That's a stretch whereas my argument, although
purposely provocative, is a fair one.
When the studio system in the US broke, filmmakers got the upper hand, and some formal experimentalism visited American mainstream (!!!) cinema. Hence the New Hollywood was born. Probably the freest epoch in American filmmaking. It's not to say films got noticeably better, but more freedom given to the filmmakers resulted in more grey (as opposed to black and white before) visions, and more personal visions. Of course Americans had auteurs before that, but they were often silenced by the studios, and their masterpieces shattered. But then came Spielberg and changed everything. He made Jaws. Quite a good film, mind you, and a grandiose commercial success, but also a film that started the entire summer blockbuster must-see box office hit idea. Spielberg did put some low-level pulp art in his films, but at the same time infantilised the viewer.
purposely provocative, is a fair one.
When the studio system in the US broke, filmmakers got the upper hand, and some formal experimentalism visited American mainstream (!!!) cinema. Hence the New Hollywood was born. Probably the freest epoch in American filmmaking. It's not to say films got noticeably better, but more freedom given to the filmmakers resulted in more grey (as opposed to black and white before) visions, and more personal visions. Of course Americans had auteurs before that, but they were often silenced by the studios, and their masterpieces shattered. But then came Spielberg and changed everything. He made Jaws. Quite a good film, mind you, and a grandiose commercial success, but also a film that started the entire summer blockbuster must-see box office hit idea. Spielberg did put some low-level pulp art in his films, but at the same time infantilised the viewer.
Spielberg didn't ruin the movies. Movies haven't been ruined by the business model that surrounds them, even as much as I myself have a distaste for that business model and the economic underpinnings that allow it to exist. Great filmmakers, great artists, including Mr. Spielberg, make great films every year, and have been for the better part of a century. They're different types of movies now than what was found in the heyday of the '70s era of morally grey films (films which I also very much like, for the record), but that's a good thing. We shouldn't want to be making the same type of movies we made 40-50 years ago. Film should change and evolve as an art form, at the blockbuster level (where we're seeing interesting work by great filmmakers who have found a way to tow the line between artistic vision and the needs of the business backing them, for better or worse), down to the smallest indie films.
As a filmmaker myself, I don't like the studio system and its constraints any more than anyone else. I would love to see more big budget films based in artistic vision succeed, and I try to go out and support them when I can, but to act as though cinema is dead because Spielberg made some good movies that were popular and changed the industry is simply absurd and to claim that mainstream Hollywood cinema, in spite of its flaws, produces nothing but garbage and we're not getting "valuable American art" each year at all levels of the craft is both patently untrue and completely disrespectful to the difficult work that artists put in every day to create meaningful work in the way that they can within the limitations of the era they live in. Cynical purist gatekeeping is all that is.
Also, here's the Spielberg I've seen, Ranked:
1- Raiders of the Lost Ark
2- Jurassic Park
3- Jaws
4- A.I. Artificial Intelligence
5- Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
6- E.T. The Extra Terrestrial
7- Bridge of Spies
8- Lincoln
9- Catch Me If You Can
10- Duel
11- Close Encounters of the Third Kind
12- Saving Private Ryan
13- The Post
14- Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom