What do you think?
Rate this book
Steven Spielberg: A Life in Films
From the prizewinning Jewish Lives series, a film-centric portrait of Steven Spielberg, the extraordinarily gifted movie director whose decades-long influence on American popular culture is unprecedented
“A swift and elegant introduction to Spielberg’s life and work.”—David Denby, New Yorker
“Everything about me is in my films,” Steven Spielberg has said. Taking this as a key to understanding the hugely successful moviemaker, Molly Haskell explores the full range of Spielberg’s works for the light they shine upon the man himself. Through such powerhouse hits as Close Encounters of the Third Kind , E.T ., Jurassic Park , and Indiana Jones, to lesser-known masterworks like A.I. and Empire of the Sun, to the haunting Schindler’s List , Haskell shows how Spielberg’s uniquely evocative filmmaking and story-telling reveal the many ways in which his life, work, and times are entwined.
Organizing chapters around specific films, the distinguished critic discusses how Spielberg’s childhood in non-Jewish suburbs, his parents’ traumatic divorce, his return to Judaism upon his son’s birth, and other events echo in his work. She offers a brilliant portrait of the extraordinary director—a fearful boy living through his imagination who grew into a man whose openness, generosity of spirit, and creativity have enchanted audiences for more than 40 years.
About Jewish
Jewish Lives is a prizewinning series of interpretative biography designed to explore the many facets of Jewish identity. Individual volumes illuminate the imprint of Jewish figures upon literature, religion, philosophy, politics, cultural and economic life, and the arts and sciences. Subjects are paired with authors to elicit lively, deeply informed books that explore the range and depth of the Jewish experience from antiquity to the present.
In 2014, the Jewish Book Council named Jewish Lives the winner of its Jewish Book of the Year Award, the first series ever to receive this award.
More praise for Jewish
"Excellent." –New York Times
"Exemplary." –Wall Street Journal
"Distinguished." –New Yorker
"Superb." –The Guardian
“A swift and elegant introduction to Spielberg’s life and work.”—David Denby, New Yorker
“Everything about me is in my films,” Steven Spielberg has said. Taking this as a key to understanding the hugely successful moviemaker, Molly Haskell explores the full range of Spielberg’s works for the light they shine upon the man himself. Through such powerhouse hits as Close Encounters of the Third Kind , E.T ., Jurassic Park , and Indiana Jones, to lesser-known masterworks like A.I. and Empire of the Sun, to the haunting Schindler’s List , Haskell shows how Spielberg’s uniquely evocative filmmaking and story-telling reveal the many ways in which his life, work, and times are entwined.
Organizing chapters around specific films, the distinguished critic discusses how Spielberg’s childhood in non-Jewish suburbs, his parents’ traumatic divorce, his return to Judaism upon his son’s birth, and other events echo in his work. She offers a brilliant portrait of the extraordinary director—a fearful boy living through his imagination who grew into a man whose openness, generosity of spirit, and creativity have enchanted audiences for more than 40 years.
About Jewish
Jewish Lives is a prizewinning series of interpretative biography designed to explore the many facets of Jewish identity. Individual volumes illuminate the imprint of Jewish figures upon literature, religion, philosophy, politics, cultural and economic life, and the arts and sciences. Subjects are paired with authors to elicit lively, deeply informed books that explore the range and depth of the Jewish experience from antiquity to the present.
In 2014, the Jewish Book Council named Jewish Lives the winner of its Jewish Book of the Year Award, the first series ever to receive this award.
More praise for Jewish
"Excellent." –New York Times
"Exemplary." –Wall Street Journal
"Distinguished." –New Yorker
"Superb." –The Guardian
248 pages, Hardcover
Published January 3, 2017
31 people are currently reading
763 people want to read
About the author
Molly Haskell
21 books44 followersMolly Haskell author and critic, grew up in Richmond, Va., went to Sweet Briar College, the University of London and the Sorbonne before settling in New York. She worked at the French Film Office in the Sixties, writing a newsletter about French films for the New York press and interpreting when directors came to America (this was the height of the Nouvelle Vague) for the opening of their films. She then went to The Village Voice, first as a theatre critic, then as a movie reviewer; and from there to New York Magazine and Vogue.
She has written for many publications, including The New York Times, The Guardian UK, Esquire, The Nation, Town and Country, The New York Observer and The New York Review of Books. She has served as Artistic Director of the Sarasota French Film Festival, on the selection committee of the New York Film Festival, as associate Professor of Film at Barnard and as Adjunct Professor of Film at Columbia University.
She is married to the film critic Andrew Sarris. Her books include From Reverence to Rape: the Treatment of Women in the Movies (1973; revised and reissued in 1989); a memoir, Love and Other Infectious Diseases (1990); and, in 1997, a collection of essays and interviews, Holding My Own in No Man’s Land: Women and Men and Films and Feminists. Her newest book, part of the Yale University Press's American Icon series, is Frankly, My Dear: Gone with the Wind Revisited.
She has written for many publications, including The New York Times, The Guardian UK, Esquire, The Nation, Town and Country, The New York Observer and The New York Review of Books. She has served as Artistic Director of the Sarasota French Film Festival, on the selection committee of the New York Film Festival, as associate Professor of Film at Barnard and as Adjunct Professor of Film at Columbia University.
She is married to the film critic Andrew Sarris. Her books include From Reverence to Rape: the Treatment of Women in the Movies (1973; revised and reissued in 1989); a memoir, Love and Other Infectious Diseases (1990); and, in 1997, a collection of essays and interviews, Holding My Own in No Man’s Land: Women and Men and Films and Feminists. Her newest book, part of the Yale University Press's American Icon series, is Frankly, My Dear: Gone with the Wind Revisited.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
February 4, 2017
Doesn't try all that hard to convince me of Spielberg's greatness (I'm pretty sure Haskell's not convinced either). Littered with far too many simplistic comparisons and flat out groaners.
February 14, 2019
Eesh. If you like the sort of film criticism that equates the shark in Jaws with a penis and makes sweeping assumptions about how each and every detail in a director's films correlate tidily with what it perceive to be his neuroses, this book is for you. The author points out early that she did not have access to the actual subject of the book, since her request for an interview was refused, and seems to have leaned heavily on Joseph McBride's biography of Spielberg, which she refers to as "indispensable". I think I'll dispense with this one and just go read that.
March 20, 2017
Steven Spielberg: A Life in Films (Jewish Lives) by Molly Haskell is a biography of the prolific director. Ms. Haskell is a film critic and author.
I admired Steven Spielberg since he burst on to the big screen when I was a child. I remember eagerly anticipating the next Spielberg flick and reading every word I can in such magazines as Starlog (when it was a great film magazine) about his projects and special effects breakthroughs.
So you can understand my delight in getting Steven Spielberg: A Life in Films (Jewish Lives) by Molly Haskell. I can say that I’ve watched almost every Spielberg film out there, many with the enthusiasm of a teenager, so the book spoke to me.
Recently I re-watched the Indiana Jones movies with my kids. I was not looking forward to it because I wanted to remember those great movies as the groundbreaking extravaganzas I remember them (I ran to the theater after school on the opening day of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom). To my great delight the Indiana Jones movies are just as good today as I remembered them. The kids loved them (my son dressed up as Dr. Jones for Halloween), and I dare say that even if they were released today, as they were released originally, they’d pass muster with the fans and delight audiences.
Ms. Haskell wrote an interesting, witty book telling stories which I thought I knew but never connected the dots. While I don’t agree with every evaluation the author makes, I appreciate the honesty and thought that went into the narrative.
Mr. Spielberg’s Jewish story is very insightful and the author is obviously very interested in his journey as a proud Jew and a genius film maker. The author connects the director’s life experiences relative to the movies he was making at the time.
This is a great film book about one of our generation’s most notable and prolific directors. The book is insightful, well written, and frankly – just a lot of fun. I listened to the audio CD, narrated by Johnny Heller and Jo Anna Perrin who did a great job and kept my interest throughout.
I got this book for free in exchange for a review
For more reviews and bookish posts please visit my bookish blog at http://www.ManOfLaBook.com
I admired Steven Spielberg since he burst on to the big screen when I was a child. I remember eagerly anticipating the next Spielberg flick and reading every word I can in such magazines as Starlog (when it was a great film magazine) about his projects and special effects breakthroughs.
So you can understand my delight in getting Steven Spielberg: A Life in Films (Jewish Lives) by Molly Haskell. I can say that I’ve watched almost every Spielberg film out there, many with the enthusiasm of a teenager, so the book spoke to me.
Recently I re-watched the Indiana Jones movies with my kids. I was not looking forward to it because I wanted to remember those great movies as the groundbreaking extravaganzas I remember them (I ran to the theater after school on the opening day of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom). To my great delight the Indiana Jones movies are just as good today as I remembered them. The kids loved them (my son dressed up as Dr. Jones for Halloween), and I dare say that even if they were released today, as they were released originally, they’d pass muster with the fans and delight audiences.
Ms. Haskell wrote an interesting, witty book telling stories which I thought I knew but never connected the dots. While I don’t agree with every evaluation the author makes, I appreciate the honesty and thought that went into the narrative.
Mr. Spielberg’s Jewish story is very insightful and the author is obviously very interested in his journey as a proud Jew and a genius film maker. The author connects the director’s life experiences relative to the movies he was making at the time.
This is a great film book about one of our generation’s most notable and prolific directors. The book is insightful, well written, and frankly – just a lot of fun. I listened to the audio CD, narrated by Johnny Heller and Jo Anna Perrin who did a great job and kept my interest throughout.
I got this book for free in exchange for a review
For more reviews and bookish posts please visit my bookish blog at http://www.ManOfLaBook.com
June 27, 2017
Review title: The man behind the camera, on the big screen
When Haskell, a movie critic who was chosen by Yale University Press to write this entry in its Jewish Lives series of biographies, tells us that she has never been a fan of Spielberg ("We both had our blind spots. The problem was, Spielberg's blind spots were my see spots, and vice versa.", p. x), I knew right away we had a problem. How could a biography based on an examination of his films by a critic who has confessed to not liking them treat the subject fairly? After all, the 205 small pages of this short biography are essentially a series of movie reviews in chronological order arranged around brief biographical statements and periods in Spielberg's life; you'll note that for this reason I have shelved the book under Pop Culture, not Biography.
In fairness to Haskell she does provide the basic outlines of Spielberg's childhood and life before the movies, and shows how his childhood as a nervous, fingernail-biting, wimpy Jewish boy with few friends as his parents moved multiple times during his formative years shows up on the big screen in his movies. We see the ambition and chutzpah kick in as he matures, gets access to a film camera, and gains confidence in his ability to tell a story that buys him acceptance, a confidence and capability he converts into a working education at and then a contract with Universal Studios by the age of 21.
And again in fairness to Haskell, reassessing the films from the distance of time and the perspective of a body of work, she finds her critical assessments have shifted toward the positive end of the scale on many of them. But yet, her opening dialectic of blind/see spots left me reading the reviews and biographical statements as still tinged with the dismissive brush-off of a "serious" critic toward "popular" movies. Haskell's unspoken distain is representative of the thought process of those Academy Award voters who for years (until Schindler's List, in fact) would never honor Spielberg for his art because it made too much money. To Spielberg's credit, it is in fact his blend of craft, characters, and ability to tell a story that made good, often great movies that earned money because people loved to see them, and finally earned respect from the Academy when they could no longer be ignored when they were great.
So take a few minutes to read Haskell's short life of Spielberg in films, and you might learn a bit about the man, and you will find yourself reliving and remembering what you love about his films as you form your agreements and counterarguments with Haskell.
When Haskell, a movie critic who was chosen by Yale University Press to write this entry in its Jewish Lives series of biographies, tells us that she has never been a fan of Spielberg ("We both had our blind spots. The problem was, Spielberg's blind spots were my see spots, and vice versa.", p. x), I knew right away we had a problem. How could a biography based on an examination of his films by a critic who has confessed to not liking them treat the subject fairly? After all, the 205 small pages of this short biography are essentially a series of movie reviews in chronological order arranged around brief biographical statements and periods in Spielberg's life; you'll note that for this reason I have shelved the book under Pop Culture, not Biography.
In fairness to Haskell she does provide the basic outlines of Spielberg's childhood and life before the movies, and shows how his childhood as a nervous, fingernail-biting, wimpy Jewish boy with few friends as his parents moved multiple times during his formative years shows up on the big screen in his movies. We see the ambition and chutzpah kick in as he matures, gets access to a film camera, and gains confidence in his ability to tell a story that buys him acceptance, a confidence and capability he converts into a working education at and then a contract with Universal Studios by the age of 21.
And again in fairness to Haskell, reassessing the films from the distance of time and the perspective of a body of work, she finds her critical assessments have shifted toward the positive end of the scale on many of them. But yet, her opening dialectic of blind/see spots left me reading the reviews and biographical statements as still tinged with the dismissive brush-off of a "serious" critic toward "popular" movies. Haskell's unspoken distain is representative of the thought process of those Academy Award voters who for years (until Schindler's List, in fact) would never honor Spielberg for his art because it made too much money. To Spielberg's credit, it is in fact his blend of craft, characters, and ability to tell a story that made good, often great movies that earned money because people loved to see them, and finally earned respect from the Academy when they could no longer be ignored when they were great.
So take a few minutes to read Haskell's short life of Spielberg in films, and you might learn a bit about the man, and you will find yourself reliving and remembering what you love about his films as you form your agreements and counterarguments with Haskell.
December 17, 2016
I tried very hard to like this book, but I felt that the author was trying to show her intellectual self instead of enjoying her subject. I felt she was trying to prove herself to a different type of audience.
Very disappointing. Couldn't finish it.
Very disappointing. Couldn't finish it.
March 7, 2017
The was more a hagiography than a biography, full of psycho-babble about Spielberg's neuroses. What mostly came through it all is that he is an emotionally stunted misogynist. Thankfully this was a quick read.
December 21, 2017
Really interesting book that was very hard to put down. Recommended.
December 16, 2019
DNF-ing. Had to return this to the library but on further reflection, I'm not interested in checking it back out in print or ebook form.
I went into this excited to see how the career of such a giant in film developed only to find that I can's stand the woman telling the story. Molly Haskell makes it clear early on that she's "different" than the other people who might have written a Spielberg biography because she's not one of his viewers, and grew up considering Fantasy and SciFi to be the realms of male moviegoers.
Unfortunately, this didn't come across as giving her a more objective point of view. Instead it made her seem abrasive to me- someone who is both female and has been obsessed with Fantasy since I was a toddler, and SciFi since I first saw Jurassic Park at age 8 or 9. Lady, if you don't want to be here, then don't. But please check your long-suffering, oh-well-I-guess-I-gotta-struggle-through-this attitude at the door. Maybe this biography has an evangelistic twist at the end where Haskell decides she a fan. Maybe it doesn't. Either way, I'd rather find another biography to enjoy than find out.
Edit: After reading through other reviews I was very pleased and intrigued to find out how right my DNF choice was. Many reviews mention that this book contains a number of factual inaccuracies about both Spielberg and his work (which makes it practically worthless to me as a means of learning more about him), and also- I'm not exactly here to listen to a known Spielberg critic play armchair psychiatrist, and compare good ol' Bruce the Shark to a penis. LOL NO!
I went into this excited to see how the career of such a giant in film developed only to find that I can's stand the woman telling the story. Molly Haskell makes it clear early on that she's "different" than the other people who might have written a Spielberg biography because she's not one of his viewers, and grew up considering Fantasy and SciFi to be the realms of male moviegoers.
Unfortunately, this didn't come across as giving her a more objective point of view. Instead it made her seem abrasive to me- someone who is both female and has been obsessed with Fantasy since I was a toddler, and SciFi since I first saw Jurassic Park at age 8 or 9. Lady, if you don't want to be here, then don't. But please check your long-suffering, oh-well-I-guess-I-gotta-struggle-through-this attitude at the door. Maybe this biography has an evangelistic twist at the end where Haskell decides she a fan. Maybe it doesn't. Either way, I'd rather find another biography to enjoy than find out.
Edit: After reading through other reviews I was very pleased and intrigued to find out how right my DNF choice was. Many reviews mention that this book contains a number of factual inaccuracies about both Spielberg and his work (which makes it practically worthless to me as a means of learning more about him), and also- I'm not exactly here to listen to a known Spielberg critic play armchair psychiatrist, and compare good ol' Bruce the Shark to a penis. LOL NO!
February 18, 2017
I will start by saying I am sorry for the grammar mistakes in this review. I have small humans running around my house daily that I forget to reread what I wrote. Updated REVIEW:
The Author Molly Haskell wrote a story about an Icon in American Film maker who brings his personal history into each one of his movies. I have watched almost all of his films which made me realize I couldn't wait to read this story. As a child I loved Empire of the Sun and now as an adult I am to fully understand this film. Each movie he creates has passion. What I found in this book it Molly Haskell lacked the same passion as she wrote about this "Great American Film Maker."
(After I posted this Review) I went back and reread the book wondering if I wasn't paying enough attention to the story she was trying to create. That was when I started to realize all the details I must have glanced over in my earlier reading. Simple research errors will take an author creditable down. I ended up not finishing the book during my second reading.
I found Molly Haskell writing style bland causing me to put down the book several times. I was unable to connect with the text as I struggle to finish this 240+ page book.
Thank you Netgalley for the advance Copy of this book.
The Author Molly Haskell wrote a story about an Icon in American Film maker who brings his personal history into each one of his movies. I have watched almost all of his films which made me realize I couldn't wait to read this story. As a child I loved Empire of the Sun and now as an adult I am to fully understand this film. Each movie he creates has passion. What I found in this book it Molly Haskell lacked the same passion as she wrote about this "Great American Film Maker."
(After I posted this Review) I went back and reread the book wondering if I wasn't paying enough attention to the story she was trying to create. That was when I started to realize all the details I must have glanced over in my earlier reading. Simple research errors will take an author creditable down. I ended up not finishing the book during my second reading.
I found Molly Haskell writing style bland causing me to put down the book several times. I was unable to connect with the text as I struggle to finish this 240+ page book.
Thank you Netgalley for the advance Copy of this book.
March 1, 2017
A page-turner. After a fantastic introduction in which Haskell presents her contentious relationship to Spielberg's films and out-of-depths understanding of Jewish identity, Haskell proceeds through the films in chronological order with wit and insight. She weaves a Freudian argument of family complication leading to family obsession in the films. I was also struck by Spielberg's instantaneous sense of himself as a filmmaker. His outsize ambition. And Haskell's own masterful interpretation of the images the director has permanently seared into the minds of everyone. (And I mean everyone, all over the world.)
December 4, 2016
Since I have enjoyed many Steven Spielberg movies and knew little about the man, I was looking forward to reading this book. I have taken two stars off, because the writing itself didn't grab me and at times didn't hold my interest. Thanks NetGalley , the publisher and the author, Molly Haskell for this advanced copy.
May 25, 2018
Thank you Dr. Molly Haskell for this so in depth psychological probing of The Spielberg. May you never practice Film Criticism Psychiatry again. Just checked: Medical benefits not paying for this movie analysis. GO AWAY.
July 26, 2024
This book was intended to be an examination of the man through an exploration of his work by attempting to correlate the trajectory of Steven Spielberg’s life journey and his heart with the themes of his films.
It’s an interesting and unique framing device for a biography, and in the hands of a better writer and thinker, this might have worked brilliantly but as Haskell makes clear in her preface she is not a fan of Spielberg. During the entirety of the book she reinforces this point over and over again.
The bigger (and more bizarre) problem is that Haskell uses the book to push a baffling agenda that all male filmmakers are misogynist in their thinking and their art and none more so than Steven Spielberg. This thinking is particularly galling when one considers that Steven Spielberg has always been a passionate ally of women working in Hollywood.
Spielberg handpicked Kathleen Kennedy and Laurie MacDonald to run his production company Amblin Entertainment and his studio Dreamworks Pictures respectively.
In the late nineties, he hired Mimi Leder to direct the studio’s films, The Peacemaker and Deep Impact, both pictures had the distinction of being the biggest budget movies directed by women in Hollywood at the time. He also convinced longtime pal George Lucas to hire Kennedy to run Lucasfilm before selling the company to the evil empire Disney.
Haskell constantly backs Spielberg into a corner for the portrayals of women in his films: the ‘deglamorized’ women (Teri Garr in Close Encounters, Goldie Hawn in Sugarland Express) are criticized for being rendered unattractive if they disagree with the male characters in the films (in Close Encounters the lesson being ‘don’t get between men and their toys’), yet while she criticizes the portrayals of some women as unattractive tom-boys, she also eviscerates Spielberg for glamorizing female characters in other films for apparently daring to make them attractive to men.
Haskell finds misogyny under every rock where male directors are concerned. She claims the films of Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, and Brian Depalma prove their ‘fear of women’.
She evens slams the strong female characters in Spielberg’s films: the ‘cartoonish tomboy portrayal of Marion Ravenwood, the Shrieking Woman trope in Temple of Doom (admittedly a hated low point in Spielberg’s movies), claiming the character of Willie Scott was ‘an attempt by Spielberg … to thwart his future wife’s career before it began’ - despite the fact that the script was engineered by George Lucas and written before Kate Capshaw was cast, the movie shot when Spielberg was rekindling his romance with Amy Irving (later to be married to her), and a whole six years before he began dating Capshaw.
Haskell then goes on to criticize the ‘sexism… unadulterated’ in creating a more complicated female character for Last Crusade that is ‘less trustworthy and villainous’.
As readers we are not sure what type of female character would have been acceptable to Haskell. Perhaps only one who would write a book declaring all female characters in Hollywood to be sexism incarnate would suffice.
Throughout her assessment of his movies, Haskell also makes repeated, unjustified, illogical, and downright eye-rolling leaps of logic that have little evidence or insight to back them up: ET fashioning a phone out of a saw blade and a record player is somehow a damning indictment of Spielberg’s engineer father. Come again? Even ET is not allowed any ingenuity to effect his self-preservation without it being twisted into a selfish intent of revenge or bitterness towards someone in Spielberg’s personal life.
At one point Haskell inserts one of the dumber interpretations of ET ever published: discussing the character of ‘Keys’ (played by Peter coyote) she claims a connection between the keys on his belt ‘fondled near his crotch… and the displaced phallus represented by ET himself.’
This seemingly crazy elucidation comes courtesy of Andrew Sarris who just happened to have been married to Haskell for 43 years.
Haskell herself seems intent on finding sinister motivations from Spielberg’s films toward the people in his life including his own children: when speaking of Sam Neill’s Jurassic Park character disliking kids, she actually wonders if Spielberg, himself the father of four children, harbours a ‘subversive wish to make them disappear’. (Page 139)
In the latter chapters of the book, while discussing his newer and mostly darker, more mature films, Haskell finally drops her misandrist agenda perhaps because these are the films of Spielberg’s that she prefers.
But along with the shedding of judgement against her subject, she also drops the longer essays and discussions of these films and gives them less attention than they deserve, despite these being the movies of Spielberg’s that she actually does like and respect.
A lot of the darker, somewhat more serious explorations of theme and tone present in Spielberg’s films of the 2,000’s are also, in my opinion, some of the most interesting and more timeless of his work, and it’s as grave a disservice to the man and his art to give them so short shrift as her earlier vilification is.
Coming near to the end of the subject (and her book), it’s as if Haskell just wants to be done and she skips to the finish line, lazily giving these more recent films (War of the Worlds, Minority Report, Bridge of Spies) little time and attention. She just wants to be done with the subject. War Horse gets literally no more than a single paragraph of mention.
The first 20 years of Spielberg’s filmmaking life receive 156 pages of extrapolation while the last two decades warrant a scant 48 pages.
It’s as if the less content in Spielberg’s oeuvre she objects to, the less energy she wishes to devote to it.
And this seems to reinforce the idea that the book for her was little more than an opportunity to push the agenda that Spielberg is a sinister misogynist with selfish, malicious intentions dictating his entire film slate.
It’s a frustrating and infuriating take on a great and prolific artist who has given so much to the world of cinema, and an ultimately insulting book to those fans who are interested in the man and his films.
It’s an interesting and unique framing device for a biography, and in the hands of a better writer and thinker, this might have worked brilliantly but as Haskell makes clear in her preface she is not a fan of Spielberg. During the entirety of the book she reinforces this point over and over again.
The bigger (and more bizarre) problem is that Haskell uses the book to push a baffling agenda that all male filmmakers are misogynist in their thinking and their art and none more so than Steven Spielberg. This thinking is particularly galling when one considers that Steven Spielberg has always been a passionate ally of women working in Hollywood.
Spielberg handpicked Kathleen Kennedy and Laurie MacDonald to run his production company Amblin Entertainment and his studio Dreamworks Pictures respectively.
In the late nineties, he hired Mimi Leder to direct the studio’s films, The Peacemaker and Deep Impact, both pictures had the distinction of being the biggest budget movies directed by women in Hollywood at the time. He also convinced longtime pal George Lucas to hire Kennedy to run Lucasfilm before selling the company to the evil empire Disney.
Haskell constantly backs Spielberg into a corner for the portrayals of women in his films: the ‘deglamorized’ women (Teri Garr in Close Encounters, Goldie Hawn in Sugarland Express) are criticized for being rendered unattractive if they disagree with the male characters in the films (in Close Encounters the lesson being ‘don’t get between men and their toys’), yet while she criticizes the portrayals of some women as unattractive tom-boys, she also eviscerates Spielberg for glamorizing female characters in other films for apparently daring to make them attractive to men.
Haskell finds misogyny under every rock where male directors are concerned. She claims the films of Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, and Brian Depalma prove their ‘fear of women’.
She evens slams the strong female characters in Spielberg’s films: the ‘cartoonish tomboy portrayal of Marion Ravenwood, the Shrieking Woman trope in Temple of Doom (admittedly a hated low point in Spielberg’s movies), claiming the character of Willie Scott was ‘an attempt by Spielberg … to thwart his future wife’s career before it began’ - despite the fact that the script was engineered by George Lucas and written before Kate Capshaw was cast, the movie shot when Spielberg was rekindling his romance with Amy Irving (later to be married to her), and a whole six years before he began dating Capshaw.
Haskell then goes on to criticize the ‘sexism… unadulterated’ in creating a more complicated female character for Last Crusade that is ‘less trustworthy and villainous’.
As readers we are not sure what type of female character would have been acceptable to Haskell. Perhaps only one who would write a book declaring all female characters in Hollywood to be sexism incarnate would suffice.
Throughout her assessment of his movies, Haskell also makes repeated, unjustified, illogical, and downright eye-rolling leaps of logic that have little evidence or insight to back them up: ET fashioning a phone out of a saw blade and a record player is somehow a damning indictment of Spielberg’s engineer father. Come again? Even ET is not allowed any ingenuity to effect his self-preservation without it being twisted into a selfish intent of revenge or bitterness towards someone in Spielberg’s personal life.
At one point Haskell inserts one of the dumber interpretations of ET ever published: discussing the character of ‘Keys’ (played by Peter coyote) she claims a connection between the keys on his belt ‘fondled near his crotch… and the displaced phallus represented by ET himself.’
This seemingly crazy elucidation comes courtesy of Andrew Sarris who just happened to have been married to Haskell for 43 years.
Haskell herself seems intent on finding sinister motivations from Spielberg’s films toward the people in his life including his own children: when speaking of Sam Neill’s Jurassic Park character disliking kids, she actually wonders if Spielberg, himself the father of four children, harbours a ‘subversive wish to make them disappear’. (Page 139)
In the latter chapters of the book, while discussing his newer and mostly darker, more mature films, Haskell finally drops her misandrist agenda perhaps because these are the films of Spielberg’s that she prefers.
But along with the shedding of judgement against her subject, she also drops the longer essays and discussions of these films and gives them less attention than they deserve, despite these being the movies of Spielberg’s that she actually does like and respect.
A lot of the darker, somewhat more serious explorations of theme and tone present in Spielberg’s films of the 2,000’s are also, in my opinion, some of the most interesting and more timeless of his work, and it’s as grave a disservice to the man and his art to give them so short shrift as her earlier vilification is.
Coming near to the end of the subject (and her book), it’s as if Haskell just wants to be done and she skips to the finish line, lazily giving these more recent films (War of the Worlds, Minority Report, Bridge of Spies) little time and attention. She just wants to be done with the subject. War Horse gets literally no more than a single paragraph of mention.
The first 20 years of Spielberg’s filmmaking life receive 156 pages of extrapolation while the last two decades warrant a scant 48 pages.
It’s as if the less content in Spielberg’s oeuvre she objects to, the less energy she wishes to devote to it.
And this seems to reinforce the idea that the book for her was little more than an opportunity to push the agenda that Spielberg is a sinister misogynist with selfish, malicious intentions dictating his entire film slate.
It’s a frustrating and infuriating take on a great and prolific artist who has given so much to the world of cinema, and an ultimately insulting book to those fans who are interested in the man and his films.
September 16, 2020
This rides the line between a biography and film study by being pretty much the best of both. The dull minutiae of the early life is spared but the content of the movies themselves get more attention. As it nears the end, it seems Haskell spends less and less time on each film as if she’s in a hurry to end. Even chapters end very abruptly to the point I thought I missed a page or two. Still, Spielberg is a towering figure I’ve actually never read about on this level so this was fascinating. There is no horrible secrets revealed but a couple of revelations you want in either a good bio or film study. Again, fascinating.
May 8, 2018
Informative, very, very informative. Interesting format. A fun read.
November 9, 2025
Spielberg is one of my favorite movie directors, so it was interesting to learn more about his journey to fame. I hope he keeps making movies for a long time to come!
April 9, 2025
Who forced Haskell to write this book? If you’re unimpressed, untouched by Spielberg movies that’s okay just maybe don’t sign up to write about them.
February 25, 2017
I received a copy of this (audio)book for free through Goodreads Giveaways.
Generally one assumes that biographies are devoted to looking at the stated subject rather than the hang-ups of the biographer; however, this book is more a glimpse into the obsessions of Molly Haskell and not an objective look at the life of Stephen Spielberg. Haskell is wedded to the topic of Spielberg's relationship to Judiasm, being the first of two subjects that are gratuitously referenced at every opportunity, including ridiculous leaps of fancy that include "memories" of Jewish ceremonies Spielberg is assumed to have from well into the amnesiac portion of infancy that allegedly inform everything he's ever produced. The second subject that Haskell hammers into the ground is gender, endlessly harping on Spielberg's relationships with his mother, sisters, and paramours in negative terms, as well as taking every opportunity to reinforce her perception that Spielberg directs male movies for men that alienate women due to their overwhelming masculine maleness and asserting that the female characters in his movies are universally poorly-crafted due to his being a pathetic man-child. The peculiar focus on gender extends to not-a-psychiatrist-but-why-should-that-stop-anyone-from-practicing-psychoanalysis Haskell implying strange sexual fixations on Spielberg's part, up to and including an Oedipus complex, in the course of which the author shouts out to her own status as a "Freudian" (apparently she missed the memo that Sigmund Freud's ludicrous ideas have been almost entirely rejected by modern psychology, social science, and common sense), accidentally revealing that the neuroses about sex are hers and hers alone.
The narrative blows through Spielberg's movies without getting into them in any substantial way, though the author is repeatedly self-referential in regard to her opinion of any given film, as if adding her unsolicited opinions makes up for her lack of detail and research. There's little account of Spielberg's process, inspiration, dealings with actors or other people he worked with, technical aspects of his films, behind-the-scenes tales of moviemaking, evolution of his ideas or themes, and no interviews with people who might shed light on the man or his movies. Indeed, Haskell's introduction sniffs condescendingly at the fact that Spielberg denied her an interview because there's apparent bad blood between the two. Whoever was foolish enough to hire an author that isn't liked by the book's subject and displays obvious scorn for the same, who largely turns up her nose at the subject's body of work, and who brings a pronounced bias against men in Hollywood generally (anybody who writes books with titles such as From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies and Holding My Own in No Man's Land: Women and Men and Film and Feminists is a terrible choice to write a biography of a male director) deserves to be fired. This book is a cynical airing of the author's grievances, undeserving of publication.
Protip, Molly Haskell: When writing a biography, it's not supposed to be all about you.
(And your weird Freudian crap.)
(Seriously, what is wrong with these people who are so desperate to believe Freud's twisted sexual nonsense that they just ignore all evidence disproving it?)
Generally one assumes that biographies are devoted to looking at the stated subject rather than the hang-ups of the biographer; however, this book is more a glimpse into the obsessions of Molly Haskell and not an objective look at the life of Stephen Spielberg. Haskell is wedded to the topic of Spielberg's relationship to Judiasm, being the first of two subjects that are gratuitously referenced at every opportunity, including ridiculous leaps of fancy that include "memories" of Jewish ceremonies Spielberg is assumed to have from well into the amnesiac portion of infancy that allegedly inform everything he's ever produced. The second subject that Haskell hammers into the ground is gender, endlessly harping on Spielberg's relationships with his mother, sisters, and paramours in negative terms, as well as taking every opportunity to reinforce her perception that Spielberg directs male movies for men that alienate women due to their overwhelming masculine maleness and asserting that the female characters in his movies are universally poorly-crafted due to his being a pathetic man-child. The peculiar focus on gender extends to not-a-psychiatrist-but-why-should-that-stop-anyone-from-practicing-psychoanalysis Haskell implying strange sexual fixations on Spielberg's part, up to and including an Oedipus complex, in the course of which the author shouts out to her own status as a "Freudian" (apparently she missed the memo that Sigmund Freud's ludicrous ideas have been almost entirely rejected by modern psychology, social science, and common sense), accidentally revealing that the neuroses about sex are hers and hers alone.
The narrative blows through Spielberg's movies without getting into them in any substantial way, though the author is repeatedly self-referential in regard to her opinion of any given film, as if adding her unsolicited opinions makes up for her lack of detail and research. There's little account of Spielberg's process, inspiration, dealings with actors or other people he worked with, technical aspects of his films, behind-the-scenes tales of moviemaking, evolution of his ideas or themes, and no interviews with people who might shed light on the man or his movies. Indeed, Haskell's introduction sniffs condescendingly at the fact that Spielberg denied her an interview because there's apparent bad blood between the two. Whoever was foolish enough to hire an author that isn't liked by the book's subject and displays obvious scorn for the same, who largely turns up her nose at the subject's body of work, and who brings a pronounced bias against men in Hollywood generally (anybody who writes books with titles such as From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies and Holding My Own in No Man's Land: Women and Men and Film and Feminists is a terrible choice to write a biography of a male director) deserves to be fired. This book is a cynical airing of the author's grievances, undeserving of publication.
Protip, Molly Haskell: When writing a biography, it's not supposed to be all about you.
(And your weird Freudian crap.)
(Seriously, what is wrong with these people who are so desperate to believe Freud's twisted sexual nonsense that they just ignore all evidence disproving it?)
November 20, 2017
by Nadia Bee
Sometimes a critic gets handed a particularly tempting poisoned chalice. For example, an invitation to write the biography of a celebrated filmmaker they are neither particularly interested in, nor seem to like very much. Still, there’s something to get at, an itch to scratch. This book is just that. Molly Haskell is an eminent U.S. film critic. She started her career in the 1960s, and is considered a grande dame of American film criticism. She was invited by Yale University Press to write a short biography of Steven Spielberg for its Jewish Lives Series.
Haskell is known for not being a great fan of Spielberg’s work - so much so that Spielberg is aware of that dislike, and has publicly commented on it. He declined her request for an interview – she was told he does not give interviews to biographers. He has however given rather candid interviews about his films, and in so doing has said quite a lot about himself. Some of that has found its way into the book. He has also been known to say that everything about him, is in his films...
Read the full review at https://cinemazine.co.uk/2017/11/20/b...
Sometimes a critic gets handed a particularly tempting poisoned chalice. For example, an invitation to write the biography of a celebrated filmmaker they are neither particularly interested in, nor seem to like very much. Still, there’s something to get at, an itch to scratch. This book is just that. Molly Haskell is an eminent U.S. film critic. She started her career in the 1960s, and is considered a grande dame of American film criticism. She was invited by Yale University Press to write a short biography of Steven Spielberg for its Jewish Lives Series.
Haskell is known for not being a great fan of Spielberg’s work - so much so that Spielberg is aware of that dislike, and has publicly commented on it. He declined her request for an interview – she was told he does not give interviews to biographers. He has however given rather candid interviews about his films, and in so doing has said quite a lot about himself. Some of that has found its way into the book. He has also been known to say that everything about him, is in his films...
Read the full review at https://cinemazine.co.uk/2017/11/20/b...
July 13, 2017
I'd almost written this off based on the scathing review it received on The AV Club, but - other than the handful of minor details Haskell does indeed misremember (Chiwetel Ejiofor did not win an Oscar for 12 Years A Slave, for example) - this is an exceptional reckoning with Spielberg's works, film by film, that adds purposeful shadings from his real life when applicable.
Naturally, being someone so consumed with studying Spielberg's work, any insightful consideration of his career is going to meet with generally positive reviews, but Haskell's writing is genuinely remarkable, and she's given to drawing many connections - such as the one which concludes the final chapter - that are thrillingly revelatory. I really can't throw enough praise in this book's direction, it's essential for even the most fairweather fans of Spielberg's work.
Naturally, being someone so consumed with studying Spielberg's work, any insightful consideration of his career is going to meet with generally positive reviews, but Haskell's writing is genuinely remarkable, and she's given to drawing many connections - such as the one which concludes the final chapter - that are thrillingly revelatory. I really can't throw enough praise in this book's direction, it's essential for even the most fairweather fans of Spielberg's work.
February 4, 2017
Molly Haskell's short biography follows the director's career film by film. Both biography and film reviews are concise and illuminating - especially on some of the "overlooked" later films.
January 2, 2023
I good one from Haskell! Not as much of a raw biography, but rather a study as to how Spielberg’s life story manifests in his work. This is particularly illuminating for movies like “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” or “E.T”, which gain a lot more depth once Haskell draws out Spielberg’s own family experience from the families in these films. I particularly loved Haskell’s observations on Elliot (the main boy in E.T). Haskell draws out the fact that in E.T Elliot finds “…someone to whom his world is important, who will greet his stories with neither skepticism nor indifference” (page 96). Haskell’s best points in this book did what this quote did, showing me ways in which I could view Spielberg’s films with more depth.
Beyond Spielberg’s life, the book also partially functions as a collection of critiques on each of Spielberg’s movies. This is a fantasy for someone like me who craves comprehensive opinions from critics on many different directors. Haskell did as well with this as I expected her to while even highlighting films she feels are underrated/overrated. She makes strong critiques of some of Spielberg’s most well regarded films like “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “Saving Private Ryan” while also highlighting some of the intelligent, expansive qualities of less spoken of Spielberg films such as “Empire of the Sun” and (my personal favorite Spielberg) “A.I.”.
There is one criticism I have. Sometimes Haskell’s framing of Spielberg’s work through an exclusively biographical lens can lead to harsh conclusions. I think her critique of “Jaws” demonstrates this the best. She describes the three men who hunt down the shark as “…three versions of insecurity” (page 63). Haskell argues that there insecurity is both adolescent and highly associated with sexual anxiety. While I think there is some validity of this, Haskell takes things a little too far, making for a very cynical reading of the action and fear in “Jaws”. Male sexual anxiety and insecurity is a sensitive subject, but Haskell doesn’t treat it that way, instead making a stone cold reading of the film that paints the film as an exercise, rather than exploration or simple expression, of insecurity for males.
While there are times when Haskell harshly interprets Spielberg’s personal expression, I ultimately appreciate this book as a solid work of admiration for Spielberg. Haskell is not even a declared fan of Spielberg as a whole, and yet she still did a great job of highlighting his childlike approach to filmmaking that leaves so many inspired and empowered after watching his films. This book felt precisely structured and analyzed, making for a worthy and reliable statement on Spielberg’s growing legacy and achievements.
Beyond Spielberg’s life, the book also partially functions as a collection of critiques on each of Spielberg’s movies. This is a fantasy for someone like me who craves comprehensive opinions from critics on many different directors. Haskell did as well with this as I expected her to while even highlighting films she feels are underrated/overrated. She makes strong critiques of some of Spielberg’s most well regarded films like “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “Saving Private Ryan” while also highlighting some of the intelligent, expansive qualities of less spoken of Spielberg films such as “Empire of the Sun” and (my personal favorite Spielberg) “A.I.”.
There is one criticism I have. Sometimes Haskell’s framing of Spielberg’s work through an exclusively biographical lens can lead to harsh conclusions. I think her critique of “Jaws” demonstrates this the best. She describes the three men who hunt down the shark as “…three versions of insecurity” (page 63). Haskell argues that there insecurity is both adolescent and highly associated with sexual anxiety. While I think there is some validity of this, Haskell takes things a little too far, making for a very cynical reading of the action and fear in “Jaws”. Male sexual anxiety and insecurity is a sensitive subject, but Haskell doesn’t treat it that way, instead making a stone cold reading of the film that paints the film as an exercise, rather than exploration or simple expression, of insecurity for males.
While there are times when Haskell harshly interprets Spielberg’s personal expression, I ultimately appreciate this book as a solid work of admiration for Spielberg. Haskell is not even a declared fan of Spielberg as a whole, and yet she still did a great job of highlighting his childlike approach to filmmaking that leaves so many inspired and empowered after watching his films. This book felt precisely structured and analyzed, making for a worthy and reliable statement on Spielberg’s growing legacy and achievements.
November 19, 2022
A readable critical biography, unavoidably repetitive given the subject matter. Will this movie be about finding the cool surrogate father? Or torturing the sister figure? Or attraction to the mother figure? Or assimilating to a menacing yet attractive Christian society? Haskell diligently works through the checklist for most of the movies, until she gets past War of the Worlds, when most of the chapters become little packets of blurbs (except Lincoln, which is so important that she grants a press conference for the film world-historic significance).
Probably the most interesting take is that Spielberg is our great Mormon artist, explaining his predilection for genre work, aversion to sex and drugs, and lack of interest in ambiguity (at least up until Munich). For someone who by no means comes across as a pro-Steve partisan, Haskell is willing to say remarkably clumsy and offensive stuff to defend him against critics. The chapters on Schindler's List and Amistad are full of bad faith arguments against his critics, especially "the blacks." Oof.
There's a lot of other strange takes: No sentimentality in A.I.??? The Terminal is a "Breughel-like tapestry"??? The source of the intractability of the Israel-Palestine conflict is Western libs being unwilling to grant Israel the "right to exist"??? She ignores the obvious "dark ending" of Minority Report, which Spielberg has basically affirmed as canonical. Also, I have to drop a fact-check: it's not an Indian burial ground in Poltergeist.
Probably the most interesting take is that Spielberg is our great Mormon artist, explaining his predilection for genre work, aversion to sex and drugs, and lack of interest in ambiguity (at least up until Munich). For someone who by no means comes across as a pro-Steve partisan, Haskell is willing to say remarkably clumsy and offensive stuff to defend him against critics. The chapters on Schindler's List and Amistad are full of bad faith arguments against his critics, especially "the blacks." Oof.
There's a lot of other strange takes: No sentimentality in A.I.??? The Terminal is a "Breughel-like tapestry"??? The source of the intractability of the Israel-Palestine conflict is Western libs being unwilling to grant Israel the "right to exist"??? She ignores the obvious "dark ending" of Minority Report, which Spielberg has basically affirmed as canonical. Also, I have to drop a fact-check: it's not an Indian burial ground in Poltergeist.
March 12, 2019
De los libros que leí de Spielberg, por ahora, es uno de los más completos. No por la abundancia de datos, sino porque es bastante equilibrado en cuanto a la información biográfica, la historia de la producción de sus películas y sus temas.
En orden cronológico, la autora va repasando cada film y hace un muy buen análisis de sus temas vinculándolos a los hechos de la biografía del director que los motivaron.
La filmografía de Spielberg puede dividirse en las películas de aventura, ciencia ficción y acción por un lado, y las películas históricas, políticas o de temas serios por otro. Pero en todas aparecen temas recurrentes muy spilebergianos: el lugar de la familia y su desintegración (Encuentros cercanos), el padre que no quiere asumir la adultez o la paternidad (Encuentro Cercano, La última cruzada), también la posibilidad de descubrir la vida con los ojos de niño (ET), o los personajes alter Pinocho (Inteligencia Artificial) y Peter Pan (Hook), el hombre ordinario envuelto en una situación extraordinaria (La Terminal, Guerra de los mundos), la luz de esperanza en medio de la oscuridad (Ryan o Schindler), cierto sentimentalismo, etc.
La única deuda que encuentro es que el análisis de las últimas películas es más escueto que el de las primeras y que faltaría algún tipo de comentario acerca de la puesta en escena, que en el caso de una biografía de un director de cine, no es un elemento menor al analizar la filmografía.
En orden cronológico, la autora va repasando cada film y hace un muy buen análisis de sus temas vinculándolos a los hechos de la biografía del director que los motivaron.
La filmografía de Spielberg puede dividirse en las películas de aventura, ciencia ficción y acción por un lado, y las películas históricas, políticas o de temas serios por otro. Pero en todas aparecen temas recurrentes muy spilebergianos: el lugar de la familia y su desintegración (Encuentros cercanos), el padre que no quiere asumir la adultez o la paternidad (Encuentro Cercano, La última cruzada), también la posibilidad de descubrir la vida con los ojos de niño (ET), o los personajes alter Pinocho (Inteligencia Artificial) y Peter Pan (Hook), el hombre ordinario envuelto en una situación extraordinaria (La Terminal, Guerra de los mundos), la luz de esperanza en medio de la oscuridad (Ryan o Schindler), cierto sentimentalismo, etc.
La única deuda que encuentro es que el análisis de las últimas películas es más escueto que el de las primeras y que faltaría algún tipo de comentario acerca de la puesta en escena, que en el caso de una biografía de un director de cine, no es un elemento menor al analizar la filmografía.
May 8, 2017
I’m of two minds about Steven Spielberg. I share the general belief that he’s a brilliant showman. I think that "Jaws," for example, might be the best adventure film ever made. On the other hand, I hold Spielberg largely – if indirectly – responsible for the sorry state of Hollywood today, with its glut of “franchise” movies and over-emphasis of special effects. Not to mention studios’ “will teenage boys like it?” marketing mentality.
The publisher was wise to assign this short-but-insightful Spielberg biography to Haskell, a renowned critic who appreciates the filmmaker’s talent and influence but is not, by her own admission, a die-hard fan. Haskell’s chapters are chronological, linking Spielberg’s personal life and evolution to the plots and themes of his movies. I didn’t always agree with her evaluations, but her prose is unfailingly thought-provoking.
To me, the book is most interesting in the chapters about early Spielberg, when the wunderkind was setting the world on fire with energetic, imaginative blockbusters like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Later films like "Empire of the Sun," "Amistad," and "Lincoln" might hold more appeal for a serious analyst like Haskell, but I’ve always felt that when it comes to a Steven Spielberg movie, popcorn is more palatable than polemics. – grouchyeditor.com
The publisher was wise to assign this short-but-insightful Spielberg biography to Haskell, a renowned critic who appreciates the filmmaker’s talent and influence but is not, by her own admission, a die-hard fan. Haskell’s chapters are chronological, linking Spielberg’s personal life and evolution to the plots and themes of his movies. I didn’t always agree with her evaluations, but her prose is unfailingly thought-provoking.
To me, the book is most interesting in the chapters about early Spielberg, when the wunderkind was setting the world on fire with energetic, imaginative blockbusters like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Later films like "Empire of the Sun," "Amistad," and "Lincoln" might hold more appeal for a serious analyst like Haskell, but I’ve always felt that when it comes to a Steven Spielberg movie, popcorn is more palatable than polemics. – grouchyeditor.com
November 27, 2022
Immediately after watching THE FABELMANS, I was hungry for more Spielberg and this book hit the spot. I listened to it on audio in one day. Although the book does not include any direct interviews with Spielberg (he has a policy of not helping biographers), it takes the fascinating approach of chronicling the director's life through his films, analyzing his life via the movies he makes.
There's some great insight offered here, as well as a personal anecdotes, including one about Spielberg's father bringing his young son into the desert to watch a meteor shower, a scene which should've been in THE FABELMANS, and some wonderful thematic explorations of his films, Close Encounters, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, but I would've enjoyed a bit more expansion on certain other films (Duel, Munich) and a deeper dive into the actual movie-making, as a complement to the offered film criticism.
That critique serves, I suppose, as further evidence of Spielberg's greatness and impressive oeuvre.
There's some great insight offered here, as well as a personal anecdotes, including one about Spielberg's father bringing his young son into the desert to watch a meteor shower, a scene which should've been in THE FABELMANS, and some wonderful thematic explorations of his films, Close Encounters, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, but I would've enjoyed a bit more expansion on certain other films (Duel, Munich) and a deeper dive into the actual movie-making, as a complement to the offered film criticism.
That critique serves, I suppose, as further evidence of Spielberg's greatness and impressive oeuvre.
August 13, 2017
This was a very readable look at Spielberg's career.
In a way, it reminded me of James Agee's look at Preston Sturges, in that it looks for "mommy" and "daddy" films in the filmmaker's career.
Haskell is not uncritical of Spielberg. She recognizes his gift and how he has changed the culture, but she sticks to her opinions. Her readings of "Empire of the Sun," "A. I." and "Catch Me If You Can" are very interesting.
This book made me think about my indifference to Spielberg. Apart from the "scary" films ("Duel," "Jaws" and "Jurassic Park") I don't really care for his work. I have seen several of his films once and that's enough. I much prefer Martin Scorsese, but it seems I "should" like Spielberg more. I guess I like Scorsese more because he is what he is and embraces it (and is not afraid of unhappy endings), while Spielberg desperately wants to please.
Not a great book, but it made me think far more than I expected to.
In a way, it reminded me of James Agee's look at Preston Sturges, in that it looks for "mommy" and "daddy" films in the filmmaker's career.
Haskell is not uncritical of Spielberg. She recognizes his gift and how he has changed the culture, but she sticks to her opinions. Her readings of "Empire of the Sun," "A. I." and "Catch Me If You Can" are very interesting.
This book made me think about my indifference to Spielberg. Apart from the "scary" films ("Duel," "Jaws" and "Jurassic Park") I don't really care for his work. I have seen several of his films once and that's enough. I much prefer Martin Scorsese, but it seems I "should" like Spielberg more. I guess I like Scorsese more because he is what he is and embraces it (and is not afraid of unhappy endings), while Spielberg desperately wants to please.
Not a great book, but it made me think far more than I expected to.
September 5, 2025
I am not sure what I was expecting from this book. So it is difficult to get highly disappointed, especially considering it is a breezy read. However, Steven Spielberg is my absolute favorite director from Hollywood. His range from Jaws to Schindler is mind blowing. And therefore I picked up this book probably in anticipation of deeper insights, but I found nothing here that I hadnt already learned from previous articles and interviews. Still, it is good to capture the chronicle with each of his movies covered. The writer does get more into her opinions of each movie and movie makers mindset. The writing is very linear. There was no attempt to carve out more details on Steven's long time collaborations like John Williams, Janusz Kaminski, etc. These collaborations are central to his genius and their absence was felt.
Giving it 3* as there is no 2.5* option.
Giving it 3* as there is no 2.5* option.
October 29, 2023
Some interesting details about Spielberg's life and films, but the author keeps trying to ascribe subtext to every element of his films--how everything he created relates in some way to his family, his character traits, etc. I was also extremely frustrated by her many inaccuracies--incorrect movie quotes and plot details. If only there were an easy way to ensure accuracy such as...I dunno...REWATCHING those short scenes you're referencing?? It also seemed like she was burdened with a task she didn't want (writing a biography about a filmmaker she isn't really a fan of) so she did the bare minimum--mostly pulling from Google, YouTube, and a bigger, better biography. It's the "distracted high school student with a deadline" approach.
October 26, 2017
"How is one to tell a tale that cannot be -- but must be -- told?" once asked Elie Wiesel. The same question could apply to telling Steven Spielberg's life story (sorry for the hyperbole). Wiesel's words are used judiciously by Molly Haskell in her short but scintillating biography of Spielberg, part of the JEWISH LIVES series. The book's a terrific psychoanalysis of Spielberg the man and Spielberg the artist. It's also an incisive appraisal of his cinematic canon. Imagine that Freud met Pauline Kael and the two compared notes on Spielberg. Haskell's deft prose is as close as one will get to such a confab.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews