[civilian_number_two]

Az, ok at least we're on common ground now, where you admit that your argument begs the question, that you begin with having a personal reaction to the films and follow from that by trying to show that your personal reaction is logically valid. With tha I disagree.

As for the camera technique, you might as well say that ANY moving camera in ANY film, in fact every cut, every framing, is gimmicky and designed by a director. Every shot of every film ever should be an infinite-focus extreme wide, and the camera should never move or reframe, and we should never cut to another angle. Because any direction is gimmicky. <--- I disagree with that. Movies are not theatre.

SPR is not the first film to affect a pseudo-documentary style and more than PLATOON is the first film to use slow motion or backing music. These are gimmicks, yes, but they are established gimmicks and Spielberg was not wrong to use them. He was also not unique in their use.

I appreciate that you have a better memory for the archetypes in PLATOON or ALIENS than you have of those in SPR. This is because the story in SPR is shit. THAT may justifiably be your reason for disliking the film, but you are wrong to try to go further to the points you try to make, that Spielberg invented the pseudo-documentary gimmick as an insult to soldiers, and that simultaneously his film is 100% jingoism. Many praise that technique as effecting an immediacy, an enhanced audience-to-character identification. I think it has been overdone in some films, but I dont' think that by using the style to acieve a desired effect in action scenes one ios then required to use the same style in non-action films. The only director who would agree with you would be Michael Bay.

As for the scene you mention in Jurassic Park, it was obviously a sequel setup, and one that they didn't bother to use when they actually did make a sequel. I don't think much more needs to be made of that. I agree with a lot of your criticism of Spielberg's wankery, and yes, there is much of it in SCHINDLER'S LIST, and I don't just mean the girl in the red coat. However I still think Spielberg has some great films behind him, SL included (wankery notwithstanding). In general I think his heart may be in the wrong place, but not in the way you describe. He has made many horrible choices in many of his films (do get me started one day on MINORITY REPORT), and the storyline of SPR is trivial, but I don't think you can succeed in the agument you are making about the way that he chose to represent the action.