JakeEkiss
Filthy casual
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2025
- Messages
- 907
I think the two valid criticisms of Steven are that his films do not, typically, require the audience to do much work. The scripts tell you what to think and the music tells you what to feel. I think this is definitely true of his work, I just don't think it's as damning a critique as some. Sometimes it's ok to have a story that is exactly what it says on the tin.Post-Schindler’s List (which I love) I kinda get the gooey over-sentimental Americana ick from a lot of Spielberg, I’m the guy who will eagerly shut off Saving Private Ryan as soon as they are done at the beach. Same ick I get from Tom Hanks (who I generally love) playing American Everyguy in a bunch of films post-Forrest Gump. It’s a kind of sentimentalism I don’t relate to, about a kind of America I just don’t believe ever existed. Feels almost like propaganda.
I looooooove de Palma but I don’t give a damn about Scarface, like it’s fine but its place in pop culture history is not something I gravitate to AT ALL and I’m super-icked out whenever it “comes up”. Phantom of the Paradise is where it’s at, man. Oh and The Untouchables is THE best gangster film OF ALL TIME, suck on that Scorsese and also Coppola (whose best film is Bram Stoker’s Dracula).
The second criticism is the sort of overly sentimental vibes and reverence for times that didn't actually happen. And I think that's largely also accurate. That one I have mixed feelings about. For the parts of his filmography I like most, it's generally a non-issue. And of the later stuff, I think I prefer Fablemans anyway because of how gently it treats people in his past that he could be very unkind to if he wanted. I have a lot of complicated thoughts about that one, but none of them are negative, really.