Who is the most versatile director?

I have to agree with -focus-. Spielberg (like later Lucas) is a lowest common denominator film maker. He makes pleasing, cloyingly sentimental, popular films.

Schindler's List. A story about a good if flawed german, set against a background of sadistic evil. It's good because it has good actors, but it isn't challenging historically (vilifying, demonizing and propagandising the Nsdap has been in vogue since the 30s), because of his background it was considered a serious film, but it's sentimental. The writing is almost completely forgettable (Can you remember two lines? I can recall the one about a button, and that is due to Neeson or the advertising). Plays well to an American audience used to hating nazis, and a darling for jews esconced in hollywood. It's a safe film, almost black and white.

Similarly the Color Purple. Shocking news, Slaverly is bad, and insidious and cruel institution. Again hardly challenging material. Also it plays well to American audiences. Who would try and film a pro slavery epic (besides gone with the wind)? Another safe and sentimental film.

Munich is about a bunch of Israeli assassins, (who would these days be properly labeled terrorists), bent on revenge against the operatives of a rebel group fighting againt invasion and occupation however they can. Its mixed reception is largely because it was a European event and long ago relatively speaking. Doesn't play well to a young audience, the core of his demographic since Jaws and ET. It seemed more of a vanity project.

Anything good about Catch me if you can, is due to DiCaprio and Hanks and the original writer. Had nice production value, professionally done.

Haven't seen The Terminal

Lincoln, again not challenging historically, about a beloved historical figure. Daniel Day Lewis made it shine. Almost all the dialogue is forgettable, and the ending was criticised by some. Good film IMO just not great, mostly due to there being nothing special about the directing or writing.

Empire of the Sun, it's been a while, but again not at all challenging historically, I have forgetten all the writing, except for some scenes. Miranda Richardson and the child actor were memorable, but the rest wasn't.

Amistad haven't seen, but seems to fall in line with his choosing low hanging historical fruit that plays well to americans, seemingly tailor made for a black audience too. It's not as bad as Red Tails, but there you are. Seems like he always aims for popular appeal, and doesn't have any other major concerns like artistic expression or story or theme that would otherwise shine through.

Close encounters, was fun. At like a more adult ET. The mashed potatoes and theme music is probably what most people took away from it though.

I agree with you

Spielberg has made some films that are skin deep

and that

they're meant to be simple popcorn films

That's the problem, it seems to be his ingrained style. It seems like he never developed the tools and skills to really make incredible unique wonderful films like Lawrence of Arabia, or Seven Samurai, or even an L.A. Confidential or Seven. His style is 'popcorn blockbuster' even when there are serious elements added and he is trying to be serious. There is nothing wrong them per se, but there is nothing right with them either.

There is something lacking, some part of choreography, writing, filming, editing and directing which gets lost when you naturally appeal and please so widely and it seems to be his personal voice. The guy who does every frame a painting might be able to explain it better, if you look at his bit on the spielberg oner. Maybe he uses his invisible short oners too much.

/r/movies Thread Parent