Browse Tag

Steven Spielberg

Review: Saving Private Ryan

[Originally written for Mr. Showbiz in 1998]

Set the wayback machine to 1998. Parallax View presents reviews of films originally published 20 years ago by our contributors for various papers and websites. Most of these have not been available for many years.

There are moments in Saving Private Ryan when the warfare becomes so intense and all-consuming that the very air seems filled with battle. Shrapnel hangs there, every shard in razor-sharp focus, as if molecules of the film itself had been startled out of the emulsion. “Din of battle” ceases to be a cliché and becomes an implacable, immediate truth, until the senses, along with reason, give up attempting to process the assault of information and sensation and a lulling roar of water fills our ears. No mainstream American film has ever painted a more horrific or documentarily persuasive picture of modern combat. And no Hollywood film within recent memory has achieved such richness and originality of texture, such a compelling amalgam of passionate human drama and awesome technique.

Keep Reading

Blu-ray: ‘E.T.’ at 35 from Universal

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982), Steven Spielberg’s suburban fairy tale for kids who think they are too hip to believe in fairies, turns 35 with a new E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial 35th Anniversary Limited Edition (Universal) plus additional Blu-ray, DVD, and 4K Ultra HD editions.

Universal Pictures Home Entertainment

Henry Thomas is Elliot, an emotionally bruised kid suffering under his parents’ separation who finds and bonds with another lonely, lost soul, a benevolent alien left behind when his spaceship leaves. “I’m keeping him,” says Elliot, but meanwhile an army of government men search for him. As E.T. grows homesick and just plain sick. Elliot and friends need to help get E.T. home.

It’s a fantastical adventure with a grounding in the modern suburbia of divorce and adolescent anxiety, and E.T. is the ultimate imaginary playmate come to life. Part pet, part best friend, part guardian angel with an emotionally symbiotic connection to Elliot, this funny looking stranger in a strange land (think of a squat, mutant teddy bear with lizard skin and monkey fingers and voice between a growl and a purr) is a wizened old grandfatherly being with the trust and playfulness of a child.

Continue reading at Stream On Demand

Review: Close Encounters of the Third Kind

[Originally published in The Weekly (Seattle), December 14, 1977]

It’s getting harder and harder for a movie to just happen anymore. I’m not talking about the ways movies get made (although, to be sure, that’s become an extremely messy business), but the ways movies and audiences get together. In the absence of a vast public that simply “goes to the movies,” film-selling has become a matter of creating Events—Events that may or may not live up to the induced expectations but which in any, er, event have an uphill fight to stay alive and spontaneous. Close Encounters of the Third Kind is having a harder time than most. It’s a $20 million film that a lot of people are anxious to recover their money on. It’s a film in a genre, sci-fi, variously blessed and burdened with an enthusiastic/rabid following whose specialized requirements for satisfaction do not necessarily have much to do with a film’s being good as a film. It’s a film in a genre, moreover, that has recently given the cinema its Number One Box-Office Champ, Star Wars, and hence become newly embattled among critics and commentators who deplore the preeminence of “mindless,” two-dimensional, feel-good flicks on the top-grossing charts.

Keep Reading

Review: The BFG

Ruby Barnhill and Mark Rylance in ‘The BFG’

Just after we’ve first seen the Big Friendly Giant—teased in a series of shadowy glimpses as he lurks about a London street at night—he must flee the city and return to Giant Country. We watch this creature, as tall as a small building, as he lopes through town and country, full steam ahead, his long skinny legs galloping across an acre at a time. It’s a thrilling sight. Perhaps many filmmakers could make this moment soar, but when you see it you will know that this particular flourish could come only from Steven Spielberg. The way the distance of the camera allows us to see the BFG from head to gnarly toe, the predawn light barely glimmering on the horizon beyond, the everyday touch of power lines whipping past—everything in this brief shot suggests Spielberg’s talent for amassing details so that they generate giddiness across your eyeballs.

In The BFG, a new Disney production, Spielberg mines Roald Dahl’s 1982 kid-lit classic. It’s the adventure of an orphan girl named Sophie (spunky Ruby Barnhill), plucked from her unhappy orphanage by the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance).

Continue reading at Seattle Weekly

Review: The Sugarland Express

[Originally published in Movietone News 31, April 1974]

Sugarland is a small, undistinguished Texas burg not far from the Mexican border. The Sugarland Express is one commandeered highway patrol car and a caravan of half a dozen other h.p. cars, then a few dozen local police cars, then a couple Louisiana highway patrol cars, then a few hundred civilian cars, trucks, campers, and at least one Houston-based TV news van, all bound for the aforesaid Sugarland, Riding in the lead car are an escaped convict, his wife (also recently a con), and one relatively new state policeman whose dialogue sounds like a mélange of the Highway Patrol rule book, the safe-driving code, and Reader’s Digest. The convict may be even more hapless than his prisoner: he broke out—walked out—of the minimum-security prerelease farm from which he’d have been freed in another month anyway, persuaded by his wife that swift action is needed in order to rescue their infant son from a foster home. Before his journey had fairly begun he found himself guilty of grand theft auto, speeding, resisting arrest, stealing a policeman’s gun, and kidnapping—all within about eight minutes. Now it promises to become a very bad scene, what with Clovis (the con) garbling the syntax of all those threats that are supposed to keep his cop prisoner in line, Lou Jean (the wife) impetuously shoving a riot gun at police cars that draw too near, and half the local constables and deerslaying rednecks in the state trying to be the agent of retribution for these desperados.

Keep Reading

Review: Bridge of Spies

Tom Hanks and Amy Ryan, with Alan Alda trailing behind

Bridge of Spies feels like two movies laid end-to-end, but both are so deftly handled that the divide hardly matters. The movie’s two faces also give director Steven Spielberg a chance to explore his dual interests: using history to comment on the present day, and executing old-school suspense.

The first section is the true saga of a New York lawyer, James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks), who was plucked from his profitable private practice to defend a Soviet spy, Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), in the late 1950s. Abel is obviously guilty of espionage—but not, as Donovan carefully points out, of treason—but what pricks Spielberg’s interest is the way Donovan is ostracized for performing a constitutional task.

Continue reading at Seattle Weekly

Review: Bridge of Spies

Tom Hanks

The farther he moves away from temples of doom, altered suburbs, and shooting stars, the easier it is to somehow underestimate Steven Spielberg. (Yes, yes, Crystal Skull, I know.) Even at his most earthbound, though, the filmmaker’s basic chops still reside somewhere in the realm of the freakily supernatural. When he’s cooking, there’s nobody else who can do quite what he does.

Bridge of Spies, Spielberg’s first film since 2012’s Lincoln, is an exceptional job of work—a deliberately old-fashioned hybrid of courtroom drama and Cold War skullduggery that’s so expertly put together that you may not realize the beauty of its construction until after the fact.

Continue reading at Portland Mercury

Review: Jaws

[Originally published in Movietone News 42, July 1975]

Jaws begins with a chillingly realistic sequence of shots that are at the same time metaphysically portentous and eerily beautiful. The camera pans slowly across a group of college people singing and drinking around a beach campfire, cuts a fluid swath along a bluish twilight New England sand dune, eases into a placid sea behind a pretty girl, and follows her as she swims fatefully out over those murky depths where we all know what is waiting. As the girl splashes innocently against a postcard sunset, we cut to a couple of quick shots whose point of view is somewhere below the water, evilly hovering, gazing up at the girl’s form and the dusk sky which swims and shimmers above her like an out-of-focus image of another world. The underwater camera and the presence it represents move progressively closer, intercut with shots of the girl from the surface, until finally she gets this funny look on her face, bobs once or twice like a cork floater on a fishing line, and goes shooting through the water at shark speed. And then she’s gone. There’s this silence, this beautiful fading sunset, a few harmless waves lapping the beach….

Keep Reading

Men on a Mission

‘Zero Dark Thirty’

First they made The Hurt Locker; then their blistering modern war film made them Academy Award winners. Even as they collected their Oscars, director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter-producer Mark Boal were already at work on something tentatively tagged “The Hunt for Osama bin Laden.” Following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, myriad arms of the U.S. military and intelligence services were overturning every stone, real and metaphorical, to find the al-Qaeda leader. Both hunts—the real-world one and the filmmakers’—were works-in-progress till May 1, 2011, when SEAL Team 6 terminated the perpetrator-in-chief with extreme prejudice. And Bigelow and Boal’s heretofore open-ended script took a new turn.

Zero Dark Thirty, as their movie was ultimately titled, focuses on the nearly decade-long pursuit of bin Laden from the perspective of a CIA analyst and her cohort. Yes, her: for the first time, the vibrant and versatile Jessica Chastain is tip of the spear of a major Hollywood production. Where the mission takes her, under arguably the best director she’s ever worked with, is mesmerizing to behold.

While waiting to follow along, let’s beguile the interlude considering some classic film quests by men on a mission. And by all means, the occasional woman on a mission, too. Embarkation is at zero dark thirty—you know, half an hour past midnight.


Missions don’t come much bleaker than The Lost Patrol (1934), a primal tale of struggle for survival against implacable forces. During World War I, a handful of British soldiers are trapped at an oasis in the Mesopotamian Desert (Iraq to us) and slowly decimated by an unseen enemy. The strong visuals—baking sun, the undulating vastness of the dunes, the drift of ghostly mirages—befit a crucible of character-testing, with an unnamed Sergeant (Victor McLaglen) striving to keep at least one man alive as desperation, madness, and implacable snipers take their toll. This stark drama, free of box-office compromise and glib heroics, marked director John Ford’s decisive step toward establishing himself as a personal, semi-independent artist within the Hollywood system. The story by Philip MacDonald proved to be a durable archetype for filmmakers. It had already served as the basis for a 1929 British film (with McLaglen’s brother Cyril in the lead!), and RKO, which released Ford’s movie, would appropriate it five years later as the model for a surprisingly strong B Western, Bad Lands (Lew Landers, 1939)—substituting sheriff’s posse for an army patrol, and Apaches for Arabs. MacDonald himself borrowed elements of his own tale when writing the screen story for Sahara (Zoltan Korda, 1943), among the best contemporaneous World War II films. Incidentally, Ford’s doomed patrol includes Boris Karloff as a religious zealot who reckons their beleaguered oasis is none other than the Garden of Eden.

Keep Reading

Blu-ray/DVD: Happy Anniversary, ‘E.T.: The Extraterrestrial’

E.T.: The Extraterrestrial – Anniversary Edition (Universal) – Steven Spielberg’s suburban fairy tale for kids who think they are too hip to believe in fairies debuts on Blu-ray in its original, uncut, untampered form.

Henry Thomas is Elliot, an emotionally bruised kid suffering under his parents’ separation who finds and bonds with another lonely, lost soul, a benevolent alien left behind when his spaceship leaves. “I’m keeping him,” says Elliot, but meanwhile an army of government men search for him. As E.T. grows homesick and just plain sick. Elliot and friends need to help get E.T. home.

It’s a fantastical adventure with a grounding in the modern suburbia of divorce and adolescent anxiety, and E.T. is the ultimate imaginary playmate come to life. Part pet, part best friend, part guardian angel with an emotionally symbiotic connection to Elliot, this funny looking stranger in a strange land (think of a squat, mutant teddy bear with lizard skin and monkey fingers and voice between a growl and a purr) is a wizened old grandfatherly being with the trust and playfulness of a child.

Steven Spielberg is a technical wizard without a doubt and he seamlessly brings actors and effects together, but none of the special effects have the charge of Henry Thomas laughing in joy as his bicycle takes flight over the forest and across the full moon. That image has since become the corporate logo for Amblin Entertainment and it’s a little tainted for it, but the excited, spontaneous shouts of pleasure are as genuine as ever.

That’s because Spielberg is America’s most perceptive chronicler of suburban life and an astounding director of child performers. E.T. comes to life in the awe and emotion of his adolescent cast, not just Henry Thomas but older brother Robert Naughton and adorable little Drew Barrymore as his guileless little sister. We believe in E.T. because they do. Seen in the wake of his more ambitious work of late, E.T. comes across today as Spielberg’s last blast of emotional, instinctual innocence and naiveté, and it’s genuinely charming and refreshing.

Continue reading at Videodrone

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial

[Originally published in Film Comment, February 1983]

People in Steven Spielberg films live in the right places: movies can’t help happening to them. It isn’t necessary to range as far as, say, Peru, where the right mountain had been patiently waiting to emerge from the Paramount crest at the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Your house will do. Indeed, it will do better.

Remember the house where Barry Guiler and his mother lived in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Not just what it looked like (Forties bungalow gone to seed behind a screen porch) but where it sat. On an unkempt lawn merging into field and wood; the house itself slightly left of center-frame, with some middle-distant trees at right to keep the eye from straying; a valley slope behind, unremarkable until you noticed that the cloudscape above had bestirred and reshaped itself to create a second, forced-perspective valley in the sky—a trough that an extraterrestrial craft just had to slide down, to collect one lucky little boy and take him for a celestial joyride. Movie landscape as poetic imperative.

‘E.T.: The Extraterrestrial’

No DeMillean, Ten Commandmentstype clouds roil in Spielberg’s E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. The auspicious spectacle of CE3K‘s otherworldly arrivals is replaced here with disarming simplicity: a gentle downward slant across the night sky, with no lights save stars, no visible spacecraft, nothing to orient the sense of “down” but the bottom of the screen and the fact that the movement is being registered by the eye of an earthbound filmwatcher. The tops of fir trees penetrate the bottom of the frame, feathery and just a cozy whisper of shade darker than the night itself. They confirm the locus of the action and reassure us. This is Earth. This is the right place.

That’s the first shot of the movie. The second at once bears out its logic and subtly contradicts our generic expectations. There’s a spacecraft after all, but one that hardly squares with the vitaminized swooping or sky-filling mass of previous Spielberg spaceships. In size and appearance it suggests a big brother to the Christmas ornaments that might be hung on the surrounding firs, though given the season—several days shy of Halloween—its resemblance to a jack-o’-lantern is more immediately apt. Nor can the habitué of the Spielberg universe suppress yet another resemblance: grinning with backlight, the serrations of the jack-o’-lantern’s “mouth” evoke a nonpredatory, cartoon version of Jaws’ “Bruce.”

Still, the most striking thing about the spacecraft in the second shot of the film is that we do not see it land. It’s simply present, congenially embraced by a forest clearing, its plentiful lights rhyming with the glow of an American town spreading out from the upper-left corner of the frame. The shot-progression is perfectly coherent: the downward drift of the opening shot was actually completed, a distinct rest achieved, before the cut to shot two; and there’s no strain in assuming that the spaceship participated in the movement described by our own eyes. At the same time, that movement was too clean, too abstract, to suggest a complete point-of-view identification with an extraterrestrial peering through the most pristine of ports; even within the context of a fairy-tale narrative, the shot is a kind of cinematic wish-fantasy. The exquisite conjoining and disjuncture of these two brief shots establish the tensions that will inform the rest of the film.

Spielberg’s depiction of the E.T.s’ emergence into the world stresses the benignity of their visitation. The creatures are first discovered by a camera slowly circling the spacecraft, peering through foreground branches. The vegetation is all astir, partly from the breeze, partly from the interplanetary dwarfs’ bustling about, and partly, it almost seems, from an agreeable excitement communicated among all the living things present. Our first clear exrraterrestrial sighting is of an E.T. semi-silhouetted within the door of the ship, while immediately in front of the lens two tassel-like fingers reach up to pluck at an evergreen branch.

The titular E.T. is first seen in longshot, waddling rapt through the most Edenic forest stand since the pastoral heyday of D.W. Griffith. The trees tower above him, but there isn’t a hint of terror in the scale of things. Spielberg cuts to a traveling POV, two giant trunks that run out of ceiling before they run out of height. Here the points-of-view of viewer and visitant incontestably merge: we are privileged to see a tree, to encounter the Idea of Tree, as if we’d never seen one before; and to know (regardless of whatever else we think we “know”) that these trees don’t come to a stop x feet above the mist into which they disappear, but provide a spiritual connection between two realms of existence.

Spielberg goes delightfully and definitively further in asserting E.T.’s kinship with a particular species of the imagination. The creature comes to the edge of the forest, and also of a hill; some brush obstructs his vision of what lies beyond. He moves forward, leans to bend the shrubbery aside, and—marvelous neck that he’s supplied with—he cranes. The city glimpsed in the corner of an earlier shot now comes clearly into view. At this moment E.T. becomes identified with the very principle of movie movement (and, incidentally, E.T. vindicates the cheerfully wasteful, $500,000 preview shot for 1941!).


Such identification is entirely in order, for movie classicism lies at the heart of the film’s extraordinary purity and power. Geographically, E.T. covers a more limited terrain than any other big-screen feature of Spielberg’s (except its brilliant, underrated flipside companion Poltergeist, which Tobe Hooper directed under Spielberg’s aegis), but it maps that terrain with gratifying lucidity. Elliott (Henry Thomas), E.T.’s Earthside soulmate-to-be, is kept out of the older kids’ Dungeons and Dragons game with a condescending “You can’t join just any universe in the middle!” The movie not only disputes that (this is said a mere moment after E.T., left behind by the hastily departing spacecraft, has involuntarily joined this world): it also demonstrates that we can rediscover our own universe “in the middle” through sensitive mise-en-scène.

A pointed, yet also inconspicuous, instance of this occurs when Elliott introduces his new acquaintance into his home. First encountered in the backyard as a Halloween “goblin,” E.T. has been lured back from the forest with the proffer of M&M candies. (Yes, they’re really Reese’s Pieces, but childhood associations die hard.) Leaving pile after pile of these in his wake, Elliott entices E.T. into his house, up the stairs, and along the corridor to his bedroom. The boy—and Spielberg’s camera—observes from inside the room as the creature’s long, articulate fingers extend into the doorframe to gather up the latest offering. Then Elliott turns and crosses the room to his desk (to turn on a lamp, I think); the camera pans with him, perfectly naturally, and in doing so discloses the long, cluttered playtable that lies between desk and door. Elliott immediately turns and resumes his previous vantage, whereupon he and we discover that the doorframe, in which we might have expected E.T. to be standing, is empty. Is E.T. still lingering outside, out of sight? Out of sight yes, outside no. For suddenly E.T.’s fingers reappear above the opposite edge of the playtable, and we hear his clucks and murmurs of delight as he gropes his messily exploratory way among Elliott’s treasures.

This is a wonderful passage. Not only does Spielberg manage to continue developing the characterization of E.T. while still delaying the moment we finally can see him clearly in closeup and normal light. He also scrupulously respects the terms by which we know E.T. so far-the fingers; the offscreen chuckles that may be involuntary sound, may be shaped language—and the terms in which we know Elliott’s own world. The normal, functional follow of his camera maps a zone new to us as well as to E.T. (Elliott’s table) and then, in its return pass, the camera “inadvertently” discovers that that terrain has already been annexed by the narrative and imaginatively utilized.

This fusion of the documentary and the imaginative is so beguiling that the unthinkable becomes possible. The way Spielberg looks at contemporary suburbia, we can believe that his children might actually grow up as nostalgic about their childhood home as, well, people who grew up pre-tickytacky. Spielberg retains the ability to visualize the world as a child does—and that’s not meant as a goopy platitude, but as a precise observation. The director gets the angles that can render the mundane monumental without disfiguring or falsifying it. He gets the kind of “shots” one frames to valorize one’s childhood (and adult?) itinerary.

Elliott just walking up his driveway after doing business with the pizza-delivery truck; Elliott and later his older brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton) mounting up and cycling out of the garage to conquer the world—these are lyrical and also astutely comic moments when the most everyday architecture becomes a heroic frame and the close-plotted constructions of a tract neighborhood loom with the telephoto grandeur of mountain backdrops.

Even when Spielberg does crowd falsification, the deviations are so charmingly cinematic we want to embrace them, too: the backyard cornfield, mist, and Halloween moon that mute the sense of suburban blight encroaching on nature; and a high-angle view of a rusticated, fence-wrapped bend of road that Elliott bikes along as he leaves his town behind—a bit of highway engineering as improbable and as thrillingly right as the Albert Whitlock roadway where an intoxicated Roger Thornhill is set up to buy the farm in North by Northwest.

Mostly, Spielberg transforms the mundane simply by virtue of how he sees it—like E.T. himself. If movie classicism, the purest manifestation of a pop-cultural medium, validates E.T., E.T. also returns the favor. At once exploring his new environment and pondering how to get back to his old one, E.T. tinkers with a learning toy and a TV remote control while also perusing a Buck Rogers strip in the comix. As it happens, Buck has built himself a Rube Goldberg gizmo to “phone home” from a hostile planet; E.T. cannot yet make out the words in the comic strip, but presumably he reads the graphic depiction of sonar waves as clearly as any Earthling. Meanwhile, a TV commercial urges Bell Telephone customers to reach out and touch someone.

E.T. adds up his cues and sets to work. He uses everything that happens to him; even an umbrella that pops open and terrifies him finds its way into the “home phone” he ultimately assembles to contact his own kind across the stars. Indeed, E.T.’s device, with its ingenious amalgamation of so many incidental household props, amounts to nothing less than a funky variation on the grand theme of CE3K, wherein a musical chord, flashing lights, hand gestures, a mathematical formula, and the patterns of celestial shapes dancing in space all became the physical-metaphysical cue for the close encounter between biologically alien, spiritually attuned species.

Spielberg everywhere hints at both the readiness of humankind to imaginatively embrace such possibilities, and the cozy overfamiliarity, the cultural conditioning, that militates against making the sublime connection. How appropriate, with respect to both levels of possibility, that the kids going outside to chase the goblin they don’t believe in, accompany and comment on their own mission by chanting the “deedle-deedle, deedle-deedle” theme from The Twilight Zone. Of course, the kids are willing to admit the reality of what they find before the adults are—though the youngest, Gertie (Drew Barrymore), properly rejects the sappy “Only little kids can see him” with a weary “Give me a break!”

Still, Mary (Dee Wallace), the big kid of a suddenly-single parent, literally can’t see him, can’t see that she’s got an “extra kid” in her household, even when the beer-besotted E.T. shuffles and belches about the kitchen behind her. (Spielberg is more generous than many reviews have given him credit for about taking the curse off this adult obtuseness—especially through his excellent taste in not-conventionally-beautiful leading ladies, here Wallace and in Poltergeist the enchanting JoBeth Williams. Even “Keys” [Peter Coyote], the long-faceless leader of the sinister posse seeking the extraterrestrial, begins to be disclosed as basically an all-right guy when, like E.T.’s, his fingers dip tentatively into frame to pick up an M&M from the forest floor and we hear his contented munching offscreen. )

Finally, Spielberg is committed to the rediscovery of community rather than us-against-them fragmentation. Elliort’s telepathic communion with the extraterrestrial, privileged and unique as it may be, is in service of a just rebuke his brother hurls at him early in the film: “Why don’t you grow up? Think how other people feel for a change.” Michael himself manages to participate in this process, to the extent that he literally gets into E.T.’s space—a closet hidey-hole—as a touching response to the visitor’s own close encounter with death in the penultimate reel.

In both E.T. and Poltergeist, Spielberg develops a running commentary on closets as sectors of special childhood experience: in Poltergeist, as that nightmare zone so fearfully adjacent to one’s safe and solitary bed; in E.T., as a private den impervious to adult eyes and apprehension. (The director makes especially shrewd use of a rose window in Elliott’s closet; it always seems backed by suffusing light, whether seen from within by day or glimpsed from outside, at night, as a reassuring landmark while the dark forms of strangers prowl the brush.) Michael occupies E.T.’s accustomed resting-place as a gesture of both self-consolation and instinctive faith—as though his being there could reinforce E.T.’s fading life, his ability to survive by sustaining a geographic presence on the premises.


E.T. would appreciate the gesture. He clearly believes in collaboration. At least one normally discerning critic has complained that, given E.T.’s demonstrable ability to make bicycles fly late in the film, there’s no reason why he shouldn’t have zoomed back to the safety of the spaceship when menaced by Keys’ marauders, rather than scurrying on ineffectual legs through brush and bramble. E.T. undeniably misses that boat, but this criticism also misses a crucial point. We never do have any reason to believe that E.T. himself can fly. What he can do is to exert his extraterrestrial powers on objects.

When E.T. first manifests this ability, suspending several bright-colored balls in the air of Elliott’s room, in approximation of the configuration of his own solar system, he does so to certify his profound relationship with all creatures great and small in having, and cherishing, a “home.” His later coups—while riding the handlebars of Elliott’s bicycle—represent the same sort of inspired extension of inherent, logical function he practices on the homely this-and-that which composes his interstellar phone. Spielberg shows elsewhere in the movie that, even without extraterrestrial intervention, boys’ bicycles can go places the most souped-up government automobiles cannot. E.T. just takes that idea and flies with it.

It’s worth noting, too, that E.T., though he comes from heaven and possesses a seriocomic variation on the divine Digit in Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel painting, is scarcely infallible. When he and Elliott embark on their maiden voyage over the treetops, all is rosv, bur their eventual touchdown leaves something to be desired: Elliott, E.T., and bike end up spilled in the bushes. But E.T., here as elsewhere, learns from experience, and when he and his vigilante bikers arrive at the same spot later on, five sets of wheels return to earth with breathless ease.

It’s a small thing; Spielberg doesn’t dote on it. But watching that second landing, I found myself recalling another movie, some 63 years older: D.W. Griffith’s True Heart Susie (1919). In that exemplary masterpiece, Griffith uses a similar, and similarly understated, figure of style to comment on the growth and progress of Susie’s lifelong beau William (Robert Harron). As a schoolboy, William takes his leave of Susie at her gate and makes an ungainly run at the fence before his own house across the road; he hits it with his belly and succeeds in flopping over into his yard as more or less intended. Later, after finding an anonymous bequest (Susie’s doing) in his mailbox, he rushes to bring home the news that he will now be able to go to college; this time he manages to leap up onto the fence, teeter precariously, and then complete the transit in something approaching a self-determined style. Of course, he would never have made it without Susie’s help.

Steven Spielberg may never have sat down and studied the films of D.W. Griffith. He may not be aware that, for instance, the transformation of Elliott’s family home from collection of safety zones and personal shrines to an antiseptic-white, violated desert recapitulates the environmental progression of so many Griffith classics, or that Elliott’s and E.T.’s space-defying, cinematically exultant spiritual union echoes such a psychic-cinematic bond as the one that links Lillian Gish and Richard Barthelmess before they have even met in Way Down East (1920). Whether Spielberg ever thought of Griffith while conceiving and shooting E.T. is really of no consequence. But the classical vision, the clarity and directness, the fusion of luminous, utterly straightforward form and world-opening meaning is of a kind.

Whatever sociological editorializing is read into it and its phenomenal popularity, no matter how distressingly E.T. is merchandized and Pac-Man–ized, E.T. the movie sustains and deserves its success because it reinvents the radiant simplicity of film’s own still-radiant beginnings. Surely Griffith would applaud, and recognize as the realization of his most essential impulse, one of the very last images of Spielberg’s movie: the heart made visible through the closing of a shutter.

Film Comment, February 1983

Copyright © 1983 by Richard T. Jameson

The Great American Eating Machine

[Originally published in Movietone News 52, October 1976]

The recurrence of certain thematic ideas clues us to a consistency of vision at work in Steven Spielberg’s last three films. For one thing, all are “disaster films” in the sense that they deal with the revelation of character in time of stress. Each of the three films, in one way or another, treats of a battle to the death between a pursuer and a pursued, each respecting and fearing the other’s power. Most fascinating, though, is the fact that all three films deal in some significant way with people’s relationship to machines. (It comes as no surprise that Spielberg’s current work-in-progress, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, is about human encounters with UFOs.) Even his earliest television work is marked by an interest in the struggle of the human against the Object. The second section of the Rod Serling trilogy Night Gallery (1969) starred Joan Crawford as an art collector who arranges for an eye transplant, and awakes from the operation just in time for a New York power blackout, with frantic results. A more mature made-for-TV feature, Something Evil (1970), pitted Sandy Dennis against a houseful of poltergeists. But it was with Duel (1972) that Spielberg first dealt specifically with that curiously American simultaneous dependence upon and fear of machines.

"Duel" - The tank truck metamorphosed into a contemporary dragon

Richard Matheson’s script for Duel is a vertiginous plunge into the American collective unconscious, with an enormous, wheezing tank truck metamorphosed into a contemporary dragon that irrationally menaces the allegorically surnamed hero, David Mann. His first name is as apt as his surname: the fact that the driver of the truck remains unseen turns the truck itself into a giant Philistine enemy opposing this modern David. Spielberg presents the truck to us not from the point-of-view of Mann’s eyes, but from a fragile point deep inside the mind of the threatened salesman. In closeup, the truck is always overpoweringly huge; in middle- and longshot its size is emphasized by comparison with Mann’s car, making the truck more than ever an insatiable monster bent on gobbling up helpless prey.

The metaphoric impact of all this is heightened by the fact that Mann has chosen to drive this winding, hilly country road to avoid freeway traffic. In his life’s journey he has strayed—but willingly—from the Dantean true path, and found himself confronted by a ravening beast. The snake, too, that most allegorical of creatures, makes its appearance in one of the film’s most interesting scenes, Mann’s stop at a garage that, in the tradition of Cable Hogue’s “Cable Springs” stagecoach stop, offers an exhibit of snakes as a roadside attraction. Interestingly, the snake sequence comes just after an incident in which the truck has nearly forced Mann into the path of a train at a crossing, and precedes the climactic sequence in which a radiator hose gives out and spews steam about as Mann’s car grinds to a halt on a steep grade. Whether this is an intentional proliferation of phallic symbolism or merely a sequence of variations on shape, Spielberg’s emphatic treatment of the images demonstrates his awareness of the coincidence.

Keep Reading

STOP – and be friendly: Close Encounters of the Third Kind

[Originally published in Movietone News 58-59, August 1978]

As everyone must know by now, the title of Steven Spielberg’s science-fiction extravaganza refers to an actual meeting with an extraterrestrial visitant; or, as the advertising more directly puts it, “contact.” “Contact” is very much what the movie is all about. No film since 2001: A Space Odyssey has applied E.M. Forster’s “Only connect” dictum so spectacularly. Explanations are unimportant, but understanding, intuitive and visceral, is paramount. Like 2001, Close Encounters is a stunning visual experience (both films feature the dazzling work of special effects man Douglas Trumbull, who also directed the excellent Silent Running in 1972); if it’s intellectually less profound, it has a more direct appeal to the emotions, and whether or not it’s in the same league as Kubrick’s masterpiece couldn’t concern me less. In other words, it’s good enough, for all Kubrick’s obvious influence on it, to stand on its own as a classic of the science-fiction genre, and also outside any genre considerations. And there aren’t many s-f films you can say that about.

Rumour has it that Spielberg planned to end the film by using “When You Wish Upon a Star,” the hit song from Disney’s cartoon Pinocchio, as the tune behind the closing credits.* It’s as well he didn’t; that would be spelling things out, which the film elsewhere avoids admirably, and also a touch twee. But it gives a hint of one of the film’s main aspects. It’s a magical movie, a film that exults in the potency of cinema, in the type of experience you can get only from a film, in the tools whereby a filmmaker can excite, entice and provoke his audience. And thus it becomes a film about films, and also about filmmaking. One of Spielberg’s leading actors (taking, indeed, nearly all the acting honours going) is François Truffaut, the artist as actor as critic, the man who not only came up with the longest-ever Hitchcock interview, but also once suggested that Howard Hawks’s big-game-catcher movie Hatari! was secretly an essay on the topic of filmmaking. A similar interpretation of Close Encounters holds a lot of water. When, at the film’s climax, Truffaut marshals enormous human and technical resources, shouting “Plus vite!” and “Allez!” whilst striding to and fro and waving his arms, he is, to all intents and purposes, a director controlling a set, the biggest in film history.

Keep Reading