Steven Spielberg – People Talking

Movie Review – ‘The Post’ – Truth and Consequences

Directed by Steven Spielberg

Written by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer

Cast: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts, Bradley Whitford, Bruce Greenwood, Matthew Rhys, Alison Brie, Carrie Coon, Jesse Plemons, David Cross, Zach Woods, Pat Healy, John Rue, Rick Holmes, Philip Casnoff, Jessie Mueller, Stark Sands, Michael Cyril Creighton, Will Denton, Deirdre Lovejoy, Jennifer Dundas, Austyn Johnson, Brent Langdon, Michael Stuhlbarg, Deborah Green, Gary Wilmes, Christopher Innvar, Justin Swain, Kenneth Tigar, David Aaron Baker, Gannon McHale, Dan Bucatinsky, David Costabile, Johanna Day, Annika Boras, Carolyn McCormick, Peter Van Wagner, Angus Hepburn, James Riordan, Kelly AuCoin, Cotter Smith, Ben Livingston, JaQwan J. Kelly, Shaun O’Hagan, Celeste Arias, Sonny Valicenti, Aaron Roman Weiner, Tom Bair, Mark Jacoby, Curzon Dobell, Neal Huff

Soundtrack: John Williams

Before Watergate.
Before Woodward and Bernstein.
There were The Pentagon Papers.
And thus began the rise of The Washington Post to national prominence, and the downfall of the presidency of one Richard Milhous Nixon.

I said this before when I reviewed Bridge of Spies, and I think it bears repeating. It’s become somewhat popular to hate on Steven Spielberg, and I get it (I mean, I’m about as excited to see Ready Player One as I am to get food poisoning, or cancer), but the fact remains, he’s still Steven Spielberg.

I’m not going to tell you that The Post is “Classic Spielberg”, reminiscent of his heyday in the Seventies and Eighties, but it does at least hearken back to his run in the early Aughts, which isn’t so bad (Catch Me If You Can, anyone?).

On its face, The Post isn’t anything particularly special. It’s nothing that hasn’t been done before, and none of the performances, even from the Oscar winners in the room, are really anything to write home about (though it is fun to see Bob and David in a Spielberg movie together). Yet, somehow, I’m left feeling satisfied, which leads me to conclude that film is greater than the sum of its parts, and I believe that is largely due to that wily old veteran director, Steven Spielberg (and his near-constant collaborator, John Williams; who’s getting up there, kids, so maybe savor this one while we still have them to savor).

For all of his softening and head-scratching decisions over the past fifteen years, the man still knows how to bring a script to life and make it pop, and he still knows where to throw in his signature touches (like those little one-ers you don’t really notice, but your brain does). Was he the absolute best choice to handle this particular material? Maybe not, but they certainly could have done a lot worse.

Speaking of the material, kudos to first-time screenwriter Liz Hannah, who was the initial rolling snowball of this avalanche, and executive producer and writer Josh Singer (who, unsurprisingly, held the same positions on Spotlight), for putting together yet another intricate and no doubt incredibly well-researched period journalism piece (to have a script with roughly fifty real-life people portrayed by credited actors in a two-hour movie just goes to show how deep the dive was). Much like Spotlight (and in contrast to All the President’s Men), The Post works whether you lived though the events or not.

However, I wouldn’t say The Post is all-in-all on the same level as Spotlight, which is to say I don’t think it’s Best Picture material, and the subtext of the film given the current climate is fairly obvious, but still, perhaps for reasons I can’t fully articulate, I have zero issue recommending it.

It’ll make you real depressed about the Vietnam War (but then what doesn’t?), but if you’re a fan of Spielberg, journalism, and/or the First Amendment, The Post‘ll be right up your alley.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Quick Thoughts – September Round-Up, Part 2 of 2: Septemberg

I said this before in my review of ‘Bridge of Spies‘, but it’s become rather chic to hate on Steven Spielberg, and, in many ways, I get it. He’s gotten older, he’s gotten softer, he’s made some mistakes, but, at the end of the day, he’s still Steven Spielberg: director of many great movies. In September, I was fortunate enough to be able to revisit a handful of them in real theaters with real audiences, and it was fantastic.

Indiana Jones Trilogy (1981, 1984, 1989)

Many will disagree with me on this, but I think Indiana Jones is actually a better Harrison Ford character than Han Solo, but that discussion isn’t really why we’re here. All three of these movies are great in their own way, and each have moments of undeniable brilliance.

‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ is much like ‘Star Wars’: inspired by the serials of the past, but set the standard for the future, and, thanks to its success, got the ball rolling (pun absolutely intended) on a whole generation of knock-offs, rip-offs, and its own sequels. Cannon Films alone made no less than three ‘Raiders’-inspired movies throughout the 80s (two helmed by Oscar-nominated director J. Lee Thompson). What sets ‘Raiders’ apart and the reason it still holds up is that it’s essentially a B-movie with A-picture production; everything from the acting and directing to the music, effects, and STUNTS is top notch, and the result is one of the most-enjoyable movie experiences you’ll ever find from start to finish, no matter what the size of the screen.

‘Temple of Doom’ is very much ‘Raiders 2’; similar to the original, but darker, grittier, and more fiery (many of the action set pieces had been conceived for ‘Raiders’ but obviously not executed for it). Many people, hardcore Indiana Jones fans or not, consider this their least favorite of the trilogy, and that’s true for me as well, but I still think it’s a great action-adventure film on its own merits. Really, it just suffers from an identity crisis; had it not been attached to an established property, I think it would be held in higher regard. At least you can’t accuse the filmmakers of making the exact same movie over again (looking at you, ‘Ghostbusters II’, though I still love you anyway).

‘Last Crusade’, dare I say, elevates the material. It certainly maintains the action flourishes established by the first two, but overall it feels more mature, largely because of the father-son relationship (and John Williams took the score in a new direction). I still get teary-eyed every time I see Henry Sr. call Henry Jr. “Indiana” for the first time. Sean Connery gives the best performance I’ve ever seen him put on screen, and for those of you who say Harrison Ford isn’t an “ack-tour”, perhaps that’s true, but he can act; the advantage of seeing him on the big screen is you can more easily notice how much acting he does with his eyes. ‘Last Crusade’ also lets us give proper goodbyes to fan favorites Sallah and Marcus Brody. Maybe I’m biased because it’s the Indiana Jones movie I grew up watching the most, but ‘Last Crusade’ is my favorite of the three; hands down.

Ratings:
‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ ★★★★½
‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom’ ★★★★☆
‘Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade’ ★★★★★

Jaws (1975)

Before I got to see this on the big screen for the first time, I had actually begun to wonder if the world’s first blockbuster (and one of my favorite movies) was overrated. What a foolish thought that was. ‘Jaws’ is like this amazing estuary where old and new Hollywood meet, and the result is something brilliant and nearly completely timeless. Spielberg, though not necessarily because he wanted to, borrowed much from Hitchcock in terms of monster beast strategy, while adding his own signature visual touches. John Williams’ score is equal parts Bernard Hermann and Erich Wolfgang Korngold before him, tying together both the horror and the sea-faring adventure. Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw are perfectly cast as three disparate men united against a common foe.

I actually think Scheider’s performance as Chief Brody might be a little underrated; the character’s arc of having to face down his biggest fear in order to protect both his own family and the islanders who only tacitly accept him is well-written enough, but he adds quite a bit of depth on his own (let’s not forget it was Scheider himself who came up with “You’re gonna need a bigger boat”).

I regret not finding out for sure, but sitting next to me was a woman who appeared to be seeing ‘Jaws’ for the first time (I base this on her reactions to, well, everything). When you can make a movie that still scares people 40 years after its release, you know you did something right. Kudos to Spielberg on that.

Rating: ★★★★★

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

When I was a little boy in elementary school, I was very much into reading about UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, and cryptozoological creatures, so believe me when I tell you that ‘Close Encounters’ does an incredible job of sewing together all sorts of myths, legends, and wild conspiracy theories into a serious and seriously compelling science fiction motion picture (Richard Donner would say it has Verisimilitude). It’s been overshadowed by ‘Star Wars’ in the long run, but there’s no denying that ‘Close Encounters’ had its own distinct cultural impact, not to mention that one is science fiction and the other is science fantasy…

The true triumph of the movie, even more than the story of mankind succeeding in its search for extraterrestrial life, is the idea that music can be a truly universal language that everyone from nerdy scientists to space aliens to small children can understand. When you factor in the level of detail written into the movie, the breadth of locations, and the fact that Carl Weathers shows up as a soldier, that’s a winner of a film in my book.

It’s a slow-burner for sure, and that’ll turn some people off, but on the whole I think it’s a must-see for the genre.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Movie Review – ‘Bridge of Spies’ – Donovan’s Double Down

Directed by Steven Spielberg
Written by Matt Charman and Ethan Coen & Joel Coen
Cast: Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Alan Alda, Amy Ryan, Austin Stowell, Michael Gor, John Rue, Billy Magnussen, Jesse Plemons, Michael Gaston, James Lorinz, Brian Hutchison, Martin Dew
Soundtrack: Thomas Newman

It’s become somewhat popular to hate on Steven Spielberg.

I understand why: as he’s gotten older he’s maybe lost some of his edge and has made at least one grave mistake; but on the whole I find this rather disingenuous.

First of all, nothing can ever change the fact that he has personally auteured, at minimum, a handful of the greatest movies ever made. Secondly, it’s perfectly natural for an artist’s work to have some degradation over time; I mean, did anyone really expect ‘War Horse’ to be better than ‘Saving Private Ryan’? People get older; it happens. I give the guy a lot of credit that he’s still a major director, let alone that he’s still producing work that’s actually good (it’s a lot more than you can say about many of his directorial contemporaries).

So, where does ‘Bridge of Spies’ fit into all of this?

Well, in some ways it’s more of the same: it’s over two hours long, it’s a period piece, it’s a historical drama, it’s got Germans, Tom Hanks, and sometimes it’s a little cornball.

In other ways it feels like a radical departure. Since 1974, Steven Spielberg has been a director on 29 feature films: 14 of which have been shot by Janusz Kaminski, who shot ‘Bridge of Spies’; 26 of which have been edited by Michael Kahn, who edited ‘Bridge of Spies’; and 26 of which have been scored by John Williams, who did not score ‘Bridge of Spies’.

That’s right. For the first time in 30 years (‘The Color Purple’), John Williams, the Brady to Spielberg’s Belichick (or maybe vice versa; who knows?), did not compose the music for a Steven Spielberg movie. In fact, there’s very little music in general throughout the runtime of ‘Bridge of Spies’, and most of the pivotal scenes aren’t scored at all. Now, according to Spielberg himself, this was the plan all along even before it was revealed that John Williams would not be physically able to compose the score (don’t worry, kids; he’ll be back for ‘The BFG’), but, frankly, the overall absence of music (and John Williams music in particular) is so atypical that I venture to say this is the least Spielbergian Spielberg movie ever. I admit though, not having seen his entire catalogue, I’m not the most qualified person to make such a statement.

Besides that major departure, what else is notable about ‘Bridge of Spies’?

Honestly, the element I was most impressed by was the attention to detail in the production. There’s nothing worse, even if you’re not an expert, than seeing something you know shouldn’t be there while watching a period piece, and in that regard ‘Bridge of Spies’ is top notch. Every set, location, prop, costume, and hair and makeup style looks exactly how it should. It’s not exactly a surprise to learn that production designer Adam Stockhausen won an Oscar for ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’, and set decorator Rena DeAngelo won an Emmy for “Mad Men”, and I expect to see their names come next awards season.

Other than that, Tom Hanks is a good as you’d expect him to be, I really liked Mark Rylance in a quiet but vital supporting role (I was totally unfamiliar with him before this film), and I liked the fact that this story was being told at all, and its message of what it means to be to be American. It’s a bit preachy in the first half hour or so, but after that the movie becomes very matter of fact, which I also appreciated.

On the other hand, I do have some minor criticisms. For one thing, I don’t know for sure whether ‘Bridge of Spies’ was shot on film or not, at the very least it looks way better than a Michael Mann movie, but, during the U-2 crash sequence (which is not a spoiler) everything all of a sudden looked real fakey-fake, which, given the realism of the rest of the movie, was quite the sore thumb. Also, especially with a historical film, I generally like to be aware of the time, place, and timeframe of events, and ‘Bridge of Spies’ was lacking in this area. I always knew where things were happening, but outside of an initial title card stating 1957, I could not tell that the events of this movie were taking place over a five year period. Finally, there’s some back and forth movement between James B. Donovan’s story and Francis Gary Powers’ story that I found unnecessary, and could have easily been cut out of the film for the sake of time.

In the end, I liked ‘Bridge of Spies’ quite a bit, and it deserves reasonably high praise, but I also know that not everyone will like it, and quite a few people will likely find it boring. It’s a quiet film, it’s very unreliant on action, and in many ways it feels like a product of the period it’s portraying. It may not add up to much box office success for Spielberg, and I don’t even know that I’d consider it Best Picture material (though, knowing how the Academy works, it probably will be), but if you are a fan of, or at least don’t mind historical dramas, then ‘Bridge of Spies’ is certainly worth your time.

And if you don’t think that Steven Spielberg is an artistic director, the opening scene will definitely give you a little something to chew on.

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S. I say this not to spoil anything, but rather to properly manage expectations: the advertising for ‘Bridge of Spies’ makes it appear as if the entire film is about James B. Donovan’s negotiations to exchange a Soviet spy for Francis Gary Powers, but in actuality this plot line doesn’t occur until the second half of the movie. There’s more to the story covered in the first half.

Quick Thoughts – Catching Up On Some Classics, Part 2 of 2

‘Duel‘ (1971)

It’s not hyperbole to say I’d been waiting 20 years to see this movie. I’ve been a huge ‘Jaws‘ fan for as far back as I can remember, and it’s almost inevitable that any serious discussion of that classic will broach the subject of Spielberg’s first feature (shot in about a week and a half for NBC television, but released theatrically around the rest of the world). Is it at the same frenetic level as, say, ‘Mad Max: Fury Road‘? No (although it wouldn’t surprise me if George Miller was somehow influenced by Spielberg’s work). It’s much further down the scale, but ‘Duel’ is unquestionably beautiful in its simplicity. Of course it’s always helpful to have the great Richard Matheson as your writer. The story drags a little bit in the middle, but it can be forgiven. The Southern California landscape is gorgeously captured, and the many driving sequences convey a real sense of danger (not to mention gratuitous shots of the Southern Pacific Railroad for all the train buffs out there). I feel very fortunate to have seen this one in a theater, and there’s no doubt it would make a great addition to anyone’s Blu-ray collection.

Rating: ★★★★☆

‘Rolling Thunder‘ (1977)

Before “The Exterminator“, before “John Rambo“, there was “Major Charles Rane” in one of writer Paul Schrader’s first follow-ups to ‘Taxi Driver‘. This is another one I’d been waiting a long time to see, and, I have to say, Cristina Cacioppo perfectly introduced the movie to the audience. She said that how you feel at the end of the film is something of a litmus test of your character. I’m inclined to agree, and at the end of the movie I felt very much the same way as she did: a little good and a little bad. There may have been more obscure examples before it, but ‘Rolling Thunder’ seems to be the originator of the Vietman-vet-comes-home-suffers-terrible-things-and-executes-his-own-brand-of-justice sub-genre; and, because it’s the original, all of the elements you’d expect to find are there, but they’re not tropes yet, so they feel completely different than in later such movies. The subject matter makes it a tough watch at times, but the performances are solid all around, especially from William Devane.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

‘Roar‘ (1981)

Kudos to Drafthouse Films for tracking this down and giving it a theatrical release (which it had never previously gotten in the USA). Billed as “The Most Dangerous Movie Ever Made”, it’s certainly the most insane film I’ve seen in a long time, maybe ever. To be sure, there have been artistic endeavors designed to mess with your brain, but what makes ‘Roar’ different is that you struggle to comprehend the actual reality you’re witnessing on the screen. And what really twists it is that even though you’re frightened, the movie isn’t, because the music sounds like a Mickey Mouse cartoon, and they even mix in some slapstick comedy (such as Tippi Hedren presumably being knocked out when a shelf falls on her, followed by a jar of honey spilling all over her unconscious face). It’s crazy, it’s bizarre, and you can’t look away. That Noel Marshall was one crazy cat.

Rating: ★★★½