Films/DVD Asylum

I wasn't trying to change your view

68.97.68.15

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ] [ FAQ ]

mvwine

(A)

In Reply to: Re: I admire Steven Speilberg... posted by TA on November 25, 2002 at 09:35:57:

Just stating mine. And I disagree about other "studio" dirctors. Note that I didn't say art (in my stated definition) shouldn't make money, or that it couldn't make money. Just that the first order of art should be to reflect a feeling or experience of the artist, not to contrive something with box office grosses in mind.
If you like Speilberg, fine. If you don't care to measure his films against other directors, using artistic acheivment as a scale, fine also.
BTW, I did like "Jaws", and think that the subject of "Schindler's List" is such an important one, that I was just glad to see a film made that a lot of people would see. I would just like to see Speilberg make a more "personal" film - that, combined with his other obvious talents, might make me a fan!

I gave at the office!

Follow Ups:

the other point - TA 12:05:47 11/25/02 (0)
I wasn't meaning to bust your chops by suggesting, "Your discussion is piontless". I can see how it could be taken like that, so sorry.
Let me say it in different words: Why does it mean to you where Speilberg falls on the artistic scale? Does it make his movies less enjoyable or respectible than they already are?
Re: I wasn't trying to change your view - TA 11:23:09 11/25/02 (3)
It seems to me that films like "Ben-Hur", "North By Northwest" and "Stagecoach" are also impersonal. Their first order wasn't to get at something personal. I don't see how you can argue that Speilberg puts the box office in front of personal passions any more than someone like Hitchcock.
Speilberg has said that he makes the kind of films that he wanted to see as a kid. Certainly you can see how "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" or "E.T." have deep personal meaning for him. I mean, it's not god or death that he's fixated on, but those films capture a lot of the emotions and passions in discovery, friendship and childhood. As he's grown older, he's started to explore historical subjects with "Schindler's List", "Amistad" and "Saving Private Ryan". Some heady themes in there, but again there's a personal passion going on in his choice of films. (Not to mention the un-box office choice of using black and white.)
I do think that the personal connection and themes are there; he just doesn't present them as people sitting in a somber room talking about death. He just does it through the medium where his skills are: Louis Armstrong has his horn, but Speilberg has his camera.
Similarly, Woody Allen has his comedy. His most insightful, most personal films have always dealt with the issues through comedy: the joke that introduces Annie Hall tackles and sums up his world view more succesfully than the heavy-handed lecturing that he attempts in his Bergman-esque films. Given how you argue that Speilberg's films are pure audience-pleasing fare, it seems to me that you would have to say that Woody Allen is no more an artist than Jim Carey, and John Ford is no more an artist than McG.
- OK, I see your point - - mvwine 14:02:55 11/25/02 (2)
  To illustrate further take a scene from "North by Northwest" - one of my favorites, and since you mentioned it. When Cary Grant tosses the matchbook with the message over the railing, and it falls on the floor. The suspense is palpable - will Martin Landau (or James Mason) see it? It's done perfectly - the director MUST have felt that kind of tension at some point to be able to convey it that convincingly.
  This is something that could have been either overdone to the point of stupidity, or underplayed so that you missed the whole thing. So where many point to "North by Northwest" as being the father of all blockbusters (which it may be), it's done so well, and communicates so well, that it becomes art. Not to mention that it has subtexts - the crush Landau's character has on Mason's, for example.
  And I think that's where films succeed, be it a "blockbusters" or not, is to what extent it makes you feel those real life feelings and experiences.
  And I'm not sure what your point is about Woody Allen's use of comedy. Yes, he uses comedy many times, but it still makes me feel what the character is feeling. And it serves to highten the moments of poignancy when they occur. You and I may agree on one thing - I would put "Annie Hall", "Crimes and Misdemeanors", and "Hannah and her Sisters" all ahead of "Interiors" - a good movie, but not his strongest.
  If you see such effective communication of emotions and experiences in Spielberg's films, than I have obviously missed the boat and am willing to try to see it.
  
  I gave at the office!
  - Re: OK, I see your point - - TA 22:20:55 11/25/02 (1)
    To try to sum it up:
    It sounds like you and I agree that great art can come as comedy, adventure or drama. Bergman makes his art best through drama; Woody makes his art best through comedy. That was what I was trying to say on Woody Allen and comedy. Similarly, I think Spielberg makes his art best through adventure.
    You and I disagree on two things, I think.
    One, whether Spielberg's films come out of a personal passion like Woody's obviously do. Here, I think yes: in many of his films, Spielberg explores discovery, wonder and awe in the way that Woody explores adult relationships in many of his. (Woody once said in response to Spielberg's comment that he makes the films he wanted to see as a kid, I make the films that I want to see as an adult.)
    Second, whether Spielberg hits the emotional "oomph" that, say, Bergman or Woody do with their good films. Here, it's really a matter of personal taste.
    - Thanks, TA - mvwine 06:14:13 11/26/02 (0)
      Great discussion. I think your last paragraph nails it.
      Cheers
      
      I gave at the office!

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

You can not post to an archived thread.