It was young film school trained directors who had learned a new film culture from mainly European auteurs who gave Hollywood its 1970s expansion . Now 250,000 film and TV students graduate every year and they could give a similar boost to film culture but they have no access to agents, producers , streamers or funding . There is so much potential going to waste because the system is totally out of date . Hollywood is dying ; it adapted to sound, colour , 3D , and was almost killed off by TV . But young directors saved it . That won’t happen now.
It's a great essay, but I can't understand why you completely ignore Spielberg's crucial ascendance — the thing he tried and failed to do with "The Color Purple" and (especially) "Empire of the Sun" and finally achieved with "Schindler's List." Since then he's done "War of the Worlds," "The Post," "Amistad," "Lincoln," "Minority Report," "Saving Private Ryan" and others that maybe aren't as indelible and great but are consistently interesting ("War Horse," "Ready Player One," "West Side Story").
Your remark that Scorsese is somehow the only remaining titan from that period just completely ignores all this — I mean, it's arguable (and I believe) that after Coppola mysteriously lost his mojo circa "Rumble Fish" and "The Cotton Club" (his last two movies that are any good, in my opinion) Spielberg took up the slack and has had precisely the mature career that Coppola would have had, had not (in Kael's words, describing the execrable "The Godfather Part III") "all the emotional force gone out" of his work.
And beyond that, Spielberg's eventual maturation and success tells just as compelling a story as Biskind's does, or, it creates a fascinating coda to the story. I mean, it's obviously impossible to expect every director to have that kind of success, but hasn't Spielberg, by this point, earned the right at least to the same stature as Hitchcock, if not Kubrick? (Kubrick's better, but I'm talking about that SCALE of artistic success.)
Thanks Jordan! And yeah, I agree, the second half of Spielberg's career is fascinating. Would love to spend some time one day exploring how it does and doesn't fit with his early-career impulses. Cheers for reading and for the thoughtful comment!
I'm just getting through this book now, it's so good! It would be interesting to put together some sort of spiritual sequel to this book that covered the state of the industry from the 2000s until now, with the same journalistic fervor.
It was young film school trained directors who had learned a new film culture from mainly European auteurs who gave Hollywood its 1970s expansion . Now 250,000 film and TV students graduate every year and they could give a similar boost to film culture but they have no access to agents, producers , streamers or funding . There is so much potential going to waste because the system is totally out of date . Hollywood is dying ; it adapted to sound, colour , 3D , and was almost killed off by TV . But young directors saved it . That won’t happen now.
I still hold hope - perhaps naively!
It's a great essay, but I can't understand why you completely ignore Spielberg's crucial ascendance — the thing he tried and failed to do with "The Color Purple" and (especially) "Empire of the Sun" and finally achieved with "Schindler's List." Since then he's done "War of the Worlds," "The Post," "Amistad," "Lincoln," "Minority Report," "Saving Private Ryan" and others that maybe aren't as indelible and great but are consistently interesting ("War Horse," "Ready Player One," "West Side Story").
Your remark that Scorsese is somehow the only remaining titan from that period just completely ignores all this — I mean, it's arguable (and I believe) that after Coppola mysteriously lost his mojo circa "Rumble Fish" and "The Cotton Club" (his last two movies that are any good, in my opinion) Spielberg took up the slack and has had precisely the mature career that Coppola would have had, had not (in Kael's words, describing the execrable "The Godfather Part III") "all the emotional force gone out" of his work.
And beyond that, Spielberg's eventual maturation and success tells just as compelling a story as Biskind's does, or, it creates a fascinating coda to the story. I mean, it's obviously impossible to expect every director to have that kind of success, but hasn't Spielberg, by this point, earned the right at least to the same stature as Hitchcock, if not Kubrick? (Kubrick's better, but I'm talking about that SCALE of artistic success.)
Thanks Jordan! And yeah, I agree, the second half of Spielberg's career is fascinating. Would love to spend some time one day exploring how it does and doesn't fit with his early-career impulses. Cheers for reading and for the thoughtful comment!
I'm just getting through this book now, it's so good! It would be interesting to put together some sort of spiritual sequel to this book that covered the state of the industry from the 2000s until now, with the same journalistic fervor.
Agreed! I've actually just started reading this - a bit of a different vibe but I'm hoping it will have some similar industry reflections: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Movie-Year-Ever-Screen/dp/1501175386
Best Movie Year Ever is a cracker, but if you thought Biskind's book ended on a downer ...
😬😬😬