How good a bet is Steven Spielberg?

Steven Spielberg has done it all. He's already earned his AFI Life Achievement Award, scored his best director Oscars, hung out in the Clinton White House, been parodied by "South Park" and played the part of a Universal tour guide (see above clip). But with Hollywood abuzz about the news that DreamWorks is putting together a deal with an Indian media conglomerate to finance a new slate of films, I found myself wondering--how many big hit movies does Spielberg, who turns 62 in December, still have left in the tank?

After all, while Reliance Entertainment clearly expects DreamWorks co-chair Stacey Snider to be a major force in picking hit films in the ensuing years, it isn't spending $500-plus-million on her executive talent, as considerable as it might be. It also has to betting that Spielberg can still deliver the kind of megahits he's famous for. His track record is pretty much unparalleled in modern-day Hollywood, with epic successes in every decade of his career: "Jaws" and "Close Encounters" in the 1970s, "E.T." and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in the 1980s, "Jurassic Park" and "Saving Private Ryan" in the 1990s and "War of the Worlds" and the newly released "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" in the current decade.

Spielberg has a slew of classy-looking projects in the works, from a trilogy based on "The Adventures of Tintin" that will have him collaborating, in some fashion, with Peter Jackson, to a biopic of Abe Lincoln (scripted by Tony Kushner) and the "Trial of the Chicago 7" historical drama, penned by Aaron Sorkin. But filmmaking is a young man's game, especially when it comes to making quality films that also attract a mass audience. Outside of Clint Eastwood and John Huston--once in a generation directors--the box-office results for filmmakers who've hit 62 are not pretty.

Borrowing on the work of baseball sabermetricians who project the careers of great sluggers and pitchers after they've passed what passes for middle age in baseball, here's a representative sampling of career work from 10 of our great directors after they've passed the 62-year mark.

Francis Ford Coppola ("The Godfather," "Apocalypse Now")

   63-plus: "Youth Without Youth."

Howard Hawks ("Bringing Up Baby," "The Big Sleep," "Red River")

   63-plus: "Hatari!," "Red Line 7000," "El Dorado."

George Roy Hill ("Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "The Sting")

   63-plus: "The Little Drummer Girl," "Funny Farm."

Alfred Hitchcock ("The Lady Vanishes," "Notorious," "North by Northwest")

   63-plus: "The Birds," "Torn Curtain," "Topaz."

Elia Kazan ("A Streetcar Named Desire," "On the Waterfront," "East of Eden")

   63-plus: "The Visitors," "The Last Tycoon."

David Lean ("Lawrence of Arabia," "Dr. Zhivago")

   63-plus: "Ryan's Daughter," "A Passage to India."

Mike Nichols ("The Graduate," "Heartburn")

   63-plus: "Closer," "Charlie Wilson's War."

Sydney Pollack ("The Way We Were," "Tootsie")

   63-plus: "Random Hearts."

George Stevens ("Woman of the Year," "Giant")

   63-plus: "The Only Game in Town."

Billy Wilder ("Sunset Blvd.," "Some Like It Hot")

   63-plus: "Avanti," "The Front Page," "Fedora."

Comments

[Horace]

Hey Heartburn was not good. Closer is a legit Carnal Knowledge for the 21st Century and though Charlie Wilson's War wasn't great, it was watchable-thanks largely to Hanks and Hoffman. As well Lean's Ryan's Daugher and A Passage to India were award winners or multi-nominees. So there is hope. Altman + Sidney Lumet have missed and hit marks too. Before the Devil was excellent. The Player, Short Cuts and Gosford Park are three of Altman's best, no question. I think your inference that 62 is the downhill slide for all but the exceptional-Huston and Eastwood-seems foolish considering Speilberg is something of an exceptional director, aka The Most Successful American Director Ever! I wouldn't short change him in the long run. Though Indie 4 was weak, War of the Worlds had that ending too. But Munich holds up well.

[T'Challa]

You can never count out Spielberg. Ever. He surrounds himself with too much talent. Even his flops are blockbusters. He's like Brett Farve--sure, he throws some picks and doesn't always protect the ball, but there's no one else you'd rather have under center with the game on the line. There's a spark, an insatiable level of curiosity, the possibility for magic. More than likely he will eventually fade into more of a supervisory role as a hands on exec producer (like he did with Transformers), but as long as he can sit up straight and look at a monitor, he'll always have something incredible to offer as a director. He's got at least another 20 years and ten more features in him---it's all about his passion, and the choices he makes. I know who I aspire to be like 27 years from now.

[Aladdin Sane]

It's the Beard. He doesn't seem to wanna slow down at all. Even if there have been some weak points story wise, he is endlessly coming up with new ways to expand the language of film. Some of the shots in his past few films have been nothing short of spectacular - immediately I think about the camera work in War of the Worlds as Tom Cruise is driving the minivan. It's flawless. Not many directors would have the courage to move a camera around like that, but Spielberg with the help of Kaminski make it seem like child's play. If and when he does decide to retire, it'll be on top. I can't see it any other way.

[Wilbur Varela]

Anyone who makes a living in the motion picture industry past age 40 is beating major odds, hence should be considered extraordinary.