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

[Max Leung]

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.

Care to back up those assertions? Did you forget the smiley?

Many people consider 2001 in the same way... "childish brainless movie that tries to remedy this with a few great visuals".

At any rate, spoken like a true cult follower!

"I am right because my fearless leader said so. I shall invoke the fallacious appeal to authority to show that I am right. The elite have spoken! Now get out of my way, you unwashed beggar!"



BTW I consider 2001 a good movie too. I just don't put it on a pedestal like some folks do!

 

[Dennis]

When I first saw 2001, years ago, I was like "What the f...?"

Nowadays, if I catch it while channel surfing, I'll find myself watching it, even though it's been sitting on my shelf for years, same thing happens with pretty much anything he's done.

His films are mesmerizing, there are quite a few directors that can learn a little restraint watching this man's work. Even in the age of CGI, I think he would have used it sparingly if at all, he probably would have still built sets just to get the right "feel". The man considered "cold" by some critics showed more humanity from a computer (HAL) than some directors get out of a 10 million a picture actor. That may not be genius, but it's damn good.

 

[Grant B]

I saw 2001 at a drive in when I was 6 and it haunted me for years.
Some might hate his films but even that says something about him.
Generally people apply words like: boring, dull, incoherent, dumb, to films they dont like....but hate means it affected you down deep.
If I spent my life making films I would rather be loved and hated than in that big inbetween of Titantic

 

[John^Lal]

I saw the final 30 min of 2001 for the first time when i was like 12. I finally saw the whole thing a month or so ago, and i haven't given it much more than a second thought

 

[Francois_T]

"Did you forget the smiley?"

It was not a joke.


"At any rate, spoken like a true cult follower!"

What authority have I evoked, apart from my own opinion ? Talk about childishly missing the point.

 

[Max Leung]

And you still haven't answered my question. Anybody can state an opinion without backing it up. And ad hominem is just too easy.

Lighten up!

Now, to get away from this minor distraction:

I really enjoyed the first part of Full Metal Jacket, but I was extremely disappointed with the last act. It seemed as if Kubrick couldn't figure out how to end it. Anybody have insight into this?

Barry Lyndon: I loved the look of this film! The lighting is great! Some very good moments in this film. The ending left me a little cold however. I couldn't quite reconcile the behavior of the characters in the film...they didn't seem "natural", for the lack of a better word.

Still, I very much like how Kubrick tries something new in each of his films. Very refreshing.

 

[Michael Reuben]

OK, enough with the personal remarks.

M.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

i think kubrick belongs among the very great directors of all time. IMO, eyes wide shut and spartacus are pretty damn good, the shining is very damn good, 2001 is simply brilliant, but a clockwork orange is a masterpiece. i dont know if i have seen a better movie. i was cured all right.

 

[OcieB]

I couldn't quite reconcile the behavior of the characters in the film...they didn't seem "natural", for the lack of a better word.

Barry Lyndon was a satire. In a satire, the character's actions may be exaggerated. I think your not being able to relate to the characters in the film is because they are, in fact, (extreme) stereotypes of people from the victorian age.

Also, i agree that the personal remarks should stop. Demeaning others opinions isn't a great way to have an objective discussion.

 

[Francois_T]

"Lighten up!"

If you're so lightened up yourself, don't call me "cult follower". Talk about hypocrisy.

What is up with top-rate movie bashing ? It seems to be all the rage to bash Citizen Kane and 2001 these days. Maybe it's just simple ignorance.

 

[Michael Reuben]

One account suspended. Please continue the discussion.

M.

 

[Ricardo C]

What is up with top-rate movie bashing ?

Obviously not everyone agrees that they are "top-rate" movies. Both opinions are perfectly valid.

It seems to be all the rage to bash Citizen Kane and 2001 these days.

Some people don't care for them. I love CK, but 2001 doesn't hold much interest for me, aside from its (at the time) cutting-edge special effects.

Maybe it's just simple ignorance.

Maybe it's just a differing -but equally valid- opinion than your own.

There is no need to call others' intelligence or knowledge into question just because they don't revere this or that film as much as you do.

EDIT: I guess my post doesn't matter much now. Carry on, this isn't the post you're looking for. I'm only leaving it on so that there's no confusion.

 

[Seth Paxton]

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.

Well, first off I disagree strongly with this. Prime example - the scene right after Hallorann arrives. Camera tracks toward Jack as he walks toward camera from doorway. Camera meets Jack and passes beside him just as he reaches a cross-hallway, the camera has gone from in front of Jack to behind him looking down this other hallway. The effect is first his menacing entrance as the camera comes toward him, switching to the enhancement of the "looking down the hallway" moment from behind.

Scene now continues with a tracking shot as he begins to limp along the hallway again. Now we are with him, slowly searching with that limp. He comes to a staircase and the camera is now in a following shot which continues the "searching" effect for the audience. We are joined with the character, now experiencing his effective POV, which makes this killer the hero of the scene instead (in protagonist terms). He reaches the top of the stairs and both he and the camera scan the huge front lobby area. At that point all motion stops as we and Jack hear Hallorann yelling to see if anyone is there. The sudden lack of motion enhances this moment of revelation, the end of the search for the killer.

At this point the attack scene has been setup. Kubrick will not show us Jack (he cuts to Scatman) getting into position behind a column, but we will understand his placement when we are surprised a few minutes later.

That's not just "showcasing the steady-cam", that is a detailed sequence shot utilizing a variety of camera motions and placement all for the purpose of placing us with the killer rather than against him, as well as heightening the tension of the slow search. I cannot possibly agree that this is bad direction.


The film is also marked by a smooth editing flow resulting from the use of fade transitions which match/enhance the smooth shooting flow of those tracking/following shots, rather than going with cuts (which are primarily used for 2 head conversations).

Also, the idea of isolation, claustrophobia, and confusion is notably enhanced by said following shots, and that ties strongly into the tone of the film as well as the film's final resolution.

That's not just some indy filmmaker goofing with a steady-cam, that's a camera filling a director's need, or the director envisioning a method to take advantage of the new technology. Either way it's a very constant vision that amplifies certain drama within the film. After all, this is a horror film in which 2 people die, and one of those is the villain. The fact that so many people do cite it as a scary film speaks volumes about the direction in the film when the story underneath is considered tame in terms of actual action.

I won't argue that he took what he wanted from the book and left out many parts, but that doesn't change the fact that the film script involves very little violence yet maintains a pretty strong sense of dread.

Also, the film is marked by many moments of classic Kubrick style, such as the long lens zoom shot to flatten out the frame (like Danny speaking with Hallorann in the kitchen). The tracking shots are also a product from long before the steady-cam, which is exactly why such a complaint makes little sense when debating Kubrick. After all, what about the trench march in Paths of Glory or the record shop walkabout in Clockwork Orange? That's pre-steady cam and yet the shots are very similar. It happens to be a look Kubrick enjoyed.

That look often tied in with Kubrick's love of depth lines in the frame, such as the ceiling lines of the ballroom in the Shining, the tunnel-look of the hallways or hedge maze, Dave's walk down the hall to turn off Hal in 2001, again the trench in PoG, Alex's walk around his own apartment in CO. Kubrick liked the tunnel look created by such depth lines, and I happen to find the look aesthetically pleasing as well. To me that sort of consistency is no different than a painter who maintains a constant tone despite taking on different subjects.

That proves Kubrick wasn't just lucky with some films, and while not every film was an equal hit I don't think there is a significant drop between any of his films. He seems to have maintained the same vision and brought the same visual and thematic quality to each of his films and that ran for at least 30 years, just in case you aren't fond of Eyes Wide Shut for some reason.

Cold disillusionment, irony, distance from the characters, focus on the anti-hero or seriously flawed hero (even Jack is the star of The Shining) all follow Kubrick's career, as well as the previously mentioned visual methods.



For the record, The Shining is not my favorite Kubrick film. That is 2001. Following that is Clockwork, then Strangelove, Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon, Lolita, The Shining, The Killing, Full Metal, Eyes Wide Shut. I think each of those films is outstanding. I also love Spartacus though it's only vaguely a Kubrick film.

So I stand on the "controlling genius" side of the fence. I don't know that he was the best, but I have no problem with his name being put in the same list as Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Scorsese, Spielberg, Wilder and Lean (probably throw in Murnau too, and maybe Lang).

 

[Edwin-S]

That said, I believe there should be something to be said about the pacings and coherency of a film. Magnificent as they are, did the spaceships in 2001 has to float on for an eternity?

I thought the pacing on 2001 was just fine. Kubrick was trying to do something that very few makers of SF movies try: He was trying to be accurate. He quite handily showed the monotonous routine that would most likely occur on a real deep space mission. The ponderous advance was counterpointed by the slow disintegration of HAL into insanity. Everything in 2001 was a series of closed loops...at least IMO. It was perfect.

 

[Max Leung]

Barry Lyndon was a satire. In a satire, the character's actions may be exaggerated. I think your not being able to relate to the characters in the film is because they are, in fact, (extreme) stereotypes of people from the victorian age.

Hmmm, yes that would make sense when taken that way. I did like the sense of irony it had. It wasn't "gut-bustingly funny" satire. Thanks for the POV.

I was very happy with the economy of dialog in Barry Lyndon. There was no need for any of the characters to spout monologues on their inner condition (unlike some of today's painfully self-aware films, which I think has reached cliche proportions!). Dialog through body language. Kubrick does silent film, again!

2001: I still have (very small) misgivings with how the astronauts were portrayed. No astronaut I know of were as lifeless and dull as Dave and his companion. This point was driven home when watching TLC's Dangerous Missions: Spaceflight. The astronauts interviewed were full of enthusiasm and life.

But I will concede that a trip to Jupiter would be really really boring. Kubrick got that right. I suppose he got tired of the gung-ho Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon schtick.

Just a minor niggly-bit I guess.

 

[Angelo.M]

...I find the overuse of cliched superlatives for certain films and filmmakers to be tiresome.

Amen.

If you like a film, say so. I you like a director, say so. But the hyperbole that is spewed about in these discussions is a bit numbing.

I'm also guilty of this, and I'm pointing the finger at myself as well.

In my book, you direct a good film, you're talented; you discover penicillin, you're a genius. (Sorry to expose my professional biases, but there you have it.)

 

[Jefferson Morris]

2001: I still have (very small) misgivings with how the astronauts were portrayed. No astronaut I know of were as lifeless and dull as Dave and his companion.

To be sure. However, the lifelessness of the astronauts (and all of the human characters, with the possible exception of Bowman toward the end) in 2001 was quite an intentional move on Kubrick's part, I think. Much of the second section of the film, depicting Heywood Floyd and the buildup to Discovery's mission, deliberately paints a picture of human beings as spiritless, passionless drones who are quite literally being swallowed up by the technology around them.

Poole's emotionless response to his parents' birthday wish is right in line with this trend, and with the deterioration of the family that we see taking place over the course of the story. Contrast the tight, interdependent community of the pre-human apes in the beginning with Poole's long-distance birthday and Floyd's similar birthday message to his lonely daughter on Earth. The overall picture, to me, is one of humanity in a state of spiritual stagnation and decline - a species desperately in need of another push up the evolutionary ladder. This, perhaps was Kubrick's boldest move from a narrative standpoint - to strip his characters of the sympathetic qualities that most audience members need in order to relate to them, all to serve his larger theme.

Incidentally, I should point out one thing to anyone who has only seen 2001 on video. While I admired the film greatly after my first viewings on cathode ray tubes, it was only after I saw the film in 70mm and six-track magnetic dolby on a 70-foot wide screen that I came to think of it as the best movie I had ever seen. Admittedly, not everyone gets this privilege these days, but I would implore anyone (particularly those who are on the fence regarding their feelings about this movie) to avail themselves of the opportunity to see this in a theater if it plays near you.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Jack Briggs]

I agree with you in regard to the submersive virtues of 70mm presentations, but the film's story is strong enough not to necessitate it. Good points about the dispassionate demeanor of Dave Bowman and Frank Poole. And it was all quite intentional.

 

[MikeRS]

Good points about the dispassionate demeanor of Dave Bowman and Frank Poole. And it was all quite intentional.

Of course. And HAL being the life of the party was always meant to be the counterpoint.


It wasn't until Bowman defeated Hal, that a human in this film, actually manifested unbound, primal emotion. Bowman's survival instinct was the impetus, but he was also incredibly moved by Hal's "death". This symbolic victory for mankind, re-awakened Bowman's humanity, and proved to the overseeing power (aliens?), that humans were ready for the next step in the evolutionary cycle. This is one of the most optimistic moments in any Kubrick film.


It's interesting that Kubrick felt some guilt about his man/machine conflict. His sole purpose for creating A.I. was to rectify his portrayal of computers as antagonists of mankind---A new tale where machines ultimately inherit the earth, and shouldn't be feared by humanity, because they are our legacy.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Well written, Jefferson.