because when I write
about him, I get more "blowback" from people telling me he's
overrated, lousy, etc. -- than from people who think he's darn
good. Many take issue with my belief that he is a "living
legend." They hate it. And I understand why. People's feelings
about him are truly mixed, and here in CA, it those feelings border
on being manic-depressive because he is loved AND feared. At any
rate, yours was a great post.
-d.
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:27:58 +1000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an "epic" on a low budget?
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Gee, I dunno.
I think Spielberg is one of the best and smartest directors the
medium has ever given us. I'm hard pressed to think of another
director who ranges across genres with the panache he does, and has
so appreciably matured with his craft so effortlessly that the art
simply emerges.
Of course some films are better than others, some have wider appeal
than others.... but as a real movie director and extremely smart
producer of other directors' works, he's hard to beat.
His biggest problem is that there are so many people who think it's
not cool to like a Spielberg movie, or Tarantino movie, or whatever.
Couple of weeks back, someone I know watched the first 10 minutes
of PLANET TERROR and said I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE CRAP. ANYTHING
DIRECTED BY TARANTINO IS CRAP!
Ahhhh... BUT HE DIDN'T DIRECT IT. ROBERT RODRIGUEZ DID.
And there followed a YES HE DID/NO, HE DIDN'T..... ROBERT RODRIGUEZ
DIRECTED SIN CITY AND THAT WAS A MASTERPIECE.... HE'S A GREAT
DIRECTOR. TARANTINO IS CRAP....
Yes, yes... I know. They saw the credits... again.... OH, MAYBE I
BETTER TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE WHOLE MOVIE THIS TIME, THIS LOOKS
LIKE IT MIGHT BE GREAT! RODRIGUEZ IS VERY COOL!
A survey was done a few years ago about people coming out of
various movies, or lining up for various movies.
Some staggering % had NO IDEA who the director of the film was they
had just seen or were going to see.... and yes, in this straw poll,
one of the films was a Spielberg movie. Most people could not give
a monkey's toss about who directed a film. Most people don't even
think about it.
Quick, and without looking at the IMDB, name 5 films directed by
Robert Aldrich.
Too easy? Name 10 films directed by Robert Altman.
Okay - really easy ones - name 5 films directed by Raoul Walsh, or
Michael Curtiz, or William Wellman.
How about 10 films directed by John Ford?
And as for writers, I can count on the fingers of one hand the
number of people I know who might look at a film title and be
excited by the name of a writer credit.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: David Kusumoto
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an "epic" on a low
budget?
** I know enough about Bob Brooks to not wanna tangle with him,
especially his razor wit, which comes out when he's not even
trying. I will say though, that while more films are being made
than ever before -- the truth is -- more films were RELEASED by
"major studios and distributors" from the 1920s to 1946 than they
are today. They had a monopoly and even owned the theaters to show
their OWN films. Movie attendance since 1946 has never been
eclipsed, thanks to TV. Foreign films -- more prevalent today --
were "near" unavailable to U.S. audiences outside NY and LA before
1960. Most small towns never saw ANY films with subtitles.
** Meanwhile, switching gears back to "Jaws" and it's so-called
"cheap rubber shark" -- good and classy response by Rich in the
U.K.; I'm glad you clarified your earlier remarks. That 1975
picture introduced the "blockbuster" mentality to Hollywood,
opening in more theaters on opening day than typical for most
studios at the time. The "disaster" genre wave preceded it and
some say "Jaws" just blew down the doors faster.
** "Jaws" was a big-budgeted film for the 1970s -- with everything
riding on the skills of a 26-year old "novice" -- who hadn't yet
demonstrated a track record of success in the U.S. "Jaws" began
production before the 1974 release of his theatrical debut, "The
Sugarland Express." Most famously, Spielberg ditched the domestic
melodrama of the ultra-popular Peter Benchley novel and turned his
film into a high-seas adventure, with a triangle character
structure involving Shaw, Dreyfuss and Scheider.
** Most memorable were comments by actor Richard Dreyfuss, who
dissed the film (and Spielberg) throughout its production.
Following historic sneak previews in Dallas and Long Beach, and an
exhibitor's preview in New York, Dreyfuss was mobbed. (Like many
people, he had underestimated Spielberg's skills as an editor and
storyteller -- and had no idea what the assembled film would look
like with John Williams' legendary score). Dreyfuss went bonkers,
telling everyone he was dead wrong, that he was embarrassed by his
remarks, that Spielberg was a genius, that the picture would be big
for everyone. For many people, "Jaws" remains Spielberg's "best"
film -- and for collectors, probably his best film poster, next to
the bicycle and moon image in "E.T."
** After "Jaws," Spielberg would always have final cut. He made
enemies quickly. Many critics (except the late Pauline Kael)
disdained Spielberg's reputation as a "populist" director (akin to
how they treated Hitchcock, another "commercial" director whose
legend grew anyway, esp. after his death in 1980). After the
disaster of "1941," Spielberg's rep for "sentimental" big-budget
entertainment was sealed when he returned with the first "Raiders"
picture in '81. I know my appreciation for Spielberg's
craftsmanship is a minority view at MoPo. He's not highly regarded
nor beloved as Scorcese or Ridley Scott or Eastwood among living
directors -- yet it's not difficult for anyone to predict that
Spielberg will indeed be considered legendary -- for good and for
ill -- by future generations (just not mine)....
-kuz.
> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:32:24 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an "epic" on a low budget?
> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>
> Stand corrected, must read up on my history.
> Point I meant to make, but failed badly with this example, I'd
rather
> have a tale well told, with tension due to what you don't see,
but are
> scared you will, rather than a film choc full of the most mind
blowing
> effects.
> (Which I don't equate with a rarely seen, obviously rubber, albeit
> expensive, shark.)
> Regardless of the setting, I'll do without the water, just settle
for
> a shower.
>
> Cheers,
> Rich
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at
www.filmfan.com_______________________________________________________
____________How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a
message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the BODY of
your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe author of this message is
solely responsible for its content.
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.
