Stanley Kubrick is overrated (1 Viewer)

[Travis Brashear]

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.

 

[TonyD]

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

 

[Travis Brashear]

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

 

[Josh Steinberg]

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.

 

[JustinCleveland]

Timmy, do you like films about Gladiators?

Had to be said.

 

[RickER]

Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

Is that the line? Hell i laughed anyway Justin!

 

[Thomas J.]

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.

 

[Thomas J.]

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.

 

[RickER]

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

 

[Tarkin The Ewok]

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.

 

[Kevin M]

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

 

[Tarkin The Ewok]

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.

 

[Brian Borst]

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.

 

[Jack Briggs]

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.

 

[Steve Christou]

 



 

 

[Kevin M]

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.