Steven Spielberg has had an amazing career as a director; he has made a string of hit movies and has unquestionably changed filmmaking (for better or for worse, I won’t argue which). But do you realize his last truly great movie was released over thirteen years ago?
I kid you not, for the last thirteen years while he has made good movies and many movies that will go down as being “classics”, his last truly great movie, Jurassic Park, came out thirteen years ago. From that time to now, Spielberg has directed ten movies, most are very good and some are just fine, but not one of them is truly great. They are, in chronological order: Schindler’s List, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, Artificial Intelligence: A.I., Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can, The Terminal, War of the Worlds, and Munich.
Okay, so what makes a movie great? After viewing it you need to ask yourself a series of questions. Did it take you somewhere you hadn’t been before, show you something you hadn’t seen? Did it leave you with a sense of wonder and awe? Did it make you think? Was it good, was it fun, did it show you the world in a whole new light? What about the characters, plot, and storytelling? Were you intrigued and enthralled, engrossed and enraptured?
A group of Spielberg’s films from Jurassic Park to now are what I will refer to as the historical epics (Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, and Munich, and to a lesser extent but it still fits the category, Amistad) are all good movies, but none actually approaches greatness. Every time Spielberg makes one of these epics there is a certain tangible feel to them, they all feel a little desperate. Spielberg may be the greatest popcorn filmmaker ever, but his attempts at more serious, dramatic fare are lacking. Each time he goes and makes one of these historical epics one cannot help but watch and feel as though Spielberg is desperately trying to earn a place as a serious filmmaker, a filmmaker that has changed not just the way movies are made but the way people see the world.
Schindler’s List is certainly the strongest of these historical epics, the one with the most gravitas, and yet even Schindler’s List is discussed in critical circles more for its representation of the Holocaust and whether or not the depiction is well constructed. One of the arguments against this film is that to tell the story of what happened to six million Jewish people, Spielberg chose to deify a Nazi; it is less the story of what happened to the Jewish people and what they did to save themselves and each other than it is about how a Nazi came to their aid. Granted, Spielberg depicted atrocities with a brutal honesty and unflinching eye, but these horrifying depictions do not make for a great movie.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Lisa McKay
This was an interesting look at Spielberg's work, TVFG, although I have to disagree with your assessment of Jurassic Park. While I have to say that the special effects were stellar, the 'man shall not play God' theme wasn't exactly new, and the characters were stereotypes. Nothing here to write home about except those dinosaurs.
2 - chancelucky
I think I simply disagree. Later Spielberg is simply different from the younger more effects oriented Spielberg. I think he's simply more interested in telling a story rather than looking on movies as a kind of roller coaster in a darkened room.
I do agree that he might have been bettter at the latter, but I like his later movies and actually find them a lot more memorable.
3 - TV & FG
It may be that he's decided that story is more important, but if that's the case, he's utterly failed. However the lack of logic that accompanies Minority Report & War of the Worlds and the overall lack of story involved in The Terminal speaks mean that if this is the case he seems to have failed. He also hasn't really shied away from the roller-coaster technological filmmaking idea (again look at a Minority report or War of the Worlds).
4 - brad schader
Spielberg's gift was always his characters more than his stories. The "classics" you spoke of were made as much by the amazing charcters as the great stories. "Brodie" and "Quint" are classics beyond classic. As are Indiana Jones, everyone in Jurassic Park and others. He began to focus on story and effects over character and that is where he failed.
"Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler’s List" were too packed with cliche's and not characters. He needs to return to telling us stories of people and not just what happens when.
5 - brad schader
The Minority Report and War of the Worlds problem can be summed up in one word: Cruise. He lacks the talent to play a character with the depth that a Spielberg requires. He is a charcter actor and all you get with him in a movie is the same character you have seen a hundred times before.
6 - duane
Let's don't forget that Brodie and Quint, as well as the characters in Jurassic Park, were premade by authors for Spielberg's use.
I wouldn't blame Tom Cruise for Minority Report or War of the Worlds. But what do I know?
7 - brad schader
Duane,
But with Indiana Jones and E.T. and things like that he was able to have full characters as well. He is going for the thrill of effects over the thrill of story now. A story is not just what happens, but who it is happening to. H
8 - TV & FG
I think that Spielberg's genius is actually a combination of everything. He does huge effect/stunt driven movies, with great characters. And, actually I think this is something Tom Cruise excels at. I wouldn't put the blame on him at all. It may be that many of his characters are similar, but if you look at a Top Gun or Mission: Impossible or Cocktail, he does a really good job (in other films too, these are just ones I instantly think of). There are a combination of factors that turn War of the Worlds & Minority Report into letdowns.
9 - brad schader
I cannot comment on those two because I did not see those. I admit to hating Tom Cruise my entire life so I am clouded there, but I do think Spielberg has changed with Hollywood instead of doing what he knows how to do. His "historical pieces" have the same pretentiousness as an Oliver Stone historical film. This is how it happened so do not debate my film. THe problem is such attention to detail leaves out story.
"Jaws" was about a community's reaction to a shark attack more than it was about the shark. Today, Spielberg would make it about the shark.
10 - steve
spielberg has definitely lost his quality control. I enjoyed "catch me if you can;" although I would never consider purchasing the movie. He should have never joined forces with Tom Cruise. He is a talentless zealot. Saving Private Ryan was excellent. I considered it to be up to par with Jurassic Park.
11 - reggie von woic
MUNICH.
Spielberg's still got it.
12 - Victor Plenty
Ah, yet another critic who lazily fails to understand A.I.. The concluding sequence of that film is its heart. Everything else in it is bereft of meaningful context or purpose, without those final fifteen minutes.
And contrary to a misconception popular among critics, that ending was not added by Spielberg. It was integral to the storyline envisioned by Kubrick, throughout the film's entire development process.
If some of Spielberg's later films disappoint, perhaps it's because he's holding something back to avoid flying quite so far over the average critic's head as he did with A.I.
13 - TV & FG
Victor,
With all due respect (and honestly I don't know how much is due) I must disagree.
First off, I am anything but lazy. Outside of studying Spielberg in both academic and less formal settings, studying film in the same way, working in the field (to this day), I actually spend a great deal of time contemplating and writing these articles.
To your second paragraph, I can't seem to recall stating that Spielberg added this ending, merely that it didn't work, at least not in the way it was filmed. Just because he took the material from Stanley Kubrick does not automatically make it brillaint and great.
Additionally, when audiences across the country stand up because they think your film is over when it's not, there may actually be a problem with the way it's made.
I don't quite know how else to refute what you've written, because it seems that your argument is that I am lazy and misunderstood the ending without you're actually telling me what it means. How is the rest of the movie "bereft of meaningful context or purpose" without it? You seem to merely have stated that as a fact and not supported your argument.
14 - -E
I thought Jurassic Park was rather boring really, and hardly new. People hold Spielberg up to be some huge standard to which we should compare all filmmakers. He makes great entertaining movies, but I won't call him an artist. Many of his movies have certainly found a home in my DVD collection, but I don't think they will be the most moviing or original.
15 - TV & FG
I guess it's a question of when entertainment becomes something closer to art.
Personally, E.T. always brings tears to my eyes (one of the few films that does).
16 - nugget
brad: how could you have hated Tom Cruise after "A Few Good Men"???? I know it's uber cool and all to say "Tom Cruz sux dood", but he has had some fantastic moments, no matter how hysterical his style comes across.
17 - nugget
-E: what a stupid thing to say. I'm assuming you think wearing all black is original and artsy too?? Spielberg's household name shouldn't deter you from his very REAL artistry, but if you try pitting a crapfest sundance film festival honoree like Cache' or something against a masterpiece like Jaws or ET, then you'll probably fit right in with the faux arteests and delusional pedantic film school nerds.
18 - nugget
-E: So was "Mean Creek" a moving movie to you? or lemme guess, Requiem for a Dream? Pie? Brazil? A clockwork orange? miller's crossing?
19 - Brad Schader
I hated Tom Cruise from "All the Right Moves". He has had his moments. "A Few" being one of them. "Top Gun", "Days of Thunder", "The Firm" etc all are over hyped bad movies. He is a character actor.
20 - Baronius
I'm no fan of Spielberg, but from what I understand, his recent films have been much better. In the historical genre, Ryan and Schindler are considered classics. His only early work in that genre was The Color Purple, which is unremarkable. In the adventure genre, Jurassic Park's reputation is right up there with Indiana Jones.
Me, I couldn't stand Indiana Jones. I thought that Jaws was poor film-making. Close Encounters bored me. I just don't get Spielberg's appeal. (That's my problem. I'd probably enjoy Saving Private Ryan, but I've been burned before. I'm sure I'll watch it sooner or later.)
Early overwrought Spielberg movies starred Richard Dreyfuss. Later ones starred Tom Cruise. Dreyfuss can handle the super-serious, pretentious stuff better than Cruise. Tom Cruise has gone to the "so intense I might explode" well too many times. And it's even worse, now that everyone's pretty sure that he isn't acting.
21 - TV & FG
Ryan and Schindler are often considered classics. But I attribute that more to the fact that people see the subject material and the realism with which it is treated and confuse vaguely educational and completely worthwhile and conversation starting with being great or being a classic.
22 - Victor Plenty
Well, TV & FG, I never said you were lazy in general terms, only in this specific instance. I did not say "yet another lazy critic who failed to understand..." -- what I actually said was "yet another critic who lazily failed to understand A.I."
Your unwillingness to make any significant effort to engage the film also shows in your conversation with me, where you complain because I do not tell you what the ending means.
All of this serves to reinforce my long-standing impression that all the people who stood up before this film was over were simply not paying close attention. They were waiting to be spoon-fed a simplistic message.
If that's the way a person is experiencing the film, they might think it concluded with nothing more than a poorly executed example of the typical Spielbergian happy ending.
They might fail to recognize the final sequence shows the full emancipation of the story's true protagonists, and not merely the fate of one artificial child.
23 - El Bicho
Jurassic Park great? Are you kidding? It sounds like you are easily wowed by special effects. The story is horrible and there's barely any characterization. Where did you get the Masters from?
Schindler’s List: it is less the story of what happened to the Jewish people...
Well considering that's the subject matter of the book from which it is adapted, that's a ridiculous arguement. Maybe the fact that Schindler is in the title might have been a clue.
What's the lack of logic in Minority Report? I haven't seen it in a while.
"I admit to hating Tom Cruise my entire life"
What an utter waste of time. Cruise has performed well in many movies. "Born on the 4th", "Rain Man", "The Color of Money". Like many actors, he needs a strong director.
AI while it had its moments was an utter mess because of the parts Spielberg added. Fly overhead? More like he crashed and burned. While I give him points for stretching, the film looked too much like other films and he didn't fully explore themes the story began. The Robin Williams cameo alone almost ruined the film.
Spielberg is a talented craftsman not an artist. If you think the simplistic ET is better than Requiem for a Dream, Brazil, A clockwork orange, or miller's crossing, you really aren't in any position to call someone's comments stupid. Although now I know who is watching The King of Queens.
One point everyone seems to missed is that Spielberg is no longer working with taleneted screenwriters of the same caliber as before.
24 - Victor Plenty
Which parts of A.I. do you think Spielberg added, El Bicho?