tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post4533912701488287737..comments2024-03-24T13:26:57.317-07:00Comments on Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule: 1941: MAJORITY REPORTDennis Cozzaliohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-56858727886384125402009-05-15T15:48:00.000-07:002009-05-15T15:48:00.000-07:00>I HATE 1941. I think is by far Spielberg's...>I HATE 1941. I think is by far Spielberg's worst movie. In fact, I would actually say that I think it is his ONLY bad movie. <br /><br />Well Daminan, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you there. When you've learned to make a film, I trust you will go and show Speilberg how to make a decent film? Anyway as I say an Underrated classic. But as fro Jurassic Park, there's a film I tryuly detested when it was new. Hated it then and still hate it now. However I wouldn't have the gall to call any of his films bad, becuase they're not. And I am a film maker myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-64247933590681688732007-05-19T17:39:00.000-07:002007-05-19T17:39:00.000-07:00Chris:You make some interesting, if somewhat famil...Chris:<BR/><BR/>You make some interesting, if somewhat familiar, points about Spielberg in your post and although I would like to address them now (particularly your stance on <I>Schindler's List</I>), I just started a project for my own blog entitled <A HREF="http://www.damianarlyn.blogspot.com/2007/05/31-days-of-spielberg.html" REL="nofollow">31 days of Spielberg</A> and I have little doubt that the issues you raise in your critique here will surface repeatedly throughout it. I would, however, love for you to join in and participate in the conversation. My hope is that critics of Spielberg, as well as fans, join in on the discussion. So, please, feel free to mosey on over to <I>Windmills of My Mind</I> this August for my month-long experiement in Spielberg analysis, because I think you could contribute a lot to it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Dennis:<BR/><BR/>You made some good points too about <I>1941.</I> I'll keep them in mind as I..... <I>*sigh*</I> re-watch it here in the next few days.Damian Arlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07937513879456460221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-51782348562328019802007-05-18T22:25:00.000-07:002007-05-18T22:25:00.000-07:00Chris: I can't say I disagree with a whole lot of ...Chris: I can't say I disagree with a whole lot of your points-- in particular, I would concur with the problem of Spielberg's apparent confusion, as you put it, of experiential innocence with spiritual worth. There is recognizing the joys and skewed perspectives of childhood (everything from Harper Lee to Bill Watterson and beyond), and then there is the kind of deification of it that I think you're getting at about Spielberg's work. This wide-eyed wonderland view of childhood is not just discomfiting, but also willfuly dismissive of some of the distinct value of growing up. It also makes Spielberg sometimes seem as if he's incapable of understanding the value of the kind of childhood that, unlike the ones so often depicted in his films, don't lend themselves to glowing remembrance. <I>Empire of the Sun</I> was an exception to this formula, but it was also one that played out its childhood horrors not in suburbia but in the theater of war.<BR/><BR/>But since you alluded to it in your comment, let me risk being labeled a blind and pretentious apologist by suggesting that I don't think you can rightfully tag <I>1941</I> with either this blissfully pie-eyed view of childhood (every kid in it is ruder and nastier and stupider than in any other Spielberg movie), or with making selective excuses for a farcical view of a paranoid populace. The movie's view is one that satirizes precisely the kind of kneejerk jingoism that accounts for both drumming up support for the cause of war (good, in this instance) and, by extension, not by direct comment, the queasy justification for the existence of horrors like those internment camps (not so good). It's your suggestion that the movie sees one of the very real outcomes of the war as a laughing matter that I find objectionable. <I>1941</I> is laughing at our <I>eagerness</I> for war, and at our eagerness to justify the most insane behavior in its context. <BR/><BR/>The movie ends with Ned Beatty's speech on the steps of the house he's about to finally destroy about how we all came together as Americans to fight off this enemy, yet his speech hilariously (and pointedly) sidesteps how that fight brought the Americans in the movie perilously close to destroying themselves. Reflecting on the reality of the camps suggests real-life Americans ended up completing, or neared completing, that job. (That house tumbling over the cliff works as a nice little-- er, big-- metaphor for me.) <BR/><BR/>Beatty's recast visualization of the night's experience is the clean-up job for public consumption that will get translated into the newspapers. But the movie shows us a populace that can't marshall its forces and instead pushes them, out of nervous frenzy and disdain for the Other, to spiral out of control. It's not a stretch to imagine the hellzapoppin' cartoon characters of <I>1941</I> and their desperate quest to vanquish the enemy at all costs, in the face of all common sense, as a funhouse exaggeration of a stateside government and population that did exactly that, only on a much more devastating, human, and inhumane scale (and all without a glittering Ferris wheel in sight.)<BR/><BR/>I'm not suggesting that such serious concerns necessarily took a front seat in Spielberg's approach as a director-- the movie is primarily a huge toy that one either finds hilarious, enjoyable, obnoxious, insufferable, or perhaps some of all of the above at one time or another. But I think it's within reason to believe that Zemeckis and Gale gave some serious thought to the extremes that a nation might go to, and did go to, in imagining itself vulnerable to attack when they conceived <I>1941</I>. (Is this not what partially accounted for the camps, the government and citizenry's fear that any Japanese-American might be susceptible to treasonous action based solely on their resemblance to the men who fought for Japan under Hideki Tojo, no matter their actual national allegiance?)<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Zemeckis and Gale felt that their satirical approach, which embraces the nation's bombast about itself to draw some uncomfortable (and unpopular) conclusions about its behavior under duress, could convey such ideas within that structure without the need for the kind of underlining and speechifying that would hamstring some of Spielberg's later "serious" movies. It's a view that I think lays under the exploding, knockabout surface of <I>1941</I>, and it's part of what makes it still worth watching today.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-42029971532921715212007-05-18T17:29:00.000-07:002007-05-18T17:29:00.000-07:00Dennis, after thinking long and hard, I believe I'...Dennis, after thinking long and hard, I believe I'm reluctant to criticize Spielberg because his fans are legion, and the elements in his films they most prize seem to be specifically those selfsame elements that shackle his work as the movies reach for greatness. I hold my tongue because the counterargument invariably goes that the critic is too cynical, joyless, has let the child inside them die. I don't need to keep hearing that about myself, maybe?<BR/><BR/>The crimes, in brief:<BR/>Spielberg regards childhood as a state of grace, from which we fall, but to which we may hope to return. He confuses experiential innocence and spiritual worth. Sexuality is frightening and squalid when depicted (rarely, rarely), and otherwise Spielberg's desexed characters wander through an utterly neutered world, giving off no heat, not even flirting with the audience. There's too much I feel slick and unquestioning about his nostalgia (and the hilarious cost of Pearl Harbor-mania in California is internment camps full of Japanese-Americans, not a crazy Ferris wheel falling in the water). Something naive and soft-headed about his explorations of evil, failure, frailty. For an artist famous as pop cinema's most effortless storyteller, his stories are increasingly full of holes (MINORITY REPORT, LOST WORLD, THE TERMINAL, A.I.), or too over-inflated for their own good (THE TERMINAL, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN). After his salami-fingered attempts at Serious, Important, Message, and Oscar-B.J. pictures - from PURPLE to LIST to everything after - that namesake light touch ("Spielbergian")? I suspect it was just a lack of sophistication. I suspect Steven Spielberg is befuddled by his own themes and interests.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what "favorites" are worth, but... In terms of his aesthetic bad judgement undermining his ambitions, I think SCHINDLER'S LIST is probably Spielberg's worst film. In terms of botched family entertainment, either I'm with the Shamus, and Spielberg's nadir is probably HOOK, the the schizoid mess of LOST WORLD.Chris Stanglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-8644545951336579222007-05-18T09:58:00.000-07:002007-05-18T09:58:00.000-07:00Damian, I'm glad this discussion was able to spark...Damian, I'm glad this discussion was able to spark such a great idea for you. And thanks to Paul for getting me going on finally writing about 1941 too.<BR/><BR/>In case anyone doesn't know yet, Damian has information at his <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yvfya2" REL="nofollow">blog</A> about an upcoming celebration/examination of Spielberg's movies he'll be undertaking that looks to be exhaustive and a lot of fun.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-29817921011405272722007-05-18T05:08:00.000-07:002007-05-18T05:08:00.000-07:00I just checked your blog, Damian. That's really c...I just checked your blog, Damian. That's really cool, and I'll be there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-39967742078573214092007-05-17T17:12:00.000-07:002007-05-17T17:12:00.000-07:00I've also enjoyed this thread immensely, Dennis. T...I've also enjoyed this thread immensely, Dennis. Thank you for starting it. :)<BR/><BR/>In fact, this discussion helped me arrive at a decision late last night which I think is long overdue. Stay tuned to my blog for a special announcement later on this evening.Damian Arlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07937513879456460221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-55464702316503152512007-05-16T22:16:00.000-07:002007-05-16T22:16:00.000-07:00"I cannot help but feel everyone is describing a d..."I cannot help but feel everyone is describing a different <I>1941</I> than the one I see."<BR/><BR/>And there's the fascination of films, in a nutshell, Chris, at least for me. It's mind-boggling how many different perspectives and observations can be taken from one movie by a group of people who are ready to look at it as something more than just a procession of bright lights and loud noises. (Remember that <I>Black Dahlia</I> debate from last fall?)<BR/><BR/>As for your hestitation to be critical of Spielberg, I'm curious: do you feel that way about other filmmakers you've felt were profoundly influential on your sensibilty as a critic/viewer/artist? I'm of an age where I can safely say that my own sensibilities were influenced by his perspective and the kinds of movies that he made (I'm talking now, of course, about the early "funny" ones again). But I never felt beholden to him in a patriarchal way because of that. You're certainly not the first person to have expressed this kind of point of view on Spielberg-- as the movie brat father/grandfather of a movie brat generation or two--and maybe not even the first one in this thread. But what is it that makes you feel he's untouchable in certain ways, even as you clearly have your own experience, nebulous as it may be, about movies like <I>Jaws</I> or <I>Raiders</I>? Do you at all look at it as a battle of unapologetic commercial filmmkaing vs. more adventurous, formally radical work? Or early influences that were formed as a child versus the more intellectually justifiable tastes you have as an adult? Because I know I've certainly jousted with Spielberg on both these levels as I've become more and more film literate, or able to express my own experience with films in words. <BR/><BR/>And I find it interesting too because as much as I love <I>Jaws</I> and <I>Close Encounters</I> and even <I>E.T.</I>, and as much as I so appreciate the crass delight that I take from <I>1941</I> or the emotional transportation of <I>Empire of the Sun</I>, I've never felt that kind of reverence, however curdled, toward the man's movies that many of my generation and that which followed me clearly have. But then, I never felt that kind of reverence toward my real movie heroes either-- Altman, Hawks. These were men whose movies were capable of the most sublime, soaring spirit (<I>Only Angels Have Wings, Nashville</I>), but who were also capable of some pretty awful crap (<I>Land of the Pharoahs, Quintet</I>).<BR/><BR/>Bill, you were wondering about being on a different wavelength too. It's hard to remember that in the hours just before the dawning of July 28, 1978, the idea of taking up with the slob versus the snobs was, if not a radical one, then at least one that had not yet been beaten into pop culture compost. But although many people who love <I>Animal House</I> certainly relate to it on some sort of personal level (and maybe this is, at least as far as this one movie is concerned, more of a matter for my generation and those who formed the last seven or eight years of the baby boom), most who hold it dear I think must love it because they find it simply, broadly funny. What's more mysterious than that? (And I mean that as a sincere question.) To my mind, there's no comparison of the arch, aloof, deadpan cultural appropriation of Jake and Elwood Blues to the warmth and genial, all-inclusive slobbery of the Delta Tau Chis. The lazy, heavy-lidded pacing and general brackishness of <I>The Blues Brothers</I> leaves me cold (don't even mention the execrable <I>Blues Brothers 2000</I>), but for some the rhythm and blues numbers and the slovely 'tude and the unrepentant auto-wrecking-yard sensibility is just the juice. I don't think you're necessarily on a different wavelength as much as your <I>own</I> wavelength-- that's what, I think, can account for me hating <I>1941</I> and then, for no discernible reason, doing such a turn-around on it three or four years later. And that's probably why comedy is so hard to create, and why it's often so hard to write about-- the temptation to simply write about the jokes and the funny parts, without examining what about the structure or the direction or the acting or the framing of the shots contributes to the hilarity, is too overwhelming for some writers. (<A HREF="http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=761" REL="nofollow">David Bordwell</A> had some interesting things to say-- and see-- about this very subject recently.)<BR/><BR/>Aaron: This is the best of the day, I think: <B>"I've always had the sense that Spielberg wanted to play in other director's sandboxes with the film..."</B> Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Landis even has the cameo as the dust-covered cyclist who brings the urgent missive to General Stillwell in front of the movie theater. And of course Spielberg paid Landis back with his bank-teller cameo at the climax of <I>The Blues Brothers</I>. So whose sensibility is it, really? Given that <I>1941</I> is so different from the rest of his movies, tonally speaking, I'd have to say Zemeckis/Gale. But without Spielberg, you don't have the brilliant jitterbug sequence (I'm thinking now of Joe Flaherty and the mouse on his shoulder) or the fighter planes buzzing Hollywood Boulevard, or even the Ferris wheel being bombed and rolling, fully lit, off the Santa Monica Pier and into the sea.<BR/><BR/>If I haven't mentioned how much I'm enjoying this thread, let me do so now. Thanks, everybody! I hope this ain't the end! (I do have to save <I>something</I> for my response to Paul, and for my own future review...)Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-2185544014164989032007-05-16T18:02:00.000-07:002007-05-16T18:02:00.000-07:00I cannot help but feel everyone is describing a di...I cannot help but feel everyone is describing a different 1941 than the one I see. And a different ANIMAL HOUSE, a different BLUES BROTHERS, a different USED CARS. I actively enjoy holding divergent opinions (HANNIBAL > SILENCE OF THE LAMBS!), but I've gotta go with the party line on 1941. It gives me a headache, and I don't have any fun during these movies. ... And I'm a little jealous.<BR/><BR/>Spielberg, because he's a generation's Movie Grandpa, makes me very uncomfortable to write about. I don't do it at all, if I can help it. It feels ungrateful to turn on someone who brought you - and anyone of a like age - enormous amounts of childhood joy, and call them out on bad taste, degenerating sophistication, disintegrating storytelling. It also feels dishonest not to do so. Because to be glib, Spielberg hasn't made me happy since JURASSIC PARK, and that is a prechewed blob of Novocaine and SweeTarts, now over a decade old. The six or so pictures I used to believe to be perfection, on revisitation, go down smooth as an Orange Julius, but evaporate from my brain if I try to think about them. JAWS and RAIDERS blow like a summer breeze, and then... whenever I try to express that feeling in writing, one negative word follows another, like gathering storm clouds, until it's all a grumped-out mess.Chris Stanglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06300723935864517305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1213242795727707162007-05-16T13:40:00.000-07:002007-05-16T13:40:00.000-07:00"Looking at the film as part of a loose "socially..."Looking at the film as <I>part</I> of a loose "socially irresponsible" trilogy by Zemeckis/Gale is not a bad idea!"Aaron W. Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988034390125865431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-61920877510171524902007-05-16T13:27:00.000-07:002007-05-16T13:27:00.000-07:00Dennis, The doc's still fresh in my head, so I can...Dennis, <BR/><BR/>The doc's still fresh in my head, so I can recall that the originally proposed title was 'The Night the Japs Attacked' -- no wonder MGM passed! <BR/><BR/>And I just pulled out my copy of the novelization and it is indeed solely written by Gale. I almost never buy novelizations if the original screenwriters aren't involved (Milius and THE WIND AND THE LION; De Palma and DRESSED TO KILL, though not the arguably more personal BLOW OUT). I'll try to find the time to slip in a chapter here and there in the next few weeks, and write about it either on your follow-up post, or on my own blog.<BR/><BR/>Looking at the film as a kind of loose "socially irresponsible" trilogy by Zemeckis/Gale is not a bad idea! I've always had the sense that Spielberg wanted to play in other director's sandboxes with the film -- using much of Landis' cast from ANIMAL HOUSE, working from a script by his young proteges who had just set the tone with I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND, and having General Stillwell somewhere near the centre of it all (Milius, a director at that point, considered writing a bio-pic of the war hero).Aaron W. Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988034390125865431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-33392308322226904592007-05-16T10:54:00.000-07:002007-05-16T10:54:00.000-07:00No argument there: both "Empire of the Sun" and N...No argument there: both "Empire of the Sun" and Nancy Allen's stems are better than "Always". The movie just always worked for me, although I will also grant you that it seems very out of place among Spielberg's other films.<BR/><BR/>Not as out of place as "1941", however. All this talk has made me curious to check it out again, as well as "Used Cars" and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", neither of which I've seen, but have heard very good things about. The problem is -- and please don't beat me for this -- I keep reading about these comparisons to "Animal House", a movie I certainly don't hate, but which I never really got into. I've seen it twice, and was largely left cold both times. In fact, I much MUCH prefer "The Blues Brothers", and I believe Dennis mildly disparaged that movie earlier. Am I just on a different wavelength as far as these comedies go?<BR/><BR/>And I think when I'm done with "Arthur & George" by Julian Barnes, I might have to finally read "The Boys from Brazil".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-79471235019693351322007-05-16T10:34:00.000-07:002007-05-16T10:34:00.000-07:00I remember squirreling away a copy of Rosemary's B...I remember squirreling away a copy of <I>Rosemary's Baby</I> that I purloined from my aunt's shelf (she was a Book-of-the-Month Club member) and read when I was 10 or so in place of seeing the movie-- I was too young, and no one in my family would have taken me to see it anyway. I liked it a lot, but I remember virtually nothing about it now-- the movie has completely eclipsed it in my memory. But from the testimony here, it sounds like it'd be worth another look. And I'd be VERY curious about Levin's novel of <I>The Boys from Brazil</I> too, obviously.<BR/><BR/>Ted, I really like your characterizaton of <I>1941</I> as lovably strange. I'd never really thought of it as strange before (and I bet most would never think of it as lovable), but it <I>is</I> kind of a strange movie, isn't it? With that jitterbug rehearsal in the diner, it jumps head-first into a kind of overcaffeinated sensibility that could initially be seen as horrifying or annoying or unwieldy-- how could a movie so gargantuan keep up this skippy, restless pace? And I realized just now that the whole movie to me is kind of like the moment in <I>The Blues Brothers</I> when James Brown uses the power of Jesus to give Belushi happy feet. How could a man built like that have those moves? <I>1941</I> is a movie built tank-like and overscaled, like Belushi's performance at it's best, and I think it's amazing to see how well it maintains those happy feet.<BR/><BR/>Aaron: I'm not surprised that there was one, but I never did see the novelization of the movie. So Gale actually wrote it? That really <I>would</I> be fascinating. He spends a lot of time talking on the DVD about how some of the harsher elements of the original concept were shaved off and smoothed over (wasn't the original title of the movie someting like <I>The Night The Japs Invaded</I>?). Wow, maybe it's time to head off the eBay and see if someone's got one burning a hole in their attic. <BR/><BR/>By the way, I agree with you about Eddie Deezen and Murray Hamilton-- talk about lovably strange! And one moment I forgot to mention that I always loved, even when I disliked the rest of the movie: Ned Beatty destroys the house with the antiaircraft gun, and his sons ride their double bed through the second floor and land it in the living room. The littlest one (who, later in life, turned out to be the stepson of one of my best friends!) spits out a mouthful of dust and squeals, "That was fun! Let's do it again!" Chalk it up to youthful enthusiasm, Spielberg's way with a sight gag and Michael Kahn razor-sharp editing, but that moment always gets a big laugh from me.<BR/><BR/>God bless you, Mr. Peel! Your enthusiasm for this much maligned movie is heartening. And I agree that as much as this thread is focusing on Spielberg and how <I>1941</I> fits in-- or more appropriately, how it <I>doesn't</I> fit in with the rest of his work-- the movie is far more of a piece with the Zemeckis/Gale sensibility that produced <I>I Wanna Hold Your Hand</I> and, especially <I>Used Cars</I>, a movie that has <BR/>to be one of the best comedies of the last (jeez, has it been that long already?) 27 years. <I>1941</I> is a jubilant mix of the spiky nostalgia of <I>Hand</I> and the manic, pitch-black acidity of <I>Used Cars</I>, and seen together the movies make a spectacular trilogy of politically incorrect farce and social commentary that, unfortunately, would be watered down by the time the very enjoyable <I>Back to the Future</I> series bowed, a series that would mark the last time the two would work together (as yet, anyway; I'm not counting <I>Bordello of Blood</I> which was, I believe, based on one of their old scripts). Thanks for pointing that out, M.P. <BR/><BR/>Finally, Bill, I only saw <I>Always</I> once, upon its original release, and I thought everything about its sentimental spirituality seemed forced and unconvincing. To my ears and eyes, Richard Dreyfuss and Holly Hunter, who would be so good together in Lasse Halstrom's <I>Once Around</I>, seemed unceasingly grating and mismatched. Finally, Spielberg didn't seem to display much feeling for the world of these forest fire pilots that he grounded the movie in-- everything about his approach seemed listeless and tired, as if <I>he</I> were the dead guy. I've never seen <I>A Guy Named Joe</I>, the movie <I>Always</I> was remade from, so maybe some of what's clunky and artificial about the remake is there in the source material. But I just can't recall a movie that I felt Spielberg was less engaged in, that seemed so rote and badly constructed. Even <I>Hook</I>, with its inability to decide whether growing up is good or bad, had more conviction than this. Gimme <I>The Lost World</I>, or <I>Empire of the Sun</I>, or Nancy Allen's gams instead any day!Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-38753935437682949402007-05-16T09:35:00.000-07:002007-05-16T09:35:00.000-07:00I love 1941. I unabashedly love it. More than Spie...I love 1941. I unabashedly love it. More than Spielberg or any ANIMAL HOUSE-BLUES BROTHERS connection, however, I've long looked at it as more of a Zemeckis-Gale film. Putting it alongside I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND and USED CARS works for me. The anarchic tone feels similar and they share many of the same cast members. Wendie Jo Sperber's work in 1941 in particular remains one of the best comic performances I've ever seen. It's probably my favorite cast recap at the end of a film as well. <BR/><BR/>For the record, I think HOOK is like a waking nightmare, enjoy THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL very much and the only Levin novel I've read is A KISS BEFORE DYING, which is terrific.Mr. Peel aka Peter Avellinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10553482286909862975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-42882531551913011842007-05-16T08:48:00.000-07:002007-05-16T08:48:00.000-07:00Also, Steven Spielberg.Also, Steven Spielberg.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-78373583199784833232007-05-16T08:42:00.000-07:002007-05-16T08:42:00.000-07:00"Rosemary's Baby" is a great book. I've read that..."Rosemary's Baby" is a great book. I've read that Polanski tried so hard to be faithful that at one point he called Levin to ask him which issue of the New Yorker had a shirt add referenced at some point by the husband character, so he could get a copy for the movie. Levin, of course, had just made it up. Levin apparently ruined everything by writing "Son of Rosemary" in the late 90s. I've heard things about that book that made me decide never to read it.<BR/><BR/>Another great book by Ira Levin is "A Kiss Before Dying". However, please do not see the film version starring Sean Young.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-85176746242252601252007-05-16T08:31:00.000-07:002007-05-16T08:31:00.000-07:00Someone passed along a copy of the novel ROSEMARY'...Someone passed along a copy of the novel ROSEMARY'S BABY to me a few years ago, and it is really good; I read that Roman Polanski insisted on making the film very true to the novel, and now I can see why. Certainly I would put the idea of that book in the preposterous category, but both book and movie are convincing and scary as hell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-32759412492582606752007-05-15T17:16:00.000-07:002007-05-15T17:16:00.000-07:00Ted:First of all, I don't know what's scarier to m...Ted:<BR/><BR/>First of all, I don't know what's scarier to me: a) the fact that you found my "testimonial" regarding Spielberg so identical to your own (although I'm obviously quite pleased by that) because I had the same kind of response to your piece on Roger Ebert or b) the fact that you were only 10 when <I>Jurassic Park</I> came out, which means you're 7 years younger than me (I'm 30), and already a better writer than I'll ever be. Secondly, I'd love to read your post(s) on Spielberg. Like you, I'm always up for a good discussion on the man and haven't really been in one since that horrible Hobermann article. I agree that his movies aren't talked about enough and when they are it's usually only in the context of what's "wrong" with them. Spielberg really is not given the proper respect I think he deserves as an artist, though very few debate his value as an entertainer.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Bill:<BR/><BR/>I am also somewhat fond of <I>Always</I>. Though I can certainly understand the disdain people have for it (although I don't understand all the hatred that is directed at <I>Temple of Doom</I>), I don't share most of it. I may find it to be a highly flawed film (like <I>Hook</I> and <I>Lost World</I>), but I do not think it is his worst movie (that "honor" I reserve for <I>1941</I>). It has moments of sublime beauty and tenderness, amidst all the maudlin sentimentality. I will admit to not being a big Holly Hunter fan, but I still like the film in spite of her. I also, like you, happen to enjoy <I>The Terminal.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, and I've yet to read an Ira Levin novel, but I think you're right in that he does seem to have a knack for telling ridiculously bizarre yet surprisingly effective creepy stories (he also wrote <I>Rosemary's Baby</I>).Damian Arlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07937513879456460221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-17978016140286315812007-05-15T13:03:00.000-07:002007-05-15T13:03:00.000-07:00Oh, and I also like "The Boys From Brazil". Has a...Oh, and I also like "The Boys From Brazil". Has anyone read the novel? I haven't, but I've read "The Stepford Wives", also by Ira Levin. That guy has a knack for taking absolutely preposterous stories and somehow making them work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-22104741909244833482007-05-15T13:00:00.000-07:002007-05-15T13:00:00.000-07:00I’m always up for a good discussion about Spielber...I’m always up for a good discussion about Spielberg, but unfortunately, I’ve only seen “1941” one time, and that was many years ago. For the record, I didn’t care for it very much, but I agree with Dennis about one thing: that Nancy Allen is a looker.<BR/><BR/>As for Spielberg overall, I’m a huge fan – maybe not in the same league as Damian or Ted, but my love of his films has remained undiminished from childhood to now (I’m 31). For my money, his masterpieces are “Schindler’s List”, “Jaws”, “Empire of the Sun”, “Saving Private Ryan” (though I do think it’s deeply flawed), “Catch Me if You Can”, “A. I.” (one of the greatest, purest science fiction films ever made), “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, and probably “Munich” (too much to talk about with that one). “Close Encounters” would probably be in there, too, if it hadn’t been so long since I’ve seen it. His worst movies for me are “The Lost World” and “Temple of Doom”. Again, “Hook” would probably be in that list, if I’d ever seen it, but I haven’t, and may never do so, because it looks appalling.<BR/><BR/>Everything else for me falls into a very broad gray area of movies that have enough good things going on for me to hate them, or enough bad things for me to call them great, however much I may love them. “Amistad”, to me, is a huge missed opportunity. That whole movie should have been about the slave ship and the revolt. Every time the film is about that, it’s extraordinary. Every time it’s not, it’s deeply ordinary. (And you know what? I think if Mel Gibson had made that movie, he would have had the correct focus.) I also think that has shown a real problem ending his movies lately. “Minority Report” was crippled by the ending, which was simply dull and formulaic when it should have been breathtaking. “War of the Worlds” wasn’t crippled, but I can’t help but slump a little every time I see that damn son of his walking down the street. Although I’m apparently in the minority in thinking that the Tim Robbins stuff worked.<BR/><BR/>Speaking of being in the minority, what the hell is so wrong with “Always”? I’ve never understood the hatred directed at that movie. I think it’s a perfectly pleasant movie, well-acted, and charming. Also, Holly Hunter is adorable! “The Terminal” ain’t so bad, either.<BR/><BR/>Sorry if this is all unfocused and not terribly specific, but what the hell, I’m at work! Lay off me!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-9835731094346727762007-05-15T11:41:00.000-07:002007-05-15T11:41:00.000-07:00Great discussion, guys! I thought the post was int...Great discussion, guys! I thought the post was interesting enough, and then I read all of the lively responses and got so wrapped up. <BR/><BR/>I'm always up for discourse about Spielberg. I don't think the man's movies are talked about enough, quite honestly, because while he is the most popular filmmaker alive, it's amazing how his work is pigeon-holed to fit into a box of "cute and cuddly," as if that's the only thing he's capable of. It's just fascinating that often times the most popular artists are the least understood. <BR/><BR/>I plan to write several posts on Spielberg in the future, one specifically addressing the notion of Spielbergization, as mentioned in that awful Hobermann piece a couple of months ago. But now I'd like to address a few films being discussed, the first being 1941. <BR/><BR/>Damian, your first post was kind of scary to read because it could have easily been written by me, word for word. I am another member of the Spielberg generation of kids who grew up on Spielberg and Lucas. I grew up worshipping his films, and when I hit my teen years, I devoured everything he made, and loved it. I've since studied cinema a great deal and (I'm trying not to operate in a journalistic reviewing sphere here - "good" and "bad" films) found my appreciation for his films only heighten, while my perspecitve on others became more negative. As others have said, even his failures are of interest to me. Spielberg's films represent a cinematic journey, for me, that is like the movies themselves. There are highs and lows, sublime and ridiculous, good and bad, and those relationships among them are why he is so unique. If every movie he made was a masterpiece, his work wouldn't be nearly as interesting.<BR/><BR/>I find Always and Hook to be his personal biggest losses. As for 1941, I think it is a lovably strange film. Sure, it's not as laugh-out-loud funny as it tries to be, but it's overall atmosphere is like a great big romp of nostalgia and smiles. Even though some sequences fall undeniably flat, I think the overall charm of the movie remains intact. That bar fight in the middle of the film will always remain one of Spielberg's gems as far as set pieces go.<BR/><BR/>The Jurassic Park films are really interesting to me, actually. It seems to me like JP gets such a bad rap for having "hollow characters," but I don't find them any more hollow than most genre picks. Maybe I love the movie so much because I saw it in the theater when I was ten years old and was thoroughly amazed by its world. But, even now, I think it's a fairly decently structured movie with great action set pieces, and a sense of good old fashioned adventure about it. The Lost World, for me, is more about those set pieces. Its narrative and plot design are borderline awful, but I think the movie is more about moments, and there are plenty of great ones. As Dennis says, it has directorial juice. It's like Spielberg just wanted to have fun, come up with some staggering sequences and forget the plot, a little bit like 1941.<BR/><BR/>I'll save my discussion of his more recent fare (SPR and beyond) for my own post, but I just wanted to make light of a few points. Hopefully, this discussion stays alive for a while so we can continue to read and write these wonderful thoughts.Ted Pigeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04789041055263853568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-27678755542420094362007-05-15T00:35:00.000-07:002007-05-15T00:35:00.000-07:00Perversely, this was the first film I’d ever seen ...Perversely, this was the first film I’d ever seen of Spielberg’s (mainly because the local rundown movie house steadfastly refused to take down their one-sheet until the building was about to be demolished in 1994! I would peer in almost every day to stare at a cigar-chomping John Belushi on my way to school, so eventually I gave in to temptation and rented it around the age of 11 or 12), and I recall even then not knowing what to think, alternately amused and touched by Robert Stack’s few hours of solace during DUMBO, and awestruck over the cantina dance contest, with the impressive choreography and catchy big band-esque score courtesy of John Williams. Today, I think the last hour’s tumultuous assault on the senses is what breaks the film for me; everything leading up to the air raid works, with the gags appealing to different people’s idea of funny (Slim Pickens’ scenes inside the Japanese submarine and, forgive me, Murray Hamilton/Eddie Deezen up on that ferris wheel are hilarious, while the Tim Matheson/Nancy Allen subplot feels stagnant). On the whole, as some pf the above have responded, the mere fact that the film showcases small (but sometimes larger) parts for Warren Oates, Sam Fuller, Robert Stack, Toshiro Mifune (!), and Christopher Lee save it from being an unmitigated disaster, and not even Audrey Hepburn coming out of retirement for ALWAYS can save that one from being Spielberg’s definitive nadir.<BR/><BR/>Dennis, given your admiration for the film, have you ever checked out the Bob Gale novelization? I’m curious to find out if Gale (and Zemeckis) had different intentions that were perhaps retained in the book, as sometimes is the case when screenwriters write those things, with the need to fulfill a page quota.Aaron W. Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988034390125865431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-90545197887260744162007-05-15T00:30:00.000-07:002007-05-15T00:30:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Aaron W. Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988034390125865431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-82556713424255735412007-05-14T18:14:00.000-07:002007-05-14T18:14:00.000-07:00It was Weigard who came into the video store. I al...It was Weigard who came into the video store. I already knew he was a fellow Corvallis-ite because he answered "the Whiteside" to your question about what we would call our own personal revival theatre. We didn't get to talk for as long as I would've liked to but it was fun. It's always nice to put a face with a name I think.Damian Arlynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07937513879456460221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-49928235096869908972007-05-14T08:51:00.000-07:002007-05-14T08:51:00.000-07:00Damian: Matt is definitely one who takes Spielberg...Damian: Matt is definitely one who takes Spielberg seriously, and it's always a worthwhile delight reading him on the subject, even on those occasions when I can't agree. That's one of the marks of good film criticism, I think.<BR/><BR/>And I probably should have mentioned that, yes, Altman was the one filmmaker who I connected with in a strong way during my, shall we say, formative years, though even that was a struggle at first. But his vision is the one that grabbed me most completely, not long after <I>Close Encounters</I> made its thearical debut, and I have, on more than one occasion, been accused of having too soft a spot when it comes to his work. For example, I think <I>Pret-a-Porter (Ready to Wear)</I> is slight, but delightful. But I don't think I'm blind-- Altman had plenty of weaknesses, and there are no better compendiums of them, I think, than <I>Quintet</I> or <I>A Wedding</I>.<BR/><BR/>As for Corvallis, that's great about being recognized from the quiz! I continue to be amazed by the little tendrils and connections that get made through the blogosphere. Who was it that recognized you? And most definitely we will get together when next I come to Oregon!Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.com