Stanley Kubrick is overrated (1 Viewer)

[TonyD]

Harlin Ellison, i know.

i saw the movies i was informed.

 

[TonyD]

Kirk give us more, apparently the Kubrick police are already here anyway.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I assume that I must be one of those "police." But I am not.

Though I disagree (obviously) with what the original post in this thread contends, I think an interesting discussion has resulted.

And, Josh Steinberg, why have I not seen you around here before? Nice posts.

But is Stanley Kubrick "overrated"? I think not.

 

[TonyD]

i dont think of your posts that way jack.
you dont force your opinion as the correct one.

you hadnt posted in this topic yet, so i couldnt say you were here then anyway.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Thank you, Tony.

 

[Travis Brashear]

I, on the other hand, do; ergo, I'm a badge-holder. There are very few viewpoints that I won't recognize has having their own level of validity, but this is one of them.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Kubrick isn't over-rated, I just don't like very many of his films even though I know I'm supposed to.

 

[Jack Briggs]

You are not "supposed to," Steve. Just respect his work, whether you like it or not -- and this is a theme I have stressed here over the years: There are films and filmmakers who do superb work, but who are not particularly liked by some. The films (and filmmakers) remain great, however.

Does that make them "overrated"? Not really. There is no single director (or film) who is universally liked. (Hint: I'm not the biggest Bergman fan. But I respect him and his work, whether I like it or not.)

Not everyone loves, say, 2001: A Space Odyssey. But it still remains one of the great films of the 20th century.

 

[Travis Brashear]

Fixed.

 

[TonyD]

oh oh there he goes again.

 

[TonyD]

just kidding.

really i can understand why a film like 2001 is someones favorite film.
also in my opinion, despite what travis says, is valid, i dont see it being the best film ever.

 

[Richard--W]

-- duplicate post --

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm usually hiding over in the software section, but as Kubrick was probably the reason I pursued film as both a hobby and a career path, I couldn't resist throwing in my two (or three, or four, or five..) cents

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[Richard--W]

This statement of this thread "Stanley Kubrick is overrated" is not worth the dignity of a rebuttal.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I can't tell you how many times friends, family, etc., have asked me what I think is the best film ever. Apparently going to film school qualifies me to give an objective answer to that. Truth is, I don't think there is one "best film ever", not Citizen Kane, not 2001, nothing. How would you even begin to judge that? I dislike AFI's Top 100 lists because they attempt to take a subjective statement of opinion (i.e. "I think Citizen Kane is the best film of all time.") and turn it into an objective reality ("Citizen Kane is the best film of all time."). It's an opinion question and there will never be one right answer. (That said, of course, Citizen Kane and 2001 are two of my all time favorites.)

2001 is my favorite film, but I can't say if it's the best of all time. I'd argue that it has to be up there, although I'm sure people could make the argument that it doesn't. I don't even think that's a particularly interesting question. What I find interesting to consider sometimes is what I'd think of 2001 if it came out today, if the special effects work would have been easily achieved and if nothing about the production of the film was groundbreaking. I inevitably come to the conclusion that none of that matters...it's a wonderful, fascinating footnote to the film as it is that it accomplished so much and forged so much new ground in the field of special effects and science fiction filmmaking, but that's all it is to me, a footnote. First time I saw the movie, mangled and chopped up in one of the ugliest early VHS releases I've ever seen, I was so taken by the power of the images and the story being told that I didn't stop to think, "How did they do that?" That didn't come until afterwards. I was too busy accepting everything I was watching, I found it all realistic enough where I didn't question anything. It just seemed natural. Technologically, the most impressive thing about the film to me is that more often than not, it doesn't feel like you're watching a trick or an effect, it seems like someone took a camera into these spaceships and turned it on.

In this weird way, the film tells its story almost entirely through special effects, but somehow the film never becomes merely about the effects. To me, it's a film of ideas, and that they're more visual ideas than verbal ones in terms of presentation doesn't make them any less powerful or noteworthy. If you can watch a film loaded with all sorts of special effects, from the simplest of camera tricks to the most complicated of optical processes, and not feel that you're watching a mere "effects film", that to me is the sign of a great film. Greatest film ever? No, but not because it's lacking in any way, but because I don't think there is such a thing.

 

[Mark Hawley]

I agree, but I'll bite anyways.

To elaborate on somethings said before, I don't think overrated is the correct term. Obviously a large number of people love his work and his films have made a cultural impact so would it be fair for one to dismiss his work as "overrated" just purely because they don't agree, as if the people who acknowledge that he was a great filmmaker are somehow wrong just because they hold a different viewpoint.

It would be like saying "I like chocolate ice cream but not strawberry ice cream, but strawberry ice cream is a popular flavour so that means it's overrated". It's rather arrogant and fails to acknowledge that people have different tastes and preferences.

I love The Beatles, but I'm not really into Elvis, but I'd never say I don't respect Elvis, or would dismiss Elvis as overrated just simply because a number of people prefer him to The Beatles and that's not in line with my viewpoint or musical tastes.

It also seems rather broad to champion his black and white films while dismissing his colour films and is it fair to label him overrated when all his colour films have wildly divided people over the years?

How can you dismiss polarizing films such as Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut as being overrated when there's a fair share of people that share your viewpoint?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Again, that is something I have been saying ever since, oh, 1968. It's cinema telling a story cinematically, visually. That it happens to be the greatest-possible story adds to the experience, of course.

Back in the wilder, woolier early days of Home Theater Forum, there was, about twice or so a year, a thread that would be titled along the lines of "I Just Saw Citizen Kane. It Sucks." Another person, back in 2001 or so, started a thread trying to make the case that The Godfather is the "worst movie of all time." And, of course, there was always the "Explain 2001 To Me" thread (it cropped up about two or three times a year back then).

Younger people have often seemed ready to attack films that have achieved the status of "classic." Yet how often have I seen many younger people become absolute devotees to these great works?

I guess what I am getting at here is this: We have a thread whose title proclaims Stanley Kubrick to be "overrated." Yet look at the discussion that has taken place. I do not see the thread's purpose being upheld. I see, instead, a discussion about one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

Funny how it works out that way.

 

[Holadem]

Does this commendable display of objectivity apply to... Star Wars as well? Because, like it or not, there is another giant of film, whose status as a classic is supported by an overwhelming critical AND popular consensus. Yet you've made no secret of the sheer contempt you hold toward that film over the years on HTF (or any number of Spielberg's works considered unmitigated classics by most).

Do you respect, but "not care for" Star Wars, Jack? (or Jaws. or ET)

--
H

 

[Jack Briggs]

Why don't we do another thread about those, Holadem? This thread is about Stanley Kubrick.

 

[Peter Pitrelli]

Kubrick's film's (especially 2001) thematically ask many questions throughout - but rarely give us any kind of answers. A film like 2001 or Eyes Wide Shut with there non linear plots and slow pacing probably make the viewer feel unintelligent because they cannot make any clear cut conclusions from the movie. The viewer cannot see what is going on inside the mind of the characters, and we feel distanced (as has previously been mentioned). When people do not understand a movie, or any piece of art for that matter - instead of admitting this, they would rather blame the art (or artist, in this case Kubrick).

This doesn't mean that everyone who dislikes 2001 is just plain dumb. It means that very few of us probably have the same mindset and logic that Kubrick had, hence we may never know what his intentions where in some of his films.

I always feel that A.I: Artificial Intelligence was received in the same fashion. It asks too many questions that cannot be answered - and the audience walk away feeling like they've just been ripped off.

One thing I feel sure of, Kubrick made many of this works for people to argue and debate over for years to come. He never went with the regular hollywood formula that so many of today's blockbusters possess, which is why so many people probably put him on a pedestal and hail him as a filmmaking god.

There are many artists who are considered overrated in much the same way. Often it is due to the artist have such an unusual vision that many people cannot identify with it. I think that anyone who says that they can explain the meaning of films like 2001 or EWS is probably lying. Perhaps if 2001 was made today - Hollywood execs would have the director add a voice over track to stop people from tearing their hair out in confusion. Who knows..

Steven


PS. Am i the only Kubrick fan who is not a beatles fan?