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

[John^Lal]

Then there is Full Metal Jacket which has an amazinig first half, but the second half slips into Vietnam cliches because Kubrick ran out of things to talk about lastly.

Agreed, FMJ ended too abruptly without emotional or philosophical impact

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

While I like a lot of Woody Allen's films, his career as a director is the very *definition* of uneven, especially the last 15 years or so.

Kubrick is a filmmaking genius with a remarkably consistent output of quality. Full Metal Jacket, while polarizing many viewers (who misunderstand the structure - it's certainly not in two parts, it's in *three*), is just as deep as 2001. In many ways, it's the most economical narrative of his later career yet tackles humungous issues most films, especially soggy stories such as Platoon, don't dare touch. What is the nature of men in war? What do men in war think about women? What ties these men together? Is it worth the cost? I wish every war film had the nerve that FMJ has.

 

[Jack Briggs]

And yet you will find people and critics who include Full Metal Jacket and Lolita as examples of outstanding films. "Poor direction"? The phrase does not apply to the filmmaker in question. You simply don't care for the films.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Until HTF's new servers are installed, the search function is shut down during the midday peak traffic hours.

The Search function doesn't even work at 3:00am EST. By PT time, that should be 12:00am, far from midday peak traffic hours.

 

[Lew Crippen]

And yet you will find people and critics who include Full Metal Jacket and Lolita as examples of outstanding films. "Poor direction"? The phrase does not apply to the filmmaker in question. You simply don't care for the films.

I’ve always been troubled by Lolita, for the reason the Seth has already noted. After all what male would not lust after Sue Lyon? A far cry from Nabokov’s ‘nymphet’.

Still, if one sets aside the difficulty of bringing the novel to the screen, what is not to like about the film? I find the acting to be suburb: James Mason, Shelley Winters and Peter Sellers, all at the top of their game.

The structure of the screenplay? Very taut and a fine effort by Nabokov of conveying the essence of his novel to the screen.

The cinematography? I think that this is not even in question. I’d refer any doubters to the scene where Humbert Humbert confronts Clare Quilty, which scene would also dispel any set design doubters.

Even the Nelson Riddle score (I think he had help, but I can’t remember whom) adds significantly to the mood of the film.

Other than the title role (and I admit that this is a big but), I find little to dislike and much to praise in Lolita. If we are to criticize Kubrick for Lolita, I would suggest that it is in the choice of the subject matter. And to me, it seems a weak argument that a director should not take a big risk.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

As the lone voice of reason

Talentless hack

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

The Shining- Well, the book was pretty poor so can't fault him there

Full Metal Jacket- Finally something good, and he had to tack on the scenes in 'Nam which were an utter snooze

Barry Lyndon- Sleep aid

Eyes Wide Shut- They were shut all right

Dr. Strangelove- It was strange alright, but I sure didn't love it

It's like the man has an idea for a film, and has no idea what to do with it. At least I admit it when I have no middle or no end to my film!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Talentless hack

Wrong, as always...

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Here's a good bureaucratic answer: Somewhat overrated by some, vastly underrated by others.

Kubrick, in my mind, was a genius, and was the first filmmaker whose work I ever truly sat down and analyzed when I was just starting to become interested in movies. And I imagine my story is typical of a lot of people here - we may have loved Star Wars first when we were in grade school, but watching 2001 felt like graduating high school and gaining entry to a new level of film appreciation (to our young minds, anyhow). Thus 2001 (and its maker) has nearly as much nostalgic value as Lucas and Star Wars for many here, and inspires a similar level of passionate devotion.

When discussing the first rank of international directors, Kubrick's films, while no less difficult or complex than those of a Bergman, Bunuel, or Fellini, are at least a bit more accessible to American audiences. This is probably due to the fact that they were made by an American, and occasionally contain cool elements like, well... violence, spaceships, ghosts, nuclear explosions, and naked ladies. I'll never forget how thrillingly adult his adaptation of A Clockwork Orange felt to me when I first watched it in high school. Being the “adventures of a young man whose principal interests are rape, ultraviolence, and Beethoven,” the film spoke to the hormone-crazed adolescent while simultaneously allowing the burgeoning cinephile in me to eat his intellectual cake too. It remains my second favorite Kubrick film.

From 2001 onward, Kubrick very consciously set out to rewrite the rules of cinematic storytelling (as Spielberg relates in the interview included on the Eyes Wide Shut disc). As with any series of experiments, some are successful, some aren’t, and some are partially illuminating. But woe to anyone who dismisses any of them cavalierly without giving their ideas time to take root.

I do occasionally find the blind hero worship of Kubrick (which seems to reach its highest concentration on the Internet) to be a bit silly at times. But Kubrick had a unique ability, enhanced by his press-shy mystique, to inspire hushed critical awe, and to make cineastes think that if they didn’t enjoy a Kubrick film, it must somehow be their fault.

Perhaps I’m just getting crotchety in my old age, but I’ve left this kind of thinking behind. For example, I doubt at this point that I’ll ever come to consider Barry Lyndon the masterpiece that some do. It quite literally put me to sleep when I first watched it many years ago. While it’s gained a bit of resonance since then, I still find it to be too long and arduous a journey for relatively meager cinematic rewards.

Ditto for Eyes Wide Shut. While I appreciate Kubrick’s concept (I think), I can’t help but feel that Antonioni expressed many of these ideas more cogently in Blow Up thirty years earlier, and with a much more merciful degree of brevity. If you’re going to make your narrative deliberately frustrating to the average viewer – if that frustration is, in fact, the subject of the story - then at least have the decency to keep it to two hours. While I admire Kubrick’s chutzpah in making what would be his last film an elaborate practical joke on the audience, part of me still can’t help but sympathize with Terry Gilliam, who said that he wished Kubrick had died before completing it. Thus EWS would have forever remained the master’s last, tantalizing “unfinished” masterpiece, rather than a finished disappointment, according to Gilliam.

But at the end of the day, it all comes back to 2001: A Space Odyssey for me. I fully expect never to see a greater film in my lifetime. No other film inspires quite the same feeling of awe in me – a feeling of vast, tantalizing cosmic potentiality. Kubrick bites off the biggest themes he possibly can and renders them with a level of poetic visual sophistication that has never been matched by any other filmmaker, in my opinion. You could release it 20 years from now and it would still be ahead of its time, still be every bit as overwhelmingly beautiful.

That said, it probably wouldn’t be the one film I’d take with me to a desert island. Picking a “greatest film” and a “favorite movie” involves somewhat different metrics. But even if I didn’t take 2001 to that island, I’d sure as hell miss it, along with a lot of other films bearing Kubrick’s name.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Seth_S]

Could you please explain its three part structure. I think it's a failure of the filmmaker if it is supposed to be in three parts, but almost everyone reads it as being in two.

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

The ending of FMJ is horrifying, and it's one of the best anti-war films ever made. Must...stop...reading...posts...AHHH exiting thread now...

-Dennis

 

[Angelo.M]

Jeff: Setting aside my disagreement with everything but your thoughts about eyes wide shut, I thought your post was hysterical.

 

[Adam_S]

I agree with Jefferson Morris, Overrated by some (coughHTFcough) but underrated by more.

But I don't share his opinions on 2001. :þ

paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove are enough to assure me that hes an all time great director. I also like Spartacus Clockwork Orange and full Metal Jacket, still need to see the rest.

Not an expert on Allen (only seen one or two so far), but I'd definitely agree that John Ford and Martin Scorsese are just as good if not better than Kubrick (and I'd throw in Spielberg too).

Adam

 

[Jack Briggs]

Jeff Kleist: You posted in public and I will respond in public. And since this thread allows for both sides, all's fair. Your dislike of this filmmaker and his work is very much on the record here ad nauseum. But, for once, you really, really need to take a (valid) point to heart: Your out-of-hand dismissal of Mr. Kubrick's work is a shrill, pedantic lonely series of posts overwhelmed by the vast body of critical thought. For once, be honest with yourself: "There probably is greatness in some films that I happen to dislike." Just maybe. Really, it's as patience-trying as those Super35 diatribes. JB

 

[Lew Crippen]

I felt that Kubrick totally missed that "Lolita" was a love story. He was too interested in perversion.

I’m not sure that I agree with that Seth. For me, Kubrick made this a story of (among other things) obsession, a theme that is often prominent in his work.

I am not in disagreement that the translation to the screen was not completely successful.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

He had an amazing run from the early 70s to mid 90s, with films like: Sleeper, Annie Hall, Manhattan, Zelig, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Bullets over Broadway and Mighty Aphrodite.

Allen had a LOT of clunkers within that time frame. I'd include Aphrodite in that category, but there were many more. I don't know how "amazing" I can consider that run to be, given how many genuinely bad films he made during the period...

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Could you please explain its three part structure. I think it's a failure of the filmmaker if it is supposed to be in three parts, but almost everyone reads it as being in two.

Sure thing:

Part One: Parris Island
Part Two: Transition (Hue City up until the Tet Offensive)
Part Three: Combat

And I don't think LOLITA is supposed to be a love story. Humbert is *not* in love with Lolita - he lusts after her. He only falls in love with her at the very end. Due to the censorship of the time, most people assume he's in love with her the whole time as Kubrick really couldn't show the sexual angle very much. It's there, to be sure, but it's buried.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

I am not in disagreement that the translation to the screen was not completely successful.

I love his Lolita, and always have, based primarily on James Mason's incredible performance. I never cease to be moved by this film, and to me it's exhibit A in countering the oft-made argument that Kubrick was a "cold" or "emotionless" filmmaker. Intellectual, yes, and with a passion for ironic distance, but never emotionless.

I saw the film before I read the book, so it was my first introduction to the story and characters. The book subsequently became quite possibly my favorite novel, but that hasn't diminished my opinion of Kubrick's achievement. Kubrick tackled the story as honestly as a filmmaker could in 1961, and his skill is evinced by the fact that the more explicit 1996 version, while good, didn't top Kubrick's approach, IMO.

Angelo - glad you enjoyed the post.

If anyone's interested, here's my top ten list of Kubrick films, in order of preference. Note that even the ones that I "dislike" are on the list, and not just because he wasn't that prolific a filmmaker - I still rank EWS and BL above his competent work on Spartacus, simply because they're more interesting films. I confess I've never seen Killer's Kiss and his short films.

1. 2001
2. A Clockwork Orange
3. Dr. Strangelove
4. Full Metal Jacket
5. Lolita
6. Paths of Glory
7. The Shining
8. The Killing
9. Barry Lyndon
10. Eyes Wide Shut

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Lew Crippen]

Kubrick tackled the story as honestly as a filmmaker could in 1961, and his skill is evinced by the fact that the more explicit 1996 version, while good, didn't top Kubrick's approach, IMO.

Exactly and it is not the lack of explicitness that detracts (for example the Lolita’s whisper into Humbert’s ear as he is driving (and the cut to the sudden swerve of the car) says more than two minutes of nudity.

My problem has always been that Nabrokov wrote a story where the reader is repulsed by Humbert’s obsession with a pre (or barley)-pubescent girl. A very big part of his skill is drawing us unwillingly into this obsession even though we are at the same time repulsed.

This of course is massively difficult and (imo) he was so successful that it was roundly criticized because the reader could become so involved (a less skillful writer would have been ignored altogether, as the reader would only have been repulsed; but not involved).

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. A far cry from the novel’s depiction. And very easy for anyone to understand Humbert’s interest (as well as Quilty’s).

Now I don’t think that this makes the movie less, only that it does not probe the deep parts of Humbert’s psyche (and by extension, ours) so well as the novel.

I agree with your other points as to the merits of the film. Perhaps the fact that I read the book first, colors my view of the film, but I do think that I have separated them well enough to consider each on their merits.

And I’ve already commented on my very positive view of the merits of the film.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

I feel that Kubrick was obviously a world class talent and filmmaker. The Killing, Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove are genuine great films. They have excitement, emotion, and perhaps most important to the legions of Kubrick fans in here, introspection, as well.

Post-Strangelove, he went over the deep end for me.

There still is a clear vision, a masterful control over all aspects of filmmaking, but the filmmaker who had combined riveting stories with thought provoking thematic development became more enamored with grand stylistic gestures. It is to his credit that I still find most of his post-Strangelove picturs well worth watching. Some of the later pictures stretch the ideas of what we think of as conventional narratives, be it the narration in Barry Lyndon, distinct breaks in Full Metal Jacket, or the many different ways of telling a story in 2001: A Space Odyssey. For me, these are all quite interesting in of themselves.

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 understand the idea of a completely alien dimension through the stargate sequence, but must they go on for so long? When HAL attacks Bowman in space, tension and terror is enormous, Kubrick shows that he can still engage the audience in an instant.

I use 2001 as an example because it is the most fascinating and maddening of his post-Strangelove films. What I think most people confuse, however, is deliberate pacing with introspection. The three earlier films mentioned above are enormously entertaining, but they are thought provoking as well. The jumping timeline of The Killing is explicitly a guide to look at events from different angles; it is self-concious, not just a Mindless Entertaining Thriller. The idea of provoking thought only coming with slow paced, grand gestured film is flawed. A film that is too entertaining, such as those three, is not unthoughtful; those who cannot see that fail to think on their own terms, they rely on much nothingness on screen to say, hey, what's going on?

Kubrick's early films did not rely on obvious segments that tested audience's patience to provoke thought. Unfortunately, his later films are more celebrated or watched, leaving many to ignore his earlier efforts.

P.S. Kubrick's critical reception isn't universally acclaimed. America's two most influential critics, Sarris and Kael, both respond coldly to him. 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 a hierarchal view on art. This seems unfair to me.

 

[Seth_S]

I think his only genuinely bad films came in the late 90s. During the 70s and 80s, his only really terrible film was "September". "Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" and a few others from this period are among his least memorable, but not that bad. Normally a lot of good ideas which never come together. Woody only stated giving us dreck in the last two years with films like "Celebrity" and his last two from DreamWorks. He also deserves a lot of credit for how prolific he is, turning out a new film every other year while maintaining a high level of quality in each film. Not to high-jack this thread, but here's a quick look at his filmography with my ratings:

Hollywood Ending (2002) C-
Curse of the Jade Scorpion, The (2001) C
Small Time Crooks (2000) B
Sweet and Lowdown (1999) B+
Celebrity (1998) D
Deconstructing Harry (1997) B
Everyone Says I Love You (1996) B
Mighty Aphrodite (1995) B+
Bullets Over Broadway (1994) A
Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993) B+
Husbands and Wives (1992) B
Shadows and Fog (1992) B-
Alice (1990) B
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) A+
Another Woman (1988) B
September (1987) C
Radio Days (1987) B+
Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) A+
Purple Rose of Cairo, The (1985) A
Broadway Danny Rose (1984) B+
Zelig (1983) B+
Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, A (1982) B
Stardust Memories (1980) B+
Manhattan (1979) A+
Interiors (1978) B+
Annie Hall (1977) A+
Love and Death (1975) B
Sleeper (1973) A
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (1972) B+
Bananas (1971) B+
Take the Money and Run (1969) B+

And like I said before, no director turns out only gold. Hitchcock, Ford and Bergman all of their fair share of stinkers.