Review of The Fabelmans (2022) by Markhreviews — 27 Nov 2022

Let’s be fair: If any filmmaker has earned the right to make an autobiography, it’s Steven Spielberg. Over the years, he’s given us films that were touchstones for two generations. So we owe him this self-indulgence.

What Spielberg and Co-Writer Tony Kushner (“Angels in America”) have created is puzzling. From my perspective, the film is in three acts of widely varying lengths and equally diverse intentions. The first 75% of this film traces Spielberg’s development from his first movie experience, seeing DeMille’s “The Greatest Show on Earth,” through his adolescent movie-making. It’s ironic that the re-creation of Spielberg’s early movie-making is actually pretty dull, offering little insight into his cinematic sensibilities. During this time, the fissures in his parents’ relationship - and the ripple effects throughout the family – become apparent. When it’s not being depressing or sad, this section of the film is remote and emotionally distant, apparently because of Spielberg’s tortured attempt not to take one parent’s side in the conflict.

Act Two explores Spielberg’s move to Northern California and his experiences in a high school which was apparently heavily populated by very tall Aryan males. We discover that his first girlfriend is a devout Christian (her wall is a shrine dedicated equally to Jesus, Fabian and Bobby Rydell) who hopes to save his soul. She also has apparent difficulty conflating religious fervor and sexual arousal. This section of the film is just as impressionistic as Act One, but the colors are brighter and the tone is light, if not frivolous.

Act Three lasts only a few minutes. In torment, Spielberg’s character has decided to drop out of college to pursue his dream. Along the way, he’s given a five-minute audience with Director John Ford, who offers weighty utterances about cinematic technique through vast clouds of cigar smoke. This causes our protagonist to stride happily, optimistically into the sunset for no apparent reason.

Along the way, Spielberg and Kushner offer some alternative theories about Spielberg’s passion for filmmaking. For Spielberg, is filmmaking a way to control and make meaning of the chaos around him? Possibly. Could making movies be a buffer and an escape from family tension as his parents’ marriage disintegrates? Maybe. Could making films offer an antidote for personal loneliness? Could be. Was moviemaking simply a way for Spielberg to find his place in the confusing social landscape of childhood and adolescence? Kinda. Does he enjoy playing God, deciding the winners and losers in his narratives? Perhaps. The most frustrating element of this film is that Spielberg seems more perplexed about the events around him and his own motivations than he has ever been when filming his iconic characters. But then, maybe that’s the way it is with humans. When we’re the subject of the conversation, it always messier. At the end of the day, life is apparently just as confusing for Spielberg as it is for the rest of us.