At what point did Spielberg movies start being overproduced and how do we feel about this?

[mrbellamy 8,244]

I like Kaminski a lot, he's one of my favorite cinematographers Spielberg's had, along with Vilmos Zsigmond and Douglas Slocombe. I can see why some would consider his lighting "artificial" or "glossy", but I think it looks very expressive.

And I agree that the premise of the thread isn't exactly sound. Most aesthetic discussions are kind of like trying to describe the difference between red and blue.

[Delorean90 47]

I watched Catch Me If You Can again today, and there's some really nice cinematography in there. It seems a bit uneven, at times getting some of that gloss that I think may be talked about here, but there's also some great stuff. The scene in the printing factory really stood out to me today, looking classic and new all at once.

There were moments where I felt WOTW was too slick, like I was watching a commercial. My biggest gripes of Spielberg's recent stuff has been on KOTCS, though.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

Kaminski just likes a bright overexposed look. Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull and Minority Report are the epitome of it.

[Hlao-roo 390]

Most aesthetic discussions are kind of like trying to describe the difference between red and blue.

One loves America, and the other one doesn't. Duh.

[russds 8]

[media=]

At around 4:38 John Rhys-Davies actually talks about how Spielberg changed from Raiders to Last Crusade.

This is a cool video, sorry off topic, but thanks for posting. I don't have the blu ray yet, and i believe this shows some shots of the deleted scenes on the blu ray, which i'm dying to see (at around 1:02). Also shows some nice behind the scenes footage from LC, thanks!

[Matt C 605]

When did glossy become such a four-letter word?

A glossy-looking film can be fine if the story and approach demand it. But recent Spielberg films like War Horse and from what I see of Lincoln look and feel similar, in that too polished and clean manner.

I don't expect every period piece to have squeaky clean sets and such, but have it looked lived-in and feel like a genuine location. That's part of the allure of Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice -- not only did he shoot inside actual English manors but also had some of the actors get dirty and actually work to sell the period social hierachy. The sets in that movie look so realistic and lived-in, while WH and Lincoln look too perfect and clean.

[Hlao-roo 390]

So are we questioning a deliberate aesthetic choice on the part of Spielberg et al., or are we suggesting that Spielberg has developed a serious blind spot with regard to the look of his films?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,388]

we dont like it, so Spielberg dropped the ball!

[Incanus 5,890]

Also concerning Lincoln, have you seen how the White House looks awfully dirty these days. Gritty, that's it, gritty is the word I was looking for! Gritty = real = good.

And wasn't Abe prone to wallowing in mud before he gave his speeches?

[A24 5,156]

So Tintin is the exception. Hmm.

[Hlao-roo 390]

So Tintin is the exception. Hmm.

Tintin is the exception that proves the rule!

[Incanus 5,890]

The world of Tintin looked lived in! Gritty!!!

[Matt C 605]

So are we questioning a deliberate aesthetic choice on the part of Spielberg et al., or are we suggesting that Spielberg has developed a serious blind spot with regard to the look of his films?

A little bit of both, really. For the most part, he just doesn't care about the little details anymore or go for more creative ways to tell a story. I think if Spielberg dropped Kaminski for someone else, that might reinvigorate him. He doesn't need to drop Williams.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,388]

another presumption made on the part of fans here.

[Hlao-roo 390]

So are we questioning a deliberate aesthetic choice on the part of Spielberg et al., or are we suggesting that Spielberg has developed a serious blind spot with regard to the look of his films?

A little bit of both, really. For the most part, he just doesn't care about the little details anymore or go for more creative ways to tell a story. I think if Spielberg dropped Kaminski for someone else, that might reinvigorate him. He doesn't need to drop Williams.

But if he drops Kaminski, Kahn, and Williams, then we're talking Reinvigoration Central. I say let's go for it.

The world of Tintin looked lived in! Gritty!!!

The solution: motion capture Lincoln.

[Incanus 5,890]

The world of Tintin looked lived in! Gritty!!!

The solution: motion capture Lincoln.

How about adding digital grit into the movie? Or would you like to gloss over such obvious solution to the problem?

[Hlao-roo 390]

Digital grit is inherently glossy, though. It's a superficial answer to a bone-deep problem. True grit has to come from within, deep in one's soul. But Spielberg and Kaminski and Williams sold their souls to the AMPAS devil (his name is Oscar) years ago. So there's nothing left inside them. Just pure emptiness. And so we see that emptiness reflected on the screen -- that glossy, glossy screen.

[Maurizio 6,913]

So are we questioning a deliberate aesthetic choice on the part of Spielberg et al., or are we suggesting that Spielberg has developed a serious blind spot with regard to the look of his films?

A little bit of both, really. For the most part, he just doesn't care about the little details anymore or go for more creative ways to tell a story. I think if Spielberg dropped Kaminski for someone else, that might reinvigorate him. He doesn't need to drop Williams.

But if he drops Kaminski, Kahn, and Williams, then we're talking Reinvigoration Central. I say let's go for it.

When Hitchcock parted from Herrmann, editor George Tomasini and cinematographer Robert Burks, his movies definitely lost something.

[Quintus 6,499]

And yet Spielberg has yet to part with anyone. He has everything to gain!

It's telling that Tintin was received so well by his fans and has indeed, for me, been an unreserved exception amongst his post Schindler's work. But really, I think the reason is obvious: the tools. Spielberg's hunger was ravenous at the prospect of playing with these new technological toys and by all accounts his imagination was a roaring fire of ideas and "attack". Tintin feels like Spielberg before he won the Oscar.

[Maurizio 6,913]

I can't see how being loyal to key collaborators could be a bad thing.

[Hlao-roo 390]

"Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it."

Spielberg, intoxicated with success after Schindler's, has sought to preserve it, to bottle it, but has entombed it instead. Artistic triumph consists not in curdled formula but in the risky, audacious pursuit of the unknown, even at the cost of short-term security. By retaining the same collaborators from project to project, Spielberg has left himself vulnerable to groupthink, to a creative bubble that feels safe, dependable, and reassuring, but in fact insulates him from a wider diversity of ideas that might fire an idled imagination and free him from the tyranny of habit.

[Quintus 6,499]

EXACTLY.

[Incanus 5,890]

Also I don't like the way he wears caps all the time. Stagnation.

[Maurizio 6,913]

Spielberg, intoxicated with success after Schindler's, has sought to preserve it, to bottle it, but has entombed it instead. Artistic triumph consists not in curdled formula but in the risky, audacious pursuit of the unknown, even at the cost of short-term security. By retaining the same collaborators from project to project, Spielberg has left himself vulnerable to groupthink, to a creative bubble that feels safe, dependable, and reassuring, but in fact insulates him from a wider diversity of ideas that might fire an idled imagination and free him from the tyranny of habit.

I think you're seriously overthinking it. I see your point and I agree that after Schindler's List Spielberg entered into a new, different artistic phase. But I find honestly very difficult to pinpoint with such flair. There are too many things at play into the career of a superstar director. We're not talking about the struggles of Michelangelo.

Also, I don't know how many of you do a creative job for a living, but I can assure you that the more time passes, the more you tend to keep and nourish established relationship with key members. It's a way of saving time and money because you develop a short-hand communication that makes things a lot easier in many cases. And this doesn't automatically mean you're playing safe. You'll listen and accept a critic or a heavy comment on something much more easily and seriously if this comes from someone you completely trust. I'm pretty much sure that Williams, Kahn and even Kaminski have likely said more than once "Steven, this doesn't work" without the risk of losing something.

[Quintus 6,499]

You need to bear in mind that Alan was also possibly just musing for amusement.

[Maurizio 6,913]

Ha

[A24 5,156]

I thought Spielberg already started a new phase with Jurassic Park. I remember watching it in the theater thinking, "Hmm, this is the first time that his characters have absolutely no appeal". The kids even striked me as completely weak and characterless. To me, this aspect was totally new because before JP, Spielberg always knew a thing or two of attaching the viewer to his characters. Spielberg's forte was gone. Don't really see it back in Munich or War Of The Worlds either. I mean, It's like everybody is just meandering around the sets.

Alex

[BloodBoal 8,711]

[Hlao-roo 390]

You need to bear in mind that Alan was also possibly just musing for amusement.

I suppose that's fair, but I actually think there's value to what people on different "sides" of this issue have said. Maurizio makes good points about the value of long-term collaboration, and I definitely get his impatience with people who engage in glib psychoanalysis about what is or isn't in Spielberg's head when he's making movies. But I also respond to those who are reckoning with perceived diminishing returns in Spielberg's work as he has aged. I don't think it hurts to explore why that might be the case, just as I don't think it hurts to defend the potential merits of Spielberg's current "aesthetic," as it were.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,388]

Spielberg has become like Woody Allen, who makes his one film a year. Always with a stellar cast, always superbly produced and skilfully directed and always good looking. But never quite like Manhattan and Annie Hall.

[A24 5,156]

Well, you know what they say: once you lose it, you can't get it back...

It certainly looks like that.

[Hlao-roo 390]

I thought Spielberg already started a new phase with Jurassic Park. I remember watching it in the theater thinking, "Hmm, this is the first time that his characters have absolutely no appeal". The kids even striked me as completely weak and characterless. To me, this aspect was totally new because before JP, Spielberg always knew a thing or two of attaching the viewer to his characters. Spielberg's forte was gone. Don't really see it back in Munich or War Of The Worlds either. I mean, It's like everybody is just meandering around the sets.

A creative misfire doesn't necessarily have to signal a new phase. I'm also not terribly fond of Koepp's adaptation of the source material.

Spielberg has become like Woody Allen, who makes his one film a year. Always with a stellar cast, always superbly produced and skilfully directed and always good looking. But never quite like Manhattan and Annie Hall.

It's the rare artist who replicates the quality of his signal achievements project after project. You could say Spielberg has become just about every artist who has ever lived.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,388]

The other problem is that Spielberg is a victim of his own success, and of technological advancement of recent years.

If he was making Jaws today, he would probably not go anywhere near the ocean, the shark would be CGI, and he would never have been forced to cut corners, think outside the box, come up with new ideas, compromise.

These days Spielberg gets exactly what he wants.

Same for Close Encounters, one of his most personal films.

[Hlao-roo 390]

The other problem is that Spielberg is a victim of his own success, and of technological advancement of recent years.

If he was making Jaws today, he would probably not go anywhere near the ocean, the shark would be CGI, and he would never have been forced to cut corners, think outside the box, come up with new ideas, compromise.

These days Spielberg gets exactly what he wants.

Same for Close Encounters, one of his most personal films.

Right, the George Lucas argument, to which I'm sympathetic, but then you have Tintin, which seems to turn the argument on its head, at least for certain people (e.g., Quint).

[Quintus 6,499]

You need to bear in mind that Alan was also possibly just musing for amusement.

I suppose that's fair, but I actually think there's value to what people on different "sides" of this issue have said. Maurizio makes good points about the value of long-term collaboration, and I definitely get his impatience with people who engage in glib psychoanalysis about what is or isn't in Spielberg's head when he's making movies. But I also respond to those who are reckoning with perceived diminishing returns in Spielberg's work as he has aged. I don't think it hurts to explore why that might be the case, just as I don't think it hurts to defend the potential merits of Spielberg's current "aesthetic," as it were.

Exactly.

I happened to agree with your other assessment quite literally.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,388]

Right, the George Lucas argument, to which I'm sympathetic, but then you have Tintin, which seems to turn the argument on its head, at least for certain people (e.g., Quint).

Who's Quint?

The Adventures of Tintin seems to be something of an exception. Not only in Spielberg's recent work, but also his whole oeuvre. Thus far his only animated film, his only digitally shot film, his only 3D film, his only film since the 80's with no involvement from ILM....

[Maurizio 6,913]

Maurizio makes good points about the value of long-term collaboration, and I definitely get his impatience with people who engage in glib psychoanalysis about what is or isn't in Spielberg's head when he's making movies. But I also respond to those who are reckoning with perceived diminishing returns in Spielberg's work as he has aged. I don't think it hurts to explore why that might be the case, just as I don't think it hurts to defend the potential merits of Spielberg's current "aesthetic," as it were.

Don't get me wrong, Alan. I'm all for good and opinionated criticism, especially when it comes from a smart guy like you. I think our respective opinions on this subject matter are much more similar than different. I too recognize that Spielberg went through a major turnaround after the success of Schindler's List for better or worse. I was indeed talking about this very thing on an Italian discussion board recently. I however think that sometimes leaning on a heavy psychological/biographical analysis could be a kind of futile exercise in criticism. The movies themselves are the key point and that's what we always should evaluate more than anything else. In this sense, I think Spielberg made some misguided choices in recent years, striving too much to find the perfect balance between popcorn commercial filmmaking and auteur-like "serious" pieces. With this polarization he painted himself into a corner that's sometimes too narrow. That's why imho Tintin has been perceived (rightfully) as a breath of fresh air--he was outside preconceived formulas and state-of-mind, only enjoying himself with a lighthearted spirit. To use a sentimental catch-phrase, when his heart is fully in it he usually doesn't miss the point.

I'll continue to give Spielberg my own credit of course and I'll always anticipate his new movies with giddy enthusiasm, since he remains one of the truest talent in contemporary film world and one of my all-time favorites. But I've made peace with myself that he already did his own masterworks and he already earned a spot in the pantheon of the greatest film directors in cinema history. I'll be more than happy if he'll strike a good movie once in a while.

EDIT: re-reading my last sentence up here makes me unbearably full of it, as if I know better than Spielberg about making good movies... In the end, for all the great moments he gave to me, he can continue to make "glossy" movies for the rest of his career

[Sandor 918]

Most artists experience a creative peak during their careers. Spielberg had his. I've accepted this long ago and my appreciation of Spielberg is based on his entire oevre, not just his most recent work.

I love Spielberg. Always have, always will. I also love his loyal collaborations. This is what makes him special. Spielberg will easily be remembered as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

And I enjoy every film the man makes. I'm just not expecting another E.T. or Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I am however eagerly awaiting his next projects.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

Spielberg has become like Woody Allen, who makes his one film a year. Always with a stellar cast, always superbly produced and skilfully directed and always good looking. But never quite like Manhattan and Annie Hall.

Midnight In Paris and Match Point are as good as Manhattan and Annie Hall, if not better.

[Sandor 918]

Spielberg has become like Woody Allen, who makes his one film a year. Always with a stellar cast, always superbly produced and skilfully directed and always good looking. But never quite like Manhattan and Annie Hall.

Midnight In Paris and Match Point are as good as Manhattan and Annie Hall, if not better.

I doubt Stefan has seen any of those films.

[publicist 4,650]

Midnight In Paris and Match Point are as good as Manhattan and Annie Hall, if not better.

Yeah, just like erectile dysfunctions are better than a hardswollen phallus.

[Jay 46,244]

If he was making Jaws today, he would probably not go anywhere near the ocean, the shark would be CGI, and he would never have been forced to cut corners, think outside the box, come up with new ideas, compromise.

These days Spielberg gets exactly what he wants.

THIS THIS THIS. This is exactly what I was trying to say

[publicist 4,650]

But it's a hollow argument, Spielberg did great films after JAWS even when he actually could have anything.

It's more plausible to combine different factors: he is mid-60's now and it is only natural that people become more conventional and protective and less risky when they get older. One other thing to consider is that he's part of a very exclusive (and closed) rich-people community in Hollywood and elsewhere - not exactly an environment of innovation and free thinking.

[Brónach 1,330]

If he was making Jaws today, he would probably not go anywhere near the ocean, the shark would be CGI, and he would never have been forced to cut corners, think outside the box, come up with new ideas, compromise.

These days Spielberg gets exactly what he wants.

THIS THIS THIS. This is exactly what I was trying to say

Having limits can be as good if your ideas are bad as it can be bad if your ideas are good.

[A24 5,156]

A creative misfire doesn't necessarily have to signal a new phase.

That why I hinted that JP is not a one-time occasion.

Midnight In Paris and Match Point are as good as Manhattan and Annie Hall, if not better.

In your opinion, of course.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,388]

You still think Crash is a brilliant film, Koray?

[Quintus 6,499]

Also, it's fair to say that Spielberg's output post Schindler's List has still been almost consistently solid in spite of his more... measured approach we tend to see nowadays. I still perk up at new project announcements because mature Spielberg is still top tier Hollywood.

However, Lincoln does look pretty awful.

[Xander Harris 9,677]

Maybe Spielberg tends to work best in more modern settings with relatable environments and people.

Catch Me If You Can and I think War of the Worlds reaffirmed this. They don't feel as overproduced. What worked for them was that they dealt with domestic issues: broken family, deadbeat father, kids running away etc. Spielberg always handles that stuff well. War of the Worlds starts to lose me in the second hour, but the setup is pretty good. Within 15 minutes, we get classic Spielberg character introduction and exposition where we instantly know these people and kind of want to see it out. See: Jaws, E.T., Poltergeist. The man's brilliant at that sort of thing.

I watch Amistad and I have no idea how to feel about any of it. It feels too overproduced and at points soulless, from the greased-up buff slaves to the fake hairstyles and outfits (can no one have a bad Richard Dreyfuss hair day in Spielberg flicks anymore?), actors that seem to be reading lines because the script demands it and Kaminski giving it an overall phoney look.

[Maurizio 6,913]

I'm a bit more hopeful for Lincoln than many of you mainly because it's a project long-desired for Spielberg. If he didn't give up after all the delays and false starts through the years, it means this is something deep and special for him. And of course there's also Tony Kushner's involvement.

[KK 3,313]

Maybe Spielberg tends to work best in more modern settings with relatable environments and people.

Catch Me If You Can and I think War of the Worlds reaffirmed this. They don't feel as overproduced. What worked for them was that they dealt with domestic issues: broken family, deadbeat father, kids running away etc. Spielberg always handles that stuff well. War of the Worlds starts to lose me in the second hour, but the setup is pretty good. Within 15 minutes, we get classic Spielberg character introduction and exposition where we instantly know these people and kind of want to see it out. See: Jaws, E.T., Poltergeist. The man's brilliant at that sort of thing.

I watch Amistad and I have no idea how to feel about any of it. It feels too overproduced and at points soulless, from the greased-up buff slaves to the fake hairstyles and outfits (can no one have a bad Richard Dreyfuss hair day in Spielberg flicks anymore?), actors that seem to be reading lines because the script demands it and Kaminski giving it an overall phoney look.

Good point. Catch Me If You Can certainly suffers a lot less from overproduction that his historical pics.