Thanks, Roy. I also have traditionally found Spielberg too schmaltzy, even though many of his movies were a lot of fun. But I’ve mellowed and grown slightly less cynical about his oeuvre over time, and that frees me up to enjoy his sheer technical skill much more than I used to do.
The technical skills are what I am ultimately interested in with a great many movies old and recent. More often than not, the details of stories, character, the scripts come from idiotic ideologies and sensibilities I prefer to eschew even in passing.
Me, I like a story that's involving, first; second, actors that can sell that story; third, the technical prowess of the director/editor/cinematographers, etc. But that's me.
The great movies for me do have great stories. For better or for worse, however, I can no longer ignore the man behind the curtain or the Deus Ex Machina, etc. I'm like the dog at the track that caught the mechanical rabbit!
That was better than I was expecting. Turns out the reality of Lynch playing Ford is as neat as the idea. Watch the next video - it's Spielberg describing the incident as the scene plays.Way cool.
I like the idea of Hollywood's most conventional filmmaker hanging out with the most unconventional.
I want to know what the conversation with the secretary was like before Ford walked in. Interesting persons make everything around them interesting. Anyone who needs to hold the baton of Caesar to get others to do things or to pay attention is missing something.
Mar 10, 2023·edited Mar 10, 2023Liked by Roy Edroso
I would be more likely to watch a movie bio of Ford's secretary than a bio of Ford himself, who was a drunk and an asshole. Ford was famous for not wanting to talk about his movies and being a total jerk when he was interviewed. OK, maybe he thought the work speaks for itself, which is fine with me, I'll just go watch Stagecoach again.
From this scene alone, the music, the acting, the action, I can already tell this film is exactly what I imagine, slipping into a kind of parody of life and actual emotion. I had similar visceral reaction against "Almost Famous." What's the difference between someone who bludgeons the masses in theater with ideas and images of celebrity, and someone who literally does so with thugs on the street? Both come from similar values which devalue ordinary life. We are expected to be star struck, and only if we are famous ourselves or close to being famous, do our lives matter, or at least they matter more if we can make a movie about ourselves!
I really appreciate these reviews. Haven't seen this one, but I have a problem with these kinds of fictionalized semi-autobiographical stories generally -- like, what's the point? This one, with all the Spielberg interviews and NY Times articles about what's true or not*, is especially irksome. Why is the main character named "Sam" instead of "Stephen"? How "semi" autobiographical is it? Are we watching it to be inspired by the Spielberg origin story or some other one? At what point is dramatic license just an excuse for "loosely based on a true story that wasn't good enough on its own but we'll pretend it is so you'll watch it?"
"A Song to Remember" may have been typical Hollywood schmaltz but at least the main character was named "Chopin".
You have pointed out the little things that tell all. This is many layers of self-promotion, like an ad campaign for who we all need to believe the real Spielberg is forever after. The video of him telling the story of his meeting with "Jack" Ford to Brian Glazer, Ron Howard, and Jon Favreau is like holding court, primus inter pares! Am I the only one who finds this stuff laughable? Yes, Chopin! Please! "What do you know about art?" That's probably the question Stephen should be asking himself more frequently, instead of telling us who we need to believe he is, over and over, in different framing.
Hollywood movie bios of famous people always had the scene where someone says, "Wise up, you'll never make it kid!" (I think it might have been a requirement in the Hayes Code.) Couldn't tell from your review if this movie has that. Did no one tell Young Spielberg there's good, steady work to be had at the Post Office?
Also did this Spielberg fellow ever go to FILM SCHOOL, and if so, were STUDENT LOANS involved? Because if they were, hoo boy, are the Republicans retroactively mad about that.
Pa thinks "maybe I should have put my foot down" when Sam got movie-mad but now he expects "you'll work like the dickens at anything you set your mind to because you're a chip off the old block."
Much credit to Paul Dano for also not making me throw up.
There are a few Spielberg movies I haven't seen (this is one of them). "Jaws" has to be considered a classic, if only in its genre. That one with McCloud vs. the truck was pretty good too! And that Columbo episode. And that fucking insane scene where the T-Rex is trying to get at the kids in the car (umm, the first one!). "Schindler's List" got me to think about "art" itself (I mean, can anyone really say they "loved" that movie; like, we don't really have the language to describe the portrayal of something. truly horrific). Anyway, as a fan of movies, I'll watch anything Spielberg makes
That might be a good one to watch with John Ford's "Where's the horizon?" trick in mind, since it's mostly outdoors and framed pretty simply: Car, truck road, nothing else to distract from your horizon-spotting.
My sensibilities tend to be primitive. I got my wisdom teeth out sometime after watching Duel, and I was awake for it. No pain, but OMG the wrenching and grinding, all I could think of was that big rig going down in slo-mo.
I'm a Car Guy, so mostly what I get from Duel is how shitty American cars of the time were. Of course his Detroit-built shitbox would overheat at the critical moment, they always did.
Which is why we can add Duel to the list of movies you could never remake today, not because of some PC bullshit that the culture warriors are always going in about, but because you put this guy in a Honda Civic and there's no movie. He's over the horizon and the truck never sees him again.
We were driving the interstate east from Nevada to Utah and this thing happened to us. I think we had a little Honda Civic. I do not know why the semi driver decided we should be the ones to die under his wheels but when I saw it bearing down on us from behind I made a sharp right onto an exquisitely placed off ramp.
I don't remember if we stopped for long, or if we ever saw that truck again, but it was enough excitement for that day anyway.
I found it entertaining and well-made. I don’t care who made it, or how much was historically accurate, and have no thoughts about how it fits into any ouvre, so to me it was just a film about a kid with an obsessive and some of the key moments that shaped where the obsession would take him. Not the greatest or most meaningful movie ever, but I found it entertaining and well-made, and that’s enough.
Though I would like to see a whole movie with David Lynch as John Ford, so maybe it ended where it really should have started.
"Don't speak! I want to thank all the little people! Where the hell's my windbreaker? I am ever ready for my closeup, Mr. Ford! Forget it, Steve: It's Chinatown."
When I think of all the times I could have said to my boss, "Don't you know how much it hurts me to hear you say that? Don't you realize how much work I put into that? Don't you understand the process that was required?" whenever they told me my work product sucked...
Mar 10, 2023·edited Mar 10, 2023Liked by Roy Edroso
Favorites?
First time through for Raiders of the Lst Ark. I saw it in a big theatre with premium sound. I was overwhelmed.
I saw 1941 at the drive - in with some beers. We had a great time
I think people misunderstood it .It was a great big dumb movie with too much going on. Like how " It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World was big and dumb and not really very good but unforgettable nonetheless.
Mar 10, 2023·edited Mar 10, 2023Liked by Roy Edroso
It's funny, Roy's review inspired me to read through Spielberg's entry in Wikipedia (which took almost as much time as watching this damn movie would have taken) and the guy made a LOT of movies that are like 1941, just big, dumb, entertainments. And that's totally fine! Seems like he had a soft spot for movies that were like the movies he enjoyed as a kid, and sometimes that turned out really well, like with Indiana Jones, and sometimes it turned out not-so-well. The contrast with other directors who we all think of as "great" (like Ford, or Hawks or Hitchcock) is interesting, all of those guys seemed to confine themselves to a narrower range of films, the stuff they could do really well and that was identifiably theirs. Spielberg is all over the place but he really does just seem to love movies, so good for him.
And that would be a more interesting approach for him: Watching scenes from movies and talking about what he sees and what he likes, what grabbed him when he first saw it. Sharing stuff like that with kids would be fascinating to watch. I could watch a whole series of shows with Spielberg talking to children from ages 5 to, say, 20, about scenes from movies. If he happened to throw in an anecdote about John Ford or his own legendary experiences, at least there would be a context. No one can deny the man's love and his abilities. But why does he seem to have to keep reminding himself?
My wife wanted to see this more than I did. I had many of the same takes as Roy presents here, until the very, very end. Spielberg breaks the 4th wall in the last shot. Yes, it's jokey. But it also explained everything I just saw and made me more sympathetic to the movie itself.
Of course... all of what I thought about The Film is just that. It's a Thing made by Steven Spielberg. It's purely a Creation made by That Particular Guy. It cannot be anything other than that. Just like the film of the train set in the beginning. It's all just a vision put together with mechanical equipment and lights that tells the viewer a story from a specific point of view. It's the only time I can remember Spielberg going Meta, and it made me appreciate it a bit more than I did in the previous two hours. Does that mean I loved all the corn and ham presented to me? Well, it made me like it a little more.
Three airplane movies in 18 hours, all about widowed old men seeing or admitting the light, with or without dementia. “The Judge,” with Robert Duvall and “Is Anyone There?” and “Mr. Morgan’s Last Love” with Michael Caine. Reaction: I’m not as demented or out of shape as those characters but Duvall and Caine are great actors.
Forgot to mention how much I liked Cinema vanité as a title, pretty damn clever. Stick with it, kid, you may have a future in this writin' business. Now get the fuck outta my office [chomps on cigar]
Here is where I get to say that I always marvel at Spielberg's ability--genius, if you ask me--at placing the camera for a shot. From Jaws on. I think I read somewhere that, when filming the Omaha Beach opening of Saving Private Ryan, he (and the cinematographer, I assume) just roved around the beach, improvising set-ups on the fly. I'm, like, yikes.
My spidey sense tingled big time when I first heard about The Fabelmans. "Uh oh, aging guy feels the need to document his childhood as a wonderland of opportunity he didn't recognize at the time, and overcomes many obstacles to fulfill his destiny". Sounds like I nailed it. The first and last thing everyone says about Spielberg is what a brilliant technician he is, aka "the guy sure knows how to make a movie", which should be the Wikipedia entry for damning with faint praise. That praise boils down to "that guy sure knows how to manipulate our emotions", and it's more than a little unfair to ask to what end. What's the point of a song, a story, a dance, a statue? Spielberg may he the most American of all filmmakers, a consummate craftsman with nothing more to say than look how big, dumb, romantic and (mostly) harmless we all are. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World after all.
i think "Fabelmans" is only the second-best Spielberg movie of the year...the best is the un-nominated and slightly under-appreciated "Nope," in which Jordan Peele plays with some of same tricks young Sammy learns in "Fabelmans." but overall i enjoyed "fabelmans" and particularly Spielberg's ability to tell and show at the same time. the filmcraft is great. the model train crash sequences are genuinely riveting even though we know they're just toys, and that brings us into Sammy's POV; Sammy describes how showing a character's facial reaction tells you about what they're seeing more powerfully than showing it would, and then later we see Mitzi's response to Sammy's closet-screened footage as an illustration of the technique that's also genuinely moving. the guy knows how to light, compose, and edit a sequence to pull you in moment by moment, even if the movie as a whole is a little loose and shaggy.
though maybe i'm just an extra-easy mark for Spielberg's schtick from having rewatched the perfect "Jurassic Park" the day before i watched "Fabelmans."
Thanks, Roy. I also have traditionally found Spielberg too schmaltzy, even though many of his movies were a lot of fun. But I’ve mellowed and grown slightly less cynical about his oeuvre over time, and that frees me up to enjoy his sheer technical skill much more than I used to do.
Well, then you may like this.
The technical skills are what I am ultimately interested in with a great many movies old and recent. More often than not, the details of stories, character, the scripts come from idiotic ideologies and sensibilities I prefer to eschew even in passing.
Me, I like a story that's involving, first; second, actors that can sell that story; third, the technical prowess of the director/editor/cinematographers, etc. But that's me.
The great movies for me do have great stories. For better or for worse, however, I can no longer ignore the man behind the curtain or the Deus Ex Machina, etc. I'm like the dog at the track that caught the mechanical rabbit!
Dude can sure make a movie. Kind of like how Springsteen can sure write a song.
The classics and near classics start to run together after 20 or so.
Then again, any film with cameo of David Lynch as John Ford just has to be something special, if just for that.
Here's just the David Lynch part, think of the time I saved you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POgWODZyUGQ
That was better than I was expecting. Turns out the reality of Lynch playing Ford is as neat as the idea. Watch the next video - it's Spielberg describing the incident as the scene plays.Way cool.
I like the idea of Hollywood's most conventional filmmaker hanging out with the most unconventional.
Now I've gotta go back and watch some Ford movies and check where the horizon is.
Well There,'s that one scene...
https://youtu.be/r5k35hWiR4M
I want to know what the conversation with the secretary was like before Ford walked in. Interesting persons make everything around them interesting. Anyone who needs to hold the baton of Caesar to get others to do things or to pay attention is missing something.
I would be more likely to watch a movie bio of Ford's secretary than a bio of Ford himself, who was a drunk and an asshole. Ford was famous for not wanting to talk about his movies and being a total jerk when he was interviewed. OK, maybe he thought the work speaks for itself, which is fine with me, I'll just go watch Stagecoach again.
From this scene alone, the music, the acting, the action, I can already tell this film is exactly what I imagine, slipping into a kind of parody of life and actual emotion. I had similar visceral reaction against "Almost Famous." What's the difference between someone who bludgeons the masses in theater with ideas and images of celebrity, and someone who literally does so with thugs on the street? Both come from similar values which devalue ordinary life. We are expected to be star struck, and only if we are famous ourselves or close to being famous, do our lives matter, or at least they matter more if we can make a movie about ourselves!
Hey Roy- this didn't get mailed out. I had to follow the Rebid link.
Huh. I'll check.
C'mon, man – you're already handling the break-it-down part – how hard can it be to do Il Postino too...?
Checked the title, and it doesn't say "Roy Edroso Breaks it Down and Mails it Out" so technically he's off the hook.
Damn technicalities...
I really appreciate these reviews. Haven't seen this one, but I have a problem with these kinds of fictionalized semi-autobiographical stories generally -- like, what's the point? This one, with all the Spielberg interviews and NY Times articles about what's true or not*, is especially irksome. Why is the main character named "Sam" instead of "Stephen"? How "semi" autobiographical is it? Are we watching it to be inspired by the Spielberg origin story or some other one? At what point is dramatic license just an excuse for "loosely based on a true story that wasn't good enough on its own but we'll pretend it is so you'll watch it?"
"A Song to Remember" may have been typical Hollywood schmaltz but at least the main character was named "Chopin".
*https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/23/movies/the-fabelmans-steven-spielberg-facts.html
Maybe he just wanted to hit us over the head with "Fabelman." Subtle, it's not.
Has a Spielberg movie ever been subtle?
Well, I think it's gonna be a big-bucks film
Boffo box office, we'll get our fill
I'm no auteur, no I'm no Truffaut
Oh, no, no, no
I'm FABLEMAN...
Fableman, spinnin' out my spiel out here alone...
You be you!
LOL at that one!
You have pointed out the little things that tell all. This is many layers of self-promotion, like an ad campaign for who we all need to believe the real Spielberg is forever after. The video of him telling the story of his meeting with "Jack" Ford to Brian Glazer, Ron Howard, and Jon Favreau is like holding court, primus inter pares! Am I the only one who finds this stuff laughable? Yes, Chopin! Please! "What do you know about art?" That's probably the question Stephen should be asking himself more frequently, instead of telling us who we need to believe he is, over and over, in different framing.
Hollywood movie bios of famous people always had the scene where someone says, "Wise up, you'll never make it kid!" (I think it might have been a requirement in the Hayes Code.) Couldn't tell from your review if this movie has that. Did no one tell Young Spielberg there's good, steady work to be had at the Post Office?
Also did this Spielberg fellow ever go to FILM SCHOOL, and if so, were STUDENT LOANS involved? Because if they were, hoo boy, are the Republicans retroactively mad about that.
Pa thinks "maybe I should have put my foot down" when Sam got movie-mad but now he expects "you'll work like the dickens at anything you set your mind to because you're a chip off the old block."
Much credit to Paul Dano for also not making me throw up.
Was hair-tousling involved? If so, I'll be sure my popcorn container is empty before I get to that scene, may have another use for it.
Geez, did Kushner lose a bet with Speilberg or something? Does Hersh tell the kid all you need is moxie?
Part of the deal for using Kushner on "West Side Story," maybe? (Which I have yet to see, as the original is still to implanted in my brain.)
(Hollywood Shuffle's already been done, but maybe there's still room for a different spin.)
I used to read Armond White's pieces in the old New York Press. Smart, yes, and occasionally thought-provoling. But he was always kinda nuts.
There are a few Spielberg movies I haven't seen (this is one of them). "Jaws" has to be considered a classic, if only in its genre. That one with McCloud vs. the truck was pretty good too! And that Columbo episode. And that fucking insane scene where the T-Rex is trying to get at the kids in the car (umm, the first one!). "Schindler's List" got me to think about "art" itself (I mean, can anyone really say they "loved" that movie; like, we don't really have the language to describe the portrayal of something. truly horrific). Anyway, as a fan of movies, I'll watch anything Spielberg makes
My favorite Spielberg movie is "Duel" (1971). Jeepers, that was good, but impossible to remake in today's techno-world.
That might be a good one to watch with John Ford's "Where's the horizon?" trick in mind, since it's mostly outdoors and framed pretty simply: Car, truck road, nothing else to distract from your horizon-spotting.
My sensibilities tend to be primitive. I got my wisdom teeth out sometime after watching Duel, and I was awake for it. No pain, but OMG the wrenching and grinding, all I could think of was that big rig going down in slo-mo.
I'm a Car Guy, so mostly what I get from Duel is how shitty American cars of the time were. Of course his Detroit-built shitbox would overheat at the critical moment, they always did.
Which is why we can add Duel to the list of movies you could never remake today, not because of some PC bullshit that the culture warriors are always going in about, but because you put this guy in a Honda Civic and there's no movie. He's over the horizon and the truck never sees him again.
We were driving the interstate east from Nevada to Utah and this thing happened to us. I think we had a little Honda Civic. I do not know why the semi driver decided we should be the ones to die under his wheels but when I saw it bearing down on us from behind I made a sharp right onto an exquisitely placed off ramp.
I don't remember if we stopped for long, or if we ever saw that truck again, but it was enough excitement for that day anyway.
Ah, the exception that proves the rule!
I found it entertaining and well-made. I don’t care who made it, or how much was historically accurate, and have no thoughts about how it fits into any ouvre, so to me it was just a film about a kid with an obsessive and some of the key moments that shaped where the obsession would take him. Not the greatest or most meaningful movie ever, but I found it entertaining and well-made, and that’s enough.
Though I would like to see a whole movie with David Lynch as John Ford, so maybe it ended where it really should have started.
True film criticism is dead.
https://twitter.com/joerussotweets/status/1633547018877665280
Lol what a schmuck
I was sure that you would show-up in that thread.
It's possible that, over the years, I have not given sufficient thought to Seth Rogen's feelings. I apologize for that.
"Don't speak! I want to thank all the little people! Where the hell's my windbreaker? I am ever ready for my closeup, Mr. Ford! Forget it, Steve: It's Chinatown."
When I think of all the times I could have said to my boss, "Don't you know how much it hurts me to hear you say that? Don't you realize how much work I put into that? Don't you understand the process that was required?" whenever they told me my work product sucked...
Favorites?
First time through for Raiders of the Lst Ark. I saw it in a big theatre with premium sound. I was overwhelmed.
I saw 1941 at the drive - in with some beers. We had a great time
I think people misunderstood it .It was a great big dumb movie with too much going on. Like how " It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World was big and dumb and not really very good but unforgettable nonetheless.
It's funny, Roy's review inspired me to read through Spielberg's entry in Wikipedia (which took almost as much time as watching this damn movie would have taken) and the guy made a LOT of movies that are like 1941, just big, dumb, entertainments. And that's totally fine! Seems like he had a soft spot for movies that were like the movies he enjoyed as a kid, and sometimes that turned out really well, like with Indiana Jones, and sometimes it turned out not-so-well. The contrast with other directors who we all think of as "great" (like Ford, or Hawks or Hitchcock) is interesting, all of those guys seemed to confine themselves to a narrower range of films, the stuff they could do really well and that was identifiably theirs. Spielberg is all over the place but he really does just seem to love movies, so good for him.
And that would be a more interesting approach for him: Watching scenes from movies and talking about what he sees and what he likes, what grabbed him when he first saw it. Sharing stuff like that with kids would be fascinating to watch. I could watch a whole series of shows with Spielberg talking to children from ages 5 to, say, 20, about scenes from movies. If he happened to throw in an anecdote about John Ford or his own legendary experiences, at least there would be a context. No one can deny the man's love and his abilities. But why does he seem to have to keep reminding himself?
A thirst for validation, most likely.
My wife wanted to see this more than I did. I had many of the same takes as Roy presents here, until the very, very end. Spielberg breaks the 4th wall in the last shot. Yes, it's jokey. But it also explained everything I just saw and made me more sympathetic to the movie itself.
Of course... all of what I thought about The Film is just that. It's a Thing made by Steven Spielberg. It's purely a Creation made by That Particular Guy. It cannot be anything other than that. Just like the film of the train set in the beginning. It's all just a vision put together with mechanical equipment and lights that tells the viewer a story from a specific point of view. It's the only time I can remember Spielberg going Meta, and it made me appreciate it a bit more than I did in the previous two hours. Does that mean I loved all the corn and ham presented to me? Well, it made me like it a little more.
Three airplane movies in 18 hours, all about widowed old men seeing or admitting the light, with or without dementia. “The Judge,” with Robert Duvall and “Is Anyone There?” and “Mr. Morgan’s Last Love” with Michael Caine. Reaction: I’m not as demented or out of shape as those characters but Duvall and Caine are great actors.
Forgot to mention how much I liked Cinema vanité as a title, pretty damn clever. Stick with it, kid, you may have a future in this writin' business. Now get the fuck outta my office [chomps on cigar]
Here is where I get to say that I always marvel at Spielberg's ability--genius, if you ask me--at placing the camera for a shot. From Jaws on. I think I read somewhere that, when filming the Omaha Beach opening of Saving Private Ryan, he (and the cinematographer, I assume) just roved around the beach, improvising set-ups on the fly. I'm, like, yikes.
My spidey sense tingled big time when I first heard about The Fabelmans. "Uh oh, aging guy feels the need to document his childhood as a wonderland of opportunity he didn't recognize at the time, and overcomes many obstacles to fulfill his destiny". Sounds like I nailed it. The first and last thing everyone says about Spielberg is what a brilliant technician he is, aka "the guy sure knows how to make a movie", which should be the Wikipedia entry for damning with faint praise. That praise boils down to "that guy sure knows how to manipulate our emotions", and it's more than a little unfair to ask to what end. What's the point of a song, a story, a dance, a statue? Spielberg may he the most American of all filmmakers, a consummate craftsman with nothing more to say than look how big, dumb, romantic and (mostly) harmless we all are. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World after all.
i think "Fabelmans" is only the second-best Spielberg movie of the year...the best is the un-nominated and slightly under-appreciated "Nope," in which Jordan Peele plays with some of same tricks young Sammy learns in "Fabelmans." but overall i enjoyed "fabelmans" and particularly Spielberg's ability to tell and show at the same time. the filmcraft is great. the model train crash sequences are genuinely riveting even though we know they're just toys, and that brings us into Sammy's POV; Sammy describes how showing a character's facial reaction tells you about what they're seeing more powerfully than showing it would, and then later we see Mitzi's response to Sammy's closet-screened footage as an illustration of the technique that's also genuinely moving. the guy knows how to light, compose, and edit a sequence to pull you in moment by moment, even if the movie as a whole is a little loose and shaggy.
though maybe i'm just an extra-easy mark for Spielberg's schtick from having rewatched the perfect "Jurassic Park" the day before i watched "Fabelmans."