Spielberg cont...responses/realism/etc.
Hallogallo
Thornhill, I guess we just disagree on what a "happy ending" is. I try to
differentiate between happy and optimistic...I think there is a difference.
When I think of a Spielberg happy ending, I think of the films that would lean
toward lighthearted action stuff like the Indiana Jones trilogy (ride off into
the sunset), and definitely kids/family stuff like Jurassic, Hook, ET (goes
home), etc. I think Schindler's, Amistad, and Ryan end with OPTIMISM, and then
some misty eyes for the sensitive folk, but I wouldn't call any of those three
"happy" endings. He's pulling heartstrings, no one is cheering.
To answer your question (my opinion regarding realism vs. idealism), I think
it's a matter of how one looks at film as a whole. Personally, I can go from
one to the other.
I like realism for two main reasons - a) because it often addresses the dark
side of life that so many people try to ignore from day to day. Some people
don't want to acknowledge the evil in this world, and I think film is the
greatest outlet for documenting the very real seedy side. I know there are
many realist filmmakers (current and past), but for example, people say H.
Korine's "Gummo" is a waste - that's it's pure shock and nothing
more...disturbing just to be provocative. But many of those people don't
understand that the disturbing people in Gummo REALLY EXIST in this world, and
I applaud Korine for documenting that when so many are afraid to. "Julien
Donkey-Boy" deals with dangerously dysfunctional family, incest, etc. People
hate it, but incest is happening as we speak, like it or not. Just because
it's an atrocity doesn't mean that our art shouldn't address it. I think any
Kubrick fan can handle the dark side.
and more importantly b), because true realism (i.e., Eyes Wide Shut) can offer
a profound glimpse into the human condition. Nothing fascinates me more than
an articulate and fully-realized perspective on humanity, beit race, gender,
sexuality, class/money, marriage, war, power, family, and so on. I think
audiences are repelled by truths because for many many people film is ESCAPISM
far before it is ART. Don't we all know people who love going to the movies,
not to think, but to just be entertained? That's why big explosions and dumb
romantic comedies saturate the theatres...because most people don't want to
look at themselves in the mirror when they go to the movies, they want to
escape it for two hours. Same dynamic goes for books. Some take us to another
world, some make us look at ourselves.
I like idealism (perhaps better referred to as romanticism) because I like
escapism too! I don't watch ONLY the finest, most poignant, challenging films.
I enjoy a fun or mindless film too from time to time...pop, fluff, whatever
you call it. Not everything needs to have a lesson or a voice. Sometimes a
caricature hero saving the day with some eye candy on the side is a valuable
release before going back to paying the bills or working on your relationships
(reality). I think the Coen Bros' "Big Lebowski" is an excellent movie -
enormous repeat value, always a lot of laughs. There's no insight, no agenda,
no morals or lessons, or ANY of the things I love about Kubrick. But it's just
a fun story about a few buddies and their silly adventure. Just an interesting
story with laughs...could that be so bad?
So, getting back to Spielberg, M4RV1N said:
"My concerns with Spielberg have to do with the degree to which he can (or
chooses to) be truthful about the human race, and to a lesser extent, the
degree to which he can (or chooses to) deal intelligently with thoughtful
subject matter without trying to please the biggest proportion of the audience
as a more important goal.
The bald fact of the matter is that through most all of his career he has been
incapable of doing these things. I would doubt that any but his most ardent
supporters would deny that."
I think it's so obvious why he's been so hugely successful. Just because he
does clearly PLEASE audiences doesn't mean he's sacrificing or compromising
something. People are so quick to say he's INCAPABLE of being truthful. Why
is it so hard to understand that he's not TRYING to be truthful. His films are
enormously ROMANTIC, and I obviously don't mean sexually, just that many of his
films hinge on sentiment. Once again, nobody's asking you to like it! I
didn't start this thread to pick fights with people who just DONT LIKE his
films. I dislike countless directors and what they stand for. I started this
thread because SS is constantly being held up to Kubrickian standards, and it's
really apples and oranges. Some people LIKE melodrama.
I enjoy both directors, and Kubrick is definitely my favorite of all. I agree
with you all that SK's films are superior in intelligence, visually,
thematically, and so on. I think he's the master. I defend Spielberg because
I don't think he should be crucified for NOT doing something that Kubrick DID.
Because differences are not necessarily weaknesses.
Ok...this came out to about $0.17. I'll shut up and let that simmer for a
while. =)
j
Winston Castro
>
>I enjoy both directors, and Kubrick is definitely my favorite of all. I agree
>with you all that SK's films are superior in intelligence, visually,
>thematically, and so on. I think he's the master. I defend Spielberg because
>I don't think he should be crucified for NOT doing something that Kubrick DID.
>Because differences are not necessarily weaknesses.
>
>Ok...this came out to about $0.17. I'll shut up and let that simmer for a
>while. =)
>
I don't think most on here would dispute the vast majority of what
you have said in your post. I have enjoyed Speilberg films and he is
great at what he does, i.e. non-challenging movies geared more towards
sheer entertainment value. Does this make him evil or a bad director?
I highly doubt anyone thinks that.
Is he on the same level as a director as Kubrick was? I don't think
so and it's probably safe to say that the overwhelming majority on
this ***Kubrick*** newsgroup agrees. It's kind of been argued and
discussed here to the point of vast overkill.
The fact that said director is completing a Kubrick project has added
fuel to the never ending fire as of late.
Is it silly to compare the two directors in the first place?
Yes. Their styles and mandates being 180 degrees off makes that a no
brainer.
Is it inevitable people will continue to compare them?
Yes.
Sébastien Smith
I acknowledge that Stanley Kubrick is one of the few truly innovating film
maker in history.
I felt compelled to write regarding your comment on Spielberg. We tend to
bitch at Steven for being a cheat, a very average film maker. I tend to be
in that line of thought. Though some very few films Spielberg has made are
gems, it seems that with time he has decreased in quality, artistically
speaking. And to talk about Kubrick, he only became better and more
prolific as time went by. I will say something very bold and will surely
spark a lot of controversy among my fellow Kubrick lovers, but I think
that, on a completely esthetical standpoint, Eyes Wide Shut is Stanley
Kubrick's most moving and extraordinary film. I LOVED the Shining, and A
clockwork orange, but there is something different about EWS, something
powerful and intensely realistic that makes me shiver and panic, unlike any
other films, with the exception of The Shining......
I seriously doubt of any films Spielberg has directed would have the same
realistic effect on both an esthetical and psychological aspect as much as
Eyes Wide Shut or The Shining has had....
Winston Castro a écrit dans le message
<5q3ggt8ei2kunl0sk...@4ax.com>...