Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

A Joke At The Expense Of Spielberg


Palmerin
 Share

Recommended Posts

A fan of SS, terribly concerned about the grief the latter gets for the innumerable implausibilities of the Indiana Jones movies, attempted to excuse them by affirming that IJ lives in an alternate reality that has no relation to the real 20th century.

Really? No kidding? So that is why TEMPLE OF DOOM AND GLOOM speaks of a ,,sultan of Madagascar", a country that has never been Islamic, and which therefore has never had any sultans??? Yeah, right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, some people are old.  

After Amistad, Munich, War Horse and Bridge of Spies, Indy is now the LAST thing I expect from gloomy ol' Jewish/black idealistic-PC Spielberg, and if it wasn't for The BFG and Tintin, I'd have already buried the "80's" one a decade ago.

(I put the cutoff date at when he didn't want to put Nazis in Indy 4, out of respect to Schindler.)

 

Of course, we still get little bursts of childlike self-indulgence, like when he wanted to have Gene Wilder come back to play the "Ready Player One" founder (he's Willy Wonka and they've all got Golden Tickets, get it?)   :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, some people are old.  

After Amistad, Munich, War Horse and Bridge of Spies, Indy is now the LAST thing I expect from gloomy ol' Jewish/black idealistic-PC Spielberg, and if it wasn't for The BFG and Tintin, I'd have already buried the "80's" one a decade ago.

(I put the cutoff date at when he didn't want to put Nazis in Indy 4, out of respect to Schindler.)

 

Of course, we still get little bursts of childlike self-indulgence, like when he wanted to have Gene Wilder come back to play the "Ready Player One" founder (he's Willy Wonka and they've all got Golden Tickets, get it?)   :rolleyes:

speilbergs the greatest filmaker in histoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fan of SS, terribly concerned about the grief the latter gets for the innumerable implausibilities of the Indiana Jones movies, attempted to excuse them by affirming that IJ lives in an alternate reality that has no relation to the real 20th century.

Really? No kidding? So that is why TEMPLE OF DOOM AND GLOOM speaks of a ,,sultan of Madagascar", a country that has never been Islamic, and which therefore has never had any sultans??? Yeah, right!

 

Movies are not documentaries. They are for fun fantasy and enjoyment. Very little in action films is realistic. That's part of their charm.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

speilbergs the greatest filmaker in histoy.

 

That's a hard sell. Spielberg was good at what he does best, make us get our hankies with his bourgeois sentimentally. E.T was a disgrace. We fall over ourselves with the weepies as they spend all that time and process to see the thing die oh so slowly, only to see it come back immediately to life again. Shameful manipulation, I say, shameful manipulation. But he did do some good movies (Duel). He could have greater if he had some intent on making serious, non-manipulative movies. Some of his movies are not coming to mind. Did Schindler's List have the weepie element in there or did he spare us? I haven't seen it. But he was much better at what he does than Kevin Costner who I feel tried to emulate S but fell short.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's really no different than anyone else behind a camera.  They've ALL had "hits and misses" in their filmography's, and "mass appeal", is Steve's strong suit. 

 

YOU may not like some of his movies that I really like, and vice-versa,  and I guess it depends on WHY anyone bothers to go to the movies.

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall being at the dinner way back in time, honoring Kurosawa, with in attendance Steven Spielberg, in which Akira said in his remarks that people asked him why his films had long lasting appeal and he basically in a most polite way, lambasted Spielberg indirectly, by saying he, Akira never wanted to make easy moneymaker films or sure hit sequels, or had that as his raison d'etre. Later I saw excerpts and Spielberg's face looked a bit embarrassed as Kurosawa said this and showed why he was a great filmmaker and his oeuvre had lasted. It was from that moment on, that Spielberg in my opinion started trying to gain respect with his idea of more socially important themes in his films. Whether he was successful at that remains to be seen but I think he got a bit flummoxed by Kurosawa's remarks at the dinner and wanted to be seen from then on as a more serious filmmaker. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a hard sell. Spielberg was good at what he does best, make us get our hankies with his bourgeois sentimentally. E.T was a disgrace. We fall over ourselves with the weepies as they spend all that time and process to see the thing die oh so slowly, only to see it come back immediately to life again. Shameful manipulation, I say, shameful manipulation. But he did do some good movies (Duel). He could have greater if he had some intent on making serious, non-manipulative movies. Some of his movies are not coming to mind. Did Schindler's List have the weepie element in there or did he spare us? I haven't seen it. But he was much better at what he does than Kevin Costner who I feel tried to emulate S but fell short.

 

Working with Melissa Mathison and John Williams in some of his better films (ahem, nobody here saw BFG, admit it?) focused what was Spielberg's main strength in any genre, namely that even a manipulative emotion is still an emotion, if it has some personally invested degree of sincerity in it.

That's why the first Indy movie worked, and the other two didn't...And why Kingdom of the Crystal Skull only worked as Spielberg's affectionate attempt to finale the series, no matter what George Lucas thought he could do with Shia LaBeouf.

 

If you get around to seeing Schindler's List, it's definitely got weeps, hard-hitting emotional punches AND sincerity in it, but still focused with a bit of childlike, call it "naivety", that believes that sincerity can accomplish something--You did at least see "Lincoln", didn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric

 

No I haven't. Is it recommendable? Is seems a rather pedestrian subject for a SS.

 

 

By "it", do you mean BFG, Lincoln or Schindler?  

Assuming you mean Lincoln, the story is a bit pedestrian, since it falls into more Amistad "PC show-trial" territory with the climax of Congress debating the Emancipation bill--But it's propelled along by Daniel Day Lewis's history-lesson performance, and a few contemporary (but thankfully not PC-revisionist) analyses of the politics of trying to enforce the shaky Proclamation long enough to get the legislation to back it up.

 

Basically, it affirms the old observation that "It's hard for Spielberg to actually make a bad movie, except for Lost World, (whew), wwwwWOW."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fan of SS, terribly concerned about the grief the latter gets for the innumerable implausibilities of the Indiana Jones movies, attempted to excuse them by affirming that IJ lives in an alternate reality that has no relation to the real 20th century.

Really? No kidding? So that is why TEMPLE OF DOOM AND GLOOM speaks of a ,,sultan of Madagascar", a country that has never been Islamic, and which therefore has never had any sultans??? Yeah, right!

 

Are you taking ANY of the Indiana Jones movies seriously?

 

Sultan of Madagascar...  how about the King of Madagascar, very historically accurate. :lol:

a1727d6626353b7a39f2875b6a617225.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...