I'll be rewatching soon, but I have to say that I really liked what Spielberg, or Spielberg and Kushner, did with this fictionalized version of his early life.
I don't know how much is reflective of what actually happened and how much is wishful thinking, but I didn't believe the high school portion for a minute. I took that as something Spielberg wished had happened as opposed to something that actually did.
I did not see The Greatest Show on Earth until years after it was released. My fascination by the time I finally saw it in my late teens or early twenties was with James Stewart's character. When I saw it again years later, I disliked almost everything about it, but I could see how that film would have had an impact on Sammy Fabelman and presumably the real-life young Spielberg as well. It was the biggest box-office hit of its day. People really did like it even if it was a puzzling Oscar winner even then.
Yes, the audience is way ahead of Sammy's revelation that his mother and his father's friend are more than just friends, but the nagging question I had about that was did his father know all along?
Judd Hirsh's brief appearance was a hoot, but I don't think it added anything to the narrative, nor did it take anything away. It was just a nice little insert.
As for Lynch, I thought he did a good job as Ford nearing the end of his career. He had only three more films to make at that point and his curmudgeonly ways were well past being hidden by then.
I thought LaBelle did an excellent job, but Dano's controlled performance was the best in the film for me. I thought Williams did a good job with a difficult role, but I didn't like the character. I don't think we were supposed to.
The Fabelmans reviews
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19338
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
As we used to say in college days, this film just didn’t work for me. I didn’t feel like it made any particularly interesting or coherent statement – beyond “I had family issues when I was young, then became famous” – and, worse from my point of view, many of the scenes that did try to communicate something bigger did so in disappointingly heavy-handed fashion.
To cite a possibly unpopular example: like many, I appreciated the brio Judd Hirsch brought to his (very) brief appearance…but the dispensing-life-wisdom content of his speech didn’t land like something that could have happened in life; it felt like something writer/director concocted to make a point. Sammy may be flattered to find himself viewed as part of this apparently select brotherhood, but wouldn’t he also be suspicious: this guy he only met a few hours ago acting like he knows every secret thought Sammy has? Sammy doesn’t have the skepticism someone his age would have, and the scene, as a result, has no dramatic tension; it just amounts to a laying on of hands. It’s symptomatic of a film that doesn’t have a real grip on human behavior.
Similarly: there was a potentially interesting moment, in the scene where Sammy talks with his father about his strategy for making his film. Dano says, So, you’re an engineer, like me. It feels like the real-life Sammy would have resisted this idea, that he was getting anything useful from his father – his artistic encouragement has all come from his mother; his father has been the “at some point, you have to grow up” killjoy. It would have felt truer if Sammy had fought the notion, and only maybe later realized the validity of it. In the film, though, Sammy just says, Hey, you’re right – because Spielberg wants to present the observation to the audience as fact, rather than play with the human nuance around it.
The worst example of this is that climactic scene by the lockers with the jock. These guys are just way too self-aware for high school seniors; the dialogue plays like it’s a conversation they’d have at their 40th reunion, not something an 18-year-old would say in real time. Honestly, I have a problem with almost the entire Northern California section of the movie, especially anything centered on high school. The bullies felt like something from Back to the Future (not a favorite film of mine). Some people on Awards Watch claim audiences are howling with delight throughout the let’s pray/make out scene; I, on the other hand, stared at the screen in horror -- I didn’t believe a second of it.
That scene by the lockers, by the way, momentarily evoked American Graffiti for me – the scene where graduate Richard Dreyfuss discovers his locker has been given a new combination. It struck me, The Fabelmans and Graffiti are almost bizarro versions of one another: Graffiti seems like a cartoon on the surface, but manages to probe many genuine human emotions; Fabelmans purports to deal in the genuine, but falls back on cartoony crowd-pleasing almost every time. I don’t like having my going-in suspicions confirmed by movies – I always fear I’ve not given the film a chance – but I can’t get past the long-held feeling that Spielberg has learned too well from movies; that his human stories never reflect things gleaned from life, only things he’s seen in other films. Plus, it’s kind of insane that the movie he chooses as his Rosebud – The Greatest Show on Earth – is the one that, in my youth, was universally seen, Crash-like, as the How in god’s name did they pick that one? movie – one of the worst ever. And certainly among the least human.
It’s not that I didn’t like anything about the film. The most interesting element was clearly the slow-motion collapse of his parents’ marriage, and the way young Sammy discovered it. I especially liked the idea that the only way he could communicate with his mother about it was by showing her what he had “observed” (i.e., shot). I also thought the encounter with Seth Rogen at the camera store was a pretty interesting, decently-written scene. But, even this mostly successful chunk of the film had its shortcomings: the audience has, almost from the start, been a bit ahead of Sammy, as far as noticing Mitzi and Benny’s affinity for one another. I’d guess many didn’t take as long as Sammy to draw conclusions from the physical “evidence” he’s accumulated – most had the picture after the first or second indiscretion, where Sammy seems to take half a dozen. It may be that Spielberg means to depict Sammy as in denial – refusing to accept what’s in front of his eyes till it’s irrefutable. But that isn’t made clear, and, for an audience, it comes off as redundancy: double-underlining something we caught onto pretty quickly.
People seem to love David Lynch’s cameo, and it certainly has some zip to it. The film assumes we all revere Ford as some cinematic god, and find his cantankerous aphorisms super-charming and deep. But what does it amount to? It’s not like his Horizon Theory clears anything up for Sammy. But, the way it’s presented, it’s as if the fact Ford behaves like an old crank and tells a shaggy-doggish story somehow confirms Sammy as one of the chosen few, sure to be a great success. (Something we walked into the theatre knowing.) It’s almost a restatement of the Judd Hirsch scene, and didn’t provide any narrative satisfaction to me. I felt, if anything, annoyance at the happy skip in Sammy’s step. That’s all you had to say, after 2 ½ hours?
Small, maybe snarky thought, but one I couldn’t get past: How could such over-the-top ethnics as Judd Hirsch and Jeannie Berlin (who’s now indistinguishable from her mother) give way to the two WASP-iest Jewish parents I’ve ever seen on screen? It’s probably true that the 50s/60s were the high point of assimilation by all non-WASP groups, and if I thought Spielberg was making a point with this, it might have been interesting. But I fear it’s just weird casting. And yet another example, in a film full of them, that making subtle/insightful observations of human characters is simply beyond Spielberg’s skill set.
To cite a possibly unpopular example: like many, I appreciated the brio Judd Hirsch brought to his (very) brief appearance…but the dispensing-life-wisdom content of his speech didn’t land like something that could have happened in life; it felt like something writer/director concocted to make a point. Sammy may be flattered to find himself viewed as part of this apparently select brotherhood, but wouldn’t he also be suspicious: this guy he only met a few hours ago acting like he knows every secret thought Sammy has? Sammy doesn’t have the skepticism someone his age would have, and the scene, as a result, has no dramatic tension; it just amounts to a laying on of hands. It’s symptomatic of a film that doesn’t have a real grip on human behavior.
Similarly: there was a potentially interesting moment, in the scene where Sammy talks with his father about his strategy for making his film. Dano says, So, you’re an engineer, like me. It feels like the real-life Sammy would have resisted this idea, that he was getting anything useful from his father – his artistic encouragement has all come from his mother; his father has been the “at some point, you have to grow up” killjoy. It would have felt truer if Sammy had fought the notion, and only maybe later realized the validity of it. In the film, though, Sammy just says, Hey, you’re right – because Spielberg wants to present the observation to the audience as fact, rather than play with the human nuance around it.
The worst example of this is that climactic scene by the lockers with the jock. These guys are just way too self-aware for high school seniors; the dialogue plays like it’s a conversation they’d have at their 40th reunion, not something an 18-year-old would say in real time. Honestly, I have a problem with almost the entire Northern California section of the movie, especially anything centered on high school. The bullies felt like something from Back to the Future (not a favorite film of mine). Some people on Awards Watch claim audiences are howling with delight throughout the let’s pray/make out scene; I, on the other hand, stared at the screen in horror -- I didn’t believe a second of it.
That scene by the lockers, by the way, momentarily evoked American Graffiti for me – the scene where graduate Richard Dreyfuss discovers his locker has been given a new combination. It struck me, The Fabelmans and Graffiti are almost bizarro versions of one another: Graffiti seems like a cartoon on the surface, but manages to probe many genuine human emotions; Fabelmans purports to deal in the genuine, but falls back on cartoony crowd-pleasing almost every time. I don’t like having my going-in suspicions confirmed by movies – I always fear I’ve not given the film a chance – but I can’t get past the long-held feeling that Spielberg has learned too well from movies; that his human stories never reflect things gleaned from life, only things he’s seen in other films. Plus, it’s kind of insane that the movie he chooses as his Rosebud – The Greatest Show on Earth – is the one that, in my youth, was universally seen, Crash-like, as the How in god’s name did they pick that one? movie – one of the worst ever. And certainly among the least human.
It’s not that I didn’t like anything about the film. The most interesting element was clearly the slow-motion collapse of his parents’ marriage, and the way young Sammy discovered it. I especially liked the idea that the only way he could communicate with his mother about it was by showing her what he had “observed” (i.e., shot). I also thought the encounter with Seth Rogen at the camera store was a pretty interesting, decently-written scene. But, even this mostly successful chunk of the film had its shortcomings: the audience has, almost from the start, been a bit ahead of Sammy, as far as noticing Mitzi and Benny’s affinity for one another. I’d guess many didn’t take as long as Sammy to draw conclusions from the physical “evidence” he’s accumulated – most had the picture after the first or second indiscretion, where Sammy seems to take half a dozen. It may be that Spielberg means to depict Sammy as in denial – refusing to accept what’s in front of his eyes till it’s irrefutable. But that isn’t made clear, and, for an audience, it comes off as redundancy: double-underlining something we caught onto pretty quickly.
People seem to love David Lynch’s cameo, and it certainly has some zip to it. The film assumes we all revere Ford as some cinematic god, and find his cantankerous aphorisms super-charming and deep. But what does it amount to? It’s not like his Horizon Theory clears anything up for Sammy. But, the way it’s presented, it’s as if the fact Ford behaves like an old crank and tells a shaggy-doggish story somehow confirms Sammy as one of the chosen few, sure to be a great success. (Something we walked into the theatre knowing.) It’s almost a restatement of the Judd Hirsch scene, and didn’t provide any narrative satisfaction to me. I felt, if anything, annoyance at the happy skip in Sammy’s step. That’s all you had to say, after 2 ½ hours?
Small, maybe snarky thought, but one I couldn’t get past: How could such over-the-top ethnics as Judd Hirsch and Jeannie Berlin (who’s now indistinguishable from her mother) give way to the two WASP-iest Jewish parents I’ve ever seen on screen? It’s probably true that the 50s/60s were the high point of assimilation by all non-WASP groups, and if I thought Spielberg was making a point with this, it might have been interesting. But I fear it’s just weird casting. And yet another example, in a film full of them, that making subtle/insightful observations of human characters is simply beyond Spielberg’s skill set.
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
A few bits of The Fabelmans had the Spielberg magic, but much of it felt… off. So many scenes felt forced and inauthentic. (Some spoilers ahead). I thought Gabriel Labelle was terrific, as he carried the latter part of the movie on his back. That whole (lengthy) high school section fell completely flat for me, from the monkey, to the bullying (what the heck was that ridiculous hallway scene at the prom?), to the horny Jesus freak girlfriend, to the unintelligible scene with Sammy and his sister after the parents announced their divorce. The editing was a mixed bag, as some parts were slow and dull. I liked Sammy’s early amateur films, which had more life to them than the actual film.
Of the actors I especially liked Paul Dano (though I wished he would have cracked just a bit more) and the aforementioned Labelle. I’m a big fan of Michelle Williams, but I prefer her in more interior parts. Mitzi is a tough part to play: one could go way over the top with the character’s histrionic tendencies. I give Williams credit for keeping it relatively contained, though it’s not one of my favorite performances of hers. Judd Hirsch acts at 100 miles per hour without missing a beat. It was pretty masterly in its over-the-topness, and I don’t begrudge him his nomination as a career tribute.
I liked the idea of Spielberg doing something personal, but in the end it seems he was too close to the material and couldn’t really pull it off.
Of the actors I especially liked Paul Dano (though I wished he would have cracked just a bit more) and the aforementioned Labelle. I’m a big fan of Michelle Williams, but I prefer her in more interior parts. Mitzi is a tough part to play: one could go way over the top with the character’s histrionic tendencies. I give Williams credit for keeping it relatively contained, though it’s not one of my favorite performances of hers. Judd Hirsch acts at 100 miles per hour without missing a beat. It was pretty masterly in its over-the-topness, and I don’t begrudge him his nomination as a career tribute.
I liked the idea of Spielberg doing something personal, but in the end it seems he was too close to the material and couldn’t really pull it off.
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
I liked this more than I thought I would. I'm not the biggest fan of this trend of autofiction, to be honest and I don't think I needed Spielberg's story. But he and Kushner push it in surprisingly thorny directions (particularly with the characterization of Mitzi) and I was surprised at the emotional pull of the story and Spielberg really is a terrific craftsman.
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
I'm revising my review of The Fabelmans. I'm going to take some time to process how I feel about the film. It was a very emotional experience for a host of personal reasons pertaining to my childhood in Phoenix, my parents, and their divorce than I was expecting. A lot of my emotional reaction had to do with Spielberg's command over the medium of film. He's just such a good visual filmmaker and watching him tackle something so close to emotions I am familiar was a really visceral experience. And yet, I'm not sure entirely how successful the film is. There's definitely a snow globe quality to the film and a dearth of story and character specificity that I think it needed. There's a workable idea that young Spielberg had to survive his parents despite them both being loving presences (the artist and the engineer) but I think the film's biggest flaw is that Spielberg's parents' divorce is too big for him to fictionalize too much. The emotions in E.T. are rawer, more specific, more meaningful, and more compelling.
I could -- and probably will -- go on because I'm convinced there's a darkness underneath the surface of this Horatio Alger story, which is totally betrayed by the far too cute ending. I might even re-post what I wrote earlier once I reconcile how I feel more about the film. I'm not holding my breath that anyone will have exactly the same reaction that I had and to be perfectly honest I wish that this film was divorced from the Oscar race and could just be scrutinized as a new film by a great filmmaker. But I was sucked into the film's emotional current far deeper than I was probably ready for at the time and I'm still surfacing a bit.
Oscars, you ask? Well, I'm not sold on it as a strong frontrunner. If it wins, it will be due to other voters having the same experience that I did plus a lack of meaningful competition. At this point, truly, what else is a winner? CODA was a film about a family as well. Certainly, CODA had a stronger, more timely hook than The Fabelmans but cynically the presence of anti-semitism in the film (the film's weakest passage easily) might help it. The biggest factor against it is if people think it's boring, which I could see. I think it's going to get nominated for almost every down-ballot but I could see two possible exceptions that point to overall weakness. I could see people thinking it's slow and it misses out on a Film Editing nomination. Since Saving Private Ryan, only two Spielberg films have registered in that category and certainly more could have. I could also see a world where the writer's branch overlooks it for Best Original Screenplay. Both of those are possible. I think there's also a chance that John Williams' score is too subdued although I think it's a very good one. But right now, I would bet on every down ballot nomination. I think Michelle Williams going lead is a huge mistake. Her character's mental illness is a lot to take in and she isn't drawn three-dimensionally enough when stacked up against Cate Blanchett for TÁR. I think supporting would be a slam dunk. I'm struggling to remember the last time someone was pushed as lead and arrived in supporting (usually it's the other way around). I think Gabriel LaBelle is quite good but I don't think he'll end up making it. I really loved Paul Dano's performance and I think one of the reasons why the film won't connect with viewers is there will be a sense of "What is this all about?" by the end besides "And this young man grew up to be... Steven Spielberg" and that moment really could have been filled in by a bigger final moment between Sam Fabelman and his father. If voters love the film, he might sneak in. Finally, there's Judd Hirsch. If he had one more scene (maybe near the end), I think he would be a safer bet for a nomination or a win. I think by virtue of the fact that he is destined to be everybody's favorite part of the film, he's a safe bet. He understands how to read Kushner better than anyone else.
The more I think about it, I'll say that some have described the film as looking at a snow globe. I felt like I was in one.
I could -- and probably will -- go on because I'm convinced there's a darkness underneath the surface of this Horatio Alger story, which is totally betrayed by the far too cute ending. I might even re-post what I wrote earlier once I reconcile how I feel more about the film. I'm not holding my breath that anyone will have exactly the same reaction that I had and to be perfectly honest I wish that this film was divorced from the Oscar race and could just be scrutinized as a new film by a great filmmaker. But I was sucked into the film's emotional current far deeper than I was probably ready for at the time and I'm still surfacing a bit.
Oscars, you ask? Well, I'm not sold on it as a strong frontrunner. If it wins, it will be due to other voters having the same experience that I did plus a lack of meaningful competition. At this point, truly, what else is a winner? CODA was a film about a family as well. Certainly, CODA had a stronger, more timely hook than The Fabelmans but cynically the presence of anti-semitism in the film (the film's weakest passage easily) might help it. The biggest factor against it is if people think it's boring, which I could see. I think it's going to get nominated for almost every down-ballot but I could see two possible exceptions that point to overall weakness. I could see people thinking it's slow and it misses out on a Film Editing nomination. Since Saving Private Ryan, only two Spielberg films have registered in that category and certainly more could have. I could also see a world where the writer's branch overlooks it for Best Original Screenplay. Both of those are possible. I think there's also a chance that John Williams' score is too subdued although I think it's a very good one. But right now, I would bet on every down ballot nomination. I think Michelle Williams going lead is a huge mistake. Her character's mental illness is a lot to take in and she isn't drawn three-dimensionally enough when stacked up against Cate Blanchett for TÁR. I think supporting would be a slam dunk. I'm struggling to remember the last time someone was pushed as lead and arrived in supporting (usually it's the other way around). I think Gabriel LaBelle is quite good but I don't think he'll end up making it. I really loved Paul Dano's performance and I think one of the reasons why the film won't connect with viewers is there will be a sense of "What is this all about?" by the end besides "And this young man grew up to be... Steven Spielberg" and that moment really could have been filled in by a bigger final moment between Sam Fabelman and his father. If voters love the film, he might sneak in. Finally, there's Judd Hirsch. If he had one more scene (maybe near the end), I think he would be a safer bet for a nomination or a win. I think by virtue of the fact that he is destined to be everybody's favorite part of the film, he's a safe bet. He understands how to read Kushner better than anyone else.
The more I think about it, I'll say that some have described the film as looking at a snow globe. I felt like I was in one.
"How's the despair?"
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
Only 40 critics have reviewed The Fabelmans but it stands at 98%.
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
I'm not saying that it will win or not. I am just saying that its impact on the industry has been underrated by the people on this board.Greg wrote
I could see Top Gun: Maverick getting nominated in a field of ten, but, winning?
"How's the despair?"
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
I could see Top Gun: Maverick getting nominated in a field of ten, but, winning?Sabin wrote: As for what could beat it? I have no idea, but at this point I definitely think the impact that Top Gun: Maverick had on the hearts and minds of the film industry has been underrated on this board.
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
I agree with you. In retrospect, I don't know why I thought The Fabelmans looked so promising. Steven Spielberg has in the past found great emotional depth in exploring rites of passage -- like parents' divorce -- as the subtext of his films (E.T., Catch Me If You Can) but not as text. The TIFF responses seem overly gushy. The one-two punch of my critic friend's unimpressed reaction to it and that red flag of a trailer did it for me. You get points for seeing the warning signs early.Mister Tee wrote
I don't want to be the guy who clings to his pre-conceptions in opposition to evidence, but...I have to say I'm very mistrustful of many of the reactions I've seen (doubly so for any that reference "the magic of cinema.") So many people came into this season with this as their Clear Oscar Front-runner, their echoing of season-long expectation doesn't persuade me they're offering genuine response. Plus, if there's any place where "world-famous director of beloved blockbusters' memoir of his childhood" would get over-the-top huzzahs, it'd be at a populist film festival like Toronto. A question I've heard among the skeptics: if this weren't the autobiography of very-famous Steven Spielberg, would anyone find the story all that interesting?
It'll be nominated, absolutely. And Spielberg could well get that 9th nomination, to tie Marty for 2nd place among directors. But the idea that this is smooth sailing to best picture is another matter.
Not that I have a clue what could beat it. This has turned out yet another disappointing year, third consecutive.
Nomination but not a winner.
As for what could beat it? I have no idea, but at this point I definitely think the impact that Top Gun: Maverick had on the hearts and minds of the film industry has been underrated on this board.
"How's the despair?"
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
I don't want to be the guy who clings to his pre-conceptions in opposition to evidence, but...I have to say I'm very mistrustful of many of the reactions I've seen (doubly so for any that reference "the magic of cinema.") So many people came into this season with this as their Clear Oscar Front-runner, their echoing of season-long expectation doesn't persuade me they're offering genuine response. Plus, if there's any place where "world-famous director of beloved blockbusters' childhood memoir/escapes the pain of youth by watching movies" would get over-the-top huzzahs, it'd be at a populist film festival like Toronto. A question I've heard among skeptics: if this weren't the autobiography of hugely-famous Steven Spielberg, would anyone find the story all that interesting?Sabin wrote: It's an overly gushy first screening so I think it's going to take a while for this one to come more fully into view, but in an expanded lineup and a 91% RT score, it seems like at the very least a likely nominee.
It'll be nominated, absolutely. And Spielberg could well get that 9th nomination, to tie Marty for 2nd place among directors. But the idea that this is smooth sailing to best picture is another matter.
Not that I have a clue what could beat it. This has turned out yet another disappointing year, third consecutive.
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
I think you're right. Even if she has sufficient time to qualify for a leading role, she'll be supporting because she supports the main character. Because she's a Mom.Big Magilla wrote
Question is will they nominate Michelle Williams in lead or support? With no one seemingly being a threat to Cate Blanchett in lead, my guess is that she will be campaigned in support along with numerous other co-leads this year.
It's an overly gushy first screening so I think it's going to take a while for this one to come more fully into view, but in an expanded lineup and a 91% RT score, it seems like at the very least a likely nominee.
"How's the despair?"
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19338
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Fabelmans reviews
Judd Hirsch is reportedly in three scenes totaling less than 15 minutes screen time but it's that one scene that is probably going to get him his first Oscar nomination in 42 years.
Question is will they nominate Michelle Williams in lead or support? With no one seemingly being a threat to Cate Blanchett in lead, my guess is that she will be campaigned in support along with numerous other co-leads this year.
Question is will they nominate Michelle Williams in lead or support? With no one seemingly being a threat to Cate Blanchett in lead, my guess is that she will be campaigned in support along with numerous other co-leads this year.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
The Fabelmans reviews
Strongest acting praise appears to be for Michelle Williams and for Judd Hirsch in a one-scene appearance.
https://variety.com/2022/film/reviews/t ... 235368194/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235217237/
https://www.indiewire.com/2022/09/the-f ... 234760956/
https://variety.com/2022/film/reviews/t ... 235368194/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235217237/
https://www.indiewire.com/2022/09/the-f ... 234760956/