golly.
mike, that wouldn't be sarcasm would it...heh!
I like to think that when I see a film the director is
at least as intelligent as I am...
golly.
But--Spielberg always relies on images that emotionally and intellectually
overwhelm to illicit responses--the basement sexual assault in Schindler's
List being one of the most unnecessarily repugnant.
What gets me about the whole AI discussion is the "what would Kubrick had
done" take...nothing...there is no kubrick take.
I saw AI, thought it was interesting in many ways--lots of symbols
signifying the anatomy and psychology of motherhood. BUT...you know,
anybody can play with symbols. Spielberg directs spectacles; a spectacle
does not point to intellect, politics, social issues, humanism, history,
etc. Spectacles point to themselves.
I am sick of going to films and coming away feeling like the director has
whacked me with a bat for two hours. Spielberg carries one of the largest
bats available. He has to make his points over and over and over and over.
Makes me wonder if he understands anything about the characters and issues.
I know he gets plot, setting, time (sort of). But his characters are heavy
yet hollow ramrods for pummeling audiences into submission. Maybe it has to
do with zeitgeist...
short on time,
gary
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
|