Bill Wyman’s Slate piece undresses Steven Spielberg a bit. That’s cool, I guess. But what’s odd is how Wyman rationalizes his motives:
Spielberg is critically lauded as well in many quarters—he is highly regarded by many major film critics as a true American auteur. But it’s clear that some people find something missing. The Oscar snubs for most of his most serious films suggest a deep ambivalence on the part of many movie people about his work. After watching and rewatching all of Spielberg’s feature films, I think I understand where this is coming from.
A few things. First, why the hell would anyone use Oscar “snubs” as evidence for a filmmaker’s lack of seriousness? Indeed, Tom just used Steve James’s recent “snub” by the Oscars as evidence that they always get it wrong. The Oscars are annoying. Everyone now knows this–even fans of the show know this. Hardly anybody looks at a filmmaker ignored by the Academy and concludes “I guess that guy was not all that after all!”
Second, in what universe have the Oscars snubbed Steven Spielberg? The man has been nominated for Best Director five times and won twice. His movies have been nominated for Best Picture eight times (one was directed by Clint Eastwood, though) and have even won the award once (Schindler’s List). If anything, we could be asking why such a popular director whose films say so little has been so honored as An Artist. Spielberg’s regular entry into the Best Picture fold–this year we have to pretend like War Horse was a serious movie–only confirms one’s suspicion that the Oscars often get it wrong.
Finally, could any piece of cultural criticism be more obviously pretentious than one that attacks Spielberg? Why don’t we write an article about how musically unoriginal Coldplay is or why Steven King just doesn’t deserve the recognition of the Booker committee. Far more provocative would be a defense of Spielberg on artistic merits. Now that would surprise Wyman’s readers.
