Good to see some other people reckon that 'A.I.' was a powerful movie. When it
was being made some punters reckoned Spielberg would 'water' down Kubrick's
film, or that he wasn't 'worthy' of taking on a Kubrick project. Well, the
final film has many Spielberg touches, but most of the *important* work on the
film (i.e., the scriptwriting and prep) had already been done by Kubrick and
his many collaborators (Maitland, Shaw, Aldiss, Watson). So, in a way,
Kubrick's input on 'A.I.' was enormous (more and more I'm realizing that the
script is absolutely critical, and above almost any other contribution). As
Hitchcock used to say, you get the script right, then cast it correctly, and
most of the really important stuff has already been achieved.
Second, was Spielberg 'worthy' of a Kubrick project? I'd say, by the time he'd
made 'Jaws' and 'Close Encounters', Spielberg was 'worthy' of taking on
anything, including the most revered of contemporary filmmakers, Stan the Man.
By the time of 'Empire of the Sun', Spielberg had attained the level of a
Kubrick film (again, I'd say he did it with 'Close Encounters'), and by the
time of 'Schindler's List' he was firmly in the masterclass. (For the record,
Spielberg has more films in the AFI top 100 list than *any* other director).
Also, Kubrick greatly admired 'E.T', one of the inspirations for 'A.I.', and
Kubrick would've loved the kind of massive success Spielberg had, to have a
film gross over $200m, $300m, $400m, which he never achieved. Remember,
Kubrick meticulously tracked the box office takings of his movies around the
world, was totally devoted to filmmaking, and a global success on the scale of
'Jaws', 'E.T.', 'Jurassic Park' or 'Indiana Jones' would've made him very,
very, very happy.
|