AUSTIN, Texas — One of the most anticipated events at this year’s SXSW Film & TV Festival wasn’t a movie at all, but a speaking appearance by director Steven Spielberg. The talk, a live taping of the podcast “The Big Picture” lead by co-host Sean Fennessey, covered many aspects of the Hollywood legend’s career, with a through line of sci-fi and space aliens in conjunction with Spielberg’s upcoming alien invasion thriller “Disclosure Day,” due June 12.
Though no real details about the new film were revealed, references to it peppered the conversation as if it were very much on Spielberg’s mind — the film he was ostensibly there to promote.
To an audience that included filmmakers Robert Rodriguez and Daniel Kwan, the event began with a clip reel that served as a reminder (as if anyone in the packed hotel ballroom needed one) of just how influential the 79-year-old filmmaker is. A selection of Spielberg’s work plays like a trailer for the idea of movies themselves; this one included “Jaws,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “E.T.” “Schindler’s List,” “Jurassic Park,” “The Sugarland Express,” “Catch Me If You Can,” “Munich” and many more.
Fennessey noted that Spielberg wanted to make 1977’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” his first sci-fi movie about the existence of aliens from other worlds, even before making 1975’s “Jaws.” Spielberg went further, saying he had actually wanted to make “Close Encounters” — then just referred to as “The UFO Movie” — even before 1974’s “Sugarland Express.”
Asked about President Obama’s recent comments about the possible existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and how his own feelings may have evolved over the years, Spielberg said, “I think that for one thing, when President Obama made that comment, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this is so great for “Disclosure Day,”’ and then, two days later, he stepped back the comment and said what he believed in was life in the cosmos, which of course everybody should believe that because no one should ever think that we are the only intelligent civilization in the entire universe. So I’ve always believed, even as a kid, that we were not alone. So that just goes without saying. The big question is: Are we alone now?”
He added this interest was “reinvigorated” by a 2017 New York Times article about U.S. Navy pilots seeing unexplained aerial phenomenon, then by a 2023 Congressional subcommittee hearing on the topic.
“I don’t know any more than any of you do,” Spielberg said, “but I have a very strong, sticky suspicion that we are not alone here on Earth right now. And I made a movie about that.”
Spielberg and “The Big Picture” co-host Sean Fennessey taping a live podcast at SXSW on Friday.
(Tibrina Hobson / Getty Images)
As to how he feels about that possibility, Spielberg added, “I’m not afraid of any aliens, there or here. I have no fears about that, whatsoever. I think our movie does take into consideration, without giving too much away, the social dislocation that could occur, theologically, if it would be announced that there’s evidence — not only evidence, where it’s interaction that’s has been going on for decades, that we are not just now finding out about. It is going to cause a disruption in a lot of belief systems, but I don’t think it’s a lethal disruption at all.”
Among other topics that were discussed, Spielberg revealed he is developing a western that would shoot in Texas, though he was reluctant to discuss it in any further detail except to say it would contain “no tropes.”
He also said he is not on any social media, but did install Instagram on his phone once for two weeks and felt as if he had been abducted by aliens for the amount of time he lost.
To that end, he also noted, with comic frustration, how he himself has never had any sort of alien encounter.
”I made a movie called ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind.’ I haven’t even had a close encounter of the first or second kind,” Spielberg said. “Where’s the justice in that? If you’re listening out there, I’m talking to you.”
There was a brief moment of confusion when Fennessey asked Spielberg for his thoughts on AI and Spielberg wasn’t clear if he was asking about his own 2001 movie or the broader topic of artificial intelligence.
Once that was cleared up (Fennessey meant the latter, a serious labor issue in Hollywood), Spielberg noted he has not used AI on any of his own films. “I don’t want to go into a whole rant about AI because I am for AI in many different disciplines. I am not for AI if it replaces a creative individual.”
Speaking to the theatrical experience, Spielberg made a brief allusion to the flare-up around comments by Timothée Chalamet regarding the popularity of opera and ballet in relation to the movies.
He noted that he does not decry the at-home streaming experience and that he works with Netflix, but that “for me, the real experience comes when we can influence a community to congregate in a strange dark space. All us are strangers and, at the end of a really good movie experience, we are all united with a whole bunch of feelings that we walk into the daylight with or into the nighttime with. And there’s nothing like that. I mean, it happens in movies, it happens at concerts and it happens in ballet and opera.”
Here there was a round of applause from the audience. “And we want that sustained and we want that to go forever.”
Spielberg noted how many of his favorite filmmakers, including David Lean and Billy Wilder and more recent examples such as Paul Thomas Anderson and Christopher Nolan, are always making films that feel different from what they have done before. He sees himself as part of that same school.
“If we’re just not making the same sequel over and over and over again and they’re not the same Marvel title over and over and over again, we all get a real chance to experience something, which is freshness,” Spielberg said. “And that is why I don’t judge my accomplishments based on a single film.”
The Last Kings of Hollywood: Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg—and the Battle for the Soul of American Cinema
By Paul Fischer Celadon Books: 480 pages, $32
If you buy books linked on our site, The Times may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.
Paul Fischer showed “Jaws” to his daughter when she was 10. She wasn’t scared. In fact, she loved it so much that she dressed as Richard Dreyfuss’ Hooper for Halloween. To Fischer, who watched “Raiders of the Lost Ark” at age 4 (“I remember the melting heads but I don’t think I was traumatized”), it shows the staying power of some of the ’70s blockbusters.
“It’s the flip side of how these franchises became so massive and had such a long tail,” he said in a recent video call with The Times, discussing how each generation still finds “Star Wars,” “Raiders,” “E.T.,” “Jaws” and “The Godfather.” “They’ve created films that endured and that overshadow others.”
The narrative then follows their journeys from the late ’60s through the early ’80s, filling in the “ecosystem” the trio came up in and how they wanted to change the system to gain creative autonomy. Spielberg worked within the system, Coppola spent lavishly and even ostentatiously to build his own studio and Lucas found his independence through a quieter, more conservative and technology-driven route.
(Martin Scorsese, who was friends with the three and “the most interesting human being of that generation of filmmakers,” gets plenty of ink but was not a titular character, Fischer said, because he remained an outsider who just wanted to make movies, not change the system.)
“I’m not going to pretend I can tell you what was going on in their heads but I tried to make people feel like they were there when it happened,” Fischer said.
While none of the three men would be interviewed, Fischer had decades of quotes and conducted his own interviews with hundreds of people in the filmmakers’ orbits to get a fuller and more honest story. (He added that their representatives were uniformly helpful with fact-checking and providing photos. “There was never a door closed on me,” he said in an accidental reference to the final scene of “The Godfather.”)
Coppola, “who changed quite a bit, was the hardest one for me to pin down,” Fischer said. “There are layers of complexity to him and his willingness to treat the creative life as if it’s an experiment.” Blending that with his self-indulgent philandering and spending of money, he added, “you can change your mind about that guy every five minutes.”
During that era at least, Fischer said Lucas and Coppola seemed ”completely devoid of any self-awareness.” He chronicles how Coppola pressured Lucas to accept changes to his first feature, “THX 1138,” so the studio would release it while Lucas viewed that as Coppola pushing him to sell out. Meanwhile, Lucas was pushing Coppola to do a studio film for hire to keep his fledgling Zoetrope Studio afloat, making Coppola feel pressured to sell out. (That movie was “The Godfather,” so it worked out OK for Coppola.)
“They keep giving each other advice about how to do things and then betray that same advice when it applies themselves,” he said, although he added that he doesn’t “whip them for 300 pages for having giant egos,” and said it’s part of the recipe to be a visionary filmmaker, especially in the Hollywood studio system.
Ultimately, the book depicts Lucas as more of a sellout, acting like the studio suits he once detested as he pressures “The Empire Strikes Back” director Irvin Kershner to make changes, often based on budget and then focusing more on profitability as he conjured up characters like the Ewoks for “Return of the Jedi.” Fischer doesn’t believe Lucas would recognize that version of himself in the book. “He’s someone who lost his BS detector and has drunk his own Kool-Aid.”
In Fischer’s telling, the creative and business sides are interwoven and inseparable from each other and from the personal relationships — their friendships and rivalries with each other but also their relationships with those who worked for them or loved them.
“They were all able to do what they did because of wives or partners or friends or college classmates, who did a lot of the work without being household names,” he said. To fully tell the story, he devotes plenty of narrative space to Coppola’s wife Eleanor, and his most prominent mistress, Melissa Mathison, who later wrote “E.T.,” producer Kathleen Kennedy, who co-founded Amblin Entertainment with Spielberg, and Lucas’ wife, Marcia, who edited the first “Star Wars” trilogy (and Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver”).
“How did these guys break through? Well, they were middle-class white dudes and these women looked after some of this stuff they couldn’t,” Fischer said. “Those aren’t the only reasons these guys became who they did but without that, they probably [wouldn’t have].”
Fischer celebrates the three men’s vision and talents — he calls “The Godfather” “a perfect film” and says Spielberg “speaks the language of a camera better than anybody else”— but the book makes clear how often they got lucky or were saved from themselves.
If Coppola had spent his money more judiciously, he might not have done “The Godfather;” Lucas resisted hiring Harrison Ford to play Han Solo as well as Ford’s creative contributions; and if someone had bankrolled the first feature film Spielberg pitched before latching onto “Jaws” — “a sex comedy San Francisco Chinese laundry riff on Snow White” — it could have sunk his career.
Additionally, Lucas and Coppola’s friendship frayed when the latter snatched back the directing gig for a film he had long ago promised to his buddy. “But imagine George Lucas making some weird low-budget, ‘Battle of Algiers’ version of ‘Apocalypse Now’ in the back streets of Sacramento,” Fischer said. “That sounds pretty crappy. And we would have lost one of the great, novelistic experiential movies that we have.”
Lucas, meanwhile, dangled his idea for “Raiders of the Lost Ark” before Spielberg’s eyes, then told him that Philip Kaufman had dibs. “He’s a fine director but we would have lost something there too,” Fischer said. “There are these crossroads there but still there has got to be something special about these three or they couldn’t have had repeated successes like they did.”
Writing about their failures, foibles and frustrations did not lessen the hold that these three men and their movie magic have on Fischer. He recounts a story of his own connection to one film with undisguised delight and enthusiasm. After graduating film school at USC, he was producing a documentary (“Radioman”) in New York when he learned that “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” was doing some filming in Connecticut. “Obsessed,” he finagled his way onto the set and into a job. “All I did was turn off the air conditioning,” he said. “‘Roll camera,’ I flip it off. ‘Cut,’ I turn it on. I did that for four days. But when Harrison Ford walked by wearing that jacket, I was 5-years-old again. That was cool.”
Miller is a freelance writer in Brooklyn who frequently writes about movies.
California may be losing two of the state’s most famed residents and generous political donors.
Filmmaker Steven Spielberg recently moved to New York and Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg is eyeing purchasing a new property in Florida, stirring speculation about whether their decisions are tied to a proposed new tax on California billionaires to fund healthcare for the state’s most vulnerable residents.
Although a handful of prominent conservatives who bolted out of California noisily blamed their departure on the controversial wealth tax measure, as well as the state’s liberal ways and what they describe as cumbersome business regulations, neither Zuckerberg nor Spielberg has given any indication that the tax proposal is the reason for their moves.
A spokesperson for Spielberg, who has owned homes on both the East and West coasts since at least the mid-1990s, said the sole motivation for Spielberg and his wife, actor Kate Capshaw, decamping to Manhattan was to be near family.
“Steven’s move to the East Coast is both long-planned and driven purely by his and Kate Capshaw’s desire to be closer to their New York based children and grandchildren,” said Terry Press, a spokesperson for the prodigious filmmaker. She declined to answer questions about his position on the proposed ballot measure.
Director Steven Spielberg presents president Bill Clinton with the Ambassadors Humanity award at the 5th Annual Ambassadors for Humanity Dinner Honoring former President Bill Clinton to support the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation held at the Amblin theatre Universal Studios on February 17, 2005 in Los Angeles, California.
(Frazer Harrison / Getty Images)
On Jan. 1, Spielberg and Capshaw officially became residents of New York City, settling in the historic San Remo co-op in Central Park West. The storied building is among the most exclusive in Manhattan, having been home to Bono, Mick Jagger, Warren Beatty, Tiger Woods and many other celebrities. On the same day, Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment opened an office in New York City.
Zuckerberg and his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, are considering buying a $200-million waterfront mansion in South Florida, the Wall Street Journal first reported this month. The property is located in Miami’s Indian Creek, a gated barrier island that is an alcove of the wealthy and the influential, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner.
Representatives for Zuckerberg declined to comment.
The billionaires’ moves raised eyebrows because they take place as supporters of the proposed 5% one-time tax on the assets of California billionaires and trusts are gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the November ballot. Led by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, they must gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters and submit them to county elections officials by June 24.
If approved, the tax would raise roughly $100 billion that would largely pay for healthcare services, as well as some education programs. Critics say it would drive the wealthy and their companies out of the state. On Dec. 31, venture capitalist David Sacks announced that he was opening an office in Austin, Texas, the same day PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel publicized that his firm had opened a new office in Miami.
The proposed ballot measure, if it qualifies for the ballot and is approved by voters, would apply to Californians who are residents of the state as of 2026. But residency requirements are murky. Among the factors considered by the state’s Franchise Tax Board are where someone is registered to vote, the location of their principle residence, how much time they spend in California, where their driver’s license was issued and their cars registered, where their spouse and children live, the location of their doctors, dentists, accountants and attorneys, and their “social ties,” such as the site of their house of worship or county club.
It’s unclear whether the proposal will qualify for the November ballot, and if it does, whether voters will approve it. However, a mass exodus of a number of the state’s billionaires — more than 200 people — would have a notable effect on state revenue, regardless. The state’s budget volatility is caused by its heavy reliance on taxes paid by the state’s wealthiest residents, including from levies on capital gains and stock-based compensation.
“The highest-income Californians pay the largest share of the state’s personal income tax,” according to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2026-27 budget summary that was published in January. “The significant share of personal income taxes — by far the state’s largest General Fund revenue source — paid by a small percentage of taxpayers increases the difficulty of forecasting personal income tax revenue.”
This reliance on wealthy Californians is among the reasons the proposed billionaires tax has created a schism among Democrats and is a source of discord in the 2026 governor’s race to replace Newsom, who cannot seek another term and is weighing a presidential bid. He opposes the proposal; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT.) campaigned for it Wednesday evening at the Wiltern in Los Angeles.
“I am not only supportive of what they’re trying to do in California, but we’re going to introduce a wealth tax for the whole country. We have got to deal with the greed, the extraordinary greed, of the billionaire class,” Sanders told reporters Feb. 11.
Zuckerberg and Spielberg are both prolific political donors, though it is difficult to fully account for their contributions to candidates, campaigns and other entities because of how they or their affiliates donate to them as well as the intricacies of campaign finance reporting.
Spielberg, 79, a Hollywood legend, is worth more than $7 billion, according to Forbes. He and his wife have donated almost universally to Democratic candidates and causes, according to Open Secrets, a nonprofit, nonpartisan tracker of federal campaign contributions, and the California secretary of state’s office.
The prolific filmmaker, who won acclaim for movies such as “Schindler’s List,” “Jaws,” “Jurassic Park” and the “Indiana Jones” trilogy, was born in Ohio and lived with his family in several states before moving to California. He attended Cal State Long Beach but dropped out after Universal Studios gave him a contract to direct television shows.
Zuckerberg, 41, launched Facebook while in college and is worth more than $219 billion, making him among the world’s richest people, according to Forbes.
His largest personal federal political donation appears to be $1 million to FWD.us, a group focused on criminal justice and immigration reform nationwide, according to Open Secrets.
Zuckerberg, who is currently a registered Democrat in Santa Clara County, has donated to politicians across the partisan spectrum, including Democrats such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to Republicans such as President Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he ran for the White House and Chris Christie during his New Jersey gubernatorial campaign.
Both men’s personal donations don’t include their other effects on campaign finances — Spielberg has helped countless Democratic politicians raise money in Hollywood; Zuckerberg’s company has made other contributions. Meta — the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration committee in December 2024. Zuckerberg later attended the president’s swearing in at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda.
Zuckerberg, born in White Plains, N.Y., created an early prototype of Facebook while at Harvard University and dropped out to move to Silicon Valley to complete the social media platform, as depicted in the award-winning film “The Social Network.”
He still owns multiple properties in California and elsewhere, including a controversial, massive compound on Kauai that includes two mansions, dozens of bedrooms, multiple other buildings and recreational spaces — and an underground bunker that features a metal door filled with concrete, according to a 2023 investigation by Wired. The cost of land acquisition and construction reportedly has topped $300 million.
Meta is based in Menlo Park, Calif., though it has been incorporated in Delaware since Facebook’s founding in 2004.
Times staff writer Queenie Wong contributed to this report.
SXSW 2026: On aliens and UFOs, Spielberg says, ‘We are not alone’
AUSTIN, Texas — One of the most anticipated events at this year’s SXSW Film & TV Festival wasn’t a movie at all, but a speaking appearance by director Steven Spielberg. The talk, a live taping of the podcast “The Big Picture” lead by co-host Sean Fennessey, covered many aspects of the Hollywood legend’s career, with a through line of sci-fi and space aliens in conjunction with Spielberg’s upcoming alien invasion thriller “Disclosure Day,” due June 12.
Though no real details about the new film were revealed, references to it peppered the conversation as if it were very much on Spielberg’s mind — the film he was ostensibly there to promote.
To an audience that included filmmakers Robert Rodriguez and Daniel Kwan, the event began with a clip reel that served as a reminder (as if anyone in the packed hotel ballroom needed one) of just how influential the 79-year-old filmmaker is. A selection of Spielberg’s work plays like a trailer for the idea of movies themselves; this one included “Jaws,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “E.T.” “Schindler’s List,” “Jurassic Park,” “The Sugarland Express,” “Catch Me If You Can,” “Munich” and many more.
Fennessey noted that Spielberg wanted to make 1977’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” his first sci-fi movie about the existence of aliens from other worlds, even before making 1975’s “Jaws.” Spielberg went further, saying he had actually wanted to make “Close Encounters” — then just referred to as “The UFO Movie” — even before 1974’s “Sugarland Express.”
Asked about President Obama’s recent comments about the possible existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and how his own feelings may have evolved over the years, Spielberg said, “I think that for one thing, when President Obama made that comment, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this is so great for “Disclosure Day,”’ and then, two days later, he stepped back the comment and said what he believed in was life in the cosmos, which of course everybody should believe that because no one should ever think that we are the only intelligent civilization in the entire universe. So I’ve always believed, even as a kid, that we were not alone. So that just goes without saying. The big question is: Are we alone now?”
He added this interest was “reinvigorated” by a 2017 New York Times article about U.S. Navy pilots seeing unexplained aerial phenomenon, then by a 2023 Congressional subcommittee hearing on the topic.
“I don’t know any more than any of you do,” Spielberg said, “but I have a very strong, sticky suspicion that we are not alone here on Earth right now. And I made a movie about that.”
Spielberg and “The Big Picture” co-host Sean Fennessey taping a live podcast at SXSW on Friday.
(Tibrina Hobson / Getty Images)
As to how he feels about that possibility, Spielberg added, “I’m not afraid of any aliens, there or here. I have no fears about that, whatsoever. I think our movie does take into consideration, without giving too much away, the social dislocation that could occur, theologically, if it would be announced that there’s evidence — not only evidence, where it’s interaction that’s has been going on for decades, that we are not just now finding out about. It is going to cause a disruption in a lot of belief systems, but I don’t think it’s a lethal disruption at all.”
Among other topics that were discussed, Spielberg revealed he is developing a western that would shoot in Texas, though he was reluctant to discuss it in any further detail except to say it would contain “no tropes.”
He also said he is not on any social media, but did install Instagram on his phone once for two weeks and felt as if he had been abducted by aliens for the amount of time he lost.
To that end, he also noted, with comic frustration, how he himself has never had any sort of alien encounter.
”I made a movie called ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind.’ I haven’t even had a close encounter of the first or second kind,” Spielberg said. “Where’s the justice in that? If you’re listening out there, I’m talking to you.”
There was a brief moment of confusion when Fennessey asked Spielberg for his thoughts on AI and Spielberg wasn’t clear if he was asking about his own 2001 movie or the broader topic of artificial intelligence.
Once that was cleared up (Fennessey meant the latter, a serious labor issue in Hollywood), Spielberg noted he has not used AI on any of his own films. “I don’t want to go into a whole rant about AI because I am for AI in many different disciplines. I am not for AI if it replaces a creative individual.”
Speaking to the theatrical experience, Spielberg made a brief allusion to the flare-up around comments by Timothée Chalamet regarding the popularity of opera and ballet in relation to the movies.
He noted that he does not decry the at-home streaming experience and that he works with Netflix, but that “for me, the real experience comes when we can influence a community to congregate in a strange dark space. All us are strangers and, at the end of a really good movie experience, we are all united with a whole bunch of feelings that we walk into the daylight with or into the nighttime with. And there’s nothing like that. I mean, it happens in movies, it happens at concerts and it happens in ballet and opera.”
Here there was a round of applause from the audience. “And we want that sustained and we want that to go forever.”
Spielberg noted how many of his favorite filmmakers, including David Lean and Billy Wilder and more recent examples such as Paul Thomas Anderson and Christopher Nolan, are always making films that feel different from what they have done before. He sees himself as part of that same school.
“If we’re just not making the same sequel over and over and over again and they’re not the same Marvel title over and over and over again, we all get a real chance to experience something, which is freshness,” Spielberg said. “And that is why I don’t judge my accomplishments based on a single film.”
Source link
‘The Last Kings of Hollywood’: How Coppola, Lucas and Spielberg changed cinema
On the Shelf
The Last Kings of Hollywood: Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg—and the Battle for the Soul of American Cinema
By Paul Fischer
Celadon Books: 480 pages, $32
If you buy books linked on our site, The Times may earn a commission from Bookshop.org, whose fees support independent bookstores.
Paul Fischer showed “Jaws” to his daughter when she was 10. She wasn’t scared. In fact, she loved it so much that she dressed as Richard Dreyfuss’ Hooper for Halloween. To Fischer, who watched “Raiders of the Lost Ark” at age 4 (“I remember the melting heads but I don’t think I was traumatized”), it shows the staying power of some of the ’70s blockbusters.
“It’s the flip side of how these franchises became so massive and had such a long tail,” he said in a recent video call with The Times, discussing how each generation still finds “Star Wars,” “Raiders,” “E.T.,” “Jaws” and “The Godfather.” “They’ve created films that endured and that overshadow others.”
That is part of the impetus behind his new book, “The Last Kings of Hollywood: Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg—and the Battle for the Soul of American Cinema.” The book, Fischer’s third about film history, starts before the trio were “big mythical names” and instead were just a bunch of guys setting out to fulfill their dreams.
The narrative then follows their journeys from the late ’60s through the early ’80s, filling in the “ecosystem” the trio came up in and how they wanted to change the system to gain creative autonomy. Spielberg worked within the system, Coppola spent lavishly and even ostentatiously to build his own studio and Lucas found his independence through a quieter, more conservative and technology-driven route.
(Martin Scorsese, who was friends with the three and “the most interesting human being of that generation of filmmakers,” gets plenty of ink but was not a titular character, Fischer said, because he remained an outsider who just wanted to make movies, not change the system.)
“I’m not going to pretend I can tell you what was going on in their heads but I tried to make people feel like they were there when it happened,” Fischer said.
While none of the three men would be interviewed, Fischer had decades of quotes and conducted his own interviews with hundreds of people in the filmmakers’ orbits to get a fuller and more honest story. (He added that their representatives were uniformly helpful with fact-checking and providing photos. “There was never a door closed on me,” he said in an accidental reference to the final scene of “The Godfather.”)
Coppola, “who changed quite a bit, was the hardest one for me to pin down,” Fischer said. “There are layers of complexity to him and his willingness to treat the creative life as if it’s an experiment.” Blending that with his self-indulgent philandering and spending of money, he added, “you can change your mind about that guy every five minutes.”
During that era at least, Fischer said Lucas and Coppola seemed ”completely devoid of any self-awareness.” He chronicles how Coppola pressured Lucas to accept changes to his first feature, “THX 1138,” so the studio would release it while Lucas viewed that as Coppola pushing him to sell out. Meanwhile, Lucas was pushing Coppola to do a studio film for hire to keep his fledgling Zoetrope Studio afloat, making Coppola feel pressured to sell out. (That movie was “The Godfather,” so it worked out OK for Coppola.)
“They keep giving each other advice about how to do things and then betray that same advice when it applies themselves,” he said, although he added that he doesn’t “whip them for 300 pages for having giant egos,” and said it’s part of the recipe to be a visionary filmmaker, especially in the Hollywood studio system.
Ultimately, the book depicts Lucas as more of a sellout, acting like the studio suits he once detested as he pressures “The Empire Strikes Back” director Irvin Kershner to make changes, often based on budget and then focusing more on profitability as he conjured up characters like the Ewoks for “Return of the Jedi.” Fischer doesn’t believe Lucas would recognize that version of himself in the book. “He’s someone who lost his BS detector and has drunk his own Kool-Aid.”
In Fischer’s telling, the creative and business sides are interwoven and inseparable from each other and from the personal relationships — their friendships and rivalries with each other but also their relationships with those who worked for them or loved them.
“They were all able to do what they did because of wives or partners or friends or college classmates, who did a lot of the work without being household names,” he said. To fully tell the story, he devotes plenty of narrative space to Coppola’s wife Eleanor, and his most prominent mistress, Melissa Mathison, who later wrote “E.T.,” producer Kathleen Kennedy, who co-founded Amblin Entertainment with Spielberg, and Lucas’ wife, Marcia, who edited the first “Star Wars” trilogy (and Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver”).
“How did these guys break through? Well, they were middle-class white dudes and these women looked after some of this stuff they couldn’t,” Fischer said. “Those aren’t the only reasons these guys became who they did but without that, they probably [wouldn’t have].”
Fischer celebrates the three men’s vision and talents — he calls “The Godfather” “a perfect film” and says Spielberg “speaks the language of a camera better than anybody else”— but the book makes clear how often they got lucky or were saved from themselves.
If Coppola had spent his money more judiciously, he might not have done “The Godfather;” Lucas resisted hiring Harrison Ford to play Han Solo as well as Ford’s creative contributions; and if someone had bankrolled the first feature film Spielberg pitched before latching onto “Jaws” — “a sex comedy San Francisco Chinese laundry riff on Snow White” — it could have sunk his career.
Additionally, Lucas and Coppola’s friendship frayed when the latter snatched back the directing gig for a film he had long ago promised to his buddy. “But imagine George Lucas making some weird low-budget, ‘Battle of Algiers’ version of ‘Apocalypse Now’ in the back streets of Sacramento,” Fischer said. “That sounds pretty crappy. And we would have lost one of the great, novelistic experiential movies that we have.”
Lucas, meanwhile, dangled his idea for “Raiders of the Lost Ark” before Spielberg’s eyes, then told him that Philip Kaufman had dibs. “He’s a fine director but we would have lost something there too,” Fischer said. “There are these crossroads there but still there has got to be something special about these three or they couldn’t have had repeated successes like they did.”
Writing about their failures, foibles and frustrations did not lessen the hold that these three men and their movie magic have on Fischer. He recounts a story of his own connection to one film with undisguised delight and enthusiasm. After graduating film school at USC, he was producing a documentary (“Radioman”) in New York when he learned that “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” was doing some filming in Connecticut. “Obsessed,” he finagled his way onto the set and into a job. “All I did was turn off the air conditioning,” he said. “‘Roll camera,’ I flip it off. ‘Cut,’ I turn it on. I did that for four days. But when Harrison Ford walked by wearing that jacket, I was 5-years-old again. That was cool.”
Miller is a freelance writer in Brooklyn who frequently writes about movies.
Source link
Billionaires Spielberg, Zuckerberg look outside of California amid wealth-tax proposal
California may be losing two of the state’s most famed residents and generous political donors.
Filmmaker Steven Spielberg recently moved to New York and Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg is eyeing purchasing a new property in Florida, stirring speculation about whether their decisions are tied to a proposed new tax on California billionaires to fund healthcare for the state’s most vulnerable residents.
Although a handful of prominent conservatives who bolted out of California noisily blamed their departure on the controversial wealth tax measure, as well as the state’s liberal ways and what they describe as cumbersome business regulations, neither Zuckerberg nor Spielberg has given any indication that the tax proposal is the reason for their moves.
A spokesperson for Spielberg, who has owned homes on both the East and West coasts since at least the mid-1990s, said the sole motivation for Spielberg and his wife, actor Kate Capshaw, decamping to Manhattan was to be near family.
“Steven’s move to the East Coast is both long-planned and driven purely by his and Kate Capshaw’s desire to be closer to their New York based children and grandchildren,” said Terry Press, a spokesperson for the prodigious filmmaker. She declined to answer questions about his position on the proposed ballot measure.
Director Steven Spielberg presents president Bill Clinton with the Ambassadors Humanity award at the 5th Annual Ambassadors for Humanity Dinner Honoring former President Bill Clinton to support the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation held at the Amblin theatre Universal Studios on February 17, 2005 in Los Angeles, California.
(Frazer Harrison / Getty Images)
On Jan. 1, Spielberg and Capshaw officially became residents of New York City, settling in the historic San Remo co-op in Central Park West. The storied building is among the most exclusive in Manhattan, having been home to Bono, Mick Jagger, Warren Beatty, Tiger Woods and many other celebrities. On the same day, Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment opened an office in New York City.
Zuckerberg and his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, are considering buying a $200-million waterfront mansion in South Florida, the Wall Street Journal first reported this month. The property is located in Miami’s Indian Creek, a gated barrier island that is an alcove of the wealthy and the influential, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner.
Representatives for Zuckerberg declined to comment.
The billionaires’ moves raised eyebrows because they take place as supporters of the proposed 5% one-time tax on the assets of California billionaires and trusts are gathering signatures to qualify the initiative for the November ballot. Led by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, they must gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters and submit them to county elections officials by June 24.
If approved, the tax would raise roughly $100 billion that would largely pay for healthcare services, as well as some education programs. Critics say it would drive the wealthy and their companies out of the state. On Dec. 31, venture capitalist David Sacks announced that he was opening an office in Austin, Texas, the same day PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel publicized that his firm had opened a new office in Miami.
The proposed ballot measure, if it qualifies for the ballot and is approved by voters, would apply to Californians who are residents of the state as of 2026. But residency requirements are murky. Among the factors considered by the state’s Franchise Tax Board are where someone is registered to vote, the location of their principle residence, how much time they spend in California, where their driver’s license was issued and their cars registered, where their spouse and children live, the location of their doctors, dentists, accountants and attorneys, and their “social ties,” such as the site of their house of worship or county club.
It’s unclear whether the proposal will qualify for the November ballot, and if it does, whether voters will approve it. However, a mass exodus of a number of the state’s billionaires — more than 200 people — would have a notable effect on state revenue, regardless. The state’s budget volatility is caused by its heavy reliance on taxes paid by the state’s wealthiest residents, including from levies on capital gains and stock-based compensation.
“The highest-income Californians pay the largest share of the state’s personal income tax,” according to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2026-27 budget summary that was published in January. “The significant share of personal income taxes — by far the state’s largest General Fund revenue source — paid by a small percentage of taxpayers increases the difficulty of forecasting personal income tax revenue.”
This reliance on wealthy Californians is among the reasons the proposed billionaires tax has created a schism among Democrats and is a source of discord in the 2026 governor’s race to replace Newsom, who cannot seek another term and is weighing a presidential bid. He opposes the proposal; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT.) campaigned for it Wednesday evening at the Wiltern in Los Angeles.
“I am not only supportive of what they’re trying to do in California, but we’re going to introduce a wealth tax for the whole country. We have got to deal with the greed, the extraordinary greed, of the billionaire class,” Sanders told reporters Feb. 11.
Zuckerberg and Spielberg are both prolific political donors, though it is difficult to fully account for their contributions to candidates, campaigns and other entities because of how they or their affiliates donate to them as well as the intricacies of campaign finance reporting.
Spielberg, 79, a Hollywood legend, is worth more than $7 billion, according to Forbes. He and his wife have donated almost universally to Democratic candidates and causes, according to Open Secrets, a nonprofit, nonpartisan tracker of federal campaign contributions, and the California secretary of state’s office.
The prolific filmmaker, who won acclaim for movies such as “Schindler’s List,” “Jaws,” “Jurassic Park” and the “Indiana Jones” trilogy, was born in Ohio and lived with his family in several states before moving to California. He attended Cal State Long Beach but dropped out after Universal Studios gave him a contract to direct television shows.
Zuckerberg, 41, launched Facebook while in college and is worth more than $219 billion, making him among the world’s richest people, according to Forbes.
His largest personal federal political donation appears to be $1 million to FWD.us, a group focused on criminal justice and immigration reform nationwide, according to Open Secrets.
Zuckerberg, who is currently a registered Democrat in Santa Clara County, has donated to politicians across the partisan spectrum, including Democrats such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to Republicans such as President Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he ran for the White House and Chris Christie during his New Jersey gubernatorial campaign.
Both men’s personal donations don’t include their other effects on campaign finances — Spielberg has helped countless Democratic politicians raise money in Hollywood; Zuckerberg’s company has made other contributions. Meta — the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration committee in December 2024. Zuckerberg later attended the president’s swearing in at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda.
Zuckerberg, born in White Plains, N.Y., created an early prototype of Facebook while at Harvard University and dropped out to move to Silicon Valley to complete the social media platform, as depicted in the award-winning film “The Social Network.”
He still owns multiple properties in California and elsewhere, including a controversial, massive compound on Kauai that includes two mansions, dozens of bedrooms, multiple other buildings and recreational spaces — and an underground bunker that features a metal door filled with concrete, according to a 2023 investigation by Wired. The cost of land acquisition and construction reportedly has topped $300 million.
Meta is based in Menlo Park, Calif., though it has been incorporated in Delaware since Facebook’s founding in 2004.
Times staff writer Queenie Wong contributed to this report.
Source link