Steven Spielberg, hack? Right. :rolleyes:
From CalMeacham’s link:
(My emphasis.)
But I also must say that this “Ben There” fellow seems like a first rate cock.
Hal Hartley made a couple of brilliant early gems (Trust & Unbelievable Truth) and was a critical darling seen as the next John Hughes / Cameron Crowe. Most of the rest of his catalog is very lackluster, regressing into film-school vanity style projects.
That’s so blatantly not true that I’m not even sure if you’re serious or if this is a whoosh.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying it’s adequate until you provide some proof to the contrary. The director’s credit is not proof to the contrary, because it’s not contrary to the accepted version. A version that’s been accepted by people within the industry for decades is acceptable to me until something concrete comes along. And as far as “It’s the prevailing wisdom – what right have you to challenge it?”–nice words in my mouth, but that’s not at all what I said. You have every right to challenge it. But I don’t have to believe one lone, contrarian voice against established precedent based on zero evidence beyond, as far as I can see, little more than your good wishes for Nyby.
And duh, nice patronizing, but I know as much you do about the debative (new word!) value of prevailing wisdom. In the face of verifiable fact, it’s trumped. But everything is relative. Decades universally accepted as fact by people who work within the industry is not trumped by one lone contrarian with zero evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that the mere fact that it’s prevailing wisdom is enough to cast suspicion on it; you keep harping on that one fact as if it’s a point in the negative column. It’s not. It’s just of little value on the scale of types of evidence. But when it’s the ONLY evidence, it is what it is. It’s certainly well enough established that the burden is not on me to prove decades of accepted precedence in the face of your simple personal sympathy for the underdog. Fine, I get that you feel for Nyby, that you think he’s gotten a raw deal. That’s not evidence.
Of course you’ll take this as proof that you’re right, but you’re the ONLY person I’ve ever heard challenge the accepted “fact” that Hawks directed The Thing. And you are . . . ? I’ve never heard anyone professionally involved in film history, in classic films, in Hawks scholarship, in scifi scholarship, any of those related areas, EVER challenge this notion. So challenge it, fine, but why you accept me to swallow it based simply on your confidence in your own opinion, without any evidence to the contrary, I don’t understand.
If you DO manage to find some evidence that the decades of accepted belief are wrong, by the way, you should be telling more than just me. If you can overturn what’s considered an established fact in Hollywood history, that’s actual news. I wish you luck. But you know, of course, that no one would publish such a news item without more documentary evidence than I’m demanding, of course.
Almost all of Hartley’s movies are worth watching–almost. Overall he’s been pretty consistent; his style is pretty low key (some might describe it as lackluster), so I’m not sure he’d qualify; nothing he’s done really stands TOO much higher than the others.
Not a whoosh, I assure you.
Do I seriously think Spielberg’s the best director, evah? Of course not. That would be hyperbole. But then he’s clearly far and away from being the saccharine, overly sentimental hack that revisionist hipsters seem desperate to paint him as. The man is a proven talent, with a singular eye toward setting up some truly beautiful shots, and who has, time and again, coaxed compelling performances from a myriad of actors and actresses over the years. And in my book, that in no way equals hackery.
Of course, the tweed-jacket-with-elbow-patches-wearing, monocle-sporting lot’s mileage will surely vary.
See, when you once again dismiss an opinion you disagree with by character assassination of the people who disagree with you, you make it abundantly clear that you’re not at all interested in actually discussing opinions.
When you start from the position that Spielberg is objectively, provably great, and anyone who has a different opinion is dishonest and worthy of nothing but derision, it’s *yourself *you’re painting as not worth engaging, not the people you disagree with.
It is, in fact, a perfectly honestly held opinion that he is a saccharine, overly sentimental hack–among other, greater faults–despite your objectively inarguable “clearly.” And the man has a proven talent for manipulating an audience with dishonest emotion, and a proven talent for putting butts in theater seats. Commerce being separate from art, there is room for varying levels of appreciation for his varying levels of talent. Clearly.
I’m going to get flamed like crazy for this, but I nominate Stanley Kubrick.
The Shining is a good movie.
Not as a director, but Ron Howard must get props for his part in Arrested Development.
I may be out of the mainstream, but I don’t think Guy Ritchie has done anything close to the awesomeness of Lock Stock or Snatch.
You too, huh? Yep; that line gets me every time.
I’ll even forgive you for misquoting it. 
Well, I’m not a revisionist hipster (or a hipster of any sort). And I also don’t wear tweed-jacket-with-elbow-patches (I’m assuming you’re referring to academics here and not hipsters?), but I wouldn’t even put him on a list of top 10 directors. Martin Scorsese and Billy Wilder on the worst days of their entire careers, are still a thousand times better than Spielberg on his best day. Now, I know that not everybody can be Scorsese and Wilder, and it’s not fair to try to compare anybody to them. But I firmly believe that if you want to talk about somebody as being “the best” they should hold up to the true cinematic visionaries, and Spielberg just can’t even touch them.
I can think of many directors who compose more beautiful shots than Spielberg. I know directors who can get better performances (Spielberg especially suffers in comparison to Tarentino in that regard). In my personal experience, Spielberg seemed like a competent and even good director until I actually started paying more attention to movies and learning about it as an art form. And then all of his flaws became too obvious for me to ignore. Now when I watch his movies that I previously enjoyed, I just see his big, greasy fingerprints all over them, obscuring any real emotional possibilities with trite and overly sentimental nonsense.
It’s just as useless to equate popularity with greatness as to insist they’re incompatible.
Well said, pepperlandgirl. Well said.
+1
The last honest movie he made was Jaws, which I still enjoy. Since then, the theme of all of his movies can be stated thus: “I’m Steven Spielberg[sup]®[/sup], and every image and pulse of musical glurge and contrived Emotion[sup]®[/sup]-Brand Seat Filler[sup]®[/sup] I forcefeed you are in service to that immensely satisfying fact. This product has been approved by Steven Spielberg[sup]®[/sup].”
IMO, The Rocketeer is the best “comic book movie” to date.
.
Amen. IMO, Producers good but not great; Saddles great; Frankenstein mega-great, MB’s masterpiece; everything since then- bleh.
.
Wachowski brothers.
^^
You and I would get along very well IRL, I’m sure. 