How Steven Spielberg relates tension.

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CineAlta

Well-known member
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
jackal2513 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jackal2513 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
krestofre said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 ****!" .... thats why I love Speilberg. He's one of those guys who at the end of the day can just make you say "holy ****".... 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
krestofre said:
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.
Click to expand...



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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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'm not enjoying this 'positive applause' of Spielberg's works.
IMO, he's not an artist. And i have not seen imitators of Spielberg.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top