Steven Spielberg

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.

Moderator: DarkImbecile

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Steven Spielberg

#226 Post by bearcuborg » Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:07 pm

Zot! wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:32 pm
To be fair, and I say this on the authority of having spent my first 40 years in Chicago, the Blues Brothers covers of Soul Man and particularly Sweet Home Chicago got regular play on radio. Nobody thought they were authentic or definitive, but both are infectous and populist enough to maintain their cachet.

Keep in mind that the film features a slew of real blues and soul heroes for a reason.
That is quite true. Though, I haven’t lived in Chicago for almost 15yrs, I don’t know if those two songs are still in rotation on classic rock stations (if such a thing exists out there) but in the 80s/90s you could probably hear them as often as anything else.

Perhaps I’m biased, but I love every bit of the Blues Brothers film. And while I certainly can’t dispute how poorly some of the musical numbers are shot, the Ray Charles stuff with all the kids on old Maxwell Street is a real delight. Landis was also thankfully insistent on Cab doing Minnie the Moocher the old fashioned way.

As for 1941, I’ll be damned, I still want to see it someday, despite all the reasons stated here...

User avatar
fdm
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:25 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#227 Post by fdm » Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:15 pm

For some reason Belushi's impression of Joe Cocker comes to mind... similar kind of SNL thing. (I think the film was pretty good for what it was, but it was what it was...) (Liked 1941 too.)

User avatar
MyFathersSon
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:33 pm
Location: Grand Junction, CO

Re: Steven Spielberg

#228 Post by MyFathersSon » Thu May 16, 2019 9:02 pm

If you rewatch Schindler's List, here's how to understand the ending better than Mamet or Kubrick or Gilliam: Neeson as Schindler does not say "I could have saved more". This would be just a quibble, but the scene should not be referred to so frequently by a line of dialog that doesn't exist; it demonstrates to me that the scene is not fully understood. Schindler's recital of regrets begins when Stern tells him that the inscription on the ring "Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire" is from the Talmud. Oskar drops the ring because one person in particular suddenly enters his mind. Two shots that can be thought of as bookends contribute to the story: At the beginning of the movie Schindler puts on the gold lapel pin with the swastika, and near the end he removes the pin and stares at it in anguish. This happens after he says "I could have got more out", the closest dialog to the often misquoted line. The dialog that best sums up the ending comes at the end of the litany of regrets; Schindler stares at the obscene gold lapel pin, and utters words for 'one more person' six times; the last being "I could have gotten one more person, and I didn't. And I didn't!" The novelist Thomas Kenneally, screenwriter Steven Zaillian, and Spielberg combined to sharpen a great if not historically accurate story about a girl in a red coat, a double epiphany, and a mixed ending of hundreds saved by one man with a broken spirit.
Last edited by MyFathersSon on Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HinkyDinkyTruesmith
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:21 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#229 Post by HinkyDinkyTruesmith » Thu May 16, 2019 9:15 pm

That's a beautiful reading of the end of the movie. Although I think most of the criticisms against the movie tend to be rather didactic and condescending (even if you can make ethical criticisms based on the movie's narrative strategies), the clarification your post makes realizes the end of the film not as one concerned with the simple sentiment of saving more lives, but rather with the overall failure of Schindler's strategies (entirely based around numerics and numbers, which will always mean that there's never enough––the doctrine of capitalism) but the reality of his success (one is one). The film's "mixed ending" (as you put it) is a great contradiction: to save one is always enough and yet never enough.

And ironically to believe that one is enough is where a lot of the film's criticism comes from; wasn't it Kubrick who said it wasn't six million Jews who died, it was about the eleven hundred who lived? For the (reasonably) pessimistic, to gleam anything resembling a positive charge from any narrative involved in the Holocaust would be a failure.

ford
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:44 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#230 Post by ford » Fri May 17, 2019 10:45 am

HinkyDinkyTruesmith wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 9:15 pm
That's a beautiful reading of the end of the movie. Although I think most of the criticisms against the movie tend to be rather didactic and condescending (even if you can make ethical criticisms based on the movie's narrative strategies), the clarification your post makes realizes the end of the film not as one concerned with the simple sentiment of saving more lives, but rather with the overall failure of Schindler's strategies (entirely based around numerics and numbers, which will always mean that there's never enough––the doctrine of capitalism) but the reality of his success (one is one). The film's "mixed ending" (as you put it) is a great contradiction: to save one is always enough and yet never enough.

And ironically to believe that one is enough is where a lot of the film's criticism comes from; wasn't it Kubrick who said it wasn't six million Jews who died, it was about the eleven hundred who lived? For the (reasonably) pessimistic, to gleam anything resembling a positive charge from any narrative involved in the Holocaust would be a failure.
Strongly agree. More and more the scoffing about this movie—clearly a masterpiece that’s “smarter” than any one of its collaborators and certainly far more ambiguous than its detractors suggest—starts to sound like the musings of a teenaged atheist.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#231 Post by domino harvey » Fri May 17, 2019 10:57 am

I don’t think the film’s detractors are upset for the same reason an edgelord might be, but there’s no doubt some degree of hyperbole in the most fervent reactions against the film because a film this widely liked (among non-film forum members, perhaps) needs loud voices against it to be heard at all. But I don’t fall on either side.... Here are some of my thoughts on revisiting the film from the Best Picture thread, which left me neither a true believer nor a hater
domino harvey wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2013 1:48 am
Spielberg's film gets a tough rap now, in some part due to years of it being held as an unquestionable work of Importance, but revisiting it I found myself neither ready to come fully over to the light nor eager to get out the pitchforks. The most interesting stuff here are the easiest targets, especially Ralph Fiennes being a classic Nazi dick, shooting without discrimination and providing a colorful cartoon character of an eight-year-old's idea of evil. The film does have one moment of clarity with regards to the juvenile treatment of both the villain and the savior: Liam Neeson makes a baldfaced appeal to Fiennes' vanity and suggests he try pardoning those who transgress him, which leads to a darkly humorous montage of the Nazi forgiving innocent Jews who commit exceedingly mild slights, until he quickly grows tired of the play-acting and shoots the last little boy he let off with a warning in the back. But Fiennes' flamboyant Nazi only really factors into the middle and on either side we get not especially interesting Holocaust imagery with only a few new touches (I enjoyed the sequence early in the film explaining how Neeson cons his way into the Nazi party's establishment).

As for the questionable morality of how the film presents a "winning" story amidst one of the most indefensible acts of systematic genocide imaginable, the true life premise and contentious scenes like Ben Kingsley getting rescued at the last minute from a train headed to the concentration camp and yet everyone else on board still getting presumably killed didn't bother me, and for a simple reason: We've been trained as viewers to practice our focal length to those in front of us. If you aren't complaining about disaster films or action movies because so many non-foregrounded people die but the narrative favors some of our main characters over the rest of humanity, then you don't get to use that excuse here. Now, maybe you do think that way across the board, but if so you are probably a total chore to deal with in real life.

All that said, I didn't really walk away with much from the film. Certainly it failed to make me tear up or even consider the events of the film from an emotional vantage, nor did it engage me much intellectually or philosophically with its underdeveloped capitalism to compassion tale. I enjoyed Fiennes' colorful performance and the film is generally well-made and directed, but this wasn't even the best film Steven Spielberg made this year, much less the best film in this category.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Steven Spielberg

#232 Post by DarkImbecile » Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:35 pm

There’s a lot to take in from this Variety article, but it appears that Spielberg is:

1. writing (!)...
2. a horror series (!!)..,
3. that can only be watched at night (?)...
4. For Quibi, a streaming service designed to provide 7-10 minute bits of content to be watched on your phone (???)



User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#235 Post by Luke M » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:06 pm


Post Reply