Munich' tells compelling story
July 13, 2006
Recap: Spielberg ‘Shootout’ interview Part 2
When the first part of “Sunday Morning Shootout’s” Steven Spielberg interview premiered back in late June, I read a lot of comments online and through e-mails to our site stating that the interview was too perfunctory and ultimately a let down. Given the nature of a show contained within a half-hour format with three lengthy commercial breaks, it’s understandable that the show would gloss the surface on a lot of points fans would hope to hear Mr. Spielberg make. Regardless, conversation was interesting, and in the second part of the interview, which aired this past July 2, fans may have found a bit more meat and potatoes in the dialogue. What follows is a detailed account of the interview for those unable to catch the broadcast.
Our article on the first part of the "Sunday Morning Shootout" interview can be found here.
After a very brief back and forth about Spielberg being a “touchstone” and a “lightning rod” in modern Hollywood history, Guber and Bart re-introduce Spielberg to pick up the discussion where it left off in late June’s broadcast.
Guber kicks things off by asking Spielberg if he’d ever go back and make a small, low-budget film. Spielberg responds that he’d wanted to direct “Memoirs of a Geisha” as a very small ($10 million), all subtitled Japanese language film, and that no one (presumably meaning Sony) wanted to make the film that way. Spielberg says it’s a fantasy of his to “go off and make a picture like ‘Capote,’” or “Good Night, and Good Luck,” and that it is his “21st century fantasy” to do just that.
Spielberg then said he sees many “(almost) imitations of the tent pole movies of the ‘70s and ‘80s,” but he said he sees just as many scripts going to the boutique studios that are more personal, independent films. He also states that DreamWorks will now be releasing smaller films via Paramount Classics.
Bart zeroes in on Spielberg’s eclectic choices in choosing projects. Spielberg says that he’s always been interested in challenging himself with new subject matter, or a “whiplash” of change from film to film.
Guber asked Spielberg how he chooses which films to make, to which Spielberg responded, “that there’s always been an emotional reason” for him to tackle the projects he has.
The topic of Spielberg’s successes in film, television, cable, etc. is laid on the table, and Spielberg is questioned about why he’s never worked on Broadway. Spielberg seemed sincerely surprised by the question (staggering with a “wow…wow!” while trying to formulate his response). He mentions “American Journey” as being his first live show (although Spielberg’s film work was prepared prior to live event), and says that by 2008 (perhaps thinking about the Olympics ceremonies he’s involved with?) they hope to be doing “mixed media, multi-media innovations” where “the technology hasn’t even been invented yet to pull of the idea,” but he dismisses Broadway as, “another matter,” stating that he is a “much better patron of the arts than [I am] a Broadway impresario.” Ironically, Spielberg is supposedly heavily involved in development of the “Catch Me If You Can” Broadway adaptation, if not as its director.
Bart mentions how persuasive and articulate Spielberg is personally, and asks him if he feels the decision not to discuss “Munich” with the press was prudent in hindsight. Spielberg feels that his decision was right because he has found over his three decades of feature filmmaking that, “when I get asked a question about ‘what did this movie mean?’ and when I give an answer, my answer tends to be everybody else’s answer,” and that it “supercedes the opinion of people in the audience and people who write about films…” In the case of “Munich,” Spielberg “wanted the film to speak volumes, and I wanted myself to shut up. It might have hurt me in the long run, but I don’t think it really hurt the film that much…”
Incidentally, Bart was a very strong critic of the film’s ambiguity in his Variety column. Spielberg defends asking and posing open questions as being an important part of his Jewish heritage. Spielberg also addresses why it was important to him to release “Munich” by year’s end in 2005. Some critics lambasted Spielberg about his “tactics” releasing the film in time for Oscar eligibility, and while Spielberg tells Guber and Bart that he felt it was the right time to release the film (given the events in the Middle East — and ironically the recent week’s events bear Spielberg out even more strongly), there should be no shame in Universal or Amblin releasing the film to be considered for assessment by their peers in the Academy. This, plus the fact that sitting on the film to release it in the New Year in the States (as Guber suggests) doesn’t make good business sense since the early months of the calendar are a dead zone for films commercially. Unfortunately, this is when the film ultimately was released wide across America.
Bart next turns the talk to the subject of test screening pictures. Spielberg says that he hasn’t test screened a film in years, since he hasn’t made a comedy or a mystery (although one could argue for “The Terminal” or “Minority Report” in those genres…) and that he feels sneak previews aren’t helpful with the kinds of films he’s been making in recent years. He also says that there is the modern danger of info about test screenings winding up, “on the blogs sending their reviews to Ain’t It Cool News.” Spielberg says this kind of activity is “unfair to this industry.”
Talk next segued directly into budget bloat in Hollywood filmmaking, with Spielberg citing the dangers of careers, particularly fledgling ones, riding on budgets teetering around the $150-$200 million mark. During this summer of insanely overpriced films like “Superman Returns” and “Pirates of the Caribbean,” it’s timely for Spielberg to speak on this.
Guber mentions inflated expectations for mega-budget films to open with big numbers, and how even a couple of years back, opening with a $50 million dollar weekend was well-regarded (it is no longer, given the current playing field in the industry). Here, Spielberg mentions the 2001 opening of “Jurassic Park III,” and how it opened strong and dropped quickly. Despite the drop, Spielberg enthusiastically cites the fact that “Jurassic Park III” made about $200 million domestically and was ultimately a success for the studio. He says that this summer’s box-office whipping boy, “Mission: Impossible III,” should also have a good chance of becoming profitable for Paramount should it hold on in the long run. (For the record, Spielberg considers “M:I III” a “beautifully crafted and energetic experience.”)
For the last segment of the interview, Bart launches with a great question asking whether or not Spielberg feels that running the DreamWorks studio at its full capacity (previous to the new scaled back production schedule under Paramount’s ownership) took away from Spielberg’s directing work. He also poses a second part to the question about what he calls DreamWorks plans that “wavered a great deal,” and asks if this was frustrating.
Spielberg responds that he was frustrated that people didn’t give him a chance, despite his multiple announcements, to fulfill obligations on other pictures for other studios (presumably “Twister” as executive producer and “The Lost World” as director for Warner Bros. and Universal respectively) before directing his first film for DreamWorks. It was three years between the announcement of the new studio and the 1997 release of “Amistad” before Spielberg had directed a picture under the DreamWorks banner, and yet he made no allusions that starting up the studio wouldn’t take some time.
Despite the slow startup, Spielberg says that he knew that, “we would eventually succeed, and I knew that we would eventually make movies that would be important contributions to Hollywood filmmaking, and that took a couple of years, but it eventually started to happen.” Of course history bears this out with DreamWorks successes (critically and commercially) like “Saving Private Ryan,” “American Beauty,” “Gladiator,” and “A Beautiful Mind.”
Guber comes back to Bart’s original question about Spielberg spreading his energies out as a studio head and as director by colorfully asking if Spielberg was diverting “precious bodily fluid” into areas that take away from Spielberg’s directorial work. Spielberg responds that he knew he’d have to step away from directing for years at a time to devote to the company. He also credits producers Walter Parkes and Laurie MacDonald’s leadership at the studio in helping to give him the security to head off to location to shoot films safe in the knowledge that the studio’s live action division was under control.
Spielberg’s upcoming work on the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening and closing ceremonies was also briefly mentioned. Spielberg clarifies that he is serving as “overseas cultural artistic adviser.” He also says that the project has been in planning for two years at this point, and the team has “concocted a really great concept for an opening and closing ceremony.” To have the honor of presenting their work, the team Spielberg is serving on had to compete with 15 other groups.
The final line of discussion/questioning focused on the differences between Spielberg’s early “crowd pleasing” films and his more eclectic modern output. Spielberg says that in the last fifteen years or so, he’s felt himself pulling away (for reasons he can’t pinpoint) from how his younger self wanted to please the audience. Now, he reasons, he is more “selfish” in that he’s out to please himself. He mentions how he hasn’t really gone back to make sequels or continuations to his beloved early works with the exceptions of the “Indiana Jones” films and “Jurassic Park.” Guber asks what is leading him back to “Indiana Jones” after 17 years. Spielberg says that he doesn’t consider the “Indy” films purely sequels, but self-contained, continuing adventures. The appeal of revisiting the character, he says, is that he wants to be entertained by the Indy character again, and that he wants to find his way back into the genre. A nice ending to the interview considering fans’ anticipation of Spielberg’s return to the adventures of Indiana Jones.
ON DVDS: J.B. ALDERMAN'Munich' tells compelling storyMUNICH
Steven Spielberg directed this compelling story of revenge and religion set around the real-life terrorist assassination of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany. Erica Bana stars as the Mossad agent recruited by the Israelis to systematically hunt down and murder the Palestinians responsible for Munich. Like "Schindler's List," Spielberg takes an historic event and then dramatically fills in the gaps with powerful results. There are no clear-cut heroes or villains in this DVD, mostly just varying degrees of villains. While a bit long for my attention deficit disorder tastes, "Munich" is as entertaining as it is thought-provoking. Is it right for a state to kill a murderer in order to send would-be murders, and the world, a clear message? I still don't know the answer after seeing the DVD, but given the seemingly never-ending cycle of violence in the Middle East, I'm glad the question was posed. (R: Violence, sex, language). 2 hours and 44 minutes.
Ratings (out of 4 stars):
Overall: 3 stars
Kids: N/A
Teens: 2 stars
Adults: 3 stars
Seniors: 3 stars
Should you rent it? Yes -- An intense, important, political drama.
AN UNFINISHED LIFE
A strong cast can't quite propel this DVD over the finish line. That isn't to say I disliked this film about a widowed mother (Jennifer Lopez) who tries to rebuild her life by seeking refuge in the rural home of her former father-in-law (Robert Redford). But "Life" could have been more than it wound up being: an all-too-familiar mono-dimensional tale of redemption and forgiveness (complete with a wise old disabled man played by Morgan Freeman). Penned in by a restrictive script, the acting talent here is never able to be fully released. The domestic violence theme and slow pace make this DVD a poor fit for kids under 12. (PG-13: Language and violence). 1 hour and 47 minutes.
Ratings (out of 4 stars):
Overall: 21/2 stars
Kids: N/A
Teens: 2 stars
Adults: 21/2 stars
Seniors: 21/2 stars
Should you rent it? Yes -- an acceptable choice if your first two choices at the video store are already rented.
BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2
The fact that Martin Lawrence is paid millions of dollars to star in movies like "Big Momma" should convince even the most fervent atheist that the Hollywood gods mock us by foisting false idols upon the world. The plot is a retread of the first "Big Momma" movie: an FBI agent who dresses up as a rotund elderly woman to catch bad guys. The wacky packaging implies this DVD is appropriate for kids -- it is not. (PG-13: Sex and drug humor). 1 hour and 39 minutes.
Ratings (out of 4 stars):
Overall: 1/2 star
Kids: N/A
Teens: 11/2 stars
Adults: 1/2 star
Seniors: 0 stars
Should you rent it? No -- A DVD unfit for human eyes.
J.B. Alderman lives in Piedmont and can be reached at jason@alderman.net or via www.PhDVD.com.