Man, I wish Woody Allen still made movies as funny as that article.

I was struck by how disappointing, imho, the "Best Screenplay" nominees were, with the exception of Frost/Nixon. And all were adaptations. I was going to suggest that perhaps the GG's should do what the Oscars do and break it out into two categories, but don't know if I trust them to really pick ten good ones anyway. And on the other hand... why do I care?

Do you really think Spielberg was pompous? I think he is the most overrated filmmaker in the history of moving images, but I was interested and strangely moved by that train story. It reminded me of my initial love of movie making.

When you think of at least two of his "history" films - Schindler's list and Munich, there are those that say he "didn't get away with it". So I think those thoughts he claims having are probably real. And for the other, non-heavy material that he has turned into films, perhaps with that stuff (Jurassic Park, Close Encounters, War of the Worlds) he is speaking technically when he says he asks himself "can I get away with this"; or "are people going to believe this?".

In short, man, there was A LOT more to dis about that award show. I feel, strangely, like this might have been one of the only real moments.

Best shot-for-shot narrative filmmaker in history. As in to say, he tells stories with pictures better than anybody. Which isn't to say, he's the most experimental or the most profound. But if you want to learn how to tell stories with pictures, you start with Spielberg. He is Filmmaking 101.

DW Griffith also might be a pretty good place to start.

No. You don't watch Griffith to learn how to use film language. You watch Griffith to see where film languages comes from.

Kubrick had a better sense of how to tell a story with pictures than Spielberg. Maybe he didn't choose stories with as much populist appeal as Spielberg, but his sense of compression, how much information needed or could be fit into a picture, was light years ahead of Spielberg. I could say the same for a lot of filmmakers both past and contemporary: Hitchcock, Bresson (whose entire metier is based on how best to tell a story with pictures), Scorsese, Ozu and, today, Wes Anderson. I have always found Spielberg's movies fussy and hysterical and that most of the emotional heavy lifting done by the score, whether it be John Williams or someone else. I'm not saying that Speilberg isn't a solid filmmaker, because he is; but to hold him up as the sine qua non of modern moviemaking is to mistake quantity for quality. I think Spielberg's true genius lie in his abilities as a producer. But how anyone can watch a movie like Munich, or War of the Worlds, or Hook, or Always, or Jurassic Park 2, or Catch Me If You Can, and tell me that he is a grand storyteller is beyond me. Those movies, to me, are examples of what you shouldn't do as a filmmaker.

Peter: I did, yeah. There was something about his anecdote that came across to me as smug, like he knew that people would love to hear this intimate detail from a great filmmaker's life. It seemed moving in theory, and yet, I wasn't buying it. Just a personal reaction, so be it.

And yes, I know there's plenty to rag on at a silly awards show like that, but if I'm given a barrel of fish, why shoot 'em? These were just the off-the-cuff observations that I felt most compelled to share, and hoped would spark conversation. It's at least worked a little!

Mahmoud-

Kubrick is my favorite filmmaker. Bar none. Greatest overall filmmaker in history. But Spielberg is the best shot-for-shot filmmaker I've ever seen. He's warm butter. Perfectly fluid. I didn't say he was the most artistic, most profound, most experimental. Simply the best example of shot-for-shot filmmaking there is.

Scorsese, whom you mentioned, is actually the fussiest filmmaker around. His editing/movement is completely jagged and constantly calls attention to itself. That's why people always talk about this shot or that shot. Spielberg, on the other hand, is a perfect example of the Marxist dialectic wherein the whole is greater than the parts; you don't realize just how complex what Spielberg is doing with his compositions, movements and rack-focusing because it's so attuned to what's happening.

You don't get to be as successful as he's been if you're just "okay." Ron Howard is just "okay." You get to be Spielberg because you are the best and you keep evolving with the times and setting the bar. It's just that obvious a fact.

Feel free to criticize his artistry, etc. But his use of craft and use of pictures to tell stories is impregnable.

The last ten minutes of Munich are embarassing. Same with Saving Private Ryan. And War of the Worlds. And Minority Report. Knowing how to end a story, what to leave out, is part of that "impregnable" craft you speak of. Knowing what pictures not to use is just as much as sign of a master as anything else. And I don't know if I would call vintage Scorsese "fussy." Dense, yes. And Spielberg is always calling attention to his filmmaking. What do you call the Normandy sequence? His use cutting edge special effect technologies is never in service of the story; iy is the story, the sole purpose for the existence of the movie. Jurassic Park is not a movie, it's a highlight reel for ILM. Plus, I would argue that Spielberg is the greatest exploitation filmmaker of all time. But he doesn't belong with the greats. He just doesn't. Too hit and miss. Too puerile. Too interested in emotionally manipulating the audience with the basest means available. He's a technician. Good for him. As far as technicians go, I'll take James Cameron, if I have to pick one at all, which I would rather not do. I mean, Norman Rockwell was a great painter. But he wasn't a GREAT painter because his art was in service of facile emotions. So is Spielberg's. And it heartens me to know that there are enough people out there who feel the same way I do. A lot of people think Spielberg is the greatest director of all time and just as many people think he's not, which puts him squarely in the middle, which is where he belongs.

Spielberg "sets the bar" for middlebrow entertainment and that's it.

Mahmoud,

You didn't listen to a single thing I said. I was talking craft not artistry.

Your opinions and analyses of Spielberg, his sense of storytelling, use of FX, etc. are embarrassing, and it shows that in this case you either have no idea what you're looking at, or you're letting a preconceived opinion influence the way you watch Spielberg's pictures.

Spielberg is just a commercial exploitation filmmaker interested in manipulating his audience? Um, what do you call Hitchcock? Seriously. Hitchock's status as some kind of great artist only began once his career was over. Before that, he was considered a grand commercial craftsman who manipulated his audiences, nothing more. Same canonization will happen with Spielberg. But this is irrelevant to the point I was making above, which was about his craft and shot-for-shot filmmaking.

He is not in the middle. He is the most consistently significant mainstream filmmaker of the last three decades. It's just that simple. This is an inarguable fact.

Isn't "most consistently significant" an arguable fact, regardless of whom you speak of?

Not with Spielberg it isn't.

Just as it's inarguable that the most significant pop music act of the '60s was The Beatles.

Records speak for themselves.

Your insistence that anything is "inarguable" really does peg you as a Spielberg fan, doesn't it? Life is black and white. There is right and wrong and nothing in between. Subtlety is for suckers and posers and snobs and fakes and frauds. If only life was like a Spielberg movie, right? Unearned homilies and trite conclusions. Yeah, yeah...that has nothing to do with the fact that he is the ultimate craftsman, except, you know, when it does, because craft extends farther than the lense of the camera.

And the Beatles are not the most significant musical act of the 60s. They were the most popular. You seem to confuse the two.

Does that mean The Eagles are the most significant musical act of the 70s? Because going by your logic, it does.

Does that mean the most significant movie of 1979 was Superman? That the most significant book of 1973 was Jonathan Livingston Seagull? Your reliance on numbers is hampering your ability to enjoy all of the great works that traffic in nuance, don't you think?

Boy, you guys aren't listening, are you?

I said The Beatles were the most significant POP MUSIC ACT not musical act of the 1960's. When you combine both their artistic progression with their commercial success with their influence, yes, you arrive at the pretty blatant conclusion that they were the most significant.

The record speaks for itself. There are certain things that are simply above and beyond. Certain things that are inarguable. Whether you like The Beatles or Spielberg that's your personal opinion. But to deny their cultural significance based on your personal opinion is ignorant.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against Spielberg's artistry. I simply said he's the best shot-for-shot filmmaker -- and if you want to learn how to tell stories with pictures you start with him. Which doesn't mean you end with him. You simply start there, and he'll provide your basics. Your 101, so to speak.

Mahmoud: "Your insistence that anything is "inarguable" really does peg you as a Spielberg fan, doesn't it? Life is black and white."

To say this about e.g. Close Encounters Of The Third Kind — a movie about obsession and mania whose tone is deeply at odds with what actually happens in it — is kind of nuts. Spielberg's made his share of unambivalent films for sure, but...I mean c'mon. Loving Spielberg is mental midgetry? Hardly. It's hard to deny that the reason a lot of people write him off is because of his massive commercial success, which is frankly stupid.

Vadim: Go and watch Close Encounters again. Richard Dreyfuss' performance of mental breakdown is ridiculous. The movie plays out like the wish fulfillment of a 8 year old boy. Why can't some of you Spielberg lovers just accept that he is an incredibly immature artist, albeit one with exceptional technical command? I mean, it's not like the man is undervalued or something. He is arguably the most powerful man in American film and will be feted with awards for the rest of his life. Don't you have someone else you can champion? When was the last time anyone other than James Monaco wrote anything nice about Michael Ritchie? I mean, I was really moved and entertained by ET and Raiders when I was a kid, too, but I've moved on. Maybe some of you should think about doing the same. There is a whole world out there.

And Vadim: I don't know if you're the same Vadim who always has his reviews posted on the house next door and other web sites, but I have to say that your ubiquity is starting to grate on me a little. Just like I don't get Spielberg, I don't get you. I don't know who you are, but most importantly, I don't know why I am supposed to care about what you have to say about anything. You're about as hard to escape as Hugh Laurie's dour mug. Don't you have a day job or anything?

Vadim: calling people stupid is no way to debate the merits of a filmmaker who has constantly been taken to task for not growing up. In other words, grow up.

Allen's "set diary" on the production of VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA originally appeared in The New York Times last summer.

Mahmoud: "Don't you have a day job or anything?"

Uh, no. I actually write about stuff for a living. It *is* my day job! The irony of it all just kills me. But I'd never want to inflict it upon you. Did you know that when you see my name, you can choose not to read the article? It'll save you time in the future.

Yeah, anonymous, everything you like is undeniably, unequivocally, unimpeachably the absolute best, end of story. It must be wonderful to be you. I wish I was you. I wished I liked Spielberg and the Beatles, but I don't. Hopefully you will stick around the comments section and continue to prove what incredible taste you have.

I'll stick around, Alan. Just so I can be entertained by your childish comments.

If you can't appreciate the universality of Spielberg and The Beatles, I'm sure your taste is pretty bad. That's the point of their art: Personal expression via universality. Their art is meant to be liked. Maybe that's why you don't like it.

Re-read what I wrote. I wasn't arguing opinion. I was stating some pretty sober-minded, pretty obvious observations. It's not exactly controversial to suggest the two above as being the most significant mainstream artists in their fields. In fact, it's so obvious it's banal.

I didn't realize Armond White anonymously commented on blogs.

No, you're so obvious that you're banal. Everyone has bad taste but you. We get it.

Hey, all. Last time I'm going to say it this week before you force me to censor comments: can we PLEASE keep this civilized? Disagreeing is fine, debating too, but if y'all really need to stoop to childish and petty character snipes instead of thoughtful discourse, Gawker.com is just a click away... the whole point here is to invite people into a discussion, not to challenge people personally just for having dissenting opinions.

Good one, c mason.

Alan, I'm really sorry you're filled with such deep repressed loathing for the useless expensive liberal arts education that brain-washed you into accepting there's no such thing as objective reality.

You haven't said a single thing to refute my statements. Just childish swipes.

And I'm not Armond White.

A good post. I Think Steven Spielberg the best director. I feel his movies are always creative.

Kate

Spielberg a master of pictorial narrative? Have any of you seen Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull? That's not the work of a master; that's the work of a hack. Spielberg toggles between being a master and a hack. I think that disqualifies him from being categorized, in the end as either. He is lies somewhere in between the two, and I think that is a fair assessment of his body of work, one that he has earned.

Between 1998 and 2005, with the exception of perhaps The Terminal, which was well-intentioned yet never quite worked, everything Spielberg did was the work of a master. And I'm saying this as somebody who didn't even like Munich or SPR.

We're talking 7 movies in 7 years (two of the years featured two movies each): SPR, A.I., Minority Report, Catch Me, Terminal, War and Munich. I can tell you that at least three of those movies, from a purely cinematic standpoint, are shot-for-shot light years ahead of anything anybody else can do and has done.

Like I said, I didn't like SPR, but that Normandy scene at the beginning was, quite simply, Spielberg carving his name is stone on the face of cinema. Period.

Crystal Skull, despite interesting themes, didn't work. But I'd argue it was his first film since Lost World in '97, that he didn't have complete control over. He was contractually obligated to make Lost World, and Skull was a collaboration with Lucas, who owned the series.

But there is nothing, nothing that sets Spielberg in the middle.

Speilberg didn't have control over Lost World? Righghghghght.

Spielberg didn't want to make Lost World. He was contractually obligated to Universal for making the first one.

Mickey Rourke made quite a comeback, it seems like that's a big reason why he won