Speilberg's contribution... - Poltergeist (1982) Discussion

[–] DreTam2000 9 years ago

Had Spielberg done what you suggest, this movie would not be the soulful and moving experience that it is. It consequently would not have been as fondly remembered or as brilliant.

I liked Salem's Lot a whole bunch. But the movie was not soulful, spiritual, or moving (if anything, these are the areas where the film actually lacks, despite being a pretty good experience overall). It's a well made film, but a lesser experience than something like Poltergeist. The same can be said for TCM. If another dry Horror film amidst a sea of others is what you would have preferred, then I'm happy to say that I'm glad the film disappointed you and pleased me and many others instead, by giving us something more sublime than a mere handful of scares. But hey, if you'd like, 1985's Superstition is very much on the menu. Something tells me you might like that one. Stay away from the upcoming del Toro Crimson Peak picture.

Also: Poltergeist flows seamlessly. I notice no tug-of-war in its production whenever I watch it (as I do in the case of many other films whose directors experienced producer interference).

I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

reply

[–] Don_Cheech 9 years ago

Also: Poltergeist flows seamlessly. I notice no tug-of-war in its production whenever I watch it (as I do in the case of many other films whose directors experienced producer interference).

This is where I disagree. Note, I just watched it for the first time, after seeing all of both directors filmography.

This is how I view it:
Texas Chainsaw was a masterpiece. personally, one of the most brutal/ realistic depictions of an insane murderer. with poltergeist... Hooper was brought on for a reason. he knew horror.

Spielberg...? more sci-fi.and... there is most definitely a difference.

For me, I was ok with some of the family humor (speilberg). It added to the dread once the characters became engulfed and started looking depressed... it added contrast. the dad most specifically, started to look drained.

the most specific scene I can think of is when the ghost would materialize into the foggish skeleton..trying to bite the mother. that was over the top. hooper knows how much to show, leaving a good amount to the viewers imagination.. similar to horror master, hitchcock. again, the soundtrack and special effects were definitely suggested by speilberg, and i think it somewhat compromised the tone.

reply

[–] DreTam2000 9 years ago

I guess we just disagree then. Poltergeist is about as perfect as Horror movies come, in the acting department, the atmosphere department, and its special effects even hold up to most of today's really piss-poor greenscreening and CGI (funny how the Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters still looks real to this day as well).

the most specific scene I can think of is when the ghost would materialize into the foggish skeleton..

As in the case of the aforementioned Marshmallow Man, what you have described here is also one of my favorite movie images of all time. You even described it beautifully. Weird way for someone who does not like it to describe it so well ("...ghost... materialize into the foggish skeleton.." ... beautiful). That creature in the hallway may be my favorite horror imagery in the entire genre (and my list is long... from obscure stuff like The Changeling, 1989's The Woman in Black, The Exorcist III, the BBC's A Warning to the Curious, to larger classics like The Sixth Sense). It is an iconic moment to many of us for a reason.

the most specific scene I can think of is when the ghost would materialize into the foggish skeleton..trying to bite the mother.

It didn't exactly try to bite her, from my recollection. And the whole point of a horror film choosing to show very little is for the pay off in the end. Poltergeist successfully waits until the end before it shows us most of its visual horrors, and even then they come at us in a variety of forms, and imaginatively so. Find me another film with imagery as beautiful as that ghost materializing into the foggish skeleton, as you so eloquently described (not a single scene in Kubrick's The Shining has such majesty; although, admittedly, I loved the brilliant spookiness of the surreal window scene in Hooper's Salem's Lot).

Ultimately, one of the genre's staple moments and most feared accounts in history, is in Tobe Hooper's classic 1975 film, when that gray creature jumps out of the water and drags the man out of the boat kicking and screaming while chomping down on him. Tobe Hooper did such a phenomenal job with that movie which rocked the world and traumatized many people from going into the water for years. Anyone who can direct such a film certainly doesn't need anyone else's assistance to help them craft Horror. The realistic, strikingly stark scene of that man screaming with teeth crushing into his body as the beast dragged him into the sea is classic Hooper stuff. Man, he sure does horror well...

reply

[–] jenkinsdaniel 9 years ago

What matters is that it's Spielberg's name that first appears at the end of the film. Spielberg had just become Hollywood's most successful film director in 1981. Hollywood's brand new king showing us what to do with the television.

reply

[–] Cognoscente (2642) a year ago

If you read the DGA's director employment agreement (specifically the parts pertaining to a producer's involvement), you will see how Spielberg got away with his directorial contributions without infringing any of the DGA rules.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 10 months ago

I would not call those directorial contributions, then. There is actually far more evidence that Hooper was a constant disruptive force in the usually more straight-forward and put-together Spielberg sets. Hooper valued improvisation and, more significantly, reinterpretation, and there are entire scenes reevaluated tonally, physically relocated, character development dialogue ripped out. Spielberg had a say because he wrote the film and as producer could decide what they put their money into (which included making a decidedly commercial film... something that Hooper was not opposed to), but when it comes to someone putting things into the other's input that they did not necessary want, it was Hooper (as director) doing that to Spielberg's contributions (as producer).

reply

[–] Stratego (30495) 10 months ago

The whole film is cartoonish and without suspense, that's what makes it Spielberg.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 10 months ago

Spielberg is great with suspense, though. Close-ups, focus on faces and hands, orchestrating Rube Goldberg set-pieces. There are actually a lot more suspense devices in the scripted renderings of scenes, and storyboards are much more dynamic. Hooper's approach, though, makes everything a lot more distant and documentary-like. It's what makes the film a Hooper film.

reply

[–] Stratego (30495) 10 months ago

I thought pretty much everybody agrees that Spielberg directed the movie? If not physically, at least by exerting much influence over Hooper's direction.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 10 months ago

Nah, check out the Twitter account http://www.twitter.com/poltrgthts_imag

It puts up a good case for Spielberg wanting the film to be farcical and whimsical but Hooper bringing it back down to earth. That and all the actors insist Hooper directed and would have to tell Spielberg they would only listen to Hooper, who seemed to have different ideas for what worked and what didn’t (as a director is hired to do, to tell a producer what of their ideas will work in a cohesive film and what won’t).

Spielberg wrote it. It will feel like a Spielberg in ideas and tone, but Hooper, as director (and co-developer, though no one wants to talk about that), is who made it all work as a coherent (or incoherent…) film.

reply

[–] Stratego (30495) 10 months ago

"Spielberg wanting the film to be farcical and whimsical"

Which it still is for a very large part, in my opinion.

I also blame the lack of suspense on he script, since there is no build-up.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 10 months ago

Yeah, but it could have been way worse:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-NnpuZbMAA719t?format=jpg&name=small

What people often overlook is that the film was a rush job. It was written in a week by Spielberg and a bull pen of people after the first draft was deemed insufficient - all from a story by Spielberg *and* Hooper. The core “idea men” of the film are both men and they agreed to the mainstream approach. Hooper was totally cognizant of the whimsy and comedy. Heck, Hooper is the master of macabre humor, as exhibited in “Texas Chain Saw Massacre.” What he is not great at is the above “cartoonish” tone. That is where I believe he really influenced the movie - in addition to coming up with many of the ideas in the story (the idea of humans being farmed and providing the existence of both homeless ghosts and the surplus of human flesh/skeletons are ones that go hand in hand - an issue that pops up first in the macabre humor of the Chainsaw film (also its sequel) to Poltergeist and in another film, The Return of the Living Dead, which he developed the script for). And that subtle dark humor is what he excels at.

But yes, opinion. What is not opinion is the fact Hooper was at the ground level of creative decisons, no matter how much some people on the set wanted to deny that notion.

reply

[–] Stratego (30495) 10 months ago

"What is not opinion is the fact Hooper was at the ground level of creative decisons, no matter how much some people on the set wanted to deny that notion."

So were you there? Since it appears quite a few people contradict each other on this subject, I'm not going to accept either claim as the truth.

And honestly, I really don't care who directed. If Hooper did all of it, he did not enough to remove all of Spielberg's mark.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 10 months ago

No one has ever convincingly contradicted the fact Hooper was on set at all times. Spielberg was not. One cannot direct and make all crucial decisions by proxy. Now add into account everything that was stacked against Hooper - the rumors that begun before a week of shooting even passed, the outright falsities that included rumors of drug use, the marketing department telling publicists Hooper was not available to be interviewed about the film - and you have a clear effort to not recognize Hooper and to fool the public when the film was released.

As for the film itself and the opinions of the matter, Spielberg, in my view, never made a film this "loose" and not driven by sense or character development. In the script, the young son has a number of one-liners and an emotional arc. The house's implosion is seen from the point of view of the father. Hooper did a lot to remove not what I'd call the "Spielberg mark," but the "Amblin tone," which is cartoonish emotions, rank sentimentality, and a more male-driven perspective. Just look at "Harry and the Hendersons" and "Batteries Not Included" for Amblin productions that follow clear "comic" sensibilities. The reason "Poltergeist" has the edge it has is because of Hooper. No reason to diminish that just because he partnered up with Spielberg.

reply

[–] Stratego (30495) 10 months ago

You think first assistant cameraman John R. Leonetti is less credible than other people who worked on the movie? I don't know who's more believable, therefor I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Spielberg mark or Amblin tone, I don't care what anybody wants to call it. But even you agree that it's something that's in the script that Spielberg wrote. I blame the lack of any build-up of suspense on the script as well (unless there were some major changes made). Now these are the big reasons I dislike the movie, so do you want me to blame Mr. Spielberg for this or your friend Hooper?

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 10 months ago

Well, the script is singularly nonsensical, which is due to it being written in a week. Hooper, once again, hashed out the mission and purpose of the film - I've got it on pretty good authority he came up with the bodies coming up out of the pool - and he, for one, does not care about plot propulsion. Just check out "Eaten Alive," one of the most nonsensical films ever. The idea of buried history reemerging to take vengeance is a theme that has been in numerous Hooper films. So I would not call it singularly "Spielberg's script," either. Grais and Victor, despite their tossed out script, wrote and conceived a number of the major set-pieces. As just explained, Hooper likely had a lot to do with the theme of bodies hidden under the ground. The lack of build-up in the script is an issue that is all of their faults. The lack of suspense I blame Hooper for. He is not great with set-pieces, just chaotic, frenzied assaults on the senses.

John Leonetti has since semi-retracted his statement. He most recently said: "Well, Tobe Hooper was the director of that film. But Steven had a lot to do with it as well." Which again no one is arguing against. What we are arguing for is that Hooper was just as instrumental, and did the job of actually making the film. Even in his first statement, though, Leonetti would constantly contradict himself, such as saying Spielberg would leave the set sometimes. He also puts a heavy trivial emphasis on the fact the film was storyboarded extensively, not interested in the fact that Hooper storyboarded a majority of the film with an artist he worked with exclusively.

I trust more the accounts of actors, those individuals who a director is hired to deal with, rather than an AC who admits to the set being "so hectic," with "multiple units working at once." These actors, three in particular, have said the following at various points: "Hooper was the only one who directed me," "Hooper handled the reins... Spielberg was out of the picture by some point as he as too busy with E.T.," and "Spielberg wasn't spending a lot of time on the set, and then we had Hooper, who was wonderful to work with." Oliver Robins (the little boy), Martin Casella (the face-ripping paranormal researcher), and Craig T. Nelson, respectively.

reply

[–] Stratego (30495) 10 months ago

"I've got it on pretty good authority he came up with the bodies coming up out of the pool"

Yeah, that was not a good scene. It was kind of creepy, but made no sense.

"I trust more the accounts of actors"

I don't know why a cameraman would be less credible, but okay, Zelda Rubinstein said only Spielberg directed her.

"But Steven had a lot to do with it as well."

Like I said, I honestly do not care who physically directed the movie, I just think Spielberg left his typical mark on it.

It seems Spielberg only does build-up of suspense well when other people are involved in the story, like Jaws, Jurassic Park or Duel. There is no suspense whatsoever in this movie, I find it hard to believe Spielberg added any either in his script.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 10 months ago

That's Hooper. He adds things that make no sense and do little to provide suspense. He is all over "Poltergeist"!

Well, as said, Leonetti walked back his statement, and seemed to attribute producorial things as "directing" (like preparing the storyboards Leonetti makes such a big deal about, yet doesn't care to consider that Hooper actually was the one who did them).

Zelda Rubinstein also walked back her statement. Her final statement on the matter was: "Tobe Hooper set up every shot, and then Steven came in and made final adjustments. So I think it was a split decision."

Split decision =/= "Spielberg took over directing" or "Steven changed everything Hooper did."

Well, the controversy is around who physically directed the movie. It was the focus of all the rumors from 1982, the lawsuit that emerged from it (Hooper sued the studio for spreading them), and all subsequent favoring of Spielberg as the real "vision" when in fact the film would not exist at all without Hooper giving Spielberg the concept (and all practical interpretations of the set which is "Hooper was there all the time, Spielberg was there only sometimes"). Thus, in regards to those rumors, they are false.

Spielberg leaves his imprint because he wrote and produced. It is the same reason "The Goonies" has multiple scenes Spielberg directed outright as a second unit director and why "Gremlins" became a huge hit due to everyone thinking the main Mogwai creature Gizmo was cute (Joe Dante, the director, was all set on turning that character evil at the end, but Spielberg told him to do the rewrite).

Agreed about Spielberg needing his collaborators when at his strongest. George Lucas was a major part of the Indiana Jones films as well. As for this film, I guess it was two people really bad at suspense coming together.

reply

[–] Stratego (30495) 10 months ago

If it's really as simple as Spielberg only writing the movie and Hooper directing all of it, would there really be so many contradicting accounts? My impression is that Spielberg had really wanted to direct the movie as well, so took control of the production and the set which Hooper just came to accept.

I certainly don't think Hooper is blameless, I just noticed this movie has the typical Spielbergisms that rub me the wrong way. I'm not familiar enough with Hooper to determine what what his obvious input was.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 10 months ago

It's really that simple. The two worked closer than most other directors and producers, but that is because they wrote the film together and were the closest creative partners from before a word was ever written.

There may have been creative disagreements and other such small frictions, but Hooper got to make the film, bottom line. The contradicting accounts are not really contradictory at all - it is simply a matter that they see what they want to see, but always, ALWAYS they never mention Hooper being absent, or derelict, or uninvolved. They simply choose to believe Spielberg's power was always assumed. Hooper could've been doing everything and they would believe he was simply doing what Spielberg told him to earlier. That is false. Hooper changed so much of the DNA of the script and previsual material, not to mention helping write the story and doing the bulk of storyboards. That is beside the fact that most of a director's work happens on set, and Hooper once again often seemed to disregard preparatory material, which he is known to do on all his sets. Hooper's "unusual" methods are probably part of the reason the set seemed so disorganized and that Spielberg had to "save" it, even though he was simply there to be told by Hooper and the actors: "What you wrote isn't working, please change it!":

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEUQhS4awAA2jaK?format=jpg&name=900x900

Perhaps Spielberg is to blame. But once again, it is as the writer and producer. He also developed and produced the 1999 THE HAUNTING remake and the 2020 THE TURNING (THE TURN OF THE SCREW adaptation) and look how those turned out. Maybe he just can't do supernatural horror.

reply

[–] Stratego (30495) 10 months ago

Spielberg was on set every day or at least a lot, so it's certainly not as simply as just being a writer or an average producer. I found it interesting what Casella had to say:

"So much of Poltergeist looks and feels like a Spielberg movie but my recollection is that Tobe was mostly directing."

Notice the word "mostly". It seems Spielberg went a bit further than required. All I can say is, Spielberg's influence on the film is very noticeable and no, I don't think he's any good with supernatural horror.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 10 months ago

Or maybe it was simply as a writer or average producer. What even is an average producer? Producers flex their power all the time, to the point they fire directors. Only in this instance does a director take a stand that he was never fired. With the new information that comes out, it seems clear Hooper was a decisive creative force. Why are we trying to take that away from him? He likes his silly sell-out Hollywood film, he says he directed it. Let's give it to him. More decisive than "Tobe was mostly directing" is "Spielberg was no longer around that much." Casella has said on two different occasions, "Hooper held the reins" and "Spielberg was no longer in the picture." Two out of three of these allow no further interpretation, I'm sorry.

So in the end, this is a normal director-producer relationship. Spielberg went further than required on "The Goonies," yet no one talks about that film's authorship. This boils down to plain rumor and disrespect, when the clear signs are right in front of us - Hooper did the work.

Spielberg wrote and collaborated with his closest creative partner.

It was an amicable situation until the studio and journalists decided to twist the information and for years, decades, no new information has come out because of this baggage despite it clearly favoring Hooper as a creative force. A sell-out, Hollywoodized force, but whatever. He says he made the movie, let's believe him. If Spielberg ruined it as a writer/producer, then fine. Hooper didn't need Spielberg to ruin his films with weird pacing issues and bad suspense, just look at Invaders from Mars.

This movie also had special effects that had never been done before. Of course it was going to have multiple production heads and strong producers. Look at Marvel films. A director is not taking charge of every visual effect and extended action scene. Hooper knew going into this that it was going to be a team effort, and, as Hooper says, he as director was "at the center of it." What is Richard Donner's excuse? He hates kids?

reply

[–] Annkat (327) 9 months ago

I think Spielberg wanted to do both but was forced to choose. ET was the more important project to him so that was what he chose.

So many stories about this project. Many said, that Spielberg was the director and Hooper hid away. But the film doesn't prove that. Because I see definite style choices from Hooper that look like him and were reflected in his past projects such as Texas Chainsaw and Salem's Lot.

Other stories, that I think are more true, state that Spielberg helped out with camera setup, blocking and lighting in the scenes. I can definitely see that in the project. That type of help is fairly common. It was said that Kubrick designed the lighting and set up for the Well of Souls scene in Raiders.

Where the film shows the tension is in the editing. Many times it feels a little disjointed. It feels like there should have been a little more footage but that was scrapped because it wouldn't fit.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 8 months ago

But Hooper was attached to direct from before “E.T.” was even conceived. Spielberg never imagined this as part of his filmography. This was before, of course, he sat down to write the entire movie from scratch (with Hooper), so things get a little muddier from there, but the bottom line seems to be that Hooper was not willing to let go of the film simply due to Spielberg’s intense involvement, and Spielberg himself considered the film a “lark” and was far more invested in doing the childhood story “E.T.,” which was clearly close to his heart.

There is far more evidence of Hooper outright contradicting any instructions Spielberg may have made and going off on his own tangents, often in regards to blocking and staging. I think that level of “renegade” energy is actually spurs a lot of what (a small subset of) people on the set perceived as “turmoil,” but what they saw as Spielberg’s involvement was actually working with Hooper’s constant unorthodox methods and ideas. Plus, those accounts are exaggerated and crank-like, while the most even handed always say Hooper directed, front to back, and that Spielberg was not present all the time, which is a clear marketing fib to foment interest on the part of the PR people.

reply

[–] Annkat (327) 6 months ago

The tone of the film definitely zig zags around.

There is a "Casper" element to some of the movie that is jarring.

The meat of the film, hidden by ghosts, is regarding the development of gated communities. The Freelings look like up and comers who strove to get into such a development. Steven worked hard in the sales of the homes there. All of it upended by unwanted "invaders", the wrong sort that ultimately ruins property values. In the second film, we learn Cueste Verde is abandoned.

That could have been developed more but it remains inert.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 6 months ago

The film was really two things, in reality: an experiment and a rush job. Hooper and Spielberg came up with the theme of ghosts invading a development, but rather than pursue this on their own, Spielberg - a novice producer, wanting to make something commercial and Hooper totally on board - gave it to the two screenwriters, Grais and Victor. While they tried their best to incorporate their themes and then make it into a summer tentpole - they added all the beasties (clown, closet, tree) in this phase - Spielberg and Hooper were not entirely happy with it. This was a mere three months before the film was supposed to shoot (a possible director's strike made it necessary to push it through pre-production)! So in a week-long flurry, Spielberg and Hooper dashed out a new draft, which is essentially the film we got. In other words, this film was an experiment/collaboration and compromise from day 1, Hooper giving it to Spielberg to hire two novice writers, then their quick drafting of a film merely to have ready for the shoot day (which, regardless of the final film's success, they were happy enough with).

As for the "Casper" element (which Spielberg's company produced), the script did have those cutesy moments, but Hooper did a lot to temper it.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) 6 months ago

Here's an excerpt to show how Spielberg's "kid's fantasy' inclinations could have reared their head:

ROBBIE
Rub-a-dub-dub. Thanks for the grub.
Yeah God!

Everybody LAUGHS. Diane, with an enormous amount of gray in
her hair, reaches into her purse, almost as an afterthought
and takes out an envelope addressed to the Freeling family.

DIANE
This came in the mail this morning
from Tangina. She's in Acapulco.
Diane passes a color Polaroid around the table.

CAROL ANNE
Who's that with Aunt Tangie?

INSERT CLOSE ON SNAPSHOT
Tangina is standing against the sun and surf in a muu muu.
Beside her is a good-looking, normal-sized man in his early
thirties. If you didn't know Tangina was a midget you'd think
the man was nine feet tall. There is writing accompanying the
photo which Diane reads.

INT. DINING ROOM - FREELING FAMILY - DUSK

DIANE
This photograph just goes on to
prove that we grow things bigger in
Texas than anywhere else in the
world.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1835) 2 months ago

You're overestimating how much Spielberg actually filmed.

Just because it might look like a Spielberg shot doesn't mean he shot it.

Nobody says this about Zemeckis, Joe Dante or Richard Donner with the Goonies.

It's pretty disrespectful to a great director.

They all had the same look and Tobe Hooper captured it.

reply

[–] Annkat (327) a month ago

I could pick out scenes in all those films of Zemeckis, Dante and Donner that were Spielberg. He has an eye for good looking cheesiness that is easy to see.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) a month ago

Yeah, he was literally on the set for all of them. Only in Hooper’s case, though, was Spielberg literally humbled on the set (crazy story)!:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GasCcNsW0AAgBvc?format=jpg&name=900x900

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1835) 25 days ago

You could pick out scenes that "looked" Spielberg. But Dante and Zemeckis both had that style. They all created it.

Which scenes do you think we're taken away from Richard Donner in Goonies or Zemeckis in Back to the Future and filmed by Spielberg?

You're talking ridiculous.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7061) a month ago

Poltergeist and Hooper was a mismatch. This was SS's baby all through.

reply

[–] ptthoughts (14) a month ago

Except for the fact Hooper literally said, “No, this is not your baby, your baby would be cheesy and lame! I know how to make this movie good, I am a 50% conceiver of it after all!” and nixed these Spielberg-written scenes:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-NnpuZbMAA719t?format=jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKr-u7sbMAA1E8_?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GasCcNsW0AAgBvc?format=jpg&name=900x900

reply