THE situation becomes clearer with each film Steven Spielberg makes. In his earlier years as a young filmmaker, Spielberg never seemed to miss, and he left the 20th century with an almost endless streak of cinematic masterpiece that redefined cinema. The man was single-handedly responsible for defining the “box office blockbuster”, beginning with Jaws.
But, in the last two decades since the turn of 21st century, Spielberg has released a seemingly endless pile of bland, by-the-numbers Academy Awards-bait films.
The Fabelmans is no different.
A semi-autobiography loosely based on Spielberg’s childhood and first years as a filmmaker, The Fablemans is centered on the Fabelman family led by Burt (Paul Dano) and Mitzi (Michelle Williams), parents to a wily bunch of children.
The film also (and mainly) focuses on Samuel – a stand-in for Spielberg – whose prodigy as a young filmmaker blossoms from a ‘hobby’ to an obsession, and how it eventually leads to him finding out a secret involving Burt’s best friend, Bennie Loewy (Seth Rogen) that threatens to break the family apart.
Beat-by-beat, The Fablemans is predictable, and downright formulaic, just like Spielberg’s previous films.
The emotional heart of the film, the family drama, is undercooked. The technical core of the film, Samuel’s prodigal filmmaking, is background noise to the drama and is only occasionally shown.
Randomly strung together
Despite the family-breaking “secret” being centered around Mitzi and her subsequent brief descent into a mental health crisis, she hardly receives nuance, particularly in her relationship with Burt, while Samuel’s younger sisters are sidelined and barely play a role in the story.
This is ironic as at one point in the film, one of the sisters tells Samuel that he should make films with women having bigger voices. Did Spielberg just advise himself and not take the same advice?
Burt, the figurehead of the family and a stand-in for Spielberg’s own father, is also underdeveloped. He merely exists as a pioneer in engineering who wasn’t “present” for his family or his son’s filmmaking dream.
On that note, the earlier parts of the film showcases Samuel’s ability as a budding filmmaker, particularly in practical effects, which is to be expected, as that was early Spielberg’s wheelhouse for anyone who has watched Jaws and the Indiana Jones films.
These scenes, and the whole film, shows just how much Spielberg is a technical master of his craft when he brings the filmmaking magic that defined his earlier films. However, the writing just shows how burned out he is on the creative side.
The later parts of the film, after the Fabelmans move to California, devolves into a weird cocktail of post-World War II anti-Semitism, Mitzi losing her mind, Samuel getting a girlfriend and the family unravelling.
What was the message Spielberg was intending to push as the film confusingly traverses from one trope or genre into the another, over and over again? There doesn’t seem to be one in this two and a half hour-long therapy masquerading as a film.
The film feels like it was made by Spielberg for Spielberg to work through Spielberg’s memories of the Spielberg family.
The Fablemans is currently playing in cinemas.