Oscar Schindler, as shown in the movie, is a man who finds himself realizing so suddenly and so violently that his entire world view needs to change that however fast he works, he cannot shift his perspective fast enough. Weeding through his entire life, realizing that everything he took for granted is worthless. And in the end he hasn't finished; he hasn't stripped himself clean enough of his past life and possessions; some still remain.
Terry Gilliam is wrong, Saving Private Ryan is a great example of Speilberg asking questions on the value of human life. how many lives are you willing to risk to bring just one home? the film presents the question but doesn't answer it. it lets the audience decide and discuss the answer of the question. 2001 raises questions on a different level as to what the meaning of the images on the screen mean, they will forever be discussed because u never find out the answer no matter what you think
Why does he talk about Holocaust and "Schindlers List" at the same time? Schindlers List was about Oskar Schindler, not a movie about Holocaust. Why can't people understand that Speilberg did not make a movie about Holocuast it self, but about a man who risked everything, to save a few(1000 people). Oskar had a factory, and he was succefull, he did not have to help the jews, BUT HE DID and that's what Stephen Spielberg's movie is about, Not Holocaust.
I enjoy Gilliam and Spielberg. I have a problem with Gilliam's support for Polanski. You can 'criticize' a movie for having an easy answer... but when a tangible crime hits someone over the head; you think its 'good' to just move on? You shrug the 'conventional', but 'compartmentalization' is as 'mediocre' as being 'banal' in art. I'm sure 'Terry' wouldn't have given 'Mel' a pass on 'antisemitism'?
I really love and respect Gilliam and his films, but I don't agree with him here. While Shindler's List may not be the most morally complex film, I do think that often Spielberg recognises his own limitations. He was never going to be able to make a film that truly and satisfactorily dealt with the Holocaust. (to be honest I doubt even Kubrick could have). Instead he focused on a singular story, in much the same way that Polanski did with The Pianist (although Polanski's is the superior film)
@MrKeepitunderyourhat I still consider Schindler's List escapist entertainment, but I like your comment. Except for one thing: Polanski didn't just make the superior film, he's a far superior filmmaker to Spielberg.
@MeatTycoon Yes, I do think Polanski is a much better director, but I also think that peope see it as somehow cool to hate Spielberg. He's made some dross in his time, but when he's on form he can be a brilliant filmmaker.
@MrKeepitunderyourhat Not the most morally complex film?? Every German was portrayed as evil or drunk or crude or somehow bad. The film was full of cartoon characters yet the movie and its director are glorified.
@FantasticBob7000 So Schindler wasn't German, was he? In fact, Schindler was a far less morally upright character than the film portrayed him. It's not a perfect film, but it's a well intentioned one.
@MrKeepitunderyourhat LOL "not a perfect film" & "well intentioned." It's a cheap propaganda film, obviously biased considering the director's background. You can worship him I guess but I have no idea why some people choose to do that.
@FantasticBob7000 As opposed to Polanski, who is clearly totally unbiased... I never said that I worship Spielberg, but if it makes you think that you're winning the argument then you can continue to convince yourself that I did. I said that he was, and perhaps still can be, a very fine film maker. I have no doubts that Kubrick would have also been unable to make a totally objective Holocaust film.
@MrKeepitunderyourhat Polansky's as biased as Spielberg, these movies are a dime a dozen. Spielberg is a skilled film maker but horribly biased wrt the "holocaust." Riefenstahl was far more skilled yet she was blacklisted for politics.
The problem is you consider these movies to be impressive though slightly flawed, rather than the blatant cheap propaganda that they are.
@FantasticBob7000 Triumph of the Will is a superbly crafted film, but it's politics are reprehensible. Considering the worldwide condemnation of the Holocaust, it should hardly come as a surprise that these film makers have made films with an anti-Holocaust slant, I'd be worried if they hadn't. Making a movie entirely and positively from the other perspective would just be insensitive and frankly disturbing. Just look at the misguided fuss over Downfall (another very fine film)
@MrKeepitunderyourhat Having seen Triumph of the Will I don't know what reprehensible politics you are referring to. What I suggest you consider is that your views you express are completely in line with mainstream dogma. If you're interested in independent thought expect to deviate from the norm once in a while, especially wrt WWII. We're still flooded with post-war propaganda after close to 70 years & you're reciting your lines as if on cue.
@FantasticBob7000 If you want to have a conversation about the societal nature of ethics and morality then that's fine, but I feel we've gone slightly off the original topic. Everyone's thoughts and beliefs are shaped by their external life, even yours, no matter how much you like to think you're a totally objective prophet. If you look at films or any form of art in this way then everything can be discounted: there is no objectivity in art.
@MrKeepitunderyourhat The original topic is you watch anti-German propaganda movies directed/produced/distributed by jews and refer to it as great art. I've never understood this kind of gullible stupidity although it makes more sense if you take conformism and self-righteousness into account.
@MrKeepitunderyourhat The original topic is you watch anti-German propaganda movies directed/produced/distributed by jews and refer to it as great art. I've never understood this kind of gullible stupidity although it makes more sense if you take conformism and self-righteousness into account.
@meNtor890 That seems a very bizarre thing to pick me up on, given that it was an aside that wasn't related to the overall point. I don't quite get your point?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gilliam's a pompous ass and, I suspect, a jealous one at that. It's hugely insulting to suggest people who watch Schindler's List are only willing to engage with the material because it's a "commercial" film. What film, given the expenditure involved in even the lowest level production, isn't "commercial"? And to the dickhead who smugly used the hugely offensive term "noob-raping" - you're not edgy or straight-talking with your passive-aggressive banter, just morally vacant.
@RossandGP There's no need to be edgy when you're stating the obvious, just as I'm doing now. In particular, I'm stating the fact that you're an idiot, that you can't read, and that you have serious impairments when it comes to processing information. It's not good or bad, it's just the facts, and you're gonna have to learn to live with them, you stupid little fuck.
@MeatTycoon You're not on here to debate with anyone over the clip you posted (posted, I hasten to add, not 'created'), you just want to vent spleen. Some people are commenting on Gilliam's remarks in the clip, not the posts made by you or your slobbering acolytes. Your misanthropy must stem from some deep-rooted dissatisfaction with your life and your angry teenager-style replies are disturbing. I reiterate re: your needless use of sexually aggressive language - you're 26, not 14.
@RossandGP dont think u can pass judgement on the morally vacant given the fact yor opinion is purely based on insulting Gilliam + trying to take the higher ground on morality over some1 else. Until u make a film like the Fisher King that does wat he just spoke about (Gilliam is still in Awe of Kubrick who was more sucessful) regarding films that evoke ideas, then maybe you should be open to or at least consider his criticism of Speilbergs work as you've offered nothing new.you little noob-raper
@RossandGP are you saying hes a pompous ass based on this one video or are ther others were his persinality comes off as pompous ? i like gillam but he does seem kind of full of him self at times
@dornravlin It's just a personal feeling... There's an air of smugness about him that seems to suggest (he feels) his work is on a higher plain to Spielberg's. I love a lot of Terry Gilliam's films - Jabberwocky, Brazil, Twelve Monkeys - but I think he's off-target here. Similarly, there's a clip of Tarantino where he starts (needlessly) picking apart Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood. I get the impression, like Gilliam, that he thinks he's attained some kind of sagelike status.
@RossandGP You clearly totally misinterpreted the idea of that video. Tarantino's friends with Paul Thomas Anderson. He picks it apart, complimenting it as a work of art--not criticizing it. Terry Gilliam here may sound arrogant, but sometimes it's hard for those of us who actually think for ourselves to get a point across without sounding snobby when the people listening haven't heard anything like it before and are too generically-minded to understand it.
@Transformers2themax I "clearly totally" (sic) didn't misinterpret anything re: the Tarantino / Anderson piece. How arrogant are you, sir? "...when the people listening haven't heard anything like it before"... Sinisterly deluded.
@RossandGP So do you think it's wrong to analyze someone's film? That'd be fairly odd, most of the films that are commonly analyzed being made for that purpose. Tarantino was complimenting There Will Be Blood--Gilliam is attacking Spielberg. Completely different arguments. I agree, Gilliam sounds a little arrogant here, but not once does he mention any of his films--he brings up Kubrick, who is perfect for comparing to Steven Spielberg. Even Tarantino's can be compared.
@RossandGP I say "...when the people listening haven't heard anything like it before" because that's the truth with most of the American people, those of the general public to be exact. If a magazine call Spielberg an "artist" and the "Greatest Filmmaker of All Time", they'll believe it--and they'll have a mental breakdown when they hear someone like Gilliam speak the truth. It's the same thing regarding The Beatles in the music industry.
@RossandGP See, I wasn't referring to you when I said "...when the people listening haven't heard anything like it before"--I was speaking in regards to those on here having seizures because Terry Gilliam criticized Spielberg and it made sense. You have every right to question Gilliam's attitude and the way in which he speaks, but he's being anything but egotistical. He is partially wrong with the purpose of Schindler's List, but he's completely right about Spielberg.
Whilst he does provide a good point, and Terry has made some rather good films, having an "open ending" does not always work. Blade Runner is a good example as you were left thinking "is he or isn't he a replicant?" or "what does the Unicorn mean?", but Brazil handed it on a plate to the audience that he was in a dream world whilst in reality he's still in the correction facility. Blade Runner has more than one question, whilst Brazil has only a single answer.
True, but the way "Brazil" ends is not what Terry initially wanted. He wanted those dream like moments to be the ending, but the studios didn't like it and made him come up with an explanation for them.
I thought something wasn't quite right about Brazil. It seemed like the first half of the film was nothing short of brilliance, but the second half seemed to just ditch the heroic dream aspect altogether, as if Terry had said "I honestly don't know where I was going with that idea - just ditch it."
But studios sadly do have a track record for screwing up productions... o_O
@Mycatjewel Gilliam wanted the audience to know he was dreaming and that he was really in the torture chamber. The studios wanted the happily-ever-after dream-escape ending. This was a popular Hollywood battle in the early 80s. Gilliam won over the critics with an unauthorized viewing of his cut, and this is what helped Gilliam win and get his sad (but better) ending.
I never once viewed this film as some sort of "victory" in regards to the holocaust. I view it simply as it is: amongst one of the most unforgivable acts in human history, there was someone (SOMEONE) who risked everything to try and save even one person. That fragile but ever important piece of hope that does (and can) triumph over something so dark and powerful. What is so wrong about that, even considering how this is based on something true?
Look I'm sure Gilliam has the utmost respect for Spielberg. Analyzing someone's work at a technical level does not equate to a personal attack. Everybody calm down. In the end, it's just one craftsman expressing his opinions on the work of another.
This guy is an idiot. If you have ever seen Schindler's List, you will know that it is about anything but success. In the end of the movie, you see that even though Schindler was able to save so many people, in his mind, it was not a success because he thought that he could do more. This guy makes it seem like it was just one big decision that ended in success in the end. But, in fact, in Schindler's mind, was a failure and it took time for him realize what he wanted.
@bignosetrout The real idiot here is you. And the fact that you failed to read any of the previous comments only adds to your cosmic stupidity, you nut.
@bignosetrout your calling the man who made Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Life of Brian, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (to name a few) an idiot? He is making a criticism that has some merit, Schindlers List was a great film, but it did glorify the main character in light of a horrific event. Even the scene you speak of makes the character seem greater, that is what he is talking about, you on the other hand have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes, that's right if there's one thing I remember about Schindler's List it was the big happy ending, what IS he talking about ?..Spielbergs later movies are a bit predictable though..Full Metal Jacket was a great movie but it left me thinking alright, "Where's the rest of the film ?".. I walked out of Eyes Wide Shut, thought "mmm bit weird" then went for a burger, it's a movie, don't get carried with your own importance.
This is unfair really. Citizen Kane is considered one of the best films of all time and it gives nearly every answer besides character motives. Spielberg employs very similar techniques to his movies. Spielberg allows us to analyze characters by giving us the facts. Kubrick gives us very few facts so that we can analyze the thematic qualities of his films. I love both directors because they explore these different paths. There are various ways to tell a story and both can be done well.
@YouAndMrT Citizen Kane wins due to psychological complexity - something that is virtually nonexistent in Spielberg's movies - and also leaves, at least in me, the feeling of mystery by the end.
Equating Spielberg and Welles is ridiculous to say the least, especially considering that we have the Orson Welles of today talking to us right here in this video.
@MeatTycoon Now I'm not a huge fan of Citizen Kane, as I feel it is overrated so I won't bring that in. But I do believe that Spielberg's films like Minority Report, Jaws, SPR, SL are all fantastic films because they give us answers. I personally think that 2001 and SL are both fantastic films and 2001 is one of my favorites. But to condemn someone for making a bio-pic factual, however much so it, is a little absurd.
@YouAndMrT SL is a factual biopic in the sense that all (or most) of the stuff shown in the film happened in reality. It's not fact-based in the sense that it sugarcoats the details. For example, the fact that Schindler never really turned from a profiteer to a humanist, and the Jews had to pay gold to be on his list. Or that Poland and Czechoslovakia were eventually taken over by the Soviet Union and had to suffer under Stalinism. Etc. Spielberg is a big time sugarcoater.
@MeatTycoon I honestly don't see the big deal with sugar coating in THIS situation. The holocaust is extremely controversial and it would be very easy to offend people. I personally dislike it when directors intentionally add things to movies to shock or to disturb as it is cheap theatrics, and it would be easy to fall into that trap for a holocaust movie. In my personal opinion, Spielberg handled the film professionally and, to an appropriate extent, artistically.
@YouAndMrT The big deal is that sugarcoating means taking away from the reality of the Holocaust. Unlike you, I like it when a film can shock and offend - unless it crosses the line and becomes a horror movie. And Spielberg handled it as a businessman, not an artist. Still, in SL he's more of an artist than in most other of his movies.
@MeatTycoon I don't see why everyone sees Spielberg as a business man. Yes, his films are successful and have big budgets, but he started out as anyone else did and then found success. He is successful because people genuinely like his movies and they are internationally accessible. I don't see the sense in bashing someone that makes accessible films. However much I like Kubrick, he really does alienate some audiences, hence his lesser success. Spielberg's story is as inspirational as his films.
@YouAndMrT You answered your own question. Spielberg's films have mass success because they're tailored for mass appeal. Which makes their creator, first of all, a shrewd businessman.
@MeatTycoon Not necessarily, it makes him a man who understands his audience which makes him a smart film-maker. Hitchcock knew his audience very well and his advice on the subject is unparalleled, but he was not a businessman. He was a man who knew what people wanted and what they didn't. Spielberg knows that his audience, which is humongous, generally likes movies that aren't ambiguous but still have qualities that are thought provoking. Thus, his filmography.
@YouAndMrT Hitchcock was a brilliant business man, and that was one of the reasons why he won creative freedom. But he was also a very interesting filmmaker, and the way he was able to sneak perversion into seemingly innocent stuff is unparalleled in Classical Hollywood.
Spielberg is very rarely thought provoking, and when he is, he makes sure that the audiences don't end end up feeling upset when the credits start to roll.
@MeatTycoon Is that a bad thing? Film was made as an escape medium. The Cabinet Of Dr. Calligari however dark it was ends with an "it was all a dream" sort of ending. Nosferatu ends with the vampire being vanquished. A Trip to the Moon, well you get my point. Films don't have to be morbid and depressing to be good. Billy Wilder is a genius, but he doesn't leave audiences with a dull and dark feeling. But that comes down to opinion, which we seem to differ dramatically in :)
@YouAndMrT Film can work as a medium for everything - from pleasant escape (as you said) to delivering political and social ideas, and sharing the vilest of fantasies. I don't mind movies working as escape vehicles (provided that there is more serious stuff to choose from), but I don't find most of Spielberg's particular fantasylands appealing places to escape to.
But if you finally admitted that Schindler's List is escapist entertainment, then we agree after all. :-)
@MeatTycoon What about The Apartment, Some Like it Hot, Seven Year Itch? I'm sorry, I should of said a lot of his films don't depend on leaving the audience morbid. I'm only saying that not every film has to be dark. I really love some dark and poignant films, but I think it's a growing trend to merely disturb viewers. In some respects it can be equally hard to make a film "happy" and still make it worth watching. But maybe to some Spielberg doesn't pull that off, though he does for me.
Terry Gilliam, Steven Spielberg, and Stanley Kubrick. ALL 3 are great film makers. Not every film needs an ambiguous ending to be great. Also, Schindlers List was not about the Holocaust it was about what Oskar Schindler did during the Holocaust. Whichever way you look at it Schindler was successful.
BEST.CRITICISM.EVER of a " spielberg" film when compared to a KUBRIC cinematic Extravaganza... @spacejesusadventure... yeah, cos, you know--all those very talented directors like "spielberg" [natch] always ended up getting one (((name that of course comes to mind first is: ALFRED HITCHCOCK))) I rest my case.
Spielberg is a director who makes commercial movies will never have the talent of kubrick best to shut up and stay with their millions of dollars they collect their movies that's the only thing that interests
It's funny, I didn't connect with Spielberg's portrayal of Oskar Schindler's story, but the book moved me so much. I felt he didn't effectively portray the subtlety and nuances of life in the holocaust, instead focusing on the sensational, i.e. mass murder and an evil villain. Portraying the nuances of this terrible point in time will make the audience really empathize with the hopelessness, despair, and fear of living in that time; something the book does. Yes, I found the film dull and weak.
well the movie is about the guy who manages to save some lives.... and i think there is showed enough of the humanity failure known as the holocaust in it(randomly shooting ppl, all that hunt for them, bla bla)
what i find interesting is that spielberg and kubrick were both very good friends and they admired each others work. Kubrick was going to direct A.I. but died before the movie was green lit, so spielberg took over for kubrick.
@catmanbatman69 I've heard that before, but I have yet to see any evidence of Kubrick actually liking Spielberg's movies, not just being buddies with him.
I agree with him when he says that Spielberg or Hollywood movies give us "stupid" answers. I mainly think that because most likely it be "stupid" if we had all the answers in life. Life is ambiguous, which makes the ending of Kubrick or Gilliam films so fascinating.
Gilliam is a Twat. What a moronic argument. So what if a film doesn't have a deep ambiguous ending? Then it can't be a quality film? Sorry Terry, not every movie can end in a nonsensical manner like "The Search for the Holy Grail," (And that happens to be my favorite comedy ever) and thank God they don't. I was a fan of T.G., but after watching this, he seems like a pretentious douche and I want to punch him in the head. And stop putting yourself in the same category as Kubrick. What a joke.
Gilliam has a perfect point. Even though it's completely fine to sometimes relax and just enjoy some forgettable entertainment, the best movies are indeed those that demand some thinking about things. It would have been interesting to see what kind of a film Kubrick's Aryan Papers would have been.
I know this may sound like a stupid question, but I have to ask when Gilliam says 2001's ending has many different meanings is that true? I mean did Kubrick create 2001 in a way that the ending could be analyze in different ways or is there just one true meaning behind all the symbolism? I've heard many different things and I really want to know because I love the film.
I'm not sure that I like Gilliam's criticism. Schindler's List isn't really about the Holocaust, it is about Schindler, and how he really achieved something against the odds. It's a bit of a cliche to make movies about how the Holocaust was really awful. I know a lot about the Holocaust, and I don't need a preachy movie telling me what I already know. List does, however, address the big picture on a number of occasions. I don't believe Gilliam's criticisms have much weight. I love Gilliam, BTW.
by the way, just because i say that spielberg reminds me what movies are all about doesn't mean that i trust him completely. i mean, right now david fincher is the one director that i trust 100% to deliver a great film.
is schindler's list my favourite spielberg film? no. that would be jaws. this is when most people roll their eyes and say "ugh, soooo commercial". i don't give a fuck how successful it was, it's simply my favourite movie of all time (in a top ten that consists of films like apocalypse now and there will be blood for christ sake). i pride myself for loving both purely entertaining films (only when they're done very well though) and more challenging films, by kubrick, fincher etc
@thatfilmgeekguy however succesfull or not, this movie has completely misleading content, and is basically making fake monsters in order to make money, i strongly advise you to watch the film called Sharkwater, especially if Jaws is your favorite-movie-of-all-time.
@diw2 i'm sorry man but a movie's a movie. not a factbook. and i don't care why it was made. what i do care about is the quality of the film, and for me it supercedes the quality of all others. and all the naysayers to this view, don't go on a spitting rage; because at the end of the day it's a matter of opinion.
@thatfilmgeekguy it is a matter of opinion indeed, and in mine filmmaker should take a minimal responsibility for his work; it goes down to curiosity really, if 'quality' (whatever in your opinion it might be) level of Jaws is sufficient for you, then yeah, well done - mission accomplished.
@diw2 It's pretentious film bitches like you that make me increasingly misanthropic. Not every film has to be deep and prophetic. Why can't a movie just be good because it's entertaining? Jaws is a great movie. Just because it's not fucking Citizen Kane doesn't mean it isn't quality. I've been studying film for a long time, and it's assholes like you that give art appreciation the pretentious facade bestowed upon us. Your opinion of quality is worthless to everyone but yourself, so stfu.
@mphurwitz don't get too excited kiddo :) i will follow my arsehole path, you follow yours and we even might meet somewhere along the way. oh yeah, and one more thing. i wasn't arguing i was trying to discuss and share something with you lot, but people like you love to take advantage of their anonymity and just mindlessly argue.
@thatfilmgeekguy Don't waste your time arguing with pretentious pseudo film buffs. Anything that doesn't have dramatic back-lighting and an inconspicuous ending is shit to these people. Rock on, man. I've been studying film for a long time, and I'm with you--Jaws is a great film. Overly-complex, nonsensical art-films are a dime-a-dozen, but there's only one Jaws. Fact, the #1 reason people are afraid to swim in the ocean is the movie Jaws.
steven spielberg mostly makes movies that are pieces of pure entertainment. out of all the living directors, he's the one that most reminds me what the motion picture was made for. as for schindler's list, i can understand people's criticisms but for me he simply put this amazing story on the screen and he did it masterfully.
It's fine to wrap things up in a bow in a fluff movie, not everything should be vague. but if you're going to make "challenging cinema" then you shouldn't lay all the answers out there.
There is always going to be different styles for different directors. Spielberg does his thing, and he does it well, making big budget movies for the general audience. There are plenty of other directors that will be ambiguous, and question you, and Spielberg is just not one of those. We should applaud the fact that there are many different styles of directing so that we can all enjoy the many varied facets of cinema.
@ZidaneSteiner I couldn't agree more, Gilliam just comes off like a pretentious ass here, particularly when he keeps putting himself in the same category as Kubrick...get real T.G. Films are made for different reasons with different intentions. I like what Louis Armstrong said about "good music." He said, "If you can pat your foot to it, it's good music." That's how I feel about film, if you get something out of it, then it's good.
I agree Speilburg makes films with a story that the audience can understand. With that said however, when you watch shindlers list is does make you think. yes, the holocaust was a faliure in civilization but when you watch it you understand that people like oscar schindler makes a difference in history. He does save over 1,000 lives (nothing compared to the mass muder in which the nazis inflicted) but at the end of the film he convinces himself that he had not done enough.
What Gilliam doesn't mention is that there are an endless line of people who will walk out of 2001 and say "I'll never get those hours of life back". I also disagree that Schindler's List had a 'clean' ending. Neeson's portrail of a broken man, caught up in his obsession for success and his ultimate failure at succeeding in saving the lives of more people at the end of the movie is really heartbreaking. How is that not a topic of conversation? I never thought Gilliam was as textbook as this...
@misterBiNK Agreed, I was really disappointed by this Gilliam interview. He comes of like a pretentious douche. It takes a lot of balls to criticize Spielberg's movies. Yes, some of what he says is true, but what is wrong with making movies for entertainment's sake. Was "Catch Me if You Can" not a great film? Not everything has to be weird and ambiguous to be quality. I really want to punch him in the head after listening to his grandiose nonsense.
I think even Stanley Kubrick's answer are something to think about, I am gussing that he mean, not the movies but the ssuccess of man saving many life, and compare to the failer of humanity to be able to commit a holocaust.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MeatTycoon Shut up, there's no defending Gilliam here, he comes off as an arrogant, bitter douche who just happens to be hating on one of the great filmmakers of our time. Just because his movies don't have ambiguous nonsensical endings doesn't diminish from their quality. And he is so far off about Schindler's List I won't even broach the subject. I was a huge fan of Gilliam. Brazil is one of my favorites, but after watching this, I really want to punch him in his smug-ass face.
@mphurwitz Learn to behave, jackass. This is the last warning you'll get from me. Most people would have already long banned your ass by now, so appreciate my kindness, you stupid fucking prick.
Part 2: Spielberg makes these kinds of omissions in his movies so they always fit a clean narrative, which is what Gilliam is really getting at here. Spielberg movies give answers and comfort the viewer.
I don't agree with his assertion that the Holocaust was about one thing or that Schindler's List did not cover the "failure" of the Holocaust. However, Schindler's List can only be interpreted in one way. Spielberg omitted many aspects of the story that would have made it more ambiguous. Did you know that some people actually paid cash and diamonds to get on that list? In the film, Schindler makes a neat conversion from greedy businessman to savior, but the reality was more complicated..
Jews have that "success" component. Schindler's list was about a good thing happening where all was bad. So as a filmaker, it is a good point to start. Spielberg doent's try to make it look espectacular but sad and raw, and he made it right. I also like when the audience end up with questions, that''s a very interesting form of art in the filmaking final purpose. I think the core are two ways of approach to the cinema.
Right on, Terry Gilliam, I agree with you 100%. Spielberg is the most over-rated director of all time. He makes juvenile comic book movies that are full of cliches. In every Spielberg movie you'l get moments can be excellent----great acting, or beautiful cinematography or some other technical achievement---but then he goes and comes up with scenes that are totally ridiculous, contrived, amateurish, and unbelievable. Everyone is afraid to challenge him, because he makes so much money.
Oh that's right, Gilliam. Because Schindler's last line totally wasn't, "I should've saved more." The difference between Gilliam and Kubrick is that Kubrick was friends with Spielberg and criticized him from that standpoint. Kubrick was obviously not friends with Gilliam, but Gilliam's just acting the cronie anyway, parroting the words of a master without understanding them. Kubrick gave Spielberg, not Gilliam, A.I. And Spielberg green-lit Minority Report instead of Gilliam. -_-....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gilliam is a bitch because his movies all tanked at the box office and most of them were panned by critics. Go suck a cock if you think Schindler's list was a "happy ending" movie. Make a Holocaust film with an obelisk and gorilla at the end if you're so fucking "smart" you dickhead cocksuck. You are not Speilberg or Kubrick Gilliam, you a shithead pouty bitch with some sci-fi films, thats it!!
@MeatTycoon There is no law that requires a film to make you think about it. What does Terry Gilliam want, for Steven Spielberg to change the ending of a film like Jaws to show a shot of Brody and Hooper paddling towards Amity Island and then cut to a shot of a fetus looking down at earth?
@grubbad42 Thank you for this...thank you. You're so exactly right. It's as if a film that doesn't have some nonsensical, ambiguous element, cannot be of quality. Gilliam's arguments are so far off and arrogant and pretentious I want to punch him. And I'm a huge fan. Brazil is one of my all-time favorite films, but good ol Terry is way off on this one.
@macallan30forme Really? 12 Monkeys? Dr Parnassus? Brazil? Time Bandits? Have you not seen those classics? And I don't think his films have tanked, he is a Monty Python member, there are thousands of people out there who would go to see his films in a heart beat. Also, think of other words to use aside from bitch, makes it look like you are one.
He's got it wrong. Schindler's list didn't leave you satisfied with a happy ending. The ending made the holocaust even more real. The realization of what Schindler had done, as well as what world let happen is horrific, and Speilberg captured this perfectly.
@ImBrookeyB There are many ways to tell every story. For example, the obvious fact that the dictatorship wasn't defeated, it was just replaced by another dictatorship - i.e. Stalinism - wasn't emphasized in the ending of SL at all. It could potentially make the film more interesting, but it was out of Spielberg's range. In his view, it would only complicate the story - even though it's the truth.
@MeatTycoon Range is irrelevant. What you're talking about has no place in the story. If he added what you suggest, it would have only served to muddle a very well constructed story about one man's efforts during a horrific time. So what the fuck are you talking about!? Stalinism? What point would that have served in the film? None! Leave the film making to the filmmakers, and stfu.
@MeatTycoon Sorry, but you're clueless about story-telling. Yes, if Spielberg had done what you suggested it would complicate the movie in a unnecessary way. The film isn't about a dictatorship or politics, so why introduce those elements when they aren't even broached in the four hours that the film runs? Moronic. Go sit down...
@mphurwitz Apparently, you have a certain problem with reading. I recommend you to either get yourself a pair of glasses or poke your both eyes out with a rusty fork, you child of Josef Fritzl.
Normally, I would put you through hell of verbal pwnership, but I have neither mood or time for it right now. You're out.
I feel a bit of bitterness from Gilliam, he has struggled many times with Hollywood producers while Spielberg has been succeding again and again, but I don't think he should be trivialising Spielberg films, most of his films will be remembered by the public and critics forty years from now, even Kubrick admired Spielberg. Gilliam makes art films that are more difficult for the public, and I admire him for that, but don't trivialise another filmmakers just because they have success.
if you think spielberg didn't capture the failure that you're talking about then you didn't understant the movie. at all. pretty shameful for a director...
Spielberg is a great director Schindlers List is a masterpiece, But he is very incosistent. Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, and Munich were great as well. but Jaws, and Indiana Jones suck
I totally agree with some of what you say Gilliam but are you fucking kidding me ? The horror and pain of the Holocaust was INTRINSIC to this great movie. If the movie didn't hit you hard that way then something's wrong with you.
Although I am a great admirer of Kubrick (he is my favorite filmmaker of all time), I do have to disagree with him and Gilliam about Schindler's List. Schindler's List took place during the Holocaust, but it was not about the Holocaust. Schindler's List is about what Oskar Schindler did for X amount of Jews during the Holocaust, and I think that story deserved to be told.
kubrick. long shot master. da vinci with a camera. i see some similar form coming from mexico with alfonso cuaron and del toro. no need to argue who is better or any of that though. except directors should not get too giddy when basing who is better on the money platform.
Just saw "War Horse" and then thought of this clip. How right he is! War Horse made me PUKE! Paradoxically, not because it's a bad movie - the editing is great, cinematography spectacular and Spielberg once again demonstrated his fine sense of tempo and plot... BUT, overall, it is just this horribly disappointing SOAP. Another fairy tale.
No place for doubt, shades of gray or uncertainty of any kind.
I am an ADULT, Steven! Don't tell me HOW I AM SUPPOSED TO FEEL at every turn! Let ME decide.
@NYCBG Well said. I haven't seen War Horse yet, but what you said sums up my feelings about most of Spielberg's movies. Except methinks you overrate his technical skills a bit.
@NYCBG Well you can't entirely blame Spielberg. It was a children's book originally for Christ's sake. So you can't blame Spielberg for its happy ending. That's just how children's books are
@thegreatgaby231 Thanks for the input, but I already knew that. Let me try to clarify my position: I am NOT "BLAMING" Spielberg for anything! It's just that I don't get anything of substance from his movies (except for "E.R." which I thought was a brilliant children's flick!). Back to "War Horse": unlike Spielberg's movie version, the stage play based on the same book is an unqualified work of ARTISTIC GENIUS. Hope you can see it some day. Perhaps then my words will make more sense. Cheers!
@NYCBG I do hope to see the play one of these days, but comparing a play to a movie is like comparing apples to oranges. I did see War Horse, and overall I thought the craft was good, and you admitted that in your first comment. You also did say about War Horse that it was a "overall, it is just this horribly disappointing SOAP. Another fairy tale. No place for doubt, shades of gray or uncertainty of any kind." That's why I brought up the fact that War Horse was originally a children's book.
@NYCBG Don't forget that Warhorse is based on a children's book. I haven't seen the film yet but the stage production was sublime. It's a simple story educating kids on the horrors of the first world war and giving them a happy ending to boot. As such I think it works brilliantly.
This guy just doesn't get it, Schinder's List was about what one person could do, if there had been many more like Oscar many more could have been saved for the Germans.
There was a movie made in 1941 called Sullivan's Travels, Terry go watch it; many times.
2001 is a great movie and the scenes and music make it great, the story is just a back drop to the srceen masterprice.
Schinder's List is the over way around the Story is the movie and the music and scenes the back drop.
I disliked this the second the video loaded lol I thought he was going to criticize Spielberg in a bad way haha but it wasn't and so I guess I have to 'Like' the video to undo my 'Dislike' :/
I wouldn't call the ending of Schindler's List "happy" exactly. It was melancholly and emotionally moving in a way that I've never felt while watching a Kubric or Gilliam film. Don't get me wrong, Kubric was tallented (I don't care for Gilliam), but when I watch a some of his films (2001 in particular), they seem very cold and unfeeling. And as for the ending of 2001, it's ambiguity didn't work for me because I didn't care enough about the rest of the film to give the ending any thought.
Oscar Schindler, as shown in the movie, is a man who finds himself realizing so suddenly and so violently that his entire world view needs to change that however fast he works, he cannot shift his perspective fast enough. Weeding through his entire life, realizing that everything he took for granted is worthless. And in the end he hasn't finished; he hasn't stripped himself clean enough of his past life and possessions; some still remain.
That gives me plenty to think about, Mr. Gilliam.
BenMcCormack91 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shindlers List is not about the holocaust.. Its about the man.. And what a single person can do in midst of hell and chaos... Sorry terry.
LuminousBeeings 5 days ago
Shindlers List is not about the holocaust.. Its about the man.. And what a single person can do in midst of hell and chaos... Sorry terry.
LuminousBeeings 5 days ago
Terry Gilliam is wrong, Saving Private Ryan is a great example of Speilberg asking questions on the value of human life. how many lives are you willing to risk to bring just one home? the film presents the question but doesn't answer it. it lets the audience decide and discuss the answer of the question. 2001 raises questions on a different level as to what the meaning of the images on the screen mean, they will forever be discussed because u never find out the answer no matter what you think
videotapereturner24 5 days ago
Why does he talk about Holocaust and "Schindlers List" at the same time? Schindlers List was about Oskar Schindler, not a movie about Holocaust. Why can't people understand that Speilberg did not make a movie about Holocuast it self, but about a man who risked everything, to save a few(1000 people). Oskar had a factory, and he was succefull, he did not have to help the jews, BUT HE DID and that's what Stephen Spielberg's movie is about, Not Holocaust.
MissYouLuciano 1 week ago
I enjoy Gilliam and Spielberg. I have a problem with Gilliam's support for Polanski. You can 'criticize' a movie for having an easy answer... but when a tangible crime hits someone over the head; you think its 'good' to just move on? You shrug the 'conventional', but 'compartmentalization' is as 'mediocre' as being 'banal' in art. I'm sure 'Terry' wouldn't have given 'Mel' a pass on 'antisemitism'?
granddad2002 1 week ago
I really love and respect Gilliam and his films, but I don't agree with him here. While Shindler's List may not be the most morally complex film, I do think that often Spielberg recognises his own limitations. He was never going to be able to make a film that truly and satisfactorily dealt with the Holocaust. (to be honest I doubt even Kubrick could have). Instead he focused on a singular story, in much the same way that Polanski did with The Pianist (although Polanski's is the superior film)
MrKeepitunderyourhat 1 week ago 3
@MrKeepitunderyourhat I still consider Schindler's List escapist entertainment, but I like your comment. Except for one thing: Polanski didn't just make the superior film, he's a far superior filmmaker to Spielberg.
MeatTycoon 1 week ago
@MeatTycoon Yes, I do think Polanski is a much better director, but I also think that peope see it as somehow cool to hate Spielberg. He's made some dross in his time, but when he's on form he can be a brilliant filmmaker.
MrKeepitunderyourhat 1 week ago
@MeatTycoon Pray, expand on this point, sir! Let me take my place in the round and hear you impart your words of wisdom to the assembled throng.
RossandGP 1 week ago
@MrKeepitunderyourhat Not the most morally complex film?? Every German was portrayed as evil or drunk or crude or somehow bad. The film was full of cartoon characters yet the movie and its director are glorified.
FantasticBob7000 5 days ago
@FantasticBob7000 So Schindler wasn't German, was he? In fact, Schindler was a far less morally upright character than the film portrayed him. It's not a perfect film, but it's a well intentioned one.
MrKeepitunderyourhat 4 days ago
@MrKeepitunderyourhat LOL "not a perfect film" & "well intentioned." It's a cheap propaganda film, obviously biased considering the director's background. You can worship him I guess but I have no idea why some people choose to do that.
FantasticBob7000 4 days ago
@FantasticBob7000 As opposed to Polanski, who is clearly totally unbiased... I never said that I worship Spielberg, but if it makes you think that you're winning the argument then you can continue to convince yourself that I did. I said that he was, and perhaps still can be, a very fine film maker. I have no doubts that Kubrick would have also been unable to make a totally objective Holocaust film.
MrKeepitunderyourhat 4 days ago
@MrKeepitunderyourhat Polansky's as biased as Spielberg, these movies are a dime a dozen. Spielberg is a skilled film maker but horribly biased wrt the "holocaust." Riefenstahl was far more skilled yet she was blacklisted for politics.
The problem is you consider these movies to be impressive though slightly flawed, rather than the blatant cheap propaganda that they are.
FantasticBob7000 4 days ago
@FantasticBob7000 Triumph of the Will is a superbly crafted film, but it's politics are reprehensible. Considering the worldwide condemnation of the Holocaust, it should hardly come as a surprise that these film makers have made films with an anti-Holocaust slant, I'd be worried if they hadn't. Making a movie entirely and positively from the other perspective would just be insensitive and frankly disturbing. Just look at the misguided fuss over Downfall (another very fine film)
MrKeepitunderyourhat 4 days ago
@MrKeepitunderyourhat Having seen Triumph of the Will I don't know what reprehensible politics you are referring to. What I suggest you consider is that your views you express are completely in line with mainstream dogma. If you're interested in independent thought expect to deviate from the norm once in a while, especially wrt WWII. We're still flooded with post-war propaganda after close to 70 years & you're reciting your lines as if on cue.
FantasticBob7000 4 days ago
@FantasticBob7000 If you want to have a conversation about the societal nature of ethics and morality then that's fine, but I feel we've gone slightly off the original topic. Everyone's thoughts and beliefs are shaped by their external life, even yours, no matter how much you like to think you're a totally objective prophet. If you look at films or any form of art in this way then everything can be discounted: there is no objectivity in art.
MrKeepitunderyourhat 3 days ago
@MrKeepitunderyourhat The original topic is you watch anti-German propaganda movies directed/produced/distributed by jews and refer to it as great art. I've never understood this kind of gullible stupidity although it makes more sense if you take conformism and self-righteousness into account.
FantasticBob7000 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrKeepitunderyourhat The original topic is you watch anti-German propaganda movies directed/produced/distributed by jews and refer to it as great art. I've never understood this kind of gullible stupidity although it makes more sense if you take conformism and self-righteousness into account.
FantasticBob7000 3 days ago
@MrKeepitunderyourhat "..superior film" oh, I didn't realize it is a competition.
meNtor890 1 day ago
@meNtor890 That seems a very bizarre thing to pick me up on, given that it was an aside that wasn't related to the overall point. I don't quite get your point?
MrKeepitunderyourhat 1 day ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gilliam's a pompous ass and, I suspect, a jealous one at that. It's hugely insulting to suggest people who watch Schindler's List are only willing to engage with the material because it's a "commercial" film. What film, given the expenditure involved in even the lowest level production, isn't "commercial"? And to the dickhead who smugly used the hugely offensive term "noob-raping" - you're not edgy or straight-talking with your passive-aggressive banter, just morally vacant.
RossandGP 2 weeks ago
@RossandGP There's no need to be edgy when you're stating the obvious, just as I'm doing now. In particular, I'm stating the fact that you're an idiot, that you can't read, and that you have serious impairments when it comes to processing information. It's not good or bad, it's just the facts, and you're gonna have to learn to live with them, you stupid little fuck.
MeatTycoon 2 weeks ago 12
@MeatTycoonTeatlet.
RossandGP 2 weeks ago
@MeatTycoon You're not on here to debate with anyone over the clip you posted (posted, I hasten to add, not 'created'), you just want to vent spleen. Some people are commenting on Gilliam's remarks in the clip, not the posts made by you or your slobbering acolytes. Your misanthropy must stem from some deep-rooted dissatisfaction with your life and your angry teenager-style replies are disturbing. I reiterate re: your needless use of sexually aggressive language - you're 26, not 14.
RossandGP 1 week ago
@RossandGP Exactly. Except I'm 86.
MeatTycoon 1 week ago 6
@RossandGP dont think u can pass judgement on the morally vacant given the fact yor opinion is purely based on insulting Gilliam + trying to take the higher ground on morality over some1 else. Until u make a film like the Fisher King that does wat he just spoke about (Gilliam is still in Awe of Kubrick who was more sucessful) regarding films that evoke ideas, then maybe you should be open to or at least consider his criticism of Speilbergs work as you've offered nothing new.you little noob-raper
blackstuff221 1 week ago
@blackstuff221Teatlet
RossandGP 1 week ago
@RossandGP are you saying hes a pompous ass based on this one video or are ther others were his persinality comes off as pompous ? i like gillam but he does seem kind of full of him self at times
dornravlin 1 week ago
@dornravlin It's just a personal feeling... There's an air of smugness about him that seems to suggest (he feels) his work is on a higher plain to Spielberg's. I love a lot of Terry Gilliam's films - Jabberwocky, Brazil, Twelve Monkeys - but I think he's off-target here. Similarly, there's a clip of Tarantino where he starts (needlessly) picking apart Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood. I get the impression, like Gilliam, that he thinks he's attained some kind of sagelike status.
RossandGP 1 week ago
@RossandGP You clearly totally misinterpreted the idea of that video. Tarantino's friends with Paul Thomas Anderson. He picks it apart, complimenting it as a work of art--not criticizing it. Terry Gilliam here may sound arrogant, but sometimes it's hard for those of us who actually think for ourselves to get a point across without sounding snobby when the people listening haven't heard anything like it before and are too generically-minded to understand it.
Transformers2themax 1 week ago
@Transformers2themax I "clearly totally" (sic) didn't misinterpret anything re: the Tarantino / Anderson piece. How arrogant are you, sir? "...when the people listening haven't heard anything like it before"... Sinisterly deluded.
RossandGP 6 days ago
@RossandGP So do you think it's wrong to analyze someone's film? That'd be fairly odd, most of the films that are commonly analyzed being made for that purpose. Tarantino was complimenting There Will Be Blood--Gilliam is attacking Spielberg. Completely different arguments. I agree, Gilliam sounds a little arrogant here, but not once does he mention any of his films--he brings up Kubrick, who is perfect for comparing to Steven Spielberg. Even Tarantino's can be compared.
Transformers2themax 6 days ago
@RossandGP I say "...when the people listening haven't heard anything like it before" because that's the truth with most of the American people, those of the general public to be exact. If a magazine call Spielberg an "artist" and the "Greatest Filmmaker of All Time", they'll believe it--and they'll have a mental breakdown when they hear someone like Gilliam speak the truth. It's the same thing regarding The Beatles in the music industry.
Transformers2themax 6 days ago
@Transformers2themax I agree that some people will make lazy approximations about films, music etc.
RossandGP 6 days ago
@RossandGP See, I wasn't referring to you when I said "...when the people listening haven't heard anything like it before"--I was speaking in regards to those on here having seizures because Terry Gilliam criticized Spielberg and it made sense. You have every right to question Gilliam's attitude and the way in which he speaks, but he's being anything but egotistical. He is partially wrong with the purpose of Schindler's List, but he's completely right about Spielberg.
Transformers2themax 6 days ago
Whilst he does provide a good point, and Terry has made some rather good films, having an "open ending" does not always work. Blade Runner is a good example as you were left thinking "is he or isn't he a replicant?" or "what does the Unicorn mean?", but Brazil handed it on a plate to the audience that he was in a dream world whilst in reality he's still in the correction facility. Blade Runner has more than one question, whilst Brazil has only a single answer.
SamusDrake 2 weeks ago
@SamusDrake
True, but the way "Brazil" ends is not what Terry initially wanted. He wanted those dream like moments to be the ending, but the studios didn't like it and made him come up with an explanation for them.
Mycatjewel 2 weeks ago
@Mycatjewel
I thought something wasn't quite right about Brazil. It seemed like the first half of the film was nothing short of brilliance, but the second half seemed to just ditch the heroic dream aspect altogether, as if Terry had said "I honestly don't know where I was going with that idea - just ditch it."
But studios sadly do have a track record for screwing up productions... o_O
SamusDrake 2 weeks ago
@Mycatjewel Gilliam wanted the audience to know he was dreaming and that he was really in the torture chamber. The studios wanted the happily-ever-after dream-escape ending. This was a popular Hollywood battle in the early 80s. Gilliam won over the critics with an unauthorized viewing of his cut, and this is what helped Gilliam win and get his sad (but better) ending.
renofoster 2 weeks ago
chucklehead. Remember folks, opinions are like a**holes - everyone has one.
strandedbuckeye 2 weeks ago
I never once viewed this film as some sort of "victory" in regards to the holocaust. I view it simply as it is: amongst one of the most unforgivable acts in human history, there was someone (SOMEONE) who risked everything to try and save even one person. That fragile but ever important piece of hope that does (and can) triumph over something so dark and powerful. What is so wrong about that, even considering how this is based on something true?
In short, it was about Schindler.
BeingBadAtMaths 3 weeks ago
@BeingBadAtMaths And for the regard, I'm usually the cynic and pessimist about things.
BeingBadAtMaths 3 weeks ago
Look I'm sure Gilliam has the utmost respect for Spielberg. Analyzing someone's work at a technical level does not equate to a personal attack. Everybody calm down. In the end, it's just one craftsman expressing his opinions on the work of another.
teknoarcanist 3 weeks ago
This guy is an idiot. If you have ever seen Schindler's List, you will know that it is about anything but success. In the end of the movie, you see that even though Schindler was able to save so many people, in his mind, it was not a success because he thought that he could do more. This guy makes it seem like it was just one big decision that ended in success in the end. But, in fact, in Schindler's mind, was a failure and it took time for him realize what he wanted.
bignosetrout 3 weeks ago
@bignosetrout The real idiot here is you. And the fact that you failed to read any of the previous comments only adds to your cosmic stupidity, you nut.
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago 13
@MeatTycoon LOL best comment ever (the one directed at bignosetrout)
PonyboyInNewZealand 2 weeks ago
@PonyboyInNewZealand Thanks, mate. Just doin' my humble noob-raping duty. :-)
MeatTycoon 2 weeks ago
@bignosetrout your calling the man who made Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Life of Brian, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (to name a few) an idiot? He is making a criticism that has some merit, Schindlers List was a great film, but it did glorify the main character in light of a horrific event. Even the scene you speak of makes the character seem greater, that is what he is talking about, you on the other hand have no idea what you are talking about.
TheSecularnation 2 weeks ago
Yes, that's right if there's one thing I remember about Schindler's List it was the big happy ending, what IS he talking about ?..Spielbergs later movies are a bit predictable though..Full Metal Jacket was a great movie but it left me thinking alright, "Where's the rest of the film ?".. I walked out of Eyes Wide Shut, thought "mmm bit weird" then went for a burger, it's a movie, don't get carried with your own importance.
adm924s 3 weeks ago
I don't think that a movie necessarily has to be an intellectual experience for it to be good. All three are good movies
chuckspira 3 weeks ago
Considering that Terry Gilliam's career has been very shaky lately, this is rather arrogant. I like Gilliam, but still...
CaptainRaccoonWhitly 3 weeks ago
This is unfair really. Citizen Kane is considered one of the best films of all time and it gives nearly every answer besides character motives. Spielberg employs very similar techniques to his movies. Spielberg allows us to analyze characters by giving us the facts. Kubrick gives us very few facts so that we can analyze the thematic qualities of his films. I love both directors because they explore these different paths. There are various ways to tell a story and both can be done well.
YouAndMrT 3 weeks ago
@YouAndMrT Citizen Kane wins due to psychological complexity - something that is virtually nonexistent in Spielberg's movies - and also leaves, at least in me, the feeling of mystery by the end.
Equating Spielberg and Welles is ridiculous to say the least, especially considering that we have the Orson Welles of today talking to us right here in this video.
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago
@MeatTycoon Now I'm not a huge fan of Citizen Kane, as I feel it is overrated so I won't bring that in. But I do believe that Spielberg's films like Minority Report, Jaws, SPR, SL are all fantastic films because they give us answers. I personally think that 2001 and SL are both fantastic films and 2001 is one of my favorites. But to condemn someone for making a bio-pic factual, however much so it, is a little absurd.
YouAndMrT 3 weeks ago
@YouAndMrT SL is a factual biopic in the sense that all (or most) of the stuff shown in the film happened in reality. It's not fact-based in the sense that it sugarcoats the details. For example, the fact that Schindler never really turned from a profiteer to a humanist, and the Jews had to pay gold to be on his list. Or that Poland and Czechoslovakia were eventually taken over by the Soviet Union and had to suffer under Stalinism. Etc. Spielberg is a big time sugarcoater.
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago
@MeatTycoon I honestly don't see the big deal with sugar coating in THIS situation. The holocaust is extremely controversial and it would be very easy to offend people. I personally dislike it when directors intentionally add things to movies to shock or to disturb as it is cheap theatrics, and it would be easy to fall into that trap for a holocaust movie. In my personal opinion, Spielberg handled the film professionally and, to an appropriate extent, artistically.
YouAndMrT 3 weeks ago
@YouAndMrT The big deal is that sugarcoating means taking away from the reality of the Holocaust. Unlike you, I like it when a film can shock and offend - unless it crosses the line and becomes a horror movie. And Spielberg handled it as a businessman, not an artist. Still, in SL he's more of an artist than in most other of his movies.
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago
@MeatTycoon I don't see why everyone sees Spielberg as a business man. Yes, his films are successful and have big budgets, but he started out as anyone else did and then found success. He is successful because people genuinely like his movies and they are internationally accessible. I don't see the sense in bashing someone that makes accessible films. However much I like Kubrick, he really does alienate some audiences, hence his lesser success. Spielberg's story is as inspirational as his films.
YouAndMrT 3 weeks ago
@YouAndMrT You answered your own question. Spielberg's films have mass success because they're tailored for mass appeal. Which makes their creator, first of all, a shrewd businessman.
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago
@MeatTycoon Not necessarily, it makes him a man who understands his audience which makes him a smart film-maker. Hitchcock knew his audience very well and his advice on the subject is unparalleled, but he was not a businessman. He was a man who knew what people wanted and what they didn't. Spielberg knows that his audience, which is humongous, generally likes movies that aren't ambiguous but still have qualities that are thought provoking. Thus, his filmography.
YouAndMrT 3 weeks ago
@YouAndMrT Hitchcock was a brilliant business man, and that was one of the reasons why he won creative freedom. But he was also a very interesting filmmaker, and the way he was able to sneak perversion into seemingly innocent stuff is unparalleled in Classical Hollywood.
Spielberg is very rarely thought provoking, and when he is, he makes sure that the audiences don't end end up feeling upset when the credits start to roll.
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago
@MeatTycoon Is that a bad thing? Film was made as an escape medium. The Cabinet Of Dr. Calligari however dark it was ends with an "it was all a dream" sort of ending. Nosferatu ends with the vampire being vanquished. A Trip to the Moon, well you get my point. Films don't have to be morbid and depressing to be good. Billy Wilder is a genius, but he doesn't leave audiences with a dull and dark feeling. But that comes down to opinion, which we seem to differ dramatically in :)
YouAndMrT 3 weeks ago
@YouAndMrT Film can work as a medium for everything - from pleasant escape (as you said) to delivering political and social ideas, and sharing the vilest of fantasies. I don't mind movies working as escape vehicles (provided that there is more serious stuff to choose from), but I don't find most of Spielberg's particular fantasylands appealing places to escape to.
But if you finally admitted that Schindler's List is escapist entertainment, then we agree after all. :-)
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago
@MeatTycoon I wouldn't say that, but for the sake of time we'll call it a draw XD
YouAndMrT 3 weeks ago
@YouAndMrT BTW since you mentioned Wilder, I'd just like to point that Double Indemnity (one of my favorite movies) kinda proves you wrong.
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago
@MeatTycoon What about The Apartment, Some Like it Hot, Seven Year Itch? I'm sorry, I should of said a lot of his films don't depend on leaving the audience morbid. I'm only saying that not every film has to be dark. I really love some dark and poignant films, but I think it's a growing trend to merely disturb viewers. In some respects it can be equally hard to make a film "happy" and still make it worth watching. But maybe to some Spielberg doesn't pull that off, though he does for me.
YouAndMrT 3 weeks ago
@YouAndMrT BTW Welles was ashamed of rosebud, and called it "a rather tawdry dramatic device".
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago
Terry Gilliam, Steven Spielberg, and Stanley Kubrick. ALL 3 are great film makers. Not every film needs an ambiguous ending to be great. Also, Schindlers List was not about the Holocaust it was about what Oskar Schindler did during the Holocaust. Whichever way you look at it Schindler was successful.
Chronos767 3 weeks ago
BEST.CRITICISM.EVER of a " spielberg" film when compared to a KUBRIC cinematic Extravaganza... @spacejesusadventure... yeah, cos, you know--all those very talented directors like "spielberg" [natch] always ended up getting one (((name that of course comes to mind first is: ALFRED HITCHCOCK))) I rest my case.
hadjimefi 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Spielberg is a director who makes commercial movies will never have the talent of kubrick best to shut up and stay with their millions of dollars they collect their movies that's the only thing that interests
AXEL77ism 3 weeks ago
It's funny, I didn't connect with Spielberg's portrayal of Oskar Schindler's story, but the book moved me so much. I felt he didn't effectively portray the subtlety and nuances of life in the holocaust, instead focusing on the sensational, i.e. mass murder and an evil villain. Portraying the nuances of this terrible point in time will make the audience really empathize with the hopelessness, despair, and fear of living in that time; something the book does. Yes, I found the film dull and weak.
Un1234l 3 weeks ago
well the movie is about the guy who manages to save some lives.... and i think there is showed enough of the humanity failure known as the holocaust in it(randomly shooting ppl, all that hunt for them, bla bla)
wehrmachtR 3 weeks ago
what i find interesting is that spielberg and kubrick were both very good friends and they admired each others work. Kubrick was going to direct A.I. but died before the movie was green lit, so spielberg took over for kubrick.
catmanbatman69 3 weeks ago
@catmanbatman69 I've heard that before, but I have yet to see any evidence of Kubrick actually liking Spielberg's movies, not just being buddies with him.
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago
I agree with him when he says that Spielberg or Hollywood movies give us "stupid" answers. I mainly think that because most likely it be "stupid" if we had all the answers in life. Life is ambiguous, which makes the ending of Kubrick or Gilliam films so fascinating.
PoeticRocker 1 month ago 15
Gilliam is a Twat. What a moronic argument. So what if a film doesn't have a deep ambiguous ending? Then it can't be a quality film? Sorry Terry, not every movie can end in a nonsensical manner like "The Search for the Holy Grail," (And that happens to be my favorite comedy ever) and thank God they don't. I was a fan of T.G., but after watching this, he seems like a pretentious douche and I want to punch him in the head. And stop putting yourself in the same category as Kubrick. What a joke.
mphurwitz 1 month ago
Gilliam has a perfect point. Even though it's completely fine to sometimes relax and just enjoy some forgettable entertainment, the best movies are indeed those that demand some thinking about things. It would have been interesting to see what kind of a film Kubrick's Aryan Papers would have been.
LysergicCoffee 1 month ago
I know this may sound like a stupid question, but I have to ask when Gilliam says 2001's ending has many different meanings is that true? I mean did Kubrick create 2001 in a way that the ending could be analyze in different ways or is there just one true meaning behind all the symbolism? I've heard many different things and I really want to know because I love the film.
lightingcobra 1 month ago
Ahem... And where is Gilliam's oscar?
spacejesusadventure 1 month ago
@spacejesusadventure Snatched by the police for committing a thoughtcrime.
MeatTycoon 3 weeks ago
@spacejesusadventure watch spilebergs shawhank redemption and then watch gillams brazil and tell me who the better director is.
Dontmakemecomeover5 2 weeks ago
@Dontmakemecomeover5 Shawshank was directed by Frank Darabont you useless retard.
spacejesusadventure 2 weeks ago 2
@Dontmakemecomeover5 Spielberg didn't direct Shawshank, Frank Darabont did.
JamesHersh 1 week ago
I'm not sure that I like Gilliam's criticism. Schindler's List isn't really about the Holocaust, it is about Schindler, and how he really achieved something against the odds. It's a bit of a cliche to make movies about how the Holocaust was really awful. I know a lot about the Holocaust, and I don't need a preachy movie telling me what I already know. List does, however, address the big picture on a number of occasions. I don't believe Gilliam's criticisms have much weight. I love Gilliam, BTW.
zingzangspillip1 1 month ago
@zingzangspillip1 I was going to go on a long rant, but I'll merely say, dually noted and well said.
mphurwitz 1 month ago
by the way, just because i say that spielberg reminds me what movies are all about doesn't mean that i trust him completely. i mean, right now david fincher is the one director that i trust 100% to deliver a great film.
thatfilmgeekguy 1 month ago
is schindler's list my favourite spielberg film? no. that would be jaws. this is when most people roll their eyes and say "ugh, soooo commercial". i don't give a fuck how successful it was, it's simply my favourite movie of all time (in a top ten that consists of films like apocalypse now and there will be blood for christ sake). i pride myself for loving both purely entertaining films (only when they're done very well though) and more challenging films, by kubrick, fincher etc
thatfilmgeekguy 1 month ago
@thatfilmgeekguy however succesfull or not, this movie has completely misleading content, and is basically making fake monsters in order to make money, i strongly advise you to watch the film called Sharkwater, especially if Jaws is your favorite-movie-of-all-time.
diw2 1 month ago
@diw2 i'm sorry man but a movie's a movie. not a factbook. and i don't care why it was made. what i do care about is the quality of the film, and for me it supercedes the quality of all others. and all the naysayers to this view, don't go on a spitting rage; because at the end of the day it's a matter of opinion.
thatfilmgeekguy 1 month ago
@thatfilmgeekguy it is a matter of opinion indeed, and in mine filmmaker should take a minimal responsibility for his work; it goes down to curiosity really, if 'quality' (whatever in your opinion it might be) level of Jaws is sufficient for you, then yeah, well done - mission accomplished.
diw2 1 month ago
@diw2 It's pretentious film bitches like you that make me increasingly misanthropic. Not every film has to be deep and prophetic. Why can't a movie just be good because it's entertaining? Jaws is a great movie. Just because it's not fucking Citizen Kane doesn't mean it isn't quality. I've been studying film for a long time, and it's assholes like you that give art appreciation the pretentious facade bestowed upon us. Your opinion of quality is worthless to everyone but yourself, so stfu.
mphurwitz 1 month ago
@mphurwitz don't get too excited kiddo :) i will follow my arsehole path, you follow yours and we even might meet somewhere along the way. oh yeah, and one more thing. i wasn't arguing i was trying to discuss and share something with you lot, but people like you love to take advantage of their anonymity and just mindlessly argue.
diw2 1 month ago
@diw2 Wasn't jaws based on a book?
Dontmakemecomeover5 2 weeks ago
@thatfilmgeekguy Don't waste your time arguing with pretentious pseudo film buffs. Anything that doesn't have dramatic back-lighting and an inconspicuous ending is shit to these people. Rock on, man. I've been studying film for a long time, and I'm with you--Jaws is a great film. Overly-complex, nonsensical art-films are a dime-a-dozen, but there's only one Jaws. Fact, the #1 reason people are afraid to swim in the ocean is the movie Jaws.
mphurwitz 1 month ago
@mphurwitz good to know someone agrees with me about jaws because people who do are in worryingly short supply in my opinion.
thatfilmgeekguy 1 month ago
steven spielberg mostly makes movies that are pieces of pure entertainment. out of all the living directors, he's the one that most reminds me what the motion picture was made for. as for schindler's list, i can understand people's criticisms but for me he simply put this amazing story on the screen and he did it masterfully.
thatfilmgeekguy 1 month ago
It's fine to wrap things up in a bow in a fluff movie, not everything should be vague. but if you're going to make "challenging cinema" then you shouldn't lay all the answers out there.
gojira931 1 month ago
There is always going to be different styles for different directors. Spielberg does his thing, and he does it well, making big budget movies for the general audience. There are plenty of other directors that will be ambiguous, and question you, and Spielberg is just not one of those. We should applaud the fact that there are many different styles of directing so that we can all enjoy the many varied facets of cinema.
ZidaneSteiner 1 month ago 3
@ZidaneSteiner Yesh.
Craigmin 1 month ago
@ZidaneSteiner I couldn't agree more, Gilliam just comes off like a pretentious ass here, particularly when he keeps putting himself in the same category as Kubrick...get real T.G. Films are made for different reasons with different intentions. I like what Louis Armstrong said about "good music." He said, "If you can pat your foot to it, it's good music." That's how I feel about film, if you get something out of it, then it's good.
mphurwitz 1 month ago
He´s right. Spielberg explains too much
RodLamy 1 month ago
I agree Speilburg makes films with a story that the audience can understand. With that said however, when you watch shindlers list is does make you think. yes, the holocaust was a faliure in civilization but when you watch it you understand that people like oscar schindler makes a difference in history. He does save over 1,000 lives (nothing compared to the mass muder in which the nazis inflicted) but at the end of the film he convinces himself that he had not done enough.
Mightymazza2 1 month ago
What Gilliam doesn't mention is that there are an endless line of people who will walk out of 2001 and say "I'll never get those hours of life back". I also disagree that Schindler's List had a 'clean' ending. Neeson's portrail of a broken man, caught up in his obsession for success and his ultimate failure at succeeding in saving the lives of more people at the end of the movie is really heartbreaking. How is that not a topic of conversation? I never thought Gilliam was as textbook as this...
misterBiNK 1 month ago
@misterBiNK Agreed, I was really disappointed by this Gilliam interview. He comes of like a pretentious douche. It takes a lot of balls to criticize Spielberg's movies. Yes, some of what he says is true, but what is wrong with making movies for entertainment's sake. Was "Catch Me if You Can" not a great film? Not everything has to be weird and ambiguous to be quality. I really want to punch him in the head after listening to his grandiose nonsense.
mphurwitz 1 month ago
STANLEY KUBRICK'S movies are social statement, something to think about.
TERRY GILLIAM movies are social statement hidden in fantasy realm.
STEVEN SPIELBERG films are commercial movies.
mahender6969 1 month ago 18
I think even Stanley Kubrick's answer are something to think about, I am gussing that he mean, not the movies but the ssuccess of man saving many life, and compare to the failer of humanity to be able to commit a holocaust.
mahender6969 1 month ago
if he was successful he wouldnt need to slam anyone, obviously dude is bitter
macallan30forme 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gilliam sucks cock. hes jealous his movies blow and he isnt rich. what a fat we should beat his ass
macallan30forme 1 month ago
@macallan30forme Yes! We should kick Gilliam's ass. You go first, I'll be right behind you and totally support you. No, seriously, I will.
MeatTycoon 1 month ago 3
@MeatTycoon go fuck it you dirty surly shit. terry gilliam can suckk asscrax
macallan30forme 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MeatTycoon Shut up, there's no defending Gilliam here, he comes off as an arrogant, bitter douche who just happens to be hating on one of the great filmmakers of our time. Just because his movies don't have ambiguous nonsensical endings doesn't diminish from their quality. And he is so far off about Schindler's List I won't even broach the subject. I was a huge fan of Gilliam. Brazil is one of my favorites, but after watching this, I really want to punch him in his smug-ass face.
mphurwitz 1 month ago
@mphurwitz Learn to behave, jackass. This is the last warning you'll get from me. Most people would have already long banned your ass by now, so appreciate my kindness, you stupid fucking prick.
MeatTycoon 1 month ago 3
@mphurwitz Gilliam is a duce' but i do agree with him in this. I dont hate spielberg, but i never took him seriously
WallyWadeMovies 1 month ago
Part 2: Spielberg makes these kinds of omissions in his movies so they always fit a clean narrative, which is what Gilliam is really getting at here. Spielberg movies give answers and comfort the viewer.
mfiorell 1 month ago
I don't agree with his assertion that the Holocaust was about one thing or that Schindler's List did not cover the "failure" of the Holocaust. However, Schindler's List can only be interpreted in one way. Spielberg omitted many aspects of the story that would have made it more ambiguous. Did you know that some people actually paid cash and diamonds to get on that list? In the film, Schindler makes a neat conversion from greedy businessman to savior, but the reality was more complicated..
mfiorell 1 month ago
@mfiorell Good info on cash and diamonds.
MeatTycoon 1 month ago
No more paperwork!
DeWaltDisney 1 month ago
@DeWaltDisney My complication had a little complication.
MeatTycoon 1 month ago
Jews have that "success" component. Schindler's list was about a good thing happening where all was bad. So as a filmaker, it is a good point to start. Spielberg doent's try to make it look espectacular but sad and raw, and he made it right. I also like when the audience end up with questions, that''s a very interesting form of art in the filmaking final purpose. I think the core are two ways of approach to the cinema.
Rogeramirez 1 month ago
Comment removed
kalnyc1 1 month ago
Terry Gillian is gay. 12 Monkeys is trash
macallan30forme 1 month ago
Eh?
macallan30forme 1 month ago
spielberg is unbelieveably overrated
motty32 1 month ago
Right on, Terry Gilliam, I agree with you 100%. Spielberg is the most over-rated director of all time. He makes juvenile comic book movies that are full of cliches. In every Spielberg movie you'l get moments can be excellent----great acting, or beautiful cinematography or some other technical achievement---but then he goes and comes up with scenes that are totally ridiculous, contrived, amateurish, and unbelievable. Everyone is afraid to challenge him, because he makes so much money.
37BopCity 1 month ago
Oh that's right, Gilliam. Because Schindler's last line totally wasn't, "I should've saved more." The difference between Gilliam and Kubrick is that Kubrick was friends with Spielberg and criticized him from that standpoint. Kubrick was obviously not friends with Gilliam, but Gilliam's just acting the cronie anyway, parroting the words of a master without understanding them. Kubrick gave Spielberg, not Gilliam, A.I. And Spielberg green-lit Minority Report instead of Gilliam. -_-....
BunnyMan456 1 month ago
Go suck a dick and watch Brothers Grimm
macallan30forme 1 month ago
Pardon
macallan30forme 1 month ago
Gilliam has dead Jews in the back of his Prius. He thought Schindler's List was a musical. Dumb fuck idiot.
macallan30forme 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gilliam is a bitch because his movies all tanked at the box office and most of them were panned by critics. Go suck a cock if you think Schindler's list was a "happy ending" movie. Make a Holocaust film with an obelisk and gorilla at the end if you're so fucking "smart" you dickhead cocksuck. You are not Speilberg or Kubrick Gilliam, you a shithead pouty bitch with some sci-fi films, thats it!!
macallan30forme 1 month ago
@macallan30forme Sounds like another noob has just been pwned by Terry Gilliam. :-D
MeatTycoon 1 month ago 12
@MeatTycoon There is no law that requires a film to make you think about it. What does Terry Gilliam want, for Steven Spielberg to change the ending of a film like Jaws to show a shot of Brody and Hooper paddling towards Amity Island and then cut to a shot of a fetus looking down at earth?
grubbad42 1 month ago
@grubbad42 Thank you for this...thank you. You're so exactly right. It's as if a film that doesn't have some nonsensical, ambiguous element, cannot be of quality. Gilliam's arguments are so far off and arrogant and pretentious I want to punch him. And I'm a huge fan. Brazil is one of my all-time favorite films, but good ol Terry is way off on this one.
mphurwitz 1 month ago
@macallan30forme Really? 12 Monkeys? Dr Parnassus? Brazil? Time Bandits? Have you not seen those classics? And I don't think his films have tanked, he is a Monty Python member, there are thousands of people out there who would go to see his films in a heart beat. Also, think of other words to use aside from bitch, makes it look like you are one.
kurtcobain279489 1 month ago 3
@macallan30forme
whaaaaaaaaaa
andykidd99 1 month ago
He's got it wrong. Schindler's list didn't leave you satisfied with a happy ending. The ending made the holocaust even more real. The realization of what Schindler had done, as well as what world let happen is horrific, and Speilberg captured this perfectly.
failingchemist 1 month ago 2
Thats not the director its story
ImBrookeyB 1 month ago
@ImBrookeyB There are many ways to tell every story. For example, the obvious fact that the dictatorship wasn't defeated, it was just replaced by another dictatorship - i.e. Stalinism - wasn't emphasized in the ending of SL at all. It could potentially make the film more interesting, but it was out of Spielberg's range. In his view, it would only complicate the story - even though it's the truth.
MeatTycoon 1 month ago 2
@MeatTycoon Range is irrelevant. What you're talking about has no place in the story. If he added what you suggest, it would have only served to muddle a very well constructed story about one man's efforts during a horrific time. So what the fuck are you talking about!? Stalinism? What point would that have served in the film? None! Leave the film making to the filmmakers, and stfu.
mphurwitz 1 month ago
@MeatTycoon Sorry, but you're clueless about story-telling. Yes, if Spielberg had done what you suggested it would complicate the movie in a unnecessary way. The film isn't about a dictatorship or politics, so why introduce those elements when they aren't even broached in the four hours that the film runs? Moronic. Go sit down...
mphurwitz 1 month ago
@mphurwitz Apparently, you have a certain problem with reading. I recommend you to either get yourself a pair of glasses or poke your both eyes out with a rusty fork, you child of Josef Fritzl.
Normally, I would put you through hell of verbal pwnership, but I have neither mood or time for it right now. You're out.
MeatTycoon 1 month ago
I feel a bit of bitterness from Gilliam, he has struggled many times with Hollywood producers while Spielberg has been succeding again and again, but I don't think he should be trivialising Spielberg films, most of his films will be remembered by the public and critics forty years from now, even Kubrick admired Spielberg. Gilliam makes art films that are more difficult for the public, and I admire him for that, but don't trivialise another filmmakers just because they have success.
ElTuco84 1 month ago 2
I love Spielberg but I love Gilliam more. And Kubrick even more than that.
StefStrife 1 month ago
if you think spielberg didn't capture the failure that you're talking about then you didn't understant the movie. at all. pretty shameful for a director...
cloclcl 1 month ago
Spielberg is a great director Schindlers List is a masterpiece, But he is very incosistent. Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, and Munich were great as well. but Jaws, and Indiana Jones suck
3Axy10Est13 1 month ago
I totally agree with some of what you say Gilliam but are you fucking kidding me ? The horror and pain of the Holocaust was INTRINSIC to this great movie. If the movie didn't hit you hard that way then something's wrong with you.
ridewave444 1 month ago
I think someone is a little butt hurt about not having a bigger house, Kubrick and Spielberg are actually great friends in real life.
laurencelikestopgun 1 month ago
Although I am a great admirer of Kubrick (he is my favorite filmmaker of all time), I do have to disagree with him and Gilliam about Schindler's List. Schindler's List took place during the Holocaust, but it was not about the Holocaust. Schindler's List is about what Oskar Schindler did for X amount of Jews during the Holocaust, and I think that story deserved to be told.
thegreatgaby231 1 month ago
kubrick. long shot master. da vinci with a camera. i see some similar form coming from mexico with alfonso cuaron and del toro. no need to argue who is better or any of that though. except directors should not get too giddy when basing who is better on the money platform.
randallmckay 1 month ago
Just saw "War Horse" and then thought of this clip. How right he is! War Horse made me PUKE! Paradoxically, not because it's a bad movie - the editing is great, cinematography spectacular and Spielberg once again demonstrated his fine sense of tempo and plot... BUT, overall, it is just this horribly disappointing SOAP. Another fairy tale.
No place for doubt, shades of gray or uncertainty of any kind.
I am an ADULT, Steven! Don't tell me HOW I AM SUPPOSED TO FEEL at every turn! Let ME decide.
NYCBG 1 month ago 4
@NYCBG Well said. I haven't seen War Horse yet, but what you said sums up my feelings about most of Spielberg's movies. Except methinks you overrate his technical skills a bit.
MeatTycoon 1 month ago
@NYCBG Well you can't entirely blame Spielberg. It was a children's book originally for Christ's sake. So you can't blame Spielberg for its happy ending. That's just how children's books are
thegreatgaby231 1 month ago
@thegreatgaby231 Thanks for the input, but I already knew that. Let me try to clarify my position: I am NOT "BLAMING" Spielberg for anything! It's just that I don't get anything of substance from his movies (except for "E.R." which I thought was a brilliant children's flick!). Back to "War Horse": unlike Spielberg's movie version, the stage play based on the same book is an unqualified work of ARTISTIC GENIUS. Hope you can see it some day. Perhaps then my words will make more sense. Cheers!
NYCBG 1 month ago
@NYCBG I do hope to see the play one of these days, but comparing a play to a movie is like comparing apples to oranges. I did see War Horse, and overall I thought the craft was good, and you admitted that in your first comment. You also did say about War Horse that it was a "overall, it is just this horribly disappointing SOAP. Another fairy tale. No place for doubt, shades of gray or uncertainty of any kind." That's why I brought up the fact that War Horse was originally a children's book.
thegreatgaby231 1 month ago
@thegreatgaby231 oooops, apologies for the typo. It's "E.T.", not "E.R." (obviously).
NYCBG 1 month ago
@NYCBG Don't forget that Warhorse is based on a children's book. I haven't seen the film yet but the stage production was sublime. It's a simple story educating kids on the horrors of the first world war and giving them a happy ending to boot. As such I think it works brilliantly.
eimajecnerwal 1 month ago
This guy just doesn't get it, Schinder's List was about what one person could do, if there had been many more like Oscar many more could have been saved for the Germans.
There was a movie made in 1941 called Sullivan's Travels, Terry go watch it; many times.
2001 is a great movie and the scenes and music make it great, the story is just a back drop to the srceen masterprice.
Schinder's List is the over way around the Story is the movie and the music and scenes the back drop.
Tellgryn1 1 month ago 2
I disliked this the second the video loaded lol I thought he was going to criticize Spielberg in a bad way haha but it wasn't and so I guess I have to 'Like' the video to undo my 'Dislike' :/
SugarW1thC0ffee 1 month ago
My favorite Giliam films are Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Brazil (I love 12 Monkeys too)
walrusguyjr 1 month ago
I wouldn't call the ending of Schindler's List "happy" exactly. It was melancholly and emotionally moving in a way that I've never felt while watching a Kubric or Gilliam film. Don't get me wrong, Kubric was tallented (I don't care for Gilliam), but when I watch a some of his films (2001 in particular), they seem very cold and unfeeling. And as for the ending of 2001, it's ambiguity didn't work for me because I didn't care enough about the rest of the film to give the ending any thought.
JregsProductions 1 month ago
The ending of Schindler's List wasn't happy but it was optimistic, a sort of celebration of what Schindler accomplished.
tigqc 1 month ago