Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay When looking at the evolution of filmmaking over the last fifty years, there are few (if any) directors whose filmography encapsulates the breadth of genres, styles, critical praise, and mainstream popularity that defines these past several decades. But if there is one that could accomplish such a feat, it is Steven Spielberg. First coming into the public consciousness with the 1975 thriller film Jaws, Spielberg has remained a titan of Hollywood and the film industry at large not only through his directing work but also producing such modern classics as Back to the Future and Men in Black. So, it is only fitting that I devote not one but TWO blogs to examining some of Spielberg’s best movies. For readers of prior blogs, you may know that I have written about a handful of Spielberg’s films before. So, in an effort to not overstuff these blogs I will provide links to my thoughts on some of his classics that I won’t be talking about today here:
But for now I want to share my admiration for Spielberg’s work over the course of his career because there’s a lot to like. Why? I guess you’ll have to keep reading to find out… 😉 The Sugarland Express (1974) While most people look to 1975’s Jaws being the start of Spielberg’s successful directorial career, he actually made another movie one year before that was both well received critically and financially successful at the box office. And that film is the crime drama The Sugarland Express. For those who haven’t seen the movie, it follows a husband and wife on the run from the law after taking a police officer hostage and trying to reunite with their child before he is taken into foster care. The film was made on location in Texas (including the city of Sugar Land, where the event that the story is based on partially took place). The parents are played by Goldie Hawn (Cactus Flower, Private Benjamin, Overboard) and William Atherton (Ghostbusters, Die Hard), and the captive Texas lawman is played by Ben Johnson (Rio Grande, Shane, The Last Picture Show). The Sugarland Express is arguably one of the progenitors of the “crime road trip” genre that was kickstarted by 1967’s Bonnie and Clyde and continued by films such as Thelma & Louise and Hell or High Water. By the same token, however, it is by no means as good as those aforementioned classics. Certainly, the protagonists of this film lack the charm and appeal of the eponymous leads of Bonnie and Clyde played by Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty, respectively. But part of what makes this film entertaining is that the parent criminals front and center here are not as likeable yet still engaging to watch. Much of that is due to the fact that Spielberg’s signature excessive sentimentality of his later projects is not quite as evident here. Sure, he wants us to sympathize with the plight of Hawn and Atherton’s characters, but not at the expense of enjoying watching the police chase them down for just under two hours. In fact, the characters are by no means the best part of this film. Rather, it is the early signs of Spielberg’s potential as a “blockbuster director” who can shoot and capture kinetic, compelling action without relying on anything except well-conceived cinematography and vehicle choreography. All in all, The Sugarland Express is by no means Spielberg’s best film. But it was fun for me to watch it to gain a baseline for just how much he has grown over the course of his career. Furthermore, it was making this film that added some credibility to Spielberg’s reputation in Hollywood to the point where it may have helped him secure to job to direct Jaws. So, we can give at least some of the credit for his filmography to this movie. 😊 Schindler’s List (1994) I knew during my first viewing of Schindler’s List that it was a great film but not one that I particularly enjoyed watching. In some ways, it reminded me of Todd Philips’s psychological thriller Joker or S. Craig Zahler’s prison thriller Brawl in Cell Block 99 in that the elements of filmmaking on display were exceptional but not enjoyable per se. To be clear, however, I think that that was the right direction for Spielberg to go with this epic historical drama given its horrific yet critically important subject matter. With a second viewing, I found Schindler’s List to be just as compelling yet all the more tragic. It is clear that Spielberg’s sensibilities for storytelling were needed to make a three-hour-plus movie about the Holocaust accessible without pulling any punches regarding the events being explored here. The way that Spielberg stages some of the more pivotal scenes is so charged with emotion that only the most cynical of people will come away without feeling utter despair for the people that suffered through genocide at the hands of the Nazis. As a movie, Schindler’s List does more than just make us sad. Rather, it makes us think about the extent to which the “bystander” can avoid the crutch of culpability by doing good things for selfish reasons. That moral quandary is the focal of the film’s protagonist, Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson), the German industrialist who initially hires Jewish prisoners and refugees to work in his factories in an effort to save money. However, as the war and Holocaust go on, he decides to spent most of his life’s fortune in saving as many lives from the Nazis as possible. An understandable criticism of centering the film’s perspective on a non-Jewish character who is also a member of the Nazi Party is that it offers little (if any) vicarious look at the experiences of the people who the Holocaust actually targeted. My response would be that there are plenty of other Holocaust stories out there that do just that very well (Life is Beautiful, The Pianist and Defiance are ones that I would recommend). Furthermore, I appreciate that Schindler’s List addresses the often-asked question: “What about the German people? Did they not know what was going on? Did they even care?” And it does so with a morally complex character in the form of Schindler and a (relatively) more straightforward incarnation of evil in the form of SS officer Amon Göth (Ralph Fiennes). Without question, it is Fiennes and Neeson’s performances that shine here. However, Spielberg offers up some very affecting scenes throughout that barely involve these characters or doesn’t involve them at all. The ones that hit me the most on this rewatch were the one-armed old Jewish man who is shot while Schindler’s accountant Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) and the others are shoveling snow and the Jewish children being driven away from the concentration camp on trucks waving to their parents who are frantically chasing after them. And of course, the iconic scene of the Kraków ghetto being liquidated always hits once the girl in the red coat (Oliwia Dabrowska) appears. Without a doubt, Schindler’s List is an essential film to watch despite its runtime, partially skewed perspective, and heavy subject matter. It is also one of Spielberg’s best works of his entire career. Amistad (1997) Arguably one of Spielberg’s lesser-known historical dramas, Amistad tells the story of the African prisoners aboard the Spanish ship “La Amistad” that revolted against their captors and were arrested for crimes of piracy and murder. They were tried in the United States where several claimants, including Queen Isabella of Spain (Anna Paquin), sued for property rights over the African captives. The prisoners’ legal defense was funded by Massachusetts abolitionist Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skarsgård) and led by Connecticut lawyer Roger Sherman Baldwin (Matthew McConaughey), who worked with a West African native and Royal Navy sailor James Covey (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to translate and appeal their case before the judge, jury, and the American public. Similar to many of the best historical fiction movies, Amistad shines a light on a little-known historical event that is crucial to understanding America’s history of slavery and the slave trade. While it is by no means a perfect film, its ability to peak viewers’ curiosity about this event and others like it justifies its existence alone. In my humble opinion, any piece of art (no matter how historically accurate) that makes people more interested in history deserves praise. Fortunately, there are some standout elements of Amistad that make it more than just an important creative examination of history. Much of the film’s greatness comes from the character of Cinqué, played by the incredibly talented Djimon Hounsou. Without question in my mind, Hounsou is the star of the film (no offense to Sir Anthony Hopkins, but Hounsou deserved the Oscar praise more than he did). By telling of the story of the transatlantic slave trade through Cinqué’s eyes, Spielberg (mostly) avoids the pitfall of the “white savior” trope during the film’s elongated two-and-a-half-hour runtime. This is due to the emotional core of Amistad comes from the flashback sequence in which Cinqué recounts his experience being captured to be sold as a slave. From being chained to his fellow prisoners and forcibly boarding a Portuguese slave ship to watching the breathtakingly horrible violence perpetrated against the African captives by the European slave traders, it is this sequence that stands out as one of the most genuinely authentic and heartbreaking portrayals of the plight of enslaved people ever captured on film. To be sure, there are other standout sequences yet they almost all involve Hounsou’s character developing a rapport with McConaughey’s young-and-hungry lawyer and Ejiofor’s noble interpreter or standing up in court to declare his desire for the judge to free him and the other captives. Simply put, Amistad is Hounsou’s movie and I think the weakest part of Spielberg’s narrative is when the story shifts away from him and instead becomes Hopkins’s stage. To be clear, Hopkins is an incredible actor so I have no desire to seem biased against him. That being said, Hopkins’s role as John Quincy Adams should have been contained to its minor supporting status in the first two acts. Furthermore, I think the film would have greatly benefitted from being contained to a two-hour runtime that would end with Baldwin’s initial victory in state court with an ending title card summarizing the outcome of the famous 1841 Supreme Court case that made the freedom of Cinqué and the other African prisoners official. However, Spielberg apparently felt the need to give Hopkins an “Oscar monologue” about the paradox of the ideals of the Founders and the institution of slavery existing in the same country. While this is a merited historiographical argument, it is simply unnecessary in a movie like this. Amistad could have been a great film about the enduring nature of the human spirit with an emotionally satisfying beginning, middle, and end. Instead, it is a good film with some great scenes and performances that drags on too long and keeps it from competing with some of Spielberg’s best films. However, I would still highly recommend it as the prescience of this particular historical episode and Hounsou’s performance alone make watching Amistad more than worth your time. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) Based on a 1969 short story by Brian Aldiss, A.I. tells the story of a childlike android named David (Haley Joel Osment) who is “adopted” by a couple whose son is terminally ill. As an android, David is programmed to feel love and adoration for his caregivers so as to emulate the feeling of being parents for his adopters Henry and Monica Swinton (Sam Robards, Frances O’Connor). However, David’s prerogative for his existence changes once the Swintons’ biological son Martin (Jake Thomas) recovers and returns home. Knowing that A.I. was originally going to be directed by Stanley Kubrick (Paths of Glory, Spartacus, 2001: A Space Odyssey) before handing the project to Spielberg in 1995 (and his subsequent death in 1999), I was worried that I would not enjoy the film as Kubrick can be hit-or-miss for me. However, it was clear from the get-go that what Spielberg excels at most—sympathetic characters and a sentimental atmosphere—was all over this film. Similar to seeing childhood through the eyes of an alien in E.T., he shows us humanity and the process of losing one’s innocence through the eyes of a robot who can emote and physically appear like a child but can never fully be one. And yet his headstrong desire to achieve some semblance of what it’s like to be a “real boy” and “normal” makes for an incredibly heartwarming character journey in a futuristic setting and sci-fi environment. Of course, none of this could have been pulled off without the absolutely impeccable performance by Osment in the lead role. Not only is it my personal favorite role of Osment’s career (yes, even more than The Sixth Sense), but it is arguably one of the best child performances of modern film history. Simply put, A.I. cannot do anything that it’s trying to do without Osment being sympathetic and emotionally distant—sometimes within the same scene—and yet he does it without breaking a sweat from the audience’s perspective. My other favorite performance of A.I. is Jude Law as the eccentric prostitute android “Gigolo Joe” who ends up being a mentor and protector for David. While I do think Law offers up some better performances during his career (Road to Perdition comes to mind), I really enjoy his wacky portrayal of this character as a counterbalance to the sweet, sensitive elements of David’s character. And while there were multiple moments that tugged at my heartstrings, nothing hit me in A.I. more than the last twenty-five or so minutes. Without too many spoilers, I did not at all see the time jump coming nor what it brought in terms of concluding David’s emotional journey as being about seeking out true familial love. While I enjoy many of Spielberg’s films, many of his climaxes and resolutions can be forthcoming if not outright predictable. Thus, it was very refreshing to have this movie end in such a way that threw me for such a loop. Ultimately, it was this ending that made me like the movie even more than I already did. Despite what you may have heard about A.I., it is absolutely worth watching for both its likeable characters and sentimental storytelling. It is easily one of Spielberg’s most underrated flicks, but it is also one of my favorites from his extensive filmmaking career. Catch Me If You Can (2002) Of all the Spielberg films that I never grew up watching, the biographical crime drama Catch Me If You Can impressed me the most (which will be reflected in my top-ten ranking in Part Two of this blog). Of course, this didn’t surprise me with the two lead actors being Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks who are arguably the best actors of their respective generations. Regarding the former, DiCaprio excels at injecting empathy into a young man with an incredibly savvy criminal mind. Much of this has to do with the excessive amounts of charm dripping from DiCaprio throughout the film, but his ability to make the audience not just tolerate or like—but respect—Frank Abagnale’s spree of elaborate cons makes for a thoroughly entertaining ride. Honestly, if the film was just about Abagnale’s criminal endeavors it would make for a more-than-serviceable drama. But then we have Tom Hanks bouncing off of DiCaprio as the FBI agent Carl Hanratty determined to track Abagnale down and expose his crimes. This brings an incredibly exciting and entertaining “cat and mouse” element to the film’s narrative that not only lives up to its title but allows Catch Me If You Can to fulfill the promise of being a modern classic. I don’t want to say much more about the film because I just want people to watch it. Simply put, Catch Me If You Can convinced me with only one viewing that it’s easily one of the best films of Spielberg’s career and one of the best movies of the 2000s. If that doesn’t convince you to watch it, then nothing else that I could say would convince you. Except…maybe… HANKS AND DICAPRIO!! 😊 TO BE CONTINUED…
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|