Are some of Spielberg-movies too sentimental???

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Yet directed by Spielberg.

It was one of the few scenes from the movie that kubrick fully described and scripted, IIRC what Spielberg said. Steven just executed what Kubrick wanted.

[A24 4,351]

(just as I wouldn't want to see E.T. by Kubrick).

A.I. is sorta kinda Kubrick's E.T.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8121900764.html

Yet another critic takes a potshot at Spielberg's supposed lack of fealty to emotional reality:

The constant revisiting of the Holocaust, via new and inventive narrative avenues, is an attempt to put a happy -- or happier -- ending on one of the most horrifying episodes in human history. By locating and magnifying some germ of human charity (e.g., "Schindler's List") we somehow are led to believe that, even in the midst of a national murder spree, there was hope. Kindness. Humanity. It makes sense that Steven Spielberg -- who, for all his greatness, is an emotional anesthesiologist -- would construct such a story.

But as Stanley Kubrick famously said, the Holocaust was about 6 million who died; "Schindler's List" was about 600 who didn't. "Valkyrie" is about nobility and courage among perpetrators of great horror. And another new exercise in wish-fulfillment, "Defiance" -- a kind of Spartacus-Robin Hood story in which rebellious Jews live in the woods of Belorussia -- would like to argue that if Europe's Jews had only had more guns and considerably more homicidal instinct, the entire Holocaust might never have happened. It's a kind of chastisement and, unfortunately for everyone, nothing to laugh about.

Hmm. I certainly see his point, and it's a fine line between portraying such a horrific subject with a glimmer of hope and just downplaying the absoute horror of it all. But still, the fact is that in times of suffering and anguish, there often is hope (or kindness, or humanity, or whatever you want to call it). And I think it's good to acknowledge that in the face of such tragedies.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Absolutely, Ray. What's so wrong with pointing out that even in one of the most EVIL regimes the world had ever known, there were still good people doing good things. Yes, 6 million Jews died, but thanks to Schindler, there were at least 600 Hitler never got his hands on and I'm quite sure the descendants of those 600 Jews are eternally grateful. Again, that's the appeal of Spielberg. He doesn't like leaving his audience feeling horrible.

There was a cute cat in a murder scene, though.

I think the cat was catapulted across the city, or something...

[Luke Skywalker 1,796]

Absolutely, Ray. What's so wrong with pointing out that even in one of the most EVIL regimes the world had ever known, there were still good people doing good things. Yes, 6 million Jews died, but thanks to Schindler, there were at least 600 Hitler never got his hands on and I'm quite sure the descendants of those 600 Jews are eternally grateful. Again, that's the appeal of Spielberg. He doesn't like leaving his audience feeling horrible.

There was a cute cat in a murder scene, though.

I think the cat was catapulted across the city, or something...

That movies is somewhat an hommage to Schindler by the Jews that are alive thanks to him.

Isnt worse in this regard 'La vita e bella'?

How can you make a comedy inside a concentration camp?

Yet that movie is also very beautiful.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Ending to War Of The Worlds sucked, massive deus ex machina when Tom Cruise's son emerges from the house after being seemingly killed in a massive explosion hundreds of miles away.

[Henry B 50]

Yet directed by Spielberg.

It was one of the few scenes from the movie that kubrick fully described and scripted, IIRC what Spielberg said. Steven just executed what Kubrick wanted.

Really? I can't believe it! The script of the final scenes is absurd. Reviving people for only one day... space time pathways... Monica forgetting about her family and inexplicably loving David at last... David "dying" ... it all felt so contrived and illogical. Unlike many I don't fundamentally disagree with the extra ending's existence in the first place. Is there anything more heart-wrenchingly bleak than a frozen world devoid of life? It could have been done very differently, though.

At least the music is pure bliss. "Stored Memories," "David and the Supermeca," Monica's theme... wow.

[Red 75]

The ending to A.I. can be very disturbing depending on how you look at it.

[Henry B 50]

Agreed.

[Hlao-roo 389]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8121900764.html

Yet another critic takes a potshot at Spielberg's supposed lack of fealty to emotional reality:

The constant revisiting of the Holocaust, via new and inventive narrative avenues, is an attempt to put a happy -- or happier -- ending on one of the most horrifying episodes in human history. By locating and magnifying some germ of human charity (e.g., "Schindler's List") we somehow are led to believe that, even in the midst of a national murder spree, there was hope. Kindness. Humanity. It makes sense that Steven Spielberg -- who, for all his greatness, is an emotional anesthesiologist -- would construct such a story.

But as Stanley Kubrick famously said, the Holocaust was about 6 million who died; "Schindler's List" was about 600 who didn't. "Valkyrie" is about nobility and courage among perpetrators of great horror. And another new exercise in wish-fulfillment, "Defiance" -- a kind of Spartacus-Robin Hood story in which rebellious Jews live in the woods of Belorussia -- would like to argue that if Europe's Jews had only had more guns and considerably more homicidal instinct, the entire Holocaust might never have happened. It's a kind of chastisement and, unfortunately for everyone, nothing to laugh about.

Hmm. I certainly see his point, and it's a fine line between portraying such a horrific subject with a glimmer of hope and just downplaying the absoute horror of it all. But still, the fact is that in times of suffering and anguish, there often is hope (or kindness, or humanity, or whatever you want to call it). And I think it's good to acknowledge that in the face of such tragedies.

Steven Spielberg, "emotional anesthesiologist"? That's both a serious charge and a cheap shot that he tosses in there all too easily because he can. Even more glaring is that he implies that Spielberg is distorting reality and engaging in "wish fulfillment" simply by choosing a particular story to tell. I think it says something about your worldview when you believe that to deny the basic human (or perhaps, divine) impulse toward hope is to somehow be truer and more honest and more mature.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Really? I can't believe it! The script of the final scenes is absurd. Reviving people for only one day... space time pathways... Monica forgetting about her family and inexplicably loving David at last... David "dying" ... it all felt so contrived and illogical. Unlike many I don't fundamentally disagree with the extra ending's existence in the first place. Is there anything more heart-wrenchingly bleak than a frozen world devoid of life? It could have been done very differently, though.

Is that not the point of the scene? Even if you are one hundred percent sure that it actually takes place outside of David's mind, is it not supposed to make you think about the improbability of dreams coming true?

[Henry B 50]

Maybe... maybe.

[Ollie 1,059]

Frankly I thought Minority Report should have ended with Cruise being imprisoned. In fact, the way the scene was put together, I thought the film was over the first time I saw it.

He does have a tendency to get too sentimental. Most of the time it works.

[Hitch 57]

Name me one Spielberg movie that had a sad ending

Jaws, when Brody blew up the poor shark.

Don't forget Duel

[Josh500 1,615]

Name me one Spielberg movie that had a sad ending

Jaws, when Brody blew up the poor shark.

Don't forget Duel

The poor truck!! How I cried when I first saw that...

[Hlao-roo 389]

E.T. is bittersweet -- saying good-bye to the best friend you've ever had.

[publicist 4,643]

'Schindler's List' is the only instance of a ruined ending by means of a well-meaning, but horribly misguided kitsch scene.

In all other instances, the accompanying films had enough other problems.

Except for 'Jaws', of course.

[Dole 17]

The Sugarland Express has a sad ending, but Zanuck said he had to force Spielberg to keep it that way because at the last moment Spielberg wanted to change it to a happy ending.

I think the worst bit of Spielberg sentimentality for me was War of the Worlds.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Name me one Spielberg movie that had a sad ending

Jaws, when Brody blew up the poor shark.

Don't forget Duel

The poor truck!! How I cried when I first saw that...

Not only that, but I for one felt miserable knowing what a long and arduous journey our protagonist would have to embark on. At least Brody and Hooper arrive on the island safely. What if the guy in "Duel" gets mugged? We would never know....

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

E.T. is bittersweet -- saying good-bye to the best friend you've ever had.

I think Minority Report is the same way. Though Anderton and his wife get back together, the subplot involving their missing son is never resolved. Hell, judging from the ending of WOTW Spielberg probably regretted this. Then there's the Witwer character. He's introduced as this unlikeable antagonist for Anderton, but over the course of the film as he leads the investigation he becomes more likeable and eventually realizes they're chasing the wrong man. I never liked his death because he was one of the few genuinely good guys. The pre-cogs being isolated from the world wasn't exactly happy.

[DarthDave 1]

I don't know...I'll take Spielberg's warmness and sentimentality any day over Kubrick's coldness and lack of humanity.

I wouldn't want to see a warm and sentimental 2001 (just as I wouldn't want to see E.T. by Kubrick).

All I wanted was a 2001 with a real ending. Can't stand that movie....

Can't stand Clockwork Orange, can't stand Eyes Wide Shut, can't stand Dr. Strangelove. My favorite Kubrick movie is Spartacus.

Kubrick should have just stuck to cinematography IMO.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

You may be subject to very violent threats now.... ( I myself have only seen a few Stanley Kubrick films, and they were not too bad. He was certainly visionary.)

[Red 75]

The Sugarland Express has a sad ending, but Zanuck said he had to force Spielberg to keep it that way because at the last moment Spielberg wanted to change it to a happy ending.

I think the worst bit of Spielberg sentimentality for me was War of the Worlds.

Yes, that was tacked-on and cheap. An unfortunate mistake on what was otherwise a good movie I thought.

[A24 4,351]

Yet directed by Spielberg.

It was one of the few scenes from the movie that kubrick fully described and scripted, IIRC what Spielberg said. Steven just executed what Kubrick wanted.

Really? I can't believe it! The script of the final scenes is absurd. Reviving people for only one day... space time pathways... Monica forgetting about her family and inexplicably loving David at last... David "dying" ... it all felt so contrived and illogical. Unlike many I don't fundamentally disagree with the extra ending's existence in the first place. Is there anything more heart-wrenchingly bleak than a frozen world devoid of life? It could have been done very differently, though.

Actually, in Kubrick's ending, the father, the mother and the appartment are all virtual. They are recreated from David's memory. The father is less detailed than the mother, and some places of the apartment are nothing more than holes in the wall. In the last scene, David is with his mother in her bedroom. For some reason, the technique only works for a short time and David watches how his mother slowly disappears. THE END.

You may be subject to very violent threats now.... ( I myself have only seen a few Stanley Kubrick films, and they were not too bad. He was certainly visionary.)

The problem is that Kubrick's films are a little bit too smart for most people. A lot of people don't like to feel stupid so to them Kubrick is out of the question.

In any case, Kubrick is a master when it comes to focus and control, it's almost intimidating.

Alex

[Williamsfan301 11]

In any case, Kubrick is a master when it comes to focus ...

Alex

Yeah, especially the focus he had on Nicole Kidman's gaflavatties! GIGGITY!!

[Hitch 57]

Can't stand Clockwork Orange, can't stand Eyes Wide Shut, can't stand Dr. Strangelove. My favorite Kubrick movie is Spartacus.

What about Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon and Full Metal Jacket?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I like Kubrick better when he has either a studio or Kirk Douglas telling him what to do.

[Romão 2,274]

The problem is that Kubrick's films are a little bit too smart for most people. A lot of people don't like to feel stupid so to them Kubrick is out of the question.

In any case, Kubrick is a master when it comes to focus and control, it's almost intimidating.

Alex

I'll be the first to admit Kubrick's films are too smart for me, but I've greatly impressed and awed by them, even if I feel I'm never quite getting the full picture. But some of them speak to very profound and primal feelings. 2001 can be transcendent

[Ollie 1,059]

I think Kubrick works best with satire. Lolita & Dr. Strangelove are my two favorites from him. The Shining & A Clockwork Orange, the latter is actually quite humorous at times, are two films I also enjoy. I love Spartacus but it doesn't feel like a true Kubrick film at times.

[Maestro 147]

It would seem that, upon analysis, many of Spielberg's endings are not "happy" at all. Lack of resolution, finality mixed with bitterness or loss, etc. Perhaps it is the look, feel, and yes even the music that make it seem like everything worked out warm and fuzzy.

I, however, prefer Spielberg's (typical) vision that finds hope and joy even in the most dismal circumstances.

[A24 4,351]

I think Kubrick works best with satire. Lolita & Dr. Strangelove are my two favorites from him. The Shining & A Clockwork Orange, the latter is actually quite humorous at times, are two films I also enjoy. I love Spartacus but it doesn't feel like a true Kubrick film at times.

I too love Lolita. On the other hand, Dr. Strangelove is one of my least favorites. Don't like the bits in the plane. Perhaps I'm too stupid.

You're right to point out that Spartacus doesn't feel like a Kubrick film. Perhaps that's why Kubrick sorta denounced the film.

Alex

[DarthDave 1]

I don't think Kubrick's films are too smart for me; in fact I find that insulting. I absolutely get what he's trying to do in most of them, and I know when he's trying to be purposely vague...I just don't like his wooden, emotionless, cold films.

I do sometimes watch them for framing, lighting, etc. He was a master at that. And some of his films had good parts. I particularly liked the middle section of 2001.

But as far as making a film that is consistently good from beginning to end, only Spartacus hit the mark for me.

Probably comes down to personal taste. But don't say that I just don't understand his films because I'm too stupid. I think sometimes it's an "Emperor that has no Clothes" situation... a lot of people don't like his movies, but they pretend to so as to seem sophisticated.

I'm just calling it the way I see it. And I absolutely respect anyone who truly enjoys these types of movies. Everyone's different....

You're right to point out that Spartacus doesn't feel like a Kubrick film. Perhaps that's why Kubrick sorta denounced the film.

That's probably why I like it;)

[Williamsfan301 11]

Don't sell yourselves short. NO Hollywood director is smarter than anyone else.

On Kubrick's satire, I agree. I love the depiction of Gun. Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket. I know I'm not supposed to laugh as he cusses the recruits out, but I just can't help myself when I watch it. "Suck a golfball through a garden hose".

[Morlock 11]

Kubrick blows most great directors out of the water. Compared to his filmmaking, everyone else is just playing games, occaisionally achieving something intrinsically filmic. One of his films contains more than 10 others by anyone else (as Scorsese has noted). Even the less successful ones exist on a level of filmmaking that is staggering. He is beyond talk of sentimental (as is the best of Spielberg's work. His trouble with endings is almost entirely beside the point if one wishes to actually understand his filmmaking, not just label it).

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Oh, Stanley Kubrick directed "Doctor Strangelove"? I have not seen it in years, but I have very fond memories of it....My opinion of this Kubrick character has increased.

EDIT: Forgive me if I sound novice, Morlock, but what does it mean when you say "intrinsically filmic"?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Kubrick blows most great directors out of the water. Compared to his filmmaking, everyone else is just playing games, occaisionally achieving something intrinsically filmic. One of his films contains more than 10 others by anyone else (as Scorsese has noted). Even the less successful ones exist on a level of filmmaking that is staggering. He is beyond talk of sentimental (as is the best of Spielberg's work. His trouble with endings is almost entirely beside the point if one wishes to actually understand his filmmaking, not just label it).

He has a trouble with endings? Nothing I've noticed. Kubrick is one of my favorite directors, up there with Leone and Hitchcock. The Shining is the only film to ever actually scare me. Although The Exorcist kinda did that as well.

[A24 4,351]

I think Morlock was referring to Spielberg and the many comments on his endings. Kubrick's endings are great!

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Wait, Stanley Kubrick directed "The Shining", too? The one with Jack Nicholson, right?

[Hlao-roo 389]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic?r=75

Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/filmic?r=75

Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of motion pictures

Kubrick's films are more of or relating to the essential nature of that which is of, pertaining to, or characteristic of motion pictures. It's that simple.

[Morlock 11]

Kubrick blows most great directors out of the water. Compared to his filmmaking, everyone else is just playing games, occaisionally achieving something intrinsically filmic. One of his films contains more than 10 others by anyone else (as Scorsese has noted). Even the less successful ones exist on a level of filmmaking that is staggering. He is beyond talk of sentimental (as is the best of Spielberg's work. His trouble with endings is almost entirely beside the point if one wishes to actually understand his filmmaking, not just label it).

He has a trouble with endings? Nothing I've noticed. Kubrick is one of my favorite directors, up there with Leone and Hitchcock. The Shining is the only film to ever actually scare me. Although The Exorcist kinda did that as well.

I was referring to Spielberg.

EDIT: Forgive me if I sound novice, Morlock, but what does it mean when you say "intrinsically filmic"?

I mean something that is not rooted in literature or painting or theater. Something that at every point is pure film, alive with idea of creating this moment on film, not recreating something, not approximating something, but creating it for the first time on this particular film. It is a level of ambition that most directors seem to work at sporadically, and only rarely succeed at (a reason that There Will Be Blood made such a dent on me and many others. It's pitched at the same level of ambition as a Kubrick film).

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I do have trouble with some Kubricks, and I do agree that he is far too smart for a lot of viewers (myself included). My favourite of his is THE SHINING (although I don't think it's as good as THE EXORCIST), and 2001, which I am in awe of, despite the fact I seem to always fall asleep when I watch it. I remember STRANGELOVE being great, but I haven't seen it in a while.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Wait, Stanley Kubrick directed "The Shining", too? The one with Jack Nicholson, right?

Yes.

Eyes Wide Shut

Full Metal Jacket

2001: A Space Odyssey

A Clockwork Orange

The Shining

Spartacus

Barry Lyndon

Lolita

Dr. Strangelove

Am I missing any?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I am trying to decide if you are being sarcastic or not. I appreciate the English lesson for the day, but are you being sarcastic with the sentences below the definitions?

EDIT: I am not sure if this post deserves to remain undeleted or not.

[Hlao-roo 389]

I'm also one of those too dumb to grasp Kubrick, and I don't mean that ironically.

[Morlock 11]

Wait, Stanley Kubrick directed "The Shining", too? The one with Jack Nicholson, right?

Yes.

Eyes Wide Shut

Full Metal Jacket

2001: A Space Odyssey

A Clockwork Orange

The Shining

Spartacus

Barry Lyndon

Lolita

Dr. Strangelove

Am I missing any?

His first four films, yes. Paths of Glory, The Killing, Killer's Kiss, Fear and Desire.

[Hlao-roo 389]

I am trying to decide if you are being sarcastic or not. I appreciate the English lesson for the day, but are you being sarcastic with the sentences below the definitions?

EDIT: I am not sure if this post deserves to remain undeleted or not.

Obviously, Morlock put it better than I did, but I think its worth looking at the denotative meanings of words when we toss abstract terms around. Ask yourself what the essence of cinema is -- that which distinguishes it from other art or media -- and consider how Kubrick might construct his films using that conceit as a foundation.

[A24 4,351]

I mean something that is not rooted in literature or painting or theater. Something that at every point is pure film, alive with idea of creating this moment on film, not recreating something, not approximating something, but creating it for the first time on this particular film. It is a level of ambition that most directors seem to work at sporadically, and only rarely succeed at (a reason that There Will Be Blood made such a dent on me and many others. It's pitched at the same level of ambition as a Kubrick film).

Ah, film in its purest form. "Intrinsically filmic" ... I like the sound of that. It's also one of the reasons why I love BR so much. You simply can't envision this film by merely reading the script. That said, Scott doesn't possess Kubrick's immense talent for the narrative.

Alex

[publicist 4,643]

I mean something that is not rooted in literature or painting or theater. Something that at every point is pure film, alive with idea of creating this moment on film, not recreating something, not approximating something, but creating it for the first time on this particular film. It is a level of ambition that most directors seem to work at sporadically, and only rarely succeed at (a reason that There Will Be Blood made such a dent on me and many others. It's pitched at the same level of ambition as a Kubrick film).

Still, this sounds as if every minute Kubrick ever put to film is ripe with divine inspiration. This very notion bored me out of some seminars while being at university. Of course, Kubrick, too, has his misgivings and not-too-good ideas - Alex mentioned the 'Dr. Strangelove' scenes in the bomber and i wholeheartedly agree.

While i find Kubrick's place in cinema's pantheon well-deserved, it's this very balance of praising and criticizing (in the sense of evaluating a work with a critical eye) what makes film theory interesting, anyway. I find it always fishy if someone only finds good things in something...but this may the good 'ole german negativity in me.

[Morlock 11]

I think it is a different way of looking at it. Of course there are many elements in many Kubrick films that I don't like, or don't care for, or am bored by. But there's a feeling of an artist at work, making no compromises. He is a director who consistantly crystalizes that film is an artform. I love film, and never thought otherwise...but he is the only director who shows me the potential of the artform with every single film. It's beyond liking any given film. He instills in me a love for the medium. That's why, for instance, the Coen Brothers are my favorite living filmmakers. It's not that every film of theirs is great. But every film is filled with a love and awe for the medium, not just story, writing, editing, cinemtography, structure, comedy or tragedy. Neither filmmakers are condescending to their medium. Also- I don't belive that either of them are condescending to their audience. To their characters- sure. But they are trying to share their fascination with their audience.

[publicist 4,643]

That's why, for instance, the Coen Brothers are my favorite living filmmakers. It's not that every film of theirs is great. But every film is filled with a love and awe for the medium, not just story, writing, editing, cinemtography, structure, comedy or tragedy. Neither filmmakers are condescending to their medium. Also- I don't belive that either of them are condescending to their audience. To their characters- sure. But they are trying to share their fascination with their audience.

I think their love affair wih 'hot stars' (Clooney, Pitt) robs them a little bit of their best traits. The Josh Brolin role in 'No Country for old Men' was miles better than what they could do with Clooney/Pitt in 'Burn after Reading', which was marketed as a star vehicle.