The late 'great' Kubrick

][cEMAN**

Rather than going off on a tangent in another thread, I would like to get some discussion on this here.

Kubrick. For and against him being this legendary director. If it's completely one sided then I don't think the idea of him can stand up. Just as without the idea that without darkness, light has no meaning, and without evil, good has no meaning, without people being able to discuss the good and the bad here, no one opinion can be taken as the only acceptable one.

OK now admittedly I haven't seen all of his films. Any opinion I might have are based on the ones I have seen - Eyes Wide Shut, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Dr. Strangelove, and Spartacus. Spartacus I don't really remember that well.

In saying that though, I loved The Shining, and parts of Full Metal Jacket (but not the whole film). I liked the idea of A Clockwork Orange, and got a good laugh at Dr. Strangelove. 2001 i've never been fully able to stomach.

My opinion on the matter is that Kubrick was or tried to be an artist first, and a director secondly. I suppose that could be considered a contradiction as film is an art form. However in my opinion (and what i'm basing my opinion of Kubrick on), is that film is a combined medium of other art forms that, when they complement each other, create a seperate form of art. I believe that when each element of a film (score, story, cinematography) are disproportionate and thus don't complement each other, that it detracts from the film as a whole. In my opinion, Kubrick had difficulty blending the elements. Rather than lacking in any one area though, he made them individually larger than was needed, and that effected the end product.

Not always, mind you, but enough to say that he wasn't as great as I keep hearing. Stories were over the top in areas. Music and picture overtook the story in parts.

I'd like to get an open discussion on this with reasons for and against rather than just a flame war.

Sleazus

Personally I find it difficult to subscribe to any director as a legend or a master. It seems that directors are like actors and writers and everyone else. They have good days and they have bad days. And, not only that, but they have good days and bad days in a variety of styles. It's very difficult to find a director with a large-ish number of films under his belt who hasn't made a misstep (Christopher Nolan is my one to watch, but even then Insomnia wasn't brilliant, just good).

Any of the masters (Scorcese, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Mann, etc) have movies I like and movies I don't like. Some directors will intrigue me if they are attached to a project (most Scorcese movies are must-see) - and it's the same for writers or actors -, but I'll accept that all have their on-and-off days. I've always loved films rather than talent.

That said, I'd probably sooner pick a favourite actor than director, but maybe that's because actors are (understandably) more prolific.

Kubrick was no different. 2001 and the Shining were his two films that struck me. I can take or leave the rest of his catalogue.

rednik

I prefer his earlier work and for me two of his best films are The Killing and Paths of glory. Two brilliant atmospheric movies which he made one after the other. He was not a very prolific director making only 16 movies in a span of nearly 50 years, but he has certainly left a great legacy and his influence on other film makers is enormous.

Nolanger

He was good in the sense that he switched between genres unlike most great directors who mainly stay in the one genre. Having said that I think Kubrick is extremely overrated (thanks to Empire magazine!).

lostexpectation

so is he great or not op?

tunguska

Im one of those people who thinks Kubrick was a genius. Although I'll never go over the top with my praise of him. I could go on all night and bore the hell out of everybody giving examples as to why I think he was brilliant. But when it comes right down to it the main reason why I love Kubrick's films is because they touch something deep inside me which is essentially the purpose of art. And its a very individual thing, I mean some people will watch a kubrick film and will be bored whereas theyd watch a speilberg film and be totally engaged. But I suppose thats just the good film makers. Theres a lot of films knocking around that are vacant products rolled off the assembly line with no artistic merit at all, just with an aim to generate money. So in my view a film should say something about life, the nature of existance and touch something inside of you.

Kubricks films were unique. You could watch one of his movies and know instantly that it was a stanley Kubrick film. There are very few directors you could say that about. Some people accused Kubrick of making cold, technical films which I suppose is understandable. His films were technically flawless and there was never really any soft and fluffy story lines at the centre of his productions. Even eyes wide shut which focused around a married couple came across in a distinctly efficient and cold way. But his films generated feeling in other existential ways. Kubrick would never be able to make an E.T., or at least not in the way speilberg did. If Kubrick had made E.T. there wouldve been no focus on the family unit and the friendship between an alien and a litle boy and more of an emphasis on the possibilities of life on other planets and the mysteries of space exploration. Each is equally valid I think but I also think people will be drawn more towards one approach than the other.

The only other film maker I know of making anything comparable to the standard Kubrick established is Terence Malick. But like I said thats just what I think and I accept its different strokes for different folkd

Running Bing

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;61292088']

My opinion on the matter is that Kubrick was or tried to be an artist first, and a director secondly.

Personally I find it difficult to subscribe to any director as a legend or a master.

Having said that I think Kubrick is extremely overrated (thanks to Empire magazine!)

Some very strange views in this thread. (to my mind).

To the op, it sounds like you feel Kubricks films were over-stylised and focused on form over substance but I think it was through his style that he made a lot of his most important points.

I think he was very unique in that he took elements that you would'nt think would fit and blended them together perfectly (so on that front I completely disagree with you).

examples I am thinking off are the music choices he made in Full Metal jacket, the absurdity of the costume/set design in a clockwork orange or matching comedy with such a serious and topical issue in Dr. Strangelove. Those juxtapositions themselves speak volumes imo.


To the second post your argument is the equivalent of saying there is no such thing as a great footballer because they have some good games and some bad games? A director has to be judged on his whole catalogue of films.

To Nolanger I simply cant fathom how you conclude empire magazine is responsible for him being held in such high regard His films are just as likely to be lauded in the pages of Cahiers Du Cinema or Sight and Sound and he is hugely influential and loved by dozens of modern filmmakers.

Just look at the lists here:

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100films.htm
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top100directors.htm
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/directors-directors.html
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics-directors.html

Hardly the sort of people to be influenced by empire?

][cEMAN**

I just clicked on the first link there - top 100 films. What worries me is the fact that Goodfellas in 1990 was the most recent film on the list. That means according to that list, in nearly 20 years, nothing has come close to matching old classics that don't necessarily stand up to the test of time now, and in some cases were only inconic because of how they changed cinema at that time.

Does this mean that there's nothing left for us? Or will it be the next breakthrough in technology that'll do it for us?

Are we only looking far into our past at 'legendary' film, and ignoring what's coming out now (or in recent years), out of a feeling of nostalgia, or because they truely are the top 100 greatest films EVER made?

Perhaps films now are too real for us?

mike65

Lists are for arguing over - nothing else.

liah

Running Bing wrote: »

the absurdity of the costume/set design in a clockwork orange

Absurdity? Compared to the book, the costumes and sets were highly understated.

mike65

You are at cross purposes with Running Bing I suspect.

nyarlothothep

Best director ever. Imo no film has come close to 2001 in its evocation of the sublime

][cEMAN**

Y'see that's exactly what i'm talking about. Buzz words. You're also only talking about 1 film. How could one film possibly make someone the best director ever?

Evocation of the sublime? Would you like to elaborate on that? Or maybe give us a latin quote next?

nyarlothothep

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;61306622']Y'see that's exactly what i'm talking about. Buzz words. You're also only talking about 1 film. How could one film possibly make someone the best director ever?

Evocation of the sublime? Would you like to elaborate on that? Or maybe give us a latin quote next?

Imo his style in terms of cinematography, the themes he deals with, for me make him the best director ever, apart from Paul Verhoeven. Its not just 2001, its Barry Lyndon, A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket and The Shining.

I wasn't really bothered giving a long winded explanation so sublime would do nicely. The incomprehensibility of the universe, its alienness, the interactions between consciousness and reality dissociated from conventional human contexts, the end sequence conveyed that to me.

][cEMAN**

I don't really think 2001 deals with the incomprehensibility of the universe, but more with the unknown. As man evolved seemingly due to an outside force, it could have been alien, or an element of the universe. Though I think alien is more likely. In which case an unexplained alien presense could be considered the same in Star Trek IV.

As for the interactions between the consciousness and reality, i'd offer up Waking Life as a good example of that. But that would only be one example.

I loved the ending to 2001. I liked the latter part of the film in general. I liked the beginning of Full Metal Jacket, but not the ending. It's almost like he makes films that are good in parts, but not entirely.

The ideas of a Clockwork Orange in terms of conditioning, and society i'd look towards the Manchurian Candidate, or This is England for the depravity in human nature. Unforgiven is a good example of the nasty side of the human condition, perhaps that people don't change, there's no justice in the world.

Even 1984's idea of crime against the state and the conditions under which it punishes or reconditions the offenders is more powerful to me than a clockwork orange. In fact the rule under which the people are kept in 1984 is more harrowing than the random attacks made by the characters in a clockwork orange. They may have raped a woman, but society in 1984 raped the people as a whole.

A full Metal Jacket is a really good film, but again in parts (for me). The dehumanization of the characters could be compared to the raping of innocence in Battle Royal.

The shining for me was just all about Jack. He made that film. He WAS that character. I really don't think it would even have worked with anyone else.

Unfortunately I haven't seen Barrly Lyndon. Maybe I should.

Sleazus

Running Bing wrote: »

To the second post your argument is the equivalent of saying there is no such thing as a great footballer because they have some good games and some bad games? A director has to be judged on his whole catalogue of films.

You can't really compare football and movies like you tried to there. The majority of footie fans don't collect DVD's of games they particularly enjoyed (most don't even have compilation videos), but I'd reckon 95% of people will have DVD and Blu Ray "collections" (even if it's only a dozen or so films). We treat football and film differently - or at least the vast majority do.

For me (and I may be in a very small minority here), I have difficulty classifying any director as a master because I generally have difficulty conceiving their back catalogue as a single fluid work - and if I did I can't find a director whose entire back catalogue averages out to anything better than "very good". Each film is a thing of itself. It isn't like football in that every game of football features two teams, two goals, ninety minutes, a football and a set of uniform rules. Movies aren't quite so easily classified - nor would I want them to be. And I'd also suggest that a director generally makes fewer movies that a footballer plays games, so perhaps it's easy to 'average out' performance or mitigate the damage that one bad day has on their perception.

Discussing a master director isn't like picking a favourite football player. You could make a stronger case that it's like picking a great sportsman (it's a more nebulous term) - but with the caveat that for most great sportsmen they've only really played one sport (Michael Jordan is the most obvious exception). Directors produce countless films, each of different styles, content, tone and genre.

And I'm very clearly speaking for myself in my own views on film, but I'd imagine that they are quite common. I see the film, not the director. Directors and actors may point me to certain projects, but I'd be very hesitant to describe them as masters.

Sad Professor

What made Kubrick great was that he was a true artist who never compromised while still managing to forge a career in Hollywood and have his films be seen by a mass audience. Imo there is no other filmmaker, living or dead, who achieved this to the same extent. This is why he such an influential figure to many directors.

For me true cinema is the silent era. In the silent era the moving image dominated everything. Once sound came in the modern film started to take shape and filmmakers got lazy. A lot of what passes for cinema today is basically filmed theatre and would be better suited to television.

Kubrick was a master of the moving image because he understood that even the tiniest detail could make a moment unforgettable. Unlike other directors who were ignorant of this or left it to chance, Kubrick chased after such moments. Instead of doing one of two takes and saying "good enough", he would do a hundred, as long as it took, until he captured that moment. Many of these moments are seared in the minds of his viewers. Even if they thought the film was crap, weird, whatever, they will remember it forever.

And that's the true test of any piece of art. The fact that we are even talking about his films now, even to criticise them, decades after many of them were made, is a testament to Kubrick's greatness as a filmmaker.

Gunther_Gloop

To my mind Kubrick never made anything less than a perfect film (after Spartacus, which wasn't "a Kubrick film". What I mean by that is he had a vision of how he wanted to see each one and he 'painted' that vision precisely -even surpassing it every time.

I can see how some people might not appreciate this "vision" or what he wanted to achieve or portray. Or people might not want to go there at a particular time, but they are the celluloid equivalant of great paintings... Everything precisely so -not in a stifling way either.

Nobody else did this -or had the budget or temperament, aside from sensibilty or artistc prowess.
This makes them sound a bit precious but they're not that at all. Each one is multi-layered and is possible to view as wholly different movies the more you watch them.

At first I was disturbed by A Clockwork Orange, for example, then I saw it as an intriguing drama. Now I can't watch it without laughing throughout -it'a his funniest movie in fact (IMO).

Barry Lyndon is my favourite. Pause it anywhere and see a painting masterpiece -but not only for that reason. It's like total immersion in the era in which it's set. It's long and somewhat slow, but that's how things were. The tension and beauty is mesmerising.

Many directros make great movies. Only Kubrick made films ever-so-precisely. He was flexible on set though if something worked better and suited the vision.
So you can't really say he should have done it this way or that because it is all the way it is for a reason (often many).
Look again at any of them and see them for the first time. I know I will always.

ComicCast

There's an exhibition of illustration, painting and photography inspired by Stanley Kubrick on at the Light House cinema, Smithfield all this month (Oct 2009).

We recorded a special show to celebrate Kubrick on the 10th Anniversary of his death this year which ya can listen to here: http://thecomiccast.com/2009/10/06/ears-wide-shut-or-how-we-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-podcast/

Lame Lantern

My opinion on the matter is that Kubrick was or tried to be an artist first, and a director secondly. I suppose that could be considered a contradiction as film is an art form. However in my opinion (and what i'm basing my opinion of Kubrick on), is that film is a combined medium of other art forms that, when they complement each other, create a seperate form of art. I believe that when each element of a film (score, story, cinematography) are disproportionate and thus don't complement each other, that it detracts from the film as a whole. In my opinion, Kubrick had difficulty blending the elements.

Your premise that cinema should be viewed as the sum of constituent elements is one that appeared in debate regarding cinema until the 1930s (ish) and has since disappeared. There is no artistic medium (particularly narrative mediums) that cannot be reduced to smaller discernible elements, be they industrial, thematic, generic or ideological. The novel was, at its outset, viewed as an uneasy composite of theatrical character study and poetry. Theatre itself was seen as a mixture of opera and poetic writing. However, nobody questions the singular integrity of these mediums in the modern age.

Similarly, cinema may resemble certain elements of prose and theatre, of photography or music, but combining such identifiable elements will not produce "cinema" itself. Instead, therefore, of viewing Kubrick as a man trying to wrangle various disparate creative impulses, it's a better starting position to consider whether or not the filmmaker's creative intent was best served by the formal practices he adopted. In my view, it was. While you may see a certain fragmentation in his work, I see a virtuoso marshalling of various strength of cinema to generate the expressive content he managed to produce. It may be a little jarring given the understated Hollywood environment from which he came, but he resides very comfortably alongside European masters. That's just a matter of opinion, though.

CliffHuxtabel

My Two Cents:

Reasons to consider SK a great:

- Technical master of film (of pacing, of drama, of photography)

- Diversity / versatility of output and willingness to take risks (period drama, science fiction, war, horror, comedy etc.)

- An eye for the iconic image (Strangelove, 2001, Clockwork, Shining, all contain images that have entered popular conciousness)

-Produced at least two bone fide masterpieces (Dr Strangelove and Paths of Glory) and no film in his cannon (dont know about 'Fear and Desire') can be considered less than excellent.

Reasons against:

-perhaps his sparse volume of output, especially in his last two decades

-possibly, as the op argued, his willingness to forsake story and entertainment in favour of sticking to his vision (yeah subjective I know)