Readings: Week V

Gordon, Andrew: "Close Encounters: The Gospel According to Steven Spielberg"

Summary:

Gordon, from the outset of his article, laments "Close Encounters" as an exploitation of 1970s religious sentiments - the revival of fudamentalism and the popularity of cults and gurus - which provides such an emotional joyride that audiences aren't likely to notice its shoddy plot and trite message on first viewing. It presents, he states, a narcissistic tale which absolves the individual of their earthly responsibilities, ultimately fulfilling the unconcious desires of the audience itself. Furthermore, the aliens in this film provide no clear motivation for many of their actions, including abducting a child and causing power failures. Gordon sees these unmotivated actions as a shallow excuse for Spielberg to play around with emotional and visual effects while ignoring logical content. This, Gordon says, goes beyond simply allowing the audience to fill in the gaps with their own interpretation, insulting its intelligence instead. In his comparision of "Close Encounters" with "2001", Gordon accuses Spielberg of dumbing down the content of his film to appeal to the lowest common denominator, with the intent of comforting mankind that "God is on our side," rather than forcing him to ask larger questions.

Thoughts:
I think Gordon's criticism of Spielberg moves beyond pointing out the weaknesses of Spielberg's film - its sometimes hole-ridden and superficial plot - to expressing some strange personal vendetta, as if Spielberg had stolen his prom date or something. What valid points Gordon does make are completely overshadowed by the smug, elitist language he uses to describe them. Furthermore, his analysis of the film as ultimately appealing to "the dumb" is more telling of Gordon's character than of Spielberg's, especially in light of his criticism of "Close Encounters" when juxtaposed with "2002." The fact is that Kubrick, like Gordon it would seem, was a bit of an elitist, refusing to compromise his own intellectual vision in favor of the audience's pleasure. The fact that Spielberg takes the opposite route isn't neccessarily a sign of his weakness as a director. After all, isn't film first and foremost intended as a form of mass entertainment. Gordon needs to come to terms with the idea that most films are made for audiences - audiences which are generally the type of everyday Joe portrayed in this film - and not film critics. Using that point as a weapon against Spielberg just made me not care very much about his other contentions.

Brunheim, Bruno: The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fariy Tales

Summary:
Brunheim's article isn't a film analysis piece because Brunheim himself is not a film analyst. Hei s a psycholist who works primarily with troubled children and, as such, his article focuses on that. More specifically, Brunheim makes an article in favor of exposing children to traditional fairytales rather than attempting to "shield" them from the more gruesome aspects of them. According to Brunheim, fairytales are essential in teaching children important lessons they may have trouble grasping from modern modes of etertainment: the idea that they can and will make a significant contribution in their life, transmitting cultural heritage, teaching independence and reassuring the child of his or her ability to achieve rewarding relationships (especially romantic relationships) on his or her own, addressing problems he or she may face in his or her own life, the benefits of moral behavior, bringing the unconcious and man's darker nature to the forefront instead of supressing or denying it, and teaching them that unfairness and hardship in life is inevitable. The means in which a fairytale can accomplish this is by simplifying all situations and creating clearly drawn characters. Evil becomes as omnipresent as virtue in order to allow good to be defined in comparision in it, by making simple, understandable juxtapositions between the two. The hero and his sense of morality become appealing to a child because his characteristics resemble the child's more closely, in contrast to the villain, whose characteristics the child cannot empathize with. Fairtales which do not center around the duality between good and evil give different lessons, such as that even the meekest can triumph.

Thoughts:
I found this article particularly interesting in light of Gordon's article. Brunheim would probably respond to Gordon's declaration that "Close Encounters" is a simplistic tale of wish-fulfillment by stating that this is exactly the point of a fairytale: to present its message through simplicity. Were Spielberg to complicate things he would reduce the impact, both moral and cultural, of his film, narrowing the audience it was intellectually accessible to, especially chidren.

Buckland, Warren: Directed by Spielberg

Summary:
Once again, Buckland does a pretty straightforward analysis of Spielberg's films. He begins by talking about the basis for "Close Counters", how much it drew from Hynek's The UFO Experience and how much it deviated from Paul Schrader's original, much darker script. The rest of the piece tends to focus mostly on camerawork, as well as pointing out certain visual elements that make it uniquely "Spielberg": visual match-ups, "tricking" the audience by dissapointing their expectations, lateral tracking shots, experimenting with syntagmatic narration, and only gradually revealing the aliens to the audience.

Friedman, Lester: Citizen Spielberg

Summary:
Friedman's analysis, as it pertains to "Close Encounters", focuses less on the technical aspects than Buckland and more on examining it, along with "E.T.", "A.I.", and "Minority Report" to find consistent thematic elements as well as elements which changed over time. His primary focus is on the representation of troubled children (which he argues is far darker and more honest than the idyllic examination of childhood that critics accuse him of), the absent or neglectful father figure, and the desexualized and ineffective mother figure. Furthermore, Friedman focuses in on the representation of the religious in these films and how different those shown before and after Spielberg's work on "Schindler's List." With films like "Close Encounters", Friedman sees Spielberg as using Christian iconography to allow audiences to easily relate to larger ideas of the spiritual being created by the human imagination. His later work, Friedman argues, is far more critical of Christian iconography and ideals, a viewpoint shaped by his research for "Schindler's List", which led him to the idea that Christianity was in large part responsible for the Holocaust. Finally, Friedman makes the argument that Spielberg's films are far from the conservative propaganda that some critics have argued. Rather, films like "Close Encounters", promote an acceptance of, and even respect for, diversity.