The Anti-Spielberg Movement?

The other day I was reading an article by Rick McGinnis, the Entertainment writer for ‘The Metro’. In his article entitled ‘Studio closed, but not forgotten’, he mentions how TV writer/executive producer Aaron Sorkin has a deal that may see one his scripts directed by Steven Spielberg. McGinnis goes on to say, and I quote, “which is, to be frank, no longer the big deal it used to be.” A few days ago, my friend Bryan and I were talking about George Lucas and the innovations he has brought to the world of film, technically speaking. Bryan claimed that George Lucas has done more for the world of film than Steven Spielberg has, and that Spielberg hasn’t really done that much. I am not here to debate the Lucas matter, though I’m interested in people’s opinions. However, what he said struck a chord with me. In the last few years I’ve been hearing plenty of comments like those of Bryan’s and Mr. McGinnis’; people saying that Spielberg doesn’t hold the weight he used to, or that his hey-days are behind him and that he should sit back and produce for Dreamworks; that he’s only making ‘Indiana Jones 4’ as a ‘back-to-the-well’ move. I say that just because things change, doesn’t mean they haven’t stayed the same.

People’s basis for these Anti-Spielberg statements tends to be two points: economic and artistic. People think that just because a Spielberg film may not have grossed ‘Jurassic Park’ sized numbers, it means it’s not a success. As well if he’s not making ‘Schindler’s List’ every year then he’s making unimportant work. Sure, ‘The Terminal’ may have been a financial let-down, but ‘War of The World’s’ broke box office records, raking in hundreds of millions worldwide. Sure, he may have been phoning it in with ‘Catch Me If You Can’, but don’t forget ‘Munich’ – arguably one of the most poignant political films in decades.

Spielberg is criticized all too often for making movies that are too ‘mainstream’. He is a businessperson as well as a filmmaker, a fact he has never tried to hide. He is a tycoon in the truest sense of the word. He believes in making commercially viable art, yet art all the same. Moreover, in spite of his missteps, he has never had significant or prolonged failure.

If a filmmaker wants to branch out and try some different things, maybe smaller things, does not make those things terrible. Spielberg seems to have a stigma attached to him that everything he does must be ‘Close Encounters’ or ‘Jaws’. ‘A.I.’ may have missed the mark, but many critics commended him for trying something as far away from his normal style as he could, though dealing with familiar subject matter. He took a risk and risks don’t always work. But this is the man who brought us ‘Indiana Jones’, ‘E.T.’, has held the record of ‘highest grossing film of all time’ at least twice, and was the first filmmaker to break $100 million at the box office while simultaneously inventing the summer blockbuster (‘Jaws;). After what he has done, he deserves to take some risks.

I loved ‘The Terminal’. I thought it was a small, sweet film that was poignant in its own way. It brought to mind ‘Forrest Gump’, though on a smaller scale. I also thought ‘War of The Worlds’ had many glaring problems and was not his finest, but it was a huge financial success - which would hopefully silence many critics who say Spielberg can’t pull in a crowd anymore. Then there’s ‘Minority Report’, which I thought was one his best works in a decade, and as Roger Ebert stated, “This film is such a virtuoso high-wire act, daring so much, achieving it with such grace and skill…"Minority Report" reminds us why we go to the movies in the first place.”

The point is that just because he may make some movies that are creatively askew from his normal endeavors, doesn’t make them worse. Moreover, if some of them flop, you know he’ll come back, as he’s done multiple times. Never forget that he is the most financially successful and legendary director of all time (I’m not going to say ‘greatest’ because that is very subjective); therefore he is not going to bow out so easily.

And as for the ‘back-to-the-well’ statement about ‘Indy 4’, just because you may be going back to the well, it doesn’t mean you can’t draw fresh water.