Great essay. I saw Raiders in the theater and we had to be driven back in my parents' station wagon. Joy is exactly right. And attention to detail. I loved the bar shootout in Mongolia. The guns were heavy and the rounds thudded. Beautifully staged. Plus you had a great setup for Marian in the drinking contest, who ends up not being a Mary Sue in a drinking bout with Belloq. Just one of many perfectly crafted scenes, as you have related.
I think it's all in the writers as well as direction. A lot of blockbusters have some top-shelf writing. The world came to love our movies because of what they were. Now Hollywood tries to make movies for the world and the home team rejects them. The world will come to reject them, too.
Yeah you could list scene after scene that proved what a great artist Spielberg was in those days. I don't think there's one thing in DIAL OF DESTINY that as clever as Jones casually asking Marion for Whiskey as an alcohol fires races around the bar towards his face.
Jaws for me is a Top 5 movie. The screenplay and Spielberg's direction (not to mention the performances) far exceeded the novel, which I had actually read first at my grandma's house.
well then you're going to want to stay tuned... I'm publishing my first guest essay in a couple weeks. A former agent and producer is going to come aboard to analyze JAWS from a screenwriting perspective.
I too saw Raiders in the theater first run. But I also saw Spielberg’s previous massive flop, 1941. Spielberg was riding high after Jaws and Close Encounters, and then 1941 brought his directing mojo to a screeching halt.
The reason George Lucas is on the credits for Raiders is Spielberg could not get anything greenlit after all the money he spent and lost on 1941.
And I’d argue Raiders of the Lost Ark is actually a sequel, albeit a pitch theme sequel. Lucas made magical amounts of money on Star Wars, which he had pitched as a modernized version of the 1930s movie house serials, Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon. And Raiders was pitched as a modernized version of…1930s movie serials, the intrepid adventurer genre. I recall seeing press before it came out explaining what the heck this whip guy movie was about exactly along those lines.
So Spielberg and Lucas were making what has now become the standard Hollywood pitch: “Look, it’s the same as the last thing that made a lot of money” and then just subverting it a bit via Spielberg’s creativity. As noted in the essay, those studio committees will work hard to keep any creativity from happening these days.
And at that point Kathleen Kennedy was still just fetching coffee, so that danger was far in the future.
1941 didnt work, that's true, but it's full of those little touches that let you know you were dealing with a genius. I think Spielberg would've been fine with the resume he had, even with the 1941 flop. That said, I've been boxing for 20 years and I've learned a lot more form the fights I lost than the ones that I won. It's likely that the failure of 1941 made Spielberg better.
Yeah it was rough. As I wrote in the piece though, I enjoyed the idea of seeing the final Indy movie with my son, who is almost the same age I was when I saw Raiders with my Dad.
Indiana Jones should be like Bond. He should be replaced every decade or so. It’s not like Ford is the only person who can ever pull off a burly adventurer guy.
This is dead on. I am old enough to remember the movie “Breaking Away“ a movie made on a tiny budget using B and C list actors as well as complete unknowns. All they had was great storytelling, characters that you cared about, moments of genuine humor and unforced sadness, and an ending that you pretty much knew was going to happen that still received sitting and sometimes standing ovations.
Thank you for signing up for Disney+ to write this great essay. My husband watches a lot of movies on TCM which I also love because they never get old and they capture joy. If he ever expresses an interest in seeing the new Indiana Jones I will just have him read your essay instead. The older we get the more valuable our minutes become. No joyless experiences wanted around here!
That's how I felt about The Boys.... I kept wondering who I was supposed to be rooting for. Hollywood is obsessed with deconstructing heroes and making everyone live in the shades of grey. I miss the White Hat Hero.
The Boys reminded me of another problem with current "content." Ugliness. Man there is so much ugly getting the big budget treatment. And it's lazy, too. So much easier to write nihilistic, life is awful, people are terrible stuff (with rote insertion of artless profanity and the old ultra-violence) than it is to convincingly create a real, recognizable world of flawed humans who Are. Still. Trying. (CODA, was one, Breaking Away was another, Open Range another).
Great essay. I saw Raiders in the theater and we had to be driven back in my parents' station wagon. Joy is exactly right. And attention to detail. I loved the bar shootout in Mongolia. The guns were heavy and the rounds thudded. Beautifully staged. Plus you had a great setup for Marian in the drinking contest, who ends up not being a Mary Sue in a drinking bout with Belloq. Just one of many perfectly crafted scenes, as you have related.
I think it's all in the writers as well as direction. A lot of blockbusters have some top-shelf writing. The world came to love our movies because of what they were. Now Hollywood tries to make movies for the world and the home team rejects them. The world will come to reject them, too.
Yeah you could list scene after scene that proved what a great artist Spielberg was in those days. I don't think there's one thing in DIAL OF DESTINY that as clever as Jones casually asking Marion for Whiskey as an alcohol fires races around the bar towards his face.
Jaws for me is a Top 5 movie. The screenplay and Spielberg's direction (not to mention the performances) far exceeded the novel, which I had actually read first at my grandma's house.
well then you're going to want to stay tuned... I'm publishing my first guest essay in a couple weeks. A former agent and producer is going to come aboard to analyze JAWS from a screenwriting perspective.
OMG!
I too saw Raiders in the theater first run. But I also saw Spielberg’s previous massive flop, 1941. Spielberg was riding high after Jaws and Close Encounters, and then 1941 brought his directing mojo to a screeching halt.
The reason George Lucas is on the credits for Raiders is Spielberg could not get anything greenlit after all the money he spent and lost on 1941.
And I’d argue Raiders of the Lost Ark is actually a sequel, albeit a pitch theme sequel. Lucas made magical amounts of money on Star Wars, which he had pitched as a modernized version of the 1930s movie house serials, Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon. And Raiders was pitched as a modernized version of…1930s movie serials, the intrepid adventurer genre. I recall seeing press before it came out explaining what the heck this whip guy movie was about exactly along those lines.
So Spielberg and Lucas were making what has now become the standard Hollywood pitch: “Look, it’s the same as the last thing that made a lot of money” and then just subverting it a bit via Spielberg’s creativity. As noted in the essay, those studio committees will work hard to keep any creativity from happening these days.
And at that point Kathleen Kennedy was still just fetching coffee, so that danger was far in the future.
All I remember from seeing 1941 in the theater are:
1. The cute blonde from Eight is Enough was in it;
2. The dock bending back from recoil from when the Lee tank fired a shell at the Japanese submarine (our only real laugh); and
3. Slim Pickens as a prisoner on said Japanese submarine.
1941 didnt work, that's true, but it's full of those little touches that let you know you were dealing with a genius. I think Spielberg would've been fine with the resume he had, even with the 1941 flop. That said, I've been boxing for 20 years and I've learned a lot more form the fights I lost than the ones that I won. It's likely that the failure of 1941 made Spielberg better.
Spot on!
thank you, sir!
I saw Dial of Destiny for 20 minutes, and walked away. Never thought an Indy movie could do that to me.
Yeah it was rough. As I wrote in the piece though, I enjoyed the idea of seeing the final Indy movie with my son, who is almost the same age I was when I saw Raiders with my Dad.
Indiana Jones should be like Bond. He should be replaced every decade or so. It’s not like Ford is the only person who can ever pull off a burly adventurer guy.
I’d be down for that
Of course the danger is they do it like Dr. Who and you wind up getting the Phoebe Waller-Bridge Jones after all
This is dead on. I am old enough to remember the movie “Breaking Away“ a movie made on a tiny budget using B and C list actors as well as complete unknowns. All they had was great storytelling, characters that you cared about, moments of genuine humor and unforced sadness, and an ending that you pretty much knew was going to happen that still received sitting and sometimes standing ovations.
Breaking Away is a great movie... Dennis Quaid, yeah?
Thank you for signing up for Disney+ to write this great essay. My husband watches a lot of movies on TCM which I also love because they never get old and they capture joy. If he ever expresses an interest in seeing the new Indiana Jones I will just have him read your essay instead. The older we get the more valuable our minutes become. No joyless experiences wanted around here!
Indeed! Happy to help and thanks for the kind words.
The thing that gets me, and joyless is part of the description, is that I can watch a movie or TV show and not like any of the characters…
interesting... any examples jump to mind?
There’s an Amazon series called Expat starring Nicole Kidman. I hate all the characters, including the children…
That's how I felt about The Boys.... I kept wondering who I was supposed to be rooting for. Hollywood is obsessed with deconstructing heroes and making everyone live in the shades of grey. I miss the White Hat Hero.
Who wants to think watching movies? I’ll do my thinking on Substack…
🤣🤣🤣
The Boys reminded me of another problem with current "content." Ugliness. Man there is so much ugly getting the big budget treatment. And it's lazy, too. So much easier to write nihilistic, life is awful, people are terrible stuff (with rote insertion of artless profanity and the old ultra-violence) than it is to convincingly create a real, recognizable world of flawed humans who Are. Still. Trying. (CODA, was one, Breaking Away was another, Open Range another).
Yep, totally agree… nihilism is definitely not “joyful”