anti-Spielberg and a bit on Columbus

[Haggridd]

-- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "Horst or Rebecca J. Bohner" 
<bohners at p...> wrote:
> Amy --
> 
> I am totally with you when it comes to Spielberg's blockbusters.  I 
have
> given most of them a deliberate miss, and the ones that I haven't 
skipped
> have been prone to every one of the faults you describe.  Which is 
not to
> say I didn't enjoy some of them in spite of that (I have a strange 
fondness
> for HOOK and YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES in particular), but I don't like 
it when
> directors try to manipulate my emotions so shamelessly, either.  It 
just
> makes me dig in my heels and determine not to let them succeed.
> 
> Spielberg, however, is a director with a split personality.  
Three-quarters
> of the films he makes are sentimental, overblown eye-candy.  But 
every now
> and then he turns around and delivers a film of exquisite skill and 
real
> emotional and philosophical power, completely free of the excesses,
> gimmicks, and conspicuous displays of special effects that you 
despise.  I
> can only say that you NEED to see those films before you can decide 
what you
> really think of Spielberg.
> 
> I would personally recommend EMPIRE OF THE SUN to start.  I had no 
idea
> Spielberg was capable of anything great until I saw that film.  
After three
> wrenching hours of exquisite cinema, my jaw was on the floor.  I 
literally
> could not believe it was the same Steven Spielberg directing it.  I 
felt the
> same way about SCHINDLER'S LIST, which I truly believe is the 
greatest movie
> ever made (and I fervently hope I never have to watch it again).  
That film
> has to be seen in the cinema for proper effect:  in fact I was 
appalled at
> the thought of it going to video, because I couldn't help thinking 
it would
> lose a great deal of its impact.  But since it is now very unlikely 
that you
> can see it in such a venue, I guess the video will have to do.  (I 
saw
> EMPIRE on video and it didn't keep me from appreciating it, although 
I now
> wish I'd seen it on the screen.)
> 
> Both those films left me emotionally wrung-out for a week, but not 
because
> they employed any of Spielberg's usual maudlin tricks.  Indeed, in 
EMPIRE
> one might even say Spielberg turned his own reputation for wide-eyed 
star
> gazing shots on its head, because pretty much any time anybody looks 
up into
> the sky in that film, seriously awful things happen.  And Christian 
Bale is
> incredible as the young protagonist.  (The film also contains what I
> consider to be the perfect role for John Malkovich, and certainly 
the best
> acting I've ever seen from him yet; although I don't actually like 
John
> Malkovich, so I may be a bit biased on that point.)
> 
> John Williams, too, has a split personality to go with Spielberg's. 
 Most of
> his music (the famous stuff, anyway) seems to be built around the 
same
> musical theme, with a few not-very-interesting variations.  I was 
quite
> convinced the man was a hack with an undeserved reputation, until I 
heard
> his score for SCHINDLER'S LIST and was completely blown away.  It 
did not
> sound like anything I would ever have recognized as Williams music 
at all.
> It was beautiful and wrenching and utterly appropriate for the film. 
 I own
> the soundtrack and listen to it on a regular basis, and when I 
listen to it,
> not once do I find myself thinking, "Oh, yeah, that guy who did the 
music
> for STAR WARS (or SUPERMAN, or any of those others with annoyingly 
similar
> themes)."
> 
> So I'm willing to give Williams a chance to outdo himself on HP, 
although
> admittedly it's not likely that he'll pull out all the stops on a
> fantastical kiddie film -- he'll probably just go back to his old 
habits.
> But at least I know he can do more -- much, much more -- than I'd 
ever
> anticipated.
> --
> Rebecca J. Bohner
> rebeccaj at p...
> http://home.golden.net/~rebeccaj
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amy Z" <aiz24 at h...>
> To: <HPFGU-OTChatter at y...>
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 11:31 AM
> Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] anti-Spielberg and a bit on Columbus
> 
> 
> > I having confessed that boggarts turn into Steven Spielberg when 
they
> > see me coming, ***Draco~Malfoy~Lover*** wrote on the main list:
> >
> > >Why Steven Spielberg? He's a great director! He'd probably do a
> > >better job on this film than Chritopher Comlumbus :::mutters 
darkly
> > >about the choice of director:::.
> >
> > None of the following should be read as an endorsement of Chris 
"Home
> > Alone 2" Columbus, nor, for that matter, a statement that I would
> > prefer him to Spielberg as the director of HP.  CC is on serious
> > probation as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> > Five reasons I don't like Steven Spielberg:
> >
> > -His chief technique for getting the audience to feel surprise,
> > wonder, etc., is to show character upon character gazing in 
surprise,
> > wonder, etc., usually skyward.  This is a fine cinematic approach 
used
> > in moderation, but it wears thin long before SS is done with it, 
IMO.
> >  I caught onto it back at E.T., and it's driven me nuts ever 
since.
> > (I should've caught on earlier.  Shots of people gazing at things 
take
> > up 40% of Close Encounters.)
> >
> > -Corollary to above:  he's a basically manipulative filmmaker.  I 
feel
> > as if he tugs on every obvious expectation and cliche (I refused 
to
> > see Saving Private Ryan because I couldn't stand one more army 
flick
> > with the squadron of stereotypes--the hick who's ignorant but boy 
can
> > he shoot [all those years of huntin' squirrels 'n' 'possums]).  
This
> > kind of thing gets my sarcasm engine turned on, as you may have
> > noticed.  Now, art is about skillful manipulation, but there are
> > artists who make me say "Aha!" and artists who make me say "I'm 
being
> > manipulated."  The great ones are the former; Spielberg is
> > consistently the latter.  I also prefer directors who use their 
powers
> > of manipulation toward some lofty purpose, which brings me to . . 
.
> >
> > -He has used his considerable talent to make one shallow 
blockbuster
> > after another.  Shallow blockbusters are okay--I rent mostly 
comedies,
> > myself, purely for entertainment and not to change my life--but 
what
> > so irritates me about Spielberg is that he wants recognition as 
some
> > kind of auteur despite basically being a turner-out of 
entertaining
> > bits of fluff.  Case in point:  when he won Best Director for
> > Schindler's List (his first directing Oscar), he said something 
along
> > the lines of "at last"; there had been a lot of handwringing about 
how
> > he kept getting passed over.  The only serious film he had made up 
to
> > that point, IMHO, was The Color Purple (never saw it, though I'd 
like
> > to, so I won't venture a judgment; I never saw Schindler's List in
> > its entirety, either--the power went out at the movie theater 40
> > minutes in, though I did like those 40 minutes).  You would have
> > thought that he'd been making masterpieces all these years and 
been
> > ignored.  I liked Jaws, I liked Close Encounters, I even liked 
E.T.,
> > but none of them are the kinds of movies I would vote for for Best
> > Picture.  (Neither are most of the movies that have won it,
> > historically.)  I ask for more than entertainment from a Best
> > Director.
> >
> > -He makes movies for children that are extremely violent.  I loved
> > Raiders of the Lost Ark when I was a kid--I think I saw it 5 times 
the
> > week it came out--but now I look at it and realize how many people 
our
> > hero kills along the way.  Dirty Harry, move over.  It really 
bothers
> > me that this stuff is sold as wholesome entertainment.  The
> > writer Barbara Kingsolver tells a story about this that is very
> > revealing:  a friend of hers told her, "You'll like it, it isn't
> > violent at all," and like me, BK watched and counted up the 
bodies.
> > That's the worst thing about that kind of movie--the mayhem is
> > presented in such a flip, cartoonish way that we don't even 
realize
> > how much of it there is.
> >
> > -Rumor had it that he said he'd direct HP only if Haley Joel 
Osment
> > played Harry.  A big raspberry to SS for trying to stack his 
influence
> > against JKR's (anyone know an emoticon for a raspberry?).  No 
offense
> > to HJO, who may be a very talented actor, but he is not British 
and
> > that settles it.  It should have settled it for Spielberg, or at 
least
> > he should have said, "Well, I differ with the author on the 
necessity
> > for a British cast, so I will have to gracefully decline the
> > possibility of directing."  As I said, the information that he was
> > throwing his weight around is rumor, so do take it with a grain of
> > salt.
> >
> > Ah well, de gustibus non titillandum.
> >
> > Back to Columbus:  I was heartened by the quote in USA Today where 
he
> > said he wanted to express his darker, less sentimental side in HP. 
 We
> > can only hope so.
> >
> > Amy Z
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > HPFGU-OTChatter-unsubscribe at y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
I think Rebecca is spot on in her analysis of Spielberg.  I too was 
mesmerized by Schindler's List from the first strains of the tango at 
the night club.  How he directed Liam Neeson was masterful.  I agree 
that the cinematography was so pure that is should always be seen on 
the big screen.  She is quite correct in noting the dichotomy betwee 
Spieberg the director of S.L., and Spielberg the director of E.T., et 
al.  If the wrong Spielberg were to show up as the Director of SS/PS, 
we would all suffer.

Haggridd