When Spielberg had integrity

[CMoon]

A lot of the directors on this list are exactly as you said: <snip>

First off, I'd take all those directors over Spielberg after 1981, and again, only for two movies being Jaws and Raiders (Jaws being the much better of the two).

There's no point yelling at you about your opinions (lord knows we have tried), but I'd love to tell you you're wrong for not liking Wes Anderson and doubly wrong for not liking Dead Man, but that's just, like, my opinion man.

[Skykid]

A lot of the directors on this list are exactly as you said: <snip>

First off, I'd take all those directors over Spielberg after 1981, and again, only for two movies being Jaws and Raiders (Jaws being the much better of the two).

There's no point yelling at you about your opinions (lord knows we have tried), but I'd love to tell you you're wrong for not liking Wes Anderson and doubly wrong for not liking Dead Man, but that's just, like, my opinion man.

Of course, it's all opinion. That's what makes these discussions worthwhile.

I like Jarmusch and Dead Man - don't get me wrong - I just take two steps back when 'great' starts getting banded about.
Wes Anderson is definitely a matter of taste. I've persevered with his stuff but it really doesn't appeal.
Paul Thomas Anderson > Wes Anderson for my money.

[CMoon]

Well, yeah, using the term 'great' when applied to cinema is hard, because there are these masterpieces out there. Most people are able to tell when a film is great to them, but clearly not a masterpiece. I have some incredibly stupid films that I love to bits.

The problem that I think a lot of you have been getting at is that the last 20 years of film, especially from hollywood, has really been devoid of masterpieces. There are good films there yes, but I definitely don't want to be championing a cause where the best material I have to work with might be The Dark Knight. *shudders*

The weird part is how Jaws probably is a masterpiece or close enough. And of course once you step back to the 70's and 60's, it isn't hard to rattle off a dozen or so films which are close enough to being a masterpiece we still talk about them today, and they still carry most of the visceral impact they had back then. I would love to argue this is some irrational love of older films, but I really can't generate any similar list of films from the last 20 years that I'm going to want to see 20 years from now. And of course, the ones that come to mind are from the directors mentioned above in Skykid's post.

[Skykid]

^ Lets take it from a different perspective. Rather than picking through who's contributed what, it's more of an all round perception that the quality of movies has been thinning out across the board. I think this is because Hollywood has so much weight as an industry we naturally gauge the quality of output against its produce, whereas foreign cinema is still producing some real gems that get forgotten.

We all love stupid shit, but I think anyone with the virtue of hindsight will agree that Hollywood is making worse stupid shit than they did 20 years ago. In the 80's stupid shit was Hollywood's forte, to the point where they were so good at it they were turning it into an art form - many of such films falling into the cultural classic bracket today.
They don't know how to deliver action sci-fi, buddy cops or even teen romps with the same kind of imagination they did when such films were becoming popularised.

The problem is Hollywood should probably move on from the 80's and 90's class of filmmaking and do something new. The 50's, 60's, and 70's all have their unique stamps, but it's like as soon as Spielberg showed what he could do with Jaws, everyone got on the bandwagon and never got off. Now we're just treated to an endless parade of poor copycat crap that's totally lost its depth and mojo. In Time being another obvious recent example of really bad filmmaking around a very sound sci-fi concept that probably would have been wonderful thirty years ago.

[moozooh]

We all love stupid shit, but I think anyone with the virtue of hindsight will agree that Hollywood is making worse stupid shit than they did 20 years ago.

I generally agree with this notion, but it's very important to note just how biased our ability to appraise the produce in question. We can more or less take into perspective everything that comes from the Hollywood at present time, but of its products from 20 years ago we remember only those that haven't been forgotten. I.e., we unconsciously compare everything from now with the best of back then. This is the main driving force between "isn't what it used to be" arguments, not the constant worsening of everything under the moon. Had things actually gone the way they're continually expressed as going, we would already be in the second Dark Age again.

Geezers always complain about changes, they did it 20, 30, 40, and 50 years ago all the same. What's different now is the age people become geezers at, with regards to art.

The problem is Hollywood should probably move on from the 80's and 90's class of filmmaking and do something new. The 50's, 60's, and 70's all have their unique stamps, but it's like as soon as Spielberg showed what he could do with Jaws, everyone got on the bandwagon and never got off. Now we're just treated to an endless parade of poor copycat crap that's totally lost its depth and mojo.

In light of this I really don't understand how can you not praise the unexpected victory of American Beauty in 1999. If you look at it closely you'll see just how different it is from a typical pathos-ridden Hollywood film. The protagonist is undeniably an anti-hero who adopts a system of moral and ethical beliefs questionable from the standpoint of today's purist society, retains light-hearted attitude about it, and dies for no particular ideal, while members of newer generation—the children—are being quick to discard his existence and choose to admire the aesthetics of his demise for a brief moment before moving on with their lives. This is such an elegant critical stance on society and its values, and what's most important, it's not a copy of some prior material.

[Skykid]

Geezers always complain about changes, they did it 20, 30, 40, and 50 years ago all the same. What's different now is the age people become geezers at, with regards to art.

I know, it's awful. I'm too young to be crowing about the good old days and so is my younger brother at only 24. However, that's telling in itself. If we're graduating from the school of ignorance at earlier and earlier ages, then perhaps its right to point the finger at the worsening of the output.
I've long since shrugged off the notion that it's only my perception of commercial cinema that's at fault, and embraced the idea that things are indeed getting all round poorer.

In light of this I really don't understand how can you not praise the unexpected victory of American Beauty in 1999.

I haven't got a problem with American Beauty. It's a good film (although there are characters and facets I could take or leave) and Mendes' best, followed by Road to Perdition. I just cited him as not being a director 'great' - I don't think he's earned that yet.

[louisg]

I generally agree with this notion, but it's very important to note just how biased our ability to appraise the produce in question. We can more or less take into perspective everything that comes from the Hollywood at present time, but of its products from 20 years ago we remember only those that haven't been forgotten. I.e., we unconsciously compare everything from now with the best of back then. This is the main driving force between "isn't what it used to be" arguments, not the constant worsening of everything under the moon. Had things actually gone the way they're continually expressed as going, we would already be in the second Dark Age again.

I completely agree with this. Part of it probably is that as you get older, you find out about fewer interesting niche movies that you might like. Mainstream movies have always been, well, mainstream movies. Sometimes they're good, often they're trying hard to be something that'll sell to the broadest audience.

If you look at the last decade as a whole, we've gotten some pretty great stuff. I haven't kept up with modern movies as much as I should have, but in just one year we had both There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men. There were amazing foreign films too, like Infernal Affairs and Satoshi Kon's work. The expectations for TV shows now are also much higher than they ever were- the writing in a show like Breaking Bad is incredibly tight much of the time, and the production values are there to deliver it. Think about what *wasn't* there in the 90s or 80s.

To put things in perspective, I believe critics from the 70s had a hard time dealing with the shift from cold realism to 80s-style fantasy movies. This was a matter of taste more than anything else. Now, we look back and think, "why can't everything be as good as Cobra or Lambada: The Forbidden Dance?!" ;D

If I ever hear anyone say "it was so much better then" with respect to the 90s, my eyes are going to roll so hard they'll fly across the room. I've got some pretty low opinions on award-winning special-effects movies about cardboard WWII soldiers and sinking boats

[moozooh]

If we're graduating from the school of ignorance at earlier and earlier ages, then perhaps its right to point the finger at the worsening of the output.

Thing is, we do gain the required instruments to appraise quality as time goes, but it doesn't necessitate at all that we're using them adequately. (My paragraph before the one you quoted was exactly about that.) Instead we tend to fall into all sorts of biases, perhaps the worst offender being refusal of re-appraising a movie one considered fun/unfun at first viewing, especially when applied to all sorts of not particularly well-made movies from our childhood. NTSC-J has demonstrated it in this very thread that not every movie from the past, that was considered hot shit back in the day, lives up to today's expectations.

I'm not saying that nothing changed since then, or that all movies from over 20 years ago considered great aren't great. I'm saying the premise we're comparing them from is inadequate, and will continue to be inadequate so long as we don't expand or contract our perspective to balance the sample size.

I've long since shrugged off the notion that it's only my perception of commercial cinema that's at fault, and embraced the idea that things are indeed getting all round poorer.

Oh, it's not only yours, it's a systemic bias. We tend to forget bad things sooner than good things, so in many (perhaps most) cases past events appear to be more colorful and joyful and whatnot, even if you critiqued them the same ways back then. Since there is no tendency whatsoever for art to become perceivably better over time, you're bound to live on the front of negativity towards the very end. Which is... not constructive, at best.

[Skykid]

Moozooh your logic is undeniable, so I can only agree with you wholeheartedly. Of course I'm aware of the inherent biases toward things that I grew up with in the magical age of childhood.

But, allow me to compose completely hypothetical scenario that pokes an inquisitive and totally pessimistic finger at an unlikely alternate possibility:

What if every geezer from one generation to the next had actually been right about the worsening of things?

-Worsening financial stability for the common man
-Less solidarity and more cynicism
-Dwindling musical integrity with each successive pop generation, from Ella Fitzgerald to the Beatles, to Zepplin and Hendrix to 80's glam rock, 90's dance and Will Smith to the Justin Biebers and Jason Derulos of today.
-Less imaginative, inspired and worse looking anime than its hand drawn forebears
-Harder work for less pay and harder to acquire mortgages
-Less art in art, from Davinci, Monet, Sargent, Bacon, to the sensationalist sneezes of Tracey Emin & Hurst.
-Integrity of Television devolving from The Twilight Zone and The Fugitive, to Star Trek and the X-Files to The Hills and X Factor.
-Complete lack of equilibrium in the distribution of wealth
-Higher global poverty and exploitation
-Less artistic intelligence and artistry in film, a devolution from Dr Strangelove, Brief Encounter and the Hitchcock canon to the violent experimental exploitation films of the 70's, descending into highly commercialised 80's toy line tie ins and the birth of the film megastar to the braindead, lacklustre moving wallpaper of todays rapper led, factory driven Transformers and Twilights.

What if?

[Acid King]

Rather than picking through who's contributed what, it's more of an all round perception that the quality of movies has been thinning out across the board. I think this is because Hollywood has so much weight as an industry we naturally gauge the quality of output against its produce, whereas foreign cinema is still producing some real gems that get forgotten.

Hollywood hasn't been producing the same quality it used to but who fucking cares when there are a metric fuckload more independent producers making great movies now than there were then? Hollywood neither commands the same market share, nor avenues for distribution nor the means of producing film it used to. The full quote from Spielberg shows the actual context of what he said and note the bolded part which drives this point home.

I look at today as much more diverse than ever before in history, there's more independent film being made now than ever before, you got filmmakers, older filmmakers, artists coming out of different mediums that are able to make pictures, that are able to make You Tube movies, that are able to make movies for limited release on shoestring budgets and they have film festivals and small, kind of niche studios that are willing to make these pictures, so there's much more of a vocal presence, there's a tremendous variety in the kind of movies being made today. By that same token, when I was making pictures in the 70s and 80s, the directors made all the decisions about the genres and what films they wanted to make. Today it seems the studios are in control of the genres and what kind of films *they* want to make and they go out and they hire the directors that they think would be appropriate....Back in the 80s, 70s, the big studios relied on the filmmakers to have all the answers and today, big studios I think presume to have all the answers... I'm [at a] film studio right now, I don't presume to have all the answers, but I know what it feels like to think maybe once in a while that I do, and it sort of undercuts the filmmakers you really depend on to bring good stories to you. But I think it's always going to be a writer/director initiated medium, and it's always going to be carried home by the actors.

The focus of his ire is the studio system, a system that is dying due to the break up of the market. That's a good thing. It leads to more movies being made, more originality and more opportunity for enterprising filmmakers. Saying Hollywood is behind the curve is so obvious it borders on retarded. Of course it's behind the curve, just like the networks are behind the curve in producing quality television and the major labels are behind the curve in producing great music. Times have changed. Either you adapt and explore the bazillion more options you have than ever before, or you whine about how pop music sucks and the studios can't make a good movie.

[Skykid]

The focus of his ire is the studio system, a system that is dying due to the break up of the market. That's a good thing. It leads to more movies being made, more originality and more opportunity for enterprising filmmakers. Saying Hollywood is behind the curve is so obvious it borders on retarded. Of course it's behind the curve, just like the networks are behind the curve in producing quality television and the major labels are behind the curve in producing great music. Times have changed. Either you adapt and explore the bazillion more options you have than ever before, or you whine about how pop music sucks and the studios can't make a good movie.

You know what, you're absolutely on the money.

[CMoon]

I guess one thing I find myself going back to about 'older movies' is that in general they highlighted more talent on the part of the crew. I know I always go back to cinematography, but most of the films I praise highly have at least a few masterful shots, or at least we can talk about composition, or how the director/cinematographer made great use of some element of the film to effectively work as a silent narrator. I don't know if many directors today can't, or won't, but either way these guys who have tons of money behind them do the same boring shots that even if they weren't stale, are hardly effective. I sometimes thing we wouldn't do much worse going back to the old westerns where they just put the camera on a stationary tripod and filmed the whole shot like it was done on stage.

My other concern is the idea of all these independent directors getting the sufficient funding to make something truly outstanding. Sure, money isn't everything (there are great films which were made with virtually no money), but it becomes significantly harder. What I feel we really need to Transformers 4 NOT to make all the money in the world, but some obscure Russian sci-fi film to slay at the box office..

[GaijinPunch]

I guess one thing I find myself going back to about 'older movies' is that in general they highlighted more talent on the part of the crew.

I know this is a bit of a tangent to your rant, but this is my beef with just about anything creative these days. There is indeed upside to technology, but allowing the computer to do absolutely everything is getting a little old. Digital photography + computerized post processing versus film, digital DJing versus vinyl, sprites vs. computer generated polygons, hand-drawn cells versus CGI. The debates can rage on and on, and while I can see the bonuses of a digitized era, it's no excuse if the end product is a turd.

[Skykid]

I guess one thing I find myself going back to about 'older movies' is that in general they highlighted more talent on the part of the crew.

I know this is a bit of a tangent to your rant, but this is my beef with just about anything creative these days. There is indeed upside to technology, but allowing the computer to do absolutely everything is getting a little old. Digital photography + computerized post processing versus film, digital DJing versus vinyl, sprites vs. computer generated polygons, hand-drawn cells versus CGI. The debates can rage on and on, and while I can see the bonuses of a digitized era, it's no excuse if the end product is a turd.

Indeed, they're only concerned turning out acceptable produce at a far higher rate of production, rather than produce less but of a higher quality. That basically means weeding out gems from an even bigger pile of crap.

I guess one thing I find myself going back to about 'older movies' is that in general they highlighted more talent on the part of the crew. I know I always go back to cinematography, but most of the films I praise highly have at least a few masterful shots, or at least we can talk about composition, or how the director/cinematographer made great use of some element of the film to effectively work as a silent narrator. I don't know if many directors today can't, or won't, but either way these guys who have tons of money behind them do the same boring shots that even if they weren't stale, are hardly effective. I sometimes thing we wouldn't do much worse going back to the old westerns where they just put the camera on a stationary tripod and filmed the whole shot like it was done on stage.

My other concern is the idea of all these independent directors getting the sufficient funding to make something truly outstanding. Sure, money isn't everything (there are great films which were made with virtually no money), but it becomes significantly harder. What I feel we really need to Transformers 4 NOT to make all the money in the world, but some obscure Russian sci-fi film to slay at the box office..

Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you find Chris Nolan's photography (bar the occasional nice shot) to be particularly run-of-the-mill?

[Obiwanshinobi]

sprites vs. computer generated polygons

Pixel art sprites are basically mosaic - something that's been around for centuries. Polygonal art is much younger and doesn't really compete with sprites artistically. As far as doing the job (depicting the stuff) in videogames go, the architecture of Ico or the animations of Virtual-On aren't something I've seen accomplished with sprites either.

[CMoon]

Don't take this the wrong way, but don't you find Chris Nolan's photography (bar the occasional nice shot) to be particularly run-of-the-mill?

Yeah, actually there are few if any really impressive shots. Perhaps special effects or some other technical aspects were notable (I seem to recall people talking about the truck flipping scene...), but like so many modern directors, the cinematography has no particular voice of its own. I was talking with a friend who was making Carpenter out to be a chump director, but I was quick to point out that even as a B director, Carpenter shot with a particular, recognizable style that actually augmented what he was trying to do. Nothing amazing mind you, but still more awareness than much of anything modern (short of the independents). I could go on and on about camera work--it's one of those things that once you learn to look for it you can't stop seeing it (or lack thereof.)

I know this one is dumb, but I'm even a little put off by the lack of distinctive soundtracks. Everything to me sounds like post Lord of the Rings drivel. It's huge and epic, but someone please pull Goldsmith out of retirement to show these hacks how its done.

[Aguraki]

people in this thread are victims of nostalgia imo.
I too think movie industry is rotten etc... but have a few points to comment:
-from what I've seen in movies/documentaries/reads the famous final cut was not a given thing to directors since the beginning of studio system.
Saying studios control directors now,I don't see what's new here?
they always used tons of writers/directors for their movies and I'm pretty sure the concept of total control and final cut is very rare and has been granted only to people whose names where sick added value anyway.
-computers don't make movies,they are just means to an end.
I'm not a fan of computer but thinking old school directors didn't try to use/abuse every single inch of technique/technology available seems false to me(not talking about authors movies/contemporary art style).
-film music was better before...
I feel again nostalgia come in play here.
The way we watch movies and listen music has completely changed in 20 years.
Back in the time people watched fewer movies than today due to restricted access.
Nowadays I can(and often do) watch 2 movies/day and download anything I want almost instantly.

It's the overdose.
Pleasure is dilluted and I can't remember what I saw 3 days ago cause I've been flooded by infos and my brain can't follow.
When I watched a movie 20/25 years ago I thought about it for days as I didn't have much to shift on.

I had more points to comment but I have a hard time to put my thoughts in order.
Nostalgia is tricky.

[Mischief Maker]

I dunno if you guys are familiar with redlettermedia's other show "Half in the Bag," but their recent review of "Jack and Jill" puts a very interesting wrinkle on the concept of film making and studio corruption:

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-b ... -and-jill/

Who knew that when Mel Brooks made "The Producers" back in 1968, he wasn't making a goofy comedy but actually was engaging in an act of stealth whistleblowing?

[CMoon]

Aguraki> Interesting points. Even though I'm the one 'ranting' (very passively), I'm also really cautious about the idea of all this being driven by nostalgia. Honestly, there have been bad movies since there have been movies, and I've been quick to defend that notion that people are too critical of 'now' for some mythical past which was never really that great.

On the other hand, I think the theatres have been virtually devoid of anything worth seeing in the last few years (at least here in the US) with the exceptions of obvious indies like the Cohen bros, Wes Anderson, or the foreign films that make it here--but I also think you hit on the reason why. Virtually every great film I can think of is great because the director somehow secured complete or nearly complete creative control. Behind almost all these great movies is a story about how this actually happened, often with dire consequences when the studio system finally catches up with said director.

This trend is so consistent I am surprised the studios don't offer more in the way of creative control just on principle, but then the truth hits home: Those great movies I'm talking about never, ever, made the same kind of money that Transformers 3 did. And when that logic sinks in, the idea that this is all nostalgia fades away. What remains is the realization that prior to the 90's (or even early 80's), there was clearly more creative control allowed by director and crew, and that in my opinion means better movies.

As far as soundtracks, it's always hard to say worse because there have always been lots of OK composters, but there's been no one to fill the shoes of people like Goldsmith or Morricone. It's not an issue of nostalgia, just (at the moment) a lack of super-talented composers.

[Skykid]

Necro!

Just finished the Indy trilogy all over again.

Raiders is the best: it's matured quite wonderfully, and Ford plays the character the best in it. You can feel the David Lean influence, but Spielberg really revolutionised the adventure movie - there's a lot of off-the-cuff brilliance in there.

Temple of Doom is too OTT to be classed as 'film' in the same way Raiders can, it's more the ultimate popcorn & Pepsi novelty movie, where stuff can't stop happening and there's often too much insanity to take. A very underwritten script lets it down, a few silly continuity and other errors, and Ford isn't as comfortable as he was in its predecessor. When it hits high points, it blows the roof off.

Also: apologies for the Capshaw/Ford chemistry comment made earlier in this thread. Moniker was totally right, they don't have much of any - not sure why I remembered it so wrong. On the other hand, Ford and Short Round have superb chemistry, that kid's one of the best things in it.

Last Crusade really is painfully weak. Just lacks oomph and the actors don't seem to be very committed. Pacing issues, but picks up toward the end. Tank scene is still the best - but not cop much compared to the first two.

Don't class Crystal Skull as a movie, so I won't be revisiting that.