Meanwhile, from what I've seen (Dr. Strangelove, The Shining, 2001, Lolita, Eyes Wide Shut), this lofty reputation's not that deserved. A fine director, sure, with an excellent sense of pacing within a scene, and he has a a way with imagery, too. But, he's also a clod when it comes to dialogue, a bit thick with the archetypes & light on the characterization (especially in _Eyes Wide Shut_, which is more a parable than a story, and reminds me of later-day Robert Heinlein, where he's gone so far into his own head that the stories he tells have little or no interest to the viewers except as a peek into the anachronistic head of one tweaked individual).
― David Raposa, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Andrew L, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Otis Wheeler, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― AP, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Joe, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― mark s, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― chris, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― masonic boom, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
My Mum worked as a production accounts assistant on 2001 and actually walked around the spinny space hub thing. Very expensive to build - she says tutting. She also said that Kubrick was nowhere near as nuts as Patrick 'Mad As A Hatter' MacGooghan, if that is in any way salacious.
― Pete, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Andrew L, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― DG, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
I'm not convinced by "Clockwork Orange". Faux meaningful book, faux meaningful film. It's so long since I've seen "Doctor Strangelove" that I can't really say anything about it.
"Barry Lyndon" is the real forgotten Kubrick film... anyone got any thoughts on it?
― The Dirty Vicar, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Richard Tunnicliffe, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Josh, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
As for Eyes Wide Shut, it's like a David Lynch film in suggesting that behind the cosy everyday world there is a world of surrealism and menace. I'm obviously talking of Lynch films like "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" and "Lost Highway", not "The Straight Story".
My favorite moment is the duel scene...completely breaks conventions with what you are expecting. The rest of the movie I thought kind of slow-running, but perhaps one of his most beautifully filmed.
― Joe, Thursday, 5 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
Only two films were ever credited to Borehamwood Studios. The Young Ones and Summer Holiday.
― Pete, Thursday, 5 July 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― weatheringdaleson, Sunday, 8 December 2002 10:32 (10 years ago) Permalink
― weatheringdaleson, Sunday, 8 December 2002 10:33 (10 years ago) Permalink
sorry...barry lyndon is my favourite I guess...is spartacus the one with the celluloid closet scene where olivier offers tony curtis snails or oysters?
with most kubricks they're great but I don't really feel anything watching them, with the exceptions of barry lyndon which moved me almost to tears...the doom atmosphere of the second part of lyndon's downfall, his son dying (music!!!)
― erik, Sunday, 8 December 2002 10:48 (10 years ago) Permalink
― daria g, Sunday, 8 December 2002 19:18 (10 years ago) Permalink
― bob snoom, Sunday, 8 December 2002 21:59 (10 years ago) Permalink
did let Peter Sellers do his thang though. Twice.
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 9 December 2002 02:07 (10 years ago) Permalink
Stanley Kubrick = the epitome of love/hate???
― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 9 December 2002 02:16 (10 years ago) Permalink
Totally classic for Paths Of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, The Killing, and Barry Lyndon alone. Totally dud for Eyes Wide Shut, Clockwork Orange, and Lolita.
2001 was the very first movie I saw in a movie theater - as I recall I was five or six years old. Bash it if you must, but I still love it's timeless retrofuture look.
― Chris Barrus (xibalba), Monday, 9 December 2002 07:58 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 9 December 2002 08:44 (10 years ago) Permalink
I don't know what people mean by "spontanaeous", but if you any kind of liking for rollicking romping historical drama then you will wuv Barry Lyndon. It is a top film.
― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 9 December 2002 10:46 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 9 December 2002 11:42 (10 years ago) Permalink
i have still never watched clockwork orange, though i now have it on video
― mark s (mark s), Monday, 9 December 2002 11:57 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Cecil Kittens (Cecil), Monday, 9 December 2002 12:02 (10 years ago) Permalink
I like the story that Terry Southern told him when Eyes Wide Shut was in the gestative state that it should be a comedy. I think he meant an intentional one.
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 00:19 (10 years ago) Permalink
There's nothing wrong with it, I just don't think he expresses it very well.
I mean, yes, I can see where certain aspects of Kubrick have influenced Lynch but by and large I think Lynch is a better storyteller, whereas Kubrick throws too much emphasis on the stylistic interest of his films and doesn't pay as much attention to getting the story told in the most effective manner. I only really like Strangelove, I suppose, but it's not a film I'd actively go out of my way to watch anymore.
Like I said, he's someone that people either love or hate. No one is kind of "eh" about Kubrick.
― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 01:30 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 01:36 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Chris Barrus (xibalba), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 02:49 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 03:08 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 03:13 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 03:30 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 03:40 (10 years ago) Permalink
it is pervy not at all
― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 09:25 (10 years ago) Permalink
― dave q, Tuesday, 10 December 2002 09:30 (10 years ago) Permalink
― Andrew L (Andrew L), Tuesday, 10 December 2002 10:01 (10 years ago) Permalink
I chalk it up to Kubrick's confidence. There's an air to every film he did, something I can feel come through the screen. I think I've said elsewhere that my definition of a good film is one where the director accomplished what he set out to do. Kubrick's films always meet that criteria for me - he knew what he wanted, and he shot it.
I haven't seen Lolita or Barry Lyndon, but of the rest, the closest to a dud is A Clockwork Orange, even that's occasionally great.
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 03:47 (9 years ago) Permalink
detractors expect too much of it.
― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 04:09 (9 years ago) Permalink
(it was about him getting access to Kubrick's archives. The man was so anal, he even designed his own archival boxes. V. interesting)
― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 09:20 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 16:57 (9 years ago) Permalink
*
I haven't seen some of the most important films: Lolita, 2001, Strangelove, but the ones I've seen follow a very odd pattern, in that, in my opinion, the first halves seem to be brilliant, particularly the openings, and the second halves poor. The films strike me as getting more and more conventional as the story unravels, for some reason.
The first half of "A Clockwork Orange" is full of extraordinary imagery, for example, but the plot dies a sudden death the minute the McDowell is arrested and his menace cancelled. The opening of Full Metal Jacket - the drill sergeant and the recruits, is mesmerising, but the later stuff, so obviously filmed among old British warehouses, is dismal, particularly the fight against the female sniper, her femaleness seeming to me irrelevent: a sniper's a sniper. The Shining sets itself up grippingly, but goes too over the top, for my money, later on. Barry Lyndon is beautiful at first and then gets remarkably slow and dull, though I agree that Rossiter is extraordinary as the dancing piper. Eyes Wide Shut - well the relationship stuff interested me at first, but then the whole culty thing became risible - and, once again, slow.
But Kubrik's INTERESTING, no two ways about it.
― Baravelli. (Jake Proudlock), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 18:26 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 18:32 (9 years ago) Permalink
If you haven't seen Dr. Strangelove, I'd think you like it. It's hilarious from the beginning to the end. Definitely Kubrick's best flick. Lolita is in my opinion underrated, perhaps because it's kinda different from the book (though the script was written by Nabokov) - it's more of a black comedy, and the power relations between Lolita and Humbert are reversed.
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 18:47 (9 years ago) Permalink
Eyes Wide Shut on the other hand did just seem a little slow for me. The pacing made it tense, but it also made it hard to be passionate about.
― dleone (dleone), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:00 (9 years ago) Permalink
I like the second half of FMJ better than the first. The first is easier to enjoy - lots of quotable lines and laughs, and the setup is so familiar in an anti-military way. But the second is darker and has such a surreal aura (the movie crew, the general, etc.), and the way it doesn't just play out as an anti-war movie is great.
About the sets - sometimes I hear that it looks just like Vietnam, some people claim it looks like a UK location. Having never been to either, I couldn't say. (They could be one and the same - what were Vietnamese colonial-era cities like?)
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:06 (9 years ago) Permalink
― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:08 (9 years ago) Permalink
― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:11 (9 years ago) Permalink
that was the reading i learned in school, anyway. i buy it. it's a fucked up sense of humor and a boring movie if you're not focused on "getting it", though.
― vahid (vahid), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:14 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:15 (9 years ago) Permalink
― vahid (vahid), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:16 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:16 (9 years ago) Permalink
Well, Dr. Strangelove is a comedy, and "should I be laughing at this? what's wrong with me!?!" is exactly what it's about. I guess Kubrick should've done more comedies, perhaps his nihilism would've suited that genre better.
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:17 (9 years ago) Permalink
sigh
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:22 (9 years ago) Permalink
― pete s, Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:27 (9 years ago) Permalink
arendt was fascinated by satellites - she thought it was funny that we'd send up this thing INTO SPACE and we were all so excited that it was IN SPACE and we'd make such a big deal about SPACE, yet the whole time the thing was just staring back at the earth. y'know how 99% of space shuttle photographs show the earth, either in the background or as the subject.
so for her the space programs and science fiction are funny because they're not about outer space, they just reinforce or explain our relations to the earth and ourselves. heidegger wrote extensively in the same vein, though about technology and nature.
the heidegger/arendt part = we send man INTO SPACE to confront a GIANT ALIEN MONOLITH and he basically he ends up confronting texas instruments. in the meantime, there's not really anything to do but stare at photos from earth, eat packaged earth food, confront yourself in the form of endless mental and physical exercise. sort of deflates romantic sci-fi.
again, not entirely vacuous but not so great as to decisively redeem the hour-and-a-half space sequence.
― vahid (vahid), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:29 (9 years ago) Permalink
― vahid (vahid), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:31 (9 years ago) Permalink
― pete s, Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:33 (9 years ago) Permalink
Um, I have to disagree. Kubrick took his films rather seriously, the black humour is just one aspect of them. I'd say only Lolita, Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange were "driven" by Kubrick's humour, though some of the others have comedic moments as well, obviously. Still, it's hard to imagine someone calling Paths of Glory, or Barry Lyndon, or even Eyes Wide Shut "comedies".
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 19:34 (9 years ago) Permalink
(Incidentally, i'm aware it's based on Thackeray's 19th c. novel)
― pete s, Tuesday, 30 March 2004 20:05 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 20:06 (9 years ago) Permalink
this seems to me to be a pretty subjective reaction, because i dont find any part of the film "still and lifeless"--sometimes the characters themselves are, but the film itself never is. the docking sequence is beautiful, and the strauss is perfect because the machines are dancing.
― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 20:40 (9 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 21:02 (9 years ago) Permalink
― vahid (vahid), Tuesday, 30 March 2004 21:04 (9 years ago) Permalink
― N_RQ, Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:14 (8 years ago) Permalink
eg the day she, sistrah becky, me and becky's boyf aplyed DESERT ISLAND DVDS and i sighed audibly when 2001 was mentioned and wz quite korrektly taken to task
psi have now seen clockwork o. (as in "o dear")
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:21 (8 years ago) Permalink
― N_RQ, Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:26 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Huey (Huey), Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:30 (8 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer: correspondingly more exaggerated mixing is a scarifying error. (lat, Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:35 (8 years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:36 (8 years ago) Permalink
Accusations of "no sense of humor" several years xpost: fucked. "A clod with dialogue"? Strangelove is one of the most quoted films ever, and when his characters say banal things, it's quite purposeful.(except in Spartacus, in which he had no script input)
Barry Lyndon is a smarter, subtler film about desire and violence than A Clockwork Orange.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:50 (8 years ago) Permalink
by sense of humour i meant the actually funny kind
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:54 (8 years ago) Permalink
I used to love Kubrick in my revering great artists phase but right now the only films i can imagine sitting down to watch again are Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut (which really is a comedy i think in the classical sense, much like Fight Club, another film often taken too seriously.)
― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:02 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:03 (8 years ago) Permalink
― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:04 (8 years ago) Permalink
it doesn't QUITE rescue ews for me but if a film can cause a book that good, well done film
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:06 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:07 (8 years ago) Permalink
― jones (actual), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:14 (8 years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:16 (8 years ago) Permalink
― jones (actual), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:34 (8 years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:38 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:44 (8 years ago) Permalink
does anyone know where the jg ballard line about kubrick quoted here is pulled from?
― jones (actual), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:45 (8 years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:46 (8 years ago) Permalink
― jones (actual), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:47 (8 years ago) Permalink
― jones (actual), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:49 (8 years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 March 2005 15:52 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Earl Nash (earlnash), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:24 (8 years ago) Permalink
― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:30 (8 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:34 (8 years ago) Permalink
― jones (actual), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:38 (8 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:39 (8 years ago) Permalink
"A clod with dialogue"? Strangelove is one of the most quoted films ever, and when his characters say banal things, it's quite purposeful.
Dialogue being quoted != good dialogue (cf. KEVIN SMITH) (tho I like the dialogue in Strangelove tons more than any KS hoohah) (plz don't get all Alex-in-NYC about KS now, folx).
Also, utilitarian, "purposeful" dialogue != good dialogue, either! By "clod", I was thinking in terms of Eyes Wide Shut mostly, which is just some 3-hour-long dry philosophical exposition about booty (as I recall) where folks talk like they're having SK shove an etiquette book up their prostate. Might've been the point, to make these characters act naturalistically but sound unnatural (& I don't even think they ACTED naturalistically, either!), but that doesn't make the dialogue enjoyable or interesting to experience.
Of course, leave it to the SK skeptic to be a pain in the ass about the last film SK did.
― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:46 (8 years ago) Permalink
― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:48 (8 years ago) Permalink
Kubrick's a fanboy's dream: obsessive, nerdy, reclusive, capable of constructing self-contained worlds from which neither light nor sound (nor occasionally any sense at all) can escape - but he puts you there, inside this impossible place.
― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:50 (8 years ago) Permalink
― jones (actual), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:56 (8 years ago) Permalink
I didn't mean being quoted by skateboarders.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:58 (8 years ago) Permalink
Isn't this true of nearly every Hollywood director though?
It surely encapsulates the majority of losers I went to film school with who left behind their podunk hometowns & trekked off to Hollywood in search of fame and acceptance.
― jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Thursday, 10 March 2005 16:59 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 10 March 2005 17:00 (8 years ago) Permalink
i watched Clockwork on a tiny tv with a weird magnifying screen put in front of it to make it look all grainy and big, it was spooky and unpleasant but i was pretty stoned at the time
― jones (actual), Thursday, 10 March 2005 17:06 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 10 March 2005 17:13 (8 years ago) Permalink
― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 10 March 2005 17:24 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 10 March 2005 18:04 (8 years ago) Permalink
― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 10 March 2005 18:25 (8 years ago) Permalink
And I have no idea what you mean by "technology".
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 10 March 2005 19:12 (8 years ago) Permalink
― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 10 March 2005 19:25 (8 years ago) Permalink
― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 10 March 2005 19:53 (8 years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 10 March 2005 19:58 (8 years ago) Permalink
BTW, I don't recall Kael being at all equivocal on The Shining; she panned it as "the first pompous haunted-house movie," and for once I agree.
I think Alex is glamorized in ACO, but not endorsed. It's still a minor film of his, and really hits the skids once he returns HOME.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 March 2005 20:00 (8 years ago) Permalink
I think that he is more concerned than most with systems, but that this does not render him unconcerned with individuals. I think he is particularly concerned with the interplay between the individual and the system. It is probably accurate to say that he is far less concerned than most with 'character.' But perhaps he thinks that 'character' is a nice story for people who don't want to think too much about their relationship to a system, and that he doesn't want his movies to be so encumbered.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 10 March 2005 20:06 (8 years ago) Permalink
― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 10 March 2005 20:14 (8 years ago) Permalink
― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 10 March 2005 20:16 (8 years ago) Permalink
― The Argunaut (sexyDancer), Thursday, 10 March 2005 20:20 (8 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 March 2005 20:38 (8 years ago) Permalink
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 01:43 (7 years ago) Permalink
Is the contrast here supposed to be that we're not supposed to empathize with Alec in the book? Because I don't think Burgess would agree with that.
― phil d. (Phil D.), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 02:05 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Masked Gazza, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 02:11 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ian in Brooklyn, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 04:07 (7 years ago) Permalink
otm, 'character' is so overrated in movies, the same as how lyrics are overrated in songs.
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 04:14 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Brad Laner (Brad Laner), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 04:18 (7 years ago) Permalink
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 06:41 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 14:18 (7 years ago) Permalink
― senseiDancer (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 22:32 (7 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer: virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be (lat, Tuesday, 17 January 2006 22:36 (7 years ago) Permalink
― senseiDancer (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 22:38 (7 years ago) Permalink
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 22:57 (7 years ago) Permalink
― A BOLD QUAHOG (ex machina), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 01:15 (7 years ago) Permalink
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html
― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 11:25 (7 years ago) Permalink
WHOOAAAAA
― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 13:43 (7 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer: virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be (lat, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 13:47 (7 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer: virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be (lat, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 13:57 (7 years ago) Permalink
― cheshire05, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 16:54 (7 years ago) Permalink
http://movingimage.us/site/screenings/mainpage/stanley_kubrick.html
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 2 June 2006 13:49 (6 years ago) Permalink
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 2 June 2006 13:52 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 2 June 2006 14:41 (6 years ago) Permalink
i swear to god, part of me just died.
― jed_ (jed), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:17 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:23 (6 years ago) Permalink
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:28 (6 years ago) Permalink
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:29 (6 years ago) Permalink
I read the first 50 Thackeray pages once; it's more overtly jokey, somewhat a la Fielding (tho the early part of the film's pretty funny too).
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:30 (6 years ago) Permalink
― jed_ (jed), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:41 (6 years ago) Permalink
― jed_ (jed), Friday, 27 October 2006 14:59 (6 years ago) Permalink
― timmy tannin (pompous), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:30 (6 years ago) Permalink
Kubrick's best casting prank before Tom Cruise; a lummox as a lummox.
Nah. Again, haven't read the Thackeray novel, but O'Neal didn't mangle the brogue, was adept with a sword, and was believable as a passive lover.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:41 (6 years ago) Permalink
Kubrick is as C as C can fucking get.
― less-than three's Christiane F. (drowned in milk), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:45 (6 years ago) Permalink
The last third of Barry Lyndon is far more passionate and intelligent about violence and revenge than all of Clockwork Orange.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 16:28 (6 years ago) Permalink
Kubrick isn't exactly reknowned for his breakneck pacing. I get what Morbius is saying about the stunt casting, too. Casting Ryan O'Neal (whose rep at the time was as a shallow pretty boy actor - though he probably picked up some bounce in cred for Paper Moon) and Marisa Berenson (a model) is akin to Anthony Minghella announcing that the stars of his next epic are Skeet Ulrich and Kate Moss.
I was quite taken aback by how much I enjoyed Barry Lyndon the first time I saw it. I wouldn't call it Kubrick's best, but it's near the top. I think The Shining is, in some way, Kubrick's reaction to Barry Lyndon's lukewarm reception upon release - as if he wanted to punish the audience for turning its back.
― Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 27 October 2006 19:54 (6 years ago) Permalink
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 27 October 2006 20:04 (6 years ago) Permalink
A dying boy will get'em in the gut every time.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 27 October 2006 20:08 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 20:11 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 27 October 2006 21:00 (6 years ago) Permalink
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 27 October 2006 21:20 (6 years ago) Permalink
― a.b. (alanbanana), Monday, 30 October 2006 09:37 (6 years ago) Permalink
― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Monday, 30 October 2006 09:54 (6 years ago) Permalink
this isn't *terribly* important is it?
― benrique (Enrique), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:25 (6 years ago) Permalink
― teh_kit returns! (g-kit), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:27 (6 years ago) Permalink
― benrique (Enrique), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:29 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:35 (6 years ago) Permalink
― benrique (Enrique), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:36 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:39 (6 years ago) Permalink
It's been ages since I read Schnitzler's book (or whatever it's called in English), but doesn't it and the film have the same dreamlike athmosphere and the same basic moral?
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:41 (6 years ago) Permalink
It's been ages since I read Schnitzler's book (whatever it's called in English), but doesn't it and the film have the same dreamlike athmosphere and the same basic moral?
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:44 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:51 (6 years ago) Permalink
I find accusing SK (Hitchcock as well) of lack of interest in human beings to be quite ridiculous. Maybe he doesn't fetishize their behavior and minor sentimentalities the way some humanists do, but hey; good! I find Paths of Glory and much of Lyndon's last reels to be quite wrenching. As for Strangelove (and much of Paths of Glory, FMJ, Lolita etc) how is examining human stupidity, venality and foolishness an invalid artistic approach?
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 October 2006 14:44 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 October 2006 14:45 (6 years ago) Permalink
I don't say his was an invalid artistic approach (that's why I still admire him), but he always was more interested in human condition than humans, and my favourite artists tend to be the ones who can marry these two approaches. And I'm not big fan of cynics. But that's just my personal taste, nothing more.
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 14:52 (6 years ago) Permalink
Ugh, that's about the only compelling argument that Kubrick should've been more faithful.
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 30 October 2006 16:58 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Monday, 30 October 2006 17:48 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 17:53 (6 years ago) Permalink
btw, I saw a Victor Sjostrom silent (The Phantom Carriage) the other night where V.S. (playing the lead as well as directing) axes down a door to get at his wife alnost exactly like Jack.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 October 2006 18:14 (6 years ago) Permalink
-- Ward Fowler (wardfowle...), October 30th, 2006.
otm.
king is pathologically anal about only liking adaptations that stick to his novels. which means he looooved the pet sematary movie despite it being a piece of shit.
― latebloomer: none of th movies make scence but they r good. (latebloomer), Monday, 30 October 2006 18:15 (6 years ago) Permalink
― ryan (ryan), Monday, 30 October 2006 18:41 (6 years ago) Permalink
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 30 October 2006 19:54 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Monday, 30 October 2006 20:08 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 October 2006 20:11 (6 years ago) Permalink
― milo z (mlp), Monday, 30 October 2006 20:13 (6 years ago) Permalink
― g00blar (gooblar), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 14:15 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 14:21 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Breean Weldrick (weldrick), Thursday, 2 November 2006 01:53 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Allyzay Eisenschefter (allyzay), Thursday, 2 November 2006 22:28 (6 years ago) Permalink
as for anti-humanism, I don't know. Kubrick is one of those directors that it's hard for me to say definitively what I think his stances on any particular issues/values are. I could say that 2001 is actually gloriously, progressively humanist. I mean, it shows humanity graduating into godhood! I do detect some cynicism in his movies, but I could say the same thing about Woody Allen or Martin Scorcese, but for their best movies, all of these directors are totally life-affirming for me (and also have the added benefit of being somehow more relevant to my actual life as I get older).
I need to see Full Metal Jacket again, though all the times I've seen it in the past, I've been a little underwhelmed. Same for the Shining and EWS, though the last time I saw Shining, I enjoyed it more than I had previously.
― Dominique (dleone), Thursday, 2 November 2006 22:43 (6 years ago) Permalink
― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 2 November 2006 23:30 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dominique (dleone), Thursday, 2 November 2006 23:49 (6 years ago) Permalink
A God's-eye view. Surveying the general tendencies of human civilization, I identify.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 November 2006 14:38 (6 years ago) Permalink
Man graduating to godhood is surely not a humanist idea is it? Rather the opposite. 2001's iconic theme music is from Thus Spake Zarathustra, hardly your average humanist treatise.
― Revivalist (Revivalist), Friday, 3 November 2006 14:45 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dominique (dleone), Friday, 3 November 2006 21:55 (6 years ago) Permalink
-- Andrew Farrell (afarrel...), Monday 1:44 PM. (afarrell) (later)
how did none of you read this as a joke?
― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 3 November 2006 21:59 (6 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer: none of th movies make scence but they r good. (latebloomer), Monday, 6 November 2006 04:47 (6 years ago) Permalink
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 6 November 2006 04:52 (6 years ago) Permalink
― latebloomer: none of th movies make scence but they r good. (latebloomer), Monday, 6 November 2006 05:00 (6 years ago) Permalink
Of course you could say the opposite, in that humanity is unable to progress beyond anything without the help of machines.
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Monday, 6 November 2006 05:39 (6 years ago) Permalink
I've heard other people say that line more or less straight. Apparently there are fans of that book out there.
― Eric H. (Eric H.), Monday, 6 November 2006 06:36 (6 years ago) Permalink
― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 11:15 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:26 (6 years ago) Permalink
― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:27 (6 years ago) Permalink
― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:29 (6 years ago) Permalink
― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:30 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:46 (6 years ago) Permalink
― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:54 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:59 (6 years ago) Permalink
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 14:28 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 14:35 (6 years ago) Permalink
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 07:29 (6 years ago) Permalink
"internegative" of Barry Lyndon this weekend in NYC:
http://www.filmlinc.com/wrt/onsale/barrylyndon.html
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 22 May 2007 15:38 (6 years ago) Permalink
Marisa Berenson was hot in that movie, Time was right
― Dominique, Tuesday, 22 May 2007 17:03 (6 years ago) Permalink
she was supposed to show at above screenings, just Leon Vitali now, apparently.
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 22 May 2007 17:09 (6 years ago) Permalink
I are jealous. that thing's gonna look sumptuous. wonder if they're projecting at 1.37 or 1.66...
― Edward III, Tuesday, 22 May 2007 17:22 (6 years ago) Permalink
from DVDbeaver:
Warner Home Video Director's Series: Stanley Kubrick Collection on 23rd October 2007. 2001: A Space Odyssey (2-Disc Special Edition), A Clockwork Orange (2-Disc Special Edition), Eyes Wide Shut (2-Disc Special Edition), The Shining (2-Disc Special Edition WIDESCREEN), Barry Lyndon and Lolita A Deluxe Edition of Full Metal Jacket will also be released in Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD
― C. Grisso/McCain, Friday, 27 July 2007 02:14 (5 years ago) Permalink
The Shining (2-Disc Special Edition WIDESCREEN)
ooh...
― pisces, Friday, 27 July 2007 02:20 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah... bit of a misnomer. kubrick wasn't a big fan of wide formats, 'specially for home viewing.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:42 (5 years ago) Permalink
ok between this and blade runner i'm going to be geeked out this year
― latebloomer, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:43 (5 years ago) Permalink
any chance of a commentary on these from kubrick?
― latebloomer, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:44 (5 years ago) Permalink
this is pretty fuckin' typical -- i finally got a stack o' kubrick dvds earlier this year. very cheaply though. i wonder what will be on them.
xpost
no, he died in 1999.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:45 (5 years ago) Permalink
i know that
― latebloomer, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
do i have to put a ";-)" after everything?
― latebloomer, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:47 (5 years ago) Permalink
i know you knew, i sort of zinging. it's early.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:48 (5 years ago) Permalink
there are definitely loads of deleted scenes from '2001'. 'strangelove' (which isn't warner i guess so not included here) has an alt ending.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
"kubrick wasn't a big fan of wide formats, 'specially for home viewing."
but we have big flat wall-hung TV's now and we didnt then.
i wonder if the making of 2001 doc will be included in that disc.
― jed_, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
i mean i actually have an ancient 13 inch portable.
― jed_, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
i think he actually shot academy ratio on everything post-2001 -- even 'barry lyndon'.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 27 July 2007 08:56 (5 years ago) Permalink
'strangelove' (which isn't warner i guess so not included here) has an alt ending.
Do you mean the pie fight scene? If I remember correctly, there isn't any footage surviving from that.
― Tuomas, Friday, 27 July 2007 09:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
ah.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, 27 July 2007 09:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
more details on the new DVDs (and Eyes Wide Shut will be the uncensored Euro version):
http://www.cinematical.com/2007/08/22/warning-to-kubrick-fanatics-start-saving-your-pennies/
― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 August 2007 16:03 (5 years ago) Permalink
Uh, so they fucked with the aspect ratios of the films to suit new televisions, and there's no release in a hi def format, and this new box will lack Dr. Strangelove.
Looks like I'm sticking with my current box set, thanks.
― mh, Thursday, 23 August 2007 16:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
TMC has Fail-Safe on and so far it's quite a bit more entertaining than Strangelove, although as pointed out by the presenter this would have been a rather improbable opinion to formulate, much less defend, in 1964.
― El Tomboto, Friday, 5 October 2007 02:05 (5 years ago) Permalink
― gabbneb, Friday, 5 October 2007 02:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
this would have been a rather improbable opinion to formulate, much less defend, in 1964.
Still is! It's from an era when George C Scott was allowed to be funnier than Walter Matthau.
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 5 October 2007 13:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
But where did George get with Yvonne De Carlo?
― James Redd and the Blecchs, Friday, 5 October 2007 13:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
Oh wait.
?
Ken, we should really go to the movies sometime.
― Dr Morbius, Friday, 5 October 2007 13:36 (5 years ago) Permalink
I got Walter mixed up with Tony Curtis for a second. Yeah, I might be able to get away in the near future. You and Ian going to see that Ian Curtis thing?
― James Redd and the Blecchs, Friday, 5 October 2007 13:38 (5 years ago) Permalink
Stanley Kubrick: a Life in Pictures is finally releasing on Netflix this week. I've been waiting seven years to see this.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278736/
― Darin, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 22:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
3 minute short doc on Kubrick: http://www.aantranikian.com/kubrick.html
The 18 minute interview with Tony Kaye they made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa9DD_q0CM8
― caek, Friday, 4 July 2008 21:07 (4 years ago) Permalink
i like the font where they have written KUBRICK on the first link. do you have any idea what it is?
― jed_, Friday, 4 July 2008 21:18 (4 years ago) Permalink
also, this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/03/channel4.kubrick
jesus, how much did that cost?!
― jed_, Friday, 4 July 2008 21:20 (4 years ago) Permalink
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5739282975440441779
― Mr. Que, Saturday, 13 December 2008 17:08 (4 years ago) Permalink
awesome
― very very serious (gabbneb), Saturday, 13 December 2008 18:01 (4 years ago) Permalink
subtitle: i was a paralegal for stanley kubrick
argh almost worked on that :(
― Just Johnson (special guest stars mark bronson), Saturday, 13 December 2008 18:25 (4 years ago) Permalink
Anthony Harvey on editing Strangelove:
http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/787
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 30 June 2009 01:03 (3 years ago) Permalink
Great link. Thanks.
― EZ Snappin, Tuesday, 30 June 2009 13:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
Still no blu-rays of Lolita and Barry Lyndon :(
I've never been totally clear on the whole aspect ratio issue with Kubrick's films- correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that Kubrick's problem was with letterboxing on 4:3 screens more than widescreen itself, yes? I mean, I can't imagine watching 2001 cropped, and weren't his post-2001 films shot for widescreen theatrical showings? I'm sure Kubrick had enough clout that he could've had them shown in a narrower ratio if he thought it was necessary...
― Telephone thing, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 15:59 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I think his beef was about showing the films on TVs, but with TVs being widescreen mostly nowadays, it's not such an issue.
― Keith, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
he would make two versions, shooting more vertical so that the tv version would not be cropped.
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
wait, they wd be different takes?
― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:08 (3 years ago) Permalink
or just made 2 versions in post?
same take, but ya, cropped later.
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:10 (3 years ago) Permalink
it is cause for an ENDLESS debate among kubrick heads and aspect ratio trainspotters tho.
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:12 (3 years ago) Permalink
well I think they shd be seen the way they were in theaters, now that letterboxing is commonplace. Why debate?
― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:18 (3 years ago) Permalink
some people make the argument that he preferred a squarer frame, just in general. he was definitely opposed to letterboxing on 4:3 TVs but now that most TVs are widescreen that seems moot. the main issue seems to be that he never clearly named his preference.
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview (2): "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."
vs
There has been a longstanding debate regarding the DVD releases of Kubrick's films; specifically, the aspect ratio of many of the films. The primary point of contention relates to his final five films: A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut.
Kubrick's initial involvement with home video mastering of his films was a result of television screenings of 2001: A Space Odyssey. [76] Because the film was shot in 65 mm, the composition of each shot was compromised by the pan-and-scan method of transferring a wide-screen image to fit a 1.33:1 television set.
Kubrick's final five films were shot "flat"—the full 1.37:1 area is exposed in the camera and cropped in a theater's projector to the 1.85:1 ratio.
The first mastering of these five films was in 2000 as part of the "Stanley Kubrick Collection", consisting of Lolita, Dr. Strangelove (in association with Sony Pictures), 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick oversaw the video masters in 1989 for Warner Home Video, and approved of 1.33:1 transfers for all of the films except for 2001, which was letterboxed[citation needed].
Kubrick never approved a 1.85:1 video transfer of any of his films; when he died in 1999, DVDs and the 16×9 format were only beginning to become popular in the US, and most people were accustomed to seeing movies fill their television screen. [77] Warner Home Video chose to release these films with the transfers that Kubrick had explicitly approved. [78]
In 2007, Warner Home Video remastered 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut in High-Definition, releasing the titles on DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray Disc. All were released in 16×9 anamorphic transfers, preserving the theatrical 1.85:1 aspect ratios for all of the flat films except A Clockwork Orange, which was transferred at an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. [79]
In regards to the Warner Bros. titles, there is little studio documentation that is public about them other than instructions given to projectionists on initial release; however, Kubrick's storyboards for The Shining do prove that he composed the film for wide-screen. In instructions given to photographer John Alcott in one panel, Kubrick writes:
THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1.85-1. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1.33-1 area. [80]
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 16:39 (3 years ago) Permalink
I just don't get why they don't include both versions on the DVDs, that way people can watch it "the way Kubrick intended" or "the way it looked in theaters" or whatever the hell they want.
― The Yellow Kid, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 19:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
they would need to include an extra disc, is why. and also most people don't really know/care about this ish to make it worth the expense.
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 19:30 (3 years ago) Permalink
for some reason the dvd of 'i heart huckabees' has both versions.
― FREE DOM AND ETHAN (special guest stars mark bronson), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 19:34 (3 years ago) Permalink
would make more sense for it to include neither imo
― Michael tapeworm much talent for the future (s1ocki), Wednesday, 1 July 2009 19:35 (3 years ago) Permalink
I've seen some Woody Allen movies that have both aspect ratios, each on one side of the same disc.
― The Yellow Kid, Thursday, 2 July 2009 03:22 (3 years ago) Permalink
that's a shame because by doing that he's taking away the space on the disc he could save for the behind-the-scenes featurettes on the creation of the stunts and f/x
― real men love cheeses (latebloomer), Thursday, 2 July 2009 04:07 (3 years ago) Permalink
I know I for one really want to know how he pulled off the exploding Brooklyn Bridge in Manhattan.
― Telephone thing, Thursday, 2 July 2009 13:42 (3 years ago) Permalink
Just saw 2001: A Space Odyssey at The Fox Theater in Atlanta and I have to say it was the most amazing Kubrick film experience I have ever had. The print they showed was absolutely beautiful, with brighter colors than I have ever seen, and the sound was terrific. The acoustics in the theater really enhanced in particular the more ambient parts of this film. The breathing sequences were very intense! So many new things I noticed watching this, so many things I wanted to take note of! Alas I could not keep track because I was enthralled with the film and absolutely absorbed in every moment. Even projected on a big screen the special effects are all absolutely flawless (the cheetah attack in the beginning.....wow!!!!) and watching this movie is always like participating in a beautiful symbolic dream.
Of course, during the intermission I heard someone joke about wanting to fall asleep. Perhaps they would have been happier with Transformers 2 (which was previewed right before this ambient/spiritual masterpiece!).
The very spiritual nature of this movie is something I felt most of all this time around, and something I hadn't noticed before. The pacing, the emphasis on sounds and vibrations, the shifting between forms of consciousness (apes to Dr. Floyd to Dave to HAL etc.), the meditative pacing; it felt very in tune with Eastern philosophies and spiritual traditions. The way Dave keeps seeing himself in the conclusion, and not recognizing his own body, I now recognize as evidence that the psychedelic out of body trip that he has taken is not simply a trip to a physical destination but a trip to an entirely new state of consciousness. He looks at himself in the mirror because he is in the process of becoming a post-corporeal entity; a planetary consciousness. The star-child is Kubrick's way of pointing out Sagan's "Tiny Blue Dot", the recognition that with the space age we are gaining a new perspective on our planet: that the Earth IS mankind. The deep symbiotic relationship we have with our planet is something that becomes startlingly clear when viewed from outer space.
Something about the shot of the tiny pod, holding lifeless (?) Frank in its arms, hopelessly facing the Discovery One now controlled by an unresponsive HAL really got to me. Almost feel like it points to some kind of religious iconography but now sure what.
― Adam Bruneau, Sunday, 26 July 2009 06:24 (3 years ago) Permalink
¿
― http://tinyurl.com/ggggst (Pleasant Plains), Sunday, 26 July 2009 07:37 (3 years ago) Permalink
― Adam Bruneau, Sunday, July 26, 2009 2:24 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
what i love about that scene is how it's shot "over the shoulder" of the discovery one... it's basically a simple shot-reverse shot dialogue setup the way it's composed and edited.
― julien schNAGL (s1ocki), Sunday, 26 July 2009 07:51 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yes, with the ships anthropomorphized somewhat, I definitely see that. You have to wonder if the monolith evolves not just the human race but their technology as well; now mankind = starchild/planetary consciousness and technology = mankind consciousness. Technology has become human. Note HAL's capability for error, emotional responses, and murder to ensure his own survival. Like the apes in the beginning, the first thing HAL does in his new evolutionary paradigm is kill.
With the past week's discussions of the Cold War Space Race it made the beginning apes/bones = man/spaceships connection seem even more cynical. He may show a US and Russian coexistence in space but the underlying message is that even thousands of years later we are still using technology as a clubbing bone.
Also that ape clubbing scene really brought Clockwork Orange to mind in a big way.
― Adam Bruneau, Sunday, 26 July 2009 14:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
Also re: Kubrick = no sense of humor. The toilet instructions reveal (because they are SOO long and it says 'Please read in entirety before using') was really f-ing funny and the part where HAL is trying to talk Dave out of shutting him down at the end, the audience was laughing out loud at every line. Going in to 2001 I had no expectations for anyone to make a peep the entire film.
― Adam Bruneau, Sunday, 26 July 2009 14:25 (3 years ago) Permalink
"It all tastes like chicken anyway."
― http://tinyurl.com/ggggst (Pleasant Plains), Sunday, 26 July 2009 17:09 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://blogs.nybooks.com/post/498370620/playing-chess-with-kubrick
― caek, Monday, 5 April 2010 17:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
Very interesting article - thanks for linking.
― Bill A, Monday, 5 April 2010 17:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
it was one cool little anecdote after another.
― caek, Monday, 5 April 2010 18:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
After Stanley Kubrick
Christiane Kubrick had 42 wonderful years with her husband. But in the decade since his death, she has been beset by tragedy. For the first time, she talks about losing one daughter to cancer, another to Scientology – and why her uncle made films for Goebbels
― Elvis Telecom, Friday, 20 August 2010 02:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
kubrick's sense of imagery peaked in 1971. discussion?
― Dominique, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 03:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
A Clockwork Orange does not have better "imagery" than Barry Lyndon.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 September 2010 03:49 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://www.thehydramag.com/2010/08/17/stanley-kubricks-boxes/
― oscar, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 03:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
i wonder if that napoleon script will ever get made.
― ryan, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 04:20 (2 years ago) Permalink
morbz otm
― latebloomer, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 04:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
barry lyndon is probably his best film
the killing is my favorite
― groovemaaan, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 18:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/12/lost_2001_footage_found.htmlthink this is going to prove that kubrick faked the moon landing
― tylerw, Friday, 17 December 2010 19:40 (2 years ago) Permalink
It's impossible to tell you what I'm going to do except to say that I expect to make the best movie ever made.
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Friday, 7 January 2011 07:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
reads like Kubrick is boozed up and excited. Napoleon though, what could have been...
― circa1916, Friday, 7 January 2011 09:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
I saw Richard Corliss introduce Lolita last night, with a lengthy Q&A afterwards. Corliss was interesting, but a) well into the Q&A, you find out that he actually doesn't think much of the film; I'd much rather hear someone defend a film than pick it apart (in fairness, Corliss was stepping in for David Thomson), and b) he rambles. Boy, does he ramble.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 17:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
'lolita' is the best one, i think.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 5 April 2011 19:34 (2 years ago) Permalink
never saw Barry Lyndon or Fear and Desire, but I think I'd rate the rest like so:
The Shining > Lolita > Dr. Strangelove > Clockwork Orange > 2001 > Full Metal Jacket > Spartacus > The Killing > Eyes Wide Shut > Killer's Kiss
― Darin, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 19:40 (2 years ago) Permalink
As terrific as Mason, Winters and Sellers are in the film, I can't for the life of me understand rating Lolita so highly; it was adapted about 6-8 years too soon. (But would've been back to being bowdlerized if it had been made in Hollywood after '74, of course.)
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 5 April 2011 19:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
I like all four principals. Corliss had good words for Mason and Lyon, doesn't like Winters, and thinks Sellers is doing a mediocre rehearsal for Dr. Strangelove. I agree with one thing he said: it's like each of them is off in a different movie.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 21:37 (2 years ago) Permalink
lolita has this weird problem where the like primary mechanic of the book--humbert's direct-to-you narration, where he wheedles and equivocates and jokes with you, and shows off, and tries to charm you, and keeps referring to himself as a "murderer" while hoping his bigger crime will just slip through you, and without meaning to slowly reveals his total narcissism and isolation and callousness and sickness--cannot be reproduced on film. or at least isn't. i dunno how you'd do it. so humbert as a character is much more cartoonish in the movie; he's an arch, fastidious villain. as played by mason he's hilarious though. winters is also great, and comes the closest to reproducing the unreliable-narrator effects: she gives charlotte some dignity when the camera and the lights and even the story structure are sneering at her, just like in the book. and the girl's good too! too old obviously, and too straightforwardly sexual--the only way to find dolly haze sexually attractive (unless you are also into little girls) should be to come to it through humbert's lust for her, to share it a little, and that should feel weird and horrible and troubling and be full of doubt. but an early-blooming teenager is, again, the part that's written; lyon does a good job with it. the egg scene is lol.
i don't know if i have an opinion about sellers. i go back and forth on the balcony scene. sometimes it seems like a masterpiece of cruelty-to-paranoiacs and sometimes it's just dumb.
i've never seen the jeremy irons thing.
― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, 5 April 2011 23:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
Sellers' scenes have aged the worst for me, or at least the ones I can't watch without getting restless. But I'm sure I'd do the same if I reread the novel.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
"a rehearsal for dr. strangelove" underrates the stuff sellers does in this movie that is very specific to nabokov's quilty--he definitely tries. but yeah he's much better in strangelove. strangelove is nearly perfect.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:02 (2 years ago) Permalink
(i love strangelove and the shining, like lolita and 2001 a lot, and hate clockwork).
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
i always disliked clockwork, but i saw it in the theater recently and it was a little better than i remembered. funnier than i remembered, anyway.
― ℳℴℯ ❤＼(◕‿◕✿ (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
i haven't seen it in a long time, so i'll defer. i do remember that scene where malcolm mcdowell is in tighty-whiteys being lectured (in his bedroom for some reason) by the school headmaster or whoever, and the school headmaster is this very particular kind of british-schoolboy-literature unctuous sadist with his unctuous sadism turned up all the way to molester levels, as being sickly funny; it's always stayed with me.
besides that i dunno. a lot of fisheye shots of people making absurd faces. everyone in movie is horrifying grotesque whom kubrick distances us from (compare w/ scene in book, way more unpleasant than anything in movie, where they kill that guy and then read and mock the love letter in his pocket). alex made out to be weirdly passive and pathetic for a thrill killer. total void of compassion which really bothers me. extremely looooooooooong. but yeah, it's been a while.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:13 (2 years ago) Permalink
like, the thing is, it's not necessary for alex's school headmaster to be an unctuous sadist molester--the movie waaaaaaaay overpedals the Oppressive Society thing when the whole evil of the ludovico technique is that it could seem like a good idea to a decent state. instead everything around alex is deranged. if everyone in the world is a disgusting cartoon why not kill them.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:16 (2 years ago) Permalink
although haha i probably still wouldn't like the movie that much if it were just a series of horrific murders of compassionately drawn and human characters. but that's just because i'm squeamish.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
god sorry one more thing: admittedly GREAT opening titles.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
no one did fonts better than SK.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
In one of those unexpected ironies, the book reads like an early Kubrick film: a mordant, funny attack on authority. But the movie is oppressive.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
I like Clockwork least of all Kubrick's films. (Haven't seen the first.) It took me a long time, but I've started to come around a bit on 2001; after three viewings, I really like Barry Lyndon. Those were two that I was slow on, or at least slower than with the rest. Strangelove, too; didn't get it when I was 16 or 17, like it fine now. But I really do dislike Clockwork. (I know the last one's really trashy, but I'd even take it over Clockwork.)
― clemenza, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
Was Clockwork Orange and Sleeper made around the same time? It sort of has the same feel (minus oversized prop bananas).
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
Kubrick works best when he's given compost.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
Sleeper's a year or two later, I think.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:32 (2 years ago) Permalink
clockwork's '71, sleeper's '73, so kinda.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:33 (2 years ago) Permalink
I mean, Paths of Glory as a script is every midcentury liberal war-sure-is-hell cliche reenergized (Adolphe Menjou even gets to keep his villainous mustache).
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:33 (2 years ago) Permalink
note that woody allen would definitely have gone to see a clockwork orange, probably to impress people, so some of the dystopia-parody stuff could have come from there, sure. (and metropolis.)
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:34 (2 years ago) Permalink
The great thing about ACO is Malcolm McDowell's performance; physical, rock-star sexy, commanding. Doesn't quite suit Anthony Burgess's intentions, perhaps.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
i do remember that scene where malcolm mcdowell is in tighty-whiteys being lectured (in his bedroom for some reason) by the school headmaster or whoever, and the school headmaster is this very particular kind of british-schoolboy-literature unctuous sadist with his unctuous sadism turned up all the way to molester levels, as being sickly funny; it's always stayed with me.
that + the spaghetti scene were what i was thinking of - the latter is played very broadly, but its still very funny. i think it was also during that scene where i realized that literally every performance in the movie was flat-out awful, except maybe david prowse who didn't have any lines.
i still don't think much of the movie, but i guess i was taken by the cinematic-ness of it or something - which is p much how i feel about The Shining too, another movie that i'll always see in the theater whenever there's an opportunity
― ℳℴℯ ❤＼(◕‿◕✿ (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
Love Paths of Glory. Not for its politics--just for the excitement, for the performances, and for the weirdness of Tim Carey.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:36 (2 years ago) Permalink
i think it was also during that scene where i realized that literally every performance in the movie was flat-out awful
there's some unfortunate line of kabuki insanity that this movie crosses for me and the shining doesn't.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
Kubrick's Clockwork is definitely a comedy, not a satire, just like Strangelove. He's not offering an implicit humanistic critique because he thinks humans will fuck it up no matter what.
But like that end title of Barry Lyndon says of the 18th century's rich and poor, knave and lord, "They are all equal now."
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah i think him being the only attractive thing in the movie is a real problem. i think kael said the same thing although the only thing i actually remember is the Little Nell joke.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:40 (2 years ago) Permalink
For me, McDowell is really the only redeeming thing about ACO.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:40 (2 years ago) Permalink
OK let's just pretend we've had a discussion about how evil can be superficially attractive, and nobody won.xp
ACO only loses me when the worm turns on Alex, and then Patrick Magee just hams atrociously (at Sk's urging, I'm sure).
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
oh no the problem isn't that he's attractive, it's that no one else is. but yeah we don't have to Do That.
god the shot from below of magee leaning against the door making a face. which is repeated almost precisely in the shining, only the face isn't so ridiculous.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:44 (2 years ago) Permalink
you mean the part when he realizes alex is alex? For some reason I remember him being at a writing desk or in a bathtub, not against a door.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
oh no the problem isn't that he's attractive, it's that no one else is.
this is Pauline Kael's complaint, btw.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
Stanley Kubrick considered both Robert De Niro and Robin Williams for the role of Jack Torrance but decided against both of them. Kubrick didn't think De Niro would suit the part after watching his performance in Taxi Driver (1976), as he deemed De Niro not psychotic enough for the role. He didn't think Williams would suit the part after watching his performance in "Mork & Mindy" (1978), as he deemed him too psychotic for the role. According to Stephen King, Kubrick also briefly considered Harrison Ford.
― ℳℴℯ ❤＼(◕‿◕✿ (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
i remember him as like leaning against the door of the bathroom listening to alex hum singin in the rain in the tub, but like i said, been a while.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:48 (2 years ago) Permalink
harrison ford might have been really interesting in that. xp
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
he starts out at the desk, hears alex humming/singing, wheels his ass over to the door to listen in and then when it clicks with him he starts making these crazy gnarled faces with the camera looking at him from below
― ℳℴℯ ❤＼(◕‿◕✿ (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:49 (2 years ago) Permalink
it's odd that he would have that problem with Williams, since the strangest thing about Nicholson's performance is that his Jack Torrance is unhinged from the start.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:50 (2 years ago) Permalink
Robin Williams/Shining thing doesn't pass the smell test: the movie was certainly shooting by the time "Mork & Mindy" premiered in fall '78, and RW was a nobody before then. A 26-year-old nobody unsuited to the role.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:52 (2 years ago) Permalink
the strangest thing about Nicholson's performance is that his Jack Torrance is unhinged from the start
see, people always say this, and i get it--nicholson is JACK from the beginning in this movie--but i dunno, it's never seemed quite true to me. i mean i know there's that delivery of "see? it's ok. he saw it on the television." which is really like bitter and sarcastic for no reason that's even apparent and suggests serious marriage-related emotional issues. but he's clearly not driving them up there with intent to kill them or anything. he's just an ex-alcoholic and not all that successful of a writer and has resentments about his wife.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
i mean the implication in the kubrick version (never read the book) is not that he's an innocent man who has the bad luck to move into a haunted hotel, it's that the hotel sensed his preexisting darkness and drew him--he has always been there, etc..
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
My problem with The Shining -- which might be in King's novel; I haven't read it -- is the attempt to give Torrance "motivation." All those scenes of Nicholson talking to himself are so unconvincing, in part because Nicholson's gift as an actor is badinage with real live people. Talking to "himself" brings out an unattractive narcissism.
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
wait when are there scenes of nicholson talking to himself? he talks when he's alone but it's always to other people--continuing to yell through the storage room door even after duvall is no longer on the other side, or screaming for danny in the maze. there's always a character the lines are directed to.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
Talking to the "ghosts."
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 01:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
I like the part where he's walking through the hallways mad as shit though, punching at the air.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 01:01 (2 years ago) Permalink
after Wendy falsely accuses him.
oh. well they're played by people! they're not even translucent or anything. the weird physical contact with grady in the red bathroom scene and nicholson's like hung-open mouth and little smirk when grady says the n-word. in the bartender scene, though, yeah, you're right, the camera keeps them totally apart.
xxp
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 01:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
anyway jack nicholson has some pretty decent badinage with the camera too.
wish i did not have to go to dinner but i do!
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 01:04 (2 years ago) Permalink
ding ding ding ding ding
That's exactly why Kubrick's Shining is superior to King's, which deals in these themes lightly before it definitely moves away from them and becomes a story about a man possessed by something not inherently IN him.
― scissorlocks and the three bears (Eric H.), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 01:31 (2 years ago) Permalink
if everyone in the world is a disgusting cartoon why not kill them.^Love this.
Saw ACO recently at a theater and yeah, it was the funniest showing I've ever been to. Also, the record store dolly shot is my favorite thing in any movie ever.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 01:40 (2 years ago) Permalink
― difficult listening hour, Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:18 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
YES. Just a big blast of a blood blood red filling the screen, crazy 70s synth drones going off all around you. Instantly you are in another world.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 01:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
mmm, that's the trailer, not the opening. also I thought dlh was talking about A Clockwork Oranhe.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 02:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
My bad, you're right.
Still, i love the minimalism of that opening segment.
― Telephoneface (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 02:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
i meant clockwork, yeah--the primary-color fills and wendy carlos going HURMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. although kubrick's pretty good with openings in general.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 03:36 (2 years ago) Permalink
i guess BOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW would have been more accurate.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 03:43 (2 years ago) Permalink
i don't really think 'lolita' would've been improved by being more explicit. (it's not like 'lolita' the book is all that explicit!) i think most of its greatness, for me, lies in the performances and how well they bounce off each other. mason is hilarious, yes, but also very sad -- his last scene with lyon is so wrenching it's hard to watch. every time i see the film, i wind up getting caught up in it in a way i don't with any other kubrick film. 'strangelove' is equally good, of course, but i'm so overfamiliar with it it rarely makes me laugh anymore.
i guess ppl are pretty divided on sellers but i think he's great -- his performance is the most genuinely nabokovian thing in the whole movie. i can almost imagine a 'pale fire' movie where he plays kinbote.
given that 'lolita' itself is an unfilmable novel, i give kubrick a lot of credit for turning it into such a compelling, hilarious film (reminds me a bit of what mary harron did with 'american psycho,' except of course that ellis's novel is a piece of shit and nabokov's is a work of genius).
'clockwork orange' has a terrific opening (one of the best in any movie ever: those day-glo titles, then the slow pan back from malcolm's sneering mug -- all set to the wendy carlos soundtrack -- gives me chills every time), but it really gets clunky and plodding after the first half-hour. the violence doesn't offend me, and i certainly don't think it's an immoral film, but definitely one of his worst. really doesn't do justice to burgess's novel, which is totally fast-paced and engaging. and yeah, just so many TERRIBLE performances, apart from mcdowell (who's good, but doesn't suggest the richness of the character in the book, tho i blame that on kubrick more than him -- he's better in 'if!' and 'o lucky man'). it's almost infuriating to think of kubrick forcing perfectly good actors to act the way they do in this movie.
'the shining' has an equally chilling opening, and the score is a big part of why the film works for me (even tho it's slightly overdone in places).
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 03:59 (2 years ago) Permalink
i love the passage from berlioz in the shining score--the main theme, the first one you hear. i hum it when i'm feeling grim.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 04:05 (2 years ago) Permalink
um, other kubricks:
barry lyndon: left no impact the first time i saw it but really blew me away on a second viewing last year. it's a damn near perfect film. kubrick's icy view-of-god perspective on humanity never worked better. i find the ending oddly tragic, even though barry is pretty unsympathetic throughout.
paths of glory: my third favorite. a borderline-corny script redeemed by masterful execution (um, pun not intended). i kind of hate pauline kael a little bit for once writing that the ending "just makes you feel uncomfortable."
2001: haven't seen it in almost a decade, and have always felt that i can't quite fairly judge it until i see it on the big screen. so, we'll see.
you can find 'fear and desire' on youtube, incidentally. considering how much kubrick hated it, it's not that bad.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 04:07 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yes, his redemption (in the duel) leaves him crippled and alone.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 04:17 (2 years ago) Permalink
Barry Lyndon is so good.
― das reboot (latebloomer), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 04:22 (2 years ago) Permalink
Barry Lyndon really does grow on you. There's been a lot of talk about music the last few posts; I think the Chieftans stuff in Barry is as good as soundtrack music gets.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 04:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
the first theme in The Shining is the "Dies Irae," right? You can hear it at the better funerals.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 07:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
The real question: has anyone seen 2010? The one with John Lithgow and a female computer named SAL? We rented it out of morbid curiosity and I loved the "making-of" feature - the director said something like "it was hard to get the sets together, because Kubrick wanted the original sets destroyed, since he didn't want any bad B-movies to be made with them", totally deadpan, no hint of irony
― frogbs, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 13:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah, but i think it's specifically coming from berlioz's "parody" version here. maybe i'm making that up cuz it's Evil, i'm not sure.
― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 16:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
The real question: has anyone seen 2010?
I remember when I saw it thinking "this is way better than 2001". But I was young and might think differently now.
― The New Dirty Vicar, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 16:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
'Alien' without the laughs
― piscesx, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 16:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
barry lyndon: left no impact the first time i saw it but really blew me away on a second viewing last year. it's a damn near perfect film. kubrick's icy view-of-god perspective on humanity never worked better. i find the ending oddly tragic, even though barry is pretty unsympathetic throughout
otm
― Hey Look More Than Five Years Has Passed And You Have A C (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 16:47 (2 years ago) Permalink
2010 wasn't terrible, but I'd rather Wes Anderson remake 2010 than 2001 (with Bill Murray in the Keir Dullea role)
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 17:16 (2 years ago) Permalink
2010 was pretty good, it only suffers in comparison to 2001 and the fact that stanley kubrick is one of the great directors and peter hyams one of the worst. basically it's saved by the cast, FX, and the story.
― omar little, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 17:23 (2 years ago) Permalink
so actually it suffers from more than the comparison. but it's still better than you'd think!
― omar little, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 17:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
it's better than a stick in the eye, or The Shining.
― your generation appalls me (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 17:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
for years i had this memory of whatever actress played the russian commander making an "interesting" impression on me when i was 9 years old and recently i realized it was helen mirren.
― omar little, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 17:26 (2 years ago) Permalink
2010 isn't bad if you accept that it's a sequel to clarke's 2001, not kubrick's.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 20:42 (2 years ago) Permalink
yeah 2010 only suffered because the original was so great...I mean it's B-/C+ level besides that, but it was just weird seeing Dave and references to HAL since the way the movie was directed was so much different and more conventional
― frogbs, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 20:44 (2 years ago) Permalink
that said, it's definitely the type of movie that Kubrick destroyed the sets to avoid
Yeah, first time I saw Mirren in anything as well, I would have been thirteen. Think I next her via Greenaway...
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 6 April 2011 20:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, Cook/Thief/etc was my very O_O intro to Mirren.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, April 6, 2011 3:42 PM (16 minutes ago)
V. good point
― The Louvin Spoonful (WmC), Wednesday, 6 April 2011 21:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
this is making me crazy:
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2011/05/leon-vitali-on-the-barry-lyndon-aspect-ratio-issue.html#comments
― unban whiney collective (history mayne), Thursday, 26 May 2011 19:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah it's pretty nuts
― Unity Tour 2011: 311 and Sublime with Rome (latebloomer), Thursday, 26 May 2011 20:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's been back-and-forth w/ J Wells and Kenny all week.
So has anyone seen this Kubrick exhibit in Paris? It's going to LA next year.
http://www.cinematheque.fr/fr/expositions-cinema/kubrick/
― the gay bloggers are onto the faggot tweets (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 26 May 2011 20:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
nrq, if you check the Wells blog, Kubrick approved a 1.66 laserdisc of BL, so...
― the gay bloggers are onto the faggot tweets (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 26 May 2011 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's what i mean about it making me crazy. i dimly remember something about the kube being quite pragmatic about home-viewing versions. on the other hand there was some crazy story about a letterboxed tv '2001' with, um, spattered white bits on the black bars or something.
― unban whiney collective (history mayne), Thursday, 26 May 2011 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
white flecks representing stars. this was in john baxter's biog iirc.
― unban whiney collective (history mayne), Thursday, 26 May 2011 20:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
Kubrick didn't care.
― scissorlocks and the three bears (Eric H.), Thursday, 26 May 2011 20:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
Kubrick is so boy.
― Kevin John Bozelka, Thursday, 26 May 2011 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Kubrick, on the Barry Lyndon set:
― scissorlocks and the three bears (Eric H.), Thursday, 26 May 2011 21:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
looks more like Patrick Magee
― the gay bloggers are onto the faggot tweets (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 26 May 2011 22:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
he was pretty assiduous about framing in theatres but with tv it's another thing
― ban drake (the author in the military science fiction subgenre) (history mayne), Thursday, 26 May 2011 22:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
I know I've already said this on this very thread, but it always seems like the easiest way to resolve this is to just include multiple versions of the film on the disc. Watch it in whichever aspect ratio you prefer!
― Godzilla vs. Rodan Rodannadanna (The Yellow Kid), Friday, 27 May 2011 05:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Just rewatched 2001 in a theater, coincidentally. Totally forgot about the super-draggy post-monkeys moon section, but the rest still pretty much rules.
― Simon H. Shit (Simon H.), Friday, 27 May 2011 06:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think the first time i watched 2001 was the starred-up letterbox version, kind of annoying when the spaceship seemed to just disappear into midscreen.
― Deeez Nuuults (Noodle Vague), Friday, 27 May 2011 08:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
xpost I (very briefly) read that as saying everything after the monkeys is boring.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 27 May 2011 13:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
I only know Glenn Kenny from The Girlfriend Experience (I know, I know), so it's fun to combine this interview of him with his face/voice in that movie.
― more horses after the main event (Eazy), Friday, 27 May 2011 17:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Ayatollah Colm Meaney (Princess TamTam), Friday, 1 July 2011 12:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
:D
― ephendophile (Eric H.), Friday, 1 July 2011 12:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
awesome!
Just saw Barry Lyndon for the first time. Now there's an odd duck.
― THIS IS SATIRE BTW (Simon H.), Saturday, 2 July 2011 16:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
happy birthday!
― Dominique, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 16:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Saw Spartacus tonight. Not for the first time, but the full "roadshow" treatment with overtures, intermission, and Super Technirama 70. Was Spartacus commonly seen by critics at the time as a stand-in for MLK? I'm looking around online and don't see anything specific--it seemed obvious to me, but maybe my timeline's off, and his public profile wasn't yet large enough to attempt such a message when the film was being shot in '59. Anyway, very good. My dad's cousin Nick Dennis stars; Kirk Douglas and Laurence Olivier are in it too.
― clemenza, Thursday, 18 August 2011 03:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Annoying/amusing anachronism, hearing Peter Ustinov refer to Woody Strode as "the Negro" in that one scene. Was that the result of circa-1959 political correctness on the screenwriters' part? or did they think that calling him "the Ethiopian" or "the dark-skinned one" or something similar be too unclear for audiences?
― Race Against Rockism (Myonga Vön Bontee), Thursday, 18 August 2011 22:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Ask The Answer Man (sexyDancer), Thursday, 18 August 2011 22:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
i didn't realize it before that clip but jack nicholson would have made an awesome wolverine.
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 18 August 2011 23:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Øystein, Friday, 19 August 2011 07:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
A lengthy, rewarding Barry Lyndon analysis:
http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2011/10/the-conversations-barry-lyndon/
― incredibly middlebrow (Dr Morbius), Monday, 24 October 2011 15:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
i recently watched the new blu-ray of Barry Lyndon and it's as great as ever. for me at least, it's an overwhelmingly dark movie, but oh so beautiful. i just wonder if that beauty is supposed to be vacant and as flat as a painting or something cosmically or spiritually redeeming.
― ryan, Monday, 24 October 2011 15:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
slant magazine article is great, thanks for posting
― tylerw, Monday, 24 October 2011 16:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
i do like the reading of the final duel in that piece. it always felt almost like a joke. it's practically the first redeeming thing Barry does, and then he pays for it in the most brutal fashion.
― ryan, Monday, 24 October 2011 16:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
His love for his son, as the Slant authors suggest, is redeeming, and then his mercy toward the creepy stepson is unrewarded.
― incredibly middlebrow (Dr Morbius), Monday, 24 October 2011 16:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh yes i forgot about that. actually, i've always found that relationship hard to figure out. i wonder if it's Barry genuinely loving someone or more like a mini-Me kinda situation. again, i guess it straddles that line like so much else in the movie. I really hope this makes a showing in the upcoming Sight and Sound poll because for me it's clearly Kubrick's best, most moving, most beautiful movie.
― ryan, Monday, 24 October 2011 17:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
i love this movie
― lagerfeld of modern despots (latebloomer), Monday, 24 October 2011 21:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
I really came around on Barry Lyndon, to a degree that I don't very often with films. Somewhere between a year or two ago, on another thread--a Best Picture of '75 poll, I think--I said that even though I liked Barry Lyndon, I probably would have placed it fifth among the five nominees that year. (Cuckoo's Nest, Dog Day Afternoon, Jaws, and Nashville.) I've watched it a couple more times since, and I'd now put it second or third. Nashville's still my #1; it's hard for me to compare Barry to Jaws, but one of those two would be next. When I did a countdown of my 50 favorite films on Facebook a few months ago, I had Barry Lyndon on the list. The one that's gone down in my estimation is Dog Day, which I watched again a couple of months ago. Great for the first half, then I think it starts to meander.
― clemenza, Monday, 24 October 2011 21:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'd like to see your list, clemenza.
― ryan, Monday, 24 October 2011 21:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's an open group, Ryan, so give this a try: https://www.facebook.com/groups/200962099931650/. If that doesn't work, send me note through ILX mail and I'll get it to you.
― clemenza, Monday, 24 October 2011 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
it worked. thanks!
― ryan, Monday, 24 October 2011 21:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Damn, i gotta read that article sometime.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 25 October 2011 16:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Really love that movie, btw. I love how long and drawn out it is. That is probably why I also think "2001" is the greatest film ever made.
The first time I saw it, it brought "A Clockwork Orange" to mind, what with the main theme, which really sounds similar in some ways to the ACO theme. And the bit with the thieves that rob him sort of made me think of something from that as well. Maybe "Barry Lyndon" is what happens to Alex after he is cured.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 25 October 2011 16:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
"I love the use of the color blue by the artist."
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 25 October 2011 16:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
I watched this for the first time last year in 35mm and it wast just such a treat. thanks for the article
― dayo, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 17:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Saw a 70mm print of 2001 at the Lightbox tonight. As obscure as ever to me--tonight I started thinking that it might be the work of someone who felt quite overwhelmed by the '60s--but I did notice in the credits that there's a Glenn Beck in the film. He plays an astronaut. Hibernating or not, I'm not sure.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 04:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Rich or poor, they are all equal now.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 February 2012 16:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Can anybody recommend some online 2001 writing, specifically technical aspects/the making of/etc.? Started showing a roommate this and while she fell asleep halfway through, for me it was bliss and gorgeousness like always. Probably the most beautiful film, at the very least image-wise, that I have ever seen. The compositing in the moon-landing sequences is flawless and breathtaking, giving a tremendous sense of scale to every element in the scene. Often in this film there will be little windows or ledges with tiny people walking around on them, and you hardly notice it at first, it's such a genius technique. There's always so much bombast and BIG PRETTY PICTURES in his films but he's equally adept at putting in little understated touches that help give everything more life. And clearly he is aware of his powers; in this film is contained not only the 'ultimate psychedelic trip' in the starfield light show, but quite possibly the most boring and comedically dry military briefing ever shot.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 February 2012 16:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
If they ever make a Kubrick Biopic I reckon Stanley Townsend is the man.
― sleigh tracks (1933-1969) (MaresNest), Thursday, 9 February 2012 16:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
XP Piers Bizony wrote a book that's pretty great iirc
http://www.amazon.co.uk/2001-Filming-Future-Piers-Bizony/dp/1854107062
― sleigh tracks (1933-1969) (MaresNest), Thursday, 9 February 2012 16:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I believe Douglas Trumbull is getting his special Oscar Saturday night btw
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nice. Between 2001 and Blade Runner, he's responsible for a whole lot of the look of cinematic sci-fi.
― The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
and lately, The Tree of Life
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Can anybody recommend some online 2001 writing, specifically technical aspects/the making of/etc.?
Cinefex devoted an entire issue to 2001... worth tracking down a copy.
Also,
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
^Yes, that book is terrific!
― The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
This is pretty cool, someone wrote software to attempt to 'unwrap' the images used in the stargate sequence:
http://seriss.com/people/erco/2001/
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 9 February 2012 17:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
i want to EAT this bluray
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 17:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
(barry lyndon)
god it's gorge.
have you masked the screen properly w/ black tape?
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 17:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yah just got the Barry Lyndon blu at a big box store for $8. Psyched to watch it again! Watched on dvd a few weeks ago. I can watch it weekly.
― Lawanda Pageboy (Capitaine Jay Vee), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 20:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
been keen on seeing it again after watching Mysteries of Lisbon. not been able to get past the aspect ratio thing, though i obviously should.
― encarta it (Gukbe), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 20:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
I recently watched Barry Lyndon on DVD. The sense of passivity and an all-pervasive void both surrounding and expressing the characters was just as strong as in 2001: A Space Odyssey, which felt very strange, but not very engaging. Kubrick must have had a strong misanthropic streak.
― Cosy Moments (Aimless), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've never understood that conclusion.
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 20:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
the characters seemed pretty sympathetic and human in Barry Lyndon, at least more so than in Eyes Wide Shut.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 20:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
felt bad for Baz by the end of it
― encarta it (Gukbe), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:21 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
lol, i'm not sure if that would even work. (i've done it several times shooting movies...) it's not clear if there is extraneous information or missing stuff from the top and bottoms
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 20:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
'barry lyndon' is incredibly warm and sad, and one of his 2-3 best.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
sad I can see, warm not so much
― Cosy Moments (Aimless), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
I am searching for screens of barry lyndon right now
― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1tAYmMjLdY (dayo), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
I love that the whole movie is pushed a stop, why, because the candle light scenes needed to be pushed a stop
considering kubrick's obsession with photography, stills from his movies are always going to be meticulously composed.
― Cosy Moments (Aimless), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
the scene where his son dies and the last scene are both pretty devastating to me.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
ya, it is really not cold and emotionless, like at all
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
ppl always think that about movies where the lead isnt 100% likeable
The sense of passivity and an all-pervasive void
Redmond Barry is not passive! He goes out and gets what he thinks he wants after he's sonned by his beautiful cousin. As for the void, well, that's mortality.
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Barry Lyndon is kind of like a human interest version of Candide, to me
― valleys of your mind (mh), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:41 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
ya, he is a pretty active, if wily and amoral, guy
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 21:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
i guess he might seem passive in the sense that he doesnt seem to really like ENJOY anything
Here's what I found about the aspect ratio:
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2011/05/leon-vitali-on-the-barry-lyndon-aspect-ratio-issue.html
Seems like they used the correct one, but there's conflicting information.
― the acquisition and practice of music is unfavourable to the health of (abanana), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 03:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
You gotta read the Kubrick letter (also on that site)
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 04:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
he doesnt seem to really like ENJOY anything
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 04:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Bill James: "I loved the first half of Kubrick's career, hated the second half. Spartacus, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove...those are fantastic movies. Everything from 2001 on is pretentious crap. The worst is Barry Lyndon."
He tends to be a little more methodical evaluating baseball players.
― clemenza, Saturday, 28 April 2012 01:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, what an original and daring opinion.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 28 April 2012 01:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
Made me cringe too. But when a genius ventures outside his field of expertise, I'm inclined to cut him/her some slack.
― clemenza, Saturday, 28 April 2012 01:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have my doubts but if the math checks out I'm willing to believe he's right
― iatee, Saturday, 28 April 2012 01:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
He should ID the cheap wins and tough losses.
― improvised explosive advice (WmC), Saturday, 28 April 2012 01:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
barry lyndon >>>> barry bonds
― buzza, Saturday, 28 April 2012 01:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
Cheap win (overrated in its day): A Clockwork Orange. Tough loss (viewed more favorably now than upon release): Lolita. Best Power/Speed Number: The Killing.
― clemenza, Saturday, 28 April 2012 02:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Barry Lyndon>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Barry Zito.
― clemenza, Saturday, 28 April 2012 02:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
― buzza, Saturday, 28 April 2012 02:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
Best Power/Speed Number: The Killing.
No way, this is Killer's Kiss in a walk.
― improvised explosive advice (WmC), Saturday, 28 April 2012 02:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
I thought it was pretty good the one time I saw it. But The Killing's like a 40/40 season--for me, it zips along like nothing he ever did. (I seem to remember hearing or reading somewhere that Kubrick was a big Brooklyn Dodgers fan growing up, but I can't seem to find any corroboration.)
― clemenza, Saturday, 28 April 2012 02:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
look, even Kubrick admitted that Lolita was kind of stunted without explicit eroticism.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 28 April 2012 03:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
wasn't kubrick from the bronx?
― iatee, Saturday, 28 April 2012 03:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes
and I don't give a shit what Bill James thinks about anything but baseball, but certainly The Shining is pretentious crap.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 28 April 2012 03:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah google seems to think he was a yankees fan
― iatee, Saturday, 28 April 2012 03:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 28 April 2012 03:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
certainly The Shining is pretentious crap.
SCARY pretentious crap
― Number None, Saturday, 28 April 2012 03:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Samsung, trying to invalidate Apple's design patent on the iPad, is invoking 2001: A Space Odyssey to demonstrate that the iPad's aesthetics have been around since the 1960s
― Lee626, Saturday, 28 April 2012 07:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20096061-248/samsung-cites-kubrick-film-in-apple-patent-spat/
― Lee626, Saturday, 28 April 2012 07:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think I remember the seats still being made of whatever that fabric was, in the late '60s.
http://english.mashkulture.net/2012/04/26/stanley-kubricks-new-york-subway-photos/
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 April 2012 16:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
'lolita' the book doesn't really have much explicit eroticism!
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 30 April 2012 17:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^there's next to none iirc
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 30 April 2012 18:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
But you would agree that a film of it, made censorship-free, would have more than S.K.'s?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 April 2012 18:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
Has anyone seen the Adrian Lyne one? I haven't, so I really can't say.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Monday, 30 April 2012 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
made me lol:
Adrian Lyne (born 4 March 1941 in Peterborough, then in Northamptonshire, England) is an English filmmaker and producer. He is best known for directing films that focus on sexually charged characters and often uses natural light, a fog machine and other effects to create eroticized atmospheres.
― fit and working again, Monday, 30 April 2012 18:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
It was surprisingly good coming from Adrian Lyne, or so I thought at the time.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 April 2012 18:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
x-post: it almost certainly would have, but i don't know that that would have made it better. the eroticism in the book is mainly in the language VN uses, which would be very hard to translate into a film -- especially because it's inextricable from that weird, playful, completely idiosyncratic nabokovian humor. i think kubrick's 'lolita' nails the humor, at least, but i can't really fault him for not pulling off a completely faithful translation when i can't think of any filmmaker who could have.
tbh i've avoided the lyne thing because i hate 'fatal attraction' as much as any movie i've ever seen and the thought of what AL might do to 'lolita' makes me nauseous.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 30 April 2012 18:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/full-metal-jacket-diary/id527085659?mt=8
"In 1985, Stanley Kubrick encouraged me to take photos and keep a journal while playing the lead role of Pvt. Joker on the set of FULL METAL JACKET. In 2005, I published a limited edition book of my photos and diary. This app is based on that book; enriched and reimagined as an interactive, audiovisual experience. I hope you enjoy it!" – Matthew Modine
― pun lovin criminal (polyphonic), Tuesday, 7 August 2012 18:57 (9 months ago) Permalink
I wish there was something like that for the Shining
― calstars, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 01:12 (9 months ago) Permalink
...from the guy in dog outfit
― mythical mickey rourke jacket (latebloomer), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 02:11 (9 months ago) Permalink
I understand Shelly Duvall's set diary has been sealed until 2050.
― Eric H., Wednesday, 8 August 2012 02:12 (9 months ago) Permalink
Modine book is well worth riffling through, the text too.
― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 02:34 (9 months ago) Permalink
His one from the new Batman movie, less essential
― your native bacon (mh), Wednesday, 8 August 2012 03:27 (9 months ago) Permalink
The one from Cutthroat Island, an epic.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 03:44 (9 months ago) Permalink
S.K. exhibit to LACMA
http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/stanley-kubrick-retrospective-and-exhibition-coming-to-los-angeles-co-presented-by-lacma-the-academy
― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Friday, 17 August 2012 04:42 (9 months ago) Permalink
Killer's Kiss is one weird looking movie. A lot of the shots start out looking like blue-screen work, but then a foreground character will walk into the background. I've got to wonder if it was a technical limitation or just incompetence that produced it.
― get you ass to mahs (abanana), Friday, 17 August 2012 04:55 (9 months ago) Permalink
anyone heard of these scripts b4?
http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/entertainment-one-to-produce-tv-movie-mini-based-on-stanley-kubrick-scripts/
― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 30 August 2012 16:29 (8 months ago) Permalink
nope!
― Hungry4Ass, Thursday, 30 August 2012 16:33 (8 months ago) Permalink
im sure stanley would be pysched to hear his scripts were being turned into tv movies!!
― Author ~ Coach ~ Goddess (s1ocki), Thursday, 30 August 2012 16:33 (8 months ago) Permalink
Christiane Kubrick had 42 wonderful years with her husband. But in the decade since his death, she has been beset by tragedy. For the first time, she talks about losing one daughter to cancer, another to Scientology – and why her uncle made films for Goebbels― Elvis Telecom, Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:01 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark
this is a great piece btw
― Hungry4Ass, Thursday, 30 August 2012 16:35 (8 months ago) Permalink
ya
― Author ~ Coach ~ Goddess (s1ocki), Thursday, 30 August 2012 16:36 (8 months ago) Permalink
Stanley Kubrick: One-Point Perspective http://designyoutrust.com/2012/08/stanley-kubrick-one-point-perspective-amazing-video-montage-celebrating-the-symetric-shots/
(neat little video showing interpolation and contrast of his camerawork)
― Darren Robocopsky (Phil D.), Sunday, 2 September 2012 13:18 (8 months ago) Permalink
Ha, cool.
― How's My Modding? Call 1-800-SBU-RSELF (WmC), Sunday, 2 September 2012 13:37 (8 months ago) Permalink
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 4 November 2012 01:03 (6 months ago) Permalink
I'd really like to see this L.A. museum show on Kubrick.
― pretty even gender split (Eazy), Sunday, 4 November 2012 01:12 (6 months ago) Permalink
Is that Clare Quilty?
2001 on IFC tomorrow.
― 50 Skidillion Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, 4 November 2012 01:49 (6 months ago) Permalink
I'm with Bilge Ebiri here on O'Neal in Barry Lyndon:
I think O'Neal gives an excellent performance, and I would direct anyone who does not agree to the scene where he faces his dying son on the deathbed. O'Neal's performance is perfect -- at first, averting his eyes, avoiding eye-contact, and then facing his son, trying to lie to him, telling him that he's not going to die. Listen to the way he whispers his lines, and to the way his voice breaks as he does so. This kind of emoting without affecting is SO difficult, even for the finest actors, that I still have a hard time believing that he was acting in that scene. When he finally breaks up -- it's shattering, every time I watch it, and I've watched this scene many times. Also, note how well his delivery of the story of his heroics matches his earlier delivery of the same story. His intonations are the same, but this time he's got tears in his eyes, and he can't keep it up -- his voice breaks up and he falls apart. O'Neal portrays this deterioration so well that it's terrifying.
Likewise, in those scenes when Barry doesn't quite connect with the audience's emotion -- for instance, when he cries upon first seeing the Chevalier -- this is in fact not a problem with the performance but an intentional moment placed by Kubrick himself. Redmond's tears don't quite reach out to the audience, but let us not forget that the Narrator at this point acknowledges, "There's many a man who will not understand the cause of the burst of feeling which was now about to take place." Likewise, the Narrator discusses the "splendor" and "nobleness" of the Chevalier's appearance and manner, when all we see is a guy in an eyepatch eating eggs and reading a letter. And the scene is devoid of music, which is rare for the more emotional parts of this film. Perhaps Kubrick is acknowledging an inner life beneath his characters, allowing a moment of feeling that we cannot understand; perhaps, as Jean Renoir once advised, 'leaving one door open on his set'.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0031.html
― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 4 November 2012 04:22 (6 months ago) Permalink
xp: He had a kind of beautiful Japanese, Oriental philosophy of life.
― Ask The Answer Man (sexyDancer), Sunday, 4 November 2012 04:22 (6 months ago) Permalink
nice find, Morbs.
― Ask The Answer Man (sexyDancer), Sunday, 4 November 2012 04:23 (6 months ago) Permalink
Ebiri's discussion of Barry Lyndon at the end of his Cinephiliacs podcast was pretty good.
― Gukbe, Sunday, 4 November 2012 04:44 (6 months ago) Permalink
link?
― turds (Hungry4Ass), Sunday, 4 November 2012 04:48 (6 months ago) Permalink
http://www.thecinephiliacs.net
― Elvis Telecom, Sunday, 4 November 2012 05:01 (6 months ago) Permalink
http://www.thecinephiliacs.net/2012/09/episode-5-bilge-ebiri-barry-lyndon.html
― Gukbe, Sunday, 4 November 2012 05:01 (6 months ago) Permalink
oh he got there
Good podcast so far... Been annoyed with film discussion podcast scene for awhile.
― Elvis Telecom, Sunday, 4 November 2012 05:05 (6 months ago) Permalink
I've pretty much given up on film podcasts but there's some good stuff on those Cinephiles ones. I'm not generally too bothered about "how did you become a critic?" stuff but there's some good stories and the Uhlich one has some real gems.
― Gukbe, Sunday, 4 November 2012 05:14 (6 months ago) Permalink
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/steven-spielberg-developing-stanley-kubricks-dream-project-napolean-as-tv-miniseries-20130303
― turds (Hungry4Ass), Sunday, 3 March 2013 23:02 (2 months ago) Permalink
― Donkamole Marvin (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 7 March 2013 00:44 (2 months ago) Permalink
sick!
― turds (Hungry4Ass), Thursday, 7 March 2013 02:26 (2 months ago) Permalink
jack kirby's 2001 comix are great
― The Mini-Mamas and the Mini-Papas (latebloomer), Thursday, 7 March 2013 02:36 (2 months ago) Permalink
I need that one
The Blade Runner and Alien comic adaptations are also pretty sweet
― ☠ ☃ ☠ (mh), Thursday, 7 March 2013 03:08 (2 months ago) Permalink
has that 2001 comic ever been reissued?
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 7 March 2013 06:54 (2 months ago) Permalink
nope (think there might be copyright issues involved) - panel above is from the large-size treasury adaptation of the movie, and then there about ten or so issues of the comic that 'continue' the story - the machine man character was spun-off from that into his own title
― Ward Fowler, Thursday, 7 March 2013 06:57 (2 months ago) Permalink
entire thing is here
― Donkamole Marvin (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 7 March 2013 17:33 (2 months ago) Permalink
What do you all think about Spielberg producing Kubrick's Napoleon screenplay?
― Iago Galdston, Friday, 8 March 2013 02:00 (2 months ago) Permalink
out of sight out of mind
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 8 March 2013 15:44 (2 months ago) Permalink
Thank you for posting that 2001 comic, it is AMAZING!
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 8 March 2013 15:51 (2 months ago) Permalink
I wonder if anyone has the 2001 ongoing comic scanned and uploaded...
― ☠ ☃ ☠ (mh), Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52 (2 months ago) Permalink
What do you all think about Spielberg producing
i feel bad about however that sentence ends ever
― ≪江南Style≫ (Autumn Almanac), Friday, 8 March 2013 15:59 (2 months ago) Permalink
― ☠ ☃ ☠ (mh), Friday, March 8, 2013 9:52 AM (17 minutes ago)
I've been halfheartedly looking for it for years, no luck yet.
― I Don't Wanna Be Dissed (By Anyone But You) (WilliamC), Friday, 8 March 2013 16:10 (2 months ago) Permalink
it'll be kinda gross if they try to sell it as a "Stanley Kubrick movie" when it won't be that even in the limited sense that A.I. was a kubrick movie. but otherwise, kinda looking forward to it!
― ryan, Friday, 8 March 2013 16:14 (2 months ago) Permalink
After another quick look -- here's 2001 #1http://marswillsendnomore.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/jack-kirbys-2001-a-space-odyssey-first-issue/
― I Don't Wanna Be Dissed (By Anyone But You) (WilliamC), Friday, 8 March 2013 16:18 (2 months ago) Permalink
that was probably the greatest leap of emotions between two posts ever ty shakey
― arby's, Friday, 8 March 2013 16:20 (2 months ago) Permalink
― ≪江南Style≫ (Autumn Almanac), Friday, March 8, 2013 10:59 AM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
where's the rong thread
― zero dark (s1ocki), Friday, 8 March 2013 16:27 (2 months ago) Permalink
I don't think any of us have read SK's script, so who can say, aside from kneejerk SS haters?
― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Friday, 8 March 2013 18:15 (2 months ago) Permalink
I am more than enough of a history nerd to be excited about Spielberg producing a Napoleon mini-series. Even if they incorporate just a hint of Kubrick's sensibilities, I'm looking forward to it.
― Gukbe, Friday, 8 March 2013 18:18 (2 months ago) Permalink
I don't think any of us have read SK's script, so who can say, aside from kneejerk SS haters?actually the script is out there on the internet. anyway, i think this is good news -- if anyone can do it with the appropriate scope (and budget) it's probably spielberg.
― tylerw, Friday, 8 March 2013 18:20 (2 months ago) Permalink
I think a kneejerk reaction is fine for anybody who saw A.I. Also, if you gave the 2001 script to any director other than SK, the chances of the resulting film being a fraction as good as the real deal are super slim.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 8 March 2013 18:21 (2 months ago) Permalink
Isn't the script also in that massive Napoleon book?
― Gukbe, Friday, 8 March 2013 18:22 (2 months ago) Permalink
we've collectively reassessed AI and determined it to be a masterpiece. catch up. post
i don't have the napoleon book, i just remember reading a pdf of the thing a decade or so ago...i should get the book, i guess! man, aside from the first 20 minutes or so, i loathed AI. i suppose i should give it another go, i know plenty of people rep for it.
― tylerw, Friday, 8 March 2013 18:25 (2 months ago) Permalink
I hate it fwiw
― Donkamole Marvin (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 March 2013 18:26 (2 months ago) Permalink
like it or hate it, AI was faithful to Kubrick's story treatment.
― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Friday, 8 March 2013 18:34 (2 months ago) Permalink
yeah my issues with it are independent of the Spielberg vs. Kubrick brouhaha
― Donkamole Marvin (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 March 2013 18:35 (2 months ago) Permalink
its kinda hard to say how faithful kubrick would have been to his own treatment tho
― zero dark (s1ocki), Friday, 8 March 2013 18:36 (2 months ago) Permalink
Cool, i didn't read the story treatment, i watched the movie.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 8 March 2013 18:58 (2 months ago) Permalink
spielberg shld hire Miklós Jancsó to direct the napoleon script
― Ward Fowler, Friday, 8 March 2013 19:27 (2 months ago) Permalink
ai was boring and cruel in the way kubrick is prone to but without his enigmatic stateliness
― plax (ico), Saturday, 9 March 2013 00:21 (2 months ago) Permalink
enigmatic stateliness replaced by Spielberg's sweaty hamfists
― Donkamole Marvin (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 9 March 2013 00:29 (2 months ago) Permalink
nope
― Gukbe, Saturday, 9 March 2013 00:50 (2 months ago) Permalink
for the umpteenth fucking time, K gave the project to him, saying he was better for it.
― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 9 March 2013 01:03 (2 months ago) Permalink
yeah we've all done this too many times
― Gukbe, Saturday, 9 March 2013 01:12 (2 months ago) Permalink
Retrospective at the ifc center in NYC later this month
― calstars, Monday, 11 March 2013 12:17 (2 months ago) Permalink
can anyone tell me what the album cover referenced here is?
― the 'dirty sprite' is implied (forksclovetofu), Monday, 11 March 2013 15:56 (2 months ago) Permalink
kraftwerk's radioactivity
― ☠ ☃ ☠ (mh), Monday, 11 March 2013 15:57 (2 months ago) Permalink
(it's in the air for you and me)
http://www.nfb.ca/film/universe/
Universe, by Roman Kroitor & Colin Low196028 min 53 s
This is the Canada Film Board documentary that 'inspired' 2001. Kubrick brought over a number of people that worked on this, including the voice of HAL 9000 Douglas Rain, who appears here as narrator! Great film!
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 11 March 2013 16:01 (2 months ago) Permalink
oh for fuck's sake i knew that and couldn't place it. thanks.
― the 'dirty sprite' is implied (forksclovetofu), Monday, 11 March 2013 16:06 (2 months ago) Permalink
now to go buy and wear it with impunity
Awesome link Adam, thank you
― calstars, Monday, 11 March 2013 16:13 (2 months ago) Permalink
http://filmmakeriq.com/2011/08/30-amazing-stanley-kubrick-cinemagraphs/
― MaresNest, Monday, 20 May 2013 16:26 (4 days ago) Permalink