BOC: Random thoughts post

[Andy Gilham]

> > _*Batteries Not Included_ was directed by Matthew Robbins, although
> > Spielberg was executive producer - it was originally intended
> as an episode
> > of "Steven Spielberg's Amazing Stories".
> >
>
> Wasn't aware of that, that being the only movie I can remember of
> the top of my
> head that had something to do with spielberg that I didn't like,
> can't say I
> dislike any of hisDirectorial work then. I'll be the first to
> admit I really
> don't know a lot about the differences between the Producer, Executive
> Producer, and Director, except the obvious ones of coarse. I know
> the Producer
> has more "pull" than the director, but the differences between Executive
> Producer and Producer im not sure. But if Spielberg was EP of BNI
> he had to of
> had something to do with the outcome.
>

Well, the producer exercises general control, and handles a lot of the
business aspects.  Artie on _Larry Sanders_.

The word "executive" serves to distance SS further in this case, though.  I
doubt (but of course I wouldn't presume to know for sure) he had anything
"hands-on"  to do with _*bni_.  What I would say he's guilty of - and your
confusion bears this out - is allowing his name to become a brand, and
allowing his publicity to label any film he produces, executive produces,
has lunch with the director of, etc as "a Spielberg film".

My take on SS, fwiw, is that he's an exceptional craftsman who desperately
wants to be an _auteur_ - hence he's not satisfied with the enormous popular
and financial success of his entertainments; he also (rather
self-consciously, I feel) turns to his "issue" films.

How the hell did we get on to this?

- Andy

ObCD: Garbage - _Version 2.0_

mailto:Andy.Gilham at btinternet.com; http://www.btinternet.com/~andy.gilham