Spielberg's movies

It is impossible to avoid Spielberg when writing about Hollywood directors, just as it is inevitable for director China to talk about Zhang Yimou. Although many cultural elites must scoff at the above logic, what I want to say is that Spielberg and Zhang Yimou have such "Jianghu status", and the fundamental reason is not necessarily related to their artistic achievements. If we choose the best film artists in the 20th century, I believe it will be difficult for them to enter the top ten. However, if we want to spread culture to the maximum extent and have a far-reaching impact in the world with film art as the carrier, their achievements are unmatched by many movie master, which naturally endows them with the connotation of a cultural symbol.

From dan brown's best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code, we can see that the world we live in is full of various symbols. But we may not really understand the meaning of these symbols, because we are too familiar with them to think and analyze. As far as film directors are concerned, Spielberg's position in Hollywood is similar to Jordan's position in the NBA. Both of them are top figures, and other mountains are dwarfed ... We are impressed by the charm of Spielberg's works and obsessed with exploring the success or failure of these works, but we often ignore the symbolic power behind his works. Personally, I think Spielberg is different from other directors of his time because he has this power.

In fact, it is very simple to write Spielberg, just search on Google, and the relevant information is extremely rich. From his birth to his entry into the film industry, and then to his gradual becoming a powerful figure in Hollywood, you can find detailed information at every time. The analysis and comments on his works are overwhelming, including quite serious professional works and colorful essays by folk critics. It can be said that if I want to write this article by introducing the background of the characters and commenting on the representative works, I only need to copy, paste and edit it a little, and I can finish it in half an hour. But I think it's boring to do this kind of icing on the cake. If my article is just piecing together materials and grafting mature theory, I might as well list the link addresses of relevant information.

The inspiration that inspired me to write this article came from the interview program of Spielberg and Zhang Yimou recently broadcast by CCTV Channel 6. When I saw two directors with extremely special identities communicating their film experiences face to face, my inner concern was not the film itself, but how these two "symbols" representing different cultures generated sparks of thinking in the collision. In my opinion, the cultural value of Zhang Yimou and Spielberg is greater than the artistic value of their films. Let them spontaneously explore their historical background and practical significance as cultural symbols in communication, which is definitely more enjoyable than talking about the understanding of art and the skills of movies. It's a pity that I didn't see this. I really have some unfinished business. In fact, there are not many opportunities for cultural symbols at their level to communicate with each other. It is with this regret that I changed the original title of this article from "Movies of an Era" to "The Power of Symbols". On the one hand, I think the original name seems a bit melodramatic, on the other hand, I also want to take this opportunity to explain my understanding of cultural symbols.

When it comes to cultural symbols in the film industry, Bruce Lee comes to my mind first. Born in the sixties and seventies, this martial arts wizard left only a few works in his life, but his influence on later generations was endless. It is these works that open a window for western movie audiences to learn about oriental culture. However, we must admit the fact that Bruce Lee's works are not superior to the Chinese films of the same period in artistic achievements, and their acting skills are not outstanding. However, he accomplished what other China filmmakers could not. Why? Because he is different from ordinary movie stars, he has become a cultural symbol, which enables his works to cross the cultural barriers and have a far-reaching impact on the world. Today, several decades later, a star with the same cultural symbol has appeared in China film industry, and she is Zhang Ziyi. Today's media is much stricter than it was more than 30 years ago. When we are indignant that Zhang Ziyi's acting is mediocre but famous overseas, we just misunderstand Zhang Ziyi's identity. A cultural symbol is not necessarily the best representative of a nation, and the cultural symbol in the film industry is not necessarily an artistic elite who is proud of others. You know, most of the best elites have no cultural affinity, and few people can understand them and agree with their achievements. How can they play the role of cultural symbols?

Therefore, I am not surprised when I see a master in the western film industry criticizing Spielberg. Similarly, when some cultural elites in China hold a critical meeting to denounce Zhang Yimou, I also have the right to joke. In the attitude towards cultural symbols, the attitude of the whole world is somewhat harsh. It is normal. You have won such a big market, produced such a high influence, earned so much money and won so many awards. There's nothing wrong with criticizing you. It's polite not to destroy it. If we insist on the logic that cultural symbols are equal to cultural elites, then we will find that no cultural symbol in the world is competent. As far as the film industry is concerned, we can casually list a series of directors who have achieved higher artistic achievements than Spielberg, but when it comes to achievements in spreading film cultural concepts, innovating film shooting techniques, and inspiring audiences' enthusiasm for watching movies, artists who only pay attention to self-expression are far less than Spielberg. The film industry certainly needs artists like Ferini and david lynch, as well as cultural symbols like Spielberg.

Spielberg and Zhang Yimou's talk show left a deep impression on me in two aspects, one is their attitude towards their finished products for the first time, and the other is their attitude towards the narrative elements of the film. Due to mutual respect and good diplomatic etiquette, the two directors maintained a tacit understanding of similar answers on most issues, but revealed some secrets on the above two issues. Perhaps this subtle difference can answer the internal reasons why different types of artists become our cultural symbols. Zhang Yimou felt comfortable when he saw his finished work for the first time, but Spielberg was terrified. This is a typical new wife's mentality, and it is the same psychological characteristic of this kind of directors who take the market as the leading factor and make movies based on the likes and dislikes of the audience. As we all know, Spielberg is good at making entertainment films. Although you can use literary films like Schindler's List as a counter-evidence, on the whole, the biggest feature of stone works is that they are very entertaining.

It should be said that more than half of Hollywood directors belong to this category. Why does Spielberg stand out? This problem is very complicated. Personally, I think the biggest reason is that Smith's works not only perfectly abide by the rules of Hollywood entertainment films, but also set a new standard for this set of rules. If we only discuss the influence of a work on Hollywood and even the whole film industry, Lucas' Star Wars, Cameron's Terminator and the Wozhuoski Brothers' Matrix will not lose to Spielberg's works. However, in terms of the average influence of all the works of a director, it is difficult to find another filmmaker who can compete with Spielberg. From [Jaws] to the recent [Munich Massacre], Smith's works have continuously injected great vitality into the film market for decades, which not only opened up many unique film types, but also left more than ten well-known masterpieces. More importantly, this series of works triggered a very extensive, lasting and far-reaching cultural phenomenon, which is why Spielberg finally became a cultural symbol.

The early Spielberg was a typical director who aimed at the market, but he was not a slave to the box office. He is good at catering to and guiding the audience's appreciation interest. He also tried to shoot director-oriented works and failed. These experiences made him understand that the director's own personality must be subordinate to the style of the whole film, but also to the appreciation taste of all the audience. Therefore, when he communicated with Zhang Yimou on TV, he strongly emphasized the importance of a movie story, and when we looked at his works over the past few decades, we felt that this statement was correct. Spielberg seems to have no intention of shooting an art film with pure stream of consciousness. Even the most serious works, such as Schindler's List, Artificial Intelligence and Private Ryan, are still in the first place, so they are not boring at all, and there is no essential difference from all his entertainment films.

Zhang Yimou agrees with Spielberg's view that narrative comes first, but I think this is mostly out of politeness. Because the greatest feature of Zhang Yimou's works is not how strong its story is, but the strong personalized art form used to express this story. Spielberg praised Hero, saying that it was a classic that pioneered the use of color to tell stories. For a movie, color is of course a typical formal category. Spielberg is the kind of director who knows how to entertain. He not only has a keen eye for the psychology of the audience, but also is better at integrating his artistic taste and values into the film without trace. He is never narcissistic and will not make unprincipled compromises. Now, as the director himself said, his works are becoming more and more "selfish" because Spielberg feels that he has made movies for the audience for most of his life, and it is time to make two films for himself. Therefore, his works have gradually become a bit of a director. Zhang Yimou took the opposite path. In Zhang Yimou's early years, director-oriented works were mainly filmed. Although he has won numerous awards, his market value is far below his artistic value. Now he has also begun to try to shoot market-oriented works, and the box office has achieved remarkable results, but the criticism from the audience is endless. It can be seen that the two famous directors have completely different paths to become cultural symbols. One is to return to individuality from the glory of the market, and the other is to break through individuality and enter the market.

There are often many unexpected reasons for the appearance of cultural symbols, but one thing is certain: it must have strong penetration and compatibility. Spielberg touched the world with his skillful entertainment film skills, while Zhang Yimou conquered the world with a strong and dazzling art cinema form. When two completely unfamiliar cultures collide with each other, the first impression of mutual understanding is often not profound thoughts, but those popular and concrete symbols. Symbols are not necessarily the best representatives, but they must have cultural universality; The products represented by symbols do not have to be recognized by elite groups, but they must be easily digested by the general public. Only by knowing this, can you understand the internal reasons for Zhang Ziyi's popularity in the western world and accept this fact frankly.

In fact, having a cultural symbol is definitely a blessing. Because it reduces the difficulty coefficient of understanding and communication between different cultures, bypasses the difficult theory, avoids the Chun Xue dispute, and shows the world a cross-sectional image of culture. And this is precisely the task that masters and experts are not good at.