Why I love Kubrick (and you should too)

wushuliu · « **Reply #80 on:** 18 Aug 2010, 10:32 pm »

Quote from: EthanH on 18 Aug 2010, 09:51 pm

Barry Lyndon is one of Kubrick's masterpieces, in my opinion. I would put it up there with anything else he has done. It may not "grab" the regular filmgoer as much as Clockwork or Full Metal Jacket, but in my opinion it's a serious movie and one of the best period films ever. Maybe you have to be interested in that period or just give the film some time.

Then again I also thought The New World was good, and it seems like most people think that film is somewhere between sub-par and atrocious by Malick's standards. To each his own, I guess.

I can't quite articulate why, but Tarkovsky always sort of reminded me of a Russian Kubrick.

I agree w/ the Tarkovsky comparison. They both prefer long takes and many takes. The way they direct actors is also similar.

I was kind of bored by The New World until the end IIRC, something about the end drew the rest of the film together - but it's been a while since I've seen it. Frankly, I fault his casting. Farrell maybe a compelling theater actor but I just don't care for the guy on camera, and if I have to watch Bale scowl through another movie - to paraphrase a line from his rant - 'he and I are frickin' done professionally'.

I wonder what a Kubrick film of a Mamet script would be like...

standub · « **Reply #81 on:** 17 Sep 2010, 03:35 am »

I've been thinking about The Shinning and if Kubrick meant for the haunted parts to really just be dreams, I really wouldn't like this movie any more. Movies about screwed up people just aren't interesting to me, a creepy haunted hotel in the mountains, now that's scary. Although this still doesn't explain how Jack is in the photograph from the 20s at the end. That said Dr. Strangelove is one of my most favorite movies of all time, Peter Sellers and George C. Scott in the same movie, come on, that's genius right there.

Tyson · « **Reply #82 on:** 17 Sep 2010, 05:46 am »

standub,
I dunno, I think it's kinda cool that Kubrick associates the supernatural elements with cartoons and fables (Hansel & Gretel, the 3 Little pigs, Road Runner, Goofy, etc..) It creates a link between childhood fantasy and escapism and ghosts/spirits. So, if ghosts are just manifestations of childish imagination, then by extension, so is a whole lot of other stuff that adults buy into.

drphoto · « **Reply #83 on:** 3 Oct 2010, 03:39 am »

Maybe the character Jack was simply psycotic and the picture was a manifestation of his mind? That alone is pretty scary. And don't get me wrong, I'm not biased against people w/ mental illness. It really is an illness, not a character fault. I work in a hospital and I've talked w/ some mental patients and some of them simply live in another world than most of us. I tried 'acid' in college which I think may simulate that disortion of reality and it was pretty frightening to me. (yeah, I had the proverbial 'bad trip') Haunted, may not mean demons from the nether world, but from our own mind.

Sorry a bit off topic, but I think this movie, like most good works of art leave the viewer to draw their own conclusions.

KnowTalent · « **Reply #84 on:** 3 Oct 2010, 03:57 am »

Quote from: standub on 17 Sep 2010, 03:35 am

Although this still doesn't explain how Jack is in the photograph from the 20s at the end.

I don't think it was meant to be dramatic or meaninful in the context of a major plot twist... rather it was subtle and make the viewer ponder whether it might signify something reoccuring/cyclical thus evoking a dramatic response...a soft "gottcha"!!!

or maybe not?

Larkston Zinaspic · « **Reply #85 on:** 3 Oct 2010, 03:05 pm »

It's been a long time since I've read it, but The Shining is probably my favorite Steven King novel. It used to be fun reading King's books back then...Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Dead Zone, Firestarter, The Stand...but at one point it seemed like he was crapping out novels faster than I could read them and I lost interest.

Kubrick's adaption is thoroughly entertaining, with striking visuals, but it isn't my favorite Kubrick film. In the book, I remember that Wendy was a strong, intelligent woman fighting a gruesome battle to save her son's life. But in the film, 'Olive Oil' Shelley Duvall as "Wendy" is a pathetic, sniveling idiot, and Jack should have given her the axe instead of Scatman Crothers. Jack Torrance never said "Here's Johnny!" in the book...what he said was much nastier

, and Danny talking to his finger is hilarious...but it's all in good fun.

Kubrick was amazing--a one-of-a-kind visionary. His adaption of A Clockwork Orange is nothing short of a cinematic masterpiece, and all young directors should be strapped to a chair and made to watch it continuously, ala the Ludovico Technique.

Tyson · « **Reply #86 on:** 16 May 2011, 06:54 am »

Watching Eyes Wide Shut again tonight, for the 8th time, and I find that the more I watch ANY Kubrick movie, the more it gets under my skin. The orgy scene seemed a bit silly the 1st time, but gets more creepy each time through. Kubrick seems to take the idea of conspiracy and disregard of human life seriously. It's very disturbing to watch it with this perspective.

On a side note, it seems to me that EWS (with it's constant use of doubles) is really about choices, alternate universes, and paths not taken. For example, Hartford is always doubled with maids, servants, and Nightingale. All are people of the middle or lower class, serving the upper class. He thinks his education elevates him, but he is dead wrong.

Hartford steps into the massive mansion and is instantly out of place (what, with his puny condo lifestyle). The response of the super wealthy he has encroached upon? "Remove your clothes, or would you like US to do it FOR you?"

I like to think I'm I pretty smart guy, but Kubrick's movies really seem to be a mystery wrapped in an enigma. I tease out a few aspects here and there, but there's always that opacity that is impossible to penetrate. Fun to try, though...

Tyson · « **Reply #87 on:** 16 May 2011, 08:04 am »

EWS also seems to be a double of Barry Lyndon, with Cruise in the part of Lyndon. It seems to me that the set pieces, the context, is more important than the characters themselves. Lyndon tries to scale the ladders of society and is rebuffed. Hartford can be seen as on the same path, with the same results. They both move through the set pieces of mansions and wealth, while not quite being of that world, and ultimately rejected by that world.

Tyson · « **Reply #88 on:** 16 May 2011, 08:40 am »

Regarding sets. Look how massive, massive, massive Ziegler's place is compared to the Hartford's rather compact condo is. The same can be said for Barry Lyndon - look how massive the estates of the "true" royalty are compared to the interloper Barry's is. The sets define the wealth and the class of the characters. Personally, living in a condo myself, I feel the edge of compression rather keenly. I understand that the life I live is also defined by space and wealth. Looking at the income distributions of america, my family clearly resides in the upper 15% of earners, but the discrepancy between us and the TRULY wealthy is VAST. I can't even comprehend the separation of us vs. the next standard deviation, let along the 2nd or 3rd.

Tyson · « **Reply #89 on:** 16 May 2011, 09:12 am »

OK, and further, if Barry Lyndon was about the grafting and dissolution of family, and the Shining was about the destruction of family, than EWS is about the salvation of family. Who said Kubrick was a pessimist?

Tyson · « **Reply #90 on:** 16 May 2011, 09:27 am »

Oh man, revisiting another obsession of mine, Joyce's Ulysses, it occurs to me that EWS is a modern retelling of this semi-modern retelling of the ancient tale. At least from a marital/infidelity standpoint.

milford3 · « **Reply #91 on:** 16 May 2011, 12:17 pm »

"Full Metal Jacket." Nobody could have played that DI better than R Lee Ermey. Brillant casting by Kubrick.

Andrikos · « **Reply #92 on:** 17 May 2011, 10:01 am »

Kubric is awesome! I'm re-visiting all his films and enjoying them.

As a hobbyist photographer (as many of you here are too) I've always been fascinated with Kubrick's innovation regarding the actual science of filming.
A small example of his genius is the use of a Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 (!!!!) aperture lens to film a single candlelit scene in Barry Lyndon:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

He also used a 20:1 zoom lens for Clockwork Orange (another cinematic first).

Dude was a freaking innovative genius!

Matty_J · « **Reply #93 on:** 18 May 2011, 10:53 pm »

Quote from: milford3 on 16 May 2011, 12:17 pm

"Full Metal Jacket." Nobody could have played that DI better than R Lee Ermey. Brillant casting by Kubrick.

If I remember correctly Lee Ermey was a real drill instructor they used as a consultant, but he performed so much better than the one who was cast that he got the job. I can't imagine anyone else playing that part.

EthanH · « **Reply #94 on:** 18 May 2011, 11:45 pm »

Quote from: Tyson on 16 May 2011, 09:27 am

Oh man, revisiting another obsession of mine, Joyce's Ulysses, it occurs to me that EWS is a modern retelling of this semi-modern retelling of the ancient tale. At least from a marital/infidelity standpoint.

You should give Traumnovelle a try if you haven't done so already. Very different feel from the movie IMO. Can't say for sure whether I prefer Kubrick or Schnitzler's story.

WRT to Joyce, ever read the Bloomsday book?

tesseract · « **Reply #95 on:** 18 May 2011, 11:55 pm »

Just found this thread...

Kubrick films have a certain flavor, he has a way of portraying life that is as surreal as it is real.

A Clockwork Orange is my all time fav movie. Dunno what happened with Eyes Wide Shut, I couldn't even make it all the way through that one.

Matty_J · « **Reply #96 on:** 15 Jun 2011, 11:51 pm »

Quote from: Tyson on 17 Sep 2010, 05:46 am

standub,
I dunno, I think it's kinda cool that Kubrick associates the supernatural elements with cartoons and fables (Hansel & Gretel, the 3 Little pigs, Road Runner, Goofy, etc..) It creates a link between childhood fantasy and escapism and ghosts/spirits. So, if ghosts are just manifestations of childish imagination, then by extension, so is a whole lot of other stuff that adults buy into.

I wonder if he would be a good choice for producing a Doctor Who movie?

SET Man · « **Reply #97 on:** 16 Jun 2011, 12:05 am »

Hey!

BTW.... this year 2011 marked 40th Anniversary of the "Clockwork Orange"

http://www.wired.com/video/a-clockwork-orange-40th-anniversary-edition-on-bluray/921139614001

I wasn't born yet when that movie came out but I can imagine how the world react to it back than. Even today, it is still looks crazy but definitely a classic avant garde film.

Take care,
Buddy

Tyson · « **Reply #98 on:** 16 Jun 2011, 12:08 am »

If you want a trip, watch ACO with the sound off - it causes the comedic edge to be lost, and the film really takes a sinister turn when just looking at the visuals.

wushuliu · « **Reply #99 on:** 26 Jul 2011, 10:38 pm »

This oughtta blow yer mind, Tyson!:

http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/07/26/the-impossible-layout-of-the-shinings-overlook-hotel-kubrick-wanted-to-mess-with-your-head

The Shining is so entrancing I would never have noticed any of that. Just F'ing Brilliant. Even MORE brilliant is it shows just how much he really processed King's book because in the book this spatial shifting was very present and ominous (particularly the hedges), but Kubrick found a way to incorporate that cinematically in a way more sinister than King. He 'got' the book far more than King's fans and King himself credit him for. Kubrick's films are gifts that keep on giving...