Terry Gilliam criticizes Spielberg and Schindler's List 

Oh Hi Mark

They don't pose any questions either.

@@tigqc touché

@@tigqc Oh they plant plenty of questions in my head, most starting with WHY!?

And that is... like your personal ... like opinion. Like wow.

It's 2021 and a studio apartment sounds pretty upscale to a lot of people.

@@joeschembrie9450 the point is Gilliam has a plenty nice house and bank account for that matter. He's a millionaire moaning at a billionaire. Kind of hard for the common man to relate to.

@@joeschembrie9450 You must live in a Democratic city.

@@farid1406 Yeah, I got the point. How can you interpret what I said as not getting the point?

@@joeschembrie9450 Lol I know, just taking the opportunity to vent at Gilliam

It's the closest Spielberg ever got to an unhappy ending, apart from Saving Private Ryan. Ironically, Kubrick gets a lot more criticism for his ending in 2001, which nobody understood! lol

Yeah I honestly don't even get why he would be taking a shit on it, like, from the natural context of living in this world we know the holocaust was awful, wtf are you even talking about terry? It's a movie about a glimmer of light in what is probably the darkest setting in recent history. I love Kubrick and generally agree he's a better director than spielberg; but acting like Schindler's list isn't a pretty well made movie seems silly.

@@ph6376 I will respectfully disagree. SPR (you already mentioned), Munich and A.I., all had very cynic endings. But yes, the rest of his filmography is more Hollywood than being oriented. But having made both types of narrative endings it proves, that unlike other filmmakers, he is multi dimensional not only on the type of films and genres he makes but also the story ending aspect.

Someone needs to adjust Terry’s medication if he thinks Schindler’s List is some sort of uplifting schmaltz, like a big budget Hallmark Channel film. No wonder Hollywood studios have a hard time dealing with Gilliam.

@@peterp2153 personally I understand what Gilliam is trying to say, that yes the film was traumatic and sad yet Spielberg managed to wrap a hopeful story around it - Schindler’s successful attempt of saving some Jewish people - and therefore wink “hope” to the viewer at the end. And somehow that was a comforting ending. No I am sorry but it wasn’t. I and most of the people I know came out of that theater an emotional wreck ‘cause the final taste I got from the movie wasn’t not Schindler’s good action but the tragedy of the Holocaust and what those people went through. So at the end of the day I’d say message was received, with a sledge hammer in the stomach. You don’t have to go completely Cynic to drive your point. So I’d say that was cheap shot by Terry.

Yes, but Schindler's List shouldn't be a "comfort movie" and Spielberg made it so. It should have been as complex as the actual story really was (read the book) but Spielberg never trusts his audience to handle it. Or he knows he'll make a lot more money making it "comfortable". He has an inflated sense of his artistic depth (he really doesn't have any).

@@loge10 i don't agree its a comfort movie, its about people making allot of hard decisions, and the ramifications of those decisions. its based on a true story, and there are horrors being shown all the time, but though the do talk about the Jews its not a film about the overall holocaust but about a man and the people around him. does t portray him to be a hero yes, but tbf the people he helped still greatly appreciate what he did and that's why the film got made. terry is a fantastic director but i think its not a totally fair criticism. Spielberg has a very particular style the world would miss without it .

How you feel is up to you ultimately, however, the Shoah & genocides which continue are not things for comfort. I agree with the fact there are actions of inspiration, such as the German officer ( he truly existed) in "The Pianist" who keeps Adrain Brody's character alive, or the biography by Emma Gutman who hides out in the basement of a German officer in Poland are worthy in that they illustrate the triumph of the human spirit in the midst of carnage, chaos & brutality.

@@robertlaidlaw4592 I think the word "comfort" is being misinterpretted here. I'm saying that the movie was a bit white-washed in terms of characterizations. The real story and the characters is much more complex. Spielberg seeks to please and not challenge. That's why I hate his movies. Take a movie like "Lawrence of Arabia" (my vote for one of the top 5 movies ever made) and there is real psychology there. There is no psychology in Spielberg films.

@@loge10 i think he is still portrayed as a bit of a cold bastard, i don't think its that one note, also i have to say i disagree his characters arn't one note, yes you could say its a bit Disney in that everyone generally develops in a positive way, but i think he still expresses the bad points and there good points, the villan for example bad points he hates jews and kills without mercy, middling points he's doing it because he's scared he shows affection for one in particular though its a bit rape cos he's mental, good point with a bit of reluctance he does sth that helps. also id say with things like jurassic park he has genuine scares and wonderment but the characters are still a bit weird and broken and kind of close to how you would expect, its a kids film but its defiantly an interesting display of misuses of power. it's a good sci fi. id say hes a pretty darn good director because of his range and ability to provoke particular emotions.

Fangornmmc I don't think anyone was saying there shouldn't be both. If it weren't for blockbusters, there wouldn't be a Hollywood to make thought-provoking films. The blockbusters make the money that validates an attempt at high art when the creators and producers understand it's unlikely the art piece might not make much immediate profit. I'm fairly certain Gilliam understands this as well as anyone, as his beginning was with a bunch of comedians who, even if brilliant comedians, were usually somewhat superficial aside from a few deep points along the way.

Cubroncs03 But that's not what Gilliam says here. He sounds pretty adamant to me. And i'm not able to say that you're wrong, but you certainly are being presumptuous.

Like them all. Although I do suspect envy on Gilliam's part. After all, Spielberg was good friends with Kubrick. It was Kubrick's idea to have Spielberg direct A. I. because it had more of Spielberg's sensibility he thought. This is all old news. Interesting how Gilliam frowns on Hollywood films since he did The Fisher King.

Spielberg's films can be provocative; i.e. Munich and Minority Report. Kubrick's can be comforting i.e. Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut.

rockhero2274 There was little of comfort in either of those films to be honest.

@@mrtoy875 Around the Corner; Down the Block . . . it always hides deep within our hearts. That's the answer in every Hollywood movie. .~ ( .~ = Sarcasm )

LMFAO...i see what you did there. Like a discussion on Filet Mignon vs Prime Rib and you bring up McDonalds Cheeseburgers. Too Funny

Sweet!

I haven’t seen it. Did he find his car? Or did it end ambiguously?

@@collapsedsynapse Dude!

Congratulations you dont got the context

"That's not what the Holocaust was about." Well, Terry, that's not what the book was about either. It was about the attempts of a war profiteer to find his soul in the middle of awfulness and save whomever he could. It wasn't a happy ending, it was an ending about hope, endurance, survival and perhaps learning never to repeat those mistakes again.

On a whole, I agree with the statement that Spielberg's pictures TEND to have happier and well defined endings and Kubrick's films are more open ended and make you think more. I disagree, however, that Schindler's List has a happy ending or that anyone smiles at any time during that movie. Over a million Jews were killed during the Holocaust. We see that devastating horror. Oskar Schindler saved 1,200 Jews. The disparity between those two numbers makes the ending horrific, not triumphant. You leave that movie exhausted and stunned and do not revel in the "happy" ending at all. For me, the story of Oskar Schindler is just the bones on which Spielberg was able to show the horror of the Holocaust.

@@The_Mighty_Fiction I’m so glad someone said this because it’s all I could think. Gilliam is painting it out as if Schindler’s List ends in sunshine and roses and that’s so not the case. He told the story of Oskar Schindler and did it gracefully imo

@@mightyasterisk8333 Speilberg I like some of his films, very entertaining but... Kubrick is right in a way. Saving Pr'v Ryan .,.. historically accurate in ways but corny . The civilians in the bombed out living room is how he deals with the "co-lateral" damage. An excuse for small sprinkle of light relief with the daughter hitting the father. ?

But at the end you see all the people he save and their son and daugher's and grandsons's deminishing the meaning of that scene you just mention, that is the confort, the movie dont dare to end in a real dark tone like Come and see a movie way more superior that submerge you in the horrors of war in a more succefull way than Schindler and Private Ryan And this come from an Spielberg fan i really enjoy his work and his optimistic view of the world but is confort food and nothing wrong with that after all movies are also scapism

@@wilmergimenez yeah, I agree with you: people watch movies simply for escapism- and that is even more apparent for large scale and universally popular films. They need to be accessible to a very large audience and stories are adjusted in order to get the green light. of course, there are films that just border on documentary style retelling of every horrific thing that happens in the world, and that’s great too, but not everyone wants to watch films just like that. We need variety and levity. A movie is not any less authentic or artistic because it has been idealized to some extent. Viewers can suspend their disbelief and see a story through a romanticized and digestible lens, and still not be naive enough to take it face value and understand the full context it stemmed from. I feel hope and pain when I see Schindler’s list and I feel melancholy, cold dread, and true understanding when I see come and see. These movies did what they intended and were shot beautifully. It’s all about intention and Schindler’s list intention wasn’t to be this unfiltered trauma porn, bordering exploitation and displaying the degrading of a child’s mind in war time. Of course it would fail to be come and see because it doesn’t have the same intention. come and see Displaying a harsh depiction of war that doesn’t champion or romanticize it is important and it brings up important discussions, but with that in mind it still is a film that can desensitize and disenchant you, and make you down right cynical and in a hopeless state.

It's not about the ending being happy or sad. Is about a film always having the answers for you. Happy or sad, they are answers. What matters is to try here and there to question the audience so they have something to think about after finishing the movie.

but then you had that grave scene in color that probably should not be there.

It is a somewhat happy ending. I just watched 2001 at a theatre in London this evening. A 70mm print with a classic intermission in the middle. The ending of this picture makes you think what is this about. The visual effects are stunning.

IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!

Exactly

Nihilists are ruining pop culture.

@@slade52 I WISH it were nihilists! That's why I like Kubrick.

Detest the Zone but I feel ya nonetheless

I'm pretty sure that was just bad writing, like the character called Mack and so on.

well played, Noel, haha

Sarcasm is lost on the internet

And the beginning and the middle too. Take that, Kubrick.

The ending of Crystal Skull made me think what the fxck did I just pay an £8.60 ticket for?

I love Kubrick films, but fuck me if i don't watch Raiders of the Lost Ark every time it's on.

@@weylandyutanicorporate Mmm no.

Alejandro Perez Perez whatever you say, neckbeard. Enjoy your waifu pillow.

@@weylandyutanicorporate ? Are you ok?

Alejandro Perez Perez I’m great, thanks!

It's a question of scale - by focusing on the small victories so closely, they appear as a counterbalance to a failure which is really beyond comprehension, much less effective portrayal.

But it could be argued that Spielberg's films are about the destination because the destination is always the same - a happy ending.

@@ppuh6tfrz646 It could be: you bring up an interesting point. I disagree, but I'm not saying that you're wrong. Think of any crime show on tv - like Castle or Law & Order etc. - with each episode following the same formula. We don't watch those shows because of the ending, where we know to find a resolution. We are more interested in the journey. And, I'm being pedantic, but there is a handful of Spielberg movies with not-so-happy endings: The Duel, Sugarland Express, Schindler's List (borderline), Saving Private Ryan (bittersweet), Munich, Lincoln, West Side Story.

@@ppuh6tfrz646 You could argue that Schindler’s List takes the holocaust out of context & presents a somewhat happy ending. A few hundred Jews saved while some 6 million perished. I love Jaws it’s a great film but I always find the end scene of the two making their way back to shore a little idealistic.

@@NoName-jq7tj I think films like Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark are what Spielberg does best - exciting adventure films. I've always thought of him as a commercial film-maker rather than a mature or serious film-maker.

naahhhh... lol sometimes balance, but sometimes just a lot of each, one or the other is fine... just make em good! (altered my comment slightly)

uplifting escapism can be pure fantasy. It doesn't have to paper over human tragedy and attempt to sanitise history for the masses.

Beautifully said and on point.

That's the lesson from Italian Neorealism. Sure in the beginning it produced some of the freshest and greatest films ever made like Rome Open City and Bicycle Thieves, but it eventually got tiresome and its principal directors felt bounded by the rules of their own genre.

Thinking about that, “The Secret of NIHM” did strike a good balance between the two.

As an actor, you need things to draw on

Yeah. Now let's do some improvisational comedy.

That's absolutely true. I myself saw Liam Neeson tell Ricky Gervais that very thing. Spielberg really did pick him because he liked making lists. Isn't that weird?

Lets...do... some improvisational... comedy...

@@HighlandMike325 You need to knock before you enter

Yes but do you see Gilliam’s point? That what Spielberg chose to make - the movie about the hero - the guy who made the right choices, the heroic choices. The bigger story is how did millions turn a blind eye. More than that how did millions go along. It is a great movie but the criticism is a valid one and Kubrick’s quote sums it up perfectly.

Ellipsis22 don’t know what that has to do with it but....you’re wrong.

Wayne Durning Why is Kubrick allowed to to make the movies he wants to make and blast Spielberg for making the movies he makes?? The story is about Oskar Schindler and how HE changed HIS on the Holocaust to save those he could. It wasn’t about the bigger picture of the nazi propaganda. Is was about that particular snapshot of the Holocaust.

Claire Caines so go ahead and criticize Kubrick’s movies. Fair criticism is fair game. And I think “blast” is a bit much it’s just a critique. Look I’m a Spielberg fan but what these guys say make sense. I don’t get why people get so bent out of shape over it.

@@waynedurning8717 I think Gilliam was being disingenuous - Kubrick and Spielberg were friends in real life and admired each other's work. In fact, Kubrick spent years trying to make his own 'Spielberg movie' with AI and entrusted Spielberg to finish it. How mad could he possibly have been about Schindler's List if all of this happened?

Get out

@@petecampbell3929 A Great film that leave you with questions, unlike Schindler’s List.

@@wb8905 lmao, why would a "great" film has to leave you with questions? It's such a hipster thing to say. I mean, one can prefer films that leave you with questions and has deeper meaning etc. But that doesn't make other films that coherently tells a story which stays with you for a long time any inferior. If you go by your definition, Tenet is the greatest film ever made. Even better than any kubrick films. Cause not only it tests your general knowledge and capability to handle complex scientific occurrences, it leaves you with like 100 different questions. Another film I can think of is The Fountain - again leaves you as puzzled as a kid finding how babies are born for the first time. And just because of that, films like Shawshank Redemption, Heat, Gladiator, Rocky, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump etc can't be any lesser films cause they don't leave you with any question. Not everything have to be cryptic and obscure to be great.

@@sikdermahmud3444 Well I didn’t say Schindler’s list wasn’t a great film, but whatever man.

@@wb8905 You mean questions like, "how could this happen" or "how can we prevent this from ever happening again"? Those are there, clear as day.

I love Spielberg and Guilliam. And I get Terry's take on Spielberg's work. You don't get to that level of success if you r films confront the audience with questions.

I dont think he "fails" to consider that. Im sure he's aware. I think you've failed to understand the greater point

@@BuJammy What of Kubrick's quote then? He's a hack too i suppose

The physical constraints of this particular universe says categorically that it is not a true story. A story, yes, just physically impossible. The scientific method is a ruthless witness to all claims, no matter who makes them, or with whatever amount of faux self righteous victimhood they employ in the telling. Science baby, it rocks.

@@Drew-vn8rx I disagree that the film's simply about the holocaust, I've always understood it to specifically be about Schindler's List

Perhaps, but it's celebrating a "bandaid" approach to tragedy: great, wonderful, a thousand people were saved -- but it doesn't change the fact over eleven million innocents were murdered. As Gilliam suggests, it'd be far more informative and thought provoking to do a film about the people who tried (and failed) to stop the rise of totalitarianism in Germany before Hitler and the Nazis took power. Where's a film about the efforts of Beck, Blomberg, or Fritsch? Or Oster, Gisevius, and Schacht? We love to hug ourselves for after-the-fact tokenism while often ignoring people who are foresighted enough to put their lives on the line and confront the root of the problem head on.

@@MisterMac4321 It's ONE movie. For one movie, it is a story told very well. You cannot tell the full story of the Holocaust with ONE movie. Others can choose (and have done so) to pain a grimmer picture of the subject, but Spielberg (a Jew) wanted to give hope, to show there's a good side of people even in the most horrific situations. You can't criticize one movie for not covering every aspect of such an extensive subject. "Where's a film about the efforts of Beck, Blomberg, or Fritsch? Or Oster, Gisevius, and Schacht?" - why don't you make them? It's not easy, is it? You can't criticize producers for choosing what story they want to tell, or the director for telling it in a certain way, unless it is completely devoid of merit. Again, Spielberg did a wonderful job telling the story, in both the technical and the narrative side. It's not Spielberg's fault others don't want to do movies about the characters you mentioned. He preferred Schindler and did his job well on that.

@@descoiatorul "...why don't you make them?" I don't know, perhaps because my friends and I don't have a spare $25mil sitting around like Spielberg and his investors did to make 'Schinlder's List'? Hell, I couldn't even put a tenth that much together by strong-arming every potential backer I know. And yes, I do fault Spielberg for continuing to indulge in Hollywood's myopic focus on just the "six million Jews." The other five million murdered victims of the Nazi death camps have been conveniently swept under history's rug because their fate (and the continue plight of the minorities they represent) don't conveniently dove-tail with the political agendas of those willing to cough up the funding for such enterprises. Seriously, where's the movie -- ANY movie -- about the Roma, or Sinti, or Polish intellectuals, or mental and physical "defectives", or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Soviet POWs? Who dares to speak for them in a cultural environment where the only victims worth mourning seem to be the Jewish ones? Don't try to tell me this is about "artistic preference," it's strictly a political agenda -- nothing more.

@@MisterMac4321 - Wow. Good to know you can read Spielberg's mind & heart. What a skill. But I think Silverback was really referring to Gilliam with his "why don't you make it." I agree with everything he said. And you also made some good points, aside from the myopic focus you accuse others of, yet seem to share.

Lancer Macman I personally think the ending is fantastic that even in the darkest moment in human history, there were still moments of fantastic humanity that saved over a thousand lives to the point where the descendants of Schindler’s Jews outnumber the Jews now living in Poland

And as far i do know "A.I." was kubrick's project and he was happy that spielberg did make it. Because it was a hard job of which s. was able to execute it. And the result is impressive. K. was too tired for another hard labour film but wanted it to be done. Maybe the only spielberg film that is more than good entertainment.

I don't know about that info on the list but know that Kubrick liked Spielberg direction and gave him AI scenario to direct.

@@jpgrumbach8562 Kubrick a drawings and characters sho he would have done it different. But still the movie is very good although Spielberg style. End of the world movie I'd also great. It is a great movie and great acting by Tom cruise.

@@innosanto, cruise was in k.'s last movie: eyes wide shut.

They may have been friends, but that does not mean that Schindler's Lust is a good movie. It was a disgrace, even if Kubrik thought it was good. Gilliam was spot on with this remark.

Lmfao. I would watch that. The kids would get lost in a maze of pirate tunnels searching for treasure and slowly go insane and eat each other. It'd end with Brand hungrily chasing Mikey through disorienting passageways with the audience having no idea if he's even gaining on him at all. Then Mikey would find the treasure after Brand is killed by a booby trap, but it'd mean nothing bc he lost all his friends. That's the Kubrick Goonies.

No.

@@kyleplatz3751 You should make that trailer. Love it.

Which character do you think would have had the honor of pulling off the "Kubrick Stare"?

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Actually, its what humanity did that caused all the millions of WW2 victims. True history of WW2 is as misunderstood than true history of human race. Those are just too uncomfortable subjects for majority, and thus their subconscious blocks the subject completely and resort to calling people as crazy etc. while truth never fears investigation. One problem is that investigation requires lots of work, and enough intelligence for proving evidence to be original and correct. And great logical sense. Because even if some individuals can be totally illogical and crazy, any large enough group isnt. Ideologies mind sound crazy, might even be crazy, but for those that believe in it, there are logical reasons for doing so.

I like these film makers but when they start to open their mouths jeez I dont need to hear their thoughts or politcal views put them in the film or shut up gilliam is an anti semitic prick I use to like his earlier films but he hates America moved to England thats fine said some not nice things about sid sheinberg about the hold up of brazil by the way if you read the clark novel to 2001 it pretty much describes whats going on at the end like burton both came from animator backgrounds but at least some times, burton can tell a story gilliam its all about the visuals

Rose Carlson it shouldn't be a happy ending and it should've ended showing Schindler dying in crippling poverty because of the choices he made - but the ending of the film with all the people in the desert just ends with a happier feel than it should

shut up anti semite prick@@edward4840

G Kroll To compare someone not liking a film to being anti semitic is truly disgusting. Anti semitism is a truly appalling thing, you should be more careful about throwing around such statements. By throwing it around so carelessly, only ends up lessening the impact of actual anti semitism.

Yeah. But he has to rely on Python reunions to pay for it.That's if cleese hasn't hogged all the money to pay off his ex's.

Bollocks. Kingfisher is the only one I'd watch all the way through. The rest is boring twoddle.

I don’t know-look where all his friends lived: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-26ZDB9h7BLY.html

I wonder if Lula would agree with you.

What does that even mean?

I always thought Schindler's List was about Speilberg making a desperate bid to buy his way into a Best Picture award.

As I recall, it was Spielberg's answer to his mother asking when he was going to do a moving about his people.

John, You are correct. Terry is wrong.

I do agree. Looking for specks of good in that morass of evil seems just about the only way to take on the holocaust. I dont recall any films by Kubrik on that subject anyway.

newgeorge actually Kubrick spent much of his career working on a film on the holocaust, entitled "The Aryan Papers." it was the second of his two career-long projects and the third total that suffered the same fate: competing studios rushed in to put out a film on the same topic before Kubrick could finish his. "The Aryan Papers" was eliminated by "Schindler's List" just as "Napoleon" was wiped out by "Waterloo." Of course there was also "Full Metal Jacket" which did make it to the screen, but just barely, as it was endangered by the release of "Platoon." Fortunately there are elements of "The Aryan Papers" in other films of Kubrick, including "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut." Gilliam's point is right on, and I'll improve it. Would you rather have people feeling good despite the Holocaust, or have people enlightened and aware in such a way as to help derail future Holocausts? Spielberg sells because he is selling the easy way out of things, the strong drink, not the light of sobriety. I suppose we need both, and I'm sure Gilliam wouldn't say we don't need Speilbergian films. He's saying simply that he prefers the more intelligent and stimulating film. I couldn't agree with Gilliam more.

That's not the point. The point is that, except for Munich, Spielberg always chooses to tell feel-good stories

It´s a pitty that Spieberg didn´t show in the movie that Schindler died poor and his wife´s only money came from the Argentina´s Government.

@@patrickherron1968 this is just incredibly pretentious thinking, simply because a movie has a happy ending doesnt make it less intelligent nor does it make it less stimulating as feeling uplifted by a work of art is a mode of stimulating. Thematically speaking and from a perspective of character Jurassic Park, saving private ryan and Schindler's list are more poignant and in depth some of Kubrick's works such as the shinning, full metal jacket and eyes wide shut. Even Kubrick wanted Spielberg to make AI. The notion that Spielberg movies dont make you ask questions is ridiculous all films make you ask questions even fast and the furious. And all films provide answers even Kubrick movies for every question there is an answer. There may be more morbid but what makes them more thought provoking, feelings are not the basis for how in depth something is explored.

I guess Jonathan Glazer didn't get that memo because he's working on one right now and if it's anything like his other films it's going to be deep and wide. But you see that is the thing about Spielberg, he worries about his audience too much. The brave move and the risk taking is to forget about the audience and tell the story. There's just too much fan service these days.

@@cinemar Forget about the audience? Dude virtually all stories are essentially a conversation between the storyteller and...wait for it...the audience. Know thy audience!

@@firstlast-oo1he Dude... The worst thing a filmmaker can do is make a film for the audience. This is why there are so few great films and filmmakers out there. Fuck thy audience. Real vital storytelling is not about pleasing audiences.

@@cinemar And that, I hope to clarify, doesn't mean forgetting that you're making this to be watched and considering the experience for the audience, but rather not catering to audience's whims.

@@bfish89ryuhayabusa Fair enough point but I think that's a given that most filmmakers are hoping for an audience and realise their content is about to be seen by many eyes other than theirs.

It's an optimistic movie, despite all the terrible things it's showing... It's like that book by Viktor Frankl "Man's Search for Meaning", written by Frankl during his imprisoment in nazi camps (Frankl was jew) But, Kubrick was a pesimistic director, it seems to me that Gilliam shares the same point of view, but that doesn't make Kubrick, Gillian or anyone else better or smarter than the optimistic Spielberg. I, myself, am a pesimistic one, and I like Spielberg movies (many of them, at least) they make me think, I don't agree with Gilliam, Spielberg make me think but in a different way I'm used to, and that's good

That's not the end of the film. The end of the film is the real life people that he saved and their descendents putting rocks on Schindler's grave.

@@danieloneill9560 Ughhh. you're THAT guy. Just fuck off.

That's not the point hes making

It was a sappy sentimental ending and false

@WillyFisher412 if you're dumb enough to genuinely think that Oskar Schindler is an example of a Messiah Complex then there's no hope for you lol it's literally based on a damn book on a real life person.

Fantastic example. Well said.

Yes!

The Thing is nothing special. It's an average horror movie, just more gory than is typical of the genre.

@@clintonsmith5163 So provocative!

Perfect example. I understood, or thought I did at the time, the reason that almost everyone loved E.T. But it didn't resonate with me at all. But I really enjoyed The Thing and will probably watch it again after this. And I prefer Kubrick over all other American directors.

You still don't know. The plot of the movie "Jaws" was ripped-off from Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen's 1882 play 'An Enemy of the People'.

@@autodidact537 it was actually ripped off of quite a few things there’s books about sharks and other pieces of literature that make sharks seem like they’re evil and that’s what Spielberg used. That’s why jaws was an “evil” shark in the movie Jaws was also made at a time when most if not all people that weren’t marine biologist knew nothing about sharks really

@@adawgnamedcat right so spielberg used some shit about sharks being evil instead of literally the book Jaws

@@lukess.s no, the book jaws identified sharks as evil. Or at least identified them as aggressive and killers. Hence the movie having Jaws be so aggressive and deadly. Back in the 70s people really didn’t know much of anything about sharks because of the technology, so the movie showed a lot of misinterpretations of how sharks react to people. I’m pretty sure that’s in a documentary or conversation about the movie jaws with people who were part of the movie or in someway connected to it. Or at least I had heard it about the movie lol

"You gonna need a bigger brain."

Spielberg and his movies both suck. Cheap hollywood crap

King Malcolm brilliant comment! I’m with you a 100% on this one.

Spot on! He got Spielbergs A.I. totally wrong too

He is being a blow hard.

I would add, that Schindlers list is about hope in the hopelest of events. Schindler started his factory just to gather cheap labor but fund the humanity along the way. Spielberg shows both, the horror and the hope during those times.

I don't think either of you quite understand what he was getting at

@@tomoakden2974 But still, during the film both sides of the conflict is presented, the end ist just the opinion of the director/writer of the move. To say, that you cant discuss Spielbergs movies, is to say, (at least for my understanding) that you are unable to make your own opinion. If there is still a misunderstanding feel free to correct me. Maby you are hintig at a different aspect. Respectfully greetings

Schindler was a scumbag! How can anybody belive that a person like Schindler who made a fortune of slave labour all of the sudden became a humanitarian as it became more and more evident that Germany was going to lose the war? Dont anybody stop to think that he might have changed his act so he would not be hanged for war crimes? Yes he saved a bunch of people but it was not for their sake but his. And the people he saved would be eternally grateful and witness on his behalf and demand that he was not executed

@@maxmeme4538 Tom (above) is correct neither of you did get what Gilliam is driving at. It doesn't matter that 'both sides are presented' and it doesn't matter that 'at the end Schindler wishes he could have saved more' - the film is a 'success' story, it concentrates on a triumph, whereas the Holocaust is anything but that.

I can't help but think Gilliam here is conflating the two. Ignoring that, I don't really see what is exactly wrong with making a story about the best of humanity amidst the worst of humanity. Is Gilliam implying that there is no better side to human nature? Because if we didn't have one, then why would we be making judgement about what is and isn't moral/ethical?

Amen.

@@TalonsofWater My guess is Gilliam's a boomer. He prefers his war movies with a side of boomer politics about the futility of war and the brutalization of soldiers and capitalism and blah blah blah. 'Schindler's List'; has none of that, so the movie is 'stupid' to him because it doesn't raise questions to which he already knows the answers and has seen in dozens of other war movies like 'Platoon,' 'Apocalypse Now' and of course, Kubrick's own effort, 'Full Metal Jacket.'

@@The_Mighty_Fiction Calm down, son. Your guess is wrong. Did you start paying back your rent, son?

@@samsun01 OK boomer

yea it is, it really is a lame story and it cheapens the Holocaust which is about the most brutal and evil thing that humans ever conjured

@@DeE-pt5lz I really don't think so. It does not cheapens the Holocaust as you say it does. And, besides the film does indeed show the horrors & brutality of it.

If Spielberg's movie was so off in Kubrick's view of what the Holocaust was about, then why did he abandon his movie about the subject post-Schindler's List? Doesn't make sense to me. "The Pianist" was made and I didn't find that much more dreary than Schindler's List. (Except the ending of course) Say what u want about Polanski but he was in the thick of it in reality. I think people glom on that famous Kubrick opinion regarding the movie because of his intellect and Spielberg makes fairy tales because that's what he feels comfortable doing. On a side note "Saving Private Ryan" was not optimistic in any sense. I completely agree with the criticism in how he dealt with the story in "Amistad" tho. That movie seemed way more sugar coated than it should have been.

@@forrestdewitt9827 I suggest watching Like Stories of Old's video essay on Anti-War films. Saving Private Ryan's ending is indeed particularly comforting and uplifting, as it shows the elderly Ryan and his happy family, telling us that all those terrible deaths weren't in vain, thus mitigating the horrific impact of the war.

@@forrestdewitt9827 He abandoned it because Schindler's List was made at the time and didn't want to compete with it. Its the exact same reason he couldn't do his Napoleon movie in the 70's after the dreadful Waterloo was made. He simply didn't like his ideas competing with others similar ideas. It basically all started back in the mid 60's when he made Dr Strangelove which competed against Failsafe and both were heavily inspired from the same novel.

+Fer Abra 'I guess there were nice nazis that loved their wives and children and their pets, but that wouldn't have made Amon Goeth more 3D and complex. It just wouldn't have made sense.' The scary truth about the Nazis is that there were many of the type you describe. Everyday types who went home after arranging mass killing and had an ordinary home life. Many of them were teachers, accountants,... before the war. I'm not sure I'd label them 'nice nazis' but their conversion from ordinary everyday people to ruthless killers is a part of that history that really scares me about humanity, especially when that conversion was not forced by survival adaptation, but transitioned simply from a need for power, greed, or ego.

Was it not Roman Polanski who was offered the chance to make Schindler's List, but turned it down because it was too close to him? And was he not moved by the finished picture?

Terry Gilliam films are amazing! His work in Python was as slight as it gets. The most basic humor with the most basic animation. Basically a trippy treat and segway tool...

@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 "Segue", .

@@geneblack120 don’t forget indoctrination that can happen in the US. We have seen it recently.

Frederick Raphael’s memoirs (Terry is referencing) quoting Kubrick’s opinion on Schindler’s List has been denounced by Kubrick’s wife Christiane as false and unreliable biography long time ago.

Just about everything you said here was incorrect

Youre spot on, not all movies need to be open ended to be great movies, there are bad open ended movies and there are also bad explicitly explained movies. You dont have to be either to be great, its about how you execute.

This.

I came here to say the same thing. It would be a pretty boring medium if every movie ended with a mystery.

Agreed

Yet as a creator, whether I agree with his criticisms or not, I like that he's dedicated to his vision. Creators don't always make the best critics because they are so wrapped up in their vision they can't see someone else's clearly enough. I'm happy that Terry is passionate enough about his vision to say things like this because that is part of what makes him who he is...

was*

That's just it... Terry never said there wasn't room. But as soon as somebody points out what might not be so great after all, or something not absolutely wonderful after we've all been swept up with the greatness, we start finding ways to cushion things for the one that made us feel good. Proving Terry correct.

@@lasvegasloner4621 I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of Spielberg's work, starting with the fact that he doesn't go very deep, nuanced, subtle, or thoughtful with his films. Its more the arrogant, dismissive, condescending nature of Gilliam's critique that makes me get up in arms to defending Spielberg, who despite his shortcomings, is still a master storyteller and filmmaker.

Master-bator and cultural pornographer. Also, Kubrick's gone and speelburg will probably live to be 100.

I posted my comments before I read yours. Well said.

Too bad Spielberg actually changed the story from what really happened to make it more palatable and comforting. Yes Schindler did save some people but the real Schindler was nothing like the person portrayed in the movie. Read the book with the same title to get the real story. I agree with Gilliam I Kubrick I think Spielberg is a third-rate filmmaker.

@@loge10 The film is faithful to the screenplay and the script was written before speilberg came on to the project.

@@takethesky8478 That doesn't really take anything off Spielberg in this as with his professional clout. He probably saw the screenplay as fitting his mindset for the movie. If he wanted to take real risks (something very un-Spielbergian), he could have fought for screenplay changes - he had the clout. After directing Spartacus, Kubrick swore he would never direct a movie that he didn't have complete creative control because he thought the portrayal of Spartacus and the slave revolt was too sanitized and not how things really were. And regarding the book, Kubrick is known for taking a book and making a movie very different - using the book as a motivation. But you know what he would come up with wouldn't be sanitized or PC, which Spielberg excels in. I'm totally dreading his release of West Side Story - one of my favorite works of art of all.

And eyes wide shut was a piece of crap. Kubrick’s films always make me feel like I am watching the actors from a distance and the characters always seem artificial. But May that’s just me. Eyes wide shut was garbage though.

@Grant Kerr Hey don't knock dickens his stories can be pretty grim....lol

@Grant Kerr Most of the video is Gilliam's referring to Kubrick's words so that description is pretty accurate.

@Grant Kerr Terry Gilliam hiding behind the likes of Stanley Kubrick in order to render a criticism of Spielberg and Schindler's List (and a simple-minded one, at that) is a crucial element that the title of this video leaves out.

@@anthonybrogan390, don't knock Dickens indeed. Oh, and sorry Terry your movie fell below "Schindler's List" on my list. TOP 33 FAVORITE MOVIES 1) The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982) 2) It's a Wonderful Life (1946) 3) The Prince who was a Thief (1951) 4) Narnia: the Lion, the witch, and the wardrobe (2005) 5) Let the Right One In (2008) - Swedish with English caption 6) A Silent Voice (2016) - Japanese with English caption 7) My Rainy Days (2009) - Japanese with English caption 8) X + Y [a Brilliant Young Mind] (2014) 9) Silence (2016) 10) Beauty and the Beast (2017) 11) Goodbye, Christopher Robin (2017) 12) The Man who Invented Christmas (2017) 13) The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934) 14) Amen (2002) 15) Red (2010) 16) Fletch (1985) 17) Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) 18) Men In Black (1997) 19) Star Wars: the Empire Strikes Back (1980) 20) Star Wars: a New Hope (1977) 21) Back to the Future (1985) 22) X-Men (2000) 23) Mannequin (1987) 24) Life is Beautiful (1998) 25) Schindler's List (1993) 26) The Passion of the Christ (2004) - Aramaic with English caption 27) Interview with the Vampire (1994) 28) Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) - Spanish with English caption 29) Midway (2019) 30) Paprika (2006) 31) Johnny English (2003) 32) Cinema Paradiso (1989) - Italian with English caption, shorter version, not extended version 33) The Man who Killed Don Quixote (2017)

Also, it's not like Spielberg doesn't show the horrors of the Holocaust. Did Gilliam not see the liquidation of the ghetto scene or any scene with Amon Goeth? There is some really disturbing material in this movie.

I don't agree with you that Spielberg raises questions about the nature of humanity - just not Spielberg's style... I think you are missing the point in that Gilliam is saying that Spielberg's movies follow a path toward |paraphrasing here| "tying things up neatly in a little bow.... roll credits" and that is the same thing in Schindler's List. My opinion that Spielberg (and his success) comes from always making "safe" movies - follow a formula. I see Steven Spielberg as a wonderful director, he just chooses to drive different cars (his films) on the same road every time (his film's formula).

​@@justincase4812 Exactly. I don't want to sound snobbish, but for me it's the difference between art and entertainment. Spielberg is great at making entertainment, but I personally wouldn't call it art, because for me art has to raise questions, just like Gilliam says. At the end of the day, though, it's always healthy to remember that I can't define "art" for other people, and so we'll continue to have these discussion until our species goes extinct.

@tamenga88 what a shit movie to die for

Right? The climax of the film is Oskar Schindler breaking down realizing how much more he could've done.

It's not a happy movie, but the viewer can leave the movie happy having their questions answered and with the moral the movie is portraying

But the big questions are not answered. How could ordinary people become mass murderers and how could the world stand by and let it happen? The few people at the top were psychopaths but the thousands of people who ran the deportations and the death machine were ordinary germans who somehow became complicit in the worst mass murder in history. To say they were all evil is a cop out. If we don’t make an effort to understand how these people all became morally corrupt we won’t be able to stop it next time.

@@sblack48 It's about personal responsibility e.i. moral and ethics. You can have the same discussion about the Vietnam war. Is it justifiable to participate in an unethical action to avoid personal punishment? Every single guy that got drafted to Vietnam could have chosen prison.. but they didn't.

@@azynkron the difference there is that a lot of guys signed up because they were told they'd be doing a good thing - saving the vietnamese people from communism. They thought they would be treated like heros. But once they got there they found out it was all bullshit and they were stuck. They were not given the honest facts on which to make a moral decision.

Agreed... by Gilliams logic you couldn't make hopeful movies. I didn't want to get to the end of Schindler's List and wonder what it all meant. Schindler's List isn't diminished for being more on-the-nose. Honestly it had a few scenes that were more profound to me than anything I've seen in a Gilliam movie, despite Gilliam's talent.

if you say...

@ dude, he gave a.i. to spielberg. That's some sort of respect for the guy.

gutz1981 nahh

Spielberg should go back to make things like 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' or even 'A.I'. Fantasy, Utopia, Symbolic tales. He should stay the hell away from reality.

I totally fucking agree-Spielberg is one of the finest filmers of action sequences (of all kinds) in history. Fucking Hitchcock said more or less as much, and rightly so. And he’d know. He should try not to be deep-he’d do much better, and go much deeper! His TV film Duel is fucking phenomenal-really. And I hate on Spielberg’s other stuff more than Gilliam, even-honestly, in part because if Spielberg actually had a top-notch intellect (or maybe it’s just top-notch artistic courage?), he really would be in Kubrick-Kurosawa-anyone else-land. You have to be that good to be that disappointing and engender that much disdain-even when 100% warranted, as I think it is in Spielberg’s case.

Spielberg is his worst enemy, in the 70's, he had the makings of a great artist who could also make commercially successful movies, but it's true that today, his tendency to play on the safe side or sugarcoat his stories ruins his own creations. I saw the last version of "Close Encounters" and I was shocked, the so-called encounter became a real invasion no one could possibly miss and the overuse of flashy effects ruined the 'realistic' atmosphere of the original version.

Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, even ET-all great. I agree with you-it’s a sort of fear of displeasing anyone, I think.

What are you talking about The message was that Oscar Schindler Alone saved As many people as possible. The message was if you are Capable you should help others which He did he helped complete strangers. Despite that fact that he was also German and supporter of Nazi. I think you completely misunderstood the movie

@@neelanshmishra97 "The message was if you are Capable you should help others"...And that isn't a hopeful message? Of course it is. After watching the movie, I felt capable of helping others - if a man like Schindler, under those circumstances can do it, surely I, under far less horrific and terrifying circumstances, can help others.

@@neelanshmishra97 Spot on!

@@g-ma_of_8 Well said.

@Van Groover That’s a poor choice of words considering the subject matter.

i'm not a fan of the movie or spielberg, but i agree that it does not have a 'happy ending'. in fact that last scene resonates with me. after a good deed we always feel good with ourselves, but then we start to think that there's always something more we could be doing to help others. that's the bitter truth. it does make you think.

Well said.

That's only the last scene of the fictional part, the actual ending is seeing all the survivors today laying tributes to Schindler.

.....hmmm, 🤔 never heard/read the word "just " being used in reference to the Holocaust !!

@@paulturnet4572 - JaydnR is correct. The movie was about a man, not about the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the historical event that made Schindler's brave actions significant, but the movie was not "about" the Holocaust.

@@technowey You are playing with words. It's like saying: "The Godfather is not about the Mafia, it's about the Corleone" or "Band of Brothers is not about WW2, it's about the Easy Company". Of course if you are making a movie about the Holocaust (or any large-scale historical event) you will focus on the story of a few characters. Spielberg wanted to talk about the Holocaust, and chose specifically the story of Oskar Schindler, instead of a story with a bleaker ending.

@@MrAlsachti - I'm *not* playing with words. They guy attacking the movie was doing that. The word "about" has a meaning. IMDB describes the movie as: "In German-occupied Poland during World War II, industrialist Oskar Schindler gradually becomes concerned for his Jewish workforce after witnessing their persecution by the Nazis." I don't really object to someone claiming the movie is about the Holocaust, but to attack the movie claiming that is wrong, and then requires stating what the movie is *really* about. Just because there's an important historical event in the movie doesn't make that the central theme, even if that event is critical to maintaining the plot. I object to the "playing with words," to attack the movie. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that movie. It's a great movie, and the flaw the guy claimed is ridiculous. That flaw doesn't exist.

Didn't The Sound Of Music have Holocaust parts?

Exactly. Some movies require and work with closure and some with ambiguity. Totally agree. Shawshank for example wouldn't work with an ambiguous ending. The movie in hindsight has a sense of inevitability and momentum. Other movies absolutely sing with an ambiguous ending. It all depends on the movie.

What a GREAT post!

***** thank you!

it's a movie about success

@@TonyTheSamurai Thank you so much. Now, maybe I can finally move on.

@@blujay2084 the original Joe Dirt was very Speilbergian, for existential angst you must go to Joe Dirt 2

@@TonyTheSamurai .. Not yet. I'm not ready. Perhaps in time I will be.

I was too traumatised by seeing our hero Joe get repeatedly farted on to make it the way through the film. Talk about existential angst . . . oh, the humanity!

I watched this and I have no fucking clue what this guy is saying. I hear him clearly, it’s just so, crude. He goes from one thing to the next with no transition.

Fr he even gave him a movie

@@GREVIEWS02 yep A.I. because Kubrick believed Spielberg is the only guy who can make the robot child loveable like E.T.

@@fr442 and he was wrong. The robot kid is awful.

@@fr442 AI waa rubbish, truly disappointing. Destroyed the career of that child actor too. Can't believe it was Kubrick's life project and that Spielberg made it so over emotional. Nothing in Kubrick's work was over emotional.

@@standafan4141 Kubrick would have done it different it can be shown from his drawings and characters. But he still considered Spielberg a good storyteller and thus is why he gave him the project. But Kubrick life project although prepared for years was not this. It was the Napoleon movie that he was gathering info 20 years. But anyway from the works done his life project are all the movies he made. Have watched them all except for the ones before the bomb and half of Barry lyndon, and all I watched were great.

Way to miss what they said.

@@pablovi77 It’s a joke calm down.

the book was though

It's overrated

He sounds like a jackass in this interview

Gilliam is a great source for this kind of "not-well-reasoned" assessment of things. He has made several of my favorite films, but as a critic he has "chosen poorly"

Thank you, someone had to say it

Yes but his point wasn't that schindler's list is a bad film, it's that it contributes to the trend in Spielberg's films that makes them entertaining but not challenging. In fact he was quoting Kubrick to make that wider point. That even with schindler's list, a film about the holocaust, Spielberg manages to find a "happy" ending.

Welp, I watched it, too, and what he did was to compare Spielberg to Kubrick and say that Kubrick was the better filmmaker because he made people think and Spielberg doesn't. I don't know who the people are who watched Schindler's List and didn't think about it afterward, or thought Spielberg had tied the Holocaust in a bow, and it's absurd to imagine that's the reaction Spielberg was going for.

Spielberg has made a heck of a lot of movies! Saying *none* of them make you think is kind of crazy, unless you're not one for thinking much about anything.

Not necessarily a bad thing though. Think of Jaws, arguably one of the best movies ever made. It's just pure fun.

good fast food though. but the artisan stuff is still better.

spielberg has about x3 the IQ this terry guy has and he should shut the fuck up. spielberg's 2 WWll movies are ultra violent and very hard to stomach and they were followed by success, in schindlers list on a much smaller scale. spielberg did not make anything up in the movie, the only thing he "manipulated" is how to present the events that occured. its called *history*. imagine what kind of a holocaust movie kubrcik would have made, my guess is it wouldnt be half as realistic as this one.

brassmonkeyjew Indeed, the affect you describe that the film ET had on you (and the grammar you choose to employ while recounting your memory) tell us all a lot about you, Spielberg's fans, and Spielberg himself.

Perhaps it is earned--but it's not always granted. A person can truly love what they do and be really good at it, and still fail miserably. If anyone tells you life is supposed to be fair, they're either lying or they're selling something.

But every protagonist will struggle as without conflict you don't have a story. By the teacher's account that means everything should have a happy ending. I'm inclined to disagree.

@@butterflymoon6368 That's not even remotely what that means. Saying someone has earned a happy ending to their story doesn't mean they have to get one. It just means that a happy ending to their story is just as legitimate a fiction as any other. It's a fucking story, that's all, not a documentary. If you get set off by a 'Happily Ever After' just because joy is not 'realistic' to you, then you are very likely shitty company to watch a movie with, my friend.

See Inside Llewyn Davis.

@@butterflymoon6368 Many protagonists fail to improve themselves.

It's not about "every" film. It's about taking the deaths of 6 million Jews (and other "undesirables") and turning it into a sentimental movie about the redemption of a wealthy Christian German.

@@mskcrc yes cause that actually happened

@@lampad4549 So the choice to focus on ONE narrative about the Holocaust that happens to a German man... uh huh

@@mskcrc why not? A German was the one who saved 2000 it wasn't a Jew cause the Jews couldn't do anything about it unfortunately, he could have altered it and made it as if he was a Jew in hiding and ended saving all his people ,but what makes it interesting by keeping it German is the display of multi dimensional layers of humans about someone who isn't from the class and way of life and chooses to help those when his background doesn't compell him to have any sympathy for them.

mxsxkxcrc No, it’s about saving 1200 souls who were going to be exterminated

@Stella Hohenheim No doubt the comment was removed by RU-vid or the poster, as some cowardly posters I've run across delete their original posts so you can't reply. Do you make it a habit to answer seven year old posts??? I could be dead for all you know.

@@smotnick I appreciate your response time to a reply on your seven year old post. im so relieved you're alive and well

@@conephompany LOL

Lololol glad I came down here

Open ended films are just as likely to rob the viewer of any kind of catharsis as they are to provoke further thought and open-ended conclusion doesn't necessitate greater thought and can often indicate a hesitation to make a point one way or the other

@@scparker6893 I don't know. Compare Friedkin's "The Exorcist" (happy ending) with his "Cruising" (ambiguous ending) and "To LIve and Die in L.A." (ambiguous ending). All three are cathartic in their own way.

No. Not in this case. TWO POINTS: Spielberg is Mount Rushmore of directors. Schinder's List is considered on e of the greatest films ever made. Terry Gilliam is very bitter, caustic, and talented.

That’s the thing. Every film is different. Some films are better for having an opening ending. Some are better for having conclusion. It depends on the movie itself. There is no right answer. Both can be equally amazing.

@@TheMess9898 Right, next you'll say he was Sergei Fudcking Eisenstein!!! He's one of the most commercially successful directors ever. Key word: commercially. Period. And by WHOM is "Schindler's List" considered one of the "greatest" films???

Not to mention they were very good friends.

He doesn't mean that people don't think about them, he means that, as opposed to 2001 A Space Odyssey, there's little to no debate concerning what the film is about, what it tells you and what it means. The point he is trying to make is that movies such as Kubrick's ask questions and stimulate different and new answers

@@basicallyme220 It seems like a bit of an apples and oranges situation to me. Spielberg wants to tell a story, Kubrick wants to ask a question, neither desire should add to or detract from whether the finished piece is impactful or not

@@basicallyme220 LOL! Most people can't even get through 2001 without falling asleep.

@@HTHAMMACK1 "Most people" is a stretch

Honestly Kubrick is vastly overrated and I find his "philosophy" to be so as well. Kurusowa and Tarkovsky are much more deep, impactful thinkers with more to say than Kubrick who was film's first mainstream hipster imo

Agree. The only problem (in my view) with movies like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan is that Spielberg had perfect -- PERFECT -- stories if you leave out the horrid "I coulda done more!" scene near the end of Schindler and the opening and closing "Did I earn it?" bullshit in Ryan. But Spielberg can't resist gilding the lilly -- he simply doesn't TRUST his audience to come to their own conclusion about whether it was worth it or what it all "means." On the other hand, no one but Spielberg could have made timeless monumental pop masterpieces like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Close Encounters, so...

@@kpe727 Yeah and it's his sentimentality that tells him to gild the lily because he seems to be completely unaware that the lily has already told the story.

@@kpe727 his audience is people who can't be trusted...

He got Schindler's correct. People tend to forget the camp scenes where the man in charge went around shooting and any person he wants. Please tell me what is sentimental about that. A lot of Kubric films although good make a person want to puke. A Clock Work Orange may have been a great film artistically but the whole film had a sick and twisted view on life, like the commandant of the concentration camp. Kubric makes him the star of the film. Even Malcolm McDowell thought it went too far at times.

@@bcalvert321 The final message of the film is sentimental, not the actual scenes in the film. No one is suggesting scenes depicting the wanton killing of innocent people is sentimental. How you even arrive at that accusation tells me you don't actually get what people are on about regarding Spielberg's sentimentality. Stating A Clockwork Orange had a sick and twisted view on life is like complaining about water being too wet. That was the entire point of the film. Kubrick isn't afraid to make villains the star of his films. All of Spielberg's films need a good guy as the hero regardless of context. And his heroes gild the lily to the point of it pulling down the entire tree. Who gives a shit if Malcom McDowell thought Kubrick went too far at times? Most filmmakers and by most I mean 99.9% do not go far enough.

The complaints about SPR often stem from the overly schmaltzy, Hallmark Channel grade bookends. The rest of the movie is pretty solid.

The snobbishness exhibited in this video fails to recognize each individual's experience is unique.

@@GalaxyNexus1 I don't really agree with that: Gilliam didn't say people couldn't enjoy one or the other, or even both approaches. Beyond that, just like individual experience is unique, everyone has their opinions, and If people kept their opinions to themselves on creative works because there will always be someone who feels differently owing to their experience - that'd pretty be boring (not that you're suggesting that - I'm just saying).

@@JET7C0 he doesn't say one can't enjoy both, but he posits one as superior and more meaningful than the other, which I do not agree with and think is a very snobbish, elitist and exclusionary view of art. He even goes as far as to compare Spielberg unfavorably to Kubrick, by calling Kubrick a great filmmaker, with the implication that Spielberg is not. On another note, regarding Kubrick, one could argue a "great filmmaker," shouldn't have to resort to bully tactics and abuse of his actors in order to achieve a "great film," up to Mr. Gilliam's standards.

@@GalaxyNexus1 Sure: superior - in his opinion, which isn't really ignoring individual experience, because he's surely well aware people enjoy Spielberg's films. Also, if someone basically says the reverse of Gilliam here, thus basically Spielberg is 'superior,' would that be snobbish in your mind, or no?

He's not really that good if you value imagination and eschew sentimentality.

And mainstream is shit.

Agreed! Most mainstream directors today can't touch the storytelling prowess of Jaws, ET, Raiders, Private Ryan

His films are effective at making you feel certain emotions. But some of his films feel as if they were written to be tearjerkers above all else.

The greater mystery was, "Why wouldn't Gilligan let them leave the island?"

@MichaelKingsfordGray Like Kingsford? Do you mind if he borrows it?

This should be top comment. Such a balanced, reasonable and informed perspective.

You are sitting on the fence, regardless of how skilfully balanced you are. We do judge directors against each other, that is how people are and will always be. And there is a lot merit in doing so. Some of Steven Speilberg's films are fun and entertaining but I would much prefer to watch something that provokes me into questioning my prejudice, bias, received wisdom, etc.

Jaws wasn't the first blockbuster. www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

I will give you an example of how deceitful and devious Spielberg is: "Bridge of spies" (2015). In that movie Allen Dulles, the head of CIA, is depicted in a benevolent way. Nowadays we know for a fact that Allen Dulles was 100% son a bitch nazi believer and he is 100% involved in JFK murder. Spielberg, who is a jew and as such should really hate nazi, knows that for sure but he didn't give a damm and he ensured that "Bridge of spies" could be as much politically correct as he could

War of the worlds is definetely underrated. Film lost itself when they went to Tim Robbins cellar but before that it was very, very solid. Aliens were frightening without being frightening, is best i can describe the atmosphere before it.

No, it’s not. It turns the Holocaust into a goddamn melodrama.

Then Spielberg completely f***ed it up with that ridiculous ending.

That is one film where what Gilliam is saying here could apply, not for Schlinder’s List. AI should have ended at the bottom of the ocean.

@@joebryant8500 It's ridiculous according to you, for me, it's the most underestimated Spielberg

@@joebryant8500 You do realize the ending was Kubrick's idea right?

Yeah the critique of Schindler’s List is hollow, pretending that it’s somehow a comfort movie is a joke.

How to disqualify yourself from criticizing any movie ever again..Well done back than Gilliam

Kubrick is jealous of Spielberg? What? 😳

I feel the same way about John Cassavetes's A Woman Under The Influence.

I read a quote in a movie magazine a few years ago, attribute it to whomever you wish: There are only two kinds of movies, one is a candy-coated turd, the other is a turd with candy at its centre.

I never liked the end of Paris, Texas. Not just because it was sad but because at the end, the main character almost forces a lack of resolve instead of letting it be. Which to me was pointless and stupid. He reunited the son and mother. Is he not creative enough to develop some closure with his ex-wife that makes sense? Is he a hero for just leaving?

Watching 'Paris, Texas.' was like, I imagine, having to watch a cockroach spend an hour and a half aimlessly wandering around a room until it died.

If you want to be scared by cinema, just watch some Lars von Trier movies.

Exactly. Schindler's List is uncompromising. It's violent, heartbreaking, and tragic. But there is also affirmation of life, that one man can make a difference, that some people perceive as weakness. I don't see that as a negative at all.

Agreed. The film doesn't shy away from graphic depictions of the depths humanity is capable of sinking to, constantly bombarding us with discrimination and death, and yet also captures a deeply important message through the actions of a real-life historical figure: "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Without certain "uplifting" messages and proposals, all we are left with is pure cynicism and disgust about existence.

to find any hope in that story is, to me, profoundly shocking. the only honest reading of the 1933-1945 period is that the MOST ADVANCED AND CULTURED society on earth descended into total barbarism with great speed. and yet, no lessons are learned, and people seek the comfort of Spielberg’s version of history in which there is humanity amongst the horror. there was no silver lining. to talk of a “glimmer of hope” is actually sickening to me.

@@michaelgauthier2593 “good men”??? this type of thinking is puerile and foolish. there are no good men and bad men. just men. the moment we allow ourselves to think of ourselves as “good”, we are lost. enthical behaviour is a constant struggle. it’s bloody hard work. i would NEVER EVER dream of claiming that i am a “good person”. we may want or try or even want to be good, but that doesn’t make us so. a little more moral honesty is very much needed

​@@geenadasilva9287 Except then you are dismissing the actions of those who did stand against the regime. You're saying "Only a handful tried to save lives, so it doesn't matter." Considering that hundreds, if not thousands, did try to resist, and that many of those paid for their lives standing against this monstrous behavior, I think your statement is pretty arrogant. Would it have been better if millions of people had simply said no? Of course, that is the way with all terrible man-made events, and even the Nazis could be forced to back down to public pressure before the regime went into its full tailspin of repression (one of the reasons they took so long to move to a real war economy was their fear of public backlash). But to simply discard the actions of those who resisted is disgraceful. Can you imagine placing not just your life, but those of your family and friends on the line in order to save people who could be strangers, or even a group you were taught were "beneath" you? At a time when getting enough rations just to feed you and your dependents was already miserably difficult? The regime cheerfully murdered senior military officers, priests, dignitaries, the upper echelons of the party, and members of ancient houses; no one who spoke out or resisted was safe, and yet there were those who did. But no, let's dump the courageous in the bin, they just aren't edgy or grimdark enough.

criticizing him is old hat if you don't live under a rock.

@@plasticweapon I'm not talking about plain moviegoers, I'm talking about other prominent film directors. I've never heard from any that have criticized him. They seem to love rubbing each other's rhubarbs.

@@bobblueford why should they

Yes, you’re right. But also, that’s the problem.

He may be a brilliant filmmaker, but he's a pretentious prat.

It seems as though Gilliam is suggesting the hope found by the survivors of the Holocaust such as Edith Eger, who unlike Gilliam were actually there and suffered the most wretched evils imaginable, is simply naive and false; that one cannot possibly find hope in such hell. Hope is just as vital a part of the story of the Holocaust as failure is.

Correct

Norwindian you're off to a good start.

Thought provoking as in Indy didn't make a bit of difference and the outcome would've been exactly the same if he wasn't even there?

@@dxgypsyful had Indy not been there to bring the ark back to the usa, more nazis would have returned and taken the ark again... shucks

Smack Dab and I would add to that: Marion would most likely be dead.

Not really, movies like The shinning, eyes wide shut and paths of glory are not more thought provoking than jurassic park, saving private ryan or bridge of spies or even Schindler's list. Ambiguity doesn't make it more thought provoking from a thematic standpoint

@@lampad4549 Kubrick thrived on exposing the uncomfortable ugliness of reality. That is far different than ambiguity. Spielberg is a conformist. Kubrick was a non-conformist. It's ok to disagree and it's ok to dislike a director for whatever the reason. I don't care if you change your opinion, hold your opinion, or lose interest in films. Agree to disagree or become attached to a subjective, pointless exchange of words.

Enlighten me of which of Kubricks films are more thought provoking then Spielbergs, I like Kubricks movies, but saying he makes more thought provoking movies isn't right.

@@olle12 What you just said shows that you are no cinephile and that you don't understand Kubrick's work. '2001: A Space Odyssey,' 'Clockwork Orange,' 'Full Metal Jacket,' and 'The Shining' are multi-layered and extremely complex conceptually. Kubrick made more thought-provoking films than Spielberg; period.

@@olle12 Kubrick's films force multiple viewings. 'Jaws,' Raiders of the Lost Ark,' or 'Poltergeist' don't move me enough to re-watch them. Spielberg's made good films, but none are as conceptually deep as a Stanley Kubrick film.

I honestly thought that they were two different people.

Just because you don't understand a movie doesn't make it "unwatchable", it just means many other people understand it while you don't

I'd rather watch Fear and Loathing than any Spielberg.

@@tomkot Enlighten me. What is there to understand about that piece of crap movie?

@TrueLifeAdventures Well said. There's room for both in my heart.

Try LSD

@@bklmsoul LSD makes good times better and bad times worse

It depends on the story you want to tell and how you justify the way you tell it. "Schindler's List" focuses on the horrors of the holocaust.....and then slaps on a happy ending to leave the audience with a bit of hope. That sounds nice on paper, but it's not realistic. The real Oskar Schindler didn't fall to his knees, yelling at the sky: "I could've saved MOOOORE!!!". That shit is artistic license, which means that it's not essential to the story. Spielberg couldn't end the film on a hopeless note, so he shoehorned his own special brand of positivity in there. Which cheapens the overall film, because the rest of the story focuses on realism.

we can have both. I don't think Gilliam is saying that we can't. and i don't think he's particularly talking about endings. I simply understand him to be saying that saccharine and maudlin feel-good films are often not memorable art, and certainly not art that will be remembered for a hundred years or more. Remember ET? As great as that movie was as a feel good children's film, and despite the fact that it was the biggest grossing film of all time (when it was released), a huuuge blockbuster, today it's mostly forgotten.

@@SpaceCattttt I'm a bit baffled by your remarks. Spielberg slaps on a happy ending in Schindler's List? Where? The 1200 "Schindlerjuden" survived, thanks to his actions. A few hundred people survived, in an ocean of millions who didn't. The way some of these millions died is shown blatantly and starkly in the movie. These survivors are a drop in an ocean of suffering - presented as such in the movie. How's that a "happy ending"?

@@rheinhartsilvento2576 It's presented in an excessively melodramatic way. Schindler breaks down for the big "Give me an Oscar!" moment, with dramatic music and all the rest of it. There is no dramatic music in real life. An honest depiction would've removed the music and let the moment speak for itself. The rest of the film is stark and reasonably realistic. But Spielberg couldn't send people home without a rousing scene to make them feel better about themselves first.

@@SpaceCattttt Sorry, but your points still don't make sense to me. There's no dramatic music in real life? There's also no cameras, sound stages, paid actors, scripts and moviemakers in real life. Are you suggesting no movies be made because they're not "real life"? Everything in movies is "not real": they're a medium. The ending in SL is a stylistic choice. The presence of music or an emotional culmination doesn't negate any of the horror that has been shown throughout the movie. In no way shape or form does it suggest, like many American disaster movies do, that the world falling apart/the zombie apocalypse/the giant tsunami/volcani eruption is just a background to the lucky survival of our hero and heroine.. So while i agree that Spielberg's approach is mainstream and feel-good for most of his output, I think it's just projection trying to find it Schindler's List.

Depressing doesn't make it better.

That's probably why he didn't make it in the end.

I get what you're saying and i wish both could've been made but if only one could, I'd go with Schindler's List. The "happy" ending guaranteed a more palpable watch while still holding the horror of the holocaust within the film. This allows for a larger viewing audience and thus more people being emotionally aware of the holocaust. 'Come and See' is a great, bleak film on war and human atrocity but aint nobody showing that shit in high school classrooms

Ah, so you say there's a difference between these two directors? That's what Gilliam is saying.

@@t.adamcollins2162 he's saying they're both good in their own right. Spielberg doesn't make Kubrick movies and Kubrick doesn't make Spielberg movies

@Kevin L Well all they said was that it is interesting, a sentiment with which I concur. Your declamation seems a little straw-ridden.

@King Carriere Kubrick and Spielberg were great friends who kept in touch often

The most advanced social democracy in the world devolved into a regime that turned industrial power, one of human civilization's greatest achievements, toward the systematic extermination of human lives. A rationally directed will toward the annihilation of humanity. That's the point of that criticism. There's no way to wrap that up in six words or even six million. Thinking that there's a kernel of hope that can be plucked from the blackhole gravity of how badly we broke down is akin to putting a Mickey Mouse bandaid over a gaping wound. Escapism doesn't belong; we're doomed if we weigh a man's triumph over humanity's failure. Edit: It did happen. It can happen. It will happen.

@@slybuster Consider "Full Metal Jacket" - the war movie that Kubrick made. Same train of thought - what turns soft kids into killers? Human civilization turns its young into killers whose goal is exterminate human beings. The movie is supposed to ask if that a bad thing? Apparently not, as it's bolstered the US Marines' recruitment numbers for decades. FMJ even ends with Joker being thankful for getting through it all alive. Death surrounding him, but thankful to be alive. It makes me wonder if Gilliam forgot Kubrick made a war film that ended with the protagonist surviving and accomplishing his mission, despite the failure of the system, and of Vietnam, is a success story.

@@electricdevil2422 Full Metal Jacket ends with a group of soldiers marching through the destruction they've wreaked while singing the theme to The Mickey Mouse Club. It's intentionally ironic and not at all a "success story." Speaking of irony... "Every time you set out to make an anti-war film, it ends up being a war film." That's a quote from David Simon (Generation Kill) reflecting on Kubrick. He notes how the marines he worked with quoted lines from Full Metal Jacket, missing entirely the dark dehumanizing message those lines actually convey. The movie is satirical and satire is a double-edged sword; there will always be a segment of the population that takes in what's on the surface at the expense of ignoring the theme. (The interview, which I've posted a link to below, is about Kubrick's Paths of Glory...Simon places it above Full Metal Jacket because the anti-war message it presents is much harder to mischaracterize; he also gives a great analysis of why it's seemingly impossible to make something anti-war). With Schindler's List, the holocaust is used as the backdrop for a story about personal moral triumph. There's even a contrived (and cliched) character arc for Schindler: we see him go from selfishly using his position to further his finances to someone who saves 1200 jews, selflessly and at the expense of that which he originally sought. In the context of the holocaust, that simplistic narrative is out of place and, I'd argue, actively detrimental to a proper understanding of history. It obscures the horror of the holocaust and even goes as far as to invite us to empathize with Schindler; making us feel like we too could be heroes (when, in reality, statistics show we probably would have been, if not active perpetrators, fellow travelers). Maybe, some historic events shouldn't be sentimentalized through simplified morality tales. Maybe, we shouldn't learn about something like the holocaust from the guy who directed The Goonies and the Indiana Jones movies. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FR9Kc7U4mzE.html Edit: The ending to Full Metal Jacket is probably why I chose the figure of Mickey Mouse in my previous comment (subconsciously). Thanks for bringing it up.

@@slybuster I don't see why you can't simplify a morality tale with the backdrop of a complex and dark situation like the Holocaust. We should learn about this story, because it does stand out from the many other Holocaust stories. Words like 'contrived' and 'cliched' are pretty meaningless when they are mostly real stories, and especially in this backdrop. The Japanese ambassador who saved more people than Schindler would be deemed a very dull story by comparison. The idea that such events are meant to be viewed in isolation or in a vacuum is contrary to how the human mind works. You can't get away with treating the audience like they should be ignorant of what is happening at Auschwitz, a very well-covered historical event. The idea that you should compare that to 2001, which is "what-if" and hypothetical territory is arbitrarily disingenuous on Gilliam's part. In as much as Schindler's List is a story about a man against the backdrop of the Holocaust, it is but one, singular story against what we know is millions of other stories. As there are plenty of other films about the Holocaust, there's plenty of other stories that have never been made into a film. Take Schindler's List out of movies based on the Holocaust, and you don't change that most people will recognize that millions of people died. Put Schindler's List back in, and it doesn't change that most people recognize that millions of people died in a lot of horrific ways. There's a great deal in that movie that reminds the audience that the horror of the Holocaust was very real and close.

​@@electricdevil2422 The terms 'contrived' and 'cliched' aren't meaningless here because that aspect of the story was added in purely for dramatic effect (i.e. to give the audience a simplistic character arc to follow along with...the fact that it's redemptive when absolutely nothing about what happened is redeemable underscores this point). I could get into how it's also a mischaracterization of Schindler, whom I suspect you know nothing about outside of Spielberg's movie, but this point is so trivial compared to what this discussion is actually about. The most advanced social democracy in the world devolved into a regime that used industrial power, supposedly the greatest achievement of humanity's rational mind, to systematically annihilate itself. Read that over and over until you get the point. This isn't using the sinking of the Titanic to tell a contrived love story...it's trivializing the absolute, *absolute,* failure of mankind as a collective group. Our humanity, our rationality, our best-laid mechanisms of democratic governance...complete and total failure. It's not only about the millions who were destroyed...it says something about what we're capable of as a species. You cannot trivialize what happened into a Hollywood narrative without watering down what should never be diluted. It's the Shoah; the great catastrophe. We haven't come to terms with it in any way whatsoever and a movie by the same guy who made The Lost World is far from the cultural touchstone we need. We have to face what the holocaust means about us directly and head-on. It's dangerous to think of it as belonging to history and not something we carry with us. It could happen in any country at any point in our future. The people in this thread could be perpetrators (again, Germany was the most advanced social democracy in the world and it was populated by normal people just like us). Fantasy isn't appropriate when vigilance is what is required; the idea that we're Schindler is a fantasy (and that's dangerous). Now, since you keep digressing toward film in general I'll say that Spielberg is one of the most accomplished directors ever to work behind a camera. He's touched the lives of countless people and created some of the most beloved cultural artifacts ever produced. However, that doesn't mean he's the right person to look to when it comes to developing an understanding of something like the holocaust. Schindler's List does not accurately represent the holocaust just as Indiana Jones doesn't represent the life of archaeologists. I'll also point out that no one has said you can't present stories about the holocaust. That's a short step away from arguing we shouldn't talk even talk about it. What is being said is that the holocaust is a subject that we haven't come to terms with and it's dangerous to juxtapose themes involving moral triumph alongside what is actually one of our biggest failures as a species. There will always be heroes motivated by the best aspects of our nature, but that isn't what happened. There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from someone like Oskar Schindler but it is more important to understand that he was the exception to what was the rule. I'll recommend a few short books for you. Viktor Frankl's *Man's Search for Meaning* is a great antidote to the nihilism you'll be faced with when studying such a subject. Primo Levi's *If This Is a Man* is a good place to start if you've never read much on the subject. *The Last Jew in Treblinka* by Chil Rajchman is extremely vivid and disturbing (I had vivid nightmares while reading it so be careful with that one). *Inside the Gas Chambers: Eight Months in the Sonderkommando* by Schlomo Venezia is another extremely disturbing account. Those are memoirs of survivors; for academic histories concerning perpetrators, you should check out *Ordinary Men* by Christopher Browning (it outlines the process by which normal men were turned into murderers, before the gas chambers the holocaust was carried out at an active individual level) and *Neighbours* by Jan T. Gross is another account of average people carrying out atrocity. If you'd rather watch something check out the documentaries *Shoah* (dir. Claude Lanzmann) and the BBC's *Auschwitz: The Nazis and the 'Final Solution'* (2005).

sorry mike you missed Terry's entire point

The thing, too, is that he was making a movie about a real person and real event lol, how else was he supposed to tell the story, y'know?

@@MattiusFincham So that might be why Kubrick didn’t like the film, and also why it might not be a valid criticism of a true story. However, he does have a point if he is bringing this up as an example of the way in which Spielberg chooses stories and how he tells those stories. Look at the difference between two stories of the Holocaust: Schindler’s List and Come and See. Come and See is about the utter barbarity of the einsatzgruppen and the tone of that film is about as different as you can get from Schindler’s list. Is it also made by a Soviet-Russian filmmaker, and it is interesting to look at the difference perspective and sensibility makes on an author’s work.

@@kochevar99 Fair enough; Come and See is a beautiful film as well - it's like apples and oranges though imo

@@MattiusFincham No that’s true for sure. I’m also not so much criticizing Spielberg as just advocating analyzing the way different people tell stories and why and what are the reasons behind those choices. I also really like Schindler’s list and Spielberg has made like 5 of my favorite hundred movies. Dude is a master.

LOL he didn't miss the point , he just didn't agree with it