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

[Matthew_Millheiser]

Time to throw in my shekels...

Kubrick? Cinematic genius. Yeah, he never split the atom and barely bathed, but the man simply made phenomenal films.

I am especially enamored with The Killing, one of the greatest crime films ever shot.

Here's how I rank 'em:

2001: A Space Odyssey
Dr. Strangelove
Paths of Glory (ED: can't believe I left this out the first time around... )
The Killing
A Clockwork Orange
The Shining
Spartacus
Barry Lyndon
Eyes Wide Shut
Full Metal Jacket
Lolita
Killer's Kiss

I haven't seen Fear and Desire, but few have...

 

[Seth Paxton]

This is one of the most optimistic moments in any Kubrick film.

Yeah, I do agree with that point.

 

[Max Leung]

Good points! I feel better now.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

I don't understand why some people cannot accept 2001 for what it is: a work of cinematic art that shrugged off conventional narrative to suggest themes (the story, per se, is a vehicle for the ideas, IMO) with images and sound, to push the genre of science-fiction to SCIENCE fiction, to use special effects never before seen or conceived of at the time (and not approached until 9 years later), to dare to approach philosphical subject matter seldom (if at all) considered in cinema of the times...

One could go on and on giving reasons why 2001 was the finest piece of cinema ever made.

If you don't "get" Kubrick, perhaps the Kubrick Interviews or one of the scores of books written on Kubrick may prove interesting reading.

Interesting that the poster that considered himself very religious did not like Kubrick's films. Maybe Kubrick's look at the human condition does not jive with religious thought.

Also, it seems a lot of people who don't like Kubrick's films have a real problem with how flat his actors are... This style was definitely something Kubrick strived for and achieved. If there were two things that Kubrick nailed was the mundane and the insane.

And finally, its interesting that Kubrick's final film celebrated the goodness of marriage (under layers of superficial jealousy and envy) and love after portraying man as apocalyptic, violent, vain, murderous, insane and generally duplicitous.

Yes, Kubrick was a genius.

 

[DeeF]

Put me down for thinking Kubrick, like all directors, did some great things and some... not so great.

Paths of Glory is a brilliant, brilliant movie, slightly satirical in tone, but moving and thoughtful, more critical of the hierarchies running the game than critical of war itself.

Lolita, I haven't watched all the way through. But James Mason is one of my heros (from 20,000 leagues under the sea and Journey to the Center of the Earth) so it's hard for me to take him here.

Dr. Strangelove is strangely fascinating, but the comedy is way too subtle to laugh out loud (similar to the subtle kind of comedy in Prizzi's Honor 20 years later).

2001 is quite boring unless you see it on the big screen, where the images are truly outstanding. It is more about images emblazoned on your brain than anything else. If you give into it (as I did, in the late 70s in a scratchy 70mm print) you will know the extent of Kubrick's genius.

A Clockwork Orange is quite brilliant, though I hardly could watch it again -- I don't need to know those things about humanity.

I enjoyed Barry Lyndon very much, though it is a little slow, but it is coherent, beautifully written and shot, and ultimately quite poignant.

The Shining has some memorable declarations (Heeeere's Johnny!) and as always, some beautiful imagery, but it isn't scary and it doesn't illuminate the King book, his best IMO.

Full Metal Jacket is just too strange to be taken very seriously. We must identify with somebody in the movie, and I most identified with the drill sergeant. And the scenes in Vietnam (obviously shot in England!) really are failures.

I think Eyes Wide Shut would be considered one of the great masterpieces, had it opened in 1969. But mores were so changed by 1999, that a mansion which has an orgy "club" seemed almost passé, to me. Part of the storytelling angle comes with the shock value, but we've all seen too much porn on hotel TVs to be truly shocked. The entire story and the message of insecurity in marriage came across as forced and leaden.

Finally, I should mention Spartacus, because it's one of my favorite movies, and all the greater for having been directed by Kubrick. It has a terrific script (very funny in parts) and it has been accomplished with style and artistry like no other big Hollywood epic, the perfect merging of the old guard (Dalton Trumbo) and the hungry actor/producer (Kirk Douglas) and the new guard, Stanley Kubrick, from the Bronx.

I've not forgotten The Killing, or Killer's Kiss, which I talk about next time.

 

[John^Lal]

people...please stop saying "IMO" or "IMHO" because when you say that you are practically excusing yourself from any credibility. "the story, per se, is a vehicle for ideas, IMO." i believe that that statement is very true, and for you to say that here is to say that is what i believe to be true, i just don't think there is any reason for putting "IMO" or "IMHO" because you are taking something away from yourself
but hey, i don't really care, it's just a lil annoyance to me and i wanted to vent

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Lew...thanks.

This is one of the most optimistic moments in any Kubrick film.

MikeRS...I definitely agree with your analysis of HAL vs. Bowman. But I've always been torn as to whether or not 2001 really presents anything like an "optimistic" view of humanity.

Consider the fact that the natural state of mankind, as depicted by Kubrick, appears to one of stasis and complacency. Rather than being able to take charge of our own destiny, humanity has to rely on a (benevolent?) alien super-intelligence for each punctuation of our evolutionary equilibrium. Also, each evolutionary leap appears to hinge upon the destruction or subjugation of others (leopard kills ape, ape kills tapir, ape kills ape, machine kills man, man kills machine), which doesn't seem to me to be a particularly sunny view of life. Kubrick even has the cynical audacity to sum up all of human history in an instantaneous jump cut between weapon systems (from spinning bone to orbiting nuclear weapon, which I believe is what that first spacecraft is).

Of course the last shot of the Star Child is just about the most enigmatic and pregnant (with meaning, that is) image I can think of in any modern film. It seems optimistic on some level, but it's hard to be sure. After having apparently transcended the need for any kind of technology whatsoever (and most likely the conventional limitations of time and space), why does he/she/it return to Earth? To spread some new gospel? To bring world peace? (This idea is supported by Clarke in his novel version when the Star Child destroys the orbiting nukes.) To ask for its bottle? To extract our nutrients?

Jack - I agree that the ideas and story of 2001 come across on the small screen just fine to receptive audience members. But I still found my first theatrical viewing to be a much more emotional experience than any previous TV viewing, not so much because I was moved by the story, but rather because I was moved by the sheer aesthetic spectacle of it all when it was blown up to giant proportions. I got chills from that funky blue MGM logo all the way through to the last strain of the Danube over a black screen 2 1/2 hours later.

I still feel confident in saying that 2001 cannot be fully appreciated on even the niftiest HT setup, and I've never been able to bring myself to watch it on video since (Even though I keep buying successive video versions - go figure).

--Jefferson Morris

 

[MikeRS]

Consider the fact that the natural state of mankind, as depicted by Kubrick, appears to one of stasis and complacency. Rather than being able to take charge of our own destiny, humanity has to rely on a (benevolent?) alien super-intelligence for each punctuation of our evolutionary equilibrium. Also, each evolutionary leap appears to hinge upon the destruction or subjugation of others (leopard kills ape, ape kills tapir, ape kills ape, machine kills man, man kills machine), which doesn't seem to me to be a particularly sunny view of life.

I think the *moonwatcher* apeman was pro-active when he looked up at the sky, curious about the moon and stars. By acknowledging something beyond his existence on earth, he provoked mankind's 1st big evolutionary leap. Kubrick was not being pessimistic about this, the same way he wasn't being pessimistic when Dave re-asserted his humanity (defeating Hal), and brought about his own evolutionary moment. Remember, it was the apeman's curiosity which allowed him to overcome fear, and touch that mysterious, foreboding monolith (LOVE THAT MOMENT). Mankind is clearly shown as being active in it's destiny, and Kubrick is applauding him! The fact that this unseen higher power guides our journey is not condescending to man, but I can see how some might percieve it that way. I think Kubrick considers the *Aliens* in his myth to be the equivalent of God, and the important thing was mankind was active in influencing the aliens' interest, and therefore, it's destiny.


Where Kubrick began to judge mankind harshly was definitely in the way progress went hand in hand with our destructive animal urges (Beautifully articulated in the bone-to-nuclear spaceship matchcut). Kubrick's depiction of civilized man in 2001, was a negative portrayal, because he was saying there hasn't been an evolutionary leap since apeman. All the technological progress and civilized manners we've acquired over centuries, was *window dressing*, because mankind has not evolved on a higher emotional plane, compared to our prehistoric ancestors. We may hide our primal instincts behind a veil of civilized conduct and emotionally guarded demeanors, but we are still no different than the apes fighting over control of a waterhole.. By saying that we are no different than the apeman (despite our technological wonders), Kubrick was definitely postulating a pessimistic view of civilized man.

Which is why I believe David's victory was an incredibly optimistc moment in Kubrick's myth.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Some great posts. This much thought provoking discussion from a film with 40 minutes of dialog. Genius.

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

...because the imagery of 2001 is worth thousands of words.

-Dennis

 

[John^Lal]

40 minutes of dialog

i don't want to burst your bubble, but this thread is about ALL of kubricks movies, and i am pretty sure that there is more than a total of 40 min in all his movies

 

[Max Leung]

John, I'm pretty sure he was referring to 2001!

Hmm, 2001 had 40 minutes of dialog? That seems like a lot, from what I remember the last time I saw it.

From looking over Kubrick's career, I believe that all his movies, when taken together, cover the entire gamut of human emotion and instinct. We have violence on one end : Paths of Glory, which I haven't yet seen, Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove. Then we have man's struggle with his own instincts: 2001, Barry Lyndon, Lolita, Eyes Wide Shut. And of course we have "transcendance": 2001 and AI. And naturally there's a few that are representative of human sexual selection: Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut. Of course, many of these movies as well as the ones I didn't mention, have a mixture of these.

What I really like about his films, is that you can see how Kubrick's view of humanity has evolved over the years. I can see why he left AI to the very end...an almagamation of all his experiences over the years. Starting with the most obvious of human activities (war), to the most subtle (monogamy versus polygyny in Eyes Wide Shut). The last would be pushing past human instinct and into the realm of artificial consciousness, yet showing that evolution will still guide the most alien of artifical beings.

Well, that is one interpretation anyways.

There, I didn't have to say IMO or IMHO!

 

[John^Lal]

well, that is one interpretation anyways...same thing as IMO or IMHO
NO ONE HAS TO SAY IMO or IMHO BECAUSE NO ONE IS IN NEED OF APOLOGIZING TO ANYONE

 

[Jefferson Morris]

MikeRS - you make excellent points. It really does depend on your point of view as to whether getting alien assistance (whether through merit or not) represents an optimistic view. I'm reminded of Gene Roddenberry's rejoinder to those who suggested the involvement of extraterrestrials in the building of the pyramids at Giza. Paraphrasing: "Aliens didn't build them, people did, because people are clever."

Kubrick's depiction of civilized man in 2001, was a negative portrayal, because he was saying there hasn't been an evolutionary leap since apeman.

Absolutely, and I'm always fascinated (and amused) by the parallels he draws between the ape tribes squabbling over the water hole and the Americans and Russians squabbling over the moon.

I also love the juxtaposition of imagery - the exultant arm of the ape tossing the spinning bone, as compared to the lax arm of the sleeping Floyd and his spinning pen.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Max Leung]

I apologize John for my substituting "well, that is one interpretation anyways" (WTIOIA) for IMHO and IMO. I was trolling!

BTW, I saw Paths of Glory and A Bridge Too Far in a 2-disc bundle at the local B&M. How is the transfer of PoG? I have not been able to find PoG anywhere except in this bundle. PoG seems to be an MGM release, which makes me wary...

PoG is the movie with the German woman singing for the soldiers right?

 

[Lew Crippen]

PoG is the movie with the German woman singing for the soldiers right?

Yes, it’s called The Faithful Solider. Pretty much the end of the film.

 

[Brook K]

Alternative translation: The Loyal Hussar

 

[John^Lal]

Max, i am pretty sure i've seen it at Best Buy before all by it's self for $10. don't know about now though. my friend got it from BestBuy.com maybe because he couldn't find it at the store...and the transfer isn't bad at all

 

[Jason_Els]

The ending of FMJ is horrifying, and it's one of the best anti-war films ever made.

I never understood this. I like FMJ very much and it's my favorite Kubrick movie but the end confuses me. I would have been appalled had Joker just walked away without doing what he did. Even Animal Mother is surprised by Joker's behavior. I thought Joker was being humane. It didn't shock me in the least. It seemed the decent thing to do.

This bothered me because I didn't think it as big of a deal as it was made out to be, certainly not something big enough to end such a powerful film with. In that sense I'm disappointed by the ending while the rest of the film is so good. This is pretty much how I feel about all of Kubrick's work except maybe Spartacus because that ended when Spartacus did.