How Steven Spielberg relates tension.

[CineAlta]

A lot can be said about Steven's framing, or Janusz Kaminski's beautiful photography and lighting etc, but has anyone been noticing how Steven moves the camera! IMO, he really increases the tension in a scene, and draws in the viewer, by moving the camera. His camera is almost always moving and rarely in a static, tripod shot. It's not all smooth Steadicam, jib/crane either, he uses a lot of quick, shaky hand-held moves and pans (like jerking your head, from side-to-side).

Also, notice how he sometimes shoots really low to the ground (like your a hidden observer laying on the ground and watching the scene unfold a few feet above you)?

He also loves shooting reflections (off sunglasses, mirrors, windows etc) and also through a small viewing hole (window, crack in the door etc) to give a "through the looking glass" view.

Steven uses tons of directorial/cinematographical techniques to relate his stories. But if you get the chance, watch for his camera movement, in particular. It subconsciously pulls you in!

[pmark23]

Spielberg is a director's director. A true film-making geek (as opposed to just a film geek) who can spend hours thinking about the best way to cover what many other directors would consider a tiny inconsequential scene.

You can easily tell a Spielberg film from his imitators (which there are a lot of!) There isn't one wasted camera move. Every movement has a point and a purpose which helps develop the emotional components of the story. Extremely high attention to detail. Exposition is done with the camera, and dialogue is used only to develop characters.

There's a lot to be learned by closely watching his films (and I mean VERY CLOSELY, since they're edited so tight and efficient that it's easy to miss things.)

There's a backlash against Spielberg. His style of filmmaking isn't very new. If you watch films of the 30's and 40's you'll see very many similar elements -- especially from the German expat directors. Spielberg is the last of the old Hollywood big-studio era directors that had a focus on both "craft" and "story". Now, with a few exceptions, it's one or the other.

Now in the film industry turd-shining incompetence rules (Yeah Tarantino and Bay, I'm looking at you guys.) The American backlash against intellectualism has claimed film as one of its battlegrounds. Spielberg is "too good". "Manipulation" is a word used a lot. There's no "breathing room" in a Spielberg film. "Spielberg doesn't let you develop your own thoughts" is an often accusation -- in other words, Spielberg films are crafted so tightly that it becomes impossible to spin to fit a particular viewpoint besides Spielbergs. While some people may be politically uncomfortable with this, to me this is EXACTLY what a great director should be able to do.

You may not like the subject matter of Spielberg films (dinosaurs, airports), but nobody can deny the level of his directing skills.

[Policar]

Great points. I think Spielberg's use of reflective surfaces is especially brilliant since it allows you to see an action and reaction all at once. Storefront windows seem to be his favorite and I'm sure it takes quite a bit of lighting trickery (and perhaps even digital effects) to pull off some of the shots he does, but it's worth it. Spielberg thinks out all his camera moves himself, too. Kaminski merely lights, chooses filters, and helps with lab work. (Although "merely" is the wrong word; he's amazing, too.) His use of aperture framing is pretty fantastic but less so than his use of reflections, in my opinion. He's able to create a great "trapped" feeling but Wong Kar-Wai seems to do this better, somehow. 2046 had these great scenes where characters were framed by doors, blocking off most of the anamorphic frame in black. Very effective, and interesting since his method of shooting is pretty antithetical to Spielberg's obsession with minute control.

Spielberg's newfound love of long takes (War of the Worlds, anyone?) really does remind me of some of the German studio era expatriate directors (and Welles)--that's a really great point. And I totally agree that he is the last remnant of the great auteurs of the studio system and have argued the point many times. Like them, he has his own "unit," (Kaminski, Kahn, et al.), works INCREDIBLY quickly, tackles a variety of genres and scripts, and makes blockbusters and prestige films--but no "art house" stuff or mindless drivel. He integrates form and narrative like no one else but still leaves his mark on everything he makes. Although AI was a turd.

Pmark, I do take offense at the Michael Bay/Tarantino bashing remark, though. Kill Bill (though fun) was an overindultgent mess, Pearl Harbor an overwrought snoozefest with one great action sequence. But just because they aren't "traditional" as Spielberg is doesn't mean they're not important. Pulp Fiction has had more of an influence on filmmaking than any of Spielberg's movies in the same decade. And the dialogue was brilliant, the framings uncanny (though unpolished), and the way the narrative wound around a karmic chain rather than any narrative logical is just incredible. I don't know how Tarantino did it, but Pulp Fiction is just a masterpiece. It's not as advanced as Spielberg, but it's fresher.

Bay I don't want to argue about, too much but I think he's very talented, too. (Spielberg admits stealing shots from him, by the way!) The Rock was fantastic, and The Island was beautiful. Bay loves expensive toys and his use of the camera mirrors his love of cars. He wants the newest cameras and he wants to push style to the limits, even if it's over-the-top and irritating. But his movies are insanely beautiful. And he can get decent performances, too. Basically, Bay can tell a story and direct actors very competently. He can frame a shot and edit an action scene brilliantly. He knows the narrative aspects and he knows the formal ones and he's good with both. But for his life he can't combine the two coherently, and I think this is why he frustrates film snobs. His work is arbitrarily beautiful, but I love it.

[pmark23]

I don't want to start a discussion about Tarantino/Bay vs. Spielberg -- that's a topic for another thread (or better yet, wrestling ring.)

I also didn't mean to state things to black/white. Of course they have their own talents. Tarantino and Bay films are a guilty pleasure.

[jackal2513]

I acknowledge Spielberg's directing skill but he made just one half decent film in my book: jaws. Yet ironically this is the very film that helped invent the Blockbuster and kill modern day cinema. His "little lost boy + unquenched mother's love" syndrome is so utterly tedious and vulgar ... you wondor at the arrogance and egocentricity of a man who presumes that the world wants to repeatedly live out and explore this laborious, mind-numbing demon of his.

As for Tarrantino, his films are just cheap contrived regurgitations of other peoples films. The junk he churns out is nothing more than prefabricated pig swill for the lobotomised mediocrity. Sensationlist, depersonalised and seemingly originating from someone who has not yet lived... cinema it is not.

[oneinfiniteloop]

I would like to know Ravinsedge opinion on this matter, lol!

[krestofre]

you wondor at the arrogance and egocentricity of a man who presumes that the world wants to repeatedly live out and explore this laborious, mind-numbing demon of his.

Isn't that what ANY storyteller does? There's not a single script that I've ever written where something of my past didn't affect the story. Those inner demons are one of the things that causes me to make film. And yes, I've covered the same ground more than once in a different way.

Take anyone who's been creating art for a period as long as Speilberg in any medium (novels, albums, paintings, film, etc.) and you'll see a partern of exactly what makes that person tick.

That's natural IMO.

[Policar]

As for Tarrantino, his films are just cheap contrived regurgitations of other peoples films. The junk he churns out is nothing more than prefabricated pig swill for the lobotomised mediocrity. Sensationlist, depersonalised and seemingly originating from someone who has not yet lived... cinema it is not.


Uhh....okay, but why? You used a lot of big words (wrong, I might add) to try and make yourself sound smart, but you never argued WHY he's not a good filmmaker. The point about him imitating other people is only half true, too. Every (good) film maker draws on previous films (generic conventions) to make exposition more efficient. By using character types established in prior films, a director can introduce minor characters quickly and efficiently and Tarantino does this well. Tarantino may copy a bit more than some others, but people simply notice it because 1) he copies more effectively than anyone else since he knows what he's doing and how to effectively emulate other directors and 2) he's seen so many movies that he's heavily, heavily steeped in each and every generic convention. Also, how was Pulp Fiction (or Jackie Brown) derivative in a significant way?

As for Spielberg, whatever. I didn't even understand your incoherent comment so I won't try to argue against it.

[lookatmeimbender]

he likes films and like shots you can't tell you wouldnt do the same. and putting michael bay in the ranks of QT and SS is hilariously funny.

[Policar]

putting michael bay in the ranks of QT and SS is hilariously funny.

Why?

[lookatmeimbender]

he hasn't made any movie with staying power. you watch them once and thats it. he hasnt made any real class besides like the rock but that tired out too.

you know you've watched and SS film more or a QT film more.

[David Jimerson]

Isn't that what ANY storyteller does? There's not a single script that I've ever written where something of my past didn't affect the story. Those inner demons are one of the things that causes me to make film. And yes, I've covered the same ground more than once in a different way.

Take anyone who's been creating art for a period as long as Speilberg in any medium (novels, albums, paintings, film, etc.) and you'll see a partern of exactly what makes that person tick.

That's natural IMO.

I tend to agree. There's necessarily an amount of ego involved with ANYONE who thinks anyone else cares to listen to what he has to say -- especially if they start getting into the realm of "big messages."

Spielberg is no more guilty of this than anyone else. If you don't care for him, ignore him. I have for years.

[hoofandmouf]

speilberg is most def a "directors director." Munich had some super complex framing sequences/multi-level action/reflective surface shots all going on at the same time. It was truly remarkable. I remember sitting in the theater a few times and just thinking to myself "holy shit!" .... thats why I love Speilberg. He's one of those guys who at the end of the day can just make you say "holy shit".... thats the beauty and power of filmmaking. I wont deny, I'm a Speilberg fan thru and thru.

tarantino IMO is a somewhat creative individual who made a timeless masterpiece (pulp fiction) but since then has been more concerned with re-making his favorite teenage flicks instead of trying to create something totally original and creative (like pulp fiction was).... dont get me wrong, I love a good tarantino flick, who doesnt?

micheal bay.... eh.... "nice looking" summer blockbusters that are way too "safe" IMO. I think bays knack for directing action and violence is top notch. I would love to see him tackle and few projects that are a bit more risky and gritty.

[dmitriandsnow]

Spielberg has a pattern he follows, every movie adheres to this pattern. I hate it. Directors' Director, Why? Because he swings his camera like a broom? His films have impact, somewhat, but they reek of theatre, photographed broadway show. I hate how fabricated he seems. Although all this falsity yields itself effective (for some viewers obviously) i do not see anything remotely progressive. He stalls like other directors even Tarantino who stalled and made Kill Bill - action show, masquarade. Recreating theatre on film is what he is doing.

[mmm]

Just my opinion on Spielberg:

I think he is the greatest "set piece" director ever. His films that work best for me are the ones with the best links between set pieces - Jurassic Park (1 NOT 2!!!) for example. Saving Private Ryan has probably the best war scenes ever filmed, but lacks a certain depth that you can see in a film like Platoon.

I think he uses broken families a lot because that is something that effects him and he relates to. Personally I think he pulls it off pretty well.

One thing I have never figured out is why he bothered to make the Terminal. I found it just dull and flat. A pretty pointless forgettable film. AI wasn't great IMO, but I am guessing that he was attracted to the project by Kubrick. I felt there was a real Kubrick/Spielberg clash in the finished film that didn't really work.

[hoofandmouf]

I dont like everything spielberg has attached his name to, I was mainly speaking of the way he blocks his shots and moves his camera..... Munich, War of the Worlds, Saving private ryan (could CARELESS about the story, in fact, I hated the story) but the subtle intensity in some of the shots in these flicks are what intrest me. theatrical? well hell yes! its hollywood, its spielberg, of course its gonna be theatrical.... doesnt mean that the man cant pulloff amazing shots

[jackal2513]

Isn't that what ANY storyteller does? There's not a single script that I've ever written where something of my past didn't affect the story. Those inner demons are one of the things that causes me to make film. And yes, I've covered the same ground more than once in a different way.

Take anyone who's been creating art for a period as long as Speilberg in any medium (novels, albums, paintings, film, etc.) and you'll see a partern of exactly what makes that person tick.

That's natural IMO.



to a point yes it is, i agree... but ensure that its examined and dealt with in a credible and interesting manner (most people either burst into fits of laughter or walked out of UK cinemas at the end of AI). also, provide a suitable platform for it, not in the context of a simple family action movie.

Theres another problem, and thats the fact that you mention the word 'art'. I don't consider his films much of an artform. For every time I had to sit and watch saving private ryan I would watch thin red line a hundred times over, and the Malick picture is not even a personal favourite or anything.

Technically though, I admire his genius. There are pieces in Raiders, close encounters, jaws etc.. that speak for themselves.

[dmitriandsnow]

His amazing shots have no effect within his repro-play therefore (in my opinion) render themselves useless.

[slondon]

Spielberg has a pattern he follows, every movie adheres to this pattern. I hate it. Directors' Director, Why? Because he swings his camera like a broom? His films have impact, somewhat, but they reek of theatre, photographed broadway show. I hate how fabricated he seems. Although all this falsity yields itself effective (for some viewers obviously) i do not see anything remotely progressive. He stalls like other directors even Tarantino who stalled and made Kill Bill - action show, masquarade. Recreating theatre on film is what he is doing.
How can this be? He's highly visual and that's what filmmaking is. Theater on film is a static camera, long scenes and endless dialogue.

[givemefood]

I'm not enjoying this 'positive applause' of Spielberg's works.
IMO, he's not an artist. And i have not seen imitators of Spielberg.

[mmm]

I'm not enjoying this 'positive applause' of Spielberg's works.
IMO, he's not an artist. And i have not seen imitators of Spielberg.

That's fine, but there are clearly A LOT of people around the world that love his work. I'm interested why you don't think he is an artist?? Is it because his films have made a lot of money?

[jackal2513]

That's fine, but there are clearly A LOT of people around the world that love his work.


yep, mostly "Sun" readers

[dmitriandsnow]

How can this be? He's highly visual and that's what filmmaking is. Theater on film is a static camera, long scenes and endless dialogue.

I think filmmaking is more than visuals. And theatre on film is not always static and prolonged. The ambience of his films resembles theatre, let it be moving real fast and in different angles. I don't surrender my disbelief and seems like Spielberg wants me to do so very much.

[givemefood]

Here are my reasons - and they are not because he makes money:

1. The screenplays for any of his movie (from 90s onwards with the exception of the movie on Jews) are filled with holes
2. I have not seen well developed dramatization (which is the number one task of a director) in any of his movies, 90s onwards - again with the exception of SL.
3. He relies heavily, i mean excessively on CGIs that the need to practice and perfect performance is lost. He might as well do animated films. Sure its a choice and style of work but the challenge is distributed even with other post-prod guys.
4. Take any film of his (exception being SL) and watch any scene that he directed a few times you will detect a zillion flaws in the way he executed that scene. And this actually is true of most film directors (exception being Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch)
5. I don't have issues with his films or him making money... That is a result of his strategy. However, what i have issue with is... his sole objective of cashing in while he can. Look at the terrible films like The Terminal, War of the worlds, Minority Report, Catch me..., etc. These churned one after the other....
6. And i can't forgive him for fucking up "AI" which was a beautiful concept developed by Kubrick.

[mmm]

yep, mostly "Sun" readers

More than that:

Jaws - biggest ever box office gross when released
ET - Ditto
Jurassic Park - Ditto

Not to mention the MASSIVE successes of Indy, Close Encounters, Saving Private Ryan, War of the Worlds.

His films have grosssed around double of any other director in the US. He must being doing something right! How many people in ANY professional can claim to be twice as successful as their next rival? Not many!

[jackal2513]

His films have grosssed around double of any other director in the US. He must being doing something right! How many people in ANY professional can claim to be twice as successful as their next rival? Not many!



*sigh* ... what in lords name has that good to do with good filmaking ???? All it proves is that his films appeal to the medocrity, like I say, sun readers... and in my book thats a bad thing. Ever heard teh expression "where there's a crowd there is untruth ?" Are you going to now tell me that Mcdonalds is the best food you can get, an ipod is the best dap player you can buy ??? Mass consumerism of something has ZERO correspondence to its actual quality or substance.

[David Jimerson]

In my opinion, Coca-Cola is the best cola beverage you can get -- and I've tried hundreds, from macro- and micro-manufacturers near and far.

Commercial success doesn't preclude quality.

There's more to Spielberg than just commercial success. He's had some stunning cinematic works.

(His best WWII move, BTW, is "Empire of the Sun.")

[givemefood]

Well said Jackal2513.
Good film-making is an art.... it can lead to commercial success or it may lead nowhere. Doesn't matter. The result of a film's performance in theaters can no way used to determine if the director is good or not.
Even "Blair witch project" did very well in BO. What about Fargo? Even that did well....

[Policar]

I hate these overly-general critiques, since they're impossible to argue with since they mean nothing in the first place.

His movies are bad because they don't "develop dramatization" (what does that mean?!) and scenes have "flaws?" What? I don't know what you mean by that so I can't argue.

Tell me that he can't do endings: AI, WotW, Minority Report, Catch me if you Can, etc. all had slow last acts that at once brought in too much new material and tried to wrap things up too completely, leaving the viewer feeling cheated. Tell me the sex scene in Munich was cheesy as hell and unmotivated. The last act of War of the Worlds made no sense, he ripped himself off in the Tim Robbins basement scene and failed to create tension there.

Tell me he's overly manipulative: he doesn't do open endings, his films are overly sentimental, and there's rarely much subtlety in anything. Tell me he doesn't trust the audience to draw its own conclusions, and when he does (Munich), he instead comes off as manipulating you in multiple directions rather than being objective. (He is NOT an objective director; he's too deeply obsessed with form and manipulation to do anything "artsy.")

Tell me Kaminski's obsessive use of diffusion is cheesy and overdone and he needs to take a break from it. That it abstracts the frame to an irritating extent, allowing Spielberg to cheat on compositions since the contrast is so high you're not distracted by background detail.

And I'd buy every bit of it. And accept it, but still think he's the best living director.

But tell me he doesn't "build dramatization" and his "scenes have flaws" and I'll just wonder what the hell you're talking about....

[givemefood]

None of my statements are vague. I stand by them.
If you're a film-maker you would know what i'm referring to. If you want me to give you examples, i wouldn't know where to begin... where to proceed and how to conclude. If you want me to give you the definition of flaw, i'll provide that as well.
I read every example you listed about endings, manipulative, etc. Then why do u still claim he's the best living director? Because he has commercial successes?
How about Robert Zemeckis, David Lynch, Gaspar Noe? These guys are still alive. How about old man Clint Eastwood? He may not have done your PG-13 animated films... but his films stand-out for outstanding direction. And these guys have, on an average, done better job than SS.
I have problem with what Spielberg is doing... Although if he took time on each of his project, he can be a better director.

[CineAlta]

"Two little mice fell in a bucket of cream. The first mouse quickly gave up and drowned. The second mouse, wouldn't quit. He struggled so hard that eventually he churned that cream into butter and crawled out."

[dmitriandsnow]

Although if he took time on each of his project, he can be a better director.



yeah but my dad is still better than yours

[jackal2513]

Greatest living director, hmmmm......... last time i looked Bergman was still alive, so is Godard, Antonioni, Bela Tarr, etc.. No offence but they wouldn't even use one of Spielbergs DVD's as a doorstop.

[seejay1031]

What about Fargo? Even that did well....

Say what you will about Spielberg (I myself, not the biggest fan, but wouldn't be a filmmaker today if it wasn't for Raiders), but what are you trying to say about Fargo? Thems fighting worlds.

"Hey Margie, what cha got over there, ya find a clue?"

"No, just think I'm gonna barf"

Brilliant!

[dougspice]

Wow, I started out wanting to reply to this thread, but by the time I got to the bottom, it had turned to pointless trash. Policar, you make most of the points I would have made anyway. Well stated. I've never been a Spielberg fan-boy; he makes his share of critical mistakes. But when he's on, he's on, you can't argue that.

To givemefood, I'd ask just one thing: show me the scenes you've directed that have no flaws whatsoever. Show me the ones that absolutely cannot be improved by more time, more money, more rethinking. I'd really like to see.

[Policar]

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous, sorry...

All I'm saying is that I don't see what "flaws" you're talking about. Continuity errors? Maybe (WotW has tons), but what production on that large a scale doesn't have tons of them? By saying that anyone who's ever made a movie would see them, you also imply that Spielberg is basically more inept than any other film maker ever, which is absurd. You may disagree with his choices, but the only "flaws" I see are minor continuity errors. (Although he has made plenty of choices I've disagreed with...as have Lynch, Kubrick, etc. and all the others you've named. No one's perfect, and even if someone were, you can't make something perfect in a medium so hard to control as film.)

So whatever, it's not like one of us is going to convince the other. I'm just curious what flaws you see repeatedly in Spielberg's direction.

[Matt Grunau]

Close Encounters was one of the best motion pictures ever. Jurassic Park was groundbreaking and an incredible treat.

Then there are some of his other films which just weren't great. I actually liked the Terminal, much the way I liked When Harry Met Sally. Not a film that's going to go down in history, but certainly entertaining. And isn't that what it's really all about.

I'll tell you the main problem with this thread, and with all that have posted in it, myself included. We who understand the filmmaking process are often unable to view it impartially; we are constantly dissecting "how this effect was done" or "man, he should have done X with this shot", and in the end, we view movies not as they are meant to be seen (which is for enjoyment only).

There's nothing wrong with that; it's the reality of knowing what we do. People can't help but watch less for content and more for construct when they are movie makers (to any real extent), it's the nature of knowledge.

It's kind of like the Super Bowl. You get so pumped up that you expect every single play to be highlight reel, instead of seeing it as it is: a football game.

We can discuss shots, effects, sound, all the components of the process until the cows come home. Bottom line, however, is sometimes a great bunch of assets come together to create a great film, and sometimes despite all the potential, they don't (Phantom Menace?). People don't churn out identical work time and time again, viewpoints change (ours as viewers in so much as we can with our own unique approaches to filmmaking, and theirs as creators), and temper that with changing technology, social trends, fads, differing ideologies, age and experience, and you end up with the endless combos and outcomes.

Close Encounters is one of my favorites because I was awed as a child, re-awed as a young adult (before I got into video) and was therefore untainted and able to fully enjoy the theatric experience. I was almost that way with Fellowship of the Ring, but that again went back to my early days of Dungeons and Dragons, the cartoon version of The Hobbit, and again, back to an untainted time.

We are all "cursed" in that regard, but let's never forget the myriad of influences which determine the result, and try to ignore them once and a while and simply enjoy they show.






ps. Unless George Lucas is involved. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

[Aaron Koolen]

So correct me if I'm wrong, but unless his films are about something slightly political or hostorical and in black and white then they're not good films in your books.

People need to get off their high horses and stop masturbating over "film" "art" and all that bollocks.

I've been scared in his films, cried in his films, laughed in his films - that's enough for me. Who cares about his "execution" having "flaws". Fuck, the day I become someone who only goes to the movies to watch a film to analyse it's execution, is the day I give up and shoot myself.

And no, I don't just watch Hollywood movies, I watch all manner of "films".

Aza


Here are my reasons - and they are not because he makes money:

1. The screenplays for any of his movie (from 90s onwards with the exception of the movie on Jews) are filled with holes
2. I have not seen well developed dramatization (which is the number one task of a director) in any of his movies, 90s onwards - again with the exception of SL.
3. He relies heavily, i mean excessively on CGIs that the need to practice and perfect performance is lost. He might as well do animated films. Sure its a choice and style of work but the challenge is distributed even with other post-prod guys.
4. Take any film of his (exception being SL) and watch any scene that he directed a few times you will detect a zillion flaws in the way he executed that scene. And this actually is true of most film directors (exception being Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch)
5. I don't have issues with his films or him making money... That is a result of his strategy. However, what i have issue with is... his sole objective of cashing in while he can. Look at the terrible films like The Terminal, War of the worlds, Minority Report, Catch me..., etc. These churned one after the other....
6. And i can't forgive him for poo pooing up "AI" which was a beautiful concept developed by Kubrick.

[CineAlta]

This thread was supposed to be specifically about Steven's camera movement. It's too bad it has degenerated into a subjective argument over the value of his films, which was not the intended purpose (hence, I posted under "Cinematography," not "Directing"). Oh well, I guess no one wants to discuss his camera movement techniques.:(

[pmark23]

I'm with Policar on this.

Give some specifics, or don't bother commenting.

We're scratching our heads, wondering if you're watching the same movies as we are.

On the other hand, if you're an film-snob then this is probably the wrong place for you. This is a film-making forum, and many of us know what's involved in making a film -- and know good film-making when we see it.

I'm sure your posturing gets you a lot of emo chicks at Borders, but it's not impressing any of us here.

[im.thatoneguy]

Lol I just started laughing when "Lynch" came up. Yeah, there's a director who never made a mistake.

Anyway, the reason I haven't posted yet was, I wasn't sure what to discuss on his camera movements. I'm hoping I'll have an opprotunity to watch WotW on slow motion tommarow, and this topic (pre-film-snobery) got me actually pretty excited to make a day of it, and inspired me to try to get into the habit of doing this with a movie per week, just to study scene construction. (We should start a club, the "SloMos" with a film per week, where we all have to watch it at, at fastest 1/2 speed. Then we discuss what we thought. I'm game if anyone is interested.)

Back off topic... In my opinion, Spielberg has the most consistantly "solid" films on the market. They just work. I don't think you can quantify whether or not his compositions and camera moves "break rules" or whether he "executes the scene properly" (I think givemefood, is the only soul on earth who knows what that means.)

Directors are storytellers. If they're incredibly popular, and people thoroughly enjoy listening to their stories. It doesn't matter if they shot the whole film using their ass as a tripod, and it ended up with a 45degree dutch tilt. I love Tarkovsky's 15+ minute static shots, because it tells his stories well. I love Michael Bay car chases, because they communicate the scene well.

People watch story, people enjoy story, mission accomplished. Steven Spielberg in this respect is a genius.


P.S. At 2 in the morning, when you're really really hungry, and are too lazy to cook anything, McDonalds is the best food on earth. Ditto after a 100 mile bike ride.

[dougspice]

CineAlta: let's discuss. I have a truly poor memory, and I don't know where this will go, but here's one example.

Saving Private Ryan
Mrs. Ryan gets the news

Near the end of the first act, there is the one-shot scene of Mrs. Ryan receiving the news that her sons are dead. The entire thing is shot from behind her, if I'm not mistaken, and we never even really see her face. She is washing dishes, and in the distance we see a lone car approach down winding roads. As the car pulls to a stop she walks to the front door and opens it. The camera slowly follows her over, and stops as she steps through the door. We see that the car belongs to an Army chaplain and she simply falls down, crying. End of scene.

I think that's one of the most stirring scenes in the entire movie, and it's accomplished with a truly magnificent economy of shots. We see nothing but what we need to see, and yet there is a LOT of information here. We learn just enough about this character that we will never see again. We firmly establish the period and the locale in a few seconds of a single shot, and see the remoteness and loneliness of her position. We also see the hesitation and sadness of the chaplain's job. All in one shot which moves very simply and carefully.

[CineAlta]

Wow, great example! I remember that scene vividly. As you say, so much was related with what we didn't see. I think he started doing that back in "Duel," where we only see the truck's grill, and not the driver's face. You're right, he really does use an economy of shots (I think he said he shoots 4:1 ratio), and works very fast (40-50 days for principle photography).

There are so many great examples of his camera movement over the years, but one random one is from "Catch me if you can." There was a scene, I think where Leo comes home, and his mom is in the bedroom with another man. The camera follows him (parallel to him), from floor-level (as a cat would see), from the living room to the bedroom door. I believe that was the scene. Anyway, it just struck me how so many films would have just panned a tripod from the corner, or Steadicammed over one, or both, shoulders. But Steven showed us a floor-level dolly. Who would have thought?

Thanks for reminding me about the SPR scene!

[givemefood]

yeah but my dad is still better than yours
what the fuck does that mean?

[givemefood]

So correct me if I'm wrong, but unless his films are about something slightly political or hostorical and in black and white then they're not good films in your books.

People need to get off their high horses and stop masturbating over "film" "art" and all that bollocks.

I've been scared in his films, cried in his films, laughed in his films - that's enough for me. Who cares about his "execution" having "flaws". Fuck, the day I become someone who only goes to the movies to watch a film to analyse it's execution, is the day I give up and shoot myself.

And no, I don't just watch Hollywood movies, I watch all manner of "films".

Aza
You just didn't read my messages i presume.

[givemefood]

I'm with Policar on this.

Give some specifics, or don't bother commenting.

We're scratching our heads, wondering if you're watching the same movies as we are.

On the other hand, if you're an film-snob then this is probably the wrong place for you. This is a film-making forum, and many of us know what's involved in making a film -- and know good film-making when we see it.

I'm sure your posturing gets you a lot of emo chicks at Borders, but it's not impressing any of us here.
I can't imagine how you'll take criticism of your work when you can't take criticism of Spielberg. Stop making personal remarks if you can't provide your argument.

This is a forum to discuss movies and movie related. If you can't have a discussion, i suggest you take the road to Fargo...

[im.thatoneguy]

http://www.peaceandhealing.com/criticism/constructive.asp

[dmitriandsnow]

This thread was supposed to be specifically about Steven's camera movement. It's too bad it has degenerated into a subjective argument over the value of his films, which was not the intended purpose (hence, I posted under "Cinematography," not "Directing"). Oh well, I guess no one wants to discuss his camera movement techniques.:(

But isn't cinematography an expression and a language? And can't we discuss and critique Spielberg's technique? Spielberg's camera dynamics is only a fraction of what makes up his expression. Some like it, some do not. I don't believe the thread has degenerated. I just think it became more elaborate.

To givemefood, i was just trying to carry on a debate in your manner. I see no other way of communicating with you.

[mmm]

*sigh* ... what in lords name has that good to do with good filmaking ???? All it proves is that his films appeal to the medocrity, like I say, sun readers... and in my book thats a bad thing. Ever heard teh expression "where there's a crowd there is untruth ?" Are you going to now tell me that Mcdonalds is the best food you can get, an ipod is the best dap player you can buy ??? Mass consumerism of something has ZERO correspondence to its actual quality or substance.

My point was that his audience's aren't just made up of "Sun" readers as you suggest. It is completely different to Mcdonalds which is a price and convenience driven market, cinema is nothing like that.

And yes, I think BO can be a good objective view of good film making over time (I agree that this isn't always true for single films, Phantom Menace anyone). It shows where people have choosen to spend their money and history shows a massive 30 year repeat business on Spielberg films, so my guess is that people are liking what they see overall.

Just because you don't like his films and seem to think they are below you, doesn't mean he is a bad filmmaker. To make such a suggestion is pretty arrogant IMO.

[CineCell]

......Spielberg thinks out all his camera moves himself, too. Kaminski merely lights, chooses filters, and helps with lab work. (Although "merely" is the wrong word; he's amazing, too.) His use of aperture framing is pretty fantastic but less so than his use of reflections, in my opinion.

...."A lot can be said about Steven's framing, or Janusz Kaminski's beautiful photography and lighting etc, but has anyone been noticing how Steven moves the camera!"


It's these type of quotes that really show off the wannabes and those with no feature experience. Do you guys have any clue how much a Cinematographer contributes to a film? You think a director makes a movie what it is? You think a director is the one that frames all the shots? Did you know that it has more to do with the DP and the operator (sometimes the same person) in the end? Those kinds of statements are very depressing to see. It just shows how stupid most people truly are.

Kaminski is one of the top five DP's on earth and he has quite a bit to do with how those films turn out in the end.

These boards need some kind of screening process before people should be allowed to post on them.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's is a toy camera forum populated with students and frustrated 30/40's somethings that ended up only partially accepting the fact they have no talent for real film work.

Whoopsee!

[CineAlta]

It's these type of quotes that really show off the wannabes and those with no feature experience.

Do you guys have any clue

statements are very depressing

shows how stupid most people truly are

These boards need some kind of screening process before people should be allowed to post on them.

forum populated with students and frustrated 30/40's somethings

the fact they have no talent for real film work.
Wow. Really valuable contributions to this online community. Why are you even here?

[Lawsuit_Boy]

Take anyone who's been creating art for a period as long as Speilberg in any medium (novels, albums, paintings, film, etc.) and you'll see a partern of exactly what makes that person tick.

That's natural IMO.

I totally agree with you, Krestofre. I know that a lot of myself ends up in the things I write and other things I make. And I dive into similar themes and ideas often. There's nothing wrong with that in my book.

[Isaac_Brody]

Everybody relax. There's some good points here but a lot more detritus and the direction is drifting towards personal attacks. If you have a point to make back it up, simply saying you like or don't like his films isn't enough. And calling people who like Spielberg films "Sun readers" is just provoking an argument.


As for Tarrantino, his films are just cheap contrived regurgitations of other peoples films. The junk he churns out is nothing more than prefabricated pig swill for the lobotomised mediocrity. Sensationlist, depersonalised and seemingly originating from someone who has not yet lived... cinema it is not.
And statements like this offer nothing to debate with. It's a verbose meaningless and vague assertion that sounds smarter than it actually is.
Cease with the crap and personal attacks and discuss the work in detail, otherwise I'll put this puppy to bed. :kali:

[Lawsuit_Boy]

I'm not enjoying this 'positive applause' of Spielberg's works.
IMO, he's not an artist. And i have not seen imitators of Spielberg.

Personally, I believe people can be great artists without considering themselves to be. Does an artist have to fit the horrible stereotype as shown in Wedding Crashers by the character Todd? Or do they have to be strong, silent types with long hair like Viggo Mortensen in A Perfect Murder? I think Spielberg should be considered an artist exactly as a painter or a songwriter should. He takes stories and brings them to life (with the help of his amazing crew, of course) and he does it with very few flaws.

If you take part in creating something, you're entering the realm of art, whether it be motion pictures, music, literature, paint, pencil, arcitecture, still photography, or anything else you can think of.

[dmitriandsnow]

CineAlta, it has degenerated, you are right. There are hardly any comments on previous two pages that touch the subject of cinematography. I understand exactly why; Spielberg is a very well-known figure and there is no way to have an "only favorable" discussion when every second person is long-familiar with his work.

Spielberg an artist? Of course he is and aside from that he is a craftsman. His craft (as many quoted) is superb. I don't like his expression therefore his craft is weightless to me. I entirely agree with Lawsuit_boy.

[mmm]

It's these type of quotes that really show off the wannabes and those with no feature experience. Do you guys have any clue how much a Cinematographer contributes to a film? You think a director makes a movie what it is? You think a director is the one that frames all the shots? Did you know that it has more to do with the DP and the operator (sometimes the same person) in the end? Those kinds of statements are very depressing to see. It just shows how stupid most people truly are.


You seem to be making a valid point, but I'm not sure why you feel it needs to be put in such an agressive and insulting way?

[Aaron Koolen]

Err, OK, and your credential are? Post us your real name, and your list of work. Then you have somewhere to start from, but even then, abusing everyone else and assuming they are wannabe's or students or frustrated 30/40's is arrogant and won't get you very far.

Aza



It's these type of quotes that really show off the wannabes and those with no feature experience. Do you guys have any clue how much a Cinematographer contributes to a film? You think a director makes a movie what it is? You think a director is the one that frames all the shots? Did you know that it has more to do with the DP and the operator (sometimes the same person) in the end? Those kinds of statements are very depressing to see. It just shows how stupid most people truly are.

Kaminski is one of the top five DP's on earth and he has quite a bit to do with how those films turn out in the end.

These boards need some kind of screening process before people should be allowed to post on them.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's is a toy camera forum populated with students and frustrated 30/40's somethings that ended up only partially accepting the fact they have no talent for real film work.

Whoopsee!

[jackal2513]

And statements like this offer nothing to debate with. It's a verbose meaningless and vague assertion that sounds smarter than it actually is.
Cease with the crap and personal attacks and discuss the work in detail, otherwise I'll put this puppy to bed. :kali:


*shrugs*

I didn't feel like writing a 2 page document on his films. No, i felt like summing up my feelings toward him in one swift sentence. Don't try and construct rules about language, communication, intenet forums, the things that people say and do.... this is life and we are people.... deal with it.

Verbose... yes perhaps, but primarly because in a succinct summation of my view it's better to be a bit more articulate and use a few choice adjectives rather than just say "i think he's crap". Yes, every word I chose is very suitably apt and has *PLENTY* of meaning. I'm sorry that such language makes you feel the user is simply trying to be 'smart' .. believe you me if that was my intention then I would have written the 2 page essay instread. Finally, if you don't 'get' any word that I said or don't see how it could accurately describe QT's work then pm me offline and I will more than happy to elaborate.

[jackal2513]

My point was that his audience's aren't just made up of "Sun" readers as you suggest. It is completely different to Mcdonalds which is a price and convenience driven market, cinema is nothing like that.

And yes, I think BO can be a good objective view of good film making over time (I agree that this isn't always true for single films, Phantom Menace anyone). It shows where people have choosen to spend their money and history shows a massive 30 year repeat business on Spielberg films, so my guess is that people are liking what they see overall.

Just because you don't like his films and seem to think they are below you, doesn't mean he is a bad filmmaker. To make such a suggestion is pretty arrogant IMO.


1. And my point was that his mainstream films primarily are designed for safe middle mainstream america. As such, they have huge popularity with a very large number of people and hence make a lot of money. Cinema *is* convenience for some people. They watch films in which they dont have to think for themselves, or confront themselves, or face the frightening prospect that in some way the film might make them grow as a person.... films like Spielbergs films. If art and cinema has become nothing more than putting a model spaceship over a night's sky, or a robot inside a whining kid's teddy, then God help us.

2. BO takings being some sort of yardstick. Sorry, I am not even going to get into this one again.. i find it embarrasing and insulting to your own self. I suggest you read up on cinema and discover whats actually gone on over the last 70 years or so and find out EXACTLY what and who has been important, defining, revolutionary and genius and then go and look at BO takings.

3. If you go and reread my posts carefully you will see that I never said he's a bad filmmaker. In fact on 2 occasions I acknowledeged his skill and talent.

[Isaac_Brody]

*shrugs*

I didn't feel like writing a 2 page document on his films. No, i felt like summing up my feelings toward him in one swift sentence. Don't try and construct rules about language, communication, intenet forums, the things that people say and do.... this is life and we are people.... deal with it.


Actually, this is DVXuser. There are rules on this forum that members abide by, one of them being no personal attacks. People are also expected to treat each other with respect. Looking over your posts I see confrontation and a lack of respect. If you want to continue being a part of this community I suggest you change your tone or find another forum better suited to "deal" with you.

I sent you a PM. I want to read your 2 page document that you feel sums up Tarantino's talent.

Since this isn't really a discussion of cinematography or a specific film I'm moving this to the cafe.

[J.R. Hudson]

I just could not stand it any longer.

See, it's not that homeboy has a differing of opinion; it's the manner in which he expresses it. Futhermore, running any smack towards a fellow moderator of mine is going to come right back at ya'

:kali:

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5288/ringwraithban5nm.jpg

Take 2 weeks kid.

-

When I heard 'Bergman, Godard, Antonioni and Bela Tarr' (Bela Tarr?) I knew we were dealing with another monster. Now even I can appreciate the works of the more avante garde cinema or the European cinema outside of the mainstream but this guy just doesnt have any taste whatsoever.

Blah blah blah... Yeah, I know, we all have opinions, but that doesnt make it right.

Discounting anything Taratino or Spielberg has done is an insult to Cinema.

Films like:

Munich
Saving Private Ryan (If not for redefining how the war film is shot if nothing else)
Schindler's List
Empire of the Sun
The Color Purple
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Or

Jaws

Just cannot be ignored.

--

Okay; really it was his reply to Issac that bothered me. (Been getting alot of this lately)

[Policar]

It's these type of quotes that really show off the wannabes and those with no feature experience. Do you guys have any clue how much a Cinematographer contributes to a film? You think a director makes a movie what it is? You think a director is the one that frames all the shots? Did you know that it has more to do with the DP and the operator (sometimes the same person) in the end? Those kinds of statements are very depressing to see. It just shows how stupid most people truly are.

Kaminski is one of the top five DP's on earth and he has quite a bit to do with how those films turn out in the end.

These boards need some kind of screening process before people should be allowed to post on them.

Whoopsee!

Whopsee, indeed. You're not just wrong, you're very wrong. First of all, I wrote that "merely" was the wrong word (Kaminski is honestly a personal hero of mine) since Kaminski is brilliant and does his job amazingly well. Spielberg, however, is unique in that he designs every shot himself. I've read interviews in American Cinematographer, watched making-of featurettes, and talked with professional DPs about this. Certainly Kaminski has some say over framing (the zoom in Munich was his idea), but Spielberg is unique in that he alone frames each shot, which means that what is said through camerawork (the topic of this thread) is said by HIM.

The reason this matters is because Spielberg is one of the few directors whose camera moves can entirely be attributed to him. I'd give Pope and Gaeta much of the credit for The Matrix's style, and Deschanel credit for almost everything I liked about Passion of the Christ. The time-shifting two strip technicolor to three-strip in the Aviator can be attributed to Richardson more easily than to Scorsese, although I don't doubt he was deeply involved in designing it. The 1970s look of Munich I'd attribute primarily to Spielberg, though. Sure, Kaminski was responsible for making it work, but it was Spielberg's idea.

As for the personal attacks, whatever. If the best thing you've accomplished is putting down the accomplishments of others, then I'm hardly impressed. If you're such a successful filmmaker, then why are you here if you think it's a waste of time? Why should you ban my comments when all yours are are personal attacks and empty totally incorrect arguments? Obviously you don't like it here. Good. Leave.

[xl70e3]

Heck, I would ban him just for his first post in this thread.

I thought it was widely known that DVXuser is an unofficial Spielberg fan club? :cheesy:

[J.R. Hudson]

I missed the Cinecell stuff.

(Going back a few pages)

[Isaac_Brody]

I missed the Cinecell stuff too. Do you smell banbecue?

[im.thatoneguy]

Do you guys have any clue how much a Cinematographer contributes to a film? You think a director makes a movie what it is? You think a director is the one that frames all the shots? Did you know that it has more to do with the DP and the operator (sometimes the same person) in the end? Those kinds of statements are very depressing to see. It just shows how stupid most people truly are.

Kaminski is one of the top five DP's on earth and he has quite a bit to do with how those films turn out in the end.
Whoopsee!

In a text book, with a flow chart, you'll probably find a DP doing a specific job. If the director says "I want this shot, exactly like this, with this lens, right here exposed at... etc etc". The DP will either have to come to some sort of agreement/understanding with the director or decide he wants to take a new project.

The DP is at the directors disposal to help tell the story. If spielberg wants to comp all of his shots, there isn't a whole lot Kaminski can do about it.

I think you're being a little too legalistic in your interpretation of creative responsibilities.

[J.R. Hudson]

Cinecell is gone.

Cinecell on the barbie

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8/bbq3xi.jpg






-

Givemefood

I'd suggest rethinking your approach to any discussions in this forum. Either try and play nice or go back to Rotten Tomatoes.

One thing we offer here is a community where we strive to get along, no matter our differences nor our opinions. You've done nothing any different than the last 2 dudes who just got axed but get lucky.

If you want to stay and be mellow yellow then this thread will go away and we will all forget about it. If not ?

Just let me know (Someone will)

Tks !