I rushed out to see Steven Spielberg’s latest when it hit limited release but it also came at a time when I was seeing a bunch of other films and it just sort of got pushed to the back burner. My motivation just wasn’t quite there. I wasn’t sure whether or not to write about it at all but it is Spielberg and I do run a movie website, so I feel a tad obligated especially now that we’ve officially left 2022 in the background. The Fabelmans is a great vehicle for the director’s masterful craftsmanship behind the camera and his love, not just, for the art of filmmaking, but for the transformative power of film.
A young boy gets his first taste of the movies and sets his sights on becoming a filmmaker to the delight of his mother and the dismay of his father. As he continues to hone his craft by filming his family, he begins to notice some things through the lens that he wasn’t able to pick up on before. That new knowledge challenges his veneration of his parents and the very foundation of his family.
It is readily apparent that Spielberg’s childhood love of movies is at the center of this story. In fact, it’s the catalyst for his main character Sammy Fabelman’s entire origin story, or at least the part the legendary director is willing to show us about “himself”. Because of his name value as a filmmaker and the cast attached to the project, I was always going to end up seeing this one way or another. In fact, the words “Spielberg” and “autobiographical” were the main catalyst for me to see it in the first place and it was smart of the studio (or their PR team) to make sure that vernacular was out there. Had I seen it without that preface, my experience with the film could have been very different…for better or worse.
At this point, I feel like I should probably clarify that I did actually enjoy the movie. In fact, I liked it significantly more than West Side Story so I don’t want my intent to be misconstrued. I mean, it certainly looks great! The shotmaking by cinematographer Janusz Kaminski is fun and creative, and the screenplay Spielberg wrote with longtime collaborator Tony Kushner is much funnier than I expected. That’s partly due to the nature of their other work together but this film had a great understanding of its intent and tone, and it leaned into its humor more adeptly and more earnestly than anything I have seen from Spielberg since Catch Me If You Can (2002).
Gabriel LaBelle certainly announced himself as a screen presence to keep an eye on moving forward because there were a lot of A-list names in the cast and a lot of big personalities to contend with, but LaBelle did more than hold his own. In fact, his is the performance that grounds the film as a whole. It is told from his perspective but, more importantly, he frames all the rest of the characters. With him serving as Spielberg’s avatar, Sammy is basically an observer, the lens, for how the audience sees all the other colorful caricatures. LaBelle was the most pleasant surprise of the film, but I must say that the contact lenses were incredibly distracting and the insistence on shooting him in closeups made my eyes hurt with sympathy pain.
Michelle Williams was good, as advertised, but the character was so over-the-top that there was very little room for nuance. When she gets those few opportunities she crushes them, as usual, and I selfishly wanted more of that. I understand that “Sammy” sees his mom as this larger-than-life character and she is portrayed on screen as such, but the giant sweeping brush strokes were kind of a distraction and challenged my suspension of disbelief. Conversely, I was excited to see Paul Dano play a dad role for the first time that I can remember. He gives a good measured performance but he too seemed to be somewhat confined to a particular archetype. Again, this was a very intentional character decision but, while it fit the dad role well, it felt a little thin when it came to the personal element.
Oddly enough, the one character who was able to walk in both worlds effectively and believably was Sammy’s Uncle Boris, played marvelously by Judd Hirsch. Yes, he too was larger-than-life but the character exists for that expressed purpose. He comes from a completely different world than Sammy and his introduction into the film comes with the designed intention of informing Sammy (and the audience) that the creative energy he has isn’t something that is not going to go away. I read too that Hirsch was given carte blanche in his portrayal. Ranting and raving while espousing the virtues of artistry came from a personal place for him and, one way or the other, that felt like one of the most authentic scenes in the film.
Part of my reaction to the characters was that this didn’t feel like a film about them as much as it felt like a romanticization of the storytelling power of film. It is, after all, Spielberg telling the story of how he fell in love with the medium and the particular elements of the art form that he finds the most value in. Even so, it still felt fairly (oddly) impersonal.
I am sure it was very challenging to take his family drama and put it on the big screen in the first place. It is hard to imagine even attempting that and I give him a ton of credit for doing so, but it also feels like playing both sides. If this were just a family drama, without the added mystique of it being Spielberg’s story, I don’t know that this film has the same kind of footprint. There is also probably too much to fit into one reasonably sized film and the market for Fabelmans 2 likely doesn’t exist. As a result, it sort of comes across as wanting recognition as such without actually having to play it to those stakes.
We reach a point in the film where the family secret gets caught on camera and Sammy discovers that while editing footage. The burden of that knowledge is very impactful on the characters and the story itself and that’s where and when the film is at its best. Strip away all the dazzle on either side and that very intimate knowledge is where the film finds its most personal truth. However, there is still a disconnect between the characters and who they represent. So, the film’s metaphor about movies having the power to reveal some hidden truth we can’t see with the naked eye certainly speaks to Spielberg’s personal connection to the art form, but it could have been much more effective if it weren’t so literal. As the viewer, the secret truth revealed to me is that there is a reason the characters on the screen do not bear the names of their real-life counterparts.
The production value of the film itself is outstanding, as we have become accustomed to, and the costumes are wonderful. Even a few of the “action” scenes show a career’s worth of experience and refined technique behind the camera. John Williams’ score is impeccable and I have only become more enamored with the beauty of it as I have listened to it on repeat while writing. Plus, the peek behind the curtain of Hollywood history is all good fun too.
I have an immense amount of respect for Spielberg and what he has accomplished throughout his career. Furthermore, I am a big fan of his work and there is a good reason that his name has such gravitas. Films about filmmaking usually do well, particularly with critics and during awards season, so it will be interesting to see what comes of it. Full disclosure, this wasn’t one of my favorites from 2022, but I can acknowledge that it’s a well-made enjoyable film.
Recommendation: Spielberg fans will have a good time, but don’t confuse this with some of his other films you may hold in high regard. It’s a very different experience than any of his other films.
Thanks for reading! I still believe word of mouth is the best way to help, so if you enjoy what I’m doing, please tell somebody. And if you have a comment, I’d love to hear it! Liking, subscribing, and sharing go a long way too. As usual, be well, be safe, and have fun no matter how you get your movies!