#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/terry-gilliam-talks-the-simplistic-films-of-steven-spielberg-dumbing-down-of-audiences-don-quixote-start-date-more-20140107 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,068 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Who is more simplistic? He who is oblivious to the small elements of hope and human success even within the great failure of the holocaust, or he who can see the complexity of that failure?Gilliam can't come up with a valid criticism to save his ass. He's a fuzzy panderer."Spielberg is simplistic. Not grown up." How? Where's the analysis! Not some fuzzy blanket bull shit.Gilliam thinks Hollywood should strive to be better.So what? Who the hell is saying Hollywood should strive to be worse?He has said nothing that a politician couldn't improvise on the campaign trail.And I don't particularly like Spielberg or his films. That's why someone like Gilliam is frustrating. He spouts crap without evidence or detailed analysis. There are valid criticisms of Spielberg. And then there's this politician level drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Professional jealousy is so Terry Gilliam. As they say in a particular SS film, zero charisma. Not Mr. Big 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 7,492 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Isn't this quote YEARS old? I remember we discussed awhile back.In any case, Gilliam is free to have his opinion. I do not share it, but it's his right. Doesn't really make me a lesser Gilliam fan because of it...nor a lesser Spielberg fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,346 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Well there's thishttp://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20760 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Generally speaking, Gilliams has a point. People are seeing the same film over and over again. But why he singles out Spielberg is beyond me. I do appreciate his candidness.Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 He singles out Spielberg because he is an easy target. The opposite of Kubrick in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Gilliam support of Kubrick's ill considered opinion/statement concerning Schindler's List is laughable. Both deserve ridicule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixon Hill 4,234 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It's always comical when artists decide to go at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Gilliam clearly deeply respects the director, but just wishes he'd be less of a conservative filmmaker, which Spielberg has definitely become. But I think Gilliam goes wrong with his apparent notion that an artist should always be capable of reinventing themselves. When one is living well into their autumn years, I should imagine the hipster hunger is greatly diminished - once the wisdom granted by decades of experience has settled in. Spielberg is just content to make the most sophisticated "simple" movies in the history of cinema, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joni Wiljami 1,206 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Well, at least Stevie's films has heart and soul, which cannot be said about TG's flicks.And that Monty Python stuff is very much dated, made by ignorant besserwissers. Humor for nerds.You started this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,068 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 They are two very different film makers with two very different tastes. Gilliam doesn't get that. Dixon Hill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 7,492 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Well, at least Stevie's films has heart and soul, which cannot be said about TG's flicks.And that Monty Python stuff is very much dated, made by ignorant besserwissers. Humor for nerds.You started this.Ouch. In that case I'm a happy nerd. Monthy Python is maybe my alltime favourite comedy act. But in any case, Gilliam really only provided the animations. It was the others (mostly Cleese and Chapman) who wrote the material.I also think there's plenty of heart and soul in Gilliam's films (BRAZIL, anyone?), but of a different kind than Spielberg's. Once 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkissimo 1,973 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Gilliam's turning into a bit of a broken record, ain't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 That as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Ironically, Gillian is fighting windmills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,068 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 They are two very different film makers with two very different tastes. Gilliam doesn't get that.And that effectively means Gilliam is bitching about a director's personality manifesting in his film. In which case he is the worst offender. Dixon Hill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Yes. Gilliam's films are all very Gilliam! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkissimo 1,973 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Ironically, Gillian is fighting windmills.It's tilting at windmills. Get you idioms right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 What's an idiom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharkissimo 1,973 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 A common saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Oy! You callin' me common?You tosser! Dixon Hill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Film flows through Spielberg's veins. Gilliam sorta strikes me as a frustrated painter who wants to make great movies but just doesn't have "it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixon Hill 4,234 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Stefan, it's "Oi!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 I'm part Jewish.It's Oy for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixon Hill 4,234 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It's all about context! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Anti-semite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixon Hill 4,234 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Nonsense. I'm from New York. I'm an honorary Jew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic the Prince of Tides had neither a prince or tides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 You are right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 And where was the fishing king in The Fisher King?It's bloody misleading! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricard 2,245 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I also think there's plenty of heart and soul in Gilliam's films (BRAZIL, anyone?)YES! (see my avatar ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Donna Lackluster 23 Posted January 7, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted January 7, 2014 For one thing, Gilliam has a point - as always. We are all right in the middle of the trend he describes. If you deny it you've probably surrendered yourself to blockbuster booming. Personally, I've seen like, what, 7 1/2 Harry Potter movies in 10 years - and I can't remember a single scene.For another thing, Gilliam's favorite scapegoat has always been Spielberg. A love-hate relationship that seems to go back to the early 80s. Gilliam has stated many times overdecades that he dislikes Spielberg's films for being too saccharine and so on, and that "Schindler's List" would trivialize the holocaust. That's a good point, although I believeSchindler's List still is the best-made film about the Holocaust, and that the Hollywood formula of putting things on its head (the good Nazi, the rescue of the Jews instead of whathappened to the rest of them) - just to tell a better STORY - worked fine for this particular film.The problem I have with Gilliam is that he's just repeating his age-old argument with Spielberg (to which Spielberg never responded) - which goes back to the 80s when Spielbergwas still king of the box office and he wasn't. Watch the Making-of Tideland where he clearly admits that it's just envy on his part. I don't think he he even saw a Spielberg movie since the 1990s. He's constantly referring to trends and films from 20 years ago - imagine! What's more, neither Gilliam nor Spielbergare still relevant in today's filmmaking world, while both men simply don't seem to realize it. You have to admit it, even if you love their classic movies from the past.Personally, I adore both directors, but not what they've done after "Schindler's List" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". Sharkissimo, Glóin the Dark and Ricard 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Once 605 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Did any of you actually watch the interview? It was very interesting, and he clearly says that he's jealous of Spielberg, because he's so good at what he does, but at the same time he just thinks he's a bit too simplistic. Glóin the Dark and Ricard 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Once and Sharkissimo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixon Hill 4,234 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It is as BloodyBowl says. Discussion here must take root in specious assumptions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,068 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 How is Spielberg simplistic? It's bullshit.Saccharine, absolutely. But simplistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 452 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Did any of you actually watch the interview? It was very interesting, and he clearly says that he's jealous of Spielberg, because he's so good at what he does, but at the same time he just thinks he's a bit too simplistic.There's nothing wrong with being simplistic. Not every film has to be complex AND thought-provoking, and a simple well-told story is more accessible to audiences. I think what Gilliam is trying to say is that Spielberg tends to make films with a singular and/or universal themes. There's nothing wrong with that in itself.I'm not going to apply that to every Spielberg film, but his fingerprints are present in some form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,068 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Again I think you all and Gilliam are confusing saccharine with simplistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 The problem I have with Gilliam is that he's just repeating his age-old argument with Spielberg (to which Spielberg never responded) - which goes back to the 80s when Spielbergwas still king of the box office and he wasn't. Watch the Making-of Tideland where he clearly admits that it's just envy on his part. Spielberg responding to that would seem like bullying probably. Even though he hasn't been either the king of the box office, or popular audience sweetheart for quite a while now.Has Spielberg ever responded to his critics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Spielberg doesn't have to respond to fuck all and he can sleep easily at night knowing that as a living legend he can do whatever the fuck he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 Same as me, but this place would not have been as much fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Lackluster 23 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Terry Gilliam turned down the chance of directing Roger Rabbit. Gilliam later admitted, “I completely regret that decision." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post mrbellamy 6,278 Posted January 8, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted January 8, 2014 Gilliam support of Kubrick's ill considered opinion/statement concerning Schindler's List is laughable. Both deserve ridicule.The whole problem with everyone who throws that quote around is that it wasn't ever meant as a criticism of Schindler's List. According to Jan Harlan (edit: Frederic Raphael, actually, my mistake) who it should be noted, is the actual source of the quote -- he was paraphrasing a private conversation, Kubrick never made the statement publicly -- Kubrick was frustrated about his Aryan Papers film and became convinced that a movie that encompassed the scope and tragedy of the Holocaust could never be made. When Raphael brought up Schindler's List, Kubrick's argument was that it wasn't about the Holocaust, but about success, and only gave relative glimpses of the horror in order to set up Schindler's story. His point was that even Schindler's List had to approach the Holocaust from a different, more specific angle, and likely no film could ever truly confront the subject, and that realization led Kubrick to abandoning Aryan Papers. But people like Gilliam have twisted it since then to mean that Kubrick thought Spielberg had somehow failed as a responsible artist and had made a gooey movie based on tragedy and laced it up with a bow made out of thousand dollar bills. Glóin the Dark, Not Mr. Big, Donna Lackluster and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 452 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Again I think you all and Gilliam are confusing saccharine with simplistic.Maybe you're right. It's one of Spielberg's detractors... as War of the Worlds demonstrates with that horrible ending. Even Schindler's List wasn't completely devoid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna Lackluster 23 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Fascinating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK 3,307 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The problem I have with Gilliam is that he's just repeating his age-old argument with Spielberg (to which Spielberg never responded) - which goes back to the 80s when Spielbergwas still king of the box office and he wasn't. Watch the Making-of Tideland where he clearly admits that it's just envy on his part. Spielberg responding to that would seem like bullying probably. Even though he hasn't been either the king of the box office, or popular audience sweetheart for quite a while now.Has Spielberg ever responded to his critics?Spielberg responded to a number of criticisms thrown at Schindler's List. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt C 452 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I think David Mamet called Schindler's List "emotional porn." I mean, really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
publicist 4,643 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 A lot of people, american jews in particular, made statements about SL that bordered on insanity and outrageousness which is not unusual if a film about a important part of history comes out - but one by Spielberg, that made it vicious. As always, the riot died dawn and the film survived, smelling like roses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 For one thing, Gilliam has a point - as always. We are all right in the middle of the trend he describes. If you deny it you've probably surrendered yourself to blockbuster booming. Personally, I've seen like, what, 7 1/2 Harry Potter movies in 10 years - and I can't remember a single scene.For another thing, Gilliam's favorite scapegoat has always been Spielberg. A love-hate relationship that seems to go back to the early 80s. Gilliam has stated many times overdecades that he dislikes Spielberg's films for being too saccharine and so on, and that "Schindler's List" would trivialize the holocaust. That's a good point, although I believeSchindler's List still is the best-made film about the Holocaust, and that the Hollywood formula of putting things on its head (the good Nazi, the rescue of the Jews instead of whathappened to the rest of them) - just to tell a better STORY - worked fine for this particular film.The problem I have with Gilliam is that he's just repeating his age-old argument with Spielberg (to which Spielberg never responded) - which goes back to the 80s when Spielbergwas still king of the box office and he wasn't. Watch the Making-of Tideland where he clearly admits that it's just envy on his part. I don't think he he even saw a Spielberg movie since the 1990s. He's constantly referring to trends and films from 20 years ago - imagine! What's more, neither Gilliam nor Spielbergare still relevant in today's filmmaking world, while both men simply don't seem to realize it. You have to admit it, even if you love their classic movies from the past.Personally, I adore both directors, but not what they've done after "Schindler's List" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".Thanks for putting it all into perspective. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now