Get Out Your Angerchiefs
Hollywood Film Festival Crowns Revenge Of The Sith The Hollywood Film Of The Year After A Yahoo! Vote
How does it feeeeeel?
May 3, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
shows that star wars fans are very loyal.
Highest grossing? Sure. Good finale? Yeah. But film of the yr? Geez Louise.
I found out about this because I am a bit of a fan of Star Wars and was perusing theforce.net…so I clicked through and voted for ‘The Constant Gardener’. The trouble is a site like theforce.net will probably always have at least ten times the readership than even a Batman site…so it was good luck to any film that was on that list.
Means nothing. Acolytes always jam the lines. Remember a few weeks ago when one of the cable channels asked people to vote for the 50 Greatest Americans of the past century. The Reagan people urged their followers to flood the polls with votes for him, and he was #1 in a landslide.
I’m trying to figure out how Constant Gardener was even a nominee here. It’s not a “studio” film, and it doesn’t really smell like “Hollywood” either. British actors, Brazilian director, African location. I didn’t vote for it, regardless of whether or not it was the best film on the list.
Hustle and Flow is an Indie, and Crash, despite the cast list, is one at heart as well. But ultimately, when I hear Hollywood Movie of the Year, I think BIG, and I think crowd-pleaser. Despite accolades from a small group of people like DP, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was ho-hum for many. Same with War of the Worlds. Sin City, while inventive, was divisive as well. So the only real competition Sith has here is Batman, and that is rightfully reflected in its second-place finish.
Star Wars is divisive itself of course, but when you have A.O. Scott, Ebert, and a handful of other “cream of the crop” critics on your side (note the surprising 82% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes) combined with the box office title for the year (there’s no way Narnia or Kong is topping this number), it’s hard to argue. It’s the event film of the year, it delivered what was promised, and it’s going to be remembered 50 years from now. What other qualifications do you need?
Um Cadavra, Reagan was the best of the century. Where have you been?
This just shows the critics awards are much different than box office and fan awards.
Think about it. What movie from 2005 is going to be remembered in 30 years? 50 years? It’s Revenge of the Sith. Not Constant Gardener. Not The Fog.
If people are talking about “Sith” 50 years from now it won’t be as a great film, but as a footnote to a great film. “The Empire Strikes Back” is the series’ only leap to magnifigance.
But it is interesting how achieving “pretty good” is now the high standard in moviemaking.
I think Lazarus hit it on the head.
Who or what are the angerchiefs? Is that the hot new band?
If you think Star Wars sucks or is the apple pie of your eye you will still remember it in 20 years. It’s a part of cinema.
The award is for “favorite” movie, not “best” movie. I suspect that those who enjoyed the ROTS experience would still hesitate in crowning it “the best”. But “favorite”? Sure. Also, who cares. Hollywood Film Festival?
Out of curiosity I looked up the top movies at the box office from 50 years ago, 1955. Here are the top five:
1. Lady and the Tramp
2. Cinerama Holiday
3. Mister Roberts
4. Battle Cry
5. Oklahoma
And here are the highest-rated 5 American movies from IMDB:
1. The Night of the Hunter
2. Mister Roberts
3. East of Eden
4. Rebel Without a Cause
5. Marty
The point is, with only one movie in both lists, it’s presumptuous to know what will be popular in 2055 (but my guess is, it won’t be ROTS).
Its not about popular. Its about being remembered. And if you don’t think the Star Wars films will be remembered, either fondly or not, in 30 years than you are clueless.
Star Wars will be remembered in 50 years by default. It will certainly be interesting to see what smaller movies will be remembered in 50 years.
But by then I’ll be 70 so I sorta don’t wanna think about that actually.
“And if you don’t think the Star Wars films will be remembered, either fondly or not, in 30 years than you are clueless.”
The original is 28, and it’s remembered, so it’s almost there.
Lucas isn’t the problem with movies today. The problem is the guys who are inspired by Lucas…
Stephen Sommers, Paul WS Anderson, Roland Emmerich, Rob Cohen, Michael Bay and McG
…who have no idea what great stories are about and therefore can only set their sights on the surface pleasures. When 20 year old Lucas watched Kurosawa, he wasn’t junking out on just swordfights and editing, but the mastery of structure, theme and charcater.
When kids learn to get off on watching that instead of (or as much as) an elaborate explosion, they’ll be an angry, brilliant generation of filmmakers ready to speak a whole new truth.
Audiences didn’t make “Sith” the best movie of the year; the shortsightedness of Hollywood did.
I didn’t realize it was 2006 already. I guess those Hollywood movies coming out the rest of the year are out of luck.
So if “Hollywood Movie of the Year” only means that it’s going to be remembered, positively or negatively, then it’s similar to Time’s Man of the Year, with such past winners as Hitler, Stalin, and Ayatollah Khomenei?
Just confirming what people have said.
But why bother to ‘award’ a movie…if people are going to remember it anyway?
“Star Wars” will be remembered, but not because of Revenge of the Sith (or any of the prequels). The series will be remembered because of the first three films (expecially the first two).
It will be remembered because of “I am your father” and “That’s no moon” and Han Solo and Princess Leia. The prequels will be remembered as financially successful but artistically weak.
Is Sith the movie of the year? Certainly not for me… I barely remember it. I’d argue Wedding Crashers had more popular appeal because it opened modestly and just kept trucking past $200M. Sith would have made $300M regardless of what was onscreen.
“Lucas isn’t the problem with movies today. The problem is the guys who are inspired by Lucas…
Stephen Sommers, Paul WS Anderson, Roland Emmerich, Rob Cohen, Michael Bay and McG”
Let’s not forget all those never-was directors who were featured on the show that inspired your namesake. The Timothy J. Burtons and the David Giancolas. Oh, and most of the people I’ve ever had instruct me on any kind of camera work. I’m personally more worried about the up-and-comers who are inspired by Darren Aronofsky. Bad action-adventures hurt, no doubt, but depressing personal downward spirals packed with undeserving self-importance and mind-pounding editing? That’s true pain, and I’ve all ready seen about a dozen wannabes that are all angst zero substance in my college years alone.
Re: 1955. Both Lady and the Tramp and Cinerama Holiday benefited from distribution strategies that don’t exist today. Lady and the Tramp was rereleased several times between 1955 and the early ’90s and Cinerama Holiday, like all the Cinerama movies was played for several years at Cinerama-exclusive screens during the height of the Cinerama craze.
I don’t think these two films’ gross can be used as a snapshot of what was popular in 1955 alone.
Joe, we’re on the same page here.
On the other side of that, the great sin of the new “geek” directors is overindulgence. These guys are even more frustrating because they seem fully aware of structure and character but instead stubbornly become victim to their own sense of “coolness.” Kevin Smith, Joss Whedon, Tarantino, Aronofsky, Fincher, Rodriguez, Warchowskis… super smart guys who are perfectly capable of greatness but can’t get beyond their own messy fetishes, be it comic books, kung fu or nihilism.
(I’ve got two tickets to Angerchiefs tonight at Knitting Factory. Who wants to go?)
Jeff, cool little thing about 1955. Appreciate it.
Honestly, is “Revenge of the Sith” a good movie, or only good compared to “Menace” and “Clones?” When I walked out of “ROTS,” I didn’t say it was a great movie. I said, “Man, that was susprisingly not complete and utter crap!”
Not a ringing endorsement.
The “Hollywood” movie of the year has to be a fight between “War of the Worlds” and “Batman Begins.” So far, at least.
“Lucas isn’t the problem with movies today. The problem is the guys who are inspired by Lucas…
Stephen Sommers, Paul WS Anderson, Roland Emmerich, Rob Cohen, Michael Bay and McG
…who have no idea what great stories are about and therefore can only set their sights on the surface pleasures. When 20 year old Lucas watched Kurosawa, he wasn’t junking out on just swordfights and editing, but the mastery of structure, theme and charcater.
When kids learn to get off on watching that instead of (or as much as) an elaborate explosion, they’ll be an angry, brilliant generation of filmmakers ready to speak a whole new truth.
Audiences didn’t make “Sith” the best movie of the year; the shortsightedness of Hollywood did.”
You make some good points, but to suggest that Lucas is to blame for the careers of those other directors is a little unfair. Rob Cohen, for example, is around sixty years old (!), roughly the same age as Lucas, and was an experienced director long before any studio heads were telling Lucas to take his dumb sci-fi flick someplace else. Michael Bay seems to be more influenced by James Cameron and Tony Scott than anyone else. Stephen Sommers is a 30’s Universal horror director 70 years out of his time. And hey, i LIKE Roland Emmerich movies!! As cheesy as they are (i like to think deliberately), he has a pretty sure pacing/storytelling sense and a fairly good visual eye. Godzilla apart, i can watch any of his movies quite happily. And just how do you get from Lucas to McG??? Here is a list of successful directors that HAVE legitimately been influenced by Lucas – Peter Jackson, James Cameron (‘after i saw ‘Star Wars’, i got busy’), Ridley Scott (got inspired to make
‘Alien’ after seeing Star Wars), Bryan Singer, Roberts Rodriguez and Zemeckis (all of whom now work in the digital realm after Lucas blazed a trail for them with the prequels), Joe Johnston and David Fincher (both of whom started at ILM), and Ron Howard. All of a sudden your argument looks a little flimsy doesn’t it? Whatever your views on the Star Wars films, especially the new ones, good or bad, the myth that Lucas is responsible for the bad things in Hollywood is a myth that needs debunking for good. He isn’t to blame for the bad movies coming out of the mainstream any more than Henry Ford is to blame for every automobile accident.
^ Amen to that.
Fine, let’s not blame Lucas. The ones truly to blame are audience members who give in to the hype of advertising to see movies they know in their guts aren’t going to be any good but give them huge opening weekend grosses anyway.
Lady and the Tramp and Cinerama Holiday may have benefitted from unusual release patterns, but they were both very popular 50 years ago, and 50 years from now release patterns will be so different to make today’s look bizarre and old-fashioned.
If you want to disqualify them, the next highest grossing movies from that year were Guys and Dolls and Picnic.
So blame fans that truly like a movie and had a good time and enjoyed it? Where do you get off? Elites. The world can do without ya.
Who would you like to blame for bad movies? The movie industry is demand-driven, is it not?
It would be nice to have one conversation with you that didn’t begin with an insult.
Why do you get so insulted when someone disagrees with you? You really need to relax.
If the fans are allowed to vote on such things than get over it and move on. It’s a popularity contest and if I remember correctly, Star Wars 3 was the highest grossing movie this year.
If Revenge wins the Oscar than we can get angry and be up in arms and DP can jump off a cliff.
Revenge of the Sith won best Hollywood Movie.
Great! I loved it! No other film would be uncontentious so why not Sith? Sith is great at doing what classic Hollywood films used to do all the time. It is a big, brash entertainment that tells a timeless story that we all can relate to in someway.
I’m tired of the Lucas bashers. It’s all so cliche now.
Lucas has more talent and intelligence in his left hand than most of the other hacks who will be fetted on Oscar night for poltical reasons (by political I don’t just mean how you vote or subject matter).
Lucas is a true visionary whether people like it or not. He has revolutionized an industry and I guarantee you that just like the Beatles are the best shot of being remembered in 100 years in music from the modern era…Lucas and his space saga has the best chance of being remebered in cinema.
I’m not saying no one else will…but popular entertianment means you connected with someone. All those zeros on his pay-checks means his themes connected to people. Good for him.
On Oscar night, I’ll pop in the DVD for Sith, and watch some movie magic.
I can’t stand Lucas bashers. The guy has created a classic series that will live forever. If you hate him or are jealous thats terrific. But don’t try to convince me.
This may be worse than people bitching about the Peoples Choice Awards.
It is a big popularity contest, no question.
But if you look at a lifetime body of work, then I would say that Spielberg will have a longer-lasting reputation than Lucas, at least artistically. Lucas will be more remembered for his contribution to the technical and business side of things.
By the way, Joe, if you were interested in having a discussion and simply disagreeing you wouldn’t use expressions like “where do you get off”. Angry and contentious seem to be your only modes of communication.
I think Lucas will be better remembered because of his 6 movies that really inspired millions. And lets face it. He deserves most of the credit for Indiana Jones too. Who lives and dies by ET? Jaws? Not as many as Star Wars.
I can’t wait to watch 1941 in 30 years.
It’s pretty safe to say that both Spielberg and Lucas will be heard from and recalled fondly in 20-30-40 etc years. They’re both great and have made great films that will last a long time.
Wowser, lotsa posts since I last checked in. I hope I didn’t come across as a Lucas basher, I just think the makers of emotionless spectacle could learn a thing or two about story. There are certainly a great many Lucasian directors who get it right (Wally with a good list) but by and large it’s empty product… or even worse, gimmicky.
(Looking at these posts I don’t really see any Lucas bashers at all)
Remember 1999 was the year the fan interest seemed to abandon Star Wars for The Matrix — the Oscars certainly did. But six years a difference make, and after those two confusing sequels it’s fitting to see Uncle George come back and show the posers who the real boss is.
Premadator, the Oscars favoured The Matrix because the catagories it won it rightfully deserved to. Plus, Phantom Menace made upwards of $400mil. The Matrix made $170.
Anyway. I feel I am allowed to bash Lucas, because I’ve never particularly been fond of the Star Wars franchise. I’m not gonna knock the originals, they’re undisputed classics that I just couldn’t warm to (I do sorta like episode 4 though… sorta) but the prequels I don’t think will be views in the same light. Popular, yes, but not revolutionary or anything.
And in the Spielberg/Lucas thing, let’s not forget that it was Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park” that made Lucas realise special effects were at a great enough level to make Episode 1. Man, Jurassic Park is great.
And seriously, if a movie grossed nearly $400mil I’d be expecting it to rack up a few popular votes, what would you expect?
The mere fact that you remember 1941 makes it a Hollywood Movie of the Year 1979, right Sanchez?
Anyway, you may prefer Star Wars to E.T. or Jaws, but I don’t think one can argue that Spielberg has been successful at a greater variety of movies, dramas, action, suspense, and not just sci-fi which is the one trick Lucas has mastered. Plus, Spielberg has Oscars.
Like hell The Matrix deserved those Oscars. Those guys didn’t invent the bullet-time effect. And it’s a gimmick anyway. The only reason they dished out the statues to The Matrix team was because the backlash on Lucas after The Phantom Menace was like a goddamned tidal wave.
Isn’t it possible for people to dislike the film and still acknowledge the mind-blowing achievements of ILM on it? Without Jar Jar, there’s no Gollum. Hell, they deserved the award just for Watto. But you look at the underwater city, the pod race, the droid army…that shit is so far ahead of everything that came before it’s astounding. I firmly believe that for its point in time, TPM had the best special effects I’ve ever seen in a film. A close second is Jurassic Park, but that was just dinosaurs. The effects in TPM are all over the movie, in every part of it, for better or worse.
The Matrix didn’t deserve the sound awards either. You’re telling me their work was superior to Ben Burtt’s? The guy is the godfather of this shit, and does it better than anyone else.
The Lucas vs. Spielberg argument is pretty worthless. Lucas has focused on so many behind-the-scenes endeavors, and Spielberg is a movie machine with a staggering filmography, like all of them or not. It’s apples and oranges. You’d be better comparing Spielberg to Scorsese, or Lucas to James Cameron (not much of a contest on that second one).
Spielberg obviously has more variety. But thats not the question here. The question here is what work will resonate in 50 years. The answer is Star Wars.
Any interest in elaboration or explaining why you’re so sure, or should it just be taken as obvious?
If they can give an Oscar to Peter Jackson, they can definitely give one to George Lucas.
Agree totally with Lazarus: TPM was far worthier of the technical Oscars than “The Matrix.” Just as AOTC was worthier than “Two Towers.” I’m sure they’ll screw it up next time, too, and give it to the mediocre “War of the Worlds.”
In the absence of a LOTR film and seeing that Sith was wall-to-wall effects while Worlds wasn’t, they’ll probably give the award to Sith…or King Kong.
I like Spielberg. One of the best. But what film has he made(besides Indian Jones since we’ll put that aside since its both of them) that is remembered like Star Wars?
You can hate Star Wars but you really have to respect it.
Panda, “Schindler’s List” is a jawdroppingly grand film that scales above any Spielberg effort before or after. It may not have the iconoraphy of Star Wars but its ability to stir strong feelings, themes and philosophy I’d rank it alongside any film. “Saving Private Ryan” is such a effective depiction of wartime sacrifice that both the right and left wingers in this country hold it in deep regard to push their dissimilar agendas.
As far as AOTC being better than The Two Towers… now Blackclou, you don’t REALLY mean that do you?
“As far as AOTC being better than The Two Towers… now Blackclou, you don’t REALLY mean that do you?”
Where did I say that AOTC was better than TTT?
You meant technicals didn’t you? Well shit.
Not agreeing with the widely held Schindler’s List consensus. A totally manipulative film that takes an unforgivable nose dive at the end. “If I only could have saved one more!” What absolute bullshit. Historically false, and engineered simply to make Jewish filmgoers (and Academy members) cry with even more guilt. The story was powerful enough; there was no legitimate reason to resort to such histrionics. It’s when my disdain for S.S. (pun intended) blossomed into what it still is today. I recognize the craft of this film and the great performances, but that just makes Neeson’s sobbing breakdown even more insulting.
Saving Private Ryan was a load of jingoistic pap with cardboard characters and a dishonest bait and switch, where the framing story seems to start from one person’s POV and ends with someone else’s–a person who wasn’t even present at the war scenes in the beginning of the film. I hate to tell you, but a great opening battle does not a masterpiece make. But I’ve always been in The Thin Red Line camp so there’s my bias.
As for Sith and Oscars, I’m just not seeing it. The last two films were revolutionary, but from an effects standpoint it didn’t really do anything new. I think it’s going to have a hard time competing against the animals of Narnia and Kong.
As a Catholic who’d never even met a Jew until he was 20, I take offense to your criticism of Schindler’s List as mere race baiting. If you look at the film beyond its testament of faith, which it most certainly is, you’ll see that the filmmaker’s reinvention of violence was revolutionary. As far as the catharsis at the end, (what the cynics called “breakdown”) it may have seemed forced to you, but to many who lived in that time (including the much criticized Old Private Ryan wondering if he’s “earned it”) it was real and, as far as the director is concerned, well earned.
I’ll give you this, Thin Red Line has gotten richer over the years. It’s a lovely piece poetry.
“Historically false, and engineered simply to make Jewish filmgoers (and Academy members) cry with even more guilt.”
creepy, dude. very creepy.
Lazarus, you make some decent points about Schindler, but if you thought Private Ryan was jingoistic, I respectfully suggest that you weren’t paying enough attention to it. I think it makes a great statement about the very notion of warfare, that the few have to fight for the many. The bait and switch, as you call it, I found to be clever and savvy. Why does a movie have to be told from a living character’s POV?
Saving Private Ryan was my second favorite movie from that year, after Thin Red Line.
Regarding that scene in Schindler, I think it’s better appreciated not as something literally or historically true, but as a scene in which Spielberg’s own words are coming out of Neeson’s mouth. It blew me away when I saw it the first time.
That insidious Spielberg. First he fools jewish voters with Schindler, then he fools old white guy voters with Private Ryan. I tell you, if he can pull an Atomic-Rats-Take-Over-The-Westside-of-Los Angeles movie, he’ll eventually gain enough Oscar power crystals to charge up his secret mega-laser and TAKE OVER THE WORLD.
if you don’t like Schindler’s List, you should probably check out Shoah. Or a lot of people prefer The Pianist.
Getting off subject.
Star Wars may very well get the Oscar for fx as a “thanks for the journey, but please, STOP RIGHT NOW”
I think The Matrix deserved the Oscars though because it gave us stuff I personally had never seen before. Sure, they may not have invented the stuff but where had they been put to better and more original use?
The first 10 minutes of The Matrix are about as exciting as cinema can be. I mean, who expected anything like what we got.
Needless to say, the last two weren’t anywhere near as good. The third one especially was just wrong.
Shoah is definitely more powerful than Schindler’s List simply because it’s coming from the mouths of people who were actually there. All this talk about Schindler’s breakdown being earned–I ask again, wasn’t the rest of the film enough to get its point across? It’s Spielberg’s fatal flaw as a filmmaker, he is just so afraid of challenging his audience that he has to rub their faces in it.
The “Am I a good man?” ending of Saving Private Ryan was painfully awkward. Again, put in there to get the waterworks flowing on every veteran or children of veterans in the audience. It’s jingoistic because it makes it look like the U.S. won the war single-handedly. The Lincoln quote, the flag waving. Same old shit. It sure as hell wasn’t The Steel Helmet, or The Big Red One, for that matter, made by a guy WHO WAS ACTUALLY THERE.
Both of these films were extremely personal for Spielberg, as he is Jewish and his father was a WWII vet. But that doesn’t excuse the lengths that he goes to in milking the audience for every ounce of guilt he can. It’s shameful. An equally personal film like Close Encounters so much more weight for me because it doesn’t pander. And I’d say the same about most of A.I., right up until the sell-out coda.
That’s a fair response. However, I would say that Spielberg has been challenging his audiences a lot more in his last batch of movies than people realize – I think that ever since he won his Oscars, he decided he didn’t need to prove himself anymore. How was AI’s ending a sell-out coda when most of the world hates it? (But I love it).
The Lincoln quote and the flag waving are more complex signifiers than you’re giving them credit for. It’s more than just a flag saying “USA!USA!” It’s a flag you can see through. I don’t think the movie is making any argument about other nations’ involvement in the war, either.
How can you knock Schindlers List?
Spielberg challenges his audiences more in EVERY movie than people realize. If his films were trivial, they’d be easier for dissenters to ignore.
It would be foolish of anyone to knock Spielberg’s talent. He has as they say “Game”.
When Schindler’s List was released in 1993 it was smack dab in the middle of the “Die Hard on something” years. To show violence, murder and death as this imperfect sometimes clumsy act was pretty vivid (the dramatic difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound for instance). The similar confusion of warfare in Saving Private Ryan — the cold hard veritas of a soldier “crying for mommy” as he expires — coupled with a pretty standard John Wayne plot was the director’s way of keeping us interested — in a way Terence Malick could not do with audiences for his film (which as mentioned I’ve also grown to love).
But make no mistake, Spielberg is the most important Amercian filmmaker of the past 35 years.
I’m not knocking Spielberg’s talent. He’s without a doubt one of the best shotmakers in the business. But it’s the way he uses that talent that bothers me. War of the Worlds could have been a nice piece of speculative fiction, but it was just another dumbed down Independence Day. What’s the fucking point? Just to do it?
He’s the most successful filmmaker of the last 35 years, and it’s because of that fact he’s able to put out so much product, and do whatever he wants. His films are usually pretty engaging. Sometimes the diversions are good too, like Catch Me If You Can. But I feel when he tries to go “important” he’s usually out of his league.
I think if you look at filmographies and how they’ve inspired the filmmakers after them, Scorsese is way more important. His body of work resonates on something far more than a surface level. He may appear less consistent, but it’s because he aims higher and challenges his audience in a way Spielberg would never dare to. You want to thumb your nose at something like Gangs of New York, but it was very uncompromising in the way it looked at history, and that’s why it didn’t go down easy with some people (that and the fact that guys just can’t get that sad DiCaprio chip off their shoulders).
You tell me what films are going to be viewed as more IMPORTANT (and by that I mean critically) 50 years from now: Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, GoodFellas, Kundun, and Gangs of New York, or Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, Close Encounters, E.T., and The Color Purple? In my opinion, it’s not even close.
In my opinion it’s very close, especially if you swap Color Purple with Jaws, Minority Report, or Catch Me.
The fact that Spielberg has been the most financially successful filmmaker of his generation has prevented people from seeing his true achievements in many cases, which are often pretty subversive and “important”. And I would say that WOTW was way beyond a simple alien invasion movie, being more about Sept. 11 than anything else. Crazy Armond White has more to say about all of this.
Yeah, if you want to debate “better” there’s room for argument sure. But if you took a poll of every person in the country (heck, world) who the most important filmmaker is, Spielberg would be the big name hands down. His influence goes way beyond the cinema elite. This is cultural. And the son of a bitch is probably the reason I work and live in Hollywood today. (my parents aren’t happy about that one)
WOTW equates aliens not earning their biological right to be on this planet with a man finally earning beyond his biological right to be a father. Many would have loved to see it go the way of Independence Day. I didn’t love the film, like Minority Report it trips up dramatically, but the one thing about the guy is that you never know where his next movie is coming from. He reinvents himself in ways only a true artist can do.
One piece of devil’s advocacy on the subject: Godard still hates Spielberg with a passion.
Got cut off:
So Lazarus has something in common with J.-L. G.
Since when is the opinion of the masses given so much validity? Sure they’d probably say Spielberg is the most important director. How many directors do you think the average person can name? Tarantino? Maybe Scorsese? Spike Lee?
The same people would probably tell you Stephen King or John Grisham is the most important author. That doesn’t mean jack shit. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a coincidence that the most successful filmmaker is who you are also considering the most important? When has that EVER been the case? Even John Ford’s or Hitchcock’s pictures probably didn’t make as much as the ones from a hack like Michael Curtiz.
Read into War of the Worlds all you want, but it came off as a cheap thriller. Perhaps if it were a bit longer it might have had more resonance, but it will be regarded as a minor Spielberg work in the future.
At least Scorsese’s misfires are interesting. There’s not much you can say about something like The Terminal or Hook. Also, I wouldn’t go touting the merits of Minority Report, which for all its visionary imagining still managed to make a mockery of Philip K. Dick’s themes. When I made my list of each filmmaker’s “important” films, I omitted Jaws for a reason. While it might be the best film Spielberg’s made, I don’t know that it carries enough weight to be considered important. It certainly doesn’t look that way up against the likes of Taxi Driver.
Oh yeah, Godard’s an asshole. There’s probably a myriad of good stuff that he hates. Spielberg just represents the face of modern Hollywood to him.
WOTW: Did anyone pick up on that peanut butter sandwhich scene as being an allusion to Kramer Vs. Kramer?
Lazarus, I think we have to agree to disagree, there seems to be little leeway on either side. Nice to have a proper discussion though, not everyone on this blog is capable of it.
“How many directors do you think the average person can name? Tarantino? Maybe Scorsese? Spike Lee?’
Yoosa makah mah argumentah forah meezah