I can say as a person who’s listened to the full show for years, I think you’re searching for the wrong audience with the headlines. I know those get the most clicks, but I don’t even want to click it and I already know what he’s saying! I think Klavan has very well-thought out opinions, but these UA-cam headlines make it seem like he’s the shallow and childish one trying to dish hot takes.
The algorithm works how it works...if this gets these we'll thought out opinions and agree or disagree but worthy of hearing opinions out their to the masses then so be it.
It’s escapism. That’s what Spielberg is good at. Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park, all escapism. Like Klavan mentioned, they’re like “Disney” movies…for adults. Entertaining, for sure, but not necessarily so profound.
@@tfpp1 i agree with you that his movies are awesome escapism. I love Steven Spielberg’s early classics like Jaws, Close Encounters, Indiana Jones all the way up to Jurassic park. I don’t mind that they’re shallow because that’s totally valid! Not every film should be deep or express the director’s views. His blockbusters are perfect. The problem is that when he makes a supposedly serious film like Schindler’s list or saving private Ryan, it always has that exact same shallow feel! He thinks those movies are more sophisticated but they’re not. Jaws is more sophisticated filmmaking than Amistad.
Modern Hollywood is the epitome of childishness. Layoff of Spielberg's filmmaking. Modern Hollywood tells you you're a racist, sexist, and homophobic for calling them on their bullshit, because their "bastion of representativeness" movies are low quality horseshit. That's pure childishness. So I disagree.
How many adults you know go to cinemas for ‘profound’ experience you schmuck. People have work to do, lives to lead, almost 90 per cent go to the movies for escapism and feel good movies. Spielberg has mostly delivered that and is quite possibly the best at that.
With respect...I think you're kinda looking at Shindler's List with the wrong perspective, and the fact that you feel the "actual" Great film on the Holocaust is a documentary underlines that, for me. Spielberg is illustrating in his film how even in the most monstrous of times, good men can make a difference, however small the difference may be.
It's how the new owners of the Star Wars franchise progress. I stopped wanting* to watch their cartoons with my kids years ago. Wife, kids, elders. "You take your kids to see what they want to see or you're a horrible father!!" 🤷♂️ W.T.E.L (what the ever living) could I have done? I was a "crazy person" for telling them why. One of my cousins went to a bad place tripping out over Toy Story 3. I've definitely seen where it can take you. I hope he's alright now. Family won't tell me.
I don’t know if i agree with this. Steven Spielberg made a lot of great films, even if they are childish, anyone could understand and realize that they brought out imagination in anyone no matter what their age
Speilberg is overrated. It's so bizarre. I find his movies ... lame. In the eighties and nineties it was a fairly popular opinion for people that paid attention to movies as art. AI is his best movie because it was really Kubrick's movie.
The Foundation of Economic Education has an interesting interpretation of Jurassic Park as a story about socialism and how quickly a meticulously laid plan can go horribly wrong.
Not all art, including film, necessarily needs to be intellectually deep or profound in order to be valuable. Take, for example, the Jeeves and Wooster novels by P.G. Wodehouse, Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll, or Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K. Jerome. These are either intellectually superficial, frivolous, or absurd works of art. However, they're valuable in the sense of a breezy and almost musical literary style as well as bringing amusement and humor, which in turn provide cognitive rest for minds wearied from the burdens of life. Similarly, Indiana Jones is intellectually superficial, but it lets us escape away from the mundane or somber and into high adventure, which, again, in turn allows us to rest and recover so that we can begin the struggle of life anew, reinvigorated and strengthened for the next day's tasks. We often need rest as much as we need reflection. Isn't that the primary purpose of the Sabbath, to take a religious example that might resonate with Andrew Klavan? In any case, art that may be intellectually superficial but that provides rest for people has value in life too. At least for those who find rest in such art! But perhaps Andrew Klavan is someone who finds rest only in the perpetual plumbing of profundities. If so, I won't begrudge him his choice, so long as he doesn't begrudge me mine when I watch Raiders of the Lost Ark once again! 😊
“Empire of the Sun” is Spielberg’s best WWII drama precisely because it is told from the point of view of a boy (played by then child actor Christian Bale). The sentimentalized and almost agnostic view it takes on the war fit perfectly with Spielberg’s artistic sensibilities.
@@alancross1141 This one was partially based on the Author's Life and released only 3 years before the Spielberg Adaptation. Spielberg also didn't write it the Adaptation, he only directed.
Of all Spielberg movies, I’ve repeat watched this the most. I don’t truly understand the political dynamics, but the movie always sweeps me away. I can hear the music in my ears as I type this…..
Spielberg is far from my favorite director, but I think Andrew’s criticisms are vastly overblown. I think Spielberg’s greatest strength was instilling a childlike wonder in his audience. He was also capable of going deep. If you look at the Indiana Jones films, the religious themes are quite poignant and thought provoking. Yes, blockbuster films will always be shallow in certain ways, but Spielberg, at least in the 70s through the 90s, made the best of what the blockbuster film had to offer.
@@Dude0000 Spielberg has some movies that are innocent and childlike in nature (such as E.T. or Jurassic Park) but he was also very good at making dark and dramatic movies that provide an in depth look at the human experience (examples include Schindler’s List, Jaws, and Empire of the Sun).
I love the diverse takes DW shows have. Not only from varying perspectives, but also varying objectives-Ben informs on politics, economics, etc. The others connect on other levels, and Andrew highlights some really neat cultural things.
A lot of Stephen Spielberg's movies are Shallow and Childish, and that is exactly what we love about them! That sense of childlike wonder in his movies are what makes them great, and he is the best at it.
I think his strengths is that they're just really well 'made'. I'm not gonna have an epiphany or deep meaning. But his work is worth appreciating and study for the filmcraft itself. He's the gymnastics to the ballet, technical excellence without the deeper beauty - but still a worthwhile pursuit. And while I do appreciate Christian themes here and there. But I don't need that from every movie.
One of the best films I ever saw on the theme of spirituality was The Craft. It was perhaps the only occult film that did not work on the God versus Satan binary, where the Spirit was a universal force that one could draw power from, assuming that one was responsible with it.
@@Plainview-tu7xn That doesn’t make it Kubrick’s film any more than Gone With the Wind is Margaret Mitchell’s film. Kubrick died in 99 and had nothing to do with the production. Don’t take away Spielberg’s accomplishments for dumb reasons.
I couldn't agree more than Spielberg has a bit of a vapid worldview. On that I completely agree with him, but that really doesn't seem like that's all he's trying to say. It's the rest of it that I don't really follow.
"Schindler's List" was a very good movie. It was a well-told story of one small segment of that war. It didn't try to represent the entire war or even the entire German reaction to the Jews.
But Klavan's right in the fact that Schindler's List, a film that couldn't truthfully depict the evil of the Holocaust, became THE Holocaust movie. There's not going to be another one because it's already been done, acting as the definitive depiction.
Schindler's List is the only movie I have seen when after the movie's conclusion the entire crowd of over 150 people did not make one sound and exited the theatre. Not one sound!
Agree to disagree. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of favorite movies. It's fun and entertaining. Not everything has to be deep and philosophical. It's OK for a movie to just be entertaining. John Williams soundtracks certainly help Spielbergs films become hits as well.
Just a dumb critique. Spielberg takes dramatic situations and tells a human story within them. Shoa is for a completely different audience. The opening sequence of Ryan was intended to convey the human toll of D Day, after that it was a human story brilliantly told. Clearly Mr Klavan has an agenda about modern cinema, and given that Hollywood is mostly superheroes these days, Spielberg movies are several rungs higher in audience requirements. But if he made Mean Streets Klavan would probably be complaining about the bad language and violence. I'm a Conservative, but I don't think his agenda is correct.
Mr Klavan has an agenda alright. He grew up in an era were Hitchcock, David Lean and John Ford were the gold standard of directing. Spielberg was a good director but not in the same league as the greats. Mr Klavan has an agenda alright and that agenda of quality. Classic era Hollywood had amazing scripts that were on a par with the best novels and that is not the case since New Hollywood came along.
The point of some movies is to sit down for an hour. Get involved in the life of a fictional character and leave not feeling like we where taken for a battering on our morals. He’s actually managed to do it, and do it decently well. Personally I’m glad that movies exist that I don’t need to pay attention to fully. That’s what books are for.
Spielberg’s “Lincoln” is the best movie I have ever seen on Lincoln’s life and definitely the best presidential movie I’ve seen. It’s phenomenal. Indiana Jones is a great movie trilogy. I think you’re using his politics as an excuse to discredit his work.
So he complains about the lack of atrocity and abundance of depth depicted in Schindler's List yet whines about the lack of depth and abundance of atrocity in Saving Private Ryan? Very conflicted perspective for an "industry insider".
What are you talking about, he didn’t say that at all about either film. He called them both childish and simplistic, criticizing their depth. If all you got from this is “needs more atrocity; needs less atrocity” you weren’t tracking with anything he said.
@@Nero-ox5tw It’s on you if you want to leave an underdeveloped, snarky, twitter-tier take to mislead people who haven’t even watched the video. Thanks for the laughs bud.
He got a lot wrong in ET (using TWO fingers, Touching Eliot’s forehead instead of heart etc) makes it seem like he saw the movie once. Also I’m pretty sure the slow knife stab in Saving Private Ryan is NOT meant to be rape.
@@RobotacularRoBob I suspect Klavan has some latent insecurities which have manifests in posterity because he projected them onto persons rather than purge them from his person. That's my theory.
And why the teenager left his home, carrying the tools of a gay boy in a guitar case. Spielberg's first film Amblin'. Which is NAMBLA , North American Man Boy Assoc. changed to AMBL inc. his company. In the last scene, he had the book The City and the Stars, by Athur C Clarke, the world where boys can live as adults... the famous paedophile who lived in India, never arrested by the UK police. In you ever watch Hook... adults and kids playing roles together with body paints etc... is one disturbing film.
Every director has their preferred storytelling tropes that appear in most of their work. Spielberg is no exception. For example you could say every Scorsese movie is about good men going bad and how the criminal lifestyle gets worse over time.
@@KrisBryant99 What I’m saying is that almost every director does this. If you named me your personal favourite directors, I could probably tell you which particular storytelling tropes are common in most of their movies. BTW here’s a couple more examples. Most of Christopher Nolan’s movies are about terrorism and or conspiracies. and most of James Cameron’s movies involve parents (most often mothers) defending their children. My point still stands, EVERY great director in Hollywood history has common tropes that they relied on throughout their career. It is part of how directors build their style as filmmakers.
he created timeless films that are more entertaining than modern films...that millions still watch every single day 30 to 40 years later...hardly overrated
Overrated when compared to the likes of David Lean or John Ford. He is a very talented director who has made great family films but not at the level of greatness of other directors.
Most of Spielberg's work is hardly "timeless", and to a great extent, the movies you say are modern are merely a continuation of Spielberg's shallow juvenile depth. The few that I rewatch have the most character interaction. Saving Private Ryan turns to crap the minute the Private Ryan storyline takes over for instance...the opening scene is incredible and people focus on that part.
That movie was boring & instantly forgettable. Maybe Spielberg could try doing a film which shows war from the side of the war profiteers. Without of which, there would be no war.
Spielberg is “childish” but Alice in Wonderland is one of the greatest films ever made? Spielberg isn’t a top tier director but he makes well plotted movies that appeal to the masses which is a role that should be filled in any medium because average joes are never going to appreciate “high art”. He’s certainly better than the Marvel garbage that has taken the place of his summer blockbusters.
“But at least it’s not as bad as (insert random garbage here)” isn’t a sufficient argument. Lowlives like Spielberg already make too much money. They should at least create something of value. I don’t understand why so many of you have this impulse to defend mediocrity.
@@allisonanne571 Easily accessible entertainment will always be "mediocre" compared to more profound expressions because by their nature they are inaccessible. Tell a high school dropout to watch 2001 and they will see no value in it because they simply don't have the capacity to understand it. The themes in Spielberg movies are not complex but they are no less valuable because they reach the audience that needs and can understand them.
@@allisonanne571 Compare this to a marvel movie, where the most complex and interesting character in the entire franchise is a purple dude who is a retarded Utilitarian whose entire plan is undermined with plot holes. It's perfectly valid to miss Spielberg's primacy.
I have to disagree with you on a few points Mr. Klavan. (1) words. A great film director can show a lot of emotion with a single shot and no dialogue at all (2001 A Space Odyssey). Also, in the old movies, people talk much more eloquently then even the smartest people ever could in real life, making them unrelatable. Sometimes the brilliance of dialogue comes from how accurate it is to real life. (2) childishness isn't always bad: even in a complicated world, there is still right and wrong. Having people like Oskar Schindler and CPT Miller go through the heart of darkness, the whole time being relatable and grounded humans, allows them to be role models and inspirations about what to do when surrounded by human evil. It's meant for a different audience than yourself, specifically people who are being exposed to human evil for the first time and have no idea how to react. If you have too much darkness people come away thinking nihilism is the right course of action (Rick and Morty, Game of Thrones). (3) personal preference: while Casablanca will always be the greatest movie ever made, that is not to say that movies that came later are automatically bad. Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, these always seemed like incredibly mature films to me, nothing childish about them. In fact, they helped me grow up. (4) my final thoughts: you seem to prefer films that promote high-minded ideals like chivalry, marriage, intelligence, courage in the face of danger, etc, out of fear that we are losing touch with those necessary virtues. While I agree to a point, I also believe that art should also challenge those beliefs, lest they be taken too far. Also, even today you can find good examples of the art you're looking for. The Dark Knight, The Lord of the Rings, The Empire Strikes Back, Spiderman No Way Home, these are all visual films that go through darkness, yet promote the very values we are needing. Lastly, I don't blame artists for doing things that make money. It's all part of the game. All that being said, still great work, and you have a lot of courage for challenging the king himself.
I like Batman Begins over The Dark Knight; Return of the Jedi over The Empire Strikes Back; and Spider-Man 2 and Into the Spider-Verse over all the other Spider-Man movies but otherwise, you are correct.
You mistake childishness with childlike. Childishness has a negative connotation, meaning an adult who won't grow up. Childlike has a more positive connotation. And your sentences after "childishness isn't always bad" make no sense. It does not argue the point.
This might be off the topic, but I am a huge fan of Mel Gibson as a director. When you look at every movie he has directed since Braveheart, like the Passion, Apocalypto and Hacksaw Ridge, they are some of the most unflinchingly engrossing pieces of filmmaking ever made. He follows the classic Heroes journey from Joseph Campbell. Although his films have their fare share of brutality and violence, the characters always follow a path to redemption and sacrifice. Anyways, if Mel Gibson is not a perfect person but as an artist I believe he could have surpassed someone like Spielberg in terms of filmmaking.
Your point about how movies used to be more talky and not as visual as Spielberg’s stuff shows you don’t seem to understand what cinema is, despite having worked in the industry. A movie isn’t supposed to be a filmed play, which seems to be what you want. A movie tells a story visually.
He is talking about how the industry has become obsessed with visual rather than story. And in that obsession has created a new industry that is one dimensional and a beast that devours.
This is why conservatives lost the culture war. If you can’t understand why movies 30 to almost 50 years ago were brilliant (especially Steven Spielberg or George Lucas’s) how do you expect to change it today?
@@oovdash They were more backhanded complements.What prize making some of the greatest movies of all time and bringing joy to millions and actually being good movies?
@@DayTripperrrhis compliments are the same praises made by Spielberg enthusiasts. Spielberg is a virtuoso at kinetic and visual storytelling. He is also the poster boy for sentimentality and the bad dad trope that is in every contemporary pop culture narrative. Lucas and him were very open about bringing b-movies and serials to the masses. They have lowered film culture with great artistic moments and flourishes. Just because something is a masterpiece does not mean it is good.
Jaws: 5/5 Close Encounters Of The Third: 5/5 Indiana Jones Trilogy: 5/5 E.T.: 4.5/5 Poltergeist: 5/5 Twilight Zone: 4/5 The Color Purple: 4/5 Empire Of The Sun: 5/5 Hook: 4/5 Jurassic Park: 5/5 Schindler's List: 5/5 The Lost World: 2/5 Saving Private Ryan: 5/5 Catch Me If You Can: 5/5 War Of The Worlds: Dogshit Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull: Dogshit The Adventures Of Tintin: 3/5 War Horse: 3/5 Lincoln: 3.5/5 Ready Player One: 2/5 West Side Story: 2/5 Spielberg lost his touch 20 years ago
You are spot on… And thank you for not calling them dark ages… Which is referring to the time immediately after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Its is the MIDDLE AGES, as you said. Great job… also yeah that’s why Stainglass was so important in medieval times because peasants and serfs couldn’t read only nobles, kings, usually knights and all clergyman and monks.
I'll call them the Dark Ages still. Archaeology finds a marked decline in quality of life. Rome even still survived in some form, but it was hardly the age of the 5 Good Emperors.
@@Pangora2 Nope. There was sone setback in the beginning and the end but to call a whole millennium "dark" is jut silly. It was a time of tremendous innovation, energy, beauty and intellectual achievements. And the "good five Emperors" weren't actually that good. Of the longer reigning ones, only Hadrian and Antoninus and the former had pretty dark periods as well. Maybe you should read less of that ape from the 18th century and more actual historians. Outside of Europe went much worse, with no recovery to this day.
Spielberg is a great director and Lost Ark is a great action movie and is fun but it is not a truly great movie. It would be fantastic if we had movies like that today and on top of that we got great artistic movies. New Hollywood was a more simplistic endeavor that gave us more excitement orientated movies.
I feel like this more about not liking Spielberg's politics, he's a great director, talented writer and producer. The guy has done just about every genre and has given us so many classics starting with Jaws back in the mid 70's. I consider Band of Brothers the greatest take on the war genre.
The director doesn’t direct action scenes??? What are you talking about? The director should direct the entire film, and if it’s an action film-like many Spielberg movies are-the director should definitely be directing the action!
Schindler's list, Color purple, Emperor of the Sun, Always, Amistad, Lincoln, Bridge of Spies and The Post are not action films nor are they family films. They are his serious films and those are what he will get judged upon. His entertainment films are good but they are not great films by any account. His more serious films do not in anyway come close to the works of the great directors.
@@bighands69 Those are historical dramas, which are entertainment and in no competition with the works of Kurosawa or Goddard. His historical dramas should simply be compared to other Oscar bait like 12 Years a Slave or Monuments Men. In that light Spielberg’s are superior. But in my opinion his “serious” movies are not what’s interesting. His real contribution to cinema are the blockbusters you dismiss. Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, and E.T. are all sublime, some of the most perfectly realized, conceived, and executed films ever made. Spielberg’s contribution is that great cinema can be unserious and lighter than air.
Everytime I watch the mashed potato scene from the movie " Close Encounters " , I can't help , but say to myself " that's it Marge , I'm going to clown college" !
As a rare conservative who actually has worked in Hollywood, Andrew brings a useful perspective to the table. So, I appreciate his perspective. I don't care for Spielberg's politics, obviously -- his slavish devotion to and funding of the Democrat Party is myopic, misguided and unfortunate, as with all Hollywood Leftists who reflexively follow the lemming herd. That said, the guy has undeniably made some entertaining and powerful movies. I saw "Empire of the Sun" once in the theater, as a kid, and, it's stayed with me, all these years. "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List" are also moving and powerful. Andrew's criticism is interesting, though. I see where he's coming from.
but he is. He's great at working with kids. Shallow movies can be good and they sell better of course. Speilberg is in my top 200 directors... maybe. probably not though.
Not a popular opinion but one that should be given a chance at the very least. We have very little diversity of thought when it comes to this nuanced subject.
@@Tolstoy111 But he's right about SL being a bad movie. It was manipulative and his characterization of Schindler was phony. Watch The Pianist if you want to see an authentic dramatization of those events. That is a great dramatization of that grave time.
@@LisaMurphy SL was a wonderful film. Haunting and lyrical. Literate to boot. Didn’t like The Pianist at all. Now that was shallow and manipulative. And hollow. What was authentic about it? The title character was a passive cipher, the Nazis were barking cliches, the ghetto residents all talk like they just walked out of a seminar (“they have already exterminated 3 million of us””).
I remember thinking, when Spielberg directed A.I. Artificial Intelligence, which was a project that Stanley Kubrick originated, and Spielberg eventually took over after Kubrick's death, that I just couldn't see _Spielberg_ of all people picking up where Kubrick left off. He seemed like a lightweight compared to Spielberg. I never articulated the reason behind that as well as Klavan does here though. I love many of Spielberg's films: Jaws, the Indiana Jones trilogy (the less said about the 4th film the better), Jurassic Park, Lincoln, and yes, Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List (though I certainly understand Klavan's criticisms of those films). But Kubrick is rightly seen as one of the great titans of cinema, and his films are intelligent and thought provoking and often philosophical in a way that Spielberg has never even come close to achieving in his career.
Visual storytelling is not shallow; it can convey reason. If you work in film, you should know the value of wordless storytelling, and understand that sometimes showing an image, and remaining silent, can be infinitely more powerful than a hundred-word speech. Images can convey complex ideas, though they require the spectator to be an active participant in the creative exercise. Your statement is so ignorant, that my mind struggles to comprehend how men of your age, as mature as I assume you must be, can be so unwise and frankly narrowminded Having said that, I completely agree with the thought that Steven Spielberg is Childish as a filmmaker and person, but that is what I love about him, and why I find his historical dramas to be lackluster. I can enjoy the childish worlds of Spielberg and the sociological scripts of Tarkobsky all the same.
The mindset that the “visual arts cannot convey reason” shows Andrew has a such a fundamental misunderstanding of the language that is cinema. Editing, lighting, framing, acting; these are all ways in which directors can express an extremely powerful and rational concept without a single second of dialogue. This video does not prove Spielberg’s inadequacies as an artist but rather Andrew’s inadequacies as an interpreter of that art. Spielberg can covey more reason and emotion in one shot of any one of his films than Klavan can in a 12 minute long editorial style video essay.
I think you are completely missing his point. Andrew is a fan of Hitchcock who is a master of the visual art of movie making. What Andrew is talking about is the fact that Hollywood has become obsessed with simple visual presentation in film to the point of steroid men running around in plastic suits with one liners coming out of their mouth on average every 75 seconds. All the characters look like they are suffering from ADHD.
Well he is my favorite 2nd unit director. Pairs well with John Williams. He is good at capturing nostalgia. I never get tired of watching Raiders of the Lost Ark. This is a fantastic analysis. I'm a millennial so Spielberg's films have always been around. I agree West Side Story wasn't woke. It was well made.
Same boat. He's very hit or miss with me, and I probably love less than half of his output, but the movies I do love are some of my favorites, particularly the original Indiana Jones movies and Jurassic Park.
Say what you want about Spielberg and his childish tendencies, he’s one of the few living filmmakers who respects the art of filmmaking. Great analysis, even tho i slightly disagree with some of it.
Since I was in college back in the dark ages (1981-85), I have maintained that Spielberg's movies have universally been geared towards a 17 year old's understanding of the world and of the self.
Tell me you don't know Steven Spielberg's directing without telling me you don't know Steven Spielberg's directing. Schindler's list was a microcosm of the holocaust. You can't take 12 million deaths, all of the camps and ghettos and turn it into a Hollywood cinematic picture capable of captivating an audience with the same individualistic intensity and duality that was explored with Oscar Schindler's life during WW2. Saying he's childish and cherry picking pieces where Ralph Fiennes gives his motivation for the dehumanization of Jews, while also ignoring concepts of greed and ignorance over time vs selflessness and a deeper understanding of morality. A man who started out doing right things for the wrong reasons to only realize the the depth at the end where each life saved is more and more precious. Mixed up the nazi and the american stabbing scene in saving private ryan, and while the omaha beach scene stands out as peak techincal cinematography you can't ignore how he delves into personalized topics like innocence (being a teacher, ryan's story with his brothers, upham's struggle with violence) against the genuine horrors of war and war takes innocence from those who shouldn't have to be there and turns them into vengeful ideas or the trauma that comes out of losing said innocence (upham killing the prisoner they released in the end). Not even going to dive into Captain Miller saying "earn this" at the end and how it's not just this childish we have to fight bad guys so that good can prevail concept but rather now saying each life has been granted and what are you going to do with that life or those culmination of moments to make your existence matter to those around you in the scope of the world...Noticed you skipped right over Lincoln there; interesting. Was the exploration of the 13th amendment's passing and slavery's immorality through Lincoln's eyes and analogies as well as his delegation's take on preserving the union this boylike concept? Heck even ready player one, while appeasing to those of us into cultural references and pop iconography, still ties into relevant concepts we are ever approaching...what is morality over the internet or within virtual spaces? Virtual escapism to cope with reality or attempting to personify concepts such as wealth, power, fame, and attractiveness when dealing with said inequalities in life? Spielberg takes directing from both a technical aspect with the shot selection, to the use of visuals and scripting meant to entice imagination, but ultimately does tell relevant stories not just on basic concepts as good guys vs bad guys or overcoming adversity, but rather taking that which appeals of each of us individually and putting it on the screen under different lights, microscopes, and scenarios.
Andrew Klavan: Spielberg's films are shallow & childish. Me, (hauling out a HUGE library of pre-1997 Hong Kong movies catering towards traditional Chinese, 'patriotic' values): Hold my beer...
I love those movies. I've also got a massive collection, it's a pity you can stream them anynore cus it's all on DVD or VCD. You can stream some of the more popular ones like infernal affairs or some stephen chow or Jackie Chan ones, but I can't find a streaming service with lots of HK movies. Let me know if you know of any. I've got Iquiyi.
This is what happens when you give your Grandad a bong. There’s a reason that Stanley Kubrick gave A.I: artificial intelligence to Spielberg.. He knew he did sentimental films better than anyone else. Sentimental doesn’t mean childish. A lot of Spielberg‘s movies are very sentimental, but that’s what makes them wonderful to watch.
I think AI is the best Speilberg movie. Speilberg's great ability is working with kids. That's why he was good for the movie. I find Speilberg is maybe in my top 200 directors maybe. He's so overrated
It’s one thing to make a sentimental movie or two over a career, but if that’s the only kind of story you know how to tell, it reveals a concerning want of creativity and innovation in a highly creative and innovative field.
For the audience, yes. Michelangelo created art that transcended his time. Spielberg's movies are coloured in a way that is quite distinct from reality.
@@erastusamaechi9977 I would argue he is not trying for art, rather profit. While I can see why a purist might be upset about this, but I bet that there are Spielberg fics out there were more people have seen them and didn't like them, than have seen some artistically correct films. More to the point, while I can't speak for another living soul, I go to movies to escape reality.
Imagine valuing art from how much money it makes. Yes, Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit were much greater artist than Tchaikovsky and Michelangelo because dollar dollar bills.
Power critique. I have always loved the movies of the 30s-50s for exactly the same reasons. They could convey emotion through both dialogue and visuals. I never thought of Spielberg as the cornerstone for today's vapid action movies but you are spot on. I think directors like Michael Bay in the 90s took Spielberg's technique and evicted characters and intelect right out of movies. The occasional exception does happen, but the norm is unfortunate.
I disagree with a lot of this but I also understand aspects of what he’s saying. I have more respect for Spielberg and I don’t mind the spectacle or the occasional sentimentality. But I do realize that his success has partly contributed to the state of cinema and culture today.
I think the only problem with spielberg films is that they usually have a happy ending.The greatest thing about spielberg is that he easily cuts across genre and he knows how to entertain.Spielberg makes modern fairytales.
I don’t agree with Spielberg on many personal views that he has put in his movies, specially the latest ones, but I agree with others, he is one of the few filmmakers that finds the right balance in between telling something personal while still giving the general audience what they want, that’s why I can still enjoy and appreciate his movies even if I would absolutely remove a scene or two from them. NOW, If you want to talk about overrated filmmakers no one beats STANLEY KUBRICK. That guy was all technicality over substance, technicality over feelings and over the sentiments that movies are supposed to evoque in the audience. People love Spielberg's movies because they do their job right, they don’t pretend to be more than what they are and being simplistic doesn't take any merit away, in fact that's why they often succeeded. Meanwhile the audience doesn't like or just don't get the ones from Kubrick. He doesn't communicate well with the audience, and only artsy fartsy pretentious filmmakers love him, because they were told that they must love him at film school and they don't want to be the exception thinking that by don't like him they will be less of an artist. Who are we making movies for anyway? If Spielberg's movies are childish, so what? Thats his vision, thats his style, and that's why he is loved. And you are going to say the same exact thing about Kubrick in his defense, that’s his style, don't you? Both filmmakers have styles, but one style has an immensely bigger appeal than the other. Tell me which one is. Kubrick inspires filmmakers, a certain kind of filmmakers, that’s undeniable, but Spielberg inspires filmmakers too, and unlike Kubrick, he doesn’t only inspires filmmakers, he inspires people.
I think it would be fairer to say Spielberg doesn't understand war or human violence so the films he makes regarding those come off as shallow. When jumping into sci-fi, his films are much more insightful. I'm thinking specifically of Jaws, Encounters of the Third Kind and Jurassic Park. When I rewatched Jurassic Park I was genuinely surprised at the sheer mastery of story-telling and thematic coherence exhibited throughout the film. I remembered it merely as a good popcorn film, but every scene is infused with the themes of control and chaos such that even Shakespeare would be in awe at. I think art should be measured by its ability to express truth, no matter how simple or obtuse. 200 pages of script doesn't automatically make a film more insightful than if it had 100 pages of script. What matters is execution. A picture is worth a 1000 words after all. There is alot of nuance in visual arts and potential for profound insights and imagery. Eg- In Star Wars Phantom Menace(shock!), the main hero is dangling above an abyss while the devlisih antagonist who slayed his mentor taunts him from above. Just prior, he lost his apprentice' weapon. In order to overcome evil, he must literally rise above it and take hold of his mentor's weapon to kill his foe who cannot understand where his resilience/hope comes from. A deep story is told without the use of any words. I believe Spielberg and Lucas are masters of visual arts and there are so many visual metaphors cleverly used in their films. This doesn't make people dumber, it makes them smarter!
No, his films were once great. It’s easy to look back at classic films and say, “I could’ve done it better“ in hindsight, but that’s reminiscent of the BS “reimagine“ culture we find ourselves in. Instead, it’s more interesting to see how his films went from original and fun to formulaic and unfeeling.
How can you watch Schindler’s List and say it doesnt portray any evil. Schindler's List is Disney-esque? Also the Saving Private Ryan "German raping a jew with a knife" scene has the be the weirdest take on that scene Ive ever heard in my life.
Mr. Klavan , you are just way too intelligent for the culture in which you live... And you are very brave to talk like this. Brilliant and very logical.
I watch films as an escape from reality, I like popcorn movies that entertain & excite me, I don't like drama films that induce negative emotions, if I want gritty reality I can turn off my TV.
You may like that but there is a problem when the whole of industry is based on nothing but excitement. What you end up with is Fast and Furious 9 and Transformers 7. And we are currently on Marvel 23. A balance between good art and good entertainment in terms of choice is what some of us want. I want to watch Gone with the Wind and at the same time watch Minority report. When the industry is based purely on thrills what you get is neither.
@@bighands69 Surely Spielberg's Blockbuster's of the 1970s, 80s and 90s are a lot more compelling than Transformers or Fast and Furious? I know he's attributted to creating the summer blockbuster , however there are an abundance of well made blockbisters made in the later part of the 20th century that have better stories and characters than the trash they have been putting out the last 20 years. A lot of these comments just come across as snobbery when most people just want to be entertained. I agree that cinema has changed for the worse, but I think that special effects and marvel has a lot to do with it. Hollywood is creatively bankrupt and now we have all the wokeness being injected into it. The 1970s was a golden age of Hollywood and Spielberg had a lot to do with that. If anything Star Wars had more to do with shallow Blockbuster's than Jaws or Close Encounters.
@@rattelv426 My point was that the industry as a whole needs a mixture of different films rather than just fast and furious type movies. So back in the 1990s we would have seen films like Usual suspects that cost $5 million and films like Jurassic park. Two completely different scales and two completely different films. Both were successful in their own right. Could you imagine going to see a film like LA Confidential today in the cinema.
This is one of the reasons why I love listening to Andrew Klavan. He has an insight I've never even considered, and it's a fascinating and brilliant one.
The idea that visual art doesn’t contain reason strikes me is obviously false. Perhaps there’s a better term for what he means here? Does he really believe, for example, that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel contains no reason? It lacks a certain narrow category of abstraction (language), but it is absolutely full of reason. I don’t believe the point he’s making is totally invalid, but it does seem imprecise.
One of the very few occasions where I somewhat disagree with Mr Klavan. I definitely do understand the perspective and the approach, however, I have to say that it is that exact child like wonder that Spielberg captures in his films, especially in ET and Jurassic Park, which have inspired generations.
I think what people are missing about Spielberg's work is that they are for the most part movies families can sit down and watch together and get something out of. They aren't meant to be deep and he certainly isn't over rated. The mans a genius when it comes to telling a story. I can enjoy watching Jaws, ET , Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park with my kid and we both get something from it. Its this magic that is missing from Hollywood and its actually surprising to me that Klavin being a conservative has kinda missed that point about Spielbergs films. For the most part his films are about family, or a broken home, strong men, strong fathers, and even stong women. His films are about suburban America. JAWS Brody is a family man, he's the everyman, hard working authority figure of society who loves his family supported by his wife Ellen and despite his fears goes out to battle a giant maneating shark. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS Roy Neary breaks his family up for Aliens (which Spielberg says was a mistake), however he meets a strong single mother whos child has been abducted by the aliens they help each other on their journey. ET Elliott is dealing with his parents divorce. His mother is a strong single parent. POLTERGEIST Poltergeist shows suburban family life shattered by ghosts and they come together to get their daughter back. Both mum and dad are equally heroric. INDIANA JONES Indiana Jones is a father figure to Short round in Temple of Doom and later reconciles with his own Father in last crusade who he had a rocky relationship with. JURASSIC PARK Dr Alan Grant does not like children and becomes protector to the kids in Jurassic Park which changes his outlook on fatherhood. I'm pretty sure plenty of his other films have these themes, even Sugarland Express and War Of The Worlds, but these are the ones I know best.
Brilliant video. I grew up thinking Spielberg was the greatest director who ever lived. Now I only really like Jaws and Raiders. 🤷🏻♂️ He’s made a lot of average movies.
Of all the young Mavericks that came out of late ‘60s new wave, in my opinion only Scorsese has maintained his artistic chops, and yet can still appeal to a modern audience.
The New Hollywood was not as good as the classic Hollywood directors who really were over the hill at that stage. There was a sort of gap in the 1960s where the old directors were hanging up their gloves and the new directors burst onto the scene. Hitchcock was a revolutionary director and Brian De Palma copied him.
Spielberg orchestrates his films to tap into the wonder of discovery. If you want to call that childishishly sentimental, then I find your closed off cynicism to be petulantly petrified. Cinema is the fetishization of sensorial relatability by primarilly visual means meant to engage a simpatico psyche morale of emotional resonance. Spielberg is the greatest filmmaker of all time because he's the consistantly prolific, industriously qualitative, persistantly influential, innovatively versatile, culturally prominant amalgated epitome of nearly every great classical formalist filmmaker that preceded him: Alfred Hitchcok, Frank Capra, David Lean, Michael Curtiz, John Ford, Orson Welles, Rod Serling, Walt Disney, William Wyler, Roaul Walsh, Howard Hawks, Fred Zinneman, George Cukor, Ernst Lubitsch, Carol Reed, Anthony Mann, Busby Burkley, Akira Kurosawa, Willis O Brian, George Pal, John Huston, Richard Fletcher, Vincente Minnelli, Stanley Kubrick, Billy Wilder, George Stevens, Victor Fleming, Stuart Rosenberg, Samual Fuller, Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger, Elia Kazan, Robert Wise, Alexander Mackendrick, John Frankenheimer, Sidney Lumet, Alan J Pakula, etc. His oeuvre represents the entire anthropology of the art form through its mytholigical familarity of the past while pushing its techniques foward. Spielberg's instincts for sophisticated compositional mise-en-scene staging, camera kinicism, strong grounded subjective perspectives, and taut narrative pacing - in other words the language of cinema - are second to none. My "Greatest Filmmaker" Criteria is thus: - PERSONAL AFFINITY (favored by individual sensibilities) - PROLIFIC OEUVRÉ (persistant portfolio output gained over time) - CONSISTENT QUALITY (retaining a high standard of effective artistry) - AESTHETIC AUTEUR AUTHORSHIP (recognizable style) - GENRE VERSATILITY (aptly adaptable to various tonalities of diverse types of stories) - CREATIVE INNOVATION (industriously utilizing experimental methods of orchestration and instrumental ingenuity) - NARRATIVE RELEVANCE (faithfully pertinent to the intentions of the story) - ARTISTIC INFLUENCE (inspirational and aspirational among emulative industry peers & protegés) - CULTURAL PROMINENCE (immediate and memorable impact upon the zeitgeist) - PRESTIGE (consensus of scholarly admiration)
This was definitely an interesting watch. Never have been good at writing long comments so I just want to say this briefly. This had many new ideas and perspectives I have not thought of before. I am glad I heard them.
Damn…Klavan has offended his fans in this segment. I love listening to this English Lit guy talk about stories and cinematography. I agree, I disagree and I can listen to this forever. My only complaint is that I’m not across the table from him, asking questions, laughing and offering an occasional lay person’s observation. Brilliant, passionate and best of all, interesting.
I really started disliking Spielberg's films when I saw Hook. It's funny, but that film shows that the heart of his film-making is emotional manipulation. I hated that film because of how poorly it was made. It always causes me to cry ( I know, I'm a wimp) at certain points even when I don't want to. It's a lot about loss of fathers. I feel manipulated and disgusted after any viewing of that film.
@@bighands69 A good kids' movie does not need to be poorly made. There's no excuse for shoddy workmanship. One could argue that ET is a kids' movie. That was a much better crafted film. I like ET, and I l like some of Spielberg's movies (I really loved Jaws). I can't watch a lot of his films now, though. The point of my post was that this film's "cracks" showed the manipulation in his technique. Watch Hook and then other movies of his and you'll start to see the manipulation.
@@adamgates1142 I don't like SS because he is a major leftoid... Honestly, I do think there is some merit in what to what Andrew is saying... Steven's movies often do seem to come from a childlike perspective. However, now that The Daily Wire has thrown their hat into the movie making business... If they're going to make these comments about SS AS A FILMMAKER... I think it falls on them to make sure they are producing movies that can match or exceed SS. If they can't... It makes them look foolish
@@Plainview-tu7xn It's Klavan levelling this critique on his own channel, so you'll have to judge him individually. Apparently he's a writer who's written books, so judge his books then, or make a critique, it's not that hard.
Thanks for calling out Saving Private Ryan. That first scene is great, while the rest is just what you would expect a war movie made by Spielberg to be like.
Sandwiching Schindler's List between two dinosaur movies showed zero growth as an artist. Spielberg's trajectory should have been altered forever. The subject matter deserved a decade on either side of it, like Kubrick would have done with The Aryan Papers.
I just watch movies for fun. I had a rough childhood and films were a way for me to escape for a while and imagine being somewhere else Even as an adult and almost forty I just want to escape every once in a while. My all time favorite movie is predator with the lethal weapons right behind. I'd like to see what Andrew has to say about those films lol
America is much more childish than Europe, Russia, Japan or China. Spielberg is very American director. To be successful in America you have to appeal to the wider audience and that audience is intellectually a child. That's not all America is, America is many great things, but being child-like is definitely part of American identity.
That’s good insight! I’ve always said that the older movies actually double the dialogue. You actually have to thoroughly pay attention to the dialog from the beginning to the end. Not really necessary in today’s flicks. Also I believe that the actors back then really had to act because the visual effects were not so involved and CG like today. CG really has dumbed down films!
Some film historians have said that movies in the 1930s had so much talking (too much talking, according to some) because people were sick of silent movies and never wanted to see an actor pantomime ever again, for fear he'd make exaggerated, embarrassing gestures. The problem with this, of course, is that an actor talking can be almost as absurd as an actor doing mime. People who love talky scripts - and I'm one of them, I admit - often forget that sometimes an image of something can be much more subtly effective than someone describing it. And when an actor NEVER stops talking, as in many of those '30s films, he inevitably says a lot of things that didn't need to be said. A major pet peeve of film critics is dialogue in which characters explain things to each other they already know, simply because they have to tell the audience.
@@SeasideDetective2 People talk in real life they do not sit around staring at a wall or flowers. Or ignore real things that are happening in and around them.
@@SeasideDetective2 couldn't agree more with everything you said. I like a lot of "wordy" films, but sometimes less is more. "Show don't tell" is a rule of thumb in visual storytelling for a reason. That's no excuse for poor dialog like a lot of more modern films, but sometimes you can more effectively communicate something with the right visual than you can with an indulgent amount of exposition explaining something verbally.
@@bighands69 1. It isn't that dialog isn't important, but if you're directing a movie, take advantage of the fact you're dealing in a visual medium. Sometimes you can say more with a visual than with exposition. 2. I love quality dialog in a film (I saw bits of The Ten Commandments over the weekend and remarked multiple times how good the writing was), but if you don't think filler exposition exists, then I implore you to pay more attention and look for it the next couple times you decide to watch a movie. Often times things are verbally explained that really don't need it, and it comes off as though the intelligence of the audience is being insulted rather than respected as if we are incapable of figuring some things out for ourselves. Over-explaining things with unnecessary dialog is absolutely a thing, and a perfect, recent example of this is the M. Night Shyamalan film Old. Like I said, quality dialog is absolutely important, and it does seem like less and less of it exists in many modern films, but some things just don't need to be said out loud. That's just as true in real-life. People underestimate how much we communicate through nonverbal body language and how important it actually is to understanding context and someone's mood, for example.
Imagine going into a classroom and the teacher all day was cracking jokes. At first you may love it but come exam time you probably would wished for the classes to have more substance. Fun has its place but it cannot dominate everything. Modern films seriousness and everything is like one big one liner every single scene. Spielberg is not one of the great directors but you can still love his films for their entertaining ride.
I mean Spielberg’s movies are some of the most fun and creative movies every made. Are his movies masterpieces of lofty ideas and philosophy? Not really. However, they are insanely entertaining and fun. That’s what I look for 99% of the time when I watch a movie. Not something that will make me cry or hate my life afterwords. I like to ponder movies but not let them drag me down. Life does that all on its own haha
Spielberg is an absolutely fantastic director that produces amazing entertainment but his films are not truly great movies. The movie industry would be healthy if it had lots of Spielberg type movies and then great art movies. Spielberg movies look like masterpieces compared to the shallow trash of the industry today.
Of course, Spielberg's film's are shallow and childish save Schindler's List, although, Raiders Of The Lost Ark remains the greatest adventure film of all time. Raiders literally changed my life. The movie inspired me to attend university and study anthropology, archeology, geography and all the sciences then graduate with an advanced degree to start a private high school in Hawaii. Raiders may have been shallow, true, but it remains inspirational to me. Your take on Schindler's List is just wrong.
@Cranky Yokel I have not seen Shoah but I enjoyed Schindler's List immensely. Spielberg's film was based on the story of Oscar Schindler as a tiny fragment of the Holocaust story. The movie's musical score was fantastic .... one of the best I've ever heard. IMO, Klavan's commentary here is itself somewhat shallow and childish.
You can say anything you want about Jaws. It's easily one of the top 5 films EVER made. Not even a discussion. And it has to absolutely stink to have that kind of achievement at that age. And before Jaws, duel was a wildly underrated made for TV movie. Duel in particular really raises major ideas about man, the modern world, the difficulty man faces in the modern industrial world. Very Jungian. He may be woke and he may have even jumped the woke shark in his elitist dotage. But you are foolish to say all of his work is childish. It's not. But some is. And not every swing of babe Ruth's bat or Andrew klavans books were home runs either.
@@justinlast2lastharder749 the book was kind of a schlocky story. And as was noted earlier, who cares? I love the klavanocracy, but this video seems to start out with ak axe to grind with Spielberg and works backwards into his reasons. Saving pvt Ryan was a lame WW2 movie that aged badly. Schindler's list was great. Was it the greatest? No. Was it an attempt by Spielberg to earn some cred as a serious director? absolutely. Why is that such a bad thing? I think the floo of westside story is driving this video. Good director who's greatest achievements occurred very early in his career. Very woke typical Hollywood elite, but sometimes you have to separate the criticism in order to maintain your critical integrity. I give his movies 4 face slaps. I give his woke elitism 1 face slap.
he's so overrated. It's nice to see someone point this out. i actually think he's a bit lame. AI is his best movie because it was really a Kubrick movie. I never saw the holocaust one. That's most likely great but he's so lame I missed it and found out it was supposed to be great when it was too late to see it in theaters
They left out the best twist in "Jaws". Hooper had a affair with Brodys wife, Brody finds out, (but does nothing) and later the shark gets Hooper and Brody swims back to the island a sole survivor and it's left a mystery to Brodys wife (and the town) as to: Did Brody or the shark kill Hooper?
Your comparison of old movies vs new movies is exemplified in the old Star Trek franchise vs new reboot, starting with Star Trek (2009). The original series and TNG included action, story, and plot. But it was about morals and ideas. It was about unity and hope for mankind. The plot made you think. The 2009 reboot was a fast moving action flick with heart pumping action and danger. And the real Trek fans hated it. The characters are all shallow. There's no moral depth to the story. Just like the Klavanon said.
I liked 2009 and Into Darkness because they were entertainment with a light bit of Star Trek but could not stand Beyond it was an extremely shallow movie with absolutely no Star Trek in its DNA at all as it was a dumb action movie.
@@bighands69 it happens to be that I enjoyed the movie - possibly because I myself am shallow and childish. 😉 But the new Kirk is shown as a youngster as a rebellious child who lost his father. And as an adult, he never quite grew up. Regarding Spock - I think Roddenberry would turn over in his grave to see Spock sucking face with Uhura. Or behaving spitefully and vindictively as he does in this film. Very unvulcan of him. Leonard Nimoy makes a guest appearance as future Spock. (Or Kelvin Timeline Spock.) At least that have it some grounding in old Trek. But the new Spock is very different than the Spock of Nimoy.
It's not fair to compare JJ trek to the TV shows before it. His movies are just as good as any from TOS or TNG. And he still managed to capture the team dynamic somewhat. The older shows are where real Star Trek is - they had time to explore philosophical and moral questions (even if it did get preachy in favor of a certain ideological bent sometimes) The real downhill slump for Trek started with Discovery and continued with Picard where everything is action and millennial style internal drama (and I say this as a millennial).
I can say as a person who’s listened to the full show for years, I think you’re searching for the wrong audience with the headlines. I know those get the most clicks, but I don’t even want to click it and I already know what he’s saying!
I think Klavan has very well-thought out opinions, but these UA-cam headlines make it seem like he’s the shallow and childish one trying to dish hot takes.
Well said
I agree...
I think based on the UA-cam algorythm, you get more views for click bait titles
The algorithm works how it works...if this gets these we'll thought out opinions and agree or disagree but worthy of hearing opinions out their to the masses then so be it.
@@edgewiseCL Agreed. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I love when Andrew Klavan talks about culture in large.
Even when I don't always agree, I never leave without something worth considering. Love his culture talks.
It’s escapism. That’s what Spielberg is good at. Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park, all escapism. Like Klavan mentioned, they’re like “Disney” movies…for adults. Entertaining, for sure, but not necessarily so profound.
They’re not for adults 😂 They’re like Disney movies. Period. End of story.
@@elijeremiah1058 I think you're confusing chronological age for maturity. But otherwise, I agree.
@@tfpp1 i agree with you that his movies are awesome escapism. I love Steven Spielberg’s early classics like Jaws, Close Encounters, Indiana Jones all the way up to Jurassic park. I don’t mind that they’re shallow because that’s totally valid! Not every film should be deep or express the director’s views. His blockbusters are perfect. The problem is that when he makes a supposedly serious film like Schindler’s list or saving private Ryan, it always has that exact same shallow feel! He thinks those movies are more sophisticated but they’re not. Jaws is more sophisticated filmmaking than Amistad.
Modern Hollywood is the epitome of childishness. Layoff of Spielberg's filmmaking.
Modern Hollywood tells you you're a racist, sexist, and homophobic for calling them on their bullshit, because their "bastion of representativeness" movies are low quality horseshit. That's pure childishness.
So I disagree.
How many adults you know go to cinemas for ‘profound’ experience you schmuck. People have work to do, lives to lead, almost 90 per cent go to the movies for escapism and feel good movies. Spielberg has mostly delivered that and is quite possibly the best at that.
With respect...I think you're kinda looking at Shindler's List with the wrong perspective, and the fact that you feel the "actual" Great film on the Holocaust is a documentary underlines that, for me. Spielberg is illustrating in his film how even in the most monstrous of times, good men can make a difference, however small the difference may be.
It's how the new owners of the Star Wars franchise progress. I stopped wanting* to watch their cartoons with my kids years ago. Wife, kids, elders. "You take your kids to see what they want to see or you're a horrible father!!" 🤷♂️ W.T.E.L (what the ever living) could I have done? I was a "crazy person" for telling them why. One of my cousins went to a bad place tripping out over Toy Story 3. I've definitely seen where it can take you. I hope he's alright now. Family won't tell me.
It's because some people care way too much about "the holocaust".
What about Stalin's holocaust? Why can't we all talk about that? It's about Collectivist Totalitarianism, not religion.
I agree with you, however, klavan is right Spielberg movies aren’t that great other than visually.
@@turdferguson7504 He's a master at conveying the EMOTION of a situation. Arguably his weakness might be the intellectual side of it.
I don’t know if i agree with this. Steven Spielberg made a lot of great films, even if they are childish, anyone could understand and realize that they brought out imagination in anyone no matter what their age
Exactly he's subjectively wrong about this
Yeap E.T is so heartwarming movie that we all remember when we were kids
Speilberg is overrated. It's so bizarre. I find his movies ... lame. In the eighties and nineties it was a fairly popular opinion for people that paid attention to movies as art.
AI is his best movie because it was really Kubrick's movie.
The Foundation of Economic Education has an interesting interpretation of Jurassic Park as a story about socialism and how quickly a meticulously laid plan can go horribly wrong.
facts, this is a dumb take. Also, he is definitely shitting on Star Wars as being shallow
Not all art, including film, necessarily needs to be intellectually deep or profound in order to be valuable. Take, for example, the Jeeves and Wooster novels by P.G. Wodehouse, Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll, or Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K. Jerome. These are either intellectually superficial, frivolous, or absurd works of art. However, they're valuable in the sense of a breezy and almost musical literary style as well as bringing amusement and humor, which in turn provide cognitive rest for minds wearied from the burdens of life. Similarly, Indiana Jones is intellectually superficial, but it lets us escape away from the mundane or somber and into high adventure, which, again, in turn allows us to rest and recover so that we can begin the struggle of life anew, reinvigorated and strengthened for the next day's tasks. We often need rest as much as we need reflection. Isn't that the primary purpose of the Sabbath, to take a religious example that might resonate with Andrew Klavan? In any case, art that may be intellectually superficial but that provides rest for people has value in life too. At least for those who find rest in such art! But perhaps Andrew Klavan is someone who finds rest only in the perpetual plumbing of profundities. If so, I won't begrudge him his choice, so long as he doesn't begrudge me mine when I watch Raiders of the Lost Ark once again! 😊
“Empire of the Sun” is Spielberg’s best WWII drama precisely because it is told from the point of view of a boy (played by then child actor Christian Bale). The sentimentalized and almost agnostic view it takes on the war fit perfectly with Spielberg’s artistic sensibilities.
It was also almost entirely adapted from the much better Book. Not a single thing in it was from the Mind of Spielberg.
@@justinlast2lastharder749 Ya' know ... a LOT of movies are made from books (that are much better)
@@justinlast2lastharder749 Yes, J.G. Ballard was a brilliant writer.
@@alancross1141 This one was partially based on the Author's Life and released only 3 years before the Spielberg Adaptation. Spielberg also didn't write it the Adaptation, he only directed.
Of all Spielberg movies, I’ve repeat watched this the most. I don’t truly understand the political dynamics, but the movie always sweeps me away. I can hear the music in my ears as I type this…..
Spielberg is far from my favorite director, but I think Andrew’s criticisms are vastly overblown. I think Spielberg’s greatest strength was instilling a childlike wonder in his audience. He was also capable of going deep. If you look at the Indiana Jones films, the religious themes are quite poignant and thought provoking. Yes, blockbuster films will always be shallow in certain ways, but Spielberg, at least in the 70s through the 90s, made the best of what the blockbuster film had to offer.
Indiana Jones was from the mind of George Lucas, not Spielberg. It's just another Spielberg adaptation of someone else's work.
@@justinlast2lastharder749 Lucas came up with the idea, but Spielberg fleshed it out.
So Spielberg isn’t a child, but a deep thinking philosopher who confronts the deepest darkest parts of the human experience?
@@Dude0000 Spielberg has some movies that are innocent and childlike in nature (such as E.T. or Jurassic Park) but he was also very good at making dark and dramatic movies that provide an in depth look at the human experience (examples include Schindler’s List, Jaws, and Empire of the Sun).
@@justinlast2lastharder749 LOL, are you really trying to give Lucas more credit for Indy? LOL come on man.
I love the diverse takes DW shows have. Not only from varying perspectives, but also varying objectives-Ben informs on politics, economics, etc. The others connect on other levels, and Andrew highlights some really neat cultural things.
And he's a gamer
A lot of Stephen Spielberg's movies are Shallow and Childish, and that is exactly what we love about them! That sense of childlike wonder in his movies are what makes them great, and he is the best at it.
he has a lot that are very adult like schindler's list, catch me if you can, the post, lincoln, munich, amistad, minority report. all great.
spielberg and king write children like small adults which they are not. Almost everything they do is idiotic, illogical and nonsensible.
@@crobeastness Yeah. You are right. He does the darker stuff great too.
They are”popcorn” movies
Used to be
I think his strengths is that they're just really well 'made'. I'm not gonna have an epiphany or deep meaning. But his work is worth appreciating and study for the filmcraft itself. He's the gymnastics to the ballet, technical excellence without the deeper beauty - but still a worthwhile pursuit.
And while I do appreciate Christian themes here and there. But I don't need that from every movie.
One of the best films I ever saw on the theme of spirituality was The Craft. It was perhaps the only occult film that did not work on the God versus Satan binary, where the Spirit was a universal force that one could draw power from, assuming that one was responsible with it.
A.I. is one of his more profound movies in my opinion. Although granted, it heavily lends from the Pinocchio narrativ.
@@Puma5
It's basically a Kubrick movie that SS directed.
@@Plainview-tu7xn That doesn’t make it Kubrick’s film any more than Gone With the Wind is Margaret Mitchell’s film. Kubrick died in 99 and had nothing to do with the production. Don’t take away Spielberg’s accomplishments for dumb reasons.
It’s a shame so many have completely missed your point. Even the best artists can have vapid philosophies.
I couldn't agree more than Spielberg has a bit of a vapid worldview. On that I completely agree with him, but that really doesn't seem like that's all he's trying to say. It's the rest of it that I don't really follow.
"Schindler's List" was a very good movie. It was a well-told story of one small segment of that war. It didn't try to represent the entire war or even the entire German reaction to the Jews.
But Klavan's right in the fact that Schindler's List, a film that couldn't truthfully depict the evil of the Holocaust, became THE Holocaust movie. There's not going to be another one because it's already been done, acting as the definitive depiction.
Yes, this one was an exception.
I'll be honest, I've never seen it. Is it actually good?
Schindler's List is the only movie I have seen when after the movie's conclusion the entire crowd of over 150 people did not make one sound and exited the theatre. Not one sound!
@@KyleKringle Sophie's Choice? Boy in the Striped Pyjamas? The Pianist? All great movies.
Agree to disagree. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of favorite movies. It's fun and entertaining. Not everything has to be deep and philosophical. It's OK for a movie to just be entertaining. John Williams soundtracks certainly help Spielbergs films become hits as well.
Just a dumb critique.
Spielberg takes dramatic situations and tells a human story within them. Shoa is for a completely different audience.
The opening sequence of Ryan was intended to convey the human toll of D Day, after that it was a human story brilliantly told.
Clearly Mr Klavan has an agenda about modern cinema, and given that Hollywood is mostly superheroes these days, Spielberg movies are several rungs higher in audience requirements. But if he made Mean Streets Klavan would probably be complaining about the bad language and violence.
I'm a Conservative, but I don't think his agenda is correct.
Mr Klavan has an agenda alright. He grew up in an era were Hitchcock, David Lean and John Ford were the gold standard of directing. Spielberg was a good director but not in the same league as the greats.
Mr Klavan has an agenda alright and that agenda of quality. Classic era Hollywood had amazing scripts that were on a par with the best novels and that is not the case since New Hollywood came along.
The point of some movies is to sit down for an hour. Get involved in the life of a fictional character and leave not feeling like we where taken for a battering on our morals. He’s actually managed to do it, and do it decently well. Personally I’m glad that movies exist that I don’t need to pay attention to fully. That’s what books are for.
Spielberg’s “Lincoln” is the best movie I have ever seen on Lincoln’s life and definitely the best presidential movie I’ve seen. It’s phenomenal. Indiana Jones is a great movie trilogy. I think you’re using his politics as an excuse to discredit his work.
What do you expect? See the show he is on.
He has good criticism but its veiled thinly by his verbose hints of politics.
@@unknowninfinium4353 Well to be fair he’s attacking the culture which is a “first principle” of politics.
Indiana Jones is antiwhitism.
So he complains about the lack of atrocity and abundance of depth depicted in Schindler's List yet whines about the lack of depth and abundance of atrocity in Saving Private Ryan? Very conflicted perspective for an "industry insider".
What are you talking about, he didn’t say that at all about either film. He called them both childish and simplistic, criticizing their depth.
If all you got from this is “needs more atrocity; needs less atrocity” you weren’t tracking with anything he said.
@@easternmcg okay Chris 👍
@@Nero-ox5tw It’s on you if you want to leave an underdeveloped, snarky, twitter-tier take to mislead people who haven’t even watched the video. Thanks for the laughs bud.
@@Nero-ox5tw He's not wrong.
@@drzerogi Yeah he is
Wow. Never thought I'd disagree with Andrew. First time for everything.
Klavan is pretty much always wrong about cinema. Ever hear his movie picks. They're awful.
He got a lot wrong in ET (using TWO fingers, Touching Eliot’s forehead instead of heart etc) makes it seem like he saw the movie once. Also I’m pretty sure the slow knife stab in Saving Private Ryan is NOT meant to be rape.
@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat I agree, Andrew doesn't see it but he gets a little too smug and hipster.
@@RobotacularRoBob
I suspect Klavan has some latent insecurities which have manifests in posterity because he projected them onto persons rather than purge them from his person. That's my theory.
It's nice to see someone saying how lame speilberg is. I know "I'm wrong" because everyone disagrees with me. They seem like movies for 10 year olds.
I like Klavan, but his view here is ridiculously simplistic and spectacularly wrong.
I kinda disagree. I think they are from a child’s view to bring out the wonder that a child has. Jurassic park deff did that for me and many my age.
Almost every Spielberg movie has kids in distress. Divorce. Separation.
And why the teenager left his home, carrying the tools of a gay boy in a guitar case. Spielberg's first film Amblin'. Which is NAMBLA , North American Man Boy Assoc. changed to AMBL inc. his company. In the last scene, he
had the book The City and the Stars, by Athur C Clarke, the world where boys can live as adults... the famous
paedophile who lived in India, never arrested by the UK police. In you ever watch Hook... adults and kids playing roles together with body paints etc... is one disturbing film.
Every director has their preferred storytelling tropes that appear in most of their work. Spielberg is no exception. For example you could say every Scorsese movie is about good men going bad and how the criminal lifestyle gets worse over time.
@@jameslough6329 The problem with that is that it's limits your audience. That's why I could never get into both directors you mentioned.
@@KrisBryant99 What I’m saying is that almost every director does this. If you named me your personal favourite directors, I could probably tell you which particular storytelling tropes are common in most of their movies. BTW here’s a couple more examples.
Most of Christopher Nolan’s movies are about terrorism and or conspiracies. and most of James Cameron’s movies involve parents (most often mothers) defending their children. My point still stands, EVERY great director in Hollywood history has common tropes that they relied on throughout their career. It is part of how directors build their style as filmmakers.
@@jameslough6329 that's fine but if you're audience feels excluded then don't surprised at the why.
Wow. I have never disagreed with a fellow Christian conservative so vehemently about so many things. Lol
he created timeless films that are more entertaining than modern films...that millions still watch every single day 30 to 40 years later...hardly overrated
Overrated when compared to the likes of David Lean or John Ford. He is a very talented director who has made great family films but not at the level of greatness of other directors.
Most of Spielberg's work is hardly "timeless", and to a great extent, the movies you say are modern are merely a continuation of Spielberg's shallow juvenile depth. The few that I rewatch have the most character interaction. Saving Private Ryan turns to crap the minute the Private Ryan storyline takes over for instance...the opening scene is incredible and people focus on that part.
You failed to mention his best film, Empire of the Sun. A great film that portrays a nuanced view of war from the eyes of a child/teen. Powerful.
That movie was boring & instantly forgettable. Maybe Spielberg could try doing a film which shows war from the side of the war profiteers. Without of which, there would be no war.
That's because of the source material by J.G Ballard
It was boring
I have always thought that Spielberg had trouble telling an adult story. Klavan's perspective on why is very interesting.
What's an adult story? and are they always better?
Spielberg is “childish” but Alice in Wonderland is one of the greatest films ever made? Spielberg isn’t a top tier director but he makes well plotted movies that appeal to the masses which is a role that should be filled in any medium because average joes are never going to appreciate “high art”. He’s certainly better than the Marvel garbage that has taken the place of his summer blockbusters.
Like how could anything be worse than Loki or WandaVision? Especially compared to stuff like Hook or Indiana Jones?
“But at least it’s not as bad as (insert random garbage here)” isn’t a sufficient argument. Lowlives like Spielberg already make too much money. They should at least create something of value. I don’t understand why so many of you have this impulse to defend mediocrity.
@@allisonanne571 Easily accessible entertainment will always be "mediocre" compared to more profound expressions because by their nature they are inaccessible. Tell a high school dropout to watch 2001 and they will see no value in it because they simply don't have the capacity to understand it. The themes in Spielberg movies are not complex but they are no less valuable because they reach the audience that needs and can understand them.
@@allisonanne571 Compare this to a marvel movie, where the most complex and interesting character in the entire franchise is a purple dude who is a retarded Utilitarian whose entire plan is undermined with plot holes. It's perfectly valid to miss Spielberg's primacy.
How can you say so much without saying anything at all?
I have to disagree with you on a few points Mr. Klavan.
(1) words. A great film director can show a lot of emotion with a single shot and no dialogue at all (2001 A Space Odyssey). Also, in the old movies, people talk much more eloquently then even the smartest people ever could in real life, making them unrelatable. Sometimes the brilliance of dialogue comes from how accurate it is to real life.
(2) childishness isn't always bad: even in a complicated world, there is still right and wrong. Having people like Oskar Schindler and CPT Miller go through the heart of darkness, the whole time being relatable and grounded humans, allows them to be role models and inspirations about what to do when surrounded by human evil. It's meant for a different audience than yourself, specifically people who are being exposed to human evil for the first time and have no idea how to react.
If you have too much darkness people come away thinking nihilism is the right course of action (Rick and Morty, Game of Thrones).
(3) personal preference: while Casablanca will always be the greatest movie ever made, that is not to say that movies that came later are automatically bad. Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, these always seemed like incredibly mature films to me, nothing childish about them. In fact, they helped me grow up.
(4) my final thoughts: you seem to prefer films that promote high-minded ideals like chivalry, marriage, intelligence, courage in the face of danger, etc, out of fear that we are losing touch with those necessary virtues. While I agree to a point, I also believe that art should also challenge those beliefs, lest they be taken too far.
Also, even today you can find good examples of the art you're looking for. The Dark Knight, The Lord of the Rings, The Empire Strikes Back, Spiderman No Way Home, these are all visual films that go through darkness, yet promote the very values we are needing.
Lastly, I don't blame artists for doing things that make money. It's all part of the game.
All that being said, still great work, and you have a lot of courage for challenging the king himself.
You mentioned No way Home edit that fast
I like Batman Begins over The Dark Knight; Return of the Jedi over The Empire Strikes Back; and Spider-Man 2 and Into the Spider-Verse over all the other Spider-Man movies but otherwise, you are correct.
No Way Home sucked
Well said
You mistake childishness with childlike. Childishness has a negative connotation, meaning an adult who won't grow up. Childlike has a more positive connotation. And your sentences after "childishness isn't always bad" make no sense. It does not argue the point.
If something is Beautiful it is not shallow
This might be off the topic, but I am a huge fan of Mel Gibson as a director. When you look at every movie he has directed since Braveheart, like the Passion, Apocalypto and Hacksaw Ridge, they are some of the most unflinchingly engrossing pieces of filmmaking ever made. He follows the classic Heroes journey from Joseph Campbell. Although his films have their fare share of brutality and violence, the characters always follow a path to redemption and sacrifice. Anyways, if Mel Gibson is not a perfect person but as an artist I believe he could have surpassed someone like Spielberg in terms of filmmaking.
Very childish clickbait title
Very chidish comment, I can see the tears.
@@dennisshaper4744 Your comment is childish also. I very "I know you are but what am I" feel to it.
I listened to it all and I have to conclude it's an April Fool's joke, it was uploaded April 1st and I have seen actual jokes which made more sense.
Not at all. He makes entertaining films but they are not great films like the classics.
@@bighands69 They are vastly superior to almost all of the classics and maybe even all of them, Spielberg's films are the classics.
Your point about how movies used to be more talky and not as visual as Spielberg’s stuff shows you don’t seem to understand what cinema is, despite having worked in the industry. A movie isn’t supposed to be a filmed play, which seems to be what you want. A movie tells a story visually.
He is talking about how the industry has become obsessed with visual rather than story. And in that obsession has created a new industry that is one dimensional and a beast that devours.
@@bighands69 well that’s gay 😂
@@bighands69 I love how the writer of One Missed Call is bashing the director of Jaws
This is why conservatives lost the culture war. If you can’t understand why movies 30 to almost 50 years ago were brilliant (especially Steven Spielberg or George Lucas’s) how do you expect to change it today?
No, Klavan explains very clearly why Spielberg and Lucas are brilliant, but in their talent and success comes with a price to popular culture.
@@oovdash They were more backhanded complements.What prize making some of the greatest movies of all time and bringing joy to millions and actually being good movies?
@@DayTripperrrhis compliments are the same praises made by Spielberg enthusiasts. Spielberg is a virtuoso at kinetic and visual storytelling. He is also the poster boy for sentimentality and the bad dad trope that is in every contemporary pop culture narrative. Lucas and him were very open about bringing b-movies and serials to the masses. They have lowered film culture with great artistic moments and flourishes. Just because something is a masterpiece does not mean it is good.
Jaws: 5/5
Close Encounters Of The Third: 5/5
Indiana Jones Trilogy: 5/5
E.T.: 4.5/5
Poltergeist: 5/5
Twilight Zone: 4/5
The Color Purple: 4/5
Empire Of The Sun: 5/5
Hook: 4/5
Jurassic Park: 5/5
Schindler's List: 5/5
The Lost World: 2/5
Saving Private Ryan: 5/5
Catch Me If You Can: 5/5
War Of The Worlds: Dogshit
Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull: Dogshit
The Adventures Of Tintin: 3/5
War Horse: 3/5
Lincoln: 3.5/5
Ready Player One: 2/5
West Side Story: 2/5
Spielberg lost his touch 20 years ago
You are spot on… And thank you for not calling them dark ages… Which is referring to the time immediately after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Its is the MIDDLE AGES, as you said. Great job… also yeah that’s why Stainglass was so important in medieval times because peasants and serfs couldn’t read only nobles, kings, usually knights and all clergyman and monks.
Actually if peasants couldn't read , they wouldn't be able to pick the legal papers they intended to destroy during the peasant revolt!
I'll call them the Dark Ages still. Archaeology finds a marked decline in quality of life. Rome even still survived in some form, but it was hardly the age of the 5 Good Emperors.
The Middle Ages, by and large, were not dark ages at all.
@@str.77 For Europe it was dark.
@@Pangora2 Nope. There was sone setback in the beginning and the end but to call a whole millennium "dark" is jut silly. It was a time of tremendous innovation, energy, beauty and intellectual achievements.
And the "good five Emperors" weren't actually that good. Of the longer reigning ones, only Hadrian and Antoninus and the former had pretty dark periods as well. Maybe you should read less of that ape from the 18th century and more actual historians.
Outside of Europe went much worse, with no recovery to this day.
I remember being just out of school when Raiders of the Lost Ark came out and I felt like the movies became FUN AGAIN!
Spielberg is a great director and Lost Ark is a great action movie and is fun but it is not a truly great movie.
It would be fantastic if we had movies like that today and on top of that we got great artistic movies.
New Hollywood was a more simplistic endeavor that gave us more excitement orientated movies.
@@bighands69 Raider's is a truly brilliant movie.
@@Mr.Goodkat
It was great but was not a patch on Ben Her.
I feel like this more about not liking Spielberg's politics, he's a great director, talented writer and producer. The guy has done just about every genre and has given us so many classics starting with Jaws back in the mid 70's. I consider Band of Brothers the greatest take on the war genre.
The director doesn’t direct action scenes??? What are you talking about? The director should direct the entire film, and if it’s an action film-like many Spielberg movies are-the director should definitely be directing the action!
Schindler's list, Color purple, Emperor of the Sun, Always, Amistad, Lincoln, Bridge of Spies and The Post are not action films nor are they family films.
They are his serious films and those are what he will get judged upon. His entertainment films are good but they are not great films by any account.
His more serious films do not in anyway come close to the works of the great directors.
@@bighands69 Those are historical dramas, which are entertainment and in no competition with the works of Kurosawa or Goddard. His historical dramas should simply be compared to other Oscar bait like 12 Years a Slave or Monuments Men. In that light Spielberg’s are superior. But in my opinion his “serious” movies are not what’s interesting. His real contribution to cinema are the blockbusters you dismiss. Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, and E.T. are all sublime, some of the most perfectly realized, conceived, and executed films ever made. Spielberg’s contribution is that great cinema can be unserious and lighter than air.
Everytime I watch the mashed potato scene from the movie " Close Encounters " , I can't help , but say to myself " that's it Marge , I'm going to clown college" !
As a rare conservative who actually has worked in Hollywood, Andrew brings a useful perspective to the table. So, I appreciate his perspective. I don't care for Spielberg's politics, obviously -- his slavish devotion to and funding of the Democrat Party is myopic, misguided and unfortunate, as with all Hollywood Leftists who reflexively follow the lemming herd. That said, the guy has undeniably made some entertaining and powerful movies. I saw "Empire of the Sun" once in the theater, as a kid, and, it's stayed with me, all these years. "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List" are also moving and powerful. Andrew's criticism is interesting, though. I see where he's coming from.
Calling Spielberg overrated, childish, and shallow has got to be one of the worst takes I have ever heard.
but he is. He's great at working with kids. Shallow movies can be good and they sell better of course. Speilberg is in my top 200 directors... maybe. probably not though.
@@nuckygulliver9607 whatcha smoking my guy?
Jaws has more depth than any movie I've seen in the last twenty years.
It's about humanity, not sharks.
Jurassic Park? Similar...
Not a popular opinion but one that should be given a chance at the very least. We have very little diversity of thought when it comes to this nuanced subject.
The objection to “Schindler’s List” seems more based on how it was marketed. It’s much more complex than Klavan let’s on.
Agreed.
@Cranky Yokel A 3 hour drama is not comparable to a 9 hour documentary. They work on different rules.
@Cranky Yokel The aesthetic rules are different. SL is telling one specific story.
@@Tolstoy111 But he's right about SL being a bad movie. It was manipulative and his characterization of Schindler was phony. Watch The Pianist if you want to see an authentic dramatization of those events. That is a great dramatization of that grave time.
@@LisaMurphy SL was a wonderful film. Haunting and lyrical. Literate to boot. Didn’t like The Pianist at all. Now that was shallow and manipulative. And hollow. What was authentic about it? The title character was a passive cipher, the Nazis were barking cliches, the ghetto residents all talk like they just walked out of a seminar (“they have already exterminated 3 million of us””).
I remember thinking, when Spielberg directed A.I. Artificial Intelligence, which was a project that Stanley Kubrick originated, and Spielberg eventually took over after Kubrick's death, that I just couldn't see _Spielberg_ of all people picking up where Kubrick left off. He seemed like a lightweight compared to Spielberg. I never articulated the reason behind that as well as Klavan does here though. I love many of Spielberg's films: Jaws, the Indiana Jones trilogy (the less said about the 4th film the better), Jurassic Park, Lincoln, and yes, Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List (though I certainly understand Klavan's criticisms of those films). But Kubrick is rightly seen as one of the great titans of cinema, and his films are intelligent and thought provoking and often philosophical in a way that Spielberg has never even come close to achieving in his career.
I don't think Schinders List was childish.
Well, this video proves that Andrew Klavan and the Daily Wire can be utterly wrong sometimes....
Visual storytelling is not shallow; it can convey reason. If you work in film, you should know the value of wordless storytelling, and understand that sometimes showing an image, and remaining silent, can be infinitely more powerful than a hundred-word speech. Images can convey complex ideas, though they require the spectator to be an active participant in the creative exercise. Your statement is so ignorant, that my mind struggles to comprehend how men of your age, as mature as I assume you must be, can be so unwise and frankly narrowminded
Having said that, I completely agree with the thought that Steven Spielberg is Childish as a filmmaker and person, but that is what I love about him, and why I find his historical dramas to be lackluster. I can enjoy the childish worlds of Spielberg and the sociological scripts of Tarkobsky all the same.
The mindset that the “visual arts cannot convey reason” shows Andrew has a such a fundamental misunderstanding of the language that is cinema. Editing, lighting, framing, acting; these are all ways in which directors can express an extremely powerful and rational concept without a single second of dialogue. This video does not prove Spielberg’s inadequacies as an artist but rather Andrew’s inadequacies as an interpreter of that art. Spielberg can covey more reason and emotion in one shot of any one of his films than Klavan can in a 12 minute long editorial style video essay.
I think you are completely missing his point. Andrew is a fan of Hitchcock who is a master of the visual art of movie making.
What Andrew is talking about is the fact that Hollywood has become obsessed with simple visual presentation in film to the point of steroid men running around in plastic suits with one liners coming out of their mouth on average every 75 seconds. All the characters look like they are suffering from ADHD.
Well he is my favorite 2nd unit director. Pairs well with John Williams. He is good at capturing nostalgia.
I never get tired of watching Raiders of the Lost Ark.
This is a fantastic analysis. I'm a millennial so Spielberg's films have always been around. I agree West Side Story wasn't woke. It was well made.
Same boat. He's very hit or miss with me, and I probably love less than half of his output, but the movies I do love are some of my favorites, particularly the original Indiana Jones movies and Jurassic Park.
Anyone remember what Kappy had to say about Steven Spielberg 🤔
Say what you want about Spielberg and his childish tendencies, he’s one of the few living filmmakers who respects the art of filmmaking. Great analysis, even tho i slightly disagree with some of it.
Whatever Shah... now go and get your sandbox!
Every 10 year old boy grows up, but never outgrows his obsessions
Since I was in college back in the dark ages (1981-85), I have maintained that Spielberg's movies have universally been geared towards a 17 year old's understanding of the world and of the self.
Tell me you don't know Steven Spielberg's directing without telling me you don't know Steven Spielberg's directing. Schindler's list was a microcosm of the holocaust. You can't take 12 million deaths, all of the camps and ghettos and turn it into a Hollywood cinematic picture capable of captivating an audience with the same individualistic intensity and duality that was explored with Oscar Schindler's life during WW2. Saying he's childish and cherry picking pieces where Ralph Fiennes gives his motivation for the dehumanization of Jews, while also ignoring concepts of greed and ignorance over time vs selflessness and a deeper understanding of morality. A man who started out doing right things for the wrong reasons to only realize the the depth at the end where each life saved is more and more precious. Mixed up the nazi and the american stabbing scene in saving private ryan, and while the omaha beach scene stands out as peak techincal cinematography you can't ignore how he delves into personalized topics like innocence (being a teacher, ryan's story with his brothers, upham's struggle with violence) against the genuine horrors of war and war takes innocence from those who shouldn't have to be there and turns them into vengeful ideas or the trauma that comes out of losing said innocence (upham killing the prisoner they released in the end). Not even going to dive into Captain Miller saying "earn this" at the end and how it's not just this childish we have to fight bad guys so that good can prevail concept but rather now saying each life has been granted and what are you going to do with that life or those culmination of moments to make your existence matter to those around you in the scope of the world...Noticed you skipped right over Lincoln there; interesting. Was the exploration of the 13th amendment's passing and slavery's immorality through Lincoln's eyes and analogies as well as his delegation's take on preserving the union this boylike concept? Heck even ready player one, while appeasing to those of us into cultural references and pop iconography, still ties into relevant concepts we are ever approaching...what is morality over the internet or within virtual spaces? Virtual escapism to cope with reality or attempting to personify concepts such as wealth, power, fame, and attractiveness when dealing with said inequalities in life? Spielberg takes directing from both a technical aspect with the shot selection, to the use of visuals and scripting meant to entice imagination, but ultimately does tell relevant stories not just on basic concepts as good guys vs bad guys or overcoming adversity, but rather taking that which appeals of each of us individually and putting it on the screen under different lights, microscopes, and scenarios.
Andrew Klavan:
Spielberg's films are shallow & childish.
Me, (hauling out a HUGE library of pre-1997 Hong Kong movies catering towards traditional Chinese, 'patriotic' values):
Hold my beer...
Hong Kong 97 is the best Jackie Chan video game adaptation of all time
I love those movies. I've also got a massive collection, it's a pity you can stream them anynore cus it's all on DVD or VCD. You can stream some of the more popular ones like infernal affairs or some stephen chow or Jackie Chan ones, but I can't find a streaming service with lots of HK movies. Let me know if you know of any. I've got Iquiyi.
Have not paid to see a movie in 25 years.
This is what happens when you give your Grandad a bong.
There’s a reason that Stanley Kubrick gave A.I: artificial intelligence to Spielberg.. He knew he did sentimental films better than anyone else. Sentimental doesn’t mean childish. A lot of Spielberg‘s movies are very sentimental, but that’s what makes them wonderful to watch.
I think AI is the best Speilberg movie. Speilberg's great ability is working with kids. That's why he was good for the movie. I find Speilberg is maybe in my top 200 directors maybe. He's so overrated
@@nuckygulliver9607 your self importance is over rated
It’s one thing to make a sentimental movie or two over a career, but if that’s the only kind of story you know how to tell, it reveals a concerning want of creativity and innovation in a highly creative and innovative field.
Steven Spielberg's films have made almost 15 Billion dollars during his career. Me thinks he is doing something right.
For the audience, yes. Michelangelo created art that transcended his time. Spielberg's movies are coloured in a way that is quite distinct from reality.
@@erastusamaechi9977 I would argue he is not trying for art, rather profit. While I can see why a purist might be upset about this, but I bet that there are Spielberg fics out there were more people have seen them and didn't like them, than have seen some artistically correct films.
More to the point, while I can't speak for another living soul, I go to movies to escape reality.
@@erastusamaechi9977 no movie is reality 😂
Imagine valuing art from how much money it makes. Yes, Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit were much greater artist than Tchaikovsky and Michelangelo because dollar dollar bills.
Power critique. I have always loved the movies of the 30s-50s for exactly the same reasons. They could convey emotion through both dialogue and visuals. I never thought of Spielberg as the cornerstone for today's vapid action movies but you are spot on. I think directors like Michael Bay in the 90s took Spielberg's technique and evicted characters and intelect right out of movies. The occasional exception does happen, but the norm is unfortunate.
“‘Wokeness’ is based in a childish view of life.” Great observation.
I disagree with a lot of this but I also understand aspects of what he’s saying. I have more respect for Spielberg and I don’t mind the spectacle or the occasional sentimentality. But I do realize that his success has partly contributed to the state of cinema and culture today.
I think the only problem with spielberg films is that they usually have a happy ending.The greatest thing about spielberg is that he easily cuts across genre and he knows how to entertain.Spielberg makes modern fairytales.
I don’t agree with Spielberg on many personal views that he has put in his movies, specially the latest ones, but I agree with others, he is one of the few filmmakers that finds the right balance in between telling something personal while still giving the general audience what they want, that’s why I can still enjoy and appreciate his movies even if I would absolutely remove a scene or two from them.
NOW, If you want to talk about overrated filmmakers no one beats STANLEY KUBRICK. That guy was all technicality over substance, technicality over feelings and over the sentiments that movies are supposed to evoque in the audience. People love Spielberg's movies because they do their job right, they don’t pretend to be more than what they are and being simplistic doesn't take any merit away, in fact that's why they often succeeded. Meanwhile the audience doesn't like or just don't get the ones from Kubrick. He doesn't communicate well with the audience, and only artsy fartsy pretentious filmmakers love him, because they were told that they must love him at film school and they don't want to be the exception thinking that by don't like him they will be less of an artist. Who are we making movies for anyway? If Spielberg's movies are childish, so what? Thats his vision, thats his style, and that's why he is loved. And you are going to say the same exact thing about Kubrick in his defense, that’s his style, don't you? Both filmmakers have styles, but one style has an immensely bigger appeal than the other. Tell me which one is.
Kubrick inspires filmmakers, a certain kind of filmmakers, that’s undeniable, but Spielberg inspires filmmakers too, and unlike Kubrick, he doesn’t only inspires filmmakers, he inspires people.
We get it, you don't undersrand cinema. I could tell.
I think it would be fairer to say Spielberg doesn't understand war or human violence so the films he makes regarding those come off as shallow. When jumping into sci-fi, his films are much more insightful. I'm thinking specifically of Jaws, Encounters of the Third Kind and Jurassic Park. When I rewatched Jurassic Park I was genuinely surprised at the sheer mastery of story-telling and thematic coherence exhibited throughout the film. I remembered it merely as a good popcorn film, but every scene is infused with the themes of control and chaos such that even Shakespeare would be in awe at.
I think art should be measured by its ability to express truth, no matter how simple or obtuse. 200 pages of script doesn't automatically make a film more insightful than if it had 100 pages of script. What matters is execution. A picture is worth a 1000 words after all. There is alot of nuance in visual arts and potential for profound insights and imagery. Eg- In Star Wars Phantom Menace(shock!), the main hero is dangling above an abyss while the devlisih antagonist who slayed his mentor taunts him from above. Just prior, he lost his apprentice' weapon. In order to overcome evil, he must literally rise above it and take hold of his mentor's weapon to kill his foe who cannot understand where his resilience/hope comes from. A deep story is told without the use of any words. I believe Spielberg and Lucas are masters of visual arts and there are so many visual metaphors cleverly used in their films. This doesn't make people dumber, it makes them smarter!
Yeah I’m gonna disagree.
Go jaxoff to the adult movies his daughter makes then.
@@ClinicalDecisionYikesYT that’s pretty sus
No, his films were once great. It’s easy to look back at classic films and say, “I could’ve done it better“ in hindsight, but that’s reminiscent of the BS “reimagine“ culture we find ourselves in.
Instead, it’s more interesting to see how his films went from original and fun to formulaic and unfeeling.
How can you watch Schindler’s List and say it doesnt portray any evil. Schindler's List is Disney-esque? Also the Saving Private Ryan "German raping a jew with a knife" scene has the be the weirdest take on that scene Ive ever heard in my life.
You telling me you weren’t aroused when that knife was being pushed into that guy’s chest?
Mr. Klavan , you are just way too intelligent for the culture in which you live... And you are very brave to talk like this. Brilliant and very logical.
I watch films as an escape from reality, I like popcorn movies that entertain & excite me, I don't like drama films that induce negative emotions, if I want gritty reality I can turn off my TV.
You may like that but there is a problem when the whole of industry is based on nothing but excitement.
What you end up with is Fast and Furious 9 and Transformers 7. And we are currently on Marvel 23.
A balance between good art and good entertainment in terms of choice is what some of us want.
I want to watch Gone with the Wind and at the same time watch Minority report. When the industry is based purely on thrills what you get is neither.
@@bighands69 I don't look to motion pictures for introspection or to learn something, books, paintings and classical music exist to fill that need.
@@bighands69 the film industry exists to make money, it is a consumer product far more than it is art.
@@bighands69 Surely Spielberg's Blockbuster's of the 1970s, 80s and 90s are a lot more compelling than Transformers or Fast and Furious? I know he's attributted to creating the summer blockbuster , however there are an abundance of well made blockbisters made in the later part of the 20th century that have better stories and characters than the trash they have been putting out the last 20 years. A lot of these comments just come across as snobbery when most people just want to be entertained. I agree that cinema has changed for the worse, but I think that special effects and marvel has a lot to do with it. Hollywood is creatively bankrupt and now we have all the wokeness being injected into it. The 1970s was a golden age of Hollywood and Spielberg had a lot to do with that. If anything Star Wars had more to do with shallow Blockbuster's than Jaws or Close Encounters.
@@rattelv426
My point was that the industry as a whole needs a mixture of different films rather than just fast and furious type movies.
So back in the 1990s we would have seen films like Usual suspects that cost $5 million and films like Jurassic park. Two completely different scales and two completely different films. Both were successful in their own right.
Could you imagine going to see a film like LA Confidential today in the cinema.
Spielberg's films are entertaining as shit.
This is one of the reasons why I love listening to Andrew Klavan. He has an insight I've never even considered, and it's a fascinating and brilliant one.
This was very shallow and pretty snarky and immature, he didn't make any points we haven't heard before and they're all bunk.
The idea that visual art doesn’t contain reason strikes me is obviously false. Perhaps there’s a better term for what he means here? Does he really believe, for example, that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel contains no reason? It lacks a certain narrow category of abstraction (language), but it is absolutely full of reason. I don’t believe the point he’s making is totally invalid, but it does seem imprecise.
One of the very few occasions where I somewhat disagree with Mr Klavan. I definitely do understand the perspective and the approach, however, I have to say that it is that exact child like wonder that Spielberg captures in his films, especially in ET and Jurassic Park, which have inspired generations.
I think what people are missing about Spielberg's work is that they are for the most part movies families can sit down and watch together and get something out of. They aren't meant to be deep and he certainly isn't over rated. The mans a genius when it comes to telling a story.
I can enjoy watching Jaws, ET , Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park with my kid and we both get something from it. Its this magic that is missing from Hollywood and its actually surprising to me that Klavin being a conservative has kinda missed that point about Spielbergs films.
For the most part his films are about family, or a broken home, strong men, strong fathers, and even stong women. His films are about suburban America.
JAWS
Brody is a family man, he's the everyman, hard working authority figure of society who loves his family supported by his wife Ellen and despite his fears goes out to battle a giant maneating shark.
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS
Roy Neary breaks his family up for Aliens (which Spielberg says was a mistake), however he meets a strong single mother whos child has been abducted by the aliens they help each other on their journey.
ET
Elliott is dealing with his parents divorce. His mother is a strong single parent.
POLTERGEIST
Poltergeist shows suburban family life shattered by ghosts and they come together to get their daughter back. Both mum and dad are equally heroric.
INDIANA JONES
Indiana Jones is a father figure to Short round in Temple of Doom and later reconciles with his own Father in last crusade who he had a rocky relationship with.
JURASSIC PARK
Dr Alan Grant does not like children and becomes protector to the kids in Jurassic Park which changes his outlook on fatherhood.
I'm pretty sure plenty of his other films have these themes, even Sugarland Express and War Of The Worlds, but these are the ones I know best.
Brilliant video. I grew up thinking Spielberg was the greatest director who ever lived. Now I only really like Jaws and Raiders. 🤷🏻♂️ He’s made a lot of average movies.
Raiders is fantastic
Of all the young Mavericks that came out of late ‘60s new wave, in my opinion only Scorsese has maintained his artistic chops, and yet can still appeal to a modern audience.
The New Hollywood was not as good as the classic Hollywood directors who really were over the hill at that stage.
There was a sort of gap in the 1960s where the old directors were hanging up their gloves and the new directors burst onto the scene.
Hitchcock was a revolutionary director and Brian De Palma copied him.
Spielberg orchestrates his films to tap into the wonder of discovery. If you want to call that childishishly sentimental, then I find your closed off cynicism to be petulantly petrified.
Cinema is the fetishization of sensorial relatability by primarilly visual means meant to engage a simpatico psyche morale of emotional resonance.
Spielberg is the greatest filmmaker of all time because he's the consistantly prolific, industriously qualitative, persistantly influential, innovatively versatile, culturally prominant amalgated epitome of nearly every great classical formalist filmmaker that preceded him: Alfred Hitchcok, Frank Capra, David Lean, Michael Curtiz, John Ford, Orson Welles, Rod Serling, Walt Disney, William Wyler, Roaul Walsh, Howard Hawks, Fred Zinneman, George Cukor, Ernst Lubitsch, Carol Reed, Anthony Mann, Busby Burkley, Akira Kurosawa, Willis O Brian, George Pal, John Huston, Richard Fletcher, Vincente Minnelli, Stanley Kubrick, Billy Wilder, George Stevens, Victor Fleming, Stuart Rosenberg, Samual Fuller, Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger, Elia Kazan, Robert Wise, Alexander Mackendrick, John Frankenheimer, Sidney Lumet, Alan J Pakula, etc.
His oeuvre represents the entire anthropology of the art form through its mytholigical familarity of the past while pushing its techniques foward.
Spielberg's instincts for sophisticated compositional mise-en-scene staging, camera kinicism, strong grounded subjective perspectives, and taut narrative pacing - in other words the language of cinema - are second to none.
My "Greatest Filmmaker" Criteria is thus:
- PERSONAL AFFINITY
(favored by individual sensibilities)
- PROLIFIC OEUVRÉ
(persistant portfolio output gained over time)
- CONSISTENT QUALITY
(retaining a high standard of effective artistry)
- AESTHETIC AUTEUR AUTHORSHIP
(recognizable style)
- GENRE VERSATILITY
(aptly adaptable to various tonalities of diverse types of stories)
- CREATIVE INNOVATION
(industriously utilizing experimental methods of orchestration and instrumental ingenuity)
- NARRATIVE RELEVANCE
(faithfully pertinent to the intentions of the story)
- ARTISTIC INFLUENCE
(inspirational and aspirational among emulative industry peers & protegés)
- CULTURAL PROMINENCE
(immediate and memorable impact upon the zeitgeist)
- PRESTIGE
(consensus of scholarly admiration)
Watch the video
Is this a copy pasta? Reads like a pretentious gender studies paper...
@@stellanriffle2745
I wrote it out first if that's your snarky snicker. And it reads like someone who just emphatically proved their point.
@@hafizsarfo1623
You think I wrote out all that in response and didn't watch Klavan's wrong opinions?
Brilliant post 👌
Klavan has the exact same criticism of Schindler's List that Stanley Kubrick did. Interesting. I wonder if he knows that.
He probably adopted it from Kubrick.
@@wordragon That did cross my mind.
@@jayjayjigsbys
Or he came up with it him self.
@@bighands69 That crossed my mind, too, haha. It doesn't really matter. It's a pretty well thought out criticism of the movie.
This was definitely an interesting watch. Never have been good at writing long comments so I just want to say this briefly. This had many new ideas and perspectives I have not thought of before. I am glad I heard them.
I loved spielbergs films as a kid, I know them backwards!, but i dont think he has made a good movie since the early 1990's.
Damn…Klavan has offended his fans in this segment. I love listening to this English Lit guy talk about stories and cinematography. I agree, I disagree and I can listen to this forever. My only complaint is that I’m not across the table from him, asking questions, laughing and offering an occasional lay person’s observation. Brilliant, passionate and best of all, interesting.
Jurassic park is an excellent film.
I really started disliking Spielberg's films when I saw Hook. It's funny, but that film shows that the heart of his film-making is emotional manipulation. I hated that film because of how poorly it was made. It always causes me to cry ( I know, I'm a wimp) at certain points even when I don't want to. It's a lot about loss of fathers. I feel manipulated and disgusted after any viewing of that film.
Hook is a very simplistic kids movie. It is not meant to be for adults.
@@bighands69 A good kids' movie does not need to be poorly made. There's no excuse for shoddy workmanship. One could argue that ET is a kids' movie. That was a much better crafted film. I like ET, and I l like some of Spielberg's movies (I really loved Jaws). I can't watch a lot of his films now, though. The point of my post was that this film's "cracks" showed the manipulation in his technique. Watch Hook and then other movies of his and you'll start to see the manipulation.
Most of his movies are better than what The Daily Wire is making.
Only most?
*all
@@adamgates1142
I don't like SS because he is a major leftoid... Honestly, I do think there is some merit in what to what Andrew is saying... Steven's movies often do seem to come from a childlike perspective.
However, now that The Daily Wire has thrown their hat into the movie making business... If they're going to make these comments about SS AS A FILMMAKER... I think it falls on them to make sure they are producing movies that can match or exceed SS.
If they can't... It makes them look foolish
@@Plainview-tu7xn It's Klavan levelling this critique on his own channel, so you'll have to judge him individually. Apparently he's a writer who's written books, so judge his books then, or make a critique, it's not that hard.
Thanks for calling out Saving Private Ryan. That first scene is great, while the rest is just what you would expect a war movie made by Spielberg to be like.
Sandwiching Schindler's List between two dinosaur movies showed zero growth as an artist. Spielberg's trajectory should have been altered forever. The subject matter deserved a decade on either side of it, like Kubrick would have done with The Aryan Papers.
I just watch movies for fun. I had a rough childhood and films were a way for me to escape for a while and imagine being somewhere else
Even as an adult and almost forty I just want to escape every once in a while. My all time favorite movie is predator with the lethal weapons right behind. I'd like to see what Andrew has to say about those films lol
America is much more childish than Europe, Russia, Japan or China. Spielberg is very American director. To be successful in America you have to appeal to the wider audience and that audience is intellectually a child.
That's not all America is, America is many great things, but being child-like is definitely part of American identity.
That’s good insight! I’ve always said that the older movies actually double the dialogue. You actually have to thoroughly pay attention to the dialog from the beginning to the end. Not really necessary in today’s flicks. Also I believe that the actors back then really had to act because the visual effects were not so involved and CG like today. CG really has dumbed down films!
Some film historians have said that movies in the 1930s had so much talking (too much talking, according to some) because people were sick of silent movies and never wanted to see an actor pantomime ever again, for fear he'd make exaggerated, embarrassing gestures. The problem with this, of course, is that an actor talking can be almost as absurd as an actor doing mime. People who love talky scripts - and I'm one of them, I admit - often forget that sometimes an image of something can be much more subtly effective than someone describing it. And when an actor NEVER stops talking, as in many of those '30s films, he inevitably says a lot of things that didn't need to be said. A major pet peeve of film critics is dialogue in which characters explain things to each other they already know, simply because they have to tell the audience.
@@SeasideDetective2
People talk in real life they do not sit around staring at a wall or flowers. Or ignore real things that are happening in and around them.
@@SeasideDetective2 couldn't agree more with everything you said. I like a lot of "wordy" films, but sometimes less is more. "Show don't tell" is a rule of thumb in visual storytelling for a reason. That's no excuse for poor dialog like a lot of more modern films, but sometimes you can more effectively communicate something with the right visual than you can with an indulgent amount of exposition explaining something verbally.
@@bighands69 1. It isn't that dialog isn't important, but if you're directing a movie, take advantage of the fact you're dealing in a visual medium. Sometimes you can say more with a visual than with exposition.
2. I love quality dialog in a film (I saw bits of The Ten Commandments over the weekend and remarked multiple times how good the writing was), but if you don't think filler exposition exists, then I implore you to pay more attention and look for it the next couple times you decide to watch a movie. Often times things are verbally explained that really don't need it, and it comes off as though the intelligence of the audience is being insulted rather than respected as if we are incapable of figuring some things out for ourselves. Over-explaining things with unnecessary dialog is absolutely a thing, and a perfect, recent example of this is the M. Night Shyamalan film Old. Like I said, quality dialog is absolutely important, and it does seem like less and less of it exists in many modern films, but some things just don't need to be said out loud. That's just as true in real-life. People underestimate how much we communicate through nonverbal body language and how important it actually is to understanding context and someone's mood, for example.
There's a reason I don't watch Klavan's show. The guy has a terrible sense of humor and doesn't seem to think that fun is a good thing.
I have never met a Fundamentalist Christian who enjoyed humor or having fun. Not one ....
Imagine going into a classroom and the teacher all day was cracking jokes. At first you may love it but come exam time you probably would wished for the classes to have more substance.
Fun has its place but it cannot dominate everything. Modern films seriousness and everything is like one big one liner every single scene.
Spielberg is not one of the great directors but you can still love his films for their entertaining ride.
@@bighands69 The day I go to a movie with the same mindset I have when going to a classroom is the day that Klavan gets more followers than Shapiro.
Spielberg was once brilliant
Still is. His West Side Story was amazing filmmaking.
Thank you. These are the master classes I wanted in college. It is a gift for me as an artist, musician and follower of Christ.
I mean Spielberg’s movies are some of the most fun and creative movies every made. Are his movies masterpieces of lofty ideas and philosophy? Not really. However, they are insanely entertaining and fun. That’s what I look for 99% of the time when I watch a movie. Not something that will make me cry or hate my life afterwords. I like to ponder movies but not let them drag me down. Life does that all on its own haha
Spielberg is an absolutely fantastic director that produces amazing entertainment but his films are not truly great movies.
The movie industry would be healthy if it had lots of Spielberg type movies and then great art movies.
Spielberg movies look like masterpieces compared to the shallow trash of the industry today.
Of course, Spielberg's film's are shallow and childish save Schindler's List, although, Raiders Of The Lost Ark remains the greatest adventure film of all time. Raiders literally changed my life. The movie inspired me to attend university and study anthropology, archeology, geography and all the sciences then graduate with an advanced degree to start a private high school in Hawaii. Raiders may have been shallow, true, but it remains inspirational to me. Your take on Schindler's List is just wrong.
@Cranky Yokel I have not seen Shoah but I enjoyed Schindler's List immensely. Spielberg's film was based on the story of Oscar Schindler as a tiny fragment of the Holocaust story. The movie's musical score was fantastic .... one of the best I've ever heard. IMO, Klavan's commentary here is itself somewhat shallow and childish.
You can say anything you want about Jaws. It's easily one of the top 5 films EVER made. Not even a discussion.
And it has to absolutely stink to have that kind of achievement at that age.
And before Jaws, duel was a wildly underrated made for TV movie.
Duel in particular really raises major ideas about man, the modern world, the difficulty man faces in the modern industrial world. Very Jungian.
He may be woke and he may have even jumped the woke shark in his elitist dotage.
But you are foolish to say all of his work is childish. It's not. But some is. And not every swing of babe Ruth's bat or Andrew klavans books were home runs either.
Jaws was yet another Book Adaptation. Spielberg made his career on taking other people's Books and making them into movies.
@@justinlast2lastharder749 ...So WHAT if 'Jaws' was adapted from a book? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
@@justinlast2lastharder749 the book was kind of a schlocky story. And as was noted earlier, who cares?
I love the klavanocracy, but this video seems to start out with ak axe to grind with Spielberg and works backwards into his reasons. Saving pvt Ryan was a lame WW2 movie that aged badly. Schindler's list was great. Was it the greatest? No. Was it an attempt by Spielberg to earn some cred as a serious director? absolutely. Why is that such a bad thing? I think the floo of westside story is driving this video.
Good director who's greatest achievements occurred very early in his career. Very woke typical Hollywood elite, but sometimes you have to separate the criticism in order to maintain your critical integrity.
I give his movies 4 face slaps. I give his woke elitism 1 face slap.
he's so overrated. It's nice to see someone point this out. i actually think he's a bit lame. AI is his best movie because it was really a Kubrick movie.
I never saw the holocaust one. That's most likely great but he's so lame I missed it and found out it was supposed to be great when it was too late to see it in theaters
Jaws isn't in the top 5000 movies ever made
They left out the best twist in "Jaws". Hooper had a affair with Brodys wife, Brody finds out, (but does nothing) and later the shark gets Hooper and Brody swims back to the island a sole survivor and it's left a mystery to Brodys wife (and the town) as to: Did Brody or the shark kill Hooper?
Your comparison of old movies vs new movies is exemplified in the old Star Trek franchise vs new reboot, starting with Star Trek (2009). The original series and TNG included action, story, and plot. But it was about morals and ideas. It was about unity and hope for mankind. The plot made you think. The 2009 reboot was a fast moving action flick with heart pumping action and danger. And the real Trek fans hated it. The characters are all shallow. There's no moral depth to the story. Just like the Klavanon said.
I liked 2009 and Into Darkness because they were entertainment with a light bit of Star Trek but could not stand Beyond it was an extremely shallow movie with absolutely no Star Trek in its DNA at all as it was a dumb action movie.
@@bighands69 it happens to be that I enjoyed the movie - possibly because I myself am shallow and childish. 😉 But the new Kirk is shown as a youngster as a rebellious child who lost his father. And as an adult, he never quite grew up. Regarding Spock - I think Roddenberry would turn over in his grave to see Spock sucking face with Uhura. Or behaving spitefully and vindictively as he does in this film. Very unvulcan of him.
Leonard Nimoy makes a guest appearance as future Spock. (Or Kelvin Timeline Spock.) At least that have it some grounding in old Trek. But the new Spock is very different than the Spock of Nimoy.
It's not fair to compare JJ trek to the TV shows before it. His movies are just as good as any from TOS or TNG. And he still managed to capture the team dynamic somewhat. The older shows are where real Star Trek is - they had time to explore philosophical and moral questions (even if it did get preachy in favor of a certain ideological bent sometimes) The real downhill slump for Trek started with Discovery and continued with Picard where everything is action and millennial style internal drama (and I say this as a millennial).