Was looking for this little excerpt for quite some time. Its from the Wender's Documentary ROOM 666. Here is Spielberg in 1982 "on the future of cinema."

Reading Stendhal's The Charterhouse of Parma, I discovered that the prison for political crimes during the Austrian empire, was Spielberg citadel, in Brno; now, I wonder which is Steve's family name origin.

Where "Spielberg family" came from? I've looked at wikipedia (where almost all USamericans have descriptions of all their grand grand parents' origins) but there's no explication on his article.

Is He Austrian ? German ? Czech? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spielberg_(disambiguation) I have not read a biography or studies about him (sorry).

Probably useless to answer this question now, but for Jews surnames are basically useless as a way to tell family point of origin. The best indicator they serve is when they got that surname. Being Germanic that would put him at the mid 1800s for example. Given the descriptions he gives of his family's religious practices, at least according to the wiki article, which are a better indicator than names I'd assume he was either Lithuanian or Polish.

Spielberg always has six projects that never happen for one that does. The odds are against it coming to fruition.

According to Joseph McBride's decent biography on Spielberg, Arnold Spielberg, Steven's father, believed the roots of their family were in Austria-Hungry. The name is German-Austrian and means "play mountain." His mother's side originated in Poland, and his maternal grandfather, Fievel, immigrated from Odessa, Russia (apparently An American Tail was inspired by his grandfather's stories).

Though even something like that can be difficult in pinpointing Jewish ethnicity rather than nationality since that just considers where they were in the last three hundred years or so.

I would agree if I thought the original version was definitive. At best its an ok film, not on the level of say the 1954 A Star is Born, the 1936 Showboat or Cukor's My Fair Lady. If it was as indelible as those particular films then a remake would be foolish indeed. There are at least a few angles a remake could go with to perhaps avoiding pointlessness. For one, maybe a more authentic "ethnic" cast in a modern urban milieu? Besides that, in theory at least it wouldn't be too hard to find a better actress than the rather, uh, limited Natalie Wood.

I'll just zero-in on this remark, and slowly back away…

Thank you. I am trying very hard to be a more positive person, but lord I am tested

I think the joke is that those are all movies that were successfully remade? I dunno, West Side Story strikes me as being an artifact rather than an evergreen story (since, obviously, the part that does translate is the part of it that's Romeo and Juliet) and that any modern version of it would either be winkingly making fun of the original or trying desperately to pretend that it's not obviously material from another time, both of which sound exasperating to me.

The main thing I remember it for is Marni Nixon's voice which is needless to say, unimpeachable. Been years since I've seen the film, so I'll stand by that at least.


The reviews for the 2009 Broadway revival describe it as using extensive Spanish singing and text for the Latino gang. Again, with a more "authentic" cast. Didn't see it, but that may indicate that there is a way to remake it successfully without completely running away from the source text.

EDIT: I said Julie Andrews but I meant Nixon

And of course, it was Nixon who dubbed Natalie Wood in West Side Story.

West Side Story still works pretty good -- performed live, on stage...

Stephen Sondheim has never liked the film, and he says he'll go the grave believing that. Just a few years ago, speaking to a college crowd with Frank Rich, he argues that with cinema, there's always an element of reportage. Doesn't matter if you're Jean Cocteau or whoever, it's there, and he doesn't think the musical worked as a film because the straight translation never addresses this problem. As a result, what works on stage can look ridiculous on screen.

I see no reason why WSS couldn't be filmed again -- given the right cast and the right approach. But I see nothing in Spielberg's resume that would suggest he might be a suitable candidate for undertaking such a task (and having it succeed).

I wonder which Spielberg film will be the first to be re-made?

Yeah, it's one of the all-time great musicals, and I find the movie a chore to watch, so I don't see any reason why a better movie can't be made of it.

Hook, probably, because it is the only film of his that could be improved by someone else.

You honestly think this is the rationale for remaking anything?

Catch Me If You Can has already been made into a musical if that counts.

I'm pretty sure JAWS has been remade many times over.

E.T. too.

At nearly 70, Spielberg is on a bit of a tear. If things go as planned, he'll have five films in five consecutive years -- juggling filming, post, and press schedules for multiple films at once, as he's done several times before.

Following last year's stellar Bridge of Spies, he's got The BFG in the can and coming out in July. Ready Player One will be filming by then, but a lengthy post-production (and avoidance of a certain galaxy far, far away) will push its release to March of 2018. While that's in post, Spielberg will shoot and release the just-announced The Kidnapping Of Edgardo Mortara. Then he'll spend the following year readying the next Indiana Jones installment for a summer 2019 release. If he's eyeing retirement in the near future, it looks like he intends to go out with a bang.

It's strange. I don't think of him being 70.