when the director accidentally makes a classic

You can watch this film with no sound and still know the whole story, the images tell so much.

The adventure tale is a simple formula that was done hundreds of times before, and hundreds of times since. Raiders stands above them all because of the director and his choices. There may be reasons it didn't win Oscar for Best Film that year, but it is criminal that he didn't get Best Director.

Spielberg's simple yet highly effective filmmaking is one of the things that stands out to me the most about his films and is, no doubt, one of the reasons why they're so successful. It takes a certain level of filmmaking mastery to do what he does.

He has a lot of range, from a goody kid movie to a realistic war one. Realistic enough to make soldiers cry.

Good work Archer. You're right. Steven's approach is simple, yet with a masters eye. I had the privilege of working with him on Lincoln (everyday for three months in Richmond) and saw his process at first hand. I never in a million years thought I would get to know him on a first name basis. But, you know, dreams do come true in the most bizarre ways. I should write a book on the experience - so many stories and examples. I made a documentary of my time on it - just so I'd remember all the stories. It's too personal to post on YouTube, but in producing it, it sealed my memory of my time with him. Maybe one day, I'll post it....

The accident suggested in the title was that the director accidentally proved to be an expert of his craft and a master of filmmaking... That was some good luck for the studio that hired him!

Did anyone else feel like wanting to watch an Indiana Jones marathon after watching this video? Cause I do, I have seen them many times (my second favorite franchise after Star Wars), but I never get tired of them, watching them with all this cinematic knowledge adds much more to the experience, Steven Spielberg is probably my favorite director and one of my big inspirations since I was a kid, as a I once heard: "nobody moves the camera like Spielberg."

Spielberg’s long takes served another purpose - it allowed him to shoot faster, saving time and money. A lot of those scenes shot in a traditional manner would have required 3 or more different set ups. He was determined to make Raiders come in under budget and on schedule, which he did. Spielberg’s greatest feat though is how he ends Raiders, the penultimate scene. Indiana isn’t fighting the bad guy or racing the clock to save the day - he’s helplessly tied to a pole with his girlfriend while all hell breaks loose around them. The action hero with no action. And it works. Genius.

Spielberg is the kind of director who reaches into the muck and pulls out a diamond. He’s made some classic films and what I argue is the best film ever made, Schindler’s List.

Raiders is probably the most outright entertaining movie I’ve ever seen. Likely not the overall best movie I’ve watched, but so fun and enjoyable that it’s easily one of my favorites. Pure escapism done at the highest level.

EVERYONE WAKE UP ARCHER GREEN POSTED

Excellent breakdown and description of a master's work. Never noticed certain details like blue light and gold light meaning different things. Love that this is so entertaining yet gives lots of valuable information that other aspiring directors/writers/cinematographers can use!

THE shot from Contact so cool.

Long story short: NO CUTS = INSTANT CLASSIC

What are you talking about? His movies definitely have a distinct visual style. Once you see it you can’t un see it.

You, Cinemastix and Thomas Flight are my biggest inspirations for the content I create on YouTube. Keep up the awesome work :)

Well written, well directed. Wish studios today stopped pandering to audiences, trying to overdo prequels with excessive CGI, and instead focus on what makes a good story.

This video made me watch Raiders of the Lost Ark for the first time. Absolutely loved it, I'm sorry I missed out on it as a kid.

WOW, what a beautiful presentation ! It's like i was attending a Masterclass!

@11:03 I don't know if there's anything to this, but there's something amusingly topsy-turvy about the 'snakes' setup and payoff. The introductory line - basically pure exposition - is a scream of rage at a threat that's not even present. Then when he's actually faced with them he sounds almost wearily resigned to it. You can imagine a first draft version of that where "I hate snakes, I hate 'em" is stated plainly and "snakes! why'd it have to be snakes!?" is yelled in terror, but we get the opposite. To overanalyse for a second, maybe that tells us something about Indy being an emotional man who's able to set that aside to deal calmly with the danger he constantly finds himself in. Orrr maybe it's just funny to see a line read in a surprising way.