Not to sound crazy or anything…
But I can’t consider Spilberg a true artist, or an artist for that matter. I can only see him as a businessman who tries to shock people but has no real intention to make them think.
Does he deserve the recongnition of film fanatics like us…well. I say no.
i say he can stick it. He’s the man (negative connotation by the way).
Spielberg. I think he is both.
Well… it’s Spielberg, but he is an immoral hack, and his films are completely devoid of coherent themes. Let’s look past “Indiana Jones 4”, although it should be a dead give way, and look to some of his more serious works.
Amistad – In a film about the horror slavery, Spielberg celebrates the great deeds of the WHITE heros who rescued them, while simultaneously sexualizing the slave experience in perhaps one of the most horrific scenes of cinema.
Minority Report – In a film that purports to be about the sanctify of human life, Cruise runs rampant, killing all would get in his way.
Schlinder’s List – A holocaust film in which, again, Spielberg celebrates the triumph of a non-Jew for his philanthropic deeds. It bears mentioning that he followed this film up with The Lost World, a film in which the viewers are meant to derive pleasure from images of human beings being torn apart by dinosaurs.
Munich – Perhaps Spielberg’s best film, Munich still sensationalizes the violent deeds that our characters are supposedly in turmoil about. How can he pretend to be weighing the moral complexities of such actions while reveling in the “coolness” of planning someone’s murder.
Steven Spielberg could make any film he wants. Instead he makes escapist tripe, or serious films that are grossly unaware of their contradictions. This speaks for itself.
Jose, I’m not sure Spielberg is in the kind of financial situation where he would need to “score” anything. Also, what do you consider to be a “true artist”?
Oh! Perhaps most significant.
Saving Private’s Ryan – This film was, above all, celebrated for its haunting opening depiction of the Normandy invasions. Yet the film closes with an epic set piece, in which we, again celebrate the “coolness” of sticky bombs and snipers.
I wouldn’t like to define ‘true artist’ so the conversation may flow. I would call Fellini and Bergman true artists for example.
Wow! I shouldn’t be surprised by the Spielberg hate, but here it is.
He’s obviously both. You can love or hate his movies, but you can’t deny his incredible talent as a director. You may hate his style, but you can’t deny that he’s a master of that style. Some of his “serious” movies are a little too overdone to be taken seriously, but why is it that he can’t be an artist simply because he likes to make grand entertainments? Many of his movies are extremely personal expressions of his own worldview, even if they do garner the attention of millions of moviegoers.
And Jose, he’s plenty worthy of film analysis – just read Robert Kolker’s “A Cinema of Lonliness”. The chapter on Spielberg is one of the most provocative.
What makes Fellini and Bergman true artists as opposed to Spielberg?
Man, I can hear the film elitists scraping at the door on this one.
I am not a huge fan of Spielberg but to say simply because he makes films that make money and are popular he’s not an artist is probably one of the most predictable things I’ve ever heard. I think it takes great skill and artistry to make a film like Jaws as well as Schindler’s List.
The irony of course is that the people who prop up certain filmmakers like Bergman, Fellini, and Kurasawa and disregard filmmakers like Spielberg fail to recognize that these “true artists” do not agree with the naysayers in the slightest. No, greats recognize other greats which is why someone like Truffaut would absolutely agree to be in a Spielberg film.
“I think it takes great skill and artistry to make a film like Jaws as well as Schindler’s List.”
Great technical skill, perhaps. Completing a film is a feat in and of itself. Artistry? No.
So what exactly is art as it pertains to film?
Spielberg makes film’s for entertainment. I wouldn’t count them as artistic in any way, but they are at least worth the entertainment.
I didn’t say any of those things. I believe there are very real reasons why Spielberg has lost credibility has a reason filmmaker. And I’ve stated them.
both, and good for him.
I can’t say he’s an artist, and I can’t say he’s not.
I can say that whatever type of movie you’re looking for, he’s made it.
You want a Sci-Fi Action movie, he’s made one.
You want a Period Piece, he’s made one.
You want a Horror movie, he’s made one.
You want a Kids movie, he’s made one.
You want a…
The list goes on forever. And, that demands respect. I’m not the biggest fan of his films, but I respect his career.
“So what exactly is art as it pertains to film?”
I don’t believe anyone has the answer, but maturity and an aim for enlightenment over entertainment are surely a part of it.
Try looking at this from the position of someone who cannot tell a “true artist” from the latter (as it pertains to film). I would like to see someone pose a nice strong argument as to why they do not consider Spielberg an artist . No offense folks but so far the arguments stating he is not are pretty weak. If someone can define what makes a director an artist others might be able to formulate a better opinion in this matter or see it your way.
Okay, let’s look at it this way, Jose said, “I would call Fellini and Bergman true artists for example.” So I state again, What makes Fellini and Bergman true artists as opposed to Spielberg?
I will make it simple, what exactly makes a film director an artist?
I think that having a style of your own and finding new depths to it in every movie help create an artist. So in a way, Spielberg would be an artist of the summer blockbuster just like Kurosawa is in telling stories that anyone can feel related to even if you don’t really understand japanese culture.
Exactly Jorge! Spielberg does not make austere, gritty movies. His movies are not meant to be highly profound, and do not embrace most of the European art house style. They are slick, tightly organized, and designed for superior entertainment value. What really separates that from Alfred Hitchcock, or Francios Truffaut? What about Howard Hawks or Billy Wilder? What about Kurosawa? All of these directors have made wildly entertaining movies. Some of those directors are dark and cynical, while others are not.
So why exactly isn’t he an artist? Maybe you think he’s a bad artist. Ok – I don’t agree, but I can buy that.
@Daniel A – I think that’s the fundamental question, what makes a director an artist? For some people, it seems to be about segregating their favorite filmmakers from the rest of the pack for the purpose of validating their own opinion. While this is cute in a sort of rudimentary, philosophical way, it seems somewhat irrelevant and boring (much like the discussion of what an auteur is).
My own personal feeling is that all directors are artists (from Michael Bay to Bela Tarr) and it’s just a question of what art do you prefer. On a more specific level, since I’m sure a lot of people might find fault with my definition that all directors are artists (“I mean come on, you’re calling Uwe Boll and Paul W. Anderson artists?” – one protest might read), I think any director who has found their own unique voice in the world of cinema is a true artist. In this definition, you might be able to rule out some of the more mundane and assembly line filmmakers (like Boll and Adnerson) and concentrate on people who clearly understand the language of film and have managed to tell stories that are uniquely their own. In this category, I think Spielberg would be included. You may hate his voice but he clearly has established himself as having a clearly defining cinematic signature.
I guess my main point is that you can argue that someone is an artist even if you don’t like their work.
Spielberg is the Establishment.
@Nathan – it’s funny that you would say Spielberg doesn’t embrace most European art house style because I was just thinking about this the other day. As I was leaving the screening of The Battle of Algiers, I couldn’t help but see some comparisions to Munich and how Spielberg used Pontecorvo’s film as a big influence (I know Spielberg has said how important Algiers was to him).
Fredo – The connection between “Algiers” and “Munich” is palpable. I mean my comment in a general way. Aside from a few films (“A.I.”, “Munich”, and “The Terminal”), his films are decisively American. He’s drawing from serials of the 30’s and 40’s, 50’s sci-fi films, epics, and classical hollywood cinema. He roots his style in classical expressions of film grammar, but brings the simplicity of Ford and Griffith into the suburbs. He can lack subtlety at times (“Schindler’s List”), but he has some fine company in that department – Bergman, David Lynch, and Antonioni (among others) can lay it on pretty thick at times – just in a different way than Spielberg.
Do people have a real problem with his success? God forbid.
I feel there are two Spielbergs:
Spielberg #1: The artistic director. This is the Spielberg who brought us great films such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Spielberg #2: The business man. This is the Spielberg who produced Transformers.
I think Spielberg has done too much good to fully ignore him. He has made films that have entertained me all my life. Sometimes I just want to yell at Spielberg #1 to stop listening to #2. I don’t think he is amazing and none of his films are among my favorites, but I still will always look forward to seeing a film he has directed.
Nathan – I know what you’re saying and I totally agree that he’s a decidedly American director. And I do think some people have a problem with his success because they wish “their guy” was as successful or as accepted. Make no mistake, I’ve hated a lot of Spielberg’s films, notably his more recent films (Munich being the exception) but I have no problem classifying him as a great artist.
Even if Spielberg added to this post by saying’ “I have a beard, therefore I am an artist .” I would question it on the basis that there is no proof that only guys with beards are artists. However if Spielberg were to post " I have a beard therefore i am an artist and here is a document that proves it." I would say, “Show me the document.”
And the document would read:
On this day I Steven Spielberg, Fritz Lang, Tinto Brass, Orson Welles, Pier Paolo Paosolini, The Dogma 95, Federico Felini, Ingmar Bergman, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, William Klein, Lamberto Bava, and any other director who chooses to be considered an artist promise to do so only on the basis that I will adhere to the following guidlines:
1) To be an artist I must have a beard
2) To be an artist I must direct shirtless
3) To be an artist I must direct in micro shorts
4) To be an artist I must direct doing any or all of the above
According to this document, one can conclude that Spielberg is an artist since he does have the beard. And if any other director adheres to these guidelines they are certainly artists according to this document. Only then can one confidently say Spielberg is an artist (at least according to this document). If George Lucas decides he will direct Episode 7 completely nude and beardless It can be argued that he is not an artist based on this document since he did not adhere to the established guidelines.
Yea, he was defiantly trying to score some big bucks when he asked not to be paid for Schindler’s List.
Sure Spielberg has made some shit probably for some cash but he has also made some great pieces of art, please do not deny it because it is becoming a trend to call Spielberg a hack. Now, George Lucas…I won’t get into him. But Spielberg has undoubtably made great cinema. Not to say he is some legendary artist but no hack.
So both, most artist in the world would fall into this category of “both.”
Chopin – It should also be noted that Spielberg tried initially to get Martin Scorsese to direct “Schindler’s List”. Scorsese felt that the film was Spielberg’s, and declined to direct it.
He’s both.
He’s one of my favorite filmmakers because to me, he manages to be both overrated and underrated at the same time!
Jose
This has been bothering me for quite some time now. Normally I have a easy time in separating the pousers from the true artists. But what about Spilberg?
Is he worthy of film anylisis?
I mean, he did hang out with Kubrick.
But then again, he made Indiana Jones.
Looking for Top Film Experts. C’mon guys, there’s an expert in each one of you…