Oh Hi Mark

They don't pose any questions either.

@@tigqc touché

@@tigqc Oh they plant plenty of questions in my head, most starting with WHY!?

And that is... like your personal ... like opinion. Like wow.

@@mrtoy875 Around the Corner; Down the Block . . . it always hides deep within our hearts. That's the answer in every Hollywood movie. .~ ( .~ = Sarcasm )

LMFAO...i see what you did there. Like a discussion on Filet Mignon vs Prime Rib and you bring up McDonalds Cheeseburgers. Too Funny

Sweet!

I haven’t seen it. Did he find his car? Or did it end ambiguously?

@@collapsedsynapse Dude!

It's 2021 and a studio apartment sounds pretty upscale to a lot of people.

@@joeschembrie9450 the point is Gilliam has a plenty nice house and bank account for that matter. He's a millionaire moaning at a billionaire. Kind of hard for the common man to relate to.

@@joeschembrie9450 You must live in a Democratic city.

@@farid1406 Yeah, I got the point. How can you interpret what I said as not getting the point?

@@joeschembrie9450 Lol I know, just taking the opportunity to vent at Gilliam

It's the closest Spielberg ever got to an unhappy ending, apart from Saving Private Ryan. Ironically, Kubrick gets a lot more criticism for his ending in 2001, which nobody understood! lol

Yeah I honestly don't even get why he would be taking a shit on it, like, from the natural context of living in this world we know the holocaust was awful, wtf are you even talking about terry? It's a movie about a glimmer of light in what is probably the darkest setting in recent history. I love Kubrick and generally agree he's a better director than spielberg; but acting like Schindler's list isn't a pretty well made movie seems silly.

@@ph6376 I will respectfully disagree. SPR (you already mentioned), Munich and A.I., all had very cynic endings. But yes, the rest of his filmography is more Hollywood than being oriented. But having made both types of narrative endings it proves, that unlike other filmmakers, he is multi dimensional not only on the type of films and genres he makes but also the story ending aspect.

Someone needs to adjust Terry’s medication if he thinks Schindler’s List is some sort of uplifting schmaltz, like a big budget Hallmark Channel film. No wonder Hollywood studios have a hard time dealing with Gilliam.

@@peterp2153 personally I understand what Gilliam is trying to say, that yes the film was traumatic and sad yet Spielberg managed to wrap a hopeful story around it - Schindler’s successful attempt of saving some Jewish people - and therefore wink “hope” to the viewer at the end. And somehow that was a comforting ending. No I am sorry but it wasn’t. I and most of the people I know came out of that theater an emotional wreck ‘cause the final taste I got from the movie wasn’t not Schindler’s good action but the tragedy of the Holocaust and what those people went through. So at the end of the day I’d say message was received, with a sledge hammer in the stomach. You don’t have to go completely Cynic to drive your point. So I’d say that was cheap shot by Terry.

Yes, but Schindler's List shouldn't be a "comfort movie" and Spielberg made it so. It should have been as complex as the actual story really was (read the book) but Spielberg never trusts his audience to handle it. Or he knows he'll make a lot more money making it "comfortable". He has an inflated sense of his artistic depth (he really doesn't have any).

@@loge10 i don't agree its a comfort movie, its about people making allot of hard decisions, and the ramifications of those decisions. its based on a true story, and there are horrors being shown all the time, but though the do talk about the Jews its not a film about the overall holocaust but about a man and the people around him. does t portray him to be a hero yes, but tbf the people he helped still greatly appreciate what he did and that's why the film got made. terry is a fantastic director but i think its not a totally fair criticism. Spielberg has a very particular style the world would miss without it .

How you feel is up to you ultimately, however, the Shoah & genocides which continue are not things for comfort. I agree with the fact there are actions of inspiration, such as the German officer ( he truly existed) in "The Pianist" who keeps Adrain Brody's character alive, or the biography by Emma Gutman who hides out in the basement of a German officer in Poland are worthy in that they illustrate the triumph of the human spirit in the midst of carnage, chaos & brutality.

@@robertlaidlaw4592 I think the word "comfort" is being misinterpretted here. I'm saying that the movie was a bit white-washed in terms of characterizations. The real story and the characters is much more complex. Spielberg seeks to please and not challenge. That's why I hate his movies. Take a movie like "Lawrence of Arabia" (my vote for one of the top 5 movies ever made) and there is real psychology there. There is no psychology in Spielberg films.

@@loge10 i think he is still portrayed as a bit of a cold bastard, i don't think its that one note, also i have to say i disagree his characters arn't one note, yes you could say its a bit Disney in that everyone generally develops in a positive way, but i think he still expresses the bad points and there good points, the villan for example bad points he hates jews and kills without mercy, middling points he's doing it because he's scared he shows affection for one in particular though its a bit rape cos he's mental, good point with a bit of reluctance he does sth that helps. also id say with things like jurassic park he has genuine scares and wonderment but the characters are still a bit weird and broken and kind of close to how you would expect, its a kids film but its defiantly an interesting display of misuses of power. it's a good sci fi. id say hes a pretty darn good director because of his range and ability to provoke particular emotions.

Fangornmmc I don't think anyone was saying there shouldn't be both. If it weren't for blockbusters, there wouldn't be a Hollywood to make thought-provoking films. The blockbusters make the money that validates an attempt at high art when the creators and producers understand it's unlikely the art piece might not make much immediate profit. I'm fairly certain Gilliam understands this as well as anyone, as his beginning was with a bunch of comedians who, even if brilliant comedians, were usually somewhat superficial aside from a few deep points along the way.

Cubroncs03 But that's not what Gilliam says here. He sounds pretty adamant to me. And i'm not able to say that you're wrong, but you certainly are being presumptuous.

Like them all. Although I do suspect envy on Gilliam's part. After all, Spielberg was good friends with Kubrick. It was Kubrick's idea to have Spielberg direct A. I. because it had more of Spielberg's sensibility he thought. This is all old news. Interesting how Gilliam frowns on Hollywood films since he did The Fisher King.

Spielberg's films can be provocative; i.e. Munich and Minority Report. Kubrick's can be comforting i.e. Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut.

rockhero2274 There was little of comfort in either of those films to be honest.

As an actor, you need things to draw on

Yeah. Now let's do some improvisational comedy.

That's absolutely true. I myself saw Liam Neeson tell Ricky Gervais that very thing. Spielberg really did pick him because he liked making lists. Isn't that weird?

Lets...do... some improvisational... comedy...

@@HighlandMike325 You need to knock before you enter

IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!

Exactly

Nihilists are ruining pop culture.

@@slade52 I WISH it were nihilists! That's why I like Kubrick.

Detest the Zone but I feel ya nonetheless

I'm pretty sure that was just bad writing, like the character called Mack and so on.

well played, Noel, haha

Sarcasm is lost on the internet

And the beginning and the middle too. Take that, Kubrick.

The ending of Crystal Skull made me think what the fxck did I just pay an £8.60 ticket for?

Congratulations you dont got the context

"That's not what the Holocaust was about." Well, Terry, that's not what the book was about either. It was about the attempts of a war profiteer to find his soul in the middle of awfulness and save whomever he could. It wasn't a happy ending, it was an ending about hope, endurance, survival and perhaps learning never to repeat those mistakes again.

On a whole, I agree with the statement that Spielberg's pictures TEND to have happier and well defined endings and Kubrick's films are more open ended and make you think more. I disagree, however, that Schindler's List has a happy ending or that anyone smiles at any time during that movie. Over a million Jews were killed during the Holocaust. We see that devastating horror. Oskar Schindler saved 1,200 Jews. The disparity between those two numbers makes the ending horrific, not triumphant. You leave that movie exhausted and stunned and do not revel in the "happy" ending at all. For me, the story of Oskar Schindler is just the bones on which Spielberg was able to show the horror of the Holocaust.

@@The_Mighty_Fiction I’m so glad someone said this because it’s all I could think. Gilliam is painting it out as if Schindler’s List ends in sunshine and roses and that’s so not the case. He told the story of Oskar Schindler and did it gracefully imo

@@mightyasterisk8333 Speilberg I like some of his films, very entertaining but... Kubrick is right in a way. Saving Pr'v Ryan .,.. historically accurate in ways but corny . The civilians in the bombed out living room is how he deals with the "co-lateral" damage. An excuse for small sprinkle of light relief with the daughter hitting the father. ?

But at the end you see all the people he save and their son and daugher's and grandsons's deminishing the meaning of that scene you just mention, that is the confort, the movie dont dare to end in a real dark tone like Come and see a movie way more superior that submerge you in the horrors of war in a more succefull way than Schindler and Private Ryan And this come from an Spielberg fan i really enjoy his work and his optimistic view of the world but is confort food and nothing wrong with that after all movies are also scapism

@@wilmergimenez yeah, I agree with you: people watch movies simply for escapism- and that is even more apparent for large scale and universally popular films. They need to be accessible to a very large audience and stories are adjusted in order to get the green light. of course, there are films that just border on documentary style retelling of every horrific thing that happens in the world, and that’s great too, but not everyone wants to watch films just like that. We need variety and levity. A movie is not any less authentic or artistic because it has been idealized to some extent. Viewers can suspend their disbelief and see a story through a romanticized and digestible lens, and still not be naive enough to take it face value and understand the full context it stemmed from. I feel hope and pain when I see Schindler’s list and I feel melancholy, cold dread, and true understanding when I see come and see. These movies did what they intended and were shot beautifully. It’s all about intention and Schindler’s list intention wasn’t to be this unfiltered trauma porn, bordering exploitation and displaying the degrading of a child’s mind in war time. Of course it would fail to be come and see because it doesn’t have the same intention. come and see Displaying a harsh depiction of war that doesn’t champion or romanticize it is important and it brings up important discussions, but with that in mind it still is a film that can desensitize and disenchant you, and make you down right cynical and in a hopeless state.

It's not about the ending being happy or sad. Is about a film always having the answers for you. Happy or sad, they are answers. What matters is to try here and there to question the audience so they have something to think about after finishing the movie.

but then you had that grave scene in color that probably should not be there.

It is a somewhat happy ending. I just watched 2001 at a theatre in London this evening. A 70mm print with a classic intermission in the middle. The ending of this picture makes you think what is this about. The visual effects are stunning.

It's a question of scale - by focusing on the small victories so closely, they appear as a counterbalance to a failure which is really beyond comprehension, much less effective portrayal.

But it could be argued that Spielberg's films are about the destination because the destination is always the same - a happy ending.

@@ppuh6tfrz646 It could be: you bring up an interesting point. I disagree, but I'm not saying that you're wrong. Think of any crime show on tv - like Castle or Law & Order etc. - with each episode following the same formula. We don't watch those shows because of the ending, where we know to find a resolution. We are more interested in the journey. And, I'm being pedantic, but there is a handful of Spielberg movies with not-so-happy endings: The Duel, Sugarland Express, Schindler's List (borderline), Saving Private Ryan (bittersweet), Munich, Lincoln, West Side Story.

@@ppuh6tfrz646 You could argue that Schindler’s List takes the holocaust out of context & presents a somewhat happy ending. A few hundred Jews saved while some 6 million perished. I love Jaws it’s a great film but I always find the end scene of the two making their way back to shore a little idealistic.

@@NoName-jq7tj I think films like Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark are what Spielberg does best - exciting adventure films. I've always thought of him as a commercial film-maker rather than a mature or serious film-maker.

naahhhh... lol sometimes balance, but sometimes just a lot of each, one or the other is fine... just make em good! (altered my comment slightly)

uplifting escapism can be pure fantasy. It doesn't have to paper over human tragedy and attempt to sanitise history for the masses.

Beautifully said and on point.

That's the lesson from Italian Neorealism. Sure in the beginning it produced some of the freshest and greatest films ever made like Rome Open City and Bicycle Thieves, but it eventually got tiresome and its principal directors felt bounded by the rules of their own genre.

Thinking about that, “The Secret of NIHM” did strike a good balance between the two.

I love Kubrick films, but fuck me if i don't watch Raiders of the Lost Ark every time it's on.

@@weylandyutanicorporate Mmm no.

Alejandro Perez Perez whatever you say, neckbeard. Enjoy your waifu pillow.

@@weylandyutanicorporate ? Are you ok?

Alejandro Perez Perez I’m great, thanks!

Lmfao. I would watch that. The kids would get lost in a maze of pirate tunnels searching for treasure and slowly go insane and eat each other. It'd end with Brand hungrily chasing Mikey through disorienting passageways with the audience having no idea if he's even gaining on him at all. Then Mikey would find the treasure after Brand is killed by a booby trap, but it'd mean nothing bc he lost all his friends. That's the Kubrick Goonies.

No.

@@kyleplatz3751 You should make that trailer. Love it.

Which character do you think would have had the honor of pulling off the "Kubrick Stare"?

🤣🤣🤣🤣

I love Spielberg and Guilliam. And I get Terry's take on Spielberg's work. You don't get to that level of success if you r films confront the audience with questions.

I dont think he "fails" to consider that. Im sure he's aware. I think you've failed to understand the greater point

@@BuJammy What of Kubrick's quote then? He's a hack too i suppose

The physical constraints of this particular universe says categorically that it is not a true story. A story, yes, just physically impossible. The scientific method is a ruthless witness to all claims, no matter who makes them, or with whatever amount of faux self righteous victimhood they employ in the telling. Science baby, it rocks.

@@Drew-vn8rx I disagree that the film's simply about the holocaust, I've always understood it to specifically be about Schindler's List

Perhaps, but it's celebrating a "bandaid" approach to tragedy: great, wonderful, a thousand people were saved -- but it doesn't change the fact over eleven million innocents were murdered. As Gilliam suggests, it'd be far more informative and thought provoking to do a film about the people who tried (and failed) to stop the rise of totalitarianism in Germany before Hitler and the Nazis took power. Where's a film about the efforts of Beck, Blomberg, or Fritsch? Or Oster, Gisevius, and Schacht? We love to hug ourselves for after-the-fact tokenism while often ignoring people who are foresighted enough to put their lives on the line and confront the root of the problem head on.

@@MisterMac4321 It's ONE movie. For one movie, it is a story told very well. You cannot tell the full story of the Holocaust with ONE movie. Others can choose (and have done so) to pain a grimmer picture of the subject, but Spielberg (a Jew) wanted to give hope, to show there's a good side of people even in the most horrific situations. You can't criticize one movie for not covering every aspect of such an extensive subject. "Where's a film about the efforts of Beck, Blomberg, or Fritsch? Or Oster, Gisevius, and Schacht?" - why don't you make them? It's not easy, is it? You can't criticize producers for choosing what story they want to tell, or the director for telling it in a certain way, unless it is completely devoid of merit. Again, Spielberg did a wonderful job telling the story, in both the technical and the narrative side. It's not Spielberg's fault others don't want to do movies about the characters you mentioned. He preferred Schindler and did his job well on that.

@@descoiatorul "...why don't you make them?" I don't know, perhaps because my friends and I don't have a spare $25mil sitting around like Spielberg and his investors did to make 'Schinlder's List'? Hell, I couldn't even put a tenth that much together by strong-arming every potential backer I know. And yes, I do fault Spielberg for continuing to indulge in Hollywood's myopic focus on just the "six million Jews." The other five million murdered victims of the Nazi death camps have been conveniently swept under history's rug because their fate (and the continue plight of the minorities they represent) don't conveniently dove-tail with the political agendas of those willing to cough up the funding for such enterprises. Seriously, where's the movie -- ANY movie -- about the Roma, or Sinti, or Polish intellectuals, or mental and physical "defectives", or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Soviet POWs? Who dares to speak for them in a cultural environment where the only victims worth mourning seem to be the Jewish ones? Don't try to tell me this is about "artistic preference," it's strictly a political agenda -- nothing more.

@@MisterMac4321 - Wow. Good to know you can read Spielberg's mind & heart. What a skill. But I think Silverback was really referring to Gilliam with his "why don't you make it." I agree with everything he said. And you also made some good points, aside from the myopic focus you accuse others of, yet seem to share.

Lancer Macman I personally think the ending is fantastic that even in the darkest moment in human history, there were still moments of fantastic humanity that saved over a thousand lives to the point where the descendants of Schindler’s Jews outnumber the Jews now living in Poland

Get out

@@petecampbell3929 A Great film that leave you with questions, unlike Schindler’s List.

@@wb8905 lmao, why would a "great" film has to leave you with questions? It's such a hipster thing to say. I mean, one can prefer films that leave you with questions and has deeper meaning etc. But that doesn't make other films that coherently tells a story which stays with you for a long time any inferior. If you go by your definition, Tenet is the greatest film ever made. Even better than any kubrick films. Cause not only it tests your general knowledge and capability to handle complex scientific occurrences, it leaves you with like 100 different questions. Another film I can think of is The Fountain - again leaves you as puzzled as a kid finding how babies are born for the first time. And just because of that, films like Shawshank Redemption, Heat, Gladiator, Rocky, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump etc can't be any lesser films cause they don't leave you with any question. Not everything have to be cryptic and obscure to be great.

@@sikdermahmud3444 Well I didn’t say Schindler’s list wasn’t a great film, but whatever man.

@@wb8905 You mean questions like, "how could this happen" or "how can we prevent this from ever happening again"? Those are there, clear as day.

You still don't know. The plot of the movie "Jaws" was ripped-off from Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen's 1882 play 'An Enemy of the People'.

@@autodidact537 it was actually ripped off of quite a few things there’s books about sharks and other pieces of literature that make sharks seem like they’re evil and that’s what Spielberg used. That’s why jaws was an “evil” shark in the movie Jaws was also made at a time when most if not all people that weren’t marine biologist knew nothing about sharks really

@@adawgnamedcat right so spielberg used some shit about sharks being evil instead of literally the book Jaws

@@lukess.s no, the book jaws identified sharks as evil. Or at least identified them as aggressive and killers. Hence the movie having Jaws be so aggressive and deadly. Back in the 70s people really didn’t know much of anything about sharks because of the technology, so the movie showed a lot of misinterpretations of how sharks react to people. I’m pretty sure that’s in a documentary or conversation about the movie jaws with people who were part of the movie or in someway connected to it. Or at least I had heard it about the movie lol

"You gonna need a bigger brain."

Yes but do you see Gilliam’s point? That what Spielberg chose to make - the movie about the hero - the guy who made the right choices, the heroic choices. The bigger story is how did millions turn a blind eye. More than that how did millions go along. It is a great movie but the criticism is a valid one and Kubrick’s quote sums it up perfectly.

Ellipsis22 don’t know what that has to do with it but....you’re wrong.

Wayne Durning Why is Kubrick allowed to to make the movies he wants to make and blast Spielberg for making the movies he makes?? The story is about Oskar Schindler and how HE changed HIS on the Holocaust to save those he could. It wasn’t about the bigger picture of the nazi propaganda. Is was about that particular snapshot of the Holocaust.

Claire Caines so go ahead and criticize Kubrick’s movies. Fair criticism is fair game. And I think “blast” is a bit much it’s just a critique. Look I’m a Spielberg fan but what these guys say make sense. I don’t get why people get so bent out of shape over it.

@@waynedurning8717 I think Gilliam was being disingenuous - Kubrick and Spielberg were friends in real life and admired each other's work. In fact, Kubrick spent years trying to make his own 'Spielberg movie' with AI and entrusted Spielberg to finish it. How mad could he possibly have been about Schindler's List if all of this happened?

And as far i do know "A.I." was kubrick's project and he was happy that spielberg did make it. Because it was a hard job of which s. was able to execute it. And the result is impressive. K. was too tired for another hard labour film but wanted it to be done. Maybe the only spielberg film that is more than good entertainment.

I don't know about that info on the list but know that Kubrick liked Spielberg direction and gave him AI scenario to direct.

@@jpgrumbach8562 Kubrick a drawings and characters sho he would have done it different. But still the movie is very good although Spielberg style. End of the world movie I'd also great. It is a great movie and great acting by Tom cruise.

@@innosanto, cruise was in k.'s last movie: eyes wide shut.

They may have been friends, but that does not mean that Schindler's Lust is a good movie. It was a disgrace, even if Kubrik thought it was good. Gilliam was spot on with this remark.

I always thought Schindler's List was about Speilberg making a desperate bid to buy his way into a Best Picture award.

As I recall, it was Spielberg's answer to his mother asking when he was going to do a moving about his people.

John, You are correct. Terry is wrong.

Youre spot on, not all movies need to be open ended to be great movies, there are bad open ended movies and there are also bad explicitly explained movies. You dont have to be either to be great, its about how you execute.

This.

I came here to say the same thing. It would be a pretty boring medium if every movie ended with a mystery.

Agreed

Yet as a creator, whether I agree with his criticisms or not, I like that he's dedicated to his vision. Creators don't always make the best critics because they are so wrapped up in their vision they can't see someone else's clearly enough. I'm happy that Terry is passionate enough about his vision to say things like this because that is part of what makes him who he is...

Yeah. But he has to rely on Python reunions to pay for it.That's if cleese hasn't hogged all the money to pay off his ex's.

Bollocks. Kingfisher is the only one I'd watch all the way through. The rest is boring twoddle.

I don’t know-look where all his friends lived: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aJyKd6VqzZ2mfI0.html

I wonder if Lula would agree with you.

What does that even mean?

+Fer Abra 'I guess there were nice nazis that loved their wives and children and their pets, but that wouldn't have made Amon Goeth more 3D and complex. It just wouldn't have made sense.' The scary truth about the Nazis is that there were many of the type you describe. Everyday types who went home after arranging mass killing and had an ordinary home life. Many of them were teachers, accountants,... before the war. I'm not sure I'd label them 'nice nazis' but their conversion from ordinary everyday people to ruthless killers is a part of that history that really scares me about humanity, especially when that conversion was not forced by survival adaptation, but transitioned simply from a need for power, greed, or ego.

Was it not Roman Polanski who was offered the chance to make Schindler's List, but turned it down because it was too close to him? And was he not moved by the finished picture?

Terry Gilliam films are amazing! His work in Python was as slight as it gets. The most basic humor with the most basic animation. Basically a trippy treat and segway tool...

@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 "Segue", .

@@geneblack120 don’t forget indoctrination that can happen in the US. We have seen it recently.

it's a movie about success

@@TonyTheSamurai Thank you so much. Now, maybe I can finally move on.

@@blujay2084 the original Joe Dirt was very Speilbergian, for existential angst you must go to Joe Dirt 2

@@TonyTheSamurai .. Not yet. I'm not ready. Perhaps in time I will be.

I was too traumatised by seeing our hero Joe get repeatedly farted on to make it the way through the film. Talk about existential angst . . . oh, the humanity!

I would add, that Schindlers list is about hope in the hopelest of events. Schindler started his factory just to gather cheap labor but fund the humanity along the way. Spielberg shows both, the horror and the hope during those times.

I don't think either of you quite understand what he was getting at

@@tomoakden2974 But still, during the film both sides of the conflict is presented, the end ist just the opinion of the director/writer of the move. To say, that you cant discuss Spielbergs movies, is to say, (at least for my understanding) that you are unable to make your own opinion. If there is still a misunderstanding feel free to correct me. Maby you are hintig at a different aspect. Respectfully greetings

Schindler was a scumbag! How can anybody belive that a person like Schindler who made a fortune of slave labour all of the sudden became a humanitarian as it became more and more evident that Germany was going to lose the war? Dont anybody stop to think that he might have changed his act so he would not be hanged for war crimes? Yes he saved a bunch of people but it was not for their sake but his. And the people he saved would be eternally grateful and witness on his behalf and demand that he was not executed

@@maxmeme4538 Tom (above) is correct neither of you did get what Gilliam is driving at. It doesn't matter that 'both sides are presented' and it doesn't matter that 'at the end Schindler wishes he could have saved more' - the film is a 'success' story, it concentrates on a triumph, whereas the Holocaust is anything but that.

Actually, its what humanity did that caused all the millions of WW2 victims. True history of WW2 is as misunderstood than true history of human race. Those are just too uncomfortable subjects for majority, and thus their subconscious blocks the subject completely and resort to calling people as crazy etc. while truth never fears investigation. One problem is that investigation requires lots of work, and enough intelligence for proving evidence to be original and correct. And great logical sense. Because even if some individuals can be totally illogical and crazy, any large enough group isnt. Ideologies mind sound crazy, might even be crazy, but for those that believe in it, there are logical reasons for doing so.

I like these film makers but when they start to open their mouths jeez I dont need to hear their thoughts or politcal views put them in the film or shut up gilliam is an anti semitic prick I use to like his earlier films but he hates America moved to England thats fine said some not nice things about sid sheinberg about the hold up of brazil by the way if you read the clark novel to 2001 it pretty much describes whats going on at the end like burton both came from animator backgrounds but at least some times, burton can tell a story gilliam its all about the visuals

Rose Carlson it shouldn't be a happy ending and it should've ended showing Schindler dying in crippling poverty because of the choices he made - but the ending of the film with all the people in the desert just ends with a happier feel than it should

shut up anti semite prick@@edward4840

G Kroll To compare someone not liking a film to being anti semitic is truly disgusting. Anti semitism is a truly appalling thing, you should be more careful about throwing around such statements. By throwing it around so carelessly, only ends up lessening the impact of actual anti semitism.

I can't help but think Gilliam here is conflating the two. Ignoring that, I don't really see what is exactly wrong with making a story about the best of humanity amidst the worst of humanity. Is Gilliam implying that there is no better side to human nature? Because if we didn't have one, then why would we be making judgement about what is and isn't moral/ethical?

Amen.

@@TalonsofWater My guess is Gilliam's a boomer. He prefers his war movies with a side of boomer politics about the futility of war and the brutalization of soldiers and capitalism and blah blah blah. 'Schindler's List'; has none of that, so the movie is 'stupid' to him because it doesn't raise questions to which he already knows the answers and has seen in dozens of other war movies like 'Platoon,' 'Apocalypse Now' and of course, Kubrick's own effort, 'Full Metal Jacket.'

@@The_Mighty_Fiction Calm down, son. Your guess is wrong. Did you start paying back your rent, son?

@@samsun01 OK boomer

Right? The climax of the film is Oskar Schindler breaking down realizing how much more he could've done.

It's not a happy movie, but the viewer can leave the movie happy having their questions answered and with the moral the movie is portraying

But the big questions are not answered. How could ordinary people become mass murderers and how could the world stand by and let it happen? The few people at the top were psychopaths but the thousands of people who ran the deportations and the death machine were ordinary germans who somehow became complicit in the worst mass murder in history. To say they were all evil is a cop out. If we don’t make an effort to understand how these people all became morally corrupt we won’t be able to stop it next time.

@@sblack48 It's about personal responsibility e.i. moral and ethics. You can have the same discussion about the Vietnam war. Is it justifiable to participate in an unethical action to avoid personal punishment? Every single guy that got drafted to Vietnam could have chosen prison.. but they didn't.

@@azynkron the difference there is that a lot of guys signed up because they were told they'd be doing a good thing - saving the vietnamese people from communism. They thought they would be treated like heros. But once they got there they found out it was all bullshit and they were stuck. They were not given the honest facts on which to make a moral decision.

Fantastic example. Well said.

Yes!

The Thing is nothing special. It's an average horror movie, just more gory than is typical of the genre.

@@clintonsmith5163 So provocative!

Perfect example. I understood, or thought I did at the time, the reason that almost everyone loved E.T. But it didn't resonate with me at all. But I really enjoyed The Thing and will probably watch it again after this. And I prefer Kubrick over all other American directors.

gutz1981 nahh

Spielberg should go back to make things like 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' or even 'A.I'. Fantasy, Utopia, Symbolic tales. He should stay the hell away from reality.

I totally fucking agree-Spielberg is one of the finest filmers of action sequences (of all kinds) in history. Fucking Hitchcock said more or less as much, and rightly so. And he’d know. He should try not to be deep-he’d do much better, and go much deeper! His TV film Duel is fucking phenomenal-really. And I hate on Spielberg’s other stuff more than Gilliam, even-honestly, in part because if Spielberg actually had a top-notch intellect (or maybe it’s just top-notch artistic courage?), he really would be in Kubrick-Kurosawa-anyone else-land. You have to be that good to be that disappointing and engender that much disdain-even when 100% warranted, as I think it is in Spielberg’s case.

Spielberg is his worst enemy, in the 70's, he had the makings of a great artist who could also make commercially successful movies, but it's true that today, his tendency to play on the safe side or sugarcoat his stories ruins his own creations. I saw the last version of "Close Encounters" and I was shocked, the so-called encounter became a real invasion no one could possibly miss and the overuse of flashy effects ruined the 'realistic' atmosphere of the original version.

Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, even ET-all great. I agree with you-it’s a sort of fear of displeasing anyone, I think.

What are you talking about The message was that Oscar Schindler Alone saved As many people as possible. The message was if you are Capable you should help others which He did he helped complete strangers. Despite that fact that he was also German and supporter of Nazi. I think you completely misunderstood the movie

@@neelanshmishra97 "The message was if you are Capable you should help others"...And that isn't a hopeful message? Of course it is. After watching the movie, I felt capable of helping others - if a man like Schindler, under those circumstances can do it, surely I, under far less horrific and terrifying circumstances, can help others.

@@neelanshmishra97 Spot on!

@@g-maof8491 Well said.

@Van Groover That’s a poor choice of words considering the subject matter.

Spielberg and his movies both suck. Cheap hollywood crap

was*

That's just it... Terry never said there wasn't room. But as soon as somebody points out what might not be so great after all, or something not absolutely wonderful after we've all been swept up with the greatness, we start finding ways to cushion things for the one that made us feel good. Proving Terry correct.

@@lasvegasloner4621 I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of Spielberg's work, starting with the fact that he doesn't go very deep, nuanced, subtle, or thoughtful with his films. Its more the arrogant, dismissive, condescending nature of Gilliam's critique that makes me get up in arms to defending Spielberg, who despite his shortcomings, is still a master storyteller and filmmaker.

Master-bator and cultural pornographer. Also, Kubrick's gone and speelburg will probably live to be 100.

That movie is like an inverse of Schindler's list

@@KaninTuzi That movie is like an inverse of a plenty of things.

I feel like we give hopeful foreign hope a pass. Amelie and the film you mentioned are beloved, but so many cinephiles in the states turn their noses up when you try to put Driving Miss Daisy in a top films list.

Exactly. Some movies require and work with closure and some with ambiguity. Totally agree. Shawshank for example wouldn't work with an ambiguous ending. The movie in hindsight has a sense of inevitability and momentum. Other movies absolutely sing with an ambiguous ending. It all depends on the movie.

What a GREAT post!

***** thank you!

I feel the same way about John Cassavetes's A Woman Under The Influence.

I read a quote in a movie magazine a few years ago, attribute it to whomever you wish: There are only two kinds of movies, one is a candy-coated turd, the other is a turd with candy at its centre.

I never liked the end of Paris, Texas. Not just because it was sad but because at the end, the main character almost forces a lack of resolve instead of letting it be. Which to me was pointless and stupid. He reunited the son and mother. Is he not creative enough to develop some closure with his ex-wife that makes sense? Is he a hero for just leaving?

Watching 'Paris, Texas.' was like, I imagine, having to watch a cockroach spend an hour and a half aimlessly wandering around a room until it died.

If you want to be scared by cinema, just watch some Lars von Trier movies.

It's an optimistic movie, despite all the terrible things it's showing... It's like that book by Viktor Frankl "Man's Search for Meaning", written by Frankl during his imprisoment in nazi camps (Frankl was jew) But, Kubrick was a pesimistic director, it seems to me that Gilliam shares the same point of view, but that doesn't make Kubrick, Gillian or anyone else better or smarter than the optimistic Spielberg. I, myself, am a pesimistic one, and I like Spielberg movies (many of them, at least) they make me think, I don't agree with Gilliam, Spielberg make me think but in a different way I'm used to, and that's good

That's not the end of the film. The end of the film is the real life people that he saved and their descendents putting rocks on Schindler's grave.

@@danieloneill9560 Ughhh. you're THAT guy. Just fuck off.

That's not the point hes making

It was a sappy sentimental ending and false

I guess Jonathan Glazer didn't get that memo because he's working on one right now and if it's anything like his other films it's going to be deep and wide. But you see that is the thing about Spielberg, he worries about his audience too much. The brave move and the risk taking is to forget about the audience and tell the story. There's just too much fan service these days.

@@cinemar Forget about the audience? Dude virtually all stories are essentially a conversation between the storyteller and...wait for it...the audience. Know thy audience!

@@firstlast-oo1he Dude... The worst thing a filmmaker can do is make a film for the audience. This is why there are so few great films and filmmakers out there. Fuck thy audience. Real vital storytelling is not about pleasing audiences.

@@cinemar And that, I hope to clarify, doesn't mean forgetting that you're making this to be watched and considering the experience for the audience, but rather not catering to audience's whims.

@@bfish89ryuhayabusa Fair enough point but I think that's a given that most filmmakers are hoping for an audience and realise their content is about to be seen by many eyes other than theirs.

Fr he even gave him a movie

@@GREVIEWS02 yep A.I. because Kubrick believed Spielberg is the only guy who can make the robot child loveable like E.T.

@@fr442 and he was wrong. The robot kid is awful.

@@fr442 AI waa rubbish, truly disappointing. Destroyed the career of that child actor too. Can't believe it was Kubrick's life project and that Spielberg made it so over emotional. Nothing in Kubrick's work was over emotional.

@@standafan4141 Kubrick would have done it different it can be shown from his drawings and characters. But he still considered Spielberg a good storyteller and thus is why he gave him the project. But Kubrick life project although prepared for years was not this. It was the Napoleon movie that he was gathering info 20 years. But anyway from the works done his life project are all the movies he made. Have watched them all except for the ones before the bomb and half of Barry lyndon, and all I watched were great.

Then Spielberg completely f***ed it up with that ridiculous ending.

That is one film where what Gilliam is saying here could apply, not for Schlinder’s List. AI should have ended at the bottom of the ocean.

@@joebryant8500 It's ridiculous according to you, for me, it's the most underestimated Spielberg

@@joebryant8500 You do realize the ending was Kubrick's idea right?

.....hmmm, 🤔 never heard/read the word "just " being used in reference to the Holocaust !!

@@paulturnet4572 - JaydnR is correct. The movie was about a man, not about the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the historical event that made Schindler's brave actions significant, but the movie was not "about" the Holocaust.

@@technowey You are playing with words. It's like saying: "The Godfather is not about the Mafia, it's about the Corleone" or "Band of Brothers is not about WW2, it's about the Easy Company". Of course if you are making a movie about the Holocaust (or any large-scale historical event) you will focus on the story of a few characters. Spielberg wanted to talk about the Holocaust, and chose specifically the story of Oskar Schindler, instead of a story with a bleaker ending.

@@MrAlsachti - I'm *not* playing with words. They guy attacking the movie was doing that. The word "about" has a meaning. IMDB describes the movie as: "In German-occupied Poland during World War II, industrialist Oskar Schindler gradually becomes concerned for his Jewish workforce after witnessing their persecution by the Nazis." I don't really object to someone claiming the movie is about the Holocaust, but to attack the movie claiming that is wrong, and then requires stating what the movie is *really* about. Just because there's an important historical event in the movie doesn't make that the central theme, even if that event is critical to maintaining the plot. I object to the "playing with words," to attack the movie. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that movie. It's a great movie, and the flaw the guy claimed is ridiculous. That flaw doesn't exist.

Didn't The Sound Of Music have Holocaust parts?

This should be top comment. Such a balanced, reasonable and informed perspective.

You are sitting on the fence, regardless of how skilfully balanced you are. We do judge directors against each other, that is how people are and will always be. And there is a lot merit in doing so. Some of Steven Speilberg's films are fun and entertaining but I would much prefer to watch something that provokes me into questioning my prejudice, bias, received wisdom, etc.

Jaws wasn't the first blockbuster. www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

I will give you an example of how deceitful and devious Spielberg is: "Bridge of spies" (2015). In that movie Allen Dulles, the head of CIA, is depicted in a benevolent way. Nowadays we know for a fact that Allen Dulles was 100% son a bitch nazi believer and he is 100% involved in JFK murder. Spielberg, who is a jew and as such should really hate nazi, knows that for sure but he didn't give a damm and he ensured that "Bridge of spies" could be as much politically correct as he could

War of the worlds is definetely underrated. Film lost itself when they went to Tim Robbins cellar but before that it was very, very solid. Aliens were frightening without being frightening, is best i can describe the atmosphere before it.

The greater mystery was, "Why wouldn't Gilligan let them leave the island?"

@MichaelKingsfordGray Like Kingsford? Do you mind if he borrows it?

And eyes wide shut was a piece of crap. Kubrick’s films always make me feel like I am watching the actors from a distance and the characters always seem artificial. But May that’s just me. Eyes wide shut was garbage though.

@Grant Kerr Hey don't knock dickens his stories can be pretty grim....lol

@Grant Kerr Most of the video is Gilliam's referring to Kubrick's words so that description is pretty accurate.

@Grant Kerr Terry Gilliam hiding behind the likes of Stanley Kubrick in order to render a criticism of Spielberg and Schindler's List (and a simple-minded one, at that) is a crucial element that the title of this video leaves out.

@@anthonybrogan390, don't knock Dickens indeed. Oh, and sorry Terry your movie fell below "Schindler's List" on my list. TOP 33 FAVORITE MOVIES 1) The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982) 2) It's a Wonderful Life (1946) 3) The Prince who was a Thief (1951) 4) Narnia: the Lion, the witch, and the wardrobe (2005) 5) Let the Right One In (2008) - Swedish with English caption 6) A Silent Voice (2016) - Japanese with English caption 7) My Rainy Days (2009) - Japanese with English caption 8) X + Y [a Brilliant Young Mind] (2014) 9) Silence (2016) 10) Beauty and the Beast (2017) 11) Goodbye, Christopher Robin (2017) 12) The Man who Invented Christmas (2017) 13) The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934) 14) Amen (2002) 15) Red (2010) 16) Fletch (1985) 17) Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) 18) Men In Black (1997) 19) Star Wars: the Empire Strikes Back (1980) 20) Star Wars: a New Hope (1977) 21) Back to the Future (1985) 22) X-Men (2000) 23) Mannequin (1987) 24) Life is Beautiful (1998) 25) Schindler's List (1993) 26) The Passion of the Christ (2004) - Aramaic with English caption 27) Interview with the Vampire (1994) 28) Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) - Spanish with English caption 29) Midway (2019) 30) Paprika (2006) 31) Johnny English (2003) 32) Cinema Paradiso (1989) - Italian with English caption, shorter version, not extended version 33) The Man who Killed Don Quixote (2017)

i'm not a fan of the movie or spielberg, but i agree that it does not have a 'happy ending'. in fact that last scene resonates with me. after a good deed we always feel good with ourselves, but then we start to think that there's always something more we could be doing to help others. that's the bitter truth. it does make you think.

Well said.

That's only the last scene of the fictional part, the actual ending is seeing all the survivors today laying tributes to Schindler.

I honestly thought that they were two different people.

@Stella Hohenheim No doubt the comment was removed by KZfaq or the poster, as some cowardly posters I've run across delete their original posts so you can't reply. Do you make it a habit to answer seven year old posts??? I could be dead for all you know.

@@smotnick I appreciate your response time to a reply on your seven year old post. im so relieved you're alive and well

@@conephompany LOL

Lololol glad I came down here

@Kevin L Well all they said was that it is interesting, a sentiment with which I concur. Your declamation seems a little straw-ridden.

@King Carriere Kubrick and Spielberg were great friends who kept in touch often

Agree. The only problem (in my view) with movies like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan is that Spielberg had perfect -- PERFECT -- stories if you leave out the horrid "I coulda done more!" scene near the end of Schindler and the opening and closing "Did I earn it?" bullshit in Ryan. But Spielberg can't resist gilding the lilly -- he simply doesn't TRUST his audience to come to their own conclusion about whether it was worth it or what it all "means." On the other hand, no one but Spielberg could have made timeless monumental pop masterpieces like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Close Encounters, so...

@@kpe727 Yeah and it's his sentimentality that tells him to gild the lily because he seems to be completely unaware that the lily has already told the story.

@@kpe727 his audience is people who can't be trusted...

He got Schindler's correct. People tend to forget the camp scenes where the man in charge went around shooting and any person he wants. Please tell me what is sentimental about that. A lot of Kubric films although good make a person want to puke. A Clock Work Orange may have been a great film artistically but the whole film had a sick and twisted view on life, like the commandant of the concentration camp. Kubric makes him the star of the film. Even Malcolm McDowell thought it went too far at times.

@@bcalvert321 The final message of the film is sentimental, not the actual scenes in the film. No one is suggesting scenes depicting the wanton killing of innocent people is sentimental. How you even arrive at that accusation tells me you don't actually get what people are on about regarding Spielberg's sentimentality. Stating A Clockwork Orange had a sick and twisted view on life is like complaining about water being too wet. That was the entire point of the film. Kubrick isn't afraid to make villains the star of his films. All of Spielberg's films need a good guy as the hero regardless of context. And his heroes gild the lily to the point of it pulling down the entire tree. Who gives a shit if Malcom McDowell thought Kubrick went too far at times? Most filmmakers and by most I mean 99.9% do not go far enough.

Not really, movies like The shinning, eyes wide shut and paths of glory are not more thought provoking than jurassic park, saving private ryan or bridge of spies or even Schindler's list. Ambiguity doesn't make it more thought provoking from a thematic standpoint

@@lampad4549 Kubrick thrived on exposing the uncomfortable ugliness of reality. That is far different than ambiguity. Spielberg is a conformist. Kubrick was a non-conformist. It's ok to disagree and it's ok to dislike a director for whatever the reason. I don't care if you change your opinion, hold your opinion, or lose interest in films. Agree to disagree or become attached to a subjective, pointless exchange of words.

Enlighten me of which of Kubricks films are more thought provoking then Spielbergs, I like Kubricks movies, but saying he makes more thought provoking movies isn't right.

@@olle12 What you just said shows that you are no cinephile and that you don't understand Kubrick's work. '2001: A Space Odyssey,' 'Clockwork Orange,' 'Full Metal Jacket,' and 'The Shining' are multi-layered and extremely complex conceptually. Kubrick made more thought-provoking films than Spielberg; period.

@@olle12 Kubrick's films force multiple viewings. 'Jaws,' Raiders of the Lost Ark,' or 'Poltergeist' don't move me enough to re-watch them. Spielberg's made good films, but none are as conceptually deep as a Stanley Kubrick film.

Indeed! 'Paths' is a great film! Kubrick's earlier works were great, but not nearly as subtle and thought-provoking as his later ones. I think '2001' was the real turning point.

Bruh, giving message is a different subject than Posing questions. A man can tell his views to the entire world which he thinks is important. And a kubrick's ideas are driven by intellect and facts and not pure sentiments. Ambiguity and posing questions are different kind of films. Both have their place.

He may be a brilliant filmmaker, but he's a pretentious prat.

It seems as though Gilliam is suggesting the hope found by the survivors of the Holocaust such as Edith Eger, who unlike Gilliam were actually there and suffered the most wretched evils imaginable, is simply naive and false; that one cannot possibly find hope in such hell. Hope is just as vital a part of the story of the Holocaust as failure is.

Depressing doesn't make it better.

That's probably why he didn't make it in the end.

I get what you're saying and i wish both could've been made but if only one could, I'd go with Schindler's List. The "happy" ending guaranteed a more palpable watch while still holding the horror of the holocaust within the film. This allows for a larger viewing audience and thus more people being emotionally aware of the holocaust. 'Come and See' is a great, bleak film on war and human atrocity but aint nobody showing that shit in high school classrooms

It's not about "every" film. It's about taking the deaths of 6 million Jews (and other "undesirables") and turning it into a sentimental movie about the redemption of a wealthy Christian German.

@@mskcrc yes cause that actually happened

@@lampad4549 So the choice to focus on ONE narrative about the Holocaust that happens to a German man... uh huh

@@mskcrc why not? A German was the one who saved 2000 it wasn't a Jew cause the Jews couldn't do anything about it unfortunately, he could have altered it and made it as if he was a Jew in hiding and ended saving all his people ,but what makes it interesting by keeping it German is the display of multi dimensional layers of humans about someone who isn't from the class and way of life and chooses to help those when his background doesn't compell him to have any sympathy for them.

mxsxkxcrc No, it’s about saving 1200 souls who were going to be exterminated

Agreed... by Gilliams logic you couldn't make hopeful movies. I didn't want to get to the end of Schindler's List and wonder what it all meant. Schindler's List isn't diminished for being more on-the-nose. Honestly it had a few scenes that were more profound to me than anything I've seen in a Gilliam movie, despite Gilliam's talent.

The complaints about SPR often stem from the overly schmaltzy, Hallmark Channel grade bookends. The rest of the movie is pretty solid.

The snobbishness exhibited in this video fails to recognize each individual's experience is unique.

@@GalaxyNexus1 I don't really agree with that: Gilliam didn't say people couldn't enjoy one or the other, or even both approaches. Beyond that, just like individual experience is unique, everyone has their opinions, and If people kept their opinions to themselves on creative works because there will always be someone who feels differently owing to their experience - that'd pretty be boring (not that you're suggesting that - I'm just saying).

@@JET7C0 he doesn't say one can't enjoy both, but he posits one as superior and more meaningful than the other, which I do not agree with and think is a very snobbish, elitist and exclusionary view of art. He even goes as far as to compare Spielberg unfavorably to Kubrick, by calling Kubrick a great filmmaker, with the implication that Spielberg is not. On another note, regarding Kubrick, one could argue a "great filmmaker," shouldn't have to resort to bully tactics and abuse of his actors in order to achieve a "great film," up to Mr. Gilliam's standards.

@@GalaxyNexus1 Sure: superior - in his opinion, which isn't really ignoring individual experience, because he's surely well aware people enjoy Spielberg's films. Also, if someone basically says the reverse of Gilliam here, thus basically Spielberg is 'superior,' would that be snobbish in your mind, or no?

Also, it's not like Spielberg doesn't show the horrors of the Holocaust. Did Gilliam not see the liquidation of the ghetto scene or any scene with Amon Goeth? There is some really disturbing material in this movie.

I don't agree with you that Spielberg raises questions about the nature of humanity - just not Spielberg's style... I think you are missing the point in that Gilliam is saying that Spielberg's movies follow a path toward |paraphrasing here| "tying things up neatly in a little bow.... roll credits" and that is the same thing in Schindler's List. My opinion that Spielberg (and his success) comes from always making "safe" movies - follow a formula. I see Steven Spielberg as a wonderful director, he just chooses to drive different cars (his films) on the same road every time (his film's formula).

​@@justincase4812 Exactly. I don't want to sound snobbish, but for me it's the difference between art and entertainment. Spielberg is great at making entertainment, but I personally wouldn't call it art, because for me art has to raise questions, just like Gilliam says. At the end of the day, though, it's always healthy to remember that I can't define "art" for other people, and so we'll continue to have these discussion until our species goes extinct.

@tamenga88 what a shit movie to die for

He loves it. Everybody does.

Didnt end in a dragged out psychadelic snorefest with screaming humpback whales. 0/10 Im referencing what he said about 2001 btw

Klaatu, verata, nichto?

I'd love to hear what he has to say about sox and poo poo undies.

@@MrJabez89 Try again. I am IN NO WAY shitting on you for liking it (I know you Sam Raimi fans are touchy) but it and the first film just aren't my cup of tea in any way. I do, however, enjoy the 'boomstick' reference in every damn shooter game that has come out since.... it (no sarcasm) never gets old. That was like my only favored line/scene from the film.

Then you'll find Tarkovsky work even more ambiguous. But in all honesty the Kubricks, the tarkovskyvs, the lynchs make me come back to their films time and again like a thirsty man is drawn to a well. It's always giving more as you see more. With Spielbergs and Tarantinos I do go back to their films time and again but they give less and less as I watch their work.

Spielberg has made a heck of a lot of movies! Saying *none* of them make you think is kind of crazy, unless you're not one for thinking much about anything.

Not necessarily a bad thing though. Think of Jaws, arguably one of the best movies ever made. It's just pure fun.

good fast food though. but the artisan stuff is still better.

spielberg has about x3 the IQ this terry guy has and he should shut the fuck up. spielberg's 2 WWll movies are ultra violent and very hard to stomach and they were followed by success, in schindlers list on a much smaller scale. spielberg did not make anything up in the movie, the only thing he "manipulated" is how to present the events that occured. its called *history*. imagine what kind of a holocaust movie kubrcik would have made, my guess is it wouldnt be half as realistic as this one.

brassmonkeyjew Indeed, the affect you describe that the film ET had on you (and the grammar you choose to employ while recounting your memory) tell us all a lot about you, Spielberg's fans, and Spielberg himself.

I do agree. Looking for specks of good in that morass of evil seems just about the only way to take on the holocaust. I dont recall any films by Kubrik on that subject anyway.

newgeorge actually Kubrick spent much of his career working on a film on the holocaust, entitled "The Aryan Papers." it was the second of his two career-long projects and the third total that suffered the same fate: competing studios rushed in to put out a film on the same topic before Kubrick could finish his. "The Aryan Papers" was eliminated by "Schindler's List" just as "Napoleon" was wiped out by "Waterloo." Of course there was also "Full Metal Jacket" which did make it to the screen, but just barely, as it was endangered by the release of "Platoon." Fortunately there are elements of "The Aryan Papers" in other films of Kubrick, including "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut." Gilliam's point is right on, and I'll improve it. Would you rather have people feeling good despite the Holocaust, or have people enlightened and aware in such a way as to help derail future Holocausts? Spielberg sells because he is selling the easy way out of things, the strong drink, not the light of sobriety. I suppose we need both, and I'm sure Gilliam wouldn't say we don't need Speilbergian films. He's saying simply that he prefers the more intelligent and stimulating film. I couldn't agree with Gilliam more.

That's not the point. The point is that, except for Munich, Spielberg always chooses to tell feel-good stories

It´s a pitty that Spieberg didn´t show in the movie that Schindler died poor and his wife´s only money came from the Argentina´s Government.

@@patrickherron1968 this is just incredibly pretentious thinking, simply because a movie has a happy ending doesnt make it less intelligent nor does it make it less stimulating as feeling uplifted by a work of art is a mode of stimulating. Thematically speaking and from a perspective of character Jurassic Park, saving private ryan and Schindler's list are more poignant and in depth some of Kubrick's works such as the shinning, full metal jacket and eyes wide shut. Even Kubrick wanted Spielberg to make AI. The notion that Spielberg movies dont make you ask questions is ridiculous all films make you ask questions even fast and the furious. And all films provide answers even Kubrick movies for every question there is an answer. There may be more morbid but what makes them more thought provoking, feelings are not the basis for how in depth something is explored.

I'm the one guy who immediately rushed out of the theater to take a piss. That thing was looooooooooooooong

What a fucking bunch of pretentious douchebags. I’d have blew up that theatre with all you losers in it.

Sure. But, if you want to make a Film so it will be Popular-Then why are you making a Film about the Holocaust. Why would you use one of the most significant events in the history of Civilization-for something that is insignificant?

What you are describing there is "being manipulative": nothing impressive with that! A lot of mediocre artists can make you cry, laugh, get scared or sad, it's no big deal really. Great art does not make you cry like an onion can make you cry, it touches you on a far....... far deeper level than that.

Professicchio I disagree. I think it is really hard to elicit feelings from someone. How many times have you cried at a movie? I can only think of a couple(one being Crash **spoiler** when the the little girl was shot). If it were easy, we would cry more often. And I get no thrill out of Bay movies, or most summer blockbusters. Real filmmaking is much more of an art. An underrated art it seems. And Spielberg is a true master. Don't judge Spielberg for not making films like Kubrick. He doesn't want to make kubrick films. He wants to make Spielberg films. Judge him on those. Even Paul thomas Anderson, the guy who directed There Will be Blood, has said that he thinks Terminator 2 is a great film. You can have fun in movies. It is okay! You need some, it seems

Dillon McManus You are wrong my friend and it can be easily proven: I have seen people crying genuine tears at some of the corniest and crappiest soap-operas ever made on the telly and pretty sure almost anyone on earth has seen/experienced something along those lines: it's just a matter of pulling the right strings at the right moment, it's a narrative technique that requires a certain skill for sure but it's purely artifice, not real art! I'm not saying that movies which go for your gut and pull your emotional strings are necessarily bad movies though, as in the case of Casablanca or the earlier Spielberg movies like E.T., Jaws or Close Encounters: those where, yes, manipulative in some ways but also sincere and genuine in the way they delivered it, that is not been the case at all for Spielberg's output for the past two decades. The great movies I have experienced are those that have left me wondering or I even dislike them the first time I saw them but they have stayed with me and I keep thinking about them and they still send shivers down my spine after decades I haven't watched them, that is what true art can do to you: it doesn't matter how much it affect you in the 90 minutes or so you are watching it, it's how it affects you for the rest of your life that counts, but if you have never experienced that, well I'm sorry for you, but that's how it is for some.

Professicchio Haha, I hate internet debates, but let's do this! Let's get everything straight first. What are we arguing about? Are you saying all Spielberg movies are inferior, or just the ones post-schindler's list, like private ryan, munich, and lincoln? I don't like the idea of dismissing a whole genre of movies from being art because they're action or adventure, or "fun". When Hitchcock made movies, people saw them as just entertainment, not truly art. Yet Vertigo is now the #1 movie of all time on Sight and Sound and Hitchcock is considered one of the greatest directors ever. He was called the "master of suspense" because it is difficult to do these things. Emotion is hard to elicit. Some movies may make you cry, but that doesn't mean that you are sad. You're right; it can be temporary. But after Schindler's List, I didn't cry; I was miserable. I once saw a video saying Kubrick was going to do a World War 2/holocaust movie in the 90s, but stopped working on it after schindler's list came out. His wife says it was because what he wanted to say was said in Schindler's list. I'm paraphrasing and I don't remember the video name, so don't bite my head off. I would also like to say that I do like Kubrick. I don't even know who I like more between the two. I'm not trying to argue for schindler's list or for spielberg. I'm not arguing against Kubrick. You seem to acknowledge that the early ones are good, so I guess we're in agreement on that. I think art does affect you on a deeper level. And I think any movie that can make you emotional, genuinely emotional, is art.

Dillon McManus The one main thing that Hitchcock and Spielberg had in common is that they were both massively popular with the audiences by making movies that can be rightly considered 'commercial' rather than 'artsy', niche or whatever. I do believe that the main difference between them is that Hitch managed to be more consistently brilliant in his 50+ years of career than Spielberg did after just two decades or so, he had a way to find the perfect balance between being 'deep', 'challenging' and crowd-pleasing at the same time that is rarely found elsewhere and, yes, "Vertigo" is a masterpiece of psychological depth just as are "The Birds", "North By Northwest", "Psycho", "The Man How Knew too much" and some of his earlier British efforts. For a while Spielberg shared similar qualities, I think "Duel" would have been just as good if Hitchcock directed it (it has got actually a lot in common with the themes of the old maestro) and "E.T.", "Close Encounters", have some genuine great depth despite some were dismissing them as elaborate fairy-tales at first. Today the opposite is happening: while critics usually rave about almost anything he does, I've found "Shindler's List", "Saving Private Ryan", "Amistad", "Minority Report", "A.I." (there might be more, those are the ones I remember for now) to be really not that good at all below the surface, but I guess only time will tell eventually, who am I to say? I particularly had a problem with Jurassic Park: sure it was technically groundbreaking and had the typical Spielberg-esque scary moments placed perfectly, but a movie in which the CGI dinosaurs have far more character and depth than the actual human beings in it has definitely got a problem somewhat, no matter which way you see it. Spielberg had a cunning capacity to portray children in the same way Hitchcock represented fear: with real sense of wonder and deep observations. In JP instead you got kids that are there purely for scare purpose and got nothing interesting to say or do except run and scream. I feel myself you can take that as a sort of metaphor of how Spielberg himself has changed over the years with his film making. Rant over.

Perhaps it is earned--but it's not always granted. A person can truly love what they do and be really good at it, and still fail miserably. If anyone tells you life is supposed to be fair, they're either lying or they're selling something.

But every protagonist will struggle as without conflict you don't have a story. By the teacher's account that means everything should have a happy ending. I'm inclined to disagree.

@@butterflymoon6368 That's not even remotely what that means. Saying someone has earned a happy ending to their story doesn't mean they have to get one. It just means that a happy ending to their story is just as legitimate a fiction as any other. It's a fucking story, that's all, not a documentary. If you get set off by a 'Happily Ever After' just because joy is not 'realistic' to you, then you are very likely shitty company to watch a movie with, my friend.

See Inside Llewyn Davis.

@@butterflymoon6368 Many protagonists fail to improve themselves.

Way to miss what they said.

@@pablovi77 It’s a joke calm down.

the book was though

It's overrated

He sounds like a jackass in this interview

@MetalReign Agreed. They're not just "needed" for audience enjoyment either, remember. They're both just as important for allowing directors, actors, writers, composers, etc (creative types) to express themselves artistically too! But, I think that a little escapism goes a long way. Just because more "literary" works aren't as popular doesn't mean they aren't as good. On the contrary. But pop culture appeals to the widest possible audience. And it's just fun to watch a popcorn film sometimes. Especially if (like is often in Sci Fis like Star Trek) it has a little bit of thought provoking elements seeded in between the lines for the more acute.

@James Cain Gilliam is great in his own right. He's also a pompous windbag.

@James Cain I think Palin, Cleese and Idle are of pretty good character. Jones and Chapman are scumbags of the lowest variety.

Im only saying that because they can't defend themselves.

@James Cain Someone who has a sense of humour on par with the Python's and isn't vulgar and disgusting.

Actually, he won’t. Terry Jones was Welsh. So whereas they are all British (as Gillian became a citizen), only 4 are English.

Ah, so you say there's a difference between these two directors? That's what Gilliam is saying.

@@t.adamcollins2162 he's saying they're both good in their own right. Spielberg doesn't make Kubrick movies and Kubrick doesn't make Spielberg movies

I’m not quite sure what all this meant but that last sentence was pretty funny ;)

@@prebenpoejensen8256 Ditto

@@prebenpoejensen8256 Power pf evil jenen???

@WillyFisher412 if you're dumb enough to genuinely think that Oskar Schindler is an example of a Messiah Complex then there's no hope for you lol it's literally based on a damn book on a real life person.

Movies are arbitrary, people like and hate them for different reasons. So he has an opinion, I'm sure you have a lot of them yourself. We all do, it's how our brains work when it comes to trivial things. Stating your opinion is not stating a fact, and people are allowed to state whatever opinion they want without being ridiculed by people like you who don't understand what "subjectivity" is.

Well that is MY statement, which im alloud to have, and so do you. But Gilliam states his opinion like it's a fact. I have nothing against opinions.

Oh, he states his opinion like it's a fact? >how dare he criticize something >people enjoy spielberg's movies, so he should too >variety is good >STOP HATING WHAT I LIKE you sound like a boy. Innocent, opinionated, unexposed to reality, soaking up what others think like a human sponge. You reek of what I like to call "black and white thinking".

Upon further inspection, it turns out you're very young. It makes much more sense now. Sorry I was a little mean, kiddo. You enjoying winter break?

Not Benny and yet here you are egging it on.

Correct

Norwindian you're off to a good start.

Thought provoking as in Indy didn't make a bit of difference and the outcome would've been exactly the same if he wasn't even there?

@@dxgypsyful had Indy not been there to bring the ark back to the usa, more nazis would have returned and taken the ark again... shucks

Smack Dab and I would add to that: Marion would most likely be dead.

I’m not sure that I understand why it would be “bad/wrong” for an Artist to “not take a stand”; And I’m confused about how a film that has “clear answers” rather than ambiguity-would be the option that is ‘thought provoking’; If an Artist says “I have the answer.”-then, aren’t they saying “You shouldn’t question what I’m saying-because I already have the answer. Therefore, you don’t need to think about what I’m saying”? Whereas, if the Artist says: “I don’t know the answer. But, here are some questions we can ask-which may help us find the answer”… Isn’t _that_ option-the one that is thought provoking?

​@@CipherSerpico​​​ whenever filmmakers say: "here are some questions we can ask" those questions are actually setups, subtly leading to *their* answer. It's manipulative. When a filmmaker flat-out says "This is the way it is", it can be very thought provoking - if the message is *unconventional, controversial, unusual, DIFFERENT, counter-intuitive, against the accepted norms* of the sheeple of society... Not taking a stand (for all intents and purposes) = documentary.

@@stepha5926 “those questions are actually setups subtly leading to their answer. It’s manipulative”; If they’re doing ‘that’-then they’re not actually “asking questions”; They’re saying “I have the answer”. If the Filmmaker is saying: “X + Y = Z This Film conveys how/why: X = 1 Y = between 2-10 …” So, Z is probably between 3-12. Then, how are they being “manipulative” or disingenuous. Art, by definition, is “manipulative”; in the sense that-everything in Art is an “illusion”; The stories, the emotions, the experiences… Even if it’s based on something that actually happened-it still isn’t “present” in that moment; It’s impossible for Art to _not_ be “manipulative”. The only way that I compare it to being “manipulative” in a way that’s “unethical/immoral’-would be: If the Filmmaker’s ultimate goal-was to ‘convey lies-as being truths’. On top of all those things: I don’t see how any other option could be _”less_ manipulative” than the one that is ‘posing questions’, rather than ‘making statements’.

Well informed opinions carry much more weight. They surely are not all equal.

Wow, they are not doing that in 2018.

And all facts are actually opinions.

_"Well informed opinions carry much more weight."_ Gilliam has ONLY "opinions". One of the most overrated ridiculously stereotypical 'post modern' relativists, he'd be too busy 'interpreting' my motives to get out of the way of my fist knocking out his front teeth. Some things, Gilliam, don't require any 'interpretation'. Some things, son, are black and fucking white.

Hank Roest is 2+2=4 a fact or an opinion?

Why Jeff Goldblum?

My niece often talks about "the American line" in a movie or a TV show. By that she means the point where a character will explain what's going on, just so the dimmest people in the audience will be up to speed. It seems the director doesn't trust the average person in the U.S. to figure things out intelligently. History seems to suggest they might be right....

@@stevecarson4162 shut up pretending that foreign movies are superior, not one region is the best at movies

@@daftbanna7202 : That's not what I said. What I SAID was that it's clear American directors don't think their own countrymen will be able to follow a story intelligently. And when you look at the ghastly mess that the U.S. has turned into, it's easy to see why they think so. It's also just annoying to see smug Americans constantly (and incorrectly) assuming they are always the biggest and the best of everything, and the only country on the planet where people are "free" bla-bla-bla. Bullshit.

@@stevecarson4162 no what you said is that American directors believe their audiences to be less intelligent not that other shit u just plucked out your arse

if you say...

@ dude, he gave a.i. to spielberg. That's some sort of respect for the guy.

He's not really that good if you value imagination and eschew sentimentality.

And mainstream is shit.

Agreed! Most mainstream directors today can't touch the storytelling prowess of Jaws, ET, Raiders, Private Ryan

His films are effective at making you feel certain emotions. But some of his films feel as if they were written to be tearjerkers above all else.

No, it’s not. It turns the Holocaust into a goddamn melodrama.

I watched this and I have no fucking clue what this guy is saying. I hear him clearly, it’s just so, crude. He goes from one thing to the next with no transition.

so*

no offense, i would call Schindlers list a masterpiece but Spielberg lacks something called realistic perception, he forces you a state of sentimentalism and he doesnt reach greatness at all.

I agree. And Kubric, at his best, is not about intellectualism. Though, he confronts the audience in a way that is fertile ground for all sorts of intellectual observations. Spielberg should always be approached with caution due to his overt sentimentality. Not that I don't enjoy E.T. of Close Encounters for fun.

and anit semetic and spiteful speilberg himself said when he was given the book back in the 1980s he wasnt ready to do it not mature enough he said, ill give him credit but I dont like about sir stevie especially at his age after doing so many serious films he keeps jumping back from serious films that dont do that well at the box office to crap like tin tin and ready player one which usually makes money at his age he doesnt need any more moneyo and now hes going to do another indy film well at least its not a sequel to hook arrrgg that was juvenile even by 1990s standards