2001: A Space Odyssey

and this one:

https://ro.nu/2001/c1.png

Oh, I'm sure I've seen something or read about these, let me look through my books.

I seem to recall that they were recycled (Barry L possibly) but I could be wrong.

As always with Kubrick, nothing is straightforward.

https://idyllopuspress.com/idyllopus/film/2001_boucher.htm

https://www.reddit.com/r/StanleyKubrick/comments/igrfi5/can_someone_identify_this_painting_from_2001_its/

yes that's definitely the same one in 'the man who knew too much', not that that makes it easier to identify! the fact that two of the paintings have been identified suggests that, even if they were painted for the studio, they were copies of genuine works rather than complete pastiches.

feel like he missed a trick here: itt: paintings that are plot-points in movies and TV that are terrible paintings (or excellent ones if there are any)

https://live.staticflickr.com/4480/24097904808_9ab1284082_b.jpg

Assumed the revive was for 2001 winning the Sight and Sound poll.

Tangentially related — Idyllopus Press’s cluster of analyses around the painting in Lolita are, as usual for that site, an absolute tour de force. (I read the middle one recently)

My first thought on hearing that one painting is in both 2001 and The Man Who Knew Too Much isn't to theorize on shared themes or elaborate callbacks. I think it means they used the same prop house.

ah but clearly Kubrick chose to work with this film studio so as to gain access to that prop house and therefore...

To me the beauty of these deep, intertextual analyses isn’t to get hung up on what % of the stuff is actually “intentional”; but to enjoy the connections being made and themes/observations being drawn out.

(When I read the Idyllopus write-up on EWS, I thought maybe 70% of her observations were brilliant/mind-blowing, and 30% a wild stretch… for The Shining, I would maybe reverse those numbers, but still really enjoyed reading it.)

Wow, first I've heard of those series. They out to put them in print.

She gets pretty "out there" – but the degree of cultural knowledge that she brings into play is incredible. I've also never seen anyone analyze a film so closely... and there's obviously a lot of grist for the mill there (as a basic example, I had never realized that Kubrick moves props around and stuff).

(I would also highlight this piece called The Problems with Discussing Stanley Kubrick's Lolita... it's somewhat of a departure from her usual format, in that it's a lengthy, somewhat personal rumination/essay on "problematic" art & artists – obv. a very familiar subject these days, but she goes places that were new to me, and I thought it was really good and thoughtful.)

Another good "Supplemental" piece (sorry, my last post) is The Real Horror of The Shining: The Misogyny of the Audience for Wendy Torrance.