A great guy, and a comic genius:

http://videosift.com/video/We-ve-got-lumps-of-it-round-the-back



On a serious note, I agree with him completely. I understand why the films with answers do so well, but I do like a film that makes me think...

That does it. I'm creating a few dozen sockpuppet accounts to upvote this more. Get the banhammer ready...

Kubric creates art, Speilberg creates entertainment. Comparing the two is inane.

>> ^Payback:

Kubric creates art, Speilberg creates entertainment. Comparing the two is inane.


Yeah eventually you just show Dog the Bounty Hunter reruns all day anyways,.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Terry Gilliam, Spielberg, Schindler, List' to 'Terry Gilliam, Spielberg, Schindler, List, Kubrick' - edited by calvados

I agree about his explanation of Spielberg's films. I disagree about what he suggests movies should be.

Speiberg is brilliant.

>> ^legacy0100:

I agree about his explanation of Spielberg's films. I disagree about what he suggests movies should be.
Speiberg is brilliant.


Gilliam never once suggests what a film should be.

Artertainment... WHERE'S MY FUCKING OSCAR??
>> ^Payback:

Kubric creates art, Speilberg creates entertainment. Comparing the two is inane.

In the end both directors had / have relitavly lots of money to allow them to spend time making films.

something that many film makers probably every bit as talented don't have.


I think you could argue leaving a story open and not tied off can be lazy rather than more artistic , It can go both ways. you can have a gr8 story film that's entertaining educational thorugh provicing and have it all tied up at the same time or not tied up at all.

I think one advantage of not trying things off so much is that if you have a intellectual audeance they will fill in the gaps and have a better exsperance than if you have a tied off film that dosent leve much to the imagination or its solution is simplistic.

I agree Westy. Maybe it's not the best example, but it comes to mind: The Blair Witch Project. I always thought it was a great film, and scarier than most "horror" movies, because it implies just what it needs to then leaves the rest to the imagination. The people that complained "WTF, they never showed the witch!" missed out IMO.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Terry Gilliam, Spielberg, Schindler, List, Kubrick' to 'Terry Gilliam, Spielberg, Schindlers List, Kubrick' - edited by xxovercastxx

One of my favorite movies is The Family Man. What struck me about it was that (spoilers ahead) even though it has a "happy" ending, Jack can never have the alternate life he is shown. He had his chance and he passed it up and even though he's made to see his error over the course of the film, there is nothing he can do to correct it. The ending is left open so that you don't know what happens but even in the best-case scenario, where he and Kate wind up together, it's too late to have the life Jack wants.

That actually made me quite depressed because I found myself second-guessing every decision I've ever made. I had always thought that even though I may make wrong and/or bad decisions, I'd eventually get where I want in life and The Family Man really drove home the idea that it may not be true; some decisions permanently change the course of your life and there's no way to go back.

Even though it was depressing, I loved that the movie could affect me so strongly. I don't think most people who saw that movie thought about it the way I did.

The holocaust was bad, so no story should ever be told about anything good that happened in the midst of it? What a stupid, stupid thing to say.

The film A.I. started out as a Kubrick project, a project that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct, because he felt Spielberg's directing style would best fit the script. The film never got out of the development phase, because the effects technology of the time were not convincing enough for Kubrick's high standards. After Kubrick passed, Spielberg picked it up and made a very dark, beautiful and underrated film. One of his best IMO.

All of them are artists. All of them are entertainers. I dig all three directors. If I had to make a personal top 10 list, it would probably include The Shining, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Brazil. I don't see a reason to beat down Spielberg just because he is more commercial. Most commercial films suck. (Current box office champs: Tron 2, Yogi Bear, Narnia 3) Spielberg consistently puts out intelligent, meaningful films that can be appreciated by people of all walks of life - not an easy task.

That said, Gilliam's last 3 flicks were horrible. I hope his second shot at La Mancha goes well, the released footage from the 1st abandoned attempt looked really good.

@dystopianfuturetoday: Yow, I despised A.I. I don't have anything insightful to say about it except that I hated it enough that I had to comment on it.

Brazil and Raiders rock, though, I agree.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The film A.I. started out as a Kubrick project, a project that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct, because he felt Spielberg's directing style would best fit the script. The film never got out of the development phase, because the effects technology of the time were not convincing enough for Kubrick's high standards. After Kubrick passed, Spielberg picked it up and made a very dark, beautiful and underrated film. One of his best IMO.I think Kubrick would have ended the movie when the boy freezes, but Spielberg just had to "wrap it up". I'm with you until that part of the movie, but then then he completely lost me.

>> ^Xax:

The holocaust was bad, so no story should ever be told about anything good that happened in the midst of it? What a stupid, stupid thing to say.


Yes that is a stupid thing to say...he didn't say it, you did.

I'm not sure I'd agree with characterising Schindlers List as a "success" movie with a happy resolution. It didn't gloss over the horrors of the holocaust.

Yeah, I'd definitely have to disagree with his criticism's of Schindler's List. The movie wasn't at all a "success story," but of one man who risked everything to at save some people from destruction in a world gone mad. The movie (and I liked it by the way) still made me want to vomit and definitely made you think "how in the world did these things take place?" and "would I have had Schindler's balls - what does it take to stand up to those men?" I certainly didn't feel like everything was nice and neatly wrapped up at the end because in the second to last scene you still have Oskar Schindler weeping over the few more he could have saved despite having saved over 1,100 lives. He wasn't at all triumphant over his success, but broken over having wasted what could have been used to save more.

Ummm, he isn't criticizing Schindlers list here.

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The film A.I. started out as a Kubrick project, a project that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct, because he felt Spielberg's directing style would best fit the script. The film never got out of the development phase, because the effects technology of the time were not convincing enough for Kubrick's high standards. After Kubrick passed, Spielberg picked it up and made a very dark, beautiful and underrated film. One of his best IMO.I think Kubrick would have ended the movie when the boy freezes, but Spielberg just had to "wrap it up". I'm with you until that part of the movie, but then then he completely lost me.


That's actually not true. I thought for sure that that was the case when I saw it too, but the whole thing with the aliens was all Kubrick.

>> ^direpickle:
That's actually not true. I thought for sure that that was the case when I saw it too, but the whole thing with the aliens was all Kubrick.


Zow good find! That is odd. Despite my love for Kubrick, I still don't care for that last part. I actually didn't go on a second date with the gal I saw that movie with because she insisted it didn't go far enough to ensure the boy was happy, while I was disappointed they didn't "kill him off" to end the movie. I must admit that at the time I attributed that ending to Spielberg as well, but I still stand by that decision.


Besides, my wife would be really angry if I called her now.

@Truckchase: Hahaha. Actually, I feel like I should amend my earlier comment about hating A.I.: I hated the end, and I hated the beginning, but parts of the middle were, as DFT said, dark and beautiful. They just didn't make up for the ridiculousness of other parts, to me.

Dudes, you won't believe this, except someone sifted it around here....the "sappy" ending of A.I. was NOT Spielberg's idea...it was Kubrick's!

Makes a convincing argument because its simply.

However, things aren't this simple.

I love some of Gilliam's work (Brazil, Twelve Monkeys, Time Bandits), like some of it (The Fisher King, Baron Munchausen) and really disliked one enough to stop watching it (Brothers Grimm).

I love some of Kubrik's work (Full Metal Jacket, Clockwork Orange) like some of it (2001), hate others (Eye's Wide Shut)

I love some of Speilberg's work (Indiana Jones 1-3, Empire of the Sun, Jurassic Park, Minority Report, Hook, 'Poltergeist' as he pretty much directed it), like some of it (Close Encounters, ET, Always), but there's nothing I have seen of his that I hate, in fact the closest I've got is with AI, even though I loved to death some of the decayed robot stuff. (Indiana Jones was close to me hating it, but really only the end really shits me)

I love Speilberg's work as he has quite the diverse catalogue and really hits it out of the park more often than not.

Maybe the fact that I don't really hate any of his work demonstrates that he is 'safe' and doesn't challenge you.

I have not seen the entire catalogue of any of these directors, but they are all superb, all different and all have made amazing contributions to the artform of cinema.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

>> ^cybrbeast:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull


Do executively produced movies count? Transformers.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Dudes, you won't believe this, except someone sifted it around here....the "sappy" ending of A.I. was NOT Spielberg's idea...it was Kubrick's!


Be that as it may, I'd have been much more willing to endure Kubrick at the helm of that ending than Spielberg. What's written in the treatment matters less than you think. What matters is HOW the story is told. For instance, can you imagine a voice over narration explaining the ending of 2001? That's what Gilliam is describing here: the nice explanatory bow that wraps everything up. The "sap" at the ending of A.I. belongs solely to Spielberg, I assure you.

>> ^Xax:

The holocaust was bad, so no story should ever be told about anything good that happened in the midst of it? What a stupid, stupid thing to say.


Yeah, where did you get the idea that Gilliam said this, dude? Infer ideas much?

Comprehension's not just for breakfast anymore.

I'm with Xax, I don't necessarily agree but I totally understand how you could take what he said in that way.

Schindler's List....didnt the girl end up in massive pile of bodies? that doesnt really give me warm fuzzies.

I mean the point is valid and what not, but...this treatment of the argument is a little hyperbolic.

Also there is nothing invalid about being a story teller.

In the spirit of spoon-feeding you the point (oh, the bitter bitter irony!) below is a sift containing a good example of a story of the holocaust as a "failure," one that deals with the crux of the issue Kubrick was talking about in the quote from the book Gilliam mentions. This PBS show is not a story about "a man can do what a man can do" in giving you comforting answers that you don't spend any time thinking about afterward.

http://videosift.com/video/PBS-God-on-Trial-the-Verdict

I think those opposed to seeing the difference think we Kubrickians are somehow saying Spielberg is bad. That's actually not what we're saying at all. We're saying we prefer to sit with questions rather than be handed easy answers.

If you fail to see the difference after this, then there's really no hope for your brain. Sorry.

That is all.