Anyway to cut this stuff and place it in
The Terminal thread?
che-etienne wrote:however, Spielberg was out to make a farce intentionally.
Yes, that's obvious, but, in my opinion, it's an insultingly daft farce rather than an accomplished one. My main point of contention is that the supporting characters are reduced to merely being cogs to the plot, which forces them to act and move only in service to the main character's story.
che-etienne wrote:It is to me one of the most successful satires of modern American culture, and at the same time an incredibly humanist and optimistic work.
I'd agree that it displays humanism and is optimistic, and while I do believe it attempts to be a satire of modern American culture, I'd disagree that it's an entirely successful satire. The satire that is attempted is fairly simple and doesn't really attack anything other than surface.
che-etienne wrote:... I enjoyed its slaptick humor, as much as I enjoyed the references to Kubrick and Fellini etc...
Its slapstick was amusing for much of the film, but sometimes just grew tiresome and soon began to feel forced - like the imitation of slapstick rather than a genuine display.
References are nice, and I enjoy them as much as the next guy, but are they really meaningful in this case?
che-etienne wrote:The cinematography in that film is simply gorgeous and there is a wealth -at least from what I saw - of real depth to be explored there.
Yes, it was gorgeous.
che-etienne wrote:If you recall, for example, in the scene where Gupta finally 'goes home' he confronts the huge plane, and the shot is framed such that it is him versus the plane. The individual, the immigrant (and all Americans are essentially immigrants) versus the physical manifestation of American bureaucracy.
The framing is interesting, in that it shows the enormity of the plane versus the insignificance of the individual, which directly opposes the scene itself, where the individual is asserting himself. However, while it is clear that Gupta represents all immigrants, I find it hard to see the airplane as the physical manifestation of American bureaucracy. The bureaucracy in this case is caused by the airplane - which is a method of immigration - rather than the airplane being a result of the security bureaucracy. The physical manifestation of the bureaucracy would be the SWAT team and the security personnel/infrastructure. The scene functions more as "the little guy counts" rather than "the little guy can fight the usually overwhelming system", especially since Gupta is sacrificing himself, knowing full well that he cannot fight the system since he will be deported after his actions. Gupta can make a difference, but only represents the immigrant struggle, and in this case, I'd say he isn't a particularly great representation of the immigrant experience.
che-etienne wrote:Of course, the Homeland Security department at the airport overreacts and sends out a whole SWAT team armed to the teeth to stop him. You just have to laugh at this overkill, and although it is not hard to interpret what Spielberg was getting at it is really quite well done, and most of the film is like this.
I don't think this scene is quite well done at all. First off, the one-liner Gupta delivers is so cringe-inducingly bad I felt sorry for the fact that he was representing minority immigrants. Furthermore, the sacrifice Gupta makes is ludicrous, considering he's destroying his life in order to make a point that he could have just as easily conveyed with simple words. I'd also say the reaction of the security personnel is entirely justified from any position outside the perspective of the central characters. It's only an overreaction because we are aware that Gupta is not a significant threat. However, if any person ran out onto the airplane runway to go head-to-head with a 747, I'd hope our airport security would send out a SWAT team to investigate, instead of just one or two friendly security guards who just saunter up to the old man and laugh off the amusing scenario that just occurred. It's not overkill if you view the situation outside the limited perspective of the film.
che-etienne wrote:Not only that, but I would argue that for the type of film Spielberg was trying to make the optimistic ending was practically mandatory. You couldn't end this with a sad ending, because that would just defeat the whole point...
I disagree. Any ending is possible provided the filmmakers handle it properly, whether downbeat or uplifting. If the plot requires Navorski to meet the jazz legend, why not have the jazz legend meet Navorski at the airport, either leaving for a trip or playing a set at the airport jazz club/bar? If the point is for Navorski to withstand the banal temptations of the American commercialist Dream, then why not just give him the option to enter US soil at the end, but have him choose not to do so, and thus deny himself the title of immigrant? Also, I find it trite to reduce the idea of being American to a cab ride through Time Square.
Also, what type of "home" is he going back to? Is he even allowed to return home? The politics of the film feel quite convenient.
che-etienne wrote:...but Spielberg never claimed that he was trying to tell a true story.
And I'm not really holding him to make a film based entirely upon the true story. I am however, questioning his decision to ignore so many aspects of the true story that could have provided more significant weight to his film. He can make a humorous farce if he wants and he could change as many details as he wants, but his finished film isn't exactly effective in exhibiting the experience of being abandoned by your country, in effect losing a small portion of your identity, and living in a state of limbo where your existence is being ignored.
che-etienne wrote:I'm sorry, but I just don't see why one would be so indignant about that, if Spielberg never intended to make that kind of movie in the first place.
I'm not all that indignant about the fact that he didn't follow the real story to the last detail or that he made it into a brisk little comedy. I am indignant about the fact that results aren't all that great in my own estimation, and that
could be due to him ignoring so much of the true story.
che-etienne wrote: ...but for Spielberg "The Terminal" is his first thematically consistent and potent film to date, save perhaps for "AI" but that was under the heavy influence of Kubrick who had conceived the project so I discount this one.
I prefer
Catch Me if You Can, which I'm certain is just about as honest and critical as Spielberg has been in regards to the topic of Steven Spielberg.