http://youtube.com/watch?v=16LI4TUucW4

In my opinion, Spielberg puts money ahead of art. And even if he does value his art ahead of income, he must be one of the worst artist I've ever come across. I think my 8 year old sister is a better artist than Spielberg. In fact, I think all children are better artists than Spielberg. But, children are probably the best artists on the earth.

Ugh; what to do? What to say? The less financial purpose or investment into personal expression the more pure that expression that is? No; I can list several hundred artists who are finer, more articulate expressers than children ever could be.

I'd love to see a child come up with something like the measured tension of Duel or Jaws, the creative, imaginative set-pieces of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the sheer ferocity of Saving Private Ryan, the - nah, actually, you're right. What am I thinking?

LONG LIVE CHILDREN!!!!!!! I should probably kill myself now, since I outgrew childhood years ago.

Read, by the way, this book. It comes with two warnings: it was written by an adult, and it is very, very long, but delving into it might be beneficial to your approach to Hollywood Cinema (since Spielberg might well be the epitome of its aesthetic), which right now struggles to break the boundaries of disdain.

Children are fantastic artists because they don't really worry about what others will think. At least not nearly as much as adults do. Children don't really care about all the rubbish that comes with creating the expression, they just care about making that expression. But, with age comes a superior conscience, as do insecurities. And, whether we acknowledge it or not, our fears of what others will think do hinder our ability to express, as we will bring ourselves back to modify the original image in order to sweep away negative conceptions that may come from our peers.

And I think that my initial statement, the one you first commented on, answers the bit about financial gain corrupting art. It doesn't necessarily corrupt art. It can, but it doesn't have to. I'm not sure if that's the case with Spielberg. sometimes it is, and other times it isn't. I just can't really connect with his lavish way of presenting things, among several other issues that I hold against him. But, even the films that people hail as his masterpieces, I've never found myself moved by any of them. svsg once commented that he makes a spectacle of nothing, and I'm not sure if that's correct or not; There is a play, the title to which I cannot remember (but I'm certain you or someone else will know what I'm talking about) in which nothing significant happens. It's just two men talking in the middle of the road. Waiting for something that never comes. Someone or something... It just never comes. Is that making a spectacle of nothing? Or does that do the opposite? Does it present it for what it is? Does it introduce it as nothing? Or is it playing down something ultimately significant? Whatever the case, it was much more enjoyable than whatever it is that Spielberg is doing.



When was it established that length is something to turn me off?

When you said it was the main reason why you hadn't read Mein Kempf yet.

And you've spurned my sexual advances many a time because I was deemed "too long" for your fragile, skeletal frame to take.

That play, by the way, is Beckett's Waiting for Godot; it's fantastic.

If it were 900 pages of something I actually agreed with, I'd be all over that. Even if it were something I could maybe, kind of/sort of get behind. But fascism is basically as far as you can possibly get from my beliefs.

Except the bit about exterminating the handicapped and the elderly. I'm all for that.



Thank you! It was bothering me that I couldn't remember the title. Yes, it is a great, great play.

I'm not Spielberg's biggest fan, by the way. Politically and philosophically, his films don't really sit that well with me, but his technical prowess is notable. I think he has been the best bar non over the years at the thing he does: intentionally make profitable, accessible films by making people buy into the notion that when we buy a film ticket, it's like buying a ticket to a fairground ride - we're paying for the time it takes, the seat we sit in and the rush we get.

That's never really been my thing, though. While I do like films that are visually impressive, his films are visually impressive for reasons which don't interest me at all. I'm not really a special effects guy, although I have been known to be impressed by them at times. But, really, I think that his camera placement and use is... Well, kind of bland. Not as great as people claim it to be. The whole CGI thing isn't really for me, either. I don't know.

But, the other things you've mentioned don't really grab me either. It's for this reason that I've enjoyed very few action films, and have never been a "summer-movie" kind of guy.

I feel like I'm over-simplifying what you've said, or even the reaction you may have been expecting, but those are just the thoughts that come to mind when reviewing Spielberg's aesthetic appeal.

And isn't it fucked up that Firefox's automatic spell check recognizes "Spielberg" as grammatically correct?

Even B movie directors making grindhouse movies make intentionally accessible and profitable(for their investment) films.

Well, Grindhouse movies are made for a particular niche audience. And they're accessible because they have faith in their already-converted, nerdy fanbase, who takes pleasure in their low-budget, cheap productions and crass stories.

(And there's nothing wrong with that.)

The reason I made that point was not to say that there is something wrong with the B-movies. My point was that those directors aren't in any "cinematic greats" list even though their intention (accessibility+profit) is same as that of Spielberg. Of course I am aware as I am typing that I am assuming that I know his real motive, which is obviously not true. However those two aspects were pointed out by you in his defense. Also there might be some other redeeming qualities in his movies, but lack of impact (my point) was quickly treated as a not-so-strong point in the context of a grand purpose of accessibility and profitability (by not only you but also others, 24fps among others).

My point was that Grindhouse movies have niche fanbases. Sure, they're meant to be accessible and profitable, but only to their hardcore fans who like that sort of style. Spielberg's trademark films (pre-Schindler's List, really) are accessible (or meant to be) to all; they're designed to be rollercoaster rides, fun for all the family (a film about a legless Nazi she-devil is not), and in buying a ticket to see the film it's also designed to make money for the popcorn companies, the multiplexes, as well. They (Spielberg's works) are products of a vertically integrated system, not an independent structure.

I think you'd get a lot out of that Richard Maltby book I linked to, svsg. Visit your local library.

Looks like the reunion has been pushed back temporarily:

Hurt finger delays Led Zep reunion

How convenient..

My goodness, these guys look like fossils now.

I seen this cover and had to laugh to myself.

WTF is up with Page's hair??

Anyway, here's the text from that article:

The Return of Led Zeppelin
Behind the scenes at the rehearsals for the biggest show of the year -- plus talk of a tour.

DAVID FRICKE

Posted Nov 28, 2007 5:54 AM

On June 10th of this year, at 2:30 in the afternoon, the surviving members of Led Zeppelin — guitarist Jimmy Page, singer Robert Plant and bassist John Paul Jones — met in a rehearsal space to play some songs. It was the first time they had been in the same room with instruments since their rough four-song set at Led Zeppelin's 1995 induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. This time, the stakes were higher: to see if they had the strength, empathy and appetite to truly perform as Led Zeppelin again, in their first full concert since the death of drummer John Bonham in 1980.

The location of the rehearsal, somewhere in England, is still a zealously guarded secret. In interviews a few weeks before Led Zeppelin's December 10th show at London's 02 arena — a benefit tribute to the late Ahmet Ertegun, the co-founder of Atlantic Records — Page, Plant and Jones claim they can't remember the date, what they played or even how the idea of reuniting in honor of Ertegun, a close friend and mentor during and after the band's years on the label, came up. They all agree that playing together again, after so long, was a momentous, emotional occasion.

"It was immediate," Page says brightly, sporting a small splint on his left pinkie, the result of a fracture suffered in a fall at home that forced a pause in rehearsals and the rescheduling of the concert, originally set for November 26th. "Everybody went in with a will to work and to enjoy it. It was a delight."

Plant recalls "a lot of big smiles," wearing one himself. The day was "cathartic and therapeutic. No pressure, no weight." Jones claims he "didn't have any doubts. Someone picked a song. We got through it. And it rocked."

But Bonham's son, Jason, can tell you the exact date and hour Led Zeppelin became a band again, because he was there, taking over for his dad. "They might not know what time it was," he says of the other three, "but I know." For him, it was "a real lump in the throat."

"I didn't think there would be an instant sound," says Jason, 41, currently a member of Foreigner and now a father of two himself. "I thought, 'It's going to take some time.' " He was wrong. The band went right into the slow, dark fury of "No Quarter," from 1973's Houses of the Holy. "When the riff came in, there was this look that went around. It was brilliant." Next, the four hit the desert-caravan march of "Kashmir," from 1975's Physical Graffiti. "Then we stopped. Jimmy said, 'Can you give me a hug?' And Robert shouted, 'Yeah, sons of thunder!' "

Finally, at the end of that day, Jason says, "They said, 'When we get together next . . .' " He laughs. "I thought, 'You mean I get another chance at this?' "

— Excerpt From Issue 1041

I know, that silver hair on Page is scary. Plant's is not much better. 60 year old guys should not have such long hair IMO. Plant looks like a dirty old man. It's nearly the same length he was wearing in Zeppelin's prime. John Paul Jones looked good though.

Plant looks like the Cowardly Lion from The Wizard of Oz.

I guess they can't be any worse then looking at Keith Richards and Mick Jagger on stage.

They're "youngsters" compared to the Stones.

"And their buying a Stairway to Heaven"

I think Page looks worse than Keith Richards now (which is no small feat ). Keith's been a wrinkled mess for a while now, but I think it's the hair that creeps me out with Page. I can't envision seeing Page play "Rock N Roll" or "Custard Pie," etc. while looking like he should be scooping mashed potatoes at a soup kitchen. At least Keith & Mick look like they're rock-n-rollers.

Good call, Just Lou - Plant does look something right out of the Wizard of Oz.

Somehow I have a difficult time envisioning the Lion singing "squeeze my lemon 'til the juice runs down my leg!"

I think Plant needs to borrow Steve Van Zandt's bandana or something...yamma hamma, it's fright night.

I read the full RS article. They're definitely trying to sell magazines with that cover story. After reading it, I have difficulty believing Plant will actually reunite to tour with Page, Jones, and Jason Bonham in 2008.

2007

Hopes fade for grand Zeppelin tour

9 hours ago

Led Zeppelin singer Robert Plant appeared to dash hopes of a reunion tour by announcing he is to go on the road with country star Alison Krauss.

The pair will play a string of dates across the UK and Europe next May, expected to be followed by a series of US shows in the summer.

Led Zeppelin fans have been clamouring for a full-scale tour since the band's triumphant comeback gig in London on Monday.

While guitarist Jimmy Page has indicated his willingness to reform for a full-blown tour, Plant has always been reluctant to commit.

Fans on the band's official website expressed their disappointment at the news. "Oh dear - no Led Zep tour in 2008," wrote one.

"I really am sick to my stomach," said another, while others likened Krauss to a "Yoko Ono" figure for keeping the band apart.

She and Plant released a critically-acclaimed album, Raising Sand, last year. It debuted at number two on the US Billboard chart.

Their tour begins on May 5 in Birmingham and will be followed by gigs in Manchester and Cardiff. The European leg will take in Germany, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, before ending at London's Wembley Arena on May 22.

No other dates have been announced, but Plant and Krauss have said they will tour the US as well.

However, it has been rumored that Led Zeppelin may play a small number of shows together, including New York's Madison Square Garden and possibly the Glastonbury Festival.