Professor David Peimer
The Great Directors: Spielberg, Part 1
David Peimer | The Great Directors: Spielberg, Part 1
- Hope everybody’s well everywhere, from a cloudy, rainy Liverpool for a change. So we are going to dive into looking at a couple of of directors, film directors specifically, over the next few weeks. And I’ve chosen a few who I haven’t really looked at that much before. And in choosing Spielberg, and split ‘em into two parts, part one and part two, you know, it’s a debate, it’s a discussion amongst many people, you know, how great he is, how great he isn’t, and so on. I’m going to try and show both sides of that debate, but also suggest that, in the end, he really is superb. And whether one likes the sort of good endings of many of his films, if you like, where good wins out, or whether one appreciates him in a way which is very different to say, Kubrick, and Scorsese, Renoir, Fritzlang, you know, so many of the other filmmakers, Gurisar, it’s so different. And I think the rich treasure of films, like novels, theatre, poetry, everything, is the remarkable range of genre within the genres that we get, the remarkable visions, the remarkable approaches. And I think one has to approach it with that spirit. You know, there’s one Shakespeare, of course, who just, you know, he’s Mount Everest, way above everybody else, obviously. And it could well turn out to be, you know, later in time in film, there’s one who stands out. But, you know, is it Orson Wells, is it others? It’s a far newer medium, it’s only 100 years old, 100 and a bit. And I don’t want to get into the debate of the greatest, that kind of thing, it’s so obvious Shakespeare’s right at the top of the mountain.
But these are great directors, and why are they great? Look at him, and Polanski, and some others, who I haven’t actually looked at that in-depth really before. So, it’s important, it’s not just because they’re popular in adventure and so on, but there’s something else which I’m going to try and tease out, what Spielberg really does offer, from a film point of view specifically, and from a larger cultural or societal, a moment in our cultural history point of view as well. I’m going to interweave a little bit about his life with a couple of movies. He made so many, and so many blockbusters, which made, obviously, an absolute fortune of money. And not always that he would know about it, or expect it at all. And try and show how, almost unassumingly, almost in a fairly… In a very non-arrogant way, it’s his very ordinariness that seems to help make him extraordinary, which is one of the themes I’m going to suggest, is that he understands the ordinariness of life, and then people thrown into extraordinary situations, and how they cope and deal with it, or don’t, what choices they make, where they go, this way or that. And there’s something about his own life, I think, which resonates with that. Of course, we have on the one side, I want to suggest in the debate that it’s his ability as a storyteller, using film specifically, very different to novels, or poetry, or plays, or even music, musicals. It’s as a storyteller, cinematically, that he is so brilliant. It’s very specific, and it’s a very specific art, of how you can manipulate, in the best sense of that word, the camera, and the actors, and light and colour, and location, shooting, editing, crucially, how you can use the camera, the filmmaking devices, to tell stories, “Once upon a time,” et cetera, which we all loved when we were tiny little kids, grandkids love it, kids everywhere. We still love it.
You know, we get together, the family, friends, you know, and we tell stories. He is a brilliant understander of the art of storytelling in our times in using the filmic medium. The second point that I want to argue for him is that he understands, together with that, that story and character are preeminent in everything. That story is obviously, you know, story and character are right at the top. He goes way back to Aristotle Poetics, 33 pages of brilliance, who argued that it’s about story and character. And Aristotle debated with himself, and people have been doing it for thousands of years ever since, which is the most important, character, identify with characters’ emotions, or the structure of telling the story? Which is paramount in all art, and literature, and of course, in our times, film, and internet, and documentaries, and other things. The debate has never been settled. For 2,500 years, people are arguing as vociferously as before. So, I’m going to suggest that he is a master of both, understanding character and story, and how that can be used in a filmic medium to evoke emotion. And that’s the third part of the triangle that I want to argue for him as a great director, how to produce the emotion. Hemingway described writing as, write the dramatic sequence of events that will produce the emotional effect in the reader. Spielberg understands how to structure the dramatic sequence of events in a story with characters that will produce in us, the audience, an emotional response which is very powerful, whether we like it or not. And I think he understands it so well, and is an absolute master.
So, by chance, he was very friendly with one of my absolute favourite, who I think is one of the greatest of all filmmakers, Kubrick. And that they really had a respect, and, obviously, different generations, Kubrick really had a respect for Spielberg, which was huge. And many others. His friendship with George Lucas. And, you know, so many things around his life that his life has encompassed. So, that’s my triangle, if you like, the storytelling using cinematic devices, the character and the emotion that he evokes in us, the audience. On the other side are the critics who argue that his films are sentimental, that they’re moralistic, and they end up being sentimental, you know, in the end, the good guy always wins, and it’s all happy-clappy at the end, and there’s a sentimentality, and moralistic. The critics argue that he infantilizes the audience. Why? Because he turns us, as a spectator, into a child. And then overwhelms us, as children, almost watching the movies with sound and spectacle, that he’s a master of spectacle, which is very different to what they would argue as, you know, showing some truth or reality about human nature. And that he obliterates irony, and this is quoting some critics, they used the word, that Spielberg obliterates irony and reflection. That’s the debate, between what I argued at the beginning, and what I’ve said now, which all falls under the overall category of being a sentimentalist, and that we become childlike as an audience almost, and a couple of tears maybe. But no irony, no reflection at the end, we’re just left with an overwhelming sense of sound, spectacle, and emotion.
So, that’s the critical side of it. Which side of the debate? We all have to choose. But I think he understands brilliantly how to evoke those things that I mentioned at the beginning. He is a pioneer of the modern blockbuster, you know, and we can’t ignore that, we have to fully acknowledge the brilliance. And it’s not easy, and how hard it is, you know, we go way back to film, “Singing in the Rain,” and go way back, even Charlie Chaplin, many, many, many others, we go way back to the early times of film. You know, blockbuster, it’s important, you’ve got to earn the money to pay, you know, it’s got to make money in the end. It’s the society we live in, no choice. And he is, many come to regard him more and more as one of the great, great filmmakers of all time, not only our time. He’s won three Academy awards, two BAFTA awards for Golden Globes, Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2015. So, a huge amount of American and global success for Spielberg. For a young kid, young Jewish kid, born in Cincinnati, Ohio, grows up in Phoenix, and then moves later to California, this is what he achieves. Let’s just step back for a moment. 1975 was the first real blockbuster of his films, “Jaws.” No one can ever forget the name, the word, and the image, and what that evokes. “E.T.,” 1982, the Indiana Jones trilogy, the archetype of, you know, instead of the scholarly archaeologist, you know, and that sort of classic nerdy type of academic scholar, et cetera, no, he’s almost like a cowboy archaeologist who will write out there, and, you know, adventurer and rogue, and rough diamond, but has the intelligence and the intellect as well as the part of adventurer.
Putting those together, not simple to do if you set out to make an adventure story with the Indiana Jones trilogy. “Empire of the Sun,” let’s remember that film as well, 1987. Blockbuster science fiction thrillers, “Jurassic Park,” which then, you know, had sequels spinning off afterwards. Which, the first one, “Jurassic Park” was the highest grossing film ever. Talk about blockbusters, one after the other, after the other. Is it just formula? It’s not. It’s an understanding of those things that I mentioned earlier, I think. These things don’t happen by chance. Maybe one blockbuster or two, if you’re really lucky in life, but more? There’s “Jaws,” Indiana Jones, there’s “Empire,” there’s “Jurassic Park,” and of course the great one that he will probably be remembered for more than anything else, which everybody knows so well, obviously, “Schindler’s List.” And I’m reminded of a story that Joanna Milan told me, Joanna is one of the most remarkable people I’ve ever had the humble, good fortune to meet and interview. I interviewed her for a play, which I wrote about her life, which Janet Suzman performed it at London Jewish Workweek. And Joanna was so kind in giving so much time to being interviewed for the story, in the end, 47-minute story about her life. And she was, you know, three-and-a-half when she was found wandering in Theresienstadt, a concentration camp with her parents, everybody else murdered, killed, without going into the story of her life.
And she was one of the children then taken, the Windermere children taken to England, to help with her recovery. And Joanna said to me, and said to others, when we were interviewed after the plane, she said, “Yes, but from the time of ‘Schindler’s List,’ that was the moment, culturally, historically, when people started to talk much more about the Holocaust,” when the reality and the truth of what had happened, outside of Jewish people, obviously, you know, where it became so well-known, and it became part of educational syllabi, schools, universities, others, teaching not only film, but teaching history, teaching religion, many, many things. And the exposure, that that film opened so many doors, in a massive cultural, western, and I would argue, global context. And I think that point Joanna made is crucial. It was Spielberg’s film, which he never had to make. He made it, you know? Let’s not forget. So, anyway, besides the Academy Award, obviously, then he goes on to “Saving Private Ryan,” a war movie, with those opening 20 minutes of D-Day, the Normandy landings, you never forget. Science fiction films, AI, artificial intelligence. He made “Munich” in 2005, you know, which was a development of the original film, you know, after the Munich massacre of the Israeli athletes in Munich at the Olympics, and then the hunt to kill the terrorists who had done it.
Of course, then he makes “Warhorse,” about a horse in the First World War, based on the novel. He makes “Lincoln” in 2012. I mean, let’s just look for a moment, and I’ve left out quite a few others, but just some of the films, and the range, the vast range of themes, and topics, and ideas that he’s taken on. I think it’s an extraordinary achievement for any artist. Yeah, of course, any filmmaker. 2013, Time Magazine voted him one of the 100 Most Influential People of Our Times. Spielberg’s born in Cincinnati, his mother ran a restaurant, and she was also a concert pianist. His father, Arnold Spielberg, was an electrical engineer. They were part of the reform, which is called the Reformed Jewish, I suppose, synagogues at the time. And, interesting, his grandparents, their Jewish origin was of course in Ukraine. His grandfather Schmuel escaped to Cincinnati in 1906. I’m sure many can share the story, my grandfather was similar coming out of Lithuania, my grandparents, Lithuania-Latvia area, the Lithuanians who many went to South Africa. Anyway, his grandfather escapes in 1906, and gets to Cincinnati to avoid the Russian army, the pogroms, et cetera, and he manages to bring his fiance, Rebecca. Spielberg attended Hebrew school from 1953 to 1957. His grandmother taught English to Holocaust survivors. And he talks about it in an interview, where the Holocaust survivors taught him numbers, because he would look, as a little kid, asking, obviously, about the numbers on their arms, and they would explain the numbers, and how a six can look like a nine, this way or that way.
And they taught him numbers, was his first experience as a very young little kid, you know, sitting with his grandmother, as she’s teaching survivors English. In 1957, the family moved to Phoenix, Arizona, he had a bar mitzvah, and he said, I’m quoting him, that his parents talked about the Holocaust all the time. His father had lost 16 relatives, perhaps more even, in the Holocaust. So, obviously, many, many families will know this kind of thing. But I paint this as a picture to show, obviously, the context, and his origins, and what can lead up to a film like Schindler. ‘Cause today I want to talk more about Schindler, and “E.T.,” and “Jaws.” And we’ll look at some of the others next week. He said, in high school, and I’m quoting him, he said, “I was never ashamed to be Jewish, but I was uneasy at times, and a target,” of what we could call mild antisemitism, certainly compared to today, that’s my phrase, not his. Quoting him, “In high school, I got kicked around, I got two bloody noses, and it was horrible.” So it’s not so different in a way to today, in some ways, but it was obviously less spoken about, and kept more under the carpet than what’s obviously going on today. Then, later, he followed Judaism, had lessons, had a Bar Mitzvah, then afterwards, et cetera. His interest in film started young, his parents taking him to the movies, seeing Cecil B. Demille’s, you know, and other movies. He recalls, and quoting him, “My dad told me stories about World War II, and that there was no glory in war, it was ugly and cruel.” So a young kid, we’ve got to imagine, being told these stories, and understanding this from very early on.
And then he saw films like “Lawrence of Arabia,” which he said, “That was the film that set me on my journey as a director.” Hitchcock’s “The Birds,” Kubrick, “Dr. Strangelove,”, “2001 Space Odyssey,” of Kubrick’s, 1968. These are the films that he quotes as being so influential when he’s very, very young. You got to see that he’s watching these, he’s learning, he’s trying to think about them as a very young guy. And interestingly, well, his parents got divorced, then he went to live in LA with his father. And he applied to the University of Southern California Film School, turned down because of quote, “Mediocre grades.” So he applied and enrolled at the California State University, Long Beach. And conversation he recalled with John Ford, the great director, where John Ford said, “You want to be a picture maker, right? Well, you see those paintings around my office? Now, where’s the horizon?” And Ford asked him, looking at a painting, Spielberg said, “Well, at the bottom.” So Ford said to him, “When you’re able to distinguish the art of the horizon at the bottom of a frame, or at the top of a frame, but not go through the centre of the frame to understand where the horizon is, then you’ve got a chance, you might make it as a filmmaker.” It’s a way of seeing the world. Picasso used to talk about, “When I see a tree, I see shape, colour, angle. I don’t just see a tree.” Van Gogh used to talk about, “I don’t just see flowers, I see the restless movement of the wind.” So it’s how the artists will see something, which is obviously different to how a scientist, a chemist, or anybody else will see the same object. You know, it’s his artistic way of seeing it. The producers Zanuck and Brown took a chance to direct “Jaws” in 1975. Was this going to make it?
Was it going to be a hit, wasn’t it? Was it going to be something or wasn’t it? A story about sharks, and the terror and the fear, very iffy. If at the time such a movie could become so popular, and become the blockbuster, you know, that we all can never forget now. You know, even just coming up with that title, it’s not called, “The Shark,” it’s not many other words one could use. “Jaws” is so much more emotionally evocative, and gut-ripping and wrenching, obviously. So, they took a chance on him. He shot “Jaws” on the open ocean. That’s really hard to shoot a movie. I mean, you can imagine, there’s the weather, obviously, there’s the light, which is probably the most crucial in all film making. What do you do with the light if it’s cloudy or not, or this or that, you know? Anyway, there’s the light. There’s obviously the weather, and obviously, the movement of the sea. It’s hard, but he insisted on shooting it on an open ocean, so that makes it really hard. Then he has a mechanical shark, which caused endless problems. Didn’t work, it did work, you know, you all remember that shark image, it worked, it didn’t work, and then the shark, just flopped to the bottom of the sea, you know, go up and down. You can imagine all the chaoticness, this is in the mid-70s, so we don’t have the technical wizardry that we have today, you know, just getting a shark to not malfunction. Schedule overran by 100 days. Universal Studios threatened to cancel the whole project, 100 days is a hell of a lot of money. And he’s a beginning director, you know, so it’s touch and go whether they’re going to cancel, and his whole career might have changed, who knows?
Against all expectations, from the studios, from so many people, it became one of the biggest box office hits on record, and wins Academy awards. We all know the result, et cetera. But the reason, what I want to bring to attention, is that what Spielberg understood, and this is in the making of it, because the shark, mechanical shark, is giving so many problems, he thought, “I’ve got to use the shark as little as possible. I can’t get a whole new one made. There’s no money. And it’ll take a whole lot of extra days and time.” And you can imagine sort of the hassle, and the sorrows that goes into it. So he thought out the box, and this is part of his brilliance, “Well, I’m going to use many, many things to suggest something scary, suggest a shark.” We all know, endless pictures of the sea, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? You know, not necessarily a tsunami, it’s a shark that comes to mind. But he had to find, he says in an interview, he had to find many other ways to suggest the shark’s presence, without showing anything of a shark. Suggest it, hint at it, create the feeling of terror possibly to come. And it’s a technique that he learned so early on with “Jaws,” forced on him because the mechanics of the shark weren’t working, and because the budget was going way over.
And it’s that brilliance in the moment, to make these decisions, and to realise, well, instead of shrugging shoulders, aw, I can’t do it, I have to give up, or go and fight with the studio for money, whatever, et cetera, et cetera. “Well, what am I going to do?” And it hits him. There are so many other ways that you create the fear of fear itself. You don’t have to literally show it upfront too early at all. And so many film directors learnt that technique from him. And he said he learnt it from Hitchcock primarily. Let’s remember, Hitchcock builds up in “Psycho,” and some of the others. It builds up, and builds, and builds. Hitchcock is the master of creating fear and terror before the actual event. You remember, the only bit of blood in “Psycho” is a little bit that goes down the drain at the end. You know, we don’t see blood all over the body and all the rest of it. So he talks about learning from Hitchcock and many of the others, how you create atmosphere, mood, emotion, through suggestive qualities with nature and humans. He does the same in the “Indiana Jones,” we have so much of nature, you know, and in many of the other films that he made, you know, with “E.T.,” so many things where fear, or anxiety at least, or anticipation is created. Not the end result too early at all. You know, when one teaches theatre to students, you say, a kiss on stage is boring, it’s very boring to watch it, the actual kiss on stage, and even a kiss on film, I would argue, is boring. It’s the buildup. Are they going to get together, aren’t they? Are they going to kiss, aren’t they?
Are they going to even hold hands, aren’t they? Are they going to fall in love, or aren’t they? Are they going to, you know? That’s where the dramatic tension lies. It doesn’t lie in the end result, 'cause then, where’s the story? It’s gone, or a lot of it. It lies in the buildup of dramatic tension of pity and fear, and many other emotions. Hitchcock saw the camera techniques of “Jaws,” and Hitchcock praised Spielberg, he was one of the first. And I’m coaching Hitchcock, he said, “This young director can think outside the visual dynamics of the theatre. He doesn’t see the proscenium arch.” So in other words, he doesn’t see just straight on, as we would in the stage, or even the screen, he understands the dynamics of what Hitchcock calls the visual, he thinks outside of the visual dynamics of the theatre, how to create mood, atmosphere, emotion, without giving the end result, without foretelling the story before, you know, it’s time to tell whether they kiss or not, or the jaws strike, or whatever, the dinosaur arrives in Jurassic Park, whatever. Pauline Hale, really one of the great American film scholars, said that Spielberg was a magician in the age of movies. A magician, and that’s an interesting word, he knows how to create all these things I’m talking about that she’s referring to. Directs “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” Indiana Jones. Another film critic said, “It’s a glory of imaginative filmmaking.” And I’m quoting, “It moves at breakneck speed that grabs you from the beginning, and hurtles you through incredible adventures, breathless, dizzy, and you end up with a silly grin on your face.”
I love that phrase, if you end up with a silly grin on your face, because, besides yourself, you’ve enjoyed a boy’s own adventure story. It’s just an adventure story. But besides anything else, you’ve ended up enjoying it. You see the jungles of South America, the hinterlands of Tibet, deserts of Egypt, a hidden submarine base, an isolated island, two forgotten tombs, an American archaeology classroom at a university. And then, for the villains, you have the sadistic Nazis, you have slimy grave diggers, scheming Frenchmen. With a climax, with the wrath of God, spectacle upon spectacle. You have tarantulas, hidden spears, falling rocks, burning aeroplanes , runaway trucks, snakes, endless snakes. I mean all of this together, which would sound ridiculous if I pitched it as a movie perhaps. It sounds absurd, it sounds way over the top, way too much. Yet somehow he makes it work, and you end up, I agree with the scholar who said this, “You end up with a silly grin on your face.” You know, he doesn’t give you time to think. He is creating emotion after emotion, which precisely is what he’s criticised for, there isn’t time to think, you just feel. Okay, if we can show the first clip, please. And this is from “E.T.”, or sorry, from “Jaws” in some of the iconic moments.
Hey, Marty. I know you’ve got a lot of problems downtown, but I’ve got a couple of problems with the house I want you to take care of. One, I’ve got some cats barking in front of the house, I can’t get down to the office. And that garbage truck next to the office has got to be moved. So we’re going to use a red zone, it’s a simple thing you can take care of, you’ve done it before, okay?
Honey, would you come here a minute, please? You okay?
Everything’s fine? Yeah I’m fine, it’s fine.
Listen, if the kids go in the water, and it’s wearing you out…
No.
They can play out here on the beach.
All right, let 'em go.
It’s cold. We know all about you, chief. You don’t come in the water at all, do you?
That’s some bad hat, Harry.
Chief Brody, you are uptight. Come on. That’s it.
Oh, do you know, the muffin man, the muffin man, the muffin man.
Pipit, Pipit! Pipit. Come on, Pipit, come on, Pipit! Pipit!
See, iconic, builds and builds. And keep showing it. Thanks, Jess.
Hang on.
Another iconic moment that’s built up.
They’re pushing us over the cliff.
Hang on to something!
Hang on to something!
I’m not coming out there until your eyes are closed.
Okay? They’re closed.
Another one.
Mom is going to kill you.
Okay, swear it one more time. I have absolute-
You have absolute power. Yes. Yay.
Elliot, look what I made for you!
It’s not the full report, but it’s over 4,000 pages of it.
Huh, are these in order?
I don’t think so, there are no page numbers here.
Yeah, that’s where the top secret stamps were, my source had to cut 'em off.
We’re supposed to retire on Friday.
Ben, how are we supposed to comb through 4,000 pages, they’re not even loosely organised.
Even if we had three months, there’s no way we can possibly get through it.
He’s right, we got less than eight hours. We could shoot for city, then they’d have 10.
Hey, hey, hey, for the last six years we’ve been playing catch up, and now, thanks to the president of the United States, who, by the way, has taken a shit all over the First Amendment, we have the goods, we don’t have any competition. There’s dozens of stories in here, The Times has barely scratched the surface. We have 10 hours till the deadline, so, we dig in.
Now, one of the great scenes of all time in film.
Oh please, let’s go. Let’s go. Come on.
Okay. We can hold it there, please, Jess. Okay so, I wanted to show a couple of these iconic moments, which are unbelievably unforgettable, and so memorable. And the first one, you know, “Jaws,” he builds up, builds up, builds up. And of course there are many, many more, before, you know, there’s actual the first shark bite of the little child. And then of course, you know, the great scene, the first time actually the little child sees ET. And then, it’s through the eyes of the other, that horror is seen. So it’s building up, whether it’s nature in “Jaws,” or whether it’s for the first time seeing E.T., or in “Schindler’s List,” seeing what’s actually going on for the first time. It’s what we perceive, the point of view, through the point of view of the outsider looking in. The little girl in E.T., I’m not equating them, I’m just talking about filming technique, obviously. Or whether it’s the Schindler eyes on the horse, high up, watching down, and you know, looking down there. Or whether it’s, you know, the potential of the shark. It’s always from the point of view of the outsider who’s aware of something terrible, nightmarish, scary as hell. But we are not sure exactly when, what, who, where, how. Build it up, build it up. And then that moment where shown on the horse, you know, and the girl with the little red dress, which has gone down, of course, in iconic film history. But it’s how the film is working. And then, at the end, she’s under the bed, and that’s where we see her, as a human being, her face for the first time. Until then, we’ve been seeing Schindler’s face, but then we see her, tiny little girl’s terrified face. So, it’s when the moment is revealed, when the truth is revealed, of the sequence that has been building up, of the absolute horror that has been done to all those people in Schindler in that scene, and of course, there are others as well.
And when the shark attacks for the first time, we see the blood and other things, we don’t actually see, we hardly see the shark, just a little shadow inside. There’s always menace, there’s always something evil, dark, terrifying, that’s building and building. Is it going to happen, isn’t it? And it’s not just a simple case of, you know, a binary, or flip from this to that, to this, to that. It’s built up through the point of view of the outsider who has to go through some change. It’s the same with the Roy Schneider character, with the little kids in E.T., and it’s the same with the Schindler character. Obviously, totally different themes, and I’m not, again, I really want to stress, obviously not trying to equate any of these things. Obviously you shouldn’t, I understand that. So, it’s a way of understanding the point of view of the audience that is so crucial, and how to guide our emotions, from which point of view should we experience this. And we have to go through the moment of change that Schindler realises. The film has been heavily criticised, obviously. You know, it’s about the Nazi who changes and is redeemed, and, you know, turns around, et cetera. It’s not a film about the Jews, so much, it’s a film about the Nazi, the German. And of course, that’s a completely valid and right criticism. What I’m interested in here is the filmmaking of it, and why it can be so evocative in that moment.
We have this Aryan Nazi up on the horse, and obviously, rich, powerful, everything, watching, you know, and then way down, he’s watching what’s going on. And then we have the opposite, the little girl, you know, hiding under the bed, the little girl with the red dress. The first time we see E.T., Pauline Powell wrote, “It’s an ancient voice of E.T., his humour, he’s a scaly, wrinkled, little old man with a huge neck, soulful eyes. He’s almost like a friend to us. When he speaks of a longing to go home, we feel the longing to go home. We become mournful, and feel for E.T.” Through showing us the point of view, of, first of all, the terrified little child, but then E.T., in those ways. So, we’re constantly moving, in the editing, between the two. And we are torn, until we take a point of view, which, of course, Spielberg wants us to. So, you know, on the one hand, yes, there is sentiment, it is about an emotional evocation all the time, and never stopping, you know? And the criticism is of course, you know, that there’s no time to think, it’s just emotion after emotion. But on the other hand, that’s part of the power of art, it’s part of the power of literature, art, poetry, music, everything. It tells us stories through emotion, you know, as human beings, not only through thinking. Even in “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” you know, it’s a daredevil archaeologist, the Harrison Ford characters, Indiana Jones, you know, it’s a daredevil, a rogue, an adventurer, a cowboy type of archaeologist. You know, he’s on the edge, and that’s what keeps us going with the adventurer. It’s dramatic. It’s funny. You know, there are so many thrills, there are so many things that tell the story, that we can never take our eyes off it.
We can never stop watching it, in a way. Claude Lanzmann, who made the great trilogy, the great series on the Holocaust, Shoah, as I’m sure many know, he said you can’t represent it, you can’t show actors playing Holocaust survivors, or showing the Nazis, because you cheapen it, you make it sentimental. And Lanzmann argued, “All you can do is tell the stories.” What Spielberg does, of course, he’s doing it through actors doing it, and that’s part of the big debate. How do you tell these horrific stories? Do you get actors, and do it through that, or do you just get survivors and people who tell their stories? You know? And it’s an ongoing forever debate. There is no solution one way or the other, it depends on which side of the debate one chooses to go with. And Lanzmann says anything else will make it become sentimental and moralistic in the end. So, I leave that with us as part of this debate. I want to move on with another scene from Schindler, which, for me, is not spoken about that much, but it’s, again, how he builds up the dramatic tension, and then what he does at the end of this terrifying, which, to me, is as terrifying a scene as the scene of the little girl with a red dress. You can show the next clip, please.
What are you making?
Hinges, sir.
I’ve got some workers coming in tomorrow. Where the hell are they from again?
Yugoslavia, commandant.
I’ve got to make room. Make me a hinge.
Yes, sir.
You’re doing well. Oh, that’s very good. But I’m a bit confused, and perhaps you can help me. What I don’t understand is, that you’ve been working since I think, what, about 6:00 this morning, yet, such a small pile of hinges. Oh, Christ.
Can I have a look, sir?
Check the angler, maybe it’s bent.
No, no, you wouldn’t hear click if it was the angler. It’s the pin.
Maybe it’s the pin. Maybe the pin shaft.
What did I just say? Yeah.
Commandant, I beg to report that my heap of hinges was so unsatisfactory because the machines were being re-calibrated this morning. I was put on to shovelling coal.
Strange, huh?
We can freeze it there, please. So, this, for me, is one of the most underrated, or minimally spoken about. But it is such a terrifying, and so powerful scene, about the Holocaust. You know, I’m not going to go into detail in terms of the content, it’s pretty obvious I think, but that merciless, cold, industrial, matter of fact, simple, you know, the irony of the hinge in the gun, and the hinge that he’s making. It’s all, it’s just told step, by step, by step, by step. We don’t need anything more. He pulls it out, the story, in literally two scenes, a very brief scene in the factory, and then the brief scene afterwards. One of the most terrifying scenes I’ve ever seen in a film, so emotionally gut-wrenching. And I don’t think we can overestimate, it’s so powerful. And how he does it, again, the same thing. Will that bullet ever go off, or won’t it? You know, will that shark ever actually appear and do anything, or won’t it? Will the dinosaur actually do, or won’t it? So, the evil is always there, it’s always lurking, and I use that word thoughtfully, not just the horrible, the bad, the goodies, the baddies, but the evil, you know? And how it’s portrayed in a completely indifferent way. You know, the dinosaurs are indifferent, nature. The shark, indifferent, it’s nature. These guys become almost as… They are as indifferent as a piece of nature would, as an earthquake, or a volcano, or a dinosaur, or whatever. Ordinary humans up against something extraordinary, but in this case, it’s not nature, it’s the sheer mechanical, industrial coldness of human nature. I want to show a brief interview with Ralph Fiennes, who plays, obviously… Can you can show it, please?
Ralph, I was wondering, the first time you went in for your costume fittings.
Yes.
And they began putting the uniforms on you, how did you feel?
Well, two things happened. The first thing that happened was that one of the costume assistants looked at me, I had just had all my hair cut off, and I think I looked incredibly boyish. And she looked at me and she said, , “No.” So I felt, first of all, I felt really angry, that they didn’t believe, that I couldn’t play this role. I said, “Right, I’m going to…” And then when I put the costume on, well, the costume fittings, you have people around you, so you don’t really have a chance to sort of feel it, but I think the first time that I put it on, on my first day of filming, and I stepped out of this caravan onto the streets where we were shooting, I did feel those costumes make you feel powerful. And because of that, you feel good, they make you feel good about yourself. I mean, I think they’re the best uniforms, best designed uniforms in the Second World War. There are no other, maybe the Italians, but there’s no other uniforms that touch it, in terms of just, aesthetic, you know? We have these now, of course, you have these horrendous associations with 'em, but, you know, you can’t deny the fact that they, you learn, they’re like an amazing suit, you know, these wonderful, flattering riding boots, and britches, and the tunic, and, you know, the hat at an angle. And so, I have to admit that it felt kind of good.
As the production moved along, did you notice a difference in the way the cast and crew treated you, as shooting went along?
No. I mean, there were kind of… I think a lot of the actors, Israeli actors that were there playing prisoners in the camp, they would joke about what a complete bastard I was, but I think they knew that, even though I may be a bit of a bastard, I wasn’t as much a bastard as he was. So, no, they were okay, I think. And Beth David, who plays Helen Hirsch, I think, she tells me she had a problem being around me. That much I can understand, 'cause I had a couple of scenes I had to be. But it wasn’t really taken to heart, it was just, I think… But also, inevitably, kind of with guys like that, people do build up, I mean, 'cause it’s not for real, it is pretending, you know, when you go “Cut!” it stops. But people kind of build up a weird affection for the nasty guy, because people have a fascination with evil, and so the change was actually one-
Pause it there. I think Ralph Fiennes… I mean, I think he hits two nails on the head, the fascination with the uniform, and how it does change an individual to feel powerful. He’s being so honest about it, as a human being, and as an actor. You know, just putting on those uniforms, and the aesthetics, as he talks about it, and the feeling of that masculine power. And secondly, the fascination with evil. So, so many films of the war are not about, you know, the Jews, I mean, “The Boy With the Striped Pyjamas,” so many others, they’re not about Jewish people, they’re about the fascination with the Nazis and the evil. And I don’t think that’s so divorced from a lot of stuff that’s going on at the moment. There’s a fascination with the evil side, rather than the other. And what does that say about us, as humans? Again, I’m not trying to draw any thematic parallel at all. But, you know, we see with “Jaws,” we see with the dinosaurs, we understand the evil that is there, in this case, of course, it’s human beings though, the Germans, the soldiers, but the evil is always there with Spielberg. So, it would be so average of an ordinary filmmaker, how you play with good and evil. But to get away from the sentimental attitude, it’s how he builds it up in us, the audience, through storytelling, and the emotion, and when the emotion, step by step, is revealed in each scene, that’s, I think, part of his brilliance. I want to show, this is an interview with Ben Kingsley, who of course plays Itzhak Stern.
Whilst playing chess, a wonderful European emigre chess player in the scene gave me a very battered book, a paperback book, and said, “You have to read this.” And it was a copy of “Schindler’s Ark.” A week later, Steven Azalean says, “We want you to read this.” And it was the script of “Schindler’s List.” And I said, “Steven, I’ve just been,” I mean, who will believe me? Who will believe me? But that’s the kind of ghosts that, sometimes, I think are just pushing you around a bit. And so I read “Schindler’s List,” which was shattering, by Steven. And I met Spielberg, and at first, I was very nervous about accepting the role. And Steven asked me into his office, and I’m always very keen to understand my narrative function in a film. With Simon, of course, it was clear, the bringer of truth, Simon. And with Itzhak Stern, I had a word in my pocket. And I said to Steven Spielberg, “What do you think the narrative function of my role is?” Now, some Hollywood directors would go blank, and look at my lips to see what language I’m speaking. But Steven said, “He’s the witness of the film.” And I said, “I have a word here in my pocket that says conscience.”
And we shook hands, the witness and the conscience of the film. And I love being with Steven, next to the monitor, because there was a particular exodus of the Jews from Krakow, which was filmed by Steven, all of it beautifully shot in black and white, as you know. And I would watch the real life actors, a lot of Israeli actors we had in the film, wonderful, wonderful, extraordinary performances. And I saw the actors, and our own extras, leaving the ghetto. And I looked in the monitor, and there it is in black and white, and I’m watching a piece of a maestro recreate documentary footage. Flawless, even the camera was in the right, sort of slightly wrong, if you see what I mean, place. They looked like snatched moments. And, in his genius, he often pulled the camera away from a moment of atrocity so that the audiences are almost wriggling in their seats, trying to see what they’ve just missed. But he takes the camera away. Absolute maestro. And I remember some takes that he would film, and he would turn to me if I was by him, by the monitor, and with joy in his face, rather like Simon Wiesenthal, he said, “That’s in the movie.” That has to be digested by an audience. That has to be witnessed. That has to be seen. And it’s very brave, and pure of him, not to sentimentalise one frame of that film.
- So, I want to show this, at the end of today, and next week, you know, we’re going to go into more of “Saving Private Ryan,” and some of the other movies with the dinosaurs, and, you know, a little bit more of “E.T.,” et cetera. But I think Ben Kingsley… Ralph Fiennes, hits on those two points, about the aesthetics of that uniform, and people’s fascination with evil. And Ben Kingsley, I think brilliantly, understood, he’s not just the character, isn’t just the Jewish character as victim, but as witness in the narrative arc. And that he would ask Spielberg that question, and he would say, “Many Hollywood directors wouldn’t know how to answer,” 'cause they would just think, what’s your character’s motivation? Or why is the character this or that? Or why does he or she choose this or that, or whatever. But Ben Kingsley, being the brilliant actor that he is, no, what’s my function in the narrative arc overall? What’s my function of my character in the whole story. You know? And gets the reply immediately, “Witness.” And he’s got his own word, “Conscience.” The two come together. And I think it does make the film stand out from others, which have included aspects of the Holocaust, which have included, and I don’t want to mention examples in comparison here, but Ben Kingsley, when he plays, if you watch it carefully, Itzhak Stern, he is a witness. He is not only the conscience, but he becomes a witness, which is then set up against the change in Schindler. You know, the sort of redemptive, good Nazi, to use the jargon. But Itzhak Stern… But Kingsley makes him make Schindler understand. Through the witness function in the narrative arc, he makes the Schindler character understand what’s going on with the whole thing, and what to do about it, actually.
So, it’s that question of the narrative arc that I started with at the beginning. Steven Spielberg is, to me, one of the greatest storytellers in film, he understands character within the narrative arc, he understands how to evoke emotion, sequence for sequence, and how you build it up slowly until you actually reveal whether it’s a little child, hiding under under a bed, whether it’s the moment of where the sea goes slightly red, or the dinosaur the first time, whatever. How you build up. It’s not a naive telling, as I believe Ben Kingsley is saying, it’s not just a naive, sentimental telling of, you know, good versus evil, there’s something much deeper in how he’s creating it, and therefore the effect it’ll have on an audience. Let’s also finally remember, none of these films were predicted to make money, none of them were predicted. “Schindler’s List,” people said, “Okay, we’ll do it because the content is important, and historically,” you know, da-da-da-da-da. Never expected to make money or have the global impact that it had. “Jaws” was not expected to make money. Small film, you know? Who really wants to see films about sharks eating people in the sea, you know? So the studios, and so many other people, poo-pooed these ideas. He had the guts to go with it. And I think it has to be respected, as an artist, you know, with all these techniques, in the end, also the guts to follow his idea. And of course, I’m going to show a few other interviews next week, why he chose black and white, and not colour. The studios, the producers, the financial people behind it all, said, “No, no, no, you must colour, colour, colour, colour.” He’s the one who said, “No, this film has to be in black and white,” and won. So, you know, underneath the sort of warmth of Spielberg when he talks in interviews, there is a steel, there is an artistic invincibility inside the guy. Okay, I’m going to carry on next week, and we’re going into more depth with other films and interviews with him. Okay, thank you. There’s questions, that’s great.
Q&A and Comments:
Q: Alan, “What about 'Close Encounters?’”
A: Yeah, I know. Well, there’s so many movies, But one can’t ignore, especially in the times that we are living in, I thought about it hard, and I thought, today has to focus primarily on Schindler, for the obvious reasons, given what’s happening. And a little bit about “Jaws,” and a little bit about the Indiana Jones, and a little bit about the dinosaur movies, you know, “Jurassic Park,” just to show the links amongst them. But I had to start with that, because, obviously, what’s been going on in our times. It’s obvious. I will come to the other movies, “Close Encounters,” “Saving Private Ryan” “Jurassic Park,” others, in more depth, and show more clips of interviews with Spielberg himself next week.
Jean, “Perhaps Spielberg should be directing the narrative about antisemitism now.” Well, I’m going to show part of an interview next week, in part two about Spielberg, where he talks about looking at “Schindler’s List” 25 years later, you know, after making it. And he talks about how antisemitism has obviously gone to terrifying and huge levels. And he talks about the film in relation to antisemitism today, and how he and his generation never dreamed it would come back in the way that, as Jabotinsky said, there’s always a frozen stampede.
The antisemitism. Yeah, and whether he makes another one on that, I mean, he also made “Munich.” I guess the other thing I want to say, which I’ll go into a bit more next week, is that, you know, if we look at the individual, he didn’t have to put money into the Shoah Foundation. 55,000 stories have been told and documented in the Shoah Foundation. And he took the money from Schindler, and from others, of his own money, to create the Shoah Foundation. Not every filmmaker, or person who, you know, makes whatever in art, or film, or literature, or anything in life, does that. Without him, we would not know these 55,000 stories that have been told in the Shoah Foundation, and digital, and witnessed, you know, and expressed there. We wouldn’t have it without Spielberg. So, there’s another whole side to what he has done with this remarkable, unexpected success that he had.
“No time for a movie.” Maybe, I think he’s 77 now? 76, 77 now. Yeah.
Gertrude, “My nephew by marriage was Spielberg’s photographer. And so is his daughter who lives in the UK.” Oh, that’s fantastic. Is that Emma? Emma? Gertrude, sorry. Extraordinary, you know? As Wendy’s always said, this is a community, and what stories come out from everybody here is just remarkable. Thank you for sharing.
Julia, “Don’t forget E.T.” No, I’m going to go more into “E.T.” next week. As I said, I had to focus on Schindler, and a little bit on “Jaws” today, for the reasons that, you know, I mentioned. But I will go more into “E.T.,” and Jurassic, and a whole lot of the other films, and “Munich,” and the other films next week, and more interviews.
Stan, “This would be a good time to re-release Schindler.” Well, I think any time to re-release Schindler is a good time. Absolutely, Stan. You know, as Joanna, you know, who was three when she survived Theresienstadt, said, you know, it did open the world’s eyes to the Holocaust, and start to educate people. And there’s only one thing one can do, which is education. Education, education, education about the horrors of antisemitism, and obviously the Holocaust as well.
Myrna, “We live in Arcadia, and my kids went to the same high school as Spielberg. One of the kids said to my daughter, ‘I’ve never seen a Jew before.’ Same school Spielberg had been, but in the seventies and eighties.” Yeah, that’s for sure. Which is probably happening a lot now in different parts of the world. Thanks for sharing.
Rona, “After Schindler, he started the ‘Survivors of the Shoah’.” Yes, exactly, one of his best accomplishments. Absolutely, you know? And it’s extraordinary when people who do achieve fantastic success in life in some way, but then take that big extra step, you know, of helping people, and helping education, helping knowledge to be disseminated. I believe in it so passionately, and so crucially, because without that, who are we, as humans? What kind society do we build?
Romaine, thank you. “Spielberg also did ham and eggs for children,” you know, wonderful for adults, absolutely. I mean, he certainly understood, the other thing about what you’re saying, is that he understands how to show a film from a child’s point of view, and from an adult point of view. Which ain’t easy at all in any form of art, you know? So we, the audience, can move from a child point of view with “E.T.,” or the child point of view in that moment in Schindler, when she hides under the bed, the little girl. And we can flip it in our imagination from the adult point of view. So, it’s not easy. You know, in most average filmmakers, or novelists, or writers, playwrights, whatever, would show it from one point of view, and not the other, but it combines.
Catherine, “Seems to me that you feel you need to defend Schindler’s credentials, it may be necessary amongst professional film critics, I think a broad cinema-going audience need no persuasion that he’s a genius, I’ve seen all his films several times and loved them.” Absolutely. I need to give this because it’s part of, it’s a great point, Catherine, but I do need to say, ‘cause Claude Lanzmann’s, you know, I think it’s seven hour epic on Shoah, is really important. And it’s a crucial moment in film history, and a crucial documentation of the history of the Shoah. And there is that argument, it is a more scholarly point of view, but I think it enhances our understanding of Spielberg’s brilliance, and what Lanzmann is doing. And it is part of the debate, how do we show whether it’s terrifying, or the opposite, or exciting, whatever moments in history, through the medium of art? You know? He said when he made Amistad, you know, about the ship carrying slaves from Africa, of course, to America, he said that it failed for him, because it turned out to be too much of a history lesson. He lost sight of his own filmic and artistic, you know, way of working. He was very honest about that as well. So, I think, exactly, I mean, I hear what you’re saying, Catherine, it’s a great point. But we do need to have this as part of the community of the grace for art of education and debate, you know, on lockdown,
Romaine, “Ethical, creative man informed by his experience with anti-Semitism.” Yes. “What is his current relationship with Judaism as he faces old age?” As I said, I think he’s 77 now. I don’t know the most recent, but in the interview, which I will show next week, he talks about the effect of Schindler now, or 25 years after he made it, rather, and the need for it even more, and how he feels even more of his Jewish identity, and he feels even more strongly about antisemitism, and prejudice. And he talks about, which I’m going to show next week, his idea on how hate has returned, and hate obviously coming through, you know, through, obviously what’s going on historically and culturally in the world. So, I will show that next week, that interview, where there’s a clip about his understanding of, how do you show hate, and how it’s just obviously increased so much.
[Wendy] David, sorry to jump in. Hi, it’s Wendy.
Hi. Hi, Wendy. Hi, how are you?
[Wendy] Hi, good, thank you. How are you?
Good, good. Well, very well, thank you. It’s great to see you.
[Wendy] Yeah, great. So, thank you for an outstanding presentation. I’ve actually been trying to find the questions and answers on my computer, but the lady that said that her nephew was Spielberg’s photographer, or is the photographer, maybe she can answer the question how he feels right now?
Oh, that would be great. That was-
[Wendy] Who was it? Maybe you could take-
I’m just going back in the questions here.
[Wendy] Because it would be so good to get some input from her. I mean, it’s firsthand.
Yeah, it’d be fantastic.
[Wendy] If that’s possible. If it’s possible. Gertrude?
Gertrude Sillman says, “My nephew by marriage was Spielberg’s photographer, and so his daughter who lives in the UK.”
[Wendy] So, maybe he could give us some input. You know, maybe he could just say something, that would be amazing.
That’d be fantastic, Wendy. Fantastic point, thank you. Gertrude, could I ask you, if you could email us through Lockdown, if you could email us the connection to-
[Wendy] Sorry, Gertrude.
[David] Sorry?
[Wendy] I said sorry, Gertrude.
No, but it’s crucial, Wendy, this is part of your word, always the community.
Yeah, it’s just part sharing, and being together. And if possible, great, and if not, not.
Yeah, yeah.
But thank you, we would love that, to just have a discussion with him. He’s such an iconic, brilliant, incredible creator.
Absolutely. Wendy, thanks so much.
Jean has replied here to say, Jean Hurwitz has replied, “Gertrude, email me, we may be related.” Jean Hurwitz. So, Jean and Gertrude, could you both email us at Lockdown, please? We’d really appreciate it. So we can be in touch, and ask, you know, through the photographer. That’d be great, as Wendy was saying. Thank you. Oh, that’s a great point, Wendy. Thanks.
Okay, then people speaking about the survivors, absolutely. This is the questions already. Ethical man. Absolutely.
And then Rochelle, “One can see Hitchcock’s influence on Spielberg in 'Duel’.” Yes, that was the film that he made at 1971, a TV movie before he got the commission for “Jaws.” Which, again, they took a chance, as I said at the beginning of today. You know, they never thought for a second, the producers, the financers, the studios never thought it was going to make money, or be a hit. And, you know, anyway, took a chance on a young director.
“When a business commuter is pursued and terrorised,” yeah, by the driver, exactly. Yeah. It’s the ordinary person caught up in an extraordinary situation, and how evil is thrown in, whether through nature, or whether through humans. You know, and that’s what he does partly so brilliantly as a theme. I think that’s why they use Tom Hanks, Jeff Goldman, you know, many others, who look like the ordinary people, you know? And it’s part of his brilliance, I think, to understand how to show that.
Rita, “Schindler’s List, the symbolism of the little girl in red, while the rest is in black and white.” Absolutely, unforgettable. It becomes an unforgettable image. And let’s just go again, Rita, as you’re saying, the studios really pushed him hard to show it in colour. The whole film in colour, not black and white. And he fought like a tiger to keep it in black and white. To his credit, again, a steel inside the artistry of the human, of the man.
Ronald, “Spielberg’s cooperation with John Williams, the composer.” Yeah, I’m going to talk about that a bit next week. Absolutely. I mean, you know, remarkable music composer, a film composer, a composer for film, John Williams, who he’s worked with many times. Exactly. And there’s someone from the firm, “His collaboration with John Williams evokes the fear emotion that he wants, that Spielberg wants for the music.” Yes, absolutely. And with a child, as she gets into the bed, and how the music changed, the sound changes there. Crucial.
[Assistant] David, I’m so sorry, but we’re going to have to stop after this one. I know you’ve got through a lot of them, but it is just coming up to 20 past.
Oh, okay. All right. All right. Sorry about this. ‘Cause everybody, I know there are a lot of other questions here. But okay, well, thank you very much. Wendy, lovely to see you. And I’m sorry, everybody, I’m going to have to hold it here. And if you want to email the questions.
Yeah maybe next session.
Yeah, because next week will be part two on Spielberg. And if anybody would like to email me through Lockdown, questions, you know, through the email, or we can have a look at some of the other questions next week, absolutely.
[Wendy] We can.
Great idea, Wendy. Thank you, yeah. Okay so, thanks so much to everybody, and hope you have a great rest of the weekend. Wendy, fantastic to see you, and hope you and family are well. Hope everybody’s family is well. And Jess, thank you so much.
Yeah, thank you very much. Thanks, take care.