MovieChat Forums > Steven Spielberg Discussion > Many call him Cheesy and Sentimenatlist ...

Many call him Cheesy and Sentimenatlist but I preffer an optimist


I always liked spielberg but didn't exactly realized why till I watched Whiplash.

Strange right ? , Since that's not a film by him but the message and point of view of the director on greatness and success highly disturbed me to the point of also feel quite disturbed by films which pay tribute and glorify men like a Mark Sukerberg, Steve Jobs and similar.

Anyway

Lest go back to the tittle of my thread many hatters call Spielberg a Sentimenatlist and corny or cheesy but I'd better call him an optimist and humanist and that's one of his greatest qualities as a director..

I love how his serious Dramas except maybe Munich which is more of an impartial film are about good people and thinks of goodness and kindness as a way to be succesful and mis point clear on it

I love how him instead of glorifying SoBs he prefers to tell stories about real life heroes Lincoln(Lincoln) , Schindler( Schindler's list) and Mr Baldwing(Amistad) who treated people like what they were ( people) sure they were not saints and had some tricks under their sleeves to get what they wanted and maybe at the beginning Their intentions weren't completely selfless but still were always kind and by essence good guys.

And if a different way also catch me if you can where it's clear that yes Frank was always smart and knew how to win people over but the guy used his skills on the wrong path but latter he changed his path and realized how his gifts could also bring him high success on the right legal path.

I enjoyed wolf of Wallstreet but that Film does glorify Belfot's lifestyle and makes you root for him while catch me if you can makes you like Frank but makes it clear he would be much better if he used his gifts in a more positive way.

Sure many find that Corny but again I prefer to call this more optimist and humanist point of view



reply

Yeah,he's not exactly a humanist,merely a commercial craftsman. With the possible exception of Munich which you also mentioned all of his films are characterized by cardboard characters and black and white morals. He tries to force emotions rather than let them happen naturally. Even in movies like Schindler's list he has to oversimplify the story in order to get the reaction he wants from the audience( the real story is far more complex and interesting because life is like that).
That's why audiences are drawn to his films. They don't like morally ambiguous stories because they make them nervous.
You want to see a great humanist director? Try Jean Renoir or Yasujiro Ozu.

And 'The wolf of wall street' doesn't glorify Belfort's lifestyle but merely presenting a fascinating portrait of greed and excess in a very exaggerated manner. Scorsese is a smart man and trusts that his audience will understand without beating them over their heads with a hypocritical anti-capitalist tale of morality. He tells the story of a very flawed man without passing judgment but rather letting the audience decide. That's what a great director does.

reply



Is your understanding of Spielberg's work really that poor? Or are you just regurgitating some clichéd nonsense you heard from some equally misinformed and resentful person?

A correct reading of Spielberg's films tells us that he has almost no interest in endorsing a black and white, good vs evil view of the world.

Let's look at some of the evidence:

Duel - David Mann, like the majority of Spielberg's protagonists, is an ordinary, flawed human being in an extraordinary situation. Spielberg goes to great lengths not to show the truck driver himself and instead makes the truck the villain of the piece. It's the unfeeling, unrelenting, motiveless truck that is demonised rather than a particular person, and Spielberg will continue to show how a concept or a mindless 'other' is the real antagonist throughout his films.

The Sugarland Express – There are no good or bad guys here; the ‘criminals’ are our protagonists and the Sheriff on their tale is shown to be a good man in a difficult situation. We alternately sympathise with and dispute Lou-Jean and Clovis' purpose, and must simply watch as their well-intentioned yet ill-judged journey leads inevitably to its tragic, foreseeable conclusion.

Jaws – Again, no good or bad guys here. Our three protagonists each have their own selfish agendas and even the conflicted Mayor ends up recognising his mistakes. Like Duel, the villain is a mindless, unrelenting 'other'.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind – Again, no good or bad guys to speak of, simply a self-destructive protagonist showing a distrust of faceless centralised authorities, even as individuals within that system, like Lacombe, are shown to be decent people.

1941 – A chaotic, anarchic film with no protagonists at all, just a whole lot of flawed fools. Somewhat unusually, the American soldiers come out of it much worse than the Japanese or Germans.

E.T. – We are made to fear the jangle of Peter Coyote’s keys throughout the film, yet when we finally meet him we find a compassionate and likeable person who also just wants the best for E.T.

Empire of the Sun – Spielberg has in fact been criticised for glorifying the Japanese and painting them in too good a light. But we see everything through Jim’s eyes and to him the Japanese pilots were honourable and noble and so this is how they’re presented on screen. The main protagonists of Basie and Jim himself are painted exclusively in greys and shadows.

The Color Purple – The worst person in the film is clearly Danny Glover’s Albert, and yet it is he who gets the money to allow Celie to finally see her sister again. For all his flaws he is shown to have the capacity to change, and we're provided with plenty of information to explain why he acts like he does; hardly your standard black and white villain.

Always – No villains at all, just a misguided protagonist who slowly realises his selfish needs are destroying the needs of the one he loves.

Jurassic Park - The true villain of the piece is probably the cuddly Doctor Hammond whose hubris and desire to control nature result in the terrifying events that unfold.

Schindler’s List – The whole film is about how a member of the Nazi party helped Jews to survive during the Second World War. Spielberg was actually criticised by some in the Jewish community for concentrating on this Christian German’s role and not on a more black and white, ‘Us vs. Them’ retelling of the Holocaust. And, contrary to what you may think, Oskar Schindler is definitely not your average hero. Throughout the film we are shown the often close connection between Schindler and Amon Goeth; they share a love of fine living, of money, of power, of parties, of wine, of women. Spielberg even mirrors many of their actions. We are left wondering if the only real difference between the two is how they derive their feelings of power; Goeth from killing people, Schindler from saving them. Schindler’s true motivation is rightly kept ambiguous.

Saving Private Ryan – At several points during the film we see American’s performing war crimes – shooting surrendering Germans and firing bullets into the German dead. There’s even a scene in which our so-called ‘heroes’ want nothing more than to execute a captured German in revenge for a fallen comrade. At another point we see a German soldier spare Cpl Upham, who himself is shown acting out of both cowardice and murderous rage. In truth it’s the American soldiers who come out of it the worst; the German soldiers in the film do nothing except their job. The only moral distinction here is the one which we ourselves bring to the movie, that being that the cause of the Allied soldiers was more just, more 'good', than the cause of the German soldiers.

A.I. – Yet another Spielberg film with no discernible villain, but plenty of confused and flawed people (and robots).

Minority Report – It is ultimately Burgess, the supposed bad guy, who brings down the system because he feels regret for his actions and wishes to be forgiven. He isn’t a simplistic, moustache twirling villain.

Catch Me If You Can – No simplistic good and bad guys here; like with Sugarland Express both the ‘criminal’ and the ‘cop’ are shown to have their positives and negatives.

Munich – The whole film is a mess of greys and shadows, as our protagonists slowly come to the realisation that their vengeful actions hurt no one except themselves. It isn't the Palestinians who are demonised; it's the act of vengeance itself.

War Horse - The film tells stories from both the British and German point of view, showing how there were good and bad individuals of both nationalities.


As I said, the idea that Spielberg is only interested in black and white characters or situations shows a complete disregard for the actual content of his films.

The true antagonist in a Spielberg film is usually a concept (racism, ignorance, greed, fear, misogynism, loneliness, hatred, revenge) or a mindless ‘other’ (a truck, a shark, a dinosaur, an alien); the protagonist in a Spielberg film is usually pretty flawed. Outside of the comic-book exploits of Indiana Jones and Tin Tin, the concept of black and white, good versus evil rarely makes an appearance in Spielberg's universe. If people do evil it's because they're misguided or ignorant or unthinking, not because they themselves are evil.

Though Spielberg's point of view may be largely optimistic in nature (although I'd argue most of his films are in fact bittersweet), this should not be mistaken for seeing only in black and white. Carl Sagan once said, "it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness", and Spielberg's work is almost the artistic embodiment of that ideal.

reply

First of all I'd like to apologise. I misspoke. After all English is still a second language to me. I didn't mean to say black and white but rather simplistic morals. You have to admit that complexity was never something Spielberg was particularly good at. He always had the heart and the mentality of a child.

I have actually seen every single one of the films that you've mentioned. I want to concetrate Schindler's list since it's widely touted as his greatest achievement and a stepping stone towards maturity for him as a director(also I recently rewatched the film so it's still fresh in my memory).

Spielberg takes what is essentially a very interesting story and oversimplifies some of the events. He leaves out of the story the major contribution Emilie Schindler had in saving Jewish lives after he resumed living with her,the fact that Oskar continued betraying her with other women or the fact that many Jewish families had to bribe him in order to find themselves on his list and thus survive. One might argue that Spielberg aims more for moral directness but in doing so the story loses its moral complexity. So you end up with a very pious and simplistic scenario of how the events transpired.

The film is not bad in any way shape or form,but it's still held back from Spielberg's tendency to concoct easily digestible narratives that don't challenge its audience. You might think I am an idiot or pretentious but these things do bother me. The manipulative and forced sentimental moments in his films bother me to no end. The stupid unlikeable characters in Jurassic park bother me. The cringeworthy shower scene in Close encounters bothers me(the cry baby scene). The sappy ending of Saving private Ryan bothers me. The fact that every single film of his ends with a nice metaphorical bow tie bothers me. The fact that in none of his films is there any room for interpretation bothers me.

Thank you for your time and have a lovely day.

reply

you know first wow your english is perfect much betteran than mine whic is also my second language. my first is Spanish.


saying so, i can perfectly understand where you are coming from and i even though i kind of agree he tends to be quite simple and marks too much his point of view without leaving too much space for interpretation.


however instead of seing this as a flaw well i see it as a virute, inthink its fresh to see a dicretor with a positive point of view and someone so optimistic.

like the previous poster said he is a director who looks for hope in the darkest places.


now with Schindler´s list maybe he could have made Schinlder a little more ambiguous and a little less goody goody. call me crazy but i think it worked better than harmed the film since it helps the audicne seing schindler the way his workers saw him which is seing him as the man who saved them and yes treatmed with kindness and as human beings.

maybe we as audience we wouldnt have liked or rooted for schindler the way we did if he would have been presneted in an amiguous way.


i like scorsesse actually and enjoyed wolf of wallstreet very much, its just that i did think he Glorified Belfort a little too much.
maybe un intentionally but personally while i was watching the film i rooted for him and disliked the cop who was the one who was right.


reply

now with Schindler´s list maybe he could have made Schinlder a little more ambiguous and a little less goody goody

I don't see how Schindler could possibly have been portrayed any more ambiguous in the film than he is. Spielberg himself commented that executives at the studio were begging him to put in a big speech in the movie where Schindler says, "This is it! This is what I must do!" Spielberg rejected their pleas and instead kept the character very understated. We never get a clear indication of why Schindler decides to save the Jews. How much more ambiguous can it get than that?

And Schindler is hardly portrayed as a "goody goody" in the film. He is portrayed as a shameless womanizer who doesn't mind being unfaithful to his wife, or forcing helpless Jewish women to kiss him. And in the opening scenes of the film, he is shown to be a proud member of the Nazi Party, casually hanging out with Nazis at restaurants and whatnot. Ultimately, he is portrayed as a hero with some serious moral flaws. Even the ending titles reveal that his marriage collapsed and he died broke.

reply

He's he best director

reply

He is neither an optimist or a humanist. But he believes he should be both. Which is why many of his films veer wildly in tone and he mostly fails in drama.

The man should just give into his true existential nihilism.

reply

reply