Tuesday, July 18, 2017

On Hooper-As-False-Front Theory ('Poltergeist')

Now that the particulars of John Leonetti's interview have caught like wildfire at various internet publications, it might be time to address the issue.  I do not wish to try to prove my stance with any bits of evidence, I just wish to chime in on what may be a general disregard of the talents and abilities Hooper shows, and a possibly unnuanced opinion of "the director," or Spielberg and Hooper's working relationship.  The details of the two filmmakers' "contract" I cannot go into or presume to speculate (it would be even more of hearsay than the account of Hooper-as-front we have), but, with a blind eye turned to the rumor mill, I have what I have to go on, which is the film, the gray zones of a work of intense collaboration, and Hooper's word thus far.  I maintain the film feels like a Hooper film, and the nebulous zone of a "Hooper set taken over by Spielberg" or a "Spielberg film imposed upon by a powerful, distinctly voiced metteur en scene," especially when both are on set every day (or not), can lead to more natural "movements," or flow (of power), on set, than that suggested by Leonetti.  And if it were this "Gentleman's Agreement," would this not suggest a less hard and fast setting of boundaries, with Hooper holding considerable bargaining chips as a capable studio director at that point?  As I said in a previous post, Spielberg proves such a strong "practitioner of tropes" that it's hard to imagine anyone else executing them.  It's also a major dismissal of another creative voice present, being capable of inspiration reaching, or even falling short but aspiring to, a "Spielbergian sensibility."  Whether it is a matter of Spielberg coming on set to edit Hooper, or Hooper coming on set to edit Spielberg, the fickleness of the Gentleman's Agreement is beyond the line of sight.

Friday, July 14, 2017

Unexplained Natural Phenomena (and Interior Winds) in Hooper's Films

An earthquake-like tremble suddenly shakes the funhouse and the incongruous chandelier of this funhouse "glass room" (that I don't believe we see during the course of the funhouse ride).  We could have added the trembling chandelier when David in Spontaneous Combustion merely stands underneath to this post, in direct rhyme to this scene.