[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that he's under rated at all. He's rated right where he should be, which is in the top 5% of directors(as certain things can be very arbitrary after directors like Ford, Hitchcock, Lang, and Buñuel) of all time. He's prolific and sometimes caters to the studios a bit too much, but that is usually so that he can do a film that he truly wants to do(like him doing teh two jurassic parks so that he could do schinlders list).
He has always been a general model of consistency, but I don't think that he's hit some of the highs that other influential directors have, inversely though, he hasn't missed as badly as godard has on a few films. At TSPDT he is given an 8+ for a director rating, and I've seen him as high as a 9, that speaks for his respect as there are only 4 or 5 directors that have recieved a ten, and some extremely influential directors taht are at an 8 (
Here is the rating guide for a reference point). Now, I'm not saying that TheyShootPictures is the be all end all, but it's one of the few film sites that I go to that I respect as they bring in as much outside data to make their decisions on ranking so that not everything is based on their own two opinions. I'd really challenge people who watch a lot of film to disagree with where his placement is IRT other directors who are ahead of him. I think he is rated very fairly as he is put in the same range as Altman and Kurosawa (and again, this is where he hasn't hit the heights of either two, but didn't reach the lows considering how prolific he is)
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this assessment, although I contend the point about Spielberg making two Jurassic Parks in order to get the funding to do a Schindler's list. The budget for Schindler's list was a mere $25,000,000 which is chump change for him.
Spielberg's current net worth is estimated at 3 Billion dollars. He could easily make 10 huge budget movies out of his own pocket and still be filthy rich. That is why I think it is fair to question his artistic intent and skill. A number of the great directors are known to have died relatively broke from funding their movies (DW Griffith and Jacques Tati come to mind). I think Spielberg lacks this artistic drive, and has only himself to blame for criticism.
[/ QUOTE ]
spielberg has been very much a product of the modern studio system, so it'd be hard for many directors these days to put up their own money for a film that they want to do. There is less autuerism in america IMO(outside of a few directors like Todd Haynes and the like) and I think it'd be almost insane to put your own money up for a film when you can give into the studio on one hand to make their film if they can give you the one you want. Soderbergh is a perfect case of this system where he makes some films so that he can do his remake of solaris.
Granted, what does it say for the modern film maker in his own right about art over populism. Even kevin smith says that
clerks was his only true independant film. Spielberg was just able to reconcile what the impact of
Jaws would be and his protege in George Lucas certainly did the same. It's why we see these types of cookie cutter clones of Lucas and Spielberg come out in Robert Zemekis and Edward Zwick who will make very solid films for the most part, but rarely ever make anything truly great.
I think that Spielberg really is the first of the "modern" hollywood director that caters to the studio a lot to make the big blockbusters and he's been able to make a great living off of it. Many imatators have come since, and maybe that's where the under rated tag may go. Let us not forget that Tarantino flat out steals from many french directors(and I love tarantino, but I acknolwedge his faults) and many other modern directors that go the semi indy route pillage from past films.
I think in some ways, Dom may have been reading a bit too much AICN lately or the random crap you'll see at IMDB where every retardt thinks that they know film because they decided to get baked and watch the matrix. It's kind of the problem with the internet in that people often refuse to admit that they may not know jack. Personally, I feel that I know a decent amount about film, but you'll rarely catch me trying to profess about something that I know little about because I watched
Pulp Fiction and haven't watched anything before 1989 or haven't watched something a bit further afield. I may just be reaching on what I think that dom is trying to accomplish here, because well, the point may just be to garner some real debate, which is more then fine by me