How Steven Spielberg relates tension.
- Thread starter CineAlta
- Start date
- Status
jackal2513
Active member
mmm said:
yep, mostly "Sun" readers
dmitriandsnow
Well-known member
slondon said:
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
Well-known member
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 ****ing up "AI" which was a beautiful concept developed by Kubrick.
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 ****ing up "AI" which was a beautiful concept developed by Kubrick.
jackal2513 said:
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
Active member
mmm said:
*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.
Last edited:
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.")
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-known member
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....
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....
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....
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
dmitriandsnow
Well-known member
givemefood said:
yeah but my dad is still better than yours
jackal2513
Active member
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
Well-known member
givemefood said:
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!
Last edited:
dougspice
Veteran
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.
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.
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.
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
Adobe Demigod
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.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
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.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Aaron Koolen
Well-known member
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". ****, 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
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". ****, 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
givemefood said:
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
Veteran
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.
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.
- Status