Filmmakers : Steven Spielberg

[djross]

In a recent Criticker discussion about trying to gauge the greatest directors, mention was made by some users that Spielberg was difficult to place through numerical methods, because his few good films brought his average up in spite of users' general feelings about the director. My flippant response was that it wasn't the methods that were wrong but rather that users were scoring Spielberg's films too highly. While I can of course completely understand that many users have fond feelings about some of this director's movies, often linked to memories of pleasurable childhood experiences, I thought that I ought to give an indication of what lay behind my remark. To that end, here is a selection of some of my mini-reviews of his films:

Duel (1971). Score: 60
Probably the pinnacle of Spielberg's career. Also his first film.

Jaws (1975). Score: 60
Most notable for its contribution (along with, subsequently, "Star Wars') to constructing a new economic model for Hollywood based on the concept of the "blockbuster." It is the names of Spielberg and Lucas that audiences can thank if what they desire is an endless stream of lowest-common denominator entertainment. Nevertheless, this movie has its moments.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001). Score: 55
It is very unfortunate that Kubrick did not live to direct this instead of Spielberg. Watching this movie is at best a very frustrating experience: like catching glimpses of a beautiful landscape through an oppressive and otherwise impenetrable fog.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). Score: 55
This is the film in which Spielberg portrays his own inner conflict through the character played by Dreyfuss: fantasizing himself as a misunderstood artist, he is in fact a pathological conformist. Hence, after a set of conspiracy-type scenes in which he is pursued by apparently unscrupulous authorities, not only do they turn out to be benign, but Dreyfuss dons a patriotic uniform and becomes a kind of vanguard representative of the government. It is, in a sense, Spielberg's "Tannhäuser."

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981). Score: 50
This movie represents the moment of convergence of the two emerging Hollywood behemoths Spielberg and Lucas, resulting in unprecedented marketing hysteria and commercial success, then subsequently surpassed by "E.T." Film is passable mindless entertainment.

Minority Report (2002). Score: 45
The ideas are in general silly rather than thought-provoking, and the plot seems a little nonsensical. More importantly, there is a false earnestness and sentimentality that shows through in Spielberg films, even those as allegedly "dark" or "dystopian" as this one. Score based on partial viewing (missed the start).

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982). Score: 40
Robert Kolker, in "A Cinema of Loneliness," made a fairly persuasive argument that this film should be seen as fascist. However that stands, it clearly represents the apotheosis of a process of the economic and aesthetic transformation of Hollywood, a process which began with "Jaws" and "Star Wars." This continues to be the cinematic universe we inhabit today. Score based on distant recollection of viewing the movie as a child at time of release.

War of the Worlds (2005). Score: 35
Spielberg again plays the family-in-crisis card, the external menace being as usual little more than the means of overcoming familial problems. Narrative quirks suggest script or editing problems, especially the odd disappearance and reappearance of characters, and the very perfunctory conclusion. The latter may have been caused by anxiety that Wells's mechanism for defeating the aliens was too well known, the filmmakers not wishing to alter this aspect of the tale, yet unwilling to draw it out.

The Terminal (2004). Score: 25
Why would somebody decide to take a Kafkaesque ordeal and tragedy that lasted 18 years and turn it into a heartwarming bit of schmaltz about "destiny"? The distressing if not indeed revolting and horrifying aspect of such a decision seems to utterly elude the director of this piece of syrupy goop.

Saving Private Ryan (1998). Score: 20
Tedious hokum from the master confectioner: no message beyond "Sacrifice!" Such effort expended in the name of verisimilitude, yet so unreal in scene after scene (not to mention the premise). Largely consists of scenes of shooting interspersed with scenes of soldiers discussing their mothers. Watching this for the first time in 2011, it occurred to me to wonder if this movie was the origin of the ongoing fad for shaky camerawork. If so, it is just one more to add to the list of Spielberg's sins.

[CMonster]

I would disagree. Spielberg has had his fair share of great films. Not just ones that speak to fond childhood memories (like Schindler's List of course), but movies that transcend basic genre norms. While the 2nd and 4th Indian Jones movies I feel are quite lacking, Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Last Crusade are beyond simple action/adventure films. I would say both are more clever and have much better characters than a typical action flick. The 4th one showed a few moments of promise, but was ultimately destroyed by horrible writing (Shia LeBoeuf swings on vines with monkeys). Jurassic Park really shows a lot of great tension, especially in any scene with a raptors. I would say that he probably gets more credit than he deserves, but has nonetheless turned out some fantastic films. I would go as far to say that many of his films are overrated, especially E.T., but I can't deny talent in the man who made Schindler's List, Catch Me If You Can, and the Last Crusade (his films that got a 90 or higher from me).

[jacobb1313]

I definitely understand the hesitation in giving Spielberg films a superior status in your rankings - every one of his movies seems to be, to your point, covered in confectioner's sugar to make the less plausible or terribly sanguine elements more palatable. Thing is, for myself, isn't he the one that figured out how to make movies easier to digest? He IS the one who usurped the great master Hitchcock at Universal during his waning years.

There is something to be said by the mere fact we can discuss Spielberg as an auteur, although his themes are fairly difficult to pinpoint. His themes on universal goodness, and the fantastic existing in reality if you know where to find it, are more obvious in his harshest movies (Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, A.I.) and find their way into his technique: whatever the moral (or lack thereof) a lot of people like them, and watch them, over and over again, because they're unassuming. His use of the medium can be impressive - impressive enough that the majority of people don't think about it, and they can enjoy his films regardless.

I think I defend because I don't find his films to be self-indulgent. They ARE indulgent in that shmutlzy, life is beautiful sense. But they come from a genuine character, and reliance on character, which is why his best films work so well - e.g. Close Encounters, Jaws, Jurassic Park, Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can. I would rather mindless entertainment be honest and forthright as opposed to a couple schlock blockbuster filmmakers I can think of, who use explosions instead of character, and hope you don't notice.

[Pickpocket]

If you really believe that Duel was the pinnacle of Spielberg's career you are delusional. And what's with the 1 rating to Schindler's List? Did you really just rate it without ever seeing it?

[djross]

If you really believe that Duel was the pinnacle of Spielberg's career you are delusional. And what's with the 1 rating to Schindler's List? Did you really just rate it without ever seeing it?

In relation to Duel, well, no doubt it is not the majority view that the film was Spielberg's best. My score for the movie was 60, placing it in tier 6. Criticker's prediction for my score was also 60, and the average tier was 6.53, so there doesn't seem anything particularly controversial about the score I gave the film. If I am delusional, then, it must be because other Spielberg movies clearly ought to be given scores higher than 60, but as yet none I have seen have inclined me to do so.

In relation to Schindler's List, no I have not seen the film. The "score" I've given it is really just an opportunity to leave a comment indicating that I have avoided viewing the movie. My feelings about this are related to the well-known views expressed by Stanley Kubrick and Claude Lanzmann, as well as those of the Jewish-Australian historian, Robert Manne (in a discussion actually of Benigni's Life is Beautiful, which I also have not seen; see the Manne citation in the following review of Benigni: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6469/is_1999_Feb/ai_n28726858/). Of course, the aforementioned all chose to see the film, but I feel no need to do so.

[sengir]

I think it's a bit unfair to overanalyze the films that Spielberg has made, these aren't intended as works of art or to be compared to works by Stanley Kubrick (personally I can't think of two directors more on the opposite spectrum of the film world than the both of them). Spielberg's main goal is to entertain and to a lesser extent 'touch' emotions of people, not to confront them with certain aspects of humanity or a larger truth. And in the role of entertainer I think he works quite well, compare his films to general blockbusters these days (compare super 8 to close encounters for instance) and you see that in his niche he creates excellent work. The fact that you like or dislike this approach to film is quite subjective IMO, most regular people (not cinephiles) go to the cinema to get exactly what Spielberg gives them (which is why he's the most financial succesful along with Cameron). And I personally believe films like this deserve their place in the film pantheon, right alongside most works by the aforementoined Hitchcock for instance (who operates more in that same Hollywood film spectrum as Spielberg IMO, aka to entertain/thrill)

As for schindler's list and to a lesser extent Saving Private Ryan, I don't blame Spielberg for trying to find a little bit of hope in the doom and gloom of wwII and I also don't believe these films shun the dark side of that period either (especially not Shindler's List, which portrays the holocaust quite graphically). The choice to approach these stories from a certain hopeful/positive perspective is the filmmaker's choice and I think Spielberg's entitled to make that choice (as is every director). Wether you like it or not, is up to each viewer, I do find it a bit odd to rate a film without seeing it though (and pretty pointless)

[Pickpocket]

If I am delusional, then, it must be because other Spielberg movies clearly ought to be given scores higher than 60, but as yet none I have seen have inclined me to do so.

Delusional in the sense that this was clearly not the pinnacle of his career. Starting Dreamworks, winning multiple oscars, essentially creating the summer blockbuster, the list goes on and on

[green man]

so yeah. also the highest PSI for his movies is Duel which is a 77, so i guess djross is right. i know some people who hate spielberg and consider AI and 1941 masterpieces tho, so who knows

[green man]

I think it's a bit unfair to overanalyze the films that Spielberg has made, these aren't intended as works of art or to be compared to works by Stanley Kubrick (personally I can't think of two directors more on the opposite spectrum of the film world than the both of them). Spielberg's main goal is to entertain and to a lesser extent 'touch' emotions of people, not to confront them with certain aspects of humanity or a larger truth. And in the role of entertainer I think he works quite well, compare his films to general blockbusters these days (compare super 8 to close encounters for instance) and you see that in his niche he creates excellent work. The fact that you like or dislike this approach to film is quite subjective IMO, most regular people (not cinephiles) go to the cinema to get exactly what Spielberg gives them (which is why he's the most financial succesful along with Cameron). And I personally believe films like this deserve their place in the film pantheon, right alongside most works by the aforementoined Hitchcock for instance (who operates more in that same Hollywood film spectrum as Spielberg IMO, aka to entertain/thrill)

LOL