DVDs I Won't Be Buying
Submitted by jim on Wed, 09/08/2004 - 11:11
Tags:
It's official: Hayden Manfredsinjinsin has doppelganged Sebastian Shaw as the ghost-Anakin in Return of the Jedi. Oh well, at least Greedo doesn't shoot first anymore (it's a tie). « via Twitch »
Okay, I re-read Brin's indictments of Lucas and responded to them anew here. Copy, paste, discuss:
David Brin complained about Star Wars some time ago. Brin is a better-researched, more articulate, better-paid, and more experienced writer than I am. But I won't let that stop me. Here's my full, belated response (quite different from my hasty, original response):
After seeing that dreck, I happily boycotted the second one until it came out on DVD. More dreck. I still have my fingers crossed that the third one will be tolerable. Anyway, intertwined with his moral indignation are Brin's cheap shots at Lucas. Among them:
But Lucas wasn't anointed by fate - he didn't inherit his billions. He grew up on a walnut ranch and his father sold stationary. In fact, Lucas was a 'little guy' who succeeded because of cooperation with others ('guest' directors for ESB and ROTJ, ILM special effects pioneers, etc.) and wit (revolutionary merchandising agreements), and upon receiving 'godlike powers,' he was subjected to ruthless scrutiny (Brin himself being an example).
But that's not what this is about. Brin has problems with moral lessons he claims Lucas is selling through Star Wars. Among them:
Yes, these are bad doctrines. Yes, Star Wars represents these doctrines in its stories. No, it does not preach these doctrines as gospel for our modern culture.
Star Wars is a fairytale rooted in the story traditions of the most ancient of stories ("from Gilgamesh all the way to comic book super heroes"). Brin agrees:
Indeed it does. As evidenced by that famous opening text, Lucas always intended Star Wars to belong to that class of ancient legends wherein a Herculean hero triumphs in the face of an overwhelming evil that tries to corrupt and destroy him. Monty Python and the Holy Grail provides an insightful and hilarious commentary on the contrast between modern ideals and the values of ancient legends:
Arthur, too, is a mythical hero elite who inherited his 'godlike powers' and embarked on his quest without consulting the masses. Brin seems to claim that all new mythical stories must be politically correct and conscious of modern morality - but Lucas loved the 'old' mythology documented by Joseph Campbell and wanted to create a new story based on the same mythology. Is that so wrong?
But Lucas is preaching, just not the values Brin points out. Those values are not Lucas' - they belong to the ancient mythological tradition Lucas emulated with Star Wars. Lucas did, however, have a few (more basic) doctrines to preach. He wanted Star Wars to be a "moral study, to have some sort of palpable precepts in it that children could understand."
Here are some lessons that Star Wars does preach:
1. Good is more powerful than evil.
2. Power lies within yourself.
3. Control your emotions.
In the end, Brin is splitting hairs to find a few politically incorrect doctrines that might be inferred from Lucas' epic morality play, while ignoring the major morals of the movie that 'children could understand.'
This is a good piece, but I don't really understand how you can pick-and-choose what Lucas does or does not preach? You seem to do it based largely on whether or not a given point supports your stance.
Yup, that's a rather overpowering weakness in my piece. If I could get a quote from Lucas on just what he wants his films to 'preach,' it would make my job here so much easier.
But I think that me picking and choosing what Lucas is preaching is no worse than Brin picking and choosing what Lucas is preaching.
For someone who supposedly rooted his work in such mythic archetypes that Joseph Campbell laid out the Bearded Lord Lucas is either surprisingly silent or stunningly inarticulate about the thought that went into his efforts. [I personally believe that he stumbled into catching lightning in a bottle and then reverse engineered an intellectual connection to a higher meaning.] Even if his intent is to convince us that the moon is made of bleu cheese it is more important to analyze what lessons we take away from Star Wars rather than trying to figure out what the Bearded Lord Lucas was attempting. I think that he is forced into taking this position by the gap that exists between his achievements and his intents:
"There are a lot of ridiculous things that people read into the "Star Wars" films that really aren't there, and it has more to do with the viewer, I think, than anything else.
"It's an interesting perspective that I've come to because I've created something that people analyze and talk about and speculate on and assume, "He means this or he means that."
"And I can see that people do it with all literary works, all film, all the arts, really. There is an academic world of analysis that sort of thinks about thinking and then wonders if they should be thinking about thinking and debate about whether thinking is something more than you're thinking about.
"And it's the same thing with art. Art is something you experience. Trying to analyze what a person is doing is, for the most part, not a really useful exercise. You have to have a one-on-one experience with art, and whatever that is, is okay.
"People have taken away very silly and crazy things, but in the end it's okay if that's what they see; it's more a reflection of their own personality than the film itself."
Clever tactic, using "overpowering weakness." I can't decide whather it is jiu jitsu or an oxymoron.
Clever tactic, but it falls apart under cross-examination.
"There are a lot of ridiculous things that people read into the "Star Wars" films that really aren't there, and it has more to do with the viewer, I think, than anything else."
How does he know this? Has he personally psychoanalyzed his viewers? Of course he hasn't; he's making an educated guess, and that's fine. What isn't fine is for Lucas to turn around and claim that his own motives are ultimately unknowable.
"Trying to analyze what a person is doing is, for the most part, not a really useful exercise. You have to have a one-on-one experience with art, and whatever that is, is okay."
Really? Whatever that is? What if my "one-on-one experience" with Star Wars is that is a myth about me, and I start a massive cult based on it that cons countless people out of their money?
A quote from Lucas might help, but I'm not so much interested in Lucas' intent vs. what he has actually laid down on film. In any case though, thanks for revisiting this! You do raise many good points, and state a much more compelling case than the first go-round.
Jim, you said above that "I do think the exclusion of the money shot keeps stuff from being porn."
For the purposes of clarification, I'm tempted to rearrange your statement to eliminate the double neagative: "I do think the inclusion of the money shot makes it porn." But here is an example of how the double negative is often necessary because its 'straightforward' rendition has a very different meaning. So, I'll leave your original statement true unless my rearrangement also reflects your opinion accurately.
I disagree, to a point (for you glass-half-full types, read: "I agree, to a point"). I think spectacle is one of the finest aspirations of the film medium. Why? Because (1) film is unsurpassed in its ability to represent reality, and (2) film is inferior to the written word in its ability to communicate meaning, especially abstract meaning.
As Andre Bazin put it, "the cinema's ultimate aim should be not so much to mean as to reveal."
I diverge from Bazin in that I think the best cinema reveals and means simultaneously. I agree that some events are better left off-screen, but not all money shots are porn. Indeed, some money shots are among the best elements of certain, otherwise also excellent, films.
P.S. I have no intentions of rivaling the length of 0dysseus's epic post, but I can only hope this discussion will be just as engaging and rewarding.
I think you reversed the intention of the original argument - 0dysseus was claiming that it can be porn even without a money shot, which is a statement that I too disagree with. I agree with you, though, that you can have a non-porn with a money shot; what matters is the artistic intention of showing us the money shot. I think what Jim wrote about "the thrill" is pretty consistent with that viewpoint.
Ah, so maybe I simply misunderstood. Jim?
Yeah, I think so. My original statement and your rearraged statement are quite different, and I'd stick with my original but wouldn't agree with your rearrangement. In short, you can't have porn without the money shot, but you can have money shots without being porn.
When deciding to write this I considered dropping "the Dread" from the Dread Spielberg's name, both for fairness and for readability. They both lost. But this is not meant to insult anyone, not even the Dread Spielberg.
....
I come to bury the Dread Spielberg, not to praise him. This is a difficult case to make. Millions of moviegoers have seen and, quite rightly, loved his films for over three decades. If you are one of those people (and you almost certainly are) then bad mouthing the Dread Spielberg might feel like an insult. If he has made one of your favourite movies then a critical eye can be taken as a personal attack. So let me be personal from the very start: I do enjoy some of the Dread Spielberg's movies. It even could be said that I like some of them... perhaps I might be capable of love. But it's nothing personal. Nevertheless...
The evil that men do lives after them. So lend me your open ears and your open minds. the Dread Spielberg is a talented, influential and powerful director whose films are manipulative, prejudiced and commercial in the worst sense of the word. His movies and their success have had a detrimental affect upon Hollywood, movie making and moviegoers. His reputation is undeserved and dangerous.
But let me start with praise. the Dread Spielberg is a gifted filmmaker. His use of light is masterful and unmatched. He's made a wide variety of successful movies. Oh! are they ever successful. Commercial success is not a bad thing or an indication of creative failure. In truth, if it is the only standard by which directors are measured, then the Dread Spielberg is the most successful director in history. The most successful director by far. He is also gifted at emotional manipulation that, again, is not necessarily a bad thing. He is able to pluck at heartstrings or strike fear in an audience like almost no one else can. Watch a movie by the Dread Spielberg and you can expect to be emotionally moved.
All of this talent and success should not blind us to its harmful consequences. It should, in fact, make us examine his work with a much more skeptical eye. The consequences have been huge.
Jaws is one of the most profitable movies ever. Under the Dread Spielberg it went 300% over budget and a 55-day shoot stretched to 159 days. This is back in the day when a "big budget" "failure" could sink a studio. "Big budget" and "failure" no longer mean what they once did, they used to be much smaller and far more destructive. In an attempt to avoid losing money on the movie Universal released the twenty-nine year-old’s first big budget outing in a new and ingenious way. Jaws became only the second movie to be advertised on network television. It also opened simultaneously in an unprecedented number of movie theaters. 465 to be exact. Keep in mind that this is before the multiplex era. It is a stupefying number of screens.
Until the late 70s/early 80s movies opened in New York (and Los Angeles) first and only after a week or two would they move into the top thirty markets. Then, sometimes as much as a couple months later, the movie would go into wide release and reach the rest of America. Jaws was given a huge advertising blitz and was released on screens everywhere in the third week of June, 1975. In those days summertime was a time of doldrums for the movie business and profitability relied upon the response of critics on either coast, not advertising. A quarter of a century later Pearl Harbor would be released on over 3,000 screens and summer ticket sales would make up over 40% of box office yearly receipts. The Age of the Blockbuster is The Age of the Dread S;pielberg.
In his rise to mogulism the Dread Spielberg has come to be thought of as one of Hollywood's most humanistic and liberal directors. ["Liberal" is used here in the non-political party sense of the word.] This is a fiction agreed upon by both industry and fans alike, which serves both their interests. The Academy likes to give the Oscar for Best Picture to a "cultured" and "sophisticated" movie of high moral tone so that it can feel good about itself. This is in spite of the fact that it is far more likely that we will see "Jaws V" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark IV" before we ever see a sequel to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Chariots of Fire (or The Color Purple and Schindler's List , for that matter.) It would be a blow to the self estimations of both ticket sellers and ticket buyers if the Dread Spielberg represented anything but high morality and idealistic goals. Everyone wants to see beauty and nobility when they look into the mirror and the Dread Spielberg is certainly our mirror.
We can euphemize and call it a "racial blind spot" or an inability to see race as significant but that is just trying to put a good face on what it is. It is racism. The saddest case of the Dread Spielberg's failing here is the use of Japan's legendary actor, Toshiro Mifune, as a stereotypical Jap submarine commander in 1941 . Sixteen films with Kurosawa (including Rashômon and Kakushi toride no san akunin) and then the Dread Spielberg used him as a slant-eyed buffoon. Unfortunately that was but a symptom of a larger pattern.
Cultural grave robbers working for Western governments against the good of Third World people of colour are pretty distasteful characters. But slap a hat on one, call him "Indy" and give him a cool whip to use, that makes everything all right. The height (or nadir) of the Raiders Trilogy (soon to be Quatrogy?) was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. It was an imperialist's dream: Short Round speaking pidgin English, a beautiful dumb blonde who does nothing but scream out her man's name whenever she gets excited and every single minority is evil and involved in voodoo or the occult. [By the way, the Dread Spielberg married Kate Capshaw.] Aside from The Color Purple , the Dread Spielberg wouldn't use that many minorities in a film again until he needed to cast the urchin street youth that made up the "lost boys" in Hook .
If minorities do make it into the work of the Dread Spielberg then they always seem to be victims who need to be rescued by a heroic, white paternal figure. These figures range from the white on white Harrison Ford/Indy to the flakey white Robin Williams/Peter Pan to the strontium white of Anthony Hopkins/John Quincy Adams. The second most tragic mis/dis-use of an actor of colour is in Amistad . Djimon Hounsou’s Cinque gets to say "We want free" while Anthony Hopkins gets to parachute in and deliver about ten minutes of impassioned 19th-century court room scenery chewing. Part of the dilemma that the Dread Spielberg presents is that there are few more eloquent testimonials to the struggle for freedom than the opening scene of Amistad and even fewer directors who could pull it off. It is sad that characters that are portrayed as physically indomitable while at sea should be so helpless in a struggle of intellect or power. Even when a spot of colour makes it on to the white page it is in need of help. In Jurassic Park Samuel L. Jackson’s Ray Arnold and B.D. Wong’s Henry Wu are helpless in the face of Wayne Knight’s Dennis Nedry and his schemes. A man whose last name is an anagram and who looks like nothing more than a career vending machine stick up artist defeats them.
This racism extends even into the heart of the Dread Spielberg’s “labour of love,” Schindler’s List . The hero and centerpiece is a tall, blonde goy who manages to keep his slave-labour factory going while saving a couple hundred Jews. The closest connection that Liam Neeson’s Oskar Schindler has to the Jewish victims of the Nazis is through his Jewish accountant. This does not mean that the Dread Spielberg thinks that Jews make good accountants. He might also think that Jews are great violinists, as the name of Ben Kingsley’s character, Itzhak Stern, would seem to indicate. Schindler’s List may have the fewest (and most helpless) number of Jews in it of all of the Holocaust movies ever made. Schindler’s struggle is in how to balance his business with his attempt to save Jews from going to the ovens. That is not the true struggle. It is a more palatable, false struggle than a true confrontation with the nature of evil and our responsibilities in the face of it.
Even the Dread Spielberg’s choice to use a dash of colour in the otherwise black and white film makes the issue of genocide more comfortable. With the singling out of one girl we worry about her fate and mourn her loss as an individual. In this way the audience (and the Dread Spielberg) is absolved from the duty of worrying about the fate of hundreds of thousands of such girls. Some of them were saved while their parents and other family members perished, some were killed, some were hidden and protected in countries such as Bulgaria, some were turned back in their boats by the American government... all of this and more is avoided by linking the Holocaust to one girl. Paperclips are a more effective way to try and comprehend the horror of genocide than the facile tragic loss of one pretty child.
Now would be the proper place to address the Dread Spielberg’s “black movie,” The Color Purple . I want to leave aside the issue of whether or not the Dread Spielberg was trying to win an Oscar (and acceptance as a true artist) with this film. [Recall that to this point in his career the closest thing to a “serious film” that he has done was one third of Twilight Zone: The Movie .] Whatever his motivation, it is how he executes that is most important. All of the male characters are rapists and/or abusers without exception. All of the female black characters in the movie are long-suffering simpletons. When confronted about this unremittingly negative portrayal of black characters the Dread Spielberg tried to hide behind the skirts of Alice Walker and Quincy Jones. He said that he was only trying to tell the story of Alice Walker’s book. He also said that he and Quincy Jones (as producer) had made the first all-black film.
Alice Walker’s book The Color Purple is pretty grim in its depiction of life but the Dread Spielberg is being disingenuous when he lays the blame at Walker’s feet. A director chooses his source material, Alice Walker was not holding a gun to his head, and then adapts it as he sees fit. In addition to the violence done to women there was also lesbianism in the book. the Dread Spielberg hints at this when he artfully pans the camera away to some wind chimes when Whoopi Goldberg’s Celie and Margaret Avery’s Shug Avery (presumably) kiss. If the Dread Spielberg was so intent upon remaining true to the novel why did he excise the women’s affair or, if he felt no such constraints, why didn’t he find a more artful way to portray the physical abuse of Celie and others? the Dread Spielberg was in no way powerless when these decisions were being made, as they were his decisions.
As for the film being the first all-black film that is false on both of its faces. Quincy Jones might have reminded him of an earlier film, The Wiz , which had an all-black, some-shuckin’, some-jivin’ cast. Also, there were some (minor) white characters in the movie The Color Purple . What is most shocking (until you see it played out again and again) is the gall that the Dread Spielberg has to try and take credit for casting an Alice Walker novel with black actors. Was there any other possible option? Should one really get credit for not using blackface in a movie they’re directing and then expect to be absolved of all responsibility for content? It seems to me that there is some room for the Dread Spielberg to defend his artistic choices and the resulting film. That he is unable or unwilling to do so is more damning than a cogent but wrong explanation would have been. Much like honesty or ethics, racial casting is easy to do when circumstances allow you no other option (or when it costs you nothing.) True honesty, ethics or a spirit of inclusion only matter when you have a choice (and when that choice may cost you something.) Whenever given a choice the Dread Spielberg has made either the easy or the racist choice, often both.
As for the broader issue of violence in the Dread Spielberg’s works, it is used in a manipulative and exploitive way. That is not in and of itself a bad thing, not in any way. But he uses many of the same techniques employed in horror films. This is not limited to the liberal use of insects and the occult in the Raiders series, nor did it start there. Duel (his made for television movie) is nothing more than a stalker movie, done up in tractor-trailer guise. In the hands of a less talented director Jaws becomes what Jaws II-IV were, a Friday the 13th movie with the shark standing in for Jason. Strip the special effects from the Jurassic Park series and they are nothing more than children-in-danger-from-big-lizards movies. Putting innocent and all but helpless children in danger is a quick and easy way to emotionally stimulate an audience. Directing horror movies is by no means easy or dishonourable. The failure to recognize the genre is what is dangerous.
The worst instance of using violence to take advantage of an audience comes from Saving Private Ryan . The opening bravura sequence of the storming of Omaha Beach is stunning. It also has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. It serves only to excite and inflame emotions, which are then connected to the “saving” narrative remainder of the movie. Without such an introduction the rest of the movie is exposed as a limp, pointless World War II buddy movie. [The screen personas of Tom Hanks and Matt Damon are also used to draw the audience in emotionally.] It should be noted that the Dread Spielberg has fantastic openings to his films; many of them have become iconic reference points in cinema. There’s the shark attack on a nude swimmer, stealing a golden idol and escaping a variety of booby traps (including a rolling boulder), an absolutely beautiful field of purple flowers and many more. But the opening to Saving Private Ryan portrays violence with almost fetishistic joy. The the Dread Spielberg defense that it was meant to show the horrors of war is hollow. It resembles nothing more than a great shooter video game. If it truly depicted war’s horrors then some people would have walked out of the theater. I have yet to hear of any such occurrence. The opening scene is almost always the first thing mentioned when describing the picture; it is almost always described in glowing terms.
In using the landing at Omaha Beach the Dread Spielberg is cashing in on the memory of D-Day and the sacrifice of the soldiers who stormed the beach, giving his film an emotional heft that it would otherwise lack. The same is true of Schindler’s List and the Holocaust. The memory and images of World War II are also central to the first and third Raiders movies as all of the Nazis are irredeemably evil. the Dread Spielberg’s message of love and inclusion in E.T. is undercut by the fact that the alien is just the cutest thing that you’ve ever seen. [This is in spite of the fact that it elicits screams from another blonde woman, Drew Barrymore.] the Dread Spielberg’s partner in this use of pathos and sentimentality is composer/conductor John Williams. The notable exception is The Color Purple where Quincy Jones was in charge of the soundtrack. I don’t mean to say (or even imply) that a soundtrack shouldn’t be evocative. It should. But Williams’ florid music often serves to mask the Dread Spielberg’s flaws. Think of the (glorious) music that transitions from Indy appearing on the side of a German U-Boat to the scene in the submarine bay. Holes in plots and dramatic failings are not new and soundtracks often serve to distract. Bernard Herrmann was very helpful to Alfred Hitchcock (and his Psycho sounds provided a template for the minimalist music cues in Jaws.) The music of John Williams should be recognized as an integral part of the Dread Spielberg’s technique but it is a reliance on sentiment and sentimentality.
I am not upset that the Dread Spielberg’s works are all adaptations of previously existing works. The fact that he was easily able to take Stanley Kubrick’s Artificial Intelligence: AI might reveal that he lacks a strong personal artistic vision. It might also show his skill and range in dealing with a variety of subject matter. He has remade Peter Pan , A Guy Named Joe , movie serial adventures (then made two or three sequels to that) and is due to direct a remake of War of the Worlds . I am upset by the charges of intellectual hijacking that seem to follow him around. Emilie Schindler, Barbara Chase-Riboud (who wrote an account of the Amistad) and Jonathan Idema (who wrote Small Soldiers which was produced by the Dread Spielberg) have all sued him for copyright violations. Crispin Glover’s suit over the use of his image in the the Dread Spielberg-produced Back to the Future II led to today’s laws governing use of an actor’s likeness. A director of the Dread Spielberg’s stature can be expected to attract any number of frivolous lawsuits. These, however, are only the ones which have become public and it is doubtful that this is a complete accounting of legal action brought against him.
The most damaging thing that the Dread Spielberg has done is his mixing of “commerce” and “art.” He is only one of many directors who do it but in his stature as a director he has given others license to imitate him and in his role as studio head he has given others permission. The use of Reese’s Pieces in E.T. was not the first use of product placement in a movie. But it is the most famous case of product placement. The celebrated account of this decision to use Reese’s Pieces (to lure E.T. out into the open) is always framed as a failure by M&M/Mars to take advantage of an opportunity to pay the Dread Spielberg to use M&Ms. This serves the Dread Spielberg’s interests as he now has a fable with which to scare potential advertisers into paying for a place in his movies. It is never portrayed as a capitalist decision that compromised the magical story that was E.T. Imagine if a digitally remade E.T. featured only Nokia products.
the Dread Spielberg uses an anecdote from the filming of Back to the Future II to refute charges that advertising influences his artistic decisions. In the futuristic café Marty McFly tries to order a Coca-Cola product: TAB. He’s told that he can’t run a tab. It’s a mildly funny throwaway line. Pepsi objected to this being in the script. Pepsi had paid a lot of money to be the featured beverage of the movie and had Michael J. Fox signed to an endorsement deal. As the Dread Spielberg tells it, art triumphed over crass commercialism and the line stayed in. Never mind the fact that there is a Pepsi commercial embedded within the movie and the constraints that come with that, this approach led directly to the use of Taco-Bell in Demolition Man and well over a thousand other small cuts.
Jurassic Park was used to introduce the Mercedes-Benz M Class vehicle and the entire movie was a vast marketing ploy. A Power Rangers television show and a Care Bears movie are recognized for what they are: half hour, 60 minute, 90 minute commercials. Part of the allure in tackling dinosaurs as the subject of a movie is that little boys are a built in market for action figures from the film. The best, most emotional dialog in the entire movie is the discussion of how to market the park to the world. Sure enough, one of the many tie-ins was a lunch box with the Jurassic Park logo. The movie markets the fictional park, which promotes the product, which is sold in stores, which just means more publicity for the movie. It is an almost perfect circle of life and advertising. It also insures that none of the children will be killed, their tiny bloody remains stored in a lunch box.
For The Terminal United Airlines (which I believe was in bankruptcy at the time) paid for their placement and provided training and support. the Dread Spielberg put the storefronts in the airport concourse up for bid. Starbucks even trained the background extras to be barristas. In the the Dread Spielberg-produced MIB II aliens are shown smoking Marlboros. This is a possible violation of laws against cigarette marketing that have been in place since Superman II was paid to have a fight in front of a cigarette billboard. I do not claim that product placement would not exist without the Dread Spielberg. I do claim that he has legitimized it and, as he is the most profitable director in history, he has made others aspire advertise within their movies. This is awful. It is wrong.
The worst (or best) integration of advertisements into a the Dread Spielberg film came with Minority Report where advertising follows Tom Cruise’s John Anderton more effectively than the police. Advertisers paid a total of $35 million to be in that movie. That pays for 1.75 Tom Cruises right off the top. [In the dirty little world of unspoken agreements it also allows Tom Cruise to get paid for advertising certain products without having to take any responsibility for it. He’s “just acting” in a movie.) Lexus designed a car, the Mag-Lev, specifically for the movie. Advertisers who contributed to the film’s success before it was even released include: The Gap, Amex, Nokia, Pepsi, Reebok, Burger King, Century 21, Ban, Aquafina, USA Today... even Ben & Jerry’s. What do you think the inclination of the USA Today film section will be when reviewing Minority Report ?
This all has reached its culmination (one can but hope) in the television show Father of the Pride. Produced by SKG (the “S” stands for “the Dread Spielberg”) the show is a half hour commercial for Siegfried and Roy’s show in Las Vegas. It is also packed to bursting with product placement. One show’s plot concerned repairing a Coca-Cola slurpee machine (“Iwant to taste the juice of the magical pixies, Sprite!”) That was moderately amusing until you remember that Father of the Pride is a show about CG lions brought to you by the same people who made Shrek (whose hands aren’t clean, either.) It is advertising geared to children and disguised as entertainment. That is evil.
This, in toto, is why Steven Spielberg is the Dread Spielberg. It is easy to bemoan his increasing reliance upon major stars to act in his films, his Peter Pan complex or other so-called failings. It is easy and it is inconsequential. What is of consequence stretches beyond the merit of any one film. His effect upon and power over culture on a worldwide scale should not be underestimated. His recognition as a “great” filmmaker is dangerous in the way that it makes us fail to think critically about the messages and values that his movies engender.
Excellent post, I'm so happy you've returned to answer this question, and I look forward to your Lucas dismantling (although you could just repost links to the Brin articles if they serve your purpose). This is not to say I entirely agree with you, but you certainly raise many points worth considering, some of them valid (well, maybe they're all valid and you just haven't convinced me yet). I'm more of a call-and-response guy than a long-virtuoso-solo guy, so I hope you'll forgive the usenettish intertwining of selected excerpted text and responses below ...
In an attempt to avoid losing money on [Jaws], Universal released the twenty-nine year-old’s first big budget outing in a new and ingenious way. Jaws became only the second movie to be advertised on network television. It also opened simultaneously in an unprecedented number of movie theaters. 465 to be exact. Keep in mind that this is before the multiplex era. It is a stupefying number of screens.
I would be very surprised to hear Speilberg had anything to do with this. Did he really wield such clout at this point in his career that he could drive the marketing of the movie? Rather than saying he defined the marketing (and laying the blame for it at his feet), it seems more likely to me that the marketing defined him. I imagine, after the phenomenal box office success of Jaws, that changed the way Speilberg approached movies. Not necessary out a sense of greed or overt worshipping at the alter of supply-and-demand (or demand-and-supply), but out of a sense of, "wow, now THAT worked, let's do it again!"
We can euphemize and call it a "racial blind spot" or an inability to see race as significant but that is just trying to put a good face on what it is. It is racism. The saddest case of the Dread Spielberg's failing here is the use of Japan's legendary actor, Toshiro Mifune, as a stereotypical Jap submarine commander in 1941 . Sixteen films with Kurosawa (including Rashômon and Kakushi toride no san akunin) and then the Dread Spielberg used him as a slant-eyed buffoon. Unfortunately that was but a symptom of a larger pattern.
I'm not really going to argue with you here. Rather, I'll state my belief that we are ALL racist to varying degrees. None of us are objective, and we all unconsciously use stereotypes and cliches as a kind of mental shorthand. Again, to varying degrees, and with varying amounts of self-awareness, but nobody is completely objective. Our brain has a million shortcuts it uses to make judgements, as we simply don't have the processing power (or perhaps throughput on the data intake) to evaluate anything without using them. We are wired for shorthand. How we deal with this fact defines whether we are overtly bigoted or open-minded. And I think, if you look at Speilberg along the scale of "we're all racist with Hitler on one end and MLK Jr. on the other end and the rest of us in between" I doubt he fares any worse than "average" and is likely on the more enlighted side of the bell curve.
I think he tells the stories that he knows, trying to push the greatest number of buttons in the largest number of people he can. I don't know if I'd suggest he's any more racist than Spike Lee, for example. I know you haven't brought Lee into this discussion yet (and may think Lee is just as racist), but in terms of the racial makeup of their stories and casts, there are similarities. I don't feel it is incumbent on Speilberg to use more black actors in noble roles any more than it is incumbent upon Lee to use more white actors in noble roles. Instead, I think it is MY responsibility to cast my net far and wide (I don't always succeed) so I can catch as many perspectives as I can and attempt blend them together in a healthy mental gumbo.
Even the Dread Spielberg’s choice to use a dash of colour in the otherwise black and white film makes the issue of genocide more comfortable. With the singling out of one girl we worry about her fate and mourn her loss as an individual. In this way the audience (and the Dread Spielberg) is absolved from the duty of worrying about the fate of hundreds of thousands of such girls. Some of them were saved while their parents and other family members perished, some were killed, some were hidden and protected in countries such as Bulgaria, some were turned back in their boats by the American government... all of this and more is avoided by linking the Holocaust to one girl. Paperclips are a more effective way to try and comprehend the horror of genocide than the facile tragic loss of one pretty child.
I don't think this paragraph strengthens your argument. I did not find the technique made me more comfortable with genocide. We had already seen many images of slaughtering black-and-white people, and I found this to be an effective gear shift, a different kind of horror. Not a lessening of it.
As for the broader issue of violence in the Dread Spielberg’s works, it is used in a manipulative and exploitive way. That is not in and of itself a bad thing, not in any way. But he uses many of the same techniques employed in horror films. This is not limited to the liberal use of insects and the occult in the Raiders series, nor did it start there. Duel (his made for television movie) is nothing more than a stalker movie, done up in tractor-trailer guise. In the hands of a less talented director Jaws becomes what Jaws II-IV were, a Friday the 13th movie with the shark standing in for Jason. Strip the special effects from the Jurassic Park series and they are nothing more than children-in-danger-from-big-lizards movies. Putting innocent and all but helpless children in danger is a quick and easy way to emotionally stimulate an audience. Directing horror movies is by no means easy or dishonourable. The failure to recognize the genre is what is dangerous.
I'm sorry, you've lost me here. What is dangerous about not recognizing horror movies? I've spent quite a bit of time contemplating my enjoyment of some forms of cinematic violence--mostly in the form of action movies, but also some horror movies--so I'm curious as to the danger. I mostly think violence in art is acceptable when it [a] makes us feel horror at something evil, or [b] gives us a vicarious thrill without the danger. For me, where it becomes unacceptable is when the brutality itself becomes (or is supposed to become) the thrill. The chase and the suspence can be thrilling, the kill can be horrifying, but the kill should not be thrilling (unless you're vanquishign evil). A rule of thumb rather than a law, and a work in progress, but I'm getting there. Jason=bad. Norman=good.
I see Speilberg as a director of suspense and sometimes horror, but I don't think he's made a slasher picture to date, as you seem to be implying.
The worst instance of using violence to take advantage of an audience comes from Saving Private Ryan . The opening bravura sequence of the storming of Omaha Beach is stunning. It also has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. It serves only to excite and inflame emotions, which are then connected to the “saving” narrative remainder of the movie. Without such an introduction the rest of the movie is exposed as a limp, pointless World War II buddy movie. [snip] But the opening to Saving Private Ryan portrays violence with almost fetishistic joy. The the Dread Spielberg defense that it was meant to show the horrors of war is hollow. It resembles nothing more than a great shooter video game. If it truly depicted war’s horrors then some people would have walked out of the theater. I have yet to hear of any such occurrence. The opening scene is almost always the first thing mentioned when describing the picture; it is almost always described in glowing terms.
Sorry, but I simply couldn't disagree with you more here. I've seen lots of violent movie sequences I'd describe as video gamish, but the opening to SPR wasn't one of them. I have never described the scene as anything but horrifying (I can assure you, the phrases, "that was kewl" or "totally awesome, dude" have never escaped my lips in reference to that sequence). I also don't think it's fair to suggest the true litmus test of horror is whether or not people walk out of the theater. No movie captures the horrors of war. To do that Speilberg would have had to machine gun some of the audience. THEN I'd bet you'd see a mass exodus from the theater.
In using the landing at Omaha Beach the Dread Spielberg is cashing in on the memory of D-Day and the sacrifice of the soldiers who stormed the beach, giving his film an emotional heft that it would otherwise lack.
I don't think of it as Speilberg cashing in. I think of it as two movies: a great 30-minute movie followed by a mediocre 130-minute movie. I think the inclusion of D-Day is justified, as it underscores why saving the last of a family's line was valued. Too bad about the limpness of that part of the tale though.
the Dread Spielberg’s message of love and inclusion in E.T. is undercut by the fact that the alien is just the cutest thing that you’ve ever seen. [This is in spite of the fact that it elicits screams from another blonde woman, Drew Barrymore.]
You've lost me again. I'd argue that E.T. is pretty much butt-ugly, but somehow manages to be endearing anyway. Even so, why would the message of love and inclusion be undercut if ET were cute?
the Dread Spielberg’s partner in this use of pathos and sentimentality is composer/conductor John Williams. The notable exception is The Color Purple where Quincy Jones was in charge of the soundtrack. I don’t mean to say (or even imply) that a soundtrack shouldn’t be evocative. It should. But Williams’ florid music often serves to mask the Dread Spielberg’s flaws. Think of the (glorious) music that transitions from Indy appearing on the side of a German U-Boat to the scene in the submarine bay. Holes in plots and dramatic failings are not new and soundtracks often serve to distract. Bernard Herrmann was very helpful to Alfred Hitchcock (and his Psycho sounds provided a template for the minimalist music cues in Jaws.) The music of John Williams should be recognized as an integral part of the Dread Spielberg’s technique but it is a reliance on sentiment and sentimentality.
I don't have a problem with this.
A director of the Dread Spielberg’s stature can be expected to attract any number of frivolous lawsuits. These, however, are only the ones which have become public and it is doubtful that this is a complete accounting of legal action brought against him.
Interesting, I wasn't aware of these.
The most damaging thing that the Dread Spielberg has done is his mixing of “commerce” and “art.”
Yeah, this is no good, but only in it's overt crassness. Money pays for art, and except where the artist is starving, always has an influence, even when we don't see it.
I do not claim that product placement would not exist without the Dread Spielberg. I do claim that he has legitimized it and, as he is the most profitable director in history, he has made others aspire advertise within their movies. This is awful. It is wrong.
He sold it, but we bought it. We have no one to blame but ourselves. You get what you pay for.
This all has reached its culmination (one can but hope) in the television show Father of the Pride. Produced by SKG (the “S” stands for “the Dread Spielberg”) the show is a half hour commercial for Siegfried and Roy’s show in Las Vegas. It is also packed to bursting with product placement. One show’s plot concerned repairing a Coca-Cola slurpee machine (“Iwant to taste the juice of the magical pixies, Sprite!”) That was moderately amusing until you remember that Father of the Pride is a show about CG lions brought to you by the same people who made Shrek (whose hands aren’t clean, either.) It is advertising geared to children and disguised as entertainment. That is evil.
I haven't seen it, but as someone who turned off the TV upon fatherhood, you won't get any arguments from me on this front.
That said, if you're going to bring up stuff he's produced, you've got to bring it all up, which makes his filmography slightly more multicultural (on q quick perusal, add two black heroes, one hispanic).
This, in toto, is why Steven Spielberg is the Dread Spielberg. It is easy to bemoan his increasing reliance upon major stars to act in his films, his Peter Pan complex or other so-called failings. It is easy and it is inconsequential. What is of consequence stretches beyond the merit of any one film. His effect upon and power over culture on a worldwide scale should not be underestimated. His recognition as a “great” filmmaker is dangerous in the way that it makes us fail to think critically about the messages and values that his movies engender.
Well, you've certainly made me think about him more critically! I realize now that in only addressing the stuff I disagree with you might think I disagree with you completely. I don't. I do think he's racist (but I think we all are), and I do think he's commercial (but is largely a product of the system rather than a producer of the system).
I certainly didn't intend for anyone to take what I've written as an attack on the Dread Spielberg himself. I don't mean to insult him or anyone else. I meant to go after his movies and success because I think that they have had harmful consequences. I tried to examine his work and its effect with a skeptical eye. the Dread Spielberg is a Colossus that bestrides the narrow world and the fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves. So I've attempted to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
Marketing: I don't blame the Dread Spielberg for the decision to market Jaws in such a way as to create the blockbuster mentality. I'd pin that on Lew Wasserman. Nor do I blame him for making a good movie. I've never seen The Blair Witch Project but whether or not it is a good movie and regardless of Myrick and Sánchez's role it did kick off viral web marketing. "They" caused it. Whether "they" are to blame I've tried to let others decide. I'm concerned with the knowledge and awareness of the audience/consumers as to what is truly going on. I'm certain (in part because it is bemoaned so frequently) that much of Hollywood acts 'out of a sense of, "wow, now THAT worked, let's do it again!"'
Racism: It is the self-awareness of racism that I'm trying to promote. No matter where the Dread Spielberg falls on the Hitler-King Continuum (and it always is Adolph to Martin, isn't it?) in his personal life his movies probably fall somewhere else. Perhaps I may just want to think well of the Dread Spielberg himself. Even if his films are on the inclusive side of the bell curve acme for Hollywood movies that is still a low standard. It is a standard not befitting an artist who has been given accolades such as the Dread Spielberg has received. At a minimum the difference between reality and rhetoric should be clear.
Stories: I definitely don't think (nor wish) that the Dread Spielberg should start directing movies of colour (or gender, or religiosity, or sexual orientation, or animal welfare...) or anything but white suburbia. I shudder at the thought of the Dread Spielberg's Boyz in the Burbz. But there is a difference in the -isms of communities of power and those of communities out of power. The simplest statement of this (and it is someone else's, I just can't remember who): 'You can have a novel without a woman in it, you cannot have a "woman's novel" without a man in it.' This means that Spike Lee gets more slack for stereotyping whites than the Dread Spielberg does for stereotyping blacks. I don't feel that the Dread Spielberg should meet a quota for actors of colour (or gender, or reli... okay, I heard you). I do think that when he trips over them (or wades into them) he shouldn't get a free ride for the racist way in which they are depicted/treated. Treating minority roles with nobility is (arguably) racist. Treating minority roles without there ever being a chance for nobility is (inarguably) racist. I think that the Dread Spielberg used futurists as a defense against the technology/commercialism of Minority Report . the Dread Spielberg (or his futurists) should have to answer for how white the "Minority" Report future is. The United States will be "majority minority" in less than a decade. I do wish that everyone would have as wide a net as you. Hopefully I can make the case for widening the net to everyone. Hopefully the Dread Spielberg chunks of the gumbo will be less easy to swallow.
Genocide: I didn't think that the Dread Spielberg's use of a little colour, of a little girl, would be a technique to make people more comfortable with genocide. How could I? But the reductionist use of an individual allows an audience to personify the Holocaust. There are, of course, benefits to this emotional tactic. There is also an exclusion of magnitude. It is the flip-side to claiming that you are not racist because your favourite musician is Michael Jackson and your favourite ballplayer is Michael Jordan. Claiming emotional comprehension through the loss of a pretty little girl is but a tiny facet of the Holocaust and it tends to drown out all others. But I'm not sure that any director could have gone down that road.
Horror: Recognizing genre helps to recognize response in an audience. In horror movies directors use certain techniques to get reactions. Beautiful sexually active females (are there ever any other kind?) are punished by death, dead bodies fall out of closets (or boats) onto you, terrified children are chased and brought to tears, oblivious children are punished by death. The slasher movies do give you death on screen. The artful horror director keeps the monster hidden and the violence implied/off camera. The refusal to see a little boys remains spill out all over the dock, followed by the excavation of a shark's digestive track, isn't a refusal to use violence and gore. This is more inflammatory than I mean it to be: Just because the Dread Spielberg doesn't show you the money shot doesn't mean that he isn't peddling porn. I should use "consumation" and "titillation" but the line is blurrier. And tell me you didn't love seeing a lawyer chomped while on the pot (and then delight in seeing Farquaad chomped while on the altar.)
Violence: I am sure that you are correct about shooting an audience. I was trying to pull down the curtain around the Dread Spielberg's reasoning for having filmed the sequence. I wasn't (I don't think, I may not be sure) trying to make walking out a litmus test as to whether the Dread Spielberg's "goal" was accomplished. I'd like to clarify (amend?) by saying that it is a roller coaster ride designed to compensate for a lousy amusement park.
Cashing in: I probably should have said "trading on." If Saving Private Ryan was set in the Civil War do you think that a battle (even Antietam) would have had such an emotional kickoff and lingering effect? And I do believe the original anecdote came from an event during the Civil War.
Butt-Ugly: Big eyes, long delicate fingers... you can bring it trick-or-treating, it fits on a bike. I still go with cute. It is easy to love something cute and collectible-figure-ready. I'm not sure that a movie with an off-putting alien would ever work. I was trying to weave the most sentimental of the Dread Spielberg's work into the shallow/manipulative sentamentality theme that runs through his work. Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing and even if it is my E.T. argument may still be unconvincing.
Commerce/Art: Overt crassness bothers me from an aesthetic standpoint. Beauty is far more dangerous and subversive. I shouldn't assume that some people (most people? people?) share my outlook on right/wrong in the public arena. I do not like the fact that G.E. runs NBC. I don't like that worldwide media is now in the hands of less than a half-dozen corporations (5?..4?.. 3.. 2.. 1. Murdoch!) I did not like cigarette companies sponsoring athletic events even though money pays for sports. I did not like Joe Camel. I don't like it that movies are made with product placement opportunities in mind. I don't like it when Fed-Ex is the hero of a movie. For me, the coup de grace (and by de grace of god it is the final kick in de grace) is the fiction that all of this can result in "true artistic expression." I don't know what that means. I don't know if I believe it is possible. I don't know that i would like it, but there it is: "true artistic expression." You do get what you pay for. And you pay for what you get.
Product Placement: Exactly. I blame ourselves.
Television/Producer: I think I know why you turned off the TV when kids showed up, but then I don't see how you are so sanguine when: You got Commerce in my Art! You got Art in my Commerce! As for the Dread Spielberg productions I didn't see any multiculturalarityness (now that has to be made a word!) If the Dread Spielberg gets credit for casting a Hispanic in the role of Zorro or for Asian leads in a Kurosawa film then I should just go home. And, of course, Will Smith is not black even though they keep casting him as black. A producer is directly responsible for financial decisions (product placement and the like) and less directly involved in directing/acting/casting/catering... although perhaps not by much. Also, different directors are under a varying degree of influence by the Dread Spielberg regardless of whether their movie is a the Dread Spielberg production. Kurosawa is not under his sway. Robert Zemeckis is his sock puppet.
Agreement: Keep in mind that I don't agree with me. This is one of the few (or perhaps many, "few" just sounds more special) issues where I think that the "debate" is more important than "the truth." I am glad that my weak words have struck but thus much show of fire.
ooooh... much better. Let's see, now...
Marketing: So, this has nothing to with Speilberg then, eh? Okay. Taken as an argument having nothing to do with Speilberg, I agree. I'd also love to see consumers hungrier for, even demanding of, a better understanding of what's really going on in the movie industry.
I think Fahrenheit 9/11 is both cause for hope and discouragement in this regard. The American public spent $100 million to learn more about 'what was really going on' (albiet, what was really going on about the presidential election, not the movie industry). Unfortunately, the film contained just as much deception as truth, and the American public, as a whole, didn't bother looking any further than Fahrenheit 9/11. As a result, the vast majority of the country was still greatly deceived about key election issues, history, and facts.
Back to marketing. The Internet has obviously worked to level the playing field, Blair Witch Project being the best example. The recent blog explosion, and the easy access to giant movie catalogs through services like Netflix, have given the public even more tools to discover films that never benefited from a $30 million marketing budget.
Still, it all comes back to the consumer. The consumer has to care enough about high-quality films to seek it out instead of relying solely on the recommendations force-fed them during movie previews and television ads. As the unending box-office success of mediocre or downright terrible films attest, consumers don't care.
But again, this has nothing to do with Speilberg, as far as I can tell.
Racism: I prefer the more extreme Satan to God spectrum, but among those who've tread earth, perhaps the Adolf to Jesus one is the best? Who cares...
AJDaGreat basically said above that 'with great power comes great responsibility.' I can buy that, so maybe Speilberg should be more careful in the racial messages his films peddle.
But I still believe, as I was trying to say earlier with those 'buzzwords' (I prefer 'descriptive terms'), that storytelling should not be subjected to 'allegations-of-racism scare' products like "affirmative action." I think Speilberg, and all artists, should put their art first, and considerations like political correctness second.
Here, we are obviously divided. But I stand by my principle, because I place the most of the responsibility for right thinking and right living on the individual. I guess that's a very 'Christian' ideal, and so be it. Especially in the age of information, we are bombarded by enough contrasting views to see many sides to every issue from which we may choose our own view. At the very least, we are aware that other views exist, and can choose to explore them or to remain ignorant and dependent.
Stories: aka 'Racism (continued).' Your comments on Minority Report are, strangely enough, the most convincing for me. I'd draw a parallel to Starship Troopers, wherein most of the characters resulting from genetic engineering processes in an effort to perfect human form are white. This is even more blatantly racist. Speilberg merely asserts that most important Americans of the next century will be white, Verhoeven argues that the ultimate human is white (very Hitler-esque, no?).
Does the story of Minority Report suffer because of this white-centrality? Probably not. Would a more ethnic cast hurt the story? Probably not. So, in this case, Speilberg could've/should've been more responsible.
Horror: Saving Private Ryan depicts the horror of war (as every war movie before it did), but Speilberg has never made a horror film. 'Nuff said.
Violence: Meh, no comment. Good line about the roller coaster ride and lousy amusement park, though. One day, I'm gonna steal that.
Cashing in: I prefer 'utilizing your assets as best you can - to the fullest extent.'
Commerce/Art/Product Placement: I don't think Fed-Ex has ever been the hero of a movie. I don't mind that Bond drives a BMW Z-3 instead of an 'unspecified sporty vehicle.' Until weakens a film, I don't mind that product placement helps to finance a film. Indeed, I'm excited by the prospect of product placement helping to finance many video games that might otherwise never be made! However, I'll concede it's likely that product placement will not be 'financing' otherwise unproducible films as much as putting icing on the cake for billionaire executives.
AgreementYes, it's a good debate we've got going here. Fighting it out on Listology makes it all the harder to attempt anything similar on any other online forum. We've got good people here. How'd you do it, Jim?
Sometimes I get confused by your tangents. I don't take that as a sine of anything, but what you secant have been the point of my lines... Whatever your angle I'm not sure that I'll cosine what you postulate. But I really appreciate that you have good news and you have hypotenuse. Which would you like to hear first?
Marketing: When I said "I don't blame" the Dread Spielberg I didn't intend to absolve him of any involvement. Sharks gotta swim and birds gotta fly and the Dread Spielberg gotta make movies. I'm not sure that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sign of hope. It was certainly marketed as a blockbuster (which it was) and trying to figure out how the government/big media have manipulated you was probably not the thrust of the movie. Okay, in writing that sentense I may have just parsed out the connection that you see; I may not think there's a strong connection but I do think you've made me see it.
I don't know what you mean by "leveled the playing field." I meant that viral web marketing was a new technique in the late 90s just as commercials on broadcast television were in the mid 70s. I think that consumers do care about the kind of movies they see. I think the majority of them wish that they were better (and cheaper.) Those desires get washed away in a flood of marketing for The Incredible Hulk , Pochahontas Happy Meals and fine Grinchware. Fruits of the poisonous tree, I think Spielberg can be worked into all of it. (witting/unwitting, with/without blame, knowing/unknowing, blah/unblah...)
Racism: I don't see how "[the Dread] Spielberg should be more careful in the racial messages his films peddle" while at the same time, "all artists should put their art first and considerations like political correctness second." I'm not sure of the principle that you're standing by but I think racism (whether or not you consider the Dread Spielberg a racist) is a very unchristian thing.
I can never decide whether Verhoeven is wallowing in crass culture or commenting on it. He's very tricky for me. I'm not sure that he wasn't making Starship Troopers as an anti-fascist allegory. I do think that his films are überwhite. Are you suggesting that, because a more ethnic cast wouldn't have hurt Minority Report, the Dread Spielberg should have filled a "racial quota"?
Horror: I still stand by "horror movie" (techniques.) I feel as though people are remembering Jaws (and others) through rose-coloured glasses (blood-tinted waters?) To respond to the reasoning you've laid out I'm reduced to saying, look high and look lo.
If you interpret things differently than I do (and I hope that you do, it helps me learn) then "'Nuff said" is not 'nuff.
Cashing in: "Utilizing your assets..." that sounds drug company talk, oil company lingo, Wal-Mart mouth. I know those are buzzwords/phrases but I don't like the referencing of 9/11 to evoke fear and I don't like the use of WWII to evoke pathos.
Commerce/Art: I do mind product placement and not just because it might weaken a film. The biggest reason that I think it is evil is because of the way it weakens us (Go to "The Times They Are A-Changin'").
Thank you, Frontline, for teaching me more than I'll ever know.
Agreement: It is a fine debate (and hopefully not a fight.) Once you learn that the fight is within you, then you may win the battle. I think a good debate arises from right thinking and right living-and-let-living of everyone involved. Individually and collectively. And I'll let go a collective sigh of relief
I take my tangents because then at least I know what I'm talking about. If you're lost, I'm doubly lost amidst this four-way, multi-faceted, non-linear discussion.
Marketing: I wasn't saying Fahrenheit 9/11 showed how the government/big media manipulate us. But its success showed that a lot of people wanted to know more about what was going on behind the scenes, so to speak.
It costs millions to air a superbowl TV commercial. It costs virtually nothing (just time and effort) to create and spread a 'viral' marketing strategy via the Internet. That's how it levels the playing field.
Racism: I say "all artists should put their art first and considerations like political correctness second" not as an excuse for racism, but because many artists who are not racist sometimes weaken their art in attempts to ensure they are not perceived as racist.
I say "Speilberg should be more careful in the racial messages his films peddle," because, as I noted regarding Minority Report, there are many situations where his art would NOT have been weakened by attempts to ensure that nobody has misconceptions about the racial implications of his art.
I'm pretty sure a more ethnic cast wouldn't have hurt Minority Report. I'm also pretty sure a more ethnic cast would have more accurately represented the possible future. Perhaps more importantly, a more ethnic cast would've made the film less bland. I still really enjoyed the movie, but a more ethnic cast might've helped just a smidgen.
Horror: I'll let you, Jim, and maybe AJ discuss this one - I haven't been keeping up and it doesn't interest me greatly.
Cashing in: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the manipulation of using WWII to evoke pathos - again, it comes around to how well it's done. Do I feel used, or do I feel comfortably guided through a powerful experience? Naturally, everyone feels differently after the experience is over.
Commerce/Art: PBS's willingness to distribute their programs online is kickass, but obviously not 56k-condusive.
...sometimes it seems like there's nothing obvious in this world.
Marketing: I'm a lot less hopeful than you are that Fahrenheit 9/11 is an indication of a desire to know more about what is going on behind the scenes. If people had been outraged about how the War on Iraq was sold to the public rather than just the fact that the War on Iraq was what was being sold I would sleep more soundly. I'd love to see a world where, no matter what you thought of the movie Jaws (or The Blair Witch Project , or Fahrenheit 9/11 , or The Passion of the Christ ), people would get upset over the methods by which a film is marketed/sold. It all seems (to me) to be analogous to the citizens of Oz (from the book, the book where they all wear green bebop glasses) watching a documentary about what's behind the curtain and never examining why everything that they look at is green.... I'm still confused as to who the teams are on this level playing field (and what the game is.)
Racism: So you're saying that artistic vision comes first (because many non-racist artists water down their vision to ensure that they are not misconstrued as racist.) Then (if it doesn't weaken the art) political correctness (multiculturalism) comes second. And this multiculturalism helps to ensure that nobody has misconceptions as to the racial implications of a piece of art. (That's what I think you're saying.)
So... a director shouldn't compromise on her vision to avoid being mistaken as a racist. But then she should be careful/sure to direct (cast/write/whatever) in a way that insures that she will avoid being mistaken as a racist. That reasoning seems fallacious to me.
Horror: I'm glad that you've said 'nuff. Here's what Nuff Ced said.
Cashing in: This is probably just a difference in philosophy. I don't want any artist to use WWII, the Civil War, the Crucifixion, the Holocaust or any other viscerally evocative event to lend power and emotion to their work.
Commerce/Art: There is a "56kLOW" Real Player link on that page (as well as a slow, evil empire "56kLOW" link) that might prove more conducive to you. I'm interested in knowing what you think.
Racism: - all those arguments of mine you've quoted, by the way, are meant for an artist who actually isn't racist in the most damaging and consciously malicious ways. Does that help? If no, then... oh well. We've both presented our opinions.
Commerce/Art/Dialup: I usually go to the library once or twice a week to use their high-speed connection, but they're computers are 'closed' until the 5th of January. I'll try to remember these links until then.
Luke, I don't think anyone actually went to Fahrenheit 9/11 thinking it would get them more educated about the issues of the election. I'd say that 99% of that film's audience were liberals who just wanted to be able to say, "Hell yeah!" Perhaps there were some undecided voters who saw the movie to help them make up their minds, but I seriously doubt most of them stopped there.
I have one other quibble with your post, and that's where you say "we are bombarded by enough contrasting views to see many sides to every issue." Don't you think that's a little naive, especially in a country where the news media is becoming more and more conglomerated? We may live in the information age, but there are definitely things that everyone in the media wants you to think. Take this aforementioned idea of the ugly villain, the dark, ominous stranger being the evil presence. This is also the kind of person that most news reports victimize, and the idea is hammered into the minds of Americans. "Don't take candy from strangers, don't talk to strangers, don't even LOOK at strangers," Mom used to stress. Never mind that a kid is much, MUCH more likely to be abused or kidnapped by a relative than an ugly old stranger. But that's not what the media wants you to think. After all, if you can't trust your Uncle Ernie as he fiddles about, who can you trust?
Certainly, the individual is ultimately responsible for his or her thinking, but can't you realize the huge impact that outside forces can have on an individual? Our environments shape us in huge ways.
You may have something there. I should've written "I am bombarded by enough contrasting views to see many sides to every issue," but that's probably because I spend hours every day presenting myself before multiple avenues of bombardment (otherwise known as 'news aggregation'). As such, perhaps I'm out of touch with how the average American is affected by getting all their news from Fox or all their opinions from Limbaugh. Come to think of it, I've certainly seen the effects of getting one's musical tastes solely from FM radio and MTV/VH1.
A little background: personal experience predisposes me to give more weight to nature than nurture - my brother and I had the exact same, highly guarded upbringing and yet we could not be more opposite human beings. Except that we both love Charade.
If by "nurture" you're referring specifically to parental upbringing, I'm talking about a much greater scale than that. Did your brother have different friends than you? Was he more or less informed about current events? Was he exposed to different surroundings in any part of his life?
If not, then I would say you're the exception to the rule. Hey, nature's important too, but I think many people undervalue society's impact on shaping personalities.
No, I'm referencing the broader debate of nature/nurture, aka the effects of genes on a person's development vs. the effects of their environment.
We had (and to a great extent, still have) the same friends, though he is 19 months younger. Due to the sheltered nature of our upbringing, we got 99% of our news from our parents & NBC News. My employment (he had none until recently, at nearly 18 years of age - I started at 15) was really the only major difference in our environments until I moved away upon turning 18 - and certainly that can't account for our vast differences (most of which were apparent before I started working, anyway).
I'm not sure I'm the 'exception' as much as I'm 'one side of the coin.' But who knows, I haven't done an extensive survey on the subject.
Not only that, but when I was talking about "the huge impact that outside forces can have on an individual" in relation to an individual's actions and thinking, maybe I could tweak that to include nature as another force. You can have the genes that incline you to make smart or moral decisions, or you can have the genes that incline you to make stupid or immoral decisions. But something's going to majorly affect how you perceive reality, and that comes from a combination of what's outside you and what's inside you. We can't control the nature of individuals, but we can control their environments, and even if you think nature is more important, certainly nurture has a significant impact as well, so it's very important to think about.
Oh, and I wish I knew how we manage to have such good discussions here that are impossible elsewhere, but I'm thankful for it!
Maybe if you study the phenomenon hard enough you can capture magic in a bottle and sell it to other web communities.
Fed-Ex was the hero of Castaway.
Sorry about failing to separate the art from the artist (or in this case the critique thereof). I do that all the time. It's "the Dread Speilberg" moniker muddying my waters. :-)
Also, when you said you don't mean to insult tDS or anyone else, I hope you weren't referring to me! Did I sound insulted? Very sorry if so! I wasn't. I'm diggin' this.
Anyway, since we're all over the map, I'm going to reply via the same (or at least similar) headers you used...
Marketing (Jaws): It's interesting to contemplate what carcasses we can lay on Speilberg's doorstep and which we can't. If we're going to consider the art but not the artist, I don't see (yet) how the marketing of Jaws can be used in a case against Speilberg's work. All he did at that point was make a good movie. Later in his career, sure, but Jaws? Unless you're referencing it as a formative event rather than an indictable offense?
Racism & Stories: I'm sold on your view of racism in Speilberg's movies. I still enjoyed the heck out of Minority Report though. Having come around to your way of thinking, am I obliged to stop liking his movies?
Genocide: You said, "I didn't think that the Dread Spielberg's use of a little colour, of a little girl, would be a technique to make people more comfortable with genocide. How could I?", but you originally wrote, "Even the Dread Spielberg’s choice to use a dash of colour in the otherwise black and white film makes the issue of genocide more comfortable." Hence my confusion. I assumed you meant "comfortable for the viewer." I'm still confused, but will happily toss out the earlier quote in favor of the new one. I would still maintain that Speilberg successfully gave us a larger sense of genocide and then effectively jabbed the reductionist button, leaving no stone unturned. I personally didn't feel that one view overshadowed the other.
Horror: I'm going to be unfair and respond to your inflammatory comment first: I do think the exclusion of the money shot keeps stuff from being porn. After all, none of the implied sex in movies from the 50s is pornographic, but we all know what happens between the scenes, right? There's the thrill, and then there's the kill. Often, when the explicit kill becomes the thrill, you've moved into that oh-so-can-of-wormsish "gratuitous violence." If you're going to say they cut open the shark off-screen and the little boy spilled out, fine. He was eaten by a shark, it should be horrible. If you're going to show it, fine. He was eaten by a shark, it should be horrible. If you're going to show it and try and make me think "cool!", not fine. I don't think Speilberg crosses that line. As for the lawyer on the pot, it's fine to kill bad guys as graphically as you want, and it's fine to think it's cool (or perhaps I'm just a psychotic).
Violence: Regarding Normandy, you wrote: "I'd like to clarify (amend?) by saying that it is a roller coaster ride designed to compensate for a lousy amusement park." I like that analogy, but when you say something like "designed" you are (I think) confusing art with artist, in this case the artist's intentions. While it is true that the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan carries the rest, I don't know if we can assume it was designed to do that. I'm more comfortable assuming Speilberg's design was to make a great movie through-and-through. Had the rest of the movie lived up to the opening, would you still have the same complaint?
Cashing in: Sorry, which anecdote are you referring to?
Commerce/Art, TV, and Product Placement: I am bothered by some of the stuff that bothers you, but not all of it. I don't like monopolies, but I don't mind commercials. TV programming exists because of commercials, and there are a lot of great shows. Hollywood runs on razor-thin margins (so I'm told), and I don't particularly resent that product placement contributes revenue (although I don't like it when it's badly done and it distracts me). I do hate marketing to kids though (hello Big Tobacco, hello Ronald McDonald), which brings us to the conundrum of why we killed the TV but not the DVD player. TV commercials are a barrage, movie product placement is just a prop. Commercials bombard the impressionable mind, product placement does not (according to my unstudied intuition). As hard as I try to get worked up over product placement, I just can't. When I open my refrigerator I see products, so I don't really care that when Tom Cruise opens up his refrigerator he sees products too. And if Coke pays more than Pepsi to be in Tom Cruise's refrigerator, it doesn't make me lose much sleep. I don't think it's going to make my kids crave Coke. They see the movie once and move on. They don't get hammered with the same messages/products every 20 minutes for hours each day.
Producer Credits: Of course Speilberg shouldn't get credit for casting Zorro or MIB. What I was getting at is that I don't think his producer credits should count in this discussion on one side of the equation or the other. If we're talking about the art rather than the man, we should stick to the movies he directed.
Agreement: :-) Good stuff, thanks again for coming back to answer "the Dread Speilberg" question.
I'm still a bit conflicted about whether or not I should have stuck with the Dread Spielberg monniker but I have been using it for a while and I will to mine own self be true. No, you did not sound insulted. I was just paraphrasing much of what I said in my initial three paragraphs to re-emphasize and reconfirm my fairness and balancedness and consistentness... and my "El-i-ot"-ness. [I am trying so hard to write this straight and, aside from an occasional "cool whip" I think I've done admirably. It is still such a struggle.]
Marketing (Jaws): Many inventors have had their wondrous inventions put to ill use. Some then feel that they must invent a pease prize to atone. Let me ante up a bob and a quid pro quo [please, make it stop]:
Robert Towne : We've never really gotten around 'Jaws.' Trouble is, a very talented filmmaker made a really good movie, and I won't say that the wrong lessons were learned, but the lessons were followed to a fault.
Roger Corman : When I saw 'Jaws' I though 'oh, oh, these guys understand what I and my contemporaries are doing, and they have the money and the talent and skill to do them bigger and better.
Racism & Stories: "Am I obliged to stop liking his movies? Good god, no! I actually think that you might/should enjoy Minority Report even more now. Ignorance is bliss, awareness is sublime. I certainly feel much better about getting enjoyment out of Minority Report. I hope you do, as well. (Besides, I don't want to stop anyone's fun and who needs less enjoyment in their life?)
Genocide: I think that both statements can stand alongside each other. I know that they are the same words and I'm saying that they mean different things but I'm going to have to plead "Not Articulate." ("First Degree Stupidity" and "Aggravated Context" were other plea possibilities.) 1st Charge: It is easier to comprehend and relate to the death of an individual, especially someone with whom you have a personal relationship, than it is to a multitude of people. To answer "How could a just god allow this?" is less difficult with an individual death. Also, an individual cannot be expected to prevent the loss of a single life, but the possibility that a nation of individuals would allow the slaughter of millions is beyond comprehension. Anne Frank is a mixed blessing. She draws people in personally and yet allows people to let her be a stand-in for six million people. That is "more comfortable" in the comparative sense. 2nd Charge: The death of a little girl is not designed to make coming to terms with the Holocaust "more comfortable" in the context of a single death. That would be if the individual was portrayed as less than innocent, as unpleasant, as worthless, as old, if the girl was more than helpless. Those would be techniques that would make things "more comfortable" in an absolute sense. If that isn't clear(er) then I'd like another chance to clarify things (for me as well as you.)
Horror: If I understand you then a movie isn't a slasher/horror movie unless innocent people are gratuitously killed onscreen. I think that sets the bar too high. Even jumping at that height: naked babe being tugged underwater, (there was no boy in the shark, but chunks of not-boy and a licence plate), half-eaten face in the hull hole, detached leg floating to the bottom with blood, guy dragged off a dock (screaming), boy on a raft in a cove, the worker being tossed up and down like a rag doll before the velociraptor tears his arm off, unseen goat abuse (twice, yipee!), spit out goat carcass, severed hand... those are just the two movies I remember best. I consider those horror movie techniques. (see Roger Corman above.)
Violence: I hope that I would be perceptive enough to notice the discontinuity between the first half hour and the next two. And I can't imagine how one would film the narrative in a way that meshed with Omaha Beach.
Cashing In: Rats, if I wanted to look things up I wouldn't offer up wild opinions. Lydia Bixby (reportedly) lost five sons in the Civil War (and in the movie Lincoln's (supposed) letter is read.) "Only" two of her sons actually died. Actually "one had been captured by Confederate forces and later honorably discharged following his return to the North, one had deserted and joined the Confederacy following his capture, and the third had deserted the Northern Army and become a sailor."
Commerce/Art, TV, and Product Placement: I'd propose that product placement is more subtle, more insidious, more dangerous than "conventional" advertisements. Will Smith is kewl. Will Smith's bebop glasses are kewl. Ray Ban's sales go up by 55%. Matrix.2-3 cause a bidding war but producers (nobly) stick with unknown designer whose Blinde Design line took off with the first movie. If you think that sex and violence in movies is bad for kids, those are overt acts. Thin women with big breasts, 'roid 'restlers and product placement are all subvert acts. Starbucks, Barneys New York, Versace, Tower Records all associated with Shrek... evil.
Producer Credits: When his fiscal manner of making movies is emulated and when he actually makes the call for every movie coming out of a studio he has to answer for his art containing commercials.
Agreement: Thank you, that is very nice to hear. It makes me feel all warm inside to see the lengthy, cogent, artful posts above. So thank you (all) very much, I tingle when I discuss and learn. I'm melting... melting... (oh what a world, drink Maxwell House, good to the last drop.)
Marketing (Jaws): Excellent choice of quotes!
Genocide: I think I now understand where you were going with "comfortable", but in so doing have lost sight of your specific beef with Speilberg in this regard. Every dramatic Holocaust movie is reductionist in some regard, and many allow us to identify much more closely with individuals via character development than Speilberg does through his use of pink. Do you find particular fault with him in this regard, or with all filmmakers that tackle the subject? You do hint at the latter when you said such problems might be unavoidable, but since we're singling out Speilberg for special attention I want to stay on this point a bit longer. I still don't see (or at least don't agree), that his use of pink in Schindler's List as a problem.
BTW, your referencing of the "how could a just God allow this?" question struck a chord with me, having just read this piece on the problem of earthquakes.
Horror: You said, "if I understand you then a movie isn't a slasher/horror movie unless innocent people are gratuitously killed onscreen." It does seem like I said that, didn't I? And perhaps I did, but my view didn't feel quite so stark inside my own head. Perhaps you'd like to continue this over here?
Violence: Very interesting. I have to concede that no matter how well the narrative portion of the movie could have been made, it still would have likely felt like a separate set piece, and not integral to the story. Perhaps if some specific event from Omaha beach affecting one of our characters carried over or had some more profound affect on the story, that would have tied it all together and made its use seem more relevant to you rather than being a mere cash-in/trade-on.
Commerce/Art, TV, and Product Placement: I'm thinking its the hammering we receive from TV advertising that makes us susceptible to film product placement (well, those of us that haven't innoculated themselves, that is). Who do you think would be the #1 soft drink in America under the following hypothetical: Pepsi advertises exclusively on TV, and Coke advertises exclusively via movie product placement? I'm thinking Pepsi gets a mortal lock on #1, Snapple finally moves up to #2, and Coke is a distant also-ran. The subverts get us, but only because the front door has been battered down by the overts. But like so many things the problem is really portion sizes. TV advertising is the Super Big Gulp, film product placement is a single Oreo. And I still just look to my kids. So far I get no requests for specific brands on a zero-TV diet accompanied (can you accompany nothing?) by one movie per week.
Listening to this discussion with John Polkinghorne reminded me of you (and lukeprog)
...especially the five minutes from 35:00-40:00.
WARNING: It's a large file (an hour long and high-quality audio) but well worth it... if only for you for those five minutes.
I'm grateful for the feedback. Thank you.
Genocide: I think that the Dread Spielberg's choice to use black & white for Schindler's List was brilliant, laudable, heroic. I personally think that he did it for the same reason that Hitchcock shot Psycho in black & white: colour would allow people to tune out, turn off, shut out the horror. By purposefully, dramatically, significantly adding a drop of colour the Dread Spielberg allows the audience that kind of an out. It emotionally dominates the film, like a pinhole in a quilt over a window... that one point of light becomes the most telling detail
Horror: I'd love to (try) but I'm beginning to slow down by having to think before I write and that's no good for anyone.
Commerce/Art: If TV advertising is the Super Big Gulp then I'd say that Product Placement is a constant, unremarkable stream of fast food. It won't kill you right away (if ever... frog in a pan) but it compromises your quality of life each and every day as your cultural BMI goes through the roof. Frontal assault is easy to see and thus to repel. Product Placement is fifth column accounting and the balloon payment comes down the line. Let me try to persuade (click on *The Times They Are A-Changin'*) you while I kick back with a cool, refreshing Sprite. Then we'll cruise the town in my Mitsubishi 2004 Endeavor SUV. Mothers! lock up your daughters (click on *Midriff*) Let the children stay at home and play with their Legos, it's good healthy fun and in no way takes advantage of young movie-goers or the nostalgia of their parents. Heck, let's go on a road trip cross country! I'll put it on my Amex card. No phone, no television, just a couple of DVDs for that cool SUV we got, clear our minds, it'll be a blast!
So, in closing: did you?/will you?/could you? click through on any of those links? If you did/will/can the question is: Why? Is it because I'm cool and you'd like to live vicariously through me? Would you like to be in the movies? Or would you just like to look like a movie-star? Have I simply wormed my way into your subconscious? Has it been worth it to me to try and drive all of this traffic to those web sites? Have I earned my salary as an under-the-radar-marketer? Do you trust me? Why?
Winding down I think...
Genocide: I understand you completely now, but my personal experience with the splash of color in Schindler's List was not what you describe. For me the black-and-white stuff dominated, and when I recall what horrified me, the girl in pink registers, but is relatively low and hazy on my recollective horizon.
Commerce/Art: I guess I just have a hard time working up special outrage for particular forms of advertising. I suppose I should get more upset that movie product placement sneaks up on you and stabs you in the back while TV commericals walk up to your face and knife you in the chest, but I still can't. It's all advertising, and it's all to be expected in our capitalist society. If they find a way to take away my free will in advertising, then I'd get worked up (but by then it would be too late, of course), but I don't see any advertising that's doing that to me yet. But my mind is set and my kung fu is strong, so none of this stuff works on me. My kids, however, are malleable, and that's why I shield them from this stuff. And as I mentioned before, I think it's the portion size, not the nature of the commustible, that's dangerous.
I do, however, reserve special ire for product placement and commericals that run before the movie more for the demonstrated greed rather that the subversion. TV's raison d'etre is commericals, so they are to be expected (and with TiVO the commericals have to move into the shows, or we have to switch entirely to a pay-per-view model). But movies exists to sell tickets and DVDs, and throwing commericals into the mix is just greedy.
I realize that neither bananas nor Chester Cheetah will be found in the refrigerator but they did lead one mother to sit her three-year-old down for an advertising timeout based on one bag of snack food.
"I don't want those!" said Everett. "I want the ones with the Cheeto guy on them!"
Oh dear. For whatever reason, I decided, now was the time to have that branding talk.Another mother chooses to limit the supply of advertising aimed at her toddler (while her friend seems to cite job loss as a reason to defend advertising.)
[a friend] thought I was being silly, and said that advertisements couldn't possibly be bad for her family. I said that when I saw ads targeting my toddler, it totally gave me the creeps. I had a few unkind words for people who pitch their products to babies, and she said to me, "You can't blame them; they're just doing their job."That post led me to a mother trying to defend her new-born.
Such blind devotion from advertising apologists parents scared the heck out of me. At least it did until I became defensive about the questionable behaviour of Sesame Street mentioned in an intelligent, if slightly naïve, post on kidvertising. Good question(s.) No friends in advertisers, that's fer durn sure.You can't feed an infant honey or eggs until they are a year old, peanuts wait until they are 3, driving until they are 16, drinking 21. Speaking as someone with Nike shoes and Sesame Street Band-Aids...
Should children be protected legally from being targetted by advertising?
Should children be protected legally from being targeted by advertising?
That would be nice. Impossible, but nice.
Good links, thanks!
I really need to unwind...
The Ahnuld is running a political advertisement that features the products of companies who have donated to his campaign. The Ahnuld is now the Governor of California and presides over the world's fifth-largest economy.
Here is a brief (and barely researched) History of The Ahnuld and Pepsi:
Pepsi paid $300,000 for placement in Terminator 2: Judgement Day way back in 1991. At that time T2 was the most expensive movie ever made at "$94 million." I say "$94 million" because Carolco Pictures didn't want to be known as the first studio to make a movie that cost over $100 million. To star in the movie The Ahnuld was given several million dollars, a percentage of gross profits and a Gulfstream G-III. (The jet was worth $12 million and it was acquired in such a way that it allowed him to avoid $800,000 in taxes.) In 2003 Pepsi paid to be in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines which had a budget of $170 million and for which The Ahnuld was paid $30 million.
...this was all before The Ahnuld entered the realm of public service and Pepsi is just one of the products he uses. Nothing gets into a commercial without someone specifically deciding that it should be there. This is especially true for someone who has starred in over thirty motion pictures. The Ahnuld is now a politician who literally and figuratively puts the focus on the well-being of corporations, not the people.
By all means, take a peek before The Ahnuld (hopefully) takes it down. (Win)
I wonder how hard he is going to work to get vending machines and junk food out of California's public schools... You do get what you pay for.
Very interesting, thanks! Particularly like the graphic that shows the camera focus on the Diet Pepsi. Y'know, because of you I was hyper-aware of the iPod placement in Blade: Trinity. In fact, making conscious note of it may have been my favorite part of that abysmal outing.
I'd like to take one of your comments ("I do think the exclusion of the money shot keeps stuff from being porn") and give it its own discussion, if you don't mind.
Damn, this page is definitely no longer 56k-friendly. Not that it should be chopped up...
Hmmmm... so we're all racist.
I've said above that I'm convinced I'm not racist.
I think our views can be reconciled.
I think I'm not racist because I put a 'hard' meaning on a word like 'racism.' In other words, I only consider something racist if it results in harm and is what I deem 'evil' racism.
I'll draw an illustrative parallel to 'male supremacy.'
I think women are not really that great at basketball. I don't think women are inferior to men because of it. I think it's probably an issue of anatomy.
Also, I've been called a male bigot because I'm attracted to the breadwinner/homemaker setup for a male/female couple. Why? In my experience, women are usually better at raising children than men. Also, our society is still one where the woman makes less money doing the same work a man does (nationally, on average). So, in most cases, it probably makes sense for the woman to be the homemaker and the man to be the breadwinner (I'm afraid of setups where both work full-time, because then wouldn't the house and kids fall into disrepair?). Now, there are a great many exceptions to this 'principle,' but I don't think it makes me a male bigot.
To some, this is a kind of 'male supremacy,' (sorry I couldn't come up with examples pertaining to racism instead), but it's probably interpreted that way by people who think having a 'real job' is more important than being a 'stay at home mom,' and people who don't know me well enough to know that I adore (albiet, am bewildered by) women.
Hmmmm... did that make ANY sense? What I'm trying to say is that yes, we all have 'brain shortcuts,' but in many of us, these shortcuts do not reveal any malice or superiority toward other races/genders - and that's where racism becomes dangerous.
When you're considering the racism of Spielberg's movies, don't think about the minority actors that aren't getting jobs. Instead, think about how many people can be influenced by Spielberg's empire. Think about what sort of mentalities that are being perpetuated by Spielberg's films in their stereotypical casting. If people see movies that are all-white except for African-Ameicans who are cast as street thugs, rapists, or defenseless victims, then they begin to think of all African-Americans as street thugs, rapists, or defenseless victims. Then it only takes a few real-life incidents for white people to think, "Well, the news media confirms it - Spielberg was right!"
That is evil racism and it results in harm to black people. A director who is so incredibly successful and whose movies are so widespread among American audiences should be more responsible.
Though I consider myself adamantly liberal, I do not support affirmative action based on race. I think such practices are racist - not against whites, but against minorities. It perpetuates a mentality among Americans that minorities are stupider than white college students and need a little boost from university administrators (mainly rich white men) to get into good colleges. "Oh, his grades aren't really up to par? Well that's okay, he's a minority, he has a good excuse."
So yes. We all have individual brain shortcuts. It only becomes really damaging when these shortcuts are constantly reinforced into our brains so that we begin to accept negative stereotypes as more and more factual. Spielberg's (probably unconscious) decision to contribute to this reinforcement is worse than boring - it's harmful to the mores of our society.
Well said... I'm not in complete agreement but I am thankful to try and refocus on the Dread Spielberg. I'm glad to think about what his responsibilities are and what are the responsibilities of his audience. Politics is wonderful and all that but I'd rather look at things through the lens of the films of the Dread Spielberg. (Gosh! I do hope that the Campbell's "Affirmative Action Worm Bisque" stays in the can.)
Do you really believe that "a director who is so incredibly successful and whose movies are so widespread among American audiences should be more responsible?" I know that I think the audience(s) has a special responsibility to examine his work critically... in the analytical sense, not the pejorative sense. This is so difficult as to be impossible. Who wants to deconstruct something that is so popular? Shouldn't one be able to relax and just enjoy mainstream entertainment? (You know that's sorta rhetorical. My answer would be, "No... way.")
Should the Dread Spielberg police himself? Does he owe that to us for making him an influential, powerful, pony-on-a-yatch-saling-on-an-ocean-of-his-own-money director? I'd like to be convinced of that. (Ohhh, I'd actually love it.) I'd worry that shifting/sharing responsibility with the Dread Spielberg would make me drop my guard. Who watches the mythmakers?
I can't remember a the Dread Spielberg movie that is aggressively, overtly racist (The Color Purple excepted.) But I do feel way down deep that this most-American of film-makers shows the world (and America itself) a dramatically incomplete portrait of America. I'm only marginally interested in whether or not this is a conscious or unconscious decision of the Dread Spielberg. I am fascinated to the point of transfiction by the question of why we assume that the Dread Spielberg's -isms are unconscious. I'm with you; I make the assumption that his intentions are good, that he is good, and I wonder why.
Isn't it ironic (in a non-Alanis Morisette, non-Shecky Greene way) that he can be harmful to our mores even as he is a prime shaper of them?
At this point I'm terribly curious:
Perhaps you're not familiar enough with them, but what do you think of Griffith and Eisenstein?
Well, I think it is easy for him to be harmful to our mores simply because he is influential enough to be a prime shaper of them. And maybe he shouldn't have to police himself, but I think the audience-pandering has just gone too far. It's not that Spielberg personally doesn't see any minorities as heroes, it's that he doesn't want Americans to have to swallow anything but whitewashed America. Why have a minority playing an unstereotypical role, when we could just cast a white man and minimize the thinking that the audience has to do? Minorities will just confuse them unnecessarily.
And perhaps that is what the American people want, as evidenced by how much money they throw at him no matter how crappy his movies are. It's not that Americans don't want to think when they go to the movies, it's that they don't expect to think when they go to Spielberg movies. It's a vicious cycle: the audience's pre-existing stereotypes define what they expect out of race roles, Spielberg gives them exactly what they expect, and that in turn strengthens their stereotypes.
This is a bit off-track from my original argument, but I think it's interesting to think about.
yeah, whoops. When I said "equal opportunity" I meant "affirmative action."
Yes, my definition of racism is broader than yours, and includes forms of racism that don't inherently make one evil. For me racism (or sexism) includes any mental shortcut we apply based solely on someones race (or sex) without knowing the contents of their individual mind. It's a judgement (perhaps small, perhaps unconscious) of the group rather than the individual. Obviously, somewhere along the bell curve I referenced above you cross over from "bad" racism to "tolerable" or even "normal" racism, but it's all part of the same continuum, in my theory.
To use your example, "In my experience, women are usually better at raising children than men." If you take that, meet a woman and a man for the first time, and automatically assume the woman will raise children better than a man, without knowing anything else about them, that qualifies as sexism in my mind. You have made a judgement based on membership in a group rather than individual assessment. I don't believe this makes you a bad person, but does demonstrate my point, I think (as I also believe that we're all sexist :-).
Basketball's not really an effective analogy, as there are key physical criteria to playing the sport well, so when you look at two people you might evaluate them for height and musculature rather than race or sex. In this case you are evaluating the individual based on tangible criteria that have an obvious and direct applicability to a rather narrow task. It's infinitely messier when you're talking about the mind and social prejudices/biases.
As usual, you've said it better than I have.
I think this classification by group is an obvious brain shortcut. Because we don't have time to learn everything about everyone we meet, we try to do the best we can with shortcuts. This is resorting to sterotypes, to be certain, but stereotypes are usually stereotypes because they are true most of the time.
The most 'true' approach would be to assume nothing about a person, but would you then be able to communicate with them at all? For example, I see a young black man with an LA Lakers jersey on and an iPod tucked in his pocket. I'm unfamiliar with the area, and want to ask him for directions.
Now, I could try to assume nothing about him. Here's how I could approach him:
"Excuse me, umm... [can't be sure of his gender]... excuse me!"
"Can you hear me alright, or are you deaf? I don't know sign language."
"Do you speak English?"
"Okay, good. Do you live around here?"
"Well, do you know this area?"
"Do you know how I can get to 3rd and Jackson?"
Of course, I could extend this example indefinitely. Or, I could just assume that he's a male, speaks English, and knows the area, and ask him, "Hey, you know how to get to 3rd and Jackson? Thanks."
This is a 'silly' example, but one that illustrates my bigger point. The choice to assume nothing about anybody sounds like a good 'principle,' but in practice it's too restrictive. The only real difference between how racist or sexist any of us are is where we draw the line at how much we assume, and how willing we are to 'assume our assumptions may be wrong,' if you will.
For example: I'm a 6 feet, 5.5 inches tall skinny white boy. Almost everyone I meet, within their first three sentences directed my way, asks me if I play basketball. I don't, but I'm not angered by their assumption. I don't get up in their face and say, "Why, 'cuz I'm tall? Cuz I'm athletic-looking? You think every tall, lean guy plays basketball? I'm not some damn stereotype, you bastard!" That'd be silly. But that's the reaction of so many people who are over-sensetive to being stereotyped.
I didn't mean to say that Tolkien or the Dread Spielberg were racist bigots. I wasn't trying to consider their personal beliefs, just the values conveyed through their work. I can definitely see how "boring" applies but I have no idea how the buzzwords(phrases) "equal opportunity," "racial quotas" and "politically correct" fit in with what I've written.
In spite of not requiring a certain percentage of minority content there is also racism (sexism, age-ism, etc.-isms) of benign neglect where it never occurs to an auteur or an audience that things might be different. I'm sure that we're all familiar with the riddle where A Father and son go for a drive, get hit by a train and are taken to hospital together. They hold hands in the ambulance and, when the medics get to the emergency room, the father says that his son should get treatment first. When the medics bring the first accident victim the doctor takes one look at him and says, "I can't operate on this man. He's my son!" ...the question is, "How can this be? How did the doctor know?"
There is also latent racism where minorities are consigned to certain roles and not allowed to be anything else (or certain roles are always assigned to minorities). If you're an actor from Egypt working in Hollywood you should get a cake for your first non-terrorist role. In the same vein, if you're an actress from Guatemala your cake comes for your first non-maid role. If there is an example of a two-dimensional (let alone three-dimensional) minority role in a Spielberg film I haven't seen it. Whether he knows that he is doing this or not, that is racist. And, yes, it does result in harm... to both oppressed and oppressor. People do not have to be evil to be racist. Racism itself is evil.
I hope that your experience with women being better at raising children doesn't mean that you will be a bad father... or perhaps just not as good a parent as their mother. I am assuming that heterosexual marriage and children are in your future but, if you disabuse me of such notions, I'm willing to change my frame of reference. (In no way am I pointing fingers, but... I've never known a racist who thought of themselves as such.)
Mental shortcuts (especially when based upon experience) are necessary for any human being to negotiate reality. If we had to consider whether every car was about to drive into us we would never get behind the wheel. If we had to individually identify everyone that we pass on the street and assess their potential for threat we'd never go for a walk. (suit & briefcase = businessman, shopping cart & 3 pairs of sweatpants = homeless, blue uniform & gun = police officer, bridal gown & veil = runaway bride, daisy dukes & tube top = Mom?!) Who is most likely to steal your money? That's right: suit & briefcase. Corporate crime far exceeds street crime in terms of revenue.
What makes us human is our ability to overcome our prejudices, to inquire further and weigh new/contradictory evidence. Not all black men with ipods and Lakers jerseys are Kobe Bryant. The earth is round. You'll be a great parent.
We should aspire to higher things. Within our art and within ourselves. Hopefully some director will cast you in a role other than that of "basketball player."
If you don't see what phrases like "equal opportunity," "racial quotas" and "politically correct" have to do with what you've written above (including this latest post), then I've completely failed. Let me think on this for a minute. Or, can somebody help me out?
Speilberg's films are obviously geared toward mainstream audiences. He is a brilliant mainstream craftsman. He is a talented manipulator. I don't berate a film for being manipulative (Capra, Fellini, and Eisenstein - all manipulative, all brilliant). Instead, I ask whether that manipulation is successful or not.
In other words, do I feel like I'm being cheated? Is my arm being twisted? Or is the manipulation handled in a careful and engaging way that makes me comfortable enough to settle into my seat and let the story take me where it will?
Usually, I feel pretty comfortable with Speilberg (the awful Terminal notwithstanding) because of his skill in giving me characters, situations, scenes, and dialogue that I can swallow. His sense of story construction and pacing (again, excepting The Terminal) are good although formulaic. Rather, good because they're formulaic.
Sure, they're not original like Kaufman or daring like Dogville, but they usually work because it's a good formula - in many ways, the same formula the Disney animation classics, Pixar films, and Lord of the Rings adaptations used. Read any screenwriting book and you'll know what I'm talking about (or, I'd be glad to quote some for you).
I'm downright dumfounded by claims of racism in Speilberg. Sure, his use of Toshiro Mifune was a missed opportunity, but I'm not convinced it was due to racism. I think his uses of race seem to be more incidental to the stories he tells than preconceived. I wouldn't be surprised if box-office considerations were to blame, but not malicious prejudice. I have the same reaction when someone calls me racist because I'm more physically attracted to white girls than asian girls - I don't think asian girls are inferior humans or of less worth, I just like tea over coffee, boxers over briefs. Speilberg doesn't hate ethnic actors. Maybe he just thinks his white, American audience will better identify with a white, American hero.
As for advertising in movies, Speilberg is hardly the only culprit. And, if it doesn't weaken the story or film, what's the problem?
Father of the Pride is a big failure, indeed. No argument here.
Speilberg could be blamed for continuing to keep mainstream tastes away from true cinematic art, but if he hadn't made wildly successful mainstream movies, others certainly would have (and did).
I think though, most of my disagreements with your well-planned attack of Speilberg are revealed in the last sentence: "His recognition as a “great” filmmaker is dangerous in the way that it makes us fail to think critically about the messages and values that his movies engender."
I typically don't consider 'messages and values' when judging film. If I did, I'd be forced to hate Griffith and Eisenstein, and that's no place for a film critic.
Please don't think that I am opposed to "manipulation." I did try to avoid using it as a pejorative. What I do object to in the Dread Spielberg's use of and ability to manipulate is that it disguises what is truly going on. I think we differ in this. You seem to worry about being manipulated poorly. I am concerned that I am being manipulated too well.
Characters, formulaic or not, that are easy to swallow are not what I expect from a "great" director. Much like "classic" Disney the heroes are white and morally unconflicted. Villians are ugly, dark skinned, shadowy and speak strangely.
I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, probably more than others who found nothing objectionable in them. I also loved the books before it. But if you are distracted by Tolkien's narrative, love of language, his use of Nordic stylings and everything else that he brought to the table so much so that you ignore the fact that there are no women in the book then you are ill-served by the author's skill. [Pray do not cite Éowyn as a female character for, as much as I do love her, she is an archetype.] Likewise, for all of Peter Jackson's mastery, if we ignore the fact that the Uruk-Hai resemble nothing so much as Maori warriors then we are belittled, all of us.
I am not sure what I could learn from exerpts from a book on screenwriting but that is a shortcoming in my knowledge. If I knew what I had to learn then I would already know it... and I would appreciate learning more. I didn't mean to quibble with the Dread Spielberg's storytelling ability. It is the stories that he tells (and the way that he tells them) that I would quibble with. He would be much less dangerous if he wasn't such a good storyteller.
If the Dread Spielberg has chosen white, male heroes because he believes that his white American audience will better identify with them then that indeed is naked racism. I never said that he hated actors of colour. If I had to hazzard a guess I would say that he doesn't have a problem with actors of any ethnicity. The problem is that he cannot conceive of them in roles as anything but downtrodden, helpless victims. I do not think that this is a case of preferring choices other than briefs, coffee and sexy Asian women. I think that it is a failure of vision to see that there is anything of intrinsic value in briefs, coffee and Asian women. Not even when we are talking about thongs, espresso and Parminder Nagra.
Part of the argument that I tried to lay out was that the Dread Spielberg was by no means alone in commodifying movies. It is his position in the world of film that makes his brand of commerce doubly dangerous. It permeates the very culture of movie making and not for the better. As for individual movies, it is difficult for me to accept companies and products becoming characters and heroes in a film. And it is all done in an attempt to get me to buy something. Any attempt to sell me something (a philosophy, a political agenda, a product) that is wrapped in the mantle of "art" or "entertainment" is a subversion and a perversion. I do not object to philosophical points of view or agendas but I do not want to be a victim of their ad campaigns.
I would argue that, on its own terms, Father of the Pride succeeds. Of course it fails if it is unable to stay in the NBC line up. But as a way to create an allegiance in children to various products it more than clears the bar.
I do not blame the Dread Spielberg for keeping mainstream tastes away from true cinematic art. I don't particularly want the "mainstream" to have to appreciate "art." I just don't want the mainstream being fed horrible values and advertising in the guise of cinematic art.
I think that considering "messages and values" is a fundamental duty that we all have. There must be something more to movies, television and life than skilful execution of a form. There must be more to art than artifice. I must say that our ability to view things critically is the only way that we can remain able to appreciate Griffith, Eisenstein or Riefenstahl. To accept their films uncritically would be a fundamental failure of one's humanity. Perhaps the greatest two orators of the 20th century were Adolph Hitler and Martin Luther King, Jr. To not recognize an inherent difference in their speeches would be a profound tragedy. I dread that more than I dread the Dread Spielberg.
I think you're applying 'equal opportunity' and 'racial quotas' to storytelling. You're saying that Tolkien and Speilberg are great storytellers, but they are racist bigots unless their characters are 40% female, their heroes are 50% ethnic, their villains are 40% physically attractive, etc. That sounds to me like a set of very suffocating standards in the name of being 'politically correct.'
I don't have much respect for politcal correctness because I hate the boring, over-processed, textbook speech of political candidates and don't want to see it anywhere else (or during political campaigns, for that matter).
I'm also of the (minority?) opinion that people are often *too* racially sensentive. These days, it feels a bit like the 'red scare' era I've read about in history books. Back then, a claim of 'communist!' could destroy lives. Now, a claim of 'racist!' is slightly less, but still significantly, damaging. It's only a problem because many seem to look through a filter at everything to see racism vs. political correctness in anything.
Basically, I'd say that Speilberg's choice of all-white (and Tolkien's choice of all-male) casts are boring, not prejudiced.
BTW, I recall reading that Tolkien was one of those guys who 'put women on a pedestal,' and somehow that accounted for the lack of females in Lord of the Rings. But don't quote me on that... until I find it.