I really don't like Spielberg
-
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.
-
rascal67 — 10 years ago(August 06, 2015 06:02 PM)
Carl Sagan once said, "it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness", and Spielberg's work is almost the artistic embodiment of that ideal.
A thoughtful and well thought out response
LoneStranger
, on understanding the intention and concepts, behind Spielberg's films. His films for me, have a transcendental quality and usually offer something a little extra and while the emotional impact\payoffs can be considered manipulative by many, it's not done in an insincere or dishonest manner. He pushes the right buttons. He also likes his films stories and protagonists, to come ful111cl circle and while his imagery can contain some dark and disturbing scenes and actions from his characters, he makes the journey all seem whole and complete, without any harsh condemnation.
Spielberg is an extraordinary director and while one may connect with some of his films more than others, he is usually always holding a mirror up to our faces and sayingtake a look, this is you\usand he does this in the kindest and most giving way, that he possibly can. -
dwc_cherry — 11 years ago(April 19, 2014 09:24 AM)
I'm not a fan of Spielberg either, though I enjoy watching some of he's movies, however due to the reasons you've gave I take it your not a fan of Hollywood movies in general? Because Spielberg just follows the basic tenets of the Hollywood system that the old Studio heads invented to provide mass entertainment and therefore be more mass marketable and therefore make more money. I would call Spielberg a Hollywood hack; a professional at doing Hollywood movies, but does mediocre work.
I understand why people like Spielberg, he makes easy digestible sentimental films for sentimental people who work all week and don't wanna have to think when they watch a movie. Having a look at his filmography I see no artistic merit for him to be considered one of the best filmmakers ever. However I understand why the general public would think so, but any cinephile who has seen the movies of true filmmakers like Cassavetes, Fassbinder, Truffaut and even Godard (I find many of Godards movies story-wise boring but technically he is a master), would think so, it must be because many see he's films as kids.
P.S. I will be someone to criticize Schindlers List and say it is like all of Spielbergs films; mediocre and cheaply sentimental e.g. the cringe worthy moment where Schindler breaks down and weeps that he could of done more, I'm aware that this may be a moment where both women and men might break down also, but it made me metaphorically barf (I'm not a sentimental person so Spielberg and Hollywoods tricks don't work on me). -
Noimro — 11 years ago(April 23, 2014 10:54 AM)
I understand why people like Spielberg, he makes easy digestible sentimental films for sentimental people who work all week and don't wanna have to think when they watch a movie. Having a look at his filmography I see no artistic merit for him to be considered one of the best filmmakers ever. However I understand why the general public would think so, but any cinephile who has seen the movies of true filmmakers like Cassavetes, Fassbinder, Truffaut and even Godard (I find many of Godards movies story-wise boring but technically he is a master), would think so, it must be because many see he's films as kids.
That's the single most pretentious thing I've ever read in imdb all these years. -
adam-wolf2 — 11 years ago(April 22, 2014 03:50 AM)
You do realize he hasn't written a screenplay1c84 since A.I., right? In fact he's written 4 movies in the last 35 years.
He's not paid to go all Hitchcock or David Lynch when he signs on to direct a film. He's not that kind of director.
The issue you have is not that you dislike Spielberg. The issue you have is that you don't like the stories he is paid to bring to life. Also, you just hate big budget movies.period. If you spend 100 million on a movieyou don't go hire an unknown director. Spielberg is Hollywood Gold.
You're entire opinions seem very.naive. -
ItsanAckbar — 11 years ago(September 25, 2014 02:44 AM)
You are just being anti-Semitic.
http://bit.ly/1CcJVJn