I just read the essay which is more than you will get from most of the yahoos here. Early Spielberg films were marketed to Boomers, who were among the 18-35 demographic at the time, and who had fond nostalgiac memories of childhood uncorrupted by technology/video games and had multiple siblings, giving them prolonged childlike relatability. I feel the children of Boomers, like me, understand this and appreciate it. Perhaps we had better childhoods and less antagonistic relationships with our parents than other generations. It's no coincidence that the general narrative is that 80s and 90s kids were allowed to play freely outside, without helicopter-parental supervision, as long as we were back before dark, etc.
If this article were written today amongst the paranoia of the current time, it would probably result in lawsuit. In 1993, in a goofy unheard of publication of Answer Me!, it was not deemed worthwhile or taken seriously in the least. I personally find it totally bogus in it's theorizing on Spielberg, though no-doubt there was a seedy underbelly of pederastic activity going on in Hollywood as the time, with child stars, as we see from the Coreys, to reference one example. For mainstream big-budget, Spielberg, it was most assuredly about autuer filmmaking and family-friendly spectacle. I've never heard any rumor that Spielberg-project child actors were harassed or objectified.
The essay references a peculiar scene in Hook, which wasn't in the shooting script supposedly. It makes far more sense to me that any innuendo of this type should be directed at Robin Williams, if anyone. Does anyone agree? I like his work and performances, sure. But the man did become depressed and suicidial, and notably changed his acting style at the exact moment that society became more aggressively concerned with sexual abuse of children. His whole demeanor in comedic roles seems nearly subversive to contemporary audiences. If that man were a stranger, I would advise children to NOT take candy from him.
reply
share