"I'd like to have a nice house like Spielberg." It's amazing how Gilliam managed to cultivate such a successful film career from his tiny studio apartment over a liquor store.
@@joeschembrie9450 the point is Gilliam has a plenty nice house and bank account for that matter. He's a millionaire moaning at a billionaire. Kind of hard for the common man to relate to.
@@mrtoy875 Around the Corner; Down the Block . . . it always hides deep within our hearts. That's the answer in every Hollywood movie. .~ ( .~ = Sarcasm )
He’s absolutely right about Spielberg’s work being less open to interpretation, and Kubrick’s being more thought provoking, but watch the ending of Schindler’s List and tell me it’s a happy one. It’s more optimistic, but it’s certainly not happy. Spielberg showed us the little bit of humanity that survived in an otherwise nightmarish situation. That’s as deserving of the title of “art” as anything else I’ve ever seen.
It's the closest Spielberg ever got to an unhappy ending, apart from Saving Private Ryan. Ironically, Kubrick gets a lot more criticism for his ending in 2001, which nobody understood! lol
Yeah I honestly don't even get why he would be taking a shit on it, like, from the natural context of living in this world we know the holocaust was awful, wtf are you even talking about terry? It's a movie about a glimmer of light in what is probably the darkest setting in recent history. I love Kubrick and generally agree he's a better director than spielberg; but acting like Schindler's list isn't a pretty well made movie seems silly.
@@ph6376 I will respectfully disagree. SPR (you already mentioned), Munich and A.I., all had very cynic endings. But yes, the rest of his filmography is more Hollywood than being oriented. But having made both types of narrative endings it proves, that unlike other filmmakers, he is multi dimensional not only on the type of films and genres he makes but also the story ending aspect.
Someone needs to adjust Terry’s medication if he thinks Schindler’s List is some sort of uplifting schmaltz, like a big budget Hallmark Channel film. No wonder Hollywood studios have a hard time dealing with Gilliam.
@@peterp2153 personally I understand what Gilliam is trying to say, that yes the film was traumatic and sad yet Spielberg managed to wrap a hopeful story around it - Schindler’s successful attempt of saving some Jewish people - and therefore wink “hope” to the viewer at the end. And somehow that was a comforting ending. No I am sorry but it wasn’t. I and most of the people I know came out of that theater an emotional wreck ‘cause the final taste I got from the movie wasn’t not Schindler’s good action but the tragedy of the Holocaust and what those people went through. So at the end of the day I’d say message was received, with a sledge hammer in the stomach. You don’t have to go completely Cynic to drive your point. So I’d say that was cheap shot by Terry.
Am I the only person to think that there's room for both comforting and provocative films? I like my Kubrick and Gilliam just as much as I like my Spielberg.
Fangornmmc I don't think anyone was saying there shouldn't be both. If it weren't for blockbusters, there wouldn't be a Hollywood to make thought-provoking films. The blockbusters make the money that validates an attempt at high art when the creators and producers understand it's unlikely the art piece might not make much immediate profit. I'm fairly certain Gilliam understands this as well as anyone, as his beginning was with a bunch of comedians who, even if brilliant comedians, were usually somewhat superficial aside from a few deep points along the way.
Cubroncs03 But that's not what Gilliam says here. He sounds pretty adamant to me. And i'm not able to say that you're wrong, but you certainly are being presumptuous.
Like them all. Although I do suspect envy on Gilliam's part. After all, Spielberg was good friends with Kubrick. It was Kubrick's idea to have Spielberg direct A. I. because it had more of Spielberg's sensibility he thought. This is all old news. Interesting how Gilliam frowns on Hollywood films since he did The Fisher King.
Yes, but Schindler's List shouldn't be a "comfort movie" and Spielberg made it so. It should have been as complex as the actual story really was (read the book) but Spielberg never trusts his audience to handle it. Or he knows he'll make a lot more money making it "comfortable". He has an inflated sense of his artistic depth (he really doesn't have any).
@@loge10 i don't agree its a comfort movie, its about people making allot of hard decisions, and the ramifications of those decisions. its based on a true story, and there are horrors being shown all the time, but though the do talk about the Jews its not a film about the overall holocaust but about a man and the people around him. does t portray him to be a hero yes, but tbf the people he helped still greatly appreciate what he did and that's why the film got made. terry is a fantastic director but i think its not a totally fair criticism. Spielberg has a very particular style the world would miss without it .
How you feel is up to you ultimately, however, the Shoah & genocides which continue are not things for comfort. I agree with the fact there are actions of inspiration, such as the German officer ( he truly existed) in "The Pianist" who keeps Adrain Brody's character alive, or the biography by Emma Gutman who hides out in the basement of a German officer in Poland are worthy in that they illustrate the triumph of the human spirit in the midst of carnage, chaos & brutality.
@@robertlaidlaw4592 I think the word "comfort" is being misinterpretted here. I'm saying that the movie was a bit white-washed in terms of characterizations. The real story and the characters is much more complex. Spielberg seeks to please and not challenge. That's why I hate his movies. Take a movie like "Lawrence of Arabia" (my vote for one of the top 5 movies ever made) and there is real psychology there. There is no psychology in Spielberg films.
@@loge10 i think he is still portrayed as a bit of a cold bastard, i don't think its that one note, also i have to say i disagree his characters arn't one note, yes you could say its a bit Disney in that everyone generally develops in a positive way, but i think he still expresses the bad points and there good points, the villan for example bad points he hates jews and kills without mercy, middling points he's doing it because he's scared he shows affection for one in particular though its a bit rape cos he's mental, good point with a bit of reluctance he does sth that helps. also id say with things like jurassic park he has genuine scares and wonderment but the characters are still a bit weird and broken and kind of close to how you would expect, its a kids film but its defiantly an interesting display of misuses of power. it's a good sci fi. id say hes a pretty darn good director because of his range and ability to provoke particular emotions.
I think that Spielberg took this criticism on board in Crystal Skull. Just like at the end of 2001:SO, the ending of Crystal Skull made me go "What the fuck was that?!"
I agree with Gilliam, with one major difference: I don't mind Spielberg's "easy answers", because with him it's all about the journey, not the destination. And what a journey. His movies offer astonishing amounts of cinematic invention and artistry. Also, "Schindler's List" is not about success, not quite: it's about small victories amidst one colossal failure.
It's a question of scale - by focusing on the small victories so closely, they appear as a counterbalance to a failure which is really beyond comprehension, much less effective portrayal.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 It could be: you bring up an interesting point. I disagree, but I'm not saying that you're wrong. Think of any crime show on tv - like Castle or Law & Order etc. - with each episode following the same formula. We don't watch those shows because of the ending, where we know to find a resolution. We are more interested in the journey. And, I'm being pedantic, but there is a handful of Spielberg movies with not-so-happy endings: The Duel, Sugarland Express, Schindler's List (borderline), Saving Private Ryan (bittersweet), Munich, Lincoln, West Side Story.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 You could argue that Schindler’s List takes the holocaust out of context & presents a somewhat happy ending. A few hundred Jews saved while some 6 million perished. I love Jaws it’s a great film but I always find the end scene of the two making their way back to shore a little idealistic.
@@NoName-jq7tj I think films like Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark are what Spielberg does best - exciting adventure films. I've always thought of him as a commercial film-maker rather than a mature or serious film-maker.
That's absolutely true. I myself saw Liam Neeson tell Ricky Gervais that very thing. Spielberg really did pick him because he liked making lists. Isn't that weird?
Idk about this... Schindler’s List wasn’t supposed to represent the Holocaust. It was supposed to represent Oskar Schindler’s efforts. And it’s one of the most amazing movies ever made. So is 2001, but for completely different reasons.
Yes but do you see Gilliam’s point? That what Spielberg chose to make - the movie about the hero - the guy who made the right choices, the heroic choices. The bigger story is how did millions turn a blind eye. More than that how did millions go along. It is a great movie but the criticism is a valid one and Kubrick’s quote sums it up perfectly.
Wayne Durning Why is Kubrick allowed to to make the movies he wants to make and blast Spielberg for making the movies he makes?? The story is about Oskar Schindler and how HE changed HIS on the Holocaust to save those he could. It wasn’t about the bigger picture of the nazi propaganda. Is was about that particular snapshot of the Holocaust.
Claire Caines so go ahead and criticize Kubrick’s movies. Fair criticism is fair game. And I think “blast” is a bit much it’s just a critique. Look I’m a Spielberg fan but what these guys say make sense. I don’t get why people get so bent out of shape over it.
@@waynedurning8717 I think Gilliam was being disingenuous - Kubrick and Spielberg were friends in real life and admired each other's work. In fact, Kubrick spent years trying to make his own 'Spielberg movie' with AI and entrusted Spielberg to finish it. How mad could he possibly have been about Schindler's List if all of this happened?
I've seen SCHINDLER'S LIST several times & have never thought it had a happy ending. It's about the difference one person can make in the world even when all odds are against you.
Perhaps, but it's celebrating a "bandaid" approach to tragedy: great, wonderful, a thousand people were saved -- but it doesn't change the fact over eleven million innocents were murdered. As Gilliam suggests, it'd be far more informative and thought provoking to do a film about the people who tried (and failed) to stop the rise of totalitarianism in Germany before Hitler and the Nazis took power. Where's a film about the efforts of Beck, Blomberg, or Fritsch? Or Oster, Gisevius, and Schacht? We love to hug ourselves for after-the-fact tokenism while often ignoring people who are foresighted enough to put their lives on the line and confront the root of the problem head on.
@@MisterMac4321 It's ONE movie. For one movie, it is a story told very well. You cannot tell the full story of the Holocaust with ONE movie. Others can choose (and have done so) to pain a grimmer picture of the subject, but Spielberg (a Jew) wanted to give hope, to show there's a good side of people even in the most horrific situations. You can't criticize one movie for not covering every aspect of such an extensive subject. "Where's a film about the efforts of Beck, Blomberg, or Fritsch? Or Oster, Gisevius, and Schacht?" - why don't you make them? It's not easy, is it? You can't criticize producers for choosing what story they want to tell, or the director for telling it in a certain way, unless it is completely devoid of merit. Again, Spielberg did a wonderful job telling the story, in both the technical and the narrative side. It's not Spielberg's fault others don't want to do movies about the characters you mentioned. He preferred Schindler and did his job well on that.
@@descoiatorul "...why don't you make them?" I don't know, perhaps because my friends and I don't have a spare $25mil sitting around like Spielberg and his investors did to make 'Schinlder's List'? Hell, I couldn't even put a tenth that much together by strong-arming every potential backer I know. And yes, I do fault Spielberg for continuing to indulge in Hollywood's myopic focus on just the "six million Jews." The other five million murdered victims of the Nazi death camps have been conveniently swept under history's rug because their fate (and the continue plight of the minorities they represent) don't conveniently dove-tail with the political agendas of those willing to cough up the funding for such enterprises. Seriously, where's the movie -- ANY movie -- about the Roma, or Sinti, or Polish intellectuals, or mental and physical "defectives", or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Soviet POWs? Who dares to speak for them in a cultural environment where the only victims worth mourning seem to be the Jewish ones? Don't try to tell me this is about "artistic preference," it's strictly a political agenda -- nothing more.
@@MisterMac4321 - Wow. Good to know you can read Spielberg's mind & heart. What a skill. But I think Silverback was really referring to Gilliam with his "why don't you make it." I agree with everything he said. And you also made some good points, aside from the myopic focus you accuse others of, yet seem to share.
Lancer Macman I personally think the ending is fantastic that even in the darkest moment in human history, there were still moments of fantastic humanity that saved over a thousand lives to the point where the descendants of Schindler’s Jews outnumber the Jews now living in Poland
I really don't think there's wrong with either approach. Sometimes a film with a happy ending can inspire me to gain more direction in my life, which is a good thing. Other times, a film makes me question my life itself, which is also a good thing.
That's the lesson from Italian Neorealism. Sure in the beginning it produced some of the freshest and greatest films ever made like Rome Open City and Bicycle Thieves, but it eventually got tiresome and its principal directors felt bounded by the rules of their own genre.
I get his point, but in referencing "Schindler's List" he fails to consider that it was based on a true story. Yes, it does give comfort to witness this man's humanitarian success. However, we are brutally reminded, during the movie, of all those whom were not saved.
I love Spielberg and Guilliam. And I get Terry's take on Spielberg's work. You don't get to that level of success if you r films confront the audience with questions.
The physical constraints of this particular universe says categorically that it is not a true story. A story, yes, just physically impossible. The scientific method is a ruthless witness to all claims, no matter who makes them, or with whatever amount of faux self righteous victimhood they employ in the telling. Science baby, it rocks.
I have no problem with Spielberg telling the story of some good in an otherwise horrific chapter in human history. I came out of the theater, on a snowy 1:00 AM morning in 1993, and nobody was cheering a so-called "happy ending" to "Schindler's List". We were all stunned into silence and respect for what we'd just seen.
@@wb8905 lmao, why would a "great" film has to leave you with questions? It's such a hipster thing to say. I mean, one can prefer films that leave you with questions and has deeper meaning etc. But that doesn't make other films that coherently tells a story which stays with you for a long time any inferior. If you go by your definition, Tenet is the greatest film ever made. Even better than any kubrick films. Cause not only it tests your general knowledge and capability to handle complex scientific occurrences, it leaves you with like 100 different questions. Another film I can think of is The Fountain - again leaves you as puzzled as a kid finding how babies are born for the first time. And just because of that, films like Shawshank Redemption, Heat, Gladiator, Rocky, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump etc can't be any lesser films cause they don't leave you with any question. Not everything have to be cryptic and obscure to be great.
To think that Schindler's List was just a movie about a guy that saved 1200 ppl and that makes for a happy ending is completely missing the point of the movie. Ironic considering Gilliam compares it against Kubrick where he states Kubrick deliberately leaves questions unanswered as if that promotes deeper, philosophical thinking. Schindler's List is profoundly deep and not a happy ending. The ending makes us realize how many more lives could've been saved if only more people had cared. It asks the uncomfortable question of what lengths would a society go through to save each other, or watch others die. In this movie, Schindler is merely a symbol of how humanity should have stepped up and done something and is a painful reminder of how millions died because very few did.
Actually, its what humanity did that caused all the millions of WW2 victims. True history of WW2 is as misunderstood than true history of human race. Those are just too uncomfortable subjects for majority, and thus their subconscious blocks the subject completely and resort to calling people as crazy etc. while truth never fears investigation. One problem is that investigation requires lots of work, and enough intelligence for proving evidence to be original and correct. And great logical sense. Because even if some individuals can be totally illogical and crazy, any large enough group isnt. Ideologies mind sound crazy, might even be crazy, but for those that believe in it, there are logical reasons for doing so.
I like these film makers but when they start to open their mouths jeez I dont need to hear their thoughts or politcal views put them in the film or shut up gilliam is an anti semitic prick I use to like his earlier films but he hates America moved to England thats fine said some not nice things about sid sheinberg about the hold up of brazil by the way if you read the clark novel to 2001 it pretty much describes whats going on at the end like burton both came from animator backgrounds but at least some times, burton can tell a story gilliam its all about the visuals
Rose Carlson it shouldn't be a happy ending and it should've ended showing Schindler dying in crippling poverty because of the choices he made - but the ending of the film with all the people in the desert just ends with a happier feel than it should
G Kroll To compare someone not liking a film to being anti semitic is truly disgusting. Anti semitism is a truly appalling thing, you should be more careful about throwing around such statements. By throwing it around so carelessly, only ends up lessening the impact of actual anti semitism.
Kubrick and Spielberg were friends, though. Kubrick worked for years trying to tell his holocaust story and when Schindler's List came out, he congratulated Spielberg and said he had done what Kubrick had been unable to. I love them both as directors, for wildly different reasons.
And as far i do know "A.I." was kubrick's project and he was happy that spielberg did make it. Because it was a hard job of which s. was able to execute it. And the result is impressive. K. was too tired for another hard labour film but wanted it to be done. Maybe the only spielberg film that is more than good entertainment.
@@jpgrumbach8562 Kubrick a drawings and characters sho he would have done it different. But still the movie is very good although Spielberg style. End of the world movie I'd also great. It is a great movie and great acting by Tom cruise.
They may have been friends, but that does not mean that Schindler's Lust is a good movie. It was a disgrace, even if Kubrik thought it was good. Gilliam was spot on with this remark.
I never thought Schindler's List was about saving a few people. I thought it was about a man, Schindler, who has only cared about money, but who then learns to care about people. Schindler does try to redeem himself which, admittedly, is what most Hollywood movies are about.
"That's not what the Holocaust was about." Well, Terry, that's not what the book was about either. It was about the attempts of a war profiteer to find his soul in the middle of awfulness and save whomever he could. It wasn't a happy ending, it was an ending about hope, endurance, survival and perhaps learning never to repeat those mistakes again.
On a whole, I agree with the statement that Spielberg's pictures TEND to have happier and well defined endings and Kubrick's films are more open ended and make you think more. I disagree, however, that Schindler's List has a happy ending or that anyone smiles at any time during that movie. Over a million Jews were killed during the Holocaust. We see that devastating horror. Oskar Schindler saved 1,200 Jews. The disparity between those two numbers makes the ending horrific, not triumphant. You leave that movie exhausted and stunned and do not revel in the "happy" ending at all. For me, the story of Oskar Schindler is just the bones on which Spielberg was able to show the horror of the Holocaust.
@@The_Mighty_Fiction I’m so glad someone said this because it’s all I could think. Gilliam is painting it out as if Schindler’s List ends in sunshine and roses and that’s so not the case. He told the story of Oskar Schindler and did it gracefully imo
@@mightyasterisk8333 Speilberg I like some of his films, very entertaining but... Kubrick is right in a way. Saving Pr'v Ryan .,.. historically accurate in ways but corny . The civilians in the bombed out living room is how he deals with the "co-lateral" damage. An excuse for small sprinkle of light relief with the daughter hitting the father. ?
I do agree that Spielberg is keen on happy endings and oversimplifies subjects sometimes. That said, I think Schindler's List is a powerful movie that stands and will stand the test of time. Extremely well shot, great soundtrack, well acted, and very well scripted. Also, it appears to be pretty accurate. As for "happy endings" take "The Pianist", another holocaust movie by a great director who actually lived in Poland during the holocaust. Roman Polanski. What about that ending (SPOILER!) with the good nazi? Also, I don't think Schindler's List is oversimplified. Actually Oskar Schindler's ambiguity is there on the screen. And Goeth is played as a nazi, racist, mean and brutal. I guess there were nice nazis that loved their wives and children and their pets, but that wouldn't have made Amon Goeth more 3D and complex. It just wouldn't have made sense. Stanley Kubrick was a genius, but so is Spielberg, and Schindler's List is one of his masterpieces. Terry Gilliam was a genius too when he was in Monty Python.
+Fer Abra 'I guess there were nice nazis that loved their wives and children and their pets, but that wouldn't have made Amon Goeth more 3D and complex. It just wouldn't have made sense.' The scary truth about the Nazis is that there were many of the type you describe. Everyday types who went home after arranging mass killing and had an ordinary home life. Many of them were teachers, accountants,... before the war. I'm not sure I'd label them 'nice nazis' but their conversion from ordinary everyday people to ruthless killers is a part of that history that really scares me about humanity, especially when that conversion was not forced by survival adaptation, but transitioned simply from a need for power, greed, or ego.
Was it not Roman Polanski who was offered the chance to make Schindler's List, but turned it down because it was too close to him? And was he not moved by the finished picture?
Terry Gilliam films are amazing! His work in Python was as slight as it gets. The most basic humor with the most basic animation. Basically a trippy treat and segway tool...
But at the end you see all the people he save and their son and daugher's and grandsons's deminishing the meaning of that scene you just mention, that is the confort, the movie dont dare to end in a real dark tone like Come and see a movie way more superior that submerge you in the horrors of war in a more succefull way than Schindler and Private Ryan And this come from an Spielberg fan i really enjoy his work and his optimistic view of the world but is confort food and nothing wrong with that after all movies are also scapism
@@wilmergimenez yeah, I agree with you: people watch movies simply for escapism- and that is even more apparent for large scale and universally popular films. They need to be accessible to a very large audience and stories are adjusted in order to get the green light. of course, there are films that just border on documentary style retelling of every horrific thing that happens in the world, and that’s great too, but not everyone wants to watch films just like that. We need variety and levity. A movie is not any less authentic or artistic because it has been idealized to some extent. Viewers can suspend their disbelief and see a story through a romanticized and digestible lens, and still not be naive enough to take it face value and understand the full context it stemmed from. I feel hope and pain when I see Schindler’s list and I feel melancholy, cold dread, and true understanding when I see come and see. These movies did what they intended and were shot beautifully. It’s all about intention and Schindler’s list intention wasn’t to be this unfiltered trauma porn, bordering exploitation and displaying the degrading of a child’s mind in war time. Of course it would fail to be come and see because it doesn’t have the same intention. come and see Displaying a harsh depiction of war that doesn’t champion or romanticize it is important and it brings up important discussions, but with that in mind it still is a film that can desensitize and disenchant you, and make you down right cynical and in a hopeless state.
It's not about the ending being happy or sad. Is about a film always having the answers for you. Happy or sad, they are answers. What matters is to try here and there to question the audience so they have something to think about after finishing the movie.
It is a somewhat happy ending. I just watched 2001 at a theatre in London this evening. A 70mm print with a classic intermission in the middle. The ending of this picture makes you think what is this about. The visual effects are stunning.
Youre spot on, not all movies need to be open ended to be great movies, there are bad open ended movies and there are also bad explicitly explained movies. You dont have to be either to be great, its about how you execute.
Yet as a creator, whether I agree with his criticisms or not, I like that he's dedicated to his vision. Creators don't always make the best critics because they are so wrapped up in their vision they can't see someone else's clearly enough. I'm happy that Terry is passionate enough about his vision to say things like this because that is part of what makes him who he is...
I personally think Spielberg is at his best when he was making fun adventure films "Raiders of the Lost Ark' 'E.T' 'Jurassic Park' and 'Jaws'. He is very Hollywood stream in that regard and he is great at it. But to see his more hard edged work, he is indeed a great story teller, but it feels like Kubrick's films are the more out there and thought provoking as Gilliam stated. I will not fault Steven for making block busters, but I will say that if all films came out with a grim ideological feel like Kubrick's movies, then cinema would become a chore very quickly. Spielberg should go back to doing adventure films.
Spielberg should go back to make things like 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' or even 'A.I'. Fantasy, Utopia, Symbolic tales. He should stay the hell away from reality.
I totally fucking agree-Spielberg is one of the finest filmers of action sequences (of all kinds) in history. Fucking Hitchcock said more or less as much, and rightly so. And he’d know. He should try not to be deep-he’d do much better, and go much deeper! His TV film Duel is fucking phenomenal-really. And I hate on Spielberg’s other stuff more than Gilliam, even-honestly, in part because if Spielberg actually had a top-notch intellect (or maybe it’s just top-notch artistic courage?), he really would be in Kubrick-Kurosawa-anyone else-land. You have to be that good to be that disappointing and engender that much disdain-even when 100% warranted, as I think it is in Spielberg’s case.
Spielberg is his worst enemy, in the 70's, he had the makings of a great artist who could also make commercially successful movies, but it's true that today, his tendency to play on the safe side or sugarcoat his stories ruins his own creations. I saw the last version of "Close Encounters" and I was shocked, the so-called encounter became a real invasion no one could possibly miss and the overuse of flashy effects ruined the 'realistic' atmosphere of the original version.
@@autodidact537 it was actually ripped off of quite a few things there’s books about sharks and other pieces of literature that make sharks seem like they’re evil and that’s what Spielberg used. That’s why jaws was an “evil” shark in the movie Jaws was also made at a time when most if not all people that weren’t marine biologist knew nothing about sharks really
@@lukess.s no, the book jaws identified sharks as evil. Or at least identified them as aggressive and killers. Hence the movie having Jaws be so aggressive and deadly. Back in the 70s people really didn’t know much of anything about sharks because of the technology, so the movie showed a lot of misinterpretations of how sharks react to people. I’m pretty sure that’s in a documentary or conversation about the movie jaws with people who were part of the movie or in someway connected to it. Or at least I had heard it about the movie lol
Lmfao. I would watch that. The kids would get lost in a maze of pirate tunnels searching for treasure and slowly go insane and eat each other. It'd end with Brand hungrily chasing Mikey through disorienting passageways with the audience having no idea if he's even gaining on him at all. Then Mikey would find the treasure after Brand is killed by a booby trap, but it'd mean nothing bc he lost all his friends. That's the Kubrick Goonies.
That's just it... Terry never said there wasn't room. But as soon as somebody points out what might not be so great after all, or something not absolutely wonderful after we've all been swept up with the greatness, we start finding ways to cushion things for the one that made us feel good. Proving Terry correct.
@@lasvegasloner4621 I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of Spielberg's work, starting with the fact that he doesn't go very deep, nuanced, subtle, or thoughtful with his films. Its more the arrogant, dismissive, condescending nature of Gilliam's critique that makes me get up in arms to defending Spielberg, who despite his shortcomings, is still a master storyteller and filmmaker.
I don’t agree on Shindler list being about success, it just focuses on a man who made a difference and saved lives, never in the film did I get a sense of a happy ending, even At the last scene he cries in regret because he did not do more.
i'm not a fan of the movie or spielberg, but i agree that it does not have a 'happy ending'. in fact that last scene resonates with me. after a good deed we always feel good with ourselves, but then we start to think that there's always something more we could be doing to help others. that's the bitter truth. it does make you think.
Not all movies need to be open ended to be great movies, there are bad open ended movies and there are also bad explicitly explained movies. You dont have to be either to be great, its about how you execute.
But Schindler saved those people, its a fact. Is Spielberg supposed to make it end differently for him. I know the movie was about the Holocaust but it was also about this mans life and the lives he saved.
I do agree. Looking for specks of good in that morass of evil seems just about the only way to take on the holocaust. I dont recall any films by Kubrik on that subject anyway.
newgeorge actually Kubrick spent much of his career working on a film on the holocaust, entitled "The Aryan Papers." it was the second of his two career-long projects and the third total that suffered the same fate: competing studios rushed in to put out a film on the same topic before Kubrick could finish his. "The Aryan Papers" was eliminated by "Schindler's List" just as "Napoleon" was wiped out by "Waterloo." Of course there was also "Full Metal Jacket" which did make it to the screen, but just barely, as it was endangered by the release of "Platoon." Fortunately there are elements of "The Aryan Papers" in other films of Kubrick, including "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut." Gilliam's point is right on, and I'll improve it. Would you rather have people feeling good despite the Holocaust, or have people enlightened and aware in such a way as to help derail future Holocausts? Spielberg sells because he is selling the easy way out of things, the strong drink, not the light of sobriety. I suppose we need both, and I'm sure Gilliam wouldn't say we don't need Speilbergian films. He's saying simply that he prefers the more intelligent and stimulating film. I couldn't agree with Gilliam more.
@@patrickherron1968 this is just incredibly pretentious thinking, simply because a movie has a happy ending doesnt make it less intelligent nor does it make it less stimulating as feeling uplifted by a work of art is a mode of stimulating. Thematically speaking and from a perspective of character Jurassic Park, saving private ryan and Schindler's list are more poignant and in depth some of Kubrick's works such as the shinning, full metal jacket and eyes wide shut. Even Kubrick wanted Spielberg to make AI. The notion that Spielberg movies dont make you ask questions is ridiculous all films make you ask questions even fast and the furious. And all films provide answers even Kubrick movies for every question there is an answer. There may be more morbid but what makes them more thought provoking, feelings are not the basis for how in depth something is explored.
I think Gilliam is missing the point. We are all aware of the horrors of war, and it seems Spielberg wasn't interested in making another movie about that, but raise questions about the nature of humanity. If Evil = fear, control, cruelty, bigotry, and hatred - Can acts of kindness, compassion, and empathy grow from such a horrible place? Ultimately, that is what Schindler's list is about, and I thought it was a great film.
Also, it's not like Spielberg doesn't show the horrors of the Holocaust. Did Gilliam not see the liquidation of the ghetto scene or any scene with Amon Goeth? There is some really disturbing material in this movie.
I don't agree with you that Spielberg raises questions about the nature of humanity - just not Spielberg's style... I think you are missing the point in that Gilliam is saying that Spielberg's movies follow a path toward |paraphrasing here| "tying things up neatly in a little bow.... roll credits" and that is the same thing in Schindler's List. My opinion that Spielberg (and his success) comes from always making "safe" movies - follow a formula. I see Steven Spielberg as a wonderful director, he just chooses to drive different cars (his films) on the same road every time (his film's formula).
@@justincase4812 Exactly. I don't want to sound snobbish, but for me it's the difference between art and entertainment. Spielberg is great at making entertainment, but I personally wouldn't call it art, because for me art has to raise questions, just like Gilliam says. At the end of the day, though, it's always healthy to remember that I can't define "art" for other people, and so we'll continue to have these discussion until our species goes extinct.
The ending of Schindlers List kind of says the same thing though. He breaks down crying thinking of all the other lives his money could've saved. It wasn't a happy ending.
It's an optimistic movie, despite all the terrible things it's showing... It's like that book by Viktor Frankl "Man's Search for Meaning", written by Frankl during his imprisoment in nazi camps (Frankl was jew) But, Kubrick was a pesimistic director, it seems to me that Gilliam shares the same point of view, but that doesn't make Kubrick, Gillian or anyone else better or smarter than the optimistic Spielberg. I, myself, am a pesimistic one, and I like Spielberg movies (many of them, at least) they make me think, I don't agree with Gilliam, Spielberg make me think but in a different way I'm used to, and that's good
Happy ending? I felt like shit after watching The Schindler’s List. Sure it was a nice thing he could save all those folks, but we, as the protagonist in the end, feel the more for the horrors suffered for those who couldn’t be helped.
It is a bit simplistic of Gilliam to suppose that every film should be of a certain kind.....there is room in the film industry for lots of styles/approaches.
It's not about "every" film. It's about taking the deaths of 6 million Jews (and other "undesirables") and turning it into a sentimental movie about the redemption of a wealthy Christian German.
@@mskcrc why not? A German was the one who saved 2000 it wasn't a Jew cause the Jews couldn't do anything about it unfortunately, he could have altered it and made it as if he was a Jew in hiding and ended saving all his people ,but what makes it interesting by keeping it German is the display of multi dimensional layers of humans about someone who isn't from the class and way of life and chooses to help those when his background doesn't compell him to have any sympathy for them.
I think at the end of Schindler's List if the film didn't give you a sense of hope after all the horrific murder, that would've been the worst thing they could do
What are you talking about The message was that Oscar Schindler Alone saved As many people as possible. The message was if you are Capable you should help others which He did he helped complete strangers. Despite that fact that he was also German and supporter of Nazi. I think you completely misunderstood the movie
@@neelanshmishra97 "The message was if you are Capable you should help others"...And that isn't a hopeful message? Of course it is. After watching the movie, I felt capable of helping others - if a man like Schindler, under those circumstances can do it, surely I, under far less horrific and terrifying circumstances, can help others.
The thing is, they addressed these kinds of questions directly in Schindler's List. At the end, Schindler breaks down, crying that he could have saved even more people. He is comforted by his friends and presented with a ring bearing the famous inscription that to save one life is to save the whole world. If this kind of extraordinary action can't be boiled down to simple arithmetic, then neither can the themes be simplified to success vs. failure.
I would add, that Schindlers list is about hope in the hopelest of events. Schindler started his factory just to gather cheap labor but fund the humanity along the way. Spielberg shows both, the horror and the hope during those times.
@@tomoakden2974 But still, during the film both sides of the conflict is presented, the end ist just the opinion of the director/writer of the move. To say, that you cant discuss Spielbergs movies, is to say, (at least for my understanding) that you are unable to make your own opinion. If there is still a misunderstanding feel free to correct me. Maby you are hintig at a different aspect. Respectfully greetings
Schindler was a scumbag! How can anybody belive that a person like Schindler who made a fortune of slave labour all of the sudden became a humanitarian as it became more and more evident that Germany was going to lose the war? Dont anybody stop to think that he might have changed his act so he would not be hanged for war crimes? Yes he saved a bunch of people but it was not for their sake but his. And the people he saved would be eternally grateful and witness on his behalf and demand that he was not executed
@@maxmeme4538 Tom (above) is correct neither of you did get what Gilliam is driving at. It doesn't matter that 'both sides are presented' and it doesn't matter that 'at the end Schindler wishes he could have saved more' - the film is a 'success' story, it concentrates on a triumph, whereas the Holocaust is anything but that.
Yeah but Schindler’s list isn’t exactly about the Holocaust, it’s about Oskar Schindler and the backdrop is just the Holocaust. It’s definitely no happy ending either, I always think about Schindler’s list and saving private Ryan compared to eyes wide shut and lolita
@@paulturnet4572 - JaydnR is correct. The movie was about a man, not about the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the historical event that made Schindler's brave actions significant, but the movie was not "about" the Holocaust.
@@technowey You are playing with words. It's like saying: "The Godfather is not about the Mafia, it's about the Corleone" or "Band of Brothers is not about WW2, it's about the Easy Company". Of course if you are making a movie about the Holocaust (or any large-scale historical event) you will focus on the story of a few characters. Spielberg wanted to talk about the Holocaust, and chose specifically the story of Oskar Schindler, instead of a story with a bleaker ending.
@@MrAlsachti - I'm *not* playing with words. They guy attacking the movie was doing that. The word "about" has a meaning. IMDB describes the movie as: "In German-occupied Poland during World War II, industrialist Oskar Schindler gradually becomes concerned for his Jewish workforce after witnessing their persecution by the Nazis." I don't really object to someone claiming the movie is about the Holocaust, but to attack the movie claiming that is wrong, and then requires stating what the movie is *really* about. Just because there's an important historical event in the movie doesn't make that the central theme, even if that event is critical to maintaining the plot. I object to the "playing with words," to attack the movie. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that movie. It's a great movie, and the flaw the guy claimed is ridiculous. That flaw doesn't exist.
I have to say that I both agree and disagree with Terry Gillian. Steven Spielberg, while I do admire him as a film maker and a story teller. As a romantic filmmaker he is more focused on sentimentality, concrete scripts, and streamlined storytelling. This is obvious with Jaws, arguably the first blockbuster ever made. We can debate its long term effects for better and worst for years; but overall It is downgraded, simplified, and more comforting then anything Stanley Kubrick or John Carpenter would make. As a result he does have a hit(Indiana Jones, ET, Jurassic Park) and miss(War of the worlds, Hook,Crystal Skull) record. However I don't think that's a bad thing. The one great about film is its wide range and ability to accomplish so many things from creating worlds, exploring ideas, telling stories from the past or fiction for a large variety of purposes. They can make you think, or they can make you feel something. You can say that's a cop-out, but when a filmmaker is able to successfully generate sympathy for a Nazi party leader. That's quite an accomplishment. And that's why I feel that Schlinder's list is ultimately a good movie. It wasn't about the failure of civilization in preventing the Holocaust. It was about Oskar Schlinder in his personal journey from a nazi leader and his eventual transformation into a decent who was powerless to stop the horrors around him, but saw that in his own limited ways could have saved this few people from a pointless death. Because even in the darkest period of human history, there were still those who managed to retain their humanity. Does that make Schlinder's List any better or worst then Shoah or the Pianist? I don't know. All I do know is Spielberg is a master of his craft, and that craft is romantic filmmaking or more commonly known as blockbusters. And I don't see any reason why anyone should hold that against him. Is he as good as Kubrick, definitely not, but at the same time I don't think the size of Speilberg's house should have any part in how his movies are evaluated.
You are sitting on the fence, regardless of how skilfully balanced you are. We do judge directors against each other, that is how people are and will always be. And there is a lot merit in doing so. Some of Steven Speilberg's films are fun and entertaining but I would much prefer to watch something that provokes me into questioning my prejudice, bias, received wisdom, etc.
I will give you an example of how deceitful and devious Spielberg is: "Bridge of spies" (2015). In that movie Allen Dulles, the head of CIA, is depicted in a benevolent way. Nowadays we know for a fact that Allen Dulles was 100% son a bitch nazi believer and he is 100% involved in JFK murder. Spielberg, who is a jew and as such should really hate nazi, knows that for sure but he didn't give a damm and he ensured that "Bridge of spies" could be as much politically correct as he could
War of the worlds is definetely underrated. Film lost itself when they went to Tim Robbins cellar but before that it was very, very solid. Aliens were frightening without being frightening, is best i can describe the atmosphere before it.
I can dislike Spielberg films artistically and still respect him as an accomplished film maker. Opinions are a beautiful thing because, at this point, we are all entitled to them. Kubrick made more thought provoking films in my opinion. We need more films that can accomplish that task.
Not really, movies like The shinning, eyes wide shut and paths of glory are not more thought provoking than jurassic park, saving private ryan or bridge of spies or even Schindler's list. Ambiguity doesn't make it more thought provoking from a thematic standpoint
@@lampad4549 Kubrick thrived on exposing the uncomfortable ugliness of reality. That is far different than ambiguity. Spielberg is a conformist. Kubrick was a non-conformist. It's ok to disagree and it's ok to dislike a director for whatever the reason. I don't care if you change your opinion, hold your opinion, or lose interest in films. Agree to disagree or become attached to a subjective, pointless exchange of words.
Enlighten me of which of Kubricks films are more thought provoking then Spielbergs, I like Kubricks movies, but saying he makes more thought provoking movies isn't right.
@@olle12 What you just said shows that you are no cinephile and that you don't understand Kubrick's work. '2001: A Space Odyssey,' 'Clockwork Orange,' 'Full Metal Jacket,' and 'The Shining' are multi-layered and extremely complex conceptually. Kubrick made more thought-provoking films than Spielberg; period.
@@olle12 Kubrick's films force multiple viewings. 'Jaws,' Raiders of the Lost Ark,' or 'Poltergeist' don't move me enough to re-watch them. Spielberg's made good films, but none are as conceptually deep as a Stanley Kubrick film.
But 'Schindler's List' isn't about 'the holoucast' it's about Oscar Schindler and that particular story. I think that there's room in the movie world for serious 'art' AND feel good crowd pleasers, as well as everything in between. Just like music- imagine it was all heavy prog or sophisticated jazz with no pop, AOR, or easy listening to give one's brain a break. Variety is the spice of life!
Spielberg is an incredibly talented filmmaker but his main delivery system is sentimentality. Maybe not so much in the very, very early days but he certainly didn't want to upset anyone in his 80's films and from then on. Kubrick does not do sentimentality whatsoever.
Agree. The only problem (in my view) with movies like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan is that Spielberg had perfect -- PERFECT -- stories if you leave out the horrid "I coulda done more!" scene near the end of Schindler and the opening and closing "Did I earn it?" bullshit in Ryan. But Spielberg can't resist gilding the lilly -- he simply doesn't TRUST his audience to come to their own conclusion about whether it was worth it or what it all "means." On the other hand, no one but Spielberg could have made timeless monumental pop masterpieces like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Close Encounters, so...
@@kpe727 Yeah and it's his sentimentality that tells him to gild the lily because he seems to be completely unaware that the lily has already told the story.
He got Schindler's correct. People tend to forget the camp scenes where the man in charge went around shooting and any person he wants. Please tell me what is sentimental about that. A lot of Kubric films although good make a person want to puke. A Clock Work Orange may have been a great film artistically but the whole film had a sick and twisted view on life, like the commandant of the concentration camp. Kubric makes him the star of the film. Even Malcolm McDowell thought it went too far at times.
@@bec928 The final message of the film is sentimental, not the actual scenes in the film. No one is suggesting scenes depicting the wanton killing of innocent people is sentimental. How you even arrive at that accusation tells me you don't actually get what people are on about regarding Spielberg's sentimentality. Stating A Clockwork Orange had a sick and twisted view on life is like complaining about water being too wet. That was the entire point of the film. Kubrick isn't afraid to make villains the star of his films. All of Spielberg's films need a good guy as the hero regardless of context. And his heroes gild the lily to the point of it pulling down the entire tree. Who gives a shit if Malcom McDowell thought Kubrick went too far at times? Most filmmakers and by most I mean 99.9% do not go far enough.
Wim Wenders' 'Paris, Texas.' Haunted me for years and I never watched it again. Never want to. Just made such a, well, scar. Cinema should do that once in a while. It should also be cookies and milk.
I read a quote in a movie magazine a few years ago, attribute it to whomever you wish: There are only two kinds of movies, one is a candy-coated turd, the other is a turd with candy at its centre.
I never liked the end of Paris, Texas. Not just because it was sad but because at the end, the main character almost forces a lack of resolve instead of letting it be. Which to me was pointless and stupid. He reunited the son and mother. Is he not creative enough to develop some closure with his ex-wife that makes sense? Is he a hero for just leaving?
Perfect example. I understood, or thought I did at the time, the reason that almost everyone loved E.T. But it didn't resonate with me at all. But I really enjoyed The Thing and will probably watch it again after this. And I prefer Kubrick over all other American directors.
I was too traumatised by seeing our hero Joe get repeatedly farted on to make it the way through the film. Talk about existential angst . . . oh, the humanity!
I agree with Gilliam, but I'm still a huge fan of both Spielberg and Kubrick, and think Schindler's List is a great film. They are my two favorite directors by some distance. That being said, I think Kubrick could have made an even greater film about the Holocaust that would have focused more on the tragedy of the Holocaust itself. It would have probably been one of the most depressing films ever made.
I get what you're saying and i wish both could've been made but if only one could, I'd go with Schindler's List. The "happy" ending guaranteed a more palpable watch while still holding the horror of the holocaust within the film. This allows for a larger viewing audience and thus more people being emotionally aware of the holocaust. 'Come and See' is a great, bleak film on war and human atrocity but aint nobody showing that shit in high school classrooms
@@fr442 AI waa rubbish, truly disappointing. Destroyed the career of that child actor too. Can't believe it was Kubrick's life project and that Spielberg made it so over emotional. Nothing in Kubrick's work was over emotional.
@@standafan4141 Kubrick would have done it different it can be shown from his drawings and characters. But he still considered Spielberg a good storyteller and thus is why he gave him the project. But Kubrick life project although prepared for years was not this. It was the Napoleon movie that he was gathering info 20 years. But anyway from the works done his life project are all the movies he made. Have watched them all except for the ones before the bomb and half of Barry lyndon, and all I watched were great.
So many of the posters don't understand the meaning of "happy ending" when Gilliam refers to "Schindler's List". It doesn't mean a bunch of cuddly characters dancing in a chorus line with butterflies and sunshine. Rather, the whole story points to an act of humanity, in the middle of an evil event. That we can see that tiny spark of a better side of human nature, amid the effects of the worst parts of human nature, is a net positive, and in that sense, it's the happy ending.
I can't help but think Gilliam here is conflating the two. Ignoring that, I don't really see what is exactly wrong with making a story about the best of humanity amidst the worst of humanity. Is Gilliam implying that there is no better side to human nature? Because if we didn't have one, then why would we be making judgement about what is and isn't moral/ethical?
@@TalonsofWater My guess is Gilliam's a boomer. He prefers his war movies with a side of boomer politics about the futility of war and the brutalization of soldiers and capitalism and blah blah blah. 'Schindler's List'; has none of that, so the movie is 'stupid' to him because it doesn't raise questions to which he already knows the answers and has seen in dozens of other war movies like 'Platoon,' 'Apocalypse Now' and of course, Kubrick's own effort, 'Full Metal Jacket.'
I don't know, I might be wrong but that seems a little ungracious to me. Spielberg may be different from Kubrick but his vision a film-maker seems no less sincere or genuine to me . And I think its a little unfair to dump Spielberg with the rest of 'Hollywood' so to speak. To me he's set apart from that and any resemblance between the two can be seen as an attempt by the latter to ride Spielberg's coat-tails. I think Gilliam is just being a bit cynical here.
and anit semetic and spiteful speilberg himself said when he was given the book back in the 1980s he wasnt ready to do it not mature enough he said, ill give him credit but I dont like about sir stevie especially at his age after doing so many serious films he keeps jumping back from serious films that dont do that well at the box office to crap like tin tin and ready player one which usually makes money at his age he doesnt need any more moneyo and now hes going to do another indy film well at least its not a sequel to hook arrrgg that was juvenile even by 1990s standards
Such a misinterpretation of Shindler’s List from both Gilliam and Kubrick, actually. Spielberg was telling a specific story based on a novel about one man and the Iives he saved. One cannot make a film that fully encapsulates the entirety of the Holocaust.
Too bad Spielberg actually changed the story from what really happened to make it more palatable and comforting. Yes Schindler did save some people but the real Schindler was nothing like the person portrayed in the movie. Read the book with the same title to get the real story. I agree with Gilliam I Kubrick I think Spielberg is a third-rate filmmaker.
@@takethesky8478 That doesn't really take anything off Spielberg in this as with his professional clout. He probably saw the screenplay as fitting his mindset for the movie. If he wanted to take real risks (something very un-Spielbergian), he could have fought for screenplay changes - he had the clout. After directing Spartacus, Kubrick swore he would never direct a movie that he didn't have complete creative control because he thought the portrayal of Spartacus and the slave revolt was too sanitized and not how things really were. And regarding the book, Kubrick is known for taking a book and making a movie very different - using the book as a motivation. But you know what he would come up with wouldn't be sanitized or PC, which Spielberg excels in. I'm totally dreading his release of West Side Story - one of my favorite works of art of all.
@@DeE-pt5lz I really don't think so. It does not cheapens the Holocaust as you say it does. And, besides the film does indeed show the horrors & brutality of it.
If Spielberg's movie was so off in Kubrick's view of what the Holocaust was about, then why did he abandon his movie about the subject post-Schindler's List? Doesn't make sense to me. "The Pianist" was made and I didn't find that much more dreary than Schindler's List. (Except the ending of course) Say what u want about Polanski but he was in the thick of it in reality. I think people glom on that famous Kubrick opinion regarding the movie because of his intellect and Spielberg makes fairy tales because that's what he feels comfortable doing. On a side note "Saving Private Ryan" was not optimistic in any sense. I completely agree with the criticism in how he dealt with the story in "Amistad" tho. That movie seemed way more sugar coated than it should have been.
@@forrestdewitt9827 I suggest watching Like Stories of Old's video essay on Anti-War films. Saving Private Ryan's ending is indeed particularly comforting and uplifting, as it shows the elderly Ryan and his happy family, telling us that all those terrible deaths weren't in vain, thus mitigating the horrific impact of the war.
@@forrestdewitt9827 He abandoned it because Schindler's List was made at the time and didn't want to compete with it. Its the exact same reason he couldn't do his Napoleon movie in the 70's after the dreadful Waterloo was made. He simply didn't like his ideas competing with others similar ideas. It basically all started back in the mid 60's when he made Dr Strangelove which competed against Failsafe and both were heavily inspired from the same novel.
Beyond how an audience member reacts to a film, movies are what their creators intend them to be, and just because Spielberg's vision differs from Kubrick's doesn't make it worse or better. It may be better for Terry Gilliam, who personally prefers films that are more provocative and open-ended, but Spielberg didn't intend for Schindler's List to be enigmatic in any way, and that's not a flaw. Gilliam is asking Spielberg to make a different movie, not a better version of the one he made. It's not fair of him to criticize cinema in general when mentioning how some filmmakers prefer closure rather than ambiguity. Some films are fit to have the former, some the latter. Not EVERY movie has to be open-ended and ambiguous. That's a silly criticism and only a personal preference of Gilliam. And I love movies that are dense and can be interpreted many ways! But the beauty of art and the movies is the diversity and versatility in it. Sometimes a filmmaker will make a film that intends to simply entertain, and if it is greatly effective, then it is a great film IN ITS OWN RIGHT. I'm surprised that Terry Gilliam, the imaginative filmmaker that he is, would put a ceiling on what movies can do. I'm surprised he'd set such limitations on them. Schindler's List was a great film in its own right, and it wasn't trying to be Kubrickian and doesn't have to try. I love Spielberg AND Kubrick for different reasons. Sue me. Spielberg is not a manipulator, he's a humanist. Kubrick is too, but he's much more unconventional, which is also fine. They're great filmmakers for different reasons with different visions and if Gilliam can't see that and thinks a movie only has ONE job then that's unfair judgement.
Exactly. Some movies require and work with closure and some with ambiguity. Totally agree. Shawshank for example wouldn't work with an ambiguous ending. The movie in hindsight has a sense of inevitability and momentum. Other movies absolutely sing with an ambiguous ending. It all depends on the movie.
Gilliam is confusing a happy ending with an uplifting ending. Schindler's List absolutely portrayed the failure of civilization. The survivors of the Holocaust did not have a happy ending just because they lived through it. They had lost family, friends homes and possessions - all the things that help define us a individuals. They had been degraded, brutalized and terrorized for years. The fact that they're still breathing when it over is not a happy ending, it is simply an ending. For the survivors the happy ending - if there was to be one - would not come until years later after rebuilding their lives, having children and grandchildren, etc. Even then, such happiness as could be found would never be complete. The uplifting part comes from the fact that in the midst of all the madness, some individuals still managed to find both the decency and courage to oppose the evil despite being flawed people their selves. Oskar Schindler was a greedy, vain, drunken womanizer, yet he found it within himself - despite his flaws and his fears for his own safety - to find his own humanity and do the right thing. In the midst of absolute darkness, a spot of light - even a dim, flickering spot of light - can give one hope. Gilliam is also wrong that the movie doesn't leave you without any questions. I have lots of questions every time I watch this movie. How is it possible for people to engage in such atrocities, not only willingly but gleefully? Can this destructive aspect of human nature be overcome or are we doomed to constantly repeat history? If I see a nazi standing on a street corner, am I morally justified in sucker punching the mother fucker? Does the fact that I want to sucker punch nazis make me a hypocrite? What if I had been born in Germany in the 1920's, would I have been a gleefully sadistic nazi or would I have been able to hang on (despite all the indoctrination) to some decent part of myself and stand opposed? Would I have had the courage? I would like to think that I would have but It is easy to have high moral principles when the consequences don't affect you. I have no easy answers to any of these questions. I respect Gilliam as a director, but he is wrong on this one.
Two problems with this. 1) Not everyone can/should be a Kubrick-type storyteller. Variety is the spice of life. We wouldn't appreciate them if everyone had the same approach. 2) Inappropriate choice of words for the end of Schindler's List. Not about success, or can do attitude. It shows the failure of humanity in nearly every frame.
I guess Jonathan Glazer didn't get that memo because he's working on one right now and if it's anything like his other films it's going to be deep and wide. But you see that is the thing about Spielberg, he worries about his audience too much. The brave move and the risk taking is to forget about the audience and tell the story. There's just too much fan service these days.
@@cinemar Forget about the audience? Dude virtually all stories are essentially a conversation between the storyteller and...wait for it...the audience. Know thy audience!
@@firstlast-oo1he Dude... The worst thing a filmmaker can do is make a film for the audience. This is why there are so few great films and filmmakers out there. Fuck thy audience. Real vital storytelling is not about pleasing audiences.
@@cinemar And that, I hope to clarify, doesn't mean forgetting that you're making this to be watched and considering the experience for the audience, but rather not catering to audience's whims.
@@bfish89ryuhayabusa Fair enough point but I think that's a given that most filmmakers are hoping for an audience and realise their content is about to be seen by many eyes other than theirs.
There is no single or "correct" way to make movies. Not every movie needs to be deep and philosophical. Spielberg invented the blockbuster and he has his own style. There is a reason why he is so succesfull, because people ENJOY his movies.. that is the whole point, to entertain. How dare he critizise someone else's hard work? It's like critizising a person's form of entertainment. what a shame.. no one is forcing you to watch anything.. some people like artsy fartsy movies, others don't. personally i like both. Variety is a good thing.
Movies are arbitrary, people like and hate them for different reasons. So he has an opinion, I'm sure you have a lot of them yourself. We all do, it's how our brains work when it comes to trivial things. Stating your opinion is not stating a fact, and people are allowed to state whatever opinion they want without being ridiculed by people like you who don't understand what "subjectivity" is.
Oh, he states his opinion like it's a fact? >how dare he criticize something >people enjoy spielberg's movies, so he should too >variety is good >STOP HATING WHAT I LIKE you sound like a boy. Innocent, opinionated, unexposed to reality, soaking up what others think like a human sponge. You reek of what I like to call "black and white thinking".
@@GalaxyNexus1 I don't really agree with that: Gilliam didn't say people couldn't enjoy one or the other, or even both approaches. Beyond that, just like individual experience is unique, everyone has their opinions, and If people kept their opinions to themselves on creative works because there will always be someone who feels differently owing to their experience - that'd pretty be boring (not that you're suggesting that - I'm just saying).
@@JET7C0 he doesn't say one can't enjoy both, but he posits one as superior and more meaningful than the other, which I do not agree with and think is a very snobbish, elitist and exclusionary view of art. He even goes as far as to compare Spielberg unfavorably to Kubrick, by calling Kubrick a great filmmaker, with the implication that Spielberg is not. On another note, regarding Kubrick, one could argue a "great filmmaker," shouldn't have to resort to bully tactics and abuse of his actors in order to achieve a "great film," up to Mr. Gilliam's standards.
@@GalaxyNexus1 Sure: superior - in his opinion, which isn't really ignoring individual experience, because he's surely well aware people enjoy Spielberg's films. Also, if someone basically says the reverse of Gilliam here, thus basically Spielberg is 'superior,' would that be snobbish in your mind, or no?
Yet, it is important to know that Kubrick had a lot of appreciation for Spielberg’s work and selected Spielberg to direct A.I, as he felt that the project became more suitable to his sensibilities.
And eyes wide shut was a piece of crap. Kubrick’s films always make me feel like I am watching the actors from a distance and the characters always seem artificial. But May that’s just me. Eyes wide shut was garbage though.
@Grant Kerr Terry Gilliam hiding behind the likes of Stanley Kubrick in order to render a criticism of Spielberg and Schindler's List (and a simple-minded one, at that) is a crucial element that the title of this video leaves out.
@@anthonybrogan390, don't knock Dickens indeed. Oh, and sorry Terry your movie fell below "Schindler's List" on my list. TOP 33 FAVORITE MOVIES 1) The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982) 2) It's a Wonderful Life (1946) 3) The Prince who was a Thief (1951) 4) Narnia: the Lion, the witch, and the wardrobe (2005) 5) Let the Right One In (2008) - Swedish with English caption 6) A Silent Voice (2016) - Japanese with English caption 7) My Rainy Days (2009) - Japanese with English caption 8) X + Y [a Brilliant Young Mind] (2014) 9) Silence (2016) 10) Beauty and the Beast (2017) 11) Goodbye, Christopher Robin (2017) 12) The Man who Invented Christmas (2017) 13) The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934) 14) Amen (2002) 15) Red (2010) 16) Fletch (1985) 17) Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) 18) Men In Black (1997) 19) Star Wars: the Empire Strikes Back (1980) 20) Star Wars: a New Hope (1977) 21) Back to the Future (1985) 22) X-Men (2000) 23) Mannequin (1987) 24) Life is Beautiful (1998) 25) Schindler's List (1993) 26) The Passion of the Christ (2004) - Aramaic with English caption 27) Interview with the Vampire (1994) 28) Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) - Spanish with English caption 29) Midway (2019) 30) Paprika (2006) 31) Johnny English (2003) 32) Cinema Paradiso (1989) - Italian with English caption, shorter version, not extended version 33) The Man who Killed Don Quixote (2017)
But the big questions are not answered. How could ordinary people become mass murderers and how could the world stand by and let it happen? The few people at the top were psychopaths but the thousands of people who ran the deportations and the death machine were ordinary germans who somehow became complicit in the worst mass murder in history. To say they were all evil is a cop out. If we don’t make an effort to understand how these people all became morally corrupt we won’t be able to stop it next time.
@@sblack48 It's about personal responsibility e.i. moral and ethics. You can have the same discussion about the Vietnam war. Is it justifiable to participate in an unethical action to avoid personal punishment? Every single guy that got drafted to Vietnam could have chosen prison.. but they didn't.
@@azynkron the difference there is that a lot of guys signed up because they were told they'd be doing a good thing - saving the vietnamese people from communism. They thought they would be treated like heros. But once they got there they found out it was all bullshit and they were stuck. They were not given the honest facts on which to make a moral decision.
"Schindler's List" wasn't about giving the Holocaust a happy ending. It was about a real man who had a real-life character arc. He went from seeing the Jews as just cheap labor to make himself richer to people he would risk his life for. Amon Geoth even tried to tempt him to treat the Jews as commodities when Schindler was rescuting "his" Jews from being hauled off to a death camp. Goeth was like, "This Jew, that Jew, what does it matter? You save the same number of Jews." But Schindler knew them as individuals, not as statistics.
Agreed... by Gilliams logic you couldn't make hopeful movies. I didn't want to get to the end of Schindler's List and wonder what it all meant. Schindler's List isn't diminished for being more on-the-nose. Honestly it had a few scenes that were more profound to me than anything I've seen in a Gilliam movie, despite Gilliam's talent.
It should be noted that the former head of Universal Sidney Sheinberg, who sent Spielberg a copy of Schindler’s List when it was first released and eventually bought the film rights for it, was also the one who wouldn’t release Gilliam’s Brazil unless he gave it a happier, audience-friendly ending. Gilliam then took out a full page ad in Variety demanding Sheinberg to release the film in its original cut. Gilliam may be harboring a great deal of resentment because of that. Regardless, I still enjoy the work of Gilliam, Spielberg and Kubrick.
To each his own; if he wants to think Schindler's List has a neat little bow on it, so be it. Schindler's List is an absolute masterpiece of filmmaking. It is a hard movie to watch. If that's his only criticism, I'm sure Spielberg would take it.
I did not feel that Schindler's List was about success. I felt the full weight of the Holocaust and the complete failure of civilization to allow that to happen watching that movie. There was never "A man can do what a man can do!" moment for me watching that film.
Being enigmatic for the sake of being enigmatic shouldn’t be something we praise. Spielberg is one of the best directors ever because he knows how to tell a story. You’re not a better director simply because your films leave the viewers baffled. Romeo and Juliet is not a complex story, but it stands the test of time for a reason, because it was told with a sense of art not often encountered.
Movies can show us what life is like (reality), and what we wish life was life (dreams). Never confuse the two and never say one is better then the other. They both show us what we humans are like....And Gilliam should know this!
All Gilliam said is that the greatest movies don't give you an "American happy ending". And I think it's true. American audiences mostly go to movies that have a three act structure where the ending MUST be uplifting. Gilliam says great art offers many possible answers.
@@Lalo-dh8xq It can be valid, but not always so. The presence of happy endings in a lot of American cinema especially after the 70s is something many critique as an overabundance. Consider the "happy ending" tacked onto the theatrical release of Bladerunner. The true ending is ambiguous, but I guess they audience tested it and added a narrator to make sure people knew exactly what was happening and added a happy ending where they live happily ever after. The true ending leaves it open ended and you can ponder the implications.
Exactly. Schindler's List is uncompromising. It's violent, heartbreaking, and tragic. But there is also affirmation of life, that one man can make a difference, that some people perceive as weakness. I don't see that as a negative at all.
Agreed. The film doesn't shy away from graphic depictions of the depths humanity is capable of sinking to, constantly bombarding us with discrimination and death, and yet also captures a deeply important message through the actions of a real-life historical figure: "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Without certain "uplifting" messages and proposals, all we are left with is pure cynicism and disgust about existence.
to find any hope in that story is, to me, profoundly shocking. the only honest reading of the 1933-1945 period is that the MOST ADVANCED AND CULTURED society on earth descended into total barbarism with great speed. and yet, no lessons are learned, and people seek the comfort of Spielberg’s version of history in which there is humanity amongst the horror. there was no silver lining. to talk of a “glimmer of hope” is actually sickening to me.
@@michaelgauthier2593 “good men”??? this type of thinking is puerile and foolish. there are no good men and bad men. just men. the moment we allow ourselves to think of ourselves as “good”, we are lost. enthical behaviour is a constant struggle. it’s bloody hard work. i would NEVER EVER dream of claiming that i am a “good person”. we may want or try or even want to be good, but that doesn’t make us so. a little more moral honesty is very much needed
@@geenadasilva9287 Except then you are dismissing the actions of those who did stand against the regime. You're saying "Only a handful tried to save lives, so it doesn't matter." Considering that hundreds, if not thousands, did try to resist, and that many of those paid for their lives standing against this monstrous behavior, I think your statement is pretty arrogant. Would it have been better if millions of people had simply said no? Of course, that is the way with all terrible man-made events, and even the Nazis could be forced to back down to public pressure before the regime went into its full tailspin of repression (one of the reasons they took so long to move to a real war economy was their fear of public backlash). But to simply discard the actions of those who resisted is disgraceful. Can you imagine placing not just your life, but those of your family and friends on the line in order to save people who could be strangers, or even a group you were taught were "beneath" you? At a time when getting enough rations just to feed you and your dependents was already miserably difficult? The regime cheerfully murdered senior military officers, priests, dignitaries, the upper echelons of the party, and members of ancient houses; no one who spoke out or resisted was safe, and yet there were those who did. But no, let's dump the courageous in the bin, they just aren't edgy or grimdark enough.
I watched 2001 for the first time a few years ago and I don't find the ending THAT thought provoking. It's obviously meant to be, but it is so incredibly ambiguous that I don't have any basis for forming any thoughts. You get to the end of the film and something happens. Well, what is something? Something is something. It's like being asked to establish a universally accepted definition of up in a free floating void. You can't quantify something so subjective.
Then you'll find Tarkovsky work even more ambiguous. But in all honesty the Kubricks, the tarkovskyvs, the lynchs make me come back to their films time and again like a thirsty man is drawn to a well. It's always giving more as you see more. With Spielbergs and Tarantinos I do go back to their films time and again but they give less and less as I watch their work.
Nah mate. Nothing wrong with a filmmaker having something specific to say. Not everything has to be open ended, and something doesn’t have to be opened ended either to cause you to think about it. Whether you agree or disagree, movies with a specific message also make you think.
These guys missed the ending and core message of the movie: “Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire.” The failure of the Holocaust was captured visually by Spielberg brilliantly, but the success/victory out of the Holocaust was survival... and how one man saw beyond his greed to save whoever he could from disaster. Also he’s pretty pretentious if he thinks that audiences don’t think or talk about Spielberg films after they leave.
He doesn't mean that people don't think about them, he means that, as opposed to 2001 A Space Odyssey, there's little to no debate concerning what the film is about, what it tells you and what it means. The point he is trying to make is that movies such as Kubrick's ask questions and stimulate different and new answers
@@basicallyme220 It seems like a bit of an apples and oranges situation to me. Spielberg wants to tell a story, Kubrick wants to ask a question, neither desire should add to or detract from whether the finished piece is impactful or not
Honestly Kubrick is vastly overrated and I find his "philosophy" to be so as well. Kurusowa and Tarkovsky are much more deep, impactful thinkers with more to say than Kubrick who was film's first mainstream hipster imo
Giving a sense of hope to the most desperate and terrible situation of modern times is not a trivial thing. Schindler's List is not a naively hopeful film, it's a film that is in full knowledge of its darkness _and yet finds a way to hope._ Isn't that what the holocaust is "about"? It's about reaching the absolute depths of hell and somehow finding a way to keep up hope. It almost feels like he didn't actually see the film.
It seems as though Gilliam is suggesting the hope found by the survivors of the Holocaust such as Edith Eger, who unlike Gilliam were actually there and suffered the most wretched evils imaginable, is simply naive and false; that one cannot possibly find hope in such hell. Hope is just as vital a part of the story of the Holocaust as failure is.
Mr. Gilliam: Yes, there has long been a problem with too much happy ending in movies. But Schindler's List does not contribute to that. The film was not the movie-going public's introduction to the holocaust. Schindler's List picked out a particular person whose actions went against the already well known grain. It is good to take a deeper look at a well versed episode from history. It did not happy ending-ize the holocaust.
I feel like we give hopeful foreign hope a pass. Amelie and the film you mentioned are beloved, but so many cinephiles in the states turn their noses up when you try to put Driving Miss Daisy in a top films list.
Schindler’s List-I only saw it when it was in theaters as a ten year old and one of the big takeaways I had was, “I could’ve done more.” So that’s not comforting. The whole movie was traumatizing and discomforting. I think Gilliam and Kubrick are good at what they do, leave us discussing their movies’ themes, and also are jealous of Spielberg. The critique is a little hollow, especially choosing Schindler to pick on.
Spielberg is a master of sentiment, Kubrick was the master of intellectual observation. Both needed in storytelling and cinema/ both appreciated. I find Spielberg's films - particularly his 80s cannon do well made and endearing that that feeling alone provides me with optimism and motivation. Kubrick at times, provides that, and then some.
no offense, i would call Schindlers list a masterpiece but Spielberg lacks something called realistic perception, he forces you a state of sentimentalism and he doesnt reach greatness at all.
I agree. And Kubric, at his best, is not about intellectualism. Though, he confronts the audience in a way that is fertile ground for all sorts of intellectual observations. Spielberg should always be approached with caution due to his overt sentimentality. Not that I don't enjoy E.T. of Close Encounters for fun.
@Stella Hohenheim No doubt the comment was removed by RUclips or the poster, as some cowardly posters I've run across delete their original posts so you can't reply. Do you make it a habit to answer seven year old posts??? I could be dead for all you know.
Indeed! 'Paths' is a great film! Kubrick's earlier works were great, but not nearly as subtle and thought-provoking as his later ones. I think '2001' was the real turning point.
Bruh, giving message is a different subject than Posing questions. A man can tell his views to the entire world which he thinks is important. And a kubrick's ideas are driven by intellect and facts and not pure sentiments. Ambiguity and posing questions are different kind of films. Both have their place.
I think it's important to remember that Kubrick was a commercial filmmaker. He didn't make art films. All of his films were intended to appeal to a wide crowd and make lots of money, and they did. It just so happens that Spielberg's films were intended for an even wider audience. Also, Kubrick clearly respected Spielberg and was good friends with him, so that's good enough for me. Why not you, Mr. Gilliam?
Frederick Raphael’s memoirs (Terry is referencing) quoting Kubrick’s opinion on Schindler’s List has been denounced by Kubrick’s wife Christiane as false and unreliable biography long time ago.
Sydney Pollack ( a good friend of Kubrick) once told him "Admit it Stanley...you make Art Films and disguise them as Blockbusters, don't you?" Spielberg has his place in fun entertainment and hype; but Kubrick is for the ages.
A critic called Clockwork Orange An entertainment and not artistic. Dont remember who it was. Actually he said Kubrick makes entertainments. I dont agree
What about the boy, who wanted to be Spielberg - Christopher Nolan? He does make entertainment, he does make you ask questions (Following, Memento, Inception...)
@@olle12 Well all his films are about the decadence of Man , that has philosophical meaning. But not all his films are masterpieces Ive never seen Barry Lyndon it isnt my type. And Full Metal Jacket was overshadowed by Platoon. Clockwork on the other hand is hypnotizing, hilarious and is in my top 5 best films ever.
@@mrlarvux yep. Rian Johnson. JJ just took the predictably dumb way out, while Rian Johnson took the unpredictably dumb way out. Either way I blame Bob Eiger and Kathleen Kennedy.
I don't think Schlindler's list is comforting at all. The hope that the movie presents at the end is not only a complex and difficult answer to the problems of the world, it also doesn't necessarily makes it a comforting movie to watch.
I don’t get what this person is talking about. I left the theater after watching Schindler’s List with so many questions, I went and read history books to learn about The Holocaust, Nazi Germany, and WWII.
What happens inside a person, feelings, ideas, opinions, seems more important now than ever, to the point where they aren't directly about what's going on in the world.
While i understand what Terry Gilliam means by his statements i can't help but think he's a bit sour grapes on the matter. Spielberg hasn't been successful in the past because of his happy endings but because he has actually made good quality movies out of stories that not every director could have pulled off. Movies like jaws , close encounters Indiana Jones or Jurassic park could have turned out horrible in anyone else's hand but he managed to make them become classics, especially in the era they were made. I also don't think you can really compare Kubrick to Spielberg because they both made very different movies that serve different purposes. In the end i think cinema Is beautiful because we have both Spielberg directors and Kubrick directors that we can choose depending on how we feel and Gilliam has no right to throw dirt on anyone.
But that's the thing, those films were entertainment, fantastic entertainment,but not intellectually challenging. When you look at SL it's not "entertainment", it's supposed to be challenging and thought provoking, but isn't especially. Perhaps if Schindler was portrayed more as the ambiguous character he seems to have been in real life, it would have been.
Perhaps it is earned--but it's not always granted. A person can truly love what they do and be really good at it, and still fail miserably. If anyone tells you life is supposed to be fair, they're either lying or they're selling something.
But every protagonist will struggle as without conflict you don't have a story. By the teacher's account that means everything should have a happy ending. I'm inclined to disagree.
@@butterflymoon6368 That's not even remotely what that means. Saying someone has earned a happy ending to their story doesn't mean they have to get one. It just means that a happy ending to their story is just as legitimate a fiction as any other. It's a fucking story, that's all, not a documentary. If you get set off by a 'Happily Ever After' just because joy is not 'realistic' to you, then you are very likely shitty company to watch a movie with, my friend.
Coming from someone who loves Gilliam, this is the guy who ended a film by having: - the lead of the film getting arrested for murder right before leading a castle raid. - the lead of the film's love interest getting murdered right before he gets arrest. He then loses his mind right before he gets horrifically tortured by his best friend. - the lead of the film (a child) watch his parents touch a block of concentrated evil and blow up after he tells them not to touch it. - the lead of the film (a time traveler) realizing that the horrible event he witnessed as a child of a man getting shot and killed was actually future him. He then proceeds to get shot and killed. I'm sure I'm leaving out other good examples. Point being, Gilliam films tend to end in disturbing and nihilistic ways. There's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. In fact, I love it. But Spielberg has a VERY different way of approaching films. And I think the way he ended Schindler's list was brilliant. There's nothing wrong with leaving the audience with at least a little bit of hope.
He's not totally wrong, he's not totally right. He's oversimplifying "Schindler's List" to an extent that really isn't fair, and ignoring the point that it's absolutely worth remembering and thinking about those whose humanity *didn't* fail. I don't know what good purpose it would serve to overlook the existence of those people, and the difference they made. Is it more intellectual somehow to have a completely jaundiced view, or does it actually serve as a way of absolving oneself of any responsibility for trying to make the world better? Remember that Spielberg didn't just make "Schindler's List", he also created the Shoah Foundation, which found and documented the memories of hundreds of Holocaust survivors. I can't imagine either Kubrick or Gilliam undertaking such an effort.
Gilliam is a great source for this kind of "not-well-reasoned" assessment of things. He has made several of my favorite films, but as a critic he has "chosen poorly"
Yes but his point wasn't that schindler's list is a bad film, it's that it contributes to the trend in Spielberg's films that makes them entertaining but not challenging. In fact he was quoting Kubrick to make that wider point. That even with schindler's list, a film about the holocaust, Spielberg manages to find a "happy" ending.
Welp, I watched it, too, and what he did was to compare Spielberg to Kubrick and say that Kubrick was the better filmmaker because he made people think and Spielberg doesn't. I don't know who the people are who watched Schindler's List and didn't think about it afterward, or thought Spielberg had tied the Holocaust in a bow, and it's absurd to imagine that's the reaction Spielberg was going for.
@@MrJabez89 Try again. I am IN NO WAY shitting on you for liking it (I know you Sam Raimi fans are touchy) but it and the first film just aren't my cup of tea in any way. I do, however, enjoy the 'boomstick' reference in every damn shooter game that has come out since.... it (no sarcasm) never gets old. That was like my only favored line/scene from the film.
Mysteries like, "Why couldn't they fix the boat if they could build a radio out of a coconut?" are what make Gilligan's Island the best, most compelling TV show of all time.
I remember when Life is Beautiful came out and some said how inappropriate it was. No less than Spielberg replied that there are many ways to tell a story. Life is Beautiful turned out to be highly effective as did Schindler’s List. Mr Gilliam has a different view. So be it.
This is why Tommy Wiseau and Neil Breen are great directors. They don't give you any answer, like at all.
Oh Hi Mark
They don't pose any questions either.
@@tigqc touché
@@tigqc Oh they plant plenty of questions in my head, most starting with WHY!?
And that is... like your personal ... like opinion. Like wow.
"I'd like to have a nice house like Spielberg."
It's amazing how Gilliam managed to cultivate such a successful film career from his tiny studio apartment over a liquor store.
It's 2021 and a studio apartment sounds pretty upscale to a lot of people.
@@joeschembrie9450 the point is Gilliam has a plenty nice house and bank account for that matter. He's a millionaire moaning at a billionaire. Kind of hard for the common man to relate to.
@@joeschembrie9450 You must live in a Democratic city.
@@farid1406
Yeah, I got the point. How can you interpret what I said as not getting the point?
@@joeschembrie9450 Lol I know, just taking the opportunity to vent at Gilliam
I had the same opinion of "Dude, Where's My Car?" I felt it's ending took the easy way out when it could have asked some more thoughtful questions.
@@mrtoy875 Around the Corner; Down the Block . . . it always hides deep within our hearts.
That's the answer in every Hollywood movie. .~
( .~ = Sarcasm )
LMFAO...i see what you did there.
Like a discussion on Filet Mignon vs Prime Rib and you bring up McDonalds Cheeseburgers. Too Funny
Sweet!
I haven’t seen it. Did he find his car? Or did it end ambiguously?
@@collapsedsynapse Dude!
He’s absolutely right about Spielberg’s work being less open to interpretation, and Kubrick’s being more thought provoking, but watch the ending of Schindler’s List and tell me it’s a happy one. It’s more optimistic, but it’s certainly not happy. Spielberg showed us the little bit of humanity that survived in an otherwise nightmarish situation. That’s as deserving of the title of “art” as anything else I’ve ever seen.
It's the closest Spielberg ever got to an unhappy ending, apart from Saving Private Ryan. Ironically, Kubrick gets a lot more criticism for his ending in 2001, which nobody understood! lol
Yeah I honestly don't even get why he would be taking a shit on it, like, from the natural context of living in this world we know the holocaust was awful, wtf are you even talking about terry? It's a movie about a glimmer of light in what is probably the darkest setting in recent history. I love Kubrick and generally agree he's a better director than spielberg; but acting like Schindler's list isn't a pretty well made movie seems silly.
@@ph6376 I will respectfully disagree. SPR (you already mentioned), Munich and A.I., all had very cynic endings. But yes, the rest of his filmography is more Hollywood than being oriented. But having made both types of narrative endings it proves, that unlike other filmmakers, he is multi dimensional not only on the type of films and genres he makes but also the story ending aspect.
Someone needs to adjust Terry’s medication if he thinks Schindler’s List is some sort of uplifting schmaltz, like a big budget Hallmark Channel film.
No wonder Hollywood studios have a hard time dealing with Gilliam.
@@peterp2153 personally I understand what Gilliam is trying to say, that yes the film was traumatic and sad yet Spielberg managed to wrap a hopeful story around it - Schindler’s successful attempt of saving some Jewish people - and therefore wink “hope” to the viewer at the end. And somehow that was a comforting ending. No I am sorry but it wasn’t. I and most of the people I know came out of that theater an emotional wreck ‘cause the final taste I got from the movie wasn’t not Schindler’s good action but the tragedy of the Holocaust and what those people went through. So at the end of the day I’d say message was received, with a sledge hammer in the stomach. You don’t have to go completely Cynic to drive your point. So I’d say that was cheap shot by Terry.
Am I the only person to think that there's room for both comforting and provocative films? I like my Kubrick and Gilliam just as much as I like my Spielberg.
Fangornmmc I don't think anyone was saying there shouldn't be both. If it weren't for blockbusters, there wouldn't be a Hollywood to make thought-provoking films. The blockbusters make the money that validates an attempt at high art when the creators and producers understand it's unlikely the art piece might not make much immediate profit.
I'm fairly certain Gilliam understands this as well as anyone, as his beginning was with a bunch of comedians who, even if brilliant comedians, were usually somewhat superficial aside from a few deep points along the way.
Cubroncs03 But that's not what Gilliam says here. He sounds pretty adamant to me. And i'm not able to say that you're wrong, but you certainly are being presumptuous.
Like them all. Although I do suspect envy on Gilliam's part. After all, Spielberg was good friends with Kubrick. It was Kubrick's idea to have Spielberg direct A. I. because it had more of Spielberg's sensibility he thought. This is all old news. Interesting how Gilliam frowns on Hollywood films since he did The Fisher King.
Spielberg's films can be provocative; i.e. Munich and Minority Report. Kubrick's can be comforting i.e. Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut.
rockhero2274 There was little of comfort in either of those films to be honest.
I don't think the perspective "Movies have to be this" really works, you sometimes want "comfort" movies, sometimes you want more "open" movies.
Yes, but Schindler's List shouldn't be a "comfort movie" and Spielberg made it so. It should have been as complex as the actual story really was (read the book) but Spielberg never trusts his audience to handle it. Or he knows he'll make a lot more money making it "comfortable". He has an inflated sense of his artistic depth (he really doesn't have any).
@@loge10 i don't agree its a comfort movie, its about people making allot of hard decisions, and the ramifications of those decisions. its based on a true story, and there are horrors being shown all the time, but though the do talk about the Jews its not a film about the overall holocaust but about a man and the people around him. does t portray him to be a hero yes, but tbf the people he helped still greatly appreciate what he did and that's why the film got made. terry is a fantastic director but i think its not a totally fair criticism. Spielberg has a very particular style the world would miss without it .
How you feel is up to you ultimately, however, the Shoah & genocides which continue are not things for comfort. I agree with the fact there are actions of inspiration, such as the German officer ( he truly existed) in "The Pianist" who keeps Adrain Brody's character alive, or the biography by Emma Gutman who hides out in the basement of a German officer in Poland are worthy in that they illustrate the triumph of the human spirit in the midst of carnage, chaos & brutality.
@@robertlaidlaw4592 I think the word "comfort" is being misinterpretted here. I'm saying that the movie was a bit white-washed in terms of characterizations. The real story and the characters is much more complex. Spielberg seeks to please and not challenge. That's why I hate his movies. Take a movie like "Lawrence of Arabia" (my vote for one of the top 5 movies ever made) and there is real psychology there. There is no psychology in Spielberg films.
@@loge10 i think he is still portrayed as a bit of a cold bastard, i don't think its that one note, also i have to say i disagree his characters arn't one note, yes you could say its a bit Disney in that everyone generally develops in a positive way, but i think he still expresses the bad points and there good points, the villan for example bad points he hates jews and kills without mercy, middling points he's doing it because he's scared he shows affection for one in particular though its a bit rape cos he's mental, good point with a bit of reluctance he does sth that helps. also id say with things like jurassic park he has genuine scares and wonderment but the characters are still a bit weird and broken and kind of close to how you would expect, its a kids film but its defiantly an interesting display of misuses of power. it's a good sci fi. id say hes a pretty darn good director because of his range and ability to provoke particular emotions.
I think that Spielberg took this criticism on board in Crystal Skull.
Just like at the end of 2001:SO, the ending of Crystal Skull made me go "What the fuck was that?!"
I'm pretty sure that was just bad writing, like the character called Mack and so on.
well played, Noel, haha
Sarcasm is lost on the internet
And the beginning and the middle too. Take that, Kubrick.
The ending of Crystal Skull made me think what the fxck did I just pay an £8.60 ticket for?
I agree with Gilliam, with one major difference: I don't mind Spielberg's "easy answers", because with him it's all about the journey, not the destination. And what a journey. His movies offer astonishing amounts of cinematic invention and artistry.
Also, "Schindler's List" is not about success, not quite: it's about small victories amidst one colossal failure.
It's a question of scale - by focusing on the small victories so closely, they appear as a counterbalance to a failure which is really beyond comprehension, much less effective portrayal.
But it could be argued that Spielberg's films are about the destination because the destination is always the same - a happy ending.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 It could be: you bring up an interesting point. I disagree, but I'm not saying that you're wrong.
Think of any crime show on tv - like Castle or Law & Order etc. - with each episode following the same formula. We don't watch those shows because of the ending, where we know to find a resolution. We are more interested in the journey.
And, I'm being pedantic, but there is a handful of Spielberg movies with not-so-happy endings: The Duel, Sugarland Express, Schindler's List (borderline), Saving Private Ryan (bittersweet), Munich, Lincoln, West Side Story.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 You could argue that Schindler’s List takes the holocaust out of context & presents a somewhat happy ending. A few hundred Jews saved while some 6 million perished. I love Jaws it’s a great film but I always find the end scene of the two making their way back to shore a little idealistic.
@@NoName-jq7tj I think films like Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark are what Spielberg does best - exciting adventure films.
I've always thought of him as a commercial film-maker rather than a mature or serious film-maker.
I heard Liam Neeson likes writing lists and that's why Spielberg picked him, his own words.
As an actor, you need things to draw on
Yeah. Now let's do some improvisational comedy.
That's absolutely true. I myself saw Liam Neeson tell Ricky Gervais that very thing. Spielberg really did pick him because he liked making lists. Isn't that weird?
Lets...do... some improvisational... comedy...
@@HighlandMike325 You need to knock before you enter
Idk about this... Schindler’s List wasn’t supposed to represent the Holocaust. It was supposed to represent Oskar Schindler’s efforts. And it’s one of the most amazing movies ever made. So is 2001, but for completely different reasons.
Yes but do you see Gilliam’s point? That what Spielberg chose to make - the movie about the hero - the guy who made the right choices, the heroic choices.
The bigger story is how did millions turn a blind eye. More than that how did millions go along.
It is a great movie but the criticism is a valid one and Kubrick’s quote sums it up perfectly.
Ellipsis22 don’t know what that has to do with it but....you’re wrong.
Wayne Durning
Why is Kubrick allowed to to make the movies he wants to make and blast Spielberg for making the movies he makes??
The story is about Oskar Schindler and how HE changed HIS on the Holocaust to save those he could. It wasn’t about the bigger picture of the nazi propaganda. Is was about that particular snapshot of the Holocaust.
Claire Caines so go ahead and criticize Kubrick’s movies. Fair criticism is fair game. And I think “blast” is a bit much it’s just a critique. Look I’m a Spielberg fan but what these guys say make sense. I don’t get why people get so bent out of shape over it.
@@waynedurning8717 I think Gilliam was being disingenuous - Kubrick and Spielberg were friends in real life and admired each other's work. In fact, Kubrick spent years trying to make his own 'Spielberg movie' with AI and entrusted Spielberg to finish it. How mad could he possibly have been about Schindler's List if all of this happened?
I've seen SCHINDLER'S LIST several times & have never thought it had a happy ending. It's about the difference one person can make in the world even when all odds are against you.
Perhaps, but it's celebrating a "bandaid" approach to tragedy: great, wonderful, a thousand people were saved -- but it doesn't change the fact over eleven million innocents were murdered. As Gilliam suggests, it'd be far more informative and thought provoking to do a film about the people who tried (and failed) to stop the rise of totalitarianism in Germany before Hitler and the Nazis took power. Where's a film about the efforts of Beck, Blomberg, or Fritsch? Or Oster, Gisevius, and Schacht? We love to hug ourselves for after-the-fact tokenism while often ignoring people who are foresighted enough to put their lives on the line and confront the root of the problem head on.
@@MisterMac4321 It's ONE movie. For one movie, it is a story told very well. You cannot tell the full story of the Holocaust with ONE movie. Others can choose (and have done so) to pain a grimmer picture of the subject, but Spielberg (a Jew) wanted to give hope, to show there's a good side of people even in the most horrific situations. You can't criticize one movie for not covering every aspect of such an extensive subject. "Where's a film about the efforts of Beck, Blomberg, or Fritsch? Or Oster, Gisevius, and Schacht?" - why don't you make them? It's not easy, is it? You can't criticize producers for choosing what story they want to tell, or the director for telling it in a certain way, unless it is completely devoid of merit. Again, Spielberg did a wonderful job telling the story, in both the technical and the narrative side. It's not Spielberg's fault others don't want to do movies about the characters you mentioned. He preferred Schindler and did his job well on that.
@@descoiatorul "...why don't you make them?" I don't know, perhaps because my friends and I don't have a spare $25mil sitting around like Spielberg and his investors did to make 'Schinlder's List'? Hell, I couldn't even put a tenth that much together by strong-arming every potential backer I know.
And yes, I do fault Spielberg for continuing to indulge in Hollywood's myopic focus on just the "six million Jews." The other five million murdered victims of the Nazi death camps have been conveniently swept under history's rug because their fate (and the continue plight of the minorities they represent) don't conveniently dove-tail with the political agendas of those willing to cough up the funding for such enterprises.
Seriously, where's the movie -- ANY movie -- about the Roma, or Sinti, or Polish intellectuals, or mental and physical "defectives", or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Soviet POWs? Who dares to speak for them in a cultural environment where the only victims worth mourning seem to be the Jewish ones? Don't try to tell me this is about "artistic preference," it's strictly a political agenda -- nothing more.
@@MisterMac4321 - Wow. Good to know you can read Spielberg's mind & heart. What a skill. But I think Silverback was really referring to Gilliam with his "why don't you make it." I agree with everything he said. And you also made some good points, aside from the myopic focus you accuse others of, yet seem to share.
Lancer Macman I personally think the ending is fantastic that even in the darkest moment in human history, there were still moments of fantastic humanity that saved over a thousand lives to the point where the descendants of Schindler’s Jews outnumber the Jews now living in Poland
I really don't think there's wrong with either approach. Sometimes a film with a happy ending can inspire me to gain more direction in my life, which is a good thing. Other times, a film makes me question my life itself, which is also a good thing.
Both sides are necessary, that's the beauty of filmmaking. There needs to be that balance between sobering realism and uplifting escapism.
naahhhh... lol sometimes balance, but sometimes just a lot of each, one or the other is fine... just make em good! (altered my comment slightly)
uplifting escapism can be pure fantasy. It doesn't have to paper over human tragedy and attempt to sanitise history for the masses.
Beautifully said and on point.
That's the lesson from Italian Neorealism. Sure in the beginning it produced some of the freshest and greatest films ever made like Rome Open City and Bicycle Thieves, but it eventually got tiresome and its principal directors felt bounded by the rules of their own genre.
Thinking about that, “The Secret of NIHM” did strike a good balance between the two.
I get his point, but in referencing "Schindler's List" he fails to consider that it was based on a true story. Yes, it does give comfort to witness this man's humanitarian success. However, we are brutally reminded, during the movie, of all those whom were not saved.
I love Spielberg and Guilliam. And I get Terry's take on Spielberg's work. You don't get to that level of success if you r films confront the audience with questions.
I dont think he "fails" to consider that. Im sure he's aware. I think you've failed to understand the greater point
@@BuJammy What of Kubrick's quote then? He's a hack too i suppose
The physical constraints of this particular universe says categorically that it is not a true story. A story, yes, just physically impossible. The scientific method is a ruthless witness to all claims, no matter who makes them, or with whatever amount of faux self righteous victimhood they employ in the telling. Science baby, it rocks.
@@Drew-vn8rx I disagree that the film's simply about the holocaust, I've always understood it to specifically be about Schindler's List
It also explains why Serling's "Twilight Zone" was so disturbing to a culture that was subjected to the eternal happy ending
IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!
Exactly
Nihilists are ruining pop culture.
@@slade52 I WISH it were nihilists! That's why I like Kubrick.
Detest the Zone but I feel ya nonetheless
I have no problem with Spielberg telling the story of some good in an otherwise horrific chapter in human history. I came out of the theater, on a snowy 1:00 AM morning in 1993, and nobody was cheering a so-called "happy ending" to "Schindler's List". We were all stunned into silence and respect for what we'd just seen.
Get out
@@petecampbell3929 A Great film that leave you with questions, unlike Schindler’s List.
@@wb8905 lmao, why would a "great" film has to leave you with questions? It's such a hipster thing to say. I mean, one can prefer films that leave you with questions and has deeper meaning etc. But that doesn't make other films that coherently tells a story which stays with you for a long time any inferior. If you go by your definition, Tenet is the greatest film ever made. Even better than any kubrick films. Cause not only it tests your general knowledge and capability to handle complex scientific occurrences, it leaves you with like 100 different questions. Another film I can think of is The Fountain - again leaves you as puzzled as a kid finding how babies are born for the first time. And just because of that, films like Shawshank Redemption, Heat, Gladiator, Rocky, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump etc can't be any lesser films cause they don't leave you with any question. Not everything have to be cryptic and obscure to be great.
@@sikdermahmud3444 Well I didn’t say Schindler’s list wasn’t a great film, but whatever man.
@@wb8905 You mean questions like, "how could this happen" or "how can we prevent this from ever happening again"? Those are there, clear as day.
Kubrick was a great philosopher. Spielberg is a great entertainer.
I love Kubrick films, but fuck me if i don't watch Raiders of the Lost Ark every time it's on.
@@weylandyutanicorporate Mmm no.
Alejandro Perez Perez whatever you say, neckbeard. Enjoy your waifu pillow.
@@weylandyutanicorporate ? Are you ok?
Alejandro Perez Perez I’m great, thanks!
To think that Schindler's List was just a movie about a guy that saved 1200 ppl and that makes for a happy ending is completely missing the point of the movie. Ironic considering Gilliam compares it against Kubrick where he states Kubrick deliberately leaves questions unanswered as if that promotes deeper, philosophical thinking. Schindler's List is profoundly deep and not a happy ending. The ending makes us realize how many more lives could've been saved if only more people had cared. It asks the uncomfortable question of what lengths would a society go through to save each other, or watch others die. In this movie, Schindler is merely a symbol of how humanity should have stepped up and done something and is a painful reminder of how millions died because very few did.
Actually, its what humanity did that caused all the millions of WW2 victims. True history of WW2 is as misunderstood than true history of human race. Those are just too uncomfortable subjects for majority, and thus their subconscious blocks the subject completely and resort to calling people as crazy etc. while truth never fears investigation.
One problem is that investigation requires lots of work, and enough intelligence for proving evidence to be original and correct. And great logical sense. Because even if some individuals can be totally illogical and crazy, any large enough group isnt. Ideologies mind sound crazy, might even be crazy, but for those that believe in it, there are logical reasons for doing so.
I like these film makers but when they start to open their mouths jeez I dont need to hear their thoughts or politcal views put them in the film or shut up gilliam is an anti semitic prick I use to like his earlier films but he hates America moved to England thats fine said some not nice things about sid sheinberg about the hold up of brazil by the way if you read the clark novel to 2001 it pretty much describes whats going on at the end like burton both came from animator backgrounds but at least some times, burton can tell a story gilliam its all about the visuals
Rose Carlson it shouldn't be a happy ending and it should've ended showing Schindler dying in crippling poverty because of the choices he made - but the ending of the film with all the people in the desert just ends with a happier feel than it should
shut up anti semite prick@@edward4840
G Kroll To compare someone not liking a film to being anti semitic is truly disgusting. Anti semitism is a truly appalling thing, you should be more careful about throwing around such statements. By throwing it around so carelessly, only ends up lessening the impact of actual anti semitism.
Kubrick and Spielberg were friends, though. Kubrick worked for years trying to tell his holocaust story and when Schindler's List came out, he congratulated Spielberg and said he had done what Kubrick had been unable to. I love them both as directors, for wildly different reasons.
And as far i do know "A.I." was kubrick's project and he was happy that spielberg did make it. Because it was a hard job of which s. was able to execute it.
And the result is impressive. K. was too tired for another hard labour film but wanted it to be done. Maybe the only spielberg film that is more than good entertainment.
I don't know about that info on the list but know that Kubrick liked Spielberg direction and gave him AI scenario to direct.
@@jpgrumbach8562 Kubrick a drawings and characters sho he would have done it different. But still the movie is very good although Spielberg style. End of the world movie I'd also great. It is a great movie and great acting by Tom cruise.
@@innosanto, cruise was in k.'s last movie: eyes wide shut.
They may have been friends, but that does not mean that Schindler's Lust is a good movie. It was a disgrace, even if Kubrik thought it was good. Gilliam was spot on with this remark.
I never thought Schindler's List was about saving a few people. I thought it was about a man, Schindler, who has only cared about money, but who then learns to care about people. Schindler does try to redeem himself which, admittedly, is what most Hollywood movies are about.
I always thought Schindler's List was about Speilberg making a desperate bid to buy his way into a Best Picture award.
As I recall, it was Spielberg's answer to his mother asking when he was going to do a moving about his people.
John,
You are correct.
Terry is wrong.
"Ahhhh, happy ending!"
Not my reaction to watching Schindler's List, but hey, to each his own.
Congratulations you dont got the context
"That's not what the Holocaust was about." Well, Terry, that's not what the book was about either. It was about the attempts of a war profiteer to find his soul in the middle of awfulness and save whomever he could. It wasn't a happy ending, it was an ending about hope, endurance, survival and perhaps learning never to repeat those mistakes again.
On a whole, I agree with the statement that Spielberg's pictures TEND to have happier and well defined endings and Kubrick's films are more open ended and make you think more. I disagree, however, that Schindler's List has a happy ending or that anyone smiles at any time during that movie. Over a million Jews were killed during the Holocaust. We see that devastating horror. Oskar Schindler saved 1,200 Jews. The disparity between those two numbers makes the ending horrific, not triumphant. You leave that movie exhausted and stunned and do not revel in the "happy" ending at all. For me, the story of Oskar Schindler is just the bones on which Spielberg was able to show the horror of the Holocaust.
@@The_Mighty_Fiction I’m so glad someone said this because it’s all I could think. Gilliam is painting it out as if Schindler’s List ends in sunshine and roses and that’s so not the case. He told the story of Oskar Schindler and did it gracefully imo
@@mightyasterisk8333 Speilberg I like some of his films, very entertaining but... Kubrick is right in a way. Saving Pr'v Ryan .,.. historically accurate in ways but corny . The civilians in the bombed out living room is how he deals with the "co-lateral" damage. An excuse for small sprinkle of light relief with the daughter hitting the father. ?
I do agree that Spielberg is keen on happy endings and oversimplifies subjects sometimes. That said, I think Schindler's List is a powerful movie that stands and will stand the test of time. Extremely well shot, great soundtrack, well acted, and very well scripted. Also, it appears to be pretty accurate. As for "happy endings" take "The Pianist", another holocaust movie by a great director who actually lived in Poland during the holocaust. Roman Polanski. What about that ending (SPOILER!) with the good nazi?
Also, I don't think Schindler's List is oversimplified. Actually Oskar Schindler's ambiguity is there on the screen. And Goeth is played as a nazi, racist, mean and brutal. I guess there were nice nazis that loved their wives and children and their pets, but that wouldn't have made Amon Goeth more 3D and complex. It just wouldn't have made sense.
Stanley Kubrick was a genius, but so is Spielberg, and Schindler's List is one of his masterpieces. Terry Gilliam was a genius too when he was in Monty Python.
+Fer Abra 'I guess there were nice nazis that loved their wives and children and their pets, but that wouldn't have made Amon Goeth more 3D and complex. It just wouldn't have made sense.' The scary truth about the Nazis is that there were many of the type you describe. Everyday types who went home after arranging mass killing and had an ordinary home life. Many of them were teachers, accountants,... before the war. I'm not sure I'd label them 'nice nazis' but their conversion from ordinary everyday people to ruthless killers is a part of that history that really scares me about humanity, especially when that conversion was not forced by survival adaptation, but transitioned simply from a need for power, greed, or ego.
Was it not Roman Polanski who was offered the chance to make Schindler's List, but turned it down because it was too close to him? And was he not moved by the finished picture?
Terry Gilliam films are amazing! His work in Python was as slight as it gets. The most basic humor with the most basic animation. Basically a trippy treat and segway tool...
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 "Segue", .
@@geneblack120 don’t forget indoctrination that can happen in the US. We have seen it recently.
Schindler's list in no way had happy ending. The most important scene is when he breaks down in tears realizing he didnt do enough.
But at the end you see all the people he save and their son and daugher's and grandsons's deminishing the meaning of that scene you just mention, that is the confort, the movie dont dare to end in a real dark tone like Come and see a movie way more superior that submerge you in the horrors of war in a more succefull way than Schindler and Private Ryan
And this come from an Spielberg fan i really enjoy his work and his optimistic view of the world but is confort food and nothing wrong with that after all movies are also scapism
@@wilmergimenez yeah, I agree with you: people watch movies simply for escapism- and that is even more apparent for large scale and universally popular films. They need to be accessible to a very large audience and stories are adjusted in order to get the green light. of course, there are films that just border on documentary style retelling of every horrific thing that happens in the world, and that’s great too, but not everyone wants to watch films just like that. We need variety and levity. A movie is not any less authentic or artistic because it has been idealized to some extent. Viewers can suspend their disbelief and see a story through a romanticized and digestible lens, and still not be naive enough to take it face value and understand the full context it stemmed from.
I feel hope and pain when I see Schindler’s list and I feel melancholy, cold dread, and true understanding when I see come and see. These movies did what they intended and were shot beautifully.
It’s all about intention and Schindler’s list intention wasn’t to be this unfiltered trauma porn, bordering exploitation and displaying the degrading of a child’s mind in war time. Of course it would fail to be come and see because it doesn’t have the same intention. come and see Displaying a harsh depiction of war that doesn’t champion or romanticize it is important and it brings up important discussions, but with that in mind it still is a film that can desensitize and disenchant you, and make you down right cynical and in a hopeless state.
It's not about the ending being happy or sad. Is about a film always having the answers for you. Happy or sad, they are answers. What matters is to try here and there to question the audience so they have something to think about after finishing the movie.
but then you had that grave scene in color that probably should not be there.
It is a somewhat happy ending. I just watched 2001 at a theatre in London this evening. A 70mm print with a classic intermission in the middle. The ending of this picture makes you think what is this about. The visual effects are stunning.
I like both kinds of movies. I think by drawing such a hard line between what makes a good movie or a good movie maker is a symptom of a closed-mind.
Youre spot on, not all movies need to be open ended to be great movies, there are bad open ended movies and there are also bad explicitly explained movies. You dont have to be either to be great, its about how you execute.
This.
I came here to say the same thing. It would be a pretty boring medium if every movie ended with a mystery.
Agreed
Yet as a creator, whether I agree with his criticisms or not, I like that he's dedicated to his vision. Creators don't always make the best critics because they are so wrapped up in their vision they can't see someone else's clearly enough. I'm happy that Terry is passionate enough about his vision to say things like this because that is part of what makes him who he is...
I personally think Spielberg is at his best when he was making fun adventure films "Raiders of the Lost Ark' 'E.T' 'Jurassic Park' and 'Jaws'. He is very Hollywood stream in that regard and he is great at it. But to see his more hard edged work, he is indeed a great story teller, but it feels like Kubrick's films are the more out there and thought provoking as Gilliam stated. I will not fault Steven for making block busters, but I will say that if all films came out with a grim ideological feel like Kubrick's movies, then cinema would become a chore very quickly. Spielberg should go back to doing adventure films.
gutz1981 nahh
Spielberg should go back to make things like 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' or even 'A.I'. Fantasy, Utopia, Symbolic tales. He should stay the hell away from reality.
I totally fucking agree-Spielberg is one of the finest filmers of action sequences (of all kinds) in history. Fucking Hitchcock said more or less as much, and rightly so. And he’d know. He should try not to be deep-he’d do much better, and go much deeper! His TV film Duel is fucking phenomenal-really. And I hate on Spielberg’s other stuff more than Gilliam, even-honestly, in part because if Spielberg actually had a top-notch intellect (or maybe it’s just top-notch artistic courage?), he really would be in Kubrick-Kurosawa-anyone else-land. You have to be that good to be that disappointing and engender that much disdain-even when 100% warranted, as I think it is in Spielberg’s case.
Spielberg is his worst enemy, in the 70's, he had the makings of a great artist who could also make commercially successful movies, but it's true that today, his tendency to play on the safe side or sugarcoat his stories ruins his own creations. I saw the last version of "Close Encounters" and I was shocked, the so-called encounter became a real invasion no one could possibly miss and the overuse of flashy effects ruined the 'realistic' atmosphere of the original version.
Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, even ET-all great. I agree with you-it’s a sort of fear of displeasing anyone, I think.
I didn’t understand the plot of “Jaws” till I saw “Jaws 2” then I realized the shark was not really Chief Brody.
You still don't know. The plot of the movie "Jaws" was ripped-off from Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen's 1882 play 'An Enemy of the People'.
@@autodidact537 it was actually ripped off of quite a few things there’s books about sharks and other pieces of literature that make sharks seem like they’re evil and that’s what Spielberg used.
That’s why jaws was an “evil” shark in the movie
Jaws was also made at a time when most if not all people that weren’t marine biologist knew nothing about sharks really
@@adawgnamedcat right so spielberg used some shit about sharks being evil instead of literally the book Jaws
@@lukess.s no, the book jaws identified sharks as evil. Or at least identified them as aggressive and killers. Hence the movie having Jaws be so aggressive and deadly.
Back in the 70s people really didn’t know much of anything about sharks because of the technology, so the movie showed a lot of misinterpretations of how sharks react to people. I’m pretty sure that’s in a documentary or conversation about the movie jaws with people who were part of the movie or in someway connected to it. Or at least I had heard it about the movie lol
"You gonna need a bigger brain."
Imagine if Kubrick had made The Goonies
Lmfao. I would watch that. The kids would get lost in a maze of pirate tunnels searching for treasure and slowly go insane and eat each other. It'd end with Brand hungrily chasing Mikey through disorienting passageways with the audience having no idea if he's even gaining on him at all. Then Mikey would find the treasure after Brand is killed by a booby trap, but it'd mean nothing bc he lost all his friends. That's the Kubrick Goonies.
No.
@@kyleplatz3751 You should make that trailer. Love it.
Which character do you think would have had the honor of pulling off the "Kubrick Stare"?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is a matter of opinion and preference.
Simply because some filmmakers 'wrap it up neatly' doesn't make their work inferior.
I am sure Terry Gilliam has a nice house too
Yeah. But he has to rely on Python reunions to pay for it.That's if cleese hasn't hogged all the money to pay off his ex's.
Bollocks. Kingfisher is the only one I'd watch all the way through. The rest is boring twoddle.
I don’t know-look where all his friends lived: ruclips.net/video/26ZDB9h7BLY/видео.html
I wonder if Lula would agree with you.
What does that even mean?
theres enough space for kubrick and spielberg in the world. spielberg is clearly a master too
was*
That's just it... Terry never said there wasn't room. But as soon as somebody points out what might not be so great after all, or something not absolutely wonderful after we've all been swept up with the greatness, we start finding ways to cushion things for the one that made us feel good. Proving Terry correct.
@@lasvegasloner4621 I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of Spielberg's work, starting with the fact that he doesn't go very deep, nuanced, subtle, or thoughtful with his films. Its more the arrogant, dismissive, condescending nature of Gilliam's critique that makes me get up in arms to defending Spielberg, who despite his shortcomings, is still a master storyteller and filmmaker.
Master-bator and cultural pornographer. Also, Kubrick's gone and speelburg will probably live to be 100.
A master of popcorn cinema sure.
I don’t agree on Shindler list being about success, it just focuses on a man who made a difference and saved lives, never in the film did I get a sense of a happy ending, even At the last scene he cries in regret because he did not do more.
i'm not a fan of the movie or spielberg, but i agree that it does not have a 'happy ending'. in fact that last scene resonates with me. after a good deed we always feel good with ourselves, but then we start to think that there's always something more we could be doing to help others. that's the bitter truth. it does make you think.
Well said.
That's only the last scene of the fictional part, the actual ending is seeing all the survivors today laying tributes to Schindler.
Not all movies need to be open ended to be great movies, there are bad open ended movies and there are also bad explicitly explained movies. You dont have to be either to be great, its about how you execute.
But Schindler saved those people, its a fact. Is Spielberg supposed to make it end differently for him. I know the movie was about the Holocaust but it was also about this mans life and the lives he saved.
I do agree. Looking for specks of good in that morass of evil seems just about the only way to take on the holocaust. I dont recall any films by Kubrik on that subject anyway.
newgeorge actually Kubrick spent much of his career working on a film on the holocaust, entitled "The Aryan Papers." it was the second of his two career-long projects and the third total that suffered the same fate: competing studios rushed in to put out a film on the same topic before Kubrick could finish his. "The Aryan Papers" was eliminated by "Schindler's List" just as "Napoleon" was wiped out by "Waterloo." Of course there was also "Full Metal Jacket" which did make it to the screen, but just barely, as it was endangered by the release of "Platoon." Fortunately there are elements of "The Aryan Papers" in other films of Kubrick, including "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut." Gilliam's point is right on, and I'll improve it. Would you rather have people feeling good despite the Holocaust, or have people enlightened and aware in such a way as to help derail future Holocausts? Spielberg sells because he is selling the easy way out of things, the strong drink, not the light of sobriety. I suppose we need both, and I'm sure Gilliam wouldn't say we don't need Speilbergian films. He's saying simply that he prefers the more intelligent and stimulating film. I couldn't agree with Gilliam more.
That's not the point. The point is that, except for Munich, Spielberg always chooses to tell feel-good stories
It´s a pitty that Spieberg didn´t show in the movie that Schindler died poor and his wife´s only money came from the Argentina´s Government.
@@patrickherron1968 this is just incredibly pretentious thinking, simply because a movie has a happy ending doesnt make it less intelligent nor does it make it less stimulating as feeling uplifted by a work of art is a mode of stimulating. Thematically speaking and from a perspective of character Jurassic Park, saving private ryan and Schindler's list are more poignant and in depth some of Kubrick's works such as the shinning, full metal jacket and eyes wide shut.
Even Kubrick wanted Spielberg to make AI.
The notion that Spielberg movies dont make you ask questions is ridiculous all films make you ask questions even fast and the furious. And all films provide answers even Kubrick movies for every question there is an answer. There may be more morbid but what makes them more thought provoking, feelings are not the basis for how in depth something is explored.
I think Gilliam is missing the point. We are all aware of the horrors of war, and it seems Spielberg wasn't interested in making another movie about that, but raise questions about the nature of humanity. If Evil = fear, control, cruelty, bigotry, and hatred - Can acts of kindness, compassion, and empathy grow from such a horrible place? Ultimately, that is what Schindler's list is about, and I thought it was a great film.
Also, it's not like Spielberg doesn't show the horrors of the Holocaust. Did Gilliam not see the liquidation of the ghetto scene or any scene with Amon Goeth? There is some really disturbing material in this movie.
I don't agree with you that Spielberg raises questions about the nature of humanity - just not Spielberg's style... I think you are missing the point in that Gilliam is saying that Spielberg's movies follow a path toward |paraphrasing here| "tying things up neatly in a little bow.... roll credits" and that is the same thing in Schindler's List. My opinion that Spielberg (and his success) comes from always making "safe" movies - follow a formula. I see Steven Spielberg as a wonderful director, he just chooses to drive different cars (his films) on the same road every time (his film's formula).
@@justincase4812 Exactly.
I don't want to sound snobbish, but for me it's the difference between art and entertainment. Spielberg is great at making entertainment, but I personally wouldn't call it art, because for me art has to raise questions, just like Gilliam says.
At the end of the day, though, it's always healthy to remember that I can't define "art" for other people, and so we'll continue to have these discussion until our species goes extinct.
@tamenga88 what a shit movie to die for
The ending of Schindlers List kind of says the same thing though. He breaks down crying thinking of all the other lives his money could've saved. It wasn't a happy ending.
It's an optimistic movie, despite all the terrible things it's showing... It's like that book by Viktor Frankl "Man's Search for Meaning", written by Frankl during his imprisoment in nazi camps (Frankl was jew)
But, Kubrick was a pesimistic director, it seems to me that Gilliam shares the same point of view, but that doesn't make Kubrick, Gillian or anyone else better or smarter than the optimistic Spielberg.
I, myself, am a pesimistic one, and I like Spielberg movies (many of them, at least) they make me think, I don't agree with Gilliam, Spielberg make me think but in a different way I'm used to, and that's good
That's not the end of the film. The end of the film is the real life people that he saved and their descendents putting rocks on Schindler's grave.
@@danieloneill9560 Ughhh. you're THAT guy. Just fuck off.
That's not the point hes making
It was a sappy sentimental ending and false
Happy ending? I felt like shit after watching The Schindler’s List. Sure it was a nice thing he could save all those folks, but we, as the protagonist in the end, feel the more for the horrors suffered for those who couldn’t be helped.
Terry’s house isn’t as big as Steve’s, but when he shoots it, the roof is up in the clouds.
It is a bit simplistic of Gilliam to suppose that every film should be of a certain kind.....there is room in the film industry for lots of styles/approaches.
It's not about "every" film. It's about taking the deaths of 6 million Jews (and other "undesirables") and turning it into a sentimental movie about the redemption of a wealthy Christian German.
@@mskcrc yes cause that actually happened
@@lampad4549 So the choice to focus on ONE narrative about the Holocaust that happens to a German man... uh huh
@@mskcrc why not? A German was the one who saved 2000 it wasn't a Jew cause the Jews couldn't do anything about it unfortunately, he could have altered it and made it as if he was a Jew in hiding and ended saving all his people ,but what makes it interesting by keeping it German is the display of multi dimensional layers of humans about someone who isn't from the class and way of life and chooses to help those when his background doesn't compell him to have any sympathy for them.
mxsxkxcrc No, it’s about saving 1200 souls who were going to be exterminated
I think at the end of Schindler's List if the film didn't give you a sense of hope after all the horrific murder, that would've been the worst thing they could do
What are you talking about The message was that Oscar Schindler Alone saved As many people as possible. The message was if you are Capable you should help others which He did he helped complete strangers. Despite that fact that he was also German and supporter of Nazi. I think you completely misunderstood the movie
@@neelanshmishra97 "The message was if you are Capable you should help others"...And that isn't a hopeful message? Of course it is. After watching the movie, I felt capable of helping others - if a man like Schindler, under those circumstances can do it, surely I, under far less horrific and terrifying circumstances, can help others.
@@neelanshmishra97 Spot on!
@@g-ma_of_8 Well said.
@Van Groover That’s a poor choice of words considering the subject matter.
The thing is, they addressed these kinds of questions directly in Schindler's List. At the end, Schindler breaks down, crying that he could have saved even more people. He is comforted by his friends and presented with a ring bearing the famous inscription that to save one life is to save the whole world. If this kind of extraordinary action can't be boiled down to simple arithmetic, then neither can the themes be simplified to success vs. failure.
I would add, that Schindlers list is about hope in the hopelest of events. Schindler started his factory just to gather cheap labor but fund the humanity along the way. Spielberg shows both, the horror and the hope during those times.
I don't think either of you quite understand what he was getting at
@@tomoakden2974 But still, during the film both sides of the conflict is presented, the end ist just the opinion of the director/writer of the move. To say, that you cant discuss Spielbergs movies, is to say, (at least for my understanding) that you are unable to make your own opinion.
If there is still a misunderstanding feel free to correct me. Maby you are hintig at a different aspect.
Respectfully greetings
Schindler was a scumbag! How can anybody belive that a person like Schindler who made a fortune of slave labour all of the sudden became a humanitarian as it became more and more evident that Germany was going to lose the war? Dont anybody stop to think that he might have changed his act so he would not be hanged for war crimes? Yes he saved a bunch of people but it was not for their sake but his. And the people he saved would be eternally grateful and witness on his behalf and demand that he was not executed
@@maxmeme4538 Tom (above) is correct neither of you did get what Gilliam is driving at. It doesn't matter that 'both sides are presented' and it doesn't matter that 'at the end Schindler wishes he could have saved more' - the film is a 'success' story, it concentrates on a triumph, whereas the Holocaust is anything but that.
Yeah but Schindler’s list isn’t exactly about the Holocaust, it’s about Oskar Schindler and the backdrop is just the Holocaust. It’s definitely no happy ending either, I always think about Schindler’s list and saving private Ryan compared to eyes wide shut and lolita
.....hmmm, 🤔 never heard/read the word "just " being used in reference to the Holocaust !!
@@paulturnet4572 - JaydnR is correct. The movie was about a man, not about the Holocaust.
The Holocaust was the historical event that made Schindler's brave actions significant, but the movie was not "about" the Holocaust.
@@technowey You are playing with words. It's like saying: "The Godfather is not about the Mafia, it's about the Corleone" or "Band of Brothers is not about WW2, it's about the Easy Company". Of course if you are making a movie about the Holocaust (or any large-scale historical event) you will focus on the story of a few characters. Spielberg wanted to talk about the Holocaust, and chose specifically the story of Oskar Schindler, instead of a story with a bleaker ending.
@@MrAlsachti - I'm *not* playing with words. They guy attacking the movie was doing that.
The word "about" has a meaning.
IMDB describes the movie as:
"In German-occupied Poland during World War II, industrialist Oskar Schindler gradually becomes concerned for his Jewish workforce after witnessing their persecution by the Nazis."
I don't really object to someone claiming the movie is about the Holocaust, but to attack the movie claiming that is wrong, and then requires stating what the movie is *really* about.
Just because there's an important historical event in the movie doesn't make that the central theme, even if that event is critical to maintaining the plot.
I object to the "playing with words," to attack the movie. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that movie. It's a great movie, and the flaw the guy claimed is ridiculous. That flaw doesn't exist.
Didn't The Sound Of Music have Holocaust parts?
I have to say that I both agree and disagree with Terry Gillian. Steven Spielberg, while I do admire him as a film maker and a story teller. As a romantic filmmaker he is more focused on sentimentality, concrete scripts, and streamlined storytelling. This is obvious with Jaws, arguably the first blockbuster ever made. We can debate its long term effects for better and worst for years; but overall It is downgraded, simplified, and more comforting then anything Stanley Kubrick or John Carpenter would make. As a result he does have a hit(Indiana Jones, ET, Jurassic Park) and miss(War of the worlds, Hook,Crystal Skull) record.
However I don't think that's a bad thing. The one great about film is its wide range and ability to accomplish so many things from creating worlds, exploring ideas, telling stories from the past or fiction for a large variety of purposes. They can make you think, or they can make you feel something. You can say that's a cop-out, but when a filmmaker is able to successfully generate sympathy for a Nazi party leader. That's quite an accomplishment.
And that's why I feel that Schlinder's list is ultimately a good movie. It wasn't about the failure of civilization in preventing the Holocaust. It was about Oskar Schlinder in his personal journey from a nazi leader and his eventual transformation into a decent who was powerless to stop the horrors around him, but saw that in his own limited ways could have saved this few people from a pointless death. Because even in the darkest period of human history, there were still those who managed to retain their humanity.
Does that make Schlinder's List any better or worst then Shoah or the Pianist? I don't know. All I do know is Spielberg is a master of his craft, and that craft is romantic filmmaking or more commonly known as blockbusters. And I don't see any reason why anyone should hold that against him. Is he as good as Kubrick, definitely not, but at the same time I don't think the size of Speilberg's house should have any part in how his movies are evaluated.
This should be top comment. Such a balanced, reasonable and informed perspective.
You are sitting on the fence, regardless of how skilfully balanced you are. We do judge directors against each other, that is how people are and will always be. And there is a lot merit in doing so. Some of Steven Speilberg's films are fun and entertaining but I would much prefer to watch something that provokes me into questioning my prejudice, bias, received wisdom, etc.
Jaws wasn't the first blockbuster. www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
I will give you an example of how deceitful and devious Spielberg is: "Bridge of spies" (2015). In that movie Allen Dulles, the head of CIA, is depicted in a benevolent way. Nowadays we know for a fact that Allen Dulles was 100% son a bitch nazi believer and he is 100% involved in JFK murder. Spielberg, who is a jew and as such should really hate nazi, knows that for sure but he didn't give a damm and he ensured that "Bridge of spies" could be as much politically correct as he could
War of the worlds is definetely underrated. Film lost itself when they went to Tim Robbins cellar but before that it was very, very solid. Aliens were frightening without being frightening, is best i can describe the atmosphere before it.
I can dislike Spielberg films artistically and still respect him as an accomplished film maker. Opinions are a beautiful thing because, at this point, we are all entitled to them. Kubrick made more thought provoking films in my opinion. We need more films that can accomplish that task.
Not really, movies like The shinning, eyes wide shut and paths of glory are not more thought provoking than jurassic park, saving private ryan or bridge of spies or even Schindler's list.
Ambiguity doesn't make it more thought provoking from a thematic standpoint
@@lampad4549 Kubrick thrived on exposing the uncomfortable ugliness of reality. That is far different than ambiguity. Spielberg is a conformist. Kubrick was a non-conformist. It's ok to disagree and it's ok to dislike a director for whatever the reason. I don't care if you change your opinion, hold your opinion, or lose interest in films. Agree to disagree or become attached to a subjective, pointless exchange of words.
Enlighten me of which of Kubricks films are more thought provoking then Spielbergs, I like Kubricks movies, but saying he makes more thought provoking movies isn't right.
@@olle12 What you just said shows that you are no cinephile and that you don't understand Kubrick's work. '2001: A Space Odyssey,' 'Clockwork Orange,' 'Full Metal Jacket,' and 'The Shining' are multi-layered and extremely complex conceptually. Kubrick made more thought-provoking films than Spielberg; period.
@@olle12 Kubrick's films force multiple viewings. 'Jaws,' Raiders of the Lost Ark,' or 'Poltergeist' don't move me enough to re-watch them. Spielberg's made good films, but none are as conceptually deep as a Stanley Kubrick film.
But 'Schindler's List' isn't about 'the holoucast' it's about Oscar Schindler and that particular story. I think that there's room in the movie world for serious 'art' AND feel good crowd pleasers, as well as everything in between. Just like music- imagine it was all heavy prog or sophisticated jazz with no pop, AOR, or easy listening to give one's brain a break. Variety is the spice of life!
Spielberg is an incredibly talented filmmaker but his main delivery system is sentimentality. Maybe not so much in the very, very early days but he certainly didn't want to upset anyone in his 80's films and from then on. Kubrick does not do sentimentality whatsoever.
Agree. The only problem (in my view) with movies like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan is that Spielberg had perfect -- PERFECT -- stories if you leave out the horrid "I coulda done more!" scene near the end of Schindler and the opening and closing "Did I earn it?" bullshit in Ryan. But Spielberg can't resist gilding the lilly -- he simply doesn't TRUST his audience to come to their own conclusion about whether it was worth it or what it all "means." On the other hand, no one but Spielberg could have made timeless monumental pop masterpieces like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Close Encounters, so...
@@kpe727 Yeah and it's his sentimentality that tells him to gild the lily because he seems to be completely unaware that the lily has already told the story.
@@kpe727 his audience is people who can't be trusted...
He got Schindler's correct. People tend to forget the camp scenes where the man in charge went around shooting and any person he wants. Please tell me what is sentimental about that. A lot of Kubric films although good make a person want to puke. A Clock Work Orange may have been a great film artistically but the whole film had a sick and twisted view on life, like the commandant of the concentration camp. Kubric makes him the star of the film. Even Malcolm McDowell thought it went too far at times.
@@bec928 The final message of the film is sentimental, not the actual scenes in the film. No one is suggesting scenes depicting the wanton killing of innocent people is sentimental. How you even arrive at that accusation tells me you don't actually get what people are on about regarding Spielberg's sentimentality.
Stating A Clockwork Orange had a sick and twisted view on life is like complaining about water being too wet. That was the entire point of the film. Kubrick isn't afraid to make villains the star of his films. All of Spielberg's films need a good guy as the hero regardless of context. And his heroes gild the lily to the point of it pulling down the entire tree.
Who gives a shit if Malcom McDowell thought Kubrick went too far at times? Most filmmakers and by most I mean 99.9% do not go far enough.
Wim Wenders' 'Paris, Texas.' Haunted me for years and I never watched it again. Never want to. Just made such a, well, scar.
Cinema should do that once in a while. It should also be cookies and milk.
I feel the same way about John Cassavetes's A Woman Under The Influence.
I read a quote in a movie magazine a few years ago, attribute it to whomever you wish: There are only two kinds of movies, one is a candy-coated turd, the other is a turd with candy at its centre.
I never liked the end of Paris, Texas. Not just because it was sad but because at the end, the main character almost forces a lack of resolve instead of letting it be. Which to me was pointless and stupid. He reunited the son and mother. Is he not creative enough to develop some closure with his ex-wife that makes sense? Is he a hero for just leaving?
Watching 'Paris, Texas.' was like, I imagine, having to watch a cockroach spend an hour and a half aimlessly wandering around a room until it died.
If you want to be scared by cinema, just watch some Lars von Trier movies.
It's why Carpenter's _The Thing_ is preferable to _E.T._
Fantastic example. Well said.
Yes!
The Thing is nothing special. It's an average horror movie, just more gory than is typical of the genre.
@@clintonsmith5163 So provocative!
Perfect example. I understood, or thought I did at the time, the reason that almost everyone loved E.T. But it didn't resonate with me at all. But I really enjoyed The Thing and will probably watch it again after this. And I prefer Kubrick over all other American directors.
I'm will continue to ponder the ending of 'Joe Dirt' until my grave.
it's a movie about success
@@TonyTheSamurai Thank you so much. Now, maybe I can finally move on.
@@blujay2084 the original Joe Dirt was very Speilbergian, for existential angst you must go to Joe Dirt 2
@@TonyTheSamurai .. Not yet. I'm not ready. Perhaps in time I will be.
I was too traumatised by seeing our hero Joe get repeatedly farted on to make it the way through the film. Talk about existential angst . . . oh, the humanity!
I agree with Gilliam, but I'm still a huge fan of both Spielberg and Kubrick, and think Schindler's List is a great film. They are my two favorite directors by some distance. That being said, I think Kubrick could have made an even greater film about the Holocaust that would have focused more on the tragedy of the Holocaust itself. It would have probably been one of the most depressing films ever made.
Depressing doesn't make it better.
That's probably why he didn't make it in the end.
I get what you're saying and i wish both could've been made but if only one could, I'd go with Schindler's List. The "happy" ending guaranteed a more palpable watch while still holding the horror of the holocaust within the film. This allows for a larger viewing audience and thus more people being emotionally aware of the holocaust. 'Come and See' is a great, bleak film on war and human atrocity but aint nobody showing that shit in high school classrooms
Spielberg and Kubrick were good friends, too.
Fr he even gave him a movie
@@GREVIEWS02 yep A.I. because Kubrick believed Spielberg is the only guy who can make the robot child loveable like E.T.
@@fr442 and he was wrong. The robot kid is awful.
@@fr442 AI waa rubbish, truly disappointing. Destroyed the career of that child actor too. Can't believe it was Kubrick's life project and that Spielberg made it so over emotional. Nothing in Kubrick's work was over emotional.
@@standafan4141 Kubrick would have done it different it can be shown from his drawings and characters. But he still considered Spielberg a good storyteller and thus is why he gave him the project.
But Kubrick life project although prepared for years was not this. It was the Napoleon movie that he was gathering info 20 years. But anyway from the works done his life project are all the movies he made. Have watched them all except for the ones before the bomb and half of Barry lyndon, and all I watched were great.
So many of the posters don't understand the meaning of "happy ending" when Gilliam refers to "Schindler's List". It doesn't mean a bunch of cuddly characters dancing in a chorus line with butterflies and sunshine. Rather, the whole story points to an act of humanity, in the middle of an evil event. That we can see that tiny spark of a better side of human nature, amid the effects of the worst parts of human nature, is a net positive, and in that sense, it's the happy ending.
I can't help but think Gilliam here is conflating the two. Ignoring that, I don't really see what is exactly wrong with making a story about the best of humanity amidst the worst of humanity. Is Gilliam implying that there is no better side to human nature? Because if we didn't have one, then why would we be making judgement about what is and isn't moral/ethical?
Amen.
@@TalonsofWater My guess is Gilliam's a boomer. He prefers his war movies with a side of boomer politics about the futility of war and the brutalization of soldiers and capitalism and blah blah blah. 'Schindler's List'; has none of that, so the movie is 'stupid' to him because it doesn't raise questions to which he already knows the answers and has seen in dozens of other war movies like 'Platoon,' 'Apocalypse Now' and of course, Kubrick's own effort, 'Full Metal Jacket.'
@@The_Mighty_Fiction Calm down, son. Your guess is wrong. Did you start paying back your rent, son?
@@samsun01 OK boomer
I'm ok with this take. I may not fully agree, but I like hearing differing, thoughtful, opinions.
I don't know, I might be wrong but that seems a little ungracious to me. Spielberg may be different from Kubrick but his vision a film-maker seems no less sincere or genuine to me . And I think its a little unfair to dump Spielberg with the rest of 'Hollywood' so to speak. To me he's set apart from that and any resemblance between the two can be seen as an attempt by the latter to ride Spielberg's coat-tails. I think Gilliam is just being a bit cynical here.
and anit semetic and spiteful speilberg himself said when he was given the book back in the 1980s he wasnt ready to do it not mature enough he said, ill give him credit but I dont like about sir stevie especially at his age after doing so many serious films he keeps jumping back from serious films that dont do that well at the box office to crap like tin tin and ready player one which usually makes money at his age he doesnt need any more moneyo and now hes going to do another indy film well at least its not a sequel to hook arrrgg that was juvenile even by 1990s standards
I don't know if this is brought up later, but it's interesting that Kubrick was a HUGE fan of Spielberg's work.
@Kevin L Well all they said was that it is interesting, a sentiment with which I concur. Your declamation seems a little straw-ridden.
@King Carriere Kubrick and Spielberg were great friends who kept in touch often
"Ah, the List!" -- Jerry Seinfeld
Such a misinterpretation of Shindler’s List from both Gilliam and Kubrick, actually. Spielberg was telling a specific story based on a novel about one man and the Iives he saved. One cannot make a film that fully encapsulates the entirety of the Holocaust.
I posted my comments before I read yours. Well said.
Too bad Spielberg actually changed the story from what really happened to make it more palatable and comforting. Yes Schindler did save some people but the real Schindler was nothing like the person portrayed in the movie. Read the book with the same title to get the real story. I agree with Gilliam I Kubrick I think Spielberg is a third-rate filmmaker.
@@loge10 The film is faithful to the screenplay and the script was written before speilberg came on to the project.
@@takethesky8478 That doesn't really take anything off Spielberg in this as with his professional clout. He probably saw the screenplay as fitting his mindset for the movie. If he wanted to take real risks (something very un-Spielbergian), he could have fought for screenplay changes - he had the clout. After directing Spartacus, Kubrick swore he would never direct a movie that he didn't have complete creative control because he thought the portrayal of Spartacus and the slave revolt was too sanitized and not how things really were. And regarding the book, Kubrick is known for taking a book and making a movie very different - using the book as a motivation. But you know what he would come up with wouldn't be sanitized or PC, which Spielberg excels in. I'm totally dreading his release of West Side Story - one of my favorite works of art of all.
Schindler’s list is many things. Comforting is not one of them.
yea it is, it really is a lame story and it cheapens the Holocaust which is about the most brutal and evil thing that humans ever conjured
@@DeE-pt5lz I really don't think so. It does not cheapens the Holocaust as you say it does. And, besides the film does indeed show the horrors & brutality of it.
If Spielberg's movie was so off in Kubrick's view of what the Holocaust was about, then why did he abandon his movie about the subject post-Schindler's List? Doesn't make sense to me. "The Pianist" was made and I didn't find that much more dreary than Schindler's List. (Except the ending of course) Say what u want about Polanski but he was in the thick of it in reality. I think people glom on that famous Kubrick opinion regarding the movie because of his intellect and Spielberg makes fairy tales because that's what he feels comfortable doing. On a side note "Saving Private Ryan" was not optimistic in any sense. I completely agree with the criticism in how he dealt with the story in "Amistad" tho. That movie seemed way more sugar coated than it should have been.
@@forrestdewitt9827 I suggest watching Like Stories of Old's video essay on Anti-War films. Saving Private Ryan's ending is indeed particularly comforting and uplifting, as it shows the elderly Ryan and his happy family, telling us that all those terrible deaths weren't in vain, thus mitigating the horrific impact of the war.
@@forrestdewitt9827 He abandoned it because Schindler's List was made at the time and didn't want to compete with it. Its the exact same reason he couldn't do his Napoleon movie in the 70's after the dreadful Waterloo was made. He simply didn't like his ideas competing with others similar ideas. It basically all started back in the mid 60's when he made Dr Strangelove which competed against Failsafe and both were heavily inspired from the same novel.
Beyond how an audience member reacts to a film, movies are what their creators intend them to be, and just because Spielberg's vision differs from Kubrick's doesn't make it worse or better. It may be better for Terry Gilliam, who personally prefers films that are more provocative and open-ended, but Spielberg didn't intend for Schindler's List to be enigmatic in any way, and that's not a flaw. Gilliam is asking Spielberg to make a different movie, not a better version of the one he made. It's not fair of him to criticize cinema in general when mentioning how some filmmakers prefer closure rather than ambiguity. Some films are fit to have the former, some the latter. Not EVERY movie has to be open-ended and ambiguous. That's a silly criticism and only a personal preference of Gilliam. And I love movies that are dense and can be interpreted many ways! But the beauty of art and the movies is the diversity and versatility in it. Sometimes a filmmaker will make a film that intends to simply entertain, and if it is greatly effective, then it is a great film IN ITS OWN RIGHT. I'm surprised that Terry Gilliam, the imaginative filmmaker that he is, would put a ceiling on what movies can do. I'm surprised he'd set such limitations on them. Schindler's List was a great film in its own right, and it wasn't trying to be Kubrickian and doesn't have to try. I love Spielberg AND Kubrick for different reasons. Sue me. Spielberg is not a manipulator, he's a humanist. Kubrick is too, but he's much more unconventional, which is also fine. They're great filmmakers for different reasons with different visions and if Gilliam can't see that and thinks a movie only has ONE job then that's unfair judgement.
Exactly. Some movies require and work with closure and some with ambiguity. Totally agree. Shawshank for example wouldn't work with an ambiguous ending. The movie in hindsight has a sense of inevitability and momentum. Other movies absolutely sing with an ambiguous ending. It all depends on the movie.
What a GREAT post!
***** thank you!
Gilliam is confusing a happy ending with an uplifting ending. Schindler's List absolutely portrayed the failure of civilization. The survivors of the Holocaust did not have a happy ending just because they lived through it. They had lost family, friends homes and possessions - all the things that help define us a individuals. They had been degraded, brutalized and terrorized for years. The fact that they're still breathing when it over is not a happy ending, it is simply an ending. For the survivors the happy ending - if there was to be one - would not come until years later after rebuilding their lives, having children and grandchildren, etc. Even then, such happiness as could be found would never be complete. The uplifting part comes from the fact that in the midst of all the madness, some individuals still managed to find both the decency and courage to oppose the evil despite being flawed people their selves. Oskar Schindler was a greedy, vain, drunken womanizer, yet he found it within himself - despite his flaws and his fears for his own safety - to find his own humanity and do the right thing. In the midst of absolute darkness, a spot of light - even a dim, flickering spot of light - can give one hope.
Gilliam is also wrong that the movie doesn't leave you without any questions. I have lots of questions every time I watch this movie. How is it possible for people to engage in such atrocities, not only willingly but gleefully? Can this destructive aspect of human nature be overcome or are we doomed to constantly repeat history? If I see a nazi standing on a street corner, am I morally justified in sucker punching the mother fucker? Does the fact that I want to sucker punch nazis make me a hypocrite? What if I had been born in Germany in the 1920's, would I have been a gleefully sadistic nazi or would I have been able to hang on (despite all the indoctrination) to some decent part of myself and stand opposed? Would I have had the courage? I would like to think that I would have but It is easy to have high moral principles when the consequences don't affect you. I have no easy answers to any of these questions.
I respect Gilliam as a director, but he is wrong on this one.
King Malcolm brilliant comment! I’m with you a 100% on this one.
Spot on! He got Spielbergs A.I. totally wrong too
He is being a blow hard.
Two problems with this. 1) Not everyone can/should be a Kubrick-type storyteller. Variety is the spice of life. We wouldn't appreciate them if everyone had the same approach. 2) Inappropriate choice of words for the end of Schindler's List. Not about success, or can do attitude. It shows the failure of humanity in nearly every frame.
Spielberg is smart enough to know the American movie-going public would NOT sit thru a film about the holocaust without that ending..
I guess Jonathan Glazer didn't get that memo because he's working on one right now and if it's anything like his other films it's going to be deep and wide. But you see that is the thing about Spielberg, he worries about his audience too much. The brave move and the risk taking is to forget about the audience and tell the story. There's just too much fan service these days.
@@cinemar Forget about the audience? Dude virtually all stories are essentially a conversation between the storyteller and...wait for it...the audience. Know thy audience!
@@firstlast-oo1he Dude... The worst thing a filmmaker can do is make a film for the audience. This is why there are so few great films and filmmakers out there. Fuck thy audience. Real vital storytelling is not about pleasing audiences.
@@cinemar And that, I hope to clarify, doesn't mean forgetting that you're making this to be watched and considering the experience for the audience, but rather not catering to audience's whims.
@@bfish89ryuhayabusa Fair enough point but I think that's a given that most filmmakers are hoping for an audience and realise their content is about to be seen by many eyes other than theirs.
There is no single or "correct" way to make movies. Not every movie needs to be deep and philosophical. Spielberg invented the blockbuster and he has his own style. There is a reason why he is so succesfull, because people ENJOY his movies.. that is the whole point, to entertain. How dare he critizise someone else's hard work? It's like critizising a person's form of entertainment. what a shame.. no one is forcing you to watch anything.. some people like artsy fartsy movies, others don't. personally i like both. Variety is a good thing.
Movies are arbitrary, people like and hate them for different reasons. So he has an opinion, I'm sure you have a lot of them yourself. We all do, it's how our brains work when it comes to trivial things. Stating your opinion is not stating a fact, and people are allowed to state whatever opinion they want without being ridiculed by people like you who don't understand what "subjectivity" is.
Well that is MY statement, which im alloud to have, and so do you. But Gilliam states his opinion like it's a fact. I have nothing against opinions.
Oh, he states his opinion like it's a fact?
>how dare he criticize something
>people enjoy spielberg's movies, so he should too
>variety is good
>STOP HATING WHAT I LIKE
you sound like a boy. Innocent, opinionated, unexposed to reality, soaking up what others think like a human sponge.
You reek of what I like to call "black and white thinking".
Upon further inspection, it turns out you're very young. It makes much more sense now. Sorry I was a little mean, kiddo. You enjoying winter break?
Not Benny and yet here you are egging it on.
Saving Private Ryan left me shattered and not comforted. It definitely was not tied up in a bow at the end.
The complaints about SPR often stem from the overly schmaltzy, Hallmark Channel grade bookends. The rest of the movie is pretty solid.
The snobbishness exhibited in this video fails to recognize each individual's experience is unique.
@@GalaxyNexus1 I don't really agree with that: Gilliam didn't say people couldn't enjoy one or the other, or even both approaches. Beyond that, just like individual experience is unique, everyone has their opinions, and If people kept their opinions to themselves on creative works because there will always be someone who feels differently owing to their experience - that'd pretty be boring (not that you're suggesting that - I'm just saying).
@@JET7C0 he doesn't say one can't enjoy both, but he posits one as superior and more meaningful than the other, which I do not agree with and think is a very snobbish, elitist and exclusionary view of art. He even goes as far as to compare Spielberg unfavorably to Kubrick, by calling Kubrick a great filmmaker, with the implication that Spielberg is not. On another note, regarding Kubrick, one could argue a "great filmmaker," shouldn't have to resort to bully tactics and abuse of his actors in order to achieve a "great film," up to Mr. Gilliam's standards.
@@GalaxyNexus1 Sure: superior - in his opinion, which isn't really ignoring individual experience, because he's surely well aware people enjoy Spielberg's films. Also, if someone basically says the reverse of Gilliam here, thus basically Spielberg is 'superior,' would that be snobbish in your mind, or no?
Yet, it is important to know that Kubrick had a lot of appreciation for Spielberg’s work and selected Spielberg to direct A.I, as he felt that the project became more suitable to his sensibilities.
Then Spielberg completely f***ed it up with that ridiculous ending.
That is one film where what Gilliam is saying here could apply, not for Schlinder’s List. AI should have ended at the bottom of the ocean.
@@joebryant8500 It's ridiculous according to you, for me, it's the most underestimated Spielberg
@@joebryant8500 You do realize the ending was Kubrick's idea right?
"Terry Gilliam quotes Kubrick's critique of Schindler's List." There, fixed the title for you.
And eyes wide shut was a piece of crap. Kubrick’s films always make me feel like I am watching the actors from a distance and the characters always seem artificial. But May that’s just me. Eyes wide shut was garbage though.
@Grant Kerr Hey don't knock dickens his stories can be pretty grim....lol
@Grant Kerr Most of the video is Gilliam's referring to Kubrick's words so that description is pretty accurate.
@Grant Kerr Terry Gilliam hiding behind the likes of Stanley Kubrick in order to render a criticism of Spielberg and Schindler's List (and a simple-minded one, at that) is a crucial element that the title of this video leaves out.
@@anthonybrogan390, don't knock Dickens indeed. Oh, and sorry Terry your movie fell below "Schindler's List" on my list.
TOP 33 FAVORITE MOVIES
1) The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982)
2) It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
3) The Prince who was a Thief (1951)
4) Narnia: the Lion, the witch, and the wardrobe (2005)
5) Let the Right One In (2008) - Swedish with English caption
6) A Silent Voice (2016) - Japanese with English caption
7) My Rainy Days (2009) - Japanese with English caption
8) X + Y [a Brilliant Young Mind] (2014)
9) Silence (2016)
10) Beauty and the Beast (2017)
11) Goodbye, Christopher Robin (2017)
12) The Man who Invented Christmas (2017)
13) The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934)
14) Amen (2002)
15) Red (2010)
16) Fletch (1985)
17) Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
18) Men In Black (1997)
19) Star Wars: the Empire Strikes Back (1980)
20) Star Wars: a New Hope (1977)
21) Back to the Future (1985)
22) X-Men (2000)
23) Mannequin (1987)
24) Life is Beautiful (1998)
25) Schindler's List (1993)
26) The Passion of the Christ (2004) - Aramaic with English caption
27) Interview with the Vampire (1994)
28) Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) - Spanish with English caption
29) Midway (2019)
30) Paprika (2006)
31) Johnny English (2003)
32) Cinema Paradiso (1989) - Italian with English caption, shorter version, not extended version
33) The Man who Killed Don Quixote (2017)
The ending to Schindler’s list was never “happy” in my opinion
Right? The climax of the film is Oskar Schindler breaking down realizing how much more he could've done.
It's not a happy movie, but the viewer can leave the movie happy having their questions answered and with the moral the movie is portraying
But the big questions are not answered. How could ordinary people become mass murderers and how could the world stand by and let it happen? The few people at the top were psychopaths but the thousands of people who ran the deportations and the death machine were ordinary germans who somehow became complicit in the worst mass murder in history. To say they were all evil is a cop out. If we don’t make an effort to understand how these people all became morally corrupt we won’t be able to stop it next time.
@@sblack48 It's about personal responsibility e.i. moral and ethics. You can have the same discussion about the Vietnam war. Is it justifiable to participate in an unethical action to avoid personal punishment? Every single guy that got drafted to Vietnam could have chosen prison.. but they didn't.
@@azynkron the difference there is that a lot of guys signed up because they were told they'd be doing a good thing - saving the vietnamese people from communism. They thought they would be treated like heros. But once they got there they found out it was all bullshit and they were stuck. They were not given the honest facts on which to make a moral decision.
"Schindler's List" wasn't about giving the Holocaust a happy ending. It was about a real man who had a real-life character arc. He went from seeing the Jews as just cheap labor to make himself richer to people he would risk his life for. Amon Geoth even tried to tempt him to treat the Jews as commodities when Schindler was rescuting "his" Jews from being hauled off to a death camp. Goeth was like, "This Jew, that Jew, what does it matter? You save the same number of Jews." But Schindler knew them as individuals, not as statistics.
Agreed... by Gilliams logic you couldn't make hopeful movies. I didn't want to get to the end of Schindler's List and wonder what it all meant. Schindler's List isn't diminished for being more on-the-nose. Honestly it had a few scenes that were more profound to me than anything I've seen in a Gilliam movie, despite Gilliam's talent.
It should be noted that the former head of Universal Sidney Sheinberg, who sent Spielberg a copy of Schindler’s List when it was first released and eventually bought the film rights for it, was also the one who wouldn’t release Gilliam’s Brazil unless he gave it a happier, audience-friendly ending. Gilliam then took out a full page ad in Variety demanding Sheinberg to release the film in its original cut. Gilliam may be harboring a great deal of resentment because of that.
Regardless, I still enjoy the work of Gilliam, Spielberg and Kubrick.
Steven Spielberg is very good and tasteful mainstream director. His films are as good as mainstream can be.
He's not really that good if you value imagination and eschew sentimentality.
And mainstream is shit.
Agreed! Most mainstream directors today can't touch the storytelling prowess of Jaws, ET, Raiders, Private Ryan
His films are effective at making you feel certain emotions. But some of his films feel as if they were written to be tearjerkers above all else.
To each his own; if he wants to think Schindler's List has a neat little bow on it, so be it. Schindler's List is an absolute masterpiece of filmmaking. It is a hard movie to watch. If that's his only criticism, I'm sure Spielberg would take it.
No, it’s not. It turns the Holocaust into a goddamn melodrama.
I did not feel that Schindler's List was about success. I felt the full weight of the Holocaust and the complete failure of civilization to allow that to happen watching that movie. There was never "A man can do what a man can do!" moment for me watching that film.
Maybe Terry was rooting for Amon Goeth
Being enigmatic for the sake of being enigmatic shouldn’t be something we praise. Spielberg is one of the best directors ever because he knows how to tell a story. You’re not a better director simply because your films leave the viewers baffled. Romeo and Juliet is not a complex story, but it stands the test of time for a reason, because it was told with a sense of art not often encountered.
Spielberg and his movies both suck. Cheap hollywood crap
Movies can show us what life is like (reality), and what we wish life was life (dreams). Never confuse the two and never say one is better then the other. They both show us what we humans are like....And Gilliam should know this!
this couldn’t be more wrong
All Gilliam said is that the greatest movies don't give you an "American happy ending". And I think it's true. American audiences mostly go to movies that have a three act structure where the ending MUST be uplifting. Gilliam says great art offers many possible answers.
@@Jantonov1 And because art does offer you many different possibilities, why can't an uplifting ending be a valid option as well?
@@Lalo-dh8xq It is valid. Many great movies have happy endings. But usually, the best drama's have more. Most genre movies have happy endings.
@@Lalo-dh8xq It can be valid, but not always so. The presence of happy endings in a lot of American cinema especially after the 70s is something many critique as an overabundance. Consider the "happy ending" tacked onto the theatrical release of Bladerunner. The true ending is ambiguous, but I guess they audience tested it and added a narrator to make sure people knew exactly what was happening and added a happy ending where they live happily ever after. The true ending leaves it open ended and you can ponder the implications.
I disagree. It was a glimmer of hope in the midst of one of the darkest parts of history
Exactly. Schindler's List is uncompromising. It's violent, heartbreaking, and tragic. But there is also affirmation of life, that one man can make a difference, that some people perceive as weakness. I don't see that as a negative at all.
Agreed. The film doesn't shy away from graphic depictions of the depths humanity is capable of sinking to, constantly bombarding us with discrimination and death, and yet also captures a deeply important message through the actions of a real-life historical figure: "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Without certain "uplifting" messages and proposals, all we are left with is pure cynicism and disgust about existence.
to find any hope in that story is, to me, profoundly shocking.
the only honest reading of the 1933-1945 period is that the MOST ADVANCED AND CULTURED society on earth descended into total barbarism with great speed.
and yet, no lessons are learned, and people seek the comfort of Spielberg’s version of history in which there is humanity amongst the horror.
there was no silver lining. to talk of a “glimmer of hope” is actually sickening to me.
@@michaelgauthier2593 “good men”??? this type of thinking is puerile and foolish. there are no good men and bad men. just men.
the moment we allow ourselves to think of ourselves as “good”, we are lost. enthical behaviour is a constant struggle. it’s bloody hard work. i would NEVER EVER dream of claiming that i am a “good person”. we may want or try or even want to be good, but that doesn’t make us so.
a little more moral honesty is very much needed
@@geenadasilva9287 Except then you are dismissing the actions of those who did stand against the regime. You're saying "Only a handful tried to save lives, so it doesn't matter." Considering that hundreds, if not thousands, did try to resist, and that many of those paid for their lives standing against this monstrous behavior, I think your statement is pretty arrogant. Would it have been better if millions of people had simply said no? Of course, that is the way with all terrible man-made events, and even the Nazis could be forced to back down to public pressure before the regime went into its full tailspin of repression (one of the reasons they took so long to move to a real war economy was their fear of public backlash). But to simply discard the actions of those who resisted is disgraceful. Can you imagine placing not just your life, but those of your family and friends on the line in order to save people who could be strangers, or even a group you were taught were "beneath" you? At a time when getting enough rations just to feed you and your dependents was already miserably difficult? The regime cheerfully murdered senior military officers, priests, dignitaries, the upper echelons of the party, and members of ancient houses; no one who spoke out or resisted was safe, and yet there were those who did. But no, let's dump the courageous in the bin, they just aren't edgy or grimdark enough.
I watched 2001 for the first time a few years ago and I don't find the ending THAT thought provoking. It's obviously meant to be, but it is so incredibly ambiguous that I don't have any basis for forming any thoughts.
You get to the end of the film and something happens. Well, what is something? Something is something.
It's like being asked to establish a universally accepted definition of up in a free floating void. You can't quantify something so subjective.
Then you'll find Tarkovsky work even more ambiguous. But in all honesty the Kubricks, the tarkovskyvs, the lynchs make me come back to their films time and again like a thirsty man is drawn to a well. It's always giving more as you see more. With Spielbergs and Tarantinos I do go back to their films time and again but they give less and less as I watch their work.
Nah mate. Nothing wrong with a filmmaker having something specific to say. Not everything has to be open ended, and something doesn’t have to be opened ended either to cause you to think about it. Whether you agree or disagree, movies with a specific message also make you think.
These guys missed the ending and core message of the movie: “Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire.”
The failure of the Holocaust was captured visually by Spielberg brilliantly, but the success/victory out of the Holocaust was survival... and how one man saw beyond his greed to save whoever he could from disaster.
Also he’s pretty pretentious if he thinks that audiences don’t think or talk about Spielberg films after they leave.
He doesn't mean that people don't think about them, he means that, as opposed to 2001 A Space Odyssey, there's little to no debate concerning what the film is about, what it tells you and what it means. The point he is trying to make is that movies such as Kubrick's ask questions and stimulate different and new answers
@@basicallyme220 It seems like a bit of an apples and oranges situation to me. Spielberg wants to tell a story, Kubrick wants to ask a question, neither desire should add to or detract from whether the finished piece is impactful or not
@@basicallyme220 LOL! Most people can't even get through 2001 without falling asleep.
@@HTHAMMACK1 "Most people" is a stretch
Honestly Kubrick is vastly overrated and I find his "philosophy" to be so as well. Kurusowa and Tarkovsky are much more deep, impactful thinkers with more to say than Kubrick who was film's first mainstream hipster imo
"How could you! You were making out during Schindler's List?!"
"What! No..."
"Don't lie, Jerrry."
"...Newman!..."
Giving a sense of hope to the most desperate and terrible situation of modern times is not a trivial thing. Schindler's List is not a naively hopeful film, it's a film that is in full knowledge of its darkness _and yet finds a way to hope._ Isn't that what the holocaust is "about"? It's about reaching the absolute depths of hell and somehow finding a way to keep up hope. It almost feels like he didn't actually see the film.
He may be a brilliant filmmaker, but he's a pretentious prat.
It seems as though Gilliam is suggesting the hope found by the survivors of the Holocaust such as Edith Eger, who unlike Gilliam were actually there and suffered the most wretched evils imaginable, is simply naive and false; that one cannot possibly find hope in such hell. Hope is just as vital a part of the story of the Holocaust as failure is.
Mr. Gilliam: Yes, there has long been a problem with too much happy ending in movies. But Schindler's List does not contribute to that. The film was not the movie-going public's introduction to the holocaust. Schindler's List picked out a particular person whose actions went against the already well known grain. It is good to take a deeper look at a well versed episode from history. It did not happy ending-ize the holocaust.
I dare not imagine what he would say on Benigni's _La Vita è Bella_
That movie is like an inverse of Schindler's list
@@KaninTuzi That movie is like an inverse of a plenty of things.
I feel like we give hopeful foreign hope a pass. Amelie and the film you mentioned are beloved, but so many cinephiles in the states turn their noses up when you try to put Driving Miss Daisy in a top films list.
Schindler’s List-I only saw it when it was in theaters as a ten year old and one of the big takeaways I had was, “I could’ve done more.” So that’s not comforting. The whole movie was traumatizing and discomforting. I think Gilliam and Kubrick are good at what they do, leave us discussing their movies’ themes, and also are jealous of Spielberg. The critique is a little hollow, especially choosing Schindler to pick on.
Yeah the critique of Schindler’s List is hollow, pretending that it’s somehow a comfort movie is a joke.
How to disqualify yourself from criticizing any movie ever again..Well done back than Gilliam
Kubrick is jealous of Spielberg? What? 😳
Spielberg is a master of sentiment, Kubrick was the master of intellectual observation. Both needed in storytelling and cinema/ both appreciated. I find Spielberg's films - particularly his 80s cannon do well made and endearing that that feeling alone provides me with optimism and motivation. Kubrick at times, provides that, and then some.
so*
no offense, i would call Schindlers list a masterpiece but Spielberg lacks something called realistic perception, he forces you a state of sentimentalism and he doesnt reach greatness at all.
I agree. And Kubric, at his best, is not about intellectualism. Though, he confronts the audience in a way that is fertile ground for all sorts of intellectual observations. Spielberg should always be approached with caution due to his overt sentimentality. Not that I don't enjoy E.T. of Close Encounters for fun.
Kubrick and Spielberg were great friends and admired one another’s work very much.
Kubrick made 2001 and Spielberg made Close Encounters, two films that have equally inspired us to believe that we are never alone in the universe.
Some of Spielberg's films touch me in places where Kubrick films could never reach and vice versa. And personally, I'm good with it.
@TrueLifeAdventures Well said. There's room for both in my heart.
I don't see where he was "mean-spirited."
@Stella Hohenheim No doubt the comment was removed by RUclips or the poster, as some cowardly posters I've run across delete their original posts so you can't reply. Do you make it a habit to answer seven year old posts??? I could be dead for all you know.
@@smotnick I appreciate your response time to a reply on your seven year old post. im so relieved you're alive and well
@@conephompany LOL
Lololol glad I came down here
Has this guy seen Paths of Glory?? Kubrick hits you over the head with the message in that one.
Indeed! 'Paths' is a great film! Kubrick's earlier works were great, but not nearly as subtle and thought-provoking as his later ones. I think '2001' was the real turning point.
Bruh, giving message is a different subject than Posing questions. A man can tell his views to the entire world which he thinks is important. And a kubrick's ideas are driven by intellect and facts and not pure sentiments. Ambiguity and posing questions are different kind of films. Both have their place.
I think it's important to remember that Kubrick was a commercial filmmaker. He didn't make art films. All of his films were intended to appeal to a wide crowd and make lots of money, and they did. It just so happens that Spielberg's films were intended for an even wider audience. Also, Kubrick clearly respected Spielberg and was good friends with him, so that's good enough for me. Why not you, Mr. Gilliam?
Frederick Raphael’s memoirs (Terry is referencing) quoting Kubrick’s opinion on Schindler’s List has been denounced by Kubrick’s wife Christiane as false and unreliable biography long time ago.
Just about everything you said here was incorrect
Sydney Pollack ( a good friend of Kubrick) once told him "Admit it Stanley...you make Art Films and disguise them as Blockbusters, don't you?" Spielberg has his place in fun entertainment and hype; but Kubrick is for the ages.
A critic called Clockwork Orange
An entertainment and not artistic.
Dont remember who it was. Actually he said Kubrick makes entertainments. I dont agree
well, Spielberg has succeed in creating time-proof entertainment. we need both worlds :)
What about the boy, who wanted to be Spielberg - Christopher Nolan? He does make entertainment, he does make you ask questions (Following, Memento, Inception...)
Kubrick isn't some holy grail in an artistic and philosophic sense, Akira Kurosawa shits all over Kubrick.
@@olle12 Well all his films are about the decadence of Man , that has philosophical meaning. But not all his films are masterpieces Ive never seen Barry Lyndon it isnt my type. And Full Metal Jacket was overshadowed by Platoon. Clockwork on the other hand is hypnotizing, hilarious and is in my top 5 best films ever.
Yes, but then you have shysters like JJ Abrams who uses the “mystery box” to make stupid dumb plots.
You’re thinking of Rian Johnson
@@mrlarvux yep. Rian Johnson. JJ just took the predictably dumb way out, while Rian Johnson took the unpredictably dumb way out. Either way I blame Bob Eiger and Kathleen Kennedy.
actually they made their films specifically so that you would post this shit in the comments on this video
I don't think Schlindler's list is comforting at all. The hope that the movie presents at the end is not only a complex and difficult answer to the problems of the world, it also doesn't necessarily makes it a comforting movie to watch.
I don’t get what this person is talking about. I left the theater after watching Schindler’s List with so many questions, I went and read history books to learn about The Holocaust, Nazi Germany, and WWII.
I find these days people will say they didn't like a movie and the only reason they can come up with was it didn't give them a warm, fuzzy feeling.
What happens inside a person, feelings, ideas, opinions, seems more important now than ever, to the point where they aren't directly about what's going on in the world.
Maybe you need to reconsider the company you're keeping, then.
While i understand what Terry Gilliam means by his statements i can't help but think he's a bit sour grapes on the matter. Spielberg hasn't been successful in the past because of his happy endings but because he has actually made good quality movies out of stories that not every director could have pulled off. Movies like jaws , close encounters Indiana Jones or Jurassic park could have turned out horrible in anyone else's hand but he managed to make them become classics, especially in the era they were made. I also don't think you can really compare Kubrick to Spielberg because they both made very different movies that serve different purposes. In the end i think cinema Is beautiful because we have both Spielberg directors and Kubrick directors that we can choose depending on how we feel and Gilliam has no right to throw dirt on anyone.
But that's the thing, those films were entertainment, fantastic entertainment,but not intellectually challenging. When you look at SL it's not "entertainment", it's supposed to be challenging and thought provoking, but isn't especially. Perhaps if Schindler was portrayed more as the ambiguous character he seems to have been in real life, it would have been.
you are a slave
@@MrAdamNTProtester And you should learn to respect other people's opinions.
@@thekingsean92 no thanks TRUTH is TRUTH and I have zero respect for satan & his army of LIARS NO SALE
@@MrAdamNTProtester oh ok i get It. Goodbye then
I had a brilliant teacher who once said that if a character struggles through inner or outer turmoil to succeed, a happy ending is earned.
Perhaps it is earned--but it's not always granted. A person can truly love what they do and be really good at it, and still fail miserably. If anyone tells you life is supposed to be fair, they're either lying or they're selling something.
But every protagonist will struggle as without conflict you don't have a story. By the teacher's account that means everything should have a happy ending. I'm inclined to disagree.
@@butterflymoon6368 That's not even remotely what that means. Saying someone has earned a happy ending to their story doesn't mean they have to get one. It just means that a happy ending to their story is just as legitimate a fiction as any other. It's a fucking story, that's all, not a documentary. If you get set off by a 'Happily Ever After' just because joy is not 'realistic' to you, then you are very likely shitty company to watch a movie with, my friend.
See Inside Llewyn Davis.
@@butterflymoon6368 Many protagonists fail to improve themselves.
Coming from someone who loves Gilliam, this is the guy who ended a film by having:
- the lead of the film getting arrested for murder right before leading a castle raid.
- the lead of the film's love interest getting murdered right before he gets arrest. He then loses his mind right before he gets horrifically tortured by his best friend.
- the lead of the film (a child) watch his parents touch a block of concentrated evil and blow up after he tells them not to touch it.
- the lead of the film (a time traveler) realizing that the horrible event he witnessed as a child of a man getting shot and killed was actually future him. He then proceeds to get shot and killed.
I'm sure I'm leaving out other good examples. Point being, Gilliam films tend to end in disturbing and nihilistic ways. There's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. In fact, I love it. But Spielberg has a VERY different way of approaching films. And I think the way he ended Schindler's list was brilliant. There's nothing wrong with leaving the audience with at least a little bit of hope.
He's not totally wrong, he's not totally right. He's oversimplifying "Schindler's List" to an extent that really isn't fair, and ignoring the point that it's absolutely worth remembering and thinking about those whose humanity *didn't* fail. I don't know what good purpose it would serve to overlook the existence of those people, and the difference they made. Is it more intellectual somehow to have a completely jaundiced view, or does it actually serve as a way of absolving oneself of any responsibility for trying to make the world better? Remember that Spielberg didn't just make "Schindler's List", he also created the Shoah Foundation, which found and documented the memories of hundreds of Holocaust survivors. I can't imagine either Kubrick or Gilliam undertaking such an effort.
Gilliam is a great source for this kind of "not-well-reasoned" assessment of things. He has made several of my favorite films, but as a critic he has "chosen poorly"
Thank you, someone had to say it
Yes but his point wasn't that schindler's list is a bad film, it's that it contributes to the trend in Spielberg's films that makes them entertaining but not challenging. In fact he was quoting Kubrick to make that wider point. That even with schindler's list, a film about the holocaust, Spielberg manages to find a "happy" ending.
Welp, I watched it, too, and what he did was to compare Spielberg to Kubrick and say that Kubrick was the better filmmaker because he made people think and Spielberg doesn't. I don't know who the people are who watched Schindler's List and didn't think about it afterward, or thought Spielberg had tied the Holocaust in a bow, and it's absurd to imagine that's the reaction Spielberg was going for.
I’d love to hear what Terry Gilliam has to say about Army of Darkness.
He loves it. Everybody does.
Didnt end in a dragged out psychadelic snorefest with screaming humpback whales. 0/10
Im referencing what he said about 2001 btw
Klaatu, verata, nichto?
I'd love to hear what he has to say about sox and poo poo undies.
@@MrJabez89 Try again. I am IN NO WAY shitting on you for liking it (I know you Sam Raimi fans are touchy) but it and the first film just aren't my cup of tea in any way. I do, however, enjoy the 'boomstick' reference in every damn shooter game that has come out since.... it (no sarcasm) never gets old. That was like my only favored line/scene from the film.
Mysteries like, "Why couldn't they fix the boat if they could build a radio out of a coconut?" are what make Gilligan's Island the best, most compelling TV show of all time.
The greater mystery was, "Why wouldn't Gilligan let them leave the island?"
@MichaelKingsfordGray Like Kingsford? Do you mind if he borrows it?
I remember when Life is Beautiful came out and some said how inappropriate it was. No less than Spielberg replied that there are many ways to tell a story. Life is Beautiful turned out to be highly effective as did Schindler’s List. Mr Gilliam has a different view. So be it.