Ranking Spielberg

[RIIT]

I'll respond with an honest account of how many times I've personally watched each film in it's entirety (theatre, tv, or dvd)

Four:
1975 Jaws
In my entire recollection no other film, besides StarWars, has created more significant box office ticket waiting lines and theatre seating waiting lines. It was the blockbuster EVENT for the summer of '75 and the number #2 summer blockbuster of all time.

Three:
1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark
Raiders permanently set, within the minds of the public, the expectation that a Spielberg action film will deliver a thrill beginning with the very first seen.

Two:
1977 Close Encounters of the Third Kind
1982 ET: The Extra-Terrestrial
1984 Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
1993 Jurassic Park
1998 Saving Private Ryan
2002 Minority Report

One:
1974 The Sugarland Express
1979 1941
1985 The Color Purple
1987 Empire of the Sun
1989 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
1991 Hook
1993 Schindler's List
1997 Jurassic Park: The Lost World
1997 Amistad
2001 AI: Artificial Intelligence
2002 Catch Me if You Can
2004 The Terminal
2005 War of the Worlds
2005 Munich

Zero:
1989 Always

[Wynton]

I agree with much of the OP, with just a few exceptions.

I thought War of the Worlds was absolutely terrible. But I thought AI was pretty good, though it was kind of depressing. AI was originally a Kubrick project and it really does have kind of sterile, Kubrick feel to it.

Minority Report has a somewhat similar flavor in mood, but is much more fun.

The only problem I have with Spielberg is that he just can't often can't resist that extra manipulative, somewhat obvious heart-tugging scene. As terrific as Schindler's List was, I really dislike the scene where Oskar laments not selling his watch. Similarly, I loved Private Ryan, but could have done without the scene where Ryan tearfully asks whether he was worthy by the cemetary.

On the other hand, I enjoyed The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun more than Dom did, I think.

And Spielberg really should get more credit for his range. Not many directors can handle adventure, drama and comedy as equally well, as he can.

[andyfox]

I think a case could be made for him being the most important person in the history of American cinema.

[ClassicBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a case could be made for him being the most important person in the history of American cinema.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make it.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a case could be made for him being the most important person in the history of American cinema.

[/ QUOTE ]

George Lucas > Steven Speilberg in this regard

[KDawg]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a case could be made for him being the most important person in the history of American cinema.

[/ QUOTE ]


more important then Hitchcock? I'd like to hear this argument

[maltaille]

Underrated . . . nope, I can't go with you on this one. He is technically brilliant, perhaps more so than any other modern director; he is amazingly consistent, again, perhaps more consistent than any of his peers; and he does have as wide a range as any director working today; but he's also weak in the what I think is the most important aspect of a film, storytelling - weak enough that it often overcomes all his capabilities in other areas, and certainly more than weak enough to prevent him from being considered the most important person in American cinema.

You label him a "master storyteller," so perhaps we're using a different meaning for the word, but I think story is where Spielberg consistently lets himself down. His endings are notoriously weak (War of the Worlds, Minority Report, AI, Saving Private Ryan) and his sentimentality can be overwhelming at times (Terminal, AI again, Munich) but more than this, his storytelling just isn't up to the standard set by the rest of his capabilities. Not the stories he wants to tell - his subjects, especially in the last twenty years, are often as meaty as a subject can get, though you can argue that sometimes they're too meaty - but the way he tells those stories: the devices he uses, the scenes chosen to move us along the plot, and the archetypes and underlying symbolism employed. Whether its the middle section of Amistad, or the flatness of the Neverland sections in Hook, most of his films have something that lets them down like this.

Ironically he's pretty good at the thing I always think is the hardest part of storytelling, finding the right vehicle to carry the story - interplanetary invasion to tell the story of American resilience, or the retaliation for the Munich killings to tell the story of how actions determine character even for nations.

He's at his best when someone else is doing the story for him - adapting a novel in Jaws or Schindler's List, or collaborating with a good storyteller in Raiders of the Lost Ark (this is my dream team in modern cinema, Spielberg, the master of technique, and Lucas, poor at technique but masterful at storytelling, working together. Their one collaboration gave us the best adventure film of all time. Can you imagine Star Wars if both shared the helm the same way?). There are exceptions - ET is notably his own story, (though I think even there, while the end result is spectacular, the story is the weakest part of the mix), and Terminal was someone else's story, and it still didn't come out right - but I think the general point holds: most of the time his storytelling is weak enough to offset his technical brilliance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting he's overrated either (though I would place him a lot higher than the 34th that They Shoot Pictures has him at, notwithstanding that this is the 3rd highest ranking for a currently working director). There are barely a handful of working directors in his league, let alone who could be thought of as better. And that's exactly how I think he's perceived by everyone other than willfully blind film elitists.

[KDawg]

[ QUOTE ]


Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting he's overrated either (though I would place him a lot higher than the 34th that They Shoot Pictures has him at, notwithstanding that this is the 3rd highest ranking for a currently working director). There are barely a handful of working directors in his league, let alone who could be thought of as better. And that's exactly how I think he's perceived by everyone other than willfully blind film elitists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also think he should be higher, but that list is more of influential directors rather then all time directors, so his placement can be argued in some ways.

The key also to that list is the fact that many of teh guys are dead, and those that recently died also had major landmark films that happened over 35 years ago, where Spielberg's first landmark film is just slightly over 30 years ago and un fortunetly it brought about the summer blockbuster type film(I'm referring to jaws, which itself is a great film, but the effects of it brought about a ton of crap)

I don't understand the under-rated feeling about him as this is a highly decorated director that has produced at a high level for a very long stretch of time.

[CharlieDontSurf]

Not top 3..not even close Id put him somewhere in the top 5-15...and that is due in large part to SL

Several episodes of BoB were far better as whole than the overall movie of SPR

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a case could be made for him being the most important person in the history of American cinema.

[/ QUOTE ]

Artistically speaking no, but as a combination of artist and businessman he ranks right up there. However, in terms of bringing about the modern Blockbuster, he has to share (the blame?) with George Lucas .