Stanley Kubrick: Classic or Dud?

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.

Kubrick is as C as C can fucking get.

The last third of Barry Lyndon is far more passionate and intelligent about violence and revenge than all of Clockwork Orange.

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.

A dying boy will get'em in the gut every time.

this isn't *terribly* important is it?

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?

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?

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?

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.

Ugh, that's about the only compelling argument that Kubrick should've been more faithful.

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.

-- 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.

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.

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

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.

-- Andrew Farrell (afarrel...), Monday 1:44 PM. (afarrell) (later)

how did none of you read this as a joke?