Steven Spielberg On Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock & Martin Scorsese
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Steven Spielberg talks about Directors with distinct styles. He refers the work of Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Martin Scorsese and Michael Curtiz.
Subscribe to this channel for more exclusive videos from the AFI Archive: bit.ly/Subscrib...
Follow AFI:
/ americanfilminstitute
/ americanfilm
/ americanfilminstitute
www.afi.com
Steven Spielberg is like the American version of Hayao Miyazaki, which is the reason why he is my favorite director. Because Steven and Hayao make good films that are great at the box office and create visual wonder in them.
Kubrick I think has the most recognisable style of any filmmaker. There are certain things you always have in a Kubrick film, like long closeups of a person's face, long uninterrupted shots, classical music, a famous/memorable piece of music during the opening credits..
Zooms
Symmetrical shots
They have a coldness to them.
@@lewstone5430 in some of them that’s true, but it’s intentional. Two scientists in 2001 are meant to be cold because that echoes idea that people can be even colder than AI at times, which is demonstrated when being forced to lie by humans causes HAL to malfunction. In Full Metal Jacket main theme is dehumanization so obviously it’s going to be kinda cold. Could go further on but those are two good examples.
Hitchcock had his own style yes but he was also a master storyteller.
I'm not quite sure I agree. Hitchcock would begin with a story, but often the story would become lost within the themes and characters he was presenting. Just think "North By Northwest", where, I think, he was joking about that himself.
He definitely had a style early in his career. "Sugarland," "Jaws," "Close Encounters," "E.T." and the Spielberg produced "Poltergeist" all had his trademark slice of life "family home" look. I'm referring to the toys scattered throughout bedrooms and the house, the pop culture references, an attempt to capture a real American family and the relationship between their parents and children. Even "Temple of Doom" has this theme--even though it doesn't deal with a real family, but one created by Willie, Indy and Short Round.
^This.
I also think that the reason that Spielberg doesn't recognise that he has that kind of a style is that he is so used to it. Unlike in cases like Tarantino or Kubrick where the style is so clearly foreign to reality, Spielberg's style is much closer, and as it is he doesn't see the difference because to him, that was (most likely) pretty close to his own childhood imagery.
Victor Fleming directed some scenes of Gone with the Wind ,,then took a golf cart and simultaneously...in the SAME YEAR directed The Wizard of Oz
Seven year old comment but I hate to break it to you but Victor Fleming didn't "direct" that much of either movies. They were more studios and they had multiple directors.
@@TheListenerCanon both movies had disastrous productions and yes plenty of directors who came before them. But he fixed them and made them how they are currently known hence why he gets credit.
I personally believe Spielberg does have a style. It may not be as distinct as Scorsese, Tarantino or even Kubrick, but with every Spielberg film, there's a "human" quality, a sentimentality that is hard to define but is unique to his films. My Favourite director ever!
Unfortunately, sentimental mostly defines his style.
Fergal Hughes Exactly. Tree sap personified.
you have said it!
His sentimentality is one of the things I love most about his films. Coming from a somewhat sentimental guy.
Spielberg absolutely has a style, dripping with sappy sentimentality. He WISHES he had no style. Scorsese has less of a style. Ever watch “Silence”?
Spielberg does have a style. Long scenes in his films tend to have a lot of buildup, some 15 minutes to convey a single idea, but spending all 15 minutes on the different characters and the different details that make it happen. They tend to be curious and full of wonder. Some things are ethereal. Even films that aren't whimsical like The Terminal still convey that sense of wonder. Bad guys are bad guys, and there's no questioning that. Good guys aren't just good, they're heroes.
Nobody moves that camera like you Spielberg so don't say you don't have a style.
Really? Precisly scorsese is well know for his camera moves
Then u guys never saw Andrei Tarkovsky's camera movement
Seriously speilberg is not a Cinematographer
@@BhagyanagarREevery great/big directors do their own camera movement lol u didn't know that? I found some Quora's answer for u hope u can understand better www.quora.com/Do-cinematographers-ever-choose-camera-movements-like-close-up-tracking-etc-or-is-that-always-the-director
"Schindler's List" will be watched in a century from now. "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "A.I." and "Munich" are also masterpieces. Spielberg has plenty of great films - because he's a great filmmaker. That's just my opinion.
Akira Kurosawa was another amazing director who influenced. He made some amazing movies in his time. I'm still trying to find more of his work but what I've seen him make in the 50s-60s is outstanding. I didn't think I'd be one for samurai flicks lol not that that's the only thing he works on. Anyone who loves movies, and doesn't mind black and white or subtitles, start off with "Seven Samurai", "Yojimbo", or "Ikiru" on netflix. Look forward to some amazing acting by Toshiro Mifune as well :)
Even though I think Spielberg can do no wrong, he is dead wrong here. Spielberg has a style, and he can only make Spielberg films, but, that's why I love them so much.
Is "craft" a bad thing at all. I didn't fin the black and white "pretentious" at all (Spielberg took notes I think from Scorsese and "Raging Bull"). Despite how dark, depressing and bleak the film may be I thought Spielberg made it surprisingly optimistic - Oskar Schindler (despite his professional reasons) was a hero who saved thousands of Jews who spawned thousands of families because of what he did. Spielberg's story and craftsmanship make the film a masterpiece.
It's fun that different different directors approach work in different ways. Spielberg is an incredible storyteller.
I agree with him, I don't think he has a style even though his movies are great.
An example of a young director with a style which you can identify quickly is Quentin Tarantino.
AzizTastic nobody has a style more like Wes Anderson.
Yeah I agree, the only thing I can point to for Steven is the constant moving camera. Otherwise there are films you can watch and not realize its actually him doing it imo.
Not to make it seem like hes bad for that, hes still an all time great.
ruclips.net/video/8q4X2vDRfRk/видео.html He does have a style...
Steven Spielberg does have a style. But unlike other filmmakers that ram their styles in the audiences' faces, Spielberg's style is very subtle. He tries to stay hidden. Even his oners are very subtley done
I have only known Steven Spielberg to be stylized. Every movie you ever see of his has his own signature and his own stamp.
What is it about artists like Tarantino, Spielberg and Larry David that I can hear them talk for 2 hours and not get bored.
Welles was an absolute genius.
Steven, you have a style. You are a great filmmaker like Victor Flemming, but you do have a style.
Your style is: BIG! Really BIG. Even your small film, ET, was BIG.
In a Steven Spielberg film, the audience is never left wanting more. Sometimes they want less, MUCH LESS, but they are never left wanting more.
Also, the theme of all your films is: Love conquers all.
If Spielberg has any style it’s that childlike, dreamlike optimism so many of his films have - but I agree with his sentiments. He’s a true DIRECTOR in the classical sense, and probably the greatest film director of all time for that reason. I get where he’s coming from, Hitchcock, Kubrick and Welles all had this thing that you could instantly recognise as “their picture”. Spielberg doesn’t (necessarily) have that - the difference between ET and Schindler’s List is a great example of this - who could predict that was the same director?? He’s so knowledgeable of film genre that he is able to borrow (not saying that with condescension) so many styles to serve the story his trying to tell. I think he’s extremely underrated and blown off as just a “kids movie” guy!
Exactly why collaboration is so crucial
It's bold of Spielberg to say he doesn't have a style, but it's a bit disingenuous. He definitely has a style: a sort of modern matinee style using manipulation and sentimentality. Whether or not you approve of it, he's a master at it, and it's drawn many imitators.
Spielberg is still great. What other director's can put out two films just two months apart that are completely different styles and yet are both so good? I'm talking about the Adventures of Tintin and War Horse just last year, both of which I thoroughly enjoyed.
I wonder if Spielberg’s sense of not having a style is (part of) what drew him to Kaminski, because Kaminski has a more recognizable style. I’m not sure if I’m putting it correctly, but there’s an idea there.
Love this one. Fantastic interview AFI *thumbs up*
His style changed over the course of his career. A lot of creativity.
i think spielberg does have his own style im just not sure how to describe it. theres a lot of family themes in most of his films and an adventure and sort of curiosity. every great director has their own style even if their hard to describe, u see their films and u know who made it. scorsese, spielberg, etc
He's spot on. He has no style and he's probably still the greatest director of all time
He is being very modest.
He has a style. It's called magic.
He have distinctive a style. People are trying to copy it like Roland Emmerich etc. Thats how we know he diretcted Poltergeist and not Tobe Hooper. Because he do have a distinctive style
What about Ishiro Honda, Val Guest, Terence Fisher, Mario Bava to name a few..even Jack Arnold
Also William Wyler aaaaaand perhaps George Stevens.
Scorsese is certainly not "the same" in his every picture. Even though the majority of his films are stylistically recognizable, and deal with subjects, such as mafia and violence, he also made films that the viewer, perhaps, would not "recognize" as "Scorsesian"; e.g. "The age of innocence", "Silence", "The Last Passion", "The Aviator", "New York, New York", among others. And even his "tough" violent films aren't all the same. Compare "Raging Bull" to "Goodfellas".
Speaking of Spielberg, he certainly has a unique style (later copied by a multitude of directors) in the "Jaws", the "Indiana Jones" and the "Jurassic Park" series. No one had done anything like that before Spielberg, and cinema was never the same after these films came out. Spielberg is a genius.
Some of you have said that Spielberg does, in fact, have a style. Okay, then, what is his style? Break it down for me.
@kingcaesar5 - True, but you could tell a Kubrick film "within ten seconds" because of (how Spielberg puts it) the "impeccible craftsmanship" that only Kubrick could execute. If were speaking in regards to subjective versatility - I think Kubrick takes the cake. The man never repeated himself.
He’s an amazing filmmaker with an unmistakable style 😂. Although after Saving Private Ryan that style has been radically changed (possibly subconsciously to fulfill what he’s talking about in this interview?). Or maybe he became conscious of his style and purposely went against it. Minority Report and War of the Worlds feel like Spielberg, but everything after is a far cry from the filmmaker we knew and loved in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s because of choice in story and in the way he presents them.
I always thought the same as well. You can tell a Scorsese & Kubrick movie a minute into the film. Spielberg is pretty different with no style. I'd say he's "versatile." Either way, I still prefer Scorsese over any director EVER
Putting Scorsese in the same sentence as Kubrick is like putting Radiohead in the same sentence as Beethoven, Mozart or Tchaikovsky.
Fuzzy, don't be cruel to Kubrick like that. It's not his fault that he's not as good as Scorsese.
you guys are funny
Me too. Scorsese is my all time favorite
***** Kubrick didn't make the same movie theme for over a decade.
No style? Exactly the same shot repeated in about 4 films? I'll list them if you want.
Exactly. That 'childlike wonder'-shot that he employs *so much* in his films, the tracking in of the camera towards an actor displaying said childlike wonder (be it at Indy trying to get the idol, at an extraterrestrial, at a little girl in a red coat walking and avoiding the Nazis, at a brontosaurus, etc.).
@@fergalhughes165 There are no child-like wonder shots in Schindler's List of the little girl. Either you don't understand the nomenclature or you don't understand shots. Spielberg specifically got rid of camera track, steadicam, cranes, etc for Schindler's List because he wanted it to have more of a documentary feel minus the type of shots you referenced which require specific prep and equipment.
Maybe he's just brilliant in every genre .
This sounds like the quintessential humblebrag.
I recognise Spielberg’s mastery of directing, but I honestly- perhaps with the exception of Schindler’s List- am almost never moved by his work.
His style is the dollar bill
@weikko79 ou have to do some clever manuevering. The Shining is a psychological horror film, and it ranks in the top ten, its not a slasher or gross out film like what natural convention deems as a horror film. By every genre i mean the ones he attempted. De Niro never did a pure western but that doesn't mean we couldn't have churned out an outstanding performance in one.
Animator, Don Bluth said he doesn’t know what his style is.
@kingcaesar5 What makes Kubrick such a versatile film director in your opinion? Not only can you immediately tell his films are his (which if true of Hawks as well, to a degree), but his range isn't that great (unlike Hawks'). You could say that basically all of his films (give or take a few) are about obsession with control (and the ways it can go wrong).
@kingcaesar5 In *every* genre? I doubt that, even though it's true that Kubrick has made his mark in a surprising number of genres (caper film, war film, historical film, sci-fi, comedy). But in my opinion (and many people agree with me) The Shining doesn't make it to top ten in the horror genre, and that still leaves e.g. love films, adventure films, conventional dramas, not to mention musicals :-)
Sometimes as an artist it's hard to see your own style, you need another pair of eyes on your work to see your style. I know it's that way for me at least, but I still don't think I have a style. XD
spielberg you are the Greatest filmmaker who ever lived.
@kingcaesar5 Jack Hill and Howard Hawks are definitely the kings of versatility.
Kubrick never made the same movie twice. Ever.
Genius!
Speilberg is American but seems European in a way.
@FreedInsanity ...And then he directed Crystal Skull
@kingcaesar5 Well, that's pure speculation then. (I presume that by De Niro you mean Bob De Niro; in that case the correct verb form would be "has never done", as he is still living.) IMHO The Shining doesn't work very well as a psychological horror film, and I'm not alone in this view.
@FreedInsanity Ye I agree with that but I guess he didn't try to make a really good movie with Jurassic Park, just dinosaurs. And so the shift of styles wasn't dramatic afterall, as he did have the ability all time. But this discussion is already dead now. We agree and came to a conclusion.
Welles and Hitchcock wrote their material - Spielberg writes invoices, cheques and production schedules.
Craft isn't everything in art...
Spielberg may be a chameleon, but he definitely has a style and that's how and when to move the camera. His camera sense is impeccable. It's story-motivated, but it's definitely a style. And then there's the tender warm heart of the performances, definitely a Spielberg style.
That you could be discussing Michael Curtez "The e Greatest Director Few Know" as well as.Victor.Fleming. Two of the absolute greatest directors in Hollywood History being talked about by an Artist Who Knows His Craft- NOT a You-tube loony, those Knowledgable" people I turn.on.for analysis of Classic films as Art....and I sure don't get even the couple minutes from you. Anyone out there know how I can get analysis of great films by those who know - involving What's in a frame, Ford "painting picture" then Huge Monument Valley and tiny human beings bring feeling of God. I am not looking for extreme Politics from the Left or the Right. I just want films treated as the Art they are. Any suggestions? Please, Please!!
@kingcaesar5 Add Paul thomas Anderson to that list.
Spielberg surely identify himself pretty well
Steven Spielberg just put the finger of what I have always have thought! He isn't a great director, not an original one, and that's why he not one of my favorit directors. What a genius.
I noticed that he doesnt have style. Its obvious. He has a way to do the films, like the ones he said, curtiz, fleming, and even maybe like Z.leonard, or C. Newmeyer... not to have a style isnt bad, spielberg made some great films without style, and the same curtiz or fleming.
@FreedInsanity you think he's the first one to go from laid back-mooded movies to more serious stuff? you agree there are others? Your comment implies that all such other moviemakers are as unique as Spielberg as that's the main talent of his, according to you. I think that's no talent but a conscious decision.
Scorsese doesn't just make Scorsese movie he makes masterpieces
He has made a few masterpieces, but the majority of his work is "only" good to very good.
@meNtor890 Note to self: delete any top-rated comments.
@kingcaesar5 I dont think there is anything left that Kubrick has not touched upon in his career
spielbergs style is divorce and john williams
I strongly disagree - I think "Schindler's List" is one of the greatest and most important films ever made. No better film has or will ever be made on the holocaust. It is a classic film - so I guess we can agree to disagree.
Spielberg is being way too modest.
Comparing Scorsese with Welles and Hitchcock? Please.
Everything else he said I agree with.
He really does not have a directorial style in the sense that he puts his imprint on the picture. But he is very skillful and adroit. I mean Catch me if You Can is 1st class entertainment. Everything on the button.
garrison968 Scorsese is way better than Hitchcock and Welles and Spielberg is the best and the most iconic director of all time.
Sorry.
@@ivanivao7988 I wouldn't say Scorsese is way better than Hitchcock & Welles, but Hitchcock made some pretty awful films. Even Scorsese's weakest don't come as bad as something like Topaz.
Wouldn't go out of my way for any of his except maybe private Ryan and that suffers from smaltz in parts. No Smaltz in QT OW or Hitch. Scorcese overrated too Italian American violent always searching for glory. Just my opinion don't care about yours.
Where is the "too Italian American" violence in the likes of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, The King of Comedy, After Hours, The Color of Money, Cape Fear (violent, but tame compared to some of his others), The Last Temptation of Christ, The Age of Innocence, Bringing Out the Dead, The Aviator, Shutter Island, Hugo, Wolf of Wall Street or Silence?
Scorsese is highly praised, but with people like you thinking he only does not stop violent gangster movies, it makes most of his work underrated. And Hitchcock made plenty of trash as well.
I like how you go out of your way to deflect your ignorant remarks by saying you don't care about other opinions.
@@filmbuff2777 feel better now you got all that off your little chest? LOL 😆
Spielberg absolutely has a style as a filmmaker. We’re now over a decade in to a glut of superhero movies, most of which have tried to emulate Spielberg, and nearly all of which have done so very poorly. The reason why is because Spielberg understands that spectacle is not enough. You have to have a reason to care about it.
This is why people still care about Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark, but Avengers: Endgame has already been forgotten. Spielberg invests very deeply in his characters and makes them relatable. He makes his scenarios relatable by tapping into basic human emotion and experience, always connecting the real with the spectacle. He is truly a master craftsman.
Well his older movies have a nostalgic quality now that may happen with some of the movies out more recently in 20 or 30 years too especially films directed at children they like to watch them again with their kids. I think the script writing has gotten lame in favour of just CGI lately though people care less about the story now but I think many people are also less intelligent now just want entertainment not to think or feel as much.
i agree with some of that. War Horse is atrocious though. Technically brilliant, but he doesn't understand the English.
True. The only superhero filmmaker that was greatly influenced by Spielberg and succeeded is James Gunn with his Guardians trilogy.
Spielberg is a great director, but I don't think he's aware of his own style. He definitely has one.
Spielberg is a craftsman, not an artist.
@@busterbiloxi3833 I think Spielberg took craftsmanship to a high art level.
@@busterbiloxi3833 He's an artist, not in the way you want tho...
@@Lulustucru2393 Yeah, he is an artist and a great one.
He's just being humble
Kubrick is a "chameleon" yet has his own style.
I think for Spielberg to deny he has a style is ludicrous. ONLY Spielberg can make a Spielberg movie, as only Welles can make a Welles movie, etc. et al. Some directors were more adept at genre hopping than others.
As example, Hitchcock, with only a few exceptions, stuck with the suspense/thriller as his metier, whereas a director like William Wyler could go from a classy romantic comedy like Roman Holiday, to a disturbing familial drama like The Little Foxes, to a superb Bible-fiction epic like Ben-Hur, a sprawling western like The Big Country, probably the best wartime melodrama of all time - The Best Years of Our Lives, and then turn 180 degrees to pull off a featherweight and plush farce like To Steal A Million, and do it all with utter easy. But still, it was always 'the Wyler touch' that prevailed in these movies; Wyler's focus on the intimacy of a human crisis or elation to tell his stories.
Personally, I don't think a director can ever shed his 'persona' or the 'impression' his work cumulatively leaves on the hearts and minds of the viewer. Come to think of it: I can't think of a single reason why any director would ever want to try!
Nick Zegarac Hes talking about his own opinion
I was going to write this exact thought. If Spielberg didn't think he has a style then why did he impose his style of filmmaking on, for example, The Color Purple's script?? The original material was much harsher than he was willing to take it.
Well, Hitchcock encompassed a remarkable range of styles and tones under the broad "thriller" umbrella. The man who made Vertigo and North by Northwest and Psycho within two years and change was highly versatile.
Spielberg openly acknowledges the spielbergian style now
Because he does.
Nowadays he's making shitty movies all the time, before they were pretty watchable for the most part
@@classicpinball9873 did you say Spielberg movies were pretty watchable for the most part? LOL!!
I will agree to the part that he hasn't made a good movie since maybe Bridge of Spies. And in my opinion his last great great film was Lincoln. 2015, 2012, so that is 5-8 years ago. But in general he has a stellar filmography that puts him up there with the all time greats.
FINALLY, GEEZ
His style is he loves to torture Nazi’s in film.
I don't think he is entirely right, I do see a Spielberg style particularly in his early years. Even movies like Color Purple and Empire of the Sun had recognisable Spielberg traits and themes. The first film where he completely let go of his style was Schindler's List.
And it was all for the better.
No one captures human wonder better than Spielberg.
Spielberg is unique in that he adopted two styles. First, it was the traditional, adventurous, John Williams-ready capers (Jurassic Park, ET, Jaws). But after Schindler's List, his craft became decidedly darker and more mature (Munich, Saving Private Ryan.)
That is how I see William Wyler, tons of great movies but no identifiable William Wyler style.
When I was a kid Spielberg was an idol to me and I grew up watching movies that he directed and/or produced and I admire him very much and when I started my film course I could admire him much more, because I could see what it is a film production, he's still an idol to me but in a different way. I love blockbuster as I love cult movie, anyway it's Cinema,
Steven, I agree there is nothing wrong in the way you make films. It allows you to to work more often and in more Genres.
Gone with the Wind was directed by Victor Fleming
thats the reason the academy overlooked scorsese, welles and hitchcock, every time thier film came out people were like hey another film that was just like the last one, they didn't pay attention to the craft of filmaking and the subtle touches each director put into his film.
The most versatile director ever is Howard Hawks, then Kubrick (although you can tell a film of his within 10 seconds.
You can recognize a Spielberg film in under ten minutes. He has a way to move the camera, a personal point of view, even the way actors move and talk.
@yohei72 Yeah, I think Spielberg was kind of the generator of that 80's/90's 'blockbuster' look. If you look at movies from then from guys like Zemeckis or Cameron, they've kinda got the same thing going that Spielberg had, except not as good.
absolutely true
I think Spielberg has one of the most (if not the most) distinctive style in the history of moviemakers. Funny he should think the opposite.
While Scorcese and Tarantino try to impose themselves in their work - every picture has to have a priest, has to have violence, etc... Spielberg stays out of the way and serves the story. And so what if he's sentimental? He's not sentimental because a studio or audience demands it of him - it's because he has a heart. Children for generations have identified with the characters in his films, and saw themselves in his stories. Nobody can identify with a Scorcese or Tarantino picture because nobody but the criminally insane behave like the people in their films.
That is a rather simplistic criticism of Scorsese. Where are the priests & violence in the likes of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, New York, New York, King of Comedy, After Hours, The Color of Money, The Age of Innocence, The Aviator, Hugo etc? Yes, he has motifs of catholic imagery in his films, but they don't always have priests, & he is far more versatile than people like you give him credit for.
And how is having thematic motifs bad for Scorsese (or Tarantino), but its good when Spielberg does it (like the father stuff)? Spielberg is still a generally safe filmmaker & his characters are more simplistic than what you get in a Scorsese film. And he has more weaker films.
Scorsese is objectively superior to Scorsese, & you clearly know nothing about his work when you just dismiss it as nothing but violence.
I think he's too hard on himself. Some themes that are in most Spielberg movies are: 1. A kid-like sense of awe & wander. 2. Combining the ordinary with the extraordinary: a typical suburb (ordinary) that has Richard Dreyfuss throwing anything & everything through the kitchen window (extraordinary).
He's far too modest. To a fault.
Scorsese thinks he dose the have a style and Spielberg thinks he does 🤔
Maby directors never will know there own style but will know others
Spielberg sells himself short here. There's never been a director before him who has both that "style" and that versatility that he's talking about. No other director could get away with adapting to as many subjects as he has without his identity being mistaken. "Saving Private Ryan", "Catch Me If You Can", "War of the Worlds" and the "Indiana Jones" movies are all quintessentially Spielberg.
Francis Ford Coppola is another of that ilk. You watch "Godfather", "Apocalypse Now", "Bram Stoker's Dracula", or any of his other films- they are so stylistically different from each other. He approaches each film very differently based on the necessity of telling the story.
Spielberg definitely has a visual style that was evident since Duel, then he refined it in Jaws and Close Encounters. He displays a masterful use of lens angle and camera movement. His movies are satisfying to watch because he fills the frame with information and movement. He creates movies, not talking slide shows.
Spielberg is pretty humble about his craft. He always admired other people craft. That's what kept him going forward. But other filmmakers aknowledge his style such as Cameron, Jeff Nichols and so much more. There's a lot of symbolism, very choregraphed camera moves and strong blocking. It's funny to see people denying his style when it's so apparent ( the use of light for example : nobody would dare light a movie like ET )
COME ON STEVE YOU DEFINITLEY HAVE A STYLE!!!!
the term 'Spielbergian' exists for a reason. Nuff said
Correct Steven .....you have no style !
actually victor flemming did gone with the wind not michael curtiz :)