Directions & Consequences
In a Sunday N.Y. Times piece called “Hollywood’s Priceless Sounding Board,” Tom Roston collects anecdotes from several Steven Spielberg-influenced directors (JJ Abrams, Matt Reeves, David Koepp, Chris Columbus) about how Spielberg has passed along valuable advice about how to improve their films.
One interesting tale is about Spielberg reading an early draft of Koepp’s Premium Rush, the 2012 bike messenger flick that had a lot of of footage of Joseph Gordon Levitt pedalling fast and hard around Manhattan.
Spielberg’s advice to Koepp was to show JGL “entering the screen consistently from one side when he was going downtown, and to enter the other side when he was going uptown, to help orient the audience,” Roston writes. Make no mistake — that’s an excellent idea. Having an instinctual visual sense has always been Spielberg’s ace in the hole. He’s always respected geography and choreography.
“[Spielberg] is exceedingly practical and grounded in the storytelling,” Koepp remarks. He adds that in passing along this advice Spielberg “referred to how Peter O’Toole‘s character, in Lawrence of Arabia, does the same thing when his character crosses the desert.”
Nope — flat-out wrong. Throughout the film O’Toole’s Lawrence, when trekking across the desert on his own steam, always travels from left to right. On his initial trek with his Bedouin guide (Zia Mohyeddin) to the Maxwell wells and then to Prince Faisal’s camp. During the journey from Faisal’s camp across the Nefud and on to Aqaba. The attack on Aqaba itself. The final campaign against Damascus. All left to right.
The one time O’Toole conspicuously travels in the opposite direction is at the very end, when he’s a passenger in an Army jeep and the British driver goes “Well, sir…goin’ ‘ome!” This may be what Spielberg was alluding to, but this final scene is not about Lawrence “crossing the desert” per se.
One more thing: Koepp, who’s worked as a writer and director on several Spielberg productions, says that “I think, for Steven, sometimes it’s the most fun to weigh in on someone else’s work when there are no consequences. He is free to just talk about the creative part.” This Keopp utterance is what’s known as “obiter dicta” — words in passing that give the game away, and in this instance possibly Spielberg’s.
When Koepp says “consequences” he means (a) consequences of either a structural or story nature, (b) practical-logistical consequences (i.e., how hard or easy will the idea be to film?) or (c) financial or box-office consequences. He’s probably referring to all three, but the very thought of “consequences” always interrupts and for the most part kills the creative process. Allowing “wait…hold on” into your imaginative stream is a perfect recipe for mediocrity. These words are known in the scriptwriting profession as “stoppers.”
I know — I used to consider consequences when I was writing reviews and being careful to shield or camoflauge my true feelings in “film critic-ese” or deciding whether or not to include a dicey or inflammatory quote in an interview piece, and it led only to middling results. I did the same damn thing when I was trying to write scripts in the mid to late ’80s. Only when I stopped being scared of this or that consequence did my writing start to get interesting.
As Spielberg has always been about making audience-pleasing films that earn a lot of money, one can reasonably assume that the “consequence” Koepp was thinking about, the “consequence” that Spielberg didn’t have to keep in mind while brainstorming about somebody else’s film, is ticket sales. Keopp’s quote is vague and therefore not smoking-gun material, but it’s precisely this way of thinking — “Will this scene or bit make the film more likable or entertaining in the eyes of Average Joe audience members and therefore help to increase profitability? — that has defined Spielberg all these decades, and why he’s the kind of filmmaker (with the exception of Schindler ‘s List and to a lesser extent Lincoln) that he is.
Don’t talk to me about Lawrence of Arabia. I know that film up, down, over and sideways. In May 2009 I took this shot of Seville’s Plaza de Espana, the palace-like building where Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) first arrives after being driven into “Cairo” following his trek across the Sinai desert with Farraj (Michel Ray) and Daud (John Dimech).
With all due respect to Spielberg, this is what’s known as “not violating the axis.” Any attentive film student would know this.
Class, how many logical fallacies can we find in this piece?
Up next: Spielberg insisted on getting paid for directing Lincoln! Proof that he doesn’t care about art and is only out to make a buck!
Also, that is not what the axis is, Cadavra.
“I know — I used to consider consequences when I was writing reviews and being careful to shield or camoflauge my true feelings in film critic-ese or deciding whether or not to include a dicey or inflammatory quote in an interview piece, and it led only to middling results. I did the same damn thing when I was trying to write scripts in the mid to late ’80s. Only when I stopped being scared of this or that consequence did my writing start to get interesting.”
That’s what you call this?
Honestly, you were a better reviewer when we *didn’t* know how much you hated certain filmmakers.
Wells to Correcting Jeff: I’ve paid my dues and have suffered along the way and have learned a thing or two. You just take dumps on the carpet. I swear to God I’m thisclose to booting your ass out of here. I discovered and pointed out something close to a revealing “obiter dicta” (albeit second-hand from David Koepp) and explained why and what a creative hindrance it is to think about consequences, and all you can say is that I’m too negative? People like you I can do very well without.
Jeff, just go buy a gun and shoot Spielberg in the head. It’s the only outcome for this kind of unhealthy and irrational obsession.
Wells to Ray DeRousee: You too, Ray. I based my remarks on knowledge of filmmaking and logic and personal worldly experience. Eat it.
One of the great things about the Lord of the Rings novel was constantly referring to the map in the front. For most of Book 1, the Fellowship are mostly moving from West to East.
What was nice to see in Jackson’s “Fellowship of the Ring” was that the group was (almost) always moving from screen left to screen right. That’s correct. That’s the direction they SHOULD be moving on screen.
Like if you are in San Francisco, you go UP to Seattle, and DOWN to Los Angeles. Anyone who looks at a map… KNOWS this.
CARPET DUMPER SAYS…
A commerically successful filmmaker who enjoys being freely creative is obviously a hack!
I realize my comment re: the axis was snooty and unhelpful, so let me clarify:
Directional consistency throughout a film may be considered an axis, but it is not the axis to which importance is commonly attached. This axis is scene-specific, and even within a scene it can be crossed without detriment by visually neutralizing it, by a cutaway, or by pure artfulness and moxie.
Spielberg makes films that are both critically acclaimed and popularly successful.
I would love for Wells to tell us what dictionary he uses in applying the word hack to Spielberg.
Spielberg’s advice to Koepp should’ve been to burn the fucking script and just go do something else. Stupid, stupid movie not saved by some visual trick that NO ONE notices or gives a shit about. You seriously think the average movie-goer, or even a more high minded one, notices this trick and leans over to his girlfriend and says “see, see, that means he’s headed downtown now. This movie is very easy to follow because of that. I am so invested in knowing whether he’s going uptown or downtown!!”
Give me a fucking break.
“I said the real favor, follow my advice and fire your fuckin’ ass cause a loser is a loser.”
Spielberg also advised Sam Mendes not to hire Conrad Hall for “American Beauty.” Said he was too old.
Spielberg also told Dennis Weaver in DUEL to switch from Pumpernickel to Rye bread when he orders a sandwich as spelling out P-U-M-P-E-R-N-I-C-K-E-L would alienate people who don’t like spelling bees.
The article was poorly written. It even gets the director of Gremlins wrong, listing Chris Columbus as the director instead of Joe Dante. For shame.
Jeff, literally all of your Spielberg posts are “dumps on a carpet.”
It’s pathological, and it’s noticeable, and it’s ruined, genuinely ruined your writing.
Wouldn’t you agree that being a predictable writer is a sin? There’s not a single original word you’re going to write in the next year, or any other, about Steven Spielberg. You’re just going to repeat yourself, again and again. And I admit, so will I, and all of your readers, that keep telling you this is *just really weird*.
But go ahead and boot me. You know you can’t ban people on Disqus either, right?
the one-side-of-the-screen uptown, other-side-of-the-screen downtown idea is excellent. haven’t seen the movie, but even if a viewer doesn’t explicitly notice it i could see it helping. way to go, steve-o.
Page hits are consequenses, so apparently Jeff hasn’t stopped considering them. That’s the most reasonable excuse for writing something this reality-deprived.
Every single Spielberg film is scored by John Williams. Ergo, this is obviously what Koepp meant by “consequences.” Spielberg doesn’t really want to make art, he just does it to give Williams a job!
“Just say shit, write shit, and do shit and never mind the consequences,” is about the piss-poorest advice for life anyone could ever give. It may make the writer “interesting,” especially in his own mind, but Leni Reifenstahl was interesting, for Godwin’s sake. Most reasonable people would be unhappy with the consequences, though.
I can’t ban people on Disqus? That can’t be right.
Who doesn’t like to offer up ideas without consequences?
I place his statement less as an almost smoking gun and more in “duh” territory.
Like, “Yeah, it’s really fun to build a log cabin with your bare hands, but every now and then it’s also nice to take a long nap in somebody else’s.”
No shit, Mr. Spielberg.
I guess I read consequences more as just general responsibility. Like, here we’ve all been offering up ideas on how your site might improve. And there have been some great contributions from people.
But we don’t have to go through the work of making any of them happen. Contacting people or reformatting or any of that other thankless but necessary work.
So much of making art, of making ANYTHING is sweaty, thankless gruntwork and bureaucratic bullshit.
But getting to swoop in and do some of the fun stuff is awesome, especially when you can do as much of your own work as you want, whenever you want.
Waitasecond — I thought your problem with Tarantino was that he was “all ideas without consequences” (not a diagnosis I completely agree with, by the way, just pointing out that’s your idea of him).
I think I know what Koepp means by this in regards to Spielberg, though — the conception of the movie can be the most exhilarating part because it is the free-form process of discovery/adjustment that is closest to the actual DNA of creativity (Steve used to love floating things out there to his old buddy George for his beloved SW universe in much the same vein).
I agree that this was a pretty clever idea, though (and — like many of the best ideas — I didn’t even consciously register this while watching Rush). I thought the flick was actually a fun little time-passer — and casting Shannon as the villain was ace up its sleeve — but perhaps ultimately a little too beholden to its own “high-concept” so as to strain credibility — I realize it’s NYC, but none of the protagonists own a car (or, more pressingly, ever consider entering the SUBWAY system when they’re being chased)?
And ghost is right about the axis.
Along the same lines, what was the first movie to introduce the idea of heroes walking right to left, and villains walking left to right across screen — was it High Noon?
Whose idea was that, originally? Because it sure was a good one (and subliminally effective in a similar way to this).
Argh.
Meant heroes left to right, and villains right to left, obviously…
To know what Koepp meant (if one doesn’t want to, you know, actually think about it), one only has to read four paragraphs further in the article:
“‘The times when I have seen him the most happy are when he has been in the process of making stuff up,’ he said. ‘There is so much that can slow you down when you are making a movie.’”
That pretty much calls out Jeff’s argument as bullshit. “Consequences” means things like “Can we find the right location?” and “How much will this cost to build?”
The idea that Spielberg is obsessed with pleasing Joe Popcorn, but jettisons this obsession when giving notes to fellow filmmakers, is a premise that shoots itself in the foot.
“No consequences” means his name isn’t on it, he can take no blame for it, so he doesn’t have to worry about telling a friend his script is crummy, he can just offer little tidbits of interesting creative and technical advice. Koepp just gave himself a backhanded insult.
BadHatHarry’s interpretation is appealing to the cynic in me, but I don’t think Koepp (and he’s the one who said it) was trying to be cynical. It may be true, but I don’t think that’s what makes it “more fun.” If anything, “no consequences” in that context seems like it would mean that he doesn’t have to worry if his own ideas are crummy, because it’s not his film they’re going to pollute.
Noticing Spielberg’s advice to Rod Lurie about improving THE CONTENDER isn’t being mentioned here.
Yeah, the site traffic is down because of the web design. (rolls eyes)
It might be because this site has gone well past the point of self-parody. But maybe that’s just me.
But go ahead and boot me. You know you can’t ban people on Disqus either, right?
Sure you can, or at least you used to be able to. You can also delete their posting history – so if you want your incredibly insightful posts to remain for future generations, stop swinging from Jeff’s nuts…
“the palace-like building where Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) first arrives after being driven into “Cairo” following his trek across the Sinai desert with Farraj (Michel Ray) and Daud (John Dimech).” Alas, poor Daud doesn’t make it to Cairo.
Edward G. Ulmer wanter the characters in DETOUR to be moving from right to left, to signify East to West, so badly that he flipped the film in post and had reverse Tom Neal driving on the right-hand side for most of the film. It’s not really a new idea.
“Edward G. Ulmer wanter the characters in DETOUR to be moving from right to left, to signify East to West, so badly that he flipped the film in post and had reverse Tom Neal driving on the right-hand side for most of the film.”
Shame he didn’t come up with that idea BEFORE he shot the movie…
Jeff, this post sucks. What Koepp means is Spielberg just loves spitballing…he loves the process of making movies. Don’t take one guy’s weird choice of words and put it on someone else, that’s stupid.
Also hilariously stupid is Cadavra, who wants to let us in on what “crossing the axis” is, and then fucking GETS IT WRONG. But then, any first year film student would know that.