MovieChat Forums > Steven Spielberg Discussion > Did His Career Really End in...1982?

Did His Career Really End in...1982?

posted 7 years ago by ecarle (14979)
8 replies | jump to latest

I know, it sounds kinda crazy, but think about it.

Spielberg made his big name from 1971(when his TV movie "Duel" proved to be the perfect use of the TV movie form for Hitchcockian "feature film style" excitement) to the one-two punch years of1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark(a giant action picture) and 1982's ET(a "personal film" that nonetheless proved a tearjerker blockbuster.) Also in '82, Spielberg unveiled his "producer's persona" by putting his name on "Poltergeist."

And in between? "Jaws," the blockbuster that made Spielberg a New Film God, and Close Encounters, which had a bigger budget and more controversial impact...but no doubt a hit in the Space Age year of 1977 alongside "Star Wars."

And what else in between 1971 and 1982?

Well, Steve's first feature film, The Sugarland Express, with a fit-the-year-perfectly 1974 downer ending(see also: Chinatown, The Parallax View, Godfather II, The Conversation) and Goldie Hawn playing a horrible woman you could not sympathize with at all.

And in 1979, the infamous "1941" which had Belushi and Ackroyd in the cast but used a lot more screen time on obnoxious little known youth actors in lead roles.

---

The Sugarland Express was well-reviewed and exciting in its car chases(if sad and irritating to watch); 1941 seems somewhat better than its bad reviews and box office made it out to be(but not much; the spectacle is great, the comedy flat.)

But the long stretch of

Duel
Jaws
Close Encounters
Raiders
ET

...is as big a blockbuster run as ANY director had at ANY time in film history and...that's what made Spielberg Spielberg.

And then came 1983 and 1984:

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Like too many other film artists who "peaked early," Spielberg suddenly hit some chop after Raiders and ET climaxed his 70's run into the 80's:

The Twilight Zone: Spielberg's segment of the four segment film was, arguably, the worst, and the "ET sentimental magic" came a total cropper. Rumor is that, given the tragic deaths of Vic Morrow and two children filming the John Landis segment, Spielberg lost interest in The Twilight Zone and ran away from it.

1984: Indy Jones and the Temple of Doom. Its a lollapalooza of an opening sequence(for 20 minutes!), and a pretty spectacular final railcart roller coaster ride at the end...but...in between: this was one childish, insipid movie. Spielberg said that as a kid, he and his nerd friends would "fake vomit" chicken soup near patrons of his local movie theater. This movie feels like that. Spielberg said he made "Indy Jones and the Last Crusade" to "apologize for Temple of Doom." Not good enough.

And then, starting in 1985, Spielberg decided to reinvent himself as ...David Lean? Robert Mulligan? How about ..Stanley Kramer?

The Color Purple. Empire of the Sun. Eventually, Amistad.

And when he tried to "re-start the whimsy" we ended up with misfires like Always and Hook.

Spielberg came back with ANOTHER one-two punch in 1993: the blockbuster Jurrassic Park in the summer and Oscar-bait deluxe Schindler's List at the end. Biggest hit of all time in the first case; Best Picture/Director in the second.

But since then, its been hit and miss, some great ones(Saving Private Ryan, Munich), some so-so ones(The Terminal, Minority Report.)

And frankly: Jurassic Park wasn't nearly as well written or exciting as Jaws, and the characters had no resonance. And frankly: a lot of directors could have directed Schindler's List and scored the Big One.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

It just seems to me that Spielberg's glory were those "early genre years." They made hi famous and they made him rich and Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders and ET seem like real classics to me.

The classics have been fewer since 1982. I'll pick Schindler and Saving Private Ryan. Jurassic Park and its the Spielberg-directed sequel(The Lost World) seem to be missing something, classic-wise.

And for the rest of it, its like Spielberg simply became the most famous journeyman director in the world: movies like Catch Me If You Can and Bridge of Spies are well-made, well-crafted, well-acted by major stars but...are they great?

Lincoln? DDL...great. The movie? Its OK.

War of the Worlds? Spielberg confessed to making it way too fast and walking off to leave others to post-produce it. The result? Several great set-pieces in a very glum, meandering movie that ends too quickly.

---

Anyway you cut it, Spielberg has had a successful career of nearly 50 years now. But it seems like his big splash was that first decade. He was somebody special then.

Ever since, he's just a hit or miss bigtime producing-directing guy.

And the richest in film history.

[–] billreynolds (1) 7 years ago

ecarle - Your analysis is very interesting, and I agree with it in large part. I think it is true that the very distinctive Spielberg "magic" left his films several decades ago. He directed his early movies - I would say up through the end of the 80s - with an extraordinary energy and vibrancy that he no longer has. Even weaker movies like Always and Temple of Doom have wonderfully well-directed set pieces in them.

The very greatest time for the Spielberg magic was up through 1982, as you point out. By the way, I recently re-watched Sugarland Express and was simply astounded by how good, and how well-directed, it was. I would also rate 1941 pretty highly, not so much in terms of comedy but rather in terms of visual, kinetic energy.

By the summer of 1982, Spielberg, then 35, simply owned Hollywood. E.T. was an incredible personal triumph for him, on top of his triumphs with Jaws, Close Encounters, and Raiders. It was probably inevitable that he would never bring quite the same level of energy and creativity again.

The exception, for me, is Schindler's List, and to a lesser extent Saving Private Ryan. I think the subject matter of those two films pushed Spielberg to do his very best - especially in Schindler, which I consider one of the dozen greatest movies ever made. But those examples aside, as you point out, Spielberg has been since 1982 a solid, highly professional director, with some hits and quite a few misses.

I do also attribute some of the disappearance of the Spielberg magic to his long association with DP Janusz Kaminski (starting in 1993), who really changed the look of Spielberg's films. They no longer have the visual warmth and naturalism of Spielberg's early films. Kaminski uses a bunch of techniques that I really don't like, most notably over-saturation from light sources (i.e., windows are always glowing and radiating with a gauzy, diffuse light).

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

ecarle - Your analysis is very interesting, and I agree with it in large part.

--

Thank you for reading, and good to hear.

---

I think it is true that the very distinctive Spielberg "magic" left his films several decades ago. He directed his early movies - I would say up through the end of the 80s - with an extraordinary energy and vibrancy that he no longer has.

---

This happened to many directors; Spielberg actually did better than most in staying as hot as he did for as long as he did. I think what's interesting is that today, he still gets press as if he were "the greatest," and his era is really a long time ago.

Will this change with his new movie about a video game player? I saw the trailer, and it looks like a lot of other CGI-ridden movies to me; but its heavy on 80's nostalgia.

---

Even weaker movies like Always and Temple of Doom have wonderfully well-directed set pieces in them.

---

Well, Spielberg has never been without innate talent as a director(and he always had John Williams there to boost up the musical side; when Williams retires or passes, Spielberg will lose half his "soul.")

The very greatest time for the Spielberg magic was up through 1982, as you point out.

---

An incredible run, but with a little "dip": Close Encounters had bad press on its budget/schedule overruns and then 1941 semi-flopped with big costs. Spielberg reportedly did "Raiders" on budget and on schedule to "atone." And then he got ET and that was like the biggest blockbuster of all time(displacing Star Wars and his own Jaws) and...done. I think the one/two punch of Raiders and ET cemented Spielberg's fame. It was a comeback of sorts. And he had Jaws(in the main) as his 1970's calling card. It was HUGE. (Close Encounters always seemed problematic to me, being released in several versions with several cuts, overlong and over "awe-filled" in its climax.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The very greatest time for the Spielberg magic was up through 1982, as you point out. By the way, I recently re-watched Sugarland Express and was simply astounded by how good, and how well-directed, it was.

---

Universal valued Spielberg as a TV director and gave him Sugarland as both a test of his talent and, evidently, an audition for Jaws. He moved fleets of police cars and other cars with the magic he'd shown in Duel raised up an amp.

My main beef with Sugarland is that the story is just massively depressing. Goldie Hawn's "understandable but nonetheless awful" character pretty much ruins her husband's life in many ways and the ending is tragic. All well and good, but not in a "good way."

---

I would also rate 1941 pretty highly, not so much in terms of comedy but rather in terms of visual, kinetic energy.

---

Oh, yeah. The climactic events of the second hour are like a Bugs Bunny cartoon come to life, and funny people are allowed to be funny in intermittent doses (Belushi, Ackroyd, Tim Matheson, John Candy, Warren Oates.)

Hollywood and critical knives were out for Spielberg , and he gave them the "bomb" they wanted. But it wasn't, really. They went after John Landis' The Blues Brothers a few months later, calling it "1942." And it was good, too.

---

By the summer of 1982, Spielberg, then 35, simply owned Hollywood. E.T. was an incredible personal triumph for him, on top of his triumphs with Jaws, Close Encounters, and Raiders. It was probably inevitable that he would never bring quite the same level of energy and creativity again.

---

And something else happened: he became "untouchable." Spielberg made Sugarland and Jaws under threat of being fired(Jaws went over budget and schedule, but Steve wasn't blamed for that.) He got carte blanche on Close Encounters and 1941 and got "over-indulgent." But he proved himself with Raiders and ET and he never had anyone telling him what to do again. Which can be a problem for producers-directors.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The exception, for me, is Schindler's List, and to a lesser extent Saving Private Ryan. I think the subject matter of those two films pushed Spielberg to do his very best - especially in Schindler, which I consider one of the dozen greatest movies ever made.

---

I suppose that given how many "at bats" Spielberg took after 1982, he was bound to do something great again. He took some hits on some "fake scenes that didn't happen" with Schindler's List, but it is a great study of how a terrible time came to be. I think Ryan opens and closes with great power, but the violence is almost unwatchable.

Aside from the incredible and ultra-violent D-Day scene that opens Ryan, its greatest moment of horrendous violence comes, I think, when a young GI encounters a brutish Nazi in an empty building, and they simply have to fight, hand to hand, knife to knife, the young GI easily overpowered by the Nazi and plaintatively begging "wait a second, wait" as the Nazi buries the knife in his chest slowly. Spielberg is telling us: you want to know what war REALLY comes down to? Murdering or being murdered.

---

But those examples aside, as you point out, Spielberg has been since 1982 a solid, highly professional director, with some hits and quite a few misses.

---

The misses are troubling. I thought "The Terminal" was just plain dumb, poorly scripted, unbelievable. Beneath Hanks AND Spielberg. No quality control.

To tell you the truth, whereas once I showed up for every new Spielberg, I've missed quite a few in the last decade. The material has to draw me in.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I do also attribute some of the disappearance of the Spielberg magic to his long association with DP Janusz Kaminski (starting in 1993), who really changed the look of Spielberg's films. They no longer have the visual warmth and naturalism of Spielberg's early films. Kaminski uses a bunch of techniques that I really don't like, most notably over-saturation from light sources (i.e., windows are always glowing and radiating with a gauzy, diffuse light).

---

You raise the fine point that while a DP can make a director look brilliant(Saving Private Ryan), he can also take over the director's style.

It seems like since Jurassic Park, the main color of Spielberg films is: gray.

[–] atd8vii (592) 7 years ago

I love Spielberg, I grew up watching his films, Jaws is my all time favourite. But ROTLA, JP, ET, Hook were all movies that i grew up watching and loving aswell. As I got older I got more into his mature themed films like Empire Of The Sun, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan to name a few.

So I don't think his career ended in 1982 at all. He's been very consistent for the last 36 years and despite not being interested in all of his movies I always look forward to what he's gonna do next.