DIRECTED BY STEVEN SPIELBERG

---

Tools:
Recommend this news to a friend »

---

Analyzing a film´s style–-camerawork, editing, an actor´s position in the image, etc.-–may seem rather dry at first glance. Also, analyzing Spielberg´s most-popular blockbusters from an aesthetic perspective may seem a little unusual. Yet, this is what Dr. Warren Buckland carries out to enlightening success in his latest book, "Directed by Steven Spielberg: Poetics of the Contemporary Hollywood Blockbuster".

In this book, Dr. Buckland charts Spielberg´s aesthetic development from early TV work to his blockbusters. He even conducts an aesthetic analysis, backed by statistics, of "Poltergeist" to determine whether it should be placed under the "directed by Steven Spielberg" label. In making concrete our abstract reactions to film artistry, Dr. Buckland grounds the love of film in informed understanding rather than in florid, empty adjectives.

Recently, I had a chance to catch up with Dr. Buckland to discuss his book.

YEF: Please tell us which Spielberg-directed movies you analyze. Also, tell us why you picked some blockbusters (i.e. populist entertainments) and not others (for example, you did not write about "Hook").

WB: I wrote about Spielberg´s most-popular blockbusters, including "Jaws", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "E.T.", "Jurassic Park", "Minority Report", and "War of the Worlds". My aim in picking these films is to examine what Spielberg does best--make hugely entertaining films which, at the same time, demonstrate a serious and subtle use of technique. I realize that these terms ("serious" and "subtle") are not usually used in relation to Spielberg´s blockbusters, but I argue in my book that these are appropriate words to describe the films listed above. A film such as "Hook" is less successful--that is, it is uneven in the way that Spielberg made it. I wanted to write about how Spielberg made his successful films, and "Hook" doesn´t quite reach a certain threshold.

YEF: I agree with your assessment of Spielberg´s populist movies as serious artistic endeavors. On the other hand, you´re often vague about why you think that dramas such as "The Color Purple" and "Schindler´s List" are not as successful as efforts like "CE3K" and "Jurassic Park". Would you like to elaborate on this matter here?

WB: I wouldn´t say they are less successful films (and let´s be clear: I´m not defining success according to box-office take but in terms of Spielberg´s effective use of film style and technique). On the other hand, Spielberg´s dramas do wear their serious intent on their sleeves, which can be distracting. It is almost as if, in these dramas, Spielberg is telling you to "sit up and pay attention because this is a serious film."

I think we can take Spielberg seriously as a filmmaker by looking at the way he makes his blockbusters. Spielberg has a formidable knowledge of film history; he notices how other directors solve filmmaking problems, and he builds upon those solutions in his blockbusters by offering his own solutions. He offers a lesson to all filmmakers--you need to study the entire history of film if you ever hope to make positive contributions to that history.

YEF: What are your views on the idea that Spielberg directs his dramas in the same manner that he directs his thrillers?

WB: I don´t think Spielberg becomes another person when he switches from his blockbusters to his dramas. He draws upon the same sensibility when making both types of film. If I were to write a sequel to "Directed by Steven Spielberg", I would write about the style and technique of his dramas. I probably won´t do this because I feel I would be saying the same things I say in "Directed by Steven Spielberg".

YEF: You often state that Spielberg was influenced as much by European art films as he was by classical Hollywood cinema. Yet, even though he sometimes uses conventions found in European art films, Spielberg has yet to make an art film himself. Why do you think Spielberg has avoided stepping in that direction?

WB: We should not overlook the fact that Spielberg successfully integrates many European art film techniques into his blockbusters. I examine numerous specific examples of the way he uses these techniques to stage the action, frame his shots, the way he uses the long take (where the shot lasts for a few minutes rather than a few seconds). It is important to note that he uses the long take in almost all of his films with different cinematographers, so it is not a matter of a cinematographer imposing his style on Spielberg´s films.

YEF: One of your book´s arguments is that people interested in film production should immerse themselves in film studies, just as those studying film should immerse themselves in film production. Why?

WB: New filmmakers are very eager to get onto the set or on location and begin shooting their film. However, as I pointed out earlier, a successful filmmaker like Spielberg realizes it is important to study film history, and he has learnt from the successes of other filmmakers. Filmmakers need to steep themselves in film history before they go out and make their films. Spielberg and other directors of his generation (like Scorsese and Coppola) used to watch 2 or 3 films a day; Spielberg will also watch films late at night after working on the set all day. Filmmakers need to be obsessive about films from all cultures and all eras. Film history does not begin with the Hollywood of the 1970s!

On the other side of the coin, those who study film need to be better-informed about exactly how films are made. They need to understand how filmmakers think; that is, they need to know the "poetics" of filmmaking, defined as: (1) what options are available to filmmakers; (2) what choices they actually made in a film; (3) what aesthetic effects those choices achieve; and (4) think about how a shot or scene could have been filmed otherwise. In film aesthetics classes, too much emphasis is placed only on one component--what aesthetic effects a film may achieve, but you can not adequately understand this component without understanding the others.

YEF: Spielberg has a habit of quoting from other movies. What are your views on Spielberg´s habit of referencing?

WB: Spielberg is acknowledging film history, rather than pretending that he is working in a vacuum and is inventing the cinema anew. In other words, he grounds himself in the history of cinema by quoting it. His filmmaking is not derivative since he does not simply quote film history; he transcends it in the process of quoting it. For example, this is evident in "Raiders of the Lost Ark", which quotes extensively from the B serial movies of the 1930s and 1940s, such as "Nyoka and the Tigerman"; at the same time, Spielberg uses these techniques in more-effective ways to create a successful film. You can, of course, enjoy "Raiders" without knowing that Spielberg is continually quoting other films. When you become aware of the films he is quoting, you can appreciate "Raiders" more deeply.

YEF: Many film scholars and film critics (i.e. movie reviewers) feel that discussing numbers of any sort in relation to analyzing movies reduces cinema to a commodity and replaces art with "commerce". Yet, you have championed statistical analysis and box-office analysis. Is this a radical departure from studying the object in question (in this case, the cinematic medium) or a logical outgrowth of film research?

WB: Firstly, I do not discuss box office figures in "Directed by Steven Spielberg". As I pointed out above, I do not define Spielberg´s blockbusters as successful on the basis of how much money they made. Instead, I define them according to their successful use of film style and technique.

Elsewhere, I have analyzed box-office figures, because they represent people´s response to a film. In addition, box-office figures can be read in numerous ways to tell us exactly how the audience is reacting to a film. Just looking at the final gross of a film is a superficial way to read box-office figures; you also need to see how many screens the film appears on, what is the percentage drop from week to week, what is the film´s per-screen average, what is the film´s release pattern, etc.

I do not use this type of analysis in the book, but I do use a different type of numerical analysis--what´s called "statistical style analysis"--in order to examine the style of "Poltergeist". I do this in order to determine who really directed the film--Tobe Hooper (the film´s official director) or Spielberg?

I mentioned that an aesthetic analysis examines technical options available, choices made, etc. Over the course of an entire career of filmmaking, a successful director will develop a consistent set of stylistic choices in their films. By examining their films closely, we can determine what a director´s preferred set of choices are.

The only way to make this type of close analysis reliable is to use statistics to count the choices made. The result of my statistical analysis of "Poltergeist" may surprise a few Spielberg fans. It´s best to read through the evidence before finding out what I concluded.

YEF: You´ve written both film analyses and film reviews. What do you feel are key differences between the two disciplines? Does experience in one help the other, or are they two entirely independent creatures?

WB: Some film reviews are simply advertisements for a film-–they excessively praise a film regardless of its actual worth. They become an extension of the studio´s publicity department. I think these reviewers are simply trying to get their name on a film´s poster or DVD packaging. However, serious reviewers do write well-informed, considered reviews, and they evaluate a film based on an in-depth knowledge of cinema. Like filmmakers, serious film reviewers need to possess a considerable knowledge of film history. It should be obvious by now that film analysts similarly require a considerable knowledge of film history. This is the key to working in or writing about the film industry on every level, and Spielberg is a fine example of a director whose practice is grounded in the history of the cinema.

YEF: That´s it for today. Thanks!

WB: Thank you!

Buy the book online for only $12.97!

---