[MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away. This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its thunder again. So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't soar with the eagles. But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion. Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for a Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but then being denied for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down and ponied up nods for E.T. — when it became the day's highest grossing of all time — and Color Purple. But both those films still lost out on the grand prizes, and to add insult, he was shut out in Best Director category throughout the 70s and 80s as well. After the Color Purple loss, Academy officials were so alarmed by the serial snubbing of Hollywood's most successful director that they took the unheard of step of bestowing upon Spielberg at age 40 the Thalberg Lifetime achievement award, until then reserved for septuagenarians at the end of their careers. It wasn't until seven years later, when he made a three hour holocaust film that Oscar finally couldn't deny giving him their grand prize for Schindler's List. But since then, it has been a 20 year sea of also-rans. Of course, he hasn't gone completely unrecognized. Eight Best Picture nominations is something most directors will never even dream of. Add to that, two Best Directing awards making him the most awarded director since William Wyler in the 1950's. But still, somehow the Best Picture prize keeps sliding from his grasp, and for a man at the top of Hollywood, to be the town's perpetual also-ran in its biggest contest has to be galling. In a town with — despite the disruptive presence of the internet — a fixed number of studios and a shrinking number of major releases, entertainment remains a zero-sum game. Celebrating the achievement of the man with a permanent position on top is never entirely in one's best interest (unless you're doing it to his face). And in a place where, as William Goldman famously put it, "no one knows anything" and everyone knows that they don't know anything, seeing the mighty stumble
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Very interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argot was cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become a classic. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David Kusumoto Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. Argo Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 <http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/2/23/17/enhanced-buzz -25736-1361658499-3.jpg> Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away. This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its thunder again. So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't soar with the eagles. But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion. Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for a Best Picture nominations for his first outing Jaws, but then being denied for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down and ponied up nods for E.T. when it became the day's highest grossing of all time and Color Purple. But both those films still lost out on the grand prizes, and to add insult, he was shut out in Best Director category throughout the 70s and 80s as well. After the Color Purple loss, Academy officials were so alarmed by the serial snubbing of Hollywood's most successful director that they took the unheard of step of bestowing upon Spielberg at age 40 the Thalberg Lifetime achievement award, until then reserved for septuagenarians at the end of their careers. It wasn't until seven years later, when he made a three hour holocaust film that Oscar finally couldn't deny giving him their grand prize for Schindler's List. But since then, it has been a 20 year sea of also-rans. Of course, he hasn't gone completely unrecognized. Eight Best Picture nominations is something most directors will never even dream of. Add to that, two Best Directing awards making him the most awarded director since William Wyler in the 1950's. But still, somehow the Best Picture prize keeps sliding from his grasp, and for a man at the top of Hollywood, to be the town's perpetual also-ran in its biggest contest has to be galling. In a town with despite the disruptive presence of the in
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Franc, I'm not only with you all the way with "Lincoln," but I have already "declared" that in my mind, it is a towering achievement, an historical event, a classic. As I posted on FB, I saw 8 of the 9 best picture nominees - and I thought "Lincoln" was Spielberg's best and most accomplished film since "Schindler's List." I have the "Lincoln" one-sheet hanging on the wall behind my computer as I write this. I also thought Tony Kushner was robbed. "Argo" is OK, but not eloquent, not ground breaking, not special in any way memorable. For "Argo" to win Best Picture AND Best Screenplay over the likes of "Lincoln" was criminal - and reminded me of the "vote for us" syndrome of the acting branch, e.g., see Robert Redford, Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood. Of the aforementioned winners, in my view, only Eastwood for "Unforgiven" (2002) was truly deserving. Gene Seymour of CNN said the "Argo" win was an example of Hollywood kissing itself, e.g., Academy members voting for a movie... "whose success will benefit as many people in the industry as possible (Go Ben!) - and/or a movie that reflects Hollywood's best image of itself." Well history will prove the Academy wrong, just like how it got it wrong picking "Crash" as the Best Picture of 2005. "Lincoln" was not just good, it was great, a masterpiece of writing and acting. The only thing that would have made me madder Sunday night was if Daniel Day Lewis had LOST. -d. Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:09:53 -0500 From: fdav...@verizon.net Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Message Very interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing them. Somehow after Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argo was clearly a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become a classic. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David Kusumoto Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest LoserOnce again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away. This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its thunder again. So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list demonstrate ev
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>So David... what your trying to say is Spielberg/'s is pretty good if I get your drift right? Just want som clarification... thx > > > Original Message >From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:10:27 -0800 > >> >>Franc, I'm not only with you all the way with "Lincoln," but I have >already "declared" that in my mind, it is a towering achievement, an >historical event, a classic. As I posted on FB, I saw 8 of the 9 >best picture nominees - and I thought "Lincoln" was Spielberg's best >and most accomplished film since "Schindler's List." I have the >"Lincoln" one-sheet hanging on the wall behind my computer as I write >this. I also thought Tony Kushner was robbed. "Argo" is OK, but not >eloquent, not ground breaking, not special in any way memorable. For >"Argo" to win Best Picture AND Best Screenplay over the likes of >"Lincoln" was criminal - and reminded me of the "vote for us" >syndrome of the acting branch, e.g., see Robert Redford, Mel Gibson, >Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood. Of the aforementioned winners, in >my view, only Eastwood for "Unforgiven" (2002) was truly deserving. >Gene Seymour of CNN said the "Argo" win was an example of Hollywood >kissing itself, e.g., Academy members voting for a movie... "whose >success will benefit as many people in the industry as possible (Go >Ben!) - and/or a movie that reflects Hollywood's best image of >itself." Well history will prove the Academy wrong, just like how it >got it wrong picking "Crash" as the Best Picture of 2005. "Lincoln" >was not just good, it was great, a masterpiece of writing and acting. > The only thing that would have made me madder Sunday night was if >Daniel Day Lewis had LOST. -d. >> >>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:09:53 -0500 >>From: fdav...@verizon.net >>Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. >>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> >> >> >>Message >> >> >> >>Very >>interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing them. Somehow after >>Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln >were going to >>be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while >Argo was >>clearly a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined >to become a >>classic. >> >>FRANC >> >> >> -Original Message- >>From: MoPo List >> [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David >> Kusumoto >>Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM >>To: >> MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven >> Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A pair of >> interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along >with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are >> my favorite >> "still-living" directors of all >> time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was >fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the >> "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's >Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a >> little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the >> second is from the NY Times. - d. >> >> Argo Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's >> Biggest LoserOnce again, the >> Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have >against its most >> successful resident? >> >>by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff >> Writer, February 24, 2013 >> >> >> Image by Mario >> Anzuoni / Reuters >> >>Tonight, >> Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The >triumph of >> Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory >> from the jaws of Lincoln brings >> Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in >seven at bats >> for entertainment's biggest prize. >> >>And tonight, not only did he lose >> out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the >consolation prize >> of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was >> not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of >Pi's Ang Lee. >> >>For a man who is >> widely considered Hollywood's godfather who
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
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.net On Mar 1, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Franc wrote: > Very interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after Ben > Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to > be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argot was > cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become > a classic. > > FRANC > -Original Message- > From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David > Kusumoto > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > > A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along > with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all > time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but > I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. > Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in > my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from > the NY Times. - d. > > “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser > > Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood > have against its most successful resident? > > by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 > > > Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters > > Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph > of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln > brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at > bats for entertainment's biggest prize. > > And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once > seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which > Argo's Affleck wasnot even nominated, was also snatched away and handed > to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. > > For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his > unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable > since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet > another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and > consistent rebuff. > > Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his > seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered > favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie > Brown, forever having the football pulled away. > > This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations > being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a > shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and > steal its thunder again. > > So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's > love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates > is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list > demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't > soar with the eagles. > > But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall > of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion. > > Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget > his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for a > Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but then being denied > for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
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 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/douglasbtaylor> Profile From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David Kusumoto Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 6:55 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. Argo Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 <http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/2/23/17/enhanced-buzz -25736-1361658499-3.jpg> Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away. This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its thunder again. So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't soar with the eagles. But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion. Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for a Best Picture nominations for his first outing Jaws, but then being denied for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down and ponied up nods for E.T. when it became the day's highest grossing of all time and Color Purple. But both those films still lost out on the grand prizes, and to add insult, he was shut out in Best Director category throughout the 70s and 80s as well. After the Color Purple loss, Academy officials were so alarmed by the serial snubbing of Hollywood's most successful director that they took the unheard of step of bestowing upon Spielberg at age 40 the Thalberg Lifetime achievement award, until then reserved for septuagenarians at the end of their careers. It wasn't until seven years later, when he made a three hour holocaust film that Oscar finally couldn't deny giving him their grand prize for Schindler's List. But since then, it has been a 20 year sea of also-rans. Of course, he hasn't gone completely unrecognized. Eight Best Picture nominations is something most directors will never even dream of. Add to that, two Best Directing awards making him the most awarded director since William Wyler in the 1950's. But still, somehow the Best Picture prize keeps sliding from his grasp, and for a man at the top of Hollywood, to be the town's perpetual also-ran in its biggest contest has to be galling. In a town with despite the disruptive presence of the i
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Just watched Argo. Eh From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirby McDaniel Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 9:57 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. 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.net On Mar 1, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Franc wrote: Very interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argot was cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become a classic. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David Kusumoto Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. Argo Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 <http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/2/23/17/enhanced-buzz -25736-1361658499-3.jpg> Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away. This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its thunder again. So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't soar with the eagles. But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion. Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for a Best Picture nominations for his first outing Jaws, but then being denied for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broke
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
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 McDanielwww.movieart.net Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:10:27 -0800 From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Franc, I'm not only with you all the way with "Lincoln," but I have already "declared" that in my mind, it is a towering achievement, an historical event, a classic. As I posted on FB, I saw 8 of the 9 best picture nominees - and I thought "Lincoln" was Spielberg's best and most accomplished film since "Schindler's List." I have the "Lincoln" one-sheet hanging on the wall behind my computer as I write this. I also thought Tony Kushner was robbed. "Argo" is OK, but not eloquent, not ground breaking, not special in any way memorable. For "Argo" to win Best Picture AND Best Screenplay over the likes of "Lincoln" was criminal - and reminded me of the "vote for us" syndrome of the acting branch, e.g., see Robert Redford, Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood. Of the aforementioned winners, in my view, only Eastwood for "Unforgiven" (2002) was truly deserving. Gene Seymour of CNN said the "Argo" win was an example of Hollywood kissing itself, e.g., Academy members voting for a movie... "whose success will benefit as many people in the industry as possible (Go Ben!) - and/or a movie that reflects Hollywood's best image of itself." Well history will prove the Academy wrong, just like how it got it wrong picking "Crash" as the Best Picture of 2005. "Lincoln" was not just good, it was great, a masterpiece of writing and acting. The only thing that would have made me madder Sunday night was if Daniel Day Lewis had LOST. -d. Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:09:53 -0500 From: fdav...@verizon.net Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Message Very interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing them. Somehow after Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argo was clearly a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become a cl
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>Steven has been my fave along with Capra and a few others..like Zemeckis , etc... he ( Steven) nevere seemed to get respect like when color of Purple which took me n a journet,, then et,,, raisers and all,,, My 1st picture i saw was Close encounters,, againg people didnt seem to really dig that... and ive never done well selling his material.. with exception like the et rare posters,,,he just nevere appealed.. I offered collections of materials ,, the close encounter doll... fact is I love the stuff so I d be happt to have it.. the jaws poster was the best seller...Ive never seen schindleres list as just the concept and soundtrack made me imagine it so I freaked,, Jurrassic Park is one of my all time faves,,, I heard steven was even scared to ride the universal Jurrassic park ride, also i heard his moms restraunt makes a gret tuna fish sandwich and he makes a great bowl of matzo ball soup that I always wanted to taste.. :) im outta here good night momop.. > > > Original Message >From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:37:20 -0800 > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>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 McDanielwww.movieart.net >>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:10:27 -0800 >>From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com >>Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. >>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> >> >> >> >>Franc, I'm not only with you all the way with "Lincoln," but I have >already "declared" that in my mind, it is a towering achievement, an >historical event, a classic. As I posted on FB, I saw 8 of the 9 >best picture nominees - and I thought "Lincoln" was Spielberg's best >and most accomplished film since "Schindler's Li
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
"Lincoln" was not just > good, it was great, a masterpiece of writing and acting. The only thing that > would have made me madder Sunday night was if Daniel Day Lewis had LOST. -d. > > Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:09:53 -0500 > From: fdav...@verizon.net > Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > > Very interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing them. Somehow after Ben > Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to > be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argo was > clearly a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become > a classic. > > FRANC > -Original Message- > From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David > Kusumoto > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > > A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along > with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all > time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but > I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. > Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in > my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from > the NY Times. - d. > > “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser > > Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood > have against its most successful resident? > > by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 > > > Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters > > Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph > of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln > brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at > bats for entertainment's biggest prize. > > And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once > seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which > Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to > Life of Pi's Ang Lee. > > For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his > unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable > since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet > another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and > consistent rebuff. > > Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his > seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered > favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Acade 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.
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
anyone can come up with a year where full national film production taken in account had a decent oscardistribution ? Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 22:26:25 -0500 From: pcontar...@triad.rr.com Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU MessageJust watched Argo. Eh… From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirby McDaniel Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 9:57 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. 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 McDanielwww.movieart.net On Mar 1, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Franc wrote: Very interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argot was cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become a classic. FRANC-Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David Kusumoto Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest LoserOnce again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away. This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its thunder again. So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't soar with the eagles. But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion. Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget his historica
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
I thought ARGO was a very well directed, very well acted film... very
entertaining. Mila and I liked it a lot.
After the fact, when I learned just how much of the "suspense" and "reality"
was manufactured, it dropped considerably in my estimation.
Not sure why, just a sense of feeling cheated.
I thought it a shame that both the British and the New Zealanders are
denigrated The group actually stayed at the British Embassy before it was
decided to
move them to the Canadian consukate as it was geographically safer.
And that's not all. Wiki it for some even more revealing info.
I haven't seen LINCOLN yet but looking forward to it. No tall poppy syndrome
here with Spielberg's ability to make big films extremely well.
Back to ARGO... I kept thinking SHAPESPEARE IN LOVE.
As for the Oscars. Either I am just getting too old too care very much, but it
seems increasinglty irrelevant as each Oscar year goes by.
Phil
-Original Message-
From: peter contarino [mailto:pcontar...@triad.rr.com]
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 10:26 PM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)}o\:* { BEHAVIOR:
url(#default#VML)}w\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)}.shape {BEHAVIOR:
url(#default#VML)}@font-face {font-family: Calibri;}@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;}@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in
1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }P.MsoNormal {MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times
New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt}LI.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt;
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt}DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt}H1
{ FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE:
24pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-style-priority: 9;
mso-style-link: "Heading 1 Char"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;
mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto}A:link {COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION:
underline; mso-style-priority: 99}SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue;
TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99}A:visited { COLOR:
purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority:
99}SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline;
mso-style-priority: 99}P { FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif";
MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; mso-style-priority: 99;
mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto}P.MsoAcetate {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 8pt;
mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"}LI.MsoAcetate {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 8pt;
mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"}DIV.MsoAcetate {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 8pt;
mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"}SPAN.Heading1Char {
FONT-FAMILY: "Cambria","serif"; COLOR: #365f91; FONT-WEIGHT: bold;
mso-style-priority: 9; mso-style-link: "Heading 1"; mso-style-name: "Heading 1
Char"}SPAN.EmailStyle19 { FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR:
#1f497d; mso-style-type: personal-reply}SPAN.BalloonTextChar {
FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link:
"Balloon Text"; mso-style-name: "Balloon Text Char"}.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only}DIV.WordSection1 { page:
WordSection1}Just watched Argo. Eh?
From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirby
McDaniel
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 9:57 PM
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
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
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Same here. Any appeal of watching Hollywood royalty has been devalued by constantly having celebrities shoved down my throat. When I used to watch, I think it was the only mainstream awards show screened, now there's a glut of them. Get on a bit and you realise awards are generally BS. Nice validation for those involved along with the commercial benefits, otherwise irrelevant, not one of my very favourite films got Oscars. Did catch Bassey doing Goldfinger, pleased to see her getting recognition in US where I believe she's far less well known. Pipes and the rest holding up remarkably well for 76. Sent from my iPhone On 2 Mar 2013, at 11:43, Simon Oram wrote: > “As for the Oscars. Either I am just getting too old too care very much, but > it seems increasinglty irrelevant as each Oscar year goes by.” > > Yes far too many deserving films missing from being nominated especially in > the Best Documentary section, makes the Oscars irrelevant. I agree with Meryl > Streep and what she said one time, although I don’t know if she she still > agrees with herself, it was quite some time ago and she is the most > nominated actress of all time but she said something like: the Oscars feels > like a competition rather than an acknowledgement it has more in common with > a sport at the Olympics where you must beat your neighbour to the prize. > > As for Argo, I have not seen it yet but I have been increasing interested in > what Affleck has to offer since he was in the excellent Hollywoodland and > then directed Gone Baby Gone. > > Simon > > > > From: p...@cinemarts.com > Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 6:17 AM > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > > I thought ARGO was a very well directed, very well acted film... very > entertaining. Mila and I liked it a lot. > After the fact, when I learned just how much of the "suspense" and "reality" > was manufactured, it dropped considerably in my estimation. > Not sure why, just a sense of feeling cheated. > I thought it a shame that both the British and the New Zealanders are > denigrated The group actually stayed at the British Embassy before it was > decided to > move them to the Canadian consukate as it was geographically safer. > And that's not all. Wiki it for some even more revealing info. > I haven't seen LINCOLN yet but looking forward to it. No tall poppy syndrome > here with Spielberg's ability to make big films extremely well. > > Back to ARGO... I kept thinking SHAPESPEARE IN LOVE. > > As for the Oscars. Either I am just getting too old too care very much, but > it seems increasinglty irrelevant as each Oscar year goes by. > > Phil > -----Original Message- > From: peter contarino [mailto:pcontar...@triad.rr.com] > Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 10:26 PM > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > > Just watched Argo. Eh? > > From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of Kirby > McDaniel > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 9:57 PM > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > > 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.net > > > On Mar 1, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Franc wrote: > > > > > Very interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after Ben > Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to > be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argot was > cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that i
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>Weell Ive done projects for the academy, the mtv movie awards and teh AFI ... with my Clapboards... when Peter Bogdonovitch was lecturing in Toledo I took a AFI clapboard 100 years /100 movies to give him as a Gift... well he refused my gift as he said he disaggreed with the AFIs choice of films... 1st time I was refused byanyone to get a free clapboard... so apparently the awards always miff someone as to who they choose I have no idea what the politics are,,, or what criteria they use,, perhaps the academy is composed of a biased group??? maybe they are not looking at all the aspects? Maybe with Spielberg it is part jealousy as he has done so well with boxoffice hits? who knows...? just like Jerry Lewis... also Debby reynolds said Hollywood would not support her museum... so its always been a odd business ... but remember Its a wonderful life didnt do well either and yet since 46 its become a tradition as a movie with Miracleon 34th street and others... > > > Original Message >From: ki...@movieart.net >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:13:42 -0600 > >>It is said every year how IRRELEVANT the Oscars are and then every >year millions of people watch the telecast and end up discussing them >for weeks afterward. That doesn't feel like irrelevant to me. >> >>For their flaws, they are still THE award to covet, with all due >respect given to the Golden Globes, >>in film. >> >>Kirby >> >>Sent from my iPad >> >>On Mar 2, 2013, at 5:43 AM, Simon Oram >wrote: >> >>> As for the Oscars. Either I am just getting too old too care very >much, but it seems increasinglty irrelevant as each Oscar year goes >by. >>> >>> Yes far too many deserving films missing from being nominated >especially in the Best Documentary section, makes the Oscars >irrelevant. I agree with Meryl Streep and what she said one time, >although I dont know if she she still agrees with herself, it was >quite some time ago and she is the most nominated actress of all time >but she said something like: the Oscars feels like a competition >rather than an acknowledgement it has more in common with a sport at >the Olympics where you must beat your neighbour to the prize. >>> >>> As for Argo, I have not seen it yet but I have been increasing >interested in what Affleck has to offer since he was in the excellent >Hollywoodland and then directed Gone Baby Gone. >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> >>> From: p...@cinemarts.com >>> Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 6:17 AM >>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>> >>> I thought ARGO was a very well directed, very well acted film... >very entertaining. Mila and I liked it a lot. >>> After the fact, when I learned just how much of the "suspense" and >"reality" was manufactured, it dropped considerably in my estimation. >>> Not sure why, just a sense of feeling cheated. >>> I thought it a shame that both the British and the New Zealanders >are denigrated The group actually stayed at the British Embassy >before it was decided to >>> move them to the Canadian consukate as it was geographically >safer. >>> And that's not all. Wiki it for some even more revealing info. >>> I haven't seen LINCOLN yet but looking forward to it. No tall >poppy syndrome here with Spielberg's ability to make big films >extremely well. >>> >>> Back to ARGO... I kept thinking SHAPESPEARE IN LOVE. >>> >>> As for the Oscars. Either I am just getting too old too care very >much, but it seems increasinglty irrelevant as each Oscar year goes >by. >>> >>> Phil >>> -Original Message- >>> From: peter contarino [mailto:pcontar...@triad.rr.com] >>> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2013 10:26 PM >>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>> >>> 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 >>> >_
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
At present I have not yet seen Lincoln or Argo. So I will not judge those films. I will judge the Oscars though and I will make comment on the directors in question. I am very cynical over the Oscars...I am sure that I am not the only one. When Paul Newman got the Oscar for The Colour of Money that was the final nail in the coffin. It was no where near the fine performance of the character in the first appearance in The Hustler. Newman deserved the Oscat for the year before in The Verdict. Up against The Colour of Money was Mona Lisa and Bob Hoskins who very much deserved the Oscar that year. I know David Kusomoto has a love for Spielberg but -dare I say it? - yes I dare...Spielberg is over rated. There I said it. It was pointed out to me that even in Saving Private Ryan how Spielberg manipulates the audience. Spielberg is a good director and he has an eye for detail that excels, I don't think there is anyone who will not agree that Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and a handful of other films that for me the pinnacle was Schindlers List. However Spielberg is a jobbing director with some supreme peaks in his career. He has made a good few lesser films and I would cite the last Indiana Jones film, AI, War of the Worlds, Warhorse, 1941 and a few others as testement that Spielberg is not great. As I cannot judge Lincoln against Argo I will not try to go into justifying why Spielberg didn't get the Oscar...suffice to say that those voting all have their own preferences and agendas. If it truly is a democratic vote for the Oscars then it cannot be said that the Oscars are unfair. I believe otherwise. From items I have read and heard about and spoken to one or two people in the industry Oscars can be loaded...if the studio puts enough pressure on the academy with the right amount of back-handers and goodies then the Oscar is in the bag for the studio. So from that you can take it that Ben Affleck more than likely had the ear of the heavy hitters who voteor is that too cynical? As I have not seen Lincoln yet I can only surmise that it was worthy of best director Oscar...what will be sad is when Spielberg gets the Oscar for best director for Indiana Jones Five...because it will be Spielberg's turn as it was for Paul Newman in The Colour of Money. As for winning in Hollywood...I put it to those of interest here...surely the Oscar is pretty much worthless unless the film in question has or is doing well at the Box Office. Lets take a look at Skyfall...critically acclaimed Bond film...in my humble opinion it was...adequate. There were many plotholes and flaws...it was by no means a great film and yet it has won a high BAFTA awardit's biggest reward surely is the huge box office return...it is nowhere near as good as From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill...but it didn't have any competition when it was released...had Star Trek been out against it I wonder if the audience would have been so top heavy on Skyfall. In the end the rewards for any film are the box office reciepts...witness Spielbergs other profession - producer/executive producer...thats where the money is...that's where the reward is. Who needs a faux gold statuette on the mantle piece when you have a billion dollars in the bank? This never happened to the other fella... Adrian Cowdry -Original Message- From: Franc To: MoPo-L Sent: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 1:07 Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Very interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argot was cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become a classic. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David Kusumoto Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Hey guys; I want to chime in for some reason... I'm just a fan who doesn't really know what he's talking about, but I have a right to my 'opinion', so I'm going to exercise that right... Spielberg USED to be my favorite director up until ET... I think that was his turning point... up until that moment, this fan feels that he was making movies that HE wanted to make, rather than movies that he thought OTHER people wanted him to make... He stopped making "fun" movies, only to add his name as "Executive Producer" on the fun popcorn movies, overshadowing the credits for the likes of the directors Joe Dante (Gremlins), Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist), and Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future, etc.). You can't convince me that the same guy who brought us Duel, CE3K, Jaws and Raiders decided to make movies like The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun because he wanted to. He made those in hopes for awards... He finally got it with Schindler's List, but didn't quit there... Sure, he's the most talented and capable mogul who can bring to the table quality product ( I don't want to piss Tom off), but this moviegoer just wants to see his epic popcorn-movies, which is what he's best at. If I want a History lesson on Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, or Lincoln, I'll watch the History Channel. I'd rather watch Minority Report, Jurassic Park, or that lousy War Of The Worlds than Lincoln, no matter how powerful, moving and accurate it may be. (IMHO) Frankenwick -Original Message----- From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away. This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its thunder again. So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't soar with the eagles. But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion. Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for a Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
An interesting point of view...as I have said I have yet to see Lincolnbut I would never want to watch that terrible War of the Worlds again. As for Colour Purple, Empire of the Sun and Schindlers List...for me these were the worthy films that Spielberg made. However we can all go on concerning this subject. ET to me was so much sugar and syrup that it was sickening When I was courting my fiance (married her a few years later) she inveigled me in to going to see ET...I relented in the end but only if she would come and see Commando with me...she enjoyed Commando far more than I enjoyed ET! This never happened to the other fella... Adrian Cowdry -Original Message- From: Kenwick Cook To: MoPo-L Sent: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:27 Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Hey guys; I want to chime in for some reason... I'm just a fan who doesn't really know what he's talking about, but I have a right to my 'opinion', so I'm going to exercise that right... Spielberg USED to be my favorite director up until ET... I think that was his turning point... up until that moment, this fan feels that he was making movies that HE wanted to make, rather than movies that he thought OTHER people wanted him to make... He stopped making "fun" movies, only to add his name as "Executive Producer" on the fun popcorn movies, overshadowing the credits for the likes of the directors Joe Dante (Gremlins), Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist), and Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future, etc.). You can't convince me that the same guy who brought us Duel, CE3K, Jaws and Raiders decided to make movies like The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun because he wanted to. He made those in hopes for awards... He finally got it with Schindler's List, but didn't quit there... Sure, he's the most talented and capable mogul who can bring to the table quality product ( I don't want to piss Tom off), but this moviegoer just wants to see his epic popcorn-movies, which is what he's best at. If I want a History lesson on Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, or Lincoln, I'll watch the History Channel. I'd rather watch Minority Report, Jurassic Park, or that lousy War Of The Worlds than Lincoln, no matter how powerful, moving and accurate it may be. (IMHO) Frankenwick -Original Message----- From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away. This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations being announced and t
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
"Empire of the Sun" is one of Spielberg's favorite films. He has stated that he WANTED to make this film and has been thrilled to discover years later that it is a cult favorite world-wide! Sorry, Kenwick, but I'll take Spielberg's word on "Empire of the Sun" rather than your supposition that he made it to "win awards." Joe B in NOLA From: Kenwick Cook To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Hey guys; I want to chime in for some reason... I'm just a fan who doesn't really know what he's talking about, but I have a right to my 'opinion', so I'm going to exercise that right... Spielberg USED to be my favorite director up until ET... I think that was his turning point... up until that moment, this fan feels that he was making movies that HE wanted to make, rather than movies that he thought OTHER people wanted him to make... He stopped making "fun" movies, only to add his name as "Executive Producer" on the fun popcorn movies, overshadowing the credits for the likes of the directors Joe Dante (Gremlins), Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist), and Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future, etc.). You can't convince me that the same guy who brought us Duel, CE3K, Jaws andRaiders decided to make movies like The Color Purpleand Empire of the Sunbecause he wanted to. He made those in hopes for awards... He finally got it with Schindler's List, but didn't quit there... Sure, he's the most talented and capable mogul who can bring to the table quality product ( I don't want to piss Tom off), but this moviegoer just wants to see his epic popcorn-movies, which is what he's best at. If I want a History lesson on Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, orLincoln, I'll watch the History Channel. I'd rather watch Minority Report, Jurassic Park, or that lousy War Of The Worlds than Lincoln, no matter how powerful, moving and accurate it may be. (IMHO) Frankenwick -----Original Message- From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese aremy favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from BuzzFeed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands.What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argoin the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincolnbrings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away. This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincolnlooked like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argostage a last minute surge and steal its thunder again. So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't soar with the eagles. But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall of its mighty is p
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Hi Toochis - I missed both films, as I thought "End of Watch" might be a typical cop-buddy film - and I skipped "Magic Mike" because I wasn't wild about seeing a movie about strippers. But both pictures, particularly Soderbergh's "Magic Mike" - got good notices - and as a result of your recommendation, I've put them into my Netflix queue. Meanwhile, I cannot believe the kind of year that Matthew McConaughey had. Talk about "changing one's image"! The same year "Magic Mike" is released - he had two other pictures that were nearly unwatchable, "The Paperboy" and "Killer Joe." I'll never forget back in the 1990s when he burst on the scene as the "next Paul Newman." He's not turned out to be that - even though he's obviously still bankable, esp. with all the women I know who view him as "eye candy." But it takes an awful lot for an actor to keep working in Hollywood for as long as he has. I thought he was great in "The Lincoln Lawyer," a picture I did not expect to like. -d. Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 21:32:42 -0800 From: fly...@pacbell.net Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU 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 On Mar 1, 2013, at 7:37 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: 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 McDanielwww.movieart.net Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:10:27 -0800 From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Franc, I'm not only with you all the way with "Lincoln," but I have already "declared" that in my mind, it is a towering achievement, an historical event, a classic. As I posted on FB, I saw 8 of the 9 best picture nominees - and I thought "Lincoln" was Spielberg's best and most accomplished film since "Schindler's List." I have the "Lincoln" one-sheet hanging on the wall behind my computer as I write this. I also thought Tony Kushner was robbed. "Argo" is OK, but not eloquent, not ground breaking, not special in any way memorable. For "Argo" to win Best Picture AND Best Screenplay over the likes of "Lincoln" was criminal - and reminded me of the "vote for us" syndrome of the acting branch, e.g., see Robert Redford, Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner and Clint Eas
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
I didn't know that... I shall strike that one from my rant... Thanx. It is indeed a wonderfully photographed film... Don't get me wrong... I enjoyed my theatrical experiences on all of those films I'm complaining about... just never ever wanted to re-visit those films after the one viewing unlike CE3K, Raiders, etc... that's just me. -Original Message- From: Joseph Bonelli To: MoPo-L Sent: Sat, Mar 2, 2013 3:44 pm Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. "Empire of the Sun" is one of Spielberg's favorite films. He has stated that he WANTED to make this film and has been thrilled to discover years later that it is a cult favorite world-wide! Sorry, Kenwick, but I'll take Spielberg's word on "Empire of the Sun" rather than your supposition that he made it to "win awards." Joe B in NOLA From: Kenwick Cook To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Hey guys; I want to chime in for some reason... I'm just a fan who doesn't really know what he's talking about, but I have a right to my 'opinion', so I'm going to exercise that right... Spielberg USED to be my favorite director up until ET... I think that was his turning point... up until that moment, this fan feels that he was making movies that HE wanted to make, rather than movies that he thought OTHER people wanted him to make... He stopped making "fun" movies, only to add his name as "Executive Producer" on the fun popcorn movies, overshadowing the credits for the likes of the directors Joe Dante (Gremlins), Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist), and Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future, etc.). You can't convince me that the same guy who brought us Duel, CE3K, Jaws and Raiders decided to make movies like The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun because he wanted to. He made those in hopes for awards... He finally got it with Schindler's List, but didn't quit there... Sure, he's the most talented and capable mogul who can bring to the table quality product ( I don't want to piss Tom off), but this moviegoer just wants to see his epic popcorn-movies, which is what he's best at. If I want a History lesson on Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, or Lincoln, I'll watch the History Channel. I'd rather watch Minority Report, Jurassic Park, or that lousy War Of The Worlds than Lincoln, no matter how powerful, moving and accurate it may be. (IMHO) Frankenwick -----Original Message- From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>wow great thread Guys and what movies are about as far as whos the best or impacted the most.. personally I view it as like a record collection.. each record has a different feel... and to say the beatles are the best, or that Stan Getz, or Bach would be absurd.. Imagine if they had classical Oscars?? Or what if we voted on the best Book of altime... ? well they say the Bible is the largest in print.. But then we break it into Genres.. and interest,, as LikeDavid sia I too likeLincoln material historically.. so I would probably hold interest as I have heard folklore and all and they researched stuff like his pitch of voice,, etc.. and in my case I recently sold a hand crank movie camera to the Abraham Lincoln museum and discused with the curator Lincoln in films as Speiberg was in Virgina shooting the movie with Lewis.. yet it sonds long.. and lots of dialog and im ADD so i may not have the patience as many may not As far as ridley Scoot... I think of him more as visual then as a story teller,,, as there are storytellers and then Visual magicians... when they combine those abilities you get a Movie story.. what I like is when a movie takes me on a journey where the suspension of disbelief is raised, films like " Back to the future" allowed me to escape in a make beleif enviroment of fantasy.. which can be fun... so did Raiders of the lost ark... as they are things we wonder about but seldom do.. The war Films allowed me to visit reality of things that happened..and awoke me to history and many things saddened methey happened like WW2 and the holocost... etc...Comedys offer escape also and a way to laugh at our own blunders and others like FDumb and dumber action heros alow us to be superheros and overcome adversity... and romance allows us to consider Love and romance.. so they all serve a purpose.. and there are majectic films in all catagories... and to pinpoint one director as best or one actor,or really anything is out of my personal ability.. because like songs, artists and painters, sure i have some that I deeply admire like Richard Amsel and Drew Struzan, Peak, alvin, frazzetta, and many others and each has a signature style..Howevere its the diversity that makes films so neat.. and the varied techniques.. Remember when the noir low ligh ofBladerunner came in and the wet streets,, that was part because they made more sensitive low light film stocks.. the 70s had that UGLY high exposure yellow over exposed eastman stock that fades and needed lots of light... so the industry changed.. now they can shoot with no lights in dark and tweak in ost production... so beauty in in the eyes of the beholder as we saw with the new rage to make shaky shots and now they try to look oldshool with scratches on the film intentionally..LOL as far as Orson well Hitchcok and all the early directors and all... they each had a view a , idea ,light spiebergs uses of catching ambiant lights from flashlights,,, would probably have given 30s cinenatographers a stroke... anyways ... Spielberg is a great storyteller and allowsus to imagine what a Kids fantasy was,, also laltely what a adults questions are,, as we aged with Steven... will it sell Tickets??? well not if we are appealing to demographics of movie buyers.. But sometimes its just hitting a note that appeals to everyone.. that is shared. like a virile Youtube video.. Or a Michael Jackson... I always have told my son that there are no rules for Phenonenon or everyone could creat ,, a new beatles, a new star wars.. I think some people just get lucky and have passion and the project works.. liek a Toy story... or Gone with the wind... Margret almost didnt pitch the book as she wasnt even a real author and look at what happened.. same with Steven King... sowith all that said... I hope Steven doesnt think that the academys lack of awarding him Oscars means anything as he has the publics vote by his salesof people seeing and buying the films...Just as most commercial artist learn... for those that dont sell volume.. they too do ok as they can get critical praise by peers and a select few... but neither the commercial artist or the critical artists are really any different in my book:) we need all kinds to make the ADD people of the world... happy.. as they have the attention span of tiny nats,,:)thanks To the academy and to all the little people that make the film industry really work.:) > > > Original Message >From: jboh...@aol.com >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 17:04:13 -0500 > >>I think David has come to his senses a little by mentioning Ridley >Scott who in my humble opinion has never made a bad film...he has >made some movies on odd subject matters but the films never have been >turkeys like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and AI to mention a few. >> >>But I wo
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Yes, Joe's right about EMPIRE. I think if he made it today, Spielberg would hew closer to Ballard's book which is far more grim in its details of camp life. Overall, though EMPIRE nails it and young Christian Bale is a revelation. I find the "too cool to like Spielberg" school almost as irritating as the "too cool to like Tarantino school". Wildly different in their wolrd view and style, both have a remarkable facility with the medium. My favourite director working today, though, is Ridley Scott whose eye is truly extraordinary and whose films are often politically subversive. Phil -Original Message- From: Joseph Bonelli [mailto:joebom...@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 04:44 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. "Empire of the Sun" is one of Spielberg's favorite films. He has stated that he WANTED to make this film and has been thrilled to discover years later that it is a cult favorite world-wide! Sorry, Kenwick, but I'll take Spielberg's word on "Empire of the Sun" rather than your supposition that he made it to "win awards." Joe B in NOLA From: Kenwick Cook To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Hey guys; I want to chime in for some reason... I'm just a fan who doesn't really know what he's talking about, but I have a right to my 'opinion', so I'm going to exercise that right... Spielberg USED to be my favorite director up until ET... I think that was his turning point... up until that moment, this fan feels that he was making movies that HE wanted to make, rather than movies that he thought OTHER people wanted him to make... He stopped making "fun" movies, only to add his name as "Executive Producer" on the fun popcorn movies, overshadowing the credits for the likes of the directors Joe Dante (Gremlins), Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist), and Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future, etc.). You can't convince me that the same guy who brought us Duel, CE3K, Jaws and Raiders decided to make movies like TheColor Purple andEmpire of the Sun because he wanted to. He made those in hopes for awards... He finally got it with Schindler's List, but didn't quit there... Sure, he's the most talented and capable mogul who can bring to the table quality product ( I don't want to piss Tom off), but this moviegoer just wants to see his epic popcorn-movies, which is what he's best at. If I want a History lesson on Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, or Lincoln, I'll watch the History Channel. I'd rather watch Minority Report, Jurassic Park, or that lousy War Of The Worlds than Lincoln, no matter how powerful, moving and accurate it may be. (IMHO) Frankenwick -Original Message- From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese aremy favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest LoserOnce again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff. Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole t
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
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 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
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>man... mopos on Fire... at last we are talking Movies... :) well I think everyone has made good points... But Ill uses the music anlogy again as I think most would agree we cannot have just a few Musicalpeople that are the best... Its a diverse group... and I could never just listen to Jazz alone.. I need to hear all styles.. from acdc to country, Rock, classical,, soundtracks .. african tribal music.. Same with Film.. or books or whatever art... so how can anyone say what is the best picture is out of my understanding.. Its seems political.. and i give it as much respect as I would a talent show that voted the spoons palyer over the Beatles.. true story they kept loosing the talent shows to some guy that palyed the spoons...LOL basically you have a group of peopel with ballots choosing what they think is the best film or director,,, in the academy case who are these peopel.??is it wide demographics in age, social demos and the like??? I would doubt it... its supposed to be peers in the industry right? so who knows what the inside views are on directors and such,,, maes sense on argo as they are younger crowd and may have mre influence...its just too nuts... what would make sense is if they also allowed the public to VOTE onlin in conjunction with the Acdemy...then we may get a better picture,,, like they doon TV talent shows.. But then they may rally via facebook a audiance to vote.. so mass appeal vs artistic apeal have always been debated. I like artist that have no followers and ar eclectic,,, and i like highly commercial...they bot excite me... heck I can even listen to YOKO im open minded.:) Ilove doumentrys... the film Tucker was great because iliked tuckers story... so that helps... I think if you allow yourself to relax and be open to storys they can be like a nice trip...and theinks like HORROR and thrillers can make your mind tittleated as they make the fight or flight senses go nuts.. I tellmy son this... most movies are Magic tricks if you look at suspence,, you soften the viewer, make them at ease and then BOOM surprise them... done with images , music and story.. thats it.. If you can get the viewer to have empathy with the animals or ET and acytuallly care then you have the interest... if you get them to be amused or laugh at a bit... well or take interest in a character then again they care... thats all star wars is is chacters, with some nice visuals and a theme of the Good guy gets to overcome adversity... and all the twists and turns,,, same with alien, same with bladerunner, or any Swartxennegere film as people like the same sequences just with a new spin like how Taratino rearranged it but its the same 1,2, 3, and Circus performers and Carnys and Magicians where the founders.. the art of deception,,, and distraction and allowing the mind to assume and then surprising... except romance and all but they even twist those storys and build up with mental images.. just ask woman that read Romance novels ( woman POrn)...lol:) I sold Halloween costumes and got to see the different sides of what people wanted to portray and its pretty much the same deal as Movies.. some great books are on Color phycology -by Birren and subliminal advertising.. and then you see how pavlovian people really are... and why these formulas of the sideshow artists are the same used today in films as they where in the 1800s... > > > Original Message >From: p...@cinemarts.com >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 23:14:28 + > >>Yes, Joe's right about EMPIRE. I think if he made it today, >Spielberg would hew closer to Ballard's book which is far more grim >in its details of camp life. Overall, though EMPIRE nails it and >young Christian Bale is a revelation. >>I find the "too cool to like Spielberg" school almost as irritating >as the "too cool to like Tarantino school". Wildly different in their >wolrd view and style, both have a remarkable facility with the >medium. >>My favourite director working today, though, is Ridley Scott whose >eye is truly extraordinary and whose films are often politically >subversive. >>Phil >>-Original Message- >>From: Joseph Bonelli [mailto:joebom...@yahoo.com] >>Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 04:44 PM >>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >> >>"Empire of the Sun" is one of Spielberg's favorite films. He has >stated that he WANTED to make this film and has been thrilled to >discover years later that it is a cult favorite world-wide! Sorry, >Kenwick, but I'll take Spielberg's word on "Empire of the Sun" rather >than your supposition that he made it to "win awards." >> >>Joe
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
> 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 > 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 Bil
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Regards, Doug Taylor Sent via mobile device From: Douglas B Taylor<mailto:douglasbtay...@hotmail.com> Sent: 3/2/2013 7:27 PM To: dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com<mailto:dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com> Subject: RE: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Well, here I go with another tangent, but since you bright up Cinema Paradiso... My all time favorite films are (for me) "the four C's"...Casablanca, Citizen Kane, City Lights and Cinema Paradiso. I will never forget seeing Cinema Paradiso in Washington DC, at the AFI. It was a couple years after the release and I hadn't seen it since the original run so I jumped at the chance to see the AFI screening. I sat next to my wife (at the time) and, about 15 minutes before the end of the movie, I began sobbing like a baby. I had just remembered that the scene withe the kisses was coming up and it shattered me. What a wonderful, wonderful moment in film. I honestly don't know if there is a better moment in film then the kissing reel in Cinema Paradiso. Probably many equal, but maybe none better. Regards, Doug Taylor Sent via mobile device From: Tom Martin<mailto:dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com> Sent: 3/2/2013 6:46 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > 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 > 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 >aud
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Well, here I go with another tangent, but since you bright up Cinema Paradiso... My all time favorite films are (for me) "the four C's"...Casablanca, Citizen Kane, City Lights and Cinema Paradiso. I will never forget seeing Cinema Paradiso in Washington DC, at the AFI. It was a couple years after the release and I hadn't seen it since the original run so I jumped at the chance to see the AFI screening. I sat next to my wife (at the time) and, about 15 minutes before the end of the movie, I began sobbing like a baby. I had just remembered that the scene withe the kisses was coming up and it shattered me. What a wonderful, wonderful moment in film. I honestly don't know if there is a better moment in film then the kissing reel in Cinema Paradiso. Probably many equal, but maybe none better. Regards, Doug Taylor Sent via mobile device From: Toochis Morin<mailto:fly...@pacbell.net> Sent: 3/2/2013 6:32 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. 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 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.
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Speaking of directors, my appreciation of Ang Lee grows more and more. Who has directed more diverse films then Brokeback Mountain, Sense and Sensibility, Life of Pi? Each with a distinct look and feel. Regards, Doug Taylor Sent via mobile device From: p...@cinemarts.com<mailto:p...@cinemarts.com> Sent: 3/2/2013 6:14 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU<mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Yes, Joe's right about EMPIRE. I think if he made it today, Spielberg would hew closer to Ballard's book which is far more grim in its details of camp life. Overall, though EMPIRE nails it and young Christian Bale is a revelation. I find the "too cool to like Spielberg" school almost as irritating as the "too cool to like Tarantino school". Wildly different in their wolrd view and style, both have a remarkable facility with the medium. My favourite director working today, though, is Ridley Scott whose eye is truly extraordinary and whose films are often politically subversive. Phil -Original Message- From: Joseph Bonelli [mailto:joebom...@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 04:44 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. "Empire of the Sun" is one of Spielberg's favorite films. He has stated that he WANTED to make this film and has been thrilled to discover years later that it is a cult favorite world-wide! Sorry, Kenwick, but I'll take Spielberg's word on "Empire of the Sun" rather than your supposition that he made it to "win awards." Joe B in NOLA From: Kenwick Cook To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Hey guys; I want to chime in for some reason... I'm just a fan who doesn't really know what he's talking about, but I have a right to my 'opinion', so I'm going to exercise that right... Spielberg USED to be my favorite director up until ET... I think that was his turning point... up until that moment, this fan feels that he was making movies that HE wanted to make, rather than movies that he thought OTHER people wanted him to make... He stopped making "fun" movies, only to add his name as "Executive Producer" on the fun popcorn movies, overshadowing the credits for the likes of the directors Joe Dante (Gremlins), Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist), and Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future, etc.). You can't convince me that the same guy who brought us Duel, CE3K, Jaws and Raiders decided to make movies like TheColor Purple andEmpire of the Sun because he wanted to. He made those in hopes for awards... He finally got it with Schindler's List, but didn't quit there... Sure, he's the most talented and capable mogul who can bring to the table quality product ( I don't want to piss Tom off), but this moviegoer just wants to see his epic popcorn-movies, which is what he's best at. If I want a History lesson on Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, or Lincoln, I'll watch the History Channel. I'd rather watch Minority Report, Jurassic Park, or that lousy War Of The Worlds than Lincoln, no matter how powerful, moving and accurate it may be. (IMHO) Frankenwick -Original Message- From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese aremy favorite "still-living" directors of all time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest LoserOnce again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats for entertainment's biggest prize. And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang L
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
This is fascinating to read! I hope it keeps on going for a long time. I also wish I had something meaningful to add, but I did not see any of the Best Picture nominees, so I don't feel like I can have an opinion. On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Tom Martin < dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com> wrote: > > 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 > > 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
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
That's interesting, Doug. My oldest son is a very unemotional person, but he loves Cinema Paradiso (as I do) and I watched it again with him and he too cried at the kissing scene, and I can't remember the last time he cried about anything. What a wonderful movie (whether or not it won Oscars!). On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Douglas B Taylor wrote: > > > Regards, > > Doug Taylor > > > Sent via mobile device > -- > From: Douglas B Taylor > Sent: 3/2/2013 7:27 PM > To: dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com > > Subject: RE: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > > Well, here I go with another tangent, but since you bright up Cinema > Paradiso... > > My all time favorite films are (for me) "the four C's"...Casablanca, > Citizen Kane, City Lights and Cinema Paradiso. > > I will never forget seeing Cinema Paradiso in Washington DC, at the AFI. > It was a couple years after the release and I hadn't seen it since the > original run so I jumped at the chance to see the AFI screening. > > I sat next to my wife (at the time) and, about 15 minutes before the end > of the movie, I began sobbing like a baby. I had just remembered that the > scene withe the kisses was coming up and it shattered me. What a > wonderful, wonderful moment in film. I honestly don't know if there is a > better moment in film then the kissing reel in Cinema Paradiso. Probably > many equal, but maybe none better. > > Regards, > > Doug Taylor > > > Sent via mobile device > -------------- > From: Tom Martin > Sent: 3/2/2013 6:46 PM > > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > > > 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 > > 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 > &
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>a now where getting some place. when a film or book or song touches your soul... and emotions thats when You have a artistic element that makes a difference... even a painting or poster that emits a strong feeling... Cinema Paradiso was probably the most impact a film ever had on me... period other then Its a wonderful Life,,, as its kinda summerized my life... the friendship he had with the projectionis, the innocence lost to urequited love experience and loseing loved ones etc.. the desire to do something with his life and the reflection.. It pusehed every button I had... when I saw it it was at a art theatre and I thought oh no subtitled,, How will i see the words so quick... But the film started and just sucked me on a magic carpet ride.. I didnt even read it ,, it was like tanslated by the acting, the magnificent soundtrack and the feel and shots... so like all of you I didnt expect what I witnessed.. I heard it was a good film but didnt know the story,,, well as you may or may not know,, I like projectors bigtime and projection booths and old projectionist... so that was button # uno... and I was like that Kid.. in quizitive kind a brat and wanted to be part and my step granpa and the men that mentored me where like that Projectionist character,, and I had a sinle mom.. Button 2, 3,4... and my experience with women was about the same.. Ifactuation, and rejection and just not clicking...yet there where some great breaks along the way... so here i am I went to the movie with a film buff friend employee.. and next thing i know the movie ends and I feel like I was run over by a train,,, I started crying... and could not even stop... I mean even when we got in the car I still cry and even shook I was angry as I never had a picture so affect me in such a hard way I thouht I went over the edge.. all I could think was that film was the perfect storm for my life... But when I hear others explain like Bruce did and Doug,,, I see that its Universal.. and it was almost a litmus paper of Human emotion... and the kissing scene whic is on GOOGle.. actually you can see the film hear the score is there and thers even a page on Facebook... .. so if you need to get some tears out... just turn it on and promice you wont need fake teears solution as this will get you pumping them out by the bucketfull... Just thinking about it has made my nose run and that holding back tears..and swelling up in my eyes... Im debating wheter I should go look as its so moving... well... here goes... > > > Original Message >From: brucehershen...@gmail.com >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 18:52:00 -0600 > >>That's interesting, Doug. My oldest son is a very unemotional >person, but >>he loves Cinema Paradiso (as I do) and I watched it again with him >and he >>too cried at the kissing scene, and I can't remember the last time >he cried >>about anything. >> >>What a wonderful movie (whether or not it won Oscars!). >> >> >>On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Douglas B Taylor >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Doug Taylor >>> >>> >>> Sent via mobile device >>> ------ >>> From: Douglas B Taylor >>> Sent: 3/2/2013 7:27 PM >>> To: dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com >>> >>> Subject: RE: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>> >>> Well, here I go with another tangent, but since you bright up >Cinema >>> Paradiso... >>> >>> My all time favorite films are (for me) "the four >C's"...Casablanca, >>> Citizen Kane, City Lights and Cinema Paradiso. >>> >>> I will never forget seeing Cinema Paradiso in Washington DC, at >the AFI. >>> It was a couple years after the release and I hadn't seen it since >the >>> original run so I jumped at the chance to see the AFI screening. >>> >>> I sat next to my wife (at the time) and, about 15 minutes before >the end >>> of the movie, I began sobbing like a baby. I had just remembered >that the >>> scene withe the kisses was coming up and it shattered me. What a >>> wonderful, wonderful moment in film. I honestly don't know if >there is a >>> better moment in film then the kissing reel in Cinema Paradiso. >Probably >>> many equal, but maybe none better. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Doug Taylor >>> >>> >>> Sent via mobile device >>> -- >>> From: Tom Martin >>> Sent: 3/2/2013 6:46 P
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
The kisses in Cinema Paradiso are almost unfair. Who could defend against that emotion? It is like fighting against Mike Tyson jn his prime, with Cus D'mato managing him, there was simply no defense...you were going down. Regards, Doug Taylor Sent via mobile device From: Bruce Hershenson<mailto:brucehershen...@gmail.com> Sent: 3/2/2013 7:52 PM To: Douglas B Taylor<mailto:douglasbtay...@hotmail.com> Cc: MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu<mailto:MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu> Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. That's interesting, Doug. My oldest son is a very unemotional person, but he loves Cinema Paradiso (as I do) and I watched it again with him and he too cried at the kissing scene, and I can't remember the last time he cried about anything. What a wonderful movie (whether or not it won Oscars!). On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Douglas B Taylor wrote: > > > Regards, > > Doug Taylor > > > Sent via mobile device > -- > From: Douglas B Taylor > Sent: 3/2/2013 7:27 PM > To: dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com > > Subject: RE: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > > Well, here I go with another tangent, but since you bright up Cinema > Paradiso... > > My all time favorite films are (for me) "the four C's"...Casablanca, > Citizen Kane, City Lights and Cinema Paradiso. > > I will never forget seeing Cinema Paradiso in Washington DC, at the AFI. > It was a couple years after the release and I hadn't seen it since the > original run so I jumped at the chance to see the AFI screening. > > I sat next to my wife (at the time) and, about 15 minutes before the end > of the movie, I began sobbing like a baby. I had just remembered that the > scene withe the kisses was coming up and it shattered me. What a > wonderful, wonderful moment in film. I honestly don't know if there is a > better moment in film then the kissing reel in Cinema Paradiso. Probably > many equal, but maybe none better. > > Regards, > > Doug Taylor > > > Sent via mobile device > -- > From: Tom Martin > Sent: 3/2/2013 6:46 PM > > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > > > 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 > > 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
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
> >totally agree... no defennse against Love.. Love conquers all. > > Original Message >From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:30:03 -0500 > >>The kisses in Cinema Paradiso are almost unfair. Who could defend >against that emotion? It is like fighting against Mike Tyson jn his >prime, with Cus D'mato managing him, there was simply no >defense...you were going down. >> >>Regards, >> >>Doug Taylor >> >> >>Sent via mobile device >> >>From: Bruce Hershenson<mailto:brucehershen...@gmail.com> >>Sent: ?3/?2/?2013 7:52 PM >>To: Douglas B Taylor<mailto:douglasbtay...@hotmail.com> >>Cc: >MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu<mailto:MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu> >>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >> >>That's interesting, Doug. My oldest son is a very unemotional >person, but >>he loves Cinema Paradiso (as I do) and I watched it again with him >and he >>too cried at the kissing scene, and I can't remember the last time >he cried >>about anything. >> >>What a wonderful movie (whether or not it won Oscars!). >> >> >>On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Douglas B Taylor >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Doug Taylor >>> >>> >>> Sent via mobile device >>> -- >>> From: Douglas B Taylor >>> Sent: 3/2/2013 7:27 PM >>> To: dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com >>> >>> Subject: RE: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>> >>> Well, here I go with another tangent, but since you bright up >Cinema >>> Paradiso... >>> >>> My all time favorite films are (for me) "the four >C's"...Casablanca, >>> Citizen Kane, City Lights and Cinema Paradiso. >>> >>> I will never forget seeing Cinema Paradiso in Washington DC, at >the AFI. >>> It was a couple years after the release and I hadn't seen it since >the >>> original run so I jumped at the chance to see the AFI screening. >>> >>> I sat next to my wife (at the time) and, about 15 minutes before >the end >>> of the movie, I began sobbing like a baby. I had just remembered >that the >>> scene withe the kisses was coming up and it shattered me. What a >>> wonderful, wonderful moment in film. I honestly don't know if >there is a >>> better moment in film then the kissing reel in Cinema Paradiso. >Probably >>> many equal, but maybe none better. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Doug Taylor >>> >>> >>> Sent via mobile device >>> -- >>> From: Tom Martin >>> Sent: 3/2/2013 6:46 PM >>> >>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>> >>> > 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 >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> * Wow! A lot of well-written posts on this thread. >>> >>> >>> >>> * I was talking to my wife about "Lincoln"
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
> >well I made the mistake and watched it same responce..took me back to when I 1st saw it.. damn that score and film is sopowerful.. what a well crafted story,,, I had forgot why he edited the scenes. gotta go...im remembering again > Original Message >From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:30:03 -0500 > >>The kisses in Cinema Paradiso are almost unfair. Who could defend >against that emotion? It is like fighting against Mike Tyson jn his >prime, with Cus D'mato managing him, there was simply no >defense...you were going down. >> >>Regards, >> >>Doug Taylor >> >> >>Sent via mobile device >> >>From: Bruce Hershenson<mailto:brucehershen...@gmail.com> >>Sent: ?3/?2/?2013 7:52 PM >>To: Douglas B Taylor<mailto:douglasbtay...@hotmail.com> >>Cc: >MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu<mailto:MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu> >>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >> >>That's interesting, Doug. My oldest son is a very unemotional >person, but >>he loves Cinema Paradiso (as I do) and I watched it again with him >and he >>too cried at the kissing scene, and I can't remember the last time >he cried >>about anything. >> >>What a wonderful movie (whether or not it won Oscars!). >> >> >>On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Douglas B Taylor >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Doug Taylor >>> >>> >>> Sent via mobile device >>> -- >>> From: Douglas B Taylor >>> Sent: 3/2/2013 7:27 PM >>> To: dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com >>> >>> Subject: RE: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>> >>> Well, here I go with another tangent, but since you bright up >Cinema >>> Paradiso... >>> >>> My all time favorite films are (for me) "the four >C's"...Casablanca, >>> Citizen Kane, City Lights and Cinema Paradiso. >>> >>> I will never forget seeing Cinema Paradiso in Washington DC, at >the AFI. >>> It was a couple years after the release and I hadn't seen it since >the >>> original run so I jumped at the chance to see the AFI screening. >>> >>> I sat next to my wife (at the time) and, about 15 minutes before >the end >>> of the movie, I began sobbing like a baby. I had just remembered >that the >>> scene withe the kisses was coming up and it shattered me. What a >>> wonderful, wonderful moment in film. I honestly don't know if >there is a >>> better moment in film then the kissing reel in Cinema Paradiso. >Probably >>> many equal, but maybe none better. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Doug Taylor >>> >>> >>> Sent via mobile device >>> -- >>> From: Tom Martin >>> Sent: 3/2/2013 6:46 PM >>> >>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>> >>> > 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 >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> &g
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
I interviewed Ang Lee years ago when he was in Australia for one of his first films The publicist organiused a wonderful venue for the interview - dinner for three, Ang, me and the publicist on a catamaran under sail on Sydney harbour at sunset. Ang was unbelievability charming and agreat conversationalist and clearly extremely smart about films. While he had only a couple of low budget "arthouse" films under his belt, he was very clear that he wanted to make films in all genres - Westerns, martial arts, romance, period etc etc. He seems to have achived that and just goes from strength to strength. If you haven't seen it, RIDE WITH THE DEVIL is a terrific Western. Phil -Original Message- From: Douglas B Taylor [mailto:douglasbtay...@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 07:31 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Speaking of directors, my appreciation of Ang Lee grows more and more. Who has directed more diverse films then Brokeback Mountain, Sense and Sensibility, Life of Pi? Each with a distinct look and feel. Regards, Doug Taylor Sent via mobile device From:p...@cinemarts.com Sent:3/2/2013 6:14 PM To:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject:Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Yes, Joe's right about EMPIRE. I think if he made it today, Spielberg would hew closer to Ballard's book which is far more grim in its details of camp life. Overall, though EMPIRE nails it and young Christian Bale is a revelation. I find the "too cool to like Spielberg" school almost as irritating as the "too cool to like Tarantino school". Wildly different in their wolrd view and style, both have a remarkable facility with the medium. My favourite director working today, though, is Ridley Scott whose eye is truly extraordinary and whose films are often politically subversive. Phil -Original Message- From: Joseph Bonelli [mailto:joebom...@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 04:44 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com___How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a message addressed to: listserv@listserv.american.eduIn the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe author of this message is solely responsible for its content. "Empire of the Sun" is one of Spielberg's favorite films. He has stated that he WANTED to make this film and has been thrilled to discover years later that it is a cult favorite world-wide! Sorry, Kenwick, but I'll take Spielberg's word on "Empire of the Sun" rather than your supposition that he made it to "win awards." Joe B in NOLA From: Kenwick Cook To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Hey guys; I want to chime in for some reason... I'm just a fan who doesn't really know what he's talking about, but I have a right to my 'opinion', so I'm going to exercise that right... Spielberg USED to be my favorite director up until ET... I think that was his turning point... up until that moment,this fan feels that he was making movies that HE wanted to make, rather thanmovies that he thought OTHER people wanted him to make... He stopped making "fun" movies, only to add his name as "Executive Producer" on the fun popcorn movies, overshadowingthe credits for the likes of the directors Joe Dante (Gremlins), Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist), and Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future, etc.). You can't convince me that the same guy who brought us Duel, CE3K, Jaws and Raiders decided to make movies likeTheColor Purple andEmpire of the Sun because he wanted to. He made those in hopes for awards... He finally got it withSchindler's List, but didn't quit there... Sure, he's the most talented and capable mogul who can bring to the table quality product ( I don't want to piss Tom off), but this moviegoer just wants to see his epicpopcorn-movies, which is what he's best at. If I want a History lesson onAmistad, Saving Private Ryan, or Lincoln, I'll watch the History Channel. I'd rather watchMinority Report, Jurassic Park, or that lousyWar Of The Worlds than Lincoln, no matter how powerful,moving and accurate it may be. (IMHO) Frankenwick -Original Message- From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese aremy favorite "still
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
I would add that Ang Lee directed the best Hulk film...it was not so much a comic book character film but a Greek Tragedy. This never happened to the other fella... Adrian Cowdry -Original Message- From: Douglas B Taylor To: MoPo-L Sent: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 0:32 Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Speaking of directors, my appreciation of Ang Lee grows more and more. Who has directed more diverse films then Brokeback Mountain, Sense and Sensibility, Life of Pi? Each with a distinct look and feel. Regards, Doug Taylor Sent via mobile device From:p...@cinemarts.com Sent:3/2/2013 6:14 PM To:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject:Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Yes, Joe's right about EMPIRE. I think if he made it today, Spielberg would hew closer to Ballard's book which is far more grim in its details of camp life. Overall, though EMPIRE nails it and young Christian Bale is a revelation. I find the "too cool to like Spielberg" school almost as irritating as the "too cool to like Tarantino school". Wildly different in their wolrd view and style, both have a remarkable facility with the medium. My favourite director working today, though, is Ridley Scott whose eye is truly extraordinary and whose films are often politically subversive. Phil -Original Message- From: Joseph Bonelli [mailto:joebom...@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 04:44 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. 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. "Empire of the Sun" is one of Spielberg's favorite films. He has stated that he WANTED to make this film and has been thrilled to discover years later that it is a cult favorite world-wide! Sorry, Kenwick, but I'll take Spielberg's word on "Empire of the Sun" rather than your supposition that he made it to "win awards." Joe B in NOLA From: Kenwick Cook To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. Hey guys; I want to chime in for some reason... I'm just a fan who doesn't really know what he's talking about, but I have a right to my 'opinion', so I'm going to exercise that right... Spielberg USED to be my favorite director up until ET... I think that was his turning point... up until that moment,this fan feels that he was making movies that HE wanted to make, rather thanmovies that he thought OTHER people wanted him to make... He stopped making "fun" movies, only to add his name as "Executive Producer" on the fun popcorn movies, overshadowingthe credits for the likes of the directors Joe Dante (Gremlins), Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist), and Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future, etc.). You can't convince me that the same guy who brought us Duel, CE3K, Jaws and Raiders decided to make movies likeThe Color Purple and Empire of the Sun because he wanted to. He made those in hopes for awards... He finally got it withSchindler's List, but didn't quit there... Sure, he's the most talented and capable mogul who can bring to the table quality product ( I don't want to piss Tom off), but this moviegoer just wants to see his epicpopcorn-movies, which is what he's best at. If I want a History lesson onAmistad, Saving Private Ryan, or Lincoln, I'll watch the History Channel. I'd rather watchMinority Report, Jurassic Park, or that lousyWar Of The Worlds than Lincoln, no matter how powerful,moving and accurate it may be. (IMHO) Frankenwick -Original Message- From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese aremy favorite "still-living" directors of all time -is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d. “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its most successful resident? by Richard Rushfield -
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
I get this way with any good film and when emotion is done so well...but for me every time is the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Servicedaft eh? This never happened to the other fella... Adrian Cowdry -Original Message- From: Tom Martin To: MoPo-L Sent: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 1:47 Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > >totally agree... no defennse against Love.. Love conquers all. > > Original Message >From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:30:03 -0500 > >>The kisses in Cinema Paradiso are almost unfair. Who could defend >against that emotion? It is like fighting against Mike Tyson jn his >prime, with Cus D'mato managing him, there was simply no >defense...you were going down. >> >>Regards, >> >>Doug Taylor >> >> >>Sent via mobile device >> >>From: Bruce Hershenson<mailto:brucehershen...@gmail.com> >>Sent: ?3/?2/?2013 7:52 PM >>To: Douglas B Taylor<mailto:douglasbtay...@hotmail.com> >>Cc: >MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu<mailto:MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu> >>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >> >>That's interesting, Doug. My oldest son is a very unemotional >person, but >>he loves Cinema Paradiso (as I do) and I watched it again with him >and he >>too cried at the kissing scene, and I can't remember the last time >he cried >>about anything. >> >>What a wonderful movie (whether or not it won Oscars!). >> >> >>On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Douglas B Taylor >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Doug Taylor >>> >>> >>> Sent via mobile device >>> -- >>> From: Douglas B Taylor >>> Sent: 3/2/2013 7:27 PM >>> To: dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com >>> >>> Subject: RE: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>> >>> Well, here I go with another tangent, but since you bright up >Cinema >>> Paradiso... >>> >>> My all time favorite films are (for me) "the four >C's"...Casablanca, >>> Citizen Kane, City Lights and Cinema Paradiso. >>> >>> I will never forget seeing Cinema Paradiso in Washington DC, at >the AFI. >>> It was a couple years after the release and I hadn't seen it since >the >>> original run so I jumped at the chance to see the AFI screening. >>> >>> I sat next to my wife (at the time) and, about 15 minutes before >the end >>> of the movie, I began sobbing like a baby. I had just remembered >that the >>> scene withe the kisses was coming up and it shattered me. What a >>> wonderful, wonderful moment in film. I honestly don't know if >there is a >>> better moment in film then the kissing reel in Cinema Paradiso. >Probably >>> many equal, but maybe none better. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Doug Taylor >>> >>> >>> Sent via mobile device >>> -- >>> From: Tom Martin >>> Sent: 3/2/2013 6:46 PM >>> >>> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>> >>> > 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. >>> >> >>>
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>well Adrian somehow picturing a red haired 7 foot tall Scotsman ,,, sitting next to me in a theater getting all worked up and balling his eyes out.. just doesnt seem fashionable.. or prudent.. yet being the fair and balanced person I am,, I guess i will accept yourbehaviour like anyone else..matter offact all mopo is welcome to be a group of balling babies anytime they want for any movie that turns thier crank..its when we stop weeping when Ill get concerned. My son impressed me the otherday... he said Dad.. I used to want to shock people with Horror and things that where on the edge,, but he discovered empathy,, and a responcibility and now sees that some people can be influanced by films and if unstable it can give them ideas to act out... not allpeople but perhaps some that are on the edge anyway... and I said yes when we think of thatwe can leave a poitive messege in what we say and do...or we can be callous and just make statements that may hurt others,,when I was KId when had heroes like a Supermen... the cowboy heros and most where not vengeful but fair and offered some morals.. well that all became unhip... and the status became its about me.. and what I deserve,, and forget the rest... butas we all know that came back to bite us... because we are all stewards of the earth, of our children, and our aged.our resources and animals , and world communitiy as a whole.. when we loose sight of that its all over.. so IMHO its time to rebuild, rediscover, and restore on a global basis .. unity and use our intellect to defend and create opportunity for all.I think the art communitie , filmmakers are waking upand seeing that people need help.. and there is a need to take responcibility... So there is hope.. and for me my son really amazed me that he saw his actions had a effect on people so miracles do happen.:) > > > Original Message >From: jboh...@aol.com >To: dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com, >MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 07:38:39 -0500 (EST) > >>I get this way with any good film and when emotion is done so >well...but for me every time is the end of On Her Majesty's Secret >Servicedaft eh? >> >> >> >> >> This never happened to the other fella... >> >>Adrian Cowdry >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message- >>From: Tom Martin >>To: MoPo-L >>Sent: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 1:47 >>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >> >> >>> >>>totally agree... no defennse against Love.. Love conquers all. >>> >>> Original Message >>>From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com >>>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >>>Hollywood. >>>Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:30:03 -0500 >>> >>>>The kisses in Cinema Paradiso are almost unfair. Who could defend >>>against that emotion? It is like fighting against Mike Tyson jn >his >>>prime, with Cus D'mato managing him, there was simply no >>>defense...you were going down. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Doug Taylor >>>> >>>> >>>>Sent via mobile device >>>> >>>>From: Bruce Hershenson<mailto:brucehershen...@gmail.com> >>>>Sent: ?3/?2/?2013 7:52 PM >>>>To: Douglas B Taylor<mailto:douglasbtay...@hotmail.com> >>>>Cc: >>>MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu<mailto:MoPo-L@listserv.american.edu> >>>>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >>>Hollywood. >>>> >>>>That's interesting, Doug. My oldest son is a very unemotional >>>person, but >>>>he loves Cinema Paradiso (as I do) and I watched it again with him >>>and he >>>>too cried at the kissing scene, and I can't remember the last time >>>he cried >>>>about anything. >>>> >>>>What a wonderful movie (whether or not it won Oscars!). >>>> >>>> >>>>On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Douglas B Taylor >>>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Doug Taylor >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent via mobile device >>>>> -- >>>>> From: Douglas B Taylor >>>>> Sent: 3/2/2013 7:27 PM >>>>> To: dreamfact...@hollywoo
Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
>hmmm well my Mom was from Bermuda ( british colony ) and my Moms great grandfather was a Macronald and my grandfathers Da was Francis John Martis. so Ive seen the Brist attitude... they are a curious bunch.. But they ball like babies like The USA yanks just the same...when I asked about my heritage My mom would say why do you want to know all that Boy?,,, Brits are very private.. Good try...Sorry mate.. and samegoes for aussie, Germans and Dont get the italians going as they cry just looking at food...mama mia itsa beautiful.. Im Part Italian also.. :) bet you cant tell.. whos left.? > > > Original Message >From: jboh...@aol.com >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 11:31:03 -0500 > >>As for me sitting in a theatre balling uncontrollably...I am >British! We do not do such things. >> >>Those of you who inhabit the colonies should take note that the >British stiff upper lip is here for ever! >> >>We as a nation do not let ourselves sink to the levels of out and >out showing emotion. We do I will admit allow ourselves the lump in >the throat, a slight quiver of the lip and dare I say it the >occasional single tear. More likely you will hear in the darkened >recesses of the cinema when Old Yeller is on his last legs and at the >most silent pregnant paws (excuse the pun) of the action on screen, >the sound of an Englishman's nose being cleared - a noise not unlike >the sound of the QEII sounding her leave of dock. >> >>That is perhaps the most emotion that you will hear and know is an >admission to showing emotion in front of such commoners as a cinema >going audience! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This never happened to the other fella... >> >>Adrian Cowdry >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: dreamfactory >>To: jbohmss ; dreamfactory >; MoPo-L > >>Sent: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 16:14 >>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >> >> >>>well Adrian somehow picturing a red haired 7 foot tall Scotsman >>,,, sitting next to me in a theater getting all worked up and >balling >>his eyes out.. just doesnt seem fashionable.. or prudent.. >> >>yet being the fair and balanced person I am,, I guess i will accept >>yourbehaviour like anyone else..matter offact all mopo is welcome to >>be a group of balling babies anytime they want for any movie that >>turns thier crank..its when we stop weeping when Ill get concerned. >>My son impressed me the otherday... he said Dad.. I used to want to >>shock people with Horror and things that where on the edge,, but he >>discovered empathy,, and a responcibility and now sees that some >>people can be influanced by films and if unstable it can give them >>ideas to act out... not allpeople but perhaps some that are on the >>edge anyway... and I said yes when we think of thatwe can leave a >>poitive messege in what we say and do...or we can be callous and >just >>make statements that may hurt others,,when I was KId when had heroes >>like a Supermen... the cowboy heros and most where not vengeful but >>fair and offered some morals.. well that all became unhip... and the >>status became its about me.. and what I deserve,, and forget the >>rest... butas we all know that came back to bite us... >>because we are all stewards of the earth, of our children, and our >>aged.our resources and animals , and world communitiy as a whole.. >>when we loose sight of that its all over.. so IMHO its time to >>rebuild, rediscover, and restore on a global basis .. unity and use >>our intellect to defend and create opportunity for all.I think the >>art communitie , filmmakers are waking upand seeing that people need >>help.. and there is a need to take responcibility... >> >>So there is hope.. and for me my son really amazed me that he saw >his >>actions had a effect on people >> >> >>so miracles do happen.:) >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Original Message >>>From: jboh...@aol.com >>>To: dreamfact...@hollywooddreamfactory.com, >>>MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >>>Hollywood. >>>Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 07:38:39 -0500 (EST) >>> >>>>I get this way with any good film and when emotion is done so >>>well...but for me every time is the end of On Her Majesty's Secret >>>Service.
