Scorsese or Spielberg? - General Discussion Discussion

Scorsese, of course (that's like asking "who is better, Orson Welles or Brett Ratner?").

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

And yet not a single Scorsese film is better than "Schindler's List." Spielberg may have a spottier career but when he puts his best foot forward he can rival even the mighty Scorsese.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

You couldn't pay me to watch Schindler's List. I already knew that the Holocaust was bad, and that Spielberg was Jewish, long before it came out.

Oh: I also already knew that slavery was a bad thing, so no Amistat for me. Agenda movies like these are like Diana Spencer's courageous stand against land mines.

reply

[–] MinaVladimir (4077) 7 years ago

I haven't see either one, but I don't understand why you'd think they're agenda movies, per se. The "badness" of the Holocaust and slavery is hardly controversial, and it's not something many people need to be convinced of. So what's the agenda here?

Now, if you say that he's beating a dead horse, I might agree with you there. And I'll add Bridge of Spies here as well (the Cold War is my personal "favourite" deceased equestrian. And couple that with "Aw, we Americans are such good guys, and lets stick it to those damn Commies!", not something that'll interest me. /no offence/).

Side note: Did I just contradict my argument?

Still, there are plenty of personal stories, that might be worth telling, because people weren't aware of them, or for remembrance and such. For the children!

reply

[–] jriddle73 (333) 7 years ago

Actually, most of Scorsese's output during his first few decades is better than SCHINDLER'S LIST, which is, uncharacteristically for Spielberg, a good movie but marred throughout by every instance of his inserting himself into it (including completely destroying the ending).

reply

[–] TandyMan (10663) 7 years ago

You could not have picked two equally prolific directors working in diverse mediums at the same time, which is i'm sure why you posed the question. Both create other-worldly false impressions of life and history as we know it. Sensationalized. Spielberg tends to be passionate and dreamy while Scorsese is grim and bleak. I prefer Spielberg. I prefer to dream, and hope, and love. Scorsese offers such bitter retribution.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 7 years ago

It's kinda hard to choose, but I prefer Scorsese.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

Spielberg could be bleak earlier in his career -- "Duel" anyone? Even "Jaws" and "Raiders" are not the sugar-coated spectacles that would become his bread-and-butter ("Raiders"' ending is pretty pessimistic if you think about it; "Jaws," unlike "Jurassic Park," sees a dog, a child -- even a salty sea-captain -- all killed in P.C.-flouting glory). "ET" was the turning point. Before that he was a hungry tyro willing to try out a diversity of tones -- even if they got grim. After "ET," he became a "family filmmaker"; and while his post- "ET" output could get pretty bleak -- "Minority Report" -- he always seemed determined to not let audiences leave the theater feeling blue --again "Minority Report." Scorsese, on the other hand, has no qualms about leaving the audiences' sensibilities in tatters. Case in point: 1991's "Cape Fear." Not one of his best films -- like "Color of Money" a cash grab. And yet even at his most commercial Scorsese won't reassure like Spielberg; you finish "Cape Fear," tittering at its camp; and yet, you also feel existentially gutted -- and quite adverse to turning the lights off anytime soon.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

In all honesty, I wish Spielberg would go back to doing something like "Duel": bare-bones and mean.

reply

[–] jriddle73 (333) 7 years ago

"'ET' was the turning point. Before that he was a hungry tyro willing to try out a diversity of tones -- even if they got grim. After 'ET,' he became a 'family filmmaker'"

That's also the point at which his early promise ended and he also stopped being a filmmaker who mattered. E.T. taught him it was easier to simply peddle saccharine crap to an audience while telling it exactly what it's supposed to feel about what he's showing it. He's relentless in this, to the point that, during sections of SCHINDLER'S LIST when he pulled back from it a bit, it was surprising. He presents the spectacle of a man who has frequently had a terrible chip on his shoulder about not being taken seriously as a filmmaker yet, paradoxically, is so terminally insecure that he absolutely refuses to let viewers make up their own minds about anything he shows them, as if he's terrified they'll reach the wrong conclusions if he doesn't walk them through it as if they were children, with the "proper" reactions stamped on the work in 40-feet-high neon. I'm old enough to remember Spielberg when he was something really special. He's since become a complete waste of space.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

He's a throwback to Old Hollywood; it's what his cinematic diet consisted of as a child. If you watch the Frank Capras or the John Fords or the William Wylers or the Walt Disneys with any regularity you'll see they hold the viewer's hand sometimes too.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Good post and good OP.

Duel was a masterpiece, but for me, in an entirely different way, so was Raiders. I am curious why you think Raiders' ending was pessimistic. Because the Ark was buried deep in a governmental storage building?

For sheer, well done entertainment, Raiders can't be beat IMO. A brilliant comedy/adventure/action film.

As far as answering the question in your OP, SentientMeat sums up my feelings:

It's like comparing an amusement park to an art museum... or maybe more precisely Disneyland to Six Flags or the world's best hamburger joint to haute cuisine, the Beatles to Miles Davis. All are entertaining in their own ways.

Scorsese has of course done amazing work, and some of his films are in my top 10 favourites. But I can't compare them or choose between the two.

reply

[–] MinaVladimir (4077) 7 years ago

If I had to choose between watching a Scorsese movie, and a Spielberg movie, I'd put on the Scorsese one every time. So I guess that shows where my preference lies.

reply

[–] Stratego (29537) 7 years ago

Scorsese, although I can't say I'm a fan of all his movies.

Schindler's List is just sentimental crap. The same goes for Saving Private Ryan.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

Bingo.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 7 years ago

So far...

Scorsese: 5
Spielberg: 1

OP, which one is your pick? I read all your comments but I don't see where you stand.

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 7 years ago

Marty for sure... He's not afraid of the sensual and deals with more adult themes that Speilberg is too timid to deal with... in terms of craft they're both up there, but Spielberg's movies are too childfocused and afraid of the adult, even the basic relationships between men and women.

No contest.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

I was never moved by a Scorsese movie. I can't say that about Spielberg. I prefer Spielberg in "Duel"-mode -- but if "The Color Purple" is on, and I watch it, I know full well, as much as I might hate myself later, I'm going to cry.

It's pathetic, I know.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

It's not. You slam your penis in a drawer, you cry. Very similar to watching The Color Purple.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

LOL

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

When I saw E.T. in a theater when it first came out, that is very close to what I said. I said I did cry at the end but I felt so manipulated into crying, that it wasn't really a compliment to the movie just to say it made me cry. That movie pushes every sentimentalist button in such a formulaic way. I could feel every step of the manipulation, I could see it all coming. making someone cry isn't that hard and does not mean something is good art.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

I thought Spielberg did an exceptional job with the actors and extras in "Jaws." They don't seem like card-board cut-outs at all; they seem like authentic denizens of Amity. Even Quint, who could have been a caricature of the first order, instead feels authentic. His interactions with Brody and Hooper aboard the Orca are first-rate. By comparison, the average "Jurassic Park" character never transcends the stick figure.

reply

[–] Sentient Meat (1509) 7 years ago

It's like comparing an amusement park to an art museum... or maybe more precisely Disneyland to Six Flags or the world's best hamburger joint to haute cuisine, the Beatles to Miles Davis. All are entertaining in their own ways. There are those who find Scorsese too mainstream in comparison to directors such as Bela Tarr, Terrence Malick, Antonioni... Does this make Scorsese fans Philistines? Spielberg is very adept at making competent middle of the road films. People used to say this about Frank Capra too. If it's not your cup of tea, I get that... but I'd never make fun or dismiss people that enjoy Spielberg's films.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

Well said.

They may be amusement parks but "Jaws" and "Raiders" are masterpieces.

reply

[–] Sentient Meat (1509) 7 years ago

I feel sorry for those who have their noses so high in the air that they cannot appreciate films like that.

Great popcorn movies.

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

They're not "Vertigo" obviously -- and why should they be? Does every film have to be "Vertigo"?

reply

[–] AngularTurnip (3334) 7 years ago

Bottom line: Scorsese could never make "Raiders of the Lost Ark." And Spielberg could never make "Raging Bull."

Although I do think Spielberg has it in him to make a kick-ass horror film in the vein of "Shutter Island" and "Cape Fear." He's about as good at scaring an audience as any filmmaker ever.

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

I love those two movies. Picking Scorcese over Spielberg does not mean I hate everything Spielberg's ever done. Luckily in real life, we can have both. But the topic was if you had to choose one...

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

I don't think that comparing Spielberg to Disneyland or the Beatles is meant to be an insult. The Beatles were brilliant at what they did. Now if they had compared Spielberg to Nickelback, THAT would be an a insult.
They did say the world best hamburger joint, not mcdonalds. I think the analogy was intended to mean that Spielberg is very good at what he does, but it's just not artistically elevated.

reply