Favourite Steven Spielberg DIRECTED sci-fi movie

Hi,

(added this first part later)

... I think it's easy to think so, when it's possible that he is not so sure what is needed, or wanted, which he shows in at least one film, too much! And this would likely have the tendency to allow the actors to be on their own quite a bit. But, acting wise, for an American film, it was nice and different, but interesting all the same, and it was not a cartoonish version of a French man which Hollywood is known for, going back to the 20's and having cartoon versions of colored people for over 50 years.

I had the thought that one of the things about that "new wave" of directors, is that they wanted to do something different, and the problem was ... how can you do it ... without saying anything ... when film, is probably 80/90% speaking? Truffaut, often let the actors do their own thing because he wasn't sure what was needed, and in many cases, it worked, because many actors are very good at just moving and saying//doing something for their character, and many times "better" than the actual writer, since they are "inside" that character.

But the fun/funny part, is how Godard did it ... he knew he was breaking the "rules" and he decided ... he would have fun with it, and he starts all kinds of bizarre bits that ends up making Terry Gilliam in MP look ... weird and strange, while Godard, comes off, more interesting. There are too many examples of this ... some music shows up and he interrupts it and says, it's wrong, and why should there be music here? ... the famous moving camera in the bar going left forever and then coming back, and we hear several different "stories" ... guess what? that's one time when it's true ... exactly what you would likely hear when you do something similar. But in film? You're getting away from the story ... and of course, Godard would tell you that the "story" is a silly kid's game!

Rivette is tough, as I think he simply allows for the actors to figure out what they want to say, although this can be a tough line to define. Mike Leigh, in his earlier days, was horrible in this area, and I even said in a review that this was like watching an actor scramble for a word, when there wouldn't be one needed, but for the sake of "filming" you had to have a word or two, so it is not "empty" and "boring" for 5 minutes. Making an actor go through that, with a live camera is not easy, or fun ... though it would be very different if it were a rehearsal.

Spielberg ... is not one of my favorites, though he has one thing that is really good ... if you want to learn something about directing, Hollywood/American style, you sit and watch his films. They are a "master class" on directing, and I'm not sure that USC has it  any better for their students. 

HI,

If anyone can ever find it, see the Acting Studio thing with Jeanne Moreau. I don't remember it all right now, but I believe she said they didn't have a script for many scenes, which, one might suggest is very Truffaut, when one sees that film that he is directing and has issues all the time with everyone and everything.  Always issues, and he just leaves them and goes to the next moment or detail.

I wish that we had some really good translations and English publications of a lot of their writing in the "Cahier du Cinema", where Truffaut, Rivette and Godard, spent a lot of time looking at a lot of films. In some ways, it was kinda interesting that they all were not afraid to improvise, though Rivette definitely trusted his actors a lot more than the other 2. Truffaut is interesting, but he is not exactly the same director at first that he was 20/30 years later. I think that his "fame" ate up his time, and then the pressure to actually make a "real film" (see that one about him directing with all the parts and pieces for an American made film!!!) as opposed to the European much less costly style, which by that time already had many directors even use hand held cameras ... although the film industry in Italy was owned and operated by one or two studios, but most elsewhere in the rest of Europe (skip England) was quite open, and not exactly well documented, but some really nifty things came out of it ... no one is ever going to say that Sven Nykvist was not exceptional and was the best director with a camera that has ever been! In my book, he "made" Ingmar Bergman, but even in those early films there is material that is likely handled by a smaller camera so it can "move" better and faster.

I would almost suggest that Truffaut was very good when he did not have a budget, and over rated when he did have some money to work with!