Steven Spielberg

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.

Moderator: DarkImbecile

Post Reply
Message
Author
stroszeck
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:42 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#101 Post by stroszeck » Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:54 pm

Was looking for this little excerpt for quite some time. Its from the Wender's Documentary ROOM 666. Here is Spielberg in 1982 "on the future of cinema."

User avatar
rohmerin
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Spain

Re: Steven Spielberg

#102 Post by rohmerin » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:59 am

Reading Stendhal's The Charterhouse of Parma, I discovered that the prison for political crimes during the Austrian empire, was Spielberg citadel, in Brno; now, I wonder which is Steve's family name origin.

Where "Spielberg family" came from? I've looked at wikipedia (where almost all USamericans have descriptions of all their grand grand parents' origins) but there's no explication on his article.

Is He Austrian ? German ? Czech? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spielberg_(disambiguation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) I have not read a biography or studies about him (sorry).

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#103 Post by knives » Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:44 pm

rohmerin wrote:Reading Stendhal's The Charterhouse of Parma, I discovered that the prison for political crimes during the Austrian empire, was Spielberg citadel, in Brno; now, I wonder which is Steve's family name origin.

Where "Spielberg family" came from? I've looked at wikipedia (where almost all USamericans have descriptions of all their grand grand parents' origins) but there's no explication on his article.

Is He Austrian ? German ? Czech? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spielberg_(disambiguation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) I have not read a biography or studies about him (sorry).
Probably useless to answer this question now, but for Jews surnames are basically useless as a way to tell family point of origin. The best indicator they serve is when they got that surname. Being Germanic that would put him at the mid 1800s for example. Given the descriptions he gives of his family's religious practices, at least according to the wiki article, which are a better indicator than names I'd assume he was either Lithuanian or Polish.
Last edited by knives on Sat Aug 09, 2014 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dansu Dansu Dansu
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:14 pm
Location: California

Re: Steven Spielberg

#104 Post by Dansu Dansu Dansu » Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:32 pm

According to Joseph McBride's decent biography on Spielberg, Arnold Spielberg, Steven's father, believed the roots of their family were in Austria-Hungry. The name is German-Austrian and means "play mountain." His mother's side originated in Poland, and his maternal grandfather, Fievel, immigrated from Odessa, Russia (apparently An American Tail was inspired by his grandfather's stories).

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#105 Post by knives » Sat Aug 09, 2014 9:00 pm

Though even something like that can be difficult in pinpointing Jewish ethnicity rather than nationality since that just considers where they were in the last three hundred years or so.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Steven Spielberg

#106 Post by Jeff » Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:37 pm

At nearly 70, Spielberg is on a bit of a tear. If things go as planned, he'll have five films in five consecutive years -- juggling filming, post, and press schedules for multiple films at once, as he's done several times before.

Following last year's stellar Bridge of Spies, he's got The BFG in the can and coming out in July. Ready Player One will be filming by then, but a lengthy post-production (and avoidance of a certain galaxy far, far away) will push its release to March of 2018. While that's in post, Spielberg will shoot and release the just-announced The Kidnapping Of Edgardo Mortara. Then he'll spend the following year readying the next Indiana Jones installment for a summer 2019 release. If he's eyeing retirement in the near future, it looks like he intends to go out with a bang.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Steven Spielberg

#107 Post by FrauBlucher » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:31 am

It's strange. I don't think of him being 70.

User avatar
Kirkinson
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Steven Spielberg

#108 Post by Kirkinson » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:37 pm

FrauBlucher wrote:It's strange. I don't think of him being 70.
Not surprising considering people were still referring to him as the "boy wonder" when he was approaching 40. And he's always seemed really young—I remember John Williams saying Spielberg looked like he was 15 years old when they first met (Spielberg would have been in his mid-20s then).

User avatar
ianthemovie
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Steven Spielberg

#109 Post by ianthemovie » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:23 pm

I just got Close Encounters on Blu-ray and am looking forward to revisiting it for the first time in probably 12 years. The disc appears to contain no less than three versions of the film--original cut, "special edition," and director's cut--which differ from each other in running time by a mere 2-5 minutes (!?). What, if anything, is the difference between these cuts and which one is recommended? (A better question might be does it even matter?)

Werewolf by Night

Re: Steven Spielberg

#110 Post by Werewolf by Night » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:31 pm

This site has some very extensive comparisons.

User avatar
ianthemovie
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Steven Spielberg

#111 Post by ianthemovie » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:40 pm

Thanks. I hadn't realized how different the three cuts are.

The 137-minute director's cut sounds the most appealing to me but I'd be interested to hear what others' preferences are.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#112 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:41 pm

Is the extended version the one where they go inside the ship? I would strongly recommend against that one, it feels tacked on in the worst way.
Last edited by matrixschmatrix on Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ianthemovie
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Steven Spielberg

#113 Post by ianthemovie » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:47 pm

Yes, I'm planning to avoid that version (what the Blu-ray calls the "extended cut"). As I understand it the director's cut omits that sequence, but includes extra footage of Richard Dreyfuss's breakdown as well as a new scene set in the Gobi desert.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Steven Spielberg

#114 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:06 am

The "Director's Cut" restores most of the footage cut from the initial release (footage I recalled fondly when seeing the film first-run and missed for thirty years) and retains the best of the additional footage and effect shots used in the 1980 reissue (minus the unnecessary trip inside the mothership) - it's the best version in my opinion.

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Steven Spielberg

#115 Post by Rayon Vert » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:15 am

Director's Cut is my favorite as well.

firstlast
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:41 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#116 Post by firstlast » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:50 am

What's up with the hot triplets in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan?

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Steven Spielberg

#117 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:02 am

firstlast wrote:What's up with the hot triplets in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan?
Hah, forgot about the triplets! I would have to see it again, but I recall them resembling blonde-haired models, which came off weird, like someone dropped some escapees from a shampoo commercial into the wrong movie.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Steven Spielberg

#118 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:12 pm

SpoilerShow
They're obviously there to distract the audience from the major sleight of hand: that the film flashes back into the perspective of the Tom Hanks character (literally through the move into matching shots of eyes) about to land on the beaches on D-Day, only to at the end of the film reveal that the flashback structure has involved Matt Damon's character (who never experienced the D-Day landings) who has been doing the reminiscing all along!
EDIT: For clarity!
Last edited by colinr0380 on Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

firstlast
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:41 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#119 Post by firstlast » Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:20 am

colinr0380 wrote:
SpoilerShow
They're obviously there to distract the audience from the major sleight of hand: that the film flashes back into the perspective of the Tom Hanks character (literally through the move into matching shots of eyes) about to land on the beaches on D-Day, only to at the end reveal that it has been Matt Damon's character (who never experienced the D-Day landings) who has been doing the reminiscing all along!
The film cuts from old Ryan's eyes to a shot of the beach obstacles, then a shot of the amphibious landers, then a shot of Hanks' shaking hands, then Hanks' face. Obviously cheap misdirection on Spielbergo's part. The stupid, now-dated "morph" fade from young Ryan to old Ryan's face takes place at the end, which may be what you're thinking of.

The triplets are just odd. Any straight adult male viewer will immediately distractingly sexualize the situation, which Spielbergo - chaste as he is - must have known, so if that wasn't his intent (and why would it be, in an entirely nonsexual film?) then it smacks of pointless stunt casting. The only thing I can think of is that Ryan is one of many siblings (no mention is made if they were quadruplets or different ages) so maybe it runs in the family (if such a thing is possible? more likely the culprit is fertility drugs, which I don't believe existed when Ryan's momma was crapping out four little Will Huntings.)

At any rate, terrible film. Too facile, too many gimmick scenes, etc.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Steven Spielberg

#120 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:11 am

firstlast wrote:The triplets are just odd...The only thing I can think of is that Ryan is one of many siblings (no mention is made if they were quadruplets or different ages) so maybe it runs in the family.
This can be true - on a smaller scale, I've had several conversations with identical and fraternal twins about this, revolving around how fraternal twins (but not identical twins) are actually much more likely to have twins themselves when they have children. So in Spielberg's defense, if he wanted to show a man building a family over generations, it would make sense.

BUT, picking glamorous blonde triplets is a huge misfire, and undermines my defense since the Ryans were "regular" people and it's strange to see a significant portion of his family come straight out casting for a shampoo commercial. He wanted something like the epilogue to Schindler's List - Ryan's closing remarks make this too blatantly clear - but in that case you had REAL people that really were alive because of Schindler, and it was more powerful knowing that. Not surprisingly, they also looked like regular people, not like typical actors or models.

User avatar
marqueeposter
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:57 am
Location: South Carolina, USA marqueeposter.com

Re: Steven Spielberg

#121 Post by marqueeposter » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:42 am

firstlast wrote:What's up with the hot triplets in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan?
They got mentioned here: http://acidemic.blogspot.com/2013/01/ci ... sters.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Never cared for the bookends in SPR myself...

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Steven Spielberg

#122 Post by Brian C » Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:29 pm

I've seen the movie many times (though not recently) and I honestly do not recall noticing the triplets, and I'm as adult male as anyone else.

Strikes me as an extremely random (and in this case, literally pointless) thing to make a big deal about for a nearly twenty-year-old movie.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Steven Spielberg

#123 Post by movielocke » Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:46 pm

It took me a long time to figure out what anyone was talking about with triplets. The bookends never bothered me, this sort of ellipsis in the flashback is a bit of a bait and switch, but no one would complain if it were a short story that was so bookended, the point of the film is that the old man is wondering if the life he lived has been worth the sacrifice of wwii, and the story told is of what those sacrifices were, and frankly, having spoken with wwii vets about the film, the bookends and the end of the film are incredibly important to them. Because it acknowledges the survivors guilt that they feel that isn't always fore grounded so clearly when films and documentaries are made about the "greatest generation" the whole, "my buddies died and I've had a good life...have I had a good life?" Struggle is one that is universal to many veterans. This idea is explored under the symbolic story of saving one soldier. So in looking at the individual case of saving private "john doe" (so to speak) the film communicates a larger idea about all the soldiers who survives and all the soldiers who didn't. Given that the film is blowing up the specific to talk about the general, it actually works, thematically, that the audiences expectations are upended in regards to the identity of tom hanks vs Matt Damon as the old man.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#125 Post by Ribs » Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:17 pm

Close Encounters is actually being rereleased in multiplexes nationwide the first week of September.

Post Reply