in his recent films i agree but some of his early stuff was really built around tone and mood, in particular close encounters of the third kindEvan Kubota wrote:However, Spielberg does not generally have the kind of depth necessary to create a film sustained by tone or mood.
OT: Munich
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
Mr. Apathy
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 3:06 am
- Contact:
-
Evan Kubota
- Senior member
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:04 am
- Location: FL
- Contact:
"effectively supported the story line and subject matter"
Yeah, but it was used to support the story. I still maintain that Spielberg to date has not demonstrated the kind of perceptive ability that is required to successfully create a film with very minimal story elements that depends on tonal depth. The story in Munich was not as compelling or tightly constructed as other Spielberg films, so there needs to be some other aspect, tonal or otherwise, that can compensate for it. In this case I found there wasn't. He's not Tarkovsky, and while there's nothing wrong with that, the direction the film took was not a good match with his skill set, IMO.
"Saving Private Ryan" surely had a consistent tone, but I'm not sure that it contributed anything to the film in anything other than a superficial aesthetic sense. The camerawork, etc. seemed to be mainly utilized to embellish the emotional content of the story, not to project any coherent thesis or belief on the part of the director. In that sense it followed traditional Hollywood studio techniques, despite the appearance that 'something more' may have been going on technically or visually.
Yeah, but it was used to support the story. I still maintain that Spielberg to date has not demonstrated the kind of perceptive ability that is required to successfully create a film with very minimal story elements that depends on tonal depth. The story in Munich was not as compelling or tightly constructed as other Spielberg films, so there needs to be some other aspect, tonal or otherwise, that can compensate for it. In this case I found there wasn't. He's not Tarkovsky, and while there's nothing wrong with that, the direction the film took was not a good match with his skill set, IMO.
"Saving Private Ryan" surely had a consistent tone, but I'm not sure that it contributed anything to the film in anything other than a superficial aesthetic sense. The camerawork, etc. seemed to be mainly utilized to embellish the emotional content of the story, not to project any coherent thesis or belief on the part of the director. In that sense it followed traditional Hollywood studio techniques, despite the appearance that 'something more' may have been going on technically or visually.
Production Notes
http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html
http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
You guys are hilarious. I don't care for every film Spielberg ever made but he is, arguably, the single most successful director in the history of cinema and you act as if he couldn't buy a clue. Unlike painting, sculpture or photography, cinema has a clear and traceable lineage: It was invented for the entertainment of the masses and exists to make money. If a director happens to make a successful film that also achieves a level of artistic value, I guarantee it's a happy accident (just like most "fine art") but it isn't required nor even desired, in my opinion. I've seen too many films where the director forgot that his principle job is to entertain, not create a thesis on the state of the human condition. There are many successful movies that I think are crap but movies are commerce, not art, and the measure of success is ticket sales, regardless of what I or critics think. As such, anyone that judges the work of a film director based on artistic merit really needs to have their own work in front of a paying audience more often. It's a hard business but it is a business and nothing more. Spielberg just makes it look so easy that most don't realize how difficult it is to manage a film project and have it work on any level at all.
Roger
Roger
let's hope this thread doesn't turn into a discussion about what counts as art and what not. Doh! Too late!MovieStuff wrote:
Unlike painting, sculpture or photography, cinema has a clear and traceable lineage: It was invented for the entertainment of the masses and exists to make money.
If a director happens to make a successful film that also achieves a level of artistic value, I guarantee it's a happy accident (just like most "fine art") but it isn't required nor even desired, in my opinion. I've seen too many films where the director forgot that his principle job is to entertain, not create a thesis on the state of the human condition. There are many successful movies that I think are crap but movies are commerce, not art, and the measure of success is ticket sales, regardless of what I or critics think.
The fact that movies originated as entertainment (Shakespeare anyone?) ofcourse doesn't determine it's essence. There is no essence of film, it could be both entertainment and art, both commercial and seriously thought provoking and/or esthetically pleasing/shocking. The commercial aspect of cinema is ofcourse very important, but look at the world of art: It's thouroughly commercial in every aspect, except on the level of sincerity of the artist, but on that personal level there's no difference between, say Johannes Vermeer and Steven Spielberg.
We'll knock back a few, and talk about life, and what is right
-
Guy Bennett
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:36 am
- Contact:
MovieStuff wrote:Unlike painting, sculpture or photography, cinema has a clear and traceable lineage: It was invented for the entertainment of the masses and exists to make money.
This is the difference between movies and traditional arts: the intended audience. Movies are made for the masses (sounds like back in the days of the russian woodpecker), traditional arts were targeted to a smaller elite that, among other things, needed art to celebrate themselves and distinguish them from those a step lower in the foodchain.
But then that elite doesn't exist anymore, and their heirs are just a ridicule bunch celebrated only by paparrazzis, and totally irrelevant for rest of the world, and especially for art.
However, making money has always been the purpose of art. Not even the cliches established in the 19th century could change this.
But now this audience for art, after several centuries, has vanished into obsolescence, and the catholic church also pretty much stopped ordering paintings and cathedrals. Fortunately the masses are today not anymore struggling for something to eat and some clothing, but demand entertainment and celebration of themselves, their way of life, and their ideals. Movies and music are now created for them, as these media are better suited than oil on canvas and marble. And of course it's an industrial production and no work of individuals.
have fun!
-
Evan Kubota
- Senior member
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:04 am
- Location: FL
- Contact:
As jean pointed out, 'traditional' art such as painting and music was also for a paying audience - that audience was just smaller.
Besides, Roger, your point is moot... Munich is not entertaining, either. It fails as commercial narrative cinema, so I attempted to give Steven Spielberg the benefit of the doubt and look for some other point or thesis in the film. Nothing worthwhile was recoverable.
"I pretty strongly disagree with the idea that cinema should inherently be for entertainment. I'll comment further when I find the relevent Tarkovsky quote!"
Seconded.
From "Sculpting in Time":
"... a film succeeds or fails and its aesthetic value is established, paradoxically enough, according to supply and demand - to straightforward market laws. Need one add that no other art has been so subject to criteria of this kind. As long as cinema remains in its present position, it will never be easy for a true cinematic work to see the light of day, let alone become accessible to a wider public." (164)
"At present we therefore have a situation in which the cinema-goer is at liberty to choose the director who happens to be on his wavelength, while the director is not entitled to declare frankly that he has no interest in that section of the cinema-going public that uses films as entertainment and as an escape from the sorrows, cares and deprivations of every day life.
Not that the cinema-goer is to be blamed for his poor taste - life doesn't give us all the same opportunities for developing our aesthetic perceptions. That's where the real difficulty lies. But it doesn't help to pretend that the audience is the artist's 'supreme judge'." (174)
"If you try to please audiences, uncritically accepting their tastes, it can only mean that you have no respect for them: that you simply want to collect their money..." (174)
"...mass-appeal cinema, because of its easy, irresistible effect, extinguishes all traces of thought and feeling irrevocably. People cease to feel any need for the beautiful and the spiritual, and consume films like bottles of Coca-Cola." (179)
If current cinema exists only for profit, that's by no means justification for that state. More like a staggering misconception on the part of the audience and distributors - imagine if all music was "popular" music. The difference in this case is that it's perfectly feasible to record an album with very little money, which historically has not been the case with films. Nevertheless, the point remains - the possibilities of the medium should not be limited by a shortsighted belief that since American cinema is largely produced with the goal of making money, that is the acceptable state, and even the apotheosis of the form.
The director's principal job is to entertain? Who said that? I certainly don't agree.
"As such, anyone that judges the work of a film director based on artistic merit really needs to have their own work in front of a paying audience more often."
This is the one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum. Do you realize the problem with saying that? What else should films be judged by, the number of seats sold?
"Spielberg just makes it look so easy that most don't realize how difficult it is to manage a film project and have it work on any level at all."
See Munich and get back to me. It was apparently a quick/hasty production, and the rushed schedule really shows through, surprisingly for a Spielberg film, even in some technical aspects. The music, for example, feels almost like a temp track.
Besides, Roger, your point is moot... Munich is not entertaining, either. It fails as commercial narrative cinema, so I attempted to give Steven Spielberg the benefit of the doubt and look for some other point or thesis in the film. Nothing worthwhile was recoverable.
"I pretty strongly disagree with the idea that cinema should inherently be for entertainment. I'll comment further when I find the relevent Tarkovsky quote!"
Seconded.
From "Sculpting in Time":
"... a film succeeds or fails and its aesthetic value is established, paradoxically enough, according to supply and demand - to straightforward market laws. Need one add that no other art has been so subject to criteria of this kind. As long as cinema remains in its present position, it will never be easy for a true cinematic work to see the light of day, let alone become accessible to a wider public." (164)
"At present we therefore have a situation in which the cinema-goer is at liberty to choose the director who happens to be on his wavelength, while the director is not entitled to declare frankly that he has no interest in that section of the cinema-going public that uses films as entertainment and as an escape from the sorrows, cares and deprivations of every day life.
Not that the cinema-goer is to be blamed for his poor taste - life doesn't give us all the same opportunities for developing our aesthetic perceptions. That's where the real difficulty lies. But it doesn't help to pretend that the audience is the artist's 'supreme judge'." (174)
"If you try to please audiences, uncritically accepting their tastes, it can only mean that you have no respect for them: that you simply want to collect their money..." (174)
"...mass-appeal cinema, because of its easy, irresistible effect, extinguishes all traces of thought and feeling irrevocably. People cease to feel any need for the beautiful and the spiritual, and consume films like bottles of Coca-Cola." (179)
If current cinema exists only for profit, that's by no means justification for that state. More like a staggering misconception on the part of the audience and distributors - imagine if all music was "popular" music. The difference in this case is that it's perfectly feasible to record an album with very little money, which historically has not been the case with films. Nevertheless, the point remains - the possibilities of the medium should not be limited by a shortsighted belief that since American cinema is largely produced with the goal of making money, that is the acceptable state, and even the apotheosis of the form.
The director's principal job is to entertain? Who said that? I certainly don't agree.
"As such, anyone that judges the work of a film director based on artistic merit really needs to have their own work in front of a paying audience more often."
This is the one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum. Do you realize the problem with saying that? What else should films be judged by, the number of seats sold?
"Spielberg just makes it look so easy that most don't realize how difficult it is to manage a film project and have it work on any level at all."
See Munich and get back to me. It was apparently a quick/hasty production, and the rushed schedule really shows through, surprisingly for a Spielberg film, even in some technical aspects. The music, for example, feels almost like a temp track.
Production Notes
http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html
http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html
...
what a pretentious load of crap Evan, with all due respect. Ask Peter Jackson if one of the reasons he made King Kong was to please the movie-goer. He will answer 'yes' because it was this movie that pleased him so much that made him want to do it himself. Does this make King Kong a bad movie? No, it's really good. Entertainment is not the opposite of art. Commercial is not the opposite of art. Mass appeal says nothing about inherent quality, and anybody who says it does is an idiot.
yeah right"If you try to please audiences, uncritically accepting their tastes, it can only mean that you have no respect for them: that you simply want to collect their money..." (174)
We'll knock back a few, and talk about life, and what is right
-
Evan Kubota
- Senior member
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:04 am
- Location: FL
- Contact:
You don't need to say 'with all due respect' to me - they're just quotes from Tarkovsky's book.
Pleasing "the moviegoer" is not a very specific statement. If the moviegoer is reasonable and has decent taste, then yes, pleasing them is an admirable goal. If "the moviegoer" only likes Michael Bay stuff, catering to them is probably easy but not that worthwhile. King Kong is not a bad movie - I don't know where I said that.
Furthermore, 'entertainment' movies have their place as much as 'art' movies. To claim that entertainment is the sole purpose of film is as absurd as to claim the contrary.
"Mass appeal says nothing about inherent quality, and anybody who says it does is an idiot."
from MovieStuff:
"... movies are commerce, not art, and the measure of success is ticket sales, regardless of what I or critics think."
If you go by that yardstick, I guess there's no point in even discussing whether inherent "quality" can even be quantified. I have a different measure of success...
Pleasing "the moviegoer" is not a very specific statement. If the moviegoer is reasonable and has decent taste, then yes, pleasing them is an admirable goal. If "the moviegoer" only likes Michael Bay stuff, catering to them is probably easy but not that worthwhile. King Kong is not a bad movie - I don't know where I said that.
Furthermore, 'entertainment' movies have their place as much as 'art' movies. To claim that entertainment is the sole purpose of film is as absurd as to claim the contrary.
"Mass appeal says nothing about inherent quality, and anybody who says it does is an idiot."
from MovieStuff:
"... movies are commerce, not art, and the measure of success is ticket sales, regardless of what I or critics think."
If you go by that yardstick, I guess there's no point in even discussing whether inherent "quality" can even be quantified. I have a different measure of success...
Production Notes
http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html
http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html
i know, but you're the one quoting him. Just being polite.You don't need to say 'with all due respect' to me - they're just quotes from Tarkovsky's book.
Tarkovsky probably didn't care about his audience at all, which is ok with me, but directors who do, don't necessarily make bad movies.Pleasing "the moviegoer" is not a very specific statement. If the moviegoer is reasonable and has decent taste, then yes, pleasing them is an admirable goal. If "the moviegoer" only likes Michael Bay stuff, catering to them is probably easy but not that worthwhile. King Kong is not a bad movie - I don't know where I said that.
i agreeFurthermore, 'entertainment' movies have their place as much as 'art' movies. To claim that entertainment is the sole purpose of film is as absurd as to claim the contrary.
I disagreed with Roger on that point.from MovieStuff:
"... movies are commerce, not art, and the measure of success is ticket sales, regardless of what I or critics think."
If you go by that yardstick, I guess there's no point in even discussing whether inherent "quality" can even be quantified. I have a different measure of success...
Last edited by Alex_W on Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We'll knock back a few, and talk about life, and what is right
Isn't this a very valid point? While of course we would need e.g. to separate documentaries from fiction, I insist that if someone choses to make a movie - or write a novel, or poem, or whatsoever - he steps on thin ice.Evan Kubota wrote:The director's principal job is to entertain? Who said that? I certainly don't agree.
What I want to say is that it's fine to be in love with a woman and adore her beauty, but when you write a poem celebrating it, your love and her beauty are no excuse for a lousy poem. The same applies to paintings, novels, movies, photos, whatever.
In other words, if someone has something to say, he should just say it. Having something to say alone is no excuse for a work of art, and even less a justification. Any work of art has it's own rules and not to those of our everydays world, and the artist better obeys them or he will create nothing worthwile.. It may seem little if a movie is "just" entertaining, but I think that this really is the main thing. If it's entertaining it may also do something else, like tell deep truths about the meaning of life - but if it's not entertaining I'd consider it failed.
To prove my point, think of art where the "meaning" has been lost for a long time, but still the objects remained highly regarded. Vermeers paintings are a good example for this. In the first place, they were excellent paintings. Vermeer used them to transport something else, but the otherway round - create a mediocre painting but claiming an important message - does not work.
Hehe, those lazy days after christmas and new year, i love them. Finally time again to post a little 8)
have fun!