Hot Clips: Tribute To Spielberg At PGA

Accepting the Producers Guild’s David O. Selznick Career Achievement Award last night, Steven Spielberg said about the people who stitched this video together: “I think we should have them working for us.” It was edited by Todd Sandler.

  1. Powerful stuff, say what you want about the man, but few people have had the impact on the industry like Spielberg.

  2. Good, except for the Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull clips. When we think about Indiana Jones, Crystal Skull is the last thing we want to be reminded of. Everything else was great.

    1. It’s funny when you take the alien from the movie out of context…sure doesn’t look like an Indiana Jones film (wish it wasn’t).

      1. Because we don’t like the latest Indiana Jones movie? That’s a bit of a stretch. I wouldn’t even consider myself a hardcore fan of the first three movies, but I enjoyed them. Is making fun of someone your way of avoiding reality and presenting a valid opinion?

        Crystal Skull has been widely panned as an awful movie, not just a bad Indiana Jones movie. Even Spielberg himself has said that he argued against aliens being in the film. Does that make Spielberg ‘sad’ as well?

    1. Another after the two great ones at Xmas? How about the one coming out this coming Xmas? Or the one coming out 6 months after that one. I’d write home about any of those before most of the other films out there. The man is a genius. Even an off film from him is worth 10 from someone else.

    2. Most directors would be lucky to have Spielberg’s last 9 film under their belt. But Spielberg has them after 3 previous great decades of film making. I just feel bad for people that can’t watch something like A.I., Minority Report or Munich and say “that’s a master at the top of his game.”

      It’s like the silly group of Scorsese fans who just want him to do mafia movies or another Taxi Driver, and anything else is forgettable to them.

      1. I agree. I also found the reaction to WAR HORSE sickening. It was the most technically accomplished film of the year by leagues. And the technique was the effortless work of an artist at the absolute peak of his powers, commanding one of the greatest teams of co-workers ever assembled.

        OK, some people were displeased by the level of sentimentality. But that was his INTENTION. Argue with whether you like that level of emotion or not, but don’t dare dismiss work at this mind-boggling level as “bad”, as I have heard so many people do. It only makes you sound like a fool.

        The man is easily one of the 5 people most fluent in the language of cinema to ever walk this earth. If you don’t like what he has to say, fine, that’s fair. (Silly, to my mind, but fair). However at this point his command of his craft is beyond needing an iota of proof.

        Also, after seeing THE DESCENDENTS, and how Alexander Payne feels the need to undercut almost every emotional beat with some jab that makes us laugh AT the person feeling emotion (as with George Clooney’s “silly run” after he learns his wife was cheating on him) I’d much rather watch a film by someone who embraces human emotion with a bear hug than one who is scared of it.

        1. If someone thinks War Horse is silly, cheesy nonsense, it doesn’t necessarily mean that that person thinks Jaws or Jurassic Park or other Spielberg movies aren’t classics. We are allowed to dislike a particular movie and still love the director. I can’t stand half of Kubrich’s films, but I watch the Shining several times a year.

        2. James, Spielberg is one of the best directors ever and doesn’t need to be defended. Nobody in the comments so far said anything about War Horse.

          By the way, it goes beyond sentimentality. Many of us just don’t feel such emotion for a horse. I did see a girl cry during the movie so, there you go.

          I have friends who love Spielberg as much as you and still have not been able to get themselves to watch War Horse. Not even their screeners.

  3. I loved “AI.” Most people didn’t, and it may be Spielberg’s most maligned film (thanks to the ending people wrongly assumed was tacked on), but it’s quite brilliant.

    That said, is it just me, or did it seem overrepresented in this video?

    1. A brilliant heartbreaking ending that is also wildly misunderstood, Spielberg has acknowledged that the design of the Supermecha looked a bit too much like space aliens and confused people.

  4. I agree that “A.I.” was brilliant. I just wish sometime he would explain what influences Kubrick had on the project after he ceded control to Spielberg.

    And, yes, it seemed over-represented in the montage. But this is a producer montage, after all, and there’s no question the visuals in “A.I” are stunning.

    1. Spielberg actually gave a few interviews on just this topic, I’m sure you can find them online. There’s also a very good coffee table book on the making of the film that details Kubrick’s development of the project.

      Basically, Kubrick developed the project on his own for nearly thirty years and only vaguely discussed Spielberg becoming involved in the early 1990s. Kubrick set it aside in the mid 90s to make EYES WIDE SHUT. On Kubrick’s death, Spielberg decided to make the film as a tribute to Kubrick and Kubrick’s estate gave Spielberg everything Kubrick had assembled.

      The funniest thing is that the “fourth act” set in the future, which so many people had issues with, was endlessly called something Spielberg must have “added”. In fact, it was one of the most clearly planned portions of the film from Kubrick’s time. It was in no way Spielberg’s addition.

      In fact the middle, with David on the run going to the Flesh Fair and Rouge City, is where Spielberg had to write the most new content, even though that’s the part most people assume is “Kubrick’s”.

      Personally, I think the whole film is indescribably brilliant and destined to be seen as Spielberg’s VERTIGO in twenty or thirty years. It really is one of his most personal, passionate films.

Comments are closed.