Directors - Steven Spielberg (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

Exactly. Oskar Schindler is a clear cut hero, with no ambiguity about his character whatsoever.

 

[AlexCremers]

Ernest,

Kubrick indeed does emotions but I think you're wrong if you would assume that the average Spielberg fan, the fans of 'Temple of Doom' and 'Jurassic Park' understand Kubrick's language. Many of those kids, brought up with the films of Spielberg and Lucas, are used to one type of storytelling, namely, the exaggerated type ... a type where good is undeniably good and evil is undeniably evil. It's storytelling which is mostly served with two baby spoons on a silver platter. Spielberg has decided for us what we, the audience, should feel: Be scared! Be happy! Laugh! Cry! He places the emotional marks (usually uncomplicated, elementary emotions) and when people respond in the way he had hoped or predicted they would, he's successful. If the people don't respond, he's unsuccessful. Usually these films read like a theme park ride. When joyride fans see '2001', many of them do not see its beauty, his passion for film, his impartialness, his indecisiveness, and so on. They miss the fact that Kubrick doesn't say what's good and what's evil. Heck, after a Kubrick film, you're not even sure anymore of the terms "good" and "evil". He let's the audience "think" about that. That's why Kubrick's films are often referred to as "intellectual".

It's also why 'Blade Runner' (Scott was still very much under Kubrick's influence when he made this film) is seen by many, who dislike it, as a beautiful looking but heartless and cold film. The opposite is true.

------------
Alex Cremers

 

[Dharmesh C]

Is he a villain? His job was to turn the men into killing machines.

 

[Ernest Rister]

*

 

[george kaplan]

Is Amon Goeth a villain? His job was to turn Jews into corpses.

It's pretty clear that if Spielberg had directed Dr. Strangelove, you'd call Gen. Ripper a one-dimensional clear cut villain. If Spielberg had directed Full Metal Jacket, you'd call Hartmann a one-dimensional clear cut villain (and as an ex-Marine, I'll give you my opinion - yes, he's a clear-cut villain). If you want a not so clear cut DI character, check out Stripes.

And it's pretty clear that if Kubrick had directed Schindler's List, you'd say Amon was a multi-dimesional character in a film without clear cut ideas about good & evil.

You've got an opinion about Kubrick and Spielberg and no amount of contrary evidence is going to get in the way of that opinion.

So, I'm not going to continue trying. Ernest can if he wants, but I see no point since you've made up your mind.

 

[AlexCremers]

Careful, Alex. In my experience, it is never a wise or accurate position to make vast assumptions about other people's intellect by virtue of their entertainment patronage.

I don't. But thanks for the warning anyway.


Many of these kids are being raised in the time of the VCR and DVD player, and are exposed to a gigantic number of films, from Fight Club to Pi to Donnie Darko to Citizen Kane to popcorn fluff like The Fast and the Furious.

They have access, but that doesn't mean they all run to the store and rent 'Donnie Darko'.

Is it your position that films with clear-cut protagonists and antagonists, heroes and villains, are movies for babies?

"Baby spoons" as in "easy digestible". Don't tell me you didn't understand that, Ernest.


If you make a comedy, you want people to laugh. You make a thriller, you want audiences to be thrilled. You make a horror film, your job is to scare the audience. People go to the movies for the experiences.

I know. And a big part of that audience expects clearly defined emotions/experiences. 'Donnie Darko', this would probably shock you, does not fit that description.

Hey, just like Alfred Hitchcock!

That's right, Ernest.


How many? Let's say you go and find ten - as you term them - joyride fans, and you screen 2001 for them. Now, how many of these knuckle-dragging mouth breathers would be unable to see the beauty and passion in 2001? You say many, how many are we talking about? 20%? 50%? 70%?

Let's see, I go to the multiplex, I take ten people who were planning to see a movie there and I make them watch 2001 instead ... mmmmm ... I would say ... 70%, at least! I bet the word they'll be using is "boring". Aint I cocky?


Kubrick is ambiguous about HAL?

Er .. Yes. You're kidding, right?


They're also visceral and dramatic and emotionally involving. Because Kubrick tackled powerful themes does not preclude them from being emotionally charged experiences.

To you, perhaps, but to many others his films are cold or "boring'.

Was Scott "still very much under Kubrick's influence" when he made Alien prior to Blade Runner? Because there is little ambiguity in that classic horror film. When did he fall out of Kubrick's influence? I guess sometime after Blade Runner and just before making Legend, with its celebration of fairy tale heroes and villains, which, by your standards, is a film for babies. Gladiator, with its clearly defined hero and villain, is also a baby film, along with The Shining and Spartacus.

A little, but not as much as 'The Duellists', which he made before 'ALIEN'. You would be guessing correct, he dropped the Kubrick act after 'Blade Runner'.


------------
Alex Cremers

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Which doesn't seem like much of a response. Are you saying Hitchcock's a hack just like Spielberg?

 

[AlexCremers]

I just try to find the difference between him and Kubrick. That doesn't mean that I think he's a hack. I think he's one of the best directors ever.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Fair enough. It just seems like you were dismissive of his tactics when Spielberg used them, so I was seeking clarification on how Hitchcock could be avoided. I just don't think Spielberg or Hitchcock's work is any less artful than Kubrick's because they decide to show the wires. At their best, Spielberg and Hitchcock can afford to show the wires, because the work stands up to having the craft of it picked apart.

 

[Holadem]

I certainly wouldn't have gotten this from your earlier posts.

--
H

 

[AlexCremers]

My posts can be interpreted in various ways. Not all is black or white.

:wink:

 

[Dharmesh C]

Looking at A.I. before the sugar ending, I think Kubrick could have directed the film. I don't see any reason why Kubrick felt it was more Speilberg than him except that sugar ending.

I agree with Speilberg, it's difficult to put a Kubrick film down

 

[Ernest Rister]

*

 

[AlexCremers]

I suppose the "I Could've Done More" scene in 'Schindler's List' isn't sugary either? To think that a Schindler, visibly suppressing his emotions, would've been so much more powerful and more in line with the rest of the movie.


Alex

 

[Ernest Rister]

*

 

[Quentin]

It is still amazing to me that soooo many people (particularly on this forum, where we have discussed it to death) don't know that the ending of A.I. was Kubrick's - not Spielberg's. And, I am also surprised when I see people call it "sugary".

It is dark, and it is tragic, and it is, IMO, the most intimate of any scene from a Kubrick movie (even though it is a Spielberg movie).

 

[GuruAskew]

I don't necessarily think that Kubrick's decision to give "A.I." to Spielberg had as much to do with their different sensibilities as it did with the actual style of the film's production. Kubrick wasn't used to working with modern special effects. You look at "2001: A Space Odyssey" and everything was something Kubrick could physically work with, whether it was a large set or a model or an optical effect. You have to look at the fact that Kubrick didn't make a film for 12 years between "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut". Imagine attempting to mount a special-effects heavy epic after that. The time in the late 80's and 90's when there was no Kubrick film in theaters was when CGI became the dominant method for special effects and I'm sure the task of working extensively with CGI, a tool he was completely unfamiliar with, was intimidating to him. I believe this is why he gave the film to Spielberg.

 

[Shawn_KE]

AI is a masterpiece. I liked the style, the fx, the acting. The ending made me sad, which is very rare for a movie to do so.

David wanted to be loved so dearly by his Mother, that he overlooked that he was sealed up with Teddy, someone who did love him.

The robots digging in the ice for remains of the Human world thousands of years gone, was creepy.

 

[Holadem]

Only one word is needed to invalidate that argument: Lucas.

--
H

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Some would say you've just proved his point
Not me though.