tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3175631797077198516.post3575398373278181355..comments2023-08-22T09:21:16.898-07:00Comments on Tobe Hooper Appreciation Society: 'Poltergeist' In His WordsJRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15544454753709801525noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3175631797077198516.post-25298348924555338702018-04-12T18:54:03.742-07:002018-04-12T18:54:03.742-07:00And if you think I’m accusing Leonetti and Edlund ...And if you think I’m accusing Leonetti and Edlund of being thoughtless automatons, then... you would be right.JRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15544454753709801525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3175631797077198516.post-27904354924211134512018-04-12T18:39:56.912-07:002018-04-12T18:39:56.912-07:00I ran out of room. Cont.:
Spielberg has said man...I ran out of room. Cont.:<br /><br />Spielberg has said many times that Hooper directed, but has also not been able to downplay the major creative role he played, as he shouldn’t have to. But he has put in no extra effort to express Hooper’s integral work on the picture. It is galling how he will never mention Hooper’s name in talking about the picture (then again, Richard Donner is hardly on his lips, either, and I guess he’s not obligated to), in modern times. He does have a sense of ownership of <i>Poltergeist</i>, but, as he’s said, he wrote it, designed a number of its supernatural visions, helped envision large set pieces, and I guess he <i>wishes</i> he directed it. The film is that good, and I’m sure he was shocked when he saw the sheer eloquence of cinema that could be achieved when working with an artist such as Hooper. As said, I don’t suggest we take Hooper’s word as 100% truth, but merely giving back a film to him that he rightly owns, to talk about in any way he’d like. He may be leaving out certain Spielberg contributions, but I don’t doubt anything Hooper says, and I don’t see why we have to look at him with a side-eye, as if no one vouches for him and he’s the slimey villain of an 80s corporate drama trying to steal recognition from the poor, tyrranized Spielberg. If he’s hiding more than he’s letting on, it’s because he can’t afford to have his contributions lessened more than they already are being.<br /><br />What we need is for people to start talking honestly about what Hooper <i>did</i> contribute on set, even if it was oh-so-little compared to Spielberg.JRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15544454753709801525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3175631797077198516.post-15519410672733176892018-04-12T18:36:09.524-07:002018-04-12T18:36:09.524-07:00I think there’s certain things we will never be ab...I think there’s certain things we will never be able to reconcile, such as the differing opinions of what happened on set. I think it’s as I have said in my numerous, torturous appraisals of the circumstances: Hooper was a mild personality with a slower way of working and thinking about the image, and crew members looked to Spielberg as the person who, seemingly, had all the fast answers, who didn’t think film was open to spontaneous inspiration but was rather something you planned to the smallest move. It does not mean Hooper was not implementing his own designs or that the film was getting away from him, and let’s all remember the only person who was on set more than Spielberg was Hooper.<br /><br />I also do not mean to imply we must take everything Hooper says at his word, after all he is at a later point in his life and his concern is with setting things in the way he wants them, salvaging some form of agency after years of having <i>no one</i> take him seriously as a force behind <i>Poltergeist</i>, rather than utmost truth or clarity (he still shows remarkable lucidness, this being a year before he was to direct <i>Djinn</i>). Notice Hooper does not <i>say</i> he saw her in the commissary, merely that he was as on board casting O’Rourke as anyone else (Spielberg didn’t cast her on the spot, anyway, O’Rourke had to go through two auditions as well)... though if Hooper was there, I’d put more faith in him sharing the truth than Spielberg or Marshall in ever giving Hooper an ounce of special mention. I’ve considered AC Leonetti’s statements long and hard, as well as Edlund and at least one other anonymous crew member, and I’ve decided they are speaking so generally, they lose sight that film is a medium with an artistic dimension and not just one of technical design. All they could see is Spielberg’s “design,” but they could not see Hooper’s <i>actual</i> work, his actual presence. There is a distinct schism between actors and crew, crew members answering to the louder voice on set while actors were clearly directed in whispers, most actors willing to go to bat for Hooper. As for the point of the post, I am trying to give Hooper back his voice on the film, which has been denied him for so long. His contribution, as constantly belittled as it is, at least warrants that,a little interest in his say, rather than distrust and trying to detect if his resentment over the happenings on set fuels lies. I think Hooper is more truthful than not, more honest about his asserted stamp on the film than dishonest about Spielberg’s “design” that he could not override, but that he could at least <i>direct</i> to a number of his personal preferences and interests in terms of tone and image. Why would he try to be honest and talk about Spielberg’s contributions when he <i>finally</i> got the chance to talk about <i>Poltergeist</i> as if his personal achievement? Why talk about Spielberg truthfully being in charge of all the ILM shooting if he can talk about how he <i>created</i> the eerie, uncanny design of the tree?<br /><br />I agree with you full force. Hooper directed the specifics of a Spielberg production. Who “designed” is up to your idea of a director: is it the writer/idea-man or the person who worked every day, answered to the small things, and had first say/the ear of the producer before anything was decided on, if he so choose to have his ear. I’m sure a lot of the time he was happy to have Spielberg there to implement the vision both agreed to. This was a joint vision, except when it wasn’t, and the Hooper hallmarks make this clear. Hooper was more tolerant than most would be of the collaboration, and so we can say he did follow the things established in pre-production without issue. Such as Spielberg’s storyboards. That’s why when the film diverts from the storyboards is when it gets the most interesting.JRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15544454753709801525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3175631797077198516.post-86097494242403397742018-04-12T15:15:13.806-07:002018-04-12T15:15:13.806-07:00Then why do should be in the first sentence..Sorry...Then why do should be in the first sentence..Sorry for type oAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3175631797077198516.post-41743021568268101042018-04-12T15:14:36.823-07:002018-04-12T15:14:36.823-07:00Then do so many people in the cast and crew still ...Then do so many people in the cast and crew still say that Spielberg directed it? The story that I have read is that Spielberg saw Heather O'Rourke in the commissary. Why did that cameraman say that Tobe Hooper was cool with Spielberg doing everything? It is stuff like that which gives me doubts. I think of Poltergeist as a Hooper directed film of a Spielberg production, which is what I see it as, as plenty of Hooper dread and camera moves exist there featured in his other works. To me, it is kind of like Nightmare Before Christmas, a Tim Burton design but directed by Henry Sellick. Or the Star Wars movies that George Lucas didn't direct, which feel the same way as the Lucas helmed ones. Who actually designed Poltergeist is subject to debate. I read a lot how Hooper was totally in charge of preproduction but lost directing duties on the actual set, which doesn't make sense because all he had to do was follow preproduction shooting scripts. I would just like Spielberg to make a statement in modern times to put it top rest because Hooper's words still leave many doubts. The last time that Spielberg had two movies released at the same time he said that he did that a couple of times with Jurassic Park and Schindler's List and E.T. with Poltergeist. Does he consider Gremlins and Goonies his too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com