Stanley Kubrick: filmmaking genius, or overrated control freak? (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

There are those in this thread that have proclaimed his greatness without giving reasons, but expect others who do not see eye to eye to show an heiarchal view on art. This seems unfair to me.

As well, some have given reasons, sound or otherwise, for why they admire Kubrick. And some of those who have not, have certainly made their reasons explicit in other threads. Regardless, I don’t find a lot of a strict ‘hierarchal view’ in most of the postings, other than the consideration that Kubrick is a great director.

Other than as a point of discussion, this is futile in any case. Was Picasso a ‘greater’ painter than Rembrandt? Was Mozart a greater composer than Bach?

Who cares? We can thoroughly enjoy them all. Now valid judgments can be made as to their relative greatness compared to Norman Rockwell or John Williams. So in that sense the is certainly possible to rank artists and art.

I have a different view of Kubrick’s later work than you (I think Barry Lyndon very fine indeed), but I have no expectation that everyone (or even most) would share my view. I do think that I could make a strong enough case for its merits, that most knowledgeable film lovers would be able to discuss those views with comprehension, even if there is not consensus at the end.

For example, I find your brief explanation of why you are not completely on board with his later films completely reasonable, even though I hold a different view.

 

[Seth_S]

This is clearly Kubrick's fault. By titling the movie "Lolita", he's setting up expectations for everyone who has read the book - people can't help but make comparisons. Because of some of the large changes he had make, and some of the willing changes made from the novel, I think the film would have been better off with a different title.

 

[Seth_S]

Not to be too nitpicky, but music theory 101 is essentially Bach's thoughts on music theory

 

[MatS]

the greatest of all time...

and as the US prepares to go to war I know I can take solice in 3 of the greatest anti-war movies of all time (FMJ, Dr. Strangelove, Paths Of Glory),2 of which I have watched once again in the last week alone.

 

[OcieB]

My poor direction comment was aimed specifically at The Shining where I felt that the films visual look became boring quickly because almost every scene was shot with steady-cam.

I don't think you got the point of using the steady-cam. Kubrick's style in The Shining is very detached, in my opinion. It's more observing what is happening, rather being included in what is happening. The Steady cam gives the viewer a wierd feeling, because its moving, but smooth.

The Killing and Killers Kiss aren't his greatest; i think they are his attempt to make it into hollywood.

my favorite kubrick films:
1.Dr. Strangelove
2.A Clockwork Orange
3.Paths of Glory
4.2001: A Space Odyssey
5.The Shining
6.Barry Lyndon
7.Full Metal Jacket
8.Eyes Wide Shut
9.The Killing
10.Lolita
11.Killers Kiss
(havent seen Fear and Desire or Sparticus)

Kubrick is, in my opinion, the best balance between American commercialism and Foreign filmmaking. No other director (that i can think of) has made such popular films while still maintaining his original image. In other words, he never sold out.

 

[Agee Bassett]

Stanley Kubrick is the great Colossus of cinema as hermetically-sealed, impeccably-enameled universe, populated by bipedal Rorschach-tests as characters. The very essence of artificial genius.

There's just a little too much of obsessive calculation in his madness to appeal to the viewer seeking actual humanity in cinema.

 

[MatS]

Stanley Kubrick is the great Colossus of cinema as hermetically-sealed, impeccably-enameled universe, populated by bipedal Rorschach-tests as characters. The very essence of artificial genius.

There's just a little too much of obsessive calculation in his madness to appeal to the viewer seeking actual humanity in cinema.

yeah, that was my original answer before I edited my comments

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think his only genuinely bad films came in the late 90s.

I guess we'll just have to do that "agree to disagree" deal!

 

[Seth_S]

Yes, but you get so used to it, that by the end of the film it loses its effect.

 

[Luc D]

I've spent the better part of a year studying his films. I wouldn't have done so did I not think that he was the greatest filmmaker of all time.

 

[Max Leung]

2001- Only interesting on controlled substances, one of these days someone will remake it properly with dialogue and plot (I'm available and cheap!)

That movie is called "Contact".

Actually, I think 2001 and Contact are perfect companion movies. I give a slight edge to Contact, simply because it is one of those extremely rare movies where a scientist is the main character, has a personality and passion, and actually uses her scientific training. Oh yes, and the movie directly tackles the philosophy of science.

Kubrick, at the dawn of the "mainstreaming" of post-modern thought (concrete and glass are considered art, while natural beauty is considered "pablum for the unwashed masses"), took a more abstract approach. 2001 is a masterpiece because Kubrick made a movie that could have been made by an inquisitive 10-year-old boy, but make it look difficult.



(I'm sorry...The ghost of-the-still-living Tom Wolfe took over my keyboard! Honest!)

A Clockwork Orange is still one of my favorite films of all time. Any movie that has naked women (complete with pubic hair) as coffee tables, sadistic lashings of Jesus Christ, nuclear bombs going off with a Beethoven accompaniment, bludgeoning by giant penis, and a man doubled over and wretching by the sight of a bare-breasted woman is a work of genius. GENIUS!

 

[Francois_T]

"I think 2001 and Contact are perfect companion movies"

They are companions in the sense that you can put them on the same shelf, yes.
However, if you mean that they are anywhere near equally as good, I'm afraid you're under the influence of psychedelics (ironically). There is just no other explanation. 2001 is a movie for adults in the fullest sense of the term, and Contact is a childish, brainless movie that tries to remedy this with a few great visuals.

 

[Sam Hatch]

I've grown up with Kubrick films (my odd dad let me watch 'A Clockwork Orange' when I was eight or nine) and while I have a few problems here and there with them, I really enjoy watching his work. All except for 'Eyes Wide Shut', which felt like he was trying way too hard to make a Kieslowski film and falling short the whole time.

But (and no offense to the fine folks here) Kubrick enthusiasts really make me want to hate the guy! Hitchcock enthusiasts are fine, but whenever I run into another 'Kubrick is God' thread, I think 'Damn, I hate that guy!' And then I remember that I love quite a few of his films. Strange but true.

 

[Angelo.M]

Any movie that has naked women (complete with pubic hair) as coffee tables, sadistic lashings of Jesus Christ, nuclear bombs going off with a Beethoven accompaniment, bludgeoning by giant penis, and a man doubled over and wretching by the sight of a bare-breasted woman is a work of genius.

One man's genius is another man's... Nevermind.

I forgot that the 'human sex tables' in eyes wide shut had a precursor.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Lew wrote:

However, this key element is missing from Kubrick’s film: here the actress in the title role was 15–16 and looked a healthy 18 or so.

I'm sympathetic to your criticism. However, I think the choice of an older, attractive actress works precisely because it makes us complicitous in Humbert's desire, just as the novel does.

I would agree that the subversive genius of the book is Nabokov's ability, through his stunning command of language, to draw the reader into Humbert's obsession and to provoke similar desires. Morally, of course, we're repulsed, but with Humbert's exalted, eroticized view of Lolita as our only reference point, it's impossible not to sympathize with his desire, and at least to an extent, share it.

The sight of an actual 11 or 12-year old Lolita on film likely would have served to cut most of the audience off (the non-pedophiles, anyhow) from Humbert's desire, to exclude them from it, and thus to exclude them from much of the story's power. Note that Adrian Lyne's 1996 version took more or less the same approach to casting Lolita - it's not all that hard for the average male viewer to find Dominique Swain appealing, despite her age.

Of course, casting an 11 or 12-year old in an "explicit" version of Lolita would quite rightly violate the law, so I guess that's another pretty darned good reason to cast it older. Seen in this light, Lolita may always be "unfilmable" in some sense.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[JasenP]

Talentless hack

Even if there were two of you Jeff, you couldn't be more wrong.

But....

That's the great thing about opinions, even snide uninformed ones, we all can have our own.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Not to be too nitpicky, but music theory 101 is essentially Bach's thoughts on music theory

And to continue off-topic, Johann Christian Bach was very highly regarded by Mozart (as you are obviously aware) and certainly influenced at least his early work.

 

[Lew Crippen]

That's the great thing about opinions, even snide uninformed ones, we all can have our own.

Very true Jasen. But I am bound to observe that the thing I like best about snide opinions is that it makes whole posts so easy to dismiss without any real thought.

 

[Steve Christou]

I'm not a Kubrick fanatic, but a bunch of his films are favorites of mine, 2001, Dr.Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, watching any one of these films would prove he isn't a 'talentless hack'.

"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks."

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm not a Kubrick fanatic, but a bunch of his films are favorites of mine, 2001, Dr.Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, watching any one of these films would prove he isn't a 'talentless hack'.

I'm one who has definitely not been wild about a lot of Kubrick's work, but I don't see how anyone could seriously think of him as a "talentless hack". Clockwork's legitimately brilliant, and others that I used to dislike - such as 2001 - have grown on me to a degree; even the ones I don't enjoy still seem like quality projects. Dr. Strangelove will probably always appear overrated to me, but I've never considered it to be a BAD flick...