I didn't know that... I shall strike that one from my rant... Thanx. It is
indeed a wonderfully photographed film... Don't get me wrong... I enjoyed my
theatrical experiences on all of those films I'm complaining about... just
never ever wanted to re-visit those films after the one viewing.... unlike
CE3K, Raiders, etc... that's just me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Bonelli <joebom...@yahoo.com>
To: MoPo-L <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
Sent: Sat, Mar 2, 2013 3:44 pm
Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
"Empire of the Sun" is one of Spielberg's favorite films. He has stated that
he WANTED to make this film and has been thrilled to discover years later that
it is a cult favorite world-wide! Sorry, Kenwick, but I'll take Spielberg's
word on "Empire of the Sun" rather than your supposition that he made it to
"win awards."
Joe B in NOLA
From: Kenwick Cook <kenwick...@aol.com>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
Hey guys;
I want to chime in for some reason... I'm just a fan who doesn't really
know what he's talking about, but I have a right to my 'opinion', so I'm going
to exercise that right...
Spielberg USED to be my favorite director up until ET... I think that was his
turning point... up until that moment, this fan feels that he was making movies
that HE wanted to make, rather than movies that he thought OTHER people wanted
him to make... He stopped making "fun" movies, only to add his name as
"Executive Producer" on the fun popcorn movies, overshadowing the credits for
the likes of the directors Joe Dante (Gremlins), Tobe Hooper (Poltergeist), and
Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future, etc.). You can't convince me that the
same guy who brought us Duel, CE3K, Jaws and Raiders decided to make movies
like The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun because he wanted to. He made those
in hopes for awards... He finally got it with Schindler's List, but didn't quit
there... Sure, he's the most talented and capable mogul who can bring to the
table quality product ( I don't want to piss Tom off), but this moviegoer just
wants to see his epic popcorn-movies, which is what he's best at. If I want a
History lesson on Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, or Lincoln, I'll watch the
History Channel. I'd rather watch Minority Report, Jurassic Park, or that lousy
War Of The Worlds than Lincoln, no matter how powerful, moving and accurate it
may be. (IMHO)
Frankenwick
-----Original Message-----
From: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com>
To: MoPo-L <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
Sent: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 5:55 pm
Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with
pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all time -
is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but I thought
"Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this
year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a little.
The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from the NY Times. - d.
“Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser
Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood
have against its most successful resident?
by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013
Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters
Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph
of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln
brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at
bats for entertainment's biggest prize.
And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once
seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which
Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to
Life of Pi's Ang Lee.
For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his
unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable
since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet
another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and
consistent rebuff.
Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his
seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered
favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie Brown,
forever having the football pulled away.
This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations being
announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a shoo-in to
win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its thunder
again.
So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's
love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates is
failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list demonstrate
every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't soar with the
eagles.
But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall
of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion.
Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget his
historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for a Best
Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but then being denied for
nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down and ponied up nods for
E.T. — when it became the day's highest grossing of all time — and Color Purple.
But both those films still lost out on the grand prizes, and to add insult, he
was shut out in Best Director category throughout the 70s and 80s as well.
After the Color Purple loss, Academy officials were so alarmed by the serial
snubbing of Hollywood's most successful director that they took the unheard of
step of bestowing upon Spielberg at age 40 the Thalberg Lifetime achievement
award, until then reserved for septuagenarians at the end of their careers.
It wasn't until seven years later, when he made a three hour holocaust film
that Oscar finally couldn't deny giving him their grand prize for Schindler's
List. But since then, it has been a 20 year sea of also-rans.
Of course, he hasn't gone completely unrecognized. Eight Best Picture
nominations is something most directors will never even dream of. Add to that,
two Best Directing awards making him the most awarded director since William
Wyler in the 1950's.
But still, somehow the Best Picture prize keeps sliding from his grasp, and for
a man at the top of Hollywood, to be the town's perpetual also-ran in its
biggest contest has to be galling.
In a town with — despite the disruptive presence of the internet — a fixed
number of studios and a shrinking number of major releases, entertainment
remains a zero-sum game. Celebrating the achievement of the man with a
permanent position on top is never entirely in one's best interest (unless
you're doing it to his face).
And in a place where, as William Goldman famously put it, "no one knows
anything" and everyone knows that they don't know anything, seeing the mighty
stumble does even the chaotic playing field a bit.
But even more to the point, as big a business as entertainment is, even as it
stands as America's #1 export, the residents of Hollywood still need to think
of themselves as scrappy outsiders, the oppressed souls who fled the closed
minds back in their small towns and came to a place where at last they could
breathe the air of artistic freedom.
The fact that this is the story of almost no one in modern Hollywood, dampens
its power not a bit. Even as they drive their $50,000 hybrids paid for by
CGI-explosion fests, Hollywood's need to think of itself as The Oppressed
Outsiders holds an undying power.
In choosing their Best Picture each year, the members of the Academy choose
what story they want to tell the world about Hollywood. First there is the
story the film tells on the screen; and in recent years these have become
trended heavily towards the edgier, hipper end of the dead center of middlebrow
filmmaking; Oscar has ceased awarding the schmaltzy Braveheart's and Driving
Miss Daisy's that paint the industry as a place of uptight squares in favor of
Slumdog Millionaire's and Hurt Locker's.
Even a thriller like Argo is animated by a minimalist aesthetic that speaks to
restrained, hipster sensibilities far more than the genre winners of a decade
or two ago.
But more than the story on the screen, Oscar likes to tell a good story off the
screen about the making of a film. And however contorted and difficult the
journey of a Spielberg film to get to the multi-plex (and Lincoln did take
thirteen years) in the end, "Billionaire Hollywood Titan Makes Good Movie", is
not a tale to inspire the unwashed masses.
On the awards trail this year, Ben Affleck ran circles around Spielberg playing
up the gracious, just-happy-to-be-allowed-back comeback story. He showed up at
all the events, was warm and self-deprecating. People who remembered how far he
fell post-Gigli could not help but be touched by his redemption story. And when
the empire seemed to be rubbing it in by shutting him out of the Best Director
nominations, they rallied to his side.
In contrast, Spielberg, as he always is when he gets into an Oscar race, went
into a heavily managed bunker posture, limiting his appearances, keeping his
interviews to few, appearing handled and protected at every turn.
The fact of the matter is that a heavily guarded, insulated oligarch is much
closer to the true face of Hollywood than a vanquished actor giving one more
chance to redeem himself, as an artist. But its not about what story is true,
it's about what story projects the way Hollywood would like to think of itself.
The shame of it is, the real Spielberg on the rare moments when he emerges from
behind the palace gates is a wonderful story and a wonderful story teller. He
has had a career like no other of his generation, has in his time taken
enormous risks both as an artist and producer that have led to be triumphs and
disappointments. He is responsible for a busload of films high and low destined
to stand the test of time.
And when he submits to interviews, he is warm, gracious, avuncular, undefensive
and endlessly fascinating with five decades of filmmaking stories under his
belt.
However, he is also, as this race shows again, all too willing to play the
mighty mogul on high. And in the end, the fear that position inspires might
keep him at the top of the industry, but as he has discovered once more, it
doesn't make Hollywood see him as its ambassador to the world.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardrushfield/argo-win-makes-spielberg-hollywoods-biggest-loser
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oscar-Winning Lessons in History and Hard Sell
By MELENA RYZIK for the NEW YORK TIMES
February 27, 2013
LOS ANGELES — A few months into awards season, at a party celebrating another
movie, a veteran actor-writer-director-producer, who takes his Academy Awards
duties very seriously, whispered to me that he was sure “Lincoln” would win big
on Oscar night.
“Because it’s Lincoln,” he said. “It’s like not voting for George Washington.
And you really feel like you get to know Lincoln. We can’t not vote for our
favorite president.”
The more than 6,000 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
apparently did not see it as their patriotic duty to vote for “Lincoln” or its
director, Steven Spielberg.
Daniel Day-Lewis’s win for his performance demystifying the 16th president was
not compensation.
Mr. Spielberg, one studio boss said, looked stricken when he lost the best
director award to Ang Lee.
In the days after “Argo” won best picture at the ceremony on Sunday, it’s been
a parlor game among Hollywood types to figure out why “Lincoln” lost. After
all, it had all the hallmarks of an Academy Award-dominating film: a venerated
director; a celebrated, erudite scriptwriter in the Pulitzer Prize-winning Tony
Kushner; a landmark role for Mr. Day-Lewis; good reviews and even better box
office; and, not least, millions to spend on campaigning.
Lobbying voters is frowned on by the Academy and yet a necessity of the
monthslong award cycle. This season, insiders said, the team behind “Lincoln” —
executives at DreamWorks and Disney — overcampaigned, leaving voters with the
unpleasant feeling that they were being force-fed a highly burnished history
lesson. “It was a good movie, not sliced bread,” one veteran awards watcher
said.
Overreaching was perhaps a failure of the broadcast itself too. The host, Seth
MacFarlane, and the producers, Neil Meron and Craig Zadan, tried to marry
old-school showbiz panache with “provocative” humor and the result was an
entertainment grab bag: the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles; a foul-mouthed
talking teddy bear; splashy song-and-dance numbers for every conceivable
demographic (save anybody who likes hip-hop); Captain Kirk; sock puppets (sock
puppets!); racist, sexist punch lines that seemed lifted from the insult-comic
era; and the first lady of the United States. About the only things missing
were kitten videos and the Harlem Shake (but in blackface).
But since the ratings were up slightly, especially in the coveted 18-to-49 age
bracket, and despite some high-level protests — the reviews were not entirely
scathing, the production could ultimately be considered a success. (Mr.
MacFarlane, though, has already said he won’t be back as host.)
In a three-and-a-half-hour spectacle of glossy celebration for a roomful of
superstars dripping with jewels and self-regard, the question of how much is
too much may seem moot. But with the right tone and perspective, even that ego
parade can seem fun to watch. In choosing Mr. MacFarlane in its quest for a
younger, more male viewership, the Academy sacrificed its central constituency
— women make up the majority of the Oscar audience — and fomented cultural
battles in an awards season already full of them.
Then again, it was the political posturing that made this one of the most
interesting Oscar races in recent memory. As the vibrant discussion of just how
much truth bending is acceptable in fact-based movies shows, authenticity — or
at least the perception of authenticity — still counts.
Though it took liberties with its story, “Argo” squeaked by on truthiness. It
also triumphed as a consensus choice in a field of high-quality candidates,
each with its own passionate faction of defenders. As Mr. Spielberg himself
said, when he lost the Directors Guild Award to Ben Affleck and “Argo,” “There
have been moments when I wish it was a slightly less incredible year for
movies.”
There may have been other reasons “Lincoln” fell by the wayside. Dimly
illuminated, to replicate the lighting of the period, and stuffed with long
passages of speechifying by waistcoated, bearded men, the film did not play
well on DVD screeners (nor, perhaps, did another historically based competitor,
“Zero Dark Thirty”).
Cynics also say that Mr. Spielberg, as Hollywood’s reigning titan, was primed
for a takedown — envy being as motivating a force as greed in this industry —
and that voters were enthralled by the comeback story that Mr. Affleck
represented.
Somehow Mr. Affleck could not overcampaign, or at least, his combination of
movie-star charm and tabloid comeuppance won people over. Also, he talked film
references like an expert. Which, having won an Oscar at 25 (for writing “Good
Will Hunting” with Matt Damon) after a career as a child actor, this college
dropout turned director pretty much is.
Casual viewers often wonder if Oscar victory comes down to something simpler:
who makes the best movie. It does not. Nor does the funniest person make the
best Oscar host. There is a narrative to both endeavors, a combination of
self-effacement and artistry (voilà, Mr. Lee), being of the moment and
timeless, that is hard to pull off. Mr. Spielberg will no doubt try again, and
in the meantime he and the other also-rans can console themselves with another
prize, Hollywood’s ultimate popularity contest: record-breaking ticket sales.
And next year, may we suggest to the Academy, hire Jennifer Lawrence to host.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at http://www.filmfan.com/
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
