The Steven Spielberg Thread (1 Viewer)

[Michael1]

Sorry I'm late, but I have a question about this item that Colin Jacobson wrote in reply #16:

To make short opinions easier, I'll just take quick summary quotes from my reviews to state what I think of SS's various films.

CE3K: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind remains a classic, as Steven Spielberg tells an enchanting story of our first formal meeting with aliens. He utilizes a first-person point of view that makes the tale accessible and moving, and he fulfills the entire project with beauty and style.""

In what way does this movie have "a first -person point of view?" Wouldn't that mean the whole movie was seen through the eyes of one of the characters? That's not true of Close Encounters.

 

[Tino]

Sorry I'm late, but I have a question about this item that Colin Jacobson wrote in reply #16:



In what way does this movie have "a first -person point of view?" Wouldn't that mean the whole movie was seen through the eyes of one of the characters? That's not true of Close Encounters.

It’s pretty much seen entirely through the eyes of Roy Neary. Sure other people are involved like Jillian but it is first and foremost Roy’s story.

 

[WillG]

It’s pretty much seen entirely through the eyes of Roy Neary. Sure other people are involved like Jillian but it is first and foremost Roy’s story.

I'm not sure that entirely true. In addition to Jillian we also spend a fair amount of time with Lacombe and co.

 

[Michael1]

Exactly. Although Roy Neary is the main character of Close Encounters, none of the film is "seen through his eyes," and the film does not have a "first person point of view." This is most clear in the scenes that don't involve Roy at all, but even the many scenes he is in are not seen through his eyes. I can think of very few films that fit that description, although you could maybe argue that films that are narrated throughout by a single character come closest.

 

[Tino]

Exactly. Although Roy Neary is the main character of Close Encounters, none of the film is "seen through his eyes," and the film does not have a "first person point of view." This is most clear in the scenes that don't involve Roy at all, but even the many scenes he is in are not seen through his eyes. I can think of very few films that fit that description, although you could maybe argue that films that are narrated throughout by a single character come closest.

“None” of the film is seen thru his eyes??

Cmon. I’ll agree with Will’s post but most of the film is absolutely thru Neary’s eyes.

 

[Tino]

“None” of the film is seen thru his eyes??

Cmon. I’ll agree with Will’s post but most of the film is absolutely thru Neary’s eyes.

And I mean figuratively of course. Not literally as in a first person video game.

 

[TonyD]

Yeah it's mostly his point of view but we don't see it threw his eyes literally.

 

[Michael1]

No, none of Close Encounters is seen through Roy Neary's "point of view." The point of view of Close Encounters, as is true of the vast majority of films ever made, is that of the camera, which is almost always omniscient.

Sorry, but I really think some of you people are using the wrong words and phrases to describe what you mean. Although I think we can all agree that Roy Neary is the central/main character of Close Encounters.

 

[Tino]

No, none of Close Encounters is seen through Roy Neary's "point of view." The point of view of Close Encounters, as is true of the vast majority of films ever made, is that of the camera, which is almost always omniscient.

Sorry, but I really think some of you people are using the wrong words and phrases to describe what you mean. Although I think we can all agree that Roy Neary is the central/main character of Close Encounters.

Let’s agree to disagree. And I’m using the exact words I mean thank you very much.

 

[Michael1]

Okay, sorry. If you used the words you meant to use, then I agree to disagree with you. I think few if any films can be described as seen through the eyes of or told from the point of view of any of the characters in the film, even when one character is clearly the main character. Would you say FUNNY GIRL is told from Fanny Brice's point of view, or SCHINDLER'S LIST from Schindler's, or SOPHIE'S CHOICE from Sophie's?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Sorry I'm late, but I have a question about this item that Colin Jacobson wrote in reply #16:



In what way does this movie have "a first -person point of view?" Wouldn't that mean the whole movie was seen through the eyes of one of the characters? That's not true of Close Encounters.

What I meant is that the movie looks at the event through a "regular person's POV", not from some form of broader scope.

Yes, there are scenes in "CE3K" that show other POVs, but the vast majority is Neary's. Maybe "first person" wasn't the greatest phrase, but it's still a movie that looks at the arrival of aliens from the side of an average person - unlike, say, "Contact", which deals with professionals the whole way...

 

[Tino]

What I meant is that the movie looks at the event through a "regular person's POV", not from some form of broader scope.

Yes, there are scenes in "CE3K" that show other POVs, but the vast majority is Neary's. Maybe "first person" wasn't the greatest phrase, but it's still a movie that looks at the arrival of aliens from the side of an average person - unlike, say, "Contact", which deals with professionals the whole way...

I agree. And I think I said pretty much the same thing.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I agree. And I think I said pretty much the same thing.

Yeah, but no one pays attention to you, so I had to say it!

 

[Michael1]

Thanks for clarifying. Let's just say that my concept of the "point of view" of a film is very different from Tino's and Colin's. I think in Close Encounters, for example, we have an omniscient camera observing the actions and behavior of all of the characters. I think whatever point of view can be said to exist in a film is due primarily to the work of the screenwriter, the director, and the actors, but not the characters. Just curious, does anyone here agree with me? Because that's always been my understanding of the concept.

 

[Tino]

Yeah, but no one pays attention to you, so I had to say it!

Obviously you do. Constantly.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I understand what both sides are saying.

To me, I'd consider a film like "The Sixth Sense" to be more of a "POV" film (though we don't necessarily realize it at first and though it's not literally a POV camera). That film only works because we have a limited point of view of the actions that occur, and the twist is only possible because we're not presented with information that the main character doesn't have before he has it.

Whereas in Close Encounters, although Neary doesn't have proof of what happened with the UFOs, and his quest is about confirming what he believes to be true but doesn't know with absolute certainty, we the audience are privy to information that confirms to us from the beginning that Neary is not crazy and that it's all real.

It's probably a semantics argument, but I would probably say that the film shows us events primarily but not exclusively from Neary's perspective. One of the "tricks" that the film employs is showing us definitive proof that Neary doesn't immediately get, which is part of what makes him such a sympathetic character. If we didn't know he was 100% right, we might side with his wife and children when they choose to first ostracize and then abandon him for being obsessed over something he has no proof of; but because we know he's right, we dislike them for not believing him and sympathize with him throughout his journey. To me, it's a subtle but important difference in the storytelling that makes it work.

 

[Michael1]

Thanks, Josh Steinberg. I think THE SIXTH SENSE is a really good and quite rare example of a film being seen through one character's point of view -- or, at least, that's true of the scenes in which that character appears. I remember there are at least a few scenes in the film where the Bruce Willis character is not present at all, like the scene between the boy and his mother in the car towards the end. So those scenes can't be said to be from the Willis character's POV.

Interesting points about CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, too. But though the movie may show us some scenes from Neary's perspective, i would say most of the action is seen from an omniscient perspective. As you say, this is at least partly semantic argument.

 

[Carabimero]

With the exception of The Post, which I recently saw in the theater, I just got through rewatching every Steven Spielberg movie I had only seen twice (once in the theater and once on DVD). They were:

Amblin’
Something Evil
Sugarland Express
1941
The Color Purple
Always
Hook
Lost World
Amistad
A.I.
Minority Report
The Terminal
War of the Worlds
The Adventures of Tintin
War Horse
Bridge of Spies
The BFG

I have all his movies on DVD, but I only own my favorite Spielberg movies on Blu-ray. After rewatching every Spielberg movie I had only seen twice, I bought two more Blu-rays, both containing “War” as the first word in their titles: War of the Worlds and War Horse.

I had never given War of the Worlds the credit it deserves (probably because I am very partial to the original and trying to get it restored in in HD). But Spielberg's version is a beautifully made movie. There’s so much craft to it. Rick Carter’s best work, IMO. I'm glad I was finally fair to it.

As for War Horse, I’m not sure why I never watched it again. Perhaps it's as close to the Spielberg that made E.T., Raiders and Jaws as we’ll ever see again. It’s certainly got the action plus a level of craft--of patience--he didn’t have in those early years, IMO.

I also noticed John Williams revisited some strains from Amistad in Lincoln. Very subtle and very nice.

Here is my updated Spielberg BD collection:

Saving Private Ryan
Schindler's List
Munich
Jaws
CE3K
Indiana Jones Movies
Catch Me If You Can
E.T.
Lincoln
War Horse
War of the Worlds
Duel
Jurassic Park

And finally, my revised top-ten Spielberg favorites:

1. E.T.
2. Raiders of the Lost Ark
3. Jaws
4. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
5. Catch Me If You Can
6. Munich
7. Saving Private Ryan
8. War Horse
9. War of the Worlds
10. Lincoln

I’m glad I made the time to revisit my Spielberg library. I have the creation of this thread to thank for that inspiration.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Revised top-ten Spielberg favorites:

1. E.T.
2. Raiders of the Lost Ark
3. Jaws
4. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
5. Catch Me If You Can
6. Munich
7. Saving Private Ryan
8. War Horse
9. War of the Worlds
10. Lincoln

I’m glad I made the time to revisit my Spielberg library. I have the creation of this thread to thank for that inspiration.

I'd agree with the top 4, and I'd put "CE3K" 4th, but not sure how I'd order the other 3.

I'd probably go "Jurassic Park" at 5 but after that, it's a crap shoot! Probably "indy/Crusade" 6th, and I guess I'd have "Indy/Temple" in the to p10, too. Really not sure how I'd flesh out the rest...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm not sure what this means exactly in terms of ranking, but I know that I rewatch the Indiana Jones movies usually once a year, Lincoln once a year (and sometimes twice, sometimes it plays so well for me the first time that I end up seeing it again a day or two later), and Jurassic Park every two or three years.

Does that make them the best? Not automatically. But it says something about preferences and likes, I think, if I take my conscious thoughts out of the equation and just look at how many times I've watched certain things. I watched Hook a bunch when it first came out in theaters and then on video. But I don't watch it frequently anymore. Which says to me that it was a movie of its time and place, perhaps more than an enduring classic. (But then again, there are other movies by other filmmakers that I intentionally avoid rewatching frequently so that they retain some of their mystery.)