Nasty zeitgeist

[Figo 2]

Art and entertainment historians are fond of drawing connections between films of a given era and the “spirit of the times” – perhaps best illustrated by the alien invasion movies of the 1950s, commonly believed to have been an outgrowth of commie paranoia. The post-“Star Wars” decade of the late ‘70s and most of the ‘80s yielded feel-good fantasies (“Back to the Future,” “Goonies,” “Harry and the Hendersons,” “Cocoon”) that mirrored the gee-life-is-grand, mindless euphoria of the Reagan years. This is no reflection on the films’ individual merits; some were better than others. There are always exceptions, of course (for example, the subversive slasher movies of the same era), but it could be argued that such digressions deliberately fly in the face of the prevailing zeitgeist.

Now the pendulum appears to have swung back. With an increased reliance on CGI and post-MTV inroads into fast editing, and with the world becoming a more blatantly aggressive place, film technology is being used as never before to bring us the in-your-face brutality and seizure-inducing explosions that now pass for entertainment. Even trailers for “cartoons” like “Racing Stripes” inspire feelings of unpleasantness in those of us cranky old men who used to go to the movies confident that what we were going to witness onscreen wasn’t going to sour our bellies against the delectables we were smuggling under our jackets.

Witness Spielberg’s recent turn to the nasty, with the “Jurassic Park” movies, “A.I.,” and the very bleak “Minority Report.” (“The Terminal,” on the other hand, is pure Capra, which is what I believe at heart Spielberg is all about.) Granted, there were always strains of governmental suspicion running through “CE3K,” “Raiders,” and “E.T.” Murray Hamilton’s character, as mayor, puts economics before public safety in keeping the beaches open in “Jaws.” But not even “Jaws” displayed the nihilism of “Jurassic Park” (the implausible beneficence of Richard Attenborough aside, which I’m told is completely at odds with the more opportunistic character in Crichton’s book), “A.I.,” and now it looks to me like “War of the Worlds.”

Steven Spielberg, the man who gave audiences hope that friendly life exists elsewhere in the universe and that mankind possesses the innate ability to redeem itself through peaceful gestures, has now done an about-face and is ready to sucker-punch us with the ultimate in paranoid, us-versus-them apocalyptic fantasies. Is he really the right man for the job? Or is he still trying to convince his critics, step out from the shadow of his innocuous, bumblegum blockbusters, for which he will nonetheless always be remembered? Whether he does a good job with it or not is moot. It’s bound to be very unpleasant, very aggressive, and a lot of innocent people (though fictional) are going to get hurt for our edification.

If we open our eyes and ears and really pay attention to what’s gone on in the country and around the world for the past few years, both politically and culturally, it’s little surprise that we are now, once again, paranoid about alien invaders. Fortunately, as a counterbalance, we also have the incredible outpouring of humanitarian aid to the tsunami victims, which bucks the trend and gives one hope. Ideologies, it would seem, rather than individuals, have made the world a more hostile place.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

interesting, very interesting, I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing.

[Figo 2]

Ah... the Schulz Defense.

[Melange 446]

Good post, Figo.

[John McClane 1]

Welcome back Figo, after more then 7 months.

What happened to you?!?

Now I'm frequent poster. I changed avatar 3 times and soon I will turn back to my first one, the great Homer-Indy. I just need someone to fix it with Photoshop to stay in our avatar's size limit.

And the board now have some good newbies. One is called SturgisPodmore.

Oh, and this is your first post of the year here, so Happy New Year! LOL

And I reveled my name to the world...hi, Mirko...nice to meet you, again!!

[Figo 2]

Oh -- Mirko! Hi! I was gonna say, what the hell? I don't know any Tommy Johnsons. (I guess now I do.)

I've been very busy. Moved. Started another business. Continuing to do my radio show.

Don't talk to me about avatars. I might have to reinstate Darth Veinous...

Happy New Year.

[Melange 446]

I just need someone to fix it with Photoshop to stay in our avatar's size limit.

Easy Thumbnails - Free Image Re-Sizer

[Lurker 5]

Tommy,

Neil

[John McClane 1]

Adam - Just used it as you can see! Thanks!!

Neil - Ok...just my welcome to Figo! I think I've already saw that smiley somewhere!

Mirko - Back to his first avatar. (Now in high-quality!)

[Steven Awalt 0]

A very interesting topic/post, and well thought and written to boot, Figo, but I'm here to tell you that it's not a complete picture of film history in the 1970s/80s, nor of Steven Spielberg as a filmmaker (imho).

Too many people whitewash the past and far too many people whitewash Spielberg as a filmmaker post-1982. To take things one by one:

The late 1970s and 1980s did have some great optimistic films, perhaps overly optimistic in a lot of ways, but we also had a heck of a lot of "nasty" films too that reflected societal concerns. Despite the popular notion that America under Reagan was filled with all gung-ho can do feelings, let's not forget things that were going on back then. We had energy crises, terrorism (people tend to forget how terrible it was in the late 70s/80s with all the plane hijackings), corruption in government (the travesties of Watergate and Vietnam followed us into the early eighties), social unrest and important fights for equality, highly dangerous drugs spreading in to youth culture, disease (AIDS in particular) and the biggest shadow looming over it all?the threat of nuclear annihilation. If anything, we could say a big thread in the cinema of the time willfully chose to ignore these problems, but there was also plenty of cinema to address them head on or through fantasy cinema (I'm thinking of films as diverse as Apocalypse Now, Silkwood, The Terminator, etc.)

Now on to Spielberg: I think he unfairly acquired that whole Peter Pan syndrome in the press (and at his own hand in ways, honestly) post-E.T., but if we really look at his films, there has always been a nasty streak running hand-in-hand with his optimistic side. That's what I've always loved about him. In a film like Jaws, we see the corruption in our politicians (people don't see how topical this part of Jaws was nowadays, but it was obviously in the forefront of people's minds coming two years off of Watergate), and the brutality of nature, and yet we see the strength of good people standing up against adversity and how this goodness can win out.

We see the same thing throughout Spielberg's filmography: Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders (although technically Indy loses in the end!), Poltergeist, E.T., Temple of Doom, on and on in nearly every film. There's always been a good balanced sense of strong darkness and light in Spielberg's films and to deny this and think that "War" is a big change doesn't seem inclusive of the whole picture. War looks to be another riff on the same song Spielberg's been singing for decades.

Beyond thematic adversity, another thing people tend to overlook (again, post E.T.) is that Spielberg has always had a nasty sense of the macabre. People who were surprised by the grotesquery of Temple of Doom, Jurassic Park, Minority Report, etc. always make me shake my head in wonder. Where were these people when heads, limbs and torso were being torn asunder in Jaws? Where were they when Nazis were kissing propellors, doubling as black top, or just plain old exploding/melting in Raiders? Where were they when tumorous steaks and maggoty chicken legs were on the menu in Poltergeist (not to mention the after meal snack of Marty tearing his face apart in the mirror?all shocks crafted and in the case of Marty's face, physically executed by Spielberg himself!) The shocks in Spielberg's modern and so-called "dark" films are not surprising to me when looking back at the historical precedent sent by Spielberg and his obvious penchant for gore and grue.

Spielberg has been terrifying and edifying audiences with cinematic violence and tension since Duel, so I don't think the destruction we're going to witness in War of the Worlds will be any new development in his oeuvre. It's definitely not a play to win over critics (does anyone honestly think Spielberg gives a hang about winning over critics at this point, if he ever did?I think he'd rather win audiences). It's fair to say it could be a reflection of the times, or more importantly, a reflection of how the times have affected Spielberg as an individual and an artist, but an adaptation of War has been brewing in Spielberg's mind for decades.

For those who think Spielberg is moving into new and trendy territory on the basis of the niceties in CE3K and E.T., now might be a good time to go back and look at Spielberg's filmography through a different set of eyes. If you look for the dark, it's certainly on display in his films. It's been there all along, an intrinsic bedfellow with the light in his films. War will prove no different.

[Ricardo224 0]

If we open our eyes and ears and really pay attention to what?s gone on in the country and around the world for the past few years, both politically and culturally, it?s little surprise that we are now, once again, paranoid about alien invaders.  

Hmm..... I?m not convinced that we are 'paranoid' about alien invaders...

Yes, some things have changed since 9/11 and going through airports has become an even bigger hassle. But I would point you to the recent presidential election. One would think that those living in New York City would be absolutely paranoid about future terrorism and would have voted to keep Bush in office. Bush after all, was tough on terrorism and did not hesitate to send troops to foreign countries in order to fight terrorists on their own turf. Bush definitely came across as being tougher on terrorism than Kerry did. And yet, most New Yorkers voted to kick Bush out of office.

They did not give in to 'paranoia'.

I do agree that Hollywood has taken on a more darker, fatalistic tone as of late (I Robot, Matrix, Terminator, AI, etc.) However, I think this has more to do with ever advancing technologies than current events. You know, the ?computers/robots have determined that humans are a disease that must be eliminated? syndrome.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I do agree that Hollywood has taken on a more darker, fatalistic tone as of late (I Robot, Matrix, Terminator, AI, etc.) However, I think this has more to do with ever advancing technologies than current events. You know, the ?computers/robots have determined that humans are a disease that must be eliminated? syndrome.

none of that is new, Terminator is 20 years old, and Colossus: The Forbin Project is 36 years old, and it too was fatalistic about man and computers.

I'm not sure the Spielberg making WotW is a relection of the change in Spielberg or the times, but rather a topical film set in the current time. It does not need to be a political statement, after all it is a 21st century retelling of a 19th century science fiction novel. If there is blame to place we must first start with Well's for his decision to kill mankind through alien invasion.

And besides bad aliens have been around for along time, remember the original War of the Worlds, This Island Earth, It Came from Outer Space, and the original The Thing from Another World. Since we've had a remake of the The Thing, almost as brilliant as the original, 2 classics Alien, and Aliens, and others. I'm looking at this movie as a popcorn film with style and substance, you know cooked in a pan with oil and real butter, rather than like most today cooked in a hot air machine or microwave, and that nasty butter flavored coconut oil.

[Figo 2]

I'm glad to see this thread has garnered some thoughtful responses. I recognized as I was writing my post that its logic was not exactly airtight (and I expressed as much to another member in private), but it's been something that has been percolating in the back of my mind for some time, only to come to the fore with War of the Worlds. It might have been argued better, I’ll be the first to admit, but I think there’s a fair amount of truth to it.

Steven Await. You can't tell an effective story without pitting a resourceful underdog against the powers-that-be. It's a very old technique. In fact, part of my problem with the casting of Cruise is that he’s simply not believable as an everyman, along the lines of Roy Scheider or Richard Dreyfuss, or even Craig T. Nelson.

I certainly don't discount Vietnam, Watergate, the gas crunch, or the Iran hostage crisis when appraising these films. And yes, I've always thought it incredible that something like Star Wars would come out of the era. But, like the slasher films I mention, it plays, in some respects, against current events. I suppose it's possible to view just about any film in the context of its era and pinpoint elements which reflect the prevailing zeitgeist and others which are, in fact, a subversion of it. By the way, I did live through it -- I vividly recall my uncles’ draft notices, watched Nixon's resignation on television, remember Khomeini -- and I don't think I'm whitewashing. I remember TMI, Iran-Contra, the advent of AIDS. I remember MOVE. I saw most of the major Vietnam-inspired movies, the gritty Scorsese films, and so on and so forth.

Perhaps you are right that I am not giving Spielberg's penchant for darkness its due, but to tell you the truth, at the time, I remember finding specific moments of nastiness particularly jarring in the context of the larger films (propellor splatter, face meltings, etc.). I always attributed the face-peeling to Tobe Hooper, but I suppose you could be right. It's just the moment of "Spielbergian awe" – which doesn't always work as well as it did at the end of CE3K -- and cringe-worthy misfires like Hook that tend to linger in the memory moreso than Pat Roach getting crushed to death by a millstone. Very interesting.

I do think Spielberg still cares about critical respect. Perhaps less so since he’s received his Oscars. He’s still characterized in the media as a kind of maudlin Peter Pan.

Riccardo224 still wanted him out, after all they went through, what does that tell you? The average American, not the guy shoved down a rabbit hole by the secret service, is the one who will always take the fall for our leaders’ shortsightedness. And this is the nicest way I can put it. No, the enemy, in this instance, comes from within, although there’s certainly an abundance of war abroad.

Joe needn’t be an overt political statement. The very fact of its being made at all is a statement in itself, above and beyond anything the filmmaker may have intended.

That said, I too have a hankering for good popcorn – something in very short supply these days.