Spielberg. The formula. Busted.

Pookie said:
I have nothing against the film industry, only their inability to produce anything original in any form whatsoever.Remakes, sequels, video game movies, cartoons made into movies, crime scene investigator shows, reality shows, Tom Cruise pretending to be Irish, the existence of Paris Hilton and the Kardashians, 3D movies.... These are what I hate...
Click to expand...
Agree with you there. Completely. And in today's social-political-economic climate, humanity and compassion are indeed on life support if not dead.

But I agree with some others that this analysis is pushing it. If anything I'd say Spielberg's films often are marked by sappy, sentimental interludes, often scenes or weak subplots having little to do with the thrust of the film, but injected anyway. Nearly every film he's made since probably 1941 is marked with this.
 
j said:
It's actually not a bad way to illustrate that the reaction shot tells more to the audience than the object/person/event that the subject is looking at.

Sort of the Jaws/Alien thing, not seeing the monster is more powerful than seeing it, but by watching the reaction shot the audience knows what to feel.

It's a really hard concept for n00b film makers to grasp, especially with horror/violence, and it's one reason why Indy/student films are often so bad.

I give it a +1
Click to expand...

Well, the most memorable moment in Aliens is the look on the useless girls face when the chest burster comes out at first.... that whole scene to me is capped by this reaction:

capturealien1.jpg
 
Veronica Cartwright. Big props for her acting there, which pulled this great shot off. Underrated, almost forgotten talent who started as a child actress (The Birds). Every time she's on screen in Alien she makes you completely uncomfortable.
 
> Well, the most memorable moment in Aliens is the look on the useless girls face when the chest burster comes out at first....
> that whole scene to me is capped by this reaction:

Excellent case in point, someone I know... taught an editing class and they used that scene for an in-class midterm exam. (The DVD has all the raw footage from that scene.) Even though all students at that point were technically proficient, you could tell students who truly understood the craft of editing by those that told the story via reaction shots and those that went for the obvious alien shots. Those that went for the obvious alien shots had scenes that felt cheesy and forced. Those that told the story via the reaction shots were suspenseful and frighting.

Is that such an obvious concept? To those of us that understand the craft, yes. To those that don't, I think viewing that youtube clip might just be a revelation. (And I for one hope so, I'm so sick of viewing crappy student films...)
 
She wasn't so much "acting", as she was "reacting" to things she wasn't warned were going to happen. One of the great things about that scene.
 
lwright84 said:
She wasn't so much "acting", as she was "reacting" to things she wasn't warned were going to happen. One of the great things about that scene.
Click to expand...

Any time you put an actor in front of a camera, they're acting. If you think her reactions weren't influenced by her own skills as an actor, you should take some improv classes.

I still can't get over the jazzhands thing. <grin>
 
j said:
> I tend to not enjoy very old classics as much because I am such a visual person, and I feel like I'm watching a play, not a movie

Seriously? Citizen Kane? HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha....
Click to expand...


I did not enjoy that movie at all. I went in with such high expectations because of the astronomical hype this movie gets and left very disappointed. There's no way it can live up to such high expectations seeing how we hear everyday about how it's "The GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!!!!!!!"
 
Michael Traven said:
Any time you put an actor in front of a camera, they're acting. If you think her reactions weren't influenced by her own skills as an actor, you should take some improv classes.
Click to expand...

I think you should re-read what I wrote and then read up on the facts of the making of that scene. Here's a brief quip on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(film)#Chestburster

And this is hardly the only example of a filmmaker using such a tactic (the pirate ship in Goonies is another classic one).
 
lwright84 said:
I think you should re-read what I wrote and then read up on the facts of the making of that scene. Here's a brief quip on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(film)#Chestburster

And this is hardly the only example of a filmmaker using such a tactic (the pirate ship in Goonies is another classic one).
Click to expand...

Again, actors in front of a camera act. And this is hardly the first time I've heard this kind of bulls..t, like the actor was just an unwitting puppet in the director's master plan. F..k that. If the actor is in front of the camera, it's a performance. Whether you surprise an actor or whether you warn them of exactly what's going to happen makes a difference, but it doesn't replace the work of the actor, nor discredit it. Which is what your original post suggests.

-JMT
 
I suggest listening to the actors commentary on that movie, it's one thing to assume, another thing to hear it from the horses mouth.
 
Michael Traven said:
Again, actors in front of a camera act. And this is hardly the first time I've heard this kind of bulls..t, like the actor was just an unwitting puppet in the director's master plan. F..k that. If the actor is in front of the camera, it's a performance. Whether you surprise an actor or whether you warn them of exactly what's going to happen makes a difference, but it doesn't replace the work of the actor, nor discredit it. Which is what your original post suggests.-JMT
Click to expand...
This is getting silly. Your unnecessarily fervent defense of actors is admirable, but your ignorance on the specific topic is beginning to surpass the indignance fueling your fire. Actors act, of course, but people also react. And they are people, first and foremost. As the above poster -- and myself -- mentioned, you should really read what the people involved with the film actually say before you launch into another tirade. And this isnt the first time youve "heard this bull----" because, again, it isnt the first time its been done. Your earnest arguments to the contrary do not change this fact.
 
Last edited:
I read the wiki, and own the Quadrilogy, and I still mostly support the assertion that the actors still deserve credit, even in situations where the director uses tricks to (hopefully) illicit a more natural response from them. Obviously this isn't a cut and dry, I/O situation though. As I mentioned before, Cartwright does a great job of acting through the entire film. She's nervous and bordering on contained hysteria from the moment they land on the planet and it really puts you on edge. This reaction in this scene is just an extension of that.

Let me put it another way. I imagine Scott knew that Cartwright would be in character, and had the impression that she might flip out at all the squirting blood, and sought to capture it as such. Just as he likely knew Tom Skeritt and Yaphet Kotto were likely to remain in a stronger character, and react with astonishment.

And...that's all I have to say on the subject.
 
The Spielberg stare. The Kubrick face. The Wilhelm scream. Someone must make a film incorporating all three.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top