Spielberg & Kushner's Munich '72 / Israeli vengeance film

http://www.imdb.com/Name?Bay,+Michael

Uh, yeah. What Dan said. Unless you're trying to claim Spielberg as some kind of avant garde, this doesn't make much sense on this thread. Spielberg is clearly doing both--if you asked him, he'd say the same.

Regardless, if filmmaking somehow doesn't include the story, whatever it is, a person is trying to tell with their film, does it include the actors or the music or etc etc etc? Or are you really trying to split it right down to the idea that filmmaking is nothing more than moving photographs, and as such arguments about a filmmaker that criticize his choice in things besides pure cinematography are irrelevant???

Stenc, "pacing" is very relevant to shit-throwing monkeys whose visual experience has been hardwired by bad TV.

This is utterly batshit insane. 'Pacing' is a function of editing and narrative - you want to tell me no critics in history, Agee to Kael to Rosenbaum to Farber etc. - have ever considered that in valuing a film?

hahah! spielberg is like the original shit-throwing monkey whose visual experience has been hardwired by bad TV!!

-- monkeybutler (pdenniso...), November 9th, 2005.

this is an excellent point.

I don't give a damn how ambitious Spielberg might have thought SPR was - in the end it was just a soothing version of standard war movie heroism lined with morally questionable choices to give it a veneer of 'adult' respectability.
-- Are You Nomar? (wooderso...), November 9th, 2005.

ah i see. how do you know when the morally questionable choices are applique or integral to the film? intuition?

the pacing/storytelling/imagery thing... in practice it's hard to tell these apart. even slow, non-narrative films have some kind of pace but then i can think of a fair number of films which have multiple rhythms and moods. 'last crusade' is all pace, all the way: it's almost a continuous chase. but sometimes an incredible shot has rhythm and drives the narrative: eg the amazing single take travelling shot in 'war of the worlds' (haha or 'touch of evil') which follows cruise's car down the motorway.

When they appear once per castmember and are never discussed again, and the whole movie is bookended with three and a half pounds of mild orange cheddar, those are pretty good indicators.

Which brings us back to a massive problem people have with Spielberg, minus all the discomforts we've discussed about his execution, he seems like he spends a lot of time stepping out on the cliff edge from which one descends into auteur-space, looking down, putting his hand out to show that he's totally going to do it, then turning around and using his complete control of the project to make sure it doesn't really offend or shock anybody over 7.

You almost get the feeling that after he made Jaws he realized that the super cheesy fake shark was exactly what he wanted all along, and used that as a guideline!

I meant 'PACING' with the quotes ... ie, "oh no, nothing's happening, the camera is static, a dialogue scene went on for more than 3 minutes, etc."

Forget I said anything as well. Ever. Let Frank & Hot Lips be your guides.

Yeah, but nobody you're discussing this with (yes, I am making the assumption I can speak for slocki and Alex on this one, knowing some of their other tastes in film) meant pacing in that fashion. I'm not really sure why you feel the need to be such a condescending prick on these threads so I'm going to take your advice and forget you've ever said anything.

And yeah, I think Tom basically hits it on the head, the potential for true greatness Spielberg has shown is what really creates the violent reaction towards him; it's kind of like no one gets really angry if they go to see a Michael Bay film and he pusses out on some BIG MEANINGFUL THING but with Spielberg it's kind of like, then why did you bother making this film? Why not keep doing what you excelled at, which is big blockbuster entertainment? He doesn't straddle the line very neatly at all. (and yeah, Enrique OTM in that he's not alone)

i dont mean to pick on this post because i think it's a good one. but one reason spielberg is such an interesting figure to debate is that it forces (or should force) the participants to ask themselves just what is so bad about a "happy" ending, or lack of ambiguity, or something that doesn't offend or shock anyone over 7. (all of these issues are pretty up front in the end of AI, i think).

why do we value these things in storytelling or filmmaking? what makes them better? (because they better correspond to "reality"? is that really valid?)

anyway, just some stupid thoughts

SPOILER ALERT

Though I thought the part where Eric Bana turned green and started throwing Palestinian tanks around was a little much.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1137684,00.html

3.2

"Really, much like Match Point and Woody Allen, you would not know this was a Steven Spielberg movie if you didn't see his name on it. He really gives up his style crutches for the cleanest telling of this story. And as a result, it really has the feeling of early 70s film, particularly The Conversation, The Day of the Jackal, and even a bit of The Godfather."

http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2005_thb/051206_tue.html

I think the Toms issue is a major factor for me as well. More loathesome actors surely don't exist?

AND THEY'RE NOT IN THIS

However, OTM about Patricia Arquette.