TwinkieGorilla said:
Spielberg is also largely responsible for the major popularity of homogenized American cinema.
nearly every film of his either patronizes or manipulates his audience by catering to bullshit sentimentality or low-brow cuteness.
i hate spielberg more than any other director in recent history. no man with that amount of talent should be allowed to continuously rape the word "art" with such relentless fervor.
I think you give Spielberg a bit too much credit for that. What Spielberg has excelled at is producing films. Some of the one's he's directed are great. Jaws is an awesome film.
But the homongenized American cinema? That's a bit much for Spielberg.
I think a better argument would be that the industry has split two ways largely as a result of the tremendous amount of money that goes into films. You have your blockbuster films- films that are supposed to make lots and lots of money and receive heavy investment.
But investors want a safe investment- especially if they are shelling out tens of millions. So the film becomes homogenized to an adolescent audience that is willing to spend $8-10 bucks on mentally dumb movie because of the special effects. These films become packaged around an idea of what's cool to that audience and markets in that direction. Case- many of your basic summer blockbusters are usually sequels, TV films or comic hero flicks. Now someone might argue that the protrayal of super hero flicks is reflective of a popular culture that mythologized super heroes growing up. Bullshit. Its about a safe investment. That "super hero myths of modern America" is a pretty flimsy argument when the big blockbuster flicks are controlled by a small group of studios.
(Note the same thing happens with music. It used to be that a recording artist went through a half dozed records before they made a big hit. For instance, Prince's early music was crap, but the record label was willing to support him till he made it big).
So its not Spielberg, but the industry itself that homogenized blockbuster flicks. Its about the millions that are invested, and the security of that investment. No one wants another multimillion flop like Waterworld, which honestly wouldn't have gotten that bad rap if the damn set hadn't been washed away off Hawaii.
The more interesting films are your independent flicks that usually are done with a modest budget. These flicks are hit and miss- but even when they miss, they are usually worth the small investment that goes into making the movies. The small investment allows the directors to be more artistic in their vision because there is less risk.
