The Fallacy of Steven Spielberg
Peace Electric
st...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:
> I seem to have read somewhere that Spielberg said he does commercial movies
> like Jurassic Park so that he will get to do movies that he really cares
> about-like Schindler's List.
>
> Spielberg has to be one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. Wouldn't
> you think that he could make any movie that he wants to for the rest of his
> career?
Yeah, and also the fact that his uncommercial, artsy films keep making $100 million
dollars plus in North America alone. I can see why the studios are hesitant to take
the risk.
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Cab thing is just part-time."
-Travis Bickle, 'Taxi Driver'
st...@rosie.uh.edu
I seem to have read somewhere that Spielberg said he does commercial movies
like Jurassic Park so that he will get to do movies that he really cares
about-like Schindler's List.
Does this statement not seem to make sense to you?
Spielberg has to be one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. Wouldn't
you think that he could make any movie that he wants to for the rest of his
career?
thomas
LucaBrasi2
Personally from the article in Premiere I think the man i going through an
identity crisis.
-Dan-
LucaB...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/set/3880/index.htm
Pete Koblinski
st...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:
Eventually he could make all the movies he wants, but this one was one
that he had to make. I think contractually. Also he has a new studio
that hasn't really lived up to the hype surrounding it. I think they
needed a hit. He's making some movie called Private Reilly or
something like that. Has anyone heard anything?
Gene W. Smith
On 14 Jul 1997 st...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:
> I seem to have read somewhere that Spielberg said he does commercial movies
> like Jurassic Park so that he will get to do movies that he really cares
> about-like Schindler's List.
He said he was going to alternate between entertainment films and serious
ones, and we get a serious one next. I think Steve deserves to be judged
on those by their own merits.
{LED}
st...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:
>
> I seem to have read somewhere that Spielberg said he does commercial movies
> like Jurassic Park so that he will get to do movies that he really cares
> about-like Schindler's List.
>
>
> Spielberg has to be one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. Wouldn't
> you think that he could make any movie that he wants to for the rest of his
> career?
>
This makes a lot of sense. Harrison Ford once said that the reason he
keeps doing action films is that whenever he does one then he gets a
chance to do a romantic comedy (Sabrina) or a drama (Devil's Own), but
he knows he always has to come back to the ones that make money (AFO).
Same with Spielberg. The movies the artists like the most tend to be not
as profitable as their " big dinosaur projects ".
MasonBarge
Steven Spielberg has never made anything but monster movies that were
worth a damn. He finally realized his limitation in time to make
"Schindler's List" and get a best-picture statute. An excellent movie,
but the point is, Spielberg can't seem to get any friction unless he has a
monster to anchor his theme. He just doesn't have the grasp of comedy,
drama, human character, etc., to make them stand on their own and carry a
film. He must have a given bad-guy of enormous evil, be it natural,
human, or made-up. It is a sign, to me, of moral and emotional
immaturity.
- Mason Barge
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me some coffee." -- Abraham Lincoln
Pre-installed User
If you consider that a filmmaker who only deals with the confrontation
between the good and evil in his films is a bad cineast, then you know
nothing about cinema.
Abel Ferrara, probably one the best filmmakers today, only creates
characters who fight against their own dichotomy as well. The greatest
westerns were about that struggle too.
And don't forget that caricature is the best way to reach truths. Read
Swift's Gulliver Travels.
Alexandre Tylski.
sharvey
MasonBarge <mason...@aol.com> wrote:
: Steven Spielberg has never made anything but monster movies that were
: worth a damn. He finally realized his limitation in time to make
: "Schindler's List" and get a best-picture statute. An excellent movie,
: but the point is, Spielberg can't seem to get any friction unless he has a
: monster to anchor his theme. He just doesn't have the grasp of comedy,
: drama, human character, etc., to make them stand on their own and carry a
: film. He must have a given bad-guy of enormous evil, be it natural,
: human, or made-up. It is a sign, to me, of moral and emotional
: immaturity.
I'm not going to single Mason out as a post-modern nihilistic hipster
doofus, but his above comments are good examples of what I'm going to rant
about.
For every topic, there's always at least one who finds it hip and
power-granting to be on the negative side of the issue, even when their
opinion is flimsy. Take for example, the recent comment in a Contact
thread that said (rough quotation) "the film is wishy-washy, just like
Carl Sagan's career."
That kind of comment just strikes me as "look at me, I'm so clever - I can
pan anything, I'm omniscient, I'm too cool for everyone else" without any
substance to back up their trendy, hip negativism. It's a facade, it
really is.
In the case of Spielberg, I sincerely doubt you sat stone-faced and
unemotional through "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Jurassic Park". You
never once cracked a smile or evinced any interest. How could you? I bet
you don't even blink on a roller coaster, that's how cool you are.
If you want to pan someone or something, go ahead! Just do so for better
reasons than trying to look cool. It doesn't work.
Scott (opinionated bastard)
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| reply-to header hacked | war and slavery, explotation |
| to prevent spam | the common basis of a western nation |
| sharvey at enteract dot com | -KMFDM, Glory |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mike B
You are *so* full of shit.
MasonBarge <mason...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970714153...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Steven Spielberg has never made anything but monster movies that were
> worth a damn. He finally realized his limitation in time to make
> "Schindler's List" and get a best-picture statute. An excellent movie,
> but the point is, Spielberg can't seem to get any friction unless he has
a
> monster to anchor his theme. He just doesn't have the grasp of comedy,
> drama, human character, etc., to make them stand on their own and carry a
> film. He must have a given bad-guy of enormous evil, be it natural,
> human, or made-up. It is a sign, to me, of moral and emotional
> immaturity.
>
peter krynicki
MasonBarge wrote:
>
> Steven Spielberg has never made anything but monster movies that were
> worth a damn. He finally realized his limitation in time to make
> "Schindler's List" and get a best-picture statute. An excellent movie,
> but the point is, Spielberg can't seem to get any friction unless he has a
> monster to anchor his theme. He just doesn't have the grasp of comedy,
> drama, human character, etc., to make them stand on their own and carry a
> film.
This is true only if you leave out Empire of the Sun. But since you
can't leave it out, everything you wrote is incorrect.
Pjk
Martin Laverdure
"Pre-installed User" <c...@insat.com> writes: >
> If you consider that a filmmaker who only deals with the confrontation
> between the good and evil in his films is a bad cineast, then you know
> nothing about cinema.
>
> Abel Ferrara, probably one the best filmmakers today, only creates
> characters who fight against their own dichotomy as well. The greatest
> westerns were about that struggle too.
>
> And don't forget that caricature is the best way to reach truths. Read
> Swift's Gulliver Travels.
>
> Alexandre Tylski.
>
> > worth a damn. He finally realized his limitation in time to make
> > "Schindler's List" and get a best-picture statute. An excellent movie,
> > but the point is, Spielberg can't seem to get any friction unless he has
> a
> > monster to anchor his theme. He just doesn't have the grasp of comedy,
> > drama, human character, etc., to make them stand on their own and carry a
> > human, or made-up. It is a sign, to me, of moral and emotional
> > immaturity.
>
I cant, agree with you here. Spielberg his at his best when (excepting JAWS)
monster are not part of the Casting.
Schinldler's List is a GRANDIOSE movie. Empire Of The Sun is among one of
my best movie, Close Encounters Of The Thisr Kind still chill me everytimes.
The Indiana Jones Trilogy, well you know.......
Those are true Spielberg Movies. No Monsters. Or perhaps, a lots of monsters.
Humans are the REAL MONSTERS. More frightening, more hunters, more killers
machine.
That.s where you will find the real demons of Spielberg.
Chiao ;0)
Dan Bongard
peter krynicki (pet...@cylogixnt1.morgan.com) wrote:
: MasonBarge wrote:
:> but the point is, Spielberg can't seem to get any friction unless he has a
:> monster to anchor his theme. He just doesn't have the grasp of comedy,
:> drama, human character, etc., to make them stand on their own and carry a
:> film.
: This is true only if you leave out Empire of the Sun. But since you
: can't leave it out, everything you wrote is incorrect.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "Empire of the Sun" another
semi-biographical story? Spielberg seems to do fine when he has
real-life drama backing him up; he just doesn't seem to be able
to create a good story from scratch anymore.
I mean, seriously -- if you didn't know it already, would you ever
guess that the same guy who made "Jaws" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
also made "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World"? What happened here?
-- Dan
Peace Electric
Dan Bongard wrote:
> Sure. But he's a big part of the Hollywood Moviemaking Machine, and
> in order to _truly_ do what he wants he'd have to leave that
> environment. Besides, there's little evidence that Speilberg is
> good at anything other than blockbuster-style movies. Yes, he
> made "Schindler's List", but ANY semi-competent director could have
> made a good film out of "Schindler's List" -- the story itself is
> incredible.
Spielberg took this story, and squeezed it into the same cookie-cutter that
produced the Indiana Jones films, 'E.T.', and everything else he's done. The
film is completely black and white in its issues: the Nazis are Bad, Schindler
and the Jews are Good. Now, I'm not saying that that isn't correct. Yes the
Nazis were evil and the Holocaust was unjustified. But still, is life really
this simple? Schindler himself was not a perfect person; he did a lot of things
that wouldn't look right for your typical Spielbergian hero to be doing. So what
does Spielberg do? He covers all of that up and simplifies the issues.
Look at his portrayal of the Nazis. They're so violent, so cruel, so evil that
they become twisted cartoons. Parodies. Spielberg regrets trivializing the Nazis
in his Indiana Jones films, but he's doing the same thing in 'Schindler's List'.
Look at the Ralph Fiennes character: there's no depth, no sense of a real human
being there. It's just Spielberg's childish idea of what Nazi's were like. We get
no insight into what this man was like or why he would do the things he would do.
We don't even get a sense, throughout the entire three hours of the film, how the
Holocaust could have happened. I mean, what could bring one human being to shove
another into an oven? Spielberg doesn't know, and so he doesn't even try to show
it, instead relying on heavy-handed melodrama.
And then that speech at the end ("With this gold tooth of mine, I could've saved
just _one more_!"). He just keeps driving the point home. Spielberg has to make
everything clear cut so that everyone in the audience understands the message of
the film. This is okay for popcorn, adventure films, but the Holocaust? It deserves
better. And now, with 'Amistad', it looks like he's doing the same thing: in real
life the hero of the film went on to do some pretty nasty things, and it's been
reported that Spielberg's film doesn't address this at all.
I think David Mamet got it right when he called 'Schindler's List' "emotional
pornography" and "'Mandingo' for Jews".
Martin Scorsese was originally going to do 'Schindler's List', and Spielberg
'Cape Fear', but they decided to switch projects. The original script for 'Cape
Fear', before Martin got a hold of it, was again clear cut with the characters.
The good guys were shown as THE GOOD GUYS, and the bad guy as THE BAD GUY. I'm
talking along the lines of Nick Nolte and his family standing around the piano,
singing gospel songs with one another (really, I'm not even joking about this).
Scorsese came in and made Max Cady less a bad guy, and more an understandable,
wronged individual, and Sam Bowden a flawed husband and father. And in the end,
'Cape Fear'--a "simple", summer Hollywood thriller--is more disturbing, and
shows more insight into the human soul than 'Schindler's List' could ever hope
to. People had to leave 'Cape Fear'--they couldn't take it. 'Schindler's List'
grossed over $100 million dollars. Is there something wrong with this picture?
Now, can you imagine what Scorsese would have done with 'Schindler's List'?
Mitchell Ting
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Gene W. Smith wrote:
> He said he was going to alternate between entertainment films and serious
> ones, and we get a serious one next. I think Steve deserves to be judged
> on those by their own merits.
I couldn't blame him for directing The Lost World, since his next movie is
in fact a "serious" one ... Amistad with Morgan Freeman (I believe it's
something to do with a slave ship, but I could be wrong). Besides, if I
was a director, I wouldn't want to film another "serious" movie back to
back after Schindler's List, no matter how "commercial" it may seem.
Dan Bongard
st...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:
: I seem to have read somewhere that Spielberg said he does commercial movies
: like Jurassic Park so that he will get to do movies that he really cares
: about-like Schindler's List.
: Does this statement not seem to make sense to you?
It makes sense from a Hollywood point of view. The reality of the
matter is that, if he really wanted too, Speilberg could produce
hundreds of films of any kind he likes out of the money he has earned
already. Nobody "gets" to do films -- anybody with money can make a film.
What Spielberg is _really_ saying is that if he makes a cheesy blockbuster
that lets some studio rake in the bucks, that studio will finance
a "personal" film just to keep him happy. Clint Eastwood used to do
this all the time; he'd make weird-but-good films like "Play Misty for
Me", "Bronco Billy", and "The Beguiled" in between his enormously
successful "kick ass and take names" action films like "Hang 'em High"
and "Dirty Harry".
: Spielberg has to be one of the most powerful people in Hollywood.
: Wouldn't you think that he could make any movie that he wants to for
: the rest of his career?
Sure. But he's a big part of the Hollywood Moviemaking Machine, and
in order to _truly_ do what he wants he'd have to leave that
environment. Besides, there's little evidence that Speilberg is
good at anything other than blockbuster-style movies. Yes, he
made "Schindler's List", but ANY semi-competent director could have
made a good film out of "Schindler's List" -- the story itself is
incredible.
-- Dan
Gully Foyle
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 02:16:39 -0400, "Gene W. Smith" <gws...@gwi.net>
wrote:
>On 14 Jul 1997 st...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:
>
>> I seem to have read somewhere that Spielberg said he does commercial movies
>> like Jurassic Park so that he will get to do movies that he really cares
>> about-like Schindler's List.
>
>He said he was going to alternate between entertainment films and serious
>ones, and we get a serious one next. I think Steve deserves to be judged
>on those by their own merits.
>
>
Spielberg should stick to what he knows (after TLW and JP I'm not sure
it's all that much anymore) and leave the serious stuff to the big
boys (Kubrick, Scorsese, et al).
_________________________________________________________________
To email me remove the Z at the start of my email address.
_________________________________________________________________
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they
are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the
Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
Ambrose Bierce
_________________________________________________________________
Lorne
With the exception of "Schindler's List," Steven Spielberg has not made an
excellent film since "Raiders of the Lost Ark." ("Indiana Jones and the
Temple of Doom" was close). Looks like "1941" has become an example of the
norm, not the exception as it was once considered.
--
Lorne
* All replies welcome, SPAM is not and will be dealt with accordingly.
Dan Bongard wrote:
(SNIP)
ronnie
On 14 Jul 1997 st...@Rosie.UH.EDU wrote:
> I seem to have read somewhere that Spielberg said he does commercial movies
> like Jurassic Park so that he will get to do movies that he really cares
> about-like Schindler's List.
>
> Does this statement not seem to make sense to you?
>
> Spielberg has to be one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. Wouldn't
> you think that he could make any movie that he wants to for the rest of his
> career?
perhaps you are right, but then again the hollywood power game is a
rollercoaster.
as powerful as spielberg is, if his next 3 films boms, he will become
like francis ford coppola or john hughes (how powerful are they now?).
Gully Foyle
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:52:35 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
wrote:
>
>I mean, seriously -- if you didn't know it already, would you ever
>guess that the same guy who made "Jaws" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
>also made "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World"? What happened here?
>
Not to mention Duel.
Dan Bongard
Gully Foyle (Zr...@emails.com) wrote:
: Peace Electric wrote:
:> And then that speech at the end ("With this gold tooth of mine, I
:> could've saved just _one more_!"). He just keeps driving the point home.
:> Spielberg has to make everything clear cut so that everyone in the
:> audience understands the message of the film. This is okay for popcorn,
:> adventure films, but the Holocaust?
: That part was a real crings, Schindler in the book did nothing of the sort.
Yep. Aside from that, most of the events in the movie (such as the making
of the ring) are true. The "I could have saved one more!" speech is fake,
and sounded fake. It came close to spoiling the film for me, but fortunately
it didn't last long.
-- Dan
{LED}
Gully Foyle wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 23:52:35 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I mean, seriously -- if you didn't know it already, would you ever
> >guess that the same guy who made "Jaws" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
> >also made "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World"? What happened here?
> >
>
> Not to mention Duel.
I know. Poor guy. After decades in the bussiness he has to settle for
230 million dollar domestic hits and multiple Oscars. It's so sad.
Peace Electric
Gully Foyle wrote:
> SL was definitely overrated, still it scored SS an Oscar which is what
> it was all about anyway.
And that's yet another problem I have with the film. Every single aspect of
'Schindler's List'--from what the film should be about, to how it was shot,
to who was in it, to when it was released, to how it was advertised--was
structured toward one goal: get Stevie that golden statuette. Did Spielberg
make this film because he truly cared about the Holocaust, and wanted to be
sure people never forgot it, or because he saw what was prime material for
the Academy? I don't know, I think he's convinced himself that 'Schindler's
List' was made for the former reasons, though I suspect it was closer to the
latter.
But I hate to knock Spielberg so much; he _has_ made some really good films:
'Jaws', 'Duel', 'The Sugarland Express', 'E.T.', 'Close Encounters of the
Third Kind', the Indiana Jones films. They're all wonderful. But now, he's
begun to look down upon these sorts of "entertainment films". What he used
to approach with a sense of wonder and enthusiasm, he now considers childish
and inconsequential. He still does popcorn films ('The Lost World'), but now
he clocks in for work, puts in his time, and manufactures a sterile product.
He's denying what he does best.
Gully Foyle
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 22:24:52 -0700, Peace Electric
<pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Dan Bongard wrote:
>
>> Sure. But he's a big part of the Hollywood Moviemaking Machine, and
>> in order to _truly_ do what he wants he'd have to leave that
>> environment. Besides, there's little evidence that Speilberg is
>> good at anything other than blockbuster-style movies. Yes, he
>> made "Schindler's List", but ANY semi-competent director could have
>> made a good film out of "Schindler's List" -- the story itself is
>> incredible.
>
>Spielberg took this story, and squeezed it into the same cookie-cutter that
>produced the Indiana Jones films, 'E.T.', and everything else he's done. The
>film is completely black and white in its issues: the Nazis are Bad, Schindler
>and the Jews are Good. Now, I'm not saying that that isn't correct. Yes the
>Nazis were evil and the Holocaust was unjustified. But still, is life really
>this simple? Schindler himself was not a perfect person; he did a lot of things
>that wouldn't look right for your typical Spielbergian hero to be doing. So what
>does Spielberg do? He covers all of that up and simplifies the issues.
>
Precisely. Some parts of the book were perfectly translated to film,
but the complex real life elements of the plot were pushed aside to
make room for SS's simplistic world view. He took all the complexity
presented in the book and Disneyfied it and cheapened the emotion.
>Look at his portrayal of the Nazis. They're so violent, so cruel, so evil that
>they become twisted cartoons. Parodies. Spielberg regrets trivializing the Nazis
>in his Indiana Jones films, but he's doing the same thing in 'Schindler's List'.
>Look at the Ralph Fiennes character: there's no depth, no sense of a real human
>being there. It's just Spielberg's childish idea of what Nazi's were like. We get
>no insight into what this man was like or why he would do the things he would do.
>We don't even get a sense, throughout the entire three hours of the film, how the
>Holocaust could have happened. I mean, what could bring one human being to shove
>another into an oven? Spielberg doesn't know, and so he doesn't even try to show
>it, instead relying on heavy-handed melodrama.
>
That and the little girl in red.
>And then that speech at the end ("With this gold tooth of mine, I could've saved
>just _one more_!"). He just keeps driving the point home. Spielberg has to make
>everything clear cut so that everyone in the audience understands the message of
>the film. This is okay for popcorn, adventure films, but the Holocaust?
That part was a real crings, Schindler in the book did nothing of the
sort.
>It deserves
>better. And now, with 'Amistad', it looks like he's doing the same thing: in real
>life the hero of the film went on to do some pretty nasty things, and it's been
>reported that Spielberg's film doesn't address this at all.
>
>I think David Mamet got it right when he called 'Schindler's List' "emotional
>pornography" and "'Mandingo' for Jews".
>
Never heard this, pretty caustic.
>Martin Scorsese was originally going to do 'Schindler's List', and Spielberg
>'Cape Fear', but they decided to switch projects. The original script for 'Cape
>Fear', before Martin got a hold of it, was again clear cut with the characters.
>The good guys were shown as THE GOOD GUYS, and the bad guy as THE BAD GUY. I'm
>talking along the lines of Nick Nolte and his family standing around the piano,
>singing gospel songs with one another (really, I'm not even joking about this).
>Scorsese came in and made Max Cady less a bad guy, and more an understandable,
>wronged individual, and Sam Bowden a flawed husband and father. And in the end,
>'Cape Fear'--a "simple", summer Hollywood thriller--is more disturbing, and
>shows more insight into the human soul than 'Schindler's List' could ever hope
>to. People had to leave 'Cape Fear'--they couldn't take it. 'Schindler's List'
>grossed over $100 million dollars. Is there something wrong with this picture?
>
>Now, can you imagine what Scorsese would have done with 'Schindler's List'?
>
Or Kubrick? I also heard that Polanski was offered Schindler's, but
declined. We'll never know what we missed. SL was definitely
overrated, still it scored SS an Oscar which is what it was all about
anyway.
Dan Bongard
Peace Electric (pea...@sk.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: Martin Scorsese was originally going to do 'Schindler's List', and
: Spielberg 'Cape Fear', but they decided to switch projects. The original
: script for 'Cape Fear', before Martin got a hold of it, was again clear
: cut with the characters.
[snip]
: Scorsese came in and made Max Cady less a bad guy, and more an
: understandable, wronged individual, and Sam Bowden a flawed husband and
: father.
How do you figure? Bowden's only "flaw" is that he's having an affair.
Max Cady is a confessed violent rapist and torturer. The only way in
which Cady was "wronged" is that Bowden witheld evidence that the
rape victim had been promiscuous -- such evidence is (a) irrelevant to
a rape trial and (b) irrelevant to the undeniable fact that Cady _is_
a violent rapist and torturer. Are you honestly saying that you felt the
_slightest_ twinge of pity for him during that film?
The _original_ Cape Fear was vastly superior. In there, it isn't clear
that the Cady character had actually been guilty in the first place.
Now _that_ is a "wronged individual".
: And in the end, 'Cape Fear'--a "simple", summer Hollywood thriller--is
: more disturbing, and shows more insight into the human soul than
: 'Schindler's List' could ever hope to.
Are you kidding? The only "disturbing" thing about Cape Fear was that
DeNiro could be in such a rotten film. His character survives being
beaten with clubs, beaten up, set on fire, etc... he somehow _happens_
to have a tape recorder going to tape what Nolte says to him. He
manages to get a judge to believe that he, a convicted rapist on
parole, is the one being "threatened" by an upstanding attorney who
has unsuccessfully defended him in the past. Please! The movie is _boring_.
Put simply: nothing can stop Cady. He knows everything. He is smarter
than everybody. He can't be killed by anything or anybody. Wounds
have no effect on him. Snore! The _Terminator_ was easier to hurt,
for god's sake -- at least _it_ got slowed down a little when they
set it on fire.
: People had to leave 'Cape Fear' -- they couldn't take it.
They "couldn't take it" because the movie is _bad_. People walked out
of Cutthroat Island for much the same reason.
: 'Schindler's List' grossed over $100 million dollars. Is there
: something wrong with this picture?
No. "Schindler's List" was overly melodramatic in places, but "Cape Fear"
was pure crap. It didn't deserve to make the $7 I spent to see it, let
alone the kind of money "Schindler's List" made. If ever there was any
doubt that Scorcese has lost it, "Cape Fear" put an end to it.
: Now, can you imagine what Scorsese would have done with 'Schindler's List'?
Added a few dozen uses of the word "fuck"?
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
{LED} (dy...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Gully Foyle wrote:
:> Dan Bongard wrote:
:>>I mean, seriously -- if you didn't know it already, would you ever
:>>guess that the same guy who made "Jaws" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
:>>also made "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World"? What happened here?
:> Not to mention Duel.
: I know. Poor guy. After decades in the bussiness he has to settle for
: 230 million dollar domestic hits and multiple Oscars. It's so sad.
As usual you've missed the point, "LED". Yes, Spielberg can make
enormously successful blockbusters. There just isn't much reason to
believe he can do a good job at the "serious" films he'd supposedly
like to do.
-- Dan
Peace Electric
Dan Bongard wrote:
> : Martin Scorsese was originally going to do 'Schindler's List', and
> : Spielberg 'Cape Fear', but they decided to switch projects. The original
> : script for 'Cape Fear', before Martin got a hold of it, was again clear
> : cut with the characters.
>
> : Scorsese came in and made Max Cady less a bad guy, and more an
> : understandable, wronged individual, and Sam Bowden a flawed husband and
> : father.
>
> How do you figure? Bowden's only "flaw" is that he's having an affair.
Bowden buried evidence that was, at least to some degree, important to the trial.
Whether or not the rape victim being promiscuous is relevant to the case or not
is debatable. But, in the universe this story takes place in, it sure seems to be
considered so: not just by Cady, but by other characters who find out.
And as for flaws: Bowden was having an affair with a woman from work. He
physically abuses his daughter when he can't deal with her blossoming sexuality.
He fights dirty against Max--breaking the law to do so. His marriage is crumbling
due to his infidelity and character flaws. The entire Bowden family is having a
variety of problems, all due to poor parenting or Sam's weaknesses: they fight,
they argue, they're distanced from each other, they lie to one another. If I
recall, Bowden's wife is an alocoholic, or has had psychological problems. Sam
has threatened her with divorce for this and other reasons. Perhaps there's more
I'm forgetting. Anyway, a far cry from the picture-perfect family Spielberg
envisioned.
> Max Cady is a confessed violent rapist and torturer. The only way in
> which Cady was "wronged" is that Bowden witheld evidence that the
> rape victim had been promiscuous
><snip>
>
> Are you honestly saying that you felt the _slightest_ twinge of pity for him
> during that film?
Yes, I feel a lot of pity for the Max Cady character. His illiteracy was used
against him so that he could be thrown in jail--which (at least in the film's
world) is somewhere he didn't necessarily deserve to go. Once in prison he
lost his wife, his child, and however many years of his life. At one point he
tells Bowden the things he went through behind bars, mainly his being raped
again and again by other inmates ("Do you know what it's like to be a woman.")
All in all, I think Cady is justified in his anger and hatred toward Sam.
However, what he does with that hatred is, obviously, wrong.
> The _original_ Cape Fear was vastly superior. In there, it isn't clear
> that the Cady character had actually been guilty in the first place.
> Now _that_ is a "wronged individual".
I haven't seen the original yet; I'm still waiting for it to be shown or made
available in the letterbox format. Although I'd read that it is fairly clear
in its issues: Cady is bad, Bowden is good.
> : And in the end, 'Cape Fear'--a "simple", summer Hollywood thriller--is
> : more disturbing, and shows more insight into the human soul than
> : 'Schindler's List' could ever hope to.
>
> Are you kidding? The only "disturbing" thing about Cape Fear was that
> DeNiro could be in such a rotten film. His character survives being
> beaten with clubs, beaten up, set on fire, etc... he somehow _happens_
> to have a tape recorder going to tape what Nolte says to him. He
> manages to get a judge to believe that he, a convicted rapist on
> parole, is the one being "threatened" by an upstanding attorney who
> has unsuccessfully defended him in the past. Please! The movie is _boring_.
> Put simply: nothing can stop Cady. He knows everything. He is smarter
> than everybody. He can't be killed by anything or anybody. Wounds
> have no effect on him. Snore! The _Terminator_ was easier to hurt,
> for god's sake -- at least _it_ got slowed down a little when they
> set it on fire.
I don't think Scorsese's 'Cape Fear' is some kind of brilliant film which is
incredibly deep or has any sort of lasting insights. But is it deeper and more
insightful than 'Schindler's List'? I think so.
So, the point is that if this is what Scorsese could do with a summer thriller,
imagine what he could do with the Holocaust. There is so much more potential
in that subject than there is in a pretty basic revenge/action film. Scorsese's
'Schindler's List' would've had the depth of 'Raging Bull' or 'The Age of
Innocence'. As 'Schindler's List' is now, it's closer to the average summer
thriller in terms of depth, direction, character, motivation, and insight, than
'Cape Fear' actually is.
> : People had to leave 'Cape Fear' -- they couldn't take it.
>
> They "couldn't take it" because the movie is _bad_. People walked out
> of Cutthroat Island for much the same reason.
No, people were leaving 'Cape Fear' because of the violence, and the disturbing
nature of the characters. The film is not any more violent than 'Schindler's
List' or any sort of action film, and yet people were overwhelmed by what they
saw on the screen. Why is that? How can Scorsese take something that the audience
is desensitized to, and somehow make it more shocking, more powerful, more
painful to watch? I think it partly has to do with how he draws his characters.
If the people in the film are more realistic, and the audience identifies with
them, then the moment something horrible happens to those people, the audience
really feels it.
> : 'Schindler's List' grossed over $100 million dollars. Is there
> : something wrong with this picture?
>
> No. "Schindler's List" was overly melodramatic in places, but "Cape Fear"
> was pure crap. It didn't deserve to make the $7 I spent to see it, let
> alone the kind of money "Schindler's List" made. If ever there was any
> doubt that Scorcese has lost it, "Cape Fear" put an end to it.
You're missing the point. 'Cape Fear' was too disturbing for many. 'Schindler's
List' was something that the family went to and watched for three hours. They
got to be entertained as the Jews were paraded out and systematically executed.
In the end, the Holocaust gets trivialized, but Mom and Pop get to feel good
about seeing something "important" and teaching son Jim and daughter Jane that
the Nazi's were very, very bad people.
How does this help anything? Don't show us how unlike us the Nazi's were, show
us how similar we are to them. Show us that they weren't purely evil people, but
real human beings. Human being who are really not that much different from
ourselves.
Of course, this isn't exactly something mainstream America wants to see (and
Spielberg knew it).
> : Now, can you imagine what Scorsese would have done with 'Schindler's List'?
>
> Added a few dozen uses of the word "fuck"?
Yeah, I'm guessin' that would've been his only contribution too.
Gene W. Smith
In article <dbongardE...@netcom.com>,
Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com> wrote:
>As usual you've missed the point, "LED". Yes, Spielberg can make
>enormously successful blockbusters. There just isn't much reason to
>believe he can do a good job at the "serious" films he'd supposedly
>like to do.
Yep. Sugarland Express, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, and of
course Schindler's List--just one failure after another.
Now he's going to make a movie with John Quincy Adams in it. I mean,
how dare he?
Matt Martinez
Pre-installed User wrote:
>
> If you consider that a filmmaker who only deals with the confrontation
> between the good and evil in his films is a bad cineast, then you know
> nothing about cinema.
>
> Abel Ferrara, probably one the best filmmakers today, only creates
> characters who fight against their own dichotomy as well. The greatest
> westerns were about that struggle too.
>
And David Cronenberg, a director which many people seem to think is so
brilliant (don't ask me why), always seems to repeat his own theme with
every film he does.
--
Matt
"Do not be so proud of this technological terror you have constructed.
The ability to criticize Star Wars is insignificant next to power of the
Fans"
-Brandon David Short
(-o-)
**Remove MAIL from my e-mail address to reply**
Future
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:56:49 GMT, Zr...@emails.com (Gully Foyle) wrote:
>Precisely. Some parts of the book were perfectly translated to film,
>but the complex real life elements of the plot were pushed aside to
>make room for SS's simplistic world view. He took all the complexity
>presented in the book and Disneyfied it and cheapened the emotion.
Guys, let's face it. A TWO HOUR MOVIE CANNOT BE AS COMPLEX AS A
BOOK!!! In order to make a movie at all, and make it run a certain
length, you HAVE to simplify. Sometimes you have to simplify greatly.
Sometimes that simplification destroys the original intent of the
book, sometimes it doesn't (I don't think it did in the case of
Schindler's list, which is an accomplishment in itself). I've NEVER
seen a movie that was as good as the book. Several movies have come
close... noteably, The Shawshank Redemption. But most don't come
within a mile of the book. You have to take a movie on it's own merit
- comparing it to a book by the same name just does not work.
--
You can Email me at "future at blarg dot net."
Check out my web page at http://www.blarg.net/~future/index.html .
Ryan Frazier
Future wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:56:49 GMT, Zr...@emails.com (Gully Foyle) wrote:
>
> >Precisely. Some parts of the book were perfectly translated to film,
> >but the complex real life elements of the plot were pushed aside to
> >make room for SS's simplistic world view. He took all the complexity
> >presented in the book and Disneyfied it and cheapened the emotion.
>
> Guys, let's face it. A TWO HOUR MOVIE CANNOT BE AS COMPLEX AS A
> BOOK!!! In order to make a movie at all, and make it run a certain
> length, you HAVE to simplify. Sometimes you have to simplify greatly.
> Sometimes that simplification destroys the original intent of the
> book, sometimes it doesn't (I don't think it did in the case of
> Schindler's list, which is an accomplishment in itself). I've NEVER
> seen a movie that was as good as the book. Several movies have come
> close... noteably, The Shawshank Redemption. But most don't come
> within a mile of the book. You have to take a movie on it's own merit
> - comparing it to a book by the same name just does not work.
>
Whoa. I'm with you on the "movies not as good as books" thing, but
"Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" the short story by Steven
King in his collection "Different Seasons", cleans house on the movie,
which isn't bad.
Hope the "Apt Pupil" (another novella in the same collection) movie
comes through. As good as Shawshank is, Apt Pupil is even better.
Ryan Frazier
Rufie710
> I seem to have read somewhere that Spielberg said he does commercial movies
> like Jurassic Park so that he will get to do movies that he really cares
> about-like Schindler's List.
>
> Does this statement not seem to make sense to you?
>
> Spielberg has to be one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. Wouldn't
> you think that he could make any movie that he wants to for the rest of his
> career?
>
>
>
> thomas
actually I think he probably has a hell of a lot of fun making stuff like
TLW (which I thoroughly enjoyed...much more than I thought I was going
to)....I think there is inside this lovely man a kid who lives for making
the occasinal dinosaur staring in a little boys window scene.
Ruth , a proud Speilberg fan who spends hours defending him to her arty
intellectual friends.
--
rufie710
"I tried Reality once, I found it too confining"
Rufie710
In article <dbongardE...@netcom.com>, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan
Bongard) wrote:
> Gully Foyle (Zr...@emails.com) wrote:
> : Peace Electric wrote:
>
> :> And then that speech at the end ("With this gold tooth of mine, I
> :> could've saved just _one more_!"). He just keeps driving the point home.
> :> Spielberg has to make everything clear cut so that everyone in the
> :> audience understands the message of the film. This is okay for popcorn,
> :> adventure films, but the Holocaust?
>
> : That part was a real crings, Schindler in the book did nothing of the sort.
>
> Yep. Aside from that, most of the events in the movie (such as the making
> of the ring) are true. The "I could have saved one more!" speech is fake,
> and sounded fake. It came close to spoiling the film for me, but fortunately
> it didn't last long.
>
> -- Dan
agreed. but it did inspire the hilarious Seinfeld parody..................
Rufie710
In article <33CB09...@sk.sympatico.ca>, Peace Electric
<pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Look at his portrayal of the Nazis. They're so violent, so cruel, so
evil that
> they become twisted cartoons. Parodies. Spielberg regrets trivializing
the Nazis
> in his Indiana Jones films, but he's doing the same thing in
'Schindler's List'.
> Look at the Ralph Fiennes character: there's no depth, no sense of a
real human
> being there. It's just Spielberg's childish idea of what Nazi's were like.
My husband read in an interview somewhere that the real character that
Fiennes was based on used to throw Jewish babies up in the air and shoot
them for target practice. Speilberg stated that he thought about filming
that , but just couldnt bring himself to.I think
Speilbergs view of what the Nazis were like was somewhat less than
childish.I think at that point that particular commandant had ceased being
a human being...........I think a frighteningly huge amount of people
denounced their humanity by following Hilter.
Ruth , who has friends who spent time in the Camps who would tend to agree.
Mike D'Angelo
Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Peace Electric (pea...@sk.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: : Scorsese came in and made Max Cady less a bad guy, and more an
: : understandable, wronged individual, and Sam Bowden a flawed husband
: : and father.
:
: How do you figure? Bowden's only "flaw" is that he's having an affair.
Just a flirtation, actually. It hadn't progressed to the 'affair' stage
yet, and might never have.
: Max Cady is a confessed violent rapist and torturer. The only way in
: which Cady was "wronged" is that Bowden witheld evidence that the
: rape victim had been promiscuous -- such evidence is (a) irrelevant to
: a rape trial and (b) irrelevant to the undeniable fact that Cady _is_
: a violent rapist and torturer.
I agree wholeheartedly that evidence of a rape victim's promiscuity is
irrelevant and should not be admitted, but nonetheless that is a decision
the *judge* must make. For an attorney to withhold evidence that might
exonerate his client (he was the defense attorney, right? It's been a
while, and in the original he was just a witness. If he was the
prosecutor, of course, it's even worse) is unconscionable. Cady, evil or
no, *was* wronged (which doesn't justify any of his behavior in the film,
naturally).
(While I almost never agree with Dan Bongard about anything, I must
confess that I'm on his side here -- SCHINDLER'S LIST is far superior to
CAPE FEAR. I'd even argue that it's superior to the *original* CAPE
FEAR, which I like a lot.)
Mike "ice skating with Hades" D'Angelo
--
-The Man Who Viewed Too Much-
http://pages.nyu.edu/~mqd8478
Michael Barry
Movies are not a poor cousin of literature. You will keep coming unstuck if
you persist with this line of thinking.
The cinema is an artform.
Literature is an artform.
They really don't have much to do with one another. A great film can be
based on a book or a play, but it is not necessarily so, and more often
than not, isn't. Take Bergman's "Persona". This is a work of the cinema. It
cannot be a book, a play, a piece of music, or anything else. It is a film.
Bergman chose the correct medium to express his creative thoughts.
Unfortunately, the cinema has been bastardised in order to cash in on
popular novelists because most people who make movies cannot think of
anything original to say, and movies can reach more people because of wide
distribution. A bit harsh, maybe, but it seems to be true.
Think about Branaugh's "Hamlet". Good acting, no doubt. Spectacular
visuals, undeniably. Risky, daring, cutting edge cinema? I not be thinking
so. Safe bet? Yes, ma'am.
Like McDonalds, the audience knows what it's going to get every time. A bit
harsh, maybe, but it seems to be true.
Bergman, almost without exception, like Woody Allen, Eric Rohmer, Luis
Bunuel, Martin Scorsese, work from their own scripts or from original
scripts and NOT from a book. Note the use of the word "original". That way,
the viewer has no preconceived ideas and has only their senses to guide
them through a new and hopefully unique experience.
Truffaut made films from books as well, like "Fahrenheit 451" written by
Ray Bradbury. But he made it truly cinematic in the process, for example he
used spoken credits instead of the written type to reflect the theme of the
work. This is a concept that can't be expressed in literature, where
everything must be expressed in words - by using spoken words instead of
written text in the cinema, Truffaut showed his sensitivity towards the
film medium by acknowledging the choice, and by making an intelligent one.
This is what makes for an engaging experience.
To quote Robert Bresson, "Nothing more inelegant and ineffective than an
art conceived in another art's form".
Michael Barry.
Darryl
Future wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:56:49 GMT, Zr...@emails.com (Gully Foyle) wrote:
>
> >Precisely. Some parts of the book were perfectly translated to film,
> >but the complex real life elements of the plot were pushed aside to
> >make room for SS's simplistic world view. He took all the complexity
> >presented in the book and Disneyfied it and cheapened the emotion.
>
> Guys, let's face it. A TWO HOUR MOVIE CANNOT BE AS COMPLEX AS A
> BOOK!!! In order to make a movie at all, and make it run a certain
> length, you HAVE to simplify. Sometimes you have to simplify greatly.
> Sometimes that simplification destroys the original intent of the
> book, sometimes it doesn't (I don't think it did in the case of
> Schindler's list, which is an accomplishment in itself). I've NEVER
> seen a movie that was as good as the book. Several movies have come
> close... noteably, The Shawshank Redemption. But most don't come
> within a mile of the book. You have to take a movie on it's own merit
> - comparing it to a book by the same name just does not work.
>
Dan Bongard
Mike D'Angelo (dan...@panix.com) wrote:
: Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
:: Max Cady is a confessed violent rapist and torturer. The only way in
:: which Cady was "wronged" is that Bowden witheld evidence that the
:: rape victim had been promiscuous -- such evidence is (a) irrelevant to
:: a rape trial and (b) irrelevant to the undeniable fact that Cady _is_
:: a violent rapist and torturer.
: I agree wholeheartedly that evidence of a rape victim's promiscuity is
: irrelevant and should not be admitted, but nonetheless that is a decision
: the *judge* must make. For an attorney to withhold evidence that might
: exonerate his client (he was the defense attorney, right? It's been a
: while, and in the original he was just a witness. If he was the
: prosecutor, of course, it's even worse) is unconscionable. Cady, evil or
: no, *was* wronged (which doesn't justify any of his behavior in the film,
: naturally).
Bowden was the defense attorney IIRC. As for whether Cady was
"wronged"... well, I guess it depends on what you call "wronged". Bowden
violated the legal code of ethics, but he did the moral thing. Cady
_had_ raped the girl, so he doesn't really have much right to complain
for having gone to jail for it. That's the whole problem -- the movie
left no doubt that Cady had been guilty. So who cares if he suffered? No
suffering is enough for a rapist IMO. If Scorcese had _really_ wanted
the film to be morally ambiguous he would have had Cady be innocent
(or at least he could have left open the possibility that Cady was
innocent).
-- Dan
Darryl
the stuff that's shot never ends up in the finished product anyway due
to running time, executive whims, etc.
Dan Bongard
Peace Electric (pea...@sk.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:
: > : Martin Scorsese was originally going to do 'Schindler's List', and
: > : Spielberg 'Cape Fear', but they decided to switch projects. The original
: > : script for 'Cape Fear', before Martin got a hold of it, was again clear
: > : cut with the characters.
: >
: > : Scorsese came in and made Max Cady less a bad guy, and more an
: > : understandable, wronged individual, and Sam Bowden a flawed husband and
: > : father.
: >
: > How do you figure? Bowden's only "flaw" is that he's having an affair.
: Bowden buried evidence that was, at least to some degree, important to
: the trial. Whether or not the rape victim being promiscuous is relevant
: to the case or not is debatable. But, in the universe this story takes
: place in, it sure seems to be considered so: not just by Cady, but by
: other characters who find out.
That's because the other characters are also Scorcesean inventions. The
problem is that _none_ of this is very believable or ambiguous, because
you _know_ Cady is guilty. It is hard to criticize Bowden for helping
put a violent rapist behind bars, even if Bowden _was_ supposed to
have been helping him.
: And as for flaws: Bowden was having an affair with a woman from work.
As Mike D'Angelo reminded me, he was only _thinking_ about having an affair.
: He physically abuses his daughter when he can't deal with her blossoming
: sexuality.
He physically abuses his daughter when she refuses to heed his demands
that she stop throwing herself at a confessed, convicted rapist. That's
not a flaw -- that's desperation. Bowden only resorts to violence as
a last resort.
: He fights dirty against Max--breaking the law to do so.
He starts off using entirely legal tactics. But, since this is a
fictional universe and Cady is omnipotent and omniscient, all of the
courts and laws mysteriously side with the paroled rapist instead of
the upstanding, married attorney. Besides, Bowden resorts to illegal
tactics to protect his family -- that's not a flaw, and it isn't
"morally ambiguous", it is 100% admirable. If he stood by and did
nothing and let Cady hurt his family just to protect his good name,
THAT would be morally ambiguous. But he doesn't; he does everything
he can to protect his wife and rebellious daughter from a psychotic
rapist. Legally ambiguous, yes; morally ambiguous, no.
:> Max Cady is a confessed violent rapist and torturer. The only way in
:> which Cady was "wronged" is that Bowden witheld evidence that the
:> rape victim had been promiscuous
:> Are you honestly saying that you felt the _slightest_ twinge of pity
:> for him during that film?
: Yes, I feel a lot of pity for the Max Cady character.
You have got to be kidding me.
: His illiteracy was used against him so that he could be thrown in jail
HE WAS GUILTY. He _raped_ somebody. THAT is why he went to jail. He wasn't
convicted because he was illiterate; he just wasn't able to sleeze his
way out of a deserved conviction because he was illiterate. That is NOT
a bad thing in the slightest.
: --which (at least in the film's world) is somewhere he didn't
: necessarily deserve to go.
Yes, but I don't live in Scorceseland. I live in San Diego. Cady
committed the crime; there is no doubt of that. Ergo he should have gone
to prison for it, and he did.
: Once in prison he lost his wife, his child, and however many years of
: his life.
All due to his having raped somebody. Yes, Bowden concealed evidence,
but the fact remains that if Cady had _not_ raped somebody he would not
have gone to prison. In the real world this wouldn't apply; there would
be some doubt as to whether a person was guilty. But in "Cape Fear"
there isn't -- we are plainly told that Cady was guilty. So where is
there room for pity? Oooh, a rapist lost his wife and kid. I feel
sorry for the wife and kid, but slow castration would be too good for Cady.
: At one point he tells Bowden the things he went through behind bars,
: mainly his being raped again and again by other inmates ("Do you know
: what it's like to be a woman.")
Poetic justice if ever there was any.
: All in all, I think Cady is justified in his anger and hatred toward Sam.
My mind boggles. I cannot see how you can sympathize with him.
:> The _original_ Cape Fear was vastly superior. In there, it isn't clear
:> that the Cady character had actually been guilty in the first place.
:> Now _that_ is a "wronged individual".
: I haven't seen the original yet; I'm still waiting for it to be shown or
: made available in the letterbox format. Although I'd read that it is
: fairly clear in its issues: Cady is bad, Bowden is good.
The original leaves room for doubt about whether Cady was guilty. He's
still bad, but (unlike in Scorcese's version) the justification for
his anger is a lot more ambiguous.
: I don't think Scorsese's 'Cape Fear' is some kind of brilliant film which
: is incredibly deep or has any sort of lasting insights. But is it deeper
: and more insightful than 'Schindler's List'? I think so.
I couldn't agree less. I didn't find "Schindler's List" to be especially
"deep" or insightful (the "One more!" speech simplified Schindler's
motives too much), but the story was at least interesting. "Cape Fear"
offered nothing -- a hapless schmuck sits by while an indestructable
psychotic utterly destroys his life and family. It should be filed
under "slasher films" instead of "suspense" at the local Hollywood Video.
: So, the point is that if this is what Scorsese could do with a summer
: thriller, imagine what he could do with the Holocaust.
Make an utterly tasteless version of it? Have the Jews cheat the Nazis
in a poker game and use that as a basis for claims that the Holocaust
was "morally ambiguous"? I dunno.
:>: People had to leave 'Cape Fear' -- they couldn't take it.
:> They "couldn't take it" because the movie is _bad_. People walked out
:> of Cutthroat Island for much the same reason.
: No, people were leaving 'Cape Fear' because of the violence, and the
: disturbing nature of the characters.
Hey, the only two people I know who walked out walked out in disgust at
how mind-alteringly stupid the movie was. The only reason I stayed
was out of a vain hope that _something_ might hurt DeNiro's character
at some point, but no -- he's killed by an act of God. Feh. Even
"Con Air" was better than "Cape Fear", if only because I have lower
expectations for a Bruckheimer film.
: The film is not any more violent than 'Schindler's List' or any sort of
: action film, and yet people were overwhelmed by what they saw on the
: screen. Why is that?
I don't know. Who are these "people"? Who are you talking about? Nobody
I know thought the movie was especially violent or disturbing; they
just thought it was a horribly bad movie. I wasn't even remotely
disturbed by anything in the film; I was just disturbed that the
same guys who made Taxi Driver could produce that kind of crap.
: How can Scorsese take something that the audience is desensitized to,
: and somehow make it more shocking, more powerful, more painful to watch?
He can't. This has become painfully obvious during the past eight years
or so, starting with the "chatting with the camera" end of GoodFellas
and going downhill from there.
: If the people in the film are more realistic, and the audience identifies
: with them, then the moment something horrible happens to those people,
: the audience really feels it.
But that's just the problem -- the characters in "Cape Fear" _aren't_
realistic, and I'm not aware of anyone but you who identifies them.
Cady is an omniscient indestructable psychotic. The father is a bumbling
idiot. The courts believe every word a rapist says. The daughter
gets wet in the crotch at the sight of violent rapists. What the fuck?
What alternate universe are these people from, and what possesed
Scorcese to discover it?
:>: 'Schindler's List' grossed over $100 million dollars. Is there
:>: something wrong with this picture?
:> No. "Schindler's List" was overly melodramatic in places, but "Cape Fear"
:> was pure crap. It didn't deserve to make the $7 I spent to see it, let
:> alone the kind of money "Schindler's List" made. If ever there was any
:> doubt that Scorcese has lost it, "Cape Fear" put an end to it.
: You're missing the point. 'Cape Fear' was too disturbing for many.
No, I'm _not_ missing the point. "Cape Fear" sucked -- that's why everyone
hated it. It was not "too disturbing", it was "too horribly bad". You
might like to think that people "just couldn't handle" Cape Fear, but
the reality is that they _hated_ it. Oh, I'm sure _some_ people were
disturbed, but even for those people (like myself) who were not, there
was no reason to see the film. Pure crapola. I've eaten breakfast
cereals that contained more intelligence than "Cape Fear".
: 'Schindler's List' was something that the family went to and watched for
: three hours.
That's because it was a pretty good movie. The story was interesting,
anyway, even thought Spielberg kind of screwed up parts of it.
: They got to be entertained as the Jews were paraded out and systematically
: executed. In the end, the Holocaust gets trivialized, but Mom and Pop get
: to feel good about seeing something "important" and teaching son Jim and
: daughter Jane that the Nazi's were very, very bad people.
I don't get it. How was the Holocaust "trivialized"? Because it didn't
show more nice Nazis? Didn't show more bad Jews? Because it showed
people being killed? I don't get it. What would Scorcese have done that
could have imporved things? Added more profanity?
: How does this help anything? Don't show us how unlike us the Nazi's were,
: show us how similar we are to them.
We're _not_ similar to the Nazis -- most of us aren't, anyway. The people
we _are_ similar too is the ordinary Germans, who stood by and let
the Nazis do as they pleased, working to drive the war machine and
standing by while Jews, gypsies, Communists and homosexuals were herded
into concentration camps. Schindler's List _does_ do a good job of showing
that kind of relationship, IMO. Look, _you_ may think that, if the
circumstances were right, you could be running a concentration camp
and working people to death. I'm very sorry, but most people are _not_
like that. Most people will follow orders blindly, yes, but they will
not assume a position of responsibility for carrying out evil acts.
: Show us that they weren't purely evil people, but real human beings.
: Human being who are really not that much different from ourselves.
Please! They weren't. You're confusing "Nazis" with "Germans".
: Of course, this isn't exactly something mainstream America wants to see
: (and Spielberg knew it).
IIRC, the scene where Ralph Fiennes' character decides to shoot at the
workers for sport actually happened. What should Speilberg have done?
_Not_ shown it, so we could falsely believe that the guy was "just an
ordinary human being"? He's not; he's an amoral scumbag. Most people
can do dreadful things when ordered to do so, but it takes a special
kind of guy to run a slave camp.
-- Dan
Chris Andersen
Peace Electric <pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Spielberg took this story, and squeezed it into the same cookie-cutter that
>produced the Indiana Jones films, 'E.T.', and everything else he's done. The
>film is completely black and white in its issues: the Nazis are Bad, Schindler
>and the Jews are Good. Now, I'm not saying that that isn't correct. Yes the
>Nazis were evil and the Holocaust was unjustified. But still, is life really
>this simple? Schindler himself was not a perfect person; he did a lot of things
>that wouldn't look right for your typical Spielbergian hero to be doing. So what
>does Spielberg do? He covers all of that up and simplifies the issues.
Having seen Schindler's List several times I have to laugh at anyone
who suggests that it portrays Schindler as a "good guy". True, he does
do the right thing in the end, but he was also a war-profiteer and for
much of the war didn't really see a problem with making a fortune off
of slave labor.
>Look at his portrayal of the Nazis. They're so violent, so cruel, so evil that
>they become twisted cartoons. Parodies. Spielberg regrets trivializing the Nazis
>in his Indiana Jones films, but he's doing the same thing in 'Schindler's List'.
>Look at the Ralph Fiennes character: there's no depth, no sense of a real human
>being there. It's just Spielberg's childish idea of what Nazi's were like. We get
>no insight into what this man was like or why he would do the things he would do.
>We don't even get a sense, throughout the entire three hours of the film, how the
>Holocaust could have happened. I mean, what could bring one human being to shove
>another into an oven? Spielberg doesn't know, and so he doesn't even try to show
>it, instead relying on heavy-handed melodrama.
You expect Spielberg to have answers to questions that NO ONE has been
able to answer in the 50 years since the Holocaust?
>And then that speech at the end ("With this gold tooth of mine, I could've saved
>just _one more_!"). He just keeps driving the point home. Spielberg has to make
>everything clear cut so that everyone in the audience understands the message of
>the film. This is okay for popcorn, adventure films, but the Holocaust? It deserves
>better. And now, with 'Amistad', it looks like he's doing the same thing: in real
>life the hero of the film went on to do some pretty nasty things, and it's been
>reported that Spielberg's film doesn't address this at all.
I agree that Spielberg did "heroify" Schindler to much by the end of
the movie. But I can forgive that fault considering how great the rest
of the movie is.
Peace Electric
Rufie710 wrote:
> > Look at his portrayal of the Nazis. They're so violent, so cruel, so
> > evil that they become twisted cartoons. Parodies. Spielberg regrets
> > trivializing the Nazis in his Indiana Jones films, but he's doing the
> > same thing in 'Schindler's List'. Look at the Ralph Fiennes character:
> > there's no depth, no sense of a real human being there. It's just
> > Spielberg's childish idea of what Nazi's were like.
>
> My husband read in an interview somewhere that the real character that
> Fiennes was based on used to throw Jewish babies up in the air and shoot
> them for target practice. Speilberg stated that he thought about filming
> that , but just couldnt bring himself to.
>
> I think Speilbergs view of what the Nazis were like was somewhat less than
> childish.I think at that point that particular commandant had ceased being
> a human being...........I think a frighteningly huge amount of people
> denounced their humanity by following Hilter.
How does one "cease being a human being" or "denounce their humanity"? Yes, it
sounds nice, and makes us feel comfortable and good about ourselves; these weren't
_real_ human beings, these were some kind of _monsters_, devoid of human thought,
emotion, and reason. Makes the Holocaust a tad easier to digest, doesn't it?
Well, I _don't_ think the Nazi's ceased being human beings. I'd say if you were to
have a conversation with one, it would be frightening just how articulate, rational,
and like you and I, they were. Jean Renoir once said, "Everybody has their reasons."
What were the Ralph Fiennes' character's reasons? I'm sure _he_ felt he was a human
being. I'm sure _he_ felt justified in his actions. How do you explain that? Was he
a psychopath--someone who is unable to feel remorse or guilt? Perhaps, but then how
do you explain all the other Nazi's who did the exact same things? Were they all
psychopaths as well? Of course not, psychopaths are simply not that common. So, how
do you explain it? Or, more importantly, how do you _understand_ it?
This is just some of the thought I'd have liked to have seen Spielberg put into the
film. If he could've been a little more honest, and shown the Nazis how they really
were (people, not cartoons) and Schindler how he really was (a flawed hero), I think
the film would've been far better.
Peace Electric
Mike D'Angelo wrote:
> (While I almost never agree with Dan Bongard about anything, I must
> confess that I'm on his side here -- SCHINDLER'S LIST is far superior to
> CAPE FEAR. I'd even argue that it's superior to the *original* CAPE
> FEAR, which I like a lot.)
Everyone seems to be missing my original point. I'm not saying that 'Cape Fear' is
among Scorsese's best films. I'm not using it as an example of his deep insights
into humanity or his incredible directorial skills. I'm just saying this: here's
the depth and honesty he gave to the BIG-BUDGET, SUMMER THRILLER--a genre not usually
associated with depth and honesty. So now, assuming this is what he could bring
to a subject that _doesn't_ require depth, honesty, and insight, imagine what he
could bring to the Holocaust (a subject that _does_ require those qualities).
It's not a question of which film is better, it's a question of which film is more
honest. I think 'Cape Fear' is the hands down winner in that regard.
Spielberg spent 'Schindler's List's three-hour running time to tell us one thing:
how terrible the Nazis were. Then the film quickly degenerated into an obvious
pattern:
Enter Jews. Nazis slaughter Jews.
(Spielberg, "Hey, you thought that was harsh, watch this.")
Enter more Jews. Nazis strip Jews, _then_ slaughter them.
("Ouch, that was rough huh? Those Nazis sure were bad. No, I mean _Bad_. Bad with a
capital 'B'")
Enter Cute Little Girl. Nazis slaughter Cute Little Girl.
("See what I mean? Nazis = Bad. And if you still don't believe me, look over here.")
Enter New Born Puppies, looking adorably at camera with big, brown eyes. Nazis
slaughter Puppies one-by-one.
("God, what kind of _monsters_ would kill cute little puppies. *sigh* I said it once
and I'll repeat it incessantly folks: 'Them Nazis were B-A-D!'")
Sure it makes us feel good about ourselves, but is it honest? Or better yet, is it
as honest as it could/should be? Couldn't it have been done better by directors who
have shown in the past that they know how to depict _real_ human beings? Directors
that can depict tragedy without having to candy-coat it with syrup, chocolate, and
those tiny, colorful, sparkly things.
Peace Electric
Chris Andersen wrote:
> Having seen Schindler's List several times I have to laugh at anyone
> who suggests that it portrays Schindler as a "good guy". True, he does
> do the right thing in the end, but he was also a war-profiteer and for
> much of the war didn't really see a problem with making a fortune off
> of slave labor.
He's not as good as, say, Indiana Jones or any of Spielberg's other heroes,
but he's still not depicted as a real human being, capable of both good
_and_ evil. That's really one of the major aspects of the story: Schindler
and the Fiennes' character both start off in similar places, but each choose
very different paths. Now, for this idea to have any power, both men have to
be morally equal. From that foundation they then proceed to make the monumental
decisions they make. Schindler decides to save these people, Fiennes' character
decides to kill them. Both men were capable of good and evil, but one chose
to go one way, the other another.
This, I think, is an uplifting message. We as individuals have the power to
decide our actions and make a difference. But this message is negated when
Spielberg shows Schindler, right from the start, as the Good Guy; and Fiennes'
character as the Bad Guy. Once they've been over-simplified, the message is
lost, and the movie begins to tell us (consciously or unconsciously) that our
actions are more or less set in stone, that it is our personality, our place
in the world (i.e. whether we're good or bad) that will eventually dictate our
actions.
I suppose that someone could argue that Schindler is depicted as a man of
ambiguous morals, but I disagree. I've seen the film a few times and I can't
think of anything that Schindler does that would make the audience dislike
him. I think we see him at one point sleeping with some woman, and at another
trying to make a profit with his business. That's about as flawed as the hero
is allowed to get in a Spielberg film. Even then, all of these things are
glossed over so that the audience is never really given a chance to consider
Schindler's ethics, morals, values, etc.
And then the Fiennes' character is even worse. Not once is he portrayed as a
real person, as someone who had a good side and a bad side. From the moment he
makes his entrance, he's nothing but a parody of evil. I'm not haunted by his
actions. I'm not disturbed by anything he does. How could I be, I'm never given
the opportunity to believe that he's a real person--someone with thoughts,
feelings, emotions, reasons, etc. Give us a real, flesh and blood human being,
and _then_ tell/show us the heinous things he did. _That's_ powerful. _That's_
honest.
> >We don't even get a sense, throughout the entire three hours of the film, how the
> >Holocaust could have happened. I mean, what could bring one human being to shove
> >another into an oven? Spielberg doesn't know, and so he doesn't even try to show
> >it, instead relying on heavy-handed melodrama.
>
> You expect Spielberg to have answers to questions that NO ONE has been
> able to answer in the 50 years since the Holocaust?
I didn't want answers. I wanted a real attempt by Spielberg to understand
these people, to understand his characters. Not cartoons, not simplifications,
not trivialization, not melodrama. Just an attempt. That's the most important
thing.
> I agree that Spielberg did "heroify" Schindler to much by the end of
> the movie. But I can forgive that fault considering how great the rest
> of the movie is.
Well, I like the score. The cinematography is beautiful to look at. A few
individual scenes are well done...that's about it. For me there's certainly
not enough to overlook such glaring flaws.
Peace Electric
Chris Andersen wrote:
(Some 'Schindler's List' spoilers.)
> >Yep. Aside from that, most of the events in the movie (such as the making
> >of the ring) are true. The "I could have saved one more!" speech is fake,
> >and sounded fake. It came close to spoiling the film for me, but fortunately
> >it didn't last long.
>
> Agreed. If the movie had ended there I would have felt seriously
> disappointed. Fortunately, they added the stones on the grave scene
> and completely redeemed it.
Although there's much I dislike about 'Schindler's List', I do like that final
"stones on the grave scene". It's shot as documentary and so it's emotional
and (like I keep stressing) honest. Spielberg really couldn't interfere with
what happened in the scene, so he just let the cameras roll and tried to
capture something true to life. If he could have captured that same quality in
the written scenes, I wouldn't have any problems with the film.
Gully Foyle
On 14 Jul 97 18:14:06 GMT, Martin Laverdure <bo...@total.net> wrote:
>
>I cant, agree with you here. Spielberg his at his best when (excepting JAWS)
>monster are not part of the Casting.
>
>Schinldler's List is a GRANDIOSE movie. Empire Of The Sun is among one of
>my best movie, Close Encounters Of The Thisr Kind still chill me everytimes.
>The Indiana Jones Trilogy, well you know.......
>
>Those are true Spielberg Movies. No Monsters. Or perhaps, a lots of monsters.
>
>Humans are the REAL MONSTERS. More frightening, more hunters, more killers
>machine.
>
>That.s where you will find the real demons of Spielberg.
>
>Chiao ;0)
I think you've missed the point, in each of these cases to a greater
or lesser degree we are talking about a simplification of the
protagonist and antagonist. Look at the protagonists films you
mentioned, the Nazis, the Japanese Army, the US Army and government,
and the Nazis twice in the IJ trilogy. The antagonists didn't fare
better. Schindler was a complex man (as many human beings tend to be)
yet Spielberg ignored that in favour of presenting us (again) with
struggle between good and evil (black and white). I don't think that
Spielberg can deal with the complex idea that at times the demons are
within us. That good men are not all good and bad men not all bad,
there are many shades of grey.
amerchan
Zr...@emails.com (Gully Foyle) writes:
>On 14 Jul 97 18:14:06 GMT, Martin Laverdure <bo...@total.net> wrote:
>>
>>I cant, agree with you here. Spielberg his at his best when (excepting JAWS)
>>monster are not part of the Casting.
>>
>>Schinldler's List is a GRANDIOSE movie. Empire Of The Sun is among one of
>>my best movie, Close Encounters Of The Thisr Kind still chill me everytimes.
>>The Indiana Jones Trilogy, well you know.......
>>
>>Those are true Spielberg Movies. No Monsters. Or perhaps, a lots of monsters.
>>
>>Humans are the REAL MONSTERS. More frightening, more hunters, more killers
>>machine.
>>
>>That.s where you will find the real demons of Spielberg.
>>
>>Chiao ;0)
>I think you've missed the point, in each of these cases to a greater
>or lesser degree we are talking about a simplification of the
>protagonist and antagonist. Look at the protagonists films you
>mentioned, the Nazis, the Japanese Army, the US Army and government,
>and the Nazis twice in the IJ trilogy. The antagonists didn't fare
>better. Schindler was a complex man (as many human beings tend to be)
>yet Spielberg ignored that in favour of presenting us (again) with
>struggle between good and evil (black and white). I don't think that
>Spielberg can deal with the complex idea that at times the demons are
>within us. That good men are not all good and bad men not all bad,
>there are many shades of grey.
>_________________________________________________________________
I disagree. I don't at all think Schindler was portrayed as an unalloyed hero
throughout the movie. In fact, one of the reasons I liked Schindler's List
was that Schindler's motives weren't very clear for most of the movie. I
thought Spielberg or the actor or screenwriter or whoever was responsible did
a good job at conveying Schindler's own confusion at what he wants to do or
why he does what he does. True, by the end it's clear that he is "good" - even
before the much disputed final speech about whom he could have saved had he
sold his ring he made sure that none of the bombs (or whatever weaponry they
were making) functioned. Admittedly, the Nazis were are evil, but I personally
have no problem with that.
I'm no major Spielberg fan. In almost every movie he's done that I've bothered
to see, I thought his characters were all one-dimensional (if they even had
that many dimensions). I'm usually disappointed when he attempts to be serious
(like in *The Color Purple*), but Schindler's List redeems him to me. And,
contrary to this thread, what made that movie particularly good to me was the
complexity of the character of Schindler in contrast to the usual stock char-
acters Spielberg dishes out.
Alice
kenneth mcalinden
Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Yes, he
: made "Schindler's List", but ANY semi-competent director could have
: made a good film out of "Schindler's List" -- the story itself is
: incredible.
Two questions:
How come Keneally couldn't make a book as good as the movie since the story
was so incredible?
If any semi-competent director could have made a good film out of Schindler's
List, why didn't they? The source material was available.
IMHO, Spielberg took material that most semi-competent *documentary* film-
makers could have used to make a good movie, and made a compelling narrative
film. Like all decent craftsmen, he made it look easy.
--
**********************************
* Ken McAlinden *
* kmca...@umdsun2.umd.umich.edu *
* Dearborn, MI USA *
**********************************
John Bode
In article <19970714153...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
mason...@aol.com (MasonBarge) wrote:
> Steven Spielberg has never made anything but monster movies that were
> worth a damn. He finally realized his limitation in time to make
> "Schindler's List" and get a best-picture statute. An excellent movie,
> but the point is, Spielberg can't seem to get any friction unless he has a
> monster to anchor his theme. He just doesn't have the grasp of comedy,
> drama, human character, etc., to make them stand on their own and carry a
> film. He must have a given bad-guy of enormous evil, be it natural,
> human, or made-up. It is a sign, to me, of moral and emotional
> immaturity.
>
Spielberg non-monster movies that were worth a damn (IMO):
Always
Empire of the Sun
The Color Purple
Duel
Schindler's List
The Sugarland Express
--
John Bode
"Paranoia is just reality on a finer scale" -- Strange Days
To email me directly, remove the 'nospam.' from my address.
MasonBarge
>
>
>
John Bode wrote:
>
>Spielberg non-monster movies that were worth a damn (IMO):
> Always
> Empire of the Sun
> The Color Purple
> Duel
> Schindler's List
> The Sugarland Express
Well, if you liked The Color Purple and the others very much, then we just
don't agree. I thought they were all somewhere between awful and
mediocre. Except Schindler's List, and the whole point of my post was
that Spielberg finally made a good serious movie because he found a human
monster to play off against, i.e. Hitler.
- Mason Barge
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me some coffee." -- Abraham Lincoln
Michael Wong
Can't believe that after all these years, we are still talking about
Schindler's List. Here my 2 cents worth:
> dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard) wrote:
>
> >Gully Foyle (Zr...@emails.com) wrote:
> >: Peace Electric wrote:
> >
> >:> And then that speech at the end ("With this gold tooth of mine, I
> >:> could've saved just _one more_!"). He just keeps driving the point > home.
> >:> Spielberg has to make everything clear cut so that everyone in the
> >:> audience understands the message of the film. This is okay for
> popcorn,
> >:> adventure films, but the Holocaust?
> >
> >: That part was a real crings, Schindler in the book did nothing of
> the sort.
> >
> >Yep. Aside from that, most of the events in the movie (such as the
> making
> >of the ring) are true. The "I could have saved one more!" speech is
> fake,
> >and sounded fake. It came close to spoiling the film for me, but
> fortunately
> >it didn't last long.
>
> Agreed. If the movie had ended there I would have felt seriously
> disappointed. Fortunately, they added the stones on the grave scene
> and completely redeemed it.
I beg to differ, the movie went totally downhill right before his gold
tooth speech and went crashing to the lowest point at the stones on the
grave scene. I was thoroughly disgusted at that point and couldn't
think of any other movie that featured a tacked-on ending which was
harder to stomach than this piece of crap.
1) Schindler is a creep & helped Jews to save his ass. If he didn't, he
would have been convicted as a war criminal and all the money he
made over the years through slave-labor wouldn't have saved him
from execution and having every last cent confiscated.
2) He treats his wife like crap and was involved in many extra-marital
affairs.
3) Nothing changes the fact that he is a war-profiteer and aided the
Nazis.
Here are a few examples of the heavy-handedness that are particularly
nausea inducing:
1) The a-forementioned Gold-Tooth speech.
2) The stone on the grave scene (more on that later.)
3) The gas chamber turned shower scene. As anyone who knows about the
holocaust can tell you, THERE ARE NO SHOWERS IN THE SLAUGHTER
CAMPS!! I was shocked that Spielberg found using such blatantly
false misinformation in a movie necessary to provoke a reaction
from the audience. It got nothing from me instead a loud groan,
and I was not the only one who was moaning to this scene in the
theater.
If that stone on the grave scene is not the most tacked-on ending ever
than I don't know what is!!
These are guys who worked willingly for Schindler so that they won't be
killed by the Nazis, they've seen firsthand that Schindler is a wife
abuser and adulterer, they knew they were saved by Schindler as an
insurance during trials for war criminals, and they are the same ones
who repay him by sending $50 a month to his starving wife!! And now
they are extolling the virtues of Schindler by appearing in his movie!?!
Sorry, they all sound insincere and it did not work at ALL. On the
other hand, it's all simple economics and these all sounds like
informally worked out trades to me.
A)
Slave for Schindler a few years + give up all possessions
for
Live and be fed (barely) during the few years + stay alive during the
holocaust
B)
Put in a few good words for Schindler after war.
for
Get freed from gas chambers.
C)
Stay alive till now and willing to lie.
for
Get their 15 minutes of fame to appear on oscar-winning turkey directed
by Steven Spielberg.
Mike
MasonBarge
It's spelled ciao. The word you wrote would be pronounced "cow" in
Italian.
Rufie710
In article <33CE87...@sk.sympatico.ca>, Peace Electric
<pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
Good point........It does make it so much easier for us ( and obviously
me!) to distance ourselves by calling Nazis "monsters" without facing up
to the possibility that we all have the capacity to be monsters within us.
But actually, I think that that subject is an entirely different
movie....and not neccesarily what SL was all about.
Its interesting, I work in Mental Health and have had as clients people
who were rapists and murderers and it is somehow possible to see them as
human beings with an *illness* that in effect robs them of their ability
to make choices.......
I cant explain mass hatred away so easily though.....any ideas??
BTW, I enjoy your posts.
Ruth , who is gonna have to rent SL again.
Peace Electric
Dan Bongard wrote:
> : Bowden buried evidence that was, at least to some degree, important to
> : the trial. Whether or not the rape victim being promiscuous is relevant
> : to the case or not is debatable. But, in the universe this story takes
> : place in, it sure seems to be considered so: not just by Cady, but by
> : other characters who find out.
>
> That's because the other characters are also Scorcesean inventions. The
> problem is that _none_ of this is very believable or ambiguous, because
> you _know_ Cady is guilty. It is hard to criticize Bowden for helping
> put a violent rapist behind bars, even if Bowden _was_ supposed to
> have been helping him.
Let me re-emphasize: this was a Big-Budget Hollywood, Summer Action-Thriller that,
before Scorsese came on board, had no depth and no intelligence. Scorsese's version
shades the issues--the fight between good and evil is not as clear-cut as one would
expect. In the end, yes, we root for Bowden and despise Cady. Considering the genre,
the film must (more or less) end like that.
I don't want to get into a debate in which I have to argue that 'Cape Fear' is the
most realistic, insightful Scorsese film full of remarkably three-dimensional
characters. It's not. I chose this film as an example for two reasons: one, because
Scorsese traded Spielberg for it; and two, because it brings a ton of depth to a
genre that neither needs, nor is expected to have, any depth.
But, if I want to show that Scorsese is far, far more talented at depicting rounded
characters, honesty, depth, symbolism, insight, and the many shades-of-gray that the
universe contains, I would choose 'The Age of Innocence'. It was released the same
year as 'Schindler's List' ('93) and I think a comparison between the two films would
be a clear example of who's the more mature auteur.
> : And as for flaws: Bowden was having an affair with a woman from work.
>
> As Mike D'Angelo reminded me, he was only _thinking_ about having an affair.
Bowden has had affairs in the past.
<snip arguments that Bowden was justified in his actions because Cady was a rapist>
I want to defend rapists even less than I want to defend 'Cape Fear'. All your
points are valid; I agree that, in reality, someone like Max Cady deserves whatever
punsihment the system can think to dish out. If Cady was a real man, would I feel
sympathy for him? No, of course not. In reality, would I consider Bowden immoral
for shelving evidence? I might question his loyalty to the law, but no, I think I
could understand where he was coming from.
Now, the key words from the above paragraph are "in reality". This film doesn't
take place in reality, it doesn't even take place in a world that's trying to
mimic reality. This is a fantasy land, half conjured up by the screenwriters (of
the original, and the remake) and Scorsese. In this false world, do I feel that
Cady was wronged and that Bowden is of questionable morals? Yes, definitely.
> : All in all, I think Cady is justified in his anger and hatred toward Sam.
>
> My mind boggles. I cannot see how you can sympathize with him.
What I said was, "Cady is justified in his anger and hatred toward Sam." What I
probably should have said was that I can _understand_ why he's angry. My next
statement (which was conveniently deleted) made it clear that I felt what Cady
chose to do with that anger was completely wrong.
So, to clarify:
Cady's anger/hatred = justified.
Cady's actions = _not_ justified.
> : I don't think Scorsese's 'Cape Fear' is some kind of brilliant film which
> : is incredibly deep or has any sort of lasting insights. But is it deeper
> : and more insightful than 'Schindler's List'? I think so.
>
> I couldn't agree less. I didn't find "Schindler's List" to be especially
> "deep" or insightful (the "One more!" speech simplified Schindler's
> motives too much), but the story was at least interesting. "Cape Fear"
> offered nothing -- a hapless schmuck sits by while an indestructable
> psychotic utterly destroys his life and family. It should be filed
> under "slasher films" instead of "suspense" at the local Hollywood Video.
I keep getting the sense that you're disagreeing with me just because you
disliked 'Cape Fear' so much. Again, let me repeat, it's not a question of
which film is better (I don't think either are particularly good) but which
is more honest. And this question only partly reflects what I'm trying to
get at--which is this: Who has brought more depth, honesty, and insight to
the stories they've filmed? Scorsese or Spielberg?
> : So, the point is that if this is what Scorsese could do with a summer
> : thriller, imagine what he could do with the Holocaust.
>
> Make an utterly tasteless version of it? Have the Jews cheat the Nazis
> in a poker game and use that as a basis for claims that the Holocaust
> was "morally ambiguous"? I dunno.
Again, this disdain for Scorsese and the films he's made. Do you really believe
he would've turned 'Schindler's List' into a 'Mean Streets' clone? Or are you
just saying this stuff to be annoying?
> Hey, the only two people I know who walked out walked out in disgust at
> how mind-alteringly stupid the movie was. The only reason I stayed
> was out of a vain hope that _something_ might hurt DeNiro's character
> at some point, but no -- he's killed by an act of God. Feh. Even
> "Con Air" was better than "Cape Fear", if only because I have lower
> expectations for a Bruckheimer film.
We keep coming back to 'Cape Fear' and the things you didn't like about it. So
what if Cady had unrealistic strength and stamina? This was never supposed to
be a critique of 'Cape Fear's (many) implausibilities. I only wanted to show
that Scorsese is able to bring depth to characters where none is required.
And as for walking out. I know several people who walked out/turned it off. For
most of them it was their first exposure to Scorsese and the kind of films he
makes. The scene where Cady meets the Illiana (sp?) Douglas character, takes her
home, and maims her was, for many, overwhelmingly violent and disturbing. Yet,
if you watch the scene knowing what to expect, you can see that it really isn't
that violent--especially compared to a lot of mainstream action stuff. It wasn't
the gore that did it, it was something in Scorsese's style: his camera placement,
his editing rhythm, how he guides the actors, and how he depicts characters (i.e.
realistic people we identify with).
Another scene is the one where Cady meets Juliette Lewis's character in the
school theater. Again, no violence at all in this scene, and yet people find it
remarkably tense, and even somewhat disturbing. How do you explain that? It isn't
camera movement (it remains static), it isn't music (none present), and it isn't
editing (or at least not as far as I can tell). So again, it has to be something
instilled in the characters by Scorsese. Call it depth, realism, honesty, whatever
you want. Either way, it's there
And oh yeah, there's also been quite a few postings in the Scorsese newsgroup by
people who weren't too familiar with Scorsese's past work and found this film
truly disturbing.
> : How can Scorsese take something that the audience is desensitized to,
> : and somehow make it more shocking, more powerful, more painful to watch?
>
> He can't. This has become painfully obvious during the past eight years
> or so, starting with the "chatting with the camera" end of GoodFellas
> and going downhill from there.
I actually have no idea what you're talking about here. You didn't like the
courtroom scene of 'GoodFellas'? What does this have to do with anything?
> But that's just the problem -- the characters in "Cape Fear" _aren't_
> realistic, and I'm not aware of anyone but you who identifies them.
> Cady is an omniscient indestructable psychotic. The father is a bumbling
> idiot. The courts believe every word a rapist says. The daughter
> gets wet in the crotch at the sight of violent rapists. What the fuck?
> What alternate universe are these people from, and what possesed
> Scorcese to discover it?
I'm not going to debate your (largely irrelevant) criticisms of 'Cape Fear'; but
if you want to know why Scorsese made the film, the answer is simple. It was a
favor to De Niro. More specifically, De Niro really wanted to play Max Cady and
have Scorsese direct him. Scorsese didn't want to (he hates remakes) but after
some pleading, he finally caved in.
<snipped much "Scorsese has lost it. 'Cape Fear' sucked." digressions>
> I don't get it. How was the Holocaust "trivialized"? Because it didn't
> show more nice Nazis? Didn't show more bad Jews? Because it showed
> people being killed? I don't get it. What would Scorcese have done that
> could have imporved things? Added more profanity?
More than anything, Scorsese would've made a film closer to reality. Schindler
would've been a man, capable of both good and evil. The Nazis would've been men,
real people, _also_ capable of both good and evil.
You seem to disagree that the Nazis were real people, no different than you and
I. I'd like to believe they weren't either, but it seems a tad too convenient.
Anyway, now that were talking about 'Schindler's List' again, I want to elaborate
on the David Mamet quotes I provided in an earlier post. He makes many excellent
points, far better than I can.
From "The Jew for Export" by David Mamet:
['Schindler's List'] is to my mind 'Mandingo' for Jews. 'Mandingo'
was a slave epic made for those interested in watching well-built
black men being mistreated. 'Schindler's List' is another example
of emotional pornography.
It is not the Holocaust we are watching. It is a movie, and the
people in the film are not actually being abused, they are acting
out a drama to enable the audience to exercise a portion of its
ego and call that excercise "compassion."
And, a few paragraphs later:
...'Schindler's List', ostensibly an indictment of the German
murder of the Jews, is, finally, just another instance of their
abuse. The Jews in this case are not being slaughtered, they are
merely being trotted out to entertain. How terrible. For, finally,
this movie does not "teach," it does not "reach a great number
who might otherwise be ignorant of this great wrong." It is not
instruction, but melodrama. Members of the audience learn nothing
save the emotional lesson of all melodrama, that they are better
than the villian.
...The audience comes to the theater in order to, and leaves the
theater feeling they have looked down on actions that they have
been assured -- this is the film's central lesson -- they would
never commit.
...Any of us has the capacity for atrocity -- just as each of us
has the capacity for heroism.
> IIRC, the scene where Ralph Fiennes' character decides to shoot at the
> workers for sport actually happened. What should Speilberg have done?
> _Not_ shown it, so we could falsely believe that the guy was "just an
> ordinary human being"?
Why would I knock Spielberg for covering up the bad things Schindler did, and then
turn around and knock him for _not_ covering up the Nazis' evils? I'm saying show
the Nazis as real people, not cartoons. Give us an accurate depiction of what
these people, and these events were like--not the feel-good, thrill-ride type
of film you're used to delivering.
Brian M Williams
Michael Wong (mic...@berlioz.nsc.com) wrote:
: 1) Schindler is a creep & helped Jews to save his ass. If he didn't, he
: would have been convicted as a war criminal and all the money he
: made over the years through slave-labor wouldn't have saved him
: from execution and having every last cent confiscated.
Ah, I don't know the charactor of Schindler (although study has shown
that most people who helped Jews/disadents during WW2 were "outsiders"),
but I do know that most of the companies manufacturing at Auschwitz went
mostly unpunished. The main exception is the subsiderary of IG Farben that
actually was involved in making the gas chambers and supplying zyklon-b.
The corperate leaders of IG Farben spent almost no time in prison, and
when released found good jobs waiting for them, although the corperation
was broken up by the allies (modern Bayer was part of the same IG Farben
that utilized the slave labor of Auschwitz).
--
You can get blood | Brian Williams
from a stone; | bwil...@astro.ocis.temple.edu
you just have to | Temple University
throw it hard enough. | Department of Religion
Vozhd
If we're going to talk about annoying heavyhanded moments in Schindler's
List, let's agree that the "I could have done more" speech is near the
bottom, but close to it is the blatant Israeli propaganda between this and
the cairn sequence (which I considered honestly moving). You remember:
the Schindler Jews meet some Russian troops and announce that they don't
know where to go. The Russian says, why not over there? He points, and
we cut to the marching refugees transformed into a Socialist-Realistic
human wave as the scene shifts to the promised land -- Palestine. I don't
mean to editorialize on the Middle Eastern conflict here, but this bit
reeked of propaganda, and I can understand why Muslim states regarded the
whole film as such. Overall, though, Schindler was a fine film, the best
of its year, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.
"Gangway you heelots!!!"
Gully Foyle
>
>I beg to differ, the movie went totally downhill right before his gold
>tooth speech and went crashing to the lowest point at the stones on the
>grave scene. I was thoroughly disgusted at that point and couldn't
>think of any other movie that featured a tacked-on ending which was
>harder to stomach than this piece of crap.
>
>1) Schindler is a creep & helped Jews to save his ass. If he didn't, he
> would have been convicted as a war criminal and all the money he
> made over the years through slave-labor wouldn't have saved him
> from execution and having every last cent confiscated.
>
The book which is obviously closer to the truth than the movie doesn't
bare this out. Furthermore Schindler lost a great deal of money and
died a poor man, in his later years helped financially by the Jews who
he saved.
>2) He treats his wife like crap and was involved in many extra-marital
> affairs.
>
How exactly does that relate to anything he may done to save those
people, it's a separate issue and everyone has their flaws.
>3) Nothing changes the fact that he is a war-profiteer and aided the
> Nazis.
>
Except the fact that he saved a large number of people and is on
record as never having mistreated any of his workers and helped them
in many ways, often putting himself at risk.
>Here are a few examples of the heavy-handedness that are particularly
>nausea inducing:
>
>1) The a-forementioned Gold-Tooth speech.
>
>2) The stone on the grave scene (more on that later.)
>
>3) The gas chamber turned shower scene. As anyone who knows about the
> holocaust can tell you, THERE ARE NO SHOWERS IN THE SLAUGHTER
> CAMPS!! I was shocked that Spielberg found using such blatantly
> false misinformation in a movie necessary to provoke a reaction
> from the audience. It got nothing from me instead a loud groan,
> and I was not the only one who was moaning to this scene in the
> theater.
>
I agree with all of this.
>If that stone on the grave scene is not the most tacked-on ending ever
>than I don't know what is!!
>
I didn't feel it was so bad, especially after the Gold-Tooth speech.
>These are guys who worked willingly for Schindler so that they won't be
>killed by the Nazis, they've seen firsthand that Schindler is a wife
>abuser and adulterer, they knew they were saved by Schindler as an
>insurance during trials for war criminals, and they are the same ones
>who repay him by sending $50 a month to his starving wife!! And now
>they are extolling the virtues of Schindler by appearing in his movie!?!
>
>Sorry, they all sound insincere and it did not work at ALL. On the
>other hand, it's all simple economics and these all sounds like
>informally worked out trades to me.
>
>A)
>
>Slave for Schindler a few years + give up all possessions
>
>for
>
>Live and be fed (barely) during the few years + stay alive during the
>holocaust
>
>B)
>
>Put in a few good words for Schindler after war.
>
>for
>
>Get freed from gas chambers.
>
>C)
>
>Stay alive till now and willing to lie.
>
>for
>
>Get their 15 minutes of fame to appear on oscar-winning turkey directed
>by Steven Spielberg.
>
That's cynical overdrive and I'm not sure I'd go that far, that the
movie was way overrated simply because of the subject matter there is
no doubt.
Gully Foyle
On 18 Jul 1997 10:59:05 -0700, amer...@castor.usc.edu (amerchan)
wrote:
>I disagree. I don't at all think Schindler was portrayed as an unalloyed hero
>throughout the movie. In fact, one of the reasons I liked Schindler's List
>was that Schindler's motives weren't very clear for most of the movie. I
>thought Spielberg or the actor or screenwriter or whoever was responsible did
>a good job at conveying Schindler's own confusion at what he wants to do or
>why he does what he does.
The Spielberg throws in his little girl in red as this miraculous
turning point in the movie (this didn't occur in the book) when
Schindler decides to act. It has to be all spelt out for us, so there
can be no doubt. I think Spielberg is too limited as a director to
have conveyed to us the complexity of the situation and emotions
without resorting to a simple visual trick like the one he used.
>True, by the end it's clear that he is "good" - even
>before the much disputed final speech about whom he could have saved had he
>sold his ring he made sure that none of the bombs (or whatever weaponry they
>were making) functioned. Admittedly, the Nazis were are evil, but I personally
>have no problem with that.
>
Even among the Nazis there were those who had reservations about the
treatment of the Jews. They were not all cold blooded killers.
>I'm no major Spielberg fan. In almost every movie he's done that I've bothered
>to see, I thought his characters were all one-dimensional (if they even had
>that many dimensions). I'm usually disappointed when he attempts to be serious
>(like in *The Color Purple*), but Schindler's List redeems him to me. And,
>contrary to this thread, what made that movie particularly good to me was the
>complexity of the character of Schindler in contrast to the usual stock char-
>acters Spielberg dishes out.
>
I think Liam Neeson did a good job of his portrayal of Schindler, as
did Fiennes with his role, as limited as the characterisations were.
Gully Foyle
On 16 Jul 1997 23:46:46 -0400, gws...@river.gwi.net (Gene W. Smith)
wrote:
>In article <dbongardE...@netcom.com>,
>Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>As usual you've missed the point, "LED". Yes, Spielberg can make
>>enormously successful blockbusters. There just isn't much reason to
>>believe he can do a good job at the "serious" films he'd supposedly
>>like to do.
>
>Yep. Sugarland Express, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, and of
>course Schindler's List--just one failure after another.
>
All fairly middle-of-the-road, middleclass "serious movies", very
slick production and watered down storyline for the kitsch palate,
with good winning in the end.
Gully Foyle
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:01:13 -0700, Mitchell Ting <mkt...@uci.edu>
wrote:
>
>On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Gene W. Smith wrote:
>
>> He said he was going to alternate between entertainment films and serious
>> ones, and we get a serious one next. I think Steve deserves to be judged
>> on those by their own merits.
>
>I couldn't blame him for directing The Lost World, since his next movie is
>in fact a "serious" one ... Amistad with Morgan Freeman (I believe it's
>something to do with a slave ship, but I could be wrong). Besides, if I
>was a director, I wouldn't want to film another "serious" movie back to
>back after Schindler's List, no matter how "commercial" it may seem.
>
So instead you make a movie like TLW which looks like you put all the
effort into of going to the crapper. Smart move.
Gully Foyle
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:37:22 GMT, see_sig@message_bottom.com (Future)
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:56:49 GMT, Zr...@emails.com (Gully Foyle) wrote:
>
>>Precisely. Some parts of the book were perfectly translated to film,
>>but the complex real life elements of the plot were pushed aside to
>>make room for SS's simplistic world view. He took all the complexity
>>presented in the book and Disneyfied it and cheapened the emotion.
>
>Guys, let's face it. A TWO HOUR MOVIE CANNOT BE AS COMPLEX AS A
>BOOK!!! In order to make a movie at all, and make it run a certain
>length, you HAVE to simplify. Sometimes you have to simplify greatly.
>Sometimes that simplification destroys the original intent of the
>book, sometimes it doesn't (I don't think it did in the case of
>Schindler's list, which is an accomplishment in itself). I've NEVER
>seen a movie that was as good as the book. Several movies have come
>close... noteably, The Shawshank Redemption.
Jesus I hate it when people bring up TSR, the movie was mediocre at
best IMO and that tacked on ending really stunk, yet people still hold
it up as one of the great movies of that year.
>But most don't come
>within a mile of the book. You have to take a movie on it's own merit
>- comparing it to a book by the same name just does not work.
>
No it doesn't and we aren't morons who don't understand that you can't
translate a book directly to film. have a look at directors like
Kubrick and Scorsese and their translations of books to screen, or
have a look at Polanski's MacBeth. you don't have to comprimise the
book/play to make it into a movie.
Peace Electric
Rufie710 wrote:
> Good point........It does make it so much easier for us ( and obviously
> me!) to distance ourselves by calling Nazis "monsters" without facing up
> to the possibility that we all have the capacity to be monsters within us.
>
> But actually, I think that that subject is an entirely different
> movie....and not neccesarily what SL was all about.
I agree, it wouldn't have been conceivable for Spielberg to deal with Schindler's
story _and_ all the fundamental questions the Holocaust brings up. It would be
unfair for me (or anyone else) to expect Spielberg to answer a question like, "How
did the Holocaust happen?" What I really would have liked from 'Schindler's List'
is accurracy/honesty. Don't simplify Schindler, don't simplify the Nazis. Try to
give your story some depth and force the audience to think a bit, to question
themselves. I don't know if Spielberg is really even capable of doing this--not
because he is unskilled, but because it just isn't the way his mind works. None of
his films have ever contained anything _but_ heroes and villians. I don't criticize
him for that though. When he's doing something like 'Jaws' or 'Raiders of the Lost
Ark' his world view is perfectly acceptable, but it's when he goes and makes a movie
about the Holocaust...well, I just don't think he's the best man for the subject.
(minor spoilers for 'Flirting' follow)
> I cant explain mass hatred away so easily though.....any ideas??
No, I can't explain it. Can anyone? Though I am reminded of a scene from John
Duigan's 1992 Australian film 'Flirting'. In it, there's a 16-year-old-or-so kid
named Danny (played by Noah Taylor) who's going to this private, boarding-type
school. He stutters and is the target of many jokes. He's just been unfairly
punished by one of his teachers, and as he leaves class he looks back and we see
the teacher dressed up like a Nazi (this is in Danny's imagination). Then, as
he's walking back to his room, one of his fellow students passes by and mocks
him (don't recall what the insult was, but it had something to do with his
stuttering) and we hear Danny in voice-over saying, "People always ask how the
Holocaust could have ever happened...it never really surprised me."
> BTW, I enjoy your posts.
Thanks.
Peace Electric
Gully Foyle wrote:
> >I disagree. I don't at all think Schindler was portrayed as an unalloyed hero
> >throughout the movie. In fact, one of the reasons I liked Schindler's List
> >was that Schindler's motives weren't very clear for most of the movie. I
> >thought Spielberg or the actor or screenwriter or whoever was responsible did
> >a good job at conveying Schindler's own confusion at what he wants to do or
> >why he does what he does.
>
> The Spielberg throws in his little girl in red as this miraculous
> turning point in the movie (this didn't occur in the book) when
> Schindler decides to act. It has to be all spelt out for us, so there
> can be no doubt. I think Spielberg is too limited as a director to
> have conveyed to us the complexity of the situation and emotions
> without resorting to a simple visual trick like the one he used.
Spielberg is/was out of his league with such serious drama. I don't think he's
particularly skilled at making those types of films, nor do I think he enjoys
it very much. Unfortunately, sometime in the '80s he was bit by the Oscar bug,
and became determined to make "serious", "important", "artsy" films, instead
of the regular commercial stuff he excelled at. This Oscar thing happens to so
many people involved in the industry. Harrison Ford had it for a while there,
but luckily he shook it off in time for 'The Fugitive'. Paul Newman and Ellen
Burstyn were stung and both turned to Scorsese. Scorsese tried to make them each
a film in which they could give "the performance of their lifetime" or perhaps
just "the performance that got them the statuette" seeing as the Academy has a
habit of _not_ honoring the best performance of an actor's career (Brando, Bogart,
Nicholson, Pacino).
Now, what I don't understand is, Why did Spielberg suddenly decide that the
stories he used to enjoy telling were no longer worthy of his direction? I think
if you ask someone to name Spielberg's five best films, the large majority of
them will come from his pre-Oscar fever days (i.e. 'Jaws', Raiders, Sugarland,
Close Encounters, 'Duel', etc.).
Why doesn't he go back to his roots and start making films that are both
mainstream and successful, yet still reflect his personal vision and enthusiasm.
The early Spielberg reminded me of Howard Hawks--a director who made popular films
that were incredibly well done and entertaining. Now, Spielberg is putting out
stale popcorn films ('The Lost World') which are designed for only one reason: to
make money; and making dramas that pale in comparison to what the _real_ dramatic
directors can do.
He exchanged excellence for mediocrity.
Gully Foyle
On 18 Jul 1997 14:41:12 GMT, kmca...@elvis.umd.umich.edu (kenneth
mcalinden) wrote:
>Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Yes, he
>: made "Schindler's List", but ANY semi-competent director could have
>: made a good film out of "Schindler's List" -- the story itself is
>: incredible.
>
>Two questions:
>
>How come Keneally couldn't make a book as good as the movie since the story
>was so incredible?
>
You must be kidding, I've heard it all now. Keneally masterfully
tells an amazing true story in novel format, there wasn't one part of
the book that made me cringe at the use of some cheap dramatic device
that Spielberg resorted to. IMO it's one of the best written novels
I've read, made all the more powerful by it's non-fictional subject
matter.
Sure the movie is always better because it spoon feeds the audience.
We need more of that "dumbing-down" because it makes for a better
story, one that we can understand. I bet you're one of the people who
if they read Forrest Gump preferred the movie. It's no coincidence
that Spielberg is Zemeckis' mentor, the latter learnt well the art of
sugar coating and simplifying the subject matter.
>If any semi-competent director could have made a good film out of Schindler's
>List, why didn't they? The source material was available.
>
>IMHO, Spielberg took material that most semi-competent *documentary* film-
>makers could have used to make a good movie, and made a compelling narrative
>film. Like all decent craftsmen, he made it look easy.
No, he made parts of it look cheap, like the director of PG13
pop-culture movies that he is.
Fred G. Sanford
Gully Foyle wrote:
> >If that stone on the grave scene is not the most tacked-on ending
> ever
I have to agree. Schindler's List is the king of overrated and was in no
way deserving of winning the big one. Just think how much better it
would have been had someone like Scorsese had directed it.
Gully Foyle
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 22:29:13 GMT, gen...@blast.net (Rufie710) wrote:
>
>actually I think he probably has a hell of a lot of fun making stuff like
>TLW (which I thoroughly enjoyed...much more than I thought I was going
>to)....I think there is inside this lovely man a kid who lives for making
>the occasinal dinosaur staring in a little boys window scene.
I really think Spielberg who directed TLW is a pale version of the one
you are talking about. That yawn and that incredibly bored look that
Jeff Goldblum had on his face, to me at least, represents Spielberg's
approach to the entire movie. He probably wants to do the more
"serious stuff" to cement his stance as more than just a great
director of PG flicks and blockbusters. The problem is that it seems
as though the insight and control required are beyond his grasp.
>Ruth , a proud Speilberg fan who spends hours defending him to her arty
>intellectual friends.
>
You've certainly got your work cut out for you there.
kenneth mcalinden
Gully Foyle (Zr...@emails.com) wrote:
: On 18 Jul 1997 14:41:12 GMT, kmca...@elvis.umd.umich.edu (kenneth
: mcalinden) wrote:
: >Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Yes, he
: >: made "Schindler's List", but ANY semi-competent director could have
: >: made a good film out of "Schindler's List" -- the story itself is
: >: incredible.
: >
: >Two questions:
: >
: >How come Keneally couldn't make a book as good as the movie since the story
: >was so incredible?
: >
: You must be kidding, I've heard it all now. Keneally masterfully
: tells an amazing true story in novel format, there wasn't one part of
: the book that made me cringe at the use of some cheap dramatic device
: that Spielberg resorted to. IMO it's one of the best written novels
: I've read, made all the more powerful by it's non-fictional subject
: matter.
The only thing I thought the novel had going for it was a fascinating
true story. I did not think it was particularly well written.
: Sure the movie is always better because it spoon feeds the audience.
Here you set up a straw man by assuming that the reason that I liked the movie
better than the book is that I enjoy being spoon-fed. How can you be wrong
when you are inventing your own counter-arguments? The only part of the
movie that I thought was over-contrived was the "I could have done so much
more" sequence at the end. Apart from that, I found it to be extremely
well adapted.
: We need more of that "dumbing-down" because it makes for a better
: story, one that we can understand. I bet you're one of the people who
: if they read Forrest Gump preferred the movie. It's no coincidence
: that Spielberg is Zemeckis' mentor, the latter learnt well the art of
: sugar coating and simplifying the subject matter.
If you want to talk about sugar-coating and simplifying, compare the Jenny
character in the movie to the one in the book. Zemeckis turns her into
the one character in the film that most baby-boomers could *really* identify
with and then drags her through hell. Her treatment in the book as a
more or less emptyheaded cheerleader type prevents this identification/
recognition from taking place. In this particular case, Zemeckis intro-
duces a subversive element to the film that most viewers do not recognize
but probably feel. Of course, a lot of people dismissed it as PC Hollywood
BS without really thinking about it since dismissing big studio pictures is
the thing to do.
: >If any semi-competent director could have made a good film out of Schindler's
: >List, why didn't they? The source material was available.
: >
: >IMHO, Spielberg took material that most semi-competent *documentary* film-
: >makers could have used to make a good movie, and made a compelling narrative
: >film. Like all decent craftsmen, he made it look easy.
: No, he made parts of it look cheap, like the director of PG13
: pop-culture movies that he is.
Again, I only thought that one scene was overwrought (if not "cheap"), but
we obviously disagree about the rest.
Caius Marcius
In <33D169...@sk.sympatico.ca> Peace Electric
<pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>> The Spielberg throws in his little girl in red as this miraculous
>> turning point in the movie (this didn't occur in the book) when
>> Schindler decides to act.
Reread the book, Mr. Electric, becuase you obviously missed the scene.
Thomas Keneally (the author) is much more explicit here than Speilberg.
Schindler, as he views the attack on Krakow from a remote hilltop,
sees a little child dressed in red wandering alone through the streets.
His mistress comments that the child must be female, because a boy
would not wear such a bright shade of red.
Schindler must fight the temptation to vomit. He realizes that if such
atrocities are occuring in full view of this little girl, the soldiers
must be acting with the full knowledge and authorization of their
superiors. It was at that moment that Schindler vowed that he would do
everything within his power to destroy the Third Reich.
The only invention Spielberg did was with respect to the girl's final
fate, as one of the hundreds of corpses that are excavated to be
burned. In reality, the fate of the little girl was unknown, though
Speilberg's surmise is hardly far-fetched.
Spielberg's rendition of the scene was masterly. A lesser director
would have Schindler giving a scenery-chewing speech denouncing the
Nazis. The red-tinted coat of the little girl was clearly intended as
a message to those who (unlike Mr. Peace & Electric) read Keneally's
book.
- CMC
Jerry Squab
> I have to agree. Schindler's List is the king of overrated and was in no
> way deserving of winning the big one. Just think how much better it
> would have been had someone like Scorsese had directed it.
King of overrated? Have you not seen Contact? I'd be happy
to see SL get Best Picture again rather than Contact.
Dan Bongard
Peace Electric (pea...@sk.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: Mike D'Angelo wrote:
: Everyone seems to be missing my original point. I'm not saying that 'Cape
: Fear' is among Scorsese's best films. I'm not using it as an example of
: his deep insights into humanity or his incredible directorial skills.
: I'm just saying this: here's the depth and honesty he gave to the
: BIG-BUDGET, SUMMER THRILLER--a genre not usually associated with depth
: and honesty.
The reason I'm "missing" that particular point is that there WAS no
"depth and honesty" in CAPE FEAR -- just the usual trashy summer
suspense film hijinks, unintelligent as ever.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
:: Yes, he made "Schindler's List", but ANY semi-competent director could
:: have made a good film out of "Schindler's List" -- the story itself is
:: incredible.
: How come Keneally couldn't make a book as good as the movie since the
: story was so incredible?
Are you referring to the book "Schindler's List"? I haven't read it, but
you're the first person I've ever heard say it was _worse_ than the movie.
Everyone else has thought the book was much better.
: If any semi-competent director could have made a good film out of
: Schindler's List, why didn't they?
Mostly because the story wasn't widely known; later, because Spielberg
bought the rights to the book and decided to make a movie about it.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
: >As usual you've missed the point, "LED". Yes, Spielberg can make
: >enormously successful blockbusters. There just isn't much reason to
: >believe he can do a good job at the "serious" films he'd supposedly
: >like to do.
: Yep. Sugarland Express, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, and of
: course Schindler's List--just one failure after another.
Failures no -- medicore films, yes.
: Now he's going to make a movie with John Quincy Adams in it. I mean,
: how dare he?
Well hell, I guess its automatically going to be good then.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
Michael Wong (mic...@berlioz.nsc.com) wrote:
: If that stone on the grave scene is not the most tacked-on ending ever
: than I don't know what is!!
The "I am Malcolm X" montage at the end of "Malcolm X"? That's another
good example of an interesting story that suffers from having the
director's messages shoehorned into it.
-- Dan
Derek Janssen
Oh, was that what those kids were saying?
I'd thought they were saying, "I am Tiger Woods" "I am Tiger Woods"... ; )
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
cla...@grin.net
In article <01bc960b$49e0b0c0$048489d0@host>,
I thought Schindlers List was perfect as it was.
It was truly Spielberg's greatest work. As for Contact.
Except for the corny beach sequence it was a great film.
I loved the opening space shot. You don't see stuff like that everyday.
--
Cla...@grin.net
http://film.tierranet.com
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Peace Electric
Caius Marcius wrote:
('Schindler's List' spoilers)
> In <33D169...@sk.sympatico.ca> Peace Electric <pea...@sk.sympatico.ca>
> writes:
>
> >> The Spielberg throws in his little girl in red as this miraculous
> >> turning point in the movie (this didn't occur in the book) when
> >> Schindler decides to act.
>
> Reread the book, Mr. Electric, becuase you obviously missed the scene.
I didn't write the above. You're reaming out the wrong guy.
<snip>
> Spielberg's rendition of the scene was masterly. A lesser director
> would have Schindler giving a scenery-chewing speech denouncing the
> Nazis.
Spielberg? Scenery-chewing speeches? You're right, would _never_ happen.
> The red-tinted coat of the little girl was clearly intended as
> a message to those who (unlike Mr. Peace & Electric) read Keneally's
> book.
Like I already pointed out, you're attributing to me comments I didn't make. I
don't even despise the red coat gimmick that much. I wouldn't go so far as to
call it masterly, but it is clever (albeit a bit heavy-handed).
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Cab thing is just part-time."
-Travis Bickle, 'Taxi Driver'
The moral of today's post: Watch when you quote.
Caius Marcius
In <5r0d56$o...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> cori...@ix.netcom.com(Caius
Marcius) writes:
>
>In <33D169...@sk.sympatico.ca> Peace Electric
><pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>>>
>>> The Spielberg throws in his little girl in red as this miraculous
>>> turning point in the movie (this didn't occur in the book) when
>>> Schindler decides to act.
>
>Reread the book, Mr. Electric, becuase you obviously missed the scene.
BTW, it's in Chapter 15.
- CMC
Fred G. Sanford
Dan Bongard wrote:
The book is good, the movie is really rather average. Not bad, by no
means great.
Gully Foyle
On 21 Jul 1997 14:14:39 GMT, kmca...@elvis.umd.umich.edu (kenneth
mcalinden) wrote:
>Gully Foyle (Zr...@emails.com) wrote:
>: On 18 Jul 1997 14:41:12 GMT, kmca...@elvis.umd.umich.edu (kenneth
>: mcalinden) wrote:
>
>: >Dan Bongard (dbon...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: >
>: >: Yes, he
>: >: made "Schindler's List", but ANY semi-competent director could have
>: >: made a good film out of "Schindler's List" -- the story itself is
>: >: incredible.
>: >
>: >Two questions:
>: >
>: >How come Keneally couldn't make a book as good as the movie since the story
>: >was so incredible?
>: >
>
>: You must be kidding, I've heard it all now. Keneally masterfully
>: tells an amazing true story in novel format, there wasn't one part of
>: the book that made me cringe at the use of some cheap dramatic device
>: that Spielberg resorted to. IMO it's one of the best written novels
>: I've read, made all the more powerful by it's non-fictional subject
>: matter.
>
>The only thing I thought the novel had going for it was a fascinating
>true story. I did not think it was particularly well written.
>
All I'll say here is; each to his own.
>: Sure the movie is always better because it spoon feeds the audience.
>
>Here you set up a straw man by assuming that the reason that I liked the movie
>better than the book is that I enjoy being spoon-fed.
I wasn't assuming anything, I was stating my opinion on why some
people (generally speaking) like the movie better than the book. I
wasn't saying that you enjoy being spoon fed. On the other hand you
assume that I'm setting up a straw man.
>How can you be wrong
>when you are inventing your own counter-arguments?
I'm always right.
>The only part of the
>movie that I thought was over-contrived was the "I could have done so much
>more" sequence at the end. Apart from that, I found it to be extremely
>well adapted.
>
Again; each to his own.
>: We need more of that "dumbing-down" because it makes for a better
>: story, one that we can understand. I bet you're one of the people who
>: if they read Forrest Gump preferred the movie. It's no coincidence
>: that Spielberg is Zemeckis' mentor, the latter learnt well the art of
>: sugar coating and simplifying the subject matter.
>
>If you want to talk about sugar-coating and simplifying, compare the Jenny
>character in the movie to the one in the book. Zemeckis turns her into
>the one character in the film that most baby-boomers could *really* identify
>with and then drags her through hell. Her treatment in the book as a
>more or less emptyheaded cheerleader type prevents this identification/
>recognition from taking place. In this particular case, Zemeckis intro-
>duces a subversive element to the film that most viewers do not recognize
>but probably feel.
I think you are giving Zemeckis more credit than is due, this was all
a bit of cheap manipulation shoe horned into the plot. The entire
movie is cheap manipulative revisionism.
>Of course, a lot of people dismissed it as PC Hollywood
>BS without really thinking about it since dismissing big studio pictures is
>the thing to do.
>
Interesting then that it was so loved by the non-PC crowd (I'm talking
conservative) because it gave them a good moralistic story in plain
black and white, with plenty of stomach turning references to god
thrown in for good measure.
>: >If any semi-competent director could have made a good film out of Schindler's
>: >List, why didn't they? The source material was available.
>: >
>: >IMHO, Spielberg took material that most semi-competent *documentary* film-
>: >makers could have used to make a good movie, and made a compelling narrative
>: >film. Like all decent craftsmen, he made it look easy.
>
>: No, he made parts of it look cheap, like the director of PG13
>: pop-culture movies that he is.
>
>Again, I only thought that one scene was overwrought (if not "cheap"), but
>we obviously disagree about the rest.
>
I just don't like some of the things Spielberg does, at times he turns
up the volume when subtlety is needed and so on. To be fair there were
parts that I found were amazingly directed, you'll be surprised to
learn that they were parts transferred almost complete from the pages
of the book. In particular the scene with the female architect,
captured the cold brutality of circumstances incredibly well. IMO it
would have been a better movie if Spielberg had employed that very
sparseness throughout the entire movie.
Alex Fung
Caius Marcius (cori...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> In <33D169...@sk.sympatico.ca> Peace Electric
> <pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>>>
>>> The Spielberg throws in his little girl in red as this miraculous
>>> turning point in the movie (this didn't occur in the book) when
>>> Schindler decides to act.
>
> Reread the book, Mr. Electric, becuase you obviously missed the scene.
> Thomas Keneally (the author) is much more explicit here than Speilberg.
This argument would be slightly more effective if it were directed at the
correct party - Mr. Electric did not write the above passage, but was
merely quoting a previous post, as is clearly evident from the ">" quotes.
--
Alex Fung (aw...@freenet.carleton.ca) | http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aw220/
"He's the one they want. Why don't we give him to them? Well, don't give
me that civilized look!" - Nancy Loomis, ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13
Peace Electric
Caius Marcius wrote:
> >In <33D169...@sk.sympatico.ca> Peace Electric <pea...@sk.sympatico.ca>
> >writes:
> >
> >>> The Spielberg throws in his little girl in red as this miraculous
> >>> turning point in the movie (this didn't occur in the book) when
> >>> Schindler decides to act.
> >
> >Reread the book, Mr. Electric, becuase you obviously missed the scene.
>
> BTW, it's in Chapter 15.
I'm not the one who made the original comments! Get off my back already.
Dan Bongard
Fred G. Sanford (del...@erols.com) wrote:
: The book is good, the movie is really rather average. Not bad, by no
: means great.
Exactly. It would have been a much better film if Spielberg had been
able to resist adding glaringly fake moments like the "one more" speech.
-- Dan
Gully Foyle
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:24:19 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
wrote:
I think you're being too critical of CF, anything that Scorsese does
is going to be a few notches above the work of most other directors,
even his misses are often more interesting than others hits. Sure CF's
plot went overboard (no pun), particularly at the end, but as a film
it still bears the craftsmanship of a master movie maker.
Gully Foyle
On 22 Jul 1997 03:42:10 GMT, cori...@ix.netcom.com(Caius Marcius)
wrote:
>In <5r0d56$o...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com> cori...@ix.netcom.com(Caius
>Marcius) writes:
>>
>>In <33D169...@sk.sympatico.ca> Peace Electric
>><pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>>>>
>>>> The Spielberg throws in his little girl in red as this miraculous
>>>> turning point in the movie (this didn't occur in the book) when
>>>> Schindler decides to act.
>>
>>Reread the book, Mr. Electric, becuase you obviously missed the scene.
>
>BTW, it's in Chapter 15.
>
I made the original comments. As for the book I don't recall that as
some miraculous point at which OS is changed. It certainly brought
home to him the extreme measures that the Nazis were using and that it
was official policy, it can be seen as a catalyst for action. It did
not suddenly change OS from a callous businessman into an altruist.
Which is precisely the way Spielberg filmed it, because that fits in
with his Disney world view.
Gully Foyle
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:09:22 GMT, dbon...@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
wrote:
>Gene W. Smith (gws...@river.gwi.net) wrote:
What should we expect when Spielberg uses his name like a rubber stamp
just to bring in the bucks? Should we take him seriously because he
puts his serious cap on?
Gully Foyle
On 21 Jul 1997 19:21:45 GMT, "Jerry Squab" <wi...@io.com> wrote:
>> I have to agree. Schindler's List is the king of overrated and was in no
>> way deserving of winning the big one. Just think how much better it
>> would have been had someone like Scorsese had directed it.
>-----------
>King of overrated? Have you not seen Contact? I'd be happy
>to see SL get Best Picture again rather than Contact.
Spielberg must have been eating his hand when Zemeckis won the Oscar
for Gump, after all it took Spielberg sooo much longer to get one.
Carrie Pruett
"Jerry Squab" writes:
> > I have to agree. Schindler's List is the king of overrated and was in no
> > way deserving of winning the big one. Just think how much better it
> > would have been had someone like Scorsese had directed it.
I'm extremely curious aas to what picture you did think was
deserving in that rather mediocre year. The Fugitive? (nice
action pictre but what's the big deal) In the Name of the
Father? (inaccurate, obvious, overacted -- an OK film, but
notheing special) The Piano? (gag,gag, don't even get me
started!) Philadelphia (Makes Schindler's List and INTOTF look
subtle. How could so many talented people make such a
turkey?) "Much Ado" (An enjoyable film but more for the
Shakespeare than anything Branagh did w/ it). "Age of
Innocence" (yawn...) The only really outstanding picture I
remember from that year, aside from "List" was "Remains of the
Day" -- a nice meditation on a small slice of life, w/ greater
implications, but w/o the scope or style of Schindler.
This was one year in which the Academy certainly made the right
choice.
Carrie
--
Many a peer of England brews/ livelier liquor than the muse/,
and malt does more than Milton can/to justify God's ways to man.
-A.E. Housman
SB
In article <33e66c98...@news.techno.net.au>, Zr...@emails.com says...
It did
>not suddenly change OS from a callous businessman into an altruist.
>Which is precisely the way Spielberg filmed it, because that fits in
>with his Disney world view.
>_________________________________________________________________
was a movie that needed to be made, but not by him. This is sick, but
the whole time I was watching it, I kept thinking, "this guy directed
The Goonies!" Especially everytime he used one of his overused techniques.
Operation Condor (directed by Jackie Chan) had more originality in its
direction in 30 minutes than Speilburg has accomplished in all his films
put together.
I bet he would be the first to admit it. Stephen King admits his books
are junk, but people keep buying them. Schindler's List will not rescue
Spielburg from the label of 'hack' in my eyes or many others with half
a brain. There are MANY other directors who could have done so much more
with such a incredibly powerful subject. And as far as awards go...
Beavis and Butthead could have directed it and got awards with such a film.
-SBREW
cen0...@centuryinter.net
When Yossarian brought the news to Nately's whore that Nately
had expired, it didn't matter to her that Yossarian didn't kill him.
She immediately reached for a knife and attempted to stab him.
Its the messanger, Stupid!
Mike Rice
mr...@centuryinter.net
Rufie710
In article <5rc51u$n06$0...@206.230.70.217>, Matt Martinez
<jsej...@alpha.wcoil.comMAIL> wrote:
and the upcoming APT
> PUPIL)
There is gonna be a film of that??? tell me more!!
--
rufie710
"I tried Reality once, I found it too confining"
Gully Foyle
>"Jerry Squab" writes:
>> > I have to agree. Schindler's List is the king of overrated and was in no
>> > way deserving of winning the big one. Just think how much better it
>> > would have been had someone like Scorsese had directed it.
>
>
>I'm extremely curious aas to what picture you did think was
>deserving in that rather mediocre year. The Fugitive? (nice
>action pictre but what's the big deal) In the Name of the
>Father? (inaccurate, obvious, overacted -- an OK film, but
>notheing special) The Piano? (gag,gag, don't even get me
>started!) Philadelphia (Makes Schindler's List and INTOTF look
>subtle. How could so many talented people make such a
>turkey?) "Much Ado" (An enjoyable film but more for the
>Shakespeare than anything Branagh did w/ it). "Age of
>Innocence" (yawn...) The only really outstanding picture I
>remember from that year, aside from "List" was "Remains of the
>Day" -- a nice meditation on a small slice of life, w/ greater
>implications, but w/o the scope or style of Schindler.
>
>This was one year in which the Academy certainly made the right
>choice.
>
And ignored Scorsese? Surely SL wasn't so good that it deserved to
sweep almost all the major categories? Surely all the movies you
movies you mention aren't all inferior to SL? yes even The Piano,
Remains and TAOI. SL was carried along largely by it's non-fiction
subject matter, it helped deflect sharp criticism.
Alex Fung
Rufie710 (gen...@blast.net) writes:
> In article <5rc51u$n06$0...@206.230.70.217>, Matt Martinez
> <jsej...@alpha.wcoil.comMAIL> wrote:
>
> and the upcoming APT
>> PUPIL)
>
> There is gonna be a film of that??? tell me more!!
Isn't this the adaptation directed by Bryan Singer (THE USUAL SUSPECTS),
starring Ian McKellen and Brad Renfro as the two central characters, and
David Schwimmer as the teacher? I expect that it should be ready soon; I
recall production ongoing about a year ago.
Matt Martinez
Alex Fung wrote:
>
> David Schwimmer as the teacher?...
>
Are you talking about the guidance counselor the boy (David?) brutally
guns down in the end? I bet all the Friends haters are wringing their
hand in anticipation of this scene!
--
Matt
"Do not be so proud of this technological terror you have constructed.
The ability to criticize Star Wars is insignificant next to power of the
Fans"
-Brandon David Short
(-o-)
**Remove MAIL from my e-mail address to reply**
Carrie Pruett
Zr...@emails.com writes:
(1993 Oscars)
> >
> >This was one year in which the Academy certainly made the right
> >choice.
> >
>
> And ignored Scorsese? Surely SL wasn't so good that it deserved to
> sweep almost all the major categories? Surely all the movies you
> movies you mention aren't all inferior to SL? yes even The Piano,
> Remains and TAOI. SL was carried along largely by it's non-fiction
> subject matter, it helped deflect sharp criticism.
Sorry, but IMO "Innocence" was a total snoozer. You can't just
throw out Scorcese's name and say that, b/c everybody *knows*
he's a better director than Spielberg, AOI has to be a better
movie. AOI was a pretty but dull adaptation of a
less-than-impressive book. Winona was super (and I've never
said that about any of her other performances), but neither
Pfeiffer or Day Lewis impressed me very much and, while the
last half hour or so of the film was very nice, nothing before
that was anything special.
I'm not claiming "List" was perfect -- Spielberg tried to do
too much, IMO. The best parts of his film would have been
better served if it were smaller and less self-consciously an
*epic* -- it often seemed he was making 2 movies -- the epic
about all the Jews of Krakow, and the character piece about
Schindler and Goeth.
Toniscott
who know's what ending to CF went on the cutting room floor to the whim of
a studio head who looks only at projected box office dollars and has no
interest or knowledge of art. Scorcese is one of the best ever. from
"who's that knocking," "mean streets," " taxi driver" and all the rest -
he has a personal vision he's able to successfully convey unlike most of
the other hyped up bubble gum put out by the major studios.
mm
Matt Martinez <jsej...@alpha.wcoil.comMAIL> wrote:
>SB wrote:
>>
>> Spielburg is a hack. I have argued this for years. Schindler's List
>> was a movie that needed to be made, but not by him. This is sick, but
>> the whole time I was watching it, I kept thinking, "this guy directed
>> The Goonies!" Especially everytime he used one of his overused techniques.
>>
>
>Spielberg (not Spielburg) did not direct THE GOONIES, rather he was the
>executive producer. Richard Donner (SUPERMAN, LETHAL WEAPON) directed
>the film.
>
...and what's the implication here. We should judge the work of the
artist solely on his other works and not the one in question? It's a
stupid premise even if Spielberg directed, acted, shot, wrote, edited,
and did shadow puppets in the Goonies.
>> I bet he would be the first to admit it. Stephen King admits his books
>> are junk, but people keep buying them.
>>
>
>Can't say I've ever heard or read anything to this effect. I will admit
>that King has churned out some crap in his career (e.g. _Desperation_,
>_The Tommyknockers_), but he also has some very excellent work.
>_Different Seasons_ (which contains the stories that are the basis of
>the films THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, STAND BY ME, and the upcoming APT
>PUPIL) is fabulous and his recently published THE GREEN MILE is one of
>my favorite books of all time.
>
Stephen King is one of the best writers who have ever lived. The
question is, why did he pick this gendre? He says cause he likes it.
He likes to write. Many writers, even prolific writers like Agatha
Christie, hated to write. They did it for the money alone.
But King really likes to write this stuff.
>--
>
>Matt
>
>"Do not be so proud of this technological terror you have constructed.
>The ability to criticize Star Wars is insignificant next to power of the
>Fans"
> -Brandon David Short
Matt, you've had this sig for so long I think you may have a case to
sue Lucas for quoting you in his movie. HA!
Robert...@teleport.com
> a...@vir.com (mm) writes:
[snip]
> Stephen King is one of the best writers who have ever lived.
I'm sending you the bill for a new keyboard, I just spewed a mouthful
of beer on mine....
> The question is, why did he pick this gendre?
I don't think he had any say in which sex he happened to be born with...
> He says cause he likes it. He likes to write. Many writers, even prolific
> writers like Agatha Christie, hated to write. They did it for the money alone.
> But King really likes to write this stuff.
What difference does it make whether a given writer likes or dislikes
writing? Or whether they do it "for the money alone"? If King had never been
paid for his efforts, do you think he'd still be writing, or would be be selling
car insurance? It's the product that counts. As to King's ability...probably on
par with Edgar Allan Poe or E.R.Burroughs, but certainly no where near the
same league as Dostoevski, Solzhenitsyn, Melville, Maugham, Nabokov,
Hemingway, Faulkner, Wolfe, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lone
Matt Martinez
Robert...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> What difference does it make whether a given writer likes or dislikes
> writing? Or whether they do it "for the money alone"? If King had never been
> paid for his efforts, do you think he'd still be writing, or would be be selling
> car insurance?
>
I would bet money that he would. If he didn't make money at it, though,
it would probably be more of a hobby for him and not actually a job.
--
Matt
"Do not be so proud of this technological terror you have constructed.
The ability to criticize Star Wars is insignificant next to power of the
Fans"
-Brandon David Short