Speilberg, the puss bag?

[Krystian Ramlogan]

This is a pretty interesting thread and I guess it just goes to show how much of an effect Speilberg has that people can find so many things, both positive and negative, to say about him/his work. If no one spoke about him I guess he would have had no impact whatsoever?

 

I am not a Speilberg "fan", but I do respect his work and his abilities: I do not believe any serious filmmaker today or in the future can disregard his contributions, regardless of if you are a student, experienced film maker, or movie buff. There is much to be learned from any film maker and from any film if one is willing to be open minded enough to learn.

 

But in any discussion people are going to fall back on their "opinion" after all most people have their favorites and their opinions on why their favorites are better than someone else's favorites. Whether we're talking about movies, music, etc.

 

It's hard to guage why some people like certain films and not others unless there is some frame of reference for everyone to start from. So, maybe we could do that? You don't have to like Speilberg to have a mature discussion about a film he made. I know I would benefit personally from such a discussion, since I am a film student.

 

Just a small rebuttal of Mr. David Sloan's comment, that "artists, intellectuals, and art fans reject populist cinema, music, etc" I consider myself to be an artist, and an intellectual and I do not reject so called populist cinema, music etc. As a matter of fact, most of my friends have enjoyed at least one or other of Mr. Speilberg's films over the years and quite often when we engage in film discussion one of his crops up. I count amongst my peers persons of diverse backgrounds, geographic location, age, educational attainment and cultures. I have an open mind and will look at any film which someone has made because I can learn from it while I continue on my own search for mastery of this admittedly complex artform. And few have mastered it as Speilberg has.

 

To provide some information about myself, I am from the Caribbean, Trinidad to be exact. I am a musician, I write poetry, I draw and paint, I play chess, I play Billliards, and I have been studying moving pictures for all my life - made a living producing programs at home in Trinidad which have aired throughout the Caribbean Region, though now I am in school on a full scholarship.

 

Some of what I've studied include early Russian film (the Cranes are Flying is a great film), Senegalese film (Ousman Sembene's works and many others of Africa), Caribbean Films (not many exist), Asian/Indian Films (too many to list), and the usual american, british and european films I've screened over the years. Too much to mention but not enough to count myself an expert by any means.

 

Discussions about what is art and what is not are all irrelevant, since what is art to one person is not necessarily so to another, so I won't even go there.

 

But it is clear to all that Mr. Speilberg was reached a wide audience with his work because his work resonates with that audience, as artists that is what we hope to achieve - to find our audience. Honestly if people embraced my films when I make them in that way I would feel I accomplished my goal; who wants to make an artistic statement no one wants to see?

[Mariano Nante]

Honestly if people embraced my films when I make them in that way I would feel I accomplished my goal; who wants to make an artistic statement no one wants to see?

 

 

Last week I went to see a movie in a retrospective of Joao Cesar Monteiro, the portuguese filmmaker, and something really moved me. It wasn't the movie (The Comedy of God), which I specially disliked, but the people who went to see it. We were about fifteen in a theatre with 200 seats. I went to see it because of a friend of mine who wanted to go --I had only seen Monteiro's Vai e Vem and I had fallen asleep 5 times. So, there were 14 of Monteiro's followers and me. They all enjoyed the picture a lot... they laughed during all 3 hours of it. I laughed sometimes, but snored during the most of it.

 

The thing is, a guy like Monteiro didn't really bother to make movies all people liked. He believed in his art, and didn't care if he made a 3h movie which the 99% percent of the public thought was trash.

 

Despite hating the film, I left the movie theatre thinking something had changed in the way I saw filmmaking, in the way I saw success, in the way I saw life itself.

 

The following day, a friend of my father's asked me when he heard I would become a director: "Would you like to make movies you enjoy or be successful?"

 

I didn't know how to make him understand that those things could be achieved at the same time. But deep down, I understood where his question really aimed at, and I felt I knew the answer.

[Gordon Highland]

Calling Spielberg a master filmmaker is subjective, wouldn't you agree?  I don't think he is a master filmmaker. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with most of the things you said, however, maybe I'm a little too lenient with my definition of "master," cuz I'd venture that we might a few of them on this very list. While I may not be a fan of most popcorn movies either, to me a master is somene who has a command of all the tools and techniques available to him/her, and in the case of film, knows how to use them to best effect a stong emotional or visceral reaction from the audience. Someone who's attained nearly the highest level of the craft. That's it.

 

Even people who make movies I personally hate are no doubt master filmmakers. It's not reserved for the top 20 of all time, or only experimental innovators. I'd argue that anyone who wants to put in enough work could become a master. It's kinda like the term virtuoso, which is also misunderstood. You don't have to be a Paganini or a Liszt to be one; just extremeley competent on your instrument.

 

 

"Hard work is for people short on talent." :ph34r:

[Josh Hill]

Alessandro,

 

Duel was released in 71, albeit it on television (it was still feature length), while Sugarland Express was released in 74. So technically, Duel was Spielbergs first feature (unless there's another that I'm unaware of), though it was made for television I would still count it.

 

And I have to agree with the comment by John that Orson Welles should not be given credit for making "War of the Worlds" famous. He simply made it famous is a different medium. It was famous to begin with, as was Wells. The impact shouldn't be ignored when it comes to radio, but I also don't think I would put much stock in people who attempted to kill themselves because of a radio broadcast (regardless if it was setup to be a "news" report). It was a RADIO BROADCAST for Christ's sake. And they did break in occasionally and mention that it was a fictional show by the Mercury theatre (they really do break in and mention it).

 

Orson Welles was a genius and a hack all at the same time, and I think that's pretty amazing. His own arrogance fueled his demise. He did brilliant things with the material, but the fact of the matter is HG Wells is one of the most famous sci-fi writers of all time, Orson took great material and contemporized it for his time, similarly to what Spielberg has done.

 

Even the 1953 movie adaptation of War of the Worlds was successful in its own time. It's the material that is so great. Welles used literary history to make radio history, and that (I believe) is where his contribution should stop: with his original radio broadcast.

[Krystian Ramlogan]

H.G. Welles certainly deserves credit for his works; his literary works are well known and the worlds he created fertile ground for others to play within. I don't think anyone is trying to say that he does not deserve credit, of course he does, but it's not quite the same story once it's been adapted for the screen: whether television for film. Likewise, as Josh mentions, Orson Welles did a great job of translating the material for Radio. However, it is too easy for anyone to say someone of yesterday was a hack; today you have the benefit of a more advanced society and much better technology. How many people of today could create was what not there before?

 

His methods of translating the material, the structure he followed and the way he conducted his program had never been done before, never even attempted by anyone, he was therefore a trailblazer and a visionary as he saw possibilities that no one had yet seen.

 

As a student, I must defend Orson's great contribution to the advancement of mass media: I include radio and film here primarily. Looking at the evolution of the mass media in the US, his broadcast of the "War of the Worlds" led to a mini revolution which advanced the state of the art; not only in radio, but also television and cinema.

 

It is not my intention to say he "popularized" War of the Worlds" no; though perhaps he reintroduced it to a new audience, much as Speilberg et al are doing. I am saying what he did demonstrated the possibilities inherent in any mass medium, and no one had looked at radio, or television or cinema, here in the US in quite that light before.

 

A study of his broadcast and its effects which took many years (5-7 if I remember correctly) to complete led to audience listening/viewing habits research and what eventually become known as demographics and psychographics. So he certainly was an important figure here in the US. I should mention I am also studying psychology so I've covered this topic in different classes with different purposes.

 

So it may be easy to belittle the effects of radio today, but think for a moment of the time period in which the radio broadcast took place. Audiences were much less sophisticated than today because there were very limited channels for people to receive news and entertainment; and people had not learned to distrust what they heard or saw just yet. Radio therefore was looked on as being infallible; if you heard it on the radio it "is" true. Look at my wording carefully, I did not say it "must" be true which implies some uncertainty. Again, this is only relevant to the US.

 

So, trying to build an argument on "it was just radio" shows a lack of understanding of that medium's importance to people of that time. And for the record I had to listen to his entire broadcast in my class (along with many others of the day, sigh, :blink: boring to say the least :P ) and then discuss it for an entire class period.

 

On another note, Mariano I feel what you are saying: I think personal integrity and artistic vision can certainly go along with audience acceptance/appeal.

 

I also agree with Gordon's comments, I know many people who are so gifted at many things, whether singing, playing an instrument or whatever, who are certainly worthy of the applelation "virtuoso" or "master" in their area. Of course, they are not very famous, but no one said master/virtuoso and famous had to go hand in hand. Just ask the guy who crafted the Venus de Milo.

[Jason Maeda]

"Spielberg is no Kurosawa, but neither is any other filmmaker alive today."

 

kurosawa was very good. but godard, angelopoulos, resnais, marker, Kiarostami, varda, bergman, antonioni are all better...and they're all alive.

 

by the way, i would consider anyone who trades critical analysis for insults like "pussbag" to be taken with a grain of salt. besides, speilberg made close encounters, let's not forget that.

 

jk :ph34r:

[Matt Pacini]

Wow, using Yoko Ono quotes to bolster your point of view makes me wonder.

Have you actually heard any of her music? Yikes! Yeah, I'd walk out too, because she has no talent other than the talent of marrying well.

 

Anyway, my point was, SS is a master filmmaker, meaning he has total mastery of the craft.

He can, (and does) make any type of film he wants to, because he has complete skill and mastery of the art, and he uses it to make the films he likes to see, and that damn near everyone else does, too. (including yourself, if you would be honest. Otherwise you wouldn't keep seeing his films, would you?)

 

I don't see any difference between what is being called "populist" films, and "art films" or any other, (as far as legitimacy goes), because they're both made for a certain audience, therefore ALL filmmakers are "pandering" to a certain group of people.

Self proclaimed "elitist filmmakers" are appealing to the group of people who like to think of themselves as being somehow better, or "real artists", so if you want to get cynical, they're "whoring themselves" to a certain group of people just as much as anyone else is.

This thing about "it must be better because nobody likes it" i.e. Yoko Ono's "art" (and I use that term loosely!), is just absurd.

 

The irony is, everyone I know who sees themselves as an elitist fan, who degrades "populist films" has seen them all!

 

MP

[Algis Kemezys]

I would like to point out that Steven S. has become his own SS, in his own time. In essence he's the SS of film making. Hee Hee he ha hee he he ha ha HAHA he ha !

 

Abosulutely no disrespect ICI.

[Alessandro Machi]

Alessandro,

 

Duel was released in 71, albeit it on television (it was still feature length), while Sugarland Express was released in 74. So technically, Duel was Spielbergs first feature (unless there's another that I'm unaware of), though it was made for television I would still count it.

 

I found Duel to be quite spellbinding. What I meant by "ahem, Sugarland Express" was it wasn't that good of a follow-up movie, Toooooo many cop cars in the chase reduced the movie to an almost keystone cop feel, it just wasn't realistic that there would be that many cop cars chasing the lead actors.

 

 

Even the 1953 movie adaptation of War of the Worlds was successful in its own time. It's the material that is so great. Welles used literary history to make radio history, and that (I believe) is where his contribution should stop: with his original radio broadcast.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Orson Welle's live performance created a reality so intense that people were traumatized into spontaneous, crazy behavior. In one town, some of the citizens shot holes into their own water tower when they mistook it for an alien spaceship.

 

As for the 1953 film dramatization, it's possible that the War of the Worlds film dramatization benefited from what Orson Welles had done. In a way, if one can produce great radio drama, it can have a bigger effect than a great movie because the mind is free to wander, create and sustain overly dramatic images that can be more intense than what is actually put into a movie, especially 60-70 years ago.

 

Not to lose sight of my main point, I hope the DVD release of the New War of the Worlds pays tribute to both H.G. Wells and Orson Wells, with each getting a thumbnail "extra" on the DVD release of the new War of the Worlds that explores their contribution to War of the Worlds.

 

All film remakes should "tribute" the original writer/film on the DVD version, in my opinion. As for "tributing" the original writer on a theatrical remake, I don't have an opinion. LOL, the writer may not want to be associated with a theatrical release of a newer version in a newer time period of their story, but may appreciate a mention in the DVD.

[James Brown]

The reality of it is that films are adapted frequently and if the writer's name is 'Jo Blow' it will not ever be titled "Jo Blow's walk along the road" . Seriously, when was the last time you saw a film introduced by the writer, never. The director will always get the most credits at the start and end of a film and that will never change. The Bourne Trilogy's were never introduced by 'Robert Ludlum' , 'The Pianis't never by 'Wladyslaw Szpilman'.......i could go on for 20 pages. But as much as i cannot stand so many of Spielbergs films why should the writer get the credits, they didnt put it on the screen, screen writers dont even get the credits, 'Taxi Driver' is still 'Martin Scorcese's' not 'Paul Schraders'.

Anyway i thoughts that article was ridicules .

James.

[Gordon Highland]

Yeah, four different people will contribute to a script and only one or two will get a name credit. Yet, the guy who drives the catering truck one day has no problem whatsoever. And if you hand the script from a less-important person to a more-important person, you're a co-producer. Sheesh. . .

 

And then you look at television, where the writer IS absolutely king. Director who?

 

Don't even get me started on putting actors' names aboves the title. . .

[Matt Pacini]

"...  Orson Welle's live performance created a reality so intense that people were traumatized into spontaneous, crazy behavior. ..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like many things, this whole episode has been overblown with urban legend.

The water tower incident is true, but I found out (after hearing these stories for years) that nobody committed suicide.

That's a myth.

 

Have you actually heard the broadcast?

I have, and it's pretty damn corny.

My mom had the entire set of tapes that they were selling in 7-11 stores for a while, and I was really excited to listen to them, which I did.

What a let-down.

Not only were they pretty cheesy (and I'm a huge Orson Wells fan), but I can't believe anybody thought it was real, because there were constant commercial breaks, and after each one, they had a disclaimer saying something to the effect of "this is not real, it's a play of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds" etc.

So yeah, a handful of idiots thought it was real, and THAT became a bigger story than the broadcast itself.

 

Chalk another one up to the Hollywood myth-making hype machine.

 

MP

Edited June 28, 2005 by Matt Pacini

[Alessandro Machi]

Like many things, this whole episode has been overblown with urban legend.

The water tower incident is true, but I found out (after hearing these stories for years) that nobody committed suicide.

That's a myth.

 

Yes, I was wondering about the suicide angle, that is why I put the word "attempted" in front of sucide. What I read was that some "attempted" suicide, but apparently failed.

 

That actual broadcast may not have sounded overly real, I assume what must have happened is that people tuned in between the commercial breaks, at key moments, and got immediately sucked in and believed what was happening.

 

Did anyone ever make a movie about the radio broadcast itself?

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

For what it's worth, here's a link to Mick LaSalle's review of "War of the Worlds" in the San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...TMP&type=movies

 

He likes it. A lot.

 

All the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

[Max Jacoby]

Seriously, when was the last time you saw a film introduced by the writer, never. 

 

Mario Puzo's The Godfather

Bram Stalker's Dracula

 

Francis Ford Coppola said in an interview that he likes to give credit to the writer of the source novel.

[Justan Zimmerman]

Mario Puzo's The Godfather

Bram Stalker's Dracula

 

Francis Ford Coppola said in an interview that he likes to give credit to the writer of the source novel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mary Shelley ought to be mighty pissed off in the hereafter about "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein."

[Bill Totolo]

Paddy Chayevsky always got "A film by" credit.