Is is Martin scorcese universally acknowledged as the worlds greatest director?

Hint of Sarcasm

Genre.. wrote: »

Is is Martin scorcese universally acknowledged as the worlds greatest director

Is that why you couldn't be bothered capitalising his surname?

Tilden Katz

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Martin Scoreses hasnt been a great director in decades

the Oscars decided to celebrate him late in life regardless of what he churned out

Gangs of New York is awful , The Departed the worst movie to win best picture this century and the Irish Man horribly over rated , Shutter Island is mediocre , The Wolf of Wall St is just a bunch of horribly unlikeable wall st cowboys engaging in debauchery over and over again for three hours , its crap

last good movie he made was Casino and it was no classic

Aaaaaaah, no. Chicago won Best Picture in 2003. Slumdog Millionaire? The Artist?

Tony EH

What is it that some people have against 'The Departed'?

Tilden Katz

Tony EH wrote: »

While Scorsese is a great director, he's not without a few duds here and there. 'Gangs of New York' and 'The Aviator' were underwhelming, to be polite, and 'The Age of Innocence' was just a crushing bore. His output in recent years, as a whole, hasn't really been that much to write home about and his ongoing collaboration with DiCaprio never filled me with much enthusiasm as I consider him to be one of the most overrated actors in the business today.

However, he has achieved great things, there's no doubt. Something like 'Taxi Driver' or 'Goodfellas' can't be dismissed from any serious film fan's watch list. But, really, the last truly great film he's made was probably 'Casino' and that was 1995.

Taken purely on a body of work, Kubrick comes out looking better as the vast majority of his output was fantastic. Everything the man did from the mid 50's (bar 'Eyes Wide Shut') was or approached great movie status. That's something that neither Scorsese or Hitchcock can't boast. In fact, if most people were to go back and view a lot of Alfred Hitchcock's output, I'd reckon they'd end up quite disappointed. Hitchcock helmed an awful lot of pretty mediocre films, especially in the 30's and his propaganda movies look incredibly twee today. It's really the classics of the 50's and 60's that people remember when they make any claims for Hitchcock. Plus, there's a lot of techniques in Hitchcock's movies that have always left me bewildered. His use of artificial backdrops can be very off putting and certain camera jiggery pokery he allowed just rubs me up the wrong way and end up looking like questionable takes.

Although the man has unquestionably great movies in his repertoire, it's things like 'Rear Window' and 'Psycho' that will immediately spring to mind for most when his name is mentioned. Personally, I find it hard these days to sit down and watch a lot of his movies, bar the out and out classics. In fact, outside of the obvious classics, if I were to pick a Hitchcock movie that I would consider a "favourite" and one of his most re-watchable, it would be 'Frenzy'.

No way. The Wolf Of Wall Street is far better than Casino. I don’t consider Casino anywhere near a great. It gets far too bogged down with the domestic stuff in the third act.

Did you smash it

Tony EH wrote: »

What is it that some people have against 'The Departed'?

Unsympathetic, uncharismatic characters. A far fetched plot line where the criminal mastermind couldn’t see that a known former trainee policeman was the mole in his outfit. A script that doesn’t convince

Sandor Clegane

He's a bit hit and miss, he has some real greats but a few duds too...

Gangs of new york is terrible, the departed is hugely overrated, silence was poor and the Irishman hugely overrated again.

Genre..

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

He's a bit hit and miss, he has some real greats but a few duds too...

Gangs of new york is terrible, the departed is hugely overrated, silence was poor and the Irishman hugely overrated again.

I dunno I mean maybe your just not into this stuff when you think they're hugely overrated

For me they're fantastic movies

HillCloudHop

Would be interesting to see Scorsese direct a sci-fi or fantasy film.

Oh, I forgot he directed Temptation of Christ.

SimonTemplar

I like a lot of his movies. The Departed is my favorite of his recent filmography.

I could never get into Goodfellas though. I don't know why. It has a brilliant cast with some individually excellent scenes but the movie as a whole never keeps my interest. It is a purely personal thing though, I don't think it is a bad movie, it is objectively excellent, but for some reason it just doesn't work for me. And I loved The Irishman whose almost four hour runtime breezed by for me.

Mad_maxx

Goodfellas is great but still not in the same league as The Godfather movies of 1972 and 1974

Brian?

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Why Kubrick above Hitchcock? Kubrick is an all time great of course, but why do you think he’s above hitchcock? Kubrick had an awful tendency to direct actors to be as wooden as possible. Watch Full Metal Jacket - the actors are always deadpan and the delivery of the lines feel very stilted and off. It plagues his movies.

Same for kurosawa. Why put him above hitchcock? Subjectively you might say he made the best movies of all time. But objectively Hitchcock has done more for the industry.

Kurosawa is the top for the influence he had on film. He influenced Japanese, French and Hollywood film making more that any other director. I absolutely adore his films. But if you look at who great directors look out to, he’s usually the one.

Kubrick because every film he made was a masterpiece. I don’t see your point about Full Metal Jacket, the dead pan delivery is to juxtaposition the outbursts of verbal and physical violence. I think it works amazingly.

Hitchcock was great. But his films were essentially plays in films. Kubrick and Kurosawa did more than that. Especially Kubrick with 2001.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Kurosawa is the top for the influence he had on film. He influenced Japanese, French and Hollywood film making more that any other director. I absolutely adore his films. But if you look at who great directors look out to, he’s usually the one.

Kubrick because every film he made was a masterpiece. I don’t see your point about Full Metal Jacket, the dead pan delivery is to juxtaposition the outbursts of verbal and physical violence. I think it works amazingly.

Hitchcock was great. But his films were essentially plays in films. Kubrick and Kurosawa did more than that. Especially Kubrick with 2001.

I really think you're selling Hitchcock short there.

RulesOfNature

Brian? wrote: »

Kurosawa is the top for the influence he had on film. He influenced Japanese, French and Hollywood film making more that any other director. I absolutely adore his films. But if you look at who great directors look out to, he’s usually the one.

Kubrick because every film he made was a masterpiece. I don’t see your point about Full Metal Jacket, the dead pan delivery is to juxtaposition the outbursts of verbal and physical violence. I think it works amazingly.

Hitchcock was great. But his films were essentially plays in films. Kubrick and Kurosawa did more than that. Especially Kubrick with 2001.

Directing movies is more than creating art, its a vocation that requires techniques, convention and as a person that elevated the profession and the industry, Hitchcock is far beyond Stanley Kubrick. Hitchcock is the entertainer/storyteller and Kubrick is the auteur/artist. Hitchcock created the ground rules for everyone that every director uses as convention. Hitchcock gave the role of director a superstar appeal, instead of just being an obscure weird profession that obsesses over 'art' - People started seeing a Hitchcock movie because it was a Hitchcock movie that was guaranteed to entertain. Hitchcock is no doubt the most influential director of all time. He has simply never made an unwatchable film. All the scripts are razor edge sharp and there's no ambiguity or plotholes.

Kubrick's career was a lot smaller than Hitchcock, partly because he was his opposite in many ways. Mind you Kubrick immensely admired Hitchcock.

Kubrick's films are often more mocked than copied. How many slasher movies have come out of Hitchcock's Psycho? How many Family Guy parodies have come out of Full Metal Jacket? Kubrick very rarely wrote his own movies, (contrast with Hitchcock), and sometimes changes direction of the script while they're filming, changing them dialogue by dialogue in the same scene. Most of Kubrick's movies have these weird stilted dialogue scenes that seem like simulations of autistic people talking. Some might call this artistic integrity, some might call it bad directing. Sometimes he'll get actors to do 100+ takes for one scene. Again, art or bad directing?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/how-shining-star-shelley-duvall-21615871

Not to mention the abuse he delivered to actresses. Art? Maybe. But definitely not professional.

Kubrick has a tendency to take something so easy and discombobulate it to something arduous, and sometimes unwatchable (Lolita). Its probably a reflection of his 'artistic' mindset - to make everything as nebulous and 'deep' as possible at the cost of straightforward storytelling. But to be honest, Kubrick is a great director but if you chop it down to what he does and the end result, you'll find that his output has been disproportionate compared to the effort he put into them. Hitchcock effortlessly made movies that were all consistently entertaining and watchable without ever abusing actors, taking 1000+ scenes or ever going over budget.

Hitchcock exemplified the 'perfect' director - professional, efficient and consistently profitable. From what he did for the industry, it allowed studios to take directors like Kubrick more seriously.

pioneerpro

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Hitchcock created the ground rules for everyone that every director uses as convention. Hitchcock gave the role of director a superstar appeal, instead of just being an obscure weird profession that obsesses over 'art' - People started seeing a Hitchcock movie because it was a Hitchcock movie that was guaranteed to entertain.

Rebecca was his first big Hollywood transition flick in 1940 - and granted it did extremely well for him - but 1941 had Orson Welles release Citizen Kane. I think you're stretching a bit here; he only really got going with Grace Kelly in the mid-50s. Orson Welles was the absolute multimedia behemoth a decade before him.

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Most of Kubrick's movies have these weird stilted dialogue scenes that seem like simulations of autistic people talking. Some might call this artistic integrity, some might call it bad directing.

You must point this out to me in Barry Lyndon or Dr. Strangelove some time. The only stilting noticeable in either was from method actors blowing it out of the ****ing park!

Sometimes he'll get actors to do 100+ takes for one scene. Again, art or bad directing?

The Shining answers that question comprehensively to me. That and Clockwork Orange alone does as much in terms of the advancement of cinematography as the whole of Hitchcock's oeuvre - auteur or not. 2001 quite frankly surpasses it.

Hitchcock effortlessly made movies that were all consistently entertaining and watchable without ever abusing actors, taking 1000+ scenes or ever going over budget.

So did Adam Sandler, to take that argument to its logical conclusion

RulesOfNature

pioneerpro wrote: »

You must point this out to me in Barry Lyndon or Dr. Strangelove some time. The only stilting noticeable in either was from method actors blowing it out of the ****ing park!



The Shining answers that question comprehensively to me. That and Clockwork Orange alone does as much in terms of the advancement of cinematography as the whole of Hitchcock's oeuvre - auteur or not. 2001 quite frankly surpasses it.



So did Adam Sandler, to take that argument to its logical conclusion

Take the very subjective 'art' concept from the equation and boil it down to this:

Who was better at their job?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I really think you're selling Hitchcock short there.

Not really. I have him at the third best director ever. That’s pretty great. Just not as great as Kubrick or Kurosawa

Brian?

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Directing movies is more than creating art, its a vocation that requires techniques, convention and as a person that elevated the profession and the industry, Hitchcock is far beyond Stanley Kubrick. Hitchcock is the entertainer/storyteller and Kubrick is the auteur/artist. Hitchcock created the ground rules for everyone that every director uses as convention. Hitchcock gave the role of director a superstar appeal, instead of just being an obscure weird profession that obsesses over 'art' - People started seeing a Hitchcock movie because it was a Hitchcock movie that was guaranteed to entertain. Hitchcock is no doubt the most influential director of all time. He has simply never made an unwatchable film. All the scripts are razor edge sharp and there's no ambiguity or plotholes.

Kubrick's career was a lot smaller than Hitchcock, partly because he was his opposite in many ways. Mind you Kubrick immensely admired Hitchcock.

Kubrick's films are often more mocked than copied. How many slasher movies have come out of Hitchcock's Psycho? How many Family Guy parodies have come out of Full Metal Jacket? Kubrick very rarely wrote his own movies, (contrast with Hitchcock), and sometimes changes direction of the script while they're filming, changing them dialogue by dialogue in the same scene. Most of Kubrick's movies have these weird stilted dialogue scenes that seem like simulations of autistic people talking. Some might call this artistic integrity, some might call it bad directing. Sometimes he'll get actors to do 100+ takes for one scene. Again, art or bad directing?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/how-shining-star-shelley-duvall-21615871

Not to mention the abuse he delivered to actresses. Art? Maybe. But definitely not professional.

Kubrick has a tendency to take something so easy and discombobulate it to something arduous, and sometimes unwatchable (Lolita). Its probably a reflection of his 'artistic' mindset - to make everything as nebulous and 'deep' as possible at the cost of straightforward storytelling. But to be honest, Kubrick is a great director but if you chop it down to what he does and the end result, you'll find that his output has been disproportionate compared to the effort he put into them. Hitchcock effortlessly made movies that were all consistently entertaining and watchable without ever abusing actors, taking 1000+ scenes or ever going over budget.

Hitchcock exemplified the 'perfect' director - professional, efficient and consistently profitable. From what he did for the industry, it allowed studios to take directors like Kubrick more seriously.

Htichcock was amazing. Absolutely no doubt about it. But at the end of it all the ultimate gauge for me is the end product, a film. Kubrick made more absolutely stunning and amazing films than Hitchcock, despite making a fraction of the total films.

Purely subjective of course. But I am not arguing Hitchcock wasn’t a great director. I am arguing that Kubrick was better because I love his films more. I love some of Hitchcocks films and routinely watch them, but I don’t love any as much as I love 2001, Full Metal Jacket, the Shining or Dr Stranglove.

To me Dr. Strangelove is actually the perfect film.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Not really. I have him at the third best director ever. That’s pretty great. Just not as great as Kubrick or Kurosawa

I meant your description of him as directing film plays. You know that's what I meant because that's what I responded to.

Boards never changes...

Brian?

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Take the very subjective 'art' concept from the equation and boil it down to this:

Who was better at their job?

How many of Hitchcock’s films rise to the level of truly great?


For me:
The Birds
Rear Window
Vertigo
Psycho

Off the top of my head anyway. Many more are very good. But Kubrick never missed. Even the much maligned “Eyes Wide Shut” is a beautiful film.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I meant your description of him as directing film plays. You know that's what I meant because that's what I responded to.

Boards never changes...

Ah come on. You quoted my entire post without highlights. I’m not here for a silly argument. I’m engaged in a discussion that I was finding enjoyable.

What I meant was that there wasn’t much range to how Hitchcock directed. It was a lot of close in, 2 people in a shot cinematography. He was the best at it, amazing in fact. But look at the large art pieces Kurosawa directed in Ran or Kagemusha or the war scenes Kubrick directed in Full Metal Jacket or Barry Lyndon.

Then there’s 2001. The way Kubrick weaved music and movement was unbelievable.

To be clear again, Hitchcock was amazing. Just not as amazing as the other 2.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Ah come on. You quoted my entire post without highlights. I’m not here for a silly argument. I’m engaged in a discussion that I was finding enjoyable.

What I meant was that there wasn’t much range to how Hitchcock directed. It was a lot of close in, 2 people in a shot cinematography. He was the best at it, amazing in fact. But look at the large art pieces Kurosawa directed in Ran or Kagemusha or the war scenes Kubrick directed in Full Metal Jacket or Barry Lyndon.

Then there’s 2001. The way Kubrick weaved music and movement was unbelievable.

To be clear again, Hitchcock was amazing. Just not as amazing as the other 2.

Yeah, fair enough.

branie2

He's one of my favourite modern directors

RulesOfNature

pioneerpro wrote: »

So did Adam Sandler, to take that argument to its logical conclusion

Adam Sandler no, but the underlying message is correct.

Do you know why Shakespeare is the immortal bard? Its because he made consistent great works that sold a ton of seats.

People have this warped thinking that being a director is an artist first and foremost. Actually its a middle manager job.

Hitchcock is the best director because while other directors might have had more 'artistic value', there was simply no one else that elevated the profession as much as he did. And there was no doubt immense artistic value in his work.

Surreptitious

What about Christopher Nolan? I love his films.

Surreptitious

Surreptitious wrote: »

What about Christopher Nolan? I love his films.

I did too until Tenet.

Spielberg > Scorcese anyway.
For me, too much over acting in Scorcese films.

Brian?

Surreptitious wrote: »

What about Christopher Nolan? I love his films.

The Batman films were good. Inception was ok.

Most of the rest were brutal. I see memento get's 8.4 on IMDB, but I thought it was only ok.

Brian?

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

I did too until Tenet.

Spielberg > Scorcese anyway.
For me, too much over acting in Scorcese films.

Over acting? No way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63zCFSm-fuQ

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Over acting? No way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63zCFSm-fuQ

That could be from almost any Godfather- GoodfellasCasinoIrishmanSopranos

Put Pacino/DeNiro in any scene you get a hock of ham draped with prosciutto crudo, served an array of Clonakilty black and white puddings.

storker

Brian? wrote: »

It's disputing time I'm afraid.

For me it's:

1. Kurosawa
2. Kubrick
3. Hitchcock
4. Scorsese
.
.
.
.
2582898. Bay

2582899. Wu

Keyzer

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Spielberg isn’t fit to lace the boots of Martin Scorcese.

With all due respect, that's an idiotic statement.

The argument is obviously entirely subjective based on individual preference, but Schindler's List is arguably the greatest film ever made. Saying Spielberg isn't fit to tie Marty's shoelaces is ridiculous.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Over acting? No way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63zCFSm-fuQ

great scene that

EltonJohn69

pioneerpro wrote: »

Spielberg's subtlety is the point here in terms of his skill. Man absolutely knows his ****, and is a master at framing in particular. Blockbuster intimacy par excellence. Jaws is one of the great ignored Directorial gems in just so many respects.

You know who's a seriously idisoyncratic and immediately recognisable Director who kids love? Michael Bay. Don't think we'd be making the same arguments though

The rock is a great movie, maybe even a masterpiece ???

EltonJohn69

Keyzer wrote: »

With all due respect, that's an idiotic statement.

The argument is obviously entirely subjective based on individual preference, but Schindler's List is arguably the greatest film ever made. Saying Spielberg isn't fit to tie Marty's shoelaces is ridiculous.

Casino > Schindler’s list

There is an argument to be made that Spielberg destroyed cinema with the invention of the blockbuster. No Spielberg then no endless Marvel sequels dominating cinemas.

Brian?

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Casino > Schindler’s list

There is an argument to be made that Spielberg destroyed cinema with the invention of the blockbuster. No Spielberg then no endless Marvel sequels dominating cinemas.

That's a hot take right there. I don't disagree.

Spielberg essentially invented the summer blockbuster. Which slowly strangled all the originality out of made marketed cinema. You can have now have a Comic book adaptation or a sequel for your viewing pleasure. 9 fast and furious films. Case closed. Damn you Steven, damn you straight to hell!!!!

dvdman1

Stanley Kubrick is way ahead of Scorsese

To be fair, if I wanted a movie about a bunch of Italian lads mumbling at each other in their wife beaters, before clipping one of themselves, Scorcese would be the go-to guy.

Did you smash it

Kubricks style was cold. That’s not for everyone.

Did Kubrick direct a scene as hot, real and intense as this....even in the shining?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p4vuCfuFjDI

RulesOfNature

Surreptitious wrote: »

What about Christopher Nolan? I love his films.

Christopher Nolan is a hack. I've been saying this for years. He is simply overrated.

TENET finally broke the camel's back, but even way back with The Batman Movies, which were carried entirely by the actors, everything that Nolan had a direct hand in was a hot mess.

Just watch this choreography:





Nolan insists on directing action scenes in his movies, but they always fail.

Nolan also does his own scripts most of the time - which is why they're awful most of the time too. Interstellar at the end: Love is the answer to everything. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

Not to mention all the glaring plotholes in the Batman movies, getting worse towards the end (The Dark Knight Rises) when Batman literally teleports 500 meters above the ocean and outruns a nuke. What the actual f*ck?

And do not get me started on TENET. It is awfully written.

On the other hand, one thing he is excellent at is being a Middle Manager. He consistently makes profitable movies, which makes studios receptive to his ideas (like Hitchcock). He is adept at hiring and delegating top-tier staff and actors. Like this guy with the funny name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Pfister

And of course Hans Zimmer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Zimmer

How could he have known Heath Ledger was going to be the greatest Joker ever on film? Nobody knows. Heath Ledger was a rom com drama actor. But Nolan managed to see past that through unknown methods and picked him out of a dozen other more obvious actors.

Arghus

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Casino > Schindler’s list

There is an argument to be made that Spielberg destroyed cinema with the invention of the blockbuster. No Spielberg then no endless Marvel sequels dominating cinemas.

It's an argument, but it's a bit of a silly one.

Jaws may have been a blockbuster, but it's got very little in common with what fills up the screens these days: it's dialogue heavy, adult, thoughtful, great acting, thematically deep etc, etc. It's exciting, but it's not empty and dumb. If anything its legions of lesser imitators just shows the genius of Spielberg.

There's also an argument that it isn't even the first blockbuster, arguably The Godfather that came out a few years previously could be viewed as such.

The argument of which of the two of them - Spielberg or Scorcese - superior is long running and essentially impossible to answer. Both are so distinct from each other and offer completely different things. It's so much an issue of personal taste.

Scorcese can do things that Spielberg can't do and Spielberg can do things that Scorcese can't do. Enjoy them both would be my verdict.

Greyfox

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Casino > Schindler’s list

There is an argument to be made that Spielberg destroyed cinema with the invention of the blockbuster. No Spielberg then no endless Marvel sequels dominating cinemas.

Nonsense. That argument is for clowns who dont understand the fact that films are suppossed to entertain its audience.

EltonJohn69

Arghus wrote: »

It's an argument, but it's a bit of a silly one.

Jaws may have been a blockbuster, but it's got very little in common with what fills up the screens these days: it's dialogue heavy, adult, thoughtful, great acting, thematically deep etc, etc. It's exciting, but it's not empty and dumb. If anything its legions of lesser imitators just shows the genius of Spielberg.

There's also an argument that it isn't even the first blockbuster, arguably The Godfather that came out a few years previously could be viewed as such.

The argument of which of the two of them - Spielberg or Scorcese - superior is long running and essentially impossible to answer. Both are so distinct from each other and offer completely different things. It's so much an issue of personal taste.

Scorcese can do things that Spielberg can't do and Spielberg can do things that Scorcese can't do. Enjoy them both would be my verdict.

Mmm…. If you claim the Godfather was the model for the blockbuster strategy then you might as well say it was Easy rider that started the blockbuster.

My main issue with Spielberg is the over sentimentality and functionality of his work. Even with something as horrible as Holocaust he turns it into a story with a happy ending.

HillCloudHop

Jurassic Park is my favourite childhood film.

Yurt2

Nolan did about as good a job as is possible with the Batman franchise, all visually brilliant, superbly paced and plotted, and a real depth lent to the source material.

The rest of his work leaves me rather cold (The Prestige was pretty good though), TENET was trying to be too clever by half.

Mad_maxx

I actually quite liked Tenet , I needed to watch it three times to spot all of the tricks and plot devices

RulesOfNature

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I actually quite liked Tenet , I needed to watch it three times to spot all of the tricks and plot devices

You mean plotholes?

RulesOfNature

Yurt! wrote: »

Nolan did about as good a job as is possible with the Batman franchise, all visually brilliant, superbly paced and plotted, and a real depth lent to the source material.

The rest of his work leaves me rather cold (The Prestige was pretty good though), TENET was trying to be too clever by half.

The short batman scenes in batman v superman was better than the entirety of nolans trilogy

Arghus

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Mmm…. If you claim the Godfather was the model for the blockbuster strategy then you might as well say it was Easy rider that started the blockbuster.

My main issue with Spielberg is the over sentimentality and functionality of his work. Even with something as horrible as Holocaust he turns it into a story with a happy ending.

My point is that The Godfather marked a shift in how the business operated - big pre release publicity, opening widely instead of in drips and drabs. There are embryonic aspects of the blockbuster release and marketing formula there.

I'm not denigrating any of these films btw - blockbuster or not they're brilliant films.

It's true to say that sentimentality is a key aspect of Spielberg. He is a sentimentalist. And a showman. Some people can't get beyond that and I do understand that.

But there's more to him than that too in my view.

Schindler's List is a good example. Okay, the film ends ultimately in an uplifting message - well, maybe not quite uplifting, but not on a downer certainly - and it has been criticised for exactly that. But I think to write it off as a whole on account of that is reductive in the extreme. Some of the most vivid and scarily matter of fact depictions you'll see of inhumanity and the expendability of human life that you'll see anywhere are in that movie.

Schindler's List is a harsh, harsh, film. Some of the casual barbarism depicted is so matter of fact and chilling that at its most brutal it cuts deeper than even anything Scorcese has put up on screen.

Okay, slightly optimistic ending, but let's not forget that film is a brutal and gruelling watch, which pulls no punches about the horror.

Pherekydes

RulesOfNature wrote: »

Why Kubrick above Hitchcock?

I think the joke here is everyone ahead of Bay, even John Woo.

EltonJohn69

Arghus wrote: »

My point is that The Godfather marked a shift in how the business operated - big pre release publicity, opening widely instead of in drips and drabs. There are embryonic aspects of the blockbuster release and marketing formula there.

I'm not denigrating any of these films btw - blockbuster or not they're brilliant films.

It's true to say that sentimentality is a key aspect of Spielberg. He is a sentimentalist. And a showman. Some people can't get beyond that and I do understand that.

But there's more to him than that too in my view.

Schindler's List is a good example. Okay, the film ends ultimately in an uplifting message - well, maybe not quite uplifting, but not on a downer certainly - and it has been criticised for exactly that. But I think to write it off as a whole on account of that is reductive in the extreme. Some of the most vivid and scarily matter of fact depictions you'll see of inhumanity and the expendability of human life that you'll see anywhere are in that movie.

Schindler's List is a harsh, harsh, film. Some of the casual barbarism depicted is so matter of fact and chilling that at its most brutal it cuts deeper than even anything Scorcese has put up on screen.

Okay, slightly optimistic ending, but let's not forget that film is a brutal and gruelling watch, which pulls no punches about the horror.

Fair point. I actually think Munich was a darker film then Schindler’s list , I have to give Spielberg credit for being harsh on Israel.

Yeah I guess there is seeds of the blockbuster in the godfather though it was a massively successful book so that played its part in big budget and wide release because there was so much demand to see it.

Arghus

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Fair point. I actually think Munich was a darker film then Schindler’s list , I have to give Spielberg credit for being harsh on Israel.

Yeah I guess there is seeds of the blockbuster in the godfather though it was a massively successful book so that played its part in big budget and wide release because there was so much demand to see it.

Another thing I would add to defend Spielberg is that his technique and ability to tell a story visually is fcking incredible.

A couple of years back Steven Soderbergh put up a rip of Raiders on his site, but reformatted as black and white and as a silent movie. The purpose was to show the importance of staging and visual storytelling and also to show Raiders is as good as it gets in these regards. Unfortunately the video is no longer available, well, it's out there somewhere I'm sure.

Basically: the film still fcking kills because the directorial mind behind it all had it going on to a ludicrous genius level, so when you boil the film down to its fundamentals, that essence is still pure filmmaking craft and art.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/sep/24/steven-soderbergh-recuts-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-silent-movie-steven-spielberg