Terry Gilliam has never tried to hide his feelings about Hollywood. “It’s an abominable place,” he told The New York Times in 2005. “If there was an Old Testamental God, he would do his job and wipe the place out. The only bad thing is that some really good restaurants would go up as well.”
One thing that bothers Gilliam about Hollywood is the pressure it exerts on filmmakers to resolve their stories into happy endings. In this interesting clip from an interview he did a few years ago with Turner Classic Movies, Gilliam makes his point by comparing the work of Steven Spielberg–perhaps the quintessential Hollywood director–with that of Stanley Kubrick, who, like Gilliam, steered clear of Hollywood and lived a life of exile in England. Kubrick refused to pander to our desire for emotional reassurance. “The great filmmakers,” says Gilliam, “make you go home and think about it.”
Related Content:
Terry Gilliam (Monty Python) Shows You How to Make Your Own Cutout Animation
Free Movies Online: 435 Films and Counting
JURASSIC PARK?????
HELLO!????
Well, first of all, Gilliam isn’t nearly as good a filmmaker as Spielberg (IMHO), so he’s not really in a position to criticize, but I’d also like to point out that Kubrick loved a lot of Spielberg’s movies and that’s why he entrusted him with A.I. (and that film didn’t have an ‘easy’ ending as some people might like to believe). Sometimes it might be easier for a filmmaker to just ‘let the audience figure it out’, rather than giving their own opinion and personal feeling about something. Kubrick is all about intellect, Spielberg is a more emotional filmmaker, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that – he’s more humane in many respects. And yes, of course the Holocaust was a huge failure of mankind, but doesn’t everybody kind of know that already? It would be pointless to some extent if you just focussed on the failure of it all without providing anything positive at all to come out with about humanity. That would be just a truly depressing picture that nobody would really enjoy watching.
“Sometimes it might be easier for a filmmaker to just ‘let the audience figure it out’, rather than giving their own opinion and personal feeling about something.”
Wow.
“It would be pointless to some extent if you just focussed on the failure of it all without providing anything positive at all to come out with about humanity. That would be just a truly depressing picture that nobody would really enjoy watching.”
Wow.
I agree with this article. I also recommend that people read and watch Jay Weidners analysis of Kubrick. It’s another level to the superior film-making technique of Kurbrick.
Well, I pretty much agree with Terry on this one.
@WRec Just saying “Wow” without any real response doesn’t help your case. (And you may enjoy that kind of depressing film, but I know I wouldn’t. Film is film. Life is life. If I really want to know about the Holocaust, I’ll read a history book or see a documentary which is at least different from a fictional film.)
I pose this question to all of you Spielberg-haters (and by the way, I’m a big Kubrick fan as well, so I’m not trying to diss him): We all know that Spielberg can make (and has made) a Kubrick film–and quite successfully so, in my opinion–but do you actually think Kubrick could ever have made a Spielbergesque film? I seriously doubt it. Isn’t that some indication of Spielberg’s greatness? Not to mention the fact that he has touched and moved millions of people… Just because someone is more successful doesn’t automatically mean he can’t be ‘great’, nor does that mean that because Kubrick was less loved by the general public, he was the greater genius. That’s kind of ridiculous if you ask me; if anything, it should be the other way around. (And no, that doesn’t mean I think Michael Bay is awesome.)
Tim H. you’re an idiot.
Kastor – and your pithy comment makes you out to be a genius on par with Kubrick.
But seriously folks, if not a one of you can even back up your lame remarks, it only makes you look like the foolish ones. It’s so easy to just say ‘you’re an idiot’. You’re an idiot, Kastor. See? So simple, isn’t it? But the fact is, I don’t know anything about you so I would never say such a silly and meaningless thing.
It seems to me that Gilliam is just jealous of Spielberg’s success as the majority of his films fail at the box office and recently he hasn’t received a lot of good reviews, either, while Spielberg gets both most of the time.
WRec and Kastor,
Why not add something intelligent to the conversation? Failing that, why not at least be polite?
Mike
I’m with Kastor on this one. Tim, you’re pretty much an idiot. I don’t have enough space here to explain why you’re wrong. Kubrick make a Spirlbergesque film? He’s from the previous generation. He made Spartacus when Steven was still shitting his pants. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s good, not does it make it bad. SS is good at his craft, much like Madonna. But he’s not trying to do anything other than the Hollywood blockbuster., much like Madonna is not going to do anything other than a pop album. Kubrick walked away from that back in the 60′s. He wasn’t interested in catering to popular tastes and social conventions, whereas SS has never strayed from that formula.
That’s where you’d be wrong, my friend. He makes both populist films (‘Jurassic Park’) and more serious works about topics that he’s interested in (‘The Color Purple’, ‘Amistad’, ‘Empire of the Sun’, etc.). Those films weren’t trying to be blockbusters, nor was ‘Schindler’s List’, although it turned out to be one. He’s done many films which I would consider to be among the greatest ever made. And what does it matter if Kubrick was from an earlier generation? His films overlapped with Spielberg’s – he was still making them up until the late nineties. And as I said before, Kubrick admired many of Spielberg’s films? If he just totally sucked as you guys seem to assume, then why would a ‘great’ filmmaker like Kubrick respect him so much (even enough to recommend him for A.I., another masterpiece in my book)? Explain that to me, please.
Dear Terry, you do not really need to compare a master like Kubrick with a good filmmaker like Spielberg to enhance his greatness.
Spielberg’s are predictable, cheesy, with an unsurprising happy-ending. It is entertainment, just a way for teenagers to kill 1.5 hour. Defo not art (remember movies are suposed to be the 7th art) or the basis for a discussion once the movie is over.
bozo: You’re telling me a film like ‘Munich’ or ‘Saving Private Ryan’ is a predictable cheesy happy film just for teenagers to kill time as entertainment? He’s made plenty of films which don’t fit that description. And I would definitely consider many of them to be artistic and worthy of discussion. It’s comments like these that just prove to me how little people really know about Spielberg and how great he really is. As I said before, though, I am a big Kubrick fan as well, I just hate that a lot of folks don’t ‘get’ what Spielberg is trying to do. Why is Gilliam even comparing the two guys in the first place? You might as well compare apples and oranges they are so different. One is more optimistic (Spielberg) while the other is more pessimistic (Kubrick), but they are both great filmmakers in their own way. Why not then compare Kubrick with Alfred Hitchcock or Martin Scorsese? I don’t see the point. In fact, it makes less sense to compare Spielberg with Kubrick because they both liked each other’s work and they liked each other on a personal level as well (ever seen the Spielberg interview on the ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ DVD?). I don’t think either man would think the other as a ‘worse’ filmmaker – it’s just ridiculous. I’ve seen Gilliam criticize Spielberg before, not just here, so it’s obvious that he has something against him but I don’t know where that comes from. And as for Kubrick being ‘against’ commercial success, I’m sure every director wants that to some extent – that more people like their films. After all, he did make ‘The Shining’ based on a book by one of the most populist authors out there, Stephen King. And he recruited two big movie stars (Cruise and Kidman) for his last film.
At the beginning of the Gilliam interview, he sums it up best: the big difference between Kubrick and Spielberg is that one was more successful than the other. End of story.
“Steven Spielberg–perhaps the quintessential Hollywood director.” Wow. What a damning statement that is! It gives me the chills.
Spielberg probably couldn’t make a good kubrick movie, but kubrick couldn’t make a good spielberg movie. they’re both great. spielberg’s an easy target. it takes greater courage to admit that you don’t understand a “great” kubrick movie.
@Tim H. With all due respect, “Saving Private Ryan” and “Munich” are poor examples if you hope to point out Spielberg films that aren’t predictable. At any rate, I think you’ll agree it’s fun to compare the two, and even to include Gilliam in the discussion as you did in your first comment, but is it really necessary to place them in competition? (Not that I’m saying you are.) It’s art, not sports. BTW, aside from the weird robot gladiator thing in the middle, I liked “A.I.” a lot, too.
“Kubrick is better! No, Spielberg is better!”
“You´re stupid (but with fancier words)! No, YOU`RE stupid (with equally or slightly less fancy words)”
Seriously people? Are you really serious?? You´re supposed to be the result of four billion years of successful evoulution.
Try to act it a little!
SOOOOOOO pretentious.
Kubrick is my favorite director, but this guy is making blatantly stupid remarks. People like him are the very reason I detest Hollywood, not Speilberg
@Tim H – Of course Gilliam is in a position to criticize. Everyone, whether it be filmmaker or film enthusiast, who knows the difference between E.T. and 2001 is entitled to have that opinion, or not. It is a valid one.
Just because you don’t agree with Gilliam, calling him a jealous middle of the road filmmaker doesn’t bring anything to the table, anymore than someone posting that you are an idiot.
Well stated, Laurel.
Tim H, have a look at the foundation of Saving Private Ryan.
Huge action scene? Check.
Star-studded cast? Check.
AMERICANS heroically saving one of their own to preserve the AMERICAN dream? check.
This is not challenging subject matter for an intelligent audience. But thats not the film that Spielberg makes, or tries to make.
Spielberg can direct a cast, draw an audience, (HUGE fan base) and get John Williams to make you cry. All on a budget that could end world hunger. But does he really have any interesting shots? Did you leave the theatre and have to use your brain? Of course not. Part of the splendour of watching a SS movie is that you get to enjoy yourself. You’re rarely uncomfortable or challenged as an audience. And I get this. Its why I and a lot of people go to see Will Farrell movies. Because we pay for spectacle; we pay to be entertained, and it takes you away from the monotony of real life.
Spielberg directs blockbusters. Thats what he does, and he’s really really good at it. So trying to compare Kubrick to Spielberg is apples and oranges. They’ve got completely different endgames.
Gilliam knows this, he’s just fed up with Hollywood because most movies (especially will farrell ones) are written for audiences with mentalities of 12 year old boys. Spielberg is just an easy target for Gilliam because he’s the first name you think of when you think about Hollywood.
Fair enough.. I will make one more comment before I leave this topic: it has been said that in the entertainment field, you can either have commercial success or critical acclaim. Well, Spielberg is one of the few directors that I can think of who has achieved both. And to me, that is the mark of a great filmmaker. (And just because many of his films may be escapist, doesn’t mean they are any less well-made.)
Spielberg and Kubrick have different styles. Gilliam was just using that to make a point about mass-marketing movies and how that hurts artistic vision. The question is: does Spielberg corrupt his genuine artistic vision in order to mass-market his movies?
What do you want to do with Jurassic Park; make it a art house flick or a popcorn summer escape? Same with Munich: do you want to make that popcorn fun or seriously political?
Kubrick and Spielberg have both made movies I love to watch over and over. I can’t say the same for Gilliam. Yes, Brazil and The Fischer King (incredibly Spielberg-y, happy-ending, cornball, and a crinkly-faced Robin Williams, to boot! Gilliam, you REBEL!).
All three of them have made awful movies, too. Eyes Wide Shut was laughably bad.
Not to troll but… Kubrick was a great photographer and had a fantastic ability to tell stories visually, but… not a great director. Most of his movies plodded along slowly, in between action scenes or important plot developments. My favorite of his, “The Shining” and “A Clockwork Orange”, both contain long periods of little going on. Spielberg does a good job visually, but most of his talent lies in transitions and tension. “Saving Private Ryan” is a prime example, a very simple story shot in very desaturated color, told thru the words and eyes of the characters.
A.I. should have ended when the kid was at the bottom of the ocean. Roll credits.
from Heather: “Tim H, have a look at the foundation of Saving Private Ryan.
Huge action scene? Check.
Star-studded cast? Check.
AMERICANS heroically saving one of their own to preserve the AMERICAN dream? check.
This is not challenging subject matter for an intelligent audience. But thats not the film that Spielberg makes, or tries to make.”
If you saw Saving Private Ryan, you would know that was not the point of the film at all. Yes, the plot was to find Private Ryan and return him home safely, but that was not the message. The message was about how he, Private Ryan, lived after Captain Miller sacrificed his own life for him. The question I left the theater with was the same. How am I living my life? What am I doing to honor all of the sacrifices people have made for me? Yes, Spielberg makes blockbusters, but he also includes a thought-provoking message if you just pay attention.
Every single one of Spielberg & Gilliam’s films are shit.
I admire Gilliam greatly (more than I do Spielberg OR Kubrick, actually), but it must be noted that he DOES have a personal ax to grind here; Spielberg (who was Universal’s hottest property at the time)refused to use his considerable clout to help Gilliam when he was fighting with the studio over BRAZIL.
Warhorse: a movie about a horse….at war. The end.
I would also like to add: I find it incredibly interesting that Speilberg, for good or ill, owes his whole career to a broken mechanical shark….if Steve had had his druthers, and trusted his instincts, Jaws (still his best film) would have been any other B exploitation film (which is still awesome)…but the big fish breaking forced him to be more economical with the shark, therefor heightening the tension and suspense….the problem with every single film afterwards was that the shark didn’t break.
Spielberg is popular because he appeals to the mainstream; he’s simple, contrite, predicable, and smarmy so naturally everyone loves it. There is absolutely no comparison between Spielberg and Kubrick, it would be like comparing Mitch Albom to William Shakespeare and it’s unfortunate that there’s more people familiar with “Tuesdays with Maurie” than there is “Hamlet”. I totally agree with Gilliam. Hollywood is a vast wasteland of mediocre at best productions. It isn’t artistic jealously, it’s the truth.
Aren’t we talking apples and oranges here? And what did Gilliam-a great talent himself- think of A.I.?
Sorry, Saving Private Ryan is TOTALLY predictable. Mind you much of it is very good, but it’s formulaic and sandwiched between too incredibly stale slices of cheesy bread.
Spielberg is a good filmmaker, but no he is not a great filmmaker.
And for those claiming that Gilliam is jealous because his films haven’t been reviewed well or sold out well lately, that’s a foolish criterion.
Titanic is one of the biggest moneymakers of all time and that film is crap from beginning to end. Hack storytelling, cheesy dialogue, overlong and overwrought. Try an actual standard.
I agree with Zompkin; Gilliam may have an axe to grind, but it’s bigger than Spielberg. It’s a film industry that panders to the lowest common denominator, and an audience that mistakes that pandering for art. I see nothing wrong with Speieberg’s style; it is what it is.I DO see something wrong with Hollywood foisting the “happy ending” archetype on everything that crosses its desk. Spielberg is just a focus for his argument, IMHO. I lean toward Kubrick on the style-o-meter, but would probably go batty if Hollywood made him the archetype. Then we’d be complaining about moral ambiguity and unresolved endings, and wishing for good old fashioned storytelilng
Come to think of it, I remember reading that exact line several times in reference to Spielberg movie like “Raiders of the Lost Ark” when they were first released. Hmmmmm.
(Im french so m english are not very good)Terry Gilliam sucks, he directed might be some great films (Brazil) but his jugdment about god, that is to say Steven”THE FILMMAKER”Spielberg, are absolutly ridiculous, so little Terry, go fuck yourself in jail!!!
I agree with Gilliam. He’s not criticizing Spielberg’s abilities as a director but his work under a Hollywood system. I love Spielberg movies but Gilliam makes a good point. It makes you wonder how much is a director willing to give up to see their vision come to life in the big screen?
Tim H. has a point!
I love Kubrick.
I love Spielberg.
I love Gilliam.
Every time I see one of these discussions, it’s always one pitted against the other against the other. Why is this? Am I the only one who feels that all three are genuine masters of their craft in entirely different ways? Are they really so fundamentally different from one another? Honestly, I’m not so sure.
Fuck gilliam and fuck kubrick
I think Gilliam is spot on here. Spielberg is an immensely talented filmmaker, from a technical standpoint, but he doesn’t make great films because he lacks in artistic vision and creativity. Kubrick was a much better artist than Spielberg, as Gilliam is. Brazil is more creative and intellectually challenging than any film Spielberg has ever made. Spielberg is an entertainer and Gilliam and Kubrick are artists, for the most part. Saving Private Ryan is the perfect film for me to make an entertainment vs art comparison. The Thin Red Line came out the same year as Saving Private Ryan. Saving Private Ryan is entertainment and The Thin Red Line is art. One must only watch the two to easily discover the difference. I sense that Gilliam vastly prefers The Thin Red Line and that Kubrick probably did to.
Terry Gilliam doesnt have a mirror in his house.Forget his critique of SS and SK.As an director/artiste he does in public what adolescent children do in the privacy of their bedrooms without the mess.His films are unwatchable drivvle.
E.T. is the greatest movie anyone has ever made. Period.
True art is angsty. Everyone knows that.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsAngsty
Spielberg is good, but formulaic. Disney for adults.
I have seen Spielberg pictures that were good fun but I still thought they were low art. His more serious pictures are somehow unwatchable, I’ve turned them off. I never felt like I wanted to see all the struggle and violence just to see Private Ryan get Saved.
But I have seen most of Terry Gilliam’s pictures, and I enjoyed them all. He may be a bit more of an entertainer than Kubrick, but there is something deeply interesting about his best movies.
I didn’t even know if I liked Time Bandits the first time I saw it, but then I ended up seeing it several more times and grew to love the movie and its strange ending.
Kubrick’s 2001 Space Odyssey was a groundbreaking film in subject, beautiful cinematography, and has an ending that leaves you thinking. I was too young when I saw it the first time, but years later as an adult it still is a thoughtful, beautiful film.
Whereas Spielberg is mostly an entertainer. He isn’t into making you think deeply, even in his more serious films, which is probably why I turn them off they are just too SERIOUS, and don’t have that deft touch that let you come to your own conclusions about the point of the movie.
It would be so nice if people were allowed to enjoy both Titanic, and 2001, and both E.T., and Barry Lyndon, and this and that and so on and so forth. It really would. But, I suppose not. We are forced to have to enjoy one while calling the other side crap.
truth! how can people argue? they are not even film-makers. Sorry IPhones don’t cut it kiddies.
But people do go away from Speilbergy movies with discussion, only about Technical things – CGI, action sequences, camera shots ect.
You could do that with Kubrick, but there is that profound humane dark element that makes people talk that is OBVIOUSLY missing from Speilberg. Even in Jaws.