This is a great movie about the perfect family. One day they go to a movie with their son and he sees a movie for the first time and is inspired by the idea of making a movie. It becomes his dream, his passion, his fix idea. A seemingly ideal family is full of contradictions and pitfalls in relationships. But despite this, they continue to live in a difficult world. The main conclusion of the film: You have to do what your heart says. No wonder they gave a golden globe, obviously not in vain!
Steven Spielberg, being one of the most commercially successful directors in Hollywood history, can now afford to shoot anything, and although Fabelmans barely paid off at the box office, in terms of art, it is an absolute success. Moreover, since Schindler’s List and The Color of Lilac, this is almost Spielberg’s first drama, that is, his first serious film in the last thirty years. Of course, for all its declared autobiography, it is a very sentimental picture, quite in the spirit of such works of Spielberg as "Alien", for example. However, in Fabelmans, the director wanted to show not so much the story of the upbringing and maturation of talent as the story of a family that only seems perfect, but in fact is destroyed. Moderately sad, moderately ironic cinema was to the taste of the American Film Academy, loving family stories, and despite the fact that the tape was not given a single Oscar, Golden Globes she received as many as two.
Fabelmans very well demonstrate the infantility of a commercial approach to cinema: here the main thing is to surprise, amaze, touch, maybe even horrify, but not make you think. In this regard, Spielberg’s new picture, for all its external drama, is the same commercial film as the tetralogy (now pentalogy) about Indiana Jones. Once, shooting “Duel” and “Sugarland Express”, Spielberg made the viewer think about the human lot in the industrial era, worked quite in the spirit of “New Hollywood”, however, time passed, and in the 1980s Spielberg became one of his gravediggers, giving one commercial hit after another. Thus, Fabelmans is not so much about the love of cinema as for art, but about the love of cinema, as a powerful external effect, a suggestive weapon. The main character of “Fabelmans” is most striking in the cinema is his infantile escapism, the ability to become a consolation and salvation from the outside world.
And this property of cinema, of course, can not be ignored, moreover, all its masters, especially those who worked in Hollywood, have always taken into account this aspect of it (starting with John Ford, with whom the hero of the film in the finale has a symbolic meeting, I wonder whether it really was, to Kubrick, Scorsese and Coppola). Movies, however, would not have such hypnotic power if they had nothing more than hypnosis. The conceptual content of Fabelmanov seems to completely ignore this fact, because before us is the history of the formation of a commercial director who, even in early childhood, was fascinated by the reconstruction of the external effect of what he saw on the screen in his games. As for the story of the collapse of the family, Spielberg needs it in order to show how cinema becomes a way to escape from the troubles of real life. It is impossible not to admit that this is not only for hundreds of directors, but also for millions of synephiles.
It is possible that the need to consider “Fabelmans” in a commercial way is dictated by the rather average, template acting of Paul Dano and Michelle Williams, who work quite according to the average patterns of modern Hollywood: that is, emotionally, sentimentally, but without existential depth (which is to say, their roles, for example, in “Oil” and “Shame” were head above). Despite the more than two-hour footage, Spielberg's tape doesn't seem cumbersome and littered with unnecessary details, but the power of psychological clichés is strong in it, too. For this reason, we have an outstanding commercial picture, but weak in terms of authorship: Fabelmanov is pleasant to watch, especially if you are a sinophile, but for the same reason it is difficult to forgive aesthetic superficiality and the obvious desire for external effects.
Spielberg, of course, a great aesthete, because many times warm and sincere give scenes with the family, but the one who bites. c content, understand that this film is primarily a recognition in its great global sense of art, It's as personal as Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life," too bare and believable. How well reflected all the close-ups, the camera work at the highest level, a small nuance ... Paul Dano is the most beloved of all, he plays amazingly, such an existential burst of dramatic grain on the screen. And I really liked Michelle Williams, great acting. Spielberg essentially gave us a biopic of himself. And his journey to the world of cinema, despite the $17 million, the whole little box office at the American box office, Stephen. He is more powerful here than ever and confident in himself. The main idea of the movie here is in words. Albert Einstein... “There are only two ways to live your life. The first is as if there are no miracles. The second is like Everything in the world is a miracle. “And the unique music in the film is very beautiful. A great film with its worldview and its sensitive grid conspicuous director - joy. 👏 The review was written on February 25, 2023 – Olya Grinevskaya (Alenushka).
I have an ambiguous attitude towards Spielberg. The fact that this is a great master is absolutely indisputable. But he's also a great technologist. That is, he masterfully chooses the themes of his films, their inner string, masterfully digs out pain points, works brilliantly with actors, builds a plot. Picture, edit. His attention to detail is amazing. But at the same time, he works ironically on patterns. His films are high-tech in the sense of constructing a narrative strictly according to long-developed points of dramaturgy. No departure from the canons. Looking at his films, you can calculate with a chronometer in your hand at what minute the next turn in history will be made, where there will be an “insurmountable obstacle” in front of the hero, at what minute he will face a cornerstone dilemma and the problem of choice. For a master in the craft, this is normal and even necessary. But the artist still has to look for some new moves. Spielberg drives his train strictly on the tracks. Yes, he always finds a new route and drives his locomotive skillfully. But on the rails.
So "Fabelmans" in this regard was not a Spielberg film. It's just a family drama. Here, it seems, the main character is a boy who once wanted to reproduce the train wreck, which he saw in the movies, and his father gave him his home movie camera. And from that moment he began to make his reality, which was often more real than reality. He began to create magic through film and projector. And it turned out that the camera can see even what the human eye can not see. She sees the hidden. And this hidden can be very painful when it becomes obvious.
But it’s actually just one of the film’s boards. No more important is the story of the boy’s family. There is work, and love, and betrayal, and betrayal, and stagnation, and much more. And as usual, all this is filigree filmed and told. This bulky building is written out of a mass of the smallest details. As a result, two and a half hours of ordinary life writing fly by like an instant. And in this film, Spielberg showed that he is not only a great artisan, but a delicately sensitive artist. And that these two facets do not have to contradict each other, but may well coexist within the framework of one picture.
Perhaps for the first time, when watching Spielberg’s film, I did not try to turn on my internal chronometer and look for “turning points” with a cold nose, but simply watched and worried about the fate of the Fabelman family.
If you don't know that this is Spielberg's autobiographical film, it's about nothing. Movies about teenagers making their own films, a car and a small cart. And a lot of them are much more emotional. If you know that this is Spielberg’s autobiographical film, you’ll find... Why should I be interested in Spielberg’s autobiographical film? I'm only interested in the movie, and it's not that interesting. As a result, we get a very technically high-quality film in terms of special effects, actors, staging. After all, Spielberg can do his job. But none in terms of characters, atmosphere, plot. That's 2.5 hours.
A drama about the childhood of Steven Spielberg. There is no drama, he had a happy childhood. Therefore, there are no significant events in the film, the usual boring life of an exemplary middle-class family. The father of an engineer, the mother of a housewife, three obedient children, a dog, a house, a car in stock and money for college children have accumulated, a golden period in the history of the United States. There is nothing to watch, the script is sluggish. Spielberg is old, so I decided to release his autobiography and then you can retire. But technically, it's flawless. The actors play well, the cameraman also tried. And most importantly, that the director of the film Spielberg, and the skill is not to drink.
Despite the length of the film in 2 and a half hours, you can watch it. Is it necessary? Don't know. Because I looked and immediately forgot, there was nothing left in my soul. Cinematographers, probably, will be interested in an ordinary viewer, just a movie for the evening.
This year, two major American awards, "Oscar" and "Golden Globe", gave their main prizes to two fundamentally different films: "Fabelmans" and "Everything, everywhere and at once." And the award for directing was given to the authors who shot these two films: a recognized master and a couple of few previously known debutants. This is not the first time that the Globe has shown itself to be a more conservative award, and the Oscars are next to all new trends. But the main question is: and which of the awards nominated the winner of a better made and talented film?
And this time my heart is with the Golden Globes. Of course, it is strange for many to see Spielberg, fondled with all sorts of awards, again with two statuettes. But, in my opinion, specifically for the Fabelmans, he deserves it. I think this is one of his best films. It has what I lacked in other, deservedly cult, paintings of the master: sincerity and nobility. Despite some exceptions, Spielberg was always more about action and beautiful stories, in such a movie the above features are easy to get lost.
I'm really excited about Spielberg's new work. I may be in the minority. But in that minority, I think, is Spielberg himself. He is finally doing what he has wanted all his life. He wanted to re-shoot the legendary musical that formed his cinematic taste, made West Side Story, mastered a completely new genre for himself in his old age. And now he just made a film based on his biography, and on the most intimate part of it – the one we never knew him from – childhood and youth.
“Fabelmans” is the story of the origin of the director’s love for the art in which he is almost the main master today. After watching this film, we learned a lot from Spielberg about the circumstances that formed his fierce desire to devote his life to cinema.
But the name of the film about the love of the movie is not just the family name, albeit not real. Because the foundation of this love is the director’s family. His parents took him to a movie theater for the first time, they gave him his first movie camera, and they finally took him to Hollywood. Without them, it is impossible to realize the dream of his life. Spielberg’s father, who left at 103, did not live to see the premiere of the film, almost the same story with Steven’s beloved mother. They were not destined to see the most personal and dedicated creation of their son. A similar story was with Fincher's "Munk" - with another of the most personal films of the cult director, shot according to the script of his father and also far from happy received by the audience. Fincher conceived the idea of this picture during his father’s lifetime, and shot almost twenty years after his death. Here is the bitter share of the world’s most successful directors.
The story of childhood and adolescence of Sammy Fabelman, the prototype of which is Stevie Spielberg, may not seem the most original and exciting. The first trip to the cinema, the first shock of the then special effects, the purchase of the first camera, the endless home video shot on it and the family drama hiding behind them. And then it began to spin: a tender relationship with her mother, moving with her father to an unfriendly place, anti-Semitic bullying at school, unrequited love, studying in another profession not related to cinema. And finally a chance to fulfill the main dream of childhood.
Tempted by numerous biopics, the viewer will not be surprised by such plot twists. But in this simple formula, in my opinion, only the advantage of the film. Perhaps Spielberg just wanted to be as honest as possible with the viewer without embellishing anything. In the ability to shoot intricate plots he definitely will not deny. So I would like to shock us with a plot - certainly did.
But as I said, the current Spielberg is different. It is a pity that not everyone is ready to love such Spielberg, which is proved by the collections of the last two (in time) films.
In Fabelmans, it is not the twists and turns of the plot that are important, but how they are shown. In each storyline, touching and nobility runs through: in relations with his mother and the entire large Jewish family, in attempts to heal the crack in the parents’ relationship by the force of cinema, in disarming his main school enemy with this force, in the birth of Sammy’s relationship with his first love and its further development. This is the main strength of the film, without feeling the new film Spielberg, probably really banal story. As always, the terrific music of 90-year-old John Williams should make you feel better. But if it does not work, still the film is just obliged to finish you with a sweet aftertaste after the final scene.
I was rooting for the Fabelmans at the Oscars, and I knew the movie wouldn’t get it. Just like two years ago, I rooted for Manca with the same understanding. These pictures were made for the Oscars too late, they are out of context. The relevance that is in the “land of nomads”, “CODA” and “Everything, everywhere and at once”, in these films are not. I’m also sensitive to trends and I love movies. But the main criterion for me is always artistic value. And in this respect, Spielberg’s creation outweighs. Thank you to the Golden Globe for noting this.
This is largely an autobiographical (read as very personal) picture of the great director. At the heart of its plot is the story of the birth of love for cinema and the first steps in it of a young boy (and in addition to the enthusiasm of the main character, the film is all imbued with love for the film of the director himself, which means there are many symbols and references).
Filming for Sam is escapist in nature, with their help he avoids reality. With the camera and editing skills, the hero can take control of events, manage them as he wants, creating a new reality. This is because there is something to avoid in this life. The ridicule and mockery at school, the divorce of parents because of infidelity of the mother - these are all real events from the past of the director.
Moreover, the Fabelmans also raise the question of the inevitable choice between art, family and love, which the protagonist of course has to make, so it is reasonable to recall the phrase that art requires sacrifices and for it will have to give up much. And it seems that Spielberg, who has devoted almost his entire life to cinema, has the right to speculate about it.
For all cinema lovers, it is a must see how this magic of cinema happens, how films can influence people! For me, this is one of the best films of late! Bravo Steven, bravo!!!
Why are the Fabelmans the top Oscar favorites in 2023?
Moreover, one of the best films in the last few years, has already won the Golden Globe in the main category and the audience award in Toronto.
“Fabelmans” is a confession of Steven Spielberg, his confession of love for cinema, a personal biography of becoming a director, embodied in artistic lyrics. All scenes from the film are based on important memories from Stephen's childhood. So this film is an opportunity for Spielberg to immortalize his story on film, to bring his parents back to life, to give them immortality, to replay old family dialogues, to utter words and feelings that he did not mention, but wanted to say, because then, perhaps, everything would be different. We watch Fabelmanov as a beautiful feature film, but it is primarily a deeply personal story, shrouded in everyday tenderness.
The movie in "Fabelmans" is a separate independent character in the film, playing its functions. On a family trip, young Fabelman (Gabriel LaBelle) makes 2 versions of the film of one film, one - escapist, calm to please the family. The second is deeply personal, which was accidentally filmed the act of infidelity of his mother. So the camera not only takes the hero into the beautiful world of his fantasies, but also reveals a painful truth about reality that he previously did not notice. After a while, he decides to show this version of the film to his mother during an argument. He silently sits her down and turns on the film. Without saying a word, she comes out crying. They're hugging. No words. The film was a form of communication. He said everything. And it was also an opportunity to rebuild reality for others.
And this is just one of a dozen scenes, each of which reveals its special function of cinema in life. It's a movie about the kind of movie Hollywood loves. The kind that everyone loves Steven Spielberg for as a screenwriter and storyteller. A movie that leaves something very warm, pleasant, and inspiring inside.
I will not say anything about the acting and the technical part, because everything was done at such a high level that there is simply nothing to complain about. The actors are incredibly accurate in their images. Gabriel LaBelle - Discovery. Michelle Williams – will root for her in the nomination “Best actress in a leading role” at the upcoming Oscars.
Returning to the Oscars, according to forecasts for today, the chances of the Fabelmans to take the main award are very high. But if a decade ago such an outcome would have been obvious, now the possible favorite is not the lyrical autobiography of Steven Spielberg, but an energetic hipster game of multiverses with a fashionable Asian accent called Everything is everywhere at once. Well, we'll talk about her.
Steven Spielberg created a semi-autobiographical film about a boy who was once impressed in a movie theater by the scene of a train crash and has not parted with his own new video camera ever since.
The director's handwriting is felt throughout the film. In particular, this is a tasty, clear and leisurely narrative about complex relationships in the family that are undergoing a deep crisis and some special yellowish light in the frame that gives warmth to the whole picture. The plot itself has recently been touched one way or another by some directors, as if every great master in his later years wants to make a film about himself.
The main problem of the film is the clash of interests of the main character, who dreams of devoting his life to the art of cinema, and his family, namely, his father, who opposes his son’s hobbies, generally not hindering his hobby, but not taking him seriously. An interesting idea is given by a fleeting character who says that there can be no compromises on this issue, and there should be one clear choice.
The images themselves, as well as the acting, did not impress me too much, and Michelle Williams, nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress, did not give out something unimaginable. Moreover, her character at times annoyed me with his inconstancy, despite a number of reasons to explain her behavior. The finale is very refined and contains a cool reference and positive ellipses in the spirit of the classic Spielberg, who also competed, albeit unsuccessfully, for the Oscar for best director.
8 out of 10
I may be overly biased in my assessment of the Fabelmans, but I will not admit my guilt here. It's all about Steven Spielberg. I do not know how, but when, it would seem, with serious filmmaking he has long since finished, suddenly out of his pen comes the wrong confession, or testament, summing up all his outstanding life and career.
Fabelmans are primarily attracted by the fact that they do not follow the usual tropes of cinema of this type. This is not a Hollywood success story, but a very sincere family drama. Spielberg’s connection with the cinema in her is only a circumstance that helps him see more and cope with certain life difficulties. And the problems in the life of the master was no less than any other.
The core of the film is the relationship between the son and mother. It is from her, as the circus grandfather explains, he inherits a craving for creativity. But, as often happens, it is the closest and dearest people who cause the most serious pain, which becomes a source of inspiration for a young director at an early stage of his creative path.
Fabelmany shows the origins of almost all major films of the master. Quite a lot of attention is paid to the Jewish topic, and this is done not in the modern manner of curtseying towards political correctness, but with all seriousness. Like Tarantino in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Spielberg shows the magic of cinema in action, how filmmaking changes reality for the better. I don’t know if the events shown in the last third of the film took place or if they were, but the idea that cinema is really capable of such a thing is encouraging.
The technical side of the film is flawless. Spielberg shows his work at the home editing table so contagiously that there is no doubt why he became synonymous with cinema. It's all about personality. Everyone today has all the necessary film equipment in the phone, but new Spielbergs do not appear.
It was a pleasure to see Gabriel LaBelle as a young talent – it is not often in large projects that give way to young people. Very mocked star cameo in the scene of the release of Spielberg in the big movie swim. But the best part was that Spielberg, after so many years, has retained a love of art and is still capable of inspiring.
The film was interesting, as the conversation about it began long before the release. Interest managed to satisfy, a bit of pleasure and pleasant impressions to catch. But to call the film not that a masterpiece, but even outstanding - the hand does not rise. Quite an ordinary film autobiography - Spielberg's version of Childhood. Boyhood. Youth.
The inconclusive role of Michelle Williams. And the problem, as it seems to me, is not in her, but in the fact that the image is not sufficiently spelled out - as a result, the motivation for her actions is not clear and inconclusive, and I would say inadequacy. Replayed the theme JLM (BLM on Jewish theme). Perhaps the author himself (young Stephen) perceived all this as such, but in cinema this is almost the main conflict (only the crisis in the family outweighs this experience of GG), while it is all white and fluffy, almost holy, and everyone around is either weak (captives of their passions and shortcomings), or angry or indifferent. . .
Movies lack depth. But in general, against the background of the general mainly slag products of modern Hollywood, it is quite watchable, worthy of attention cinema.
1. Fabelmans did not cause special feelings. I knew it was the story of Spielberg’s childhood and youth, but it didn’t catch on.
Like most, I predicted the film would leave with at least one Oscar, but none of the seven nominations did. And this fact even reassured, because before the award I tried to impose a good impression of the picture.
It seems like a movie is a series of different crises, but they pass so smoothly that you do not really care for the characters. We’ve seen all of this in dozens of other films. This is essentially a biography, apparently it is difficult to transform the plot from true stories about yourself. However, the character Michelle Williams was interesting to watch, for me she was the central character. The actress perfectly played this unusual woman.
I felt like I was watching a few episodes in the middle of an average series. The message is to listen to yourself, not to deny yourself a dream, great, but the serve causes yawning.
I wanted to write a neutral review out of respect for Spielberg, but honestly, I missed the lengthy timing of the film. I'll keep the score higher.
“When the horizon is on top, it’s interesting.” When the horizon is below it is interesting. When the horizon is in the middle, it’s not interesting. – David Lynch
I’ve read a lot of reviews about this movie, but is it really that good?
It's 1952. The Fabelman family, Bert and Mitz, will introduce their son Sammy to the cinema for the first time. At first, the boy is frightened by everything he sees, but after the scene of the collision of trains in the film The Greatest Show in the World, he is seized by interest in this. I think it is clear to everyone (who knows the film) that it is the autobiography of Steven Spielberg, the director of this film. The man who forever changed the film industry and gave the world a huge number of beautiful films. This is definitely the most personal film in the career of a famous director.
The film itself, on the one hand, perfectly copes with taking the viewer into this nostalgic era, but, on the other hand, in the plot plan, it is a frank retro drama. But, on top of that, I was comfortable watching this movie, especially seeing how events change the character’s worldview and how it responds to his films. Spielberg does not try to show the viewer what he went through before - school humiliations, separation from his family, etc., and does not ask the viewer to feel sorry for the hero, he shows what exactly influenced his adult cinema. It was unexpected to see a cameo by David Lynch (honestly, I didn’t immediately recognize him, and when I began to guess, I didn’t immediately realize it was him). His phrase, which may become a cult in the cinema.
In summary, I want to say that the Fabelmans are made with the whole soul of Spielberg and not only as a love of cinema, but also as an acceptance of himself in this world, and devote his whole life to the cause.
Just watched a very cozy and pleasant film by Steven Spielberg 'Fabelmans', for a moment, the picture is an Oscar nominee.
This is a very personal Spielberg story, essentially an autobiography with a certain percentage of fiction. Steven shows the flowering of his love for cinema against the background of difficult events in life, family divorce, moving to a new city, and others. Cinema here is magic, a way to convey the smallest shades of feelings and emotions when words are not enough, the opportunity to become stronger, and just a favorite thing?
Despite the fact that the film is autobiographical, I want to attribute this film to the category ' Confessions' where the director just gets high and shows what he loves the movie, which is very similar ' French Herald' Wes Anderson. Separate recognition deserves David Lynch as John Ford, and the moment with 'right horizon'.
The output turned out a very warm and beautiful picture, with stunning editing, coolly selected music and atmosphere. ?
Steven Spielberg’s Fabelmans made me feel ambivalent. On the one hand, the film is kind, colorful, moderately dynamic, with an idea. It well conveys the spirit of America 50-60-ies and in general it is made in the best traditions of soul cinema. And on the other hand, I was confused by excessive sentimentality accompanied by touching music, a set of verbal cliches in the dialogues of the characters. “Fabelmans” is the case when the technical side is stronger than the script, since individual played moments caused a feeling of awkwardness.
As you can see, I do not share the enthusiastic reviews about this picture. For such a famous figure as Spielberg, the film is if not weak, then much inferior to other works of the master. In my opinion, the director brings in terms of sentimental scenes, after which there is a sweet aftertaste. And this, personally, does not affect me, but rather repels me. Spielberg seems to make us, the audience, to let down a tear (the same story was in the finale of “Terminal”). To do this, deliberate techniques are used, because of which the work is naive and looks artificial. More natural look pictures in which they use other ways to evoke emotions, doing it more naturally and naturally.
At the same time, the film was not boring to watch, it went at a normal pace without unreasonably prolonged scenes. Spielberg shared personal, intimate, filmed his memories, nostalgia, transporting us back to the past, in the period of his childhood and youth. Here you can clearly see how he reverently, lovingly relates to the work of his life - cinema. The author says that you can not give up your dreams and go against your desires. Such films in Hollywood are in good standing, so it is not surprising if the Fabelmans take away the main Oscar awards.
Despite my claims to the master’s film, it cannot be said that it is bad, by any means. This is quality work done by all standards. My hand will not rise to put “Fabelmans” in the category of “negative”. At the same time, I can’t agree that Spielberg’s creation is “10 out of 10” and definitely deserves the right to fight for statuettes with other nominees, because it doesn’t stand out much from the others. If you look in the context of just a good, not pretending to be a picture for family viewing, Fabelmans is a good option. It is unlikely that they will be fixed in history or will be included in the top of the best works of the director. Yes, the movie is cute, easy, soulful, but average and does not correspond to rave reviews.
Steven Spielberg is the legend who invented the blockbuster. Maesto plays with many genres, but what horrors, comedies, adventures, dramas, fiction allow you to calculate the director by the author’s approach and love of detail. A lot was shot, a lot of inspiration, so today the last film of Spielberg “Fabelmans” tells the biography of the director himself, with all the difficulties on the way to the cherished goal. The film can be viewed in different ways: as a great story of obsessive cinema Sam Fabelman, as an open door to the creation of cinema and as the life of Spielberg. In any case, the movie is fascinating and instructive.
It all began with a trip to the cinema, where little Sammy first saw moving pictures and a gripping story on the big screen. A great reaction of the boy, a comparison of the fear of going to the movies and the impression of what he saw in the cinema. A Jewish family that creates an idyll with its own perspective on life. The father and a family friend conquer new technologies, the mother is a pianist, the sisters play with dolls, and Sam dreams of the scenes he saw. Making a movie is a vocation, it is a passion. The example of young Sam shows this clearly. The consequences of a train crash on the big screen are reflected on the boy in an unusual way. The tape sticks out a slight fascination and sets the tone for development.
Our eyes are offered the process of shooting, selection of angles and installation technique. Meticulously, Sam glues the footage, disassembles the film, shoots. Running with a camera, effects of a particular genre, actors in the face of sisters and friends and the final show of the audience. It's very exciting. It's a demonstration of how movies are made. Involuntarily you think that, like the character of Sam Fabelman runs around with the camera, and Steven Spielberg himself with, of course, more modern technologies shoots this film.
The interior of Fabelman is the process of making movies. The outside opens up the family as a whole. The relationship is not simple, and the presence of a family friend Benny performed by the unrecognizable Seth Rogen was suspicious. The oddities were in harmony with Jewish traditions, activities and the development of internal conflict. You can see how certain episodes in the family affect the young director, how he faces a choice: family or passion for cinema, how he receives guidance from his cousin. People around believe in him, star in his short films, create scenery themselves. It is striking how the boy finds the effects of complex frames, whether it is the killing of soldiers, the dust from the carriage stop and the actual crash on the railway tracks.
Natural shooting of family hikes hurt the new feelings of the boy, in addition, he grows up, so after the change of town, Spielberg builds the problem of school “bulling” and self-acceptance as a person. Family conflicts now overshadow school life, especially through threats, violence and bullying. We see what a teenager goes through, what he faces, how he endures all the beatings to give a masterpiece in the final of the school: not just a film about a school hike, but forgiveness, reinvention and proof that whoever people proclaim themselves, on camera they are what they really are.
Each stage in Sam’s life was accompanied by family problems, school troubles and faith in destiny. The climax shots in the studio’s office were impressed by the meeting with Western director John Ford, who was played... this surprise will leave the audience. The director shows one important thing for young Sam to see and be inspired.
"Fabelmans" is not just a personal picture for Spielberg, it is about the Cinema in technical terms. It allows you to immerse yourself in the history of cinema.
Steven Spielberg, being one of the main narrators of amazing and incredible stories in the world of Cinema, carefully envelops his autobiography into a magical fairy tale, here and the speaking surname of the main character of the picture named Sammy Fabelman is not accidental. Spielberg demonstrates his stages of growing up and becoming a director as if from a third person, without making any comments about his titles and awards. The film is more about following his dream and love for the cause, rather than reproducing in chronological order moments from the life of a famous director, mentioning when and in what year he shot his most famous works. When watching, there will be no uncomfortable feeling from the variety of dates on the screen or screaming frames with warnings about the absolute reality of events. The film immerses in the atmosphere of home comfort, greed for new knowledge and discoveries, and carries with it, showing a picture of events occurring around, through the eyes of a child.
From a technical point of view, the film is perfect. The acting ensemble is exceptionally delightful, the atmosphere in the circle of the Fabelman family embraces its warmth and coziness. Judd Hirsch’s episodic character appears as a thunderbolt in the clear sky, like some fairy-tale visionary characters, giving instructions to the Adventure Seeker and disappearing into the fog. A truly bright image, deservedly noted in the award season. Inadvertently recalls a similar image of Sam Quint performed by Robert Shaw from Spielberg’s film “Jaws”, the sailor’s monologue as if from ancient fables changed the pace of the storytelling of the picture and for a few minutes made you a silent interlocutor. The camera of Janusz Kaminski in the new picture of Spielberg with special tenderness catches the enthusiastic faces of moviegoers, sadness in the eyes of the characters of the film, hiding their inner flaw, or the look of the master, with his head immersed in his favorite business. And John Williams' magic soundtrack is like the icing on the cake. It’s a shame that the great actor Paul Dano was not nominated for an Oscar again. This is not the first case in Dano’s career, during the release of Paul Thomas Anderson’s work “Oil” the Academy for an incomprehensible reason also ignored the outstanding work of the actor.
Many scold the picture for simplicity, freshness and lack of any innovative techniques, compare not for the better with the new picture of “Babylon”. Indeed, “Fabelmans” is not pretentious at all, the picture does not try to occupy the pedestal of a new masterpiece, but it is a masterpiece. Such is the picture of attention to trifles and details, painstakingness and dedication to your favorite business, shown on the screen. All this allows you to see “Fabelmans” not just a fabulous adventure, but also a story that opens the veil in the world of artists, because sometimes the act of creativity is an attempt to “escape to nowhere” from the crumbling familiar world around you, and the opportunity to take control of your fears. It is these components that bribe, giving delight from a truly touching and open, albeit old-fashioned love letter to the Cinema. While Damien Chazelle demonstrates some controversy and a completely unconventional approach in Babylon, he misses the point. And so Spielberg believes a lot more.
Fabelmans amazingly touch the strings of the soul of the viewer with their sincerity, the film as a time machine makes you mentally turn to childhood and youth in your memory. A piercing work about the loneliness of the artist, about the tender love for his family and passionate about the cause of his life, about the attempt to express his feelings and reconcile with loved ones who are so missing in real life. The story of Spielberg is both a very personal and confessional work, and a beautiful multifaceted fairy tale that opens the door to the World of Dreams. A story that gives children a sense of beauty and the triumph of inner kindness in a person.
An incredible movie, inspiring and allowing you to look at cinema from a new angle. I definitely advise those who are interested in the person of Steven Spielberg or cinema as art. The director managed not only to shoot an interesting film on the basis of his biography, but also to create a love letter to the cinema & #39; and it is very strongly felt, everything shown creates an incredible atmosphere of ecstasy of cinema, from the first movie Sammy watched to the shootings organized by young Fabelman. All this looks fascinating and incredibly interesting, Steven Spielberg on his example proves that if you are really passionate about something, even a small hobby can radically change the life vector and become the main business of your life.
The whole value of the picture is that Spielberg allegedly for the first time openly talks with his young self (in this case with Sammy) and at the same time reveals himself to the viewer in a new way. The facts of the biography are told from 3 persons, and the director himself sees all the upcoming dangers for parents and himself, but does not warn the young Fabelman about any, because this difficult path will lead the director to popularity and skill. After all, it is not for nothing that Spielberg’s name has not come off the screens for almost half a century, and Fabelmans in terms of production, filming, music and the general technical side are just perfect. The director always acts as a link between the team working on the film and the audience and here Stephen only strengthens his role and helps both parties to come to an understanding.
Incredible acting work, whether it's Paul Dano and Michelle Williams, known to the audience and perfectly conveyed the images of the parents of the protagonist (it's even worth just comparing the frame from the film and the real photo of Steven's parents, they are literally like two drops of water), they embodied their roles simply magnificently and if Michelle Williams was declared at the upcoming Oscar in supporting roles, there would be no chance for her loss, but the company of Michelle Yeo and Cate Blanchett seems to prevent her from showing herself.
Gabriel LaBelle, for whom I understand the film was the first major work in a leading role, may not be getting better & #39; parents' but clearly attracts and steals all the footage with peers. The way he showed Spielberg’s passion for filming is simply amazing, he believes and wants to watch, he infects with his enthusiasm, his approach to films. . .
Separately, Judd Hirsch appears literally for 10 minutes, but it is he who conveys the main idea and idea of art to the younger Fabelman, his performance was deservedly marked by the nomination.
A separate factor here is the attitude of the hero to the camera, if in the beginning it plays the role of a simple tool for making films, then after a turning point, Sammy realizes that the camera sees much more than he and everyone else. It is the camera that is able to show those important little things that help to see the full picture (as he himself says in the finale to the local star of the school). And it is at this turning point that our hero grows up and begins to rethink everything he has seen before. A further conversation with the parents may be an attempt by the current Spielberg to understand the situation and talk to adults about it.
According to the result, a great film, telling about the beginning of the path of the great director. The picture inspires and surprises, you believe everything that is happening, and you clearly do not have to be bored while watching. Stephen talks about his love of cinema and it is difficult to disagree with him
9 out of 10
Biographical film by Steven Spielberg leaves after watching only pleasant impressions.
The film tells the uncomplicated story of Sammy Fabelman’s growing up, his family and inexhaustible love of cinema.
Andre Bazin, the famous film theorist, noted the existential beginning of cinema in his works – the desire of a person to capture a moment that will remain for a long time, to immortalize it in the memory of the audience, to make the director’s work immortal.
These emotions are experienced by the main character, trying to overcome his childhood fear, creating films for his friends and classmates. This is his purpose, which does not find universal approval. The confrontation of creative impulses and pragmatism in choosing a life path is the central conflict of the picture.
The background to the film are soulful, cozy moments of Fabelmans. Their love for each other is natural, warm relationships soothe the soul, and sometimes squeeze in the grip.
A separate mention deserves the acting of Michelle Williams - the mother of the protagonist and the subtle construction of the human soul in a cruel, but such a human struggle with herself.
A place in my heart for a long time took the apt phrases of the characters of the movie, which only costs a dialogue of classmates about the meaning of smoking. History has lit in me the fire of creative self-knowledge, courage in fulfilling dreams.
Ultimately, "Fabelmans" - the benchmark for the creators of biopics. "Belfast" Kenneth Branagh nervously smokes on the sidelines. A film without flaws that deserves a lot of film awards.
Steven Spielberg ventured to unleash emotions. The autobiographical work “Fabelmana” opens a window into the personal space of the Hollywood titan to demonstrate the price paid by the director for a high-profile name, sounding authoritative rolls for half a century and resulted in masterpieces of cinematic art. The creator of “Jaws”, “Indiana Jones”, “Jurassic Park”, “Empire of the Sun”, “Schindler’s List”, “Terminal” and a dozen other hits grew up in a Jewish family, where there was neither special wealth nor at least emotional sensitivity. Young Steve often had to look around through the glass of a shaggy car carrying a simple electrical engineer and a failed pianist along with their four children from state to state in search of a better share. The camera was first in the hands of the boy after the first trip with his parents to the cinema and the first batch of impressions that changed his life. Sammy Fabelman, aka Steven Spielberg, then received a ticket not to a crowded hall with a dozen rows of seats, a quietly murmuring projector and a mesmerizing blue screen. The guy got a ticket to the industry, where he will be able to turn the idea of mass cinema.
The secret essence of the tape becomes obvious with the timid request of Sammy to buy a toy railway like the one seen in the movie, but the tone of Fabelmans differs from other confessional films, like Giuseppe Tornatore’s New Cinema Paradiso and especially Tarkovsky’s Mirror. Spielberg allows you to look into your soul, which is unexpected for a delicate and stressed conflict-free director, while the facts from the biography are presented more from the third person. The director seems to conduct a dialogue with the boy Sammy, talking about the dangers that the young man will face, and at the same time does not save him from any, since this thorny path led the enthusiastic enthusiast to the alley of creative immortality. The role of the interlocutor and situational mentor as a transitional position goes to a hot-tempered mother, then a rude cousin, and even a Catholic girlfriend - the first passion of a teenager Sammy. Each of these characters says unpleasant things, inadvertently makes the guy doubt the correctness of the future, illuminated by the eye of the lens, and it seems that the next conversation will make the novice director throw the camera away in a dusty corner, but this does not happen. It is noteworthy that in the cinema there is never a question of a high calling - Spielberg managed to do without excessive edification and pathos, but the words about the importance of following a dream sound with genuine tear.
The stages of growing up of the future master are held against the background of family problems, anti-Semitic harassment and disappointments on the personal front, but the main companion in life – the camera – keeps faithful. The director with such love shoots close-ups of a new instrument that the heart will shrink even from someone who has never made an amateur home video. Spielberg at the same time recalls the already banal truth that it is not film school that makes new cubes, Camerons, Nolans, pumpkins and bessons out of boys. All these directors, like Stephen himself, did not finish the institutes, and began a long way on one wish. Although it is impossible to do without sharing experience with titled colleagues, and therefore a brief appearance in the frame of another mastodon - David Lynch as a connoisseur of Westerns John Ford is crucial. The theme of succession according to Spielberg is adjacent to the difficulties in the relationship between fathers and children, to the problems that arise as a young man grows up, who had to rely on perseverance and even stubbornness, when even close people do not see anything in classes with the camera except a cute hobby. To believe in a guiding star with such a sad entourage could only hopeless romantic, and the director shows it - even in a sprawling form and with a broken nose.
Spielberg returns to the suffering of a single man regularly throughout his career, but for the first time since his experience with Artificial Intelligence. Steven was outspoken. In the fantastic drama about the boy-android was easier – came to the aid of the language of metaphors, and in the “Fabelmans” have to speak directly. Greatness does not fall from the sky, but is won by love, honesty and devotion to this sphere, where one comes full of ideas, plans and hopes. Craftsmanship, if he lives in Spielberg, then on the rights of the half-sister of the muse of creativity. The director is still, like fifty years ago, hungry for accomplishments, and on the previously tested autobiographical field of his predecessors manages to bring out a new variety of anemones, or "Calanites", who enjoy honor on the Promised Land. Spielberg collects a bouquet of desires, skills and dreams so that their intoxicating smell reminds not of the vicissitudes of the past, which can no longer be changed, but of the parental lessons learned, which made it possible not to bow your head under the yoke of hardships and failures. Grandpa Stephen at heart and remained a good-natured boy in love with cinema, but the unique combination of artistic talent and entrepreneurial vein allowed him to become an icon of the entertainment genre. Spielberg like no one deserves this author’s benefit, because the touching lyrical work remains rich and as a first-class production with expressive acting and instructive morality.
I wouldn’t be surprised if 'Fabelmans' get 'Oscar' I would rather be surprised if they did not take the statuette for the best film - because the picture really deserves it.
In 2.5 hours, we will live more than 10 years with an ordinary, at first glance, Jewish family, see the growing up of the boy Sammy, the relationship of his parents and, most importantly, the path to a dream. During all this time, I managed to laugh, cry, and recognize myself in several heroes at once. The film is shot very atmospheric, and after watching remains that bittersweet, warm feeling on the soul, as if returned to the carefree past or scrolled through the old album.
I think the main emphasis here is still on the passion of the hero, although it seems to be the background for the life stages of the boy and his family. Steven Spielberg made a movie inspired by his childhood, and through the screen we are transmitted the main motive of the picture – love of cinema. After ' Fabelmanov' involuntarily remember about children's hobbies and think, why did you not follow the call of the heart, and chose the same ' necessary and serious' that did not make you happy?
Of course, the actors played 5+, even the smallest. But most of all, Michelle Williams was impressed, so organically she looked in the role of the mother of the family. She authentically conveyed all the drama of her character, and if at the beginning of the film I did not like Mitzi, then by the end of it I sincerely empathized with her and did not condemn. I would also like to mention Gabriel LaBelle - I have never seen him before, but the guy definitely has talent. He's a great Sammy, sorry, Sam.
The main insight (now they say that?) is caught after Sam and Logan talk - in my opinion, this is the strongest moment of the film. Mitzi, Bert, and Benny all evoked different emotions, but in the end I understood and accepted each one. Well, the appearance of David Lynch was pleasantly surprised - it is a tribute to the genius of the director.
I recommend it to anyone who loves cinema, wants to go back to childhood or just watch a great movie after work.
When the horizon in the middle is so fucking boring.
When I first started watching, I thought that Spielberg probably decided to talk about himself. I was pleasantly surprised when I found out that I was not mistaken.
Sam, a six-year-old boy, saw the train crash on the big screen of a movie theater and was so impressed by the scene that he decided to repeat it at home with a toy train. So there was a director who will collect many awards in the future. That’s how by chance in the world there was one more brilliant person. Gabriel LaBelle, who played Sam-teen, perfectly takes out the whole film. To be honest, I'm surprised he didn't get a nomination, but what a year he was. And not for him Spielberg in general started this picture, but for another addition to his collection of awards. There have been a lot of nominations lately, and the result is disappointing. But this picture will most likely bring him a long-awaited victory.
I want to celebrate Michelle Williams' amazing performance - she's a star here. This lady has been asking for an Oscar for a long time, so I think it’s time to give her the deserved award.
The tape is quite simple, there are few unexpected plot twists. Yes, there are scenes of bullying at school because of Sam's Jewish background, there are problems in the family, but it all passes in the background and becomes part of the growing up of the protagonist. What matters most to Sam is what happens on the other side of the camera. And although the plot flows smoothly with the flow, the picture is not boring, I was interested to watch Sam with fire in his eyes editing his first & #39; film & #39; as he tries to make it more believable. It's probably always interesting to watch people who are passionate, they're so enthusiastic, and Gabriel LaBelle was able to infect the viewer through the screen. This is how you can earn a name for yourself only if you are sick with what you love. Neither money nor fame should be in the first place, but only a great pleasure in what you do.
Most directors have a moment when they want to make a movie for themselves, not for the audience.
So it was with the recent “Babylon”, also turns in his “Fabelmans” Steven Spielberg.
The film tells about the childhood and growing up of Spielberg.
The first trip to the cinema is so ingrained in the soul of young Fabelman that the scene of the train crash always stands before his eyes.
The mother supports her son and he is making his first film about the train crash.
So in the life of Sam Fabelman there is a movie.
On an amateur camera and attracting friends, Sam shoots the first films - about cowboys, war and real friendship.
Moving, accepting their identity, because Fabelmans are Jews, and they are not very favored, unfortunately.
Some may laugh at the scene of the performance of Kalinka-Malinka, but the ancestors of Steven Spielberg were Ukrainian Jews who fled on a steamship in 1910 across the ocean.
The first love and choice of life path, the first failures and mistakes.
It is like life, it is not cloudless.
And the finale is obvious to us, Steven Spielberg aka Sammy Fabelman will start making films and will definitely go down in history as a successful filmmaker.
And all the more fun to see near the end of the film, David Lynch, who gives instructions about such an art as cinema.
It is hard to imagine anyone else in this role. Art house and blockbusters, author’s art and mass, all this is intertwined in our lives.
In the lives of those who love movies or their business, and are ready to go to the end to their goals.
I haven’t watched Spielberg for a long time and, frankly, I didn’t expect anything at all, and my grandfather still can. In this particular case, he can confidently enter into a touching autobiographical story of growing up and choosing a business of a lifetime through parental quarrels, mockery of peers (the Jewish line, in my opinion, could not be added, but it is still Spielberg) and other social obstacles. Everything is filmed, as it should be, very sweeping, but at the same time atmospheric and, let’s say, “for people”, if, for example, to compare the tape with a similar ideologically, but still more “nerdy” The Guardian of Time Scorsese, which I also like.
Williams has probably the best performance of his career here, Dano does a great job as a father, Judd Hersh and David Lynch are inimitable in their small episodes. What has always impressed me respectfully about Spielberg, however, is his ability to find and brilliantly uncover young talent. It is likely that in any major projects we will not see these guys again (how was the first player? prepared?), but now they give no worse than senior colleagues - perhaps the harsh conversational directorial technique, demonstrated directly in one of the episodes of the film, works.
It's a very good thing, in general. The rewards are on the case, but it's not about them.
'Fabelmans' - the best film according to the Golden Globe version and one of the favorites of the upcoming Oscar. This is an autobiographical picture by Steven Spielberg, telling the story of growing up and becoming a director. Stephen’s creation received good reviews from the audience and enthusiastic reviews from critics. But is it so good 'Fabelman' in fact, and can this movie be called a masterpiece?
Author 'Jaws' and 'Jurassic Park' made the most personal movie in which he is nostalgic, self-ironizing and reflecting on his childhood. This is a really warm and understandable (albeit overly licked) story that can instill a love for creativity in general and for cinema in particular. Nevertheless, 'Fabelmanov' can not be called an outstanding work (otherwise a masterpiece), which will enter the textbooks of cinema and will remain in memory forever.
Alfred Hitchcock once said, “To make a great film, it takes three things: the script, the script, and the script.”39 So the plot of the film is completely simple and naive, everything that is shown in the film, the viewer has probably already seen in other films of this genre. On the other hand, should we have avoided cliches when it comes to a movie about growing up? Stephen, like no one else, knows what methods to apply to create a quality work aimed at a simple person sitting in a cinema. Many of the past works of the director have become great, they amazed and really surprised, they are still revered by a huge number of people around the world, in the case ' Fabelmanov' - it is impossible to say with certainty that they will face a similar fate.
The movie turned out to be good, you can see that it is staged with a soul. Directing here really does not cause serious complaints, from a technical point of view, the cinema is also not a failure. However, the picture is devoid of originality, sophistication and experimentation with the form, which does not allow it to stand on a par with the standard autobiographical masterpieces, such as: ' Amarkord' (Felini) and ' Mirror' (Tarkovsky).
Most likely, Spielberg’s grandfather will receive for #39; Fabelmanov' many awards and nominations. For Stephen you can only rejoice, but the impressions of the film itself still remained ambiguous.