I really don't like Spielberg
-
tombrun — 12 years ago(December 04, 2013 02:08 PM)
I agree with mostly everything you said. But even though I love my David Lynch movies, I find it very relaxing to pop in a "shallow" adventure movie now and again. I'm usually pretty exhausted after work, so one of Steven Spielberg's movies is the perfect kind of entertainment when I need it.
-
Gus-69 — 11 years ago(November 03, 2014 02:49 PM)
Shallow, as in A.I. or Munich? LMAO.
-
tombrun — 11 years ago(November 04, 2014 08:22 AM)
No. "Shallow" as in Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, or Jaws. Movies that are meant primarily as entertainment and you don't have to analyze it or think a5b4bout it too much to understand what's going on. I really thought this was self explanatory
-
DreTam2000 — 10 years ago(July 08, 2015 03:33 AM)
Except
Jurassic Park
and
Jaws
couldn't possibly be any deeper.
If you didn't grasp half the subtext or the juxtaposing themes in
Jurassic Park
or
Jaws
, you missed out on a lot.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way -
Yucahaor — 12 years ago(December 09, 2013 12:14 AM)
This might sound like a major shock to you, but every director in the history of mankind makes films that manipulate the audience. That is just how the medium of film works, or hell, any other art form out there. Spielberg just happens to be the most famous director in mainstream culture so everyone likes to bag on him just because he's popular.
-
Spoffdarko — 12 years ago(April 03, 2014 04:42 AM)
The topics Spielberg chooses make it hard for people to criticize the film; who is going to criticize a film about slavery or the Holocaust?
This literally covers two of his films, you talk like he has made nothing else.
Do you think that making a movie about a little alien who is lost on earth was not opening himself to potential criticism? or how about an island full of DNA reproduced dinosaurs? or even pre-crime in the future due to psychics?
He gets loads of criticism (just look at this board for starters) and the "critics" seem to rip into him pretty often.
I'm leaving. I've assessed the situation, and I'm going. -
collinfrey26 — 12 years ago(April 03, 2014 06:53 PM)
I meant manipulation in the sense that the "villains" have no feelings or human emotions. It may not have been the correct word to use. It allows for a lack in character development when the protagonists are victimized and practically perfect. You feel instant sympathy for them. I feel like there needs to be a balance.
-
cybopath — 11 years ago(October 08, 2014 06:12 AM)
You really are talking about Hollywood conventions if not general story telling conventions. Good and Bad, Right and Wrong. Nothings specific to Spielberg. And the whole point of being a director is to 'manipulate' the audience into feeling scared, excited, thrilled etc.
-
skinyard — 10 years ago(August 06, 2015 03:35 AM)
no, spielber specifically mkes these kind of moview, he chooses the easiest topics to syphatyze with, every single one of his movies i watched is paperthin.his movies feel completley one dimensionalall his movies are pc, who can make fun of a f2000ragile little poor alien, or of a holocaust victim, but you can vilanize nazis spielberg is like the kid which chooses the easiest subject for his project
i mean, making a succesfull holocaust movie which syphatizes with the jews in the 90s is is hard as making a nazi propaganda movie in germany when nazis where at their peak.
spielberg to me sells easy illusions, having compassion for a jew after the holocaust is like giving 1%, but having compassion for a nazi is giving 100%and he didnt do much to explain aything, because,what is even more important than feeling symphaty for a jew is understanding why other wise loving germans who got kids and familys did what they did, now selling that movie while staying true to reality from both perspectives is a tough sell
same goes for e.t., for sharks ect, it isnt really that hard to hate sharks or to love a lovable alien -
DreTam2000 — 12 years ago(April 02, 2014 02:41 PM)
I think you may have just exploited your own denseness and inability to decipher subtext and allegory, particularly in your post several below that claims Spielberg's films "seem like American propaganda."
If you don't "get" the majority of his films, then either you have (purposely or unconsciously) turned a blind eye to what they relay, or they went completely over your head.
Excluding
Lincoln
, every Steven Spielberg film in the 21st Century has been an attack on, or a criticism of, God, Jews, humans, America, or the American government in some way or another.
The fact that most people have failed to see this astonishes me. Truly.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way -
collinfrey26 — 12 years ago(April 03, 2014 06:48 PM)
I'm not trying to say he's has no value as a director, because I think he does. When his films are on TV, I can sit down and watch them. But I was just commenting on my opinion of his topics and style. It is very entertainment based, even the films about dark subjects. For example, Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line are two World War 2 fil238ms that came out in the same year. I prefer The Thin Red Line because it delves into the psychological aspects of war and the human condition. While the opening of Saving Private Ryan is powerful, the rest of the movie seems superficial (not in a particularly bad way, however). I, personally, do not see "allegories" in his films, not that that really matters.
-
WiseKing — 12 years ago(April 05, 2014 05:34 PM)
"I do like to figure things out on my own sometimes."
Blame Alfred Hitchcock and the followers he has created. Like most directors, Spielberg often barrows from Hitchcock's ways of storytelling. Have we forgotten Alfred closes out every film with evil being exposed, and caught for us. In fact, all Hitchcock's characters must walk up a staircase to face fear, or to find the answer. Honest, Steven isn't the first to end films perfectly. Wrapping things up is only popular because "The Master" has made his success using that format. It's almost a basic blue print. Roller-coasters must come to an end, for a movie is simply a ride.
"I do like to figure things out on my own sometimes."
When Kong died, it made the film better, same for Jaws. The shark was showed as the villian living in it's rightful place. The town owners however were the true villians because they lied willingly, but don't the liers win? Who was the horror? Was their a villian?
"Finally, this is not as much about his films but how they are marketed, he really plays into the fact that so many people love him."
Hitchcock was in his own previews himself, talking about his new films himself. He was so popular, he had his own show. He made sure his name was a product for marketing. Steven is only a close mirror.
"I find his films very manipulative."
If a plot fools you, or is misleading at some point, the director has already reached his accomplishment, making his choice to leave a question at the end non-mandatory. Now me personally, I don't care where a twist is located in the story, as long as I can't predict the twist coming. To fool is a directors greatest achievement.
"Indiana Jones, the deaths are completely emotionless and the evil characters are shot with no attention payed to the fact that they are also humans."
Who said Jones won? He too was unsure. The same power the Nazis wanted was shipped to a warehouse. America is better? Good twist Spielberg! There are no Heros in war. Great script, honest.
"Some of his films seem like American propoganda"
When Spielberg's heros win, they're always far too late to win or they're lossing something great.
Jurassic Park? Elliot? Captain Miller? Schindler? -
collinfrey26 — 11 years ago(April 08, 2014 07:18 AM)
Whoever wrote Schindler's List left out major points from the true story. These points wou1c84ld not agree with the "angelic" character portrayed on screen. That is what I meant buy manipulative. We are meant to sympathize with these characters because they are "good" people yet there is not a development that makes them similar to real people. Although Spielberg does include character development at points, I do not feel it is ever enough to make me really connect to the character.
-
TheLoneStranger — 11 years ago(April 08, 2014 01:16 PM)
I really think you need to undertake a massive re-examination of Spielberg's films if you think he's at all interested in a black and white, good versus evil view of the world.
Let's start with Schindler's List, since that appears to be the film you most have issues with.
Firstly, let's look at the portrayal of children in the film to see precisely how Spielberg views his characters.
To start with there's the little Jewish boy who's shown helping the Nazis to round up escaping Jews (this must make him evil, right?). Except upon recognising a mother and daughter from school he helps them to escape (this must make him good, right?). Part of the point of this moment is to show how easy it is to do terrible things to those who have no face or individuality, but how difficult this becomes once commonality is found. Notions of the boy being either good or evil are rendered completely redundant.
We see several moments in the film in which Jewish children desperately try to find a hiding place from the Nazis only to be thrown out of their potential salvation by those already hiding there. Surely good people would do anything in their power to save a little child, right? Except in these circumstances personal survival becomes more important than altruism. This isnt a good or evil thing; this is a human thing.
We see a little German girl shouting "Goodbye, Jews!" at the departing masses and a little German boy drawing his finger across his throat as the death trains roll past. This must make them evil right? Except these are innocent children - concepts of good and evil surely cant apply to innocents? So why is it that Spielberg singles these children out to exemplify civilian attitudes towards the Jewish genocide? Because it isnt about simplistic notions ofgood and evil, its about far more complex issues to do with indoctrination, fear, ignorance, belief; things far too numerous and complicated to expect them to be examined in a narrative movie.
In terms of the characters of Oscar Schindler and Amon Goeth, throughout the film we are shown the often close connection between the two men; they share a love of fine living, of money, of power, of parties, of wine, of women. Spielberg even mirrors many of their actions. At different points they each defend the actions of the other to those questioning their intentions. Goeth may be presented - accurately, I might add - as a murderous psychopath, yet in his intimate moments with Helen, his Jewish maid, he's clearly shown as being conflicted.
When Schindler attempts to reason with Goeth he explains to him that power is having every justification to kill but choosing not to. It's easy to overlook this moment, yet it reveals that perhaps the only real difference between the two men is how they derive their feelings of power; Goeth from killing people, Schindler from saving them. Schindlers true motivation is rightly kept ambiguous throughout the film, and, as he points out himself, he really
could
have saved more.
But let's examine the rest of Spielberg's work to see how inconsequential the notion of good and evil is to the appreciation of his films:
Duel- David Mann, like the majority of Spielberg's protagonists, is an ordinary, flawed human being in an extraordinary situation. Spielberg goes to great lengths not to show the truck driver himself and instead makes the truck the villain of the piece. It's the unfeeling, unrelenting, motiveless truck that is demonised rather than a particular person, and Spielberg will continue to show how a concept or a mindless 'other' is the real antagonist throughout his films.
The Sugarland Express
There are no good or bad guys here; the criminals are our protagonists and the Sheriff on their tale is shown to be a good man in a difficult situation. We alternately sympathise with and dispute Lou-Jean and Clovis' purpose, and must simply watch as their well-intentioned yet ill-judged journey leads inevitably to its tragic, foreseeable conclusion.
Jaws
Again, no good or bad guys here. Our three protagonists each have their own selfish agendas and even the conflicted Mayor ends up recognising his mistakes. Like Duel, the villain is a mindless, unrelenting 'other'.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Again, no good or bad guys to speak of, simply a self-destructive protagonist showing a distrust of faceless centralised authorities, even as individuals within that system, like Lacombe, are shown to be decent people.
1941
A chaotic, anarchic film with no protagonists at all, just a whole lot of flawed fools. Somewhat unusually, 5b4the American soldiers come out of it much worse than the Japanese or Germans.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Throughout the film we are shown the close connection between Belloq and Indy (You and I are not so different), with both characters treading a fine line between good and evil; Indy from one side, Belloq from the other.
E.T.
We are made to fear the jangle of Peter Coyotes keys throughout the film, yet when we finally me
- David Mann, like the majority of Spielberg's protagonists, is an ordinary, flawed human being in an extraordinary situation. Spielberg goes to great lengths not to show the truck driver himself and instead makes the truck the villain of the piece. It's the unfeeling, unrelenting, motiveless truck that is demonised rather than a particular person, and Spielberg will continue to show how a concept or a mindless 'other' is the real antagonist throughout his films.