Godard on Hollywood.... (insightful)

[crimsonson]

From Film Comment mag:


Q: Why choose Spielberg as the incarnation of the evils of Hollywood?

Godard: Because he's very well known and because he directed Schindler's List. I read somewhere that Oskar Schindler's widow lives in poeverty in Argentina despite all the money the film brought in. Spielberg is a symbolic name.


Thoughs? Reactions?


------------------

[Jean Poirier]

There is no one better than a filmmaker to attack another one. I remember an interview with Fran?ois Truffault about the way Godard acted during may 68 riots in France. He who throws the first stone...

------------------

[ulrichsd]

I read this comment somewhere on Roger Ebert's "Movie Answer Man" colum at www.suntimes.com/ebert.

I can't comment on Schindler's widow, but he pointed out a very good point that money from the profits of movie started the "Schindler foundation" which supports the families of jews that were persecuted during the holocaust. Its been a while since I watched Schindler's List, but if I remember correctly the people the movies characters are based on and their families show up at the end to visit the memorial that created through the movie. So I don't think Godards remarks are very well researched. It seems that if Godard was going to pick on Hollywood there are many other directors or producers he could have pointed out. I only wish there were more films like Schindler's List, and I think I remember hearing Spielbeg say that he woudl prefer to work only on movies like SL , but films like Jurasic Park, etc. pay the bills. Although I'm sure SL raked in some pretty big $.

Just my thought.
Scott

------------------

[crimsonson]

SL was no doubt about Oskar himself. He was the focal point and much of the moral weight centered around the decisions he made during that period. Remember, the name of the movie is SL not the List.
Regarding movie paying the bills...

I think ET, Jaws and all of Indiana Jones can pay 50 Spielbergs and family bills unless your bill is of opulence and extravagence (and we still have the 300 mill plus that Ryan earned plus future earnings (AI for example) plus Dreamworks profits etc,..).), . I am not attacking Spielberg its just your defense of him is inadequate.



------------------

[Matt Pacini]

I think there's an overriding assumption in all these remarks, that if a movie grosses big bucks, the director is getting all the money, which is absolutely incorrect.

(First of all, the exibitors are getting half, so when a movie grosses 300 million, 1/2 of it is gone before it even begins to get back to the producers. And there is no such things as "future earnings" that's just B.S. for the trade publications. They don't know if they're going to make that money or not)

Investors invest in movies, and they expect a return on those investments.
The director can't simply grab all the profits and give them to charity. They aren't his to give.

If you do your homework, you will see that most films Spielberg directs, are not even Dreamworks distributed productions, and again, that's not all his and Geffen and Katzenbergs money, there are lots and lots of investors, board of directors, etc., These guys DO NOT use their own money to finance productions.
He still has a relationship with Universal, for instance. Look at the credits on every Spielberg directed feature in the last 10 years, the next time you're in the video store, and you will see what I mean.

Goddard making a flaming remark like that about Spielberg, based on "I think I heard it somewhere..." is what is indefensible, but is typical of a Frenchman, considering their socialist system, and the jealousy such a system creates for anyone doing better than you are.

I'm not saying Spielberg isn't rich, but those movie profits are not his to give away.
He does however give loads of cash to many charities, and I seriously doubt that none of it has ended up going to the former Mrs. Schindler, but that's a guess.

Matt Pacini

------------------


[This message has been edited by Matt Pacini (edited January 18, 2002).]

[crimsonson]

I never said Spielberg produced every film he has directed. I postulated that not only he makes tremendous amount of money from movies, where he is one of the few Hollywood directors who gets a percentage plus his regular fee of millions, he has also other sources of tremendous amount of cash.

"If you do your homework, you will see that most films Spielberg directs, are not even Dreamworks distributed productions"

I did. I never said that Dreamworks did. I implied that his share of profit from one the biggest and most successful studio today alone can pay the bills - whatever bill that may be.


"He still has a relation ship with Universal, for instance. Look at the credits on every Spielberg directed feature in the last 10 years, the next time you're in the video store, and you will see what I mean."

Some producer credits (does not count uncredited work, including the most financially succesful movie of last year Shrek):

SL
Ryan
Amistad
Men in Black
The FLinstones
Deep Impact
JP III


"He does however give loads of cash to many charities, and I seriously doubt that none of it has ended up going to the former Mrs. Schindler, but that's a guess."

"Goddard making a flaming remark like that about Spielberg, based on "I think I heard it somewhere..." is what is indefensible, "

Inconsitent in application.

"but is typical of a Frenchman, considering their socialist system, and the jealousy such a system creates for anyone doing better than you are."

This is ad hominem. It does not address the issue he sates and implies.

Your statement never addressed the underlying issue. Has Hollywood been generous enough to people who provides the story where they earn fantastical amount of money? Add to the fact that they gain fame, respect and a sort of social vanguard status with 'socially responsible films' such as SL. He offered to show SL to public schools for free, I wonder if Ms Schindler got a VHS copy also? Spielberg has also become a spokesperson for the WWII memorial. Is not this so Hollywood, crtical acclaim THEN social awareness. Seems very self serving and self involved and shallow in sincerity.

Matt I assume your answer is not.

------------------

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

Godard: Because he's (Spielberg) very well known and because he directed Schindler's List.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrevelant. What if SL had been a bomb? What if Spielberg was an unknown? What if Spielberg hated the film and didn't want to be associated with it? Spieldberg doesn't take a fee or a salary anymore. He works for a percentage of the box office and has for years. If SL had made zero money, Spielberg would still have plenty of dough which is why he can afford to give it away.

In short, Spielberg is not the problem; Godard is the problem by purposely choosing someone that has obvious success as an easy target to say,"Why don't you do more with your fabulous wealth?" while ignoring the obvious things that he DOES do with his fabulous wealth while also ignoring the important fact that he isn't required to do ANYTHING with his fabulous wealth at all! Again, there is no "fee" so, as Matt correctly pointed out, there are no guaranteed earnings. SL could have been a bomb.

It would seem that Godard took the easy way out. Rather than investigate the many that benefited directly from Shindler's efforts and perhaps have never repaid the debt, he instead damns someone that tells their story simply because money was made without acknowleging the fact that it takes money to make money and that financial risk was certainly involved. Lucky for Godard SL was a success or REAL research might have to be done to see who else the finger could be pointed at.

Are there NO wealthy Jews that benefited directly from the work of Shindler? Are THEY helping his desitute widow? More to the point, is she really destitute? No one on this list knows the answers to these questions.

regarding such:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

Godard:I read somewhere that Oskar Schindler's widow lives in poeverty in Argentina despite all the money the film brought in. Spielberg is a symbolic name.

Thoughts? Reactions?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's there to react to? Presumptions? Assumptions? Why waste time engaging in a "what if" debate when we have zero facts.

Godard doesn't know. How could we?

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited January 18, 2002).]

[crimsonson]

"Irrevelant. What if SL had been a bomb"

That IS the point. His point is that Hollywood IS successful. They are powerful and they are able. Ofcourse it would not matter if I made a doc about Polish ghettos and I am the only person who saw it and made no money (unless it becomes relevant in the future). The fact that it MADE money, raised Spielberg's status not only in the Jewish community but also in other aspects of society (world). Its not the money from other movies that Godard is concern about but the a more direct relation - profits from SL shared to people directly related to the film's success. Reread the answer AND question.

"Godard is the problem by purposely choosing someone that has obvious success as an easy target to say,"Why don't you do more with your fabulous wealth?"

He does not excuse that.That IS his point, to choose an idividual that represent the flaws of Hollywood'slack of social iniative.

I apolgise ahead of time is I am condascending, Am I the only one understanding what is implied and understated by the question and answer?

I am not defending Godard. I am more trying to understand your defense for Spielberg.
As written, MAtt and Roger believes that there is a right to profit from other's heroics and tragic lives (all victims, survivors soldiers, Schindlers, and such) but there is no responsibility to be generous. Then the following question then is why enjoy the status AND to what extent does someone use that power? Spielberg has obviously some understanding of his film's social implication.

"What's there to react to? Presumptions? Assumptions? Why waste time engaging in a "what if" debate when we have zero facts"

Its a discussion on social and political aspect of filmmaking, not the empirical study of voltage and shutter speed. There is no what ifs, just a reasonable conclusion to what we can deduce from out behavior, moral attitudes and expectations.

------------------


[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited January 18, 2002).]

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

I apolgise ahead of time is I am condascending, Am I the only one understanding what is implied and understated by the question and answer?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But implication is not the same thing as proof. You are still in the "what if?" mode which I find a waste of time.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crimsonson:

As written, MAtt and Roger believes that there is a right to profit from other's heroics and tragic lives (all victims, survivors soldiers, Schindlers, and such) but there is no responsibility to be generous.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nahhh. You're WAY off base and, frankly, a little insulting here. I nor Matt said any such thing. It IS a right to benefit from hard work and risk, regardless of what story you tell. Never said it was a "right to profit from other's heroics and tragic lives". Again, the families that benefited directly from Shindler's efforts are the ones that owe his widow; not Spielberg for making a movie that could have lost as much money as it made.

This is nonsense and your accusations are now making something personal that can really be nothing more than a "what if?" rhetorical because debate since:

You DON'T know what all Spielberg does with his money.

You DON'T know whether widow Shindler is destitute or not.

You DON'T know if anything Godard wrote is true.

The ONLY fact you DO know is that Spielberg is rich and that seems enough for you to pull the lever on the trap door.

BTW: Apology accepted but I'm out of this one anyway.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[crimsonson]

Roger and MAtt,

My comments where not meant to be offensive. I sincerely apologise. I for one do not like the idea of personal attacks in any civil discusion. If anyway that it was offensive I will be more than willing to reword in order to remove such attacks and remain faithful to my ideas.

"not Spielberg for making a movie that could have lost as much money as it made."

But it did not. It did the opposite and that fact is in focus. Lets say for example that Ms. Schindler and the Jewish families are compensated by Spielberg and all profiting individuals or/and groups. Does the next SL/Spielberg do the same? Why or why not? Does ambivalence equals greed in this case? We pay three second for a Beatle song why cant we pay the homeless person that we 'base' our films on ('base' meaning the Hollywood practice of slightly changing names and facts inorder to bypass payment) Clearly, directors, producers and studio executives take high moral grounds all the time. They cannot take such stance and expect no demand for some kind of social responsibility.

The film Erin Brokovich by Sodenberg, remove the fact I do not know if they did or not, does the producers/studio have the responsible to compensate those tragic individuals the movie is 'based' on?

Again, my deepest apologies and hope you continue to contribute to this particular discussion.

------------------


[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited January 18, 2002).]