Stanley Kubrick is overrated (1 Viewer)

[Michael Elliott]

Spielberg, Scorsese, Lynch and various others must be fanatics then.

What I personally enjoy about Kubrick is that he never dumbed down for the mainstream. Kubrick didn't take films to his audience but he forced his audience to come to his films and take his films on his playing ground. Where most films try to appeal to the largest number possible, thankfully Warner let Kubrick deliver what he wanted to and that's why his films will always remain timeless and it's the same reason why some will never get his work, feel his work or understand why fans give him so much praise.

I don't blame anyone for not liking a Kubrick film because the director should take the blame. The reason I say this is that I find it impossible to fully take down a Kubrick film on one viewing. Most people, if they don't like a movie, aren't going to watch it three or four more times to take everything in.

 

[Travis Brashear]

I found myself beginning to tune out with "A Clockwork Orange is visually stunning but packs no where near the wallop it did when I was a teenager; The Shining is not very scary and actually quite silly; Full Metal Jacket is twice as long as it should be" and you completely lost me with "and 2001 is just plain boring." Sorry, I can only grant that you're entitled to be utterly and hopelessly wrong.

 

[Travis Brashear]

WTF?! Can someone check the water supply?!

 

[Holadem]

Are they boorish and annoying Kubrick fans? Do they think Kubrick stands head and shoulders above the Welles, Hitchcock, Ozu or Bergmans of this earth? Because otherwise I don't see what that reply has to do with anything.

--
H

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Amen! Finally another person in this world gets it!

FTR, I think Kubrick's best film is Dr. Strangelove, which would be nothing without the incredible performances of the actors involved.

 

[John Skoda]

I haven't read it in a while, but my recollection is that Wise's film actually ADDED moments of warmth that weren't in the book.

None of the Kubrick films are favorites (although LOLITA is close), but they have a fascination for me that makes me return to them over and over to give them another chance. I ordered the box.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'd say Spielberg is but I'm sure he'd think of himself higher than Kubrick.

Any die-hard "fan" is going to think their artist is a God. This isn't just a problem with the fans of Kubrick, Dylan or The Beatles. Heck, I've known fans of Ed Wood who thought he could do no wrong. In the case of someone like Kubrick, I think the fans have a lot to fall back on when these overrated debates break out.

What I respect most about Kubrick is that he never made the same movie twice. I also love the fact that each time I revisit a Kubrick movie it leaves me with different feelings and a different attitude towards what the film means to me. I don't know of any other director in the history of cinema that has this effect. His films are often times hard to watch and they demand 100% of the viewers attention. I've always said that if you're two hours into a Kubrick movie and the phone rings then you're best move is to turn the film off and start over because that one little distraction can take a lot away from the film. These aren't talking movies but thinking movies, which is why the mainstream will never fully support Kubrick (at least at the time the films were originally released).

No one has to agree and some might burn down their homes in disagreement over Kubrick being a great director but I think for the most part he certainly is considered one of the greatest to ever live. I'm sure fans, film buffs or myself could give reasons as to why Kubrick is a great director but these will become rather boring after a while. What is fascinating is hearing those who don't think Kubrick is great trying to explain why they feel this way. I can't say I've ever read an "overrated" thread about anyone great where the poster makes any valid points about their opinions.

I know people hate Kubrick with a passion but I think most of this passion is so high because they don't understand why someone might hold him so high. Whenever one doesn't agree with a reputation then it gives them a reason to start a debate about the topic. Again, I could sit here and write why I think Kubrick is so great but there are countless articles, history lessons and film experts to do this. I'm more interested in hearing a non-fan say why he's a bad director. But then again, I've yet to read any valid points as to why Kubrick isn't one of the greatest ever.

 

[BarryS]

This is very, very true. A former coworker of mine used to proclaim anything that he had a distaste for as being overrated. Such as Clerks, or A Clockwork Orange, or Pulp Fiction. I say, that may be, but hype or critical praise doesn't change the movie. The movie is what it is. Kubrick's films might be overrated, but regardless, they stand as fascinating works of art to be admired, analyzed and studied.

 

[MielR]

I agree. I've never been a fan of Kubrik's films. I've tried a million times to like 2001 and Dr. Strangelove, but I just can't. But then, I'm not a fan of Picasso, either, especially the cubist stuff (this is starting to sound like a Woody Allen movie).

...and I think Abbey Road is better than Revolver, Rubber Soul and Sgt. Pepper (though I do love all 4 of them).

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Of course you're not going to accept anyone's points as to why they think Kubrick isn't all that great to be "valid" ones, because you don't see it the same way. But I'm just sayin'..... because I do think Kubrick's generally pretty damn good from the films I've seen of his. He's one of the directors who I feel has a definite style when I watch his films. I don't buy into that theory for every director.

 

[Adam_S]

Overrated? No, he earned that rating. Overrevered? Yes, definitely.

my favorite Kubricks, fwiw, are Strangelove, Paths of Glory and Spartacus. 2001 only works on the big screen so I only see it rarely and will not bother with home video again for it (same decision made for Lawrence of Arabia), Clockwork Orange is excellent but hard to watch, I was unimpressed by The Shining. Full Metal Jacket is a masterpiece I don't particularly care to watch again, and I still need to see the Killing, Lolita, Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut.

 

[Don Giro]

Good way of putting it. I admire most of Kubrick's work, but I've always felt like kind of a voyeur watching his films; I'm always "on the outside looking in," so to speak, and completely aware I'm watching a film instead of being "involved" in it.

 

[JonZ]

IMHO Kubrick and Kurosawa are the two greatest directors ever put on the planet.

Listening to the commentary to 2001, if filmmakers today put a fraction of the thought into their films that Kubrick did, we'd have much better movies nowadays.

The man was a artist.

Fav Kubricks : 2001 A Space Odyssey (fav film),Dr Strangelove, Barry Lyndon

 

[Jefferson Morris]

As a self-professed Kubrick worshipper, I'll try to look at my high-minded fanboyism with as much detachment as I can.

Part of the reason us Kubrick nuts love him so much is because he's our first "respectable" film love. His later films are accorded status as high art, but they also have rocketships and blood and curse words and naked ladies in them. Those elements helped draw us in as curious youngsters, but of course the films also had a thematic richness that kept us engaged as we matured.

In other words, Kubrick's films have the proverbial spoonfuls of sugar that make them a bit more accessible to ambitious film fans (particularly males) looking to broaden their horizons and establish their cineaste cred than the works of other acknowledged masters.

Put another way, 2001 may be a slow movie, but at least it's a slow movie about space and aliens and talking computers, versus a slow, three-hour art film about…you know, migrant workers or some aristocratic 19th century European family or something. I mean, it's easier going than Andrei Rublev (although I'll admit the last 30 minutes of that film are incredible).

That makes perfect sense, and it's true. I still get the niggling feeling that the remaining Kubrick films that I don't have much enthusiasm for (Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut) are failures on my part. When you hear luminaries like Scorsese extolling the virtues of Lyndon and explaining its influence on The Age of Innocence (which I unabashedly love), it's hard not to think that maybe if I just give it another viewing, another three hours, it'll suddenly click and its magnificence will wash over me.

One particularly expects this to happen with Kubrick films because so many of them are delayed time-bombs in their effect. 2001, when I first saw it on TV as a child, was most certainly not what I was expecting, and I certainly found it slow. But something about it compelled me to view it again and I discovered its richness over time, as I was growing up in my teens and discovering intellectual pleasures.

But I'm 35 now, and those kinds of film discoveries are much less common for me. I've found in recent years that my first impression of a film is now most likely going to be my permanent impression of it, regardless of how many times I watch it yearning to enjoy it more. Either I'm more mature now, and thus better able to absorb a film in one viewing, or I'm becoming a stodgy old fart. But I'm still going to give Eyes Wide Shut another shot when I get the high-def disc (Hey, if nothing else, it's got Nicole Kidman naked in it).

So in short, when it comes to film fandom, Kubrick almost seems like a father figure to many of us. And it's difficult to look at such figures with anything other than obsequious awe, even when we grow up and should probably know better.

But having said all that, anyone who finds no merit in any of Kubrick films…frankly should try a little harder. They owe it to themselves.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I've heard it said over and over that Kubrick is "cold", that his films are "emotionless", etc., etc. I've never felt that to be the case.

I don't find "2001" to be boring; I think it's riveting. I understand why people might consider it to be otherwise, and I respect their opinion, but it's one I'll never be able to share in. The film predicts a future where we've become so used to our technological achievements that we lose our humanity to a certain extent, that we become blind to whats right there in front of us, and as a species maybe lose track of where we're supposed to be going. It's still a shock to see Moonwatcher murder his fellow ape, and over what, a watering hole or a spot of land? Maybe the first senseless murder in the history of man...right after man discovers his first tool. He turns something that was given to him for survival into something to be used for death. I find the way that's conveyed on film to be anything but cold and boring. Kubrick envisions a future where space travel is so routine that people are bored by it; Floyd sleeps on his trip to the space station and the moon; he doesn't even bother to look out a window! Not only does Kubrick show us the stunning majesty of the world outside our own, he shows us how we've become desensitized to it. And then there's HAL, the computer built to reproduce (though some experts still prefer to use the word "mimic") the functions of the human brain, and it acts, well, human...paranoid, full of deception, violence, along with a base survival instinct that mere machines simply do not possess, and when Bowman has to disconnect him, it's brutal to watch. There's no blood involved, and yes it probably had to be done, but it's a killing, plain and simple. There's so much going on in that film, I really just can't see it as being boring. But more than most other films, I think 2001 is one of those where either you get it (on one level or another), or you don't; if you don't get it, it's boring as hell... if you do get it (whether or not your interpretation of it is similar or different than mine), there's plenty to see.

And I love Kubrick's film, but I would never consider him to be God, not when his films have as much humanity in them as they do. 2001 provokes an incredible emotional response each and every time I see it. More often than not, I think his films are studies of the human condition. Who are we? Are we more than the sum of the actions of those around us or in charge of us? How can we do these things to each other?

Earlier in this thread, someone used the Beatles as a parallel to Kubrick for the sake of an example. The more I think about it, the more I think it's another musician who started in the 60s who would be better suited for comparison: Bob Dylan. Because of Dylan's unique vocal stylings as well as his style of lyric writing, there will always be people who don't care for his music, that think every song sounds the same, or that the man can't sing, or that his music is all about a bunch of words and not much else, etc., etc. I don't think that's at all the case, but there are going to be people that disagree with me on that from now until the end of time. It's much the same way with Kubrick. (And I think "Spartacus" proves once and for all that if Kubrick wanted to take his gifts into the more conventional realm of storytelling, if he wanted to make more commercial films that had a wider appeal and didn't require as much from the viewer, that he was completely capable of it....he could have out Spielberged Spielberg if he wanted to. He didn't want to.)

 

[RickER]

Jefferson, i loved your post. I only dream of being so articulate. Shoot, i couldnt even come up with the wit that you have on your sig from AICN. Lord, that made me laugh.
I have thought about what you wrote, on giving movies a second chance. When i was 20 i saw Blade Runner on release day, and didnt like it at all. To many plot holes, and continuity mistakes. Then a few months later i saw it on cable, and i loved it. Was i just having a bad day? Did i need to see it again to "get" it? I dont know, but now its my favorite movie. These days if i dont like what i see on the previews, and read in the forums, i dont even waste my time with a one time watch. Life is to short, and i am happy to revisit an old film again instead of watching potential crap once. Of course some movies i HAVE to see for myself to decide. I can swim in a different stream, movie wise, than most people. I dont mind if i have to THINK about a movie.

 

[Brett_M]

Very well put and I agree wholeheartedly.

For the record, I love The Shining, 2001 and Full Metal Jacket. I have seen most of his films and some do it for me (Paths of Glory) and others don't (Eyes Wide Shut). To each his own. I added The Killing to my Netflix list.

And I prefer Elvis to The Beatles.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Rick,

Thanks. That AICN thread quote was just too priceless (and true) not to commemorate. Most of what you read in those talkbacks is sophomoric nonsense but every so often someone says something utterly brilliant. Can't remember who posted that particular gem of an aphorism.

My experience with Blade Runner was very similar to yours. Like 2001, it's a film that kids are drawn to because of its sci-fi setting and reputation. But it's not what you expect going in, and takes multiple viewings to appreciate and finally "get." Ditto for Gilliam's Brazil, Scorsese's Taxi Driver, Leone's Once Upon A Time in America--all the great films I discovered as a teen that I still esteem highly today.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[JonZ]

EWS has some problems. To me, its a lesser of Kubricks work. BTW speaking of Scorsese,on a Ebert special Scorsese talked about EWS and adored it. I think he said it was one of the top 3 films of the 90s.

Where the movie really excels for me is in its photography and mood. Its just beautiful too look at and wonderfully filmed.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

EWS still intrigues and frustrates me. Like just about every film Kubrick made from 2001 onwards, it's an experiment with narrative. It could be almost as bold an experiment with narrative as 2001, although that's not to say it's a successful experiment. My personal jury is still out. The film reminds me of Blow Up, in that it's a story about a frustrated detective, of sorts. Antonioni gave you no resolution to the mystery at all. Kubrick gives you a deliberately lame resolution to the mystery.

But Antonioni had the sense to keep his narrative experiment to under two hours, which I think is a good rule of thumb if you're really going to try something new with the form. Kubrick really let his experiment breathe, and it's a long slog, boobs and all. Of course he might have tightened it a bit had he lived a bit longer, but we'll never know.

--Jefferson Morris