Carlotta:
With over fifty years in film, producing, writing and directing some of the best and biggest blockbusters in the world, Steven Spielberg is everyone’s favourite director. He’s seen some of the greatest actors and directors come and go and heavily influenced the great directors of today, such as Guillermo del Toro, Peter Jackson and James Cameron. Most importantly, he’s responsible for some of the best films of our childhood; Jaws, E.T., Casper, Hook… He even produced Pinky and the Brain. PINKY AND THE BRAIN! Where would we be without these greats? Lost, that’s where, like raiders of the lost ark. Oh, did I mention he directed that, too? Yeah, there’s nothing anyone (mainly you, Ray) can say that will disqualify Steven’s genius. Nothing that’ll tip all those many many Oscars off his shelf, nothing that his maids can’t disinfect after you’ve sullied him. So gimme all you got! I’ve got a crew of Indiana Jones fans, a park full of dinosaurs and a war horse behind me. I’m ready for battle.

Ray:
Right Carlotta, the first thing I will not accept here is being painted as some sort of stuffed-up, childhood hating, Scrooge-like movie-snob corpse man. THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM. Mainly, my objections to The Berg consist in a list of constant disappointments and dastardly tricks he has cast my way over the years. Let me explain. I do not deny that SS (do people call him that? Probably not, let’s face it) has crafted some wonderful cinematic moments over the years – I love E.T., Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park et al as much as the next man. He is a magic movie maker, one of the best. My beef with him is that when he approaches subject matter that is in anyway serious, or requires some subtlety in its presentation (Schindler’s List, The Colour Purple, Munich, Amstrad – need I continue), he smacks us over the head with a big hammer, ramming down our throats whatever message he’s trying to convey. With Spielberg, when it comes to serious drama, you cannot trust him. He will always let you down with his love of the saccharine, the heart-warming, the tear-full big finale, probably because he doesn’t trust his audience to make up its own mind. Why should we trust him if he doesn’t trust us?

Carlotta:
In what way, then, would you have him convey issues that sometimes need to be approached with sensitivity? He’s making movies, after all. Sometimes big issues need to be cushioned with a certain heart-warming fuzz, a message to say; hey, okay, so this happened and it was terrible for everyone but it’s okay now, we’re better now. Let’s say we’re talking about the Holocaust and Schindler’s List. There’ll still be those in the audience who had to live through it. You can’t just say OH LOOK THIS HAPPENED IT WAS AWFUL THE END. He shows the heart-wrenching, brutal moments of history but he dissects this with slices of fragility and yes, saccharine, because sometimes that’s what’s needed to make a great film – for the world to remember that even though we go through these horrible moments, we get through it. Don’t we all need a bit of schmaltz from our films sometimes? Isn’t that what MAKES a great film? Saving Private Ryan, for instance, what was Steven bashing you over the head with? He invests in great characters just as much as story or context. He trusts that his audience can deal with that.

Ray:
Ok, so Spielberg’s main assets, from your point of view, are that he reminds us that we can get through hardship, that humanity often has to crawl through the mud, but that we always come through at the other side; and that his characters are well made and believable. I’ll deal with his optimism first. What shall I say other than THE WORLD IS NOT LIKE THAT. Not always, anyway. I feel that Spielberg’s main contribution to the cinema is exactly as you say, it’s what I would call innocence. He captures the world beautifully through the eyes of a child, before they have been polluted by the reality of the world, before they have been weighed down by a bit healthy pessimism.
That is a very useful, necessary, and pleasing contribution yes, but let’s not pretend that it’s impossible to see the world both ways. As for his characters, I would largely agree with you there, apart from a caveat: sometimes there is too much character. I’m thinking Dustin Hoffman in Hook, Sean Connery in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade – sometimes they need to be reined in.

Carlotta:
Yes, that’s exactly what his main assets are. And you’re right, the world certainly isn’t all kittens and rainbows, as much as we’d like it to be. Admittedly, Hoffman’s performance in Hook is a lesson in cringe-worthy acting, but that’s probably what it’s known for. It was a kid’s film, after all, hence the silly costumes and overacting. Indiana Jones came at a time when OTT adventure films were all the rage, particularly paying homage to the adventure heroes of the 1930s. That aside, I wouldn’t argue that he’s saying it’s impossible to present reality in any other way. Would you rather watch bleak after bleak after BLEAK film? No! A healthy dose of reality vs what we’d like it to be vs what it could be is vs what it is, is as you say, necessary and fun, if anything. If film-making is a form of art, isn’t that what we need art for? Anyway, I feel like you need a lie down and a fluffy kitten on your lap to cheer you up. I’ll get back to admiring his Oscars.

Ray:
I’VE HAD ENOUGH FLUFFY KITTENS, THEY PLAGUE ME. Everywhere I go, during everything I do, I’m constantly being attacked and humiliated by these damned happy kittens and their fluff. It’s time for the realists to take back the streets! As for his shiny Oscars, I happen to blame the Academy for forcing Spielberg down the drama route from the mid-80s onwards, following constant snubs when it awards season came round. All the talk in the lead up to Schindler’s List was ‘Will Spielberg finally bag Oscars?’ And he did, going down the old Holocaust drama route, even filming it in black and white for God’s sake! He should have stuck to what he was best at – big, warm, clever blockbusters that the whole family could enjoy. Instead, he’s pandered to the needs of bourgeois-liberal middle-aged Academy members since about 1986, occasionally returning to form with the likes of Jurassic Park and A.I. (which is sort of half-Kubrick’s anyway). All the time he’s been basking in the glow of his critical acclaim, becoming practically a cliché for ‘award-winning director’. I’ll tell you what’s gone wrong with Spielberg: Hubris.

There, I’ve drowned the fluffy cats. You happy now?

Carlotta:
Well, even if Spielberg was shoved down the stuffy black and white drama route, it was still a fantastic film. Perhaps, for once in their lives, the middle-aged liberal men had a good hunch. Who better to fulfil our filmic needs than trusty ol’ Steven, providing us with great film after great film no matter what it is? Let’s not deem him too commercial a director now, those moments in Schindler’s List that you deem the ‘old Holocaust drama route’, others deem emotional and aesthetic excellence. He’ll whack out an Academy award-winner, then a smaller film, then a blockbuster that deserved but never quite got an award, then your damn family film. HE’S AN ALL ROUNDER FOR STEVE’S SAKE. And who says he’s basking? He can’t help but be AMAZING at his work. As for kittens, WHAT KIND OF SICK MAN DOESN’T LIKE FLUFFY KITTENS? First you say you want him to churn out some serious drama, then you say you want him to stick with the family film. Maybe you need to put on your rose-tinted glasses and SIT BACK DOWN WITH THE DAMN CAT AND APPRECIATE ITS CUTENESS!

Ray:
I told you, all the kittens are dead. Get with it Carlotta. I didn’t say I want him to do some serious drama, I said WE CANNOT TRUST HIM. Steven Spielberg is a liar who lies about the kittens. They are not lovely and fluffy and alive, they are angry and wet and dead now. WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD CARLOTTA. You should cut down on the Spielberg films and take a solid shot of Bergman, or Tarkovsky or Ken Loach. There are no fluffy kittens in their films. Because they are, I repeat, dead. QED.

Carlotta:
Spielberg wouldn’t kill kittens off in his film, at least not waterboard them like you seem to be doing you HEARTLESS FELINE-HATER. Spielberg would resurrect them and turn them into robokittens AND OMG HOW COOL WOULD ROBOKITTENS AS A FILM BE? Very cool. Or War Kitten. God, even better. See how cool Stevo is? Screw the real world, I’ll stick with pirates and Indians and COWBOYS AND ALIENS.

Ray:
Actually ROBOKITTENS does sound pretty good. And I suppose that would satisfy us both as they’d presumably be both dead and alive AT THE SAME TIME. Sounds like a good compromise to me…

Carlotta:
Fine. Kittens and rainbows all the way.

Ray:
Dead kittens and rainbows, you mean.

Where do you stand on the great Spielberg debate? Let us know below!

By Carlotta Eden and Ray Thompson