Conclusion: Style by Stealth

  • James Mairata


If we return to my initial proposition that the early and continued popularity of Spielberg’s films is in part due to his unique control of style and how he deploys it to construct narrative, we can now bring together all considered areas to determine the likely significance of style. At the same time, it is also important to bear in mind that the specific or unequivocal significance accorded style in contributing to the popularity of Spielberg’s films in comparison to other factors is impossible to determine in and of itself. For example, Jaws was chosen by Spielberg as a film project because of its conceptual appeal. He found the story intriguing and believed it would make a good film. The subject matter was a key contributor to the film’s success as evidenced by its popularity as a novel. Whether another director could have as successfully or even more successfully transitioned the subject matter from novel to film narrative is impossible to determine. We can point to the two inferior Jaws sequels as a partial indicator of how other directors fared in realising the concept as filmic narratives. Another evolving gauge may be glimpsed in the future remaking of some of Spielberg’s most popular films. The 2015 critical and popular failure of the Poltergeist remake is one such example.


  1. Awalt, S. (2014). Steven Spielberg and Duel: The Making of a Film Career. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  2. Biskind, P. (1998). Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock and Roll Generation Saved Hollywood. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  3. Bordwell, D. (2010). The Part-time Cognitivist: A View from Film Studies. Projections, 4(2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Branigan, E. (2006). Projecting a Camera: Language Games in Film Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Hochberg, J., & Brooks, V. (1996). Movies in the Mind’s Eye. In D. Bordwell & N. Carroll (Eds.), Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies (pp. 368–387). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hogan, P. C. (2004). Auteurs and Their Brains: Cognition and Creativity in the Cinema. In T. Grodal, B. Larsen, & I. T. Laursen (Eds.), Visual Authorship: Creativity and Intentionality in Media (pp. 67–86). Denmark: Museum Tusculanum Press and the authors.Google Scholar
  7. Holben, J. (2002). Criminal Intent. American Cinematographer., 83(7), 34–45.Google Scholar
  8. Kapsis, R. (1992). Hitchcock, The Making of a Reputation. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Kraft, R. N. (1987). The Influence of Camera Angle on Comprehension and Retention of Pictorial Events. Memory and Cognition. 15(4), 291–307. Retrieved from
  10. McBride, J. (1997). Steven Spielberg: A Biography. New York: Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McGinn, C. (2005). The Power of Movies: How Screen and Mind Interact. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  12. Pizzello, S. (1997). Chase, Crush and Devour. American Cinematographer., 78(6).Google Scholar
  13. Plantnga, C. (2011). Folk Psychology for Film Critics and Students. Projections, 5(2), 26–50.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, G. M. (2003). Film Structure and the Emotion System. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tan, E. S. (1996). Emotion and the Structure of Narrative Film: Film as an Emotion Machine. New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Associates Inc..Google Scholar
  16. Tybjerg, C. (2008) [DVD Audio Commentary in C. T. Dreyer (Director) Vampyr. Motion picture]. United Kingdom: Eureka Entertainment Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Wasser, F. (2010). Steven Spielberg’s America. Cambridge and. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wood, R. (1977). Hitchcock’s Films. New Jersey: A.S. Barnes & Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Mairata
    • 1
  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations