| THE
CINEMA OF STEVEN SPIELBERG Empire of Light Nigel Morris |
||
special offers |
 |
Cinema’s
most successful director is a commercial and cultural force demanding
serious consideration. Not just triumphant marketing, this international
popularity is partly a function of the movies themselves. Polarised
critical attitudes largely overlook this, and evidence either unquestioning
adulation or vilification – often vitriolic – for epitomising
contemporary Hollywood. Detailed textual analyses reveal that alongside
conventional commercial appeal, Spielberg’s movies function
consistently as a self-reflexive commentary on cinema. Rather
than straightforwardly consumed realism
or fantasy, they invite divergent readings and self-conscious spectatorship
which contradict assumptions about their ideological tendencies.
Exercising powerful emotional appeal, their ambiguities are profitably
advantageous in maximising audiences and generating media attention. chapter samples reviews 'Devotees of cinema's most successful director will find great sustenance in this extensive and enlightening assessment of his films. Morris expertly mines each picture to provide a fascinating take on the man's legendary work.' ***** ‘Throughout many years of teaching film, even though my students frequently cited Spielberg as their favourite director, I had never actually taught any of his films in the classroom… My change of mind is in no small way due to Nigel Morris’ excellent study of Spielberg’s cinema… The Cinema of Steven Spielberg is an epic in its own right. Like an epic, it is impressive in scope – Spielberg’s cinematic output. But each chapter could stand alone for the occasional reader or researcher. For me, it was a fascinating, engrossing and illuminating read… No film library – personal, school, college or university – should be without this book.’ 'Morris fends off critics hostile to Spielberg, offers a lucid reading of his films according to structuralist theory, and makes a general case for Spielberg’s achievements. Although many studies of Spielberg have been published, Morris concerns himself solely with the text and keeps the outer direction of Spielberg’s inner direction to a minimum, even when dealing with Schindler’s List and Munich. Spielberg’s vast output muddies public and critical opinion of films such as these. A particular value to this study is that it demonstrates that the lighter works are ‘more interesting than they appear to the 'prejudiced eye’. Morris explores how escapist cinema and ‘spectatorial desire’ can provide material for critical analysis. His readings rely on self-reflexivity and intertextual references. Whereas the intertexts are more obvious in early works (Duel, Sugarland Express), the later works offer Morris more of a challenge: did the same filmmaker who made Jurassic Park also make Munich? Morris includes a thorough review of negative assaults on Spielberg, and a final chapter details the flaws in such attacks... Highly Recommended.' 'Empire of Light argues that triumphant marketing is not the only cause of Spielberg’s phenomenal commercial success; rather the powerful emotional appeal and ambiguities of the films themselves maximise audiences and generate media attention. Morris is Principal Lecturer in Media Theory and Teaching Fellow in the Department of Media Production at the University of Lincoln and his detailed analysis of every film from Duel to Munich defends Spielberg against the many critics who argue the commercialism are based upon cuteness, triviality and escapism... This book is aimed at the serious student of film, but doesn’t preach to them. An excellent read.' 'When justifying his reason for disliking the films of Steven Spielberg, the German filmmaker Werner Fassinder said of him ‘[he] is too good – he makes you forget you’re watching a movie.’ In Empire of Light Nigel Morris makes the case that, in reality, Spielberg’s films continually act to remind the attentive viewer that they are watching a movie. He argues that they exist not only as escapism or drama but as a conduit through which Spielberg examines, references, celebrates and adds to the art of cinematic expression and the act of movie watching. Utilising Metzian film theory, Morris examines each of Spielberg’s feature films in terms of their narrative, their authorship, their psychology, their politics, their critical reception and their cultural impact. Morris pays particular attention to how each film uses intertextuality (referencing of other films or filmic conventions), auto-citation (referencing of Spielberg’s own films) and self-reflexivity (internal recognition of cinema as cinema) in order to present his own theory of Spielberg the filmmaker. Morris points to images, lighting codes, dialogue and sound present within Spielberg’s movies that show how Spielberg consistently acts to remind the audience that his films consciously exist as cinema. As he puts it: ‘Metaphors for cameras, screens, projectors, audiences, and cinema as institution inform many sequences. The typical Spielberg identification figure is a spectator, often also a surrogate director.’ This is in direct opposition to the publicity, hype, critical consensus, and even Spielberg’s own words, that tell us how Spielberg’s singular aim is to make the audience forget that they’re watching a movie. Morris demonstrates that it is this false assumption that has led to much of the critical outrage surrounding Spielberg’s more serious pictures; that to make the audience forget they’re watching a recreation of the Holocaust or slavery or World War 2 can have disastrous consequences on the cultural perception of history. But if Morris is correct then, rather than seeking to impose reality on cinema, Spielberg in truth seeks to impose cinema on reality, which is a far more complex proposition. In my opinion Morris’ argument is a sound one… it should be obvious to even the most casual of observer how much Spielberg references, uses and sometimes consciously inverts filmic conventions. These acknowledgements can be overt, such as in Always when Pete tells Dorinda how signalling to the band ‘always works in the movies’ just as his signal to the band also produces the required cinematic response. Or they can be subtle, as when Indiana Jones uses a staff and headpiece as a literal Projector to discover the location of the Ark. Once your mind is opened to these cinematic allusions and metaphors you begin to wonder just how you ever missed them. Yet this is exactly the contradiction that Spielberg’s films create – how they can be so narratively, emotionally and dramatically engaging yet at the same time so open to self-reflexive reading. Contradiction and ambiguity is at the heart of Spielberg’s cinema, Morris argues. He successfully overturns the prevalent view of Spielberg as a black and white, good vs evil fantasist and helps to move the critical appraisal of Spielberg forward by showing just how contrary to his work this belief is. How can Saving Private Ryan be both a tribute to Spielberg’s father’s generation and an argument against warfare? How can Munich possibly criticise the actions of Israel yet remain ultimately pro-Israeli? How can Spielberg condemn suburban life in Duel and Close Encounters yet seemingly celebrate it in ET? How can AI be both a sentimental fairytale and a cynical critique of humanity? How can Spielberg view race so stereotypically in The Temple of Doom yet so sensitively in The Color Purple? Morris shows how focusing on only one aspect of these ambiguities can cause someone to create a view of Spielberg that is myopically simplistic; a self-fulfilling critical prophecy. His defences of Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan, in particular, utilise logic so sound you wonder how anyone could possibly have missed the point. But as Morris explains, so many critics go into a Spielberg film with a preconceived view of who he is and what he represents that they only interpret that which fits this view whilst discarding anything that is contrary to it. And this, for a filmmaker who reflects so many of life’s ambiguities and contradictions, is the worst mistake you can make.
|
 |
|
|
