Michael Douglas says Steven "I hate TV movies" Spielberg killed his best shot to win at Cannes
Aux Features Film
There are few people in Hollywood more obviously powerful than Steven Spielberg—certified hitmaker, multiple Oscar winner (and governor’s board member), and possibly the most famous filmmaker on the planet. Which is why it’s such a big deal when Spielberg, as he has several times over the last few years, lets his biases be known, especially on the topic of what “counts” as a movie. And while the Ready Player One director has since walked back rumors that he might use his position at the Academy to stop films like Alfonso Cuaròn’s Roma—which was financed and distributed by streaming service Netflix, with a limited in run in theaters to put it into award consideration—from being nominated for Oscars, that hasn’t stopped people from accusing him of letting his alleged anti-small-screen feelings motivate him to action from time to time.
And by people, we of course mean “Michael Douglas,” who took time out of a recent conversation with Benicio Del Toro to allege that Spielberg once fucked him out of a major award at Cannes. Douglas and Del Toro were interviewing each other for Variety about their recent stints in TV—The Kominsky Method and Escape At Dannemora, respectively—when the topic of their shared pal Steven Soderbergh came up. (Soderbergh has directed both men extensively, including scoring Del Toro an Oscar win for 2000's Traffic.) Douglas got onto to the topic of his hypnotically weird (and excellent) performance as Liberace in Soderbergh’s HBO project Behind The Candelabra, which debuted at Cannes in 2013—the year when one Mr. Steven Spielberg was the festival’s jury head. Here’s Douglas:
It was shown theatrically around the world. So I don’t want to say nothing, but Steven Spielberg was the president of the Cannes Film Festival [jury] that year. And the word was, I was the favorite for the best actor award. He put the kibosh on that, because it was an HBO film. So when I now see this argument and beef about Showtime or Netflix, in this case, doing feature films, I think they’ve got to get this resolved.
Now, all of this kibosh mish-mosh is obviously hearsay; Douglas, after all, is very good in Candelabra, but it’s not like Bruce Dern didn’t do great work in the performance that actually won, from Alexander Payne’s Nebraska. But it’s obvious that Douglas, at least, thinks he got screwed by Spielberg’s anti-TV-movie proclivities; Del Toro is smart enough not to chime in on any specific allegations—man’s gotta eat, right?—but they do both agree that the actual difference between TV and film is getting smaller and smaller every year, no matter what Steven Spielberg might think.
101 Comments
“Ready Player One director”That’s the shadiest description possible for Spielberg
Its ironic that Spielberg’s first film was a 1971 TV movie. ‘Duel’ Starring Dennis Weaver’. The first film of my youth to genuinely frighten the bejezus out of me.
I think I might even think Duel (the version with the extra padding to make it longer cut out) is his best film for me personally IMO.
That one blew me away too. I happened to see it again recently and it holds up pretty darm well for a movie that is almost 50 years old (!).
That was a good moive. It should have won Emmies. And Golden Globes.Not Oscars or Golden Palms.
That’s not irony.
Spielberg’s first film was a 1971 TV movie. ‘Duel’
This is from Wikipedia:
Duel was initially shown on American television as an ABC Movie of the Week
installment. It was eventually released to cinemas in Europe and
Australia; it had a limited cinema release to some venues in the United
States, and it was widely praised in the UK. The film’s success enabled
Spielberg to establish himself as a film director
I just wonder what Spielberg thought of it then as opposed to now.
Sounds like Douglas isn’t one of those “It’s just an honor to be nominated” sort of people during awards season.
Like any of them are.
Probably not—at least among the ones who show up to ceremonies. Maybe some of the “Art isn’t a competition” no-shows are sincere about not caring.
I assume the ones with surprising nominations are happy about that. Like Rachel McAdams and Ruth Negga those times were cool with the nod and attention with zero expectations to win. You can usually tell by the way they dress.
“How you Neggas doin’?!”
not buying it:even if the director genuinly doesn’t care than his financier certainly would care (And force the director to come along if he thought that made for better publicity)
I think Glenn Close is OK with it. She’s probably given up ever winning.
She’ll fuck you up if you use her bathroom though.
She’s a winner in all of our hearts, which is all that really matters.
Sounds like Douglas isn’t one of those “It’s just an honor to be nominated” sort of people during awards season.
Because it’s horseshit said to the cameras and everyone knows it’s horseshit. Nobody wants to just be nominated. Everybody wants to win.
74-year old Michael Douglas is one of the few people in Hollywood that has no reason to fear the ‘Berg.Actually, I believe Spielberg is genuinely concerned about the art, but in the same way that people bemoaned ‘talkies’ back in the day. Time and technology marches on, and ultimately, awards are for films, not venues.
“I believe Spielberg is genuinely concerned about the art”Agreed, it’s just that now he’s the old fogey instead of the young brat. Plus, traditionalism is kind of one of his core attributes.
I’ve seen Indiana Jones IV and Ready Player One…trust me, he’s no longer concerned with “art”
First of all, art is dead. So are movies. And Spielberg never made art but popcorn blockbusters. And yeah, watching movies on a tablet or whatever is pathetic.
“Empire of The Sun” is most certainly art.
So are “Schindler’s List”, “Saving Private Ryan” and “Artificial Intelligence”. Spielberg has made a lot of (almost always entertaining) fluff but the man can make great films when he truly wants to.
Aye, but Ready Player One is decidedly *not* art. Honestly, The Post was not art either. It was sub-70s TV movie-quality Oscar bait, and that’s from a huge Bob and David fan. Makes you wonder if movies from “certified hit makers” are considered good just because they keep getting a seat at the table. Clint Eastwood much?
I didn’t see RPO, it didn’t strike me as an interesting concept, and its execution was largely panned as well so I skipped without looking back. Didn’t see The Post either, btw.Seems to me, most established big filmmakers today are rather long in the tooth, and just like their predecessors no doubt, set in their ways. This goes for Spielberg, Ridley Scott, James Cameron… And yes, Eastwood too. Although he’s made/been in some very good movies of course over the years. Not kept up with his recent production, his latest I saw was that movie where he played a cranky old man.lolI meant Gran Torino. 😛 …Which wasn’t that great, granted, but A Perfect World and Unforgiven surely are. Interestingly, those movies are about a quarter century old now, which of course means Clint was a quarter century younger when he made them. (Not that he was exactly young even then, mind you – he was half a decade younger than I am now when I was born… :P)
Of course they’re art. Perhaps not *good* art, but art nevertheless.
RPO is “art” in the way that a kid’s doodling in a school notebook is “art”
No, these items are product, a commodity and little else. They lack soul, and are made for financial benefit, rather than spiritual or social benefit.
RPO is “art” in the way that a kid’s doodling in a school notebook is “art” No, these items are product, a commodity and little else. They lack soul, and are made for financial benefit, rather than spiritual or social benefit. Something can simultaneously be art and product. And those doodles in a school notebook? Yeah, those can be art. “Soulful” and “spiritual” are virtually indefinable words that are essentially code for “this resonated with me.” Fundamentally, art is the expression of ideas or emotions through creative means. There’s no asterisk there to suggest that the creators cannot pursue parallel, profit-minded ends. The most casual glance at Spielberg’s career shows that he develops projects that have emotional, intellectual or ideological interest for him.I consider RPO to be the worst book I’ve read. I hated everything about it, especially its derivative world-building and reliance on cheap reference nostalgia. But I don’t have to like the book or condemn Spielberg to believe him when he says that he found it interesting and worthy of adapting. And if he thinks there are interesting ideas in there, or a story worth telling – if he’s remotely sincere about any of that – he’s making art. And product.
What does “Art is dead” mean? When did it die? Was it long before movies? The same time? Was it a murder suicide thing? I hate the notion that art can’t be entertaing. Of course popcorn blockbusters can be art.Also in what world is a three hour long, black and white holocaust drama a popcorn blockbuster?
Popcorn is an all occasion snack.
Waiting to see what happened to the Jews had me clutching the popcorn bucket in anticipation.
Well, first Jerry Lewis dressed as a clown . . .
Last time somebody went around claiming something was dead they mostly just interrupted a lot of church services and kept leaving their damn lamp lying around. In the day!
So true!Also dead:HumanityLife itselfAll hope
What a silly and pretentious comment. I hope you were doing a bit.
Or a hit.
Spielberg is appreciated as an artist. You can’t call Shindler’s List or Empire of the Sun art?
Ah ha! I KNEW you were Ray Carney!
First of all, art is dead. So are movies. And Spielberg never made art but popcorn blockbusters.
These are three pretty terrible takes. I won’t join the chorus on his overtly artistic movies, but if you don’t see art in Jaws or Raiders of the Lost Ark, you may not know what art is. Just because they are entertaining doesn’t mean they aren’t art. (What a terrible definition for art, really — “must not entertain.” How joyless.)
Warhorse is a masterpiece of art, you philistine.
Art is dead, so are movies. All that remains is threads of the Kinjaverse!
Unless you’re like 16 years old you should be way too embarrassed about these viewpoints to post them online
Movies in general are pathetic, as well as having backdrops or anything. Give me fucking people grunting randomly in a cave.
In (partial) defense of tablets, it you hold it at arm’s length you’ll note ts relative proportions are the same as that big screen TV on the wall at the far end of the living room. I’ll admit it’s not the same as sitting in the 3rd row of an oldstyle theater watching a movie in ‘Cinamascope”.
When I saw his pic in the thumbnail, I was afraid it was his obit.
Yeah I think his age is starting to show. Spielberg’s issue is now the venue not medium. Its still a movie, where you are able to consume it first is the only thing changing. Yet I think in terms of “art” Netflix, HBO, whatever is actually better because there is less corporate overlords than the big studio system. A movie doesn’t have to be hugely mainstream to get onto one of these services than it would to get a huge studio release.
i think he uses the ‘concern about art’ as an excuse to be a knob. it’s the ‘won’t someone think of the children!’ defence.
I demand Pulitzers only be awarded to print newspapers! Let websites get their own damn awards!
Spielberg hasn’t realized that people aren’t watching TV on tube sets anymore.
Wow, last time you reported on Michael Douglas he was a disgraced #MeToo pariah! Now, he’s apparently the protagonist in this article and Steven “unimaginative snarky nickname” Spielberg is the villain for some reason. How do you guys even keep track of all your hate-boners?
Sites live and die of getting “the clicks”. And apparently it worked on you, because here you are. 🙂
If you are so worried about #MeToo, perhaps you should just focus on your own boner.
#MyOwnBoner
It may be a hate-boner, but it’s all I’ve got these days.
Not sure you understand that two different stories are two different stories and that it should be reported.
I’m pretty sure calling Spielberg the “Ready Player One director” as opposed to one of his better films, while he’s lamenting the apparent decay of his medium is a subtle, but strong burn.
Entertainment awards don’t mean anything Michael. Ask your friend Matt Damon. If being married to one of the most beautiful women in the world and having a legendary career that includes the likes of Wall Street, Traffic, Falling Down, and Ant-Man haven’t made you happy, a Golden Snail or whatever the fuck they hand out at Cannes isn’t going to do it either.
If it is something he wanted as a milestone it matters.
Who says he honestly thinks they do? Outside of promotional uses at least, where they do have some value. Are you aware that he doesn’t read internet comments? So your obviously concerned advice for him might not reach its intended destination! Oh dear.
Or it could just be that he mentioned this personal experience because the focus of the discussion was on the friction in parts of the industry over theatrical released film versus streaming service produced film? That when it comes to attaining work, these kind of awards can have drastic effects on people’s careers even if according to you they are meaningless? That he could be considering the impact outside of his own personal experiences, and how it’d affect those who aren’t as fortunate to have had the career he has?
Just some thoughts. Not that I’m expecting someone this embittered over a celebrity having a paragraph of his words quoted and turned into a gossip piece to be able to be interested in any.
Funny how a guy who started out directing the first series episode of Columbo and then a tv movie about a guy in car getting road raged can be such a stick in the mud about the medium. Both are excellent elevations of the medium, no less; he should be able to see the value in TV movies being real cinematic art, even if they’re paid for by a studio that hasn’t been around since the 1920s.
maybe that’s the problem? you think you moved up in the world but now your old job has become cooler than your new job
It’s weird, he genuinely seems passionate about it, it comes off like he sees a division between the two worlds as if one’s more important than the other. It’d be sad if it was just lamenting where he came from and this angry about it.The majority of people see theatrical movies at home now anyway, what’s the difference? Only he truly knows what’s in his heart.
The solution is not to shoe-horn TV fare into movie awards shows but to elevate TV awards to the ‘elite’ level of movie awards. I recall when Cannes screened “The Brown Bunny”. This year its worst film was “Mektoub, My Love: Intermezzo”. TV people wanting to join the Movie club for the ‘prestige’ is folly, especially when TV is where the best work is being done
Michael Douglas is “TV people?”These movies are cinema-quality fare and shown in theaters in other countreis, the only difference is they’re produced by streaming services and pay cable. They’re not some Lifetime cranked out 3 a week slop.
Douglas got an Oscar waaaay before Spielberg did so he’s got that going for him.
So older Oscars have more gravitas?
More of a “Douglas grabbed the brass ring” long before Spielberg. Douglas came from TV too. I like a lot of Spielbergs stuff but his animus towards TV is out of date and out of place. TV now is where most of the best stories are being told.TV isn’t beholding to Chinese financiers/audiences either so considerations and sensitivities towards that market aren’t a factor in our TV shows whereas they are a huge factor in our movies.
OK, I bite.How does “I want TV movies to get TV awards and cinematic movies to get cinema awards” equate to “I hate TV movies”?One can argue if those categories mean less nowadays but as long as the categories are applied, they should be applied properly.
Because if an amazing movie comes to HBO first or has a limited theatrical run and then goes to Netflix or whatever instead of spending three months in an overpriced theater does it make it any less worthy of getting a “movie award” instead of an award that is given to TV shows?
shh. it doesn’t, but they’re going for a whole ‘Spielberg is evil’ thing these days and this is the wagon they’re hitching that argument to.
I agree with him on that. The issue is that festivals like Cannes and awards bodies like the Academy have thresholds set up already that a film must meet in order to be considered. If a film meets those criteria, which Roma did and The Irishman will, then why is that not sufficient? Why do we need to place further hurdles up to prevent Netflix from getting awards if they’re making films that clearly deserve consideration for those awards?
The argument is that the relatively liberal rules for Oscar eligibility were created before this would have been an issue and were meant to accommodate small movies that needed to do a one-week qualifying run before opening wider in theaters once nominations came in. Then large companies like Netflix used the letter of those rules to subvert the spirit of them by giving movies they never really had any ambitions of giving substantial theatrical releases to into what are supposed to be awards for theatrical films.
I can see that argument, but on the other hand, Roma, the movie that started this fight was very clearly one of the best five films of the year and was filmed to look great on a large screen. “TV movie” shouldn’t be used as any kind of pejorative in 2019, but even so, Roma doesn’t remotely fit the stereotype.
Roma is kind of a special case in that it’s a movie that Netflix clearly picked up in order to give themselves respectability via awards rather than because they expected it to be a streaming hit and they gave it more of a theatrical run than they probably intend to for other movies going forward. What the Spielbergs of the world want to avoid is a situation where Netflix’s theatrical releases become more and more of a fig leaf technicality and prestige films increasingly just show up primarily on streaming to the point where they’re indistinguishable from the HBO movies that compete for Emmys.
Roma is a special case as of this moment, but it’s clearly a strategy that Netflix intends to continue. They’re doing the same thing with the new Scorsese movie this year. If more and more prestige films end up on streaming services, it will be because that’s who’s offering great directors the money to make the movies that they want to make. If Spielberg wants to combat that, he can use his $3+ billion net worth to start his own studio like Megan Ellison. Otherwise, he’s just costing talented filmmakers work or arbitrarily eliminating their deserving films from awards contention.
There were some fallacies in what Spielberg has said. He has said that if you work for Netflix that you are committing to a TV format. Not necessarily. Roma was never shot not to be released in theaters. It was given a large theatrical release compared to some “traditional” films of the past. It was just also made available on streaming at near day and date with the theatrical release.It’s true that saying he “hates TV movies” is unfounded, but it’s also odd for him to look at Roma, in particular, and say that was a filmmaker committed to creating a TV experience.
Honestly, I don’t actually see how one can argue against his line of thinking, because if ‘the experience’ isn’t the distinction, then what on Earth is? Single installment? We’ve had that in TV for decades in the form of both TV movies and anthology series. Serialisation? The most watched films of the last decade or so have had that. As pretty much everyone who has reported on his comments has pointed out, the gap between cinema and TV is getting thinner and thinner – so surely the only thing separating them is the setting. Arbitrary though it may seem, it’s literally the only thing now separating the intended experience of, say, the MCU from Game of Thrones. (And frankly, if someone suggests that it’s a film’s quality that makes it more worthy to be considered for the Oscars than the Emmys, that implies that ‘film’ is a better or worthwhile medium than ‘television’, and that someone can just go and get knotted.)
Much like how some deemed Twin Peaks: The Return the best film of that year because they view that medium as inherently superior and feel that calling it the best TV show of the year isn’t enough.
Or because Twin Peaks: The Return was written not as 18-episodes, but as one single script. The fact that it was released episodically doesn’t change that fact.
Except that’s not quite true. That was broken down into episodic chunks for final scripts, each episode being its own thing with regards to pacing and structure (you think the giant script just randomly had them stopping for a song every 50 pages or so where the end credits ended up being?). It was then edited as individual episodes (including ones that were very much their own thing) and presented as such. It’s TV. How the story was written – bear in mind it was always designed and planned to be a TV series (you’d have a point if they thought they were actually going to make an 18 hour movie) – doesn’t change that.
but what _is_ the distinction in experience? is it still a tv-movie if i use a huge projector at home? what if i invite 30 friends to watch with me and serve overpriced popcorn?is it still a theatrical movie if it only plays in tiny indie arthouses?
I mean if the setting is the criteria, why do we even bother including dramatic movies as “cinematic?” There’s no need for them to be shown in theatres, I’m not getting a more valuable experience because “Moonlight” is on a fucking larger screen and there’s surround sound.Or we could just abolish film and television awards as the meaningless masturbatory things they are. Nobody was giving “Starry Night” a Palme d’Painting or some shit.
Yes, awards are inherently bunk – but if you are going to have a distinction between TV and film then at this point the delivery format is the only thing that distinguishes the two. (Because it’s not just the setting, but the *experience*. Booking a night off, going out, sealing yourself off with up to a few hundred other people to share the same experience – that’s different to television, particularly streaming television, where you can watch on a whim, turn it off, rewind, replay, talk, watch in private or with just a couple of people. Being a self-contained story doesn’t make it cinema, and being serialised doesn’t make it television. All that’s left is what experience they’re being made for. Or we do away with awards altogether, or merge the Emmys and the Oscars like the Golden Globes do.)
Haha as long as they also get super esoteric with the experience: “the Oscar goes to… Karen and Mark’s magical evening out in St Lucia where he proposed after seeing Pets 2, and they had that really tasty rump roast!”
What makes netflix movies a “TV Movie”? They show other feature films on their platform and that’s also the kind of movies they make.
It’s not made to be shown in a theater and it never is shown in a theater. Again, one can argue if that distinction is needed – I think it is, but I can see why people would disagree – but it’s there.
What if it was made to be shown in a theater but was then bought by Netflix at a film festival?
“What makes netflix movies a “TV Movie”?”
The fact that they’re not produced for theatrical release.
Because in the case of streaming services like Netflix, often times the movies they get the rights to weren’t intended to be for TV only. They were indies that were shot and planned to be sold for feature distribution. Netflix (and the like) were just the ones who were buying. That’s why people are saying that the end distributor doesn’t matter, because at the end of the day, the movie is still a movie no matter where or how you watch it.
Except that the rules were applied and now he wants to rewrite them so that it is harder for Netflix films to qualify as movies. Also, if Douglas’ allegations are true, then it’s pretty shitty to say you’re not voting for a film/performance that qualifies as a movie because you don’t think it should qualify.
I don’t think he hates TV movies, I think he does dislike what streaming movies being up for awards represents. In fact, he pretty much said as much as his speech was about how he thought the theater experience had to be preserved forever and that allowing filmmakers to receive the most prestigious awards using other mediums threatened that.And besides that, he doesn’t want to properly apply the rules and categories. He wants to change the rules and categories in a way that will make it impossible for movies like Roma to be nominated. That doesn’t benefit filmmakers or viewers.Do we really want a change in Academy award rules to threaten the possibility that movies like Roma come out? I don’t.
I happen to work in a venue that screened Roma theatrically, and I’ll say this much: it felt a lot more like art than Ready Player One did.
In Russia, as well as everywhere else . . . candelabra is behind Liberace!
Spielberg hates streaming because he gets a massive profit from movie theater exhibition deals, that’s why he doesn’t want Streaming to catch on, he thinks we are still in 1990.
What a joke! Spielberg got his start on TV! Speilberg’s first movie Duel was an ABC Movie of the Week! It was awesome, yes. And without it, Jaws would have never been made. So for Spielberg to turn his nose up at the very industry that gave him his start is really shitty.
Didn’t Michael Douglas also claim that his throat cancer came from going down on women?
Just watched Ant Man (Free Library Philadelphia DVD). So veryily good 🙂 Still have Ant Man/Wasp to go! Reviews on AVClub Wkend Report 6/6-6/9 😉
I wonder how much of Douglas’ career was due to Daddy’s name. IE: would the son have gotten anywhere in Hollywood without it? So I’m not feeling the sympathy.
Spielberg did his career all on his own, so yes I’m in awe of the uber-director.
Fuck these Nazi wannabes in Hollywood, toss them from positions of power, they’re useless!!!The only thing you can count on from them, to see their $$$ going to a terrorist occupation in Palestine that murders Palestinian women and children!!!