Stanley Kubrick is overrated - Page 4

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

I think that attitude is just as bad as that of someone who would say "Kubrick sucks, 2001 is boring."

Something I've always enjoyed about Kubrick's films is how much is left to each viewer to determine for his/her self, and how his films provoke conversation and debate like few others. No doubt in his lifetime, Kubrick saw plenty of reviews or essays about his work, and probably felt that some were spot-on, and some completely missed the mark. Nonetheless, he didn't sit down to give us all a guided tour of the films, which might lead one to believe that he enjoyed if not encouraged the debate that would inevitably surround one of his films.

And I think that we're still having conversations about the relative merit of 2001 or ACO or Strangelove decades later is not only something Kubrick would have enjoyed, but proof of the power of his filmmaking.

A lot of us like "Star Wars" and I'm sure a lot of us don't, but we don't spend a lot of times discussing what the films might mean or the ideas behind the artistry. I personally love Star Wars, but its far more straightforward than any Kubrick film. It doesn't ask the same thing from its audience that 2001 does. That's not automatically a bad thing, just a different type of filmmaking.

I personally don't think Kubrick is overrated, but that's not because I think his films are brilliant (which I happen to believe), but because none of his films have the near-universal admiration of something like The Godfather, or Star Wars, or Jaws. For every rabid Kubrick fanboy, there's as many people that dislike the films, for a multitude of reasons (some of which I'd consider legitimate, some of which I just think are silly). In my experiences over the years of seeing Kubrick films and studying them, both on my own and academically, of watching them with friends and family, seeing them in revival houses, all of that, it seems like the crowd always splits this way:

- Those that believe Kubrick and his films are absolutely genius, and incredible works of cinematic art and entertainment

- Those who enjoy some or all of Kubrick's films, but wouldn't go so far as to consider them favorites.

- Those who can acknowledge the technical brilliance of the films but find them to be lacking in character depth or emotion, in other words, people who respect the films but wouldn't really feel the need to sit down and watch them again or own them.

- Those who just dislike the films, who find themselves bored by Kubrick's deliberate pacing, or who just don't get why they're anything special the way a Casablanca or Godfather is. (This might be the group that would have said that "Spartacus" is their favorite of his or the only of his that they enjoy, finding it much more immediately accessible.)

And it seems no matter what context I see a Kubrick film is, the audience always splits that way, not equally, but certainly enough to be visible. And as long as the audience continues to split this way, "overrated" is a general term can't be applied in my opinion, because there are too many people who aren't in love with the films. Heck, even Roger Ebert, who loved 2001 and Strangelove, gave Clockwork Orange a pretty bad review, which goes to show that intelligent people with an expansive knowledge of film don't automatically see every one of Kubrick's films as genius.

When I think of the term "overrated", I think more about a film like "Finding Nemo" (admittedly not a Kubrick work!). I didn't like it, not at all, yet whenever that comes up in conversation, without fail the response is always, "What do you mean you didn't like Finding Nemo? It's impossible not to like Finding Nemo. You probably need to watch it again, obviously you just missed it, really, it's not possible to not like that movie." (Same, by the way, for "Elf" in my experience.) Those are films I would think are more deserving of the "overrated" response. Or films like "Crash" or "Brokeback Mountain", which technically are certainly well-done, but in my opinion just aren't particularly good films. When you say you don't like a movie and everyone stares at you in shock and claims there must be something wrong with you, that's more of a sign of something being overrated. With a Kubrick film, I never say those sorts of things to someone, although I usually ask why...not because I don't find their opinion valid, but because as a big fan of his work I'm always curious to see what about it doesn't work for someone else.

(...and now if you'll excuse me, I have a high horse to climb off of...)

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

Overrated? If anything, he's still *underrated*.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

Cobwebs, Josh Steinberg, cobwebs.
It's a beautiful day outside.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

*pfffft*

Actually I like "Strangelove" a great deal. And "The Killing".
But not much else does anything much for me at all. And some do even less.

But my views don't need to be defended.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

Or considered/paid attention to/honored, etc.

Sorry......I just had to...

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

Did you? Oh, right.
Blimey Kubrick fans are defensive aren't they.

*leaves, to go back to discussion on immature films, knowing I have met my match*

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

I prefer to think of us as offensive, because those who under-value Kubrick are in the minority.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

The problem with just saying "Stanley Kubrick is overrated" is that you're not saying by whom. I know that in contemporary academia, Kubrick isn't as consistent a topic of discussion as other filmmakers such as Ozu, Godard, and Charles Burnett. So your statement needs a qualifier in order to be accepted or rejected as truth.

Kubrick is very much revered in mainstream cinephilia, mostly because he had the hegemonic studio system backing him -- he made ostensibly non-mainstream movies for a mainstream audience. After all, a major studio wouldn't have financially supported him otherwise. Even today, a major Hollywood studio still supports him through marketing and DVD rereleases (which actually helped spawn this thread, thus proving my point), which means, above all else, that his films get seen and remain in the public eye. It follows, then, that Kubrick's oeuvre has the opportunity to be framed as "great" by the mainstream, and a lot of other great filmmakers don't have that opportunity.

Since Kubrick is the rare example of a non-mainstream filmmaker supported by the mainstream cinema economics of moviemaking, his films are bound to become overrated due to lack of competition in the same hegemonic infrastructure. In other words, mainstream cinephiles have an easy opportunity to become exposed to Kubrick's works, and they recognize the merits of the films, and since there's not much else of equal merit supported by the system, these films become overly talked about as paragons of cinematic quality...simply as a byproduct of their being within an arm's reach of accessing.

As I already mentioned, however, academia and serious cinephiles who go out of their way to access films that otherwise wouldn't be seen because they aren't supported by the system, aren't so prone to make Kubrick the focal point for a discussion of "great cinema," which I personally think is the appropriate placement for Kubrick. He was a great filmmaker, but there were/are filmmakers who were better who aren't given as much mainstream exposure in North America. Kubrick was a "common great filmmaker," if you will, in that he made his best films (2001, Dr. Strangelove) after a honing his craft, and then fell off once he got older. That doesn't make him NOT a great filmmaker, though. He had the usual trajectory.

So yes, he is overrated by the mainstream, but not in academia where he is considered just one of many equal or even greater "great filmmakers." Moreover, this is to be expected given the hegemonic studio-supported context of his work.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

This is ironic considering I have yet to meet a single person in real life who liked CRASH, and here you are implying that everyone you've met likes CRASH. You should come over to my side of the world, Josh. Personally, CRASH is a film that should have won both the Oscar and Raspberry in the same year -- I really would've loved that.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

With as overdramatic and overwrought as that statement is, it's no wonder critics such as yourself find Kubrick's works too cold and formal.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

wow how do you respond to that.,

you know, as much disagreeing that is in the thread, there has been nothing that is as absurd or uncalled for as that.

i hope this thread isnt closed due to your ignorance

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

He edited it, so I guess we can go back to our more harmless variety of sniping at one another.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

Where is your side of the world... I might need to visit

The buzz that grew around the film in theaters was such that it wasn't uncommon for me to be accused of being a racist because I didn't like the film, which is a ridiculous claim to make to anyone simply because they didn't like how a movie turned out. So between random colleagues sniping at me and accusing me of hating minorities because I didn't like the film, to seeing it win all of those awards, that film left a real bad taste in my mouth. (Clearly Paul Haggis is capable of better work... watch Casino Royale.) Incidentally, David Cronenberg directed a movie called Crash that came out in 1996, and I thought that was a fantastic movie.

I'm not that surprised Crash won best picture... Brokeback Mountain seemed to be the favorite going into the ceremony, but I just couldn't believe that the academy would give the big award to a so-called "gay movie". I don't know if that was the undercurrent to some of the voting, or if they just liked Crash more, but I just couldn't imagine Brokeback Mountain winning best picture. Another one of those movies where people would rather say I'm homophobic than have an intellectual conversation about the merits of the film as a work of art. Nothing against gay people either, just didn't care for that movie.

In that sense, 2006 was a pretty tough years -- a lot of movies with different themes where supporters of the film were all too happy (from where I was sitting) to label people as being intolerant because they weren't fans of the film. A rather disturbing trend, I thought. For my money, both "Good Night and Good Luck" and "Munich" were far better films more deserving of the dumb award.

I would have loved to have seen Crash win the Oscar and Razzie, that would have been something!

...and now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

Excellent points by Thomas J., by the way.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

Timmy, do you like films about Gladiators?

Had to be said.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

Is that the line? Hell i laughed anyway Justin!

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

I also think my above analysis of the reception of Kubrick's work applies to Hitchcock's work as well. They're easily accessed "great" works.

For example, you might be reading a book about world cinema, and, let's say you're reading a chapter covering contemporary Iranian cinema or great works by third world countries.

A man walks by and simply observes from the book jacket that you're reading a book about Great Works of World Cinema.

He asks, "Oh hey, you like really good movies?"

"Mmm-hmm."

"Me too. For example, 2001, now that's a great movie. Barry Lyndon -- wonderful."

At this point you can either continue the conversation discussing Kubrick's work (even though you were reading about Iranian cinema) or nod your head in agreement and continue on your way. You could also bring him up to speed and say that you were reading about Iranian cinema. Then you could attempt to uphold Iranian cinema's merits for the sake of broadening the gentleman's cinematic palette or as an attempt to introduce him to a foreign type of cinema, but that seems rather abrasive to do on your part, and you'd probably be met with a glassy-eyed, silent response anyway. You wouldn't win by going that route.

So what's the point of my little story?

It's not that I disagree with the gentleman -- what he said was right. Furthermore, I expect him to say that, since for "mainstream cineastes" (for lack of a better term), Kubrick and Hitchcock are framed as being the upper echelon in cinematic taste. What's important to take away from this is not whether or not Kubrick and Hitchcock are "good" or "bad", but that they are framed for a general audience. That chapter about Iranian cinema discussing films and/or filmmakers that the mainstream has never heard of, that's the type of thing that is not framed to begin with.

And this is partially what contemporary serious cinema circles are concerned with -- breaking from the hegemonically-situated canonical cinema. In this sense, yes, Kubrick and Hitchcock are overrated; rather, overly-spoonfed-to-the-mainstream-as-great. Mind you, filmgoers belonging to this group are not necessarily saying that Hitchcock and Kubrick's films are not great in their own right.

The accusation to be made, then, I'm sure, is that I'm an elitist. No. That gentleman who would have looked glassy-eyed back at you for mentioning Iranian cinema actually is, because he's too closed-minded to desire to expand his palette beyond that of the hegemonic canonical cinema spoonfed to him by an economic infrastructure dependent upon getting consumers to repurchase double and triple dips of films on DVD while thousands of others altogether unreleased on home video languish in vaults, in serious danger of never henceforth seeing the light of day on any video format.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

The people who did like the film are closer to being racist than those who didn't -- and everybody I know agrees with this assertion.

But this is a Kubrick thread, and it's not the place for a discussion of CRASH. The mods will make sure of it.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

An interesting post Thomas J. I dont deny that i am a mainstream elitist.

Re: Stanley Kubrick is overrated

Thomas, you raise some interesting points. I don't think the person in your example is necessarily closed-minded or elitist. If you were to show him a great Iranian movie, he might be very open to the experience and enjoy himself immensely.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two valid reasons why someone would not want to branch out beyond being a "mainstream cineaste."

1. There is an abundance of fantastic cinema available in the mainstream marketplace. If two movies will both provide someone with the five-star experience, then that person will choose the one that is easier and cheaper to find. For some, it can take an entire lifetime just to watch all the mainstream movies that interest them.

2. People like to talk about and share movies with people outside of communities like the HTF. Films from Kubrick and Hitchcock generate many more discussions and viewpoints than the more obscure gems of cinema do.

Those who do not want or choose to seek out the best of the foreign and independent films may not be elitists. They may simply be pragmatists.

Hey, you guys remember this thread?   Ah the good old days.

Since this thread went to sleep, I have seen The Shining and Spartacus. Neither one rated more than two out of five stars with me, so Stanley Kubrick is not likely to be added to my list of favorite filmmakers.

I'm just glad Warner finally came to their senses and will release the underrated (compared to the other movies Kubrick made with Warner) Lolita and Barry Lyndon on Blu-ray.

And so it would come to pass that, on one of my occasional-to-rare visits to HTF, I see that this thread is resurrected. Interesting. Back in 2007 I was still a cop here. Now I'm a regular citizen, able to yawn when trolls stroll by me.

 

Is that Josh Steinberg fellow still posting here?

 

Kevin M: You kind of have it right. That is, this thread has an off-putting title but the discussion it provoked is so classically HTF. Those were the days.

 

 

Jack, that's exactly what I thought when I looked through my old posts and found this one..............I haven't been posting on HTF for a few years as the crash of 08 had an impact on me so I had to retreat until I got my life back on track.     

Anyway, I have came back after 2 & 1/2 years and find a few people have left and a WHOLE LOT of new faces.    Hope things haven't changed that much.