• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What Is Spielberg's Place Among Directors?

wandering

Banned
I respect him for his body of work, but I know that there is a sentiment among some in the film studies crowd that his work can be shallow, melodramatic, or emotionally manipulative.

I certainly think he's a landmark director in the history of film, but I personally wouldn't call him the best. A lot of his work feels very safe, for a lack of a better word.

Spielberg is absolutely a legendary director and deserves the hype and acclaim that he's gotten over the years. He's arguably the American Akira Kurosawa.

Personally I lean more towards directors like Kurosawa himself, Kubrick, Bergman, Lynch, Hitchcock, Murnau and Tarkovsky. But Spielberg is definitely a Top 10 or 20 Director in my book.

The American Kurosawa is John Ford.
 

Zach

Member
Funny enough, most people using the term "pretentious" don't really know what the fuck that word means, either.

Often the people using it are actually being it, because they're using a word they don't really understand in the hopes it'll make their basic-ass criticisms sound a little more important than they actually are.
lucille-portable.gif
 
Good eye, absolutely terrible, lowest common denominator instincts when it comes to choosing scripts, directing and framing actors, and just about everything that has to do with the deeper strata of art. Perfectly fine for popcorn blockbusters, though, since his knack for the visual doesn't necessarily require anything more in such fare.
 

btrboyev

Member
Good eye, absolutely terrible, lowest common denominator instincts when it comes to choosing scripts, directing and framing actors, and just about everything that has to do with the deeper strata of art. Perfectly fine for popcorn blockbusters, though, since his knack for the visual doesn't necessarily require anything more in such fare.

You fucking kidding me?
 
90s Spielberg is inspiring as hell. He's neither some blockbuster director, nor a historical drama director. Rather someone who is talented enough to make films about things that passionate him no matter in which end of the spectrum it ended, and excelled at both.
 
In all honesty, he's had many missteps along the way but he is undeniably the best in my opinion.

Agreed, but there's also something admirable about the rate in which he's churned out films. He's not precious about his work. He hits that budget and delivers the film on time, 1941 notwithstanding.
 

kmfdmpig

Member
He's obviously one of the best English language directors of all time, but personally I'd put Wilder, Kubrick, Hitchcock and Scorsese above him.
 
I respect him for his body of work, but I know that there is a sentiment among some in the film studies crowd that his work can be shallow, melodramatic, or emotionally manipulative.

I certainly think he's a landmark director in the history of film, but I personally wouldn't call him the best. A lot of his work feels very safe, for a lack of a better word.

The man who gave us Hook, Tintin and Crystal Skull can lay no claim to being "the best"


The American Kurosawa is John Ford.

But is the Japanese 'John Ford' Kurosawa?
 

Shaanyboi

Banned
I mean you're not going to get me excited by saying "THE NEW SPIELBERG MOVIE," but hey, Jurassic Park still pretty fucking good. So is Jaws, and a number of his other older films. The dude was influential, ambitious, and imaginative as hell in his prime.
 
His legacy and influence speaks for itself. Arguably the most versatile director we've had.
That, and he is a master at set pieces and building suspense. The T Rex attack in JP, the best parts of Jaws, Munich, Raiders' truck chase, the initial attack, ferry, and basement scenes in War of the Worlds, etc
 

WillyFive

Member
Probably the best by any measure, historically.

He changed popular filmmaking and a lot of his movies are still very, very good; and has found reverence and popularity among both critics and general audiences. Not to mention he prints money. There will probably not be a director his equal in the business for centuries.
 

Zach

Member
Like my man Snowman Prophet of Doom, I find Steven Spielberg bland and much prefer Señor Spielbergo.
 

AlexMogil

Member
He directed Close Encounters. The final act is one of the most wonderful adventures to be put on the screen. He didn't let us see too much of what Roy saw and left us satisfied yet wanting more. He let us know that we weren't supposed to see everything, that this was Roy's adventure now. Such a wondrous movie in a year that already had Star Wars.

He's great.
 

TheXbox

Member
One of the greats, although his recent output hasn't impressed me. He needs to quit wasting his time with junk like RP1 and BFG. Just keep doing your old-man movies, Steven.

Note: I'm giving Indy 5 a tentative pass until I see it. For old time's sake.
 
Schindler's List alone will ensure he is remembered as one of the greats but he's notable for being one of the most versatile directors of all time and has directed great films in many completely different genres.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park was utter trash though.
 
Schindler's List alone will ensure he is remembered as one of the greats but he's notable for being one of the most versatile directors of all time and has directed great films in many completely different genres.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park was utter trash though.
It gave us the cliffside trailer and tall grass scenes

It did also give us the Rex in the city scene though
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Spielberg created the blockbuster and has directed some damn fine pictures. Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan are very important movies. He's also made a lot of stinkers, and even his good movies rarely have much emotional depth.

He's as important to the history of cinema as the Beatles are to the history of music.
 
Good eye, absolutely terrible, lowest common denominator instincts when it comes to choosing scripts, directing and framing actors, and just about everything that has to do with the deeper strata of art. Perfectly fine for popcorn blockbusters, though, since his knack for the visual doesn't necessarily require anything more in such fare.

You either mean blocking actors or you are contradicting yourself.
 

Apt101

Member
Who in the world could look at his list of films and ever, even for a second, think "hack"? Baffling.

Anyway, it's art so who's to say where he "ranks", but he's obviously one of the greatest who ever lived.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
I'm not a fan of most of his movies, but he's not a writer so that's irrelevant, he's certainly one of the top directors. Jaws would have been a crappy direct to video B movie or a comedy in anyone else's hands. He really knows how to make the characters come to life and elevate the movie. He pretty much created the "we're all talking at the same time and ever more loudly until we snap and suddenly go quiet!" scenes, or so my brain thinks so.
 
Probably the best by any measure, historically.

He changed popular filmmaking and a lot of his movies are still very, very good; and has found reverence and popularity among both critics and general audiences. Not to mention he prints money. There will probably not be a director his equal in the business for centuries.

Any measure? I mean I enjoy a lot of his movies and I'm no film geek but I don't find a lot of his films visually interesting. I like the stylistic choices - and ultimately the films- of other directors a lot more (Kubrick, PT Anderson, Villenueve to name a couple).
 

Geist-

Member
He's incredibly good at getting the best performances out of his actors, which is why I consider him one of the great directors of movie history.

Although I don't think he's made anything interesting(to me) in a long time.
 

WillyFive

Member
Any measure? I mean I enjoy a lot of his movies and I'm no film geek but I don't find a lot of his films visually interesting. I like the stylistic choices - and ultimately the films- of other directors a lot more (Kubrick, PT Anderson, Villenueve to name a couple).

Visually interesting is not a measure. That's instead more subjective.

However, the propagation of that visual language can be measured and analyzed, as well as box office impact and volume of positive critic responses.
 
I think he's in a similar niche as Chris Nolan, where they both have a good balance of the auteur's touch and mainstream appeal. Would easily be a top 15 or so for me.
 
He is hugely influential, is one of the few directors that has a mastery of staging a thrilling and coherent action sequence, and one of the first to expertly blend in special effects work without it being jarring.

While his work of the last 10 years has not been as great as his work in the late 70s-90s, he is still beyond most out there on a technical level. And the sheer strength of his 70s-90s work easily places him near the top of the all time greats.

And for those thinking he is a hack or overrated, I am curious as to specifics that make you feel that way.

I think he's in a similar niche as Chris Nolan, where they both have a good balance of the auteur's touch and mainstream appeal.

Nolan is good, but he still hasn't come close to brushing the underside of Spielberg's best work.
 
He’s one of the best. I think that -and I admittedly fall into this group- because he’s had such a long career and varied career, and because he’s very much a classical filmmaker in style, we sometimes forget and brush him off. And yeah he’s definitely had some mediocre or rather forgettable films, but I do think that 20,30 years from now people will look at Lincoln and study it. He’s at the top of this form. The first 5 minutes or so of Bridge of Spies is incredible stuff.
 
Top Bottom