Uff is right! Double Uff!!

01:03 What is that music in the background? Anyone know the title and artist?

Moviewise explained it better than Every Frame a Painting tho.

@@glenn.6202 I thought both videos were very well done. And I'm hoping that Moviewise will actually start getting some of the recognition and subscribers he deserves.

The videos explore different aspects of Spielberg's style, and both are great.

To be fair, the whole point of the long take in The Player was to draw attention to the shot and thus the process of filmmaking. It happens while the characters are discussing the opening shot of Touch of Evil. The whole movie is very meta like that

Yes well said

Thank you for the comment! And a new video’s coming this Friday

​@@Moviewise how to learn to get better at direction? how about a video on this?

​@@junespoesy If you are a filmmaker these videos are nothing but an education in directing. You get good examples, and bad examples. Try to strive more to be like the good examples.

i thinnk on the other side there's the fbi logo no??

@@mohdanasqureshi757 I feel, that's the joke, that's part of his clumsiness and nervousness. If you look closely, this is a folding leather wallet with plastic windows on the inside, like the one you might put a driver's licence in. He has his identification on the top with photo and his full FBI credentials on the bottom (both are seen upside down). The other side of this wallet is just the leather in my opinion. While you're right, we might be made to assume there could be a metal badge on the other side, I truly think Spielberg and Hanks played this as a character building joke - a guy so nervous about going in the field to apprehend a criminal, probably first time pulling out his gun... plus the way Spielberg frames the shot and hangs just a second on the wallet to allow the viewer to catch the joke. All planned to a tee IMO.

I´m stealing that first sentence for my future social introductions. That´s a great opener for a job applicaton.

Nice catch on Casablanca! I made a video about it ;) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h5-DlcZnp7PPhIU.html

01:03 What is that music in the background? Anyone know the title and artist?

@@Moviewise 01:03 What is that music in the background? Anyone know the title and artist?

@@EbonyPope Fingerprint by Mini Vandals. Next time ask in a comment instead of a reply.

@@Moviewise Thank you. Why in a comment instead of a reply? I thought if I reply to one of your comments you are more likely to see it. Most creators aren't very active in the comment section.

To show Hank's character's incompetence.

No. It’s the front and back covers that have the official badge and the letters “FBI” written on them. That’s what you’d flash to someone to quickly authenticate yourself, not the details on the inside.

​@@davecorry7723More his nervousness/excitement. If I recall correctly he was a desk jockey and this was his first time in the field.

This thought came to my mind as well. Those who dislike Spielberg usually say his films are emotionally manipulative. It makes sense to say that his style is visually manipulative, which I don’t think is a bad thing at all. I could imagine someone saying this kind of attention guiding dumbs down the audience, because there’s no room to form your own mind about what’s on screen, meaning that both story and visuals are spoonfed. Though I don’t think that it’s a bad thing (whatever is hard to do deserves praise in my book, and Hitchcock used to do just about the same thing), it would indeed make sense.

@@Moviewise I think it's all right to be visually manipulative, since movie viewing is an innately passive act. You go to the movies to be told a story, not to participate in one. Even in a mystery, where there's a subtle invitation to the viewer to be the solver, the director still controls the input that your brain analyzes. This is a great video. It makes you see that Spielberg is not necessarily a genius, it's just that he's extremely fluent in the language of film. The writer writes, but with his direction, Spielberg tells the story. Also, I've always thought that Spielberg has a sort of misanthropic quality. Think of Jaws. His crowd shots at the beach when the mayor cajoles that town leader to go into the water. This is a fat old man with a big belly, sauntering into the water with his aging wife and his grandchildren. Then everyone else goes in, girls in bikinis, young men laughing and running, little kids playing, parents working at creating a "good time," old ladies gossiping. See these oblivious Americans, so decadent in clinging to normality, seeking pleasure while this threat looms out there, ready to strike. Then the family's house in "Close Encounters." It's a mess. The kids are out of control. The dinner table is chaos. We're supposed to look at these things and think: normal life. But upon further viewings, you start to think" these stupid, careless, ugly people. Maybe that's part of his use of camera movement. He tells you what to look at and in the brief moment, your mind tells you how to feel about what you're seeing. But look at it long enough and he's telling you something different.

@@VinceLyle2161 Think Spielberg has said that Close Encounters was influenced by his parents divorce - the Close Encounters thing might not necessarily be intentionally judging the family members, just reproducing and possibly exaggerating his own perceptions and memories of such tensions. Plus setting the scene for Dreyfuss's character to fall out with his wife later on, and drift away from the family. Is it possible that the judgement comes from you, rather than Spielberg? There's a family squabble at the start of ET but I am sure that's not meant to be judgemental of the family - it's more interesting than watching a harmonious family, it shows that life is tough for a single mother, and of course it provides contrast to the whole family coming together later in the movie.

@@MichaelHayes_s6 It is possible the judgement comes from me. I could be misinterpreting his concept of typical American scenes of the 70's and early 80's as depicting ugliness and decadence. And it's not a criticism, by the way. If he was giving American culture of that time the side eye, however subtly, it adds to the movies instead of subtracting from them. Strangely, that seems to go away entirely in the 80's and 90's, after Raiders of the Lost Ark. From then on, he either does dramas from a specific time period (The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Amistad, Lincoln) or movies where any cultural criticism would be irrelevant (Indiana Jones, Always, Jurassic Park, etc.) He moved on from big movies to huge movies (partly because he was involved) and his scope either became smaller (a platoon in WW2) or more stylized (a con man in the 60's). The messiness of daily life in his earlier efforts no longer needed to be depicted.

@@Moviewise I think he is a superb director but he has many, many negatives. For me, he gives sentiment a bad name and I love films that have earned the right to tug at the heart strings. When Elliot cried in ET and Schindler broke down is his false speech at the end of Schindler's List, they left me cold. I prefer that the director and his cast don't cry as a manipulation but allow the audience to feel it, the way the greats; Capra, Wyler and even Kazen in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn did. Sometimes the actor will even face away (Detective Story), or down (12 Angry Men). Even in Schindler's List, he had to have the colour present day bookends with the survivors, as if the audience might not figure out that the escapees could procreate and replenish themselves. Then there is the waste of talent. He bought Rosebud and said it would keep him honest and nor get into making remakes and sequels. And then he goes and does three mechanical follow-up Indy films, The Lost World and a remakes of A Guy Named Joe and West Side Story. And all his studio has made, after American Beauty, have been, a virtual run of unmitigated crap, polluting the screens with Transformers series and other low grade kiddie fare. He also, seriously, lacks depth - which is to be expected being a child of television. Earlier generations had as daily influences slick and pulp magazines by the greatest writers o the century in monthly magazines that were on the tables of households, with often stunningly composed illustrative artwork, then there was the golden age of radio drama (Suspense - from which Hitch hired several screenwriters, Escape, X-mine one, Welles and Corwin). there was theater and vaudeville and the paperback revolution in the '50s. Spielberg had the one-eyed monster in the corner. The reason he read the Colour Purple was "because it was a thin book." He is a wonderful director but also very, very shallow. When NBC gave him a two season commitment and a million dollar for each episode of his Twilight Zone inspired series Amazing Stories, it was a catastrophe. Having bought the rights to use the name of the famous pulp and the stories in it, they didn't use one. All the ideas were his, such a boy becomes magnetised. Hitchcock was a reader and his show, ran for ten years, adapting stories from all the magazines and even as far back as The Strand Magazine. Depth, depth, depth. He himself, hasn't made a great movie since Munich. Still saying all that, for me, he still has these in the top tier: Duel, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List, Munich

Thank you!

War of the Worlds (2005)

I keep watching movies, thinking, "This is good!" and then seeing the Spielberg credit at the end. "Oh, that explains all the interesting directing." Case in point: Home Alone. What a masterpiece of direction.

In Catch Me If You Can it shows that Hanratty, a desk jockey, is anxious on his first field job. In Schindler's List it shows Schindler bluffing his way into Nazi officers inner circle using money (his last), charisma and swagger. That intro scene to Schindler essentially shows his character and the methods he will use to save people.

It shows that he was so focused on catching the suspect that he rushed and didn’t get time to properly align the ID to the waitress. It elevates the urgency and shows where his focus is on the scene

It’s the front and back covers that have the official badge and the letters “FBI” written on them. That’s what you’d flash to anyone to quickly authenticate yourself, not the details on the inside.

It's a character moment showing how nervous he is. It isn't a mistake.

@@richardcahill1234You know what, I just googled what an FBI identity card and official badge holding leather case looks like, and turns out you are right and I was wrong. There’s nothing on the outside. So yeah, just a character moment. Thanks.