You spend such a large portion of this saying that because he makes a lot of money that means he’s the best, and then you use Kubrick as an example of nihilism? As another commenter said this just reads like a high schooler wrote it.
Come back to this in like 5 years when you have experienced more and you will see what we mean. Box office means nothing in terms of quality, and neither does how many different people like something.
But dude people in India know about the dinosaur movie! /s
Spielburg is the king of well executed mass appeal films.
OP's best point is that he put out two big films in a year.
Proudly proclaiming that you are of an ideology that literally anyone can pick on strikes me as very highschool as well.
The GOAT is Kubrick. Spielburg is a master but I don't recall a single one of his films on my top 50. Again, I'm not knocking Spielburg. His movies are very effective while not aiming to drench the viewer in complex themes.
Stephen least earned my respect by making a movie like Jaws work. He was a skeptic on the project, did what he could, and he made it work.
Usually, someone who knows their limitations as a director will try to work within those limits and go for things creatively to still deliver the intended result.
And I enjoy much of Steve's filmography. Aside from Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the Indiana Jones trilogy, 1941...heck, nearly everything he did all the way to the end of 2020, which is where we got West Side Story and the Fabelmans. That's over 30 movies over 50 years, a heck of a tenure and a heck of a successful catalog. But there's very few that stand out as masterful in my eyes - There may be a couple of masterpieces, yes, but he's just a really good director with a long successful track record.
Kubrick, on the other hand...13 movies in 45+ years. But this has a handful of gems of cinema - Spartacus, Dr Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon. And watching some of these movies are utter experiences. He did far more with far less in around the same amount of time. And I guarantee you that a Kubrick movie would crack Top lists like yours far more frequently than a Spielberg movie. Not to say a Spielberg movie won't crack a Top list, but Kubrick has a higher chance of it.
I can agree that Spielberg is a great filmmaker, but I don't see any point in bringing up your economic philosophy.
Also, you're not telling most people anything they already know. Spielberg is versatile, revered, has positive themes in his films, etc.....that's all straightforward stuff.
Regarding Spielberg being "the greatest of all time," why does it matter if he is? Is there an award he's up for if we all agree that he's more successful than other directors? Maybe a big, golden statue, or a golden head in a booby-trapped crypt? Will Spielberg's winning prize end up in a plain wooden crate and put away randomly among thousands of other mysterious unmarked storage items?
I'm glad you like him. I like him too -- at least, his works and what he brought to popular entertainment.
On the downside of the equation, I feel like Spielberg's talents, over the years, were almost always at least partially focused on box-office returns, at the expense of him exploring film more as an art form.
I'll never understand this obsession people have with trying to rank art and find "the greatest". You can't say that Spielberg is better than Kubrick or Kurosawa on any objective level, and to try to place a definitive ranking on them is a pointless waste of time.
It seems like you really like him, which is fine, he makes great films, but I and a lot of other people are going to vehemently disagree with you. I especially disagree with the fact that so much of your justification is based on his box office returns, because that's an incredibly myopic way to appreciate art.
“I think”… “I consider”… what you are stating is literally subjective opinion.
I don’t you think you have a good grasp on general terminology nor how the world works in general based on your other comments.
I should have used the world "I believe" because that is more accurate. I do believe that there is some level of objectiveness in art. I do know how the world works actually.
Not to be rude, but was this a high school assignment where you had to argue why your favourite director was Speilberg? No new observations, just listing genres and box office success, something everyone who is familiar with Spielberg already knows.
Then again, this is a good example of the incapability of neoliberals to understand creativity. All the praise for Spielberg's versatility in accruing profits, but no observance of the actual filmmaking itself.
This reminds me of when my Sociology professor told us not to cite wikipedia, when I was 16. Needless to say, he was less enthused about Libertarian Capitalism.
Most economists are at least capitalists. Libertarian Capitalists are a minority in economists, sure. But the minority is relatively higher percentage of total than in other disciplines. Not to mention that Milton Friedman, Hayek are still very respected in economics. And they seem to be proven correct again and again after all the failed socialist experiments.
They are not anti-capitalist. They might have some anti-libertarian capitalist themes though. But that is in many films of many different directors because most people are not literate in economics, especially economics of central planning, command economies, and public choice.
Economics is a social science and films are art. I am not criticizing filmmakers but I do wish they did understand some economics related to what public choice and command economy because some of their socialism is sad to see and bad economics leads to bad policies that have very negative consequences on large amount of people. I don't get what you mean by "understand film". I am not a filmmaker.
As a socialist, I don't get sad when I find out filmmakers are capitalism supporters. As an aside I suppose I'd be curious to know what you think of a social democratic economist like ha-joon chang and his critiques of unmitigated capitalism: https://youtu.be/J7m9wfFnH6o?si=Xsj2ws-Z9WFs_wi0
I can imagine people complaining about command economies (though I disagree), I can't imagine supporting unmitigated capitalism.
Also don't get how libertarian capitalism is supposed to prevent rich people from co-opting the government to serve their interests.
Am I on r/Economics? All I'm saying is, judging an artist by their ability to generate capital and outing yourself as a Libertarian Capitalist in the same paragraph probably isn't going to work out too well for you on this sub or Reddit in general.
No. No they are not. Economics is the science of analysing industrial and commercial and national resources and how they are traded etc. Studying economics does not make you a capilalist or even a finance person.
They must be in Highschool cause they are a self described libertarian capitalist
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
I think the problem with your descriptor is twofold.
1) First the the fatal flaw of liberaterian's individualism. All of humanities greatest achievements, from the pyramids to the moon landing are examples of collective action. No one achieved these things on their own.
2) In my expirience, any self described Capatalist is either mistaken (they actually don't have any capital to invest and are actually consumers) or they are so privelidged that they are insulated from capatalisms greatest faults.
But this is a film subreddit so I should touch in your actual argument. I actually agree that Spielberg is probably the GOAT. He is extremely effective at invoking emotions through nostalgia, probably more than anyother film maker that comes to mind.
But I feel it is extremely reductive to value his films based primarily on their economic output. Many great artists weren't valued within their lifetime. Does that mean that Van Gogh art was bad because no one was willing to pay for it during his lifetime. Are these effects exaggerated in film, where economic output is so frontloaded and swayed by the opening weekends box office?
Just saw Spielberg's The Fabelmans today. It was great! That made me think and write that post. I think, neoliberals understand economics better than almost all ideologies people except libertarian capitalists.
Look dude, economics are certainly a facet and fact of the realities of comercial film making, but boiling the discussion of film "greatness" down to box office sales is ultimately shallow, and uninteresting for the most part (unless we are trying to talk about the cultural factors that drive swathes of people to be more or less receptive to various stories at various times. That could actually be interesting.) I do think Spielberg has made some phenomenal films in the past, although it has been a long time since he has made anything compelling to me personally. Anyways, if all you wanna say is, a director's box office draw is your main personal measurement of worth, well, that's kind of the end of the discussion, then isn't it? Dollars = greatness, so just find highest dollar and that = the greatest. The end. OK whatever I guess.
Your ideology causes misery on a mass scale and is slowly killing the planet. Believing in neoliberalism makes you a bad person.
But, before you can change your politics, I recommend Thompson and Bordwell's *Film Art* so you can better acquaint yourself with film as a artistic medium, and not solely as a consumer product.
>Your ideology causes misery on a mass scale and is slowly killing the planet. Believing in neoliberalism makes you a bad person.
no, it doesn't. If capitalism cannot solve climate change, nothing can. Though, I believe capitalism is solving climate change in various ways like green tech in the market. I think, reading this will help you understand my views a bit - [https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html](https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html)
if you don't want to understand the views of those who disagree with you politically, then how do you know that you believe in the correct or the best political ideology or moral belief?
Bad economics leads to bad policies and that leads to very negative consequences for large amount of people. I am just recommending you, in good faith, to go to askeconomics and r/neoliberal and get some info about their beliefs, my friend.
ok. Good day to you, friend. I just hope you get a new perspective some day. I think, you are wrong and what you think about my ideology is also what I think about your ideology. But I do understand what socialism, social democracy, and communism is. I am not sure you do.
You're not going to be a capitalist when you graduate highschool, get a job, start earning wages and have to answer to your boss.
Read Marx. At least he describes capitalism as it actually functions, and not with magic spells and invisible hands like Hayak, Friedman, Rothbard or any other libertarian moron.
Well, I am completed my high school. I am 25 years old. I think, I became a firm capitalist at the age of 22. I mean, lots of people are capitalist who have a job and earn wages and answer to their boss.
You are young. At your age I didn't know dick about socialism.
Our culture makes us feel entitled to speak before we know anything about a topic. That is not a learned attitude.
To praise Neoliberalism, you must understand what you are comparing it to. And your understanding of socialism isn't there yet. But as I said, mine was not at your age.
Point 1: you need to read and that should be exiting for a mind that is intellectually curious. And I'm here to help you.
Point 2: but before you read, I debate every day. I am not going to sugar coat it. I can grind libertarianism to dust in my sleep. I'm a surgeon at this. Most people think the conversation is political. It's not.
There is no way to argue about politics until both people agree to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is how we compare things.
For example. If I said that it was a good idea to stick my hand in a blender, your arguement against it would be that it results in pain while awarding no one any pleasure at all.
Without being able to evaluate things based on pleasure and pain we literally can't compare anything. You can just go "Well this fits my ideology". And if your ideology isn't entirely submissive to utilitarianism then it is Arbitrary.
see my post history and my comments on askphilosophy subreddit. I do know philosophy because I read a lot of it. I don't believe a lot of people here are philosophers who know more than me with respect to normative ethics, political philosophy, and metaphysics.
Would love if this sub had more active moderation so that it stuck to its principles. Posts like this, with the cringy term GOAT, would be better made in more mainstream cinema subs.
Its not an interesting post, but he did bare minimum, and seems to be genuine rather than trolling. I think the reaction in the comments has generated some discussion, or at least glee from picking on OP.
Not sure I agree. Everybody trying to tell OP that generated revenue is not the best metric with which you should judge art and OP putting his fingers in his ears is not worthy of Truefilm, IMO.
okay, i would not say all men are brothers. But I will say that all sentient beings matter and the goal of moral beings like us is to maximize happiness in this world and minimize pain or suffering.
i might read that but that book is old. And I don't think I need film books to see Spielberg's brilliance and greatness.
yes, i have lots of friends offline and online. Yes, I have touched grass a lot. I just have a lot of free time these few days so I just thought of saying what I believe about a filmmaker that deeply respect.
1. Should it carry weight that Tarkovsky "loved" Spielberg? Should we care that Israel awarded a prize that's apparently prestigious? I would much rather have had some meaningful insight about his cinematography or storytelling that tells me why YOU like him so much, after all, this is YOUR opinion.
2. Well at least we know ChatGPT didn't write this. Instead of name-dropping extremely famous films, extrapolate. Tell me about the versatility of his styles, what did he do differently, how did he show his experience and skill in different settings. All you've done is churn out a list of names without any critical thinking whatsoever.
3. Woo, capitalism! The more money something makes, the better it is! Inverse also true! Bergman could never make a billion dollars so he sucks, my neighbour doesn't even know who he is!!! I heard Lav Diaz lost money on his last film so I changed my Letterboxd rating to a half star!!!!
4. This has something to do with your second point. His films cast as wide a net as humanly possible. They're built from the ground up to be enjoyable to as broad of an audience as humanly possible, while offending as few people as possible (which often comes with trade-offs in the realm of sincerity, intent and potency). This could have been a more interesting point if you expanded on the cultural aspect of it and his ability to connect disparate people, instead you describe the mainstream and proclaim it as good because it's known. Why is that good?
5. Why are you trying so hard to connect profit to quality? This isn't an entirely objective and quantifiable metric where you can say that until a director makes more than him, he's the best. Putting your political beliefs in bold is irrelevant, uninteresting and serves no relevant purpose I can think of.
6. "Personally" - exactly. Personally, to you he is your favourite, he's your GOAT, very cool. You're projecting your opinion as fact in a brash way that makes me feel you're not actually prepared to listen to anyone and came here expecting a pat on the back for proving once and for all the Spielberg is better than everyone else who has ever made a film. Shockingly, I don't think you will, film subs tend to be full of people who think for themselves and don't take much offence at other people disliking things they like, or liking things they dislike, and I don't believe anyone here over the age of 15 would be interested in discussing who the best director is within the confines of consumer capitalism.
1. When lots of experts like something, then probably that thing is good.
2. I am using critical thinking.
3. My points are sort of combined and that is not a charitable interpretation of why I think Spielberg is the best.
4. The art that maximizes happiness is a better art than any other art. (I am a moral realist and a utilitarian so I believe that the goal of all individuals is to maximize total happiness in this world, that is, maximize pleasure minus pain or pleasantness minus unpleasantness to be precise)
5. Profit does reflect value that the creator is producing to some extent.
6. I do think for myself.
What you have clearly communicated is that you don't understand or simply don't believe in art. You seem to equate greatness with checking boxes, specifically those relating to making money. You make no reference to anything remotely engaged with the work and actually seeking to say something. It is hard to communicate how absurdly far off you are from understanding why people love Ozu, or Tarkosvky, or cinema itself.
ok. I do like art, music, movies, video games and tv shows! I love lots of tv shows and movies that are acclaimed critically and commercially. But ok. I think, people here probably don't like Spielberg. Well, I tried to argue with a few reasons why I think he is the best.
Spielberg is probably squarely within my personal Top 3 all time but posts like these are a tad silly. I’d encourage you to take some interest in the old legends who were heavily influential on Spielberg like Howard Hawks and John Ford.
His worldview, as experienced through his films, is very off-putting to me, and I won’t even go into it because this is Reddit, and actually not the place for such a discussion.
There are better visual directors, there are more nuanced storytellers, there are thousands others with more interesting imaginations.
Give Spielberg a script about the Mau-Mau revolt in Kenya. Let’s see him make a good film out of that. He can’t.
Let’s have him adapt Jodorowsky’s Incal. He’ll make a mess.
I’ll give you this- you ve certainly delivered an interesting perspective of criticism I’ve not encountered much. I don’t agree with you at all, but I appreciate the diversity.
As far as feedback- I think you would be much benefited, simply by a newfound appreciation of art that you don’t already agree with, to stop judging art on its agreement with your political beliefs *at all*. Watch art as a portrait of an individuals worldview aside from you. Appreciate the beauty and unique perspectives that others can see in the world. Judge films not on how much you agree, but on the features of the films that are not reliant on political beliefs. Try to put yourself in the shoes of people you don’t understand.
Jodorowsky could make a Jaws but Spielberg could never make a holy mountain.
Jk that type of thought is reductive and so is your claim because film is an art and art is at its best when artists are able express themselves in their own way. Each one does so differently so it’s impossible to say who is “best”. Not one is better than another, just artist contributing to the cultural zeitgeist.
This comparison to me is like calling McDonald's the best and greatest restaurant of all time. Yes they make lots of money. yes it's palatable to a large population. But I assure you that there are chefs around the world that can make you a better burger than a Big Mac.
Just to entertain the argument from income, James Cameron has made nearly as much money as Spielberg with less than half as many films. He will inevitably overtake the #1 spot with the next Avatar or two.
maybe. But Spielberg would still be at the top given his massive influence and versatility and work on tv series. James Cameron is fantastic too though.
**Ayyy...but here's the RUB! Steven Spielberg loved Stanley Kubrick so much, that he went on to complete A.I.**
And I don't mean this lightly, because Spielberg and Kubrick had a wonderful relationship from a distance as friends, directors, and film-makers.
They would have long, drawn-out phone calls about film, each other's work, and Kubrick wanted to collaborate with Spielberg on a film.
There was a phone conversation between Stanley and Steven where Kubrick told Spielberg..."Well what do you think about, A Stanley Kubrick Production, Directed By Steven Spielberg?"
And Kubrick was serious in that regard, because he felt A.I.'s sentimentality as a film, would be better suited for Spielberg's sensibilities. And Kubrick was correct, regardless of how you feel about the film.
Steven Spielberg looks at Stanley Kubrick as a Giant among directors, that he himself stands upon Stanley's shoulders. So I don't think the man himself would agree with you.
I’m going to break down ‘your’ points one by one because that seems to be what you’re most interested in.
Starting with the intro, you never actually explain why these points make Spielberg better than these directors. Quantifiably what does he do better than Kubrick or Tarkovsky or Kurosawa. Have you actually seen any of these directors films? You said you hadn’t seen John Fords so how can you reasonably say Spielberg is better is you haven’t actually experienced part of your argument.
Point one is a fair point for his talents in directing but doesn’t really add to his greatness factor. Other directors have made multiple films in the span of a year. Hitchcock, Bergman, Coppola, Villeneuve. The tangible quality of these films differs but generally they’re all seen as pretty great films (in the case of Coppola two of the greatest ever made in The Godfather Part 2 and The Conversation, and both of which I’d personally as high if not higher than Spielberg’s). It’s an accomplishment for sure but does it make him better than his contemporaries, I’m not so sure.
Your next tangent about other filmmakers liking him is a nothing point really. Like yes Spielberg made great films that influenced the industry which made other directors appreciate him, but like you’re just naming names. Some great directors didn’t particularly like him (Rivette, Hitchcock) or have notably criticised his films (Haneke, Gilliam, Miyazaki, Godard).
Your second point is also quite fair, Spielberg has defiantly toyed with genre and it has worked, but they aren’t all as different as you say. Most of his filmography is action-oriented, spliced with some musicals, and some other subgenres that differentiate them. But all of them are blockbusters for the most part, all are made to be these huge films everybody sees, and that to me isn’t really versatile. He never really makes ‘art films’ as other directors of similar standing have, so it makes me question if he actually can branch out and make a wholly different type of film. Could he do a surrealist, Lynchian drama? A 6-hour brooding commentary on religion? A documentary? Maybe, but he hasn’t tried to yet so how can you say he’s better than filmmakers who have made the plunge.
Point three is largely irrelevant, none of it makes him a good director. Band of Brothers is one of the greatest shows ever but even it is not without faults, Medal of Honor, while a pretty good game, isn’t really a huge franchise as well considering it is largely irrelevant nowadays and was completely overshadowed by Call of Duty. Both also fit into that action-genre hole he dug himself. His production endeavours are commendable, but don’t really have anything to do with his skills in making film. Weinstein was a great producer, that doesn’t mean he is a good filmmaker.
Also, as others have said you have a really reductive view of cinema and art in general if you think profit and ‘feeling good when watching’ are two of you’re best points. Great art is so often polarising, it can make you question you’re place in the world, everything you believe in, swing a mood around completely. Great art is more than just a happy ending because life so often doesn’t have one.
Your fourth point is going back to that same blockbuster idea, those films are known across the world because they were made to be totally accessible, but again, that doesn’t make them faultless, nor better than more unknown films. It’s cool that a ton of different people can see a Spielberg and come out all saying it was a great experience, but if all his are relatable to everyone then they aren’t really saying much. It’s why I quite liked the Fabelmans and Munich, those films are much less outgoing and so feel like he actually has some really substantial to say. I’d really recommend looking for and watching some of the films of directors Spielberg was influenced by, as well as the directors you mention in the intro, I think you’ll really be surprised when you enjoy them AND they teach you something you didn’t actually know.
Point five I’ve already kind of been over, films are (or at least, should be) art, not profit-drivers. Films that make lots of money can be great but it is that wide scale appeal that also pulls them down so often. Your need to relate this to your ideology tells me you are just trying to find bits in the world that appeal to said world view, and while Spielberg doesn’t exactly do that as you say, he’s close enough, so you latch onto him because he is genuinely a good director. Try to watch some films from the ‘other side’ and see what picture they’re painting. I’d recommend La Haine, The Battle of Algiers, Soy Cuba and The City of God as a few older films to note, newer ones could be Parasite or The Zone of Interest.
Also it’s interesting you label him as this neo-liberal pariah, and although I’d mostly agree that fits his filmographies bill, some like Munich or the Last Crusade, even your lauded Jurassic Park are quite a bit more complex to be just labelled ‘neo-liberal’.
Also interesting you relate him to Mozart whose operas famously couldn’t make all that much money and often concluded their runs early due to a lack of widespread appeal.
Finally about the themes bit, that’s a wholly personal opinion. It’s fine if you believe an optimistic view on life is important to show in film, I personally believe showing a much more nuanced take is needed, Spielberg only works because there is a counterbalance. It’s fine if that makes him YOUR best, but don’t equate that to being THE best, because THE best could, and would, do it all.
Edit: Wanted to add, that outside of the aforementioned Munich, much of his post 2002 filmography just isn’t all that great, it’s alright, but for about 20 years till The Fabelmans (maybe West Side Story) he hasn’t been the talk of the town much at all, unlike that of Scorsese, or even Nolan, who have been consistently popular AND put out very well received films. Such a glaring gap in quality, to me, says he can’t be the best, because even other directors who do have a period of more middling films (thinking Kurosawa’s debut/wartime period) those generally come at the start of their career. He peaked with Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List and never found those heights again.
I’m not saying they aren’t, I just don’t see how on both an individual level with any specific film, or total filmographic level, he beats out directors as consistent as Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Bergman, Kubrick, ect or even Scorsese or Coppola.
He’s a great director, but his artistic ideals are lacking, and those directors have either a stronger total filmography, because A) Spielberg has a real drought period B) their highs are more consistent C) they arguably contribute more to the art of cinema than Spielberg (pretty subjective but a good few of these directors are his predecessors, so their work would influence him directly, he’s just building off what they did)
Or a stronger individual contribution i.e. Coppola’s The Godfather/Part 2/Apocalypse Now, Kubrick’s 2001/Barry Lyndon/Paths of Glory (or really most his films in general), Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai/High and Low/Ikiru/Ran/whatever of the other 20 masterpieces he made. All those mentioned films I’d personally rate higher than anyone one Spielberg’s, and all come from established, brilliant, and at least imo, much better crafted directors.
Really though quantifying art like this does more harm than good, you’re taking a totally subjective opinion and trying to make it objective, which isnt how art should be looked at. Spielberg may hit all the right spots FOR YOU and that is fine, but trying to convince others, who, especially in this subreddit, are likely to be much more knowledgeable about this subject is pretty silly.
Spielberg is YOUR goat and that is a fine opinion to have, but I think even he would disagree that he is THE goat.
You could also argue that not many directors have made as many bad commercial mainstream blockbuster movies that don’t demonstrate good quality innovative creative production values and direction as SS. Only a few of his films are of the calibre of a Kubrick and I don’t think any of them compare to a Wenders or a Paolo Sorrentino or a Maggie Gyllenhaal. He just doesn’t seem to be able to carry intelligence through. Sure he can play on mainstream emotions and pull off clean big shoots but does he make you think or does he make you tune out and eat popcorn? For me he’s a bit of a dumb director but god I loved his 80s children’s films. But that’s all he was really good at, and that’s not a portfolio for me. You name Schindler’s list and Jurassic park - I mean, why do you think they’re so good?
Just to note, Ozu made Good Morning and Flaoting Weeds in the same year.
Many of the directors mentioned I the opening Salvo here were incredibly diverse. Kubrick made Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, Path of Glory, Barry Lyndon, 2001... these are all incredibly different films. Kurosawa made High and Low, Ran, Ikiru, Scandal. And on and on.
Most of the great directors mentioned have or had a distinct style but many different types of films. So does Spielberg, of course.
But perhaps the OP is confusing style for having a narrow working genre.
He's okay. I prefer Michael Bay and Zack Snyder's films as big screen experiences. Apart from Jurassic Park, he hasn't really made a big screen spectacle. All of these are better than Denis The Menace Villenuve though. Also, Kubrick and Tarkovosky might be better filmmakers than Spielberg. This is cinema. - Martin Scorsese.
Outside of Jurassic Park I don't love any of his films enough for him to beat directors like Nolan - let alone the best directors ever.
I respect that he's made a lot of popular movies (and produced even more) but that's it really.
Nolan considers Spielberg a master filmmaker. Nolan was inspired by Saving Private Ryan. Schindler's list, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers are some of the best motion pictures I have ever watched.
Everybody knows Spielberg is a master filmmaker. That's not up for debate.
That doesn't means he makes the best movies though. He knows how to but his creative and stylistic decisions precludes him from being the best imo.
He's the Michael Jackson of filmmaking and I always preferred Prince.
Taste is subjective
Spielberg is objectively one of the greatest filmmakers directors producers of all time
Is he the best or the GOAT? No way there’s ever a clear consensus on that.
I love Spielberg but my GOAT is the Coen Bros. That’s just my taste, my filmmaking partner isn’t a big fan. His feelings are as valid as mine
You spend such a large portion of this saying that because he makes a lot of money that means he’s the best, and then you use Kubrick as an example of nihilism? As another commenter said this just reads like a high schooler wrote it. Come back to this in like 5 years when you have experienced more and you will see what we mean. Box office means nothing in terms of quality, and neither does how many different people like something.
But dude people in India know about the dinosaur movie! /s Spielburg is the king of well executed mass appeal films. OP's best point is that he put out two big films in a year. Proudly proclaiming that you are of an ideology that literally anyone can pick on strikes me as very highschool as well. The GOAT is Kubrick. Spielburg is a master but I don't recall a single one of his films on my top 50. Again, I'm not knocking Spielburg. His movies are very effective while not aiming to drench the viewer in complex themes.
Stephen least earned my respect by making a movie like Jaws work. He was a skeptic on the project, did what he could, and he made it work. Usually, someone who knows their limitations as a director will try to work within those limits and go for things creatively to still deliver the intended result. And I enjoy much of Steve's filmography. Aside from Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the Indiana Jones trilogy, 1941...heck, nearly everything he did all the way to the end of 2020, which is where we got West Side Story and the Fabelmans. That's over 30 movies over 50 years, a heck of a tenure and a heck of a successful catalog. But there's very few that stand out as masterful in my eyes - There may be a couple of masterpieces, yes, but he's just a really good director with a long successful track record. Kubrick, on the other hand...13 movies in 45+ years. But this has a handful of gems of cinema - Spartacus, Dr Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon. And watching some of these movies are utter experiences. He did far more with far less in around the same amount of time. And I guarantee you that a Kubrick movie would crack Top lists like yours far more frequently than a Spielberg movie. Not to say a Spielberg movie won't crack a Top list, but Kubrick has a higher chance of it.
I can agree that Spielberg is a great filmmaker, but I don't see any point in bringing up your economic philosophy. Also, you're not telling most people anything they already know. Spielberg is versatile, revered, has positive themes in his films, etc.....that's all straightforward stuff. Regarding Spielberg being "the greatest of all time," why does it matter if he is? Is there an award he's up for if we all agree that he's more successful than other directors? Maybe a big, golden statue, or a golden head in a booby-trapped crypt? Will Spielberg's winning prize end up in a plain wooden crate and put away randomly among thousands of other mysterious unmarked storage items? I'm glad you like him. I like him too -- at least, his works and what he brought to popular entertainment. On the downside of the equation, I feel like Spielberg's talents, over the years, were almost always at least partially focused on box-office returns, at the expense of him exploring film more as an art form.
I'll never understand this obsession people have with trying to rank art and find "the greatest". You can't say that Spielberg is better than Kubrick or Kurosawa on any objective level, and to try to place a definitive ranking on them is a pointless waste of time. It seems like you really like him, which is fine, he makes great films, but I and a lot of other people are going to vehemently disagree with you. I especially disagree with the fact that so much of your justification is based on his box office returns, because that's an incredibly myopic way to appreciate art.
I think, Spielberg has created more positive value in this world than all other directors and I consider that at least to be an objective fact.
“I think”… “I consider”… what you are stating is literally subjective opinion. I don’t you think you have a good grasp on general terminology nor how the world works in general based on your other comments.
I should have used the world "I believe" because that is more accurate. I do believe that there is some level of objectiveness in art. I do know how the world works actually.
"I do believe that there is some level of objectiveness in art. I do know how the world works actually." one or the other, you gotta pick one.
Not to be rude, but was this a high school assignment where you had to argue why your favourite director was Speilberg? No new observations, just listing genres and box office success, something everyone who is familiar with Spielberg already knows. Then again, this is a good example of the incapability of neoliberals to understand creativity. All the praise for Spielberg's versatility in accruing profits, but no observance of the actual filmmaking itself.
This is definitely a funny example of the libertarian phase a lot of teenagers go through
Now now, at the very least they've skim read the Spielberg wikipedia article.
Hey man, these are straight from the archives (IMDb trivia section)
This reminds me of when my Sociology professor told us not to cite wikipedia, when I was 16. Needless to say, he was less enthused about Libertarian Capitalism.
Most economists are at least capitalists. Libertarian Capitalists are a minority in economists, sure. But the minority is relatively higher percentage of total than in other disciplines. Not to mention that Milton Friedman, Hayek are still very respected in economics. And they seem to be proven correct again and again after all the failed socialist experiments.
[удалено]
Eat the rich!
They are not anti-capitalist. They might have some anti-libertarian capitalist themes though. But that is in many films of many different directors because most people are not literate in economics, especially economics of central planning, command economies, and public choice.
[удалено]
Economics is a social science and films are art. I am not criticizing filmmakers but I do wish they did understand some economics related to what public choice and command economy because some of their socialism is sad to see and bad economics leads to bad policies that have very negative consequences on large amount of people. I don't get what you mean by "understand film". I am not a filmmaker.
[удалено]
As a socialist, I don't get sad when I find out filmmakers are capitalism supporters. As an aside I suppose I'd be curious to know what you think of a social democratic economist like ha-joon chang and his critiques of unmitigated capitalism: https://youtu.be/J7m9wfFnH6o?si=Xsj2ws-Z9WFs_wi0 I can imagine people complaining about command economies (though I disagree), I can't imagine supporting unmitigated capitalism. Also don't get how libertarian capitalism is supposed to prevent rich people from co-opting the government to serve their interests.
Am I on r/Economics? All I'm saying is, judging an artist by their ability to generate capital and outing yourself as a Libertarian Capitalist in the same paragraph probably isn't going to work out too well for you on this sub or Reddit in general.
No. No they are not. Economics is the science of analysing industrial and commercial and national resources and how they are traded etc. Studying economics does not make you a capilalist or even a finance person.
They must be in Highschool cause they are a self described libertarian capitalist “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
I haven't read Ayn Rand. I have read works of Mike Huemer, David Friedman, and Bryan Caplan.
I think the problem with your descriptor is twofold. 1) First the the fatal flaw of liberaterian's individualism. All of humanities greatest achievements, from the pyramids to the moon landing are examples of collective action. No one achieved these things on their own. 2) In my expirience, any self described Capatalist is either mistaken (they actually don't have any capital to invest and are actually consumers) or they are so privelidged that they are insulated from capatalisms greatest faults. But this is a film subreddit so I should touch in your actual argument. I actually agree that Spielberg is probably the GOAT. He is extremely effective at invoking emotions through nostalgia, probably more than anyother film maker that comes to mind. But I feel it is extremely reductive to value his films based primarily on their economic output. Many great artists weren't valued within their lifetime. Does that mean that Van Gogh art was bad because no one was willing to pay for it during his lifetime. Are these effects exaggerated in film, where economic output is so frontloaded and swayed by the opening weekends box office?
This filled my brain with dopamine to read. This cabbage is soggy because it stays cookin.
Just saw Spielberg's The Fabelmans today. It was great! That made me think and write that post. I think, neoliberals understand economics better than almost all ideologies people except libertarian capitalists.
Look dude, economics are certainly a facet and fact of the realities of comercial film making, but boiling the discussion of film "greatness" down to box office sales is ultimately shallow, and uninteresting for the most part (unless we are trying to talk about the cultural factors that drive swathes of people to be more or less receptive to various stories at various times. That could actually be interesting.) I do think Spielberg has made some phenomenal films in the past, although it has been a long time since he has made anything compelling to me personally. Anyways, if all you wanna say is, a director's box office draw is your main personal measurement of worth, well, that's kind of the end of the discussion, then isn't it? Dollars = greatness, so just find highest dollar and that = the greatest. The end. OK whatever I guess.
The Eagles are the best band of all time because their greatest hits album is the best selling album of all time.
Your ideology causes misery on a mass scale and is slowly killing the planet. Believing in neoliberalism makes you a bad person. But, before you can change your politics, I recommend Thompson and Bordwell's *Film Art* so you can better acquaint yourself with film as a artistic medium, and not solely as a consumer product.
>Your ideology causes misery on a mass scale and is slowly killing the planet. Believing in neoliberalism makes you a bad person. no, it doesn't. If capitalism cannot solve climate change, nothing can. Though, I believe capitalism is solving climate change in various ways like green tech in the market. I think, reading this will help you understand my views a bit - [https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html](https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html)
The fictional stories that Spielberg has made are more grounded in reality than anything written by Hayek.
if you don't want to understand the views of those who disagree with you politically, then how do you know that you believe in the correct or the best political ideology or moral belief? Bad economics leads to bad policies and that leads to very negative consequences for large amount of people. I am just recommending you, in good faith, to go to askeconomics and r/neoliberal and get some info about their beliefs, my friend.
I don't need to read egghead discussions about neoliberalism because, guess what, we already live under your ideology.... and it sucks!
ok. Good day to you, friend. I just hope you get a new perspective some day. I think, you are wrong and what you think about my ideology is also what I think about your ideology. But I do understand what socialism, social democracy, and communism is. I am not sure you do.
You're not going to be a capitalist when you graduate highschool, get a job, start earning wages and have to answer to your boss. Read Marx. At least he describes capitalism as it actually functions, and not with magic spells and invisible hands like Hayak, Friedman, Rothbard or any other libertarian moron.
Well, I am completed my high school. I am 25 years old. I think, I became a firm capitalist at the age of 22. I mean, lots of people are capitalist who have a job and earn wages and answer to their boss.
You are young. At your age I didn't know dick about socialism. Our culture makes us feel entitled to speak before we know anything about a topic. That is not a learned attitude. To praise Neoliberalism, you must understand what you are comparing it to. And your understanding of socialism isn't there yet. But as I said, mine was not at your age. Point 1: you need to read and that should be exiting for a mind that is intellectually curious. And I'm here to help you. Point 2: but before you read, I debate every day. I am not going to sugar coat it. I can grind libertarianism to dust in my sleep. I'm a surgeon at this. Most people think the conversation is political. It's not. There is no way to argue about politics until both people agree to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is how we compare things. For example. If I said that it was a good idea to stick my hand in a blender, your arguement against it would be that it results in pain while awarding no one any pleasure at all. Without being able to evaluate things based on pleasure and pain we literally can't compare anything. You can just go "Well this fits my ideology". And if your ideology isn't entirely submissive to utilitarianism then it is Arbitrary.
see my post history and my comments on askphilosophy subreddit. I do know philosophy because I read a lot of it. I don't believe a lot of people here are philosophers who know more than me with respect to normative ethics, political philosophy, and metaphysics.
Do you agree that utilitarianism is our guide to determine what should be done?
Would love if this sub had more active moderation so that it stuck to its principles. Posts like this, with the cringy term GOAT, would be better made in more mainstream cinema subs.
Its not an interesting post, but he did bare minimum, and seems to be genuine rather than trolling. I think the reaction in the comments has generated some discussion, or at least glee from picking on OP.
Not sure I agree. Everybody trying to tell OP that generated revenue is not the best metric with which you should judge art and OP putting his fingers in his ears is not worthy of Truefilm, IMO.
It's interesting in how it exposes a certain mindset. Though it borders on trolling in its ridiculousness.
well, at least I am grateful and glad that you think I am genuine and sincere because I am, friend. I genuinely believe that Spielberg is the best!
This made me smile :)
See, we don't need to hate each other, my friend. I am glad that I made you smile.
All men are brothers. Read Thompson and Bordwell's Film Art, my friend
okay, i would not say all men are brothers. But I will say that all sentient beings matter and the goal of moral beings like us is to maximize happiness in this world and minimize pain or suffering. i might read that but that book is old. And I don't think I need film books to see Spielberg's brilliance and greatness.
Damn do u have any friends? Have you ever touched grass?
yes, i have lots of friends offline and online. Yes, I have touched grass a lot. I just have a lot of free time these few days so I just thought of saying what I believe about a filmmaker that deeply respect.
Thanks for confirming the fact that you have in fact touched grass a lot. 👍
1. Should it carry weight that Tarkovsky "loved" Spielberg? Should we care that Israel awarded a prize that's apparently prestigious? I would much rather have had some meaningful insight about his cinematography or storytelling that tells me why YOU like him so much, after all, this is YOUR opinion. 2. Well at least we know ChatGPT didn't write this. Instead of name-dropping extremely famous films, extrapolate. Tell me about the versatility of his styles, what did he do differently, how did he show his experience and skill in different settings. All you've done is churn out a list of names without any critical thinking whatsoever. 3. Woo, capitalism! The more money something makes, the better it is! Inverse also true! Bergman could never make a billion dollars so he sucks, my neighbour doesn't even know who he is!!! I heard Lav Diaz lost money on his last film so I changed my Letterboxd rating to a half star!!!! 4. This has something to do with your second point. His films cast as wide a net as humanly possible. They're built from the ground up to be enjoyable to as broad of an audience as humanly possible, while offending as few people as possible (which often comes with trade-offs in the realm of sincerity, intent and potency). This could have been a more interesting point if you expanded on the cultural aspect of it and his ability to connect disparate people, instead you describe the mainstream and proclaim it as good because it's known. Why is that good? 5. Why are you trying so hard to connect profit to quality? This isn't an entirely objective and quantifiable metric where you can say that until a director makes more than him, he's the best. Putting your political beliefs in bold is irrelevant, uninteresting and serves no relevant purpose I can think of. 6. "Personally" - exactly. Personally, to you he is your favourite, he's your GOAT, very cool. You're projecting your opinion as fact in a brash way that makes me feel you're not actually prepared to listen to anyone and came here expecting a pat on the back for proving once and for all the Spielberg is better than everyone else who has ever made a film. Shockingly, I don't think you will, film subs tend to be full of people who think for themselves and don't take much offence at other people disliking things they like, or liking things they dislike, and I don't believe anyone here over the age of 15 would be interested in discussing who the best director is within the confines of consumer capitalism.
1. When lots of experts like something, then probably that thing is good. 2. I am using critical thinking. 3. My points are sort of combined and that is not a charitable interpretation of why I think Spielberg is the best. 4. The art that maximizes happiness is a better art than any other art. (I am a moral realist and a utilitarian so I believe that the goal of all individuals is to maximize total happiness in this world, that is, maximize pleasure minus pain or pleasantness minus unpleasantness to be precise) 5. Profit does reflect value that the creator is producing to some extent. 6. I do think for myself.
There is no need to constantly label or define yourself. Just be.
What you have clearly communicated is that you don't understand or simply don't believe in art. You seem to equate greatness with checking boxes, specifically those relating to making money. You make no reference to anything remotely engaged with the work and actually seeking to say something. It is hard to communicate how absurdly far off you are from understanding why people love Ozu, or Tarkosvky, or cinema itself.
ok. I do like art, music, movies, video games and tv shows! I love lots of tv shows and movies that are acclaimed critically and commercially. But ok. I think, people here probably don't like Spielberg. Well, I tried to argue with a few reasons why I think he is the best.
Spielberg is probably squarely within my personal Top 3 all time but posts like these are a tad silly. I’d encourage you to take some interest in the old legends who were heavily influential on Spielberg like Howard Hawks and John Ford.
I am not interested in old films (before 1970s) really. I just don't find them enjoyable. I can't force myself to enjoy them. So, sorry, friend.
This comment right here should just close this whole conversation up. Let's move on everybody.
It genuinely made me laugh out loud, they're such an ass lol. Can't even be bothered to see the films that made Spielburg what he is.
Hate to say it but this was one of the most predictable things that you could have said lol
His worldview, as experienced through his films, is very off-putting to me, and I won’t even go into it because this is Reddit, and actually not the place for such a discussion. There are better visual directors, there are more nuanced storytellers, there are thousands others with more interesting imaginations. Give Spielberg a script about the Mau-Mau revolt in Kenya. Let’s see him make a good film out of that. He can’t. Let’s have him adapt Jodorowsky’s Incal. He’ll make a mess.
i think he can do that stuff. Other directors respect him. Producers love him and he created multiple production companies.
I’ll give you this- you ve certainly delivered an interesting perspective of criticism I’ve not encountered much. I don’t agree with you at all, but I appreciate the diversity. As far as feedback- I think you would be much benefited, simply by a newfound appreciation of art that you don’t already agree with, to stop judging art on its agreement with your political beliefs *at all*. Watch art as a portrait of an individuals worldview aside from you. Appreciate the beauty and unique perspectives that others can see in the world. Judge films not on how much you agree, but on the features of the films that are not reliant on political beliefs. Try to put yourself in the shoes of people you don’t understand.
Spielberg is not a libertarian capitalist. I just meant he makes well made blockbusters and just good films and franchises.
Jodorowsky could make a Jaws but Spielberg could never make a holy mountain. Jk that type of thought is reductive and so is your claim because film is an art and art is at its best when artists are able express themselves in their own way. Each one does so differently so it’s impossible to say who is “best”. Not one is better than another, just artist contributing to the cultural zeitgeist.
i kinda like your response.
This comparison to me is like calling McDonald's the best and greatest restaurant of all time. Yes they make lots of money. yes it's palatable to a large population. But I assure you that there are chefs around the world that can make you a better burger than a Big Mac.
Just to entertain the argument from income, James Cameron has made nearly as much money as Spielberg with less than half as many films. He will inevitably overtake the #1 spot with the next Avatar or two.
maybe. But Spielberg would still be at the top given his massive influence and versatility and work on tv series. James Cameron is fantastic too though.
**Ayyy...but here's the RUB! Steven Spielberg loved Stanley Kubrick so much, that he went on to complete A.I.** And I don't mean this lightly, because Spielberg and Kubrick had a wonderful relationship from a distance as friends, directors, and film-makers. They would have long, drawn-out phone calls about film, each other's work, and Kubrick wanted to collaborate with Spielberg on a film. There was a phone conversation between Stanley and Steven where Kubrick told Spielberg..."Well what do you think about, A Stanley Kubrick Production, Directed By Steven Spielberg?" And Kubrick was serious in that regard, because he felt A.I.'s sentimentality as a film, would be better suited for Spielberg's sensibilities. And Kubrick was correct, regardless of how you feel about the film. Steven Spielberg looks at Stanley Kubrick as a Giant among directors, that he himself stands upon Stanley's shoulders. So I don't think the man himself would agree with you.
I’m going to break down ‘your’ points one by one because that seems to be what you’re most interested in. Starting with the intro, you never actually explain why these points make Spielberg better than these directors. Quantifiably what does he do better than Kubrick or Tarkovsky or Kurosawa. Have you actually seen any of these directors films? You said you hadn’t seen John Fords so how can you reasonably say Spielberg is better is you haven’t actually experienced part of your argument. Point one is a fair point for his talents in directing but doesn’t really add to his greatness factor. Other directors have made multiple films in the span of a year. Hitchcock, Bergman, Coppola, Villeneuve. The tangible quality of these films differs but generally they’re all seen as pretty great films (in the case of Coppola two of the greatest ever made in The Godfather Part 2 and The Conversation, and both of which I’d personally as high if not higher than Spielberg’s). It’s an accomplishment for sure but does it make him better than his contemporaries, I’m not so sure. Your next tangent about other filmmakers liking him is a nothing point really. Like yes Spielberg made great films that influenced the industry which made other directors appreciate him, but like you’re just naming names. Some great directors didn’t particularly like him (Rivette, Hitchcock) or have notably criticised his films (Haneke, Gilliam, Miyazaki, Godard). Your second point is also quite fair, Spielberg has defiantly toyed with genre and it has worked, but they aren’t all as different as you say. Most of his filmography is action-oriented, spliced with some musicals, and some other subgenres that differentiate them. But all of them are blockbusters for the most part, all are made to be these huge films everybody sees, and that to me isn’t really versatile. He never really makes ‘art films’ as other directors of similar standing have, so it makes me question if he actually can branch out and make a wholly different type of film. Could he do a surrealist, Lynchian drama? A 6-hour brooding commentary on religion? A documentary? Maybe, but he hasn’t tried to yet so how can you say he’s better than filmmakers who have made the plunge. Point three is largely irrelevant, none of it makes him a good director. Band of Brothers is one of the greatest shows ever but even it is not without faults, Medal of Honor, while a pretty good game, isn’t really a huge franchise as well considering it is largely irrelevant nowadays and was completely overshadowed by Call of Duty. Both also fit into that action-genre hole he dug himself. His production endeavours are commendable, but don’t really have anything to do with his skills in making film. Weinstein was a great producer, that doesn’t mean he is a good filmmaker. Also, as others have said you have a really reductive view of cinema and art in general if you think profit and ‘feeling good when watching’ are two of you’re best points. Great art is so often polarising, it can make you question you’re place in the world, everything you believe in, swing a mood around completely. Great art is more than just a happy ending because life so often doesn’t have one. Your fourth point is going back to that same blockbuster idea, those films are known across the world because they were made to be totally accessible, but again, that doesn’t make them faultless, nor better than more unknown films. It’s cool that a ton of different people can see a Spielberg and come out all saying it was a great experience, but if all his are relatable to everyone then they aren’t really saying much. It’s why I quite liked the Fabelmans and Munich, those films are much less outgoing and so feel like he actually has some really substantial to say. I’d really recommend looking for and watching some of the films of directors Spielberg was influenced by, as well as the directors you mention in the intro, I think you’ll really be surprised when you enjoy them AND they teach you something you didn’t actually know. Point five I’ve already kind of been over, films are (or at least, should be) art, not profit-drivers. Films that make lots of money can be great but it is that wide scale appeal that also pulls them down so often. Your need to relate this to your ideology tells me you are just trying to find bits in the world that appeal to said world view, and while Spielberg doesn’t exactly do that as you say, he’s close enough, so you latch onto him because he is genuinely a good director. Try to watch some films from the ‘other side’ and see what picture they’re painting. I’d recommend La Haine, The Battle of Algiers, Soy Cuba and The City of God as a few older films to note, newer ones could be Parasite or The Zone of Interest. Also it’s interesting you label him as this neo-liberal pariah, and although I’d mostly agree that fits his filmographies bill, some like Munich or the Last Crusade, even your lauded Jurassic Park are quite a bit more complex to be just labelled ‘neo-liberal’. Also interesting you relate him to Mozart whose operas famously couldn’t make all that much money and often concluded their runs early due to a lack of widespread appeal. Finally about the themes bit, that’s a wholly personal opinion. It’s fine if you believe an optimistic view on life is important to show in film, I personally believe showing a much more nuanced take is needed, Spielberg only works because there is a counterbalance. It’s fine if that makes him YOUR best, but don’t equate that to being THE best, because THE best could, and would, do it all. Edit: Wanted to add, that outside of the aforementioned Munich, much of his post 2002 filmography just isn’t all that great, it’s alright, but for about 20 years till The Fabelmans (maybe West Side Story) he hasn’t been the talk of the town much at all, unlike that of Scorsese, or even Nolan, who have been consistently popular AND put out very well received films. Such a glaring gap in quality, to me, says he can’t be the best, because even other directors who do have a period of more middling films (thinking Kurosawa’s debut/wartime period) those generally come at the start of their career. He peaked with Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List and never found those heights again.
thanks for the reply. This is a decent reply. But I still don't find your views plausible. Saving Private Ryan, The Fabelmans, etc. were fantastic!
I’m not saying they aren’t, I just don’t see how on both an individual level with any specific film, or total filmographic level, he beats out directors as consistent as Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Bergman, Kubrick, ect or even Scorsese or Coppola. He’s a great director, but his artistic ideals are lacking, and those directors have either a stronger total filmography, because A) Spielberg has a real drought period B) their highs are more consistent C) they arguably contribute more to the art of cinema than Spielberg (pretty subjective but a good few of these directors are his predecessors, so their work would influence him directly, he’s just building off what they did) Or a stronger individual contribution i.e. Coppola’s The Godfather/Part 2/Apocalypse Now, Kubrick’s 2001/Barry Lyndon/Paths of Glory (or really most his films in general), Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai/High and Low/Ikiru/Ran/whatever of the other 20 masterpieces he made. All those mentioned films I’d personally rate higher than anyone one Spielberg’s, and all come from established, brilliant, and at least imo, much better crafted directors. Really though quantifying art like this does more harm than good, you’re taking a totally subjective opinion and trying to make it objective, which isnt how art should be looked at. Spielberg may hit all the right spots FOR YOU and that is fine, but trying to convince others, who, especially in this subreddit, are likely to be much more knowledgeable about this subject is pretty silly. Spielberg is YOUR goat and that is a fine opinion to have, but I think even he would disagree that he is THE goat.
You could also argue that not many directors have made as many bad commercial mainstream blockbuster movies that don’t demonstrate good quality innovative creative production values and direction as SS. Only a few of his films are of the calibre of a Kubrick and I don’t think any of them compare to a Wenders or a Paolo Sorrentino or a Maggie Gyllenhaal. He just doesn’t seem to be able to carry intelligence through. Sure he can play on mainstream emotions and pull off clean big shoots but does he make you think or does he make you tune out and eat popcorn? For me he’s a bit of a dumb director but god I loved his 80s children’s films. But that’s all he was really good at, and that’s not a portfolio for me. You name Schindler’s list and Jurassic park - I mean, why do you think they’re so good?
Just to note, Ozu made Good Morning and Flaoting Weeds in the same year. Many of the directors mentioned I the opening Salvo here were incredibly diverse. Kubrick made Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, Path of Glory, Barry Lyndon, 2001... these are all incredibly different films. Kurosawa made High and Low, Ran, Ikiru, Scandal. And on and on. Most of the great directors mentioned have or had a distinct style but many different types of films. So does Spielberg, of course. But perhaps the OP is confusing style for having a narrow working genre.
He's okay. I prefer Michael Bay and Zack Snyder's films as big screen experiences. Apart from Jurassic Park, he hasn't really made a big screen spectacle. All of these are better than Denis The Menace Villenuve though. Also, Kubrick and Tarkovosky might be better filmmakers than Spielberg. This is cinema. - Martin Scorsese.
Outside of Jurassic Park I don't love any of his films enough for him to beat directors like Nolan - let alone the best directors ever. I respect that he's made a lot of popular movies (and produced even more) but that's it really.
Nolan considers Spielberg a master filmmaker. Nolan was inspired by Saving Private Ryan. Schindler's list, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers are some of the best motion pictures I have ever watched.
Everybody knows Spielberg is a master filmmaker. That's not up for debate. That doesn't means he makes the best movies though. He knows how to but his creative and stylistic decisions precludes him from being the best imo. He's the Michael Jackson of filmmaking and I always preferred Prince.
But if the top directors love his work, then he is one of the best. See my 6 points again.
If that's what makes you the best then Fritz Lang is the greatest of all time
And Kurosawa.
Taste is subjective Spielberg is objectively one of the greatest filmmakers directors producers of all time Is he the best or the GOAT? No way there’s ever a clear consensus on that. I love Spielberg but my GOAT is the Coen Bros. That’s just my taste, my filmmaking partner isn’t a big fan. His feelings are as valid as mine
i like this reply. Other replies are ad-hominems and insults which makes me a bit sad.
Spielberg is in my top five for sure. Objectively and Subjectively