Jurassic Park - the most thrilling movie theater experience I ever had the audience was SCREAMING when the T Rex was chasing the Jeep Raiders of Lost Ark - Flawless escapist movie Jaws - the Game Changer Indy Last Crusade - Harrison & Sean need we say more ? Schindler’s List - Ralph Fiennes delivered an all time performance if you ask me “You are not a rat....” what a frickin scene geez
You may be right, but it still has his signature, totally unnecessary emotional manipulation. If we need to have that, I think Amistad may be his masterpiece because the manipulations work better there and it feels more connected to its strong first scene. The first scene in SPR was done to perfection and probably the greatest thing about that movie, but sadly for purposes of the script and narrative it didn't really need to be there. Or perhaps it's Schindler's List. In any case, his movies would be stronger if they didn't try so hard to manipulate the viewer. I voted for SPR, SL, Jaws, Amistadt and RotLA. Just out of curiosity, why is Minority Report not listed?
That would include often not being concerned with 1st Unit work and having an often more comic tone found in the screenplay largely done away with: Spoiler (Craig T. Nelson) script page: It’s hard to sit back and let these claims be espoused (much more on far less vague terms as “[he did] much more than Hooper”) when so much clearly expresses the opposite as the fact.
I have inside information to the contrary. I met and worked with the ILM VFX supervisor Conrad Buff, and he told me he never even met Tobe Hooper. Noted composer Jerry Goldsmith has also said he never met Tobe Hooper, and he did all the music for Poltergeist. I interviewed actor Gary Sussman ("Marty", the guy who rips his own face off) for several hours in the mid-1980s for a proposed book, and he told me that Spielberg talked to the camera crew about camera position and lighting, Spielberg talked to and rehearsed the actors, then Spielberg stepped back and nodded to Hooper, and Hooper would say "roll camera and action!" That was pretty much the story I heard from a lot of people, including DP Matt Leonetti. Other crewmembers have said the exact same thing: An ancient conspiracy theory about Poltergeist has just been confirmed Steven Spielberg Directed ‘Poltergeist,’ Says the Film’s Assistant Cameraman It's fair to say the controversy over "Who Directed Poltergeist" has persisted after almost 40 years. There are dissenting voices: noted director Mick Garris, who was a friend of both Spielberg and Hooper, believes Hooper directed the lion's share of the movie. I do remember Spielberg being interviewed a year or so after the film had been released (and was a huge hit), and he was asked about it and shook his head and said <paraphrasing>, "if I had it to do all over again, I wouldn't have made the movie that way. It put Tobe in a bad position, and I regret that very much." BTW, I think Tobe Hooper was a very fine director in his own right who made an indelible impression on the world of horror films, and he certainly had his own successes and was a very creative man.
Yes, the ILM effects were worked on at Lucas’s estate up north in the VXF shooting stage taking place after principal photography had wrapped. He is no authority on who directed the film during its three months of production. Noted or not, he was also never on the set. The character of Marty was played by actor Martin Casella. I quoted him in my evidence. I have no idea who Gary Sussman is and an IMDb search does not help. You may have been hornswaggled. So Matt Leonetti told you exactly the same thing. Sounds like no one was thinking very specifically or with much credibility if all they could do was parrot the same story that couldn’t have been true 100% of the time, considering a starring actor says Spielberg was not present a lot. John Leonetti even says Spielberg wasn’t present at all times, and he’s the star witness in all the articles. Seems more likely Hooper made enemies - perhaps all the times he disobeyed Spielberg? - and crew are taking part in a deliberate conspiracy of false information. Now I don’t believe that’s what’s happening, as I don’t believe (yet) Matt Leonetti has spoken on the matter. I’ve laid down my case against Leonetti, it’s the nth time he’s been thrown into the mix, which is admittedly pretty tiresome. And the three actors I’ve quoted who say Hooper directed everything while they were there. I’m not sure how you’re reconciling this with your viewpoint. There is a lot of missing context to this quote given, and a lot of unnecessary embellishments. “shook his head”? I don’t know, perhaps. One such context is the rumors, which the interviewer was hammering home to him. Perhaps Spielberg meant that what he won’t put another filmmaker through is the demeaning of the director due to his creative involvement as writer and producer. If you read the whole interview - and I have it, I can message it to you if you want, it’s in a 1982 Film Comment and conducted by Todd McCarthy - you’d see this is very much the case. Ever questioned why Spielberg never made another horror film? I’m not sure why it’s so hard to believe Hooper directed “Poltergeist,” especially since some - an amount I’d call a majority - say he did.
Well... traditionally, the director is the person who supervises and approves initial VFX concept art, then does daily approval on each "pass" of the VFX effects shots. If they never even met Hooper, I'd say that's fairly damning. Same thing with the music composer for any film. The music for Poltergeist was a huge part of its effectiveness and overall emotional impact. I've been in sessions where directors will stress-out and argue about 1/2 a second of music -- where it starts, how loud it should be, if it's fast enough, if it's in the right key, and if it ends in the right place. It's a very, very meticulous process. Note that the main ILM building was actually in an industrial neighborhood on Kerner Blvd. in San Rafael, which is 14 miles from where Lucas lives. He's actually pretty close to Skywalker on Lucas Valley Road in nearby Nicasio. Did you read the links I posted? I think it's fair to say this: Spielberg took over a lot of roles on Poltergeist traditionally only done by the director. Universal's exec Sid Sheinberg had warned him, "since you're working for us on E.T., we don't want you to direct another film in 1982 until after E.T. is out," which forced Spielberg to hire a substitute he could trust on Poltergeist, even Spielberg was still pulling the strings behind the scenes. I don't dispute that Tobe Hooper was there every day on set and made some decisions, plus he's a well-respected man who made some important films, but I don't think he was the main creative force behind Poltergeist. Don't forget that Spielberg got sole story credit, and was also one of three credited screenplay writers on the film. Note also that editor Michael Kahn has edited more than 30 of Spielberg's films... but none specifically for Hooper, unless you consider Poltergeist. Kahn has respectfully refused to comment on the Poltergeist controversy. I casually knew Spielberg's longtime post supervisor, Marty Cohen (who sadly died a few months ago), and when I asked about Poltergeist, Marty told me back in the 1980s during a Raiders session, "oh, you know I'm not gonna comment on that." I laughed and said, "well, you're also not saying, 'Hooper was the sole director and made all the post decisions!'" And he just laughed and told me to get out of the room, which I did (but he was nice about it). Good guy, really smart, funny, and talented. Note that 90% of Cohen's career was only with Spielberg. Marty Cohen Dead: Steven Spielberg’s Editor, Postproduction Exec Was 67 – Deadline
Traditionally. I’m not denying that Spielberg handled the post-production effects process. I will dispute that Hooper was uninvolved in the overall edit of the film, though. Frank Marshall is said to have said: “Tobe turned in his director’s cut in October of 1981.” After that, yes, it was Spielberg’s show. At the same time that Hooper was editing a version of the film, ILM was at work on the effects. Presumably it was Spielberg who fielded this process. That said, your conception of a “director” is fundamentally contrasted from mine. A director - yes, in a traditional sense - is the day-to-day creative determiner of a film’s visual and dramatic make-up. They are who works with the actors. They are who tells the camera operator what to do. I have quoted several individuals who pinpoint Hooper as the one doing these things every day on the set. I’m not sure what’s worth arguing here. You have brought up an ILM VFX person. The film was in the can before Spielberg was giving “passes” to effects boards - aka to the work of other people! Other visual designers, other creative artists. Already your conception of Spielberg as the One behind Poltergeist’s design is undermined by the fact Spielberg could say “Yes” to many things, but that doesn’t mean he came up with them. As you mention, there are two other writers on the film. What you probably have no interest in hearing is the fact that Hooper wrote the very initial treatment/outline of the film with Spielberg. Ideas in the film directly result from Hooper. He then was present throughout the entire rewrite process. Yes, and then there are directors who don’t do this. More commonplace in the olden days of the studio system. As said, our conceptions of what creates the identity of a film is fundamentally opposed. I get what a score can do to a film. What it can’t do is alter basic filmmaking decisions a director’s job is to make - the majority of decisions Hooper made, according to many people whose accounts you won’t address. For what it’s worth, Hooper is said to have called Goldsmith’s score his favorite score to one of his films. He felt it enhanced the work he put into it. Well, this is useful information, thank you very much. Yes. John Leonetti, Zelda Rubinstein, and people like Mike Felton or David Giler either literally say a) Hooper was contributing/“setting up every shot,” per Rubinstein, and Spielberg would leave the set, or b) Had no business on set or c) had thirty seconds of screen time. Aren’t the two principal actors and one supporting actor’s accounts more consistent and credible? Done, and then often changed, altered, and interfered in by producers. Without driving us insane thinking of all the time a producer threw in music cues a director likely didn’t approve, can we consider that your overzealous idea of the auteur theory is highly rigid and makes no room for artists who often get steamrolled by a highly commercially-minded industry? Absolutely not do some directors score a film the way Spielberg does. Still doesn’t mean the film wouldn’t have been an entirely different film if he made it instead of Hooper. You can claim this, the same claim made by others with far less insider scoops, but a few more details doesn’t make it more convincing. Spielberg himself said he didn’t want to make the film. Hooper himself has said he really wanted to make this film - since the idea to make a modern haunted house film was his in the first place. Fine. That’s your opinion. But don’t pretend you know this for a fact. A lot of people even more connected to the film would beg to differ! See previous comments on the conception of the film and its writing process. And he also never edited another film for Irvin Kirshner and Richard Donner. What is your point but an automatic dismissal of Hooper (in regards to Poltergeist)? Well, you gave it away right there, “post decisions.” “I won’t say!” We all know Spielberg had final cut. Hooper had first cut, though, which is not nothing and certainly something only someone with a sense of propriety over the film traditionally has. Again, your points are diluted to the point of water.
Man, I've worked with an awful lot of directors. Some are absolute control freaks who can't and won't delegate even the smallest decision. Some are pretty laid-back and easy. The majority are somewhere inbetween. My perception (from the 2011 Joseph McBride biography and the 1006 Douglas Brode biography) is that Spielberg is concerned with the most minute facets of pre-production, production, and post, and he's extremely hands-on. When I researched all the Spielberg TV shows back in the 1980s for a series of Video Review articles, I found out that Spielberg had been disciplined by the IATSE camera operator's union for grabbing a camera and shooting a few shots on the Marcus Welby episode he directed. (I think IA subsequently made him an honorary member and allowed him to handle cameras.) I've worked with directors for coming up on 50 years -- 43 of them in LA -- and it's rare they like to acquiesce. I once made the mistake of telling Michael Mann maybe he could compromise on a certain shot in a film we were working on, and he went ballistic, basically saying that the entire filmmaking process was one of those "getting nibbled to death by ducks" situations, and even the tiniest compromise can snowball and ultimately affect the film. I think what Spielberg had imagined was that he would mirror what George Lucas had done with Irvin Kirshner on Empire Strikes Back, and Lucas really did stay in Northern California for about half of that shoot, and let Kirshner and producer Gary Kurtz run the show. Of course, the whole movie had been storyboarded, Lucas had approved the script, and he completely controlled the editing... but Kirshner had a very active role in making the film and was there every day in editing, plus worked with John Williams, plus moved to Northern California to supervise and approve the VFX, and worked every day until the film was release. I think when Spielberg was put in that position, he ultimately couldn't delegate and wound up overriding Hooper and taking much more active control than he had planned. Is it right? Is it wrong? I know the DGA frowns on this kind of thing, and Spielberg later apologized and went out of his way to praise Hooper's contributions. If you have a link, I'd be glad to read it. I already posted a couple of links of actors and crewmembers who refute that. Well... Spielberg's name is credited with originating the story. (I've actually read his manuscript, and it's an interesting read, and quite a bit different from the script that was ultimately written and sjot.) I think it is a movie Spielberg wanted to make, but I think he had his hands full with E.T., he valued his relationship with Sheinberg at Universal and had given his word that he would not direct Poltergeist, and I think he was walking a careful tightrope. Well, first cuts are thrown out all the time. I know films that have gone through 7-8-9 cuts, and everybody has a say and what finally winds up is a massive compromise that nobody is happy with. Ideally, you have one person with total creative control so at least the film winds up with one consistent point of view. I'd argue that Poltergeist feels more like a Spielberg film than it does a Hooper film: you look at Funhouse or Lifeforce or Invaders from Mars -- none of which even did a fraction of the box office of Poltergeist -- and I don't think they look like the work of whoever made Poltergeist. As a side note: I recently spent 3 weeks with director Don Coscarelli working on the remastered Beastmaster some months ago, and he told me of his frustration at doing a first cut and having it totally tossed. The producer/financier tossed him out of the sound mixing and color timing sessions as well, so the movie wound up losing a lot of the input from the writer/director. The good news in this case is that Don eventually got the North American rights to the movie back, so he was able to at least get the color closer to what he and the DP originally wanted. I'm very sympathetic to directors who fall prone to politics, executive meddling, and all kinds of ugly studio decisions: ideally, the director should be in control from day one and nobody should qustion it, but the reality is that it's much more "movies by committee" these days. Back in 1982, during Poltergeist, it was a different time. And Spielberg's power and strong personality would be tough to deal with for anybody. Jobeth Williams put it this way: "Steven (Spielberg) was there every day," said the Texas-born actress. "He had very clear and strong ideas about what he wanted done and how he wanted it done. "Even though Tobe was there and participating," she added, "you felt Steven had the final say on everything." The actress says that in the initial days of shooting there often was confusion with two people giving conflicting directions. "Sometimes Steven would tell us one thing and Tobe another," Miss Williams said. "But they soon realized that was doing us more harm than good, so they stopped. Later on, whatever discussions Tobe and Steven had, they held in private and then came to us with their decisions." Who really directed Poltergeist? (Page 1 of 3) @ poltergeist.poltergeistiii.com I think we can agree this is not a great situation for any movie (big or small). I just re-read the Wikipedia entry on Poltergeist, and they did at least reproduce the wording on Spielberg's apology ad to Hooper: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regrettably, some of the press has misunderstood the rather unique, creative relationship which you and I shared throughout the making of Poltergeist. I enjoyed your openness in allowing me, as a writer and a producer, a wide berth for creative involvement, just as I know you were happy with the freedom you had to direct Poltergeist so wonderfully. Through the screenplay you accepted a vision of this very intense movie from the start, and as the director, you delivered the goods. You performed responsibly and professionally throughout, and I wish you great success on your next project. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Poltergeist (1982 film) - Wikipedia I think that's a carefully-written, very positive piece. The Wikipedia entry goes into more detail about the DGA investigation, where the organization made MGM/UA pay Hooper a $15,000 fine for emphasizing Spielberg's name more than Hooper's in the TV trailers. The full Wikipedia piece is interesting, and it reminds me of how much evidence there is on both sides. Where I think we can agree is that Spielberg seized much more creative control than any producer would normally have on any set. I think it was a bad situation, and again, it points to the need to establish early on who's really in control and who isn't. When there's two people -- the designated writer/producer who's made $200 million dollars' worth of hits, and a hired indie director who's much lower on the economic scale -- it's a gross imbalance of power. Philosophically, it was a good career move for Hooper: he got paid, he got the biggest hit of his career ($121 million theatrically), and I think he was OK with it. I would bet he profited handsomely from it, particularly from the massive success it had on home video. I really liked Poltergeist (then and now), and think it's a movie that holds up very well today. I'm such a fan, a pal and I drove out to visit the "Poltergeist house" on Roxbury Street in Simi Valley a few years ago. I just checked the movie collection and was surprised to see I didn't already own the Blu-ray, so that's going on my "must buy" list right now.
Saving Private Ryan Schindler's List When it came out, and for a few years after, I would've included Raiders. I always thought Jaws was kinda stupid, although the special effects likely entertained some folks at the time. Never thought it, or Jurassic Park were worth the time needed to watch.
I asked myself the same question recently, so I borrowed it from the local library and I think it still holds up very well!
Great, and I am happy for you that you've worked with all stripes of director. But your presumptions due to your experience hold no bearing on what was a very unique situation, while so many of the quotes and statements you gather originate way back in 1982, when the furor over the rumors was at its height and individuals like JoBeth Williams were forced to answer questions with little recourse to nuance. Such is a media storm and gossip mill, where everyone will have input on a matter that they often will have only half the perspective on. Let me tackle JoBeth Williams's quote you cited first. I am not arguing that Spielberg was not very involved as a producer. But he worked with Hooper as the director. If everything filtered through Spielberg, then everything could have originated and further filtered through Hooper. No quote has successfully contradicted this. For instance, Williams says this explicitly. It is not a slam dunk in either's hoop. Per that, there's an on-the-record anecdote of Beatrice Straight telling Spielberg on their first shooting day, "There is only one director," and an actor remembering it was Hooper from then on who worked with them. Where you are convinced this film feels nothing like a Hooper film, an equal argument can be made that this feels nothing like a typical Spielberg film. The collaboration and Spielberg's involvement was strong, but Hooper - according to multiple actors - was the one, simply, doing the work. Directing is labor. Ideas come about through intensive contemplation, thought, and inspiration using everything around you - including a producer who shows up and wants to suggest things, despite having left the film's preproduction wholly to you to handle. (Many accounts - even yours - states that Spielberg wanted a Lucas/Kirshner situation, meaning he handed the film off at a point. This was during preproduction. Hooper designed the look of the tree, he consulted a magician to figure out the effects - my own personal insider investigation.) The film was not Spielberg's to take or not take, direct or not direct. As mentioned, before a single word had been written of the film, Spielberg came aboard the project as a producer of Hooper's ghost film. Hooper was present during the initial treatment phase and during the final writing of the shooting draft. This is not just conjecture based off my experience of how a film is typically conceived. This is semi-hard fact taken from both Spielberg's and Hooper's statements about writing the film together in both its treatment stage and its final stage. So again, I am not arguing Spielberg's overt producing tactics. Some say he was as involved in The Goonies, being on set every day and working with the composer on the score. I am happy you acknowledge Hooper's contributions. But that's where knowledge ends and conjecture begins. You don't know any overriding happened. Perhaps it did, but you also don't know how much overriding happened on Hooper's part over Spielberg's directives. And you still haven't contemplated the fact at least three accounts state Spielberg was actually not the constant presence people say he was. A set visitor I could quote you remembers Hooper at work on the ceiling climbing scene without Spielberg present. Craig T. Nelson states Spielberg was more often than not not really there working with them. John Leonetti states Spielberg would leave the set. No matter how you cut it, Hooper was the only one always working, while ideas of Spielberg controlling Hooper or overriding Hooper's ideas for his own are all conjectural. One can claim all they want that Spielberg was invested in the project, but did he have total control? No. Spielberg even said: "The turmoil [of producing] is wanting to do things your way but having to go through procedure which is why I'll never again not direct a film I write." You're so focused on Spielberg's input (when he was even there), that Hooper's input becomes worth next to nil all of a sudden, yet it seems clear to me the film is as raw and unpredictable as it is due to Hooper's involvement in both writing (to the extent of story input) and directing the film. Okay, I can try. Mike Felton: No business on the set. Jerry Goldsmith: No business on the set (probably not even hired yet while filming). David Giler: 30 seconds of screentime; no business on the set. Zelda Rubinstein (video of exact quote): Streamable Video John Leonetti: "Every once in a while, he would actually leave the set and let Tobe do a few things just because." (via Wikipedia article) Now these are people arguing for Spielberg, yet seeming more reactionary than anything. I'm not sure whose refuting what here, but I'd love to hear your cases again... I also read the manuscript. Again, it was written in collaboration with Tobe Hooper. I have also read the initial Mark Victor/Michael Grais script, which they wrote amidst story meetings with Spielberg, and it's as different as night and day. For instance, Dr. Lesh is a man instead of a woman. It took the eventual rewrite - with Hooper - to make Lesh into a woman, based off a parapsychologist Hooper had worked with since the late 70s while researching the ghost story he wanted to make, and which eventually Spielberg agreed to produce. Exactly. Does the evolution of cuts change who directed the film typically? No. But because Spielberg is such a consummate showman, scoring films in a particular way, editing them in a particular way, we suddenly can twist the idea of a director as only someone who is given final cut on their film? Anyway, I disagree, Poltergeist has much in common - notably a slower pace and a more imagistic control of the frame - with Funhouse and Lifeforce. Box office is inconsequential. You're solving your own argument's faults. Hooper, the director, should've been able to control the film up to its last day of post-production. Instead, he only got a first cut and temp scoring. He remains the director in ways I've outlined above - that everything on the set filtered through him, and he subverted Spielberg as much as he worked with him. This is the nuance no one in the industry cared to unravel. Again, the context is a press storm of journalists wanting answers on sensationalistic rumors. I also repeat: Spielberg had final say (if there was even a disagreement) when Spielberg was even there. Craig T. Nelson's statement: Spoiler Set visitor's statement: Spoiler Well, thank you. I am the one who edited the entry most recently. And Hooper exerted equal control, shapeshifting Spielberg's supernatural blockbuster lark into something stranger, meaner, and more free-form than anything Spielberg ever made. You are overly interested in industry stripes and economics, confusing that as evidence that Hooper was happy to have simply made it out like a bandit. No, he was quite proud of the film as a work exhibiting his artistic stamp. To ignore his statements and favor everyone else's is the definition of ignoring the specifics of the creative process and buying into pure generalization. An excerpt from a UK magazine that unfortunately the entirety of it has not been found: Spoiler It's a good one.
Changed vote. Took out Last Crusade and picked Close Encounters instead. Just watched Close Encounters last night and forgot how great the film is (it's been a long time since I've seen it).
At this point, let's agree to disagree. We're arguing about a controversy from 39 years ago -- that's a long time -- and I think there's "good evidence on both sides," to coin a phrase. Beyond a certain point, it becomes he says/she says, and I'm convinced Poltergeist is more of a Spielberg film than it is a Hooper film, based on all the evidence I've read and the conversations I've had with people here in LA over the past few decades. What the percentage is is a matter of opinion: is it 60/40? 70/30? 80/20? Whatever it is, I don't think it's 50/50. But I'd also agree it's not 100% Spielberg alone. I liked a lot of Tobe Hooper's films, and he is much-loved and praised by the people who knew him. I'm glad there are passionate fans who still carry the torch for his work and no question, Hooper is a major part of the foundation of horror films for the past 50 years.
At this point, I can only link you to a page that tries to compare Poltergeist’s visual style to other Hooper films. These images have less to do with superficial aspects of plot and on-screen elements so much as framing, architecture, and an anti-human sort of attention. You don’t seem quite as interested in aesthetic matters so much as the talk of supposed insiders - again, either not on the set or assembly-lines into inconsequence - so I can only hope you grapple with the fact Spielberg was not always there, and Hooper was. And that Spielberg’s own script went through numerous rewrites during productions. Someone was the wild card in this situation, and the fact I can’t even convince you towards 50/50 is a real sign of the preferentialism of the industry. http://www.twitter.com/poltrgthts_imag You ever figure out that Gary Sussman thing?
This has all been very interesting. I’ll just add an opinion that neither one of them made a better horror/suspense film afterward. Maybe Spielberg smoothed out some of Hooper’s rougher edges while Hooper added some greatly needed edge to Spielberg. And I think Poltergeist has held up better than E.T.
You know, I would agree that quite a few of Spielberg's contemporary films don't hold up that well. His films set either in the past (Indiana Jones, Lincoln, and so on) are perfectly fine, and I think the futuristic films like A.I. and Minority Report are pretty good, but films like Close Encounters and E.T. very much feel dated and stuck in their times. I think they're both well-done films, but a few elements kind of make me cringe a bit. No question that Poltergeist was one of the edgiest films Spielberg ever did, though the following year he and Lucas ran into a storm of controversy on Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom, which was denounced by critics for having some pretty extreme violence for a PG-rated film. Because of this film and Gremlins, the MPAA was pressured into creating the "PG-13" rating for films much more violent than a PG, but not so violent that they deserved an R. Spielberg later said he was glad the Academy did that, and at least it gave filmmakers an option to avoid the dreaded R rating (which would have greatly limited the box office by cutting out the kid audience).
For the record, I’m a big fan of Spielberg, and although I like Poltergeist more, E.T. might be Spielberg’s best. Top 5 of this period: E.T., Jaws, Jurassic Park, Empire of the Sun, Sugarland Express It could’ve been not quite as edgy. Taken from Spielberg’s own self-proclaimed rewrite/shooting script:
Duel's a masterpiece; the only other flick on the list I put in (almost) the same category is Schindler, but that scene where he breaks down is SO horrible; it mars the entire film.
