Ranking Spielberg

[midnightpulp]

Good points.

Personally, I think something brilliantly crafted can stand on its own as a work of art without those characteristics we commonly associate with "great" narrative art - like insights into humanity or an exploration of love.

When the mention of Spielberg comes up as a great filmmaker, I think too many people try to compare him to directors who operate in a totally different context. "He ain't no Altman. He ain't no Bergman."

I think Spielberg's kindred spirits are Hitchcock and Tarantino. Both directors can be accused for their lack of depth (Vertigo and Psycho are, however, very deep films), especially when they're compared to directors who take on more "mature" material, and again, such a comparison is unfair.

Simply speaking, these directors just flat out know how to entertain, and do it with such a style that is unlike anything else that they can get away with having their work be art without needing any great depth.

[context]

The guy is technically brilliant but has poor judgement. You can never fault his cinematography, but the stories themselves can be banal. Take Saving Private Ryan. If you took that first third of the film it would be one of the best films of all time. Technically brilliant, breathaking, fantastic realisation of an awful battle. But then he goes off into his old routine. The film just wanders, drifts and loses itself in sentimental nonsense for a couple of hours, something he does in many of his films. Sometimes the sentimental thing doesn't matter, ET works, but then it's sentimental most of the way through. If he had an editor who could keep him on track his films would be consistently great, but many of them fall away. His self-indulgence lowers them by a few notches. But hey, the guy isn't a bad film maker [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].


Btw. I find it funny, you say he's under-rated then keep repeating that his films are either messy, or he made a "misstep".

[diebitter]

Dom,

I agree he's very talented, and when he picks the right script, he's masterful. The problem he has is in script picking and maybe doctoring. He just lets some of his movies get a little shaggy, and of course sentimental.

I mostly agree with your list, but I'm move both SPR and Schindler's List down a few notches, and put Raiders as the #1. I'd also move the second Indy film next to the 3rd one, but otherwise it's sound.



I like the comparison of Stephen King as writer and Speilberg as director, I think there's a lot in that (however, I do think King will rank alongside Dickens in terms of stature in the future).

[John Cole]

[ QUOTE ]
like the comparison of Stephen King as writer and Speilberg as director, I think there's a lot in that (however, I do think King will rank alongside Dickens in terms of stature in the future).



[/ QUOTE ]

No! In thunder.

[CharlieDontSurf]

His early films as a whole are far better than his later ones.
Age seems to have mellowed him out and he now is known as the guy who can never correctly end a movie.

Overall he is a fantastic director top 10-15 all time.
He and M Night are two of the best at creating suspense/tension.

Speilberg is obv his best when paired with a great script/writer...Zaillian, Scott Frank etc

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like the comparison of Stephen King as writer and Speilberg as director, I think there's a lot in that (however, I do think King will rank alongside Dickens in terms of stature in the future).



[/ QUOTE ]

No! In thunder.

[/ QUOTE ]

A wiser head prevails - A rarity on this cosmic ball of space vomit. And Oliver Twist needs another bowl of gruel.

Anyway, I wanted to make a comment in this thread so my name could be associated with it; not because I would make any meaningful contribution to it - Sort of like Stephen King's contribution to literature. Poe still rules or even that Italian guy that wrote The Decameron, Boccaccio what's-his-even sillier first name suppose to be.

And what's all this talk of Spielberg? He makes movies, so did Roger Corman, so did Russ Meyers, so did A, B, C, and Z. It's not that important. Some people make apple pies with just the right amount of cinnamon, some people don't. But taste is subjective as is adding ice cream to apple pie or having just the correct amount of cinnamon.

Le Misanthrope

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like the comparison of Stephen King as writer and Speilberg as director, I think there's a lot in that (however, I do think King will rank alongside Dickens in terms of stature in the future).



[/ QUOTE ]

No! In thunder.

[/ QUOTE ]

A wiser head prevails - A rarity on this cosmic ball of space vomit. And Oliver Twist needs another bowl of gruel.

Anyway, I wanted to make a comment in this thread so my name could be associated with it; not because I would make any meaningful contribution to it - Sort of like Stephen King's contribution to literature. Poe still rules or even that Italian guy that wrote The Decameron, Boccaccio what's-his-even sillier first name suppose to be.

And what's all this talk of Spielberg? He makes movies, so did Roger Corman, so did Russ Meyers, so did A, B, C, and Z. It's not that important. Some people make apple pies with just the right amount of cinnamon, some people don't. But taste is subjective as is adding ice cream to apple pie or having just the correct amount of cinnamon.

Le Misanthrope

[/ QUOTE ]

as amusing as your post is, I take umbrage: art is important, and debating its merits gives us more to do with our time than eating, crapping and sexing.

[DrewDevil]

I think Spielberg must be listed among the top 2 or 3 directors of all time, and I don't understand the arguments by people who disagree.

Yes, it's true that SPR and a couple of his other movies *could* have been better if this, if that, etc. But taken as they are, they are still stunning works of film. Why is Spielberg denigrated because his superb films aren't perfect? That doesn't mean they aren't incredible. If you evaluate his films as they are, and not what they potentially could have been if directed by God, then you're left with the conclusion that no director has ever made more consistently spectacular movies than Spielberg.

As someone said earlier, when Raiders of the Lost Ark is your 4th best film, you're doing something right.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I take umbrage: art is important, and debating its merits gives us more to do with our time than eating, crapping and sexing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umbrage? Are you Bertie Wooster?

And where Spielberg ranks in some list of filmmakers is unimportant, to me anyway. Obviously others can and will have a different take on it all. But whatever anyone's personal ranking; Raiders of the Lost Ark is a ball of fun and so is Jaws.

And eating, crapping, and sexing is the main occupation of the majority of mankind. Art is overrated; sex is not.

Tommy Hobbes said something about this and he is right.

Le Misanthrope

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
The guy is technically brilliant but has poor judgement. You can never fault his cinematography, but the stories themselves can be banal. Take Saving Private Ryan. If you took that first third of the film it would be one of the best films of all time. Technically brilliant, breathaking, fantastic realisation of an awful battle. But then he goes off into his old routine. The film just wanders, drifts and loses itself in sentimental nonsense for a couple of hours, something he does in many of his films. Sometimes the sentimental thing doesn't matter, ET works, but then it's sentimental most of the way through. If he had an editor who could keep him on track his films would be consistently great, but many of them fall away. His self-indulgence lowers them by a few notches. But hey, the guy isn't a bad film maker [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].


Btw. I find it funny, you say he's under-rated then keep repeating that his films are either messy, or he made a "misstep".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to disagree with you on SPR...I think it's great. Including the stretches between the two big battles. It's the personal, more "sentimental" moments which give the film its weight.