> I think we should be talking about Bad directosrs Toochis as it
seems like most out there are pretty goodover the bad ones..LOL.
I gree wyler and wilderare great... maybe we should all make lists
but I would be here all day on how many i liked there films.. Cinema
paradisio was great and i forget the directors name but hes good..
>
>
>---- Original Message ----
>From: fly...@pacbell.net
>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In
>Hollywood.
>Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 15:30:00 -0800
>
>>Hi David
>>
>>Great post! I would also like to add to Billy Wilder WILLIAM WYLER.
>What a career and so much variety! BEN HUR is amazing as is ROMAN
>HOLIDAY and THE COLLECTOR and so many more.
>>
>>They are remaking BEN HUR.
>>
>>Toochis
>>
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>On Mar 2, 2013, at 1:31 PM, David Kusumoto
><davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> * Wow! A lot of well-written posts on this thread.
>>>
>>> * I was talking to my wife about "Lincoln" last night and she
>pointedly reminded me that some of her friends thought "Lincoln" was
>dull-dull-dull - and I was forced to confess that my intense interest
>in "Lincoln" was related to my background in intl. political science
>and journalism. No, she insists, not everyone will like "Lincoln"
>because it's a talky picture lacking a strong emotional pull for
>general audiences. It has no action scenes except during its very
>flawed beginning. Hence many viewers, she said, will strongly
>disagree with my view that it's a "classic." Well, it was
>emotionally engaging to me even though I concede that what you bring
>to the table matters and I'm clearly biased. And Doug rightly says,
>"to each his own."
>>>
>>> * Meanwhile, I think Phil's comment about "Shakespeare in Love"
>winning Best Picture (1998) - as being equivalent to "Argo's" win
>over "Lincoln" - is funny because I thought the same, but I wasn't
>going to go "there" because since 1998, I have been defending
>"Private Ryan" to a large group of mostly international movie fans
>who continue to hate this film with a passion because of its
>American-centric story-line and its "teary and manipulative" bookends
>- despite "Ryan's" cinematic breakthroughs, i.e., the spectacular
>staging of the brutal D-Day landing on Omaha Beach, the slower
>shutter speeds of the battle scenes and the desaturated colors of the
>entire picture. I don't think "Argo's" win was the same kind of
>"robbery" nor will generate the hue and cry that "Shakespeare in
>Love" did when Weinstein campaigned heavily to snare the Best Picture
>award from "Ryan," the latter a film that critics in both the U.K.
>and the U.S. asserted - at the time - represented a milestone in the
>art of film.
>>>
>>> * As far as Spielberg himself - Adrian and I have had a friendly
>debate going on about him for more than 12 years I think. We're
>never going to change each other's minds and I agree Spielberg has a
>tendency to over-sentimentalize his pictures and to manipulate his
>audiences with his brand of storytelling. But while I concede that
>he is not a perfect director and has turned out a large share of
>duds, I will also argue that Spielberg has enough sterling
>accomplishments on his resume, more than 1 or 2 films I would argue -
>to earn a glorified place in the history of cinema. The fact that I
>even have to defend the man after more than 40 years is a testament
>to the polarizing figure he remains to movie fans - and to people
>working in the industry. No, he is not Martin Scorsese (but have you
>seen the quality of Scorsese's output lately?) - but Spielberg is
>still, despite his faults, constitutionally incapable of turning out
>a technically inept film. It was Orson Welles who told Peter
>Bogdanovich that you don't need a lot of masterpieces to be canonized
>in film history, that "you only need one." And yet "Citizen Kane"
>clearly isn't for anyone nor does it tug at everyone's heart strings.
> Spielberg's body of work, in my view, has surpassed a lot of other
>directors by a country mile.
>>>
>>> * Finally, there's a third "still living" director who is an
>all-time fave of mine - who I forgot to mention - who I feel has been
>treated MORE EGREGIOUSLY than Spielberg. And that's Brit director
>Ridley Scott. Yes, he's churned out a few duds, but so has every
>legendary director like Billy Wilder. Ridley Scott has had a
>wonderful career spanning multiple genres! He's the "old man" of
>group and still Oscar eludes him. Any man, like Spielberg, who can
>produce even 2-3 "greats" amid a long list of duds - can be forgiven,
>in my book, for those duds. And Scott is a dynamic director who is
>LONG OVERDUE. Yes, the Oscars are frivolous and "irrelevant," but if
>you win one, it's always in the first line in EVERY obituary you read
>about the passing of someone in the industry. -d.
>>>
>>> From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com
>>> To: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com; MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>>> Subject: RE: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In
>Hollywood.
>>> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 00:55:34 -0500
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I always enjoy your comments and posts.
>>>
>>> I dont think it was a great year for films, although it seems we
>rarely have great years anymore, consequently our standards may have
>dropped a bit. Having said that, the film quality this year may have
>actually been above the recent average.
>>>
>>> Certainly it was a magnificent year for individual performances.
>Wow, what choices! It was impossible to pick best actor or actress
>because there were so many deserving nominees.
>>>
>>> For Director, I happen to think Ang Lee was the correct choice.
>What a vision he had to have to make that film.
>>>
>>> Regarding Silver Linings, it reminded me of Goodbye Girl.
>Romantic comedies will never really stand up against an amazing
>drama, but Linings and Goodbye Girl both combined intelligent scripts
>with outstanding performances that resulting in Best Picture
>nominations. Neither won, or probably deserved to win, but both are
>at the highest and most intelligent levels of the genre.
>>>
>>> Back to Lincoln, I left the film thinking it was very interesting
>to get a view of what may have really been happening during that
>important time in our history, but feeling the film was flat.
>Interesting, spectacular cinematography, incredible performances by
>DDL and Spader, but surprisingly little energy and little impact on
>me.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, I was in Manila a few weeks ago for meetings. One
>of our employees, Boris, had flown from his home in Hungary to attend
>our meetings in Manila. He was born and raised behind the iron
>curtain and was educated in the Soviet system. Boris is decidedly
>socialist and skeptical of everything American. I had him attend
>meetings with me in Orlando a year or so ago and I took all our group
>to dinner at a Cuban/Spanish fusion restaurant called Colombia. It
>was located at the idyllic, former Disney, community called
>Celebration. Boris spent the entire evening asking to see the
>ghettos. Ive read my whole life about the ghettos in the US and
>I want to see them. Where are they?
>>>
>>> Anyway, in Manila I asked Boris how his flight was coming over and
>he said I watched Lincoln. I asked what he thought of it and he
>said he actually hadnt watched because when it began with the scene
>of Lincoln talking to the two soldiers he found it so contrived that
>he couldnt watch anymore.
>>>
>>> Of course, I did watch more but his comment resonated with me and
>was actually something I had felt about the film but hadnt been able
>to articulate. For me, there were several moments that made me feel
>that way.
>>>
>>> To each his own, I guess. In the end, I feel fortunate to have so
>many hours of enjoyment from movies at all
good or great.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> DBT
>>> Profile
>>>
>>> CC: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>>> From: fly...@pacbell.net
>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In
>Hollywood.
>>> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 21:32:42 -0800
>>> To: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
>>>
>>> I'm with you David. One person who got robbed during the award
>season was Michael Pena for END OF WATCH.
>>> I was glad to see Matthew McConaughey (sp?!!!) win a Spirit Award
>for best supporting actor in MAGIC MIKE. He was great!!
>>> Toochis
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:37:20 -0800
>>> From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
>>> Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree, Doug. In my first public post about "Lincoln" in
>late December - I noted the picture does have a few "self consciously
>noble moments," and that scene you mention is the most obvious. But
>after that, I really got into the dialogue, the horse-trading, the
>political shrewdness of Lincoln trying desperately to get the 13th
>Amendment passed before the end of the Civil War. Lincoln the man
>(vs. the legend) - truly "came alive" in DDL's perf, and I forgot
>about DDL after awhile. "Silver Linings Playbook" was easily the
>most "crowd pleasing" of the nominees, as gales of laughter could be
>heard from start-to-finish at the screening I attended. I would not
>have been too disappointed if "Playbook" had won, but I really felt
>the "Ben Affleck-George Clooney" factor, combined with Affleck being
>snubbed as best director - were heavily responsible for "Argo's" win
>at the expense of all of the other nominees for Best Picture. -d.
>>> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 22:07:09 -0500
>>> From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com
>>> Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>>>
>>> I thought Silver Linings was Best Picture, followed by Argo.
>Lincoln would have been 3-5 on my ballot.
>>>
>>> DDL and Spader were great, but I found the film uninspired and a
>bit manipulative from the opening scene of the conversation between
>Lincoln and the two soldiers.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> DBT
>>>
>>> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:57:29 -0600
>>> From: ki...@movieart.net
>>> Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
>>>
>>> I responded to David K., but I'll go ahead a post to the entire
>list. I agree with David and Franc on this one entirely. I'm not
>what anyone would characterize as a huge Spielberg fan, although I
>recognize his enormous accomplishments in purveying popular films.
>In my book he has had several particularly satisfying films -
>SCHINDLER'S LIST, E.T., and a few others. But LINCOLN is an
>extraordinary film driven by an extraordinary script adapted from an
>extraordinary book with extraordinary performances. Is that enough
>"extraordinaries" fer ya? I enjoyed ARGO; it was entertaining. But
>clearly Spielberg and company were robbed. I think the sorry
>decision to have 9 best picture nominations is going to produce what
>I'll bet are (regrettably) "plurality" decisions like this one.
>>>
>>> I thank Steven Spielberg for bringing together this great pool of
>talent and leaving us with a picture that generations will enjoy
>again and again.
>>>
>>> Kirby McDaniel
>>> www.movieart.n
>>
>> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
>>
>___________________________________________________________________
>> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
>>
>> Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
>> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
>>
>> The 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: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
