Stanley Kubrick: Classic or Dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (877 of them)

Good Day, Mr. Kubrick 2006

― a.b. (alanbanana), Monday, 30 October 2006 09:37 (nineteen years ago)

When my Mam and Dad went to see Barry Lyndon in the cinema, there weren't many people there, and there was a guy a few rows in front of them who was asleep when they came in. He woke up about ten minutes into the film, watched it for about another twenty minutes, then said loudly "where's the fuckin' shark?" and left.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Monday, 30 October 2006 09:54 (nineteen years ago)

I haven't read the Trollope novel, so I can't judge Kubrick's fidelity to its tone and voice.

this isn't *terribly* important is it?

― benrique (Enrique), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:25 (nineteen years ago)

my favourite colour is GREEN

― teh_kit returns! (g-kit), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:27 (nineteen years ago)

i mean he had 0x fidelity to nabokov, schnitzler, or that one guy who wrote 'failsafe'.

― benrique (Enrique), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:29 (nineteen years ago)

If I remember correctly, Eyes Wide Shut actually is pretty faithful to Schnitzler, except Kubrick added some stuff in the end.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:35 (nineteen years ago)

not to the tone of it, not at all.

― benrique (Enrique), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:36 (nineteen years ago)

Kubrick is the one director whose films I can admire, but never live because of his cynicism and general lack of interest in, er, human beings. Barry Lyndon and EWS are the exceptions, I guess.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:39 (nineteen years ago)

(x-post)

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 (nineteen years ago)

(x-post)

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?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

If he'd been more faithful to The Shining, King wouldn't have had to remake it.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:44 (nineteen years ago)

I read the Schnitzler after I saw the film, and I remember being surprised how similar it was, 'cause I expected Kubrick to have totally chopped it.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 13:51 (nineteen years ago)

Why would he adapt material if he wanted to be 'faithful' to a different form?

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 (nineteen years ago)

btw humanists = "humanists"

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 October 2006 14:45 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't say he should've been faithful, I was just surprised how faithful he was, knowing his track record. No doubt films like Dr. Strangelove are better than the source material because of his infidelity.

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 (nineteen years ago)

If he'd been more faithful to The Shining, King wouldn't have had to remake it.

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 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, we cld argue abt the merits or o/wise of the Shining all the live long day, but you wld have to be a mentalist of the v. highest order to insist that the 'more faithful' King/Garris TV version of the Shining is a better film/work of art than the Kubrick version

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Monday, 30 October 2006 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

Shining is the one film of his I'm not sure if I ever "got". I mean, it's a well-made horror film, but I've read some crazy-ass theories over the internet how it's about the corruption of American culture or whatever.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 30 October 2006 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think he got it either. And I don't think he's a cynic.

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 (nineteen years ago)

-- 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 (nineteen years ago)

Kubrick's anti-humanism was surely the best and most interesting thing about him as an artist.

― ryan (ryan), Monday, 30 October 2006 18:41 (nineteen years ago)

OTM, totally.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 30 October 2006 19:54 (nineteen years ago)

FMJ is pretty faithful to The Short Timers, but I think the changes made in the movie were for the better.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Monday, 30 October 2006 20:08 (nineteen years ago)

well, he stops about 2/3 through The Short Timers.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 October 2006 20:11 (nineteen years ago)

xp like the chopper scene taken from Dispatches

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 30 October 2006 20:13 (nineteen years ago)

From an Idea by Kubrick, a New Film May Be Born

― g00blar (gooblar), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 14:15 (nineteen years ago)

It sounds like more of Jim Thompson will remain in it than SK, but hey, marketing.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 14:21 (nineteen years ago)

more like Stanley Jewbrick

― Breean Weldrick (weldrick), Thursday, 2 November 2006 01:53 (nineteen years ago)

clever

― Allyzay Eisenschefter (allyzay), Thursday, 2 November 2006 22:28 (nineteen years ago)

echoing any love for Barry Lyndon, and am always surprised by folks who don't like the second half. Kubrick seemed to have been really fond of big symetrical story arcs, and BL was one of the most obvious ones, wherein the first half is all Barry's ascent to semi-prominence, and the second half is his long decline.

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 (nineteen years ago)

not so much anti-humanist in the sense of being against or dismissive of humans or human affairs, but rather that his films seem to take a certain non-humanist perspective that is refreshing. that is, human emotions are not the end-all be-all validating principle of his work.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 2 November 2006 23:30 (nineteen years ago)

the proper term i guess, to use contemporary crit theory jargon, is post-humanist.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 2 November 2006 23:30 (nineteen years ago)

I agree with that -- I look at his movies as environments with people in them, rather than being necessarily "about people"

― Dominique (dleone), Thursday, 2 November 2006 23:49 (nineteen years ago)

his films seem to take a certain non-humanist perspective that is refreshing.

A God's-eye view. Surveying the general tendencies of human civilization, I identify.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 November 2006 14:38 (nineteen years ago)

I could say that 2001 is actually gloriously, progressively humanist. I mean, it shows humanity graduating into godhood!

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 (nineteen years ago)

maybe not, but imo it depends on what one thinks is the best outcome for humanity - and why not godhood? ;) anyway, it doesn't seem like a terribly cynical, anti-human message to me, despite the traumatic transition.

― Dominique (dleone), Friday, 3 November 2006 21:55 (nineteen years ago)

If he'd been more faithful to The Shining, King wouldn't have had to remake it.

-- 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 (nineteen years ago)

barry lyndon is a practically flawless film

― latebloomer: none of th movies make scence but they r good. (latebloomer), Monday, 6 November 2006 04:47 (nineteen years ago)

which doesn't make it great

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 6 November 2006 04:52 (nineteen years ago)

it is great though.

― latebloomer: none of th movies make scence but they r good. (latebloomer), Monday, 6 November 2006 05:00 (nineteen years ago)

I could say that 2001 is actually gloriously, progressively humanist. I mean, it shows humanity graduating into godhood!

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 (nineteen years ago)

how did none of you read this as a joke?

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 (nineteen years ago)

four months pass...

what is the deal with 'the shining' having two different cuts, one UK and one US?

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 11:15 (nineteen years ago)

does it? I saw it on opening night (in New Jersey), 145m I believe. Kubrick cut 2 minutes the following week. I know there's a further cut around 120m -- if that was the UK release edit, I haven't a clue why.

Still his worst post-Killer's Kiss film at any length.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:26 (nineteen years ago)

i think the uk version was significantly shorter. but yep the US one lost a hospital scene from the end after a few weeks theatrically.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:27 (nineteen years ago)

the funny thing there is the british invented lo-nrg lightbulbs in like the 50s but the industry kind of self-censored back then.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:29 (nineteen years ago)

probably for another thread, that.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:30 (nineteen years ago)

The iMdBaccount, tho that "third day of release" thing is utterly at odds with what I remember.

Kubrick apparently thought a half hour of the US version was "unnecessary," so I guess he thought it sucked too.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:46 (nineteen years ago)

you should see the UK version, maybe it'll turn you around?

it's a funny film.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:54 (nineteen years ago)

no, it's a pompous, dull film w/ a few funny scenes. (I think I did see the 2-hour version once, and it was just hash.)

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 13:59 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 777 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.